IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v3y2013i2p158-169d24579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A War of Words: Do Conflict Metaphors Affect Beliefs about Managing “Unwanted” Plants?

Author

Listed:
  • Cameron G. Nay

    (Learning Resources Center, University of Alaska-Anchorage, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508, USA)

  • Mark W. Brunson

    (Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5215, USA)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Cameron G. Nay & Mark W. Brunson, 2013. "A War of Words: Do Conflict Metaphors Affect Beliefs about Managing “Unwanted” Plants?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:3:y:2013:i:2:p:158-169:d:24579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/3/2/158/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/3/2/158/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark C. Andersen & Heather Adams & Bruce Hope & Mark Powell, 2004. "Risk Assessment for Invasive Species," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 787-793, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frank H. Koch & Denys Yemshanov & Daniel W. McKenney & William D. Smith, 2009. "Evaluating Critical Uncertainty Thresholds in a Spatial Model of Forest Pest Invasion Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1227-1241, September.
    2. Sara Pasquali & Gianni Gilioli & Dirk Janssen & Stephan Winter, 2015. "Optimal Strategies for Interception, Detection, and Eradication in Plant Biosecurity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1663-1673, September.
    3. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & William D. Smith, 2010. "Robustness of Risk Maps and Survey Networks to Knowledge Gaps About a New Invasive Pest," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 261-276, February.
    4. Jiao, Yan & Lapointe, Nicolas W.R. & Angermeier, Paul L. & Murphy, Brian R., 2009. "Hierarchical demographic approaches for assessing invasion dynamics of non-indigenous species: An example using northern snakehead (Channa argus)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(13), pages 1681-1689.
    5. Julien CALAS & Antoine GODIN & Julie MAURIN (AFD) & and Etienne ESPAGNE (World Bank), 2022. "Global biodiversity scenarios: what do they tell us for biodiversity-related socioeconomic impacts?," Working Paper 1a39419b-ef1d-4b82-a7be-d, Agence française de développement.
    6. Cory J. Lindgren, 2012. "Biosecurity Policy and the Use of Geospatial Predictive Tools to Address Invasive Plants: Updating the Risk Analysis Toolbox," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 9-15, January.
    7. Bregaglio, Simone & Cappelli, Giovanni & Donatelli, Marcello, 2012. "Evaluating the suitability of a generic fungal infection model for pest risk assessment studies," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 247(C), pages 58-63.
    8. Julien CALAS & Etienne ESPAGNE & Antoine GODIN & Julie MAURIN, 2022. "Global biodiversity scenarios: what do they tell us for Biodiversity-Related Financial Risks?," Working Paper df49be12-6355-45d6-84e3-4, Agence française de développement.
    9. Steve Jacob & Nathalie Schiffino, 2015. "Risk Policies in the United States: Definition and Characteristics Based on a Scoping Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 849-858, May.
    10. Amanda M. West & Catherine S. Jarnevich & Nicholas E. Young & Pam L. Fuller, 2019. "Evaluating Potential Distribution of High‐Risk Aquatic Invasive Species in the Water Garden and Aquarium Trade at a Global Scale Based on Current Established Populations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1169-1191, May.
    11. Andrew M. Deines & Valerie C. Chen & Wayne G. Landis, 2005. "Modeling the Risks of Nonindigenous Species Introductions Using a Patch‐Dynamics Approach Incorporating Contaminant Effects as a Disturbance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1637-1651, December.
    12. Buse Ar & Gamze Tuttu & Derya Gülçin & Ali Uğur Özcan & Emre Kara & Mustafa Sürmen & Kerim Çiçek & Javier Velázquez, 2022. "Response of an Invasive Plant Species ( Cynanchum acutum L.) to Changing Climate Conditions and Its Impact on Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Hartigan, James C. & McMahon, Joseph A., 2022. "A fuzzy look at a fuzzy agreement: Risk management under the WTO SPS Agreement," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 272-284.
    14. Matlock, Gary C., 2014. "The precautionary approach to non-native fisheries—The case of striped bass in Texas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 94-98.
    15. Heikkila, Jaakko, 2006. "Economics of invasive alien species: pre-emptive versus reactive control," Discussion Papers 11865, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
    16. Mandana Saebi & Jian Xu & Erin K Grey & David M Lodge & James J Corbett & Nitesh Chawla, 2020. "Higher-order patterns of aquatic species spread through the global shipping network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Julien CALAS & Antoine GODIN & Etienne ESPAGNE (World Bank) & Julie Maurin (AFD), 2023. "Global Biodiversity Scenarios," Working Paper e26217b1-91b0-4918-8a64-a, Agence française de développement.
    18. Julien CALAS & Antoine GODIN & Julie MAURIN (AFD) & and Etienne ESPAGNE (World Bank), 2023. "Quels impacts socioéconomiques liés à la perte de biodiversité dans les scénarios de biodiversité mondiaux?," Working Paper 1a39419b-ef1d-4b82-a7be-d, Agence française de développement.
    19. Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca S. & Liebhold, Andrew M., 2015. "Benefits of invasion prevention: Effect of time lags, spread rates, and damage persistence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 146-153.
    20. Terry Walshe & Mark Burgman, 2010. "A Framework for Assessing and Managing Risks Posed by Emerging Diseases," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 236-249, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:3:y:2013:i:2:p:158-169:d:24579. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.