Framing for Forestry Management Abstract Our team set out to determine whether a positively or negatively framed infographic

had the most influence on the targeted audience. Our infographics dealt with the issue of increased wildfires in the Northern Rockies and different strategies to defuse them. This paper discusses the methods we used to test the frames and the results we documented. It also contains our analysis of the experiment and our recommendations for future work. Introduction As part of a larger effort to control forest fires in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, our team set out to determine whether a positively or negatively framed infographic had the most influence on the targeted audience. We also wanted to determine how effective each infographic was at imparting the intended knowledge. A usability test was conducted on ten research participants to determine which framing was more likely to give a call to action. The intended purpose of the research is to ultimately inform and motivate what residents in the Northern Rockies region can do at a personal and political level to increase forest fire awareness and prevention. Increasing awareness and presenting a few fire prevention strategies can potentially reduce the number of human-caused forest fires, not only reducing the cost to the state, but also reducing the risk of property damage to land owners. The test described within this paper is a preliminary study to this research. It was conducted upon a small number of students in a college environment. The goal of this test was to establish preliminary results, as well as form suggestions for how the final infographics and study might be improved upon. Methods In order to assess the effectiveness of the infographics, we conducted a study with the participation of ten students at the University of Idaho. Each participant was given a pretest survey to establish any prior knowledge or bias. Then they were asked to examine one of the two infographics, take a post-test survey, and participate in a short interview. The infographics being tested were developed in Christa Testons English 317 class at the University of Idaho, and are documented in Appendix A. Students designed each infographic with a gains-based and loss-based design scheme. The gains-based infographic focuses on positive elements of forestry management. The loss-based graphic was created to reflect the damaging effects of uncontrolled wildfires. This type of design, in which each infographic has a different emotional scheme, is referred to as framing.

This study was designed to gather many different information points to be used in the final analysis. The pre-survey consists of nine questions that are provided in Appendix B. A cover page with the first six questions was created to identify the participant and any biases he or she might have in examining either infographic. To do this, they request the participant to write down their major, past living locations, and attitude concerning forest management. These six inquiries were not given again in the posttest. The last three questions were provided on a separate double-sided sheet of paper and consisted of multiple sub-questions. This second part of the survey was designed by Melissa Clark, a graduate student at the University of Idaho in the College of Natural Resources, and is provided in Appendix C. Each of these questions can be categorized as either evaluating the participants knowledge or attitude. At the end of Appendix G, the questions are listed by which type they are. They are measured in Likert scale formatting. These questions were given again as a post-test after the participant had examined one of the infographics. A change in answer between the pre- and post-tests signifies a change in knowledge or attitude. Our team decided that this difference would be used to evaluate the infographics effectiveness. A short interview was designed for each participant to address questions that are more broad and less easily quantified by a Likert scale. The list of questions is provided in Appendix D. Participants were asked to establish what the individual may have discerned from the infographic. These questions were created to determine if the participant could understand the purpose of each infographic, associate the proper framing, find any problems in the design, and analyze any personal bias. A handheld recorder was rented from the University of Idaho media department in order to record the participant interviews. These interviews were then transferred to computers, and transcribed so that they could be analyzed. Interviews were given metric value based on the answers of the participants. Whether the purpose of the infographic could be discerned was either successful or unsuccessful. The framing of the infographic was questioned through querying the mood that participants felt the graphic was trying to impart. The amount of problems reported through interview questions correlates to the measured effectiveness of each infographic. They also document possible improvements that could be made. Bias was determined by questioning the participants about their relation to forest fires. These queries established whether there was a strong emotional response to the subject due to prior experience with forest fires or other personal views. The study was conducted between 12:30 and 4:30 p.m. in the University of Idaho TLC, on March 20th, 2012. Students in the commons were chosen randomly to participate in the survey. The participants included six women and four men, from a variety of majors and ages. Each participant was assigned a number between 1 and 10 for organizational purposes. In order, students were asked to take the pre-test, examine one of the two

infographics, take the post-test, and then were taken to a quiet room in the Art Gallery to record an interview. Odd numbered participants were given the loss-based infographic, and even participants were given the gains-based. In a usual session, a participant would be located in the commons, and asked to participate in the survey. Once they had agreed, they were given the pre-test survey, which took an average of six minutes to complete. When this survey was collected, they were supplied with a copy of the infographic to examine. After they had completed this, they were given the post-test, which also took an average of six minutes to complete. They were then removed to a quiet location to record an interview. This recording took approximately three minutes, leading the entire session to average 18 minutes. The results of the pre- and post-surveys were typed into an Excel document for calculation, presented in Appendix E. The interviews were transcribed and documented in Appendix F. Results Eight out of the ten participants were over the age of twenty. All participants were under the age of twenty-five. Two of the ten participants had been previously affected by a forest fire. The average pool of participants agreed in stating that forest management impacts their lives, while four remained neutral in agreement. Survey Question 1 was was broken into sub-questions, 1.1 through 1.9. The results from these sub-questions are graphed in Figure 1 through Figure 4 based on the infographics and type of sub-question, whether knowledge based or attitude based.

Figure 1. Knowledge based questions of Survey Q1 for losses infographic.

Figure 2. Attitude based questions of Survey Q1 for losses infographic.

Figure 3. Knowledge based questions of Survey Q1 for gains infographic.

Figure 4. Attitude based questions of Survey Q1 for gains infographic. Survey Question 3 was broken into 5 sub-questions. These 5 attitude based subquestions were further broken down into effectiveness, 3.1 through 3.5, and likeliness to take action, 3.1a through 3.5a. These results are shown in Figure 5 through Figure 8.

Figure 5. Attitude based questions of Survey Q3 for losses infographic.

Figure 6. Attitude based questions of Survey Q3 for losses infographic.

Figure 7. Attitude based questions of Survey Q3 for gains infographic.

Figure 8. Attitude based questions of Survey Q3 for gains infographic. Figure 9 represents the mean change in answers for survey Question 1. The figure shows the changes for both infographics. The findings show an average gain in knowledge and attitude for six out of the nine questions asked.

Figure 9. Survey Q1 pre and post-test mean change for losses and gains infographics. Figure 10 represents the mean change in answers for survey Question 3. The figure shows the changes for both infographics. The findings show an average gain in attitude for each questions asked.

Figure 10. Survey Q3 pre and post-test mean change for losses and gains infographics. Analysis Because the participants were given a survey before and after reading an infographic, we felt that the change in their answers between the two tests would be a way to qualitatively measure the knowledge gain by the participants. For the participants who had seen the loss-based infographic, their change in answers for the knowledge based questions indicated either no change at all or a loss of knowledge between answering the two infographics, as seen in Figure 1. The participants who saw the positive infographic had more positive results, as seen in Figure 2: all but one of the participants had a gain of knowledge for most of the questions. For attitude gain questions, most participants who viewed the loss-based infographic remained neutral on the majority of the questions and had equal amounts of knowledge gains and losses, as seen in Figure 3. For the gains-based infographic, the majority of participants demonstrated a gain in attitude on the majority of the questions, as seen in Figure 4. At first these results seem to indicate that the gains-based infographic was better at conveying information and attitude to the participants. However, we were not satisfied with looking at the raw data and wished to determine if the variation we got was likely to be from random variation that is always found when testing humans, or caused by an actual difference between the two infographics. To discern this, we performed a statistical analysis on the changes in the participants answers to the pre- and post-test surveys, seen in Figures 5 & 6. We compared the changes of the participants who examined the gains-based infographic to those of the participants who were given the loss-based infographic. We performed a one-way ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriance) between the average change in answer given by each group. Each question was

analyzed separately. The calculations can be found in Appendix E. A one-way ANOVA uses the mean values of two or more data sets along with the data sets themselves to determine if the data sets are significantly different or whether their differences are simply caused by randomness. In the case of the ANOVA we conducted, there is a 95% probability that the two data sets are not significantly different for each of questions. That is, it is 95% likely that the two infographics are equally good at conveying the desired information to the readers. During the interviews all of participants were able to articulate the purpose of the infographic. All participants without previous knowledge in the area felt that they had learned something by reading the infographic. Finally, the majority of participants stated that the thing they liked best about the infographic was its clear and informative nature. Together, these three results form a pattern that shows the infographic was generally effective at conveying the information it contained to the participants. Three of the participants wished the infographic had more statistics. Given that we only tested ten people, this is a significant portion of our participant pool. Discussion/Recommendations Effect of Framing The main objective for this research, as stated in the introduction, is to determine if the separate framing of the infographics influenced the participants differently, while still presenting the same information. The pre- and post-test survey data shows that there is no significant difference in knowledge gain or loss due to the framing used. This appears to be because the infographics did not adequately reflect their intentional design. One participant, when given the negative loss-based infographic, stated that the mood was, Informative and rather positive with its display of information; didnt use scare tactics to get its message across. The best way to revise this issue would be to alter the infographic itself to present the information more positively/negatively. This redesign of the infographics should not endeavor to replace any information in the infographics, as many participants stated that they felt the graphics portrayed important information. Knowledge Gained Another important aspect of this study was to determine if participants learned new material from the infographic. Our interview data shows that most participants felt as though they had learned something about the topic after viewing the infographic. Other data trends, provided in the analysis section, suggest that the infographic was successful at informing the participants on the prescribed topic. However, as explained in the analysis, 30% of our participants wanted more statistics on the infographic, which would be a simple and effective way to include more information without cluttering the infographic.

Call to Action We also wanted to determine if the infographic had changed or incited a call to action in the participant. Answers to question three of the survey (Appendix C) shows that there was an increase in their call to action, although not a large one. On average, there was only a 0.3 increase on the Likert scale questions used to determine change in attitude of the participants. One suggestion that would help narrow down the results would be to have interview questions that specifically probed the topic of call to action, as ours did not. Ultimately, this is the reason the infographic is being made so it is important that the call to action be clear, concise, and reasonable. Survey Question Revisions Concerning the survey itself, our group has found that some editing may be necessary for clarity and descriptive purposes. These revisions focus on the questions provided to us in class by Melissa Clark. Our survey moderators observed that many of the participants were confused and had difficulty answering the questions, which may have lead to inaccurate responses. Question two, in particular, was stated to be confusing in its phrasing and described scale. We feel that a level-of-agreement scale would be more appropriate than the importance scale because the questions were not designed to be answered by an importance rating. The overall numbering scheme of the survey is also makes analysis and referencing difficult as the questions each have multiple unnamed questions. Revising the questions will help decrease participant confusion and increase the effectiveness of the data in articulating whether framing is important. Appendix G has a new set of pre/post survey questions designed by our group that are more logically organized and phrased, as well as easier to quantify for analysis. Participant Pool Another suggestion that would help refine the data collected, and thus the results, would be to interview more participants, as well as a more diverse selection. Our team interviewed a small pool of ten participants, which is not adequate to accurately determine scientific results. 80% our participants were within the same age range of 20-25, which does not accurately reflect the final demographic of participants in the Northern Rocky Mountain regions. Performing this study at a local mall or business would more likely provide larger participant involvement as well as a more diverse group. While this smaller investigation was being conducted, survey moderators also observed that students were, actively avoiding them. With a larger pool of participants, there are likely to be more volunteers.

Appendix A - Figures

Figure 1. Publisher-created loss infographic.

Figure 2. Publisher-created gain infographic.

Appendix B - Background Survey Questions Name: __________________________ What is your major? ___________________________ What is your age range? (Circle) Under 20 20-25 25-30 30+ Mark areas you have resided in with an x. Mark every area your family has lived in with an o.

Have you ever been affected by a forest fire?(i.e. smoke/air quality/bad allergies/property damage). Y/N Forest management impacts my life. (i.e. Prescribed burning, timber extraction, planting/replanting species, etc.) Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

-3 2 3

-2

-1

Appendix C - Melissa Clarks Survey Questions (On Next Page)

Appendix D - Interview Questions ~Establish whether the purpose of the infographic is understood by the participants. -During the Reading: What do you think is the purpose of this infographic? -Do you feel like you learned anything new from the infographic? ~Establish whether the proper framing is associated with each poster. -What do you feel is the overall mood of the infographic? -What would make this more appealing to you? ~Establish whether there are any problems that are consistently reported by participants. -Is there any information you feel the infographic lacks? -Was there anything that confused you in this infographic? -What did you like best about the infographic? ~Establish any past bias that may be affecting their views of the posters. -Have you ever been in/near a forest fire? -If you have been affected by a forest fire, how so?

Appendix E: Test Data Table (On Next Page)

Appendix F - Interview Recordings (transcribed) Questions: Q1: What do you believe is the purpose of the infographic? Q2: Do you feel like you learned anything new from the infographic? Q3: What do you feel is the overall mood of the infographic? Q4: What would make this more appealing to you? Q5: Is there any information you feel the infographic lacks? Q6: Was there anything that confused you in this infographic? Q7: What did you like best about the infographic? Q8: Have you ever been in/near a forest fire? Q9: If you have been affected by a forest fire, how so? *Note: Odd-numbered participants were given the loss-framed infographic; evennumbered participants were given the gain-framed infographic. Participant #1: Q1- To educate/inform you on the ways you can prevent forest fires; misc. facts Q2- Participant has previous background knowledge in forest fires, but acknowledges there was pertinent info in the infographic (doesnt specify what, however). Q3- Informative and rather positive in its display of information; didnt use scare tactics to get its message across Q4- (not asked?) Q5- No. Q6- No. Q7- Liked the clear presentation of information; very organized. Q8- Has lived in areas where forest fires have occurred. Q9- (skipped?) Participant #2: (WA resident) Q1- To inform about fires and how they contribute, as well as take away from the environment; clearly informs of the economic impact of forest fires Q2- Yes: Its $2,000/acre cheaper to do prescribed burns rather than controlling a wildfire. Q3- Informative/educational Q4- If it is directed more towards college students, maybe say how it directly affects them Q5- No Q6- Couldnt tell if the infographic was promoting wildfires or trying to stop them all together. Was a little confused on the concept of prescribed burns, but at the end, it was clear that the infographic was against wildfires.

Q7- Liked how informative it was Q8- Closest wildfire was 70 miles away. Q9- Some family-friends lost their homes to wildfire Participant #3: (exchange student?) Q1- we have to protect people, wildlife, and the forests as well. Q2- Yes. Infographic made the negative effects of wildfires very clear. Q3- Persuasive; Call to action! Q4- donate money (maybe misunderstood the question?) Q5- More stats could be included Q6- Doesnt understand what causes the wildfires- why do the forests burn? Q7- Helpful to understand why we have to protect against wildfires Q8- No Q9- (N/A) Participant #4: Q1- To inform what we can do, as well as what the govt. does to prevent forest fires. Clarifies the methods that are the safest and best to use. Q2- Yes; gained insight on prescribed burns Q3- Persuasive/call to action Q4- Maybe a little bigger? Q5- Considering the amount of space, no. Could possibly use more stats of prescribed burns (before and after) Q6- No Q7- Liked how it presented info on what you can do to prevent fires. Q8- Has been nearby, but not close (could see smoke) Q9- From Q8, maybe close enough to see smoke, but not be affected by it? Participant #5: (Lewiston) Q1- to encourage affirmative action and inform people of what they can do to prevent fires Q2- Not personally family/friends are in forest service Q3- call to action Q4- No Q5- No; it was already to the point and thorough Q6- No Q7- Liked how it applies to you and where you live and what you can do Q8- Have been near/around fires. Familiar with prescribed burns Q9- Family almost needed to evacuate their farm due to a wildfire (in the fields; not forest fire)

Participant #6: (Journalist) Q1- informative mood Q2- Yes. Prescribed burning Q3- upbeat Q4- instead of footnotes, cite sources within the infographic; more stats Q5- Yes. More stats on how much prescribed burning costs/how much it benefits Q6- No Q7- very clean, nice pictures Q8- No Q9- (N/A) Participant #7: Q1- To spread information about forest fires Q2- No, has previous background knowledge (research on the net, etc.) Q3- No mood, per se. It felt like it wanted to show a different perspective on forest fires Q4- To not survey between classes Q5- More detail- doesnt specify on where detail should be emphasized Q6- No Q7- the before and after surveys Q8- No Q9- (N/A) Participant #8: Q1- informative/persuasive Q2- No. Father works for logging industry Q3- informative Q4- title? Q5- No. Q6- No. Q7- Likes how infographic educated people on what they can do to prevent fires Q8- Field fire yes, forest fire no. Q9- (N/A) Participant #9: Q1- different ways to combat forest fires Q2- yes (doesnt specify what) Q3- I didnt feel too much mood, I guess. Q4- No Q5- Everything ? This person is obviously confused Q6- No Q7- Easy to read

Q8- No Q9- (N/A) Participant #10: Q1- to inform people about forest fires Q2- Yes (doesnt say what) Q3- neutral Q4- No Q5- No Q6- No Q7- Information clarity Q8- near one Q9- its a little scary, I guess.

Appendix G - Edited and Categorized Survey Questions Question 1 1a. - Original: Low intensity fires can be good for forest health. Edited: Planned, low intensity fires can be good for forest health. Reasoning: It confused some participants. Low intensity fires can still be wild, and the infographics have conditioned the participants to believe that any wild fire is costly or negative. By adding planned, it is clearer that the fire is meant to be a postive asset. 1b. - Original: Land managers should make cleaning up forests after a fire a higher priority than maintaining forests before fires. Edited: To prevent more fires, land managers should make maintaining forests before fires a higher priority than cleaning up forests after a fire. Reasoning: The wording of this question was confusing. Our team believed that it would take careful reading to discern the better answer from this question. The way it is rephrased forces participants to read through the question in a more fluid manner. 1c. Forest maintenance, like prescribed fire and mechanical thinning, make the forest look better. 1d. - Original: All wildfires near my community, regardless of origin, should be put out as soon as possible. Edited: Delete the question. Reasoning: It is unclear exactly what this question is asking for. The knee-jerk reaction of many participants is that all wildfires are bad. This is an absolute, something which is not generally accepted. If this answer is sought, however, the question should be left in. 1e. Prescribed burns are an effective way to prevent future fires from getting out of control. 1f. Original: Im not worried about the increase in fire intensity in the northern Rockies over the last 50 years. Edited: Im worried about the increase in fire intensity in the northern Rockies over the last 50 years. Reasoning: Phrasing it positively will require less careful reading by the participant, which leads to more truthful answers. 1g. I think increasing fire frequency will be a serious problem in the next 20 years. 1h. Making a wildfire plan for my family would give me peace of mind. 1i. Im concerned about wildfires near my community. Question 2 Edit: The scoring system would be edited to reflect that of the previous question 1. Reasoning: Many participants said this was confusing. The statements are phrased to be agree/disagree, but the scoring was measured by how important they thought the statement was to them. 2a. - Original: Prescribed fire is too uncontrollable to be a forest management tool. Edited: Prescribed burns should be used as a forest management tool. Reasoning: Negative phrasing requires close reading of the subject, which may lead to incorrect answers if the participant does not spend enough time answering each question. Positive phrasing reduces the amount of time and reading. 2b. - Original: The primary role of forests today is to produce jobs and income. Edited: Delete the question.

Reasoning: The purpose of this question is not adequately explained. There is no prior information regarding this question in any of the infographics. Unless it is given a basis, it should be removed. 2c. - Original: When people build homes near forests, they have the right to expect their home will be protected from wildfire by the government agency managing the forest. Edited: When people build homes near forests, they have the right to expect that the forest will be properly maintained by a responsible government agency. Reasoning: This question and the next led to confusion for the participants. It seemed as though this question was asking whether the survey-taker thought that the government should protect their homes. The infographics and information we were presented led to the idea that a government agency should be responsible for maintaining the forest, not an individuals home. If this edit is not accepted, the question must be edited to better reflect intent. 2d. Homeowners are responsible for protecting their own homes from wildfires. 2e.Original: People should not be allowed to build near forests where their homes could be destroyed by fire. Edited: Delete the question. Reasoning: There seems to be no basis for this question, as it only questions an extreme attitude. As there are other questions that will reflect this bias, an individual question is not necessary. Question 3 3a. Contacting your local resource managers and reading their wildfire management plan. 3b. Following signs in recreation areas about safe campfires and burn bans. 3c. Taking extra precautions to ensure that campsites are free of trash and debris. 3d. Donating to local fire management organizations 3e. Keeping household tools, such as a ladder, bucket, and shovel easily accessible. Attitude 1c, 1f, 1h, 1i, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e Knowledge 1a, 1b, 1e, 1g, 2a, 2c, 2d