whitepaper first draft team publisher 1

8/2/2019 Whitepaper First Draft Team Publisher 1

1/25

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 wasconducted 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 thistest 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 theparticipation of ten students at the University of Idaho. Each participant was given a pre-test survey to establish any prior knowledge or bias. Then they were asked to examineone 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 atthe University of Idaho, and are documented in Appendix A. Students designed eachinfographic with a gains-based and loss-based design scheme. The gains-basedinfographic focuses on positive elements of forestry management. The loss-basedgraphic was created to reflect the damaging effects of uncontrolled wildfires. This typeof design, in which each infographic has a different emotional scheme, is referred to asframing.


2/25

This study was designed to gather many different information points to be used in thefinal analysis. The pre-survey consists of nine questions that are provided in AppendixB. A cover page with the first six questions was created to identify the participant andany biases he or she might have in examining either infographic. To do this, theyrequest the participant to write down their major, past living locations, and attitude

concerning forest management. These six inquiries were not given again in the post-test. The last three questions were provided on a separate double-sided sheet of paperand consisted of multiple sub-questions.

This second part of the survey was designed by Melissa Clark, a graduate student atthe University of Idaho in the College of Natural Resources, and is provided in AppendixC. Each of these questions can be categorized as either evaluating the participantsknowledge or attitude. At the end of Appendix G, the questions are listed by which typethey are. They are measured in Likert scale formatting. These questions were givenagain as a post-test after the participant had examined one of the infographics. Achange 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 theinfographics 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, andtranscribed 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 dueto 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 inthe survey. The participants included six women and four men, from a variety of majorsand ages. Each participant was assigned a number between 1 and 10 for organizationalpurposes. In order, students were asked to take the pre-test, examine one of the two


3/25

infographics, take the post-test, and then were taken to a quiet room in the Art Galleryto record an interview.

Odd numbered participants were given the loss-based infographic, and evenparticipants 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 toexamine. After they had completed this, they were given the post-test, which also tookan average of six minutes to complete. They were then removed to a quiet location torecord an interview. This recording took approximately three minutes, leading the entiresession 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.


4/25

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.


5/25

Figure 4. Attitude based questions of Survey Q1 for gains infographic.

Survey Question 3 was broken into 5 sub-questions. These 5 attitude based sub-

questions 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.



6/25




7/25


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 gainsinfographics.

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.


8/25

Figure 10. Survey Q3 pre and post-test mean change for losses and gainsinfographics.

AnalysisBecause 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 participantshad 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 anactual 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


9/25

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/RecommendationsEffect 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 themood 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 re-

design 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 GainedAnother important aspect of this study was to determine if participants learned new

material from the infographic. Our interview data shows that most participants felt asthough they had learned something about the topic after viewing the infographic. Otherdata trends, provided in the analysis section, suggest that the infographic wassuccessful at informing the participants on the prescribed topic. However, as explainedin the analysis, 30% of our participants wanted more statistics on the infographic, whichwould be a simple and effective way to include more information without cluttering theinfographic.


10/25

Call to ActionWe also wanted to determine if the infographic had changed or incited a call to action inthe participant. Answers to question three of the survey (Appendix C) shows that therewas an increase in their call to action, although not a large one. On average, there wasonly 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 tohave interview questions that specifically probed the topic of call to action, as ours didnot. Ultimately, this is the reason the infographic is being made so it is important thatthe 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 PoolAnother 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.


11/25

Appendix A - Figures


12/25

Figure 1. Publisher-created loss infographic.


13/25

Figure 2. Publisher-created gain infographic.


14/25

Appendix B - Background Survey Questions

Name: __________________________

What is your major? ___________________________

What is your age range? (Circle)

Under 2020-25

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/badallergies/property damage). Y / N

Forest management impacts my life. (i.e. Prescribed burning, timber

extraction, planting/replanting species, etc.) Strongly Disagree Neutral

Strongly Agree


15/25

-3 -2 -1 0 1

2 3


16/25

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


17/25

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?


18/25

Appendix E: Test Data Table (On Next Page)


19/25

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; even-

numbered 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.


20/25

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)


21/25

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 firesQ4- 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 industryQ3- 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


22/25

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.


23/25

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 beforefires a higher priority than cleaning up forests after a fire.

Reasoning: The wording of this question was confusing. Our team believed that it wouldtake careful reading to discern the better answer from this question. The way it is rephrasedforces participants to read through the question in a more fluid manner.1c. Forest maintenance, like prescribed fire and mechanical thinning, make the forest lookbetter.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.



24/25

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 theforest will be properly maintained by a responsible government agency.

Reasoning: This question and the next led to confusion for the participants. It seemed asthough this question was asking whether the survey-taker thought that the government shouldprotect their homes. The infographics and information we were presented led to the idea that agovernment agency should be responsible for maintaining the forest, not an individuals home. Ifthis 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.


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.

Attitude1c, 1f, 1h, 1i, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e

Knowledge

1a, 1b, 1e, 1g, 2a, 2c, 2d


25/25

whitepaper first draft team publisher 1

Documents