Abstract
The aim of the work was to determine the spatial distribution of activity in the forest on the area of the Forest Promotional Complex “Sudety Zachodnie” using mobile phone data. The study identified the sites with the highest (hot spot) and lowest (cold spot) use. Habitat, stand, demographic, topographic and spatial factors affecting the distribution of activity were also analyzed. Two approaches were applied in our research: global and local Moran’s coefficients, and a machine learning technique, Boosted Regression Trees. The results show that 11,503,320 visits to forest areas were recorded in the “Sudety Zachodnie” in 2019. The most popular season for activities was winter, and the least popular was spring. Using global and local Moran’s I coefficients, three small hot clusters of activity and one large cold cluster were identified. Locations with high values with similar neighbours (hot-spots) were most often visited forest areas, averaging almost 200,000 visits over 2019. Significantly fewer visits were recorded in cold-spots, the average number of visits to these areas was about 4,500. The value of global Moran’s I was equal to 0.54 and proved significant positive spatial autocorrelation. Results of Boosted Regression Trees modeling of visits in forest, using tree stand habitat and spatial factors accurately explained 76% of randomly selected input data. The variables that had the greatest effect on the distribution of activities were the density of hiking and biking trails and diversity of topography. The methodology presented in this article allows delineation of Cultural Ecosystem Services hot spots in forest areas based on mobile phone data. It also allows the identification of factors that may influence the distribution of visits in forests. Such data are important for managing forest areas and adapting forest management to the needs of society while maintaining ecosystem stability.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Availability of Data/Materials: The data are available upon reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author.
References
Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association-LISA. Geogr Anal 27: 93–115.
Arnberger A (2006) Recreation use of urban forests: As inter-area comparison. Urban For Urban Green 4: 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.004
Azzopardi E, Kenter JO, Young J, et al. (2022) What are heritage values? Integrating natural and cultural heritage into environmental valuation. People Nat 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10386
Baskent EZ, Borges JG, Kašpar J, Tahri M (2020) A Design for Addressing Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning. Forests 11(10): 1108. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101108
Baumeister CF, Gerstenberg T, Plieninger T, Schraml U (2020) Exploring cultural ecosystem service hotspots: Linking multiple urban forest features with public participation mapping data. Urban For Urban Green 48: 126561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126561
Bernetti I, Chirici G, Sacchelli S (2019) Big data and evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: an analysis based on geotagged photographs from social media in Tuscan forest (Italy). iForest 12: 98–105. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2821-011
Bielinis E, Bielinis L, Krupihska-Szeluga S, et al. (2019) The effects of a short forest recreation program on physiological and psychological relaxation in young Polish adults. Forests 10(1): 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10010034
Bruzzese S, Blanc S, Merlino VM, et al. (2022) Civil society’s perception of forest ecosystem services. A case study in the Western Alps. Front Psychol 13: 1000043. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000043
Chen Y, Sun B, Liao SB, et al. (2016) Landscape perception based on personal attributes in determining the scenic beauty of in-stand naturalsecondary forests. Ann For Res 59(1): 91–103. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2015.440
Ciesielski M, Sterehczak K, Balazy R (2019) Application of the Volunteered Geographic Information data to monitor traffic in the forest area. Sylwan 163(1):80–88. https://doi.org/10.26202/sylwan.2018107
Ciesielski M, Sterehczak K (2021) Using Flickr data and selected environmental characteristics to analyse the temporal and spatial distribution of activities in forest areas. For Policy Econ 129: 102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102509
Ciesielski M, Tkaczyk M, Hycza T, Taczanowska K (2022) Was it really different? COVID-19-pandemic period in long-term recreation monitoring — A case study from Polish forests. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 100495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100495
Cullinan J, Hynes S, O’Donoghue C (2011) Using spatial microsimulation to account for demographic and spatial factors in environmental benefit transfer. Ecol Econ 70: 813–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.003
Day BH (2020) The Value of Greenspace Under Pandemic Lockdown. Environ Resource Econ 76: 1161–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00489-y
Derks J, Giessen L, Winkel G (2020) COVID-19-induced visitor boom reveals the importance of forests as critical infrastructure. For Policy Econ 118: 102253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102253
Dudek T (2013) Assessment of recreational potential of forests in areas with diverse orography: Czarnorzecko-Strzyzowski Landscape Park case study. Sylwan 157(10): 775–779.
