Spatial Planning in Poland: Law, Property Market and Planning Practice (SpringerBriefs in Geography) 303096938X, 9783030969387

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN GEOGRAPHY

Maciej J. Nowak Przemysław Śleszyński Paulina Legutko-Kobus

Spatial Planning in Poland Law, Property Market and Planning Practice 123

SpringerBriefs in Geography

SpringerBriefs in Geography presents concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across the fields of physical, environmental and human geography. It publishes compact refereed monographs under the editorial supervision of an international advisory board with the aim to publish 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance. Volumes are compact, 50 to 125 pages, with a clear focus. The series covers a range of content from professional to academic such as: timely reports of state-of-the art analytical techniques, bridges between new research results, snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics, elaborated thesis, literature reviews, and in-depth case studies. The scope of the series spans the entire field of geography, with a view to significantly advance research. The character of the series is international and multidisciplinary and will include research areas such as: GIS/cartography, remote sensing, geographical education, geospatial analysis, techniques and modeling, landscape/regional and urban planning, economic geography, housing and the built environment, and quantitative geography. Volumes in this series may analyze past, present and/or future trends, as well as their determinants and consequences. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series. SpringerBriefs in Geography will be of interest to a wide range of individuals with interests in physical, environmental and human geography as well as for researchers from allied disciplines.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/10050

´ Maciej J. Nowak · Przemysław Sleszy´ nski · Paulina Legutko-Kobus

Spatial Planning in Poland Law, Property Market and Planning Practice

Maciej J. Nowak Real Estate Department West Pomeranian University of Technology Szczecin, Poland

´ Przemysław Sleszy´ nski Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Warsaw, Poland

Paulina Legutko-Kobus Department of Public Policy Warsaw School of Economics (SGH) Warsaw, Poland

ISSN 2211-4165 ISSN 2211-4173 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Geography ISBN 978-3-030-96938-7 ISBN 978-3-030-96939-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96939-4 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Introduction

The book aims to define the mutual interdependencies, including barriers and challenges, between planning practice on a local, regional, and national scale and legal regulations about the sphere of planning and spatial development. The starting point for the publication’s analysis is an in-depth critical analysis of the literature on the subject, including the experiences and contexts of various European countries, including countries undergoing the political transformation after 1989. We will try to find similarities and differences in the approach of different legal systems and traditions to spatial planning and development sites. An in-depth analysis, based not only on the literature review but also on the knowledge and expert research, will cover Poland’s case. The choice of this country is especially justified for several reasons. First, it is the largest country in Central Europe undergoing the political transformation after 1989 and the economic system’s change from command and distribution (centrally controlled) to a free-market one. Second, in a unanimous expert opinion, supported by, among others, the results of international cooperation in ESPON programs, the situation of neglect, and the challenges of spatial order are among the most difficult in Europe. It was overlapped by a tangle of particular conditions, not only contemporary but also historical, which can be regarded as the third reason for recognizing Poland as a fascinating country: its development in various cadastral systems. The agrarian structure, including ownership, is essential in the real estate markets, thus shaping the relationship between planning practice and legal regulations. The authors will generalize this Polish case study’s conclusions, proposing a specific research direction, allowing for similar analyses to be carried out in other countries, including those with different administrative and territorial systems. The critical areas of mutual dependence between law and planning practice in the context exceeding one country’s scope are indicated (which will also be allowed by the literature studies). One should broadly understand the planning practice in this publication. It is about the methodology of operation adopted by the urban environment and key trends related to spatial development, both from the national, regional, and local perspectives and the critical problems associated. These problems mainly include

v

vi

Introduction

the sphere of settlement (uncontrolled urbanization, urban sprawl), technical infrastructure, transport, financial sphere (consequences of using selected tools of the spatial policy), real estate market, environmental, nature, landscape protection, and public participation. But legal regulations include the act on spatial planning and development (it is the primary legal act in Poland in the sphere of spatial planning and development) and numerous other acts changing or supplementing the necessary spatial order. There is no doubt that there is a serious relationship between these two thematic spheres. On the one hand, the content of specific regulations significantly determines the way of managing particular areas. On the other hand, common practice, expectations of individual actors in the spatial management system, and financial barriers determine the regulations’ specific content (and the significant difficulty of changing particular laws). An important problem is also an insufficiently interdisciplinary approach in the spatial management system, which results, among others, in the lack of substantive, from the urban perspective, analyzes when issuing court judgments regarding spatial development matters. These problems are noticeable in other European countries, examples of which may be ambiguities related to interpreting the concept of “public interest,” doubts regarding the optimal model of the spatial management system (“command and rule” versus the model assuming conciliation and more comprehensive agreement), the optimal role of individual actors in the spatial management system (which comes down to resolving spatial conflicts in less developed variants), and the context of integration with other development policies. In the publication the authors refer to three key terms (concepts). The subject matter of the book focuses on the tools of spatial policy, spatial management system, and spatial planning and development. Spatial policy tools may be understood as legally defined methods of shaping space. From the perspective of most spatial management systems, spatial policy tools at the local level are crucial. It is the local-level authorities (municipalities or their equivalents) that to the greatest extent determine the directions of spatial development. The most typical spatial policy tool found in various countries (in various forms, of course) is the spatial development plan. Spatial management system is the totality of processes affecting the management of space, undertaken by both public and private entities, as well as independent of these entities. It is associated with a broad understanding of the processes occurring in space. It also includes (as a much narrower concept) spatial policy (understood as all activities of public entities related to the shaping of space). Spatial planning (at the local level) is understood as the planning of the distribution of productive forces, settlements, service and technical facilities within a given area. It is carried out primarily with the use of spatial policy tools. Spatial planning, in turn, is the state of use of a given area. One of Poland’s critical problems related to meeting these spheres is protecting and shaping spatial order. The Polish legislator has severe issues with the appropriate approach to these issues in the legal sphere, limiting themselves to general definitions. It results in easy to notice and verify consequences in the Polish space. Chapter 1 will present how the spatial management system’s problem is recognized

Introduction

vii

and distinguished in the literature on the subject in various European countries. Such issues were classified, and their scale (national/supranational) was carried out. The key points from the analyzed perspective, including the local view of spatial policy and the issue of social participation in spatial planning, were considered in particular. The characteristics of the leading European models of spatial management systems and the solutions adopted within these models, especially those relating to the scope of applying individual spatial policy tools, will match the classification made in this way. The chapter mainly focuses on such issues as the role of local spatial development plans in the spatial development system, public participation, integrated development planning, public interest, and flexibility in spatial planning. The context of informal institutions in spatial planning will also be considered. The optimal (effective, rational, efficient) way of addressing these issues in the spatial management system is also related to legal conditions analysis. Therefore, the chapter will also analyze how specific legal regulations can deal with spatial management systems’ problems and challenges: the role of these regulations, which thematic areas they should undertake, and which should not. Chapter 2 will describe the critical conditions and effects of spatial development in Poland and indicate the most critical problems, including costs resulting from poor spatial organization of various systems. Chapter 3 describes the Polish spatial management system’s legal conditions, emphasizes the related problems (barriers). The chapter will not focus solely on the case study of Poland. Conclusions resulting from the diagnosis of specific problems are included in a broader context adapted in other countries and other legal systems. Chapter 4, which discusses the results, will aim to a broader comparison and determination of the conditions and problems related to urban planning practice and the specific wording of legal regulations. In Summary, directions and challenges for solving the identified problems are proposed, along with a broader specification of the interdisciplinary perspective, within which the context of the spatial management system should be considered. In conclusion, a broader analysis of Poland from the perspective of an international discussion on planning systems may be important for several reasons. Poland (as indeed some CEE countries) has a very weak institutional spatial planning system. This weakness concerns the legal framework, but also translates into planning practice (and the level of planning culture). This is determined by various conditions, including historical ones. Partly due to them is such a significant role of property and owners in spatial planning. Under the current solutions, this role cannot be coordinated with the protection and shaping of spatial order. For the reader from other countries, the analysis of the above case may be important for several reasons: – Poland has very large legal/institutional/social problems in spatial planning. A detailed analysis of these problems may also provide a point of reference for other systems. This applies especially to the discussion on flexibility/restrictiveness of particular planning solutions; – The case of Poland is also a certain inspiration for the discussion on the planning culture, especially how the obvious deficiencies in this respect influence the

viii

Introduction

consequences on the planning practice. The case of Poland is very clear in this respect—spatial chaos and the concrete costs of spatial chaos can be illustrated; – The analysis of the Polish spatial planning system is also an important contribution to the discussion on the role of private property and owners in the spatial planning system. It is particularly important to characterize situations in which the role of owners is excessive. This provides a basis for adequate analyses in other countries (where even if such a problem occurs to a lesser extent, it is an important point of reference). At the same time, these analyses provide a voice in the debate on the classification of spatial planning systems. Above all, they draw attention to the complexity and difficulty of making broader classifications. Some guidance in this regard is provided in Chapter 5.

Contents

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Classifications of Spatial Management Systems. Challenges and Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Role of Law in Land Use Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Property Rights in Spatial Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Spatial Management Systems: Local Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Period Before and During World War II (Until 1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 The Communist Period (1945–1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Spatial Socio-Economic Transformation (1989– 2004): External and Internal Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Poland in the European Union (2004 to Date) . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 International Links, Including Transport Links . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 National and Interregional Scales: Planning and Processes of Development and Stagnation . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Regional Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Local Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Cross-Border Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 10 12 14 16 16 21 21 23 23 27 31 35 38 38 38 46 48 53 55

ix

x

Contents

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland: Principles and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Characteristics of the Spatial Management System in Poland . . . . 3.3 Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Development of Commune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Financial Consequences of Adopting Local Spatial Development Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Decision on Land Development Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Public Participation in the Preparation of Spatial Policy Tools . . . . 3.7 Spatial Policy at the Supra-Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Special Laws on Spatial Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Problems of Regulatory Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 61 62 63 70 72 75 78 79 80 83 84

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4.2 The Costs of Spatial Chaos as a Result of a Flawed Spatial Planning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.3 The Inefficiency of Public Authorities in the Spatial Planning System in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.4 Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.5 Diagnosis of Key Legal Weaknesses of the Spatial Planning System in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Chapter 1

Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

Abstract The chapter will present how the spatial management system’s problem is recognized and distinguished in the literature on the subject in various European countries. Such issues were classified, and their scale (national/supranational) was carried out. The key points from the analyzed perspective, including the local view of spatial policy, as well as the issue of social participation in spatial planning, were considered in particular. The characteristics of the leading European models of spatial management systems and the solutions adopted within these models, especially those relating to the scope of applying individual spatial policy tools, will match the classification made in this way. The chapter mainly focuses on such issues as the role of local spatial development plans in the spatial development system, public participation, integrated development planning, public interest, and flexibility in spatial planning. The context of informal institutions in spatial planning will also be considered. The optimal (effective, rational, efficient) way of addressing these issues in the spatial management system is also related to legal conditions analysis. Therefore, the chapter will also analyze how specific legal regulations can deal with spatial management systems’ problems and challenges: the role of these regulations, which thematic areas they should undertake, and which should not. Keywords Spatial management system · Spatial law · Spatial development · European models of spatial planning

1.1 Introduction Spatial planning systems are most generally shaped by historical and contemporary factors. This is closely related to the evolution of the overarching institutional framework, i.e., especially law and management in a given territorial context, including the state. In the case of the Polish system, the key issue is the evolution of the system of planning and spatial management in territories with different solutions, resulting from the nationality of a diametrically opposed legal and management culture (AustriaHungary, Prussia, Russia), and that the alignment of this took place basically only after World War II under communism and a centrally controlled economy. These © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. J. Nowak et al., Spatial Planning in Poland, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96939-4_1

1

2

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

issues are discussed in the literature. The spatial management systems of European countries are characterized by solid diversity. It manifests itself not only in different approaches to legal regulations related to spatial planning and development but also in different planning practices, varying degrees of implementation of the governance concept (especially at the local level), and a different level of links and correlations between the spatial planning system and the socio-economic development management system. There is no doubt that a detailed comparison of legal and organizational solutions in individual countries exceeds the framework of this study (all the more so as such a direction of comparison is sometimes contested as excessively pushing specific, subjective case studies). This chapter reviews selected classifications of spatial management systems (and proposes alternatives to making classifications of spatial management systems). Next, it is determined how the literature diagnoses the role of law in the spatial management system, particularly the relation between the property right of a real estate owner and the public interest (identified with the objectives of spatial management systems). Then attention was paid to the problems of spatial policies at the local level. In the review and discussion undertaken, the authors attempt—with an awareness of the severe discrepancies of individual national systems—to diagnose the critical problems of spatial management systems and the optimal directions of possible changes (discussed in a broader scope than relating only to a single country). Already at this point it is worth signaling two issues. The role of history in creating the institutional framework seems to be very important. In the case of the Polish system of spatial management, it can be seen from many angles: both taking into account the context of the communist era, and even deeper conditions determining the spatial structure of Poland (this is presented in the following sections). Nevertheless, already at this point it is worth indicating that these issues are discussed in the literature. This includes both a comprehensive look at the history of national spatial planning (Hendler 2015; Yenice 2012), as well as isolating specific thematic levels. As van Straalen (2013) points out, historical context enables a broader analysis of how particular planning documents have been applied and their implications. MacFeely (2016), based on historical analysis, verifies what (in particular historical stages) the government’s interest in spatial issues depends on. The historical context of different countries can also be compared, e.g., from the perspective of the impact on urban development (Matsushita et al. 2018). Regardless of the current form of government and government approach, this historical context very much determines the spatial planning framework. The second important issue that requires signaling at the outset is the externalities in spatial planning. An analysis in this regard has been made, among others, by T. Markowski (2013), indicating that externalities are tangible and intangible products that a distinguished entity (recipient) receives from its environment, without compensation from its side for the cost of their production, assuming that the recipient is not able to control and influence the size of the activities of the entities forming this environment. According to the author, externalities are the result of, among other things:

1.1 Introduction

3

• deliberate action by public authorities and institutions when providing public goods; • deliberate substitution of the market mechanism for administrative methods of setting prices of goods and factors of production and distribution conditions in order to create more or less favorable conditions for certain entities to operate. This has a significant dimension in the context of the spatial management system. It is noticeable not only in the legally determined costs of spatial planning (e.g., in Poland—the financial consequences of the enactment of spatial development plans), but also in the varied consequences of the planning activity. In the case of Poland, both spheres are particularly noticeable. The literature emphasizes that as a result of spatial planning processes we observe not only economic but also ecological externalities, and the possibility of their effective reduction is enabled by internalization (especially negative ecological effects) (Hołuj 2018).

1.2 Classifications of Spatial Management Systems. Challenges and Barriers Spatial management systems in Europe are subject to diverse approaches and classifications. There is still no unified European planning system (Nadin and Stead 2008), and there is no need for its comprehensive development (which does not change the fact that there is a need to coordinate selected thematic spheres, which is well contained, for example, in the Territorial Agenda 2030). It can be pointed out that each of the conducted classifications, on the one hand, focuses on essential issues, but on the other hand, does not cover all problems of spatial management systems. However, from the basic, most often cited classification was carried out by Newman and Thornley (1996). The authors distinguished British, Germanic, Napoleonic, Scandinavian, and East European systems. The features of each system were defined but not always categorically and unambiguously. For example, a vital feature of the Napoleonic system was the decisive role of state law, and for the Germanic system—the vital role of local plans (local laws applicable to specific areas). The study emphasizes that in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, these principles are only just being formed — which was valid at the time the monograph was written shortly after the fall of the “Iron Curtain.” The study prepared within the framework of the European Union activities (European Commission 1999) distinguished four types of spatial management systems, which classification is still probably the most discussed point of reference: – system with regional economic planning—assuming the achievement of important socio-economic goals primarily, with a strong role for the government, as well as national and regional planning;

4

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

– integrated planning system-oriented primarily to ensure coordination between the different levels, both thematically and in terms of the local–regional-national level relationship; – land use planning system, associated with low interference of supra-local authorities in spatial planning (in these systems, high flexibility in planning is noticed); – urban planning system—focused primarily on the design and architecture dimension. Furthermore, this classification is difficult to apply to specific countries fully. Individual countries (especially after numerous changes in legislation since 1997) contain elements of individual systems rather than representing such systems holistically (similarly—ESPON 2009; Nadin et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the cited four-level classification provides an interesting basis for discussing the optimal spatial management system. The solutions of a given system cannot provide the same realization of all defined objectives. Therefore, within a given system, it seems crucial to define which objectives are prioritized. For example, a high prioritization of key investment objectives from a national perspective can undermine local planning (and vice versa). Creating a hierarchy of goals and objectives for a country should come from first defining key weaknesses. And it is the above dimension that seems most important: defining for which systemic problems, a specific direction of solutions, should be considered the most important. It is precisely this type of conclusion that seems crucial from the perspective of reviewing the individual classifications (Larsson 2006, Berischa et al. 2020). It should not discuss the optimal classification of spatial management systems but rather about the best possible, comprehensive, and multidimensional coverage of the related problems. This approach is also reflected in subsequent approaches to systems classification (more or less elaborated). Getimis et al. (2014) list the following thematic blocks among the critical issues considered for classification: – issues, challenges, and driving forces, – dimension of change (objectives, planning modes, tools, scale, actors planning style), – an evaluation of change and continuity. The indicated perspective, realized very comprehensively and convincingly in the cited monograph, can be helpful in a piecemeal compilation of individual systems. From a problem-solving perspective, by far, the first two points mentioned seem most relevant. However, while the dimension of change is easier to put together comparatively, the juxtaposition of problems, challenges, and driving forces runs the risk of excessive recourse to case studies (and would require further advanced harmonization of methodology). However, it is this part that seems most relevant. This kind of attempt vis-à-vis Central and Eastern European countries has already been made (Altrock et al. 2016).

1.2 Classifications of spatial management systems. Challenges and barriers

5

Another attempt to classify spatial planning systems (relating to territorial governance) was made under the ESPON project called COMPASS (Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe). COMPASS (Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe)—the analysis conducted for 39 countries (also outside the EU) allowed to indicate the changes occurring in spatial planning systems in the period 2000– 2016 (Nadin et al. 2018). The analyses identified 251 types of planning instruments (meaning plans and other tools used to mediate and regulate spatial development— Nadin et al. 2018, 8). It was noted that the traditional instrument subdivisions: “regulation,” “policy framework,” “strategic,” and “visioning” instruments, are difficult to categorize in terms of application and intermingle at different levels of spatial planning. The classification of spatial planning systems is based on reference to European territorial governance and distinguishes (Nadin et al. 2018, 55): – the prevalence of systems primarily “engaged” within European territorial governance, mostly in western and Eastern Europe as well as in the Mediterranean countries, – a small group of “leading” systems, mostly from central or Northern Europe, that are perceived as exerting influence on European territorial governance, – a group of “following” systems, found mainly among the new member states which tend to be receptive to the influence of European territorial governance, but are hardly influential at EU level; – a group of “unengaged” systems, generally being non-member countries, which are not receptive to EU influence and do not have an influence on the European territorial governance. In addition to comprehensive characterizations of European spatial management systems, there are equally interesting ones limited to a smaller number of countries. Such classifications at the indicated smaller scale can even better provide a basis for diagnosing and understanding problems. For example, Tarakçı and Türk (2020) point out that the Dutch system relies more on flexibility in planning and the French on legal certainty (subject to different understandings of flexibility). In yet another classification, Muñoz Gielen and Tasan-Kok (2010) distinguish two main approaches in spatial management systems. The first involves classifying these systems according to differentiated criteria (e.g., based on the maturity of a given system). The second is based more on the legal and administrative framework of individual countries. Based more on the latter direction, the authors suggest using a classification into plan-led and development-led systems. In development-led systems, the role of local plans is less related to legal effects. Such plans only illustrate the intentions of public authorities in land use. Such intentions can be modified more efficiently at the implementation stage than in plan-based systems. Of course, this does not mean full subjectivism in shaping the development, especially that in the systems based on development, other solutions are distinguished to a greater extent (especially in the concept of Value Captures). However, uncertainty about the final realization of spatial solutions cannot be excluded in both directions of the systems.

6

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

In the above context, it is worth mentioning that Runhaar et al. (2009) distinguish two categories of spatial policy tools: “content-oriented tools” and “process-oriented tools.” Also, this context seems very relevant. Indeed, spatial management systems can be viewed from the perspective of a more substantial role of one or the other in a given system. Different approaches can, of course, be proposed regarding specific institutions and solutions. R. Alterman (2010) and his team proposed such a classification of countries from the perspective of approaches to property rights and compensation effects related to the restriction of property/building rights. It should also be added that in the literature, there are attempts to make even more limited comparisons of spatial management systems relating to two countries. Such comparisons also include an EU country and a non-EU country (cf. Santos and Virtudes 2020; Nowak et al. 2020). In such cases, the comparisons concern specific, selected issues, such as the role of local spatial plans, other spatial policy tools, the role of the municipal and national levels in spatial planning, and urban land use. Shandas et al. (2019) conducting a broader analysis of selected legal regulations from spatial planning for countries outside the European Union (and thus the more diverse), among the common, verifiable planes they distinguish: the treatment of the system of property rights, the distribution of power within the institutional hierarchy and discretionary scope, and the legal possibilities of public participation. These issues do not exhaust the entire (even included in this chapter) thematic scope, but they can compile. It is evident from the above that despite the different individual approaches, there is some potential material for comparison in each spatial management system. Fragmented comparisons, however, are the most convincing. Differences in different national land-use systems are due to various conditions. One of them is pointed out by Nadin and Stead (2008) the specificity of the social model, characteristic for a given country. We should fully agree with the authors that planning systems are an expression of fundamental social values relating to the concept of perceiving the role of government or the rights of citizens. It translates into the way-specific institutions (e.g., widely understood public–private cooperation) are implemented. On the other hand, the indicated country specificities provide one rationale for theses about the inadequacy of holistic classifications of multiple spatial management systems. As Purkarthofer et al. (2021) point out, thinking in terms of planning systems entails a significant degree of abstraction and generalization. All the more so as the actual shape of systems depends mainly on the social context, translating, for example, into the way-specific regulations are interpreted. Hence, the authors postulate the concept of planning culture, which in a way approaches spatial management practices and systems from the bottom up. However, planning cultures understood in this way may differ at the level of national regulations and the regional level. Planning culture will better establish the rules of the game of the adopted planning practice and the “nature” of the planning system itself (Fürst 2009; de Olde 2015; Reimer et al. 2014). The literature (Stead et al. 2017) distinguishes various planning culture-related approaches, including the realm of planning artifacts, the planning environment, and the social environment. These dimensions can easily be developed relating to individual national systems. Janin Rivolin (2012) even emphasizes that governance and

1.2 Classifications of spatial management systems. Challenges and barriers

7

spatial planning systems are social constructions that legitimize policy practices in a specific institutional context (“institutional technologies”). A distinction can be made in the literature between models of spatial planning systems relating to institutional technologies. Berisha et al. (2020) thus distinguish the types of systems: the “conformative model,” the “performative model,” the “neo-performative model.” The analysis of the referred approaches to spatial planning systems leads the authors to several conclusions. One should agree with the views that a comprehensive comparison of a very large number of national systems is very difficult. What is worse, it implies making numerous simplifications. With very broad classifications, it is very difficult to adequately capture not only the specificity of legal regulations, but also the specificity of their interpretation. Similar provisions in different national systems may have completely different effects. To this must be added (related to these issues) the context of different planning practices and the level of planning culture. Therefore, it should be pointed out that: – a comparison of a very large number of systems is in principle condemned to simplification and lack of precision. However, it can provide an initial point of reference for further considerations (this is how the older classifications of systems referred to above should be assessed); – It seems much more valuable to compare a large number of systems from the perspective of selected issues. In such a situation, the extent of engagement and detailed (bottom-up) knowledge of individual systems will determine how broad these comparisons can be. Currently, the comparison in the COMPASS project referenced above (Nadin et al. 2018) should be considered the most in-depth of this group; – A comparison of two/three countries should be considered as a subgroup in the latter category. Especially with authors representing individual countries, this is possible. In such cases, the comparison is easier because the solutions from the compared countries can still directly relate to each other. Therefore, instead of describing Poland in specific previous classifications, it seems justified to briefly characterize some key issues from the perspective of the international discussion. Most of these are presented in more detail later in this text. Nonetheless, Table 1.1 provides some basic information that will allow readers to quickly orientate themselves in the basic themes of the Polish system. When making the initial characteristics of the Polish spatial management system (against the background of the comparative discussion), the authors postulate that charts with characteristics of other systems should be developed, similar to those in Table 1.1. It is possible that, from the individual perspective of particular systems, such cards may require additions and changes. However, they may contribute to a deeper comparative discussion and even broader definition of common issues (sometimes captured in different ways). Thus, there is no doubt that the comprehensive classification of spatial management systems of a more significant number of countries is limited by diverse barriers. Therefore, it is highly advisable first to extract thematic issues related to the proposed

8

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

Table 1.1 Key features of the Polish spatial management system from the perspective of the international discussion Issue

Characteristics

Notes

Primary responsible for spatial planning

Municipal authorities According to the legal regulations, the basic entity responsible for spatial planning is the municipality. The municipality has planning authority

There is planning autonomy of the municipality. In principle, the municipality is responsible for spatial planning. There are, however, a number of specific provisions that take this competence away from the municipality (e.g., partially in environmental, natural, and cultural matters, as well as in the execution of major public investments)

The role of law

The law heavily interferes with land use planning. Local spatial development plans constitute legal regulations. Very often the legitimacy of an investment from a spatial perspective is assessed from a legal perspective

The strong mix of urban planning and legal terminology creates a great deal of disorder. The lack of coordination of these perspectives opens the way for numerous abuses in the interpretation of regulations

The role of property

Very strong. Limitations of owners’ rights in spatial planning are possible in particularly justified situations, with compensation

This is one of the reasons for the very passive behavior of many municipalities. Municipalities are afraid to introduce more radical spatial settlements

The role of spatial plans

Limited. Local zoning plans are not mandatory. Their adoption depends on the municipalities’ authorities. Although the legislator attaches great importance to them, in practice they are not enacted in most parts of the country

In particular, there is a lack of zoning plans in areas outside large cities. It often happens that land development plans, even if adopted, deliberately omit the most important areas. However, enacted plans specify, in a manner binding for the investors, both the purpose of the land (i.e., a general determination of the purpose to which the land is to serve) and the detailed parameters of the development (the height of the development, the development intensity, or the biologically active area of the property) (continued)

1.2 Classifications of spatial management systems. Challenges and barriers

9

Table 1.1 (continued) Issue

Characteristics

Notes

Scope for flexibility in spatial Negligible. No relevant planning legislation

Any attempt to be flexible (e.g., in zoning plans) is abused by investors under the current system. It is another excuse for expanding uncontrolled development

Scope of implementation of socio-economic objectives in spatial planning

Very limited

The latest regulations postulate the integration of spatial planning and social and economic planning. In practice, however, it is implemented to a small extent

Level of planning culture

Very low. Low social capital, The consequence is a very low belief in the need to protect significant spatial chaos in spatial order Poland, bringing measurable (very high) costs

The role and importance of the participation process

In principle, under the applicable law, participation is included in the spatial planning process as a mandatory element. The law obliges municipalities to provide forms of participation based on consultations

In many municipalities, participation in spatial planning takes the form of active participation of stakeholders. However, this is not a mechanism required by law—consultations and public discussion are obligatory. The scope of participation varies greatly (depending, e.g., on the size and nature of the municipality), and an increase in e-participation is observed

Special features

A special solution—the decision on land development conditions. If there is no local plan in force for a given area, it is replaced by this administrative decision (issued at the request of the investor)

In many municipalities, decisions on land development conditions completely replace spatial planning. This exacerbates all other problems of the Polish system

Source Own study

classification criteria. These issues better help in diagnosing common problems of various spatial management systems. Among these problems should be noted first: – reconciliation of actions and priorities (especially in terms of national and local actions, balancing the relationship between the municipality’s planning freedom and the scope of possible influence on spatial policy by supra-local authorities);

10

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

– incorporate countrywide calls for the integration of development policies and flexibility in planning (especially with the changes brought about by the COVID19 pandemic); – developing the optimal formulation of local plans in a given country (adequate to social needs and challenges): both in terms of their scope and their consequences; – balancing the objectives of specific spatial policy tools; – considering the social context and the planning culture when analyzing specific cases of spatial management systems (or even their selected segments). The indicated thematic levels will be developed later in the chapter. The first is to define the role of legal regulations in spatial management systems.

1.3 The Role of Law in Land Use Systems Defining the role of law in spatial management systems is a difficult task, still included in the elaboration phase. The literature indicates that basing the characterization of spatial management systems on their formal description is inadequate (Nadin 2012). To put it from a different perspective, Moroni et al. (2020) emphasize that it is inadequate to take an “instrumental” view of law as a means to achieve results directly. What is required here is an understanding that law can contribute to the realization of specific goals in the land use system but cannot guarantee their realization. What is at stake here, however, is the realization by the law of general systemic goals. On the other hand, the inclusion of certain obligations in legal acts should be equivalent to the certainty of their implementation (Savini 2016). On the other hand, Reimer et al. (2014) describe the law as a kind of corridor along which planning practice moves. According to the above (extremely apt) metaphor, even if the “corridors” in different countries are very similar, their actual passage may be extremely diverse. The authors point out that in assessing the role of law, the type of society in question seems to be important. More broadly, it is necessary to consider individual states’ social, economic, cultural, and political conditions. The social context is also emphasized in other literature (Muñoz Gielen et al. 2017). In addition, the role of informal arrangements should be emphasized, as well as the differentiated role of public law and private law instruments (Debrunner and Hartmann 2020). An increasingly frequent demand in the literature concerns the simplicity of legal regulations in the spatial management system. It is strongly related to the statement that the law on its own does not guarantee the direct achievement of the assumed objectives. Also, for this reason, it is a mistake to cover too many issues in too much detail in legal regulations. As Moroni et al. (2020) point out, achieving the desired simplicity of legal regulation is not an easy task, but it is also not an entirely impossible undertaking. The observation made by Waterhout et al. (2009) is vital in this context. According to Waterhout et al. (2009), in many systems, land-use law is linked to the setting of specific development parameters and creating a broader concept of urban

1.3 The Role of Law in Land Use Systems

11

development. The two indicated objectives are indeed challenging to relate to each other unambiguously. Moreover, in both cases, the role of legal regulations should be different (which is reflected in the directions mentioned above of classification of spatial management systems). The broader concept of city development may not be a universally binding law (especially a detailed one). However, it should co-create axiological foundations for the interpretation of spatial development law. In this option, the determination of detailed technical parameters for development should be understood as an instrument for achieving these goals (applied in a given country as needed). At the same time, it will be risky to subject such provisions to the typical legal interpretation of courts. The postulates indicated in the broadest terms (also in the context of COVID19 pandemic-related solutions for post-pandemic activities) can be linked to the realization of the postulate for flexibility in planning. The previous subsection indicated that this postulate was contained in the context of the features of the classified systems. Arguably, the country where it has been realized most extensively (for social, cultural, and political reasons) is the UK. Tarakçı and Türk (2020) indicate that flexibility develops due to legal changes in political, institutional, and planning processes. In the above context, Muñoz Gielen and Tasan-Kok (2010) confirm the increasing development of spatial management systems with greater flexibility and less rigid, restrictive rules, enabling creative approaches that guarantee the coordination of market needs with the public interest. On this occasion, a dilemma may arise regarding the relationship between legal certainty and the possibility of seeking adaptability (Savini 2016). Emphasize that flexibility in planning should be understood differently from the flexibility of a local plan. Thus, the assumption associated with planning flexibility is not to adapt systemic solutions to every investor’s expectations. For example, in the system of the UK (Williams and Wood 2018), flexibility in planning, on the one hand, gives a clear conception of the rights of individual users of space, but on the other hand, never gives certainty to these users about the future action of public authorities. Legal certainty is a significant value, but it cannot be absolutized—especially when public interest considerations argue for it. At the same time, there is a risk that lacks legal certainty (and this is the case in flexible systems), and authorities’ decisions may not always protect the public interest. It applies more to countries with a lower planning culture. It is crucial to keep in mind that the absence of at least elements of such flexibility leads either to complete freedom of investment or to base the system on too many detailed regulations. Nonetheless, Moroni (2007) argues for a shift in planning thinking, advocating for the increased importance of more general frameworks instead of specifically defined benchmarks (a similar call is made by Savini 2016). Alfasi and Portugali (2007), on the other hand, emphasize the role of regulations primarily in resolving spatial conflicts. However, related to the above, procedural regulations also tend to generate situations in which typically procedural disputes obscure actual (needed) discussion and land use objectives (on this topic also—Hoch 2019).

12

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

In the context of the issues concerning the role of law in the spatial management system, one can note statements on other issues. It is worth noting at least some of them, reflecting on the implementation of changes related to strategic planning, pointing out that the effectiveness of their implementation is also determined by the extent of discretion present in a given legal system. Kok et al. (2014) highlight the possible impact of regulation in raising land prices and the associated consequences. Irwin and Bockstael (2001) show how the content of regulations may depend on the fact that a population is dispersed. Williams and Wood (2018) highlight the adaptation of spatial regulation to different types of spaces. We can also highlight publications on the role of regulation in the context of open space maintenance (Ardiansah and Fahmi 2018), the relationship with law and soil remediation issues (Vanheusden 2010), the impact on regional development and urban policy (Choi and Kang 2014; Darin 2016; Kiessling and Putz 2020), forest protection (Müller-Jentsch 2015), the relationship of urban planning law and the role of minorities (Chiodelli and Moroni 2017), harmonization of rural development (Budiyono et al. 2018), monitoring of local plans (Segura and Pedregal 2017), flood regulation (Cantos 2010), or linking planning regulations to maps (Hamdan 2020). This vast range of topics represents the possible breadth of problems at the intersection of land use law and other issues. At the same time, it is worth noting that a large part of these issues (and the problem of flexibility in planning) is strongly related to the way property rights are understood in the system of spatial management. A separate chapter is therefore devoted to this issue.

1.4 Property Rights in Spatial Management Systems There are different approaches to property rights and visions of the role played by property owners in different European systems. In some countries, there is a broader debate on this topic. Of course, the consequences of this debate in individual countries are related to the specific legal solutions and social patterns, but quite often, expanding the role of property owners and their rights means the possibility of building in too ´ arbitrary places, which leads to spatial chaos (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2020). On reflection, one must agree with the correct thesis that property rights regulations must be seen as social creations (Muñoz Gielen et al. 2017), capable of continuous improvement and adaptation to new circumstances. As Nadin and Stead (2008) point out, in some countries, decisive state intervention in spatial development (equivalent to a weaker role for property owners) was part of the concept of the post-war welfare state. According to the authors, spatial planning systems are increasingly influenced by other factors, including those linked to global economic competition. Therefore, the literature considers to what extent the intervention of public authority in land use and the desired effects also bring adverse effects (Brueckner 2009). Some countries even diagnose the inefficiency of public authority in the land use system, consisting of the lack of will and skills of public authorities (of different

1.4 Property Rights in Spatial Management Systems

13

levels) to achieve the critical objectives of a given system (Nowak 2017). This point of view, confirming the weakness of public authorities in such tasks relating to different types of areas, is confirmed by the theses of the literature (Debrunner and Hartmann 2020). However, the diagnosed problems from the perspective of public authorities do not justify the lack of planning intervention. The overly broad position of private property owners contributes to more inadequate quality public infrastructure (Muñoz Gielen 2014). It is not, of course, to undermine the role of private property in the urban planning system altogether. Nevertheless, it seems essential to take care to adequately capture the social role of property in any system, linking it to public responsibilities and interests. In this context, it is necessary to keep in mind the expectations (from the perspective of the spatial management system) from property owners. For them, the certainty of carrying out certain investments, guaranteed in the tools of spatial policy, is crucial (Savini 2016). Nevertheless, especially in systems that assume more flexibility in planning, owners expect to be granted more rights at later stages (Tarakçı and Türk 2020). It illustrates the essence of the problem in discussing the present issue more broadly and across borders. The expectations of owners in the UK, for example, should be considered differently, and the potential expectations of owners in Central and Eastern European countries, already classified as the most liberal for investors a few years ago (Getimis et al. 2014). Various additional national instruments, especially those related to the Value Capturing tool, also play an essential role in this context. It is also worth noting the different understandings of property rights. As can be seen from the analysis of R. Alterman (2010), even in countries bound by the understanding of property contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, the approach to this subject in different European countries sometimes differs. This results, for example, from the perspective of the owners’ rights to compensation claims related to the reduction of the value of their property by the local plan. Polish experience shows that it can be a severe problem, potentially reaching tens of billions of euros on a national scale ´ (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2020). Given this experience, it seems all the more interesting to continue debating the separation of property and development rights (Muñoz Gielen 2014). It appears that it is precisely this direction that should be more broadly considered, perhaps even in the context of formulable supra-local guidelines. For in many countries, it is precisely the overly broad understanding of property ownership (in the context of the objectives of the spatial management system) that leads to problems that are difficult to overcome. In countries with lower social capital from the perspective of the spatial policy goals, overly broad rights of owners mean uncontrolled development and all its negative consequences. Blocking these consequences is very difficult or even impossible because of the legal framework (including precisely the difficulty of actually separating the right of property ownership and the right to develop) and the threatening financial and compensation consequences.

14

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

1.5 Spatial Management Systems: Local Scale After presenting selected thematic contexts related to the classification of spatial management systems and the role of legal regulations, the paper focuses on a broader analysis of different approaches to the local scale of these systems. It is because it is the most important from the perspective of direct effects of spatial management. Therefore, it seems crucial to determine how the international discussion captures expectations of this scale and how it captures the goals and dilemmas associated with it. Nadin (2012) draws attention to the possible diversity, and thus dissimilarity, of such issues in different countries. It is essential to bear in mind that “planning” or “land use plan” in different countries may have different meanings. Nonetheless, it is most appropriate to use the term “spatial planning system” or “spatial management system” to describe the set of territorial governance linkages that aim to shape patterns of spatial development (Nadin and Stead 2008). Spatial planning should encompass numerous aspects of planning practices linked to proactive change management opportunities, policy integration, and public participation (Tewdwr-Jones 2004). Although such spatial visions are, according to Faludi (2018), still at a certain level of generality, they should nevertheless be seen in a certain way: the European space would constitute a kind of “quilt” of national territories. In the context of these conditions, it is worth defining the objectives of local spatial policy tools. On the one hand, they must guarantee the implementation of the values and principles adopted in a given system (Alfasi and Migdalovich 2020). Crucial from this perspective at the local level (found in different countries in different forms), the spatial plan, as Savini (2016) points out, should gather a set of public requirements relating to what is possible to do on a given plot of land (a given site), and at least provide the basis for procedures related to change of use. The observation justifies the need to discuss possible categorizations of spatial policy tools that classic local plans will not always provide fully adequate answers to challenges (including urban problems) such as crime or social inequality (Reimer et al. 2014). In this context, Stead’s (2021) proposed categorization of spatial policy tools is interesting to discuss in this context. The author distinguishes: – procedural tools for developing plans, – procedural tools of development control (in both groups, the critical role is played by tools related to public participation—this includes both the stage of working on a new plan, which negotiations can express in the British system and verification of the implementation of the plan’s findings, which will also involve broader involvement of the given community), – tools to ensure plan enforcement (often considered necessary to ensure that utilities and land use status are consistent with a given system), – substantive planning tools (the latter receiving far more attention in the literature than procedural tools). It is also worth noting how possible responses to diagnosed problems and challenges are viewed from a local spatial policy perspective. Moroni et al. (2020) highlight that

1.5 Spatial Management Systems: Local Scale

15

more “orthodox” land use plans that aim to achieve a particular end state for a city often end up generating a lot of complicated and unnecessary procedural regulations. It confirms earlier calls for the most remarkable possible simplicity in land use law regulation. According to the authors, this can often end up having the opposite effect to the one anticipated. It resonates with concerns that, in some cases, in a more flexible planning system, there is a risk of individual decision-makers manipulating spatial decisions (Nadin et al. 2020; Steele and Ruming 2012). In the above context, the question of the appropriateness of measures introduces broader flexibility in planning returns. However, Tarakçı and Türk (2020) stipulate that introducing flexibility may result in differential effects across systems. It needs to be related to issues (criteria) such as (1) the balance between private and public sector actors in urban planning, (2) the way a country approaches planning, (3) the financial strength of the public sector, and (4) the investment needs of the private sector. Moroni (2007) emphasizes that dynamic and pluralistic socio-spatial systems require a flexible system of land use rules and a stable set of abstract and general principles that provide flexibility in the social sphere. Such an approach is close to the one represented in Poland (Markowski 2010). Among the discussed directions for change in spatial planning are: broadening the scope of spatial planning (to include a strategic context), greater flexibility in planning, new institutional arrangements, planning independent of (across) local government administrative boundaries, involving a more comprehensive range of actors in planning, and changing “command-and-control” planning to consensusoriented planning (Nadin et al. 2020). While agreeing with these demands, the authors detail them by adding the context of a broader connection between spatial planning and sectors such as digitization, housing, and health. The challenges described above are increasingly being considered when discussing changes to the spatial planning system during and after a pandemic. This discussion (at varying levels of detail) concerns new ways of developing city centers, increasing environmental and nature protection (e.g., green areas, green and blue infrastructure, the introduction of environmental and climate justice—Hasse 2020), as well as promoting the concept of the “15-min City” (Pisano et al. 2020; Boschetto 2020; Angiello 2020; Lai et al. 2020). It should also be emphasized that the context related to local spatial planning is sometimes associated in the literature with dilemmas concerning the extent of optimal decentralization (Ehrlich et al. 2018), possible conflicts between authorities and citizens (Slaev et al. 2019), the limits of bureaucratization and the way planning effectiveness is understood (Getimis et al. 2014), or the scale of adaptation by the planning system of development policy challenges (Reimer et al. 2014).

16

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

1.6 Conclusions The review conducted illustrates the critical currents of discussion in the international literature. Analyses of the level of planning culture and “institutional technologies” in different countries should be considered one of the more relevant research directions. As indicated above, much in this respect depends on the state of the planning culture. Especially when this state is lower in a given country, more detailed regulations can be a barrier to negative spatial planning trends. On the other hand, the diagnosis that an excess of such detailed regulations can block development should be shared. A universal problem is an uncertainty in spatial planning. Legal regulations—not only in flexible systems—do not give space users the certainty of realizing a specific investment. In the spatial planning system and legal certainty, other values must be considered (and balanced), especially those related to the protection of the public interest. In addition to the planning culture, an essential point of reference is the role of analyses in spatial planning systems and the extent to which they translate into practice. Analyses should be diverse. A good example (included in the next chapter) is the analysis of spatial chaos and its costs.

Bibliography Alfasi N, Migdalovich E (2020) Losing faith in planning. Land Use Policy 97:104790.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104790 Alfasi N, Portugali J (2007) Planning rules for a self-planned city. Plan Theory 6(2):164–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207077587 Alterman R (2010) Takings international: a comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights. American Bar Association, Chicago Altrock U, Güntner S, Huning S, Peters D (2016) Spatial planning and urban development in the new EU member states—Between adjustment and reinvention. In: Altrock U, Güntner S, Huning S, Peters D (eds) Spatial planning and urban development in the new EU member states. From adjustment to reinvention. Routledge, London-New York, pp 1–18 Angiello G (2020) Toward greener and pandemic-proof cities: Italian cities policy responses to Covid-19 pandemic. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment 13(2):271–280. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/7047 Ardiansah A, Fahmi S (2018) The implementation of the law on spatial planning in Pekanbaru, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 175:012079.https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/175/ 1/012079 Berisha E, Cotella G, Janin-Rivolin U, Solly A (2020) Spatial governance and planning systems and the public control of spatial development: A European typology. Eur Plan Stud 29(1):181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1726295 Boschetto P (2020) Covid-19 and simplification of urban planning tools. The residual plan. TeMA— Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, Special Issue:9–16. https://doi.org/10.6092/ 1970-9870/6845 Brueckner JK (2009) Government land use interventions: An economic analysis. In: Lall SV, Freire M, Yuen B (eds) Urban land markets: improving land management for successful urbanization. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–23 Budiyono H, Firmansyah A, Neta Y (2018) Harmonization of village development planning law in Lampung Coastal in the spatial planning regime. J Law Policy Glob 70:16–23

Bibliography

17

Cantos JO (2010) Spatial planning processes, territorial planning law and flood risk in the region of Valencia (Spain). In: Menoni S (ed) Risks challenging publics, scientists and governments. CRC Press, London, p 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10825 Chiodelli F, Moroni S (2017) Planning, pluralism and religious diversity: Critically reconsidering the spatial regulation of mosques in Italy starting from a much debated law in the Lombardy region. Cities 62:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.004 Choi C, Kang B (2014) Network analysis for the connectivity between spatial planning law and environment law and its implications. Journal of Environmental Policy 13(2):39–63 Darin M (2016) Spatial planning law as controller of city space utilization in the sustainable development context. J Law Policy Glob 56:109–116 de Olde C (2015) Moving forward comparative planning studies: Beyond planning cultures and institutionalism. Paper presented at the RC21 International Conference on ‘The ideal city: between myth and reality. Representations, policies, contradictions and challenges for tomorrow’s urban life’, Urbino (Italy), 27–29 August 2015. http://www.rc21.org/en/conferences/urbino2015/. Accessed 4 August 2021 Debrunner G, Hartmann T (2020) Strategic use of land policy instruments for affordable housing. Coping with social challenges under scarce land conditions in Swiss cities. Land Use Policy 99:104993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104993 Ehrlich MV, Hilber CAL, Schöni O (2018) Institutional settings and urban sprawl: Evidence from Europe. J Hous Econ 42(C):4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2017.12.002 ESPON (2009) ESPON Project 2.3.2. Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies From EU to Local Level. Final Report. ESPON, European Commission, Luxembourg. https://www.espon. eu/programme/projects/espon-2006/policy-impact-projects/governance-territorial-and-urbanpolicies. Accessed 4 August 2021 European Commission (1999) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, Luxembourg Faludi A (2018) Historical Institutionalist account of European spatial planning. Plan Perspect 33(4):507–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1437554 Fürst D (2009) Planning cultures en route to a better understanding of the planning process? In: Knieling J, Othengrafen F (eds) Planning cultures in Europe. Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Routledge, London: 23–38 Getimis P, Reimer M, Blotevogel H (2014) Conclusion: multiple trends of continuity and change. In: Reimer M, Getimis P, Blotevogel H (eds) Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. Routledge, London, pp 278–305 Haase A (2020) Covid-19 as a social crisis and justice challenge for cities. Frontiers in Sociology 5:583638. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.583638 Hamdan M (2020) Law enforcement on the issuance of construction permits violating spatial planning in Medan City. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 452:012073. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1755-1315/452/1/012073 Hendler P (2015) The history of spatial planning and land use in South Africa. In: The Urban Land Paper Series—Volume 1. South African Cities Network, Braamfontein, p 21– 33. Available at https://www.sacities.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Urban-Land-Series-Vol1-Released-2015-3.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2021 Hoch C (2019) Pragmatic spatial planning. Practical Theory for Professionals. Routledge, London Hołuj A (2018) Economic and ecological externalities in spatial planning. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Oeconomica 4(336):137–155. https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6018.336.09 Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2001) The problem of identifying land use spillovers: Measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. Am J Agric Econ 83(3):698–704. https:// doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00193 Janin-Rivolin U (2012) Planning systems as institutional technologies: A proposed conceptualization and the implications for comparison. Plan Pract Res 27(1):63–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02697459.2012.661181

18

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

Kiessling N, Putz M (2020) Assesing the regional governance capacities of spatial planning: The case of the canton of Zurich. Reg Stud Reg Sci 7(1):183–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376. 2020.1776631 Kok N, Monkkonen P, Quigley JM (2014) Land use regulations and the value of land and housing: an intra-metropolitan analysis. J Urban Econ 81(C):136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2014. 03.004 Lai S, Leone F, Zoppi C (2020) Covid-19 and spatial planning. TeMA—Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, Special Issue:231–246. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/6846 Larsson G (2006) Spatial planning systems in Western Europe: An overview. IOS Press, Amsterdam MacFeely S (2016) Opportunism over strategy: a history of regional policy and spatial planning in Ireland. Int Plan Stud 21(4):377–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2016.1162403 Markowski T (2010) Planowanie przestrzenne i instrumenty jego realizacji w s´wietle teorii ułomnych rynków. In: Lorens P, Martyniuk–P˛eczek J (eds) Zarz˛adzanie rozwojem przestrzennym miast. Wydawnictwo Urbanista, Gda´nsk Markowski T (2013) Teoria sprawiedliwo´sci i interes publiczny jako podstawa budowania regulacyjnego systemu planowania przestrzennego: konceptualizacja problemu. Studia KPZK 153(1):12–23 Matsushita T, Meguro K, Kubota A (2018) Comparative study of planning history, spatial development and sociological significance of the back alley in Yangon and Singapore. Paper presented at The 18th International Planning History Society Conference, Yokohama (Japan), July 2018. Available at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268414901.pdf. Accessed 06 Dec 2021 Moroni S (2007) Planning, liberty and the rule of law. Plan Theory 6(2):146–163. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1473095207077586 Moroni S, Buitelaar E, Sorel N, Cozzolino S (2020) Simple planning rules for complex urban problems: Toward legal certainty for spatial flexibility. J Plan Educ Res 40(3):320–331. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18774122 Müller- D (2015) The present move to reforms in spatial planning should also include the forest law. Schweiz Z Forstwes 166(4):223–225. https://doi.org/10.3188/szf.2015.0223 Muñoz D, Salas IM, Cuadrado JB (2017) International comparison of the changing dynamics of governance approaches to land development and their results for public value capture. Cities 71:123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.05.012 Muñoz D, Tasan-Kok T (2010) Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. Eur Plan Stud 18(7):1097–1131. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09654311003744191 Muñoz D (2014) Urban governance, property rights, land readjustment and public value capturing. Eur Urban Reg Stud 21(1):60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776412440543 Nadin V (2012) International comparative planning methodology: Introduction to the theme issue. Plan Pract Res 27(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.669928 Nadin V, Fernández-Maldonado A, Zonneveld W, Stead D, D˛abrowski M, Piskorek K, Sarkar A, Schmitt P, Smas L, Cotella G, Rivolin U, Solly A, Berisha E, Pede E, Seardo B, Komornicki ´ T, Goch K, Bednarek-Szczepa´nska M, Degórska B, Szejgiec-Kolenda B, Sleszy´ nski P, Lüer C, Böhme K, Nedovic-Budic Z, Williams B, Varghese J, Colic N, Knaap G, Csák L, Faragó L, Mezei C, Kovács I, Pamer Z, Reimer M, Münter A (2018) COMPASS—Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe Applied Research 2016–2018 Final Report. ESPON, European Commission, Luxembourg Nadin V, Stead D (2008) European spatial planning systems, social, models and learning. disP—The Planning Review 44(172):35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001 Nadin V, Stead D, D˛abrowski M, Fernandez-Maldonado AM (2020) Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: trends across Europe. Reg Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020. 1817363 Newman P, Thornley A (1996) Urban planning in Europe. International competition, national systems and planning projects. Routledge, London-New York

Bibliography

19

Nowak M (2017) The role and effects of case—Low in spatial competition. An analysis of selected cases. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 265:172–180 Nowak M, Gagakuma D, Blaszke M (2020) Spatial management systems in Ghana and Poland— ´ Comparison of solutions and selected problems. World of Real Estate Journal. Swiat Nieruchomo´sci 1(111):59–77. https://doi.org/10.14659/WOREJ.2020.111.04 Pisano C (2020) Strategies for post-COVID cities: An insight to Paris En Commun and Milano 2020. Sustainability 12(15):5883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155883 Purkarthofer E, Humer A, Mattila H (2021) Subnational and dynamic conceptualisations of planning culture: the culture of regional planning and regional planning cultures in Finland. Plan Theory Pract. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1896772 Reimer M, Getimis P, Blotevogel H (2014) Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective. In: Reimer M, Getimis P, Blotevogel H (eds) Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. Routledge, London-New York, pp 1–20 Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ, Soer L (2009) Sustainable urban development and the challenge of policy integration: an assessment of planning tools for integrating spatial and environmental planning in the Netherlands. Environ Plann B Plann Des 36(3):417–431. https://doi.org/10.1068/b34052 Santos A, Virtudes A (2020) Spatial planning system: Acomparative analysis East-Timor/Portugal. IOP ConfSer Earth Environ Sci 609:012097. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/609/1/012097 Savini F (2016) Don’t blame public law: The legal articulation of certainty in Amsterdam land-use planning. Town Plan Rev 87(4):459–479. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2016.29 Segura S, Pedregal B (2017) Monitoring and evaluation framework for spatial plans: a Spanish case study. Sustainability 9(10):1706. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101706 Shandas V, von Haaren C, Shimizu H, Alterman R, Lovett AA (2019) Perspectives from outside the EU: The influence of legal and planning frameworks on landscape planning. In: von Haaren C, Lovett AA, Albert C (eds) Landscape planning with ecosystem services. Springer, Cham, p 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1681-7 Slaev AD, Kovachev A, Nozharova B, Daskalova D, Nikolov P, Petrov P (2019) Overcoming the failures of citizen participation: The relevance of the liberal approach in planning. Plan Theory 18(4):448–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095219848472 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Legutko P, Nowak M (2020) The contemporary economic costs of spatial chaos: evidence from Poland. Land 9:214. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land9070214 Stead D (2021) Conceptualizing the policy tools of spatial planning. J Plan Lit 36(3):297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412221992283 Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (2017) Planning cultures and histories: Influences of the evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns. In: Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (eds) Planning cultures and histories. The evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns, Routledge, Londyn, p 1–6 Steele W, Ruming K (2012) Flexibility versus certainty: Unsettling the land-use planning Shibboleth in Australia. Plan Pract Res 27(2):155–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.662670 van Straalen FM (2013) The relationship between land policy and spatial planning: An explanatory history of the interaction of land policy and spatial planning in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the International Academic Association on Planning, Law and Property Rights, Portland, OR (USA), 13–15 February 2013. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/therelationship-between-land-policy-and-spatial-planning-an-expl. Accessed 06 December 2021 Tarakçı S, Türk S¸ S¸ (2020) Shaping of flexibility in urban renewal legal sources in Turkey and its effect on practices. International Journal of Architecture and Planning 8(2):652–671. https://doi. org/10.15320/ICONARP.2020.131 Tewdwr-Jones M (2004) Spatial planning: Principles, practices and cultures. Journal of Planning Law 57(5):560–569 Vanheusden B (2010) The relation between spatial planning law and soil remediation law. J Eur Environ Plan Law 7(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/161372710X12676263561755

20

1 Theoretical and Legal Conditions of Spatial Management Systems

Waterhout B, Faludi AKF, Stead D, Zonneveld W, Milder J, Nadin V (2009) Reinventing spatial planning in a borderless Europe: emergent themes. Paper prepared for the 23rd Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) ‘Why can’t the future be more like the past’, Liverpool, UK, 15–18 July 2009. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:bd32c582-e0a7-4725883a-52e50a13f0fc. Accessed 4 August 2021 Williams R, Wood B (2018) Urban land and property market in The United Kingdom. Routledge, London Yenice MS (2012) Planning history and spatial development of Konya City, Erciyes University Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 28(4):343–350. Available at http://fbedergi. erciyes.edu.tr/index.php/fen-bilimleri-dergisi/article/view/249. Accessed 6 December 2021

Chapter 2

Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Abstract This chapter will describe the critical conditions and effects of spatial development in Poland, along with an indication of the most important problems, including costs resulting from poor spatial organization of various systems. These issues will be presented and organized according to two keys: a.

b.

Historical, i.e., the evolution of various spatial development structures over time, including the settlement system, transport “skeleton,” land use, etc. In this way, the conditions of contemporary spatial development and its effects will be shown, the most noticeable (severe) of which is spatial, generating huge external costs (natural, economic, and social); Territorial, related to the geographical scale, referring to the classic three levels (national, regional, and local).

Keywords Spatial development of Poland · Evolution of Polish territorial structure · Settlement system of Poland · Geographical conditions of development

2.1 Introduction The observed spatial development is a result of historical and contemporary processes. On the one hand, these are universal (e.g., globalization, and in the European Union, more or less noticeable convergence of farming methods resulting from environmental directives, water directives, etc.) and individual, country-specific. In the case of Poland, these are above all the coastal and generally lowland relief, moderate climate, polycentrism of the urban system, dispersion of the rural settlement network, and, until recently, strong infrastructural backwardness, especially in transport. At the same time, the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and Poland’s accession to the European Union resulted in substantial political, social, and economic transformations that left their mark on the space used by people. However, the spatial and regional changes that are taking place in Poland today have an intense and not always desirable course. In the opinion of basically the entire scientific and expert community, Polish space, understood in spatial development, is in a state of crisis (Markowski 2013; Karwi´nska 2015; Lorens 2016; Kowalewski © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. J. Nowak et al., Spatial Planning in Poland, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96939-4_2

21

22

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

et al. 2018). In Polish literature, this state is most often identified and analyzed in terms of: – ecological imbalance of natural systems (Kistowski 2019), especially in zones with increased anthropopression, including suburban zones of major cities (GutryKorycka 2005; Solon 2009; Degórska 2012) and tourist zones (Dziegie´c 1995; ´ Swigost 2015); – economic inefficiency of actors: households (Lity´nski and Hołuj 2017), business and public entities, including local governments (Smutek 2017); – poor or deteriorating quality of life (Masik 2010; Mikuła and Walaszek 2016); – spatial conflicts (Hibszer 2013; Grochowska and Małecka 2020); – administrative and legal inefficiencies of territorial governance (Wagner 2016; Nowak 2017). In a broad sense, it is spatial disorder or chaos, implicitly understood as “lack of spatial order.” Kowalewski et al. (2018) define spatial chaos as: a lack of order, harmony, and desirable and rational structural and functional relationships between the various components of spatial development and functions of the spatial structure resulting in a decrease in the efficiency and effectiveness of socio-economic processes and quality of life. Spatial chaos means, in the particular, poor and inefficient spatial organization of various forms of human activity, the collision of natural, social, and economic functions, improper land use (especially from the point of view of optimal use of natural resources), as well as disharmony and poor landscape aesthetics (i.e., ugliness). (Kowalewski et al. 2018: 22)

The problem of poor (defective, dysfunctional, harmful) spatial development concerns all classic levels of spatial planning: national, regional, and local, although the conditions for individual territorial scales are different. In Poland, the problems associated with the phenomena and processes in suburban areas, which after 1989 were exposed to the expansion of practically uncontrolled urbanization, are relatively best recognized. The most general and, at the same time, concise but probably entirely truthful explanation of the spatial chaos in Poland is poor space management. Generally, it results from historical and contemporary conditions (Table 2.1). Table 2.1 Causes of contemporary spatial chaos in Poland Historical (genetic classification)

Contemporary (subject classification)

The unevenness of development processes in different historical territories (especially the impact of partitions in the nineteenth century)

Modernization and post-modernization (e.g., globalization, new urbanism)

Predatory and wasteful wartime occupation (World Wars I and II)

Psychological and social

The command-control system in the People’s Republic of Poland (1945–1989)

Legal and planning

´ Source based on Sleszy´ nski et al. (2020a)

2.1 Introduction

23

The historical reasons stem from the political, cultural, legal, and administrative differences in various parts of the contemporary territory of Poland that have developed over the past centuries, especially during the partitions (the end of the eighteenth century–the beginning of the twentieth century), the devastating warfare (including the period of both world wars) and the robber character of the occupation economy, and finally the specificity of the centrally controlled economy and the communist system in general before 1989. Therefore, the current state of spatial development is deeply rooted in Poland’s complicated and difficult history (W˛ecławowicz 1996). It is because the spatial structure is the result of the general relations existing in society. In other words, it is a derivative or a particular case of social structure (Ley 1983). Therefore, without considering the historical factors of development, it is impossible to properly understand contemporary spatial development, including spatial order and chaos issues. Therefore, in the following part of the monograph, it is justified to introduce the most essential premises that determined the causes of spatial chaos at different territorial scales for reasons inherent in historical processes. On the other hand, contemporary causes can be broadly divided into legal and planning, modernization, and psychological and social. While the historical division refers to the genesis of events in time, in the case of contemporary determinants, it is more a subject classification that draws attention to broad but coherent aspects of socio-economic, legal, and administrative life. Of particular importance are the legal and planning and legal and urban conditions, which have already been distinguished in Chapter 1.

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development 2.2.1 The Period Before and During World War II (Until 1945) The historical causes of spatial chaos in Poland stem from the complex evolution over time of regional settlement and urban planning systems (both urban and rural). It was especially the case with changes in the geographical range of various states’ political power and ongoing wars. In different periods of history, different states have had different management arrangements in their territories. Some elements of these arrangements have a history dating back to medieval times, and the most recent stem from post-World War II modes of governance. In this context, Poland still has strong spatial and socio-economic differences resulting from the partition of Poland in the nineteenth century. In Poland, as much as 45% of the length of interstate borders is less than 100 years old (Sobczy´nski and Wosiak 2021), and the stability of borders is quite similar in other post-Soviet countries of Central Europe (except Slovakia). The influence of history on contemporary spatial differentiation is systematically confirmed by research in regional terms in very different aspects: political (Parysek et al. 1991), socio-economic (Degórski

24

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

´ 2006; Winiarczyk-Ra´zniak and Ra´zniak 2011), and even environmental (Sleszy´ nski and Solon 2017). In modern history, the scale of border changes in Central Europe in the nineteenth– twentieth centuries was basically unprecedented in Europe. Generally, within the current borders of Poland, we can distinguish four great historical regions whose political, sociocultural, and economic past still leaves its mark on the contemporary structures of land development (Fig. 2.1): The Congress Poland (former Russian

Fig. 2.1 Length of the shortest dendrite (minimum spanning tree, i.e., the shortest path) between address points per capita by communes, 2018 (calculations by Dr. Paweł Sudra). Source based on the list of address points and precise boundaries of communes (Central Office of Geodesy and Cartography) and population (Local Data Bank of Statistics Poland)

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development

25

partition with the Bialystok region), Galicia (former Prussian partition), Greater Poland with Upper Silesia and Kashubia (mainly former Prussian partition), and the Western and Northern Territories (granted to Poland following the decisions of the victorious powers after World War II). Current spatial development has been influenced primarily by urbanization and industrialization processes. Urban development was much faster in the Prussian and German partition than in the Russian partition. The division of the country between the partitioning powers resulted in different policies. Russia pursued a policy of densifying population centers, which favored the current dispersion of buildings. In southern Poland, the most significant factor of housing dispersion was agrarian overpopulation, resulting in the division of settlements into tiny plots. As a result, the settlement efficiency in the former Congress Poland and Galicia is much lower than in the former Prussian partition and the Western and Northern Territories (Fig. 2.1). The country’s division into partitioned territories occurred when the countries of Western Europe, and to a lesser extent Southern Europe, were undergoing intense industrialization (the Industrial Revolution) and urbanization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Berlanstein 1992). Poland “missed” this moment for reasons beyond its control, entering after World War I as a relatively backward country and composed of various administrative-territorial systems that survived in some cases until the end of the twentieth century (e.g., geodetic systems, local cadastral mappings, land registry systems, etc.). However, the most substantial impact of the partitions is revealed on a regional scale. It is not visible directly, but it is expressed in the deterioration of the efficiency, effectiveness, accessibility, etc., of various systems, especially infrastructure. Due to the impossibility of overcoming the hitherto existing backwardness in this respect, for example, from Warsaw to Wrocław, one travels by rail via Pozna´n, thus adding to the distance, operating costs, and time. The effect of differences in the historical and territorial development of the territory of modern Poland is the unevenness of spatial development. Significant differences in the advancement of urbanization processes resulted in different conditions of spatial chaos in different parts of the country. In the former Russian partition (Fig. 2.2A) and Galicia (Fig. 2.2B), there is a clear tendency toward dispersal and “sprawling” development. On the other hand, in the former Prussian partition (Fig. 2.2C) and especially in the post-German areas (Fig. 2.2D), the dispersion of buildings seems to be lower, and the borders of many settlements, including towns, are morphologically and physiognomically more explicit. In the interwar period, Poland faced a considerable challenge of rebuilding and adjusting its socio-economic systems based on different settlement systems (Krzy˙zanowski 1924). The outbreak of World War II stopped implementing ambitious plans to build freeways and expressways that would bind the system of cities together and link them into a single whole. A still underestimated determinant of the contemporary spatial chaos is the liquidation and looting socio-economic policy of the aggressor states in the Polish lands, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It had both a direct impact associated with war damage and an indirect one.

26

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 2.2 Development and land use in different historical-cultural areas of modern Poland a. Zambrów vicinity (Podlaskie voivodeship, former Russian partition), b.Tarnów vicinity (Małopolskie voivodeship, former Austrian partition — Polish Galicia), c. Gniezno vicinity (Wielkopolskie ˙ voivodeship, former Prussian partition), d. Zaga´ n vicinity (Lubuskie voivodeship, Western and Northern Territories). Source Google Map

In the former case, the fact that in the contemporary historical and cultural landscape of Poland, as opposed to, e.g., the Czech Republic and France, there are so few urban and architectural dominant features in the form of, e.g., castles usually erected on the hills, positively shaping the spatial order and cultural landscape, is a grim and never-replaced legacy of the warfare of the Swedish Deluge back in the sixteenth century. As a result, the vast majority of Polish towns either do not have so-called “old towns,” or the original old town urban complexes have been preserved only in residual form. In addition, especially during both world wars, the exploitation of forests and other natural resources was particularly profligate. The conditions of today’s ugliness or shabbiness of city centers, lack of cultural monuments, but also the weakness of many natural structures lie in the destructive historical past. In the second case, i.e., as far as indirect causes are concerned, it concerned the post-war budget shortages of the resurgent state structures, in which the provision of funds for well-considered and costly urban planning measures, improving the quality of local development and the quality of life, clearly lost out to the needs of the general reconstruction of the country (e.g., construction of roads, industrial plants).

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development

27

2.2.2 The Communist Period (1945–1989) The post-war period is not uniform in terms of land use changes. The development strategy was based on centrally prepared (usually five-year) economic plans that assumed from the top-down the expected level of demand for specific goods and services, the money supply and inflation, the demand for labor and the distribution of production forces, the location, and structure of investments, and almost all other major indicators, elements, and phenomena of social and economic life that had their reflection in the geographical space. These plans were repeatedly changed or not implemented in practice, especially in terms of social development indicators (e.g., infrastructure equipment, living conditions, supply of consumer goods, etc.). The economy before 1989 was characterized by full employment, regardless of actual needs in particular sectors of activity. The leadership of the ruling Polish United Workers’ Party applied intense investment pressure in the economy, as it was believed that this would ensure rapid economic development. However, investments were directed mainly toward industry development, with strong underdevelopment of higher-order sectors. As a result, industrialization brought substantial employment in industry, especially heavy industry, i.e., mining and metallurgy. The lack of control mechanisms, widespread waste of resources, and detachment from modern technological thought resulted in material, labor, and energy intensity, and consequently in uncompetitiveness—even within the communist countries and general inefficiency of the economic system. This state of affairs was particularly exacerbated in the 1970s when Poland took out gigantic loans in Western European countries to be used for industrial and infrastructural investments. In practice, this made it possible to sustain consumption, delaying outbreaks of social discontent and the need to replace successive government teams. The inefficient economy was increasingly unable to satisfy the population’s growing needs or cope with global competition. People protested, and strikes took place, in which the factor of economic discontent was in principle even more important than the aspirations for independence, which denied the subordination of power to the Soviet Union. The most significant revolts took place in 1956 (Pozna´n), 1970 (the coast—especially the Tri-City, Szczecin, Słupsk, and Elbl˛ag), 1976 (Radom and Ursus1 ), and 1980 (the rise of Solidarity, including the coast, Warsaw, Krakow, and Silesia). The transformation of spatial development in Poland in 1945–1989, including urbanization and industrialization processes, has many features in common with the development of the entire region of Central and Eastern Europe in that period (Enyedi 1990). However, assessing factors affecting the quality of spatial development during the centrally controlled economy is not simple and unambiguous. On the one hand, there was catastrophic environmental pollution and landscape destruction (Kassenberg and Rolewicz 1985), flawed, poorly executed, and accelerated urbanization caused cities’ economic and urban crises (Korcelli 1995). On the other hand, the efforts made to shape spatial order, protect the environment in many areas, and 1

Currently a district of Warsaw, at that time (1952–1977) an independent city.

28

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

rebuild the country from war damage are undeniable (Yakowicz 1979). However, despite many legal and urban planning solutions, rational spatial planning postulates remained most often in a declarative form, and the authorities had the decisive and final influence on location decisions and land use (W˛ecławowicz 1996). The separation of urban planning and politics (although some urban planning circles were actively involved in the planning and decision-making process) resulted in many collisions and socio-spatial conflicts. The majority of the population perceived spatial planning itself as one form of repression due to, among other things, forced expropriations. One of the largest expropriation schemes in Poland immediately after World War II was the seizure of land and buildings in Warsaw from private owners (but also pre-war social institutions) to the State Treasury. This has resulted in ownership problems, including those related to re-privatization, until modern times (Górczy´nska et al. 2019). Unregulated ownership issues, dating back in history to before World War II, are a severe constraint on the rational development of various urban structures in Poland. The communist period is also heterogeneous regarding spatial planning at different territorial scales (Piotrowska 2017). Immediately after World War II, planning concepts that were modern for the time (referring to pre-war Polish urban planning thought) and presented in the first plan for the country’s spatial development were not accepted by the communist authorities. The plan assumed a “geographical” approach, focused on developing individual regions, including the deconcentration of industry from Upper Silesia toward the north, i.e., along the axis connecting coal basins with the Baltic Sea (Leszczycki 1965). Meanwhile, the communist authorities subordinated spatial planning to economic planning, which focused on the interests of individual industries and businesses rather than territorial units or regions (W˛ecławowicz et al. 2006). Overall, during the communist period, the main processes and features of land use were: 1.

2.

3.

Forced industrialization, resulting in a demand for workers’ occupations and, in the conditions of closed borders, thus forcing strong migration within the country from the countryside to cities. Intense industrialization affected especially the southern part of the country, and to a lesser extent, its eastern part; The related accelerated urbanization, characterized by a rapid increase in virtually all size classes of urban centers, as well as an increase in the share of the urban population in the country’s population (according to the Statistics Poland, the urbanization rate was as follows: 1946—32%, 1960—48%, 1970— 52%, 1980—58%, 1989—61%): 1946—32.6%, 1960—48.0%, 1970—52.1%, 1980—58.4%, 1989—61.4%). It occurred at the same time as the depopulation of many regions of the country, especially in its eastern part (Eberhardt 1994). At the same time, depopulation is a permanent process observed in the entire post-war period (Fig. 2.3); Relatively slow structural transformations in rural areas and the fact that rural areas remained in a specific dichotomy: state-owned agriculture mainly

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development

29

Fig. 2.3 Areas with a decline in population in different periods in Poland by communes. Source based on censuses 1960–2011 and Local Data Bank (Statistics Poland)

30

4.

5.

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

in the west and in the north of the country and individual farming in the center, mainly in the east and south. At the same time, both types of farming were characterized by low productivity and profitability: in the first case, for systemic and economic reasons (inefficiency in the conditions of the centrally controlled economy) or agricultural and agrotechnical reasons (fragmentation of farms and technological backwardness in individual farming). Few enclaves of efficient agriculture, resulting from better agro-ecological conditions, rural culture, organization, as well as intergenerational traditions, etc., existed in Greater Poland (Wielkopolska), Kuyavia (Kujawy), Gda´nsk Pomerania (Pomorze Gda´nskie), Terra Lublinensis (Lubelszczyzna), and in the so-called vegetable and fruit-growing rings around the largest agglomerations, especially Warsaw; Strong underinvestment in infrastructure, both in macro-scale (lack of highways between most major agglomerations) and in local systems (lack of equipment in public transport, water and sewage systems, social services, etc.). It resulted from the primacy of employment at the expense of quality of life. Thus, in the first place, industrial plants and housing estates were built for the incoming population to meet the growing demand for labor, and only in the second place (or not at all) were the needs for the provision of services and transport connections between places of residence, work, and leisure considered; The already mentioned degradation of the environment, resulting primarily from the lack of priorities in development policy indicated in the paragraph above, but also from relatively low social awareness.

A relatively well-recognized issue is the impact of excessive industrialization during the communist period and urbanization that did not follow it, resulting in the effect of urbanization delay, the substitution of migration by commuting, etc. (Dziewo´nski 1972; Doma´nski 1997). The functional mismatch between different socio-economic and territorial systems greatly impacted the crisis in spatial management (Kassenberg and Rolewicz 1985), including the urban chaos that was already emerging at that time (Hamilton 1979; Dziewo´nski 1989). According to a considerable number of researchers, the specificity of spatial management and planning under the communist regime made it possible to distinguish spheres that could be defined as separate subject entities. Of these, the concept of the socialist city has won the most significant acclaim, especially in social geography and urban sociology (W˛ecławowicz 1992; Szczepa´nski 1993). Its most essential assumptions are as follows: – administrative and political centralization that resulted in the importance of political over local interests; – the privileged industrial function, usually characterized by the dominance of industrial professions in the employment structure. In many cities, the industrial function was introduced exceeding the actual needs and without considering the real possibilities of profitability of such projects;

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development

31

– ignoring the value of the land when making location decisions, which usually resulted in leaving large unused spaces or their extensive use. The result of such behavior is the excessively relaxed spatial structure of socialist cities; – the principles of egalitarianism were followed, which was particularly evident in settlement of the population regardless of location and quality preferences. The emerging population centers were random and mixed in terms of social groups. At the same time, settlements were created that were associated with a specific industrial plant. The imposition of the organization of social life around the workplace limited the chances for the unfettered formation of local communities in the city; – the introduction of monumental architecture, known as socialist realism and its replacement of traditional symbolic places. The subordination of space to ideological interests was also achieved by changing street names, rebuilding old urban layouts, removing non-communist and religious national symbols, covering churches with tall buildings, introducing propaganda objects, etc. The above characteristics and regularities (regularities) were formulated for the cities. Still, they are mainly characteristic of the entire settlement and spatial development system in the period of Poland’s centrally controlled economy before 1989. There also remained the problem of the “legacy,” also understood as the “post-socialist city.” In this context, G. W˛ecławowicz (2013) assesses that the old physical structure of the city will continue for some time to impose and restrict behaviors and social activities adapted to the new requirements of the market economy, and as a result, will increase the costs of urban functioning. It may turn out that the development of a city to meet future challenges will depend to the greatest extent on a thorough reconstruction of its spatial structure, which is a highly complicated, cost-intensive, and time-consuming task.

2.2.3 Spatial Socio-Economic Transformation (1989–2004): External and Internal Factors The fall of the so-called Iron Curtain in 1989 caused a fundamental change in external and internal conditions affecting spatial development. Political breakthrough in 1989 initiated an intensive transformation of the existing or creating a new spatial structure of the economy and society. During the first years, almost all major legal and organizational frameworks affecting the development of public and market entities were changed. In the case of external conditions, there was a collapse of the previous directions of political ties, including economic ties, aimed at the socialist countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON), in practice dominated by the Soviet Union. Already in the first decade, there was a reorientation of international trade toward Western countries. It was caused by significant investments by such countries as Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, France, and Great Britain to buy out Polish

32

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

industrial enterprises and take over their markets. After the crisis of the 1980s, they were often in poor financial condition and required restructuring, for which Poland did not have the funds. These investments had a cumulative value of $3 billion in 1993, less than $7 billion in 1995, and approached $100 billion in 2005. A significant part of these investments was directed to those market areas that provided high return rates on relatively low investments (the financial sector, trade). It was not until 2003 that the share of greenfield investments exceeded 50% of the total investments. It was connected with Poland’s approaching accession to the European Union structures and the country’s perception as more stable, creating more significant opportunities for embeddedness. Increased foreign investment activity areas are primarily large, fastest-growing agglomerations, led by Warsaw, Pozna´n, Tri-City, Krakow, Wrocław, and the Katowice conurbation. With the progressive processes of globalization, Poland has become an essential country in the international division of labor as a subcontractor of industrial (assembly) production. It resulted in the change mentioned above in the direction of economic ties, affecting the broadly understood spatial development: the settlement system (through the attractiveness of housing due to jobs stimulated by the inflow of foreign funds), the construction hierarchy of high-level transport routes, and others. Proximity to the border with Germany turned out to be necessary, having the most tremendous significance in restructuring industrial investments. In 2000, from districts in western Poland such as towns: Polkowice (Dolno´sl˛askie voivodship), Głubczyce (Opolskie voivodship), or Tuchola (Kujawsko-Pomorskie voivodship), 99% of exports were directed to EU countries, while, e.g., in eastern Poland, this share generally did not exceed 30% (Komornicki 2003). In terms of the internal conditions, the following administrative and political reforms were of crucial importance for the development and spatial management processes in 1989–2004: restoration of self-governance at the lowest spatial planning level, i.e., in communes, in 1990, and change of the country’s administrative system and division in 1999. In the former case, the liquidation of national councils and the establishment of communes with numerous socio-economic responsibilities and budgets meant that the most significant burden of responsibility for spatial organization fell on local communities. In 1995, the total revenue of the municipalities’ budgets (from all sources) amounted to 6.4 billion EUR (PLN 20.0 billion), whereas in 2003—14.4 billion EUR (PLN 63.5 billion).2 Since there was relatively high inflation at the time, these values can be compared relating to Poland’s GDP: in 1995, municipal revenues as a proportion of GDP were 5.9%, and in 2003—7.5% (in 2019—9.0%). Compared to the national income, these values may seem small, but given the scope of investment competencies (the Polish Act on Municipal Self-Government lists ten groups of competencies, including spatial order, real estate management, environmental protection, including maintenance of greenery, water, and sewage management, energy and waste management, 2

The original data in the cited publications are given in PLN, for the purposes of this monograph they have been converted using the Euro exchange rates prevailing at the relevant time.

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development

33

construction of local roads, bridges, squares, etc.), it is municipal governments and the local communities behind them that have become the main driving force for changes in spatial development. The administrative reform of 1999 introduced a three-tier structure of territorial division and was intended to streamline various government levels in the field. It replaced the former two-tier administrative division (communes and 49 voivodeships in 1975–1998). Sixteen self-governing provinces and 308 self-governing districts were created. The main political effect of the reform was a significant reduction in the role of the provincial governor favoring provincial self-government. This selfgovernment was left in charge of issues related to the shaping of the spatial order on a regional scale, including the construction and maintenance of certain types of the infrastructure of supra-municipal importance (e.g., selected categories of roads for automobile traffic, and later also the service of selected categories of railroad traffic). The reform authors assumed that the intermediate link between the voivodeship and commune levels should be the powiat. However, this middle level was given too few powers relating to the range and influence of the cities that were district capitals. On the other hand, many small and therefore financially weak powiats were created. The administrative reform accelerated the socio-economic polarization of the country. After 1999, the most significant centers’ migration attractiveness became capitals of voivodeships, including the so-called “Big Five” (Warsaw, the capital, and Krakow, Pozna´n, Tri-City, and Wrocław) increased even more. At the same time, the importance of former provincial cities has declined (Fig. 2.4). In 2019, 15% of registered internal migration concerned the five most attractive urban centers mentioned

Fig. 2.4 Changes in the migration attractiveness index (MAI) of various urban and rural areas (communes) in Poland between 1989 and 2019. MAI was calculated as the balance of migration work, i.e., the number of arrivals and departures multiplied by movement distance (see detailed ´ explanations: Sleszy´ nski [2020]). Source based on data from Statistics Poland

34

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

above, and this share doubled after 1989. At that time, the share of suburban zones has also almost doubled (to over 30%—this share includes the suburban zones of the “big five”). On the other hand, the share of small and medium-sized towns and other large cities declined, while it remained in the case of rural areas. It means that after 1989 the urban system became polarized in terms of its migration attractiveness. Since before 1989, Poland was a partially totalitarian country, the sudden liberation from the supervision of the communist authorities, controlling or trying to control (also through urban planning and architecture) resulted in an ideological void on the one hand, and spontaneous development of entrepreneurship on the other. The transformational shock that followed 1989 also brought about a major societal shift, breaking with previous values and replacing them with new ones. When land rent mechanisms were suddenly restored in the first period of transformation, it was characteristic to locate various commercial functions in the most attractive places, aiming to ensure the highest possible profit. Most often, this concerned ´ trade, which in the case of Warsaw was described as follows (Sleszy´ nski 2004): In the first half of the 1990s, the development of trade (…) was very spontaneous and disorderly. Apart from the bazaars that had existed before 1989, many groupings with very primitive organizations emerged in attractive places in terms of transport. Any potential vendor could, without major problems, stand in almost any place and sell goods. In the central areas, the trade chaos was exacerbated by the impending administrative reform of 1994/95, in which the Warsaw-Centre municipality was spun off from the existing seven districts, as on the eve of the division of districts, it was difficult to develop a sensible trade and spatial policy, to issue permits for trade, etc.

The spontaneous development of human activity, statistically recorded by establishing approximately 1 million mostly family-owned and one-person businesses in the first period of transformation, met in time with an intensification of the impact of new ideological currents of global significance. It was first the negation of the cultural tradition mentioned above, based on the classical understanding of the fundamental values constituting the society, derived from the Platonic triad of the good, the truth, and the beauty, and attempts to replace it with the postmodernist ideology, negating the stability of the hitherto moral and aesthetic, and even legal constructs. Leading postmodernists (Z. Bauman, J. Derrida, J. Habermas, and others) pointed out the fluidity, relativity, and relativity of basic concepts, even relating to science, including the fundamental paradigm of the scientific method, which was to become merely “one of the acceptable forms of discourse and narrative.” In the above context, it is symptomatic that after 1990 there was an evident disappearance of the dialogue between science and the sphere of decision-making, visible especially in urban planning and spatial planning, at different territorial levels. Especially in the first period of transformation, legislative initiatives were generally carried out without public consultation. Scientific studies created for spatial planning purposes often met with strong official resistance or were ignored. It is well illustrated by the discussion on the A2 freeway route and the need to direct it some distance from Warsaw in the form of a ring road. One of the most critical positions in this matter was taken by S. Kozłowski (1997), who stated among others:

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development

35

It is puzzling that such a momentous investment [freeway construction] has not received serious discussion and analysis. (…) The 1993 Resolution of the Council of Ministers has not been published anywhere, and the Agency carefully guards more detailed plans of the freeway routes for Construction and Motorway Operation. (…) However, research institutes such as the Polish Academy of Sciences have never been invited to design the road network. Freeway construction cannot be limited to the narrow circle of engineering problems. It is a huge undertaking also in the field of natural, geographical and humanistic studies. (Kozlowski 1997)

The ideological void that followed 1989 left post-communist Poland extremely vulnerable to the influence of cultural postmodernism. Awakened social aspirations, resulting from the “grayness” of life in the communist Poland and the popularization of the consumer lifestyle, washed away the system of values professed so far and translated into urban planning and shaping the human environment. The thesis can be put forward here that in this way, the social chaos connected with the crisis of values manifested itself in the form of spatial chaos.

2.2.4 Poland in the European Union (2004 to Date) After Poland acceded to the European Union, the inflow of EU aid significantly accelerated the country’s modernization. In particular, the last two decades have witnessed a spectacular development of the expressway network. At the beginning of 2021, the network of these roads was already 8.2 thousand km, while in 2004, it was only about 800 km. It was due to the huge, compared to developed countries, infrastructural backwardness. The expansion of freeways and expressways is Poland’s most extensive investment plan after 1989. It affects almost all areas of socio-economic life, including in particular internal cohesion and improved spatial accessibility (Rosik et al. 2015). Unfortunately, sometimes serious mistakes were made when choosing the order of construction of individual routes. As a result of lack of investment priority for internal inter-agglomeration demand, Warsaw, as the country’s capital city, was included in the modern road network, i.e., the network of freeways and express roads in Europe, only in 2012. The lack of inter-metropolitan connections of the capital city and attempts to degrade it from the position of the country’s main transport hub is the most serious mistakes of the transport policy of the last decade of the last century. Similarly problematic is the transport isolation of Szczecin (potential outward pull toward Berlin), the lack of Via Baltica node in Białystok, or the lack of priority for connecting the capital with Gda´nsk and the coast along the Vistula River. At the same time, even before Poland’s accession to the European Union, the settlement system in Poland has undergone significant changes due to intensified competition between centers in the free market (Korcelli 1997). The uneven development of cities and differentiation of their administrative and settlement hierarchies are taking place. It is believed that the country’s regional development has a polarizing character, contributing to the deepening of intra-regional differences in the

36

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

level of development. However, the evaluation of this process in the last two decades varies (Churski 2005; Gorzelak 2006; Doma´nski 2010; Lewandowska et al. 2015; Mazur and Mazurek 2020). Indeed, there is a fundamental dispute about whether polarization is a necessary condition for achieving development. On the other hand, there is a consensus that especially peripheral small and medium-sized urban centers (Kwiatek-Sołtys 2011), poorly restructured industrial areas (Krzysztofik et al. 2019), ´ and finally peripheral depopulation areas (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2017a) are the most disadvantaged in the processes of development and land use changes. Data on registrations and deregistrations clearly show that the migratory attractiveness of the centers of the so-called “Big Five” continues to grow. The share of those cities (except for the Katowice conurbation and Łód´z) in inter-municipal migrations in 2019 increased to nearly 30% of the total migratory labor in the country, i.e., almost three times within 30 years since the turn of 1989 (Fig. 2.5). Although some of these cities have started to lose their absolute number of inhabitants (Pozna´n), this is only related to the process of suburbanization. It is in line with the process of metropolization. From the perspective of spatial development, in the above context of metropolization, it is vital to accelerate modernization processes and improve living conditions. A strong housing boom followed Poland’s accession to the European Union, the causes of which were the improvement of material conditions (income) of part of the society, the increase in living aspirations with a low level of housing needs satisfaction, the entry into social maturity and the labor market of the baby boomers from 1974–1985, and economic liberalization (Kaczmarek and Mikuła 2019). This demand was met by extensive lending by banks, associated with falling inflation and

Fig. 2.5 Share of migration work (inflows and outflows) of the “Big Five” centers in the total migration work in Poland, 1989–2019. Source based on Statistics Poland data (matrix of check-ins and check-outs)

2.2 Evolution of Poland’s Spatial Development

37

Fig. 2.6 Number of dwellings completed in Poland, 2005–2019 and their allocation structure by main types of areas. Source based on the Local Data Bank (Statistics Poland)

lower interest rates, making the purchase of housing possible for a more significant portion of the population than before. In the years 2005–2019, 2278 thousand dwellings were completed in Poland, of which approx. 25% of the number and more than 30% of the surface area were in the suburban zones of cities with at least 20 thousand residents (Fig. 2.6). Of these zones, the highest relative development dynamics were noted in the areas surrounding the cities of the said: “Big Five” (Warsaw, capital city, as well as Krakow, Pozna´n, TriCity, and Wrocław) where on average over 80 dwellings per 1000 residents were completed. It means that approximately every 3rd or 4th family living around these cities lives in a newly constructed unit, often a single-family home. The most substantial investment boom occurred when the new Act on Spatial Planning and Development of 2003 came into effect. The simultaneous statutory expiry of the so-called old local plans was adopted before January 1, 1995. As a result of these processes, a substantial dispersion of development took place in Poland, resulting in spatial chaos lasting for many decades to come. Due to the historical factors discussed above, it was most dangerous in central and eastern Poland as it overlapped with the existing, quite strong deconcentration of rural settlements. Considering demographic trends and the partial satisfaction of housing demand, it is difficult to expect a more intensified investment movement in the suburban zones of cities in the foreseeable future. Development in these areas will continue, but probably not as intensively. However, there is a new threat already visible in large parts of the country. It concerns the development of recreational, holiday, etc., construction, i.e., the so-called second homes (Czarnecki 2014). It is associated both with an increase in wealth and the importance of recreation and the so-called healthy lifestyle, as well as a gradual improvement in spatial accessibility of hitherto peripheral regions with high landscape values.

38

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic 2.3.1 International Links, Including Transport Links From the point of view of spatial planning, three issues are fundamental. First, as the largest country in Central Europe, Poland occupies a unique transit position between East and West and North and South of Europe. As a result, concepts of European development emphasize Poland’s “keystone” location. However, the significance of this feature is interpreted differently regarding functional linkages, i.e., the degree of peripherality (despite the “keystone” location, the Polish territory lies far from the traditional economic core of the continent). The second issue is the place in the continental system of cities, related to the inter-metropolitan competition between Warsaw and other large cities of the region, including in particular Berlin, Vienna, Prague, and Budapest (Korcelli 1997). The third factor is the arrangement of the essential elements of the natural environment, including the Baltic location, the lowland, and belt (latitudinal) landscape zones of most of the country’s area, the orographic barrier of the Carpathians and the Sudetes in its south, and the southern arrangement of the main rivers. The above three factors: geopolitical, settlement-economic, and physicalgeographical, most strongly influence the remaining elements of spatial development on a macro-scale, especially the formation of transport links. Until around 2000, the transit factor (the concept of north–south and east–west freeways) dominated in the shaping of road corridors (car, TEN-T network, and partly railroad). After Poland acceded to the European Union, more emphasis was placed on internal linkages to better link the polycentric system of major cities (Komornicki and SzejgiecKolenda 2020). Nevertheless, today’s main transport links refer to the gravitational pull from the direction of Germany, including the central, dominant role of Berlin in the concentric-radial network of links to the east of this metropolis (Fig. 2.7).

2.3.2 National and Interregional Scales: Planning and Processes of Development and Stagnation At the national scale, the polycentrism of the urban settlement network, the structure of rural settlements along with the agrarian and land use structure, the already mentioned characteristics of the physical and geographical environment, and contemporary processes in the population distribution and economic activity are crucial for the present and future shaping of spatial development. The first two of these are characterized by strong historical inertia. Poland is considered to have a very high degree of polycentrism in its settlement system (Hall and Pain 2006). It has a size dimension primarily, and to a lesser

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

39

Fig. 2.7 International linkages in Central Europe by GDP potential, 2004 and 2018 Gravity model: ´ distance squared, low generalization of linkage strength (Source P. Sleszy´ nski [2008, modified and actualized], based on Eurostat data)

extent, a spatial dimension. The first regularity is that the ordering of settlements in order of their mass, measured, e.g., by the number of inhabitants, does not reveal too large disproportions, and in principle, coincides with the exponential model with a small exponent (according to Zipf’s law—a discrete probability distribution). Polycentricity in space, on the other hand, means relatively uniform distribution of cities in different size categories, relative to the distance between them. In this case, too, there are no glaring disproportions, apart from the well-known fact of weaker urbanization of the areas located in the eastern and northern parts of the country, conditioned by historical and natural factors (Szulc 1972). On the following map, which shows the optimal directions of inter-city connections (Fig. 2.8), it is worth noting the polycentric system of connections based on Warsaw, Krakow, Katowice, Wrocław, Bydgoszcz, Toru´n, and Łód´z, which stands out in the settlement system of Poland and entire Central Europe. Another such place is the area between Katowice, Krakow, Budapest, and Vienna-Bratislava. The strength and directions of gravitational pull indicate that these areas are particularly predisposed to cooperation. In the case of the first system, these pressures, resulting from the polycentric nature of the Polish urban system, became the basis for the formulation of the concept of the Central Hexagon, and then the Polish Network Metropolis, as the basic settlement system of the country (Korcelli et al. 2010), which also determines the priority of building highways. The polycentricity of Poland’s urban settlement network is a crucial determinant of the country’s spatial development, as it conditions many positive mechanisms of

40

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Fig. 2.8 The settlement network of Poland in the context of its surroundings and the main potential ´ links. Source Eurostat, Sleszy´ nski 2020 (the “Visegrad Atlas”)

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

41

socio-economic development at all territorial scales, not only national and regional but also local. First, there are no smaller or larger disproportions, and thus socioeconomic-spatial systems, including spatial development, do not show excessive tendencies to concentration, adverse feedback effects, etc. Second, there is a greater likelihood of synergies, i.e., possible benefits, from connecting different parts of a more extensive system, in this case, a settlement, through transport networks. Thirdly, thanks to the two regularities mentioned above, the operating costs of various socio-economic systems are reduced, and thus the competitiveness of urban centers increases. For local systems, this also means greater efficiency, as they are part of higher-order systems. As a result, polycentric systems understood as national and regional systems, are more sustainable (Malý 2019). The above rationale leads the European Union regional policy to pay special attention to preserving and strengthening polycentric systems (Kloosterman and Musterd 2001; Faludi 2004). However, it is emphasized that these objectives are not satisfactorily achieved (Vandermotten et al. 2008). The European Spatial Development Perspective identifies as one of the EU’s objectives, among others, “to achieve sustainable development by strengthening economic and social cohesion and more spatially balanced development in all EU regions through the promotion of polycentric urban systems and the strengthening of urban-rural partnerships.” Similarly, the role of polycentric development is emphasized by the EU Territorial Agenda 2020 (2011) and the Amsterdam Pact, which established the EU Urban Agenda (2016). As far as rural areas are concerned, Poland has exceptionally diverse types of rural settlements and uses (agricultural and others), e.g., size and morphology of villages, distances between villages and buildings, etc. Although, as mentioned, the borders of the partitions are still visible in the analysis of various indicators of socio-economic development, the historically shaped character of settlements and cultural landscape is systematically erased. According to detailed analyses, already in 2008, in just over 30% of the national territory, the share of buildings built after 1989 was above 25% ´ (Sleszy´ nski and Solon 2017). The critical fact is that the southern part of the country is dominated by large and relatively densely distributed villages for spatial planning. In contrast, the northern part is dominated by small and sparsely distributed villages (Fig. 2.9). These conditions are still poorly visible in strategies and other national and regional documents, and the dominant approach is to standardize all possible policies for the entire country or according to the anachronistic administrative delimitation of urban and rural areas. This anachronism consists of the fact that theoretically, the same treatment is given to rural areas in suburban and peripheral areas. It requires a different approach in shaping settlements and the accompanying infrastructure, especially in terms of the rationality and efficiency of investments. In rural areas, three types of processes are crucial for spatial planning: rural deagrarianization, depopulation of peripheral regions, and settlement sprawl in urbanizing areas (especially in suburban zones of cities of different sizes and in tourist zones through the so-called “second homes”). In the first case, it leads to a decline in the number of typically rural people living off agriculture and the disappearance of the smallest villages (Rosner and Wesołowska 2020). It may lead to

42

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Fig. 2.9 Structure of rural settlement in Poland, 2016. Source based on the Local Data Bank (Statistics Poland)

increased agricultural function productivity and problems of the spatial organization of population services and management of abandoned infrastructure (Heffner and Latocha 2020). It is estimated that about 75% of the national territory is depopu´ lated, which will increase in 2050 to up to 90% (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2018). At the same time, a significant number of municipalities are already overestimated in terms of the number of the actually inhabited population due to the lack of recording this in official registers. Hence, the scale of depopulation in Poland is also currently greater. The depopulation of rural areas, and for some time also of cities of various sizes, described above is a consequence but also a factor of social and economic underdevelopment. We are dealing here with a typical negative feedback loop (the so-called depopulation vicious circle). An excessive population outflow results in a faster aging of the age structure and a lower fertility rate since emigration concerns mainly the mobile, productive category. At the same time, the more frequent outflow of women than men results in age mismatch, i.e., the masculinization of rural areas and even lower chances for starting a family, thus reducing the birth rate. A low fertility

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

43

rate directly implies a lack of replacement of generations in the future and a slow (postponed) aging of the age structure. Decreasing population and changes in its age structure reduce local demand and thus economic development. This affects the reduced inflow of population, which further accelerates the population decline. In this way, the “vicious circle of depopulation” closes and begins again. A combination of unfavorable historical and contemporary conditions causes some regions to develop while others stagnate or sink into crisis. The depopulation of rural areas and smaller towns is one of the symptoms of local socioeconomic stagnation, being the basis for distinguishing the so-called problem areas ´ (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2018). Problem areas are mainly found in eastern and northern Poland (Fig. 2.10). Only five voivodeships concentrate about 2/3 of the number of gminas of this type: Lubelskie, Mazowieckie, Podlaskie, Warmi´nsko-Mazurskie, and Zachodniopomorskie. The map also shows that some problem areas concern the borderlands of the provinces. These “internal peripheries” result from a considerable distance from the provincial capitals, which are the “engines” of development in their regions. As regards suburbanization and the growth of suburban zones, these processes have been taking place in Poland for many decades. Still, since the mid-1990s,

Fig. 2.10 Delimitation of problem areas (PA) in Poland PA designations: (1—Pomeranian*, 2—Powi´sle*, 3—Brodnica**-Mława**, 4—Kujavian*, 5—North-Eastern*, 6—Podlachian*, 7—Polesia*-Łuków**, 8—Lublinian*, 9—Przysucha**-Pilica***, 10—Sandomierz**´ etokrzyskie*, 11—Kazimierz**, 12—Strzy˙zów**-Dynów**, 13—Carpathian*, 14— Swi˛ Kłodzko**. Origin of names: *from historical and geographical regions; **from towns [usually ´ counties/powiat capitals], ***from river). Source based on Sleszy´ nski et al. (2018)

44

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

we have observed their particular intensification, especially around the largest cities (Kurek et al. 2020) and around smaller ones (Majewska et al. 2020). As in other developed countries, it is the result of extensive modernization transformations, including an increase in the wealth of society, the growth of motorization, and the investment policy of local governments, with a simultaneous deterioration of environmental living conditions within the administrative boundaries of cities. It results in relative deconcentration of urban centers, which causes numerous problems and challenges in spatial management, especially in ensuring satisfactory communication and water supply and sewage disposal services and access to various services (education, social care, administration, etc.). The development of peri-urban zones causes particularly intense spatial conflicts, is a source of serious legal problems, and for this reason, should be discussed in more detail. As Fig. 2.4 shows, the growth of suburban zones in Poland seemed to stabilize or even weaken between 2006 and 2014, but there is slow growth in the last five years. In Fig. 2.11, we can observe different rates of residential suburbanization in major urban centers in 2019. It appears that there are relatively significant differences in the level of inflows. In the Warsaw metropolitan area, the intensity of immigration appears to be weakening, as inflow rates per 1,000 residents have generally not been greater than 5% over the past few years. The situation was similar in the suburban areas of Łód´z, Krakow, Kielce, and Radom. Stronger inflows were recorded e.g., around Pozna´n, Wrocław, Tri-City, Słupsk, and Olsztyn. Moreover, in some communes in the Białowie˙za Forest near Belarus boundary (Białowie˙za, Dubicze Cerkiewne) and the Bieszczady Mountains near Slovakia boundary (Cisna), a slightly higher proportion of inflows from large centers could be observed, which reveals the phenomenon of ‘second homes’ and counter urbanization. However, it should be stressed that the latter process in Polish conditions has a residual character compared to the tendencies that existed, especially in Western Europe in the 1970s. However, this may change in the form of the long-term effects ´ of the COVID-19 pandemic (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2020b). Urbanization of the suburban zone and the city’s surroundings in general results in the emergence of areas with strong functional interrelationships, primarily related to the daily rhythm of life, including commuting to work in a type of daily urban system (Berry 1967). In the physiognomic dimension, the most visible is the landscape transformations, especially involving the defragmentation of natural systems (Degórska 2012; Chmielewski 2020). In addition, due to the conditions of a development after World War II, including a significant amount of free, undeveloped land in the outer zones of Polish cities, there is a phenomenon of so-called internal suburbanization, i.e., the emergence of single-family settlements within the administrative boundaries of cities (Spórna and Krzysztofik 2020). Then, the functional border between the city-core and the outer (suburban) zone is fluid and almost invisible in the morphological and physiognomic dimensions. The administrative border separating the city and the countryside becomes conventional. This phenomenon is especially true for the largest agglomerations, including, among others, Warsaw (Mantey and Sudra 2019), Pozna´n (Kaczmarek 2017) and Wrocław (Szmytkie 2020).

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

45

Fig. 2.11 In-flows to communes from at least subregional cities, 2019 Source based on intercommune matrices of population check-outs and check-ins (Statistics Poland)

A characteristic feature of Polish suburbanization is that it affects basically all categories of urban centers. While in the first decade of transition, mainly the suburban zones of the largest cities were expanding, from around 2000–2005 this process has clearly “descended” to the lower categories of settlements. Another characteristic feature of Polish suburbanization is the high share of inflows from outside the core. These flows sometimes account for 40–60% of all inflows (Warsaw—37%, Bielsko-Biała, Jelenia Góra, Krosno, Rzeszów, Opole, Tarnów—over 50%). A characteristic feature of Polish suburbanization is a strong tendency to disperse buildings and generate spatial chaos and numerous natural and socio-economic costs discussed in the next chapter. However, this is not a typical urban sprawl found in Western countries but rather a phenomenon of chaotic “seedness” (spreading) of buildings (Solarek 2013).

46

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

2.3.3 Regional Planning As described in Chapter 1, regional planning in Poland is carried out mainly at the level of 16 voivodeships by local governments. In addition, there are initiatives for so-called functional planning, covering metropolitan areas, smaller agglomerations, macro-regions (large parts of the country, especially Eastern Poland), and crossborder planning (in agreement with neighboring countries). The intermediate level between national and local planning (municipalities) seems to be the weakest in Poland’s spatial planning system, despite being strengthened (theoretically) by the cohesion policy and regional (voivodeship) operational programs associated with investments with EU funds. Declaratively, including under the current Spatial Planning and Development Act of 27 March 2003, the spatial planning system in Poland should be hierarchical to ensure its coherence. It is often not the case, as municipalities hold tremendous planning competencies. Many attempts to transfer the provisions of provincial plans, e.g., related to the location of regional investments, find resistance from the lowestlevel local governments and local societies (Hibszer 2013). It is compounded by the not consistently successful restructuring of entities during the post-1989 socioeconomic transition period that uses infrastructure and is responsible for services at the national and regional level. For example, the deregulation, privatization, and restructuring of railroad company carriers have been strongly criticized (Taylor and Ciecha´nski 2006). The problem described above is also visible in the government-province and government-municipality system, especially when tensions are related to the natural political diversity of political groups and parties currently in power at different levels of the country’s territorial division. For quite similar reasons, big cities and their functional regions cannot develop satisfactory solutions in terms of territorial governance, resulting in the escalation of old conflicts based on, for example, historical background in many regions of the country (Szmytkowska et al. 2021). There is a lot of tension between the different levels of territorial management, which delays the implementation of investments. It has given rise to the introduction of various so-called specustawy (special acts), which are intended to regulate topdown the problematic locations of investments of supra-regional importance, such as the course of higher-level roads (freeways, national roads), or more recently, the controversial location of the Central Airport. In this context, T. Komornicki and B. Szejgiec-Kolenda (2020) identify more than ten special acts regulating the location of significant investments on a national and regional scale designed to improve investment efficiency. According to the authors, although the special acts have undoubtedly accelerated investment, “it has also contributed indirectly to a dismantling of traditional planning systems.” The result of the lack of coordination and hierarchy between the national and regional level documents is many areas that have a special status in the development policy. These are the so-called areas of strategic state intervention: functional areas, problem areas, and growth areas. As a result of different development policies of

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

47

voivodeships and different conceptual and methodological solutions, the voivodeship indications neither relate to the national indications nor are comparable with each other (Fig. 2.12). Therefore, evaluating the current system of these areas should consider such features as consistency of documents and effectiveness of applied solu´ tions. The analysis of legal acts (laws) and strategic documents showed (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2017a) that the current system is not optimal. However, there are also some advantages and positive processes in understanding and interpreting the law related to spatial and regional planning. Indeed, a generally positive thing in regional planning is the territorialization of development policy, understood as the elaboration of tools of this policy and the undertaking of geographically localized actions, including relating to areas exceeding the established administrative boundaries of units of different orders. It has an increasingly widespread character. It already applies to a large part of areas of socio-economic life shaped in the development strategies of voivodeships. Naturally, voivodeship spatial development plans are strongly territorially embedded.

Fig. 2.12 Number of particular areas categories designated in national and voivodeship documents. ´ Source based on Sleszy´ nski et al. (2017b)

48

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Unfortunately, with the broader inclusion of spatial and regional issues simultaneously, the level of detailed understanding of such issues decreases, and terminological inconsistency appears more and more often. At the same time, the created solutions are less and less consistent with the classical terminology of regional science, theory of regionalization, methodology of classification and typology, etc. It harms the solutions used in practice, which are not comparable. Although the main objective of the documents is broadly understood development and the desire to ensure, e.g., economic activation and social cohesion, there is no indication of their overriding principles, giving conceptual, theoretical, and systematic coherence of documents of lower rank. In particular, there is no indication of the possibility of coherence in the methodology of determining the areas for conducting a particular development policy. At the same time, the existing documents do not pay attention to the need for more in-depth reference to the diagnoses and forecasts, such as the report on the state of the voivodeship spatial development. Legal solutions also do not consider changes in environmental conditions, especially the changing sociodemographic and economic situation. There is no indication of the necessity of preparing forecasts of various types (especially demographic and labor market forecasts), which would make it possible to increase economic effectiveness and adjust the functional program to changing sociodemographic conditions, including expected depopulation. In the light of the above, there is a concern about overlapping competencies and arrangements between laws of different types, especially between the competencies of the functional area and the problem area/strategic intervention. In particular, there is a problem in the designation of urban functional areas, which duplicate the delimitations of Integrated Territorial Investments, metropolitan counties, and water and sewage agglomerations. There is an urgent need to harmonize these delimitation “entities.”

2.3.4 Local Planning The restoration of local government in 1990 resulted in municipalities being granted broad spatial planning competencies and, in general, comprehensive, practically unlimited freedom regarding the location of investments. The breakthrough moment was the cancelation of general plans adopted under the 1984 law for the entire area of municipalities. Their validity expired at the end of 2002 (in some exceptional cases at the end of 2003). From that moment on, most of the country’s territory did not have proper planning security, and most investments took place based on administrative decisions. Since 2003, at the local level, the study of conditions and directions of the spatial development of commune (SCDSDC) has been the essential document specifying the directions of spatial policy. However, it does not have the force of a “local law act” so its provisions are not obligatory in practice. The local spatial development plan (LSDP) is the binding document for investments. It is a document prepared

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

49

for all or part of the municipality. For the areas where there are no local plans, the investments are carried out based on the decision on land development conditions (decision on determining the location for public purposes ULCP and decision on development conditions WZ). Since 2005, the central authorities have been conducting detailed monitoring of the progress of planning work in municipalities. Hence, it is possible to cite a number of data and indicators showing spatial planning development on a local scale. The state of work on municipal studies (SCDSDC) in Poland has been entirely satisfactory for many years. The most significant advantage of the documents is their timeliness (in the sense of discounting the ongoing changes in land use): they are modified on an ongoing basis on a national scale, especially in the most heavily urbanized areas, where the pace of change in the socio-economic situation and land use is the fastest. In cities with county rights, at the end of 2019, just over 40% of the documents had been updated (in Poland—32%). On the other hand, a drawback of the uikzp studies is still the lack of desirable regularities in terms of land projections in terms of local plan coverage. A severe problem is a fact that municipal studies envisage very high targets for the proportion of development, mainly single-family housing. These documents allow for approximately 12% of the municipality’s area to be built up (and additionally more than 8% to be used for homesteads), which, even with low population density ratios, gives the possibility of housing around 150 million people nationwide (Table 2.2). It threatens to exacerbate the already excessive dispersion of settlements and to generate increasing costs of their maintenance. It is a particularly pressing problem considering the expected depopulation of peripheral rural areas and the rising costs of public services accompanied by declining revenues of local government budgets in those areas. At the end of 2019, 55,600 plans covered 9.8 million hectares or 31.2% of the country’s land area. It represents an increase of 14 percentage points (p.p.) from 2004, but only 0.4 p.p. over the past year. The coverage rate, as well as its growth rate, are unsatisfactory. Against this background, the situation is better in the largest cities, where in recent years, there has been an acceleration of planning work. However still, the effects of that work relating to demand are still unsatisfactory. Only a few larger cities have the planning coverage ratio exceeding 50% (e.g., Chełm, Rybnik, Zamo´sc´ —100%, Gda´nsk and Krakow—65% each, Warsaw—39.4%). There were considerable differences in plan cover at the national scale (Fig. 2.13). The highest indices were recorded in the south of the country (Dolno´sl˛askie, ´ askie, Małopolskie voivodships) and the east (Lubelskie) and center Opolskie, Sl˛ (Mazowieckie). There, entire communes or significant parts of them had binding local plans. In the north and west of the country, the situation was much worse: the indicators of plan coverage often did not exceed 10% of the municipalities’ area. This substantial diversity across the country indicates radically different approaches to spatial policy at the local scale. Similar to SCDSDC, local plans also have a flawed land use structure. According to available data, in 2019, a total of 1,323 thousand hectares, or 13.5% of the LSDP and 4.2% of the country’s area, were allowed for residential development (Table 2.2). Of this, single-family housing accounts for 1208 thousand ha (91%), and multifamily

50

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Table 2.2 Structure of land use area in local-level planning documents in Poland (as of January 1, 2020) Planned land use

Study of conditions and directions of the spatial development of commune (SCDSDC) (59.6% of total Poland’s area)

Local spatial development plan (LSDP) (30.7% of total Poland’s area) thous. ha

thous. ha

%

Multifamily housing

169.5

0.91

Single-family housing

1,871.3

10.04

Farmstead areas

537.1

Public services

579.2

%

115.4

1.20

1,208.5

12.58

2.88

556.0

5.79

3.11

98.7

1.03

363.1

3.78

Commercial services Production (manufacturing)

475.0

2.55

404.1

4.21

Transport

203.7

1.09

405.9

4.23

Other technical infrastructure

7,577.6

40.65

183.1

1.91

Agricultural

1,369.6

7.35

3,842.8

40.01

Greenery and waters

4,088.2

21.93

2,392.6

24.91

Other

1,771.1

9.50

Total

18,642.3

100.00

34.4

0.36

9,604.4

100.00

Source based on unpublished data from the Ministry of Development, Labor and Technology, and Statistics Poland

housing accounts for 115 thousand ha. Assuming that 30 people can live in a singlefamily housing estate per 1 ha and 200 in a multifamily one, this gives a demographic potential of 59 million people. It includes 36 million people in single-family housing, which means that the local master plans adopted by the communes in force can “accommodate” almost the country’s entire population. Of course, the above estimate is approximate. However, more precise calculations have already been made, and the results are quite convergent, as they indicate a demographic absorption of 60 million ´ people (Kowalewski et al. 2018, Sleszy´ nski et al. 2020a). In the above context, it should also be emphasized that less than 1/3 of the country’s territory is covered by plans, where there are also buildings, both single-family and multifamily ones. More detailed analyses carried out in 25 municipalities in the Warsaw suburban zone indicated that considering the exact boundaries of existing and planned developments, the estimate of 60 million of demographic absorption is ´ an underestimate of 15–20% (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2018). The large supply of land for development in planning documents is due to land use changes, primarily from agricultural to non-agricultural use (de-agriculturalization).

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

51

Fig. 2.13 Coverage of existing local spatial development plans in communes at the end of 2019. Source based on data from the Ministry of Development, Labor and Technology, and Statistics Poland

Available data as of the end of 2019 show that in local plans between 2003 and 2019, 350,000 ha of agricultural land were changed to this designation, but this figure is an underestimate due to the non-response of a large part of municipalities in survey questions (Statistics Poland survey) and the actual scale of this process ´ already exceeded 600,000 ha around 2014 (Kowalewski et al. 2018; Sleszy´ nski et al. 2020a). The mentioned slow growth of local plans is a derivative of the lengthy procedure of enactment. In 2019, there were 9.0 thousand local plans under preparation. Of this number, in the case of as many as 2.9 thousand documents, the procedure took more than three years. A severe burden on municipal budgets is the cost of preparing LSDPs. In 2019 (data from 827 municipalities), the average cost of preparing 1 ha of a local plan was EUR 776, and the median was EUR 234. If we forecast that LSDP should cover at least another 30% of the country’s area, the cost could amount to EUR 2.2–7.3 billion (depending on whether we take the median or the average

52

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

for the estimate). It implies huge expenditures relating to municipalities’ revenues (8–27% relating to municipalities’ revenues in 2019). A flawed size structure characterizes existing local plans. In 2019, the average size of a local plan in Poland was 180 ha, while back in 2012, it was 308 ha. But the biggest problem is that there is a large group of municipalities where local plans are adopted for minimal areas, often single plots. Analyses by IGSO PAS and GeoSystem Polska (Izdebski et al. 2018) based on a large sample of local plans (15.4 thousand—31.2% of their total number in Poland) often found situations where the local plan had “lakes” and “islands,” i.e., consisted of more than one compact patch and had excluded areas inside its borders. The occurrence of “linear” plans, referring to infrastructure networks, was quite common. Finally, local plans were fragmented and referred to areas scattered in different parts of the municipality (Fig. 2.14). In Poland’s “record” municipalities, one local plan consisted of more than 200 isolated fragments. Conclusions from this research prove that the way of selecting areas for coverage and defining their boundaries in the field often impede rational spatial planning. Lacking a local plan, investments in Poland are carried out based on decisions on land development conditions. In 2003–2019, 2.7 million such documents were issued in Poland, with decisions on land development conditions accounting for 81% (the remainder being decisions on the location of public-purpose investments). Of these, decisions on single-family developments numbered about 1.5 million. In

Fig. 2.14 Examples of the fragmentation of the area of local spatial development plans from different parts of Poland (Voivodeships: A—Pomorskie [Tri-City agglomeration], B—Wielkopolskie, C—Łódzkie [Łód´z suburban zone], D—Podkarpackie. The same cartographic scale on all maps). Source based on Izdebski et al. (2018)

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

53

general opinion, they are one of the most severe instruments causing spatial chaos, as single-family developments are created in random places, often far away from buildings. At the local level, the negative balance of spatial management due to the adoption of planning documents is a severe problem. At the end of 2019, projected revenues resulting from the enactment of local plans were shown at EUR 16.1 billion (Table 2.3). It increased property tax (EUR 5.7 billion), followed by the planning fee (EUR 3.8 billion). Meanwhile, the projected expenditure amounted to EUR 26.6 billion (most on infrastructure construction and land purchase). In the case of actual revenue, it amounted to 3.7 billion, and expenditure to EUR 6.2 billion. Therefore, the balances ´ in both cases (forecast, realization) are negative and significant (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2021). It applies basically to municipalities—cities, suburban areas, typically rural areas, etc. Receipts and expenditures are high relating to the total revenues and expenditures of municipal budgets. It is also noteworthy that the spatial policy of municipalities is very diverse and heterogeneous in terms of raising and spending funds. In the vast majority of municipalities, there are no typical revenue mechanisms provided for the Planning and Spatial Development Act (2003), especially related to the planning fee. By the end of 2019, municipalities had received only EUR 158.2 million on this account. In total, the negative balance of spatial management can be a severe financial problem for a large part of municipalities. In the long run, it may threaten to destabilize public finances.

2.3.5 Cross-Border Development A particular area of spatial management is the area along the state border. Here, various conditions and problems shaping spatial management and spatial order at international, national, regional, and local levels are layered. Studies indicate that in Poland, the issue of proposing and implementing specific solutions can be controversial, related to the different interests of the states (W˛ecławowicz et al. 2009). Of the 3,100 km of Poland’s borders with other countries (excluding the maritime border), the most challenging planning issues and practices are not along the external Schengen border (i.e., with Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine), but along the Polish– Slovak and Polish–Czech borders. It is due to two reasons: the difficulty of managing mountain areas and tourist pressure. In surveys of local governments conducted in the Polish–Slovak border region in the first years after the EU accession (Wi˛eckowski et al. 2012), the following factors were mentioned as facilitating local development and spatial planning on both sides of the border: geographical proximity, common problems or belonging to one geographical and natural area (e.g., Tatra Mountains in Carpathians). On the other hand, language proximity, which makes contacts between Slovak and Polish entities much more accessible, was relatively rarely mentioned as a facilitating factor.

54

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Table 2.3 Forecasted and realized revenues and expenditures of municipalities as a result of the enactment of local plans by category of municipalities (as of the end of 2019) Type of communes ´ (after Sleszy´ nski and Komornicki 2016)

Revenues (million EUR)

Expenditures (million EUR)

Balance (million EUR)

forecasted

realized (obtained)

forecasted

realized (incurred)

forecasted

realized

A—functional 5,195 urban areas; voivodeship capitals (cores)

177

10,342

86

−5,148

−679

B—their external zones (A)

3,429

1,064

4,934

161

−1,505

−544

C—functional urban areas; subregional centers

2,112

950

3,109

1,046

−997

−97

D—their external zones (C)

972

445

1,418

431

−447

14

E—multifunctional urban centers

1,279

379

1,996

800

−717

−421

F—communes with 565 developed transport functions

67

592

192

−27

−124

G—communes with 741 other developed non-agricultural functions (tourism and large-scale functions, including mining)

264

986

408

−245

−144

H—gminas with intensively; developed agricultural functions

47

82

645

161

−172

−79

I—gminas with moderately developed agricultural functions

1,047

239

204

491

−994

−252

J—extensively developed gminas (with forests or nature protection areas)

34

68

545

210

−203

−142

Total amount

16,152

3,735

26,608

6,202

−10,456

−2,468

´ Source Sleszy´ nski et al. 2021 (based on data from the Ministry of Development, Labor and Technology and the Statistics Poland)

2.3 The State of National Land Use on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic

55

Among the elements that make the cooperation difficult were mainly infrastructural barriers: lack or poor communication between localities, insufficient information on potential cooperation partners, differences in potential (area, population) between partners, but also low activity or poor financial situation of local government units. It was emphasized that without international (intergovernmental) regulations, the cooperation at the lowest level of self-governments between Polish communes and Slovak ones is not always characterized by a high level of formalization, even in the case of building infrastructure on both sides of the border (e.g., bicycle paths are brought to the same place at the border point based on verbal agreements and from the budgets of individual self-governments, and the detailed design and investment documentation is carried out independently).

Bibliography Berry BJL (1967) Geography of market centers and retail distribution. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Berlanstein LR (ed) (1992) The industrial revolution and work in nineteenth century Europe. Routledge, London Chmielewski S (2020) Chaos in motion: measuring visual pollution with tangential view landscape metrics. Land 9:515. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120515 Churski P (2005) Problem areas in Poland in terms of the objectives of the European Union’s regional policy. Eur Plan Stud 13(1):45–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000312406 Czarnecki A (2014) Economically detached? Second home owners and the local community in Poland. Tourism Rev Int 18(3):153–166. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427214X14101901317110 Degórska B (2012) Spatial growth of urbanised land within the Warsaw metropolitan area in the first decade of the 21st century. Geogr Pol 85(3):77–95. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.2012.3.19 Degórski M (ed) (2006) Natural and human environment of Poland. A geographical overview. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Geographical Society, Warsaw Doma´nski B (1997) Industrial control over the socialist town: benevolence or exploitation? Praeger, Westport, CT Doma´nski B (2010) Should we fight local and regional disparities in economic development in Poland? Studia Regionalia 27(1):132–141 Dziegie´c E (1995) Tourist urbanization of rural areas in Poland. Tourism 5(1):5–56 Dziewo´nski K (1972) Emerging patterns of urbanization in Poland. Geogr Pol 24:21–29 Dziewo´nski K (1989) Changing goals of spatial policies and planning in Poland. Geogr Pol 56:9–15 Eberhardt P (1994) Distribution and dynamics of rural population in Central Eastern Europe in the 20th century. Geogr Pol 63:75–94 Enyedi G (1990) Specific urbanization in East-Central Europe. Geoforum 21(2):163–172. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(90)90035-5 Faludi A (2004) Polycentric territorial cohesion policy. Town Plan Rev 76(1):107–118 ´ Górczy´nska M, Sleszy´ nski P, Niedzielski M (2019) Impact of property rights and ownership on the development of Warsaw’s contemporary city centre. Eur Plan Stud 27(1):160–180. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1531975 Gorzelak G (2006) Poland’s regional policy and disparities in the Polish space. Studia Reg i Lokal 7:39–74

56

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Grochowska A, Małecka M (2020) potential conflicts in the land-use planning process: a case study of the rural commune of Ole´snica (Poland). Quaest Geogr 39(2):129–137. https://doi.org/10. 2478/quageo-2020-0018 Gutry-Korycka M (ed) (2005) Urban sprawl. Warsaw University Press, Warsaw, Warsaw agglomeration case study Hall P, Pain K (2006) The polycentric metropolis: learning from mega-city regions in Europe. Earthscan, London Hamilton FEI (1979) Urbanization in socialist Eastern Europe: the macroenvironment of internal city structure. In: French R, Hamilton FEI (eds) The socialist city: spatial structure and urban policy. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 167–194 Heffner K, Latocha A (2020) Desolated villages as examples of spatial, economic and social marginalization in the Polish-Czech borderland and their current transformations. In: Nel E, Pel S (eds) Responses to geographical marginality and marginalization. Springer, Cham, pp 123–142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51342-98 Hibszer A (2013) Social investment conflicts related to the construction of the A1 motorway in the Silesian voivodeship (Southern Poland). Environ Socio Econ Stud 1(3):35–44. https://doi.org/10. 1515/environ-2015-0017 ´ Izdebski W, Sleszy´ nski P, Malinowski Z, Kursa M (2018) Analiza morfometryczna planów miejscowych w Polsce. Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich 2(1):331–347. https://doi.org/10. 14597/INFRAECO.2018.2.1.022 Kaczmarek T (2017) Dynamics and directions of residential suburbanization in the Pozna´n agglomeration. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Geographica Socio-Oeconomica 27:1508–1117. https://doi.org/10.18778/1508-1117.27.06 Kaczmarek T, Mikuła Ł (2019) The housing market in poland in the liberalized spatial planning system: the national context and metropolitan dimension of the Pozna´n agglomeration. In: Wehrhahn R, Pohlan J, Hannemann C, Othengrafen F, Schmidt-Lauber B (eds) Housing and housing politics in European metropolises, Jahrbuch StadtRegion 2017/2018. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 71–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22345-8_4 Karwi´nska A (2015) Social changes of contemporary Polish cities and their spatial consequences. Studia Regionalia 43:75–82 Kassenberg A, Rolewicz C (1985) Przestrzenna diagnoza ochrony s´rodowiska w Polsce (Spatial diagnosis of environmental protection in Poland). Studia KPZK PAN 89. Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa Kistowski M (2019) Natural determinants of space management. In: Chaberek G (ed) Space management interdisciplinary approach: evidence from Poland. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gda´nskiego, Gda´nsk, pp 73–102 Kloosterman RC, Musterd S (2001) The polycentric urban region: towards a research agenda. Urban Stud 38(4):623–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120035259 Komornicki T (2003) Export competitiveness of Polish poviats and big towns on the market of an enlarged European Union. Europa XXI 10:35–49 Komornicki T, Szejgiec-Kolenda B (2020) The development of transport infrastructure in Poland and the role of spatial planning and cohesion policy in investment processes. Plan Pract Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1852677 Korcelli P (1995) Urban restructuring in East-Central Europe: selected questions. Geogr Pol 66:7–12 Korcelli P (1997) The urban system of Poland in an era of increasing inter urban competition. Geogr Pol 69:45–54 Korcelli P, Degórski M, Drzazga D, Komornicki T, Markowski R, Szlachta J, W˛ecławowicz G, Zaleski J, Zaucha J (2010) Ekspercki projekt Koncepcji Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju. Studia KPZK PAN 128. Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa ´ Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Sleszy´ nski P (eds) (2018) Studia nad chaosem przestrzennym. Studia KPZK PAN 182(1–3). Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa

Bibliography

57

Kozłowski S (1997) Potrzeba rewizji programu budowy autostrad. In: Stasiak A (ed) Konflikty wokół przebiegu autostrad w Polsce. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 179. Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa, pp 37–64 Krzysztofik R, Kantor-Pietraga I, Kłosowski F (2019) Between industrialism and postindustrialism—the case of small towns in a large urban region: the Katowice conurbation. Poland. Urban Sci 3(3):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3030068 Krzy˙zanowski A (1924) Currency reform in Poland. Economica 12:316–325. https://doi.org/10. 2307/2548110 Kurek S, Wójtowicz M, Gałka J (2020) Functional urban areas in Poland. Demographic trends and migration patterns. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-31527-6 Kwiatek-Sołtys A (2011) Small towns in Poland—barriers and factors of growth. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 19:363–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.143 Leszczycki S (1965) Problems of post-war industrial concentration and decentralization in Poland. Geogr Pol 7:29–47 Lewandowska A, Stopa M, Humenny G (2015) The European Union structural funds and regional development. The perspective of small and medium enterprises in Eastern Poland. Eur Plan Stud 23(4):785–797. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.970132 Ley D (1983) A social geography of the city. Harpercollins College Division, London Lity´nski P, Hołuj A (2017) Urban sprawl costs: the valuation of households’ losses in Poland. J Settl Spat Plan 8(1):11–35. https://doi.org/10.24193/02JSSP012017 Lorens P (2016) Trends and problems of contemporary urbanization processes in Poland. In: Altrock U, Güntner S, Huning S, Peters D (eds) Spatial planning and urban development in the new EU member states. From adjustment to reinvention. Routledge, London, New York, pp 1–18 Majewska A, Denis M, Krupowicz W (2020) Urbanization chaos of suburban small cities in Poland: ‘Tetris Development.’ Land 9:461. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110461 Malý J (2019) Polycentric urban systems and territorial cohesion. In: Medeiros E (ed) Territorial cohesion. The urban dimension. Springer, Cham, pp 69–89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-03386-6 Mantey D, Sudra P (2019) Types of suburbs in post-socialist Poland and their potential for creating public spaces. Cities 88:209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.001 Markowski T (2013) Territorial dimension of integrated development policy—expectations and challenges concerning planning and institutional systems. Studia Regionalia 35:51–64 Masik G (2010) The quality of life of suburbanities: a case study of the Gda´nsk agglomeration. Bulletin of Geography. Bull Geogr Socio Econ Ser 14:91–101. https://doi.org/10.1515/v10089010-0017-y Mazur M, Mazurek D (2020) Measures of regional development based on the example of Poland. In: Ba´nski J (ed) Dilemmas of regional and local development. Routledge explorations in development studies. Routledge, Oxon-New York, pp 111–143 Mikuła Ł, Walaszek M (2016) The evolution of local public service provision in Poland. In: Wollmann H, Kopri´c I, Marcou G (eds) Public and social services in Europe. Governance and public management. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 169–183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-13757499-2 Nowak M (2017) The role and effects of case—low in spatial competition. An analysis of selected cases. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 265:172–180 Parysek JJ, Adamczak Z, Grobelny R (1991) Regional difference in the result of the 1990 presidential election in Poland as the first approximation to a political map of the country. Environ Plan A 23(9):1315–1329. https://doi.org/10.1068/a231315 Piotrowska L (2017) Spatial planning—evolution of the system (1899–2017). Studia Regionalia 49:27–95 Rosik P, St˛epniak M, Komornicki T (2015) The decade of the big push to roads in Poland: impact on improvement in accessibility and territorial cohesion from a policy perspective. Transp Policy 37:134–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.007

58

2 Determinants of Planning Practice in Poland

Rosner A, Wesołowska M (2020) Deagrarianisation of the economic structure and the evolution of rural settlement patterns in Poland. Land 9(12):523. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120523 Spatial Planning and Development Act of 27 March 2003, Dz.U. nr 80 poz. 717 ´ Sleszy´ nski P (2004) Kształtowanie si˛e zachodniej cz˛es´ci Warszawy (Development of the western part of Warsaw’s Centre). Prace Geograficzne 196. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw ´ Sleszy´ nski P (2008) Ocena powi˛aza´n gospodarczych i kapitałowych mi˛edzy miastami. In: ˙ Saganowski K, Zagrzejewska-Fiedorowicz M, Zuber P (eds) Ekspertyzy do Koncepcji Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju 2008–2033, Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa, pp 335–391 ´ Sleszy´ nski P (2020) Koncepcja nowego wska´znika atrakcyjno´sci migracyjnej i jego zastosowania (The concept of a new migration attractiveness indicator and its application). Czas Geogr 91(1– 2):37–58 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Ba´nski J, Degórski M, Komornicki T (2017a) Delimitation of problem areas in Poland. Geogr Pol 90(2):131–138. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0088 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Ba´nski J, Degórski M, Komornicki T (2017b) Delimitacja Obszarów Strategicznej Interwencji Pa´nstwa: obszarów wzrostu i obszarów problemowych (Delimitation of the state intervention strategic areas: growth areas and problem areas). Prace Geograficzne 260. Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warszawa ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Legutko-Kobus P, Nowak M (2020a) The contemporary economic costs of spatial chaos: evidence from Poland. Land 9:214. https://doi.org/10.3390/lan d9070214 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Nowak M, Blaszke M (2020b) Spatial policy in cities during the Covid-19 pandemic in Poland. TEMA J Land Use Mobil Environ 3:427–444. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/7146 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Nowak M, Sudra P, Zał˛eczna M, Blaszke M (2021) Economic consequences of adopting local spatial development plans for the spatial management system: the case of Poland. Land 10:112. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020112 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Solon J (2017) A map of the landscape diversity of Poland. Geogr Pol 90(3):369–377. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0100 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Wi´sniewski R, Szejgiec-Kolenda B (2018) Demographic processes in Poland in the years 1946–2016 and their consequences for local development: current state and research perspectives. Geogr Pol 91(3):317–334. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0123 Smutek J (2017) Change of municipal finances due to suburbanization as a development challenge on the example of Poland. Bull Geogr Socio Econ Ser 37:139–149. https://doi.org/10.1515/bog2017-0030 ´ Sobczy´nski M, Wosiak A (2021) Stability of political borders. In: Sleszy´ nski P, Czapiewski K (eds) Visehrad Atlas. Polish Geographical Society, Warsaw, Wacław Felczak Institute for PolishHungarian Cooperation, pp 26–33 Solarek K (2013) Struktura przestrzenna strefy podmiejskiej Warszawy. Determinanty współczesnych przekształce´n. Prace Naukowe Politechniki Warszawskiej. Seria Architektura 13. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warszawa Solon J (2009) Spatial context of urbanization: landscape pattern and changes between 1950 and 1990 in the Warsaw Metropolitan Area. Poland. Landsc and Urban Plan 93(3–4):250–261. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.012 Spórna T, Krzysztofik R (2020) ‘Inner’ suburbanization—background of the phenomenon in a polycentric, post-socialist and post-industrial region. Example from the Katowice conurbation, Poland. Cities 104:102789. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102789 ´ Swigost A (2015) The transformation of the natural environment of the Polish and Ukrainian Bieszczady Mountains due to tourism and other forms of human pressure. Curr Issues Tour Res 5(2):27–35 Szczepa´nski MS (1993) Planning, housing and the community in a new socialist town: the case of Tychy. Poland. Town Plan Rev 64(1):1–21

Bibliography

59

Szmytkie R (2020) The impact of residential suburbanization on changes in the morphology of villages in the suburban area of Wrocław. Poland. Environ Socio Econ Stud 8(4):24–43. https:// doi.org/10.2478/environ-2020-0021 ´ Szmytkowska M, Kubiak Ł, Sleszy´ nski P, Korcelli-Olejniczak E (2021) The making of the Bydgoszcz-Toru´n partnership area as an example of a bipolar conflict. Eur Plan Stud. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1875994 Szulc H (1972) The development of the agricultural landscape of Poland. Geogr Pol 22:85–104 Taylor Z, Ciecha´nski A (2006) Deregulation in Polish rail transport. Transp Rev 26(3):305–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640500443856 Vandermotten C, Halbert L, Roelandts M, Cornut P (2008) European planning and the polycentric Consensus: wishful thinking? Reg Stud 42(8):1205–1217 Wagner M (2016) Evading spatial planning law—case study of Poland. Land Use Policy 57:396– 404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.005 W˛ecławowicz G (1992) The socio-spatial structure of the socialist cities in East-Central Europe. the case of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. In: Lando F (ed) Urban and rural geography. University of Venice, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina, Venezia, pp 129–140 W˛ecławowicz G (1996) Contemporary Poland. Space and society, UCL Press, London W˛ecławowicz G (2013) Transnational development strategy for the post-socialist cities of Central Europe. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw ´ W˛ecławowicz G, Ba´nski J, Degórski M, Komornicki T, Korcelli P, Sleszy´ nski P (2006) Przestrzenne zagospodarowanie Polski na pocz˛atku XXI wieku (Spatial organization of Poland at the beginning of the 21st century). Monografie 6, Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN, Warszawa ´ W˛ecławowicz G, Degórski M, Komornicki T, Ba´nski J, Sleszy´ nski P, Wi˛eckowski M (2009) Study of spatial developments in the Polish-German border region. In: Strubelt W (ed) Guiding principles for spatial development in Germany. German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy. Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 153–184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88839-0_10 Wi˛eckowski M, Michniak D, Bednarek-Szczepa´nska M, Chrenka B, Ira V, Komornicki T, Rosik P, ´ ´ atek D, Wi´sniewski R (2012) Polish-Slovak borderland St˛epniak M, Szekely V, Sleszy´ nski P, Swi˛ transport accessibility and tourism. Prace Geograficzne 234. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw Winiarczyk-Ra´zniak A, Ra´zniak P (2011) Regional differences in the standard of living in Poland (based on selected indices). Procedia Soc Behav Sci 19:31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro. 2011.05.103 Yakowicz JV (1979) Poland’s postwar recovery: economic reconstruction, nationalization, and agrarian reform in Poland after World War II. Exposition Press, Hicksville, NY

Chapter 3

The Spatial Management System in Poland: Principles and Characteristics

Abstract Characteristics of the Polish spatial management system’s legal conditions emphasize the related problems (barriers). Following thematic groups will include these problems: – inconsistencies and deficiencies in the regulations currently in force (weak position of directional tools, no real possibility of protecting spatial order, too much role of administrative decisions); – dilemmas regarding interpreting individual provisions as a manifestation of failing to fulfill the systemically assumed role by legal regulations; – attempts to improve the state of formal and legal principles in recent years. The chapter will not focus solely on the case study of Poland. Conclusions resulting from the diagnosis of specific problems will be included in a broader context that can be adapted in other countries and other legal systems. The chapter will propose a methodology for assessing spatial management systems from a legal perspective (with the proviso that legal regulations are only one of several elements exerting a final shape on a given country’s spatial management system). Keywords Legal conditions of spatial planning · Legal barriers · National · regional · and local law

3.1 Introduction The Polish system of spatial management is a subject of varied and extensive discussions. These include diverse perspectives: not only legal, but also urban, geographical, environmental, cultural, and social. There are serious inconsistencies between these perspectives, which are also reflected in Poland’s spatial chaos (and the high costs it generates). The chapter presents the legal conditions of the Polish spatial management system. After the characterization of specific tools, it focuses on the most problematic aspects of this issue. Therefore, attention was paid in particular to:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. J. Nowak et al., Spatial Planning in Poland, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96939-4_3

61

62

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

– inconsistencies and gaps in the legal regulations of the Polish spatial management system; – problems in interpreting specific provisions, which are a picture of the problems diagnosed earlier; – attempts (primarily at the governmental level) to reform (and presumably improve) the spatial management system made in recent years. The weaknesses of the spatial planning system were also referred to the historical context of spatial planning and management in Poland. Furthermore, it was indicated that analyses of the Polish spatial planning system could serve as a reference point for a broader verification of other countries’ (strongly mutually differentiated) spatial planning systems.

3.2 Characteristics of the Spatial Management System in Poland The spatial management system in Poland is regulated and specified in the Act of March 27, 2003, on spatial planning and development (Journal of Laws No. 80, item 217, as amended). The historical context of successive changes in the Polish spatial management system is presented later in this chapter. At this point, however, it should be emphasized that in addition to the Act mentioned above, the issues related to spatial planning and development have also been included (to a varying extent) in several dozen other Polish legal acts of national rank (primarily laws). The critical value protected in the Polish system of spatial management (treated as the basis and purpose of activities of various spatial policy actors) is spatial order (Markowski 2010, 2011; Parysek 2010). According to Article 2(1) of the Act on spatial planning and development, spatial order should be understood as shaping space, which creates a harmonious whole and considers all conditions and functional, socio-economic, environmental, cultural, and compositional conditions in an orderly relationship and aesthetic requirements. The concept of spatial order is difficult to transfer directly to legal regulations, more so in such a way that it would constitute an objective point of reference (Gdesz 2020). It can be assumed that spatial order is an ideal vision of space (depending on the needs—in different scales), which public authorities should strive to achieve to the greatest possible extent (Nowak and Lorens 2020). Lack of protection of spatial order brings substantial effects, also in terms of costs of spatial chaos. Thus, it should be emphasized that spatial order is not an abstract concept, and its protection is a serious role of various spatial policy tools (Wozniak 2018). The municipality is the basic local government unit in Poland responsible for spatial planning and development. The municipality’s authorities (the municipal council as the decision-making and controlling body and the mayor as the executive body) are responsible for applying the three critical direct spatial policy tools. These tools are:

3.2 Characteristics of the Spatial Management System in Poland

63

– the study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune; – local spatial development plan; – decisions on land development conditions. It should be emphasized that in the case of Poland, historically, the regulations related to spatial planning and development have changed several times. The first (still quite general) ones took place in the 1920s and 1930s. After World War II, the legal system of spatial management changed five times (not counting minor changes). The key issues during the communist period (the Polish People’s Republic) were: – lack of actual application of local plans (first phased, then detailed), so that a significant part of them remained with limited effectiveness, or even “on paper”; – frequent reformulation of plans; – insufficient flexibility of plans and lack of real integration of development policy tools, the need for autonomy of authorities at the local level; – the threat of spatial conflicts; – lack of reasonable solutions to guarantee adequate environmental protection (Nowak 2021a).

3.3 Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Development of Commune The study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune have a strategic and conceptual character. The component and thematic scope of a study (as well as of a local spatial development plan) result from the provisions of the Act on spatial planning and development and its implementing regulations (Table 3.1). At the same time, it is an obligatory act—each municipality must adopt it in the scope relating to its entire area. Once adopted, a study may be updated or amended many times. When the municipality authorities deem it necessary, an entirely new study may be adopted. Individual communes in Poland take various approaches in this respect. As the name suggests, studies refer to the determinants and define the directions for spatial development on a local scale. Conditions are the analytical and informational part. They should be a point of reference when creating directions for spatial development. The factors required in the study include the existing land use, development and utility infrastructure, spatial order and its protection requirements, the state of the environment, cultural heritage, living conditions and quality of life, as well as the commune’s development needs and opportunities. The latter should consider the economic, environmental, social, and demographic analyses carried out beforehand, including the specially prepared balance of development sites (comparing the demand for development with the municipality’s capacity and the state of utilization of individual sites). A significant problem of the Polish spatial management system is translating the analysis results into specific legal regulations. First, in many cases, such analyses are neither exhaustive nor sufficiently relevant to the real problems.

64

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

Table 3.1 Scope and subject of the study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune and the local spatial development plan Criterion

The study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune

Local spatial development plan

Obligatory

The obligatory document prepared obligatorily for each municipality

Document(s), as there may be many) non-mandatory

Territorial scope

It covers the area of the entire municipality

Covers any area (can be drawn up for one parcel of land, for example)

Parts of which the document consists

– text part – graphics

– text part – graphics

Elements in the text section

– determinants – directions

Mandatory and optional elements (described later in this chapter)

Graphic part

Drawing in the form of a cartogram showing the arrangements defining the municipality’s spatial development directions, as well as the boundaries of the areas listed in Article 10 of the Act

The draft drawing of the local plan shall be prepared at a scale of 1:1000, using official copies of the principal maps—other scales of drawings are also possible, i.e., 1: 500 (for areas of intensive development and public space), 1: 2000 for linear investment projects and areas of significant size

Source own elaboration based on: Law on Planning and Spatial Development, Decree of the Minister of Infrastructure on the scope of the draft the study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune, Decree of the Minister of Infrastructure of August 26, 2003, on the required scope of the draft local spatial development plan

Besides, the divergence of individual disciplines and directions in the approach to selected issues makes it even more difficult to solve them systematically. Considering the above, it may be indicated that neither the analyses carried out nor the analytical part of the spatial development conditions and directions studies in their current form guarantees a proper diagnosis of the problems encompassing the spatial policy at the local level. It is also not guaranteed by other documents of strategic nature. According to the amendment to the regulations on the principles of development policy (second half of 2020), a new scope of development strategies was defined, including local development strategies. One of these new scope elements is mandatory recommendations (included in the strategies) for local spatial policy. However, considering that the strategy at the local level is not a mandatory document, only in some municipalities (i.e., those which will develop an integrated strategy under the Act on the principles of development policy), such recommendations for the spatial policy will be created. At the time of preparing this chapter, gminas are only beginning to implement these regulations, and according to the

3.3 Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Development of Commune

65

proposed methodology, the preparation of a local development strategy will take about 13 months. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the impact of this regulation on the spatial policy and the further consequences of its implementation. However, it is possible to express a conviction that these changes may improve the indicated problems only to a limited extent. The second part of the spatial development conditions and directions study is the guidelines part. It should specify, among other things, the directions of changes in the municipality’s spatial structure and land use, as well as the directions and indicators of land use and development (including the areas allocated for development and the areas excluded from development). These elements of the study will be the most important from the perspective of further implementation. It is because the local spatial development plans adopted later may not be contrary to them (which creates many doubts and inconsistencies that will be discussed further in the text). Apart from that, the study’s directional part includes, among others: – areas and principles of protection of the environment and its resources, protection of nature, landscape (including cultural landscape); – areas and principles of protection of cultural heritage and monuments, as well as contemporary culture goods; – directions of development of communication and technical infrastructure systems; – areas where public-purpose investments (i.e., non-commercial investments significant and needed from the perspective of a given local/regional/national community, e.g., public roads, public schools, etc.) will be located. Studies of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune are internally binding acts for municipalities. Therefore, they are not generally binding laws that would have direct effects on property owners. According to the statutory provisions, they should contain a comprehensive concept of spatial development. It may be pointed out already at this point that this is usually not the case: for various reasons. It is partly connected with limited possibilities on the municipal scale and the overall weaknesses of Poland’s spatial management system. Another tool of spatial policy at the local level, this time of a regulatory nature, is local development plans. Local plans have direct effects on property owners/investors. It means that if, for example, they prohibit development (or limit development possibilities)—this is clearly binding. Analogous provisions included in studies of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune will not necessarily have such a dimension. Unlike studies of spatial development conditions and directions, local plans are not obligatory (Table 3.1.) provides basic information about them, referring to their similarities and differences to study). It is up to the authorities of a particular municipality whether they will be enacted, on what territory, and in what number. Consequently, in various municipalities in Poland, one may distinguish completely different concepts of local spatial policies in this respect. There are municipalities fully covered by local plans and municipalities where local plans have not been adopted at all (Majda 2020). There are municipalities with a local plan covering a larger area and many local plans covering smaller areas.

66

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

Local spatial development plans are adopted by commune councils (the decisionmaking and controlling bodies). They decide when to start working on a new local plan (or amend an existing local plan) and what area will be covered by the plan. Adopting a local spatial development plan is a longer process. Once the work starts (which formally involves a municipal council resolution), a concrete project should be prepared, submitted to arrangements and opinions of other public authorities, and public consultations (everyone interested has the right to submit non-binding comments on the draft local plan). A critical stage is to verify the lack of contradictions between the local spatial development plan and the study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune. It is because a possible contradiction with the provisions of the study may constitute grounds for declaring the local plan invalid (Zachariasz 2015a). We are talking here about verification carried out at the time of work on a new local plan. In a situation where the local plan is adopted for a given area, and then—regarding the same area—the content of the study is changed, there will be no legal need to adjust the local plan. Each adopted local spatial development plan is subject to verification from the perspective of its compliance with the law by the supervisory body, i.e., the provincial governor (the government’s representative in the province—this is not a local government body). If the provincial governor does not challenge the content of the local plan, the plan comes into force and takes effect. Then, anyone with a so-called legal interest (i.e., whose subjective right, especially property right, the local zoning plan violates) can challenge the local plan in an administrative court. From a formal point of view, the local plan (just like the study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune) is a resolution of the municipality council. A local spatial development plan consists of a text and a graphic part. It should be emphasized that from the perspective of formal and legal effects, both parts are equally binding. The key obligatory elements of the local plan include: – determination of land use and the demarcation lines between areas with different uses; – principles of protection and development of spatial order; – principles of environment, nature, and landscape protection; – principles of protection of cultural heritage and monuments, including cultural landscapes and modern culture goods; – requirements resulting from the needs of shaping public spaces; – development principles and land use indicators, the maximum and minimum intensity of development, the minimum percentage of the biologically active area relating to the plot area, the maximum height of development, as well as the minimum number of parking spaces and the line of development and the dimensions of buildings; – boundaries and methods of development of areas or objects subject to protection; – detailed conditions of land development and restrictions on their use, including a ban on development; – manner and term of temporary development, arrangement, and use of land; – the percentage rates of the planning annuity.

3.3 Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Development of Commune

67

Zoning should be understood as defining the purpose for which the land is intended to serve. Examples of zoning may be residential or commercial. It should be emphasized that the local zoning plan is the only tool of spatial policy in Poland that determines the zoning of land. Therefore, if there is no local zoning plan adopted for a given area, the zoning of such land will not be determined. It is also essential to clearly delimit areas with different zoning. This role is performed by the delimitation mentioned above lines included in the graphic part. Crucial is the demarcation of land zoned for agricultural purposes from land zoned for residential and commercial development. The lack of such delimitation lines will be considered a significant error of the plan. By the way, the lines delineated in the graphic part constitute universally binding legal norms. There are more problems with defining what the spatial order protection and shaping principles are. As indicated in the first part of this chapter, spatial order itself has been defined in the Act in rather general terms. Therefore, it is even more difficult to precisely define what the local plans (which are at the same time generally binding regulations) should concern. Many municipalities have different and inconsistent approaches in this respect. The legal doctrine presents various approaches in this respect. One of them (unfortunately not universally shared) is since the principles should set a general direction of activities based on previously conducted analyses of the state of spatial development. It is worth emphasizing here that some indicated issues are provided for in laws other than the Act on spatial planning and development (which will be presented in more detail in the following section). There are often terminological inconsistencies between the individual acts. In the opinion of numerous specialists involved in environmental, nature, and cultural heritage protection, the objectives which are important from these perspectives are not sufficiently considered in spatial planning. Similar ambiguities can be found in discussing the following principles in the local spatial development plans concerning the environmental, natural, and cultural spheres. The principles of development and land use indicators have already been specified much more precisely. From the perspective of investment implementation, this is one of the most essential parts of local spatial development plans. The development indicators determine (within the scope specified by the land use designation) the actual possibilities of implementing specific developments. There are sometimes problems with correct inclusion in a given case of development intensity or biologically active area in legal practice. However, this fragment of the local plan is much clearer from the formal point of view than the more general rules cited earlier. The same applies to the possible development ban. Its introduction does not raise any doubts from the perspective of consequences for the property owners (and other investors). A separate problem is when this prohibition may be introduced (to a similar extent, it applies to restrictions on development less stringent than the prohibition on development). The so-called principle of proportionality comes into play here. It means that interference in the rights of space users must be adequate to actual needs. At the same time, the prevailing view is that all ambiguities and discrepancies should be clarified, favoring the property owner/investor. Therefore, a more critical

68

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

problem than the precision of the specific restrictions of this part is sometimes the very possibility of introducing these restrictions in a given case (Ostrowska 2017). Dissatisfied with the restrictions, property owners (as indicated above) may direct complaints against local plans, and consequently, quite often, plans are challenged for this reason. On the one hand, it discourages many municipalities from enacting local plans for spatially controversial areas and, on the other hand, to introduce more stringent restrictions in the enacted plans. It is one of the symptoms of problems in the Polish spatial management system. One more element of the local plans mentioned above is worth noting. It concerns the temporary development of the real estate. It concerns, first, a situation when a given area is earmarked for a larger investment (first, an investment connected with public interest). The local master plan may not specify the date of realization of such investment, and in practice, the date may also be distant in time. Specifying the way of temporary development of the property allows the users of the space to use the property until the investment is carried out. However, it should be clearly emphasized that the local zoning plan cannot impose on the owners of the real property (or other users of the space) any obligations of an active nature. The local zoning plan cannot, for example, require that the owner of the real property carry out a particular investment project within a specific time limit. However, it is possible to introduce guidelines regarding investments that the owner will carry out if he wishes to. In other words, the local zoning plan introduces bans and not orders. Issues related to the payment of planning annuities will be described later in this chapter. The Local Planning and Development Act also includes optional elements of the local plan. That is, those that can be introduced into the local plan “as required.” These are: – boundaries of areas requiring real estate mergers and divisions; – boundaries of areas of rehabilitation of existing buildings and technical infrastructure; – boundaries of areas requiring transformation or reclamation; – boundaries of areas for the construction of large-scale commercial facilities; – boundaries of areas where public-purpose investments of local importance are located; – boundaries of public-purpose investment areas of supra-local importance; – boundaries of recreation and leisure areas and areas for mass events; – boundaries of extermination monuments and their protection zones, as well as limitations on conducting economic activity on their territory, specified in the Act of May 7, 1999, on the protection of the areas of the former Nazi extermination camps; – boundaries of closed areas, and boundaries of protective zones of closed areas; – the manner of the location of building structures relating to roads and other publicly accessible areas and to the boundaries of adjacent properties, the color scheme of building structures and roof coverage; – minimum area of newly separated building plots.

3.3 Study of Conditions and Directions of Spatial Development of Commune

69

The various elements of local plans mentioned above are associated with diverse issues. It is worth paying attention to public-purpose investments. As indicated, they must be connected with benefits for the general community (local/regional/national, e.g.,) on the one hand and with typically non-commercial character on the other. Such investments are easier to implement than others. Many of these investments have been assigned separate acts of law (first, the so-called special acts), but it is worth explaining their place in the primary order contained in the Act on spatial planning and development. Well, as indicated above, local spatial development plans are not obligatory. Thus, if, e.g., on the national or regional level, the realization of a publicpurpose investment is determined in a given area—it does not have to be reflected in the quick adoption of a local plan. These discrepancies are even more remarkable than sometimes other entities are responsible for the conception and realization of the investment (e.g., entities on the national level) and others for passing the local plan (municipal authorities). Therefore, it may happen that investments specified in government documents (e.g., national road construction program) will not have adjusted local plans. Of course, the lack of local plans specifying the location of public-purpose investments does not directly block such investments. Nevertheless, the enactment of such local plans enables “securing” specific areas for this purpose. The lack of such “security” enables different development based on the decision on land development conditions. It happens that after the initial concept of a public-purpose investment (e.g., road investment), specific entities obtain such decisions only for speculative purposes. Particular attention should be paid to the issues related to the roof covering and color, the color of buildings, or the minimum area of the building plots. As indicated, these are not obligatory elements of local spatial development plans. Therefore, these elements are often omitted when local plans for particular areas are adopted (all the more so as they may provoke controversies among the space users). Nevertheless, especially municipalities wishing to protect the spatial order should consider these elements to a larger extent. Especially that inclusion of the indicated element in the local plan does not depend on, e.g., the principle of proportionality when restricting the ownership right. As can be seen from the review, local spatial development plans in the Polish spatial management system are typically regulatory acts, intending to the legislator to determine the possibilities for developing a given area. In practice, this works out differently, as very often, detailed planning provisions are interpreted in different ways (Zachariasz 2015b; Nowak 2020). However, there is no doubt that such a formula definitely lacks flexibility in planning. The requirement of a relationship between local plans and the study of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune does not guarantee the achievement of this goal either. It should also be stressed (as has also been presented in other chapters) that the mere adoption of a local spatial development plan does not, in every case, guarantee positive effects for a given area from the perspective of spatial order protection.

70

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

3.4 Financial Consequences of Adopting Local Spatial Development Plans Another crucial issue that needs attention is the financial consequences of adopting local spatial development plans. In practice, they determine both the number of local plans adopted throughout the country and (as a consequence of the above) the overall level of the spatial management system in Poland. The financial implications are the critical factor discouraging many municipalities from pursuing a more active (in terms of adopting local plans) spatial policy on the local scale. There are two cases when the local plan increases and decreases in the property’s value, respectively. The consequences of the former are much less extensive. When the local master plan increases in the property’s value (manifested mainly by wider possibilities of development of the given area than before), the property owner may sometimes be forced to pay a zoning fee. However, this happens only after certain conditions are met. The fee will be paid only if the owner sells the property within five years from the effective date of the local master plan. If the sale does not occur within this period, the owner will not have to pay the fee. It applies, e.g., if the owner sells the property immediately after the lapse of the said five years. Similarly, the fee’s assessment and payment are not affected by whether the real property is developed after its value has increased. The planning rent rate is specified in the local spatial development plan (it belongs to the obligatory elements of the local plan). The maximum rate is 30% of the increase in the property’s value (it cannot be higher). When adopting the local master plan, the municipal council is free to set the rates. Depending on its discretion, it may charge a 30% rate and 20%, 18%, or 10%. Different rates may be assigned to different areas in one plan, with the reservation that the rates cannot be differentiated within the same designation. If several properties are included in the local plan for residential purposes, all these properties must have the same rate. The controversy concerns the possibility of using a 0% rate. As a rule, it should not be practiced. Nevertheless, there are court decisions in which it is stressed that if it can be assumed, with a probability bordering on certainty, that no increase in the value of the real property will occur in a given area, such rate may be applied (since in the local spatial development plan the planning annuity rate is assigned to all areas covered by the plan). However, this view is not fully shared and raises interpretation doubts. The planning rent is calculated based on an administrative decision. After the disposal of the real property (only equivalent disposal), the notary public notifies the municipality of the transaction. Then the executive body of the commune (the mayor of the commune) calculates and assesses the planning fee to the owner who has sold the property. The basis for that is the content of the local plan (defining the rate) and a specific valuation by a property valuer. In this case, the point of reference is not the price of the property but the value of the property resulting from the valuation (and changes to that value that occurred in connection with the adoption of the local master plan).

3.4 Financial Consequences of Adopting Local Spatial Development Plans

71

From an overall perspective, the effects—both financial and social related to the planning rent—are not very significant. The budgets of municipalities do not receive high amounts of money on this account. Especially if we relate it to possible Value Capturing instruments in other countries, the range of differences is noticeable. Even more so if we relate it to the financial consequences related to the reduction of value of individual properties by local development plans. In such a situation, there is a rule according to which the relevant municipality will be obliged to transfer the equivalent of the reduced amount to the owner/perpetual usufructuary of the real property. According to Art. 36.1 of the Act on spatial planning and development, if, in connection with the adoption of a local spatial development plan or its amendment, it has become impossible or substantially restricted for the owner or perpetual usufructuary to use the real property or a part thereof in the manner or for its intended purpose, the owner, or perpetual usufructuary may demand that the municipality. – compensation for the actual damage suffered; – or to redeem the property or any part thereof. It is worth emphasizing that the legislator distinguished two variants here. Apart from hindering by the local plan the previous use of the real estate, there is also hindering by the new local plan the use of the real estate following its previous purpose. To explain this in more detail, it is necessary to present two different situations in which the provision in question is applicable: a) b)

a local zoning plan reducing the value of the property is adopted for the area previously not covered by the local plan; the local zoning plan reducing the property value is adopted for the area previously covered by the local plan (i.e., it is either adopting an entirely new local plan or amendment to the existing plan).

In the first variant (a), there is an absolute requirement of prior use of the real property and blocking such use by the adopted local plan. The concept of use is understood here in a broad sense; manifestation of use may be, e.g., obtained by the property owner of a decision on land development conditions for the area. In the second case (variant b), the point of reference for estimating the changes is the possibilities of using and developing the land resulting from the old and new local spatial development plan. The differences in the planning possibilities of land development will constitute the basis for determining the amount of compensation that the municipality will have to pay to the owner of the real property. As indicated above, the property owner whose value has been so diminished has two claims to choose from. The first claim is predominant—it concerns the payment of a specific amount (corresponding to the reduction of the property value). The second claim is more far-reaching—it involves a demand for purchasing the real property (or its part) by the municipality. However, the latter case concerns situations in which the reduction of the real property value is very far-reaching and actually leads to depriving the real property owner of actual attributes of ownership. After the adoption of the local zoning plan, the property owners may claim compensation from the municipality. Of course, it is not that the municipality itself

72

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

has to pay the indicated amounts. It happens only responding to the filed demand. If the municipality does not respond to such a demand, or if it does not agree with its content (for example, because the demand is too high in its opinion), the property owner can take the matter to the ordinary court. These regulations lead (as indicated above) to consequences that are more broadly visible in Poland’s entire spatial management system. Many municipal authorities prefer not to take the risk of addressing serious compensation claims by property owners. The overall picture of this situation leads to the conclusion that legal regulations concerning the financial consequences of the enactment of local plans in Poland give too much preference to the individual interest of property owners at the expense of the public interest, which involves the protection of spatial order (Kowalewski 2019). In particular, the possibility of directing compensation for restrictions on the potential development of real estate looks controversial (from the perspective of planning effects and regulations of other countries).

3.5 Decision on Land Development Conditions The last of the three essential spatial policy tools (although it may be questioned whether, in this case, “spatial policy tool” constitutes the most adequate formulation) is the decision on outline planning and spatial development. The decision is issued for the areas where no local spatial development plans are in force. The authority responsible for issuing the decision is the appropriate mayor of the given municipality/city. While obtaining this decision is indeed a requirement to be able to develop land, the link between its effects and broader spatial planning (especially the protection of spatial order) is very limited (Cotella 2014). The zoning decision comes in two types: – decision on determining the location of a public-purpose investment—in accordance with its name, it refers only to public-purpose investments, and therefore the conditions for its issuance are much less stringent for investors; – zoning decision—for all other investments. It should be emphasized that the decision on land development conditions cannot be directly used as an equivalent/substitute for local spatial development plans. It is due to the different manner in which this tool is created. Local spatial development plans are generally binding regulations and are not enacted in connection with someone’s particular interests (at least this is not assumed by legal solutions). Besides, an administrative decision—by its very nature—is addressed to a specific recipient (in this case, to an application describing a specific development). Decisions on establishing the location of a public-purpose investment (issued less frequently than decisions on development conditions) have, in fact, one premise to be verified. Before issuing such a decision, the municipality’s executive body must verify whether the investment project proposed by the investor actually constitutes a public-purpose investment. If it does (and it does not contradict special regulations

3.5 Decision on Land Development Conditions

73

from the spatial planning perspective)—the authority must issue a favorable decision. Such a decision does not create direct rights to the land (the applicant investor does not always have to be the property owner). Nevertheless, it will form the basis for the expropriation of the real estate (which will be carried out under separate administrative proceedings). Decisions on outline planning and spatial development (i.e., a type of decision on outline planning and spatial development about investments other than publicpurpose investments) are much more extensive. According to, e.g., Sect. 61(1) of the Act on Planning and Spatial Development, the issuance of such a decision will be permissible only if the following conditions are jointly satisfied: (1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

at least one adjacent plot, accessible from the same public road, is developed in a way that allows determining the requirements for new development in terms of continuation of the function, parameters, features, and indicators of development and land use, including the dimensions and architectural form of buildings, building lines and intensity of land use; the site has access to a public road; the existing or projected utilities are sufficient for the development project; the area does not require permission to change the use of agricultural and forest land for non-agricultural and non-forest purposes. the decision is in accordance with different regulations.

Each of the indicated premises requires a separate discussion. The most problematic is the first one. According to the legislator’s intention, it should contain the principles of continuation of functions and proximity. These principles, in turn, are to guarantee the protection of spatial order. Direct inclusion of the spatial order protection requirement in this type of administrative proceedings would be problematic due to the undefined scope of the statutory concept of spatial order. Therefore, this requirement was introduced. According to it, if a single plot of land in the immediate vicinity will constitute a reference point for new development (i.e., will be functionally similar to it), the development will be allowed. However, what is meant by “continuation of functions” and “adjacent plot” is undefined. During the administrative proceedings, the former is determined for a decision on outline planning and spatial development, as part of its part—the urban planning analysis. This analysis is to determine whether the new development will functionally fit into its surroundings. While development identical to the existing one will be allowed without any problem, and radically divergent—not, numerous doubts arise in intermediate cases. And these intermediate cases are a field for abuse (and forcing through in places utterly inadequate for this, deviating from the characteristics of the environment development). An additional problem is related to the definition of “adjacent plots” (i.e., plots that can be considered a potential reference point within the urban planning analysis). As a rule, these plots are located in the so-called “analyzed area.” The area to be analyzed for a given planning permit must be delimited in each separate administrative procedure for issuing a planning permit. The regulations indicate the minimum size of the analyzed area (three times the plot width). However, it is indicated that the

74

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

area—if it results from some urban planning analysis conducted in the given proceedings—may be extended. At the same time, it was not indicated how far-reaching such widening of the analyzed area could be. As a result, the lack of precision of these provisions leads to further problems—the delimitation (especially in rural areas) of huge analysis areas. The purpose of such a practice of municipalities is to allow any development reported by the investor in applying for a decision. Other problems are connected with other prerequisites for issuing a decision on land development conditions. Access to a public road may be either direct (i.e., the plot must be directly adjacent to a public road and there must be an exit from the plot to the road), through an internal road (i.e., a road that is not classified as a public road), or through a road easement. Another requirement concerning the adequate development of the land boils down to the fact that when issuing the decision, a binding declaration of the utility manager should be issued stating that after the completion of the investment, the necessary infrastructure will be provided. Compliance with separate regulations involves referring to regulations concerning properties with specific properties covered by additional regulations (e.g., properties valuable in terms of nature in national parks). There may be additional restrictions for these properties. The last-mentioned condition should be emphasized. It follows that a zoning decision cannot be issued for the most valuable agricultural land (land class I–III) and forest land. The change of development principles may be introduced only through local spatial development plans (requiring prior consent of the relevant ministers) for these lands. Although not entirely transparent, this provision should be regarded as the most extensive of all the prerequisites for issuing a decision on development conditions that protect the spatial order. The problem then becomes the misapplication of local spatial development plans that carry out land rerouting for the indicated land categories. While characterizing the land development and zoning decisions, one should consider several other essential features. It has already been pointed out that the decision on outline planning and spatial development does not create new rights to a given area. It should be pointed out that regarding one land. Theoretically, several different decisions on land development conditions may be issued (and then the owner decides which decision to use; moreover, there is no obligation to continue actions after the decision on development conditions has been issued). Regarding one land, decisions on outline planning and spatial development may be obtained not only by the owners of the real property but also by all interested parties (if someone without the right to the real property obtains a decision on outline planning and spatial development, he will not be able to carry it out without cooperation with the actual property owner). It should also be stressed that if, after the issuance of a decision on outline planning and spatial development for a given area, a local spatial development plan is adopted, then the authority that had previously issued the decision (i.e., the mayor of the municipality) is obliged to declare the decision invalid. There is no doubt that in the overall scheme of things, the role of the local spatial development plans is (and should be) much more critical.

3.5 Decision on Land Development Conditions

75

An important conclusion arising from the analyses presented here is that lacking a local spatial development plan, the provisions of the spatial development conditions and directions study do not play any substantial role. Among the prerequisites mentioned above for issuance of the decision on outline planning and spatial development conditions, there is no reference to the content of the study. In no way can the decision on land development conditions be verified from the perspective of its compliance with the study. It is one of those elements of the spatial management system contributing to the most significant problems and the related deepening of the diagnosed weaknesses (Nowak 2017). Due to the limited popularity of local spatial development plans in Polish municipalities, decisions on land development conditions became the dominant tool. Decisions on land development conditions were conceived (when the 2003 Act was drafted) as a spatial policy tool, only supplementing local spatial development plans. It causes numerous problems in the spatial management system and determines the lack of control of public authorities over the reduction of spatial chaos.

3.6 Public Participation in the Preparation of Spatial Policy Tools The spatial policy tools in Poland can also be analyzed from the perspective of the legal framework for public participation. Public participation in the preparation of studies of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune and local spatial development plans follows the same pattern (resulting from the provisions of the law on spatial planning and development and the relevant executive regulations). It is worth mentioning that the obligatory forms of participation provided for in the procedure for drawing up the study and the plan belong to the forms of weak participation (the second level in the three-stage approach—cf. Chap. 4), i.e., consultation supplemented with information (Legutko-Kobus 2021). Participation is thus reduced to a minimum, including: – notification to residents and institutions about proceeding with the preparation of the planning document, along with information about the possibility and deadline for submission of applications; – information on how applications will be processed; – notification of the public viewing of the draft document, the date of the public discussion, and the opportunity to submit comments; – conduct a public discussion (at least one); – information on how comments were considered; – provide an opportunity to review records; – ability to participate in legislative work to pass the document. It is crucial that applications/remarks may be submitted by anyone interested without any additional restrictions. It does not have to be an owner of a particular

76

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

property or even a resident of the municipality which the study/local plan concerns. In the case of comments, a public discussion should be held. However, the submitted comments do not have to be considered. However, if a given comment is not considered, it is the duty of the public administration body (gmina authority) to explain why a given comment was not considered. Implementing provisions (contained in regulations) very precisely specify deadlines and methods of providing information (7 days before) about subsequent stages and possibilities of submitting applications and/or comments (the deadline is not shorter than 21 days). It is worth mentioning that these are minimum deadlines; in practice, however, municipalities rarely use times longer than those provided for in the regulations. From the perspective of the obligatory forms of participation provided for in the preparation of spatial policy tools, public discussion is of crucial importance. It is organized during the 21-day exposure period of the draft document. It is worth emphasizing that everyone has the right to participate in public consultations actively. Therefore, the tools or forms of participation used cannot exclude some stakeholders. At the same time, participation in the creation of spatial policy tools is voluntary (Szlachetko 2017). To sum up, it is a situation where the municipality creates the conditions for participation (by applying the relevant legal regulations) and at the same time encourages various stakeholder groups to participate in the process (through participation tools dedicated to them). However, no mechanism guarantees the obligation to participate in consultations or a mechanism to ensure that the comments and proposals are included in the spatial policy document. Actual public participation is one of the critical challenges for the Polish spatial management system. Difficulties in its implementation result from both the historical context (more on this in Chap. 4), the weakness of urban movements, the low level of social capital, and the limited use of modern tools associated with “e-participation.” During the work on the local spatial development plan/zoning study, it is necessary to provide a separate opinion on and consent to the draft of the planning act by another public administration authority. The Act on spatial planning and development introduces an obligation in this respect, the failure to observe, which may undermine the entire procedure related to the work on a given act. For example, in certain situations, a draft local plan (for an area directly adjacent to another municipality) must be given an opinion by the mayor of the neighboring municipality. Such an opinion, even a negative one, is not binding (although it must be expressed). By contrast, if the legislature provides for the obligation to agree (not to give an opinion) on a draft study/local plan, the agreeing body’s negative opinion will be binding for the bodies drawing up the act. In certain situations, the national park director will be the body that agrees to the draft local spatial development plan. If the director refuses to agree to the local plan, the plan’s content will have to be adjusted to his expectations (otherwise, the local plan cannot be passed). In practice, however, the agreement procedure, often instead of a platform for broader cooperation, provides a basis for numerous disputes between public administration bodies. It is because the consulting bodies have expectations toward the planning acts that are not in line

3.6 Public Participation in the Preparation of Spatial Policy Tools

77

with the legal requirements. On the other hand, some municipalities are reluctant to limit their independence in executing the local spatial policy. The procedures that can be associated with public participation look a little different when issuing decisions on land development conditions. It is mainly because the administrative decision is not an act of spatial policy (addressed to everyone) but an act of individual application of the law—addressed to the applicant. Nevertheless, apart from the applicant itself, the parties to the administrative proceedings are the owners of neighboring properties (neighboring to the property to which the application for a decision on outline planning and spatial development relates). The fact of being a party relating to public participation includes, among others: – access to all case files; – the ability to hold specific positions on an ongoing basis; – directing appeals of decisions made. Therefore, it can be assumed that the participation is very limited in this respect and covers only the scope of the neighboring property owners (which may raise some doubts, especially in the case of more significant investments). It is also not so that the position of other parties to the proceedings may always be considered. The body issuing the decision is bound here by the statutory premises (which, as indicated above, are not always fully clear and explicit, but they are the basis for issuing the decision). To a larger extent, public participation issues are considered in solutions from the perspective of sectoral spatial policies concerning specific detailed issues, the best example of which is the participation provided for in the law on revitalization (Legutko-Kobus and Nowak 2020). The diversity of applied solutions related to participation in spatial policy at the local level is one barrier to its effective implementation. At the same time, as municipalities (mainly cities) are characterized by varying advancements of the implementation of participation procedures and civic democracy in the creation of development policy, the gap between actual and apparent participation is widening in Poland (Hołuj and Legutko-Kobus 2018). One way to promote real, full, and engaging public participation in spatial planning is to develop a consultation code at the national level and to promote and encourage its use, including at the local level. The Code (Seven Principles… 2013) emphasizes that the participation process should include: – good faith, meaning that the parties listen to each other in a spirit of civil dialogue and show a willingness to understand each other’s differences; – universality, i.e., the assumption that everyone interested in the topic should be effectively informed about the consultation and have the opportunity to express their views; – transparency implies that information about the purpose, rules, process, and outcome of consultations must be publicly available; – responsiveness, meaning that everyone who submits an opinion is entitled to a substantive response within a reasonable time (which does not preclude aggregate responses);

78

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

– coordination, meaning that each consultation should have a host responsible for the consultation. In addition, everyone should know what they are consulting, for whom they are consulting, and why they are consulting; – predictability, meaning that consultations should be conducted from the beginning of the process in a planned manner and based on clear rules (including legal provisions defining statutory “minimums”); – respect for the general interest; this principle is fundamental in land use planning as it leads to consensus around the common good. While the Code provides guidelines for all local governments, many have developed local “good practices” of participation based on long experience in developing spatial policy tools and conducting participatory processes within them (more on this in Chap. 4).

3.7 Spatial Policy at the Supra-Local Level The spatial policy is also carried out at levels other than municipal. In Poland, the other units of local government are counties and voivodeships. The role of county (powiat) authorities in this context are very limited. It boils down to expressing opinions on specific acts of spatial policy and conducting (where necessary) analyses in this regard. The tasks related to spatial policy are much more extensive at the voivodeship level. In Poland, this is the closest level to the regional level (there are no regions in the traditional sense). The critical spatial policy tool at the provincial level is the provincial spatial development plan. It does not have the characteristics of local spatial development plans (although the name of both tools is similar). Spatial development plans are more like local studies of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune. They, too, contain a set of spatial information and a matching concept of regional development policy. In this context, it is worth distinguishing the following elements of provincial spatial development plans: – characterization of the elements of the voivodeship settlement network along with communication and infrastructure links; – system of protected areas, both in terms of environmental and nature protection, as well as protection of cultural landscape, heritage, and historical monuments; – public-purpose investments of supra-local importance. In particular, identification of public-purpose investments of supra-local importance should be considered essential. The location of such investments should be transferred and specified in detail in commune studies of conditions and directions of spatial development. Subsequently, (from the legislator’s perspective), local spatial development plans should be adopted to “secure” land for this particular type of location. In practice, however, it works to a moderate extent: the adoption of local spatial development plans depends on the will of the municipality (supra-local authorities

3.7 Spatial Policy at the Supra-Local Level

79

cannot force the municipality to do so). No local spatial development plans have been adopted for some areas adjusted by supra-municipal acts to public-purpose investments in such a system. When no local plans have been adopted, the land may be developed in other ways based on a decision on land development conditions. It is also the reason many investors prefer to bypass the essential solutions, all the more so as an easier realization path for many investments is given to them by special acts detached from the spatial order (e.g., the road special act concerning public roads). It should be emphasized that in Poland, the role of national authorities in creating spatial policy will be even more minor. In November 2020, the previously important document defining the basis for this policy—the National Spatial Development Concept 2030—was canceled. Public authorities declare the development of another document (the Concept of National Development), which does not change the fact that now and for a long time, Poland is devoid of a critical document related to spatial policy at the national level. In the analyzed context, there is also a problem of integrated development planning. It is a postulate made in numerous expert studies, as one of the directions conditioning the improvement of the spatial management system in Poland. So far, however, attempts to implement integrated development planning did not go beyond the experimental case studies at the level of provinces. One attempt to improve the situation was the amendment (in the second half of 2020) of the law on the principles of development policy. As a result of these amendments, a more detailed scope of development strategies was defined (among others, at the local and regional level), which should also be translated into the spatial policy (an element of the strategy are recommendations to spatial policies, the strategies should also contain a definition of the functional-spatial structure). As of the first half of 2021, the new formulations of the development strategy are working to a minimal extent.

3.8 Special Laws on Spatial Planning Issues In addition to the Act on Spatial Planning and Development, issues concerning spatial planning and development are addressed in numerous other Polish Acts (Acts are the key universally binding legal acts in Poland, which are general and abstract in nature). In this context, these laws can be attempted to be classified in specific ways: – acts supplementing (from various perspectives) the Planning and Zoning Act; – acts allowing certain restrictions in the Planning and Zoning Act to be disregarded. Some systemic problems can be diagnosed in the case of both separated groups of laws. In the case of the first group, these problems will first consist in ensuring consistency of particular terminologies. The problem lies in the fact that the terminology used in other laws is not identical to that in the Law on spatial planning and development. For example, in the first group of acts mentioned above, we can distinguish the Environmental Protection Act, the Nature Conservation Act, and the Act on the Protection and Care of Monuments. In each of these laws, the context of

80

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

spatial planning is included. It is indicated, for example, what additional elements (essential from the perspective of the particular act) should be included in the studies of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune and local spatial development plans. Very often, the problem lies in the fact that, firstly, the representatives of sciences related to environmental protection, protection of cultural heritage, as well as the real estate market (and real estate valuation) have slightly different expectations toward spatial policy tools than urban planners and lawyers. Therefore, it often happens that both at the stage of drafting and at the (later) stage of interpreting the contents of spatial policy tools, this problem occurs. On the one hand, it comes down to combining perspectives from different disciplines, and on the other hand, combining (which is also not easy) and making the regulations of individual laws consistent. However, the second group of laws definitely causes more problems. The regulations contained in these laws provide a basis for circumventing the (often weak) limitations of spatial planning and development. These are usually the special acts (in Polish: specustawa), they mean laws concerning specific types of investments. They have been deemed necessary by the legislature. Due to the necessity of their rapid implementation, the legislator has excluded numerous procedures and restrictions. Special acts, for example, concerns road and other infrastructure investments. On their basis, e.g., public roads may be (and actually are) realized entirely independently of the content of studies of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune and local spatial development plans. Particularly criticized is the housing special act, which allows for implementation of larger housing investments in disregard of the basic spatial order (and especially regardless of the local spatial development plans). A positive solution used in this law is the inclusion of urban planning standards. In the short term, such a solution may indeed help achieve some objectives, but it seriously distorts the already flawed spatial order in the long term.

3.9 Problems of Regulatory Interpretation As has already been indicated, the Polish regulations on spatial planning and development contain numerous inconsistencies and incoherencies. It is also noticeable in their typically legal interpretation. Selected related examples are presented below. It should be noted that the purpose of presenting these examples is not to discuss legal problems alone. It is a broader presentation of what, in the analyzed context, the weaknesses of the spatial management system may consist of. Under Sect. 6(2) of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development, everyone has the right, within limits outlined in the Act, to develop the land to which he holds a legal title (following the conditions outlined in the local spatial development plan or the decision on outline planning and spatial development), provided that this does not violate the public interest protected by law and the interest of third parties. Furthermore, everyone has the right to protect their legal interest when developing land belonging to other persons or organizational units.

3.9 Problems of Regulatory Interpretation

81

The above provision is the source of discussion on the role of real property owners in the spatial management system. There is no doubt that, on the one hand, certain rights of owners should be considered (public authorities may not impose certain restrictions on them in a discretionary manner). On the other hand, public authorities must have concrete possibilities of protecting spatial order (and the related public interest). The positions of the courts assessing this problem are diverse. For example, we can cite the position of the Supreme Administrative Court (of November 4, 2011, II OSK 1855/11, Legalis), according to which it is impossible to share the view that the confrontation between ownership and spatial order must be in favor of ownership because only this interpretation preserves ownership as a fundamental right. By its very nature, spatial order, in almost every case, comes into collision with the property right. It would mean that in practice, spatial order could not theoretically be implemented. In the opinion of the Province Administrative Court of Lublin (judgment of April 12, 2012, II SA/Lu 84/12, Legalis), interpretation of the local spatial development plan in favor of the owner’s rights could only be applied to unclear concepts whose legal meaning cannot be established through linguistic and logical interpretation. The freedom to develop does not mean the freedom of land use, which is determined by the municipality’s legislative body by adopting the local zoning plan. Notwithstanding the above, contrary theses can also be found in case-law. The most radical position was expressed, among others, in the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Krakow (dated April 11, 2011, II SA/Kr 79/11, Legalis), where the thesis was adopted (from the perspective of legal interpretation itself, grossly erroneous) that the authorities may not automatically assume the primacy of spatial order over the property right. Another example of a provision containing sources of doubt is, e.g., 15 Sect. 1 Item 2 of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development. It concerns the scope of the local spatial development plan. One of the obligatory elements of the local plan is to specify the principles of protection and shaping of the spatial order. Spatial order is an essential value in the Polish spatial management system. Nevertheless, there is a problem with what exactly should be included in the local plan. The dilemma is of great importance also from a non-legal perspective. Also, some courts have problems with how to assess it. For example, the Provincial Administrative Court in Gda´nsk (judgment of 28.06.2017, II SA/Gd 217/16, Legalis) indicated that provisions allowing a type of development or prohibiting some developments are among the principles shaping spatial order since the plan covers undeveloped space. However, from such an approach, the provisions of the local plan setting out the principles of shaping spatial order duplicate other ones. Therefore, the approach expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24.06.2014 is much better. (II OSK 82/14, Legalis). It was indicated that the principles of protection and shaping of spatial order are one of the points of the directional provisions, determining the directions of development, principles, and objectives adopted in the development of a given area. These provisions contain the spatial development concept and reflect the development conditions resulting from the geographical features of a given area or environmental conditions. Therefore,

82

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

they undoubtedly play the role of guidelines for the solutions provided for in the plan, making them characterized by generality. It shows the dilemmas of how to protect the spatial order in specific spatial policy tools. On the one hand, it cannot be invoked too generally, as it will not be translated into practice. On the other hand, forcefully replacing these provisions with specific content may introduce additional ambiguities. From the legal perspective, the formula of spatial order protection is still unclear in the Polish system. Another legal dilemma concerns the financial consequences of adopting local spatial development plans. The consequences related to the decrease in the property value by the local plan were described above. It may be recalled that we distinguish two situations: – a local development plan is adopted for the area previously covered by the plan; – a local spatial development plan is adopted for an area not previously covered by a plan. In the case of the latter option, the point of reference is, according to, e.g., 37(11)(1) of the Law on Planning and Spatial Development, “the actual use of the land and the land.” The difference between the value of the property before and after the local plan comes into force is based precisely on what the actual use of the land was beforehand. In practice, however, the understanding of what activities fall within this scope varies. For example, whether such previous “actual use” is obtaining a decision on development conditions before the local plan comes into force or whether other, less advanced activities will suffice. For example, the Regional Court in Krakow, in its ruling of December 17, 2019. (I C 1591/17, Legalis) indicated in this context that it is not required that before the enactment or change of the plan the real property is actually used for the purpose consistent with its previous use, but only that after the change it cannot be used in such a manner. The Court recalled that also in the case-law of the Supreme Court, it is consistently indicated that the assessment of whether the real property can be used in a previous manner or accordance with the purpose mentioned above should be based, not only on the previous actual use of the real property but the potentially permissible manner of use should also be considered, even if the entitled party has not realized it (cf. judgments of the Supreme Court of September 9, 2015, IV CSK 754/14). In practice, such an approach not only contradicts the wording of, for example, 37(11)(1) of the Spatial Planning and Development Act but also exacerbates the negative consequences for the spatial management system (further discouraging municipal authorities from adopting local spatial development plans). Problems with interpretation also apply to decisions on land development conditions. The principles mentioned above of continuity of functions and proximity (one of the prerequisites for issuing a decision on land development conditions) are included in, e.g., 61 Sect. 1 Item 1 of the Act on Planning and Spatial Development. According to this provision, a decision may be issued when at least one neighboring plot, accessible from the same public road, is developed in a way allowing for the determination of requirements for new development as regards continuation of the function, parameters, features, and indicators of development and land development,

3.9 Problems of Regulatory Interpretation

83

including overall dimensions and architectural form of buildings, building line and intensity of land use. Adjustment of these guidelines to specific cases causes great doubts in many cases. The best evidence of this is various theses of judicial decisions. A detailed scheme covering the procedure for the decision on land development conditions was recalled by the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gda´nsk in the judgment of February 12, 2020. (II SA/Gd/19, Legalis). It pointed out that to determine whether it is possible to establish planning and spatial development conditions for a given project, it should be analyzed. It should be determined whether the buildings on the land neighboring the area on which the investor intends to carry out new development are such that how they have been constructed allows the requirements for new buildings to be determined. Consequently, to establish the conditions for new development, i.e., to consider whether the legally required premises exist, there must be at least one building in the neighboring area, as only as will it be possible to establish the continuation of the function, parameters, features, and indicators of development and land development, including the overall dimensions and architectural form of the building, building line and intensity of land use. The lack of a facility with similar functions and parameters in a given area results in a refusal to issue a planning permit. However, when at least one similar facility exists, the authority is obliged to consider the remaining premises specified in the Act and executive acts to the Act, which determine the possibility of issuing development conditions. There is a severe problem as to how these general guidelines fit in with, for example, the possible location of neighborhood stores (or other facilities) in a residential area. Very often, there is a need to make a subjective (necessarily) assessment. While it is indeed impossible to demand that the legal framework regulates and addresses every problem, in the present case, understatements are the basis for numerous abuses from a spatial order perspective (Izdebski 2013).

3.10 Summary The chapter presents the fundamental legal solutions and mechanisms. Their detailed analysis and reference to other planning conditions and other countries are presented in the next chapter. At this point—only from a formal and legal perspective—it can be pointed out that local spatial policy tools in Poland have a form: – a resolution—an act of universally binding law (local plans); – resolution—an act internally binding for the municipality authorities (studies of conditions and directions of spatial development of commune); – administrative decision (decisions on land development conditions). – When applying each of these tools, legal problems and doubts arise and different consequences—adequate to the adopted legal formula. The problem is the lack

84

3 The Spatial Management System in Poland …

of significant technical and legal coordination between the various tools. The logic of using particular legal forms seems questionable—especially relating to the formula of an administrative decision as a specific substitute for a generally binding resolution. One can also notice the legislator’s intention to specify many elements related to spatial development. However, this intention is not fully reflected in the realm of implementation. It often translates into legally imprecise formulations that provoke interpretations favorable to investors and excessive provocation of procedural problems that are not related to the merits of the case.

Bibliography Cotella G (2014) Spatial planning in Poland between European influence and dominant market forces. In: Reimer M, Getimis P, Blotevogel H (eds) Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. A comparative perspective on continuity and changes. Routledge, New York, pp 271–273 Gdesz M (2020) Ład przestrzenny z perspektywy orzecznictwa s˛adów administracyjnych. In: Nowak M (ed) Ochrona ładu przestrzennego z perspektywy prawno—urbanistycznej. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa, pp 46–65 Hołuj D, Legutko-Kobus P (2018) Partycypacja jako element rewitalizacji (przykłady miast z województwa małopolskiego i mazowieckiego). Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach 365:93–119 Izdebski H (2013) Ideologia i zagospodarowanie przestrzeni. Wolters Kluwer Business, Warszawa Kowalewski A (2019) Interes publiczny i przestrze´n—kilka uwag. In: Danielewicz J, Sikora, Fernandez D (eds) Zarz˛adzanie rozwojem współczesnych miast. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łód´z, pp 265–267 Legutko-Kobus P (2021) Wyzwania dla partycypacji społecznej w planowaniu przestrzennym w okresie pandemii COVID-19 w Polsce. In: Nowak M (ed) Polityka przestrzenna w czasie kryzysu. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa, pp 191–207 Legutko-Kobus P, Nowak M (2020) Niesprawno´sc´ władz publicznych w s´wietle prawnoprzestrzennych i partycypacyjnych narz˛edzi rewitalizacji. Studia z Polityki Publicznej 3(27):117– 135. https://doi.org/10.33119/KSzPP/2020.3.7 Majda T (2020) Miejscowy plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego—uwarunkowania i przykłady dobrych praktyk. In: Nowak M (ed) Ochrona ładu przestrzennego z perspektywy prawno urbanistycznej. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa, pp 129–158 Markowski T (2010) Planowanie przestrzenne i instrumenty jego realizacji w s´wietle teorii ułomnych rynków. In: Lorens P, Martyniuk, P˛eczek J (eds) Zarz˛adzanie rozwojem przestrzennym miast. Wydawnictwo Urbanista, Gda´nsk Markowski T (2011) Funkcjonowanie gospodarki przestrzennej—zało˙zenia budowy modelu zinte˙ growanego planowania i zarz˛adzania rozwojem. In: Markowski T, Zuber P (eds) System planowania przestrzennego i jego rola w strategicznym zarz˛adzaniu rozwojem kraju. Studia KPZK PAN 134. Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa, pp 25–44 Nowak M (2017) The role and effects of case—Low in spatial competition. An analysis of selected cases. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 265:172–180 Nowak M (2020) Planowanie i zagospodarowanie przestrzenne. Komentarz do ustawy i przepisów powi˛azanych. Beck, Warszawa Nowak M (2021a) Spatial management system in Poland. The categorisation of the problem from the literature on the subject perspective. Public Governance w druku

Bibliography

85

Nowak M, Lorens P (2020) Ochrona i kształtowanie ładu przestrzennego w miejscowych planach zagospodarowania przestrzennego. Propozycje kierunku wykładni. In: Nowak M (ed) Ochrona ładu przestrzennego z perspektywy prawno-urbanistycznej. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa, pp 104– 128 Ostrowska A (2017) Rozwa˙zania nad istnieniem i istot˛a wolno´sci zabudowy—głos w dyskusji. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie—Skłodowska Sectio G LXIV 1:153–170 Parysek JJ (2010) Urban policy in the context of contemporary urbanisation processes and development issues of Polish cities. J Urban Reg Anal 2(2):33–44 Siedem zasad konsultacji (2013) (Seven Principles… 2013) Ministerstwo Administracji i Cyfryzacji. Departament Analiz i Komunikacji Publicznej. http://archiwum.mc.gov.pl/files/7_zasad_30-04. pdf. Accessed 6 August 2021 Szlachetko JH (2017) Partycypacja społeczna w lokalnej polityce przestrzennej. Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa Wo´zniak M (2018) Interes publiczny i interes indywidualny w planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym. Uniwersytet Opolski, Opole Zachariasz I (2015) Funkcje planu miejscowego. Biuletyn KPZK. PAN 257(258):28–45 Zachariasz I (2015) Nowelizacja prawa planowania i zagospodarowania przestrzennego. In: Kopyci´nski P (ed) Sprawne pa´nstwo. Małopolska Szkoła Administracji Publicznej, Kraków, Propozycje zmian w funkcjonowaniu jednostek samorz˛adu Terytorialnego, pp 118–134

Chapter 4

The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

Abstract This chapter, which discusses the results, will aim to a broader comparison and determination of the conditions and problems related to urban planning practice and the specific wording of legal regulations. In particular, in the chapter: – a list of crucial issues in the Polish spatial management system will be presented, along with determining the extent to which a given problem results from a specific wording of legal regulations, and to what extent from a particular practice of planning (and social, cultural conditions, etc.) – based on this statement, it will be assessed comprehensively which weaknesses of the spatial management system related to the wording of legal regulations affect planning practice, and which weaknesses of planning practice affect the law (both on a central, regional, and local scale); – the identified problems will be compared with the issues of spatial management systems diagnosed in other European countries. Keywords Costs of spatial chaos · External costs · Legal regulation · Spatial management systems · European countries · Planning practice

4.1 Introduction The next stage of consideration is to juxtapose the problems diagnosed in the Polish spatial planning system with their possible dependence on legal regulations. Firstly, this will allow a more detailed look at the opportunities and barriers concerning the spatial planning system in Poland. Secondly, it can be a reference point and a contribution to discussions in the international sphere. First, attention should be paid to the spatial chaos that exists in Poland and its costs. It is a crucial point of reference for the discussion of the Polish spatial planning system. At the same time, it is evidence of the consequences of specific actions in the field of planning law and practice. The following section presents the effects and costs of spatial chaos. Attention is drawn to the challenges and problems associated with spatial chaos. It was also pointed out that their elimination is a multi-stage © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. J. Nowak et al., Spatial Planning in Poland, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96939-4_4

87

88

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

process, leading to a gradual improvement. Another critical issue is the inefficiency of public authorities in the spatial planning system in Poland. The following subsection describes precisely what it is. In a separate subsection, attention is also paid to barriers related to public participation. After presenting the indicated problems—in which the legal dimension has already been strongly emphasized—the following subsections relate these problems in even greater detail to the specificity of the legal regulations of spatial planning in Poland and the specificity of this in terms of international discussion. Consideration was given to whether the presented problems and interdependencies could be more representative to a broader extent (and if so, to what extent).

4.2 The Costs of Spatial Chaos as a Result of a Flawed Spatial Planning System One of Poland’s most significant contemporary problems is the crisis of spatial management, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. It is the result of both contemporary processes and historical conditions of socio-economic development. For many years, they have been the subject of criticism, which intensified especially after about 2005, when the harmful effects of a lack of adequate state spatial policy, including defective law, which is one of the most important sources of the crisis, became visible. Some causes date back to the partitions or even the Middle Ages. However, most of the negative conditions exist nowadays and are actually happening right before our eyes. Defective processes, mainly urbanization and the growing spatial chaos, generate enormous social and economic losses. Meanwhile, each human activity generates some effects that can be considered in terms of economic gains and losses. The economic (including financial) consequences of spatial chaos in Poland were presented in an extensive (over 800 pages) report by the Committee for Spatial Economy and Regional Planning of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Kowalewski ´ et al. 2018; abbreviated in English Sleszy´ nski et al. 2020). There, five main thematic areas were distinguished. Several expert teams representing different research specialties often performed literature searches of existing works on a given topic and conducted their own original analyses. Natural, socio-economic, etc., effects were estimated. The final, synthetic results of this work are presented in Table 4.1. The total costs of spatial chaos in Poland were estimated at 19.4 billion EUR (84.3 billion PLN) per year. The most tremendous losses were estimated in transport and mobility 7.3 billion EUR (31.5 billion PLN). Chaos is the cause of increased transport intensity, as dispersed development, the lack of clear and compelling settlement and transport systems (including the most effective—concentric and radial) is the reason for longer travel routes and higher unit costs. In turn, the increase in traffic and the construction

4.2 The Costs of Spatial Chaos as a Result of a Flawed Spatial Planning System

89

Table 4.1 Monetary costs of spatial chaos in Poland by activity Issue

Description of costs

Settlement and technical infrastructure

construction of infrastructure, servicing of excessively dispersed settlements, adverse balance of spatial management

4.48

A 10-year amortization period was assumed for multi-year costs. The amount does not include claims for damages

Transport and mobility

excessive commuting, traffic congestion, time loss, external costs

7.44

In the case of several different estimates of the same phenomenon, the amounts were averaged. For external costs, 20% of total costs were assumed

Agriculture

mechanization, transport, excessive exclusion of land from agricultural production, protection by wooded areas

2.08

data from communes and provinces were interpolated to typical rural communes in Poland

Real estate market

land redemption, compensation claims, reduced property tax revenues

2.58

Without the so-called “speculative bubble” and potential compensation costs associated with the possible repeal of local plans

External costs in the natural environment

expenditure on environmental protection, health costs, natural disaster recovery

2.98

The minimum amount, e.g., WHO estimated the cost of severe air pollution at $102 billion

Total

Estimated amount nationwide (annually, EUR billion)

Notes

19.92

´ Source Kowalewski et al. (2018), Sleszy´ nski et al. (2020)

of new infrastructure contribute significantly to this chaos. It, therefore, has the character of a hazardous negative feedback loop (Borkowski et al. 2018). Poland is also experiencing an increase in daily mobility, which directly translates into transportation needs. It is due to the growing urbanization and tertiarization of the economy, with a decline in the population engaged in “immobile” agriculture. On the eve of the socio-economic transformation (1988), according to the census, 5.0 million people (27.1% of the total workforce) worked in the agricultural sector in Poland, while in 2004, according to the Statistics Poland survey, it was 2.5 million,

90

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

and in 2019—only 1.5 million. The size and structure of daily mobility depend on a residence, travel destinations (especially workplaces), and the frequency of movements to different destinations. In Poland, a huge problem is a mismatch between places of work and places of residence (lack of spatial balance between demand and supply on the labor market). The most attractive labor markets concern the most developed agglomerations, with Warsaw at the forefront. There are underdeveloped peripheral areas at the opposite end of the spectrum, where there are no jobs. The inhabitants follow the employment route either by moving permanently or commuting long distances. Commutes to Warsaw even reach distances of over 100 km. Considering the time it takes to commute, this phenomenon’s mass scale results in very high external costs, including social costs, e.g., degrading family and social life, interpersonal bonds, civic activity, etc. The costs of excessive commuting to Warsaw have been estimated for the 13 closest counties (grodziski, grójecki, kozienicki, legionowski, mi´nski, nowodworski, otwocki, piaseczy´nski, pruszkowski, sochaczewski, warszawski zachodni, wołomi´nski, wyszkowski—the names come mainly from the towns which are the seats of the counties) at EUR 149.4 million annually. Spatial chaos directly increases the demand for transportation. It is because the disorderly location of different functions and the lack of a precise spatial and organizational structure increase the length of travel routes. Thus, the disorder is a reason for increased transport intensity and generates the need to provide more land area for transport needs. Another large group is the settlement and technical infrastructure costs, estimated at 4.8 billion EUR a year. It is because poor localization of development and related utility functions results in the need for increased maintenance expenditures and thus generates higher economic and social costs. The following challenges and problems can be identified here: a) b) c)

d)

e)

f)

the unsatisfactory condition of public infrastructure service; lack of land development (provision of utilities, electricity, etc.); orphological-functional chaos, chaotic buildings and urban-spatial dysfunctions, and in natural systems’ decomposition, defragmentation and disruption of the traditional rhythm of matter and energy circulation; excessive location of buildings on areas with agricultural functions (the so-called urbanistyka narolna—praedial urbanism), resulting in the loss of agricultural and food areas (food zones); oversupply of investment lands with low localization potential (defective structure of settlement areas: too small area of plots, disorderly property status, lack of scale-up, and access to infrastructure); the low economic effectiveness of settlements, resulting directly from the dispersion of buildings and the lack of harmony of settlement and functional systems—the distance between places of residence, work, and services, and the unnecessary crossing of relations, disorder, lack of hierarchy, etc.

One of the better-documented costs concerns the analysis of K. Heffner and P. Gibas (2018). They calculated that each excess meter of building distance above a certain

4.2 The Costs of Spatial Chaos as a Result of a Flawed Spatial Planning System

91

set distance from existing buildings generates 359 EUR of additional costs due to infrastructure construction and maintenance. Over ten years, it results in 8.1 billion EUR (construction) and 7.3 billion EUR nationwide. In turn, P. Lity´nski and A. Hołuj (2017) calculated the total costs of households for commuting in Poland from suburban zones of 18 provincial capitals at EUR 115.3 billion in 2017–2030. Another economic cost of spatial disorder—related to technical infrastructure—is closely correlated with the settlement. It is because the primary purpose of infrastructure is to serve human activities—users, households, enterprises, institutions, etc., including ensuring mobility and accessibility. Therefore, in planning, infrastructure development, special attention must be paid to its efficiency, in the sense of rationality of construction and maintenance costs relating to service standards. These standards are primarily accessibility (including spatial, transport, temporary), efficiency, effectiveness, capability, reachability, availability, ability, productivity, obtainability, etc. Thus, it is a fundamental economic problem related to the financial efficiency and needs of local development, having a fundamental impact on the quality of life and business conditions, including in particular the availability of various types of services, the level of infrastructure equipment, and the implementation of sustainable development in terms of environmental protection. In this context, the costs of technical facilities serving the needs of households, enterprises, etc., are exceptionally high. In the case of detached single-family housing, the cost of infrastructure construction is 26,578 EUR/per 1 house, for single-family terraced housing—19,049 EUR/per 1 house, and in the case of multifamily housing—14,580 EUR/per 1 flat (Olbrysz and Zachariasz 2015). As a result of the dispersion and chaotic distribution of development, the course of infrastructure networks is longer and inefficient. This indicator exceeds even 35 m per 1 person in some municipalities, including the length of the network per 1 inhabitant in the country’s east is even five times higher than in the west (Fig. 4.1). As a result of excessive investment needs, numerous local spatial conflicts are related to the design and routing of linear and point objects, especially road networks, water, sewage management (sewage treatment plants), and waste dumps. It repeatedly delays and halts the work on planning documents, i.e., spatial planning studies, and local plans, which also generates additional costs. In the case of the real estate market (the costs of the spatial chaos were estimated at EUR 2.5 billion), the most “hard” data belongs to the category of “indirect” costs and concerns the considerable oversupply of building plots, of which there are 1.2 million hectares in local plans alone, over 90% for single-family housing. While we do not know precisely how much of this land is already invested, we can estimate the global demographic absorptive (capacity), suggesting that about 60 million people could live in these areas (Kowalewski et al. 2018, Table 4.2). However, this applies to only 30% of the country’s area, as the rest is invested in based on development and land use conditions. It is also known that in the period 2003–2019, about 600 thousand hectares of municipalities’ land was changed to non-agricultural use (the socalled odrolnienie, “de-agriculturalisation”), in about 60% allocated for residential

92

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

Fig. 4.1 Length of water supply network per person by communes (2019) (Source based on the Local Data Bank [Statistics Poland])

development, which gives a demographic absorption of about 11 million people, depending on the assumed indicators of housing density (Fig. 4.2). The most characteristic is the risk of “bursting of the speculative bubble” on the land market. It consists of the fact that if all owners of “free” building land in Poland wanted to sell it, supply would often exceed demand. Investors’ profits are therefore entirely virtual. The speculative bubble problem in the real estate market would also have long-lasting effects and would significantly prolong the recovery from recession. The potential panic created would further exacerbate the projected losses. However, one does not see drastic reductions in land prices since the efforts and investments made, e.g., in reclassifying land in local plans, are a long-term type of security for one’s income, family, etc., in the future. If the land is not more heavily traded, the risk of a speculative bubble “bursting” seems lower.

150,159

8,303

28,695

22,616

16,177

8,997

8,491

11,338

7,667

22,126

14,372

282

11,199

59,551

578

723

560

560

1,125

1,477

2,612

3,047

237

3,462

10,278

6,776

5,203

3,611

3,854

6,286

3,745

11,643

4,692

Source based on data from the Ministry of Development, Labor and Technology and the Statistics Poland

125,253

6,640

J – extensively developed gminas (with forests or nature protection areas)

Poland (total amount)

24,458

7,937

F – communes with developed transport functions

I – gminas with moderately developed agricultural functions

7,235

E – multifunctional urban centers

18,847

9,251

D – their external zones (C)

H – gminas with intensively; developed agricultural functions

6,960

C – functional urban areas; subregional centers

13,229

18,026

B – their external zones (A)

G – communes with other developed non-agricultural functions (tourism and large-scale functions, including mining)

12,670

in thousand persons

by changes in land use (land reclassification)

According to local spatial development plans by residential areas in local plans

based on 2068 communes

for the whole country (with additional estimation)

According to communes studies

A – functional urban areas; voivodeship capitals (cores)

Category of communes (according to the classification ´ of P. Sleszy´ nski and T. Komornicki, 2016)

Table 4.2 Compilation of population capacity estimates by communes type, 2014

4.2 The Costs of Spatial Chaos as a Result of a Flawed Spatial Planning System 93

94

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

Fig. 4.2 Demographic capacity in existing local spatial development plans by municipalities, 2014 ´ (Source based on Sleszy´ nski et al. [2020])

Suppose one were to cautiously assume that 3/4 of construction land in Poland is oversupplied. In that case, the value of about 900 thousand hectares should be multiplied by the difference in the value of the average price of agricultural and construction land. According to the capitalized rent method, J. Kozi´nski (2012) estimated the value of that surplus at EUR 64.3 billion (agricultural land) and EUR 144.1 billion (building land). In 2015, according to the conversion of data from the Real Estate Prices and Values Register (Statistics Poland), it was 1.43 and 10.76 EUR, respectively, so the difference was 9.32 EUR and the calculated surplus value—83.9 billion EUR (Table 4.3). According to yet other calculations, the value of oversupplied land ´ is EUR 39.7–64.3 billion (Sleszy´ nski 2018). These values differ significantly from each other but indicate that the problem should be seen in dozens of billions of euros. Another entirely consistent subject area of spatial chaos formation is land use and agricultural activity (spatial chaos costs in the amount of 2.0 billion EUR). The problem here is excessive fragmentation of land and poor functional and spatial organization. It is not facilitated by a defective law that, instead of deliberately and rationally shaping functional units in villages, hamlets, etc., allows minimal areas, e.g., single plots, to be covered by local plans. Another problem is that agricultural parcels belonging to one owner are too far away from each other, which results in much higher transport costs. Areas where this problem is particularly significant include post-regeneration areas (mainly western and partly western Poland, Bieszczady), where after 1989, there was a large-scale

4.2 The Costs of Spatial Chaos as a Result of a Flawed Spatial Planning System

95

Table 4.3 Estimates of the value of the “speculative bubble” in the real estate market in Poland (the value of oversupplied land for investments) according to different sources Source

Methodology

Value bn EUR

J. Kozi´nski (2012)

capitalized rental method

64.3 (agricultural land) 144.1 (building land)

´ P. Sleszy´ nski (2018)

(1) comparison of agricultural and 31.7–76.3 building land prices in counties (poviats); (2) according to changes in land use for non-agricultural purposes in local plans

based on actual data from the Register of real estate prices and values (provided by the Statistics Poland)

comparison of average prices of 83.9 agricultural and building land in Poland and assumption of the value of 900,000 ha of oversupplied land

introduction of property leasing by individual farmers, living permanently very often far from cultivated fields and meadows. Based on the 2010 agricultural census, 109 rural municipalities and rural areas in urban–rural municipalities were identified, in which farmland located more than 10 km from the farm seat accounted for more than 35% of their number. The effect of land use changes from agricultural to non-agricultural (mainly residential) purpose is a strong oversupply of investment land, resulting in the dispersion of development and excessive exclusion of these lands from agricultural use and fallowing, particularly disfiguring the landscape. It lowers both the production potential and the effectiveness of agricultural activity due to land parceling into smaller plots and increasing service costs (mechanization, fertilization, etc.), including especially internal transport costs in an agricultural holding. The natural environment (external costs of EUR 2.9 billion per year) is the element of geographical space that reacts to human activity in a particularly complex way. At the same time, the adverse effects of anthropopression are tough to neutralize and often cause irreversible changes in ecological systems. Therefore, the environmental costs of the spatial disorder are very high, often impossible to bear even by the wealthiest countries, and having irremovable technical and organizational limitations. The main factors degrading the structure and disrupting the functioning of the natural environment, including the national network of ecological corridors, include (Chmielewski 2008; Degórski 2015; Kistowski 2019): – transformation of river valleys (regulation of river channels, draining of hydrogenic habitats, cutting down of breeding and tree stands, development of floodplain terraces, localization of environmentally burdensome facilities, etc.); – the densification of the road network, combined with a significant increase in traffic intensity and the enclosing of busy routes with tunnels of noise barriers;

96

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

– expansion of dispersed development into natural and agricultural areas, combined with the liquidation of many local ecological corridors; the worst effects are those of dispersed suburban development; – the spread of large-scale, monoculture crops, resulting in the complete elimination of many ecological corridors. The costs resulting from air pollution are relatively well recognized. They are caused by human activity and contribute to various types of illnesses and, consequently, deaths. WHO estimates that air pollution (one of the strongest in Europe) may cause losses of even ca. EUR 25 billion annually (including the cost of lost approx. 19 million working days). In Warsaw, this impact has been estimated at EUR 1.4–4.2 billion per year. In the context of spatial disorder, it is worth mentioning smog phenomena, which to the greatest extent result from low emissions—caused by scattered buildings, ineffective heating networks, and the growth of motorization. It is estimated that they can cause an increase in deaths by up to several percent for respiratory diseases (Badyda et al. 2016). The presented analyses indicate that the total cost of spatial chaos in Poland is very high. Relating to municipal budgets, it is even half of their expenses. Of course, not all costs are borne by local governments. A particular part is financed by the state, e.g., costs of treating various diseases. Still, the inhabitants bear the most considerable part because the maintenance of irrational and ineffective socio-economic systems is paid mainly from taxes in the final account. If the obtained amount were divided equally for the number of inhabitants of Poland, the resulting value would be 518 EUR per year. It gives an average family of four EUR 2,066 per year.

4.3 The Inefficiency of Public Authorities in the Spatial Planning System in Poland The indicated problems are very strongly connected with the inefficiency of public authorities in the spatial planning system in Poland. The inefficiency of public authorities in the spatial planning system can be understood as the lack of skills and will of public authorities at different levels to implement the key objectives of the system (Nowak 2017). In the Polish case, these objectives are defined as shaping and protecting spatial order (spatial order is the most essential value distinguished in the Spatial Planning and Development Act, 2003). The inefficiency of public authorities occurs both at the national and local level (this discussion neglects the role of the authorities at the regional level, definitely smaller in Poland in shaping space). At the national level, it is associated primarily with the activities of the legislature. In the international discussion, it is rightly pointed out that Poland’s approach to spatial policy consisted of a kind of revival of the communist era (Getimis et al. 2014). The current (since 2003) Law on Spatial Planning and Development, despite several provisions referring to spatial order, does not actually protect spatial order. This task is not fulfilled either by local spatial

4.3 The Inefficiency of Public Authorities in the Spatial Planning System in Poland

97

development plans, due to the vagueness of its individual provisions, or by decisions on development conditions. As a result of the optional nature of land development plans, the majority of Poland’s territory (especially the part under the most significant investment pressure) does not even have any land development plans. The conditions for issuing land development conditions are very subjective and open to various interpretations. It is precisely the above conditions that largely determine the spatial chaos (this issue will be expanded further below). Despite a rapid diagnosis of these weaknesses, made almost immediately after the law was passed (J˛edraszko 2005), the legislator has not made the necessary changes to the current state. Since 2003, governments and political parties have changed, comprehensive changes to spatial planning have been repeatedly announced, but to date, nothing serious has been done. One has to agree with the views according to which sociocultural considerations associated with planning culture contribute to this (Stead et al. 2017). On the one hand, despite numerous diagnoses, severe problems of the spatial planning system are not adequately recognized in the public debate. Second, they are not treated as significant, requiring a quick response. Thirdly, public authorities at the central level, even in the case of the declared goodwill for change, have a problem with defining the optimal directions of these changes. The inefficiency of public authorities at the local level should be framed a little differently. The municipality is the fundamental entity of the spatial policy. Following the municipality’s planning autonomy principle, it is the municipality’s authorities that should shape the space to the greatest extent. However, the municipalities must act within the framework set by the legislator (central government). Under the current system, the municipality’s authorities cannot replace the weak and imperfect spatial policy tools (i.e., those imposed by law) with others. However, in the current reality, they may try to protect and shape the spatial order. It should boil down to: – treating studies of conditions and directions of the spatial development as significant spatial policy tools that may (also in terms of their content) constitute an essential point of reference for local spatial development plans; – including, in particular, the potentially conflicting parts of boroughs in local spatial development plans; – limiting too far-reaching development possibilities in local plans; – in a situation where the authorities are in the process of issuing a decision on development conditions (i.e., there is no local plan in force for a given area)—a strict interpretation of the principles of continuation of functions and proximity. Of course, the indicated directions need to be specified in more detail. However, defining them in this way will allow us to present more precisely the weaknesses and omissions of the municipalities’ authorities that are part of the concept of public authorities’ inefficiency. Many municipal authorities do not notice or appreciate the threats related to spatial chaos and its costs. Very often, one can notice an approach according to which the rights of property owners related to development are emphasized above all. Sometimes, from the perspective of municipal authorities, shaping space should look different, but there is too intense pressure to which these authorities succumb. This pressure, depending on the situation, may come from

98

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

investors (developers) or other public authorities (including public administration bodies conducting appeal proceedings, but also courts) taking a liberal point of view in terms of spatial restrictions (Kowalewski and Nowak 2018). Thus, the inefficiency of public authorities at the local level cannot be treated only in the category of the fault of municipalities but the broader conditions of the spatial planning system in Poland. Municipal authorities are included in this framework, and often grassroots attempts made by them to change the situation do not yield positive results. Often, however, such attempts are not made, and municipalities worsen the state of spatial planning. With these reservations, it should be pointed out that the manifestation of public authorities’ inefficiency at the local level will be: – treating studies of conditions and directions of the spatial development as a set of general postulates, prepared only because of the existence of such a statutory obligation; – persistent inertia in the adoption of land use plans; – when adopting local spatial development plans, the problem is the deliberate omission of the most problematic areas (Izdebski et al. 2018). In this way, municipal authorities reduce the risk of conflicts with investors; – another manifestation of the inefficiency of public authorities on a local scale will be the adoption of liberal local plans, allowing for pervasive development; – In the case when there is no local spatial development plan in force in a given area, the manifestations of the public authorities’ inefficiency may be referred to the procedure related to the issuance of the decision on development conditions. In many cases, the primary informal purpose of this procedure is to unambiguously determine the possibility of a specific development (and to adjust the legal framework accordingly). According to Article 61 of the Act on spatial planning and development, a decision on outline planning and spatial development conditions for a given investment is permissible if at least one neighboring plot of land accessible from the same public road is developed like the investment planned by the investor (and, at the same time, the person applying to the municipality for a decision on outline planning and spatial development conditions). From the legal perspective, this is vaguely formulated. The practice is often either to select neighboring plots in such a way (i.e., expand the area under analysis) that the decision is favorable or to abuse the notion of similarity of a given plot. As a consequence of the latter, even investments that are very different from those planned by the investor (applicant) may be qualified as falling within the same function (and thus resulting in the issuance of a favorable decision establishing the development conditions). It translates into a huge number of land development conditions decisions that sanction chaotic, mutually uncoordinated development on a broader scale. Another trend can be observed. It happens that some local authorities try to interpret statutory regulations in such a way as to change their assumed direction. It happens with varying success. An example of the above phenomenon may be the obligation contained in the Act on spatial planning and development to draw up a comprehensive balance sheet of land for development with each amendment to the

4.3 The Inefficiency of Public Authorities in the Spatial Planning System in Poland

99

study of conditions and directions of the spatial development of commune. In some municipalities, attempts have been made—contrary to the wording of the statutory regulations—to interpret the law in such a way that such a balance sheet does not have to be drawn up for each amendment to the study, or it may apply not to the entire municipality, but only to certain areas. While characterizing the inefficiency of public authorities in the spatial planning system in Poland, the role of the courts should also be mentioned. Both administrative and ordinary courts adjudicate numerous cases concerning spatial planning and development. Of course, the courts cannot be expected to ignore the criticized regulations or propose interpretations completely detached from formal grounds. Nevertheless, one can get the impression that in too many cases, the courts also emphasize the rights of property owners in spatial planning. Of course, the existence of such rights cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, these rights are emphasized too strongly while ignoring the needs and challenges of shaping and protecting spatial order. The above is connected both with too far-reaching solving of interpretation problems in favor of the property owner and insufficient emphasis on the public interest in spatial planning. These rulings in this respect result in duplication of practice that is harmful from the perspective of spatial order. The approach to the inefficiency of public authorities in the spatial planning system allows explaining some significant problems of the spatial planning system in Poland. However, it does not exhaust the subject. Therefore, the following subsections analyze issues related to public participation in spatial planning and point out critical weaknesses of legal regulations in spatial planning in Poland. These issues are significantly interrelated, but the authors consider this direction of classification to be optimal.

4.4 Public Participation The inefficiency of public authorities and unsatisfactory planning culture are additionally connected with a low level of social participation. Social participation is nowadays understood as an element of governance. It means a continuous social dialogue taking place on the line between the public authority and the citizen (or groups of citizens), assuming the possibility of co-determination and leading to cooperation (Florys et al. 2016). Gawronski (2015) points out that participation in Poland serves the realization of the constitutional principle of democracy by increasing the activity of society. The level of public participation, not only related to spatial planning in Poland, is not satisfactory. It is influenced by socio-historical factors (external to the participation process itself) and internal factors (inherent to the participation process). Among the most important are: – low indicator of social capital and trust (one of the lowest in Europe), which is confirmed by comparative research conducted within the framework of Social

100

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

Diagnosis (Czapi´nski and Panek 2015), a low indicator of trust in public institutions—local authorities, in general, are trusted by 74% of respondents, but only 12% declare strong trust—6th place in the trust ranking (the EU is in 7th place) (CBOS 2020); – the short time (since 1990, i.e., since the fall of communism and the beginning of the systemic transformation) of the implementation and development of civil society, the weakness of NGOs, which manifests itself in the lack of an active and competent partner for participation (in this aspect there is a significant local variation, including in cities the flourishing of urban movements, as studies indicate that participation develops unevenly and increases with the size of the city—Pistelok and Martela 2019); – changing legislation related to spatial planning, including participation, and different participation procedures in spatial policy and others, e.g., in development policy (for many stakeholders, these differences are incomprehensible); – treating participation as a legitimization of preconceived solutions and spatial policy goals. Participation and its importance in spatial policy have been written about since the late 1960s when the so-called ladder of participation was formulated (Arnstein 1969). The literature on the subject also deals with the evolutionary approach to the participation process itself, as learning successive forms of participation. Implementing the principles of participatory democracy takes place mainly through interactions between groups and networks of stakeholders and the use of new (more advanced) and assumedly more effective tools. Increasingly, these are tools related to e-participation, that is, using the Internet. Their degree of sophistication and involvement also varies, which is why a ladder of e-participation has also been identified (Kingston 2002; Hajduk 2021). One of the more recent topics emerging in the scholarly discourse on participation is emotions in the urban planning process (Kaklauskas et al. 2021). According to Arnstein, the ladder of participation consisted of 8 rungs, classifying participation according to the degree of information or inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making processes. A 3- or 4-tier ladder is currently used, corresponding to current legal requirements and participation practice (Jastrz˛ebska and LegutkoKobus 2015). The most commonly used 3-step scale/ladder (referring to Arnstein’s classification) indicates negligible, medium, and high advancement of participation (also referred to as no participation, apparent participation, and actual participation). Despite the passage of years, participation in urban planning is still a challenge (Conrad et al. 2011; Berman 2017; Scorza et al. 2021). Let’s analyze the spatial planning system in terms of obligatory forms of participation under the Act. It should be indicated that it is a participation of negligible and medium intensity (information and consultation) referring to one-way and two-way communication. In addition, in the classification proposed by Olech and Ka´zmierczak (2011), the development of planning documents occurs according to the opinionconsultation model, i.e., with a dominant role of local authorities with the participation of citizens. This participation level can vary and depends on the tools of participation and the level of social capital (willingness to engage in the process). The

4.4 Public Participation

101

model of preparing planning documents can also be described as expert-consultative, usually with the leading role of experts in the process. More and more active participation tools differentiate the different levels of participation. The simplest of these is information or passive communication. A situation in which the local government provides information (various communication channels can be used for this, for example, social media are becoming increasingly popular, and required by law is the Public Information Bulletin, the subject website, and the customary manner in the area). More involved forms of participation are based on consultation mechanisms, i.e., asking questions and obtaining answers (feedback). Various techniques and tools can be used in this process. This participation mechanism should also include a public debate, mandatory during the submission of a draft planning document. These two forms of participation exhaust the obligatory forms indicated in the Act. As research indicates, 71% of cities in Poland in participation related to spatial planning is limited to the statutory minimum (Pistelok and Martela 2019). At the same time, it should be emphasized that CBOS (Centrum Badania Opinii Publicznej, Public Opinion Research Center) survey (CBOS 2018) indicates that the majority (64%) of respondents feel that local authorities consider their requests/remarks. The discussion on increasing public participation in spatial planning has been going on in Poland for years. Hajduk (2021) suggests adding the following elements to the participation procedure in spatial planning: – public consultations on the spatial vision of the area, existing problems, needs, and expectations (after the resolution to proceed with the preparation of the planning document); – an open meeting for residents with a minimum of two concepts for the document; – work of a workshop group with the participation of external stakeholders, officials, and the designer (planner), the result of which would be a coherent concept of the planning document developed in cooperation with various stakeholders; – at the stage of public discussion, introducing changes resulting from the consultations and their visualization with the use of, for example, mock-ups or online spatial tools (the procedure repeated twice); – presentation of a report on the course of consultations before the adoption of the document. The postulated changes do not require a change in the law, but the municipality goes beyond the statutory minimum. Many municipalities undertake additional activities related to participation using various tools and techniques, referring to the three basic participation foundations (i.e., research, activation, and debate). Thus, we can distinguish (Hajduk 2021, Elements of Participation 2018): – research such as survey, qualitative interview, research walk, urban prototyping (used incidentally in Poland); – workshop forms, used increasingly such as Future City Game, Planning for Real; – debates, i.e., open meetings (e.g., using the civic café formula), public debates. Some forms of participation are multi-stage and involve different functions. These include, for example, deliberative polls, citizen panels, Charette workshops, Word

102

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

Café, or working group activities (in Poland, there are examples of these methods’ use, but these are isolated good practices). The condition that determines effective participation in planning processes is authenticity. To achieve it, a necessary condition is trust and openness of the authorities (proactivity, possibility of controlling the actions taken by the authorities by the inhabitants), representativeness (ensuring the possibility of participation in the process of all stakeholder groups), and pluralism (ensuring the possibility of participation of various participants: institutions, individuals, organizations) (Elements of Participation 2018). Research conducted on participation in Poland concerns two main streams: related to increasing social activity and participation in processes, for example, spatial planning (also identifying barriers to participation) (Długosz and Wygna´nski 2005; Kobielska 2015; Szlachetko 2017) and good practices of participation in planning processes (Kaczmarek and Wójcicki 2015, Konsultacje społeczne. 24 inspirations from Warsaw 2019, Przestrze´n do Dialogu 2017). While the theoretical considerations regarding the mechanisms of participation in spatial planning processes can be considered universal, the barriers to participation and its specifics are closely related to social conditions, legal regulations, and, at the local scale, also to previous experiences of participation. One of the main barriers to participation in the planning processes is its “actionoriented” nature, associated with the preparation of planning documents (additionally, the local plans created for fragments of the municipality’s area, sometimes for one or several plots, do not foster discussion on the spatial policy and spatial development vision of the municipality). Public participation in spatial planning has incomplete and highly varied functions in terms of the regulation (disseminating and enforcing knowledge of the conditions, including the legal ones, of the planning process), education (allowing better understanding of the spatial planning system, the role of individual stakeholders, but also the conditions and competencies of the local authorities) and information (related to obtaining and exchanging information). In the postulating sphere (for the vast majority of municipalities) remains the preventive function (related to conflict prevention), creative function (related to openness to various ideas and solutions put forward by stakeholders), legitimizing and deliberating function (increasing dialogue but also social control over the actions of authorities) (Czupich and Kola-Bezka 2017). To conclude, the possibility of increasing, thanks to effective participation, the planning culture, especially its aspect (pillar) of the social environment, i.e., a set of norms relating to spatial planning, recognized as universally valid and resulting from a common perception of phenomena and processes occurring in space (Knieling and Othengrafen 2015), is not used. For many municipalities in Poland, obstacles to the implementation of full participation are its costs and problems related to the coordination of the process (the vast majority of municipalities do not create specialized organizational units related to participation).

4.5 Diagnosis of Key Legal Weaknesses of the Spatial Planning System in Poland

103

4.5 Diagnosis of Key Legal Weaknesses of the Spatial Planning System in Poland Based on the analysis carried out, it is possible to attempt a comprehensive diagnosis of the weakness of the legal regulations concerning the spatial planning system in Poland. It is clear that these problems are significantly connected with the issue of inefficiency of public authorities, cultural and social conditions and are one of the essential bases of the deepening spatial chaos. However, focusing only on the legal perspective, they can be distinguished as follows: 1. 2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

a weak, non-mandatory, non-community-wide land use plan: detrimental financial consequences associated with the reduction of property values by local development plans, linked to the lack of extensive Value Capturing tools; lack of legal precision of numerous concepts contained in planning and spatial development legal acts, which translates into a chaotic approach to the spatial planning system by representatives of different disciplines and perspectives; the vast possibility of circumventing the current (and already flawed) regulations related to spatial planning and development, primarily associated with the socalled “special acts”; inadequate coverage of the public interest in spatial planning and the scope of rights of property owners (investors) in this context. obligation of weak forms of participation, resulting in a lack of actual dialogue about the municipality’s future and its spatial policy.

The points mentioned require more extensive characterization. Re 1. Of course, the Polish legal order provides for a local spatial development plan. However, this plan does not play an adequate role. Regardless of the approach in the national spatial planning orders (more flexible or restrictive), the role of the spatial development plan is crucial. In the Polish order, the primary problem in the present context is that this plan does not exist for most areas. The Polish system does not divide zoning plans into general plans and specific plans. Instead, there is a study of conditions and directions of the spatial development of commune, which is not a spatial development plan (or anything comparable). In this situation, most of the country has no actual spatial policy at all. In many cases, this exacerbates the social perception of spatial planning as unnecessary, not fully justified restrictions. This tendency is further exacerbated by the weakness of the tool that is intended to replace the spatial development plans, i.e., the decision on development conditions. Even though the legislator linked certain premises with it (the so-called continuation of functions and proximity principles), it must be clearly stated that these solutions rather deepen the spatial chaos (interestingly, in 2003, when working on the Act on spatial planning and development, the legislator mistakenly assumed that the zoning decision would only be a supplementary tool, and not the dominant one in the context of Polish space). It should also be added that, as indicated earlier, even the adoption of a spatial development plan is not a guarantee of the implementation

104

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

of the correct spatial policy, including adequate protection and shaping of the spatial order. However, errors in applying spatial development plans result to a significant extent from the indicated optional character of these plans. Re 2. Owners and perpetual usufructuaries of the real property, whose value was reduced by the local zoning plan, have compensation claims against the municipality. In this approach, Poland belongs to the group of countries that the literature on this subject provides the broadest protection of claims of real estate owners (Alterman 2010). The regulation on compensation claims related to enacting spatial development plans effectively deters a considerable part of municipalities from enacting spatial development plans with broader development restrictions. Furthermore, studies show that, in general, municipal expenditures on land use planning ´ exceed revenues (Sleszy´ nski et al. 2021). Thus, even if the authorities of a particular municipality understand the importance of protecting and shaping the spatial order, these financial considerations may discourage them from specific actions (and sometimes even make those actions impossible). Moreover, the regulations in question are sometimes used for speculative purposes or to obtain compensation from municipalities. In addition, there is a lack of extensive Value Capturing tools. It is true that in the case of an increase in the value of property caused by the spatial development plan, the owners may, in some cases, pay a small fee (the so-called planning rent). Still, the total municipal revenues from this are insignificant—especially if we compare them with expenditures. In other cases (e.g., after the real estate has been divided or the technical infrastructure has been connected to the real estate), the real estate owners pay the betterment levies, but their formula does not guarantee any broader financial compensation to the municipalities. Re 3. This issue should be considered interesting also from the perspective of other spatial management systems. In the Polish case, attention should be paid to the numerous problems with the legal interpretation of the formulations contained in the spatial management acts. For example, there are different ways of understanding the concept of “no development” contained in the Act on spatial planning and development. There are even more problems with interpreting local spatial development plans (which are also generally binding legal acts). The urban planning, environmental protection, and monument protection concepts included in the local plans are understood differently by representatives of various disciplines and professions. Ultimately, this gives rise to abuse of their meaning and change of their intentional meaning through interpretation. The problem with the interpretation of such terms is a manifestation of a much larger problem—the lack of agreement between representatives of different professions and perspectives when defining the objectives of the spatial policy system and specific spatial policy tools. It is understood in highly diverse ways, and it is often difficult to reach any agreement. It exacerbates spatial conflicts and makes it difficult to protect, for example, the environmental and cultural values of particular areas. Re 4. The current spatial planning system thus has many flaws. However, the legislator provides numerous ways around even these imperfect regulations. It applies primarily to the so-called specustawa (special act) enabling the much faster implementation of selected investments (for example, investments in the area of public

4.5 Diagnosis of Key Legal Weaknesses of the Spatial Planning System in Poland

105

roads). One of the more controversial acts is the so-called specustawa mieszkaniowa (housing special act). It concerns more significant housing investments that may be carried out regardless of the provisions of local spatial development plans (if such plans are in force in a given area). In certain situations, even studies of conditions and directions of the spatial development of commune. In the latter act, an interesting solution (mitigating the negative consequences) is introducing urban planning standards for new investments, specifying the distance of the new investment from transportation stops or schools. As a whole, however, it should be pointed out that such discrepancy contributes to an even more significant diminution of the critical objectives and priorities laid down in the Act on spatial planning and development. Re 5. In the context of these weaknesses of the spatial planning system in Poland, it is finally worth highlighting the inadequate understanding of the public interest. Although it is provided for in the Act on spatial planning and development (in very general terms and linked with the protection and shaping of spatial order), this does not translate sufficiently into the possibility of using more radical spatial policy tools. Numerous court decisions even clearly indicate that the latter will be more critical in the case of a collision between the public interest and the private interest (of a particular investor). This situation limits the debate about the right to shared space and even about the partial repair of space, including reducing the costs of spatial chaos. Re 6. Many of the identified weaknesses of the spatial planning system in Poland are strengthened by an imaginary system of public participation based on information and consultation. The spatial planning system contains a basis for making socialized decisions. Unfortunately, only a few municipalities see an opportunity to educate the public, increase planning culture (through social influence), and discourse on the desired shape of spatial policy in the participation. It should be noted that the legal regulations set an absolute minimum for participation, and municipalities may conduct it to a much greater extent. However, practice shows that these are only “good practices” and not a common approach to participation. The legal basis for participation in planning processes does not facilitate the use of its deliberative, creative function and ensuring openness and participation for everyone concerned (which involves additional organizational effort). The above points may be juxtaposed with the presented conditions of planning practice. As indicated in Chap. 2, severe problems related to environmental, natural, economic, and social spheres are commonly diagnosed. These problems are severe in suburban areas (housing demand, development of the so-called second homes). A serious problem is the depopulation of rural centers and smaller towns and the deconcentration of urban centers (including impeded access to various services). The tools of spatial policy in Poland do not provide opportunities to adequately and comprehensively address these problems and challenges. The weaknesses diagnosed above contribute to the fact that the discussion (for example, on a municipal scale) is taken in entirely different directions. Suppose one adds to this the diagnosis of the costs of ´ spatial chaos cited above. In that case, it should be confirmed (following Sleszy´ nski et al. 2018) that the spatial planning system is in a state of permanent crisis. On the one hand, there are severe spatial problems, and on the other hand, institutional

106

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

solutions, instead of reducing these problems, actually increase them and generate more. In addition, work is underway to integrate the spatial planning system and the development programming system at the local level. These systems were utterly separate until now, which meant that local development did not have a spatial dimension in municipal documents. Considering the above, the Polish spatial planning system needs a particular emphasis on international discussions and classification attempts.

4.6 Summary These considerations lead to the conclusion that it seems necessary to add an important element to the discussion about the classification, weaknesses, and directions for repairing spatial planning systems. Restricting to the European scale (especially the European Union and the UK), it seems necessary to distinguish a particular category—spatial planning systems in crisis. In this way, we will define systems that contribute to (or fail to reduce) spatial chaos and increase its costs. Discussion of such systems—including in comparative terms—must be subject to additional caveats. A key challenge is to contain the negative consequences of spatial chaos quickly. For this purpose, other actions (also of a legal nature) may often be required. However, these must be transitional in nature and correlated with efforts to improve the planning culture. The authors are aware that the proposed directions of changes to the spatial planning system in Poland may not necessarily be carried out quickly. Thus, while postulating the need for a quick repair of the system, we are not confident whether such a repair will occur even in the long term (and if corrective measures are taken, whether they will be adequate to the needs and practical). The above, however, does not change the fact of emphasizing the specificity of the present case and at the same time deriving more universal conclusions related to it.

Bibliography Alterman R (2010) Takings international: a comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights. American Bar Association, Chicago Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224. https://doi. org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Badyda AJ, Grellier J, D˛abrowiecki P (2016) Ambient PM2.5 exposure and mortality due to lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases in Polish cities. In: Pokorski M (ed) Respiratory treatment and prevention. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 944. Springer, Cham pp 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2016_55 Berman T (2017) Public Participation as a tool for integrating local knowledge into spatial planning. Springer, Cham

Bibliography

107

Borkowski P, Burnewicz J, Ko´zlak A, Pawłowska B, Wa˙zna A (2018) Transport a organizacja ´ przestrzeni w z˙ yciu społeczno-gospodarczym. In: Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Sleszy´ nski P (eds) Studia nad chaosem przestrzennym. Studia KPZK PAN 182(2). Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa, pp 81–113 CBOS (2018) Poczucie wpływu obywateli na sprawy publiczne. Komunikat z bada´n nr 33/2018. Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, Warszawa, marzec 2018. https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM. POL/2018/K_033_18.PDF. Accessed 5 August 2021 CBOS (2020) Zaufanie społeczne. Komunikat z bada´n nr 43/2020. Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, Warszawa, kwiecie´n 2020. https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2020/K_043_ 20.PDF. Accessed 5 August 2021 Chmielewski TJ (2008) Landscape and protected areas—Polish experiences. In: Schmidt M, Glasson J, Emmelin L, Helbron H (eds) Standards and thresholds for impact assessment. Environmental protection in the European Union, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31141-6_25 Conrad E, Cassar LF, Jones M, Eiter S, Izaoviˇcova Z, Barankova Z, Chriestie M, Fazey I (2011) Rhetoric and reporting of public participation in landscape Policy. J Environ Policy Plan 13(1):23– 47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2011.560449 Czapi´nski J, Panek T (eds) (2015) Diagnoza Społeczna, Warunki i jako´sc´ z˙ ycia Polaków. Raport. http://www.diagnoza.com/. Accessed 5 August 2021 Czupich M, Kola- M (2017) Rola partycypacji społecznej w zarz˛adzaniu publicznym na przykładzie wybranych miast. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego We Wrocławiu 499:57–65 Degórski M (2015) Challenges to landscape planning and protection in Poland. In: Luc M, Somorowska U, Szma´nda JB (eds) Landscape analysis and planning. Geographical perspectives. Springer, Cham, pp 187–200 Długosz D, Wygna´nski J (2005) Obywatele współdecyduj˛a. Przewodnik po partycypacji społecznej. Stowarzyszenie na rzecz Forum Inicjatyw Pozarz˛adowych, Warszawa Elements of Participation (Elementy partycypacji) (2018) Fundacja Inicjatyw SpołecznoEkonomicznych. Chrzanowski O, Ro´sciszewska E, Zientek-Varga J (eds) https://fise.org.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/Elementy-partycypacjicompressed.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2021 Florys K, Gałek O, Jarz˛ebska A, Kazior B (2016) Partycypacja milowy krok do rozwoju lokalnego. Fundacja MiLA, Kraków Gawro´nski H (2015) Efektywno´sc´ partycypacyjnych instrumentów zarz˛adzania miastem. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 77(1):273–286. https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2015. 77.1.15 Getimis P, Reimer M, Blotevogel H (2014) Conclusion: multiple trends of continuity and change. In: Reimer M, Getimis P, Blotevogel H (eds) Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. Routledge, London, pp 278–305 Hajduk S (2021) Partycypacja społeczna w zarz˛adzaniu przestrzennym w kontek´scie planistycznym. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej, Białystok Heffner K, Gibas P (2018) Społeczne i ekonomiczne koszty bezładu przestrzeni—osadnictwo ´ obszarów wiejskich In: Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Sleszy´ nski P (eds) Koszty chaosu przestrzennego. Studia KPZK PAN 182(2). Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa, pp 163–193 ´ Izdebski W, Sleszy´ nski P, Malinowski Z, Kursa M (2018) Analiza morfometryczna planów miejscowych w Polsce. Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich 2(1):331–347. https://doi.org/10. 14597/INFRAECO.2018.2.1.022 Jastrz˛ebska E, Legutko-Kobus P (2015) Partycypacja w obszarach funkcjonalnych (przykład ˙ Metropolii Pozna´n). In: Banachowicz B, Wojtaszczyk K, Zak-Skwierczy´ nska M (eds) Problemy zarz˛adzania w jednostkach samorz˛adu terytorialnego. Katedra Zarz˛adzania Miastem i Regionem, Wydział Zarz˛adzania Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łód´z, pp 236–255 J˛edraszko A (2005) Zagospodarowanie przestrzenne w Polsce—drogi i bezdro˙za regulacji Ustawowych. Unia Metropolii Polskich, Warszawa

108

4 The Costs and Challenges of Spatial Planning in Poland

Kaczmarek T, Wójcicki M (2015) Uspołecznienie procesu planowania przestrzennego na przykładzie miasta Poznania. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 77(1):219–236. https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2015.77.1.12 Kaklauskas A, Bardauskiene D, Cerkauskiene R, Ubarte I, Raslanas S, Radvile E, Kaklauskaite U, Kaklauskiene L (2021) Emotions analysis in public spaces for urban planning. Land Use Policy 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105458 Kingston R (2002) The role of e-governemet of public participation in the planning process. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth AESOP Congress, 10–14 July, Volos, Greece. https://www.researchg ate.net/publication/228363234_The_role_of_e-government_and_public_participation_in_the_ planning_process/link/547e20220cf2d2200ede9568/download. Accessed 6 August 2021 Kistowski M (2019) Natural determinants of space management. In: Chaberek G (ed) Space management interdisciplinary approach: Evidence from Poland. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gda´nskiego, Gda´nsk, pp 73–102 Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2015) Planning culture—A concept to explain the evolution of planning policies and processes in Europe? Eur Plan Stud 23(11):2133–2147. https://doi.org/10.1080/096 54313.2015.1018404 Kobielska K (2015) Partycypacja społeczna w planowaniu przestrzennym na przykładzie Polski. Acta Univ Wratislav 3656:105–119 Konsultacje społeczne. 24 inspiracje z Warszawy (Konsultacje społeczne. 24 inspirations from Warsaw) (2019). Petroff-Skiba A (ed), Centrum Komunikacji Społecznej Urz˛edu m.st. Warszawy, https://www.konsultacje.um.warszawa.pl. Accessed 5 August 2021 Kowalewski A, Nowak M (2018) Chaos przestrzenny i prawo. Uwarunkowania, procesy, skutki, ´ rekomendacje. In: Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Sleszy´ nski P (eds) Studia nad chaosem przestrzennym. Studia KPZK PAN 182(1). Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa, pp 128–136 Kozi´nski J (2012) Doktryna swobody budowlanej, aspekty ekonomiczne i demograficzne. http:// old2016.silesia.org.pl/upload/J.Kozinski_Finansowe%20i%20spoleczne%20koszty%20chaotyc znej%20urbanizacji.pdf. Accessed 6 August 2021 Lity´nski P, Hołuj A (2017) Urban sprawl costs: The valuation of households’ losses in Poland. J Settl Spat Plan 8(1):11–35. https://doi.org/10.24193/02JSSP012017 Nowak M (2017) The role and effects of case—low in spatial competition. An analysis of selected cases. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 265:172–180 Olbrysz A, Zachariasz I (2015) Raport o finansowych skutkach polskiego systemu gospodarowania przestrzeni˛a. In: Kopyci´nski P (ed) Sprawne pa´nstwo. Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie, Małopolska Szkoła Administracji Publicznej, Kraków, Samorz˛adowa słu˙zba cywilna. Obszary metropolitalne. Zagospodarowanie przestrzenne. Badania nad kierunkami zmian w funkcjonowaniu samorz˛adu terytorialnego w Polsce, pp 183–326 Olech A, Ka´zmierczak T (2011) Modele partycypacji publicznej. In: Olech A (ed) Partycypacja publiczna. O uczestnictwie obywateli w z˙ yciu wspólnoty lokalnej. ISP, Warszawa, pp 102–109 Pistelok P, Martela B (eds) (2019) Partycypacja publiczna. Raport o stanie polskich miast. Obserwatorium Polityki Miejskiej Instytutu Rozwoju Miast i Regionów, Warszawa-Kraków Przestrze´n do dialogu (Space for Dialogue). Praktyczny podr˛ecznik o tym, jak prowadzi´c partycypacj˛e społeczn˛a w planowaniu przestrzennym (2017) Wyd. Ministerstwo Inwestycji i Rozwoju, Departament Polityki Przestrzennej, https://partycypacjaobywatelska.pl/wp-content/ uploads/2018/07/Przestrzen_do_dialogu_publikacja.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2021 Scorza F, Fortunato G, Carbone R, Murgante B, Pontrandolfi P (2021) Increasing urban walkability through citizens participation processes. Sustainability 13:5835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1311 5835 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Kowalewski A, Markowski T, (eds) (2018) Studia nad chaosem przestrzennym. Studia KPZK PAN 182(1–3). Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa Spatial Planning and Development Act of 27 March 2003, Dz.U. nr 80 poz. 717 Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (2017) Planning cultures and histories: Influences of the evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns. In: Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (eds)

Bibliography

109

Planning cultures and histories. The evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns, Routledge, Londyn, pp 1–6 Szlachetko JH (2017) Partycypacja społeczna w lokalnej polityce przestrzennej. Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Komornicki T (2016) Klasyfikacja funkcjonalna gmin Polski na potrzeby monitoringu planowania przedstrzennego. Przegl˛ad Geograficzny 88(4):469–488 ´ Sleszy´ nski P (2018) Społeczno-ekonomiczne skutki chaosu przestrzennego dla osadnictwa i struk´ tury funkcjonalnej terenów. In: Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Sleszy´ nski P (eds) Koszty chaosu przestrzennego. Studia KPZK PAN 182(2). Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, Warszawa, pp 29–80 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Kowalewski A, Markowski T, Legutko P, Nowak M (2020) The contemporary economic costs of spatial chaos: evidence from Poland. Land 9:214. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land9070214 ´ Sleszy´ nski P, Nowak M, Sudra P, Zał˛eczna M, Blaszke M (2021) Economic consequences of adopting local spatial development plans for the spatial management system: The case of Poland. Land 10:112. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020112

Chapter 5

Conclusions

Abstract The chapter contains the final conclusions related to the considerations in the monograph. It identifies key recommendations for further action—both in the research and theoretical spheres. The chapter also pays special attention to the interdisciplinary aspect of spatial planning problems. Keywords Spatial management system · Directions and challenges of spatial planning · Poland The presented analyses of the conditions and effects of the spatial management system in Poland are in various ways related to the international discussion on spatial planning. At the outset of these considerations, it is worth pointing to the increasing number of postulates in the international literature to refer to the culture of planning (considering the social context and “established” practice) as, among others, an antidote to the temptation to regulate everything by law. The analysis of the case study of Poland and related regularities and conclusions prompts a broader reference to the international discussion. One should agree with the thesis that cultural, historical, and social factors strongly determine specific systems (Stead et al. 2017; Purkarthofer et al. 2021). One can recall here the conducted, very interesting analysis of the spatial conditions of Flanders and the Netherlands (de Vries 2017), which shows that despite numerous formal, geographical, and institutional similarities between the two systems, it is the social approach that contributes to their profound differentiation. The situation is similar in the case of Poland. Sociocultural conditions very strongly determine planning practice. Therefore, these issues should be considered more important than the legal conditions themselves. The case of Poland shows that one cannot pin too much hope on improving the spatial planning system through changes in legal regulations alone. We are dealing with such a situation in Poland. Chapter 1 identifies vital problems of different spatial planning systems that can be juxtaposed and compared together. Each of these problems is reflected in the discussion of the Polish case. In addition to the issues of planning culture, flexible planning, or defining system objectives, the role and scope of spatial plans, in

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. J. Nowak et al., Spatial Planning in Poland, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96939-4_5

111

112

5 Conclusions

particular, should be emphasized. While the general discussion considers the optimal extent of their restrictions or flexibility, as indicated above, the critical problem is the actual lack of such plans for many areas. Land use plans by themselves do not solve all the problems of a given system. Nevertheless, the very fact of their wider enactment (obligatory) makes it possible to eliminate at least some negative tendencies. These tendencies concern, in particular, the substitutes of spatial development plans—i.e., the decisions on development conditions. In addition, it should be noted that a pathologically lousy situation is one in which the municipalities fear enacting zoning plans and include in such plans more stringent rules for the property owners (due to the possibility of filing claims). It also—as the Polish case shows—may paralyze the spatial planning system. Also, in this respect, the ease of manipulating planning provisions is noticeable (which was also noted on a European scale—Nadin et al. 2020). It is worth noting that this risk will also persist in countries with a weaker planning culture, also with too rapid attempts to expand flexibility in planning. Given the above, it is more challenging to assign the spatial planning system in Poland to the development-based or plan-based systems identified in the literature (Muñoz Gielen and Tasan-Kok 2010). While the first group cannot include Poland at all (due to underdeveloped integrated development planning), the formal inclusion of Poland in the second group of countries must be subject to numerous reservations. The declared “reliance on plans” for many areas is only declarative, not translated into spatial policies. With all these reservations, one can return to discussing the role of law in the spatial planning system. Again, one must stipulate that the law of spatial planning in Poland is flawed (the best proof of which is the cost of spatial chaos). The discussion on the scope of legal regulations and their functionality and clarity (i.e., simplicity) should also be approached. One should agree with Moroni (Moroni et al. 2020; Moroni 2007), arguing for the use of simple, not too elaborate regulations in spatial planning. Excessive detail may indeed be counterproductive. However, the question arises whether, in Poland, at least in the transitional period, the only way to stop the negative spatial trends will not be to develop urban planning standards for new buildings. Possible expansion of flexibility in planning, especially given the weaknesses of the planning culture, will undoubtedly take time (Tarakçı and Türk 2020). Meanwhile, the scale of spatial chaos and its associated costs and damages will grow. In discussing the role of law, it is necessary to distinguish between systems without such severe problems and cases of systems where rapid action and statutory changes can contribute to remedying the situation. The distinction indicated seems essential and necessary. On the one hand, stable systems where the role of law will be limited to risk mitigation (Buitelaar 2012), particularly reducing spatial conflicts (Alfasi and Portugali 2007). On the other hand, one has to distinguish systems that require more radical (sometimes ad hoc) measures. However, there is a risk of overly detailed regulation and unnecessary description of specific development concepts in the law. The case of Poland, as already indicated, is also a case of a spatial planning system with a unique role of property owners (or, more broadly—investors). It is an excellent example of what the lack of protection of public interest in spatial planning and too broad accentuation of the role of private interest in spatial planning can lead

5 Conclusions

113

to. In the context of Poland, irrespective of other developments, there seems to be an essential debate (both legal and economic) on the legitimacy of separating the right to development from the right to property (on this topic: Muñoz Gielen 2014). It translates into the conception of the local spatial planning system. An overly broad understanding of property owners’ rights contributes to exacerbating negative tendencies (and subsequently perpetuating harmful practices) at this scale. The classification of spatial policy tools will also be a crucial reference point here (Stead 2021). It is particularly valuable to distinguish substantive and procedural tools in spatial planning and the procedural tools to adapt them to the various stages of implementation. In the case of Poland, procedural tools related to the evaluation of individual effects are definitely lacking. In addition, procedural regulations facilitate the negative contestation of spatial solutions (for example, challenging specific spatial policy tools before the courts) but do not provide a broader basis for codetermination about a specific space (which is also related to the problem of poor understanding of the concept of public interest). Moroni’s comments about the weakness of detailed regulations must also be applied directly to procedural regulations. They can often cause completely disconnected problems from the fundamental, critical objectives of individual spatial planning systems. Nor can procedural regulations be assigned too detailed a role at the stage of radically improving spatial planning systems that are in crisis. Here the role of substantive regulations will be incomparably more important. And as indicated above, the role of substantive regulations will be different in the systems with extraordinary spatial problems (and Poland must be counted among them) and different in the group of countries with a stabilized spatial situation. The broad diagnosis of spatial chaos costs in Poland made in this monograph can be an essential reference point for debates in other countries. The concepts of spatial order, spatial chaos (spatial disorder), and spatial chaos costs should be more widely reflected in the literature and analyses. It is crucial when determining both the general objectives of spatial planning and detailed solutions in the local law, including, among others, spatial development plans. Against this background, Poland, as the largest European post-communist country, appears as a particularly interesting research field, where spatial planning issues in this monograph could be examined in detail from the systemic (coordination and regulation), instrumental, and control point of view (in terms of the effects of planning decisions). The diversity of applied legal and administrative solutions makes it possible to study the processes of changes in space, including their impact on various spheres of space management. In the above context, issues of spatial order protection deserve particular emphasis. It is a broader and more relevant concept than, for example, land use optimization (Persson 2013; Herspergera et al. 2018). Of course, the problem is to effectively incorporate the concept of spatial order into a specific system. There are similar problems here when incorporating the concept of public interest (Dadashpoor and Sheydai 2021). It does not change the fact that this is a critical direction worth recommending. In terms of terminology, spatial order can also be partially defined by its opposite: spatial chaos. The acquit relating to the case of Poland distinguishes complex

114

5 Conclusions

related issues, including reference to the enormous economic costs generated by spatial chaos (of the order of at least 20 billion euros per year, considering only the local level). The extent of costs generated by the various dimensions associated with spatial chaos in different countries may vary. External costs in the natural environment are particularly worth highlighting in this context. It also includes health costs, which becomes particularly important in the context of combating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This problem requires more in-depth research in the future, as it appears that the proposed solutions for changes in spatial policy, including urban policy, are still insufficient, including the lack of a good conceptual-theoretical and methodological basis. Research has shown that in countries undergoing a political and social transformation after 1989, such as Poland, the errors of spatial policy under conditions of a centrally controlled economy and contemporary ones are accumulating. The concept of “homo sovieticus” (characteristic not only for Poland and other post-communist countries) indicating deficiencies in social capital, trust, and participation is also crucial in this context. Considering this aspect, it is essential to ensure the implementation of the principle of “good faith” and responsiveness in spatial planning. Thus, we prove the thesis about the increasing problems in the spatial management system over time. Therefore, an important conclusion for the international debate is that political-social and socio-economic transformations should be monitored regarding their effects on geographical space. The optimal solution would be transnational monitoring of land use planning and management, but due to differences in the processes taking place and their scale, the solutions used are still not comparable (Nadin et al. 2018). It is also worth reviewing the diverse spatial management systems more broadly from the perspective of government inefficiency. A comparison of national systems has so far been undertaken in various ways. It included a comparison of whole systems, individual institutions, and systems from the perspective of a specific issue (planning culture). The dimension of government failure that needs to be considered more broadly is the relationship between a system’s goals and planning practice. Such an analysis must be based on an interdisciplinary analysis, including an indepth interpretation of legal regulations and thorough knowledge of urban affairs. It must be related to the context related to public policy sciences. It must also be conducted in a broader dimension than individual case studies. In such an analysis, the specificity of a country’s system needs to be considered. In the above context, the monograph points out various possibilities for the classification of spatial planning systems. Poland is an interesting case for one of the more original classifications: plan-based and development-based systems. It is particularly evident in the approach to development strategies (integrated strategies), which include functional-spatial structure and socio-economic aspects (these legal regulations are in force until November 2020). It is precisely the inefficiency of public authorities that prevents Poland from fully adjusting to any of these systems. It should therefore be understood as a factor blocking both development and potential certainty of planning solutions. When discussing in the literature on flexibility, detail of solutions, or legal certainty in

5 Conclusions

115

planning (Moroni 2014; Savini 2016; Buitelaar and Sorel 2010; Alfasi et al. 2012), it is necessary to add the issue of public authority inefficiency. The impact of public authorities’ inefficiency on spatial planning objectives, understood differently in different systems, is noticeable only after analyzing the example of a country with high inefficiency in this area. Poland is such a country, and therefore the trends indicated above are particularly noticeable here. In the context of international discussion, the analysis of the Polish case leads to several conclusions. These relate to the national dimension but can also be discussed more broadly in the international context. First, changing legal regulations cannot be seen as the only element of reform. Especially in countries with high inefficiency of public authorities, any, even potentially ideal regulations may be subject to abuse and overinterpretation in practice. Of course, in the case of Poland, legal changes are needed. However, they must be correlated with an increase in the level of planning culture and public education and participation. It means that both in the interpretation of individual regulations and in the extra-legal practice, there should be a broader understanding of the priorities related to the protection of spatial order. Two directions of action seem to be important in this context. Firstly, the scope of analyses should be broadened—both on a national, regional, and (which is crucial) local scale. These analyses should diagnose the state of spatial development at the scale of the municipality or urban district—but also (which is lacking now)—refer to the costs of spatial chaos and the indicators proposed ´ in the literature (in Poland, e.g., Sleszy´ nski 2013) for monitoring and protecting spatial order. It will better understand how severe financial consequences are brought by spatial chaos, often resulting from a too broad understanding of property owners’ rights. Second, the present issues should be strongly linked to the formula of public participation and planning aimed at achieving social consensus. The Polish system in this respect is convergent with European systems. Still, it is based mainly on consultations and consultations of opinions (weak level of public participation, low rungs of the participation ladder). Polish cities (huge ones) are implementing more and more advanced participatory systems into their spatial planning systems (e.g., urban living lab) using good European practices. Also, the development of integrated strategies introduces social participation concerning spatial aspects into the local development policy. However, it is worth noting that public participation (especially its advanced forms) should, to a greater extent than at present, provide an opportunity for stakeholders to increase their knowledge of the risks associated with spatial chaos. Currently, it appears that the Polish society is not fully aware not only of the positive effects of rational spatial management and proper spatial organization but also does not fully know the adverse effects, including financial ones, of spatial chaos. The case of Poland also contributes to the discussion on the role of spatial development plans and their optimal legal formula. Based on the information presented, it can be concluded that even in a moderately regulatory system, there is a severe risk of doubtful interpretation of planning regulations. A good effect of integrating the legal and urban planning formulations (which occurs precisely in spatial development plans) is possible only with a developed planning culture and a limited degree

116

5 Conclusions

of public authorities’ inefficiency. The above does not change the fact that it is crucial to see other goals beyond the debate about the flexibility and detail of land use plans (Steele and Ruming 2012). These objectives now include more significant support for the role of environmental, climate change adaptation, and health solutions in the spatial policy. The case of Poland is particularly interesting for another reason, which has to do with differences in the classification and tradition of scientific disciplines. In the West, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, “spatial economics” developed over time, mainly based on location theories (e.g., Smith, von Thünen, Weber, Lösch), which to a significant degree paved the way for “new economic geography.” For obvious reasons, they drew primarily on the achievements of economics and, to a lesser extent, human geography (e.g., the location theory of W. Christaller). However, in Poland after World War II, a “spatial economy” was created (in Polish: gospodarka przestrzenna), which was developed in the first period, especially by geographers and urban planners. It was especially the case with the translation of A. Lösch’s leading work (“Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft”), which was translated (among others, by Kazimierz Dziewo´nski—a leading representative of post-war socio-economic geography, specializing in, among others, the theory of regionalization and regional planning) as “Spatial Economy.” To some extent, this tradition resulted in the fact that in the current (2021) binding Polish classification of fields and scientific disciplines among 43 disciplines, there was created “Socio-economic geography and spatial management” (in Polish: geografia społeczno-ekonomiczna i gospodarka przestrzenna).1 Hence, the discussion on the directions of developing interdisciplinary research on spatial planning in Europe can bring even more “geographicisation” of this issue on the Polish point of view. One more issue is worth noting. The literature (Faludi 2018) has long advocated the Europeanization of spatial planning. The National Reconstruction Plan (defining the disbursement of funds from the European Reconstruction Fund) indicates that one of the funding elements will be a complete change of the spatial planning system. It is hoped that this will make it possible to consider the postulates contained in this book to a greater extent. The Europeanization of spatial planning may be manifested, among other things, by taking more remarkable account of environmental and nature protection, as well as by deepening social participation procedures. This change direction will open up the prospect of broadening (primarily at the municipal level) the analysis of the state of spatial development. It may be related to improving the planning culture and a better (bottom-up) definition of the public interest’s role (and importance) in spatial planning. It may be added that the translation of the European Reconstruction Fund into national spatial planning systems (and possible changes in these systems) is another essential and scientifically interesting research issue in the coming years.

1

By the way, in the official documents of the Polish Ministry of Science this discipline is presented in the English version as “social and economic geography and spatial management” which is a mistake and introduces additional terminological confusion.

5 Conclusions

117

There is no doubt that international spatial planning discussions when applied to a national spatial planning system, require a kind of filtering. On the other hand, conclusions from specific national systems require certain generalizations (sometimes the literature pays too little attention to these aspects). A vital issue in the Polish discussion is the planning culture. It should be clarified (and also included in Polish development documents). It is also essential to understand the role of spatial development plans (too weak in Poland) and the different approaches to property rights in the spatial planning system. In turn, for the international discussion, the case of Poland can be an interesting inspiration in showing the different consequences of certain omissions and wrong approaches from the perspective of objective spatial challenges. All in all, the presented research indicates that countries such as Poland, despite three decades since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” and socio-economic transformation, more than 15 years of presence in the structures of the European Union, as well as spectacular economic growth, still cannot find the optimal path of spatial development. For these reasons, it seems justified to include the spatial planning system in Poland, to a greater extent than at present, in the critical directions of discussion in the European literature on the subject. This should encourage the search for more effective tools to control spatial processes and their greater socialization (effective and more advanced participation) and expand research fields in the field of spatial economics and land use policy. Description of the Polish case is also an important contribution to the discussion on the directions of classification and comparison of different spatial management systems. The authors hope that this publication has managed to present the complexity of the problems of the spatial planning system in Poland. To characterize it well, the perspective of a single research discipline is not enough. The situation will be similar with other systems. Therefore, it seems all the more difficult to broadly summarize individual solutions. These barriers should be taken into account in all subsequent comparative approaches. As indicated in Chapter 1, one helpful solution might be to develop “fiches” of individual spatial planning systems, containing information on the basic key issues (the scope of such fiches may be subject to discussion). With such a common framework developed, further discussion may be more valuable.

Bibliography Alfasi N, Almagor J, Benenson I (2012) The actual impact of comprehensive land-use plans: insights from high resolution observations. Land Use Policy 29(4):862–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lan dusepol.2012.01.003 Alfasi N, Portugali J (2007) Planning rules for a self-planned city. Plan Theor 6(2):164–182. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1473095207077587 Buitelaar E (2012) The fraught relationship between planning and regulation: land use plans and the conflicts in dealing with uncertainty. In: Hartmann T, Needham B (eds) Planning by law and property rights reconsidered. Ashgate, Surrey, UK, pp 207–218

118

5 Conclusions

Buitelaar E, Sorel N (2010) Between the rule of law and the quest for control: legal certainty in the Dutch planning system. Land Use Policy 27(3):983–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. 2010.01.002 Dadashpoor H, Sheydai A (2021) Defining public interest in planning: a review. J Plan Lit. https:// doi.org/10.1177/08854122211018379 de Vries J (2017) Planning and culture unfolded: the case of flanders and the Nederlands. In: Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (eds) Planning cultures and histories. The evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns. Routledge, London, pp 2148–2164 Faludi A (2018) Historical institutionalist account of European spatial planning. Plan Perspect 33(4):507–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1437554 Herspergera A, Oliveiraa E, Pagliarina S, Palkaa G, Verburgb P, Bolligera J, Gr˘adinarua S (2018) Urban land-use change: the role of strategic spatial planning. Glob Environ Chang 51:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.001 Moroni S (2007) Planning, liberty and the rule of law. Plan Theor 6(2):146–163. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1473095207077586 Moroni S (2014) Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction: Urban codes for self-organising cities. Plan Theor 14(3):248–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214521104 Moroni S, Buitelaar E, Sorel N, Cozzolino S (2020) Simple planning rules for complex urban problems: toward legal certainty for spatial flexibility. J Plan Educ Res 40(3):320–331. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18774122 Muñoz Gielen D (2014) Urban governance, property rights, land readjustment and public value capturing. Eur Urban Reg Stud 21(1):60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776412440543 Muñoz Gielen D, Tasan-Kok T (2010) Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. Eur Plan Stud 18(7):1097–1131. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09654311003744191 Nadin V, Fernández-Maldonado A, Zonneveld W, Stead D, D˛abrowski M, Piskorek K, Sarkar A, Schmitt P, Smas L, Cotella G, Rivolin U, Solly A, Berisha E, Pede E, Seardo B, Komornicki ´ T, Goch K, Bednarek-Szczepa´nska M, Degórska B, Szejgiec-Kolenda B, Sleszy´ nski P, Lüer C, Böhme K, Nedovic-Budic Z, Williams B, Varghese J, Colic N, Knaap G, Csák L, Faragó L, Mezei C, Kovács I, Pamer Z, Reimer M, Münter A (2018) COMPASS – Comparative analysis of territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe Applied Research 2016–2018 Final Report. ESPON, European Commission, Luxembourg Nadin V, Stead D, D˛abrowski M, Fernandez-Maldonado AM (2020) Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: trends across Europe. Reg Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020. 1817363 Persson C (2013) Deliberation or doctrine? Land use and spatial planning for sustainable development in Sweden. Land Use Policy 34:301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013. 04.007 Purkarthofer E, Humer A, Mattila H (2021) Subnational and dynamic conceptualisations of planning culture: the culture of regional planning and regional planning cultures in Finland. Plan Theory Pract. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1896772 Savini F (2016) Don’t blame public law: the legal articulation of certainty in Amsterdam land-use planning. Town Plan Rev 87(4):459–479. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2016.29 ´ Sleszy´ nski P (ed) (2013) Wska´zniki zagospodarowania i ładu przestrzennego w gminach. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 252:180–182 Stead D (2021) Conceptualizing the policy tools of spatial planning. J Plan Lit 36(3):297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412221992283 Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (2017) Planning cultures and histories: influences of the evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns. In: Stead D, de Vries J, Tasan-Kok T (eds) Planning cultures and histories. The evolution of planning systems and spatial development patterns, Routledge, London, pp 1–6

Bibliography

119

Steele W, Ruming K (2012) Flexibility versus certainty: unsettling the land-use planning Shibboleth in Australia. Plan Pract Res 27(2):155–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.662670 Tarakçı S, Türk S¸ S¸ (2020) Shaping of flexibility in urban renewal legal sources in Turkey and its effect on practices. Int J Archit Plann 8(2):652–671. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.202 0.131