sustainability

Article Analysis of Changes in Land Use Patterns Pursuant to the Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Use in the Context of the Sustainable Development of the Malopolska Region

Malgorzata Busko 1,* ID and Beata Szafranska 2 1 Department of Department of Integrated Geodesy and Cartography, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30059 Krakow, Poland 2 Department of Agriculture and Geodesy, Marshal’s Office of the Malopolska Province, 30017 Krakow, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-608-017-172

Received: 7 November 2017; Accepted: 5 January 2018; Published: 9 January 2018

Abstract: This research paper presents the results of analyses that address the direction in which the issue of land use in Malopolska has been heading in recent years. The authors formulated the thesis that changes occurring in the use of agricultural land are advanced and, despite its legal protection, this land is continuously subjected to permanent conversion to non-agricultural use year by year. Verification of the thesis was carried out using taxonomic analyses. As a result, it was proven that as much as 68% of the land converted to non-agricultural use in the study period was earmarked for residential use. Importantly, as much as 19% of these areas are of the best quality classes, i.e., classes I and II, which account for a mere 7% of all agricultural land in Malopolska. Another 79% of the converted agricultural land belonged to the mid class, i.e., class III, which—at the time of writing—represents only 26% in the Malopolska Province. This data demonstrates that the best lands of the Malopolska Province, which belonged to classes I, II and III (i.e., top quality arable soils), were irreversibly degraded by their conversion to non-agricultural use. The paper proposes systemic solutions supporting the decision-making process of administrative bodies aimed at agricultural land protection.

Keywords: sustainable development; agricultural land; conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use; changes of agricultural land use

1. Introduction The concept of sustainable development first appeared in Polish legislation in 2001 when the Act on Environmental Protection was adopted [1]. Pursuant to Art. 3, Section 50 of the act, sustainable development is understood as integrated political, social and economic activities aimed at ensuring the safety of natural processes while satisfying the current needs of citizens. Therefore, it is important to retain equilibrium between the possibility of the present generation to develop and to guarantee the right of future generations to a natural environment. In this way, reference was made to the Report [2] in which the definition of sustainable development appeared. In order to be able to implement sustainable development of the economy, land and society, sustainable development should be based on an integrated system of data collection that would be up-to-date, reliable and accessible [3,4]. One such system is the Land Administration System (LAS)—a multi-faceted system for collecting data from various public records (including real estate cadastre) and spatial information systems [5]. The integration of these systems and records should ensure interoperability within the structure of spatial information [6,7].

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136; doi:10.3390/su10010136 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 2 of 22

Literature provides various methods for evaluating the implementation of sustainable development [8–11]; however, the data on parcels of land and on land use, included in various public records, always constitute the basis of the analysis [12–15]. The proper use of land and the protection of agricultural and forest land is frequently considered to be a local environmental issue [16,17]. In the study [18] it has been demonstrated that, also in northern Italy, suburban areas are particularly vulnerable to the conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The problem of such conversion in the vicinity of large cities has also been discussed in the paper [19]. The phenomenon of land conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use has been defined there as “urban expansion” and estimated at about 40% of all agricultural lands surrounding large cities. However, only land uses and not land quality classes, have been analysed in these papers. This issue, however, is becoming a global one and applies to many countries. In the paper [20] it has been emphasized that it is necessary to develop further case studies for other regions in Europe regarding agriculture decline due to urban expansion. Our research paper addresses this specific need by presenting reliable results of changes in land use in Malopolska. The analysis of the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use must be based on the current legal system. Pertaining to agricultural and forest lands located in Poland, the legal status is regulated by the Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Land of 1995 [21]. This act stipulates the principles and determines the procedures, i.e., the sequence of individual actions aimed at converting land to non-agricultural and non-forest use. Firstly, the land must be earmarked as non-agricultural and non-forest in the local zoning plan. Secondly, a decision is issued specifying the conditions of such a conversion. The final stage includes the actual conversion of agricultural land carried out by the owner (holder), i.e., the abandonment of the existing land use. The legal analysis on the protection of agricultural land located in urban areas in Poland was carried out in [22]. Research studies on the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and the protection of agricultural land have been conducted in Reference [23] but only in reference to one county—Zwolen in the Mazowieckie province. In Reference [24], changes in land use for the Małopolska province have been analysed but with the use of Corine Land Cover. For this reason, these analyses do not contain information on land quality classes, which is essential in our research paper. The development of industry is inevitable in today’s world. However, it is necessary to ensure that the practice and prospects for the development of industry are ecologically sound [25–27]. Rapid and uncontrolled urbanisation can lead to the occurrence of a phenomenon which, in the literature, is referred to as the emergence and development of so-called ‘urban villages’. Such a phenomenon is observed in China, for example [28–30]—this has nothing to do with sustainable development, so it is essential to take measures to counteract it. Pro-ecological protection of agricultural and forest land in Poland is the subject of various interesting studies. As far as forest land is concerned, the paper [31] deals with the question of afforestation of land in the period 1995–2013, with particular emphasis on the effect of Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004 on the implementation of environmental actions. Legal bases and principles related to the protection of agricultural land in Poland are discussed in [32]. It should be expected that the adopted national policy would implement a comprehensive system of the use of agricultural land and principles of the division of agricultural land for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes [33]. The use of agricultural land for purely agricultural purposes is also closely related to subsidies for agricultural production from the European Union funds [34,35]. However, excessive development of agricultural production, without concern for sustainable development regarding residents’ needs, may also lead to numerous problems, as demonstrated in [36]. Many inhabitants of Poland, including the inhabitants of the Malopolska Province, are faced with the selection of their place of residence. They can choose between a heavily developed urban area, such as the capital of the province—the city of Krakow—or other large cities of the region, such as Bochnia, Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 3 of 22

Brzesko, Tarnow, Nowy Sacz etc. and the countryside around these larger cities. One of the criteria that must be taken into account while making a choice is whether the network of roads facilitates or inhibits daily commuting to cities for employment or educational purposes [37]. Such surveys analysing satisfaction relating to place of residence within or outside the city have been conducted in Chicago [38]. These studies demonstrated that the quality of transportation roads is an important factor when choosing a place of residence and significantly affects the level of residents’ satisfaction [39]. Developers of zoning plans, architects and designers need to understand that an appropriate communication system, the development of access roads and their quality make positive contributions to the ecological development of the local community [40]. Successful implementation of sustainable development in the aspect of roads and communication not only improves the economic aspects of life of the inhabitants but also ensures a healthier environment. It is important that local communities are actively involved in the process of sustainable land management regardless of whether it concerns highly developed or developing countries [41,42]. With the commencement of the industrialisation process in developing countries, the character of the agricultural space is changing into invested areas. Rural areas are subject to significant changes, as for example, in China [43,44]. The optimisation of the conversion of agricultural land to industrial land in rural areas forms the bases for the sustainable development of rural areas. Moreover, the importance of the restructuring of rural areas also plays a significant role in agriculture [45–47]. The international literature describes research studies on the commercialisation of rural areas using qualitative methods [48], quantitative methods [49,50] and using a mixed approach. This paper will utilise a mixed approach but with a significant part of quantitative research being based on taxonomy, with particular reference to the Ward method. The main objective of this research paper is to analyse the state of changes in land use which have taken place in land development in southern Poland, within the Malopolska Province, over the last seven years. The analysis was carried out with respect to:

- determining the size of land converted to non-agricultural use, - determining the directions of changes in the use of land converted to non-agricultural use, - determining the quality classes of land converted to non-agricultural use.

2. Materials and Methods The research study will identify the areas (counties) in the Malopolska province in which the land of the best quality classes is converted to non-agricultural use; the research will also specify the direction of land use changes. The main source of data is the register of land and buildings maintained and updated by the counties. Pursuant to the regulation on the register of land and building [51], it is uniform across the public land registry database for the whole country. It should be emphasised that the Malopolska province is a particularly difficult case as far as data acquisition for the analysis of record data is concerned. The province consists of 22 counties and 182 communes covering 4,516,496 record parcels. In many counties of the Malopolska province, geodetic and cartographic documentation databases are still maintained in an analogue form. The graphic part, i.e., the cadastral map for rural areas, is maintained in the vector form for only approximately 35% of the province area and for the remaining rural areas, it is still a map in an analogue form. A large share of the descriptive part of the record data utilised for the preparation of this paper (225 files in AppendixC and 7 files in AppendixD) is analogue (non-electronic). Although the data on the size of land converted to non-agricultural use collected by the Marshal of the province is available for a period longer than seven years, the key data for this article was that from the districts regarding land quality classes. The data for the whole province exists only for the period 2010–2016. Thus, it is not possible to perform a long-term analysis in the Malopolska province. For statistical analyses, creating graphs, data operations and data transformation, the authors used the Statistica software. Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 4 of 22

