IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i22p15012-d972869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Services: A Social and Semantic Network Analysis of Public Opinion on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Bruzzese

    (Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy)

  • Wasim Ahmed

    (Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK)

  • Simone Blanc

    (Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy)

  • Filippo Brun

    (Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy)

Abstract

Social media data reveal patterns of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of users on a range of topics. This study analysed 4398 tweets gathered between 17 January 2022 and 3 February 2022 related to ecosystem services, using the keyword and hashtag “ecosystem services”. The Microsoft Excel plugin, NodeXL was used for social and semantic network analysis. The results reveal a loosely dense network in which information is conveyed slowly, with homogeneous, medium-sized subgroups typical of the community cluster structure. Citizens, NGOs, and governmental administrations emerged as the main gatekeepers of information in the network. Various semantic themes emerged such as the protection of natural capital for the sustainable production of ecosystem services; nature-based solutions to protect human structures and wellbeing against natural hazards; socio-ecological systems as the interaction between human beings and the environment; focus on specific services such as the storage of atmospheric CO 2 and the provision of food. In conclusion, the perception of social users of the role of ecosystem services can help policymakers and forest managers to outline and implement efficient forest management strategies and plans.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15012-:d:972869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15012/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15012/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Heera & Seo, Bumsuk & Cord, Anna F. & Volk, Martin & Lautenbach, Sven, 2022. "Using crowdsourced images to study selected cultural ecosystem services and their relationships with species richness and carbon sequestration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Ana Reyes-Menendez & José Ramón Saura & Cesar Alvarez-Alonso, 2018. "Understanding #WorldEnvironmentDay User Opinions in Twitter: A Topic-Based Sentiment Analysis Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Elinor Chisholm & Kimberley O’Sullivan, 2017. "Using Twitter to Explore (un)Healthy Housing: Learning from the #Characterbuildings Campaign in New Zealand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Tianlin Zhai & Jing Wang & Ying Fang & Longyang Huang & Jingjing Liu & Chenchen Zhao, 2021. "Integrating Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Flow in Ecological Compensation: A Case Study of Carbon Sequestration Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    6. 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.
    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. Ronnie Das & Wasim Ahmed, 2022. "Rethinking Fake News: Disinformation and Ideology during the time of COVID-19 Global Pandemic," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 11(1), pages 146-159, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Wasim Ahmed & Josep Vidal-Alaball & Francesc Lopez Segui & Pedro A. Moreno-Sánchez, 2020. "A Social Network Analysis of Tweets Related to Masks during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-9, November.
    11. Gabriele Zabelskyte & Nadja Kabisch & Zaneta Stasiskiene, 2022. "Patterns of Urban Green Space Use Applying Social Media Data: A Systematic Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    13. Richard Van Noorden, 2014. "Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network," Nature, Nature, vol. 512(7513), pages 126-129, August.
    14. Richards, Daniel Rex & Lavorel, Sandra, 2022. "Integrating social media data and machine learning to analyse scenarios of landscape appreciation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    15. 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).
    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. Stefano Bruzzese & Iva Tolić Mandić & Sanja Tišma & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun & Dijana Vuletić, 2023. "A Framework Proposal for the Ex Post Evaluation of a Solution-Driven PES Scheme: The Case of Medvednica Nature Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    2. Schirpke, Uta & Ghermandi, Andrea & Sinclair, Michael & Van Berkel, Derek & Fox, Nathan & Vargas, Leonardo & Willemen, Louise, 2023. "Emerging technologies for assessing ecosystem services: A synthesis of opportunities and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. 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.

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Andrea Laurent-Simpson, 2023. "COVID-19 and Masking Disparities: Qualitative Analysis of Trust on the CDC’s Facebook Page," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-18, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Shannon Mason & Yusuke Sakurai, 2021. "A ResearchGate-way to an international academic community?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1149-1171, February.
    11. Simone Belli & Carlos Gonzalo-Penela, 2020. "Science, research, and innovation infospheres in Google results of the Ibero-American countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 635-653, May.
    12. Rachel Samuels & John E. Taylor & Neda Mohammadi, 2020. "Silence of the Tweets: incorporating social media activity drop-offs into crisis detection," 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. 103(1), pages 1455-1477, August.
    13. Soledad García-García & Raquel Rodríguez-Díaz, 2023. "Official Information on Twitter during the Pandemic in Spain," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Mazarakis, Athanasios & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Quo Vadis German Scholarly Communication in Economics?," EconStor Conference Papers 110679, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    15. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    16. Martin-Martin, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Harzing, Anne-Wil & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2017. "Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 152-163.
    17. Patrick Cheong-Iao Pang & Wenjing Jiang & Guanwen Pu & Kin-Sun Chan & Ying Lau, 2022. "Social Media Engagement in Two Governmental Schemes during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Macao," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-12, July.
    18. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    19. Wei Shi & Fuwei Qiao & Liang Zhou, 2021. "Identification of Ecological Risk Zoning on Qinghai-Tibet Plateau from the Perspective of Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, May.
    20. Hunter Bennett & Flynn Slattery, 2023. "Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3793-3804, June.

    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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15012-:d:972869. 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.