Wild plant knowledge, ecosystem services, and social-ecological resilience: differences between residents and visitors in the Pieniny Mountains (Poland)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the knowledge and utilization of wild plants among residents and visitors in the Pieniny Mountains (south of Poland), emphasizing the interplay between ecological knowledge, demographic factors, and contemporary practices. Gathering wild plants, once an integral to daily life, is increasingly eroded by urbanization, lifestyle shifts, and generational changes. Data were collected through surveys involving 85 residents and 307 visitors. During the survey, respondents were asked to describe their usage of wild plants and identify 12 species. The findings revealed that although residents and visitors exhibit similar levels of plant recognition, their usage patterns differ significantly. Among residents, 89% collected wild plants, compared to 58% of visitors. The ecosystem services (ES) associated with wild plants also differed. For residents, wild plants provided mainly provisioning ES like natural medicine, direct consumption, and food preparation, alongside cultural ES, i.e., rituals. Visitors, on the other hand, primarily utilized them for direct consumption (provisioning ES) and decoration (cultural ES). These differences suggest an interplay between passive knowledge (derived from photographs) acquired through formal education and active (acquired in the field) traditional ecological knowledge. Gender, age, and education significantly influenced the number, type and purposes of plants known and utilized. Females, older individuals, and those with university degrees demonstrated the most diverse and highest rates of plant knowledge and usage. Given the potential of wild plants to support social-ecological resilience, it is crucial to develop strategies that preserve traditional ecological knowledge, foster intergenerational knowledge transfer, and integrate ecological education. Community-based initiatives, such as ecotourism, can strengthen connections to wild plant knowledge while enhancing local food systems, cultural heritage, and overall community resilience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".