Public responses to biodiversity loss terminology and crisis framing.
8 affiliations
- 1Sol Price School of Public Policy, Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy and Government Service, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [email protected].
- 2Dornsife Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [email protected].
- 3Dornsife Public Exchange, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
- 4Annenberg Center For Climate Journalism and Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
- 5Save the Children International, London, UK.
- 6Local Nature Lab, New York, NY, USA.
- 7Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany.
- 8California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Abstract
To avoid the technical term "biodiversity loss", public communications often refer to "nature loss" or "extinction of plants and animals" or apply crisis framing by stating "biodiversity crisis," "nature crisis," or "extinction crisis." To assess public responses to these terms, we conducted a randomized survey experiment with 7338 U.S. adults. Participants were randomly assigned to one term (biodiversity loss, nature loss, extinction of plants and animals, biodiversity crisis, nature crisis, or extinction crisis), either alone or in the context of an explanation and photos of plants and animals. With and without context, "biodiversity loss" and "biodiversity crisis" received the lowest ratings of familiarity, concern, perceived urgency, and conservation support. "Extinction of plants and animals" generally received the highest ratings. "Nature loss" performed similarly to this term when context was provided. Crisis framing had little to no effect. Terminology effects were strongest for political Independents. We discuss implications for public communications.
Related
- Borealization: a biodiversity refugium and evolutionary cradle during the Permian-Triassic climate crisis
- Locking in Paris 2024: legacy framing and the eventification of public policy - exposing the political footprint of mega-events
- Contrasting responses to climate change in two Dianthus species of the Irano-Anatolian biodiversity hotspot
- Long-term biodiversity responses to anthropogenic change are spatially and taxonomically heterogeneous across coastal wetlands
- Cross-platform public judgment in a cultural heritage crisis: A topic modeling study of the Nanjing Museum donated-artifact controversy
BibTeX
@article{bruin2026public,
title = {{Public responses to biodiversity loss terminology and crisis framing.}},
author = {Wändi Bruine de Bruin and Monica Dean and Carling Monder and Allison Agsten and Moa Cortobius and Georgia Silvera Seamans and Robert Spaull and Kimberly Tenggardjaja},
journal = {Npj biodiversity},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1038/s44185-026-00163-4},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42907485},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Public responses to biodiversity loss terminology and crisis framing.
AU - Wändi Bruine de Bruin
AU - Monica Dean
AU - Carling Monder
AU - Allison Agsten
AU - Moa Cortobius
AU - Georgia Silvera Seamans
AU - Robert Spaull
AU - Kimberly Tenggardjaja
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/21
JO - Npj biodiversity
DO - 10.1038/s44185-026-00163-4
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42907485
AB - To avoid the technical term "biodiversity loss", public communications often refer to "nature loss" or "extinction of plants and animals" or apply crisis framing by stating "biodiversity crisis," "nature crisis," or "extinction crisis." To assess public responses to these terms, we conducted a randomized survey experiment with 7338 U.S. adults. Participants were randomly assigned to one term (biodiversity loss, nature loss, extinction of plants and animals, biodiversity crisis, nature crisis, or extinction crisis), either alone or in the context of an explanation and photos of plants and animals. With and without context, "biodiversity loss" and "biodiversity crisis" received the lowest ratings of familiarity, concern, perceived urgency, and conservation support. "Extinction of plants and animals" generally received the highest ratings. "Nature loss" performed similarly to this term when context was provided. Crisis framing had little to no effect. Terminology effects were strongest for political Independents. We discuss implications for public communications.
SN - 2731-4243
ER -