Duncker PS, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Gundersen P, et al. (2012) How Forest Management affects Ecosystem Services, including Timber Production and Economic Return: Synergies and Trade-Offs. Ecol Soc 17(4): 50. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05066-170450
Edwards DM, Jay M, Jensen FS, et al. (2012) Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol Soc 17(1):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04520-170127
Felipe-Lucia MR, Soliveres S, Penone C, et al. (2018) Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nat Commun 9: 4839. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4
Fox N, August T, Mancini F, et al. (2020) “photosearcher” package in R: An accessible and reproducible method for harvesting large datasets from Flickr. Software 12: 100624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100624
Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T (2008) A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 802–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01390.x
Filazzola A, Xie G, Barrett K, et al. (2022) Using smartphone-GPS data to quantify human activity in green spaces. PLoS Comput Biol 18(12): e1010725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010725
Fuchs R, Herold M (2015) Gross changes in reconstructions of historic land cover use for Europe between 1900 and 2010. Glob Chang Biol 21: 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12714
Furuyashiki A, Tabuchi K, Norikoshi K, et al. (2019) A comparative study of the physiological and psychological effects of forest bathing (Shinrin-yoku) on working age people with and without depressive tendencies. Environ. Health Prev Med 24(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-019-0800-1
Golos P (2018) Social and Economic Aspects of Non-productive Functions of Forests and Forest Management — Results of Public Opinion Surveys. Prace Instytutu Badawczego Lesnictwa, Sekocin Stary. Poland.
Guan C, Song J, Keith M, et al. (2020) Delineating urban park catchment areas using mobile phone data: A case study of Tokyo. Comput Environ Urban Syst 81: 101474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101474
Gundersen V, Vistad OI (2016) Public opinions and use of various types of recreational infrastructure in boreal forest settings. Forests 7: 113–130. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7060113
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES V4.3) — Revised report prepared following consultation on CICES Version 4, EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. (https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf, accessed on 2023.06.28)
Halla T, Laine J (2022) To cut or not to cut — emotions and forest conflicts in digital media. J Rural Stud 94: 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.07.019
Hegetschweiler KT, Wartmann FM, Dubernet I, et al. (2022) Urban forest usage and perception of ecosystem services — A comparison between teenagers and adults. Urban For Urban Green 74: 127624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127624
Heikinheimo V, Tenkanen H, Bergroth C, et al. (2020) Understanding the use of urban green spaces from usergenerated geographic information. Landsc Urban Plan 201: 103845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103845
Hochmalovâ M, Purwestri RC, Yongfeng J, et al. (2022) Demand for forest ecosystem services: a comparison study in selected areas in the Czech Republic and China. Eur J For Res 141: 867–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-022-01478-0
Janeczko E, Pniewska J, Bielinis E (2020) Forest Tourism and Recreation Management in the Polish Bieszczady Mountains in the Opinion of Tourist Guides. Sustainability 12: 7967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197967
Jay J, Heykoop F, Hwang L, et al. (2022) Use of smartphone mobility data to analyze city park visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Landsc Urban Plan 228: 104554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104554
Järv O, Tenkanen H, Toivonen T (2017) Enhancing spatial accuracy of mobile phone data using multi-temporal dasymetric interpolation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 31(8): 1630–1651. 10.1080/13658816.2017.1287369
Jiang S, Ferreira J, Gonzalez MC (2017) Activity-based human mobility patterns inferred from mobile phone data: A case study of Singapore. IEEE Transactions on Big Data 3(2):208–219. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2016.2631141
Johnson KM, Stewart SI (2007) Demographic Trends in National Forest, Recreational, Retirement and Amenity Areas. In: Kruger L., Mazza R, Lawrence K (eds.), National Workshop on Recreation Research Management, Portland, USDA Forest Service Research, Pacific Northwest Research Station. pp 187–199.
