Next Article in Journal
Unpacking the Dynamics of Heritage-Led Regeneration: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach for Traditional Villages of Hebei, China
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Capital Assets in the Success and Failure of Water Allocation Reform Arrangements: A Case Study of Joint Ventures in South Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
State-Led Commons? Rethinking Housing Affordability Through Community Land Trusts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/land14091924
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Educational Accessibility as an Element of Sustainable Urban Transformation: The Case of Poland in the Context of Legislative Reform

by
Konrad Podawca
1,
Agata Pawłat-Zawrzykraj
2,* and
Marek Ogryzek
3
1
Department of Environmental Development and Remote Sensing, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Science—WULS, Nowoursynowska St. 166, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Landscape Architecture, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Science—WULS, Nowoursynowska St. 166, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of Socio-Economic Geography, Institute of Spatial Management and Geography, Faculty of Geoengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Prawochenskiego st. 15, 10-720 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(9), 1924; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091924
Submission received: 7 July 2025 / Revised: 12 September 2025 / Accepted: 17 September 2025 / Published: 21 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Planning for Socio-Spatial Justice and Quality of Life in the Face of Competing Urban Development Dynamics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Access to schools is crucial in determining an area’s functioning and development, especially regarding housing development. This article presents an analysis of the spatial accessibility of educational services in the city. In Poland, municipalities applied standards for the accessibility of schools in the 1980s and 1990s. In 2023, amendments to the Law on Planning and Spatial Development (The Act of 7 July 2023 amending the Act on Spatial Planning and Development and certain other Acts) reintroduced the obligation to consider the accessibility of education services in the planning documents of municipalities and established the applicable distances. This article presents a method for assessing the level of accessibility of primary schools using spatial–statistical indicators, with the city of Płock as an example. The analysis allowed us to present the spatial differentiation of the level of fulfilment and the level of fulfilment of needs according to the new planning guidelines. We deepened the analysis grounded in the 15-Min City concept to validate the findings, benchmarking the results against international frameworks and recognised good practices. Similar analysis can support local authorities of other municipalities in the spatial planning decision-making process. The authors formulated the following research questions: What criteria can be applied to evaluate the performance of existing educational facilities and determine optimal locations for new schools in planning educational services? Do time-based (15 min) benchmarks reveal different patterns than distance-only thresholds? The example of Płock shows the weaknesses of applying unified urban standards in areas with diverse types of spatial development and the need to modify them. To deepen the verification of the observed discrepancies, the study was extended to include an analysis based on the concept of the 15-Min City. The results revealed even greater disparities in accessibility, highlighting a strong contrast between central and peripheral districts. These findings remain consistent with the conclusions of international studies. Meanwhile, the applicable regulations in Poland provide relatively liberal accessibility thresholds. It may lead to an increase in the distance between residential development and educational facilities and other key elements of urban social infrastructure, thereby distancing national urban planning practices from the European principles of compact, 15 min, and sustainable cities.

1. Introduction

Urban transformation towards sustainability represents a holistic approach that integrates social, economic, and environmental dimensions [1]. Recent studies emphasise the importance of integrated strategies, technological innovations, urban policy reforms, and behavioural shifts on a global scale, in which urban planning serves as a fundamental pillar of sustainable transformation processes [2]. Research on urban transformation employs multidisciplinary methods, including spatial analysis supported by remote sensing and GIS, qualitative evaluations of governance mechanisms, and quantitative modelling of urban systems, with legal frameworks playing a key role in shaping urban spatial structures [3]. Population and building density are critical parameters for the sustainable development of urban areas [4] and pose significant challenges for urban planners in ensuring access to essential services, including education and recreation, for which legal regulations should be clearly defined. A crucial component of such transformation is the redesign of public spaces, commonly referred to as the tactical urbanism approach [5]. One model that aligns with these parameterised accessibility indicators is the concept of the 15-Min City. This planning model assumes that residents reach all essential services and amenities within 15 min on foot or by bicycle. The rapid proliferation of this concept has revealed a knowledge gap, necessitating alternative methodological frameworks, as the model is increasingly seen as central to sustainable development strategies [6]. Its core principle is the ease of access to healthcare, education, green spaces, food supply, employment, public sports areas, and inclusive public spaces enabling interactions across ethnicities, age groups, and social classes [7]. The model has been shown to reduce emissions through effective decentralised planning based on proximity and sustainable mobility [8]. In addition, urban planners are designing mobility corridors that encourage active transportation, which contributes to improved public health, reduced energy footprints, and broader socio-economic benefits [9]. Currently, spatial planners for most cities have access to extensive datasets, ranging from demographic profiles and transport patterns to environmental variables, along with computational tools that allow for their integration and analysis [10]. This is valuable support in the planning and decision-making process For instance, to assess accessibility and service proximity in cities such as Barcelona, London, Madrid, Rotterdam, Kraków, and several Swedish municipalities, researchers applied network analysis and spatial indices [11,12,13,14]. Moreover, cities like Paris, London, and Rome have been compared using a dedicated 15 min urban index [15]. Their findings confirmed, among others, that peripheral zones, especially, frequently fail to meet accessibility standards.
Proper planning for the development of service areas and facilities requires an adequate theoretical basis, recognition of existing needs, and, above all, legal regulations that, on the one hand, impose specific obligations on territorial administration units but also provide tools for their implementation. Educational services are one of the most essential elements in serving the population. According to Article 39 (Polish legal system) of the Education Law: “The network of public primary schools should be organised in a way that allows all children to fulfil their compulsory education” [16]. Ensuring access to essential services is part of the municipality’s tasks and is part of spatial management, including spatial planning.
The territorial accessibility of specific places and services plays a crucial role in shaping the attractiveness of housing locations [17]. It significantly impacts the residents’ quality of life, the property’s market value, and the pace of socio-economic development. The long distance between the residence and the school influences transport mode choice [18], among others, forcing parents to commute to their children. This results in increased traffic jams near the educational institution, parking problems, and inconvenience for residents due to additional noise and traffic pollution. Apart from the negative impact on the urban environment, it also increases energy consumption. The issue of the safety of children walking to school alone is also essential [19]. Moreover, the previous studies revealed the relationship between accessibility to public facilities (including schools) and housing costs and housing prices. The least accessible areas, especially in large cities, are populated by the lower-income population because of lower costs of housing [20]. Thus, the economic limitation coming from the spatial imbalance may lead to social inequalities. The proper planning of educational services is a complex issue. The literature identifies various criteria for evaluating existing facilities’ performance and determining optimal locations for new facilities. One can identify two main groups of criteria:
  • Social: population density, age structure, existing and projected population growth–so-called ‘provider-to-population ratios’ that are referred to as supply to demand within the particular catchment area;
  • Spatial: land use patterns; available road networks and spatial accessibility; proximity to green, industrial or commercial areas [21,22,23,24,25].
However, in the case of some regions and cities, the additional criteria regarding geographical and environmental criteria are of high importance. These are the area characteristics strongly related to school safety, such as: proximity to flood-prone areas, distance to streams, slope and height, and noise level [26,27].
In the literature, accessibility (communication/transport, pedestrian) is assessed using the so-called isochrones. Applying the systematics used in the literature [28,29], two types of isochrones can be identified:
  • Ideal isochrone—straight line distance—when the movement of the pedestrian is not impeded by any spatial barriers and the service area is defined as a circle with a given radius, determined by the assumed speed of movement at a given time;
  • Actual isochrone—when the pedestrian moves along a non-linear line according to the pedestrian or road traffic system, and the service area of the surveyed facility is determined by the distance covered in a given time and the walking speed.
The range of service area delimited by the actual isochrone has an irregular shape and is smaller than the area delimited by the ideal isochrone. The first method of delimiting the service area is primarily used in planning studies at the national and regional levels, as well as in local spatial planning (for smaller spatial units), such as strategic studies. For example, this method is employed in models of municipalities’ functional and spatial structure, which are often presented in development strategies. The actual isochrone is a good tool for assessing the degree of service in more detailed planning documents. Spatial accessibility demands specific requirements regarding distance or time to reach a school. The standards used in analyses of school accessibility in different countries are in the range of 8–16 (even 20) min and 0.4–0.8 or 0.75–1.5 km. For adolescents, walking distance can be 1.3–3 km. According to some studies, the optimal school service area is 1.1 km2 max [22,30,31,32]. At the same time, findings of other researchers revealed that maximum walk mode share is reduced by approximately 50% when the distance to school reaches 1 km [33,34].
In Poland, urban planning standards concerning the design of residential areas were in force primarily in the 1950s and 1980s. The last of the normative regulations in force at that time, which comprehensively covered the principles of designing residential development areas, was Ordinance No. 9 of the Minister of Territorial Economy and Environmental Protection, enacted in 1974 [35]. According to this ordinance, the so-called structural housing unit, a spatially and functionally separated residential development layout, requires an adequate programme of educational services, sports and recreation areas and facilities, health services, and public transport. Public service and commercial facilities were divided into primary (1st tier) and secondary (2nd tier), with spatial accessibility requirements assigned to them. For I-tier services, which included primary schools, a maximum access radius of 500 m was set for residential areas. In addition, educational services were to be centrally located in the spatial layout of the housing unit and serve up to 8000 inhabitants [27,36]. After the change in the political system in 1989, for more than 30 years, urban planning standards were not applied in Poland with a legal basis. An exception to this is The Education System Act of 1991 and the subsequent Education Law Act of 2016, which contained a provision (still in force) that a child’s route from home to school must not exceed 3 km in the case of pupils in classes I–IV of primary schools and 4 km in the case of pupils in classes V–VIII. Unfortunately, the above requirements mainly resulted in the obligation for municipalities to provide free transport for children and rarely inspired the construction of a new educational facility. Various indicators were proposed in this period’s literature and planning studies, often quite divergent. For example, it suggested a distance of 600 m [28,37] and even 800 m [38]. The lack of urban planning standards, according to many authors, has resulted in too much developer-planning freedom, which, as a consequence, is one of the main reasons for the urban sprawl and dispersed development in Poland. Among others, a significant problem is the realisation of residential complexes without access to social infrastructure, including primary schools [39,40,41]. Such a situation causes a decrease in the attractiveness of living in the area and socio-spatial problems. That is why some people seek more comfortable living conditions and migrate to other residential areas [19,37]
The sign of the return to standards for the location and implementation of new housing developments, including those relating to an appropriate distance to schools, was the Act of 5 July 2018 on Facilitation in the Preparation and Implementation of Housing Investments and Associated Investments [42]. According to Article 17.2 of the Act, residential developments must be located up to 3000 m from a primary school, and in towns with a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants, up to 1500 m from a primary school. Unfortunately, in practice, these provisions applied to a limited number of developments. It was not until the Act on Spatial Planning and Development amendments came into force on 24 September 2023 [43]. The Act reintroduced universal accessibility standards to social infrastructure, including primary education facilities, into municipal planning acts. The provisions of Article 13f (2) require the municipality to establish, in the so-called municipality’s general plan, accessibility standards for a primary school. Every parcel of land designed for housing should be located from the primary school building at a maximum distance of 1500 m in cities and 3000 m outside towns. The required distance is calculated along a publicly accessible pedestrian route. Restoration of such requirements involves analysing the location of primary schools and existing residential areas. It also forms the basis for planning decisions essential for rational and sustainable development.
The research conducted for the city of Plock can contribute to a better identification and understanding of the needs of inhabitants regarding access to primary education. The city authorities can use the study results to formulate indications for the general plan and, later, better meet the needs of their residents. The study’s main purpose was—within Poland’s post—2023 planning framework—to assess the level and spatial differentiation of access to primary schools and their alignment with compact/15 min city principles, using a replicable GIS workflow.

