Hungarian allotments: the legal anatomy of an urban development challenge

Abstract

Zártkerts represents a transitional zone within the Hungarian settlement structure. They are allotment-like garden zones, with small plots designed for recreational gardening, and production for own use. By comparing the literature Findings and the current legal situation, this study explores the legal and spatial planning challenges related to “zártkertek” in Hungary, highlighting the growing discrepancy between regulatory frameworks and actual land-use patterns. These areas within the Hungarian settlement structure, where the expansion of residential functions, informal construction practices, and the persistence of legal homogenization create severe conflicts.

The regulatory environment is fragmented, overly detailed, and frequently amended, generating legal uncertainty and obstructing coherent urban development and climate adaptation objectives. International examples from Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic confirm that the discrepancy between legal norms and functional realities is a systemic problem. The research addresses two hypotheses: (H1) the lack of territorial differentiation has continuously amplified the gap between normative frameworks and actual conditions; (H2) regulatory complexity has produced environmental and social challenges that hinder practical implementation of development strategies.

The discussion will compare the literature and domestic legislation; the findings suggest that the case of allotments is not unique but indicative of broader structural deficiencies in Hungarian legal system (H1). The phenomenon of hyperlexis—characterized by excessive and overly complex legislation—is not merely a theoretical issue but has tangible consequences: fragmented spatial structures, disruption of ecological networks, increased social tensions, and the intensification of the urban heat island effect (H2). Without a recalibration of the relationship between normativity and spatiality, sustainable and integrated urban development cannot be achieved. The limitation of the research is that it theoretically proves the existence of problems by comparing the occupational and legal material, but due to the geographical differences of the settlements, the impact of the phenomenon may vary greatly. Future research should therefore focus on empirical investigations to provide actionable insights for policymakers and municipalities, ensuring that regulatory frameworks align with dynamic land-use patterns and support innovation while safeguarding environmental and social values.