News on Biodiversity? An Analysis of the Biodiversity Discourse in European News Outlets in 2010 and 2022

Evolution from 2010 to 2022

Overall biodiversity was very rarely defined in European news articles. Of the 169 articles examined from 2010, only 5% attempted to define the term “biodiversity”. This percentage remained the same in 2022. The definitions mainly centred on the concept of variety. Simplistic statements included: “biodiversity, the genetic diversity of species” (HU, Origo, RA-52), while more comprehensive perspectives extended beyond variety: “Biodiversity refers to the great richness of beings living on Earth, as well as to the delicate balance of interdependence and interaction between them and with the physical environment that hosts and conditions them” (IT, Avvenire, RA-105). Furthermore, some definitions of biodiversity were implicit, for example describing it as the opposite of uniformity (IT, Il Manifesto, RB-163) or focusing on the concept of biodiversity loss. Given the low incidence of definitions, no evolution in their content could be observed.

Differences between countries

While European news articles rarely defined biodiversity, some countries did so more often than others. In the UK (2022), definitions were most common, largely due to the BBC, which defined biodiversity in 6 of 10 analysed articles and was the only outlet to do so in 2010. In Norway, 10–15% of 2022 articles included definitions, compared to none in 2010. In contrast, outlets in Czechia, Hungary, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland defined biodiversity in 5% or fewer of their articles.

Evolution from 2010 to 2022

In 2010, 65% of articles reflected an ecocentric view, emphasizing biodiversity’s intrinsic value, while 40% took an anthropocentric perspective. By 2022, anthropocentric framing rose to 50%, while ecocentric statements declined to 35%, with decreases across all countries except Norway.

References to anthropocentric values of biodiversity varied in tangibility and depth. More broad value statements include exemplarily: “the loss of biodiversity affects not only individual animal species, but also humans” (HU, Origo, RA-51), and “some ecosystems may soon reach ‘tipping points’ where they rapidly become less useful to humanity” (UK, BBC, RA-139). When specifics were provided, details often referred to the value of biodiversity for meeting human needs, including food, clean air, medicine and renewable resources such as wood. In certain cases, these statements highlighted the need to preserve diversity for future potential exploitation: “Who knows, maybe in 20, 30 years we will discover that one of the berry species from Pavlovsk contains an ingredient unknown today that prevents a certain disease” (GE, RA-75). In fewer articles, biodiversity was valued for human-wellbeing, education, and aesthetic enjoyment, for example by arguing biodiversity is important so that “we don’t have to go to the zoo to see rabbits, larks and other animals” (Diary, RB-9). Some of the less fundamental and less emotional value statements referred to monetary valuations of biodiversity services such as pollination or the economic system.

Ecocentric values of biodiversity were most often about biodiversity decline and the extinction of species in 2010. Such statements usually focused on the decline of species or on specific threats, predominantly as a result of human activity: “Species of organisms have of course always been dying out, but at a natural rate of one to two species per million per year. But humans today are wiping out a hundred to a thousand species in a million, a sustainable rate would be ten” (CZ, Lidove noviny, RA-2). In 2022, we found that ecocentric value statements increased in urgency, compared to 2010. This was most evident in articles from the UK and Germany. The heightened urgency was expressed by predicting consequences of biodiversity loss, and the use of time-bound statements emphasising the immediacy of the crisis, for example: “every day, about 150 species become extinct in this world. Animals and plants that never return. 150 times a day, the history of a species, millions of years of evolution, is destroyed” (GE, Bild, RB-72). Also, the ecocentric value statements became more variable in 2022 compared to 2010, covering a broader range of issues and emphasising the interconnectedness of all living things.

Differences between countries

The frequency of value statements varied by country. Articles from Italy, Norway, and the UK often included such statements, while those from the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland rarely did—especially in 2022.

Ecocentric statements in UK and German articles tended to adopt a global perspective, whereas Hungarian articles focused more on national or European issues. In Germany (e.g., Die Welt) and Hungary (Origo), ecocentric values were often linked to systems thinking.

Evolution from 2010 to 2022

We did not observe significant changes in rhetoric elements in the biodiversity reporting of European news outlets. The goals for which language was used remained similar at both time points. The most frequent rhetorical function was ‘warning’ which was used in 50% of the articles from 2010 and 40% from 2022. Warning often focused on species decline and loss due to resource exploitation or insufficient environmental protection measures, frequently using dramatic and emotive language such as ‘catastrophic’ (CZ, Lidove noviny, 2010, RA-2), ‘irreversibility’ (HU, Index, 2010, RA-35), ‘permanent destruction’ (UK, Financial Times, RB-271) and ‘extinction’ (UK, Daily Mail, RB-259).

In both years, 30% of articles contained persuasive statements aimed at influencing readers’ attitudes or behaviours. Half of these advocated for national or global action to protect biodiversity, for example ‘The Netherlands must stop subsidies that harm biodiversity’ (NL, Trouw, RB-244). Fewer articles advocated for individual action or highlighted human activities as threats to biodiversity.

In 2010, 35% of articles contained accusatory statements focusing on human activities in general or attributing biodiversity loss to agriculture, industry, and pollution: ‘the consequences of human activity are causing the extinction of far more species than natural diversity can support’ (HU, Origo, RA-52). There was a slight decrease in accusatory statements to 30% in 2022.

The use of entertaining statements about biodiversity decreased from 15% of articles in 2010 to 5% in 2022, suggesting a shift towards more serious reporting. In 2010 these statements mainly highlighted species’ unusual physical appearances or characteristics. Conversely, in 2022, the statements tended to focus on emphasising the entertaining aspects of scientific findings or political developments, for example: “Is it true that British scientists have taught bumblebees to play football?” (CZ, Lidove noviny, RB-28).

In 2010, 40% of the articles aimed to raise hope about biodiversity, focusing on potential positive changes and successful conservation measures: “it is a special reminder that it is not too late to protect the Earth’s biodiversity” (HU, Origo, RA-55). A smaller proportion described the discovery of new species and rediscovery of species thought to be extinct as positive news. There were slightly fewer hope raising statements in 2022 (30%).

Overall, only 20% of articles in 2010 and 2022 were identified as informing with no other rhetorical function related to biodiversity. These articles predominantly shared factual information, new scientific findings and the details of events.

Differences between countries

Biodiversity rhetoric varied by country in emotional tone, balance of hope and warning, and targets of accusation. In 2022, purely informative articles were most common in the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. The Netherlands showed few persuasive or accusatory statements, favoring hopeful coverage of positive developments and government actions. Austria’s discourse was largely informative with evidence-based warnings and fewer accusations. Germany featured more persuasive rhetoric, advocating action or policy change, with general rather than specific accusations, rarely targeting groups like the agricultural lobby.

In comparison, Italian and British news articles were more emotional. Italian articles featured frequent accusations and warnings, using drastic expressions such as “Humans will be extinct within a hundred years.” (IT, CDS, RA-113) and often combining warnings with hopeful statements. The UK biodiversity discourse was also emotional, with frequent use of accusatory and warning rhetoric. To a lesser degree Swiss news articles featured emotional language but focused on persuasive rhetoric statements, with accusations often targeting politicians and public administration.

Norwegian and Hungarian articles from 2022 had the highest frequency of accusatory statements, e.g. targeting the government or businesses of inadequate action (Norway) or the EU’s environmental policies being a threat to agricultural profits (Hungary). Nevertheless, hope was raised in several cases by celebrating the national government projects or praising the actions of Hungarian people.

Evolution from 2010 to 2022

We observed slight shifts in reference to certain actors. Most noticeable was the decrease in references to scientists, falling from 60% of articles in 2010 to 35% in 2022. In 2010, scientists were cited as trusted sources of information, providing warnings about biodiversity loss, showcasing research, studying the effects of interventions, offering assessments of biodiversity status and actively participating in conservation efforts. Scientists were rarely portrayed negatively in the biodiversity discourse. We did not observe a change in the framing of scientists in 2022 articles.

Industry and business actors were also mentioned less frequently in articles from 2022 (30%) compared to 2010 (45%). In 2010, industry was predominantly mentioned in relation to their impacts through agriculture and pollution, and the effects of biodiversity loss on corporations. Agriculture was frequently identified as a major driver of habitat destruction due to intensification and deforestation, often in strong terms like: “Agriculture is the biggest killer of species” (Germany, Die Welt, RA-58). Other polluting industries such as manufacturing, tourism and mining were also mentioned, and the economic risk of biodiversity loss for companies was also discussed. We observed no substantial shift in the way industry was portrayed, although in 2022 more articles highlighted businesses’ progressive action toward biodiversity conservation.

Governments were the actors mentioned most often in 2022, featuring in 50% of articles, up from 40% in 2010. The 2010 articles highlighted governments’ multifaceted role in addressing the biodiversity crisis, through policy-making, regulation, international collaboration, awareness-building, and financial support. The articles often called for stronger action, increased resources, and stricter industry regulations: “The future of the planet now depends on governments taking action in the next few years” (UK, The Guardian, RA-165). Many articles in 2010 discussed international and national policy initiatives like the EU’s 2020 biodiversity targets. By 2022, the role of governments in global biodiversity action became more prominent, with frequent mentions of political negotiations like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and calls for government responsibility: “This summit is a chance the world must not miss, probably the last chance for governments to turn the tide and save our precious life support system” (CH, Le Matin, RB-115). Criticism of governmental inaction or inadequate responses was prevalent in both years.

NGOs featured in 25% of articles from 2010 and were mainly portrayed to report on the status of biodiversity, engage in biodiversity conservation projects and advocate for biodiversity protection through demonstrations or campaigns. While the topics of NGOs biodiversity action were mostly on a local scale in 2010, we observed a shift to a more global stage in 2022 with NGOs repeatedly being mentioned in relation to the CBD Conference of the Parties (COP) 15: “In Canada this week, conservationists will attempt to persuade the world’s governments to summon up the will to address this crisis” (UK, The Guardian, RB-279). Moreover, some 2022 articles portray the role of NGOs in controversial terms, by criticizing their knowledgeability or uncooperative behaviour.

The share of articles referring to the general public was similar in both years (25% in 2010 and 20% in 2022). In 2010, the articles emphasised the need for changes to individual behaviour and consumption patterns, often highlighting the global implications of lifestyle choices: “[…] everyone should rethink their behaviour, not eat any endangered fish species and make greater use of local organic products.” (DE, Die Welt, RA-58). Some articles suggested exasperation or frustration with the public’s attitudes and behaviours, which seemed to be more common in 2022, with statements blaming the “culture of waste” (IT, Avvenire, RB-192) or “over-consumption” (IT, Avvenire, RB-186). The articles had a strong focus on educating the public, placing increased responsibility on individuals, usually providing advice targeting dietary choices or garden management. In both years there are statements that highlight citizens taking an active role in protecting biodiversity through protests or individual action. Interestingly, it was mainly citizens in poor countries that were portrayed as being negatively affected by biodiversity decline.

Financial actors were mentioned in fewer than 20% of the articles and their roles were portrayed similarly in both years – either discussed in relation to the impact of biodiversity loss on the finance sector or the need for funds to finance nature conservation, especially in the Global South. The British FT, the Swiss NZZ and the German FAZ mainly devoted statements to describe how the finance sector has started to consider biodiversity in their operations: “As a result, biodiversity is now the fastest developing ESG [environmental, social and governance] theme in global capital markets […]. In just three years, the issue has moved from being virtually ignored by mainstream institutional investors to being acknowledged by all.” (UK, FT, RB-268)

Differences between countries

The frequency of actor group mentions in biodiversity discourse varied across countries. Italy, Switzerland, Czechia, Germany, and Norway frequently referenced diverse actors, while the Netherlands, Austria, and the UK showed low mention rates in 2022. Mentions of scientists varied most widely (25–80% in 2010; 5–60% in 2022), exceeding half of articles in Czechia, Germany, and Hungary, indicating greater media reliance on scientific input there. Notably, mentions of scientists in the Netherlands dropped sharply from 45% in 2010 to 5% in 2022.

Finance-related discussions were most common in the UK, where 50% of articles referenced financial actors. UK and, to a lesser extent, German reporting emphasized biodiversity’s economic value and loss implications. UK coverage uniquely focused on corporate accountability and regulation, while both UK and German articles critically framed government inaction.

The general public was mentioned most frequently in Norwegian, Italian, Swiss and German news articles from 2022. The media often highlighted grassroots activism or provided actionable recommendations for readers. Conversely, articles from the UK, which rarely mentioned the general public, often linked the loss of biodiversity to poverty and the importance of biodiversity for people in the Global South. The Swiss and Italian news articles also stood out, mentioning NGOs in 65% of articles in 2022. In these articles NGOs were sometimes criticised for lacking expertise or hindering political progress. Statements like “Berlusconi is not a gynaecologist!” (IT, IFQ, RB-158) were used to argue that NGO involvement should be based on scientific knowledge rather than emotionalism. This underscores a contentious view of NGOs’ roles in biodiversity discourse in these countries.