Geographia Polonica 2018, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp. 143-170 https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0115

INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND SPATIAL ORGANIZATION POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES www.igipz.pan.pl www.geographiapolonica.pl

PHYSICO-GEOGRAPHICAL MESOREGIONS OF POLAND: VERIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARIES ON THE BASIS OF CONTEMPORARY SPATIAL DATA

Jerzy Solon1 • Jan Borzyszkowski2 • Małgorzata Bidłasik2 • Andrzej Richling34 • Krzysztof Badora5 • Jarosław Balon6 • Teresa Brzezińska- -Wójcik7 • Łukasz Chabudziński7 • Radosław Dobrowolski7 • Izabela Grzegorczyk2 • Miłosz Jodłowski6 • Mariusz Kistowski8 • Rafał Kot9 • Paweł Krąż6 • Jerzy Lechnio3 • Andrzej Macias10 • Anna Majchrow- ska11 • Ewa Malinowska3 • Piotr Migoń12 • Urszula Myga-Piątek13 • Jerzy Nita13 • Elżbieta Papińska11 • Jan Rodzik7 • Małgorzata Strzyż14 • Sławomir Terpiłowski7 • Wiesław Ziaja6 1 Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization 8 Institute of Geography Polish Academy of Sciences University of Gdańsk Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw: Poland Bażyńskiego 4, 80-309 Gdańsk: Poland Corresponding Author’s e-mail: [email protected] 9 Faculty of Earth Sciences 2 Institute of Environmental Protection Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń – National Research Institute Lwowska 1, 87-100 Toruń: Poland Krucza 5/11d, 00-548 Warsaw: Poland 10 Faculty of Geographical 3 Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies and Geological Sciences University of Warsaw Adam Mickiewicz University Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00-927 Dzięgielowa 27, 61-680 Poznań: Poland Warsaw: Poland 11 Faculty of Geographical Sciences 4 Faculty of Health and Social Sciences University of Łódź Pope John Paul II State School of Higher Education Narutowicza 88, 90-139 Łódź: Poland in Biała Podlaska Sidorska 95/97, 21-500 Biała Podlaska: Poland 12 Institute of Geography and Regional Development 5 Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology Wrocław University Opole University pl. Uniwersytecki 1, 50-137 Wrocław: Poland Oleska 48, 45-052 Opole: Poland 13 Faculty of Earth Sciences 6 Institute of Geography and Spatial Management University of Silesia Jagiellonian University Będzińska 60, 41-200 Sosnowiec: Poland Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków: Poland 14 Department of Environment Protection 7 Faculty of Earth Sciences and Environmental Development and Spatial Management Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Żeromskiego 5, 25-349 Kielce: Poland Kraśnicka 2 D, 20-718 Lublin: Poland 144 Jerzy Solon et al.

Abstract The programme of identification, cataloguing and evaluation of Polish landscapes, part of the implementation of the European Landscape Convention, has caused an increase in interest in physico-geographical regionalisa- tion over recent years. The commonly accepted regionalisation of Poland developed by J. Kondracki (Kondracki & Richling 1994) is sufficient for work at an overview scale (e.g. 1:500,000), whereas its spatial accuracy is too low to make use of it for the purpose of Polish landscape cataloguing. The aim of this article is to present a more up-to-date and detailed division of Poland into mesoregions, adjusted to the 1:50,000 scale. In com- parison with older work, the number of mesoregions has increased from 316 to 344. In many cases, some far-reaching changes in meso- and macroregions were made. Nevertheless, in most cases the previous system of units was maintained, with more detailed adjustment of boundaries based on the latest geological and geomorphological data and the use of GIS tools for the DEM analysis. The division presented here is a crea- tively developing new work aligning the proposals of the majority of Polish researchers. At the same time, it is a regionalisation maintaining the idea of the work developed by J. Kondracki as well as his theoretical assump- tions and the criteria used to distinguish units, which makes it a logical continuation of his regional division.

Key words regionalisation • spatial units • boundaries of regions • Poland

Introduction territory of Poland, is commonly accepted and sufficient for work at an overview scale Legal regulations introduced in 20151 intro- (e.g. 1:500,000). However, its spatial accura- duced the obligation to carry out a so-called cy is definitely too low for it to be used directly landscape audit, i.e. a periodical compre- for the landscape audit. hensive review and assessment of the state The first unpublished attempts to specify of the Polish landscape. In turn, it created the the boundaries of physico-geographical necessity to develop a commonly accepted mesoregions as basic units in the above methodology of delimitation, typology and mentioned regionalisation were made valuation of current landscapes. This task in 2015-2016 in the Institute of Geography had a direct impact on the increasing inter- and Spatial Organisation of Polish Academy est in physico-geographical regionalisation of Sciences, and then in the Institute of Envi- due to the proposed audit methodology. The ronmental Protection – National Research landscapes that are distinguished should Institute. This experience gave rise to the idea be established and described in the context of establishing a team of specialists from dif- of different types of geographical regional ferent research centres for joint verification units (Solon et al. 2015). In the course of fur- and adjustment of the physico-geographical ther work, it appeared that only the physico- division of Poland. geographical regionalisation (Kondracki It is worth emphasizing that more than & Richling 1994), which covers the entire 20 years have passed since the develop- ment of the previous comprehensive version 1 The Act of 24 April 2015 amending certain acts of a regionalisation. Since then numerous in relation to strengthening tools of landscape protec- tion instruments (Journal of Laws of 2015, item 774). new details have been obtained concerning The Act amended the Nature Protection Act of 16 April the diversity of the components of the natu- 2004 (Journal of Laws of 2016, item 2134, as amended) ral environment in Poland and very powerful and the Spatial Planning and Management Act of 27 March 2003 (Journal of Laws of 2017, item 1073, instruments have become available for the as amended). analysis of spatial diversity in GIS systems.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 145

Moreover, over the last 15-20 years many he included a description of large geographi- Polish academic centres have developed dif- cal regions (Coastal Lowlands, Pomeranian ferent new proposals for regional divisions Lakeland, Masurian Lakeland, Wielkopolska- of small areas performed by means of vari- Kujawy Lowland, Masovia-Podlasie Lowland, ous techniques and methodologies. Lublin Upland, Kielce-Sandomierz Upland, The significance of the problem became Nida Basin, Kraków-Częstochowa Upland, apparent at a joint conference of the Cul- Silesian Upland, Silesian Basin and Trzeb- tural Landscape Commission of the Polish nica Hills, Sudety Mts and Sudety Foothills, Geographical Society and the Polish Asso- Sub-Carpathian Basins, Flysch Carpathians, ciation for Landscape Ecology held in May Tatras and Podhale), following the concepts 2017: New Challenges to the Regionalisa- and layout of Lencewicz’s original hand- tion of Poland. The aim of this conference book. At the same time, the large regional was to discuss the need for the verification units distinguished referred to the results of previous regional divisions, the presenta- of the discussion taking place from 1946- tion of concepts and methodology (sources, 1947 at conferences organised by the Pol- materials, criteria) as well as the presenta- ish Geographical Society (Kondracki 1946a, tion of specific proposals for regionalisation 1946b), although they were not identical both and solutions. An equally important aim was in terms of nomenclature and the hierarchical to indicate the current opportunities for the rank of units. practical use of the regionalisation procedure The same year, J. Kondracki (1955) pub- and their effects on the preparation of land- lished an article in which he not only present- scape audits (Nita et al. 2017). ed criteria used to distinguish regions and The aim of this article is to present a more rules for their nomenclature, but also under- up-to-date and detailed division of Poland into took a discussion with other authors for their mesoregions, adjusted to the 1:50,000 scale. views. More importantly, he presented his The division presented is not a simple compi- own original scheme for the regional subdivi- lation of previously published proposals, but sion of Poland. He took into account 6 very it is a creatively developing new work align- large units, 16 regions and 80 subregions. ing the proposals of most Polish researchers Further development of work on the dealing with this problematic issue. At the regionalisation of Poland resulted in the pres- same time, it is a regionalisation maintaining entation by Kondracki (1961) of a termino- the idea and spirit of regionalisations devel- logical scheme of hierarchical regional units oped by J. Kondracki as well as his theoretical and the identification of 7 physico-geograph- assumptions and the criteria he used to dis- ical provinces (comprising 14 subprovinces) tinguish units, which makes it a logical con- on the territory of Poland, included in 2 large tinuation of his work. areas. This division (together with the pro- posed names of the units which were mainly History and evolution new) has been applied until now with no sub- of the physico-geographical stantial changes. In addition, this article listed division of Poland developed 39 macroregions and 210 smaller units (most by Professor Jerzy Kondracki frequently corresponding to mesoregions within the current approach). Unfortunately, In the “Physical Geography of Poland” written the work does not include a map illustrat- by S. Lencewicz (1955), which was to a great ing the boundaries of the units that were extent a reprint of the “Great Universal Geogra- distinguished. phy” (Lencewicz 1937), J. Kondracki introduced This division, with minimal modifications numerous additions and adjustments taking in the number of units (6 provinces, 14 sub- account of the changed boundaries of Poland provinces, 39 macroregions, 212 mesore- after the Second World War. In particular, gions) and the original letter and digit coding

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 146 Jerzy Solon et al. system, was applied in two editions of the precision of drawings, but also from substan- “Physical Geography of Poland” (Kondracki tial changes which have been intentionally 1965a, 1967). introduced. Further evolution of the physico-geograph- The second map is a presentation of the ical division of Poland resulted in the introduc- physico-geographical regions in the Atlas tion of a uniform digit coding of regional units of the Republic of Poland (Kondracki & Rich- (Kondracki 1965b). In the work cited, J. Kon- ling 1994). It is based on the map from 1977, dracki included all the subprovinces and but the boundaries are clearly modified. The macroregions listed in the work from 1961, previous general drawing was just made assigning them uniform decimal codes follow- more detailed, whereas the regions were ing the system put forward one year earlier substantially changed (based on substantive by the International Geographical Union. criteria). It should be noted that these chang- This stage of regionalisation was summa- es differ from the modifications introduced rised in a work from 1968 (Kondracki 1968). in the map developed by J. Kondracki and It listed 364 mesoregions, a proportion J. Ostrowski in 1994. of which were outside Poland. A map attached The map from the Atlas of the Republic to the article (developed by J. Kondracki and of Poland became a new standard and was J. Ostrowski) showed the boundaries of mes- reproduced many times, for example in the oregions which became a standard for many “Regional Geography of Poland” (Kondracki years. This work also contributed to the stand- 1998, 2000). ardisation of names and their common use. Kondracki (2000) stated that the maps It was also included at 1:2,000,000 scale published in the Atlas of the Republic in the National Atlas of Poland (Kondracki & of Poland, together with the standardisation Ostrowski 1973-1978). and official approval of the names of the A map with different graphics but with regions, completed the last stage in the devel- generally the same boundaries was includ- opment of views on the physico-geographical ed in the “Physico-Geographical Regions regionalisation of Poland. Nevertheless, of Poland” (Kondracki 1977). It included this statement should not be treated as an 6 provinces, 18 subprovinces, 56 macrore- arbitrary proposal to refrain from further gions and 318 mesoregions. It differs from work on regionalisation, in particular in rela- the previous map by the use of changed num- tion to issues concerning the boundaries bering in relation to some of the mesoregions of the mesoregions, which mainly intervene as well as by several small additions and at a more detailed spatial scale. The necessity amendments. An identical layout of regional to perform this work is also confirmed by the units was also included in later editions of the fact that numerous maps included in the com- “Physical Geography of Poland” (e.g. Kondrac- pilation from 2000 (Kondracki 2000) reflect ki 1978, 1988). the boundaries not only at a different level In 1994, two important cartographic of cartographic detail (in comparison with the developments were published. The first one Atlas of the Republic of Poland) but also with was a map entitled “Types of natural land- different substantive drawings, frequently dif- scape and physico-geographical units” by fering to a great extent from the boundaries J. Kondracki and J. Ostrowski, constituting included in all earlier versions of the map. an appendix to the book (Kondracki 1994). In the table of contents of the map, there Selected examples of regional are 309 mesoregions, while the bounda- physico-geographical division ries of the units differ in many places from the boundaries on the map of 1977. The In parallel with later versions of Polish region- differences result not only from a different alisation developed by J. Kondracki, work

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 147 on regionalisation was performed in different and errors, including areas not belonging academic centres. Part of this simply con- to any of the regions distinguished or of cerned local issues, other work of a regional environmental features that are completely nature covered individual provinces (voivod- different from the characteristics of the ships) or large morphological units. These regions to which they had been assigned. publications, occurring at a different frequen- The attempt to solve several similar problems cy in various centres and periods of time, with the regionalisation of the central part were sometimes polemical in relation to the of the Western Carpathians was presented solutions proposed by J. Kondracki, but they in the work of J. Balon (2012). Much atten- often concerned only proposals for more tion was paid to the boundaries of the Tatra detailed delineation of the boundaries. Most Mts (Balon 2001; Balon et al. 2015a, 2015b; of the works published by the mid-1980s are Jodłowski 2001, 2002) and the Kraków Gate only of historical value, whereas later works (Balon & German 2007). The cross-border had a clear impact on contemporary views regionalisation of the Western Carpathi- on physico-geographical regionalisation. It is ans is included in the work of J. Balon and particularly clear in relation to the southern M. Jodłowski (2014). part of the country. An example of the Authors’ approach In Poland, physico-geographical regionali- to the larger area is the physico-geographical sation of the Carpathians was generally only regionalisation of the Podkarpackie Voivod- carried out by authors from the Kraków cen- ship (Ziaja 2009), based on the scope of the tre, while everybody indicated the need for higher units in the work of J. Kondracki (1998), modification of the division made by J. Kon- but introducing numerous corrections at the dracki, in particular for areas of the former level of mesoregions. These corrections Kraków Voivodship (Czeppe & German 1979), resulted from the Authors’ own research the area of the Carpathian Foothills (German studies and used the results of such earlier 1992), and the whole area of the Polish Car- works as the work of J. Balon et al. (1995) pathians together with the Eastern Carpathi- referring to the Carpathians or the work of ans (Balon et al. 1995) and the Małopolskie J. Buraczyński (1997) concerning the Roztocze Voivodship (German 2001). Differences macroregion and the publications of P. Wład between different approaches were analysed, (1996a, 1996b) discussing the former Prze- for example, by W. Maciejowski (2009). In the myśl Voivodship. works of J. Balon and M. Jodłowski (Balon & The issues of the physico-geographical Jodłowski 2005; Jodłowski & Balon 2005), regionalisation of border regions of the south- the authors analysed existing divisions and western Poland lowlands, mountains and proposed further changes in the Polish-Slovak uplands were explored at Opole University. border area. In accordance with the principle The studies concerned mainly the Głubczyce of political neutrality of physico-geographical Plateau (Badora 2007) and the Opole Hum- regions (Balon 2000), some corrections were mock (Badora 2016). In the first case, it was made in regional boundaries and taxonomic proposed to exclude the Głubczyce Plateau categories, and the modification of names from the Silesian Lowland and to include was proposed; the changes were aimed it into the Sudety Foreland. This was suggest- at achieving greater consistency between Pol- ed by J. Kondracki (2000), who indicated that ish regionalisation and the Slovak divisions. this unit has upland features and belongs These works resulted, for example, in the to the Sudety Foreland. Moreover, taking into regionalisation of the Małopolskie Voivodship account the diversity of geological structure (Balon et al. 2012). The above mentioned divi- and terrain relief, it was proposed to divide sions of the Carpathians were defined at the this mesoregion into a western part called overview scale. The attempt to analyse them the Nysa Kłodzka and Osobłoga Interfluve at a more detailed scale revealed inaccuracies by L. Baraniecki (1968) and an eastern part

