Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Stakeholder perceptions and planning implications for urban rewilding as a nature-based solution in Poland

23 Views


Abstract

Urban rewilding is increasingly recognized as a nature-based solution for restoring biodiversity, mitigating climate risks, and strengthening urban resilience. Yet, empirical evidence on how rewilding is perceived and supported by both policymakers and the public—particularly in post-socialist contexts—remains scarce. This study investigates expert and community perspectives on urban rewilding in Poland through a mixed-method design: a nationwide survey of 32 municipal environmental officials and a visual preference survey with 1,000 residents of the coastal city of Sopot. Expert responses highlight strong conceptual support for rewilding’s ecological and social benefits, but also identify persistent concerns about institutional feasibility, funding, and integration into existing planning frameworks. Community results reveal consistent public endorsement of moderate rewilding, with more cautious acceptance of intensive ecological designs in highly symbolic civic spaces. Taken together, the findings suggest that urban rewilding in Central and Eastern Europe is both socially viable and ecologically desirable, but its successful implementation will depend on adaptive governance, participatory planning, and the strategic use of visual engagement tools to bridge policy ambition with public expectations.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Figshare repository at [https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27089560](https:/doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27089560) .

References

  1. Measuring Vulnerability To Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. (UN University, Tokyo, (2006).

  2. Cirella, G. T., Semenzin, E., Critto, A. & Marcomini, A. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and Management Methodologies Review: Europe. in Sustainable Cities and Military Installations (ed. Linkov, I.) 329–358Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7161-1_16

  3. Šakić Trogrlić, R. et al. Challenges in assessing and managing Multi-Hazard risks: A European stakeholders perspective. Environmental Science Policy. 157, 103774 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ward, P. J. et al. Review article: natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 1069–1096 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cirella, G. T. & Tao, L. An adaptive quantitative method to measure sustainability: an application for the state of Queensland, Australia. Int. J. Environ. Cult. Economic Social Sustain. Annual Rev. 5, 127–139 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cirella, G. T. & Zerbe, S. Index of sustainable functionality: application in Urat front banner. in Sustainable Water Management and Wetland Restoration in Settlements of continental-arid Central Asia (eds (eds Cirella, G. T. & Zerbe, S.) 137–155 (Bozen University, Bozen, doi:https://doi.org/10.13124/9788860461094_10. (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cirella, G. T. & Tao, L. The index of sustainable functionality: an application for measuring sustainability. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technology: Int. J. Humanit. Social Sci. 3, 268–274 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buma, B. et al. Expert review of the science underlying Nature-Based climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 402–406 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dunlop, T. et al. The evolution and future of research on Nature-Based solutions to address societal challenges. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 1–15 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Koundouri, P. et al. Assessing the sustainability of the European green deal and its interlin Kages with the SDGs. Npj Clim. Action. 3, 1–10 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vela Almeida, D. et al. The greening of empire: the European green deal as the EU first agenda. Political Geogr. 105, 102925 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blythe, C. & Jepson, P. Rewilding: the Radical New Science of Ecological Recovery (Icon Books, 2020).

  13. Rewilding. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2019).

  14. Cirella, G. T. Urban rewilding in practice. Cultural Geographies Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/14744740251392204 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pancewicz, A. & Kurianowicz, A. Urban greening in the process of climate change adaptation of large cities. Energies 17, 377 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moxon, S., Webb, J., Semertzi, A. & Samangooei, M. Wild ways: A scoping review to understand Urban-Rewilding behaviour in relation to adaptations to private gardens. Cities Health. 7, 888–902 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wang, D. & Xu, P. Y. Urban green infrastructure: bridging biodiversity conservation and sustainable urban development through adaptive management approach. Front. Ecol. Evol. 12, 1440477 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Greater London Authority. Urban Greening Factor (UGF) Guidance. (2023). https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/implementing-london-plan/london-plan-guidance/urban-greening-factor-ugf-guidance

  19. Fischer, L. K. et al. Public attitudes toward Biodiversity-Friendly greenspace management in Europe. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12718 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rewilding Europe. Rewilding in and Around Europe’s Urban Spaces Has Never Been so Important. Rewilding Europe (2020). https://rewildingeurope.com/blog/rewilding-in-and-around-europes-urban-spaces-has-never-been-so-important/

  21. Kičić, M. et al. Relationships between urban green space Types, cultural ecosystem services and disservices: A public participation geographic information system study in Zagreb, Croatia. Sci. Total Environ. 981, 179549 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  22. CONEXUS. Policy Brief 1: Barcelona’s Strategies to Increase and Enhance Urban Green Infrastructure. (2024). https://oppla.eu/conexus/resource/conexus-policy-brief-1-barcelonas-strategies-increase-and-enhance-urban-green

  23. Parés, M. & Rull, C. Barcelona Nature Plan 2021–2030 (Barcelona City Council, 2021).

  24. Cirella, G. T. Human Settlements: Urbanization, Smart Sector Development, and Future Outlook (Springer, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4031-5

  25. Cirella, G. T., Wanjiku, S., Paczoski, A. & Tiruneh, S. Human-Nature relations: the unwanted filibuster. in Sustainable Human–Nature Relations: Environmental Scholarship, Economic Evaluation, Urban Strategies (ed Cirella, G. T.) 3–22 (Springer, Singapore, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3049-4_1. (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Baravikova, A. The uptake of new concepts in urban greening: insights from Poland. Urban Forestry Urban Greening. 56, 126798 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Malý, J., Dvořák, P. & Šuška, P. Multiple transformations of Post-Socialist cities: multiple outcomes? Cities 107, 102901 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vaňo, S., Stahl Olafsson, A. & Mederly, P. Advancing urban green infrastructure through participatory integrated planning: A case from Slovakia. Urban Forestry Urban Greening. 58, 126957 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Haase, D., Dushkova, D., Haase, A. & Kronenberg, J. Green infrastructure in Post-Socialist cities: evidence and experiences from Eastern Germany, Poland and Russia. in Post-Socialist Urban Infrastructures (eds (eds Tuvikene, T., Sgibnev, W. & Neugebauer, C. S.) (Routledge, London, (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Polanska, D. Decline and revitalization in Post-Communist urban context: A case of the Polish City—Gdansk. Communist Post-Communist Stud. 41, 359–374 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sýkora, L. & Bouzarovski, S. Multiple transformations: conceptualising the Post-communist urban transition. Urban Stud. 49, 43–60 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Michałek, J. J. & Hagemejer, J. The Long-Term effects of poland’s accession to the European union: A literature review. Studia Europejskie – Studies Eur. Affairs. 28, 89–120 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. S. & Hall, C. S. Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World order (Wiley, 2013).

  34. Linnér, B. O. & Wibeck, V. Sustainability Transformations: Agents and Drivers across Societies (Cambridge University Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766975

  35. The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism. vol. 92 (Springer, Dordrecht, (2007).

  36. Davies, C. & Lafortezza, R. Transitional path to the adoption of Nature-Based solutions. Land. Use Policy. 80, 406–409 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Martin, A., Fischer, A. & McMorran, R. Who decides? The governance of rewilding in Scotland ‘Between the cracks’: community Participation, public Engagement, and partnerships. J. Rural Stud. 98, 80–91 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Frantzeskaki, N. et al. Nature-Based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: linking Science, Policy, and practice communities for Evidence-Based Decision-Making. BioScience 69, 455–466 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Xie, L. & Bulkeley, H. Nature-Based solutions for urban biodiversity governance. Environmental Science Policy. 110, 77–87 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Guttenbrunner, S. & Poland When environmental governance Meets politics. in Coping with Accession To the European Union: New Modes of Environmental Governance (ed Börzel, T. A.) 148–168 (Palgrave, London, doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245358_8. (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Markowska, A. State of democracy in Poland versus environmental protection. Cent. Eur. Economic J. 8, 219–230 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Szulecka, J., Szulecki, K. & and Between domestic politics and ecological crises: (De)legitimization of Polish environmentalism. Environ. Politics. 31, 1214–1243 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Sage, 2017).

  44. Yin, R. K. Case Study Research and Applications (Sage, 2025).

  45. Healthy Cities Congress. Indeks Zdrowych Miast 2024 (Healthy Cities Index 2024) (Healthy Cities Congress, 2024).

  46. Flick, U. An Introduction To Qualitative Research (Sage, 2018).

  47. Badiu, D. L., Onose, D. A., Niță, M. R. & Lafortezza, R. From red to green? A look into the evolution of green spaces in a Post-Socialist City. Landsc. Urban Plann. 187, 156–164 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dunn-Capper, R., Giergiczny, M., Fernández, N., Marder, F. & Pereira, H. M. Public preference for the rewilding framework: A choice experiment in the Oder delta. People Nat. 6, 610–626 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Overton, M. Rewilding in the Oder Delta, Germany-Poland: Ecological, Social and Economic Drivers of Landscape Change (University of Cambridge, 2023).

