{"id":335,"date":"2015-02-03T10:54:47","date_gmt":"2015-02-03T10:54:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tool-besafe.pensoft.net\/?p=335"},"modified":"2017-02-22T14:06:09","modified_gmt":"2017-02-22T14:06:09","slug":"selecting-the-right-frame-for-your-goal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tool-besafe.pensoft.net\/index.php\/2015\/02\/03\/selecting-the-right-frame-for-your-goal\/","title":{"rendered":"Selecting the right frame for your goal"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Thematic<\/strong>Usefulness<\/strong>
\nThis brief can be used to understand how the way an issue is framed affects the effectiveness of arguments<\/span>. Frames are used to define issues, shape what action should be taken and by whom, justify a stance taken on an issue, and mobilize people to take or refrain from action on the issue.<\/p>\n

Transferability<\/strong>
\nThe effect of framing is general and well documented in many policy domains.<\/p>\n

The framing effect<\/strong>
\nFraming refers to the process through which people express how they make sense of the world around them. Through the process of framing, actors highlight different aspects of a situation as relevant, problematic, or urgent. A framing effect in a decision task is said to occur when logically equivalent descriptions of a decision problem lead to systematically different decisions depending on the way in which the problem is framed. Framing can significantly change what citizens think about an issue and it can also change the level of policy support.<\/p>\n

Positive and negative framing<\/strong>
\nFraming can be construed in either positive or negative terms. Negative framing implies that something is wrong and should be prevented. It may also involve blaming an individual or group for a negative outcome, which can be seen as a manipulative strategy. However, the same argument can often be phrased in a positive way, highlighting the benefits<\/span> and opportunities, e.g. \u2018this alternative is better, more profitable and more sustainable\u2019.<\/p>\n

Studies have shown that positively framed messages are more effective than negative frames, despite their equivalent content. Positive framing can be used to emphasise the benefits for the relevant stakeholders<\/span>, and focus on the achievement of common goals, often offering the appeal of a \u2018win-win\u2019 strategy.<\/p>\n

Biodiversity<\/span>-related arguments are often framed in a negative way, referring to legal duties and obligations to protect some particular elements of biodiversity, or as threats and problems to be overcome. For example, in a case study on Bialowieza forest in Poland, the framing was sometimes negative (economic gain from logging spoils unique biodiversity), where it could have been positive (unique biodiversity brings economic gain through tourism). The case study on the Biodiversity Action Plan in the UK, gives many examples of positive and negative framing of arguments. Sometimes the same issue is framed both positively and negatively (e.g. recreation can be a threat to biodiversity, but also an opportunity to increase public awareness and engagement with wildlife).<\/p>\n

The concept of ecosystem<\/span> services<\/span> is particularly useful for the positive framing of arguments, as this focuses on the benefits of nature for humans. This can often be linked to arguments about the benefits of biodiversity for livelihoods.<\/p>\n

The preference for positive arguments also makes it easier to counter negatively-framed arguments against<\/em> conservation, such as assumed high costs or fear of particular species (e.g. re-introduction of wolves), by using positive arguments that focus on the benefits of biodiversity.<\/p>\n

Framing to reflect different stakeholder<\/span> views<\/strong>
\nOften the same issue is framed differently by different stakeholders. For example, in the case study on the Bia\u0142owie\u017ca forest, foresters interpreted the concept of \u201cbalance in nature\u201d to mean that the forest needs to be managed by humans, while for environmentalists this concept meant that the forest would find a natural balance if left without intervention. Similarly, in the case study on invasive species, one set of stakeholders argued that alien species are \u201cinnocent until proven guilty\u201d, and the opposing set argued that they are \u201cguilty until proven innocent\u201d.<\/p>\n

To make arguments more effective, it is important to frame them in a way that is relevant to the decision-maker being targeted. This may mean moving beyond biodiversity-related arguments (e.g. the need to conserve a threatened species or habitat) to include wider economic, social and environmental arguments. Examples are given in the Policy Brief on \u201cTailoring to the audience\u201d.<\/p>\n

Lessons learned <\/strong><\/p>\n