Next Article in Journal
Why Does the Water Color in a Natural Pool Turn into Reddish-Brown “Pumpkin Soup”?
Previous Article in Journal
Direct Measurements of the Mass of Municipal Biowaste Separated and Recycled at Source and Its Role in Circular Economy—A Case Study from Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 16
10.3390/su17167251
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Do Generation Z Students in Poland Support Sustainable Urban Forestry? Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and Willingness to Donate

by
Paweł Jankowski
* and
Tomasz Świsłocki
Institute of Information Technology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska 166, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7251; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167251
Submission received: 1 July 2025 / Revised: 30 July 2025 / Accepted: 3 August 2025 / Published: 11 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sustainability and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Environmental awareness and sustainability are essential for city development. Therefore, the study examined the attitudes of 1023 Polish Generation Z students from WULS-SGGW in Warsaw, Poland, toward urban trees and willingness to support tree planting. The findings revealed that 75% care about the environment, 93% value nature, and 92% enjoy seeing new trees. Additionally, 74% support funding tree planting, 51% would volunteer, and 39% donate money. However, 54% believe that property owners should be free to cut trees. The Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) method was applied to divide students into clusters. Clusters differed first in students’ attitudes toward trees, from “Tree Lovers” to “Tree Sceptics”, and second in students’ anthropocentric vs. environmental orientation: opposing (“Trees First”) vs. supporting (“People First”) the right to freely cut private trees. An additional questionnaire allowed us to link students’ clusters with importance assigned to positive and adverse tree attributes, like “Attractiveness,” “Usefulness,” and “Danger”. The study results do not provide a clear answer regarding the issue of Polish Generation Z students and the future sustainable development of urban greenery. They want to support trees for practical qualities, beauty, and utility. However, many place an even greater value on their right to self-determination regarding their property, including tree removal.

1. Introduction

Environmental awareness and sustainability have become major topics of discussion in Poland, mirroring trends in other developed countries. Younger generations have grown up with widespread access to information on climate change, environmental protection and sustainable development. The first Polish cohort to be raised with ecological concerns as a priority emerged after the fall of communism in 1989, with awareness intensifying following Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004. To a large extent, this generation overlaps with the cohort known as Generation Z, “the group of people who were born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s” [1]). Generation Z is the first generation to grow up with internet access, further shaping its environmental consciousness, as in Poland this topic is often consumed as content on social media [2].
During the childhood or adolescence of the Generation Z cohort, the first wind farms, photovoltaic panels, and waste sorting bins appeared in the Polish landscape. Between 2009 and 2020, the country’s wind energy capacity increased more than ninefold [3], and photovoltaic (PV) installations surged from 1.6 MW in 2012 to approximately 12 GW in 2022 [4]. Meanwhile, waste recycling rates rose from 11.4% in 2011 to 34.1% in 2019 [5]. At the global level, this period saw the signing of the Paris Agreement [6] and, at the EU level, the introduction of the European Green Deal [7].
In general, Generation Z is often seen as the most socially and environmentally conscious of all generational cohorts. Members of this generation are characterized by their interest not only in the present but also in the long-term impact of their actions. As consumers, Generation Z actively seeks eco-friendly products and considers their carbon footprint before making a purchase. Additionally, Generation Z travelers place high importance on sustainable practices and environmental issues [8,9]. However, some studies including Generation Z representatives in Poland suggest that this cohort may be less engaged in pro-environmental behaviors compared to previous generations [10,11]. Research also shows that, in comparison to major European economies like Germany or Italy, Polish representatives of Generation Z, coming from a developing economy, exhibit a lower level of environmental awareness [11,12,13].
The observed differences in sustainable behavior may stem from lower awareness as well as economic factors. According to [10], the sustainable actions of Polish Generation Z are primarily motivated by economic benefits, reflected in behaviors such as choosing public transportation or turning off lights when leaving a room. The limited purchasing power in Poland explains why the organic food market has developed at a slower pace than in Germany [13]. A similar trend is noted among Czechs, Poles, and Ukrainians when discussing practices like burning waste at home or considering the energy efficiency of purchased consumer electronics [14].
However, the same economic growth has led to rapid urbanization in Poland, driven by the high percentage of overcrowded dwellings, which has reached 36% [15]. The tension between urbanization and preserving the green environment is evident, and urban trees are endangered, although they play a crucial role in shaping our daily lives. They offer esthetic benefits, enhance mental and physical well-being, and foster social interactions [16,17,18,19]. They also help reduce air and noise pollution and mitigate rising urban temperatures [19,20]. Moreover, green spaces increase the attractiveness of neighborhoods and alleviate the adverse effects of industrial and postindustrial areas [20]. Finally, urban greenery supports biodiversity by providing habitats for wildlife [21,22,23,24].
The sustainable development of Polish cities, allowing for the preservation of urban greenery, including in its capital Warsaw, depends largely on residents’ actions. Most importantly, private property owners decide whether to plant or remove trees, in accordance with the law or in violation of it. Recently, a heated discussion swept through Poland, sparked by the change in Poland’s Act of Nature Protection, which in 2017 initially allowed for unrestricted tree removal on private land, later revised to require notification for larger trees. A study conducted by Kronenberg et al. (2021) in Łódź [25], the fourth largest city in Poland, revealed that 40% of all tree removals in that city during the 2010–2019 decade occurred while the amendment to the act was in force, with 80% of those on private land.
The residents of Warsaw may also engage in the maintenance of communal green spaces through the efforts of local [26,27] and international [28,29] foundations and institutional city programs such as Green Volunteering [30]. These initiatives involve fundraising and collective tree-planting efforts within neighborhoods. Additionally, Warsaw’s participatory budget allows residents to vote on local projects, many of which fund green spaces [31].
All the actions discussed above require donations from residents. Voting on a participatory budget project that funds tree planting or planting another tree in a garden equals the decision that planting is a proper way of spending money instead of other aims. It sacrifices other potential benefits, whether private or communal. Individual support for trees through pro-ecological initiatives involves volunteering or donating money. Finally, an agreement to limit the rights to cut trees on private property is a donation of property ownership rights.
Urban trees, however, are associated not only with benefits but also with certain social costs. City dwellers have mixed views on tree benefits, such as their esthetic appeal, shading, noise reduction, and ecological value, versus concerns such as allergies, falling branches, littering with flowers or leaves or sidewalk damage [32,33,34,35,36]. Attitudes toward donating time or money for urban greenery also vary [19,37,38,39,40], as does support for tree cutting regulations on private land [32,38,41,42]. However, few studies have explored the link between willingness to contribute to urban trees and perceptions of their attributes [32,43].
This study aimed to fill that gap by analyzing survey data from Generation Z students at Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), a major natural sciences university in Poland. It had three main objectives. The first objective was to examine the general attitudes of young Polish adults from Generation Z toward trees and their various attributes in particular. Second, it investigated the attitudes toward three types of donations for the trees in the city: agreement with the notion of spending money on planting trees, volunteering one’s time or donating one’s money, and agreement to limit rights to cut down trees on private land. The third goal was to link the willingness of young Polish adults to donate to urban trees with the importance of individual tree attributes. By understanding these perspectives, this study provides insights into whether young Polish adults wish to support sustainable development of urban greenery and what factors influence their willingness to engage in environmental initiatives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Respondents

