IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i2p323-d1045797.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences of Young Adult Visitors to Manor Parks in South Poland: A Study on Ecosystem Services and Scenic Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Beata Fornal-Pieniak

    (Department of Environmental Protection and Dendrology, Institute of Horticultural Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska St., 166, 02-787 Warszawa, Poland)

  • Agnieszka Mandziuk

    (Department of Forest Management Planning, Dendrometry and Forest Economics, Institute of Forest Science, Warsaw University of Live Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska St., 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Dagmara Stangierska

    (Department of Pomology and Horticulture Economics, Institute of Horticultural Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska St., 166, 02-787 Warszawa, Poland)

  • Stanisław Parzych

    (Department of Forest Management Planning, Dendrometry and Forest Economics, Institute of Forest Science, Warsaw University of Live Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska St., 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Pedro Miguel Ramos Arsénio

    (LEAF—Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food Research Center, Associated Laboratory TERRA, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal)

Abstract

Manor parks are characteristic cultural features in Polish agricultural landscapes. About 10,000 manor parks are estimated to exist in Poland, and due to their high natural, historic and scenic value, these features represent potential in terms of ecosystem services. To properly manage these sites, it is advisable to determine the preferences of its visitors. The present study presents the results of a quantitative survey based on a group of 352 young visitors to manor parks in south Poland. The results show that visitors with higher monthly incomes have a statistically significant higher awareness as far as caring for the authenticity and preservation of the natural and historical heritage of manor parks and forests. Conversely, for visitors with lower incomes, additional touristic promotion attractions (e.g., souvenirs, guided visits) are increasingly important. The results of the study provide an important basis of information for local authorities, as well as private owners, with regard to preserving the natural and historical values (which are closely connected with the scenic values) of these sites, as well as local tourism development. The values of nature, sustainability, tourism and the improvement of life quality are linked to the enhancement of manor parks, as these facilities are providers of ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Agnieszka Mandziuk & Dagmara Stangierska & Stanisław Parzych & Pedro Miguel Ramos Arsénio, 2023. "Preferences of Young Adult Visitors to Manor Parks in South Poland: A Study on Ecosystem Services and Scenic Quality," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:2:p:323-:d:1045797
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/323/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/323/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    2. Edyta Rosłon-Szeryńska & Jan Łukaszkiewicz & Beata Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz, 2020. "Manor Parks in Poland—Costly Heritage or Potential for the Development of Rural Communes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-31, November.
    3. Wan-Yu Liu & Yen-Yu Lin & Han-Shen Chen & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2019. "Assessing the Amenity Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: Perspectives from the Use of Sustainable Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    4. Christopher Taylor, 2013. "Moat, park, manor house, rectory, palace and village: elements of the landscape at Doddington, Cambridgeshire," Landscape History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 27-42, November.
    5. Agnieszka Mandziuk & Dagmara Stangierska & Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Jerzy Gębski & Barbara Żarska & Marta Kiraga, 2022. "Preferences of Young Adults concerning the Pocket Parks with Water Reservoirs in the Aspect of Willingness to Pay (WTP) in Warsaw City, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, April.
    6. Kai-Lih Chen & Wei-Hsin Kong & Chi-Cheng Chen & Je-Liang Liou, 2021. "Evaluating Benefits of Eco-Agriculture: The Cases of Farms along Taiwan’s East Coast in Yilan and Hualien," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-23, September.
    7. Chen, Bixia & Nakama, Yuei & Zhang, Yaoqi, 2017. "Traditional village forest landscapes: Tourists' attitudes and preferences for conservation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 652-662.
    8. Van Berkel, Derek B. & Tabrizian, Payam & Dorning, Monica A. & Smart, Lindsey & Newcomb, Doug & Mehaffey, Megan & Neale, Anne & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2018. "Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 326-335.
    9. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    2. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröter, , 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    4. Semmens, Darius J. & Sherrouse, Benson C. & Ancona, Zach H., 2019. "Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Gan, Qiaochun & Liao, Lingyun & Kang, Xin & Xu, Zhenduo & Fu, Tianqi & Cao, Yue & Feng, Yunshuang & Dong, Jianwen & Lan, Siren, 2024. "Cultural ecosystem services and disservices in protected areas: Hotspots and influencing factors based on tourists’ digital footprints," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    7. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    8. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    10. Klasen, Stephan & Meyer, Katrin M. & Dislich, Claudia & Euler, Michael & Faust, Heiko & Gatto, Marcel & Hettig, Elisabeth & Melati, Dian N. & Jaya, I. Nengah Surati & Otten, Fenna & Pérez-Cruzado, Cés, 2016. "Economic and ecological trade-offs of agricultural specialization at different spatial scales," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 111-120.
    11. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    12. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    13. Florian V Eppink & Matthew Winden & Will C C Wright & Suzie Greenhalgh, 2016. "Non-Market Values in a Cost-Benefit World: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    14. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    15. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    16. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    17. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    18. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    19. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    20. Suliman Yusif & Yukun Cao & Abdelazim Eissa & Elsamoal Elzaki & Ammar Khalil, 2024. "A Measurement of Perceptions of the Forest Ecosystem among Visitors to the AL-Sunut Forest Reserve in Khartoum, Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-23, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:2:p:323-:d:1045797. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.