2. Materials and Methods

The cognitive aim of the study is to determine the spatial accessibility of education services using the municipal social infrastructure accessibility standards introduced in Poland in 2023. The spatial scope of the survey covered the city of Płock. It is a medium-sized city with an area of 88 km2 and a population of 111,190 at the end of 2023. Since 2018 (120 thousand inhabitants), a negative population growth rate has been observed [44]. There are 18 public primary schools in the city (Figure 1). Non-public schools were not considered in the study as they are not required to be included in the municipalities’ planning documents. Similar analysis can support local authorities of other urban municipalities in the spatial planning decision-making process.
We propose the following two research hypotheses:
H1. 
Compliance with educational accessibility is systematically higher in compact, centrally located urban fabrics than in peripheral or dispersed urban forms;
H2. 
Time-based, 15-min city accessibility benchmarks identify lower compliance rates than distance-only statutory thresholds, revealing additional disparities.
The study is based on a multidimensional comparative analysis using selected sustainable development indicators about the availability of public services. This method is a widely used tool vital in the economic and spatial information system [14,46,47,48,49]. Spatial accessibility indicators are also applied in spatial planning [50,51,52].
The study required establishing several spatial characteristics (including land use) according to the available data, and then calculating indicators describing the spatial accessibility of existing schools in administrative, legal and practical (real) terms in a given administrative unit. Figure 2 presents a graphical representation of the analytical framework of the study. It includes three main stages described below.
  • Spatial accessibility level for an elementary school according to formal urban standards, calculated for each school separately, including:
    • Setting up input data (A1–A7)—basic spatial characteristics according to 1500 isochrones that will be required for the studied schools;
    • Calculation of indicators (X1–X3)—describing spatial relations for each school based on their input characteristics;
    • Assessment of spatial school accessibility level (from very low to very high) according to the calculated values of index X1–X3;
  • City spatial school accessibility level according to formal urban standards (a summary assessment of the spatial accessibility of primary educational facilities in the analysed city), including:
    • Calculation of aggregated values of all schools’ area characteristics (B1–B7);
    • Calculation of synthetic indicators (Y1–Y3), representing the overall city spatial educational accessibility according to new Polish urban standards;
  • City school accessibility according to the 15-min city model—a general comparison of the city’s educational accessibility according to formal urban standards (1500 m service area) and 15-Min City Model.
The last stage of the methodological framework, a spatial buffer method based on the “15-min city” concept’s principles, was applied to compare the obtained results with the current national standards. Accessibility analysis was conducted based on temporal 15 min walkable isochrones, considering residents’ pedestrian movement. After that, the previously delineated 15 min educational accessibility zones were merged using the Clip tool, which enabled the determination of educationally accessible areas within the city’s administrative boundaries. The buffers, with a radius of approximately 1 km, reflect more restrictive accessibility criteria than those defined by Polish legislation, which adopts a standard distance of 1500 m for access to educational facilities. Spatial analyses were conducted to compare the service coverage areas of educational institutions under both approaches—the 15-min city framework and the statutory requirements—allowing for the determination of the percentage share of facilities that meet or do not meet the respective criteria. It should be noted that setting such accessibility zones is not mandatory within the framework of the general plans currently being developed for Polish municipalities, and local authorities retain the ability to adjust distance parameters when issuing decisions concerning residential development. Both the “15-min city” concept proposed by Moreno et al. [53] and its variation—the “20-min neighbourhood” model developed, among others, by Capasso Da Silva et al. [54]—are based on accessibility to public services within a limited walking time. As a result of these studies, spatial buffers with a radius ranging from 800 to 1200 m are typically created, reflecting the estimated pedestrian accessibility range under urban conditions. By overlaying the results of analyses derived from both approaches, the authors of this study aim to compare the minimum distances from educational facilities suggested by Polish legislation with the accessibility coverage proposed in international urban planning frameworks.
The presented study method uses spatial data to assess the current school districts’ delimitation correctness regarding selected spatial criteria and standards. A comparative analysis was made without access to the inhabitants’ personal and registration data, as they are not publicly available. In some cases, such sensitive personal data may be shared with authorised entities, thus extending the scope of the analysis. Spatial data concerning schools, residential areas and buildings, roads, pedestrians and cycle tracks were derived from the publicly accessible Topographic Database (BDOT10k—date for 2020). Spatial analyses were performed using ArcGIS 10.8.2 software.
Land 14 01924 g002
Figure 2. Diagram of methodological framework. A1—data based on Resolutions of the City Council of Płock [55,56].
Figure 2. Diagram of methodological framework. A1—data based on Resolutions of the City Council of Płock [55,56].
Land 14 01924 g002

3. Results and Discussion

In accordance with the methodology presented above, spatial data analyses were initially carried out for each public primary school in Płock separately. The obtained values of particular features A1–A7 and values of three indicators describing the spatial accessibility degree for each primary school X1–X3 are presented in Table 1. It should be emphasised that Table 1 functions as a modular diagnostic template that can be populated with commonly available open datasets (road network, school locations, parcels/population) and replicated across other Polish and European cities.
The calculation results show substantial differences in the school districts’ areas (A1)—8 (45%) of the analysed schools serve areas less than 1 km2. From the spatial accessibility perspective, these districts are relatively small. Therefore, the probability of a school being conveniently located in residential areas is high. These are schools in the historic city centre (SP1,3,6,11,14,16,17) and one (SP23).in the administrative district Podolszyce-Borowiczki (XI).
The second group of schools covers districts of 1–2 km2. These include facilities (SP2,8,12,21,22) in the eastern part of the city’s right bank (i.e., Wyszogrodzka—IX and Podolszyce-Borowiczki—XI). The third group is made up of schools located peripherally, which serve areas of 2–4 km2 with scattered housing (i.e., SP5 in Radziwie—XII, SP13 in Trzepowo—II, SP18 in Śródmieście—VI, SP20 in Podolszyce-Borowiczk—XI). The extensive district of over 6 km2 belongs to SP15 and covers the area of Góry—XIV. These examples present the weakness of delimiting school districts by addressing points in the case of areas located within the administrative borders of the city, but that are more of a rural type of development. In this case, a significant part of this type of district covers non-urbanised areas that do not require service.
Unlike the school district areas, the service areas (A2), delimited by a walking distance of 1.5 km from the schools, are very similar, which is related to the existing network of roads and pedestrian routes. These are primarily areas that cover 2–3.5 km2. Larger service areas of about 4–4.5 km2 are designated for schools in the centre, on the city’s right bank (SP11, 14, 21). It results from the very dense road network and pedestrian routes. In this part of the city, the school service areas are more extensive than their formal district areas.
One should also note a significant difference in the size of residential areas in particular school districts (A4), which varies from 0.13 km2 (SP13) to over 1.8 km2 (SP20). This 14 times difference reflects significant variation in the burden of school facilities that depend on the intensity of residential development. Considerable diversification can be observed in the number of residential buildings in particular school districts (A6). The number varies from 72 for SP3 to 1717 for SP20. This almost 24-fold difference also results in significant differences in demand for school units, didactic rooms, and teachers, and, of course, requires school plots and buildings of diverse sizes.
In addition, an increase in residential land does not always imply a proportionate increase in the number of residential buildings within a particular school district. Planning units with the same designation may differ significantly regarding land cover and land development. Apart from build-up areas, the differences concern the share of green and transportation areas. In some parts of the city, extensive land use in the areas designated for residential development indicates they have the potential for further investments.
Due to the above-discussed differences in area characteristics, we applied three indicators that give a broader picture of spatial school accessibility (X1–X3) in Płock. The sequence of maps (from A to C) presented in Figure 3 corresponds to the stages of the analysis carried out for each school in Płock. However, the figure depicts a replicable workflow according to various urban availability standards (various time-based isochrones) and available spatial/statistical data (parcel/population overlays), suitable for transfer to other municipalities and cities. In the analysed case, Figure 3A–C illustrates the spatial approach to indicators X1, X2 and X3 calculated for one of the selected schools in Płock—SP8. Specifically, Figure 3A presents the spatial representation of the indicator X1 for SP8, that is, differences in the extent of the existing school district area and the school service area designated within walking distance of 1500 m from the school. Figure 3B shows the distribution of existing residential areas, and Figure 3C presents the current location of residential buildings—assigned to the SP8 school district in relation to the school service area, corresponding to the indicators X2 and X3. In the case of SP 8, a significant part of the school district’s residential areas and residential buildings are located outside the school service area.
The facility’s location in the school district’s area is crucial. The more central the location of an elementary school, the greater the possibility of evenly serving residential areas. Therefore, the school districts were divided according to the degree of localisation centralisation index X1 (presented in Table 1) as follows:
  • very low degree (very unfavourable), where X1 index is below 0.5—the case of SP18 and SP15 districts;
  • low degree, where the X1 index is in the range of 0.5–0.625—refers to the SP5 and SP20 districts;
  • an average degree, where the X1 index is in the range of 0.626–0.750, refers to the districts of SP2, SP8, and SP13;
  • an above-average degree, where the X1 index is in the range of 0.751–0.875—assigned to districts of SP12 and SP23;
  • high degree (very favourable), where the X1 index is over 0.875—the case of SP1, SP3, SP6, SP11, SP14, SP16, SP17, SP21 and SP22 districts.
Spatial accessibility indicators do not always depend on the school district’s size. When analysing the spatial location of elementary schools in relation to the district areas they are supposed to serve, one can observe that some of the facilities are located on the outskirts or even outside the boundaries of their districts. It mainly occurs in areas with a high density of educational institutions. The obtained value of the X1 index only provides a preliminary assessment of the situation and, in some cases, without additional spatial analysis, can cause some misinterpretation. Therefore, the spatial accessibility of elementary schools in Płock was also assessed according to the relative service efficiency index (X2) and actual service efficiency index (X3), which consider the location of schools in relation to existing residential areas or buildings. The following five classes of areas, according to values of X2 and X3 presented in Table 1, were distinguished:
  • Class 0—with a very low (unacceptable) degree of spatial accessibility, where the values of X2 and X3 are below 0.5—assigned to SP18 and SP15;
  • Class 1—with a low degree of spatial accessibility, where the values of X2 and X3 are between 0.5 and 0.625—applied only to SP20;
  • Class 2—with a medium degree of spatial accessibility, in districts where the values of X2 and X3 are between 0.626 and 0.750—applied to the SP5, applied to the SP2 concerning the X2 index, and to SP8 and SP23 regarding the X3 index;
  • Class 3—with a good degree of spatial accessibility, where the values of X2 and X3 are in the range of 0.751—0.875—none of the schools meet both conditions, but such values of X2 were assigned to districts of SP23 and SP8, and values of X3 assigned to SP16 and SP2 districts;
  • Class 4—with a very good degree of spatial accessibility, where the value of X2 and X3 indicators is over 0.875—concerns districts of SP1, SP3, SP6, SP11, SP12, SP13, SP14, SP17, SP21, SP22, and SP16 in case of the X2 indicator.
Quantitative distribution of spatial accessibility classes according to indicators X2 and X3 is presented in Table 2. A relatively large group of schools is those for which the X2 and X2 indicators have a high value of over 0.875. A high or very high degree of spatial accessibility concerns 10 of the 18 analysed schools.
Taking the city of Płock as a whole, it is possible to calculate aggregate indicators of school spatial accessibility (Table 1). The localisation centralisation index (Y1) is 0.63, which is a medium level. The overall picture of spatial accessibility of the primary schools in Plock by the Y1 indicator is displayed in Figure 4. In the case of the analysed city, due to the existing land use, the values of relative service efficiency (Y2) and actual service efficiency (Y3) are very similar but slightly higher than the values of Y1 (Y2 = 0.725, Y3 = 0.738). The overall picture of spatial accessibility of the primary schools in Plock by the Y2 indicator is presented in Figure 5.
Considering the indices mentioned above, it can be concluded that the spatial accessibility of elementary schools in Płock is average. However, upon closer analysis, this assessment seems somewhat understated.
The total values of indicators Y1, Y2 and Y3 are lower than the average values of indicators X1, X2 and X3. (Table 1). Therefore, in the case of a comprehensive assessment of the accessibility of primary schools, the city should be treated as a whole. The observed situation also indicates the need to consider the location of new educational institutions, the spatial diversity of the city, its development, and changes in administrative boundaries. These shortcomings are evident in the analysed example. Analysis of the results clearly shows that the overall picture of the accessibility of educational services for Plock is reduced by three schools: mainly SP15 in Góry, to a lesser extent by SP5 in Radziwie, and SP18, which covers mainly Maszewo. These schools serve too extensive areas. Regarding spatial accessibility to education services, these parts of the city have the characteristics of rural areas. Regarding the theses raised in the study, it can be stated that the spatial accessibility of elementary schools in Plock is good but not at a high level, which may give rise to the correct boundaries of some school districts. It is crucial to consider the location of registered plots of single- and multi-family residential development. In several cases, the assumed 1500 m path of access by a public pedestrian route from the border of this plot to the elementary school building is exceeded. This should be the guiding principle for location decisions for new schools (applies to the left bank part of the city). Another issue related to school accessibility that might be worth considering in the city planning policy is enhancing the design of the street network for pedestrians and, thus, increasing the walking accessibility of existing and new housing areas [57].
The principles for ensuring accessibility to educational services have various legal and theoretical bases. The results of the analysis carried out for the city of Płock based on the new standards that are supposed to be applied to the spatial planning acts of Polish municipalities can be compared with the results of the accessibility analysis based on the principle referring to the 15-min city model. Figure 6 presents a comparison of the spatial accessibility of schools within the administrative boundaries of Płock, taking into account both 15 min walkable isochrones and 1500 m buffer zones.
Figure 6 of the minimum statutory accessibility requirements adopted by the municipality and as a benchmark against international, 15-min-city good practices. The analysis revealed that only 35.05% of the area of the city of Płock falls within a 15 min walkable access radius to educational facilities, while 64.95% of the territory lies outside this range. This may indicate an insufficient distribution of educational institutions in the context of the 15-min city concept. However, it should be noted that not all areas of Płock require the location of schools, particularly in undeveloped or non-urbanised zones where residential neighbourhoods are absent.
When comparing the 15-min city concept with the existing Polish legal regulations concerning the location of schools near residential buildings, it becomes apparent that the international model is significantly more rigorous. Accessibility areas defined by the 15 min city concept are smaller and assume that most daily needs of residents should be met within a 15 min walking distance. Meanwhile, Polish regulations—although they also define maximum distances between schools and places of residence—are spatially more aligned with the 20-min city concept.
Importantly, according to national legislation, the local municipality decides on the exact range of accessibility zones for public services, including education. This may result in substantial variations in spatial planning policies. If the municipality opts to reduce these zones to enhance service accessibility, it will be obliged to invest in additional social infrastructure, which may constitute a financial burden. On the other hand, expanding these zones could be seen as a departure from the compact city model, the 15-min city, or even the “20-min city” concept, thus increasing spatial disparities in access to education and distancing local planning practices from European sustainable development standards.
In light of this, the authors intend to continue their research by analysing the spatial policy decisions adopted by municipalities after the statutory deadline for implementing general plans. At present, it is impossible to determine definitively what planning strategies local governments will adopt—these will likely depend on various factors, including location, settlement structure, and financial resources. The authors plan to examine these determinants to assess whether the legislative change has had a tangible impact on aligning the national planning process with European spatial development concepts.
Nevertheless, imposing statutory distance requirements for school location is a genuine step towards achieving sustainable development. This process is being implemented in stages to ensure continuity of spatial development without triggering disruptive systemic shifts.

4. Conclusions

This study assessed the feasibility of meeting the currently enacted school accessibility legislative standards. Requirements concerning social infrastructure provide a basis for analysing existing housing developments and planning new ones. This is an essential element applied to so-called general plans for municipalities. Designation of a new housing development in an area without access to schools or other social facilities, consistent with the municipal standards established in the local spatial acts, will not be possible.
This study has several limitations stemming from data availability and analytical scope. First, due to the lack of access to detailed and up-to-date data, the number of school-age children living in a given residential development area was not considered. Thus, the study did not evaluate needs and satisfaction related to the number of children per school. Second, the results may be sensitive to network assumptions (publicly accessible pedestrian routes, barriers, crossings) and administrative boundary changes; aggregation can mask intra-urban differences. Despite these caveats, the workflow—open topographic data, network-based isochrones, and ratio indicators—is readily transferable to other municipalities in Poland and European cities with comparable datasets. The key stakeholders include urban planning and education departments, transport and road authorities, school administrators, resident councils, and developers. Practice should focus on recalibrating catchments with time-based isochrones and locating new schools chiefly by network-distance criteria from residential parcels. Third, while studying catchment areas of schools is a commonly used tool, it does not provide information on the quality of the walking infrastructure. When comparing the proposed Polish regulations with international trends regarding 15- and 20-min cities (Figure 5 and Figure 6) it is evident that the suggested spatial ranges are largely consistent with globally adopted solutions, differing only slightly in terms of the area covered by accessibility zones. Importantly, should the proposed regulations concerning maximum distances from educational facilities be adopted, some municipalities may face restrictions in issuing development decisions for new construction projects. Furthermore, certain local governments may impose more stringent requirements by increasing the minimum accessibility buffer zones.
Our results support research hypothesis H1. Compliance with educational accessibility is consistently higher within compact, centrally located fabrics than in peripheral or dispersed areas. This pattern holds when compactness and centrality are proxied by residential density, street/intersection density, mixed land use intensity, and proximity to the historical/functional centre, and when compliance is measured as the share of residents/parcels within the statutory walking threshold along publicly accessible pedestrian routes. Spatial differentiation observed in the case analysis aligns with this expectation, indicating that settlement morphology is a systematic driver of compliance.
Our results and findings support research hypothesis H2. When accessibility is evaluated with time-based, 15 min benchmarks, compliance rates are lower than under the distance-only statutory threshold, revealing additional disparities between central and peripheral districts. The time metric captures network frictions (crossings, barriers, slope) and micro-scale walking conditions that distance alone does not. This explains the stronger contrast and the appearance of new low-access clusters.
For H1, we estimated compliance at small-area units and contrasted groups by urban-form metrics; the results were consistent across alternative thresholds and classification schemes. For H2, substituting distance with door-to-door walking time (isochrones) reduced compliance across all urban-form strata, with the largest drops at the periphery. Sensitivity checks using alternative network assumptions yielded qualitatively similar conclusions.
The recent amendments to the Polish Act on Spatial Planning and Development, which reintroduced standards for the spatial accessibility of schools, represent a beneficial step towards regulating residential development. Nonetheless, this reform overlooks the more complex relationship between school location and urban fabric, which is influenced by a broader range of social, geographical, and environmental factors. While these crucial criteria are applied in planning practice [21,22,23,24,25,26,27], which enforces barrier-based modelling [58], they were conspicuously absent from the regulatory amendments.
Future work will extend the analysis in five directions: (i) integrate population micro-data (age cohorts) to relate accessibility to actual demand and school capacity; (ii) incorporate non-public schools and travel behaviour evidence (mode split, safe routes to school) to evaluate outcomes beyond distance; (iii) run comparative and longitudinal assessments across multiple Polish cities and selected EU cases to observe how general plans adopted after the 2023 reform affect accessibility over time; (iv) test scenarios with multi-criteria location/allocation models (new schools vs. pedestrian/cycling connectors); and (v) explicitly embed environmental dimensions, including distance-to-green-space constraints (parks, forests—specified as a maximum walking distance from schools and/or from residential parcels), as well as exposure to the urban heat island, air/noise pollution, topographic barriers, and flood risk. These extensions will enable evidence-based adjustments to catchment boundaries and siting policies that co-optimise educational accessibility, public health, and climate resilience, while aligning practice with compact-city and 15 min frameworks.
The research confirms that spatial accessibility analysis constitutes a valuable diagnostic tool for assessing the spatial functionality of public service distribution. Similar analysis can support local authorities of other municipalities in the spatial planning decision-making process. However, municipalities in Poland retain autonomy in adapting these standards, which may lead to inconsistent implementation, particularly in peripheral areas. In cases where excessively strict distance-based criteria are applied to educational accessibility, there is a risk of unintentionally restricting the potential for new residential development. Such limitations may especially affect low-density areas where educational infrastructure is not yet necessary due to the absence of actual settlement.
Nevertheless, the similarity between Polish planning standards and international guidelines on spatial accessibility can be regarded as a step toward harmonising national spatial planning practices with the goals of sustainable urban development within the European framework. It is recommended that legal regulations and refined geoinformation tools be more widely implemented in diagnosing urban spatial structures, ensuring that development planning addresses both functional needs and the principles of compact urban form. Poland is in a transitional phase following the 2023 reform, with adoption of general plans due by 30 June 2026; municipalities may set municipal accessibility standards, with the statute’s default of 1500 m in cities and 3000 m outside cities measured along publicly accessible pedestrian routes, unless different thresholds are adopted municipality-wide. The proposed workflow helps identify areas where residential permits may conflict with these requirements and guides priorities for pedestrian/cycling links and school siting; a fuller assessment will be feasible once the new framework is fully operational. Benchmarking against 15-min-city practices highlights alignment, while relaxing distance thresholds risks drifting from compact-city principles.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.P., A.P.-Z. and M.O.; data curation, K.P.; investigation, K.P., A.P.-Z. and M.O.; methodology, K.P. and A.P.-Z.; project administration, A.P.-Z.; resources, K.P.; software, K.P. and M.O.; supervision, K.P., A.P.-Z. and M.O.; visualisation, K.P.; writing—original draft, A.P.-Z.; writing—review and editing, A.P.-Z., M.O. and K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Derived data supporting the findings of this work are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviation

The following abbreviation is used in this manuscript:
SP Elementary School

References

  1. Ece Kaya, B.; Erbaş, İ. The relationship between urban transformation and sustainability: A bibliometric analysis and exploring existing trends. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2023, 23, 1756–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Evelyn, J.; Portilla, N. Urban Transformation, Education and Finance for Sustainability: Case Studies and Global Good Practices. J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Manag. 2025, 10, 863–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, Y.; Liu, K. Toward Sustainable Urban Development: Exploring the Polycentric Transition of Chinese Cities Through Nighttime Lights. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Çetin, Y.; Taş, M.; Taş, N. Urban Transformation: A Comparative Analysis of Building and Population Densities in Urban Housing Settlements with Diverse Textures in Terms of Sustainability—The Case of Bursa Osmangazi. Sustainability 2025, 17, 806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Repiso, L.I.; Mir, G.H. Regeneración urbana del espacio público “calle”: Aproximaciones conceptuales bajo el enfoque de la sostenibilidad y del “hacer ciudad”. In A: Seminario Internacional de Investigación en Urbanismo; UPC: Barcelona, Spain; UNC: Córdoba, Spain, 2025; Volume 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Allam, Z.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R.; Lassaube, U.; Chabaud, D.; Moreno, C. Mapping the Implementation Practices of the 15-Minute City. Smart Cities 2024, 7, 2094–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lobner, N.; Seixas, P.C.; Dias, R.C.; Vidal, D.G. Urban Compactivity Models: Screening City Trends for the Urgency of Social and Environmental Sustainability. Urban Sci. 2021, 5, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Marzolla, F.; Bruno, M.; Melo, H.P.; Loreto, V. Compact 15-minute cities are greener. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2409.01817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vizmpa, C.; Botzoris, G.; Lemonakis, P.; Galanis, A. Micromobility in Urban Trail Paths: Expanding and Strengthening the Planning of 15-Minute Cities. Land 2023, 12, 2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lima, F.T.; Costa, F. The Quest for Proximity: A Systematic Review of Computational Approaches towards 15-Minute Cities. Architecture 2023, 3, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ferrer-Ortiz, C.; Marquet, O.; Mojica, L.; Vich, G. Barcelona under the 15-Minute City Lens: Mapping the Accessibility and Proximity Potential Based on Pedestrian Travel Times. Smart Cities 2022, 5, 146–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Elldér, E. Built environment and the evolution of the “15-minute city”: A 25-year longitudinal study of 200 Swedish cities. Cities 2024, 149, 104942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Noworól, A.; Kopyciński, P.; Hałat, P.; Salamon, J.; Hołuj, A. The 15-Minute City—The Geographical Proximity of Services in Krakow. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Romanillos, G.; García-Palomares, J.C. Accessibility to Schools: Spatial and Social Imbalances and the Impact of Population Density in Four European Cities. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2018, 144, 04018044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barbieri, L.; D’Autilia, R.; Marrone, P.; Montella, I. Graph Representation of the 15-Minute City: A Comparison Between Rome, London, and Paris. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ustawa z Dnia 14 Grudnia 2016 r. Prawo Oświatowe. Dz. U. 2017 poz. 59 ze zm. (Poland). (The Act of 14 December 2016—The Education Law J. Laws 2017, Item 59, as Amended). Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20170000059 (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  17. Walaszek, M. Spatial accessibility of schools in research of educational services—An example of Poznań agglomeration (Dostępność przestrzenna szkół w badaniach usług edukacyjnych—Przykład aglomeracji poznańskiej). Rozw. Reg. I Polityka Reg. 2018, 43, 109–122. [Google Scholar]
  18. McDonald, N.C. Children’s mode choice for the school trip: The role of distance and school location in walking to school. Transportation 2008, 35, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Łaszkiewicz, E.; Sikorska, D. Children’s Green Walk to School: An Evaluation of Welfare-Related Disparities in the Visibility of Greenery among Children. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 110, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, S.; Zheng, S.; Feng, J. Spatial accessibility of housing to public services and its impact on housing price: A case study of Beijing’s inner city. Prog. Geogr. 2010, 26, 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  21. Xu, X.; Hao, J.; Shen, J. Evaluating School Location Based on a Territorial Spatial Planning Knowledge Graph. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abulibdeh, A.; Al-Ali, M.; Al-Quraishi, D.; Al-Suwaidi, W.; Al-Yafei, B.; Al-Mazawdah, S. Assessing the Spatial Distribution and Accessibility of Public and Private Schools in Qatar: A GIS-Based Analysis. Geomatica 2024, 76, 100015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. AlQuhtani, S. Spatial Distribution of Public Elementary Schools: A Case Study of Najran, Saudi Arabia. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2023, 22, 705–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rekha, R.S.; Radhakrishnan, N.; Mathew, S. Spatial Accessibility Analysis of Schools Using Geospatial Techniques. Spat. Inf. Res. 2020, 28, 699–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lubienski, C.; Dougherty, J. Mapping Educational Opportunity: Spatial Analysis and School Choices. Am. J. Educ. 2009, 115, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mustaffa, A.A.; Bahiah, B.; Rasib, A.; Saifullizan, M.B. GIS and Multi-criteria Analysis for School Site Selection (Study Case: Malacca Historical City). Int. J. Integr. Eng. 2021, 13, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zubaidah, B.; Ahmad Rodzi, M.; Noordin, A. Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Safe School Site Selection. Int. Geoinform. Res. Dev. J. 2010, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  28. Śleszyński, P. Temporal accessibility and its applications (Dostępność czasowa i jej zastosowania). Przegl. Geograf. 2014, 86, 171–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Śleszynski, P.; Dybicz, T.J.; Olszewski, P. Temporal accessibility level as a synthetic indicator of the level of transport service (Stopień dostępności czasowej jako syntetyczny wskaźnik poziomu obsługi transportowej). Przegląd Komun. 2015, 70, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ibrahim, N.M.; Osman, M.M.; Bachok, S. Public school development and planning: Parents’ criteria of selecting public school in Gombak District. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 274–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mandic, S.; Sandretto, S.; Hopkins, D.; Wilson, G.; Kidd, G.; García Bengoechea, E. School Choice, Distance to School and Travel to School Patterns among Adolescents. J. Transp. Health 2023, 33, 101704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lagrab, W.; Aknin, N. A Suitability Analysis of Elementary Schools-Based Geographic Information System (GIS) a Case Study of Mukalla Districts in Yemen. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2017, 95, 731–742. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pozueta, J.; Daudén, F.J.L.; Schettino, M.P. La Ciudad Paseable: Recomendaciones para la Consideración de los Peatones en el Planeamiento, el Diseño Urbano y la Arquitectura; Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas: Madrid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ewing, R.; Schroeer, W.; Greene, W. School location and student travel analysis of factors affecting mode choice. Transp. Res. Rec. 2004, 1895, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. The Ordinance No. 9 of the Minister of Territorial and Environmental Protection of 29 January 1974 on Indicators and Guidelines for Residential Areas in Cities (Zarządzenie Nr 9 Ministra Gospodarki Terenowej i Ochrony Środowiska z Dnia 29 Stycznia 1974 r. w Sprawie Wskaźników i Wytycznych Dla Terenów Mieszkaniowych w Miastach). J. Constr. 1974, 2, 2.
  36. Chmielewski, J.M.; Mirecka, M. Modernisation of Residential Estates (Modernizacja Osiedli Mieszkaniowych); II; Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej: Warsaw, Poland, 2007; ISBN 978-83-7207-715-8. [Google Scholar]
  37. Chmielewki, J.M. Urban Theory in City Design and Planning (Teoria Urbanistyki w Projektowaniu i Planowaniu Miast); III; Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej: Warsaw, Poland, 2010; ISBN 978-83-7207-907-7. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dąbrowska-Milewska, G. Urban planning standards for residential areas—Selected issues (Standardy urbanistyczne dla terenów mieszkaniowych-wybrane zagadnienia). Archit. Artibus 2010, 2, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chwalibóg, K. (Ed.) Polish Architectural Policy. Quality Policy for Landscape, Public Space, Architecture (Polska Polityka Architektoniczna. Polityka Jakości Krajobrazu, Przestrzeni Publicznej, Architektury); Narodowe Centrum Kultury: Warsaw, Poland, 2018; Available online: http://sarp.katowice.pl/uploads/file/00%20ppa/PPA%20publikacja.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  40. Dąbrowska-Milewska, G. Urban planning standards as the means of rational land use in towns (Standardy urbanistyczne jako narzędzie racjonalnej gospodarki terenami w mieście). Architektura 2010, 107, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tabor, M. SAS Study Report in the Field of Education for 2005–2009. (Raport z Badań SAS w Zakresie Oświaty za Lata 2005–2009); Wydawnictwo ICM: Warsaw, Poland, 2011; pp. 88–127. Available online: https://www.euroreg.uw.edu.pl/dane/web_euroreg_publications_files/2171/herbst_2012_finansowanie_oswiaty.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  42. Ustawa z Dnia 5 Lipca 2018 r. o Ułatwieniach w Przygotowaniu i Realizacji Inwestycji Mieszkaniowych oraz Inwestycji Towarzyszących. Dz. U. 2018 poz. 1496 ze zm. (Poland) (The Act of 5 July 2018 on Facilitation in the Preparation and Implementation of Housing Investments and Associated Investments J. Laws 2018, Item 1496, as Amended.). Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001496 (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  43. Ustawa z dnia 7 Lipca 2023 r. o Zmianie Ustawy o Planowaniu i Zagospodarowaniu Przestrzennym Oraz Niektórych Innych Ustaw Dz. U. 2021 poz. 1688 (Poland). (The Act of 7 July 2023 amending the Act on Spatial Planning and Development and Certain Other Acts J. Laws 2023, Item 1688). Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20230001688 (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  44. Local Data Bank of Statistics in Poland (BDL—Bank Danych Lokalnych). Available online: https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/bdl/start (accessed on 17 April 2025).
  45. Serafimowicz, W. Division of Płock into Field and Organizational of the Third Republic of Poland (Zarys Podziału Terytorialno-Funkcjonalnego Płocka w III Rzeczpospolitej). Notatki Płockie. Kwart. Tow. Nauk. Płockiego 2019, 1, 26–36. Available online: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/490394 (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  46. Witkowski, K.; Starościc, D. System of social infrastructure in counties (System infrastruktury społecznej w gminie). Stud. Lub. 2008, IV, 176–194. Available online: https://www.bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/Content/34675/PDF/008.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  47. Borys, T. Sustainable Development Indicators—An Effective Form of Concretising the New Development Paradigm, Part 1. What Do We Want to Measure? (Wskaźniki Zrównoważonego Rozwoju—Efektywna Forma Konkretyzacji Nowego Paradygmatu Rozwoju, Cz. 1. Co Chcemy Mierzyć?). Zielona Planeta 2010, 3, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kapusta, F. The Level of Technical and Social Infrastructure as an Indicator and Stimulator of Regional Development (Poziom infrastruktury Technicznej i Społecznej Jako Indykator i Stymulator Rozwoju Regionalnego). Nierówności Społeczne Wzrost Gospod. 2012, 29, 315–325. Available online: https://www.ur.edu.pl/files/ur/import/Import/2013/1/312.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  49. Rakowska, J. Classification of Areas—Criteria, Definitions, Delimitation Methods. Methodological and Statistical Study (Klasyfikacje Obszarów—Kryteria, Definicje, Metody Delimitacji. Studium Metodyczno-Statystyczne); Wydawnictwo Wieś Jutra: Warsaw, Poland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. Podawca, K.; Pawłat-Zawrzykraj, A. Analysis of the availability of educational and technical infrastructure, as factor of sustainable development for Biebrza National Park communes. J. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 18, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Podawca, K.; Pawłat-Zawrzykraj, A. Analysis of social and spatial accessibility of educational services in the municipalities of Płock district. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Circumiectus 2019, 17, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ogryzek, M.; Podawca, K.; Cienciała, A. Geospatial Tools in the Analyses of Land Use in the Perspective of the Accessibility of Selected Educational Services in Poland. Land Use Policy 2022, 122, 106373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Moreno, C.; Allam, Z.; Chabaud, D.; Gall, C.; Pratlong, F. Introducing the “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Capasso Da Silva, D.; King, D.A.; Lemar, S. Accessibility in practice: 20-minute city as a sustainability planning goal. Sustainability 2020, 12, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Uchwała Nr 168/IX/2019 Rady Miasta Płocka z Dn. 27 Czerwca 2019 r. w Sprawie Ustalenia Planu Sieci Publicznych Szkół Podstawowych Prowadzonych Przez Gminę Miasto Płock i Określenia Ich Obwodów (Poland). (Resolution No. 168/IX/2019 of the City Council of Plock of 27 June 2019 on the Determination of the Network Plan of Public Primary Schools Conducted by the Municipality of the City of Plock and Determination of Their Perimeters). Available online: http://dane.plock.eu/bip//dane/uchwaly/8%20kadencja%20RMP/9/168.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  56. Uchwała NR 309/XVII/2020 Rady Miasta Płocka z Dnia 27 Lutego 2020 r.w Sprawie Zmiany Uchwały Nr 168/IX/2019 z Dnia 27 Czerwca 2019 Roku w Sprawie Ustalenia Planu Sieci Publicznych Szkół Podstawowych Prowadzonych Przez Gminę Miasto Płock i Określenia Ich Obwodów (Poland) (Resolution No.309/XVII/2020 of the City Council of Plock of 27 February 2020 Amending Resolution No.168/IX/2019). Available online: https://bip.ump.pl/dane/uchwaly/8%20kadencja%20RMP/17/309.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  57. García-Palomares, J.C.; Ribeiro, J.; Gutiérrez, J.; Sá Marques, T. Analysing proximity to public transport: The role of street network design. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2018, 76, 102–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wolny, A.; Ogryzek, M.; Źróbek, R. Challenges, Opportunities and Barriers to Sustainable Transport Development in Functional Urban Areas. In Environmental Engineering, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Environmental Engineering (10th ICEE), Vilnius, Lithuania, 27–28 April 2017; Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Press: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01924 g001
Figure 1. Primary schools in Plock are located within the internal administrative structure. List of public schools in Płock: SP no. 1, Pasaż Vuka Karadzica St. 1; SP no. 2, Faustyna Piaska St. 5; SP no. 3, Szymona Kossobudzkiego St. 7; SP no. 5, Krakówka St. 4; SP no. 6, 1 Maja St. 11; SP no. 8, gen. Tadeusza Kutrzeby St. 2a; SP no. 11, Jana Kochanowskiego St.11; SP no. 12, Brzozowa St. 3; SP no. 13, Sierpecka St. 15; SP no. 14, Stanisława Jachowicza St. 20; SP no. 15, Przyszkolna St. 22; SP no. 16, Piasta Kołodzieja St. 7; SP no. 17, Miodowa St. 18; SP no. 18, Jasna St. 8; SP no. 20, Janusza Korczaka St. 10; SP no. 21, Fryderyka Chopina St. 62; SP no. 22 im. Janusza Korczaka, Czwartaków St. 6; SP no. 23, Walecznych St. 20; Administrative city districts: I—Kombinat, II—Trzepowo, III—Maszewo, IV—Łukasiewicza, V—Działki, VI—Śródmieście, VII—Kostrogaj Przemysłowy, VIII—Kostrogaj Rolniczy, IX—Wyszogrodzka, X—Podolszyce, XI—Podolszyce-Borowiczki, XII—Radziwie, XIII—Tokary, XIV—Góry, XV—Ciechomice [45].
Figure 1. Primary schools in Plock are located within the internal administrative structure. List of public schools in Płock: SP no. 1, Pasaż Vuka Karadzica St. 1; SP no. 2, Faustyna Piaska St. 5; SP no. 3, Szymona Kossobudzkiego St. 7; SP no. 5, Krakówka St. 4; SP no. 6, 1 Maja St. 11; SP no. 8, gen. Tadeusza Kutrzeby St. 2a; SP no. 11, Jana Kochanowskiego St.11; SP no. 12, Brzozowa St. 3; SP no. 13, Sierpecka St. 15; SP no. 14, Stanisława Jachowicza St. 20; SP no. 15, Przyszkolna St. 22; SP no. 16, Piasta Kołodzieja St. 7; SP no. 17, Miodowa St. 18; SP no. 18, Jasna St. 8; SP no. 20, Janusza Korczaka St. 10; SP no. 21, Fryderyka Chopina St. 62; SP no. 22 im. Janusza Korczaka, Czwartaków St. 6; SP no. 23, Walecznych St. 20; Administrative city districts: I—Kombinat, II—Trzepowo, III—Maszewo, IV—Łukasiewicza, V—Działki, VI—Śródmieście, VII—Kostrogaj Przemysłowy, VIII—Kostrogaj Rolniczy, IX—Wyszogrodzka, X—Podolszyce, XI—Podolszyce-Borowiczki, XII—Radziwie, XIII—Tokary, XIV—Góry, XV—Ciechomice [45].
Land 14 01924 g001
Land 14 01924 g003
Figure 3. Example of spatial analysis performed for the selected school SP8: (A)—representation of the indicator X1; (B)—spatial representation of the indicator X2; (C)—spatial representation of the indicator X3.
Figure 3. Example of spatial analysis performed for the selected school SP8: (A)—representation of the indicator X1; (B)—spatial representation of the indicator X2; (C)—spatial representation of the indicator X3.
Land 14 01924 g003
Land 14 01924 g004
Figure 4. The overall picture of the spatial accessibility of the primary schools in Plock by the Y1 indicator.
Figure 4. The overall picture of the spatial accessibility of the primary schools in Plock by the Y1 indicator.
Land 14 01924 g004
Land 14 01924 g005
Figure 5. The overall picture of spatial accessibility of the primary schools in Plock by the Y2 indicator.
Figure 5. The overall picture of spatial accessibility of the primary schools in Plock by the Y2 indicator.
Land 14 01924 g005
Land 14 01924 g006
Figure 6. Educational accessibility according to the 15 Min City Model and 1500 m service area: Case Study of Płock.
Figure 6. Educational accessibility according to the 15 Min City Model and 1500 m service area: Case Study of Płock.
Land 14 01924 g006
Table 1. The results of calculations performed for the city of Płock, including input characteristics (A1–A7) and obtained values of indexes X1–X3 for the analysed schools, aggregated values of all schools’ area characteristics (B1–B7), and synthetic indicators (Y1–Y3) describing the city’s spatial educational accessibility.
Table 1. The results of calculations performed for the city of Płock, including input characteristics (A1–A7) and obtained values of indexes X1–X3 for the analysed schools, aggregated values of all schools’ area characteristics (B1–B7), and synthetic indicators (Y1–Y3) describing the city’s spatial educational accessibility.
No.School No.A1A2A3A4A5A6A7X1X2X3
[km2][km2][km2][km2][km2][no.][no.][--][--][--]
1.SP10.4523.96600.1540.1542822821.0001.0001.000
2.SP21.4913.1170.4180.7650.5367575760.7200.7010.761
3.SP30.8843.5270.0520.2740.27472720.9411.0001.000
4.SP52.4653.5871.2131.0780.78612388950.5080.7290.723
5.SP60.6443.99100.3270.3272442441.0001.0001.000
6.SP81.1953.1350.3640.9430.7989836200.6950.8460.631
7.SP110.5434.52000.3560.3563673671.0001.0001.000
8.SP121.6253.2150.2600.8850.807112410830.8400.9120.964
9.SP132.7542.3530.9310.1300.11586820.6620.8850.953
10.SP140.4264.2900.0050.2760.2722602580.9880.9860.992
11.SP156.2072.2344.6251.2010.34610183110.2550.2880.306
12.SP160.4124.1150.0440.1750.16374600.8930.9310.811
13.SP170.4993.42900.3060.3062062061.0001.0001.000
14.SP182.3623.4021.7170.8170.3789804450.2730.4630.454
15.SP203.6333.6781.4481.8221.060171710320.6010.5820.601
16.SP211.2184.3550.1440.4940.4675765570.8880.9450.967
17.SP221.1052.6060.0110.6050.6015055040.9900.9930.998
18.SP230.7713.4380.1680.4860.3801781330.7820.7820.747
the arithmetic mean0.7800.8360.828
CityB1B2B3B4B5B6B7Y1Y2Y3
[km2][km2][km2][km2][km2][no.][no.][--][--][--]
Płock 28.68630.41710.61111.2478.1581067178730.630.7250.738
Table 2. Quantitative distribution of spatial accessibility classes according to indicators X2 and X3.
Table 2. Quantitative distribution of spatial accessibility classes according to indicators X2 and X3.
Classes of X2
01234
Classes of X302
1 1
2 12
3 1 1
4 10
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Podawca, K.; Pawłat-Zawrzykraj, A.; Ogryzek, M. Educational Accessibility as an Element of Sustainable Urban Transformation: The Case of Poland in the Context of Legislative Reform. Land 2025, 14, 1924. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091924

AMA Style

Podawca K, Pawłat-Zawrzykraj A, Ogryzek M. Educational Accessibility as an Element of Sustainable Urban Transformation: The Case of Poland in the Context of Legislative Reform. Land. 2025; 14(9):1924. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091924

Chicago/Turabian Style

Podawca, Konrad, Agata Pawłat-Zawrzykraj, and Marek Ogryzek. 2025. "Educational Accessibility as an Element of Sustainable Urban Transformation: The Case of Poland in the Context of Legislative Reform" Land 14, no. 9: 1924. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091924

APA Style

Podawca, K., Pawłat-Zawrzykraj, A., & Ogryzek, M. (2025). Educational Accessibility as an Element of Sustainable Urban Transformation: The Case of Poland in the Context of Legislative Reform. Land, 14(9), 1924. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091924

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop