Exploring the relation between urban landscape service values and different infrastructures through crowdsourced data

References

• Ahern J. 2007. Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. In cities of the future. In: Novotny V, editor. Towards integrated sustainable water and landscape management. London: IWA Publications; p. 267–283.
   Google Scholar
• Ankara Directorate of Culture and Tourism. 2013. Ankara, the Capital City of Turkish Republic where the cultures blended. [accessed 2022 May 12]. https://ankara.ktb.gov.tr/Eklenti/43621,nkara-introductory-book-englishpdf.pdf?0&_tag1=F55147EDF6CA48A0EAF1BB94BD134C8E568EDA2A.
   Google Scholar
• Arnberger A, Mann C. 2008. Crowding in European forests: a review of recent research and implications for forest management and policy. Forestry. 81(4):559–571. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpn034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arslan ES, Nordström P, Ijäs A, Hietala R, Fagerholm N. 2021. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services: spatial differences in urban and rural areas of Kokemäenjoki, Finland. Landscape Res. 46(6):828–844. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2021.1907322.
   Google Scholar
• Casalegno S, Inger R, DeSilvey C, Gaston KJ, Preis T. 2013. Spatial covariance between aesthetic value & other ecosystem services. PLoS ONE. 8(6):e68437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng X, Van Damme S, Li L, Uyttenhove P. 2019. Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: a review of methods. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 37:100925. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 2000. European landscape convention. CETS No. 176. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; [accessed 2023 Aug 1]. https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/text-of-the-european-landscape-convention.
   Google Scholar
• Daymond T, Andrew ME, Kobryn H. 2023. Crowdsourcing social values data: Flickr and public participation GIS provide different perspectives of ecosystem services in a remote coastal region. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 64:101566. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101566.
   Google Scholar
• DEFRA. 2005. The economic, social and ecological value of ecosystem services: a literature review. [accessed 2023 Oct 1]. https://www.cbd.int/financial/values/unitedkingdom-valueliterature.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dobbs C, Vasquez A, Olave P, Olave M. 2021. Cultural urban ecosystem services. In: Shackleton M, Cilliers S, Davoren E du Toit M, editors. Urban ecology in the global south. Switzerland: Springer, Cham; p. 245–264.
   Google Scholar
• Domènech A, Mohino I, Moya-Gomez B. 2020. Using Flickr geotagged photos to estimate visitor trajectories in world heritage cities. Int J Geo-Inf. 9(11):646. doi: 10.3390/ijgi9110646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2):266–281. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1151772.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia- Hernandez M, Dela Calle-Vaquero M, Yubero C. 2017. Cultural heritage and urban tourism: historic city centres under pressure. Sustainability. 9(8):1346. doi: 10.3390/su9081346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginzarly M, Roders AP, Teller J. 2019. Mapping historic urban landscape values through social media. J Cult Herit. 36:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2018.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gliozzo G, Pettorelli N, Haklay M. 2016. Using crowdsourced imagery to detect cultural ecosystem services: a case study in South Wales, UK. Ecol Soc. 21(3):6. doi: 10.5751/ES-08436-210306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm NB, Cook EM, Hale RL, Iwaniec DM. 2015. A broader framing of ecosystem services in cities: benefits and challenges of built, natural or hybrid system function. In: Seto K, Solecki W Griffith C, editors. The Routledge handbook of urbanization and global environmental change. London: Routledge; p. 227–236.
   Google Scholar
• Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Sci. 319(5864):756–760. doi: 10.1126/science.1150195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunewald K, Bastian O, Louda J, Arcidiacono A, Brzoska P, Bue M, Cetin NI, Dworczyk C, Dubova L, Fitch A, et al. 2021. Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 49:101273. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101273.
   Google Scholar
• Gugulica M, Burghardt D. 2023. Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 60:101508. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101508.
   Google Scholar
• Hoşgör E, Kaymaz I. 2022. Kent meydanları ve toplumsal bellek: Ulus, Ankara örneği [Urban squares and collective memory]. In: Proceedings of TÜCAUM 2022 International Geography Symposium; Ankara. p. 111–120
   Google Scholar
• Huai S, Chen F, Liu S, Canters F, van de Voorde T. 2022. Using social media photos and computer vision to assess cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in urban parks. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 57:101475. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101475.
   Google Scholar
• Kaymaz I, Örücü ÖK, Arslan ES. 2021. Landsenses ecology approach for comprehensive assessment of cultural ecosystem services: preferences of students at Ankara University of Turkey. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 28(7):644–652. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2021.1920515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klanjšček J, Geček S, Marn N, Legović T, Klanjšček T, Romanach SS. 2018. Predicting perceived level of disturbance of visitors due to crowding in protected areas. PLoS ONE. 13(6):e0197932. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komossa F, Wartmann FM, Kienast F, Verburg PH. 2020. Comparing outdoor recreation preferences in peri-urban landscapes using different data gathering methods. Landsc Urban Plan. 199:103796. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko H, Son Y. 2018. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: a case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecol Indic. 91:299–306. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L. 2016. Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecol Indic. 61:74–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JY, Tsou MH. 2018. Mapping spatiotemporal tourist behaviors and hotspots through location-based photo-sharing service (Flickr) data. In: Kiefer P, Huang H, Van de Weghe N Raubal M, editors. LBS 2018: 14th International Conference on Location Based Services; New York: Springer Cham. p. 315–334.
   Google Scholar
• Li S and Yang B. (2022). Social media for landscape planning and design: a review and discussion. Landscape Research, 47(5), 648–663. 10.1080/01426397.2022.2060953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li C, Zhao Y, Sun X, Su S, Zheng S, Dong R, Shi L. 2011. Photography-based analysis of tourists’ temporal–spatial behaviour in the Old Town of Lijiang. Int J Sust Dev World. 18(6):523–529. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2011.601471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockwood M. 1999. Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology and economics. Environ Soc. 8(3):381–401. doi: 10.3197/096327199129341888.
   Google Scholar
• MA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mao Q, Wang L, Guo Q, Li Y, Liu M, Xu G. 2020. Evaluating cultural ecosystem services of urban residential green spaces from the perspective of residents’ satisfaction with green space. Front Public Health. 8:226. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Llorca R, Méndez PF, Ros-Candeira A, Alcaraz-Segura D, Santamaría L, Ramos-Ridao ÁF, Revilla E, Bonet-Garcia FJ, Vaz AS. 2020. Evaluating tourist profiles and nature-based experiences in biosphere reserves using Flickr: matches and mismatches between online social surveys and photo content analysis. Sci Total Environ. 737:140067. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oguz D. 2000. User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landsc Urban Plan. 52(2–3):165–171. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00130-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oğuz D. 2004. Remaining tree species from the indigenous vegetation of Ankara, Turkey. Landsc Urban Plan. 68(4):371–388. doi: 10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00153-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Önal S, Sağır M. 2018. Ankara Kent parklarının kullanımının belirlenmesi [Identification of the use of urban parks in Ankara]. J Ank Stud. 6(1):77–90. doi: 10.5505/jas.2018.57338.
   Google Scholar
• Rall E, Bieling C, Zytynska S, Haase D. 2017. Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecol Indic. 77:80–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ. 11(5):268–273. doi: 10.1890/120144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riechers M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T. 2016. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 17:33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007.
   Google Scholar
• Schröter M, Stumpf KH, Loos J, van Oudenhoven AP, Böhnke-Henrichs A, Abson DJ. 2017. Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 25:35–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.019.
   Google Scholar
• Tiwary A, Kumar P. 2014. Impact evaluation of green–grey infrastructure interaction on built-space integrity: an emerging perspective to urban ecosystem service. Sci Total Environ. 487:350–360. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu X, Chang Q, van Eetvelde V, Li L. 2023. How do visitors’ perceptions differ from the supply of cultural ecosystem services in urban parks? A case study from Beijing. Int J Sust Dev World. 30(8):883–896. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2023.2215200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkstat. 2023. Address based population registration system results. [accessed 2023 Jun 2]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2021-45500.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. [accessed 2023 Dec 1]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication.
   Google Scholar
• Ünlüönen K, Kızanlıklı MM. 2017. Ankara’nın turizm potansiyeli [Tourism potential of Ankara]. In: Kar M Sarıkaya M, editors. Şehir Ekonomisi: Ankara Şehir Araştırmaları [City economics: Ankara city research]. Ankara: Ankara Metropolitan Municipality; p. 171–212.
   Google Scholar
• Van Zanten BT, Van Berkel DB, Meentemeyer RK, Smith JW, Tieskens KF, Verburg PH. 2016. Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 113(46):12974–12979. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1614158113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Huang R, Zhang Y, Buhalis D. 2022. Cultural ecosystem services evaluation using geolocated social media data: a review. Tourism Geogr. 24(4–5):1–23. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1801828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Zhou Y, Liu X, Lu Z. 2017. Ecological landscape regulation approaches in Xilingol, Inner Mongolia: an urban ecosystem services perspective. Int J Sust Dev World. 24(5):401–407. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2016.1273263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar