Dear people, please do me and yourself a favour and sign this petition. The proposed tree felling (an area the size of 200 soccer fields!) in the Schoorl and Bergen dunes is a cutback disguised as nature restoration. Stop this destruction!
Case study tree felling for nature restoration in the Schoorl and Bergen dunes, National Forest Service (Staatsbosbeheer).Magnitudes such as 200 soccer fields suggest a degree of indeterminacy on the one hand and yet immense quantity at the same time. Such is the rhetorical ingenuity here. The exact number is irrelevant here, what matters is the effect: 200 soccer fields! That is enormous.
Via the contrast natural area versus immense tree felling, the situation is outlined as irresponsible: how is it possible that this is the reality? That reality, moreover, is ‘disguised’ as nature restoration. So it is not like that. This is just normal cost-cutting. To end this highly undesirable situation, the message sets a clear task. After all, the ‘destruction’ (the tree felling) must be stopped. To this end, a petition must be signed. In which the reader also does himself and the petitioner a favour, so why leave it at that?
Where possible, expectations can be managed. For example, explain what your organisation can do in response to a petition that is frequently signed. Is it possible to revise plans or are you stuck with laws and regulations? Also explain how (initial) plans came about. For instance, say who discussions were held with prior to the decision-making process, how citizens’ opinions and views were included in this process, what the considerations were and which (representatives of) groups agreed to the plans. In this example, it is also important to emphasise the positive aspects of the plans, including those for citizens. So explain why there is no question of ‘destruction’.
Betrekkende taal Scenariovorming 3