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 article is focused on the introduction and categorization of various approaches to rurality, and the identification and delimitation of rural areas in Visegrad countries. Three substantively different groups of conceptualizations and definitions of rural and rurality are described as follows: functional definitions, rural as locality (political-economic approaches), and social representation. Latter, basic sorts of methods and approaches to the delimitation of rural areas in V4 countries are introduced emphasizing its historical development, differences in spatial level and criteria of delimitation in current research. Due to different nature of rural areas and even local administrative units (the basic units usually used for delimitation of rural areas), it is not possible to reach sufficient and reliable identification of rural areas for whole V4 area using any of criteria or definitions applied in the research at national levels. Therefore, the average population density of entire V4 area was used as a main criterion for distinguishing between urban and rural LAU 2 at the whole Visegrad area level. Such approach is also affected by generalization but it captures various conditions in each country relatively well and moreover, it is comparable with the OECD and European Union methods to some extent.

References:

1. Bański J., 1999, Obszary problemowe w rolnictwie Polski, Prace Geograficzne, 172, Warszawa, IGiPZ PAN.
2. Bański J., 2002, Typy ludnościowych obszarów problemowych, [in:] Bański J., Rydz E. (eds), Społeczne problemy wsi, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 2, pp. 41–52.
3. Bański J., 2008, Wiejskie obszary sukcesu gospodarczego, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 14.
4. Bański J., (ed), 2015, Rural Atlas of Poland, in print.
5. Bański J., Mazur M., 2009, Identyfikacja obszarów o silnej koncentracji problemów społecznych, [in:] J. Bański (ed), Analiza zróżnicowania i perspektyw rozwoju obszarów wiejskich w Polsce do 2015 roku, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 16, pp. 79–96.
6. Barta G., Beluszky P., Berényi I., 1975, A hátrányos helyzetű területek vizsgálata Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megyében, Földrajzi Értesítő (Hungarian Geographical Bulletin), 24, pp. 299–390.
7. Beluszky P., 1965, Falusi településeink osztályozása (Classification of Hungarian villages), Földrajzi Értesítő (Hungarian Geographical Bulletin), 14, pp. 149–165.
8. Beluszky P., Sikos T. T., 1983, Typology of rural settlements in Hungary (settlement morphological processes in the rural areas of the country), Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Geographical Research Institute.
9. Bosworth G., 2012, Characterising rural businesses – Tales from the paperman, Journal of Rural Studies, 28, pp. 499–506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.07.002 -
10. Cloke P., 2006, Conceptualizing Rurality, [in:] Cloke P., Marsden T., Mooney P. (eds), Handbook of Rural Studies, SAGE, London, pp. 18–28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608016.n2 -
11. Cloke P., Goodwin M., 1992, Conceptualizing Countryside Change: from Post-fordism to Rural Structured Coherence, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17, pp. 321–336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/622883 -
12. Csatári B., 2000, A magyarországi kistérségek vidékiség-kritériumai, [in:] Horváth Gy., Rechnitzer J. (eds), Magyarország területi szerkezete és folyamatai az ezredfordulón, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja, Budapest, pp. 193–217.
13. Csatári B., 2005, Criteria of rurality for the Hungarian micro-regions: Major problems facing rural areas in Hungary, [in:] Barta, Gy. et al. (eds), Hungarian Spaces and Places: Patterns of Transition, Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 466–482.
14. Dorgai L., 1998, Néhány gondolat a "MI tekinthető vidéknek?", Gazdálkodás, 42, pp. 60–64.
15. Eberhardt P., 1989, Regiony wyludniające się w Polsce, Prace Geograficzne, 148, IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa.
16. Egedy T., Cerić D., Konopski M., Kučerová S., Kulla M., Nestorová-Dická J., Svobodová R., 2015, Entrepreneurship as a potential driving force for the further development of rural areas – good examples from Visegrad countries, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 39, pp. 103–128.
17. Enyedi G., 1977, A falusi életkörülmények területi típusai Magyarországon (Regional types of rural living conditions in Hungary), Földrajzi Értesítő (Hungarian Geographical Bulletin), 26, pp. 67–85.
18. Erdei F., 1974, A magyar falu (The Hungarian village), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest (Reprint).
19. Fáziková M. et al., 2003, Súčasné problémy rozvoja vidieckeho priestoru na Slovensku: výskumná správa, Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra.
20. Fekete Éva G., 2013, Foglalkoztatás-bővítés a helyi elsődleges munkaerőpiacon, Észak-magyarországi.
21. Gorzelak G., 1989, Rozwój regionalny Polski w warunkach kryzysu i reformy, Rozwój regionalny – Rozwój lokalny – Samorząd terytorialny, 14, Instytut Gospodarki Przestrzennej WGiSR UW, Warszawa.
22. Gorzelak G., 2003, Bieda i zamożność regionów, [in:] Sagan I., Rzepczyński M. (eds), Wymiar i współczesne interpretacje regionu, Katedra Geografii Ekonomicznej UG, Gdańsk, pp. 57–77.
23. GUS, 1992, Obszary ekologicznego zagrożenia w Polsce w latach 1982 i 1990, Studia i analizy statystyczne, Warszawa, GUS.
24. Halfacree K., 1993, Locality and Social Representation: Space, Discourse and Alternative Definitions of the Rural, Journal of Rural Studies, 9, pp. 23–37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(93)90003-3 -
25. Hoggart K., 1990, Let's Do Away with Rural, Journal of Rural Studies, 6, pp. 245–257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(90)90079-N -
26. Hruška V., 2014, Proměny přístupů ke konceptualizaci venkovského prostoru v rurálních studiích, Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 50, pp. 581–601.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2014.50.4.109 -
27. Hruška V., 2014, Rural Studies and Uneven Development of Rural Areas in Central Europe, [in:] Koutský J., Raška P., Dostál P., Herrschel T. (eds.), Transitions in regional science – regions in transition: Regional research in Central Europe, Wolters Kluwer, Prague, pp. 52–70.
28. Jelonek A., 1986, Obszary zagrożeń demograficznych, Folia Geographica, Seria Geographica-Oeconomica, 19, pp. 33–49.
29. Kassenberg A., Rolewicz C., 1984, Obszary ekologicznego zagrożenia (wstępna diagnoza przestrzenna – 1980 r.), Gospodarka zasobami przyrody, Studia KPZK PAN 85, Warszawa, pp. 150–155.
30. Kiełczewska-Zaleska M., 1972, Geografia osadnictwa, PWN, Warszawa.
31. Kostrowicki J., 1976, Obszary wiejskie jako przestrzeń wielofunkcyjna, Zagadnienia badawcze i planistyczne, Przegląd Geograficzny, 48, pp. 601–611.
32. Kovács Z., Csachová S., Ferenc M., Hruška V., Konopski M., 2015, Development policies on rural peripheral areas in Visegrad countries: a comparative policy analysis, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 39, pp. 77–102.
33. Kukliński A., 1980, Gospodarka przestrzenna i studia regionalne, Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 111, Warszawa.
34. Kulikowski R., 1992, Obszary problemowe rolnictwa w Polsce, [in:] Wybrane zagadnienia obszarów wiejskich, Biuletyn KPZK PAN 158, Warszawa, pp. 23–40.
35. Kulikowski R., 2003, Obszary problemowe rolnictwa w Polsce, [in:] A. Ciołkosz (ed), Charakterystyka rolniczej przestrzeni produkcyjnej Polski, GUS, Warszawa, pp. 179–186.
36. Kulcsár V. (ed), 1976, A változó falu (The changing village), Gondolat Kiadó, Budapest.
37. Lettrich E., 1976, Faluhálózatunk fő vonásai (Main characteristics of the Hungarian village network), Földrajzi Értesítő (Hungarian Geographical Bulletin), 25, pp. 319–324.
38. Lőcsei H., Szalkai G., 2008, Helyzeti és fejlettségi centrum-periféria relációk a hazai kistérségekben (Locational and development centre-periphery relations in the Hungarian micro-regions), Területi Statisztika, 11, pp. 305–314.
39. Mormont M., 1990, Who is Rural? Or, How to Be Rural: Towards a Sociology of the Rural, [in:] Marsden T., Whatmore S., Lowe P., Rural Restructuring: Global Processes and their Responses, David Fulton Publishers, London.
40. Moseley M., 1980, Rural Development and its Relevance to the Inner City Debate, Inner Cities Working Party Paper, Social Science Research Council, London.
41. MRD, 2012, National Rural Strategy of Hungary 2012–2020, Ministry of Rural Development, Budapest.
42. MRRW, 2014, Program Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich na lata 2014–2020 (National Rural Development Program), Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi, Warszawa.
43. Murdoch J., Marsden T., 1994, Reconstituting Rurality: Class, Community, and Power in the Development Process, UCL Press, London.
44. Nagy E., 2013, "Borderless" strategies and the changing rural-urban relationship: motives of subrubanisation at the Hungarian-Romanian border, Settlement Geographical Studies, 2, pp. 32–51.
45. Nagy G., Koós B., 2014, First results in modelling objective well-being in Hungary at lower territorial level, Területi Statisztika (Spatial Statistics), 4 (2), pp. 71–86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15196/rs04205 -
46. NHRDP, 2007, New Hungary Rural Development Programme 2007–2013, Budapest.
47. OECD, 2011, OECD Regional Typology, OECD – Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development, [cit. 2015-04-28]: URL: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/OECD_regional_typology_Nov2012.pdf.
48. Novotný L., Mazur M., Egedy T., 2015, Definition and delimitation of peripheries of Visegrad countries, Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, 39, pp. 35–48.
49. Perlín R., Kučerová S., Kučera Z., 2010, Typologie venkovského prostoru Česka, Geografie, 115, pp. 161–187.
50. Rola-Kunach S., 1984, Obszary ekologicznego zagrożenia w Polsce w 1982 r. Zagrożenie i ochrona środowiska. Woda i powietrze, Wiadomości Statystyczne, 275 (5), pp. 32–35.
51. Rosner A., 1999, Typologia wiejskich obszarów problemowych, Problemy Rozwoju Wsi i Rolnictwa, IRWiR PAN, Warszawa.
52. Shortall S., Warner M., 2012, Rural Transformations: Conceptual and Policy Issues, [in:] Shucksmith M., et al. (eds), Rural transformations and rural policies in the US and UK, Routledge, New York, pp. 3–17.
53. Shucksmith M., et al. (eds), 2012, Rural transformations and rural policies in the US and UK, Routledge, New York.
54. Smallbone D., 2005, Fostering Entrepreneurship in rural areas, OECD. [cit. 2015-01-29]: URL: http://www.oecd.org/site/cfecpr/42203059.pdf
55. Szörényiné K. I., 2007, Relation analysis in rural space: a research method for exploring the spatial structure in Hungary, Centre for Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pécs.
56. Szulc H., 1976, O typologiach morfologicznych osiedli wiejskich w Polsce, Przegląd Geograficzny, 48, pp. 627–636.
57. Woods M., 2005, Rural geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring, SAGE, London.
58. Woods M., 2011, Rural, Routledge, London.

Relation:

Studia Obszarów Wiejskich

Volume:

39

Start page:

21

End page:

34

Detailed Resource Type:

Article

Format:

File size 2,6 MB ; application/pdf

Resource Identifier:

oai:rcin.org.pl:56663 ; 1642-4689 ; 10.7163/SOW.39.2

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