Social media as a data resource for #monkseal conservation
Mark Sullivan aff001; Stacie Robinson aff002; Charles Littnan aff002
Působiště autorů: Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America aff001; Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
The prevalence of social media platforms that share photos and videos could prove useful for wildlife research and conservation programs. When social media users post pictures and videos of animals, near real-time data like individual identification, sex, location, or other information are made accessible to scientists. These data can help inform researchers about animal occurrence, behavior, or threats to survival. The endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) population has only 1,400 seals remaining in the wild. A small but growing population of seals has recently reestablished itself in the human-populated main Hawaiian Islands. While this population growth raises concerns about human-seal interactions it also provides the opportunity to capitalize on human observations to enhance research and conservation activities. We measured the potential utility of non-traditional data sources, in this case Instagram, to supplement current population monitoring of monk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands. We tracked all Instagram posts with the identifier #monkseal for a one-year period and assessed the photos for biological and geographical information, behavioral concerns, human disturbance and public perceptions. Social media posts were less likely to provide images suitable for individual seal identification (16.5%) than traditional sighting reports (79.9%). However, social media enhanced the ability to detect human-seal interactions or animal disturbances: 22.1%, of the 2,392 Instagram posts examined showed people within 3 meters of a seal, and 17.8% indicated a disturbance to the animal, meanwhile only 0.64% of traditional reports noted a disturbance to the animal. This project demonstrated that data obtained through social media posts have value to monk seal research and management strategies beyond traditional data collection, and further development of social media platforms as data resources is warranted. Many conservation programs may benefit from similar work using social media to supplement the research and conservation activities they are undertaking.
Conservation science – Data management – Islands – Scientists – Social media – Social research – Wildlife – Seals
1. Di Minin E, Tenkanen H, Toivonen T. Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2015 Sep 9;3:63.
2. Bik HM, Goldstein MC. An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS biology. 2013 Apr 23;11(4):e1001535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535 23630451
3. Kim Y, Huang J, Emery S. Garbage in, garbage out: data collection, quality assessment and reporting standards for social media data use in health research, infodemiology and digital disease detection. Journal of medical Internet research. 2016;18(2):e41. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4738 26920122
4. Witmer GW. Wildlife population monitoring: some practical considerations. Wildlife Research. 2005 Jul 8;32(3):259–63.
5. Liberatore A, Bowkett E, MacLeod CJ, Spurr E, Longnecker N. Social media as a platform for a citizen science community of practice. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2018 Mar 20;3(1).
6. Dickman AJ. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal conservation. 2010 Oct 1;13(5):458–66.
7. Soulsbury CD, White PC. Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildlife research. 2016 Jan 27;42(7):541–53.
8. Boyle SA, Sampson FB. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 1985. 13110116.
9. Carretta JV, Forney KA, Oleson EM, Weller DW, Lang AR, Baker J, et al. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2017. US Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum, 2018. NMFS-SWFSC-602.
10. Baker JD, Becker BL, Wurth TA, Johanos TC, Littnan CL, Henderson JR. Translocation as a tool for conservation of the Hawaiian monk seal. Biological Conservation. 2011 Nov 1;144(11):2692–701.
11. Mercer T. Documented sightings of Hawaiian monk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands for the years 2012 through 2016. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Internal Report. 2017. IR-17-015, 748 p.
12. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, et al. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience. 2009 Dec 1;59(11):977–84.
13. Newman G, Wiggins A, Crall A, Graham E, Newman S, Crowston K. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012 Aug;10(6):298–304.
14. Tulloch AI, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation. 2013 Sep 1;165:128–38.
15. Gilkinson AK, Pearson HC, Weltz F, Davis RW. Photo‐identification of sea otters using nose scars. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 2007 Aug;71(6):2045–51.
16. Zheng X, Owen MA, Nie Y, Hu Y, Swaisgood RR, Yan L, et al. Individual identification of wild giant pandas from camera trap photos–a systematic and hierarchical approach. Journal of Zoology. 2016 Dec;300(4):247–56.
17. Sweeney K, Gelatt T. Citizen Scientists Virtually Access Remote Western Alaska to help researchers investigate the demography of endangered Steller sea Lions. InAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts 2018 Dec.
18. Kenyon KW. Man versus the monk seal. Journal of Mammalogy. 1972. 53.4: 687–696.
19. Gerrodette TI, Gilmartin WG. Demographic consequences of changed pupping and hauling sites of the Hawaiian monk seal. Conservation Biology. 1990 Dec;4(4):423–30.
20. Allen W. Campaign Conversations on Instagram and the Closure of Access to Social Media Data. Available at SSRN 2907683. 2016 Jun 25.
21. Blank G, Lutz C. The social structuration of six major social media platforms in the United Kingdom: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Google+ and Pinterest. In Proceedings of the 7th 2016 International Conference on Social Media & Society 2016 Jul 11 (p. 8). ACM.
22. Johanos TC, Baker JD. The Hawaiian monk seal in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 2001. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. 2004. NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-1, 134 p.
23. Baker JD, Harting AL, Johanos TC, Littnan CL. Estimating Hawaiian monk seal range-wide abundance and associated uncertainty. Endangered Species Research. 2016 Dec 6;31:317–24.
24. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
25. FRENCH RK, MULLER CG, CHILVERS BL, BATTLEY PF. Behavioural consequences of human disturbance on subantarctic Yellow-eyed Penguins Megadyptes antipodes. Bird Conservation International. 2019 Jun;29(2):277–90.
26. Anderson SH. Recreational disturbance and wildlife populations. In: Gutzwiller KJ. Recreational disturbance and wildlife communities. Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. 1995 Mar 1:169–81.
27. Harting AL, Johanos TC, Littnan CL. Benefits derived from opportunistic survival-enhancing interventions for the Hawaiian monk seal: the silver BB paradigm. Endangered Species Research. 2014 Sep 3;25(1):89–96.
28. O'Connor B, Balasubramanyan R, Routledge BR, Smith NA. From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. InFourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media 2010 May 16.
29. Wu Y, Xie L, Huang SL, Li P, Yuan Z, Liu W. Using social media to strengthen public awareness of wildlife conservation. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2018 Mar 1;153:76–83.
30. Jackson CA, Luchner AF. Self-presentation mediates the relationship between self-criticism and emotional response to Instagram feedback. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018 Oct 15;133:1–6.
31. Chua L. Too Cute to Cuddle?" Witnessing Publics" and Interspecies Relations on the Social Media-scape of Orangutan Conservation. Anthropological Quarterly. 2018;91(3):873–903.
32. Peters K, Chen Y, Kaplan AM, Ognibeni B, Pauwels K. Social media metrics—A framework and guidelines for managing social media. Journal of interactive marketing. 2013 Nov 1;27(4):281–98.
33. Leary MR, Kowalski RM. Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin. 1990 Jan;107(1):34.
34. Watkins T, Miller-Rushing AJ, Nelson SJ. Science in places of grandeur: Communication and engagement in national parks. Integrative and comparative biology. 2018 May 29;58(1):67–76. doi: 10.1093/icb/icy025 29762658
Článek vyšel v časopise
2019 Číslo 10
- Aktuální legislativní změny týkající se zdravotnických prostředků – přehledné shrnutí v kostce
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Do jaké míry chrání prodělání COVID-19 před těžkým průběhem reinfekce – výsledky metaanalýzy
- Českým pacientům je nově k dispozici extrakt léčebného konopí. Jaké benefity přináší?
- Není statin jako statin aneb praktický přehled rozdílů jednotlivých molekul