The Safety of Social Media Instigated Visitation to National Parks in New South Wales, Australia: Insights From a Population Representative Sample

ABSTRACT

Issue Addressed

The integration of social media, smartphone technology and the widespread sharing of images has reshaped tourism, sparking new trends such as selfie‐tourism and social media‐driven travel. National parks, offering scenic and pristine landscapes, have become prime destinations for these pursuits. The popularity of platforms like Instagram and Facebook, combined with the influence of travel‐focused social media personalities, has inspired a wave of visitors seeking “selfie‐worthy” locations. However, this shift in visitation motives has raised environmental and safety concerns: visitors venture off‐trail, engage in risky photography practices and disrupt natural habitats, increasing the risk of injury and fatalities in hazardous coastal and cliff areas. National parks face growing challenges, with social media's allure prompting a variety of visitors who may lack awareness of responsible tourism practices. This trend imposes costs on park management, emergency services and local ecosystems, necessitating new strategies to balance tourism promotion with ecological protection and public safety.

Methods

This cross‐sectional survey involved New South Wales (NSW) residents aged 18+ who had previously visited a coastal national park in NSW. Conducted online from 18 to 25 August 2023, the survey recruited a demographically representative sample through Dynata, an established survey panel provider. Demographic data included age, gender, education, country of birth, years in Australia, main language spoken at home and language proficiency. The survey examined park visitation behaviours and safety perceptions, with specific questions assessing social media's influence on visitation motivations.

Results

A total of 1009 NSW residents completed the survey, with 51.5% identifying as female and 75.4% born in Australia. Social media influenced 32% of respondents to visit coastal national parks, with Instagram being the most popular platform, followed by Facebook and TikTok. Younger age groups (18–34) were significantly more likely to visit parks because of social media compared to older adults (55+; χ ² = 252.07, p < 0.05), though no significant difference was found by gender. Social media platform preferences differed by age, with younger respondents favouring Instagram and TikTok and older respondents favouring Facebook (χ ² = 316.18; p < 0.001). Of those who visited due to social media, 65% took photos and 36% engaged in risky photography (e.g., cliff edges), though no significant age difference was found for risky photo behaviour. Although 56.8% considered park infrastructure safe for social media photos, 43.1% did not, with respondents suggesting improvements in barriers, signage and individual responsibility.

Conclusions

The study findings underscore the need for a stronger focus on visitor safety related to photography in NSW national parks, with acknowledgement of visitation instigated by social media. Risky behaviours associated with photography are prevalent and pose significant safety challenges. Public health initiatives should prioritise educational campaigns and safety infrastructure improvements that address risky photography behaviours, independent of social media influences.

So What?

Park management should highlight personal responsibility and consider educational campaigns about the potential dangers of photography in these settings. Nevertheless, social media companies have a role to play in controlling dangerous content that is published on their platforms which is leading to risky behaviours in the real world.

1. Introduction

In the evolving tourism landscape, the amalgamation of social media, smartphone technology and widespread sharing of information and photos has catalysed unprecedented shifts in tourist behaviour, engendering novel trends such as selfie‐tourism and social media‐driven tourism [1, 2, 3]. This phenomenon has been documented by researchers as being particularly pronounced in places such as national parks [4], which have become focal points of these contemporary tourism narratives [3].

In recent years, the rise of smartphone photography and the pursuit of striking images in natural settings have led to concerning trends in visitor behaviour. While social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook have popularised natural locations, the broader issue at hand is the increasing prevalence of risky photography practices in national parks, driven by the desire to capture unique images [2, 4, 5]. National parks, with their undisturbed natural landscapes, offer an idyllic backdrop for such pursuits. Moreover, the recent surge in travel influencers, armed with sizeable followings, has augmented this trend by frequently highlighting these spots in their content, thereby enticing a new type of visitor [6, 7, 8], the ‘new tourist’ (as proposed by Cornell et al. in previous research)—who seeks content for their own social media accounts. National parks have not been impervious to this trend, witnessing a surge in visitors primarily lured by the selfie potential these locations offer; as reported by the media [9, 10, 11].

The environmental implications of this burgeoning trend are manifold, ranging from habitat degradation, damage to sites of Indigenous significance and even animals being euthanised due to human contact stemming from social media visitation [12]. Furthermore, the unrestrained foot traffic in ecologically sensitive zones, which do not have maintained board walks, can lead to the destruction of protected flora. The prevalence of off‐trail wanderings in pursuit of the perfect photograph disrupts the natural habitats, making wildlife more susceptible to stress and even diseases. Consequently, there is a pressing need to measure the environmental repercussions fully and foster responsible tourism.

Of particular significance are coastal landscapes within national parks. Such locations have hazards inherent with their environs and are especially frequented by social media‐driven visitors and those seeking photos [5, 6]. In Australia, there have been numerous fatalities and injuries attributable to capturing content for social media occurring in coastal locations, including cliffs [5]. Coastal locations include numerous natural features that can lead to misadventure (both drownings and falls [13]), if a visitor is not attentive to their surroundings or chooses to disobey or ignore warning signage and barriers.

Recent research by Wichman [4] has conclusively revealed that social media is a major driver of tourists to national parks in the USA. Their research found that national parks with high levels of social media exposure have seen an increase in visitation by 16%–22% relative to parks with less exposure over the past decade (since around 2013). Furthermore, these parks with high social media exposure has seen increases in revenue generated, but also overtourism.

Land managers now grapple with a paradoxical scenario where increased visitation, driven by social media influence, may provide an economic boost to the areas surrounding national parks and increase awareness of the parks, yet simultaneously imposes heightened pressures on the fragile ecosystems harboured in these protected areas, as well as increasing the number of incidents that emergency services and park rangers must respond to—which has an economic cost [14]. The influx of a diverse group of visitors, many of whom may be uninformed about responsible tourism, may necessitate tailored educational and regulatory measures. Resource allocation is another significant concern for land managers [6], as they must continually adapt to ensure that the infrastructural and logistical frameworks can cater to the burgeoning tourist influx and cater specifically to this new tourist.

The transformation in the motives underlying national park visitation has pronounced implications for the visitors themselves. The preoccupation with capturing picturesque photos often detracts from the immersive experiences that these natural landscapes traditionally offer, potentially diminishing the psychological benefits derived from nature‐connectedness [15]. Importantly, while visitors may be aware of the warning signs, barriers, and other safety measures put in place, their desire to capture the ‘perfect picture’ often leads them to intentionally ignore these precautions [2, 9]. This conscious choice to prioritise a photo opportunity over personal safety underscores a broader issue: the allure of social media recognition may overshadow the perceived risks.

Furthermore, there has been an uptick in injuries and even fatalities owing to risky behaviours undertaken to procure unique photographs, raising serious concerns about visitor safety [5]. This ‘risk for reward’ behaviour, spurred by the prospects of social media accolades, engenders a precarious environment, urging park managers to enhance safety provisions and education and awareness campaigns [6].

2. Aims

As increasing numbers of social media tourists flock to national parks with aspirations to capture the perfect selfie or boost their social media engagement, it is imperative to better understand the role of social media in visitation to, and potential risk taking, these locations. As such, this study aims to elucidate the demographics of national parks visitation in New South Wales (NSW), Australia's most populous state, and to provide insights into what role social media use plays in this visitation. We further aimed to understand whether visitors driven by social media use were going to NSW national parks for the purpose of taking photos or selfies to share on their social media accounts and whether these visitors engaged in any self‐determined risky behaviour to acquire this content. Finally, we captured respondent opinions regarding risk reduction measures.

