Amazon forests capture high levels of atmospheric mercury pollution from artisanal gold mining

  • 1.

    NRDC. Artisanal Gold: Opportunities for responsible investment-Summary. Investing in Artisanal Gold Summary v8 https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/investing-artisanal-gold-summary.pdf (2016).

  • 2.

    Asner, G. P. & Tupayachi, R. Accelerated losses of protected forests from gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 9 (2017).

  • 3.

    Espejo, J. C. et al. Deforestation and forest degradation due to gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon: A 34-year perspective. Remote Sens. 10, 1–17 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Gerson, J. R. et al. Artificial lake expansion amplifies mercury pollution from gold mining. Sci. Adv. 6, eabd4953 (2020).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    Dethier, E. N., Sartain, S. L. & Lutz, D. A. Heightened levels and seasonal inversion of riverine suspended sediment in a tropical biodiversity hot spot due to artisanal gold mining. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23936–23941 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Abe, C. A. et al. Modeling the effects of land cover change on sediment concentrations in a gold-mined Amazonian basin. Reg. Environ. Chang. 19, 1801–1813 (2019).

  • 7.

    UNEP. Global Mercury Assessment https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/global-mercury-assessment-2018 (2018).

  • 8.

    Markham, K. E. & Sangermano, F. Evaluating wildlife vulnerability to mercury pollution from artisanal and small-scale gold mining in Madre de Dios, Peru. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 11, 194008291879432 (2018).

  • 9.

    Alvarez-Berríos, N. et al. Impacts of small-scale gold mining on birds and anurans near the Tambopata Natural Reserve, Peru, assessed using passive acoustic monitoring. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 9, 832–851 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Ashe, K. Elevated mercury concentrations in humans of Madre de Dios, Peru. PLoS One 7, 1–6 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Langeland, A., Hardin, R. & Neitzel, R. Mercury levels in human hair and farmed fish near artisanal and small-scale gold mining communities in the Madre de Dios River Basin, Peru. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 302 (2017).

    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Gonzalez, D. J. X., Arain, A. & Fernandez, L. E. Mercury exposure, risk factors, and perceptions among women of childbearing age in an artisanal gold mining region of the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. 179, 108786 (2019).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Gutleb, A. C., Schenck, C. & Stalb, E. Giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis) at risk? Total mercury and methylmercury levels in fish and otter scats, Peru. Ambio 26, 511–514 (1997).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Júnior, J. A. M. A. Y., Quigley, H. & Hoogesteijn, R. Mercury content in the fur of jaguars (Panthera onca) from two areas under different levels of gold mining impact in the Brazilian Pantanal. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 90, 1–11 (2017).

  • 15.

    Stylo, M., De Haan, J. & Davis, K. Collecting, managing and translating data into National Action Plans for artisanal and small scale gold mining. Extr. Ind. Soc. 7, 237–248 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 16.

    Hilson, G., Hu, Y. & Kumah, C. Locating female ‘Voices’ in the Minamata Convention on Mercury in Sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Ghana. Environ. Sci. Policy 107, 123–136 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Clifford, M. J. Future strategies for tackling mercury pollution in the artisanal gold mining sector: Making the Minamata Convention work. Futures 62, 106–112 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Spiegel, S., Keane, S., Metcalf, S. & Veiga, M. Implications of the minamata convention on mercury for informal gold mining in sub-Saharan Africa: From global policy debates to grassroots implementation? Environ. Dev. Sustain 17, 765–785 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Lodenius, M. & Malm, O. Mercury in the Amazon. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 157, 25–52 (1998).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Driscoll, C. T., Mason, R. P., Chan, H. M., Jacob, D. J. & Pirrone, N. Mercury as a global pollutant: Sources, pathways, and effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 4967–4983 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 21.

    Paige Wright, L., Zhang, L. & Marsik, F. J. Overview of mercury dry deposition, litterfall, and throughfall studies. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 13399–13416 (2016).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Gerson, J. R., Driscoll, C. T., Hsu-kim, H. & Bernhardt, E. S. Senegalese artisanal gold mining leads to elevated total mercury and methylmercury concentrations in soils, sediments, and rivers. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 6, 11 (2018).

  • 23.

    Hsu-Kim, H. et al. Challenges and opportunities for managing aquatic mercury pollution in altered landscapes. Ambio 47, 141–169 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 24.

    Witt, E. L., Kolka, R. K., Nater, E. A. & Wickman, T. R. Influence of the forest canopy on total and methyl mercury deposition in the boreal forest. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 199, 3–11 (2009).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 25.