The study surveyed students from Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW) between May 2021 and March 2024 using Microsoft Forms via Microsoft Teams. The survey was anonymous, and no identifiable information about respondents was collected. Additionally, participants were given information regarding the study’s aims before filling it out voluntarily. Informed consent was obtained from the participants. The sample included 1032 respondents. Those over 25 years of age were excluded from the analysis, leaving 1023 persons. All participants were aged 18–25 (born 1996–2006), aligning with Generation Z. The sample comprised 55.6% women and 44.4% men, with 36.4% raised in villages and 63.6% raised in cities.

2.2. Questionnaire

The part of the survey used in this study consisted of two sections: (1) Assessment of tree attributes—Participants rated the importance of 32 urban tree attributes (benefits and harms). (2) Attitudes toward nature and the willingness to donate—Questions assessed general environmental attitudes and three donation forms: financial contributions, volunteer time, and the willingness to limit private property rights for tree preservation. The groups of analyzed questions are described below. A five-point Likert scale was applied. For some analyses, the answers were converted into a three-point Likert scale.

2.2.1. Tree Attributes

The tree attributes examined in the study consisted of 32 statements regarding the benefits and harms associated with urban trees, such as attractiveness, damage caused, or impact on social relationships. The respondents expressed how important each attribute is to them, with answers anchored by “definitely not important” and “definitely important.”

2.2.2. Attitudes Toward Nature and the Willingness to Donate to Trees

The questions used to assess the respondents’ attitudes toward nature were graded from a very general “How do you rate your attitude toward nature?” via “Do you pay attention to the nature around you in your everyday life?” to the more specific “Are you happy to see new tree plantings in your vicinity? “.
The questions concerning students’ disposition to donate to urban trees considered three donation methods, including general allocation of funds for tree planting: “Do you think planting trees is the right way to spend money instead of other purposes?”; donating one’s free time: “Would you take part in planting trees in your vicinity in your free time?” or donating one’s money: “Would you be willing to financially support planting trees in your vicinity?”; and finally, donating the right to decide about one’s property: “Do you think everyone should be allowed to cut down any tree on their property?”.
Table 1 presents the abbreviations of these questions and their corresponding Likert scale anchors.

2.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including percentage distributions and mean values, were used to summarize the responses. Correlations between attitudes toward nature and willingness to donate were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation. A network graph was prepared to show the flow of respondents between the positive, neutral, and negative responses to these questions.
Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) with distance based on the Kendall correlation and Ward agglomeration methods was used to cluster the survey questions regarding the importance of urban tree attributes into sets forming latent tree attributes. The internal consistency within each set of questions was measured with Cronbach’s alpha. For each respondent, the values of the latent attributes were computed as the mean answers to the questions forming it.
The AHC method with Euclidean distance was applied to cluster the respondents on the basis of their answers regarding attention given to nature and willingness to donate to trees. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and box plots illustrated response differences across clusters. Chi-square tests were used to examine the relationships between demographic factors (gender and place of upbringing) and cluster membership. The significant departure from the independence of the examined variables was identified via Pearson’s residuals.
The average importance of each latent tree attribute was compared between groups of respondents who gave positive, neutral, and negative answers to the questions regarding nature and the willingness to donate to urban trees.
The Kruskal-Wallis test with the Dunn post hoc test was used throughout the study to compare the answers to the survey questions between all respondents or their clusters. The obtained homogenous groups are denoted with letters.
All analyses in the study were performed using the R program version 4.2.2 [44], with the use of RStudio version 0.99.896 [45]. The stats version 4.2.2, ggplot2 version 3.5.0, likert version 1.3.5, corrplot version 0.92, factoextra version 1.0.7 and network version 1.18.2 packages were applied to prepare figures illustrating the study results.

3. Results

3.1. Students’Attitudes Toward Nature and the Willingness to Donate to Trees

Figure 1 presents the detailed responses regarding students’ attitudes toward nature and their willingness to contribute time, money, or property rights to support urban trees. Across all the questions, positive and very positive responses outweighed negative and very negative responses.
A large majority (93%) of the respondents expressed a positive or very positive attitude toward nature, with only one individual declaring a negative attitude. Approximately 75% of the students stated that they pay much or very much attention to nature, and 92% expressed happiness at seeing new trees planted in their vicinity. This question received the highest proportion of very positive answers (61%). Finally, 74% of the students agreed that money spent on trees was properly allocated.
However, a notable drop in positive responses occurred regarding personal contributions to tree planting. Only 51% of the students expressed a willingness to volunteer their time, with 27% explicitly unwilling to do so. Financial donations received even lower support, with only 39% willing to contribute and 32% expressing no opinion. Finally, when asked whether individuals should have the unrestricted right to cut down trees on their property, 54% supported such rights. In comparison, 32% opposed them, the highest percentage of negative responses in this section.
Figure 2 illustrates the Spearman correlations between the students’ responses. While all the correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.0001), their strengths varied. There were two main groups of strongly related questions. The first, related to general environmental attitudes, included respondents’ declared attitudes toward nature, attention to nature in daily life, and happiness with newly planted trees. The second combined the happiness of seeing trees planted with the willingness to donate time or money to them. The weakest, and the only negative, correlations were found between attitudes toward the right to cut down private trees and other questions.
Figure 3 presents a flow diagram showing how respondents transitioned between positive, neutral, and negative responses when three donation types were considered: general agreement to allocate funds for tree planting; willingness to devote one’s time or money to such plantings; and limiting the right to cut down trees on one’s property.

