Research

INTRODUCTION

Wild plants underpin numerous ecosystem services (ES), defined as the contributions ecosystems make to human well-being (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018). These services are classified into three categories: provisioning, regulating, and cultural ES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018). The use of wild plants primarily relates to provisioning ES, i.e., material goods such as food, materials, and energy. Additionally, gathered wild plants are a source of cultural ES, which are non-material benefits obtained through spiritual enrichment, educational value, recreation, and aesthetic experiences (MA 2005, Haines-Young and Potschin 2018).

Since prehistoric times onward, the use of wild plants has been integral to human life. Wild plants supported many aspects of life, including shelter, heating, clothing, but also healing or cultural heritage (e.g., Poe et al. 2013, Reyes-García et al. 2015, Palliwoda et al. 2017). However, what is most important, the diet of people was based on local foods. Even after people learned how to grow and harvest vegetables, the role of edible wild plants remained indispensable, especially during famine times to obtain sufficient nutrients (Łuczaj et al. 2012, Reyes-García et al. 2015, Vorstenbosch et al. 2017). However, in Central Europe, following World War II and the subsequent opening of markets after the fall of the Iron Curtain, access to diverse food products from all over the world increased significantly. Consequently, food derived from wild plants became less common, primarily utilized by those who could not afford more expensive alternatives.

The gathering of wild plants for both provisioning and cultural ES is deeply rooted in local traditions and is often guided by traditional ecological knowledge (TEK; Hurley et al. 2013, Poe et al. 2013, Reyes-García et al. 2015, Palliwoda et al. 2017). TEK is defined as a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving adaptively and transmitted across generations, concerning the relationship of local communities with their environment (Berkes 1999). However, TEK is becoming rare, as it is mostly held by elderly people from villages, who are gradually passing away (Pieroni et al. 2005, Reyes-García et al. 2005, Grasser et al. 2012, Sansanelli and Tassoni 2014, Nand and Naithani 2018). Consequently, the transmission of knowledge about the use of wild plants to younger generations is diminishing over time.

The progressive erosion of TEK is driven by several factors. One of the reasons was the collectivization of agriculture after World War II, which involved the establishment of large-scale State Agricultural Farms in many Central and Eastern European countries (Chodkowska-Miszczuk et al. 2023). This led to radical changes in agricultural practices, traditional landscapes, and local habitats. Over the last 20 years, lifestyle changes have further reduced the amount of time people spend in nature (Ives et al. 2018, Michaelson et al. 2023). As a result, opportunities to interact with nature and engage in wild plant gathering have become increasingly limited. Moreover, the extensive availability of inexpensive foodstuffs limits the providing function of edible wild plants (Łuczaj et al. 2012). Another challenge for gathering wild plants is their reduced availability. In the past two decades, the habitats where wild plants grow have shrunk because of ongoing urbanization and herbicide use. Additionally, concerns about pollution, particularly near roadsides, further limit safe foraging areas for many people (Łuczaj et al. 2012). This is particularly true for city dwellers, who often lack convenient access to natural environments (Palliwoda et al. 2017).

On the other hand, the trend for collecting wild plants is becoming more and more popular, especially among people with a university-level education who appreciate the knowledge of the origin of the food as well as a balanced lifestyle (Łuczaj et al. 2012, Reyes-García et al. 2015, Palliwoda et al. 2017, Vári et al. 2020). One manifestation of this trend is the growing incorporation of wild plants into regional dishes served by ecotourism guesthouses and local restaurants, reflecting their cultural significance in culinary traditions (Łuczaj and Pieroni 2016). Moreover, wild plants have become the focus of culinary experimentation by prominent chefs in modern cuisine, highlighting their versatility and potential as gastronomic delights (Łuczaj et al. 2012, Derek 2021). Thus, utilization of wild plants plays a dual role, providing important food resources while enriching cultural practices and culinary experiences.

Taking the above into consideration, this study aimed to investigate the knowledge and use of wild plants, exploring the interplay between ecological knowledge and contemporary practices, as well as socio-demographic factors shaping this relationship. By examining these relationships, the research sought to identify knowledge gaps and inform strategies to enhance the role of wild plants in supporting social-ecological resilience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

The study was carried out in the Pieniny Mountains, a low mountain range within the Carpathians, spanning approximately 35 km in length and up to 6 km in width (Fig. 1). Only two peaks in the eastern part exceed one thousand meters in height. Situated within the Pieniny Klippen Belt, the Pieniny Mountains serve as a natural barrier, separating the Outer Carpathians from the Central Carpathians (Klimaszewski 1972). The Pieniny Mountains are subdivided into three parts: Małe Pieniny to the east, Pieniny Właściwe in the central part, and Pieniny Spiskie to the west. Most of the Pieniny Właściwe area is protected within Pieniny National Park.

Geologically, the Pieniny Mountains are among the most complex areas in Poland (Klimaszewski 1972). Despite differences in altitude, the Pieniny Mountains experience a milder climate compared to neighboring ranges (Perzanowska 2004). Consequently, the flora in the Pieniny Mountains exhibits exceptional diversity. The land use structure is dominated by vegetation, i.e., forest and semi-natural habitats cover 46% and 31% of the study area, respectively (National Database of Topographic Objects for Poland 2013). Forest communities encompass mainly beech and fir forest (Dentario glandulosae-Fagetum, Dentario glandulosae-Fagetum abietetossum, Carici albae-Fagetum, Carici albae-Fagetum abietetosum), while the semi-natural habitats include meadows of different types (i.e., Campanula patula-Trisetum flavescens, Gladiolo-Agrostietum capillaris, Arrhenatheretum elatioris, Origano Brachypodietum phleetosum pratensis) and pastures (e.g., Lolio-Cynosuretum; Wróbel 2003).

Data collection and analysis

We collected data on knowledge and utilization of wild plants as a part of the broader survey on ES based on wild plants using photo-elicitation methods as proposed by Thomas et al. (2007). In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they knew the plants presented in the photographs (Appendix 1). Questionnaires included photographs of 12 wild plants: blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), camomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale (L.) F.H.Wigg.), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.), lady’s mantle (Alchemilla vulgaris L.), mint (Mentha sp.), common nettle (Urtica dioica L.), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.), sorrel (Rumex sp.), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum L.), wild strawberry (Fragaria sp.), and yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.). The selection of these species was based on two primary criteria: their documented common use by local populations and their widespread occurrence in the local flora. The popularity of these plants for human use in the region is supported by previous ethnobotanical research (Łuczaj and Szymański 2007, Łuczaj 2010, Łuczaj and Pieroni 2016). Information regarding the composition of the local flora was derived from botanical papers specific to the study area (Zarzycki 2000, Pancer-Koteja and Kaźmierczakowa 2004, Zarzycki 2011). For recognition, it was sufficient for respondents to provide the plant’s genus name in Polish, Latin, or its folk name.

In the next step, we gathered information on the collection of specific plants for particular purposes. These included provisioning ES, such as direct consumption (e.g., eating raw fruits or leaves during the trip), collecting plant parts for home food preparation, and using plants for cosmetic, medicinal, or forage purposes, as well as cultural ES, including decoration and rituals. Rituals included the use of plants during religious celebrations (e.g., plant bouquets for the Feast of the Assumption of Mary in the Catholic Church) or pastoral traditions (e.g., using plants for the smoke purification of animals during the “redyk,” a ceremonial Carpathian procession in which shepherds lead their flocks to mountain pastures in spring or back to the villages in autumn). Respondents were also invited to provide qualitative comments, such as alternative uses of wild plants or uncertainties regarding the classification of uses. In the final part of the questionnaire, data on gender, age, and the highest level of education were collected. The research obtained approval from the Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Geography and Geology, Jagiellonian University. Participation in the survey was conditional upon obtaining the respondent’s free, verbal, and informed consent. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their right to withdraw at any time. No personal data was collected.

We surveyed two groups of people: residents of the Pieniny Mountains and visitors. Residents were selected using a random sampling method, with a sample size of 85 and a response rate of 50%. It is important to note that the sample size was relatively small, necessitating cautious interpretation of the results. Residential addresses were drawn from a pool of 2732 households within the Pieniny Mountains using the ArcGIS Sampling Tool (Create Random Points). Address data were obtained from the Statistical Office, and residential buildings were selected based on the National Database of Topographic Objects for Poland. The distribution of selected addresses was as follows: 39 households from Pieniny Spiskie, 32 households from Pieniny Właściwe, and 14 households from Małe Pieniny. Each household was represented by one resident interviewed, and in instances of refusal, the next-door household was approached. The survey was conducted between November 2019 and February 2020. In contrast, visitors were surveyed using a non-random, intercept sampling method. A total of 307 completed questionnaires were collected between June and August 2019, near the Tarnów-Wielki Rogacz trail, close to the Durbaszka hostel in the Pieniny Mountains. The response rate for the visitor survey was 86%. To mitigate potential bias, surveys were conducted across different times of day and days of the week, in order to capture a broader range of visitor profiles. The employment of various sampling methods was necessary, as tourists present a hard-to-reach population. This difficulty arises primarily from the typical absence of accessible sampling frames, which complicates random sampling (Raifman et al. 2022). We performed statistical analyses in PS IMAGO PRO 10.0. The influence of demographic factors on the number of recognized and utilized species was analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Although the data did not meet the criteria for normality, one-way ANOVA was still applied, as Hays (1980) suggests that for sample sizes greater than 30 with homogeneous variance, the data can be assumed to follow an approximately normal distribution (Schirpke et al. 2016). To analyze differences between respondent groups in terms of knowledge and utilization of specific plants for particular purposes, cross-tabulation (chi-square test) was used. Cramer’s V test was applied to measure the strength of these correlations. For the determination of the relationships between the number of recognized species and the number of utilized species, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was applied.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics of respondents

The study encompassed 85 residents from three regions within the Pieniny Mountains, as outlined above and 307 visitors. Two-thirds of the residents were female, whereas in the proportion of visitors, females dominated only slightly. The average age of residents was 52, while for visitors it was 39. Among visitors, the most commonly reported highest level of education was a university degree (62%), whereas for residents, vocational education was most common (33%; Table 1).

Knowledge of wild plants

On average, residents recognized 5.4 species, while visitors identified 5.9 species. However, the difference between these groups was statistically insignificant (Table A2.1). The most frequently recognized plants included wild strawberries, common nettle, and common dandelion. On the contrary, the least known herb was lady’s mantle (Fig. 2, Table 2). Visitors demonstrated better recognition of common dandelion, common nettle, blueberry, and sorrel, whereas St. John’s wort was more frequently identified by residents (Fig. 2). These differences were statistically significant (Table A2.2).

Females recognized on average more species than males (Table 2). This difference was statistically significant only for visitors (Table A2.1). However, recognition varied depending on the specific species. Among residents, the recognition of blueberry, wild strawberry, and field horsetail showed the most similarity between genders. In contrast, the largest differences were observed for St. John’s wort, common dandelion, and common nettle (better recognized by females), and ribwort plantain (better recognized by males; Fig. 2, Table 2). Nevertheless, only the differences for St. John’s wort, common nettle, and common dandelion were statistically significant (Table A2.3). Regarding visitors, all plants were more frequently recognized by females (Fig. 2). The differences were smallest for common dandelion and common nettle, and greatest for chamomile, yarrow, and field horsetail (Table 2). All these differences among visitors were statistically significant (Table A2.4).

When considering the age of residents, the greatest number of species on average was recognized by middle-aged respondents, whereas younger and older respondents recognized on average fewer species (Table 2). These differences were statistically significant between middle-aged and older residents (Table A2.1). It was different in the case of visitors. The greatest number of species was recognized by the oldest group of respondents, whereas the smallest, by the youngest group of respondents (Table 2). These differences were statistically significant (Table A2.1).

