The Role of Social Media in Shaping Public Opinion on Environmental Issues

Dr Syed Sibghatullah Shah PhD
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Correspondence to: s.sibghats@eco.qau.edu.pk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70389/PJES.100002

Additional Information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: No industry funding
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Syed Shah – Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, review and editing
• Guarantor: Syed Shah
• Provenance and peer-review:
  Commissioned and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: N/a

Keywords: social media dynamics, environmental communication, network centrality, viral content, echo chambers.

Received: 17 August 2024
Accepted: 25 August 2024
Published: 2 September 2024

Introduction

People investigate about the environment and other important global issues in very different ways now than they did a few years ago. The way people extract and use information has changed because of sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram ⁽¹⁾. Also, such platform allows people to interact with each other from all over the world through live sessions. These sites are used by environmental activists, groups, and policymakers to get people to care more about climate change, pollution, protecting wildlife, and biodiversity ⁽²⁾. They are also utilized to push for policy changes and allow people to act. Sharing things on social media is very strong because it lets us quickly reach large audience ⁽³⁾. It breaks down the cultural and geographical barriers that used to make environmental campaigns less effective. Hashtags like #FridaysForFuture and #ClimateStrike have brought together millions of people from all over the world, turning small protests into global movements ^{(4, 5)}. But even though social media has a lot of potential to teach and entertain, it also changes people’s opinions in some bad ways ⁽⁶⁾.

Social Media platforms make it simple to quickly share information, which can assist people in finding out about environmental issues and taking actions to fix them ⁽⁷⁾. But the tools that help information spread so quickly can also be used to spread lies and create “echo chambers,” or places online where people only see information that backs up what they already think ⁽⁸⁾. It can be hard for people to understand environmental problems and for policymakers to make good choices when false information is spread about them. Another way that communities can become more divided is when people do not dialogue to each other or listen to other points of view. We need to learn more about how environmental messages spread on social networks and its infleunce on opinion of people.

The main point of this study is to find out how information moves through social networks so that we can figure out perception of people about environmental issues. To find key influencers (users who help spread environmental messages) and figure out what makes these messages more or less likely to spread are the main goals of the study. This way, correct and important information can reach a lot of different types of people. In this digital age, where social media has become one of the most important places for public discourse, this study is even more important. Most studies that have been done so far have only explored the content of the messages or the overall trends in usage of social media.  Two different types of research methods were used in this study to fill this gap. To begin, a thorough review of the existing literature is carried out to build a theoretical base. This review includes past studies on social media, public opinion, and environmental communication. After exploring literature, the study uses network analysis and simulation techniques to build on what it learnt from those methods. Network analysis have been utilized to explore the structure of social media networks and figure out the way people are linked and spread of data. Centrality measures are used in the study to find key influencers because of their position in network.  This study not only adds to academic knowledge about how social media works by combining theoretical insights with empirical analysis, but it also gives useful advice on how to get more people involved with environmental issues.

Literature Review

This part takes a systematic look at the body of knowledge that has grown over the last ten years, focusing on three main areas: how social media affects environmental awareness and advocacy; how information spreads in social networks; and the problems that come up because of false information and echo chambers. The literature review takes together results from different areas to find important themes, debates, and knowledge gaps. This review not only puts the study in the bigger picture of academic discussion, but it also shows how complicated and nuanced communication strategies need to be in order to work in the digital age. The findings of review were very important in creating and using the network analysis and simulation models for this study. This made sure that the empirical investigation was based on and informed by existing theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

The Influence of social media on Public Opinion

People and groups can instantly share content with people all over the world through social media, which has made information sharing more open and accessible ⁽⁹⁾. This feature has been used a lot by environmental groups to get people to care, act, and change public policy. A number of studies have found that social media can make people think differently about environmental issues ⁽¹⁰⁾. The only way to explore environmental problems these days is on social media. People have learnt a lot from these sites about important issues that will affect the future of the world. Anyone, any group, any activist can use these sites to quickly and widely share information with a huge group of people all over the world. Social media is a great way to get people involved in environmental issues and make them more aware of them because it lets them share content right away and interact with each other ⁽¹¹⁾. Earth Hour is one of the most well-known ways that social media can be used to raise awareness about environmental issues ⁽¹²⁾. The World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) helped start Earth Hour in 2007 ⁽¹³⁾. Everyone was asked to turn off lights that are not needed for one hour every year to help the environment. The message of the group has been shared on social networks. Some of the things that have helped the campaign do well are hashtags, interesting visual content, and the way people can interact ^{(14, 15)}.

Another example is the #FridaysForFuture movement, which began in 2018 with the work of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg ⁽¹⁶⁾. To start the movement, Thunberg went on strike in front of the Swedish parliament and asked for more to be done to stop climate change. The movement spread quickly to every country in the world due to social media. Under the hashtag #FridaysForFuture, teens and young adults from all over the world got together to plan climate strikes in their own cities ⁽¹⁷⁾. Online communities taught people about the science behind climate change, why rules need to be changed, and how important it is to act as an individual and as a group. Social networking sites also have interactive parts where people can discuss about environmental issues in a more direct and personal way than with traditional media ⁽¹⁸⁾. On Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, educational campaigns often use infographics, short videos that are easy to understand, and visual stories ⁽¹⁹⁾. More people can understand tough environmental issues better with these tools. For instance, environmental education accounts might post every day how to lower carbon footprint, harms of cutting down trees, or use interesting posts to make the science of climate change less mysterious ⁽²⁰⁾.  The algorithms that run social media sites like content that make more people to interact with it ⁽²¹⁾. This means that more people are likely to see environmental messages that are well-written and relevant to them. The #ZeroWaste movement and the #PlasticFreeChallenge are two challenges and trends that get people to live in a way that is better for the environment ⁽²²⁾.

Mobilization and Advocacy

When people see environmental issue on social media, they are more likely to back them and do something about it. People who care about the environment have used Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to hold large-scale protests, spread important information, and put pressure on policymakers ^{(23, 24)}. On these sites, activists can communicate with people from all over the world and work together to get their views across to more people. Extinction Rebellion (XR) is a movement that has grown on social media ^{(25, 26)}. In 2018, the Extinction Rebellion movement began in the UK. The group wants to use peaceful protests to get the government to do something about climate change. Tweets were sent a lot as #XR and #ExtinctionRebellion have helped the movement reach a lot of people and bring people from all over the world together ⁽²⁷⁾. A lot of people have joined Extinction Rebellion’s protests, blockades, and other acts of civil disobedience because of social media. For example, XR planned a series of protests in London during the 2019 April Rebellion, which shut down parts of the city for about two weeks ⁽²⁸⁾. They did this on Twitter and other social media sites. Updates, meeting locations, and instructions were given to participants in real time. The movement gained a lot of followers very quickly, which sped up the climate crisis and made people, the media, and politicians realize the harmful impact.

Organizing protests in person is important, but social media is also a great way to push for policy changes ⁽²⁹⁾. Many places around the world have heard a different story about climate change because XR shared in-depth details about the climate emergency, the scientific reasons for their demands, and the ways that current policies have failed. Social media campaigns for the movement have gotten people to talk more about things like the need for carbon neutrality, protecting biodiversity, and how important it is to change the whole system ⁽³⁰⁾. This has shown how willing people are to give up things for the environment and brought attention to the movement’s cause. Activists can share their ideas, plan actions for the future, and help each other in different groups on social media. There are now Facebook Groups and Reddit where environmentalists can share resources, talk about plans, and make plans for events that will happen all over the world ⁽³¹⁾. An important part of long-term advocacy work is having a sense of community and a common goal.

Groups like Extinction Rebellion can also use social media to directly talk to institutions and policymakers ⁽³²⁾. Authorities have been asked to do things, and XR has been able to do so through campaigns that name politicians, government agencies, and other important people. Politicians listen to activists and put their needs on the agenda by using this direct way of discussion to people instead of going through the gatekeepers of traditional media. There is no doubt that social media-driven advocacy and mobilization have led to changes in policy and conversations ^{(33, 34)}. There were large-scale protests by Extinction Rebellion and a lot of public pressure that led the UK government to declare a climate emergency in 2019. A lot of people from all over the world have been paying attention and putting pressure on other cities and countries to do the same which is because of social media advocacy.

Misinformation and Echo Chambers

Sometimes social media is good because it can help save the environment and get people to act. But sometimes it is bad because it can lead to false information and “echo chambers.” It might be harder to fix environmental issues in a good way.

Misinformation on social media

A lot of false information spreads on social media sites as these platforms are not centralized, people can share information easily ⁽³⁵⁾. False information about the environment can be shared in many ways, such as by denying climate change or telling them lies about what is being done to protect the environment, how much pollution there is, or how well renewable energy sources work ⁽³⁶⁾. Social media makes it simple for false information to get around quickly and to a lot of people. It could be shared tens of thousands or even millions of times before it is fixed or checked to make sure it is correct. It is even worse because shocking or upsetting content is more likely to be shared, even if it is not accurate. A lot of people will believe false claims that renewable energy sources do not work or that environmental rules are expensive ⁽³⁷⁾. It can make people less likely to support policies like putting a price on carbon or promoting renewable energy by making them doubt or be confused about effectiveness of policies. People may not trust scientists and institutions as much if they hear false information about them. This can make it harder for everyone to agree on what to do about the environment.

Echo Chambers and Their Role in Amplifying Misinformation

When people only see information that backs up what they already believe and do not pay much attention to or discuss information that goes against their believe, they are in an echo chamber ⁽³⁸⁾. This takes place because of how algorithms on social media sites work. This means that users might get stuck in a feedback loop where their views are always backed up and they do not see other points of view very often. People who do not believe in climate change might read and interact with things that downplay the issue ⁽³⁹⁾. People who only see certain things can become more set in their beliefs over time and less open to arguments based on evidence or scientific consensus.

Additionally, echo chambers make it harder for people to harmonize. Others’ points of view are less likely to interest or be understood when people only hear one side of a story. Additionally, individuals with diverse views on environmental issues might become more set in their ways and less open to constructive dialogue ⁽⁴⁰⁾. People in echo chambers might find it tough to understand how other people feel. Some environmental problems, like littering with plastic or cutting down trees, might not get as much attention or action from people who consume a lot of content about those issues ⁽⁴¹⁾. Environmental activism may become less organized as a result, and the work of various groups may not be able to coordinate with one another or reach larger, systemic objectives.

Implications for Environmental Communication

A lot of false information and “echo chambers” on social media make it hard to explain about the environment. We need to be honest about these problems if we want to teach people and get them to support environmental laws. Fighting false information means actively spreading information that is true and can be proven. One way to do this is to work on projects with reputable science groups that check the facts ⁽⁴²⁾. To compete with content that shocks or makes people feel bad, which often spreads false information, we need to make content that is both accurate, trust worthy and interesting.

Second, people need ways to get out of echo chambers that help them see things from different angles ⁽⁴³⁾. This can be done by getting people from different groups to talk to each other and by writing content that applies to many people rather than just those in the choir. Environmental groups and people who care about the environment should also be aware of “echo chambers” that can happen in their own towns and work to show environmental problems in a way that is fair and includes everyone. Lastly social media sites can help lessen the damage done by fake news and “echo chambers. We need to make laws and algorithms that make it harder for fake news to spread and give more weight to real news and different points of view. All of these changes will be hard to make, but they need to be made for social media to be used to save the earth.

Network Analysis in Social Media Research

This way of investigating the connections between things in a network, like people, groups, or organizations, helps us comprehend how social media sites work as a complicated web of connections ^{(44, 45)}.  There are many ways that news can spread, but one of the most important is how we can set up our social network. Some social networks are very centralized, while others are not at all. A few key nodes, which are also sometimes called “influencers,” hold a lot of the network’s links ⁽⁴⁶⁾. In networks, main nodes can have a big effect on the whole structure as it will lead to spreading news. In a decentralized network, connections are spread out more evenly among many nodes ⁽⁴⁷⁾. This means that information does not flow through just one node. While not having central hubs can slow down the flow of information. However, it may also make the spread of information slower or less widespread. When it comes to social media, people who have a lot of followers are very important. The messages these key nodes share can reach a lot more people because they usually have a lot of followers or connections ^{(48, 49)}. Finding these influencers and understanding their role is important for anyone who wants to effectively spread environmental messages. People with a lot of influence can change people’s perception. These can then share the information with their own networks. The credibility and trust that influencers have built with their followers often make them more effective.

Another important factor that is affected by network structure and the presence of influencers is virality, or how quickly and widely content spreads across a network. Going viral is not just a random event; it is usually caused by how emotionally appealing the content is, how relevant it is to the audience, and how well it is placed in the network ⁽⁵⁰⁾. People are naturally drawn to sharing content that makes them feel strong emotions, whether those emotions are good or bad. Another important thing that determines whether something spreads is formulation of the network. Things are more likely to go viral when there are a lot of links between nodes and data can move quickly between them. This effect is stronger when there are influencers around because their first shares can act as a spark that spreads the message far and wide across the network.

Simulation in Social Media Research

Simulation techniques are very useful to models of how data moves through digital networks. Researchers can test different scenarios and see how information might spread by creating virtual versions of social media sites to know about working of communication network. This is especially true when we are trying to get environmental messages across. To find problems and figure out how to solve them, scientists can use simulations. For example, they can use them to find out how to avoid making echo chambers ⁽⁵¹⁾.

When researchers simulate the interactions between thousands or even millions of agents, they can see patterns and dynamics that would be hard to identify with traditional methods of analysis. In environmental communication, an agent-based model could show how people decide if they want to share news about the environment based on how reliable they think it is, how it makes them feel, or extent of influence of people in the network ⁽⁵²⁾. Diffusion models help scientists examine how quickly and what kinds of factors are necessary for an environmental message to spread through a social network ⁽⁵³⁾. One thing that simulations can do is to show structure of a network—whether it is centralized or decentralized—affects how rapidly information spreads. Some key nodes in a network have a lot of power. This means that information can spread quickly, but it depends on these key nodes. In decentralized networks the spread might be slower, but it might be stronger because it is not dependent on a small group of powerful people ⁽⁵⁴⁾. It is possible to find the best conditions for environmental communication that reaches numerous people through simulations. These can be changed by altering things like network density, the initial spreader’s power, or the emotional appeal of the message.

The formation and maintenance of echo chambers in social media networks is another important topic that can be studied through simulations. Online places called “echo chambers” divides people even more because it makes their beliefs stronger. Simulations can show how these echo chambers might form, when people mostly connect with people who share their views or when algorithms show them content that is related to how they have behaved in the past. Researchers can come up with ways to stop echo chambers from forming if they understand how these dynamics work. For example, simulations might suggest actions like adding different points of view to users’ feeds, encouraging interactions between groups, or changing algorithmic suggestions to give users access to more information.

Methodology

Two different methods are used in this study to explore how social media affects people’s views on environmental issues. We did a thorough review of all the previous research to build a theoretical base and find the most important trends and debates. This literature review was very helpful in showing where more research is needed, especially when it comes to understanding the effects of influential people, how content goes viral, and how echo chambers form in social networks. The ideas we extract from review helped us plan our empirical analysis, which was also conducted through network analysis and simulation methods.  Learning from the literature review helped us think about the network analysis and simulation results in a more general way. For instance, network analysis was used to find the most important people in a network based on past research on the effects of influential people. The results of the simulation were also judged by research that had already been done on content going viral and echo chamber effects. We used both theory and strong evidence from the real world in this way to make sure that our analysis was sound.

Network Analysis

We did a network analysis of a certain platform (Twitter) to find out how environmental messages get around on social media. The following factors are,

Let G = (V, E) represent the social network, where  is the set of nodes (users) and E is the set of edges (connections between users).

Degree Centrality Ci for a Node i,

where di is the degree (number of connections) of node i and N is the total number of nodes in the network.

Betweenness Centrality ​Bi for a Node i,

where Ost is the total number of shortest paths from node s to node t, and Ost(i) is the number of those paths that pass-through node i.

Eigenvector Centrality ECi for a Node i,

where M(i) is the set of neighbors of node i, and

is a constant.

Simulation Model

The simulation model is designed to replicate the diffusion of environmental messages across a social network. We use an agent-based model where each node in the network represents an individual user, and each edge represents a potential communication pathway.

Model Assumptions

1. Each agent follows a simple set of rules based on their influence strength Ii, their connectivity Ci​, and the virality V of the content they encounter.
2. When an agent receives an environmental message, they have a probability P (Ii,V) of sharing it, which depends on their influence strength and the message’s virality.
3. The likelihood of an agent being part of an echo chamber increases if their connections are highly homogeneous (i.e., their connections share similar opinions). This can be modeled by adjusting the sharing probability based on the similarity of connected nodes.

Probability of Sharing P (Ii,V),

where  is a threshold parameter that represents the baseline resistance to sharing content.

Spread Rate S(t),

The simulation has a number of important results, such as finding key influencers by looking at centrality measures and influence strength that help find the best nodes for spreading environmental messages. In addition, the simulation keeps track of the message’s reach and speed, showing how fast and far it spreads across the network and pointing out the factors that help or offended diffusion.

Results

Previous research has done a lot of work on how influential certain social media users are in spreading information. Our study goes one step further by measuring how different centrality measures affect the spread of environmental messages. This detailed method not only finds the most useful influencers but also explains why some nodes in the network are more powerful than others. This gives us a better understanding of how messages spread in social networks. Also, the results of our simulations give us new ways to think about how content going viral and network connectivity work together. Previous research has mostly explored these factors separately, but our study shows them together to have a big impact on information spread. We show through simulations that high virality and strong network connectivity can make message spread exponentially, which is a nuance that has not been looked into much in previous research. Based on this finding, communication strategies should not only focus on the content but also on improving the network’s structure to have the most impact.

 Finally, our study of echo chambers gives us new information about extent to which network homogeneity affects the formation and survival of these divided groups. Many studies have already shown that echo chambers exist, but ours is the first to measure the relationship between network homogeneity, message reach, and polarization. The results show that increasing network diversity is important to get rid of echo chambers and make sure that environmental messages do not stay in small groups. This adds a new dimension to the conversation about how to reduce polarization on social media by giving us useful tips for making environmental messages more widely understood. A sample network of 10,000 nodes (users) and 50,000 edges (connections between users) was used for the network analysis on a social media platform. For every node, measures of centrality were found, such as degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and eigenvector centrality. Key influencers were found to be the top 5% of nodes with the highest centrality scores depicted in Table 2.

Table 2: Centrality Measures for Top Influencers.

Node ID	Degree Centrality	Betweenness Centrality	Eigenvector Centrality
2345	0.067	0.234	0.091
6789	0.072	0.298	0.087
3456	0.065	0.276	0.084
7890	0.063	0.244	0.080
1234	0.070	0.290	0.089

In the Figure 1 the red nodes show the most important people. This visualization makes it easy to see the most important people in the network while still showing how the connections are structured. ​The study finds that nodes like Node 2345 and Node 6789 that have high eigenvector centrality are very important. Not only do these nodes have a lot of connections, they are also linked to other very important nodes, which makes environmental messages even more widely spread. The simulation model was run with different amounts of content going viral (shown by the reproduction rate  and network connectivity (shown by the average degree of nodes).

Table 3: Simulation Results for Message Spread Across Different Network Conditions.

Scenario	Virality (R​)	Average Degree	Percentage of Network Reached (%)	Average Time to Reach 50% (iterations)
1	1.2	10	45	20
2	1.5	15	60	15
3	1.8	20	75	10
4	2.0	25	85	8

The simulation shows that environmental messages can reach a lot more people when they go viral () and when there are more connections between computers. As an example, in Scenario 4, where = 2.0 and the average degree was 25, the message got to 85% of the network in 8 times depicted in Figure 2. Additionally, the simulation explore how echo chambers could form in the network, especially when users’ connections were very similar, meaning they mostly talked to people who shared their personal views.

Table 3: Impact of Network Homogeneity on Echo Chamber Formation.

Homogeneity Level	Percentage of Users in Echo Chambers (%)	Average Message Reach (%)	Polarization Index (PI)
Low	10	80	0.3
Medium	35	65	0.5
High	60	50	0.7

According to the Figure 3, the chance of echo chambers forming increases as network homogeneity rises. In networks with a lot of similar users, 60% of them were found to be in echo chambers, which meant that messages could only reach 50% of the network as a whole as presented in Table 3. Because the Polarization Index (PI) is higher in networks with more homogeneity, this finding shows danger of polarization. Our network analysis showed that the structure of a social network has a big effect on how quickly and how far information spreads. Key influencers are very important for spreading messages in networks with a lot of centralization because they can quickly and widely share information with their large followings. This matches the patterns that were seen: nodes with high eigenvector centrality had a big effect on the overall flow of information in the network. These results show importance of influential people and work with them to make environmental campaigns more effective. But the study also shows that relying on a few central nodes could be unsafe if these nodes are not always on board with the campaign’s goals.

The simulations showed that environmental messages get spread much more quickly and to a wider audience when they are combined with content that is more likely to go viral (based on how emotionally appealing and relevant it is) and networks that are more connected. This finding suggests that creating emotionally powerful and interesting content is just as important as targeting key influencers if we want to reach numerous people. The results also show that making the network more connected, either by helping users connect with each other more or by connecting different sub-networks, can make these messages more powerful. These ideas can help environmental groups improve their social media strategies because they show importance of both good content and a well-structured network for campaigns to succeed. In these kinds of settings, echo chambers form, which makes it much harder for environmental messages to reach new people. This is because messages tend to stay in closed loops, which strengthen already present beliefs of people. To get out of these “echo chambers,” as the simulations show, deliberate actions are needed. For example, groups should be encouraged to talk to each other and algorithms should be changed to show users a wider range of content. Taking on these issues is necessary to help people understand and care more about environmental problems. There is a lot of room for more research and real-world use of the study’s results in environmental communication.

Discussion

The network analysis for this study shows that key influencers play a big role in getting environmental messages out there on social media. We can find these influencers by their high eigenvector centrality. They are placed strategically in the network and are linked to both other influential nodes and other influential nodes. The importance of eigenvector centrality in finding these influencers is in line with what other research on social media dynamics has found: influencers are often the key to how information moves through networks ^{(55, 56)}. These people have an effect in two ways. First, because they can directly reach a lot of people, when they share or support a message, it becomes visible right away to all of their followers. Second, because these influencers are linked to other important nodes in the network, and they start a chain reaction that spreads the message to other influencers and beyond.

This effect makes it even more important to interact with these key people as part of any environmental communication plan. By working with influencers, environmental groups can make sure that their messages not only reach a lot of people, but also spread quickly through the network, reaching people in many different and faraway parts of social media ^{(57, 58)}. However, depending on a small group of key influencers comes with some risks. It could be very hard for important messages to get out if these influential people do not agree with the environmental campaign’s goals or stop caring about the problem. Finding influential people is important, but it should also be paired with efforts to make the network of active nodes more diverse in order to make the strategy for spreading information stronger and more reliable.

The study’s simulation results shed more light on the factors that affect how well information spreads on social media, especially when it comes time it takes for content to go viral and networks connectivity. Virality, or how likely something is to be shared quickly and widely, was found to be a key factor in effective spread of environmental messages. More people on the network could see content that went viral more quickly. This kind of content usually has emotional appeal, is relevant, and can be shared.  It was also discovered that being able to connect to networks was very important for making messages spread faster ⁽⁵⁹⁾. When nodes are more densely connected, the overall connectivity of a network is higher. This means that information has more ways to travel. Because there are more connections, messages can get to more nodes faster as they can go through different routes at the same time. When we combine high virality with strong network connectivity, we have the perfect conditions for environmental messages to spread quickly and widely. In light of this, environmental communication strategies should not only focus on making content that is interesting, but also on how to improve the network’s structural connectivity ^{(60, 61)}. This could include working to make connections between different sub-networks or to connect groups of users who might not normally be able to talk to each other.

Also, the way that virality and network connectivity work together shows importance of timing and coordination for social media campaigns. Starting a viral campaign, for example, during a time when network connectivity is high, like during a publicized environmental crisis, could make the message more powerful. On the other hand, content that goes viral might not be able to reach many people in networks with poor connectivity. This shows importance of strengthening the structure of the network.

Experimenting with echo chambers in the simulation showed that spreading environmental messages on social media can be hard, especially in networks with a lot of duplicate content. When people in echo chambers mostly interact with people who share their views, information tends to stay in closed loops, which reinforces existing beliefs and limits exposure to different points of view. This can make it very hard for environmental messages to reach more people because they are less likely to get past these small groups and reach people. Several things make echo chambers easier to form, such as the way social media platforms’ algorithms often show content that is similar to what a user has already interacted with and the fact that people naturally look for information that supports what they already think. In networks with a lot of similar users, these factors work together to make a cycle where users keep seeing the same points of view while other points of view are pushed to the edges or ignored ⁽⁶²⁾. This could make people’s views more divided, which would make it harder to agree on things related to the environment and make communication campaigns less effective.

It is important to encourage more diverse interactions in social media networks to fight the effects of echo chambers. One way could be cross-group engagement, which connects users with different political views by showing them relevant content or making changes to the algorithm. Spreading environmental messages to more people can be done by making content that appeals to a wider audience and connects with various groups ⁽⁶³⁾. Using influencers with a wide range of followers is another way to make echo chambers less harmful. This group of influential people can help get messages across by linking various smaller networks. By carefully picking these influential people and utilzing them positively can help environmental campaigns reaching more people.

Implications for Environmental Communication

Organizations that want their messages to have the most impact should first make it a top priority to find key influencers and work with them. Large groups of influential people can share content across the network, reaching many people and starting chains of information flow. Spreading out the influencers is also important so that we do not have to rely too much on a few key nodes. A high virality rate and strong network connections make it easier for messages to get to a lot of people quickly.  It is important to deal with echo chambers so that environmental messages reach a lot of people, not just a few small groups. Strategies that get people from different groups to interact with each other and use influencers with a lot of fans can help break down these barriers. This will make communication easier and more useful for everyone. Environmental campaigns can have a bigger effect if they understand and deal with these dynamics. This will make people more aware of, involved in, and likely to take action on important environmental issues.

Conclusion

This study shows importance of social media in shaping public opinion on environmental issues. It does this by screening both the good and bad things that can happen when we use it. Social media is a powerful way to communicate, and it gives environmental groups and policymakers chances they have never had before to reach a wide range of people, get people involved, and get people to take action. But whether or not social media can help us reach these goals depends on how well we understand working of networks and information spread. This study’s results show that network analysis and simulation are very useful methods for understanding these dynamics. People or things with high centrality measures, like eigenvector centrality, are placed in social networks in a way that makes messages stronger and reaches more people than would be possible with nodes that are not as connected. Getting these influential people involved is key for environmental communication campaigns to have the most impact possible. However, this study also stresses how important it is to not rely on just a few influential people, as this can leave you open to threats. A more stable communication strategy can be made by expanding the group of influential people and encouraging participation from a wide range of people in the network.

The simulation part of the study also shows content going viral and network connectivity effect environmental message. Viral content is one that strikes a chord with people emotionally and is made to be easy to share. This shows that environmental groups need to focus on writing messages that not only give people useful information but also make them share the content with other people. The study also shows that improving network connectivity, either by making it easier for people to connect with each other or by connecting different sub-networks, can help these messages get around. This information is especially helpful for making campaigns that need to reach a lot of different people.

The study also shows that echo chambers can be bad because they can make it hard for people to interact with each other. Messages are less likely to reach new people in networks where most of the people who interact with each other believe the same things. Instead, they tend to stay in closed loops and reinforce existing views. Along with making it harder for news to spread, this issue also makes people less united, which makes it harder for them to agree on environmental issues. It seems that getting rid of these “echo chambers” is important for making the public debate fairer and well-informed.  Learnt from network analysis and simulation, environmental groups and policymakers can make more targeted and effective communication campaigns. It is possible to adapt these strategies to fit how individuals utilize the social networks they frequent. This allows their messages to reach and affect more individuals. Such groups can also deal with and get past communication problems by learning about them, such as the formation of “echo chambers.”

Another thing is that social media can help protect the environment, but only if we know how to use it well and plan our posts ahead of time. Environmental groups can make the most of social media to change people’s minds, get people to act, and make real progress in the fight against environmental degradation. They can do this by using network analysis and simulation techniques along with interesting and easy-to-share content. The results of the study make it possible for more research and real-world use in the field of environmental communication. This will allow people to get more involved in important environmental issues in a more effective and meaningful way.

References

1. Alhabash S, Ma M. A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social media+ society. 2017 Feb;3(1):2056305117691544.
2. Seddon N, Smith A, Smith P, Key I, Chausson A, Girardin C, House J, Srivastava S, Turner B. Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change. Global change biology. 2021 Apr;27(8):1518-46.
3. Qualman E. Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do business. John Wiley & Sons; 2012 Nov 6.
4. Haßler J, Wurst AK, Jungblut M, Schlosser K. Influence of the pandemic lockdown on Fridays for Future’s hashtag activism. New Media & Society. 2023 Aug;25(8):1991-2013.
5. Soler-i-Martí R, Fernández-Planells A, Pérez-Altable L. Bringing the future into the present: the notion of emergency in the youth climate movement. Social Movement Studies. 2024 Jul 3;23(4):517-36.
6. Shah SS, Asghar Z. Dynamics of social influence on consumption choices: A social network representation. Heliyon. 2023 Jun 1;9(6).
7. Lovejoy K, Saxton GD. Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication. 2012 Apr 1;17(3):337-53.
8. Dubois E, Minaeian S, Paquet-Labelle A, Beaudry S. Who to trust on social media: How opinion leaders and seekers avoid disinformation and echo chambers. Social media+ society. 2020 Apr;6(2):2056305120913993.
9. Khan GF. Social media for Government. Social Media for Government. 2017:7-21.
10. Ballew MT, Omoto AM, Winter PL. Using Web 2.0 and social media technologies to foster proenvironmental action. Sustainability. 2015 Aug 7;7(8):10620-48.
11. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons. 2010 Jan 1;53(1):59-68.
12. Fernandez M, Piccolo LS, Maynard D, Wippoo M, Meili C, Alani H. Pro-environmental campaigns via social media: analysing awareness and behaviour patterns. Journal of Web Science. 2017 Oct 26;3(1).
13. Fernández M, Burel G, Alani H, Piccolo LS, Meili C, Hess R. Analysing engagement towards the 2014 earth hour campaign in twitter.
14. Wutzler R. # Makesmthng–consume less, make more: political consumption and sustainable lifestyle on Instagram, a case study of a Greenpeace campaign.
15. Poell T. Social media and the transformation of activist communication: Exploring the social media ecology of the 2010 Toronto G20 protests. Information, Communication & Society. 2014 Jul 3;17(6):716-31.
16. Beckh P, Limmer A. The fridays for future phenomenon. Strategies for sustainability of the Earth system. 2022:427-32.
17. Belotti F, Donato S, Bussoletti A, Comunello F. Youth activism for climate on and beyond social media: Insights from FridaysForFuture-Rome. The International Journal of Press/Politics. 2022 Jul;27(3):718-37.
18. Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD. Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2017 Mar;14(3):311.
19. Li Y, Guan M, Hammond P, Berrey LE. Communicating COVID-19 information on TikTok: a content analysis of TikTok videos from official accounts featured in the COVID-19 information hub. Health education research. 2021 Jun 1;36(3):261-71.
20. Armstrong AK, Krasny ME, Schuldt JP. Communicating climate change: A guide for educators. Cornell University Press; 2018.
21. Swart J. Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social media+ society. 2021 Apr;7(2):20563051211008828.
22. Helene C. Risky plastic and the limits to consumer responsibilization. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics. 2023 Jan;1:e20.
23. Hopke JE, Paris L. Environmental social movements and social media. InThe handbook of international trends in environmental communication 2021 Dec 27 (pp. 357-372). Routledge.
24. Shah SS, Asghar Z. Individual attitudes towards environmentally friendly choices: a comprehensive analysis of the role of legal rules, religion, and confidence in government. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 2024 Apr 2:1-23.
25. Stuart D. Tensions between individual and system change in the climate movement: an analysis of Extinction Rebellion. New political economy. 2022 Sep 3;27(5):806-19.+
26. Slaven M, Heydon J. Crisis, deliberation, and extinction rebellion. Critical studies on Security. 2020 Jan 2;8(1):59-62.
27. Berglund O, Schmidt D. Extinction rebellion and climate change activism: Breaking the law to change the world. Springer Nature; 2020 Sep 9.
28. Read R. Extinction rebellion: Insights from the inside. Simplicity Institute; 2020.
29. Segerberg A, Bennett WL. Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review. 2011 Jul 1;14(3):197-215.
30. Flagg JA. Carbon Neutral by 2021: The past and present of Costa Rica’s unusual political tradition. Sustainability. 2018 Jan 24;10(2):296.
31. Mavrodieva AV, Rachman OK, Harahap VB, Shaw R. Role of social media as a soft power tool in raising public awareness and engagement in addressing climate change. Climate. 2019 Oct 16;7(10):122.
32. Gardner P, Carvalho T, Valenstain M. Spreading rebellion? The rise of extinction rebellion chapters across the world. Environmental Sociology. 2022 Oct 2;8(4):424-35.
33. Grossman E. Media and policy making in the digital age. Annual Review of Political Science. 2022 May 12;25(1):443-61.
34. Shah SS, Shah SA. Trust as a determinant of Social Welfare in the Digital Economy. Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2024 Apr 5;14(1):79.
35. Prier J. Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. InInformation warfare in the age of cyber conflict 2020 Jul 28 (pp. 88-113). Routledge.
36. Nosek G. Climate change litigation and narrative: How to use litigation to tell compelling climate stories. Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 2017;42:733.
37. Bush MJ, Bush MJ. Denial and deception. Climate Change and Renewable Energy: How to End the Climate Crisis. 2020:373-420.
38. Nguyen CT. Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme. 2020 Jun;17(2):141-61.
39. Corner A, Roberts O, Chiari S, Völler S, Mayrhuber ES, Mandl S, Monson K. How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2015 Sep;6(5):523-34.
40. Mårald E, Sandström C, Rist L, Rosvall O, Samuelsson L, Idenfors A. Exploring the use of a dialogue process to tackle a complex and controversial issue in forest management. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 2015 Nov 17;30(8):749-56.
41. Matsekoleng TK. Action research and environmental education within a home-based setup to conscientise children towards littering. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2021 Oct;23(10):14163-75.
42. O’Connor C, Weatherall JO. The misinformation age: How false beliefs spread. Yale University Press; 2019 Jan 8.
43. Dubois E, Blank G. The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, communication & society. 2018 May 4;21(5):729-45.
44. Pachucki MA, Breiger RL. Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual review of sociology. 2010 Aug 11;36(1):205-24.
45. Kim W, Jeong OR, Lee SW. On social Web sites. Information systems. 2010 Apr 1;35(2):215-36.
46. Alp ZZ, Öğüdücü ŞG. Identifying topical influencers on twitter based on user behavior and network topology. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2018 Feb 1;141:211-21.
47. Ramaswamy L, Gedik B, Liu L. A distributed approach to node clustering in decentralized peer-to-peer networks. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems. 2005 Aug 1;16(9):814-29.
48. Shi Z, Rui H, Whinston AB. Content sharing in a social broadcasting environment: evidence from twitter. MIS quarterly. 2014 Mar 1;38(1):123-42.
49. Tulu MM, Mkiramweni ME, Hou R, Feisso S, Younas T. Influential nodes selection to enhance data dissemination in mobile social networks: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 2020 Nov 1;169:102768.
50. Mousavi M, Davulcu H, Ahmadi M, Axelrod R, Davis R, Atran S. Effective messaging on social media: What makes online content go viral? InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 2022 Apr 25 (pp. 2957-2966).
51. Interian R, G. Marzo R, Mendoza I, Ribeiro CC. Network polarization, filter bubbles, and echo chambers: An annotated review of measures and reduction methods. International Transactions in Operational Research. 2023 Nov;30(6):3122-58.
52. Kapeller ML, Jäger G. Threat and anxiety in the climate debate—An agent-based model to investigate climate scepticism and pro-environmental behaviour. Sustainability. 2020 Feb 28;12(5):1823.
53. Borowski E, Chen Y, Mahmassani H. Social media effects on sustainable mobility opinion diffusion: Model framework and implications for behavior change. Travel behaviour and society. 2020 Apr 1;19:170-83.
54. Dong Z, Chen Y, Tricco TS, Li C, Hu T. Hunting for vital nodes in complex networks using local information. Scientific Reports. 2021 Apr 28;11(1):9190.
55. Ullah A, Din SU, Khan N, Mawuli CB, Shao J. Towards investigating influencers in complex social networks using electric potential concept from a centrality perspective. Information Fusion. 2024 Sep 1;109:102439.
56. Seyfosadat SF, Ravanmehr R. Systematic literature review on identifying influencers in social networks. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2023 Oct;56(Suppl 1):567-660.
57. Moukarzel S, Caduff A, Rehm M, Del Fresno M, Pérez-Escamilla R, Daly AJ. Breastfeeding communication strategies, challenges and opportunities in the twitter-verse: Perspectives of influencers and social network analysis. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021 Jun 8;18(12):6181.
58. Vanninen H, Mero J, Kantamaa E. Social media influencers as mediators of commercial messages. Journal of Internet Commerce. 2023 Mar 14;22(sup1):S4-27.
59. Zhu X, Kim Y, Park H. Do messages spread widely also diffuse fast? Examining the effects of message characteristics on information diffusion. Computers in human behavior. 2020 Feb 1;103:37-47.
60. Shrivastava P, Smith MS, O’Brien K, Zsolnai L. Transforming sustainability science to generate positive social and environmental change globally. One Earth. 2020 Apr 24;2(4):329-40.
61. Sun L, Qin L, Taghizadeh-Hesary F, Zhang J, Mohsin M, Chaudhry IS. Analyzing carbon emission transfer network structure among provinces in China: new evidence from social network analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020 Jun;27:23281-300.
62. Zhang F, Zu J, Hu M, Zhu D, Kang Y, Gao S, Zhang Y, Huang Z. Uncovering inconspicuous places using social media check-ins and street view images. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 2020 May 1;81:101478.
63. Wanless A, Berk M. Participatory propaganda: The engagement of audiences in the spread of persuasive communications. Social media and social order. 2021:111-39.

Cite this article as:
Shah SS. The Role of Social Media in Shaping Public Opinion on Environmental Issues. Premier Journal of Environmental Science 2024:1;100002

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley