Air Pollution in Residential Areas of Monocentric City Agglomerations: Objective and Subjective Dimensions

Abstract

This article presents objective air quality conditions in a residential area of Lodz in Poland (East–Central Europe) in comparison to the subjective opinions of local residents regarding air pollution. The article focuses on the housing estate in Widzew East, in the vicinity of which is located a municipal thermal power plant (CHP power plant—local designation EC4). The aim of this study was to obtain information on the subjective assessment of air quality in the selected area and further compare it with the actual state. It was assumed that what is factual does not coincide with what the residents perceive. Discrepancies in the subjective assessment of air quality and the actual state can have significant consequences. These include the omission of personal protection and prevention, implemented at the household level and thus exposing oneself to unnecessary exposure, inadequate targeting of public action, e.g., protests against alleged rather than actual hazards, and inappropriate targeting of policies at the local government level. This view grows out of the traditions of social geography and the geography of perception. The social surveys were conducted in 2022—a self-administered questionnaire and unstructured interview in 2023. They revealed relatively low interest among the residents in air quality. The analyses also showed that the residents associated air pollution more with smog, and hence with car traffic and individual heating systems in single-family homes, than with the thermal power plant operating in close proximity. On the other hand, objective measures of air pollution showed that emissions from the thermal CHP power plant had a direct negative effect on air quality in the housing estate. The theoretical and methodological framework of socio-spatial analysis is set by behavioral geography and geography of perception.

1. Introduction

1.1. Raison D’être and Aim of the Study

“Decision-makers operating in an environment base their decisions on the environment as they perceive it, not as it is. The action resulting from decision, on the other hand, is played out in a real environment” [1]. It is very true for other people too. Moreover, it may affect their lives as well. As D.C.D. Pocock (1971) [2] said, “The aim is to discover how the environment is perceived; this is then an aid to the understanding of spatial behavior and provides a sounder basis for the planning of future environments” [2]. In particular, discrepancies in the subjective assessment of air quality and the actual state can have significant consequences. These include:

• omission of personal protection and prevention, implemented at the household level and thus exposing oneself to unnecessary exposure,
• inadequate targeting of public action, e.g., protests against alleged rather than actual hazards,
• at the local government level, inappropriate targeting of policies.

This view grows out of the traditions of behavioral geography and the geography of perception [3].

As Z. Bahrami et al., 2024 [4], although awareness of the health risks of air pollution has been growing in recent years, there have been relatively few publications on the perception of these risks. English-language texts posted on PubMed and Web of Science were examined using the following keywords: “air pollution”, “air quality”, “perceived”, “perceived threat”, “perceived risk”, and “awareness” from January 1970 to 15 March 2022; only 95 such papers were published in prominent journals. It further turns out that the studies are mainly not conducted according to standardized scales. Only in nine cases were standardized scales used using mainly the Likert scale.

After examining the selected texts, the authors found that most studies were based on Asia (38) and adults (78). Most studies were based on samples between 100 and 1000 respondents (55). They mainly used a self-administered questionnaire (54) and interviews (30). In as many as 61 cases, the subjects of the survey were residents of the selected areas.

In a review article, L. Cori et al., 2020 [5] demonstrate that between 2000 and 2020, the results of 38 studies linking risk perception and pollution levels were published (Authors conducted a review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, exploring PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases). The number of studies is increasing each year. The largest number of studies involved China (13) and the US (11). As many as 28 studies were carried out at the local level. A direct link between exposure and perception appeared in 20 studies. It is necessary to emphasize that mainly risk perception was studied.

There are no studies on the actual state of air pollution and its perception in Poland. The proposed article can fill this gap while providing a basis for further development of research and practice.

1.2. Methodology

The aim of this study was to obtain information on the subjective assessment of air quality in the selected area and further compare it with the actual state. It was assumed that what is factual does not coincide with what the residents perceive. From the theoretical point of view, the frame for researchers is the geography of perception.

Three different research techniques were employed to study how residents of the Widzew neighborhood assess air quality. This approach aligns with the principle of triangulation, which involves using multiple methods to investigate a phenomenon, including both qualitative and quantitative ways of obtaining and analyzing data. Triangulation was described by N.K. Denzin as one of the convergent methodologies, multimethod or multitrait [6] in 1978 [7]. Since then, it has been applied in the social sciences in the belief that the use of a variety of methods increases the objectivity of research and allows for a more holistic view of reality [8,9]. Triangulation is used in research carried out using different paradigms. However, it is often associated with grounded theory [10,11]. We used self-administered questionnaires, unstructured interviews, and content analyses. The research was conducted between May and October 2022.

The self-administered questionnaire was treated as a quantitative technique, and collected data were statistically processed. The distributions of responses, arithmetic means for quantitative variables, and dominants for qualitative variables were obtained. Cross tables were constructed, and Cramér’s V was calculated to assess the association between the nominal variables. This study was carried out using IBM’s SPSS 21 program. The sample used in this study was not selected through a probability-based method (such as random sampling). One of the convenience samplings was employed instead. This means that participants were chosen based on their accessibility rather than being randomly selected from the entire population. Such practice is common and used in the absence of a sampling frame or other difficulties. In this case, it was also not possible to use a quota sample because of the lack of reliable socio-demographic data on the inhabitants. For this reason, it was decided not to treat socio-demographic characteristics as descriptive variables [12]. In total, 280 residents of the Widzew East housing estate were contacted via the Internet (emails with links to a survey). This kind of recruitment is called “river” sampling [13].

The complementary qualitative method was an unstructured interview. The main topic in this case was air quality only. Ten telephone interviews were conducted with snowball sampling. The snowball sampling was chosen because of the difficulty in reaching respondents. Unfortunately, the experience of the era of real socialism resulted in a great reticence and even aversion of Poles to social research and surveys [14]. Snowball sampling provided a more effective way of reaching respondents eager to talk about air quality and living in the study area. As before, the condition was that respondents must live in the residential area. The analysis of the material was qualitative. For both the self-administered questionnaire and the unstructured interview, respondents were informed about the purpose and nature of the study. They were also informed that they could withdraw from the interviews at any time and without any consequences. All surveys were conducted by the researchers (authors). No interviewers were involved.

The third and final technique was content analysis. It was subjected to selected Facebook groups (e.g., Spotted “Widzew”). Qualitative analysis was conducted in search of information on how Widzew dwellers respond to air quality.

1.3. Air Pollution—Objective Dimension—Regional Perspective

According to the WHO [15], air pollution is one of the leading risk factors for global population health. Air pollutants in both outdoor air and indoor air (such as in households), together accounted for about 12% of all deaths in 2019. Air pollutants now rank fourth among major risk factors for morbidity and mortality globally, second only to hypertension, smoking habits, and unhealthy diets. They also cause a huge financial burden.

The latest air quality guidelines [16] are more stringent than previous guidelines and existing international laws. This reflects the growing importance of the impact of air pollution on the health of the world population. For example, it is recommended that annual average PM_2.5 concentrations should not exceed 5 μg/m³, while annual average NO₂ concentrations should not exceed 10 μg/m³, and 8 h average O₃ concentrations (during the 6 month period of highest ozone concentrations) should not exceed 60 μg/m³ [16]. In comparison, the corresponding values from the 2005 WHO air quality guidelines [17] for PM_2.5 and NO₂ were 10 μg/m³ and 40 μg/m³, respectively, and there were no long-term concentration recommendations for ozone (

Table 1. Recommended 2021 AQG levels compared with 2005 air quality guidelines.

Pollutant	Averaging Time	2005 AQGs	2021 AQGs
PM2.5, μg/m3	Annual	10	5
	24-h a	25	15
PM10, μg/m3	Annual	20	15
	24-h a	50	45
O3, μg/m3	Peak season b	-	60
	8-h a	100	100
NO2, μg/m3	Annual	40	10
	24-h a	-	25
SO2, μg/m3	24-h a	20	40
CO, mg/m3	24-h a	-	4

^a The 99th percentile (i.e., 3–4 exceedance days per year). ^b Average of daily maximum 8-h mean O₃ concentration in the six consecutive months with the highest six-month running average O₃ concentration. Note: Annual and peak seasons are long-term exposure, while 24 h and 8 h are short-term exposure [18].

). Although the WHO air quality guidelines [16] are not legally binding, they serve as a reference for air quality policy worldwide.

Existing policies aimed at reducing air pollution have led to improvements in air quality in Europe over the past three decades [19,20]. However, in some European cities, air pollution still poses a serious threat to health. Cities in Poland (Central and Eastern Europe) are a case in point. According to the WHO, 36 Polish cities are among the 100 most polluted cities in the EU [21]. This is a consequence of the fact that the energy and municipal sectors in Poland are still based largely on burning coal and lignite, which are significant sources of air pollution emissions. As a result, Poland has one of the highest concentrations of atmospheric particulate matter in the EU (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Although levels have fallen since the beginning of the decade, by about 20% in the case of PM_2.5 to 24.30 µg/m³ and by 16% for PM₁₀ to 33.20 µg/m³ [22], they still clearly exceed WHO guidelines and are also significantly higher than the average levels in the EU (13.80 µg/m³ for PM_2.5 and 21.60 µg/m³ for PM₁₀). In addition, because the main sources of emissions in Poland are household solid-fuel stoves, fireplaces, and coal cookers, the atmosphere in Poland has a high average annual concentration of benzo(a)pyrene (more than 80% of the total concentration of pollutants). In most EU countries, the concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in the air is below the permissible level set by EU law (1 µg/m³), whereas in Poland, it exceeded this level for years by as much as five times (in 2018 it was 4.80 µg/m³ and in 2010 it was 5.77 µg/m³).

The problem of air quality has been a global issue for decades. One of the most important international treaties was the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, supplementing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was established in 1992. Under the Kyoto Protocol, participating countries (known as Annex I countries) committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions collectively by at least 5% below 1990 levels by the end of the first commitment period, which was set for 2008–2012. This reduction target primarily focused on six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆).

In 2008, as part of its policy to ensure clean air in Europe, the EU set an annual limit value for fine particulate matter of 25 μg/m³. Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality is currently being revised, with one of the aims being to better align the EU limit values with WHO recommendations [23]. One of the latest initiatives of the European Environment Agency (EEA) is the European City Air Quality Viewer [24], which allows users to compare air quality data from different cities across Europe over the past two years. It creates a ranking of cities from the least to most polluted, based on the average level of suspended PM_2.5. This fine dust is known to have significant health impacts in terms of premature death and disease (while keeping in mind that PM₁₀, as well as PM₁ and PM_0.1, are also present in the air).

These data were collected by on-the-ground measurements of fine particulate matter made at more than 400 monitoring stations across more than 340 European cities. The viewer shows cities as defined in the European Commission’s Urban Audit 2020 edition. This geospatial dataset includes cities with populations over 50,000. The EEA uses data from urban and suburban background air quality monitoring stations located within city limits, as defined in the Urban Audit, and for which countries report data to the EEA. These stations provide a robust picture of population exposure to urban air pollution. The viewer presents the annual average fine particulate matter concentrations for a city by averaging daily averages for all urban background stations and suburban background stations over the past calendar year. It uses current air quality data, concentrations above 1000 ug/m³ are removed from the time series before calculating the average. For station data to be included, at least 75% coverage of a time-series dataset is required. This means that for a single station, 274 valid daily values are included in a calendar year (or 275 days in a leap year).

The European Environment Agency (EEA) defines the following categories of air quality:

• Good: Levels of fine particulate matter that do not exceed the annual limit of 5 μg/m³;
• Fair: Levels above 5 and not exceeding 10 μg/m³;
• Moderate: Levels above 10 and not exceeding 15 μg/m³;
• Poor: Levels above 15 and not exceeding 25 μg/m³;
• Very poor: Levels at and above the European Union limit value of 25 μg/m³

In 2020–2021, the city with the best air quality in Europe was Umeå in Sweden, followed by Faro and Funchal in Portugal. The most polluted city was Nowy Sącz in Poland, followed by Cremona and Padova in Italy. Of the 346 cities included in this review, air quality was classified as Good in 11 cities, meaning that it fell below the health-relevant limit for long-term exposure to PM_2.5 of 5 μg/m³ set by the WHO. Air quality was classified as Fair (between 5 and 10 μg/m³ PM_2.5) in 156 European cities. The EEA viewer classified 43 Polish cities (Figure 3). The 11 Polish cities with the best air quality had PM_2.5 concentrations of between 10 and 15 μg/m³—classified as Moderate. This placed them in positions 190–271 in the ranking. Koszalin, Zielona Góra, Suwałki, and Szczecin ranked highest, having the lowest PM_2.5 concentrations. The remaining Polish cities had Poor or Very Poor air quality. The city of Lodz was ranked 295th, with PM2.₅ concentrations of 17.4 μg/m³. The highest PM_2.5 concentration was in Nowy Sacz (26.8 μg/m³). It should be added that nearly 27% of Poland’s population (nearly 45% of the urban population) lives in the Polish cities included in the air quality measurements.

Although air quality in Europe has improved significantly over the last decade, the EEA’s latest annual air quality assessment found that exposure to fine particulate matter caused some 238,000 premature deaths in 27 European countries in 2020 [25].

Information on air quality in European cities has also been collected as part of the Urban Statistics Project (formerly Urban Audit) [25]. This is a joint initiative by the European Commission and Eurostat. The main objective of the program is to provide objective and comparable statistical data on European cities, including demography, household structure, housing, labor market, education, environment, transportation, culture, and tourism. The work was coordinated by Eurostat, and the contractors are national statistical offices, city halls, and local governments. To date, there have been nine editions of the project [26]. The tenth edition of the project is underway (data are being collected for 2021–2022). The selection of cities for the project was made by Eurostat and the EC in cooperation with national statistical offices. The definition of a city adopted by Eurostat and the EC is based on the Degurba classification. According to the classification, 68 Polish cities are included in the project list [27].

The Urban Statistics Project [28] also captures the subjective opinions of residents of European cities on the issue of air pollution. In this case, the survey covers four Polish cities (Warsaw, Krakow, Gdansk, and Bialystok). The survey results (available on the Eurostat website) for 2012, 2015, and 2019 [29] show a very wide variety of responses. Residents of Bialystok and Gdansk have a noticeably more accurate assessment of air quality in their cities than residents of Krakow and Warsaw (Figure 4). It should be noted that the structure of the 2019 responses differs slightly from those of previous years. Only in Gdansk can one note an improvement in perceived air quality, which translates into a slightly higher level of satisfaction among Gdanskers (from 67% satisfied or rather satisfied in 2012 to 76% in 2019).

In Poland, the Environmental Protection Inspectorate monitors compliance with environmental regulations and assesses the state of the environment. The Inspectorate consists of a Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (GIOS) and 16 provincial inspectorates for environmental protection. Air quality monitoring includes ‘tasks related to the study and assessment of the state of air pollution, including measurements and assessments of air quality in zones, urban background monitoring for PAHs, measurements of the state of air pollution by PM_2.5 for monitoring the process of achieving the national exposure reduction target, measurements of the state of air pollution by heavy metals and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and gaseous mercury at regional background monitoring stations, measurements of the chemical composition of PM_2.5, monitoring of ozone precursors; research programs on global and continental phenomena resulting from ecological conventions signed by Poland’ [30].

The air pollution measurement network in Poland consists of automatic measurement stations and manual measurement stations. The concentrations of particulate (PM₁₀ and PM_2.5) and gaseous (including benzene, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) pollutants are measured at automatic stations. The concentrations of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and lead) and benzo(a)pyrene—a highly carcinogenic substance from the group of aromatic hydrocarbons—can also be measured from dust deposited on filters at manual stations.

Air quality is also part of the survey conducted by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) on the quality of the environment and immediate surroundings [31]. In the latest 2020 edition, the results of the 2018 survey were presented [32]. Recognizing the impact that the type of home heating has on air quality, especially during the heating season, the survey included two questions. The first asked people to rate their exposure to air pollution in the summer months and in the winter months. Residential air pollution was considered a serious problem for 15% of Polish households in winter but only a serious problem for 6% in summer. “Poor air quality” was reported much more often in cities (by 19% of households in winter, 8% in summer) than in rural areas (8% in winter, only 3% in summer). It was also reported more often in larger cities: by 10% in winter and 3% in summer in cities with fewer than 20,000 residents, increasing to 30% in winter and 14% in summer in cities with at least 500,000 residents (Figure 5).

“Poor air quality” in the winter months was most often reported in the provinces of Silesia (35% of households), Lesser Poland (29%), and Opole (20%). The lowest reports of “Poor air quality” were in the Świętokrzyskie, Warmian–Masurian, and Lubuskie provinces (5% each). During the summer months, “Poor air quality” was most commonly reported in the Lower Silesian, Mazovian, Opole, and Silesian provinces (9% each), and the lowest reports were in the Świętokrzyskie (2%) and Kujawsko–Pomorskie, Lubelskie, Warmińsko–Mazurskie and Zachodniopomorskie provinces (3% each). Households in the Lodz Voivodeship rated air quality at a level similar to the national level (Figure 6).

2. Analyzed Area and Air Pollution

Lodz is the fourth most populous city in Poland. In 2022, it had a population of 658,444. A characteristic feature is the high feminization rate (119.2—it is the ratio of women to men multiplied by 100). Another important demographic feature is depopulation. The city’s population has decreased by more than 126,000 people over the past 20 years. At the same time, the population is aging. According to data for 2022, the median age in Lodz is three years higher than for Poland as a whole, at 45.3 [33].

Lodz has medieval roots. While it began as a small settlement, it grew significantly during the Middle Ages, primarily because of its location on trade routes connecting eastern and western parts of the region. However, it was not until the 19th century that Lodz experienced substantial industrialization, transforming it into a major center of textile manufacturing [34]. The city went through a deep crisis after the marketization of the Polish economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, the city’s development is based on high-tech industries and highly specialized services, including outsourcing. Major investors include ABB, Dell Products, Hutchinson Poland, Veolia, and Tom Tom. Lodz is also a significant academic center [35].

Lodz is a city located in the center of Poland (between 51 and 53° north latitude and 19 and 21° east longitude), on the edge of a small plateau sloping NW-SE, on the border of the Łaska Plateau and the Lodz Hills. The eastern part of the city is situated on the Lagiewnickie Hills and the Stokowski Plateau [36].

This has consequences for the ventilation of the city. As the results of long-term measurements show, westerly winds dominate. Recent data indicate a significant share of SE winds (Figure 7) [37,38,39,40].

The analyzed area is the eastern part of the city, Widzew East, which is one of the dozens of so-called “auxiliary units of local government in Lodz”. In practice, this means that the residents, thanks to the “Estate Council”, have an influence on decisions made by the municipal authorities. The neighborhood and its residents are the focus of specific city projects. There is a “civic budget” implemented within the framework of settlements in Lodz for financing projects submitted by residents and selected by popular vote.

At the beginning of the 1970s, the Widzew district was a peripheral area of the city despite being relatively close to the downtown district. Over the past half-century, the city has overtaken the estate, and its location is no longer peripheral. The terrain of the settlement is not very varied. This is primarily because of the geological characteristics of the area. As noted earlier, in this part of Lodz, there is a slight elevation of the terrain in the NW-SE direction. The lowest areas are 200 m above sea level, and the highest are about 240 m above sea level [36].

There are two large green areas in the district: Górka Widzewska Park and a forest to the southeast. A cemetery covering 18.2 hectares is located just outside the southern border of the district [41]. Despite these green areas, a heat island has been observable since the 1990s. The reasons lie in the high roughness of the ground and the very high emission of artificial heat, especially during cold months [37,42].

