Framing the flames: Addressing public disengagement through fear framings in Australian bushfire preparedness campaign videos

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Geoforum Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104215
Deniz Yildiz, Chloe Lucas, Aidan Davison
{"title":"Framing the flames: Addressing public disengagement through fear framings in Australian bushfire preparedness campaign videos","authors":"Deniz Yildiz,&nbsp;Chloe Lucas,&nbsp;Aidan Davison","doi":"10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As bushfire seasons lengthen and intensify due to climate change, Australian fire agencies express concern about widespread public complacency and unpreparedness for bushfire. Agencies address this problem through public communication, relying particularly on short-form video campaigns in doing so. Building on previous quantitative analysis of Australian bushfire preparedness video campaigns, we present an in-depth qualitative examination of four videos that headlined fire agencies’ public communication campaigns between 2015 and 2022. We identify a dominant survivalist frame which assumes that public fear of bushfire is a precondition to rational preparation for bushfire risk informed by agency expertise. Preparedness is presented as a survivalist response to imminent threats to life and private property. This frame privileges individualistic, privatised and reactive forms of bushfire preparedness. In contrast, the most recent of the videos we study, coming after the 2019–20 Black Summer fires, indicates the presence of a collectivist frame. This frame presents collaborative forms of proactive, on-going preparation in the face of shared dangers as empowerment, with bushfire understood as a normal part of Australian life. In the context of research showing that fear appeals may entrench the disengagement they are designed to puncture, our analysis suggests that a dominant survivalist framing of preparedness aligns with institutional logics within fire agencies to weaken the effectiveness of public bushfire communication. These logics do so by privileging technical expertise that undervalues social diversity and social context and reduces complex dynamics of information and emotion to a critique of complacency. The presence of a counter-frame emphasising collectivist modes of preparedness raises important questions about opportunities to reduce reliance on fear-based bushfire communication.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12497,"journal":{"name":"Geoforum","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 104215"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoforum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718525000156","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As bushfire seasons lengthen and intensify due to climate change, Australian fire agencies express concern about widespread public complacency and unpreparedness for bushfire. Agencies address this problem through public communication, relying particularly on short-form video campaigns in doing so. Building on previous quantitative analysis of Australian bushfire preparedness video campaigns, we present an in-depth qualitative examination of four videos that headlined fire agencies’ public communication campaigns between 2015 and 2022. We identify a dominant survivalist frame which assumes that public fear of bushfire is a precondition to rational preparation for bushfire risk informed by agency expertise. Preparedness is presented as a survivalist response to imminent threats to life and private property. This frame privileges individualistic, privatised and reactive forms of bushfire preparedness. In contrast, the most recent of the videos we study, coming after the 2019–20 Black Summer fires, indicates the presence of a collectivist frame. This frame presents collaborative forms of proactive, on-going preparation in the face of shared dangers as empowerment, with bushfire understood as a normal part of Australian life. In the context of research showing that fear appeals may entrench the disengagement they are designed to puncture, our analysis suggests that a dominant survivalist framing of preparedness aligns with institutional logics within fire agencies to weaken the effectiveness of public bushfire communication. These logics do so by privileging technical expertise that undervalues social diversity and social context and reduces complex dynamics of information and emotion to a critique of complacency. The presence of a counter-frame emphasising collectivist modes of preparedness raises important questions about opportunities to reduce reliance on fear-based bushfire communication.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
构建火焰:通过澳大利亚森林火灾防范运动视频中的恐惧框架解决公众脱离参与问题
随着气候变化导致森林火灾季节延长和加剧,澳大利亚消防机构对公众普遍的自满情绪和对森林火灾的准备不足表示担忧。各机构通过公共传播解决这一问题,尤其依靠短视频宣传。在之前对澳大利亚森林火灾防范视频活动进行定量分析的基础上,我们对2015年至2022年期间消防机构公共传播活动的四个视频进行了深入的定性研究。我们确定了一个占主导地位的生存主义框架,该框架假设公众对森林火灾的恐惧是根据机构专业知识对森林火灾风险进行理性准备的先决条件。准备是对生命和私有财产面临的迫在眉睫的威胁作出的生存主义反应。这一框架为个人主义、私有化和被动的森林火灾防范形式提供了特权。相比之下,我们研究的最新视频是在2019-20年黑色夏季大火之后,表明了集体主义框架的存在。这一框架提出了在面对共同危险时积极主动、持续准备的合作形式,并将森林大火视为澳大利亚生活的正常组成部分。在研究表明,恐惧诉求可能会巩固他们设计的脱离接触的背景下,我们的分析表明,主要的生存主义准备框架与消防机构内部的制度逻辑一致,削弱了公众丛林火灾沟通的有效性。这些逻辑是通过赋予技术专长特权来实现的,而这些专业知识低估了社会多样性和社会背景,并将信息和情感的复杂动态降低为对自满的批评。强调集体主义准备模式的反框架的存在提出了关于减少对基于恐惧的丛林火灾沟通的依赖的机会的重要问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Geoforum
Geoforum GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
201
期刊介绍: Geoforum is an international, inter-disciplinary journal, global in outlook, and integrative in approach. The broad focus of Geoforum is the organisation of economic, political, social and environmental systems through space and over time. Areas of study range from the analysis of the global political economy and environment, through national systems of regulation and governance, to urban and regional development, local economic and urban planning and resources management. The journal also includes a Critical Review section which features critical assessments of research in all the above areas.
期刊最新文献
Pearls of Influence: The Interactive Dynamics of Influencer and Place Branding in Shanxia Lake Town Pearl Cluster Platform Necropolitics: Digital Media Representations of Climate Change in the Pacific Islands Region Strategic dissonance: REDD+ implementation narratives and practices in Colombia Immobile mobility: Iranian migrant women between “here” and “there” Stakeholders’ conflicting orders and classifications of the environment and land use as drivers of environmental conflicts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1