Likes, comments, and emergency responses: exploring the burden of social media tourism on land managers and the need for risk communication

Abstract

Background

The impact of social media on tourism has led to adverse health outcomes such as an increase in injuries and deaths at photogenic but hazardous locations, highlighting the challenges for land managers in ensuring visitor safety in the digital age.

Aims

The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of how land managers are adapting to the emerging safety issue of social media-driven tourism and its attendant risk-taking behaviour. The study further aimed to elucidate potential risk communication strategies that land managers are considering to avert this issue.

Methods

Between March and June 2023, 14 online surveys administered via Qualtrics and 18 semi-structured interviews were carried out with Australian national park and local council land managers. This process enabled us to understand how land managers see the issue of social media and selfie-related incidents and the impact of social media on visitation, highlighting the key challenges that face land managers when dealing with social media-related incidents and how they are adapting to these novel land management circumstances in risk mitigation and via online communication strategies.

Results

Only half of the surveyed land managers actively collected data on selfie-related incidents and half identified photography incidents as an issue. The majority of land managers believed that those aged 15–25 were most at risk. Interviews pointed to the emergence of a "new tourist", whose behaviour wasn’t influenced by traditional safety communication. The conflicting priorities within land management organisations further complicated solutions, with a tension between online promotion of desirable locations and a lack of digital communication regarding injury risks.

Discussion

With past research advocating for "no selfie zones" and signage, the current study suggests a need for direct digital health and safety messaging to social media users, underscoring the necessity to develop co-designed online strategies, including social marketing, to address these challenges.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The use of social media in tourism has led to more accidents and deaths in beautiful but dangerous places. We talked to people who manage national parks and local areas in Australia. Only half of them keep track of accidents caused by taking selfies, and not everyone sees it as a problem. Most think young people between 15 and 25 are most at risk. Some have taken steps to prevent accidents, but not many online. The study also found a new kind of tourist who doesn’t pay attention to traditional safety messages. There’s a conflict between promoting places online and warning about risks. Our research suggests using social media to directly tell people about environmental hazards and working together to solve these issues.

Keywords:

• Selfie
• digital health
• death
• injury
• risk
• health communication
• social media
• drowning
• land managers
• emergency managers

Introduction

The exponential growth of social media use and the phenomenon of taking selfies have created significant challenges for land managers (Cornell et al., 2023a) and tourism operators. While selfie-taking is not inherently dangerous, many individuals seek out potentially dangerous locations to capture more visually enticing selfies. Social media platforms incentivise this behaviour by offering dopaminergic rewards such as follower counts, likes, and comments, leading many users to take selfies to distribute them as far and wide as possible—exponentially increasing the reward (Riehm et al., 2019).

Selfie-related injuries and deaths have been reported globally, with aquatic locations being prevalent geographic hotspots for such incidents (Cornell et al., 2023b). Selfie-related injuries and deaths have been reported in the media, most commonly in India, the USA, and Russia (Jain and Mavani, 2017). The mean age of victims of selfie-related injury is reported as 23–24 years old (Dokur et al., 2018; Linares et al., 2021) and research indicates that males (Bansal et al., 2018) are more likely to be involved in selfie-related deaths and injuries due to engaging in riskier behaviours, such as taking selfies at cliffs and aquatic locations (Flaherty and Smith, 2019; Sanci et al., 2023). Across the globe, aquatic locations are prevalent geographic hotspots for selfie-related injuries and deaths. At these aquatic locations, falling from height, and drowning are the most common mechanisms of injury and death and often co-occur (Byard, 2019).

Tasked with maintaining visitor safety at such locations are land managers, defined as a person, or organisation, that has responsibility for the use, preservation, and development of an area of land, such as a national park (Enemark, 2006). Land managers can have responsibility over diverse locations, including remote, sparsely populated areas with little infrastructure, and densely populated cities with a mixture of geographic and human-related hazards. Furthermore, the role of the land manager can include a wide remit of responsibilities from conservation of the land to public safety and online tourism promotion. This wide remit of accountabilities can induce conflicts within organisations that are tasked with these responsibilities but struggle to find the appropriate balance between the requisite taskings (Weir and Duff, 2017).

Not only do land managers have to consider their environment in context, but the demographics of visitors can vary widely. Different types of visitation present different types of risk. The challenge for the land manager is to understand the behaviour of each archetypal visitor to thus enable appropriate safety planning and risk mitigation, including digital communication. Traditionally, land managers have been able to delineate both domestic and international visitors into categories such as sportsperson, sightseer, birdwatcher, and adventurer, amongst others (Uriely, 2005), but in the modern era, visitation to wild, remote, or picturesque locations has significantly increased, and the type of visitor may not be as easily assigned.

The intrinsic motivations of social media users, visiting locations found on social media, remain unclear. However, recent literature (Bozzola et al., 2022) has considered whether this increase in visitation has been driven by a desire of social media users to post photos, including selfies, of beautiful scenes, mirroring those they had seen on social media. Therefore, contemporary challenges facing land managers include determining the motivations for visitation of new tourists, driven by social media, how best to provide a safe experience for these visitors on managed lands, as well as how to communicate safety information in a crowded online environment to a digitally shrewd cohort. Research has found an association between social media use, national park visitation, and the number of search and rescue operations undertaken in US National Parks (Lu et al., 2021).

We are interested in understanding land managers’ perspectives on the current issues surrounding social media-driven visitation, including elucidating the activities, programs, and communication strategies that land managers have attempted to avert harm, as well as the challenges they face in maintaining visitor health and safety. Until now, there has been a dearth of knowledge regarding the issue of social media-related tourism as it pertains to land managers. Synthesising this knowledge will be informative not only for land managers but for the tourism industry more widely in the development of digital risk communication on this topic.

Aims

The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of how land managers are adapting to the emerging safety issue of social media-driven tourism and its attendant risk-taking behaviour. The study further aimed to elucidate potential risk communication strategies that land managers are considering to avert this issue.

Methods

Study type and design

This study involved a brief quantitative survey which informed the following qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Surveys and interviews were conducted between March and June 2023 with a convenience sample of Australian-based land managers. Surveys were conducted online using Qualtrics. Interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. Inclusion criteria entailed being over the age of 18, being able to speak English, and working for a land management organisation, such as a local council or a national park.

Survey development and analysis

A 19-question anonymous survey was developed as a tool to provide initial insights to the issue and inform the interview guide. The survey was designed for those land managers who did not have the time to participate in an interview, and as a conduit for those land managers who wished to express interest in talking about their experience further in an interview. The survey consisted of 9 demographic questions and 10 questions relating to the issue of social media-related visitation and photography as it pertains to land managers. Survey respondents were asked if their organisations collect data on selfie-related incidents that occur on their land, how serious of an issue they determine selfie incidents to be and if any risk mitigation strategies, including digital communication activities, specific to selfie and social media users had been implemented on lands under their management. The survey was pilot tested by the study team to check for flow, and ease of use. The survey tool is available in Supplementary Appendix 1. All survey response data were downloaded into Microsoft Excel. Quantitative data were analysed in R.

Development of interview schedule

Interview questions were based on a semi-structured interview schedule (Supplementary Appendix 2) covering interviewees knowledge of the role of a land manager, their experience of implementing public safety projects, dealing with social media related incidents, and their thoughts about organisational solutions to the problem of social media related injuries and deaths. The interview schedule was developed by the study team which included experts in public health injury prevention, drowning prevention, qualitative methods, coastal science, tourism management and risk communication.

Interviewee and survey recruitment

Land manager contacts were initially identified from the study team’s professional networks using a snowballing methodology. Participants passed on the details of the researcher conducting the interviews (SC) to their own connections and those contacts contacted the researcher to participate. Additional participants were identified through interviewees’ networks, using purposive sampling to obtain a diverse interviewee group by location (state, national park, local council) and role (frontline land management staff such as Park Rangers, and executive or managerial level land management staff). Other participants were identified in their responses to the survey. Potential interviewees were emailed a study information statement and consent form. All interviewees signed a consent form and returned it via email. Interviewees were not offered reimbursement for participation.

Qualitative, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted between March 2023 and June 2023 by one researcher (SC) working with the study team, all via Microsoft Teams. All interviews were audio recorded only. Audio recordings were de-identified using Interviewee ID numbers and transcribed verbatim. Any references to identifying information (names, locations) in the transcripts were removed from the saved files, prior to analysis.

Interview analysis

After 18 interviews, covering diverse land management roles, regions of Australia, and differing land management organisations, it became apparent that themes around the role of land managers in dealing with social media-related incidents were consistent and it was not necessary to conduct further interviews. A Framework Analysis method (Gale et al., 2013) was used to analyse interview transcripts (by authors SC, AP), and interpretation of the results were discussed with the study team. This method is an iterative (as opposed to linear) process of thematic analysis following the principles prescribed by Richie et al (Ritchie et al., 2023) The first step in this process was for the team to familiarise themselves with the raw data (the verbatim transcripts). SC and AP independently read through a subset of 10 transcripts and identified themes using both deductive (researcher driven, focused on land manager responses to social media harms) and inductive (response-based, covering broader land management issues) methods. The authorship team identified recurring themes and ideas within the participant responses in the transcripts.

The themes were then sorted into larger, overarching categories, with subthemes located within. The initial conceptual framework was then applied to raw data (5 transcripts) and further refined by the team. Direct quotations, attributed to participant ID number are used throughout to populate themes identified. Once consensus was reached on the framework, all transcripts were coded by SC. Interpretation of results was discussed with the whole author team, including experts in qualitative methods (SC) public health with a focus on drowning (AP) and a coastal scientist with experience in tourism management (RB). Researcher positioning, including personal characteristics and prior experiences impacts qualitative data interpretation, and the way that data is translated into findings (Berger, 2015). Recognising and addressing this positioning as an inherent part of the study increases rigour (Bradbury-Jones, 2007).

Human Ethics approval for the study was granted by the UNSW Sydney Human Ethics Panel (No. HC230048).

Results

Survey results

Fourteen surveys were completed by land managers working across 7 organisations in 4 Australian states and territories (Table 1). Seven survey participants responded in the affirmative about whether they collect information on incidents that involves selfies or photos being taken that result in injuries/deaths or rescues. Of those, 4 respondents explained that incident reports were conducted, 2 respondents said news reports or accounts were passed on by Rangers and one respondent said that digital information in the form of social media posts were collected to identify dangerous locations.

Table 1. Interviewee and survey participant characteristics.

	Interviewee (N = 18)	Survey participant (N = 14)
State	N (%)	N (%)
New South Wales	7 (39)	4 (29)
Queensland	9 (50)	7 (50)
Victoria	1 (6)	1 (7)
Northern Territory	1 (6)	0
Multi state	0	2 (14)
Professional Role	N (%)	N (%)
Frontline staff (e.g., Ranger)	8 (44)	1 (7)
Managerial/Executive level	10 (56)	13 (93)
Type of land management organisation	N (%)	N (%)
Local Council	5 (28)	2 (14)
National Park Service	13 (72)	10 (71)
Nationwide organisation	0	2 (14)
Total	18 (100)	14 (100)

Respondents were asked to rate the seriousness of the problem of photography-related injuries and deaths and, specifically, selfie related injuries and deaths. When asked “How serious of a problem do you consider photography related injuries and deaths?” only 2 land managers did not consider it to be a problem with 2 land managers also not considering selfie incidents a problem. Most (n = 10) respondents considered people aged 15–25 years to be most at-risk of selfie-related injuries and deaths on the lands they worked on.

Qualitative interviews

Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with land managers across 4 Australian states of Australia, covering 8 land management organisations (Table 1). Interviewees included a mix of “frontline” staff such as Park Rangers, and executive or management level staff. There were no noticeable qualitative differences observed between frontline staff (e.g., Rangers) and managers. Overall, our interviews found that land managers viewed social media and selfie-related incidents as a serious problem taking place on the land they manage and felt they were facing the following specific challenges: 1. Struggling to keep up with the latest social media trends, which were driving a “new tourist” to their lands; 2. Legacy methods of risk communication and engineering strategies were failing; and 3. Competing priorities from both within, and external to, their organisations on how to manage public safety whilst balancing tourism, access, and conservation needs. These challenges, which are presented as themes with associated sub-themes, are now described further.

The new tourist

Many interviewees expounded upon a new kind of visitor that had become prevalent in national parks and coastal areas managed by local councils. Interviewees described a type of visitor that was out of their depth in natural areas, a city dweller familiar with navigating streets, but not remote or coastal locations with inherent hazards. Digital communication via social media was judged to be changing the demographics of visitors in National Parks—from an older and more experienced type of visitor (such as bushwalkers) to a younger, less experienced visitor, the “new tourist”.

we noticed massive increase in the number of people, and the kind of visitor that we were getting. We’re getting a lot more people who are maybe urban based, didn’t spend a lot of time in national parks, weren’t particularly familiar with the concept of bushwalking and a bit of basic safety and equipment and things. People in high heels, people walking their dogs, which you’re not meant to do in national parks. People bring their cats in a backpack for a quick visit. P1

Interviewees explained how this “new tourist” was driven to the lands they managed by social media images, and that a specific group of “influencers” was engaging and promoting the riskiest behaviour. This was put in contrast to other visitors with social media accounts who may not be visiting for the same reasons.

I think it’s not the general visitor with the social media account. It seems to be the influencers that have the negative impact… And then those influencer shots seem to be picked up by tourism bodies and stuff like that. And it just—it gets further. P11

Land managers explained that the modern sociological phenomenon of the “influencer” was driving increased foot traffic to certain locations and that these influencers had a lot of power in dictating when and where other people would arrive en masse. The situation was proving to be unpredictable for land managers.

