The geographic spread and preferences of tourists revealed by user-generated information on jeju island, south korea

Land

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2019, Pages

  Fisher, David M ^a   Wood, Spencer A ^a,b   Roh, Young Hee ^c   Kim, Choong Ki ^d  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^d Korea Environment Institute (KEI)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Cultural ecosystem services; Revealed preferences; Social media data; Tourism; User generated geographic content

Indexed keywords

EID: 85069005414     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2073445X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/LAND8050073     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.; et al. Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001. [CrossRef]
2. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [CrossRef]
3. Russell, R.; Guerry, A.D.; Balvanera, P.; Gould, R.K.; Basurto, X.; Chan, K.M.A.; Klain, S.; Levine, J.; Tam, J. Humans and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect Well-Being. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 2013, 38, 473–502. [CrossRef]
4. World Travel and Tourism Council Benchmark Report 2017—South Korea. Available online: https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/benchmark-reports/country-reports-2017/south-korea.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2018).
5. Wight, P. Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourism and recreation in the destination. In Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective; Hall, C.M., Lew, A.A., Eds.; Addison Wesley Longman Ltd: Harlow, UK, 1998; pp. 75–91.
6. Feather, P.; Hellerstein, D.; Tomasi, T. A Discrete-Count Model of Recreational Demand; Social Science Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 1995.
7. Ward, F.A.; Loomis, J.B. The Travel Cost Demand Model as an Environmental Policy Assessment Tool: A Review of Literature. West. J. Agric. Econ. 1986, 11, 164–178.
8. Adamowicz, W.; Swait, J.; Boxall, P.; Louviere, J.; Williams, M. Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32, 65–84. [CrossRef]
9. Jones, A.; Wright, J.; Bateman, I.; Schaafsma, M. Estimating Arrival Numbers for Informal Recreation: A Geographical Approach and Case Study of British Woodlands. Sustainability 2010, 2, 684–701. [CrossRef]
10. La Rosa, D.; Spyra, M.; Inostroza, L. Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61 Pt 1, 74–89. [CrossRef]
11. Duffield, B.S.; Coppock, J.T. The Delineation of Recreational Landscapes: The Role of a Computer-Based Information System. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1975, 141–148. [CrossRef]
12. Levinsohn, A.; Langford, G.; Rayner, M.; Rintoul, J.; Eccles, R. Eccles A micro-computer based GIS for assessing recreation suitability. In Proceedings of the GIS 87 Symposium, Falls Church, VA, USA, 26–30 October 1987; pp. 739–747.
13. Hanley, N.; Colombo, S.; Tinch, D.; Black, A.; Aftab, A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: Are benefits transferable? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2006, 33, 391–413. [CrossRef]
14. Alessa, L.; Kliskey, A.; Brown, G. Social–ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2008, 85, 27–39. [CrossRef]
15. Ancona, Z.H.; Semmens, D.J.; Sherrouse, B.C. Social-Value Maps for Arapaho, Roosevelt, Medicine Bow, Routt, and White River National Forests, Colorado and Wyoming; Scientific Investigations Report; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2016.
16. Kliskey, A.D. Recreation terrain suitability mapping: A spatially explicit methodology for determining recreation potential for resource use assessment. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2000, 52, 33–43. [CrossRef]
17. Sherrouse, B.C.; Clement, J.M.; Semmens, D.J. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 748–760. [CrossRef]
18. Samuelson, P.A. Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference. Economica 1948, 15, 243–253. [CrossRef]
19. Elwood, S.; Goodchild, M.F.; Sui, D.Z. Researching Volunteered Geographic Information: Spatial Data, Geographic Research, and New Social Practice. Annu. Associ. Amer. Geogr. 2012, 102, 571–590. [CrossRef]
20. Girardin, F.; Calabrese, F.; Fiore, F.D.; Ratti, C.; Blat, J. Digital Footprinting: Uncovering Tourists with User-Generated Content. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2008, 7, 36–43. [CrossRef]
21. Levin, N.; Lechner, A.M.; Brown, G. An evaluation of crowdsourced information for assessing the visitation and perceived importance of protected areas. Appl. Geogr. 2017, 79, 115–126. [CrossRef]
22. Stefanidis, A.; Crooks, A.; Radzikowski, J. Harvesting ambient geospatial information from social media feeds. GeoJournal 2013, 78, 319–338. [CrossRef]
23. Wood, S.A.; Guerry, A.D.; Silver, J.M.; Lacayo, M. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 2976. [CrossRef]
24. Calabrese, F.; Ferrari, L.; Blondel, V.D. Urban Sensing Using Mobile Phone Network Data: A Survey of Research. ACM Comput. Surv. 2014, 47, 25:1–25:20. [CrossRef]
25. Steenbruggen, J.; Tranos, E.; Nijkamp, P. Data from mobile phone operators: A tool for smarter cities? Telecommun. Policy 2015, 39, 335–346. [CrossRef]
26. Donahue, M.L.; Keeler, B.L.; Wood, S.A.; Fisher, D.M.; Hamstead, Z.A.; McPhearson, T. Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2018, 175, 1–10. [CrossRef]
27. Fisher, D.M.; Wood, S.A.; White, E.M.; Blahna, D.J.; Lange, S.; Weinberg, A.; Tomco, M.; Lia, E. Recreational use in dispersed public lands measured using social media data and on-site counts. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 222, 465–474. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Hamstead, Z.A.; Fisher, D.; Ilieva, R.T.; Wood, S.A.; McPhearson, T.; Kremer, P. Geolocated social media as a rapid indicator of park visitation and equitable park access. Comput. Environ. Urb. Sys. 2018, 72, 38–50. [CrossRef]
29. Keeler, B.L.; Wood, S.A.; Polasky, S.; Kling, C.; Filstrup, C.T.; Downing, J.A. Recreational demand for clean water: Evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 76–81. [CrossRef]
30. Schirpke, U.; Timmermann, F.; Tappeiner, U.; Tasser, E. Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 78–90. [CrossRef]
31. Sessions, C.; Wood, S.A.; Rabotyagov, S.; Fisher, D.M. Measuring recreational visitation at U.S. National Parks with crowd-sourced photographs. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183 Pt 3, 703–711. [CrossRef]
32. Van Zanten, B.T.; van Berkel, D.B.; Meentemeyer, R.K.; Smith, J.W.; Tieskens, K.F.; Verburg, P.H. Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. PNAS 2016, 113, 12974–12979. [CrossRef]
33. Walden-Schreiner, C.; Leung, Y.-F.; Tateosian, L. Digital footprints: Incorporating crowdsourced geographic information for protected area management. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 90, 44–54. [CrossRef]
34. González, M.C.; Hidalgo, C.A.; Barabási, A.-L. Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 2008, 453, 779–782. [CrossRef]
35. Lee, W.K.; Sohn, S.Y.; Heo, J. Utilizing mobile phone-based floating population data to measure the spatial accessibility to public transit. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 92, 123–130. [CrossRef]
36. Song, C.; Qu, Z.; Blumm, N.; Barabási, A.-L. Limits of Predictability in Human Mobility. Science 2010, 327, 1018–1021. [CrossRef]
37. Arkema, K.K.; Verutes, G.M.; Wood, S.A.; Clarke-Samuels, C.; Rosado, S.; Canto, M.; Rosenthal, A.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Guannel, G.; Toft, J.; et al. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. PNAS 2015, 112, 7390–7395. [CrossRef]
38. Hausmann, A.; Toivonen, T.; Slotow, R.; Tenkanen, H.; Moilanen, A.; Heikinheimo, V.; Di Minin, E. Social Media Data Can Be Used to Understand Tourists’ Preferences for Nature-Based Experiences in Protected Areas. Conserv. Lett. 2017. [CrossRef]
39. Hausmann, A.; Toivonen, T.; Heikinheimo, V.; Tenkanen, H.; Slotow, R.; Di Minin, E. Social media reveal that charismatic species are not the main attractor of ecotourists to sub-Saharan protected areas. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 763. [CrossRef]
40. Heikinheimo, V.; Minin, E.D.; Tenkanen, H.; Hausmann, A.; Erkkonen, J.; Toivonen, T. User-Generated Geographic Information for Visitor Monitoring in a National Park: A Comparison of Social Media Data and Visitor Survey. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 85. [CrossRef]
41. Sonter, L.J.; Watson, K.B.; Wood, S.A.; Ricketts, T.H. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics and Value of Nature-Based Recreation, Estimated via Social Media. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162372. [CrossRef]
42. Goodchild, M.F. The quality of big (geo)data. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2013, 3, 280–284. [CrossRef]
43. Ricciato, F.; Widhalm, P.; Pantisano, F.; Craglia, M. Beyond the “single-operator, CDR-only” paradigm: An interoperable framework for mobile phone network data analyses and population density estimation. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2017, 35, 65–82. [CrossRef]
44. Tsikerdekis, M.; Zeadally, S. Online Deception in Social Media. Commun. ACM 2014, 57, 72–80. [CrossRef]
45. KOSIS Korean Statistical Information Service. Available online: http://kosis.kr/eng/index/index.do (accessed on 27 March 2019).
46. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Natural Environment Ecology Information System. Available online: http://nature.jeju.go.kr/(accessed on 27 March 2019).
47. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. Investigation of Tourists Visiting Jeju Special Self-Governing Province in 2014; Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Government: Jeju City, South Korea, 2015.
48. Tourism Knowledge Information System. Available online: https://www.tour.go.kr/(accessed on 1 September 2015).
49. Flickr. Available online: https://www.flickr.com/services/developer/api/(accessed on 1 September 2015).
50. Sharp, R. InVEST User Guide—InVEST 3.6.0 documentation. Available online: http://data. naturalcapitalproject.org/nightly-build/invest-users-guide/html/(accessed on 27 March 2019).
51. Twitter. Available online: https://developer.twitter.com (accessed on 1 September 2015).
52. Leetaru, K.; Wang, S.; Cao, G.; Padmanabhan, A.; Shook, E. Mapping the global Twitter heartbeat: The geography of Twitter. First Monday 2013, 18. [CrossRef]
53. Martinez-Harms, M.J.; Bryan, B.A.; Wood, S.A.; Fisher, D.M.; Law, E.; Rhodes, J.R.; Dobbs, C.; Biggs, D.; Wilson, K.A. Inequality in access to cultural ecosystem services from protected areas in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 1128–1138. [CrossRef]
54. Mahmud, J.; Nichols, J.; Drews, C. Home Location Identification of Twitter Users. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2014, 5, 47:1–47:21. [CrossRef]
55. Tenkanen, H.; Di Minin, E.; Heikinheimo, V.; Hausmann, A.; Herbst, M.; Kajala, L.; Toivonen, T. Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17615. [CrossRef]
56. Guerry, A.D.; Polasky, S.; Lubchenco, J.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Daily, G.C.; Griffin, R.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Bateman, I.J.; Duraiappah, A.; Elmqvist, T.; et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. PNAS 2015, 112, 7348–7355. [CrossRef]
57. Ruckelshaus, M.; McKenzie, E.; Tallis, H.; Guerry, A.; Daily, G.; Kareiva, P.; Polasky, S.; Ricketts, T.; Bhagabati, N.; Wood, S.A.; et al. Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econom. 2015, 115, 11–21. [CrossRef]
58. Ryan, R.L. The social landscape of planning: Integrating social and perceptual research with spatial planning information. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2011, 100, 361–363. [CrossRef]
59. Casalegno, S.; Inger, R.; DeSilvey, C.; Gaston, K.J. Spatial Covariance between Aesthetic Value & Other Ecosystem Services. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68437.
60. Guerrero, P.; Møller, M.S.; Olafsson, A.S.; Snizek, B. Revealing Cultural Ecosystem Services through Instagram Images: The Potential of Social Media Volunteered Geographic Information for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Governance. Urb. Plan. 2016, 1, 1. [CrossRef]
61. Tenerelli, P.; Demšar, U.; Luque, S. Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 64, 237–248. [CrossRef]
62. Clec’h, S.L.; Oszwald, J.; Decaens, T.; Desjardins, T.; Dufour, S.; Grimaldi, M.; Jegou, N.; Lavelle, P. Mapping multiple ecosystem services indicators: Toward an objective-oriented approach. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 508–521. [CrossRef]
63. Zielstra, D.; Hochmair, H.H. Positional accuracy analysis of Flickr and Panoramio images for selected world regions. J. Spat. Sci. 2013, 58, 251–273. [CrossRef]
64. Gilbert, E.; Karahalios, K.; Sandvig, C. The Network in the Garden: An Empirical Analysis of Social Media in Rural Life. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008; ACM: New York, NY, USA; pp. 1603–1612.
65. Li, L.; Goodchild, M.F.; Xu, B. Spatial, temporal, and socioeconomic patterns in the use of Twitter and Flickr. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2013, 40, 61–77. [CrossRef]
66. Jul 31 2012 Social Network Analysis Report—Demographic—Geographic and Search Data Revealed. Ignite Social Media—The Original Social Media Agency. 2012. Available online: https://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/social-media-stats/2012-social-network-analysis-report/(accessed on 1 September 2015).
67. Cessford, G.; Muhar, A. Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas. J. Nat. Conserv. 2003, 11, 240–250. [CrossRef]
68. Ruths, D.; Pfeffer, J. Social media for large studies of behavior. Science 2014, 346, 1063–1064. [CrossRef]