The middle-aged residents showed the highest recognition for most species, with the exception of common nettle, which the youngest group of residents identified best (Fig. 2). The largest differences in recognition among residents were observed for yarrow, St. John’s wort, and camomile, and these differences were statistically significant (Table A2.5). For visitors, the results were more complex. The oldest group of visitors had the highest recognition of yarrow, St. John’s wort, camomile, mint, ribwort plantain, and field horsetail. The middle-aged visitors recognized the best common nettle, sorrel, blueberry, and wild strawberry. The youngest visitors were the most proficient at identifying common dandelion (Fig. 2, Table 2). All differences, except for that of common nettle, were statistically significant (Table A2.6).

The average number of recognized species increased with the highest level of education. It was the lowest in the case of primary and vocational education, and the highest in the case of a university degree (Table 2). Only differences in mean values between vocational education and university degree among residents, as well as between primary education and university degree among visitors, were statistically significant (Table A2.1).

Residents with a university degree demonstrated the highest recognition for all species, with the exception of ribwort plantain, which was best identified by residents with secondary education (Fig. 2, Table 2, Table A2.7). For visitors, the results were more nuanced. Although those with a university degree generally showed the highest recognition for most species, respondents with primary education most frequently identified common dandelion, and those with vocational education had the best recognition for common nettle. Mint and St. John’s wort were best recognized by visitors with secondary education (Fig. 2, Table 2, Table A2.8). It should also be highlighted that St. John’s wort was recognized exclusively by visitors with university degrees and secondary education (Table 2).

Utilization of wild plants

Among interviewed residents, 89% reported collecting wild plants, with a slightly higher percentage of females participating than males (Fig. 3, Table 3). In contrast, only 58% of visitors engaged in this activity, and their participation rates were similar for females and males. The differences between residents and visitors were statistically significant (Table A2.9).

When examining the purposes for plant collection, residents most commonly reported using them for natural medicine, followed by direct consumption, food preparation, and rituals. Cosmetic purposes were the least frequently mentioned (Fig. 3, Table 3). In contrast, visitors primarily collected plants for direct consumption, with decoration being the next most common purpose. Forage was mentioned least often. These differences between residents and visitors were statistically significant (Table A2.9). Female residents were much more likely than males to collect wild plants for natural medicine, decoration, and cosmetic purposes, whereas males more often gathered wild plants for forage. Interestingly, both male and female residents reported similar levels of plant collection for ritual purposes (Fig. 3, Table 3). In contrast, female visitors dominated in all categories of wild plant collection.

In general, plant-collecting activity increased with age (Fig. 3, Table 3). The oldest respondents were the most active in collecting plants for almost all purposes. Among residents, age-related differences were smallest for direct consumption and largest for forage and ritual use (Fig. 3, Table 3, Table A2.10). For visitors, the smallest differences occurred in food preparation, while the largest were observed in direct consumption, natural medicine, decoration, and rituals (Fig. 3, Table 3, Table A2.11). These differences were statistically significant only for forage among residents, and for natural medicine and ritual purposes among visitors (Table A2.10, Table A2.11).

Regarding the highest level of education, all residents with primary education and almost all with university degrees reported collecting wild plants. Among visitors, those with university degrees were the most active in plant collection (Fig. 3, Table 3). Respondents with primary education were more likely to collect plants for food preparation, ritual purposes, and forage (in the case of residents), and for decoration (in the case of visitors). In contrast, those with university degrees were more likely to collect wild plants for natural medicine (Fig. 3, Table 3). However, these differences were not statistically significant (Table A2.12, Table A2.13).

In total, residents reported collecting 39 species, while visitors mentioned 52 species gathered for various purposes (Tables 4 and 5). Fruits were the most commonly collected category in both groups, with blueberries, wild strawberries, and raspberries (Rubus sp.) leading the list (Fig. 4). Among residents, herbs were the next most popular category, with St. John’s wort and common nettle being the most frequently gathered. In contrast, visitors’ top five wild plants also included blackberry (Rubus sp.) and camomile. It is also worth noting that blackthorn (Prunus spinosa L.) and hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) were especially popular among residents (Table 4), while black elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.) was commonly collected by visitors (Table 5). Interestingly, none of the visitors reported collecting common centaury (Centaurium erythraea Rafn.; Tables 4 and 5).

Regarding the number of species used for different ES, respondents most frequently mentioned species for natural medicine, followed by food preparation. It is worth highlighting that the number of species reported for each ES was generally similar between residents and visitors, with the exception of decoration: visitors listed 29 species, while residents mentioned only nine. Residents more frequently referred to general categories such as “herbs” and “flowers,” which were also common responses for ritual purposes (Tables 4 and 5).

Across all respondents, the most commonly used species for direct consumption and food preparation were fruits (blueberries, blackberries, wild strawberries, raspberries), as well as sorrel. For natural medicine, residents primarily used herbs such as St. John’s wort, common nettle, and mint, along with common dandelion, linden, and several fruits (blueberry, raspberry, blackthorn, and hawthorn). Among visitors, the most frequently mentioned medicinal plants were also herbs, such as camomile, common nettle, St. John’s wort, and field horsetail, as well as common dandelion. For other purposes, no specific species predominated (Tables 4 and 5).

The average number of utilized species was 3.9 among residents and 2.2 among visitors. This difference was statistically significant (Table A2.14). On average, females reported using more species than males (Table 3). Middle-aged and older respondents reported the highest average number of utilized, while younger individuals reported the lowest (Table 3). Regarding the highest level of education, those with a university degree utilized the most species on average, while those with vocational education reported the fewest (Table 3).

There was a positive correlation between the number of recognized species and the number of utilized species. Among visitors, this relationship was moderate (Spearman’s ρ = 0.461, p < 0.01), whereas among residents, it was weak (Spearman’s ρ = 0.261, p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Knowledge of plants

The findings of this study reveal notable patterns in the recognition of wild plant species among residents and visitors. Both groups present a similar level of plant knowledge, which, however, appears to be shaped by different factors, such as TEK versus formal education, and influenced by demographic characteristics. Although both groups demonstrated strong recognition of culturally and practically significant plants like wild strawberries, common nettle, and common dandelion, suggesting the persistence of shared ecological knowledge, visitors exhibited higher recognition of species commonly encountered in broader cultural or educational contexts, such as blueberries and sorrel. In contrast, residents demonstrated superior knowledge of St. John’s wort, likely reflecting the influence of local ecological knowledge and traditional medicinal uses within the region. This highlights the interplay between formal education and the transmission of TEK in shaping plant species recognition. As numerous studies suggest, the revival of ecological knowledge emerges from a synthesis of intergenerational knowledge and insights gained through formal education, resulting in a hybridization of knowledge systems (e.g., Fosztó 2009, Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013, Stryamets et al. 2021).

