Hi all, If you’d like to learn more about framing your conservation messages, this resource may be for you. Conservation Optimism has created a helpful communication toolkit that includes guidelines on (re)framing messages to inspire action. One of the most useful elements of this toolkit is a section that explains how to avoid common communication traps in conservation messaging. Here are three examples:
1. Repetition trap: Don't just repeat back what they say
The opposition has key points on any given issue. Instead of including their key points when you refute them, create your own. The example provided in the toolkit is this: when Nixon famously claimed, “I am not a crook”, it made everyone think “He’s a crook”. Instead, he could have said, “I am an honest man”. This introduces a new idea that is not simply restating the opposition’s position. In environmental messaging, we make the same mistake. Consider the following saying: “There’s no debate about the climate science”. This message reinforces the idea of uncertainty, which is the opposition’s position. A better message in this context would be: “The science is clear on climate change”
2. Sanitising or obscuring trap: Don't use jargon or euphemistic language
Overly technical language or jargon from conservation science should be avoided because it may confuse people. For example, while the term ‘biodiversity’ may be well understood in conservation circles, it may not be well understood by most people. Terms like ‘wildlife’ and ‘nature’ are more accessible to the general public. Here are a few more examples and their alternatives: Anthropocene --> Human impactsTerrestrial life --> Wildlife living on landLand-use change --> Habitat destructionHydrocarbons --> Fossil fuelsIndustrial agriculture --> Farming with use of toxic chemicals
3. Threat heavy trap: Balance threat with positives and action
It is important to be clear about the problems that we face so that people will see the necessity of taking action. However, focusing so much on the negative aspects can immobilize people with fear and despair. Conservation messaging should therefore strike a balance between threats and possible solutions. If the message says, “Chinstrap penguin populations are plummeting due to climate change”, people will not be motivated to act because they will think the species is doomed. Tell the truth, but also give hope so people will still consider taking action. Instead, say: “While the charismatic and much-loved chinstraps are declining rapidly with climate change, their largest colony has survived recent volcanic eruptions showing their ability to adapt if we help them to do so.”
There is much more about framing messages in Conservation Optimism’s toolkit. To access it, click here.
1. Repetition trap: Don't just repeat back what they say
The opposition has key points on any given issue. Instead of including their key points when you refute them, create your own. The example provided in the toolkit is this: when Nixon famously claimed, “I am not a crook”, it made everyone think “He’s a crook”. Instead, he could have said, “I am an honest man”. This introduces a new idea that is not simply restating the opposition’s position. In environmental messaging, we make the same mistake. Consider the following saying: “There’s no debate about the climate science”. This message reinforces the idea of uncertainty, which is the opposition’s position. A better message in this context would be: “The science is clear on climate change”
2. Sanitising or obscuring trap: Don't use jargon or euphemistic language
Overly technical language or jargon from conservation science should be avoided because it may confuse people. For example, while the term ‘biodiversity’ may be well understood in conservation circles, it may not be well understood by most people. Terms like ‘wildlife’ and ‘nature’ are more accessible to the general public. Here are a few more examples and their alternatives: Anthropocene --> Human impactsTerrestrial life --> Wildlife living on landLand-use change --> Habitat destructionHydrocarbons --> Fossil fuelsIndustrial agriculture --> Farming with use of toxic chemicals
3. Threat heavy trap: Balance threat with positives and action
It is important to be clear about the problems that we face so that people will see the necessity of taking action. However, focusing so much on the negative aspects can immobilize people with fear and despair. Conservation messaging should therefore strike a balance between threats and possible solutions. If the message says, “Chinstrap penguin populations are plummeting due to climate change”, people will not be motivated to act because they will think the species is doomed. Tell the truth, but also give hope so people will still consider taking action. Instead, say: “While the charismatic and much-loved chinstraps are declining rapidly with climate change, their largest colony has survived recent volcanic eruptions showing their ability to adapt if we help them to do so.”
There is much more about framing messages in Conservation Optimism’s toolkit. To access it, click here.
