Misrepresentation of terminology is a major impediment for attempts at enhancing public conservation literacy. Despite being critically important for improving conservation practice, there have been few systematic analyses of the popular use of conservation terminology. This paper draws from science communication studies and metaphor analysis, to examine how keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts are used and represented in non-academic contexts. 557 news articles containing these terms were systematically analyzed. Mammals featured in 60% of articles on keystones, 55% on flagships and 63% on umbrella species. Number of articles explaining the terms keystone (35%) and flagship (31%) was low, and keystones were the most misrepresented term. Keystones were metaphorically linked with balance, flagships with representation and umbrella species with protection. These metaphors influenced public interpretation of scientific terminology, oriented actions towards select species, and led to a valuation of such actions. Together, the findings highlight three important aspects of popular use of conservation terminology: (1) communication is largely biased towards mammals, (2) everyday language plays a vital role in the interpretation of concepts, and (3) metaphors influence peoples’ actions and understanding. Conservation biologists need to engage with issues of language if public conservation literacy is to be improved. Further evaluations of concepts with high public and policy relevance, systematic identification of communication shortfalls, and linguistic assessments prior to promoting new terms are potential ways of achieving this.
Conservation literacy Flagship species Goodhart’s law Keystone species Language Media Metaphor Umbrella species
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The author would like to thank Prof. Stuart Pimm for his invaluable suggestions in improving the manuscript, and Paul Jepson and Sushrut Jadhav for many stimulating conversations. This work was completed through the support of the University of Oxford Clarendon Fund, Felix and Wingate Scholarships.
Gardezi T, da Silva J (1999) Diversity in relation to body size in mammals: a comparative study. Am Nat 153:110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood VH (ed) (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Kotliar NB, Baker BW, Whicker AD et al (1999) A critical review of assumptions about the prairie dog as a keystone species. Environ Manag 24(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladle RJ, Gilson L (2009) The (im)balance of nature: a public perception of time-lag? Public Underst Sci 18:229–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladle RJ, Jepson P, Whittaker RJ (2005) Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science. Interdisc Sci Rev 30:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff G (1995) Metaphor, morality, and politics. Or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. Social Res 62(2):1–22Google Scholar
Lakoff G, Johnson M (2003) Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Lamb BL, Cline K (2003) Public knowledge and perceptions of black-tailed prairie dogs. Hum Dimens Wildl 8:127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leader–Williams N, Dublin HT (2000) Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In: Entwistle A, Dunstone N (eds) Priorities for conservation of mammalian diversity: has the panda had its day?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 53–84Google Scholar
Lybecker DL, Lamb BL, Ponds PD (2002) Public attitudes and knowledge of the black-tailed prairie dog: a common and controversial species. Bioscience 52(7):607–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald DW, Tattersall FH, Brown ED et al (1995) Reintroducing the European beaver to Britain: nostalgic meddling or restoring biodiversity? Mammal Rev 25(4):161–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar