ArticlePloS one2023
Using cellular device location data to estimate visitation to public lands: Comparing device location data to U.S. National Park Service's visitor use statistics.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling recreational visitation at Bureau of Land Management sites.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Multiple sources of volunteered geographic information strengthen holistic estimates of lake visitation.PloS one · 2026Article
- A national model for estimating United States public land visitation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Measuring access to and availability of outdoor recreational opportunities: One pixel at a time.Landscape and urban planning · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding human use of public lands is essential for management of natural and cultural resources. However, compiling consistently reliable visitation data across large spatial and temporal scales and across different land managing entities is challenging. Cellular device locations have been demonstrated as a source to map human activity patterns and may offer a viable solution to overcome some of the challenges that traditional on-the-ground visitation counts face on public lands. Yet, large-scale applicability of human mobility data derived from cell phone device locations for estimating visitation counts to public lands remains unclear. This study aims to address this knowledge gap by examining the efficacy and limitations of using commercially available cellular data to estimate visitation to public lands. We used the United States' National Park Service's (NPS) 2018 and 2019 monthly visitor use counts as a ground-truth and developed visitation models using cellular device location-derived monthly visitor counts as a predictor variable. Other covariates, including park unit type, porousness, and park setting (i.e., urban vs. non-urban, iconic vs. local), were included in the model to examine the impact of park attributes on the relationship between NPS and cell phone-derived counts. We applied Pearson's correlation and generalized linear mixed model with adjustment of month and accounting for potential clustering by the individual park units to evaluate the reliability of using cell data to estimate visitation counts. Of the 38 parks in our study, 20 parks had a correlation of greater than 0.8 between monthly NPS and cell data counts and 8 parks had a correlation of less than 0.5. Regression modeling showed that the cell data could explain a great amount of the variability (conditional R-squared = 0.96) of NPS counts. However, these relationships varied across parks, with better associations generally observed for iconic parks. While our study increased our confidence in using cell phone data to estimate visitation, we also became aware of some of the limitations and challenges which we present in the Discussion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.