IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v8y2019i7p107-d245512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media Data for Socio-Environmental Systems Research

Author

Listed:
  • Bianca E. Lopez

    (National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), University of Maryland, 1 Park Place, Suite 300, Annapolis, MD 21401, USA)

  • Nicholas R. Magliocca

    (Department of Geography, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, USA)

  • Andrew T. Crooks

    (Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22020, USA)

Abstract

Social media data provide an unprecedented wealth of information on people’s perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors at fine spatial and temporal scales and over broad extents. Social media data produce insight into relationships between people and the environment at scales that are generally prohibited by the spatial and temporal mismatch between traditional social and environmental data. These data thus have great potential for use in socio-environmental systems (SES) research. However, biases in who uses social media platforms, and what they use them for, create uncertainty in the potential insights from these data. Here, we describe ways that social media data have been used in SES research, including tracking land-use and environmental changes, natural resource use, and ecosystem service provisioning. We also highlight promising areas for future research and present best practices for SES research using social media data.

Suggested Citation

  • Bianca E. Lopez & Nicholas R. Magliocca & Andrew T. Crooks, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media Data for Socio-Environmental Systems Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:7:p:107-:d:245512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/7/107/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/7/107/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Fisher & Spencer A. Wood & Young-Hee Roh & Choong-Ki Kim, 2019. "The Geographic Spread and Preferences of Tourists Revealed by User-Generated Information on Jeju Island, South Korea," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Rositsa T. Ilieva & Timon McPhearson, 2018. "Social-media data for urban sustainability," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(10), pages 553-565, October.
    3. Stevens, Thomas H., 2005. "Can Stated Preference Valuations Help Improve Environmental Decision Making?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(3), pages 1-5.
    4. Helen Roberts & Bernd Resch & Jon Sadler & Lee Chapman & Andreas Petutschnig & Stefan Zimmer, 2018. "Investigating the Emotional Responses of Individuals to Urban Green Space Using Twitter Data: A Critical Comparison of Three Different Methods of Sentiment Analysis," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 21-33.
    5. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Zheye Wang & Xinyue Ye & Ming-Hsiang Tsou, 2016. "Spatial, temporal, and content analysis of Twitter for wildfire hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 83(1), pages 523-540, August.
    8. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:7735-7740 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    10. Xiangyang Guan & Cynthia Chen, 2014. "Using social media data to understand and assess disasters," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(2), pages 837-850, November.
    11. Raphaël D'Andrimont & Momchil Yordanov & Guido Lemoine & Janine Yoong & Kamil Nikel & Marijn Van der Velde, 2018. "Crowdsourced Street-Level Imagery as a Potential Source of In-Situ Data for Crop Monitoring," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-26, October.
    12. Keeler, Bonnie L. & Wood, Spencer A. & Polasky, Stephen & Kling, Catherine L. & Filstrup, Christopher T. & Downing, John A., 2015. "Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes," ISU General Staff Papers 201501290800001557, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    14. Lisa Schweitzer, 2014. "Planning and Social Media: A Case Study of Public Transit and Stigma on Twitter," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 80(3), pages 218-238, July.
    15. H Andrew Schwartz & Johannes C Eichstaedt & Margaret L Kern & Lukasz Dziurzynski & Stephanie M Ramones & Megha Agrawal & Achal Shah & Michal Kosinski & David Stillwell & Martin E P Seligman & Lyle H U, 2013. "Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    16. Ryan G Drum & Christine A Ribic & Katie Koch & Eric Lonsdorf & Evan Grant & Marissa Ahlering & Laurel Barnhill & Thomas Dailey & Socheata Lor & Connie Mueller & David C Pavlacky Jr. & Catherine Rideou, 2015. "Strategic Grassland Bird Conservation throughout the Annual Cycle: Linking Policy Alternatives, Landowner Decisions, and Biological Population Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicholas R. Magliocca, 2020. "Agent-Based Modeling for Integrating Human Behavior into the Food–Energy–Water Nexus," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Andrea Spasiano & Salvatore Grimaldi & Alessio Maria Braccini & Fernando Nardi, 2021. "Towards a Transdisciplinary Theoretical Framework of Citizen Science: Results from a Meta-Review Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Xiaoxu Liang & Naisi Hua & John Martin & Elena Dellapiana & Cristina Coscia & Yu Zhang, 2022. "Social Media as a Medium to Promote Local Perception Expression in China’s World Heritage Sites," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Edyta Łaszkiewicz & Piotr Czembrowski & Jakub Kronenberg, 2020. "Creating a Map of the Social Functions of Urban Green Spaces in a City with Poor Availability of Spatial Data: A Sociotope for Lodz," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-25, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niculaescu, Corina E. & Sangiorgi, Ivan & Bell, Adrian R., 2023. "Does personal experience with COVID-19 impact investment decisions? Evidence from a survey of US retail investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Philippe Jehiel & Jakub Steiner, 2020. "Selective Sampling with Information-Storage Constraints [On interim rationality, belief formation and learning in decision problems with bounded memory]," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1753-1781.
    3. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    4. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    5. Mark Schneider & Mikhael Shor, 2016. "The Common Ratio Effect in Choice, Pricing, and Happiness Tasks," Working papers 2016-29, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    6. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    7. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    8. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    9. Lorenzo Casaburi & Jack Willis, 2018. "Time versus State in Insurance: Experimental Evidence from Contract Farming in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3778-3813, December.
    10. Chen Lian & Yueran Ma & Carmen Wang, 2019. "Low Interest Rates and Risk-Taking: Evidence from Individual Investment Decisions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(6), pages 2107-2148.
    11. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Delphine Boutin & Laurène Petifour & Haris Megzari, 2022. "Instability of preferences due to Covid-19 Crisis and emotions: a natural experiment from urban Burkina Faso," Working Papers hal-03623601, HAL.
    13. Andries, Marianne & Bianchi, Milo & Huynh, Karen & Pouget, Sébastien, 2024. "Return Predictability, Expectations, and Investment: Experimental Evidence," TSE Working Papers 1561, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    14. Yan Yu, 2022. "Analyst Earnings Forecast Optimism during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Ian Chadd & Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2021. "The relevance of irrelevant information," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 985-1018, September.
    16. Montford, William J. & Leary, R. Bret & Nagel, Duane M., 2019. "The impact of implicit self-theories and loss salience on financial risk," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-11.
    17. Lin, Chaonan & Chen, Hong-Yi & Ko, Kuan-Cheng & Yang, Nien-Tzu, 2021. "Time-dependent lottery preference and the cross-section of stock returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 272-294.
    18. Marzilli Ericson, K. M. & White, J. M. & Laibson, David I. & Cohen, J. D., 2015. "Money Earlier or Later? Simple Heuristics Explain Intertemporal Choices Better Than Delay Discounting Does," Scholarly Articles 30367415, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    19. Pagel, Michaela & Olafsson, Arna, 2017. "The Ostrich in Us: Selective Attention to Financial Accounts, Income, Spending, and Liquidity," CEPR Discussion Papers 12259, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Marianne Andries & Milo Bianchi & Karen Huynh & Sébastien Pouget, 2024. "Return Predictability, Expectations, and Investment: Experimental Evidence," Post-Print hal-04680777, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:7:p:107-:d:245512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.