Communicating with the Public about Emerald Ash Borer: Militaristic and Fatalistic Framings in the News Media

Abstract

Invasive species can spread to new landscapes through various anthropogenic factors and negatively impact urban ecosystems, societies, and economies. Public awareness is considered central to mitigating the spread of invasive species. News media contributes to awareness although it is unclear what messages are being communicated. We incorporated Frame Theory to investigate newspapers’ coverage of the emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae)), which has killed millions of ash trees in the continental United States. We conducted a content analysis of 924 news articles published between 2002 and 2017 to examine language framing (how a phenomenon like invasive species is constructed and communicated), information sources, management methods, recommended actions for the public and whether this communication changed overtime. Seventy-seven percent of articles used language evocative of distinctive risk framings, with the majority of these using negative attribute frames like invasion-militaristic and/or fatalistic language to describe EAB management. Few discussed positive impacts like galvanizing public support. Most articles used expert sources, primarily government agents. We recommend that public communications regarding invasive species be cautious about language evoking militarism and fatalism. Furthermore, invasive species communication requires a broader diversity and representation of voices because invasive species management requires community effort.

Words matter: a systematic review of communication in non-native aquatic species literature

“…Specifically, we observed that species-centered vs. human-centered frames strongly related to transportation vector and study focus, indicating that the role of humans tends to be highlighted when there is greater urgency in preventing the spread of non-native species, whereas the role of the species itself is centered when transportation vectors are not mentioned and the focus is on control. Aligned with previous research (Clarke et al 2020), we found negative valences to be most common. Additionally, terminology use corresponded with stage of invasion, indicating that researchers are following guidance by past work to use standardized and consistent language, specifically relying on more general terms like "non-native" at earlier stages of invasion, and only classifying species as invasive after accelerating spread or clear impacts are occurring (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004;Blackburn et al 2011).…”

“…Another possibility is that scientists may adopt vivid language to engage and capture the attention of readers (Simberloff 2006), without considering potential consequences of their language use. Militaristic framing remains common in news coverage (Clarke et al 2020), lending support to the idea that such vivid language is believed to be appealing to the public. Evaluating the reasons why researchers across different fields of study communicate in specific ways highlights disciplinary norms of language use and the potential consequences that ensue from such word choices.…”

“…We limited our review to the United States to minimize cultural difference in language use and focus our scope on the role of study characteristics and geographical factors. Given that the vast majority of news articles discussing non-native species comment on management actions (Clarke et al 2020), we sought peer-reviewed articles that pertained to management, thereby generating implications directly relevant to public messaging, such as communicating management plans, raising awareness of risk, and influencing recreationist behavior. This systematic literature review was guided by the following objectives: 1) Characterize invasive species communication across message frames, valence and terminology in peer-reviewed articles published on non-native species management in the United States from 2008-2018; 2) Define the effects of study discipline, study focus, stage of invasion, and transportation vector on message frames; 3) Quantify the effects of study discipline, study focus, stage of invasion, and transportation vector on valence; and 4) Analyze the relationships among study discipline, study focus, stage of invasion, transportation vector, and terminology.…”

“…Biological invasions pose escalating threats to natural ecosystems, economies, and human well-being on a global scale (Pyšek et al 2020), although impacts vary by taxon, ecosystem and region (Wolter and Röhr 2010). There is a longstanding debate in invasion science of how to appropriately communicate about invasive species so as to shape public understanding of the issue Sax 2004, 2005;Cassey et al 2005;Verbrugge et al 2016;Clarke et al 2020). Several papers (Larson et al 2005;Janovsky and Larson 2019), have analyzed the use of militaristic language (i.e., referring to a "battle" or "war" against invasive species), which seeks to emphasize the urgency of responding to the risks of invasive species.…”

“…For instance, narratives that position organisms as active agents of change are particularly adept at cultivating higher risk perceptions and greater willingness to take action (Hart and Larson 2014). Although past work has identified common frames used to discuss non-native species (e.g., Clarke et al 2020), it has not quantified patterns in frame use and investigated the possible reasons why particular language is chosen.…”