Proceedings of the National Institute of Ecology of the Republic of Korea

국립생태원 (National Institute of Ecology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the Purpose of Visiting Wetlands Using Pictures Posted on Social Media

  • Park, Woong-Bae (Department of Biological Science, Kongju National University) ;
  • Park, Siae (Department of Biological Science, Kongju National University) ;
  • Choi, Tae-Jun (Department of Biological Science, Kongju National University) ;
  • Kim, Dae-Hee (Department of Biological Science, Kongju National University) ;
  • Lee, Do-Hee (Department of Biological Science, Kongju National University) ;
  • Do, Yuno (Department of Biological Science, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2021.10.20
  • 심사 : 2021.12.11
  • 발행 : 2022.05.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

In this study, 4,136 pictures posted on a social media platform were analyzed to discover wetlands that are worth visiting to experience our cultural values. Pictures from 300 of the 2,499 listed wetlands have been posted in South Korea. Proximity of a wetland was the most important criterion, regardless of the type of wetlands that were visited. People visited wetlands at the time and season when they were good for recreational activities. Most of the subjects in the pictures were the visitors and natural scenery of a wetland. There was no correlation observed between the wetland conditions and the number of pictures taken by the visitors. Sightseeing and leisure activities are a significant part of various ecosystem services offered by wetlands, but most of the visitors seem to be unaware that the place they have visited is a wetland. Therefore, wetland awareness programs are needed, even for wetlands close to the residential areas that many people have already visited in this study.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barros, C., Moya-Gomez, B., and Garcia-Palomares, J.C. (2019). Identifying temporal patterns of visitors to national parks through geotagged photographs. Sustainability, 11, 6983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246983
  2. Chan, K.M., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R., et al. (2011). Cultural services and non-use values. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, and S., Polasky (Eds.), Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services (pp. 206-228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M., et al. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 8812-8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
  4. Do, Y., and Kim, J.Y. (2020). An assessment of the aesthetic value of protected wetlands based on a photo content and its metadata. Ecological Engineering, 150, 105816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105816
  5. Do, Y., Kim, J.Y., Lineman, M., Kim, D.K., and Joo, G.J. (2015a). Using Internet search behavior to assess public awareness of protected wetlands. Conservation Biology, 29, 271-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12419
  6. Do, Y., Kim, S.B., Kim, J.Y., and Joo, G.J. (2015b). Wetland-based tourism in South Korea: who, when, and why. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 23, 779-787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-015-9418-2
  7. Dobbie, M.F. (2013). Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 178-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.018
  8. Ghermandi, A. (2018). Integrating social media analysis and revealed preference methods to value the recreation services of ecologically engineered wetlands. Ecosystem Services, 31, 351-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.012
  9. Im, R.Y., Kim, T., Baek, C.Y., Lee, C.S., Kim, S.H., Lee, J.H., et al. (2020). The influence of surrounding land cover on wetland habitat conditions: a case study of inland wetlands in South Korea. PeerJ, 8, e9101. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9101
  10. Kaiser, N.N., Ghermandi, A., Feld, C.K., Hershkovitz, Y., Palt, M., and Stoll, S. (2021). Societal benefits of river restoration - implications from social media analysis. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101317
  11. Lee, H., Seo, B., Koellner, T., and Lautenbach, S. (2019). Mapping cultural ecosystem services 2.0 - potential and short-comings from unlabeled crowd sourced images. Ecological Indicators, 96, 505-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.035
  12. Lee, J.H., Park, H.J., Kim, I., and Kwon, H.S. (2020). Analysis of cultural ecosystem services using text mining of residents' opinions. Ecological Indicators, 115, 106368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106368
  13. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martin-Lopez, B., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., and Plieninger, T. (2018). Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecological Indicators, 94, 74-86.
  14. Park, E., Lee, S., and Peters, D.J. (2017). Iowa wetlands outdoor recreation visitors' decision-making process: an extended model of goal-directed behavior. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 17, 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.01.001
  15. Pedersen, E., Weisner, S., and Johansson, M. (2019). Wetland areas' direct contributions to residents' well-being entitle them to high cultural ecosystem values. The Science of the Total Environment, 646, 1315-1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.236
  16. Pueyo-Ros, J., Ribas, A., and Fraguell, R.M. (2019). A cultural approach to wetlands restoration to assess its public acceptance. Restoration Ecology, 27, 626-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12896
  17. Sinclair, M., Mayer, M., Woltering, M., and Ghermandi, A. (2020). Using social media to estimate visitor provenance and patterns of recreation in Germany's national parks. Journal of Environmental Management, 263, 110418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110418
  18. Small, N., Munday, M., and Durance, I. (2017). The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Global Environmental Change, 44, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.005
  19. Sonti, N.F., Campbell, L.K., Svendsen, E.S., Johnson, M.L., and Novem Auyeung, D.S. (2020). Fear and fascination: use and perceptions of New York City's forests, wetlands, and landscaped park areas. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 49, 126601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126601
  20. Wang, Y., Yao, Y., and Ju, M. (2008). Wise use of wetlands: current state of protection and utilization of Chinese wetlands and recommendations for improvement. Environmental Management, 41, 793-808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9072-z
  21. Wilkins, E.J., Sinclair, W., Miller, H.M., and Schuster, R.M. (2019). Does proximity to wetlands matter? A landscape-level analysis of the influence of local wetlands on the public's concern for ecosystem services and conservation involvement. Wetlands, 39, 1271-1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1076-8
  22. Xu, X., Chen, M., Yang, G., Jiang, B., and Zhang, J. (2020). Wetland ecosystem services research: a critical review. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e01027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01027
  23. Yoshimura, N., and Hiura, T. (2017). Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido. Ecosystem Services, 24, 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.009
  24. Zhou, L., Guan, D., Huang, X., Yuan, X., and Zhang, M. (2020). Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park. Ecological Indicators, 114, 106286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106286
  25. Zhu, L., Davis, L.S., and Carr, A. (2021). Visualising natural attractions within national parks: preferences of tourists for photographs with different visual characteristics. PloS One, 16, e0252661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252661