New realities of the administrative-territorial structure of Ukraine and areas of ethnic minorities’ settlement: Geographical correlations and social consequences 395Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.73.4.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 2024 (4) 395–412. Introduction In recent years, since 2014, events in Ukraine have attracted the attention of both the me- dia and academia, including geographers. A change in the frequency of its appearance in the English-language literature can be indicative of the popularity of a particular topic (Van der Wusten, H. 2015). A search of the N-gram viewer revealed that the name “Ukraine” was referenced in an average of 8.2 publications per million books published in English in 2015. This figure represents a notable increase from 2012, when the average was 4.7 (see books.google.com/ngrams 2024). It is evident that the primary focus of this study is on events and processes related to the Russian-Ukrainian war (e.g. Karácsonyi, D. et al. 2014; Dobysh, M. 2019; Gnatiuk, O. et al. 2022). However, it is important to note that other problematic issues of a geographi- cal nature remain in the country, including the issue of ethnic minorities living compact- ly in the western regions of Ukraine. 1 Department of Geography of Ukraine, Faculty of Geography, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. 2 Department of Geography and Tourism, Ferenc Rakoczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College of Higher Educa- tion. Kossuth Sqr. 6. 90202 Berehove, Ukraine. E-mails: molnar.jozsef@kmf.org.ua, molnar.d.istvan@kmf.org.ua 3 Department of Tourism, Institute of Sustainable Development, Lviv Polytechnic National University. Stepana Bandery St. 12. 79000 Lviv, Ukraine. E-mail: natalia.i.dnistranska@lpnu.ua New realities of the administrative-territorial structure of Ukraine and areas of ethnic minorities’ settlement: Geographical correlations and social consequences Examples of Zakarpattia, Chernivtsi and Odesa oblasts Myroslav DNISTRIANSKYI 1, József MOLNÁR 2, Nataliya DNISTRIANSKA 3 and István MOLNÁR D.2 Abstract This article analyses the ethno-geographical problems of the reformed system of administrative and territorial structure of Ukraine. The authors consider the alignment of newly created administrative units (rayons, territorial communities) and areas of compact settlement of ethnic minorities as a favourable prerequisite for the organisa- tion of local self-government and the establishment of balanced and mutually beneficial ethno-political relations in the state. The analysis of the ethno-geographical parameters of ethnic minorities and the configuration of the newly created administrative-territorial units revealed that the population of ethnic minorities in Zakarpattia, Chernivtsi and Odesa oblasts was given the opportunity to organise territorial communities in which they con- stitute the majority. At the same time, studies have shown that it was not easy to implement this approach in the newly created administrative districts, given the officially defined criteria, the politicisation of the issue and the relatively high degree of mosaic settlement of ethnic groups. Therefore, the ethno-geographical factor was only partially taken into account in the formation of new administrative districts and the selection of district centres. Keywords: administrative and territorial reform, ethnic minorities, settlements, local self-government, territorial communities, Ukraine Received June 2024, accepted October 2024. mailto:natalia.i.dnistranska@lpnu.ua Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.396 Ethnic minorities in Ukraine comprise all population groups that do not identify with the Ukrainian ethnicity. This includes small indigenous peoples (Crimean Tatars, Karaites, Gagauzes) and ethnic groups that are part of peoples whose main core resides outside Ukraine (Belarusians, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, and some others). The gradual democratization of European countries’ political systems, including the principle of respect for the rights and interests of ethnic minorities, has allowed for the de- velopment of mechanisms to coordinate their interests with those of states and dominant ethnic groups. One of the tools for harmoniz- ing opposing interests is precisely the admin- istrative-territorial system (Makarov, H. 2022, 56). Consequently, the ethno-geographical characteristics of numerous countries world- wide are considered to varying extent in their administrative and territorial frameworks. As a result of the 2015–2020 administrative- territorial reform in Ukraine, aimed at giv- ing more powers to local self-governments, significant changes have taken place at the lower and middle levels of the administrative- territorial system. At the lower level, instead of more than 11,000 village, town and city councils, 1470 territorial communities were created, and instead of 490 rayons, 136 new ones were formed (see www.kmu.gov.ua, 2020). Obviously, such significant changes, disrupting already established ties, could not but affect various aspects of the life of the lo- cal population, including ethnic minorities. Therefore, to ensure ethno-political balance and stability, it is advisable to find out wheth- er the new administrative-territorial system has taken into account the peculiarities of com- pact settlement of ethno-national minorities. Reflecting the problem in scientific literature The multidimensional issue of the adminis- trative structure of the state territory is stud- ied by more than two dozen scientific fields, including political and legal sciences, history, political science, sociology, and management. Geographical science is also involved in the comprehensive study of the administrative- territorial structure, and it has become the subject of a separate branch of study, ad- ministrative geography (Hajdú, Z. 2014, 33). Administrative geography focuses primarily on optimizing the territorial organization of countries, the configuration and size of ad- ministrative units. As for optimization, there are still many unsolved issues. For example, there is no perfect answer to the question of the opti- mal size of administrative units which would ensure both local democracy and economic efficiency in the delivery of local public ser- vices. Different solutions are implemented in order to reach this goal (CEMR 2009, 5). This is also the problem of applying the eth- nic principle in determining the boundaries of administrative units. In today’s world there is a clear under- standing of the need to ensure the civil rights of ethnic (national) minorities (political, cul- tural, religious, etc.), as evidenced by the adoption of a number of international legal documents, but at the same time there are no unified approaches to reflecting their inter- ests in the systems of territorial organisation of state power and local self-government. This is mainly due to the diversity of options for the states’ ethnic structure. Therefore, most of them have developed their own stra- tegic political and administrative approaches to addressing such issues, based on national legal documents. Some authors believe that ethnic minori- ties within administrative units have three options: assimilation, emigration or mobilisa- tion of forces to create their own administra- tive units (Müller-Crepon, C. 2023). This may seem rather categorical, but the creation of more or less mono-ethnic administrative units undoubtedly helps to meet the social, cultural, economic, etc. needs of ethnic communities. The options for meeting the needs of eth- nic minorities are grouped, on the one hand, into various forms of autonomy (territorial, cultural, personal), and, on the other hand, 397Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. within the administrative system of a unitary state. Best practices – such as the Belgian, Finnish and Italian models – provide for the establishment of certain territorial self- government structures for ethnic minorities (Fodor, Gy. 2010). Although the needs of densely populated ethnic minorities are oc- casionally expressed, these models are not yet widespread in Central and Eastern Europe. At the same time, such initiatives raise fears and do not find support from government agencies and political forces of the state- forming nations (Mezei, I. and Hardi, T. 2003, 131–134; Szilágyi, F. 2010; Hajdú, Z. 2014, 34; Korzeniewska-Wiszniewska, M. 2020). In the end, the administrative system is largely the product of a kind of compromise, bargaining between stakeholders, rather than a fully sci- ence-based system (Osoian, I. et al. 2010, 108). Given the importance of national and state practice, it is important to first analyse how Ukrainian analysts approach this issue, tak- ing into account the interdisciplinary nature of the issue, which has socio-geographical, geopolitical, political, legal and economic aspects. Discussions on this issue since 1991 have stimulated demands from some ethnic minority NGOs for the creation of autono- mous national districts (rayons). However, only a few Ukrainian scholars (Baranchuk, V. 1998; Druziuk, S. 1998; Fedchyshyn, M. and Fronchko, V. 2000; Kuchabskyi, O.G. 2010) allowed for the possibility of creating such administrative units, while most other ethno-political scientists and public admin- istration specialists focused on the priority of the extra-territorial form of ethno-cultural autonomy. Suggestions were also made on the possibility of changing the boundaries of administrative units to meet the needs of ethnic minorities (Dnistrianskyi, M.S. 2006) and on the importance of taking the ethnic factor into account in subsequent adminis- trative and territorial changes (Nadolishnii, P. 1999). In the process of reforming the adminis- trative-territorial structure, which began in 2015, the need to take into account ethno- geographical features was also emphasised at the scientific level (Mustafaieva, E. 2018; Zablotskyi, V. 2021), but without identify- ing real mechanisms. At the same time, more specific discussions on these issues were held at the level of government agencies, NGOs and, to some extent, interstate relations. Structural administrative-territorial chang- es in general (consolidation of administrative rayons, increase in the size of the smallest ad- ministrative units, reduction in the adminis- trative status of settlements) have also affect- ed the livelihoods of ethnic minority popula- tions, resulting in a significant increase in the distance to new administrative centres and, consequently, a number of other socio-eco- nomic problems. Skliarska, O.I. claims “In today’s conditions, most rural communities cannot take advantage of decentralisation op- portunities due to the limited socio-economic potential of settlements, including large vil- lages that have become community centres” (Skliarska, O.I. 2022). The issue of economic and demographic capacity of municipali- ties is topical. According to domestic and foreign experience, in the case of rural mu- nicipalities it is mainly ensured only in sub- urban agglomerations (Skryzhevska, Y. and Karácsonyi, D. 2012; Hruška, V. and Píša, J. 2019). These issues, namely various aspects of the conformity of the new administrative- territorial division and the resettlement of the population of Ukraine in general, have been widely reflected in other publications, in particular in the works of Zastavetska, L.B. (2013), Baranovskyi, M.O. (2017, 2020), Kuchabskyi, O.G. et al. (2017), Melnychuk, A.L. (2020), Savchuk, I. (2020), Skliarska, O.I. (2021), Dnistrianskyi, M.S. and Chaika, I.M. (2023), and others. The analysis of the issues raised in these publications is indirectly relat- ed to the social situation of ethnic minorities. Research objectives and methodology This study examines the compliance of Ukraine’s reformed administrative-territo- rial structure with the settlement of ethnic minorities. It considers three oblasts that Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.398 share common typological features of ethnic minorities’ settlement and are characterised by large areas with a predominant majority of ethnic minority population: Zakarpattia, Odesa and Chernivtsi. Based on the nature of the problem, the main objectives of this study are 1) to analyse the level of density and mo- saicism of ethnic minority settlements in Za- karpattia, Chernivtsi and Odesa oblasts; 2) to determine the correlation between the mid- dle and lower levels of the reformed admin- istrative-territorial division of Ukraine and the areas of settlement of ethnic minorities; 3) to objectively analyse the improvement of the compliance of newly created administra- tive units (territorial communities) with the areas of settlement of ethnic minorities; 4) to substantiate conceptual conclusions on the possibilities of reflecting the geography of ethnic minorities in the administrative and territorial division of Ukraine. The main problem in the implementation of the research tasks is the limited source base on the current ethno-national struc- ture of Ukraine’s population, given that the last census in Ukraine took place in 2001. However, there is no alternative to using the materials of this census, as there have been no fundamental changes in the areas of compact settlement of ethnic minorities since then, with the exception of the territories not controlled by Ukraine since 2014, where no reform has been carried out. The theoretical framework of the study is based on the following principles: 1. Ensuring closer correspondence between the units of the administrative-territorial structure and the areas of compact settle- ment of ethnic minorities, creating better conditions for the organisation of their local self-government, is the key to establish bal- anced and mutually beneficial ethno-political relations in the country. 2. The establishment of administrative-ter- ritorial units at varying levels, in alignment with the geographical distribution of ethnic minorities is not a prerequisite for ethno- political separatism. Rather, it serves as a foundation for developing constructive and trusting relations between ethnic minorities and the country as a whole. 3. The formation of new territorial commu- nities in areas of ethnic minority settlement should be based on the coordination of the local citizens’ positions and public interests. The methodological basis of the study is a structural-functional approach and a re- gional-comparative analysis of the location of administrative-territorial units, their centres and settlements with a significant share of ethnic minorities, as well as determination of the real correlations that existed before and after the reform. A comparative analysis of the ethnic com- position of the old and new administrative units gives rise to the question of which rank of units from the previous and current di- visions should be compared. The answer is that the units are of the same rank, but they are also significantly different in size (the new ones are much larger). The choice for comparison fell on rayons of the previous ad- ministrative structure and territorial commu- nities of the new one, since territorial com- munities have become the most functionally significant administrative units in the organ- isation of local self-government, replacing the former rayons. Territorial communities, in compliance with the reform, were given significant powers to form local budgets and internal socio-economic policies. At the same time, the powers of rayons in general and rayon councils in particular have not yet been conceptually developed. These methodological approaches were implemented through the use of the carto- graphic method, as well as methods of ana- lysing the distribution of ethnic minority ar- eas, ethnic and settlement mosaic of admin- istrative districts and territorial communities. The analysis of the proportion of ethno-lin- guistic minorities in the former rayons is also of fundamental importance in assessing the conformity of the newly created administra- tive units with ethno-geographical realities. To quantify the ethno-geographic structure in each of these three regions, we also calcu- lated an indicator of ethno-linguistic mosa- 399Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. icism, which takes into account the propor- tions of language groups, and linguo-settle- ment mosaicism, which is the diversity of the distribution of settlements with a majority of a particular ethno-linguistic group in terms of rayons and newly created territorial com- munities as of 2001. The classical index of ethnolinguistic mosaicism is calculated ac- cording to the formula (Mruchkovskyi, P.V. 2018; Németh, Á. 2019): where E is the index of ethnolinguistic mo- saicism, εj is the share of the population of the j-th language group in the administra- tive unit, k is the number of ethnolinguistic groups. The index of linguo-settlement mo- saicism is determined by the formula: where P is the index of language-settlement mosaicism, πj is the share of settlements with a majority population of the j-th language group among the settlements of the admin- istrative unit, k is the number of ethno-lin- guistic groups. Summary of research findings Prerequisites for the reform Independent Ukraine inherited the foun- dations of its administrative and territorial system from the Ukrainian SSR. In 1991, 24 oblasts, the Crimean Autonomy, the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol formed its upper tier, 481 rayons, and 147 cities of Oblast signifi- cance formed its middle tier, and 287 rayon councils, 925 settlement councils and 9211 village councils formed its lower tier. The gradual shift away from totalitarianism and the democratisation of society have also led to various proposals to change this system and the emergence of practical initiatives to create new administrative units. As a result of these trends, nine new administrative rayons were created at the middle tier be- tween 1991 and 1996, bringing the number of rayons to 490. One of them, the Hertsa Rayon of Chernivtsi Oblast, was created in Decem- ber 1991 on the initiative of the Romanian ethnic minority (Dnistrianskyi, M.S. 2006). At the same time, the decision of the 1991 lo- cal referendum on the creation of Berehove Hungarian (Zakarpattia Oblast) and Bulgar- ian (Odesa Oblast) national rayons was not officially approved, as there was no appro- priate legal framework for such a decision. The main ethno-geographic features of independent Ukraine were recorded in the first and only all-Ukrainian population cen- sus in 2001. According to its findings, ethnic minorities made up 22.2 percent of the total population of Ukraine, 26.3 percent of the ur- ban population, and 12.9 percent of the rural population. At the time, the majority of ethnic minorities were concentrated in large cities, as shown by the regional proportions of eth- nic minorities in rural and urban population. The largest share of ethnic minorities was in the following regions: Sevastopol City (77.6%), the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (75.7%), Donetsk (43.1%), Luhansk (42.0%), Odesa (37.2%), Kharkiv (29.3%), Zaporizhzhia (29.2%), Chernivtsi (25.0%), Dnipropetrovsk (20.1%), Zakarpattia (19.5%), Mykolaiv (18.1%), and Kherson (18.0%) oblasts. Thus, at the upper tier of Ukraine’s administrative and territorial structure, only one region, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the city of national sig- nificance Sevastopol, had a predominantly non- Ukrainian population. This ethno-geographical feature in these regions was reflected in the administrative-territorial system of Ukraine by granting them special status. Out of the above regions, only Zakarpattia, Chernivtsi and the south-western part of Odesa Oblast have areas where several ethnolinguistic groups are set- tled, and therefore they have been chosen as the object of our study. The administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine was initiated in 2015 with the ob- Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.400 jective of conferring greater autonomy upon local self-governments. Its implementation was preceded by the adoption of such docu- ments as the Law of Ukraine on Voluntary Amalgamation of Territorial Communities (2015), and the Decree on Approval of the Methodology for the Formation of Capable Territorial Communities (2015), which de- fined the procedure and main criteria for the formation of new administrative units (in terms of the size of new administrative units, location of centres, etc.). Among the principles to be taken into account, the law also mentioned ethnicity (see zakon.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/214-2015-%D0%BF#n10, 2015), but the mechanisms for implementing this principle were not specified. Until 2020, the formation of territorial com- munities was voluntary, which allowed resi- dents belonging to ethnic minorities to amal- gamate into territorial communities in their places of compact settlement. By that time, 1070 communities had been formed (almost 73%). Moreover, the following communities were formed according to the perspective plans developed at the governmental level (www.kmu.gov.ua, 2020). The consolidated communities were en- dowed with considerable powers and re- sources, including revenues derived from taxes, such as a unified tax, taxes on the profits of municipal-owned enterprises and financial institutions, property (real estate, land, transportation), and 60 percent of per- sonal income tax, which were transferred to local budgets. Before the reform, only oblast, rayon budgets and budgets of cities of oblast significance had direct relations with the state budget. Following the reform, ter- ritorial communities (TCs) have direct inter- budgetary relations with the state budget. Appropriate transfers (grants, subventions, etc.) are received by TCs to enable them to perform their delegated powers (www. kmu.gov.ua, 2020). Consequently, territori- al communities have become a key element of Ukraine’s new administrative structure, which justifies the emphasis placed on them in our investigation. In order to examine the extent to which the reformed system of administrative and territo- rial structure of Ukraine complies with the set- tlement of ethno-linguistic minorities, a case study was conducted in Zakarpattia, Odesa and Chernivtsi oblasts since in other regions where the reform was implemented, there are actually no relatively large areas where ethnic minorities would form the majority. Thus, the results of the census show that the share of ethno-linguistic minorities and the share of settlements with a majority of ethno-linguistic minority population were the highest 1) in Hertsa Rayon of Chernivtsi Oblast (91.5% of ethnic Romanians, 92.2% of the population named Romanian as their mother tongue, the share of settle- ments with a predominance of Romanian- speaking population is 95.5%); 2) in Berehove Rayon of Zakarpattia Oblast (76.1% of ethnic Hungarians, 80.2% of the population named Hungarian as their mother tongue, the share of settlements with a predominance of Hungarian-speaking population is 76.7%); 3) in Bolhrad Rayon of Odesa Oblast (60.8% of ethnic Bulgarians, Bulgarian was the mother tongue of 57.5% of the population, the share of settlements with a predominance of the population with the Bulgarian language as their mother tongue was 59.1%). In addition, the degree of compactness of ethno-linguis- tic minorities was relatively high in the for- mer Uzhhorod, Vynohradiv and Tyachiv rayons of Zakarpattia Oblast, as well as in Novoselytsia and Storozhynets rayons of Chernivtsi Oblast. In other rayons, these in- dicators were much lower, which objectively did not contribute to the creation of ethni- cally homogeneous territorial communities. Difficulties in taking into account the ethno-geographical factor in reforming the administrative-territorial structure in Zakarpattia, Chernivtsi and south-western Odesa oblasts are also reflected in the indi- cators of language and language-settlement mosaicism, which were significant in virtual- ly all rayons, including those with the high- est proportion of ethno-linguistic minorities. This is especially true in the south-western 401Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. part of Odesa Oblast (historical Budzhak re- gion), where settlements with different eth- nic majority are highly dispersed and the de- gree of compactness of ethnic minority areas is low. It is noteworthy that in most rayons the overall indicator of linguistic mosaicism was higher than that of linguo-settlement mosaicism, which also reveals the tenden- cy to “blur” the areas of compact settlement of ethnolinguistic groups in the process of urbanisation and migration (see Tables 1–3). Conformity of the newly formed administrative- territorial units and areas of ethnic minorities’ settlement in Zakarpattia Oblast Let us first consider the results of the admin- istrative reform of Zakarpattia Oblast in the light of interethnic relations policy. The main administrative-territorial changes in this re- gion concerned the liquidation of 13 rayons (Berehove, Velykyi Bereznyi, Vynohradiv, Volovets, Irshava, Mizhhirya, Mukachevo, Perechyn, Rakhiv, Svalyava, Tyachiv, Uzh- horod, Khust) and the creation of 6 new ones (Berehove, Mukachevo, Rakhiv, Tyachiv, Uzhhorod, Khust (Table 1, Figure 1). At the lowest tier, the liquidation of 337 city, town and village councils resulted in the creation of 64 territorial communities. In ethno-geographical terms, Zakarpattia Oblast is distinguished by the compact loca- tion of only two ethnic minorities – Hungarian and Romanian. In 2001, the majority of the Hungarian-speaking population lived in Berehove and the urban settlements of Batiovo and Vylok. Their share was also significant in the town of Chop and the urban-type settle- ment of Vyshkovo – over 40 percent. Most of the villages where Hungarians constituted the majority (31 settlements) in 2001 were located in Berehove Rayon. In the former Vynohradiv Rayon, the ethnic Hungarian majority is re- corded in 19 villages, in Uzhhorod Rayon – in 22 villages, and in Mukachevo Rayon – in 6 villages (see pop-stat.mashke.org 2024). According to the 2001 census, Romanian was declared as a mother tongue by the major- ity in the urban-type settlement of Solotvyno in Tyachiv Rayon, as well as in 5 villages of the former Tyachiv Rayon and 4 villages of Rakhiv Rayon (see pop-stat.mashke.org 2024). As the reform will result in territorial communities being the most functionally significant administrative-territorial units in the organisation of local self-government, it is important to consider their structural features in places where Hungarian and Romanian ethnic minorities are densely populated. In this light, it is important to focus on how ethnically homogeneous the newly formed communities are and which settlements are community centres in terms of their organisational and human resources. It is also important to note that the formation of territorial communities was largely volun- tary, allowing the local population to make a choice that would meet their interests. Thus, the Hungarian-speaking popula- tion predominates in 7 of the 10 newly es- tablished settlements of Berehove Rayon (Berehove, Batiovo, Vylok, Velyki Berehy, Velyka Byihan, Kosyno, Pyiterfolvo) (see Figure 1). At the same time, the quantitative predominance of the Hungarian population within the first four municipalities of the rayon is less pronounced due to the diffuse nature of the settlement, with Ukrainian vil- lages being located in areas dominated by ethnic Hungarians and Hungarian villages being located in areas dominated by ethnic Ukrainians. In the newly created Uzhhorod Rayon, three communities – Chop, Velyka Dobron, and Siurte – are predominantly ethnically Hungarian. Some ethnically Hungarian villages of the former Mukachevo Rayon (Barkasovo, Chomonyn, Serne) were incor- porated into Batyovo and Velyka Dobron mu- nicipalities with a predominantly Hungarian population, while others (Dertsen, Zhniatyno, Fornosh) – due to their distance from the cen- tres of the Hungarian municipalities and pos- sibly due to other political considerations of the village leaders – were incorporated into territorial municipalities with a majority eth- nic Ukrainian population. Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.402 Ta bl e 1 . S om e i nd ic at or s o f t he se ttl em en t o f e th no -li ng ui st ic m in or iti es in Z ak ar pa tti a O bl as t b y ra yo ns b efo re th e 2 02 0 ad m in ist ra tiv e r efo rm * A dm in is tr at iv e ra yo ns an d ci tie s of re gi on al si gn ifi ca nc e (b ef or e 20 20 ) Share of population with Hungarian mother tongue, % Share of population with Romanian mother tongue, % Share of settlements with a Hungarian-speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Share of settlements with a Romanian- speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Index of linguistic mosaicism of former rayons Index of linguo-settlement mosaicism of former rayons Average index of linguistic mosaicism of territorial communities of former rayons Average index of linguo-settlement mosaicism of territorial communities of former rayons Percentage difference between the indices of linguistic mosaicism of former rayons and territorial communities Percentage difference between the indices of linguo-settlement mosaicism of former rayons and territorial communities Be re ho ve Ve ly ky i B er ez ny i V yn oh ra di v V ol ov et s Ir sh av a M iz hh ir ia M uk ac he vo Pe re ch yn Ra kh iv Sv al ia va Ti ac hi v U zh ho ro d K hu st U zh ho ro d Be re ho ve M uk ac he vo K hu st Av er ag e f or th e o bl as t 80 .2 0. 1 26 .3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 0 13 .8 0. 2 2. 5 0. 5 2. 8 35 .4 3. 9 7. 0 54 .8 9. 6 4. 3 12 .8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 9 11 .5 0. 0 12 .4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 6 76 .7 0. 0 40 .0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 6. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 34 .8 0. 0 0. 0 50 .0 0. 0 0. 0 13 .7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 12 .5 0. 0 9. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 6 0. 32 1 0. 02 0 0. 41 2 0. 01 8 0. 02 0 0. 01 4 0. 27 2 0. 06 7 0. 27 0 0. 05 3 0. 28 7 0. 49 9 0. 09 2 0. 39 3 0. 55 2 0. 38 9 0. 17 0 0. 25 5 0. 35 7 0. 00 0 0. 48 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 12 7 0. 00 0 0. 21 9 0. 00 0 0. 17 7 0. 45 4 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 50 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 14 5 0. 39 4 0. 02 1 0. 22 7 0. 01 7 0. 02 0 0. 01 5 0. 26 7 0. 06 0 0. 10 1 0. 04 9 0. 09 1 0. 34 4 0. 10 3 – – – – 0. 17 5 0. 31 0 0. 00 0 0. 11 2 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 14 1 0. 00 0 0. 08 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 09 9 0. 00 0 – – – – 0. 07 2 22 .4 3. 3 -4 5. 0 -4 .4 -0 .2 4. 1 -2 .0 -9 .5 -6 2. 8 -7 .4 -6 8. 3 -3 1. 0 11 .7 – – – – -3 1. 7 -1 3. 2 0. 0 -7 6. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 10 .7 0. 0 -6 3. 6 0. 0 -1 00 .0 -7 8. 3 0. 0 – – – – -5 0. 7 *C al cu la te d by th e au th or s ba se d on th e da ta o f t he 2 00 1 A ll- U kr ai ni an P op ul at io n C en su s. 403Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. At the same time, ethnically Romanian set- tlements in Zakarpattia Oblast, with the ex- ception of the village of Plaiuts, which were previously part of both Rakhiv and Tyachiv rayons, now form one Solotvyno commu- nity, which is fully in line with their wishes. Since the formation of territorial communities has been largely voluntary, it has generally created favourable conditions for access to new centres, which now have more grounds to become larger centres of socio-economic development. At the same time, distances to new centres have increased, and a number of settlements have lost the status of village council centres, which in many cases is per- ceived negatively by the local population. The consideration of the linguistic and ethnic principle in the formation of territorial commu- nities is reflected in a significant decrease in the average index of linguo-settlement mosaicism per community compared to similar indica- tors for rayons by 2020. The corresponding Fig. 1. The composition of the population of the settlements by native language of rayons and territorial communities of Zakarpattia Oblast formed as a result of the 2020 administrative reform. Territorial com- munities (1–64) of the newly created rayons: I. Berehove Rayon: 1 = Batiovo; 2 = Berehove, 3 = Velyki Berehy; 4 = Velyka Byihan; 5 = Vylok; 6 = Vynohradiv; 7 = Kamianske; 8 = Korolevo; 9 = Kosino; 10 = Pyiterfolvo. II. Mukachevo Rayon: 11 = Velyki Luchky; 12 =Verkhnii Koropets; 13 = Volovets; 14 = Horonda; 15 = Zhdenievo; 16 = Ivanivtsi; 17 = Kolchyno; 18 = Mukachevo; 19 = Nelipyno; 20 = Nyzhni Vorota; 21 = Poliana; 22 = Svaliava; 23 = Chynadiiovo. III. Rakhiv Rayon: 24 = Bohdan; 25 = Velykyi Bychkiv; 26 = Rakhiv; 27 = Yasinia. IV. Tiachiv Rayon: 28 = Bedevlia, 29 = Bushtyno; 30 = Vilkhivtsi; 31 = Dubove; 32 = Neresnytsa; 33 = Solotvyno; 34 = Teresva; 35 = Tiachiv; 36 = Uhlia; 37 = Ust-Chorna. V. Uzhhorod Rayon: 38 = Baranyntsi; 39 = Velykyi Bereznyi; 40 = Velyka Dobron; 41 = Dubrynychi-Malyi Bereznyi; 42 = Kostrino; 43 = Onokivtsi; 44 = Perechyn; 45 = Serednia; 46 = Stavne; 47 = Siurte; 48 = Turi Remeti; 49 = Uzhhorod; 50 = Kholmok; 51 = Chop. VI. Khust Rayon: 52 = Bilky; 53 = Vyshkovo; 54 = Horinchovo; 55 = Dovhe; 56 = Drahovo; 57 = Zarichchia; 58 = Irshava; 59 = Keretsky; 60 = Kolochava; 61 = Mizhhirla; 62 = Pylypets¸63 = Synevyr; 64 = Khust. Based on the results of the 2001 All-Ukrainian Census. Source: pop-stat.mashke.org/ukraine-census-2001-lang/zakarpatska.htm 2024. 63 61 62 13 20 15 21 48 41 42 46 44 43 4550 38 47 40 11 16 17 18 12 23 14 4 9 1 3 51 2 5 6 8 64 10 577 52 58 53 56 54 36 30 35 29 28 34 32 31 33 25 26 24 27 37 60 22 19 39 49 Hungarian Romanian Ukrainian Other 100,000 person 30,000 10,000 5,000 1,000 0 20 km10 Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.404 indices calculated on the basis of the 2001 All- Ukrainian Population Census data at the oblast level were 0.327 and 0.264. By comparison, the indices for ethnic and settlement mosaicism were 0.337 and 0.254, i.e. the difference was in- significant and is mainly due to the significant proportion of Gypsies (Roma) who use the lan- guage of the local majority, mainly Hungarian or Ukrainian, as their mother tongue. As noted above, we chose to use language data because it is more readily available through settlement. The weighted average index of linguistic mosaicism in the old rayons of Zakarpattia Oblast, according to population, was 0.255, and the index of linguistic settlement was 0.145, i.e. at the rayon level the indices were 21.8 and 44.8 percent lower, respectively. The creation of smaller territorial communities in terms of size and population objectively contributes to the reduction of linguistic and ethnic diversity within them. In Zakarpattia, the average index of linguistic mosaicism for territorial communities was 0.175, which is 31.7 percent lower than the average for rayons. Weighted by the number of population aver- age indicator of linguo-settlement mosaicism decreased even more, by 50.7 percent to 0.072, during the transition to territorial communi- ties, which also confirms the consideration of the linguistic and ethnic factor in the forma- tion of communities in the oblast. However, the latter statement may be questioned since, as noted above, the reduc- tion in the size of administrative units itself contributes to a reduction in linguistic and settlement mosaicism. In order to clarify the role of the ethnic factor, a hypothetical merger of settlements in Uzhhorod Rayon (a typical multi-ethnic district was chosen) into communities was carried out, taking into account only the territorial principle. The settlements were merged using cluster analysis based on their geographical coor- dinates (hierarchical cluster analysis, meas- ure – Squared Euclidean Distance, method – between-groups linkage), without taking into account ethno-linguistic composition. The settlements of Uzhhorod Rayon were grouped into 7 communities (according to their actual number). The average weighted index of linguistic and settlement mosaicism decreased to only 0.313, i.e. by 31.1 percent compared to the corresponding indicator of the rayon. In reality, the linguistic and set- tlement mosaicism in the transition to com- munities decreased much more radically, to 0.099, i.e. by 78.3 percent (see Table 1), emphasizing the role of the ethnolinguistic factor in the formation of communities. Changes in the indices of linguistic and linguistic-settlement mosaicism also allow us to assess the extent to which the linguis- tic and ethnic factor is taken into account in the formation of communities at the rayon level. It was most fully taken into account in the formation of communities in the former Vynohradiv, Rakhiv, Tiachiv and Uzhhorod rayons, where the indices decreased the most, especially the index of linguo-settle- ment mosaicism, which decreased by more than 60 percent (see Table 1). The ethno-geographical factor also partially influenced the new rayon division. While the previous draft of the administrative-territo- rial division of the Zakarpattia Oblast did not provide for the allocation of a separate Berehove Rayon, such a rayon was formed in view of the position of Hungarian NGOs and Hungarian government agencies. It included all ethnically Hungarian settlements of the former Berehove and Vynohradiv rayons, but with several Ukrainian settlements. This was a compromise solution, as ethnic Hungarians raised the issue of creating a rayon based on all ethnic Hungarian settlements in the oblast, while some Ukrainian political circles op- posed the creation of a rayon with its centre in Berehove. The ethno-geographic factor also influenced the configuration of the Tiachiv Rayon, which included several Romanian vil- lages from the former Rakhiv Rayon, and the configuration of the Uzhhorod Rayon, which included the Hungarian village of Chomonyn from Mukachevo Rayon. It is important to note that the reconfiguration of the new rayons in Zakarpattia Oblast has only slightly changed the distances from ethnic minority villages to rayon centres. 405Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. Analysis of the conformity of the newly established administrative and territorial units and areas of settlement of ethnic minorities in Chernivtsi Oblast Within Chernivtsi Oblast, there are areas of compact settlement of two related ethnic mi- norities – Romanians and Moldovans. In mod- ern conditions, there is a self-awareness of their unity, but in the 2001 census, the Romanian and Moldovan languages and identities were recorded separately. According to the results of this census, ethnic Romanians constituted the majority in the former Hertsa Rayon (91.5%, with 92.2% speaking Romanian as their moth- er tongue), as well as a relatively significant share in the former Hlyboka (45.3% and 40.1%) and Storozhynets (36.8% and 35.4%) rayons, with Moldovans constituting the majority in the former Novoselytsia Rayon (57.5% and 54.7%) (Table 2). In Chernivtsi Oblast, there were 50 settlements with a majority Romani- an-speaking population: there are 23 settle- ments in Hertsa Rayon, 16 in Hlyboka Rayon, 10 in Storozhynets Rayon, and one village in Novoselytsia Rayon. Most of the population in 24 villages of the former Novoselytsia Rayon, one village of Hlyboka, Khotyn and Sokyriany rayons named Moldovan as their native language (see pop-stat.mashke.org 2024). As a result of the administrative reform in Chernivtsi Oblast, instead of 11 rayons (Vyzhnytsia, Hertsa, Hlyboka, Zastavna, Kelmentsi, Kitsman, Novoselytsia, Putyla, Sokiriansk, Storozhynets, Khotyn), three new ones were formed (Vyzhnytsia, Chernivtsi, Dnistrovskyi). In fact, all densely populated Romanian and Moldovan villages, except for Mamalyha community, are part of Chernivtsi Rayon (Figure 2) that generally meets their interests in the light of preserving national and cultural identity. Considering the settle- ment of ethnic minorities, 12 territorial com- munities with a significant predominance of representatives of the Romanian and Moldovan minorities were also organised (Hertsa urban, Krasnoilsk rural, Boianivka, Vanchykivtsi, Voloka, Karapchiv, Ostrytsia, Petrivtsi, Sucheveny, Terebleche, Chudei rural communities in Chernivtsi Rayon, Mamalyha in Dnistrovskyi Rayon – see Figure 2). At the same time, due to the lo- cation of certain settlements, Novoselytsia urban, Kamianske, Mahala, Tarashany and Toporivtsi rural communities are ethnically mixed. The ethnic peculiarities of individual settlements in these communities were con- sidered when creating starosta districts (part of a territorial community having its own officer delegated by a community council). The centres of territorial communities with a predominant or significant share of ethnic minorities are characterised by adequate ac- cessibility to adjacent settlements and have the appropriate social and cultural infra- structure to meet the needs of the population. In 2001, the index of ethnic mosaicism in Chernivtsi Oblast was higher than in Zakarpattia Oblast (0.414 vs. 0.342), while ethno-settlement mosaicism was slightly lower (0.323 vs. 0.336). The significant dif- ference between ethnic and ethno-settlement mosaicism is explained by the difference between the share of ethnic minorities and the share of settlements where minorities predominate. As for linguistic and linguis- tic-settlement mosaicism, they were clearly higher in Chernivtsi Oblast (0.408 and 0.342, compared to the corresponding Zakarpattia indicators of 0.327 and 0.264). The average values of linguistic and lin- guistic-settlement mosaicism of the former rayons of Chernivtsi Oblast (0.277 and 0.147), weighted by population, are significantly lower than the oblast indicators, which indi- cates that the linguistic and ethnic principle was considered to some extent when creating them. With the transition to territorial com- munities, the average linguistic mosaicism of the oblast decreased to 0.224 (by 19.0%), and the linguistic settlement mosaicism to 0.102 (by 30.6% – see Table 2). In other words, linguistic and ethnic principles are taken into account in the creation of communities, but to a lesser extent compared to Zakarpattia Oblast. The objective reason for this is that ethnic minorities are less densely populated in Bukovyna (see Figure 2). Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.406 Ta bl e 2 . S om e i nd ic at or s o f t he se ttl em en t o f e th no -li ng ui st ic m in or iti es in C he rn iv ts i O bl as t b y ra yo ns b efo re th e 2 02 0 ad m in ist ra tiv e r efo rm * A dm in is tr at iv e ra yo ns a nd c iti es o f re gi on al s ig ni fic an ce (b ef or e 20 20 ) Share of population with Romanian mother tongue, % Share of population with Moldovan mother tongue, % Share of settlements with a Romanian- speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Share of settlements with a Moldovan- speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Index of linguistic mosaicism of former rayons The index of linguo-settlement mosaicism of former rayons Average index of linguistic mosaicism of territorial communities of former rayons Average index of linguo-settlement mosaicism of territorial communities of former rayons Percentage difference between the indices of linguistic mosaicism of former rayons and territorial communities Percentage difference between the indices of linguo-settlement mosaicism of former rayons and territorial communities V yz hn yt si a H er ts a H ly bo ka Za st av na K el m en ts i K its m an N ov os el yt si a Pu ty la So ky ri an y St or oz hy ne ts K ho ty n C he rn iv ts i N ov od ni st ro vs k Av er ag e f or th e o bl as t 0. 3 92 .2 40 .1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 9. 3 0. 0 0. 0 35 .4 0. 1 3. 3 0. 1 11 .8 0. 1 1. 6 5. 9 0. 1 0. 8 0. 1 54 .7 0. 1 3. 0 0. 2 6. 9 1. 1 0. 5 6. 8 0. 0 95 .5 46 .2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 4. 9 0. 0 0. 0 23 .1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 12 .0 0. 0 0. 0 5. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 63 .4 0. 0 3. 4 0. 0 2. 5 0. 0 0. 0 7. 2 0. 02 9 0. 14 7 0. 55 9 0. 01 6 0. 04 4 0. 02 3 0. 57 6 0. 01 1 0. 17 7 0. 49 7 0. 15 7 0. 34 8 0. 24 8 0. 27 7 0. 00 0 0. 08 7 0. 57 1 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 49 5 0. 00 0 0. 13 1 0. 39 4 0. 04 9 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 14 7 0. 02 9 0. 15 0 0. 40 4 0. 01 6 0. 04 4 0. 02 2 0. 49 6 0. 01 1 0. 17 2 0. 21 1 0. 11 6 0. 34 8 0. 24 8 0. 22 4 0. 00 0 0. 07 7 0. 41 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 42 8 0. 00 0 0. 11 1 0. 14 5 0. 06 7 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 10 2 -0 .2 2. 4 -2 7. 8 2. 0 0. 0 -3 .1 -1 3. 9 0. 0 -3 .3 -5 7. 6 -2 6. 0 0. 0 0. 0 -1 9. 0 0. 0 -1 1. 2 -2 8. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 -1 3. 4 0. 0 -1 5. 3 -6 3. 3 38 .0 0. 0 0. 0 -3 0. 6 *C al cu la te d by th e au th or s ba se d on th e da ta o f t he 2 00 1 A ll- U kr ai ni an P op ul at io n C en su s. 407Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. The average values of the indices of lan- guage and language-settlement mosaicism in the transition to municipalities decreased the most in the former rayons of Storozhynets and Hlyboka with a mixed ethno-linguistic composition of the population (the share of Romanian-speaking population in 2001 was 35.4 and 40.1%, respectively). In the case of the old Novoselytsia Rayon, where the mosaicism of the population was also high (54.7% mentioned Moldovan as their mother tongue, 9.3% Romanian), the language and settlement mosaicism decreased by only 13–14 percent as a result of the reform. Analysis of the conformity of the newly established administrative and territorial units and areas of settlement of ethnic minorities in Odesa Oblast The most ethnically mosaic in Ukraine is the south-western part of Odesa Oblast, i.e. the historical region of Budzhak (ethnic mosaic index in 2001 was 0.735, ethnic settlement in- dex was 0.653, linguistic index was 0.728, lin- guistic settlement index was 0.673) with areas of compact settlement of the following ethnic minorities: Bulgarians, Moldovans, Russians (sub-ethnic group of Old Believers), and Gagauzes. The former rayons of the region Fig. 2. The composition of the population of the settlements by native language in rayons and territorial commu- nities of Chernivtsi Oblast formed as a result of the 2020 administrative reform. Territorial communities (1–52) of the newly created rayons: I. Vyzhnytsia Rayon: 1 = Banyliv; 2 = Berehomet; 3 = Brusnytsia; 4 = Vashkivtsi; 5 = Vyzhnytsia; 6 = Koniatyn; 7 = Putyla; 8 = Seliatyn; 9 = Ust-Putyla; II. Dnistrovskyi Rayon: 10 = Vashkivtsi; 11 = Kelmentsi; 12 = Klishkivtsi; 13 = Livyntsi; 14 = Mamalyha; 15 = Nedoboivtsi; 16 = Novodnistrovsk; 17 = Rukshyn; 18 = Sokyriany; 19 = Khotyn. III. Chernivtsi Rayon: 20 = Boiany; 21 = Vanchykivtsi; 22 = Velykyi Kuchuriv; 23 = Verenchanka; 24 = Vikno; 25 = Voloka; 26 = hertsa, 27 = Hlyboka, 28 = Horishni Sherivtsi; 29 = Zastavna; 30 = Kadubivtsi; 31 = Kamianec; 32 = Kamianske; 33 = Karapchiv; 34 = Kitsman; 35 = Kostryzhivka; 36 = Krasnoilsk; 37 = Mahala; 38 = Mamaivtsi; 39 = Nepolokivtsi; 40 = Novoselytsia; 41 = Ostrytsia, 42 = Petrivtsi; 43 = Stavchany; 44 = Storozhynets; 45 = Sucheveny, 46 = Tarashany; 47 = Terebleche; 48 = Toporivtsi; 49 = Chahor; 50 = Chernivtsi; 51 = Chudei; 52 = Yurkivtsi. Based on the results of the 2001 All-Ukrainian Population Census. Source: pop-stat.mashke.org/ukraine-census-2001-lang/cernivecka.htm 2024 13 20 15 21 48 41 42 46 44 43 45 50 38 47 40 11 16 17 18 12 23 14 4 9 1 3 51 2 5 6 8 10 7 52 36 3035 29 28 34 32 31 33 25 26 24 27 37 22 19 39 49 Moldovan Romanian Ukrainian Other 10,000 person 5,000 1,000 0 20 km10 Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.408 were also characterised by a high degree of linguistic and ethnic mosaicism: according to the 2001 data, the indicators of language and language-settlement mosaicism did not reach the value of 0.5 only in Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi and Tatarbunary rayons (Table 3). The largest area is inhabited by the Bulgarian ethnic group (Figure 3), which, according to the 2001 census, constituted an absolute majority in the former Bolhrad Rayon (60.8% of eth- nic Bulgarians, 57.5% of the population with Bulgarian as their mother tongue), a relative majority in Artsyz (39.0 and 34.0%, respective- ly), and Tarutyne (37.5 and 31.7%). There are 49 settlements in the south-western part of Odesa Oblast with a Bulgarian-speaking population majority: 19 villages in the former Tarutyne Rayon, 13 settlements in Bolhrad Rayon, 7 villages in Artsyz Rayon, 6 settle- ments in Izmail Rayon, 2 villages in Sarata Rayon and 2 in Tatarbunary Rayon (see pop- stat.mashke.org 2024). The autochthonous ethnic Russian popu- lation (a sub-ethnic group of Old Believers) lived mostly along the Danube and in the cen- tral part of Budzhak (see Figure 3). In 2001, the Russian-speaking majority was recorded in 44 settlements, including the cities of Izmail and Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, 11 settlements of the former Tarutyne, 9 settlements of Artsyz, 6 of Kiliia, 5 of Sarata, 5 villages of Izmail, 3 of Bolhrad, 2 of Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi, and 1 of Tatarbunary rayons. The settlement of ethnic Moldovans in Odesa Oblast is formed both by a compact area in the south-western part of Budzhak re- gion and by separate settlements in its north- ern (Podil) part. The largest number of vil- lages (26) with a predominance of Moldovan- speaking population were in Budzhak part of Odesa Oblast, in the former Reni (5 villages), Sarata (5), Tarutyne (5), Izmail (4), Kiliia (4), Tatarbunary (2) and Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi (1) rayons (Figure 3). In the northern part of the oblast, ethnic Moldovans constituted the ma- jority in 5 villages of Podil Rayon (Hyderym, Kazbeky, Oleksandrivka, Lypetske, Stara Kulna), Tochylove village of Ananiv Rayon and Rozivka village of Okny Rayon. Only in 5 villages of Odesa Oblast the majority of the population were Gagauzes: Dmytrivka, Oleksandrivka, Vinohradivka (former Bolhrad Rayon), Kotlovyna (former Reni Rayon), Stari Troyany (former Kiliia Rayon) (see pop-stat.mashke.org 2024). Despite the significant mosaic of ethnic minority settlements in the south-western (Budzhak) part of Odesa Oblast, their wish- es in this region were partially taken into account during the administrative reform. This concerns, first, the rayon division, as according to the proposals of Bulgarian NGOs, Bolhrad Rayon was created, which included settlements with a majority of ethnic Bulgarians in three former rayons – Artsyz, Bolhrad, Tarutyne. The majority of territorial communities in this rayon are also dominated by ethnic Bulgarians (see Figure 3). The areas of residence of other autochtho- nous ethnic minorities (Gagauz, Moldovans, Russian Old Believers) had an area and population that did not meet the criteria of a rayon, so only in some cases in the newly created Izmail Rayon were territorial com- munities with a predominance of one eth- nic minority organised on their basis. Thus, outside Bolhrad Rayon, only two communi- ties can be called predominantly ethnically homogeneous: Reni urban community with a predominance of ethnic Moldovans and Vylkove urban community with a predomi- nance of Russian Old Believers. Since the Gagauz villages are not compactly located, there were no prerequisites for the creation of territorial communities with a predominance of Gagauz people in the region. Therefore, given the close proximity of settlements of different ethnic composition, a number of territorial communities in areas where ethnic minorities are settled could not but have an ethnically mixed character. Difficulties in taking into account the eth- nolinguistic principle in the formation of territorial communities in Budzhak are also reflected in changes in the mosaic indicators: weighted average language and language- settlement mosaicism in the transition from 409Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. Ta bl e 3 . S om e i nd ic at or s o f t he se ttl em en t o f e th no -li ng ui st ic m in or iti es o f B ud zh ak p ar t o f O de sa O bl as t b y ra yo ns b efo re th e 2 02 0 ad m in ist ra tiv e r efo rm * A dm in is tr at iv e ra yo ns a nd c iti es o f re gi on al s ig ni fic an ce (b ef or e 20 20 ) Share of the population with Russian as their mother tongue, % Share of the population with Bulgarian as their mother tongue, % Share of population with Moldovan ad their mother tongue, % Share of the population with Gagauz as their mother tongue, % Share of settlements with a Russian-speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Share of settlements with a Bulgarian-speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Share of settlements with a Moldovan-speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Share of settlements with a Gagauz-speaking majority in the total number of settlements, % Index of linguistic mosaicism of former rayons The index of linguo-settlement mosaicism of former rayons Average index of linguistic mosaicism of territorial communities of former rayons Average index of linguo-settlement mosaicism of territorial communities of former rayons Percentage difference between the indices of linguistic mosaicism of former rayons and territorial communities Percentage difference between the indices of linguo- settlement mosaicism of former rayons and territorial communities A rt sy z Bi lh or od -D ni st ro vs ky i Bo lh ra d Iz m ai l K ili ia Re ni Sa ra ta Ta ru ty ne Ta ta rb un ar y Bi lh or od -D ni st ro vs ky i Iz m ai l Av er ag e f or th e r eg io n 42 .8 13 .0 16 .3 21 .6 44 .2 37 .9 21 .4 32 .9 7. 7 54 .3 74 .2 35 .2 34 .0 0. 5 57 .5 24 .9 2. 5 6. 6 19 .1 31 .7 10 .7 1. 6 4. 6 17 .9 3. 1 5. 0 1. 0 26 .2 12 .8 40 .8 17 .6 12 .7 8. 5 1. 2 1. 8 10 .3 0. 8 0. 2 17 .8 0. 3 3. 7 6. 8 0. 1 3. 3 0. 1 0. 2 0. 4 3. 4 46 .2 3. 5 9. 1 26 .1 36 .8 0. 0 15 .4 28 .0 2. 8 66 .7 10 0. 0 18 .7 30 .8 0. 0 59 .1 34 .8 5. 3 12 .5 7. 7 38 .0 5. 6 0. 0 0. 0 19 .4 0. 0 1. 8 0. 0 17 .4 21 .1 62 .5 15 .4 16 .0 5. 6 0. 0 0. 0 10 .6 0. 0 0. 0 13 .6 0. 0 5. 3 12 .5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 8 0. 66 7 0. 32 8 0. 60 8 0. 75 4 0. 65 6 0. 67 6 0. 71 6 0. 73 9 0. 45 1 0. 52 9 0. 41 4 0. 58 1 0. 63 9 0. 10 1 0. 60 3 0. 73 3 0. 71 5 0. 56 3 0. 56 8 0. 71 9 0. 25 2 0. 44 4 0. 00 0 0. 46 1 0. 62 2 0. 43 2 0. 53 5 0. 53 1 0. 59 9 0. 67 6 0. 55 3 0. 71 5 0. 41 8 – – 0. 54 3 0. 53 2 0. 06 5 0. 43 6 0. 54 4 0. 58 2 0. 56 3 0. 42 9 0. 67 3 0. 41 0 – – 0. 43 4 -6 .8 31 .4 -1 1. 9 -2 9. 6 -8 .6 0. 0 -2 2. 8 -3 .2 -7 .4 – – -6 .5 -1 6. 8 -3 5. 6 -2 7. 8 -2 5. 8 -1 8. 6 0. 0 -2 4. 5 -6 .4 62 .8 – – -5 .9 *C al cu la te d by th e au th or s ba se d on th e da ta o f t he 2 00 1 A ll- U kr ai ni an P op ul at io n C en su s. Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.410 previous rayons to communities decreased by only 6 percent (see Table 3). A signifi- cant decrease in linguistic mosaicism was recorded only during the reorganisation of Izmail and Sarata rayons. It is interesting to note the significant increase in the average indicator of linguo-settlement mosaicism in Tatarbunary Rayon. This is due to the sig- nificant influence on the weighted average of the most populated Tatarbunary territorial community, which included all settlements of the former rayon with a predominance of ethnic minorities, and therefore has a high index of linguo-settlement mosaicism (0.584). Given the significant powers granted to terri- torial communities in the process of administra- tive-territorial reform, it can be concluded that the creation of such administrative units with a predominance of ethnic minority populations provides the prerequisites for the organisation of their self-government, including the election of leaders, budget allocation and the formation of a programme of socio-economic develop- ment. But the true impact of the administrative- territorial reform on the livelihoods of ethnic minorities will be revealed over time, primarily depending on the capacity of communities to fill the provided framework with content. Fig. 3. The composition of the population of the settlements of rayons and territorial communities by native language in the southern part of Odesa Oblast formed as a result of the 2020 administrative reform. Territorial communities (1–32) of the newly created rayons: I. Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi Rayon: 1 = Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi; 2 = Dyviziya; 3 = Karolino-Buhaz; 4 = Kulevcha; 5 = Lyman; 6 = Marazliivka; 7 = Moloha; 8 = Petropavlivske; 9 = Plakhtiivka; 10 = Sarata; 11 = Serhiivka; 12 = Starokozache; 13 = Tatarbunary; 14 = Tuzly; 15 = Uspenivka; 16 = Shabo. II. Bolhrad Rayon: 17 = Artsyz; 18 = Bolhrad; 19 = Borodino; 20 = Vasylivka; 21 = Horodnie; 22 = Krynychne; 23 = Kubei; 24 = Pavlivka; 25 = Tarutyne; 26 = Teplytsia. III. Izmail Rayon: 27 = Vylkove; 28 = Izmail; 29 = Kiliia; 30 = Reni; 31 = Safiany; 32 = Suvorove. Based on the results of the 2001 All-Ukrainian Population Census. Source: pop-stat.mashke.org/ukraine-census-2001-lang/odeska.htm, 2024. 13 20 15 21 11 16 17 18 12 23 14 4 9 1 3 2 5 6 8 10 7 30 29 28 32 31 25 26 24 27 22 19 Russian Moldovan Ukrainian Bulgarian Gagauz Other 50,000 person 20,000 10,000 5,000 1,000 0 20 km10 411Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412. Conclusions In the process of administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine, given the voluntary na- ture of the first stage of merging settlements, ethnic minority populations compactly lo- cated in Zakarpattia, Chernivtsi and Odesa oblasts were given the opportunity to organ- ise majority-ethnic communities and elect governing bodies, which in most cases was successfully implemented. If certain settle- ments were remote from the main compact settlement area of the respective ethnic mi- nority, they were in most cases entitled to create their own separate starosta district. As the Ukrainian experience shows en- suring greater correspondence between the units of the administrative-territorial struc- ture and areas of compact settlement of eth- nic minorities is necessary and feasible only for compactly located settlements with a predominance of ethnic minority population and taking into account the criteria and pro- cedure for the formation of administrative units. At the same time, the self-government of dispersed ethnic minorities formed in the process of migration can only be realised in an extra-territorial form. The distinctive settlement patterns of eth- nic minorities and the wishes of their com- munity organisations were only partially taken into account in the formation of new rayons and the selection of rayon centres, which in most cases was limited by the de- fined criteria for the size of new administra- tive units and political reasons. Administrative-territorial reforms can be an effective tool to meet the cultural and economic needs of ethnic minorities and to expand their rights if they are aimed at reducing the ethnic mosaicism of the newly formed units and giving them greater pow- ers in the process of decentralisation. REFERENCES Baranchuk, V. 1998. The role of local self-government in the formation and reform of the system of territo- rial organisation of state power in Ukraine. Bulletin of the State Service of Ukraine 4. 44–50. (in Ukrainian) Baranovskyi, M.O. 2017. Financial decentralisation in Ukraine: Peculiarities of formation. Ukrainian Geographical Journal 4. 30–38. (in Ukrainian) https:// doi.org/10.15407/ugz2017.04.030 Baranovskyi, M.O. 2020. Subregional level of ad- ministrative and territorial reform in Ukraine: discussion aspects. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Geography 76–77. (1–2): 37–43. (in Ukrainian) https://doi.org/10.17721/1728- 2721.2020.76-77.5 CEMR 2009. Balancing Democracy, Identity and Efficiency: Changes in Local and Regional Structures in Europe. Brussels, Council of European Municipalities and Regions. Dnistrianskyi, M.S. 2006. Ethnopolitical Geography of Ukraine: Theoretical Problems, Methodology, and Practice. Lviv, Litopys Publishing Centre of Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. (in Ukrainian) Dnistrianskyi, M.S. and Chaika, I.M. 2023. Location of small towns and rural settlements of Ukraine and new realities of the administrative territo- rial system: Contradictions and perspectives of mutual influences. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology 1. 3–16. (in Ukrainian) https://doi. org/10.15421/112301 Dobysh, M. 2019. Euromaidan and conflict in Eastern Ukraine in social networking sites: Territorial dif- ferences of pro-Russian subscriptions in Ukraine. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68. (1): 51–64. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.1.4 Druziuk, S. 1998. Problems of the institute of local self-government in the context of M.S. Hrushevsky’s constitutional views. Law of Ukraine 3. 87–88. (in Ukrainian) Fedchyshyn, M. and Fronchko, V. 2000. Administrative structure yesterday, today, tomorrow. Viche 9. 38–46. (in Ukrainian) Fodor, Gy. 2010. The situation of human resources development in Transcarpathia from an interethnic perspective. Doctoral thesis. Debrecen, University of Debrecen. Gnatiuk, O., Mezentsev, K. and Pidgrushnyi, G. 2022. Rethinking of identity under war: Pryazovia renais- sance and regional centre ambitions in Mariupol before 2022. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (3): 271–286. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.71.3.4 Hajdú, Z. 2014. A közigazgatási térszervezési telesz- kóp és területszervezési reformviták Romániában az ország európai uniós csatlakozása (2007) óta (The administrative spatial telescope and the spa- tial planning reform debates in Romania since the country’s accession to the European Union [2007]). Közép-Európai Közlemények 7. (3–4): 33–40. Hruška, V. and Píša, J. 2019. Winning and losing rural localities of the post-socialist economic restructur- ing: case study of Czechia. Hungarian Geographical https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2017.04.030 https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2017.04.030 https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2721.2020.76-77.5 https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2721.2020.76-77.5 https://doi.org/10.15421/112301 https://doi.org/10.15421/112301 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.1.4 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.71.3.4 Dnistrianskyi, M. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (4) 395–412.412 Bulletin 68. (4): 373–389. https://doi.org/10.15201/ hungeobull.68.4.4 Karácsonyi, D., Kocsis, K., Kovály, K., Molnár, J. and Póti, L. 2014. East-West dichotomy and po- litical conflict in Ukraine – Was Huntington right? Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 63. (2): 99–134. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.63.2.1 Korzeniewska-Wiszniewska, M. 2020. Administrative and territorial organization of the state as a tool of ethnic politics: The example of the Republic of Croatia. Politeja 68. 237–256. Kuchabskyi, O.G. 2010. Administrative and Territorial Organisation of Ukraine: Theory, Methodology, Mechanisms of Formation. Monograph. Lviv, LRIDU NADU. (in Ukrainian) Kuczabski, O.G., Zastavetska, L. and Zastavetskyi, T. 2017. The reform of administrative division in Ukraine: Problems of territorial communities’ for- mation in the Polish-Ukrainian borderland. Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 7. (2): 87–97. https:// doi.org/10.4467/24512249JG.17.019.6635 Makarov, H. 2022. The ethnic factor in reforming the administrative-territorial system: The ex- perience of European democratic states. Public Administration Aspects 10. (5): 54–61. https://doi. org/10.15421/152235 (in Ukrainian) Melnichuk, A.L. 2020. Five years of forming a new basic level of administrative territorial structure: Successes and challenges of the reform in Ukraine. Kyiv, Association of Amalgamated Territorial Communities. (in Ukrainian) Mezei, I. and Hardi, T. 2003. A szlovák közigazgatás és területfejlesztés aszimmetriái (Asymmetries in Slovak public administration and territorial devel- opment). Tér és Társadalom 17. (4): 127–155. https:// doi.org/10.17649/TET.17.4.920 Mruchkovskyi, P.V. 2018. Ethnic structure of the popula- tion of the Western Ukrainian region (socio-geographical analysis). Qualification scientific work on the rights of a manuscript. Chernivtsi. (in Ukrainian) Mustafaieva, E. 2018. Principles of amalgamation of territorial communities in places of compact residence of national minorities in the context of decentralisation as an integral part of ethno-nation- al policy in Ukraine. Public Administration and Local Government 1. 22–30. (in Ukrainian) Müller-Crepon, C. 2023. Building tribes: How ad- ministrative units shaped ethnic groups in Africa. American Journal of Political Science. Online publica- tion. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12835 Nadolishnii, P. 1999. Building a New System of Governance in Ukraine: Ethno-National Aspect. Kyiv– Odesa, UADU–Astro-Print. (in Ukrainian) Németh, Á. 2019. A diverzitási indexek alaptípusai és alkalmazási lehetőségei az etnicitáskutatásban (Basic types of diversity indices and their applica- tions in ethnicity research). Tér és Társadalom 33. (2): 130–148. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.2.3123 On Approval of the Methodology of Forming Capable Territorial Communities. Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 8 April 2015. No. 214. https:// zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/214-2015-%D0%B- F#n10 (in Ukrainian) On Voluntary Amalgamation of Territorial Communities. Law of Ukraine of 5 February 2015. No. 157-VIII. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/157-19 (in Ukrainian) Osoian, I., Sirodoev, I., Veverita, E. and Prohnițchi, V. 2010. Analytical study on optimal administrative-ter- ritorial structure for the Republic of Moldova. Chișinău, Expert-Grup Centru Analitic Independent. Savchuk, I. 2020. New administrative and territorial division of Ukraine – New challenge for national interest. National Interest 1. (1): 37–45. Skliarska, O.I. 2021. Reform of the administrative system of Ukraine in the context of influence on the status and functions of settlements. Scientific Notes of Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University. Series Geography 1. (50): 57–64. (in Ukrainian) https:// doi.org/10.25128/2519-4577.21.1.7 Skliarska, O.I. 2022. Rural settlement as a factor of administrative-territorial changes (on the example of Zakarpattia and Chernivtsi oblasts). Man and the Environment. Problems of Neo-ecology 38. 20–28. https:// doi.org/10.26565/1992-4224-2022-38-02 (in Ukrainian) Skryzhevska, Y. and Karácsonyi, D. 2012. Rural popula- tion in Ukraine: Assessing reality, looking for revital- ization. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 61. (1): 49–78. Szilágyi, F. 2010. Az új román területi közigazgatás lehetséges elvi alapjai (Possible principles for a new Romanian territorial administration). Magyar Kisebbség 15. (3–4): 225–246. Van der Wusten, H. 2015. Imagined communities and practiced geopolitics. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64. (4): 281–291. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeob- ull.64.4.2 Zablotskyi, V. 2021. Ethno-national aspects of adminis- trative and territorial reform in Ukraine at the regional and local levels. Scientific Perspectives 5. 73–84. (in Ukrainian) Zastavetska, L.B. 2013. Settlement Systems and Geospatial Problems of Improving the Administrative and Territorial Structure of Ukraine. Monograph. Ternopil, V. Hnatiuk TNPU. (in Ukrainian) Additional online sources: books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ukraine&- y e a r _ s t a r t = 1 9 8 0 & y e a r _ e n d = 2 0 1 9 & c o r - pus=en-2019&smoothing=0. Access date: 20.04.2024. pop-stat.mashke.org/ukraine-census-2001-lang/total. htm. Access date: 26.03.2024. www.kmu.gov.ua/reformi/efektivne-vryaduvann- ya/reforma-decentralizaciyi (2020). Access date: 17.09.2024. (in Ukrainian) https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.4.4 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.4.4 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.63.2.1 https://doi.org/10.4467/24512249JG.17.019.6635 https://doi.org/10.4467/24512249JG.17.019.6635 https://doi.org/10.15421/152235 https://doi.org/10.15421/152235 https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.17.4.920 https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.17.4.920 http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?Z21ID=&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=fullwebr&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=A=&S21COLORTERMS=1&S21STR=%D0%9C%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%94%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%95$ file:///C:\Users\tanar\Downloads\:\www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua\cgi-bin\irbis_nbuv\cgiirbis_64.exe%3fZ21ID=&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=JUU_all&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=IJ=&S21COLORTERMS=1&S21STR=%25D0%259673731 file:///C:\Users\tanar\Downloads\:\www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua\cgi-bin\irbis_nbuv\cgiirbis_64.exe%3fZ21ID=&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=JUU_all&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=IJ=&S21COLORTERMS=1&S21STR=%25D0%259673731 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12835 https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.2.3123 https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/157-19t https://doi.org/10.25128/2519-4577.21.1.7 https://doi.org/10.25128/2519-4577.21.1.7 https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=uk&user=h9EFpHIAAAAJ&citation_for_view=h9EFpHIAAAAJ:KlAtU1dfN6UC https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=uk&user=h9EFpHIAAAAJ&citation_for_view=h9EFpHIAAAAJ:KlAtU1dfN6UC https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=uk&user=h9EFpHIAAAAJ&citation_for_view=h9EFpHIAAAAJ:KlAtU1dfN6UC https://doi.org/10.26565/1992-4224-2022-38-02 https://doi.org/10.26565/1992-4224-2022-38-02 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.64.4.2 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.64.4.2 http://perspectives.pp.ua/index.php/np/article/download/236/238 http://perspectives.pp.ua/index.php/np/article/download/236/238 http://perspectives.pp.ua/index.php/np/article/download/236/238 https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=uk&user=Q6E42JcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Q6E42JcAAAAJ:4DMP91E08xMC https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=uk&user=Q6E42JcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Q6E42JcAAAAJ:4DMP91E08xMC https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=uk&user=Q6E42JcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Q6E42JcAAAAJ:4DMP91E08xMC https://scholar.google.com.ua/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=uk&user=Q6E42JcAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Q6E42JcAAAAJ:4DMP91E08xMC HUNGARIAN GEOGRAPHICAL BULLETIN Vol 73 issue 4 (2024) Myroslav DNISTRIANSKYI; József MOLNÁR; Nataliya DNISTRIANSKA; István MOLNÁR D.: New realities of the administrative-territorial structure of Ukraine and areas of ethnic minorities’ settlement: Geographical correlations and social consequences. pp. 395-412