XXII. MEZINÁRODNÍ KOLOKVIUM O REGIONÁLNÍCH
VĚDÁCH. SBORNÍK PŘÍSPĚVKŮ
22nd
INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON REGIONAL
SCIENCES.CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
Place: Velké Bílovice (Czech Republic)
June 12-16, 2019
Publisher: Masarykova univerzita (Masaryk University Press), Brno
Edited by:
Viktorie KLÍMOVÁ
Vladimír ŽÍTEK
(Masarykova univerzita / Masaryk University, Czech Republic)
Vzor citace / Citation example:
AUTOR, A. Název článku. In Klímová, V., Žítek, V. (eds.) XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních
vědách. Sborník příspěvků. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2019. s. 1–5. ISBN 978-80-210-9268-6.
DOI.
AUTHOR, A. Title of paper. In Klímová, V., Žítek, V. (eds.) 22nd
International Colloquium on Regional
Sciences. Conference Proceedings. Brno: Masaryk University Press, 2019. pp. 1–5. ISBN 978-80-
210-9268-6. DOI.
Publikace neprošla jazykovou úpravou. / Publication is not a subject of language check.
Za správnost obsahu a originalitu výzkumu zodpovídají autoři. / Authors are fully responsible for the content and
originality of the articles.
© 2019 Masarykova univerzita
ISBN 978-80-210-9268-6 (online : pdf)
 
 
 
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
297
DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-9268-2019-37
THE ANALYSIS OF THE LIVING PREFERENCES IN
SLOVAKIA IN THE LIGHT OF SUSTAINABILITY
Analýza preferencií bývania na Slovensku z hľadiska udržateľnosti
DAVID COLE 1
ĽUBA KUBIŠOVÁ 1
MÁRIA MURRAY SVIDROŇOVÁ 2
RADOSLAV KOŽIAK 2
JOLANA GUBALOVÁ 3
1
Katedra odbornej jazykovej komunikáci
2
Katedra verejnej ekonomiky a region. rozvoja
3
Katedra kvantit. metód a informačných systémov
Ekonomická fakulta
Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici
1
Department of Language Communication in Business
2
Depart. of Public Economics and Reg. Development
3
Depart. of Quantit. Methods and Information Systems
Faculty of Economics
Matej Bel University in Banska Bystrica
 Tajovského 10, 975 90 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic
E-mail: david.cole@umb.sk, luba.kubisova@umb.sk, maria.murraysvidronova@umb.sk,
radoslav.koziak@umb.sk, jolana.gubalova@umb.sk
Annotation
The objective of the paper is to investigate the point of view of living preferences in Slovakia. Using a new
measurement scheme of these preferences and various types of sustainable development indicators, we analyzed
the preferences of where people would like to live with a sample of almost 500 respondents from various regions
in Slovakia. Among the methods employed are questionnaire survey and statistical analysis. From our research,
we have found a strong desire for smaller community living arrangements that extend even down to the level of
village living. The strongest influence on the living preferences have number of cars and length of roads, municipal
waste and built-up areas (negative correlation) and positive influence has citizens´ participation on the
management of the region.
Key words
living preferences, sustainable development, regions of Slovakia
Anotace
Cieľom príspevku je preskúmať pohľad na preferencie bývania na Slovensku. Pomocou novej schémy merania
týchto preferencií a rôznych typov ukazovateľov trvalo udržateľného rozvoja sme analyzovali preferencie, v
ktorých regiónoch by ľudia radi žili, na vzorke takmer 500 respondentov z rôznych regiónov Slovenska. K použitým
metódam patrí dotazníkový prieskum a štatistická analýza. Z nášho výskumu sme zistili silnú preferenciu po
menšom komunitnom životnom štýle, ktorá siaha až na úroveň života na dedine. Najsilnejší vplyv na preferencie
bývania majú: počet áut a dĺžka ciest, komunálny odpad a zastavané plochy (negatívna korelácia) a pozitívny
vplyv má účasť občanov na riadení regiónu.
Klíčová slova
preferencie bývania, udržateľný rozvoj, regióny Slovenska
JEL classification: R11, R23, I31, Q56
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
298
1. Introduction
Krueger and Savage (2007) suggested a city‐region’s competitiveness is based not only on production, but social
reproduction. These issues as well as the policy measures adopted by many city-regions are frequently couched in
a discourse of ‘sustainable development’.
Already in 1991 Lele stated that sustainable development emerged as the latest development catchphrase. A wide
range of nongovernmental as well as governmental organizations have embraced it as the new paradigm of
development. His literature review revealed that the concept of sustainable development lacks consistency in its
interpretation, including an incomplete perception of the problems of poverty and environmental degradation, and
confusion about the role of economic growth and about the concepts of sustainability and participation (Lele,
1991).
Sustainable development is such development of society, that meets the needs of the present generation, that does
not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, in which each human being has the
opportunity to develop itself in freedom, within a well-balanced society and in harmony with its surroundings
(Brundtland definition in Borowy, 2013).
It is important to differentiate the concepts of growth (material increase in size) and development (improvement
in organization without size change). One problem is that current measures of economic well-being at the macro
level (i.e. Gross National Product) measure mainly growth, or at best conflate growth and development (Costanza
and Daly, 1992).
Since then, lot of studies and research have been conducted to create a set of indicators and methodologies how to
measure sustainable development. In this paper we focus on sustainable development indicators in the perspective
of sustainable regions and correlate these indicators for Slovak regions with the results of living preferences survey
conducted in 2018.
2. Sustainable development of regions and sets of indicators
Sustainable development, if it is to be an alternative to unsustainable development, should imply a break with the
linear model of growth and accumulation that ultimately serves to undermine the planet’s life support systems
(Redclift, 2002). This is true also for urban development, achieving cities that are sustainable is a must in the
current rapidly urbanizing world. In 1950 less than a third of the world´s population lived in urban areas. By 2003
that proportion had risen to 48%, the predictions are that by 2030, 61% of the population will be urbanized (Jenks
and Dempsey, 2005).
Around the world, cities have grown to mega-proportions with currently 512 cities having a population of over 1
million (UN, 2018). It would seem that concentrated agglomeration is an economic necessity and a continuation
of the urban evolution based on Marshall’s concept of proximity reducing transport cost (Marshall, 1920). This is
also connected with a decline in population in the countryside, causing depopulation in large areas of many
countries, especially in Central Europe If cities are only destined to get bigger, it imposes an important question:
is growth of the cities (even the smart cities) sustainable?
In this paper we argue the unsustainable urbanization with the concept of nostalgianomics which might be more
sustainable. Nostalgianomics presents a concept that nostalgic sentiment can be used as an economic and creative
force as an incentive for investment, especially in areas overlooked by modern convention of social planning (Cole
et al., 2019).
Based on the author´s research from 2018, respondents from Slovakia where asked where they would like to live.
The area around Bratislava has low favorability, yet villages score highly. Suburb living around a regional city (in
Slovakia, this means a population between 70 and 80 thousand) are seen as having the highest utility. In general,
we can say that the respondents had a preference for less crowded and less urban settings. Suburbs of small cities,
small towns, and villages have significant utility and desire, even among the young. In this paper, we analyze the
living preferences in Slovakia, i.e. the most popular regions in correlation with the sustainability indicators of
Slovak regions.
2.1 Sustainable development indexes and indicators
There is a large selection of indicators, however they can mostly but be divided into three main groups — social,
environmental and economical. Alternatively, a fourth institutional area could be added. The indicators are then
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
299
linked to indexes such as, for example, The Sustainable Society Index (SSI), which includes 21 indicators divided
into 7 categories in 3 dimensions – Human health, the environment and economic welfare.
(www.ssfindex.com/ssi/indicator-description/). Slovakia achieved a score of 8.3 in 2016, ranking among countries
with relatively high sustainability (see Figure 1).
Fig. 1: SSI for Slovakia in 2016
Source: The Sustainable Society Index (2016)
The spider graph in figure 1 shows the score of each of the 21 indicators of the country in green, on a scale of 1-
10 (10=sustainable, 1=not sustainable). The red line is the weighted average score of all countries.
The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index (GSCI) measures the competitiveness of countries in an integrated
way. It is calculated based on 111 measurable, quantitative indicators derived from reliable sources, such as the
World Bank, the IMF, and different UN agencies, the 111 indicators are grouped into 5 sub-indexes: Natural
Capital, Resource Efficiency & Intensity, Intellectual Capital, Governance Efficiency, and Social Cohesion. In this
index, Slovakia ranked in the 18th
place out of 180 countries (GSCI report, 2017).
Based on OECD´s Better Life Index from 2017, Slovakia ranks above average in social connections, civic
engagement and work-life balance, but below average in health status, income and wealth, education and skills,
environmental quality, subjective well-being, housing, personal security, and jobs and earnings (OECD, 2017).
The European Union even has an indicator for sustainable cities and communities (called SDG 11) which envisions
cities as environmentally resilient human settlements, which drive sustainable development, stimulate innovation
and foster community cohesion and personal safety. SDG 11 calls for safeguarding the world’s cultural and natural
heritage and supporting positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural
areas. It also stands for enhanced international cooperation and support to least-developed countries for building
sustainable and resilient buildings. Monitoring SDG 11 in an EU context focuses on progress made in enriching
the quality of life in cities and communities, in fostering sustainable transport and in alleviating adverse
environmental impacts. SDG 11 contains 11 subindicators, including people living in poor housing condition (Fig.
2), air pollution, rate of overcrowding, level of recycling of municipal waste, artificial land cover etc. (Eurostat,
2017).
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
300
Fig. 2: SDGI Subindicator of the population of households living in poor housing condition
Source: Eurostat (2017)
The problem is that all these international indexes and indicators are available for the country as a whole rather
than the regional and/or local level. In Slovakia, in 2005, an initiative was drafted in SAE for a new set of TUR
indicators and their structure and presentation, taking into account the indicators of Agenda 21, the RIO+10
indicators of the process, the EU Lisbon indicators, the EU strategy indicators for TUR-2001 2006) and indicators
monitored and evaluated at the UN level as UN CSD indicators.
Currently, a new set of national indicators is being prepared to monitor the Agenda 2030 (2015) objectives and, as
a consequence, the update of the TUR indicators was completed in 2016 (the last year being 2015). Again,
however, it is an assessment of sustainability at the level of Slovakia as a whole, not regions or municipalities.
3. Goal and methodology
The goal of the paper is to investigate the point of view of living preferences in Slovakia in correlation with
sustainable development indicators. As already stated, there is a problem with availability of indicators at the local
level. In 2006, Hudeková designed a set of indicators to monitor the sustainable development of cities, however,
these are defined in a theory, but not being collected in practice:
 Topic 1 – Transport as main indicators: traffic situation, population mobility
 Topic 2 - Urbanism and construction as main indicators: sustainable urbanism, sustainable building
 Topic 3 - Environment, landscape and biodiversity as main indicators: environmental quality, Sustainable land
use and biodiversity
 Topic 4 - Environment burden and environmental footprint as main indicators: city contribution to global
climate change, ecological footprint
 Topic 5 - Socio-economic situation of the city as main indicators: social situation, economic situation and
attractiveness of the city
 Topic 6 - Management as main Indicators: environmental and social management of local government and
enterprise, citizen participation in public life.
Based on the above, we looked for indicators that were available at a more localized level and compiled an
overview of sustainable development indicators in the following regions (table 1):
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
301
Tab. 1: Indicators of sustainable development at the regional level
Region \Indicators
1st
Theme 2nd
Theme 3rd
Theme 4th
Theme
Transportation and mobility 2017 Urbanism and construction 2017 Environment
Land environmental
impact 2017
Road
network
in km Accidents
Number of
Vehicles
Municipal waste
(in tons)
Municipal
waste (in
tons)
Completed
family
homes
Emissions of
pollutants 2016
(in tons)
Air
quality
2017
Municipal
waste (in
tons)
Built-up
area (in
km2
)
Bratislava region 802.23 1,985 526,859 324,714 324,714 2,605 680.20 18.59 324,714 172.99
Trnava region 1,946.20 1,373 360,352 280,807 280,807 2,841 1,810.10 19.78 280,807 296.01
Trenčin region 1,886.55 1,210 330,767 222,573 222,573 3,677 3,831.00 18.78 222,573 241.06
Nitra region 2,590.69 1,650 422,877 314,739 314,739 3,564 30,346.00 19.21 314,739 385.60
Žilína region 2,050.77 2,045 367,593 274,936 274,936 5,256 6,296.80 20.54 274,936 264.89
Banská Bystrica region 3,209.60 1,335 339,438 225,051 225,051 2,786 6,390.90 20.63 225,051 341.99
Prešov region 3,189.32 2,041 361,388 238,309 238,309 4,019 4,363.80 24.63 238,309 322.66
Košice region 2,381.44 1,572 368,374 255,824 255,824 2,365 5,968.50 22.60 255,824 344.58
Region /Indicators
5th
Theme 6th
Theme
Social situation 2017 Economic situation Self-government management Citizens' participation
Number
of
citizens
Population
density (per
km2
)
± pop. from
migration
Total
change in
population
2017
GDP per
capita 2016
(at current
prices in
thousands
€)
No. of
unemployed
2017 (registered
job seekers)
Funds
available for
the social
area 2017 (in
€)
Funds
earmarked for
the
environment
2017 (in €)
Voter
participation at
regional
election 2017
Participation
budget score
Bratislava region 641,892 314.9 6,673 8,946 35,790.1 11,732 52,914,218 7,605,570 31.34% 1
Trnava region 561,156 135.49 1425 1,216 16,297.77 9,824 23,488,315 23,760 24.74% 0.5
Trenčin region 588,816 130.63 -490 -1,452 12,802.91 13,199 23,372,181 669,188 26.32% 1
Nitra region 680,779 107.15 -592 -2,087 12,923.85 17,949 41,895,530 0 26.84% 0.5
Žilína region 690,788 101.48 -411 245 12,888.9 19,311 39,889,383 0 33.84% 1
Banská Bystrica region 651,509 68.82 -990 -1,721 10,917.47 34,300 28,860,677 0 40.30% 0.5
Prešov region 822,310 91.73 -1,523 1,516 9,069.69 46,501 29,413,355 3,512,732 29.40% 1
Košice region 798,103 118.24 -370 1,114 11,754.07 42,767 30,200,744 0 26.73% 0
Source: SHMU, (2017), The Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, Results of regional election in 2017 and budgets of the regions for 2017
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
302
The air quality indicator was assessed as the average amount of air pollution according to the limited values for
protection of human health for 2017 (SHMU, 2017). The Citizen Participation Indicator was assessed on the basis
of participation in regional elections and whether the city had a participatory budget mechanism in place, allowing
citizens to take part in decision-making of public finances (0 - none, 0.5 - but only for a regional city, 1 - at the
regional level). Other measurements were taken from sets of indicators for given themes from the website of the
Ministry of the Economy of the Slovak Republic, which is evaluated at the national level. For the regional level,
data was obtained from the Statistical Office of the SR and were the most up-to-date (2016 or 2017).
To fulfill the objective of the paper, we correlated the indicators in Tab. 1 with the results of research focused on
the living preferences of Slovaks. A survey was conducted in September - November 2018, the total number of
respondents was 496 from all over Slovakia. The survey was widely disseminated through social media and mass
e-mail. Respondents were asked to rank 1) hand-drawn pictures of streets and 2) historic micro-regions of Slovakia.
For the purpose of this contribution, the second question is a substantial one. We wanted to find out which region
the Slovaks would choose for living. They should select 3 of the 25 historical regions of Slovakia, which they find
attractive for life and living. From these evaluated responses, the historical regions were then aggregated into 8
geographically similar regions.
4. Results
The lower the score, the better ranking of the region based on living preferences of the respondents, i.e. the region
that is more popular for living. Due to limited length of this paper, we present only the results where correlations
where significant (tab. 2). For some correlations, we adjusted the indicators, e.g. we added as an indicator the
number of vehicles per number of inhabitants.
Tab. 2: Indicators of sustainable development correlated to living preferences
Region/Indicators
Rating
of Regions
Road network in
km / Area of
regions in km2
Number of
vehicles / No.
of citizens
Transport of
goods (in
thousands of
tons) / Road
network in km
Municipal waste
(in tons) /
1 citizen
Bratislava region 2.76 0.42 0.82 16.15 0.506
Trnava region 2,.2 0.46 0.64 3.33 0.500
Trenčin region 3.07 0.42 0.56 9.12 0.378
Nitra region 3.14 0.41 0.62 1.51 0.462
Žilína region 3.96 0.30 0.53 3.55 0.398
Banská Bystrica region 3.78 0.34 0.52 0.76 0.345
Prešov region 3.31 0.35 0.44 1.97 0.290
Košice region 3.21 0.35 0.46 1.92 0.321
Correlation coefficient -0.917197378 -0.591850739 -0.50942049 -0.5610753034
Region/Indicators
Rating
of Regions
Built-up area /
Area of regions
Population density
(per km2
)
Voter participation
at regional election
Bratislava region 2.76 0.090 314.9 31.34%
Trnava region 2.72 0.069 135.49 24.74%
Trenčin region 3.07 0.054 130.63 26.32%
Nitra region 3.14 0.061 107.15 26.84%
Žilína region 3.96 0.039 101.48 33.84%
Banská Bystrica region 3.78 0.036 68.82 40.30%
Prešov region 3.31 0.036 91.73 29.40%
Košice region 3.21 0.051 118.24 26.73%
Correlation coefficient -0.823728104 -0.618454952 0.721376146
Source: authors
The first observed strong indirect dependence (-0.917) occurs in the road length indicator. It follows that the more
roads in the region, the worse the rating. It can be assumed that this is due to busy and dusty environments, although
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
303
the air quality indicator did not appear to be significant in the analysis (-0.002, i.e., a very weak to no correlation).
The issue of transport and mobility is also related to the number of vehicles on the road per capita, with a mediumstrong
indirect dependence (-0.592), as well as for the indicator “transport of goods (in thousands of tons) / road
network in km” (-0,509). Similarly, the volume of municipal waste / population (moderate indirect dependence of
– 0.561), built-up area in relation to the total area of the region (high correlation of – 0.824) and also the population
density per km2
itself (-0.618) could have a negative impact on living preferences. The only sustainability indicator
that significantly affects living preferences is participation in regional elections, where a strong direct dependency
(0.721) has emerged from the analysis, i.e. the higher the turnout, the higher the county gained. This indicator
belongs to the social management of regional government and the result indicates that a region where citizens are
more involved in public affairs is more preferred for life, i.e. people create a public choice environment in which
they want to live (choose politicians who represent their interests).
5. Conclusion
In the paper we presented the point of view of living preferences in correlation to sustainability indicators at the
regional level in Slovakia. The biggest problem in analysis of these correlations was in low availability of data on
sustainability indicators at the regional level. The lack of data on sustainability indicators is a long term issue.
There are many methodologies for international comparison, but these are focused on national data only. At the
moment, the Slovak methodology at the national level is being revised in accordance with Agenda 2030. Although
a methodology for regional and local sustainable development indicators was proposed as far back as 2006 and
pilot tested on six municipalities (Hudeková, 2007), there is no continuity in using these indicators nor using in all
regions or municipalities in Slovakia. Some municipalities try to measure and evaluate their own indicators of
sustainable development, but these are very seldom, with random years of evaluation.
From our analysis, there are several substantial findings:
 living preferences are negatively influenced by the transportation and mobility (the more roads and more
vehicles, the less popular the region is);
 living preferences are negatively influenced by urbanism (the more municipal waste and more built-up area,
the less popular region is);
 living preferences are positively influenced by citizens´ participation on the management of the region (the
higher participation at the regional election, the more popular the region is).
Transportation and mobility are very important from the point of view, that owning a car in a big city is
problematic; not so much in a small town. No one would move to smaller towns without a car as bus/train
connections are limited (almost non-existent on weekends) Bus transport does not satisfy all transportation needs
and therefore the need to own a car is quite big (number of cars per 1000 inhabitants in Slovakia was 295 in 2009,
347 in 2010, 390 in 2016 – The Slovak Statistical Office). Commuting could be reduced by using the means of
telework (Murray Svidronova et al., 2016) and thus the amount of cars could be lower and the regions more
attractive.
Urbanism is being driven by corporate desires/needs, not individual desire/needs. The needs of corporation and
individuals are both questionable, but it is the individual that is being asked to make the greater sacrifice – most
of the build-up areas are due to the developers´ activity on previously undeveloped land. The corporations are also
bigger producers of municipal waste (Soukopová et al., 2017).
From the point of view of citizens' participation, it can be stated that this indicator not only contributes to the
sustainability of regions but also to living preferences. This confirms the need for social innovations in the public
sector, involving citizens in providing public services (see, for example, Merickova et al., 2015). Further research
in this area could focus on this area and link social innovations with nostalgianomics to address abandoned objects
(seek innovative solutions to re-use and repurpose abandoned objects by involving citizens).
Literature
[1] BOROWY, I., (2013). Defining sustainable development for our common future: A history of the World
Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). London: Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group. ISBN 9781135961220.
[2] BUDGETS OF THE REGIONS, (2017). [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019]. Available at: Bratislava http://www.region-bsk.sk/clanok/zaverecny-ucet-bsk-81604.aspx;
Trnava - https://www.trnavavuc.sk/zaverecny-ucet;
Trenčín - https://www.tsk.sk/dokumenty/financie/zaverecny-ucettsk.html?page_id=24193;
Nitra - https://www.unsk.sk/zobraz/sekciu/zaverecny-ucet; Žilina http://www.zilinskazupa.sk/sk/samosprava/urad-zsk/odbor-ekonomicky/zaverecne-ucty/;
Banská Bystrica -
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
304
https://www.bbsk.sk/%C3%9Arad/Organiza%C4%8Dn%C3%A9jednotky%C3%9AraduBBSK/Oddeleniefi
nanci%C3%AD/Dokumenty/Z%C3%A1vere%C4%8Dn%C3%BD%C3%BA%C4%8Det.aspx; Prešov https://www.po-kraj.sk/sk/samosprava/udaje/rozpocet/2017/zu-psk-2017.html;
Košice https://web.vucke.sk/sk/uradna-tabula/financie/zaverecne-ucty-ksk/2017.html
.
[3] COLE D., GUBALOVA, J. KUBISOVA, L., MURRAY SVIDRONOVA, M., (2019). The nostalgianomics
of living preferences: Where would you like to live? In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference:
Current Trends in Public Sector Research. Conference proceedings. Brno: Masaryk University, in print.
[4] COSTANZA, R., DALY, H.E., (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation biology,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37-46. ISSN 1523-1739.
[5] EUROSTAT, (2017). [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019]. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/indicators.
[6] HUDEKOVÁ, Z., (2007). Sustainable Development and Environmental Quality in the Cities. Životné
Prostredie, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 269 – 274. ISSN 0044-4863.
[7] JENKS, M., DEMPSEY, N., (2005). Future forms and design for sustainable cities. Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN
0 7506 6309 X.
[8] KRUEGER, R., SAVAGE, L., (2007). City‐regions and social reproduction: a ‘place’for sustainable
development? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 215-223. ISSN 1468-
2427. DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00716.x.
[9] LELE, S.M., (1991). Sustainable development: a critical review. World development, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 607-
621. ISSN 0305-750X.
[10]MARSHALL, A., (1920). Principles of Economics. London: MacMillan. ISBN 978-1-137-37526-1.
[11]MERICKOVA, B. M., NEMEC, J., SVIDRONOVA, M. (2015). Co-creation in local public services delivery
innovation: Slovak experience. Lex Localis, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 521 - 535. ISSN 1581-5374. DOI
10.4335/13.3.521-535(2015).
[12]MURRAY SVIDROŇOVÁ, M., MIKUŠOVÁ MERIČKOVÁ, B., STEJSKAL, J., (2016). Social innovations
in work organizing: telework in Slovakia. In XIX. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách. Sborník
příspěvků. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, pp. 431-438. ISBN 978-80-210-8272-4.
[13]OECD, (2017). Better Life Index. [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019]. Available at:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org
[14]REDCLIFT, M., (2002). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. New York and London:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 0-203-71712-0.
[15]RESULTS OF REGIONAL ELECTIONS 2017, (n.d.) [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019]. Available at:
https://www.vysledkyvolieb.sk/volby-do-vuc-zupne-volby/2017/vysledky.
[16]SOUKOPOVÁ, J., VACEKOVÁ, G., KLIMOVSKÝ, D., (2017). Local waste management in the Czech
Republic: Limits and merits of public-private partnership and contracting out. Utilities Policy, vol. 48, pp.
201-209. ISSN 0957-1787. DOI 10.1016/j.jup.2017.09.005.
[17]THE GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS INDEX, (2017). The Sustainable Competitiveness
Report, 6th
edition. SolAbility, 2017. [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019]. Available at: http://solability.com/the-global-
sustainable-competitiveness-index/the-index.
[18]THE SLOVAK HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE (SHMU), (2017). [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019].
Available at: http://www.shmu.sk/sk/?page=997.
[19]THE STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC, (n.d.). Database “DataCube” [online]. [cit.
08-03-2019]. Available at: https://slovak.statistics.sk/wps/portal/ext/Databases/DATAcube_sk.
[20]THE SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY INDEX, (2016). [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019]. Available at:
http://www.ssfindex.com/.
[21]THE UNITED NATIONS, (2018). The World´s cities in 2018. [online]. [cit. 08-03-2019]. Available at:
http://www.un.org/en/events/citiesday/assets/pdf/the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet.pdf.
This research is supported by the VEGA project no. V-18-101-07-101312: Abandoned Slovakia: Effective
solutions to the creative reuse of abandoned properties in non-urban areas.