Human-forest relationship in the Budapest agglomeration: an urban-rural divide among forest visitors
Abstract
This paper conducted 1000n survey comprising 27 questions at five urban and semi-natural sample sites to analyse the human-forest relationship in Budapest and its suburban areas. The study examines the relationship between the respondent residence types – the urban-rural divide – forest use, human-nature connectedness (HNC), environment-related well-being, and activities categorized under pro-environmental behaviour (PEB). The present study employed statistical analysis with the R statistical program. The results revealed significant differences between respondents living in Budapest, suburban areas, and rural areas. Budapest residents and suburban dwellers spend less time visiting forests but hold more positive views of Hungary’s environmental status. People living in Budapest also had a significantly lower nature dependency score determined by living conditions (-) and education (+). Moreover, pro-environmental habits were slightly higher among city dwellers but lower among suburban newcomers. Education levels also proved to be a more significant variable in determining whether respondents supported green policies. A further finding indicates surveys conducted in natural settings may also influence and fortify respondents’ forest valuation, HNC, and PEB.
References
ALCOCK, I., WHITE, M.P., PAHL, S., DUARTE-DAVIDSON, R. and FLEMING, L.E. 2020. Associations between pro-environmental behaviour and neighbourhood nature, nature visit frequency and nature appreciation: Evidence from a nationally representative survey in England. Environment International 136. 105441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105441
ARCURY, T.A. and CHRISTIANSON, E.H. 1993. Rural-urban differences in environmental knowledge and actions. The Journal of Environmental Education 25. (1): 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1993.9941940
BAJMÓCY, P., HOSSZÚ, SZ., DUDÁS, R. and BALIZS, D. 2011. New migration trends and their motivation in Hungary. Geographica Timisiensis 20. (2): 29–40.
BARTA, GY. 1999. Industrial restructuring in the Budapest agglomeration. Discussion Papers 30. 9–53. https://tet.rkk.hu/index.php/DP/article/view/2154
BERENGUER, J., CORRALIZA, J.A. and MARTÍN, R. 2005. Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 21. (2): 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.128
BÍRÓ, M., MOLNAR, ZS., ÖLLERER, K., DEMETER, L. and BÖLÖNI, J. 2022. Behind the general pattern of forest loss and gain: A long-term assessment of semi-natural and secondary forest cover change at country level. Landscape and Urban Planning 220. 104334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104334
BOWLER, D., BUYUNG-ALI, L.M., KNIGHT, T.M. and PULLIN, A. 2010. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10. 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
CARTWRIGHT, K. and MITTEN, D. 2017. Examining the influence of outdoor recreation, employment, and demographic variables on the human-nature relationship. Journal of Sustainability Education 12. https://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/examining-the-influence-of-outdoor-recreation-employment-and-demographic-variables-on-the-human-nature-relationship_2017_01/
CEROVEČKI, M.T. and STIPERSKI, Z. 2024. The influence of urban green and recreational areas on the price of housing in Zagreb. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73. (3): 249–268. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.73.3.3
CHIANG, Y-C., LI, D. and JANE, H-A. 2017. Wild or tended nature? The effects of landscape location and vegetation density on physiological and psychological responses. Landscape and Urban Planning 167. 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.001
CIESIELSKI, M., TKACZYK, M., HYCZA, T. and TACZANOWSKA, K. 2023. Was it really different? COVID-19-pandemic period in long-term recreation monitoring. A case study from Polish forests. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 41. 100495, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100495
ČOREJOVÁ, T., HAĽAMOVÁ, E., MADLEŇÁK, R. and NESZMÉLYI, G.I. 2021. The concept of smart city and the perceptions of urban inhabitants: A case study from Žilina, Slovakia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 70. (2): 113–128. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.2.2
DĄBROWSKI, L.S., ŚRODA-MURAWSKA, S., SMOLIŃSKI, P. and BIEGAŃSKA, J. 2022. Rural–urban divide: Generation Z and pro-environmental behaviour. Sustainability 14. (23): 16111. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316111
DEVILLE, N.V, TOMASSO, L.P., STODDARD, O.P., WILT, G.E., HORTON, T.H., WOLF, K.L., BRYMER, E., KAHN, P.H. and JAMES, P. 2021. Time spent in nature is associated with increased pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18. (14): 7498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147498
DIOBA, A., KROKER, V., DEWITTE, S. and LANGE, F. 2024. Barriers to pro-environmental behavior change: A review of qualitative research. Sustainability 16. (20): 8776. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208776
DUROY, Q.M. 2005. The determinants of environmental awareness and behavior. Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics January 2005. 0501. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7084451.pdf
EGEDY, T., SZIGETI, C. and HARANGOZÓ, G. 2024. Suburban neighbourhoods versus panel housing estates – An ecological footprint-based assessment of different residential areas in Budapest, seeking for improvement opportunities. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73. (2): 165–184. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.73.2.4
ELANDS, B.H.M., O’LEARY, T.N., BOERWINKEL, H.W.J. and FREERK WIERSUM, K. 2004. Forests as a mirror of rural conditions; local views on the role of forests across Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 6. (5): 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.01.003
FLETCHER, R. 2017. Connection with nature is an oxymoron: A political ecology of “nature-deficit disorder.” The Journal of Environmental Education 48. (4): 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2016.1139534
GIFFORD, R. and NILSSON, A. 2014. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology 49. 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
GOULA, M., LADIAS, C.A., GIOTI-PAPADAKI, O. and HASANAGAS, N. 2015. The spatial dimension of environment-related attitudes: Does urban or rural origin matter? Regional Science Inquiry 7. (2): 115–129.
HAFENSCHER, P. and JANKÓ, F. 2022. Environmental communication, from engagement to action: lessons from interviews with environmental experts, Hungary. Environmental Education Research 28. (12): 1777–1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2068506
HALLA, T., HOLZ, J., KARHUNKORVA, R. and LAINE, J. 2023. The concept of the human-forest relationship (HFR) – Definition and potentials for forest policy research. Forest Policy and Economics 153. 102995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102995
HÄYRINEN, L. and PYNNÖNEN, S. 2020. A review of the concepts and measurements for connection to nature and environmentally responsible behaviour – A call for research on human–forest relationships. Current Forestry Reports 6. (4): 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00131-6
ILLYÉS, Z., TÖRÖK, É., NÁDASSY, L., FÖLDI, Z., VASZÓCSIK, V. and KATÓ, E. 2016. Tendencies and future of urban sprawl in two study areas in the agglomeration of Budapest. Landscape and Environment 10. 75–88. https://doi.org/10.21120/LE/10/2/3
JANKÓ, F., BERTALAN, L., HOSCHEK, M., KOMORNOKI, K., NÉMETH, N., PAPP-VANCSÓ, J. 2018. Perception, understanding, and action: attitudes of climate change in the Hungarian population. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 67 (2): 159-171. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.67.2.4
JIMENEZ, M.P., DEVILLE, N.V., ELLIOTT, E.G., SCHIFF, J.E., WILT, G.E., HART, J.E. and JAMES, P. 2021. Associations between nature exposure and health: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18. (9): 4790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094790
KC, A., JOSHI, G.R. and ARYAL, S. 2014. Opportunity cost, willingness to pay and cost benefit analysis of a community forest of Nepal. International Journal of Environment 3. (2): 108–124. https://doi.org/10.3126/ije.v3i2.10522
KOCSIS, J.B. 2015. Patterns of urban development in Budapest after 1989. Hungarian Studies 29. 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1556/044.2015.29.1-2.1
KOK, H. and KOVÁCS, Z. 1999. The process of suburbanization in the agglomeration of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 14. 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496818
KOLCSÁR, R.A., CSETE, Á.K., KOVÁCS-GYŐRI, A. and SZILASSI, P. 2022. Age-group-based evaluation of residents’ urban green space provision: Szeged, Hungary. A case study. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (3): 249–269. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.71.3.3
