Urban greenway is an emerging form of urban landscape offering multifaceted benefits to public health, economy, and ecology. However, the usage and user experiences of greenways are often challenging to measure because it is costly to survey such large areas. Based on the online postings from Instagram in 2017, this paper used Computer Vision (CV) technology to analyze and compare how the general public uses two typical greenway parks, The High Line in New York City and the Atlanta Beltline in Atlanta. Face and object detection analysis were conducted to infer user composition, activities, and key experiences. We presented the temporal patterns of Instagram postings as well as the group gatherings, smiling, and representative objects detected from photos. Our results have shown high user engagement levels for both parks while teens are significantly underrepresented. The High Line had more group activities and was more active during weekdays than the Atlanta Beltline. Stronger sense of escape and physical activities can be found in Atlanta Beltline. In summary, social media images like Instagram can provide strong empirical evidence for urban greenway usage when combined with artificial intelligence technologies, which can support the future practice of landscape architecture and urban design.
AhernJ (2013) Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology28(6): 1203–1212.
2.
AkpinarA (2016) Factors influencing the use of urban greenways: a case study of Aydın, Turkey. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening16: 123–131.
3.
AntonucciTCFioriKLBirdittK, et al. (2010) Convoys of social relations: integrating life‐span and life‐course perspectives. In: LambM. E.FreundA. M. (eds) The handbook of life‐span development, social and emotional development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 2, 434–473. DOI: 10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd002012
Bedimo-RungALMowenAJCohenDA (2005) The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine28(2): 159–168.
6.
BooneCGBuckleyGLGroveJM, et al. (2009) Parks and people: an environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers99(4): 767–787.
DonahueMLKeelerBLWoodSA, et al. (2018) Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landscape and Urban Planning175: 1–10.
11.
DallatMATSoerjomataramIHunterRF, et al. (2014) Urban greenways have the potential to increase physical activity levels cost-effectively. European Journal of Public Health24(2): 190–195.
12.
FongarCAamodtGRandrupTB, et al. (2019) Does perceived green space quality matter? linking Norwegian adult perspectives on perceived quality to motivation and frequency of visits. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health16(13): 2327.
13.
FlowersEPFreemanPGladwellVF (2016) A cross-sectional study examining predictors of visit frequency to local green space and the impact this has on physical activity levels. BMC Public Health16(1): 420–428.
14.
GhermandiASinclairM (2019) Passive crowdsourcing of social media in environmental research: a systematic map. Global Environmental Change55: 36–47.
15.
GodbeyGCCaldwellLLFloydM, et al. (2005) Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine28(2): 150–158.
16.
HamiltonKKaczynskiATFairML, et al. (2017) Examining the relationship between park neighborhoods, features, cleanliness, and condition with observed weekday park usage and physical activity: a case study. Journal of environmental and public health2017: 7582402.
17.
HeikinheimoVMininEDTenkanenH, et al. (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-Information6(3): 85.
18.
JamonnakSZhaoYCurtisA, et al. (2020) GeoVisuals: a visual analytics approach to leverage the potential of spatial videos and associated geonarratives. International Journal of Geographical Information Science34(11): 1–21.
19.
JungS-GKwakAJSalminenH, et al. (2018) Assessing the Accuracy of Four Popular Face Detection Tools for Inferring Gender, Age, and Race. Stanford, CA: ICWSM.
20.
KangY.JiaQ.GaoS., et al. (2019) Extracting human emotions at different places based on facial expressions and spatial clustering analysis. Transactions in GIS23(3): 450–480.
21.
LiS.YeX.LeeJ., et al. (2017) Spatiotemporal analysis of housing prices in China: a big data perspective. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy10(3): 421–433.
22.
LiX (2020) Examining the spatial distribution and temporal change of the green view index in New York City using Google street view images and deep learning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(1): 2039–2054.
23.
LinTYMaireMBelongieS, et al. (2014) Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: European conference on computer vision, Zurich, Switzerland, 6–7 and 12 September 2014. Cham: Springer, 740–755.
24.
LiuLOuyangWWangX, et al. (2020) Deep learning for generic object detection: a survey. International Journal of Computer Vision128(2): 261–318.
25.
LiuWAnguelovDErhanD, et al. (2016) Ssd: Single shot multibox detector. In: European conference on computer vision, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–16 September 2014. Cham: Springer, 21–37.
26.
MasiIWuYHassnerTNatarajanP (2018) Deep face recognition: A survey. In 2018 31st SIBGRAPI conference on graphics, patterns and images (SIBGRAPI).
27.
NassauerJIWangZDayrellE (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning92(3–4): 282–292.
28.
NingHYeXChenZ, et al. (2021) Sidewalk extraction using aerial and street view images. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. Published online. DOI: 10.1177/2399808321995817
29.
PaneerchelvamPTMaruthaveeranSMaulanS, et al. (2020) The use and associated constraints of urban greenway from a socioecological perspective: a systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening47: 126508.
30.
PatilPPRPramodRSandhyaS (2018) A General Approach on Facial Feature Extraction and Face Attributes. In 2018 3rd International Conference on Computational Systems and Information Technology for Sustainable Solutions (CSITSS).
31.
RedmonJFarhadiA (2018) Yolov3: An Incremental Improvement. arXiv Preprint.
32.
RettbergJW (2017) Self-representation in social media. In: BurgessJMarwickAPoellT (eds) SAGE handbook of social media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 429–443.
33.
SederJPOishiS (2012) Intensity of smiling in Facebook photos predicts future life satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science3(4): 407–413.
34.
SessionsCWoodSARabotyagovS, et al. (2016) Measuring recreational visitation at US national parks with crowd-sourced photographs. Journal of Environmental Management183: 703–711.
35.
ShawSLTsouMHYeX (2016) Human dynamics in the mobile and big data era. International Journal of Geographical Information Science30(9): 1687–1693.
36.
SimJBohannonCLMillerP (2020) What park visitors survey tells us: comparing three elevated parks—the high line, 606, and high bridge. Sustainability12(1): 121.
37.
SongXPRichardsDRTanPY (2020a) Using social media user attributes to understand human–environment interactions at urban parks. Scientific Reports10(1): 1–11.
38.
SongYFernandezJWangT (2020b) Understanding perceived site qualities and experiences of urban public spaces: a case study of social media reviews in Bryant Park, New York City. Sustainability12(19): 8036.
39.
SongYWangRFernandezJ, et al. (2021) Investigating sense of place of the Las Vegas Strip using online reviews and machine learning approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning205: 103956. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103956.
40.
SongYZhangB (2020) Using social media data in understanding site-scale landscape architecture design: taking Seattle Freeway Park as an example. Landscape Research45(5): 1–22.
41.
TenkanenHDi MininEHeikinheimoVHausmannAHerbstMKajalaLToivonenT (2017) Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Scientific reports7(1): 1–11.
42.
TinsleyHETinsleyDJCroskeysCE (2002) Park usage, social milieu, and psychosocial benefits of park use reported by older urban park users from four ethnic groups. Leisure Sciences24(2): 199–218.
43.
VeitchJCarverAAbbottG, et al. (2015) How active are people in metropolitan parks? An observational study of park visitation in Australia. BMC Public Health15(1): 610.
WangDBrownGLiuY, et al. (2015) A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities42: 85–96.
46.
WangYJiangWLiuS, et al. (2016) Evaluating trade areas using social media data with a calibrated huff model. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information5(7): 112.
47.
WangZLamNSObradovichN, et al. (2019) Are vulnerable communities digitally left behind in social responses to natural disasters? An evidence from Hurricane sandy with Twitter data. Applied Geography108: 1–8.
48.
WatsonD (2003) Time-saver Standards for Urban Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional Pub.
49.
WhiteMPAlcockIGrellierJ, et al. (2019) Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports9(1): 1–11.
50.
YeXLiSYangX, et al. (2016) Use of social media for the detection and analysis of infectious diseases in China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information5(9): 156.
51.
YeXLiuX (2018) Integrating social network and spatial analyses of the built environment. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science45(3): 395–399. DOI: 10.1177/2399808318772381
52.
YeXZhaoBNguyenTH, et al. (2020) Social media and social awareness. In: AnnoniAGuoHGoodchildMF (eds) Manual of Digital Earth. Singapore: Springer, 425–440.
53.
ZhengXGuoYHuangHLiYHeR (2020) A survey of deep facial attribute analysis. International Journal of Computer Vision128(8): 2002–2034.
54.
ZodererBMCarverSTappeinerU, et al. (2020) Ordering “wilderness”: Variations in public representations of wilderness and their spatial distributions. Landscape and Urban Planning202: 103875.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