  50. Cheshire, D. An Investigation into the Aesthetics and Perceptions of Urban Rewilding in Cheltenham (University of Gloucestershire, 2023).

  51. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S. & Pal, D. Likert scale: explored and explained. British J. Appl. Science Technology. 7, 396–403 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods (Oxford University Press, 2016).

  53. Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 18, 59–82 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Battaglia, M. P. Quota sampling. in Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods 669–670 (Sage, New York, doi:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947. (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rose, G. Visual Methodologies: an Introduction To Researching with Visual Materials (Sage, 2023).

  56. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C. & Fry, G. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 22, 959–972 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nassauer, J. I. Messy Ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc. J. 14, 161–170 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cirella, G. T. Visual scenario preferences as Social–Ecological indicators of urban rewilding support: evidence from six Pennsylvania cities. Hum. Settlements Sustain. 1, 227–236 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sheppard, S. R. J. Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science Policy. 8, 637–654 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (Sage, 2024).

  62. BERA. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (British Educational Research Association, 2024).

  63. ESRC. Relevant Ethics Terms and Conditions. Economic and Social Research Council (2022). https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics-guidance/framework-for-research-ethics/

  64. Aronson, M. F. et al. Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 189–196 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N. & Hansen, R. Principles for urban Nature-Based solutions. Ambio 51, 1388–1401 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lampinen, J. et al. Mapping public support for urban green infrastructure policies across the Biodiversity-Climate-Society -Nexus. Landsc. Urban Plann. 239, 104856 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Raymond, C. M. et al. A framework for assessing and implementing the Co-Benefits of Nature-Based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science Policy. 77, 15–24 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kabisch, N. et al. Nature-Based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on Indicators, knowledge Gaps, Barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology Society 21, (2016).

  69. Pauleit, S., Jones, N., Nyhuus, S., Pirnat, J. & Salbitano, F. Urban forest resources in European cities. in Urban Forests and Trees (eds (eds Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T. & Schipperijn, J.) 49–80 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27684-X_4. (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Lampinen, J. et al. Acceptance of Near-Natural greenspace management relates to ecological and Socio-Cultural assigned values among European urbanites. Basic Appl. Ecol. 50, 119–131 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Qiu, L., Lindberg, S. & Nielsen, A. B. Is biodiversity Attractive?—On-Site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plann. 119, 136–146 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M., Haase, D. & Kronenberg, J. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecol. Ind. 70, 586–596 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Russo, A. et al. New Visions Conferences, Saint Petersburg,. Biophilia: Nature-Based Solutions for Sustainable Cities. in Three Pillars of Landscape Architecture: Design, Planning and Management 105–112 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the University of Gdańsk. They also thank several faculty colleagues for their valuable advice during the conceptual development and preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was co-financed by the governments of Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia through a Visegrad Grant from the International Visegrad Fund (Grant Agreement No. 22520146). The mission of the Fund is to advance ideas for sustainable regional cooperation in Central Europe. Additional support was provided by the Polo Center of Sustainability (Grant Agreement No. PCS-V4 + 1-2025-1777).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, University of Gdansk, ul. Armii Krajowej 119/121, Sopot, 81-824, Poland

    Giuseppe T. Cirella, Jarosław Kempa, Andrzej Paczoski & Michael J. Rościszewski-Dodgson

Authors

  1. Giuseppe T. Cirella
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jarosław Kempa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrzej Paczoski
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael J. Rościszewski-Dodgson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: G.T.C.; data curation: G.T.C., J.K., A.P., M.J.R-D.; formal analysis: G.T.C., J.K., A.P., M.J.R-D.; writing (original draft): G.T.C.; writing (review and editing): all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Giuseppe T. Cirella.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cirella, G.T., Kempa, J., Paczoski, A. et al. Stakeholder perceptions and planning implications for urban rewilding as a nature-based solution in Poland.
Sci Rep (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-32655-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-32655-x

Keywords

  • Circular land use
  • Community perceptions
  • Environmental governance
  • Public space
  • Rewilding policy
  • Sustainable urban planning

Source: Ecology - nature.com

A large dataset of labelled single tree point clouds, QSMs and tree graphs

Green waste biochar and plant growth-promoting bacteria enhance tomato growth under combined nutrient deficiency and salinity stress

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close