Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2016 | No. 32 | 131--145
Tytuł artykułu

Bojkovice : Transformation of a Peripheral Micro-region at the Czech-Slovak Border

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
The paper analyses the problem of a rural region in the peripheral position. Bojkovice micro-region on the Czech (Moravian)-Slovak border has been chosen as a case study. Economic transformation of productive and non-productive branches, demographic development (depopulation and aging) and networking in the area were characterized by using statistical data and field research. Development, understood as improvement in quality of life and not in sense of quantitative growth, is highlighted with regard to the changing perception of the countryside. The question remains: how to use peripherality for prosperity? Peripheral countryside is known as "the right countryside" in comparison to suburbanized and globalized countryside in core regions. Based on the research, production embedded in local sources and traditions, ecological agriculture using the protection of landscape and soft tourism are proposed as solutions. Networking like the association of municipalities, LEADER local action group or White Carpathian Euroregion could be the instruments of micro-regional collaboration. The human and social factors seem to be more important than objective conditions. Long-term population stability is the main advantage. However, a lower level of formal education could be a problem. The character of social capital is considered as a decisive circumstance - whether it is passive social capital resistant to outer innovations or active social capital open for now ideas. (original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • Mendel University in Brno
  • Mendel University in Brno
  • Anderson J. and O´Dowd L., 1999: Borders, border regions and territoriality: contradictory meanings, changing significance. In: Regional Studies, Vol. 33, Issue 7, Routledge, pp. 593-604. DOI:
  • Berkel van D.B. and Verburg P.H., 2011: Sensiting rural policy: Assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe. In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 28, Issue 3, Elsevier, pp. 447-459. DOI:
  • Blacksell M., 2010: Agriculture and landscape in the 21st century Europe: the post-communist transition. In: European Countryside, Vol. 2, Issue 1, De Gruyter, pp. 13-24. DOI:
  • Bosworth G., and Willett J., 2011: Embeddedness or escapism? Rural perceptions and economic development in Cornwall and Northumberland. In: Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 51, Issue 2, Wiley, pp. 195-214. DOI:
  • Bufon M., 2013: Researching elements of the cross-border social cohesion: the case of Slovene border areas. In: European Countryside, Vol. 5, Issue 2, De Gruyter, pp. 89-101. DOI:
  • Celostátní sčítání silniční dopravy (National Census of the Road Transport - in Czech), 2010. Praha: Ředitelství silnic a dálnic ČR.
  • Chromý P. and Skála J. (2010): Kulturně geografické aspekty rozvoje příhraničních periferií: Analýza vybraných složek územní identity obyvatel Sušicka (Cultural-geographic aspects of the development of borderland peripheries: An analysis of selected constituent part of the territorial identity of the Sušice micro-region population - in Czech). In: Geografie, Vol. 115, Issue 2, Czech Geographical Society, pp. 223-246.
  • Copus A.K., 2001: From core-periphery to polycentric development: Concepts of spatial and aspatial peripherality. In: European Planning Studies, Vol. 9, Issue 4, Taylor & Francis, pp. 539-552. DOI:
  • Databáze demografických údajů za obce ČR (Database of demographic data for municipalities - in Czech), Prague: Czech Statistical Office. Available at:, DoA: 2 February 2015.
  • Dołzbłasz S., 2013: Cross-border co-operations in the euroregions at the Polish-Czech and Polish-Slovak borders. In: European Countryside, Vol. 5, Issue 2, De Gruyter, pp. 102-114. DOI:
  • Halás M., 2006: Theoretical preconditions versus the real existence of cross-border relations in the Slovak-Czech borderland. In: EUROPA XXI, Vol. 15, Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation of the Polish Academy of Sciences, pp. 63-75.
  • Heller W., 1998: The non-agricultural economy in post-socialist rural Romania. The insights and perceptions of national, regional and local institutions. In: GeoJournal, Vol. 46, Issue 3, Springer, pp. 199-205. DOI:
  • Horváth G., and Csüllög G., 2013: A new Slovakian-Hungarian cross-border geopark in Central Europe - possibility for promoting better conditions between the two countries. In: European Countryside, Vol. 5, Issue 2, De Gruyter, pp. 146-162. DOI:
  • van Houtum H., 2000: III European perspectives on borderlands: an overview of European geographical research on borders and border regions. In: Journal of Borderlands Studies, Vol. 15, Issue 1, Taylor & Francis, pp. 56-83. DOI:
  • van Huylenbroeck G. and Durand G., 2003: Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Farnham: Ashgate Integrovaný portal Ministerstva práce a sociálních věcí ČR (Integrated Portal of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic). Available at:, DoA: 2 February 2015.
  • Jančák V., Chromý P., Marada M., Havlíček T. and Vondráčková P., 2010: Sociální kapitál jako factor rozvoje periferních oblastí: Analýza vybraných složek sociálního kapitálu v typově odlišných periferiích Česka (Social capital as a development factor of peripheral regions: An analysis of selected constituent parts of social capital in typologically different peripheries of Czechia - in Czech). In: Geografie, Vol. 115, Issue 2, Czech Geographical Society, pp. 207-222.
  • Jeřábek M., 2006: Research into peripheral areas in the Czech Republic - changes in the landscape and land use in the model regions. In: EUROPA XXI, Vol. 15, Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation of the Polish Academy of Sciences, pp. 171-184.
  • Johnson C.M., 2009: Cross-border regions and territorial restructuring in East Central Europe: Room for more transboundary space. In: European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 16, Issue 2, Sage Publications, pp. 177-191. DOI:
  • Kneafsey M., 2000: Tourism, place identities and social relations in the European rural periphery. In: European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Sage Publications, pp. 35-50. DOI:
  • Kovách I., 2000: LEADER a new social order and the Central- and East-European countries. In: Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 40, Issue 2, Wiley, pp. 181-189. DOI:
  • Labrianidis L., 2006: Fostering entrepreneurship as a means to overcome barriers to development of rural peripheral areas in Europe. In: European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, Issue 1, Taylor & Francis, pp. 3-8. DOI:
  • Letki N. and Mierina I., 2014: Inequality and social capital in post-communist Europe. In: Christoforou A. and Davis J.B. editors, Social capital and economics: Social values, power and social identity, London: Routledge, pp. 147-168.
  • Marada M., Chromý P., Jančák V. and Havlíček T., 2006: Space polarization and peripheral regions in Czechia. In: EUROPA XXI Vol. 15, Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation of the Polish Academy of Sciences, pp. 29-34.
  • Marot N., 2013: 10 years after: the impact of EU accession on the Slovenian-Austrian border area in the Pomurje region. In: European Countryside, Vol. 5, Issue 2, De Gruyter, pp. 163-181. DOI:
  • McAreavey R., 2009: Rural development theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
  • Müller J. and Musil J., 2008, Vnitřní periferie v České republice jako mechanismus sociální excluse (Inner periphery in the Czech Republic as a mechanism of the social exclusion - in Czech). In: Sociologický časopis, Vol. 44, Issue 2, Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, pp. 321-348.
  • North D. and Smallbone D., 2006: Developing entrepreneurship and enterprise in Europe´s peripheral rural areas. Some issues facing policy-makers. In: European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, Issue 1, Taylor & Francis, pp. 41-60. DOI:
  • Paasi A., 2009: Bounded spaces in the "borderless world": border studies, power and the anatomy of the territory. In: Journal of Power, Vol. 2, Issue 2, Taylor & Francis, pp. 213-234. DOI:
  • Pileček J., Chromý P. and Jančák V., 2013: Social capital and local socio-economic development. The case of Czech peripheries. In: Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Vol. 104, Issue 5, Wiley, pp. 604-620. DOI:
  • Popescu G., 2008: The conflicting logics of cross-border reterritorialization. Geopolitics of euroregions in Eastern Europe. In: Political Geography, Vol. 27, Issue 4, Elsevier, pp. 418-438. DOI:
  • Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2011 (Population Census 2011). Praha: Czech Statistical Office. Available at:, DoA: 2 February 2015.
  • Šťastná M., Vaishar A. and Pákozdiová M., 2015: Role of tourism in the development of peripheral countryside. Case studies in Eastern Moravia and Romanian Banat. In: Forum Geografic, Vol. 14, Issue 1, Craiova University, pp. 83-93. DOI:
  • Sznajder M., Przezbórska L. and Scrimgeour F., 2009: Agritourism. Wallingford: CABI.
  • Turnock D., 2002: Cross-border cooperation: a major element in regional policy in East Central Europe. In: Scottish Geographical Journal, Vol. 118, Issue 1, Taylor & Francis, pp. 19-40. DOI:
  • (Election Results). Prague: Czech Statistical Office. Available at:, 15 March 2015.
  • Woods M., 2013: Regions engaging globalization: A typology of regional responses in rural Europe. In: Journal of Rural and Community Development, Vol. 8, Issue 3, Brandon University, pp. 113-126.
  • Yoder J.A., 2003: Bridging the European Union and Eastern Europe: Cross-border cooperation and the euroregions. In: Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 13, Issue 3, Taylor & Francis, pp. 90-106. DOI:
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.