1. Introduction According to scholars studying rural areas, their di- versity and directions of changes on the one hand come from: (a) current historical conditions of devel- opment, (b) current agricultural policy, (c) adopted strategies for prospective transformations of rural areas, on the other hand – multi-dimensional en- vironmental, social and economic conditions (e.g. Bański, 2014; Knapik, Kowalska, 2014; Runge, 2017). The last thirty years emphasized various problems in these areas, which require external financing and development of appropriate programmes. For this reason, the process of revitalization consisting of various remedial actions, taken in various aspects, is becoming crucial for rural space as the main goal of regional and local policies. Revitalization of rural areas is composed of spatial, technical, social and economic changes. Its goal is to “resurrect” those villages that suffered from stagna- tion, economic degradation or the loss of their func- tions due to political, social and economic changes. Revitalization projects stimulate local communities to rebuild their social and economic potential. Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2019, 9(2), 44–56 https://doi.org/10.26881/jpgs.2019.2.05 ClaSSIfICatIon of rural areaS In Poland In the Context of revItalIzatIon Ewa Pałka-Łebek (1), Iwona Kiniorska (2) (1) Institute of Geography, Jan Kochanowski University, Świętokrzyska 15, 25–406 Poland, ORCID: 0000-0003-1733-9046 e-mail: ewa.palka@ujk.edu.pl (corresponding author) (2) Institute of Geography, Jan Kochanowski University, Świętokrzyska 15, 25–406 Poland, ORCID: 0000-0001-5630-4554 e-mail: iwona.kiniorska@ujk.edu.pl Citation Pałka-Łebek E., Kiniorska I., 2019, Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 9(2), 44–56. abstract The article aims to show the classification of Polish rural areas in the context of revitalization process. This work shows the research making in Polish rural areas concerning this new, important process. Taking experiences from development of rural regions in European Union self-government created the programs called “Revival of the country” and revitalization. These are the most important and the largest regional enterprises implemented by the rural society and also for rural society. It had favorable influence on the preservation and development of the rural identity and integrity at their full range. Nowadays the revitalization process is very important factor of versatile rural economy development. Key words rural areas, revitalization, problem areas, classification received: 20 February 2019 accepted: 31 May 2019 Published: 30 June 2019 Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization 45 This paper aims at supplementing insufficient studies on revitalization in rural areas. The problem discussed in this study is identification of revitali- zation as a method for development of rural areas. Revitalization is one of the biggest challenges for rural areas in Poland. Nowadays, it is undertaken by numerous gminas (LAU-2) to eliminate obstacles preventing or slowing down their development. Degraded area is such a hindering element. The process discussed in this paper, focused on solving different problems is one of the most important tasks financed with the EU funds for the period of 2014–2020. Revitalization of rural areas meets the needs to respond to social, economic and spatial degradation and the resulting crisis phenomena. The subject of the study is revitalization of rural areas. The object of the study is the society (population) changing their space with this process. Spatially, the subject of the study covers problem areas in rural areas. The main goal is to identify revitalization in rural areas with their various categories taken into account. The study classifies the studied areas due to the need for introduction of this process. Based on the analysis of the literature and the authors’ own experience, the thesis has it that rural areas in Poland are not homog- enous due to different previously developed socio- economic functions. Therefore, their characteristic features include a variety of problems to solve, also with revitalization. The results may be practically used by local gov- ernments, NGOs, rural leaders or entrepreneurs since they provide information on ongoing revitalization processes, which may facilitate planning of develop- ment of the areas in question. The main method of scientific research on revi- talization in Poland is the analysis of theoretical and cognitive content. In order to solve the problem of this study, the authors used mainly scientific litera- ture, with reviews of Polish and foreign publications. Moreover, territorial classification of rural areas was also used. 2. revitalization of rural areas in scholarly studies The works addressing the issue of revitalization evolved over time. Initially, they only documented and evaluated the effects of revitalization pro- grammes in various regions. Recently, papers with theses and research questions related to revitaliza- tion have appeared. Moreover, practical revitaliza- tion also changed over time and referred to the evolution of its programmes, goals, activities and policies. As many authors prove and experience shows, each revitalization leads to spatial and func- tional changes of the revitalized area, which results in its socio-economic development, improvement of spatial order, aesthetics and functionality, as well as elimination of pathological phenomena (Kaczmarek, 2015; Parysek, 2006, 2015; Lorens, 2007). Contempo- rary Polish scholarly studies emphasize strongly de- veloped social element. This is crucial since it is the man who is in the centre of all initiated revitalization projects. When assessing the works on revitalization fo- cused on rural areas from the Polish literature, it should be emphasized that initially authors focused on general and cognitive issues, and later discussed results, consequences and problems of revitalization. In Europe, the first scholarly discussions on revi- talization of rural areas appeared with the first pa- pers on village revival. First it appeared in Germany in the early 1960s and in the Netherlands (Renew- al…, 1966; Röling, 1993). As a component of rural policy, revitalization in Germany has the longest tradition among European countries. That is why German publications provide the most knowledge concerning revitalization of rural areas. Following the literature, it was assumed that revitalization in this country is a comprehensive organizational and investment process, ultimately leading to a revival of degraded, neglected or dysfunctional areas (Strijker, 1993). It refers mainly to reversing unfavourable pro- cesses that systematically lead to the fall and degra- dation of these areas. The first German scholar who showed the impor- tance of revitalization and renewal of villages was G. Henkel (1979). In his later studies (Henkel, 1984, 2000), he emphasized the spatial aspect and proved that village centres as separate spaces (the so-called village cores) are public spaces where interpersonal interactions of residents are concentrated. In the literature, there were works regarding harmful results of actions following the moderniza- tion paradigm for rural areas (Gulinck et al., 2001). This led to the transfer of patterns for urban devel- opment to rural areas (Knievel, 1997). In 1990s in Germany a new wave of studies on re- vitalization of rural areas appeared. The emergence and development of new non-agricultural functions was an important issue discussed in the studies (e.g. Böcher, 2014). The sources of these changes were attributed with the urgent need to adjust the rural economy of that times to the applicable develop- ment requirements. After the German unification, while implementing revitalization projects there were efforts to introduce non-agricultural func- tions to villages. The emergence of new functions 46 Ewa Pałka-Łebek, Iwona Kiniorska in rural areas shaped the economic dimension of their revitalization and led to their multifunctional development. The turn of the 20th and 21st century brought social focus in German studies. The role of social aspects of revitalization increased significantly, and they also focused on local society and its role in this process (e.g. Marsden, 1999; Crouch, 2006; Halfacree, 2012). Gradually, scholars emphasized its compre- hensive character in the form of a specific activities programme, and they also began to appreciate the role of social participation and social capital (Magel, 2000; White, 2011). Therefore, revitalization began to be understood as a specific model of division of tasks between the state authority and society (Da- myanovic, Reinwald, 2014). Since the early 1990s, the development of rural areas, which is affected by local communities, has come into sharp focus in Western Europe and the United States of America (Hamedinger, 2004). It was suggested that revitalization cannot focus only on economic effects, but it must also take into account community revival, which is the primary resource for rural areas (e.g. Henderson et al., 2007; Zagrofos, 2007). Instead of currently widespread studies of changes in the spatial and functional structure of rural areas, the contemporary literature, mainly Brit- ish and American, emphasises the importance of social studies on rural areas. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the revitalization model adopted in the West justifies subcontracting this process to specialized companies, which is typical to Western Europe, the US and Canada (Roberts, Sykes, 2008; Kort, Klijn, 2011). In Poland, such practices have not been adopted yet, and there are no entities offering such services. Presently, revitalization has already been dis- cussed as a problem of transformation and develop- ment of rural areas (Woods, 2005). Despite its mainly practical nature, it is the subject of numerous schol- arly works. It was analysed mainly in European coun- tries, but also in the United States, Canada, Japan, China, Hong Kong and Australia. Currently, in Poland there are great expectations associated with the adaptation of patterns and ex- perience from Western European countries where the development of rural areas followed the para- digm of revitalization using revival programmes for villages. 3. Genesis of revitalization processes of rural areas Revitalization in rural areas was proposed as a mod- ern concept of their development, related to de- graded areas. It refers to areas where negative social, economic, ecological and spatial phenomena occur simultaneously. According to M.S. Cato (2009), prop- erly implemented revitalization has an integrated character and includes comprehensive processes carried out in partnerships, revival oriented, bind- ing together both technical activities and projects boosting socio-economic recovery. Presently, it is not possible to preserve all tangible and intangi- ble resources of rural areas without revitalization. Moreover, specific nature of developed public space strengthens the identity of residents, making the en- tire community stronger. In theoretical publications and statistical sources, there is no single, commonly used definition of re- vitalization. It refers to areas which were previously used and fulfilled specific functions; however, due to poor management they were neglected, lost their values, and presently constitute so-called problem areas. Problem area, a part of geographical space, is characterised by negative social, economic and technical phenomena, that cause specific anomalies of development and abnormality of a particular area (Zagożdżon, 1980). Presently, the binding definition of revitaliza- tion in Poland was stipulated in the Act of the Pol- ish Parliament on Revitalization of October 9, 2015 (Ustawa o rewitalizacji z 9 października 2015, 2015). It is described as “complex, coordinated, long-term process of spatial, social, economic and technical transformations carried out in a degraded area, initi- ated by a local government in order to bring it out of a crisis, mainly by providing it with new functional quality and creating conditions for its development, based on its characteristic endogenous conditions”. According to this approach, the implementation of revitalization programmes for rural areas aims at preventing further loss of socio-economic functions and creating opportunities for their sustainable de- velopment. Numerous definitions of this process were developed for various strategic and operation- al documents. In Poland, the term “revitalization” started to be commonly used in mid-1990s. However, even now this term seems to be overused or misused. Another important issue is the fact that revitaliza- tion is a response to the crisis in problem rural areas, which occurs in many aspects of socio-economic life. It is also important to define transparent crite- ria for delimitation of degraded rural areas where Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization 47 revitalization takes place. It must include actions with many interrelated elements in problem areas. It should also recognise a variety of primary and specific goals of revitalization in rural areas (tab.1). The implementation of specific and primary goals of revitalization is a necessary condition for achieving the main goal, i.e. to introduce permanent quantitative changes in the area covered by the re- vitalization programme (i.e. improvement of living conditions of the local population). 4. the idea and criteria defining rural areas The transformation processes of rural areas in Po- land were introduced several years ago, but many problems have not been solved yet (Kamińska, Pałka, 2009). There are various negative phenomena in these areas. Traditionally, rural areas were identi- fied with agricultural activities. Since the turn of the 21st century, the scope of studies devoted to rural areas has changed. It was focused on analysing re- lationship between agriculture and development of rural areas (Zegar, 2012). In Polish and European literature there are numerous publications on his- torical changeability of the role of agriculture and transformations in rural areas. In the current literature there is a clear devision between rural areas and villages (Runge, 2017). While villages are settlement units, rural areas belong to a broader concept, covering both villages and their surroundings (Stanny, 2014a). Changing external conditions of rural areas often connect their defini- tion to this external context and their relationship to neighbouring urban centres (Runge, 2017). This is how rural areas are defined by M. Stanny (2014a), who proves that it is the place of residence and management of people forming a local community, where, compared to cities: (a) both social and eco- nomic activity (agricultural in particular) is spatially dispersed; (b) less diversified social and economic structures result from their lower competitiveness; (c) the availability of goods and services, especially public ones, is lower. Presently, the concept of “rural area” no longer means the whole vast territory, and is understood as a separate space distinguished due to its specific feature. Villages are usually treated as specific settlement units, while rural areas include the territory of villages and their neighbouring ar- eas. According to J. Bański (2011), definitions of rural areas have undergone historical changes and they require some flexibility. Typically, they are agricultur- al areas with an emphasis on human economic activ- ity, characteristic of agricultural regions (Kutkowska, 2011). With socio-economic transformations in rural areas in mind, their definition should take into ac- count not only diversification of functional structure of the economy of rural areas, but also features of ru- ral communities (Rosner (ed.), 2007). These features are usually taken into consideration in definitions of rural areas developed by sociologists (e.g. Kaleta, 1998). An important methodological elements of stud- ies on rural areas is the possibility to conceptualise issues addressed with the use of a specific explana- tory theory (Mazurek, 2010). A review of contem- porary literature on rural areas shows numerous references to the concept of multi-functionality as Tab.1. Primary and specific goals of revitalization in rural areas Primary goals Specific goals – selected examples Economic – stimulation of economic development of rural areas with setting up and developing small, local companies and attracting external investors – decreasing unemployment rate – higher tax revenues of gminas Social – better standards of living for citizens – neutralising social exclusion and negative social selection – improved demographic situation – high level of public safety – restoration of social ties Environmental – limited interference in the natural environment – maintenance or improving of natural environmental conditions – larger green areas – reduced emissions of waste Spatial – integration with previously isolated rural areas – maintenance or improving of spatial order – shaped landscape of rural areas – expansion of infrastructure Source: elaboration based on Pałka-Łebek (2019). 48 Ewa Pałka-Łebek, Iwona Kiniorska the way leading to sustainable development of ru- ral areas (e.g. Kostrowicki, 1976; Kłodziński, 1996; Korelewski, 1998; Adamowicz, 2004; Runge, 2017). However, it should be noted that this concept, de- veloped in Western European countries at the begin- ning of the 20th century, aroused interest in Poland in the 1980s, and following the transformation of po- litical and economic system it is enjoying its revival (Runge, 2017). Together with the concepts of order (social, economic and spatial), renovation of rural areas and small towns, development based on local initiatives and boosting development of local com- munities, it creates a set of so-called old concepts of development of rural areas (Siemiński, 1996). 5. Problems of rural areas Problem areas are an integral part of geographical space. They are formed, in rural areas, with those parts of the country or region with high concentra- tion of numerous negative phenomena that make the area handicapped and weaken their agricultural and non-agricultural functions. In many scholarly studies on problem areas in rural areas, terms are used interchangeably and they include the follow- ing examples: backward areas, retarded areas, pe- ripheral areas, depressed areas, neglected areas, and declining areas. Sometimes, they are used as synonyms for “problem areas”. This terminological freedom may cause serious confusions. In foreign lit- erature, conceptual differences concerning the term “problem areas” and its derivatives (e.g. depressed areas, distressed areas, problem areas, etc.) are as wide as in Polish studies. According to Z. Więckowicz (1989) the problem area is a part of geographical space characterized by specific anomalies of its development. The de- velopment of these areas is accompanied by certain anomalies with a negative impact on the entire area. This condition creates certain problems, which un- fortunately cannot be solved with internal forces alone as they require external intervention. Specializing in rural research, R. Kulikowski (1992) divided problem areas into two separate groups. These are: • depressive areas, underdeveloped in comparison to surrounding areas, with similar environmen- tal and non-environmental development condi- tions; • conflict areas, with concentration of numerous economic functions (e.g. agriculture, industry, transportation, etc.), where one function devel- ops at the expense of others. Many geographers and specialists in agricultural sciences have attempted to define an agricultural problem area. J. Falkowski (1990) noted that it is characterized by low efficiency of its agriculture in relation to its natural, historical and economic condi- tions as well as investments in fixed and current as- sets of agriculture. J. Bański (1999) closely focused on the territory of Poland to verify previously identified problem areas in rural areas. The author also attempted to develop appropriate criteria and methods for identifying ag- ricultural problem areas. Based on his comprehen- sive review of the literature, he assumed that the problem area is a spatial unit characterized by some abnormality of one or many elements of this space. The problem area is characterized by concentration of negative phenomena that hinder its proper devel- opment (Bański, 2000). A. Rosner (2000) separated rural problem areas in Poland. The author proved the thesis that funds from various sources aimed at stimulating socio-econom- ic development and improving living conditions of the rural population, were transferred mainly to the most active gminas, where local governments were able to prepare realistic and well-founded applica- tions. The analysis carried out by A. Rosner (2000) showed that there are three dominant types of prob- lem gminas in rural areas in Poland. These are: 1. Gminas with extremely unfavourable develop- ment conditions in many respects. 2. Gminas with extremely unfavourable conditions determined by their demography and infrastruc- ture. 3. Gminas with extremely unfavourable conditions; however, they are mainly determined by their de- mography and the factor related to the state of natural environment. The author noted that problem rural areas should be privileged and receive the access to funds for equali- sation of regional economic development earlier. Comprehensive studies on agricultural problem areas in Poland were also published by J. Jadczyszyn and A. Rosner (2013). The authors attempted to de- scribe the socio-economic characteristics of areas with features preventing development of their ag- ricultural function. Analysis of the results showed that a large part of agricultural problem areas are composed of areas with socio-economic underde- velopment and poor dynamics of current changes. This applies primarily to lowland areas. On the other hand, in terms of agricultural function problem areas in mountain and foothill areas are characterized by relatively high dynamics and pace of socio-econom- ic development. However, in these areas agricultural activity is limited or replaced by other functions, Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization 49 including tourist function. The results showed that Polish gminas with no restrictions for the develop- ment of agriculture constitute 62.2% of all units, and problematic 37.8%. An attempt to identify peripheral rural areas in Poland and to group them according to the simi- larity of their socio-economic characteristics was made by M. Stanny (2014b). The author defined the level of socio-economic development using six different spheres, which were described with the chosen variables. These were the spheres of: demo- graphic structure, social situation, labour market, de-agrarization, agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. Such selection of indicators was made to reflect the most important problems of the regional structure of villages in Poland. The distribution of synthetic measure obtained in Polish rural space showed that rural areas in western Poland are bet- ter developed than in eastern regions. The leading, territorially spacious region, highly developed is Wielkopolska and the neighbouring regions: the central part of Lubuskie Voivodeship, northern part of Dolnośląskie Voivodeship and south-western part of Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship. On the other hand, poorly developed gminas, classified as periph- eral areas, prevail in eastern Poland and they include the following voivodeships: Podlaskie, Lubelskie, Świętokrzyskie, Małopolskie, Warmińsko-Mazurskie and Mazowieckie. They occupy compact spaces. However, in western Poland units with low levels of development are located point-wise. Based on the indicators of socio-economic development adopted by the author, using the taxonomic method, gminas were grouped into typologically homogeneous pe- ripheral areas (fig. 1). This procedure produced three types of problem areas in Poland: 1, 2, 3. The types identified by the author are diversified (heterogene- ous) and internally consistent (homogeneous): • Type 1 gminas (so-called “eastern type”) are con- centrated in eastern Poland (Podlaskie Voivode- Fig. 1. Typology of peripheral rural areas in Poland in 2009, non-hierarchical method Source: M. Stanny (2011), amended. 50 Ewa Pałka-Łebek, Iwona Kiniorska ship, Lubelskie Voivodeships, subregional zones of Mazowieckie, Świętokrzyskie, and Łódzkie Voivodeships) and they cover almost half of all gminas classified as peripheral rural areas in Po- land. • Type 2 gminas are located mainly in Podkarpacie and in the region of the former Central Industrial District (Pl. Centralny Okręg Przemysłowy). They were called „southern type”. • Type 3 peripheral gminas of so-called „northern type” were named as post-state-owned farms. The functional models of peripheral rural areas de- scribed by M. Stanny (2014b) are a successful at- tempt to group them according to the similarity of socio-economic features. J. Bański (2014) presented an overview of con- temporary typologies of rural areas in Poland. The concepts of typology of rural areas discussed by the author were based on two basic research approach- es, i.e. location or structural. The classification proce- dure was applied by the author for rural areas. These areas were divided into smaller groups, which is jus- tified in terms of financial perspective of 2014–2020, where the distribution of funds depends also on the type of rural area. Functional classification of Polish gminas was carried out by P. Śleszyński and T. Komornicki (2016). They made it for monitoring of spatial planning in gminas. For this purpose, they applied a deductive- inductive method, the so-called functional typology. As a result, 10 categories (types) of gminas were iden- tified, which the authors presented cartographically. Majority of Polish gminas were classified as agricul- tural types (approx. 47%). Over 10% of units showed extensive development. Environmental protection functions play a major role in these gminas. Among all other types, the most numerous is the group of gminas with other functions (e.g. tourist) (Śleszyński, Komornicki, 2016; fig. 2, p. 480). Functional classifi- cation presented by the authors is a good reference point both for spatial monitoring and other applica- tions related to the analysis of socio-economic pro- cesses. The proposed classification gave the oppor- tunity to identify spatial regularities. The review of the distribution of problem ar- eas developed for this study shows that due to the socio-economic structure there are strongly het- erogeneous units in Polish rural areas. Therefore, their development problems differ. Moreover, this development cannot follow a commonly adopted model, as this could lead to even greater diversifica- tion. Generally, it is necessary to implement regional and local development policies, taking into account separate, original, local features and with greater in- volvement of local communities and authorities. Following the review, the definition of problem areas was adjusted to the goal of the study. Thus, problem areas in rural areas are composed of those regions (i.e. parts of rural space) with difficult prob- lems of social, economic, technical, environmental or spatial nature. They are the cause of various devel- opment anomalies. Problem areas understood this way create systems with pathological features, the development of which is accompanied by various irregularities that negatively affect the whole ter- ritory. Elimination of these negative features is not possible only using internal forces, but it requires specific revitalization measures. 6. Classification of rural areas in terms of their revitalization Territorial classification is one of the key elements of socio-economic geography. As a result, its sig- nificance as an applied science increases. Various approaches to classification and typology of rural areas may be found in the literature (both Polish and foreign). A thorough review and assessment of the methodological background of contemporary typol- ogies of rural areas in Poland was made by J. Bański (2014). The author wrote that the most important is- sue taken into account while choosing typology and classification methods is their goal. The attempt to classify rural areas in terms of their revitalization in this subsection follows the structur- al approach. It includes the most important features distinguishing the contemporary nature of rural ar- eas in Poland, their economic functions, as well as the need to solve various problems in risk areas. Classification is connected with generalization and concise description. It is used to extract sub- groups (subsets) in a specific group (set) of objects. It requires two main conditions, i.e. adequacy (i.e. the sum of subgroups (subsets) should equal the whole group (set)) and separability (i.e. subgroups (subsets) should not contain common elements) (Nowak, 2004). Thus, classification leads to the division of the whole group (set) of examined objects or units. J. Parysek (1982) also distinguished typological classification. It is understood as the best accepted variant of classification in a given study. In this study, areas which require revitalization are understood as geographically separated terri- tories with accumulated negative social, economic, spatial and natural phenomena, the solution of which requires special support. This fact seems to be justified since revitalization is a process aimed at boosting the development of problem areas. Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization 51 Research procedure presented later on in the paper focused on the classification of rural areas in terms of the need for their revitalization may be treated, from a procedural point of view, as its specif- ic type. The goal was to identify rural areas in Poland with a diversified need for revitalization. Three sepa- rate groups of rural areas were identified in terms of the need to undertake the above mentioned pro- cesses (tab. 2). These are: 1. Regions which require the most urgent revitaliza- tion. 2. Regions which require moderate revitalization. 3. Remaining regions where revitalization comple- ments other processes aimed at solving prob- lems in degraded rural areas. The first group according to the need for revital- ization is composed of: A. Rural areas which require the most urgent revitalization. The first group of rural areas includes those areas where due to the accumulation of problems there is a need for the most urgent revitalization (the most degraded areas). It includes those rural areas with numerous development barriers, i.e. those with si- multaneous accumulation of numerous negative Tab. 2. Classification of rural areas in Poland according to the need for revitalization No. Groups of rural areas Distinguishing features of rural areas Location 1. Regions which require the most urgent revi- talization. • regions where gminas with extremely unfavourable conditions determined by de- mographic and infrastructural factors (type 1 according to Rosner) form compact spaces, • peripheral gminas (included in eastern and southern problem areas) forming coherent and continuous groups of units, • problem areas of national significance, • gminas not participating in development processes and areas located away from functional urban areas, • underdeveloped areas, • highly agricultural regions, with dominating agricultural functions or with tourist and recreational functions. • voivodeships: • Warmińsko-Mazurskie, • Podlaskie, • Lubelskie, • Świętokrzyskie, • Podkarpackie, • eastern part of Mazowieckie (i.e. the fol- lowing poviats: Pułtusk, Maków Mazow- iecki and Ostrołęka), • eastern part of Małopolskie (i.e. the following poviats: Dąbrowa Tarnowska, Tarnów, Brzesko, Gorlice, Nowy Sącz). 2. Regions which require moderate revitalization. • problem areas of inter-voivodeship signifi- cance, • underdeveloped areas, • peripheral gminas (included in southern and partly northern problem areas), • areas with high percentage of gminas with extremely unfavourable development con- ditions defined by factors of various nature, • regions with high percentage of gminas classified as lowland and mountain problem agricultural areas, • gminas not participating in development processes, • areas with dominating agricultural func- tions, with mixed functions and multifunc- tional transitional areas, • areas of degraded space for agricultural production conditioning development abnormalities. • central part of Pomorze region (Pomera- nia), • southern part of Mazowieckie Voivod- ship (i.e. the following poviats: Lipsko, Zwoleń, Szydłowiec, Radom, Kozienice, Przysucha), • rural areas in Górny Śląsk region (Upper Silesia), • southwestern part of Małopolskie Voivodeship (i.e. the following poviats: Limanowa, Nowy Targ, Zakopane and Sucha Beskidzka), • western part of Dolnośląskie Voivode- ship, • southern part of Lubuskie Voivodeship, • south-eastern part of Łódzkie Voivode- ship (i.e. the following poviats: Opoczno, Tomaszów Mazowiecki, Piotrków Trybu- nalski and Radomsko). 3. Remaining regions where revitalization complements other processes aimed at solving problems in degraded rural areas. • areas where it is possible to identify de- graded areas locally, • areas where it is advisable to solve existing problems, e.g. with revitalization. • other rural areas in Poland, except for those included in the first and second groups. Source: authors’ own elaborations. 52 Ewa Pałka-Łebek, Iwona Kiniorska phenomena hindering proper development. Their most distinctive features are the most unfavour- able demographic and social processes in Poland. There are abnormalities of elements of their space, and underdeveloped areas form compact spaces. In the eastern part of such a region, the percentage of gminas with extremely unfavourable conditions de- termined by demographic, social and infrastructural factors is very low. Accumulated problems in areas which require the most urgent revitalization make them lagging behind other areas. These are spatial underdevelopments in terms of dynamics of chang- es taking place, with insignificant own development potential, which require special management and appropriate development policy. The characteristics of rural areas from the first group include also a very low level of economic, social and territorial cohesion. Solving negative phenomena accumulated here re- quires intervention by local authorities and financ- ing from external sources. Rural areas in Poland from the first group should be first to receive revitalization funds, and the implementation of projects aimed at this problem may bring numerous benefits. Revital- ization projects should contribute to reducing de- velopmental backwardness (underdevelopment). They include: • regions where gminas with extremely unfavour- able conditions determined by demographic and infrastructural factors (type 1 according to A. Ros- ner, 2007) form compact spaces, • peripheral gminas (included in eastern and south- ern problem areas – M. Stanny, 2014b) forming coherent and continuous groups of units, • problem areas of national significance (according to T. Komornicki and P. Śleszyński, 2009), • gminas not participating in development pro- cesses and areas located away from functional urban areas (Bański, 2014), • underdeveloped areas, • highly agricultural regions, with dominating agri- cultural functions or with tourist and recreational functions (Bański, 2016). These are the most visible and complicated agri- cultural problem areas in Poland where pathologi- cal areas (i.e. those where their underdevelopment (backwardness) is so deep that farms deriving their income only from agriculture have no chances for de- velopment without external support) form compact spaces. They cover north-eastern, south-eastern and eastern parts of the Carpathian region and north- western functional region of Polish rural areas. They include the following voivodeships: Warmińsko- Mazurskie, Podlaskie, Lubelskie, Świętokrzyskie, Podkarpackie and the eastern part of Mazowieckie as well as the eastern part of Małopolskie (tab. 2). The identified rural areas from the first group are extremely economically and socially incoherent. This is reflected in the lowest economic indices in Poland and the European Union. These areas require special development policies as they constitute the most significant problem areas in Poland. It is necessary to introduce revitalization as soon as possible to neu- tralize negative problems in degraded rural areas. These regions should be the first to receive support and preferences in the form of funds for develop- ment and equalization of economic development. However, due to long-lasting underdevelopment solutions to various problems in these regions can- not be fully provided quickly. The first group of rural areas includes those areas where due to the accumulation of problems of vari- ous background there is a need for the most urgent revitalization (the most degraded areas). Therefore, revitalization can contribute to reducing their un- derdevelopment (backwardness). The second group according to the need for revi- talization is composed of: B. Rural areas which require the most urgent revitalization. This group of rural areas includes those regions where due to existing problems of various nature there is a moderate need for revitalization. It is com- posed of areas with unfavourable development con- ditions, mainly in social and spatial terms. They include: • problem areas of inter-voivodeship significance (according to T. Komornicki and P. Śleszyński, 2009), • underdeveloped areas, • peripheral gminas (included in southern and partly northern problem areas according to M. Stanny, 2014b), • areas with high percentage of gminas with ex- tremely unfavourable development conditions defined by factors of various nature (A. Rosner, 2007), • regions with high percentage of gminas classi- fied as lowland and mountain problem agricul- tural areas (J. Jadczyszyn, A. Rosner, 2013), • gminas not participating in development pro- cesses (according to J. Bański, 2014), • areas with dominating agricultural functions, with mixed functions and multifunctional transi- tional areas (after J. Bański, 2016), • areas of degraded space for agricultural produc- tion conditioning development abnormalities. They include: the central part of Pomorze region (Pomerania), southern part of Mazowieckie Voivode- ship, rural areas in Górny Śląsk (Upper Silesia), south- western part of Małopolskie Voivodeship, western Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization 53 part of Dolnośląskie Voivodeship, southern part of Lubuskie Voivodeship, south-eastern part of Łódzkie Voivodeship (tab. 2). They cover the central part of the north-western functional region of rural areas, central part of the central region, Wyżyna Śląska (Silesian Upland) re- gion, western part of Karpaty (Carpathian) region and south-western part of Sudety (Sudeten) and Wielkopolska and Śląsk (Greater Poland and Silesia) regions. The above-mentioned group of rural areas in- cludes areas where it is advisable to initiate revitali- zation processes due to various problems existing there. This fact may contribute to their development progress. Within the borders of rural areas, included in two groups of regions mentioned above, there are units classified by M. Stanny (2012) as gminas with low and medium level of socio-economic develop- ment (see Stanny, 2012; p. 111). The third group according to the need for revitali- zation is composed of: C. Remaining regions where revitalization comple- ments other processes aimed at solving problems in degraded rural areas. They are composed of remaining rural areas in Poland, except for those included in the first and second groups. These include better developed ar- eas. Although they do not form problematic, path- ological agricultural areas or areas with extremely unfavourable development conditions (determined by factors of various nature) on the national scale, but locally it is possible to identify degraded areas. Therefore, in these areas it is advisable to solve exist- ing problems, e.g. with revitalization. The classification of rural areas in terms of re- vitalization prepared for this study requires some generalization. This is mainly due to the fact that the classification procedure itself is a kind of generaliza- tion. The second reason is the lack of source statisti- cal information in the resources of Statistics Poland regarding revitalization and problems in rural areas in particular gminas. The units developed for this study, due to diversified needs to initiate revitaliza- tion, differ between one another, i.e. they are hetero- geneous, but internally consistent (homogeneous). Areas classified to the first and second groups of ru- ral areas in Poland are particularly interesting. They are potential regions for implementing revitaliza- tion projects. They are introduced to areas of spatial and social degradation. In such areas revitalization should be introduced quickly in order to prevent degradation and negative changes from becoming irreversible. The results of theoretical considerations present- ed above show that in rural areas in Poland there are regions with diversified needs for revitalization. Of course, the boundaries between them are con- tractual, since it was assumed for greater simplicity that their problems are similar within entire admin- istrative units. Delimitation of regions in Poland with different needs for revitalization was carried out in a purely theoretical way. It is clear that regardless of possibilities and benefits of revitalization, the final result – whether it will be introduced and what ef- fects may be expected – depends on numerous dif- ferent factors. Each of the areas in the study with diversified needs for revitalization requires an individual ap- proach, and the transformation processes occur- ring there must be considered in relation to local conditions. 7. Summary and conclusions Nowadays, rural areas face processes of social, cul- tural, spatial and functional degradation and they occur continuously with varying intensity. For this reason, revitalization consisting of various remedial actions plays a significant role in shaping the space of rural areas. Its correct implementation is neces- sary for the proper development of these areas. Poland’s accession to the EU structures, and thus the possibility of using EU funds for various revi- talization projects, enabled gminas to develop local revitalization programmes, which were obligatory documents when applying for funding (subsidies). Acquiring money from European funds currently provide a great opportunity for further socio-eco- nomic development at local level. However, it is im- portant to remember that funds from the EU budget are not a ready solution guaranteeing stimulation of economic development in gminas. Their unfavour- able locations may as a result generate costs be- yond financial capacity. However, the proper use of European funds, taking into account current needs and financial capacity of particular gminas as well as long-term development plans, may directly boost their sustainable socio-economic development. Going beyond economic, sociological or spa- tial aspects of the interpretation of the concept of revitalization, it should be clearly underlined that it has an immensely broad meaning. It takes into ac- count not only the structure of the economy, vari- ous social conditions, a specific way of developing rural space, relationship with geographical environ- ment. Revitalization is an individual and original cat- egory that plays a large role in the social, economic, political and cultural life of rural areas. Associated 54 Ewa Pałka-Łebek, Iwona Kiniorska phenomena, which occur in rural areas in Poland, previously occurred in developed western countries. The complexity of revitalization manifests itself in its multidimensional (space, functions, society, economy, etc.) and multi-subject nature (local com- munity, non-governmental organizations, local gov- ernments, entrepreneurs, investors). The study proved that the thesis that rural areas in Poland are heterogeneous due to various previ- ously developed socio-economic functions is true. Therefore, their characteristic features include a vari- ety of problems to solve, also with revitalization. Without any doubts, a positive consequence of revitalization in rural areas is the fact that it pro- vides opportunities for economic, social and gen- eral development for inhabitants of degraded areas. Moreover, revitalization – by changing local con- ditions and improving the image of villages - can promote individual development of their residents. Therefore, problem areas may turn into develop- ment areas where various socio-economic problems will be solved. The actual benefits of revitalization processes, i.e. the activation and integration of resi- dents, preventing social exclusion, complemented by the effects of infrastructural projects, are signifi- cantly higher than their costs, time spent and work. Therefore, efforts to prepare suitable documents to initiate revitalization processes are reasonable and necessary. Its approval will provide external funds that are so important for local communities. Based on the what was discussed before, the fol- lowing conclusions may be drawn: 1. Revitalization of rural areas is not the goal itself, but it makes sense as it is integrated into all so- cio-economic projects and adjusted to key tasks. It provides peripheral areas with special opportu- nities for their development. 2. The examined process, due to the costs and dura- tion of its effects, is currently the most effective development-oriented activity integrating vari- ous development goals in rural areas. 3. Actions aimed at collecting funds for revitali- zation are particularly important at local level. Therefore, local authorities must initiate and de- velop partnerships to gather funds for revitaliza- tion. 4. Presently, revitalization plays an increasingly important role in shaping of rural space. It also affects the creation of social capital, which in- cludes, among others, knowledge, relationships, skills, interpersonal contacts, etc. references Adamowicz M., 2004, Wielofunkcyjne gospodarstwa rolne jako podmiot w rozwoju wsi i rolnictwa (Eng. Multifunc- tional farms as an entity in rural and agricultural devel- opment), [in:] M. Adamowicz (ed.), Wiejskie gospodarstwa domowe w obliczu problemów transformacji, integracji i globalizacji (Eng. Rural households facing the problems of transformation, integration and globalization), series: Prace Naukowe KPAiM, 33, Warszawa, 39–41. Bański J., 1999, Obszary problemowe w rolnictwie Polski (Eng. Problem areas in Polish agriculture), series: Prace Geo- graficzne IGiPZ PAN, 172, Warszawa. Bański J., 2000, Rolnicze obszary opóźnione w rozwoju (Eng. Agricultural areas lagging behind in economic develop- ment), Czasopismo Geograficzne, 71(1), 3–21. Bański J., 2011, Wieś w badaniach geograficznych – ewolucja badań i przegląd koncepcji obszaru wiejskiego (Eng. Vil- lage in geographical research – research evolution and review of rural area concept), [in:] M. Halamska (ed.), Wieś jako przedmiot badań naukowych (Eng. Village as an ob- ject of scientific research), EUROREG, Wydawnictwo Nau- kowe Scholar, Warszawa, 3–4. Bański J., 2014, Współczesne typologie obszarów wiejskich w Polsce – przegląd podejść metodologicznych (Eng. Contemporary typologies of rural areas in Poland – an overview of methodological approaches), Przegląd Geo- graficzny, 86(4), 441–470. doi: 10.7163/PrzG.2014.4.1 Bański J., 2016, Atlas obszarów wiejskich w Polsce (Eng. Rural atlas), IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa. Böcher M., 2014, Ländliche Entwicklung aktiv gestalten (Eng. Make rural development active), Byndesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL), Berlin. Cato M.S., 2009, Green Economics: An Introduction to Theory, Policy and Practice, Earthscan, London. Crouch D., 2006, Tourism, consumption and rurality, [in:] P.  Cloke, T. Marsden, P. Mooney (eds.), Handbook of rural studies, Sage, London, 355–364. Damyanovic D., Reiwald F., 2014, The „Comprehensive Vil- lage Renewal Programme in Burgerland” as a means of strengthening the social capital in rural areas, European Countryside, 6(1), 18–35. doi: 10.2478/euco-2014-0003 Falkowski J., 1990, Rolnicze obszary problemowe Polski (przy- czyna powstania, diagnoza stanu, kierunki przekształceń) (Eng. Agricultural problem areas of Poland (reason for emergence, diagnosis of the state, directions of transfor- mation)), [in:] R. Jedut (ed.), Obszary problemowe rolnictwa Polski ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem regionu lubelskiego (Eng. Problem areas of Polish agriculture with a particular focus in the Lublin region), UMCS-PTG, Lublin, 5–10. Gulinck H., Mugica M., de Lucio J.V., Atauri J.A., 2001, A frame- work for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Ma- drid region (Spain), Landscape and Urban Planning, 55(4), 257–270. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00159-1 Halfacree K., 2012, Diverse ruralities in the 21st century: From effacement to (re)invention, [in:] L.J. Kulcsar, K.J. Curtis (eds.), International Handbook of Rural Demography, In- Classification of rural areas in Poland in the context of revitalization 55 ternational Habdbooks of Population series, 3, Springer Netherlands, Boston, 387–400. Hamedinger A., 2004, Integrierte Stadterneuerungsstrat- egien in England und Deutschland (Eng. Integrated Ur- ban Renewal Strategies in England and Germany), Derive- Zeitschrift für Stadtforschung, Heft 17, Wien. Henderson S., Bowlby S., Raco M., 2007, Refashioning lo- cal government and inner-city regeneration: The Sal- ford experience, Urban Studies, 44(8), 1441–1463. doi: 10.1080/00420980701373495 Henkel G., 1979, Dorferneuerung: ein gesellschaftspolitischer Auftrag an die Wissenschaft, (Eng. Village renewal: a so- cio-political mission to science), Berichte zur Deutschen Landeskunde, 53(1), 49–59. Henkel G., 1984, Dorferneuerung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Eng. Village renewal in Federal Republic of Germany), Geographische Rundschau, 36, 170–176. Henkel G., 2000, Village renewal in German-Present and fu- ture of a successful program, Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft, supplement, 101–107. Jadczyszyn J., Rosner A., 2013, Próba charakterystyki społeczno-ekonomicznej obszarów o cechach niekor- zystnych dla rozwoju funkcji rolniczej (Eng. An attempt to assess the socio-economic characteristics of areas with features not favorable to development of the agricultural function), Wieś i Rolnictwo, 3(160), 77–94. Kaczmarek S., 2015, Skuteczność procesu rewitalizacji. Uwa- runkowania, mierniki, perspektywy (Eng. The effective- ness of Urban regeneration. Determinants, indices and perspectives), Studia Miejskie, 17, 27–36. Kaleta A., 1998, Obszar wiejski i koncepcje jego rozwoju (Eng. Rural areas and concepts for its development), [in:] Roz- wój obszarów wiejskich w perspektywie integracji z UE (Eng. Rural developmment in the perspective of integration with the EU), UMK, SGGW, Toruń, 79–94. Kamińska W., Pałka E., 2009, Obszary wiejskie jako przestrzeń wielofunkcyjna na przykładzie województwa świętokrzyskiego (Eng. Rural areas as multifunctional space on the example of the Świętokrzyskie Province), [in:] Współczesne procesy urbanizacji obszarów wiejskich (Eng. Contemporary processes of urbanization of rural areas), Instytut Geografii Uniwersytet Humanistyczno- Przyrodniczy Jana Kochanowskiego, Kielce, 111–124. Kłodziński M., 1996, Wielofunkcyjny rozwój terenów wiejskich w Polsce i krajach Unii Europejskiej (Eng. Multifunctional development of rural areas in Poland and European Union), Wyd. SGGW, Warszawa. Knapik W., Kowalska M., 2014, Zróżnicowanie obszarów wiejs- kich w Polsce na tle procesów społeczno-ekonomicznych i demograficznych (Eng. Diversification in the rural areas of Poland as against a background of socioeconomic and demographic processes), Problemy Drobnych Gospo- darstw Rolnych, 1, 37–54. Knievel M., 1997, Neue Lander-Neue Wege? Geistige Dorfent- wicklung in Sachsen: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit (Eng. New Lander-New Roads? Spiritual Village Development in Saxony: Demand and Reality), Munchener Geogra- phische Hefte, 75, 9–28. Komornicki T., Śleszyński P., 2009, Typologia obszarów wie- jskich pod względem powiązań funkcjonalnych i relacji miasto-wieś (Eng. Typology of rural areas in terms of functional connections and urban-rural relations), Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 16, 9–37. Korelewski J., 1976, Rozwój wielofunkcyjny jako koncepcja ak- tywizacji gospodarczej wsi i rolnictwa (Eng. Multifunctional development as a concept of economic activation of the countryside and agriculture), series: Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Rolniczej, 59, Kraków. Kort M., Klijn E.H., 2011, Public private partnerships in ur- ban renewal: organizational form or managerial capac- ity, Public Administration Review, 71(4), 618–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02393.x Kostrowicki J., 1976, Obszary wiejskie jako przestrzeń wielo- funkcyjna. Zagadnienia badawcze i planistyczne (Eng. Ru- ral areas as a multifunctional space. Research and planing issues), Przegląd Geograficzny, 48(4), 601–611. Kulikowski R., 1992, Obszary problemowe rolnictwa w Polsce (Eng. Problem areas of agriculture in Poland), Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 158, 23–40. Kutkowska B., 2011, Nowe spojrzenie na rozwój obszarów wie- jskich (Eng. A new look at rural development), [in:] IV Pol- ski Kongres Odnowy wsi. Odnowa wsi – opinie ekspertów (Eng. IV Congress of Village Renewal-expert opinions), Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Dolnośląskiego, Wrocław, 113–131. Lorens P., 2007, Rewitalizacja miast w Polsce, pierwsze doświadczenia (Eng. Revitalization of cities in Poland: first experiences), Towarzystwo Urbanistów Polskich, Warsza- wa. Magel H., 2000, Village renewal – Model for self-initiative and future orientation, Zeitschrift fur Kulturtechnik und Lan- dentwicklung, 41(6), 274–278. Marsden T., 1999, Rural futures: The consumption countryside and its regulation, Sociologia Ruralis, 39, 501–520. Mazurek J., 2010, Rozwój obszarów wiejskich w Polsce. Przegląd koncepcji teoretycznych (Eng. Rural development in Poland. Review of theoretical concepts), Politechnika Koszalińska, Koszalin. Nowak E., 2004, Metody klasyfikacji w badaniach geografic- znych (analiza porównawcza) (Eng. Classification methods in geographical research (comparative analysis)), Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Kielce-Poznań. Pałka-Łebek E., 2019, Rewitalizacja obszarów wiejskich – uwarunkowania, modele, konsekwencje (Eng. Rural re- generation – conditions, models, consequences), Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, Warszawa. Parysek J., 1982, Modele klasyfikacji w geografii (Eng. Classifi- cation models in geography), Uniwersytet im. A. Mickie- wicza w Poznaniu, Poznań. Parysek J., 2006, The post rebuilding and renewal of historic towns in Poland: Dillemas and problems, [in:] R.C.L. Go- nyales (ed.), Urban Changes in different scales: systems and structures, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, San- tiago de Compostela, 711–724. Parysek J., 2015, Rewitalizacja miast w Polsce: wczoraj, dziś i być może jutro (Eng. Urban renewal in Poland: yesterday, today, and perhaps tomorrow), Studia Miejskie, 17, 9–26. 56 Ewa Pałka-Łebek, Iwona Kiniorska Renewal of town and village, 1966, Innovation and Entrepre- neurship, ULA Congress, Belgrad 14-20 VI 1965, Inter- national Union of Local Authorieties, Springer Science, Netherlands, Belgium. Roberts P., Sykes J., 2008, Urban Regeneration: a handbook, Sage, London. Röling N., 1993, Agricultural Knowledge and Environmental Regulation in the Netherlands, Sociologia Ruralis, 33(2), 66–79. Rosner A. (ed.), 2007, Zróżnicowanie poziomu rozwoju społecz- no-gospodarczego obszarów wiejskich a zróżnicowanie dy- namiki przemian (Eng. Differentiation in the level of socio- economic development of rural areas and the diversity of change dynamics), IRWiR PAN, Warszawa. Rosner A., 2000, Wiejskie obszary problemowe w Polsce (Eng. Rural problem areas in Poland), Optimum Studia Ekonom- iczne, 2(6), 47–65. Runge J., 2017, Kierunki i konsekwencje przemian obszarów wiejskich w Polsce – próba uogólnienia (Eng. Directions and consequences of rural transformation in Poland-an attempt to generalize), [in:] K. Gasidło, A. Twardoch (eds.), Na wsi czyli gdzie? Architektura, środowisko, społeczeństwo, ekonomia współczesnej wsi (Eng. In the countryside or where? Architecture, environment, society, economy of modern countryside), Wyd. Politechniki Śląskiej, Gliwice, 60–69. Siemiński J.L., 1996, Koncepcje rozwoju obszarów wie- jskich w procesie transformacji ustrojowej Polski lat dziewięćdziesiątych, Wieś i rolnictwo w badaniach społeczno-ekonomicznych (Eng. Concepts of rural devel- opment in the process of political transformation of Po- land in the nineties. Countryside and agriculture in socio- economic research), IRWiR PAN, Warszawa. Stanny M., 2011, Typologia wiejskich obszarów peryfer- yjnych pod względem anatomii struktury społeczno- gospodarczej (Eng. Typology of rural peripheral areas in terms of anatomy of socio-economic structure), Wieś i Rolnictwo, 2(151), 59–73. Stanny M., 2012, Poziom rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego obszarów wiejskich w Polsce-pomiar zjawiska złożonego (Eng. The level of socio-economic development of rural areas in Poland-measurement of a complex phenom- enon), [in:] A. Rosner (ed.), Rozwój wsi i rolnictwa w Polsce. Aspekty przestrzenne i regionalne (Eng. Rural and agricul- tural development in Poland. Spatial and regional as- pects), IRWiR PAN, Warszawa, 102–124. Stanny M., 2014a, Wieś, obszar wiejski, ludność wiejska – o problemach z ich definiowaniem. Wielowymiarowe spojrzenie (Eng. Countryside, rural areas, rural popula- tion-about problems with defining them. A multi-dimen- sional view), Wieś i Rolnictwo, 1(162), 123–138. Stanny M., 2014b, Modele funkcjonalne wiejskich obszarów peryferyjnych w Polsce (Eng. Functional models of rural peripheral areas in Poland), Roczniki Naukowe Stowar- zyszenia Ekonomistów Rolnictwa i Agrobiznesu, 14(4), 110–114. Strijker D., 1993, Dutch Agriculture in an European Context, Sociologia Ruralis, 33(2), 72–88. Śleszyński P., Komornicki T., 2016, Klasyfikacja funkcjonalna gmin Polski na potrzeby monitoring planowania przestrzennego (Eng. Functional classification of Poland’s communes (gminas) for the needs of the monitoring of spatial planning), Przegląd Geograficzny, 88(4), 469–488. doi: 10.7163/PrzG.2016.4.3 Ustawa o rewitalizacji z 9 października 2015 (Eng. Revitaliza- tion Act of 9th October 2015), 2015, Dz.U. 2015, poz. 1777. White S., 2011, Depoliticizing development: The uses and abuses of participation, [in:] A. Cornwall (ed.), The Partici- pation Reader, Zed Books, London, 57–69. Więckowicz Z., 1989, Realizacja uchwały górskiej (na przykładzie województwa jeleniogórskiego) (Eng. Imple- mentation of a mountain resolution (on the example of the Jelenia Góra province), Wieś Współczesna, 6, 62–70. Woods M., 2005, Rural Geography, Sage, London. Zagożdżon A., 1980, Regiony peryferyjne a zagadnienia pery- feryjnych układów osadniczych. Wybrane zagadnienia teoretyczne i badawcze (Eng. Peripheral regions and is- sues of peripheral settlements systems. Selected theo- retical and research issues), Przegląd Geograficzny, 52(4), 815–824. Zegar J., 2012, Współczesne wyzwania rolnictwa (Eng. Con- temporary agriculture challenges), PWN, Warszawa. Zografos C., 2007, Rurality discourses and the role of the social enterprise in regenerating rural Scotland, Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 38–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.04.002