4.3 Article

Destination Images of Africa Reflected in Social Media Photographs

Journal

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES
Volume 35, Issue 11, Pages 1170-1188

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2022.2100023

Keywords

Conservation; Flickr; image content analysis; nature-based tourism; traditional cultural tourism

Funding

  1. Griffith Graduate Research School (GGRS), Griffith University, Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the representation of African tourism destinations on social media, specifically Flickr. The findings suggest that most photographs shared on Flickr showcase various aspects of tourism, particularly nature-based tourism such as wildlife and landscapes, as well as traditional cultures. Factors such as international tourism, economic conditions, and natural resources contribute to the variation in the number and content of photographs among African countries.
Nature-based tourism is important in Africa, but do tourists show natural resources when they share destination image(s) on social media and for which of the 54 countries? For the over 11 million photographs from Africa on Flickr, most were from South Africa (15%), Egypt (14%), Morocco (11%), Kenya (8%) or Swaziland (7%). Using a content analysis of 100 photographs per country we found they mostly show aspects of tourism (62%), particularly nature-based tourism (38%) such as wildlife (16%) and landscapes (20%), but also 'traditional' cultures (21%). Using linear models, we found that international tourism, economic factors, and nature (biodiversity and protected areas) explained much of the variation in the number and content of photographs among countries in Africa. While recognizing limitations with social media, and the small sample used, these results provided insights into how these destinations are perceived, which on Flickr reflected an 'out of Africa' nature-orientated view.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available