Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMunoz, Lorena
dc.contributor.authorHausner, Vera Helene
dc.contributor.authorRunge, Claire Alice
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Greg
dc.contributor.authorDaigle, Remi
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-05T11:39:26Z
dc.date.available2020-11-05T11:39:26Z
dc.date.issued2020-04-20
dc.description.abstract<ol> <li>Crowdsourced data can provide spatially explicit data on the contribution of nature to people. Spatial information is essential for effectively managing the diverse relationships that people have with nature, but the potential and limits of using crowdsourcing data to generate maps for conservation purposes need further research. </li><p> <p><li>Passive crowdsourcing tools include social media platforms where photos and user‐generated tags are shared among users, whereas active crowdsourcing, such as public participatory geographic information system (PPGIS), provides an online platform for mapping place attributes such as values, experiences and preferences.</li> <p> <p><li>In this study, we assess the spatial information gained through using Flickr (a photo sharing platform) and PPGIS (an online mapping platform) platforms for conservation planning to understand differences and similarities on the spatial distribution of values captured by the two platforms, and to identify what environmental and infrastructure variables correlate best with the distribution of values. We test these tools in Southern Norway including protected areas and the surrounding zones. </li><p> <p><li>We analysed non‐spatial (using chi‐square and Spearman rank correlation) and spatial (using clustering, Maxent and distribution overlap) data to identify differences between the two datasets and the values represented therein. </li><p> <p><li>We found large differences in spatial distribution using these two datasets, with Flickr data concentrated outside the protected areas and near roads, whereas PPGIS provided more fine‐scale data on diverse values in locations inaccessible by roads within the protected areas. Flickr can be used for generating regional scale data of scenic landscapes or routes, but PPGIS performs better for management of nature qualities appreciated by different user groups within protected areas. We discuss the pros and cons of using each data source and when each dataset is more suitable to be used in protected area management.</li> </ol>en_US
dc.identifier.citationMunoz L, Hausner VH, Runge CA, Brown G, Daigle r. Using crowdsourced spatial data from Flickr vs. PPGIS for understanding nature's contribution to people in Southern Norway. People and Nature. 2020;2(2):437-449en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1834844
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pan3.10083
dc.identifier.issn2575-8314
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/19772
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalPeople and Nature
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/RCN/MILJØFORSK/230330/Norway/CultES - Assessing spatially explicit cultural ecosystem services for adaptive management in the Alpine North//en_US
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 The Author(s)en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480en_US
dc.titleUsing crowdsourced spatial data from Flickr vs. PPGIS for understanding nature's contribution to people in Southern Norwayen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record