Abstract
Social media is a powerful tool for sharing information and awareness campaigns concerning environmental issues, especially as they pertain to the conservation of wild, nonhuman animals (henceforth, “animals”). This form of online engagement is a double-edged sword, however, since it can facilitate the legal and illegal trade of wild species, and promote harmful tourism encounters with wild animals. This review spans multiple disciplines and presents some key literature to date examining how public perceptions of wild animals are influenced by social media. This includes discussions of “viral” videos, “wildlife selfies,” changing trends in animal encounters at wildlife tourism destinations, and the influence of social media on the wildlife trade. Avenues for future research are suggested with urgency; the adverse effects of social media are understudied, yet bear serious consequences for the individual welfare and species conservation of wild animals.
Introduction
The era of the internet has ushered in widespread, globalized engagement with the virtual bodies of nonhuman animals (henceforth, “animals”) and the natural environment (Bosslet, 2011). Given that social media has both positive and negative implications for animal welfare and conservation (Nekaris et al., 2015), we believe a review of the current literature is necessary. The following sections highlight research regarding wild animals’ depictions on social media—especially at the intersection of both the wildlife tourism and companion animal trade industries.
While the tourism industry represents 9% of global GDP (of which wildlife tourism may comprise 20-40%), there is a veritable lack of research reviewing the impact of wildlife tourism on the conservation and welfare of wild animals (Moorhouse, Dahlsjö, Baker, D’Cruze, & Macdonald, 2015). Another major global industry, the wildlife trade, has an estimated worth of $30.6 to 42.8 billion per year, around half of which is legal trade (Moorhouse, Balaskas, D’Cruze, & Macdonald, 2017). Consequently, the wildlife tourism and trade industries have substantial stakes in the conservation status and welfare of species, impacting millions of individual animals globally. In the social media age, both industries are significantly influenced by consumer demand for either tourism encounters with, or guardianship of, wild animals—and this demand is directly linked to their depiction online in photos and videos (Moorhouse et al., 2015; Moorhouse, Balaskas et al., 2017).
Between December 2018 and March 2019, we examined both empirical and theoretical literature to compile this review. Following an a priori research protocol, we considered peer-reviewed journals, abstracts and proceedings from major conferences, and academic books across multiple disciplines. The following databases and websites were used to conduct our searches: PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus.
We chiefly surveyed research examining photos and videos of wild animals uploaded by users on the most popular social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. The proliferation of “wildlife selfies” on these platforms is of particular interest. These may be taken in touristic or domestic settings, thereby inappropriately presenting wild animals as ideal companion animals. This media may be hashtagged (#) by the user with multiple keywords, for example, #cuteanimal or #slothselfie. These hashtags are considered “trending” when a significant number of users upload media with the same hashtag. Anyone can use a social media platform’s search feature to locate media themed with hashtags: a method which researchers find useful in identifying trends and locating particular media for examination. In Table 1, we describe the keywords utilized in our search to select relevant articles, and in Table 2, we categorize the articles based on their methods.
Themes and search keywords for selected literature
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10023
Themes and search keywords for selected literature
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10023
Themes and search keywords for selected literature
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10023
Social media analysis methodologies used for selected literature
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10023
Social media analysis methodologies used for selected literature
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10023
Social media analysis methodologies used for selected literature
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10023
As evidenced by our citation list, the majority of literature we have included was published after 2000; literature examining wildlife and social media was published after 2012. The disciplines examined in our selection include: animal studies, biology, conservation, animal geography, environmental ethics, tourism studies, and criminal studies. Rather than be exhaustive, we have aimed for an interdisciplinary approach with the understanding that wildlife conservation writ large requires the integration of manifold perspectives spanning the natural and social sciences, and humanities.
This article is organized into three sections: (1) Wildlife & Social Media includes public perceptions of animals as they are portrayed in photos and videos on social media; (2) Wildlife Selfies & Tourism includes current advocacy campaigns to educate the public about harmful wildlife encounters promoted on social media; and (3) Wild Companion Animals & Social Media includes the propagation of wild animals as desirable companion species on social media. Finally, we conclude with suggested avenues for future research.
It is our intention to present a broad selection of research which adds color to the issue of how social media is entangled with public perceptions of wild animals, as it influences the demand for wildlife tourism encounters and wild companion animals—the consequences of which seriously impact animals’ lives and conservation.
Wildlife and Social Media
Social media successfully influences the choices, opinions, and behavior of online users across different sectors (Diehl, Weeks, & De Zuniga, 2016), as well as their consumer habits (Goh, Heng, & Lin, 2013). The depiction of wild animals on social media can include photographs, videos, graphic image formats (GIFs), memes, news articles, blogs, and illustrations—all of which users can upload as original content or as a modified version of another user’s content. This content is shared publicly or to a limited audience, and users typically respond through likes, shares, or comments—indicating the contents’ popularity. To explore the wildlife selfie phenomenon, we reviewed studies that analyze (typically, original) media content depicting wild animals, and users’ engagement with this content. For details on this and other methods used in the reviewed literature, see Table 2.
Numerous media depicting wild animals are shared and engaged with daily, on an ever-expanding number of platforms. Schuetz et al. (2015) showed a positive correlation between online search engine results and the density of bird populations at a geographical level in the United States. They note that a species of bird, which was locally present, correlated with more people searching for information on that species (Schuetz et al., 2015). Given that about half of the global population uses the internet, it is therefore a useful tool for studying people’s knowledge and perceptions of wildlife (Clarke et al., 2019). The implications for how social media shapes public perception of wild animals—which in turn impacts their welfare as individuals or conservation as a species—is demonstrated in this review of the literature.
The depiction of wild animals as tame or humanized can make it increasingly desirable to keep them as companion animals (Vail, 2018). How social media can influence users to reach this conclusion is demonstrated in the case of the slow loris (Nycticebus spp.). In response to a viral video entitled “Tickling Slow Loris,” Nekaris et al. (2013) assessed the perception of the endangered species by monitoring users’ comments in reaction to the video for a total of 33 months. It emerged that many commenters expressed the desire for a slow loris as a companion animal, without demonstrating awareness of the risks to slow loris welfare nor the propagation of the illegal wildlife trade. Furthermore, part of the video’s viral nature is due to celebrities who shared it with their own social media followers. Only in the last monitoring period of the study was an increase in commenters’ awareness of the potential impacts of such a video detected (Nekaris et al., 2013).
Subsequently, the same authors investigated this issue more broadly by examining 100 videos featuring slow lorises across three video-sharing platforms, collecting data on the country and date the video was uploaded, and its number of views, likes, and comments (Nekaris et al., 2015). The authors then determined if the videos depicted poor animal welfare based on five criteria: contact with humans, daylight, signs of stress, non-natural environment, and social isolation. The authors found that each video contained at least one of the five outlined criteria, and the conditions in 31.3% of the videos suggested welfare would be compromised. Viewers tended to like videos in which the loris was in a state of stress or malaise. One can surmise from this study that media which presents wild animals in unnatural settings may also be depicting poor welfare, but viewers will not always be able to perceive this nuance.
Recent researchers used content analysis to examine the online comments of users on YouTube, a popular social media website for sharing videos (Fidino, Herr, & Magle, 2018). The authors analyzed and categorized comments made by users on the “top ten” most viewed videos of coyotes (Canis latrans), Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoons (Procyon lotor). By tracking the most frequently used words, the authors extrapolated the valence of the comments into Kellert categories, a popular method for distinguishing attitudes towards animals (Kellert, 1984). The categories are defined as follows: naturalistic (concern for “wildlife and the outdoors”), ecologistic (concern for “environment as a system”), scientific (concern for “biological functioning of animals”), humanistic (concern for “individual animals, principally pets”), moralistic (concern for “right and wrong treatment of animals”), dominionistic (concern for “mastery and control of animals”), and negativistic (“indifference, dislike, or fear” of animals; Fidino et al., 2018, p. 484).
The authors found that, across all videos, naturalistic and scientific comments were the rarest. Opinions towards coyotes were most commonly dominionistic and least commonly humanistic. Interestingly, humanistic opinions were frequent the most in videos of opossums and raccoons. Furthermore, humanistic, dominionistic, and negativistic opinions comprised 59% of analyzed comments. Most comments regarding opossums and racoons described these species as “furry” (47% and 34%, respectively). Since these three species are often involved in human-wildlife conflicts, and sometimes considered urban “pests,” these results follow logically (Fidino et al., 2018).
Nghiem, Webb, and Carrasco (2012) considered how social media can “influence an immediate government response to a conservation crisis” (p. 193). This was in relation to viral photos circulated on Facebook which depicted a douc monkey “being tortured and slaughtered in the presence of Vietnamese soldiers” (Nghiem, Webb, & Carrasco, 2012, pp. 192-193). Public outrage over the treatment of this endangered species caused the government to arrest the three soldiers featured in the video. The authors concluded that “social media offers a major tactical opportunity to hold public officials and citizens accountable, by galvanizing public opinion, applying public pressure, and therefore incentivizing improved conservation behavior” (Nghiem et al., p. 192). While we have reviewed studies of how social media can threaten conservation by influencing public opinion of wild animals, it can also function as a “watchdog” and mobilizing platform to hold higher powers responsible in the absence of sufficient regulation or auditing.
Wildlife agencies in the United States of America aim to promote an understanding of wildlife and environmental management issues among the public. Therefore, the research discussed in this section demonstrates how social media platforms can be embraced by researchers in order to approximate public opinion towards both wild animals and wildlife management strategies. Future researchers should have larger, more randomized samples of public opinion by requesting access to data from social media platforms and by collecting more varied media content depicting wild animals.
Wildlife Selfies and Tourism
The line between the public and private sphere has become increasingly tenuous with the rise of social media which tracks, at least in the developed world, an increase in international tourism; urbanization; and subsequently, decreasing green spaces. One product of the social media age is the proliferation of what World Animal Protection calls “wildlife selfies.” These are photographs taken by a tourist in close enough proximity to a wild animal that they both appear in the frame. Certainly, this is not a historical anomaly since images of humans with wildlife range as far back as the invention of photography, but now it is easily facilitated through photo-sharing social media applications such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and various other websites within the “blogosphere.”
In 1981, two global welfare organizations that began in the 1950s merged under the name World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPCA). Having undergone a name change in 2014, the WSPCA became World Animal Protection, an international non-profit organization concerned with condemning animal cruelty and improving animal welfare. Currently, World Animal Protection has seriously undertaken research and public campaigns on the subject of tourism with wild animals. Of the “34 billion images posted by 700 million people on Instagram,” they estimate tens of thousands are wildlife selfies (World Animal Protection, n.d.). These are photos typically taken in such close proximity to a wild animal that both the human and nonhuman animal faces are in the frame. In response, World Animal Protection (n.d.) created the “Wildlife Selfie Code” which encourages responsible ecotourists to sign a pledge to abstain from wildlife selfies in which an animal is being baited with food, held, or restrained.
After over a quarter million signatories, Instagram created a content advisory page to educate users on the welfare issues that may underlie a seemingly benign animal encounter (Daly, 2017). Is the “pop-up” warning about the illegal wildlife trade, which appears on one’s smartphone screen if they are using Instagram’s search feature for wildlife selfies, contributing to a change in not only public perceptions of ethical encounters, but also influencing market choice? Future research is needed surrounding tourist perceptions and learning in light of these new advisories.
In 2017, TripAdvisor stopped selling tickets for what may be deemed cruel wildlife tourism, which includes circuses and entertainment-based attractions (Rushby, 2016). There is increasing pressure on travel organizations to match these strides towards more ethical forms of wildlife encounters. Tour companies such as Intrepid (n.d.) have committed to only including animal-based activities in their travel itinerary that meet the standards of acceptability, such as those set out by World Animal Protection and other organizations promoting responsible travel. Since these changes in how social media promotes, or rather demotes, unacceptable animal encounters are relatively recent, it is difficult to be certain of their impact in shaping the values and choices of consumers and travelers.
World Animal Protection’s 2018 report on wildlife tourism recounted a survey of sixty-two travel trade associations, of which twenty-one had a webpage on sustainable tourism, three had animal welfare guidelines within their stated “sustainability programs,” and only one monitored the welfare guideline implementations (World Animal Protection, 2018). They maintained that “sustaining demand [for wildlife entertainment] perpetuates a never-ending cycle of cruelty” (World Animal Protection, 2018, p. 11). In addition, travel trade associations have “a critical role” in reducing this demand by deeming “unacceptable” those attractions which seriously endanger welfare as a necessary step towards “recogni[zing] best practices” and a more “wildlife-friendly future” (i.e., ban tiger selfies, elephant riding, etc.).
A study which considered the impact of “priming” tourists to distinguish between “good” versus “bad” types of animal tourism and encounters showed that educating tourists at the outset, before they purchase or engage in a particular encounter, does influence their decisions based on whether it is detrimental to the animals involved (Moorhouse, D’Cruze, & Macdonald, 2017a). Some scholars argue that in addressing the unethical use of wild animals in tourism, the heavy lifting must be done at the level of influencing and informing the consumer regarding better choices (D’Cruze et al., 2017; Moorhouse, D’Cruze, & Macdonald, 2017b; Moorhouse et al., 2015).
Most wildlife tourism is not sustainable because it exists within an anthropocentric, neoliberal capitalist paradigm (i.e., lack of regulation, greenwashing, endangerment of animal lives, etc.; Duffy, 2014; Moorhouse et al., 2017). It may be considered a form of market environmentalism, a paradigm which has been criticized as commodifying animals in tourism and fueling their role as resources for entertainment and fiscal gain (Belicia & Islam, 2018). In contrast, ecotourism appears to be an imperfect, but better-than-the-alternative solution for achieving sustainability. It can replace harmful, extractive resource use in natural areas such as mining, logging, and poaching, with tourist attractions. This has the potential to benefit the host community and wildlife—when it is properly managed, along with the principles of non-consumption (i.e., no hunting, extraction of animals for photo props and entertainment, etc.).
Ecotourism which is irresponsibly managed may endanger the conservation of the wild population through removal of individuals, triggering a change in feeding and reproductive behaviors, causing stress or physiological illnesses, or increasing susceptibility to poaching (Ménard et al., 2014). Unfortunately, there is evidence of attractions operating under the guise of ecotourism which extract individual animals from the wild to facilitate wildlife selfies (Carder et al., 2018; D’Cruze et al., 2017). One technique which tourism operators use to facilitate touch encounters and selfies with wildlife includes baiting individuals with food (Bulbeck, 2005). More research is needed regarding the permissibility of food provisioning to facilitate wildlife encounters, and how to shift the demand for a touch encounter between tourists and animals into a no-touch encounter (Belicia & Islam, 2018; D’Cruze et al., 2017; Moorhouse et al., 2017; Orams, 2000).
How do we move away from wildlife selfie tourism while still providing tourists an engaging and valued encounter with wildlife? A shift in focus away from tourism attractions offering a guaranteed physical interaction with individual animals towards a more responsible encounter is a possible solution to improve welfare and conservation of animals (Bulbeck, 2005). One example of this form of encounter includes sanctuary or rescue center tourism, which has been considered a paradigm shifter (Collard, 2014; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2009).
The demand for close encounters is not necessarily an inherent desire (Orams, 2000; Belicia & Islam, 2018), and many sanctuaries offer tourists the ability to see animals while not allowing touch interactions or selfies. The rehabilitation and release of animals back into the wild at sanctuaries has been considered a process of “decommodification” (Collard, 2014). Collard (2014) writes that in order for a wild animal to be “encounterable,” there must be “a series of severings” between the individual and their wild nature—including habituation and a loss of fear of humans—for the animal to be safely encountered by tourists.
Therefore, the rehabilitation process “[puts] these animals back together” by undoing the processes that made them encounterable and re-instilling a fear of humans in them before release. There is a “need to retain wild lives—that is, retain a sense of autonomy and alterity in and for nonhuman animals” (Collard, 2014, p. 162). Wildlife selfies challenge the ability to “retain wild lives” and thus contribute to the commodification of animals which can endanger their welfare and conservation.
One example of the latter is Carder et al.’s (2018) examination of the use of brown-throated three-toed sloths as “photo props” at tourist locations in Brazil and Peru. They found that nearly half of the time in which tourists were handling sloths during their photo opportunity, they did so in a manner that compromised the sloths’ welfare through physical manipulation. Furthermore, tourists were often not supervised while holding them. Of the 25 tour operators surveyed during this research, 76% offered sloth selfies. Behavioral observations showed that sloths were most often held in a way which likely caused stress (unsupported limbs, etc.), and sloths spent most of their time interacting with tourists in surveillance of their surroundings and handlers. This is a vigilance behavior which suggests fear and anxiety since it is not performed in the wild nearly as often compared to this captive scenario; however, the authors noted that there have not been published studies on the behaviors of sloths during handling.
This study serves as a “potential baseline” for future research in this area, especially that which compares behavior of sloths during “periods of handling and non-handling” and those which feature a larger sample size with longer and more frequent focal observations (Carder et al., 2018). The authors considered that tourists may not be aware of the impact of handling on sloth welfare, and emphasized the need for more research on tourist attitudes and increased awareness of ecotourism attractions which may endanger welfare.
Carder et al. (2018) observed during their study of sloth selfie tourism that other species were available as tourist photo props including “common caiman, green anaconda, and to touch, free-ranging baited squirrel monkeys, various parrot species and toucans” (p. 4). Primates especially are a major draw for wildlife selfies and encounters with tourists (McKinney, 2014; Negrín, Fuentes, Espinosa, & Dias, 2016; Webb & McCoy, 2014), and research around the impacts of tourists on macaques in both Africa and Asia has demonstrated the potential risks of zoonoses, increased aggression, and poaching generated by such attractions (Brotcorne et al., 2017; Hsu, Kao, & Agoramoorthy, 2009; Maréchal, Semple, Majolo, & MacLarnon, 2016; Maréchal et al., 2011; Schmidt-Burbach, Ronfot, & Srisangiam, 2015; Stazaker & Mackinnon, 2018).
The “Disneyfication” of animals through commodified encounters which facilitate wildlife selfie opportunities was recently studied in endangered Barbary Macaques used as photo props in Morocco (Stazaker & Mackinnon, 2018). The authors distributed surveys to tourists in an area which offered macaque selfies, and they found that most tourists (88%) did not intend to participate. Feedback from tourists who did not participate cited the monkeys’ treatment, captivity, exploitation, safety of the encounter, and “trader harassment” as reasons. Those who did participate cited “novelty and contact with the animal” as positive motivation, while half of the tourists recognized that it was a negative experience which included mistreatment of the animals (Stazaker & Mackinnon, 2018, p. 761). The authors note that macaque photo props challenge conservation goals and, while it is an illegal practice, 80% of tourists surveyed were unaware of the legislation surrounding it. They concluded that the monkeys “overall detract from the visitor experience” and emphasized that the desire for a close encounter with a wild animal may be “easily outweighed by pity for the animals’ plight and disapproval of their conditions” (Stazaker & Mackinnon, 2018, p. 773).
This study can be interpreted with optimism, since the majority of tourists were not interested in a macaque selfie and cited issues of animal welfare in part as justification. Perhaps the proliferation of social media campaigns and increasing accountability among tourism stakeholders are effectively promoting ethical animal encounters, thereby demoting those which endanger welfare. Further, these social media campaigns may be successful at communicating conservation initiatives, leading to some tourists being primed to distinguish the good from the bad animal tourism. There are still great strides to be made, however, in undermining the appeal of wildlife selfies both in and out of tourism contexts. This may involve a paradigmatic shift towards a respect for nature ethos (Taylor, 1981) or an ecofeminist ethic of care, which attends to an animal’s communicated interests (Yudina & Fennell, 2013; Yudina & Grimwood, 2016). Yudina and Grimwood (2016) write that presenting the wild animal as a “performing spectacle” endorses consumptive tourism (even in an ecotourism context) and ignores the animals’ interests, which ultimately “[portrays them] as agents of their own exploitation” (p. 726). This analysis certainly has relevance to selfies with wild animal and their circulation and representation on social media.
Wild Companion Animals and Social Media
Keeping wild animals as companion species is a phenomenon that is growing alarmingly, with economic and social implications for the wildlife trade that have yet to be fully examined. This is particularly true for parrots, considered globally to be one of the species most threatened by the wildlife trade. Empirical research by Russello, Avery, and Wright (2008) revealed an association between the establishment of the invasive monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus) in the United States and the international companion animal trade.
Furthermore, the issue of ensuring good welfare for wild companion animals in captivity may be underestimated (Baker et al., 2013). One study showed 259 posts on social media advertising the sale of African Grey Parrots between 2014 and 2017, of which at least 70% likely violated national laws, Cites regulations, and basic welfare standards (Martin, Senni, & D’Cruze, 2018). The majority of exports were from the Democratic Republic of Congo, with most importers based in western and southern Asia. The authors suggest “an urgent need for targeted actions by airlines and enforcement agencies” in order to disrupt the illegal wildlife trade as it is facilitated by social media (Martin et al., 2018, p. 1).
Martin, Senni, and D’Cruze (2018) determined that the welfare conditions were typically impoverished, by analyzing images from the posted advertisements with depictions of individual parrots housed in single compartments and no visible perches—failing to meet International Air Transport Association (IATA) regulations. It was predicted that food and water were not always sufficiently provisioned, and that both holding and transport conditions further endangered welfare. Future similar research is necessary, since documenting welfare conditions remotely through social media photos and videos is not only challenging, but relatively under-researched—potentially leading to stakeholders to discount this important issue.
The same authors note that large-scale monitoring of social media is difficult; wildlife traders openly and boldly share information publicly, suggesting there is little fear of enforcement (Martin et al., 2018). One limitation to investigating the wildlife trade through social media, however, is that many transactions take place in private communication (i.e., inter-website messaging) and not publicly in the comment sections of posts. This makes it difficult to ascertain when a purchase has been made. There may also be scam-traders who fraudulently post while not actually having any animals for sale. Such complications led the authors to conclude that, to meet their sampling standards, the posts analyzed represented only a small section of a larger online trade through the (unidentified) social media platform. Since African Grey parrots are threatened by overexploitation for the companion animal trade, this is an issue growing in urgency and requiring heightened monitoring and regulation.
How does social media promote inappropriate encounters or relationships with respect to wild animals and their sale as companion animals? Clarke et al. (2019) analyzed data collected opportunistically via Twitter surrounding a viral video of a companion animal ring-tailed lemur in 2016. They surveyed thousands of tweets and found 613 in which the authors declared their desire for a lemur as a pet. Indeed, the authors found that as the number of tweets increased and the video became popular, so did the number of tweets expressing a desire for a lemur. Clarke et al. (2019) concluded that, within the confines of this study, there is likely little threat to wild lemur conservation, since companion animal lemurs in the United States and United Kingdom are captive bred and not traded within Madagascar.
They caution, however, that videos depicting wild animals as tame “could reinforce misconceptions” that they are ideal companion animals and influence their desirability (Clarke et al., 2019, p. 11). Clarke et al. (2019) provide examples of this phenomenon by way of the increased interest in the focal animals of popular films such as 101 Dalmatians, Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, and Finding Nemo as companion animals—but this link is still contested (citing Christy, 2008; Herzog, Bentley, & Hahn, 2004; Megias et al., 2017; Militz & Foale, 2017; Nijman & Nekaris, 2017). More research is needed on how viral videos and media featuring wild animals influence the desire for them as comanions.
The virtual wild animal trade on social media is a complex phenomenon which allows for relatively low risk of reprimand to both sellers and buyers, as monitoring and tracking is problematic for regulatory authorities. The illegal wildlife trade is not well-studied, despite being a major illegal industry, since it often takes place on the “dark web” (Harrison et al., 2016; Roberts & Hernandez-Castro, 2017). In recent years, the developments of new technologies and artificial intelligence have led to attempts to use machine learning to examine the online companion animal trade (Di Minin et al., 2018; Di Minin et al., 2019).
Most scholarship to date examines the legal trade, however, and rarely has a complete understanding of its illegal counterpart been offered (Lavorgna, 2015). A preliminary study used the website www.healthmap.org/wildlifetrade, which is freely accessible and reports interceptions of the illegal trade of wild animals and their parts. The countries which appear the most frequently in reports include the United States, South Africa, China, and Vietnam. The most frequently traded and poached species reported are elephants, rhinos, tigers, leopards, and pangolins. The authors emphasize that since the search terms for this website are currently only in English, then there may be an underestimation of the size of the illegal wildlife trade (Sonricker Hansens et al., 2012).
The internet can be a powerful tool for researchers to study the illegal wildlife trade (Lavorgna, 2014), especially on social networks such as Facebook. Eid and Handal (2018) examined seven Facebook groups for hunters, and discovered photographs documenting the killing of thousands of native animals, representing diverse species—many of which were under special protection. The authors point to an “alarming picture of overhunting of threatened species and ineffective enforcement of hunting laws” as revealed by their use of social media to detect illegal hunting activity (Eid & Handal, 2018, p. 730).
Similar research from Hinsley et al. (2016) considered the online market for orchid trading as it is facilitated through online groups and forums, suggesting it may be a model for further research on other wildlife trading such as ivory. Their results showed that, despite a relatively low total percentage of plant advertisements (around 9% of over 55,000 posts analyzed), 22 to 46% of these advertisements were for wild-collected orchids. Thus, there is a need for increased monitoring of the wildlife trade as it is facilitated by social media (Hinsley et al., 2016).
Luckily, social media can also positively impact regulation of the illegal wildlife trade by bringing attention to it through public discussion. Awareness campaigns carried out on a Facebook page led to an increase in the awareness of Facebook users on the subject of the illegal macaque (Macaca sylvanus) trade in Morocco (Waters & El-Harrad, 2013). Thus, informed users can post their concerns and plans to pressure governments for regulatory and monitoring reforms (Nghiem et al., 2012), or to design action plans (Siriwat & Nijman, 2018).
This section reviewed studies examining media uploaded by users depicting their wild companion animals, and how the facilitation and monitoring of the wild companion animal trade transpires on social media. In conclusion, concerning the conservation and welfare of wild animals, social media is a double-edged sword (Radjawali, 2011). It is a means by which researchers and authorities can intercept markets for the illegal wild companion animal trade, and increase public awareness of such issues. Conversely, it is precisely through these virtual interfaces that the trade occurs, and that users can share media which promotes the desire for wild companion animals.
Conclusion
This article reviewed the current research on how social media influences public perceptions of wild animals with regard to wildlife selfies and the wildlife trade. After reviewing the scholarship, it is apparent this topic is in its infancy, and it is necessary for future research to deepen our understanding of how social media can be harnessed as a “tool of good” by researchers to study public perceptions of animals and conservation issues, and to monitor the virtual trade and movement of animal bodies online.
In particular, we call for more studies on awareness campaigns concerning the (un)suitability of wild animals as companion animals and tourism/selfie attractions. Do campaigns such as World Animal Protection’s “wildlife selfie pledge” have a positive effect on changing consumer perceptions of what comprises an ethical animal encounter or relationship?
Although this review has discussed scientific evidence pertaining to this topic, there are still relatively few studies in the literature regarding the harmful effect of wildlife selfies and direct-touch encounters on animal welfare and conservation. We advise more comprehensive research on this topic. Lastly, we call for more research into the representation of wild animals across social media platforms, as it facilitates (directly or indirectly) the wildlife trade and desire for wild companion species: an understudied issue that is not fully understood.
It is necessary to reflect on the consequences for animal welfare and conservation, given the speed with which new technologies develop, and the increasing use of the internet and social media globally. Research from the animal scholarship has demonstrated that the virtual reality of the internet can seriously impact public perceptions of wildlife and consumer markets, which directly influence the occurrence of wild animal abuse, illegal trading, and harmful tourism encounters.
References
Bagley, D. K., & Gonsman, V. L. (2005). Pet attachment and personality type. Anthrozoös, 18(1), 28-42. DOI: 10.2752/089279305785594333.
Baker, S. E., Cain, R., van Kesteren, F., Zommers, Z. A., D’Cruze, N., & Macdonald, D. W. (2013). Rough trade: Animal welfare in the global wildlife trade. BioScience, 63(12), 928-938. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.6.
Belicia, T., & Islam, M. (2018). Towards a decommodified wildlife tourism: Why market environmentalism is not enough for conservation. Societies, 59(8), 2-15. doi:10.3390/soc8030059.
Bosslet, G. T. (2011). Commentary: The good, the bad, and the ugly of social media. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(11), 1221-1222. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01197.x.
Brotcorne, F., Giraud, G., Gunst, N., Fuentes, A., Wandia, I. N., Beudels-Jamar, R. C., & Leca, J.-B. (2017). Intergroup variation in robbing and bartering by long-tailed macaques at Uluwatu Temple (Bali, Indonesia). Primates, 58(4), 505-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0611-1.
Bulbeck, C. 2005. Facing the Wild: Ecotourism, Conservation and Animal Encounters. London: Earthscan.
Carder, G., Plese, T., Machado, F., Paterson, S., Matthews, N., McAnea, L., & D’Cruze, N. (2018). The impact of ‘selfie’ tourism on the behaviour and welfare of brown-throated three-toed sloths. Animals, 8(11), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8110216.
Clarke, T. A., Reuter, K. E., LaFleur, M., & Schaefer, M. S. (2019). A viral video and pet lemurs on Twitter. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0208577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208577.
Collard, R.-C. (2014). Putting animals back together, taking commodities apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(1), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.847750.
D’Cruze, N., Machado, F. C., Matthews, N., Balaskas, M., Carder, G., Richardson, V., & Vieto, R. (2017). A review of wildlife ecotourism in Manaus, Brazil. Nature Conservation, 22, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.22.17369.
D’Ovidio, D., & Pirrone, F. (2018). A cross-sectional survey to evaluate the pet squirrel population and ownership profiles. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 159, 55-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.08.018.
Daly, N. (2017). Exclusive: Instagram fights animal abuse with new alert system. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/wildlife-watch-instagram-selfie-tourism-animal-welfare-crime/.
Di Minin, E., Fink, C., Hiippala, T., & Tenkanen, H. (2019). A framework for investigating illegal wildlife trade on social media with machine learning. Conservation Biology, 33(1), 210-213. doi:10.1111/cobi.13104.
Di Minin, E., Fink, C., Tenkanen, H., & Hiippala, T. (2018). Machine learning for tracking illegal wildlife trade on social media. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 406-407. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0466-x.
Diehl, T., Weeks, B. E., & De Zúñiga, G. H. (2016). Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1875-1895. doi:10.1177/1461444815616224.
Duffy, R. (2014). Interactive elephants: Nature, tourism and neoliberalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.09.003.
Eid, E., & Handal, R. (2018). Illegal hunting in Jordan: Using social media to assess impacts on wildlife. Oryx, 52(04), 730-735. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001629.
Fidino, M., Herr, S. W., & Magle, S. B. (2018). Assessing online opinions of wildlife through social media. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(5), 482-490. DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2018.1468943.
Goh, K., Heng, C. S., & Lin, Z. (2013). Social media brand community and consumer behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user-and marketer-generated content. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 88-107. doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0469.
Harrison, J. R., Roberts, D. L., & Hernandez‐Castro, J. (2016). Assessing the extent and nature of wildlife trade on the dark web. Conservation Biology, 30(4), 900-904. doi:10.1111/cobi.12707.
Herzog, H. A., Bentley, R. A., & Hahn, M. W. (2004). Random drift and large shifts in popularity of dog breeds. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 271(5), S353-S356. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0185.
Hinsley, A., Lee, T. E., Harrison, J. R., & Roberts, D. L. (2016). Estimating the extent and structure of trade in horticultural orchids via social media. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 1038-1047. doi:10.1111/cobi.12721.
Hsu, M. J., Kao, C-C., & Agoramoorthy, G. (2009). Interactions between visitors and Formosan macaques (Macaca cyclopis) at Shou-Shan Nature Park, Taiwan. American Journal of Primatology, 71(3), 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20638.
Intrepid Animal Welfare Guidelines. (n.d.). Intrepid Group. https://www.intrepidtravel.com/sites/intrepid/files/teal/intrepid_marketing/266607231_Animal-Welfare-Guidelines-LR_update.pdf.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2009). Wildlife tourism in semi-captive settings: A case study of elephant camps in northern Thailand. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(5-6), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500903042873.
Lavorgna, A. (2014). Wildlife trafficking in the Internet age. Crime Science, 3(5), 1-12. doi:10.1186/s40163-014-0005-2.
Lavorgna, A. (2015). The social organization of pet trafficking in cyberspace. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(353), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9273-y.
Maréchal, L., Semple, S., Majolo, B., & MacLarnon, A. (2016). Assessing the effects of tourist provisioning on the health of wild Barbary macaques in Morocco. PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0155920. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155920.
Maréchal, L., Semple, S., Majolo, B., Qarro, M., Heistermann, M., & MacLarnon, A. (2011). Impacts of tourism on anxiety and physiological stress levels in wild male Barbary macaques. Biological Conservation, 144(9), 2188-2193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.05.010.
Martin, R. O., Senni, C., & D’Cruze, N. C. (2018). Trade in wild-sourced African grey parrots: Insights via social media. Global Ecology and Conservation, 15, e00429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00429.
McKinney, T. (2014). Species-specific responses to tourist interactions by white-faced capuchins (Cebus imitator) and mantled howlers (Alouatta palliata) in a Costa Rican wildlife refuge. International Journal of Primatology, 35(2), 573-589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-014-9769-1.
Megias, D. A., Anderson, S. C., Smith, R. J., & Veríssimo, D. (2017). Investigating the impact of media on demand for wildlife: A case study of Harry Potter and the UK trade in owls. PLOS ONE, 12(10), e0182368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182368.
Ménard, N., Foulquier, A., Vallet, D., Qarro, M., Le Gouar, P., & Pierre, J-S. (2014). How tourism and pastoralism influence population demographic changes in a threatened large mammal species: Tourism and pastoralism effects on mammal demography. Animal Conservation, 17(2), 115-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12063.
Militz, T. A., & Foale, S. (2017). The “Nemo Effect”: Perception and reality of Finding Nemo’s impact on marine aquarium fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 18(3), 596-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12202.
Moorhouse, T. P., Balaskas, M., D’Cruze, N. C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2017). Information could reduce consumer demand for exotic pets. Conservation Letters, 10(3), 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12270.
Moorhouse, T. P., D’Cruze, N. C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2017a). The effect of priming, nationality and greenwashing on preferences for wildlife tourist attractions. Global Ecology and Conservation, 12, 188-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.11.007.
Moorhouse, T. P., D’Cruze, N. C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2017b). Unethical use of wildlife in tourism: What’s the problem, who is responsible, and what can be done? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(4), 505-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1223087.
Moorhouse, T. P., Dahlsjö, C. A. L., Baker, S. E., D’Cruze, N. C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2015). The customer isn’t always right—Conservation and animal welfare implications of the increasing demand for wildlife tourism. PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0138939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138939.
Negrín, A. R., Fuentes, A. C., Espinosa, D. C., & Dias, P. A. D. (2016). The loss of behavioral diversity as a consequence of anthropogenic habitat disturbance: The social interactions of black howler monkeys. Primates, 57(1), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-015-0503-1.
Nekaris, B. K. A-I., Campbell, N., Coggins, T. G., Rode, E. J., & Nijman, V. (2013). Tickled to death: Analysing public perceptions of ‘cute’ videos of threatened species (slow lorises—Nycticebus spp.) on web 2.0 sites. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e69215. doi:10.1371/jour nal.pone.0069215.
Nekaris, B. K. A-I., Musing, L., Vazquez, A. G., & Donati, G. (2015). Is tickling torture? Assessing welfare towards slow lorises (Nycticebus spp.) within web 2.0 videos. Folia Primatologica, 86(69), 534-551. doi:10.1159/000444231.
Nghiem, L. T. P., Webb, E. L., & Carrasco, L. R. (2012). Saving Vietnam’s wildlife through social media. Science, 338(6104), 192-193. doi:10.1126/science.338.6104.192-b.
Nijman, V., & Nekaris, K. A-I. (2017). The Harry Potter effect: The rise in trade of owls as pets in Java and Bali, Indonesia. Global Ecology and Conservation, 11, 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.04.004.
Orams, M. B. (2000). The Economic Benefits of Whale-Watching in Vava’u, The Kingdom of Tonga. Centre for Tourism Research, New Zealand: Massey University at Albany.
Radjawali, I. (2011). Social networks and the live reef food fish trade: Examining sustainability. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities, 4, 67-102. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/256165.
Roberts, D., & Hernandez-Castro, J. (2017). Bycatch and illegal wildlife trade on the dark web. Oryx, 51(3), 393-394. doi:10.1017/S0030605317000679.
Rushby, K. (2016). TripAdvisor bans ticket sales to attractions that allow contact with wild animals. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/oct/12/tripadvisor-no-touch-policy-wild-animals-holiday-attractions.
Russello, M. A., Avery, M. L., & Wright, T. F. (2008). Genetic evidence links invasive monk parakeet populations in the United States to the international pet trade. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8, 217. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-8-217.
Schmidt-Burbach, J., Ronfot, D., & Srisangiam, R. (2015). Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus), pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) and tiger (Panthera tigris) populations at tourism venues in Thailand and aspects of their welfare. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0139092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139092.
Schuetz, J., Soykan, C. U., Distler, T., & Langham, G. (2015). Searching for backyard birds in virtual worlds: Internet queries mirror real species distributions. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(5), 1147-1154. doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0847-7.
Siriwat, P., & Nijman, V. (2018). Using online media-sourced seizure data to assess the illegal wildlife trade in Siamese rosewood. Environmental Conservation, 45(4), 352-360. doi:10.1017/S037689291800005X.
Sonricker Hansen, A. L., Li, A., Joly, D., Mekaru, S., & Brownstein, J. S. (2012). Digital surveillance: A novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade. PLOS ONE, 7(12), e51156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051156.
Stazaker, K., & Mackinnon, J. (2018). Visitor perceptions of captive, endangered Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) used as photo props in Jemaa El Fna Square, Marrakech, Morocco. Anthrozoös, 31(6), 761-776. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1529360.
Taylor, P. W. (1981). The ethics of respect for nature. Environmental Ethics, 3(3), 197-218. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19813321.
Vail, R. M. (2018). Wildlife as pets: Reshaping public perceptions through targeted communication. Human—Wildlife Interactions, 12(2), 293-298. doi: https://doi.org/10.26077/738c-nt69.
Vonk, J., Patton, C., & Galvan, M. (2016). Not so cold-blooded: Narcissistic and borderline personality traits predict attachment to traditional and non-traditional pets. Anthrozoös, 29, 627-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2016.1228762.
Waters, S., & El-Harrad, A. (2013). A note on the effective use of social media to raise awareness against the illegal trade in Barbary macaques. African Primates, 8, 67-68. http://www.barbarymacaque.org/publications/support-is-the-heart-of-our-cause/.
Webb, S. E. W., & McCoy, M. B. (2014). Ecotourism and primate habituation: Behavioral variation in two groups of white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus) from Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical, 62(3), 909. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v62i3.14064.
World Animal Protection. (n.d.). Wildlife selfie code. Retrieved from https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/wildlife-selfie-code.
World Animal Protection. (2018). Associated with cruelty: How travel trade associations are ignoring wild animal abuse. https://d31j74p4lpxrfp.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/int_files/how_travel_trade_associations_are_ignoring_wild_animal_abuse_-_report_november_2018.pdf.
Yudina, O., & Fennell, D. (2013). Ecofeminism in the tourism context: A discussion of the use of other-than-human animals as food in tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 38(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2013.11081729.
Yudina, O., & Grimwood, B. S. R. (2016). Situating the wildlife spectacle: Ecofeminism, representation, and polar bear tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(5), 715-734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1083996.