Sustainability 10 00136

sustainability
Article
Analysis of Changes in Land Use Patterns Pursuant to
the Conversion of Agricultural Land to
Non-Agricultural Use in the Context of the
Sustainable Development of the Malopolska Region
Malgorzata Busko 1, * ID
and Beata Szafranska 2
1 Department of Department of Integrated Geodesy and Cartography, AGH University of Science and
Technology, 30059 Krakow, Poland
2 Department of Agriculture and Geodesy, Marshal’s Office of the Malopolska Province, 30017 Krakow,
Poland; Beata.Szafranska@umwm.pl
* Correspondence: mbusko@agh.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-608-017-172
Received: 7 November 2017; Accepted: 5 January 2018; Published: 9 January 2018
Abstract: This research paper presents the results of analyses that address the direction in which the
issue of land use in Malopolska has been heading in recent years. The authors formulated the thesis
that changes occurring in the use of agricultural land are advanced and, despite its legal protection,
this land is continuously subjected to permanent conversion to non-agricultural use year by year.
Verification of the thesis was carried out using taxonomic analyses. As a result, it was proven that
as much as 68% of the land converted to non-agricultural use in the study period was earmarked
for residential use. Importantly, as much as 19% of these areas are of the best quality classes, i.e.,
classes I and II, which account for a mere 7% of all agricultural land in Malopolska. Another 79%
of the converted agricultural land belonged to the mid class, i.e., class III, which—at the time of
writing—represents only 26% in the Malopolska Province. This data demonstrates that the best lands
of the Malopolska Province, which belonged to classes I, II and III (i.e., top quality arable soils), were
irreversibly degraded by their conversion to non-agricultural use. The paper proposes systemic
solutions supporting the decision-making process of administrative bodies aimed at agricultural
land protection.
Keywords: sustainable development; agricultural land; conversion of agricultural land to

non-agricultural use; changes of agricultural land use
1. Introduction
The concept of sustainable development first appeared in Polish legislation in 2001 when the Act
on Environmental Protection was adopted [1]. Pursuant to Art. 3, Section 50 of the act, sustainable
development is understood as integrated political, social and economic activities aimed at ensuring
the safety of natural processes while satisfying the current needs of citizens. Therefore, it is important
to retain equilibrium between the possibility of the present generation to develop and to guarantee the
right of future generations to a natural environment. In this way, reference was made to the Report [2]
in which the definition of sustainable development appeared.
In order to be able to implement sustainable development of the economy, land and society,
sustainable development should be based on an integrated system of data collection that would
be up-to-date, reliable and accessible [3,4]. One such system is the Land Administration System
(LAS)—a multi-faceted system for collecting data from various public records (including real estate
cadastre) and spatial information systems [5]. The integration of these systems and records should
ensure interoperability within the structure of spatial information [6,7].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 136; doi:10.3390/su10010136 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 2 of 22
Literature provides various methods for evaluating the implementation of sustainable

development [8–11]; however, the data on parcels of land and on land use, included in various
public records, always constitute the basis of the analysis [12–15].
The proper use of land and the protection of agricultural and forest land is frequently considered
to be a local environmental issue [16,17]. In the study [18] it has been demonstrated that, also in
northern Italy, suburban areas are particularly vulnerable to the conversion from agricultural to
non-agricultural use. The problem of such conversion in the vicinity of large cities has also been
discussed in the paper [19]. The phenomenon of land conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural
use has been defined there as “urban expansion” and estimated at about 40% of all agricultural lands
surrounding large cities. However, only land uses and not land quality classes, have been analysed in
these papers.
This issue, however, is becoming a global one and applies to many countries. In the paper [20] it
has been emphasized that it is necessary to develop further case studies for other regions in Europe
regarding agriculture decline due to urban expansion. Our research paper addresses this specific need
by presenting reliable results of changes in land use in Malopolska.
The analysis of the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use must be based on
the current legal system. Pertaining to agricultural and forest lands located in Poland, the legal
status is regulated by the Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Land of 1995 [21]. This act
stipulates the principles and determines the procedures, i.e., the sequence of individual actions aimed
at converting land to non-agricultural and non-forest use. Firstly, the land must be earmarked as
non-agricultural and non-forest in the local zoning plan. Secondly, a decision is issued specifying
the conditions of such a conversion. The final stage includes the actual conversion of agricultural
land carried out by the owner (holder), i.e., the abandonment of the existing land use. The legal
analysis on the protection of agricultural land located in urban areas in Poland was carried out in [22].
Research studies on the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and the protection of
agricultural land have been conducted in Reference [23] but only in reference to one county—Zwolen
in the Mazowieckie province. In Reference [24], changes in land use for the Małopolska province have
been analysed but with the use of Corine Land Cover. For this reason, these analyses do not contain
information on land quality classes, which is essential in our research paper.
The development of industry is inevitable in today’s world. However, it is necessary to ensure that
the practice and prospects for the development of industry are ecologically sound [25–27]. Rapid and
uncontrolled urbanisation can lead to the occurrence of a phenomenon which, in the literature, is
referred to as the emergence and development of so-called ‘urban villages’. Such a phenomenon is
observed in China, for example [28–30]—this has nothing to do with sustainable development, so it is
essential to take measures to counteract it.
Pro-ecological protection of agricultural and forest land in Poland is the subject of various
interesting studies. As far as forest land is concerned, the paper [31] deals with the question of
afforestation of land in the period 1995–2013, with particular emphasis on the effect of Poland’s
accession to the European Union in 2004 on the implementation of environmental actions. Legal bases
and principles related to the protection of agricultural land in Poland are discussed in [32]. It should
be expected that the adopted national policy would implement a comprehensive system of the
use of agricultural land and principles of the division of agricultural land for agricultural and
non-agricultural purposes [33].
The use of agricultural land for purely agricultural purposes is also closely related to subsidies
for agricultural production from the European Union funds [34,35]. However, excessive development
of agricultural production, without concern for sustainable development regarding residents’ needs,
may also lead to numerous problems, as demonstrated in [36].
Many inhabitants of Poland, including the inhabitants of the Malopolska Province, are faced with
the selection of their place of residence. They can choose between a heavily developed urban area, such
as the capital of the province—the city of Krakow—or other large cities of the region, such as Bochnia,
Brzesko, Tarnow, Nowy Sacz etc. and the countryside around these larger cities. One of the criteria
that must be taken into account while making a choice is whether the network of roads facilitates
or inhibits daily commuting to cities for employment or educational purposes [37]. Such surveys
analysing satisfaction relating to place of residence within or outside the city have been conducted in
Chicago [38]. These studies demonstrated that the quality of transportation roads is an important factor
when choosing a place of residence and significantly affects the level of residents’ satisfaction [39].
Developers of zoning plans, architects and designers need to understand that an appropriate
communication system, the development of access roads and their quality make positive contributions
to the ecological development of the local community [40]. Successful implementation of sustainable
development in the aspect of roads and communication not only improves the economic aspects of life
of the inhabitants but also ensures a healthier environment. It is important that local communities are
actively involved in the process of sustainable land management regardless of whether it concerns
highly developed or developing countries [41,42]. With the commencement of the industrialisation
process in developing countries, the character of the agricultural space is changing into invested areas.
Rural areas are subject to significant changes, as for example, in China [43,44]. The optimisation of
the conversion of agricultural land to industrial land in rural areas forms the bases for the sustainable
development of rural areas. Moreover, the importance of the restructuring of rural areas also plays a
significant role in agriculture [45–47].
The international literature describes research studies on the commercialisation of rural areas
using qualitative methods [48], quantitative methods [49,50] and using a mixed approach. This paper
will utilise a mixed approach but with a significant part of quantitative research being based on
taxonomy, with particular reference to the Ward method.
The main objective of this research paper is to analyse the state of changes in land use which have
taken place in land development in southern Poland, within the Malopolska Province, over the last
seven years. The analysis was carried out with respect to:
- determining the size of land converted to non-agricultural use,

- determining the directions of changes in the use of land converted to non-agricultural use,
- determining the quality classes of land converted to non-agricultural use.
2. Materials and Methods

The research study will identify the areas (counties) in the Malopolska province in which the
land of the best quality classes is converted to non-agricultural use; the research will also specify the
direction of land use changes. The main source of data is the register of land and buildings maintained
and updated by the counties. Pursuant to the regulation on the register of land and building [51], it is
uniform across the public land registry database for the whole country.
It should be emphasised that the Malopolska province is a particularly difficult case as far as
data acquisition for the analysis of record data is concerned. The province consists of 22 counties and
182 communes covering 4,516,496 record parcels. In many counties of the Malopolska province,
geodetic and cartographic documentation databases are still maintained in an analogue form.
The graphic part, i.e., the cadastral map for rural areas, is maintained in the vector form for only
approximately 35% of the province area and for the remaining rural areas, it is still a map in an analogue
form. A large share of the descriptive part of the record data utilised for the preparation of this paper
(225 files in Appendix C and 7 files in Appendix D) is analogue (non-electronic). Although the data on
the size of land converted to non-agricultural use collected by the Marshal of the province is available
for a period longer than seven years, the key data for this article was that from the districts regarding
land quality classes. The data for the whole province exists only for the period 2010–2016. Thus, it
is not possible to perform a long-term analysis in the Malopolska province. For statistical analyses,
creating graphs, data operations and data transformation, the authors used the Statistica software.

2.1. Materials for the Analysis
2.1. Materials for the Analysis
2.1. Materials
The researchfor the covered
area Analysis the Malopolska province, one of 16 provinces in Poland (Figure 1).
The
The Malopolska research area
province covered
coversthe an Malopolska province,
km2 , one of 16accounts
provincesfor
in Polandof(Figure 1).
The research area covered the area of 15,183
Malopolska province, which
one of 16 provinces in4.9% the country’s
Poland (Figure 1).
The Malopolska province covers an area of 15,183 km2,2 which accounts for 4.9% of the country’s
territory
The and ranks province
Malopolska the region in an
covers 12thareaplace withkmregard
of 15,183 , whichto area. for
accounts Administrative divisions
4.9% of the country’s
territory and ranks the region in 12th place with regard to area. Administrative divisions divide the
divideterritory
the province into
and ranks the22 counties,
region in 12thconsisting
place withof 182 communes:
regard 46 municipal-rural
to area. Administrative communes,
divisions divide the
province into 22 counties, consisting of 182 communes: 46 municipal-rural communes, 14
province intoand
14 municipalities 22 122
counties,
rural consisting of(Figure
communes 182 communes:
2). This 46 municipal-rural
province was selectedcommunes,
for the 14
analysis
municipalities and 122 rural communes (Figure 2). This province was selected for the analysis
becausemunicipalities
it has and
oneone
of the 122 rural
largest communes (Figure 2). This province was selected for the analysis
because it has of the largestareas
areasofofland
land converted annuallytoto
converted annually non-agricultural
non-agricultural use use in Poland.
in Poland.
because it has one of the largest areas of land converted annually to non-agricultural use in Poland.
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Administrative
Administrativedivision
divisionof
of Poland.
Poland.
Figure 1. Administrative division of Poland.
Figure 2. Administrative division of the Malopolska province.

Malopolska is characterised by a great variety of landscape features, geological structure, climatic,

hydrological and soil conditions. Agricultural land is the main form of land use in the Malopolska
province. By 2015, it covered a total of 537,500 ha, constituting 81.0% of the total area of agricultural
holdings in the province. The vast majority (96.8% of the total agricultural land) belonged to individual
farms [52]. The most favourable soil conditions for agricultural production are located in the eastern
and northern parts of the province and in the northern part of the Carpathian foothills. Over recent
years, there has been a systematic decline in the area of land devoted to agricultural use.
2.2. Research Methods—Taxonomic Analysis as a Tool for Regionalisation

The region is a spatial concept referring to a specifically separated territory, which, due to
the relative homogeneity of its characteristics and its connections, differs from the surrounding
areas [53]. Regionalisation is a specific procedure for the division of space into regions, i.e., smaller
and relatively homogeneous areas which, due to the accepted criteria, create a specific whole which
is separated by strictly defined boundaries. Regionalisation can be carried out according to one or
several criteria and its most important task is to reduce the number of spatial units. Generally, the
objective of regionalisation is to create a smaller number of regions which would be continuous units
and maximally uniform internally as far as a given set of characteristics is concerned, from a certain
number of spatial units with specific characteristics. The administrative division into regions supports
effective management and functioning of the organisational unit [54].
Getting to know the degree of spatial variability of the counties in the Malopolska province
provides a lot of valuable information—this is useful for monitoring changes occurring in land use in
the whole province. A set of attributes of selected mapped elements of geographical space contribute
to the complexity and diversity of the natural environment, these include: the area of agricultural
land in the Malopolska province divided according to their quality classes in the years 2010–2016; the
area of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural land use; the purpose of its conversion; the
percentage of specific quality classes of land being converted to non-agricultural use; other attributes
discussed by the authors in this paper. The multidimensional statistics, developed by Jan Czekanowski
and Zdzisław Hellwig, deal with the analysis of the multi-faceted phenomena and objects. At the
beginning of the twentieth century, Czekanowski’s first work was published [55]. His research
initiated the widespread use of numerical taxonomy in anthropology, agriculture, geography and the
environment. According to Kukula [56], one of the main concepts in the theory of regionalisation is
to treat regionalisation as a sort of classification based on the criterion of the homogeneity of spatial
objects. Usually, one of the taxonomic procedures allows the distinguishing of more homogeneous
groups of objects resulting from the similarity of the selected set of attributes.
In defining the notion of regional statistics, Mlodak [57] identifies all the statistical activities
undertaken in relation to specific regions as research subjects and the term ‘the region’ is understood
as a specific territory whose area is determined by arbitrarily defined administrative boundaries.
Taxonomy as a science—the main idea of which is aggregation, analysis and organization of objects
described by numerous statistical variables—plays an important role in studying the efficiency of
results obtained by regional statistics and the complex variability of territorial units, relative to the
occurring phenomena. According to Mlodak, determining the direction of the grouping process
involves a necessity to determine the grouping hierarchy. Hierarchical and non-hierarchical methods
can be distinguished here. The characteristic attributes of hierarchical methods are the levels of
integration or disintegration of groups.
The algorithms implementing division of the set into subsets, so that these subsets contain the
most similar objects, can be divided into two main groups [58,59]: hierarchical and non-hierarchical
ones. Hierarchical methods include the methods as follows: of the closest neighbourhood, the furthest
neighbourhood, the gravity centres, median, the group average, the weighted group average, the Ward
method. In these methods, trees are created as part of clusters by grouping objects having similar
attributes. Initially, the procedure assumes that each object constitutes a separate subgroup. By finding

subgroup. By finding the shortest distance, the elements which should be merged in the next step of
the agglomeration are highlighted.
One of distance,
the shortest the mostthepopular
elementsandwhichmost widely
should used agglomeration
be merged in the next step methods is the Ward
of the agglomeration
method—this
are highlighted. was used in this study. Proposed by J.H. Ward, this method differs from all others
because
Oneitofuses an ANOVA
the most popular andto estimate the used
most widely distance between clusters.
agglomeration methodsThisis themethod is aimed at
Ward method—this
minimising
was the study.
used in this sum ofProposed
squares byof J.H.
deviations within
Ward, this the differs
method clusters. At all
from each stage,
others of allitpossible
because uses an
merging to
ANOVA pairs of clusters,
estimate the onebetween
the distance which produces a cluster
clusters. This method withis minimal
aimed at variation
minimising as the
a result of
sum of
merging
squares ofis deviations
chosen. The measure
within of such variation
the clusters. relative
At each stage, to the
of all meanmerging
possible values ispairs
the expression
of clusters,ESS
the
(Error Sum produces
one which of Squares), which is
a cluster defined
with minimalby the following
variation as aformula:
result of merging is chosen. The measure of
such variation relative to the mean values is the 𝑘𝑘 expression ESS (Error Sum of Squares), which is defined
by the following formula: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = � (𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥̅ )2 (1)
𝑖𝑖=1 k
ESS = ∑i=1 ( xi − x )2 (1)
where xi is the value of the segmentation variable for the i-th object, 𝑥𝑥 is the mean value of the
segmentation
where variable
xi is the value of k issegmentation
andthe the number ofvariable
objects in
forthe
thecluster.
i-th object, x is the mean value of the
This method
segmentation is considered
variable and k is thetonumber
be veryofeffective,
objects inalthough
the cluster. it is aimed at creating small-sized
clusters.
ThisIts computational
method effect
is considered to is
beavery
tree effective,
in the form of a specific
although dendrite
it is aimed called asmall-sized
at creating dendrogram. The
clusters.
threshold value has
Its computational beenis determined
effect a tree in the so as to
form of ensure thedendrite
a specific identification
called of a proper number
a dendrogram. of classes
The threshold
of the has
value counties to create larger
been determined so asareas with the
to ensure homogeneous
identification features according
of a proper numberto of
theclasses
principle of
of the
regionalisation.
counties to createWithlarger regard
areas withto homogeneous
the research features
methodsaccording
for taxonomic analyses,
to the principle it should be
of regionalisation.
emphasised
With regard that one
to the of the methods
research co-authors, forintaxonomic
her doctoral dissertation,
analyses, it shouldanalysed the hierarchical
be emphasised that oneandof
non-hierarchical grouping methods in great detail, proving that Ward’s method is simple but
the co-authors, in her doctoral dissertation, analysed the hierarchical and non-hierarchical grouping
sufficiently
methods in effective.
great detail, proving that Ward’s method is simple but sufficiently effective.
3.
3. Results
Results
The
The description
description and
and categorisation
categorisation of
of soils
soils is facilitated by
is facilitated their systematic
by their systematic classification
classification which
which
takes into account the causes of the formation and similarities between specific soil units. Figure 33
takes into account the causes of the formation and similarities between specific soil units. Figure
shows thestructure
shows the structureofofthethe soils
soils by by quality
quality classclass forentire
for the the entire province
province at the beginning
at the beginning of the
of the research
research
period period (2010).
(2010).
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
classes I-II
200,000 class III

class IV
150,000
classes V-VI
100,000
50,000
0
classes I-II class III class IV classes V-VI
Figure
Figure 3.3.Surface
Surface areas
areas of agricultural
of agricultural land land
use inuse
the in the Malopolska
Malopolska provinceprovince in 2010
in 2010 divided divided
into quality
into quality classes and expressed
classes and expressed in hectares (ha). in hectares (ha).
Soil classification in Poland covers both agricultural land as well as forest land. The agricultural
Soil classification in Poland covers both agricultural land as well as forest land. The agricultural
land, especially the best and very good soils (of classes I and II), are particularly valuable due to their
land, especially the best and very good soils (of classes I and II), are particularly valuable due to their
nutrient content for plants, their soil structure and environmental values. The share of the soils which
belong to quality classes I and II in the total area of the agricultural land in the province is only 7%
(Figure 3). The best soils (according to the classification) can be found in the northern and central parts
of the province. 26% of all agricultural land use is made up of soils of classes IIIa and IIIb, i.e., good
soils, occurring in slightly worse physiographic conditions than soils of classes I and II. They also
have significantly worse physical and chemical properties than classes I and II soils. The groundwater
level fluctuates more and the crops are dependent upon the weather. Some soils are periodically too
dry, others may be too wet at times. They may also be susceptible to erosion. As much as 36% of
soils in the Malopolska province belong to classes IVa and IVb, i.e., medium quality soils. These are
heavy soils, most often too dry or too wet, too heavy for cultivation, or located in poor physiographic
conditions, such as strong declines, eroded hills or depressions. As much as 31% of all the soils in
the province are poor and the poorest soils, i.e., those which belong to classes V and VI. These soils
are not very fertile, they are barely productive, the crops are very poor and their successful growth is
uncertain. Such soils are frequently earmarked for afforestation or other non-agricultural purposes.
The advantage of the region is its clean environment, so despite the low quality of the soils resulting
from the mountainous and piedmont landscape, there are favourable conditions for the development
of healthy food production in the southern part of the province [60].
The sources of the data presented in the bar charts (Figures 3 and 4) are the databases of the
register of land and buildings maintained by the counties (Appendix C). The bar chart in Figure 3
illustrates the general structure of the soil quality classes for the entire province, while Figure 4 shows
the division of the agricultural land into quality classes within individual counties. This bar chart is
based on the data from 225 files (Appendix C). The data contained in Table A1 (Appendix A) and in the
bar charts (Figures 3 and 4) is the synthetic input data for the analyses carried out later in this paper.
With respect to the discussed initial situation, the authors of the article have conducted an
analysis of the agricultural land in the Malopolska province which has been annually converted to
non-agricultural use during the seven years between 2010 and 2016.
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
classes I-II class III class IV classes V-VI
Figure 4. Surface area of agricultural land uses within specific quality classes in the individual counties of the Malopolska province in 2010 expressed
Figure 4. Surface area of agricultural land uses within specific quality classes in the individual counties of the Malopolska province in 2010 expressed in hectares (ha).
in hectares (ha).
3.1. Groups of Counties Similar in Terms of Quality of the Soils at the Initial Stage of the Research (2010)
Based on the bar chart in Figure 4, the dendrogram presented in Figure A1 (Appendix B) was
3.1. Groups of Counties Similar in Terms of Quality of the Soils at the Initial Stage of the Research (2010)
developed using the Ward method. This allowed the distinguishing of eight groups of counties (A–H)
accordingBased to theiron similar
the bar attributes
chart in Figure 4, the
(quality dendrogram
classes). presented
The size of the in Figure
area A1soils
of the (Appendix B) was
of the best quality
developed using the Ward
class was adopted as a leading attribute. method. This allowed the distinguishing of eight groups of counties (A–
H) according to their similar attributes (quality classes). The size of the area of the soils of the best
The vertical axis of the dendrogram represents the county numbers according to Table A1, while
quality class was adopted as a leading attribute.
the horizontal axis is a dimensionless number representing the distances of clusters (regions). The red
The vertical axis of the dendrogram represents the county numbers according to Table A1,
line iswhile
a fixedthe threshold
horizontal value
axis is that provides the
a dimensionless appropriate
number number
representing of classes.of clusters (regions).
the distances
Figure
The red line is a fixed threshold value that provides the appropriate numberinto
5 demonstrates the area of the Malopolska province divided smaller administrative
of classes.
units (counties).
Figure 5Groups of similar
demonstrates counties
the area are markedprovince
of the Malopolska on the map with
divided intodifferent colours (Figure 5).
smaller administrative
Groups unitsof(counties).
the counties which
Groups were counties
of similar identified areas having
marked onthe
the largest
map with surface area
different of the
colours best quality
(Figure 5).
Groups of the counties which were identified as having the largest surface area of
classes (class I and class II) at the initial stage of the research, i.e., in 2010, are marked in green. It is the best quality
clearlyclasses
visible(class
thatI and class II) atpart
the northern the initial
of thestage
regionof the
hasresearch,
the besti.e.,
soilinconditions.
2010, are marked
Among in green. It is
these counties,
clearly visible that the northern part of the region has the best soil conditions.
the first to be mentioned is Proszowice, followed by Krakow and Tarnow. Then, the next are Wieliczka, Among these counties,
the first to be mentioned is Proszowice, followed by Krakow and Tarnow. Then, the next are
Wadowice and Miechow. The poorest soils are located in the southern part of the region, i.e., in the
Wieliczka, Wadowice and Miechow. The poorest soils are located in the southern part of the region,
counties of Sucha Beskidzka, Limanowa, Nowy Sacz, Zakopane and Nowy Targ. This is closely related
i.e., in the counties of Sucha Beskidzka, Limanowa, Nowy Sacz, Zakopane and Nowy Targ. This is
to physiographic
closely relatedconditions and topography
to physiographic conditions because these areas
and topography belong
because thesetoareas
the mountainous
belong to the and
piedmont landscape.
mountainous and piedmont landscape.
Figure 5. Map of groups of similar counties (according to the Ward method) with regard to
Figure 5. Map of groups of similar counties (according to the Ward method) with regard to surface
surface area of quality classes I–VI in individual counties of the Malopolska province as of
area of quality classes I–VI in individual counties of the Malopolska province as of 1 January 2010.
1 January 2010.
3.2. Groups of Counties

3.2. Groups Similar
of Counties with
Similar withRegard
Regardto
to Size ofAgricultural
Size of Agricultural Land
Land Converted
Converted to Non-Agricultural
to Non-Agricultural Use Use
The analysis carried
The analysis out later
carried in this
out later in paper aimed
this paper to identify
aimed the areas
to identify of theofMalopolska
the areas province
the Malopolska
whereprovince wheredegradation
the greatest the greatest degradation of the best
of the best classes classes
of land of landas
occurred occurred
a resultasofa converting
result of converting
agricultural
land agricultural land to non-agricultural
to non-agricultural use.be
use. It will also It important
will also be to
important to define
define the the purpose
specific specific purpose
of theseof land
these land use changes. Additionally, it will be essential to assess whether the development
use changes. Additionally, it will be essential to assess whether the development of the areas can be of the
areas can be described as sustainable or whether it will simply result in the deprivation of the soil of
described as sustainable or whether it will simply result in the deprivation of the soil of the most
the most valuable natural values, leading to its irreversible degradation.
valuable natural values, leading to its irreversible degradation.
Figure 6 illustrates
Figure
Sustainability
thethe
6 illustrates
2018, 10, 136
trend ofofland
trend landuse
use changes for
changes for thethe whole
whole province,
province, from agricultural
from agricultural toof 23
10
to
non-agricultural uses, in the analysed period of time.
non-agricultural uses, in the analysed period of time.
Figure 6 illustrates the trend of land use changes for the whole province, from agricultural to
non-agricultural
400 uses, in the analysed period of time.
300
400
200
ha
300
100
200
ha
0
100 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
Figure Figure 6. Share
6. Share of agricultural
of agricultural land land converted
converted to non-agricultural
to non-agricultural useuse
in in
thethe Malopolskaprovince
Malopolska
province
2010 2010 and
between
20112016
2012
(ha).
2013 2014 2015 2016
between 2010 and 2016 (ha).
Figure
Based 6.
onShare of agricultural
the graph in Figure 6,land convertedthat
it is noticeable to non-agricultural use ininthe
no significant changes the Malopolska
conversion of
Based province
land for thebetween
graph in2010
on non-agricultural use
Figureand 2016
took it (ha).
6, place in Malopolska
is noticeable thatin no
the significant
years 2010–2013. A sharp
changes increase
in the in
conversion of
land conversion since 2014 is related to the economic development
land for non-agricultural use took place in Malopolska in the years 2010–2013. A sharp increase in of Poland, resulting mainly from
theBased
land conversion
on the graph
EU investment
since 2014
in Figure
financing
is related
6, itcountry’s
for the is noticeable
to the economic
that no significant
development activities of
development
changesforinthe
planned theyears
conversion
Poland, resulting 2014– of
mainly from
land forThe
2020. non-agricultural
studies [61–63] use took place
identified in Malopolska
price-determining in the
factors years 2010–2013.
affecting the value of A sharp increase
agricultural land in
the EU investment financing for the country’s development activities planned for the years 2014–2020.
land conversion
after since 2014
Poland’s accession to is
therelated to the
EU in the economic
regions wheredevelopment
agriculture is of Poland, resulting mainly from
predominant.
The studies
the EUIn[61–63]
order toidentified
investment financing
identify price-determining
details forofthe
the country’s factors
changes indevelopment
land usesaffecting the
in avalue
activities
presented generalofway
planned agricultural
for the years
on the land after
2014–
graph
Poland’s (Figure
2020. The 6),
accession a detailed
studies to the
[61–63] analysis
EU in the
identifiedof theprice-determining
size of the land converted
regions where agriculture to non-agricultural
is the value ofuse
predominant.
factors affecting was carriedland
agricultural
In out
after for all
order to the
Poland’s counties
accession
identify of
to the
detailstheof region.
EUthe Thisregions
in changes
the allowed
inwherethe identification
land agriculture
uses of
presented groups
in a of
is predominant.counties
general similar
way on inthe graph
terms of
(Figure 6),Inaorder the
detailedsize of land
to identify
analysis permanently
details
of the of size converted
the changes
of the land to
in landnon-agricultural
uses presented
converted use. in a general way
to non-agricultural useonwas
the carried
graph out
The
6), bar chart (Figure 7) presents theofsize ofland
the areas compared in Table A2 over usethe period
for all(Figure
the counties a detailed
of the analysis
region. of theallowed
This size the
the converted
identification to
of non-agricultural
groups of counties was carried
similar in terms
out 2010–2016
for all for
the each
counties county
of of
the the region.
region. This allowed the identification of groups of counties similar in
of the size of land permanently converted to non-agricultural use.
terms of the size of land permanently converted to non-agricultural
The bar chart (Figure 7) presents the size of the areas compared in Table A2 over the period use.
The90 bar chart (Figure 7) presents the size of the areas compared in Table A2 over the period
2010–2016 for each county of the region.
2010–2016
80 for each county of the region.
70
90
60
80
50
7040
6030
5020
4010
30 0
20
10
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 7. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in
individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in
hectares (ha) (Appendix D).
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 7. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in
Figure 7. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual
individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in
counties of the(ha)
hectares Malopolska province
(Appendix D). in the years 2010–2016, expressed in hectares (ha) (Appendix D).
This
Thisbarbar
chart (Figure
chart 7) reflects
(Figure the intensity
7) reflects of changes
the intensity in land use
of changes in in eachuse
land county in individual
in each county in
years. The data from this chart is the input data (characteristics of the counties)
individual years. The data from this chart is the input data (characteristics of the counties) in the elaborated
in the
dendrogram. The data fromThe
elaborated dendrogram. Table A2 from
data and Figure
Table7A2 is used
and to compile
Figure 7 isdendrogram (Figuredendrogram
used to compile A2) based
on(Figure
which A2)
and based
using the
on Ward
whichmethod,
and usingnine groups
the Wardofmethod,
countiesnine
(A–I) that are
groups of similar in (A–I)
counties termsthat
of the
are
size of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use are distinguished. The results are
similar in terms of the size of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use are distinguished. presented
onThe
theresults
map (Figure 8).
are presented on the map (Figure 8).
Figure
Figure 8. Map
8. Map of groups
of groups of similar
of similar counties
counties (according
(according to the to themethod)
Ward Ward method) withtoregard
with regard surfaceto
surface
areas areas
of the of agricultural
whole the whole agricultural land
land converted to converted to non-agricultural
non-agricultural use
use in individual in individual
counties of the
counties of
Malopolska the Malopolska
province in the yearsprovince inexpressed
2010–2016, the yearsin2010–2016,
percent (%).expressed in percent (%).
The map (Figure 8) geographically presents the information contained in Figure 7, Figure A2
The map (Figure 8) geographically presents the information contained in Figure 7, Figure A2 and
and Table A2, grouping together the counties that are similar in terms of the surface area of the
Table A2, grouping together the counties that are similar in terms of the surface area of the agricultural
agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use. Thus, it is clear that the persistent degradation
land converted to non-agricultural use. Thus, it is clear that the persistent degradation of the land
of the land is the largest in the counties of Wieliczka, Krakow, Myslenice, Oswiecim, Bochnia and
is the largest in the counties of Wieliczka, Krakow, Myslenice, Oswiecim, Bochnia and Wadowice.
Wadowice. These counties are located in the immediate vicinity of the capital of the region – the city
These counties are located in the immediate vicinity of the capital of the region—the city of Krakow.
of Krakow. This information forms the grounds to suppose that land use change may be associated
This information forms the grounds to suppose that land use change may be associated with a need to
with a need to provide housing to the residents of Malopolska. Therefore, the next step in the
provide housing to the residents of Malopolska. Therefore, the next step in the research is to determine
research is to determine the purpose for which the converted land is earmarked.
the purpose for which the converted land is earmarked.
3.3.Specifying
3.3. Specifyingthe
theUse
UseofofLand
LandConverted
ConvertedtotoNon-Agricultural
Non-AgriculturalPurposes
Purposesinin
thethe Study
Study Period
Period
Thepie
The piechart
chart(Figure
(Figure9)9)illustrates
illustratesthe
theproportions
proportionsofofintended
intendedpurposes
purposesofofthe theland-use
land-use
conversions for the entire region. The chart demonstrates that the dominant
conversions for the entire region. The chart demonstrates that the dominant function of the function of theland
land
converted
converted toto non-agricultural
non-agricultural useuse is residential
is residential (68%(68% in chart).
in the the chart).
SinceSince the largest
the largest shareshare
in theinland
the use
land
use conversion belongs to residential areas, they are the subject of the analyses later in this
conversion belongs to residential areas, they are the subject of the analyses later in this research paper. research
paper.
Sustainability 2018,10,
Sustainability2018, 10,136
136 1212ofof2322
Miscellaneous uses
Miscellaneous uses
7%
15% 3%
1% 7% 6% Industrial areas
15% 3%
1% 6% Industrial areas
Communication
Communication
areas
areas
Residential areas
Residential areas
Water tanks
68% Water tanks
68%
Other areas
Other areas
Figure 9. 9.
Figure The purpose
The purposeof of converting agricultural
converting agricultural land
land to non-agricultural
to non-agricultural use in use in the
the Malopolska
Figure
Malopolska 9. The
provincepurpose
in the of converting
years 2010–2016, agricultural
expressed
province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in percent (%). land
in to
percent non-agricultural
(%). use in the
Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in percent (%).
3.4. 3.4.
Groups of Counties
Groups Similar
of Counties in Terms
Similar of the
in Terms of Quality
the Qualityof Agricultural Land
of Agricultural Converted
Land to Non-Agricultural
Converted to Non-Agricultural
Use3.4.
andGroups
Use of Counties
Earmarked
and Earmarked for Similar
for Residential in Terms
Purposes
Residential of the Quality of Agricultural Land Converted to Non-Agricultural
Purposes
Use and Earmarked for Residential Purposes
DueDueto the
to theobjective
objectiveofofthis
this research,
research, ititwas
wasnecessary
necessary to carry
to carry out research
out research regarding
regarding the
the definition
definitionDueof to the
quality objective
classes of of this research,
agricultural land it was
converted necessary
to to carry
non-agricultural out research
use and
of quality classes of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use and earmarked for residential regarding
earmarked forthe
definition
residential
purposes. ofThe
quality
purposes. pieTheclasses
chart of agricultural
pie(Figure
chart (Figure 10)land
10) depicts theconverted
depicts toshare
non-agricultural
the percentage
percentage ofshare use and
of specific
specific classes of earmarked
classes landfor
landofconverted
residential
converted for purposes.
residential
for residential The
purposes pie2010–2016
purposes
in chart (Figure
in 2010–2016 10)for
for the depicts
whole the percentage
the region.
whole region. share of specific classes of land
converted for residential purposes in 2010–2016 for the whole region.
2% 0%
2% 0%
19%
19%
classes I and II
classes I and II
class III
class III
class IV
class IV
classes V-VI
classes V-VI
79%
79%
Figure 10. Percentage share of specific classes of land converted for residential purposes in 2010–2016.
Figure 10. Percentage share of specific classes of land converted for residential purposes in
Figure
2010–2016. 10. Percentage
The results of the study share of specific
presented classes
in Figure 10 of land converted
demonstrate that asfor residential
much as 79% purposes in
of the agricultural
2010–2016.
land converted to non-agricultural use and earmarked for residential purposes constitute soils of class
The
III, results
i.e., good of theThe
soils. study presentedprovince
Malopolska in Figure has10only
demonstrate
26% of such that as much
soils. as 79%asofmuch
Surprisingly, the as
The
agricultural results
land of the
converted study
to presented in
non-agricultural Figure
use 10
anddemonstrate
earmarked that
for as much
residential
19% of the agricultural land converted for residential purposes constitute the best soils (classes I–II). as 79%
purposesof the
agricultural
constitute soils land
of converted
class III, i.e.,
Malopolska has only 7% of such soils. to
good non-agricultural
soils. The use
Malopolska and earmarked
province has for
only residential
26% of such purposes
soils.
constitute
Surprisingly, soils
Another of class
as much
aspectasof
19%III,
theofi.e.,
thegood
study soils.
agricultural
aims The Malopolska
land
to demonstrateconverted
which province
for hasof only
residential
counties 26% of
purposes
the region such
constitute
are soils.in
leaders
theSurprisingly,
best soils as much
(classes as
I–II). 19%
Malopolskaof the agricultural
has only 7% land
of suchconverted
soils. for residential purposes
converting agricultural land of the best quality classes for residential purposes. For this purpose, the constitute
the best soils
Another
dendrogram (classes
aspect
(Figure I–II).
of the
A3)studyMalopolska
was aims tohas
prepared onlyon
demonstrate
based 7%the
ofwhich
suchcontained
data soils.
counties in of Table
the region
A3, asare leaders
shown in bar
in the
Another
converting
chart aspect
agricultural
(Figure of theofstudy
11). land aims
the best to demonstrate
quality which counties
classes for residential of the
purposes. Forregion are leaders
this purpose, the in
converting agricultural land of the best quality classes for residential purposes. For this purpose, the
Sustainability
Sustainability 2018, 10,10,
2018, 136136 1313
of of
2323
dendrogram
dendrogram (Figure
(Figure A3) was prepared based on the data contained in Table A3, as shown in thebarbar
Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 A3) was prepared based on the data contained in Table A3, as shown in the
13 of 22
chart (Figure
chart (Figure 11). 11).
0.800
0.800
0.700
0.700
0.600
0.600
0.500
0.500
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.300
0.200
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.000
classes
classes I-III-II class
class IIIIII class
class IVIV classes
classes V-VI
V-VI
Figure
Figure
Figure
11.11. Percentage
Percentage
11. Percentage
shareshare
share ofofthe
theareas
of the areas areas
of
ofofspecific
specific specific quality
quality classes
quality classes
in the
classes ininthe
counties the counties
of the
ofofthe
Malopolska
counties the
Malopolskaprovince
province
Malopolska provinceconverted
converted for convertedfor
residential forresidential
purposes residentialpurposes
in the years purposesininthe
2010–2016 theyears
relative years2010–2016
to the 2010–2016relative
total area of relativetoto
individual
quality classes in those counties.
the total area of individual quality classes in those
the total area of individual quality classes in those counties. counties.
Thevertical
The
The vertical
vertical axis
axis
axis ofthe
ofofthe the dendrogram
dendrogram
dendrogram represents
represents
represents thethethecounty
county county numbers,
numbers,
numbers, according
according
according totoTable
to Table Table
A3, whileA3,
A3,
while
the the
horizontal horizontal
axis—a axis—a dimensionless
dimensionless number number representing
representing the the
distances
while the horizontal axis—a dimensionless number representing the distances of clusters (regions). distances
of clusters of clusters
(regions). (regions).
The red
Thered
line
The isred line
a line
fixed isa afixed
fixedthreshold
isthreshold threshold
value that value
provides
value thatprovides
that provides
the theappropriate
appropriate
the appropriate
number of number ofclasses
classes(A–F).
classesof(A–F).
number (A–F).
Basedon
Based
Based ononthe theconducted
the conductedanalyses
conducted analyses(see
analyses (seeTable
(see TableA3,
Table A3,Figures
A3, FigureA3
Figure A3and
11 andFigure
and A3Figure
for 1111forforresults),
results), results),
the map thethe map
below
map
below
(Figure (Figure
12) 12)
illustrates illustrates
areas in areas
the in
region,the region,
grouping grouping
together together
counties counties
similar
below (Figure 12) illustrates areas in the region, grouping together counties similar in terms of the insimilar
terms in
of terms
the of
qualitythe
ofquality
their of
soils their
convertedsoils converted
to to non-agricultural
non-agricultural use (A–F). use
The (A–F).
groups The
of groups
counties
quality of their soils converted to non-agricultural use (A–F). The groups of counties converting of counties
converting converting
agricultural
agricultural
land with theland
agricultural land
best with
soils
with the
and
the best
the
best soils
highest
soils andand thehighest
natural
the highest natural
valuesnatural
(mainly values (mainly
of quality
values ofof
classes
(mainly Iquality
and II)
quality classes I and
for residential
classes I and II)II)
for residential
purposes are marked purposes
in are
green. marked
These in green.
include theThese include
counties of the
Krakow,
for residential purposes are marked in green. These include the counties of Krakow, Myslenice, counties of
Myslenice, Krakow,
Nowy Myslenice,
Sacz and
NowySacz
Bochnia.
Nowy Sacz
The
andand Bochnia.
county
Bochnia. of TheThecounty
county
Oswiecim, ofofOswiecim,
which Oswiecim, whichalso
also permanently
which alsopermanently
permanently
changes changesthe
the changes
agricultural theagricultural
agricultural
function of
function
valuable
function ofvaluable
soils
of valuable
(valuation soils
soils (valuation
class classIII)
III) forclass
(valuation III)for
residential for residential
purposes,
residential purposes,isishighlighted
ispurposes,
highlighted inhighlighted
bright green.ininbright
brightgreen.
green.
Figure12.12.
Figure
Figure 12.
Groups
Groups
Groups ofofsimilar
of similar
similar counties
counties
counties
(according
(according
(according totomethod)
to the Ward
theWard
the Ward method)percentage
withmethod)
withregard
regard towith
regard toto
share
percentage
percentage
of the areas of share
share of
of the
specific the areas
areas
quality of specific
of specific
classes quality
quality
converted classes converted
classes converted
for residential for
purposes infor residential
theresidential purposes
purposes
years 2010–2016 in the
ininthe
theyears
counties years 2010–2016inin
2010–2016
of the Malopolska thecounties
the countiesofofthe
province. theMalopolska
Malopolskaprovince.
province.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The analysis of changes to land use patterns pursuant to the conversion of agricultural land
The analysisuse
to non-agricultural of changes to land use
in the context of patterns pursuant
sustainable to the conversion
development of the of agricultural
region firstlyland to
concerned
non-agricultural use in the context of sustainable development of the region firstly concerned
the definition of the natural resources available in Malopolska in terms of quality and suitability of the
definition
agricultural of the
land. natural
It was resourcestoavailable
important identifyinthe
Malopolska in terms
areas where theseofsoils
quality
occurandassuitability of
areas requiring
agricultural
special land. It was important to identify the areas where these soils occur as areas requiring
protection.
special protection.
Malopolska takes the third place in the country regarding the surface area of agricultural land
Malopolska takes the third place in the country regarding the surface area of agricultural land
converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010–2015, as illustrated in Figure 13.
converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010–2015, as illustrated in Figure 13.
0.25
0.20
0.15
%
0.10
0.05
0.00
Figure 13. Percentage share of the land converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010–
Figure 13. Percentage share of the land converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010–2015 in
2015 in Poland. Source: data from the CSO.
Poland. Source: data from the CSO.
The next stage of the research was to determine the size of the land converted to
non-agricultural
The next stage ofuse theover the past
research wasseven years (i.e.,the
to determine insize
the of
period 2010–2016)
the land and to
converted to non-agricultural
identify the
dominant
use over the pastfunction
sevenfor which
years thisinland
(i.e., the was earmarked.
period 2010–2016) The research demonstrates
and to identify that this function
the dominant function for
is residential. Bearing in mind that the process of converting agricultural
which this land was earmarked. The research demonstrates that this function is residential. Bearing land for residential
purposes causes irreversible degradation of land, it was necessary to specify the classes of the
in mind that the process of converting agricultural land for residential purposes causes irreversible
converted land. The studies have confirmed that as much as 19% of the best and very good land
degradation of land, it was necessary to specify the classes of the converted land. The studies have
(which accounts for only 7% in the whole region) is destroyed permanently and earmarked for
confirmed
housing.thatIt as much as
is exactly 19%areas
these of thethatbest
haveand very
been good land
indicated (which
by the authorsaccounts for protection
for urgent only 7% indue thetowhole
region)
their natural values (Figure 5). This is a signal for the regional authorities—the Marshal of the been
is destroyed permanently and earmarked for housing. It is exactly these areas that have
Province,
indicated by the responsible
authors for forurgent
sustainable development
protection due to of thenatural
their region—to stop(Figure
values this direction
5). Thisofischange.
a signal for
Taking into
the regional account the extremely
authorities—the Marshalsmallof thepercentage
Province,ofresponsible
land that is of the
for best qualitydevelopment
sustainable classes (classesof the
I and II)
region—to in the
stop thisMalopolska
direction region,
of change.thereTaking
is an urgent need to intensify
into account the protection
the extremely of this land of
small percentage in land
the region’s policy. Land use planning should be modified so that the most
that is of the best quality classes (classes I and II) in the Malopolska region, there is an urgent need to valuable areas are
protected
intensify and medium-quality
the protection of this land soilsin(classes IVa and
the region’s IVb) or
policy. pooruse
Land and planning
the poorestshould
(classesbeV modified
and VI) so
are earmarked for residential purposes. These soils are not very fertile, barely productive, the crops
that the most valuable areas are protected and medium-quality soils (classes IVa and IVb) or poor and