    Asner, G. P., Llactayo, W., Tupayachi, R. & Luna, E. R. Elevated rates of gold mining in the Amazon revealed through high-resolution monitoring. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18454–18459 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 26.

    Sprovieri, F. et al. Atmospheric mercury concentrations observed at ground-based monitoring sites globally distributed in the framework of the GMOS network. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 11915–11935 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Sprovieri, F., Pirrone, N., Ebinghaus, R., Kock, H. & Dommergue, A. A review of worldwide atmospheric mercury measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 8245–8265 (2010).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    Guo, Y. et al. Distribution and wet deposition fluxes of total and methyl mercury in Wujiang River Basin, Guizhou, China. Atmos. Environ. 42, 7096–7103 (2008).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 29.

    Jiskra, M. et al. A vegetation control on seasonal variations in global atmospheric mercury concentrations. Nat. Geosci. 11, 244–250 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Fay, L. & Gustin, M. Assessing the influence of different atmospheric and soil mercury concentrations on foliar mercury concentrations in a controlled environment. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 181, 373–384 (2007).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    Ericksen, J. A. et al. Accumulation of atmospheric mercury in forest foliage. Atmos. Environ. 37, 1613–1622 (2003).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    Fu, X. W. et al. Observations of atmospheric mercury in China: A critical review. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 15, 11925–11983 (2009).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 33.

    Zhou, J. et al. Examination of total mercury inputs by precipitation and litterfall in a remote upland forest of Southwestern China. Atmos. Environ. 81, 364–372 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 34.

    Teixeira, D. C., Lacerda, L. D. & Silva-Filho, E. V. Mercury sequestration by rainforests: The influence of microclimate and different successional stages. Chemosphere 168, 1186–1193 (2017).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 35.

    Nebel, G., Dragsted, J. & Vega, A. S. Litter fall, biomass and net primary production in flood plain forests in the Peruvian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage. 150, 93–102 (2001).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 36.

    Shanley, J. B. & Bishop, K. H. Mercury in the Environment: Pattern and Process (ed. Bank, M.) 119–141 (University of California Press, 2012).

  • 37.

    Gerson, J. R. et al. Deposition of mercury in forests across a montane elevation gradient: Elevational and seasonal patterns in methylmercury inputs and production. JGR. Biogeosciences 122, 1–18 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 38.

    Fadini, P. & Jardim, W. Is the Negro River Basin (Amazon) impacted by naturally occurring mercury? Sci. Total Environ. 275, 71–82 (2001).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 39.

    Hartman, J. S. et al. Application of a rule-based model to estimate mercury exchange for three background biomes in the continental United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 4989–4994 (2009).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 40.

    Magarelli, G. & Fostier, H. Quantificacao de fluxos de mercurio gasoso na interface solo/atmosfera utilizando camara de fluxo dinamico: Aplicacao na bacia do Rio Negro. Quim. Nova 28, 968–974 (2005).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    Ullrich, S. M., Tanton, T. W. & Abdrashitova, S. A. Mercury in the aquatic environment: A review of factors affecting methylation. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 241–293 (2001).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 42.

    Hsu-Kim, H., Kucharzyk, K. H., Zhang, T. & Deshusses, M. A. Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 2441–2456 (2013).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 43.

    Rudd, J. W. M. Sources of methyl mercury to freshwater ecosystems: A review. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 80, 697–713 (1995).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    Roulet, M., Guimaraes, J. & Lucotte, M. Methylmercury production and accumulation in sediments and soils of an Amazonian floodplain—effect of seasonal indundation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 128, 41–60 (2001).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 45.

    Biswas, A., Blum, J. D., Klaue, B. & Keeler, G. J. Release of mercury from Rocky Mountain forest fires. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 21, 1–13 (2007).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 46.

    Kumar, A., Wu, S., Huang, Y., Liao, H. & Kaplan, J. O. Mercury from wildfires: Global emission inventories and sensitivity to 2000–2050 global change. Atmos. Environ. 173, 6–15 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 47.

    Monzon, E. V. Plan de negocios 2007-201: SIAMAZONIA (2007).

  • 48.

    MacArthur, R. H. & MacArthur, J. W. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42, 594–598 (1961).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 49.

    Ozanne, C. H. P. et al. Biodiversity meets the atmosphere: A global view of forest canopies. Science 301, 183–186 (2003).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 50.

