Social importatance of public forest functions - desirable for recreation model of tree stand and forest

Abstract

Abstract. This publication presents the results of the investigation conducted in the years 1998-2006 with the goal to study social preferences and expectations towards selected public forest services as well as to define stand and forest characteristics as desired for a place of relaxation and recreation on the base of verbal descriptions and photographs presented by respondents. Questionnaires were presented to forest visitors in four Forest Promotional Complexes (LKP) and to the residents of the Podlaskie province (agricultural region) and of the OEl¹skie province (industrial region). In £ódŸ the city residents were interviewed within the area of the largest in Europe forest complex located inside the city boundaries (£agiewnicki Forest), and in Warsaw within urban forests surrounding the capital. According to responces of respondents, the most important forest function is air protection, and the next important is the role of the forest as habitat for plants and animals. Forest recreation was recognized on the third place of the social significance of public forest functions and its management.The characteristics of the forest desirable for recreation included the following: forest should be tall, old, with the large amount of light reaching the green ground cover of the forest, with mixed species composition and rich forest ground cover. The comparison of the stand and forest model created from the verbal descriptions only in several cases was supported by pictures reflecting various stand types, which were presented during the photographic part of the survey.Key words: recreational forest function, questionnaire survey, non-timber forest and forest management functions WprowadzenieAnaliza procesów zmys³owego postrzegania przez ludzi szeroko rozumianego oerodowiska naturalnego, w tym równie¿ ekosystemów leoenych, jak równie¿ ujawniania preferencji i oczekiwañ spo³ecznych wobec lasu i gospodarki leoenej jest procesem z³o¿onym, wymagaj¹cym zaanga¿owania podstaw teoretycznych oraz aparatu pojêciowego ró¿nych dyscyplin naukowych. Niezale¿nie od tego, czy podejmujemy próbê analizy oraz wyjaoenienia spo³ecznego postrzegania lasu jako miejsca wypoczynku i rekreacji, lasu jako miejsca (oerodowiska) ¿ycia rooelin i zwierz¹t, czy lasu jako dostawcy surowca drzewnego wraz z dorobkiem nauk leoenych nale¿y uwzglêdniae dorobek psychologii spo³ecznej (teoria potrzeb cz³owieka, teoria percepcji krajobrazu), socjologii (zagadnienia oerodowiska naturalnego we wspó³czesnych teoriach socjologicznych) czy te¿ ekonomii (teoria wartooeci, w tym przede wszystkim teoria u¿ytecznooeci krañ-cowej). Mo¿na przyj¹ae tezê, i¿ obecnie trudno lub nawet jest niemo¿liwe, aby tylko na gruncie nauk leoenych poszukiwaae rozwi¹zañ problemów wspó³czesnej wielofunkcyjnej gospodarki leoenej, w której wa¿ne miejsce zajmuj¹ publiczne oewiadczenia lasu. W³¹czenie badañ spo³ecznych do badañ leoenych, to nie tylko koniecznooeae metodyczna zwiêkszaj¹ca mo¿liwooeci poznawcze analizowanych zjawisk, ale przede wszystkim wymiar praktyczny uzyskanych wyników t...

Management and Social Problems Linked to the Human Use of European Urban and Suburban Forests

“…The environmental value of urban and suburban forests (as a place where you can connect with nature, biodiversity) is related to supporting services (services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services [17,18]). Each forest has such a value for the society ( [19,20], e.g., in the United Kingdom [21], Finland [9,22,23], Austria [24,25], Switzerland [12], Poland (e.g., [4,7,[26][27][28]), Slovenia [29], Sweden [6,30], the Netherlands [31], and Norway [31]). Urban and suburban forests are often habitats of diverse (also rare and valuable) species of plants, fungi, and animals (e.g., [32][33][34][35]).…”

“…The health value of urban and suburban forests (barrier against noise, shade, clean air, and water) and the safety value (reducing the risk of natural disasters) consist in regulating services (benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes [17,18]). In the first case (health value), urban forests create a specific microclimate; protect against air pollution and have a soothing and healing influence on organisms exposed to the everyday pressure of crowded conditions, noise, and haste ( [2,19,20,42], e.g., in the United Kingdom [21,43], Finland [9,22,23], the Czech Republic [38], Turkey [44], Switzerland [12], Poland (e.g., [3,7,26,27,45]), France [40], Austria [24], Sweden [6], the Netherlands [31], and Norway [31]). In the second case (safety value), urban forests stabilize the soil, preventing its erosion, but also reduce the effects of storm water runoff (through canopy retention and infiltration) or winter wind; sequester carbon; and moderate the urban microclimate [26,46,47].…”

“…The second is the spiritual value (feelings, memories)-forests arouse positive feelings, such as admiration, sense of freedom, respect for life, and a sense of place ( [2,19], e.g., in the Czech Republic [38], Switzerland [12], Finland [23], Slovenia [29], Sweden [30], or in Poland [49]). People need the feeling of unity with nature (e.g., [21,26,49]). The third one is the recreational value.…”

“…The third one is the recreational value. Urban and suburban forests are a place for rest, tourism, sports, and playing-among others strolls, Nordic walking, outdoor games, jogging, cycling, horse riding, picnics, geocaching [2,42,50], e.g., in the United Kingdom [21], Finland [9,22,23,36,51], Switzerland [12,41], Austria [24,25], the Czech Republic [38], Turkey [44], Poland (e.g., [7,26,28,52,53]), France [40], Sweden [6,39], Norway [31,37], or in the Netherlands [31]. Most of the activities also have a positive influence on health.…”

Social forest functions of reclaimed spoil heaps in the Ostrava-Karvina district

“…Appropriately imple mented forestry reclamation and subse quent care of the planted vegeta tion are the basis for the creation of a fully functional forest ecosystem. In natural ecosystems at the international level the posi tive effects of forest stands were described for example by Führer (2000), Golos (2010) and their non-production functions for example by Scott et al (2006). The economic value of ecosystems was described by Seják and Dejmal (2003).…”