IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14154-d1247061.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sociocultural Profile as a Predictor of Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Emilia Janeczko

    (Institute of Forest Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—WULS, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Jan Banaś

    (Department of Forest Resources Management, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. 29 Listopada 46, 31-425 Kraków, Poland)

  • Małgorzata Woźnicka

    (Institute of Forest Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—WULS, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Stanisław Zięba

    (Department of Forest Resources Management, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. 29 Listopada 46, 31-425 Kraków, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Utnik Banaś

    (Department of Management and Economics of Enterprises, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. Mickiewicza 21, 31-120 Kraków, Poland)

  • Krzysztof Janeczko

    (Institute of Forest Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—WULS, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Jitka Fialova

    (Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This paper assesses the priority of forest ecosystem services (FESs) and defines the sociodemographic profile of people who consider particular services to be an essential function of forests. The research material consists of the results of a questionnaire survey conducted on 1402 Polish respondents. Twelve different types of FESs were evaluated, to which respondents assigned relative priority (Ps) on a five-point Likert scale. The significance of differences in the importance of individual FESs was assessed using the Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA rank test, while a logistic regression model was used to profile respondents in terms of differences in perceptions of a particular FES. Regulating functions were considered the most important (Ps 0.87–0.94), followed by cultural functions (0.79–0.86), while provisioning functions (0.31–0.75) were deemed the least important. During the last decade, the trend in societal demand for FESs was upward. The greatest increase occurred for regulating functions and the lowest for provisioning (in the case of the supply of animal products, demand has actually decreased). Regulating functions are seen as very important by people with higher education, people who are satisfied with their financial status, and women; noise reduction is in particular valued by urban residents. Cultural functions are most valued by those satisfied with their financial status and people over 40. Provisioning functions are perceived as very important primarily by rural residents, often of low financial status, with the provision of animal products being more appreciated by men and the supply of mushrooms and berries by women. The greater appreciation of the importance of regulating and cultural functions (compared to provisioning ESs) suggests that local development planning should emphasize them much more strongly. In turn, identifying and estimating the demand for ecosystem services from the perspective of socioeconomic and demographic stakeholder profiles can provide valuable insight during planning for sustainable forest and ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Emilia Janeczko & Jan Banaś & Małgorzata Woźnicka & Stanisław Zięba & Katarzyna Utnik Banaś & Krzysztof Janeczko & Jitka Fialova, 2023. "Sociocultural Profile as a Predictor of Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14154-:d:1247061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14154/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14154/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kyung-Sook Bang & Sungjae Kim & Min Kyung Song & Kyung Im Kang & Yeaseul Jeong, 2018. "The Effects of a Health Promotion Program Using Urban Forests and Nursing Student Mentors on the Perceived and Psychological Health of Elementary School Children in Vulnerable Populations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Grilli, Gianluca & Jonkisz, Jaroslaw & Ciolli, Marco & Lesinski, Jerzy, 2016. "Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders' perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 11-17.
    3. Wei‐bin You & Dong‐jin He & Wei Hong & Cui Liu & Li‐yun Wu & Zhi‐rong Ji & Shi‐hong Xiao, 2014. "Local people's perceptions of participating in conservation in a heritage site: A case study of the Wuyishan Scenery District cultural and natural heritage site in Southeastern China," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(4), pages 296-307, November.
    4. Natalia Korcz & Jacek Koba & Agata Kobyłka & Emilia Janeczko & Joanna Gmitrowicz-Iwan, 2021. "Climate Change and Informal Education in the Opinion of Forest Users in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Emilia Janeczko & Roman Wójcik & Wojciech Kędziora & Krzysztof Janeczko & Małgorzata Woźnicka, 2019. "Organised Physical Activity in the Forests of the Warsaw and Tricity Agglomerations, Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Mensah, Sylvanus & Veldtman, Ruan & Assogbadjo, Achille Ephrem & Ham, Cori & Glèlè Kakaï, Romain & Seifert, Thomas, 2017. "Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: A study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Josep Pueyo-Ros, 2018. "The Role of Tourism in the Ecosystem Services Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, September.
    8. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    9. Johannes Persson & Kristina Blennow & Luísa Gonçalves & Alexander Borys & Ioan Dutcă & Jari Hynynen & Emilia Janeczko & Mariyana Lyubenova & Simon Martel & Jan Merganic & Katarína Merganičová & Mikko , 2020. "No polarization–Expected Values of Climate Change Impacts among European Forest Professionals and Scientists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-12, March.
    10. Zhang, Wei & Kato, Edward & Bhandary, Prapti & Nkonya, Ephraim & Ibrahim, Hassan Ishaq & Agbonlahor, Mure & Ibrahim, Hussaini Yusuf & Cox, Cindy, 2016. "Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 150-160.
    11. Mojca Nastran & Marina Pintar & Špela Železnikar & Rozalija Cvejić, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions on the Role of Urban Green Infrastructure in Providing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Ranacher, L. & Lähtinen, K. & Järvinen, E. & Toppinen, A., 2017. "Perceptions of the general public on forest sector responsibility: A survey related to ecosystem services and forest sector business impacts in four European countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 180-189.
    13. Wei‐bin You & Dong‐jin He & Wei Hong & Cui Liu & Li‐yun Wu & Zhi‐rong Ji & Shi‐hong Xiao, 2014. "Local people's perceptions of participating in conservation in a heritage site: A case study of the Wuyishan Scenery District cultural and natural heritage site in Southeastern China," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 0(4), pages 296-307, November.
    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. He, Siyuan & Gallagher, Louise & Su, Yang & Wang, Lei & Cheng, Hongguang, 2018. "Identification and assessment of ecosystem services for protected area planning: A case in rural communities of Wuyishan national park pilot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 169-180.
    2. Sunday Oladipo Oladeji & Oyeniran Grace & Akeju Ayobami Ayodeji, 2022. "Community Participation in Conservation and Management of Cultural Heritage Resources in Yoruba Ethnic Group of South Western Nigeria," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, October.
    3. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Spence, Danielle S. & Schuster-Wallace, Corinne J. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2023. "Disparities in economic values for nature-based activities in Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    5. Baraka P. Nyangoko & Håkan Berg & Mwita M. Mangora & Martin Gullström & Mwanahija S. Shalli, 2020. "Community Perceptions of Mangrove Ecosystem Services and Their Determinants in the Rufiji Delta, Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Rafał Blazy & Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber & Alicja Hrehorowicz-Nowak & Arkadiusz Płachta, 2021. "The Synergy of Ecosystems of Blue and Green Infrastructure and Its Services in the Metropolitan Area—Chances and Dangers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    7. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    8. Mengist, Wondimagegn & Soromessa, Teshome & Feyisa, Gudina Legese & Jenerette, G. Darrel, 2022. "Socio-environmental determinants of the perceived value of moist Afromontane forest ecosystem services in Kaffa Biosphere Reserve, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    9. Gyehee Lee & Xiao Lin & Yunseon Choe & Wenya Li, 2021. "In the Eyes of the Beholder: The Effect of the Perceived Authenticity of Sanfang Qixiang in Fuzhou, China, among Locals and Domestic Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    10. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    11. Hongjuan Zhang & Qian Pang & Huan Long & Haochen Zhu & Xin Gao & Xiuqing Li & Xiaohui Jiang & Kang Liu, 2019. "Local Residents’ Perceptions for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Fenghe River Watershed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    12. Christopher Mulwanda & Vincent R. Nyirenda & Ngawo Namukonde, 2024. "Traditional ecological knowledge, perceptions and practices on insect pollinator conservation: A case of the smallholder farmers in Murundu ward of Mufulira mining district of Zambia," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 24-35, March.
    13. Tingting Zhang & Dan He & Tian Kuang & Ke Chen, 2022. "Effect of Rural Human Settlement Environment around Nature Reserves on Farmers’ Well-Being: A Field Survey Based on 1002 Farmer Households around Six Nature Reserves in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    16. Ahammad, Ronju & Stacey, Natasha & Sunderland, Terry C.H., 2019. "Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 87-98.
    17. Córdoba, Diana & Juen, Leandro & Selfa, Theresa & Peredo, Ana Maria & Montag, Luciano Fogaça de Assis & Sombra, Daniel & Santos, Marcos Persio Dantas, 2019. "Understanding local perceptions of the impacts of large-scale oil palm plantations on ecosystem services in the Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Winkel, Georg & Lovrić, Marko & Muys, Bart & Katila, Pia & Lundhede, Thomas & Pecurul, Mireia & Pettenella, Davide & Pipart, Nathalie & Plieninger, Tobias & Prokofieva, Irina & Parra, Constanza & Pülz, 2022. "Governing Europe's forests for multiple ecosystem services: Opportunities, challenges, and policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Mara Ottoboni & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Massimo De Marchi & Fabrizio Ungaro, 2023. "Characterization and Mapping of Public and Private Green Areas in the Municipality of Forlì (NE Italy) Using High-Resolution Images," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Dan, Michelle E. & Olaka, Lydia A. & Mamo, Mamo Boru & Chalo, Duncan Mutiso & Cuni-Sanchez, Aida, 2021. "Desert landscape services: Insights from pastoralist communities in northern Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).

    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:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14154-:d:1247061. 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.