The pros & cons of social media as a tool in conservation
Social media’s global accessibility allows conservationists to connect with diverse audiences, raise awareness about environmental issues, and inspire action. However, with this great reach comes significant responsibility—and challenges.
From fleeting trends that fade quickly to the spread of misinformation and ethical concerns around wildlife content, conservationists must carefully navigate the double-edged sword of social media. This post explores both sides, using real-world examples from recent research and practical lessons to illustrate how social media can create positive intended consequences as well as unintended negative ones.
Lastly, based on the findings in the post, there is a list of eight practical tips to help conservationists shape their actions and presence on social media.
As always, references are at the bottom 👇
Woman photographs a breaching humpack whale from the bow of a boat.
Community Engagement vs. Oversaturation
Pro: Social media allows conservation organizations to build engaged communities. Freitas and Gouveia (2025) highlight that “digital platforms create opportunities for global collaboration, enabling individuals to contribute to conservation from anywhere” . This accessibility fosters a sense of collective action.
Con: However, the sheer volume of content from local and global conservation organizations can lead to oversaturation. Bergman et al. (2022) warn that “the constant influx of information may overwhelm users, making it difficult for conservation messages to stand out”. For example, campaigns with many frequent posts may cause audiences to disengage. To address this, conservationists should focus on concise, impactful messaging and strategically space out content to maintain interest without overwhelming their audience.
2. Transparency vs. Privacy Concerns
Pro: Social media increases transparency in conservation efforts. Freitas and Gouveia (2025) state that “Sharing real-time updates from the field can build public trust and foster support for conservation initiatives” . Live-streamed wildlife rescues and habitat restoration projects provide supporters with an authentic look at conservation work.
Con: Yet, increased transparency can come with risks. Bergman et al. (2022) note that “publicizing the locations of rare species can inadvertently lead to poaching and habitat disturbance” . Conservationists must balance openness with the need to protect vulnerable wildlife, ensuring that shared content does not endanger species.
3. Crowdsourced Data vs. Data Reliability
Pro: Social media enables large-scale citizen science. Freitas and Gouveia (2025) note that “mobile apps and social platforms allow individuals to contribute biodiversity data, supporting large-scale monitoring projects” . This democratization of data collection allows researchers to track species distribution and population trends more effectively.
Con: However, crowdsourced data can be unreliable. Bergman et al. (2022) warn that “user-generated data may lack scientific rigor, leading to inaccuracies that compromise conservation decisions” . To ensure data quality, conservationists should provide clear guidelines for data collection and verify submissions through expert review.
4. Diverse Representation vs. Dominant Narratives
Pro: Social media offers a platform for diverse voices in conservation. Bergman et al. (2022) highlight that social media platforms are used by a broad range of people across different ages, genders, and regions, including both developed and developing countries (p. 362). Indigenous-led conservation initiatives on Instagram and TikTok showcase perspectives that might otherwise go unheard. Bergman et al. (2022) emphasize, “While social media democratizes conservation discussions, larger organizations and influencers often dominate the conversation, sometimes overshadowing grassroots efforts” (p. 364).
Con: However, not all voices receive equal attention. Bergman et al. (2022) state, “Smaller conservation groups and individuals may struggle to gain visibility, limiting the diversity of perspectives available to the public” (p. 365). Conservationists should actively collaborate with underrepresented communities, amplify their experiences, and ensure their stories are heard, promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive dialogue.
4. Viral Fame to Lasting Impact
Pro: Social media has sparked large-scale conservation movements. As Bergman et al. (2022) note, “Social media can increase pro-conservation behaviours among the public, increase conservation funding, and incite policy changes”. The #SaveTheTurtles campaign on TikTok is a prime example, raising awareness about plastic pollution and boosting sales of reusable straws. Additionally, Freitas and Gouveia (2025) highlight that “citizen science applications are enabling people worldwide to participate in biodiversity monitoring” (p. 32).
Con: Yet, excitement often fades quickly. The viral #TeamTrees initiative, which led to the planting of over 23 million trees worldwide, eventually lost momentum as public attention shifted. Bergman et al. (2022) caution that “the transient nature of social media engagement may limit sustained conservation action” (p. 362). To combat this, conservationists should pair short-term campaigns with long-term engagement strategies that use follow-up content to sustain interest and showcase ongoing progress.
5. Driving policy change
Pro: Viral campaigns have the power to influence real-world policies. Bergman et al. (2022) report that “public pressure from social media movements has influenced legislative action to restrict the exotic pet trade in several countries” (p. 365). The #StopAdani campaign, which opposed a coal mine in Australia, mobilized thousands of people worldwide, putting pressure on policymakers to reconsider the project.
Con: However, misinformation spreads just as quickly. Social media posts falsely portraying wolves as threats have fueled anti-wolf sentiments, jeopardizing reintroduction programs in the United States. Bergman et al. (2022) emphasize that “misinformation on social media can spread rapidly, creating challenges for conservationists seeking to convey accurate information” (p. 366). Combating misinformation requires swift, transparent responses and partnerships with trusted influencers who can help set the record straight.
6. Tourism and species exploitation
Pro: Social media can promote eco-tourism, which supports conservation funding. Campaigns showcasing sustainable tourism in Costa Rica have helped preserve rainforests while boosting the local economy. Freitas and Gouveia (2025) highlight that “responsible tourism campaigns on digital platforms educate the public about protecting wildlife and habitats” (p. 33).
Con: But viral posts can also have unintended consequences. For example, tourists flocking to Japan after seeing otters as pets online led to increased poaching and disrupted conservation efforts (Bergman et al., 2022, p. 363). Additionally, “the proliferation of social media content featuring exotic animals can normalize wildlife exploitation, exacerbating threats to vulnerable species” (Bergman et al., 2022, p. 364). To prevent harm, conservationists should promote responsible tourism through educational content that emphasizes respectful wildlife interactions.
Recap: social media tips for conservationists
Using social media should be part of a larger, marketing strategy. One with clear goals and objectives, identified budgets and constraints, and a plan for measuring and understanding how your efforts have performed. As I shared in this post, social media is not all upside. So if you’re going to put time, energy, and money into social media make sure you’re not going to trip yourself up.
Here are eight practical tips to help conservationists make the most of social platforms:
Engage Without Overwhelming: Build engaged communities by sharing concise, impactful content. Avoid overwhelming audiences with excessive posts—quality over quantity matters. Look at what your peers are doing and consider collaborating on shared campaigns for greater impact.
Be Transparent, But Protect Wildlife: Share real-time updates to foster trust, but avoid revealing sensitive locations that could lead to poaching, exploitation, or habitat disturbance. Offer followers practical tips on ethically observing wildlife.
Use Citizen Science Responsibly: Encourage public contributions through apps and platforms, but ensure data quality with clear, jargon-free, and accessible guidelines.
Promote Diverse Voices: Highlight grassroots movements and Indigenous perspectives, ensuring that local voices are heard alongside, or in partnership with, those of larger organizations.
Combat Misinformation Swiftly: Address false information quickly with transparent communication. Collaborate with trusted influencers to amplify the correct message.
Maintain Long-Term Engagement: A campaign doesn’t end after its launch—that’s just the beginning. Reference past successes and share progress updates to keep audiences invested.
Use Analytics to Optimize Content: Regularly analyze performance metrics to refine messaging and ensure content is resonating with your target audiences. Make sure you can track and understand if they are taking the actions you want them to take after engaging with your content.
Encourage Responsible Tourism: Promote tourism that respects wildlife and local communities, educating audiences on sustainable practices. Collaborate with tourism boards and organizations to reach travellers outside of your usual audience.
Conclusion
Social media is a powerful tool for conservation, but its effectiveness depends on thoughtful use and an awareness of both its strengths and limitations. Success requires acknowledging its pitfalls and using a well-rounded approach. Viral moments can spark action, but real change happens when those moments are followed by sustained engagement. By balancing storytelling with facts, combating misinformation, and promoting responsible behavior, conservationists can harness the power of social media to create lasting positive impacts.
References
Bergman, J. N., Buxton, R. T., Lin, H.-Y., Lenda, M., Attinello, K., Hajdasz, A. C., Rivest, S. A., Tran Nguyen, T., Cooke, S. J., & Bennett, J. R. (2022). Evaluating the benefits and risks of social media for wildlife conservation. FACETS, 7, 360–397. Retrieved from https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2021-0112
Freitas, H., & Gouveia, A. C. (2025). Biodiversity futures: Digital approaches to knowledge and conservation of biological diversity. Web Ecology, 25, 29–37. Retrieved from https://we.copernicus.org/articles/25/29/2025
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Ross Arguedas, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2024). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from