    Vuohelainen, A. J., Coad, L., Marthews, T. R., Malhi, Y. & Killeen, T. J. The effectiveness of contrasting protected areas in preventing deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environ. Manage. 50, 645–663 (2012).

    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Porvari, P., Verta, M., Munthe, J. & Haapanen, M. Forestry practices increase mercury and methyl mercury output from boreal forest catchments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37, 2389–2393 (2003).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 52.

    Veiga, M. M. & Meech, J. A. Mercury pollution from deforestation. Nature 368, 816–817 (1994).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 53.

    Magarelli, G. & Fostier, A. H. Influence of deforestation on the mercury air/soil exchange in the Negro River Basin, Amazon. Atmos. Environ. 39, 7518–7528 (2005).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    Cardo, M. A. & Vargas, P. M. Proyecto: Plan nacional de accion sobre mercurio en el sector de la mineria de oro artesanal y de pequena escala en el Peru (2017).

  • 55.

    Veiga, M. M. & Chouinard, R. Results of the awareness campaign and technology demonstration for artisanal gold miners: Summary report (2008).

  • 56.

    Rimmer, C. C. et al. Mercury concentrations in Bicknell’s thrush and other insectivorous passerines in montane forests of northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14, 223–240 (2005).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 57.

    Rimmer, C. C., Miller, E. K., McFarland, K. P., Taylor, R. J. & Faccio, S. D. Mercury bioaccumulation and trophic transfer in the terrestrial food web of a montane forest. Ecotoxicology 19, 697–709 (2010).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 58.

    Evers, D. Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene 5 (Elsevier Inc., 2018).

  • 59.

    Ackerman, J. T. et al. Avian mercury exposure and toxicological risk across western North America: A synthesis. Sci. Total Environ. 568, 749–769 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 60.

    Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., de Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    Obrist, D. et al. A review of global environmental mercury processes in response to human and natural perturbations: Changes of emissions, climate, and land use. Ambio 47, 116–140 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 62.

    Saiki, M. K., Martin, B. A., May, T. W. & Alpers, C. N. Mercury concentrations in fish from a Sierra Nevada foothill reservoir located downstream from historic gold-mining operations. Environ. Monit. Assess. 163, 313–326 (2010).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 63.

    McLagan, D. S. et al. A high-precision passive air sampler for gaseous mercury. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 3, 24–29 (2016).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Stupple, G. W., McLagan, D. S. & Steffan, A. In situ reactive gaseous mercury uptake on radiello diffusive barrier, cation exchange membrane, and teflon filter membranes during atmospheric mercury depletion events. In 14th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant (2019).

  • 65.

    Schulenberg, T. S. et al. Birds of Peru (Princeton University Press, 2010).

  • 66.

    Almeida, D. R. A. et al. Monitoring the structure of forest restoration plantations with a drone-lidar system. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 79, 192–198 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 67.

    Biswas, A., Blum, J. D., Bergquist, B. A., Keeler, G. J. & Xie, Z. Natural mercury isotope variation in coal deposits and organic soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 8303–8309 (2008).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 68.

    McLagan, D. S. et al. Global evaluation and calibration of a passive air sampler for gaseous mercury. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 5905–5919 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 69.

    Munson, K. M., Babi, D. & Lamborg, C. H. Determination of monomethylmercury from seawater with ascorbic acid-assisted direct ethylation. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 12, 1–9 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 70.

    Hintelmann, H. & Nguyen, H. T. Extraction of methylmercury from tissue and plant samples by acid leaching. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 381, 360–365 (2005).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 71.

    Tseng, C. M. et al. Rapid and quantitative microwaveassisted recovery of methylmercury from standard reference sediments. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 12, 629–635 (1997).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 72.

    Rahman, M. & Kingston, H. Development of a microwave-assisted extraction method and isotopic validation of mercury species in soils and sediments. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 20, 183–191 (2005).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 73.

    Hintelmann, H. & Evans, R. D. Application of stable isotopes in environmental tracer studies—measurement of monomethylmercury (CH3Hg+) by isotope dilution ICP-MS and detection of species transformation. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 358, 378–385 (1997).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 74.

    Fostier, A. H. et al. Mercury fluxes in a natural forested Amazonian catchment (Serra do Navio, Amapa State, Brazil). Sci. Total Environ. 260, 201–211 (2000).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 75.

    Batjes, N. H. & Dijkshoorn, J. A. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in the soils of the Amazon Region. Geoderma 89, 273–286 (1999).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 76.

    ‘R Core Team’. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014).

  • 77.

    Obrist, D. et al. Mercury distribution across 14 U.S. Forests. Part I: Spatial patterns of concentrations in biomass, litter, and soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 3974–3981 (2011).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 78.

    Gerson, J. R. et al. Chemistry of surface water, precipitation, throughfall, leaves, sediment, soil, and air near artisanal gold mining in Madre de Dios, Peru. Ecology Data Papers (2022). In Press.

  • Social media and deep learning capture the aesthetic quality of the landscape

  • 1.

    Daniel, T. C. et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 (2012).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C. & Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K. & Abel, T. Landscape and well-being: A scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments. Int. J. Public Health 55, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-0069-z (2010).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Rice, W. L. et al. Changes in recreational behaviors of outdoor enthusiasts during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis across urban and rural communities. J. Urban Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juaa020 (2020).

  • 5.

    Venter, Z. S., Barton, D. N., Gundersen, V., Figari, H. & Nowell, M. Urban nature in a time of crisis: Recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 104075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396 (2020).

    ADS 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Maes, J. et al. Mainstreaming ecosystem services into EU policy. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.002 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Paracchini, M. L. et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 45, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Hein, L. et al. Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems. Science 367, 514–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8901 (2020).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826 (2018).

  • 10.

    Martínez-Harms, M. J. & Balvanera, P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. Int. J. Biodiv. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 8, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Raymond, C. M., Kenter, J. O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N. J. & Alexander, K. A. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 107, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Bateman, I. J. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379 (2013).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T. & Bieling, C. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29, 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Hermes, J., Albert, C. & von Haaren, C. Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.015 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Uuemaa, E., Antrop, M., Roosaare, J., Marja, R. & Mander, U. Landscape metrics and indices: An overview of their use in landscape research. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 3, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2009-1 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 16.

    Schirpke, U., Tasser, E. & Tappeiner, U. Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 111, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.010 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 31, 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Ode, Å., Tveit, M. & Fry, G. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 33, 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701773854 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. & Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Schröter, M., Remme, R. P., Sumarga, E., Barton, D. N. & Hein, L. Lessons learned for spatial modelling of ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.003 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 21.

    Tenerelli, P., Püffel, C. & Luque, S. Spatial assessment of aesthetic services in a complex mountain region: Combining visual landscape properties with crowdsourced geographic information. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0498-7 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Wood, S. A., Guerry, A. D., Silver, J. M. & Lacayo, M. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep. 3, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02976 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 23.

    van Zanten, B. T. et al. Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12974–12979. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614158113 (2016).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 24.

    Tenerelli, P., Demšar, U. & Luque, S. Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 64, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.042 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 25.

    Richards, D. R. & Tunçer, B. Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 26.

    Sinclair, M., Mayer, M., Woltering, M. & Ghermandi, A. Valuing nature-based recreation using a crowdsourced travel cost method: A comparison to onsite survey data and value transfer. Ecosyst. Serv. 45, 101165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101165 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Antoniou, V. et al. Investigating the feasibility of geo-tagged photographs as sources of land cover input data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi5050064 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    Mancini, F., Coghill, G. M. & Lusseau, D. Quantifying wildlife watchers’ preferences to investigate the overlap between recreational and conservation value of natural areas. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13274 (2019).

  • 29.

    Hollenstein, L. & Purves, R. Exploring place through user-generated content: Using Flickr tags to describe city cores. J. Spatial Inf. Sci. 1, 21–48. https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2010.1.3 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Donahue, M. L. et al. Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landsc. Urban Plan. 175, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.006 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539 (2015).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    Naik, N., Kominers, S. D., Raskar, R., Glaeser, E. L. & Hidalgo, C. A. Computer vision uncovers predictors of physical urban change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7571–7576. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619003114 (2017).

  • 33.

    Toivonen, T. et al. Social media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. Biol. Conserv. 233, 298–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.023 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 34.

    Zhang, F., Zhou, B., Ratti, C. & Liu, Y. Discovering place-informative scenes and objects using social media photos. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181375 (2019).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 35.

    Srivastava, S., Vargas Muñoz, J. E., Lobry, S. & Tuia, D. Fine-grained landuse characterization using ground-based pictures: A deep learning solution based on globally available data. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 34, 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1542698 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 36.

    Egarter Vigl, L. et al. Harnessing artificial intelligence technology and social media data to support cultural ecosystem service assessments. People Nat. 3, 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10199 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 37.

    ScenicOrNot. ScenicOrNot Dataset (2015). http://scenicornot.datasciencelab.co.uk.

  • 38.

    Seresinhe, C. I., Moat, H. S. & Preis, T. Quantifying scenic areas using crowdsourced data. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 45, 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516687302 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 39.

    Chesnokova, O., Nowak, M. & Purves, R. S. A crowdsourced model of landscape preference. In 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017), vol. 86. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.19 (2017).

  • 40.

    Seresinhe, C. I., Tobias, P. & Moat, H. S. Using deep learning to quantify the beauty of outdoor places. R. Soc. Open Sci.. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170170 (2017).

    MathSciNet 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    Workman, S., Souvenir, R. & Jacobs, N. Understanding and mapping natural beauty. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), vol. 4, 5590–5599. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.596 (2017).

  • 42.

    Marcos, D. et al. Contextual semantic interpretability. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (2020).

  • 43.

    Arendsen, P., Marcos, D. & Tuia, D. Concept discovery for the interpretation of landscape scenicness. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extract.https://doi.org/10.3390/make2040022 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    Levering, A., Marcos, D. & Tuia, D. On the relation between landscape beauty and land cover: A case study in the U.K. at Sentinel-2 resolution with interpretable AI. ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sens. 177, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.04.020 (2021).

    ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 45.

    Havinga, I., Bogaart, P. W., Hein, L. & Tuia, D. Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data. Ecosyst. Serv. 43, 101091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101091 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 46.

    Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C. & Plieninger, T. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol. Indic. 94, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.009 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 47.

    Englund, O., Berndes, G. & Cederberg, C. How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 73, 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.009 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 48.

    Zhou, B., Lapedriza, A., Khosla, A., Oliva, A. & Torralba, A. Places: A 10 million image database for scene recognition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 40, 1452–1464. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2723009 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 49.

    Patterson, G., Xu, C., Su, H. & Hays, J. The SUN attribute database: Beyond categories for deeper scene understanding. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 108, 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-013-0695-z (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 50.

    Lee, H., Seo, B., Koellner, T. & Lautenbach, S. Mapping cultural ecosystem services 2.0—Potential and shortcomings from unlabeled crowd sourced images. Ecol. Indic. 96, 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.035 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Ulrich, R. S. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landsc. Res. 4, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397908705892 (1979).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 52.

    Cordingley, J. E., Newton, A. C., Rose, R. J., Clarke, R. T. & Bullock, J. M. Habitat fragmentation intensifies trade-offs between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a heathland ecosystem in Southern England. PLOS ONE 10, e0130004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130004 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 53.

    Newton, A. C. et al. Impacts of grazing on lowland heathland in north-west Europe. Biol. Conserv. 142, 935–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.018 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    Tveit, M. S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; A comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 2882–2888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 55.

    Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A. & Makeschin, F. Assessment of landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecol. Indic. 32, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 56.

    Graham, L. J. & Eigenbrod, F. Scale dependency in drivers of outdoor recreation in England. People Nat. 1, 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10042 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 57.

    Ryo, M. & Rillig, M. C. Statistically reinforced machine learning for nonlinear patterns and variable interactions. Ecosphere 8, e01976. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1976 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 58.

    Karasov, O., Vieira, A. A. B., Külvik, M. & Chervanyov, I. Landscape coherence revisited: GIS-based mapping in relation to scenic values and preferences estimated with geolocated social media data. Ecol. Indic. 111, 105973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105973 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 59.

    Foltête, J.-C., Ingensand, J. & Blanc, N. Coupling crowd-sourced imagery and visibility modelling to identify landscape preferences at the panorama level. Landsc. Urban Plan. 197, 103756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103756 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 60.

    Labib, S. M., Huck, J. J. & Lindley, S. Modelling and mapping eye-level greenness visibility exposure using multi-source data at high spatial resolutions. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 143050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143050 (2021).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    Li, H. & Wu, J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030441.15628.d6 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 62.

    Weather, U. K. UK seasonal weather summary—Winter 2009/2010. Weather 65, 99. https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.601 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 63.

    Lenormand, M. et al. Multiscale socio-ecological networks in the age of information. PLOS ONE 13, e0206672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206672 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Li, L., Goodchild, M. F. & Xu, B. Spatial, temporal, and socioeconomic patterns in the use of Twitter and Flickr. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 40, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2013.777139 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 65.

    Uuemaa, E., Mander, Ü. & Marja, R. Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review. Ecol. Indic. 28, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.018 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 66.

    Daniel, T. C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar