Next Article in Journal
Energy Poverty and Territorial Resilience: An Integrative Review and an Inclusive Governance Model
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance on Total Factor Productivity: An Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Environmental Uncertainty
 
 
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 19
10.3390/su17198554
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

Sustainable Cities and Biodiversity Protection—The Case of Pollinators: An Analysis of the Bee Density Index in Macroregions of Poland

by
Natalia Guz
1,
Karolina Palimąka
2 and
Adam Masłoń
3,*
1
Department of Law and Public Policy, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Sucharskiego 2, 35-225 Rzeszów, Poland
2
Institute for Financial Research and Analysis, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Sucharskiego 2, 35-225 Rzeszów, Poland
3
Department of Environmental Engineering and Chemistry, Rzeszow University of Technology, Powstańców Warszawy 6 Av., 35-959 Rzeszów, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(19), 8554; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198554
Submission received: 18 August 2025 / Revised: 10 September 2025 / Accepted: 19 September 2025 / Published: 24 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

There is a growing interest in protecting pollinators in cities as part of efforts to promote biodiversity and sustainable development. However, many initiatives setting up urban apiaries or CSR campaigns remain superficial and do not take into account the real needs of wild pollinators. The article examines whether various interventions like promoting the protection of bees (and other pollinators), rain gardens, and green roofs align (or do not align) with the biodiversity conservation objectives. A review of practices was conducted, identifying cases of beewashing and comparing the ecological effects of establishing apiaries with activities that promote wild pollinators. Particular attention was paid to the analysis of the bee density index, which was used to assess the relationship between the number of bee colonies and the availability of food resources and highlight the risk of overpopulation and its potential consequences. The results indicate the occurrence of overgrazing, which refers to an excessively high density of breeding bee apiaries in each studied NUTS 1 region, and their number has been steadily increasing over the analyzed period. An analysis of available strategic and planning documents of selected cities (particularly provincial capitals and Poland’s largest urban centers) reveals limited commitment to pollinator protection. Although the analysis was conducted for macroregions in Poland, this work also indicates how to properly design and communicate pollinator-friendly urban activities to truly support ecological resilience and sustainable urban development, not only in the case of Poland but also more broadly.

1. Introduction

Accelerating climate change and the ongoing biodiversity crisis are leading to a marked impact on wild pollinator populations. These pressures underline the need for rational, ecologically informed planning and sustainable management of urban areas to ensure effective pollinator conservation. Pollinators play a critical role in global food security, contributing to the pollination of approximately 78% of plant species in temperate zones and up to 94% in tropical zones—globally averaging around 87.5% [1]. Pollination is treated as an ecosystem service [2]. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2016), the global economic value of pollination services provided by insects is estimated at USD 235–577 billion annually [3]. The importance of insect-mediated pollination is also supported by empirical findings: for example, Wietzke et al. demonstrated that strawberries pollinated by insects yielded higher and better-quality fruits than those relying on self- or hand-pollination [4]. Bartomeus found that insect pollination can increase crop yield by 18–71%, depending on the species [5]. Crops visited by wild pollinators, even in the presence of managed honeybees (Apis mellifera), show significantly higher productivity [6]. Drummond and Hoshide, in their study on lowbush blueberries, also observed differences in pollination between native bees and honeybees [7]. Beyond food production, plant-based raw materials are also essential in sectors such as energy, textiles, and pharmaceuticals—further highlighting the global importance of pollinator communities.
Numerous studies report alarming declines in pollinator diversity and abundance, calling for urgent conservation action. Key drivers include anthropogenic pressure, such as habitat loss and degradation [8], climate change [9], pathogens [10], and invasive species [11]. Human-induced threats include agricultural intensification and the use of plant protection products, particularly broad-spectrum neonicotinoid insecticides [12,13,14]. While evening spraying may mitigate honeybee mortality by avoiding peak foraging times, it offers little protection to ground-nesting wild pollinators, who remain vulnerable regardless of timing [15]. Habitat alteration—such as natural succession on abandoned agricultural lands—also poses a risk, converting semi-natural habitats like meadows into forests. Recent studies [16,17] highlight that meadows, open habitats, and ecotones support greater pollinator biodiversity due to better access to foraging and nesting resources. The cessation of mowing or cultivation also leads to reduced land management, increasing the likelihood of invasive plant species establishment. These species, often characterized by high reproductive potential, outcompete native flora that provide essential food sources for wild pollinators [11]. Some invasive plants in Poland are melliferous species deliberately introduced by beekeepers, including Robinia pseudoacacia L., Solidago canadensis L., Solidago gigantea L., and Echinops sphaerocephalus L. Others, such as Buddleja davidii Franch., Impatiens parviflora, Helianthus tuberosus L., and Amelanchier spp., are commonly cultivated as ornamental or useful plants in domestic gardens. Due to their efficient seed dispersal and high germination capacity, these species readily colonize new areas, posing an increasing threat to native biodiversity [18].
Hallmann et al. reported a decline of more than 75% in total insect biomass in protected areas in Germany [19]. Similar trends have been observed in studies conducted across Central Europe [20], Western Europe [21,22], and globally [23,24]. These findings, which highlight a significant decline in insect populations, have resonated with international bodies, including the European Union, influencing legislative actions related to the use of chemical plant protection products, as well as the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Farm to Fork strategy.
At the national level, however, legal frameworks are often interpreted superficially, and CSR practices implemented by businesses and urban policies are frequently insufficient or misguided, resulting in negative impacts on biodiversity. Nevertheless, an increasing number of Polish urban development strategies and municipal policies are beginning to incorporate biodiversity concerns into spatial and strategic planning documents. Commonly stated goals include increasing urban green space, revitalizing existing greenery, designing ecological corridors, mitigating climate change, and expanding green–blue infrastructure. These initiatives have a generally positive effect on pollinator diversity and abundance. Among the most frequently implemented measures are urban wildflower meadows [25], green roofs and walls, rain gardens, insect hotels (often installed in public parks), and seasonal mowing restrictions, which protect floral resources and nesting habitats. These solutions are multifunctional, as green roofs or walls can be good for urban cooling as well. By contrast, an emerging threat to wild pollinators is the ecological pressure caused by the increasing density of managed honeybees (Apis mellifera), which compete for floral resources and may transmit pathogens [26,27].
The aim of this article is to provide a critical review of existing literature and initiatives related to biodiversity conservation, including those targeting pollinators, undertaken by cities, with particular attention to their actual contribution to biodiversity protection. The article also draws on available secondary data to discuss trends in the population density of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) and the development of urban beekeeping in Poland. The objective is not to present results of original empirical research, but rather to summarize and critically reflect on existing information to show the importance of wise decisions about pollinator-friendly urban activities. The authors seek to assess whether there is a risk of so-called beewashing and whether the most commonly implemented initiatives may contribute to building urban ecological resilience.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The article focuses on the analysis of the situation of pollinating insects—both wild species and the managed honeybee (Apis mellifera)—in urban areas of Poland. The analysis is based on major urban centers representing the NUTS-1 regions in Poland (Figure 1), characterized by diverse spatial structures.
Poland, due to its temperate climate and significant diversity of habitats and ecosystems, including numerous urban green spaces, represents an interesting case for assessing the impact of urban land management on pollinator populations. According to Poland’s Central Statistical Office, the urbanization rate in 2023 was 59.5% [28]. The dynamic development of the national economy, reflected in a 170% increase in GDP since 2004 (the year of Poland’s accession to the European Union), has led to substantial infrastructure expansion, intensifying pressure on the natural environment. Simultaneously, despite growing urbanization pressures, recent years have seen increasing interest in green solutions as part of urban development strategies.
At the same time, Poland ranks among the leading honey-producing countries in the European Union, accounting for 12% of the total EU production. The number of apiaries exceeding 150 bee colonies exceeds 91,000, placing Poland second in Europe in this category (behind Germany). In terms of overall contribution to EU honey production, Poland holds the fourth position [29]. This high level of production corresponds with equally high domestic demand. The popularity of honey and other bee products is driven by long-standing beekeeping and honey consumption traditions [30], as well as a positive perception among consumers, who consider honey a valuable dietary component with notable taste and health-related properties [31,32]. As with other agricultural sectors, honey production in Poland is highly dependent on weather conditions, the health and vitality of bee colonies, and current market dynamics, which are influenced by factors such as inflation and pandemics [33].

