Wildlife Photos on Social Media: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Conservation Organisations' Instagram Images.

Wildlife populations are vanishing at alarmingly high rates. This issue is being addressed by organisations around the world and when utilizing social media sites like Instagram, images are potentially more powerful than words at conveying crucial conservation messages and garnering public support. However, different elements of these images have been shown to potentially have either positive or negative effects on viewers' attitudes and behaviours towards wildlife and towards the organisation posting the image. This study used a quantitative content analysis to assess the most common and engaging elements of wildlife images posted to Instagram in 2020 and 2021, using Australian conservation organisations as a case study. A total of 670 wildlife images from the Instagram accounts of 160 conservation organisation Instagram accounts were coded and analysed. Results highlight that the most common image elements used included natural backgrounds, mammals and birds, and no human presence. In addition, it was found that the taxon of the animal featured in a post and the presence of humans did not impact engagement levels. Our findings highlight the potential for Instagram posts to feature and promote a wide range of currently underrepresented species, and for conservation organisations to be able to confidently share and post images that promote positive perceptions of both the animal and the conservation organisation.

Human Positioning in Close-Encounter Photographs and the Effect on Public Perceptions of Zoo Animals.

With the rising popularity of social media, conservation organisations and zoos need to understand its impact on public perceptions of the animals they house and their role in conservation. In addition, many zoos offer close-encounter experiences, and visitors frequently share images from these experiences online. This study measured the effects that viewing such encounter images had on public perceptions of both the zoo and the animals they saw. One of sixteen images was randomly presented to participants in two samples: one of Zoo Community followers and members of Zoos Victoria (n = 963), and a representative sample of the Australian public (n = 1619). Each image featured one of four animals (Eclectus parrot, Kangaroo Island kangaroo, Monteith's leaf insect, Centralian carpet python) and one of four human positions (human and animal touching, human and animal ~30 cm apart, human and animal ~1 m apart, animal alone). Results indicated that viewing different animals and the different human positions within these human-animal encounter images can affect public perceptions of zoo animals. In particular, the closer the proximity of a human to an animal in an image, the more likely respondents were to think that the animal was not displaying a natural behaviour and the more likely it was for General Public respondents to think that the animal would make a good pet. These findings can be used by zoos, wildlife tourism, and media organisations to ensure that they are sending clear, positive, and intended messages about zoo facilities and animals, as well as providing insights into animal encounter images in wider settings.