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 4 of 23 2.1. MaterialsSustainability for 2018 the, 10 Analysis, 136 4 of 23 2.1. Materials for the Analysis The2.1. Materials research for area the coveredAnalysis the Malopolska province, one of 16 provinces in Poland (Figure1). The research area covered the Malopolska province,2 one of 16 provinces in Poland (Figure 1). The MalopolskaThe research province area covered covers anthe areaMalopolska of 15,183 province, km , whichone of 16 accounts provinces for in 4.9% Poland of (Figure the country’s 1). The Malopolska province covers an area of 15,183 km2, which accounts for 4.9% of the country’s territoryThe andMalopolska ranks province the region covers in an 12th area place of 15,183 with km regard2, whichto accounts area. for Administrative 4.9% of the country’s divisions territory and ranks the region in 12th place with regard to area. Administrative divisions divide the divideterritory the province and ranks into the 22 region counties, in 12th consisting place with ofregard 182 communes:to area. Administrative 46 municipal-rural divisions divide communes, the province into 22 counties, consisting of 182 communes: 46 municipal-rural communes, 14 province into 22 counties, consisting of 182 communes: 46 municipal-rural communes, 14 14 municipalitiesmunicipalities andand 122 rural communes communes (Figure (Figure 2).2 ).This This province province was was selected selected for the for theanalysis analysis municipalities and 122 rural communes (Figure 2). This province was selected for the analysis becausebecause it has it has one one of theof the largest largest areas areas of of land land convertedconverted annually annually to tonon-agricultural non-agricultural use usein Poland. in Poland. because it has one of the largest areas of land converted annually to non-agricultural use in Poland.

FigureFigure 1. 1. AdministrativeAdministrative di divisionvision of of Poland. Poland. Figure 1. Administrative division of Poland.

Figure 2. Administrative division of the Malopolska province. Figure 2. Administrative division of the Malopolska province. Figure 2. Administrative division of the Malopolska province. Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 5 of 22

Malopolska is characterised by a great variety of landscape features, geological structure, climatic, hydrological and soil conditions. Agricultural land is the main form of land use in the Malopolska province. By 2015, it covered a total of 537,500 ha, constituting 81.0% of the total area of agricultural holdings in the province. The vast majority (96.8% of the total agricultural land) belonged to individual farms [52]. The most favourable soil conditions for agricultural production are located in the eastern and northern parts of the province and in the northern part of the Carpathian foothills. Over recent years, there has been a systematic decline in the area of land devoted to agricultural use.

2.2. Research Methods—Taxonomic Analysis as a Tool for Regionalisation The region is a spatial concept referring to a specifically separated territory, which, due to the relative homogeneity of its characteristics and its connections, differs from the surrounding areas [53]. Regionalisation is a specific procedure for the division of space into regions, i.e., smaller and relatively homogeneous areas which, due to the accepted criteria, create a specific whole which is separated by strictly defined boundaries. Regionalisation can be carried out according to one or several criteria and its most important task is to reduce the number of spatial units. Generally, the objective of regionalisation is to create a smaller number of regions which would be continuous units and maximally uniform internally as far as a given set of characteristics is concerned, from a certain number of spatial units with specific characteristics. The administrative division into regions supports effective management and functioning of the organisational unit [54]. Getting to know the degree of spatial variability of the counties in the Malopolska province provides a lot of valuable information—this is useful for monitoring changes occurring in land use in the whole province. A set of attributes of selected mapped elements of geographical space contribute to the complexity and diversity of the natural environment, these include: the area of agricultural land in the Malopolska province divided according to their quality classes in the years 2010–2016; the area of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural land use; the purpose of its conversion; the percentage of specific quality classes of land being converted to non-agricultural use; other attributes discussed by the authors in this paper. The multidimensional statistics, developed by Jan Czekanowski and Zdzisław Hellwig, deal with the analysis of the multi-faceted phenomena and objects. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Czekanowski’s first work was published [55]. His research initiated the widespread use of numerical taxonomy in anthropology, agriculture, geography and the environment. According to Kukula [56], one of the main concepts in the theory of regionalisation is to treat regionalisation as a sort of classification based on the criterion of the homogeneity of spatial objects. Usually, one of the taxonomic procedures allows the distinguishing of more homogeneous groups of objects resulting from the similarity of the selected set of attributes. In defining the notion of regional statistics, Mlodak [57] identifies all the statistical activities undertaken in relation to specific regions as research subjects and the term ‘the region’ is understood as a specific territory whose area is determined by arbitrarily defined administrative boundaries. Taxonomy as a science—the main idea of which is aggregation, analysis and organization of objects described by numerous statistical variables—plays an important role in studying the efficiency of results obtained by regional statistics and the complex variability of territorial units, relative to the occurring phenomena. According to Mlodak, determining the direction of the grouping process involves a necessity to determine the grouping hierarchy. Hierarchical and non-hierarchical methods can be distinguished here. The characteristic attributes of hierarchical methods are the levels of integration or disintegration of groups. The algorithms implementing division of the set into subsets, so that these subsets contain the most similar objects, can be divided into two main groups [58,59]: hierarchical and non-hierarchical ones. Hierarchical methods include the methods as follows: of the closest neighbourhood, the furthest neighbourhood, the gravity centres, median, the group average, the weighted group average, the Ward method. In these methods, trees are created as part of clusters by grouping objects having similar attributes. Initially, the procedure assumes that each object constitutes a separate subgroup. By finding Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 6 of 23

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 6 of 22 subgroup. By finding the shortest distance, the elements which should be merged in the next step of the agglomeration are highlighted. the shortestOne of distance,the most the popular elements and which most should widely be mergedused agglomerati in the nexton step methods of the agglomerationis the Ward methodare highlighted.—this was used in this study. Proposed by J.H. Ward, this method differs from all others becauseOne it of uses the mostan ANOVA popular andto estimate most widely the useddistance agglomeration between clusters. methods This is the method Ward method—this is aimed at wasminimising used in thisthe study.sum of Proposed squares byof J.H.deviations Ward, thiswithin method the differsclusters. from At alleach others stage, because of all itpossible uses an ANOVAmerging topairs estimate of clusters, the distance the one between which produces clusters. Thisa cluster method with is minimal aimed at variation minimising as thea result sum of mergingsquares ofis deviationschosen. The within measure the clusters.of such variation At each stage,relative of allto the possible mean mergingvalues is pairs the expression of clusters, ESS the (oneError which Sum producesof Squares a), clusterwhich is with defined minimal by the variation following as a formula: result of merging is chosen. The measure of such variation relative to the mean values is the expression ESS (Error Sum of Squares), which is defined = ( ) (1) by the following formula: 𝑘𝑘 k 2 2 = 𝑖𝑖 ( − ) ESS ∑i=1 xi x (1) where xi is the value of the segmentation𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 � 𝑖𝑖variable=1 𝑥𝑥 − 𝑥𝑥 for̅ the i-th object, is the mean value of the wheresegmentationxi is the variable value ofand the k is segmentation the number of variable objects in for the the cluster.i-th object, x is the mean value of the 𝑥𝑥 segmentationThis method variable is considered and k is the to number be very of effective, objects in although the cluster. it is aimed at creating small-sized clusters.This Its method computational is considered effect to is be a verytree effective,in the form although of a specific it is aimed dendrite at creating called a small-sized dendrogram. clusters. The thresholdIts computational value has effect been is determined a tree in the so form as to of ensure a specific the dendrite identification called of a dendrogram.a proper number The thresholdof classes valueof the hascounties been determinedto create larger so as areas to ensure with thehomogene identificationous features of a proper according number to ofthe classes principle of theof regionalisationcounties to create. With larger regard areas with to homogeneousthe research featuresmethods according for taxonomic to the principle analyses, of regionalisation.it should be Withemphasised regard that to the one research of the methodsco-authors, for in taxonomic her doctoral analyses, dissertation, it should analysed be emphasised the hierarchical that one and of nonthe co-authors,-hierarchical in groupin her doctoralg methods dissertation, in great analysed detail, theproving hierarchical that Ward and non-hierarchical’s method is simple grouping but sufficientlymethods in effective great detail,. proving that Ward’s method is simple but sufficiently effective.

3. Results The description and categorisation of soils is facilitated by their systematic classificationclassification which takes into account the causes of the formationformation and similaritiessimilarities between specificspecific soil units. Figure 33 shows thethe structurestructure of of the the soils soils by by quality quality class class forthe for entire the entire province province at the beginningat the beginning of the research of the periodresearch (2010). period (2010).

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000 classes I-II

200,000 class III class IV 150,000 classes V-VI 100,000

50,000

0 classes I-II class III class IV classes V-VI

Figure 3.3.Surface Surface areas areas of agriculturalof agricultural land land use in use the in Malopolska the Malopolska province province in 2010 divided in 2010 into divided quality intoclasses quality and expressed classes and in hectares expressed (ha). in hectares (ha).

Soil classification in Poland covers both agricultural land as well as forest land. The agricultural Soil classification in Poland covers both agricultural land as well as forest land. The agricultural land, especially the best and very good soils (of classes I and II), are particularly valuable due to their land, especially the best and very good soils (of classes I and II), are particularly valuable due to their Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 7 of 22 nutrient content for plants, their soil structure and environmental values. The share of the soils which belong to quality classes I and II in the total area of the agricultural land in the province is only 7% (Figure3). The best soils (according to the classification) can be found in the northern and central parts of the province. 26% of all agricultural land use is made up of soils of classes IIIa and IIIb, i.e., good soils, occurring in slightly worse physiographic conditions than soils of classes I and II. They also have significantly worse physical and chemical properties than classes I and II soils. The groundwater level fluctuates more and the crops are dependent upon the weather. Some soils are periodically too dry, others may be too wet at times. They may also be susceptible to erosion. As much as 36% of soils in the Malopolska province belong to classes IVa and IVb, i.e., medium quality soils. These are heavy soils, most often too dry or too wet, too heavy for cultivation, or located in poor physiographic conditions, such as strong declines, eroded hills or depressions. As much as 31% of all the soils in the province are poor and the poorest soils, i.e., those which belong to classes V and VI. These soils are not very fertile, they are barely productive, the crops are very poor and their successful growth is uncertain. Such soils are frequently earmarked for afforestation or other non-agricultural purposes. The advantage of the region is its clean environment, so despite the low quality of the soils resulting from the mountainous and piedmont landscape, there are favourable conditions for the development of healthy food production in the southern part of the province [60]. The sources of the data presented in the bar charts (Figures3 and4) are the databases of the register of land and buildings maintained by the counties (AppendixC). The bar chart in Figure3 illustrates the general structure of the soil quality classes for the entire province, while Figure4 shows the division of the agricultural land into quality classes within individual counties. This bar chart is based on the data from 225 files (AppendixC). The data contained in Table A1 (AppendixA) and in the bar charts (Figures3 and4) is the synthetic input data for the analyses carried out later in this paper. With respect to the discussed initial situation, the authors of the article have conducted an analysis of the agricultural land in the Malopolska province which has been annually converted to non-agricultural use during the seven years between 2010 and 2016. Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 8 of 22 Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 8 of 23

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

classes I-II class III class IV classes V-VI

Figure 4. Surface area of agricultural land uses within specific quality classes in the individual counties of the Malopolska province in 2010 expressed Figure 4. Surface area of agricultural land uses within specific quality classes in the individual counties of the Malopolska province in 2010 expressed in hectares (ha). in hectares (ha). Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 9 of 22

3.1. GroupsSustainability of Counties 2018, 10, 136 Similar in Terms of Quality of the Soils at the Initial Stage of the Research (2010)9 of 23 Based on the bar chart in Figure4, the dendrogram presented in Figure A1 (AppendixB) was 3.1. Groups of Counties Similar in Terms of Quality of the Soils at the Initial Stage of the Research (2010) developed using the Ward method. This allowed the distinguishing of eight groups of counties (A–H) accordingBased to their on similarthe bar attributeschart in Figure (quality 4, the classes). dendrogram The sizepresented of the in area Figure of the A1 soils (Appendix of the bestB) was quality classdeveloped was adopted using as the a leading Ward method. attribute. This allowed the distinguishing of eight groups of counties (A– H) according to their similar attributes (quality classes). The size of the area of the soils of the best The vertical axis of the dendrogram represents the county numbers according to Table A1, while quality class was adopted as a leading attribute. the horizontal axis is a dimensionless number representing the distances of clusters (regions). The red The vertical axis of the dendrogram represents the county numbers according to Table A1, line iswhile a fixed the thresholdhorizontal valueaxis is thata dime providesnsionless the number appropriate representing number the distances of classes. of clusters (regions). FigureThe red5 linedemonstrates is a fixed threshold the area value of the that Malopolska provides the province appropriate divided number into of classes. smaller administrative units (counties).Figure 5 Groupsdemonstrates of similar the area counties of the Malopolska are marked province on the mapdivided with into different smaller administrative colours (Figure 5). Groupsunits of (counties). the counties Groups which of simila werer counties identified are as marked having on thethe largestmap with surface different area colours of the (Figure best quality5). classesGroups (class of I andthe counties class II) which at the were initial identified stage of as the having research, the largest i.e.,in surface 2010, area are markedof the best in quality green. It is clearlyclasses visible (class that I and the northernclass II) at partthe initial of the stage region of the has research, the best i.e., soil in conditions. 2010, are marked Among in green. these counties,It is the firstclearly to be visible mentioned that the is northern Proszowice, part of followed the region by has Krakow the best and soilTarnow. conditions. Then, Among the nextthese arecounties, Wieliczka, the first to be mentioned is Proszowice, followed by Krakow and Tarnow. Then, the next are Wadowice and Miechow. The poorest soils are located in the southern part of the region, i.e., in the Wieliczka, Wadowice and Miechow. The poorest soils are located in the southern part of the region, counties of Sucha Beskidzka, Limanowa, Nowy Sacz, Zakopane and Nowy Targ. This is closely related i.e., in the counties of Sucha Beskidzka, Limanowa, Nowy Sacz, Zakopane and Nowy Targ. This is to physiographicclosely related conditions to physiographic and topography conditions becauseand topography these areas because belong these to areas the mountainousbelong to the and piedmontmountainous landscape. and piedmont landscape.

Figure 5. Map of groups of similar counties (according to the Ward method) with regard to Figure 5. Map of groups of similar counties (according to the Ward method) with regard to surface surface area of quality classes I–VI in individual counties of the Malopolska province as of area of quality classes I–VI in individual counties of the Malopolska province as of 1 January 2010. 1 January 2010.

3.2. Groups3.2. Groups of Counties of Counties Similar Similar with with Regard Regard toto SizeSize of of Agricultural Agricultural Land Land Converted Converted to Non-Agricultural to Non-Agricultural Use Use The analysisThe analysis carried carried out laterout later in this in paperthis paper aimed aimed to identify to identify the areasthe areas of the of Malopolska the Malopolska province whereprovince the greatest where degradation the greatest degradation of the best classes of the best of land classes occurred of land asoccurred a result as of a convertingresult of converting agricultural landagricultural to non-agricultural land to non-agricultural use. It will also use. be It importantwill also be toimportant define theto define specific the purposespecific purpose of these of land use changes.these land Additionally, use changes. itAdditionally, will be essential it will tobe assessessential whether to assess the whether development the development of the areas of the can be describedareas can as sustainablebe described oras sustainable whether it or will whether simply it will result simply in the result deprivation in the deprivation of the of soil the of soil the ofmost the most valuable natural values, leading to its irreversible degradation. valuable natural values, leading to its irreversible degradation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 10 of 22

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 10 of 23

FigureSustainabilityFigure6 illustrates 2018 6, illustrates10, 136 the trendthe trend of of land land use use changeschanges for for the the whole whole province, province, from fromagricultural agricultural10 to of 23 to non-agriculturalnon-agricultural uses, uses in the, in the analysed analysed period period ofof time. Figure 6 illustrates the trend of land use changes for the whole province, from agricultural to non-agricultural400 uses, in the analysed period of time. 300 400

ha 200 300 100

ha 200 0 100 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0 FigureFigure 6. Share 6. Share of agricultural of agricultural land land converted converted to non-agricultural to non-agricultural use use in in the the Malopolska Malopolska province 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 betweenprovince 2010 and between 2016 (ha).2010 and 2016 (ha). FigureBased 6.on Share the graph of agricultural in Figure 6, land it is noticeableconverted that to nonno significant-agricultural changes use in in thethe Malopolskaconversion of Basedlandprovince for on non the -betweenagricultural graph in 2010 Figure use and took 62016, itplace is(ha noticeable in). Malopolska that in no the significant years 2010–2013. changes A sharp in theincrease conversion in of land forland non-agricultural conversion since 2014 use tookis related place to the in Malopolskaeconomic development in the years of Poland, 2010–2013. resulting A mainly sharp from increase in Based on the graph in Figure 6, it is noticeable that no significant changes in the conversion of land conversionthe EU investment since 2014 financing is related for the to country the economic’s development development activities ofplanned Poland, for resultingthe years 2014 mainly– from land2020. for The non studies-agricultural [61–63] useidentified took place price -indetermining Malopolska factors in the affecting years 2010the value–2013. of Aagricultural sharp increase land in the EU investment financing for the country’s development activities planned for the years 2014–2020. landafter conversion Poland’s accession since 2014 to isthe related EU in theto the regions economic where development agriculture is ofpredominant. Poland, resulting mainly from The studiesthe EUIn [investment 61order–63 to] identified identify financing details price-determining for of the the countrychanges’ sin development land factors uses affecting presented activities the in a valueplanned general of way for agricultural theon the years graph 2014 land – after Poland’s2020.(Figure accession The 6studies), a detailed to [61 the–63] EUanalysis identified in the of regionsthe price size- determiningof where the land agriculture converted factors affecting isto predominant.non-agricultural the value of use agricultural was carried land Inafterout order Poland for all to the’ identifys accession counties details ofto thethe of region.EU the in changestheThis regions allowed in where land the identification usesagriculture presented ofis predominant.groups in a of general counties way similar on in the graph (Figureterms6),In a detailedorderof the tosize identify analysis of land details permanently of the of size the convertedchanges of the land in to land non converted -usesagricultural presented to non-agricultural use. in a general way use on was the carried graph out for all(Figure the countiesThe 6), bara detailed chart of the (Figure analysis region. 7) presents Thisof the allowed size the of size the the of land identificationthe areasconverted compared to of non groups in- agriculturalTable of A2 counties over use the was similar period carried in terms 2010–2016 for each county of the region. of theout size for of all land the counties permanently of the convertedregion. This to allowed non-agricultural the identification use. of groups of counties similar in Theterms bar of the chart size (Figure of land 7permanently) presents theconverted size of to the non areas-agricultural compared use. in Table A2 over the period The90 bar chart (Figure 7) presents the size of the areas compared in Table A2 over the period 2010–2016 for each county of the region. 2010–201680 for each county of the region. 70 90 60 80 50 7040 6030 5020 4010 30 0 20 10 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 7. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in hectares (ha) (Appendix D). 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 7. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in Figure 7. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in countieshectares of the (ha Malopolska) (Appendix province D). in the years 2010–2016, expressed in hectares (ha) (AppendixD). Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 11 of 22 Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 11 of 23

