Using smartphone-GPS data to quantify human activity in green spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cities are growing in density and coverage globally, increasing the value of green spaces for human health and well-being. Understanding the interactions between people and green spaces is also critical for biological conservation and sustainable development. However, quantifying green space use is particularly challenging. We used an activity index of anonymized GPS data from smart devices provided by Mapbox (www.mapbox.com) to characterize human activity in green spaces in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. The goals of our study were to describe i) a methodological example of how anonymized GPS data could be used for human-nature research and ii) associations between park features and human activity. We describe some of the challenges and solutions with using this activity index, especially in the context of green spaces and biodiversity monitoring. We found the activity index was strongly correlated with visitation records (i.e., park reservations) and that these data are useful to identify high or low-usage areas within green spaces. Parks with a more extensive trail network typically experienced higher visitation rates and a substantial proportion of activity remained on trails. We identified certain land covers that were more frequently associated with human presence, such as rock formations, and find a relationship between human activity and tree composition. Our study demonstrates that anonymized GPS data from smart devices are a powerful tool for spatially quantifying human activity in green spaces. These could help to minimize trade-offs in the management of green spaces for human use and biological conservation will continue to be a significant challenge over the coming decades because of accelerating urbanization coupled with population growth. Importantly, we include a series of recommendations when using activity indexes for managing green spaces that can assist with biomonitoring and supporting sustainable human use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".