IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v70y2024ics2212041624000822.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Busch, Christin
  • Specht, Kathrin
  • Inostroza, Luis
  • Falke, Matthias
  • Zepp, Harald

Abstract

Urban green spaces (UGS) are vital for providing cultural ecosystem services (CES) that enhance well-being in cities. CES are co-produced through human interactions with the environment and involve natural, built, human, and social capital. Assessing CES through textual social media reviews on platforms such as Google Maps, offers insights into the intricate relationships between UGS characteristics, human activities, and well-being. However, research gaps regarding the role of co-production factors in the final delivery of CES persist, necessitating an improved conceptualization of CES co-production. This study provides a comprehensive exploration of the co-production of CES in UGS by analyzing 15,450 Google Maps reviews in the German cities of Bochum and Gelsenkirchen. The research assesses both the “use clause” and “ecological clause” of CES, offering a nuanced understanding of user perceptions and the contributions of UGS characteristics. Key findings highlight the entangled significance of CES categories, such as “aesthetic experiences,” “active or immersive interactions,” and “passive or observational interactions,” revealing that aesthetic value acts as a catalyst for both active and passive interactions within UGS. The study also demonstrates the intricate relationship between CES and the (perceived) biophysical environment, suggesting tangible and material connections to the natural and built environment, contrary to existing intangibility claims. The analysis of low-intensity and experience-oriented recreational activities highlights the reliance on specific UGS characteristics. The study concludes by acknowledging the strengths of utilizing textual social media reviews for CES assessment, particularly in their ability to cover a broad range of UGS classes in urban contexts. Our research enhances understanding of CES co-production in UGS, emphasizing the interplay between UGS characteristics, user experiences, and CES co-production. This provides insights for UGS planning and guides research on material aspects of CES co-production and capital interactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:70:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000822
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000822
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101675?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. 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.
    2. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    3. 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.
    4. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    6. repec:plo:pone00:0038970 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    8. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Peichao Dai & Shaoliang Zhang & Zanxu Chen & Yunlong Gong & Huping Hou, 2019. "Perceptions of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks Based on Social Network Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-14, September.
    10. Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    11. Bertram, Christine & Larondelle, Neele, 2017. "Going to the Woods Is Going Home: Recreational Benefits of a Larger Urban Forest Site — A Travel Cost Analysis for Berlin, Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 255-263.
    12. István Valánszki & Lone Søderkvist Kristensen & Sándor Jombach & Márta Ladányi & Krisztina Filepné Kovács & Albert Fekete, 2022. "Assessing Relations between Cultural Ecosystem Services, Physical Landscape Features and Accessibility in Central-Eastern Europe: A PPGIS Empirical Study from Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, January.
    13. Gosal, Arjan S. & Geijzendorffer, Ilse R. & Václavík, Tomáš & Poulin, Brigitte & Ziv, Guy, 2019. "Using social media, machine learning and natural language processing to map multiple recreational beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    15. 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.
    16. Bianca Tilliger & Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos & Jesus Victor Bustamante & Josef Settele, 2015. "Disentangling Values in the Interrelations between Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Conservation—A Case Study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-26, September.
    17. Schirpke, Uta & Tasser, Erich & Ebner, Manuel & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2021. "What can geotagged photographs tell us about cultural ecosystem services of lakes?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    18. Viniece Jennings & Omoshalewa Bamkole, 2019. "The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, February.
    19. Cheng, Xin & Van Damme, Sylvie & Li, Luyuan & Uyttenhove, Pieter, 2019. "Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tasser, Erich & Carver, Steve & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2019. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    21. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    22. 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).
    23. J. Kruskal, 1964. "Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 29(1), pages 1-27, March.
    24. 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).
    25. Richard Wagner Figueroa-Alfaro & Zhenghong Tang, 2017. "Evaluating the aesthetic value of cultural ecosystem services by mapping geo-tagged photographs from social media data on Panoramio and Flickr," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(2), pages 266-281, February.
    26. Roux, Dirk J. & Smith, M. Kyle S. & Smit, Izak P.J. & Freitag, Stefanie & Slabbert, Liandi & Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M. & Hayes, Jessica & Mpapane, Nelsiwe P., 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services as complex outcomes of people–nature interactions in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    27. 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.
    28. repec:plo:pone00:0200565 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Derek, Marta & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Grzyb, Tomasz & Woźniak, Edyta, 2025. "‘This is my magical place here’. Linking cultural ecosystem services and landscape elements in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(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. 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).
    2. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(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. 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. Daymond, Tahlia & Andrew, Margaret E. & Kobryn, Halina T., 2023. "Crowdsourcing social values data: Flickr and public participation GIS provide different perspectives of ecosystem services in a remote coastal region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. 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).
    11. 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).
    12. 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).
    13. 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).
    14. 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).
    15. Xia, Zheyi & Yuan, Chengcheng & Gao, Yang & Shen, Zhen & Liu, Kui & Huang, Yuwen & Wei, Xue & Liu, Liming, 2023. "Integrating perceptions of ecosystem services in adaptive management of country parks: A case study in peri-urban Shanghai, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Zhang, Yuxin & Fu, Bin & Sun, Juying & da Silva, Ramon Felipe Bicudo, 2025. "Quantifying supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services from a dynamic perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    19. 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).
    20. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.

    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:70:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000822. 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.