South-Moravian Rural Borderland

Open access


The South Moravian rural borderland has been studied as an example of peripheral countryside. It is defined by municipalities the cadastral districts of which border on the state frontiers. The borderland is considerably differentiated in dependence on the natural conditions, historic development, geographical position and subjective circumstances. The period after 1990 experienced a downturn in production sectors, development of the tertiary sector, quite positive demographic evolution with a positive migration balance (with some exceptions), further intensification of nature conservation and landscape protection, increased unemployment rate and lower standard of formal education. The strengths encompass the maintained and, in many cases, strictly protected landscape, suitable settlement structures with large villages, suitable conditions for agricultural activities, development of balneology and important transition position of the central part of the borderland. The weaknesses include, in particular, the distinctly seasonal character of tourism (short summer period), below-average education, poor condition of many local roads and exposedness of the territory to erosion. Opportunities include possibilities of international cooperation, support of non-production agriculture, demand for relevant forms of tourism, support of small and medium sized businesses. Threats are understood as the outflow of young and educated people, devastation of the environment through intensive farming and reduced economic competitive advantages. Strategies may consist in the preference of economic development or in focusing on the improvement of local inhabitants’ life quality.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Bański J. Dobrowolski J. Flaga M. Janicki W. & Wesołowska M. (2010). Wplywgranicy państwowej na kierunki rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego wschodnej częściwojewódzstwa Lubelskiego. Warszawa: Instytut geografii i przestrzennego zagospodarowania PAN.

  • [2] Bassiago A. D. (1999): Economic social and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist 19(2) 145-161.

  • [3] Bell S. Montarzino A. Aspinall P. Peneze Z. & Nicodemus O. (2009): Rural society social inclusion and landscape change in Central and Eastern Europe: A case study of Latvia. Sociologia Ruralis 49(3) 295-326. Doi 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00480.x.

  • [4] Berkel D. B. van & Verburg P. H. (2011): Sensitising rural policy: Assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe. Land Use Policy 28(3) 447-459. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.09.002.

  • [5] Blacksell M. (2010): Agriculture and landscape in the 21st century Europe: the postcommunist transition. European Countryside 2(1) 13-24. Doi 10.2478/v10091-010-0002-8.

  • [6] Bowler I. R. Bryant C. R. & Cocklin C. (2002): The sustainability of rural systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • [7] Bryant R. L. Paniagua A. & Kizos T. (2011): Conceptualising 'shadow landscape' in political ecology and rural studies. Land Use Policy 28(3) 460-471. Doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.09.005.

  • [8] Bufon M. (2007): Border regions in a re-integrated Europe. Moravian GeographicalReports 15(1) 2-13.

  • [9] Chromý P. (2000): Historickogeografické aspekty vymezování pohraničí jako součást geografické analýzy. Geografie 105(1) 63-76.

  • [10] Ferrão J. & Lopes R. (2004): Understanding peripheral rural areas as contexts for economic development (pp. 31-61). In Labrianidis L. ed. The future of rural peripheries. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • [11] Häkli J. & Kaplan D. H. (2002): Learning from Europe? Borderlands in social and geographical context (pp. 1-17). In Häkli J. & Kaplan D. H. eds. Boundaries and Place. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

  • [12] Hampl M. (2000): Pohraniční regiony České republiky: Současné tendence rozvojové diferenciace. Geografie 105(3) 241-254.

  • [13] Hanke K. & Psyk-Piotrowska E. (2006): SWOT analysis of the LEADER+ pilot programmes implementation - on the basis of research conducted in two communes. Wiesi Rolnictwo Nr. 133 77-89.

  • [14] Hawkes J. (2001): The fourth pillar of sustainability: culture´s essential role in publicplanning. Melbourne: Common Grand Publishing.

  • [15] Holeček P. (2008): Euroregiony na území České republiky Rakouska a Slovinska a jejichpřínos pro rozvoj pohraničí. [Diploma thesis]. Olomouc: Palacký University.

  • [16] Jančák V. Chromý P. Marada M. Havlíček T. & Vondráčková P. (2010): Social capital as a factor in the development of peripheral areas: an analysis of selected components of social capital in Czechia´s typologically different peripheries. Geografie 115(2) 207-222.

  • [17] Jeřábek M. Dokoupil J. & Havlíček T. eds. (2004): České pohraničí: Bariéra neboprostor zprostředkování? Prague: Academia.

  • [18] Kizos T. Primdahl J. Kristensen L. S. & Busck A. G. (2010): Introduction: Landscape change and rural development. Landscape Research 35(6) 571-576. Doi: 10.1080/01426397.2010.502749.

  • [19] Krugman P. (2011): The new economic geography now middle-aged. Regional Studies 45(1) 1-7. Doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.537127.

  • [20] Marsden T. (2003): The condition of rural sustainability. Assen: van Gorcum.

  • [21] Mirshojaeian H. & Kaneko S. (2011): Dynamic sustainability assessment of countries at the macro level: A principal component analysis. Ecological Indicators 11(3) 811-823. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.10.007.

  • [22] Pantyley V. (2009): Demographic Situation of Rural Population in Ukraine in the Period of Intensive Socio-Economic Transformation. European Countryside 1(1) 34-52. Doi: 10.2478/v10091-009-0004-6.

  • [23] Pérez R. S. (2010): Multifuncionalidad agraria y territorio. Algunas reflexiones y propuestas de análisis. Eure 36(109) 5-33.

  • [24] Perlín R. Kučerová S. & Kučera Z. (2010): Typologie venkovského prostoru Česka. Geografie 115(2) 161-187.

  • [25] Schmied D. (2002): Winning and Losing The changing geography of Europe´s rural areas. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • [26] Skokanová H. Stránská T. Havlíček M. Borovec R. Eremiášová Rysková R. & Svoboda J. (2009): Land use changes of the South Moravia Czech Republic from 1836 to 2006. Geophysical Research Abstracts vol. 11 p. 2093.

  • [27] Solana-Solana M. (2010): Rural gentrification in Catalonia Spain: A case study of migration social change and conflicts in the Empordanet area. Geoforum 41(3) 508-517. Doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.01.005.

  • [28] Vaishar A. Zapletalová J. & Dvořák P. (2008): Border administrative units in the Czech Republic. Moravian Geographical Reports 16(1) 46-54.

  • [29] Vaishar A. Jakešová L. & Náplavová M. (2011): Current problems of South-Moravian rural landscape. European Countryside 3(4) 265-281. Doi: 10.2478/v10091-012-0008-5.

  • [30] Woods M. (2007): Engaging the global countryside: globalization hybridity and the reconstruction of rural place. Progress in Human Geography 31(4) 485-507. Doi: 10.1177/0309132507079503.

  • [31] Woods M. & Jones L. (2009): Contextual report on Jihomoravský kraj case study area [research report]. Aberystwyth: University of Wales.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.85

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.651

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 301 73 2
PDF Downloads 159 67 4