3.2. Clustering of Students According to Attitudes Toward Nature and Willingness to Donate to Trees

Using the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) method, the survey respondents were divided into five clusters on the basis of their attention to nature, happiness with newly planted trees, and willingness to donate time, money, or property rights to support trees. The general attitude toward nature was excluded from this analysis due to its little differentiation of the students. A dendrogram illustrating the clustering process is presented in Figure 4.
Box plots illustrating the distribution of responses within each cluster are presented in Figure 5, while Figure 6 visually summarizes differences between clusters via the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method.
Based on Figure 5 and Figure 6, the characteristics of the student clusters are as follows:
  • Cluster 1—“Tree Lovers: Trees First” (92 students, 9.0% of the sample, 77.2% women, 22.8% men): Students in this group are highly engaged in tree conservation. They pay great attention to nature, strongly support spending money on trees, and are willing to contribute both financially and through volunteer efforts. They also oppose unrestricted tree cutting rights on private property.
  • Cluster 2—“Tree Likers: Trees First” (330 students, 32.3% of the sample, 55.5% women, 44.5% men): Similarly to Cluster 1, members of this group also appreciate trees, but their views are more moderate in all aspects, particularly with respect to financial contributions.
  • Cluster 3—“Tree Lovers: People First” (226 students, 22.1% of the sample, 66.8% women, 33.2% men): These students pay attention to nature and love trees, seeing them as a proper way to spend money. While they wish to support tree planting, primarily through voluntary efforts, they believe that individuals should have the right to decide whether to cut down private trees.
  • Cluster 4—“Uncommitted Tree Likers: People First” (294 students, 28.7% of the sample, 44.6% women, 55.4% men): Like Cluster 3, this group has a generally positive attitude toward trees but is less engaged. They are unwilling to donate their time or money to tree-planting efforts and support the right of property owners to decide on tree removal.
  • Cluster 5—“Tree Sceptics: People First” (81 students, 7.9% of the sample, 40.7% women, 59.3% men): This group pays little attention to nature and is uncertain whether trees are the right way to spend money. They are reluctant to volunteer or donate money to plant trees and support individual rights to decide about cutting down private trees.
The relationship between gender and cluster membership was statistically significant (p < 0.0001), with women more frequently belonging to tree-positive clusters. However, no significant correlation was found between students’ upbringing (cities of various sizes or rural) and their cluster affiliation.

3.3. Importance of Tree Attributes

The 29 tree attributes examined in the survey were grouped into six categories through the AHC method. Each category represents a latent tree attribute reflecting specific perceptions of urban trees. Three attributes, “Trees restrict access to light,” “Trees increase the value of the property on which they grow,” and “In areas with trees, drivers retain greater caution and reduce speed,” did not fit into any latent category and were excluded from further analysis. The internal consistency of the latent variables was assessed via Cronbach’s alpha, with all values exceeding 0.7, indicating high reliability. The six latent tree attributes were classified as follows.
  • Positive attributes:
    • “Attractiveness”—Visual appeal and esthetic qualities of trees.
    • “Emotional values”—Social and psychological benefits of trees.
    • “Usefulness”—Practical advantages, such as providing shade or improving air quality.
  • Adverse attributes:
    • “Contamination and damage”—Littering, root damage, and other nuisances.
    • “Noise”—Sounds produced by trees, such as rustling branches or singing birds.
    • “Danger”—Risks posed by trees, including falling branches or allergic reactions.
Figure 7 presents the distribution of respondents’ answers to individual tree attributes and their assignment to the latent variables. The attributes related to visual appeal (“Attractiveness”) and practical benefits (“Usefulness”) were rated as important by more than 80% and 66–96% of the students, respectively. Attributes related to emotional and social benefits (“Emotional values”) were valued by 41–48% of the students, whereas those associated with safety concerns (“Danger”) were considered important by 24–40%. The attributes of low importance included tree-related nuisances such as littering and root damage (“Contamination and damage”), which were relevant to only 13–25% of the students. The lowest-ranked attributes were those related to tree-generated noise (“Noise”), which was important to only 6–8% of the respondents.
The respondents’ mean (±standard deviation) answers to the latent tree attributes and the homogenous groups of these attributes (denoted with letters) confirm the above observation. The calculated values were as follows. “Attractiveness”: 4.30 ± 0.60 a; “Usefulness”: 4.23 ± 0.56 a; “Emotional Values”: 3.28 ± 1.01 b; “Danger”: 2.70 ± 0.90 c; “Contamination and damage”: 2.26 ± 0.74 d; “Noise”: 1.56 ± 0.69 e.

3.4. Tree Attributes and Students’ Willingness to Donate to Trees

Figure 8 presents box plots illustrating the importance of tree attributes among students across the five clusters identified in the previous section. The results reveal differences between clusters regarding how they value tree attributes. Students in the “Tree Lovers” clusters (Clusters 1 and 3) rated “Attractiveness,” “Emotional values,” and “Usefulness” as the three most important tree attributes. These positive attributes were slightly less valued by “Tree Likers” (Clusters 2 and 4) and received the lowest importance ratings from “Tree Sceptics” (Cluster 5). In contrast, adverse tree attributes, “Contamination and damage,” “Noise,” and “Danger,” were most concerning to the “Tree Sceptics” and least important to “Tree Lovers: Trees First” (Cluster 1). The respondents from the other three clusters showed intermediate concerns regarding these negative aspects.
Apart from the cluster-based analysis, individual responses were converted into a three-point Likert scale to categorize willingness to donate time or money to tree planting as positive (“Yes” = “Rather yes” or “Definitely yes”), neutral (“No opinion”), or negative (“No” = “Rather not” or “Definitely not”). The perceived importance of each latent tree attribute was then compared across these three response groups. The results are visualized in Figure 9, assigning homogenous groups whenever the differences were statistically significant and presenting distributions of the answers.
Willingness to donate to trees was strongly related to students’ perceptions of positive tree attributes. Compared with those who were hesitant or unwilling to contribute, those who expressed a willingness to donate time or money placed significantly greater importance on “Attractiveness,” “Emotional values,” and “Usefulness”. Similarly, these positive attributes were rated highest by students opposing unrestricted tree cutting on private property and lowest by those supporting such rights.
In terms of adverse attributes, the differences were less pronounced. “Noise” did not significantly differ across donation preferences. “Contamination and damage” was most concerning to students reluctant or undecided about donating time or money and those who supported or were unsure about unrestricted tree cutting rights. “Danger” was most important to respondents who favored or were uncertain about the right to cut trees on private property. There were no significant differences in relation to time donation preferences, and the differences across money donation preferences are difficult to interpret.

4. Discussion

4.1. WULS-SGGW Students and Urban Nature

The sustainable development of urban greenery depends on today’s young people. In large cities like Warsaw, these are native-born residents and young people migrating from smaller towns and villages. Between 2005 and 2016, 243 thousand people migrated to Warsaw from other Polish towns, while 165 thousand left the city, often moving into surrounding satellite towns [46]. Like other major cities, Warsaw attracts young people by allowing them to study and later offering them the opportunity of a well-paid job and professional and social development. In return, young residents significantly influence the city’s development.
Taking the above into account, this study focused on young Poles, members of Generation Z, specifically students from Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW). The WULS-SGGW students come from diverse backgrounds, ranging from small towns to major cities. While this sample is not representative of the entire Polish Generation Z cohort, it does encompass its significant and influential segment. According to Eurostat data [47], approximately 46% of young Poles aged 25–34 years had a higher education diploma in 2023.
Green areas, including parks, gardens, housing-estate greenery, street and cemetery greenery, and open areas combined with forests, account for approximately 40% of Warsaw’s land area. The city hosts 27 municipal forest complexes, 85 parks, and numerous lawn areas [48]. Forests cover about 15% of Warsaw, with approximately 40% of them in private possession [49]. The greenery system includes unique habitats, such as the Vistula River areas, which are part of the “Natura 2000” network of nature reserves. Given this abundance of greenery, it is nearly impossible for Warsaw’s residents, including the surveyed students, to avoid interacting with urban nature.
The survey results indicate that WULS-SGGW students generally hold a positive attitude toward nature. Three out of four respondents declared a high or very high interest in the natural environment. Moreover, with only minor exceptions, the examined students are happy to see new tree plantings in their neighborhood, being a very good prognostic indicator of urban greenery development. These findings align with previous studies demonstrating widespread public appreciation for urban trees [21,32,41,50,51].

4.2. Willingness of Students to Donate to Urban Trees

Three-quarters of the surveyed students believe that allocating funds to urban greenery, rather than other investments, is justified. This sentiment is reflected in Warsaw’s participatory budgeting outcomes. In 2023, more than half of the civic budget was allocated to urban greenery development projects, with the city-wide project “500+ Trees for Warsaw” receiving the most votes [52]. Similarly, district-level projects prioritizing greenery, such as “More greenery in the entire Praga-Południe” (in 2023) and “2050 Trees for Warsaw” (in 2022), received the most votes [52,53].
However, students displayed a more nuanced stance when asked about personal contributions. While most agreed with funding for tree planting, the share of students willing to volunteer time dropped to about half, while only 39% indicated a willingness to provide financial support. These results are consistent with the outcomes of previous studies conducted worldwide. A 48% share of respondents in Lagos, Nigeria, with an average age of around 30 years, wanted to commit time to urban forestry development [37]. Further, 58% and 56% of urban residents of Alabama, USA, were ready to contribute time or money, respectively, to community forestry program activities [38]. In Montreal, Canada, analogous questions received average responses of 2.8 against 2.5 on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “completely liking” to 5”completely disagree” [39]. A 48.5% share of the citizens of Greece were willing to pay the highest proposed additional annual tax for urban green spaces [19]. The lowest share of respondents prepared to pay more council taxes to support tree care, only 30%, was found in a British survey [40].
The correlation between willingness to donate time and money is significant, and 57% of the respondents provided the same response to both questions. This suggests that for many students, time and financial contributions to urban greenery are complementary rather than interchangeable. The lower financial commitment may be attributed to students’ limited income, as research indicates that philanthropic donations increase with income and wealth [54,55]. Conversely, time donations appear to be less affected by economic factors [56]. The low income of students may also explain why one-third of them were uncertain about their financial commitment to tree planting, which was the highest share of undecided answers in the survey.
Over half of the students stated that everyone should have the right to decide to cut down their trees, and one-third were against that right. These answers may explain why 40% of all trees removed in the city of Łódź during the 2010–2019 decade were cut down when the amendment to the Act of Nature Protection permitted the free removal of trees from private properties [25]. The fact that about 80% of these trees were cut down on private land shows that many citizens agreed with the amendment.
The relatively low support for local ordinances governing the planting, maintaining, and removing of urban trees on private property is not exclusive to Poland. A study from Alabama, USA, reported such support at 36% [38]. According to a subsequent study from that area, protecting publicly owned trees was “very important” for 55% of the respondents [32]. In contrast, protection applied to individually owned trees was “very important” for only 17% of those respondents, with roughly as many participants selecting the lowest rating “not important” [32]. In Ontario, Canada, on average, 43% of the examined residents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with a proposed tree protection law on private property, and 29% percent “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”, wishing to self-govern the presence of trees on their property [41]. Finally, support among homeowners in Florida, USA, for the ordinances that prevent the removal of mature, healthy trees from private possessions was 54% [42].
The fact that so many young people oppose restricting their right to cut down trees on private properties should be understandable. While they may appreciate trees, they often value the freedom to shape their environment even more. Just as they wish to design their apartments to suit their individual needs, they seek the same unrestricted freedom when planning their gardens. Environmental protection regulations that limit tree removal can hinder projects such as building a new gazebo, creating a garden path, or expanding a garage. The environmental value of a tree is not significant in this respect. Unfortunately, such conclusion does not favor urban forest sustainability and indicates that unrestricted urbanization is indeed the major threat for urban greenery.

4.3. Drivers of Students’ Willingness to Donate to Trees

If students like nature and trees in particular and are happy to see them planted, what makes them differ in their individual willingness to donate to trees? This study identified five clusters within Polish Generation Z students on the basis of their attitudes toward trees, willingness to donate, and opinions about the right to cut down private trees.
The first axis of classification reflects personal affection for trees and their willingness to contribute. The students fell into three groups: “Tree Lovers,” “Tree Likers,” and the smallest group of “Tree Sceptics.” Compared with the importance of tree attributes, this division is related primarily to how students perceive the benefits of trees, their “Attractiveness,” “Usefulness,” and “Emotional values.” There is a significant decrease in the perceived importance of these attributes as one moves from “Tree Lovers” to “Tree Likers” and further to “Tree Sceptics.” Hence, the major driver of attention to trees and willingness to support them is trees’ utility. The analysis of individual students’ responses confirms that the benefits associated with trees are most important for students who want to devote time or money to planting trees, less important for those who are hesitant, and least important for students who do not want to do so. In contrast, the only adverse tree attribute with a clear relation to the willingness to donate to trees is “Contamination and damage,” as the students willing to donate are significantly less concerned with this issue than the hesitant and unwilling ones are.
In general, time and money donations may be driven by altruism or impure altruism (“warm glow”) or the exchange of value benefits (such as obtaining knowledge or experience) [57]. In the case of planting trees, the three motives for donations may be inseparable. It is natural to assume that planting trees is an act that benefits others, i.e., an altruistic act. It also brings a long-lasting “warm glow” to everyone involved, as the results of planting trees last for decades. Moreover, separating the “warm glow” from the private benefit obtained, which is the increasing attractiveness of the surroundings, is difficult. Hence, the beauty of new trees, their usefulness, and the satisfaction of emotional needs they bring are the principal payments for voluntary labor or monetary donation. In this respect, our results agree with the finding of [10] that the sustainable actions of Polish Generation Z are primarily motivated by obtained benefits, though not economic in this case. It also agrees with the results which showed that the higher the development level of recreational infrastructure of a forest in Wasaw, the more often representatives of Generation Z choose it for leisure and are more willing to pay to access it [58].
The utilitarian view of urban greenery seems natural. Various studies have examined city dwellers’ attitudes toward various tree-related benefits and risks. They all agreed that personal, social, and environmental benefits are most important to the inhabitants of cities. A study performed in Guangzhou city, China, revealed that people indicate O2 release and CO2 sequestration, esthetic enhancement, shading, air pollution absorption, noise abatement, and recreational values as the most critical services generated by green spaces [59]. All these factors were very important to more than 40% of the respondents to the study. Similarly, the improved appearance of the community, improved air quality, control of soil erosion, reduction in noise levels, creation of wildlife habitats, and creation of buffer zones were significant to more than 40% of the respondents to a survey conducted in Alabama, USA [32]. Further benefits, such as increased property values, decreased energy costs, increased community pride, and improved health, were significant to more than 30% of the questioned citizens. The beauty of trees, improved appearance of gardens or houses, increased privacy, and attraction of birds and animals have also been shown to be the most important reasons for the planting of trees for citizens in the suburbs of eastern Australian cities [33]. These reasons were indicated by 61% to 85% of the respondents in the survey. Similar results were obtained in a study of citizens in Poland [35]. The tree attributes chosen most often by Polish respondents as important were those related to tree attractiveness and usefulness. Finally, tree attractiveness and personal, public, and environmental benefits were the major drivers for participation in city programs that provided free street trees to residents of New Haven, Connecticut, U.S., [34] and Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. [36].
The second axis in classifying Polish Generation Z students is their attitude toward the right to cut down private trees. The “Tree Lovers” and “Tree Likers” can be split into groups opposing (“Trees First”) and supporting (“People First”) such rights, confirming that the two directions of student division are independent. This classification can be identified with the broader distinction between anthropocentric and environmentally oriented people. Anthropocentric individuals believe that the landowner should decide, and environmentally oriented individuals believe that the municipality should decide on private greenery [60]. Not surprisingly, this division did not occur in the “Tree Sceptics” cluster.
Further analysis revealed that the division according to the right to cut down trees is related primarily to adverse attributes associated with trees, such as “Contamination and damage,” “Noise,” and “Danger.” Concerns about these tree features increase from the “Trees First” cluster to the “People First” cluster, with the “Tree Lovers: Trees First” and “Tree Sceptics: People First” groups having extreme opinions on this matter; students in the “Tree Likers: Trees First” cluster attach only slightly numerically less importance to the adverse attributes than students from the “Tree Lovers: People First” and “Tree Likers: People First” clusters. The analysis of individual students’ responses indicates that those who disagree with the free cutting of private trees pay less attention to the harm caused by the trees surrounding them but also appreciate the positives more strongly. However, these differences are less numerically substantial than in the case of the questions regarding willingness to donate time or money to trees. This indicates that there are additional reasons for the different opinions of students regarding the right to cut down private trees.
Finally, gender played a notable role in students’ classification, which was unaffected by their place of growing up. Women are overrepresented in both groups of “Tree Lovers,” especially among those who oppose the idea of individuals having the right to cut down private trees. Conversely, men dominate groups of “Tree Sceptics” and “Tree Likers,” except for the largest cluster, “Tree Likers: Trees First,” where the gender distribution matches that of the overall sample of students.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the study results do not provide a clear answer regarding Polish Generation Z students’ opinions and the future sustainability of urban greenery. As far as the development of urban greenery is concerned, the worst news is that only 8% of respondents belong to a tree-oriented “Tree Lovers: Trees First” subgroup. Still, the results show a high potential hidden in Generation Z students towards pro-environmental behaviors, as, similarly, only 8% of the sample belongs to the “Tree Sceptics: People First” subgroup. The rest of the students have a more mediocre attitude towards urban trees. Activation of these young people certainly requires proper educational policy. Young people have access to various initiatives by ecological organizations and the city, but they must be regular and strongly advertised, for instance, through social media. As students have limited income, the priority should be given to voluntary tree-planting actions and similar. Such actions may start in primary school, when young people should learn about the beauty and worth of their local nature.
As more than half of the surveyed students think that everyone should have the right to fell trees on their property, we suggest that the law should be adequately balanced. It must be transparent and prompt, and decisions regarding refusal to cut down private trees must be well and clearly justified. The study showed that young Poles highly value their right to self-determination regarding their property, including trees. Therefore, they must not feel that the law unjustifiably prohibits them from doing so. This can lead them to disrespect regulations and strongly resist them.

Limitations and Future Research

The major limitation of the presented study is the selection of survey respondents, limited to students of WULS-SGGW. WULS-SGGW is a Life Sciences University but, as most of contemporary universities, it contains faculties which are not related to Life Sciences. We surveyed students from faculties ranging from Agronomy, Biology and Food Sciences to Economy and Finance and Information Technology. Still, the conclusions of the study cannot be generalized to the entire Generation Z cohort in Poland. Further studies should be carried out on a more representative sample.
The second limitation is related to the focus on the particular cohort. The lack of similar studies conducted in Poland for other age groups does not allow us to determine whether the local Generation Z cohort has a stronger tendency toward environmental awareness or attitudes toward urban trees and tree donation than other generations. Further studies should be carried out on other cohorts.

Author Contributions

P.J. formulated the research goals, managed and maintained the survey data, performed the data statistical analysis, prepared figures and wrote the initial draft of the paper. P.J. and T.Ś. reviewed the manuscript and prepared its final version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were informed that their participation in completing the survey was voluntary, and data were collected and processed anonymously. The study did not involve any physical or psychological intervention. It consisted exclusively of a voluntary, self-administered, anonymous survey that did not involve sensitive data, situations, or variables. This study did not require approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Life Sciences.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data can be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank G. Koszela, L. Ochnio, M. Suchocka, A. Zembrzuski, and others for their help in collecting answers to the questionnaire. We are also grateful to the university students who participated in the survey. During its preparation, the authors used ChatGPT-4 and Grammarly to improve the clarity of the manuscript text. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. Definition of Generation Z noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 2025. Available online: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/generation-z?q=generation+z (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  2. Pabian, A.; Pabian, B. Management of sustainability knowledge of the Generation Z on social media. Sci. Pap. Silesian Univ. Technol.—Organ. Manag. Ser. 2023, 176, 475–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Robak, S.; Raczkowski, R.; Piekarz, M. Development of the Wind Generation Sector and Its Effect on the Grid Operation—The Case of Poland. Energies 2023, 16, 6805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chwieduk, D. Photovoltaic systems: A challenge or an opportunity for the Polish energy sector during its transformation. In Reducing the Effects of Climate Change Using Building-Integrated and Building-Applied Photovoltaics in the Power Supply, Innovative Renewable Energy; Sayigh, A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 81–103. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kozłowski, J.; Lewandowska, M.; Sojka, D. Waste management in Poland and in other EU countries. Pol. Tech. Rev. 2021, 2, 2–17. [Google Scholar]
  6. United Nations. Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. In European Green Deal: Research & Innovation Call; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dragolea, L.-L.; Butnaru, G.I.; Kot, S.; Zamfir, C.G.; Nuţă, A.-C.; Nuţă, F.-M.; Cristea, D.S.; Ştefănică, M. Determining factors in shaping the sustainable behavior of the generation Z consumer. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1096183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. D’Acunto, D.; Filieri, R.; Okumus, F. The Gen Z attitude-behavior gap in sustainability-framed eWOM: A generational cohort theory perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2025, 129, 104194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Parzonko, A.J.; Balińska, A.; Sieczko, A. Pro-Environmental Behaviors of Generation Z in the Context of the Concept of Homo Socio-Oeconomicus. Energies 2021, 14, 1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Błoński, K.; Dąbrowska, A.; Shulhina, L. Similarities and differences in the green attitudes of consumers from different age generations—International comparisons. Acta Sci. Pol. Oeconomia 2023, 22, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Andruszkiewicz, K.; Grzybowska-Brzezińska, M.; Grzywińska-Rąpca, M.; Wiśniewski, P.D. Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behavior of Representatives of Generation Z from the Example of Poland and Germany. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Andruszkiewicz, K.; Tomasz Wierzejski, T. Comparative Analysis of Generation Z Consumer Behavior in Poland and Germany: Implications for the Organic Food Market. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2024, XXVII, 181–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gródek-Szostak, Z.; Malinowski, M.; Suder, M.; Kwiecień, K.; Bodziacki, S.; Vaverková, M.D.; Maxianová, A.; Krakowiak-Bal, A.; Ziemiańczyk, U.; Uskij, H.; et al. Energy Conservation Behaviors and Awareness of Polish, Czech and Ukrainian Students: A Case Study. Energies 2021, 14, 5599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Eurostat. Living Conditions in Europe—Housing. EUROSTAT. Statistics Explained. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_housing (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  16. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nisbet, E.K.; Shaw, D.W.; Lachance, D.G. Connectedness with nearby nature and well-being. Front. Sustain. Cities 2020, 2, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Labib, S.M.; Lindley, S.; Huck, J.J. Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban green-blue spaces on human health: A systematic review. Environ. Res. 2020, 180, 108869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kolimenakis, A.; Solomou, A.D.; Proutsos, N.; Avramidou, E.V.; Korakaki, E.; Karetsos, G.; Kontogianni, A.B.; Kontos, K.; Georgiadis, C.; Maroulis, G.; et al. Public perceptions of the socioeconomic importance of urban green areas in the era of COVID-19: A case study of a nationwide survey in Greece. Land 2022, 11, 2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Maciejewska, A.; Sobieraj, J.; Kuzak, Ł. Analysis of greenery coverage of the area of the City of Warsaw on the quality of life of residents on the basis of spatial and statistical data. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2024, 70, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jones, R.E.; Davis, K.L.; Bradford, J. The value of trees: Factors influencing homeowner support for protecting local urban trees. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45, 650–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aronson, M.F.J.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Collins, R.; Schaafsma, M.; Hudson, M.D. The value of green walls to urban biodiversity. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Herrmann, J.; Buchholz, S.; Theodorou, P. The degree of urbanisation reduces wild bee and butterfly diversity and alters the patterns of flower-visitation in urban dry grasslands. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kronenberg, J.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Sziło, J. Voting with one’s chainsaw: What happens when people are given the opportunity to freely remove urban trees? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 209, 104041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fundacja Las Na Zawsze (Forest Forever Foundation). 2025. Available online: https://lasnazawsze.org.pl/ (accessed on 25 June 2025). (In Polish).
  27. Czas na Las (Forest Time). Fundacja Aeris Futuro. 2025. Available online: https://czasnalas.org/ (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  28. Fundacja WWF Polska (WWF Poland). 2025. Available online: https://www.wwf.pl/ (accessed on 25 June 2025). (In Polish).
  29. One More Tree Foundation. Available online: https://one-more-tree.org/pl/ (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  30. Zarząd Zieleni m.st. Warszawy (Warsaw Greenery Board). Zielony wolontariat w Zarządzie Zieleni m.st. Warszawy. Podsumowanie 2022 roku! 2023. Available online: https://ochotnicy.waw.pl/aktualnosci/814-zielony-wolontariat-w-zarzadzie-zieleni-m-st-warszawy-podsumowanie-2022-roku (accessed on 25 June 2025). (In Polish).
  31. Urząd m.st. Warszawy (City Hall of Warsaw). General Information About the Participatory Budget in Warsaw. 2024. Available online: https://um.warszawa.pl/waw/bo/participatory-budget-in-warsaw (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  32. Zhang, Y.; Zheng, B. Assessments of citizen willingness to support urban forestry: An empirical study in Alabama. Arboric. Urban For. 2011, 37, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kirkpatrick, J.B.; Davison, A.; Daniels, G.D. Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Locke, D.H.; Roman, L.A.; Murphy-Dunning, C. Why opt-in to a planting program? Long-term residents value street tree aesthetics. Arboric. Urban For. 2015, 41, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Suchocka, M.; Jankowski, P.; Błaszczyk, M. Perception of urban trees by Polish tree professionals vs. nonprofessionals. Sustainability 2019, 11, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Morgan, M.; Ries, P.D. Planting free trees on private property: Understanding urban residents’ motivations and hesitations. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 71, 127557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ajewole, O.I. Public willingness to commit time to urban forestry development in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. J. Agric. Soc. Res. (JASR) 2015, 15, 46–68. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhang, Y.; Hussain, A.; Deng, J.; Letson, N. Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 797–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Balram, S.; Dragićević, S. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 71, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Moffat, A.J.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Clarke, T.-K.; O’Brien, L.; Doick, K.J. Public attitudes to urban trees in Great Britain in the early 2020s. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 91, 128177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Conway, T.M.; Bang, E. Willing partners? Residential support for municipal urban forestry policies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Koeser, A.; Hauer, R.; Andreu, M.; Northrop, R.; Hilbert, D. Attitudes towards tree protections, development, and urban forest incentives among Florida (United States) residents. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 86, 128032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, W.Y. Public willingness-to-pay for conserving urban heritage trees in Guangzhou, south China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 796–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/fullrefman.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  45. Posit Team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software; PBC: Boston, MA, USA, 2025; Available online: http://www.posit.co/ (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  46. Mazowiecki Ośrodek Badań Regionalnych (Mazovian Centre for Regional Surveys). Portret Migranta. Migracje w m.st. Warszawie w Latach 2005–2016, Warszawa. 2017. Available online: https://warszawa.stat.gov.pl/publikacje-i-foldery/ludnosc/portret-migranta-migracje-w-m-st-warszawie-w-latach-2005-2016,8,1.html# (accessed on 25 June 2025). (In Polish)
  47. Eurostat. Population by Educational Attainment Level, Sex and Age (%)—Main Indicators. 2024. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/ha5usystafaaazvtpow (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  48. Urząd m.st. Warszawy (City Hall of Warsaw). Plant “A Million Trees” with Us! 2017. Available online: https://en.um.warszawa.pl/-/plant-a-million-trees-with-us- (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  49. Lasy Miejskie—Warszawa (City Forests—Warsaw). Lasy Warszawy. 2024. Available online: https://www.lasymiejskie.waw.pl/lasy-miejskie/lasy-warszawy (accessed on 25 June 2025). (In Polish).
  50. Lohr, V.I.; Pearson-Mims, C.H.; Tarnai, J.; Dilllman, D.A. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J. Arboric. 2004, 30, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fernandes, C.O.; Martinho da Silva, I.; Teixeira, P.C.; Costa, L. Between tree lovers and tree haters. Drivers of public perception regarding street trees and its implications on the urban green infrastructure planning. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 37, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Urząd m.st. Warszawy (City Hall of Warsaw). Raport z Konsultacji Społecznych z Mieszkańcami Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy w Zakresie Budżetu Obywatelskiego na Rok 2024. 2023. Available online: https://um.warszawa.pl/waw/bo/10-edycja (accessed on 25 June 2025). (In Polish).
  53. Urząd m.st. Warszawy (City Hall of Warsaw). Raport z Konsultacji Społecznych z Mieszkańcami Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy w Zakresie Budżetu Obywatelskiego na Rok 2023. 2022. Available online: https://um.warszawa.pl/waw/bo/9-edycja (accessed on 25 June 2025). (In Polish).
  54. Wiepking, P.; Bekkers, R.H.F.P. Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, marital status, income, and wealth. Volunt. Sect. Rev. 2012, 3, 217–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bauer, T.K.; Bredtmann, J.; Schmidt, C.M. Time vs. money—The supply of voluntary labor and charitable donations across Europe. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2013, 32, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cappellari, L.; Ghinetti, P.; Turati, G. On time and money donations. J. Soc. Econ. 2011, 40, 853–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hladká, M.; Hyánek, V. Motives for Donating: What inspires our decisions to make a donation to non-profit organisations? Rev. Econ. Perspect. 2015, 15, 357–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. 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]
  59. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Paniotova-Maczka, D.; Jabkowski, P.; Matczak, P.; Przewoźna, P.; Maczka, K.; Mielewczyk, M.; Inglot, A. Psychological and physical components in forming preferences on urban greenery management—The case of trees. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 145, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07251 g001
Figure 1. The percentage distribution of 1023 responses to seven survey questions regarding attitudes toward nature and willingness to make donations to the surrounding trees. The values given in the chart are as follows: extreme left/right—shares of the lowest or highest answers; middle—shares of respondents who are undecided. Additionally, the homogenous groups of questions (according to the Kruskal-Wallis analysis at a p < 0.0001 and the Dunn post hoc test) are marked with letters from a to e, where questions marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group.
Figure 1. The percentage distribution of 1023 responses to seven survey questions regarding attitudes toward nature and willingness to make donations to the surrounding trees. The values given in the chart are as follows: extreme left/right—shares of the lowest or highest answers; middle—shares of respondents who are undecided. Additionally, the homogenous groups of questions (according to the Kruskal-Wallis analysis at a p < 0.0001 and the Dunn post hoc test) are marked with letters from a to e, where questions marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group.
Sustainability 17 07251 g001
Sustainability 17 07251 g002
Figure 2. Spearman correlations (all significant at p < 0.001) between the students’ answers to the questions regarding their attitudes toward nature and their willingness to devote time, money, or private property to trees. Blue color indicates a positive correlation, and red indicates a negative correlation. Boldness indicates the strength of the correlation.
Figure 2. Spearman correlations (all significant at p < 0.001) between the students’ answers to the questions regarding their attitudes toward nature and their willingness to devote time, money, or private property to trees. Blue color indicates a positive correlation, and red indicates a negative correlation. Boldness indicates the strength of the correlation.
Sustainability 17 07251 g002
Sustainability 17 07251 g003
Figure 3. The chart illustrates the flow of 1023 respondents between the negative, neutral, and positive answers to four survey questions regarding attitudes toward new tree planting and willingness to make donations to the surrounding trees. Blue arrows and numbers represent respondent flows from negative to neutral or positive responses, and from neutral to positive responses. Red arrows and numbers indicate flows in the opposite direction.
Figure 3. The chart illustrates the flow of 1023 respondents between the negative, neutral, and positive answers to four survey questions regarding attitudes toward new tree planting and willingness to make donations to the surrounding trees. Blue arrows and numbers represent respondent flows from negative to neutral or positive responses, and from neutral to positive responses. Red arrows and numbers indicate flows in the opposite direction.
Sustainability 17 07251 g003
Sustainability 17 07251 g004
Figure 4. Dendrogram of the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) of 1023 respondents according to their attention to nature, happiness with newly planted trees, and willingness to donate time, money, or property rights to support trees. The AHC with Euclidean distance and Ward agglomeration method was used. The red dashed line indicates the division of the trees into 5 clusters indicated with the colored boxes.
Figure 4. Dendrogram of the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) of 1023 respondents according to their attention to nature, happiness with newly planted trees, and willingness to donate time, money, or property rights to support trees. The AHC with Euclidean distance and Ward agglomeration method was used. The red dashed line indicates the division of the trees into 5 clusters indicated with the colored boxes.
Sustainability 17 07251 g004
Sustainability 17 07251 g005
Figure 5. The box plots of the students’ responses in the five clusters discussed in the study, for the questions regarding the attention given to nature, happiness with seeing newly planted trees and willingness to devote time, money, or private property to trees. The clusters are “1: Tree Lovers: Trees First,” “2: Tree Likers: Trees First,” “3: Tree Lovers: People First,” “4: Tree Likers: People First,” and “5: Tree Sceptics: People First.” Each cluster is represented by different color of the box. Additionally, the homogenous groups of clusters (computed via Kruskal-Wallis analysis at p < 0.0001 with the Dunn post hoc test) are marked above the boxes with letters from a to d, where clusters marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group.
Figure 5. The box plots of the students’ responses in the five clusters discussed in the study, for the questions regarding the attention given to nature, happiness with seeing newly planted trees and willingness to devote time, money, or private property to trees. The clusters are “1: Tree Lovers: Trees First,” “2: Tree Likers: Trees First,” “3: Tree Lovers: People First,” “4: Tree Likers: People First,” and “5: Tree Sceptics: People First.” Each cluster is represented by different color of the box. Additionally, the homogenous groups of clusters (computed via Kruskal-Wallis analysis at p < 0.0001 with the Dunn post hoc test) are marked above the boxes with letters from a to d, where clusters marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group.
Sustainability 17 07251 g005
Sustainability 17 07251 g006
Figure 6. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) biplot of the students’ answers to the questions regarding the attention given to nature, the happiness of seeing newly planted trees and the willingness to devote time, money, or private property to trees. The arrows represent the six questions used in the analysis; the shaped points and the convex hulls represent the individual positions of each student and the students’ cluster ranges.
Figure 6. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) biplot of the students’ answers to the questions regarding the attention given to nature, the happiness of seeing newly planted trees and the willingness to devote time, money, or private property to trees. The arrows represent the six questions used in the analysis; the shaped points and the convex hulls represent the individual positions of each student and the students’ cluster ranges.
Sustainability 17 07251 g006
Sustainability 17 07251 g007
Figure 7. The percentage distribution of 1023 responses to 29 survey questions regarding the importance of attributes. The values given in the chart are as follows: extreme left/right—shares of the lowest or highest answers; middle—shares of respondents who are undecided. The assignment of individual questions to the latent tree attributes is presented with the colors.
Figure 7. The percentage distribution of 1023 responses to 29 survey questions regarding the importance of attributes. The values given in the chart are as follows: extreme left/right—shares of the lowest or highest answers; middle—shares of respondents who are undecided. The assignment of individual questions to the latent tree attributes is presented with the colors.
Sustainability 17 07251 g007
Sustainability 17 07251 g008
Figure 8. The box plots of the students’ responses in the five clusters discussed in the study, with mean answers (presented below the box plots) for the questions regarding the importance of the latent tree attributes discussed in the study. The clusters are “1: Tree Lovers: Trees First,” “2: Tree Likers: Trees First,” “3: Tree Lovers: People First,” “4: Tree Likers: People First,” and “5: Tree Sceptics: People First.” Each cluster is represented by different color of the box. Additionally, the homogenous groups of clusters (computed via Kruskal-Wallis analysis at p < 0.0001 with the Dunn post hoc test) are marked above the boxes with letters from a to d, where clusters marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group.
Figure 8. The box plots of the students’ responses in the five clusters discussed in the study, with mean answers (presented below the box plots) for the questions regarding the importance of the latent tree attributes discussed in the study. The clusters are “1: Tree Lovers: Trees First,” “2: Tree Likers: Trees First,” “3: Tree Lovers: People First,” “4: Tree Likers: People First,” and “5: Tree Sceptics: People First.” Each cluster is represented by different color of the box. Additionally, the homogenous groups of clusters (computed via Kruskal-Wallis analysis at p < 0.0001 with the Dunn post hoc test) are marked above the boxes with letters from a to d, where clusters marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group.
Sustainability 17 07251 g008
Sustainability 17 07251 g009
Figure 9. The violin graphs illustrate distributions of the importance of the latent tree attributes to the respondents across three levels of responses regarding willingness to donate to urban trees. Three methods of donating were analyzed separately for each tree attribute. The students’ answers were converted to a 3-point Likert scale, with positive (“Yes” = “Rather yes” or “Definitely yes”), neutral (“No opinion”), and negative (“No” = “Rather not” or “Definitely not”) responses, each represented with a different color. The mean importance of tree attributes for each response is presented, and the homogenous groups of responses (computed via Kruskal-Wallis analysis at p < 0.0001 with the Dunn post hoc test) are marked with letters from a to c, where responses marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group. They are presented above each violin graph. The additional box plots of the importance of the latent tree attributes have been added to each violin graph.
Figure 9. The violin graphs illustrate distributions of the importance of the latent tree attributes to the respondents across three levels of responses regarding willingness to donate to urban trees. Three methods of donating were analyzed separately for each tree attribute. The students’ answers were converted to a 3-point Likert scale, with positive (“Yes” = “Rather yes” or “Definitely yes”), neutral (“No opinion”), and negative (“No” = “Rather not” or “Definitely not”) responses, each represented with a different color. The mean importance of tree attributes for each response is presented, and the homogenous groups of responses (computed via Kruskal-Wallis analysis at p < 0.0001 with the Dunn post hoc test) are marked with letters from a to c, where responses marked with the same letter belong to the same homogenous group. They are presented above each violin graph. The additional box plots of the importance of the latent tree attributes have been added to each violin graph.
Sustainability 17 07251 g009
Table 1. The abbreviations of the questions used to assess the respondents’ attitudes toward nature and willingness to donate to trees, used in some figures, as well as the Likert scale response anchors.
Table 1. The abbreviations of the questions used to assess the respondents’ attitudes toward nature and willingness to donate to trees, used in some figures, as well as the Likert scale response anchors.
QuestionAbbreviationAnchors
How do you rate your attitude toward nature?Attitude to naturevery negative–very positive
Do you pay attention to the nature around you in your everyday life?Attention to naturevery little–very much
Are you happy to see new tree plantings in your vicinity?Happy to see new treesdefinitely no–definitely yes
Do you think planting trees is the right way to spend money instead of other purposes?Planting trees is
the right aim		definitely no–definitely yes
Would you take part in planting trees in your vicinity in your free time?Free time supportdefinitely no–definitely yes
Would you be willing to financially support planting trees in your vicinity?Financial supportdefinitely no–definitely yes
Do you think everyone should be allowed to cut down any tree on their property?Right to cut private treesdefinitely no–definitely yes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jankowski, P.; Świsłocki, T. Do Generation Z Students in Poland Support Sustainable Urban Forestry? Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and Willingness to Donate. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167251

AMA Style

Jankowski P, Świsłocki T. Do Generation Z Students in Poland Support Sustainable Urban Forestry? Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and Willingness to Donate. Sustainability. 2025; 17(16):7251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167251

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jankowski, Paweł, and Tomasz Świsłocki. 2025. "Do Generation Z Students in Poland Support Sustainable Urban Forestry? Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and Willingness to Donate" Sustainability 17, no. 16: 7251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167251

APA Style

Jankowski, P., & Świsłocki, T. (2025). Do Generation Z Students in Poland Support Sustainable Urban Forestry? Attitudes Toward Urban Trees and Willingness to Donate. Sustainability, 17(16), 7251. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167251

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop