IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p6137-d283243.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle L. Johnson

    (USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, New York, NY 10007, USA)

  • Lindsay K. Campbell

    (USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, New York, NY 10007, USA)

  • Erika S. Svendsen

    (USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, New York, NY 10007, USA)

  • Heather L. McMillen

    (Urban & Community Forester, Hawaiʿi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Wildlife, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA)

Abstract

Understanding the benefits received from urban greenspace is critical for planning and decision-making. The benefits of parks can be challenging to measure and evaluate, which calls for the development of novel methods. Crowdsourced data from social media can provide a platform for measuring and understanding social values. However, such methods can have drawbacks, including representation bias, undirected content, and a lack of demographic data. We compare the amount and distribution of park benefits elicited from (1) tweets on Twitter about Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York (n = 451) with park benefits derived from (2) broad (n = 288) and (3) directed (n = 39) questions on two semi-structured interview protocols for park users within Prospect Park. We applied combined deductive and inductive coding to all three datasets, drawing from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s (MEA) cultural ecosystem services (CES) framework. All three methods elicited an overlapping set of CES, but only the Twitter dataset captured all 10 MEA-defined CES. All methods elicited social relations and recreation as commonly occurring, but only the directed question interview protocol was able to widely elicit spiritual values. We conclude this paper with a discussion of tradeoffs and triangulation opportunities when using Twitter data to measure CES and other urban park benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle L. Johnson & Lindsay K. Campbell & Erika S. Svendsen & Heather L. McMillen, 2019. "Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6137-:d:283243
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6137/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6137/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    2. Griffith, Daniel M. & Veech, Joseph A. & Marsh, Charles J., 2016. "cooccur: Probabilistic Species Co-Occurrence Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 69(c02).
    3. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    4. Campbell, Lindsay K. & Svendsen, Erika S. & Sonti, Nancy F. & Johnson, Michelle L., 2016. "A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 34-44.
    5. Pröpper, Michael & Haupts, Felix, 2014. "The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-35.
    6. Daniel J. Hopkins & Gary King, 2010. "A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 229-247, January.
    7. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    8. Richards, Daniel R. & Tunçer, Bige, 2018. "Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 318-325.
    9. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    10. Pascua, Pua‘ala & McMillen, Heather & Ticktin, Tamara & Vaughan, Mehana & Winter, Kawika B., 2017. "Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 465-475.
    11. Hauck, Jennifer & Görg, Christoph & Varjopuro, Riku & Ratamäki, Outi & Maes, Joachim & Wittmer, Heidi & Jax, Kurt, 2013. "“Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 25-32.
    12. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Smithers, Richard J. & Hedblom, Marcus & Hedenås, Henrik & Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Pedersen, Eja & Sandström, Per & Svensson, Johan, 2017. "Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-70.
    13. Lincoln R Larson & Viniece Jennings & Scott A Cloutier, 2016. "Public Parks and Wellbeing in Urban Areas of the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Klain, Sarah C. & Satterfield, Terre A. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2014. "What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 310-320.
    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. Claudio Fagarazzi & Carlotta Sergiacomi & Federico M. Stefanini & Enrico Marone, 2021. "A Model for the Economic Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Recreational Hunting Function in the Agroforestry Territories of Tuscany (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Diego Martín Sánchez & Noemí Gómez Lobo, 2023. "Urban Forest Tweeting: Social Media as More-Than-Human Communication in Tokyo’s Rinshinomori Park," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Min Liu & Xiaoma Li & Ding Song & Hui Zhai, 2021. "Evaluation and Monitoring of Urban Public Greenspace Planning Using Landscape Metrics in Kunming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Fox, Nathan & Graham, Laura J. & Eigenbrod, Felix & Bullock, James M. & Parks, Katherine E., 2021. "Reddit: A novel data source for cultural ecosystem service studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Juan Tang & Yudi Fang & Ziyan Tian & Yinghua Gong & Liang Yuan, 2022. "Ecosystem Services Research in Green Sustainable Science and Technology Field: Trends, Issues, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Yunseon Choe & Jiyoon Lee & Gyehee Lee, 2022. "Exploring Values via the Innovative Application of Social Media with Parks Amid COVID-19: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Text and Images Using ATLAS.ti," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Stefano Bruzzese & Wasim Ahmed & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun, 2022. "Ecosystem Services: A Social and Semantic Network Analysis of Public Opinion on Twitter," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Kong, Inhye & Sarmiento, Fausto O., 2022. "Utilizing a crowdsourced phrasal lexicon to identify cultural ecosystem services in El Cajas National Park, Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    9. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    10. Wang, Zhifang & Fu, Hongpeng & Jian, Yuqing & Qureshi, Salman & Jie, Hua & Wang, Lu, 2022. "On the comparative use of social media data and survey data in prioritizing ecosystem services for cost-effective governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).

    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. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    3. Balázsi, Ágnes & Dänhardt, Juliana & Collins, Sue & Schweiger, Oliver & Settele, Josef & Hartel, Tibor, 2021. "Understanding cultural ecosystem services related to farmlands: Expert survey in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Bohuslav Binka & Martin Čech & Jan Činčera, 2022. "The Oasis of Peace? Social Perception of Urban Parks from the City-Dwellers’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Li-Pei Peng & Wei-Ming Wang, 2020. "Hybrid Decision-Making Evaluation for Future Scenarios of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Giovanni Di Franco & Michele Santurro, 2021. "Machine learning, artificial neural networks and social research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 1007-1025, June.
    8. Siqi Lai & Brian Deal, 2022. "Parks, Green Space, and Happiness: A Spatially Specific Sentiment Analysis Using Microblogs in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    10. Rauh, Christian, 2018. "Validating a sentiment dictionary for German political language—a workbench note," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 15(4), pages 319-343.
    11. Martin Haselmayer & Marcelo Jenny, 2017. "Sentiment analysis of political communication: combining a dictionary approach with crowdcoding," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2623-2646, November.
    12. Takuya Takahashi & Yukiko Uchida & Hiroyuki Ishibashi & Noboru Okuda, 2021. "Subjective Well-Being as a Potential Policy Indicator in the Context of Urbanization and Forest Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Ospina-Alvarez, A. & Villasante, S. & Pita, P. & Maya-Jariego, I. & de Juan, S., 2020. "Using graph theory and social media data to assess cultural ecosystem services in coastal areas: Method development and application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    14. Angela Chang & Peter J. Schulz & Angus Wenghin Cheong, 2020. "Online Newspaper Framing of Non-Communicable Diseases: Comparison of Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Chowdhury, Koushik & Behera, Bhagirath, 2021. "Traditional water bodies and cultural ecosystem services: Experiences from rural West Bengal, India," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    16. Margaret V. du Bray & Rhian Stotts & Melissa Beresford & Amber Wutich & Alexandra Brewis, 2019. "Does ecosystem services valuation reflect local cultural valuations? Comparative analysis of resident perspectives in four major urban river ecosystems," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 21-33, January.
    17. Jacob, Céline & Bernatchez, Pascal & Dupras, Jérôme & Cusson, Mathieu, 2021. "Not just an engineering problem: The role of knowledge and understanding of ecosystem services for adaptive management of coastal erosion," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    18. Jacobs, Sander & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David Nicholas & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Boeraeve, Fanny & McGrath, Francesca L. & Vierikko, Kati & Geneletti, Davide & Sevecke, Ka, 2016. "A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 213-220.
    19. Lehotský, Lukáš & Černoch, Filip & Osička, Jan & Ocelík, Petr, 2019. "When climate change is missing: Media discourse on coal mining in the Czech Republic," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 774-786.
    20. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6137-:d:283243. 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.