Content of the Twitter tweets

The adapted coding scheme was applied to the content analysis of Twitter. The content categories helped analyzing the Twitter usage for delivering different contents,

sentiments, and spreading links. The results described each content category in percentages. Only identically coded tweets were included in the analyses. Figure 11 displays the categorization of the Twitter content. Figure 12 shows the percentages of the different sentiments of the tweets. And, Figure 13 describes the various kinds of links included in the tweets.

70 Figure 11. Percentages of the Twitter content categories.

The distribution of the content categories showed a high representation of information. Two-thirds of all tweets provided information, or were supposed to share knowledge or experience. Events were promoted in only 17% of the tweets, as were personal

expressions shared. Thus, most of the content posted in tweets with the hashtag #blt020 was clearly informational.

Typical tweets referring to the resource content category provided information about projects, news, or updates relating to the topic of wastelands in Amsterdam. For instance, tweeting about the updated #blt020 Google Map: “Map wastelands updated #blt020 http://url4u.nl/11802”, or: “New wasteland on the map: August Allebéplein block 6. http://goo.gl/xUHJC #blt020”. Information about new possibilities regarding projects was shared: “Wasteland offerors: Zuidas, Sloterdijk, Zaanoevers, Hembrugterrein, Havens, Amstel3, etc. #blt020”. Furthermore, there were photos, articles, or videos shared

referring to projects: “Municipality invested 8.000 Euros in leveling the ground, is

delivering hedges and soil #blt020 pic.twitter.com/YsAcUPMG”, “Project “Op de Schop”: wastelands > latest news – The healthy City http://iturl.nl/snJw8 #blt020”, or: “more than 4.000 IJcitizens and St Nicholas on.... a wasteland #blt020 http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/ 71856/stadsoase-aflevering-8 … #huh”.

In addition to content referring to resources, Twitter users also shared information about events: “Talk of the Town: No time to waste land. 13-12-2012 Pakhuis de Zwijger. http://bit.ly/TcICUL Initiative searching for (temporary) land #blt020”, or their personal experiences: “Just had an unexpected interview about #blt020 and

http://www.socialcitiesoftomorrow.nl/ […].”. Twitter users also expressed their opinions about something being “Inspiring”, or their interest in something: “So much! Curious about implementation & especially if one gets activated, does it become reality #blt020 keep me posted”. Within the content category, all tweets could be assigned to one category. The following section describes the sentiment categories.

71 Figure 12. Percentages of the Twitter sentiment categories.

What was already indicated in the content category, was resembled in the sentiment category, most of the tweets (57%) were informative. One-fifth of the tweets were supposed to show support and affirm each other. This might indicate some kind of group forming. Only some of the tweets were appealing or formulated to motivate others to engage. Also, not many questions were posed in the tweets. Fewest of the tweets did not convey any sentiment, some of them only posting a link without any further information.

Tweets which were intended to be informational simply explained something, or just gave an update on a project, an article, additional information, etc. A typical tweet of this sentiment category was the following: “See “Sociale media: New ways to social innovation” (with ONDER-TUSSEN and #blt020 as example) http://tinyurl.com/qy4jy67”. Other examples were: “Financial and business models for temp use projects–1st project, the readingroom http://ow.ly/ogM5h #tacticalurbanism #blt020 #temporary”,

or “Initiatives on wastelands, see: http://www.at5.nl/nltv/bouw-je-buurt … #blt020”. Supportive tweets were intended to show appreciation for something someone did or wrote. These tweets affirmed someone´s opinion, project, or idea. Typical supportive tweets were, for instance: “Also a nice concept for temporary use of

wastelands #blt020: urban campsite amsterdam pic.twitter.com/dirFKNie9H”, or “Sounds good, everyone, what is happening on Twitter about “No time to waste land” #blt020 Nice to follow”. Although 22% of the tweets were supportive, fewer tweets than one might expect were actually motivating or trying to activate others. One example was this tweet: “#Stadsloods Register today and come to @De_Zwijger for TALK OF THE TOWN on

Thursday http://bit.ly/11oUaZN NO TIME TO WASTE LAND #BLT020”. Invitations to events were the most common appealing tweets, but there were also tweets which tried to motivate people to take action online: “#blt020 this is Rotterdam bringing out its best! Roll up your sleeves, get to work, spread it on Twitter!”. Some Twitter users asked for extra information: “It´s a pity we missed #blt020 in Pakhuis de Zwijger. Is there going to be a report?”. The following results describe which links were posted on Twitter.

72 Figure 13. Percentages of the Twitter link categories.

About two-fifths of the tweets did not contain any link (42%), and of the remaining 58% tweets including a link, 16% were not valid (anymore). Therefore, only 42% of the tweets contained a link that could be assigned to the link categories. The proportions of these links are presented in Figure 13. About one-fifth of the links led to a news website, most of them were citing an article title, for instance, this tweet: “Initiatives on wastelands, see: http://www.at5.nl/nltv/bouw-je-buurt … #blt020”. Almost one-fourth of the links led to project-specific websites, promoting several projects: “Social Cities of Tomorrow » International conference 17 February 2012, Amsterdam, New Media and Urbanism #blt020 http://www.socialcitiesoftomorrow.nl/”. Furthermore, about one-fifth of the tweets linked to social networking sites, such as other tweets, Facebook or LinkedIn posts, photos, videos, etc.: “Save the date pakhuis de Zwijger about wastelands

http://lnkd.in/3myG93 #blt020”. The portion of the links leading directly to the Google Map was almost one-fifth as well. As this interactive Google Map was supposed to contain much useful information, one might expect that people would link to this map more often. Only a small proportion of 5% of the links led to governmental websites, such as the website of the municipality of Amsterdam.