Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42907485›Full record

Articlenpj biodiversity2026

Public responses to biodiversity loss terminology and crisis framing.

Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Monica Dean, Carling Monder, Allison Agsten, Moa Cortobius, Georgia Silvera Seamans, Robert Spaull, Kimberly Tenggardjaja

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in npj biodiversity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Wändi Bruine de BruinSol Price School of Public Policy, Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy and Government Service, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. wandibdb@usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1601-789X
Monica DeanDornsife Public Exchange, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Carling MonderDornsife Public Exchange, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-8769-862X
Allison AgstenAnnenberg Center For Climate Journalism and Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Moa CortobiusSave the Children International, London, UK.
Georgia Silvera SeamansLocal Nature Lab, New York, NY, USA.
Robert SpaullIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany.
Kimberly TenggardjajaCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Identifiers

PMID42907485
PMCPMC13686970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.