Advertisement

Ambio

pp 1–15 | Cite as

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

  • Sebastian Dario RossiEmail author
  • Agustina Barros
  • Chelsey Walden-Schreiner
  • Catherine Pickering
Research Article

Abstract

Social media images are a novel source of data to assess how people view and value the environment. Access to these images is often free, the volume and spread of images is expanding rapidly and hence they are an increasingly valuable source of data complementing and expanding on other data. Recently, coding images has been used to assess sociocultural values relating to ecosystem services including those provided by national parks. To further explore the use of social media images, including for remote environments, we analysed the content of images posted to Flickr by people visiting a national park that contains the highest mountain in the southern hemisphere, Mt. Aconcagua, in Argentina, South America. The saliency of aesthetic landscapes, recreation, social relations and fresh-water provisioning was high across the 334 images posted to Flickr by 104 visitors to the Park, but location mattered. Images from visitors in easily accessible day-use areas were significantly more likely to include content that reflects biodiversity-existence, geology, culture and education services, while the content of images from remote areas was more likely to reflect social relations and fresh-water provision services. Comparisons of the content of images from Mt. Aconcagua with other studies in Europe, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia highlight similarities and differences in people’s views of the diversity of locations, but also the benefits and limitations of user-generated social media content when assessing environmental and management issues.

Keywords

Aconcagua Provincial Park Content analysis Cultural ecosystem services Flickr Social media 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ruben Massarelli and Dirección de Recursos Naturales Renovables, Mendoza for providing the visitor statistic data and GIS layers for Aconcagua Provincial Park and we thank Dr. Charles Lawson for his valuable inputs made to this manuscript. We also thank CONICET-Argentina for their support through the funded Short-Internship-Program (Pasantias Breves en el Exterior) and Griffith University for the Visiting-Fellow Position that made this collaborative-article possible. We also thank the funding provided by The Scientific and Technological Research Fund (FONCYT, PICT 2015-1455 and PICT 2017-1869).

References

  1. Abbe, J.D., and R.E. Manning. 2007. Wilderness day use: Patterns, impacts and management. International Journal of Wilderness 13: 21–25.Google Scholar
  2. Angradi, T.R., J.J. Launspach, and R. Debbout. 2018. Determining preferences for ecosystem benefits in Great Lakes Areas of Concern from photographs posted to social media. Journal of Great Lakes Research 44: 340–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2017.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros, A., C. Monz, and C.M. Pickering. 2015a. Is tourism damaging ecosystems in the Andes? Current knowledge and an agenda for future research. Ambio 44: 82–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0550-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barros, A., C. Pickering, and O. Gudes. 2015b. Desktop analysis of potential impacts of visitor use: A case study for the highest park in the Southern Hemisphere. Journal of Environmental Management 150: 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernbaum, E. 2006. Sacred mountains: Themes and teachings. Mountain Research and Development 26: 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley, R. 2006. Adventure tourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calcagni, F., A.T.A. Maia, J.J.T. Connolly, and J. Langemeyer. 2019. Digital co-construction of relational values: Understanding the role of social media for sustainability. Sustainability Science.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00672-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castley, J.G., A. Bennett, and C.M. Pickering. 2013. Wildlife visual imagery: Do pictures used to promote destinations on-line match on-site species visibility at two geographic destinations? Geographical Research 51: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clemente, P., M. Calvache, P. Antunes, R. Santos, J.O. Cerdeira, and M.J. Martins. 2019. Combining social media photographs and species distribution models to map cultural ecosystem services: The case of a Natural Park in Portugal. Ecological Indicators 96: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.  https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Debarbieux, B., M. Oiry Varacca, G. Rudaz, D. Maselli, T. Kohler, and M. Jurek (eds.). 2014. Tourism in mountain regions: Hopes, fears and realities., Sustainable Mountain Development Series Geneva: UNIGE, CDE, SDC.Google Scholar
  12. Ghermandi, A., and M. Sinclair. 2019. Passive crowdsourcing of social media in environmental research: A systematic map. Global Environmental Change 55: 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grêt-Regamey, A., S.H. Brunner, and F. Kienast. 2012. Mountain ecosystem services: Who cares? Mountain Research and Development 32: S23–S34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haines-Young, R., and M.B. Potschin. 2017. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. www.cices.eu. Accessed 22 July 2019.
  15. Hamilton, L., and L. McMillan. 2004. Guidelines for planning and managing mountain protected areas. Gland: IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.Google Scholar
  16. Hausmann, A., T. Toivonen, R. Slotow, H. Tenkanen, A. Moilanen, V. Heikinheimo, and E. Di Minin. 2018. Social media data can be used to understand tourists’ preferences for nature-based experiences in protected areas. Conservation Letters.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langemeyer, J., F. Calcagni, and F. Baro. 2018. Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated data to examine landscape aesthetics. Land Use and Policy 77: 542–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leung, Y.-F., A. Spenceley, G. Hvenegaard, and R. Buckley. 2018. Tourism and visitor management in protected areas: Guidelines for sustainability. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No 27. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  19. Linting, M., J.J. Meulman, P.J. Groenen, and A.J. Van der Kooij. 2007. Nonlinear principal components analysis: Introduction and application. Psychological Methods 12: 336–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez-Harms, M.J., B.A. Bryan, S.A. Wood, D.M. Fisher, E. Law, J.R. Rhodes, C. Dobbs, D. Biggs, et al. 2018. Inequality in access to cultural ecosystem services from protected areas in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot. Science of the Total Environment 636: 1128–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martinez Pastur, G., P.L. Peri, M.V. Lencinas, M. Garcia-Llorente, and B. Martin-Lopez. 2015. Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia. Landscape Ecology 31: 383–399.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0254-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, Z.D., B.D. Taff, P. Neman, and B. Lawhon. 2019. A proposed research agenda on social media’s role in visitor use and experience in parks and protected areas. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.  https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2019-9553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  24. Newsome, D., S.A. Moore, and R.K. Dowling. 2012. Natural area tourism: Ecology, impacts and management. Bristol: Channel View Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Norman, P., and C.M. Pickering. 2017. Using volunteered geographic information to assess park visitation: Comparing three on-line platforms. Applied Geography 89: 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norman, P., C.M. Pickering, and J.G. Castley. 2019. What can volunteered geographic information tell us about the different ways mountain bikers, runners and walkers use urban reserves? Landscape and Urban Planning 185: 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., and S.S. Sundar. 2016. Social and technical motivations for online photo sharing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 60: 624–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oteros-Rozas, E., B. Martín-López, N. Fagerholm, C. Bieling, and T. Plieninger. 2018. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecological Indicators 94: 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pickering, C.M., S.D. Rossi, A. Hernando, and A. Barros. 2018a. Current knowledge and future research directions for the Monitoring and Management of Visitors in Recreational and Protected Areas. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 21: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pickering, C., M. Chabau-Gibson, and J. Raneng. 2018b. Using Flickr images to assess how visitors’ value and use natural areas: Lessons from a popular natural area on the Gold Coast, Australia. In Abstracts of the 9th international conference on monitoring and management of visitors in recreational and Protected Areas, ed. J. Dehez, Bordeaux, France, August 2018, 68–69.Google Scholar
  31. Pickering, C., A. Barros, C. Walden-Schreiner, and S.D. Rossi. in press. Using social media images and text to examine how tourists view and value the highest mountain in Australia. Journal of Outdoor Tourism and Recreation.Google Scholar
  32. Pierce, W.V., and R.E. Manning. 2015. Day and overnight visitors to the Olympic Wilderness. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 12: 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richards, D.R., and B. Tunçer. 2018. Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs. Ecosystem Services 31: 318–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richards, D.R., and D.A. Friess. 2015. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecological Indicators 53: 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosário, I.T., R. Rebelo, P. Cardoso, P. Segurado, R.N. Mendes, and M. Santos-Reis. 2019. Can geocaching be an indicator of cultural ecosystem services? The case of the Montado savannah-like landscape. Ecological Indicators 99: 375–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sherren, K., M. Smit, M. Holmlund, J.R. Parkins, and Y. Chen. 2017. Conservation culturomics should include images and a wider range of scholars. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15: 289–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, A., and M. Anderson. 2018. Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Centre. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/. Accessed Mar 2018.
  38. Smith, C. 2018. Interesting Flickr stats and facts (February 2018): By the numbers. https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/flickr-stats/. Accessed March 2018.
  39. Stephchenkova, S., and F. Zhan. 2013. Visual destination images of Peru: Comparative content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography. Tourism Management 36: 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stolton, S., and N. Dudley (Principle authors). 2014. Chapter 6: Values and benefits of protected areas. In Protected areas governance and management, eds., G. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary, and I. Pulsford, 145–169. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
  41. Teles da Mota, V. and C. Pickering. 2018. How can we use social media to know more about visitors to natural areas? In Abstracts of the 9th international conference on monitoring and management of visitors in recreation and Protected Areas (MMV9), ed. J. Dehez, Bordeaux, France, August 2018, 72–74.Google Scholar
  42. Tenkanen, H., E. Di Minin, V. Heikinheimo, A. Hausmann, M. Herbst, L. Kajala, and T. Toivonen. 2017. Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Scientific Reports 7: 17615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thiagarajah, J., S.K. Wong, D.R. Richards, and D.A. Friess. 2015. Historical and contemporary cultural ecosystem service values in the rapidly urbanizing city state of Singapore. Ambio 44: 666–677.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0647-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tieskens, K.F., B.T. Van Zanten, C.J.E. Schulp, and P.H. Verburg. 2018. Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: An analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 177: 128–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Zanten, B.T., D.B. Van Berkel, R.K. Meentemeyer, J.W. Smith, K.F. Tieskens, and P.H. Verburg. 2016. Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113: 12974–12979.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614158113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walden-Schreiner, C., S.D. Rossi, A. Barros, C. Pickering, and Y.-F. Leung. 2018. Using crowd sourced photos to assess seasonal patterns of visitor use in mountain protected area. Ambio 47: 781–793.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1020-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wartmann, F.M., and R.S. Purves. 2018. Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language. Landscape and Urban Planning 175: 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Willemen, L., A.J. Cottam, E.G. Drakou, and N.D. Burgess. 2015. Using social media to measure the contribution of Red List species to the nature-based tourism potential of African protected areas. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolff, S., C.J.E. Schulp, and P.H. Verburg. 2015. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators 55: 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wood, S.A., A. Guerry, J. Silver, and M. Lacayo. 2013. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Scientific Reports 3: 2976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. World Commission on Protected Areas. 2019. Mountains. https://www.iucn.org/commissions/world-commission-protected-areas/our-work/mountains. Accessed March 2019.

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Dario Rossi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Agustina Barros
    • 2
  • Chelsey Walden-Schreiner
    • 3
  • Catherine Pickering
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de Zonas Áridas (IADIZA), Centro Científico Tecnológico (CCT)CONICETMendozaArgentina
  2. 2.Instituto Argentino de Nivología y Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA)Centro Científico Tecnológico (CCT) CONICETMendozaArgentina
  3. 3.College of Natural ResourcesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  4. 4.School of Environment and ScienceGriffith UniversitySouthportAustralia

Personalised recommendations