Widzew East is also the name of a housing development built in Lodz using so-called “big plate” technology. The “big plate”, or “wielka płyta” in Polish, refers to large precast concrete panels used in construction. These panels were employed in more than a dozen open and closed construction systems, which were popularized in Poland during the mid-20th century, particularly in the 1960s and onwards. These modernist solutions were intended as a response to wartime destruction and the need for rapid urbanization. At the same time, they were part of the socialist (classless) system imposed during the People’s Republic of Poland. The first developments using “big plate” technology began in the 1960s. Over the next three decades, these systems were often employed in the construction of large housing estates, which became characteristic features of many Polish cities in the People’s Republic of Poland.

The Widzew East housing estate was conceptualized in the early 1970s. Construction began in 1974, and in 1975, new residents moved into the first blocks [43]. Simultaneously, construction was underway on the fourth coal-fired thermal power plant in Lodz (EC4). The location of the power plant was not accidental. The EC4 CHP plant was to supply electricity and heat to the housing estate to the north, as well as to the industrial district to the south (Dąbrowa Przemysłowa). Initially, two BC-50 power units were installed at the EC-4 plant, each with a capacity of 50 MW. Later, a 100 MW BC-100 unit was commissioned in 1992. Today, the French owner of the CHP plant, Veolia, invests heavily in modernization and environmental protection. Currently, EC4 has six boilers with a total thermal generating capacity of 820 MW and a total electrical generating capacity of 198 MW [43]. In a study attached to the ‘Resolution on updating and amending the air protection program and short-term action plan for the Lodz agglomeration zone’, the EC4 CHP plant is listed as the second largest emitter of PM_2.5 in the region (PM_2.5 emissions are 8.6 Mg/year) and the third largest emitter of PM₁₀ (PM_2.5 emissions are 36.2 Mg/year) [38].

In the immediate vicinity of EC4 is an industrial and storage district. However, to the north and northwest nearby, there are single-family housing and collective housing areas. Towards the south, there are industrial areas, and towards the east and northeast, there are recreational and leisure areas with high greenery in the form of trees. The gross development index in this area ranges from 0.5 to 1.0. Significant sources of pollution in close proximity to both heat and power plants include busy roads leading to housing estates and out of the city [40].

The calculation software for pollutant concentration analysis, ‘Eko-Soft’ computer software (OPA03), was used to calculate the concentration of pollutants in the atmospheric air and their spatial dispersion, including SO₂. The program also includes the MAPS module, which is used for graphical interpretation of the results. The OPA03 system can analyze up to 900 point, surface, line, and equivalent emitters. The software enables the calculation of boundary dust and gaseous emissions, with the diameter and height of the emitters as variables) from the EC4 installation at heights of 1.5 m, 14 m, and 25 m; the values range from 0.2 g/m³ to 0.8 g/m³, which is between 1% and 4% of the reference value. The SO₂ concentration doubles as the measurement height increases from 1.5 m to 25 m. The SO₂ pollution from EC4 spreads according to the wind direction over a site. The pollution spreads mainly to the north, northeast, and east. The pollution spread covers the area of the Widzew East neighborhood (Figure 8). Both actual measurements and numerical calculations of the dispersion of emissions from selected pollution sources can be used for the analysis [44].

The development structure of the Widzew East area is dominated by multi-family buildings, which constitute more than two-thirds of the estate, or about 270 buildings. Most of the buildings (more than 170) were built in the second half of the 1970s. These buildings are administered by four housing cooperatives (the Polish acronym of housing cooperative “SM” is used in the text): SM Batory (western part of the area), SM Chrobry (eastern part of the area), SM Mieszko I (northeastern part of the area), and the Youth Cooperative (southwestern part of the area). The Widzew East housing estate is bounded to the north and west by the railroad. It is enclosed from the south by Przybyszewskiego Street and from the east by Augustów Street. The spatial structure of the residential area is determined by the axes of the two-lane streets Przybyszewskiego, Pushkin, and Rokicinska. On the southern side, it is bordered by industrial areas. It is bordered by single-family housing estates to the west and north and partially on the east side (Figure 9). Rokicinska Street provides access to the A1 and A2 highways, which meet in Strykow and are the primary transit corridors for Poland with a W/E and N/S alignment. Rokicinska Street and Przybyszewskiego Street also provide exits for vehicular traffic from the Widzew East housing estate to other parts of the city.

According to the operational definition adopted by the international project RESTATE (Restructuring Large-scale Housing Estates in European Cities: Good Practices and New Visions for Sustainable Neighborhoods and Cities), the Widzew East housing complex can be classified as a Large-scale Housing Estate, as the population exceeds 2000 people [47]. Unfortunately, there is a lack of socio-demographic and development data for the area. The most recent census and current statistics cover only bigger territorial units, and only population data are available. In 2020, the Widzew East housing development had a population of 35,856. This was 3000 lower than 4 years earlier [48]. The entire city of Lodz has experienced depopulation, accompanied by a progressive aging of the population. It is estimated that in the Widzew East housing estate, over 30% of residents are of post-working age. The number of people of pre-working age is decreasing significantly. It can be said that the residents are aging along with their neighborhood. Another consequence of population decline is the growing share of single-person households, at more than 30% [49].

Distances from the Widzew East estate to the EC4 thermal power plant range from 990 m to 1700 m (Figure 10).

Most of the buildings on the estate are five stories or less. The tallest has more than 10 stories. The buildings are organized according to various urban layouts, which were characteristic of housing developments during the communist period. They can be classified as ridge, linear, and nested layouts. The complexes built after 1990 follow a nested layout with unenclosed courtyards. The neighborhood lacks pedestrian infrastructure [50]. The gross building intensity index, i.e., the ratio of the total area of the buildings (all above-ground floors within the contour of the foundations) to the area of the adopted reference field, is in the range of 0.5–1.0. In the southern and northeastern parts of the estate, most of the buildings are set with their fronts to SE winds, i.e., blowing from the side of the EC4 thermal power plant. The northwestern part consists of buildings set with their fronts in the WE direction (Figure 11).

Large-panel estates are often criticized for their architectural simplicity and poor workmanship. They were built without being equipped with basic social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, services, parks, and squares). Over the past several decades, these deficiencies have been addressed [51,52]. The high quality of life in the Widzew East neighborhood is indirectly reflected by the prices of apartments for sale, which are relatively high compared with other areas in Lodz (Figure 12).

3. Results and Discussion

In total, 280 surveys were completed, each reporting on a single household. The descriptive variables were the place of residence (the selected part of the housing development), the number of years spent in the housing development, and the floor on which the household lives. The age and gender structure of the respondents were not crucial.

The respondents were dominated by women (80%) compared with men (20%). The questionnaire was most readily completed by those in the 31–40 age range. More than 18% of respondents were in the 21–30 and 51–60 age brackets.

Among those surveyed, the largest number of people declared themselves to have a university degree (45%), with the second largest group being respondents with a secondary education (25%). Respondents with a bachelor’s degree also completed the survey, accounting for 16% of all residents. Respondents also had post-secondary and basic vocational education (5% each). Only eight people had tertiary education with at least a doctoral degree, and three people with primary education. None of the groups showed a clear trend for particular opinions. It seems to be the consequence of the particular sampling chosen for this research study.

The largest proportion of respondents were those living in SM Batory (35.7%), followed by SM Chrobry (33.6%), SM Mieszko I (10.4%), and Youth Cooperative (12.5%). The average length of residence was 20.91 years (arithmetic average). Four respondents had lived on the estate for less than a year. Four respondents had lived on the estate for 46 years, which was the longest time. The median duration of residence was 20 years.

Slightly more than half of the households lived on floors no higher than the third floor, and more than 70% lived no higher than the fourth floor (Figure 13). The distribution of responses to this question corresponds to the housing structure of the study area (

Table 2. Percentage of households by residence zone and cooperative. Source: Own elaboration.

		Floor Zone			Total
		1	2	3
Batory		51.0	34.0	15.0	100.0
Chrobry		37.2	35.1	27.7	100.0
Mieszko I		55.2	31.0	13.8	100.0
Youth Cooperative		82.9	11.4	5.7	100.0
		Total	31.0	18.2	100.0

). The height of residence was treated as a descriptive variable, according to which almost half of the households lived in Zone I (up to and including the third floor), almost 30% lived in Zone II, and 21.4% lived in Zone III (eighth floor and above).

The main question asked people to rate air quality on a scale from 0 (very bad) to 5 (very good). The mode rating was 2, and the mean rating was 2.35 (Figure 14A). The survey revealed a weak differentiation in responses based on the floor of residence. However, it can be said that the residents of the highest floors rated the air quality as best (2.45) (zone 3), and the residents of Zone 2 rated it as worst (2.27) (Figure 14B). Similarly, there were slight differences in the average ratings by individual neighborhoods. The highest average rating (2.48) was given by residents of the SM Mieszko I housing cooperative, and the lowest (2.34) by residents of the SM Batory housing cooperative. However, residents of the SM Chrobry cooperative most often indicated the highest and lowest ratings, resulting in the highest standard deviation (1.044). It should be remembered here that this is the SM Chrobry cooperative that has the tallest buildings, and the variation depends on the floor. The residents of the SM Mieszko cooperative were least likely to indicate the lowest ratings, resulting in a relatively small standard deviation of 0.688 (

Table 3. Structure of air quality ratings by place of residence. Source: Own elaboration.

		Scale					Total
		0	1	2	3	4
Batory		1.0	14.0	42.0	36.0	7.0	100.0
Chrobry		6.4	10.6	37.2	33.0	12.8	100.0
Mieszko I		0.0	3.4	51.7	37.9	6.9	100.0
Youth Cooperative		2.9	14.3	34.3	40.0	8.6	100.0
Total		3.1	11.6	40.3	35.7	9.3	100.0

). Thus, it can be seen that distance from the EC4 CHP plant does not determine the rating. There was also no correlation between the period of residence in the settlement and the air quality rating. This implies the need to look for other determinants of the air quality ratings.

In the subsequent questions, residents were asked to give their subjective assessment of environmental pollution in the settlement. A scale of 0–5 was used, with 0 indicating no pollution and 5 indicating very high pollution. Light pollution, noise pollution, and air pollution were evaluated. The air pollution variable was treated as supplementary, not a control. The arithmetic averages for all elements were similar. However, air quality was rated the best (2.79; noise mean 2.83; illumination mean 2.97), and the standard deviation was also the smallest for indoor air (1.310; noise 1.446; illumination 1.517). Values for individual neighborhoods were compared. The worst ratings were given in the settlement furthest from the CHP plant (SM Mieszko I). This settlement borders a major thoroughfare, which may instead explain the low ratings (

Table 4. Assessment of environmental elements, arithmetic means by cooperatives. Source: Own elaboration.

		Air	Noise	Illumination
Batory	Mean	2.780	2.780	3.140
	Standard deviation	1.203	1.447	1.544
Chrobry	Mean	2.720	2.790	2.800
	Standard deviation	1.469	1.451	1.485
Mieszko I	Mean	3.100	2.970	2.860
	Standard deviation	1.012	1.322	1.432
Youth Cooperative	Mean	2.770	2.940	3.000
	Standard deviation	1.087	1.494	1.495
Total	Mean	2.790	2.830	2.970
	Standard deviation	1.272	1.435	1.503

).

The ratings were also analyzed based on the floor of residence. After dividing into three zones by objective pollution, it can be concluded that regardless of the floor of residence the air pollution ratings were similar. However, residents of the highest floors rated air quality the best. They were also the least bothered by noise and light pollution (Figure 15).

Another question supplementing the air quality assessment concerned exposure to smog. Respondents were asked to compare where they live with other parts of Lodz—i.e., whether they considered their neighborhood to be more or less affected by smog. Nearly two-thirds of respondents saw no difference (64% of valid responses). Almost a quarter thought their area was less affected by smog (24.7%). A little more than one in ten said that the area was more affected by smog than the rest of the city. Again, the best and worst evaluators of their settlement were from the SM Chrobry cooperative. The worst ratings were from residents of SM Mieszko I. This coincides with the distribution of responses to the question about pollution. The situation is analogous when the answers are analyzed according to the zone of residence: the weakest assessments appear among residents of Zone 2 (

Table 5. Structure of answers to the question, “In your opinion, is the place where you live more or less exposed to smog than other neighborhoods in Lodz?” Source: Own elaboration.

		Less	The Same	More	Total
Estate	Batory	21.2	68.7	10.1	100.0
	Chrobry	31.5	58.7	9.8	100.0
	Mieszko I	27.6	51.7	20.7	100.0
	Youth Cooperative	15.2	72.7	12.1	100.0
Total		24.9	63.6	11.5	100.0
Zone	1	24.4	65.6	9.9	100.0
	2	22.6	63.1	14.3	100.0
	3	28.3	61.7	10.0	100.0
Total		24.7	64.0	11.3	100.0

).

It appears that the air quality ratings given by the respondents do not influence their behavior. Despite the fact they believe air quality in their neighborhoods to be poor, more than 99% of the respondents regularly air their apartments (by opening windows). As many as 93.2% open windows every day. The most popular times for airing are between 9 am and 9 pm (Figure 16). Almost 15% ventilate around the clock. At the same time, more than half (56.6%) of respondents do not pay attention to air quality messages, and three-quarters do not use any filtering devices. Only 12% check smog messages before opening a window.

The results of the self-administered questionnaire were partially confirmed in the unstructured interviews. What is striking is the virtually unanimous statements that the air quality in the Widzew neighborhood is “good”. In the questionnaires, these ratings were only slightly weaker. Respondents who moved to the estate from other locations also rated the Widzew East estate “good” in terms of air quality. They linked the pollution to smog and the smog to car traffic and individual heating for single-family houses. At the same time, no respondents mentioned the EC4 thermal power plant as a source of air pollution. It was also significant that none of the respondents monitored air quality. Some even admitted that they had never thought of doing so. Below are excerpts from the interview responses:

• “When I lived in Starowa Gora, everywhere was far away. Here everything is within walking distance. It’s such a city within a city”.
• “Air? Here I feel that it is excellent. In Starowa Gora in winter when the neighbours fired up their stoves it was impossible to go out in front of the house, such was the stench”.
• “If I could I would have the windows open all the time, only my husband is cold and closes them” (Female 33).
• “We live very well here. The park is close, the air is smog-free, even now I have a window open. I ventilate when I feel like it and don’t check any messages” (Male 78).
• “We live close to Górka Widzewska. No cars drive under the block, no one pollutes the air. It’s a long way to Rokicinska Street, it’s probably worse there”.
• “The smog used to be noticeable. When it blew over these houses from the city side, you could feel that people were burning whatever they wanted. But that was only in the winter. Now I don’t feel it anymore”.
• “I don’t see a connection between the air quality here and the CHP plant” (Female 52).
• “I moved here from the center, as the conditions are better—I only have further to go school. I did not think about (the quality of) the air. It seems to me that it is better here, though. Just the fact that there is not so much car traffic directly under the windows” (Female 22).

The final stage of the subjective assessment of air quality in the Widzew East housing estate was a qualitative content analysis of websites and groups on social media (Facebook). Two sites and one group were selected. The criterion for selection was the discussion group Widzew East housing estate which contains over 1000 members. Sites that discussed other topics in addition to the Widzew East housing estate, such as sports or real estate, and those with fewer than 1000 members/observers, were not considered (

Table 6. Pages and groups on Facebook subjected to content analysis. Source: Own elaboration.

	Observers /Likes	Type	Address URL
Spotted: Widzew	15,371/16,290	Page	Available online: https://www.facebook.com/spottedWidzew (accessed on 28 March 2023)
Widzew–Wschód	2400/2400	Page	Available online: https://www.facebook.com/osiedlewidzewwschod (accessed on 28 March 2024)
Osiedle Widzew–Wschód w Łodzi	3100/na	Group	Available online: https://www.facebook.com/groups/227925995629667 (accessed on 28 March 2024)

). The content analysis study was complete, i.e., all available material was examined—Facebook posts added to groups about the Widzew East housing estate and websites.

Each of the pages and groups was searched for posts containing the keywords “air”, “smog”, “CHP”, and “EC4”. None of these keywords appeared on the “Widzew-East” page (Available online: https://www.facebook.com/osiedlewidzewwschod (accessed on 28 March 2024)). Spotted: “Widzew” (Available online: https://www.facebook.com/spottedWidzew (accessed on 28 March 2024)) published air quality information taken from the Inspectorate of Environmental Protection about the poor condition of the air. In the comments, there were posts saying that the air quality had deteriorated noticeably. Commenters pointed to traffic as the main culprit. One commenter pointed to the EC4 thermal power plant. Further discussion emphasized that the power plant is equipped with filters and is not responsible for the poor air quality (posted on 26 December 2021).

Posts related to the CHP plant were also found on Spotted: “Widzew”. However, they were not concerned with air but rather noise. After typing in the keyword “EC4”, in addition to the discussion mentioned above, information appeared about the plan to build a waste incinerator next to the EC4 CHP plant. The comments and the entry itself had a strong negative tone (Figure 17). These are exactly the same entries that appear when using the keyword “smog”.

The group Osiedle Widzew-East (Available online: https://www.facebook.com/groups/227925995629667 (accessed on 28 March 2024) did not post entries about the CHP plant. The keywords “EC4” and “smog” appeared in the context of garbage incinerators. The keyword “smog” additionally appeared in comments about traffic jams.

4. Conclusions

The strategy aimed at outlining the directions of intervention in the area of air quality improvement is the Update of the National Air Protection Programme until 2025 with an outlook until 2030 and until 2040 [53]. It is a key document in the area of short-, medium-, and long-term policy of air quality improvement in Poland.

In this research study, we conducted a social survey of perceived environmental conditions among the inhabitants of Widzew East, a residential area in the city of Lodz in Poland. The respondents showed a relatively low level of interest in air quality compared with other environmental factors, such as noise pollution. This suggests that they may perceive noise pollution as a more immediate or directly bothersome issue than air quality. Smog was considered a more important issue. It was primarily associated with single-family home heating (solid fuel stoves and boilers) and automobile traffic. The air quality rating, although not above the average value on the scale, cannot be considered “poor”. This is reflected by the unstructured interview and the fact that most respondents tended to choose the average value on the scale from 0 to 5 (a value of 2 or 3).

It is significant that residents of a housing estate located in one of Poland’s largest cities, in the vicinity of a large thermal power plant, believe the air to be of relatively good quality. There was no confirmed relationship between the assessment of air quality and the distance from the EC4 CHP plant or floor of residence. Concerns were raised about plans to build a waste incinerator next to the EC4 CHP plant. However, this may be explained by the classic NIMBY (not in my backyard) phenomenon.

The difference between actual air quality and residents’ perceptions of quality can be explained from the perspective of perceptual geography and behavioral geography. Human beings are not always rational, and their attitudes towards the environment, and consequently certain actions in it, depend on experiences and emotions. In our case, the most accurate explanation of the respondents’ attitudes is that they recognize odorous pollution. Odorless is not noted in the category of pollution. A second factor that may have an impact is the relatively frequent appearance of the slogan ‘smog’ in the media. Another issue is the tendency of respondents to rate their place of residence positively and to avoid extreme answers (cf. Jałowiecki 2000 [54]).

The comparison of objective air quality measurements with subjective assessments of air provides a more comprehensive understanding of air quality and its impact on individuals’ lives. This integrated approach allows for a deeper exploration of the relationship between objective environmental conditions and people’s subjective experiences and perceptions, which can provide valuable insights for policymakers and urban planners. It is worth emphasizing the importance of the findings from a methodological point of view. First of all, this is an intra-disciplinary study that solved the research problem using methods characteristic of many scientific disciplines. These included measurements and quantitative analyses carried out within the framework of an environmental engineering environment, secondary data analyses, surveys, unstructured interviews, and content analyses carried out by social geographers. Secondly, it involved a complementary combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.