Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services in the Warsaw metropolitan area Cover

Participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services in the Warsaw metropolitan area

Open Access
|Jun 2026

References

  1. Baumeister, C.F., Gerstenberg, T., Plieninger, T., Schraml, U. 2020. Exploring cultural ecosystem service hotspots: Linking multiple urban forest features with public participation mapping data. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 48, 126561. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126561.
  2. Baumeister, C.F., Gerstenberg, T., Plieninger, T., Schraml, U. 2022. Geography of disservices in urban forests: Public participation mapping for closing the loop. Ecosystems and People, 18 (1), 44–63. DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2021.2021289.
  3. Brown, G., Fagerholm, N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS Mapping of Ecosystem Services: A Review and Evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007.
  4. Brodrechtova, Y. 2024. Assessing actor power in the tradeoffs between ecosystem services affecting forest management - A case study from Central Slovakia. Forest Policy and Economics, 163, 103187. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103187.
  5. Brown, G. 2017. A Review of sampling effects and response bias in internet participatory mapping (PPGIS/PGIS/VGI). Transactions in GIS, 21(1), 39–56. DOI: 10.1111/tgis.12207.
  6. Bruzzese, S., Blanc, S., Merlino, V.M., Massaglia, S., Brun F. 2022. Civil society’s perception of forest ecosystem services. A case study in the Western Alps. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1000043. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000043.
  7. Ciesielski, M., Mohytych, V., Korcz, N. 2024. The role and significance of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) based on a survey of forest users in the Warsaw metropolitan area. Sylwan, 168 (8), 533–548. DOI: 10.26202/sylwan.2024027.
  8. Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. DOI: 10.1038/387253a0.
  9. Derks, J., Giessen, L., Winkel, G. 2020. COVID-19-induced visitor boom reveals the importance of forests as critical infrastructure. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 102253. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102253.
  10. Gerstenberg, T., Baumeister, C., Schraml, U., Plieninger, T. 2020. Hot routes in urban forests: The impact of multiple landscape features on recreational use intensity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203, 103888. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103888.
  11. Gołos, P. 2013a. Selected aspects of the forest recreational function in view of its users. Forest Research Paper, 74 (3), 257–272.
  12. Gołos, P. 2013b. The recreational functions of Warsaw’s urban and suburban forests. Forest Research Papers, 74 (1), 57–70. DOI: 10.2478/frp-2013-0007
  13. Gołos, P. 2018. Social and economic aspects of the nonproduction functions of forests and forest management - results of public opinion research (in Polish). Prace Instytutu Badawczego Leśnictwa, 22. Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa, Sękocin Stary.
  14. Grzyb, T., Kulczyk, S., Derek, M., Woźniak, E. 2021. Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101297. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101297.
  15. GUS. 2024a. Area and population in the territorial profile in 2024 (in Polish). Available at https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/ludnosc/powierzchnia-i-ludnosc-w-przekroju-terytorialnym-w-2024-roku,7,21.html (access on 31 December 2025).
  16. GUS. 2024b. Forestry. Statistical Yearbook 2024 (in Polish). Available at https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznik-statystyczny-lesnictwa-2024,13,7.html (access on 31 December 2025).
  17. Hegetschweiler, K.T., Wartmann, F., Dubernet, I., Fisher, C., Hunziker, M. 2022. Urban forest usage and perception of ecosystem services - A comparison between teenagers and adults. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 74, 127624. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127624.
  18. Heikinheimo, V., Tenkanen, H., Bergroth, C., Järv, O., Hiippala, T., Toivonen, T. 2020. Understanding the use of urban green spaces from user-generated geographic information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 201, 103845. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103845.
  19. Hochmalová, M. et al. 2022. Demand for forest ecosystem services: a comparison study in selected areas in the Czech Republic and China. European Journal of Forest Research, 141, 867–886. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-022-01478-0.
  20. Instruction. 2024. Forest Management Instruction (in Polish). Available at: https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/copy_of_gospodarka-lesna/urzadzanie/iul/instrukcja-urzadzenia-lasu-2024/instrukcja-urzadzania-lasu-czesc-i.pdf/view (access on 31 December 2025).
  21. Janeczko, E. et al. 2023. Sociocultural profile as a predictor of perceived importance of forest ecosystem services: A case study from Poland. Sustainability, 15, 14154. DOI: 10.3390/su151914154.
  22. Janusz, A., Piszczek, M. 2008. Society’s expectations toward forests - A case study of visitors to the Beskid Sądecki Promotional Forest Complex (in Polish). Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Leśnej, 3 (19), 139–151.
  23. Jaszczak, R. 2008. Forest and forest economy within the range of influence of towns and cities in Poland (in Polish). Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrod-niczo-Leśnej, 3 (19), 152–171.
  24. Kahila-Tani, M., Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., Tyger, T. 2015. Let the citizens map—public participation GIS as a planning support system in the Helsinki Master Plan Process. Planning Practice and Research, 31 (2), 195–2014. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1104203.
  25. Kaliszewski, A., Wysocka-Fijorek, E., Ciesielski, M., Stereńczak, K., Gołos, P. 2024. From forest functions to forest ecosystem services - the evolution of the attitude towards forest benefits in Poland. Sylwan, 168 (4), 233–252. DOI: 10.26202/sylwan/2024005.
  26. Kantola, S., Fagerholm, N., Nikula, A. 2023. Utilization and implementation of PPGIS in land use planning and decision-making from the perspective of organizations. Land Use Policy, 127, 106528. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106528.
  27. Karimi, A., Adams, V. 2019. Planning for the future: Combining spatially-explicit public preferences with tenure policies to support land-use planning. Land Use Policy, 82, 337–348. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.033.
  28. Korcz, N., Kamińska, A., Ciesielski, M. 2024. Is the level of quality of life related to the frequency of visits to natural areas? Forests, 15, 2257. DOI: 10.3390/f1512225.
  29. Korpilo, S., Nyberg, E., Vierikko, K., Nieminen, H., Arciniegas, G., Raymond, C.M. 2023. Developing a Multi-sensory Public Participation GIS (MSPPGIS) method for integrating landscape values and soundscapes of urban green infrastructure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 230, 104617. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104617.
  30. Maes, J. et al. 2016. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services, 17, 14–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023.
  31. Müller, S.M., Peisker, J., Bieling, C., Linnemann, K., Reidl, K., Schmieder, K. 2019. The importance of cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity for landscape visitors in the biosphere reserve Swabian Alb (Germany). Sustainability, 11, 2650. DOI: 10.3390/su11092650.
  32. Nastran, M., Pintar, M., Železnikar, Š., Cvejić, R. 2022. Stakeholders’ perceptions on the role of urban green infrastructure in providing ecosystem services for human well-being. Land, 11 (2), 299. DOI: 10.3390/land11020299.
  33. Niedziałkowski, K., Chmielewski, P. 2023. Challenging the dominant path of forest policy? Bottom-up, citizen forest management initiatives in a top-down governance context in Poland. Forest Policy and Economics, 154, 103009. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103009.
  34. Pearlmutter, D. et al. 2017. The urban forest. Cultivating green infrastructure for people and the environment. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9.
  35. Pérez-del Hoyo, R., Mora H. 2019. Knowledge society technologies for smart cities development. In,· Smart Cities: Issues and Challenges. Elsevier, 229–248. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816639-0.00011-9.
  36. Ramirez Aranda, N., De Waegemaeker, J., Van de Weghe, N. 2023. The evolution of public participation GIS (PPGIS) barriers in spatial planning practice. Applied Geography, 155, 102940. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102940.
  37. Skłodowski, J., Gołos, P., Skłodowski, M., Oźga, W. 2013. The preferences of visitors to selected forest areas for tourism and recreational purposes (in Polish). Leśne Prace Badawcze, 74, 293–305.
  38. Sławski, M., Sławska, M. 2009. Forest as a recreation area e analysis of social expectations in Rogów community (in Polish). Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Leśnej, 4 (23), 140–150.
  39. Taczanowska, K., Latosińska, B., Brandenburg, C., Leisch, F., Czachs, C., Muhar, A. 2023. Lobbying in social media as a new source of survey bias. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 44, 100689. DOI: 10.1016/j.jort.2023.100689.
  40. Tolvanen, A. et al. 2020. The relationship between people’s activities and values with the protection level and biodiversity. Tourism Management, 81, 104141. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104141.
  41. Tyrväinen, L. 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75–92.
  42. Ustawa. 2023. Act of 27 March 2003 on Spatial Planning and Development (in Polish). Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20030800717/U/D20030717Lj.pdf (access on 31 December 2025).
  43. Ustawa. 2018. Act of 10 May 2018 on the Protection of Personal Data (in Polish). Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001000 (access on 31 December 2025).
  44. Varela, E., Jacobsen, J.B., Mavsar, R. 2017. Social demand for multiple benefits provided by Aleppo pine forest management in Catalonia, Spain. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 539–550. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-016-1038-8.
  45. Vaz, A., Gonçalves, J., Pereira, P., Santarém, F., Vicente, J., Honrado, J. 2019. Earth observation and social media: Evaluating the spatiotemporal contribution of nonnative trees to cultural ecosystem services. Remote Sensing of Environment, 230. DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.012.
  46. Vilalta Capdevila, T. et al. 2024. Advancements in monitoring: a comparison of traditional and applicationbased tools for measuring outdoor recreation. PeerJ, 12. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17744.
  47. Vos, S. et al. 2022. Residential green space is associated with a buffering effect on stress responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in mothers of young children, a prospective study. Environmental Research, 208, 112603. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112603.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2026-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677
Language: English
Page range: 122 - 136
Submitted on: Jan 16, 2026
Accepted on: Mar 5, 2026
Published on: Jun 25, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Related subjects:

© 2026 Mariusz Ciesielski, Miłosz Tkaczyk, Lidia Teleszko, Fruzsina Stefan, Karolina Taczanowska, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.