Our study also confirmed the role of gender in the level of ecological knowledge, as suggested by previous research (e.g., Sansanelli and Tassoni 2014, da Costa et al. 2021). We found gender differences in both the number of recognized species, with females identifying more species, and in the recognition of specific species. Recognition of fruits (e.g., blueberry, wild strawberry) was relatively similar between genders, while other species, except for ribwort plantain, were better identified by females. These findings may reflect differing patterns in the use of wild plants.

The results of our survey indicated significant differences in the number of recognized plants based on age and education level. In general, knowledge of species increased with age, which aligns with findings from other studies (e.g., Biró et al. 2014). However, among residents, the highest levels of plant knowledge were found in respondents aged 35–55. This may be due to the fact that many older residents with primary education reported not knowing the proper names of plants and may have been hesitant to provide folk names. Additionally, some residents acknowledged knowing a plant and even described its uses, but could not recall any name, even a folk name. Among elderly participants, there were instances where respondents mentioned issues such as poor vision or memory, which may have hindered their ability to recall plant names. These factors are important considerations when designing surveys. Additionally, older respondents demonstrated greater proficiency in recognizing traditionally used herbs such as St. John’s wort and yarrow, while younger individuals were more skilled at identifying common plants like dandelion and nettle. This difference suggests distinct sources of knowledge.

Moreover, plant knowledge was generally highest among individuals with university degrees. As noted by Biró et al. (2014), this suggests that TEK is increasingly being replaced by formal education. It may also confirm a trend of reconnecting with nature using formal education, indicating that the tradition of passing down ecological knowledge was interrupted earlier. Despite these insights, research gaps remain. We have limited understanding of the level and strength of influence between formal education and TEK, particularly concerning how TEK transmits within families and communities, especially to younger generations. Furthermore, factors influencing this transmission process are largely unexplored.

Utilization of plants

One of the most important findings of the study is that both residents and visitors collect wild plants. Unlike the case with plant knowledge, however, residents are more prevalent in plant collecting. This is reflected in both the higher percentage of residents who collect wild plants and in the greater average number of species they gather. Additionally, the two groups differ in the specific ES for which they use wild plants. Although both groups commonly use popular fruits for direct consumption, residents are more engaged in specialized uses such as natural medicine or traditional practices like rituals. This highlights distinct sources of ecological knowledge between the two groups. Furthermore, certain plants such as St. John’s wort, common centaury, blackthorn, and hawthorn hold local significance, as they were predominantly collected by residents. According to Babai and Molnár (2016), TEK is best preserved in socially and environmentally stable communities. Although the Pieniny Mountains community has undergone some changes, it appears to remain relatively stable, as evidenced by these findings.

In this study, the advantage of females in collecting wild plants is only slight, which, at first glance, contradicts the results of other studies (e.g., Wayland 2001, Voeks 2007, Palliwoda et al. 2017). On the one hand, it may result from the fact that male residents declared that they take care of livestock and gather plants related to it. Or, it may also mean that nowadays the division of social roles in rural society is no longer so obvious and rigid. However, some male respondents stated that they gathered plants, but the preparation of food or medicines they left to women. Moreover, one of the purposes of plant gathering was direct consumption during the trip, which did not differ between genders. At the same time, still, the greatest advantage of females concerned both the number of collected species as well as specific purposes (natural medicine, cosmetics, food production, and decoration), which seem to be a female domain (e.g., Wayland 2001, Voeks 2007, Schunko et al. 2012, Palliwoda et al. 2017).

The age-related differences in wild plant collecting observed in this study align with findings reported by many other authors (e.g., Tardio et al. 2005, Łuczaj and Szymański 2007, Schunko et al. 2012, Palliwoda et al. 2017, Faruk et al. 2024). These differences refer to both the purposes for collecting wild plants and the number of plants utilized. It seems that some of the ES provided by wild plants, e.g., direct consumption, are independent of age, which is in line with the results of Kangas and Markkanen (2001). However, important differences may be noted in the case of other ES, e.g., natural medicine, ritual purposes, or decoration, which, as results from our study, are more typical for elderly people. Older residents may be more likely to use wild plants for rituals, reflecting a more traditional or cultural connection to plants. In contrast, younger residents tend to be less engaged in these practices, possibly because of evolving cultural norms and a decreased emphasis on rituals in contemporary life, as noted by other researchers (e.g., Geng et al. 2017). Similarly, younger visitors may show less interest in using wild plants for natural medicine, possibly favoring modern scientific medical approaches, as supported by Schunko et al. (2012). Furthermore, the migration of young people away from rural mountainous areas (Nowak and Tokarczyk 2014, Dax et al. 2021) has weakened their connection to nature. This generational divide suggests a shift in cultural practices and highlights the loss of TEK.

Interestingly, the majority of beneficiaries of ES from wild plants are two groups of people: those with primary education and those with a university degree. The first group consists of people who, based on TEK, use wild plants for food, natural medicine, and ritual purposes. The second group typically consists of people with a university-level education, often from urban areas, who have chosen to return to nature and adopt a sustainable lifestyle, with natural medicine being their most common use of wild plants. Similar conclusions were drawn by Sansanelli and Tassoni (2014). Taking into consideration that most people with primary education are elderly people, it appears that TEK transmission is being gradually replaced by formal education, which aligns with the findings of Biró et al. (2014).

Many wild plants utilized by residents were similar to those used in other regions of Poland (e.g., Łuczaj and Szymanski 2007, Łuczaj and Pieroni 2016), Europe (e.g., Sansanelli and Tassoni 2014, Schulp et al. 2014, Reyes-García et al. 2015, Łuczaj and Pieroni 2016, Palliwoda et al. 2017, Fontana et al. 2022, Pombo Geertsma et al. 2025), as well as other parts of the world, e.g., USA (McLain et al. 2014). Some species such as common nettle, common dandelion, blueberry, raspberry, and wild strawberry, are commonly collected in different parts of the world (e.g., McLain et al. 2014, Schulp et al. 2014), whereas others are typically only for specific regions, e.g., sorrel (Łuczaj 2010, Kalle and Sõukand 2013, Reyes-García et al. 2015). Although collecting wild garlic seems to be popular in Poland nowadays (Łuczaj 2010, Schulp et al. 2014), only one visitor mentioned it. It may result from the lack of its habitat in the neighborhood or a lack of such a tradition. Additionally, the use of St. John’s wort, which one of the most often utilized plants by residents of the Pieniny Mountains but not so common in the case of visitors, appeared only in a few works (e.g., Grasser et al. 2012, Sõukand et al. 2013, Fontana et al. 2022). Furthermore, some of the plants stated by Reyes-García et al. (2015) as gradually abandoned, e.g., common dandelion and common nettle, according to our study, have undergone a resurgence in utilization, which is also confirmed by Łuczaj et al. (2012). Qualitative comments revealed that some people avoid collecting plants for direct consumption because of concerns about echinococcosis, a parasitic disease caused by tapeworms of the genus Echinococcus and transmitted by eating plants contaminated with the parasite’s eggs.

Wild plants in the context of social-ecological resilience

The relatively high participation rates in wild plant collecting among respondents present an opportunity to enhance social-ecological resilience in the face of global crises. Residents, in particular, exhibit a stronger and more diverse relationship with wild plants than visitors, a connection deeply rooted in traditional knowledge and everyday practices. Our study also highlights the important role women play in wild plant utilization. They often serve as primary custodians of this plant knowledge, actively preserving and transmitting both the knowledge itself and its practical applications, which is essential for promoting traditional ecological practices (e.g., da Costa et al. 2021). Recognizing and supporting this role is vital, as women’s active engagement provides a foundation for resilient social-ecological systems, particularly in local food systems and natural medicine.

Moreover, our findings also suggest that despite the clear value of plant knowledge, its transmission and practical application are declining among younger generations. An important consideration in this context is the issue of “passive knowledge,” as highlighted by Łuczaj and Nieroda (2011). Although some individuals, especially younger people, can recognize plant species in photographs, they often struggle to identify or use them in real-world contexts. In contrast, older individuals may not know the formal names but can still describe a plant’s properties and applications. This gap between plant knowledge and its practical application requires further research to explore the link between knowledge and utilization.

Although the erosion of TEK poses challenges, its renewed interest among educated visitors indicates a potential pathway for integrating traditional and contemporary ecological practices. Preserving local TEK, especially among younger generations, is essential to sustaining resilient social-ecological systems (e.g., Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013). Integrating TEK with formal education can help reinforce this goal (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013). Educational programs should aim to expand understanding of plant species and their uses beyond direct consumption, including applications in natural medicine and as fallback resources during crises.

These conclusions highlight the potential of wild plants to contribute significantly to social-ecological resilience, with TEK playing a crucial role in this process (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera 2013). In light of ongoing urbanization, generational shifts, and changing lifestyles, preserving TEK is essential to maintaining and enhancing this resilience (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013). First, the utilization of local wild plants guided by TEK promotes biodiversity conservation through sustainable harvesting practices and an understanding of plant life cycles and ecosystems (e.g., Turner et al. 2000, Donovan and Puri 2004, Tengö and Belfrage 2004, McElwee et al. 2020). Biodiversity, in turn, underpins ecological resilience, as diverse ecosystems are more adaptable to change (Folke et al. 1996, Elmqvist et al. 2003, Grêt-Regamey et al. 2019). It should also be highlighted that TEK is adaptable to disturbances as traditional practices are often adjusted to new conditions and new knowledge may be adjusted to local conditions (e.g., Tengö and Belfrage 2004, Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013).

Second, integrating local wild plants and TEK into food systems and natural medicine is important for addressing current and future challenges. This includes ensuring food sovereignty, securing fallback food sources, and maintaining access to natural medicines (Fontana et al. 2022). These are vital in the face of emerging crises such as environmental degradation and climate change, global health emergencies, and military conflicts (Fontana et al. 2022). Wild plants are more resilient to climate change and other stressors than cultivated crops (e.g., Lewis et al. 2019, Razzaq et al. 2021), providing alternative food and medicinal resources when conventional food and health systems are disrupted.

Third, the use of wild plants can diversify rural livelihoods by supporting ecotourism, traditional crafts, and the sale of wild plant-based products, which contributes to social-ecological resilience (Stryamets et al. 2012, Nowak-Olejnik and Mocior 2022). This includes the development of local cuisine incorporating wild plants (Derek 2021). In addition, the consumption of wild foods strengthens the resilience of local food systems by shortening supply chains and lowering ecological footprints (Roy et al. 2019, Derek 2021).

Finally, utilization of local wild plants guided by TEK supports strengthening community ties by intergenerational exchange and contributes to maintaining cultural identity and heritage (e.g., Poe et al. 2013, Pombo Geertsma et al. 2025). Rituals involving wild plants are often deeply embedded in community life, fostering social cohesion and contributing to socio-ecological resilience.

Methodological considerations

ES provided by collecting wild plants belong to two categories: provisioning and cultural ES. However, the boundary between provisioning and cultural ES is often blurred, as material objects play a crucial role in delivering non-material benefits within cultural ES (Fish et al. 2016). Our study indicates that food and medicines are the most important ES derived from wild plants, both of which are typically classified as provisioning ES. Nevertheless, even with these services, significant interrelations between provisioning and cultural ES exist. For instance, respondents highlighted taste as primary reason for direct consumption, a factor also emphasized as a cultural ES by Reyes-García et al. (2015). Similarly, although natural medicine is considered a provisioning ES, it also relates to health, which encompasses non-material benefits (Poe et al. 2013, Reyes-García et al. 2015). The same applies to cosmetic purposes. In contrast, cultural ES like decoration and rituals, provide non-material benefits such as aesthetics and spirituality, often rely on material elements such as flowers and herbs.

Numerous authors have highlighted additional cultural ES from wild plants. Poe et al. (2013) emphasized benefits such as improved health through nutrient-rich foods, food and health sovereignty and justice, the strengthening of social ties, a deeper connection with nature, and the preservation of cultural heritage. Similarly, Reyes-García et al. (2015) identified tradition, gathering as a leisure activity, cultural identity, and cultural heritage as cultural benefits. Pieroni et al. (2005) also noted that knowledge related to wild plant use contributes to a sense of place (local identity) and the maintenance of cultural heritage.

Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that both residents and visitors who engage with mountain environments are likely to have a stronger connection to nature than the general population. As a result, their knowledge and use of wild plants may be comparatively higher. Further research is needed to assess the extent of wild plant use and associated knowledge in broader societal contexts.

Another important consideration is the potential risks associated with using photographs to study knowledge of wild plants. One issue, previously mentioned, is the difficulty with vision, particularly noted by elderly participants. Additionally, this method presents various technical difficulties (Daniel 2001, López-Santiago et al. 2014). A significant challenge lies in optimizing photographic parameters to capture the plant’s essential character while facilitating its unambiguous identification. Furthermore, photograph-based identification may not fully reflect participants’ active engagement with plants in their natural settings. Future research should examine the relationship between passive knowledge (derived from photographs) and active knowledge (acquired in the field) to provide a more holistic understanding of plant familiarity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the interplay between TEK and the contemporary utilization of wild plants, with noticeable differences between residents of the Pieniny Mountains and visitors. Although the overall level of plant knowledge was comparable between the two groups, residents exhibited deeper engagement with wild plants, drawing on cultural traditions and daily practices, particularly for purposes such as natural medicine and rituals. In contrast, visitors, shaped by education and modern lifestyles, showed greater interest in direct consumption and decorative uses, reflecting a fusion of traditional and contemporary practices. The species utilized also varied between the groups. Fruits like blueberries, wild strawberries, and raspberries were commonly collected by both residents and visitors. However, residents more frequently utilized species such as St. John’s wort and common centaury, highlighting their connection to local ecological traditions. Conversely, visitors tended to favor plants like camomile and mint, reflecting their focus on broader cultural trends.

The findings also reveal the relationship between demographic factors and both the knowledge and use of wild plants. Females consistently show a deeper understanding and more frequent use of wild plants, recognizing and utilizing a greater number of species across a wider range of ES. Older respondents exhibit the most extensive use, particularly of species that are less popular today and associated with more specialized applications (e.g., natural medicine) or traditional practices (e.g., rituals). Higher levels of education are associated with greater plant recognition and utilization, suggesting a beneficial integration of traditional and formal knowledge systems.

The use of wild plants, guided by TEK, contributes to social-ecological resilience through several mechanisms: biodiversity conservation and changes adaptability via sustainable practices; enhancing food sovereignty and providing fallback resources during crises; diversifying rural livelihoods; and fostering social cohesion. Integrating wild plants into food and health systems, livelihoods, and education helps communities adapt to environmental, social, and economic challenges. Preserving and revitalizing TEK, particularly through inclusive education programs, intergenerational and community-based initiatives such as ecotourism and experiential learning, is essential for sustaining resilient social-ecological systems and broadening plant utilization across diverse groups.

LITERATURE CITED

Babai, D., and Z. Molnár. 2016. Species-rich mountain grasslands through the eyes of the farmer: flora, species composition, and extensive grassland management. Martor 21:147-169. https://doi.org/10.57225/Martor.2016.21.10

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis, New York, New York, USA.

Biró, É., D. Babai, J. Bódis, and Z. Molnár. 2014. Lack of knowledge or loss of knowledge? Traditional ecological knowledge of population dynamics of threatened plant species in East-Central Europe. Journal for Nature Conservation 22(4):318-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.02.006

Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J., K. Rogatka, and A. Lewandowska. 2023. The Anthropocene and ecological awareness in Poland: the post-socialist view. Anthropocene Review 10(2):494-523. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196211051205

Da Costa, F., M. Guimarães, and M. Messias. 2021. Gender differences in traditional knowledge of useful plants in a Brazilian community. PLoS ONE 16(7):e0253820. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253820

Daniel, T. C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54:267-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4

Dax, T., K. Schroll, I. Machold, M. Derszniak-Noirjean, B. Schuh, and M. Gaupp-Berghausen. 2021. Land abandonment in mountain areas of the EU: an inevitable side effect of farming modernization and neglected threat to sustainable land use. Land 10(6):591. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060591

Derek, M. 2021. Nature on a plate: linking food and tourism within the ecosystem services framework. Sustainability 13:1687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041687

Donovan, D., and R. Puri. 2004. Learning from traditional knowledge of non-timber forest products: Penan Benalui and the autecology of Aquilaria in Indonesian Borneo. Ecology and Society 9(3):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00678-090303

Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(9):488-494. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:RDECAR]2.0.CO;2

Faruk, A., A. Nersesyan, A. Papikyan, S. Galstyan, E. Hakobyan, T. Barblishvili, T. Mikatadze-Pantsulaia, T. Darchidze, M. Kuchukhidze, N. Kereselidze, D. Kikodze, I. Willey, P. Ryan, and E. Breman. 2024. Multigenerational differences in harvesting and use of wild edible fruits and nuts in the South Caucasus. Plants People Planet 6:238-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10434

Fish, R., A. Church, C. Willis, M. Winter, J. A. Tratalos, R. Haines-Young, and M. Potschin. 2016. Making space for cultural ecosystem services: insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. Ecosystem Services 21:329-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.017

Folke, C., C. S. Holling, and C. Perrings. 1996. Biological diversity, ecosystems, and the human scale. Ecological Applications 6:1018-1024. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269584

Fontana, N. M., M. V. Pasailiuk, and O. Pohribnyi. 2022. Traditional ecological knowledge to traditional foods: the path to maintaining food sovereignty in Hutsulshchyna. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6:720757. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.720757

Fosztó, L. 2009. Ritual revitalisation after socialism: community, personhood, and conversion among Roma in a Transylvanian village. LIT Verlag, Münster, Germany.

Geng, Y., G. Hu, S. Ranjitkar, X. Shi, Y. Zhang, and Y. Wang. 2017. The implications of ritual practices and ritual plant uses on nature conservation: a case study among the Naxi in Yunnan Province, Southwest China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 13:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-017-0186-3

Gómez-Baggethun, E., E. Corbera, and V. Reyes-García. 2013. Traditional ecological knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and policy implications. Ecology and Society 18(4):72. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06288-180472

Grasser, S., C. Schunko, and C. R. Vogl. 2012. Gathering “tea” - from necessity to connectedness with nature: local knowledge about wild plant gathering in the Biosphere Reserve Grosses Walsertal (Austria). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-31

Grêt-Regamey, A., S. H. Huber, and R. Huber. 2019. Actors’ diversity and the resilience of social-ecological systems to global change. Nature Sustainability 2:290-297. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0236-z

Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2018. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1: Guidance on the application of the revised structure. Fabis Consulting, Barton in Fabis, UK.

Hays, W. L. 1980. Statistics for the social sciences. Holt, London, UK.

Hurley, P. T., B. Grabbatin, C. Goetcheus, and A. Halfacre. 2013. Gathering, buying, and growing sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia sericea): urbanization and social networking in the sweetgrass basking-making industry of Lowcountry South Carolina. Pages 153-173 in R. Voeks and J. Rashford, editors. African ethnobotany in the Americas. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0836-9_6

Ives, C. D., D. J. Abson, H. von Wehrden, C. Dorninger, K. Klaniecki, and J. Fischer. 2018. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Science 13(5):1389-1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9

Kalle, R., and R. Sõukand. 2013. Wild plants eaten in childhood: retrospective of 1970s-1990s Estonia. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 172(2):239-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12051

Kangas, K., and P. Markkanen. 2001. Factors affecting participation in wild berry picking by rural and urban dwellers. Silva Fennica 35(4):582. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.582

Klimaszewski, M. 1972. Geomorphology of Poland: Southern Poland - mountains and highlands [In Polish]. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, Poland.

Lewis, E., G. K. Phoenix, P. Alexander, J. David, and R. W. F. Cameron. 2019. Rewilding in the garden: are garden hybrid plants (cultivars) less resilient to the effects of hydrological extremes than their parent species? A case study with Primula. Urban Ecosystems 22:841-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00865-7

López-Santiago, C. A., E. Oteros-Rozas, B. Martín-López, T. Plieninger, E. González Martín, and J. A. González. 2014. Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society 19(2):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06401-190227

Łuczaj, Ł. 2010. Changes in the utilization of wild green vegetables in Poland since the 19th century: a comparison of four ethnobotanical surveys. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 128:395-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.01.038

Łuczaj, Ł., and Z. Nieroda. 2011. Collecting and learning to identify edible fungi in southeastern Poland: age and gender differences. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 50:319-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2011.586314

Łuczaj, Ł., and A. Pieroni. 2016. Nutritional ethnobotany in Europe: from emergency foods to healthy folk cuisines and contemporary foraging trends. Pages 33-56 in M. de Cortes Sánchez-Mata and J. Tardío, editors. Mediterranean wild edible plants: ethnobotany and food composition tables. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3329-7_3

Łuczaj, Ł., A. Pieroni, J. Tardío, M. Pardo-de-Santayana, R. Sõukand, I. Svanberg, and R. Kalle. 2012. Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: the disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81(4):359-370. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.031

Łuczaj, Ł., and W. M. Szymański. 2007. Wild vascular plants gathered for consumption in the Polish countryside: a review. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-17

McElwee, P., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, D. Babai, P. Bates, K. Gavin, M. Guèze, J. Liu, Z. Molnár, H. T. Ngo, V. Reyes-García, R. R. Chowdhury, A. Samakov, U. B. Shrestha, S. Díaz, and E. S. Brondízio. 2020. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: reviewing the experience of the IPBES global assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(9):1666-1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705

McLain, R. J., P. T. Hurley, M. R. Emery, and M. R. Poe. 2014. Gathering “wild” food in the city: rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and management. Local Environment 19(2):220-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.841659

Michaelson, V., S. Wadge, M. Peters, S. Khan, K. A. Pilato, and P. Gardner. 2023. “I don’t like it, but it is nice…”: a qualitative study of Canadian young people and contemporary experiences of nature. Wellbeing, Space and Society 5:100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2023.100169

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Nand, K., and S. Naithani. 2018. Ethnobotanical uses of wild medicinal plants by the local community in the Asi Ganga sub-basin, Western Himalaya. Journal of Complementary Medicine Research 9(1):34-46. https://doi.org/10.5455/jcmr.20180507034822

National Database of Topographic Objects for Poland. 2013. Main Centre of Geodetic and Cartographic Documentation, Warszawa, Poland.

Nowak, A., and N. Tokarczyk. 2014. Transformations of traditional land use and settlement patterns of Kosarysche Ridge (Chornohora, Western Ukraine). Bulletin of Geography, Socioeconomic Series 24:191-201. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2014-0022

Nowak-Olejnik, A., and E. Mocior. 2022. Provisioning ecosystem services of wild plants collected from seminatural habitats: a basis for sustainable livelihood and multifunctional landscape conservation. Mountain Research and Development 42(1):R11-R19. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-21-00036.1

Palliwoda, J., I. Kowarik, and M. von der Lippe. 2017. Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: the species level matters. Landscape and Urban Planning 157:394-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003

Pancer-Koteja, E., and R. Kaźmierczakowa, editors. 2004. Map of the plant communities of the Pieniny National Park 1998-2001, scale 1:10 000. Studia Naturae 49:13-19.

Perzanowska, J. 2004. Climate of the Pieniny Mountains [In Polish with English abstract]. Studia Naturae 49:21-32.

Pieroni, A., S. Nebel, R. F. Santoro, and M. Heinrich. 2005. Food for two seasons: culinary uses of non-cultivated local vegetables and mushrooms in a south Italian village. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition 56(4):245-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637480500146564

Poe, M. R., R. J. McLain, M. Emery, and P. T. Hurley. 2013. Urban forest justice and the rights to wild foods, medicines, and materials in the city. Human Ecology 41(3):409-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9572-1

Pombo Geertsma, I., E. Zandstra, E. M. Duinhouwer, M. Alcántara Rodríguez, and T. R. van Andel. 2025. Saint John’s Bouquets: species composition and protection against evil in the southern Netherlands. Economic Botany 79:266-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-025-09648-y

Raifman, S., M. A. DeVost, J. C. Digitale, Y. Chen, and M. D. Morris. 2022. Respondent-driven sampling: a sampling method for hard-to-reach populations and beyond. Current Epidemiology Reports 9:38-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-022-00287-8

Razzaq, A., S. H. Wani, F. Saleem, M. Yu, M. Zhou, and S. Shabala. 2021. Rewilding crops for climate resilience: economic analysis and de novo domestication strategies. Journal of Experimental Botany 72(18):6123-6139. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erab276

Reyes-García, V., G. Menendez-Baceta, L. Aceituno-Mata, R. Acosta-Naranjo, L. Calvet-Mir, P. Domínguez, T. Garnatje, E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. Molina-Bustamante, M. Molina, R. Rodríguez-Franco, G. Serrasolses, J. Vallès, and M. Pardo-de-Santayana. 2015. From famine foods to delicatessen: interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 120:303-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.003

Reyes-García, V., V. Vadez, T. Huanca, W. Leonard, and D. Wilkie. 2005. Knowledge and consumption of wild plants: a comparative study in two Tsimane’ villages in the Bolivian Amazon. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 3:201-207.

Roy, H., C. M. Hall, and P. W. Ballantine. 2019. Connecting local food to foodservice businesses: an exploratory qualitative study on wholesale distributors’ perceived benefits and challenges. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 22:261-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2019.1600891

Ruiz-Mallén, I., and E. Corbera. 2013. Community-based conservation and traditional ecological knowledge: implications for social-ecological resilience. Ecology and Society 18(4):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05867-180412

Sansanelli, S., and A. Tassoni. 2014. Wild food plants traditionally consumed in the area of Bologna (Emilia Romagna region, Italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 10:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-69

Schirpke, U., F. Timmermann, U. Tappeiner, and E. Tasser. 2016. Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: modelling the aesthetic value. Ecological Indicators 69:78-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.001

Schulp, C. J. E., W. Thuiller, and P. H. Verburg. 2014. Wild food in Europe: a synthesis of knowledge and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service. Ecological Economics 105:292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.018

Schunko, C., S. Grasser, and C. R. Vogl. 2012. Intracultural variation of knowledge about wild plant uses in the Biosphere Reserve Grosses Walsertal (Austria). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 8(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-23

Sõukand, R., C. L. Quave, A. Pieroni, M. Pardo-de-Santayana, J. Tardío, R. Kalle, Ł. Łuczaj, I. Svanberg, V. Kolosova, L. Aceituno-Mata, G. Menendez-Baceta, I. Kołodziejska-Degórska, I. Pirożnikow, R. Petkevičius, A. Hajdari, and B. Mustafa. 2013. Plants used for making recreational tea in Europe: a review based on specific research sites. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9(1):58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-58

Stryamets, N., M. Elbakidze, and P. Angelstam. 2012. Role of non-wood forest products for local livelihoods in countries with transition and market economies: case studies in Ukraine and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27(1):74-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.629622

Stryamets, N., M. F. Fontefrancesco, G. Mattalia, J. Prakofjewa, A. Pieroni, R. Kalle, G. Stryamets, and R. Sõukand. 2021. Just beautiful green herbs: use of plants in cultural practices in Bukovina and Roztochya, Western Ukraine. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 17:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-021-00439-y

Tardío, J., H. Pascual, and R. Morales. 2005. Wild food plants traditionally used in the province of Madrid, Central Spain. Economic Botany 59(2):122-136. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2005)059[0122:WFPTUI]2.0.CO;2

Tengö, M., and K. Belfrage. 2004. Local management practices for dealing with change and uncertainty: a cross-scale comparison of cases in Sweden and Tanzania. Ecology and Society 9(3):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00672-090304

Thomas, E., I. Vandebroek, and P. Van Damme. 2007. What works in the field? A comparison of different interviewing methods in ethnobotany with special reference to the use of photographs. Economic Botany 61:376-384. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2007)61[376:WWITFA]2.0.CO;2

Turner, N. J., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10(5):1275-1287. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2

Vári, Á., I. Arany, Á. Kalóczkai, K. Kelemen, J. Papp, and B. Czúcz. 2020. Berries, greens, and medicinal herbs—mapping and assessing wild plants as an ecosystem service in Transylvania (Romania). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 16(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-0360-x

Voeks, R. A. 2007. Are women reservoirs of traditional plant knowledge? Gender, ethnobotany and globalization in northeast Brazil. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28(1):7-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2006.00273.x

Vorstenbosch, T., I. de Zwarte, L. Duistermaat, and T. van Andel. 2017. Famine food of vegetal origin consumed in the Netherlands during World War II. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 13:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-017-0190-7

Wayland, C. 2001. Gendering local knowledge: medicinal plant use and primary health care in the Amazon. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15(2):171-188. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.2001.15.2.171

Wróbel, I. 2003. Vegetation of the Pieniny National Park. Summary of the Protection Plan for 2001-2020 [In Polish]. Pieniny - Nature and Man 8:63-69.

Zarzycki, K. 2000. Paprotniki i rośliny kwiatowe (rośliny naczyniowe) [In Polish with English summary]. In J. Razowski, editor. Flora i fauna Pienin. Monographs of the Pieniny Mountains 1:75-79.

Zarzycki, J. 2011. Effect of land use in the past (19th and the end of 20th c.) on the grassland vegetation of the Radziejowa Range (Beskid Sądecki Mts.) [In Polish with English abstract]. Roczniki Bieszczadzkie 19:37-46.