Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas
Social media data is increasingly used as a proxy for human activity in different environments, including protected areas, where collecting visitor information is often laborious and expensive, but important for management and marketing. Here, we compared data from Instagram, Twitter and Flickr, and...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Scientific reports 2017-12, Vol.7 (1), p.17615-11, Article 17615 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 11 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 17615 |
container_title | Scientific reports |
container_volume | 7 |
creator | Tenkanen, Henrikki Di Minin, Enrico Heikinheimo, Vuokko Hausmann, Anna Herbst, Marna Kajala, Liisa Toivonen, Tuuli |
description | Social media data is increasingly used as a proxy for human activity in different environments, including protected areas, where collecting visitor information is often laborious and expensive, but important for management and marketing. Here, we compared data from Instagram, Twitter and Flickr, and assessed systematically how park popularity and temporal visitor counts derived from social media data perform against high-precision visitor statistics in 56 national parks in Finland and South Africa in 2014. We show that social media activity is highly associated with park popularity, and social media-based monthly visitation patterns match relatively well with the official visitor counts. However, there were considerable differences between platforms as Instagram clearly outperformed Twitter and Flickr. Furthermore, we show that social media data tend to perform better in more visited parks, and should always be used with caution. Based on stakeholder discussions we identified potential reasons why social media data and visitor statistics might not match: the geography and profile of the park, the visitor profile, and sudden events. Overall the results are encouraging in broader terms: Over 60% of the national parks globally have Twitter or Instagram activity, which could potentially inform global nature conservation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41598-017-18007-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5730565</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1983426842</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-104097dc96a295a3e20eab62a87fccb8d631d42884c4e466fceb3f292a59de1d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9v1DAQxSMEolXpF-CALHHh0ID_JbE5IFUVLZUqcSlna-JMti7ZePE4rfrt8XZLtSDhy1jy7z3PzKuqt4J_FFyZT6RFY03NRVcLw3lX6xfVoeS6qaWS8uXe_aA6Jrrl5TTSamFfVwfSSi1bYQ-r5XKmDKsE6xN2PgX_M52wmNj1fcgZ02d2SoREYV6xfINsIejDFPIDiyOj6ANMbI1DADZABjYW5V2gkEtdx3lbt8ows02KGX3GgUFCoDfVqxEmwuOnelT9OP96ffatvvp-cXl2elX7xthcC6657QZvW5C2AYWSI_StBNON3vdmaJUYtDRGe426bUePvRrLcNDYAcWgjqovO9_N0pc-Pc45weQ2KawhPbgIwf39Mocbt4p3rukUb9qmGHx4Mkjx14KU3TqQx2mCGeNCTtiuHGtVV9D3_6C3cUlzGa9QRpV9Gy0LJXeUT5Eo4fjcjOBuG6zbBetKsO4xWKeL6N3-GM-SPzEWQO0A2mw3jmnv7__b_gYRKrBD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1983426842</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas</title><source>Springer Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Nature Journals Online</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Tenkanen, Henrikki ; Di Minin, Enrico ; Heikinheimo, Vuokko ; Hausmann, Anna ; Herbst, Marna ; Kajala, Liisa ; Toivonen, Tuuli</creator><creatorcontrib>Tenkanen, Henrikki ; Di Minin, Enrico ; Heikinheimo, Vuokko ; Hausmann, Anna ; Herbst, Marna ; Kajala, Liisa ; Toivonen, Tuuli</creatorcontrib><description>Social media data is increasingly used as a proxy for human activity in different environments, including protected areas, where collecting visitor information is often laborious and expensive, but important for management and marketing. Here, we compared data from Instagram, Twitter and Flickr, and assessed systematically how park popularity and temporal visitor counts derived from social media data perform against high-precision visitor statistics in 56 national parks in Finland and South Africa in 2014. We show that social media activity is highly associated with park popularity, and social media-based monthly visitation patterns match relatively well with the official visitor counts. However, there were considerable differences between platforms as Instagram clearly outperformed Twitter and Flickr. Furthermore, we show that social media data tend to perform better in more visited parks, and should always be used with caution. Based on stakeholder discussions we identified potential reasons why social media data and visitor statistics might not match: the geography and profile of the park, the visitor profile, and sudden events. Overall the results are encouraging in broader terms: Over 60% of the national parks globally have Twitter or Instagram activity, which could potentially inform global nature conservation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-18007-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29242619</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/158/672 ; 631/158/852 ; Geography ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; multidisciplinary ; National parks ; Nature conservation ; Parks ; Parks & recreation areas ; Protected areas ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Social networks ; Statistics</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2017-12, Vol.7 (1), p.17615-11, Article 17615</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-104097dc96a295a3e20eab62a87fccb8d631d42884c4e466fceb3f292a59de1d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-104097dc96a295a3e20eab62a87fccb8d631d42884c4e466fceb3f292a59de1d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5119-0957 ; 0000-0002-0918-4710 ; 0000-0002-5562-318X ; 0000-0002-6625-4922</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5730565/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5730565/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,41096,42165,51551,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29242619$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tenkanen, Henrikki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Minin, Enrico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heikinheimo, Vuokko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hausmann, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herbst, Marna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kajala, Liisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toivonen, Tuuli</creatorcontrib><title>Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>Social media data is increasingly used as a proxy for human activity in different environments, including protected areas, where collecting visitor information is often laborious and expensive, but important for management and marketing. Here, we compared data from Instagram, Twitter and Flickr, and assessed systematically how park popularity and temporal visitor counts derived from social media data perform against high-precision visitor statistics in 56 national parks in Finland and South Africa in 2014. We show that social media activity is highly associated with park popularity, and social media-based monthly visitation patterns match relatively well with the official visitor counts. However, there were considerable differences between platforms as Instagram clearly outperformed Twitter and Flickr. Furthermore, we show that social media data tend to perform better in more visited parks, and should always be used with caution. Based on stakeholder discussions we identified potential reasons why social media data and visitor statistics might not match: the geography and profile of the park, the visitor profile, and sudden events. Overall the results are encouraging in broader terms: Over 60% of the national parks globally have Twitter or Instagram activity, which could potentially inform global nature conservation.</description><subject>631/158/672</subject><subject>631/158/852</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>National parks</subject><subject>Nature conservation</subject><subject>Parks</subject><subject>Parks & recreation areas</subject><subject>Protected areas</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9v1DAQxSMEolXpF-CALHHh0ID_JbE5IFUVLZUqcSlna-JMti7ZePE4rfrt8XZLtSDhy1jy7z3PzKuqt4J_FFyZT6RFY03NRVcLw3lX6xfVoeS6qaWS8uXe_aA6Jrrl5TTSamFfVwfSSi1bYQ-r5XKmDKsE6xN2PgX_M52wmNj1fcgZ02d2SoREYV6xfINsIejDFPIDiyOj6ANMbI1DADZABjYW5V2gkEtdx3lbt8ows02KGX3GgUFCoDfVqxEmwuOnelT9OP96ffatvvp-cXl2elX7xthcC6657QZvW5C2AYWSI_StBNON3vdmaJUYtDRGe426bUePvRrLcNDYAcWgjqovO9_N0pc-Pc45weQ2KawhPbgIwf39Mocbt4p3rukUb9qmGHx4Mkjx14KU3TqQx2mCGeNCTtiuHGtVV9D3_6C3cUlzGa9QRpV9Gy0LJXeUT5Eo4fjcjOBuG6zbBetKsO4xWKeL6N3-GM-SPzEWQO0A2mw3jmnv7__b_gYRKrBD</recordid><startdate>20171214</startdate><enddate>20171214</enddate><creator>Tenkanen, Henrikki</creator><creator>Di Minin, Enrico</creator><creator>Heikinheimo, Vuokko</creator><creator>Hausmann, Anna</creator><creator>Herbst, Marna</creator><creator>Kajala, Liisa</creator><creator>Toivonen, Tuuli</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5119-0957</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0918-4710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5562-318X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6625-4922</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20171214</creationdate><title>Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas</title><author>Tenkanen, Henrikki ; Di Minin, Enrico ; Heikinheimo, Vuokko ; Hausmann, Anna ; Herbst, Marna ; Kajala, Liisa ; Toivonen, Tuuli</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c589t-104097dc96a295a3e20eab62a87fccb8d631d42884c4e466fceb3f292a59de1d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>631/158/672</topic><topic>631/158/852</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>National parks</topic><topic>Nature conservation</topic><topic>Parks</topic><topic>Parks & recreation areas</topic><topic>Protected areas</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tenkanen, Henrikki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Minin, Enrico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heikinheimo, Vuokko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hausmann, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herbst, Marna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kajala, Liisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toivonen, Tuuli</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tenkanen, Henrikki</au><au>Di Minin, Enrico</au><au>Heikinheimo, Vuokko</au><au>Hausmann, Anna</au><au>Herbst, Marna</au><au>Kajala, Liisa</au><au>Toivonen, Tuuli</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><date>2017-12-14</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>17615</spage><epage>11</epage><pages>17615-11</pages><artnum>17615</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>Social media data is increasingly used as a proxy for human activity in different environments, including protected areas, where collecting visitor information is often laborious and expensive, but important for management and marketing. Here, we compared data from Instagram, Twitter and Flickr, and assessed systematically how park popularity and temporal visitor counts derived from social media data perform against high-precision visitor statistics in 56 national parks in Finland and South Africa in 2014. We show that social media activity is highly associated with park popularity, and social media-based monthly visitation patterns match relatively well with the official visitor counts. However, there were considerable differences between platforms as Instagram clearly outperformed Twitter and Flickr. Furthermore, we show that social media data tend to perform better in more visited parks, and should always be used with caution. Based on stakeholder discussions we identified potential reasons why social media data and visitor statistics might not match: the geography and profile of the park, the visitor profile, and sudden events. Overall the results are encouraging in broader terms: Over 60% of the national parks globally have Twitter or Instagram activity, which could potentially inform global nature conservation.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>29242619</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41598-017-18007-4</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5119-0957</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0918-4710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5562-318X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6625-4922</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2045-2322 |
ispartof | Scientific reports, 2017-12, Vol.7 (1), p.17615-11, Article 17615 |
issn | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5730565 |
source | Springer Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Nature Journals Online; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | 631/158/672 631/158/852 Geography Humanities and Social Sciences multidisciplinary National parks Nature conservation Parks Parks & recreation areas Protected areas Science Science (multidisciplinary) Social networks Statistics |
title | Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-18T21%3A40%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Instagram,%20Flickr,%20or%20Twitter:%20Assessing%20the%20usability%20of%20social%20media%20data%20for%20visitor%20monitoring%20in%20protected%20areas&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Tenkanen,%20Henrikki&rft.date=2017-12-14&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=17615&rft.epage=11&rft.pages=17615-11&rft.artnum=17615&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41598-017-18007-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1983426842%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1983426842&rft_id=info:pmid/29242619&rfr_iscdi=true |