Preferences of Young Adults concerning the Pocket Parks with Water Reservoirs in the Aspect of Willingness to Pay (WTP) in Warsaw City, Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Areas
2.2. Methods and Statistical Analysis
- F1—More pocket parks in cities are recommended (five-point scale: 5 meaning that the respondent strongly agrees with a statement, 4—agrees, 3—neither agrees nor disagrees, 2—does not agree, and 1—strongly disagrees with a statement);
- F2—There should be more funding for pocket parks (five-point scale: 5 meaning that the respondent strongly agrees with a statement, 4—agrees, 3—neither agrees nor disagrees, 2—does not agree, and 1—strongly disagrees with a statement);
- F3—Pocket parks’ influence on improving the urban microclimate, e.g., by purifying the air (dichotomous nominal variable);
- F4—Pocket parks are/could be attractive places for recreation for residents and tourists;
- F5—Introduction of hydrotechnical elements made of environmentally friendly elements, such as stone, wood, and gabion elements, have a positive effect on the aesthetics of water reservoirs (five-point scale: 5 meaning that the respondent strongly agrees with a statement, 4—agrees, 3—neither agrees nor disagrees, 2—does not agree, and 1—strongly disagrees with a statement);
- F6—The introduction of hydrotechnical concrete elements has a beneficial effect on the aesthetics of water reservoirs (five-point scale: 5 meaning that the respondent strongly agrees with a statement, 4—agrees, 3—neither agrees nor disagrees, 2—does not agree, and 1—strongly disagrees with a statement);
- F7—Income per capita in EUR of the respondent’s income—quantitative variable—categorized by per capita income in order to divide the respondents into 3 groups according to the affluence of their household, treated as a rank variable after categorization. Additionally, the respondent’s gender—dichotomous nominal variable.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission; Directorate-General for Regional Policy. Cities of Tomorrow: Challenges, Visions, Ways Forward; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Puplampu, D.A.; Boafo, Y.A. Exploring the impacts of urban expansion on green spaces availability and delivery of ecosystem services in the Accra metropolis. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byomkesh, T.; Nakagoshi, N.; Dewan, A.M. Urbanization and green space dynamics in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 8, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickett, S.T.A.; Grove, J.M. Urban ecosystems: What would Tansley do? Urban Ecosyst. 2009, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basu, S.; Nagendra, H. Perceptions of park visitors on access to urban parks and benefits of green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 57, 126959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, D.H.S.; Shinzato, P.; Gusson, C.D.S.; Alves, C.A. The impact of vegetation on urban microclimate to counterbalance built density in a subtropical changing climate. Urban Clim. 2015, 14, 224–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elmqvist, T.; Setälä, H.; Handel, S.; van der Ploeg, S.; Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Nowak, D.; Kronenberg, J.; de Groot, R. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindley, S.; Pauleit, S.; Yeshitela, K.; Cilliers, S.; Shackleton, C. Rethinking urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services from the perspective of sub-Saharan African cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, H.; Song, Y.; Chang, X.; Gao, H.; Peng, J. A Scheme for a Sustainable Urban Water Environmental System During the Urbanization Process in China. Engineering 2018, 4, 190–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, Y.; Brimblecombe, P. Role of vegetation in deposition and dispersion of air pollution in urban parks. Atmos. Environ. 2019, 201, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajkowska, S.; Jastrzębska, U. Studies of the impact the shape of the rock-fill sill to the flow distribution. Scientific Review. Eng. Environ. Sci. 2012, 21, 263–272. [Google Scholar]
- Kiraga, M.; Popek, Z. Geometry Description of Local Scouring Process in Various Laboratory Water Structure Models. In Free Surface Flows and Transport Processes; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 245–258. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO-International Hydrological Programme Water in the Post-2015 Development Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals; Discussion Paper; Unesco: Paris, France, 2015; p. 14.