ThisThis bar bar chart chart (Figure (Figure7) reflects 7) reflects the intensity the intensity of changes of changes in land use in inland each use county in each in individual county in years.individual The data years. from The this data chart from is thethis inputchart datais the (characteristics input data (characteristics of the counties) of the in thecounties) elaborated in the dendrogram.elaborated dendrogram. The data from The Table data A2 fromand Figure Table7 A2is used and toFigure compile 7 is dendrogram used to compile (Figure dendrogramA2) based on(Figure which A2) and based using theon Wardwhich method,and using nine the groups Ward ofme countiesthod, nine (A–I) groups that are of similarcounties in (A–I) terms that of the are sizesimilar of agricultural in terms of land the convertedsize of agricultural to non-agricultural land converted use are to distinguished. non-agricultural The use results are aredistinguished. presented onThe the results map (Figure are presented8). on the map (Figure 8).

FigureFigure 8. Map8. Map of groupsof groups of similar of similar counties counties (according (according to the to Ward the method)Ward method) with regard with to regard surface to areassurface of the areas whole of agriculturalthe whole agricultural land converted land to converted non-agricultural to non-agricultural use in individual use counties in individual of the Malopolskacounties of province the Malopolska in the years province 2010–2016, in expressedthe years in2010–2016, percent (%). expressed in percent (%).

The map (Figure 8) geographically presents the information contained in Figure 7, Figure A2 The map (Figure8) geographically presents the information contained in Figure7, Figure A2 and and Table A2, grouping together the counties that are similar in terms of the surface area of the Table A2, grouping together the counties that are similar in terms of the surface area of the agricultural agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use. Thus, it is clear that the persistent degradation land converted to non-agricultural use. Thus, it is clear that the persistent degradation of the land of the land is the largest in the counties of Wieliczka, Krakow, Myslenice, Oswiecim, Bochnia and is the largest in the counties of Wieliczka, Krakow, Myslenice, Oswiecim, Bochnia and Wadowice. Wadowice. These counties are located in the immediate vicinity of the capital of the region – the city These counties are located in the immediate vicinity of the capital of the region—the city of Krakow. of Krakow. This information forms the grounds to suppose that land use change may be associated This information forms the grounds to suppose that land use change may be associated with a need to with a need to provide housing to the residents of Malopolska. Therefore, the next step in the provide housing to the residents of Malopolska. Therefore, the next step in the research is to determine research is to determine the purpose for which the converted land is earmarked. the purpose for which the converted land is earmarked.

3.3.3.3. Specifying Specifying the the Use Use of of Land Land Converted Converted to to Non-Agricultural Non-Agricultural Purposes Purposes in in the the Study Study Period Period TheThe pie pie chart chart (Figure (Figure9) 9) illustrates illustrates the the proportions proportions of of intended intended purposes purposes of of the the land-use land-use conversionsconversions for for the the entire entire region. region. The The chart chart demonstrates demonstrates that that the the dominant dominant function function of of the the land land convertedconverted to to non-agricultural non-agricultural use use is residentialis residential (68% (68% in the in chart).the chart). Since Since the largestthe largest share share in the in land the useland conversionuse conversion belongs belongs to residential to residentia areas,l theyareas, are they the are subject the subject of the analyses of the analyses later in later this research in this research paper. paper. Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 12 of 23 SustainabilitySustainability 20182018, 10, 10, 136, 136 1212 of of 23 22

Miscellaneous uses Miscellaneous uses 7% 15% 1% 7%6% 3% 15% Industrial areas 1% 6% 3% Industrial areas

Communication areasCommunication areas Residential areas Residential areas

Water tanks 68% Water tanks 68% Other areas Other areas

FigureFigure 9. 9.TheThe purpose purpose of of converting agriculturalagricultural land land to non-agriculturalto non-agricultural use in use the Malopolskain the MalopolskaFigureprovince 9. in provinceThe the yearspurpose in 2010–2016, the ofyears converting expressed2010–2016, inagricultural percentexpressed (%). inland percent to non (%-).agricultural use in the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in percent (%). 3.4. 3.4.Groups Groups of Counties of Counties Similar Similar in Terms in Terms of the of Quality the Quality of Agricultural of Agricultural Land Land Converted Converted to Non to Non-Agricultural-Agricultural Use3.4. Useand Groups andEarmarked Earmarked of Counties for Residential for Similar Residential inPurposes Terms Purposes of the Quality of Agricultural Land Converted to Non-Agricultural Use and Earmarked for Residential Purposes DueDue to the to the objective objective of of this this research, itit waswas necessary necessary to carryto carry out researchout research regarding regarding the definition the definitionof qualityDue of toquality classes the objectiveclasses of agricultural of ofagricultural this land research, converted land convertedit was to non-agriculturalnecessary to non- agriculturalto carry use andout use earmarkedresearch and earmarked regarding for residential for the residdefinitionpurposes.ential purposes. of The quality pie The chart classes pie (Figure chart of agricultural ( Figure10) depicts 10 )land depicts the converted percentage the percentage to share non-agricultural of share specific of specific classes use and classes of earmarked land of converted land for convertedresidfor residentialential for purposes.residential purposes The purposes inpie 2010–2016 chart in 2010(Figure for–2016 the 10 )for wholedepicts the region.whole the percentage region. share of specific classes of land converted for residential purposes in 2010–2016 for the whole region. 2% 0% 2% 0%

19% 19% classes I and II classes I and II class III class III class IV class IV classes V-VI classes V-VI 79% 79%

Figure 10. Percentage share of specific classes of land converted for residential purposes in 2010–2016. Figure 10. Percentage share of specific classes of land converted for residential purposes in 2010FigureThe–2016 results .10. Percentage of the study share presented of specific in Figure classes 10 ofdemonstrate land converted that as for much residential as 79% purposes of the agricultural in land2010 converted–2016. to non-agricultural use and earmarked for residential purposes constitute soils of class III,The i.e., results good of soils. the Thestudy Malopolska presented province in Figure has 10 only demonstrate 26% of such that soils. as much Surprisingly, as 79% asof much the as agricultural19%The of the resultsland agricultural convertedof the landstudy to converted nonpresented-agricultural for in residential Figure use 10and purposes demonstrate earmarked constitute thatfor theasresidential much best soils as purposes79% (classes of I–II).the constituteagriculturalMalopolska soils landof has class only converted III, 7% i.e., of such goodto soils.non soils.-agricultural The Malopolska use and province earmarked has onlyfor 26%residential of such purposes soils. SurprisinglyconstituteAnother, soilsas much aspectof class as of19% III, the ofi.e., study the good agricultural aims soils. to demonstrateThe land Ma convertedlopolska which provincefor counties residential has of only the purposes region 26% of areconstitute such leaders soils. in theSurprisingly bestconverting soils (classes agricultural, as much I–II). as Malopolska land 19% ofof the the besthas agricultural only quality 7% classes ofland such converted for soils. residential for residential purposes. purposes For this purpose, constitute the thedendrogramAnother best soils aspect (classes (Figure of theI A3–II ).)study wasMalopolska preparedaims to has demon based onlystrate on 7% the of which datasuch containedsoils. counties inof Tablethe region A3, as are shown leaders in the in bar convertingchartAnother (Figure agricultural aspect11). landof the of study the best aims quality to demon classesstrate for residential which counties purposes. of the For region this purpose, are leaders the in converting agricultural land of the best quality classes for residential purposes. For this purpose, the SustainabilitySustainability 2018 2018, 10, 10, 136, 136 1313 of of23 23

dendrogram (Figure A3) was prepared based on the data contained in Table A3, as shown in the bar dendrogramSustainability 2018 (Figure, 10, 136 A3) was prepared based on the data contained in Table A3, as shown in the13 ofbar 22 chartchart (Figure (Figure 11). 11 ).

