The results indicate that the EO-BALP-CCN1 survey reached key target groups, including users of geoinformation products employed in planning, research and management.

Breakdown of respondents by type of institution

An analysis of the survey results and respondent profiles reveals the following institutional categories:

Type of institution	Number of respondents	Percentage
Local government (local government units)	33	64.7%
Business activities	7	13.7%
Academic institutions / universities	6	11.8%
Other / difficult to classify	5	9.8%
In total	51	100%

The respondents represented a wide range of positions, including:

1. GIS, environmental protection and spatial planning specialists and inspectors: 17
2. directors, department heads and senior management: 14
3. academic staff (senior lecturers, professors, lecturers): 6
4. representatives of local authorities (village heads, mayors, city mayors and their deputies): 3
5. business owners and representatives of the business sector: 7
6. other administrative and technical staff: 4

The public sector constitutes the dominant user group, which confirms the practical significance of EO data in the context of spatial planning, water management, environmental protection and local landscape analysis. The scientific and academic sector uses the data mainly for research, teaching and expert work. The business sector is represented by consultancy, GIS, surveying and technology firms interested in the practical implementation of EO data and services. Other entities include thematic organisations, technology clusters, educational institutions and independent specialists.

Survey questionnaire — responses

---

1. Integrated multi-source GIS data

We asked you to indicate the extent to which you use the geospatial data listed below in your professional work, rating your use on a scale of 1 (I definitely do not use it) to 5 (I use it very frequently).

Answers:

Ranking	Geodata type	Average rating	Median score
1.	Orthophoto map	3.92	5
2.	Land use	3.76	4
3.	Transport infrastructure	3.73	4
4.	Topography	3.43	4
5.	Hydrography	3 June	3
6.	Vegetation and forests	3 February	3
7.	Soils	2.84	3
8.	Agricultural production	2.49	2
9	Air quality	2.14	2
10.	Tourism	2 August	2

This group of respondents is characterised by a high level of technical expertise. Most of them work in local government, forestry and academia, utilising a basic set of geospatial data in their day-to-day work. The level of interest in data types other than basic GIS data is below average. The most commonly used are orthophotomaps, land-use data and 3D models of the terrain. This may suggest that new, thematic products should serve as overlay layers on top of these familiar foundations.

Conversely, data on tourism, air quality and agricultural production are used the least, suggesting that this group’s priorities lie elsewhere, and that they fail to recognise the potential value of ecosystem services.

2. Satellite imagery and derived products

We have asked you to indicate the extent to which you use the satellite imagery and/or related products listed below in your professional work. Please rate your usage on a scale of 1 (I definitely do not use them) to 5 (I use them very frequently).

Answers:

Ranking	Data type	Average rating	Median score
1.	Extent of flooding	3 June	3
2.	High-resolution RGB images	2.84	3
3.	Air pollution	2.57	2
4.	Extent of fire outbreaks	2.43	2
5.	Surface temperature	2.43	2
6.	Multispectral imaging	2.39	2
7.	NDVI/NDRE indices	2.12	2
8.	Radar imaging	2 August	2

The results in this section indicate that EO data and their derivatives are generally less useful, as evidenced by the lower median values. An analysis of the current utility of EO products reveals a clear focus on risk management and visual assessment based on high-resolution imagery, with a low current adoption rate for spectral and climate products.

Flood coverage has the highest utilisation rate. This confirms the critical practical importance of Earth Observation (EO) data in crisis management and planning related to water-related hazards. High-resolution RGB images are primarily used as a high-quality, up-to-date visual base layer, often supplementing or replacing standard, typically outdated aerial orthophoto databases. Surface temperature indicates previous moderate use, suggesting existing knowledge of their application in climate monitoring (likely in relation to urban heat islands).

Multispectral imagery, as well as derived products such as NDVI/NDRE indices, are used to a moderate extent by GIS specialists. Analysis of the survey responses reveals that respondents have limited knowledge of vegetation indices derived from satellite data. Surprisingly, NDVI datasets and radar imagery were considered of little relevance to the analysis of ecosystem services.

Air pollution appears to be a new but crucial issue. Currently, its low usage but high ranking in Section 6 suggests a significant gap in the current availability of data, which the EO-BALP-CCN1 project should address. The remaining topics represent a specialised, rarely used product for this user group, indicating low overall awareness and, consequently, potential utility.

3. Landscape units

Landscape conservation is one of the key aspects of spatial planning policy, stemming from both national regulations and international obligations. Supporting these processes is one of the overarching objectives of this project; therefore, the spatial reference adopted consists of landscape units (LUs) identified during the landscape audit process. The audit involves the identification and assessment of landscape values, as well as recommendations for measures to protect them. We therefore asked the question:

The overall conclusion drawn from the responses clearly points to a low level of operational acceptance. 41.2% of respondents see a direct, clear opportunity to apply the concept of landscape units in their professional work. This is a notably low percentage, given the importance of spatial planning policy and landscape audits in Poland.

The challenge here may lie in translating the detailed, often complex academic methodology for defining landscape units into practical, legally sound and easily replicable urban planning tools. Most planning departments operate on the basis of established administrative units (municipal/district), which makes it difficult to adopt a new, complex spatial unit without clear legal or financial incentives.

At the same time, you have given some very apt examples of how JK is used, including:

• are useful in analysing environmental changes and conducting environmental impact assessments,
• spatial planning,
• for an environmental assessment useful in the spatial planning process at local authority level,
• guidance, particularly when drawing up local plans,
• as the basic unit for multi-attribute analyses, the boundaries of units for determining the spatial distribution of point-measured phenomena,
• change detection,
• identifying existing nature conservation measures in accordance with data from the Central Register of Nature Conservation Measures, and nature conservation measures recommended for establishment in accordance with the Landscape Audit.

Implications for the project: products developed within the JK framework are seen as a very promising tool, but they require: a clearer explanation of the principles governing their creation, consistent methods of delimitation, and integration with existing administrative units. Perhaps they should be treated as a new, attractive ‘premium’ tool, requiring further, dedicated education and promotion.

4. Ecosystem services

Ecosystem services refer to the contribution ecosystems make to the benefits derived from economic, social, cultural and other human activities. This is an innovative approach in environmental research and spatial planning, and this project covers selected aspects of this topic.

The survey shows that the concept of ecosystem services is a relatively well-established framework within the respondents’ professional sphere. More than half of the respondents (51%) confirmed that they had already come across the term. This figure suggests that the principles of ecosystem services are already permeating public administration and related research sectors.

Professional background: a key finding is that those familiar with the term cited their professional activities as the source of this knowledge. This suggests that their understanding is practical in nature and linked to regulatory or design tasks, rather than to passive academic experience. Academic literature and (to a lesser extent) industry literature also play a significant role as a source of knowledge about ES. Interestingly, although the least common, social media also makes its presence felt.

5. Ecosystem services included in the project

The project will result in a set of geoinformation products in the form of indicators and thematic maps covering specific aspects of selected ecosystem services (ES).

In this section of the questionnaire, we ask you to rate the usefulness of the products listed below in your professional activities. The level of interest is expressed by comparing the medians and means for all options within a given topic, as rated on a Likert scale of potential usefulness (1 – not useful, 5 – very useful).

Ecosystem Service	Average	Median
1. Urban agriculture: crop production in cities as an example of provisioning ecosystem services	2.43	2
2. Mitigating the urban heat island effect as an example of regulating ecosystem services	2.88	3
3. Reduction of air pollution as an example of regulating ecosystem services	2.87	3
4. Water retention and flood risk as an example of regulating ecosystem services	3 May	3
5. The visual appeal of the landscape in the context of recreation and relaxation as an example of cultural ecosystem services	2.78	3

The results show an average level of perceived importance, which may stem from the average level of knowledge regarding municipal services and local communities, as outlined above. However, it is easy to identify issues of greater importance here, such as water retention and flood risk, urban heat islands, and air pollution. Interestingly, respondents paid the least attention to the provision of municipal services, such as urban agricultural production.

5.1. Urban crop production as an example of provisioning ecosystem services

The thematic sets concerning the quality and structure of agricultural production, estimated agricultural output, and the spatial variation in crops – where response 1 is clearly predominant – appear to be of little use to respondents:

It is difficult to pinpoint the reason for this result. The topic deemed most useful is the expansion and reduction of agricultural production areas. This may be due to the fact that some of the survey respondents are officials involved in spatial planning, as well as to the specific nature of the FUA areas in the Lubuskie Voivodeship, which are clearly dominated by forests.

The composition of crops, which is clearly dominated by vineyards, may also play a significant role. For some reason, officials and planners in the region see no justification for monitoring these processes. Recommendation for the project: present the significance of the topic as attractively as possible by showing the results of production indexation in monetary terms.

5.2. Mitigating the urban heat island effect as an example of regulating ecosystem services

The products listed in this section of the survey were considered the most relevant to the respondents’ potential actions. Analysis of the responses showed that respondents most frequently cited the extent and condition of green spaces, as well as the distance to wetlands, as key factors for assessing the city’s cooling effect. The lack of references to land surface temperature (LST) data is noteworthy and may reflect limited awareness or experience among respondents regarding LST-related data.

The results in this section suggest that respondents demonstrate a relatively low level of familiarity with satellite data, vegetation indices, the NDVI index, radar imagery and land surface temperature (LST), relying instead on orthophotomaps, terrain models and high-resolution imagery for monitoring urban areas and flooding. Respondents most frequently identified the extent and condition of green spaces and the proximity of wetlands as useful data for assessing ecosystem services, whilst multi-temporal datasets and other Earth observation information were largely overlooked.

5.3. Reduction of air pollution as an example of regulating ecosystem services

In the context of reducing air pollution, as an example of regulating ecosystem services, respondents indicated that the most useful data also relates to the extent and condition of green spaces. On this topic, respondents paid little attention to the use of multi-temporal datasets, which may suggest a lack of awareness or understanding of satellite data among the participants surveyed.

Although the overall use of air quality data is low, Earth observation products for the urban environment are still considered valuable – but primarily as tools for analysing changes over time, rather than for day-to-day monitoring.

5.4. Water retention and flood risk as an example of regulating ecosystem services

These issues attracted the most interest among respondents, which may be due to the region’s geographical characteristics: the presence of a large river, a relatively undulating landscape and, consequently, a higher-than-average risk of flooding.

Data on flood risk prove to be the most useful. Importantly, the majority of respondents expressed an interest in flood risk in relation to administrative boundaries, which is not the case when it comes to landscape units.

The geoinformatic representation of potential water retention appears to be the least useful to respondents, as evidenced by the lowest median scores, regardless of the reference point. The results here are more evenly distributed, with a clear prevalence of scores of 5 and 4, indicating a level of significance above neutral. In contrast to the previous example, administrative units are slightly less favoured than landscape units.

Interpretation: Municipalities and districts demonstrate a certain level of demand for data on water retention – which confirms the significance of this topic in the context of climate change and the risks associated with floods, flash floods and droughts. The results in this section are inconclusive; it is therefore recommended that all the thematic layers indicated above be developed.

5.5. The visual appeal of the landscape in the context of recreation and leisure as an example of cultural ecosystem services

All three options received almost identical ratings, with an average of just under 2.8 and a median of 3. The result is somewhat surprising, given the region’s above-average appeal to tourists.

This service, as applied to administrative units (municipalities, districts), received the highest ratings. This may stem from the need to anchor planning and decision-making within a legal and administrative framework. Whilst landscape units offer a better substantive context, the administrative division is essential for the implementation of all regulations, local plans and audits.

The ES concerning landscape units received slightly different ratings. Users consider that categorising landscape attractiveness on the basis of natural and functional landscape units (areas with a coherent character) is most valuable for their professional tasks. This suggests that professionals (particularly in the fields of spatial planning and environmental protection) value the landscape context, rather than just the administrative location.

The product in the form of continuous numerical data referenced to a 1×1 km grid achieved the lowest level of usability. Although this is a standard format for environmental data, the lack of categorisation or reference to a specific unit (landscape or administrative) makes the product less useful for practitioners. They require ready-made, categorised information (e.g. ‘High attractiveness’, ‘Medium attractiveness’) concerning the management area, rather than raw numerical data. It appears that in this area, the approach to the subject could be optimised by introducing attractive forms of cartographic presentation, particularly in the case of continuous and grid data.

6. Format of the geospatial data provided

The question in this section was: If you were to use the geoinformation products discussed, what would be your preferred format?

The chart illustrates preferences regarding the type and format of geospatial data. Although geoportal-type services clearly dominate, downloadable data (GML/SHP/geodatabases) also play a significant role. Content rendering services (WMS/WMTS/WFS) appear to be the least sought-after. Interestingly, paper maps are still in use, as evidenced by some of the responses.

This means that the visualisation and access platform must serve as the main distribution hub. PTK’s infrastructure is ready for the implementation of a geoportal service. In fact, it is possible to integrate all the services indicated by respondents, both in terms of dynamic access and file downloading. Due to the low level of interest, the implementation of functionalities such as APIs or printing remains debatable and is unlikely to be implemented.

---

Summary

The aim of this survey was to determine the extent to which geospatial data, including satellite data, is used by the project’s potential end-users. It was noted that respondents were not very familiar with satellite data, vegetation indices such as NDVI, radar imagery or land surface temperature (LST). In their day-to-day work, they most frequently use orthophotomaps, terrain models and high-resolution imagery.

These findings show that awareness of modern Earth observation data remains fairly limited among potential users, even though such data is readily available through European initiatives such as the European Space Agency’s Copernicus programme. In practice, many people still view geospatial data primarily as a visualisation tool rather than a source of analytical information. This points to a clear need for training and practical examples that could demonstrate how satellite indicators can support local planning, environmental monitoring and sustainable spatial management. Building such an understanding would help to link available data to real-world needs and applications in day-to-day decision-making.

The use of landscape units (LUs) provides clear and practical examples of how this approach can be applied to spatial and environmental management. Key applications include:

• an analysis of changes in the environment and land use,
• forest resource management (particularly important in the Lubuskie Voivodeship),
• support for spatial planning and landscape audits at local authority level,
• designating protected areas and identifying areas of high natural or visual value,
• an assessment of the potential impact of the investment, depending on the nature and sensitivity of the landscape.