Jones L, Holland R, Ball J, et al. (2019) A place-based participatory mapping approach for assessing cultural ecosystem services in urban green space. People Nat 2(1):123–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10057
Kikulski J (2006) The usefulness of selected forest areas of the Bolimowski Landscape Park for tourism and recreational needs. Sylwan 150(6): 40–49. (In Polish)
Kim YJ, Lee DK, Kim CK (2020) Spatial tradeoff between biodiversity and nature-based tourism: Considering mobile phone-driven visitation pattern. Glob Ecol Conserv 21: e00899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00899
Kim H, Shoji Y, Mameno K, et al. (2023) Changes in visits to green areas due to the COVID-19 pandemic: Focusing on the proportion of repeat visitors and the distances between green areas and visitors’ places of residences. Urban For Urban Green 80: 127828. 10.1016ZJ.ufug.2022.127828
Kloek M, Buijs A, Boersema J, Schouten M (2015) ‘Nature lovers’, ‘Social animals’, ‘Quiet seekers’ and ‘Activity lovers’: participation of young adult immigrants and non-immigrants in outdoor recreation in the Netherlands. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 12: 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.11.006
Komossa F, van der Zanden EH, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2018) Mapping landscape potential for outdoor recreation using different archetypical recreation user groups in the European Union. Ecol Indic 85: 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.015
Krajter Ostoić S, Marin AM, Kičić M, Vuletić D (2020) Qualitative Exploration of Perception and Use of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Tree-Based Urban Green Space in the City of Zagreb (Croatia). Forests 11: 876. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080876
Kubo T, Uryu S, Yamano H, et al. (2020) Mobile phone network data reveal nationwide economic value of coastal tourism under climate change. Tour Manag 77: 104010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104010
Kuuluvainen T, Lindberg H, Vanha-Majamaa I, et al. (2019) Low-level retention forestry, certification, and biodiversity: case Finland. Ecol Process 8(47): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0198-0
Ladle A, Galpern P, Doyle-Baker P (2018) Measuring the use of green space with urban resource selection functions: An application using smartphone GPS locations. Landsc Urban Plan 179: 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.012
Lupp G, Kantelberg V, Förster B, et al. (2021) Visitor Counting and Monitoring in Forests Using Camera Traps: A Case Study from Bavaria (Southern Germany). Land 10(7): 736. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070736
Lyon K, Cottrell SP, Siikamaki P, van Marwijk RBM (2011) Biodiversity hotspots and visitor flows in Oulanka National Park, Finland. Scand J Hosp Tour 11: 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2011.629909
Liu WY, Yu HW, Hsieh CM (2021) Evaluating forest visitors’ place attachment, recreational activities, and travel intentions under different climate scenarios. Forests 12: 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020171
Lonkiewicz B, Gluch G (1991) Guidelines for recreational forest management. Instytut Badawczy Lesnictwa, Warszawa. (In Polish)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
Merrill NH, Atkinson SF, Mulvaney KK, et al. (2020) Using data derived from cellular phone locations to estimate visitation to natural areas: An application to water recreation in New England, USA. PLOS ONE 15(4): e0231863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231863.
Mundher R, Abu Bakar S, Al-Helli M, et al. (2022) Visual Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Urban Forests: A Conceptual Framework. Urban Sci 6: 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6040079
Nastran M, Pintar M, Zeleznikar S, Cvejic R (2022) Stakeholders’ perceptions on the role of urban green infrastructure in providing ecosystem services for human well-being. Land 11(2): 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020299
Neill AM, O’Donoghue C, Stout JC (2023) Spatial analysis of cultural ecosystem services using data from social media: A guide to model selection for research and practice. One Ecosyst 8: e95685. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.8.e95685
Niedzialkowski K, Chmielewski P (2023) Challenging the dominant path of forest policy? Bottom-up, citizen forest management initiatives in a top-down governance context in Poland. For. Policy Econ 154: 103009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103009
Nousiainen D, Mola-Yudego B (2022) Characteristics and emerging patterns of forest conflicts in Europe — What can they tell us?. For Policy Econ 136: 102671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102671
Nyelele C, Keske C, Chung MG, et al. (2023) Using social media data and machine learning to map recreational ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 154: 110606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110606
Paracchini M, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L (2014) Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol Indic 45: 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018.
Pawlowicz J, Szafranko E (2014) Methods for determining the suitability of various areas to recreational function on the example the urban forest in Olsztyn. Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich 1: 279–291. https://doi.org/10.14597/infraeco.2014.2.1.021
Piaggio M, Siikamäki J (2021) The value of forest water purification ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Sci Total Environ 789: 147952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147952
Pickering C, Rossi S D, Hernando A, Barros A (2018) Current knowledge and future research directions for the monitoring and management of visitors in recreational and protected areas. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 21: 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.11.002
Pietilä M, Neuvonen M, Borodulin K, et al. (2015) Relationship between exposure to urban green spaces, physical activity and self-rated health. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 10: 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.06.006
Ridgeway G (2007) Generalized Boosted Models: A guide to the gbm package. Documentation on the R Package ‘gbm’, version 1.6–3 12. (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gbm/vignettes/gbm.pdf, accessed on 2023.06.28)
Rogowski M (2020) Monitoring System of tourist traffic (MSTT) for tourists monitoring in mid-mountain national park, SW Poland. J Mt Sci 17(8): 2035–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-019-5965-y
Roux JL, Konczal A, Bernasconi A, et al. (2022) Exploring evolving spiritual values of forests in Europe and Asia: a transition hypothesis toward re-spiritualizing forests. Ecol Soc 27(4): 20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13509-270420
Roovers P, Hermy M, Gulinck H (2002) Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forest from a gradient of increasing urbanization in central Belgium. Landsc Urban Plann 59: 129–145. 101016/S0169-2046(02)00011-7
Scheidl C, Heiser M, Vospernik S, et al. (2020) Assessing the protective role of alpine forests against rockfall at regional scale. Eur J For Res 139: 969–980. 101007/s10342-020-01299-z
Selectivv (2018) Where are the new metro lines needed in the capital? We have checked how Warsaw residents move around the city. (https://selectivv.com/gdzie-w-stolicy-nowe-linie-metra/, accessed on 2023.06.28)
Silm S, Jauhiainen J, Raun J, Tiru M (2020) Temporary population mobilities between Estonia and Finland based on mobile phone data and the emergence of a cross-border region. Eur Plan Stud 29(4): 699–719 https://doi.org/101080/0965431320201774514
Sinclair M, Ghermandi A, Signorello G, et al. (2022) Valuing Recreation in Italy’s Protected Areas Using Spatial Big Data. Ecol Econ 200: 107526. https://doi.org/101016/jecolecon2022107526
Sklodowski J, Golos P (2015) Preferred type of forest stand and factors deciding about the tourist attractiveness of the forest. Sylwan 159(9): 747–756.
Statistics Poland (2022) Poland Statistics Database. (https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/bdl/start, accessed on 2023.06.28)
Taczanowska K, Latosihska B, Hibner J, et al. (2017) Creation of Indicators and Tools for Measuring the Usage Effectiveness of State Forests’ Tourist Infrastructure. Final Report, Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, University of Natural Resources and Life sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria
Temperton VM, Buchmann N, Buisson E, et al. (2019) Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration. Restor Ecol 27: 705–719. https://doi.org/101111/rec12989
Verlic A, Arnberger A, Japelj A, et al. (2015) Perceptions of recreational trail impacts on an urban forest walk: a controlled field experiment. Urban For Urban Green 14: 89–98. https://doi.org/101016/jufug201412004
Wang Z, He SY, Leung Y (2018) Applying mobile phone data to travel behaviour research: A literature review. Travel Behav Soc 11: 141–155. https://doi.org/101016/jtbs201702005
Wajchman-Switalska S (2017) Recreational valorization of municipal forests in Poznah. PhD thesis, Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Poznaniu, Poznah. p80. (In Polish).
Weinbrenner H, Breithut J, Hebermehl W, et al. (2021) “The forest has become our new living room” — the critical importance of urban forests during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front For Glob Change 4: 672909. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.672909
Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hirschi C, Fisher C (2015) Conflict situations and response strategies in urban forests in Switzerland. Scand. J For Res 30(3): 1–13. https://doi.org/101080/0282758120141002217
Wolf I, Brown G, Wohlfart T (2018) Applying public participation GIS (PPGIS) to inform and manage visitor conflict along multi-use trails. J Sustain Tour 26(3). https://doi.org/101080/0966958220171360315
Zarzqdzenie (2022) Order No. 58 of the Director General of the State Forests of July 5, 2022 on the introduction of “Guidelines for the management of forests with increased social function on land managed by the State Forests”. (https://www.gov.pl/web/dglp/zarzadzenia-i-decyzje, accessed on 2023.06.28). (In Polish).
Zhang C, Luo L, Xu W, Ledwith V (2008) Use of local Moran’s I and GIS to identify pollution hotspots of Pb in urban soils of Galway, Ireland. Sci Total Environ 398: 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.03.011
Acknowledgments
Funded by the National Science Centre, Poland under the OPUS call in the Weave programme (project No. 2021/43/I/HS4/01451). This research was also funded by Ministry of Education and Science (901503).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Mariusz Ciesielski: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing — original draft, Writing — review & editing. Agnieszka Kamihska: Methodology. Formal analysis, Writing — review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ciesielski, M., Kamińska, A. Mapping cultural ecosystem services in mountain forests using mobile phone data. J. Mt. Sci. 20, 3437–3449 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-023-8914-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-023-8914-3