One of the primary things that COMPASS staff hear from scientists and technical experts is that they want their communication efforts, in whatever form or medium, to have an impact. And, of course, impact is driven by action, whether it’s policymakers advancing new clean air regulations, a community securing their trash cans to prevent human-wildlife conflict, or a household creating a fire evacuation plan.
But when the topic at hand involves risk to people’s health, safety, or environment — especially risks that feel big and scary — motivating action can be harder than it sounds.
In December, 2025, COMPASS staff hosted a strategic communication workshop and panel on risk communication for wildfire experts at the 11th International Fire Ecology and Management Congress in New Orleans, Louisiana. Over the course of the week, through conversations with fire ecologists, prescribed fire practitioners, and social scientists working with communities to facilitate fire adaptation and response, the question of how to talk about something that’s inherently big and scary in a way that motivates action repeatedly arose.
After all, wildfire is an increasingly urgent issue across the world. As local precipitation and climate patterns shift, development spreads into the wildland urban interface, and historic forest management strategies change how fire behaves, the conversations around fire prevention and preparedness are only getting more complex.
But, as many of the fire experts in New Orleans experienced, when risk communication leans too heavily into crisis and catastrophe, audiences feel overwhelmed, disengage, or resist the message altogether.
All too often, risk communication — whether about wildfire, climate change or public health — focuses on the hazard or negative outcome we want people to avoid. Transparency and clarity about potential danger are essential, particularly in emergent situations. But when hazard messaging is the only strategy, it can overwhelm and disengage audiences from the issue at hand and lead them to believe in the negative outcome’s inevitability or cause message fatigue, where audiences perceive nothing as urgent leading to lack of action when it’s most needed.
We need more positive framing in risk communication. Positive framing is ultimately grounded in the fact that people are more likely to act when they think that their actions will make a difference. Two elements are particularly important in positive framing. First, reinforcing that the issue can be addressed and that the audience has agency. Second, showing that taking action not only reduces harm but contributes to outcomes people want and value. When both are present, action becomes much more likely.
Speak to People’s Aspirations
Positive framing means rooting communication in what people want to protect, strengthen, or create — not just what they want to avoid.
Take co-existence with black bears as an example. In 2018, Stacy Lischka and Heather Johnson (who was a 2023 Wilburforce Pathfinder!) led a study in Durango, Colorado that looked at residents’ perceptions and tolerance of black bears. They found that residents who had a higher tolerance of black bears tended to perceive more benefits from living with black bears—whether it’s seeing black bears as an indicator of ecosystem health or even simply enjoying seeing black bears in the local environment. And, followingly, those who see black bears as a benefit are more likely to act to prevent nuisance behaviors (using a bearproof trash can, for instance).
(In the interest of full transparency: the author of this blog post lives in Durango, Colorado and very, very much enjoys sharing an ecosystem with black bears. He also always locks his trash can.)
When messages connect to people’s values and aspirations — the kind of community they want to live in or the landscapes they love — they are more likely to view the situation more positively and take action to manage risk proactively, rather than reactively.
Similarly, wildfire can be viewed positively. Fire is, after all, a natural part of every terrestrial ecosystem, whether it’s a pine forest in the California Sierra Nevada or a Floridian rainforest. Encouraging communities to view fire as a part of the environment, like flora and fauna, can facilitate a more proactive relationship that views it as a natural process, rather than a disaster to be reactively dealt with.
Support Agency and Efficacy
That said, positive framing does not minimize risk. Large, destructive fires still occur, and frequently don’t look like the fires that are a natural part of the ecosystem. In these cases, positive framing can focus on protection and preparedness steps.
Rather than honing in on the hazard — potentially amplifying fear — practitioners and experts can emphasize individual and collective action that people can take to protect what’s important to them be it human life, property, or livelihoods — such as supporting prescribed fire programs, preparing an evacuation plan, or participating in community fire-adaptation efforts..
Focusing on actions within the audience’s capacity, promotes agency and control over their situation and builds the confidence to respond effectively when hazards occur or even address situations before they become emergencies. Fear-based framing, as said above, can often disengage audiences from taking action, leading to underpreparedness when hazards eventually do happen.
Concrete action is at the core of positive framing. Simply sharing information won’t get the job done. We are more likely to make progress when we pair information with concrete, tangible action. Something can almost always be done to lower risk, even if it can’t be reduced completely.
Risk communication will always require honest discussion of hazards. But positive framing can turn risk messaging from something that’s paralyzing to something that galvanizes action, builds trust, and strengthens resilience.
