IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i1p211-d194753.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of Urban Trees by Polish Tree Professionals vs. Nonprofessionals

Author

Listed:
  • Marzena Suchocka

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Horticulture, Biotechnology and Landscape Architecture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW, Ul. Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Paweł Jankowski

    (Department of Econometrics and Statistics, Faculty of Applied Informatics and Mathematics, Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW, Ul. Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Magdalena Błaszczyk

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Horticulture, Biotechnology and Landscape Architecture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW, Ul. Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

Sustainable urban forests require tree acceptance and support. Two groups of respondents, professionals (working in urban green areas) and individuals (with no professional connection with trees) revealed their attitudes towards trees by assessing statements in a survey questionnaire. Similar general attitude from professionals and nonprofessionals towards the examined benefits and harms related to urban trees was observed. Tree benefits were perceived as much more important than the annoyance they might cause. However, 6% of nonprofessionals found only negative aspects in trees, proving to be arboriphobes. No arboriphobes and no “Tree sceptics” were among the professionals. Around 40% of the respondents in the two groups found the number of trees in the surrounding areas too low. The nuisance caused by trees was seen as more disturbing by younger and lower-educated professionals. Women tended to assess trees as more attractive and as having a stronger influence on socioeconomic contributions than men. Men dominated the “Tree indifferent” group. The attractiveness of trees and their impact on socioeconomic contributions were related to the place of residence and the level of education among the nonprofessionals. The level of education of the nonprofessionals was also connected to being clustered into one of the four abovementioned groups of respondents. A majority of medium and big city dwellers as well as a minority of villagers were in the “Tree liking” cluster.

Suggested Citation

  • Marzena Suchocka & Paweł Jankowski & Magdalena Błaszczyk, 2019. "Perception of Urban Trees by Polish Tree Professionals vs. Nonprofessionals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:1:p:211-:d:194753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/211/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/211/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shanahan, D.F. & Lin, B.B. & Bush, R. & Gaston, K.J. & Dean, J.H. & Barber, E. & Fuller, R.A., 2015. "Toward improved public health outcomes from urban nature," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(3), pages 470-477.
    2. Vesely, Eva-Terezia, 2007. "Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 605-615, August.
    3. Raymond, Christopher M. & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja & Berry, Pam & Breil, Margaretha & Nita, Mihai Razvan & Geneletti, Davide & Calfapietra, Carlo, 2017. "A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 15-24.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Marzena Suchocka & Magdalena Błaszczyk & Adam Juźwiak & Joanna Duriasz & Adam Bohdan & Jerzy Stolarczyk, 2019. "Transit versus Nature. Depreciation of Environmental Values of the Road Alleys. Case Study: Gamerki-Jonkowo, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Marija Opačak & Erda Wang, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for a Future Recreational Park Atop the Current Jakuševec Landfill in Zagreb, Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Magdalena Wojnowska-Heciak & Marzena Suchocka & Magdalena Błaszczyk & Magdalena Muszyńska, 2022. "Urban Parks as Perceived by City Residents with Mobility Difficulties: A Qualitative Study with In-Depth Interviews," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Andrea Parra-Saldívar & Sebastián Abades & Juan L. Celis-Diez & Stefan Gelcich, 2020. "Exploring Perceived Well-Being from Urban Parks: Insights from a Megacity in Latin America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-14, September.
    7. Karolina Kais & Marlena Gołaś & Marzena Suchocka, 2021. "Awareness of Air Pollution and Ecosystem Services Provided by Trees: The Case Study of Warsaw City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Anna Źróbek-Sokolnik & Piotr Dynowski & Sabina Źróbek, 2021. "Preservation and Restoration of Roadside Tree Alleys in Line with Sustainable Development Principles—Mission (Im)possible?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Keith O’Herrin & Richard Hauer & Kaitlyn Pike & Jess Vogt, 2022. "Homebuilder Activities and Knowledge of Tree Preservation during Construction: Comparison of Practitioners in Rural and Urban Locations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Andrzej Długoński & Diana Dushkova, 2021. "The Hidden Potential of Informal Urban Greenspace: An Example of Two Former Landfills in Post-Socialist Cities (Central Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Maczka, Krzysztof & Matczak, Piotr & Mielewczyk, Marcin & Przewoźna, Patrycja & Inglot, Adam & Wężyk, Piotr & Zięba-Kulawik, Karolina & Hawryło, Paweł, 2023. "Narratives on cutting down trees on private land. A comparison of urban and rural municipalities in Poland using the Q-deliberation method," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. Shulin Lai & Yuquan Zhou & Yuan Yuan, 2021. "Associations between Community Cohesion and Subjective Wellbeing of the Elderly in Guangzhou, China—A Cross-Sectional Study Based on the Structural Equation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-23, January.

    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. Marcelo Enrique Conti & Massimo Battaglia & Mario Calabrese & Cristina Simone, 2021. "Fostering Sustainable Cities through Resilience Thinking: The Role of Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs): Lessons Learned from Two Italian Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Agathe Colléony & Assaf Shwartz, 2019. "Beyond Assuming Co-Benefits in Nature-Based Solutions: A Human-Centered Approach to Optimize Social and Ecological Outcomes for Advancing Sustainable Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Charlie M. Shackleton & Patrick T. Hurley & Annika C. Dahlberg & Marla R. Emery & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. 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).
    5. Floris C. Boogaard & Guri Venvik & Rui L. Pedroso de Lima & Ana C. Cassanti & Allard H. Roest & Antal Zuurman, 2020. "ClimateCafé: An Interdisciplinary Educational Tool for Sustainable Climate Adaptation and Lessons Learned," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Nancy Andrea Ramírez-Agudelo & Roger Porcar Anento & Miriam Villares & Elisabet Roca, 2020. "Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in Peri-Urban Areas: Barriers and Lessons Learned from Implementation Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-36, November.
    7. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    8. Theresa Kotulla & Jon Martin Denstadli & Are Oust & Elisabeth Beusker, 2019. "What Does It Take to Make the Compact City Liveable for Wider Groups? Identifying Key Neighbourhood and Dwelling Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Silverio HERNANDEZ-MORENO, 2019. "International Experiences On The Implementation Of Public Policies For Urban Planning To Face Climate Change," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(2), pages 72-88, May.
    10. Steve Harris & Jan Weinzettel & Gregor Levin, 2020. "Implications of Low Carbon City Sustainability Strategies for 2050," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-23, July.
    11. Camila I. Donatti & Celia A. Harvey & David Hole & Steven N. Panfil & Hanna Schurman, 2020. "Indicators to measure the climate change adaptation outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 413-433, February.
    12. Jake M. Robinson & Martin F. Breed, 2019. "Green Prescriptions and Their Co-Benefits: Integrative Strategies for Public and Environmental Health," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    13. Simon Stork & Rolf Morgenstern & Bernd Pölling & Jan-Henning Feil, 2023. "Holistic Business Model Conceptualisation—Capturing Sustainability Contributions Illustrated by Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Huihui Liu & Pim Martens, 2023. "Stakeholder Participation for Nature-Based Solutions: Inspiration for Rural Area’s Sustainability in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-17, November.
    15. Peiheng Yu & Yan Zhang & Mingqing Han & Esther H. K. Yung & Edwin H. W. Chan & Yiyun Chen, 2024. "Spatial Heterogeneity Impacts of Urbanisation on Open Space Fragmentation in Hong Kong’s Built-Up Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    16. Peter J. Irga & Fraser R. Torpy & Daniel Griffin & Sara J. Wilkinson, 2023. "Vertical Greening Systems: A Perspective on Existing Technologies and New Design Recommendation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Elena Di Pirro & Rúben Mendes & Teresa Fidélis & Lorenzo Sallustio & Peter Roebeling & Marco Marchetti & Bruno Lasserre, 2022. "The Embeddedness of Nature-Based Solutions in the Recovery and Resilience Plans as Multifunctional Approaches to Foster the Climate Transition: The Cases of Italy and Portugal," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Mihai-Razvan Niță & Ana-Maria Anghel & Cristina Bănescu & Ana-Maria Munteanu & Sabina-Stella Pesamosca & Mihuț Zețu & Ana-Maria Popa, 2018. "Are Romanian urban strategies planning for green?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 158-173, January.
    19. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming, 2014. "Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(6), pages 1290-1321, May.
    20. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:1:p:211-:d:194753. 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.