The Use of Simple Language in Informal Forest Education as a Key to the Correct Interpretation of Sustainable Forest Management—The Experience of Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Non-Formal Education in Poland
1.2. Educational Boards Used in Informal Education
1.3. Plain Language in Educational Boards
- the text of educational boards on educational trails is written in difficult language.
- the correct determination of the level of accessibility of the text appearing on the educational boards requires a higher education.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. Procedure
2.2.1. Analysis of the Accessibility of Text and Graphics on Educational Boards
- −
- 1–6: very simple text, understandable for elementary school students;
- −
- 7–12: simple text, understandable for middle/high school students;
- −
- 13–17: quite difficult text, understandable for first-degree students;
- −
- 18 and above: difficult text, understandable by post-graduate students, aged over 24 years [51].
2.2.2. An Analysis of the Accessibility of Text and on Educational Boards as Perceived by the Public
- group 1: very simple text, understandable by elementary school students (Board 1);
- group 2: simple text, understandable by middle/high school students (Boards 2–4);
- group 3: rather difficult text, understandable for first-degree students (Boards 5–7);
- group 4: difficult text, understandable for post-graduate students (Boards 8–10).
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. An Analysis of the Accessibility of Texts on the Educational Boards
3.2. Analysis of the Accessibility of the Texts by the Respondents and Comparison of the Results Using Promovolt
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
6. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Scarascia-Mugnozza, G.; Oswald, H.; Piussi, P.; Radoglou, K. Forests of the Mediterranean Region: Gaps in Knowledge and Research Needs. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 132, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikora, J.; Wartecka-Wazynska, A. Social Functions of Forests in Poland. Ekon. Sr. 2017, 61, 190–203. [Google Scholar]
- Gołos, P. Społeczne i Ekonomiczne Aspekty Pozaprodukcyjnych Funkcji Lasu i Gospodarki Leśnej—Wyniki Badań Opinii Społecznej; Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa: Sękocin Stary, Poland, 2018; ISBN 978-83-62830-68-8. [Google Scholar]
- Janeczko, E.; Fialová, J.; Tomusiak, R.; Woznicka, M.; Procházková, P. Bieganie Jako Forma Rekreacji w Lasach Polski i Republiki Czeskiej-Zalety i Wady. Sylwan 2019, 163, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shindler, B.; Neburka, J. Public Participation in Forest Planning. J. For. 1997, 95, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
- Referowska-Chodak, E. Management and Social Problems Linked to the Human Use of European Urban and Suburban Forests. Forests 2019, 10, 964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buchy, M.; Hoverman, S. Understanding Public Participation in Forest Planning: A Review. For. Policy Econ. 2000, 1, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atmiş, E.; Özden, S.; Lise, W. Public Participation in Forestry in Turkey. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaszczak, R. Partycypacja społeczna we współczesnycm leśnictwie. In Postępy Techniki w Leśnictwie; Wydawnictwo Świat: Warsaw, Poland, 2020; p. 148. ISSN 0562-1445. [Google Scholar]
- Bergstén, S.; Stjernström, O.; Pettersson, Ö. Experiences and Emotions among Private Forest Owners versus Public Interests: Why Ownership Matters. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 801–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogdanou, T.; Starr, C.B.; Weatherall, A.; Leslie, A.D. Use of the Internet and Social Media in the Forestry Profession in the United Kingdom. Int. For. Rev. 2013, 15, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, M. Forests and Conflict in Cambodia. Int. For. Rev. 2005, 7, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raitio, K. “You Can’t Please Everyone”: Conflict Management Practices, Frames and Institutions in Finnish State Forests; Joensuun Yliopisto: Joensuun, Finland, 2008; ISBN 978-95-9-098-7. [Google Scholar]
- Yasmi, Y. Understanding Conflict in the Co-Management of Forests: The Case of Bulungan Research Forest. Int. For. Rev. 2003, 5, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leskinen, L.A. Purposes and Challenges of Public Participation in Regional and Local Forestry in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 2004, 6, 605–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janse, G.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Communication between Science, Policy and Citizens in Public Participation in Urban Forestry—Experiences from the Neighbourwoods Project. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneiderhan-Opel, J.; Bogner, F.X. Cannot See the Forest for the Trees? Comparing Learning Outcomes of a Field Trip vs. a Classroom Approach. Forests 2021, 12, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Kreye, M.M. Public Attitudes towards Birds and Private Forest Land Conservation. Forests 2021, 12, 1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raport o Stanie Lasów w Polsce. 2020. Available online: https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/publikacje/informacje-statystyczne-i-raporty/raport-o-stanie-lasow/raport-o-lasach-2020.pdf/view (accessed on 17 January 2022).
- Raport z Działalności Edukacyjnej Lasów Państwowych. 2019. Available online: https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/publikacje/informacje-statystyczne-i-raporty/raporty-z-dzialalnosci-edukacyjnej-lasow-panstwowych/raport-z-dzialalnosci-edukacyjnej-lp-2019.pdf/view (accessed on 20 November 2021).
- Nowacka, W. Projektowanie leśnej przestrzeni turystycznej z punktu widzenia niepełnosprawnego użytkownika. Stud. Mater. Cent. Edukac. Przyr.-Leśnej 2011, 1, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
- Sitko, G. Dokumentacja Wzorcowej Ścieżki Przyrodniczej. Stowarzyszenie na Rzecz Rozwoju i Promocji Podkarpacia “Pro Carpathia”, Rzeszów. 2015. Available online: https://rejestr.io/krs/190961/stowarzyszenie-na-rzecz-rozwoju-i-promocji-podkarpacia-pro-carpathia/sprawozdania (accessed on 20 March 2022).
- Cieszewska, A. Metody oceny przyrodniczych ścieżek edukacyjnych. Stud. Mater. Cent. Edukac. Przyr.-Leśnej 2017, 3, 61–69. [Google Scholar]
- Snopek, A. Tablice Informacyjne w Lasach i Na Obszarach Chronionych Jako Narzędzie Edukacji–Wykorzystana Szansa? Stud. Mater. Cent. Edukac. Przyr.-Leśnej 2015, 45, 209–215. [Google Scholar]
- Moscardo, G.; Woods, B.; Saltzer, R. The role of interpretation in wildlife tourism. In Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management, and Planning; Higginbottom, K., Ed.; Common Ground Publishing: Altona, Australia, 2004; ISBN 978-1-86335-545-2. [Google Scholar]
- Knudson, D.M.; Cable, T.T.; Beck, L. Interpretation of Cultural and Natural Resources; Venture Publishing, Inc.: State College, PA, USA, 1995; ISBN -0-910251-70-3. [Google Scholar]
- Hvenegaard, G.T. Visitors’ Perceived Impacts of Interpretation on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions at Miquelon Lake Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2017, 17, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsang, N.K.; Yeung, S.; Cheung, C. A Critical Investigation of the Use and Effectiveness of Interpretive Services. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 16, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Falk, J. Visitors’ Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Testing Short-and Long-Term Impacts of Wildlife Tourism Experiences Using Structural Equation Modelling. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Walker, K.; Moscardo, G. Encouraging Sustainability beyond the Tourist Experience: Ecotourism, Interpretation and Values. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 1175–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendee, J.C.; Lucas, R.C.; Stankey, G.H. Wilderness Management; Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
- Boller, F.; Hunziker, M.; Conedera, M.; Elsasser, H.; Krebs, P. Fascinating Remoteness: The Dilemma of Hiking Tourism Development in Peripheral Mountain Areas. Mt. Res. Dev. 2010, 30, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seretny, A. Wskaźnik czytelności tekstu jako pomoc w określaniu stopnia jego trudności. Lingvaria 2006, 2, 87–98. [Google Scholar]
- Korcz, N.; Janeczko, E.; Bielinis, E.; Urban, D.; Koba, J.; Szabat, P.; Małecki, M. Influence of Informal Education in the Forest Stand Redevelopment Area on the Psychological Restoration of Working Adults. Forests 2021, 12, 993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korcz, N.; Janeczko, E. Forest Education with the Use of Educational Infrastructure in the Opinion of the Public-Experience from Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litwak, J.M. Label Length and Title Type as Determinants in Visitor Learning. 1996. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED401199 (accessed on 22 April 2022).
- Hughes, M.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Impact of trail-side interpretive signs on visitor knowledge. J. Ecotour. 2002, 1, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bitgood, S. The role of attention in designing effective interpretive labels. J. Interpret. Res. 2000, 5, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Švajda, J.; Činčera, J. Evaluation of the Attention Capture and Holding Power of Interpretive Signs among Visitors to a Self-Guided Trail in the High Tatras National Park (Slovakia). Envigogika 2017, 12, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, S.K.; Thompson, J.L. Investigating the impact of interpretive signs at neighborhood natural areas. J. Interpret. Res. 2011, 16, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janeczko, E.; Wojtan, R.; Korcz, N.; Woźnicka, M. Interpretative Signs as a Tool Supporting Informal Environmental Education on the Example of Warsaw’s Urban Forests. Forests 2021, 12, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pettersson, R. It Depends: ID–Principles and Guidelines; Institute for Infology: Tullinge, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Stephens, C. Plain Language in Plain English; Lulu.com: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010; ISBN 987-0-557-53787-7. [Google Scholar]
- Piekot, T.; Zarzeczny, G.; Polszczyzny, P.P. Prosta Polszczyzna. Przegląd Uniwersytecki UWr 2013, 19, 26–28. [Google Scholar]
- Piekot, T.; Maziarz, M. Styl “plain Language” i Przystępność Języka Publicznego Jako Nowy Kierunek w Polskiej Polityce Językowej. Języks Kult. 2014, 24, 307–324. [Google Scholar]
- Wittenberg, E.; Goldsmith, J.; Ferrell, B.; Platt, C.S. Enhancing Communication Related to Symptom Management through Plain Language. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2015, 50, 707–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bank Danych o Lasach. Available online: https://www.bdl.lasy.gov.pl/portal/ (accessed on 16 March 2022).
- Europejskie Typy Lasów—Europejska Agencja Środowiska. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2006_9 (accessed on 16 March 2022).
- Woźnicka, M. Inżynieryjne Zagospodarowanie Lasów Miejskich Warszawy—Uwarunkowania Ergonomiczne. Ph.D. Thesis, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Promovolt. Available online: https://www.promovolt.com/ (accessed on 16 March 2022).
- Korniichuk, R.; Simiński, R. Wspomaganie Prognozowania Wpływu Tekstów Reklamowych z Wykorzystaniem Systemu Promovolt. Stud. Inform. 2017, 38, 131. [Google Scholar]
- Pankowska, A.; Rostkowska, J. Linguistic Material Used in Auditory Rehabilitation in Patients with Postlingual Deafness. Nowa Audiofonol. 2015, 4, 75–80. [Google Scholar]
- Pouso, S.; Borja, Á.; Fleming, L.E.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; White, M.P.; Uyarra, M.C. Contact with Blue-Green Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown Beneficial for Mental Health. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabiej, M. Statystyka z Programem Statistica; Helion: Gliwice, Poland, 2012; ISBN 978-83-246-4110-9. [Google Scholar]
- Adler, M. The Plain Language Movement. Available online: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199572120-e-6 (accessed on 10 March 2022).
- Ballantyne, R.; Hughes, K. Measure Twice, Cut Once: Developing a Research-Based Interpretive Signs Checklist. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2003, 19, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, I.D.; Stricker, H.K.; Hagenloh, G. Interpretive Media That Attract Park Visitors and Enhance Their Experiences: A Comparison of Modern and Traditional Tools Using GPS Tracking and GIS Technology. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 7, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballantyne, R.R.; Uzzell, D.L. A Checklist for the Critical Evaluation of Informal Environmental Learning Experiences. Environ. Educ. Inf. 1994, 13, 111. [Google Scholar]
- Day, B.A.; Monroe, M.C. Environmental Education & Communication for a Sustainable World: Handbook for International Practitioners; Academy for Educational Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Preuss, A.; Zaniewska, D. Lasoterapia z Dziećmi; Wydawnictwo Dragon: Warsaw, Poland, 2022; ISBN 978-83-8172-3. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.O. Importance-performance analysis on design attributes of self-guided interpretive signs in the nature trail of Naejangsan national park. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 2006, 20, 159–169. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, M. The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods, Agrarian Change and the Conflicts of Development; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-0-415-70381-9. [Google Scholar]
- Munksgaard, A.; Blichfeldt, S.; Friis, L. Tablice informacyjne i foldery w edukacji przyrodniczej. In Podręcznik o Sposobach Komunikacji; Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo Leśnej: Rogów, Poland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Stableford, S.; Mettger, W. Plain language: A strategic response to the health literacy challenge. J. Public Health Policy 2007, 28, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watson-Brown, A. Defining Plain English as an Aid to Legal Drafting. Statute Law Rev. 2009, 30, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammitt, W.E.; Patterson, M.E. Use Patterns and Solitude Preferences of Shelter Campers in Great Smoky Mountains National, USA. J. Environ. Manag. 1993, 38, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janse, G.; Ottitsch, A. Factors influencing the role of non-wood forest products and services. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilden, F. Interpreting Our Heritage, 3rd ed.; University of North Carolina Press United States: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-8078-3180-9. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, T.W.; O’Connor, D.J.; Stocklmayer, S.M. Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Underst. Sci. 2003, 12, 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, G.; Durant, J. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Underst. Sci. 1995, 4, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirttimaa, R.; Takala, M.; Ladonlahti, T. Students in higher education with reading and writing difficulties. Educ. Inq. 2015, 6, 24277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Genlott, A.A.; Grönlund, Å. Improving literacy skills through learning reading by writing: The iWTR method presented and tested. Comput. Educ. 2013, 67, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cieśla, B. Współczesne Teksty Urzędowe a Zasady Prostej Polszczyzny (Na Wybranych Przykładach). Poznańskie Stud. Polonist. Ser. Językoznawcza 2021, 28, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piekot, T.; Zarzeczny, G.; Moroń, E. Prosta polszczyzna w praktyce. standaryzacja języka serwisu obywatel.gov.pl. In Przyszłość Polszczyzny–Polszczyzna Przyszłości; Kłosińska, K., Zimmy, R., Eds.; Narodowe Centrum Kultury: Warsaw, Poland, 2017; pp. 251–265. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, L.; Davis, L.S.; Carr, A. A picture is not always worth a thousand words: The visual quality of photographs affects the effectiveness of interpretive signage for science communication. Public Underst. Sci. 2021, 30, 258–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ham, S.H.; Weiler, B. Development of a Research-Based Tool for Evaluating Interpretation; CRC for Sustainable Tourism: Gold Coast, Australia, 2006; ISBN 1-920965-00-9. [Google Scholar]
Number | Forest Districts | Route Name | Length of the Educational Route | Number of Boards | The Predominant Theme of the Boards | Predominant Function * | Forest Habitats ** |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chotyłów | Educational route Leśna Kłoda | 2 km | 8 | 25% forest management | commercial forest | fresh mixed broadleaved forest |
25% animals in the forests | |||||||
25% plants in forests | |||||||
25% environmental protection | |||||||
2 | Mircze | Educational route Witków | 1.5 km | 17 | 58.82% forest management | commercial forest | fresh broadleaved forest |
3 | Sarnaki | Educational route Mierzwice | 3 km | 30 | 23.33% forest management | commercial forest | fresh mixed coniferous forests |
23.33% plants in forests | |||||||
4 | Świdnik | Educational route Rejkowizna | 3.5 km | 11 | 63% forest management | commercial forest | fresh broadleaved forest |
5 | Janów Lubelski | Educational route Porytowe Wzgórze | 4.7 km | 10 | 30% animals in the forests | protection forest | fresh mixed broadleaved forest |
6 | Kraśnik | Educational route Kleniewo | 2.8 km | 13 | 30.77% forest management | commercial forest | fresh mixed coniferous forests |
30.77% plants in forests | |||||||
Total | 17.5 km | 89 | - | - | - |
Distribution of Respondents—Demographics | n | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 316 | 58.52 |
Male | 224 | 41.48 | |
Age | 18–26 | 162 | 30.00 |
27–35 | 148 | 27.41 | |
36–44 | 140 | 25.93 | |
45–53 | 54 | 10.00 | |
>54 years old | 36 | 6.67 | |
Educational level | Primary education | 40 | 7.41 |
High school | 238 | 44.07 | |
University | 262 | 48.52 | |
Place of residence | village | 154 | 28.52 |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 132 | 24.44 | |
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 130 | 24.07 | |
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 124 | 22.96 |
Variable * | µ ± SD | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Very Simple, Understandable for Elementary School Students | Simple, Understandable for Middle/High School Students | Fairly Difficult Text, but Understandable to First Degree Students | Difficult Text, Understandable for Post-Graduate Students | |
1 Board | 38 Boards | 38 Boards | 12 Boards | |
Number of sentences | 8.00 | 11.08 ± 4.97 | 8.26 ± 4,56 | 4.50 ± 2.15 |
Number of words | 120.00 | 136.71 ± 63.81 | 157.84 ± 88.09 | 121.83 ± 51.15 |
Number of multisyllabic words | 12.00 | 19.39 ± 9.24 | 26.97 ± 16.48 | 26.25 ± 16.15 |
Number of multi-label words | 16.00 | 31.84 ± 15.50 | 39.16 ± 20.22 | 40.83 ± 19.38 |
Number of syllables | 130.00 | 308.79 ± 136.36 | 348.92 ± 194.67 | 307.42 ± 126.50 |
Variable | Fog Index | Number of Sentences | Number of Words | Number of Multisyllabic Words | Number of Multi-Label Words | Number of Syllables |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fog Index | 1.00 | |||||
Number of sentences | −0.43 *** | 1.00 | ||||
Number of words | 0.01 | 0.74 *** | 1.00 | |||
Number of multisyllabic words | 0.29 ** | 0.54 *** | 0.82 *** | 1.00 | ||
Number of multi-label words | 0.23 * | 0.58 *** | 0.88 *** | 0.87 *** | 1.00 | |
Number of syllables | 0.09 | 0.72 *** | 0.96 *** | 0.80 *** | 0.89 *** | 1.00 |
Variable | Very Simple, Understandable for Elementary School Students | Simple, Understandable for Middle/High School Students | Fairly Difficult Text, but Understandable to First Degree Students | Difficult Text, Understandable for Post-Graduate Students |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 Board | 38 Boards | 38 Boards | 12 Boards | |
[%] | ||||
Use of forestry terminology | 100.00 | 57.89 | 68.42 | 66.67 |
Use of the Latin language | 100.00 | 28.95 | 13.16 | 0.00 |
Use of numerical data | 100.00 | 39.47 | 34.21 | 16.67 |
Group | Board | Gender | I Think the Text Is: | Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Simple, Understandable for Elementary School Students | Simple, Understandable for Middle/High School Students | Fairly Difficult Text, but Understandable to First Degree Students | Difficult Text, Understandable for Post-Graduate Students | Chi^2 Pearson | p * | |||
1 | 1 | Female | 44.94 | 36.71 | 14.56 | 3.80 | 1.915 | 0.590 |
Male | 42.86 | 37.50 | 13.39 | 6.25 | ||||
2 | 2 | Female | 40.51 | 44.30 | 10.76 | 4.43 | 7.172 | 0.067 |
Male | 47.32 | 33.04 | 14.29 | 5.36 | ||||
3 | Female | 29.11 | 39.87 | 22.15 | 8.86 | 1.235 | 0.744 | |
Male | 33.04 | 38.39 | 21.43 | 7.14 | ||||
4 | Female | 31.01 | 39.24 | 20.89 | 8.86 | 2.137 | 0.545 | |
Male | 27.68 | 45.54 | 18.75 | 8.04 | ||||
3 | 5 | Female | 66.46 | 24.05 | 5.06 | 4.43 | 5.606 | 0.132 |
Male | 66.96 | 19.64 | 9.82 | 3.57 | ||||
6 | Female | 39.87 | 39.87 | 13.92 | 6.33 | 1.073 | 0.784 | |
Male | 41.96 | 36.61 | 13.39 | 8.04 | ||||
7 | Female | 36.08 | 24.68 | 29.11 | 10.13 | 6.083 | 0.108 | |
Male | 31.25 | 33.93 | 24.11 | 10.71 | ||||
4 | 8 | Female | 31.01 | 34.81 | 21.52 | 12.66 | 0.261 | 0.967 |
Male | 33.04 | 33.93 | 20.54 | 12.50 | ||||
9 | Female | 18.35 | 27.85 | 25.95 | 27.85 | 12.714 | 0.005 * | |
Male | 23.21 | 37.50 | 22.32 | 16.96 | ||||
10 | Female | 14.56 | 25.95 | 30.38 | 29.11 | 15.418 | 0.001 * | |
Male | 25.00 | 31.25 | 20.54 | 23.21 |
Group | Board | Educational Level | I Think the Text Is: | Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Simple, Understandable for Elementary School Students | Simple, Understandable for Middle/High School Students | Fairly Difficult Text, but Understandable to First Degree Students | Difficult Text, Understandable for Post-Graduate Students | Chi^2 Pearson | p * | |||
1 | 1 | Primary education | 35.00 | 35.00 | 20.00 | 10.00 | 21.982 | 0.001 * |
High school | 47.06 | 38.66 | 7.56 | 6.72 | ||||
University | 42.75 | 35.88 | 19.08 | 2.29 | ||||
2 | 2 | Primary education | 30.00 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 10.00 | 10.797 | 0.095 |
High school | 43.70 | 41.18 | 9.24 | 5.88 | ||||
University | 45.04 | 28.17 | 13.74 | 3.05 | ||||
3 | Primary education | 25.00 | 35.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 10.881 | 0.092 | |
High school | 31.09 | 37.82 | 21.85 | 9.24 | ||||
University | 31.30 | 41.22 | 22.14 | 5.34 | ||||
4 | Primary education | 25.00 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 15.00 | 5.533 | 0.477 | |
High school | 31.93 | 42.86 | 16.81 | 8.40 | ||||
University | 28.24 | 41.22 | 22.90 | 7.63 | ||||
3 | 5 | Primary education | 50.00 | 30.00 | 5.00 | 15.00 | 18.863 | 0.004 * |
High school | 66.39 | 21.01 | 9.24 | 3.36 | ||||
University | 69.47 | 22.14 | 5.34 | 3.05 | ||||
6 | Primary education | 30.00 | 55.00 | 0.00 | 15.00 | 17.415 | 0.008 * | |
High school | 44.54 | 34.45 | 13.45 | 7.56 | ||||
University | 38.93 | 39.69 | 16.03 | 5.34 | ||||
7 | Primary education | 25.00 | 20.00 | 30.00 | 25.00 | 28.352 | 0.000 * | |
High school | 36.97 | 32.77 | 18.49 | 11.76 | ||||
University | 32.82 | 25.95 | 34.35 | 6.87 | ||||
4 | 8 | Primary education | 5.00 | 50.00 | 20.00 | 25.00 | 25.808 | 0.000 * |
High school | 36.13 | 36.13 | 15.97 | 11.76 | ||||
University | 32.06 | 30.53 | 25.95 | 11.45 | ||||
9 | Primary education | 15.00 | 25.00 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 41.483 | 0.000 * | |
High school | 28.57 | 37.82 | 18.49 | 15.13 | ||||
University | 13.74 | 27.48 | 27.48 | 31.30 | ||||
10 | Primary education | 5.00 | 25.00 | 50.00 | 20.00 | 45.426 | 0.000 * | |
High school | 24.37 | 36.13 | 21.85 | 17.65 | ||||
University | 16.03 | 21.37 | 26.72 | 35.88 |
Group | Board | Age | I Think the Text Is: | Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Simple, Understandable for Elementary School Students | Simple, Understandable for Middle/High School Students | Fairly Difficult Text, but Understandable to First Degree Students | Difficult Text, Understandable for Post-Graduate Students | Chi^2 Pearson | p * | |||
1 | 1 | 18–26 | 44.44 | 41.98 | 8.64 | 4.94 | 71.160 | 0.000 * |
27–35 | 48.65 | 35.14 | 16.22 | 0.00 | ||||
36–44 | 55.71 | 28.57 | 11.43 | 4.29 | ||||
45–53 | 25.93 | 33.33 | 22.22 | 18.52 | ||||
>54 years-old | 5.56 | 61.11 | 27.78 | 5.56 | ||||
2 | 2 | 18–26 | 39.51 | 43.21 | 12.35 | 4.94 | 75.134 | 0.000 * |
27–35 | 45.95 | 44.59 | 8.11 | 1.35 | ||||
36–44 | 58.57 | 27.14 | 12.86 | 1.43 | ||||
45–53 | 25.93 | 33.33 | 18.52 | 22.22 | ||||
>54 years-old | 16.67 | 61.11 | 16.67 | 5.56 | ||||
3 | 18–26 | 27.16 | 37.04 | 25.93 | 9.88 | 43.413 | 0.000 * | |
27–35 | 32.43 | 48.65 | 14.86 | 4.05 | ||||
36–44 | 42.86 | 30.00 | 21.43 | 5.71 | ||||
45–53 | 22.22 | 33.33 | 25.93 | 18.52 | ||||
>54 years-old | 5.56 | 55.56 | 27.78 | 11.11 | ||||
4 | 18–26 | 27.16 | 41.98 | 20.99 | 9.88 | 37.473 | 0.000 * | |
27–35 | 32.43 | 45.95 | 18.92 | 2.70 | ||||
36–44 | 38.57 | 37.14 | 17.14 | 7.14 | ||||
45–53 | 22.22 | 37.04 | 18.52 | 22.22 | ||||
>54 years-old | 5.56 | 50.00 | 33.33 | 11.11 | ||||
3 | 5 | 18–26 | 62.96 | 25.93 | 7.41 | 3.70 | 40.149 | 0.000 * |
27–35 | 66.22 | 27.03 | 6.76 | 0.00 | ||||
36–44 | 77.14 | 12.86 | 4.29 | 5.71 | ||||
45–53 | 55.56 | 18.52 | 11.11 | 14.81 | ||||
>54 years-old | 61.11 | 27.78 | 11.11 | 0.00 | ||||
6 | 18–26 | 41.98 | 40.74 | 12.35 | 4.94 | 56.628 | 0.000 * | |
27–35 | 40.54 | 44.59 | 14.86 | 0.00 | ||||
36–44 | 48.57 | 28.57 | 14.29 | 8.57 | ||||
45–53 | 29.63 | 29.63 | 14.81 | 25.93 | ||||
>54 years-old | 22.22 | 55.56 | 11.11 | 11.11 | ||||
7 | 18–26 | 32.10 | 30.86 | 23.46 | 13.58 | 48.941 | 0.000 * | |
27–35 | 31.08 | 40.54 | 25.68 | 2.70 | ||||
36–44 | 44.29 | 18.57 | 28.57 | 8.57 | ||||
45–53 | 29.63 | 14.81 | 29.63 | 25.93 | ||||
>54 years-old | 22.22 | 27.78 | 38.89 | 11.11 | ||||
4 | 8 | 18–26 | 35.80 | 37.04 | 14.81 | 12.35 | 48.830 | 0.000 * |
27–35 | 29.73 | 41.89 | 20.27 | 8.11 | ||||
36–44 | 40.00 | 22.86 | 24.29 | 12.86 | ||||
45–53 | 25.93 | 29.63 | 18.52 | 25.93 | ||||
>54 years-old | 0.00 | 44.44 | 44.44 | 11.11 | ||||
9 | 18–26 | 23.46 | 38.27 | 24.69 | 13.58 | 53.970 | 0.000 * | |
27–35 | 14.86 | 40.54 | 22.97 | 21.62 | ||||
36–44 | 24.29 | 22.86 | 17.14 | 35.71 | ||||
45–53 | 25.93 | 14.81 | 29.63 | 29.63 | ||||
>54 years-old | 5.56 | 27.78 | 50.00 | 16.67 | ||||
10 | 18–26 | 18.52 | 39.51 | 24.69 | 17.28 | 81.865 | 0.000 * | |
27–35 | 17.57 | 33.78 | 24.32 | 24.32 | ||||
36–44 | 25.71 | 15.71 | 22.86 | 35.71 | ||||
45–53 | 18.52 | 22.22 | 14.81 | 44.44 | ||||
>54 years-old | 0.00 | 11.11 | 72.22 | 16.67 |
Group | Board | Place of Residence | I Think the Text Is: | Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Simple, Understandable for Elementary School Students | Simple, Understandable for Middle/High School Students | Fairly Difficult Text but Understandable to First-Degree Students | Difficult Text, Understandable for Post-Graduate Students | Chi^2 Pearson | p * | |||
1 | 1 | village | 46.75 | 37.66 | 11.69 | 3.90 | 24.703 | 0.003 * |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 53.03 | 33.33 | 9.09 | 4.55 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 41.54 | 35.38 | 13.85 | 9.23 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 33.87 | 41.94 | 22.58 | 1.61 | ||||
2 | 2 | village | 41.56 | 44.16 | 9.09 | 5.19 | 129.50 | 0.021 * |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 56.06 | 30.30 | 10.61 | 3.03 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 33.85 | 41.54 | 16.92 | 7.69 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 41.94 | 41.94 | 12.90 | 3.23 | ||||
3 | village | 31.17 | 42.86 | 18.18 | 7.79 | 24.604 | 0.003 * | |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 43.94 | 31.82 | 16.67 | 7.58 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 21.54 | 40.00 | 26.15 | 12.31 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 25.81 | 41.94 | 27.42 | 4.84 | ||||
4 | village | 33.77 | 41.56 | 14.29 | 10.39 | 35.189 | 0.000 * | |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 42.42 | 36.36 | 16.67 | 4.55 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 18.46 | 46.15 | 21.54 | 13.85 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 22.58 | 43.55 | 29.03 | 4.84 | ||||
3 | 5 | village | 62.34 | 31.17 | 2.60 | 3.90 | 24.413 | 0.004 * |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 72.73 | 16.67 | 9.09 | 1.52 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 61.54 | 20.00 | 10.77 | 7.69 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 70.97 | 19.35 | 6.45 | 3.23 | ||||
6 | village | 44.16 | 40.26 | 11.69 | 3.90 | 24.540 | 0.004 * | |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 46.97 | 36.36 | 9.09 | 7.58 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 35.38 | 30.77 | 21.54 | 12.31 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 35.48 | 46.77 | 12.90 | 4.84 | ||||
7 | village | 35.06 | 32.47 | 24.68 | 7.79 | 31.763 | 0.000 * | |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 46.97 | 24.24 | 19.70 | 9.09 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 18.46 | 32.31 | 32.31 | 16.92 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 35.48 | 24.19 | 32.48 | 8.06 | ||||
8 | village | 42.86 | 29.87 | 15.58 | 11.69 | 27.883 | 0.001 * | |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 34.85 | 34.85 | 19.70 | 10.61 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 18.46 | 36.92 | 24.62 | 20.00 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 29.03 | 37.10 | 25.81 | 8.06 | ||||
9 | village | 35.06 | 29.87 | 16.88 | 18.18 | 44.204 | 0.000 * | |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 21.21 | 27.27 | 24.24 | 27.27 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 9.23 | 33.85 | 26.15 | 30.77 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 12.90 | 37.10 | 32.26 | 17.74 | ||||
10 | village | 31.17 | 28.57 | 20.78 | 19.48 | 35.141 | 0.000 * | |
city up to 25 thousand inhabitants | 18.18 | 31.82 | 21.21 | 28.79 | ||||
city of 25–100 thousand inhabitants | 10.77 | 24.62 | 29.23 | 35.38 | ||||
city of over 100,000 inhabitants | 12.90 | 27.42 | 35.48 | 24.19 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Korcz, N.; Janeczko, E.; Kobyłka, A. The Use of Simple Language in Informal Forest Education as a Key to the Correct Interpretation of Sustainable Forest Management—The Experience of Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095493
Korcz N, Janeczko E, Kobyłka A. The Use of Simple Language in Informal Forest Education as a Key to the Correct Interpretation of Sustainable Forest Management—The Experience of Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):5493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095493
Chicago/Turabian StyleKorcz, Natalia, Emilia Janeczko, and Agata Kobyłka. 2022. "The Use of Simple Language in Informal Forest Education as a Key to the Correct Interpretation of Sustainable Forest Management—The Experience of Poland" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 5493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095493