Framing and levels of abstraction in economic theory with an application to public land management

Public land-use decisions are often characterized by protracted conflict between stakeholders. In some cases, this conflict is a genuine reflection of irreconcilable differences of opinion. However, there are situations in which conflict is the result of failure to anchor the decision to relevant facts during the early preference-formation stages of the decisionmaking process. If land-use alternatives are framed in a manner that negatively influences how carefully stakeholders read public documents pertaining to the decision, decisionmakers are vulnerable to making false assumptions about the existence of nonnegotiable differences of opinion. This may result in the formation of preferences that are not appropriate given the actual characteristics of the alternatives being considered.; Because human cognitive limitations restrict the ability of an individual to process information, making assumptions based on the framing of alternatives could both lead to mistaken preference formation and contribute to unnecessary conflict. Reduced distortion in the decisionmaking process—achieved through the careful framing or nonframing of alternatives—can make more clear whether an existing difference of opinion is in reality a binding constraint. Appropriate framing holds promise for reducing conflict in public land-use decisionmaking by helping to eliminate the formation of preferences that are based on erroneous assumptions.