3. Methods

This study involves human participants and was approved by the UNSW Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Project number HC230299). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the online survey before taking part. This study involved a self–report cross‐sectional survey with 1009 residents of NSW, Australia, who had ever visited a coastal national park. The survey was conducted from 18th August to 25th August 2023, online. Participants were eligible to take part if they were aged 18 years or older and resided in NSW, Australia. Participants were recruited via the panel survey company Dynata. A representative sample of the NSW population was recruited.

3.1. Measures

Demographic survey items included age, gender, education, whether born in Australia, years living in Australia, main language spoken at home, English language proficiency and reading proficiency in main language spoken at home.

The wider survey assessed aspects of national parks visitation in New South Wales and understanding of visitor risk and safety. Within this context, to understand the impact of social media use on national parks visitation in NSW, respondents were asked the following questions (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Questions featured in the online survey to understand social media‐related visitation to coastal NSW national parks.

1. Have you ever visited a coastal NSW National Park because you found it on social media?

2. Which coastal NSW National Park did you visit because you found it on social media?

3. Did you visit the coastal NSW National Park that you found on social media to take photos?

4. If yes, did you take photos for social media in any potentially risky or hazardous locations such as cliff edges, rock platforms, areas beyond safety barriers?

5. In your opinion, do you think the infrastructure (such as sightseeing points) in NSW National Parks is suitable for social media users to safely take photographs, including selfies?

6. What infrastructure or safety measures would you like to see in order for social media users to take photographs, including selfies, safely?

3.2. Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using R. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic characteristics of the analysed sample. To determine the significance of the observed differences in visitation to national parks attributed to social media across demographics, a Pearson's chi‐square test for independence was conducted (p < 0.05). Where multiple categories within a variable were analysed, a modified Bonferonni correction was applied [16].

3.3. Content Analysis

Free‐text responses to the question ‘What infrastructure or safety measures would you like to see in order for social media users to take photographs, including selfies, safely?’ were analysed using Content Analysis [17], a widely used analysis method which combines qualitative and quantitative methods to analyse text data, allowing the content and frequency of categories to be reported. One member of the research team (SC) first read through all the valid free‐text responses (n = 230) and developed the initial coding framework, which was reviewed by the research team. Fifty responses (~20%) were double coded independently by two members of the research team (SC, AP). Level of agreement was tested using Cohen's kappa and indicated high level of agreement (κ = 0.9). SC then independently coded the remaining responses. The frequency of each code and main themes are reported (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Association between demographic factors and social media‐influenced visitation to coastal NSW national parks.

Variable	Total number of sample (%)	Social media attributed visitation to national parks		χ 2 (p) #
		Yes	No
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Total	1009 (100)	323 (32.1)	686 (67.9)	—
Age group
18–24	106 (10.51)	70 (66.0)	36 (34.0)	χ 2 = 252.07 (p < 0.001)
25–34	174 (17.24)	111 (63.79)	63 (36.21)
35–44	202 (20.02)	79 (39.11)	123 (60.89)
45–54	166 (16.45)	36 (21.69)	130 (78.31)
55–64	152 (15.06)	18 (11.84)	134 (88.16)
> 65	209 (20.71)	9 (4.31)	200 (95.69)
Gender
Man/male	485 (48.07)	150 (30.93)	335 (69.07)	χ 2 = 1.04 (p = 0.595)
Woman/female	520 (51.54)	171 (32.88)	349 (67.12)
Other	4 (< 1)	2 (50)	2 (50)
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
Aboriginal	55 (5.45)	37 (67.2)	18 (32.8)	χ 2 = 47.973 (p < 0.001)
Torres Strait Islander	4 (0.40)	2 (50.0)	2 (50.0)
Both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander	9 (0.89)	9 (100)	0 (0)
Neither	941 (93.26)	275 (29.2)	666 (70.8)
Location born
Australia	761 (75.42)	252 (33.11)	509 (66.89)	χ 2 = 1.53 (p = 0.216)
Overseas	248 (24.58)	71 (28.63)	177 (71.37)
English reading ability
Extremely well/Very Well	968 (95.9)	308 (31.82)	660 (68.18)	χ 2 = 0.22 (p = 0.638)
Moderately well/slightly well/not well	41 (4.1)	15 (36.59)	26 (63.41)
Main language spoken at home
English	930 (92.17)	297 (31.94)	633 (68.06)	χ 2 = 0.0028 (p = 0.958)
Other	79 (7.83)	26 (32.91)	53 (67.09)
Living arrangements
Live alone	204 (20.2)	55 (26.9)	149 (73.0)	χ 2 = 42.84 (p < 0.001)
Live in shared accommodation	76 (7.5)	40 (52.6)	36 (47.4)
Live with a partner	300 (29.73)	68 (22.67)	232 (77.33)
Partner and 1 child	133 (13.18)	56 (42.11)	77 (57.89)
Partner and 2 children	126 (12.49)	48 38.10	78 (61.90)
Partner and more than 2 children	52 (5.15)	23 (44.23)	29 (55.77)
Single parent and 2 children	27 (2.68)	10 (37.04)	17 (62.96)
Single parent with 1 child	43 (4.26)	10 (23.26)	33 (76.74)
Other a	48 (4.76)	13 27.08	35 72.92
Income
Less than $25 000	63 6.24	16 25.40	47 74.60	χ 2 = 20.944 (p < 0.01)
$25 000–$49 999	190 (18.8)	45 (23.68)	145 (76.32)
$50 000–$74 999	173 (17.2)	53 (30.6)	120 (69.4)
$75 000–$99 999	152 (15.1)	52 (34.2)	100 (65.8)
$100 000–$149 999	190 (18.8)	73 (38.4)	117 (61.58)
$150 000–$200 000	118 (11.7)	53 (44.9)	65 (55.1)
> $200 000	67 (6.6)	18 (26.9)	49 (73.1)
I don't know/prefer not to answer a	56 (5.5)	13 (23.2)	43 (76.8)

^a Not included in statistical analysis between groups.

^# p value indicates the significance between groups based on chi‐square tests.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

The survey had a total of 1009 respondents. Sample characteristics are summarised in Table 2. In total, 520 (51.5%) identified as female, most participants (75.4%, n = 761) were born in Australia; and 80% reported that they spoke English extremely well (n = 807).

4.2. Quantitative Analysis

Across the entire sample, 323 respondents (32%) reported having visited a coastal national park because they saw it on social media. Of those, Instagram was the most cited platform (121 [12%]), followed by Facebook (100 [9.9%]) and TikTok (81 [8%]). There was a significant difference (χ ² = 252.07 [p < 0.05]) between age groups and visiting national parks attributable to use of social media with younger users more likely to visit coastal national parks found on social media (18–24, 25–34) and older adults (55–64, 65+) less likely to use social media to find coastal national parks. There was no statistically significant association between gender and the decision to visit coastal national parks driven by social media use.

We found a statistically significant association between age group and social media platform preference for being inspired to visit coastal NSW national parks (χ ² = 316.18; p < 0.001). This indicates that social media platform preference varies significantly across different age groups for finding national parks locations, with younger people (18–24, 25–34) more likely to use TikTok and Instagram and older people (55–64, 65+) more likely to use Facebook (Table 3). The age groups 18–24 and 25–34 have similar patterns of social media usage for finding coastal NSW national parks.

TABLE 3.

Social media platform preference across different age groups for finding national parks locations.

Age group	No	Facebook	Instagram	TikTok	Other social media	χ 2 (p)
18–24	36	12	25	24	9	χ 2 = 316.18 (p < 0.001)
25–34	63	28	48	34	1
35–44	123	19	37	16	7
45–54	130	23	7	4	2
55–64	134	12	2	2	2
> 65	200	6	2	1	0

There was a significant difference in responses between the combined group of ‘Aboriginal’, ‘Torres Strait Islander’ and ‘Both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ when compared to the ‘Neither’ group (χ ² = 47.973; p < 0.001).

Living arrangements had a significant effect on the use of social media to find coastal national parks, with those living in shared accommodation significantly more likely to use social media to find coastal national parks than those living alone (χ ² = 42.84; p < 0.001).

Of the 323 respondents who visited national parks because they found them on social media, 210 (65%) said they visited to take photos. Of those, 76 (36%) indicated they took photos for social media in potentially risky locations (such as cliff edges, rock platforms and areas beyond safety barriers) with no statistical difference found between age groups for those who did or did not take risky photos beyond barriers (Table 4).

TABLE 4.

Responses to the question ‘Did you take photos for social media in any potentially risky or hazardous locations such as cliff edges, rock platforms, areas beyond safety barriers?’ by age group.

Age group	Yes	No	Not sure a	Total	χ 2 (p)
18–24	20	23	1	44	χ 2 = 7.502 (p = 0.186)
25–34	30	43	4	77
35–44	18	33	0	51
45–54	6	14	1	21
55–64	1	11	0	12
> 65	1	4	0	5

^a Statistical difference between groups assessed without the inclusion of the ‘not sure’ group.

In response to the question “In your opinion, do you think the infrastructure (such as sightseeing points) in NSW National Parks is suitable for social media users to safely take photographs, including selfies?” 574 (56.8%) responded yes and 435 (43.1%) responded no or not sure. Respondents were asked if they would like to see any infrastructure or safety measures in place in order to enable social media users to take photos or selfies safely. Most (779 [77.2%]) selected “none”, with 230 (22.8%) choosing “other”. Of those, 230 provided a response which was content analysed (Table 5).

TABLE 5.

Themes identified in free‐text responses to question ‘What infrastructure or safety measures would you like to see in order for social media users to take photographs, including selfies, safely?’ with example quote, shown in decreasing order of frequency.

Theme	Example quote	N	%
Engineering	“Fencing and warning signs around high elevation area”	137	59.6
Signage	“Signs stating safe spots for photography and unsafe spots where they shouldn't”	67	29.1
Other	“Tighten security patrol” and “I don't think that they should be catered for”	20	8.7
Individual responsibility	“Be more sensible aware and don't take risks just for a photo”	13	5.2
Education and Enforcement	“Better education” and “Fines for influencers on public land”	5	2.2

Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive.

In response to the question ‘Which coastal NSW National Park did you visit because you found it on social media?’ 323 provided a response. The most common responses were, Royal National Park (RNP) (n = 40), Sydney Harbour National Park (SHNP) (n = 15), Blue Mountains National Park (BMNP) (n = 12), Bouddi National Park (BNP) (n = 11) and Ku‐ring‐gai Chase National Park (N = 5). With the exception of BNP, all of these national parks are within the Greater Sydney Region (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

Map highlighting the most commonly mentioned national parks by respondents.

4.3. Content Analysis

Of the 230 respondents that chose “other” in response to the question “What infrastructure or safety measures would you like to see in order for social media users to take photographs, including selfies safely?”, 100% provided a response which was content analysed.

The three most commonly reported themes were as follows (Table 5):

1. ‘Engineering’ (n = 137, 60%) in which respondents called for barriers and fences to be erected to keep social media tourists safe around hazardous locations when taking photos.

2. ‘Signage’ (n = 67, 29%) in which respondents called for warning signs to highlight the dangers of photography at locations popular with social media tourists.

3. ‘Other’ (n = 20, 8%) such as “individual responsibility”, in which (n = 13) respondents determined the onus of safety to be on the visitor taking photos, and enforcement in which (n = 2) respondents suggested fines as necessary to penalise social media tourists from taking photos in dangerous locations. Few people mentioned education (n = 3).

5. Discussion

Given the rise in social media tourism [2, 3], our research casts a light onto the type of visitation that coastal national parks in NSW are encountering in the social media era. Land managers have expressed concerns with social media‐driven visitation [18] which appears to incentivise tourists to visit places with different motivations to tourists pre‐social media [6]. Now, land managers struggle to communicate risks to social media‐driven tourists via traditional methods such as signage, and even barriers, walking tracks and other infrastructure do not successfully achieve the goals of protecting tourists and the environment [19, 20]. National parks authorities, such as NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, have attempted to communicate risks to visitors in innovative ways that resonate with a new kind of socially connected and technologically savvy visitor, including online risk forecasts of known photography hotspots with precarious weather and ocean conditions [21]. Such novel methods have included providing website‐based guidance on choosing safer locations to take a selfie and provided risk information on a popular swimming hole. Nevertheless, we are not aware of any evaluation of these types of messaging, and there remains a strong need for research to ascertain if any of these methods are effective in conveying risk and safety messaging to social media users.

A notable finding from our survey was that 32% of the respondents were motivated to visit a national park due to social media influence with Instagram being the most utilised platform for this. When examining this phenomenon closer, it appears that 65% of this subgroup visited primarily to take photos, and within this, a concerning 36% admitted to taking photos in potentially hazardous locations such as cliff edges and beyond safety barriers.

Our findings show that younger respondents (aged 18–34) are more likely to use Instagram and TikTok, while older respondents (aged 55 and above) prefer Facebook when it comes to being inspired to visit national parks. This pattern is consistent with broader demographic trends in social media usage, where younger people tend to gravitate towards newer platforms like Instagram and TikTok, which emphasise visual content and short‐form video, while older generations remain more engaged on Facebook, a platform that has been established for longer and is perceived as more community‐oriented [22, 23]. Although these preferences are not necessarily unique to the context of national park visitation, our current and on‐going research shows that platforms such as TikTok and Instagram may be greater instigators of risk‐taking behaviour in nature for social media content than Facebook and X (Twitter) which prioritise a different type of content (written and of different subject matter than the more visual platforms). Therefore, it is important to understand the types of platforms driving visitors to national parks.

Social media platforms themselves (particularly platforms like Instagram and TikTok) are well‐placed to provide risk information on dangerous behaviours, such as taking photos in risky circumstances. Nevertheless, without appropriate regulation and legislation, there is little incentive for social media companies to provide risk information or warnings to users on dangerous behaviours. Indeed, such actions may in fact be detrimental to social media companies' primary aim of keeping users engaged as much as possible.

While just over half of the respondents (57%) affirmed the appropriateness of existing safety infrastructure in NSW national parks for safe photo‐taking, a considerable proportion expressed uncertainty or disagreement with existing methods (43%). However, when questioned about the introduction of additional safety measures, the majority of respondents (77%) believed that no new infrastructure was needed. This likely indicates a disconnect between the desire for more safety infrastructure without knowing what types of infrastructure may be useful in such situations. This may indicate a lack of broader knowledge on the drivers for unsafe behaviour and how to prevent it. This may be overcome with further education, although it is not yet known what content and format would be most effective and for which group, representing an avenue for future research. Crucially, there is a need to conduct qualitative research in situ with social media users who are visiting national parks because of their social media use.

Of the 23% of respondents who supported stronger safety measures, they highlighted the need for robust barriers such as “safety zones” and “impenetrable” barriers in hazardous areas. They also recommended multilingual signs indicating safe and unsafe photo spots, “smart tagging” on social media, and more viewing platforms with features like camera stands and raised walkways. Additionally, they favoured increased ranger patrols, CCTV cameras and fines for those ignoring safety protocols. However, some respondents stressed individual responsibility and the importance of “common sense” over new measures. Some respondents suggested unorthodox measures including surveillance of well‐known social media locations and fines for misadventure, and there was a mention of ensuring mobile reception for emergencies. While there is a general trend towards advocating for safety measures, there is also a clear indication that these should not intrude excessively into the natural setting, with measures being non‐intrusive and preserving the integrity of the parks. Interestingly, very few respondents reported a need for greater education on the risks of taking selfies or other photography for social media in natural settings.

Our survey data reveals a notable age disparity in national park visits influenced by social media, with younger individuals (18–34 years) more inclined to be swayed by online platforms and take risky photos than their older counterparts. This underscores the need for targeted safety campaigns and awareness efforts directed towards this younger demographic to ensure their well‐being during park visits.

Our findings suggest that while many visitors are indeed aware of existing safety measures, their decision to bypass these protections highlights a complex interplay between risk perception and the influence of social media [24]. The desire for social validation through striking imagery appears to outweigh concerns about personal safety for some individuals. This could contribute to the observed reluctance in our study of participants to support additional safety infrastructure, as these visitors may view such measures as a hindrance to their primary objective—creating compelling social media content. Future efforts to improve safety may need to focus not only on physical infrastructure but also on changing perceptions and behaviours through targeted education and awareness campaigns [6, 18].

Our survey found that the majority of respondents (80%) reported speaking English ‘extremely well,’ suggesting that language barriers are unlikely to be a significant issue for most participants. Despite this, a subset of respondents expressed a desire for multilingual signage in national parks. This request might seem paradoxical, given that these respondents are proficient in English and tend to ignore existing safety signs in pursuit of capturing the perfect photograph [18]. One possible explanation is that these respondents are not necessarily advocating for multilingual signs for their own benefit, but rather out of concern for the safety of international visitors who may not be as proficient in English and who are perceived to be more at risk for social media‐related misadventure in NSW national parks. This assumption needs to be tested further, particularly as there is no evidence to suggest that those who are harmed from social media‐related misadventure in Australia are not proficient in English [5].

Therefore, the present study highlights a cognitive dissonance between what these respondents advocate for (clearer communication for others) yet a disregard for one's own safety across a large proportion of those surveyed. This behaviour underscores a complex dynamic where individuals may acknowledge the importance of safety for others but rationalise their own risk‐taking as a calculated choice in pursuit of social media validation. Addressing this discrepancy might require safety campaigns that not only enhance awareness but also challenge the perceived necessity of risky behaviours for the purpose of outdoor photography, with a focus on the social media drivers of such behaviours.

5.1. Strengths and Limitations

This study provides valuable insights into the influence of photography and social media on national park visitation in NSW and related safety behaviours. However, there are several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings and which limited the conclusions that we are able to draw from the data.

First, the survey questions did not explicitly differentiate between general photography and photography intended specifically for social media. Item three asked respondents if they visited a park they found on social media for photography, without specifying whether these photos were intended for personal use or social media sharing. This ambiguity could lead to an overestimation or underestimation of the influence of social media on risky photography behaviours.

Item four directly addressed risk‐taking behaviours in the context of photography for social media, but it did not capture the full range of risky behaviours that might occur during photography in general. Therefore, the data may not fully represent the extent to which photography, irrespective of social media use, contributes to safety risks in national parks.

Item five inquired about respondents' opinions on the suitability of current safety infrastructure for taking photographs, including selfies, but did not clarify whether the respondents were considering the needs of all visitors, including those who may not use social media. This might have influenced the responses, particularly given that many respondents indicated proficiency in English yet still advocated for multilingual signage—potentially out of concern for international visitors rather than themselves.

These limitations suggest that future research should include more precise questions that distinguish between photography for personal versus social media use and explore the motivations behind safety‐related opinions. Additionally, in‐depth qualitative research could provide a richer understanding of how different visitor groups perceive and respond to safety risks associated with photography in natural settings.

6. Conclusion

The influence of social media, particularly platforms like Instagram, has noticeably driven visits to NSW national parks, with a portion of these visitors primarily interested in photography. Alarmingly, a segment ventured into dangerous areas to capture these images. National parks should consider the influence of social media in inspiring visitors to choose destinations, particularly those driven by the desire to capture photographs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.