M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
4» sciendo
M G - R S D
Regional and local border effects after two decades
of Central European unification. What matters?
Abstract
This article deals with the border effect phenomenon affecting the mobility
of inhabitants in border regions. It aims to identify the determinants of
the border effect in transport at the municipal level, considering the
distance from the border, the populations and the characteristics of the
closest bordering country. The survey in the Czech Republic eventually
involved 675 representatives of municipalities who answered questions
on inter-municipal mobility. The results confirmed that the most substantial
handicap was population size, with small populations corresponding to
the limited use of public transport when travelling beyond a given border.
The results confirmed that the characteristics of the state or region that
shares the border must be considered when assessing border regions.
Therefore, the solution to the problems of individual border regions cannot
be viewed with a single instrument. It is necessary to consider substantial
differences resulting from the economic level of neighbouring countries.
Keywords
Border • regions • mobility behaviour
cooperation • cross-border transport
border effect • inter-municipal
Michaela Neumannová \
Vilém Pařil 2
, Filip Hrůza 3
,
Martina Jakubčinová * Martin Farbiak 5
'Department of Regional Economics and Administration,
Faculty ot Economics and Administration, Masaryk
University, Brno, Czech Republic
e-mail: michaela.neumannova@mail.muni.cz
institute tor Transport Economics, Geography and
Policy, Faculty ot Economics and Administration,
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
e-mail: vilem@mail.muni.cz
^Public Administration Institute, Faculty ot Economics
and Administration, Masaryk University, Brno,
Czech Republic
e-ma/y; Fiiip.Hruza@econ.muni,cz
department ot Public Administration and Regional
Economics, Faculty ot Social and Economics Relations,
University otTrenčin, Alexander Dubček University
otTrenčin, Trenčin, Slovakia
e-ma/y; martina.jakubcinova@tnuni.sk
5
Railway Company ot Slovakia, Zvolen, Slovakia
e-mail: farbiak.martin@slovakrail.sk
Received: 7 September 2022
Accepted: 30 April 2023
Introduction
S i n c e t h e beginning of t h e 2 1 s t century, there h a v e b e e n
substantial c h a n g e s in t h e c o n c e p t of borders in continental
E u r o p e , mainly d u e to t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n a n d its major e a s t w a r d
e x p a n s i o n in 2 0 0 4 . A border a s a c o n c e p t c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d very
broadly a s a s p e c i f i c imaginary line, w h i c h is usually d r a w n o n
m a p s a c r o s s t h e E a r t h ' s s u r f a c e , delimiting a natural o r s o c i a l
entity, o r s e p a r a t i n g t w o entities that a r e s o m e h o w different. In
the definition of a b o u n d a r y s o u n d e r s t o o d , it is appropriate to
e m p h a s i s e t h e e x p r e s s i o n "imaginary line". A b o u n d a r y is only a
c o n c e p t imaginatively d e l i n e a t e d b y a particular s o c i a l mindset
of a s e l e c t e d part of t h e inhabitants of this w o r l d . A l t h o u g h
b o u n d a r i e s often c o r r e s p o n d to natural features s u c h a s rivers
or m o u n t a i n s , w h a t is crucial for t h e s e natural b o u n d a r i e s is
their a c c e p t a n c e at t h e level of the society, w h e r e t h e s e natural
b o u n d a r i e s a r e treated with r e s p e c t a n d there is s o m e fear of
c r o s s i n g t h e m . T h e r e f o r e , to c r o s s to the other s i d e of the
b o u n d a r y m e a n s to o v e r c o m e the fear a n d r e s p e c t of s o m e t h i n g
u n k n o w n , o r to s t e p out of a s p e c i f i c comfort z o n e .
T h e e n l a r g e m e n t p r o c e s s of t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n n e e d s
to b e p l a c e d in t h e b r o a d e r context of t h e g r a d u a l globalisation
that started in t h e 20th century. G l o b a l i s e d international trade
has brought a r a n g e of benefits but, at t h e s a m e time, in a
just-in-time s y s t e m , it e n c o u r a g e s c o m p a n i e s to a v o i d holding
s t o c k a n d to u s e t h e most efficient o r c h e a p e s t s u p p l i e r s . T h i s
c o m b i n a t i o n c a n b e fatal w h e n s u d d e n c h a n g e s occur, s u c h a s
a natural disaster, a traffic a c c i d e n t at a critical transport h u b , or
a w a r . T h e r e f o r e , this g l o b a l market i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s m a k e s
individual e c o n o m i e s m o r e v u l n e r a b l e , a n d t h e m o r e o p e n their
e c o n o m i e s a r e to global markets a n d t h e s m a l l e r their d o m e s t i c
e c o n o m i e s , t h e m o r e vulnerable they b e c o m e . T h i s fact c a n b e
identified a s a critical motive for t h e e x p a n s i o n a n d unification
of E u r o p e a n U n i o n m a r k e t s a c r o s s different s e c t o r s , from trade
a n d s e r v i c e s o r financial m a r k e t s , through the transport s e r v i c e s
market, to t h e m o s t protected part of t h e e c o n o m y in t h e form
of student a n d l a b o u r m a r k e t s o r s u s c e p t i b l e s o c i a l a n d health
i n s u r a n c e s y s t e m s .
D e s p i t e the long-term p r o c e s s e s in t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n that
h a v e led to t h e g r a d u a l unification a n d i n c r e a s i n g permeability
of t h e s e m a r k e t s a n d of parts of t h e e c o n o m y of t h e E u r o p e a n
U n i o n m e m b e r states a n d third countries with w h i c h international
treaties h a v e b e e n s i g n e d , borders a s "imaginary lines o r limits"
remain in t h e m i n d s of t h e population. T h i s article is c o n c e r n e d
with s e a r c h i n g for the factors that play a crucial role in c r o s s i n g
national borders within the E u r o p e a n U n i o n , using t h e e x a m p l e of
the C z e c h R e p u b l i c a n d its n e i g h b o u r s . T h e p a p e r a i m s to identify
the determinants of t h e border effect in transport at the municipal
level, taking into a c c o u n t t h e d i s t a n c e of t h e municipalities from
the border, their population a n d t h e characteristics of the country
the municipalities m o s t c l o s e l y border. T h e r e s e a r c h is b a s e d o n
a n e x t e n s i v e s u r v e y c o n d u c t e d a m o n g m a y o r s of municipalities
representing m o r e than o n e tenth of t h e municipalities in the
C z e c h R e p u b l i c .
© 2 0 2 3 A u t h o r s , p u b l i s h e d b y S c i e n d o . I ^ i = m u ' i » > T h i s w o r k is l i c e n s e d u n d e r t h e C r e a t i v e C o m m o n s A t t r i b u t i o n - N o n C o m m e r c i a l N
o D e r i v s 3.0 L i c e n s e .
1
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
Literature review
B o r d e r s are h u m a n creations (Hataley & Leuprecht 2018).
A c c o r d i n g to Medeiros et al. (2021), c r o s s - b o r d e r regions are the
"laboratories of E u r o p e a n integration" t h a n k s to the interactions of
border inhabitants a c r o s s E u r o p e a n borders. T h e r e a r e , however,
still s o m e constraints that limit the benefits of border regions,
s u c h a s the insufficient s u p p l y of c r o s s - b o r d e r public transport
s e r v i c e s . B o r d e r regions represent 4 0 % of E u r o p e a n U n i o n
territory a n d o n e third of the E u r o p e a n population (Camagni et al.
2017). To t a k e full a d v a n t a g e of c r o s s - b o r d e r regions, the Interreg
initiative e s t a b l i s h e d the c o n c e p t of c r o s s - b o r d e r c o o p e r a t i o n in
1 9 9 0 (Reitel, Wassenberg & Peyrony 2018, in Medeiros et al. 2021). T h e
p u r p o s e of Interreg w a s to set u p a c o m m u n i t y without internal
borders (Milenkovic 2012). E u r o r e g i o n s are a n important e l e m e n t
in the coordination of c r o s s - b o r d e r c o o p e r a t i o n , w h i c h c o v e r s
entities at both the regional a n d local levels (Studzieniecki 2016).
T h e first E u r o r e g i o n in C e n t r a l a n d E a s t e r n E u r o p e w a s called
N i s a - N e i s s e - N y s a a n d i n c l u d e s parts of G e r m a n y , P o l a n d a n d
C z e c h R e p u b l i c (Drapela & Basta 2018). T h e r e are currently 13
E u r o r e g i o n s in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c , three of w h i c h are s h a r e d
with S l o v a k i a , six with P o l a n d , three with A u s t r i a a n d five with
G e r m a n y .
T h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n s u p p o r t s a s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m m e
called E u r o p e a n O b s e r v a t i o n N e t w o r k o n Territorial D e v e l o p m e n t
a n d C o h e s i o n ( E S P O N ) , w h i c h dates b a c k to 2 0 0 2 . S i n c e then,
the p r o g r a m m e h a s g o n e through four p r o g r a m m i n g periods - it
is k n o w n a s E S P O N 2 0 3 0 in the 2 0 2 1 - 2 0 2 7 p r o g r a m m i n g period.
E S P O N 2 0 3 0 a i m s to provide information, a n a l y s e s , s c e n a r i o s ,
m a p s , d a t a b a s e s a n d indicators that contribute to the b a l a n c e d
d e v e l o p m e n t of regions or larger territorial units (Institute for Spatial
Development, 2023). A s regards c r o s s - b o r d e r public s e r v i c e s ( C P S ) ,
the E S P O N Targeted A n a l y s i s " C r o s s - b o r d e r P u b l i c S e r v i c e s "
w a s c r e a t e d u n d e r the E S P O N 2 0 2 0 C o o p e r a t i o n P r o g r a m m e ,
the objective of w h i c h w a s to support a better delivery of C P S a n d
to improve a w a r e n e s s of the a d d e d v a l u e of C P S . T h e a n a l y s i s
h a s , a m o n g other things, pointed out barriers in implementing
C P S ; s p e c i a l attention h a s b e e n paid to g o o d practice e x a m p l e s
of C P S that c o u l d inspire other s t a k e h o l d e r s a n d s e r v e as
k n o w l e d g e transfer. In t e r m s of c r o s s - b o r d e r transport, few C P S
exist at the P o r t u g u e s e - S p a n i s h border, the Austrian-Italian
border a n d the E s t o n i a n - L a t v i a n border. O n the other h a n d ,
regions with existing transport C P S plan to offer m o r e links a n d
further integrate the public transport s y s t e m s - for e x a m p l e ,
through c o m m o n ticketing (ESPON, 2018).
In identifying potential barriers, w h i c h are an e s s e n t i a l
issue in border a r e a s , the literature d i s c u s s e s the p h e n o m e n o n
of the border effect. T h e border effect w a s originally defined a s
r e d u c e d trade c a u s e d by the e x i s t e n c e of international borders
(Havranek & Irsova 2016) a n d the first author w h o formulated the
idea of the border effect w a s McCallum (1995). Within C e n t r a l a n d
E a s t e r n E u r o p e , the border effect w a s higher before the Velvet
Revolution d u e to the low permeability of borders. In the 1 9 9 0 s ,
c r o s s - b o r d e r c o o p e r a t i o n e m e r g e d in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c with
the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of E u r o r e g i o n s a n d the abolition of border
controls, a n d d e v e l o p e d further t h a n k s to the a c c e s s i o n to the
S c h e n g e n A r e a in 2 0 0 7 (Drapela & Basta 2018). T e c h n i c a l barriers
a n d regulatory a s y m m e t r i e s a c r o s s countries m a y explain
the b o r d e r effect, t h o u g h that is not the c a s e for the E u r o p e a n
U n i o n (Turrini & van Ypersele 2010), w h e r e the effects of negative
borders s e e m to b e in d e c l i n e s i n c e the creation of the c o m m o n
market (Rietveld 2012). M o r e o v e r , it h a s b e e n a c k n o w l e d g e d
that c o n s u m e r s prefer g o o d s from their h o m e region rather
than products from other regions (Balaguer & Ripolles 2018). T h e
border effect is usually quantified by a gravity m o d e l of spatial
interactions a m o n g countries (Klodt 2004), w h i c h s u c c e s s f u l l y
e x p l a i n s trade flows (Hazledine 2009).
T h e border effect w a s initially studied in air transport,
w h e r e it w a s s h o w n to lead to d i m i n i s h e d v o l u m e s of flights
on international airline c o n n e c t i o n s . Zijlstra (2020) e x a m i n e d the
border effect in airport c h o i c e in W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n d confirmed
the expectation of a negative barrier effect of national borders
in transport g e o g r a p h y . P e o p l e preferred to c h o o s e a departure
airport situated in their o w n country. Similarly, Klodt (2004) found
a negative b o r d e r effect of G e r m a n borders o n departures from
G e r m a n airports. H e c a m e to the c o n c l u s i o n that g e o g r a p h i c a l
d i s t a n c e a n d national borders continue to matter (2004: 526).
Hazledine (2009) a s s e s s e d the border effect using the e x a m p l e of
C a n a d i a n air travel a n d found that C a n a d a is c o n s i s t e n t with the
effects of borders d e t e r m i n e d in other studies of international
m e r c h a n d i s e trade. Medeiros (2019) dealt with c r o s s - b o r d e r mobility
that w o u l d b e i n c r e a s e d with the p r e s e n c e of c r o s s - b o r d e r
transport. H o w e v e r , c r o s s - b o r d e r transport is not yet sufficiently
d e v e l o p e d to satisfy the increasing n e e d s of E u r o p e a n citizens
to c r o s s b o r d e r s , a n d c r o s s - b o r d e r c o m m u t i n g is still at a low
level (Buch, Schmidt & Niebuhr2009). L a s t but not least, the d e g r e e
of c r o s s - b o r d e r transport, n a m e l y b u s a n d train c o n n e c t i o n s ,
n e e d s to b e i m p r o v e d in the c r o s s - b o r d e r regions of P o l a n d C
z e c h R e p u b l i c , P o l a n d - S l o v a k i a a n d H u n g a r y - R o m a n i a .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , there are p l a c e s , s u c h as the L u x e m b o u r g region,
the G e r m a n - D u t c h a r e a a n d the metropolitan a r e a s of B a s e l
a n d G e n e v a , w h e r e c r o s s - b o r d e r c o m m u t i n g is particularly high
c o m p a r e d with C e n t r a l E u r o p e (Cavallaro & Dianin 2019). T h u s , e v e n
if the E u r o p e a n a r e a is a c h i e v i n g its first s i g n s of s u c c e s s in
integration through the c o m m o n market (Rietveld 2012), breaking
barriers in c r o s s - b o r d e r mobility is still a persisting i s s u e in
individual mobility d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g (Medeiros 2019).
In this context, a n initiative c a l l e d b-solutions, w h i c h
originated directly from the E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n ( E C ) , or
m o r e specifically from the E C D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l for R e g i o n a l
a n d U r b a n P o l i c y ( D G R E G I O ) , a i m s to identify legal a n d
administrative o b s t a c l e s to c r o s s - b o r d e r c o o p e r a t i o n . T h e
initiative is going through its s e c o n d p h a s e ( 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 ) with
a budget of € 2 , 1 0 5 , 2 6 3 T h e r e h a v e b e e n 9 0 o b s t a c l e s a n d
b-solutions a d v i c e c a s e s s i n c e the l a u n c h of the initiative at
the e n d of 2 0 1 7 . T h i s E U initiative h a s identified c r o s s - b o r d e r
barriers in a r e a s s u c h as c r o s s - b o r d e r mobility, a c c e s s to health
s e r v i c e s a n d public transport p l a n n i n g . A c c o r d i n g to Medeiros et
al. (2022), there h a v e b e e n fifty-six c a s e s (out of a total of ninety)
that are specifically relevant for o n e or m o r e a s p e c t s of c r o s s border
c o m m u t i n g . Medeiros et al. (2022) divide the i s s u e of c r o s s border
c o m m u t i n g into four c a t e g o r i e s : c r o s s - b o r d e r w o r k e r s ,
t o u r i s m , c r o s s - b o r d e r s h o p p i n g a n d c r o s s - b o r d e r s e r v i c e s . F o r
t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s , the institutional, p h y s i c a l , socio-cultural a n d
e c o n o m i c / t e c h n o l o g i c a l barriers h a v e b e e n c o n c r e t i s e d a n d
a n a l y s e d . It is c l e a r that the lower the barriers, the higher the
level of c r o s s - b o r d e r c o m m u t i n g (Medeiros et al. 2022).
Data and m e t h o d s
W t h i n the r e s e a r c h framework, a s u r v e y w a s c o n d u c t e d
a m o n g m a y o r s of municipalities in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c during
2 0 2 0 . A s t a n d a r d i s e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e (quantitative a p p r o a c h ) w a s
u s e d to a d d r e s s the i s s u e . A p i l o t study validated the questionnaire.
T h e findings of this pilot s u r v e y w e r e then incorporated into
an u p d a t e d v e r s i o n a n d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y
o p t i m i s e d . T h e s u r v e y in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c eventually involved
6 7 5 representatives of t o w n s a n d municipalities w h o a n s w e r e d
q u e s t i o n s o n inter-municipal c o o p e r a t i o n with an e m p h a s i s on
its c r o s s - b o r d e r nature a n d possibilities. T h e m i n i m u m s a m p l e
s i z e w a s set at 6 2 5 r e s p o n d e n t s , representing o n e tenth of the
municipalities in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c (this m i n i m u m limit w a s
thus s u r p a s s e d by 8%). T h e rate of return w a s 1 0 . 7 9 % (6,255
municipal representatives w e r e s e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s but only 6 7 5
2
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
Table 1. The Survey Sample Structure
population category 0-300 301-500 501-1,000 1,001-3,000 3,001-5,000 5,000-10,000 10,001 + Total
n u m b e r of municipalities 149 115 149 149 4 7 3 3 3 3 6 7 5
of which, from border regions 21 2 3 3 9 54 19 11 9 176
Source: Own survey (2020)
Figure 1. Combination of modes of transport used in cross-border mobility by distance to a border
Source: own survey own processing
r e s p o n d e d ) . R e g a r d i n g the 9 5 % c o n f i d e n c e level, the s a m p l e h a d
a c o n f i d e n c e interval of 3.56. Table 1 s h o w s t h e b a s i c structure
of t h e s a m p l e . T h e s u r v e y thus r e a c h e d a representative s a m p l e
of m a y o r s a n d m u n i c i p a l representatives from different p l a c e s ,
representing both regions that contain b o r d e r a r e a s a n d other
entirely interior regions that don't s h a r e a b o r d e r with a foreign
country. D a t a collection took p l a c e during S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 0 , thus
avoiding t h e C O V I D - 1 9 p a n d e m i c situation a s m u c h a s p o s s i b l e
(there w e r e n o g e n e r a l restrictions in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c
during this period). F u r t h e r m o r e , the q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o c u s e d o n
u s u a l c r o s s - b o r d e r transport behaviour, reflecting a long-term
o v e r v i e w of mobility habits. T h u s , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s not
affected by p a n d e m i c restrictions o r related mobility c h a n g e s .
A s part of t h e survey, e a c h r e s p o n d e n t h a d t h e opportunity to
enter their contact e m a i l to e x p r e s s a n interest in receiving the
s u r v e y results. T h i s p r o c e d u r e a i m e d to eliminate errors d u e to
h u m a n failure. T h r o u g h o u t all s t a g e s of t h e survey, t h e potential
for bias in t h e results w a s m i n i m i s e d . T h e reliability a n d validity
of t h e d a t a w e r e m a x i m i s e d through s e v e r a l p r o c e d u r e s . G i v e n
the quantitative m e t h o d u s e d , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s w e r e
stored in a primary d a t a matrix in E x c e l format a n d e v a l u a t e d
using S P S S statistical d a t a a n a l y s i s software. T h e results are
p r e s e n t e d for the entire national s a m p l e a n d t h e b o r d e r z o n e ,
w h i c h c o n s i s t s of municipalities b e l o n g i n g to b o r d e r regions.
Results for m o d e s of transport
In the following s e c t i o n s , t h e s u r v e y results are p r e s e n t e d
a c c o r d i n g to t h e individual factors e x a m i n e d , n a m e l y the
d i s t a n c e from t h e border, t h e population s i z e a n d t h e role of the
neighbouring country o r c o m m o n l a n g u a g e .
D i s t a n c e
T h e first part f o c u s e s o n t h e influence of t h e municipality's
d i s t a n c e to a national b o r d e r o n its residents' transport behaviour.
Figure 1 s h o w s t h e differences in traffic m o d e structures w h e n
travelling to the other s i d e of the border. T h e results s h o w that,
for transport a c r o s s a national border, c a r s are very often (59%)
u s e d in t h o s e villages that a r e c l o s e s t to s u c h a border, n a m e l y
within 5 k m . H o w e v e r , c a r s are u s e d m o s t frequently ( 6 3 % of
trips) in villages that lie b e t w e e n 11 a n d 2 0 k m from the border.
A fascinating finding is that municipalities that a r e b e t w e e n 6
a n d 10 k m from the b o r d e r reported t h e m o s t frequent u s e of
public transport to travel a c r o s s t h e border, representing (taking
into a c c o u n t t h e s u m of b u s a n d train routes) 5 5 % of trips, a
level that is not s e e n for municipalities in a n y other d i s t a n c e
category. C o n v e r s e l y , c o m m u n i t i e s with the s m a l l e s t d i s t a n c e to
a national b o r d e r h a d a level of public transit u s e of only 3 2 %
(the lowest level of a n y of t h e c a t e g o r i e s s u r v e y e d ) . Taking into
a c c o u n t public transport, walking a n d c y c l i n g , for w h i c h t h e s e
nearest municipalities h a v e t h e best conditions, t h e levels are
consistently only 4 0 % .
T h e s e facts lead u s to c o n c l u d e that not all municipalities in
border a r e a s a r e located in a transport periphery with a low level
of accessibility o r serviceability of public transport. Limited public
transport accessibility mainly affects municipalities within 5 k m of
a border. Municipalities b e t w e e n 5 a n d 1 0 k m from a b o r d e r h a v e
better-than-average public transport s e r v i c e .
Figure 2 f o c u s e s o n t h e p u r p o s e of t h e trip to o r from
a n o t h e r country. Interestingly, a relatively higher p e r c e n t a g e of
p e o p l e arriving, c o m p a r e d with t h o s e departing, m a d e s u c h a
trip for family r e a s o n s . H o w e v e r , t h e s u r v e y w a s c o n d u c t e d with
representatives of municipalities in t h e country, w h o m a y thus
u n c o n s c i o u s l y a n d subjectively distort t h e n e e d to return to their
municipality to visit family. T h i s n e e d to return h o m e to s e e family
m a y b e relatively o v e r e s t i m a t e d c o m p a r e d with t h e n e e d to s e e
relatives a b r o a d .
B e t w e e n 1 6 % a n d 3 4 % of r e s p o n d e n t s travelled to o r
from a n o t h e r country a n d s p e n t at least o n e night a b r o a d .
3
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
A ) 0 - 5 : i n b o u n d
A ) 0 - 5 : o u t b o u n d
B) 6 - 1 0 : i n b o u n d
B) 6 - 1 0 : o u t b o u n d
C ) 1 1 - 2 0 : i n b o u n d
C ) 1 1 - 2 0 : o u t b o u n d
D) 2 1 - 3 0 : i n b o u n d
D) 2 1 - 3 0 : o u t b o u n d
E) 31+: i n b o u n d
3°/ 1 0 %
1 8 % 1 6 % 2 7 % 1 4 % 5 %
11 % 2 9 % 3 0 % 2 % I5% 9 %
6 % 1
4 % 2
6 % 1
4 % 2% 8 %
% 1
4 % 2% 8 %
1 3 % 2 0 % 30°/'a 1 5 % 3 3%
1 9 % 2 3 % 3 2 % 1 3 % 2 % 1 2 %
5 %
3 3 % 2°/ >1%7%
5 %
3 3 % 2°/ >1%7%
5 %
3 3 % 2°/ >1%7%
1 2 % 3 4 c
h 3 2 % !3% 2 % 1 3 %
0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 % 8 0 % 9 0 % 1 0 0 %
family tourism_overnight_trips visitors s e r v i c e s s c h o o l " w o r k
Figure 2. Outbound and inbound cross-border mobility motivation by distance to a border
Source: own survey own processing
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6 9 %
2 7 %
5 9 %
5 3 %
2 8 %
5 6 %
5 1 %
6 9 %
2 7 %
5 9 %
5 3 %
2 8 %
5 6 %
5 1 %
6 9 %
2 7 %
5 9 %
5 3 %
2 8 %
5 6 %
5 1 %
6 9 %
2 7 %
5 9 %
5 3 %
2 8 %
5 1 %
6 9 %
2 7 %
5 9 %
5 3 %
2 8 %
5 1 %
6 9 %
2 7 %
5 9 %
5 3 %
2 8 % 2 9 %
6 9 %
2 7 % 2 2 %
5 3 %
2 8 % 2 9 %
2 1 %
2 7 % 2 2 % 3 0 %
2 1 %
1 4 %
2 %
1 7 %
1%
1 5 %
3 %
1 8 %
6 %
2 % - 2 %
1 4 %
2 %
1 7 %
1% 1%
1 5 %
3 %
1 2 %
2 % ?%
I5 0 %
3 3 %
A) 0-300 B) 301-500 C) 501-1 000 D) 1 001-3 000 E) 3 001-5 000 F) 5 001-10 G) 10 001 and
000
walking • bicycle • train bus car
Figure 3. Combination of modes of transport used in cross-border mobility by municipal population size
Source: own survey own processing
A g a i n , i n b o u n d traffic flows s h o w e d higher rates, e x c e p t a m o n g
municipalities m o r e than 31 k m from a national border. A p u r p o s e
of travel that w a s relatively c o m m o n a c r o s s the entire s a m p l e for
both arrivals a n d d e p a r t u r e s w a s overnight visits without overnight
s t a y s (visitors), ranging from 2 7 % to 3 3 % , o r roughly o n e third
of trips. A s the d i s t a n c e from a national b o r d e r d e c r e a s e d , the
n e e d to l e a v e or c o m m u t e for s e r v i c e s a l s o i n c r e a s e d , reflecting
the fact that t h o s e interior entities d o not a d e q u a t e l y saturate the
availability of s e r v i c e s n e a r the border. B e t w e e n 1 3 % a n d 2 0 %
of r e s p o n d e n t s travelled a b r o a d for work, but it is important to
note that c o m m u t i n g out w a s m o r e substantial than c o m m u t i n g
in a c r o s s d i s t a n c e c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s fact m a y indicate p o o r e r job
opportunities in the C z e c h b o r d e r a r e a s c o m p a r e d with t h e s e
a r e a s a b r o a d .
Population
T h e following s e c t i o n looks at the i m p o r t a n c e of the
population s i z e of a c o m m u n i t y o n the u s e of different m o d e s of
transport to travel a b r o a d , c o n s i d e r i n g the different motivations
for this travel. F i g u r e 3 s h o w s that the municipalities with more
substantial populations h a d public transport provision to a n d
from other countries that i n c r e a s e d in c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with the
population. C o n v e r s e l y , the municipalities that w e r e the least
substantial in t e r m s of population relied to a large extent on
transport by car.
Next, F i g u r e 4 s h o w s the following results. G o i n g a b r o a d
for work w a s the m o s t important r e a s o n for travel for population
s i z e c a t e g o r i e s b e l o w 1,000 inhabitants, a n d r a n g e d from 1 7 %
to 2 1 % of r e s p o n s e s . F o r municipalities with 1,000 inhabitants,
this r e a s o n w a s r e c o r d e d in 1 2 % to 1 4 % of r e s p o n s e s . H o w e v e r ,
there w a s a n e x c e p t i o n in the c a t e g o r y of 1 0 , 0 0 0 inhabitants,
w h e r e the r e a s o n a p p e a r e d in 1 8 % of r e s p o n s e s . T h i s chart
s h o w s the overestimation of i n b o u n d t o u r i s m for family r e a s o n s ,
w h i c h w a s substantially m o r e c o m m o n than o u t b o u n d tourism in
most c a t e g o r i e s (except for the c a t e g o r y of municipalities with
10,000 inhabitants).
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the border, region a n d country
T h e following s e c t i o n f o c u s e s on the fact that the b o u n d a r y
c a n n o t be treated in the s a m e w a y in all c a s e s , a s the effect
d e p e n d s very m u c h o n w h a t kind of b o u n d a r y it is. T h e border
itself c a n h a v e very different characteristics, w h i c h are d e t e r m i n e d
4
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
2 7 %
A ) 0 - 3 0 0 : i n b o u n d 2 1 %
A ) 0 - 3 0 0 : o u t b o u n d 8 %
B ) 3 0 1 - 5 0 0 : i n b o u n d
B ) 3 0 1 - 5 0 0 : o u t b o u n d 1 0 %
C ) 5 0 1 - 1 0 0 0 : i n b o u n d
C ) 5 0 1 - 1 0 0 0 : o u t b o u n d
D ) 1 0 0 1 - 3 0 0 0 : i n b o u n d
D) 1 0 0 1 - 3 0 0 0 : o u t b o u n d
E ) 3 0 0 1 - 5 0 0 0 : i n b o u n d
E ) 3 0 0 1 - 5 0 0 0 : o u t b o u n d
F ) 5 0 0 1 - 1 0 0 0 0 : i n b o u n d
F ) 5 0 0 1 - 1 0 0 0 0 : o u t b o u n d
G ) 1 0 0 0 1 + : i n b o u n d
G ) 1 0 0 0 1 + : o u t b o u n d
3 0 %
2 9 %
3 1 %
12%> 3 %
1 7 %
9 % 5 %
9 %
1 1 %
2 2 %
3 4 %
32%> 1 0 % 4 %
12%> 4 % 21%^M
3 1 % 7 % 2 % 8 %
1 1 % 1 % 2 M ^ M
• 1 0 % 3 % 1 2 %
1 2 % 4 % 13%>
1 7 % 1 % 1 2 %
3 1 % 1 7 % 3 % 1 2 %
3 0 % 12%> « 1 2 %
3 0 % 14%> 5 % « 1 4 %
2 0 % 5 % 8 %
1 6 % 9%> ^m-\8%1 1 %
0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 % 8 0 % 9 0 % 1 0 0 %
f a m i l y t o u r i s m _ o v e r n i g h t _ t r i p s • v i s i t o r s s e r v i c e s s c h o o l a w o r k
Figure 4. Outbound and inbound cross-border mobility motivation by population
Source: own survey own processing
100%
90%
80%
7 0 o / o 5 7 % 5 3 %
60%
50%
40%
30% 2 6 % 2 8 %
20%
10% 14% 16%
0%
5 3 % 4 5 %
5 9 % 5 2 %
2 3 %
2 9 % 3 2 %
2 8 %
2 3 %
16%
13% 1 6 %
68%
2 1 %
11%
-0° v^p-
4 3 %
24%
2 9 %
5 5 %
2 8 %
10% 20%
3%
14% 1 3 %
14% 1 3 % 1 7 %
2 5 %
2 9 %
2 9 %
£ <?
P if
walking bicycle train bus car
Figure 5. Combination of modes of transport used in cross-border mobility by border and region
Source: own survey own processing
by its historical d e v e l o p m e n t a n d the relationship b e t w e e n the
two countries on either s i d e . F u r t h e r m o r e , the current state of
the b o r d e r a n d its institutional a r r a n g e m e n t s is relevant - for
e x a m p l e , w h e t h e r the labour market is o p e n to foreign w o r k e r s .
O f c o u r s e , the typical characteristics of the country o r region with
w h i c h the b o r d e r is s h a r e d are a l s o f u n d a m e n t a l - the e c o n o m i c
level, u n e m p l o y m e n t a n d a v e r a g e w a g e s . T h e s e factors are then
key motivators that c a n influence the population, a n d e s p e c i a l l y
the w o r k f o r c e living in its vicinity, in terms of c o m m u t i n g a b r o a d ;
it c a n a l s o d e t e r m i n e the primary direction of, for e x a m p l e ,
c o m m u t i n g for work.
T h e C z e c h R e p u b l i c s h a r e s a b o r d e r with four countries:
A u s t r i a , G e r m a n y , P o l a n d a n d S l o v a k i a . T h e s e borders are
currently entirely o p e n for mobility, including for l a b o u r m a r k e t s ,
t h a n k s to m e m b e r s h i p of the E u r o p e a n U n i o n . H o w e v e r , t h e s e
borders are of a very different nature. T h e b o r d e r b e t w e e n
the C z e c h R e p u b l i c a n d S l o v a k i a h a s long b e e n very p o r o u s
for historical r e a s o n s a n d b e c a u s e of a previously united
C z e c h o s l o v a k i a . E v e n after the division of C z e c h o s l o v a k i a , this
border r e m a i n e d very p e r m e a b l e for mobility a n d work, a n d very
important for family ties b e t w e e n p e o p l e living in the border
regions. In contrast, the b o r d e r with A u s t r i a w a s m a r k e d by a
border z o n e before 1 9 8 9 a n d w a s relatively i m p e r m e a b l e in terms
of participation in l a b o u r m a r k e t s e v e n after the C z e c h R e p u b l i c
joined the E u r o p e a n U n i o n . A particular c a s e is G e r m a n y , w h e r e
a distinction h a s to be m a d e b e t w e e n the b o r d e r with B a v a r i a
5
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
border_region: inbound 2 2 % 2 4 %
border_region: outbound 1 3 % 2 3 %
inland_region: inbound 2 4 % 27°/
inland_region: outbound 1 1 % 4 0 %
m^m 1 3 % 2 % 9 %
1 3 % 1 8 %
3 1 % 6°/G%11%
3 0 % 7 % 2 % 1 0 %
border_regions
A T / D E : Jihočeský: inbound 1 7 %
A T / D E : Jihočeský: outbound 2 % 2 8 %
2 8 %
2 8 % 1 0 % 7 %
1 4 % 2°m 3 %
2 6 %
A T / S K : Jihomoravský: inbound 2 9 % 2 0 %
A T / S K : Jihomoravský: outbound 1 4 % 2 5 %
2 9 % 1 1 % 2 % 1 0 %
8 % 2 % 2 2 %
D E J o t a l : inbound 2 1 %
D E J o t a l : outbound 1 3 % 1 7 %
D E : Karlovarský: inbound 1 8 %
D E : Karlovarský: outbound 1 3 % 7 %
D E : Plzeňský: inbound 2 8 %
D E : Plzeňský: outbound 1 4 %
D E : Ústecký: inbound 1 9 %
D E : Ústecký: outbound 1 1 % 1 8 %
2 7 % 3 3 %
2 6 % 1 4 % 6 %
2 5 % 3 3 %
2 6 % 1 5 % 1 1 % H
2 8 % 2 8 %
1 7 % 1% 1%
25%^M
2 3 % 3 %
2 8 %
m 1 3 % 2 %
2 1 % 2 6 % 1 4 % 3 % 2 2 %
2 8 % ^^^MM^M 1 6 % 2 %
2 6 % 1 3 % 7 % 25%^M
P L / D E : Liberecký: inbound 2 1 %
P L / D E : Liberecký: outbound 1 3 % 1 6 %
2 4 %
3 8 %
3 9 % 3 % 1 2 %
1 9 % 0 % 1 6 %
P L J o t a l : inbound 1 4 %
P L J o t a l : outbound 9 %
P L : Královéhradecký: inbound 1 1 %
P L : Královéhradecký: outbound 8 %
P L : Olomoucký: inbound 2 0 %
P L : Olomoucký: outbound 1 0 %
8 % 1 % 1 2 %
1 7 % 1 « 2 %
% 1 5 %
1 7 % 2 %
7 % 3 % 7 %
1 7 % 3°/<m 3 %
S K / P L : Moravskoslezský: inbound 1 9 % 2 0 % 2 3 % 1 6 % 5 % 1 6 %
S K / P L : Moravskoslezský: outbound 1 9 % 2 3 % M 2 9 % 2 0 % 2 % 8 %
S K : Zlínský: inbound 3 2 % 1 8 %
S K : Zlínský: outbound 2 8 % 2 6 %
2 6 % 9 % 2 % 1 4 %
2 8 % 6%2% 9 %
inland_regions
inland: Pardubický: inbound
inland: Pardubický: outbound 1 6 %
inland: Středočeský: inbound 3 3 %
inland: Středočeský: outbound 7%
inland: Vysočina: inbound 1 5 %
inland: Vysočina: outbound 9 %
1 7 %
3 5 % 2 9 %
3 9 %
3 0 %
8 % 0 % 1 3 %
1 3 % 6 %
1 7 % 1 1 %
7 % 3 % 1 0 %
1 0 % 1 0 %
4 % 1 3 %
0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 % 8 0 % 9 0 % 1 0 0 %
family tourism_overnight_trips " v i s i t o r s services s c h o o l " w o r k
Figure 6. Outbound cross-border mobility motivation by border and region
Source: own survey own processing
(representing the former W e s t G e r m a n y ) a n d the b o r d e r with
S a x o n y , w h i c h c a n b e c o m p a r e d to s o m e extent with the a d j a c e n t
s h a r e d b o r d e r with P o l a n d , a s this b o r d e r w a s part of the E a s t e r n
B l o c . C o n s i d e r i n g the b o r d e r effect v i e w e d in this w a y , o n e c a n
s e e both e x p e c t e d a n d s o m e w h a t surprising p h e n o m e n a , a s
s h o w n in the following two figures. F i g u r e 5 s h o w s the m o d a l
distribution of traffic a n d F i g u r e 6 the motivation a c c o r d i n g to the
country with w h i c h the b o r d e r is s h a r e d .
G e n e r a l l y , b o r d e r r e g i o n s h a d a higher level of individual c a r
u s e , w h i c h c o u l d be attributed to the fact that t h e s e regions w e r e
located in m o r e peripheral a r e a s within the d o m e s t i c e c o n o m i c
a n d g e o g r a p h i c location. T h u s , c a r u s e for b o r d e r r e g i o n s w a s
four p e r c e n t a g e points higher ( 5 7 % of r e s p o n d e n t s ) t h a n the
result for interior municipalities a n d the region a s a w h o l e (53%).
T h i s difference (4%) e s s e n t i a l l y r e p l a c e d b u s a n d rail transport
equally, at two p e r c e n t a g e points e a c h .
R e g a r d i n g the motivation to travel a b r o a d , F i g u r e 6
confirms s o m e e x p e c t a t i o n s : the h i g h e r the e c o n o m i c level of the
neighbouring country, the higher the motivation to travel a c r o s s
the b o r d e r to work. T h e highest level of o u t b o u n d c o m m u t i n g
for work w a s r e c o r d e d for a r e a s c l o s e to the b o r d e r with A u s t r i a
(26%), followed by t h o s e n e a r the b o r d e r with G e r m a n y (25%)
a n d then by t h o s e n e a r the c o m b i n e d b o r d e r with A u s t r i a a n d
S l o v a k i a (22%). T h e next i m a g i n a r y rung w a s o c c u p i e d by
municipalities c l o s e to the S l o v a k b o r d e r (9%), followed by t h o s e
n e a r the S l o v a k - P o l i s h b o r d e r (8%) a n d , last but not least, t h o s e
n e a r the P o l i s h b o r d e r (2%). T h e motivation to travel for work w a s
eight p e r c e n t a g e points h i g h e r for b o r d e r r e g i o n s than it w a s for
interior r e g i o n s , w h e r e it w a s a r o u n d 1 0 % .
L o o k i n g atthe m o d a l split by pu r p o s e of travel a b r o a d (Fig ure 7),
there w a s a c l e a r t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s the u s e of individual c a r
transport (relative to public transport) for regular trips to work
6
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
1 0 0 %
9 0 %
8 0 %
7 0 %
6 0 %
5 0 %
4 0 %
3 0 %
2 0 %
1 0 %
0 %
walking bicycle • train bus car
5 9 %
4 8 % 5 5 % 5 5 % 5 6 % 5 1 %5 9 % 5 5 % 5 6 %
2 2 %
3 1 % 2 2 % 2 6 % 2 6 %
2 6 %
2 2 % 2 6 % 2 6 %
3 %
1 7 %
2 %
1 6 %
5 %
1 5 %
3 % W °
1 6 %
6 %
Figure 7. Combination of modes of transport used in cross-border mobility by travel purpose
Source: own survey own processing
L e g e n d
I I Regions
modal share
Poland
Germany
Brskýi
)lomoucký
loravskoAzskí!
kraj
kra]
• • walking
bicycle
train
bus
• • car
municipalities
8 5 0
Slovakia
number of
commuters
volume
Austria
0 50 100 200 km
I i I I I i i i I
50
51-500
501-1000
• 1001-2000
>2001
Figure 8. Combination of modes of transport used and commuter volumes in relevant cross-border connections
Source: own survey own processing
(59%) a n d relatively frequent trips for s e r v i c e s (55%). In contrast,
the highest levels of public transport u s e w e r e r e c o r d e d for
c o m m u t i n g to s c h o o l s (48%), family trips (42%) a n d tourist trips
with a n d without overnight s t a y s (41 %). F o r c o m m u t i n g to s c h o o l s ,
this is a very natural p h e n o m e n o n s i n c e p e o p l e d o not usually
o w n their o w n c a r immediately u p o n reaching the a g e of majority,
but h a v e to wait until they e a r n o n e , s o to s p e a k . T h e u s e of public
transport w a s relatively frequent for leisure activities, e s p e c i a l l y in
c a s e s w h e r e t h e traveller c a m e from t h e particular b a c k g r o u n d of
the destination (family). A t the s a m e time, for regular trips by the
w o r k i n g - a g e g e n e r a t i o n , there w a s a c l e a r c h o i c e to u s e the c a r
more often, not only for c o m m u t i n g to work but also for s e r v i c e s .
T h e results of t h e a n a l y s i s of s p e c i f i c borders a r e s h o w n in
Figure 8 , reflecting the m o d a l s h a r e of transport a c c o m p a n i e d by
information o n the n u m b e r of municipalities with a n y c o m m u t e r
flow to t h e relevant country, a n d the n u m b e r of c o m m u t e r s from
the relevant region to t h e neighbouring country. T h e m a p s s h o w
the significant role of e c o n o m i c a l l y m o r e vital n e i g h b o u r s , a n d
c o r r e s p o n d with p r e v i o u s results.
Findings a n d d i s c u s s i o n
In o u r r e s e a r c h , w e looked for t h e factors influencing the
perception of a national b o u n d a r y a s being a barrier to population
mobility. W e took into a c c o u n t the d i s t a n c e from t h e boundary,
7
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
the m u n i c i p a l population, the motivation for a given trip a n d the
characteristics of the country with w h i c h the b o u n d a r y is s h a r e d .
T h e results s h o w e d that c o m m u n i t i e s within 2 0 k m of a national
b o u n d a r y are m o r e likely to rely o n individual c a r transportation
to travel a c r o s s the national border. In t h e s e c o m m u n i t i e s , c a r s
a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 6 0 % of the m o d a l s h a r e w h e n it c a m e to
mobility a c r o s s the national border. F o r c o m m u n i t i e s further
a w a y from the boundary, this s h a r e w a s a b o u t 5 5 % . E x c e p t i o n s
w e r e found for municipalities b e t w e e n 6 a n d 10 k m away, w h i c h
w e r e c o n v e n i e n t l y located in c o n n e c t i o n to important c r o s s border
transport corridors a n d s h o w e d a substantially lower
s h a r e (46%) of individual c a r traffic. T h i s finding is particularly
inspiring for public policy a n d transport planning at the regional
level. A l t h o u g h the h y p o t h e s i s that municipalities in b o r d e r z o n e s
h a v e a peripheral position a n d thus l o w e r accessibility a n d
serviceability for public transport in the c r o s s - b o r d e r direction w a s
largely c o n f i r m e d , the finding s u g g e s t s that a substantial c h a n g e
in the intermodal s h a r e of public transport c a n be a c h i e v e d by
the appropriate c o n n e c t i o n of local a n d micro-regional transport
to major c r o s s - b o r d e r transport corridors. T h i s s h a r e c a n e v e n
be substantially higher than for m o r e distant municipalities 3 0 k m
from the border, precisely b e c a u s e municipalities in the border
a r e a are, for various r e a s o n s , m o r e intensely c o n n e c t e d to the
a r e a b e y o n d the b o r d e r in e c o n o m i c , transport, institutional a n d
s o c i a l terms.
T h e results further c o n f i r m e d that, regarding population
s i z e , the s m a l l e s t c a t e g o r y of municipalities w a s s o m e w h a t
h a n d i c a p p e d by substantially lower potential d e m a n d for public
transport, w h i c h naturally a l s o led to a reduction in the supply
of public transport providers. A s a result, the residents of t h e s e
s m a l l municipalities of up to 3 0 0 inhabitants w e r e motivated,
or e v e n f o r c e d , to u s e c a r s substantially m o r e frequently w h e n
travelling a c r o s s a national border. T h e s m a l l e s t municipalities
in t e r m s of population a l s o h a d substantially higher motivation
for tourist trips, both d a y trips a n d t o u r i s m involving overnight
s t a y s . I n c r e a s e d trips for s e r v i c e s w e r e found only for c a t e g o r i e s
with m o r e than 5,000 inhabitants, w h i c h roughly c o r r e s p o n d s
to the threshold for urban populations. T h i s finding s u g g e s t s
that municipalities with rural populations of up to a b o u t 5,000
inhabitants h a v e t e n d e d to provide their s e r v i c e s in their place
of r e s i d e n c e o r h o m e country, while urban populations h a v e
i n c r e a s e d their d e m a n d s a n d s o u g h t s e r v i c e s to m e e t their n e e d s
b e y o n d the borders of the country. H o w e v e r , a s e p a r a t e a n d
s o m e w h a t differently formulated q u e s t i o n n a i r e w o u l d b e required
to verify this c l a i m , w h i c h m a y be the subject of further r e s e a r c h .
R e g a r d i n g the characteristics of the b o r d e r s , the s u r v e y
results confirmed that b o r d e r regions c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a s
o n e c o m p a c t unit; rather, the different a r e a s adjacent to the
borders with different countries s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d separately.
A s a n e x a m p l e , c o m m u t i n g a c r o s s a b o r d e r s h o w e d that, in
municipalities bordering A u s t r i a o r G e r m a n y (i.e. countries
with a higher e c o n o m i c level a n d higher a v e r a g e w a g e s than
in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c ) , the willingness to travel for w o r k w a s
substantially higher than in the c a s e of municipalities in a r e a s
bordering S l o v a k i a or P o l a n d . O n the other h a n d , this t e n d e n c y
w a s logically r e v e r s e d for c o m m u t e s from a g i v e n municipality
in the foreign country t o w a r d s the C z e c h R e p u b l i c , n a m e l y for
foreign w o r k e r s a n d residents of foreign countries.
T h e limit of o u r r e s e a r c h lies in two e s s e n t i a l i s s u e s
b a s e d o n the a c h i e v a b l e d a t a a n d its collection. First, the size
of o u r s a m p l e is significant but it still d o e s not c o v e r all the
municipalities in the C z e c h R e p u b l i c ; thus, the s a m p l e c o u l d be
b i a s e d b e c a u s e it r e p r e s e n t s m o r e active r e s p o n d e n t s . S e c o n d ,
the q u e s t i o n n a i r e is b a s e d o n m u n i c i p a l representatives from
local c o m m u n i t i e s . H o w e v e r , they h a v e their o w n p r e f e r e n c e s ,
w h i c h they intend to e x p r e s s w h e n they are a s k e d about mobility
behaviour. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e s e p r e f e r e n c e s do not c o r r e s p o n d
with all inhabitants in the c o m m u n i t y (even if they represent the
most significant part of the community, their institutional role). It is
hard to s o l v e t h e s e i s s u e s without a m u c h larger d a t a collection
p r o c e s s . H o w e v e r , it is i m a g i n a b l e that including m o r e detailed
q u e s t i o n s o n international mobility in the regular population
c e n s u s c o u l d help significantly i m p r o v e this a r e a of interest.
C o n c l u s i o n
In c o n c l u s i o n , the notion of a b o r d e r a s an imaginary
limit that influences p e o p l e ' s b e h a v i o u r r e m a i n s a n o n g o i n g
p h e n o m e n o n that plays a n important role in p e o p l e ' s d e c i s i o n m
a k i n g , e v e n after two d e c a d e s of intense interconnection
b e t w e e n different s e c t o r s of neighbouring e c o n o m i e s in the
E u r o p e a n U n i o n . T h i s fact relates to p e o p l e ' s transport b e h a v i o u r
a n d thus r e m a i n s an important factor in creating the b o r d e r effect
in transport, a s d i s c u s s e d in the literature. T h e r e s e a r c h results
s h o w that d i s t a n c e from a b o r d e r d o e s not n e c e s s a r i l y imply
being on the transport periphery of a given region. Indeed, this
h a n d i c a p c a n be u s e d a s an a d v a n t a g e in c o n n e c t i o n with key
c r o s s - b o r d e r transport corridors through local a n d micro-regional
solutions if the public transport s y s t e m is set up appropriately.
S u c h a solution motivates p e o p l e to u s e public transport
substantially m o r e often w h e n travelling a c r o s s a b o r d e r than it
d o e s in m o r e distant a n d larger municipalities, a s local p e o p l e
are c o n n e c t e d to a r e a s a c r o s s the b o r d e r by family a n d other
s o c i o - e c o n o m i c ties. O n the other h a n d , it w a s c o n f i r m e d that
lower-population c o m m u n i t i e s w e r e in a c h a l l e n g i n g position a n d
p e o p l e w e r e often forced to m a k e e x t e n s i v e u s e of c a r s . H e r e , of
c o u r s e , o n e p o s s i b l e solution is to include s e r v i c e s s u c h a s c a r
s h a r i n g o r c a r p o o l i n g in the portfolio of s e r v i c e s offered by the
public transport coordinator, w h i c h c o u l d substantially improve
c o n n e c t i o n s to important transport corridors p r e c i s e l y through
t h e s e s e r v i c e s .
T h e p a p e r c o n f i r m e d that d e s p i t e s p e c i f i c c o m m o n
characteristics of c o m m u n i t i e s in b o r d e r regions, the
characteristics of the b o r d e r s , a n d the country with w h i c h the
given i m a g i n a r y borderline is s h a r e d , are critically e s s e n t i a l .
T h u s , it c a n b e c o n c l u d e d that b o r d e r regions c a n n o t be treated
entirely uniformly; it is n e c e s s a r y to distinguish the characteristics
of the a r e a s lying a c r o s s the border. W h e n there are more
a d v a n c e d e c o n o m i e s located a c r o s s the border, the incentive
to travel for w o r k with the p r o s p e c t of e a r n i n g higher w a g e s
i n c r e a s e s substantially. C o n v e r s e l y , the proportion of t h o s e w h o
are motivated to c o m m u t e from a b r o a d to work domestically
logically d e c r e a s e s b e c a u s e the d o m e s t i c e c o n o m y d o e s not
offer sufficiently attractive j o b s . T h e s u r v e y c o n f i r m e d this fact,
e s p e c i a l l y c o n c e r n i n g the b o r d e r a r e a s s h a r e d with A u s t r i a a n d
G e r m a n y . A s a result, t h e s e b o r d e r regions s h o u l d b e e x a m i n e d
more thoroughly than t h o s e n e a r the b o r d e r s h a r e d with S l o v a k i a
or P o l a n d .
M o r e o v e r , a n exciting fact c a n b e s e e n in the higher levels
of i n b o u n d t o u r i s m with a motivation to visit family c o m p a r e d
with travelling a b r o a d to visit family, w h i c h e n c o u r a g e s residents
to o v e r e s t i m a t e travel to the country from a b r o a d specifically
to visit relatives or strengthen family relationships. T h i s fact
w a s c o n f i r m e d only in the c a s e of municipalities that b o r d e r e d
S l o v a k i a , w h i c h c a n be interpreted a s being d u e to the longs
h a r e d history a n d the d e facto a b s e n c e of a n imaginary border
b e t w e e n C z e c h s a n d S l o v a k s , w h o h a v e long b e e n substantially
intertwined in terms of study, w o r k a n d family.
Further r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s for future r e s e a r c h arise from
our results. R e g a r d i n g regular c o m m u t i n g for w o r k o r s c h o o l , it
is very c h a l l e n g i n g to p e r s u a d e p e o p l e to u s e s h a r e d transport
m e a n s , w h i c h c a n be c o o r d i n a t e d o r s u p p o r t e d by local or
micro-regional transport p o l i c y - m a k i n g instruments. C o n c e r n i n g
8
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
tourism, the crucial i s s u e is w h e t h e r the m o d e s or m e a n s of
transport c a n b e m a d e attractive e n o u g h for o n e - d a y visitors w h o
usually u s e their o w n car. In the c a s e of the nature of the border,
further r e s e a r c h c a n be performed to identify a n d c o m p a r e more
precisely the effect of G D P per c a p i t a , w a g e difference or price
levels a s a determinant for i n b o u n d a n d o u t b o u n d c o m m u t i n g for
s e r v i c e s .
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
T h i s contribution is the output of the internal grant of the
Faculty of E c o n o m i c s a n d Administration, M a s a r y k University,
titled " S v i t a v a industrial z o n e in B r n o a s a persistent barrier a n d
potential d e v e l o p m e n t a r e a - perception of S o c i a l a n d E c o n o m i c
C h a l l e n g e s " ( M U N I / A / 1 5 0 6 / 2 0 2 1 ) . T h i s article w a s a l s o s u p p o r t e d
by " N e w Mobility - H i g h - S p e e d Transport S y s t e m s a n d TransportR
e l a t e d H u m a n B e h a v i o u r " , R e g . N o . C Z . 0 2 . 1 . 0 1 / 0 . 0 / 0 . 0 / 1 6 _ 0 2 6
/ 0 0 0 8 4 3 0 , c o - f i n a n c e d by the O p e r a t i o n a l P r o g r a m m e R e s e a r c h ,
D e v e l o p m e n t a n d E d u c a t i o n a n d by "Strengthening municipal
cooperation to tackle the 'Invisible border' ( M O S I N V I ) " , R e g . N o .
N F P 3 0 3 0 4 0 3 0 R 5 6 6 , c o - f i n a n c e d by the I N T E R R E G V - A S R - C R
p r o g r a m m e ( 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 2 0 ) .
ORCID
M i c h a e l a N e u m a n n o v á https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6134-6481
Vilém Pařil h t t p s : / / o r c i d . o r g / 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - 9 6 2 3 - 1 9 3 5
Filip H r ů z a h t t p s : / / o r c i d . o r g / 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 - 9 9 2 4 - 6 1 2 0
Martin F a r b i a k https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1938-3211
Martina J a k u b č i n o v á https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0590-4581
References
B a l a g u e r , J & Ripollés, J 2 0 1 8 , 'Revisiting the i m p o r t a n c e of
border effect in s u b - n a t i o n a l r e g i o n s . E v i d e n c e from a q u a s i e
x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n ' , Papers in Regional Science, v o l . 9 7 ,
no. 4, pp. 1 1 1 3 - 1 1 3 1 .
B u c h , T, S c h m i d t , T D & Niebuhr, A 2 0 0 9 , ' C r o s s - b o r d e r c o m m u t i n g
in the D a n i s h - G e r m a n border region - integration, institutions
a n d c r o s s - b o r d e r interaction', Journal of Borderlands
Studies, vol. 2 4 , no. 2, pp. 3 8 - 5 4 .
C a m a g n i , R, C a p e l l o , R, C a r a g l i u , A & T o p p e t a , A 2 0 1 7 ,
Quantification of the effects of L e g a l a n d administrative
border o b s t a c l e s in land border regions', Final report,
European Commission: B r u s s e l s . A v a i l a b l e from: <https://
e c . e u r o p a . e u / f u t u r i u m / e n / e v i d e n c e - a n d - d a t a / q u a n t i f i c a t i o n e
f f e c t s - l e g a l - a n d - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - b o r d e r - o b s t a c l e s - l a n d border.html>.
[8 M a r c h 2022].
C a v a l l a r o , F & D i a n i n , A 2 0 1 9 , ' C r o s s - b o r d e r c o m m u t i n g in
C e n t r a l E u r o p e : features, trends a n d policies', Transport
Policy, v o l . 7 8 , pp. 8 6 - 1 0 4 .
Drápela, E & Bašta, J 2 0 1 8 , 'Quantification of the strength
of the b o r d e r effect at the borders of the L i b e r e c region',
Geographical Information, vol. 2 2 , no. 1, pp. 5 1 - 6 0 .
E S P O N 2 0 1 8 , Cross-border Public Services (CPS). Targeted
Analysis. A v a i l a b l e from: <https://www.espon.eu/cps>. [4
J u n e 2 0 2 3 ] .
Hataley, T & L e u p r e c h t , C 2 0 1 8 , ' D e t e r m i n a n t s of c r o s s - b o r d e r
c o o p e r a t i o n ' , Journal of Borderlands Studies, vol. 3 3 , no. 3,
pp. 3 1 7 - 3 2 8 .
H a v r á n e k , T & Irsova, Z 2 0 1 6 , ' D o b o r d e r s really s l a s h t r a d e ? A
m e t a - a n a l y s i s ' , IMF Economic Review, vol. 6 5 , p p . 3 6 5 - 3 9 6 .
H a z l e d i n e , T 2 0 0 9 , ' B o r d e r effects for d o m e s t i c a n d international
C a n a d i a n p a s s e n g e r air travel', Journal of Air Transport
Management, vol. 15, pp. 7 - 1 3 .
Institute for S p a t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t 2 0 2 3 , ESPON 2030. A v a i l a b l e
from: < h t t p s : / / w w w . u u r . c z / m e z i n a r o d n i - s p o l u p r a c e / e s p o n / > .
[4 J u n e 2 0 2 3 ] .
Klodt, H 2 0 0 4 , ' B o r d e r effects in p a s s e n g e r air traffic', Kyklos, vol.
57, n o . 4, pp. 5 1 9 - 5 3 2 .
M c C a l l u m , J 1 9 9 5 , 'National borders matter: C a n a d a - U . S .
regional trade patterns', The American Economic Review,
vol. 8 5 , no. 3, pp. 6 1 5 - 6 2 3 .
M i l e n k o v i c , M 2 0 1 2 , ' E c o r e g i o n a l i s m - F a c t o r c r o s s - b o r d e r
cooperation a n d tourism d e v e l o p m e n t ' , Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, v o l . 4 4 , pp. 2 3 6 - 2 4 0 .
M e d e i r o s , E 2 0 1 9 , ' C r o s s - b o r d e r transports a n d c r o s s - b o r d e r
mobility in E U border regions', Case Studies on Transport
Policy, v o l . 7, pp. 1 - 1 2 .
M e d e i r o s , E et al. 2 0 2 1 , ' B o o s t i n g c r o s s - b o r d e r regions through
better c r o s s - b o r d e r transport s e r v i c e s . T h e E u r o p e a n c a s e ' ,
Case Studies on Transport Policy, v o l . 9, pp. 2 9 1 - 3 0 1 .
M e d e i r o s , E , G u i l l e r m o - R a m i r e z , M , D e l l a g i a c o m a , C , B r u s t i a , G
& M u l l a n , C 2 0 2 2 , ' R e d u c i n g border barriers for c r o s s - b o r d e r
c o m m u t e r s in E u r o p e via the E U b-solutions initiative',
European Planning Studies, v o l . 3 1 , no. 4, p p . 8 2 2 - 8 4 1 .
Reitel, B, W a s s e n b e r g , B & P e y r o n y , J 2 0 1 8 , ' T h e I N T E R R E G
E x p e r i e n c e in bridging E u r o p e a n territories. A 3 0 - y e a r
s u m m a r y ' in: European Territorial Cooperation. The Urban
Book Series, e d . E M e d e i r o s , Springer, C h a m : pp. 7 - 2 4 .
Rietveld, P 2 0 1 2 , 'Barrier effects of b o r d e r s : implications for
b o r d e r - c r o s s i n g infrastructures', European Journal of
Transport and Infrastructure Research, vol. 12, no. 2 , pp.
1 5 0 - 1 6 6 .
S t u d z i e n i e c k i , T 2 0 1 6 , ' T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of c r o s s - b o r d e r
cooperation in a n E U m a c r o r e g i o n - a c a s e study of the
Baltic S e a R e g i o n ' , Procedia Economics and Finance, vol.
3 9 , pp. 2 3 5 - 2 4 1 .
Turrini, A & v a n Y p e r s e l e , T 2 0 1 0 , ' T r a d e r s , courts, a n d the border
effect p u z z l e ' , Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol.
4 0 , pp. 8 1 - 9 1 .
Zijlstra, T 2 0 2 0 , A border effect in airport c h o i c e : E v i d e n c e from
W e s t e r n E u r o p e ' , Journal of Air Transport Management, vol.
88, pp. 1 - 9 .
9
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
A n n e x : Survey
A . M u n i c i p a l c o o p e r a t i o n in g e n e r a l
1. Is your municipality involved or has it been involved in any form of municipal cooperation in the past?
(Note: Municipal cooperation includes voluntary associations of municipalities, local action groups, joint companies, various contractual
relationships and entirely informal cooperation between two or more municipalities).
a. N o : If no, w h y h a v e y o u not b e e n c o o p e r a t i n g ? O r do y o u s e e a n y d i s a d v a n t a g e s / b a r r i e r s to m u n i c i p a l c o o p e r a t i o n in y o u r
c a s e / r e g i o n ?
b. Y e s :
• D S O , L A G , inter-municipal c o o p e r a t i o n , etc.
• If y e s , in w h a t form d o e s y o u r municipality i m p l e m e n t inter-municipal c o o p e r a t i o n o r h a s it d o n e s o in the p a s t ?
i. It i s / w a s a m e m b e r of a voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n of municipalities ( D S O )
ii. It i s / w a s a m e m b e r of a local action g r o u p ( L A G )
iii. It h a s c o n c l u d e d contracts with other municipalities
iv. It i s / w a s a s h a r e h o l d e r in a c o m m e r c i a l c o m p a n y with a n o t h e r municipality
v. Other:
2. In which thematic areas is/was inter-municipal cooperation taking place?
a. W a s t e m a n a g e m e n t
b. T e c h n i c a l infrastructure (e.g. water, s e w e r a g e , local roads)
c. S o c i a l s e r v i c e s
d. E d u c a t i o n
e. Culture/sport
f. Administrative activities (e.g. c o n s u l t a n c y , spatial a n d strategic p l a n n i n g , public p r o c u r e m e n t , grant m a n a g e m e n t )
g. P u b l i c transport
h. C y c l e paths
i. Mobility of s e n i o r s in municipalities
j. Other:
3. If this activity or any of your other activities are no longer being carried out in the framework of municipal cooperation,
what led you or your predecessors to put an end to it?
4. Do you have or have you ever received a good practice tip within your municipal cooperation (informal, formal: contract,
DSO, LAG)?
If y e s , w h a t exactly is it?
If interested, c o u l d y o u provide u s with a contact to m a p a n d d e s c r i b e the practice in the f r a m e w o r k of o u r review/project?
B. C o o p e r a t i o n of municipalities b e t w e e n countries ( c r o s s - b o r d e r c o o p e r a t i o n of municipalities)
5. Does your municipality cooperate, or has it cooperated, with a municipality in another (transboundary/border) country
(SK, AT, PL)?
a. N o
b. Y e s
• If y e s , in w h i c h t h e m a t i c a r e a o r activities h a v e y o u i m p l e m e n t e d this c o o p e r a t i o n ?
• If y e s , in w h a t form d o y o u i m p l e m e n t this c o o p e r a t i o n / c o l l a b o r a t i o n ?
i. Informally
ii. B a s e d on a contract
iii. Other:
6. If you are not a municipality near the border (i.e. cross-border cooperation is not relevant for you), why are you not
cooperating? Do you see any disadvantages/barriers to cooperation?
7. Do you see any scope or opportunities for cooperation with local municipalities/municipalities in a foreign (cross-border/
borderline) country?
8. If you cooperate or have cooperated with a municipality in a foreign country, what funding do you use or have you used
to do so?
9. Have you participated in the preparation of a joint project - for example, in the form of small projects?
10. Do you support or have you in the past supported the cross-border cooperation of other entities within your municipality
(NGOs, entrepreneurs, schools, associations)?
a. If s o , h o w ?
b. In y o u r o p i n i o n , h a s this h a d c o n c r e t e results/impacts a n d , if s o , w h a t ?
10
M I S C E L L A N E A G E O G R A P H I C A - R E G I O N A L S T U D I E S O N D E V E L O P M E N T
Vol. 27 • No. 2 • 2023 • ISSN: 2084-6118 • DOI: 10.2478/mgrsd-2023-0007
11. Do you have a good practice tip within your cross-border municipal cooperation (informal, formal)?
a. If y e s , w h a t exactly is it?
b. If interested, c o u l d y o u provide u s with a contact to d e s c r i b e the practice in the context of o u r r e v i e w ?
12. In what way is the public transport service in your municipality provided to the municipalities of the neighbouring state ?
(Means: train, bus; method: integrated transport systems, etc.)
a. D o y o u u s e public transport a c r o s s a b o r d e r ?
i. B u s
ii. Train
iii. Other:
b. A r e t h e s e c r o s s - b o r d e r c o n n e c t i o n s p r o v i d e d by:
iv. R e g i o n a l ITS
v. Municipality
vi. M i c r o - r e g i o n
vii. O t h e r (e.g. a c o m b i n a t i o n , s u c h a s partly I T S ) :
c. Is there a d e m a n d for c r o s s - b o r d e r travel in y o u r municipality? W h a t is it motivated b y ?
viii. C o m m u t i n g for work
ix. C o m m u t i n g for s c h o o l
x. C o m m u t i n g for s e r v i c e s
xi. Visitors - d a y trips
xii. T o u r i s m - multi-day s t a y s for s e r v i c e s , family ties, t o u r i s m
d . D o y o u k n o w h o w m a n y p e o p l e regularly visit y o u r municipality?
xiii. Daily:
xiv. W e e k l y :
xv. Monthly:
e. D o p e o p l e c o m e to y o u r municipality from municipalities a c r o s s the b o r d e r in a neighbouring c o u n t r y ? A n d are they motivated
by:
xvi. G o i n g to w o r k
xvii. G o i n g to s c h o o l
xviii. G o i n g for s e r v i c e s
xix. Visitors - d a y trips
xx. T o u r i s m - multi-day s t a y s
f. D o e s y o u r municipality o r g a n i s e a s h a r e d form of transport (carpooling, etc.) with the s u r r o u n d i n g municipalities?
g . D o e s the micro-region o r g a n i s e this?
13. If one of your activities is no longer taking place in the framework of cross-border cooperation between municipalities
(if it has been terminated), what led you or your predecessors to terminate the activity?
11