KOLLMUSS, A. and AGYEMAN, J. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8. (3): 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
KÓNYA, GY. 2016. Changes in the environmental attitudes of secondary school students. Hungarian Educational Research Journal 6. (2): 99–112. https://doi.org/10.14413/HERJ.2016.02.08
KOVÁCS, J., PÁNTYA, J., MEDVÉS, D., HIDEGKUTI, I., HEIM, O. and BURSAVICH, J.B. 2014. Justifying environmentally significant behavior choices: An American-Hungarian cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Environmental Psychology 37. 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.001
KOVÁCS, Z. and TOSICS, I. 2014. Urban sprawl on the Danube: The impacts of suburbanization in Budapest. In Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe. Eds.: STANILOV, K. and SÝKORA, L., Chichester, UK, Wiley Blackwell, 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118295861.ch2
KOVÁCS, Z., FARKAS, Z.J., EGEDY, T., KONDOR, A.CS., SZABÓ, B., LENNERT, J., BAKA, D. and KOHÁN, B. 2019. Urban sprawl and land conversion in post-socialist cities: The case of metropolitan Budapest. Cities 92. (1): 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.018
KOVÁCS, Z., HARANGOZÓ, G., SZIGETI, C., KOPPÁNY, K., KONDOR, A.CS. and SZABÓ, B. 2020. Measuring the impacts of suburbanization with ecological footprint calculations. Cities 101. 102715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102715
KOVÁCS, Z., FARKAS, Z.J., SZIGETI, C. and HARANGOZÓ, G. 2022. Assessing the sustainability of urbanization at the sub-national level: The ecological footprint and biocapacity accounts of the Budapest Metropolitan Region, Hungary. Sustainable Cities and Society 84. 104022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104022
LAKKONEN, A., ZIMMERER, R., KÄHKÖNEN, T., HUJALA, T., TAKALA, T. and TIKKANEN, J. 2018. Forest owners’ attitudes toward pro-climate and climate-responsive forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 87. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.11.001
LANGE, F. and DEWITTE, S. 2019. Measuring pro-environmental behaviour: Review and recommendations, Journal of Environmental Psychology 63. 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
LARSON, L.R., STEDMAN, R.C., COOPER, C.B. and DECKER, D.J. 2015. Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43. 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
LENGIEZA, M.L. and AVISTE, R. 2025. Relationships between people and nature: Nature connectedness and relational environmental values. Current Opinion in Psychology 62. 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101984
LUTZ, A.R., SIMPSON-HOUSLEY, P. and DEMAN, A.F. 1999. Wilderness: Rural and urban attitudes and perceptions. Environment and Behavior 31. (2): 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972092
MACIAS-ZAMBRANO, L., CUADRADO, E. and CARPIO, A.J. 2024. Factors that determine the connectedness with nature in rural and urban contexts. PLOS One 19. (8): e0309812. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309812
MCBETH, M.K. and FOSTER, R.H. 1994. Rural environmental attitudes. Environmental Management 18. (3): 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393869
MILLER, J.R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20. (8): 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013
MÓNUS, F. 2019. Comparing environmental awareness of Hungarian students in high-schools with different socio-economical background. Journal of Applied Technical and Educational Sciences 9. (1): 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1842332
NAVARRO, O., GALHARRET, J-M., OLIVOS, P., LOUREIRO, A., WITTENBERG, I., LEMÉE, C. and FLEURY-BAHI, G. 2022. The brief version of the “Connectedness to Nature Scale”: Factorial structure and invariance study across seven European cities. Ecopsychology 14. (3): https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2021.0058
NGUYEN, P-Y., ASTELL-BURT, T., RAHIMI-ARDABILI, H. and FENG, X. 2023. Effect of nature prescriptions on cardiometabolic and mental health, and physical activity: A systematic review. The Lancet Planetary Health 7. (4): e313–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00025-6
OH, B., LEE, K.J., ZASLAWSKI, C., and YEUNG, A. 2017. Health and well-being benefits of spending time in forests: systematic review. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 22. (71): https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-017-0677-9
PICHLEROVÁ, M., VÝBOŠŤOK, J., ÖNKAL, D. and LAMATUNGGA, K.L. 2023. Increased appreciation of forests and their restorative effects during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ambio 52. (17): 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01816-x
PRÖBSTL-HAIDER, U., WANNER, A., FEILHAMMER, M., MOSTEGL, N. and DABROWSKA, K. 2024. The right fit: Acceptance of nature-based solutions across European cities, Landscape and Urban Planning 252. 105189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105189
RACEVSKIS, L.A. and LUPI, F. 2006. Comparing urban and rural perceptions of and familiarity with the management of forest ecosystems. Society & Natural Resources 19. (6): 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920600663862
RIECHERS, M., PĂTRU-DUȘE, I.A. and BALÁZSI, Á. 2021. Leverage points to foster human–nature connectedness in cultural landscapes. Ambio 50. (9): 1670–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01504-2
RITTER, E. and DAUKSTA, D. 2013. Human–forest relationships: ancient values in modern perspectives. Environment, Development and Sustainability 15. (3): 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9398-9
SCHÖNBACH, D.M.I., TISCARENO-OSORNO, X., MACINTYRE, T.E., SMITH, S., MACINTYRE, D., and DEMETRIOU, Y. 2022. What socio-demographic characteristics of university students in Southern Germany predict their urban nature connectedness? PLOS One 17. (8): e0272344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272344
SOLOMU, A.D., TOPALIDOU, E.T., GERMANI, R., ARGIRI, A. and KARESTOT, G. 2018. Importance, utilization and health of urban forests: A review. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 47. (1): 10–16. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha47111316
SU, K., ORDÓÑEZ, C., REGIER, K. and CONWAY, T.M. 2022. Values and beliefs about urban forests from diverse urban contexts and populations in the Greater Toronto area. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 72. 127589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127589
SZKORDILISZ, F., BOUZOUIDJA, R., KOCSIS, J.B., KÖRMÖNDI, B., KÓSA, E., BODÉNAN, P., BEAUJOUAN, V., BÉCHET, B., BOURNET, P.-E., BULOT, A., CANNAVO, P., CHANTOISEAU, E., DANIEL, H., LEBEAU, T., VIDAL-BEAUDET, L., GUENON, R., MUSY, M. and ADELL, G. 2018. How to use nature-based solutions in urban planning systems of Europe? In ICUC10 – 10th International Conference on Urban Climate / 14th Symposium on the Urban Environment, Aug 2018, New-York, US, ICUC, 1–6. https://institut-agro-rennes-angers.hal.science/hal-02394207/document
VINNARI, E. and VINNARI, M. 2022. Making the invisibles visible: Including animals in sustainability (and) accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 82. 102324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102324
WECKROTH, M. and ALA-MANTILA, S. 2022. Socioeconomic geography of climate change views in Europe, Global Environmental Change 72. 102453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102453
WEINBRENNER, H., BREITHUT, J., HEBERMEHL, W., KAUFMANN, A., KLINGER, T., PALM, T. and WIRTH, K. 2021. „The forest has become our new living room” – The critical importance of urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.672909
WHITBURN, J., LINKLATER, W. and ABRAHAMSE, W. 2020. Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Conservation Biology 34. 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381
WICKS, C., BARTON, J., ORBELL, S. and ANDREWS, L. 2022. Psychological benefits of outdoor physical activity in natural versus urban environments: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 14. (3): 1037–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12353
WUNDERLICH, A.C., SALAK, B., HEGETSCHWEILER, K.T., BAUER, N. and HUNZIKER, M. 2023. Impacts of rising COVID-19 incidence and changed working conditions on forest visits in early 2020 of the pandemic: Evidence from Switzerland. Forest Policy and Economics 153. 102978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102978
XUEYING, Y. 2014. Is environment ‘a city thing’ in China? Rural–urban differences in environmental attitudes, Journal of Environmental Psychology 38. 39–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.009
YINGCHAO, L., MASAHIKO, F. and PENG, W. 2011. Study on comparison of citizens’ environmental awareness among four cities in China and Japan. Management Science and Engineering 5. (3): 126–131.
ZHANG, M. 2022. Households’ willingness to accept forest conservation and ecosystem services. Forests 13. (9): 1399. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091399
Copyright (c) 2025 Priszcilla Hafenscher, György Kukely, Árpád János Bárdi, Laura Bazsó-Bertalan, Judit Papp-Vancsó, Ferenc Jankó
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
