Tag: Social

Posted on

Cambridge Awarded $100,000 to Develop Artist-Designed Shade Structures that Provide Cooling Comfort and Opportunities for Social Connections in Select City Hot Spots during Warmer Months

The City of Cambridge was a short while ago awarded $100,000 from the Metropolitan Place Planning Council’s (MAPC) Accelerating Local climate Resilience system to commission artists to style and design temporary shade pavilions for town parks. Shade structures in parks and plazas assist inhabitants keep amazing on incredibly hot days and develop social areas. The city’s two-12 months job, Shade is Social Justice, funded by MAPC, a regional arranging agency, is one of the approaches Cambridge is partaking the imaginative viewpoint of artists and designers to help the group adapt to global warming.

Led by Claudia Zarazua, Arts and Cultural Organizing Director for the Metropolis of Cambridge, and Lillian Hsu, General public Artwork Director, Shade is Social Justice will broaden shade in an progressive way the place it is needed most.

“‘The Metropolis of Cambridge is thrilled to be component of this regional cohort of communities addressing the effects of weather adjust,” reported Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang. “Shade is Social Justice captures our modern spirit by bringing artists and creatives as portion of the alternative to enable citizens keep neat in intense warmth situations. As one of the densest communities in the metro Boston space, we have an understanding of the worth of giving cooling alternatives that are culturally attractive and that respond to the demands of the local community.”

Artists have a unique capability to offer a customer entry into sophisticated concerns. Climate transform is challenging warmth is invisible. Shade is Social Justice, a pilot venture, employs artists and designers to develop shade composition prototypes for chosen incredibly hot spots of Cambridge that also provide as locations for social relationship, a essential ingredient in creating group resilience. Artists will have the chance to demonstrate the electricity of design to prompt considered, imagination, and motion on the difficulty of warmth publicity.

Metropolis staff will detect hot places in below-resourced neighborhoods and manual the artists via the design and style and set up of short-term buildings. Shade is Social Justice will obstacle artists to structure innovative options as a result of product exploration, web page responsiveness, and fascinating interaction all-around impacts of environmental warmth. Replicability for extra neighborhoods and by other communities in the area will be just one of the requirements for the layouts.

The Cambridge community will have alternatives to meet with the artists and be component of the style method. At the time these buildings are mounted, the challenge workforce will co-develop programming in the new shaded communal areas in collaboration with associates of the group. Illustrations of programming incorporate instructional functions, food distribution, vaccine clinics, cultural performances, and other activities.

A connect with-for-artists system will open the option for a broad audience of artists and designers and promote the climate preparedness do the job of the metropolis. Based mostly on skills, a jury will decide on 3 artists to develop proposals for shade constructions. Shade is Social Justice is a job to demonstrate the job of artists in developing inventive and equitable heat mitigation approaches for Cambridge and beyond. It takes advantage of experiential studying to have interaction the public in day by day spaces with the challenging themes of weather improve impacts whilst also giving significantly-essential shade.

Shade is Social Justice is guided by the classes from preceding city cooling strategies these types of as CloudHouse, cooling shelters, and Untold Possibilities at the Previous Moment, an art exhibition all around climate preparedness. Serving as a non permanent pavilion at Greene-Rose Heritage Park in the Port community, CloudHouse gives shade and seating in this active leisure location to assist lessen the impacts of serious warmth and sun.

The Shade is Social Justice project staff, which includes staff members from Cambridge Arts, the City’s Group Growth and General public Will work Departments, and Cambridge General public Wellbeing Department, will take part in a regional Resilience Community of Observe (RCOP) made to assistance grantees, progress superior methods to fortify resilience, and workshop barriers to progress.

Posted on

Array Collective win Turner Prize with humourous, serious, beautiful artwork focussed on Northern Ireland’s political, social issues.

Array Collective are announced as the winner of Turner Prize 2021, the leading international award for contemporary art, at Coventry Cathedral. Picture date: Wednesday December 1, 2021. The Turner Prize exhibition at the Herbert Art Gallery & Museum is a highlight of the city’s year-long tenure as UK City of Culture. Photo credit should read: Matt Alexander/PA Wire

The Turner Prize 2021 has been awarded to Array Collective. The £25,000 prize was presented by Pauline Black, the lead singer of 2 Tone pioneers, The Selecter, during a live broadcast on the BBC. A further £10,000 was awarded to each of the other nominees. This year the Turner Prize exhibition is being held at the Herbert Art Gallery & Museum in Coventry as a highlight of its City of Culture year.

The jury awarded the prize to Array Collective for their hopeful and dynamic artwork which addresses urgent social and political issues affecting Northern Ireland with humour, seriousness and beauty. The jury were impressed with how Belfast-based Array Collective were able to translate their activism and values into the gallery environment, creating a welcoming, immersive and surprising exhibition. The jury commended all five nominees for their socially engaged artworks, and how they work closely and creatively with communities across the breadth of the UK. The collaborative practices highlighted in this year’s shortlist also reflect the solidarity and generosity demonstrated in response to our divided times.

Details and installation shots of The Druithaib’s Ball, by Array Collective. The Turner Prize 2021 Exhibition. The Herbert Art Gallery and Museum. Coventry. Photograph by David Levene 24/9/21.

One of the world’s best-known prizes for the visual arts, the Turner Prize aims to promote public debate around new developments in contemporary British art. For the first time, this year’s Turner Prize jury selected a shortlist consisting entirely of artist collectives and artist-run projects: Array Collective, Black Obsidian Sound System, Cooking Sections, Gentle/Radical and Project Art Works.

General views at The Herbert Art Gallery and Museum in Coventry as the Turner Prize Shortlist is announced. Picture date: Friday September 24, 2021. Photo credit: Doug Peters/ PA Wire

The members of the Turner Prize 2021 jury are Aaron Cezar, Director, Delfina Foundation; Kim McAleese, Programme Director, Grand Union; Russell Tovey, Actor; and Zoé Whitley, Director, Chisenhale Gallery. The jury is chaired by Alex Farquharson, Director, Tate Britain.

The exhibition is a highlight of Coventry’s UK City of Culture 2021 celebrations. Herbert Art Gallery and Museum champions Coventry’s culture, city and arts and is one of the UK’s leading regional museums. As part of its preparations for City of Culture 2021, the museum underwent a major redevelopment of its gallery spaces in anticipation of the Turner Prize exhibition. In parallel to the Turner Prize exhibition, Coventry also hosts ‘Coventry Biennial 2021: Hyper-Possible’ across Coventry and Warwickshire.

Turner Prize 2021 12th January 2022 Admission free Herbert Art Gallery & Museum, Jordan Well, Coventry CV1 5QP

About the artist

Array Collective is a group of 11 artists who create collaborative actions in response to socio-political issues affecting Northern Ireland. The collective has been working together more actively since 2016, motivated by the growing anger around human rights issues happening at the time. Their intention is to reclaim and review the dominant ideas about religio-ethnic identity in Northern Ireland. Working as constituents or allies of the communities they protest with and make art about, Array Collective aims to create a new mythology for the growing number of people who do not prescribe to embedded sectarian dichotomies.

Recent initiatives and works include: Jerwood Collaborate!, Jerwood Arts, London (2019), a-n Artists Council’s Artists Make Change (2020), as well as organising projects in response to issues such as queer liberation, abortion rights, mental health, gentrification, eco-politics, social welfare and Northern Ireland’s fractured past.

Array Collective playfully use performance, protest, photography, print, installation and video. They work with a range of other creative people and organisations to create a combination of artistic expression, direct action and public interventions in the city and online. Their recent project As Others See Us (2019), for example, centred on three fictional characters drawn from the pre-Christian myths and folklore of ancient Ireland: ‘Ban Bidh: The Sacred Cow’, ‘An Scáth Fada: The Long Shadow’ and ‘An Mór Ríoghain: The Morrigan’. These characters have since shape-shifted through crowds at Belfast Pride and up the banks of the River Thames in a series of interventions and performance protests.

Array Collective was nominated for their use of DIY sensibility to tackle issues facing Northern Ireland. The jury commended recent projects, including public artworks in support of the decriminalisation of abortion, challenging legislative discrimination of the queer community in Northern Ireland, and participation in the group exhibition Jerwood Collaborate! in London in late 2019.

Array Collective comprises: Sighle Bhreathnach-Cashell, Sinéad Bhreathnach-Cashell, Jane Butler, Alessia Cargnelli, Emma Campbell, Mitch Conlon, Clodagh Lavelle, Grace McMurray, Stephen Millar, Laura O’Connor and Thomas Wells. The collective is based and predominantly works in Belfast. arraystudiosbelfast.com

.

Categories

Tags

Author

Mark Westall

Mark Westall is the Founder and Editor of FAD magazine Founder and co-publisher of Art of Conversation and founder of the platform @worldoffad

Posted on

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