Literature DB >> 29910532

Determining preferences for ecosystem benefits in Great Lakes Areas of Concern from photographs posted to social media.

Ted R Angradi1, Jonathon J Launspach2, Rick Debbout3.   

Abstract

Relative valuation of potentially affected ecosystem benefits can increase the legitimacy and social acceptance of ecosystem restoration projects. As an alternative or supplement to traditional methods of deriving beneficiary preference, we downloaded from social media and classified ≈21,000 photographs taken in two Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC), the St. Louis River and the Milwaukee Estuary. Our motivating presumption was that the act of taking a photograph constitutes some measure of the photographer's individual preference for, or choice of, the depicted subject matter among myriad possible subject matter. Overall, 17% of photos downloaded from the photo-sharing sites Flickr, Instagram, and Panoramio depicted an ecosystem benefit of the AOC. Percent of photographs depicting a benefit and the photographs' subject matter varied between AOCs and among photo-sharing sites. Photos shared on Instagram were less user-gender biased than other photo-sharing sites and depicted active recreation (e.g., trail use) more frequently than passive recreation (e.g., landscape viewing). Local users shared more photos depicting a benefit than non-local users. The spatial distribution of photograph locations varied between photos depicting and not depicting a benefit, and identified areas within AOCs from which few photographs were shared. As a source of beneficiary preference information, we think Instagram has some advantages over the other photo-sharing sites. When combined with other information, spatially-explicit relative valuation derived from aggregate social preference can be translated into information and knowledge useful for Great Lakes restoration decision making.

Keywords:  Decision making; Ecosystem services and benefits; Great Lakes Areas of Concern; Photo sharing; Restoration; Social media

Year:  2018        PMID: 29910532      PMCID: PMC6002155          DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2017.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Great Lakes Res        ISSN: 0380-1330            Impact factor:   2.480


  6 in total

1.  Toward a standard lexicon for ecosystem services.

Authors:  Wayne R Munns; Anne W Rea; Marisa J Mazzotta; Lisa A Wainger; Kathryn Saterson
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 2.992

2.  The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment.

Authors:  Debra Satz; Rachelle K Gould; Kai M A Chan; Anne Guerry; Bryan Norton; Terre Satterfield; Benjamin S Halpern; Jordan Levine; Ulalia Woodside; Neil Hannahs; Xavier Basurto; Sarah Klain
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2013-02-24       Impact factor: 5.129

3.  Designing coastal conservation to deliver ecosystem and human well-being benefits.

Authors:  Gust M Annis; Douglas R Pearsall; Katherine J Kahl; Erika L Washburn; Christopher A May; Rachael Franks Taylor; James B Cole; David N Ewert; Edward T Game; Patrick J Doran
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework.

Authors:  Alessandra La Notte; Dalia D'Amato; Hanna Mäkinen; Maria Luisa Paracchini; Camino Liquete; Benis Egoh; Davide Geneletti; Neville D Crossman
Journal:  Ecol Indic       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.958

5.  Spatial covariance between aesthetic value & other ecosystem services.

Authors:  Stefano Casalegno; Richard Inger; Caitlin Desilvey; Kevin J Gaston
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation.

Authors:  Spencer A Wood; Anne D Guerry; Jessica M Silver; Martin Lacayo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Goals, beneficiaries, and indicators of waterfront revitalization in Great Lakes Areas of Concern and coastal communities.

Authors:  Ted R Angradi; Kathleen C Williams; Joel C Hoffman; David W Bolgrien
Journal:  J Great Lakes Res       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 2.480

2.  Using social media images to assess ecosystem services in a remote protected area in the Argentinean Andes.

Authors:  Sebastian Dario Rossi; Agustina Barros; Chelsey Walden-Schreiner; Catherine Pickering
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 5.129

3.  Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA's Ecosystem Services Research to Inform Environmental, Community, and Sustainability Decision Making.

Authors:  Matthew C Harwell; Chloe A Jackson
Journal:  Sustainability       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 3.889

4.  Using social media user attributes to understand human-environment interactions at urban parks.

Authors:  Xiao Ping Song; Daniel R Richards; Puay Yok Tan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.