Place Attachment and Views on Tree Management

Abstract

Few studies have investigated relational environmental views of different stakeholder groups. In this study, we investigated how residents of rural and urban municipalities view the management of trees (who should decide about trees’ removal – the landowner, or the municipality), which provides a various range of ecosystem services and the extent that place attachment as a relational variable affects these views. The analysis was based on 231 questionnaires conducted in two Polish municipalities: one rural (Nysa) and one urban (Racibórz). Data were analyzed using statistical methods including logistic regression models for analyzing factors impacting the main research question. Our investigation showed that both place attachment involving public good sentiments and the perception of ecosystem services provided by trees, that are related to private interests significantly impacted views on tree management. In rural areas the opinion, that the municipality should decide to remove trees was positively associated with a place attachment. For residents of urban areas (Racibórz), the strength of place attachment was not related to the perception of tree removal, but it was related to the perception of trees’ cultural benefits. We argue that considering psychological variables related to the tree management issues could help avoid conflicts.

Determinants of spatial distribution of trees outside forests along urban-rural gradients: A review

“…People's perceptions of tree benefits vary depending on their spatial location, and different studies indicate variations in perceptions of trees in rural and urban areas (Dorresteijn et al, 2017;Paniotova-Maczka et al, 2021). These variations can be attributed to spatial differences in cultural, social, technical, and climatic factors (Dorresteijn et al, 2017;Paniotova-Maczka et al, 2021). For instance, people in rural areas tend to prefer provisioning tree benefits, while urban people prefer cultural benefits (Paniotova-Maczka et al, 2021).…”

“…These variations can be attributed to spatial differences in cultural, social, technical, and climatic factors (Dorresteijn et al, 2017;Paniotova-Maczka et al, 2021). For instance, people in rural areas tend to prefer provisioning tree benefits, while urban people prefer cultural benefits (Paniotova-Maczka et al, 2021). Conversely, urban residents place more value on provisioning ecosystem services, while rural residents place more value on regulating ecosystem services.…”

“…In rural areas, people perceive tree benefits based on their ecosystem services (Bhebhe et al, 2023;Chauhan & Dogra, 2016;Chukwumaucheya, 2012;Sibelet et al, 2017). For example, farmers are more inclined towards tree species with large canopies, which increase the potential for providing ecosystem services such as air temperature regulation, erosion control, and wind- (Danquah, 2023;Drew-Smythe et al, 2023;Jeong et al, 2023;Paniotova-Maczka et al, 2021;Saldarriaga et al, 2020) Variation in the level of recognition and attitudes towards tree services and disservices Variation in tree preference, hence a variation in the species composition, diversity and distribution of TOF…”

Geo-Questionnaire for Environmental Planning: The Case of Ecosystem Services Delivered by Trees in Poland

“…We collected data on the location of trees of high value to the residents, including the benefits perceived by them (regarding 17 different ESs), and much information about the respondents themselves, enabling in-depth investigation. The quantitative data then allowed us to conduct analyses to compare views of urban green management with the variable effect of place attachment [9], as well as the usefulness of location data from PPGISs (e.g., geo-questionnaire) for comparisons with LiDAR data in subsequent articles [10,11]. This article briefly depicts how we conducted the survey and aggregated the data and then discusses the responses and potential methods of using them for subsequent data compilations.…”