2.2. Field Research

As part of this study, an analysis of the honeybee colony density index in Poland was conducted for the period 2014–2024 across the NUTS-1 macroregions. The boundaries of these macroregions corresponded with the administrative borders of the voivodeships (Table 1).
The aim of the analysis based on the beekeeping index was to determine the density of managed honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies per unit of area and to identify regional differences in the distribution of bee colonies. This analysis served as a complement to the literature review on pollinator biodiversity in urban areas. Data used for the analysis were obtained from the Central Statistical Office of Poland (surface areas of NUTS-1 macroregions and voivodeships) and from the annual reports titled The State of Beekeeping in Poland for the years 2014–2024, published by the Research Institute of Horticulture—National Research Institute. The index used in this work is the number of apiaries registered with the Polish Veterinary Inspectorate (PIW) per region (in this case, NUTS1). We accept these numbers as official statistics due to the fact that it has been reported directly to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Poland.
The beekeeping index (Bi, [number of colonies/km2]) was calculated as the ratio of the number of bee families (Nbf) to the area of the NUTS-1 region (Ar [km2]), expressed in square kilometers, according to the following formula:
B i   =   N b f A r ,
The purpose of the calculations was to discuss trends in the population density of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) and the development of urban beekeeping in Poland.

3. Results and Discussion

The conducted review indicates increasing pressure on wild pollinators, primarily driven by human activities such as habitat transformation and intensive, profit-oriented beekeeping practices that often neglect the need to ensure sufficient forage, such as nectar- and pollen-producing plants, in the landscape. The analysis reveals that in 2024, the beekeeping index in each of Poland’s NUTS-1 regions exceeded 3.68 colonies/km2, which is considered the maximum threshold estimated for Poland without surpassing the limits of forage availability [34] (Figure 2).
Based on the conducted analyses, the apiary density index in each macroregion exceeded the established threshold value of 3.68 apiaries/km2 (which is considered the maximum threshold estimated for Poland without surpassing the limits of forage availability [34]). A particularly pronounced exceedance was observed in the southern macroregion, where the density reached 12.6 apiaries/km2—more than three times the threshold level. Analysis of data from annual reports on the state of beekeeping in Poland indicates that this macroregion has consistently ranked highest in the number of apiaries for many years, regularly surpassing the threshold values (Table 2).
These results indicate a clear upward trend in the number of apiaries and the apiary density index across the country, accompanied by a significant overrepresentation in some regions. The highest increase in the apiary density index over the past decade occurred in the southern (+88.1%) and central (+88.1%) microregion in Poland. In all macroregions, the index value has increased by more than half over the last 10 years (ranging from 66.7% to 88.1%).
One of the factors contributing to the rise in apiary density has been the growing popularity of urban beekeeping, which is commonly associated with pollinator conservation. As a result, urban apiaries have become a hallmark of many Polish cities such as Warsaw, Rzeszów, Olsztyn, and Lublin. However, beekeeping in urban areas of Poland is not limited to initiatives promoted by local governments and city authorities. Private individuals also keep honeybees in their home gardens and allotment gardens within cities, producing honey for personal use. The latter are particularly important for shaping urban green policies due to their substantial share in the overall structure of urban green spaces (Table 3).
An analysis of selected urban centers representing the respective NUTS 1 regions in Poland indicates that the areas occupied by allotment gardens are comparable to or even larger than those of publicly managed green spaces. Therefore, they should not be overlooked in municipal strategic and planning documents, given their significant impact on biodiversity and the potential for collaboration with plot owners to ensure sustainable green space management. This is particularly important in the context of pollinator conservation, as their presence is essential for maintaining the balance of urban ecosystems.
Unfortunately, cases of beewashing have been observed in Poland—referring to actions by companies that superficially appear to benefit pollinators but are in fact harmful to them [26,57,58]. Pollinator protection is often equated with the establishment of new honey bee apiaries, even though, unlike many species of wild bees, honey bees are not at risk of extinction. Many companies—particularly in the food industry—report pollinator-focused actions or initiatives as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility efforts, which, according to the authors, often take the form of beewashing (usually unconsciously). While these actions are typically not intentional, the underlying issue lies in the generally low level of awareness regarding the ecological needs of pollinators and the potential unintended consequences of such initiatives.
The society also becomes a victim of beewashing, as it is often misinformed or inadequately educated, leading to the mistaken belief that protecting pollinators primarily means supporting honey bees (Figure 3).
An analysis of available strategic and planning documents from selected cities—specifically provincial capitals and Poland’s largest urban centers—reveals limited engagement in pollinator protection. While these documents often address issues such as sustainable development and the need to expand green spaces, insects are rarely identified as the primary rationale for promoting such initiatives.
Some cities—including Warsaw, Łódź, Lublin, Wrocław, Szczecin, Olsztyn, Gdańsk, and Zielona Góra—have in recent years implemented actions directly targeting wild pollinating insects, such as the installation of insect hotels. In a broader group of provincial capitals, indirect efforts to support wild pollinator populations have been undertaken, most notably through the establishment of urban flower meadows. In addition to the cities listed above, these initiatives were also observed in Katowice, Białystok, Bydgoszcz, Toruń, and Kielce.
Several recent initiatives illustrate the diverse approaches to urban beekeeping in Poland—some of which exhibit characteristics of unintentional beewashing, i.e., activities that fail to deliver tangible benefits for pollinator protection, while others demonstrate good practices with measurable ecological value. For example, in 2020, the first rooftop apiary in Poland was established on top of a shopping mall in Rzeszów, promoted as part of the “urban beekeeping trend” [59]. In the same year, an apiary comprising twelve beehives was located on a 25-hectare site of a municipal water treatment facility in the same city [60]. While these initiatives may raise public awareness, their direct impact on pollinator conservation remains limited.
Conversely, a project launched in 2019 in Warsaw aimed to create rooftop gardens on well-known hotels (Figure 4) to provide forage for bees through the cultivation of nectar-rich plant species, representing a more targeted ecological intervention [61]. Beyond their role in supporting pollinators, such green roofs and vertical gardens (Figure 5) represent a beneficial trend for climate adaptation in urban areas. They not only enhance the visual quality of the cityscape, but also contribute to lowering perceived temperatures, an effect of particular significance during the increasingly frequent summer heatwaves. By combining ecological, climatic, and aesthetic functions, these green infrastructure solutions align with the principles of sustainable urban development and provide co-benefits for both biodiversity and human well-being.
Even more comprehensively, the recently inaugurated (July 2025) research and implementation project entitled Monitoring and Enhancing Pollinator Biodiversity in Polish Orchards, carried out by the Time4Bee Foundation, the Agroekoton Association, the University of Life Sciences in Lublin, and sixteen orchards, addresses pollinator biodiversity in gardening [62]. This initiative integrates the needs of fruit growers and beekeepers with pollinator protection and broader environmental biodiversity goals, offering a holistic model of practice.
The presented results clearly indicate that the intensification of beekeeping, including the growing popularity of urban beekeeping, is exacerbating the problem of over-saturation with honey bees (overbeekeeping) in each of the NUTS 1 regions in Poland. This phenomenon leads to excessive competition for floral resources and facilitates the transmission of pathogens between species, posing a threat to both managed and wild bees. As a result, we observe a loss of biodiversity among wild pollinators and among plant species that depend on specific insect species for pollination, as well as herbivores that rely on these plants for food, and insectivorous birds. The complexity of ecosystems creates a domino effect, where the biodiversity crisis among insects negatively affects both plant diversity and higher-level animal species. It also leads to food production losses by reducing crop yields [25,63].
Actions that only simulate concern for pollinators—referred to as beewashing—often prove counterproductive. A real issue is that in Poland, urban beekeeping is still perceived as a “green” initiative aligned with sustainable development goals, although in practice it does not benefit wild pollinators and, in fact, harms them by increasing competitive pressure. Table 4 presents favorable and unfavorable solutions, examples of actions undertaken in Polish urban spaces that affect wild pollinator populations. It is worth adding that the rationale for expanding the urban beekeeping sector is often supported by studies of the quality of honey produced in urban apiaries, which show that it may contain fewer contaminants than honey from rural areas due to lower pesticide use [64]. However, other studies conducted on Polish linden honey, focusing on bioactive compound content, have shown that urban honey has significantly lower antioxidant potential compared to honey from rural areas [65]. Thus, the health benefits of urban honey are questionable and easily challenged and should not serve as justification for promoting urban beekeeping.
Effective and informed biodiversity protection in cities, therefore, requires moving away from symbolic actions in favor of rational, interdisciplinary management based on scientific data, public education and awareness, and consideration of local environmental conditions—including the promotion of native nectar-producing plant species (without establishing new apiaries) to create forage resources for wild pollinators. What is also underlined by Ayala-Azcarraga et al. [88] is that native species can significantly enhance urban resilience and pollinator conservation, which is important in the management of public gardening.
The authors also highlight the insufficient integration of pollinator-related issues into the strategic documents of most Polish cities. While there is a growing number of initiatives such as flower meadows, green roofs, and rain gardens, these are often not accompanied by adequate public education or monitoring of ecological effectiveness (Sabahhi et al., among others, confirm the need for education in this area [89]). Moreover, wild pollinator protection is rarely the primary motive for implementing such actions. To optimize urban space management in line with sustainable development principles, local experts and scientists—particularly entomologists specializing in wild pollinators and botanists skilled in selecting appropriate native plant species adapted to local conditions—should be involved in planning processes. These species should ensure the availability and continuity of forage resources from early spring to late autumn and be prioritized in urban planting schemes. Examples of rational management in this area are European capitals such as London and Vienna, which integrate botany and entomology in their urban greenery strategies [90] and invest in green infrastructure such as green roofs or preventing competitive pressure [91].
A key contribution of this study is the use of the apiary density index as a tool that reveals the extent of overbeekeeping in specific macroregions resulting from the depletion of food resources for pollinators. This index can serve as a basis for developing sustainable regulatory solutions in the beekeeping sector, which are currently lacking in Polish legislation.
The analyses conducted suggest that pollinator protection can support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 15—Life on Land (protecting life on land, through actions that genuinely support biodiversity in urban environments); SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities (sustainable cities and communities, through responsible green infrastructure design); and SDG 4—Quality Education (raising environmental awareness and disseminating knowledge about the conservation of wild pollinator biodiversity).
However, actions taken by local governments and businesses must be interdisciplinary, integrating environmental, social, and economic considerations into urban development strategies and corporate responsibility plans.
A hopeful and important step toward increasing awareness—both among local governments and private companies—has been the establishment of the Pollinator Working Group within the Polish Ministry of Climate and Environment [92]. Its primary task is to develop a national strategy for the protection of wild pollinators, including educational and awareness-raising initiatives dedicated to their protection.

4. Conclusions

To conclude, over the past decade, the population of managed Western honey bees (Apis mellifera) in Poland has increased by more than 60%. The excessive density of honey bee hives, confirmed by the analysis of the apiary density index, suggests that environmental carrying capacity has been exceeded, posing a threat to wild pollinator populations and to local biodiversity, both fauna and flora.
Research suggests that the establishment of new apiaries and the expansion of managed Apis mellifera populations do not support, and may even undermine, efforts to conserve wild pollinators. To be effective, such efforts should be grounded in ecological knowledge and tailored to local environmental conditions (taking into account, among other things, the value of ecosystem services [93]). Well-designed and properly managed urban green infrastructure, such as green walls and roofs, flower meadows, and rain gardens, can effectively enhance the ecological resilience of cities, including the preservation of wild pollinator populations and their diversity.
Urban strategies should also recognize the role of allotment gardens and promote collaboration with the administrators of these spaces and individual plot owners in order to protect urban biodiversity. Unfortunately, many Polish companies and local governments fail to include initiatives for wild pollinating insects in their pro-environmental activities. Therefore, it is crucial to intensify educational efforts in this area. Examples of such educational efforts include educational campaigns for residents focused on the diversity of pollinators and their specific needs (different species, habitats, and forage sources), engaging residents in biodiversity initiatives such as grant programs for courtyard revitalization or urban gardening competitions with an emphasis on creating pollinator habitats, and broader integration of pollinator protection topics into municipal planning and policy documents. Such actions could be further supported by initiatives at the governmental level, for example, by considering regulations to limit the number of hives in urban areas, based on region-specific apiary density index thresholds, or establishing a nationwide framework for systematic monitoring of wild pollinator populations, coordinated by local governments in partnership with scientific institutions.

5. Limitations

The authors are aware of the general nature of the information obtained from the beekeeping index. The beekeeping index (Bi) used in this work is the number of apiaries registered with the Polish Veterinary Inspectorate (PIW) per region (in this case, NUTS1). We accept these numbers as official statistics, as we use data from the Institute of Horticulture from the National Research Institute, which reports directly to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Poland. Regarding limitations, there is a so-called “gray area” in which someone can privately own a hive that is not included in any statistics. We are aware that macroregions are not the best for detailed analysis, but our goal for this work was to show the importance of wise decisions about pollinator-friendly urban activities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.P. and N.G.; methodology, N.G.; software, N.G.; validation, N.G., A.M. and K.P.; formal analysis, N.G.; investigation, K.P.; resources, N.G.; data curation, N.G.; writing—original draft preparation, N.G., K.P. and A.M.; writing—review and editing, A.M.; visualization, N.G.; supervision, A.M.; project administration, K.P. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ollerton, J.; Winfree, R.; Tarrant, S. How Many Flowering Plants Are Pollinated by Animals? Oikos 2011, 120, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Feketéné Ferenczi, A.; Szűcs, I.; Bauerné Gáthy, A. Evaluation of the Pollination Ecosystem Service of the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Based on a Beekeeping Model in Hungary. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Potts, S.G. The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production: Summary for Policymakers; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Bonn, Germany, 2016; ISBN 978-92-807-3568-0. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wietzke, A.; Westphal, C.; Gras, P.; Kraft, M.; Pfohl, K.; Karlovsky, P.; Pawelzik, E.; Tscharntke, T.; Smit, I. Insect Pollination as a Key Factor for Strawberry Physiology and Marketable Fruit Quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 258, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bartomeus, I. Understanding Linkage Rules in Plant-Pollinator Networks by Using Hierarchical Models That Incorporate Pollinator Detectability and Plant Traits. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Garibaldi, L.A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Winfree, R.; Aizen, M.A.; Bommarco, R.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Harder, L.D.; Afik, O.; et al. Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance. Science 2013, 339, 1608–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Drummond, F.A.; Hoshide, A.K. An Economic Cost/Benefit Tool to Assess Bee Pollinator Conservation, Pollination Strategies, and Sustainable Policies: A Lowbush Blueberry Case Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. LeBuhn, G.; Luna, J.V. Pollinator Decline: What Do We Know about the Drivers of Solitary Bee Declines? Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2021, 46, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Brunet, J.; Fragoso, F.P. What Are the Main Reasons for the Worldwide Decline in Pollinator Populations? CABI Rev. 2024, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Ma, J.; Guo, J. Antibiotic Resistance Gene Pollution in Poultry Farming Environments and Approaches for Mitigation: A System Review. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 104858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. European Court of Auditors. Protection of Wild Pollinators in the EU: Commission Initiatives Have Not Borne Fruit; Special Report No 15, 2020; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  12. Main, A.R.; Webb, E.B.; Goyne, K.W.; Mengel, D. Neonicotinoid Insecticides Negatively Affect Performance Measures of Non-target Terrestrial Arthropods: A Meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 2018, 28, 1232–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jeschke, P.; Nauen, R.; Schindler, M.; Elbert, A. Overview of the Status and Global Strategy for Neonicotinoids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 2897–2908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chattopadhyay, A.; Samadder, A.; Bhattacharya, S. Pesticide Mediated Critical Transition in Plant-Pollinator Networks. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.08495. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sampson, B.; Gregorc, A.; Alburaki, M.; Werle, C.; Karim, S.; Adamczyk, J.; Knight, P. Sensitivity to Imidacloprid Insecticide Varies among Some Social and Solitary Bee Species of Agricultural Value. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0285167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tarbill, G.L.; White, A.M.; Sollmann, R. Floral Richness Drives Pollinator Diversity after Fire in Upland Forests and Meadows of the Sierra Nevada, California. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2024, 17, 869–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vujanović, D.; Losapio, G.; Mészáros, M.; Popov, S.; Markov Ristić, Z.; Mudri Stojnić, S.; Jović, J.; Vujić, A. Forest and Grassland Habitats Support Pollinator Diversity More than Wildflowers and Sunflower Monoculture. Ecol. Entomol. 2023, 48, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gatunki Obce i Inwazyjne. Available online: https://www.iop.krakow.pl/ias/gatunki (accessed on 18 July 2025).
  19. Hallmann, C.A.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Müller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; et al. More than 75 Percent Decline over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected Areas. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Valtonen, A.; Hirka, A.; Szőcs, L.; Ayres, M.P.; Roininen, H.; Csóka, G. Long-term Species Loss and Homogenization of Moth Communities in Central Europe. J. Anim. Ecol. 2017, 86, 730–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Conrad, K.F.; Warren, M.S.; Fox, R.; Parsons, M.S.; Woiwod, I.P. Rapid Declines of Common, Widespread British Moths Provide Evidence of an Insect Biodiversity Crisis. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 132, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Van Strien, A.J.; Van Swaay, C.A.M.; Van Strien-van Liempt, W.T.F.H.; Poot, M.J.M.; WallisDeVries, M.F. Over a Century of Data Reveal More than 80% Decline in Butterflies in the Netherlands. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 234, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sánchez-Bayo, F.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G. Worldwide Decline of the Entomofauna: A Review of Its Drivers. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 232, 8–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wagner, D.L. Insect Declines in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020, 65, 457–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kehoe, R.; Frago, E.; Sanders, D. Cascading Extinctions as a Hidden Driver of Insect Decline. Ecol. Entomol. 2021, 46, 743–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Colla, S.R. The Potential Consequences of ‘Bee Washing’ on Wild Bee Health and Conservation. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2022, 18, 30–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Piot, N.; Schweiger, O.; Meeus, I.; Yañez, O.; Straub, L.; Villamar-Bouza, L.; De La Rúa, P.; Jara, L.; Ruiz, C.; Malmstrøm, M.; et al. Honey Bees and Climate Explain Viral Prevalence in Wild Bee Communities on a Continental Scale. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Rocznik Statystyczny Województw 2024; Główny Urząd Statystyczny: Warsaw, Poland, 2024; p. 253. [Google Scholar]
  29. European Commission. Market Presentation—Honey—Spring 2024; Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development: Brussels, Belgium, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  30. Testa, R.; Asciuto, A.; Schifani, G.; Schimmenti, E.; Migliore, G. Quality Determinants and Effect of Therapeutic Properties in Honey Consumption. An Exploratory Study on Italian Consumers. Agriculture 2019, 9, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kowalczuk, I.; Gębski, J.; Stangierska, D.; Szymańska, A. Determinants of Honey and Other Bee Products Use for Culinary, Cosmetic, and Medical Purposes. Nutrients 2023, 15, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Šedík, P.; Hudecová, M.; Predanócyová, K. Exploring Consumers’ Preferences and Attitudes to Honey: Generation Approach in Slovakia. Foods 2023, 12, 1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pawłowska-Tyszko, J.; Jarka, S.; Olech, I. Food Self-Sufficiency in the Honey Market in Poland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Al-Ghamdi, A.; Adgaba, N.; Getachew, A.; Tadesse, Y. New Approach for Determination of an Optimum Honeybee Colony’s Carrying Capacity Based on Productivity and Nectar Secretion Potential of Bee Forage Species. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2016, 23, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Semkiw, P. Sektor Pszczelarski w Polsce w 2014 Roku; InHort Skierniewice, Instytut Ogrodnictwa Zakład Pszczelnictwa w Puławach: Puławy, Poland, 2014; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  36. Semkiw, P. Sektor Pszczelarski w Polsce w 2016 Roku; InHort Skierniewice, Instytut Ogrodnictwa Zakład Pszczelnictwa w Puławach: Puławy, Poland, 2016; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  37. Semkiw, P.; Skubida, P.; Jeziorski, K.; Pioś, A. Sektor Pszczelarski w Polsce w 2018 Roku; InHort Skierniewice, Instytut Ogrodnictwa Zakład Pszczelnictwa w Puławach: Puławy, Poland, 2018; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  38. Semkiw, P. Sektor Pszczelarski w Polsce w 2020 Roku; InHort Skierniewice, Instytut Ogrodnictwa Zakład Pszczelnictwa w Puławach: Puławy, Poland, 2020; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  39. Semkiw, P. Stan Pszczelarstwa w Polsce w 2023 Roku; InHort Skierniewice Instytut Ogrodnictwa—PIB: Puławy, Poland; Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi: Warsaw, Poland, 2023; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  40. Semkiw, P. Stan Pszczelarstwa w Polsce w 2024 Roku; InHort Skierniewice Instytut Ogrodnictwa—PIB: Puławy, Poland; Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi: Warsaw, Poland, 2024; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  41. Smęder, M. Aspekty Ekonomiczne Gospodarowania ROD. Available online: https://pzd.pl/artykuly/12979/108/Aspekty-ekonomiczne-gospodarowania-ROD.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  42. Urząd Miasta Poznania/Poznań.pl Poznań dla Ogródków Działkowych. Available online: https://www.poznan.pl/mim/info/news/poznan-dla-ogrodkow-dzialkowych,225018.html (accessed on 2 July 2025).
  43. Wydział Rozwoju Miasta i Współpracy Międzynarodowej Urzędu Miasta Poznania. Raport o Stanie Miasta Poznania za Rok 2024; Urząd Miasta Poznania: Poznań, Poland, 2024; p. 219. [Google Scholar]
  44. Geoportal Wrocław Charakterystyka Obszaru Podlegającego Ocenie; Geoportal Wrocław. Available online: https://geoportal.wroclaw.pl/ (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  45. Urząd Miasta Wrocławia. Raport o Stanie Gminy 2024; Urząd Miasta Wrocławia: Wrocław, Poland, 2024; p. 292. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wiązowska, K. Wielki Boom na Ogródki Działkowe w Mieście. Available online: https://www.wroclaw.pl/dla-mieszkanca/ogrody-dzialkowe-wroclaw (accessed on 3 July 2025).
  47. Urząd Miejski w Gdańsku/Gdańskie Centrum Multimedialne Ogólna Charakterystyka Miasta—Raport o Stanie Miasta Gdańska 2023. Available online: https://bip.gdansk.pl/urzad-miejski/raporty-i-publikacje/Raport-o-stanie-miasta-Gdanska-za-2023-rok,a,264665 (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  48. Urząd Miejski w Gdańsku. Raport o Stanie Miasta Gdańska za 2024 Rok; Urząd Miasta Gdańska: Gdańsk, Poland, 2025; p. 308. [Google Scholar]
  49. Urząd Miasta Łodzi Łódź w Pigułce. Available online: https://uml.lodz.pl/dla-mieszkancow/o-miescie/lodz-w-pigulce/ (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  50. Urząd Miasta Łodzi—Departament Strategii i Promorcji, Biuro Strategii Miasta. Łódź 2024. Raport o Stanie Miasta; Urząd Miasta Łodzi: Łódź, Poland, 2025; p. 122. [Google Scholar]
  51. Szkup, R.; Pytel, S. Rodzinne Ogrody Działkowe (ROD) w przestrzeni dużego miasta przykład Łodzi. Pr. Kom. Kraj. Kult. 2016, 32, 109–124. [Google Scholar]
  52. Urząd Miasta Rzeszowa. Raport o Stanie Miasta Rzeszowa za 2023 Rok; Urząd Miasta Rzeszowa: Rzeszów, Poland, 2025; pp. 1–134. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rzeszów w Liczbach. Available online: http://erzeszow.pl/41-miasto-rzeszow/1757-dane-statystyczne.html (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  54. Urząd Miasta Rzeszowa. Raport o Stanie Miasta Rzeszowa za 2024 Rok; Urząd Miasta Rzeszowa: Rzeszów, Poland, 2025; pp. 1–158. [Google Scholar]
  55. Urząd Miasta Warszawa, Biuro Strategii i Analiz Urzędu m.st. Warszawy. Raport o Stanie Miasta Warszawa 2024; Urząd Miasta Warszawa: Warsaw, Poland, 2025; pp. 1–186. [Google Scholar]
  56. Polski Związek Działkowców Ogrody Działkowe w Europie. Available online: https://pzd.pl/archiwum/strona.php?4073 (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  57. Gatti, L.; Conti, L.G.; Seele, P. A Comprehensive Guide to Greenwashing Phenomena, Contexts, and Trends: The Mean, Lean Washing Machine; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2025; ISBN 978-1-0353-2824-6. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wiseman, L.; Rawson, R.; Okere, U.V. Bee-Friendly Interventions: The Barriers and Opportunities Affecting Urban Residents’ Conservation of Wild Bees in Gardens. J. Insect Conserv. 2025, 29, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pasterczyk, J. Pierwsza Miejska Pasieka Powstała na Dachu Galerii Rzeszów. Pszczoły Będą Zapylać Kwiaty w Promieniu 3 km. Available online: https://rzeszow.wyborcza.pl/rzeszow/7,34962,26183064,pierwsza-miejska-pasieka-powstala-na-dachu-galerii-rzeszow.html (accessed on 7 August 2025).
  60. MPWiK Sp. z o.o. Miejskie Pszczoły z Pasieki MPWiK nie Próżnują. Wyprodukowały Ponad 140 Kilogramów Miodu—MPWiK Sp. z o.o. Available online: https://mpwik.rzeszow.pl/miejskie-pszczoly-z-pasieki-mpwik-nie-proznuja-wyprodukowaly-ponad-140-kilogramow-miodu/ (accessed on 7 August 2025).
  61. Postrzednik, J. Ogrody na Dachach Hoteli. Mnóstwo Kwiatów ma Ocalić Warszawskie Pszczoły od Wyginięcia. Available online: https://warszawa.naszemiasto.pl/ogrody-na-dachach-hoteli-mnostwo-kwiatow-ma-ocalic/ar/c8-5100941 (accessed on 7 August 2025).
  62. Ruszył Ogólnopolski Projekt na Rzecz Ochrony Zapylaczy w Sadach. Available online: https://www.sadyogrody.pl/agrotechnika/103/ruszyl_ogolnopolski_projekt_na_rzecz_ochrony_zapylaczy_w_sadach,47675.html (accessed on 7 August 2025).
  63. Bassi, M.I.E.; Staude, I.R. Insects decline with host plants but coextinctions may be limited. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2417408121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Sadowska, M.; Gogolewska, H.; Pawelec, N.; Sentkowska, A.; Krasnodębska-Ostręga, B. Comparison of the Contents of Selected Elements and Pesticides in Honey Bees with Regard to Their Habitat. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nicewicz, A.W.; Nicewicz, Ł.; Pawłowska, P. Antioxidant Capacity of Honey from the Urban Apiary: A Comparison with Honey from the Rural Apiary. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 9695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zaninotto, V.; Thebault, E.; Dajoz, I. Native and Exotic Plants Play Different Roles in Urban Pollination Networks across Seasons. Oecologia 2023, 201, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Siviter, H.; Pardee, G.L.; Baert, N.; McArt, S.; Jha, S.; Muth, F. Wild Bees Are Exposed to Low Levels of Pesticides in Urban Grasslands and Community Gardens. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 159839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Quinton, A. Pesticides Can Affect Multiple Generations of Bees. Study Finds Reduced Bee Reproduction over 2 Years. Available online: https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/pesticides-can-affect-multiple-generations-bees (accessed on 5 September 2025).
  69. Lerman, S.B.; Contosta, A.R.; Milam, J.; Bang, C. To Mow or to Mow Less: Lawn Mowing Frequency Affects Bee Abundance and Diversity in Suburban Yards. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 221, 160–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morrison, M.; Bright, A.; Brown, M.J.F. Reduced Mowing Frequencies Increase Pollinator Abundance in Urban Lawns in the UK. Conserv. Evid. J. 2025, 22, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dusza, Y.; Kraepiel, Y.; Abbadie, L.; Barot, S.; Carmignac, D.; Dajoz, I.; Gendreau, E.; Lata, J.-C.; Meriguet, J.; Motard, E.; et al. Plant-Pollinator Interactions on Green Roofs Are Mediated by Substrate Characteristics and Plant Community Composition. Acta Oecol. 2020, 105, 103559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jacobs, J.; Beenaerts, N.; Artois, T. Green Roofs and Pollinators, Useful Green Spots for Some Wild Bee Species (Hymenoptera: Anthophila), but Not so Much for Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pokorny, K.; Branam, C. Native Plants Attract More Pollinators than Cultivars in OSU Study. Available online: https://extension.oregonstate.edu/news/native-plants-attract-more-pollinators-cultivars-osu-study (accessed on 6 September 2025).
  74. Marcacci, G.; Devy, S.; Wenzel, A.; Rao, V.S.; Kumar, S.S.; Nölke, N.; Belavadi, V.V.; Tscharntke, T.; Grass, I.; Westphal, C. Direct and Indirect Effects of Urbanization, Pesticides and Wild Insect Pollinators on Mango Yield. J. Appl. Ecol. 2023, 60, 2132–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Geslin, B.; Gachet, S.; Deschamps-Cottin, M.; Flacher, F.; Ignace, B.; Knoploch, C.; Meineri, É.; Robles, C.; Ropars, L.; Schurr, L.; et al. Bee Hotels Host a High Abundance of Exotic Bees in an Urban Context. Acta Oecol. 2020, 105, 103556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. MacIvor, J.S.; Packer, L. ‘Bee Hotels’ as Tools for Native Pollinator Conservation: A Premature Verdict? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Prendergast, K.S.; Wilson, R.S. Bee Hotels as a Tool for Post-Fire Recovery of Cavity-Nesting Native Bees. Insects 2025, 16, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rahimi, E.; Barghjelveh, S.; Dong, P. How Effective Are Artificial Nests in Attracting Bees? A Review. J. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 45, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. 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]
  80. Liang, H.; He, Y.; Theodorou, P.; Yang, C. The Effects of Urbanization on Pollinators and Pollination: A Meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 2023, 26, 1629–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vanbergen, A.J.; Espíndola, A.; Aizen, M.A. Risks to Pollinators and Pollination from Invasive Alien Species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 2, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Szigeti, V.; Miholcsa, Z.; Sándor, D.; Soltész, Z.; Török, E.; Fenesi, A. Threats and Benefits of Invasive Alien Plant Species on Pollinators. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2022, 64, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liang, C.T.; Shiels, A.B.; Haines, W.P.; Sandor, M.E.; Aslan, C.E. Invasive Predators Affect Community-wide Pollinator Visitation. Ecol. Appl. 2022, 32, e2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Iwasaki, J.M.; Hogendoorn, K. Mounting Evidence That Managed and Introduced Bees Have Negative Impacts on Wild Bees: An Updated Review. Curr. Res. Insect Sci. 2022, 2, 100043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. MacInnis, G.; Normandin, E.; Ziter, C.D. Decline in Wild Bee Species Richness Associated with Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Abundance in an Urban Ecosystem. PeerJ 2023, 11, e14699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mallinger, R.E.; Gaines-Day, H.R.; Gratton, C. Do Managed Bees Have Negative Effects on Wild Bees?: A Systematic Review of the Literature. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Quinlan, G.M.; Doser, J.W.; Kammerer, M.A.; Grozinger, C.M. Estimating Genus-Specific Effects of Non-Native Honey Bees and Urbanization on Wild Bee Communities: A Case Study in Maryland, United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 953, 175783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ayala-Azcarraga, C.; Hinojosa-Diaz, I.A.; Segura, O.; Pacheco-Muñoz, R.; Larrucea-Garritz, A.; Diaz, D. Evaluation of Sustainable Landscape Design: Presence of Native Pollinators in an Urban Park in Mexico City, Mexico. Sustainability 2025, 17, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sabbahi, R.; El Abdouni, I.; Lhomme, P.; Boubker, O.; Azzaoui, K.; Hammouti, B.; Neffa, M.; Hock, V. Public Attitudes towards Insect Pollinators in Morocco: Insights from a Pilot Study with Broader Applications. Diversity 2024, 16, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pollinator Strategy | The Royal Parks. Available online: https://www.royalparks.org.uk/park-management/park-strategies/pollinator-strategy (accessed on 8 September 2025).
  91. Initial Study for Bee Ecological Spatial Planning in Vienna—BOKU FIS. Available online: https://forschung.boku.ac.at/en/projects/15634 (accessed on 8 September 2025).
  92. Dzyr, A. Spotkanie Grupy ds. Zapylaczy w Warszawie. Available online: https://www.umcs.pl/pl/aktualnosci,17728,spotkanie-grupy-ds-zapylaczy-w-warszawie,163954.chtm (accessed on 15 May 2025).
  93. Bruno, E.; Falco, E.; Geneletti, D. Combining Demand for Ecosystem Services with Ecosystem Conditions of Vacant Lots to Support Land Preservation and Restoration Decisions. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 08554 g001
Figure 1. Study area—NUTS-1 (macroregions) in Poland.
Figure 1. Study area—NUTS-1 (macroregions) in Poland.
Sustainability 17 08554 g001
Sustainability 17 08554 g002
Figure 2. The value of the beekeeping index in individual NUTS-1 regions of Poland in 2024.
Figure 2. The value of the beekeeping index in individual NUTS-1 regions of Poland in 2024.
Sustainability 17 08554 g002
Sustainability 17 08554 g003
Figure 3. A Polish government website providing information about World Bee Day features the Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) on its promotional poster.
Figure 3. A Polish government website providing information about World Bee Day features the Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) on its promotional poster.
Sustainability 17 08554 g003
Sustainability 17 08554 g004
Figure 4. A rooftop garden on a well-known hotel in Warsaw (Source: [61]).
Figure 4. A rooftop garden on a well-known hotel in Warsaw (Source: [61]).
Sustainability 17 08554 g004
Sustainability 17 08554 g005
Figure 5. An example of vertical gardens in Bolzano (Italy) (on the left side) and a representative of the leafcutter bee family (Megachilidae) on Ononis avensis L.—part of a green wall in the city center of Bolzano (Italy), located on the NOI Techpark building, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (on the right side) (Source: own resources).
Figure 5. An example of vertical gardens in Bolzano (Italy) (on the left side) and a representative of the leafcutter bee family (Megachilidae) on Ononis avensis L.—part of a green wall in the city center of Bolzano (Italy), located on the NOI Techpark building, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (on the right side) (Source: own resources).
Sustainability 17 08554 g005
Table 1. Regions by NUTS-1 and corresponding Voivodeships in Poland.
Table 1. Regions by NUTS-1 and corresponding Voivodeships in Poland.
NUTS-1 in PolandVoivodeships in Poland
SouthernMałopolskie, Śląskie
North-WesternZachodniopomorskie, Lubuskie, Wielkopolskie
South-WesternDolnośląskie, Opolskie
NorthernPomorskie, Warmińsko-Mazurskie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie
CentralŁódzkie, Świętokrzyskie
EasternPodlaskie, Lubelskie, Podkarpackie
Mazowieckie VoivodeshipMazowieckie
Table 2. Values of the apiary density index and its change in NUTS 1 regions of Poland in the period 2014–2024 (chosen year).
Table 2. Values of the apiary density index and its change in NUTS 1 regions of Poland in the period 2014–2024 (chosen year).
MacroregionYearChange [%]
(2014–2024)
201420162018202020232024
Southern6.77.68.39.112.112.6+88.1
North-Western3.63.84.14.25.76.0+66.7
South-Western4.85.35.76.17.88.3+72.9
Northern4.04.24.55.06.96.9+72.5
Central4.24.85.15.47.77.9+88.1
Eastern5.45.76.27.09.29.4+74.1
Mazowieckie Voivodeship2.73.33.73.64.75.0+85.2
Red indicates values exceeding the safety threshold. Data sources: [35,36,37,38,39,40].
Table 3. Areas of public green spaces * and allotment gardens in selected cities of NUTS1 regions and their share in the total city area.
Table 3. Areas of public green spaces * and allotment gardens in selected cities of NUTS1 regions and their share in the total city area.
MacroregionMain CityArea (and Percentage Share) in The Total City AreaData Sources
Total City Area [km2]Publicly Managed Green SpacesAllotment Gardens [km2]
Parks [km2]Green Squares [km2]
SouthernKraków326.8
(100%)		3.94
(1.21%)		2.38
(0.73%)		4.00
(1.22%) 		[41]
North-WesternPoznań261.9
(100%)		3.46
(1.32%)		0.68
(0.26%)		7.7
(2.9%)		 [42,43]
South-WesternWrocław293
(100%)		6.73
(2.30%) 		1.72
(0.59%)		±14.0
(±4.8%)		 [44,45,46]
NorthernGdańsk258
(100%)		8.54
(3.31%)		8.90
(3.5%)		 [47,48]
CentralŁódź283.2
(100%)		5.61
(1.98%)		7.18
(2.54%)		 [49,50,51]
EasternRzeszów129
(100%)		0.86
(0.71%)		100.37
(0.76%)		2.15
(1.67%)		 [52,53,54]
Mazowieckie
Voivodeship		Warszawa517.2
(100%)		10.66
(2.1%)		11.34
(2.2%)		 [55,56]
* (excluding forest areas).
Table 4. Examples of actions undertaken in Polish urban spaces that affect wild pollinator populations.
Table 4. Examples of actions undertaken in Polish urban spaces that affect wild pollinator populations.
Actions Beneficial to Wild Pollinator PopulationsActions Adversely Affecting Wild Pollinator Populations
Native and species-diverse plantings provide a rich forage base throughout the entire growing season [66].Use of toxic insecticides (particularly neonicotinoids) [67,68].
Rational mowing schedules and methods (e.g., introducing mosaic mowing, delaying mowing dates, or adjusting mowing frequency) [69].Excessive mowing and removal of flowering “weeds” from lawns, squares, and roadsides [69,70].
Proper design and implementation of green infrastructure, such as green roofs, green walls, and flower meadows [71,72].Selection of plant varieties based solely on ornamental value (these often have low nectar/pollen content) [73].
Sustainable use of plant protection products (limiting or discontinuing the use of insecticides) in parks, gardens, squares, and along roadsides [67,74].Improper design and placement of bee hotels (inadequate design/location) [75,76].
Ensuring nesting resources and habitats, including opportunities for ground-nesting, dead wood, and properly designed insect hotels [76,77,78].“Concrete sprawl” (large areas of high impermeability), which prevents nesting and reduces plant resources [79,80].
Appropriate urban space design, creating green corridors and diverse habitats evenly distributed across the city (instead of isolated initiatives) [79,80].Use of alien and invasive plant species [81,82,83].
---Expansion of urban beekeeping [83,84,85,86,87].
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

Guz, N.; Palimąka, K.; Masłoń, A. Sustainable Cities and Biodiversity Protection—The Case of Pollinators: An Analysis of the Bee Density Index in Macroregions of Poland. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198554

AMA Style

Guz N, Palimąka K, Masłoń A. Sustainable Cities and Biodiversity Protection—The Case of Pollinators: An Analysis of the Bee Density Index in Macroregions of Poland. Sustainability. 2025; 17(19):8554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198554

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guz, Natalia, Karolina Palimąka, and Adam Masłoń. 2025. "Sustainable Cities and Biodiversity Protection—The Case of Pollinators: An Analysis of the Bee Density Index in Macroregions of Poland" Sustainability 17, no. 19: 8554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198554

APA Style

Guz, N., Palimąka, K., & Masłoń, A. (2025). Sustainable Cities and Biodiversity Protection—The Case of Pollinators: An Analysis of the Bee Density Index in Macroregions of Poland. Sustainability, 17(19), 8554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198554

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