Publication details
Two Decades of European Integration in View of Peripheral Regional Border Effect without Language Barrier
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2022 |
| Type | Article in Proceedings |
| Conference | Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on European Integration 2022 |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | ICEI proceedings |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.31490/9788024846057 |
| Keywords | mobility behaviour; border effect; inter-municipal cooperation; cross-border transport |
| Description | This research aims to assess the potential for cross-border mobility in peripheral border areas. In this point of view, mobility includes mobility at the micro-regional or commuter level up to the follow-up of long-distance mobility. The research question is not a quantitative assessment of this potential in the context of the border effect but a qualitative identification of the characteristics in cross-border mobility in the specific case of very close language and a shared history. It enables people in the border area to communicate regularly, but there are still some barriers. For this reason, the Czechoslovakian border region was selected for the research as it meets these characteristics. A questionnaire survey was carried out, including responses from 914 municipalities (557 in the Czechoslovak Borderlands). While in the municipalities of the Czechoslovak border area, the representation of individual car transport is at the level of 49%, in the whole sample, it is at the level of 40%. Thus, there is a significantly higher motivation to use the car in the border region. The most crucial travel motive is daily visiting without an overnight stay. The most important provider of cross-border public transport in the Czech municipalities is the integrated regional system, while in Slovakia, these are the municipalities. Inter-municipal cooperation in cross-border transport occurs in 8% of municipalities in the Czech Republic, while in Slovakia, it is twice as frequent and reaches 17%. Interestingly, however, this frequency is lower in border areas than in the control sample. |
| Related projects: |