TikTok'ta Çevresel İletişim Stratejileri: Birleşmiş Milletler Çevre Programı (UNEP) Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu çalışma, UNEP’in TikTok’taki iletişim stratejilerini inceleyerek, kuruluşun dijital iletişim stratejilerine ve TikTok’un, uluslararası çevre kuruluşlarının iletişim stratejilerindeki rolüne dair bir katkı sağlamayı amaçlamıştır. Araştırmada, UNEP’in TikTok hesabında 2 Haziran 2020 ile 3 Ocak 2025 tarihleri arasında yayımlanan 402 video, içerik analizi tekniği ile incelenmiştir. Bu analizle, paylaşılan içeriklerin temaları, dili, türleri, amaçları, duygusal tonları, formatları, etkileşim düzeyleri, sözcüleri ve sözcülere ilişkin demografik veriler ortaya konulmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda, UNEP'in çeşitli duygusal tonlara ve sözcülere sahip farklı video türleri aracılığıyla takipçilerine iklim krizi, sürdürülebilirlik, gıda israfı ve biyoçeşitlilik gibi konularda mesajlar iletmeye ve onları harekete geçirmeye çalıştığı görülmüştür. Ancak, kuruluşun dezavantajlı bireylerin ihtiyaçlarını yeterince göz önünde bulundurmadığı, belirli grupları sınırlı bir şekilde temsil ettiği ve çok dillilik ilkesini yeterince uygulamadığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, kuruluşun paylaşımlarında yoğun bir şekilde altyazı, açıklama, müzik ve hashtag gibi unsurları kullansa da etkileşim oranlarının düşük kaldığı saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Medya
• TikTok
• Çevresel İletişim
• Birleşmiş Milletler Çevre Programı

Environmental Communication Strategies on TikTok: A Study on the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Öz

This study analyzes UNEP's communication strategies on TikTok, contributing to the understanding of the organization's digital communication strategies, and elucidating TikTok's role in the communication strategies of international environmental organizations. Employing a content analysis, the study scrutinized 402 audiovisual content promulgated via UNEP’s TikTok interface from June 2, 2020, to January 3, 2025. The analytical dimensions encompassed thematic delineations, linguistic modalities, typological classifications, strategic intents, affective undertones, structural configurations, interactional metrics, spokesperson attributes, and the demographic parameters of spokespersons. The findings revealed that UNEP utilized diverse video formats, characterized by varying emotional tones and spokesperson profiles, to convey messages on topics such as climate change, sustainability, food waste, and biodiversity, aiming to foster audience engagement. Nevertheless, the analysis found that the organization does not sufficiently consider the needs of disadvantaged individuals, represents certain groups in a limited manner, and fails to adequately adhere to the principle of multilingualism. Moreover, notwithstanding the recurrent incorporation of subtitles, captions, music, and hashtags within the content, the organization's engagement metrics remained conspicuously low.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Media
• TikTok
• Environmental Communication
• United Nations Environment Programme

Kaynakça

1. A Lin, C., Wang, X., & Dam, L. (2023). TikTok Videos and Sustainable Apparel Behavior: Social Consciousness, Prior Consumption and Theory of Planned Behavior. Emerging Media, 1(1), 46–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543231188279
2. Allgaier, J. (2019). Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 36. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036
3. Anggraeni, A. A. D., & Wardhana, A. (2024). Content Analysis of Environmental Care Messages in TikTok Bumijo Content. 270–275.
4. Basch, C. H., Yalamanchili, B., & Fera, J. (2022). #Climate Change on TikTok: A Content Analysis of Videos. Journal of Community Health, 47(1), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-021-01031-x
5. Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. Free Press.
6. Bertolotti, M., & Catellani, P. (2021). Going Green, but Staying in the Black: How Framing Impacts the Agreement With Messages on the Economic Consequences of Environmental Policies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624001
7. Bhanye, J., & Maisiri, M. (2023). Environmental Communication (EC) and the New Media: An African Context Perspective. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Change (pp. 1–23). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87624-1_397-1
8. Bires, Z., & Raj, S. (2021). Social Media as a Pathway to Environmental Conservation in Protected Areas: A case study on Lake Tana Biosphere Reserve. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 11(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2019-0134

9. Bloomfield, E. F., & Tillery, D. (2019). The Circulation of Climate Change Denial Online: Rhetorical and Networking Strategies on Facebook. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1527378
10. Boulianne, S., & Ohme, J. (2022). Pathways To Environmental Activism in Four Countries: Social Media, Environmental Concern, And Political Efficacy. Journal of Youth Studies, 25(6), 771–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2021.2011845
11. Briandana, R., & Mohamad Saleh, M. S. (2022). Implementing Environmental Communication Strategy Towards Climate Change Through Social Media in Indonesia. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4), e202234. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/12467
12. Çakıcı, Z., & Aslıbay, E. (2025). The Utilization of Social Media by Far-Right Political Parties: A Study on Victory Party. In A. T. Vieira, A. F. Joaquim, & A. Duarte (Eds.), Digital Populism and the Use of Neo-Propaganda and Fake News. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-9999-6
13. Çakıcı, Z. (2024). Cyberstalking Practices Among Youth in Türkiye: Motivational Drivers, Digital Avenues, and Perceptual Paradigms. Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 46, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17829/turcom.1488278
14. Çakıcı, Z., & Meriç, E. (2024). Exploring United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) TikTok Landscape: Insights Into Migration Representations. In S. Kir Elitaş (Ed.), Media Representation of Migrants and Refugees (pp. 278–295). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3459-1.ch017
15. Çakıcı, Z. (2025). TikTok as a Political Communication Medium: An Examination of the United Nations. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi (69), 136-156. https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.1580671
16. Carbaugh, D., & Cerulli, T. (2013). Cultural Discourses of Dwelling: Investigating Environmental Communication as a Place-based Practice. Environmental Communication, 7(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.749296
17. Comfort, S. E., & Hester, J. B. (2019). Three Dimensions of Social Media Messaging Success by Environmental NGOs. Environmental Communication, 13(3), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1579746
18. Cortés-Ramos, A., Torrecilla García, J. A., Landa-Blanco, M., Poleo Gutiérrez, F. J., & Castilla Mesa, M. T. (2021). Activism and Social Media: Youth Participation and Communication. Sustainability, 13(18), 10485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810485
19. Cox, J. R. (2013). Environmental Communication and The Public Sphere (3. ed). SAGE Publ.
20. Cox, J. R., & Hansen, A. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887586
21. Cox, R., & Depoe, S. (2015). Emergence and Growth of the “Field” of Environmental Communication. In The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication (pp. 33–45). Routledge.
22. Dedman, R., & Lee, E. (2023). Gains and Losses for Humans and The Environment: Effects of social identity and message prospect framing on pro‐environmental behaviors. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 23(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12353
23. Dellech, D., Klabi, F., Merzougui, S., & Debabi, M. (2024). Exploring the Social Media Practices of Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO): A Qualitative Approach. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(7), 3816–3833. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4503
24. Digital 2024: October Global Statshot Report. (2024). We Are Social and Meltwater. https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2024/10/digital-2024-october-global-statshot-report/
25. Evangelista, S., & Garcia, M. (2024). Narrativas Sobre Mudanças Climáticas no TikTok Brasil: Entre o Diagnóstico e a Desesperança. Revista Lusófona de Estudos Culturais, 11(1), e024003. https://doi.org/10.21814/rlec.5448
26. Flor, A. G. (2004). Environmental Communication: Principles, Approaches and Strategies of Communication Applied to Environmental Management. UP Open University.
27. Fox, J. (2012). Can Blogging Change How Ecologists Share Ideas? In Economics, It Already Has. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2012.5b.15.f
28. Garcia-Gathright, J., Springer, A., & Cramer, H. (2018). Assessing and Addressing Algorithmic Bias—But Before We Get There (Version 1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1809.03332
29. Gheyle, N., & Jacobs, T. (2017). Content Analysis: A short overview. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33689.31841
30. Haastrup, H. K. (2022). Personalising Climate Change on Instagram: Self-presentation, authenticity, and emotion. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research, 38(72), 065–085. https://doi.org/10.7146/mk.v38i72.129149
31. Habsari, S. K., Rohmatin, F., & Istadiyantha, I. (2021). Digital Ethnography of Social Media: Srikandi Sungai Indonesia Activists In Water And River Conservation. Masyarakat, Kebudayaan Dan Politik, 34(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.20473/mkp.V34I12021.37-50
32. Hajri, O., & Daife, Y. (2024). The Role of Social Media In Engaging Young People In Environmental Issues. E3S Web of Conferences, 477, 00079. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202447700079
33. Han, R., & Cheng, Y. (2020). The Influence of Norm Perception on Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Comparison between the Moderating Roles of Traditional Media and Social Media. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197164
34. Hansen, A. (2011). Communication, Media and Environment: Towards Reconnecting Research On the Production, Content and Social Implications Of Environmental Communication. International Communication Gazette, 73(1–2), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386739
35. Hautea, S., Parks, P., Takahashi, B., & Zeng, J. (2021). Showing They Care (Or Don’t): Affective Publics and Ambivalent Climate Activism on TikTok. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 20563051211012344. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211012344
36. Hersinta, H., & Sofia, A. (2022). Social Media, Youth and Environmental Low-Risk Activism: A Case Study of Savesharks Indonesia Campaign on Twitter. ASPIRATION Journal, 1(2), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.56353/aspiration.v1i2.11
37. Hopke, J. E., & Hestres, L. E. (2018). Visualizing the Paris Climate Talks on Twitter: Media and Climate Stakeholder Visual Social Media During COP21. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 2056305118782687. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118782687
38. Huang, Y. (2023). Ideological Bias in Social Media Diffusion: An Analysis of Content Propagation Patterns. Research in Media and Communication, 1(2), 1–6.
39. Huber, B., Lepenies, R., Quesada Baena, L., & Allgaier, J. (2022). Beyond Individualized Responsibility Attributions? How Eco Influencers Communicate Sustainability on TikTok. Environmental Communication, 16(6), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2131868
40. Jacqmarcq, M. (2021). Environmental Activism in the Digital Age. Flux: International Relations Review, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.26443/firr.v11i1.52
41. Jarreau, P. B., Altinay, Z., & Reynolds, A. (2017). Best Practices in Environmental Communication: A Case Study of Louisiana’s Coastal Crisis. Environmental Communication, 11(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1094103
42. Jurin, R. R., Roush, D., & Danter, K. J. (2010). Environmental Communication. Second Edition. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3987-3
43. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
44. Kaul, L., Schrögel, P., & Humm, C. (2020). Environmental Science Communication for a Young Audience: A Case Study on the #EarthOvershootDay Campaign on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 601177. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.601177
45. Kaur, K. (2015). Social Media Creating Digital Environmental Publics: Case of Lynas Malaysia. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.005
46. Kim, S.-B., & Kim, D.-Y. (2014). The Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on Green Messages in Hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513503400
47. Klöckner, C. A. (2015). The Psychology of Pro-Environmental Communication: Beyond Standard Information Strategies. Springer.
48. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
49. Lai, K., Yang, Y., Na, Y., & Wang, H. (2022). The Relationship between Bullshit Receptivity and Willingness to Share Misinformation about Climate Change: The Moderating Role of Pregnancy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16670. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416670
50. Lazard, A., & Atkinson, L. (2015). Putting Environmental Infographics Center Stage: The Role of Visuals at the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s Critical Point of Persuasion. Science Communication, 37(1), 6–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014555997
51. Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2020). Interactive Game-Content-Based Storytelling for the Environment. Sustainability, 12(19), 8229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198229
52. Liu, W., Zhao, X., Zhan, M. (Monica), & Hernandez, S. (2024). Streaming Disasters on TikTok: Examining Social Mediated Crisis Communication, Public Engagement, and Emotional Responses During the 2023 Maui Wildfire. Public Relations Review, 50(5), 102512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102512
53. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, Community, and Action: How Nonprofit Organizations Use Social Media*. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
54. MacKinnon, M., Davis, A. C., & Arnocky, S. (2022). Optimistic Environmental Messaging Increases State Optimism and in vivo Pro-environmental Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 856063. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856063
55. McCaskill, J. R., & Harrington, J. R. (2017). Revenue Sources and Social Media Engagement Among Environmentally Focused Nonprofits. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 3(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.3.3.309-319
56. McCormack, C. M., K. Martin, J., & Williams, K. J. H. (2021). The full Story: Understanding How Films Affect Environmental Change Through the Lens of Narrative Persuasion. People and Nature, 3(6), 1193–1204. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10259
57. McDonnell, E. J., Eagle, T., Sinlapanuntakul, P., Moon, S. H., Ringland, K. E., Froehlich, J. E., & Findlater, L. (2024). “Caption It in an Accessible Way That Is Also Enjoyable”: Characterizing User-Driven Captioning Practices on TikTok. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642177
58. Meriç, E., & Çakıcı, Z. (2024). From TikTok Trends to Pandemic Essentials: A Comparative Analysis of the World Health Organization’s Health Communication Strategies on TikTok. In H. Gürkan & A. Serttaş (Eds.), In Transformed Communication Codes in the Mediated World: A Contemporary Perspective (pp. 1–23). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0896-7.ch001
59. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications.
60. Molder, A. L., Lakind, A., Clemmons, Z. E., & Chen, K. (2022). Framing the Global Youth Climate Movement: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Greta Thunberg’s Moral, Hopeful, and Motivational Framing on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 668–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211055691
61. Moscato, D. (2023). Environmental Strategic Communication: Advocacy, Persuasion, and Public Relations. Rowman & Littlefield.
62. Nazir, M., & Wani, T. A. (2024). Role of Social Media Influencer Toward Environmental Involvement and Green Buying Behavior. Business Strategy & Development, 7(2), e390. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.390
63. Nieto-Sandoval, A. G., & Ferré-Pavia, C. (2024). Communicating Climate Change on TikTok During the Climate Summits: From the Environmental Issues to the Politicization of Discourse. Environmental Communication, 18(5), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2299753
64. Nwafor, G. U., Aghaebe, S. E., Bartholomew, C. E., & Umuze, A. N. (2024). Investigating the Effectiveness of TikTok in Promoting Public Awareness and Engagement on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Measures in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 50(12), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i121696
65. Oh, J., & Ki, E.-J. (2023). Extending Norm Activation Theory to Understand Publics’ Support For Environmentally Responsible Organizations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 28(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2022-0024
66. Olausson, U. (2020). Making Sense of the Human-Nature Relationship: A Reception Study of the “Nature Is Speaking” Campaign on YouTube. Nature and Culture, 15(3), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2020.150303
67. Paşaoğlu, P. T., & Koca, İ. (2022). Türkiye’de İletişimcilerin Sosyal Medyada Üretilen İçeriklere Bakışına Dair Bir Öngörü: TikTok’a Yönelik Odak Grup Çalışması. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 12(3), 809–832. https://doi.org/10.21612/tojdac.v12i3.2285
68. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
69. Pereira, B. B., & Ha, S. (2024). Environmental Issues On Tiktok: Topics And Claims Of Misleading Information. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.131
70. Rahyadi, I., Kamilah, F., & Supriyanto, N. S. (2025). TikTok as a Platform to Address the Environmental Issue in Indonesia: Content Analysis of Pandawara. In B. Alareeni & I. Elgedawy (Eds.), Opportunities and Risks in AI for Business Development (Vol. 546, pp. 39–46). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65207-3_4
71. Ramadhan, R. R., & Hadi, S. P. (n.d.). He Influence of YouTube Content Andrew Kalaweit on Environmental Awareness Among Generation Z. Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Business, 3(3), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.55047/jhssb.v3i3.1177
72. San Cornelio, G., Martorell, S., & Ardèvol, E. (2024). “My Goal Is to Make Sustainability Mainstream”: Emerging Visual Narratives on The Environmental Crisis on Instagram. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1265466. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1265466
73. Sancho Ortiz, A. E. (2025). Environmental Discourse on Social Media: Exploring Engagement In X/Twitter For Environmental Purposes. Language and Dialogue. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00189.san
74. Shapiro, M. A., & Park, H. W. (2018). Climate Change and YouTube: Deliberation Potential in Post-video Discussions. Environmental Communication, 12(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1289108
75. Sharif, M. H. M., Troshani, I., & Davidson, R. (2015). Public Sector Adoption of Social Media. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 55(4), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2015.11645787
76. Siregar, K. C., Sopacua, Y., & Alfredo, R. (2024). Digital Revolution In Public Communication Management: A Review Of Opportunities And Challenges For Maluku Regional Police Public Relations In The Digital Era. Baileo: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora, 1(3), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.30598/baileofisipvol1iss3pp244-255
77. Smith, L. K. M., & Wolfe, S. E. (2023). Dead In The Water: Mortality Messaging In Water Crisis Communication And Implications For Pro‐Environmental Outcomes. People and Nature, 5(4), 1336–1352. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10505
78. Stoddart, M. C. J., Koop-Monteiro, Y., & Tindall, D. B. (2024). Instagram as an Arena of Climate Change Communication and Mobilization: A Discourse Network Analysis of COP26. Environmental Communication, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2377719
79. Sultan, M. T., Sharmin, F., Badulescu, A., Stiubea, E., & Xue, K. (2020). Travelers’ Responsible Environmental Behavior towards Sustainable Coastal Tourism: An Empirical Investigation on Social Media User-Generated Content. Sustainability, 13(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010056
80. Takahashi, B., Metag, J., Thaker, J., & Comfort, S. E. (2021). Expanding Conceptualizations of Environmental Communication Research. In B. Takahashi, J. Metag, J. Thaker, & S. E. Comfort, The Handbook of International Trends in Environmental Communication (1st ed., pp. 3–13). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367275204-2
81. Terracina-Hartman, C., Bienkowski, B., Myers, M., & Kanthawala, S. (2014). Social Media for Environmental Action: What Prompts Engagement and Intent Toward Activism. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 9(4), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v09i04/56409
82. Tu, J.-C., Tu, Y.-W., & Wang, T.-R. (2018). An Investigation of the Effects of Infographics and Green Messages on the Environmental Attitudes of Taiwanese Online Shoppers. Sustainability, 10(11), 3993. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113993
83. Unay-Gailhard, İ., Lawson, K., & Brennan, M. A. (2023). An Examination Of Digital Empathy: When Farmers Speak For The Climate Through Tiktok. Journal of Rural Studies, 102, 103075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103075
84. Uzoechi, N. (2014). ‘Oil Complex’ And Social Responsibility Theory Of The Media: Shaping Nigeria’s Environmental Discourse With Social Media. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 13(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd.13.2.117_1
85. Van Den Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2017). Individual Differences In Values Determine The Relative Persuasiveness Of Biospheric, Economic And Combined Appeals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.009
86. Vu, H. T., Blomberg, M., Seo, H., Liu, Y., Shayesteh, F., & Do, H. V. (2021). Social Media and Environmental Activism: Framing Climate Change on Facebook by Global NGOs. Science Communication, 43(1), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020971644
87. Wang, J., Gu, Y., Xin, H., & Wang, X. (2022). Influence of Appeal Type and Message Framing on Residents’ Intent to Engage in Pro-Environmental Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 15431. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315431
88. Wang, S., & Ji, Q. (2015). Video Affective Content Analysis: A Survey of State-of-the-Art Methods. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 6(4), 410–430. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2015.2432791
89. Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Hugo Lambert, F. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
90. Xiao, M. (2023). Environmental Communication on Twitter: The Impact of Source, Bandwagon Support, and Message Valence on Target Audiences. Sustainability, 15(20), 14732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014732
91. Xu, J., & Han, R. (2019). The Influence of Place Attachment on Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Moderating Effect of Social Media. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 5100. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245100
92. Zhu, C., Xu, X., Zhang, W., Chen, J., & Evans, R. (2019). How Health Communication via Tik Tok Makes a Difference: A Content Analysis of Tik Tok Accounts Run by Chinese Provincial Health Committees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010192