Scientific papers dedicated to conservation culturomics

2020

• Fink C, Hausmann A, Di Minin E. 2020. Online sentiment towards iconic species. Biological Conservation 241:108289.
• Fukano Y, Tanaka Y, Soga M. 2020. Zoos and animated animals increase public interest in and support for threatened animals. Science of The Total Environment 704:135352.
• Shasha ZT, Geng Y, Sun H-p, Musakwa W, Sun L. 2020. Past, current, and future perspectives on eco-tourism: a bibliometric review between 2001 and 2018. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
• Vaz AS, Moreno-Llorca RA, Gonçalves JF, Vicente JR, Méndez PF, Revilla E, Santamaria L, Bonet-García FJ, Honrado JP, Alcaraz-Segura D. Digital conservation in biosphere reserves: Earth observations, social media, and nature's cultural contributions to people. Conservation Letters:e12704.

2019

• Cooper, M. W., E. Di Minin, A. Hausmann, S. Qin, A. J. Schwartz, and R. A. Correia. 2019. Developing a global indicator for Aichi Target 1 by merging online data sources to measure biodiversity awareness and engagement. Biological Conservation 230:29-36.
• Correia RA, Di Minin E, Jarić I, Jepson P, Ladle R, Mittermeier J, Roll U, Soriano-Redondo A, Veríssimo D. 2019. Inferring public interest from search engine data requires caution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17:254-255.
• De Frenne P, Van Langenhove L, Van Driessche A, Bertrand C, Verheyen K, Vangansbeke P. 2018. Using archived television video footage to quantify phenology responses to climate change. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9:1874-1882.
• Do, Y. 2019. Valuating aesthetic benefits of cultural ecosystem services using conservation culturomics. Ecosystem Services 36:100894.
• Fernández-Bellon D, Kane A. Natural history films raise species awareness—A big data approach. Conservation Letters e12678
• Francis FT, et al. 2019. Shifting headlines? Size trends of newsworthy fishes. PeerJ 7:e6395.
• Gosal AS, Geijzendorffer IR, Václavík T, Poulin B, Ziv G. 2019. Using social media, machine learning and natural language processing to map multiple recreational beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services 38:100958.
• Jarić, I., R. A. Correia, D. L. Roberts, J. Gessner, Y. Meinard, and F. Courchamp. 2019. On the overlap between scientific and societal taxonomic attentions - Insights for conservation. Science of the Total Environment 648:772-778.
• Jiménez-Alvarado D, Sarmiento-Lezcano A, Guerra-Marrero A, Tuya F, Santana Del Pino Á, Sealey MJ, Castro JJ. Historical photographs of captures of recreational fishers indicate overexploitation of nearshore resources at an oceanic island. Journal of Fish Biology.
• Ladle RJ, Jepson P, Correia RA, Malhado ACM. A culturomics approach to quantifying the salience of species on the global internet. People and Nature
• Lennox RJ, Veríssimo D, Twardek WM, Davis CR, Jarić I. Sentiment analysis as a measure of conservation culture in scientific literature. Conservation Biology
• Mittermeier, J. C., U. Roll, T. J. Matthews, T.J, R. Grenyer. 2019. A season for all things: phenological imprints in Wikipedia usage and their relevance to conservation. PLoS biology 17:e3000146.
• Rafiq K, Bryce CM, Rich LN, Coco C, Miller DAW, Meloro C, Wich SA, McNutt JW, Hayward MW. 2019. Tourist photographs as a scalable framework for wildlife monitoring in protected areas. Current Biology 29:R681-R682.
• Retka, J., Jepson, P., Ladle, R.J., Malhado, A.C.M., Vieira, F.A.S., Normande, I.C., Souza, C.N., Bragagnolo, C., Correia, R.A., 2019. Assessing cultural ecosystem services of a large marine protected area through social media photographs. Ocean & Coastal Management 176: 40-48.
• Schuetz J. G. and A. Johnston Characterizing the cultural niches of North American birds. PNAS 116: 10868-10873.
• Spalding M, Parrett CL. 2019. Global patterns in mangrove recreation and tourism. Marine Policy, 103540.
• Toivonen, T., V. Heikinheimo, C. Fink, A. Hausmann, T. Hiippala, O. Järv, H. Tenkanen, and E. Di Minin. 2019. Social media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. Biological Conservation 233:298-315.
• Troumbis, A.Y., 2019. The time and timing components of conservation culturomics cycles and scenarios of public interest in the Google era. Biodiversity and Conservation 28, 1717-1727.

 
2018

• Archibald, C. L., and N. Butt. 2018. Using Google search data to inform global climate change adaptation policy. Climatic Change 150:447-456.
• Braczkowski A, et al. 2018. Reach and messages of the world's largest ivory burn. Conservation Biology 32:765-773.
• Burivalova, Z., R. A. Butler, and D. S. Wilcove. 2018. Analyzing Google search data to debunk myths about the public's interest in conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16:509-514
• Chamberlain J. 2018. Chapter Five - Using Social Media for Biomonitoring: How Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and Other Social Networking Platforms Can Provide Large-Scale Biodiversity Data. Pages 133-168 in Bohan DA, Dumbrell AJ, Woodward G, and Jackson M, editors. Advances in Ecological Research. Academic Press.
• Chen Y, Parkins JR, Sherren K. 2018. Using geo-tagged Instagram posts to reveal landscape values around current and proposed hydroelectric dams and their reservoirs. Landscape and Urban Planning 170:283-292.
• Correia, R. A., Z. C. Correia, A. C. Malhado, and R. J. Ladle. 2018. Pivotal 20th century contributions to the development of the Anthropocene concept: overview and implications. Current Science 115:1871.
• Correia, R. A., I. Jarić, P. Jepson, A. C. Malhado, J. A. Alves, and R. J. Ladle. 2018. Nomenclature instability in species culturomic assessments: Why synonyms matter. Ecological Indicators 90:74-78.
• Correia, R. A., P. Jepson, A. C. M. Malhado, and R. J. Ladle. 2018. Culturomic assessment of Brazilian protected areas: Exploring a novel index of protected area visibility. Ecological Indicators 85:165-171.
• Courchamp, F., I. Jaric, C. Albert, Y. Meinard, W. J. Ripple, and G. Chapron. 2018. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biology 16:e2003997.
• Davies T, et al. 2018. Popular interest in vertebrates does not reflect extinction risk and is associated with bias in conservation investment. PLoS ONE 13:e0203694.
• Di Minin, E., C. Fink, T. Hiippala, and H. Tenkanen. 2018. A framework for investigating illegal wildlife trade on social media with machine learning. Conservation Biology 33:210-213.
• Di Minin, E., C. Fink, H. Tenkanen, and T. Hiippala. 2018. Machine learning for tracking illegal wildlife trade on social media. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:406-407.
• 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.
• Giovos I, et al. 2018. Identifying recreational fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea through social media. Fisheries Management and Ecology 25:287-295.
• Hale, B.W., 2018. Mapping Potential Environmental Impacts from Tourists Using Data from Social Media: A Case Study in the Westfjords of Iceland. Environmental Management 62, 446-457.
• Hausmann, A., T. Toivonen, R. Slotow, H. Tenkanen, A. Moilanen, V. Heikinheimo, and E. Di Minin. 2018. Social Media Data Can Be Used to Understand Tourists' Preferences for Nature-Based Experiences in Protected Areas. Conservation Letters 11:e12343.
• Hiippala, T., A. Hausmann, H. Tenkanen, and T. Toivonen. 2018. Exploring the linguistic landscape of geotagged social media content in urban environments. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities fqy049.
• Kidd LR, Gregg EA, Bekessy SA, Robinson JA, Garrard GE. 2018. Tweeting for their lives: Visibility of threatened species on twitter. Journal for Nature Conservation 46:106-109.
• Kim JY, Noda A, Im R-Y, Nishihiro J. 2018. Web search volume as a surrogate of public interest in biodiversity: a case study of Japanese red list species. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 4:289-298.
• Koylu C, Zhao C, Shao W. 2019. Deep Neural Networks and Kernel Density Estimation for Detecting Human Activity Patterns from Geo-Tagged Images: A Case Study of Birdwatching on Flickr. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8:45.
• Legagneux, P., N. Casajus, K. Cazelles, C. Chevallier, M. Chevrinais, L. Guéry, C. Jacquet, M. Jaffré, M.-J. Naud, F. Noisette, P. Ropars, S. Vissault, P. Archambault, J. Bêty, D. Berteaux, and D. Gravel. 2018. Our House Is Burning: Discrepancy in Climate Change vs. Biodiversity Coverage in the Media as Compared to Scientific Literature. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5:175.
• Mikula P, Hadrava J, Albrecht T, Tryjanowski P. 2018. Large-scale assessment of commensalistic-mutualistic associations between African birds and herbivorous mammals using internet photos. PeerJ 6:e4520.
• Monkman, G. G., M. J. Kaiser, and K. Hyder. 2018. Text and data mining of social media to map wildlife recreation activity. Biological Conservation 228:89-99.
• Richards DR, Tunçer B. 2018. Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs. Ecosystem Services 31:318-325.
• Roll, U., R. A. Correia, and O. Berger-Tal. 2018. Using machine learning to disentangle homonyms in large text corpora. Conservation Biology 32:716-724.
  
• Seresinhe CI, Moat HS, Preis T. 2018. Quantifying scenic areas using crowdsourced data. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 45:567-582.
  
• Silk MJ, Crowley SL, Woodhead AJ, Nuno A. 2018. Considering connections between Hollywood and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 32:597-606.
• Sinclair M, Ghermandi A, Sheela AM. 2018. A crowdsourced valuation of recreational ecosystem services using social media data: An application to a tropical wetland in India. The Science of the total environment 642:356-365.
• Veríssimo, D., A. Bianchessi, A. Arrivillaga, F. C. Cadiz, R. Mancao, and K. Green. 2018. Does it work for biodiversity? Experiences and challenges in the evaluation of social marketing campaigns. Social Marketing Quarterly 24:18-34.
• Vieira, F. A., C. Bragagnolo, R. A. Correia, A. C. Malhado, and R. J. Ladle. 2018. A salience index for integrating multiple user perspectives in cultural ecosystem service assessments. Ecosystem Services 32:182-192.
• Wäldchen J, Rzanny M, Seeland M, Mäder P. 2018. Automated plant species identification—Trends and future directions. PLOS Computational Biology 14:e1005993.

 
2017

• Becken S, Stantic B, Chen J, Alaei AR, Connolly RM. 2017. Monitoring the environment and human sentiment on the Great Barrier Reef: Assessing the potential of collective sensing. Journal of Environmental Management 203:87-97.
• Correia, R. A., P. Jepson, A. C. M. Malhado, and R. J. Ladle. 2017. Internet scientific name frequency as an indicator of cultural salience of biodiversity. Ecological Indicators 78:549-555.
• Hausmann, A., T. Toivonen, V. Heikinheimo, H. Tenkanen, R. Slotow, and E. Di Minin. 2017. Social media reveal that charismatic species are not the main attractor of ecotourists to sub-Saharan protected areas. Scientific Reports 7:763.
• Heikinheimo, V., E. D. Minin, H. Tenkanen, A. Hausmann, J. Erkkonen, and T. Toivonen. 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 6:85.
• Hong S, Do Y, Kim JY, Cowan P, Joo G-J. 2017. Conservation activities for the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) in South Korea traced from newspapers during 1962–2010. Biological Conservation 210:157-162.
• Kesebir S, Kesebir P. 2017. A Growing Disconnection From Nature Is Evident in Cultural Products. Perspectives on Psychological Science 12:258-269.
• Kusmanoff, A. M., F. Fidler, A. Gordon, and S. A. Bekessy. 2017. Decline of 'biodiversity' in conservation policy discourse in Australia. Environmental Science & Policy 77:160-165.
• Ladle, R. J., P. Jepson, R. A. Correia, and A. C. Malhado. 2017. The power and the promise of culturomics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15:290-291.
• Megias, D. A., S. C. Anderson, R. J. Smith, and D. Veríssimo. 2017. Investigating the impact of media on demand for wildlife: A case study of Harry Potter and the UK trade in owls. PLoS ONE 12:e0182368.
• Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, 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.
  
• Seresinhe CI, Preis T, Moat HS. 2017. Using deep learning to quantify the beauty of outdoor places. Royal Society Open Science 4:170170.
• Sherren K, Parkins JR, Smit M, Holmlund M, Chen Y. 2017. Digital archives, big data and image-based culturomics for social impact assessment: Opportunities and challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 67:23-30.
• Soriano-Redondo A, Bearhop S, Lock L, Votier SC, Hilton GM. 2017. Internet-based monitoring of public perception of conservation. Biological Conservation 206:304-309.
• Stergiou K. 2017. The most famous fish: Human relationships with fish as inferred from the corpus of online English books (1800-2000). Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 17:9-18.
• Tenkanen, H., E. Di Minin, V. Heikinheimo, A. Hausmann, M. Herbst, L. Kajala, and T. Toivonen. 2017. Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Scientific Reports 7:17615.
• Troumbis, A. Y. 2017. Declining Google Trends of public interest in biodiversity: semantics, statistics or traceability of changing priorities? Biodiversity and Conservation 26:1495-1505.
• Troumbis AY. 2017. Google Trends and cycles of public interest in biodiversity: the animal spirits effect. Biodiversity and Conservation 26:3421-3443.
• Veríssimo, D., G. Vaughan, M. Ridout, C. Waterman, D. MacMillan, and R. J. Smith. 2017. Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biological Conservation 211, Part A:95-101.

 
2016

• Correia, R. A., P. R. Jepson, A. C. M. Malhado, and R. J. Ladle. 2016. Familiarity breeds content: assessing bird species popularity with culturomics. PeerJ 4:e1728.
• Daume S, Galaz V. 2016. “Anyone Know What Species This Is?” – Twitter Conversations as Embryonic Citizen Science Communities. PLoS One 11:e0151387.
• Ghermandi A. 2016. Analysis of intensity and spatial patterns of public use in natural treatment systems using geotagged photos from social media. Water Research 105:297-304.
• Hentati-Sundberg J, Olsson O. 2016. Amateur photographs reveal population history of a colonial seabird. Current Biology 26:R226-R228.
• Hinsley A, Lee TE, Harrison JR, Roberts DL. 2016. Estimating the extent and structure of trade in horticultural orchids via social media. Conservation Biology 30:1038-1047.
• Jarić, I., F. Courchamp, J. Gessner, and D. L. Roberts. 2016. Data mining in conservation research using Latin and vernacular species names. PeerJ 4:e2202.
• Jiang H, Lin P, Qiang M. 2016. Public-Opinion Sentiment Analysis for Large Hydro Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 142:05015013.
• Ladle, R. J., R. A. Correia, Y. Do, G.-J. Joo, A. Malhado, R. Proulx, J.-M. Roberge, and P. Jepson. 2016. Conservation culturomics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14:269-275.
• Leighton GRM, Hugo PS, Roulin A, Amar A. 2016. Just Google it: assessing the use of Google Images to describe geographical variation in visible traits of organisms. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7:1060-1070.
• Miranda EBP, Ribeiro RP, Strüssmann C. 2016. The Ecology of Human-Anaconda Conflict: A Study Using Internet Videos. Tropical Conservation Science 9:43-77.
• Nechanska D, Kurikova P, Patoka J, Kalous L. 2016. Does recreational fisheries contribute to spreading of pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus L.) in the Czech Republic? MendelNet 2016:343-346.
• Nghiem, L. T. P., S. K. Papworth, F. K. S. Lim, and L. R. Carrasco. 2016. Analysis of the Capacity of Google Trends to Measure Interest in Conservation Topics and the Role of Online News. PLoS One 11:e0152802.
• Nunez-Mir, G. C., B. V. Iannone, B. C. Pijanowski, N. Kong, and S. Fei. 2016. Automated content analysis: addressing the big literature challenge in ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7:1262-1272.
• Roll, U., J. C. Mittermeier, G. I. Diaz, M. Novosolov, A. Feldman, Y. Itescu, S. Meiri, and R. Grenyer. 2016. Using Wikipedia page views to explore the cultural importance of global reptiles. Biological Conservation 204, Part A:42-50.
• 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:e0162372.
• Zablocki J, Arora S, Barua M. 2016. Factors affecting media coverage of species rediscoveries. Conservation Biology 30:914-917.

 
2015

• Arts K, van der Wal R, Adams WM. 2015. Digital technology and the conservation of nature. Ambio 44:661-673.
• Carter DW, Crosson S, Liese C. 2015. Nowcasting Intraseasonal Recreational Fishing Harvest with Internet Search Volume. PLoS One 10:e0137752.
• Di Minin, E., H. Tenkanen, and T. Toivonen. 2015. Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Frontiers in Environmental Science 3.
• Do Y, Kim JY, Lineman M, Kim D-K, Joo G-J. 2015. Using internet search behavior to assess public awareness of protected wetlands. Conservation Biology 29:271-279.
• El Bizri HR, Morcatty T, Q., Lima J, J. S., Valsecchi J. 2015. The thrill of the chase: uncovering illegal sport hunting in Brazil through YouTube posts. Ecology and Society 20:30.
• Haas AF, et al. 2015. Can we measure beauty? Computational evaluation of coral reef aesthetics. PeerJ 3:e1390.
• Jepson, P., and R. J. Ladle. 2015. Nature apps: Waiting for the revolution. Ambio 44:827-832.
• Levin N, Kark S, Crandall D. 2015. Where have all the people gone? Enhancing global conservation using night lights and social media. Ecological Applications 25:2153-2167.
• Lineman, M., Y. Do, J. Y. Kim, and G.-J. Joo. 2015. Talking about Climate Change and Global Warming. PLoS One 10:e0138996.
• Moorhouse TP, Dahlsjö CAL, Baker SE, D'Cruze NC, Macdonald DW. 2015. The Customer Isn't Always Right—Conservation and Animal Welfare Implications of the Increasing Demand for Wildlife Tourism. PLoS One 10:e0138939.
• Papworth, S. K., T. P. L. Nghiem, D. Chimalakonda, M. R. C. Posa, L. S. Wijedasa, D. Bickford, and L. R. Carrasco. 2015. Quantifying the role of online news in linking conservation research to Facebook and Twitter. Conservation Biology 29:825-833.
• Richards DR, Friess DA. 2015. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecological Indicators 53:187-195.

 
2014

• Anderegg WRL, Goldsmith GR. 2014. Public interest in climate change over the past decade and the effects of the ‘climategate’ media event. Environmental Research Letters 9:054005.
• Funk SM, Rusowsky D. 2014. The importance of cultural knowledge and scale for analysing internet search data as a proxy for public interest toward the environment. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:3101-3112.
• Kim JY, Do Y, Im R-Y, Kim G-Y, Joo G-J. 2014. Use of large web-based data to identify public interest and trends related to endangered species. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:2961-2984.
• Martin DR, Chizinski CJ, Eskridge KM, Pope KL. 2014. Using posts to an online social network to assess fishing effort. Fisheries Research 157:24-27.
• Proulx, R., P. Massicotte, and M. Pepino. 2014. Googling Trends in Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 28:44-51.
• Roberge J-M. 2014. Using data from online social networks in conservation science: which species engage people the most on Twitter? Biodiversity and Conservation 23:715-726.
• Veríssimo, D., D. C. MacMillan, R. J. Smith, J. Crees, and Z. G. Davies. 2014. Has climate change taken prominence over biodiversity conservation? Bioscience 64:625-629.

2013

• Casalegno S, Inger R, DeSilvey C, Gaston KJ. 2013. Spatial Covariance between Aesthetic Value & Other Ecosystem Services. PLoS One8:e68437.
• Clements CF. 2013. Public interest in the extinction of a species may lead to an increase in donations to a large conservation charity. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:2695-2699.
• Ficetola GF. 2013. Is interest toward the environment really declining? The complexity of analysing trends using internet search data. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:2983-2988.
• Mccallum ML, Bury GW. 2013. Google search patterns suggest declining interest in the environment. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:1355-1367.
• Orsi F, Geneletti D. 2013. Using geotagged photographs and GIS analysis to estimate visitor flows in natural areas. Journal for Nature Conservation 21:359-368.
• Richards DR. 2013. The content of historical books as an indicator of past interest in environmental issues. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:2795-2803.
• Wilde GR, Pope KL. 2013. Worldwide trends in fishing interest indicated by internet search volume. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20:211-222.
• Żmihorski M, Dziarska-Pałac J, Sparks TH, Tryjanowski P. 2013. Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and butterflies in Internet information resources. Oikos 122:183-190.

2012

• Martin DR, Pracheil BM, DeBoer JA, Wilde GR, Pope KL. 2012. Using the Internet to Understand Angler Behavior in the Information Age. Fisheries 37:458-463.

2007

• Wilson JR, Procheş Ş, Braschler B, Dixon ES, Richardson DM. 2007. The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:409-414.