- Zalewski, M. Woda jako podstawa życia w miastwach. Zrównoważony Rozw. 2014, 5, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
- Mansor, M.; Said, I.; Mohamad, I. Experiential Contacts with Green Infrastructure’s Diversity and Well-being of Urban Community. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 49, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kousis, I.; Pigliautile, I.; Pisello, A.L. A Mobile Vehicle-Based Methodology for Dynamic Microclimate Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2021, 15, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesimäki, M.; Hauru, K.; Lehvävirta, S. Do small green roofs have the possibility to offer recreational and experiential benefits in a dense urban area? A case study in Helsinki, Finland. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Wang, X. Reexamine the value of urban pocket parks under the impact of the COVID-19. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosso, F.; Cappa, F.; Spitzmiller, R.; Ferrero, M. Pocket parks towards more sustainable cities. Architectural, environmental, managerial and legal considerations towards an integrated framework: A case study in the Mediterranean region. Environ. Chall. 2022, 7, 100402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinwald, F.; Haluza, D.; Pitha, U.; Stangl, R. Urban Green Infrastructure and Green Open Spaces: An Issue of Social Fairness in Times of COVID-19 Crisis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warsaw Participatory Budget. Available online: https://oidp.net/en/practice.php?id=1312 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
- Sirina, N.; Hua, A.; Gobert, J. What factors influence the value of an urban park within a medium-sized French conurbation? Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 24, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, X.; Gao, T.; Hedblom, M.; Xu, N.; Xiang, Y.; Hu, M.; Chen, Y.; Qiu, L. Soundscape Perceptions and Preferences for Different Groups of Users in Urban Recreational Forest Parks. Forests 2021, 12, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. Eliciting users’ preferences and values in urban parks: Evidence from analyzing social media data from Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordh, H.; Østby, K. Pocket parks for people—A study of park design and use. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-C.; Kim, K.-H. Attitudes of Citizens towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces for Urban Sustainability: The Case of Gyeongsan City, Republic of Korea. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8240–8254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schebella, M.; Weber, D.; Schultz, L.; Weinstein, P. The Wellbeing Benefits Associated with Perceived and Measured Biodiversity in Australian Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability 2019, 11, 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Balai Kerishnan, P.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Maulan, S. Investigating the usability pattern and constraints of pocket parks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 50, 126647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balai Kerishnan, P.; Maruthaveeran, S. Factors contributing to the usage of pocket parks—A review of the evidence. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czajkowski, M.; Bartczak, A.; Giergiczny, M.; Navrud, S.; Żylicz, T. Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 39, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamwesigye, D.; Hlavackova, P.; Sujova, A.; Fialova, J.; Kupec, P. Willingness to Pay for Forest Existence Value and Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, W.-Y.; Lin, Y.-Z.; Hsieh, C.-M. Assessing the Ecological Value of an Urban Forest Park: A Case Study of Sinhua Forest Park in Taiwan. Forests 2021, 12, 806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandziuk, A.; Fornal-Pieniak, B.; Ollik, M. Wartości nierynkowe lasów miejskich w zależności od ich wyglądu—Studium przypadku miasta Tarnowa. Sylwan 2021, 165, 165–175. [Google Scholar]
- Mandziuk, A.; Fornal-Pieniak, B.; Stangierska, D.; Parzych, S.; Widera, K. Social Preferences of Young Adults Regarding Urban Forest Recreation Management in Warsaw, Poland. Forests 2021, 12, 1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, J.J.; Stevens, T.; Weatherhead, D. Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30, 327–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gołos, P.; Ukalska, J. Hipotetyczna gotowość fmansowania publicznych funkcji lasu i gospodarki leśnej. Sylwan 2016, 160, 597–608. [Google Scholar]
- Bateman, I.J. Household Willingness to Pay and Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Establishing a Recreational Woodland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 1996, 39, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrväinen, L.; Väänänen, H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: An application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 43, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandziuk, A.; Fornal-Pieniak, B.; Ollik, M. The willingness of inhabitants in medium-sized city and the city’s surroundings settlements to pay for recreation in urban forests in Poland. iForest Biogeosci. For. 2021, 14, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oviedo, M.; Drescher, M.; Dean, J. Urban greenspace access, uses, and values: A case study of user perceptions in metropolitan ravine parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 70, 127522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotchen, M.J.; Reiling, S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Qi, X. Protest response and contingent valuation of an urban forest park in Fuzhou City, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, A.B.; Olsen, S.B.; Lundhede, T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skłodowski, J.; Gołos, P. Wartość rekreacyjnej funkcji lasu w świetle wyników ogólnopolskiego badania opinii społecznej. Sylwan 2016, 160, 759–766. [Google Scholar]
- Lorenzo, A.B.; Blanche, C.A.; Qi, Y. Guidry Assessing residents’ willingness-to-pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study. Arboric 2000, 26, 319–325. [Google Scholar]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Perception and Attitude of Residents Toward Urban Green Spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manage. 2006, 38, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, N.; Sophoulis, C.M.; Malesios, C. Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece. J. Socio. Econ. 2008, 37, 2478–2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhakal, B.; Yao, R.T.; Turner, J.A.; Barnard, T. Recreational users’ willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 17, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartczak, A. The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zydroń, A.; Szoszkiewicz, K.; Chwiałkowski, C. Valuing Protected Areas: Socioeconomic Determinants of the Willingness to Pay for the National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Abler, D. Incorporating zero and missing responses into CVM with open-ended bidding: Willingness to pay for blue skies in Beijing. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 15, 535–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gender (%) | |||
Female | Male | ||
42.95 | 57.05 | ||
Education (%) | |||
Secondary | Higher | ||
90.88 | 9.12 | ||
Place of residence (%) | |||
Rural areas | Towns up to 50,000 residents | Towns 50,000–100,000 residents | Cities over 100,000 residents |
19.38 | 17.50 | 21.56 | 41.56 |
Per capita income (%) | |||
Up to EUR 521 (1) | EUR 521–800 (2) | EUR 801 and more (3) | |
27.18 | 50.34 | 22.48 |
Type of Park 1 | A | B | C | D | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impact of the appearance/condition of water reservoirs on the attractiveness of a pocket park. | 232.43 | 146.36 | 141.82 | 117.89 | <0.0001 |
The current appearance of the water reservoirs/facility should be preserved with the addition of recreational infrastructure elements | 150.37 | 155.01 | 158.26 | 175.83 | 0.001 |
Impact of the Appearance/Condition of Water Reservoirs on the Attractiveness of a Pocket Park | The Current Appearance of the Water Reservoirs/Facility Should Be Preserved with the Addition of Recreational Infrastructure Elements | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | C | D | B | C | D | |
A | 11.80 * | 12.42 * | 15.70 * | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 * |
B | 0.62 | 3.90 * | 1.00 | 0.03 * | ||
C | 3.28 * | 0.10 |
Type of Pocket PARK 1 | WTP | No WTP | Z | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Impact of the appearance/condition of water features on the attractiveness of a pocket park. | ||||
A | 3.25 | 2.32 | −5.39 | <0.0001 |
B | 1.83 | 1.80 | −0.09 | 0.9266 |
C | 1.78 | 1.61 | −1.85 | 0.0679 |
D | 1.53 | 1.47 | −2.07 | 0.0428 |
The current appearance of the water feature/facility should be preserved with the addition of recreational infrastructure elements. | ||||
A | 2.00 | 2.11 | −0.93 | 0.3545 |
B | 2.05 | 1.98 | −0.98 | 0.3279 |
C | 2.15 | 1.81 | −3.15 | 0.0017 |
D | 2.29 | 2.14 | −1.26 | 0.2087 |
Variable | Level | Estimate | Point Estimate | 95% Wald Confidence Limits | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | −4.618 | <0.0001 | ||||
F1 More pocket parks in cities are recommended | 0.806 | 2.239 | 1.253 | 4.001 | 0.0065 | |
F2 There should be more funding for pocket parks | 0.684 | 1.982 | 1.208 | 3.253 | 0.0068 | |
F3 Pocket parks influence on improving the urban microclimate, e.g., by purifying the air | No | −1.092 | 0.336 | 0.135 | 0.832 | 0.0184 |
Yes (ref) | 0 | |||||
F4 Pocket parks are/could be attractive places for recreation for residents and tourists | No | 2.374 | 10.742 | <0.001 | >999.9 | 0.9810 |
No opinion | −2.670 | 0.069 | 0.013 | 0.379 | 0.0021 | |
Yes (ref) | 0 | |||||
F5 Introduction of hydrotechnical elements made of environmentally friendly elements, such as stone, wood, and gabion elements, have a positive effect on the aesthetics of water reservoirs | −0.792 | 0.453 | 0.272 | 0.755 | 0.0024 | |
F6 The introduction of hydrotechnical concrete elements has a beneficial effect on the aesthetics of water reservoirs | 1.092 | 2.979 | 1.965 | 4.517 | <0.0001 | |
F7 Income per capita in EUR | EUR 801 and more | 2.868 | 17.599 | 5.128 | 60.397 | <0.0001 |
EUR 521–800 | 2.079 | 7.995 | 2.736 | 23.366 | 0.0001 | |
EUR up to 521 (ref) | 0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mandziuk, A.; Stangierska, D.; Fornal-Pieniak, B.; Gębski, J.; Żarska, B.; Kiraga, M. Preferences of Young Adults concerning the Pocket Parks with Water Reservoirs in the Aspect of Willingness to Pay (WTP) in Warsaw City, Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095043
Mandziuk A, Stangierska D, Fornal-Pieniak B, Gębski J, Żarska B, Kiraga M. Preferences of Young Adults concerning the Pocket Parks with Water Reservoirs in the Aspect of Willingness to Pay (WTP) in Warsaw City, Poland. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095043
Chicago/Turabian StyleMandziuk, Agnieszka, Dagmara Stangierska, Beata Fornal-Pieniak, Jerzy Gębski, Barbara Żarska, and Marta Kiraga. 2022. "Preferences of Young Adults concerning the Pocket Parks with Water Reservoirs in the Aspect of Willingness to Pay (WTP) in Warsaw City, Poland" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095043