Skip to main content

Digital co-construction of relational values: understanding the role of social media for sustainability

Abstract

There is a deeply relational aspect to the systems people employ for sorting through and prioritizing plural values assigned to social–ecological interactions. Spurred by interpersonal relationships and adhesion to societal core values, such as justice and reciprocity, relational values go beyond instrumental and intrinsic approaches to understanding human behaviour vis-à-vis the environment. Currently, this relational dimension of values is entering the spotlight of the cultural ecosystem services (CES) literature focusing on non-material benefits and values people derive from ecosystems, such as aesthetics and sense of place. Relational values foster reflections on appropriateness and morality of preferences and respective behaviours in contributing to collective flourishment across space and time, holding implications for social–ecological justice and sustainability. Recently, several studies explored the potential of using social media data for assessing values ascribed to CES, but did not look at how this emerging approach could contribute to an enhanced understanding of relational values. In order to take up this goal, we conducted a systematic review, screening 140 publications and selecting 29 as relevant for exploring the extent to which relational CES values are inferable through social media. Our results show that social media data can reveal CES values’ plural and relational dimension. Social media platforms, thus, can be understood as new arenas for the co-construction of values, where relational values stemming from social–ecological interactions are negotiated and defined. Yet, work on their implications for social–ecological justice and sustainability needs to be extended.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    Including one master thesis (Catana 2016) and one peer-reviewed conference proceeding (Goldberg 2015).

References

  1. Allan JD, Smith SDP, McIntyre PB et al (2015) Using cultural ecosystem services to inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Front Ecol Environ 13:418–424. https://doi.org/10.1890/140328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ames M, Naaman M (2007) Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media. Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum factors Comput Syst 1:971 980. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersson E, Tengö M, McPhearson T, Kremer P (2014) Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosyst Serv 12:165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barry SJ (2014) Using social media to discover public values, interests, and perceptions about cattle grazing on park lands. Environ Manage 53:454–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0216-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Casalegno S, Inger R, DeSilvey C, Gaston KJ (2013) Spatial covariance between aesthetic value & other ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 8:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Catana AV (2016) Using social media to assess cultural ecosystem services generated in protected areas in Patagonia

  7. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P et al (2012a) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012b) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen C, Chen X, Wang Z et al (2017) ScenicPlanner: planning scenic travel routes leveraging heterogeneous user-generated digital footprints. Front Comput Sci 11:61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-016-5550-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cord AF, Roeßiger F, Schwarz N (2015) Geocaching data as an indicator for recreational ecosystem services in urban areas: exploring spatial gradients, preferences and motivations. Landsc Urban Plan 144:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Nadai M, Staiano J, Larcher R, et al (2016) The Death and life of great italian cities: a mobile phone data perspective. In: 26th International ACM Conference on World Wide Web (WWW)

  13. Derungs C, Purves RS (2016) Characterising landscape variation through spatial folksonomies. Appl Geogr 75:60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dickinson DC, Hobbs RJ (2017) Cultural ecosystem services: characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst Serv 25:179–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunkel A (2015) Visualizing the perceived environment using crowdsourced photo geodata. Landsc Urban Plan 142:173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Figueroa-Alfaro RW, Tang Z (2017) Evaluating the aesthetic value of cultural ecosystem services by mapping geo-tagged photographs from social media data on Panoramio and Flickr. J Environ Plan Manag 60:266–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1151772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fischer A, Eastwood A (2016) Coproduction of ecosystem services as human-nature interactions—an analytical framework. Land use policy 52:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. García-Palomares JC, Gutiérrez J, Mínguez C (2015) Identification of tourist hot spots based on social networks: a comparative analysis of European metropolises using photo-sharing services and GIS. Appl Geogr 63:408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ghermandi A (2016) Analysis of intensity and spatial patterns of public use in natural treatment systems using geotagged photos from social media. Water Res 105:297–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Girardin F, Blat J, Calabrese F et al (2008) Digital footprinting: uncovering tourists with user-generated content. IEEE Pervasive Comput 7:36–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2008.71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gliozzo G, Pettorelli N, Haklay M (2016) Using crowdsourced imagery to detect cultural ecosystem services: a case study in South Wales, UK. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08436-210306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldberg L (2015) Utilizing Crowdsourced georeferenced photography for identification and prioritization of areas for scenic conservation. In: Buhmann E, Ervin SM, Pietsch M (eds) Digital landscape architecture. pp 268–275

  24. Graham S, Barnett J, Fincher R et al (2013) The social values at risk from sea-level rise. Environ Impact Assess Rev 41:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Guerrero P, Møller MS, Olafsson AS, Snizek B (2016) Revealing cultural ecosystem services through instagram images: the potential of social media volunteered geographic information for urban green infrastructure planning and governance. Urban Plan. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i2.609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2018) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 guidance on the application of the revised structure

  27. Hamstead ZA, Fisher D, Ilieva RT et al (2018) Geolocated social media as a rapid indicator of park visitation and equitable park access. Comput Environ Urban Syst 72:38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hao X, Wu B, Morrison AM, Wang F (2016) Worth thousands of words? Visual content analysis and photo interpretation of an outdoor tourism spectacular performance in Yangshuo-Guilin, China. Anatolia 27:201–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2015.1082921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hausmann A, Toivonen T, Heikinheimo V et al (2017) Social media reveal that charismatic species are not the main attractor of ecotourists to sub-Saharan protected areas. Sci Rep 7:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00858-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Heikinheimo V, Di Minin E, Tenkanen H et al (2017) 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 6:85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6030085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol Indic 29:434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hicks CC, Levine A, Agrawal A et al (2016) Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science 352(80):38–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4977

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Huxley M, Yiftachel O (2000) New paradigm or old Myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. J Plan Educ Res 19:333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ilieva RT, McPhearson T (2018) social–media data for urban sustainability. Nat Sustain 1:553–565. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0153-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. International Telecommunication Union (2016) Measuring the Information Society Report 2016

  36. Kallis G, Gómez-Baggethun E, Zografos C (2013) To value or not to value? That is not the question. Ecol Econ 94:97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N et al (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T (2017) Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE 12:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kothencz G, Kolcsár R, Cabrera-Barona P, Szilassi P (2017) Urban green space perception and its contribution to well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14070766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Langemeyer J, Calcagni F, Baró F (2018) Mapping the intangible: using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics. Land use policy 77:542–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lenormand M, Luque S, Langemeyer J et al (2018) Multiscale socio-ecological networks in the age of information. PLoS ONE 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206672

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Levin N, Kark S, Crandall D (2015) Where have all the people gone? Enhancing global conservation using night lights and social media. Ecol Appl 25:2153–2167. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0113.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Levin N, Lechner AM, Brown G (2017) An evaluation of crowdsourced information for assessing the visitation and perceived importance of protected areas. Appl Geogr 79:115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Linders D (2012) From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov Inf Q 29:446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Dietsch AM (2016) Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 30:287–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Maraja R, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T (2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosyst Serv 17:33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Martínez Pastur G, Peri PL, Lencinas MV et al (2015) Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia. Landsc Ecol 31:383–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0254-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC

  49. Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services : a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18:44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Miller JR (2005) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol 20:430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moon K, Blackman D (2014) A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conserv Biol 28:1167–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Fagerholm N et al (2017) Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol Indic 94:74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S et al (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T et al (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Richards DR, Friess DA (2015) A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol Indic 53:187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Richards D, Tunçer B (2018) Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs. Ecosyst Serv 31:318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schafer JG, Gallemore CT (2015) Biases in multicriteria decision analysis: the case of environmental planning in Southern Nevada. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 34:1652–1675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16629675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schlosberg D (2007) Defining environmental justice. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Seresinhe CI, Moat HS, Preis T (2017) Quantifying scenic areas using crowdsourced data. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516687302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sherren K, Parkins JR, Smit M et al (2017) Digital archives, big data and image-based culturomics for social impact assessment: opportunities and challenges. Environ Impact Assess Rev 67:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sonter LJ, Watson KB, Wood SA, Ricketts TH (2016) Spatial and temporal dynamics and value of nature-based recreation, estimated via social media. PLoS ONE 11:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Stefanidis A, Crooks A, Radzikowski J (2013) Harvesting ambient geospatial information from social media feeds. GeoJournal 78:319–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-011-9438-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Stephenson J (2008) The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 84:127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T et al (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Syahid A, Tareq MA (2015) A penny for your thoughts : a preference modelling case study in R. In: 12th International Conference on Innovation and Management

  66. Tammi I, Mustajärvi K, Rasinmäki J (2017) Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development. Ecosyst Serv 26:329–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.

  68. Tenerelli P, Demšar U, Luque S (2016) Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: a geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecol Indic 64:237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Tenerelli P, Püffel C, Luque S (2017) Spatial assessment of aesthetic services in a complex mountain region: combining visual landscape properties with crowdsourced geographic information. Landsc Ecol 32:1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0498-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Thiagarajah J, Wong SKM, Richards DR, Friess DA (2015) Historical and contemporary cultural ecosystem service values in the rapidly urbanizing city state of Singapore. Ambio 44:666–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0647-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Upton V, Ryan M, O’Donoghue C, Dhubhain AN (2015) Combining conventional and volunteered geographic information to identify and model forest recreational resources. Appl Geogr 60:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. van Zanten BT, Van Berkel DB, Meentemeyer RK et al (2016) Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:12974–12979. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614158113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Willemen L, Cottam AJ, Drakou EG, Burgess ND (2015) Using social media to measure the contribution of red list species to the nature-based tourism potential of african protected areas. PLoS ONE 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129785

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Wood SA, Guerry AD, Silver JM, Lacayo M (2013) Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yoshimura N, Hiura T (2017) Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido. Ecosyst Serv 24:68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge financial support from the 2015–2016 BiodivERsA COFUND call for research proposals through the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (PCIN-2016-002) and from the European Research Council (Greenlulus 678034). F.C. thanks the AGAUR Catalan governmental agency (Grant number 2018FI_B00635) and the Institute for the right to university studies in Lazio, Laziodisu (Grant “Torno Subito 2017” number 7425-18092017) for the funding received to support this study. A.T.A.M. acknowledges support by the European Commission through an Erasmus Mundus scholarship (JEMES CiSu UAB2016/No. 1). J.J.T.C. thanks the Spanish Ministry of Sciences, Innovation, and University’s Subprogram of Juan de la Cierva Incoporacion (IJCI-2016-31100). We also thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fulvia Calcagni.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Handeled by: Andrea Rawluk, University of Melbourne School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, Australia.

Special Feature: Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 65 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calcagni, F., Amorim Maia, A.T., Connolly, J.J.T. et al. Digital co-construction of relational values: understanding the role of social media for sustainability. Sustain Sci 14, 1309–1321 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00672-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cultural ecosystem services
  • Social media analysis
  • Relational values
  • Sustainability