Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 3101–3112 | Cite as

The importance of cultural knowledge and scale for analysing internet search data as a proxy for public interest toward the environment

  • Stephan M. Funk
  • Daniela Rusowsky
Original Paper


Recent analyses of Internet search behaviour conclude that the public’s interest in environmental issues is falling (McCallum and Bury, Biodiv Conserv 22:1355–1367, 2013). Ficetola (Biodiv Conserv 22:2983–2988, 2013) argued that the nature of the underpinning data processing may create an artificially declining trend, even when the absolute number of searches increases and public interest is growing. These findings are highly relevant for applied conservation strategies and the public media have quickly picked the message of the alarming fading interest worldwide, the possibility of devastating repercussions and calls for rapid responses in conservation communication. We challenge both analysis by evaluating Internet searches of English and non-English speaking users. The inclusion of information on the linguistic background reveals a much more differentiated picture, with some cultures displaying an increasing interest and others a decreasing interest. These analyses allow a better understanding of the importance of global—local viewpoints, cultural knowledge and cultural differences on the interpretation of underpinning human interest from Internet search patterns. Despite methodological problems limiting the utility of summary data provided by search engines, they can offer powerful information when applied spatially and temporally restricted and analysed alongside suitable benchmark indicators. We discuss that due consideration of methodological caveats is essential to inform the general public about the relevance for conservation without triggering sensationalist or over-generalizing conclusions. Conservation communication needs considering that Internet search engines do not necessarily mirror the interest of many people who are essential for the conservation of biodiversity.


Biodiversity Communication Conservation Google trends Public opinion Time series analysis 



We thank Dr Gentile Francesco Ficetola, Dr Malcolm McCallum and Dr Fuwen Wei for helpful, constructive comments on early versions of this manuscript.


  1. Al-Eroud AF, Al-Ramahi MA, Al-Kabi MN et al (2011) Evaluating Google queries based on language preferences. J Inform Sci 37:282–292. doi: 10.1177/0165551511403383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barboza D (2010) Baidu’s gain from departure could be China’s loss. The New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickford D, Posa MRC, Qie L et al (2012) Science communication for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 151:74–76. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatfield C (1977) Some recent developments in time-series analysis. J Roy Stat Soc A 140:492–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cleveland RB, Cleveland WS, McRae JE, Terpenning I (1990) STL: a seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on loess. J Off Stat 6:3–73Google Scholar
  6. Codling EA, Plank MJ, Benhamou S (2008) Random walk models in biology. J R Soc Interface 5:813–834. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2008.0014 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Durlauf SN, Phillips PC (1988) Trends versus random walks in time series analysis. Econom: J Econom Soc 56:1333–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ficetola GF (2013) Is interest toward the environment really declining? The complexity of analysing trends using internet search data. Biodivers Conserv 22:2983–2988. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0552-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ginsberg J, Mohebbi MH, Patel RS et al (2008) Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457:1012–1014. doi: 10.1038/nature07634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hobbs SJ, White PCL (2012) Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. J Nat Conserv 20:364–373. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2012.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobson SK (2009) Communication skills for conservation professionals. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  12. Kronrod A, Grinstein A, Wathieu L (2012) Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? J Mark 76:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malcevschi S, Marchini A, Savini D, Facchinetti T (2012) Opportunities for web-based indicators in environmental sciences. PLoS ONE 7:e42128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042128 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. McCallum ML, Bury GW (2013) Google search patterns suggest declining interest in the environment. Biodivers Conserv 22:1355–1367. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0476-6
  15. McCallum M, Bury G (2014) Public interest in the environment is falling: a response to Ficetola (2013). Biodivers Conserv 23:1–6. doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0640-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller JR (2005) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol 20:430–434. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sachs L (1982) Applied statistics. A handbook of techniques. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. SBWIRE (2014) Where have all the treehuggers gone? (Press release, Contact: McCallum M). 04-March-2014
  19. Vanderelst D, Speybroeck N (2010) Quantifying the Lack of Scientific Interest in Neglected Tropical Diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 4:e576. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000576 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Wikipedia contributors (2014) ExtinctionGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilde GR, Pope KL (2013) Worldwide trends in fishing interest indicated by internet search volume. Fish Manage Ecol 20:211–222. doi: 10.1111/fme.12009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Núcleo de Estudios AmbientalesUniversidad Católica de TemucoTemucoChile
  2. 2.Nature HeritageSt LawrenceChannel Islands

Personalised recommendations