Urban–rural differences in perception of trees described by parents bringing up children in Warsaw and Jedlińsk, Poland

Abstract

Parents’ attitudes to trees and nature are reflected not only in their children’s outdoor activity, but also in the way they perceive, learn and value the environment. One hundred and eleven respondents, divided into two groups by place of residence, assessed statements in a survey questionnaire. Two groups of questions aimed at evaluating tree benefits and disservices as perceived by urban and rural parents, and identifying their preferences concerning outdoor activity of their children. Tree benefits and disadvantages were grouped into five categories (social, economic, environmental, health and aesthetic). Both urban and rural parents presented similar attitudes to trees as well as to their children’s play environments. Among 37 statements concerning tree benefits, only five revealed statistically significant differences. The most important difference appeared in the way urban and rural parents perceived the aspects of danger. Trees were not perceived as posing any risk on playgrounds for city residents, who—unlike villagers—opposed to the removal of trees from playgrounds.

Quality of urban parks in the perception of city residents with mobility difficulties

“…What is particularly interesting, almost one-fifth of the respondents revealed that they were in the parks daily, and almost one third were in the parks several times a week. This result proves that benefits of nature (also shown in other studies ( Corazon et al, 2019 ; Suchocka, Jankowski & Błaszczyk, 2019 )), and their need to be surrounded by the natural environment ( Wojnowska-Heciak, 2019 ; Wojnowska-Heciak et al, 2020 ). This trend can also be seen among the residents of other countries; in Denmark, 43 per cent of the respondents reported visiting green spaces every day and 91 per cent at least once a week ( Schipperijn et al, 2010 ).…”

Urban Parks as Perceived by City Residents with Mobility Difficulties: A Qualitative Study with In-Depth Interviews

“…Too slippery, uneven or sand and gravel paths were indicated as one of the main barriers in parks. This finding is quite surprising for the authors who, while actively working in the design field, preferred stabilized sand and gravel surfaces in green areas as nature-friendly and water-permeable [ 24 , 76 , 77 , 78 ]. This pavement surface characteristic is not covered in the guidelines of universal design though this should serve as a direction in reconciling the needs of all users [ 74 ].…”

“…This type of open space offers a variety of economic, environmental and social function values [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ] that provide important space-filling elements in the form and layout of cities [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. The potential impacts of urban parks on public health have long been recognized in the literature [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ].…”

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of answers of all respondents to the question about factors influencing their willingness to stay in the park more often or longer.

“…What is particularly interesting, almost one-fifth of the respondents revealed that they were in the parks daily, and almost one third were in the parks several times a week. This result proves that benefits of nature (also shown in other studies (Corazon et al, 2019;Suchocka, Jankowski & Błaszczyk, 2019)), and their need to be surrounded by the natural environment (Wojnowska-Heciak, 2019;Wojnowska-Heciak et al, 2020). This trend can also be seen among the residents of other countries; in Denmark, 43 per cent of the respondents reported visiting green spaces every day and 91 per cent at least once a week (Schipperijn et al, 2010).…”