IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i5p158-d359898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On How Crowdsourced Data and Landscape Organisation Metrics Can Facilitate the Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Estonian Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Oleksandr Karasov

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Stien Heremans

    (Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), 1000 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Mart Külvik

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Artem Domnich

    (Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, 51009 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Igor Chervanyov

    (Physical Geography and Cartography Department, School of Geology, Geography, Recreation and Tourism, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 61022 Kharkiv, Ukraine)

Abstract

Social media continues to grow, permanently capturing our digital footprint in the form of texts, photographs, and videos, thereby reflecting our daily lives. Therefore, recent studies are increasingly recognising passively crowdsourced geotagged photographs retrieved from location-based social media as suitable data for quantitative mapping and assessment of cultural ecosystem service (CES) flow. In this study, we attempt to improve CES mapping from geotagged photographs by combining natural language processing, i.e., topic modelling and automated machine learning classification. Our study focuses on three main groups of CESs that are abundant in outdoor social media data: landscape watching, active outdoor recreation, and wildlife watching. Moreover, by means of a comparative viewshed analysis, we compare the geographic information system- and remote sensing-based landscape organisation metrics related to landscape coherence and colour harmony. We observed the spatial distribution of CESs in Estonia and confirmed that colour harmony indices are more strongly associated with landscape watching and outdoor recreation, while landscape coherence is more associated with wildlife watching. Both CES use and values of landscape organisation indices are land cover-specific. The suggested methodology can significantly improve the state-of-the-art with regard to CES mapping from geotagged photographs, and it is therefore particularly relevant for monitoring landscape sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Oleksandr Karasov & Stien Heremans & Mart Külvik & Artem Domnich & Igor Chervanyov, 2020. "On How Crowdsourced Data and Landscape Organisation Metrics Can Facilitate the Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Estonian Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:158-:d:359898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/158/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/158/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Van Berkel, Derek B. & Tabrizian, Payam & Dorning, Monica A. & Smart, Lindsey & Newcomb, Doug & Mehaffey, Megan & Neale, Anne & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2018. "Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 326-335.
    3. Hermes, Johannes & Van Berkel, Derek & Burkhard, Benjamin & Plieninger, Tobias & Fagerholm, Nora & von Haaren, Christina & Albert, Christian, 2018. "Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 289-295.
    4. Dunford, Rob & Harrison, Paula & Smith, Alison & Dick, Jan & Barton, David N. & Martin-Lopez, Berta & Kelemen, Ezsther & Jacobs, Sander & Saarikoski, Heli & Turkelboom, Francis & Verheyden, Wim & Hauc, 2018. "Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 499-514.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Jacobs, Sander & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David Nicholas & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Boeraeve, Fanny & McGrath, Francesca L. & Vierikko, Kati & Geneletti, Davide & Sevecke, , 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    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. 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).
    2. Nicolas Marine & Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Luis Santos-Cid & María F. Schmitz, 2022. "Can We Foresee Landscape Interest? Maximum Entropy Applied to Social Media Photographs: A Case Study in Madrid," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Xiao Zhang & Jun Wang & Mingyue Zhao & Yan Gao & Yanxu Liu, 2023. "Variations of Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand on the Southeast Hilly Area of China: Implications for Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, March.
    4. Szymon Chmielewski, 2020. "Chaos in Motion: Measuring Visual Pollution with Tangential View Landscape Metrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Lingua, Federico & Coops, Nicholas C. & Griess, Verena C., 2022. "Valuing cultural ecosystem services combining deep learning and benefit transfer approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Edgars Jūrmalis & Arta Bārdule & Jānis Donis & Linda Gerra-Inohosa & Zane Lībiete, 2023. "Forest Inventory Data Provide Useful Information for Mapping Ecosystem Services Potential," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, September.
    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.

    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. "Enriching social media data allows a more robust representation of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    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. 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).
    7. Lavorel, Sandra & Rey, Pierre-Louis & Grigulis, Karl & Zawada, Mégane & Byczek, Coline, 2020. "Interactions between outdoor recreation and iconic terrestrial vertebrates in two French alpine national parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    8. 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).
    9. 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).
    10. Meng, Shiting & Huang, Qingxu & Zhang, Ling & He, Chunyang & Inostroza, Luis & Bai, Yansong & Yin, Dan, 2020. "Matches and mismatches between the supply of and demand for cultural ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: A case study in the Guanting Reservoir basin, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    11. Cardoso, Ana Sofia & Renna, Francesco & Moreno-Llorca, Ricardo & Alcaraz-Segura, Domingo & Tabik, Siham & Ladle, Richard J. & Vaz, Ana Sofia, 2022. "Classifying the content of social media images to support cultural ecosystem service assessments using deep learning models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    12. E. Seda Arslan & Ömer K. Örücü, 2021. "MaxEnt modelling of the potential distribution areas of cultural ecosystem services using social media data and GIS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2655-2667, February.
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröte, 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(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. Rosa, Josianne Claudia Sales & Geneletti, Davide & Morrison-Saunders, Angus & Sánchez, Luis Enrique & Hughes, Michael, 2020. "To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Zanchi, Giuliana & Brady, Mark V., 2019. "Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    20. Jax, Kurt & Furman, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Barton, David N. & Delbaere, Ben & Dick, Jan & Duke, Guy & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Harrison, Paula A. & Maes, Joachim & Pérez-Soba, M, 2018. "Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 415-427.

    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:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:158-:d:359898. 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.