IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v58y2022ics2212041622000912.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A tag is worth a thousand pictures: A framework for an empirically grounded typology of relational values through social media

Author

Listed:
  • Calcagni, Fulvia
  • Nogué Batallé, Júlia
  • Baró, Francesc
  • Langemeyer, Johannes

Abstract

Environmental values depend on social-ecological interactions and, in turn, influence the production of the underlying biophysical ecosystems. Understanding the nuanced nature of the values that humans ascribe to the environment is thus a key frontier for environmental science and planning. The development of many of these values depends on social-ecological interactions, such as outdoor recreation, landscape aesthetic appreciation or educational experiences with and within nature that can be articulated through the framework of cultural ecosystem services (CES). However, the non-material and intangible nature of CES has challenged previous attempts to assess the multiple and subjective values that people attach to them. In particular, this study focuses on assessing relational values ascribed to CES, here defined as values resonating with core principles of justice, reciprocity, care, and responsibility towards humans and more-than-humans. Building on emerging approaches for inferring relational CES values through social media (SM) images, this research explores the additional potential of a combined analysis of both the visual and textual content of SM data. To do so, we developed an inductive, empirically grounded coding protocol as well as a values typology that could be iteratively tested and verified by three different researchers to improve the consistency and replicability of the assessment. As a case study, we collected images and texts shared on the photo-sharing platform Flickr between 2004 and 2017 that were geotagged within the peri-urban park of Collserola, at the outskirts of Barcelona, Spain. Results reveal a wide spectrum of nine CES values within the park boundaries that show positive and negative correlations among each other, providing useful information for landscape planning and management. Moreover, the study highlights the need for spatial, temporal and demographic analysis, as well as for supervised machine learning techniques to further leverage SM data into contextual and just decision-making and planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Calcagni, Fulvia & Nogué Batallé, Júlia & Baró, Francesc & Langemeyer, Johannes, 2022. "A tag is worth a thousand pictures: A framework for an empirically grounded typology of relational values through social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:58:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000912
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000912
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101495?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Alieva & D. Holgado & S. Juan & A. Ruiz-Frau & S. Villasante & I. Maya-Jariego, 2022. "Assessing landscape features and ecosystem services of marine protected areas through photographs on social media: comparison of two archipelagos in Spain," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9623-9641, July.
    2. Paulina Guerrero & Maja Steen Møller & Anton Stahl Olafsson & Bernhard Snizek, 2016. "Revealing Cultural Ecosystem Services through Instagram Images: The Potential of Social Media Volunteered Geographic Information for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 1-17.
    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. Maxime Lenormand & Sandra Luque & Johannes Langemeyer & Patrizia Tenerelli & Grazia Zulian & Inge Aalders & Serban Chivulescu & Pedro Clemente & Jan Dick & Jiska van Dijk & Michiel van Eupen & Relu C , 2018. "Multiscale socio-ecological networks in the age of information," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Zhongwei Guo & Lin Zhang & Yiming Li, 2010. "Increased Dependence of Humans on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-8, October.
    6. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    7. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    8. Rositsa T. Ilieva & Timon McPhearson, 2018. "Social-media data for urban sustainability," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(10), pages 553-565, October.
    9. Andersson, Erik & Tengö, Maria & McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg, 2015. "Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 165-168.
    10. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Zapata-Caldas, Emmanuel & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc & Langemeyer, Johannes, 2022. "Using crowdsourced imagery to assess cultural ecosystem services in data-scarce urban contexts: The case of the metropolitan area of Cali, Colombia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Depietri, Yaella & Kallis, Giorgos & Baró, Francesc & Cattaneo, Claudio, 2016. "The urban political ecology of ecosystem services: The case of Barcelona," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 83-100.
    14. Kosanic, Aleksandra & Petzold, Jan, 2020. "A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. Langemeyer, Johannes & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc, 2018. "Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 542-552.
    16. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    2. 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).
    3. Huai, Songyao & Chen, Fen & Liu, Song & Canters, Frank & Van de Voorde, Tim, 2022. "Using social media photos and computer vision to assess cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in urban parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    4. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. Karasov, Oleksandr & Heremans, Stien & Külvik, Mart & Domnich, Artem & Burdun, Iuliia & Kull, Ain & Helm, Aveliina & Uuemaa, Evelyn, 2022. "Beyond land cover: How integrated remote sensing and social media data analysis facilitates assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Fox, Nathan & Graham, Laura J. & Eigenbrod, Felix & Bullock, James M. & Parks, Katherine E., 2021. "Enriching social media data allows a more robust representation of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    7. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. 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).
    10. Negev, Maya & Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Hassan, Yousef & Amasha, Hani & Raviv, Orna & Fares, Nasrin & Lotan, Alon & Peled, Yoav & Wittenberg, Lea & Izhaki, Ido, 2019. "Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    11. 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).
    12. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    13. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    14. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & Dean, Graeme & Haller, Andreas & Jäger, Hieronymus & Kister, Jutta & Kovács, Barbara & Sarmiento, Fausto O. & Sattler, Birgit & Schleyer, Christian, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services in mountain regions: Conceptualising conflicts among users and limitations of use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    15. Sinclair, Michael & Mayer, Marius & Woltering, Manuel & Ghermandi, Andrea, 2020. "Valuing nature-based recreation using a crowdsourced travel cost method: A comparison to onsite survey data and value transfer," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    20. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.

    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:eee:ecoser:v:58:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000912. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.