Conservation culturomics

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 269-275

  Ladle, Richard J ^a,b   Correia, Ricardo A ^a,b   Do, Yuno ^c   Joo, Gea Jae ^c   Malhado, Ana C M ^b   Proulx, Raphaël ^d   Roberge, Jean Michel ^e   Jepson, Paul ^b  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF ALAGOAS   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c Pusan National University   (South Korea)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À TROIS RIVIÈRES   (Canada)

^e SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CULTURAL INFLUENCE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HUMAN BEHAVIOR; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; NATURE CONSERVATION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH METHOD; TREND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84971642416     PISSN: 15409295     EISSN: 15409309     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/fee.1260     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Benford RD, and, Snow DA,. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 26: 611-39.
2. Brooker P, Barnett J, Cribbin T, et al,. 2015. Have we even solved the first 'big data challenge'? Practical issues concerning data collection and visual representation for social media analytics. In:, Snee H, Hine C, Morey Y, et al. (Eds). Digital methods for social science: an interdisciplinary guide to research innovation. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
3. Carlston DE,. 2013. The Oxford handbook of social cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4. Chan K,. 2008. Value and advocacy in conservation biology: crisis discipline or discipline in crisis? Conserv Biol 22: 1-3.
5. Clements CF,. 2013. Public interest in the extinction of a species may lead to an increase in donations to a large conservation charity. Biodivers Conserv 22: 2695-99.
6. Correia RA, Jepson PR, Malhado ACM, and, Ladle RJ,. 2016. Familiarity breeds content: assessing bird species popularity with culturomics. PeerJ 4: e1728.
7. Do Y, Kim JY, Lineman M, et al,. 2015. Using internet search behavior to assess public awareness of protected wetlands. Conserv Biol 29: 271-79.
8. Ficetola GF,. 2013. Is interest toward the environment really declining? The complexity of analysing trends using internet search data. Biodivers Conserv 22: 2983-88.
9. Funk SM, and, Rusowsky D,. 2014. The importance of cultural knowledge and scale for analysing internet search data as a proxy for public interest toward the environment. Biodivers Conserv 23: 3101-12.
10. Galaz V, Crona B, Daw T, et al,. 2009. Can web crawlers revolutionize ecological monitoring? Front Ecol Environ 8: 99-104.
11. Graham M,. 2014. Internet geographies: data shadows and digital divisions of labour. In:, Graham M, and, Dutton WH, (Eds). Society and the internet: how networks of information and communication are changing our lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. Jepson P, and, Barua M,. 2015. A theory of flagship species action. Conserv Soc 13: 95-104.
13. Kim JY, Do Y, Im RY, et al,. 2014. Use of large web-based data to identify public interest and trends related to endangered species. Biodivers Conserv 12: 1-24.
14. Kitchin R,. 2014. Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data Soc 1: 1-12.
15. Ladle RJ, and, Gillson L,. 2009. The (im)balance of nature: a public perception time-lag? Public Underst Sci 18: 218-42.
16. Ladle RJ, and, Jepson P,. 2010. Origins, uses, and transformation of extinction rhetoric. Environ Soc Adv Res 1: 96-115.
17. McCallum ML, and, Bury GW,. 2013. Google search patterns suggest declining interest in the environment. Biodivers Conserv 22: 1355-67.
18. Melo FP, Siqueira JA, Santos BA, et al,. 2014. Football and biodiversity conservation: FIFA and Brazil can still hit a green goal. Biotropica 46: 257-59.
19. Michel JB, Shen YK, Aiden AP, et al,. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331: 176-82.
20. Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, et al,. 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18: 44.
21. Murphy J,. 2014. Ten things survey researchers should know about Twitter. In:, Woodfield K, (Ed). Social media in social research: blogs on burning the boundaries. London, UK: NatCen Social Research.
22. Phu E,. 2014. 8 insights into the market for ivory from social media in China. In: International Wildlife Trafficking Symposium Day 2-A United for Wildlife event hosted by ZSL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cPkV0V3vzE [start time 6:09 minutes]. Viewed 14 Dec 2015.
23. Pijanowski BC, Villanueva-Rivera LJ, Dumyahn SL, et al,. 2011. Soundscape ecology: the science of sound in the landscape. BioScience 61: 203-16.
24. Poria S, Gelbukh A, Cambria E, et al,. 2014. EmoSenticSpace: a novel framework for affective common-sense reasoning. Knowl-Based Syst 69: 108-23.
25. Proulx R, Massicotte P, and, Pepino M,. 2014. Googling trends in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 28: 44-51.
26. Schuetz J, Soykan CU, Distler T, et al,. 2015. Searching for backyard birds in virtual worlds: internet queries mirror real species distributions. Biodivers Conserv 24: 1147-54.
27. Thelwall M, Buckley K, Paltoglou G, et al,. 2010. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 61: 2544-58.
28. Wilde GR, and, Pope KL,. 2013. Worldwide trends in fishing interest indicated by internet search volume. Fisheries Manag Ecol 20: 211-22.
29. WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2015. Safeguarding outstanding natural value: the role of institutional investors in safeguarding natural World Heritage sites from extractive activity. http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf-nwh-investor-report-a4-web-v2-1.pdf. Viewed 18 Jan 2016.
30. Zmihorski M, Dziarska-Pałac J, Sparks TH, et al,. 2013. Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and butterflies in internet information resources. Oikos 122: 183-90.