Students’ perceptions and their derived satisfaction of urban forests in the most industrialized region of Poland

• Autorzy: Sobol Agnieszka , Skubała Piotr

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.34659/2021/2/16

Warianty tytułu

PL

Postrzeganie oraz zadowolenie z lasów miejskich przez studentów w najbardziej uprzemysłowionym regionie Polski

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the face of growing urbanised areas, the presence of forests and their appropriate shaping is a key challenge for contemporary urban planning. The importance of forests is largely identified with natural, economic and social functions in non-urban areas; however, forests are of vital value in urbanised areas. This article explores young Polish urbanites’ awareness of the role forests play, and submits diagnoses of the forests multidimensional benefits and their functions in Poland’s urban areas. Moreover, the research is based on the premise that the management of urban forests must ultimately lead to the satisfying of social needs. Based on empirical research, the perceptions of the value of urban forests as assessed by young people (students) in the Śląskie Voivodeship are presented, leading to the authors’ postulation that urban forests are underestimated resources. Furthermore, the study suggests that young Poles do not recognise the multi-beneficial aspects of urban forests; and the authors indicate feasible directions for local policy to achieve sustainable development. The final statements argue that in the face of serious threats to the functioning of Earth’s ecosystem, a campaign for the presence of forests and green spaces in cities is necessary.

PL

W obliczu rosnącej powierzchni terenów zurbanizowanych obecność lasów miejskich i ich odpowiednie kształtowanie jest jednym z kluczowych wyzwań dla współczesnej urbanistyki. Znaczenie lasów utożsamiane jest głównie z funkcjami przyrodniczymi, ekonomicznymi, czy społecznymi na terenach pozamiejskich. Jednocześnie tereny leśne niosą istotną wartość na terenach zurbanizowanych. W wielu krajach obserwujemy rosnącą świadomość znaczenia lasów dla zdrowia fizycznego i psychicznego mieszkańców oraz prawidłowego kształtowania się relacji społecznych. Sąsiedztwo lasów pozytywnie wpływa na jakość życia mieszkańców miast. Interesujące poznawczo jest na ile mieszkańcy miast w Polsce mają świadomość roli lasów w miastach oraz w jaki sposób z nich korzystają. W artykule dokonano diagnozy wielowymiarowych korzyści funkcji terenów leśnych na obszarach miejskich. W oparciu o badania empiryczne przedstawiono percepcję wartości lasów miejskich w ocenie młodego pokolenia województwa śląskiego (studenci). Na podstawie przeprowadzonej analizy roli lasów autorzy zaprezentowali kierunki wsparcia polityki lokalnej ukierunkowanej na zrównoważony rozwój. Zdaniem autorów, w obliczu poważnych zagrożeń dla funkcjonowania ziemskiego ekosystemu niezbędna jest kampania na rzecz obecności lasów i drzew w naszych miastach.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ecosystem service; local planning; Polish city; urban forest

PL

usługa ekosystemowa; planowanie lokalne; polskie miasto; las miejski

• Wydawca: Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych
• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Środowisko
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: nr 2
• Strony: 126--143
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 52 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Sobol Agnieszka

• Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Cieszyńska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4363-8923

autor

Skubała Piotr

• Faculty of Natural Sciences at the University of Silesia in Katowice

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9209-0167

Bibliografia

• Albert M., Marzluff J.M., 2004. Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: Linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosystems 7, 241-265. DOI:10.1023/B:UECO.0000044038.90173.c6.
• Andersson E., McPhearson T., Kremer P., Gomez-Baggethun E., Haase D., Tuvendal M., Wurster D., 2015. Scale and context dependence of ecosystem service providing units Ecosystem Services 12, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014. 08.001.
• Balian E., Eggermont H., Le Roux X., 2014. Outputs of the Strategic Foresight work-shop “Nature-Based Solutions in a BiodivERsA context“, Brussels June 11-12 2014. BiodivERsA report, 45 pp.
• Birch, E.L., Wachter, S.M., 2008. Growing Greener Cities: Urban Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
• Bowler D.E., Buyung-Ali L., Knight T.M.,. Pullin A.S., 2010. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(3), 147-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010. 05.006.
• Bragg R., Wood C., Barton J., Pretty J., 2013. Measuring Connection with Nature in Children Aged 8–12: A Robust Methodology for the RSPB. Essex Sustainability Institute and School of Biological Sciences, University of Essex.
• Buijs A.E., Mattijssen T.J., Van der Jagt A.P., Ambrose-Oji B., Andersson E., Elands B.H., Møller M.S., 2017. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Cur-rent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002.
• Carrus G., Scopelliti M., Lafortezza R., Coangelo G., Ferrini F., Salbitano F., Agrimi M., Portoghesi L., Semenzato P., Sanesi G., 2015. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individual visiting urban and periur-ban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 134, 221-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022.
• Chan K.M.A., Guerry A.D., Balvanera P., Klain S., Satterfield T., Basurto X., Bostrom A., Chuenpagdee R., Gould R., Halpern B.S., Hannahs N., Levine J., Norton B., Ruck-elshaus M., Russell R., Tam J., Woodside U., 2012. Where are Cultural and Social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62(8), 744-756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
• Danforda R.S., Strohbach M.W., Warren P.S., Ryand R.L., 2018. Active Greening or Rewilding the city: How does the intention behind small pockets of urban green affect use?. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 29, 377-383. doi : 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.014
• Dooling S., 2009. Ecological gentrification: a research agenda exploring justice in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(3), 621-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-2427.2009.00860.x.
• European Commission, 2015. Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities. Final Report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on “Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities”, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
• European Environment Agency, 2012. Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012. An indicator-based report. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
• Germann-Chiari C., Seeland C., 2004. Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry research. Forest Policy and Economics 6, 3-13. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00067-9.
• Gill S.E., Handley J.F., Ennos A.R., Pauleit S., 2007. Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment 33, 115–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115.
• European Environment Agency, 2017. Air quality in Europe – report 2017, European Environment Agency, Luxembourg. Retrieved January 5th, 2021 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2017.
• European Union, European Environment Agency, CHM, United Nations Decade on Biodiversity, 2015. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services (MAES). Retrieved January 5th, 2021 from http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes.
• Haase D., Larondelle N., Andersson E., Artmann M., Borgström S., Breuste J., Gomez- Baggethun E., Gren Å., Hamstead Z., Hansen R., Kabisch N., Kremer, P., Lange-meyer J., Rall E.L., McPhearson T., Pauleit S., Qureshi S., Schwarz N., Voigt A., Wurster D., Elmqvist T., 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43(4), 413-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0.
• Fischer L.K, Kowarik I, Botzat A., Honold J., Haase D., Kabisch N., 2016. Interaction of biological and cultural diversity of urban green spaces. GREEN SURGE Delivera-ble 2.2. Research report.Haffner J., 2015. The dangers of eco-gentrification: what’s the best way to make a city greener? The Guardian, May 6th. Retrieved January 5th, 2021 from http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/06/dangers-ecogentrification-best-way-make-city-greener.
• Hartig T., Mitchell R., de Vries S., Frumkin H., 2014. Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35, 207–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth- 032013-182443.
• Irvine K.N., Warber S.L., Devine-Wright P., Gaston K.J., 2013. Understanding urban green space as a health resource: a qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived effects among park users in Sheffield, UK. International Journal of Envi-ronmental Research and Public Health 10(1), 417-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10010417.
• Jansson M., Lindgren T., 2012. A review of the concept management in relation to urban landscapes and green spaces: toward a holistic understanding. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11, 139-145. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.004.
• Kabisch N., Frantzeskaki N., Pauleit S., Naumann S., Davis M., Artmann M., Haase D., Knapp S., Korn H., Stadler J., Zaunberger K., Bonn A., 2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21(2), 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239.
• Keniger L.E., Gaston K.J., Irvine K.N., Fuller R.A., 2013. What are the benefits of inter-acting with nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10(3), 913-935. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913.
• Kowarik I., Körner S. (Eds.), 2005. Wild Urban Woodlands. New Perspectives for Urban Forestry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Kowarik I., 2011. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental Pollution 159, 1974-1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02. 022.
• Krasny M.E., Russ A., Tidball K.G., Elmqvist T., 2014. Civic ecology practices: participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem Services 7, 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.002.
• Lawrence A., De Vreese R., Johnston M., Konijnendijk van den Bosch C. C., Sanesie G., 2013. Urban forest governance: Towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(4), 464-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.002.
• Lee A.C.K., Maheswaran R., 2011. The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health 33, 212-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq068.
• Littke H., 2015. Planning the green walkable city: conceptualising values and conflicts for urban green space strategies in Stockholm. Sustainability 7(8), 11306-11320. doi: 10.3390/su70811306.
• Luederitz C., Brink E., Gralla F., Hermelingmeier V., Meyer M., Niven L., Panzer L., Partelow S., Rau A.L., Sasaki R., Abson D.J., Lang D.J., Wamsler C., Von Wehrden H., 2015. A review of urban ecosystem services. Six key challenges for future research. Ecosystem Services 14, 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.001.
• Lyytimäki J., Sipilä M., 2009. Hopping on one leg – the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 8(4), 309-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003.
• McPhearson T., Andersson E., Elmqvist T., Frantzeskaki N., 2015. Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 12, 152-156. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
• Nowak D.J., Hirabayashi S., Ellis E., Greenfield E.J., 2014. Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environmental Pollution 193, 119-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.05.028.
• Nowak D.J., Hirabayashi S., Doyle M., McGovern M., Pasher J., 2018. Air pollution removal by urban forests in Canada and its effect on air quality and human health, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29, 40-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.019.
• Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution 116, 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7.
• Ostoic S.K., Konijnendijk Van den Bosch C.C., 2015. Exploring global scientific dis-courses on urban forestry. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14, 129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.01.001.
• Peters K., Elands B., Buijs A., 2010. Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9(2), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003.
• Raymond R.M., Brown G., Weber D., 2010. The measurement of place attachment: personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, 422-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002.
• Rupprecht C.D.D., Byrne, J.A., 2014. Informal urban greenspace: A typology and trilin-gual systematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13, 597-611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.002.
• Seto K.C., Fragkias M., Güneralp B., Reilly M.K., 2011, A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion, PlosOne 6 (8) : e23777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777.
• Song X.P., Tan P.Y., Edwards P., Richards D., 2018. The economic benefits and costs of trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29, 162-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017.
• The Environmental Protection Act of April 27th 2001 (Journal of Laws 2001 no. 62 item 627, as amended).
• The Act on Spatial Planning and Management of March 27th 2003 (Journal of Laws 2003 no. 80 item 717, as amended).
• The Act on the Protection of Nature of April 16th 2004 (Journal of Laws 2004 no. 92 item 880, as amended).
• The Act on municipal local government of March 8th 1990 (Journal of Laws 1190 no. 16 item 95, as amended).
• Turnhout E., Waterton C., Neves K., Buizer M., 2013. Rethinking biodiversity; From goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters 6(3), 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00307.x.
• Vogt J.M., Hauer R.J., Fischer B.C., 2015. The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: a review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Aboriculture Urban Forest 41, 293-323.
• Von Döhren P., Haase D., 2015. Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators 52, 490-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027.
• Wolch J.R., Byrne J., Newell J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’ Landscape and Urban Planning 125, 234-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014. 01.017.
• Zhang J.W., Piff P.K., Iyer R., Koleva S., Keltner D., 2014. An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental Psychology 37, 61-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.008.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).