Next Article in Journal
Dry Sanitation Technologies: Developing a Simplified Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool
Previous Article in Journal
Proposal and Comprehensive Analysis of a Novel Combined Plant with Gas Turbine and Organic Flash Cycles: An Application of Multi-Objective Optimization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914154
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Emilia Janeczko
1,
Jan Banaś
2,
Małgorzata Woźnicka
1,
Stanisław Zięba
2,
Katarzyna Utnik Banaś
3,
Krzysztof Janeczko
1 and
Jitka Fialova
4,*
1
Institute of Forest Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—WULS, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Forest Resources Management, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. 29 Listopada 46, 31-425 Kraków, Poland
3
Department of Management and Economics of Enterprises, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. Mickiewicza 21, 31-120 Kraków, Poland
4
Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14154; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914154
Submission received: 24 August 2023 / Revised: 18 September 2023 / Accepted: 22 September 2023 / Published: 25 September 2023
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

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.

1. Introduction

Forests provide numerous ecosystem services (ESs) to society. According to the ES concept presented in [1], the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, both material and intangible, result from the provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services that ecosystems provide. Since the last decade of the 20th century, the ES concept has become vital in the debate on sustainable development and quality of life [2,3]. The concept of ecosystem services is an increasingly important tool in environmental decision making [4]. According to Marchetti et al. [5], creating the right conditions for the development of European society requires an understanding of forest ecosystem functions and how to integrate the various dimensions of sustainability (i.e., economic, environmental, social, and cultural) into decision-making processes while paying greater attention to the public’s views on forest ecosystems [5]. There is a growing pressure to incorporate public preferences into ecosystem service assessments. It is necessary to understand how the public uses different ecosystems and thus how people value and perceive ecosystem services [6,7]. Such studies have been conducted among forest owners and managers [8] and also among the general public [9] and local communities [10]. According to Ranacher et al. [9], while business organizations and public policy makers widely address concepts and issues associated with forest ecosystem services (FES), there is still a lack of comprehensive information on how members of the general public perceive different types of FESs or what their views are on the responsibility of the forest sector towards FESs.
According to Orenstein and Groner [11], it is impossible to assess the benefits of ESs without understanding who the beneficiaries are and how they respond to the provision of ecosystem services. The importance of ESs depends not only on the biophysical and economic aspects of the environment but also on the assessment of the preferences of different sociocultural groups. It is therefore crucial to understand the perception of FESs by local people, who are the main stakeholders, de facto managers, and victims of the degradation of ecosystem services. Analyses of the sociocultural dimension of ecosystem services should play a special role in this respect by determining which ecosystem services are highly valued and preferred [12]. At the same time, it should be remembered that the results of research on social preferences and views on ecosystem services vary significantly depending on the region [13]. However, noneconomic, social approaches to ES assessment could significantly enhance the overall value of assessments, complementing traditional economic and ecological approaches. Differences in the perceptions of ecosystem services by different end-users may set the stage for conflicts related to natural resource management. The FES perspective offers a promising avenue for diagnosing and reconciling contrasting interests in the use of ecosystem benefits [14]. In order to harmonize the interconnectedness between people and nature and establish sustainable landscape management, it is important to understand the different perceptions of local residents under different socioeconomic conditions. He et al. [15] believe that it is important to incorporate local people’s ES awareness and perceptions into ES evaluation for the planning of protected areas. In addition, the ES framework is a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between nature and society [16].
The objectives of this article are as follows: (1) to assess the importance of the various forest ecosystem services; (2) to determine how perceptions of these services have changed over the past decade; (3) to explain whether and how sociodemographic characteristics of beneficiaries influence perceptions of forest ecosystem services. The results of this research can be a reference point in designing effective information and educational campaigns about FESs and can also help integrate FESs with local policies and formulate assumptions for the future forest policy in Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Questionnaire

The research material consists of the results of a questionnaire survey carried out in Poland in 2020. Due to the ongoing pandemic, we decided to conduct an online survey. A link to the survey, created on the Webankieta platform, was made available on social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other websites.
The survey questionnaire included questions about gender (female, male), age (18–30 years, 31–40 years, 41–50 years, and above 50 years), level of education (primary, secondary, higher), place of residence (rural area, small town with up to 15,000 inhabitants, medium town with 15,000–100,000 inhabitants, large town with more than 100,000 inhabitants), and satisfaction with their standard of living. It also included nineteen other questions relating to various issues related to the ecosystem functions of the forest. Most of them were questions with a Likert scale of five degrees of appreciation (very important, important, moderately important, not very important, irrelevant) through which we could obtain knowledge about the degree of acceptance of the analyzed phenomena, views, processes, features of the forest, etc.
This article draws on respondents’ views on the following issues:
What is the importance to you of the following forest ecosystem services: (1) provisioning of timber; (2) provisioning of animal products, i.e., meat, hides, etc.; (3) water protection; (4) soil protection; (5) flood protection; (6) provisioning of mushrooms, berries, forest herbs, etc.; (7) oxygen production and carbon dioxide sequestration; (8) provisioning of recreation and leisure; (9) air quality regulation; (10) noise reduction; (11) biodiversity protection; and (12) cultural heritage protection.
Respondents were asked to assign to each type of benefit one of five selectable responses ordered on a Likert scale The survey results are presented in Appendix A. Respondents were also asked how they thought perceptions of individual forest ecosystem services had changed over the past decade.

2.2. Participants

A total of 1402 respondents took part in the survey, including 655 women (46.72%) and 747 men (53.28%). Respondents aged 31–40 years (31.1%) comprised the most numerous group. Respondents aged 18–30 accounted for 27.82% of respondents, followed by those aged 41–50 (23.97%) and those above 51 years (17.12%). Rural residents comprised the most numerous group (42.44%). The survey included 807 urban residents (57.56%), of whom 18.54% of respondents were from small cities (up to 15,000 residents), 23.18% from medium-sized cities (15–100,000 residents), and 15.83% from large cities (over 100,000 residents). The vast majority of respondents had a higher education (64.55%). Secondary education was held by 32.03% of respondents and primary education by only 3.42%. The majority of respondents (63.86%) found their material standard of living satisfactory, 21.81% found it not very satisfactory, 9.69% found it fully satisfactory, and 4.63% found it unsatisfactory.

2.3. Prioritizing Ecosystem Services

In order to evaluate the prioritization of individual ESs, we used the Likert values and calculated the cumulative frequency of the very important and important assessments. The priority of individual services was determined according to the following formula:
P s = ∑ i = 1 n L s / N
where Ps is the priority of ecosystem services s; Ls is the assessment by respondent i to function (Ls = 1 for respondents’ assessment as important or very important; Ls = 0 for assessment as irrelevant, not very important, or moderately important); N is the total number of respondents. Priority index Ps takes values from 0 to 1; the higher the Ps value, the higher the priority of the function being evaluated.
The significance of differences between the importance of individual ecosystem services was, firstly, tested using analysis of variance. It was determined that the conditions necessary for the use of ANOVA were not met. Levene’s test showed that the condition of homogeneity of variance in the analyzed groups was not satisfied. In the next step, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA rank test was used.

2.4. Assumption of a Logistic Regression Model

A logistic regression (LR) model, in which the variables take dichotomous (qualitative) values, was used to profile respondents in terms of differences in perceptions of particular ecosystem services. LR determines the probability that the dependent variable (here, the full acceptance of the ES) takes the value 1, provided that the explanatory variables (x1, x2, …, xi) adopt certain values [17]. A logistic model with one explanatory variable is given by the following formula:
P x = e x p ⁡ ( β 0 + β 1 x 1 ) 1 + e x p ⁡ ( β 0 + β 1 x 1 )
If Equation (2) undergoes a logit transformation, we obtain the logit form of the model, which, generalized to multiple variables, is represented by the following equation:
l o g i t P = β 0 + ∑ i = 1 k β i x i
The logit form of the model given by Equation (3) is commonly used in research due to the intuitive, simple interpretation of the right-hand side of the equation as a linear function.
The sociodemographic characteristics of respondents were adopted as potential explanatory variables. All variables were binary, taking the value 1 if the attribute applied to the respondent and 0 if the respondent did not have the attribute.
The feature “gender” was described by two variables: “female” (F) and “male” (M). If the respondent was female, the variable F = 1, otherwise F = 0. The variable M was coded in the same way. For variables consisting of several categories, dummy variables were introduced. For example, the age variable included four age ranges coded with the following variables: respondents aged 18 to 30 years—A; those aged 31–40 years—B; those aged 41–50 years—C; and those aged >50 years—D. We additionally used the categories BCD (>30 years) and CD (>40 years). Correlations among tentative independent variables were tested, but finally, no such significant relationships (p-value < 0.05) were found between the proposed explanatory variables.
A step-wise (progressive regression) approach was applied to build a multivariate model. In the first step, a model with one independent variable was drawn up and checked if it differed significantly from the model containing only the constant term. In the next steps, further variables were added and their significance was evaluated; if the variables turned out to be insignificant, they were removed from the model. The quasi-Newton method was used to parameterize the model. The significance of the model parameters was assessed using the Wald test. The goodness of fit of the model to the empirical data was evaluated using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test [18]. The modelled probability P(x) that the respondent would indicate the evaluated ES as important was determined by substituting into Formula (2) the corresponding values of the explanatory variables (1 or 0) describing the respondent’s sociocultural characteristics.
In a logistic regression model, in addition to the regression coefficients and their statistical significance, another important parameter is the odds ratio (OR). The OR is the ratio of the chance S(A) of an event occurring in group A (e.g., women identify ESi as important) to the chance S(B) of that event occurring in group B (men identify ESi as important).
O R A x B = S ( A ) S ( B )
OR = 1 means that the chance of considering ESi to be important (ESi = 1) is the same in the group of women as in the group of men; OR > 1 means that in the first group (women), the recognition of ESi as being important is significantly higher than in the second group (men). Conversely, OR < 1 indicates that in the first group (women), the recognition of the ES as being important is less than in the second group (men).
In the case of the logit form of the model with multiple variables, we used the following formula to determine the odds ratio:
O R A x B = e ∑ j = 1 k X A j − X B j β j

3. Results

3.1. Prioritizing Ecosystem Services

The priority of individual ecosystem services ranked in descending order of importance is illustrated in Figure 1. Respondents primarily appreciated regulating functions (priority index 0.87–0.94), followed by the cultural (0.79–0.86) and provisioning functions (0.31–0.75).
Results of the ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis test (H = 2911.029; p < 0.0001) indicate that some ESs are not significantly different from each other in terms of respondent preferences, which allowed us to combine ESs with similar priorities (see group numbers in Figure 1). The highest priority group consists of all regulating functions and providing space for recreation from the cultural function category. The second group consists of the cultural heritage protection function and two provisioning functions: timber production and supply of nonwood products. Supplying animal products is significantly different from other provisioning functions, being the least important of all ecosystem services.
Changes in the perceived importance of individual ESs over the past decade are shown in Table 1. The only function which decreased in importance is the provisioning of animal products. According to 34% of respondents, the importance of this function decreased, and only 12% thought it increased. In the case of the other ESs, the majority of respondents believed that they became more important, with the increase being much greater for regulating (from 46 to 61%) than provisioning (from 23 to 39%) functions.

3.2. Modeling Perceptions of Ecosystem Services

The impact of the selected sociodemographic characteristics of respondents on their perceptions of individual ecosystem services is described by logistic regression models (Table 2). Results of the Hosmer–Lemeshow test indicated that all developed models are well fitted to the empirical data (see Appendix B). The following rows of the table show separate models developed for each ES. In the air quality model, the most significant explanatory variable is “education”. A positive parameter of this variable (βU = 0.454) means that university education has a stimulating effect on the appreciation of air quality regulation. The significance level of p < 0.001 and the high value of the Wald statistic (13.22) confirm the high statistical significance of this feature—the highest among all the variables included in the model (the higher the value of this statistic is above 1, the more accurately the trait describes the perceptions of a given ES). An OR value of 1.57 indicates that people with higher education were on average 57% more likely to indicate air quality regulation as a very important forest function. Another important characteristic is gender. Women were almost one and a half times more likely than men (OR = 1.47) to consider air quality regulation as a very important function. Respondents’ age had a slightly smaller but significant effect (p < 0.05, Wald = 4.20) on perceptions of air quality regulation. People over 40 years of age were on average 30% more likely than those under 40 to indicate that this function is very important. In contrast, characteristics such as “place of residence” and “financial status” proved statistically insignificant in characterizing perceptions of this function.
Also, for the other ESs in the regulating group (with the exception of noise reduction), the educational attainment variable proved to be the most important trait in differentiating perceptions of regulating functions. In the “biodiversity” model, the odds ratio for the “university education” variable is 2.02, which means that people with this level of education are more than twice as likely to prioritize this service. The high statistical significance of this feature is also confirmed by the value of the Wald statistic = 34.21 and p < 0.001. The profile of people who appreciate cultural ESs is not as homogeneous as in the case of regulating functions. For the recreational function, financial status is the most important feature (p < 0.001, Wald = 14.33), while those who rated their financial status as “satisfying” were more than twice as likely (OR = 2.02) to consider this service very important. In contrast, age is the crucial variable for the appreciation of “protection of cultural heritage”. People over 40 years of age were on average 38% more likely to indicate this feature as very important. The feature that primarily differentiates perceptions of provisioning functions is one’s place of residence. Timber production and animal product provisioning were 2.40 and 2.37 times more often indicated as a very important service by rural residents than urban residents, respectively. For “mushrooms and berries”, living in a rural area is also a significant stimulant (p < 0.01 OR = 1.38), but the more important characteristic is gender—women were 41% more likely to perceive this feature as very important compared to men.
The LR models built for individual ESs allowed us to identify the following profiles of individuals with different perceptions of forest ESs. Regulating functions are seen as very important primarily by those with higher education, by individuals satisfied with their financial status, and by women. Cultural functions are most appreciated by people satisfied with their material status, and people over 40 years old. Provisioning functions are perceived as very important primarily by rural residents, often with low material status (this characteristic does not apply to timber production), with the provisioning of animal products being more preferred by men and the provisioning of mushrooms and berries by women.

4. Discussion

The main goal of our research was to elucidate the social assessment of the importance of various forest ecosystem services. Correctly understanding the coordinated development between the social economy and the ecological environment is the key to achieving the sustainable development of land [19]. The application of a sociocultural approach to the identification and management of ecosystem services is crucial to avoid errors arising from ignorance of social expectations and to effectively link ecosystem services to human well-being [12,20,21]. According to Cuni-Sanchez et al. [22], sociocultural evaluation of ESs using research methods derived from the social sciences (e.g., surveys, interviews) enables the placement of stakeholders at the core of the research process [11,23].
Findings from our research unequivocally demonstrate that the regulating and cultural functions of forests are held in the highest regard, while the provisioning functions rank the lowest. Similar conclusions were reached by Martín-López et al. [12] and Nastran et al. [24]. In recent years, political and scientific discourse around the world, Poland included, has focused on slowing down climate change. Climate change threatens the stability of forest ecosystems, and forests are perceived as a natural bulwark against climate change [25,26,27,28]. Forests are of great importance in sequestering carbon dioxide. A significant amount of it, as the study by Yang et al. [29] shows, is stored in above-ground biomass but also in soil (0–20 cm) and in below-ground biomass.
Most people in Poland are aware of climate change and accept that it is an ongoing process that has a huge impact on the biological environment [30]. Widespread media coverage may be the reason why people attach great importance to regulating services such as “climate regulation” and “carbon sequestration”. Given the current significance of and widespread concern surrounding climate change and its interconnectedness with forests, it comes as no surprise that in our survey, regulating forest functions featured prominently. Furthermore, for a long time in many countries, increasing attention has been paid to the use of forest environments not only as a source of measurable benefits such as wood, food, fiber, etc., but also as a space for recreation and health promotion [31]. In many countries, forests traditionally used for timber production are experiencing a shift towards recreational purposes, and their social importance continues to grow [32,33]. A similar trend has also been observed in Poland [34]. This fact is also indirectly reflected in the results of our research, as respondents highly valued cultural forest functions. This observation is consistent with the results of He et al. [15], who showed that regulating and cultural services, and especially local culture and ecotourism, were valued more highly than provisioning services.
On the other hand, many studies (e.g., Garrido et al. [20]) found the following order of ES preferences: provisioning followed by traditional knowledge, recreation and ecotourism (cultural ESs), and species richness/diversity (supporting ESs). Also, the results of Mensah et al. [21] and Hochmalová et al. [35] provide a picture of the perceived importance of ecosystem services that diverges from our study. Healthy soil was the only supporting ES considered in the study of Mensah et al. [21], and still it was rated the most important, followed by provisioning and regulating ESs. The least important category was cultural ESs. In turn, Hochmalová et al. [35] reported that provisioning and regulation services are seen as more important than cultural services. Interestingly, Garrido et al. [20] found that respondents from the private and public sectors valued provisioning services more, while those in the civic sector mentioned supporting and regulating services more often. Similarly, in the study of Agbenyega et al. [36], forest owners attached more importance (10–20%) to forest production services than local residents and conservation groups (7–9%). Hence, it is important and interesting to monitor perceptions of the importance of ecosystem services, as they may vary across the globe, mainly due to socioeconomic and cultural factors, including ethnic origin and such issues as food consumption status, which may seem distant for the inhabitants of highly developed countries [37]. According to He et al. [15], identifying ways to balance provisioning and cultural services can actually help reduce the overexploitation or neglect of individual components of biodiversity, which is possible when communities appreciate its long-term importance. The sociocultural assessment of ESs enables the identification of differences in perceptions among stakeholder groups (e.g., Iniesta-Arandia et al. [38]). They can be caused by exogenous factors (e.g., cultural and social background) as well as endogenous ones (gender, age, place of residence, education).
Many previous studies on ecosystem services [12,13,21,39] indicated that gender is an important predictor of activities broadly related to environmental issues. Women and men often have differential access to and derive different benefits from ecosystem services; therefore, their perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services also differ [40]. This is also the case in our research. Martín-López et al. [12] found that males mostly prioritized provisioning services, in contrast to females, who emphasized regulating services. Mensah et al. [21] reported that gender and age influenced the perceptions of supporting and provisioning ES. Men showed less enthusiasm about healthy soils (supporting ES), while women valued this function more highly. Women were more sensitive to ecological issues and had more favorable environmental attitudes than men [41,42,43]. They also displayed more pro-environmental behavior than men [44,45]. Women are more interested in health and living in a safe environment, while men tend to view the environment as a resource to be exploited. On the other hand, research by Mensah et al. [21] from Africa indicates that women’s appreciation of the importance of provisioning and supporting ESs likely results from their sense of responsibility in the household [21] and how aware they are of direct environmental benefits and resources [39]. Gender differences in awareness of ecosystem services can be explained by gender differences in agroecological work, knowledge, and experience [12,39,46].
Also, the place of residence is a predictor for the appreciation of the importance of specific forest functions. Martín-López et al. [12] as well as Lindemann-Matthies et al. [47] found that the inhabitants of rural areas mostly valued provisioning services, while urban residents emphasized regulating services. The perception of the importance of forest functions is correlated with the place of residence and probably indirectly also with the sense of place, attachment to a given place, and the memories and experiences related to it. This is indicated by Xi’s et al. [48] research, which clearly shows that the sense of place has a direct impact on landscape preferences.
The study by Muhamad et al. [49] demonstrated that rural residents were highly aware of ecosystem services, although they focused more on provisioning services as compared to other forest functions. Additionally, individuals living closer to forests exhibited greater appreciation of intermediate services, such as regulatory, cultural, and supporting services. One’s place of origin and residence, the area of one’s farmland and/or agroforestry land, and the number of livestock owned were the most salient socioeconomic factors determining the number of ecosystem services perceived by individual respondents. Hochmalová et al. [35] also drew attention to the cultural context of one’s place of residence. Comparing perceptions of forest ecosystem services among Chinese and Czech citizens, they found that differences between the countries were conspicuous for cultural and provisioning services: the Chinese expected more relaxation and meditation activities (cultural services), while the Czechs prioritized mushroom picking (provisioning services).
Our research also clearly indicates the role of education and educational attainment in the perception of the importance of individual forest functions, which is also confirmed by the research of Martín-López et al. [12]. You et al. [50] and He et al. [15] found that as the level of educational attainment increased, residents tended to prioritize regulating and cultural services over provisioning services. In the study by Martín-López et al. [12], it was found that people with a lower level of formal education attributed greater value to provisioning services, while those with a higher level of education paid more attention to protection status [50]. The type of knowledge possessed by the stakeholders (i.e., experiential or experimental) is also important [51,52]. Allendorf and Yang [39] found that people with a university education were almost 2.5 times more likely to appreciate the benefits of ecosystem services than those without such education.

5. Limitation

In our study, we used a survey questionnaire. It is a very popular research tool that can be applied to examine the expectations and preferences of tourists and visitors to naturally valuable areas [53,54]. However, we are aware that the results we obtained when using another tool may not always give similar results, even though the questionnaire we constructed was created in consultation with a sociologist. This is because, as shown by the research of Tahvanainen et al. [55], there are significant differences in the opinions of respondents depending on the survey technique adopted (descriptive questions—pictures). This study covered a very wide group of respondents in order to make the results as reliable as possible. We opted for an online survey, which has some undeniable advantages, particularly when targeting a large respondent pool. However, it also has drawbacks, notably in reaching older individuals who are typically less inclined to use technology and the internet. The low participation of older people may be attributed to the use of an online survey. According to a CBOS poll [23], internet use in Poland is widespread among the youngest respondents and those aged 25–34. The vast majority of respondents aged 35 to 44 are also online. Nearly half of Poles aged 55–64 and three-quarters of the oldest (aged 65 and over) remain offline. We are also aware that it is difficult to capture the “spirit of the place” (genius loci) in an online survey. As Li et al. [48] rightly point out, the relationships between landscape features, preferences, and site-related factors are very complex. The Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) tool could be of great help in this regard. Nevertheless, our goal was to recognize the general perception of forest ecosystem services in general, and in this aspect the survey is an appropriate research tool. In the future, we would like to conduct this type of research using volunteered geographic information (VGI) data. Another limitation is the fact that the research was conducted during the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented changes in the lifestyles of most people around the world. The need for social distance, lockdown, home isolation, and the consequent restriction of outdoor leisure activities left a strong mark on the lives of millions of people [56,57]. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021 changed the lifestyle of local communities and entire societies [58]. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) brought about a significant and far-reaching impact on the world’s business environment, corporations, and individuals [59]. It was only under the influence of these new experiences that many people understood how many services and benefits forests and other green areas provide. This understanding likely had resonance in our respondents’ views on the importance of ecosystem services. We were somewhat able to pick this up by asking about noticeable changes over the last 10 years. Further research should pay more attention to how these changes are shaped as a result of the pandemic.

6. Conclusions

In the process of planning for the sustainable development of forests and ecosystem, services of crucial importance is the identification of links between the condition of forest ecosystems and their functions which are useful for society. Of the categories of services considered, the most highly valued by respondents in this study were those primarily related to the regulation of climate, air quality, and water balance. Cultural services, namely, those affecting the perception of the forest landscape and those important for recreation, were less frequently prioritized. Provisioning services, such as timber production, were the least important to respondents.
The survey also showed that the perceptions of forest ecosystem services should be considered with a specific socioeconomic group in mind, taking into account the demographic profile and economic status. This means that the evaluation of ecosystem services in forest areas was affected by such characteristics of respondents as gender, age, education, and financial status.
Despite the fact that monitoring the importance of ecosystem services for the general population is important for institutional activities related to local development planning, it is rarely used in practice. In particular, the greater appreciation of the importance of regulating and cultural functions (compared to provisioning ES) 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 a valuable insight during planning for sustainable forest and ecosystem services. Such information should be used not only to secure ecosystem services from different stakeholder groups but also to provide the basis for developing their potential through, e.g., planning compensation for the impact of activities and investments affecting the forest environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.J. and J.B.; methodology, E.J., J.B. and S.Z.; validation, M.W. and K.U.B.; investigation, K.J. and S.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, E.J., J.B. and J.F.; writing—review and editing, K.U.B., J.F. and M.W.; supervision, J.F. and K.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financed by the State Forests National Forest Holding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is unavailable due to privacy restrictions.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our thanks to the Regional Directorate of State Forests in Radom. The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive review comments by the three journal reviewers and editor.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Respondents’ perceptions of the importance of individual ecosystem services.
Table A1. Respondents’ perceptions of the importance of individual ecosystem services.
Ecosystem ServiceNumber of Respondents Considering a Particular Service as One of the Following:
Very ImportantImportantModerately ImportantNot Very ImportantIrrelevant
Timber production5175411998758
Supply of animal products167300329311295
Water protection805466932513
Soil protection789478863514
Protection against floods7924371203419
Supply of products other than timber (mushrooms, berries, etc.)4795742585833
Oxygen production and CO2 storage1031279611813
Provision of recreation and leisure facilities6056111423113
Regulation of air quality101131257913
Noise reduction7634711173318
Biodiversity protection8234291092516
Cultural heritage protection5945191926037

Appendix B

Table A2. Results of the Hosmer–Lemeshow test evaluating goodness of fit of the developed models to the empirical data.
Table A2. Results of the Hosmer–Lemeshow test evaluating goodness of fit of the developed models to the empirical data.
ModelHL Statisticp-Value
Air quality regulation5.0470.538
Oxygen production and CO2 storage2.3110.887
Biodiversity protection2.4960.927
Water protection3.8530.146
Soil protection5.1340.643
Flood protection2.4400.785
Noise reduction8.8430.115
Recreational space0.0360.981
Heritage protection7.1180.310
Mushrooms, berries2.3040.806
Timber production1.6610.435
Animal products0.4120.813
H0: observed and expected numbers do not differ from each other; p > 0.05 indicates that there is no reason for rejecting H0 and implies a good fit of the model to the data.

References

  1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 1569735972. [Google Scholar]
  2. Burkhard, B.; Petrosillo, I.; Costanza, R. Ecosystem services—Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 257–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, S.; Chen, J.; Jiang, C.; Yao, R.T.; Xue, J.; Bai, Y.; Wang, H.; Jiang, C.; Wang, S.; Zhong, Y.; et al. Trends in Research on Forest Ecosystem Services in the Most Recent 20 Years: A Bibliometric Analysis. Forests 2022, 13, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tengberg, A.; Fredholm, S.; Eliasson, I.; Knez, I.; Saltzman, K.; Wetterberg, O. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Marchetti, M.; Lasserre, B.; Pazzagli, R.; Sallustio, L. Rural areas and urbanization: Analysis of a change. Sci. Territ. 2014, 2, 249–258. [Google Scholar]
  6. Anton, C.; Young, J.; Harrison, P.A.; Musche, M.; Bela, G.; Feld, C.K.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; Pataki, G.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; et al. Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 2979–2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Menzel, S.; Teng, J. Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 907–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Torralba, M.; Lovric, M.; Bottaro, G.; Gatto, P.; Pettenella, D.; Winkel, G.; Plieninger, T. Spurring Innovations for Forest Ecosystem Services in Europe: 1.3 Analysis and Relationships between Forest Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand, and Innovative Mechanisms across Europe. no.773702 RUR-05-2017 European Commission. 2020. 76p. Available online: https://sincereforests.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/D1.3.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2023).
  9. Ranacher, L.; Lähtinen, K.; Järvinen, E.; Toppinen, A. Perceptions of the general public on forest sector responsibility: A survey related to ecosystem services and forest sector business impacts in four European countries. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 78, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Grilli, G.; Jonkisz, J.; Ciolli, M.; Lesinski, J. Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders’ perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 66, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Orenstein, D.E.; Groner, E. In the eye of the stakeholder: Changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Amo, D.G.D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lin, J.-C.; Chiou, C.-R.; Chan, W.-H.; Wu, M.-S. Public perception of forest ecosystem services in Taiwan. J. For. Res. 2021, 26, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mikusiński, G.; Niedziałkowski, K. Perceived importance of ecosystem services in the Białowieża Forest for local communities—Does proximity matter? Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. He, S.; Gallagher, L.; Su, Y.; Wang, L.; Cheng, H. Identification and assessment of ecosystem services for protected area planning: A case in rural communities of Wuyishan national park pilot. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pueyo-Ros, J. The Role of Tourism in the Ecosystem Services Framework. Land 2018, 7, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hilbe, J.M. Logistic Regression Models; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009; ISBN 1420075772. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hosmer, D.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000; Volume 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wu, B.; Quan, Q.; Yang, S.; Dong, Y. A social-ecological coupling model for evaluating the human-water relationship in basins within the Budyko framework. J. Hydrol. 2023, 619, 129361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Garrido, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P.; Plieninger, T.; Pulido, F.; Moreno, G. Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: A case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 2017, 60, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mensah, S.; Veldtman, R.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Ham, C.; Glèlè Kakaï, R.; Seifert, T. Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: A study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cuni-Sanchez, A.; Imani, G.; Bulonvu, F.; Batumike, R.; Baruka, G.; Burgess, N.D.; Klein, J.A.; Marchant, R. Social Perceptions of Forest Ecosystem Services in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Hum. Ecol. 2019, 47, 839–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Feliksiak, M. Korzystanie z Internetu; Komunikat z Badań ISSN 2353-5822. 2018. Available online: https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2018/K_062_18.PDF (accessed on 20 June 2023).
  24. Nastran, M.; Pintar, M.; Železnikar, Š.; Cvejić, R. Stakeholders’ Perceptions on the Role of Urban Green Infrastructure in Providing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being. Land 2022, 11, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jackson, R.B.; Randerson, J.T.; Canadell, J.G.; Anderson, R.G.; Avissar, R.; Baldocchi, D.D.; Bonan, G.B.; Caldeira, K.; Diffenbaugh, N.S.; Field, C.B.; et al. Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 2008, 3, 44006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Canadell, J.G.; Raupach, M.R. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 2008, 320, 1456–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Persson, J.; Blennow, K.; Gonçalves, L.; Borys, A.; Dutcă, I.; Hynynen, J.; Janeczko, E.; Lyubenova, M.; Martel, S.; Merganic, J.; et al. No polarization–Expected Values of Climate Change Impacts among European Forest Professionals and Scientists. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Korcz, N.; Koba, J.; Kobyłka, A.; Janeczko, E.; Gmitrowicz-Iwan, J. Climate Change and Informal Education in the Opinion of Forest Users in Poland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, Y.; Liu, L.; Zhang, P.; Wu, F.; Wang, Y.; Xu, C.; Zhang, L.; An, S.; Kuzyakov, Y. Large-scale ecosystem carbon stocks and their driving factors across Loess Plateau. Carbon Neutrality 2023, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Przybylski, B.; Janeczko, E.; Studnicki, M.; Bielinis, E.; Bielinis, L. Young adults’ perspective of global environmental risks: A study on Polish university students. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0273393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Bang, K.-S.; Kim, S.; Song, M.K.; Im Kang, K.; Jeong, Y. 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. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Konijnendijk, C.C. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arnberger, A. Recreation use of urban forests: An inter-area comparison. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Janeczko, E.; Wójcik, R.; Kędziora, W.; Janeczko, K.; Woźnicka, M. Organised physical activity in the forests of the warsaw and tricity agglomerations, Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hochmalová, M.; Purwestri, R.C.; Yongfeng, J.; Jarský, V.; Riedl, M.; Yuanyong, D.; Hájek, M. Demand for forest ecosystem services: A comparison study in selected areas in the Czech Republic and China. Eur. J. For. Res. 2022, 141, 867–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Agbenyega, O.; Burgess, P.J.; Cook, M.; Morris, J. Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, W.; Kato, E.; Bhandary, P.; Nkonya, E.; Ibrahim, H.I.; Agbonlahor, M.; Ibrahim, H.Y.; Cox, C. Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Aguilera, P.A.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: Uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Allendorf, T.D.; Yang, J. The role of ecosystem services in park–people relationships: The case of Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve in southwest China. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 167, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, Y.E.; Passarelli, S.; Lovell, R.J.; Ringler, C. Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Finisterra do Paço, A.M.; Barata Raposo, M.L.; Filho, W.L. Identifying the green consumer: A segmentation study. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2009, 17, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fisher, C.; Bashyal, S.; Bachman, B. Demographic impacts on environmentally friendly purchase behaviors. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2012, 20, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xiao, C.; McCright, A.M. Gender Differences in Environmental Concern. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kalof, L.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.; Stern, P.C. Race, gender and environmentalism: The atypical values and beliefs of white men. Race Gend. Cl. 2002, 9, 112–130. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zelezny, L.C.; Chua, P.-P.; Aldrich, C. New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism. J. Soc. Isssues 2000, 56, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wangchuk, J.; Choden, K.; Sears, R.R.; Baral, H.; Yoezer, D.; Tamang, K.T.D.; Choden, T.; Wangdi, N.; Dorji, S.; Dukpa, D.; et al. Community perception of ecosystem services from commercially managed forests in Bhutan. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Keller, D.; Li, X.; Schmid, B. Attitudes toward forest diversity and forest ecosystem services—A cross-cultural comparison between China and Switzerland. J. Plant Ecol. 2014, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Jia, T. Humanization of nature: Testing the influences of urban park characteristics and psychological factors on collegers’ perceived restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Muhamad, D.; Okubo, S.; Harashina, K.; Parikesit; Gunawan, B.; Takeuchi, K. Living close to forests enhances people’s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. You, W.-B.; He, D.-J.; Hong, W.; Liu, C.; Wu, L.-Y.; Ji, Z.-R.; Xiao, S.-H. 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. Nat. Resour. Forum 2014, 38, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lewan, L.; Söderqvist, T. Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lamarque, P.; Quétier, F.; Lavorel, S. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2011, 334, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cessford, G.; Muhar, A. Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas. Journal for Nature Conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2003, 11, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gundersen, V.; Stange, E.; Kaltenborn, B.; Vistad, O.I. Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tahvanainen, L.; Tyrväinen, L.; Ihalainen, M.; Käyhkö, N.; Kolehmainen, O. Forest management and public perceptions—Visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 53, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Davies, C.; Sanesi, G. COVID-19 and the importance of urban green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 74, 127654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Muro, A.; Mateo Canedo, C.; Parrado, E.; Subirana Malaret, M.; Moya, M.; Garriga, A.; Canals Palau, J.; Chamarro, A.; Sanz, A. Forest Bathing and Hiking benefits for mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mediterranean regions. Eur. J. For. Res. 2022, 142, 415–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Weinbrenner, H.; Breithut, J.; Hebermehl, W.; Kaufmann, A.; Klinger, T.; Palm, T.; Wirth, K. “The Forest Has Become Our New Living Room”—The Critical Importance of Urban Forests During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2021, 4, 672909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chen, Z.; Zhu, W.; Feng, H.; Luo, H. Changes in Corporate Social Responsibility Efficiency in Chinese Food Industry Brought by COVID-19 Pandemic—A Study with the Super-Efficiency DEA-Malmquist-Tobit Model. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 875030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 15 14154 g001
Figure 1. Priority order of the studied forest ecosystem services according to respondents. Ecosystem services marked with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Priority order of the studied forest ecosystem services according to respondents. Ecosystem services marked with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 15 14154 g001
Table 1. Changes in perceptions of the importance of ecosystem services in the last decade (%).
Table 1. Changes in perceptions of the importance of ecosystem services in the last decade (%).
Ecosystem ServicesDecreasedNot ChangedIncreased
Regulating:
Air quality regulation5.033.761.4
Oxygen production and CO2 storage6.537.556.0
Water protection7.440.851.8
Biodiversity protection6.244.049.7
Soil protection7.044.049.0
Flood protection8.744.946.4
Noise reduction6.246.447.4
Cultural:
Providing space for recreation and leisure5.632.262.2
Cultural heritage protection7.954.437.7
Provisioning:
Supply of mushrooms, berries, etc.13.064.322.8
Timber production12.248.739.1
Supply of animal products34.353.712.0
Table 2. Logistic regression models of perceptions of ecosystem services.
Table 2. Logistic regression models of perceptions of ecosystem services.
Ecosystem ServiceInterceptGender (1)Age (2)Education (3)Place of Residence (4)Financial Status (5)
Variable Value, Coefficient/(Wald’s χ2), Odds Ratio
Air quality regulation−0.336 **
(7.28), 1.40		F, 0.383 ** (9.74), 1.47CD, 0.256 * (4.20), 1.29U, 0.454 *** (13.22), 1.57nsns
Oxygen production and CO2 storagensF, 0.464 *** (13.58), 1.59nsU, 0.538 *** (17.71), 1.71nsS, 0.334 ** (6.77), 1.40
Biodiversity protection−0.670 ***
(20.50), 0.53		F, 0.309 ** (7.42), 1.36 CD, 0.384, (10.98), 1.47U, 0.702 *** (34.21), 2.02nsS, 0.279 * (4.61), 1.32
Water protectionnsnsnsU, 0.367 ** (9.72), 1.44nsS, 0.299
(5.47), 1.35
Soil protection−0.589 ***
(15.74), 0.555		F, 0.266 * (5.67), 1.30CD; 0.288 * (6.46), 1.33U; 0.403 ***
(11.57), 1.50		V 2.44 *
(4.62), 1.28		S 0.260 *
(4.96), 1.30
Flood protection−0.686 ***
(21.40) 0.504		F, 0.417 *** (13.80), 1.52nsU, 0.520 *** (18.89), 1.68V, 0.242 * (4.67), 1.27S, 0.335 ** (6.64), 1.40
Noise reduction−0.491 ***
(15.64), 0.612		F, 0.335 **
(5.35), 1.41		CD, 0.495 *** (18.81), 1.64U, 0.324 ** (7.44), 1.38T, 0.321 *
(4.32), 1.38		ns
Recreational space−0.660 ***
(35.78), 0.52		nsCD, 0.304 ** (5.73), 1.36nsnsS, 0.703 *** (14.33), 2.02
Heritage protection−1.089 ***
(57.00), 0.34		F, 0.319 **
(7.98), 1.38		CD, 0.410 ** (12.86), 1.38U 0.277 * (5.26), 1.32nsS, 0.279 * (5.42), 1.32
Mushrooms, berries−1.404 ***
(86.39), 0.245		F 0.347 **
(8.55), 1.41		BCD, 0.346 ** (6.38), 1.41nsV 0.324 ** (7.34), 1.38N 0.302 *
(4.55), 1.35
Timber production−1.100 ***
(162.21), 0.33		nsD, 0.315 *
(4.32) 1.37		nsV, 0.873 *** (55.37), 2.40ns
Animal products−3.247 ***
(233.25), 0.04		M 0.505 *
(5.95), 1.66		nsP, 1.123 *** (17.31), 3.07V 0.862 *** (17.31), 2.37N 0.823 *
(5.62) 2.28
Significance level: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, ns—variable not significant; the most important/significant variable in the model was marked in bold; (1) M—male, F—female; (2) A—18–30 years old, B—31–40 years old, C—41–50 years old, D—more than 50 years old; (3) P—primary, U—university, (4) V—village, T—town; (5) S—satisfied, N—not satisfied.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Janeczko, E.; Banaś, J.; Woźnicka, M.; Zięba, S.; Banaś, K.U.; Janeczko, K.; Fialova, J. Sociocultural Profile as a Predictor of Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Poland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914154

AMA Style

Janeczko E, Banaś J, Woźnicka M, Zięba S, Banaś KU, Janeczko K, Fialova J. Sociocultural Profile as a Predictor of Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Poland. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914154

Chicago/Turabian Style

Janeczko, Emilia, Jan Banaś, Małgorzata Woźnicka, Stanisław Zięba, Katarzyna Utnik Banaś, Krzysztof Janeczko, and Jitka Fialova. 2023. "Sociocultural Profile as a Predictor of Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Poland" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914154

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop