Differentiation and Typology of the Moravian Countryside

Open access

Abstract

The authors argue that differentiation of various types of countryside is more important than to look for the definition of the rural against the urban. The paper is aimed at a typology of the Moravian countryside. Based on multifunctional (both hard and soft) data, Moravian micro-regions were divided into four categories – progressive, deficit and suburban countryside and predominantly urban micro-regions. Each of the categories has its own characteristics, threats, and needs. The authors stress that the approach of regional politics and both European and national subsidies have to take into account different categories of rural micro-regions. However, particular decisions have to be made in the intersection of the lowest regional level and the bottom-up approach expressed by community lead local development.

Academic References

  • [1] Bański, J., Stola, W. (2002). Przemiany struktury przestrzennej i funkcionalnej obszarów wiejskich w Polsce. Warszawa: Polskie towarzystwo geograficzne.

  • [2] Baum, S., Trapp, Ch. & Weingarten, P. (2004). Typology of rural areas in the Central and Eastern European EU new member states [discussion paper]. Halle a. S.: Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe.

  • [3] Bell, M. M. (2007). The two-ness of rural life and the ends of rural scholarship. Journal of Rural Studies. 23(4), pp. 402–415. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.03.003.

  • [4] Bogdanov, N., Meredith, D. & Efstratoglou, S. (2008). A typology of rural areas in Serbia. Economic Annals 177, 7–29. DOI: 10.2298/EKA08177007B.

  • [5] Bryden, J. & Hart, K., eds. (2004). A new approach to rural development in Europe: Germany, Greece, Scotland and Sweden. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.

  • [6] Čmejrek, J. (2008). Obce a regiony. Praha: Alfa.

  • [7] Cloke, P. (2006). Conceptualizing rurality. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T. & Mooney, P. H., eds., Handbook of Rural Studies (pp. 18–28). London: SAGE. DOI: 10.4135/9781848608016.n2.

  • [8] Copus, A., Psaltopoulos, D., Skuras, D., Terluin, I. & Weingarten, P. (2008). Approaches to rural typology in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Communities.

  • [9] Copus, A. & de Lima, P. (2015). Territorial cohesion in rural Europe. London and New York: Routledge.

  • [10] van Eupen, M., Metzger, M. J., Pérez-Soba, M., Verburg, P. H., van Doom, A., Bunce, R. G. H. (2012). A rural typology for strategic European policies. Land Use Policy 29(3), 473–482. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.007.

  • [11] Friedman, J. (1967). A generalized theory of polarized development. Santiago de Chile: The Ford Foundation.

  • [12] Galdeano-Gómez, E., Aznar-Sánchez, J. A. A. & Peréz-Mesa, J. C. (2010). The Complexity of Theories on Rural Development in Europe: An Analysis of the paradigmatic Case of Almería (South-East-Spain). Sociologia Ruralis. 51(1), 54–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00524.x.

  • [13] Grabski Kieron, U., Mose, I., Reichert-Schick, A. & Steinführer, A., eds. (2016). European rural peripheries revalued. Berlin: LIT Verlag.

  • [14] Holátová, D., Krninská, R. (2012). Lidské zdroje v rozvoji venkova. Praha: Alfa.

  • [15] Hruška, V. (2013). Diferenciace venkovského prostoru na příkladu Moravskoslezského kraje [PhD theses]. Brno: Masaryk University.

  • [16] Karácsonyi, D. (2010). Ein Versuch der Typologie der ländlichen Räume in der Ukraine. Europa Regional 18(1), 34–50.

  • [17] Keller, J. (1997). Sociologie a ekologie. Praha: SLON, 1997.

  • [18] Kocmánková Menšíková, L. (2011). Sociální a kulturní kapitál lokálních aktérů v rozvoji venkova [PhD thesis]. Praha: Czech University of Life Sciences.

  • [19] Kouřilová, J., Květoň, V., Pělucha, M. & Wokoun, R. (2012). Synergie vztahu město-venkov. Praha: Alfa.

  • [20] Leeuwis, C. & van de Ban, A. W. (2003). Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural extension. 3rd ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press.

  • [21] Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N. & Marsden, T. (2003). The differentiated countryside. London and New York. Routledge.

  • [22] Musil, J. & Müller, J. (2008). Inner peripheries of the Czech Republic as a mechanism of social exclusion. Sociologický časopis 44(2), 321–348.

  • [23] Perlín, R., Kučerová, S. & Kučera, Z. (2010). Typologie venkovského prostoru Česka. Geografie. 115(2), 161–187.

  • [24] Perlín, R. (2010). Theoretical approaches of methods to delimitate rural and urban areas. European Countryside 2(4), 182–200. DOI: 10.2478/v10091-010-0013-5.

  • [25] Pollermann, K., Raue, P. & Schnaut, G. (2014). Opportunities for a participative approach in rural development: Findings from LAEDER in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the requirements for Community Lead Local Development. Landbauforschung 64(3/4), 127–138. DOI: 10.3220/LBF_2014_127-138.

  • [26] Prieto-Lara, E. & Ocaña-Riola, R. (2010). Upgrading rurality index for small areas in Spain. Social Indicators Research 95, 267–280. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-009-9459-0.

  • [27] Ševčíková, A. (2010). Vliv regionální politiky EU v Česku a Německu na rozvoj venkovských obcí (případová srovnávací studie) [PhD theses]. Praha: University of Life Sciences.

  • [28] Shucksmith, M., Thomson, K. J. & Roberts, A. D. (2005). The CAP and the regions: the territorial impact of the common agricultural policy. Cambridge, MA: CABI.

  • [29] Slepička, A. (1981). Venkov a/nebo město: lidé / sídla / krajina. Praha: Svoboda.

  • [30] Stonawská, K. (2017). Moravský venkov ve světle sčítání lidu 2011 [unpublished PhD theses]. Brno: Mendel University in Brno.

  • [31] Terluin, I. J. (2001). Rural regions in the EU [PhD. Thesis]. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

  • [32] Ward, N., Atterton, J., Kim T.-Y., Lowe, P., Phillipson, J. & Thompson, N. (2005). Universities, the Knowledge Economy and ´Neo-Endogenous Rural Development [Discussion Paper]. University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

  • [33] Warn, S. (2010). Rural development & the countryside. Deddington: Philip Allan Updates.

  • [34] Woods, M. (2011). Rural. London and New York: Routledge.

Other sources

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.190
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.896

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 22 22 22
PDF Downloads 10 10 10