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 148 Jerzy Solon et al. called the Głubczyce plateau by A. Jahn topic of the work (e.g. the analysis of the (1968). The studies of the physico-geographi- geological structure and detailed relief). The cal allocation of the Upper Cretaceous Opole issue of regional divisions was even more Hummock resulted in two alternative solu- rarely raised in relation to higher hierarchical tions being proposed: the inclusion of this levels – macroregions (Nita 2010) or subprov- previously unclassified unit, together with the inces (Nita 2013), where the author proposed gorge section of the valley of the Oder River boundaries of the Polish Uplands different between Opole and Krapkowice, into the Sile- from the division made by J. Kondracki. sian Upland or its separation within the Sile- A new division into mesoregions and units sian Lowland as a new upland mesoregion of a lower rank has recently been proposed for (Badora 2016). the Silesian Upland (Nita et al. 2016). For the Regional divisions of the Silesian-Kraków Silesia-Kraków Upland, the geomorphological Upland, including the divisions of administra- division developed by S. Gilewska (1972, 1986), tive units located within its boundaries, e.g. the reflecting particularly well the physico-geo- division of the area of what was, until 1999, graphical units, was established in literature the Katowice Voivodship, and then later the and is frequently applied as a starting mate- Silesian Voivodship, and even of units at the rial. Nevertheless, the simultaneous appli- level of a commune, were the subject of the cation of the division at both scales causes work of different authors, part of which was spatial and terminological chaos. developed in the University of Silesia. They At the beginning of the 21st century, the were usually proposals for detailed subdivi- Silesian centre, like other centres, developed sions of mesoregions and took into account work designed to provide a greater speci- features of the abiotic environment at a local fication of the boundaries of the physico- level (Szaflarski 1955; Karaś-Brzozowska geographical regions with the use of a Digi- 1960; Czeppe 1972; Nita 2008; Dulias 2013; tal Terrain Model (Nita 2002, 2010). The Myga-Piątek & Nita 2013). The creation availability and accuracy of the Digital Ter- of these subdivisions consisted in distinguish- rain Model revealed the technical potential ing physico-geographical units at the level to perform a greater specification and verifi- of microregions, and even submicroregions. cation of the existing divisions (Myga-Piątek & These detailed subdivisions revealed non- Nita 2013; Nita et al. 2016). These works also compliance with the boundaries of the mes- drew attention to important methodological oregions developed by J. Kondracki. In some assumptions useful in the bottom-up proce- cases, differences concerned only the details dure applied in order to verify the boundaries of the work carried out and the cartographic of meso- and macroregions (Nita et al. 2016), scale at which it was performed (Szaflarski as well as to the consequences and dangers 1955; Karaś-Brzozowska 1960; Czeppe 1972; of methodological errors in generalised divi- Nita 2008, 2010). sions while moving to units of a lower rank. Examples of such work are included in the The proposals for the regional subdivision published proposals for the subdivision into of the Sudety Mts and other areas of south- geographical units, e.g.: the Częstochowa western Poland were presented by P. Migoń Upland (Czeppe 1972), the Silesian Upland from the Wrocław University (Migoń 2005; (Szaflarski 1955; Karaś-Brzozowska 1960; Migoń & Kasprzak 2015), who paid a great Dulias & Hibszer 2004; Dulias 2013), Woźniki deal of attention within his approach to the Rock Step (Nita J. & Nita M. 2014), or admin- geological and tectonic diversity of the ter- istrative units e.g. Będzin Commune (Pulina rain in particular. His proposal partially refers et al. 2008). Generally, the issue of region- to other work developed in this centre which alisation was not the main purpose of the repeatedly indicated the non-compliance works cited herein, but in most cases it was of the Czech and Polish regional divisions a side-issue raised in addition to the main in the border zone of the Sudety Mts. At the

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 149 same time, the standardisation of the region- of microregions. The author employed the al division and changes in the boundaries and method of delimitation of geocomplexes com- nomenclature of mesoregions were proposed bined with multivariate analysis. (Potocki 1994, 2000; Łach et al. 2010; Rozen- Among the work conducted at the Univer- kiewicz & Łach 2012). sity of Łódź special attention should be paid Thorough regionalisation studies were less to the monograph covering the 8 voivodships frequently carried out in relation to the cen- which existed at that time in central Poland tral part of Poland, which may result from the in which the literature concerning regional fuzziness and less distinct physico-geograph- divisions and geographical nomenclature ical boundaries of terrain composed of old of physico-geographical units was reviewed glacial relief. (Papińska 1993). The work of G. Bezkowska The area of the current Świętokrzyskie (1998) in which the spatial scope was lim- Province (Voivodeship), the central part ited to 5 mesoregions of central Poland of which is constituted by the Świętokrzyskie (Koło Basin, Sieradz Basin, Szczerców Basin, Mountains, has never been subject to any Kłodawa Heights and Łask Heights) was pub- complex regionalisation study, and is con- lished a little later. The biggest disadvantage sidering newer approaches to the diversifi- of this article is the lack of maps presenting cation of the abiotic environment. Although descriptions of the results of the studies car- this area was of interest to researchers from ried out by the author, although the 69 micro- many scientific centres, most of their studies regions distinguished undoubtedly contrib- – excluding the studies conducted by R. Czar- uted to the change of the boundaries of the necki (Balwirczak-Jakubowska & Czarnecki mesoregion. One year later, G. Bezkowska 1989; Czarnecki 2005) from the Warsaw (1999) presented the concept of distinguish- University – were of a contributory and ing a regional unit of macroregion rank, called secondary character. the Łódź region by the author. She indicated More interesting research studies only its individual character and the possibility started to come into sight at the end of the of distinguishlng its boundaries in a relatively 20th century, i.e. from the scientific centre easy way. The latest initiatives undertaken in Kielce (now The Jan Kochanowski Univer- in the Łódź centre concern issues of physico- sity in Kielce, which is the successor of the geographical microregionalisation, whose pre-existing pedagogical universities in this “side” effect is a proposal to change the city). They showed, among other things, the boundaries of the mesoregion (Majchrowska need to change the boundaries of the mes- & Papińska 2018). oregion of the Świętokrzyskie Mountains The most important regional divisions (Kowalski 1993; Mityk 1993) which were asso- in the eastern part of the Polish uplands ciated with the concepts for distinguishing together with surrounding areas were devel- and characterising microregions (Dziedzic B. oped in the 1950s in the geographical unit & Dziedzic P. 1990; Kowalski 1993; Strzyż associated with the Maria Curie-Skłodowska 2017). The distinct field of research work University in Lublin. Different criteria were was applied to utilitarian issues, in which adopted in order to distinguish units and the scholars focused mostly on landscape to establish their boundaries and nomencla- and typology issues, and the regionalisation ture. One of the first original concepts of how approaches were only of a supportive char- to do this was the work of A. Chałubińska acter (Mityk 1993; Strzyż 2014). In this per- and T. Wilgat (1954), in which the regionalisa- spective, special attention should be drawn tion was based on the diversity of geological to the research studies of J. Mityk (1983a,b, structure, hypsometry, relief, hydrography, 1993) with regard to the regional typology climate, soil and vegetation. Within a short of the Kielce area, which includes a detailed time, A. Jahn (1956) had published a mor- methodology of delimiting the boundaries phological division of the Lublin Upland.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 150 Jerzy Solon et al.

The division was based on cartographic studies is the physico-geographical region- materials and field observations. Anoth- alisation of the former Płock Voivodship er important development was the work at a 1:100,000 scale (Richling & Czajkowski of H. Maruszczak (1972) published much lat- 1988). This involved greater specification er, in which the author proposed the division of the boundaries of the subprovinces, macro- of the Lublin uplands into four geomorpho- and mesoregions, whereas the delimitation logical macroregions: Roztocze, the Pobuże of microregions was performed with the use Basin, the Lublin Upland and the Volhyn of a method which consisted in combining Upland which was then further divided into typological geocomplexes into larger units. 17 mesoregions. This regionalisation in terms Later, the immediate vicinity of Płock was of nomenclature and boundaries referred analysed in detail in terms of regional bound- to the regionalisation of A. Chałubińska and aries. A great deal of these research studies T. Wilgat (1954) and A. Jahn (1954, 1956). involved the verification of the mesoregion The division was based on two main criteria boundaries and their adjustment to detailed – features of the terrain relief and the geolog- scales (including the 1:10,000, 1:50,000 and ical structure. After the work of Maruszczak, 1:100,000 scales) and the delimitation within there was a 20-year period of stagnation. the existing regional division of units of lower During these years, different authors just rank – microregions and submicroregions repeated earlier proposals and used them – with the use of inductive and deductive as the basis for different thematic regionali- methods. The degree of modification of mes- sations. Original new work on regionalisation oregion boundaries was mainly conditioned dedicated to Roztocze was only published by the amount of detail in the input data in 1995 (Buraczyński 1995). The division concerning individual components which con- of Roztocze was based on features of the ter- stitute the basis for the delimitation of the rain relief and the geological structure. The individual hierarchical levels of the regional following features of the terrain relief were division, but also their consistent application. of significant importance: hypsometric gra- Bottom-up methods of regionalisation result- dients and elements of the relief connected ed in significant movements of the bounda- with the diversity of surface sediments and ries of individual higher (above microregion) exposures of bedrocks. The following features levels of the regional division, especially when of geological structure were crucial: the ori- the boundaries of sub- and microregional gin-linked relationship of the boundaries with units were consistently taken into account faults of different rank and the role of ero- at higher levels of the regional division, which sion, denudation and accumulation processes caused a cascading accumulation of devia- in shaping the landscape features. tions (Lewandowski 1985; Richling & Lech- At the University of Warsaw, in addition nio 2005; Richling et al. 2012; Lechnio & to the above mentioned work of J. Kondracki Malinowska 2018; Richling et al. 2018). and his research partners covering the entire The division of the former Suwałki Voivod- territory of Poland and ongoing work on their ship into physico-geographical microregions improvement, numerous theoretical and should also be mentioned (Richling 1985a, methodological works were published which b). These units were distinguished without set down the rules for the regionalisation and larger corrections of mesoregions according typology of spatial units of different rank writ- to their distinguishable parts, and this result- ten by A. Richling, R. Czarnecki, K. Ostaszew- ed in 37 individual units. Then, these microre- ska and W. Lewandowski. gions were grouped according their typology, Research on the structure of the natural which resulted in the distinguishing of 9 types environment in the vicinity of Płock should of microregions. be particularly emphasised among the A. Richling is also the author of a detailed regional works. One of the more important study of the regionalisation of the interfluve

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 151 area of the Nurzec and the mid Bug (Richling Studies on the regional division of the 1976). Works conducted in this place served western Poland had been carried out at the as the basis for the formulation of rules for Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań since one of the deductive methods for region- the 1930s. Among these older studies, spe- alisation. The same work presented regions cial attention should be drawn to the article of I, II and III rank in the vicinity of Suwałki. by S. Pawłowski (1931), who saw the need The third-level boundaries generally cor- for the regional division of the country and respond to the boundaries of the mesore- carried out the division of Wielkopolska into gions distinguished through the combination regions on the basis of geomorphological cri- of smaller units into larger units in a consist- teria. These works were continued after the ent manner. Second World War and resulted in the sub- In 2005, R. Czarnecki published a divi- division of the Wielkopolska-Kujawy Lowland sion of the eastern part of the Sandomierz into regions and subregions according to the Upland into microregions. This was based geomorphological criterion (origin-related on a detailed exploration of the area. The types of terrain relief) performed by B. Kry- boundaries of the microregions were deter- gowski (1961). Moreover, A. Marsz (1966a, b, mined due to the analysis of the map present- c) published the methodological assumptions ing the low level types of geocomplexes. used to distinguish regional physico-geo- A form of summary of the work performed graphical units and performed the physico- by the Warsaw University research centre geographical division of Wolin Island. Several in the field of detailed regionalisation is a plate years later, T. Bartkowski (1968a, b) published included in the Atlas of the Republic of Poland the division of the Wielkopolska Lowland into (the Atlas of the Republic of Poland 1994, orographic units and the division of north- plate 53.4), which presented the microregion- eastern Poland into physico-geographical alisation of the areas around Płock, Giżycko regions. Two years later, he published another and Kielce at a 1:200,000 scale, which was regionalisation of Wielkopolska and the Mid- developed by J. Kondracki and A. Richling, dle Odra area on the basis of a comprehen- and of the area around Nowy Sącz produced sive approach (Bartkowski 1970a). He took by K. German and J. Kondracki. the following features as criteria for the Among work developed in Warsaw, the division into physico-geographical regions: work of J. Borzyszkowski and M. Bidłasik geological structure, terrain relief, (genesis (2016) from the Institute of Environmental and morphometry), water relations, climate, Protection – National Research Institute soil and vegetation. In comparison with the should also be mentioned. These authors division of B. Krygowski (1961), he adopted presented their own version of a detailed a greater degree of generalisation. A similar physico-geographical division of the Podkar- approach was applied by L. Kozacki (1970), packie Voivodship, the eastern part of the who divided the northern part of the Konin Małopolskie Voivodship and the southern district into microregions for the purpose part of the Lubelskie Voivodship, i.e. an area of the assessment of changes in the natural covering 24 mesoregions within 5 macrore- environment, while in the microregionalisa- gions. They based their division into microre- tion of this area he applied the following cri- gions mainly on features of the terrain relief, teria: geological structure, morphometry, sur- assuming the general rule that it reflects the face and ground water, soil, local climate and interior structure of a given area and all the land cover. The same set of criteria were used processes producing its diversity. It should by S. Żynda (1978) in his division of the Mid- be mentioned that the proposed division dle Odra area into the physico-geographical differs in many ways from the proposal units. It should be also mentioned that T. Bar- of W. Ziaja (2009), although they are both tkowski (1970b) called for the division of the based on the regionalisation of J. Kondracki. country into microregions, discussing also

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 152 Jerzy Solon et al. the methodology of this division. A slightly dif- physico-geographical regionalisations per- ferent methodology of distinguishing microre- formed by authors from various centres. gions was proposed by L. Kozacki, A. Marsz These works were carried out with the use and S. Żynda (1970) in which terrain mor- of different methods and at different scales. phometry and dominant land use type were Apart from the work of J. Kondracki which adopted as the basis for selection. Using a dif- covered the entire territory of Poland, the ferent methodology, T. Bartkowski and T. Tom- work of R. Galon (1931, 1934, 1947, 1973, kiewicz (1975) carried out the division of the 1984), B. Krygowski (1956, 1961), A. Krażew- Leszno – Sława Śląska area into microregions. ska (1963), T. Bartkowski (1970a), J. Szczep- They carried out an analysis of microregion- kowski (1977), T. Gacki and J. Szukalski alisation, although based on slightly different (1982), R. Dysarz (1996) and the recent work criteria, which indirectly indicated the need of T. Giętkowski (2008) deserve special atten- to change the mesoregion boundaries. Fol- tion. Over the past twenty years, the issues lowing the heyday of work on regionalisation, of the regionalisation of this area were main- there was a break in the Poznań centre which ly dealt with at the Nicolaus Copernicus Uni- lasted until the first decade of the 21st cen- versity in Toruń. The work of L. Andrzejewski tury. In 2013, D. Łowicki and A. Mizgajski and R. Kot (2006) classified different subdivi- published an article in which they called for sions into regions of similar rank in the vicin- the typology of physico-geographical regions ity of Toruń, which reflected the difficulties and the verification of the mesoregion bound- in determining boundaries and the ambigu- aries as identified by J. Kondracki on the ity of the subdivision into regions, even in the basis of the structure of the land cover and case of the application of the same (at least the changes that had occurred. They stated formal) criteria. The methodological aspects that mesoregions distinguished on the basis and examples of the verification of the bound- of criteria applied by J. Kondracki do not fully aries of valley lowland areas were presented reflect the structure of the land cover. They by R. Kot (2008, 2009). New proposals for the assessed that the land cover may be one regional boundaries for selected areas of the of the representative features in regional last glaciation of the Polish Lowlands were studies. In connection with the landscape shown through examples in the Iława Lake- audit prepared in the Poznań centre over the land, the Masurian Lakeland and the Wiel- most recent period, the team composed of: kopolska-Kujawy Lakeland (Kot 2011). The A. Macias, S. Bródka and W. Piniarski from regionalisation work was intensified thanks the Department of the Landscape Ecology to the preparation of the Internet Atlas of the at the Adam Mickiewicz University developed Kujawsko-Pomorskie Province (Internetowy a completely new and original subdivision Atlas Województwa Kujawsko-Pomorskiego of Wielkopolska into microregions by apply- – IAWKP). For the purpose of the IAWKP, the ing an inductive (bottom-up) approach, i.e. typological and regional classification was starting from uniform physico-geographical carried out for the voivodship at the general units, through microregions, and ending with and overview scale. The assumptions adopt- mesoregions. The starting point was a digital ed and procedures were based on the meth- database of individual components of the odology and the previous division made by J. natural environment and the criteria: geologi- Kondracki (1998) and thematic maps pre- cal structure, origin-related types of terrain pared for the purposes of the IAWKP at simi- relief, downslopes, the first groundwater lev- lar scales enabled the preparation of digi- el, origin-related types of soil, land cover and tal maps of physico-geographical regions potential vegetation habitats. at the 1:1,000,000 and 1:500,000 scales The area of the contemporary Kujawsko- (Kot 2015a, b, c). The maps that were -Pomorskie Voivodship (or at least signifi- developed were also published in printed cant sections of it) was subject to different form (Kot 2015d, e, f). The methodology

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 153 of the physico-geographical classification with them, initially at the Pedagogical Univer- of the entire Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship sity, and then at the University of Gdańsk. was discussed in detail in the work of R. Kot Despite a significant number of pieces (2016). In physico-geographical regionalisa- of regionalisation work, the only comprehen- tions, the criteria for distinguishing the phys- sive regional division of Pomerania (devel- ico-geographical macroregions included the oped to the level of a physico-geographical genesis of the terrain relief and the geologi- mesoregion) was made by B. Augustowski cal structure taken into account in subprov- (1977). The area of the Gdańsk Voivodship inces (Kot 2015a, 2016). Physico-geographical using the 1975-98 boundaries constitutes mesoregions were distinguished on the basis the largest continuous part of Pomerania for of the recognised detailed genesis of the ter- which regionalisation was developed to the rain relief and lithology (lakeland, outwash microregion level (Przewoźniak 1985). Oth- plains, covered with forests), as well as mor- er work covering smaller parts of the area phometric traits (valley, plain) or the land- focused on the coastal and lakeland regions, scape structure (Kot 2016). A separate work most representative of Pomerania. (Kot 2017a) was dedicated to the characteris- At the Gdańsk centre, the most dynamic tics of 25 physico-geographical mesoregions development of the work on regionalisation distinguished within the Kujawsko-Pomorskie took place between 1965 and 1985. The Voivodship. The most recent projects at the period from the beginning of the 1990s until Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń were the present was characterised by stagnation; focused on the regionalisation of river valleys individual investigations copied earlier work and ice marginal valleys (Urstromtäler), con- or made only small corrections to boundaries. ducted at very detailed scales (Kot 2017b). Only the work of M. Przewoźniak (1993) cov- As a result, a new mesoregion was distin- ering 5 seaside voivodships and the 7 voivod- guished within the framework of the frag- ships adjacent to them deserves to be remem- ment of the Toruń-Eberswalde Ice Marginal bered from this period. In order to distinguish Valley (Kot 2017b). macroregions and mesoregions, the Author In addition to different versions of the most used a relatively broad set of criteria which famous physico-geographical regionalisation included features of the relief and land cover using the decimal system developed by J. Kon- as well as the lithology of surface sediments dracki, the entire Pomerania or its smaller and origin-related types of soil. Another pub- parts has been subdivided into regions many lication from this period is the work on the times. In their overview article, M. Kistowski Starogard Lakeland (Rolka 1996), which used and J. Szydłowski (2018) listed 31 most impor- microregions previously distinguished by oth- tant publications which present 24 regional er authors. However, the units resulting from physico-geographical divisions covering this classification raise some questions due Gdańsk Pomerania, carried out in the 20th to the lack of a list of delimitation criteria. and 21st centuries. The regionalisations listed Since 2013, there has been a renewed were developed by a total of 19 authors from interest in regionalisation issues at the Univer- various academic centres and in only 7 cases sity of Gdańsk, which is reflected in the work concerned the division of the entire terri- of a methodological character carried out tory of Poland (in different national borders), by J. Szydłowski (2013) (Kistowski & Szydłowski whereas the other work covered different 2014). The purpose of these research studies parts of Pomerania. A significant part of the was to develop and test the inductive method older work was carried out by B. Augustowski of physico-geographical regionalisation with (1969, 1977, 1979), T. Gacki and J. Szukalski the use of GIS software. New boundaries (Gacki & Szukalski 1979, 1982), and M. Prze- of meso- and microregions were proposed woźniak (1985, 1993) and researchers in the on the basis of the analysis of geocomplex- Gdańsk geographical centre cooperating es distinguished in five research fields with

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 154 Jerzy Solon et al. an area of 25 km x 25 km in which five crite- In Western Pomerania, at the Szczecin ria were applied: terrain relief (downslopes), centre (West Pomeranian University of Tech- lithology of surface sediments, depth of the nology), the physico-geographical region- first groundwater level, origin-related types alisation did not constitute an important of soil and land cover. The studies confirmed direction of studies. Over recent years, it was the usefulness of the GIS software for the pur- emphasised that – at least on young glacial poses of the regionalisation, although at the areas – the contemporary landscape matrix same time the inductive method proved to be (expressed in categories of land cover) may very laborious at the level of work detail that be a useful criterion for the verification of the can be anticipated when working at a scale boundaries of physico-geographical units of approximately 1:50,000. of different rank. At the same time, it was The previous proposals for the regional particularly indicated that the clear change division of Pomerania, carried out in different of the landscape matrix within the mesore- periods and on the basis of similar but not gion may suggest the purposefulness of anal- identical criteria, produced clearly different yses, confirming the correctness of bounda- boundaries, even in the case of mesoregions ries or indicating the possible necessity which appear to have a clear identity. This for of correcting their selected parts (Pieńkowski example applies to the Kashubian Lakeland. & Podlasiński 2017). Therefore, this area was chosen for a detailed The above review shows that, after analysis by M. Kistowski and J. Szydłowski many years of stagnation, there has been (2015). Both the delimitation of the region a renewed interest in the issues of regionali- and the division into microregions were per- sation in recent years in most geographical formed by the inductive method on the basis centres in Poland. Numerous studies have of the analysis of the terrain relief (processing been carried out at the regional level, discus- of the Digital Terrain Model into hypsometry, sion took place on the theory and methodol- downslopes and a topographic wetness index) ogy of regionalisation and a team of special- as well as the lithology of surface sediments ists was formed. Their experience enabled supplemented by information about the water this work to be carried out. network (Kistowski 2018). Nevertheless, the works also used results from previous analy- New regionalisation: ses involving the inductive approach. Approaches and Data The common feature of studies carried out over recent years at the University of Gdańsk, According to J. Kondracki (1977), the follow- in a similar manner to studies on Pomerania ing factors play a crucial role in distinguish- carried out in other centres, is the applica- ing macroregions: geographical location, tion of GIS software during the delimitation character and origin of the terrain relief and of regions or at least in order to visualise and lithological diversity. He adopted the same analyse the units distinguished. The work criteria – but at a more detailed level – to dis- of T. Giętkowski (2008), for example, con- tinguish mesoregions. This set of criteria, basi- cerned the boundaries of the Tuchola Forest cally acceptable for determining boundaries mesoregions, and resulted in the identifica- at overview scales (1:300,000 – 1:500,000) tion – against the background of previously is too general and ambiguous when it comes performed regionalisation – of the original to delimitation of mesoregions at a detailed boundaries on the basis of the analysis of the scale (e.g. 1:50,000). It results in the occur- terrain relief (processing of the Digital Ter- rence of significantly different interpretations rain Model into maps of downslopes, slope concerning the boundaries. The differing exposure, denivelation), lithology of surface results of the regionalisation may be con- sediments and elements of the water network nected to the attaching of great importance and land cover. to individual geomorphological features

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 155

(morphological, morphometric, morphoge- slopes, was taken into account. Stratigraphy netic, morphochronological) and lithologi- considers stratigraphic features, in the origin- cal features (mainly stratigraphic, but also related context, as additionally connected mineralogical and petrographic). They may with morphogenesis and morphochronology be also connected with the necessity, intui- and lithographic features were treated in this tively accepted by researchers, of dealing context. with these features in a different way in rela- In lowland areas two environmental fea- tion to mountain, upland and lowland regions. tures: the geological structure and terrain In order to minimise the possibility relief, were the main criteria of the division. of diverging interpretations within a multi- In relation to the geological structure, the person team performing the study, several leading feature was the lithology (composi- additional conventions and assumptions were tion) of surface sediments. In relation to ter- arbitrarily adopted. First of all, it was gener- rain relief, the leading feature was provided ally agreed in accordance with works of Prof. by downslopes resulting from the spatial J. Kondracki that the distinguishing of a given distribution of altitude expressed on a hypso- area as a mesoregion is determined mainly metric map. At the same time, the studies by the morphogenetic – geomorphological took into account the character of the mosaic and geological – tectonic features in its sur- of the following landforms: concave features face layers (to a depth of 10-20 metres, rarely such as valleys, ribbon and basin landforms deeper), which is reflected in the relief of the (frequently filled with lake water or directly ground surface and significantly influences drained by streams) and convex features the functioning of the area. In order for spa- which include accumulative landforms of dif- tial units to be distinguished as mesoregions, ferent origin (e.g. glacial, aeolian and denuda- they must be characterised by a compact- tional). The above characteristics were simul- ness of geometry and similarity of morpho- taneously related to the morphogenesis and logical and morphometric features in their morphochronology of terrain. In some cases, individual parts (including also the repeat- where there were no significant morphoge- ability of their landforms and their origin netic differences, supplementary data which background). concerned the distribution of surface waters, In the case of those areas with the high- the depth of the first groundwater level and est geomorphological-geological diver- types of soil were used for the delimitation sity and largest collection of co-occurring of mesoregions. endo- and exogenetic effects, i.e. in the case The regional diversity of the extension of uplands and mountains, as the key aspect of the last glaciation in Poland was also of physico-geographical regionalisation, the considered to be crucial since it influenced boundaries of those landforms connected the changeability of the relief and the qual- with fold and fault tectonics producing struc- ity of bedrock and because these allow for tural relief were accepted. The studies took inclusion of morphogenetic and morpho- into account those boundaries which have chronological criteria. It was assumed that an impact on the current structure and func- in the case of the occurrence of many stages tioning of the landscape and which occur of extension of the last glaciations in close on the surface or at a sufficiently shallow proximity, the region may be characterised depth to have this impact. Furthermore, the by the presence of forms typical of marginal morphogenetic diversity connected with exo- zones of different extents of the glaciation origin was assessed which to a great extent (e.g. in north-eastern Poland), contrary to the is responsible for the contemporary character western part of the country where there was of the relief. Finally, the diversity of morpho- significant advance of the glaciated areas. metric and morphological features, includ- In the case of river valleys, the upper ing mountain ridges, denivelation, and land edge of the valleys was used – by convention

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 156 Jerzy Solon et al.

– to determine the boundaries, although with- and soil materials referring to individual out taking into account side valleys cut into regions and carried out at different scales, the edge area. numerous detailed geomorphological publi- In the case of proposals for the division cations (including works concerning the more of a large mesoregion into smaller parts, the accurate description of the boundaries of the internal diversity of the newly distinguished individual stages of glaciation and the identi- units was analysed and compared with the fication of the character and genesis of geo- diversity between mesoregions with similar morphological landforms), as well as the geomorphological features. results of microregionalisation work previ- Despite adopting more precise criteria for ously carried out, largely unpublished, which determining the boundaries between mes- belonged to individual authors and centres. oregions, the researchers encountered cases causing a lot of difficulties in interpretation. New regionalisation: Results This was not only a result of the quality of the available materials, but also from the occur- The final version of the proposed modifica- rence of wide transition zones between well tion of the physico-geographical mesoregions distinguished areas and a lack of compat- of Poland is shown on a separate map, insert- ibility between the changeability of the lithol- ed into the paper2. ogy, genesis and vertical layout of the terrain. All the changes introduced in the division In such cases, the variation in the relief and of Poland into physico-geographical mesore- the character of soil dominant on the surface gions can be grouped in five categories: (a) were the criteria most frequently used in deci- the division of a mesoregion into two or more sion making. new mesoregions; (b) distinguishing a new All persons and teams working on the mesoregion at the border of two previously regionalisation used the following basic existing mesoregions; (c) combination of mes- materials: (a) 1:50,000 topographic map oregions into a new one; (d) a clear change of Poland (Head Office of Geodesy and Car- of the mesoregion area; (e) more precise tography), (b) 1:10,000 map of the hydro- delineation of the mesoregion’s boundaries graphic division of Poland (Institute of Mete- without a significant change in its area. orology and Water Management), (c) Digital A good example of division into two Terrain Model (Head Office of Geodesy and or more new mesoregions is the Poznań Cartography) produced on the basis of data Lakeland (315.51), which currently is treated from the ISOK (IT system of the Country’s as three mesoregions: the Poznań Lakeland Protection Against Extreme Harazds) Project (315.51) in a narrow sense, the Nowy Tomyśl which had a value of average altitude error Plain (315.50) and the Grodzisk Heights not exceeding 0.2 m in the ARC/INFO ASCII (315.59) (Fig. 1A). The division into three sec- GRID format. If there was no digital model tions results from clear geomorphological of the terrain relief of the above parameters, differences. The northern part (Poznań Lake- the studies used data from the LPIS Project land in a narrow sense) is of typical lakeland with a value of average altitude error fall- character, whereas the western part (Nowy ing between 0.2 – 2.0 m in the ESRI TIN Tomyśl Plain) is a distinctive outwash plain. format, (d) 1:50,000 Detailed Geological The south-eastern part (Grodzisk Heights) is, Map of Poland (Polish Geological Institute on the other hand, devoid of lakes. – National Research Institute), (e) 1:50,000 The regionalisation presented is char- Lithogenetic Map of Poland (Polish Geological acterised by the consistent marking of nar- Institute – National Research Institute). rower sections of gorge (gap) character In addition to the general set of materials, all researchers used cartographic materials 2 Digital version of the map in ESRI shp format and descriptive geological, geomorphological is available on the Geographia Polonica home page.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 157 and wider sections of basin character in the Sosnowica Depression (845.14). They were largest Polish river valleys. According to this combined on the basis of the results of new scheme, a new mesoregion (315.37), the research confirming the uniform character Nieszawa Gap of the Vistula River, was dis- of the entire area (Fig. 1C). tinguished in the Vistula River valley at the Moreover, a portion of the mesoregion border between two previously distinguished changes resulted from significant inclusions mesoregions (Fig. 1B). Similarly a new gorge or exclusions of parts of areas from neigh- section, the Racibórz Gate (318.50), was pro- bouring regions. The change in the extent posed in the Odra valley. of the following mesoregions in the Lublin One of the changes introduced concerns region may serve as an example: the Kałuszyn the combination of two functioning and Heights (318.92) and the Węgrów Depression neighbouring mesoregions into one mesore- (318.93). On the basis of results of recent geo- gion. Such a situation occurred in the case morphological studies, it was proposed to sig- of the Kodeń Plain (845.12) and the Parczew nificantly increase the area of the Kałuszyn Plain (845.13). It was proposed to form one Heights, whereas the neighbouring Węgrów mesoregion – the Parczew-Kodeń Heights Depression region was significantly narrowed (845.12), of the two combined and slightly (Fig. 1D). increased by parts of neighbouring regions: In the case of most of the mesoregions, the Łomazy Depression (845.11) and the previously distinguished by J. Kondracki, the

Figure 1 Main categories of mesoregion change: A) division of an existing mesoregion into three new ones; B) a new mesoregion at the border of two previously existing mesoregions; C) com- bining two mesoregions into one with modified characteristics; D) significant changes in mes- oregion extent; E) more accurate adjustment of boundaries based on detailed knowledge on the extents of morphogenetic units.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 158 Jerzy Solon et al. boundaries were moved to a lesser extent, furrow with clear boundaries to the east which resulted from these regions being more and the west, with tectonic thresholds accurately determined at a 1:50,000 scale. of up to 500 metres. The new Kłodzko This is connected with the adjustment Basin mesoregion is a compact depres- of regions’ boundaries to take account of the sion at the confluence of four rivers: the more detailed extents of morphogenetic Nysa Kłodzka, the Ścinawka, the Bystrzyca units, generally at their erosive borders (slope Dusznicka and the Biała Lądecka, with upper edge) in the case of river valleys and unclear borders with neighbouring moun- fluvioglacial forms and at their structural tain ranges, even with bottom and qua- – denudational borders in the case of the ternary sediments. Moreover, significant extents of upland and mountain areas. The changes were proposed in the region extent of the Płońsk Heights (318.61), whose of the Orlickie Mountains, the Bystrzyckie approximate boundaries seen in the region- Mountains and the Stołowe Mountains alisation of J. Kondracki were made more as a result of attaching a significant part specific at 1:50,000 scale (Fig. 1E), was pre- of the existing Orlickie Foothills mesore- sented as an example. gion to these regions. The largest changes in the sizes and • the area connected with the upper section shapes of mesoregions were made in the fol- of the Odra River, concerning the follow- lowing areas (Fig. 2): ing existing mesoregions: the Racibórz • the area of the Kłodzko Basin, where Basin (318.59), the Wrocław Ice Marginal the creation of the Upper Nysa Graben Valley (318.52), the Głubczyce Plateau (332.55) mesoregion was proposed, which (318.58), the Rybnik Plateau (341.15), the is clearly distinguishable from the remain- Opole Plain (318.57) and the Niemodlin ing part of the Kłodzko Basin mesoregion. Plain (318.55). It is proposed to introduce The Upper Nysa Graben is a latitudinal spatial changes in the region of the above

Figure 2 Areas which changed allocation to mesoregions (comparison of the actual proposal with the version of Kondracki 2000)

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 159

mentioned mesoregions which take into • areas of existing large mesoregions: the account the fact that they belong to geo- Poznań Lakeland (315.51), the Olsztyn morphological units of higher rank, as well Lakeland (842.81) and the Iława Lakeland as the structure of their bedrock and their (314.90) as well as the Krajna Lakeland relief development. It is proposed to com- (314.69). In the case of the first 3 regions, bine part of the Wrocław Ice Marginal it was proposed to divide each of them Valley with the neighbouring Opole Hum- into 3 new mesoregions, and the Krajna mock and to include this hummock in the Lakeland into 2 mesoregions. Opole Plain. Moreover, it is proposed Other changes in the mesoregions are to divide the Opole Plain into the western local and concern one or two neighbouring part under the same name and the east- regions, for example in the valley of the Pilica ern part under the name of Upper Mała river, the Kozienice Plain, the Jasło-Krosno Panew Depression (341.28). It is also pro- Basin, the valley of the mid Bug, and the posed to move the western boundaries coastal zone of the Baltic Sea. of the Opole Plain to the Stobrawa valley. In general, almost 69.5 thousand km2 • the area connected to the Bydgoszcz (approx. 22% of the area of Poland) changed – Płock section of the Vistula Valley, the allocation to their mesoregion, and over Noteć River in the region of Nakło and the 17 thousand km2 of this area was due to the area of Kujawy, where it was proposed establishment of quite new mesoregions to introduce significant changes in the (Fig. 2). extents of individual mesoregions, as well The verification resulted in an increase as the creation of a new mesoregion of the in the number of mesoregions from Nieszawa Gap of the Vistula River (315.37). 316 to 344 and in changes in the spatial and It is a clearly distinguishable section of the geometric characteristics of mesoregions valley between the Toruń Basin and the (Tab. 1, Fig. 3). The average area of a mesore- Płock Basin. The changed geometry of the gion decreased from 986.9 km2 to 907.5 km2. Kuyavian mesoregions is justified by spa- In the case of almost 16% of mesoregions tial geomorphological systems. Numerous their area decreased by more than 25%. Small changes in the extents of the: Chełmno changes (in the range from -5 to 5%) occurred Lakeland, Brodnica Lakeland and Dobrzyń in the case of approx. 20% of the total num- Lakeland mesoregions are connected with ber of mesoregions, while an increase in area detailed data on the structure and genesis greater than 25% occurred in almost 18% of the bedrock in these regions. of mesoregions. • the area of the western part of the Sile- Changes in the area of mesoregions sian-Kraków Upland, where significant resulted in the displacement of the cen- changes were proposed in the areas troids of the regions. The average shift was of many mesoregions, especially in the 4362 m with a minimum of 54 m and maxi- area of the Katowice Upland, the Racibórz mal value of 31,680 m. Generally changes Gate and the Tarnowskie Góry Hummock. were rather small: for 10% of mesoregions Changes of the geological structure, – less than 1 km, while for 40% shifts were frequently resulting in changes of the in the range of 1-3 km. It is worth underlin- relief, were used as the main criteria for ing that large displacements, above 10 km, the modifications. occurred in only 9% of mesoregions. Those • the area of the Western Carpathians, changes were mainly due to division of big where new mesoregions were created. mesoregions into smaller ones. Their relief differs from the relief in other As a result of the more precise delinea- existing areas, for example in the Żywiec tion of the boundaries of the mesoregions the Beskid Mts, in the Tatra and sub-Tatra values of indicators of boundary complexity regions, and in the Sącz Beskid Mts. clearly increased. The Mean Shape Index

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 160 Jerzy Solon et al.

Table 1. Main changes of mesoregions’ geometric properties

Variable Present study Kondracki (2000) Number of mesoregions 344 316 Mesoregion Area – mean (ha) 90,750 98,687 Mesoregion Area – min (ha) 605 1,523 Mesoregion Area – max (ha) 377,854 431,834 Shape Index – mean 1.980 1.641 Shape Index – min 1.234 1.071 Shape Index – max 10.004 4.566 Perimeter/Area Ratio – mean 3.50 2.68 Perimeter/Area Ratio – min 1.00 0.60 Perimeter/Area Ratio – max 34.80 23.20 Fractal Dimension – mean 1.19 1.17 Fractal Dimension – min 1.14 1.12 Fractal Dimension – max 1.37 1.30

25 25 A B 20 20

15 15

10

10 Share (%) Share (%)

5 5

0 0 < -50 -50 - (-25) -25 - (-5) -5 - 5 5 - 25 25 - 50 > 50 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-32 Area changes (%) Centroid displacement (km)

25 25 CD 20 20

15 15

10 10 Share (%) Share (%)

5 5

0 0 < -10 -10 - 0 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 >40 < -10 -10 - 0 0 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 >40 Shape Index changes (%) Perimeter/Area Ratio changes (%) Figure 3 Values of the chosen indicators characterising the spatial pattern of the mesoregions increased from 1.641 to 1.980, Mean Frac- complexity occurred in the case of 29% tal Dimension from 1.17 to 1.19, and Mean of mesoregions (according to SI changes) and Perimeter/Area Ratio from 2.68 to 3.50. But 35% (according to PAR values). those changes were not unidirectional. For some mesoregions complexity decreased Final remarks (14% of mesoregions according to Shape Index, and 21% according to the Perimeter/ The division into mesoregions, shown in this Area Ratio). The greatest (more than 30% article, is not a simple compilation of the pre- of previous values) increase in boundary viously published suggestions, but it forms

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 161 a piece of work, which can be characterised and lowlands along ridges with Triassic and as new, creatively developing, and reconciling Jurassic outcrops is not controversial, but the the proposals of the majority of national spe- detailed delineation still should be subject cialists dealing with such subject matters. Yet, to further studies. it is not an entirely closed piece of research, Moreover, efforts to correct J. Kondracki’s but only work that illustrates the improve- regionalisation carried out by representatives ment of knowledge in the sphere of the of different centres from southern and central environment and the development of views Poland revealed numerous, sometimes diver- in a specific period of time. Issues that will gent views on the boundaries of physico-geo- require further detailed work in the future graphical units. It resulted, to a great extent, were identified during the completion of the from the research traditions of a given cen- work. Among such issues, special attention tre (e.g. the traditions of the Kraków, Silesian must be paid to the problem of the identifica- or Łódź centres). Most researchers used the tion and appropriate description of cross-bor- same basic criteria for distinguishing a given der regional units, which cover a very small unit, but the results of boundary determina- area in Poland, and whose area is also situ- tion were initially different. It resulted from ated on the other side of borders. Initially, one different approaches to the importance and should indicate the area of the San-Dniester rank of individual criteria, as well as the Plateau, which covers about 88 km² in Poland change of their primacy and relative weight but extends much further in Ukraine, cover- in different parts of the area in question. One ing hundreds of square kilometres there. example of such a situation was the adop- Some of the regions on the border between tion of overriding structural-tectonic criteria Poland and Slovakia as well as Poland and in the determination of physico-geographical Czechia also require additional agreements. unit boundaries in the southern part of the Yet another issue requiring further analy- Kraków-Częstochowa Upland, but with the sis in the future relates to the regionalisation use of geomorphological (quaternary) crite- of transition zones between the Polish low- ria in the central and northern parts of this lands, uplands and mountains. These studies Upland. A final clarification and meshing cause many significant problems in their inter- together of different opinions gave the joint pretation. The key issue is the interpretation proposal for regionalisation for this area, of extent of occurrence of ridges and depres- but it is still open to some questions dealing sions between ridges. In the southern part with “objectivity” and the “weight” of quali- of the uplands, they are distinct due to clear tative and quantitative differences between tectonics and a relatively low influence of gla- adjacent regions, as well as the width of the cial, fluvioglacial and fluvial processes slightly boundaries between them. changing older relief. In the north-eastern Similar, although not the same problems part of the uplands, the structural relief has arose in the regionalisation of middle and been radically transformed due to the ice northern Poland, on the transition zones sheets of the old glaciations. Glacial sedi- between areas subjected to the influence ments have covered depressions between of different phases of glaciation. The good ridges and partly built up the outcrops of the example is the boundary between the Siedlce formations creating them. The river network Heights (hummocky upland moraine) and the was deformed, conditioned by the structural Łuków Plain (outwash plain) – one of areas relief, which in the past used depressions that is problematic due to small downslopes. between ridges to discharge water. In some On the basis of the latest detailed geologi- sections, the upper reaches of river valleys cal and geomorphological research, it was do not use former depressions but cross them proposed to define its boundaries along the along gorges. The necessity of defining this southernmost consistent marginal forms section of the boundary between the uplands of the final or retreat stop of the ice sheet

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 162 Jerzy Solon et al. of the Warta glaciation. Following this pro- was carried out as a fully independent initia- posal and in relation to the idea of J. Kon- tive supported only organisationally by the dracki, the Siedlce Upland may be defined General Directorate for Environmental Pro- as a mesoregion generally formed as a result tection (which also in a small part supported of the disappearance of the ice sheet, and the the preparation of the manuscript for print). Łuków Plain as a mesoregion formed mainly In addition to the team of authors, the as a result of the outflow of snowmelt water. final result of the verification of mesoregion The version of the regionalisation pre- boundaries was influenced by a group of per- sented here has made progress in our under- sons who took part in discussions on the map standing of differentiation in the natural at different stages of its elaboration, verified environment in comparison with previous the alignment of sections of the boundaries, versions, and has simultaneously opened the shared their opinions and knowledge, made field for new rounds of methodical discussions available the results of unpublished works on more sophisticated and multidimensional or helped in solving GIS problems. In particu- approaches to the distinguishing and charac- lar, the following persons from the individual terisation of spatial units of different ranks. centres should be listed: Sylwia BRÓDKA and Witold PINIARSKI (Adam Mickiewicz Univer- Acknowledgements sity, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences), Krystyna GERMAN (Jagiellonian The first initial versions of the verification University, Institute of Geography and Spa- of the mesoregion boundaries in the phys- tial Management), Dominika KOWALSKA- ico-geographical division of J. Kondracki -JAMROŻEK (The Jan Kochanowski University were commissioned by the General Direc- in Kielce, Department of Environment Protec- torate for Environmental Protection within tion and Environmental Development), Józef the scope of the implementation of the pro- SUPERSON and Marek TURCZYŃSKI (Maria ject financed by the National Fund for Envi- Curie-Skłodowska University, Faculty of Earth ronmental Protection and Water Manage- Sciences and Spatial Management, Lublin), ment, under the name: “the Implementation Jerzy SZYDŁOWSKI (former doctoral student of tasks resulting from the provisions of the at the University of Gdańsk). European Landscape Convention drawn up in Florence on 20 October 2000” (agree- Editors’ note: ment no. n349/2015/Wn50/NE-WM/D Unless otherwise stated, the sources of tables and of 13/08/2015). Further substantive and edi- figures are the authors’, on the basis of their own torial work of a much wider team of authors research.

References AUGUSTOWSKI B., 1969. Środowisko geograficzne województwa gdańskiego w zarysie. Gdańsk: ANDRZEJEWSKI L., KOT R., 2006. O położeniu Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna. Torunia [in:] L. Andrzejewski, P. Weckwerth, AUGUSTOWSKI B., 1977. Pomorze. Warszawa: Pań- Sz. Burak (eds.), Toruń i jego okolice: monografia stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. przyrodnicza. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersyte- AUGUSTOWSKI B., (ed.), 1979. Pojezierze Kaszubskie. tu Mikołaja Kopernika, pp. 27-34. Gdańsk – Wrocław: Gdańskie Towarzystwo ATLAS RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ, 1994. Regiony Naukowe – Ossolineum. fizycznogeograficzne (przykłady mikroregio- BADORA K., 2007. Regionalizacja fizyczno-geo- nów. Map 53.4, Warszawa: Główny Geodeta graficzna Płaskowyżu Głubczyckiego [in:] Kraju, 1993-1999. J. Lis, M. Mazur (eds.), Przyrodnicze wartości

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 163

polsko-czeskiego pogranicza jako wspólne dzie- tatrzańskich. T. 1, Nauki o Ziemi, Kraków dzictwo Unii Europejskiej. Opole: Wydawnictwo – Zakopane: Wydawnictwo Tatrzańskiego Parku Centrum Studiów nad Bioróżnorodnością, Uni- Narodowego. wersytet Opolski, pp. 177-188. BALON J., JODŁOWSKI M., MOCIOR E., 2012. Regio- BADORA K., 2016. Wyspa w krajobrazie jako pro- ny fizycznogeograficzne województwa mało- blem regionalizacji fizyczno-geograficznej polskiego. Study prepared at the assignment na przykładzie Garbu Opola. Prace Komisji Kra- of Centralny Ośrodek Turystyki Górskiej PTTK jobrazu Kulturowego, vol. 33, pp. 67-78. (PTTK Mountain Tourism Centre) [unpublished BALON J., 2000. Z metodyki prowadzenia granic material]. regionów fizycznogeograficznych w górach. BALWIRCZAK-JAKUBOWSKA M., CZARNECKI R., 1989. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 7, pp. 33-48. Mikroregiony fizycznogeograficzne Gór Święto- BALON J., 2001. Physicogeographical regionaliza- krzyskich. Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 61, no. 4, tion of the Tatra National Park (Poland). Ekolo- pp. 541-557. gia (Bratislava), vol. 20, suppl. 4/2001, pp. 116- BARANIECKI L., 1968. Rozwój krajobrazu południo- 122. wej części Międzyrzecza Nysy Kłodzkiej i Oso- BALON J., 2012. Wybrane problemy regionaliza- błogi. Studia geograficzno-fizyczne z obszaru cji fizycznogeograficznej Centralnych Karpat Opolszczyzny, vol. 1, pp. 16-40, Opole: Instytut Zachodnich. Prace Geograficzne, vol. 128, Kra- Śląski. ków: Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzen- BARTKOWSKI T., 1968a. Podział Polski północno- nej UJ, pp. 29-44. -zachodniej na regiony fizycznogeograficzne. BALON J., GERMAN K., 2007. Struktura krajobrazu Prace Wydziału Biologii i Nauk o Ziemi. Seria jako wyraz odrębności fizycznogeograficznej Geografia, vol. 4, Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Ada- Bramy Krakowskiej [in:] M. Osowiec, M. Tom- ma Mickiewicza. czuk, W. Żakowski (eds.), Znaczenie badań BARTKOWSKI T., 1968b. Podział Polski północno- krajobrazowych dla zrównoważonego rozwoju, -zachodniej na krainy geograficzne w systemie Warszawa: Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regio- dziesiętnym. Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 40, nalnych UW, pp. 371-281. no. 3, pp. 132-135. BALON J., GERMAN K., KOZAK J., MALARA H., WIDAC- BARTKOWSKI T., 1970a. Wielkopolska i Środkowe KI W., ZIAJA W., 1995. Regiony fizycznogeogra- Nadodrze. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Nauko- ficzne [in:] J. Warszyńska (ed.) Karpaty Polskie: we PWN. Przyroda, człowiek i jego działalność, Kraków: BARTKOWSKI T., 1970b. Metodyka podziału kraju Uniwersytet Jagielloński, pp.117-130. na mikroregiony dla potrzeb oceny środowiska BALON J., JODŁOWSKI M., 2005. Regionalizacja geograficznego. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersy- fizycznogeograficzna pogranicza polsko- tetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Geo- -słowackiego. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, grafia, vol. 9, Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama vol. 12, pp. 69-76. Mickiewicza. BALON J., JODŁOWSKI M., 2014. Regionalizacja BARTKOWSKI T., TOMKIEWICZ T., 1975. Podział fizycznogeograficzna Karpat Zachodnich – stu- na mikroregiony obszaru Leszno – Sława Śląska dium metodologiczne [in:] W. Ziaja, M. Jodłow- na podstawie kryteriów morfometrii i użytko- ski (eds.), Struktura środowiska przyrodniczego wania terenu. Sprawozdania PTPN za I i II kw. a fizjonomia krajobrazu, Kraków: Instytut Geo- 1972, pp. 148-150. grafii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej UJ. BEZKOWSKA G., 1998. Struktura jednostek regional- BALON J., JODŁOWSKI M., KRĄŻ P., 2015a. The Tatra nych centralnej części Nizin Środkowopolskich Mountains: Physico-geographical regions [in:] [in:] Przemiany krajobrazu naturalnego Polski. K. Dąbrowska, M. Guzik (eds.), Atlas of the Tatra Acta Geographica Lodziensia, vol. 74. Mountains: Abiotic nature, Zakopane: Tatra BEZKOWSKA G., 1999. Struktura przestrzenna śro- National Park, plate I.4. dowiska przyrodniczego regionu łódzkiego [in:] BALON J., JODŁOWSKI M., KRĄŻ P., 2015b. Tatry jako Nauki geograficzne a edukacja społeczeństwa. region fizycznogeograficzny [in:] A. Kotarba T. 2, Region łódzki, Materiały 48 Zjazdu PTG, (ed.), Przyroda Tatrzańskiego Parku Narodo- Łódź. wego a człowiek: Stan i perspektywy badań

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 164 Jerzy Solon et al.

BORZYSZKOWSKI J., BIDŁASIK M., 2016. Mikroregio- Gdańsk – Wrocław: Gdańskie Towarzystwo ny fizycznogeograficzne Polski: Kotlina Sando- Naukowe, Ossolineum, pp. 221-253. mierska, Pogórze Środkowobeskidzkie, Beskidy GACKI T., SZUKALSKI J., 1982. Morfostruktura krajo- Środkowe i Wschodnie, Płaskowyż Sańsko-Dnie- brazu i zróżnicowanie regionalne [in:] B. Augu- strzański: Monografia. Warszawa: IOŚ-PIB. stowski (ed.), Dolina Dolnej Wisły. Gdańsk BURACZYŃSKI J., 1995. Regiony geomorfologiczne – Wrocław: Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Roztocza. Annales UMCS, sec. B, vol. 48, (1993), Ossolineum, pp. 219-238. Lublin, pp. 59-73. GALON R., 1931. Morfologia doliny Drwęcy. Bada- BURACZYŃSKI, J., 1997. Roztocze, budowa – rzeźba nia Geograficzne nad Polską Północno-Zachod- – krajobraz. Lublin: Zakład Geografii Regional- nią, vol. 6-7. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Instytutu nej UMCS. Geograficznego Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego, CHAŁUBIŃSKA A., WILGAT T., 1954. Podział fizjogra- pp. 59-69. ficzny województwa lubelskiego. Lublin: Prze- GALON R., 1934. Dolina dolnej Wisły jej kształt wodnik V Ogólnopolskiego Zjazdu Polskiego i rozwój na tle budowy Dolnego Powiśla. Bada- Towarzystwa Geograficznego, pp. 3-44. nia Geograficzne nad Polską Północno-Zachod- ą ń ąż CZARNECKI R., 2005. Wyżyna Sandomierska: Część ni , vol. 12-13. Pozna : Ksi nica Atlas. wschodnia. 2, Struktura krajobrazu geograficz- GALON R., 1947. Podział Polski północnej na krainy nego, Warszawa. naturalne. Czasopismo Geograficzne, vol. 18, CZEPPE Z., 1972. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne no. 1-4, pp. 113-122. Wyżyny Krakowsko-Wieluńskiej [in:] Z. Czep- GALON R., 1973. Regiony naturalne [in:] A. Świnar- pe (ed.), Wartości środowiska przyrodniczego ski (ed.), Województwo bydgoskie. Krajobraz, Wyżyny Krakowsko-Wieluńskiej i zagadnienia dzieje, kultura, gospodarka. Poznań: Wydawnic- jego ochrony, Studia Ośrodka Dokumentacji two Naukowe PWN, pp. 71-76. Fizjograficznej PAN, vol. 1, Wrocław – Warsza- GALON R., 1984. Typy krajobrazu naturalnego wa – Kraków: Wydawnictwo PAN. i regiony fizycznogeograficzne [in:] R. Galon CZEPPE Z., GERMAN K., 1979. Regiony fizycznoge- (ed.), Województwo toruńskie: Przyroda – lud- ograficzne [in:] Atlas Województwa Miejskiego ność i osadnictwo – gospodarka. Poznań: Krakowskiego. Kraków: PAN. Oddział w Krako- Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, pp. 251-259. wie, Urząd Miasta Krakowa. GERMAN K., 1992. Typy środowiska przyrodnicze- DULIAS R., 2013. Denudacja antropogeniczna go w zachodniej części Pogórza Karpackiego. na obszarach górniczych: Na przykładzie Gór- Rozprawy Habilitacyjne – UJ, no. 246, Kraków: nośląskiego Zagłębia Węglowego. Sosnowiec: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Uniwersytet Śląski. GERMAN K., 2001. Fizycznogeograficzne regio- DULIAS R., HIBSZER A., 2004. Województwo śląskie: ny województwa małopolskiego. Folia Geo- Przyroda, gospodarka, dziedzictwo kulturowe. graphica. Series: Geographica-Oeconomica, Krzeszowice: Wydawnictwo Kubajak. vol. 31-32, pp. 9-38. DYSARZ R., 1996. Położenie miasta na tle regionów GIĘTKOWSKI T., 2008. Problem wyznaczania grani- fizyczno-geograficznych [in:] J. Banaszak (ed.), cy regionu na przykładzie Borów Tucholskich. Środowisko przyrodnicze Bydgoszczy. Środowi- Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 20, pp. 209- sko – Przyroda – Zdrowie. Bydgoszcz: Wydaw- 217. nictwo TANAN, pp. 11-38. GILEWSKA S., 1972. Wyżyny Śląsko-Małopolskie DZIEDZIC B., DZIEDZIC P., 1990. Próba regionalizacji [in:] M. Klimaszewski (ed.), Geomorfologia Pol- fizycznogeograficznej Gór Świętokrzyskich. Kiel- ski, t. 1. Góry i wyżyny, Warszawa: Państwowe ce: Instytut Geografii WSP [Master thesis under Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 232-339. supervision of Jan Mityk; typescript available GILEWSKA S., 1986. Podział Polski na jednostki geo- in the Archive of Jan Kochanowski University]. morfologiczne. Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 58, GACKI T., SZUKALSKI J., 1979. Zróżnicowanie geo- no. 1-2, pp. 16-40. ekologiczne i regionalne oraz problemy antro- JAHN A., 1954. Zarys morfologii Wyżyny Lubel- pizacji i ochrony środowiska geograficznego skiej. Przewodnik V Ogólnopolskiego Zjazdu [in:] B. Augustowski (ed.), Pojezierze Kaszubskie, Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego, Lublin:

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 165

Oddział Lubelski Polskiego Towarzystwa Geo- KONDRACKI J., 1946b. Tymczasowy wynik dyskusji graficznego, pp. 45-65. nad podziałem regionalnym Polski. Czasopismo JAHN A., 1956. Wyżyna Lubelska: Rzeźba i czwar- Geograficzne, vol. 17, pp. 296-298. torzęd. Prace Geograficzne, vol. 7, Warszawa: KONDRACKI J., 1955. Problematyka fizycznoge- Instytut Geografii PAN, Państwowe Wydawnic- ograficznej regionalizacji Polski. Przegląd Geo- two Naukowe, pp. 1-453. graficzny, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 289-309. JAHN A., 1968. Wysoczyzna Głubczycka. Studia KONDRACKI J., 1961. W sprawie terminologii i tak- Geograficzno-Fizyczne z Obszaru Opolszczy- sonomii jednostek regionalnych w geografii zny, vol. 1, Opole: Instytut Śląski, pp. 5-15. fizycznej Polski. Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 33, JODŁOWSKI M., 2001. Western border of the Tatra no. 1, pp. 23-38. Mts. in connection to the border of Tatra Natio- KONDRACKI J., 1964. Problems of Physical Geogra- nal Park (TANAP). Ekologia (Bratislava), vol. 20, phy and physico-geographical regionalisation Supplement 4/2001, pp. 110-115. in Poland. Geographia Polonica, vol. 1, pp. 61-77. JODŁOWSKI M., 2002. Typologia granic fizyczno- KONDRACKI J., 1965a. Geografia fizyczna Polski. geograficznych jako podstawa wyznaczenia Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. zachodniej granicy Tatr. Czasopismo Geogra- KONDRACKI J., 1965b. W sprawie fizycznogeogra- ficzne, vol. 4, pp. 231-244. ficznego podziału Europy w klasyfikacji dzie- JODŁOWSKI M., BALON J., 2005. Pogranicze pol- siętnej. Przegląd Geograficzny, vol. 37, no. 3, sko-słowackie w dotychczasowych podziałach pp. 539 -547. regionalnych. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, KONDRACKI J., 1967. Geografia fizyczna Polski. vol. 12, pp. 59-68. Wydanie 2 nie zmienione, Warszawa: Państwo- KARAŚ-BRZOZOWSKA C., 1960. Charakterystyka we Wydawnictwo Naukowe. ś ą ę geomorfologiczna Górno l skiego Okr gu KONDRACKI J., 1968. Fizycznogeograficzna regio- Przemysłowego. Biuletyn – Polska Akademia nalizacja Polski i krajów sąsiednich w systemie Nauk. Komitet dla Spraw Górnośląskiego Okrę- dziesiętnym. Prace Geograficzne, vol. 69, War- gu Przemysłowego, no. 37, Warszawa. szawa: Instytut Geografii PAN, pp. 13-41. ISTOWSKI K M., 2018. Propozycja delimitacji mikro- KONDRACKI J., 1977. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne regionów fizycznogeograficznych Pojezierza Polski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa UW. Kaszubskiego w świetle współczesnych źródeł i metod badawczych. Prace i Studia Geograficz- KONDRACKI J., 1978. Geografia fizyczna Polski. ne UW, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 17-34. Wydanie 3 zmienione, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. KISTOWSKI M., SZYDŁOWSKI J., 2014. Problem zasto- sowania GIS w regionalizacji fizycznogeogra- KONDRACKI J., 1988. Geografia fizyczna Polski. ficznej Niżu Polskiego na przykładzie wybra- Wydanie 6, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnic- nych obszarów Pomorza. Problemy Ekologii two Naukowe. Krajobrazu, vol. 38, pp. 77-94. KONDRACKI J., 1994. Geografia Polski. Mezoregio- ny fizycznogeograficzne. Warszawa: Wydaw- KISTOWSKI M., SZYDŁOWSKI J., 2015. Zastosowanie GIS w delimitacji regionów fizycznogeogra- nictwo Naukowe PWN. ficznych w kontekście wdrażania Europejskiej KONDRACKI J., 1998. Geografia regionalna Polski. Konwencji Krajobrazowej. Problemy Ekologii Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Krajobrazu, vol. 40, pp. 161-176. KONDRACKI J., 2000. Geografia regionalna Polski. KISTOWSKI M., SZYDŁOWSKI J., 2018. Problemy regio- Wydanie 2 poprawione, Warszawa: Wydawnic- nalizacji fizycznogeograficznej terenów młodo- two Naukowe PWN. glacjalnych i nadmorskich Pomorza w świetle KONDRACKI J., OSTROWSKI J., 1973-1978. Mapa 41. dotychczasowej ewolucji poglądów i wykona- Regiony fizycznogeograficzne [in:] Narodowy nych podziałów. Prace Geograficzne, vol. 266, Atlas Polski, Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk, pp. 43-66. Warszawa: Instytut Geografii i Prze- Instytut Geografii. strzennego Zagospodarowania PAN. KONDRACKI J., RICHLING A., 1994. Mapa 53.3. KONDRACKI J., 1946a. Regiony geograficzne Polski. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne [in:] Atlas Rze- Czasopismo Geograficzne, vol. 17, pp. 281-286. czypospolitej Polskiej (concept and scientific

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 166 Jerzy Solon et al.

elaboration: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Toruń: Województwo Kujawsko-Pomorskie Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Urząd Marszałkowski, Towarzystwo Naukowe im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego; editor-in-chief: Organizacji i Kierownictwa “Dom Organizato- M. Najgrakowski), Warszawa: Główny Geodeta ra”, pp. 100-108. Kraju, 1993-1999. KOT R., 2017b. Regionalizacja fizycznogeograficz- KOT R., 2008. Problem delimitacji mikroregionów na dolin na przykładzie fragmentu Pradoliny fizycznogeograficznych w krajobrazach dolin Toruńsko-Eberswaldzkiej [in:] J. Nita, U. Myga- i nizin. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 20, -Piątek, K. Pukowiec-Kurda (eds.), Nowe wyzwa- pp. 197-207. nia wobec regionalizacji Polski, XXII Interdyscy- KOT R., 2009. Próba ujednolicenia rangi jednostek plinarne Seminarium Krajobrazowe, Materiały rzeźby terenu dla delimitacji geokompleksów konferencyjne, Komisja Krajobrazu Kulturowe- wybranych krajobrazów nizinnych. Problemy go, Polskie Towarzystwo Geograficzne, Sosno- Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 23, pp. 167-179. wiec, pp. 25. KOT R., 2011. Propozycja weryfikacji regionaliza- KOWALSKI B., 1993. Wybrane problemy geomorfo- cji fizycznogeograficznej Polski na przykładzie logiczne Gór Świętokrzyskich [in:] M. Barcicki, wybranych regionów Niżu Polskiego. Problemy J. Mityk (ed.), 42. Zjazd Polskiego Towarzystwa Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 29, pp. 29-39. Geograficznego, Kielce, 27-30.06.1993, Prze- wodnik terenowy, Kielce: PTG O. w Kielcach, KOT R., 2015a. Makroregiony fizycznogeograficz- WSP, pp. 40. ne 1:1 000 000 [in:] Internetowy Atlas Woje- wództwa Kujawsko-Pomorskiego, http://atlas. KOZACKI L., 1970. Podział północnej części powiatu kujawsko-pomorskie.pl/maps/app/map# [28 konińskiego na mikroregiony dla potrzeb oceny October 2015]. zmian środowiska geograficznego wywołanych gospodarczą działalnością człowieka. Zeszyty KOT R., 2015b. Mezoregiony fizycznogeograficzne Naukowe UAM w Poznaniu, Geografia, vol. 9, 1:1 000 000 [in:] Internetowy Atlas Wojewódz- pp. 59-61. twa Kujawsko-Pomorskiego, http://atlas.kujaw- sko-pomorskie.pl/maps/app/map# [28 October KOZACKI L., Marsz A., Żynda S., 1970. Metoda 2015]. wyznaczania mikroregionów w oparciu o kry- terium morfometrii terenu. Zeszyty Naukowe KOT R., 2015c. Mikroregiony fizycznogeograficzne UAM w Poznaniu, vol. 9, pp. 23-26. 1:500 000 [in:] Internetowy Atlas Województwa Kujawsko-Pomorskiego, http://atlas.kujawsko-po- KRAŻEWSKA A., 1963. Podział Powiatu Toruńskiego morskie.pl/maps/app/map# [28 October 2015]. na jednostki geograficzno-fizyczne z uwzględ- nieniem ich kwalifikacji gospodarczej. Zeszyty KOT R., 2015d. Makroregiony fizycznogeograficz- Naukowe UMK, Geografia 2, Toruń, pp. 79- 90. ne [in:] Z. Kozieł (ed.), Atlas województwa kujaw- sko-pomorskiego, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwer- KRYGOWSKI B., 1956. O dwóch nowych podziałach sytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. na regiony geograficzne Niziny Wielkopolsko- -Kujawskiej. Badania Fizjograficzne nad Polską KOT R., 2015e. Mezoregiony fizycznogeogra- Zachodnią, vol. 3, pp. 75-112. ficzne [in:] Z. Kozieł (ed.), Atlas województwa kujawsko-pomorskiego. Toruń: Wydawnictwo KRYGOWSKI B., 1961. Geografia fizyczna Niziny Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Wielkopolskiej. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzy- stwo Przyjaciół Nauk. KOT R., 2015f. Mikroregiony fizycznogeograficzne [in:] Z. Kozieł (ed.), Atlas województwa kujaw- LECHNIO J., MALINOWSKA E., 2018. Weryfikacja sko-pomorskiego. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwer- granic mezoregionów fizycznogeograficznych sytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, pp. 60-61. w zasięgu województwa mazowieckiego. Pra- ce i Studia Geograficzne UW, vol. 63, no. 1, KOT R., 2016. Metodyka klasyfikacji fizycznoge- pp. 75-91. ograficznej obszaru województwa kujawsko- -pomorskiego. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, LENCEWICZ S., 1937. Polska. Wielka Geografia vol. 41, pp. 43-57. Powszechna, vol. 7, Warszawa: Nakładem Trza- ski, Everta i Michalskiego. KOT R., 2017a. Typy krajobrazu naturalnego i regiony fizycznogeograficzne [in:] A. Radzimiń- LENCEWICZ S., 1955. Geografia fizyczna Polski. ski (ed.), Dzieje regionu kujawsko-pomorskiego. Elaborated and completed by Jerzy Kondracki, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 167

ŁACH J., Rogowski M., Rozenkiewicz A., 2010. Pro- surowców węglanowych. Rocznik Świętokrzy- blematyka regionalizacji fizycznogeograficznej ski, no. 10, Warszawa-Kraków: Kieleckie Towa- pogranicza polsko-czeskiego w Sudetach Środ- rzystwo Naukowe, Państwowe Wydawnictwo kowych. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 26, Naukowe, pp. 119-154. pp. 171-180. MITYK J., 1983b. Problem zasobów rekreacyjnych LEWANDOWSKI W., 1985. Typy krajobrazu woje- na obszarze kieleckiego okręgu eksploatacji wództwa płockiego [in:] Dynamika przekształ- surowców węglanowych. Rocznik Świętokrzy- ceń środowiska przyrodniczego w strefie ski, no. 10, Warszawa-Kraków: Kieleckie Towa- oddziaływania MZRiP, Warszawa: Wydział Geo- rzystwo Naukowe, Państwowe Wydawnictwo grafii i Studiów Regionalnych UW. Naukowe, pp. 155-190. ŁOWICKI D., MIZGAJSKI A., 2013. Typology of phys- MITYK J., 1993. Tereny rekreacyjne w rejonie Kielc. ical-geographical regions in Poland in line with Kielce: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna im. Jana land-cover structure and its changes in the Kochanowskiego. years 1990-2006. Geographia Polonica, vol. 86, MYGA-PIĄTEK U., NITA J., 2013. Opracowanie krajo- no. 3, pp. 255-266. brazowe województwa śląskiego – dla potrzeb MACIEJOWSKI W., 2009. Regionalizacja fizycznoge- opracowania ekofizjograficznego do zmiany ograficzna – przeszłość czy przyszłość geografii planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego fizycznej? Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 23, województwa śląskiego. Katowice: Urząd Woje- pp. 115-128. wództwa Śląskiego. MAJCHROWSKA A., PAPIŃSKA E., 2018. Mikroregiony NITA J., 2002. Wykorzystanie modeli numerycz- fizycznogeograficzne Wysoczyzny Złoczewskiej. nych powierzchni terenu i zdjęć lotniczych Prace Geograficzne, vol. 266, pp. 153-162. w ocenie form morfologicznych dla potrzeb Warszawa: Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego waloryzacji krajobrazu. Archiwum Fotograme- Zagospodarowania PAN. trii, Kartografii i Teledetekcji, vol. 12a, pp. 275- MARSZ A., 1966a. Nowa metoda obiektywnego 281. wyznaczania granic fizycznogeograficznych NITA J. 2008. Zarys fizjografii (Chapter 1), Budo- jednostek regionalnych. Sprawozdania PTPN wa geologiczna Będzina (Chapter 2), Górnictwo za III i IV kw. 1964, pp. 314-316. – będzińskie kopalnie (Chapter 3), Fenomen MARSZ A., 1966b. Podział fizycznogeograficzny miejsca. Uwarunkowania przyrodnicze procesu wyspy Wolin na podstawie badań środowiska zasiedlenia przestrzeni Będzina (Chapter 15) geograficznego. Sprawozdania PTPN za III i IV [in:] M.Z. Pulinowa (ed.), Będzin 1358-2008, t. 1. kw. 1964, pp. 310-314. Środowisko przyrodniczo-geograficzne, Będzin: Muzeum Zagłębia w Będzinie, pp. 23-27 (Chap- MARSZ A., 1966c. Próba regionalizacji fizycznoge- ter 1), 27-51 (Chapter 2), 51-63 (Chapter 3), 317- ograficznej Wyspy Wolin. Badania Fizjograficz- 355 (Chapter 15). ne nad Polską Zachodnią, vol. 17(A), pp. 58-108. NITA J. 2010. Jednostki fizycznogeograficzne MARUSZCZAK H., 1972. Wyżyny lubelsko-wołyńskie na tle Numerycznego Modelu Terenu i ortofo- [in:] M. Klimaszewski (ed.), Geomorfologia Pol- tomapy na przykładzie Wyżyny Śląsko-Krakow- ski, 1, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo skiej. Landform Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 77-82. Naukowe, pp. 340-383. NITA J., 2013. Zmiany w krajobrazie powstałe MIGOŃ P., 2005. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne w wyniku działalności górnictwa surowców [in:] J. Fabiszewski (ed.), Przyroda Dolnego Ślą- skalnych na obszarze Wyżyn Środkowopolskich. ska, Wrocław: Oddział Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski. pp. 19 -37. NITA J., MYGA-PIĄTEK U., PUKOWIEC-KURDA K., 2016. MIGOŃ P., KASPRZAK M. 2015. Regiony fizyczno- Propozycja mikroregionalizacji województwa geograficzne [in:] A. Żelaźniewicz (ed.), Przy- śląskiego – weryfikacja metody na wybranych roda Dolnego Śląska, wydanie 2, Wrocław: mezoregionach. Prace Komisji Krajobrazu Kul- Oddział Polskiej Akademii Nauk we Wrocławiu, turowego, vol. 31, pp. 43-56. pp. 19-36. NITA J., NITA M., 2014. Wyrobiska w krajobrazie MITYK J., 1983a. Typologia środowiska przyrodnicze- Garbu Woźnickiego. Prace Komisji Krajobrazu go na obszarze kieleckiego okręgu eksploatacji Kulturowego, vol. 26, pp. 73-82.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 168 Jerzy Solon et al.

NITA J., MYGA-PIĄTEK U., PUKOWIEC-KURDA K., Warszawskiego, 104, Warszawa: Wydawnic- 2017. Wprowadzenie w tematykę konferencji two Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. “Nowe wyzwania wobec regionalizacji Polski”. RICHLING A., 1985a. Regionalizacja fizycznoge- 11-13 maja 2017 r., Sosnowiec: Wydział Nauk ograficzna województwa [in:] Stasiak A. (ed.), o Ziemi Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, pp. 5-6. Województwo Suwalskie: Studia i materiały, 1, PAPIŃSKA E., 1993. Podział regionalny i nazewnic- Białystok – Warszawa: Ośrodek Badań Nauko- two geograficzne obszaru środkowej Polski [in:] wych w Białymstoku, Instytut Geografii i Prze- S. Pączka (ed.), Środowisko geograficzne Polski strzennego Zagospodarowania PAN, pp. 169- Środkowej. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu 200. Łódzkiego, pp. 11-19. RICHLING A., 1985b. Typologia mikroregionów PAWŁOWSKI S., 1931. O kształtach powierzchni fizycznogeograficznych w granicach woje- i o podziale Wielkopolski na krainy. Badania wództwa suwalskiego. Przegląd Geograficzny, Geograficzne nad Polską Północno-Zachodnią, vol. 57, no. 1-2, pp. 123–138. vol. 6-7, Poznań. RICHLING A., CZAJKOWSKI L., 1988. Regionalizacja PIEŃKOWSKI P, PODLASIŃSKI M., 2017. Dominujące fizycznogeograficzna województwa płockiego. formy pokrycia terenu w odniesieniu do podzia- Notatki Płockie, no. 1(134), pp. 40-43. łu fizycznogeograficznego Polski. Prace Komisji RICHLING A., LECHNIO J. (eds.), 2005. Z problema- Krajobrazu Kulturowego, vol. 37, pp. 105-116. tyki funkcjonowania krajobrazów nizinnych. PIETKIEWICZ S., 1947. Podział morfologiczny Polski Warszawa: Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regio- północnej i środkowej. Czasopismo Geograficz- nalnych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. ne, vol. 18, pp. 123-169. RICHLING A., MALINOWSKA E., LECHNIO J., 2018. POTOCKI J., 1994. Uwagi do fizjograficznej regio- Metodyczne problemy regionalizacji pogra- nalizacji Sudetów. Czasopismo Geograficzne nicza krajobrazów młodo- i staroglacjalnych vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 189-197. na przykładzie okolic Płocka. Prace Geogra- POTOCKI J., 2000. Problemy regionalizacji geo- ficzne, vol. 266, pp. 67-80. Warszawa: Instytut graficznej i nazw topograficznych w Sudetach Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowa- na polsko-czeskim pograniczu. 49 Zjazd PTG nia PAN. “Środowisko przyrodnicze i gospodarka Dolne- RICHLING A., MALINOWSKA E., SZUMACHER I., 2012. go Śląska na progu trzeciego tysiąclecia” 21-24. Typologia i regionalizacja krajobrazu jako 09. 2000, Szklarska Poręba, pp. 297-300. wyraz hierarchicznej struktury środowiska [in:] PRZEWOŹNIAK M., 1985. Struktura przestrzenna A. Richling, J. Lechnio (eds.), Model funkcjonalny krajobrazu województwa gdańskiego w uję- systemu krajobrazowego, Warszawa: Wydział ciu regionalnym. Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych Uniwersytetu Biologii i Nauk o Ziemi Uniwersytetu Gdańskie- Warszawskiego. go, no. 13, pp. 5-22. ROLKA A.M., 1996. Zróżnicowanie krajobrazowe PRZEWOŹNIAK M., 1993. Struktura przestrzeni przy- i regionalne [in:] J. Szukalski (ed.), Pojezierze Sta- rodniczej [in:] J. Kołodziejski, T. Parteka (eds.), rogardzkie: praca zbiorowa. Cz. 1. Środowisko Polski region bałtycki w europejskiej strategii przyrodnicze, Gdańsk: Gdańskie Towarzystwo ekorozwoju. T. 2. Koncepcje strategii, Europej- Naukowe, Wydawnictwo Gdańskie, pp. 219- skie Studia Bałtyckie, Gdańsk: Instytut Proble- 234. mów Ekorozwoju Fundacji Ecobaltic, pp. 19-35. ROZENKIEWICZ A., ŁACH J., 2012. Problems of the PULINA M., PULINOWA M.Z., NITA J., 2008. Rzeźba regional nomenclature of the Polish-Czech terenu [in:] M.Z. Pulinowa (ed.), Będzin 1358- borderland. Moravian Geographical Reports, 2008, t. 1. Środowisko przyrodniczo-geogra- vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 69-77. ficzne, Będzin: Muzeum Zagłębia w Będzinie, SOLON J., CHMIELEWSKI T.J., MYGA-PIĄTEK U., KISTOW- pp. 63-72. SKI M., 2015. Identyfikacja i ocena krajobrazów ę RICHLING A., 1976. Analiza i struktura środowiska Polski – etapy i metody post powania w toku geograficznego i nowa metoda regionalizacji audytu krajobrazowego w województwach. Pro- fizycznogeograficznej (na przykładzie wojewódz- blemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 40, pp. 55-76. twa białostockiego). Rozprawy Uniwersytetu

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 2, pp. 143-170 Physico-geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verification and adjustment of boundaries… 169

STRZYŻ M., 2014. The landscape of Łysogóry and WŁAD P., 1996a. Województwo przemyskie. Zarys spatial planning [in:] M. Strzyż (ed.), Landscape geograficzny. Biblioteka Przemyska, vol. 31, and urban planning in the Regional Studies, Przemyśl: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Przyja- vol. 1, part 1, Kielce: Jan Kochanowski Univer- ciół Nauk. sity in Kielce. Department of Environment Pro- WŁAD P., 1996b. Regiony fizycznogeograficzne tection and Modelling, pp. 29-50. okolic Przemyśla. Rocznik Przemyski, vol. 32, STRZYŻ M., 2017. Góry Świętokrzyskie – granice no. 2, pp. 3-42. i podział regionalny. Kielce: Katedra Ochrony ZIAJA W., 2009. Fizycznogeograficzne regiony i Kształtowania Środowiska Uniwersytetu Jana województwa podkarpackiego. Folia. Geo- Kochanowskiego. graphica, Series Geographica-Oeconomica, SZAFLARSKI J., 1955. Zarys rozwoju ukształtowa- vol. 33, pp. 13-28 nia Wyżyny Śląskiej [in:] A. Wrzosek (ed.) Gór- ŻYNDA S., 1978. Podział środkowego Nadodrza ny Śląsk. Prace i materiały graficzne. Kraków: na fizycznogeograficzne jednostki przestrzenne Wydawnictwo Literackie. i ich ocena dla niektórych potrzeb planowania SZCZEPKOWSKI J., 1977. Struktura przestrzenna przestrzennego. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Nauko- Regionu Bydgosko-Toruńskiego. Ewolucja we Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. i dynamika. Prace Geograficzne, vol. 118, War- szawa: Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN. SZYDŁOWSKI J., 2013. Próba regionalizacji fizycz- nogeograficznej Pomorza Gdańskiego na tle dotychczasowych podziałów regionu. Gdańsk: Uniwersytet Gdański [Master thesis under supervision of M. Kistowski].

© Jerzy Solon et al. Article first received • January 2018 © Geographia Polonica Article accepted • April 2018 © Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences • Warsaw • 2018

http://rcin.org.pl MAP OF PHYSICO-GEOGRAPHICAL MESOREGIONS OF POLAND: MODIFIED VERSION OF J. KONDRACKI’S REGIONALISATION (map edited by Jerzy Solon and Jan Borzyszkowski) NAMES OF PHYSICO-GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS New mesoregions are shown green italic

3 Beyond-Alps Europe 315.84 Żerków Heights 332.41 Lubawka Gate 512.53 Cracov Submontane Region 14° 15° 16° 17° 18° 19° 20° 21° 22° 23° 24° 25° 31 Central European Lowland 317 Saxony-Lusatia Lowlands 332.42 Wałbrzyskie Mts 513 Outer Western Carpathians 313 Southern Baltic Coastlands 317.2 Lower Lusatia Basin 332.43 Kamienne Mts 513.3 Western Beskidy Foothills e a 313.2-3 Szczecin Coastland 317.23 Zasieki Basin 332.44 Sowie Mts 513.32 Silesia Foothills S 31313.413.41 31313.453.45 313.21 Uznam & Wolin Islands 317.4 Lusatia Hills 332.45 Bardzkie Mts 513.33 Wieliczka Foothills i c 31313.513.51 31313.523.52 313.22 Trzebiatów Coast 317.46 Bad Muskau Hills 332.46 Nowa Ruda Basin 513.34 Wiśnicz Foothills l t 313.23 Police Plain 317.7 Silesia-Lusatia Lowland 332.47 Ścinawka Basin 513.4-5 Western Beskidy Mts a 31313.463.46 N I $ 317.74 Dolnośląskie Forest 332.48 Stołowe Mts 513.45 Silesian Beskid Mts 31313.443.44 L I 7 H 8 $ 313.24 Lower Odra River Valley B R 8 S S I $ 313.25 Goleniów Plain 317.75 Przemków Plain 332.51 Orlickie Foothills 513.46 Żywiec Basin 313.26 Szczecin Heights 317.76 Lubin Heights 332.52 Orlickie Mts 513.47 Mały Beskid Mts 31313.473.47 *'$ē6. 31313.573.57 84842.712.71 317.77 Legnica Plain 332.53 Bystrzyckie Mts 513.48 Makowski Beskid 313.43313.43 31313.533.53 313.27 Bukowe Hills 314.51314.51 313.28 Wełtyń Plain 317.78 Chojnów Plain 332.54 Kłodzko Basin 513.49 Wyspowy Beskid 313.56313.56 84841.571.57 84842.842.84 318 Central Poland Lowlands 332.55 Upper Nysa Graben 513.50 Orawa-Jordanów Foothills 842.73 313.31 Pyrzyce Plain 314.46314.46 841.59841.59 84842.852.85 842.73 318.1-2 Southern Wielkopolska Lowland 332.6 Eastern Sudety Mts 513.51 Żywiec-Orawa Beskid Mts 31313.553.55 313.32 Nowogard Plain 31313.223.22 313.54313.54 84842.722.72 318.11 Leszczyńska Heights 332.61 Złote Mts 513.52 Gorce Mts 54° 313.33 Gryfi ce Plain 54° 841.58841.58 313.4 Koszalin Coastland 318.12 Kalisz Heights 332.62 Śnieżnik Massif 513.53 Sącz Basin 313.42313.42 314.47314.47 84842.892.89 313.41 Slovincian Coast 318.13 Konin Valley 332.63 Opawa Mts 513.54 Sącz Beskid Mts 313.33313.33 318.14 Koło Basin 34 Polish Uplands 513.55 Koniaków Intermontane Region 31313.213.21 842.83842.83 842.74842.74 313.42 Białogard Plain 314.67314.67 313.43 Słupsk Plain 318.15 Kłodawa Heights 341 Silesia-Kraków Upland 513.56 Żywiec-Kysuce Beskid Mts 314.52314.52 314.91314.91 842.86842.86 313.44 Damnica Heights 318.16 Rychwał Plain 341.1 Silesia Upland 513.57 Pewel-Krzeczów Ranges 31313.243.24 84842.812.81 842.82842.82 313.45 Choczewo Heights 318.17 Turek Heights 341.11 Chełm Hill 513.58 Orawa Interfl uve 31314.444.44 313.46 Reda-Łeba Proglacial Valley 318.18 Sieradz Basin 341.12 Tarnowskie Góry Hummock 513.59 Poprad Foothills 313.25313.25 31314.684.68 314.71314.71 31314.814.81 2/6=7<1 313.47 Koszalin Coast 318.19 Łask Heights 341.13 Katowice Upland 513.6 Mid-Beskidy Foothills 314.45314.45 318.21 Grabów Basin 341.14 Jaworzno Knolls 513.61 Rożnów Foothills 31313.233.23 31314.934.93 84842.882.88 313.5 Gdańsk Coastland 313.32313.32 314.69314.69 31314.924.92 313.51 Cassubian Coastland 318.22 Złoczew Heights 341.15 Rybnik Plateau 513.62 Cięzkowice Foothills 318.23 Szczerców Basin 341.16 Bojszów Depression 513.63 Strzyżów Foothills 31314.664.66 843.32843.32 313.52 Hel Penisula SZCZECIN 315.15315.15 842.87842.87 843.34843.34 318.24 Wieruszów Heights 341.2 Woźniki-Wieluń Upland 513.64 Dynów Foothills 31313.263.26 313.53 Vistula Spit 31314.434.43 318.25 Pyszna and Nieciecz Rivers Interfl uve 341.21 Wieluń Upland 513.65 Przemyśl Foothills 31314.734.73 31314.824.82 B 313.54 Żuławy Alluvial Plain 315.12315.12 843.31843.31 313.55 Elbląg Heights 318.3 Milicz-Głogów Depression 341.22 Liswarta Depression 513.66 Gorlice Basin 31313.273.27 31314.654.65 31314.724.72 318.31 Nowa Sól Depression 513.67 Jasło-Krosno Basin 31314.834.83 84843.333.33 E 313.56 Warmia Plain 341.23 Woźniki Rock Step 318.32 Głogów Ice Marginal Valley 341.24 Herby Rock Step 513.68 Jasło Foothills 314.74314.74 318.65318.65 313.57 Old Prussian Coast 31313.283.28 L 314-316 Southern Baltic Lake Districts 318.33 Żmigród Basin 341.25 Upper Warta Depression 513.69 Bukowiec Foothills 31313.313.31 315.11315.11 314.63314.63 314.64314.64 31315.135.13 314.4 Western Pomerania Lakeland 318.34 Milicz Basin 341.26 Krzepice Depression 513.7 Mid-Beskidy Mts 31314.424.42 318.63318.63 318.4 Trzebnica Range 513.71 Low Beskid Mts %,$à<672. $ 53° 314.41 Myślibórz Lakeland 341.27 Siewierz Basin 53° 31315.345.34 84843.363.36 314.42 Choszczno Lakeland 318.41 Żary Hills 341.28 Upper Mała Panew Depression 514-15 Central Western Carpathians %<'*26=&= 318.42 Dalków Hills 514.1 Orawa-Podhale Basin 314.41314.41 R 314.43 Ińsko Lakeland 341.3 Krakow-Częstochowa Upland 315.35315.35 318.43 Ścinawa Depression 514.11 Orawa-Nowy Targ Basin 31314.624.62 318.62318.62 314.44 Łobez Heights 341.31 Częstochowa Upland 315.53315.53 7258ē 315.14315.14 843.35843.35 8 314.45 Drawsko Lakeland 318.44 Trzebnica Hills 341.32 Olkusz Upland 514.12 Pieniny Mts 315.16 318.67318.67 GORZÓW 315.16 314.46 Polanów Heights 318.45 Twardogóra Hills 341.33 Krzeszowice Trench 514.13 Fore-Tatra Foothills 314.61314.61 WLKP. 318.46 Ostrzeszów Hills 341.34 Tenczynek Hills 514.14 Sub-Tatra Depression 318.64318.64 31318.668.66 843.37843.37 S 314.47 Bytów Lakeland 318.47 Middle Bóbr River Valley 342 Małopolska Upland 514.15 Magura Spiska Mts 315.33315.33 315.55315.55 314.5 Eastern Pomerania Lakeland 31315.325.32 31315.375.37 314.51 Cassubian Lakeland 318.5 Silesia Lowland 342.1 Przedbórz Upland 514.5 Tatra Range 314.52 Starogard Lakeland 318.50 Racibórz Gate 342.11 Radomsko Hills 514.52 Western Tatra Mts 31315.545.54 31315.525.52 315.58315.58 31318.748.74 314.6-7 Southern Pomerania Lakeland 318.51 Rościsławice Heights 342.12 Opoczno Hills 514.53 High Tatra Mts 31315.515.51 318.61318.61 843.38843.38 314.61 Gorzów Plain 318.52 Wrocław Ice Marginal Valley 342.13 Lelów Riffl e 514.54 Reglowe Tatra Mts 31315.365.36 318.53 Wrocław Plain 342.14 Włoszczowa Basin 52 Eastern Carpathians & Eastern 31315.415.41 314.62 Dobiegniew Lakeland 32=1$ē 314.63 Drawa Plain 318.54 Nysa Kłodzka River Valley 342.15 Przedbórz-Małogoszcz Range Subcarpathians 315.57315.57 318.78318.78 31318.918.91 315.42315.42 315.44315.44 314.64 Wałcz Lakeland 318.55 Niemodlin Plain 342.16 Łopuszno Hills 521 Eastern Subcarpathians 318.56 Oleśnica Plain 315.56315.56 318.73318.73 314.65 Wałcz Plain 342.17 Przyrów Basin 521.1 San-Dniestr Plateau 31315.505.50 315.59315.59 318.57 Opole Plain 342.2 Nida Basin 315.43315.43 :$56$: 318.94318.94 314.66 Szczecinek Lakeland 521.11 Hermanowice Submontane Region 31318.718.71 31318.928.92 318.58 Głubczyce Plateau 342.21 Jędrzejów Plateau 521.13 Mościce Plateau Y 31318.158.15 314.67 Charzykowy Plain 31318.138.13 31318.938.93 314.68 Gwda River Valley 318.59 Racibórz Basin 342.22 Miechów Upland 522 Outer Eastern Carpathians 31315.645.64 52° 314.69 Northern Krajna Lakeland 318.6 Northern Masovia Lowland 342.23 Proszowice Plateau 522.1 Lesiste Beskidy Mts N 31315.615.61 315.63315.63 31315.835.83 84845.185.18 52° 318.72318.72 314.71 Tuchola Forest 318.61 Płońsk Heights 342.24 Wodzisław Hummock 522.11 Sanocko-Turczańskie Mts =,(/21$ 31315.625.62 31318.148.14 318.76318.76 318.62 Raciąż Plain 31315.735.73 *Ï5$ 31315.845.84 31318.168.16 314.72 Brda River Valley 342.25 Nida River Valley 522.12 Bieszczady Mts $ 31315.825.82 318.79318.79 84845.115.11 318.63 Mława Hills 342.26 Solec Basin 31315.725.72 314.73 Świecie Upland 8 East European Plain 31315.715.71 31315.745.74 31318.968.96 314.74 Southern Krajna Lakeland 318.64 Ciechanów Heights 342.27 Pińczów Hummock 31315.815.81 318.17318.17 318.65 Kurpie Plain 84 Eastern Baltic-Belarus Lowland M 31318.318.31 31318.828.82 845.12845.12 84845.185.18 314.8 Lower Vistula River Valley 342.28 Połaniec Basin 318.83318.83 318.66 Lower Narew River Valley 841 Eastern Baltic Coastland 31317.237.23 àÏ'ħ 31318.958.95 314.81 Kwidzyn Valley 342.3 Kielce Upland 318.11318.11 31318.128.12 318.67 Łomża Interfl uve 841.5 Old Prussian Lowland R 314.82 Grudziądz Basin 342.31 Suchedniów Plateau 841.57 Górowo Heights 31318.418.41 318.42318.42 318.19318.19 31318.708.70 314.83 Fordon Valley 318.7 Central Masovia Lowland 342.32 Gielniów Hillock 31317.467.46 31318.478.47 318.70 Lower Pilica River Valley 841.58 Orneta Plain E 84845.145.14 314.9 Iława Lakeland 342.33 Iłża Piedmont 31318.328.32 31318.978.97 841.59 Sępopol Lowland 31318.188.18 31318.758.75 84845.155.15 314.91 Iława Plain 318.71 Kutno Plain 342.34-35 Świętokrzyskie Mts 31318.858.85 842 Eastern Baltic Lake District 318.84318.84 318.77318.77 314.92 Łasin Lakeland 318.72 Łowicz-Błonie Plain 342.36 Sandomierz Upland G 842.7 Lithuanian Lakeland 31318.338.33 31318.8.34 318.98318.98 314.93 Dzierzgoń-Morąg Lakeland 318.73 Warsaw Basin 342.37 Szydłów Foothills 317.74317.74 31317.757.75 31318.438.43 84845.165.16 842.71 Romincka Forest 31318.218.21 84845.185.18 315.1 Chełmno-Dobrzyń Lakeland 318.74 Lower Bug River Valley 343 Lublin-Lviv Upland 318.22318.22 842.72 Western Suwałki Lakeland 315.11 Chełmno Lakeland 318.75 Midle Vistula River Valley 343.1 Lublin Upland 31317.767.76 31318.458.45 318.46318.46 318.86318.86 842.73 Eastern Suwałki Lakeland 31318.238.23 34343.123.12 315.12 Brodnica Lakeland 318.76 Warsaw Plain 343.11 Małopolska Gap of the Vistula River 31317.777.77 31318.518.51 31318.448.44 318.81318.81 84845.315.31 842.74 Augustów Plain 31318.258.25 /8%/,1 315.13 Drwęca River Valley 318.77 Kozienice Plain 343.12 Nałęczów Plateau 342.12342.12 34342.322.32 34343.113.11 842.8 Masurian Lakeland 34343.133.13 34343.163.16 84845.325.32 315.14 Dobrzyń Lakeland 318.78 Wołomin Plain 343.13 Bełżyce Plateau 31317.787.78 31318.248.24 84845.335.33 842.81 Olsztyn Lakeland :52&à$: 34343.143.14 315.15 Lubawa Hummock 318.79 Garwolin Plain 343.14 Chodel Depression 332.26332.26 842.82 Mrągowo Lakeland 33332.272.27 31318.568.56 51° 315.16 Urszulewo Plain 318.8 Southern Masovia Hills 343.15 Urzędów Heights 34342.332.33 842.83 Great Masurian Lakes 51° 34342.112.11 34342.312.31 315.3 Toruń-Eberswalde Ice Marginal Valley 318.81 Bełchatów Heights 343.16 Świdnik Plateau 842.84 Węgorapa Land 33332.112.11 341.21341.21 343.17343.17 315.32 Freienwalde Basin 318.82 Łódź Hills 343.17 Giełczew Hills 343.15343.15 842.85 Szeskie Hills 33332.252.25 332.35332.35 343.18343.18 85851.111.11 315.33 Gorzów Basin 318.83 Rawa Heights 343.18 Grabowiec Interfl uve 318.53318.53 31318.528.52 34341.261.26 34342.172.17 842.86 Ełk Lakeland 332.34332.34 332.36332.36 33332.122.12 34342.162.16 84845.185.18 315.34 Middle Noteć River Valley 318.84 Piotrków Plain 343.19 Zamość Basin 332.28332.28 34341.241.24 KIELCE 842.87 Masurian Plain 33332.132.13 34342.152.15 315.35 Toruń Basin 318.85 Białobrzegi Valley 343.2 Roztocze Upland 33332.372.37 33332.382.38 33332.152.15 318.57318.57 842.88 Olsztynek Plain 33332.422.42 34342.142.14 342.34-35342.34-35 34342.362.36 315.36 Płock Basin 318.86 Radom Plain 343.21 Western Roztocze 33332.412.41 34343.213.21 34343.193.19 842.89 Jeziorany-Bisztynek Heights 34341.221.22 85851.121.12 315.37 Nieszawa Gap of the Vistula River 318.9 Southern Podlasie Lowland 343.22 Middle Roztocze 33332.432.43 843 Podlasie-Belarus Heights 33332.432.43 34341.251.25 315.4 Lubuskie Lakeland 318.91 Podlasie Gap of the Bug River 343.23 Eastern Roztocze 33332.472.47 33332.442.44 OPOLE 843.3 Northern Podlasie Plain 33332.482.48 31318.548.54 34342.132.13 342.21342.21 34342.372.37 315.41 Lubuski Gap of the Odra River 318.92 Kałuszyn Heights 33332.462.46 332.14332.14 34341.231.23 851.13851.13 5 Carpathians, Subcarpathians 843.31 Kolno Heights 51512.472.47 315.42 Łagów Lakeland 318.93 Węgrów Depression 34341.311.31 34343.223.22 843.32 Biebrza Basin 31318.558.55 315.43 Torzym Plain 318.94 Siedlce Heights & Pannonian Plain 33332.472.47 33332.452.45 34341.281.28 34342.282.28 843.33 Białystok Heights 34341.111.11 34342.242.24 34342.252.25 85851.211.21 315.44 Zbąszynek Basin 318.95 Żelechów Heights 51 Western Carpathians & Western 33332.512.5133332.482.48 33332.162.16 51512.452.45 843.34 Sokółka Hills 33332.542.54 34341.271.27 34342.272.27 315.5 Wielkopolskie Lakeland 318.96 Łuków Plain and Northern Subcarpathians 34341.121.12 843.35 Wysokie Mazowieckie Heights 33332.522.52 332.61332.61 34342.262.26 315.50 Nowy Tomyśl Plain 318.97 Wieprz Ice Marginal Valley 512 Northern Subcarpathians 33332.172.17 31318.598.59 343.23343.23 843.36 Upper Narew River Valley 34341.161.16 341.13341.13 34342.222.22 512.41512.41 315.51 Poznań Lakeland 318.98 Lubartów Heights 512.1 Ostrawa Basin 332.53332.53 332.62332.62 843.37 Bielsk Plain 33332.632.63 51512.442.44 512.48512.48 51512.462.46 315.52 Poznań Gap of the Warta River 33 Czech Massif 512.11 Kończyce Upland .$72:,&( 34341.141.14 34341.321.32 512.49512.49 843.38 Drohiczyn Heights 33332.552.55 34342.232.23 E 315.53 Chodzież Lakeland 332 Sudety Mts & Sudety Foreland 512.12 Olza Basin 318.58318.58 845 Polesie 33332.632.63 315.54 Gniezno Lakeland 332.1 Sudety Foreland 512.2 Oświęcim Basin 512.43512.43 845.1 Western Polesie 34341.331.33 51512.512.51 50° 315.55 Inowrocław Plain 332.11 Strzegom Hills 512.21 Pszczyna Plain 50° 33332.172.17 RZESZÓW N 845.11 Łomazy Depression 34341.151.15 34341.341.34 51512.332.33 .5$.Ï: 315.56 Września Plain 332.12 Świdnica Plain 512.22 Upper Vistula River Valley 31318.508.50 51512.212.21 51512.422.42 I 845.12 Parczew-Kodeń Heights 51512.222.22 51512.522.52 315.57 Kuyavian Lakeland 332.13 Ślęża Massif 512.23 Wilamowice Submontane Region 51512.532.53 845.14 Sosnowica Depression 51512.312.31 51513.633.63 315.58 Żnin-Mogilno Lakeland 332.14 Niemcza-Strzelin Hills 512.3 Kraków Gate $ 845.15 Włodawa Heights 51512.122.12 51512.232.23 51513.333.33 51513.343.34 315.59 Grodzisk Heights 332.15 Fore-Sudety Depression 512.31 Skawina Deep 845.16 Łęczna-Włodawa Lakeland 51513.623.62 51513.643.64 315.6 Warta-Odra Ice Mariginal Valley 332.16 Otmuchów Depression 512.32 Cholerzyn Depression C Z E C 51512.112.11 51513.323.32 R 845.18 Middle Bug River Valley H R E P 52521.131.13 315.61 Middle Odra River Valley 332.17 Paczków Foreland 512.33 Cracow Bridge 8 B L I C 51512.122.12 51513.473.47 51513.483.48 51513.613.61 845.3 Volhyn Polesie 51513.653.65 52521.111.11 315.62 Kargowa Basin 332.2 Western Sudety Foothills 512.4-5 Sandomierz Basin 51513.573.57 K 845.31 Dorohucza Depression 51513.463.46 51513.493.49 51513.663.66 51513.673.67 315.63 Middle Obra River Valley 332.25 Żytawa Basin 512.41 Vistula Lowland 51513.683.68 845.32 Chełm Hills 51513.453.45 51513.513.51 315.64 Śrem Basin 332.26 Izerskie Foothills 512.42 Bochnia Submontane Region 51513.533.53 8 845.33 Dubienka Depression 51513.503.50 315.7 Zielona Góra Hills 332.27 Kaczawskie Foothills 512.43 Tarnów Plateau 51513.693.69 85 Ucrainian Uplands 51513.553.55 51513.583.58 51513.523.52 51513.713.71 315.71 Gubin Heights 332.28 Wałbrzyskie Foothills 512.44 Lower Wisłoka River Valley 52522.112.11 851 Volhyn-Podole Upland 51513.543.54 315.72 Lower Bóbr River Valley 332.3 Western Sudety Mts 512.45 Tarnobrzeg Plain 51513.563.56 51514.114.11 851.1 Volhyn Upland 51514.124.12 315.73 Czerwieńsk Heights 332.34 Izerskie Mts 512.46 Lower San River Valley 51513.593.59 851.11 Horodło Ridge 51514.134.13 51514.154.15 315.74 Zielona Góra Ridge 332.35 Kaczawskie Mts 512.47 Biłgoraj Plain 51513.593.59 851.12 Hrubieszów Basin 51514.144.14 315.8 Leszczyńskie Lakeland 332.36 Jelenia Góra Basin 512.48 Kolbuszowa Plateau 851.13 Sokal Ridge 52522.122.12 315.81 Sława Lakeland 332.37 Karkonosze Mts 512.49 Tarnogród Plateau Scale 1:2,000,000 51514.544.54 851.2 Pobuże Basin 51514.524.52 315.82 Krzywiń Lakeland 332.38 Rudawy Janowickie Mts 512.51 Sub-Carpathian Ice Marginal Valley 851.21 Bełz Plain 0 25 50 75 100 km 51514.534.53 S L O V $ K I $ 315.83 Kościan Plain 332.4-5 Central Sudety Mts 512.52 Rzeszów Foothills 49° 49° To cite: Solon J., Borzyszkowski J., Bidłasik M., Richling A., Badora K., Balon J., Brzezińska-Wójcik T., Chabudziński Ł., Dobrowolski R., Grzegorczyk I., Jodłowski M., Kistowski M., 15° 16° 17° 18° 19° 20° 21° 22° 23° 24° Kot R., Krąż P., Lechnio J., Macias A., Majchrowska A., Malinowska E., Migoń P., Myga-Piątek U., Nita J., Papińska E., Rodzik J., Strzyż M., Terpiłowski S., Ziaja W., 2018. Physico- -geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verifi cation and adjustment of boundaries on the basis of contemporary spatial data. Geographia Polonica, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 143-170.

© Jerzy Solon, Jan Borzyszkowski (eds.) https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0115 0 © Geographia0 Polonica 140 280 © Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 2018 NAZWY REGIONÓW FIZYCZNOGEOGRAFICZNYCH Nowe mezoregiony oznaczono zieloną, pochyłą czcionką

3 Pozaalpejska Europa 315.82 Pojezierze Krzywińskie 332.4-5 Sudety Środkowe 512.53 Podgórze Krakowskie 315.83 Równina Kościańska 332.41 Brama Lubawska 513 Zewnętrzne Karpaty Zachodnie Środkowa 315.84 Wał Żerkowski 332.42 Góry Wałbrzyskie 513.3 Pogórze Zachodniobeskidzkie 31 Niż Środkowoeuropejski 317 Niziny Sasko-Łużyckie 332.43 Góry Kamienne 513.32 Pogórze Śląskie 313 Pobrzeża Południowobałtyckie 317.2 Obniżenie Dolnołużyckie 332.44 Góry Sowie 513.33 Pogórze Wielickie 313.2-3 Pobrzeże Szczecińskie 317.23 Kotlina Zasiecka 332.45 Góry Bardzkie 513.34 Pogórze Wiśnickie 313.21 Uznam i Wolin 317.4 Wzniesienia Łużyckie 332.46 Obniżenie Noworudzkie 513.4-5 Beskidy Zachodnie 313.22 Wybrzeże Trzebiatowskie 317.46 Wał Mużakowski 332.47 Obniżenie Ścinawki 513.45 Beskid Śląski 313.23 Równina Wkrzańska (Równina 317.7 Nizina Śląsko-Łużycka 332.48 Góry Stołowe 513.46 Kotlina Żywiecka Policka) 317.74 Bory Dolnośląskie 332.51 Pogórze Orlickie 513.47 Beskid Mały 313.24 Dolina Dolnej Odry 317.75 Równina Przemkowska 332.52 Góry Orlickie 513.48 Beskid Makowski 313.25 Równina Goleniowska 317.76 Wysoczyzna Lubińska 332.53 Góry Bystrzyckie 513.49 Beskid Wyspowy 313.26 Wzniesienia Szczecińskie 317.77 Równina Legnicka 332.54 Kotlina Kłodzka 513.50 Pogórze Orawsko-Jordanowskie 313.27 Wzgórza Bukowe 317.78 Równina Chojnowska 332.55 Rów Górnej Nysy 513.51 Beskid Żywiecko-Orawski 313.28 Równina Wełtyńska 318 Niziny Środkowopolskie 332.6 Sudety Wschodnie 513.52 Gorce 313.31 Równina Pyrzycka 318.1-2 Nizina Południowowielkopolska 332.61 Góry Złote 513.53 Kotlina Sądecka 313.32 Równina Nowogardzka 318.11 Wysoczyzna Leszczyńska 332.62 Masyw Śnieżnika 513.54 Beskid Sądecki 313.33 Równina Gryfi cka 318.12 Wysoczyzna Kaliska 332.63 Góry Opawskie 513.55 Międzygórze Jabłonkowsko-Koniakowskie 313.4 Pobrzeże Koszalińskie 318.13 Dolina Konińska 34 Wyżyny Polskie 513.56 Beskid Żywiecko-Kysucki 313.41 Wybrzeże Słowińskie 318.14 Kotlina Kolska 341 Wyżyna Śląsko-Krakowska 513.57 Pasma Pewelsko-Krzeczowskie 313.42 Równina Białogardzka 318.15 Wysoczyzna Kłodawska 341.1 Wyżyna Śląska 513.58 Działy Orawskie 313.43 Równina Słupska 318.16 Równina Rychwalska 341.11 Chełm 513.59 Pogórze Popradzkie 313.44 Wysoczyzna Damnicka 318.17 Wysoczyzna Turecka 341.12 Garb Tarnogórski 513.6 Pogórze Środkowobeskidzkie 313.45 Wysoczyzna Choczewska 318.18 Kotlina Sieradzka 341.13 Wyżyna Katowicka 513.61 Pogórze Rożnowskie 313.46 Pradolina Redy-Łeby 318.19 Wysoczyzna Łaska 341.14 Pagóry Jaworznickie 513.62 Pogórze Ciężkowickie 313.47 Wybrzeże Koszalińskie 318.21 Kotlina Grabowska 341.15 Płaskowyż Rybnicki 513.63 Pogórze Strzyżowskie 313.5 Pobrzeże Gdańskie 318.22 Wysoczyzna Złoczewska 341.16 Obniżenie Bojszowa 513.64 Pogórze Dynowskie 313.51 Pobrzeże Kaszubskie 318.23 Kotlina Szczercowska 341.2 Wyżyna Woźnicko-Wieluńska 513.65 Pogórze Przemyskie 313.52 Mierzeja Helska 318.24 Wysoczyzna Wieruszowska 341.21 Wyżyna Wieluńska 513.66 Obniżenie Gorlickie 313.53 Mierzeja Wiślana 318.25 Międzyrzecze Pysznej i Niecieczy 341.22 Obniżenie Liswarty 513.67 Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska 313.54 Żuławy Wiślane 318.3 Obniżenie Milicko-Głogowskie 341.23 Próg Woźnicki 513.68 Pogórze Jasielskie 313.55 Wysoczyzna Elbląska 318.31 Obniżenie Nowosolskie 341.24 Próg Herbski 513.69 Pogórze Bukowskie 313.56 Równina Warmińska 318.32 Pradolina Głogowska 341.25 Obniżenie Górnej Warty 513.7 Beskidy Środkowe 313.57 Wybrzeże Staropruskie 318.33 Kotlina Żmigrodzka 341.26 Obniżenie Krzepickie 513.71 Beskid Niski 314-316 Pojezierza Południowobałtyckie 318.34 Kotlina Milicka 341.27 Kotlina Siewierza 514-15 Centralne Karpaty Zachodnie 314.4 Pojezierze Zachodniopomorskie 318.4 Wał Trzebnicki 341.28 Obniżenie Górnej Małej Panwi 514.1 Obniżenie Orawsko-Podhalańskie 314.41 Pojezierze Myśliborskie 318.41 Wzniesienia Żarskie 341.3 Wyżyna Krakowsko-Częstochowska 514.11 Kotlina Orawsko-Nowotarska 314.42 Pojezierze Choszczeńskie 318.42 Wzgórza Dalkowskie 341.31 Wyżyna Częstochowska 514.12 Pieniny 314.43 Pojezierze Ińskie 318.43 Obniżenie Ścinawskie 341.32 Wyżyna Olkuska 514.13 Pogórza Przedtatrzanskie 314.44 Wysoczyzna Łobeska 318.44 Wzgórza Trzebnickie 341.33 Rów Krzeszowicki 514.14 Bruzda Podtatrzańska 314.45 Pojezierze Drawskie 318.45 Wzgórza Twardogórskie 341.34 Garb Tenczyński 514.15 Magura Spiska 314.46 Wysoczyzna Polanowska 318.46 Wzgórza Ostrzeszowskie 342 Wyżyna Małopolska 514.5 Łańcuch Tatrzański 314.47 Pojezierze Bytowskie 318.47 Dolina Środkowego Bobru 342.1 Wyżyna Przedborska 514.52 Tatry Zachodnie 314.5 Pojezierze Wschodniopomorskie 318.5 Nizina Śląska 342.11 Wzgórza Radomszczańskie 514.53 Tatry Wysokie 314.51 Pojezierze Kaszubskie 318.50 Brama Raciborska 342.12 Wzgórza Opoczyńskie 514.54 Tatry Reglowe 314.52 Pojezierze Starogardzkie 318.51 Wysoczyzna Rościsławska 342.13 Próg Lelowski 52 Karpaty Wschodnie z Podkarpaciem 314.6-7 Pojezierze Południowopomorskie 318.52 Pradolina Wrocławska 342.14 Niecka Włoszczowska 314.61 Równina Gorzowska Wschodnim 318.53 Równina Wrocławska 342.15 Pasmo Przedborsko-Małogoskie 521 Wschodnie Podkarpacie 314.62 Pojezierze Dobiegniewskie 318.54 Dolina Nysy Kłodzkiej 342.16 Wzgórza Łopuszańskie 521.1 Płaskowyż Sańsko-Dniestrzański 314.63 Równina Drawska 318.55 Równina Niemodlińska 342.17 Niecka Przyrowska 521.11 Podgórze Hermanowickie 314.64 Pojezierze Wałeckie 318.56 Równina Oleśnicka 342.2 Niecka Nidziańska 521.13 Płaskowyż Mościski 314.65 Równina Wałecka 318.57 Równina Opolska 342.21 Płaskowyż Jędrzejowski 522 Zewn ętrzne Karpaty Wschodnie 314.66 Pojezierze Szczecineckie 318.58 Płaskowyż Głubczycki 342.22 Wyżyna Miechowska (Beskidy Wschodnie) 314.67 Równina Charzykowska 318.59 Kotlina Raciborska 342.23 Płaskowyż Proszowicki 522.1 Beskidy Lesiste 314.68 Dolina Gwdy 318.6 Nizina Północnomazowiecka 342.24 Garb Wodzisławski 522.11 Góry Sanocko-Turczańskie 314.69 Pojezierze Północnokrajeńskie 318.61 Wysoczyzna Płońska 342.25 Dolina Nidy 522.12 Bieszczady Zachodnie 314.71 Bory Tucholskie 318.62 Równina Raciąska 342.26 Niecka Solecka 314.72 Dolina Brdy 318.63 Wzniesienia Mławskie 342.27 Garb Pińczowski 8 Niż Wschodnioeuropejski 314.73 Wysoczyzna Świecka 318.64 Wysoczyzna Ciechanowska 342.28 Niecka Połaniecka 84 Niż Wschodniobałtycko-Białoruski 314.74 Pojezierze Południowokrajeńskie 318.65 Równina Kurpiowska 342.3 Wyżyna Kielecka 841 Pobrzeże Wschodniobałtyckie 314.8 Dolina Dolnej Wisły 318.66 Dolina Dolnej Narwi 342.31 Płaskowyż Suchedniowski 841.5 Nizina Staropruska 314.81 Dolina Kwidzyńska 318.67 Międzyrzecze Łomżyńskie 342.32 Garb Gielniowski 841.57 Wzniesienia Górowskie 314.82 Kotlina Grudziądzka 318.7 Nizina Środkowomazowiecka 342.33 Przedgórze Iłżeckie 841.58 Równina Ornecka 314.83 Dolina Fordońska 318.70 Dolina Dolnej Pilicy 342.34-35 Góry Świętokrzyskie 841.59 Nizina Sępopolska 314.9 Pojezierze Iławskie 318.71 Równina Kutnowska 342.36 Wyżyna Sandomierska 842 Pojezierze Wschodniobałtyckie 314.91 Pojezierze Dzierzgońsko-Morąskie 318.72 Równina Łowicko-Błońska 342.37 Pogórze Szydłowskie 842.7 Pojezierze Litewskie 314.92 Pojezierze Łasińskie 318.73 Kotlina Warszawska 343 Wyżyna Lubelsko-Lwowska 842.71 Puszcza Romincka 314.93 Równina Iławska 318.74 Dolina Dolnego Bugu 343.1 Wyżyna Lubelska 842.72 Pojezierze Zachodniosuwalskie 315.1 Pojezierze Chełmińsko-Dobrzyńskie 318.75 Dolina Środkowej Wisły 343.11 Małopolski Przełom Wisły 842.73 Pojezierze Wschodniosuwalskie 315.11 Pojezierze Chełmińskie 318.76 Równina Warszawska 343.12 Płaskowyż Nałęczowski 842.74 Równina Augustowska 315.12 Pojezierze Brodnickie 318.77 Równina Kozienicka 343.13 Równina Bełżycka 842.8 Pojezierze Mazurskie 315.13 Dolina Drwęcy 318.78 Równina Wołomińska 343.14 Obniżenie Chodelskie 842.81 Pojezierze Olsztyńskie 315.14 Pojezierze Dobrzyńskie 318.79 Równina Garwolińska 343.15 Wzniesienia Urzędowskie 842.82 Pojezierze Mrągowskie 315.15 Garb Lubawski 318.8 Wzniesienia Południowomazowieckie 343.16 Płaskowyż Świdnicki 842.83 Kraina Wielkich Jezior Mazurskich 315.16 Równina Urszulewska 318.81 Wysoczyzna Bełchatowska 343.17 Wyniosłość Giełczewska 842.84 Kraina Węgorapy 315.3 Pradolina Toruńsko-Eberswaldzka 318.82 Wzniesienia Łódzkie 343.18 Działy Grabowieckie 842.85 Wzgórza Szeskie 315.32 Kotlina Freienwaldzka 318.83 Wysoczyzna Rawska 343.19 Kotlina Zamojska 842.86 Pojezierze Ełckie 315.33 Kotlina Gorzowska 318.84 Równina Piotrkowska 343.2 Roztocze 842.87 Równina Mazurska 315.34 Dolina Środkowej Noteci 318.85 Dolina Białobrzeska 343.21 Roztocze Zachodnie 842.88 Równina Olsztynka 315.35 Kotlina Toruńska 318.86 Równina Radomska 343.22 Roztocze Środkowe 842.89 Wysoczyzna Jeziorańsko-Bisztynecka 315.36 Kotlina Płocka 318.9 Nizina Południowopodlaska 343.23 Roztocze Wschodnie 843 Wysoczyzny Podlasko-Białoruskie 315.37 Nieszawski Przełom Wisły 318.91 Podlaski Przełom Bugu 843.3 Nizina Północnopodlaska 315.4 Pojezierze Lubuskie (Brandenbursko- 318.92 Wysoczyzna Kałuszyńska 5 Karpaty, Podkarpackie 843.31 Wysoczyzna Kolneńska Lubuskie) 318.93 Obniżenie Węgrowskie i Nizina Panońska 843.32 Kotlina Biebrzańska 315.41 Lubuski Przełom Odry 318.94 Wysoczyzna Siedlecka 51 Karpaty Zachodnie z Podkarpaciem 843.33 Wysoczyzna Białostocka 315.42 Pojezierze Łagowskie 318.95 Wysoczyzna Żelechowska Zachodnim i Północnym 843.34 Wzgórza Sokólskie 315.43 Równina Torzymska 318.96 Równina Łukowska 512 Podkarpacie Północne 843.35 Wysoczyzna Wysokomazowiecka 315.44 Bruzda Zbąszyńska 318.97 Pradolina Wieprza 512.1 Kotlina Ostrawska 843.36 Dolina Górnej Narwi 315.5 Pojezierze Wielkopolskie 318.98 Wysoczyzna Lubartowska 512.11 Wysoczyzna Kończycka 843.37 Równina Bielska 315.50 Równina Nowotomyska 33 Masyw Czeski 512.12 Kotlina Olzy 843.38 Wysoczyzna Drohiczyńska 315.51 Pojezierze Poznańskie 332 Sudety z Przedgórzem Sudeckim 512.2 Kotlina Oświęcimska 845 Polesie 315.52 Poznański Przełom Warty 332.1 Przedgórze Sudeckie 512.21 Równina Pszczyńska 845.1 Polesie Zachodnie 315.53 Pojezierze Chodzieskie 332.11 Wzgórza Strzegomskie 512.22 Dolina Górnej Wisły 845.11 Zaklęsłość Łomaska 315.54 Pojezierze Gnieźnieńskie 332.12 Równina Świdnicka 512.23 Podgórze Wilamowickie 845.12 Wysoczyzna Parczewsko-Kodeńska 315.55 Równina Inowrocławska 332.13 Masyw Ślęży 512.3 Brama Krakowska 845.14 Zaklęsłość Sosnowicka 315.56 Równina Wrzesińska 332.14 Wzgórza Niemczańsko-Strzelińskie 512.31 Rów Skawiński 845.15 Garb Włodawski 315.57 Pojezierze Kujawskie 332.15 Obniżenie Podsudeckie 512.32 Obniżenie Cholerzyńskie 845.16 Pojezierze Łęczyńsko-Włodawskie 315.58 Pojezierze Żnińsko-Mogileńskie 332.16 Obniżenie Otmuchowskie 512.33 Pomost Krakowski 845.18 Dolina Środkowego Bugu 315.59 Wysoczyzna Grodziska 332.17 Przedgórze Paczkowskie 512.4-5 Kotlina Sandomierska 845.3 Polesie Wołyńskie 315.6 Pradolina Warciańsko-Odrzańska 332.2 Pogórze Zachodniosudeckie 512.41 Nizina Nadwiślańska 845.31 Obniżenie Dorohuckie 315.61 Dolina Środkowej Odry 332.25 Kotlina Żytawska 512.42 Podgórze Bocheńskie 845.32 Pagóry Chełmskie 315.62 Kotlina Kargowska 332.26 Pogórze Izerskie 512.43 Płaskowyż Tarnowski 845.33 Obniżenie Dubieńskie 315.63 Dolina Środkowej Obry 332.27 Pogórze Kaczawskie 512.44 Dolina Dolnej Wisłoki 85 Wyżyny Ukraińskie 315.64 Kotlina Śremska 332.28 Pogórze Wałbrzyskie 512.45 Równina Tarnobrzeska 851 Wyżyna Wołyńsko-Podolska 315.7 Wzniesienia Zielonogórskie 332.3 Sudety Zachodnie 512.46 Dolina Dolnego Sanu 851.1 Wyżyna Wołyńska 315.71 Wzniesienia Gubińskie 332.34 Góry Izerskie 512.47 Równina Biłgorajska 851.11 Grzęda Horodelska 315.72 Dolina Dolnego Bobru 332.35 Góry Kaczawskie 512.48 Płaskowyż Kolbuszowski 851.12 Kotlina Hrubieszowska 315.73 Wysoczyzna Czerwieńska 332.36 Kotlina Jeleniogórska 512.49 Płaskowyż Tarnogrodzki 851.13 Grzęda Sokalska 315.74 Wał Zielonogórski 332.37 Karkonosze 512.51 Pradolina Podkarpacka 851.2 Kotlina Pobuża 315.8 Pojezierze Leszczyńskie 332.38 Rudawy Janowickie 512.52 Podgórze Rzeszowskie 851.21 Równina Bełska 315.81 Pojezierze Sławskie

Cytowanie: Solon J., Borzyszkowski J., Bidłasik M., Richling A., Badora K., Balon J., Brzezińska-Wójcik T., Chabudziński Ł., Dobrowolski R., Grzegorczyk I., Jodłowski M., Kistowski M., Kot R., Krąż P., Lechnio J., Macias A., Majchrowska A., Malinowska E., Migoń P., Myga-Piątek U., Nita J., Papińska E., Rodzik J., Strzyż M., Terpiłowski S., Ziaja W., 2018. Physico- -geographical mesoregions of Poland: Verifi cation and adjustment of boundaries on the basis of contemporary spatial data. Geographia Polonica, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 143-170. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0115