Woody plants have increased in density and extent in rangelands worldwide since the 1800s, and land managers increasingly remove woodland plants in hopes of restoring pre-settlement conditions and/or improved forage for grazing livestock. Because such efforts can be controversial, especially on publicly owned lands, managers often attempt to frame issues in ways they believe can improve public acceptance of proposed actions. Frequently these framing efforts employ conflict metaphors drawn from military or legal lexicons. We surveyed citizens in the Rocky Mountains region, USA, about their beliefs concerning tree-removal as a management strategy. Plants targeted for removal in the region include such iconic tree species as Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine as well as other less-valued species, such as Rocky Mountain juniper, that are common targets for removal nationwide. To test the influence of issue frame on acceptance, recipients were randomly assigned surveys in which the reason for conifer？removal was described using one of three terms often employed by invasive biologists and land managers: “invasion”, “expansion”, and “encroachment”. Framing in this instance had little effect on responses. We conclude the use of single-word frames by scientists and managers use to contextualize an issue may not resonate with the public.
References
[1]
Van Auken, O.W. Shrub invasions of North American semiarid grasslands. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2000, 31, 197–215, doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.197.
Briggs, J.M.; Knapp, A.K.; Blair, J.M.; Heisler, J.M.; Hoch, G.A.; Lett, M.S.; McCarron, J.A. An ecosystem in transition: Causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. BioScience 2005, 55, 243–254, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0243:AEITCA]2.0.CO;2.
[4]
Lett, M.S.; Knapp, A.K. Woody plant encroachment and removal in mesic grassland: Production and composition responses of herbaceous vegetation. Am. Midl. Nat. 2005, 153, 217–231, doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2005)153[0217:WPEARI]2.0.CO;2.
[5]
Grover, H.D.; Musick, H.B. Shrubland encroachment in southern New Mexico, U.S.A.: An analysis of desertification processes in the American Southwest. Clim. Change 1990, 17, 305–330, doi:10.1007/BF00138373.
[6]
McCarron, J.K.; Knapp, A.K.; Blair, J.M. Soil C and N responses to woody plant expansion in a mesic grassland. Plant Soil. 2003, 257, 183–192, doi:10.1023/A:1026255214393.
[7]
Belsky, A.J. Viewpoint: Western juniper expansion: Is it a threat to arid northwestern ecosystems? J. Range Manage. 1996, 49, 53–59, doi:10.2307/4002725.
[8]
Brunson, M.W.; Shindler, B.A. Geographic variation in social acceptability of wildland fuels management in the western U.S. S. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2004, 17, 661–678, doi:10.1080/08941920490480688.
[9]
Shindler, B.A.; Gordon, R.; Brunson, M.W.; Olsen, C. Public perceptions of sagebrush ecosystem management in the Great Basin. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 2011, 64, 335–343, doi:10.2111/REM-D-10-00012.1.
[10]
McKenzie-Mohr, D. Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 543–554.
[11]
Bliss, J. Public perceptions of clearcutting. J. Forest. 2000, 98, 4–9.
[12]
Kneeshaw, K.; Vaske, J.J.; Bright, A.D. Situational influences of acceptable wildland fire management actions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2004, 17, 477–489, doi:10.1080/08941920490452427.
[13]
Shindler, B.A.; Brunson, M.W.; Stankey, G.H. Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis; USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2002.
[14]
Loomis, J.B.; Bair, L.S.; Gonzalez-Caban, A. Prescribed fire and public support: Knowledge gained, attitudes changed in Florida. J. Forest. 2001, 99, 18–22.
[15]
Winter, G.J.; Vogt, C.; Fried, J.S. Fuel treatments at the wildland-urban interface: Common concerns in diverse regions. J. Forest. 2002, 100, 15–21.
[16]
Schaffner, B.F.; Sellers, P.J. Introduction. In Winning with Words: The Origins and Impact of Political Framing; Schaffner, B.F., Sellers, P.J., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2010; Volume Chapter 1, p. 1.
[17]
Gamson, W.A.; Modigliani, A. The changing culture of affirmative action. Res. Polit. Sociol. 1987, 3, 137–177.
Wilson, R.S.; Ascher, T.J.; Toman, E. The importance of framing for communicating risk and managing forest health. J. Forest. 2012, 110, 337–341, doi:10.5849/jof.11-058.
[20]
Gray, B. Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psych. 2004, 14, 166–176, doi:10.1002/casp.773.
[21]
Lewicki, R.; Gray, B.; Elliott, M. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
[22]
Anderson, G.L.; Delfosse, E.S.; Spencer, N.R.; Prosser, C.W.; Richard, R.D. Lessons in developing successful invasive weed control programs. J. Range Manage. 2003, 56, 2–12, doi:10.2307/4003874.
[23]
Gobster, P.H. Invasive species as ecological threat: Is restoration an alternative to fear-based resource management? Ecol. Restor. 2005, 23, 261–270, doi:10.3368/er.23.4.261.
[24]
Norgaard, K.M. The politics of invasive weed management: Gender, race, and risk perception in rural California. Rural Sociol. 2007, 72, 450–477, doi:10.1526/003601107781799263.
[25]
Andersen, M.C.; Adams, H.; Hope, B.; Powell, M. Risk assessment for invasive species. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 787–793, doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00478.x.
[26]
Keller, R.P.; Lodge, D.M.; Lewis, M.A. Bioeconomics of Invasive Species: Integrating Ecology, Economics, Policy, and Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.
[27]
Elton, C. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants; Methuen: London, UK, 1958.
[28]
Davis, M.A. Invasion Biology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.
[29]
Larson, B.M.H. The war of the roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3, 495–500, doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0495:TWOTRD]2.0.CO;2.
[30]
Invasive and Introduced Plants and Animals: Human Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Management; Rotherham, D., Lambert, R.A., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2011.
[31]
Arno, S.F.; Gruel, G.E. Douglas-fir encroachment into mountain grasslands in southwestern Montana. J. Range Manage. 1986, 39, 272–276, doi:10.2307/3899067.
[32]
Smith, T.W. That which we call welfare by any other name would smell sweeter: An analysis of the impact of question wording on response patterns. Public Opin. Q. 1987, 51, 75–83, doi:10.1086/269015.
[33]
Jennings, M.D. Gap analysis: Concepts, methods, and recent results. Landsc. Ecol. 2000, 15, 5–20, doi:10.1023/A:1008184408300.
[34]
Link, M.W.; Battaglia, M.P.; Frankel, M.R.; Osborn, L.; Mokdad, A.H. Reaching the U.S. cell phone generation: Comparison of cell phone survey results with an ongoing landline telephone survey. Public Opin. Q. 2007, 71, 814–839, doi:10.1093/poq/nfm051.
[35]
Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
[36]
Groves, R.M. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin. Q. 2006, 70, 646–675, doi:10.1093/poq/nfl033.
[37]
Keeter, S.; Kennedy, C.; Dimock, M.; Best, J.; Craighill, P. Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin. Q. 2006, 70, 759–779, doi:10.1093/poq/nfl035.
[38]
Connelly, N.A.; Brown, T.L.; Decker, D.J. Factors affecting response rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 541–549, doi:10.1080/08941920309152.
[39]
Roose, H.; Lievens, J.; Waege, H. The joint effect of topic interest and follow-up procedures on the response in a mail questionnaire: An empirical test of the leverage-salience theory in audience research. Sociol. Meth. Res. 2007, 35, 410–428, doi:10.1177/0049124106290447.
[40]
Groves, R.M.; Singer, E.; Corning, A. Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: Description and an illustration. Public Opin. Q. 2000, 64, 299–308, doi:10.1086/317990.
[41]
Marshall, B.; Jones, R. Citizen participation in natural resource management: Does representativeness matter? Sociol. Spectrum 2005, 25, 715–737, doi:10.1080/02732170500256732.
[42]
Brunson, M.W.; Evans, J. Badly burned? Effects of an escaped prescribed burn on social acceptability of wildland fuels treatments. J. Forest. 2005, 103, 134–138.
[43]
Simberloff, D. Invasions of plant communities—more of the same, something very different, or both? Am. Midl. Nat. 2010, 163, 220–233, doi:10.1674/0003-0031-163.1.220.
[44]
Marris, E. Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World; Bloomsbury USA: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
[45]
Hobbs, R.J.; Arico, S.; Aronson, J.; Baron, J.S.; Bridgewater, P.; Cramer, V.A.; Epstein, P.R.; Ewel, J.J.; Klink, C.A.; Lugo, A.E.; et al. Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecol. Biogeog. 2006, 15, 1–7, doi:10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00212.x.
[46]
Metz, D.; Weigel, L. Key public opinion research findings on the ecological role of fire and the benefits of fire management. Final report to Partners in Fire Education, 30 April 2008. Available online: http://www.myfirecommunity.net/uploads/Research_Summary.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2013).
Brunson, M.W.; Steel, B.S. Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs about federal rangeland management. J. Range Manage. 1996, 49, 69–75, doi:10.2307/4002728.
