GOALS BACKGROUND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION Can … NORC D...GOALS BACKGROUND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION *Kansas State University, [email protected] | Joshua Tree National Park, [email protected]

GOALS BACKGROUND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION

*Kansas State University, [email protected] | Joshua Tree National Park, [email protected]

Can social media be used to understandvisitor activity in low-use, remote parks?

Dani T. Dagan*; Ryan L. Sharp, PhD; Matthew T.J. Brownlee, PhD


DefinitionsWilderness

Federally designated wilderness, i.e. managed in accordance with

the Wilderness Act of 1964

BackcountryNPS definition: Primitive,

undeveloped, limited infrastructure; similar to

designated wilderness

Studying visitors is more challenging in these areas

Low density of visitors

Challenging contexts for on-site sampling

Small samples and related issues

High monetary cost and human capital

MONITORING INBACKCOUNTRY& WILDERNESS


RESEARCH OBJECTIVES1. Understand whether social media users who share content related to remote,

low-use parks are in-person visitors through in-depth content evaluation

2. Examine whether social media data can be used to understand visitors activity on a site- and season- specific scale, esp. in a remote, low-use setting

3. Examine the limitations of using social media data to understand visitors on small scales and in remote settings

Methods overview: Visual inspection of social media content related to the parks evaluation of shared activity and locations


1. Understand whether social media users who share content related to remote, low-use parks are in-person visitors through in-depth content evaluation

2. Examine whether social media data can be used to understand visitors activity on a site- and season- specific scale, esp. in a remote, low-use setting

3. Examine the limitations of using social media data to understand visitors on small scales and in remote settings

“What about places without cell coverage? Does this work there?”

“Are social media users a representative sample?”

“As a practitioner, can I use social media data to understand my park?”

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES


► User-generated content platforms: Twitter, Flickr, Instagram, OpenStreetMap, Strava or similar fitness apps

► Research area examples: Fitness and health, urban planning, and natural disaster relief, tourism, ecosystem services, environmental inequality

► Social media as a proxy for visitation trends

LITERATURE

Arapostathis et al. 2018, Haworth & Bruce 2015, Chua, et al. 2016, Hamstead, et al. 2018, Albert et al. 2014, Heikinheimo 2017, Tenkanen 2017, Sessions et al. 2016, Wood et al. 2013, Fisher et al. 2018, Levin et al. 2017


► Heikinheimo et al., 2017: Found significant relationship between activities reported via questionnaire and Flickr, Twitter, & Instagram, but spatial results less significant in lower use areas.

► Tenkanen et al., 2017: Compared Flickr, Twitter, & Instagram posts with reported visitation. All platforms more accurate in popular areas.

► Levin et al., 2017: Compared PPGIS, VGI (Flickr, Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap), and visitation stats across Victoria, Australia. Correlations exist; crowdsourced data most complete for big or high status parks.

► Walden-Schreiner et al., 2018: Evaluated use of infrastructure use Flickr data in areas with 40-100k summer visitors. Found correlations between photo days and reported visitation, but less than previous research

LITERATURE


STUDY AREA

Katmai 2018 reported visitation:

Combined acreage:Lake Clark 2018

reported visitation:


► Only one front country area: Brooks Camp (not part of study)

STUDY AREA


► Twitter and Flickr▹ June – October 2018 ▹ Commonly used, popular and accessible

► Cast a wide query net▹ Geographic bounding box

or▹ Tags: Katmai, Lake Clark, #Katmai, #LakeClark

DATA COLLECTION


CLEANING AND CODING

► Removed RT and Replies► Coded users, rather than posts, to eliminate bias from a

small number of active users► Visual inspection by researcher familiar with the area


CODING TREE

Unrelated (UNR)

Brooks Camp

(BROOKS)or

Unclear (UNC)

Non-visit (NV)

Was the post about KATM or LACL?

Did the user visit backcountry/wilderness?

Was the user an in-person visitor to the park?

Bear viewing (BV)or

Fishing (FISH)or

BV + FISH (BOTH)or

Neither (OTH)DecisionCode

YES

NO


id user_name date text home_loc platform long lat

21839 aimee_mcquigg

2018-08-31

#bearpaw #lowtide #wild #lakeclarknationalpark@ Lake Clark National Park & Preserve

https://t.co/cEZmvipu1L

Homer; Alaska' TWITTER

-154.3145656

60.20146863

EXAMPLE


Twitter Flickr Totalposts 11,795

(46,768 w/ replies & RTs)758 12,553

users total 6,087 35 6,122users sharing related

content 3,974 35 3,709

in-person visitors 190 34 224backcountry visitors 122 22 144

POSTS AND USERS


*Four empty cells **Combines users coded fishing-only and bothSample size: 224 (location) and 144 (activity)

Chi-square value Significance Cramer’s VLocation 0.548 0.760 0.050

Backcountry activity* 7.716 0.052 0.234

Collapsed BC activity** 0.882 0.644 0.079

PLATFORM COMPARISON

There is no significant difference between the distribution of activities or locations between

Flickr and Twitter


UsersBackcountry visit 144 (66%)

Brooks Camp 54 (25%)

Location within park unclear 26 (12%)

Total 224

LOCATIONS & ACTIVITIES

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Bear viewing(106; 73.6%)

Neither (27; 18.8%)

Fishing (9; 6.25%) Both (1; 0.7%)

Backcountry visit(144; 66.1%)

Brooks Camp(54; 24.8%)

Location unclear(26; 11.9%)


# USERSCity or town 14

Port Alsworth 11

Seward 2

Anchorage airport 1

LACL or KATM 15Instagram point (KATM) 8

Chinitna Bay (LACL) 1

Hallo Bay (KATM) 2

Coastal river (KATM) 1

Brooks Camp (KATM) 3

Other undeveloped area 2Alagnak Wild River 1

Interior Alaska, on edge of Denali NP 1

Total 31

SPATIAL RESULTS


# USERSCity or town 14

Port Alsworth 11

Seward 2

Anchorage airport 1

LACL or KATM 15Instagram point (KATM) 8

Chinitna Bay (LACL) 1

Hallo Bay (KATM) 2

Coastal river (KATM) 1

Brooks Camp (KATM) 3

Other undeveloped area 2Alagnak Wild River 1

Interior Alaska, on edge of Denali NP 1

Total 31

SPATIAL RESULTS


KATM LACL

COMPARISON TO NPS DATA


Both

Bear viewing 106

Neither 27

Fishing 9

Bear viewing & fishing 1

Total 144

KATM LACL


CUA (user days) Social Media (users)

Bear viewing ~15,500 107

Fishing ~15,000 10

Percent bear viewing 51% 92%


Users

Backcountry 106

Brooks Camp 27

Location unclear 9

Total 144

KATM LACL


CUA (user days) Social Media (users)

Brooks Camp ~13,500 54

Backcountry ~25,000 144

Percent Brooks 35% 27%


► Total (Front + Backcountry)▹ 224 users▹ 60,573 visitors in 2018

► Backcountry only▹ 144 users▹ ~40,000 visitors in 2018‣ ~66% user days occurred in

backcountry (CUA data)

REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE?


IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

► Use caution when using social media to understand visitor activities

► Social media may not be representative of in-person visitors

► Social media audience as a distinct type of park visitor?


► Opportunity to study application on site-specific scales► Improve methods for isolating in-person visitors► Implications for interpreting results in similar settings► Question: What makes activity more likely to be shared?

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Note: Platforms may limit data availability (e.g. Instagram)


► Committee: Ryan Sharp, Matthew Brownlee, Cheryl Boyer► Katmai and Lake Clark National Parks and Preserves► Coding: Emily Wilkins, Asher Vollmer

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


*Kansas State University, [email protected] | Joshua Tree National Park, [email protected]

Can social media be used to understandvisitor activity in low-use, remote parks?

Dani T. Dagan*; Ryan L. Sharp, PhD; Matthew T.J. Brownlee, PhD

Questions?


• Arapostathis, S. G., Spyrou, N., Drakatos, G., Kalabokidis, K., Lekkas, E., & Xanthopoulos, G. (2018). Mapping information related to floods, extracted from VGI sources, for effective disaster management within the Greek territory; the floods of West Attica (November 2017 Greece) case study. 11th International Conference of the Hellenic Geographical Society.

• Haworth, B., & Bruce, E. (2015). A review of volunteered geographic information for disaster management. Geography Compass, 9(5), 237-250.

• Griffin, G. P., & Jiao, J. (2015). Where does bicycling for health happen? Analysing volunteered geographic information through place and plexus. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(2), 238-247

• Chua, A., Servillo, L., Marcheggiani, E., & Moere, A. V. (2016). Mapping Cilento: Using geotagged social media data to characterize tourist flows in southern Italy. Tourism Management, 57, 295-310.

• Hamstead, Z. A., Fisher, D., Ilieva, R. T., Wood, S. A., McPhearson, T., & Kremer, P. (2018). Geolocated social media as a rapid indicator of park visitation and equitable park access. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems.

• Albert, C., Hauck, J., Buhr, N., & von Haaren, C. (2014). What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecology, 29(8), 1301-1313.

• Heikinheimo, V., Minin, E. D., Tenkanen, H., Hausmann, A., Erkkonen, J., & Toivonen, T. (2017). User-generated geographic information for visitor monitoring in a national park: A comparison of social media data and visitor survey. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(3), 85.

• Tenkanen, H., Di Minin, E., Heikinheimo, V., Hausmann, A., Herbst, M., Kajala, L., & Toivonen, T. (2017). Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Scientific reports, 7(1), 17615.

• Sessions, C., Wood, S. A., Rabotyagov, S., & Fisher, D. M. (2016). Measuring recreational visitation at US National Parks with crowd-sourced photographs. Journal of environmental management, 183, 703-711.

REFERENCES

Documents

GOALS BACKGROUND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION Can … NORC D...GOALS BACKGROUND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION *Kansas State University, [email protected] | Joshua Tree National Park, [email protected]