Extracting sensory experiences and cultural ecosystem services from actively crowdsourced descriptions of everyday lived landscapes

References

• Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag. 26(3):271–17. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aiello LM, Schifanella R, Quercia D, Aletta F. 2016. Chatty maps: constructing sound maps of urban areas from social media data. R Soc Open Sci. 3(3):150690. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer MF, Purves RS. 2022. Window expeditions: a playful approach to crowdsourcing natural language descriptions of everyday lived landscapes. Appl Geogr. 148:102802. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer MF, Wartmann FM, Purves RS. 2019. Starborn: towards making in- situ land cover data generation fun with a location-based game. Trans GIS. 23(5):1008–1028. doi: 10.1111/tgis.12543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett C, Bott I. 2020. How Britain became a nation of birdwatchers. The pandemic has taught us to take notice of nature — but is it a lasting change?
   Google Scholar
• Beckmann-Wübbelt A, Fricke A, Sebesvari Z, Yakouchenkova IA, Fröhlich K, Saha S. 2021. High public appreciation for the cultural ecosystem services of urban and peri-urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain Cities Soc. 74:103240. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bender EM, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, Shmitchell S. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. p. 610–623. doi: 10.1145/3442188.3445922.
   Google Scholar
• Bieling C. 2014. Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany). Ecosyst Serv. 8:207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouzguenda I, Alalouch C, Fava N. 2019. Towards smart sustainable cities: a review of the role digital citizen participation could play in advancing social sustainability. Sustain Cities Soc. 50:101627. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brabyn L. 2009. Classifying landscape character. Landscape Res. 34(3):299–321. doi: 10.1080/01426390802371202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown KM. 2017. The haptic pleasures of ground-feel: the role of textured terrain in motivating regular exercise. Health Place. 46:307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.08.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Fagerholm N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv. 13:119–133. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryce R, Irvine KN, Church A, Fish R, Ranger S, Kenter JO. 2016. Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services [shared, plural and cultural values]. Ecosyst Serv. 21:258–269. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bubalo M, Zanten BTV, Verburg PH. 2019. Landscape and urban planning crowdsourcing geo-information on landscape perceptions and preferences: a review. Landsc Urban Plan. 184(January):101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.01.001.
   Google Scholar
• Burenhult N, Levinson SC. 2008. Language and landscape: a cross-linguistic perspective. Lang Sci. 30(2–3):135–150. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, et al. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience. 62(8):744–756. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen YT, Chen MC. 2011. Using chi-square statistics to measure similarities for text categorization. Expert Syst Appl. 38(4):3085–3090. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesnokova O, Purves RS. 2018. From image descriptions to perceived sounds and sources in landscape: analyzing aural experience through text. Appl Geogr. 93(February):103–111. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.02.014.
   Google Scholar
• Conway JR, Lex A, Gehlenborg N, Hancock J. 2017. Upsetr: an r package for the visualization of intersecting sets and their properties. Bioinformatics. 33(18):2938–2940. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M. 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv. 28:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui N, Malleson N, Houlden V, Comber A. 2021. Using vgi and social media data to understand urban green space: A narrative literature review. ISPRS Int J Geoinf. 10(7):7. doi: 10.3390/ijgi10070425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui N, Malleson N, Houlden V, Comber A. 2023. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the dynamics of topics in urban green space. AGILE GIScience Ser. 4:1–7. doi: 10.5194/agile-giss-4-22-2023.
   Google Scholar
• Dakin S. 2003. There’s more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. Can Geogr. 47(2):185–200. doi: 10.1111/1541-0064.t01-1-00003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan. 54(1–4):267–281. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KM, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 109(23):8812–8819. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depietri Y, Ghermandi A, Campisi-Pinto S, Orenstein DE. 2021. Public participation gis versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: instances of complementarity. Ecosyst Serv. 50:101277. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derungs C, Purves RS. 2016. Characterising landscape variation through spatial folksonomies. Appl Geogr. 75:60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.08.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodds PS, Clark EM, Desu S, Frank MR, Reagan AJ, Williams JR, Mitchell L, Harris KD, Kloumann IM, Bagrow JP, et al. Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(8):2389–2394. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1411678112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Landscape Convention. (2000). European Landscape Convention. Report and Convention Florence, ETS No. 17 (176), 8.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Martín-López B, Torralba M, Oteros-Rozas E, Lechner AM, Bieling C, Stahl Olafsson A, Albert C, Raymond CM, Garcia-Martin M, et al. 2020. Perceived contributions of multi- functional landscapes to human well-being: evidence from 13 European sites. People Nat. 2(1):217–234. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10067.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Samuelsson K, Eilola S, Giusti M, Hasanzadeh K, Kajosaari A, Koch D, Korpilo S, Kyttä M, Legeby A, et al. Analysis of pandemic outdoor recreation and green infrastructure in Nordic cities to enhance urban resilience. NPJ Urban Sustain. 2022;2(1):25. doi: 10.1038/s42949-022-00068-8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feng C-C, Mark DM. 2017. Cross-linguistic research on landscape categories using GEOnet names server data: a case study for Indonesia and Malaysia. Prof Geogr. 69(4):567–578. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2017.1288575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fish R, Church A, Winter M. 2016. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv. 21(November):208–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002.
   Google Scholar
• Flaxman S, Mishra S, Gandy A, Unwin HJT, Mellan TA, Coupland H, Whittaker C, Zhu H, Berah T, Eaton JW, et al. 2020. Estimating the effects of non- pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature. 584(7820):257–261. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Martin M, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Gounaridis D, Kizos T, Printsmann A, Müller M, Lieskovský J, Plieninger T. 2017. Participatory mapping of landscape values in a pan-European perspective. Landsc Ecol. 32(11):2133–2150. doi: 10.1007/s10980-017-0531-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghermandi A, Sinclair M. 2019. Passive crowdsourcing of social media in environmental research: a systematic map. Global Environ Change. 55(January):36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.003.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson JJ. 1986. The ecological approach to visual perception. New Jersey (USA): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Goines L, Hagler L. 2007. Noise pollution: a modem plague. South Med J. 100(3):287–294. doi: 10.1097/smj.0b013e3180318be5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grêt-Regamey A, Switalski M, Fagerholm N, Korpilo S, Juhola S, Kyttä M, Käyhkö N, McPhearson T, Nollert M, Rinne T, et al. Harnessing sensing systems towards urban sustainability transformation. NPJ Urban Sustain. 2021;1(1):40. doi: 10.1038/s42949-021-00042-w.
   Google Scholar
• Grima N, Corcoran W, Hill-James C, Langton B, Sommer H, Fisher B, Aguilar FX. 2020. The importance of urban natural areas and urban ecosystem services during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 15(12):e0243344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haab TC, McConnell KE. 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Massachusetts (USA): Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Hammoud R, Tognin S, Burgess L, Bergou N, Smythe M, Gibbons J, Davidson N, Afifi A, Bakolis I, Mechelli A. 2022. Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals mental health benefits of birdlife. Sci Rep. 12(1):17589. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-20207-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen AS, Beery T, Fredman P, Wolf-Watz D. 2022. Outdoor recreation in Sweden during and after the covid-19 pandemic–management and policy implications. J Environ Plann Manage. 66(7):1472–1493. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2022.2029736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausmann A, Toivonen T, Fink C, Heikinheimo V, Kulkarni R, Tenkanen H, Di Minin E. 2020. Understanding sentiment of national park visitors from social media data. People Nat. 2(3):750–760. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10130.
   Google Scholar
• Heft H. 2010. Affordances and the perception of landscape and aesthetics. In: Innovative approaches to researching landscape and health. Oxon (UK): Routledge; p. 9–32.
   Google Scholar
• Henshaw V. 2013. Urban smellscapes: understanding and designing city smell environments. Oxon (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Herbold S, Hautli-Janisz A, Heuer U, Kikteva Z, Trautsch A. 2023. A large- scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays. Sci Rep. 13(1):18617. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herzog TR, Herbert EJ, Kaplan R, Crooks CL. 2000. Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environ Behav. 32(3):323–346. doi: 10.1177/0013916500323002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold T. 2005. The eye of the storm: visual perception and the weather. Vis Stud. 20(2):97–104. doi: 10.1080/14725860500243953.
   Google Scholar
• Jeppson H, Hofmann H. 2023. The r journal: generalized mosaic plots in the gg- plot2 framework [10.32614/RJ-2023-013]. R J. 14(4):50–78. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2023-013.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kasurinen J, Knutas A. 2018. Publication trends in gamification: a systematic mapping study. Comput Sci Rev. 27:33–44. doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2017.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilgarriff A. 2001. Comparing Corpora. Int J Corpus Linguist. 6(1):97–133. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.6.1.05kil.
   Google Scholar
• Koblet O, Purves RS. 2020. From online texts to landscape character assessment: collecting and analysing first-person landscape perception computationally. Landsc Urban Plan. 197(July 2019):103757. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103757.
   Google Scholar
• Kocoń J, Cichecki I, Kaszyca O, Kochanek M, Szydło D, Baran J, Bielaniewicz J, Gruza M, Janz A, Kanclerz K, et al. 2023. ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none. Inf Fusion. 99(101861):101861. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101861.
   Google Scholar
• Krase J, Shortell T. 2011. On the spatial semiotics of vernacular landscapes in global cities. Visual Communic. 10(3):371–376. doi: 10.1177/1470357211408821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Notte A, D’Amato D, Mäkinen H, Paracchini ML, Liquete C, Egoh B, Geneletti D, Crossman ND. 2017. Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol Indic. 74:392–402. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laso Bayas JC, See L, Bartl H, Sturn T, Karner M, Fraisl D, Moorthy I, Busch M, van der Velde M, Fritz S. 2020. Crowdsourcing Lucas: citizens generating reference land cover and land use data with a mobile app. Land. 9(11). doi: 10.3390/land9110446446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee M, Zhao J, Sun Q, Pan Y, Zhou W, Xiong C, Zhang L, Samy AM. 2020. Human mobility trends during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. PLoS One. 15(11):1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefebvre H. 1992. The production of space. Vol. 53, Wiley. doi:10.2307/378107.
   Google Scholar
• Lex A, Gehlenborg N, Strobelt H, Vuillemot R, Pfister H. 2014. Upset: visualization of intersecting sets. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics (InfoVis). 20(12):1983–1992. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucchini L, Centellegher S, Pappalardo L, Gallotti R, Privitera F, Lepri B, De Nadai M. 2021. Living in a pandemic: changes in mobility routines, social activity and adherence to COVID-19 protective measures. Sci Rep. 11(1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04139-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MA. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manning CD. 2011. Part-of-speech tagging from 97% to 100%: is it time for some linguistics? In: Gelbukh AF, editor. Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; p. 171–189.
   Google Scholar
• Marquis-Favre C, Premat E, Aubrée D. 2005. Noise and its effects a review on qualitative aspects of sound. part ii: noise and annoyance. Acta Acust United Acust. 91(4):626–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J. 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc. 18(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-05790-180344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller HJ. 2020. Geographic information science iii: giscience, fast and slow – why faster geographic information is not always smarter. Prog Hum Geogr. 44(1):129–138. doi: 10.1177/0309132518799596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mora-Araus M, Velastegui-Montoya A, Jaramillo-Lindao Y, Apolo H. 2021. Mapping the sound landscape during social isolation due to covid-19. 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS. p. 8340–8343. doi: 10.1109/IGARSS47720.2021.9554530.
   Google Scholar
• Ode Å, Tveit MS, Fry G. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Res. 33(1):89–117. doi: 10.1080/01426390701773854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Półrolniczak M, Kolendowicz L. 2021. The influence of weather and level of observer expertise on suburban landscape perception. Build Environ. 202:108016. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purves RS, Wartmann FM. 2023. Characterising and mapping potential and experienced tranquillity: from a state of mind to a cultural ecosystem service. Geogr Compass. 17(11):e12726. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky J, Stubbs A. 2013. Natural language annotation for machine learning – a guide to corpus-building for applications. California (USA): O’Reilly Media, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Quercia D, Schifanella R, Aiello LM, McLean K. 2015. Smelly maps: the digital life of urban smellscapes. Assoc Adv Artif Intell. 12:3.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse AC. 2010. A preliminary taxonomy of crowdsourcing. ACIS 2010 Proceedings - 21st Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Rutz C. 2022. Studying pauses and pulses in human mobility and their environmental impacts. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 3(3):157–159. doi: 10.1038/s43017-022-00276-x.
   Google Scholar
• Salk CF, Sturn T, See L, Fritz S, Perger C. 2016. Assessing quality of volunteer crowdsourcing contributions: lessons from the cropland capture game. Int J Digital Earth. 9(4):410–426. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2015.1039609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T. 2010. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc. 19(4):269–277. doi: 10.14512/gaia.19.4.9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• See L, Mooney P, Foody G, Bastin L, Comber A, Estima J, Fritz S, Kerle N, Jiang B, Laakso M, et al. 2016. Crowdsourcing, citizen science or volunteered geographic information? The Current state of crowdsourced geographic information. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf. 5(5):55. doi: 10.3390/ijgi5050055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seresinhe CI, Moat HS, Preis T. 2018. Quantifying scenic areas using crowd- sourced data. Environ Plann B: Urban Anal City Sci. 45(3):567–582. doi: 10.1177/0265813516687302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seresinhe CI, Preis T, MacKerron G, Moat HS. 2019. Happiness is greater in more scenic locations. Sci Rep. 9(1):1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40854-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro J, Báldi A. 2014. Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst Serv. 7:201–202. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith B, Mark DM. 2003. Do mountains exist? towards an ontology of landforms. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 30(3):411–427. doi: 10.1068/b12821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. 2003. Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. Br Med Bull. 68(1):243–257. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldg033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanwick C. 2009. Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy. 26(SUPPL. 1):62–75. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor JE, Adams B. 2022. The wild process: constructing multi-scalar environmental narratives. In: Environmental narratives. London (UK): Ubiquity Press Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor JG, Czarnowski KJ, Sexton NR, Flick S. 1995. The importance of water to Rocky Mountain National Park visitors: an adaptation of visitor- employed photography to natural resources management. J Appl Recreat Res. 20(1):61–85.
   Google Scholar
• Torkko J, Poom A, Willberg E, Toivonen T. 2023. How to best map greenery from a human perspective? comparing computational measurements with human perception. Front Sustain Cities. 10.3389/frsc.2023.11609955
   Google Scholar
• Tuan YF. 1989. Surface phenomena and aesthetic experience. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 79(2):233–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1989.tb00260.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tudor C. 2014. An approach to landscape character assessment. Nat Engl. 65(October).
   Google Scholar
• Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Res. 31(3):229–255. doi: 10.1080/01426390600783269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ugolini F, Massetti L, Calaza-Martínez P, Cariñanos P, Dobbs C, Ostoic SK, Marin AM, Pearlmutter D, Saaroni H, Šaulienė I, et al. 2020. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: an international exploratory study. Urban For Urban Greening. 56(June):126888. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126888.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Putten S, O’Meara C, Wartmann F, Yager J, Villette J, Mazzuca C, Bieling C, Burenhult N, Purves R, Majid A, et al. 2020. Conceptualisations of landscape differ across European languages. PLoS One. 15(10 October):e0239858. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239858.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vienneau D, Saucy A, Schäffer B, Flückiger B, Tangermann L, Stafoggia M, Wunderli JM, Röösli M, Group SNCS. 2022. Transportation noise exposure and cardiovascular mortality: 15-years of follow-up in a nationwide prospective cohort in Switzerland. Environ Int. 158:106974. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wartmann FM, Baer MF, Hegetschweiler KT, Fischer C, Hunziker M, Purves RS. 2021. Assessing the potential of social media for estimating recreational use of urban and peri-urban forests. Urban For Urban Green. 64(July):127261. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127261.
   Google Scholar
• Wartmann FM, Egorova E, Derungs C, Mark DM, Purves RS. 2015. More than a list: what outdoor free listings of landscape categories reveal about commonsense geographic concepts and memory search strategies. In: Fabrikant SI, Raubal M, Freundschuh S, Bell S, editors. Spatial information theory. lecture notes in computer science. Vol. 9368. Springer; p. 224–243. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23374-111.
   Google Scholar
• Wartmann FM, Purves RS. 2018. Investigating sense of place as a cultural ecosystem service in different landscapes through the lens of language. Landsc Urban Plan. 175(March):169–183. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.021.
   Google Scholar
• Wartmann FM, Tieskens KF, van Zanten BT, Verburg PH. 2019. Exploring tranquillity experienced in landscapes based on social media. Appl Geogr. 113(November):102112. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102112.
   Google Scholar
• Watts GR, Pheasant RJ. 2013. Factors affecting tranquillity in the country- side. Appl Acoust. 74(9):1094–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2013.03.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts GR, Pheasant RJ, Horoshenkov KV. 2011. Predicting perceived tranquillity in urban parks and open spaces. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 38(4):585–594. doi: 10.1068/b36131.
   Google Scholar
• White M, Smith A, Humphryes K, Pahl S, Snelling D, Depledge M. 2010. Blue space: the importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J Environ Psychol. 30(4):482–493. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zube EH. 1986. Local and extra-local perceptions of national parks and protected areas. Landsc Urban Plan. 13:11–17. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(86)90003-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zube EH, Pitt DG. 1981. Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 8(1):69–87. doi: 10.1016/0304-3924(81)90041-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar