Best beaches of the world: a critique of web-based rating

IF 1.6 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Elaine Baroni de Oliveira, Alice Newton, Camilo M. Botero
{"title":"Best beaches of the world: a critique of web-based rating","authors":"Elaine Baroni de Oliveira,&nbsp;Alice Newton,&nbsp;Camilo M. Botero","doi":"10.1007/s44218-023-00034-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study analyzes the content of internet ratings of beaches to identify the indicators used. The methodology used an exploratory internet survey using the term ‘best beaches’ in five languages. For each site, the ranking method used was extracted and the indicators considered were listed, where applicable. Of the 70 websites analyzed, 47 ranked the beaches (67%) but less than 50% used indicators. The remaining were based on the opinion of the editorial board, personal experience, and users’ perceptions. The most used indicator was the color of water, followed by the color of the sand. These results show that the majority of ‘best beaches’ lists are based on subjective criteria. They are an overview of places that appeal to the person that wrote the page and are not scientifically or analytically based. Even when indicators are considered, these are mostly a reflection of the idea of an idealized beach, crystal blue waters with white or gold sand. The actual quality of the beach, including water quality, carrying capacity, and ecosystem balance, is not addressed. Although visual attractiveness is a key element for the public, these rankings should incorporate a wider range of indicators to fully assess the quality of a beach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100098,"journal":{"name":"Anthropocene Coasts","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44218-023-00034-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropocene Coasts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44218-023-00034-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study analyzes the content of internet ratings of beaches to identify the indicators used. The methodology used an exploratory internet survey using the term ‘best beaches’ in five languages. For each site, the ranking method used was extracted and the indicators considered were listed, where applicable. Of the 70 websites analyzed, 47 ranked the beaches (67%) but less than 50% used indicators. The remaining were based on the opinion of the editorial board, personal experience, and users’ perceptions. The most used indicator was the color of water, followed by the color of the sand. These results show that the majority of ‘best beaches’ lists are based on subjective criteria. They are an overview of places that appeal to the person that wrote the page and are not scientifically or analytically based. Even when indicators are considered, these are mostly a reflection of the idea of an idealized beach, crystal blue waters with white or gold sand. The actual quality of the beach, including water quality, carrying capacity, and ecosystem balance, is not addressed. Although visual attractiveness is a key element for the public, these rankings should incorporate a wider range of indicators to fully assess the quality of a beach.

世界最佳海滩:对网络评级的评论
本研究分析了互联网上对海滩评级的内容,以确定所使用的指标。研究方法是使用五种语言的 "最佳海滩 "一词进行探索性网络调查。对每个网站都提取了所使用的排名方法,并酌情列出了所考虑的指标。在分析的 70 个网站中,有 47 个网站对海滩进行了排名(占 67%),但使用指标的不到 50%。其余的则是基于编辑委员会的意见、个人经验和用户的看法。使用最多的指标是水的颜色,其次是沙子的颜色。这些结果表明,大多数 "最佳海滩 "榜单都是基于主观标准。这些榜单概述的是那些对撰写者有吸引力的地方,而不是以科学或分析为基础的。即使考虑了指标,这些指标也大多反映了理想化海滩的概念,即水晶般湛蓝的海水和白色或金色的沙滩。海滩的实际质量,包括水质、承载能力和生态系统平衡,并未涉及。虽然视觉吸引力对公众来说是一个关键因素,但这些排名应纳入更广泛的指标,以全面评估海滩的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信