Discussion Papers 2009.
Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins 15-28. p.
GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
Introduction
Borders between countries of the whole world have a length of about a quarter of a
million kilometres. In the recent past, geographers most frequently dealt with the
borderland with an aim to delimit the line of state borders with respect to facts
given by natural, ethnic, economic or political conditions. This concept of the issue
of borders reflected the ideology of national states. In spite of the fact that the idea
starts to be anachronistic, ethnic wars were conducted even in Europe (Balkan) in
the very recent past. Nevertheless, not even there are the efforts focused on the de-
limitation of borders any longer.
The issue of state borders was explored as a barrier limiting national markets,
the free movement of persons and goods, and a periphery where the explored world
ends. Works were investigating, for example, border permeability through individ-
ual border-crossings and the distribution of foreigners behind the crossings, possi-
bly the transport conditions of state border permeability (Marada, 2003; Halás –
Řehák, 2008). It was practically unimaginable at the time of iron curtain to include
into a study territories behind the state border, although there are geographic phe-
nomena that know nothing about them. This particularly concerns natural systems
and environmental protection.
Advocates of European integration argue that the preference of the interests of
nation-states and the establishment of their borders generated the two world wars in
the 20th century. The latest change was the disintegration of the Soviet Union and
Yugoslavia. Some questions are still open – see the problem of Kosovo or Molda-
via. Basques raise demands for their separate national state as well, and a possible
disintegration of Belgium cannot be excluded. Since its very beginnings, the Euro-
pean Union has struggled to replace international disputes and wars with coop-
eration.
Represented by the European Union, the Europe of these days tries to give a
new meaning to state borders. The iron curtain does not exist any longer, and the
majority of European countries entered the Schengen space, European currencies
become gradually unified within the Euro, and work is in progress on the creation
of common European policy. State borders lose their original sense of separating
individual national states, and the borderland increasingly becomes a space for
international cooperation. The concept and significance of state borders have dra-
matically changed, which puts forward a number of questions (Anderson –
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
16
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
O’Dowd, 1999). Borderland – at least in Europe –comes to be perceived not as a
dividing line but rather as a potential line of bridges and contact points to connect
regions (Newman, 2006). Europe begins to be talked about as a continent without
borders and with general globalization tendencies wiping away the importance of
state borders.
On the other hand, borders represent a product of need for order and security
and they belong to human life (O’Dowd, 2001). This however holds true about
borders in a general sense, i.e. borders of administrative units, regions and areas. A
question is how much the character of borders between individual national states in
Europe will approach the character of regional borders whose sense manifests first
of all in space organization, the insurance of administration in the territory and
definition of space identity. Gorzelak and Jałowiecki (2002) warn about consider-
able economic differences between individual states, which in some cases will not
make it possible to do away readily with the existing barriers. However, this par-
ticularly concerns the external borders of the European Union. Some authors claim
(Murphy, 1993) that the current change in the character of state borders also
changes the approach to Europe’s regional geography as such.
The paper aims at an assessment of the present situation in the Czech border-
land, its current problems and their resolution. It was prepared within the frame-
work of the grant project of the National Research Programme II of the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic no. 2D06001 “Development
interests of borderland regions”.
Borderland as a geographic problem
Contemporary geographers mostly perceive the European borderland as a certain
peripheral territory, remote from central areas. Subjects of research are as a rule
attempts to improve the borderland situation, possibly with the use of EU structural
funds. Ever more frequent are also analyses of possible international cooperation –
first between borderland towns or agglomerations, namely where the state border is
not at the same time a physical barrier. The beginnings of cross-border cooperation
date back to the end of the 1950s, to Rhineland. This potential cooperation found a
reflection in the establishment of so-called euroregions (Bufon, 2007), their idea
being transferred into the conditions of post-socialist countries within the frame-
work of EU enlargement. Cross-border cooperation is supported from European
financial programmes such as INTERREG. Practical issues of cooperation are
studied e.g. by Perkmann (1999) and other authors.
It appears, however, that the efficiency of these activities lags behind expecta-
tions and often ends with proclamations. Problems are insufficient resources, ob-
scure competences, duplication of efforts, one-sided orientation on physical infra-
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND
17
structure and hard economic outputs rather than on the creation of social capital
and trust. Wallace (1999) assumes that Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slo-
vakia became a new buffer zone between the west and the east, a source of cheap
(namely Polish) labour force, an attractive place for German and Austrian invest-
ments and a space for borderland market places often with faked goods, prostitu-
tion, drugs and criminality.
The Czech situation is advantageous by the fact that all borders of the Czech
Republic with neighbouring countries are internal borders of the European Union
and of the Schengen space. In this respect, the Czech Republic does not have to
face problems of outer borders that provide for the compactness of Europe
(Williams, 2007) and can by contrast theoretically use its borders as a space for
cooperation (Jeřábek, 2002). Are the conditions for such cooperation optimal?
First, we have to question whether the borderland is actually peripheral or mar-
ginal (Havlíček – Chromý, 2001). What we mean by peripheral character is re-
moteness measured by distance, accessibility in time or financial costs to overcome
a distance from the national centre or from regional and district centres. Marginal-
ity we understand to be primarily backwardness as compared with the central re-
gions of respective hierarchical levels.
While peripherality can be measured by geometric and time indicators, the
analysis of marginality is more complicated. It may concern for example the lack
of investments, which follows out not only from the remoteness and difficult ac-
cessibility but also from the poor advertising of regions, shortcomings in the sphere
of human capital and in fact also from the subjective point of view because firm
managers and their dependants are not interested in living on the periphery.
A relatively considerable complex of indicators concerning marginality may
relate to the quality of human capital that can be measured for example by the level
of education. The structure of available jobs, based mainly on manufacturing in-
dustries and services of the hierarchically lowest character does not allow to keep
persons with higher qualifications in borderland regions, which in turn puts limita-
tions on new investments and situation improvement. This is how the emerging ab-
normality further deepens.
Another question can be formulated as follows: is it possible under the condi-
tions of the Schengen space to compensate for remoteness on a national scale by
international cooperation with regional centres of the neighbouring country and to
gradually fight marginality this way? What role can euroregions play? Apart from
physical preconditions (closeness of regional centres to the neighbouring country),
it is also necessary to take into consideration subjective factors, too. The hitherto
experience (Krätke, 1999) suggests that time for the economic cooperation of busi-
ness entities directly on the border has not ripened yet. This of course does not
mean that cooperation should not be developed in other fields and directions. Suc-
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
18
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
cessfully developing today is cooperation between self-governments (Breuer et al.
2007).
In a geographic respect, a very relevant question is that of perceiving the cross-
border regions as a whole. Ladysz (2006) analyzed the issue of economic restruc-
turing and environment problems of the so-called Black Triangle on the borders of
Bohemia, Saxony and Poland. The issue of environment and its protection, which
knows nothing about borders, is particularly useful for research of this type. An-
other example may be the prospect of economic cooperation in the Alpine-Adriatic
region that opened after the accession of Slovenia in the European Union, and
which Ziener and Hössl (2007) studied through controlled interviews with the co-
operating partners. Yet another possibility is, for example, regional research in the
territorial parts of euroregions (Gorzym-Wilkowski, 2005 or Vaishar et al. 2007).
In Czech geography, theoretical problems of borderland in modern history were
studied e.g. by Dokoupil (2000). Jeřábek et al. (2004) published a crucial modern
work dealing with the Czech borderland. Part of this work is borderland typology.
Excursion into history
The situation will be better understood if we make a short excursion into history.
The existing border was more or less stabilized towards the end of the 10th cen-
tury.1 A considerably extensive part of the state border is formed by a barrier of
mountain ranges, namely in Bohemia. Moravia is a traditional transit area, open to
the north and the south but demarcated topographically in the east and in the west.
It is logical that the historical colonisation of Bohemia and Moravia started
from lowlands in the watersheds of main watercourses with favourable conditions
for agriculture and only later continued to uplands and highlands. In the 13th cen-
tury, Czech monarchs (beginning with Premyslid Ottakar I) tried to colonise
mountain regions of which some were border regions, too. A number of immi-
grants (peasants and miners) arrived from neighbouring German-speaking coun-
tries. These people successfully colonized vast borderland areas, developing there
not only agriculture but also mineral extraction and later industries. Co-existence
with Czechs was usually free of problems, namely in the 15th and 16th centuries
when the Czech Lands were considered the most tolerant in terms of religion and
ethnicity. Impetus for bringing Czech and Germans closer together provided also
1 In the course of history, there were also other territories that temporarily belonged to the Czech state
(Lusatia, Kladsko, Malopolsko), which are however not considered to be the core of the Czech
Republic. The Cheb area (Chebsko) was annexed in 1322 as the last territory. Exception are some
small territories annexed to the then Czechoslovakia after World War I, especially with respect to
existing railways (Těšín area, Valtice).
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND
19
the theory of Martin Luther who was to a certain extent a follower of Jan Hus in his
effort to reform the Church. A negative turnover that was however motivated first
by religious reasons occurred under the reign of the Hapsburg dynasty.
In the period of industrial revolution, which brought emphasis on the idea of
national states, contradictions in the then Austria–Hungary changed into national
disputes. One of such contradictions was between the governing conservative and
Catholic Church oriented Austrian Germans and the economically progressive
Czechs who were however rather indifferent in terms of religion. In spite of the
fact that the first Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938) was the most democratic
country in Central Europe, most tolerant to ethnical groups and religions, it failed
to resolve satisfactorily problems accumulated in the past. Moreover, the German-
colonised borderland began to show the recession of traditional industries and
hence economic decline. This culminated in events leading to the Munich Agree-
ment in 1938, its consequences in the form of starting World War II by Hitler, and
to the subsequent evacuation of a greater part of German population from the then
Czechoslovakia.
The German population was replaced by new settlers from the inland, repatri-
ates from some European countries (Hungary, Romania, Volhynian Czechs and
other), later also from Greece.2 Some inhabitants were sent to the borderland under
pressure. It was impossible to substitute for the original population’s amount and
quality in the borderland, nor was there interest either (perhaps with the exception
of larger towns). The borderland was to become a buffer zone with a lower popu-
lation density. The population’s social structure was modified so that a repeated
coming into existence of the middle class in the borderland was prevented (Nosk-
ová, 2008). The great experiment reflected in the whole post-war development of
the borderland, which exhibits other demographic and social values as compared
with the inland and different regional and local perception. It seems that the rela-
tion of people to their regions and domiciles changes in a positive way only with
the contemporary generation because any tradition of cross-border relations be-
came extinct due to population exchange and iron curtain as well as due to difficult
permeability of borders with the former socialist countries (German Democratic
Republic and Poland).
Due to the above described historical development, humanities and social sci-
entists do not identify borderland with the territory adjacent to the state border but
rather with the territory from which the German population was evacuated. The
territory reaches at some places relatively deep into the inland (e.g. in the Svitavy
area). On the other hand, the Slovak border is not considered to be borderland in
this respect. This “new” state border is in fact historically stable similarly as the
2 It should be added that the population of today’s western Poland was evacuated in a similar way,
which means that a greater part of the Czech–Polish border experienced population exchange on
both sides of the border.
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
20
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
border between the Czech state and Hungary, constituting an inland border only in
1918–1938 and 1945–1993.
Basic characteristics of the Czech borderland
State borders can be characterised as an empirical manifestation of state authority
in the territory (Paasi, 1999). The Czech Republic neighbours with Poland (762
km), Austria (466 km), Slovakia (252 km) and Germany (810 km). For historical
reasons we divide the German border into Bavarian and Saxon sections. The re-
spective border sections have a relatively significant effect on the character of the
border. Borderland can be defined as a territory, objectively and subjectively af-
fected by the state border. The application of this definition would itself call for
detailed research. Therefore, we tried to define the borderland in the simplest pos-
sible way with the corresponding geographical logic.
We based our study on the conviction that relevant territorial units for the re-
search of social type are regions of the town-hinterland type. For data-related rea-
sons, the smallest territorial unit used for these purposes is the district, for which an
important part of available data can be aggregated. A problem is, however, that
districts (that were in the past regime conceived as units within the framework of
which attempts were made to equalise conditions) are mutually more alike than
differences inside the districts – between their centres and peripheries. This is why
the attempts at characterizing the borderland by means of district-level data did not
show too many differences.
Due to these reasons, we used microregions as a basis for our study, by means
of which we intended to characterise the actual borderland. Concrete data were
provided by government authorities. Regarding the excessively fragmented struc-
ture of self-governing municipalities in the Czech Republic, it was necessary to
carry out the territorial integration of state administration. Selected municipal
(largely town) authorities were accredited to perform some acts of state admini-
stration for surrounding municipalities as a service because there is no relation of
superiority and subordination between the accredited authorities and authorities for
which these accredited bodies execute some acts of state administration. Never-
theless, watershed areas were created of the town-hinterland type, several in each
district, which could be adopted as territorial units for our analysis – altogether 110
units.
Although these territorial units capture the situation better than districts, not
even they are ideal. Their size differs in dependence on the strength of the centre
and character of its hinterland. The areas are in some cases adjacent to the border,
sometimes perpendicular to it, which means that they may include both villages
situated right on the border and settlements relatively deep in the inland. The dif-
ferences between centres and their hinterlands exist as a rule even there, although
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND
21
at a lower level. The problem will be resolved only at a detailed look upon the cho-
sen microregions.
As suggested above, the Czech borderland differs among other things also by
the type of state border with respect to both historical development and currently
existing relations. The Bavarian and Austrian borders were part of the iron curtain
while the Saxon and Polish borders represented an internal boundary of the so-
called socialist block. The Slovak border was an inland boundary (from 1968 a
federal border). Today, the Bavarian border is considered an axis of development
that brings innovations. The Slovak border is the only one where the post-war ex-
change of population did not take place. Linguistically different are the Austrian,
Bavarian and Saxon borders; linguistically similar are the Slovak and Polish bor-
ders. Most state borders represent a physical barrier; the only exceptions are the
Moravian-Silesian parts of the Polish and a part of the Austrian borders. All the
above given facts reflect in the borderland character. All these borders constitute an
inner boundary of the European Union and Schengen Space. However, because the
Czech Republic still has not adopted the Euro, all these borders are at the same
time the currency borders.
Nevertheless, the borderland character differs not only in the character of the
state border but especially by the character of settlement and by the economic base.
Hampl (2000) mentions the key factors of differentiation being macro-location and
economic specialisation. There are primarily two areas in the borderland, which
developed from heavy industries based on coal mining: the north-eastern border-
land (Ostrava-Karviná coal mining region) and the north-western borderland (the
belt below the Krušné Hory Mts. [Erzgebirge]). These areas are relatively urban-
ised but struggle with problems of economic restructuring, poor environmental
image and relatively high unemployment.
Other borderlands can be generally denoted as rural although even there are
some towns of medium size in south-eastern Moravia (Hodonín, Břeclav) or in
north-eastern Bohemia (Náchod, Trutnov). An important difference is, however,
that south-eastern Moravia is a lowland region with formerly booming agriculture
and with the corresponding structure of large rural villages and small towns. By
contrast, the other borderlands are mainly of mountainous character. In the north,
there are areas with the traditional textile, glass, woodworking and engineering
industries and a relatively dense pattern of small towns. The Bavarian borderland
and the western part of the Austrian borderland can be characterized by small and
very small settlements declining already since the end of the 19th century. The
evacuation of the German population precipitated and accentuated the process.
It is therefore a legitimate question whether we can discuss general problems of
the borderland when the individual borderland sections are so different. In our
opinion, the borderland of the Czech Republic also has a number of identical fea-
tures and therefore we proceed to the following analysis of basic problems.
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
22
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
Identification of basic problems and ways for their solution
Prior to the identification of the main problem, there were hypotheses based both
on national and foreign literature and on our own experience. The hypotheses are
as follows:
The borderland – namely its rural part – is jeopardized demographically.
People leave for work to town centres and central areas of the country. The
remaining population is ageing.
Due to the reluctance of developers to invest into growth, the borderland suf-
fers from the lack of job opportunities and hence features high unemploy-
ment. The structure of diminishing jobs is unfavourable with a high propor-
tion of endangered manufacturing industries.
With respect to the specific historical development, the population’s
qualification structure in the borderland is of lower quality, which may be a
limiting factor in future development.
Borderland infrastructure, namely its social part, is poor and provides for nei-
ther future economic nor demographic growth.
Regarding the physical and geographical conditions, a considerable portion
of the borderland is an active area of nature conservation and tourism. Nature
qualities paradoxically profited from the presence of the iron curtain.
Remoteness can be only to a limited extent be compensated for by cross-bor-
der cooperation. Apart from the historical, psychological, linguistic or cur-
rency barriers, most borders are constituted by the natural barriers of moun-
tain ridges or rivers. Euroregions and other associations primarily serve to
raise funds from the European Union – not to establish cooperation.
We tried to verify the above hypotheses empirically based on existing data
(Vaishar – Dvořák – Nováková – Zapletalová, 2008). Fifty percent of border mi-
croregions actually lose population while in about ten percent of them the situation
is more or less stagnant. Nevertheless, nearly 40% of microregions increase their
number of inhabitants; thus, it would be difficult to generalise the phenomenon.
Moreover, the share of inhabitants living in the borderland increased between the
censuses in 1991 and 2001 from 24.1% to 24.8%.
Of 1038 borderland municipalities with a population less than 2 thousand per-
sons, 626 recorded a population increase, 386 recorded a population decrease in
2002–2006; in other cases the total balance was zero. Among 229 municipalities
with population less than 200 inhabitants, which are hypothetically most endan-
gered by depopulation tendencies, we found a population increase in 109 cases and
a population loss in the same number of municipalities. Towns in the borderland
recorded a population decrease in nearly all cases. This shows that an effect
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND
23
stronger than border location is that of suburbanisation and counterurbanisation
tendencies.
In spite of the fact that the first half of the first decade of the 21st century was
affected by the entrance of strong population cohorts into the process of reproduc-
tion in consequence of the post-war baby boom in the 1970s and at the present
time, the first of the hypotheses cannot be considered corroborated.
Similar to other European countries, the Czech population is ageing. As to the
share of persons at pre-productive (1–14 years) and post-productive (66 and more)
age, the situation in 85 % of borderland regions is better than the national average.
This can be interpreted so that ageing is, relatively speaking, not a problem of the
Czech borderland yet. We can assume that the situation results from the post-war
population exchange in a greater part of the borderland as well as from the indus-
trialisation accompanied by mass immigation into industrial microregions in
northwestern Bohemia and in the Ostrava agglomeration. Thus, a young age struc-
ture came to existence that has a tendency to reproduce.
The Czech borderland is definitely an attractive place sought by large develop-
ers. This may however not hold true at all times for a number of small and me-
dium-sized companies from Bavaria or Austria. Natural persons may like to have
their personal investment on the Czech side of the border, too – for example in
housing or recreational facilities. Unemployment in the Czech borderland is defi-
nitely higher than the national average; but it is markedly differentiated. The high-
est unemployment does not show only in remote microregions but primarily also in
the basins of northwestern Bohemia and in the Ostrava agglomeration. Those com-
bine with several least developed microregions with weak centres. On the other
hand, unemployment in about 40 % of microregions is lower than the national av-
erage and even lower than in many important centres. Thus it seems that the rate of
unemployment is still more an issue of economic restructuring than remoteness.
The proportion of persons over 15 years of age with the tertiary education is in
all 110 borderland microregions below the national average. This shows that quali-
fication is an actual and limiting factor in developing the Czech borderland. The
orientation of employment on traditional manufacturing industries with a minimum
of progressive technologies corresponds to this low qualification. Although eco-
nomic activities move from manufacturing to non-manufacturing branches in the
borderland, too, the process is much slower than in the inland.
The situation has a number of important consequences. With the existing quali-
fication structure and general cultural standard of population, it is difficult to la-
bour for the localization of more progressive industrial branches including services
of higher order. The factor may be limiting also for the development of cross-bor-
der cooperation because people with lower standards of qualification and poor
knowledge of history and languages are simply not prepared enough to communi-
cate with their neighbours.
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
24
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
The cultural standards of the borderland reflect in its image and perception on
the part of residents and visitors. In general, the borderland is often perceived as a
territory inhabited mainly by Germans before World War II, who were later evacu-
ated and replaced mostly by Slavonic nationals. It further implies that the border-
land with Slovakia is not as a rule taken for true borderland. Inhabitants of the bor-
derland themselves did not feel at home in this territory in several post-war genera-
tions and no relation developed in them to soil, village, or region. It should be
pointed out that the relation to soil could not have developed due to early collec-
tivisation of agriculture. The inhabitants in the borderland show even different
electoral preferences as compared with the inland population (Daněk, 2000).
On the one hand, the localisation of social infrastructure facilities is a function
of the size of centres and their watershed areas, and on the other hand, it is also an
issue of historical traditions and the attractiveness of microregions. It follows that
we find fewer schools, hospitals and cultural facilities of higher order in the bor-
derland than in the inland. About a quarter of microregions lack even any basic
educational, health care or social facilities. The concerned microregions usually
have centres with less than three thousand inhabitants. Above-average amenities
can be found in this sense only in spa resorts.
A great part of borderland areas in the Czech Republic is of piedmont and
mountainous character with only a few exceptions. In these areas, a considerable
number of national parks, protected landscape areas, nature reserves, biosphere
reserves and areas of Natura 2000 are situated. The preservation of valuable land-
scape segments is one of consequences of the government’s economic policy in
these territories in 1948–1989. Although the preserved natural values in the terri-
tory are good prerequisites for nature conservation, development of tourism and
various sports activities, conservation often becomes a limiting factor to the eco-
nomic growth of these regions.
A certain degree of nature conservation is usually on the other side of the bor-
der, too. Due to this reason, nature conservation appears at present one of the most
progressive elements of cross-border cooperation (Krkonošský Národní Park and
Karkonoski Park Narodowy, Protected Landscape Area of White Carpathians –
PLA Bílé Karpaty/Biele Karpaty, PLA Beskydy/PLA Kysuce and PLA Horná
Orava/ Park krajobrazowy Żiwiecki, Park krajobrazowy Beskidu Ślaskiego,
Beskidu Malego and Babiogórski park narodowy (national park), Šumava National
Park and the Protected Landscape Area Šumava/Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald,
National Park Podyjí/Nationalpark Thayatal, National Park Bohemian Switzer-
land/Sächsische Landesschiftung Natur und Umwelt). The aim of cooperation in
this field is the conservation of natural assets on both sides of the border, the de-
marcation of individual conservation zones, the regulation of visitor numbers, the
coordination of border permeability etc.
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND
25
Ones of the official guarantors of cross-border cooperation are euroregional as-
sociations. Euroregions conjoin legal entities (towns, municipalities, regional au-
thorities and other legal persons) into associations purposefully focused in their
programmes especially on cooperation exceeding the Czech state border with
similar legal entities in the border regions of neighbouring countries. Their func-
tioning depends on the common interests of associated municipalities and their
inhabitants on the Czech side of the euroregion as well as on the common interests
of partners on both sides of the border. Popescu (2008) calls the process of estab-
lishing euroregions “reterritorialisation of Europe”.
Practically all municipalities in the Czech borderland are members of some of
thirteen euroregional associations that were gradually established in the Czech
Republic from 1991. Euroregions in the Czech Republic occupy ca. 66% of the
country’s territory, some of them reaching deep into the inland. This is why we
cannot speak of all municipalities – members of euroregions being interested in the
cross-border cooperation. In spite of the fact that the euroregional associations have
been functioning for over 15 years, cross-border cooperation is still at its very be-
ginnings. According to Grix and Houžvička (2002), the main barriers to the devel-
opment of cooperation are three: language, mentality and economic disparity.
The generally declared areas of cooperation in euroregions can be summarized
as follows: cooperation in land-use planning, the conservation and enhancement of
the environment, the improvement of living standard, the development and en-
hancement of infrastructure overlapping the borders, the development of collabo-
ration in fire-fighting and after natural disasters, the development of tourism and
culture, and the improvement of interpersonal relations. In general, we can say that
best developing is cooperation in the prevention and settlement of losses after natu-
ral disasters, in the sphere of conservation, joint advertising of the territory in tour-
ism, learning the culture of neighbouring regions. Collaboration is also frequent in
the development and enhancement of infrastructure. Projects focused on infra-
structure and on the improvement of interpersonal relations are most successful in
winning resources from EU funds.
Discussion and conclusion
There are several conclusions following from the above facts. The marginality of
borderland can be seen primarily in the lower qualification and hence in a generally
lower cultural standard, which correlates with poor social infrastructure. On the
other hand, depopulation, ageing and unemployment do not represent in these days
a problem of the borderland as a whole, but rather a problem in some borderland
sections. The borderland struggles especially with the problems of economic re-
structuring from mining and heavy industries into the tertiary sector, which also
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
26
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
applies to borderland sections with non-existing distinct centres. Expressed in a
simplified way, we can say that problems can be seen on both poles of residential
structure: in the largest towns and the most densely populated borderland parts as
well as in microregions with the lowest population density and very small centres.
It seems that medium-sized settlements enjoy the most optimistic prognosis.
The future development may bring several changes. The demographic potential
facilitated by population exchange after World War II will gradually become de-
pleted. Production basis, which is (apart from spas and some other few activities)
focused as a rule on traditional manufacturing industries accommodated to the
existing qualification standard of labour force, may decline. In that case, attention
should be focused on overcoming barriers in the use of a greater part of the terri-
tory for tourism.
As to a possible use of cross-border cooperation for development, this comes
into consideration only in some borderland sections. Physical barriers are vague
particularly in the eastern part of the border with Poland, in the territory of histori-
cal Silesia. The issue of the further development in the Ostrava – Katowice space,
which offers itself for linking up with the historical identity and establishing multi-
ethnic corporations, becomes topical (Kłosowski – Prokop – Runge, 2004). How-
ever, both prospective partners struggle with the problems of restructuring so far.
Other sections of the Silesian border as well as the eastern part of the Czech–Aus-
trian border are well permeable in terms of physical and geographic conditions,
too. The reason for not seeing any more important collaboration is probably due to
the fact that both parts of the border are distinctly marginal on their national scales.
Certain signs of development can be observed in the Cheb region and in some
other sections of the northwestern borderland. As compared with Saxony, the bor-
der is an expressive natural barrier (although the Vejprty area is already situated
behind the main ridge of the Krušné hory Mts [Ergebirge] and opens into Ger-
many). Essential is the space opening along the Ohře River, i.e. to Bavaria, though.
The Czech-Bavarian border represents a certain developmental line (in both the
positive and negative sense). The situation is further aided by the fact that exactly
within this space, the triangle of the world-famous spas Karlovy Vary, Mariánské
Lázně and Františkovy Lázně occurs on the Czech side, of which the last men-
tioned town is situated only several kilometers from both Saxon and Bavarian bor-
ders.
The future development of Czech borderland ought to be monitored with re-
spect to the ongoing processes of urbanization (suburbanisation, counterurbanisa-
tion), to the change of border character, the movement of labour force from manu-
facturing to non-manufacturing branches of economy, to the increasing signifi-
cance of leisure-time activities, amenity migration etc. In this respect, a number of
negative prognoses can be elaborated (the deterioration of the economic and demo-
graphic situation, deepening of marginality) and make their correction by using
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
GEOGRAPHY OF THE CZECH BORDERLAND
27
positive prognoses (the development of cross-border cooperation, enhanced use of
nature attractions in borderland areas).
References
Anderson, J. – O’Dowd, L. 1999: Borders, border regions and territoriality: contradictory meanings,
changing significance. Regional Studies. 7. pp. 593–604.
Breuer, T. – Hoffarth, M. – Kolejka, J. – Werner, E. 2007: Perspektiven grenzüberschreitenden
Dorfentwicklung beiderseits der deutsch-tschechischen Grenze. Geographische Rundschau. 6. pp.
50–57.
Bufon, M. 2007: Border regions in a re-integrated Europe. Moravian Geographical Reports. 1. pp. 2–
12.
Daněk, P. 2000: Does exist a political culture of the Czech borderland? Geografie – Sborník České
Geografické Společnosti. 1. pp. 50–62.
Dokoupil, J. 2000: Theoretical approaches to the problems of borderland with application on the
Czech – Bavarian space. Geografie – Sborník České Geografické Společnosti. 1. pp. 10–18.
Gorzelak, G. – Jałowiecki, B. 2002: European boundaries: Unity or division of the continent?
Regional Studies. 4. pp. 409–419.
Gorzym-Wilkowski, W. A. 2005: Region transgraniczny na tle podstawowych pojęć geograficznych
– próba syntezy. Przegląd Geograficzny. 2. pp. 235–252.
Grix, J. – Houžvička, V. 2002: Cross-border cooperation in theory and practice the case of Czech –
German borderland. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica. 1. pp. 61–77.
Halás, M. – Řehák, S. 2008: Contribution to the „anatomy“ of the common frontier area of the Czech
Republic and the Slovak Republic. Geografický Časopis. 3. pp. 279–298.
Hampl, M. (2000): Border regions in the Czech Republic: contemporary tendencies of development
differentiation. Geografie. 3. 241–254.
Havlíček, T. – Chromý, P. 2001: Contribution to the theory of polarized development of a territory,
with a special attention paid to peripheral regions. Geografie. 1. pp. 1–11.
Jeřábek, M. 2002: Cross-border cooperation and development in Czech borderland. Acta Universitatis
Carolinae – Geographica. 1. pp. 45–60.
Jeřábek, M. – Dokoupil, J. – Havlíček, T. et al. 2004: České pohraničí – bariéra nebo prostor
zprostředkování? Praha, Academia.
Kłosowski, F. – Prokop, R. – Runge, J. 2004: Territorial socio-economic system of borderland in the
Silesian region and Moravian-Silesian region and strategies of its development in the period of
political and economic transformation. Moravan Geographical Reports. 2. pp. 35–45.
Krätke, S. 1999: Regional integration of fragmentation? The German-Polish border region in a new
Europe. Regional Studies. 7. pp. 631–641.
Ladysz, J. 2006: Chosen aspects of sustainable development on the Polish, Czech and German
borderland. GeoJournal. 1. pp. 1–7.
Marada, M. 2003: Transport infrastructure of the centres in the Czech borderland. Geografie –
Sborník České Geografické Společnosti. 2. pp. 130–145.
Murphy, A.B. 1993: Emerging regional linkages within the European Community: challenging the
dominance of the state. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. 2. pp. 103–118.
Newman, D. 2006: The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our “borderless” word. Progress
in Human Geography. 2. pp. 143–161.
Nosková, H. 2008: Proměny českého pohraničí v letech 1945 – 1950. In: Vajdová, Z. (ed.): Aktéři
rozvoje regionu – Orlicko. Sociologické studie. Praha: Sociologický ústav AV ČR. pp. 14–28.
Antonin Vaishar - Jana Zapletalová : Geography of the Czech Borderland.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 15-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
28
ANTONIN VAISHAR – JANA ZAPLETALOVÁ
O´Dowd, L. 2001: Analysing Europe´s borders. IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Summer. pp.
67–79.
Paasi, A. 1999: Boundaries as social practice and discourse: the Finnish-Russian border. Regional
Studies. 7. pp. 669–680.
Perkmann, M. 1999: Building governance institutions across European borders. Regional Studies. 7.
pp. 657–667.
Popescu, G. 2008: The conflicting logics of cross-border reterritorialization: Geopolitics of
Euroregions in Eastern Europe. Political Geography. 4. pp. 418–438.
Vaishar, A. – Cetkovský, S. – Martinát, S. – Nosková, H. – Zapletalová, J. 2007: Cross-Border
Region Králíky Miedzylesie. Moravian Geographical Reports. 2. pp. 40–54.
Vaishar, A.– Dvořák, P. – Nováková, E. – Zapletalová, J. 2008: Settlement problems in the Czech
borderland. Geografický 2Casopis. 3. pp. 241–253.
Wallace, C. 1999: Crossing borders: mobility of goods, cupital and people in the central Europeam
region. In: Brah, A. – Hickman, M. J. – Mac an Ghaill, M. (eds.): Global futures: migrations,
environment and globalization. London, Macmillan. pp. 185–209.
Williams, M. B. 2007: On Europe’s Edge: Changing borders in Central and Eastern Europe.
Contemporary Studies in Economic and Financial Analysis. 89. pp. 137–171.
Ziener, K. – Hössl, P. 2007: Grenzüberschreitende Wirtschaftskooperation zwischen Kärnten,
Slowenien und Friaul-Julisch Venetien. Klagenfurt, Drava Verlag.