FUNCTIONAL TYPES OF TERRITORIES IN СHERNIHIV REGION: APPROACHES TO DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA

Abstract

The Government of Ukraine has recently approved methodological approaches, indicators, and criteria for identifying functional types of territories. The need for such identification became particularly urgent following the update of the State Regional Development Strategy for 2021–2027. Despite the formal approval of indicators and criteria, their practical application at the community level has not yet been implemented by a special commission. This created the basis for a study, which conducted testing of the methodological approaches for identifying functional types of territories, using the border Chernihiv region as a pilot case. The research relies on official statistical data and regulatory documents governing regional development policy, while the visualisation of results was carried out in the QGIS 3.30 environment. For the first time at the regional level, functional types of territories were delineated according to the new national methodology. Chernihiv, Nizhyn, and Pryluky were identified as growth poles. Mena and Koriukivka are considered only as a potential bi-centric, second-order growth pole. The study confirms that genuine growth poles can emerge only around medium-sized and large cities, and that the criteria for their identification require further clarification. Among the territories with specific development conditions, three groups were identified: those affected by technogenic disasters, rural territories, and communities with low socio-economic development. Rural territories constitute the largest group, covering nearly three-quarters of the region. Identifying sustainable development territories remains challenging due to the specificity of methodological approaches and limited availability of data for several indicators. It was established that some communities simultaneously fall into multiple categories of problem territories. This illustrates the complexity of regional challenges, the need for integrated regional policy tools, and the importance of justifying the prioritisation of state support. The approved national system of functional types of territories, along with the indicators and identification criteria, requires further improvement. In border and frontline regions, it is advisable to distinguish territories with security restrictions, while in sparsely populated regions with an insufficient urban network, threshold values for selected criteria should be adapted. The findings of this study may serve as a basis for refining the existing national system for identifying functional types of territories.