DETERMINATION OF URBAN SPACE POTENTIAL WITH THE USE OF THE GIS APPLICATION: A CASE STUDY OF OLSZTYN

to the basic regularities of phenomenon distribution in the area of study

. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org Section Cartography and GIS Application of the first method results in the fact that the drop line of the potential is closer to its actual course. In the vicinity of points with high potential, its values drop quite rapidly in the direction of peripheries, where changes of such values occur much more slowly. In order to bring closer the drop line of the potential to the concave line, the interpolation axis should be divided in line with the adopted sequence, e.g. arithmetic or geometric. The second principle influences the shape of equipotential lines. They are brought closer to the main directions of phenomenon occurrence, thanks to which the image received from the course of equipotential lines shows the actual status better; therefore, it is more useful for various comparisons with maps showing the distribution of other phenomena

. The fie ld potential method was also applied for the needs of the conducted studies. When it is necessary to measure the force of impact of certain fragments of space, in this case the features of adjoining space, on its remaining part, this method seems to be irreplaceable. SPACE EVALUATION SYSTEM Geo-information was evaluated with the use of the point bonitation technique. This technique is easy to adapt to the evaluation of space, and offers a possibility for transforming grades of non-measurable spatial criteria into a quantity scale, which provides a basis for further analytical analyses. The examined space was divided into basic fields. When selecting the size of fields, the size of record parcels was used, which usually constitutes the basic surface units in the investment process [5; 6; 7]. On account of the various surface areas of parcels, depending on the function, it was necessary to verify and to adjust the surface area of fields to areas identified as individual investments, which were understood as: - Group of parcels where investments within the scope of residential and single- family development were conducted at a specific time; - Area on which a residential multi-family building was erected, along with the management of the area around it; - Or a similar investment was completed within the scope of service and trade facilities. For the purpose of increasing the objectivity of the evaluation, a network of basic fields was imposed in a random manner, thereby avoiding a purposeful impact on the results of evaluation by adjusting individual elements of space to the structure of measurement fields, e.g. adjustment of borders of parcels or buildings to the borders of fields. Proper evaluation consisted in assigning a value to a given feature in a given field; thence, it was important to create a descriptive part of basic fields where, apart from basic information regarding the identification of objects in base (OBJECTID) and geometric attributes (Shape_Length and Shape_Area), attributes corresponding to the actual value of each feature were added, along with point values resulting from the evaluation system, and aggregate values for individual groups and a total value for individual groups, as well as an aggregate total value of evaluation [8; 9]. The constructed system of evaluation facilitated the process of the distribution of a pool of points resulting from field features. The final form of the evaluation system relies, to International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences SGEM2015 a significant degree, on tests on actual data in the above-listed prototype geo-bases. Both the selection of a maximum value for a specific piece of geo-information and individual values within the scope of a given feature evolved in the process of the test evaluation of databases. During this stage, the original system of evaluation was set up, based on questionnaire studies (200 questionnaires among experts), and in the course of the evaluation of individual groups and the entire set of data. What is more, compliance of the evaluation system with the actual status of the space was also evaluated. Individual parameters were modified in various manners on the basis of familiarity with space evaluation and the evaluation systems of individual attributes known from the literature [10; 11; 12]. Within the scope of the first group, the evaluation system presented in Table 4.6 was created. The significance of attributes was predominantly determined on the basis of the results of an expert questionnaire which determined the features of the Local Spatial Management Plan, Type and Class of Agricultural Land, and Spatial Barriers on a similarly high level, whereas features of spaces regarding Lie of Land and Structure of Parcels were less significant. In the case of the two first elements, individual values of features were divided proportionally according to the percentage share of the surface area of specific elements to the total area of the basic field where the measurement was made. With respect to the structure of plots and spatial barriers, it was assumed that when elements negatively influencing a given manner of management occupy more than 60% of the space, fields are disqualified and receive the value of zero points. In cases when the surface characterized by such elements occupied below 60% of field, a system of evaluation proportional to the share of this surface was applied. Taking into account the size of the field and analysing the literature

, it also seemed justified to assume that fields where the height difference did not exceed 5 m were most desirable. With respect to height differences exceeding 10 m, it was assumed that such a feature of space does not offer any benefits with respect to the selected purpose of evaluation. Table 1. System of evaluation of features of space within the scope of grou p 1 Number of points Description of status of feature of space Adopted local spatial management plan in a given area: determined as relation of surface encompassed by the plan to the total surface area of the basic field Type and class of agricultural land: determined as relation of land conducive for investments and total surface area of the basic field (%) Spatial barriers: determined as relation of surface of spatial barriers to total surface area of the basic field (%) Lie of land: determined on the basis of height difference in measurement points in a given basic field (metre) Structure of parcels: determined as relation of surface of parcels with disadvantageous structure to total surface of the basic field (%) 0 ( 90 ; 100 > >10 ( 0,4 ; 1 > 1 ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 80 ; 90 > ( 5 ; 10 > 2 ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > ( 70 ; 80 > 3 ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > ( 60 ; 70 > 4 ( 0,8 ; 1 > ( 0,8 ; 1 > Source: own compilation. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org Section Cartography and GIS Elements placed in group 2 refer to the distance from the basic field to technical infrastructure. Infrastructure facilities were subjected to initial classification. Elements with the greatest significance include water supply network, power grid and sewage discharge network; for these features the maximum feature value was adopted (3 points). Other elements of technical infrastructure were assigned lower grades, observing the principle of the location of a feature with respect to the field. The threshold distance of the location was determined at 400 m. This resulted from principles of reasonable design of the length of connections. Table 2. System of evaluation of space features within the scope of group 2. Points Description of the value of spatial feature Access to water supply network, power grid, sewage discharge network, determined as distance between technical infrastructure lines and borders of the basic field (metre) Access to road infrastructure, central heating network and gas network, determined as distance between technical infrastructure lines and borders of the basic field (metre) 0 above 400 above 400 1 ( 200 ; 400 > ( 0 ; 400 > 2 ( 0 ; 200 > technical infrastructure in a given basic field 3 technical infrastructure in a given basic field Source: own compilation. The manner of evaluation of spatial features in the case of the third group was also based on the questionnaire system and verification on the basis of test geo-bases. On this basis, a system was created where only features related to cultivated greenery have a smaller point value (Słodczyk). The constructed system was limited to the analysis of the structure of areas within the scope of residential, service and trade functions. The full system of the evaluation of elements in this group is presented in table 3. Table 3. System of evaluation of spatial features within the scope of group 3 Point Description of the value of spatial feature Structure of development: value of development coefficient for the basic field, depending on the predominant residential function Investment: determined as ratio of areas without investments to the total surface of the basic field (%) Structure of transport areas: determined as ratio of transport areas to the total surface of the basic field (%) Structure of surface of cultivated greenery: determined as ratio of surface of cultivated greenery to the total surface of the basic field (%) MN: area for low-level residential development MN: area for low-level residential development MW: area for high- level residential development 0 or ( 0,9 ; 1> ( 0,4 ; 1,0 > 0 or ( 0,8 ; 1,0 > 0 or (0,8 ; 1> 1 or ( 0,8 ; 0,9 > > 1,2 ( 0,3 ; 0,4 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > 2 ( 0,2 ; 0,3 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 0,2 ; 0,3 > ( 0 ; 0,2 > ( 0 ; 0,2 > International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences SGEM2015 or ( 0,7 ; 0,8 > or ( 1 ; 1,2 > or ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > or (0,4 ; 0,6 > 3 ( 0,3 ; 0,4 > or ( 0,6 ; 0,7 > ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > or ( 0,8 ; 1 > ( 0,1 ; 0,2 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > 4 ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > Source: own compilation. The resulting system is a basis for the performance of evaluation for basic fields. For the purpose of facilitating the evaluation, a geo-base created in ArcGIS was used. Within the scope of each stage, procedures for procuring descriptive data about spatial facilities were created. The type of used tools was primarily related to the type of spatial facilities for which such information was procured

