Research on Public Cognition and Action Mechanism of Biodiversity Conservation in the Digital Media Environment
Abstract
The biodiversity crisis and public participation are core factors in environmental protection, particularly in an era where digital media is widely prevalent, hence making the dissemination of environmental information more diverse. However, despite the important role digital media plays in raising public awareness, it still faces major challenges in driving actual action. In this context, this paper explores how digital media influences the public’s attitude toward biodiversity conservation and exmines the relationship between information dissemination, cognitive development, and the translation of awareness into action. Through literature analysis, case studies, and theoretical deduction, it analyzes how media influences cognition, how cognition drives action, and how multi-channel integration can facilitate this transformation. The results indiecate that different media channels vary in cognitive depth. Specifically, videos enhance sensory cognition, while interactive platforms promote rational thinking. The integration of multiple channels is seen as a powerful method for overcoming the gap between cognition and action.
References
- Xu, J., & Wang, J. Z. (2023). Analysis of the main elements and implications of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Biodiversity Science, 31, 23020.
- Krouska, A., Kabassi, K., Troussas, C., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2022). Personalizing environmental awareness through smartphones using AHP and PROMETHEE II. Future Internet, 14(2), 66.
- Hong, J., & Jeon, C. Y. (2025). Linking perceptions, emotions, and actions: How psychological distance, media framing, and guilt about the climate crisis promote communication and pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 17(6), 1-22.
- Karahan, E., & Roehrig, G. (2015). Constructing media artifacts in a social constructivist environment to enhance students’ environmental awareness and activism. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 103-118.
- Ge, W., & Sheng, G. (2020). Study on the characteristics and influencing factors of public participation in environmental impact assessment. Resources and Environment in Arid Regions, 34(8), 9.
- Bergman, J. N., Buxton, R. T., Lin, H. Y., et al. (2022). Evaluating the benefits and risks of social media for wildlife conservation. FACETS, 7, 360-397.
- Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
- Dioba, A., Kroker, V., Dewitte, S., & Lange, F. (2024). Barriers to pro-environmental behavior change: A review of qualitative research. Sustainability, 16(20), 8776.
- Nopper, J., Lauströer, B., Rödel, M.-O., & Ganzhorn, J. U. (2016). A structurally enriched agricultural landscape maintains high reptile diversity in sub-arid south-western Madagascar. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 480-488.
- Jiang, W., & Zhu, H. (2023). Look, this is how pigs “fly” up! - Anatomy of the “Two Headed Black” International Ranch in Jinhua, Zhejiang. Pig Industry Observation, 4, 13-17.
- Luo, Q. (2025). Proceedings of the academic symposium on smart buildings and smart economy construction (2).
- Silvestro, D., Goria, S., Sterner, T., & Antonelli, A. (2022). Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence. Nature Sustainability, 5(5), 415-424.
- Wang, F., & Cao, D. (2025). Exploration of environmental impact assessment and whole process ecological environment management. Leather Production and Environmental Protection Technology, 5.