Using data from online social networks in conservation science: Which species engage people the most on Twitter?

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 715-726

  Roberge, Jean Michel ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Endangered Species Act; Microblogs; Online networking services; Public attention; Species at risk; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893968439     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-014-0629-2     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ballouard J-M, Brischoux F, Bonnet X (2011) Children prioritize virtual exotic biodiversity over local biodiversity. PLoS ONE 6(8): e23152.
2. Barua M, Root-Bernstein M, Ladle RJ, Jepson P (2011) Defining flagship uses is critical for flagship selection: a critique of the IUCN climate change flagship fleet. Ambio 40: 431-435.
3. Beevolve (2012) An exhaustive study of Twitter users across the world. Beevolve Technologies, London. http://www. beevolve. com/twitter-statistics/. Accessed 15 Oct 2012.
4. Bik HM, Goldstein MC (2013) An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biol 11(4): e1001535.
5. Caro T (2010) Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship and other surrogate species. Island Press, Washington, DC.
6. Chew C, Eysenbach G (2010) Pandemics in the age of Twitter: content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE 5: e14118.
7. Clark JA, May RM (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297: 191-202.
8. Clucas B, McHugh K, Caro T (2008) Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers Conserv 17: 1517-1528.
9. Czech B, Krausman PR, Borkhataria R (1998) Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conserv Biol 12: 1103-1112.
10. Eysenbach G (2002) Infodemiology: the epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med 113: 763-765.
11. Gavin MC, Solomon JN, Blank SG (2010) Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources. Conserv Biol 24: 89-100.
12. Golbeck J, Grimes JM, Rogers A (2010) Twitter use by the US congress. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61: 1612-1621.
13. Gonçalves B, Perra N, Vespignani A (2011) Modeling user's activity on Twitter networks: validation of Dunbar's number. PLoS ONE 6(8): e22656.
14. Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Conserv Biol 26: 583-585.
15. Kalland A (1993) Management by totemization: whale symbolism and the anti-whaling campaign. Arctic 46: 124-133.
16. Kareiva P, Marvier M (2012) What is conservation science? Bioscience 62: 962-969.
17. Kellert SR (1985) Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management. J Wildlife Manag 49: 528-536.
18. Kellert SR (1996) The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington, DC.
19. Knegtering E, Hendrickx L, van der Windt HJ, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM (2002) Effect of species' characteristics on nongovernmental organizations' attitudes toward species conservation policy. Environ Behav 34: 378-400.
20. Lislevand T, Figuerola J, Székely T (2007) Avian body sizes in relation to fecundity, mating system, display behavior, and resource sharing. Ecology 88: 1605.
21. McCallum ML, Bury GW (2013) Google search patterns suggest declining interest in the environment. Biodivers Conserv 22: 1355-1367.
22. McNeil K, Brna PM, Gordon KE (2012) Epilepsy in the Twitter era: a need to re-tweet the way we think about seizures. Epilepsy Behav 23: 127-130.
23. Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 72: 1-16.
24. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
25. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68: 1535-1548.
26. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 71-76.
27. Scanfeld D, Scanfeld V, Larson EL (2010) Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics. Am J Infect Control 38: 182-188.
28. Signorini A, Segre AM, Polgreen PM (2011) The use of Twitter to track levels of disease activity and public concern in the US during the influenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLoS ONE 6(5): e19467.
29. Smith FA, Lyons SK, Ernest SKM, Jones KE, Kauffman DM, Dayan T, Marquet PA, Brown JH, Haskell JP (2003) Body mass of late Quaternary mammals. Ecology 84: 3403.
30. Smith RJ, Veríssimo D, MacMillan DC (2010) Marketing and conservation: how to lose friends and influence people. In: Leader-Williams N, Adams W, Smith RJ (eds) Trade-offs in conservation: deciding what to save. Blackwell, Oxford.
31. Smith RJ, Veríssimo D, Isaac NJB, Jones KE (2012) Identifying Cinderella species: uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conserv Lett 5: 205-212.
32. Stokes DL (2007) Things we like: human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Hum Ecol 25: 361-369.
33. Twitter (2012a) Twitter turns six. Twitter, San Francisco. http://blog. twitter. com/2012/03/twitter-turns-six. html. Accessed 15 Oct 2012.
34. Twitter (2012b) Twitter help center. Twitter, San Francisco. https://support. twitter. com/. Accessed 15 July 2012.
35. Veríssimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ (2011) Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conserv Lett 4: 1-8.
36. Veríssimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ, Barua M, Jepson P (2012) Selecting marine invertebrate flagship species: widening the net. Biol Conserv 145: 4.
37. Viralblog (2012) Twitter facts and figures. SocialMedia8, Amsterdam. http://www. viralblog. com/research-cases/twitter-facts-figures/. Accessed 23 Nov 2012.
38. Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2002) Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers Conserv 11: 543-547.