The loss of Earth's animal and plant species is a crisis. Just don't call it an "extinction crisis" if you aim to mobilize public concern.
Published today in npj Biodiversity, a Nature Portfolio journal, a new study finds that using unfamiliar terms results in less public concern and less willingness to support policies that could tackle the crisis. The study focused on how to effectively communicate urgency about the loss of plant and animal species, otherwise termed "biodiversity loss."
Most people have heard of the "extinction of plants and animals." But most have not heard of the "extinction crisis". The scientific term "biodiversity loss" is also not widely known.
Using effective language to raise the alarm about the extinction of plants and animals is an urgent matter. At least 1 million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction, according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
"Almost everyone has heard of extinction and wants to support policies to save plants and animals. But if you use unfamiliar terms to describe it, then people are not as concerned or willing to act," said Wändi Bruine de Bruin , the study's lead author. "Environmental experts need to recognize that much of their terminology is jargon to average people."
Bruine de Bruin is Provost Professor of Public Policy, Psychology, and Behavioral Science at the USC Price School of Public Policy and the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences , and a senior scholar at the USC Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy and Government Service .
The study involved a representative sample of 7,338 U.S. adults, each of whom was randomly assigned to one of six terms commonly used in public communication about the loss of biodiversity.
The six terms were biodiversity loss and biodiversity crisis, nature loss and nature crisis, and extinction of plants and animals and extinction crisis. Each term was presented either alone or accompanied by an explanation and photos of plants and animals.
Biodiversity loss and biodiversity crisis were the least familiar and concerning, even when presented in the context of an explanation and photos of plants and animals.
Extinction of plants and animals was the most familiar term and raised the most public concern, regardless of whether context was presented. Nature loss performed just as well but only when context is provided.
The results held across political and demographic groups.
The release of the study comes near the outset of the biennial UN Biodiversity Conference , in Yerevan, Armenia, where representatives of 195 countries are focusing on the first global review of collective progress towards implementing the world's nature targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework .
"We are hoping the conference delegates take heed of the study so that they convey their findings in clear, simple language that maximizes its impact, empowering children and communities to make informed decisions and take action," said co-author Moa Cortobius, climate resilience and anticipatory action adviser for Save the Children International.
Additional co-authors were Monica Dean and Carling Monder of the USC Dornsife Public Exchange ; Allison Agsten of the USC Annenberg Center for Climate Journalism and Communication; Moa Cortobius of Save the Children International ; Georgia Silvera Seamans of Local Nature Lab ; Kimberly Tenggardjaja of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ; and Robert Spaull of IPBES.
The study is the latest in a series in which Bruine de Bruin and her co-authors have examined the effectiveness of terms used to communicate environmental issues. The first study, published in 2021, found that people struggled to understand words and terms commonly used to describe climate change. Another study , published in 2024, found that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" were more effective than "climate crisis," or "climate emergency."
"A pattern has clearly emerged: simple, familiar language is most effective at communicating urgent environmental issues," Agsten said.
The study was funded by the Golden Belt Community Foundation.