All it would take would be one well-known social media person, personality getting a selfie and all of a sudden you have a lot more people out there. P2.

Land managers described visitors going to sites to create social media content that was reminiscent of tourism operator advertising, and the people creating this type of content were considered to be regular social media users.

It’s almost like people pretending to be influencers, but not actually being influencers, that kind of stuff. They might have a tiny family following, but they’re still doing the same kind of almost tourism-orientated videos for their friends. P3

The mission to get the photo

This “new tourist” was seen as partaking in behaviour that was previously unknown to land managers. Land managers described a kind of tourist that was determined to get a photograph or selfie at any and all costs.

I think they’re very goal orientated. They’re just going to get there, get that snap and go off. And chase something else. P6

Land managers made the comparison that social media users were willing to endure much greater physical challenges to get a selfie or photo in a beautiful location than they would in their day-to-day lives. This was seen as due to the potential reward of the photo for social media versus any potential risk in going to obtain the image.

I think it’s social media. It definitely is the big game changer. Why do people thrash themselves to get on top of Mount Beerwah, when normally they wouldn’t go up the fire stairs in the shopping centre? They go on the escalator. But, “no, let’s try and thrash ourselves, and mum, and we’ll get to the top with all the others up there and take a photo of ourselves.” So exposing themselves to a risk that they’re not familiar with that landscape at all. P10.

Another land manager determined that people were seeking photos because of copycat behaviour—they saw influencers online getting the photo and wanted to imitate them. This behaviour was displayed even if the area they were wishing to photograph was restricted.

there’s the Pink Caves [restricted location] in the Hunter Central Coast region, people are trying to get there for photos because other influencers had taken photos of them. P3

Interviewees agreed that this “new tourist” was taking trips to acquire photos to display on their own social media, regardless of cost, and leaving as quickly as possible once they had conquered what they sought.

You know, it’s all just to get that photo, really. That’s it. People definitely, more so now than ever, I think, are coming for the photo. They’re not coming for a bushwalk and to look around at the trees and to experience nature. They’re coming to get that photo and that’s all they really care about. P7

Land managers explained that this “new tourist” was more concerned about the visual aesthetics of their photographs due to their conscious presentation via social media, and this led to them taking more risks for a more pleasing photograph, including climbing over barricades and fences that existed as safety infrastructure.

I think they want to get a photo without a fence in it. You know, because the view isn’t better. It’s just, they want to get a photo without a fence in it, and “Look at me with my toes over the edge of the crumbly sandstone cliff.” P11

Legacy communication and engineering strategies are failing

Land managers explained that they saw selfie and social media-related incidents as a problem afflicting their organisations. The problem was described as nefarious in that a macabre incident could promulgate the next due to the viral tendencies of social media content.

…it was so publicised with social media users there was an influx of more social media users that were attending the sites after those incidents. P4

Land managers illustrated the severity of the allure of certain photographs by explaining that even specific and costly engineering treatments were unable to stop people from getting the photo that they wanted.

So for the Diamond Bay incident because they fell off the cliff into the ocean, the response was to put temporary fences up. And to put it into perspective as well, this was a boardwalk area with a one-metre balustrade which people had found a way to get around the boardwalk, underneath the boardwalk and then over to the other side of the cliff. And so there was a clear want to get out there and actually get some sort of selfie. P2

Another land manager explained that their organisation’s team that deals with social media content is more focused on promoting their own content online, rather than responding to content that the public posts (including content that is risky or dangerous).

we do have people who work on our social media, but I think they’re more about putting our messages out rather than responding to it. P6

Land managers explained that a location could quickly become overrun by social media users if an “influencer” posted a selfie on their social media, which in turn could lead to an increased risk of social media-related incidents occurring at the site. Land managers had a “knee-jerk” response to the increase in visitation, often by implementing legacy methods of communication or infrastructure, such as signs and barriers. These were seen as being ineffectual for social media users.

All it would take would be one well-known social media person, personality getting a selfie and all of a sudden you have a lot more people out there… So there was a death, and then as a land manager, it was very much a knee-jerk reaction high up to then just quickly do something. P2

We can tell them that there’s an unstable cliff, “Please don’t access it.” Well, you can even put a sign there saying, “Unstable cliff, don’t walk on it.” You can put a fence around it saying, “Dangerous. Don’t walk, don’t access. No entry,” all that kind of stuff, but ultimately if people want to get a good photo say for Instagram, they will jump that fence or they will find a way around it. P2

New challenges managing safe access

Land managers described their responsibility to provide safe access as critical to their role, but they explained the difficulty in understanding the mindset of “new tourists” who were visiting areas that are potentially hazardous, with different intentions and motives to tourists pre-social media.

