TY - GEN N1 - 24 cm N2 - Daily accessibility as one of the measures of transport accessibility is an indicator that can be used, i.a. as relations between a given area’s transport system and spatial planning are analysed. The indicator provides a broad field for assessing the effectiveness of the transport system and spatial planning operating at a given time, while simultaneously indicating directions by which these may be improved. The main aim of the work detailed here was to assess whether and to what extent the current road system, as well as the layout of railway lines and connections, creates positive conditions for the development of the network configuration of Polish metropolises. In terms of application, the aim is to assess the level of implementation of the polycentric metropolitan network referred to in the KPZK 2030 document (i.e. Poland’s National Spatial Planning Concept through to the year 2030). The paper thus presents an attempt to determine the potential for mutual functional and spatial connections to be established or reinforced within Poland’s system of voivodeship cities. That estimation of potential was based on analysis of daily (i.e. within-the-day) accessibility among the cities in question. The measurement of daily accessibility was based on the time of individual (car) travel or that involving rail transport. The analysis further included three variants for travel within the space of a given day (i.e. with 4, 6 or 8 hours available at the destination). This allowed for the development of a synthetic index of daily accessibility by which to characterise selected voivodship cities, which might then be classified in terms of their potential for establishing functional and spatial interrelatedness. The results of the research conducted offer a broad insight into the potential for selected voivodship cities to benefit from participation in the inter-agglomeration network. Moreover, thanks to our research, it was possible to identify peripheral areas (in which development potential was relatively lower) – which therefore require the kind of additional activation and compensatory action foreseen by KPZK 2030. Such actions should certainly relate to improved transport accessibility among the system’s largest centres. L1 - http://www.rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/132016/PDF/WA51_162493_r2020-t92-z2_Przeg-Geogr-Garbacz.pdf M3 - Text J2 - Przegląd Geograficzny T. 92 z. 2 (2020) PY - 2020 IS - 2 EP - 265 KW - transport accessibility KW - daily accessibility KW - voivodeship cities KW - spatial planning KW - metropolis network A1 - Garbacz, Ewa. Autor A1 - Komornicki, Tomasz. Autor A1 - Kowalczyk, Karol. Autor PB - IGiPZ PAN VL - 92 CY - Warszawa SP - 247 T1 - Dostępność dzienna w układzie miast wojewódzkich w Polsce = Daily accessibility among Poland’s voivodeship cities UR - http://www.rcin.org.pl/igipz/dlibra/publication/edition/132016 ER - TY - GEN N1 - 24 cm N2 - While border areas are usually perceived as peripheral in nature, denoting only a limited level of economic development, it is clear that a border location might also be in a position to offer measurable benefit. In that context, work described here in relation to Poland has focused in on: (1) the delimitation of border areas; and (2) an identification and subdivision of units into those whose location by a state border brings either positive or negative economic consequences. The criterion applied most often in designating border areas is administrative (cf. Kałuski, 1990), with different hierarchical levels referred to (e.g. the NUTS 3 where pursuit of the EU policy on Territorial Cooperation is concerned; or LAU 2 where the need is to designate areas characterised by small-scale border traffic, with account then taken of the criterion of distance of a given administrative unit from the border). Alongside the administrative, a second main criterion relates simply to physical distance from a border, and usually gains application in denoting a zone of particularly intensive scrutiny by the Border Guard and other state services such as the Customs Administration (e.g. in the United States). Use of this criterion actually does much to hinder scientific research, given the lack of concordance with units of administration. Neither of the divisions referred to above embraces real functional linkages, while the real-life zone of impact of a border is likely to be indicated by just such linkages, of a socioeconomic nature, and specific in the sense that other parts of a country do not manifest them (Węcławowicz et al., 2006). Such linkages would seem to offer a basis to determine, first, if border areas actually exist at all, and, second, how they can be delimited in a detailed way, by reference to multiple criteria. It is certain that a key aspect is involved here, as the attempt is made to set the benefits of a border location against the “non-benefits”. But it is clear that attention also needs to be paid to the configuration of internal interactions, as aspects of a border location become all the more unfavourable the more peripherally a given unit is located. Ultimately, it is possible to indicate which border areas are actually problem areas, and to set these apart from other areas by a border whose geographical position ensures that a border represents no barrier to development and/or does not determine peripheral status. For the above reasons, the work presented here does indeed propose a delimitation based on real economic linkage (levels of export), as well as the degree to which regional centres are accessible from the given area. The first stage of the delimitation procedure thus takes in the designation of a border area formed from a belt of Polish communes (LAU 2) “two deep”. A second stage then sees elimination from this set of those units with a favourable location vis-à-vis the nearest regional centre (s), it being assumed that the proximity of these centres helps even out any potentially negative impact of the border; as well as with a high value for the statistic regarding the value of exports to the neighbouring country (the assumption then being that such units benefit from a border location, rather than suffering as a result of it). Units left behind following the application of this procedure were deemed to be border communes of problem status, potentially in need of support if they are to develop. In the event, such units are found to be located primarily along Poland’s borders with the Russian Federation, Lithuania, Belarus and Slovakia (as opposed to Germany, the Czech Republic and Ukraine). Unsurprisingly, it is communes by the Polish-German border that are seen to benefit most from their location. The authors set other divisions and classifications already in effect against the proposal for delimitation which is offered here, along with relevant recommendations for the development of regional policy. L1 - http://www.rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/111570/PDF/WA51_138617_r2019-t91-z4_Przeg-Geogr-Komornic.pdf M3 - Text J2 - Przegląd Geograficzny T. 91 z. 4 (2019) PY - 2019 IS - 4 EP - 486 KW - border KW - problem areas KW - foreign trade KW - spatial accessibility KW - cohesion policy A1 - Komornicki, Tomasz. Autor A1 - Wiśniewski, Rafał (1977– ). Autor A1 - Miszczuk, Andrzej. Autor PB - IGiPZ PAN VL - 91 CY - Warszawa SP - 467 T1 - Delimitacja przygranicznych obszarów problemowych = The delimitation of problem border areas UR - http://www.rcin.org.pl/igipz/dlibra/publication/edition/111570 ER - TY - GEN N1 - 29 cm N2 - The main objective of the paper is to present directions of mutual interrelationships between the state of spatial planning (at different levels of public administration) and effective cohesion policy, conceived as operational programmes carried out in Poland in the years 2004-2016. In the research study, the following results were attained: defining the basic planning conditions of development policies implementation resulting from integration with EU, indicating the consequences of these conditions for territorial governance and for the implementation of cohesion policy, as well as identifying the solutions adopted by Poland lying at the intersection between spatial development and investments financed by the EU funds. The paper presents the most important challenges, adopted solutions and effects of their utilization in Poland within three thematic issues: a) polycentricity and suburbanisation, b) transport infrastructure and accessibility and c) natural and cultural heritage. L1 - http://www.rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/72533/PDF/WA51_94748_r2018-t35_EuropaXXI-Komornicki.pdf M3 - Text J2 - Europa XXI 35 (2018) PY - 2018 EP - 87 KW - territorial governance KW - spatial planning KW - cohesion policy KW - Territorial Agenda 2020 A1 - Komornicki, Tomasz. Autor A1 - Szejgiec-Kolenda, Barbara. Autor A1 - Degórska, Bożena (1956– ). Autor A1 - Goch, Katarzyna. Autor A1 - Śleszyński, Przemysław. Autor A1 - Bednarek-Szczepańska, Maria. Autor A1 - Siłka, Piotr. Autor PB - IGiPZ PAN VL - 35 CY - Warszawa SP - 69 T1 - Spatial planning determinants of cohesion policy implementation in Polish regions UR - http://www.rcin.org.pl/igipz/dlibra/publication/edition/72533 ER -