Subtitle:

Post-agricultural rural space of the Visegrad countries: economies, entrepreneurship and policies ; Studia Obszarów Wiejskich = Rural Studies, t. 39

Publisher:

IGiPZ PAN ; PTG

Place of publishing:

Warszawa

Description:

24 cm

Type of object:

Book/Chapter

Abstract:

The aim of this article is to analyze various methods and approaches to peripherality, and to introduce proposals for delimitation of peripheral areas in Visegrad countries. First, the content of approaches to the identification of peripherality is assessed, followed by emphasis on the role of spatial scale in the delimitation of peripheral areas. Then, the strict and broad understanding of peripherality is described considering the role of locality in its conceptualization. The quantitative approach to the delimitation of peripheries in the Visegrad countries presented in the following part of the article is in line with the precise understanding, as it is assumed to be more sufficient for the research of economic development in peripheral areas. In the final part of the article, examples of delimitation of peripheries in whole V4 area are introduced based on distance-based measures, equidistant-based measures, and on the approach employing the potential index. This allowed for revealing and validating some regularities in the spatial distribution of peripheral areas but also revealed the role of subjective assumptions entering the delimitations.

References:

1. Andreoli M., 1994, Development and marginalization in Liguria Region, [in:] Chang-Yi D. Ch. et al. (eds), Marginality and development issues in marginal regions. Proceedidngs of IGU Study Group, National Taiwan University and IGU, Taipei, pp. 41–61.
2. Blažek J., Uhlíř D., 2002, Teorie regionálního rozvoje. Nástin, kritika, klasifikace, Karolinum, Praha.
3. Borgatti S., Everett M., 2000, Models of Core/Periphery structures, Social Networks, 21, pp. 375–395.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(99)00019-2 -
4. Castree N., Kitchin R., Rogers A., 2013, Dictionary of Human Geography, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199599868.001.0001 -
5. Čermák L., 2005, Hodnocení vztahu dopravní dostupnosti a exponovanosti území, [in:] Novotná M. (ed), Problémy periférních oblastí, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, KSGaRG, Praha, pp. 44–52.
6. Chojnicki Z., Czyż T., Ratajczak W., 2011, Model potencjału. Podstawy teoretyczne i zastosowania w badaniach przestrzenno-ekonomicznych oraz regionalnych, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań.
7. Garrison W. L., 1960, Connectivity of the Interstate Highway System, Papers of the Regional Science Association, 6, pp. 121–137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.1960.tb01707.x -
8. Gurung G. S., Kollmair M., 2005, Marginality: Concepts and their Limitations, Development Study Group, Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich.
9. Halás M., 2014, Modelovanie priestorového usporiadania a dichotómie centrum – periféria, Geografie, 119, pp. 384–405.
10. Halás M., 2008, Priestorová polarizácia spoločnosti s detailným pohľadom na periférne regióny Slovenska, Sociologický časopis (Czech Sociological Review), 44, pp. 349–369.
11. Hansen W., 1959, How Accessibility Shapes Land-use, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25, pp. 73–76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307 -
12. Harris C., 1954, The Market as a Factor in the Localization of Industry in the United States, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 44, pp. 315–348.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045605409352140 -
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2561395 -
13. Havlíček T., 2003, Are border regions peripheral territories? [in:] Kowalczyk A. (ed), Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of Geographical Space at the Turn of Century, Warsaw University, Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, Warsaw, pp. 193–198.
14. Havlíček T., Chromý P., 2001, Příspěvek k teorii polarizovaného vývoje území se zaměřením na periférní oblasti, Geografie, 106, pp. 1–11.
15. Havlíček T., et al., 2005, Vybrané teoreticko-metodologické aspekty a trendy geografického výzkumu periferních oblastí, [in:] Novotná, M. (ed), Problémy periférních oblastí, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, KSGaRR, pp. 6–24.
16. Horňák M., 2006, Identification of Regions of Transport Marginality in Slovakia, [in:] Komornicki T., Czapiewski K. (eds), Europa XXI – Regional Periphery in Central and Eastern Europe, Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Warsaw, pp. 35–41.
17. Hurbánek P., 2004, Zmena úlohy priestorového aspektu v interpretáciách pojmov periférnosť (marginalita) a vidiek, [in:] Wahla, A. et al. (eds), Geografie a proměny poznání prostorové reality – Sborník příspěvků, Ostravská Univerzita, Ostrava, pp. 102–110.
18. Ingram D., 1971, The Concept of Accessibility: a Search for an Operational Form, Regional Studies, 5, pp. 101–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09595237100185131 -
19. Isard W., 1954, Location Theory and Trade Theory: Short-Run Analysis, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68, pp. 305–322.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1884452 -
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1881920 -
20. Jussila H., 1998, Marginality in regional policy research: a view from the Nordic countries, [in:] Jussila H., Leimgruber W., Majoral R. (eds), Perception of Marginality: theoretical issues and regional perceptions of marginality, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 217–235.
21. Kohli A., 2004, State-directed development. Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511754371 -
22. Komornicki T., Śleszyński P., Rosik P., Pomianowski W., 2010, Dostępność przestrzenna jako przesłanka kształtowania polskiej polityki transportowej, Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 241, Warsaw.
23. Leimgruber W., 1994, Marginality and marginal regions: problems of definition, [in:] Chang-Yi D. Ch. et al. (eds), Marginality and development issues in marginal regions. Proceedidngs of IGU Study Group, National Taiwan University and IGU, Taipei, pp. 1–18.
24. Máliková L., Spišiak P., 2013, Vybrané problémy marginality a periférnosti vidieckych regiónov na Slovensku, Acta Geographica Universitatis Comenianae, 57, pp. 51–70.
25. Novotný L., Hruška V., Egedy T., Mazur M., 2015, Defining rural areas of Visegrad countries, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 39, pp. 21–34.
26. Pelc S., 2007, Geographical marginality as a research topic in Slovenian geography, Geografski vestnik, 84, pp. 209–217.
27. Poláčková L., Potomová J., 2010, Problematika vymedzovania marginálnych regiónov v plánovacích dokumentoch SR, Geographia Cassoviensis, 4 (1), pp. 135–139.
28. Ravenstein E., 1885, The Laws of Migration, Journal of the Statistical Society, 46, pp. 167–235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2979181 -
29. Reynaud A., 1981, Société, espace et justice: inéhalités régionales et justice socio-spatiale, Presses universitaires de France, Paris.
30. Schmidt M., 1998, An integrated systemic approach to marginal regions: from definition to development policies [in:] Jussila H., Leimgruber W., Majoral R. (eds), Perception of Marginality: theoretical issues and regional perceptions of marginality, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 45–66.
31. Seidl T., Chromý P., 2010, Problémy integrace marginálního území do regionálního systému: Příklad vojenského újezdu Boletice, Geografie, 115, pp. 44–63.
32. Schurmann C., Spiekermann K., Wegener M., 1997, Accessibility Indicators: Model and Report, SASI Deliverable D5. Report to the European Commission, Berichte aus dem Institut fur Raumplanung 39, Institute of Spatial Planning, Dortmund.
33. Śleszyński P., Komornicki T., 2009, Wpływ rozwoju sieci drogowej na obszary rynkowe istniejących i planowanych portów lotniczych (2008-2015), Drogi. Lądowe, powietrzne, wodne, 9, pp. 91–99.
34. Spiekermann K., Neubauer J., 2002, European Accessibility and Peripherality: Concepts, Models and Indicators, Nordregio Working Paper, Stockholm.
35. Spiekermann K., Wegener M., 1996, Trans-European Networks and Unequal Accessibility in Europe, European Journal of Regional Development, 4, pp. 35–42.
36. Spišiak P., 2000, Poľnohospodárstvo v marginálnych oblastiach Slovenska, Životné prostredie, 34, pp. 15–19.
37. Šebová L., 2013, Identifikácia marginálnych regiónov na Slovensku, PhD thesis, Bratislava, Comenius.
38. Vickerman R., Spiekermann K., Wegener M., 1999, Accessibility and Economic Development in Europe, Regional Studies, 33, pp. 1–15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343409950118878 -

Relation:

Studia Obszarów Wiejskich

Volume:

39

Start page:

35

End page:

48

Detailed Resource Type:

Article

Format:

File size 2,4 MB ; application/pdf

Resource Identifier:

oai:rcin.org.pl:56664 ; 1642-4689 ; 10.7163/SOW.39.3

Source:

CBGiOŚ. IGiPZ PAN, call no. Cz.4488 ; CBGiOŚ. IGiPZ PAN, call no. Cz.4489 ; click here to follow the link

Language:

eng

Rights:

Creative Commons Attribution BY 3.0 PL license

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. [CC BY 3.0 PL] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY 3.0 PL license, full text available at: ; -

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

Programme Innovative Economy, 2010-2014, Priority Axis 2. R&D infrastructure ; European Union. European Regional Development Fund

Access:

Open