That’s why I don’t even try and get into their heads as to why they do it. I scratch my head and think that was crazy, but – But that’s exactly right. But if we can provide them with opportunities to access sites so they can get some social content, happy days. I mean, the area is there for community use. And that’s what it’s about. But as long as it’s being used safely and that access that we’ve applied is safe. That’s what we have the responsibility of fulfilling. P4

Land managers described the need to communicate safety messaging that promotes safe access via their own social media channels.

It’s a big, ongoing safety messaging thing and how to include that at social media is something that we’re more interested in now, now that there’s a little bit more leeway with our social media channels as to what we do put on them as well. P3

Land managers described engineering strategies to restrict visitors from certain areas, or used as safety measures, to be “hit and miss”. One land manager put this in the context of pre- and post-social media and described the motivations of the visitor to be key.

In terms of the barrier, it’s hit and miss. Did it work before social media? Hit and miss. Is it working now that we’re in a social media age? Hit and miss. If you’re intent to climb a fence, get around a barrier, then most people will achieve that. Some of our park visitors come armed with battery operated grinders, chains and four-wheel drives to pull gates out; it’s not by accident, it’s intentional. P17.

Need for new methods of communicating with the “new tourist”

Land managers described their organisations as having “knee-jerk” responses to social media-related incidents occurring on their land. This mostly entailed ad hoc implementation, often temporary and in haste, involving engineering solutions such as fences, rather than looking at the human factors of the issue and devising communication strategies via a risk management approach.

Then there’s always a knee-jerk reaction of, “We need to put fences around it,” without the proper consideration of, well, what’s causing the issue, why are people going out there, and is there a way of more tactfully dealing with it? P2

Land managers suggested that collaboration with key social media influencers could be important to provide safety messaging. Social media users were determined to be more likely to engage with online content rather than currently used legacy messaging formats (such as signs).

Maybe it’s the whole community or government messaging out there to people about their safety, about their awareness…who do these cohort of people who want to run around and get a selfie, who do they look up to? Who influences them, their behaviour? Maybe that would work. You have whoever famous or important or so-called people talking about those issues to them. P6

Land managers described the need to tailor the physical risk treatments and infrastructure to the new visitors. A land manager explained implementing specific structures for tourists to take selfies and photos at a well-known spot, with specific consideration to the motives of the tourist.

Competing priorities

Interviewees described blurred boundaries with both responsibilities and management of the land itself. One land manager explained that a crucial geographic hazard that they manage was not technically the responsibility of their organisation, but they took ownership of providing risk information about the site as access to the area was via the land which they manage.

If they get into difficulty in the water, which is probably Crown land [land managed by the state], legally, but at the same time it’s kind of considered our problem; we were the ones who had the signs and the information on our website and those sorts of things. P1

Interviewees further described the conflicts they faced balancing the needs of conservation against access and public safety.

In terms of what we’re talking about, we spend a lot of time maintaining infrastructure. Here in the Whitsundays is where I’m based, and we get something – it’s a ridiculous percentage of the visitation to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area comes to 2% of the size of it. It all comes to here. So, we’re very infrastructure focused and compliance focused. P7

Another land manager described difficulty in prioritising their responsibilities due to senior manager’s own interests determining what was most important.

It can be really difficult to manage that, because it’s all conflicting for your time and it’s all prioritising and, you know, we’ve got – you know, all these managers up higher that all think their thing is the most important thing. So, it can be difficult to manage that. I think there is some conflict there, sure. P11

Interviewees expounded upon the conflict between promotion of material that facilitates potentially risky exploration by unprepared people of the environment and the duty of their land management organisation to provide a reasonably safe experience to these visitors.

It’s hard when you’ve got the Minister also promoting these books [travel books], wearing a National Parks shirt when National Parks would not have promoted them…We still will maintain our duty of care to what’s a legally reasonable point, but you should know that these are what can happen to you. You go to that rock platform that with those paths that were basically infrastructure set up by the water bodies back in the day. We removed that and if you’re still clambering around going in there and you get injured, it’s really hard for us to look after you. We’ll try, but it’s hard. But how we explain that is becoming more and more thought about within the organisation. P3

Land Managers further explained the difficulties they faced in having no say in what areas of their land are promoted by external organisations such as magazines, on social media, and the wider tourism industry, and even government tourism organisations. External organisations were seen as challenging to work with to ensure that the promotion of risky or restricted areas were not promoted for tourism purposes.

I was horrified the other day, I noticed in my Facebook feed, here they are promoting great things to do in these Figure Eight Pools. I’ve just thought, "You’ve gotta be kidding me. How many times have we told the tourism industry to stop it?"… it was Time Out or one of those – you know there’s Time Out Sydney or – some of those ones, they’re always, "Top Seven Secret Beaches." I opened that and went, "Oh great, six of them are ours. They’re not secret anymore if you’re posting them." I guess formally you could probably try and work with some of those editors or some of those online magazines and so forth. I know we have worked with Destination New South Wales to try and get them to stop promoting places like Figure Eight Pools. P6

Land managers described the difficulties that came with contested or unclear responsibility over land; particularly if there were multiple land management stakeholders involved. This could lead to a lack of safety infrastructure being put in place, principally engineered structures such as fences or barricades.

People jump across that. Which I’m surprised that there aren’t more deaths there as well, because they’re doing stupid shit like that. But because council itself, the council didn’t manage that land, and because it’s under the management of the golf club, there isn’t a fence there. P2

In the context of balancing these competing priorities, there were a range of potential risk communication strategies suggested by land managers over the course of the interviews. These spanned social media or location-based campaigns or push notifications, safety signage on site and promoting safety via prominent social media influencers. The various approaches, including relevant quotes and evidence for use, drawn from the literature are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Potential risk communication strategies identified by land managers.

Risk mitigation strategy	Quote	Reason for use
Social media information campaign	How do we keep growing that to that conversation sphere of influence for other people as well?” So if we – I guess all that’s in our power is to continue showing the people doing the right thing. And then we just thought if we could do a daggy campaign where we maybe highlight, “This is what a good park visitor looks like. This is what a photo looks like that we can reshare. Be like this, don’t be like that. P15	Social media campaigns to spread awareness, change a behaviour, or convey a message have been used by numerous companies, government agencies and public relations firms for many years. There is the potential to try such a campaign to inform social media users about the dangers of selfies.
Selfie specific warning signage	Within our organisation we are only just starting to promote safe selfies. That’s all very new to us, and we are starting to come up with signage and communication to put in our parks to advertise that people need to consider it. P7	Signs warning specifically about the dangers of taking selfies could be installed at infamously dangerous selfie locations. Signs have been used for decades to warn of other hazards in the natural environment. However, the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed and depends on the environmental context and the demographics of visitors.
Messaging via Influencers (on social media)	maybe we use the influencers. Like I said, who do these cohort of people who want to run around and get a selfie, who do they look up to? Who influences them, their behaviour? Maybe that would work P6	Influencers are regularly used by companies to spread a message. Influencers are utilized because of their specific followings online and their ability to reach a more specific target audience. Influencers may be useful to use in spreading a public health message about selfie taking.

Risk communication strategies identified by land managers

Our interviews with land managers highlighted a number of potential strategies that could be implemented to communicate risk information to social media-driven tourists. These are highlighted in Table 2.

Discussion

Interviews and surveys with a cross-section of land managers in Australia illustrated that social media and selfie-related visitation is having a multitude of detrimental effects, including sociologically, environmentally, and culturally. Land managers expressed concern that they were struggling to keep up with the changes in visitation and land use of visitors stemming from trends on social media–including taking selfies. The qualitative results of this study revealed three clear motifs that land managers consider to be paramount when contemplating the issues of social media and selfie-related harms on their lands, that of; dealing with a “new tourist”, communicating risk and safety information in a way that resonates with the new tourist, and of facing competing priorities within, and external to, their organisations when managing this contemporary problem.

Land managers described in depth that social media had instigated a significant shift in the number of visitors to their lands, as well as a change in the demographics of visitors. A more diverse array of tourists, and particularly young people, was visiting areas that previously may have only been visited by those well versed in bushwalking or other sporting activities including hiking. Land managers also described an increase of tourists, as opposed to locals. This finding is in line with research that suggests the demographics of visitation to places such as national parks are changing (Lu et al., 2021; Jones, 2012; Hamstead et al., 2018; Schamel & Job, 2017). This change in demographics means that traditional methods of communicating with visitors may no longer be appropriate, and safety messaging (such as signs) that were designed with a certain type of visitor in mind, may no longer resonate with an influx of new tourists that are younger, willing to take increased risks, less accustomed to wild places and with fewer skills of self-reliance, and crucially, much more digitally connected. Signage is, nevertheless, a necessary legal requirement for land managers to implement to be compliant with government regulations (Wagga, 2023). There is, however, a need to support signage with other messaging strategies that reach users to which signage does not.

It is apparent from these interviews and surveys with land managers that signage does not resonate with the tourists that land managers determine to be at risk of social media related harm. Land managers explained that too much signage is deemed to be detrimental for both the environment and the visitor of the land themselves. “Death by signage” (P16) was viewed as a negative aspect of trying to overcommunicate to visitors by signs, and signs were not seen as effective at communicating with these types of visitors. This study suggests that there is a great need for new communication strategies to be developed which communicate effectively with these ‘new visitors’, and that the communication strategy is better designed to appeal to at-risk groups. Land managers suggested attempting to communicate risk and safety information to visitors by way of using social media directly (such as land management organisations using social media profiles), using influencers to promote safety messages, and attempting to link with social media companies to design location-based safety warnings and alerts–these points which are explored in Table 2 in the results section.

Our research has revealed the need to co-design messages with social media users and influencers to craft risk communication messaging that resonates with the end-user. Co-design techniques for health communication have been used successfully in interventions for those with low health literacy and also for communicating health messaging to young social media users (Taba et al., 2022; Taba et al., 2023). This approach has not yet been applied to the ‘selfie problem’ and evaluation of its impact on end users in this very specific public health problem is vital. Co-designing health messages with young people, including those with low health literacy, has been shown to be effective in promoting health behaviours and understanding health risks (Goss et al., 2022). The process of co-design ensures that the information provided is relevant, relatable, and understandable to the target audience. With the changing demographics of visitors, there’s a need for land managers to consider that varying levels of health literacy may exist among these diverse groups. Crafting safety information, guidelines, and educational materials that are accessible and comprehensible to individuals with different health literacy skills becomes a critical component of mitigating potential risks and promoting responsible outdoor activities.

The changing demographics of visitation can be seen as positive; with more young people immersing themselves in the outdoors, including paying fees for entries to places such as national parks, resulting in a boon to people’s health and the economy (Buxton et al., 2021). Tourist operators and national parks with a social media presence have targeted young people in recent years to drive up visitation to their lands (Hvass and Munar, 2012; Leung et al., 2013; Jansson, 2018). However, this tourism drive may have resulted in increased visitation and changing demographics to a greater degree than was accounted for, leaving some land management organisations outmanoeuvred and unprepared. Land management organisations may need to tailor their communications, particularly online, to engage with new tourists in a way that resonates. This may include land managers taking ownership of their selfie and photography hotspots by being the loudest voice online, thereby setting the tone for the type of visitation and behaviour that will occur at these spots, rather than allowing blogs and influencers from setting the narrative.

The “socially connected” aspects of the new tourists may be pivotal to the problems which land managers are facing and must be understood in context. Up to 45% of young people report being “constantly connected” (by smartphone and social media apps), according to research conducted by Pew Research Centre in 2018. This constant connection can lead to the phenomenon of “FOMO” or Fear of Missing Out. It is understood that FOMO can lead to severe psychological implications, particularly for young people, such as depression, anxiety, and a yearning for peer affirmation and approval. Such strong negative emotions derived from a basis of social comparison may lead young people to imitate others online to present an image of a perfect life–conforming to the Instagram standard (Prichard et al., 2020; Zulli, 2018; Staniewski and Awruk, 2022).

In parallel, the shift to constant connectivity afflicting young people may have given rise to the phenomenon of the “tourist gaze”, where a tourist sees a place through the lens of their social connectedness and online avatar (Lee et al., 2023; Magasic, 2016). In this psychological mindset, the tourist is not fully present in their experience of the real world but is distracted and less aware of their real-world surroundings. This distraction may lead to disastrous consequences depending on the environmental circumstances that the tourist is in, including potential falls from heights, or drowning. A social media-based campaign focussing on the potentially lifelong consequences of distraction fuelled misadventure and the potential ramifications of momentary distraction may reach social media users.

The “tourist gaze” can also lead to a disregard of natural surroundings, culturally and ecologically (Lee et al., 2023). In our study, land managers reported visitors that were accessing areas that were restricted for cultural reasons (such as Indigenous rock art) or ecological reasons (such as endangered cray fish or glow worms living in sensitive habitats). When confronted, tourists would claim to have not seen signs that informed visitors of the restricted areas. Land managers attributed to this disregard of the signage as either an ignorance on the part of the visitor because of total immersion in their online worlds, or of an apathy of the warnings due to a strong desire to go where they please. These observations may indicate that social media users who visit places for the purpose of procuring content for their online profiles, may in fact be experiencing their surroundings in a mindset foreign to the people with responsibility over the land, in turn leading to a dissonance between landowner and land user–in essence, the messaging that land managers distribute to land users being lost in translation. This necessitates research to evaluate messaging and communication strategies that would be effective for the modern land user.

Some land managers that were interviewed delineated between the regular social media user who was visiting for the purpose of taking photos and selfies, exhibiting “copycat” behaviour that they had previously seen online, and that of the Influencer who was the root cause of the copycat behaviour, and was the instigator driving other social media users to the same hotspot locations. Land managers that viewed these tourists as two separate entities with potentially different motives suggested that there is a need to understand these groups intentions and drivers separately to target them with specific risk information, as it was suggested these groups would respond differently to risk information. The Influencer may perceive themselves to have more at stake when visiting locations for picturesque photos and selfies, as such images may be crucial content for maintaining or increasing their online following which can lead to monetary rewards. On the other hand, the regular social media user may be easier to behaviourally nudge if they have less “skin in the game” and fewer real-world (monetary) rewards on the line (Taleb and Sandis, 2014). Therefore, it may be that influencers may be willing to take more risks for their content whereas general social media users may prove to be easier to reach with online safety messaging. There is a need to engage with social media users and influencers to understand motivations and to codesign interventions to facilitate appropriate safety messaging.

A notable modern occurrence affiliated with increased smartphone use and “total connectivity” is the habit of “phubbing”, which is to use one’s smartphone even when in the immediate social presence of others (Al-Saggaf and O’Donnell, 2019). Phubbing is a maladaptive behaviour which can lead to distraction, social disconnection in real world surroundings, and a lack of attention of one’s environmental context. Land managers described visitors that were perceived as being more in tune with their phones and online world than their physical presence in the environment, in essence–phubbing the world around them. This disconnection may be a cause of new tourists’ lack of awareness of the world around them, leading to signs being ignored, barriers being overcome, and ultimately leading to incidents such as injuries and even death.

Land managers described that they perceived they were “reacting” to incidents rather than being able to successfully pre-empt them. In response to incidents occurring at hotspots, land managers described erecting fences or barricades, sometimes on a temporary basis to prevent further incidents from occurring or deter visitors. Nevertheless, these measures were often seen an ineffective, particularly against social media users who were observed as being far too motivated for a photo than to be deterred by a temporary structure. Land managers are taking varied approaches and interventions to mitigate the harm realised by social media on their lands, including trialling different kinds of signage, social media communications, sirens and alerts at sites of interest. There is an urgent need to evaluate these interventions to ascertain what methods will be successful in preventing further harm.

This study revealed the tensions that exist between, and even within, organisations when dealing with visitor related activity on land that is managed by varied stakeholders, or with external stakeholders that have an interest in how the land is managed–directly or indirectly. Our research suggests it may be important for land management organisations to become a united front, particularly in the communication space, so that social media users and visitors of land are not confused by conflicting messaging about where they can safely go and what they can safely do. The promotion of restricted or risky locations by tourism bodies, or even a National Park’s own communications team can make land management difficult for those with direct responsibility, and unnecessarily dangerous for those visiting the land. Tourism bodies, as well as public safety organisations, should ensure that they are in lock step promoting safety messaging for social media users who aim to visit risky locations for the purpose of photography.

Future research on this topic should aim to ascertain the underlying psychological motivations and reasonings of social media users, and influencers, who go to places for the purpose of taking selfies and other photos for social media. Crucially, it is necessary to understand what kinds of safety information social media users would like to see to help them make informed decisions regarding the risks they take when in natural spaces.

Strengths and limitations

Principally, this study was limited by its low sample size for the survey component. The quantitative results of these surveys cannot be extrapolated to all land management organisations in Australia. However, the qualitative component of this study is strong with 18 individual land managers interviewed and qualitative aspects of the study aligned with survey responses. This study only assessed the issue as it pertains to land managers in Australia, particularly national parks. Therefore, the results of this study may not be representative of the opinions of land managers in other countries or jurisdictions where selfies and social media-related visitation are also causing problems.

Conclusion

Land managers face difficulties in providing a safe experience for a new kind of tourist visiting the lands they manage. Nevertheless, social media use and taking selfies are modern and commonplace occurrences that show no signs of abating. Therefore, it is necessary for land managers to find new methods of communicating risky behaviour to social media users. Overall, this study highlights the need for innovative strategies to address the impact of social media and selfie-related incidents on land management. This includes understanding the motivations and behaviours of the new tourist, improving digital risk communication methods, developing collaborative partnerships in the development of this safety messaging, and managing competing priorities effectively.

Acknowledgements

William Koon is thanked for his contributions to the conception of the project. We thank the Land Managers who gave us their time to participate in this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.

Additional information

Funding

Samuel Cornell is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship via the University of New South Wales, Sydney. This research is supported by Royal Life Saving Society – Australia to aid in the prevention of drowning. Research at the Royal Life Saving Society – Australia is supported by the Australian Government. Amy Peden receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Robert Brander receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The project is also supported by Meta Inc and Surf Life Saving Australia.