are very poor and their successful growth is uncertain.
the poorest (classes V and VI) are earmarked for residential purposes. These soils are not very fertile,
The results of the analyses carried out in this paper were expressed in percent to illustrate the
barelyscale of changesthe
productive, in crops are very of
the conversion poor and theirland
agricultural successful growth
for residential is uncertain.
purposes relative to the total
resources
The resultsof land
of theclasses in individual
analyses carried counties of the
out in this region.
paper were expressed in percent to illustrate the
According
scale of changes in to
thetheconversion
research presented in [64], which
of agricultural land was carried out inpurposes
for residential the Malopolska Province,
relative to the total
there is a huge fragmentation of agricultural
resources of land classes in individual counties of the region. holdings—this is illustrated by the largest number of
record parcels per area of province in Poland. The area of Malopolska
According to the research presented in [64], which was carried out in the Malopolska Province, covers approximately 1.5
theremillion
is a huge hectares, with circaof4.5
fragmentation million record
agricultural parcels. Byiscomparison,
holdings—this illustrated by thethearea of Podlasie
largest number of
(north-eastern Poland) is about 2 million hectares and there are only about 1.5 million record parcels.
record parcels per area of province in Poland. The area of Malopolska covers approximately 1.5 million
hectares, with circa 4.5 million record parcels. By comparison, the area of Podlasie (north-eastern
Poland) is about 2 million hectares and there are only about 1.5 million record parcels.
The consequence of such fragmentation of farms is a patchwork of agricultural land and residential
areas. This disrupts the functions of proper use of agricultural land resulting in the disappearance of
intensive agriculture in Malopolska and the agricultural function is limited to small family farms or
agrotouristic farms (preoccupied with the manufacture of traditional products and tourism).
Agricultural production depends on natural conditions such as soil quality, agricultural suitability
and susceptibility to water erosion. Agricultural land, especially of higher classes I–II, is invaluable.
It is our responsibility to ensure that it does not degrade as a result of unjustified investment decisions.
The results obtained in this research paper are consistent with the results of other analyses that
were conducted in Poland but to a limited extent. In the study [65], the analysis covered the period of
2000–2005 but the subject of the study was only one commune of Siedlce. However, the basis for the
analyses was primarily the data from the Central Statistical Office and only a small part of the data
was derived from the real estate cadastre. These studies have also proved that land converted from
agricultural to non-agricultural use is earmarked mainly for housing estates and the most changes
have occurred in the immediate vicinity of large cities.
Another study which has analysed changes in the structure of land use in Poland [66]. The research
object is one county in the Mazowieckie province. Detailed research has been based on the data from
the soil and agricultural maps at the scale of 1:5000 and they have been conducted for one commune
of this county only. General research studies, covering the entire county, have been performed based
on the soil and agricultural map at the scale of 1:50,000. These studies have demonstrated that a
favourable location, proximity to Warsaw and good transport accessibility often result in the land of
the highest quality and agricultural usefulness being earmarked for development, as confirmed by the
results presented in this research paper.
Research studies carried out in the Olomouc region in the Czech Republic in the years
1991–2001 [67] demonstrated a slightly higher, by approximately 3.5%, increase in residential areas
on arable land than in Malopolska. However, these studies were based on less detailed data from
Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) and they concerned
land use only.
Contrary to what was stated in the paper [68] with respect to 25 European countries in the years
2000–2006 based on averaged data from Corine Land Cover maps, that subsidies under the common
agricultural policy of the European Union could stop the degradation of agricultural land, in the region
of Małopolska such degradation has not been stopped. The agricultural land of the best quality classes
is permanently being degraded and earmarked for housing purposes, which has been proved in this
research paper based on the detailed data from the real estate cadastre.
5. Conclusions
Pursuant to Polish legislation, for the conversion of land of classes I–III, landowners are obliged
to pay stipulated fees (a one-time fee and annual fees for a period of 10 years, starting from the actual
date of conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use). These fees, however, are not high
enough to dissuade investors. Under the Polish legal regulations, these amounts depend on the price
of a ton of rye as a conversion unit per 1 hectare of land permanently converted to non-agricultural use.
Despite the owner being obliged to obtain an administrative decision authorizing the conversion
of land to non-agricultural use prior to the construction permit, such a system does not discourage
investors. Local authorities allow making such changes in the land use as it increases the revenues
of self-governments of the communes, municipalities and counties from real estate taxes. This is the
reason why the authorities are friendly in the decision-making process regarding this phenomenon.
The richest commune in the Malopolska Province is Wielka Wies (data based on the revenue from real
estate taxes per capita), located in the Krakow county.
The studies have demonstrated that of all the counties in the Malopolska Province, the Krakow
county faces the largest loss of land of the best quality classes. Undoubtedly, the vicinity of the capital
of the province—the city of Krakow—affects the investment attractiveness of the land located around
it, resulting in the conscious aim of converting it for residential purposes. The most important factor
for potential residents of this county is the proximity of a large city and the attractive labour market.
It seems obvious that the areas in the immediate vicinity of large cities are becoming bedroom
communities of urban agglomerations. However, it is the responsibility of the local authorities of
Malopolska to maintain sustainable development of this region; they should protect areas with the
best environmental resources. A possible solution to this difficult problem would be to establish
protected areas on coherent complexes of agricultural land of quality classes I and II. According to the
Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest land, protected areas are not subject to conversion
to non-agricultural use; consequently, the process of irreversible degradation of the best quality soils
is stopped.
For the land for which protected areas cannot be established due to their small surface areas and
large fragmentation, the solution is to make the market price of the land dependent on its quality class.
This means that the attribute ‘land quality class’ should definitely have more weight in the valuation
process than is currently the case. A higher price for the agricultural land of the best quality classes
and the resulting higher dues and fees associated with their conversion to non-agricultural use, would
become a greater barrier for future investors.
These solutions may not be able to completely eliminate the problem of converting the land with
the best natural assets to non-agricultural (residential) use. However, they will certainly slow down
this process and will help to prevent the degradation of the best areas.
Acknowledgments: Research was funded by the AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow. This work
has been performed as part of scientific research carried out in the Department of Integrated Geodesy and
Cartography 11.11.150.444. The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the Marshal’s Office of the
Malopolska Province for providing an access to their databases.
Author Contributions: All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors and all authors certify that
they have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation
in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript. Furthermore, each author certifies that this
material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other publication before.
Malgorzata Busko was responsible for the conception and design of the work, analysis and interpretation of data
and drafting the article. Beata Szafranska was responsible for the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Surface area of agricultural land use within specific quality classes in the individual counties
of the Malopolska province in 2010.
County No. County of Classes I and II (ha) Class III (ha) Class IV (ha) Classes V–VI (ha)
1 BOCHNIA 1313 10,421 9481 1950
2 BRZESKO 652 9611 22,178 8685
3 CHRZANOW 299 3739 6161 6737
4 DABROWA 3591 7049 17,842 11,407
5 GORLICE 233 6309 23,625 16,040
6 KRAKOW 14,987 46,977 24,681 5073
7 LIMANOWA 0 1113 16,897 30,839
8 MIECHOW 4621 31,231 14,388 4323
9 MYSLENICE 37 6908 14,552 13,319
10 NOWY SACZ 309 6019 31,729 35,083
11 NOWY TARG 7 1207 23,788 84,002
12 OLKUSZ 370 13,980 16,353 19,249
13 OSWIECIM 1467 14,887 14,828 3235
14 PROSZOWICE 27,656 25,985 5499 1250
15 SUCHA BESKIDZKA 10 793 13,690 27,870
16 TARNOW 10,405 28,034 72,887 25,310
17 ZAKOPANE 0 16 2229 19,238
18 WADOWICE 782 21,550 28,254 5090
19 WIELICZKA 4639 25,269 9464 1717
Table A2. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual
counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in hectares (ha).
County No. County of 2010 (ha) 2011 (ha) 2012 (ha) 2013 (ha) 2014 (ha) 2015 (ha) 2016 (ha)
1 BOCHNIA 11.36 9.33 5.94 9.66 9.98 15.34 13.73
2 BRZESKO 3.75 3.07 2.78 3.01 3.03 4.08 7.91
3 CHRZANOW 1.09 0.93 0.43 0.64 1.06 1.1 1.87
4 DABROWA 0.51 0.51 2.25 3.01 0.41 1.5 1.88
5 GORLICE 3.68 3.27 3.57 2.07 2.314 3.1 3.03
6 KRAKOW 69.63 57.69 68.54 60.61 58.92 69.47 84.11
7 LIMANOWA 0.52 0.5 0.25 0.38 0.47 0.24 0.96
8 MIECHOW 1.49 1.35 1.18 0.88 0.74 1.18 0.99
9 MYSLENICE 8.97 6.31 7.44 11.52 7.98 11.11 16.83
10 NOWY SACZ 4.58 5.48 4.26 4.53 3.38 3.84 6.09
11 NOWY TARG 0.93 1.07 0.71 0.67 0.6006 1.09 1.09
12 OLKUSZ 1.12 1.31 1.79 2.05 0.84 1.56 0.91
13 OSWIECIM 5.33 6.69 7.08 5.53 7.32 16.68 18.42
14 PROSZOWICE 3.45 2.33 2.81 2.29 2.82 2.19 4
15 SUCHA BESKIDZKA 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.46 0.71 0.93 0.87
16 TARNOW 12.17 13.83 24.43 10.45 8.92 40.96 39.51
17 ZAKOPANE 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0
18 WADOWICE 10.46 10.21 12.2 8.8 9.71 13.79 25.94
19 WIELICZKA 20.76 20.39 21.51 17.66 22.08 33.24 52.21
Table A3. Percentage share of the areas of specific quality classes converted for residential purposes in
the years 2010–2016 in the counties of the Malopolska province.
County No. County of Classes I and II Class III Class IV Classes V–VI
1 BOCHNIA 0.404 0.362 0.048 0.000
2 BRZESKO 0.035 0.168 0.000 0.000
3 CHRZANOW 0.013 0.142 0.002 0.008
4 DABROWA 0.009 0.046 0.026 0.000
5 GORLICE 0.103 0.302 0.000 0.000
6 KRAKOW 0.742 0.532 0.003 0.003
7 LIMANOWA 0.000 0.214 0.000 0.000
8 MIECHOW 0.040 0.019 0.000 0.000
9 MYSLENICE 0.351 0.715 0.015 0.000
10 NOWY SACZ 0.706 0.485 0.000 0.000
11 NOWY TARG 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12 OLKUSZ 0.019 0.052 0.000 0.001
13 OSWIECIM 0.178 0.217 0.001 0.024
14 PROSZOWICE 0.030 0.014 0.000 0.000
15 SUCHA BESKIDZKA 0.000 0.468 0.000 0.000
16 TARNOW 0.117 0.160 0.000 0.000
17 ZAKOPANE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
18 WADOWICE 0.113 0.234 0.000 0.000
19 WIELICZKA 0.291 0.355 0.000 0.000

Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Dendrogram
1 Dendrogram
13
21
13
5
42
95
124
39
12
17
73
17
15
107
15
8
10
19
188
19
11
18
6
11
14
166
14
0
5
1,17782115
16
0
5
1,17782115
Odległość łączenia
Odległość
Figure A1. Dendrogram for the bar chart from łączeniaof quality classes I–VI in individual
Figure 4—area
Figure A1. Dendrogram
counties for the
of the Malopolska bar chart
province as of 1from Figure
January 2010.4—area of quality classes I–VI in individual
Figure
counties A1. Malopolska
of the Dendrogram province
for the baraschart from Figure
of 1 January 4—area of quality classes I–VI in individual
2010.
counties of the Malopolska province as of 1 January 2010.
Dendrogram
1
Dendrogram
18
91
18
13
29
13
14
52
14
4
75
84
37
178
123
17
15
12
10
15
11
10
16
11
6
16
19
6
0
1,07358512
10
12
14
19
0
1,07358512
10
12
14
Figure A2. Dendrogram of surface area of the Odległość

wholełączenia
agricultural land converted to non-agricultural
use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in percent (%).
Figure A2. Dendrogram of surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural
Figure
useA2. Dendrogram
in individual of surface
counties area of the
of the Malopolska whole in
province agricultural land converted
the years 2010–2016, expressedtoinnon-agricultural
percent (%).
use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in percent (%).
Dendrogram
1
6
10
9
2
7
16
5
18
15
19
3
8
14
11
17
12
4
13
0
1,87161002
2
5
Figure A3. Dendrogram of the percentage share of the areas of specific quality classes converted for
Figure A3. Dendrogram
residential purposes inofthe
the percentage
years share
2010–2016 in theofcounties
the areas of specific
of the quality
Malopolska classes converted for
province.
residential purposes in the years 2010–2016 in the counties of the Malopolska province.
Appendix C
AppendixThe
C data from the databases of the register of land and buildings maintained by the counties.
The data
The dataillustrates
from thethe general structure
databases of the soil
of the register of quality classes
land and for the entire
buildings province
maintained by(225
thefiles):
counties.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R3WpSILWlZ7sAekmKLeYwBBA8PzpmWpP.
The data illustrates the general structure of the soil quality classes for the entire province (225 files):
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R3WpSILWlZ7sAekmKLeYwBBA8PzpmWpP.
Appendix D
AppendixSurface
D area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual
counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016 (7 files): https://drive.google.com/
Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual
open?id=1LEB9Qo9P1KRqBgsxEgfECCB4sEtf5MnE.
counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016 (7 files): https://drive.google.com/open?
References
id=1LEB9Qo9P1KRqBgsxEgfECCB4sEtf5MnE.
1. Act on Environmental Protection of 27 April 2001. Available Online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/
References
isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20010620627 (accessed on 25 September 2017).
1.
2. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
Act on Environmental Protection of 27 April 2001. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/
Published in 1987. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20010620627 (accessed on 25 September 2017).
(accessed on 25 September 2017).
2. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Published
3. Dizdaroglu, D. The Role of Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment in Policy and the
in 1987. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on
Decision-Making. Process: A Review and Outlook. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1018,
25 September 2017).
doi:10.3390/su9061018.
3. Dizdaroglu,
4. Sansoni,D.M.;The Role of E.;
Bonazzi, Indicator-Based
Goralczyk, M.; Sustainability
Stauvermann, Assessment in Policy
P.J. RAMEA: How and the Decision-Making.
to support regional
Process: A Review
policies towards Outlook. Sustainability
andsustainable development. 2017, 9, 1018.
Sustain. Dev.[CrossRef]
2010, 18, 202–210.
4. Sansoni, M.; Bonazzi,
5. Dawidowcz, E.; Goralczyk,
A.; Zrobek, R. LandM.; Stauvermann,System
Administration P.J. RAMEA: How to Development—Case
for Sustainable support regional policies
towards sustainable
Study of Poland. development. Sustain.
Real Estate Manag. Dev. 2010,
Valuat. 2017, 18,
25, 202–210. [CrossRef]
112–122, doi:10.1515/remav-2017-0008.
5. Dawidowcz,
6. Williamson,A.; Zrobek, R. LandS.;
I.P.; Enemark, Administration System forA.
Wallace, J.; Rajabifard, Sustainable Development—Case
Land Administration Study of
for Sustainable
Development;
Poland. Real EstateESRI
Manag.Press: Redlands,
Valuat. CA,
2017, 25, USA, 2010;
112–122. p. 487, ISBN 978-1-58948-041-4.
[CrossRef]
6. Williamson, I.P.; Enemark, S.; Wallace, J.; Rajabifard, A. Land Administration for Sustainable Development;
ESRI Press: Redlands, CA, USA, 2010; p. 487. ISBN 978-1-58948-041-4.
7. Williamson, I.; Bennett, R.; Rajabifard, A.; Wallace, J. Lessons for Federal Countries That Have State Land
Registries—The Australian Experience. In Proceedings of the 11th South East Asian Surveyors Conference
(SEASC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–24 June 2011.
8. Shen, B.; Lepech, M.D. Probabilistic Design of Environmentally Sustainable Reinforced-Concrete
Transportation Infrastructure Incorporating Maintenance Optimization. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23.
[CrossRef]
9. Diogo, V.; Koomen, E.; Kuhlman, T. An economic theory-based explanatory model of agricultural land-use
patterns: The Netherlands as a case study. Agric. Syst. 2015, 139, 1–16. [CrossRef]
10. Head, K.; Ries, J.; Swenson, D. Agglomeration Benefits and Location Choice—Evidence from Japanese
Manufacturing Investments in the UNITED-STATES. J. Int. Econ. 1995, 38, 223–247. [CrossRef]
11. Špulerová, J.; Dobrovodská, M.; Izakovičová, Z.; Kenderessy, P.; Petrovič, F.; Štefunková, D. Developing a
strategy for the protection of traditional agricultural landscapes based on a complex landscape-ecological
evaluation (the case of a mountain landscape in Slovakia). Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2013, 21, 15–26. [CrossRef]
12. Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Qu, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zhou, D. How does sprawl differ across urban built-up land types in
China? A spatial-temporal analysis of the Beijing metropolitan area using granted land parcel data. Cities
2016, 58, 1–9. [CrossRef]
13. Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Wang, D.; Dingyang, Z.; Ruijuan, Z.; Tao, Z. Identifying the internal structure evolution
of urban built-up land sprawl (UBLS) from a composite structure perspective: A case study of the Beijing
metropolitan area, China. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 258–267. [CrossRef]
14. Jiang, G.; He, X.; Qu, Y.; Ruijuan, Z.; Yuan, M. Functional evolution of rural housing land: A comparative
analysis across four typical areas representing different stages of industrialization in China. Land Use Policy
2016, 57, 645–654. [CrossRef]
15. Kanianska, R.; Kizekova, M.; Novacek, J.; Zeman, M. Land-use and land-cover changes in rural areas during
different political systems: A case study of Slovakia from 1782 to 2006. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 554–566.
[CrossRef]
16. Nowak, A.; Schneider, C. Environmental characteristics, agricultural land use, and vulnerability to
degradation in Malopolska Province (Poland). Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 590–591, 620–632. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
17. Bucała-Hrabia, A. From communism to a free-market economy: A reflection of socio-economic changes in
land use structure in the Vicinity of the city (beskid sadecki,
˛ western Polish carpathians). Geogr. Polonica
2017, 90, 65–79. [CrossRef]
18. Mazzocchi, C.; Corsi, S.; Sali, G. Agricultural Land Consumption in Periurban Areas: A Methodological
Approach for Risk Assessment Using Artificial Neural Networks and Spatial Correlation in Northern Italy.
Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 2017, 10, 3–20. [CrossRef]
19. Ceccarelli, T.; Bajocco, S.; Perini, L.L.; Salvati, L. Urbanisation and land take of high quality agricultural
soils—Exploring long-term land use changes and land capability in Northern Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2014,
8, 181–192.
20. Van Vliet, J.; de Groot, H.L.F.; Rietveld, P.; Verburg, P.H. Manifestations and underlying drivers of agricultural
land use change in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 24–36. [CrossRef]
21. Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Land of 3 February 1995. Available online: http://prawo.
sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19950160078 (accessed on 25 September 2017).
22. Busko, M.; Kolinska, M. Issues related to exclusion of arable lands, located within borders of urban areas,
from the agricultural production after updating of legal regulations. Przeglad Geodezyjny 2015, 3, 7–13.
[CrossRef]
23. Bielska, A.; Turek, A. Analysis of the needs for updates of the land and building register considering the
procedure of exclusion of agricultural land from production. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2016, 1633–1644.
[CrossRef]
24. Salata, T.; Prus, B.; Janus, J. Planning as trigger for land use changes. Eng. Rural Dev. 2015, 14, 729–734.
25. Fang, Y.; Cote, R.P.; Qin, R. Industrial sustainability in China: Practice and prospects for eco-industrial
development. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 83, 315–328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Funderburg, R.G.; Zhou, X. Trading industry clusters amid the legacy of industrial land-use planning in
southern California. Environ. Plan. A 2013, 45, 2752–2770. [CrossRef]
27. Gebeyehu, A.T. Urban land use dynamics, the nexus between land use pattern and its challenges: The case
of Hawassa city, Southern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2015, 45, 159–175. [CrossRef]
28. Lai, Y.; Peng, Y.; Li, B.; Lin, Y. Industrial land development in urban villages in China: A property rights
perspective. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 185–194. [CrossRef]
29. Li, D.; Zhang, C.; Pizzol, L.; Critto, A.; Zhang, H.; Lv, S.; Marcomini, A. Regional risk assessment approaches
to land planning for industrial polluted areas in China: The Hulunbeier region case study. Environ. Int. 2014,
65, 16–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Li, J.; Zhang, W.; Chen, H.; Yu, J. The spatial distribution of industries in transitional China: A study of
Beijing. Habitat Int. 2015, 49, 33–44. [CrossRef]
31. Kaliszewski, A.; Mlynarski, W.; Golos, P. Factors limiting afforestation of post-agricultural lands in Poland
according to the survey results. Sylwan 2016, 160, 846–854.
32. Bieda, A.; Jasinska, E.; Preweda, E. Surveying Protection of Agricultural Land in Poland. In Proceedings of
the 9th International Conference on Environmental Engineering (ICEE), Vilnius, Lithuania, 22–23 May 2014.
[CrossRef]
33. Marks-Bielska, R.; Zukovskis, J. Conditions of Changes in the Agricultural Land Market in Poland
during the Years 1992–2009: Background for Systematic Research. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Scientific Conference on Rural Development, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Akademija, Lithuania,
24–25 November 2011.
34. Just, D.R.; Kropp, J.D. Production incentives from static decoupling: Land use exclusion restrictions. Am. J.
Agric. Econ. 2013, 95, 1049–1067. [CrossRef]
35. Tarasovičová, Z.; Saksa, M.; Blažík, T.; Falt’an, V. Changes in agricultural land use in the context of ongoing
transformational processes in Slovakia. Agriculture 2013, 59, 49–64. [CrossRef]
36. Labarthe, P.; Laurent, C. Service economics and public policies for agricultural extension. Cah. Agric. 2011,
20, 343–351.
37. Balawejder, M.; Wójciak, E. Application of gis tools in analysing a road network providing access to
cadastral parcels in the project concerning land consolidation and exchange. In Proceedings of the
Geographic Information Systems Conference and Exhibition “GIS ODYSSEY 2017”, Trento, Vattaro, Italy,
4–8 September 2017.
38. Du, P.; Wood, A.; Ditchman, N.; Stephens, B. Life Satisfaction of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban
Low-Rise Living: A Chicago Case Study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1052. [CrossRef]
39. Ruan, X.; Qiu, F.; Dyck, M. The effects of environmental and socioeconomic factors on land-use changes:
A study of Alberta, Canada. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Kim, J.J.; Goodwin, C.W.; Kim, S. Communication turns green construction planning into reality. J. Green Build.
2017, 12, 168–186. [CrossRef]
41. Fritz-Vietta, N.V.M.; Tahirindraza, H.S.; Stoll-Kleemann, S. Local people’s knowledge with regard to
land use activities in southwest Madagascar—Conceptual insights for sustainable land management.
J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 199, 126–138. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Murgida, A.M.; Gonzalez, M.; Tiessen, H. Rainfall trends, land use change and adaptation in the Chaco
salteo region of Argentina. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 1387–1394. [CrossRef]
43. Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Zhou, D.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, R. Agglomeration or dispersion? Industrial land-use pattern
and its impacts in rural areas from China’s township and village enterprises perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
159, 207–219. [CrossRef]
44. Li, Y.; Hu, Z. Approaching Integrated Urban-Rural Development in China: The Changing Institutional Roles.
Sustainability 2015, 7, 7031–7048. [CrossRef]
45. Bishai, M.F. The Development of Industrial Land in Taiwan—A Legal Framework for State Control.
J. Dev. Areas 1991, 26, 53–64.
46. Byrd, W.A.; Li, Q. China’s Rural Industry: Structure, Development, and Reform; A World Bank Research
Publication; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; ISBN 0-19-520822-6.
47. Choy, L.H.T.; Lai, Y.; Lok, W. Economic performance of industrial development on collective land in the
urbanization process in China: Empirical evidence from Shenzhen. Habitat Int. 2013, 40, 184–193. [CrossRef]
48. Hakizimana, C.; Goldsmith, P.; Nunow, A.A.; Roba, A.W.; Biashara, J.K. Land and agricultural
commercialisation in Meru County, Kenya: Evidence from three models. J. Peasant Stud. 2017, 44, 555–573.
[CrossRef]
49. Siejka, M. Public Purpose Investments Site Selection in Real Estate Management—Case Study in Poland.
In Proceedings of the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo Conference SGEM, Albena, Bulgaria,
28 June–6 July 2016; pp. 503–509.
50. Lausch, A.; Blaschke, T.; Haase, D.; Herzog, F.; Syrbe, R.U.; Tischendorf, L.; Walz, U. Understanding and
quantifying landscape structure—A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape
metrics. Ecol. Model. 2015, 295, 31–41. [CrossRef]
51. Regulation of the Minister of Regional Development and Construction of 15 July 2016 on the Register of Land
and Buildings. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20160001034
(accessed on 25 September 2017).
52. Statistical Office in Cracow. Agriculture in Malopolskie Voivodship in 2015 Information and Statistics; Statistical
Office in Cracow: Krakow, Poland, 2016.
53. Litwin, U.; Szafranska, B. Using GIS in Management and Agricultural Surveying in the Malopolska Province;
Agricultural University: Krakow, Poland, 2017.
54. Baczwarow, M.; Suliborski, A. The Compendium of Knowledge about Political Geography and Geopolitics;
Terminology; Polish Scientific Publishers: Warsaw, Poland, 2002.
55. Czekanowski, J. The Outline of Statistical Methods In application to Anthropology; Works of the Warsaw Scientific
Society: Warsaw, Poland, 1913.
56. Kukula, K. Statistical Methods for Analysis of Economic Structures; Educational Publishing House: Krakow,
Poland, 1996.
57. Mlodak, A. Taxonomic Analysis in Regional Statistics; Difin: Warsaw, Poland, 2006.
58. Gatnar, E. Symbolic Methods of Data Classification; Polish Scientific Publishers: Warsaw, Poland, 1998.
59. Stanisz, A. Intelligible Statistics Course Using STATISTICA PL on Medical Examples; StatSoft Poland: Krakow,
Poland, 2007.
60. Wezyk, P.; Wojtowicz-Nowakowska, A.; Pierzchalski, M.; Mlost, J.; Szafranska, B. Map of land cover changes
in Malopolska in 1986–2011 based on object classification of satellite images LANDSAT and RapidEye.
Photogramm. Cartogr. Remote Sens. Arch. 2013, 25, 273–284.
61. Lowicki, D. Land use changes in Poland during transformation. Case study of Wielkopolska region.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 87, 279–288. [CrossRef]
62. Kocur-Bera, K. Farmer’s perception of agricultural land after accesion to the EU—A case study.
In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference, Economic Scince for Rural Development, Llu Esaf,
Jelgava, Latvia, December 2016–April 2017.
63. Kocur-Bera, K. Determinants of Agricultural Land Price in Poland—A Case Study Covering A Part of the
EuroRegion Baltic. Cah. Agric. 2016, 25, 25004. [CrossRef]
64. Busko, M.; Meusz, A. Current status of real estate cadastre in Poland with reference to historical conditions
of different regions of the country. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Environmental
Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania, 22–23 May 2014.
65. Bielecka, E.; Calka, B. The Analysis of the Land Exclusions from Agricultural and Forest Production in the
Rural Areas. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-48516e32-
1887-4944-bdf6-d6962f0e5a40 (accessed on 25 September 2017).
66. Bielska, A.; Turek, A.; Maciejewska, A.; Bozym, K. Problems of agricultural land protection in
suburbanization process. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2015, 1035–1045. [CrossRef]
67. Václavík, T.; Rogan, J. Identifying Trends in Land Use/Land Cover Changes in the Context of Post-Socialist
Transformation in Central Europe: A Case Study of the Greater Olomouc Region, Czech Republic.
GISci. Remote Sens. 2006, 46, 54–76. [CrossRef]
68. Ustaoglu, E.; Williams, B. Determinants of Urban Expansion and Agricultural Land Conversion in 25 EU
Countries. Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 717–746. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 10 00136

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 00136

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Received: 7 November 2017; Accepted: 5 January 2018; Published: 9 January 2018

Keywords: sustainable development; agricultural land; conversion of agricultural land to

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136; doi:10.3390/su10010136 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Literature provides various methods for evaluating the implementation of sustainable

- determining the size of land converted to non-agricultural use,

2. Materials and Methods

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 4 of 23

Figure 2. Administrative division of the Malopolska province.

Malopolska is characterised by a great variety of landscape features, geological structure, climatic,

2.2. Research Methods—Taxonomic Analysis as a Tool for Regionalisation

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 6 of 22

200,000 class III

classes I-II class III class IV classes V-VI

3.2. Groups of Counties

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 10 of 23

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 14 of 23

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 18 of 23

Figure A2. Dendrogram of surface area of the Odległość

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 19 of 23

You might also like