. The procured information determines the dependencies between the actual values and relevant basic fields in the form of summary tables, and does not have a spatial reference; therefore, it is necessary to combine such tables with the main table of basic fields so that the resulting values have a spatial reference to basic fields adopted as a basis for the evaluation of space values. ArcGIS has tools allowing for the building of relations and combining tables according to their identifiers. The software was used to calculate the surface area occupied by individual elements evaluated in the basic field. The surface values were used to designate the share of the surface of individual features in relation to the total analysed surface of the basic field. The share of such surface areas was determined with the use of a tool called the field calculator, and saved in the table of attributes in fields determined as Feature_Share. The described activities led to the designation of point values for individual groups and an aggregate point value of all spatial features. The performed calculations allowed for the determination of the investment potential of individual fields. The designated meter constitutes the image of the actual status of urban space and determines the development potential (urbanization) of a given area. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF STUDIES The study area was divided into 478 hexagonal basic fields, for which evaluation was conducted according to the outline described above. The final evaluation of fields constituted the starting value (Pj) for calculating the field potential according to formula 1. The value of variable dj was determined as the distance between the centres of basic fields i (field for which the potential was calculated) and j (the field for which P j was determined). As a result of the calculations, urbanization potential was determined for all basic fields n of a given area. The values of the potential determine the utility of an area for the development of urban functions. However, due to the fact that the above-mentioned processes do not occur in space in the form of points, but have a continuous character in the entire space, the received values were treated as survey points showing the distribution of the phenomenon, whereas the phenomenon as such was presented in the form of an isoline map. Such a presentation offers a possibility for the flexible adjustment of auxiliary elements (development of infrastructure, coverage with spatial management plans, etc.) to the existing compilation of spatial elements. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org Section Cartography and GIS Fig 1. Map of urban space potential. Source: own compilation using ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 – ArcMap. In fig. 1, which presents the distribution of urban potential in the examined area, it is possible to observe the directions of the intensification of features which are conducive to urbanization. It is obvious that the amount of such potential is high in areas already subjected to investments. However, it turns out that the potential of urbanization is high in certain areas where the level of investments in the area is not high. This means that such areas constitute, potentially, most the favourable locations for future investments. In other words, intensification of the value of urbanization potential indicates the most favourable investment directions on account of features included in the analysis (infrastructure, local planning, etc.). Such information may be used by investors and by the administration, which may, in turn, streamline the process of managing the city space by attracting attention to specific areas as development areas of the city. The method of using field potential described in the article seems to be an interesting solution in the search for development directions of urbanized space. Maps of urban potential may be successfully used by individual investors who are looking for the most favourable location for their investments with respect to features of the vicinity. Such maps may also provide strategic support for administrators of urbanized space managing its development. REFERENCE

Pawlewicz K. Determinants of Multifunctional Development of Rural Areas - the Example of the Region of Warmia and Mazury. In: Bórawski P. Multifunctional development of rural areas. WSES Ostrołęka, pp. 23-32, 2012.

Walacik M. Opracowanie zasad ustalania wysokości słusznego odszkodowania za nieruchomości przejęte na cele publiczne. NDB, 2014. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences SGEM2015

Cieślak I. Współczesna waloryzacja przestrzeni zurbanizowanej. UWM. 2014.

Radzewicz A., Walacik M., The attributes of sustainable urban development – identification and analysis on the example of Olsztyn City. 9th International Conference. Environmental Engineering. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, May 22-23 2014. http://leidykla.vgtu.lt/conferences/ENVIRO_2014 /Articles/3/131_Radzewicz.pdf.

Biłozor A. Biłozor -Reniger M. The use of geoinformation in the process of optymalizing the use of land. 9th International Conference on Environmental Engineering. 22-23 May 2014. http://leidykla.vgtu.lt/conferences/ENVIRO_2014/Articles/3/110_Bilozor.pdf

Kennedy M. Introducing Geographic Information Systems with ArcGIS: A Workbook Approach to Learning GIS, 2nd Edition, Wiley and Son, 2009.

Kowalczyk A. The analysis of geodata to determine the threat potential as an element of the development of safe zone. Gis and its implementations, Published by Croatian Information Technology Society – GIS Forum, Zagreb, pp. 125-135, 2013.

Longley P.A. & Batty M. Advanced Spatial analysis: The CASE Book of GIS. Redland, CA: ESRI Press, 2003.

Rostami S., Amani M. S. & Aliakbari I. GIS application for sustainable urban development. Case study: worn out textures in Saqqez city, Iran. 11th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM2011, Vol. 2, pp. -416, 2011.

Cieślak I., Gerus– Gościewska M. & Szuniewicz K. The application of genetic algotirhms as a tool for supporting the processes of analysis and predicting urban development, Regional development, spatial planningand strategic governance. Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, pp. 350-360, 2013,

DeMers M. N. Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems, 3rd Edition, Wiley and Sons, 2005.

Felcenloben D. Geoiformacja. Wprowadzenie do systemów organizacji danych i wiedzy. GALL, 2009.

Szponar A. Fizjografia urbanistyczna. PWN, 2003.

Sladic D. Govedarica M. & Ristic A. A solution for efficient management of GIS data in urban planning. 11th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM2011, Vol. 2, pp. 355-362, 2011. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org

to the basic regularities of phenomenon distribution in the area of study

. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org Section Cartography and GIS Application of the first method results in the fact that the drop line of the potential is closer to its actual course. In the vicinity of points with high potential, its values drop quite rapidly in the direction of peripheries, where changes of such values occur much more slowly. In order to bring closer the drop line of the potential to the concave line, the interpolation axis should be divided in line with the adopted sequence, e.g. arithmetic or geometric. The second principle influences the shape of equipotential lines. They are brought closer to the main directions of phenomenon occurrence, thanks to which the image received from the course of equipotential lines shows the actual status better; therefore, it is more useful for various comparisons with maps showing the distribution of other phenomena

. The fie ld potential method was also applied for the needs of the conducted studies. When it is necessary to measure the force of impact of certain fragments of space, in this case the features of adjoining space, on its remaining part, this method seems to be irreplaceable. SPACE EVALUATION SYSTEM Geo-information was evaluated with the use of the point bonitation technique. This technique is easy to adapt to the evaluation of space, and offers a possibility for transforming grades of non-measurable spatial criteria into a quantity scale, which provides a basis for further analytical analyses. The examined space was divided into basic fields. When selecting the size of fields, the size of record parcels was used, which usually constitutes the basic surface units in the investment process [5; 6; 7]. On account of the various surface areas of parcels, depending on the function, it was necessary to verify and to adjust the surface area of fields to areas identified as individual investments, which were understood as: - Group of parcels where investments within the scope of residential and single- family development were conducted at a specific time; - Area on which a residential multi-family building was erected, along with the management of the area around it; - Or a similar investment was completed within the scope of service and trade facilities. For the purpose of increasing the objectivity of the evaluation, a network of basic fields was imposed in a random manner, thereby avoiding a purposeful impact on the results of evaluation by adjusting individual elements of space to the structure of measurement fields, e.g. adjustment of borders of parcels or buildings to the borders of fields. Proper evaluation consisted in assigning a value to a given feature in a given field; thence, it was important to create a descriptive part of basic fields where, apart from basic information regarding the identification of objects in base (OBJECTID) and geometric attributes (Shape_Length and Shape_Area), attributes corresponding to the actual value of each feature were added, along with point values resulting from the evaluation system, and aggregate values for individual groups and a total value for individual groups, as well as an aggregate total value of evaluation [8; 9]. The constructed system of evaluation facilitated the process of the distribution of a pool of points resulting from field features. The final form of the evaluation system relies, to International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences SGEM2015 a significant degree, on tests on actual data in the above-listed prototype geo-bases. Both the selection of a maximum value for a specific piece of geo-information and individual values within the scope of a given feature evolved in the process of the test evaluation of databases. During this stage, the original system of evaluation was set up, based on questionnaire studies (200 questionnaires among experts), and in the course of the evaluation of individual groups and the entire set of data. What is more, compliance of the evaluation system with the actual status of the space was also evaluated. Individual parameters were modified in various manners on the basis of familiarity with space evaluation and the evaluation systems of individual attributes known from the literature [10; 11; 12]. Within the scope of the first group, the evaluation system presented in Table 4.6 was created. The significance of attributes was predominantly determined on the basis of the results of an expert questionnaire which determined the features of the Local Spatial Management Plan, Type and Class of Agricultural Land, and Spatial Barriers on a similarly high level, whereas features of spaces regarding Lie of Land and Structure of Parcels were less significant. In the case of the two first elements, individual values of features were divided proportionally according to the percentage share of the surface area of specific elements to the total area of the basic field where the measurement was made. With respect to the structure of plots and spatial barriers, it was assumed that when elements negatively influencing a given manner of management occupy more than 60% of the space, fields are disqualified and receive the value of zero points. In cases when the surface characterized by such elements occupied below 60% of field, a system of evaluation proportional to the share of this surface was applied. Taking into account the size of the field and analysing the literature

, it also seemed justified to assume that fields where the height difference did not exceed 5 m were most desirable. With respect to height differences exceeding 10 m, it was assumed that such a feature of space does not offer any benefits with respect to the selected purpose of evaluation. Table 1. System of evaluation of features of space within the scope of grou p 1 Number of points Description of status of feature of space Adopted local spatial management plan in a given area: determined as relation of surface encompassed by the plan to the total surface area of the basic field Type and class of agricultural land: determined as relation of land conducive for investments and total surface area of the basic field (%) Spatial barriers: determined as relation of surface of spatial barriers to total surface area of the basic field (%) Lie of land: determined on the basis of height difference in measurement points in a given basic field (metre) Structure of parcels: determined as relation of surface of parcels with disadvantageous structure to total surface of the basic field (%) 0 ( 90 ; 100 > >10 ( 0,4 ; 1 > 1 ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 80 ; 90 > ( 5 ; 10 > 2 ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > ( 70 ; 80 > 3 ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > ( 60 ; 70 > 4 ( 0,8 ; 1 > ( 0,8 ; 1 > Source: own compilation. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org Section Cartography and GIS Elements placed in group 2 refer to the distance from the basic field to technical infrastructure. Infrastructure facilities were subjected to initial classification. Elements with the greatest significance include water supply network, power grid and sewage discharge network; for these features the maximum feature value was adopted (3 points). Other elements of technical infrastructure were assigned lower grades, observing the principle of the location of a feature with respect to the field. The threshold distance of the location was determined at 400 m. This resulted from principles of reasonable design of the length of connections. Table 2. System of evaluation of space features within the scope of group 2. Points Description of the value of spatial feature Access to water supply network, power grid, sewage discharge network, determined as distance between technical infrastructure lines and borders of the basic field (metre) Access to road infrastructure, central heating network and gas network, determined as distance between technical infrastructure lines and borders of the basic field (metre) 0 above 400 above 400 1 ( 200 ; 400 > ( 0 ; 400 > 2 ( 0 ; 200 > technical infrastructure in a given basic field 3 technical infrastructure in a given basic field Source: own compilation. The manner of evaluation of spatial features in the case of the third group was also based on the questionnaire system and verification on the basis of test geo-bases. On this basis, a system was created where only features related to cultivated greenery have a smaller point value (Słodczyk). The constructed system was limited to the analysis of the structure of areas within the scope of residential, service and trade functions. The full system of the evaluation of elements in this group is presented in table 3. Table 3. System of evaluation of spatial features within the scope of group 3 Point Description of the value of spatial feature Structure of development: value of development coefficient for the basic field, depending on the predominant residential function Investment: determined as ratio of areas without investments to the total surface of the basic field (%) Structure of transport areas: determined as ratio of transport areas to the total surface of the basic field (%) Structure of surface of cultivated greenery: determined as ratio of surface of cultivated greenery to the total surface of the basic field (%) MN: area for low-level residential development MN: area for low-level residential development MW: area for high- level residential development 0 or ( 0,9 ; 1> ( 0,4 ; 1,0 > 0 or ( 0,8 ; 1,0 > 0 or (0,8 ; 1> 1 or ( 0,8 ; 0,9 > > 1,2 ( 0,3 ; 0,4 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > 2 ( 0,2 ; 0,3 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 0,2 ; 0,3 > ( 0 ; 0,2 > ( 0 ; 0,2 > International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences SGEM2015 or ( 0,7 ; 0,8 > or ( 1 ; 1,2 > or ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > or (0,4 ; 0,6 > 3 ( 0,3 ; 0,4 > or ( 0,6 ; 0,7 > ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > or ( 0,8 ; 1 > ( 0,1 ; 0,2 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > ( 0,2 ; 0,4 > 4 ( 0,4 ; 0,6 > ( 0,6 ; 0,8 > Source: own compilation. The resulting system is a basis for the performance of evaluation for basic fields. For the purpose of facilitating the evaluation, a geo-base created in ArcGIS was used. Within the scope of each stage, procedures for procuring descriptive data about spatial facilities were created. The type of used tools was primarily related to the type of spatial facilities for which such information was procured

. The procured information determines the dependencies between the actual values and relevant basic fields in the form of summary tables, and does not have a spatial reference; therefore, it is necessary to combine such tables with the main table of basic fields so that the resulting values have a spatial reference to basic fields adopted as a basis for the evaluation of space values. ArcGIS has tools allowing for the building of relations and combining tables according to their identifiers. The software was used to calculate the surface area occupied by individual elements evaluated in the basic field. The surface values were used to designate the share of the surface of individual features in relation to the total analysed surface of the basic field. The share of such surface areas was determined with the use of a tool called the field calculator, and saved in the table of attributes in fields determined as Feature_Share. The described activities led to the designation of point values for individual groups and an aggregate point value of all spatial features. The performed calculations allowed for the determination of the investment potential of individual fields. The designated meter constitutes the image of the actual status of urban space and determines the development potential (urbanization) of a given area. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF STUDIES The study area was divided into 478 hexagonal basic fields, for which evaluation was conducted according to the outline described above. The final evaluation of fields constituted the starting value (Pj) for calculating the field potential according to formula 1. The value of variable dj was determined as the distance between the centres of basic fields i (field for which the potential was calculated) and j (the field for which P j was determined). As a result of the calculations, urbanization potential was determined for all basic fields n of a given area. The values of the potential determine the utility of an area for the development of urban functions. However, due to the fact that the above-mentioned processes do not occur in space in the form of points, but have a continuous character in the entire space, the received values were treated as survey points showing the distribution of the phenomenon, whereas the phenomenon as such was presented in the form of an isoline map. Such a presentation offers a possibility for the flexible adjustment of auxiliary elements (development of infrastructure, coverage with spatial management plans, etc.) to the existing compilation of spatial elements. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org Section Cartography and GIS Fig 1. Map of urban space potential. Source: own compilation using ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 – ArcMap. In fig. 1, which presents the distribution of urban potential in the examined area, it is possible to observe the directions of the intensification of features which are conducive to urbanization. It is obvious that the amount of such potential is high in areas already subjected to investments. However, it turns out that the potential of urbanization is high in certain areas where the level of investments in the area is not high. This means that such areas constitute, potentially, most the favourable locations for future investments. In other words, intensification of the value of urbanization potential indicates the most favourable investment directions on account of features included in the analysis (infrastructure, local planning, etc.). Such information may be used by investors and by the administration, which may, in turn, streamline the process of managing the city space by attracting attention to specific areas as development areas of the city. The method of using field potential described in the article seems to be an interesting solution in the search for development directions of urbanized space. Maps of urban potential may be successfully used by individual investors who are looking for the most favourable location for their investments with respect to features of the vicinity. Such maps may also provide strategic support for administrators of urbanized space managing its development. REFERENCE

Pawlewicz K. Determinants of Multifunctional Development of Rural Areas - the Example of the Region of Warmia and Mazury. In: Bórawski P. Multifunctional development of rural areas. WSES Ostrołęka, pp. 23-32, 2012.

Walacik M. Opracowanie zasad ustalania wysokości słusznego odszkodowania za nieruchomości przejęte na cele publiczne. NDB, 2014. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConferences SGEM2015

Cieślak I. Współczesna waloryzacja przestrzeni zurbanizowanej. UWM. 2014.

Radzewicz A., Walacik M., The attributes of sustainable urban development – identification and analysis on the example of Olsztyn City. 9th International Conference. Environmental Engineering. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, May 22-23 2014. http://leidykla.vgtu.lt/conferences/ENVIRO_2014 /Articles/3/131_Radzewicz.pdf.

Biłozor A. Biłozor -Reniger M. The use of geoinformation in the process of optymalizing the use of land. 9th International Conference on Environmental Engineering. 22-23 May 2014. http://leidykla.vgtu.lt/conferences/ENVIRO_2014/Articles/3/110_Bilozor.pdf

Kennedy M. Introducing Geographic Information Systems with ArcGIS: A Workbook Approach to Learning GIS, 2nd Edition, Wiley and Son, 2009.

Kowalczyk A. The analysis of geodata to determine the threat potential as an element of the development of safe zone. Gis and its implementations, Published by Croatian Information Technology Society – GIS Forum, Zagreb, pp. 125-135, 2013.

Longley P.A. & Batty M. Advanced Spatial analysis: The CASE Book of GIS. Redland, CA: ESRI Press, 2003.

Rostami S., Amani M. S. & Aliakbari I. GIS application for sustainable urban development. Case study: worn out textures in Saqqez city, Iran. 11th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM2011, Vol. 2, pp. -416, 2011.

Cieślak I., Gerus– Gościewska M. & Szuniewicz K. The application of genetic algotirhms as a tool for supporting the processes of analysis and predicting urban development, Regional development, spatial planningand strategic governance. Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, pp. 350-360, 2013,

DeMers M. N. Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems, 3rd Edition, Wiley and Sons, 2005.

Felcenloben D. Geoiformacja. Wprowadzenie do systemów organizacji danych i wiedzy. GALL, 2009.

Szponar A. Fizjografia urbanistyczna. PWN, 2003.

Sladic D. Govedarica M. & Ristic A. A solution for efficient management of GIS data in urban planning. 11th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM2011, Vol. 2, pp. 355-362, 2011. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConfenferences SGEM 2015 www.sgem.org