Next Article in Journal
Effects of Livelihood Capital on the Farmers’ Behavioral Intention of Rural Residential Land Development Right Transfer: Evidence from Wujin District, Changzhou City, China
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Adaptation for Small-Scale Land Users in Sub-Saharan Africa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/land12061208
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Variants of Boundary Changes—A Case Study of Poland

by
Dagmara Kociuba
1 and
Waldemar Kociuba
2,*
1
Institute of Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, 20-718 Lublin, Poland
2
Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, 20-718 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(6), 1208; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061208
Submission received: 18 May 2023 / Accepted: 7 June 2023 / Published: 10 June 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this paper is to formulate a theoretical framework for the issue of changes in administrative boundaries and to systematize the issues by selecting distinctive variants. Considering the variety of procedures and forms of boundary changes, the case study is conducted in Poland. This study analyzed the provisions of 271 decisions on boundary changes and granting city status from 2009–2022, which covered a total of 1887.8 km2. It was the basis for selecting 31 variants of boundary changes in eight categories: (1) formal legal, (2) territorial expansion; (3) unit status; (4) cadastral division; (5) territorial tiers; (6) administrative division; (7) frequency of changes; (8) area. In addition, the interactions that occur between the different variants are demonstrated, and the main regularities are identified. Boundary changes are conducted mainly in the application variant. The introduction of the fast-track variant initiated an unprecedented wave of restitution of the city’s status. Territorial expansion of units occurs most frequently in the commune–city variant within the third-tier (commune) units. Small-area, one-off annexations in the suburban zones of cities in the parcel and precinct variants dominate. The results can be contextually applied in comparative studies.

1. Introduction

Boundary changes can occur as part of top-down territorial reforms or bottom-up efforts by local authorities or residents [1,2,3]. Boundary changes often result in the reorganization of local government structures [4,5,6,7,8]. It occurs especially in the case of a merger when one municipality is dissolved and incorporated into another municipality [9], as well as the consolidation of several units into a new municipality [10,11,12] or division (fragmentation) of a unit into several parts and their incorporation into another unit [13], less often in the case of annexation (add of a part of one unit into another unit), which is mainly associated with territorial expansion [14,15]. Another issue is the formation of new municipalities, especially cities as a result of granting or restitution of the city status [16,17,18,19].
Boundary changes are regulated by various procedures (modes), and the choice of procedure always involves dilemmas about balancing local autonomy and central control [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Procedures for changing municipal boundaries in Canada and Europe contrast starkly with those in the US and are generally characterized by the concentration of considerable power in the hands of the state [22]. Border changes also become part of the political game [19,23].
As boundary changes can occur between units at different tiers, this results in a reshuffling of the country/state territorial division. The issue of boundary changes is widely discussed, although it mainly concerns changes at the municipal level and demonstrates several trends. In Europe, it was the consolidation wave of the 1960s and 1970s under the umbrella of “economies of scale” [24], the fragmentation of the 1990s conducted as part of decentralization efforts, mainly in the post-Soviet bloc countries [2,21]. In the early 2000s, new consolidation reforms occurred, on the one hand, as a way to effectively absorb European funds in the “Europe of Regions” [25] and, on the other, in response to the global economic crisis [26]. Currently, there are also divisions of units [13] or re-fragmentation of previously consolidated units [27,28], often as part of bottom-up initiatives [6]. The situation is slightly different in the US, where consolidations stalled in the 1980s and grew slightly thereafter, with the popularity of less radical options, followed by local governments to expand their boundaries such as municipal annexations of unincorporated areas, creation of special districts, or the formation of new municipal governments [11,29].
The mechanisms of merger, consolidation, and divorce are highly analyzed [3] in terms of the number of municipalities [13,20,26,30], the optimal size of administrative units [31,32,33], the impact of territorial reforms on economic performance, efficiency, and cost of public services [24,34,35], political representation [36], democratic participation [8], or social repercussions of boundary changes [37,38]. Analyses of case studies (usually of cities) are also related to formal legal issues, such as granting, degrading, or restoring city rights (status) [16,18]. A less frequently discussed form is divorce (fragmentation) [13], especially the annexation of parts of the units [14,15]. This is due to the fact that these changes most often (1) do not significantly affect the administrative division of the country/state; (2) involve relatively small areas; (3) occur sporadically on a national scale; (4) and due to their nature, they mainly focus the attention of local communities.
However, the literature lacks a comprehensive overview of boundary changes. This study attempts to fill this research gap. The aim of this article is to select variants of boundary changes. Based on the assumption that the effect of the process of boundary changes is the establishment, dissolution (elimination), division, incorporation, or annexation of a unit or part of it, which causes modification of its area, administrative status, as well as the tier of territorial division, this study focuses on the formulation of regularities as a consequence. Poland was chosen in this case study because of the wide range of options for the implementation of various procedures, the choice of different forms of boundary changes in a three-tier territorial organization, and its alignment with the strand of European territorial reforms, which provides a substantive basis for comprehensive analysis and a foundation for comparative research. The contribution of this study is twofold. In the implementation dimension, the effects of changing the boundaries of municipalities in 2010–2023 were demonstrated in terms of administrative status and territorial division, cyclicality, forms, and area. In the cognitive dimension, 31 variants of changes in the boundaries of units within eight main categories were selected, and the interactions between them were discussed.
This paper is structured as follows: after the introduction (Section 1), scene-setting forms of boundary changes, legislation, and administrative division background (Section 2), and the materials and methods (Section 3) are presented. Variants of boundary changes are demonstrated in Section 4, followed by a discussion in Section 5 and conclusions in Section 6.

2. Boundary Changes in the Context of Forms, Legislation, and Territorial Division

2.1. Main Forms of Boundary Changes

Boundary changes can take several forms. These are most often mergers, consolidations (in the US also unifications), annexations, or divisions (fragmentation) (Figure 1). Boundary changes can result also in the creation of new units or the elimination of existing ones.
Mergers (amalgamation) are the most comprehensive form of local government reorganization [9,26,34,39]. A merger is accomplished by dissolving a municipality and incorporating it into another municipality; the incorporating municipality usually retains its classification within the administrative division. Consolidation, on the other hand, is the dissolution of two or more municipalities and their incorporation as a new municipality, which can choose its classification [11]. In practice, the standards for merger or consolidation are very similar—one municipality is dissolved and becomes integrated into the other, but the legal effects of these actions are different. In the case of a merger, the incorporated entity loses its autonomy, and its area, along with its residents, is incorporated into another unit. Consolidation is the combination of two or more incorporated units [10,40]. Therefore, mergers and consolidations consequently result in a reduction in the number of units in the territorial division of the country or federal state units (state, province, canton, and land) [4,39,41].
Fragmentation/division (divorce) can have their origins in territorial reforms or are the result of local aspirations [2,21]. Fragmentation is the division of dissolved units into two or more municipalities or the creation of a new unit. Therefore, fragmentations result in an increase in the number of units in the territorial division of the country or federal states [8,13].
Municipal annexation is a powerful local government tool for expanding a municipality’s existing city limits and is the most common form of local government boundary change [15,29]. Annexation occurs when one local government unit (usually of larger size and greater resources) absorbs part(s) of (an)other unit(s), which, thereupon, cease to have any legal existence [42]. It can involve parts of units of the same or different tiers, whether located in neighboring municipalities or not. In some cases, it occurs when part of a unit is passed under the administration of a higher-level unit (borough) (e.g., in the US) [14].
Boundary changes require the implementation of procedures, which usually include the need to consult residents and obtain their consent to conduct changes or may proceed on the initiative of residents. This can occur in several ways. For example, in the case of an annexation (a) residents of one municipality (or part of a municipality) may file an application (petition) for annexation to the authorities of another municipality, and any approval may depend on the outcome of a referendum/public consultation on the matter; or (b) the municipality may annex the territories of another unit on its own initiative, with the approval of residents of the incorporated area, or with both their approval and the approval of its own residents [22]. Similar procedures apply to mergers, consolidations, and divisions, with the exception that the referendum or consultation involves all eligible residents of two or more units.
All the cases described may result in a change in the administrative status of the unit or part of it and its classification in the territorial division of the country.
Regularities of the legal and spatial linkages of merger, consolidation, annexation, and division are compiled in Table 1.

2.2. Changes in the Boundaries in the Context of the Territorial Division of Poland

In order to highlight the complex issue of the status and division of territorial units, which is crucial in understanding the meaning and nature of boundary changes, several aspects need to be clarified. The first is the system of territorial division of the country. Poland has a three-tier division, with the first voivodeship, the second county, and the third municipal (commune) levels.
The basic unit of territorial division at the local level is the commune (‘gmina’). There are rural communes (consisting of several villages), urban communes (municipalities with city status), and urban–rural communes (consisting of a city and several or more villages). The second tier includes counties (‘powiat’), i.e., units of local government comprising several communes (‘powiat ziemski’), and cities with county rights (‘miasta na prawach powiatu’), i.e., city commune performing the tasks of a county (‘powiat grodzki’). Communes may establish auxiliary units. In rural communes, it is a ‘sołectwo’ which can cover one locality (e.g., village or hamlet), a part of a locality, or several localities. One locality can also include several ‘sołectwo’. The urban commune can establish settlements/subdivisions, districts, and occasionally sołectwos. The boundaries of rural and urban auxiliary units usually correspond to the cadastral (geodetic) precincts. The precinct consists of cadastral parcels.
To simplify nomenclature, “commune” means a rural commune, which consists of “villages” (rural auxiliary units), an urban commune is referred to as a “city”; and for a city with county rights, the name “city county” is used.
As of 2023, there are 16 first-tier units, i.e., voivodeships, 379 second-tier units, including 314 counties and 65 cities with county rights (city counties), and 2477 third-tier units, including 1498 rural communes, 677 urban–rural communes, and 302 urban communes. There are a total of 944 cities, including 642 in urban–rural communes.

2.3. Boundary Changes in Formal and Legal Aspects

Administrative boundary changes are allowed at all three levels of territorial division, as stipulated by law, i.e., Act of 8 March 1990 on Local Self-Government [43] Article 4 and the Law of 5 June 1998 on County Self-Government [44] Article 3. The Council of Ministers (hereinafter, CM) is entitled to perform changes in the territorial division of the state, and it issues its decisions annually in the form of Regulations (these are issued by 31 July, and the changes come into force from 1 January of the following year). They concern, in particular, the creation, merger, division, and dissolution of municipalities or counties and the establishment of their boundaries, as well as the granting of city status to localities.
Issuing the decision, the Council of Ministers should consider two basic premises. First, to provide maximum territorial homogeneity and cohesion, resulting from an analysis of the settlement and spatial layout in the context of social, economic, and cultural bonds. Second, the commune/county within the new boundaries should be able to perform public tasks. CM does not approve a boundary change in two cases where the unit does not meet the following criteria: (1) revenue (tax revenue per capita is lower than the lowest tax revenue per capita determined for particular communes); (2) population (the new unit cannot be smaller than the smallest municipality in Poland in terms of population as of 31 December of the year preceding the announcement of the regulation).
Boundary changes can proceed in several modes that differ in the scope of subjects and objects and the course of the procedure. As a rule, CM is the issuing authority. The procedure can be initiated by the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration (hereinafter, MIAA), the commune/county council, the voivode, and residents. The various modes also differ in the scope of consultation with residents and pronouncement of opinions, as well as in the form of submission of documents (application, opinion, or appeal). New cities are created by granting (in many cases restitution) the city status to localities. Dedicated procedures are adapted to the merger, division, and dissolution (liquidation) of communes/counties or holding a referendum.

3. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted based on a thorough analysis of secondary sources, which included scientific publications, legal acts [43,44], and the Council of Ministers regulations on procedures, requirements, and modes to establish and change municipal boundaries [45,46], as well as annually issued regulations on establishing the boundaries of communes and cities, and granting the city status to localities from 2009–2022 (came into force in 2010–2023) [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. The Council of Ministers’ Regulations on dissolution and division [61], merger [62], and change of the administrative status of units [63] were also analyzed.
Using the meta-analysis method, a systematic review of the literature was carried out, and preliminary generalizations were made regarding the most commonly applied forms of changing the boundaries of municipalities. A description is provided in Section 2.1 and is illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1. In order to determine the formal and legal basis for boundary changes, the applicable legal acts and regulations on procedures for establishing and changing the boundaries of municipalities were analyzed. The following issues were taken into account: the initiating entity, the entities involved in the process, the type of documentation developed, the procedure for changing boundaries, and issues of public consultation. The results are presented in Section 4.1.
At the next stage of work, source data from the CM’s regulations on the establishment and changes in the boundaries, dissolution, division, merger, and changes in administrative status of the units were compiled. Then, using the method of selective choice of information, data on occasional changes in the seat or the name of municipalities were excluded from further analysis, as they do not have a significant impact on the results of this work. Thus, the focus was only on the units that changed their administrative boundaries as a result of the CM regulations that came into force. Then, the data from the decisions were collated, taking into account information about the unit, or parts thereof, excluded from one and incorporated/annexed into another commune/city/city county, as well as localities that have been granted city status, in terms of name, status, and location within the three-tier administrative division, and areas (in hectares, which were converted to square kilometers). It should be noted that for the areas covered by boundary changes, the decisions provide data from the land and building registry, i.e., the names of the cadastral precincts, and, if the boundary changes concern parts of the precincts, then the numbers of the cadastral parcels located in this area are listed.
The implementation of 271 decisions of the CM on boundary changes covered 278 local government units (LGUs) with a total area of 1887.8 km2. These included the following:
  • A total of 129 decisions regarding incorporation of areas of rural communes into cities, including one to merge a rural commune with city county (Zielona Góra); these changes covered an area of 525 km2, of which merger accounts for 220 km2;
  • A total of 43 incorporations of areas of rural communes into the rural communes, which covered a total of 354.8 km2, including one establishment (restitution) of a commune (Jaśliska) (67.2 km2) and one dissolution (elimination) of a commune (Ostrowice) and its division into two communes (150.6 km2);
  • A total of 15 incorporations of areas of cities into the rural communes (15.7 km2);
  • A total of 4 incorporations of areas of cities into the cities/city counties (1.5 km2);
  • Only 1 change in the status of a city into a city county status (Wałbrzych);
  • A total of 86 granting city status to localities, including 82 through the exclusion of their area from rural communes, and 4 as a result of establishment of urban–rural communes in city areas.
Using the desk research method, multi-dimensional analyses were conducted on the effects of changes in administrative unit boundaries in terms of the administrative status of the unit within the three-tier territorial division, the frequency of changes, and the area covered by boundary changes. The analyses were conducted both in the horizontal (units of the same tier) and vertical (hierarchical) systems. The analyses related to new cities were also carried out in the context of the granting or restitution of city/city county status. Obtaining such a data set allowed the selection of variants of boundary changes, presented in Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4, Section 4.5, Section 4.6, Section 4.7 and Section 4.8 and visualized with models (Figures 2–9), which, on the one hand, provide a depiction of the analyzed phenomena and, on the other hand, constitute useful tools in conducting further empirical research. The main regularities and interactions between the different variants are identified and discussed in Section 5.

4. Results

4.1. Formal and Legal Variants of Boundary Changes

Due to the formal and legal procedure provided by law and the procedures applied for changing boundaries, six variants can be distinguished (Figure 2):
(1)
Application—on the initiative of the municipal/city/city county/county council, which applies to the MIAA after consultations with residents, requires the opinion of the voivode;
(2)
Ministerial—on the initiative of the MIAA, which applies to the municipal/city/city/county council for an opinion on boundary changes, preceded by consultations with residents;
(3)
Internal—pertains to the correction of the boundaries of municipal auxiliary units; adopted by a resolution of the municipal council;
(4)
Referendum—on the initiative of a minimum of 15 residents who apply to the voivode for a boundary change; does not require consultations;
(5)
Merger—applies to inter-municipal mergers; the application is submitted by the voivode to the Prime Minister through MIAA; the financial incentive is a ‘ministerial bonus’, i.e., a 5% increase in the rate of participation in personal income tax revenues for 5 years;
(6)
Fast track—concerns restitution of city status; it was introduced in 2018 (as part of the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of Poland’s independence and the 150th anniversary of the January Uprising). It is intended to foster the restoration of the status of localities located in the former Russian partition (Central and Eastern Poland), degraded under the territorial reform in 1869–1870. Fast track combining ministerial and application modes. The city council passes a resolution in the form of an appeal to “restore the status of the city lost as a result of tsarist repression” and submits it to the MIAA. The Minister applies to the commune council for issuing a relevant opinion. After consultations with residents, the commune council submits an application to MIAA that, after its positive examination, passes it on to the Prime Minister.

4.2. Variants of Territorial Expansion of Units

The main directions of territorial expansion of units that occur as a result of the implementation of RM regulations have been identified. They occur in five variants (Figure 3):
(1)
Commune–city as a result of the incorporation of the area of the commune (or its part) into the city;
(2)
Commune–commune as a consequence of incorporation of the area of the commune (or its part) into another commune;
(3)
City–commune as a result of the incorporation of the area of a city into a commune;
(4)
City–city as a consequence of incorporation of the area of the city (or its part) into another city;
(5)
New cities—refers to the creation of new municipalities as a result of (a) the exclusion of the area of the locality from a commune and granting it the city status or (b) detachment of a commune from a city area and re-granting the city status for the city within the reduced boundaries; both cases result in the establishment of urban-rural communes.
Variants 1, 2, 3, and 4 may involve shifts at the county and voivodeship tiers, but Variant 5 always results in the establishment of urban–rural communes.

4.3. Variants of Changes in Geodetic (Cadastral) Division

Changes in the boundaries of LGUs result in a change in the territorial jurisdiction of entire units or parts thereof in the national land register. It is conducted in the following variants (Figure 4):
(1)
Entire—the entire area of the municipality is incorporated into the city/commune/city county/county, which corresponds to a merger mode;
(2)
Precinct—the area of village/city or their auxiliary units (cadastral precincts) (a) are incorporated into the commune/city/county/city county or (b) create a new city;
(3)
Parcel—part of auxiliary units (parts of cadastral precincts) in the form of selected cadastral parcels (a) are incorporated into commune/city/city county/county/voivodeship or (b) create/co-create the area of a new city;
(4)
Mixed (precinct–parcel)—refers to the situation when areas of the entire cadastral precincts and the part of another cadastral precinct in the form of individual parcels are excluded from one unit, and then they (a) are incorporated into another unit on the basis of a single CM decision or (b) form/co-form the area of a new city.

4.4. Variants of Ways of Changing Territorial Jurisdiction of Units

As a rule, there are four basic ways to change the classification/jurisdiction of a territorial unit (or part thereof), which are reflected in the decisions issued by the CM and correspond to the variants (Figure 5):
(1)
Annexation as a result of the incorporation of a part of commune/city/county/city county/voivodeship into a (neighboring) commune/city/county/city county/voivodeship; this variant is characteristic of territorial expansion of city counties, cities, and communes and usually refers to a part of a cadastral precinct;
(2)
Merger—we can distinguish mergers as follows: (a) communes when the territory of the entire commune is incorporated into a commune/city/city county/county; (b) counties due to the incorporation of a city county into a county having the seat of government in that city;
(3)
Fragmentation—in the case of a commune, we are dealing with the division of a commune into two or more parts and (a) the incorporation of these parts (in the form of cadastral precincts or parts thereof) into a (neighboring) municipalities (communes/cities) or (b) their incorporation into a newly created municipality. In the case of a county, fragmentation occurs as a result of the exclusion of one or more municipalities from the territory of the county with the simultaneous (a) incorporation of that municipality or municipalities into another county or (b) establishment of a county from those municipalities or from those municipalities and a city county (the aforementioned cases did not occur during the period of analysis but have taken place in the past). A separate case is the restitution of the status of a city county to a city that had previously been merged with a county having the seat of government in that city (this case was included in the restitution of status variant);
(4)
Exchange—occurs when a certain area (most often part of a cadastral precinct) is separated from one commune/city/city county/county and incorporated into the neighboring commune/city/city county/county, and vice versa (in the analyzed period, there was no situation of exchange of areas lying in neighboring voivodeships, although such a situation is theoretically possible).

4.5. Variants of Change in the Administrative Status of the LGU

A change in boundaries can result in a change in the administrative status of the entity. They occur in the following variants (Figure 6):
(1)
Granting status, which concerns two situations: (a) granting the city status to a locality in the case of new cities; (b) granting the status of an urban-rural municipality in the case of the establishment of a rural commune from city areas;
(2)
Restitution of commune/city/city county/county status to units that previously lost this status—in many cases this involves the establishment of a new commune/city/city county/county from the areas of neighboring units;
(3)
Change of status consisting of (a) incorporation into the existing city/city county area of the commune or parts thereof or (b) incorporation of city/ city county area or parts thereof into the existing commune. These are characteristics of annexation. Some may result in changes in the county and voivodeship tier.

4.6. Variants of Changes in the Territorial Division of the Country

The effect of boundary adjustments can also be the shift of a unit to another level within the territorial division of the country. As a result of the conducted analyses, three variants of this type of change were distinguished (Figure 7):
(1)
Commune, occurring within third-tier units and involving the incorporation of areas of communes/cities or parts thereof into neighboring communes/cities. This variant also involves the creation of new cities, resulting in new urban-rural communes;
(2)
County, in which changes occur within third- and second-tier units as a result of the incorporation of areas of communes/cities or parts thereof into the (neighboring) counties/city counties. This variant is characteristic of the expansion of city counties (33 cases), and rural communes (14);
(3)
Voivodeship, when the changes occur in third-, second- and first-tier units and involve the incorporation of areas of communes/cities or parts thereof into a neighboring county/city county (the case of a city county is theoretically possible, but did not appear during the period analyzed) (second tier) located in other voivodeship (third tier). It occurs least frequently (four cases).

4.7. Variants of Frequency of Boundary Changes

With regard to the frequency of boundary changes carried out by individual LGUs during the period analyzed, we can divide them as follows (Figure 8):
(1)
One-off—these involve boundary changes that occurred once;
(2)
Cyclical—these involve changing the boundary of the same commune/city/county/city county several times (mainly refers to annexations);
(3)
Corrective—these involve new cities that made corrections to their boundaries in later years (mainly in the variants of commune–city or exchange).

4.8. Variants of Area Changes

Changes in the area of LGUs as a result of boundary changes vary widely, ranging from 0.03 km2 to 220 km2. Upon generalization, they can be assigned to three variants (Figure 9):
(1)
Small area—up to 1 km2; prevails for fine-scale annexations, exchanges, and corrections;
(2)
Medium area −1–10 km2; dominates in the new city variant but also refers to expansions in the variants of commune–city and commune–commune;
(3)
Large area—more than 10 km2; occurs in the variant of new cities, in the case of mergers, fragmentation, and with territorial expansions, especially city counties.

5. Discussion

Analyzing the different variants of boundary changes, some regularities should be identified.
From a formal, legal, and procedural perspective, the application variant prevails. After 2011, the possibility of changing boundaries via referendum was introduced, although this mode is not often implemented [64]. A very interesting issue is the launch of the fast-track variant (regaining city status deprived by the tsarist authorities). At its root lies in the current historical policy (promoting national independence movement) and the ruling party’s target (residents of villages and small towns), as well as the resulting aspirations of the authorities of small municipalities for the restitution of city rights often motivated by “prestige” and financial considerations (units with less than 5000 residents can benefit from EU funds for both villages and cities) [19]. This reflects trends observed in other countries where the decision to change boundaries has a political background [1,21]. In this context, it is worth noting the alignment of the CM’s decision with the applicable law. This study indicated that the population criterion required by the law is not observed in practice. The city status is regained by localities with a population of 500 or even 300, which is less than the smallest municipality in Poland that set further precedents for reducing the population of more new cities. Another issue is the requirement to obtain the consent of residents for boundary changes, present in almost all modes. In practice, the voice of residents is not always taken into account in the final decisions of the CM. This is particularly evident in controversial annexations in suburban zones of large cities [38].
Territorial expansion of territorial units occurs most often in the commune–city variant, mainly through the incorporation of rural areas by cities or city counties. Changes under this variant often occur in urban–rural communes or result in the establishment of such communes by excluding the city area from the rural commune area. The communal–municipal variant is less common, although it occurs at all levels. As a result of large-scale restitution and fragmentation, it covered 1/5 of the area affected by the boundary change. The city–city variant is infrequent. The decisions mainly concerned small-scale expansions of cities in the Upper Silesian conurbation, the boundaries of which often changed during the communist and transition periods [16,65] but now show great stability. The city–commune–city variant, launched in 2008, mainly concerns tourist destinations whose residents wanted to take advantage of European Union funds intended for rural areas. In this variant, new villages and settlements are being created, and in practice, more often restored, in former urban areas. Such trends can also be noted in the city–commune variant.
Boundary changes most frequently occur in the annexation variant. This applies to units of all levels. However, unlike, for example, in the US, where sprawling is possible because, in most states, not all of their territory is divided into municipalities, and municipal annexation has been one of the most widely adopted instruments for urban growth [15,29], in Poland, entirely divided among LGUs, the annexation process usually stirs up a lot of controversy and does not always meet with public support. This is especially true for annexations in suburban zones, when cities seize revenue-generating investments, and attractive residential, recreational, or investment areas, despite residents’ disapproval [38].
The merger of territorial units is most often the result of large-scale territorial reforms [3,8]. In Poland, the last reorganization of territorial division occurred in 2002–2003, through the establishment of the Warsaw city county comprising 12 communes (including the city of Wesoła was merged into Warsaw as a result of a referendum) and restitution of 7 powiats [66] and the incorporation of the Walbrzych city county into the Walbrzych county [67]. The conducted research has demonstrated that consolidation activities are not very popular nowadays, although the arguments for them are rational (lowering costs, increasing the efficiency of public service provision) [12], and they have statutory financial support (‘ministerial bonus’). During the analyzed period, there was only one merger (the dissolution of the rural municipality of Zielona Góra and its incorporation into Zielona Góra city county) on the bottom-up initiative of both municipalities [38]. A similar phenomenon has been observed in the US, where consolidations account for only 1% of boundary changes [4], which is rather related to complicated procedures (e.g., the need to obtain the consent of residents in a referendum), but also the reluctance of suburban residents to merge with a large city, or fears of increased taxes [12]. In this regard, the sentiment in Poland is similar but tends to be more about annexation in suburban zones of large cities [38,68]. Divisions of LGUs are also not a common form of boundary change. Only one municipality was abolished (Ostrowice), caused by its bankruptcy, and its area was incorporated into two neighboring communes. The exchange variant happens occasionally (14 decisions) and affects all tiers.
The change in boundaries associated with the establishment of new units mainly concerns the granting or restitution of city status. It should be noted that there is a growing wave of restitutions, especially of cities from the former Russian partition (as of 2018, 41 cities out of 56 total restitutions) whose number is comparable to that of the 1990s when 50 localities regained city status [16]. But, already, their reasons are different, i.e., the struggle for autonomy after the communist period [21,69] vs. the aspiration for financial benefits and “prestige”, often with politics in the background [19]. During the analyzed period, there was one top-down restitution of the city county status (Wałbrzych). There was also the resident-initiated establishment (in practice, restitution) of a rural commune (Jaśliska) by incorporating into its new boundaries a part of an existing rural commune (Dukla) [19]. This is in line with the recent trend of re-fragmentation of previously consolidated units, often as a result of bottom-up initiatives [28]. As a result of changes in the LGU’s boundaries and status, there was a reshuffling in the number of territorial entities of the second tier (+1 city county) and third tier (−1 commune). Eighty-six new urban–rural communes were established, resulting in a decrease in the number of urban (by 4) and rural (by 82) communes.
Variants related to the territorial subdivisions also indicate certain regularities. They are most often performed by adjusting boundaries in the commune variant (77% of decisions), less often in the county variant (22%), and least often in the voivodeship variant (1%).It confirms the high persistence of regional boundaries [70]. In the case of counties, changes in the commune–commune variant prevailed. City counties incorporated areas of rural communes (in the commune–city variant). It is worth noting the consensual merger of Zielona Góra, as well as spectacular annexations in the suburban zones of Opole and Rzeszów [38]. Boundary changes within administrative units of the third tier concerned mainly the areas of urban–rural communities and occurred as the granting (restoring) of city status in the new city variant, or in the form of expanding city boundaries in the commune–city variant.
Medium- or large-area variants are most often associated with the granting or restitution of city status. Large-scale changes have been observed in the case of the merger of Zielona Góra, the territorial expansion of city counties, as well as the fragmentation/restitution of rural communes [19]. The small-area variant is characteristic of most annexations (as many as 90% of cases).
Considering the changes in the geodetic division of the country, the largest occur due to the creation of new units in the precinct variant. The entire variant occurred only in the case of the change of status of Walbrzych and the merger of Zielona Góra. Changes in parcel variants predominate for annexations and exchanges and are less frequent for new cities. The mixed (precinct–parcel) variant is the least frequent; this mainly concerns new cities (four decisions), and annexations in suburban zones (seven decisions).
Due to the frequency of changes within territorial subdivisions, it can be stated that in the voivodeship variant, the changes took place in a one-off variant, while in the county and commune variants, cyclical changes occurred. In the case of counties, they mainly concern adjustments to the boundaries of rural communes, while city counties concern the already-mentioned annexations in the suburban zone. The undisputed leader is Rzeszów [19]. In the commune variant, cyclical changes occurred much less frequently and were concerned more often with the expansion of city boundaries, less often in rural communes. This study confirmed previously observed cases [29] that the annexation activity of one commune have a direct impact on the activities of neighboring communes. A good example is the Rzeszow city county and the neighboring Głogów Malopolski city, both of which compete in their annexation efforts for the territories of the sołectwos that are located between their boundaries. In addition, there were four changes in the corrective variant. These were in the nature of exchange or annexations in the commune–city variant.

6. Conclusions

This study provides a theoretical framework for administrative boundary changes and proposes their systematization through the selection of leading variants. Utilizing the provisions of 271 decisions from the Council of Ministers’ regulations on boundary changes and granting city status from 2009–2022, which covered a total of 1887.8 square kilometers, multithreaded analyses were made in the context of formal legal basis, territorial expansion, administrative status, and territorial jurisdiction within the three-tier division, cyclicity of changes, and area. This was the basis for selecting 31 variants of boundary changes in eight categories. In addition, interactions between the variants were demonstrated, and leading regularities were selected.
This research has indicated that most boundary changes took place under the application variant. There was also the implementation of the merger variant, and the introduction of the fast-track variant initiated an unprecedented wave of restitution of the city status of small cities in Eastern and Central Poland (more than half of the decisions in 2020–2022). The most popular variant of changes within all tiers, as well as the decisions issued (74%) and the area covered by the change (68%), is the commune–city variant. As many as 90% of the decisions are related to changes within auxiliary units of the commune or their parts (precinct and parcel variants). Half of the analyzed cases of boundary changes mainly concerned small-scale expansions of cities, less frequently rural communes, or territory exchange. The large-area variant relates to restitution/fragmentation/merger of communes in most cases of granting or changing the status of a city. Most boundary changes (82%) occur in the form of annexations, mainly in suburban zones of cities and city counties (77%). One-off changes dominate; the cyclical variant concerned about 20% of cases. In the context of administrative subdivision, the commune variant prevailed (77% of decisions and 64.5% of areas). The granting/restitution of city status has primarily influenced a significant increase in the number of third-tier units of cities (+82) and urban–rural communes (+86).
This study provides a solid basis for conducting further comparative research. The proposed models of variants of boundary changes can be contextually used in empirical analyses of case studies that are consistent with the Polish legal system and territorial division.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.K.; methodology, D.K.; software, D.K.; validation, D.K. and W.K.; formal analysis, D.K.; investigation, D.K.; resources, D.K.; data curation, D.K.; writing—original draft preparation, D.K.; writing—review and editing, D.K.; visualization, W.K.; supervision, W.K.; project administration, D.K. and W.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their valuable comments that helped to make the improvements that were essential to the successful completion of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baldersheim, H.; Rose, L.E. (Eds.) Territorial Choice: The Politics of Boundaries and Borders; Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, UK, 2010; ISBN 978-0-230-23333-1. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonnet-Pineau, É.; Vandermotten, C. Territorial Divisions in Europe: Introduction. EchoGéo 2016, 35, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Swianiewicz, P.; Gendźwiłł, A.; Houlberg, K.; Klausen, J.E. Municipal Territorial Reforms of the 21st Century in Europe, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-1-00-302258-9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Carr, J.B.; Feiock, R.C. (Eds.) City-County Consolidation and Its Alternatives: Reshaping the Local Government Landscape; M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN 978-0-7656-0941-0. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wollmann, H. Local Government Reforms in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany and France: Between Multi-Function and Single-Purpose Organisations. Local Gov. Stud. 2004, 30, 639–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kaczmarek, T. Struktury Terytorialno-Administracyjne i ich Reformy w Krajach Europejskich, 1st ed.; Seria Geografia; Naukowe UAM: Poznań, Poland, 2005; ISBN 978-83-232-1501-1. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barlow, I.M. New Challenges in Local and Regional Administration; Wastl-Walter, D., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-351-91508-3. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ebinger, F.; Kuhlmann, S.; Bogumil, J. Territorial Reforms in Europe: Effects on Administrative Performance and Democratic Participation. Local Gov. Stud. 2019, 45, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reingewertz, Y.; Serritzlew, S. Special Issue on Municipal Amalgamations: Guest Editors’ Introduction. Local Gov. Stud. 2019, 45, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Reynolds, O.M. Handbook of Local Government Law, 2nd ed.; Hornbook Series; West Group: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0-314-23738-5. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carr, J.B.; Feiock, R.C. Who Becomes Involved in City-County Consolidation? Findings from County Officials in 25 Communities. State Local Gov. Rev. 2002, 34, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leland, S.; Thurmaier, K. When Efficiency Is Unbelievable: Normative Lessons from 30 Years of City-County Consolidations. Public Adm. Rev. 2005, 65, 475–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Swianiewicz, P. Municipal Divorces—The under Researched Topic of Territorial Reforms in Europe. Acta Geobalcanica 2019, 6, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Edwards, M.M. Understanding the Complexities of Annexation. J. Plan. Lit. 2008, 23, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Smith, R.M. An Examination of Municipal Annexation Methods in North Carolina, 1990–2009. Southeast. Geogr. 2012, 52, 164–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Krzysztofik, R.; Dymitrow, M. Degraded and Restituted Towns in Poland: Origins, Developments, Problems; University of Gothenburg, School of Business Economics and Law, Department of Economy and Society—Human Geography: Göteborg, Sweden, 2015; ISBN 978-91-86472-76-4. [Google Scholar]
  17. Konecka-Szydłowska, B.; Trócsányi, A.; Pirisi, G. Urbanisation in a Formal Way? The Different Characteristics of the ‘Newest Towns’ in Poland and Hungary. Reg. Stat. 2019, 8, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Szmytkie, R.; Krzysztofik, R. The Processes of Incorporation and Secession of Urban and Suburban Municipalities: The Case of Poland. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr.—Nor. J. Geogr. 2019, 73, 110–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kociuba, D. New Trends in the Changes of Administrative Boundaries in Poland. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2021, 28, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ladner, A.; Keuffer, N.; Baldersheim, H.; Hlepas, N.; Swianiewicz, P.; Steyvers, K.; Navarro, C. Patterns of Local Autonomy in Europe; Governance and Public Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-3-319-95641-1. [Google Scholar]
  21. Swianiewicz, P. From Post-Communist Democratic Laissez-Faire to Prevention of Territorial Fragmentation: Tightening the Rules of Municipal Splits in Central and Eastern Europe after 1990. Misc. Geogr. 2021, 25, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Razin, E.; Lindsay, G. Municipal Boundary Change Procedures: Local Democracy versus Central Control. In New Challenges in Local and Regional Administration; Barlow, M., Wastl-Walter, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lapointe, S.; Saarimaa, T.; Tukiainen, J. Effects of Municipal Mergers on Voter Turnout. Local Gov. Stud. 2018, 44, 512–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Blom-Hansen, J.; Houlberg, K.; Serritzlew, S. Size, Democracy, and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2014, 58, 790–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Loughlin, J.; Kincaid, J.; Swenden, W. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Regionalism & Federalism, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-1-136-72762-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Steiner, R.; Kaiser, C.; Eythórsson, G.T. A Comparative Analysis of Amalgamation Reforms in Selected European Countries. In Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis; Kuhlmann, S., Bouckaert, G., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan UK: London, UK, 2016; pp. 23–42. ISBN 978-1-137-52547-5. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dollery, B.; Kortt, M.; Grant, B. A Normative Model for Local Government De-Amalgamation in Australia. Aust. J. Polit. Sci. 2011, 46, 601–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. de Souza, S.V.; Dollery, B.E.; Kortt, M.A. De-Amalgamation in Action: The Queensland Experience. Public Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 1403–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carr, J.B.; Feiock, R.C. State Annexation ‘Constraints’ and the Frequency of Municipal Annexation. Polit. Res. Q. 2001, 54, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Swianiewicz, P. (Ed.) Territorial Consolidation Reforms in Europe; 1. Publ.; Open Society Inst: Budapest, Hungary, 2010; ISBN 978-963-9719-16-3. [Google Scholar]
  31. Swianiewicz, P.K. Consolidation or Fragmentation? The Size of Local Governemnts in Central and Eastern Europe; LGI Books Series; Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative Open Society Institute: Budapest, Hungary, 2002; ISBN 978-963-9419-45-2. [Google Scholar]
  32. Swianiewicz, P.; Gendźwiłł, A.; Zardi, A. Territorial Reforms in Europe: Does Size Matter? Territorial Amalgamation Toolkit; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  33. McDonnell, J. Municipality Size, Political Efficacy and Political Participation: A Systematic Review. Local Gov. Stud. 2020, 46, 331–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tavares, A.F. Municipal Amalgamations and Their Effects: A Literature Review. Misc. Geogr. 2018, 22, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Gendźwiłł, A.; Kurniewicz, A.; Swianiewicz, P. The Impact of Municipal Territorial Reforms on the Economic Performance of Local Governments. A Systematic Review of Quasi-Experimental Studies. Space Polity 2021, 25, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Harjunen, O.; Saarimaa, T.; Tukiainen, J. Political Representation and Effects of Municipal Mergers. Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 2021, 9, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Brink, A. The Break-up of Municipalities: Voting Behavior in Local Referenda. Econ. Gov. 2004, 5, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kociuba, D. Zmiany Granic Administracyjnych Miast w Polsce—Efekty Przestrzenne i Społeczno-Ekonomiczne/Changes in the Administrative Boundaries of Cities in Poland—Spatial and Socio-Economic Effects. Stud. Miej. 2020, 33, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bish, R.L. Local Government Amalgamations: Discredited Nineteenth-Century Ideals Alive in the Twenty-First; C.D. Howe Institute: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2001; ISBN 978-0-88806-525-4. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pawłowska, A. Zmiany Granic i Konsolidacja Jednostek Samorządu Terytorialnego w Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki—Podstawy Prawne i Praktyka/Boundary Changes and Consolidation of Local Government Units in the United States of America—Legal Basis and Practice. Stud. Politol. 2015, 35, 224–241. [Google Scholar]
  41. Swianiewicz, P. Territorial Consolidation Reforms—European Experiences of 21st Century. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Geobalcanica 2015, Skopje, North Macedonia, 5–7 June 2015; pp. 379–387. [Google Scholar]
  42. Belley, S. Amalgamation (or Merger). In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Public Administration; Côté, J., Savard, J.-F., Eds.; ISBN 978-2-923008-70-7. Available online: https://dictionnaire.enap.ca/Dictionnaire/63/Index_by_word.enap?by=word&id=9 (accessed on 9 March 2023).
  43. USTAWA z Dnia 8 Marca 1990 r. o Samorządzie Gminnym / Act on Local Self-Government of 8 March 1990; Dz.U. 1990 Nr 16 Poz. 95 Ze Zm./ Journal of Laws 1990 No. 16, Item 95, with Amendments 1990. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu19900160095 (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  44. USTAWA z Dnia 5 Czerwca 1998 r. o Samorządzie Powiatowym; Dz.U. 1998 Nr 91 Poz. 578 Ze Zm./ Act on County Self-Government of 5 June 1998; Journal of Laws 1998 No. 91, Item 578, with Amendments 1998. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu19980910578 (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  45. Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z Dnia 9 Sierpnia 2001 r. w Sprawie Trybu Postępowania Przy Składaniu Wniosków Dotyczących Tworzenia, Łączenia, Dzielenia, Znoszenia i Ustalania Granic Gmin, Nadawania Gminie Lub Miejscowości Statusu Miasta, Ustalania i Zmiany Nazw Gmin i Siedzib Ich Władz Oraz Dokumentów Wymaganych w Tych Sprawach; Dz.U. 2001 Nr 86 Poz. 943; Consolidated Text Dz. U. z 2014 r. Poz. 310. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20140000310 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  46. Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z Dnia 9 Sierpnia 2001 r. w Sprawie Trybu Postępowania Przy Składaniu Wniosków Dotyczących Tworzenia, Łączenia, Dzielenia, Znoszenia i Ustalania Granic Powiatów Oraz Ustalania i Zmiany Nazw Powiatów i Siedzib Ich Władz Oraz Dokumentów Wymaganych w Tych Sprawach; Dz.U. 2001 Nr 86 Poz. 944, Consolidated Text Dz.U.2013, Poz. 1208. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20130001208 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  47. ROZPORZNDZENIE RADY MINISTROW z Dnia 28 Lipca 2009 r. w Sprawie Utworzenia, Ustalenia Granic i Nazw Gmin Oraz Siedzib Ich Władz, Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Miast Oraz Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta; Dz. U. 2009, Nr 120, Poz. 1000 2009. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20091201000 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  48. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 27 Lipca 2010 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic i Nazw Gmin Oraz Siedzib Ich Władz, Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Miast Oraz Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta; Dz. U. 2010, Nr 138, Poz. 929 2010. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20101380929 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  49. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 26 Lipca 2011 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast Oraz Zmiany Siedzib Władz Niektórych Gmin; Dz.U. 2011, Poz. 937 2011. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20111580937 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  50. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 31 Lipca 2012 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast Oraz Zmiany Siedziby Władz Gminy; Dz. U. 2012, Poz. 873 2012. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20120000873 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  51. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 30 Lipca 2013 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast, Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta Oraz Zmiany Siedziby Władz Gminy; Dz. U. 2013, Poz. 869 2013. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20130000869 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  52. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 29 Lipca 2014 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Powiatu Zielonogórskiego; Dz. U. 2014, Poz. 1020 2014. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20140001020 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  53. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 28 Lipca 2015 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Miast, Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta, Ustalenia Granic Oraz Zmiany Nazw i Siedzib Władz Niektórych Gmin; Dz.U. 2015 Poz. 1083 2015. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20150001083 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  54. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 19 Lipca 2016 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast, Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta Oraz Zmiany Nazwy Gminy; Dz.U. 2016, Poz. 1134 2016. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20160001134 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  55. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 24 Lipca 2017 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast, Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta, Zmiany Nazwy Gminy Oraz Siedzib Władz Niektórych Gmin; Dz. U. 2017, Poz. 1427 2017. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20170001427 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  56. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 25 Lipca 2018 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast Oraz Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta; Dz. U. 2018, Poz. 1456 2018. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001456 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  57. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 26 Lipca 2019 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast Oraz Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta; Dz. U. 2019, Poz. 1416 2019. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20190001416 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  58. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 31 Lipca 2020 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast, Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta, Zmiany Nazwy Gminy Oraz Siedziby Władz Gminy; Dz. U. 2020, Poz. 1332 2020. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200001332 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  59. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 30 Lipca 2021 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast Oraz Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta; Dz. U. 2021, Poz. 1395 2021. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20210001395 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  60. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 25 Lipca 2022 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast Oraz Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta; Dz. U. 2022, Poz. 1597 2022. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20220001597 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  61. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 7 Sierpnia 2018 r. w Sprawie Zniesienia Gminy Ostrowice Oraz Ustalenia Granic Gminy Drawsko Pomorskie i Gminy Złocieniec; Dz. U. 2018, Poz. 1527 2018. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001527 (accessed on 22 February 2023).
  62. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 29 Lipca 2014 r. w Sprawie Połączenia Gmin, Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Gmin i Miast, Nadania Niektórym Miejscowościom Statusu Miasta Oraz Zmiany Siedziby Władz Gminy; Dz. U. 2014, Poz. 1023 2014. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20140001023 (accessed on 22 February 2023).
  63. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 10 Lipca 2012 r. w Sprawie Przywrócenia Miastu Wałbrzych Statusu Miasta Na Prawach Powiatu Oraz Ustalenia Granic Powiatu Wałbrzyskiego; Dz. U. 2012, Poz. 853 2012. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20120000853 (accessed on 22 February 2023).
  64. Łukomska, J. Striving for a Restitution of the Former Splendor? Reasons for Municipal Splits in Poland. Misc. Geogr. 2021, 25, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jarczewski, W. Odzyskana Niezależność: Przyczyny i Skutki Powstawania Nowych Gmin na Obrzeżach GOP w Latach 90; Wydaw. Dante: Kraków, Poland, 2002; ISBN 978-83-916575-7-7. [Google Scholar]
  66. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 31 Maja 2001 r. w Sprawie Utworzenia, Ustalenia Granic i Zmiany Nazw Powiatów Oraz Zmiany Siedziby Władz Powiatu; Dz.U. Nr 62, Poz. 631 2001. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20010620631 (accessed on 25 February 2023).
  67. ROZPORZĄDZENIE RADY MINISTRÓW z Dnia 25 Czerwca 2002 r. w Sprawie Połączenia Miasta Na Prawach Powiatu Wałbrzych z Powiatem Wałbrzyskim Oraz Ustalenia Granic Niektórych Powiatów; Dz.U. Nr 93, Poz. 821 2002. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20020930821 (accessed on 25 February 2023).
  68. Swianiewicz, P.; Szmigiel-Rawska, K. Why Some Local Governments Choose Not to Free-Ride When Undergoing Boundary Reform: A Study of Two Merger Cases in Poland. Local Gov. Stud. 2021, 47, 546–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kaczmarek, T. Gminny Podział Administracyjny w Świetle 25 Lat Funkcjonowania Samorządu Terytorialnego w Polsce. Przegląd Politol. 2016, 1, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Janicki, W. Contemporary Administrative Division and Historically Shaped Regional Borders: A Comparative Analysis in Poland. Hum. Geogr.—J. Stud. Res. Hum. Geogr. 2020, 14, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 01208 g001 550
Figure 1. Main forms of boundary changes.
Figure 1. Main forms of boundary changes.
Land 12 01208 g001
Land 12 01208 g002 550
Figure 2. Formal and legal variants of boundary changes.
Figure 2. Formal and legal variants of boundary changes.
Land 12 01208 g002
Land 12 01208 g003 550
Figure 3. Variants of territorial expansion of units.
Figure 3. Variants of territorial expansion of units.
Land 12 01208 g003
Land 12 01208 g004 550
Figure 4. Variants of changes in geodetic (cadastral) division of units.
Figure 4. Variants of changes in geodetic (cadastral) division of units.
Land 12 01208 g004
Land 12 01208 g005 550
Figure 5. Variants of ways of changing territorial jurisdiction of units.
Figure 5. Variants of ways of changing territorial jurisdiction of units.
Land 12 01208 g005
Land 12 01208 g006 550
Figure 6. Variants of change in the administrative status of the LGU.
Figure 6. Variants of change in the administrative status of the LGU.
Land 12 01208 g006
Land 12 01208 g007 550
Figure 7. Variants of changes in the territorial division of the country.
Figure 7. Variants of changes in the territorial division of the country.
Land 12 01208 g007
Land 12 01208 g008 550
Figure 8. Variants of frequency of boundary changes.
Figure 8. Variants of frequency of boundary changes.
Land 12 01208 g008
Land 12 01208 g009 550
Figure 9. Variants of area changes.
Figure 9. Variants of area changes.
Land 12 01208 g009
Table
Table 1. Legal-spatial linkages of merger, consolidation, annexation, and division.
Table 1. Legal-spatial linkages of merger, consolidation, annexation, and division.
MergerConsolidationAnnexationDivision
entire territorial unitxx x
part of the territorial unit xx
consultation/referendumxxxx
incorporationx x
number of municipalities2 or more2 or more2 or more1 per 2 or more
change of status xxx
change in the territorial division xxx
change in classification xxx
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kociuba, D.; Kociuba, W. Variants of Boundary Changes—A Case Study of Poland. Land 2023, 12, 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061208

AMA Style

Kociuba D, Kociuba W. Variants of Boundary Changes—A Case Study of Poland. Land. 2023; 12(6):1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061208

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kociuba, Dagmara, and Waldemar Kociuba. 2023. "Variants of Boundary Changes—A Case Study of Poland" Land 12, no. 6: 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061208

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop