Wpływ gospodarki leśnej na przydatność lasów podmiejskich do rekreacji

• Autorzy: Dudek T.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Effect of forest management on recreational usefulness of suburban forests

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

The article is related to recreational use of forests, a dynamically growing sector of forest exploitation complying with the European model of multifunctional forestry. The study examined the relation between selected forestry operations performed in forests and the level of their recreational usefulness (recreational potential), and separately between the type of forest−hold and the dominant function of forest versus its usefulness for recreation. The study was carried out in south−eastern Poland, in suburban forests of Rzeszów. Recreational potential was determined with the use of method commonly applied in Poland, based on assessment of several features of tree stands i.e. habitat moisture, age of tree stands, inclination of the terrain, stand density, presence of undergrowth and underbrush, soil cover, species composition of the stand. The relationships were examined with chi−squared test and their strength was assessed with Cramér V index. Tree stands with recreational value account for nearly 72% of the relevant forest area. Mean recreational capacity of the forests amounted to 2.19 man−hour/ha/day. The results show statistically significant effect of forest management in recreational usefulness of tree stands. In the case of forestry operations and type of forest−hold, the relationship is weak, but moderate for forest function. The stands with the largest recreational usefulness where those in which lumber is acquired from small felling sites (92% of these were useful for recreation), or those located in protection forests and fulfilling water protection functions (not to be confused with protection of water intakes, i.e. special forests). Protection forests were found with twice as many recreationally useful stands (60%) than commercial forests (32%). Similarly, water−protecting forests were twice as useful for recreation (78%) as forests protecting urban areas (35%) and forests damaged by industry (37%). The main factors reducing recreational usefulness of forests include dense undergrowth and underbrush (≥40% of land cover). The study identifies the elements of commercial forestry resulting in greater recreational usefulness of forests; hence it is possible to designate tree stands, which can be additionally developed for tourism related purposes without a need to modify the existing principles of forest management. On the other hand, in forests accessible for leisure, foresters can enhance the increase in recreational potential of forests by conducting planned commercial operations.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

lesnictwo; gospodarka lesna; lasy podmiejskie; uzytkowanie lasu; uzytkowanie rekreacyjne; przydatnosc do rekreacji

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Sylwan
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 161
• Numer: 07
• Opis fizyczny: s.583-591,rys.,tab.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Dudek T.

• Wydział Biologiczno-Rolniczy, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, ul.Ćwiklińskiej 2, 35-601 Rzeszów

Bibliografia

• Bartczak A., Lindhejm H., Navrud S., Zandersen M., Żylicz T. 2008. Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland. For. Policy Econ. 10: 467-472.
• Bekiroğlu S., Destan S., Can M., Turkoglu T., Tolunay A. 2015. Econometric analysis of a forest recreation area: an example from Istanbul, Turkey. Fresen. Environ. Bull. 24 (9a): 2937-2945.
• Chen B., Nakama Y. 2013. Thirty years of forest tourism in China. J. Forest Res. 18: 285-292.
• Croitoru L. 2007. How much are Mediterranean forests worth. For. Policy Econ. 9: 536-545.
• Cubbage F., Harou P., Sills E. 2007. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. For. Policy Econ. 9: 833-851.
• De Meo I., Paletto A., Cantiani M. G. 2015. The attractiveness of forests: preferences and perceptions in a mountain community in Italy. Ann. For. Res. 58 (1): 145-156.
• Deng S., Yan J., Guan Q., Katoh M. 2013. Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different stands. J. Forest Res. 18: 209-219.
• Destan S., Bekirog˘lu S. 2011. Evaluation of the territorial system of forest recreation by natural indicators: Belgrade forest example. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 6 (1): 212-223.
• Dudek T. 2013. Ocena potencjału rekreacyjnego lasów w terenie o zróżnicowanej orografii na przykładzie Czarno-rzecko-Strzyżowskiego Parku Krajobrazowego. Sylwan 157 (10): 775-779.
• Dudek T. 2016a. Needs of the local population related to development of forests for recreational purposes: example of south-eastern Poland. J. For. Sci. 62: 35-40.
• Dudek T. 2016b. Potencjał rekreacyjny lasów podmiejskich Rzeszowa wobec zapotrzebowania na wypoczynek w lasach wśród mieszkańców województwa podkarpackiego. Sylwan 160 (2): 169-176.
• Dudek T. 2017a. Status i przyszłość użytkowania rekreacyjnego lasu w opinii pracowników Lasów Państwowych. Sylwan 161 (3): 247-253.
• Dudek T. 2017b. Recreational potential as an indicator of accessibility control in protected mountain forest areas. J. Mt. Sci. 14 (7): 1419-1427.
• Edwards D., Jensen F. S., Marzano M., Mason B., Pizzirani S., Schelhaas M.-J. 2011. A theoretical framework to assess the impacts of forest management on the recreational value of European forests. Ecol. Indic. 11: 81-89.
• Edwards D. M., Jay M., Jensen F. S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagné C., Peace A., Weiss G. 2012. Public Preferences Across Europe for Different Forest Stand Types as Sites for Recreation. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1): 27.
• Escobedo F., Wagner J., Nowak D. J., de la Maza C. L., Rodríguez M., Crane D. E. 2008. Analyzing the cost-effectiveness of Santiago Chile’s policy of using urban forests to improve air quality. J. Environ. Manage. 86: 148--157.
• Escobedo F. J., Kroeger T., Wagner J. E. 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 159: 2078-2087.
• Gołos P. 2013. Rekreacyjna funkcja lasów miejskich i podmiejskich Warszawy. Leś. Pr. Bad. 74 (1): 57-70.
• Gołos P., Ukalska J. 2016. Hipotetyczna gotowość finansowania publicznych funkcji lasu i gospodarki leśnej. Sylwan 160 (7): 597-608.
• Grilli G., Paletto A., De Meo I. 2014. Economic valuation of forest recreation in an Alpine valley. Balt. For. 20 (1): 167-175.
• Hansson K., Külvik M., Bell S., Maikov K. 2012. A Preliminary Assessment of Preferences for Estonian Natural Forests. Balt. For. 18: 299-315.
• Heyman E. 2012. Analysing recrational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor – employed photography method. Urban For. Urban Gree. 11: 267-277.
• Heyman E., Gunnarsson B., Stenseke M., Henningsson S., Tim G. 2011. Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands. Urban For. Urban Gree. 10: 281-293.
• Horne P., Boxall P. C., Adamowicz W. L. 2005. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecol. Manag. 207: 189-199.
• Jankovska I., Donis J., Straupe I., Panagopoulos T., Kupfere L. 2013. Assessment of forest recreation accessibility in Latvia. Fresen. Environ. Bull. 22 (7b): 2145-2151.
• Jim C. Y., Chen W. Y. 2009. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 26 (4): 187-194.
• Jorgensen A., Gobster P. H. 2010. Shades of green: measuring the ecology of urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nat. Cult. 5: 338-363.
• Karjalainen E., Sarjala T., Raitio H. 2010. Promoting human health through forests: overview and major challenges. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 15: 1-8.
• Kikulski J. 2011. Prowadzenie gospodarki leśnej a rekreacyjne użytkowanie lasu. Sylwan 155 (4): 269-278.
• Lee J. H., Lee D. J. 2015. Nature experience, recreation activity and health benefits of visitors in mountain and urban forests in Vienna, Zurich and Freiburg. J. Mt. Sci. 12 (6): 1551-1561.
• Liao W., Nogami K. 2000. A fuzzy-logic-based expert system for near-view scenic beauty evaluation of hinoki forest. J. Forest Res. 5: 139-144.
• Neuvonen M., Sievänen T., Tönnes S., Koskela T. 2007. Access to green areas and the frequency of visits – A case study in Helsinki. Urban For. Urban Gree. 6: 235-247.
• Nielsen A. B., Olsen S. B., Lundhede T. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape Urban Plan. 80: 63-71.
• Nowak D. J., Crane D. E., Stevens J. C. 2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For. Urban Gree. 4: 115-123.
• Paletto A., Ferretti F., Cantiani P., De Meo I. 2012. Multifunctional approach in forest landscape management planning: an application in Southern Italy. Forest Syst. 21: 68-80.
• Park B. J., Tsunetsugu Y., Kasetani T., Morikawa T., Kagawa T., Miyazaki Y. 2009. Physiological effects of forest recreation in a young conifer forest in Hinokage Town, Japan. Silva Fenn. 43 (2): 291-301.
• Paschalis-Jakubowicz P. 2009. Leśnictwo a leśna turystyka i rekreacja. Studia i Materiały CEPL 23: 29-35.
• Radeloff V. C., Mladenoff D. J., Gustafson E. J., Scheller R. M., Zollner P. A., He H. S., Akcakaya H. R. 2006. Modeling forest harvesting effects on landscape pattern in the Northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens. Forest Ecol. Manag. 236: 113-126.
• Roovers P., Merny M., Gulinck H. 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landscape Urban Plan. 59: 129-145.
• Shifley S. R., Thompson F. R., Dijak W. D., Larson M. A., Millspaugh J. J. 2006. Simulated effects of forest management alternatives on landscape structure and habitat suitability in the Midwestern United States. Forest Ecol. Manag. 229: 361-377.
• Shin W., Yeoun P., Yoo R., Shin C. 2010. Forest experience and psychological health benefits: The state of the art and future prospect in Korea. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 15 (1): 38-47.
• Sohrabi Saraj B., Yachkaschi A., Oladi D., Fard Teimouri S., Latifi H. 2009. The recreational valuation of a natural forest park using travel cost method in Iran. iForest 2: 85-92.
• Thompson C. W. 2011. Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape Urban Plan. 99: 187-195.
• Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Hallikainen V. 2016. Effect of the season and forest management on the visual quality of the nature-based tourism environment: a case from Finnish Lapland. Scand. J. Forest Res. 1-11.
• de Vries S., Verheij R., Groenewegen P., Spreeuwenberg P. 2003. Natural environments – Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plann. A 35: 1717-1731.
• Wang Y. Ch., Lin J. Ch., Liu W. Y., Lin Ch. Ch., Ko S. H. 2016. Investigation of visitors’ motivation, satisfaction and cognition on urban forest parks in Taiwan. J. Forest Res. 21: 261-270.
• Wolch J. R., Byrne J., Newell J. P. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape Urban Plan. 125: 234-244.
• Yang J., McBride J., Zhou J. X., Sun Z. Y. 2005. The urban forest in Beijing and its role in air pollution reduction. Urban For. Urban Gree. 3: 65-78.
• Zajączkowski G., Jabłoński M., Jabłoński T., Małecka M., Kowalska A., Małachowska J., Piwnicki J. 2016. Report on the state of forests in Poland 2013. CILP, Warszawa.
• Zandersen M., Tol R. S. J. 2009. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J. Forest Econ. 15: 109-130.
• Zhang T., Deng S., Ma Q., Sasaki K. 2015. Evaluations of Landscape Locations along Trails Based on Walking Experiences and Distances Traveled in the Akasawa Forest Therapy Base, Central Japan. Forests 6: 2853-2878.