0.8000.800 0.7000.700 0.6000.600 0.5000.500 0.4000.400 0.3000.300 0.2000.200 0.1000.100 0.0000.000

classesclasses I-II I-II classclass III III classclass IV IV classesclasses V-VI V-VI

Figure 11. Percentage share of the areas of specific quality classes in the counties of the Malopolska FigureFigure 11. 11. Percentage Percentage share share of of the the areas areas of of specific specific quality quality classes classes in in the the counties counties of of the the province converted for residential purposes in the years 2010–2016 relative to the total area of individual MalopolskaMalopolska province province converted converted for for residential residential purposes purposes in in the the years years 2010–2016 2010–2016 relative relative to to quality classes in those counties. thethe total total area area of of individual individual quality quality classes classes in in those those counties. counties .

TheThe vertical vertical axisaxis axis ofof theof the the dendrogram dendrogram dendrogram represents represents represents the the countythe county county numbers, numbers, numbers, according according according to Table to to Table A3 Table, while A3, A3, whilethewhile horizontal the the horizontal horizontal axis—a axis—a dimensionlessaxis— adimens dimensionlessionless number number representingnumber representing representing the distances the the di distancesstances of clusters of of clusters (regions). clusters (regions). (regions). The red ThelineThe red is red a line fixed line is threshold isa afixed fixed threshold threshold value that value value provides that that prov theprovides appropriateides the the appropriate appropriate number ofnumber number classes of (A–F).of classes classes (A–F). (A–F). BasedBased on on the the conducted conducted analyses analyses (see (see Table Table A3A3, A3,, FiguresFi Figgureure A3 11 A 3and and FigureA3 Figure for 11 results), 11 for for results), results the map ),the the below map map below(Figurebelow (Figure 12(Figure) illustrates 12) 12 illustrates) illustrates areas in areas theareas region,in in the the region, grouping region, gr groupingouping together together together counties counties counties similar similar in similar terms in ofin terms theterms quality of of the the qualityofquality their of soils of their their converted soils soils converted converted to non-agricultural to to non-agricultural non-agricultural use (A–F). use Theuse (A–F). groups(A–F). The ofThe countiesgroups groups of converting of counties counties agriculturalconverting converting agriculturallandagricultural with the land bestland with soils with the and the best thebest soils highest soils and and natural the the highest highest values natural (mainlynatural values values of quality (mainly (mainly classes of of quality Iquality and II) classes classes for residential I andI and II) II) forpurposesfor residential residential are marked purposes purposes in green.are ar emarked marked These in includein green. green. theTh Theseese counties include include of Krakow,the the counties counties Myslenice, of of Krakow, Krakow, Nowy Myslenice, Myslenice, Sacz and NowyBochnia.Nowy Sacz Sacz The and and county Bochnia. Bochnia. of The Oswiecim, The county county whichof of Oswiecim, Oswiecim, also permanently which which also also permanently changes permanently the changes agricultural changes the the agricultural function agricultural of functionvaluablefunction of soils of valuable valuable (valuation soils soils class(valuati (valuation III)on for class residential class III) III) for for purposes,residential residential is purposeshighlighted purposes,, is ishighlighted in highlighted bright green. in in bright bright green. green.

Groups of similar counties (according to the Ward method) with regard to FigureFigure 12.12. 12.Groups Groups of similarof similar counties counties (according (according to the Ward to method)the Ward with method) regard to with percentage regard share to percentageofpercentage the areas ofshare specificshare of of the quality the areas areas classes of of specific convertedspecific qual quality fority residential classes classes converted purposes converted in for thefor residential years residential 2010–2016 purposes purposes in the incountiesin the the years years of the 2010–2016 Malopolska2010–2016 in in province.the the counties counties of of the the Malopolska Malopolska province. province . Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 14 of 22

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 14 of 23 4. Discussion The4. Discussion analysis of changes to land use patterns pursuant to the conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculturalThe analysis use of changes in the contextto land use of patterns sustainable pursuant development to the conversion of the of region agricultural firstly land concerned to the definitionnon-agricultural of the use natural in the resources context of available sustainable in Malopolskadevelopment inof termsthe region of quality firstly concerned and suitability the of agriculturaldefinition land. of the It wasnatural important resources to available identify in the Malopolska areas where in terms these of soils quality occur and as suitability areas requiring of specialagricultural protection. land. It was important to identify the areas where these soils occur as areas requiring Malopolskaspecial protection. takes the third place in the country regarding the surface area of agricultural land Malopolska takes the third place in the country regarding the surface area of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010–2015, as illustrated in Figure 13. converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010–2015, as illustrated in Figure 13.

0.25 0.20 0.15 % 0.10 0.05 0.00

Figure 13. Percentage share of the land converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010– Figure 13. Percentage share of the land converted to non-agricultural use in the years 2010–2015 in 2015 in Poland. Source: data from the CSO. Poland. Source: data from the CSO. The next stage of the research was to determine the size of the land converted to Thenon- nextagricultural stage of use the over research the past was seven to determine years (i.e., the in sizethe ofperiod the land2010– converted2016) and toto non-agriculturalidentify the use overdominant the past function seven for years which (i.e., this in land the was period earmarked. 2010–2016) The research and to identify demonstrates the dominant that this function function for whichis thisresidential. land was Bearing earmarked. in mind The that research the process demonstrates of converting that thisagricultural function land is residential. for residential Bearing purposes causes irreversible degradation of land, it was necessary to specify the classes of the in mind that the process of converting agricultural land for residential purposes causes irreversible converted land. The studies have confirmed that as much as 19% of the best and very good land degradation of land, it was necessary to specify the classes of the converted land. The studies have (which accounts for only 7% in the whole region) is destroyed permanently and earmarked for confirmedhousing. that It asis exactly much asthese 19% areas of the that best have and been very indicated good land by the (which authors accounts for urgent for protection only 7% in due the to whole region)their is destroyednatural values permanently (Figure 5). and This earmarked is a signal forfor housing.the regional It is authorities exactly these—the areas Marshal that of have the been indicatedProvince, by the responsible authors forfor urgentsustainable protection development due to of their the naturalregion— valuesto stop (Figure this direction5). This of is change a signal. for the regionalTaking into authorities—the account the extremely Marshal small of the percentage Province, of responsibleland that is of for the sustainable best quality development classes (classes of the region—toI and II) stop in the this Malopolska direction region, of change. there Taking is an urgent into accountneed to intensify the extremely the protection small percentage of this land ofin land that isthe of region the best’s policy. quality Land classes use (classes planning I andshould II) inbe the modified Malopolska so that region, the most there valuable is an urgent areas are need to intensifyprotected the protection and medium of-quality this land soils in (classes the region’s IVa and policy. IVb) or Land poor useand planningthe poorest should (classes be V modifiedand VI) so are earmarked for residential purposes. These soils are not very fertile, barely productive, the crops that the most valuable areas are protected and medium-quality soils (classes IVa and IVb) or poor and are very poor and their successful growth is uncertain. the poorest (classes V and VI) are earmarked for residential purposes. These soils are not very fertile, The results of the analyses carried out in this paper were expressed in percent to illustrate the barelyscale productive, of changes the in cropsthe conversion are very of poor agricultural and their land successful for residential growth purposes is uncertain. relative to the total Theresources results of land of the classes analyses in individual carried counties out in this of the paper region. were expressed in percent to illustrate the scale of changesAccording in to the the conversion research presented of agricultural in [64], which land was for residentialcarried out in purposes the Malopolska relative Province, to the total resourcesthere ofis a land huge classes fragment in individualation of agricultural counties holdings of the region.—this is illustrated by the largest number of Accordingrecord parcels to theper researcharea of province presented in Poland. in [64], The which area was of Malopolska carried out covers in the Malopolskaapproximately Province, 1.5 theremillion is a huge hectares, fragmentation with circa of 4.5 agricultural million record holdings—this parcels. By iscomparison, illustrated bythe thearea largest of Podlasie number of record(north parcels-eastern per areaPoland) of province is about 2 inmillion Poland. hectares Thearea and there of Malopolska are only about covers 1.5 million approximately record parcels. 1.5 million hectares, with circa 4.5 million record parcels. By comparison, the area of Podlasie (north-eastern Poland) is about 2 million hectares and there are only about 1.5 million record parcels. Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 15 of 22

The consequence of such fragmentation of farms is a patchwork of agricultural land and residential areas. This disrupts the functions of proper use of agricultural land resulting in the disappearance of intensive agriculture in Malopolska and the agricultural function is limited to small family farms or agrotouristic farms (preoccupied with the manufacture of traditional products and tourism). Agricultural production depends on natural conditions such as soil quality, agricultural suitability and susceptibility to water erosion. Agricultural land, especially of higher classes I–II, is invaluable. It is our responsibility to ensure that it does not degrade as a result of unjustified investment decisions. The results obtained in this research paper are consistent with the results of other analyses that were conducted in Poland but to a limited extent. In the study [65], the analysis covered the period of 2000–2005 but the subject of the study was only one commune of Siedlce. However, the basis for the analyses was primarily the data from the Central Statistical Office and only a small part of the data was derived from the real estate cadastre. These studies have also proved that land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use is earmarked mainly for housing estates and the most changes have occurred in the immediate vicinity of large cities. Another study which has analysed changes in the structure of land use in Poland [66]. The research object is one county in the Mazowieckie province. Detailed research has been based on the data from the soil and agricultural maps at the scale of 1:5000 and they have been conducted for one commune of this county only. General research studies, covering the entire county, have been performed based on the soil and agricultural map at the scale of 1:50,000. These studies have demonstrated that a favourable location, proximity to Warsaw and good transport accessibility often result in the land of the highest quality and agricultural usefulness being earmarked for development, as confirmed by the results presented in this research paper. Research studies carried out in the Olomouc region in the Czech Republic in the years 1991–2001 [67] demonstrated a slightly higher, by approximately 3.5%, increase in residential areas on arable land than in Malopolska. However, these studies were based on less detailed data from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) and they concerned land use only. Contrary to what was stated in the paper [68] with respect to 25 European countries in the years 2000–2006 based on averaged data from Corine Land Cover maps, that subsidies under the common agricultural policy of the European Union could stop the degradation of agricultural land, in the region of Małopolska such degradation has not been stopped. The agricultural land of the best quality classes is permanently being degraded and earmarked for housing purposes, which has been proved in this research paper based on the detailed data from the real estate cadastre.

5. Conclusions Pursuant to Polish legislation, for the conversion of land of classes I–III, landowners are obliged to pay stipulated fees (a one-time fee and annual fees for a period of 10 years, starting from the actual date of conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use). These fees, however, are not high enough to dissuade investors. Under the Polish legal regulations, these amounts depend on the price of a ton of rye as a conversion unit per 1 hectare of land permanently converted to non-agricultural use. Despite the owner being obliged to obtain an administrative decision authorizing the conversion of land to non-agricultural use prior to the construction permit, such a system does not discourage investors. Local authorities allow making such changes in the land use as it increases the revenues of self-governments of the communes, municipalities and counties from real estate taxes. This is the reason why the authorities are friendly in the decision-making process regarding this phenomenon. The richest commune in the Malopolska Province is Wielka Wies (data based on the revenue from real estate taxes per capita), located in the Krakow county. The studies have demonstrated that of all the counties in the Malopolska Province, the Krakow county faces the largest loss of land of the best quality classes. Undoubtedly, the vicinity of the capital of the province—the city of Krakow—affects the investment attractiveness of the land located around Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 16 of 22 it, resulting in the conscious aim of converting it for residential purposes. The most important factor for potential residents of this county is the proximity of a large city and the attractive labour market. It seems obvious that the areas in the immediate vicinity of large cities are becoming bedroom communities of urban agglomerations. However, it is the responsibility of the local authorities of Malopolska to maintain sustainable development of this region; they should protect areas with the best environmental resources. A possible solution to this difficult problem would be to establish protected areas on coherent complexes of agricultural land of quality classes I and II. According to the Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest land, protected areas are not subject to conversion to non-agricultural use; consequently, the process of irreversible degradation of the best quality soils is stopped. For the land for which protected areas cannot be established due to their small surface areas and large fragmentation, the solution is to make the market price of the land dependent on its quality class. This means that the attribute ‘land quality class’ should definitely have more weight in the valuation process than is currently the case. A higher price for the agricultural land of the best quality classes and the resulting higher dues and fees associated with their conversion to non-agricultural use, would become a greater barrier for future investors. These solutions may not be able to completely eliminate the problem of converting the land with the best natural assets to non-agricultural (residential) use. However, they will certainly slow down this process and will help to prevent the degradation of the best areas.

Acknowledgments: Research was funded by the AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow. This work has been performed as part of scientific research carried out in the Department of Integrated Geodesy and Cartography 11.11.150.444. The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the Marshal’s Office of the Malopolska Province for providing an access to their databases. Author Contributions: All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors and all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript. Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other publication before. Malgorzata Busko was responsible for the conception and design of the work, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting the article. Beata Szafranska was responsible for the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Surface area of agricultural land use within specific quality classes in the individual counties of the Malopolska province in 2010.

County No. County of Classes I and II (ha) Class III (ha) Class IV (ha) Classes V–VI (ha) 1 BOCHNIA 1313 10,421 9481 1950 2 BRZESKO 652 9611 22,178 8685 3 CHRZANOW 299 3739 6161 6737 4 DABROWA 3591 7049 17,842 11,407 5 GORLICE 233 6309 23,625 16,040 6 KRAKOW 14,987 46,977 24,681 5073 7 LIMANOWA 0 1113 16,897 30,839 8 MIECHOW 4621 31,231 14,388 4323 9 MYSLENICE 37 6908 14,552 13,319 10 NOWY SACZ 309 6019 31,729 35,083 11 NOWY TARG 7 1207 23,788 84,002 12 OLKUSZ 370 13,980 16,353 19,249 13 OSWIECIM 1467 14,887 14,828 3235 14 PROSZOWICE 27,656 25,985 5499 1250 15 SUCHA BESKIDZKA 10 793 13,690 27,870 16 TARNOW 10,405 28,034 72,887 25,310 17 ZAKOPANE 0 16 2229 19,238 18 WADOWICE 782 21,550 28,254 5090 19 WIELICZKA 4639 25,269 9464 1717 Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 17 of 22

Table A2. Surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in hectares (ha).

County No. County of 2010 (ha) 2011 (ha) 2012 (ha) 2013 (ha) 2014 (ha) 2015 (ha) 2016 (ha) 1 BOCHNIA 11.36 9.33 5.94 9.66 9.98 15.34 13.73 2 BRZESKO 3.75 3.07 2.78 3.01 3.03 4.08 7.91 3 CHRZANOW 1.09 0.93 0.43 0.64 1.06 1.1 1.87 4 DABROWA 0.51 0.51 2.25 3.01 0.41 1.5 1.88 5 GORLICE 3.68 3.27 3.57 2.07 2.314 3.1 3.03 6 KRAKOW 69.63 57.69 68.54 60.61 58.92 69.47 84.11 7 LIMANOWA 0.52 0.5 0.25 0.38 0.47 0.24 0.96 8 MIECHOW 1.49 1.35 1.18 0.88 0.74 1.18 0.99 9 MYSLENICE 8.97 6.31 7.44 11.52 7.98 11.11 16.83 10 NOWY SACZ 4.58 5.48 4.26 4.53 3.38 3.84 6.09 11 NOWY TARG 0.93 1.07 0.71 0.67 0.6006 1.09 1.09 12 OLKUSZ 1.12 1.31 1.79 2.05 0.84 1.56 0.91 13 OSWIECIM 5.33 6.69 7.08 5.53 7.32 16.68 18.42 14 PROSZOWICE 3.45 2.33 2.81 2.29 2.82 2.19 4 15 SUCHA BESKIDZKA 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.46 0.71 0.93 0.87 16 TARNOW 12.17 13.83 24.43 10.45 8.92 40.96 39.51 17 ZAKOPANE 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 18 WADOWICE 10.46 10.21 12.2 8.8 9.71 13.79 25.94 19 WIELICZKA 20.76 20.39 21.51 17.66 22.08 33.24 52.21

Table A3. Percentage share of the areas of specific quality classes converted for residential purposes in the years 2010–2016 in the counties of the Malopolska province.

County No. County of Classes I and II Class III Class IV Classes V–VI 1 BOCHNIA 0.404 0.362 0.048 0.000 2 BRZESKO 0.035 0.168 0.000 0.000 3 CHRZANOW 0.013 0.142 0.002 0.008 4 DABROWA 0.009 0.046 0.026 0.000 5 GORLICE 0.103 0.302 0.000 0.000 6 KRAKOW 0.742 0.532 0.003 0.003 7 LIMANOWA 0.000 0.214 0.000 0.000 8 MIECHOW 0.040 0.019 0.000 0.000 9 MYSLENICE 0.351 0.715 0.015 0.000 10 NOWY SACZ 0.706 0.485 0.000 0.000 11 NOWY TARG 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12 OLKUSZ 0.019 0.052 0.000 0.001 13 OSWIECIM 0.178 0.217 0.001 0.024 14 PROSZOWICE 0.030 0.014 0.000 0.000 15 SUCHA BESKIDZKA 0.000 0.468 0.000 0.000 16 TARNOW 0.117 0.160 0.000 0.000 17 ZAKOPANE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 18 WADOWICE 0.113 0.234 0.000 0.000 19 WIELICZKA 0.291 0.355 0.000 0.000 Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 18 of 22

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 18 of 23 Appendix B Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 18 of 23 Appendix B Appendix B Dendrogram

1 Dendrogram 13 21 135 42 95 124 39 1712 73 1517 107 158 1910 188 1119 186 1411 166 14

16 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1,17782115 Odległość łączenia

1,17782115 Figure A1. Dendrogram for the bar chart fromOdległość Figure 4—arłączeniaea of quality classes I–VI in individual Figure A1. countiesDendrogram of the Malopolska for theprovince bar chart as of 1 from January Figure 2010.4—area of quality classes I–VI in individual countiesFigure of theA1. MalopolskaDendrogram provincefor the bar as chart of 1 Januaryfrom Figure 2010. 4—area of quality classes I–VI in individual counties of the Malopolska province as of 1 January 2010. Dendrogram 1 Dendrogram 18 91 1318 29 1413 52 144 75 84 37 178 123 1517 1012 1115 1610 116 1916 6 0 2 4 6 8

19 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1,07358512 Odległość łączenia

1,07358512 Figure A2. Dendrogram of surface area of theOdległość whole łączenia agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in percent (%). Figure A2. Dendrogram of surface area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural Figureuse A2. in individualDendrogram counties of surface of the Malopolska area of the provin wholece in agricultural the years 2010–2016, land converted expressed to in non-agricultural percent (%). use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016, expressed in percent (%). Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 19 of 22

Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 19 of 23

Dendrogram 1 6 10 9 2 7 16 5 18 15 19 3 8 14 11 17 12 4 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 1,87161002 Odległość łączenia

Figure A3. Dendrogram of the percentage share of the areas of specific quality classes converted for Figureresidential A3. Dendrogram purposes in of the the years percentage 2010–2016 share in the of counties the areas of the of specificMalopolska quality province. classes converted for residential purposes in the years 2010–2016 in the counties of the Malopolska province. Appendix C AppendixThe C data from the databases of the register of land and buildings maintained by the counties. TheThe data data illustrates from the the databases general structure of the register of the soil of quality land and classes buildings for the entire maintained province by (225 the files): counties. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R3WpSILWlZ7sAekmKLeYwBBA8PzpmWpP. The data illustrates the general structure of the soil quality classes for the entire province (225 files): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R3WpSILWlZ7sAekmKLeYwBBA8PzpmWpPAppendix D . AppendixSurface D area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016 (7 files): https://drive.google.com/ Surfaceopen?id=1LEB9Qo9P1KRqBgsxEgfECCB4sEtf5MnE. area of the whole agricultural land converted to non-agricultural use in individual counties of the Malopolska province in the years 2010–2016 (7 files): https://drive.google.com/open? id=1LEB9Qo9P1KRqBgsxEgfECCB4sEtf5MnEReferences . 1. Act on Environmental Protection of 27 April 2001. Available Online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/ Referencesisap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20010620627 (accessed on 25 September 2017).

1. Act2. onReport Environmental of the World Protection Commission of 27 Aprilon Environment 2001. Available and online: Development: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/ Our Common Future. Published in 1987. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20010620627 (accessed on 25 September 2017). (accessed on 25 September 2017). 2. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Published 3. Dizdaroglu, D. The Role of Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment in Policy and the in 1987. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on Decision-Making. Process: A Review and Outlook. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1018, 25 September 2017). doi:10.3390/su9061018. 3. Dizdaroglu,4. Sansoni, D. M.; The Bonazzi, Role of E.; Indicator-Based Goralczyk, M.; Sustainability Stauvermann, Assessment P.J. RAMEA: in Policy How andto support the Decision-Making. regional Process:policies A Review towards and sustainable Outlook. Sustainability development.2017 Sustain., 9, 1018. Dev. [CrossRef 2010, 18,] 202–210. 4. Sansoni,5. Dawidowcz, M.; Bonazzi, A.; Zrobek, E.; Goralczyk, R. Land M.; Administrati Stauvermann,on System P.J. RAMEA: for Sustainable How to Development—Case support regional policies towardsStudy sustainable of Poland. development. Real Estate Manag.Sustain. Valuat. Dev. 20102017, 1825, 202–210.112–122, doi:10.1515/remav-2017-0008. [CrossRef] 5. Dawidowcz,6. Williamson, A.; Zrobek,I.P.; Enemark, R. Land S.; Administration Wallace, J.; Rajabifard, System for A. Sustainable Land Administration Development—Case for Sustainable Study of Poland.DevelopmentReal Estate; ESRI Manag. Press: Valuat. Redlands,2017, 25 CA,, 112–122. USA, 2010; [CrossRef p. 487,] ISBN 978-1-58948-041-4. 6. Williamson, I.P.; Enemark, S.; Wallace, J.; Rajabifard, A. Land Administration for Sustainable Development; ESRI Press: Redlands, CA, USA, 2010; p. 487. ISBN 978-1-58948-041-4. Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 20 of 22

7. Williamson, I.; Bennett, R.; Rajabifard, A.; Wallace, J. Lessons for Federal Countries That Have State Land Registries—The Australian Experience. In Proceedings of the 11th South East Asian Surveyors Conference (SEASC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–24 June 2011. 8. Shen, B.; Lepech, M.D. Probabilistic Design of Environmentally Sustainable Reinforced-Concrete Transportation Infrastructure Incorporating Maintenance Optimization. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23. [CrossRef] 9. Diogo, V.; Koomen, E.; Kuhlman, T. An economic theory-based explanatory model of agricultural land-use patterns: The Netherlands as a case study. Agric. Syst. 2015, 139, 1–16. [CrossRef] 10. Head, K.; Ries, J.; Swenson, D. Agglomeration Benefits and Location Choice—Evidence from Japanese Manufacturing Investments in the UNITED-STATES. J. Int. Econ. 1995, 38, 223–247. [CrossRef] 11. Špulerová, J.; Dobrovodská, M.; Izakoviˇcová, Z.; Kenderessy, P.; Petroviˇc,F.; Štefunková, D. Developing a strategy for the protection of traditional agricultural landscapes based on a complex landscape-ecological evaluation (the case of a mountain landscape in Slovakia). Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2013, 21, 15–26. [CrossRef] 12. Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Qu, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zhou, D. How does sprawl differ across urban built-up land types in China? A spatial-temporal analysis of the Beijing metropolitan area using granted land parcel data. Cities 2016, 58, 1–9. [CrossRef] 13. Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Wang, D.; Dingyang, Z.; Ruijuan, Z.; Tao, Z. Identifying the internal structure evolution of urban built-up land sprawl (UBLS) from a composite structure perspective: A case study of the Beijing metropolitan area, China. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 258–267. [CrossRef] 14. Jiang, G.; He, X.; Qu, Y.; Ruijuan, Z.; Yuan, M. Functional evolution of rural housing land: A comparative analysis across four typical areas representing different stages of industrialization in China. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 645–654. [CrossRef] 15. Kanianska, R.; Kizekova, M.; Novacek, J.; Zeman, M. Land-use and land-cover changes in rural areas during different political systems: A case study of Slovakia from 1782 to 2006. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 554–566. [CrossRef] 16. Nowak, A.; Schneider, C. Environmental characteristics, agricultural land use, and vulnerability to degradation in Malopolska Province (Poland). Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 590–591, 620–632. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Bucała-Hrabia, A. From communism to a free-market economy: A reflection of socio-economic changes in land use structure in the Vicinity of the city (beskid s ˛adecki,western Polish carpathians). Geogr. Polonica 2017, 90, 65–79. [CrossRef] 18. Mazzocchi, C.; Corsi, S.; Sali, G. Agricultural Land Consumption in Periurban Areas: A Methodological Approach for Risk Assessment Using Artificial Neural Networks and Spatial Correlation in Northern Italy. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 2017, 10, 3–20. [CrossRef] 19. Ceccarelli, T.; Bajocco, S.; Perini, L.L.; Salvati, L. Urbanisation and land take of high quality agricultural soils—Exploring long-term land use changes and land capability in Northern Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2014, 8, 181–192. 20. Van Vliet, J.; de Groot, H.L.F.; Rietveld, P.; Verburg, P.H. Manifestations and underlying drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 24–36. [CrossRef] 21. Act on the Protection of Agricultural and Forest Land of 3 February 1995. Available online: http://prawo. sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19950160078 (accessed on 25 September 2017). 22. Busko, M.; Kolinska, M. Issues related to exclusion of arable lands, located within borders of urban areas, from the agricultural production after updating of legal regulations. Przeglad Geodezyjny 2015, 3, 7–13. [CrossRef] 23. Bielska, A.; Turek, A. Analysis of the needs for updates of the land and building register considering the procedure of exclusion of agricultural land from production. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2016, 1633–1644. [CrossRef] 24. Salata, T.; Prus, B.; Janus, J. Planning as trigger for land use changes. Eng. Rural Dev. 2015, 14, 729–734. 25. Fang, Y.; Cote, R.P.; Qin, R. Industrial sustainability in China: Practice and prospects for eco-industrial development. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 83, 315–328. [CrossRef][PubMed] 26. Funderburg, R.G.; Zhou, X. Trading industry clusters amid the legacy of industrial land-use planning in southern California. Environ. Plan. A 2013, 45, 2752–2770. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 21 of 22

27. Gebeyehu, A.T. Urban land use dynamics, the nexus between land use pattern and its challenges: The case of Hawassa city, Southern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2015, 45, 159–175. [CrossRef] 28. Lai, Y.; Peng, Y.; Li, B.; Lin, Y. Industrial land development in urban villages in China: A property rights perspective. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 185–194. [CrossRef] 29. Li, D.; Zhang, C.; Pizzol, L.; Critto, A.; Zhang, H.; Lv, S.; Marcomini, A. Regional risk assessment approaches to land planning for industrial polluted areas in China: The Hulunbeier region case study. Environ. Int. 2014, 65, 16–32. [CrossRef][PubMed] 30. Li, J.; Zhang, W.; Chen, H.; Yu, J. The spatial distribution of industries in transitional China: A study of Beijing. Habitat Int. 2015, 49, 33–44. [CrossRef] 31. Kaliszewski, A.; Mlynarski, W.; Golos, P. Factors limiting afforestation of post-agricultural lands in Poland according to the survey results. Sylwan 2016, 160, 846–854. 32. Bieda, A.; Jasinska, E.; Preweda, E. Surveying Protection of Agricultural Land in Poland. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Environmental Engineering (ICEE), Vilnius, Lithuania, 22–23 May 2014. [CrossRef] 33. Marks-Bielska, R.; Zukovskis, J. Conditions of Changes in the Agricultural Land Market in Poland during the Years 1992–2009: Background for Systematic Research. In Proceedings of the 5th International Scientific Conference on Rural Development, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Akademija, Lithuania, 24–25 November 2011. 34. Just, D.R.; Kropp, J.D. Production incentives from static decoupling: Land use exclusion restrictions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 95, 1049–1067. [CrossRef] 35. Tarasoviˇcová, Z.; Saksa, M.; Blažík, T.; Falt’an, V. Changes in agricultural land use in the context of ongoing transformational processes in Slovakia. Agriculture 2013, 59, 49–64. [CrossRef] 36. Labarthe, P.; Laurent, C. Service economics and public policies for agricultural extension. Cah. Agric. 2011, 20, 343–351. 37. Balawejder, M.; Wójciak, E. Application of gis tools in analysing a road network providing access to cadastral parcels in the project concerning land consolidation and exchange. In Proceedings of the Geographic Information Systems Conference and Exhibition “GIS ODYSSEY 2017”, Trento, Vattaro, Italy, 4–8 September 2017. 38. Du, P.; Wood, A.; Ditchman, N.; Stephens, B. Life Satisfaction of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban Low-Rise Living: A Chicago Case Study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1052. [CrossRef] 39. Ruan, X.; Qiu, F.; Dyck, M. The effects of environmental and socioeconomic factors on land-use changes: A study of Alberta, Canada. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 446. [CrossRef][PubMed] 40. Kim, J.J.; Goodwin, C.W.; Kim, S. Communication turns green construction planning into reality. J. Green Build. 2017, 12, 168–186. [CrossRef] 41. Fritz-Vietta, N.V.M.; Tahirindraza, H.S.; Stoll-Kleemann, S. Local people’s knowledge with regard to land use activities in southwest Madagascar—Conceptual insights for sustainable land management. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 199, 126–138. [CrossRef][PubMed] 42. Murgida, A.M.; Gonzalez, M.; Tiessen, H. Rainfall trends, land use change and adaptation in the Chaco salteo region of Argentina. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 1387–1394. [CrossRef] 43. Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Zhou, D.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, R. Agglomeration or dispersion? Industrial land-use pattern and its impacts in rural areas from China’s township and village enterprises perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 159, 207–219. [CrossRef] 44. Li, Y.; Hu, Z. Approaching Integrated Urban-Rural Development in China: The Changing Institutional Roles. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7031–7048. [CrossRef] 45. Bishai, M.F. The Development of Industrial Land in Taiwan—A Legal Framework for State Control. J. Dev. Areas 1991, 26, 53–64. 46. Byrd, W.A.; Li, Q. China’s Rural Industry: Structure, Development, and Reform; A World Bank Research Publication; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; ISBN 0-19-520822-6. 47. Choy, L.H.T.; Lai, Y.; Lok, W. Economic performance of industrial development on collective land in the urbanization process in China: Empirical evidence from Shenzhen. Habitat Int. 2013, 40, 184–193. [CrossRef] 48. Hakizimana, C.; Goldsmith, P.; Nunow, A.A.; Roba, A.W.; Biashara, J.K. Land and agricultural commercialisation in Meru County, Kenya: Evidence from three models. J. Peasant Stud. 2017, 44, 555–573. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2018, 10, 136 22 of 22

49. Siejka, M. Public Purpose Investments Site Selection in Real Estate Management—Case Study in Poland. In Proceedings of the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo Conference SGEM, Albena, Bulgaria, 28 June–6 July 2016; pp. 503–509. 50. Lausch, A.; Blaschke, T.; Haase, D.; Herzog, F.; Syrbe, R.U.; Tischendorf, L.; Walz, U. Understanding and quantifying landscape structure—A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol. Model. 2015, 295, 31–41. [CrossRef] 51. Regulation of the Minister of Regional Development and Construction of 15 July 2016 on the Register of Land and Buildings. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20160001034 (accessed on 25 September 2017). 52. Statistical Office in Cracow. Agriculture in Malopolskie Voivodship in 2015 Information and Statistics; Statistical Office in Cracow: Krakow, Poland, 2016. 53. Litwin, U.; Szafranska, B. Using GIS in Management and Agricultural Surveying in the Malopolska Province; Agricultural University: Krakow, Poland, 2017. 54. Baczwarow, M.; Suliborski, A. The Compendium of Knowledge about Political Geography and Geopolitics; Terminology; Polish Scientific Publishers: Warsaw, Poland, 2002. 55. Czekanowski, J. The Outline of Statistical Methods In application to Anthropology; Works of the Warsaw Scientific Society: Warsaw, Poland, 1913. 56. Kukula, K. Statistical Methods for Analysis of Economic Structures; Educational Publishing House: Krakow, Poland, 1996. 57. Mlodak, A. Taxonomic Analysis in Regional Statistics; Difin: Warsaw, Poland, 2006. 58. Gatnar, E. Symbolic Methods of Data Classification; Polish Scientific Publishers: Warsaw, Poland, 1998. 59. Stanisz, A. Intelligible Statistics Course Using STATISTICA PL on Medical Examples; StatSoft Poland: Krakow, Poland, 2007. 60. Wezyk, P.; Wojtowicz-Nowakowska, A.; Pierzchalski, M.; Mlost, J.; Szafranska, B. Map of land cover changes in Malopolska in 1986–2011 based on object classification of satellite images LANDSAT and RapidEye. Photogramm. Cartogr. Remote Sens. Arch. 2013, 25, 273–284. 61. Lowicki, D. Land use changes in Poland during transformation. Case study of Wielkopolska region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 87, 279–288. [CrossRef] 62. Kocur-Bera, K. Farmer’s perception of agricultural land after accesion to the EU—A case study. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference, Economic Scince for Rural Development, Llu Esaf, Jelgava, Latvia, December 2016–April 2017. 63. Kocur-Bera, K. Determinants of Agricultural Land Price in Poland—A Case Study Covering A Part of the EuroRegion Baltic. Cah. Agric. 2016, 25, 25004. [CrossRef] 64. Busko, M.; Meusz, A. Current status of real estate cadastre in Poland with reference to historical conditions of different regions of the country. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Environmental Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania, 22–23 May 2014. 65. Bielecka, E.; Calka, B. The Analysis of the Land Exclusions from Agricultural and Forest Production in the Rural Areas. Available online: http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-48516e32- 1887-4944-bdf6-d6962f0e5a40 (accessed on 25 September 2017). 66. Bielska, A.; Turek, A.; Maciejewska, A.; Bozym, K. Problems of agricultural land protection in suburbanization process. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2015, 1035–1045. [CrossRef] 67. Václavík, T.; Rogan, J. Identifying Trends in Land Use/Land Cover Changes in the Context of Post-Socialist Transformation in Central Europe: A Case Study of the Greater Olomouc Region, Czech Republic. GISci. Remote Sens. 2006, 46, 54–76. [CrossRef] 68. Ustaoglu, E.; Williams, B. Determinants of Urban Expansion and Agricultural Land Conversion in 25 EU Countries. Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 717–746. [CrossRef][PubMed]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).