Next Article in Journal
Determinants of Residents’ Willingness to Accept and Their Levels for Ecological Conservation in Ganjiang River Basin, China: An Empirical Analysis of Survey Data for 677 Households
Next Article in Special Issue
Indicators for the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces: A Focus on Public Areas in Padua, Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Education for Sustainable Development: Evolution and Perspectives: A Bibliometric Review of Research, 1992–2018
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Transformative Potential of Active Citizenship: Understanding Changes in Local Governance Practices
Article

Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods

1
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, New York, NY 10007, USA
2
Urban & Community Forester, Hawaiʿi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Wildlife, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(21), 6137; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216137
Received: 1 August 2019 / Revised: 26 September 2019 / Accepted: 21 October 2019 / Published: 4 November 2019
Understanding the benefits received from urban greenspace is critical for planning and decision-making. The benefits of parks can be challenging to measure and evaluate, which calls for the development of novel methods. Crowdsourced data from social media can provide a platform for measuring and understanding social values. However, such methods can have drawbacks, including representation bias, undirected content, and a lack of demographic data. We compare the amount and distribution of park benefits elicited from (1) tweets on Twitter about Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York (n = 451) with park benefits derived from (2) broad (n = 288) and (3) directed (n = 39) questions on two semi-structured interview protocols for park users within Prospect Park. We applied combined deductive and inductive coding to all three datasets, drawing from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s (MEA) cultural ecosystem services (CES) framework. All three methods elicited an overlapping set of CES, but only the Twitter dataset captured all 10 MEA-defined CES. All methods elicited social relations and recreation as commonly occurring, but only the directed question interview protocol was able to widely elicit spiritual values. We conclude this paper with a discussion of tradeoffs and triangulation opportunities when using Twitter data to measure CES and other urban park benefits. View Full-Text
Keywords: cultural ecosystem services; social media; spatial analysis; urban greenspace cultural ecosystem services; social media; spatial analysis; urban greenspace
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Johnson, M.L.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S.; McMillen, H.L. Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216137

AMA Style

Johnson ML, Campbell LK, Svendsen ES, McMillen HL. Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods. Sustainability. 2019; 11(21):6137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216137

Chicago/Turabian Style

Johnson, Michelle L., Lindsay K. Campbell, Erika S. Svendsen, and Heather L. McMillen 2019. "Mapping Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Comparison of Twitter and Semi-Structured Interview Methods" Sustainability 11, no. 21: 6137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216137

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop