The feasibility of implementing cross-border land-use management strategies: a report from three Upper Silesian Euroregions

doi:10.3832/ifor1248-007

The feasibility of implementing cross-border land-use management strategies: a report from three Upper Silesian Euroregions

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages 396-402 (2014)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1248-007
Published: May 19, 2014 - Copyright © 2014 SISEF

Technical Notes

Collection/Special Issue: RegioResources21
Spatial information and participation of socio-ecological systems: experiences, tools and lessons learned for land-use planning
Guest Editors: Daniele La Rosa, Carsten Lorz, Hannes Jochen König, Christine Fürst

PDF Version

Full Text

Citation

This paper presents selected comments concerning land-use management strategies for three Czech-Polish Euroregions: Pradziad, Silesia and Cieszyn Silesia. These Euroregions comprise part of the Upper Silesia cross-border region. The main body of this study was conducted by formulating a set of questions concerning land-use strategies in the cross-border Czech-Polish Euroregions and interviewing management representatives of each Euroregion. The first section of this study concerned the need for such strategies, threats to their implementation and their content. The second section described possible methods for implementing Euroregion land-use strategies after their preparation. It is argued that Euroregion land-use management strategies should reflect such aspects as the further development of the Euroregion as a cross-border institution and should include selected issues regarding economic development and the natural environment. There are selected threats to implementing land-use strategies, such as a lack of enthusiasm among Euroregion members, the limitations of the 2014-2020 European Union budget and difficulties in achieving a single Czech-Polish development vision. Moreover, the importance of adequate Czech-Polish borderland planning tools and the role of citizens in Euroregion development are emphasised. The utility of a Euroregion scale for regional and national land-use management is discussed, using the example of the Upper Silesia cross-border region. The connection of the study results with regional land-use norms is explored, incorporating current strategic documents concerning the Czech-Polish borderland and existing legislation from both sides of the border. Some conclusions concerning appropriate cross-border landscapes land-use planning tools are outlined.

Keywords

Czech-Polish Borderland, Upper Silesia, Euroregion, Cross-border Land-use Management Strategy

Authors’ address

(1)

Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Ul. Katowicka 48, 45-061 Opole (Poland)

Corresponding author

Marcin Spyra
spyra@onet.pl

Citation

Spyra M (2014). The feasibility of implementing cross-border land-use management strategies: a report from three Upper Silesian Euroregions. iForest 7: 396-402. - doi: 10.3832/ifor1248-007

Academic Editor

Raffaele Lafortezza

Paper history

Received: Jan 20, 2014
Accepted: Mar 05, 2014

First online: May 19, 2014
Publication Date: Dec 01, 2014
Publication Time: 2.50 months

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 49859
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 43552
Abstract Page Views: 2150
PDF Downloads: 3019
Citation/Reference Downloads: 18
XML Downloads: 1120

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 3839
Overall contacts: 49859
Avg. contacts per week: 90.91

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Feb 2023)

Total number of cites (since 2014): 4
Average cites per year: 0.40

(no Plumx Metrics available for this paper)

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ^©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

(1)

AEBR (2000)
Practical guide to cross-border cooperation (3rd edn). Association of European Border Regions - AEBR, European Commission, Gronau, Germany, pp. 405.
Online | Gscholar

(2)

Beunen R, Opdam P (2011)
When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning 100: 324-326.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(3)

Cantiani M (2012)
Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. iForest 5: 72-82.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(4)

Cumming G, Norwood C (2012)
The community voice method: using participatory research and filmmaking to foster dialog about changing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 105: 434-444.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(5)

Council of Europe (2000)
European landscape convention. Council of Europe Treaty Series no. 176, Florence, Italy, pp. 4.
Online | Gscholar

(6)

Jedraszko A (2005)
Zagospodarowanie przestrzenne w Polsce - drogi i bezdroza regulacji ustawowych [Spatial planning in Poland - roads and off-roads of statutory regulations]. Unia Metropolii Polskich, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 245-307.
Gscholar

(7)

Kordecki M, Smolorz D (2011)
Górny slask = Oberschlesien. Dom Wspólpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej, Gliwice, Poland.
Gscholar

(8)

Kotkowska A (2012)
Polsko-Czeskie pogranicze. Bariery we wspólpracy i sposoby ich przelamywania. Wspólne planowanie przestrzenne i strategiczne [Polish - Czech borderland. Barriers to cooperation and ways of overcoming them. Bilateral land-use planning]. In: Proceedings of the conference “Infrastruktura transportowa oraz planowanie strategiczne i przestrzenne w relacjach Polsko-Czeskich [Transport infrastructure and strategic and spatial planning in Polish-Czech relations]”. Wroclaw (Poland) 5 Oct 2012, pp. 5. [in Polish]
Online | Gscholar

(9)

Lepik KL (2009)
Euroregions as mechanisms for strengthening cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region. Trames 13: 265-284.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(10)

MacKay B, McKiernan P (2010)
Creativity and dysfunction in strategic processes: the case of scenario planning. Futures 42: 271-281.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(11)

Ministerstwo Budownictwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (2006)
Studium zagospodarowania przestrzennego pogranicza polsko-czeskiego [Land-use study of Polish-Czech borderland]. Ministerstwo Budownictwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Departament Ladu Przestrzennego i Architektury, Wroclaw, Poland and Ministerstvo pro Místní Rozvoj Ceské Republiky, Odbor Územních Vazeb, Prague, Czech Republic. [in Polish]
Gscholar

(12)

Nelson R (2010)
Extending foresight: the case for and nature of Foresight 2.0. Futures 42: 282-294.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(13)

Paasi A (2010)
Regions are social constructs, but who or what “constructs” them? Agency in question. Environment and Planning A 42: 2296-2301.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(14)

Perkmann M (2003)
Cross-border regions in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 10: 153-171.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(15)

Perkmann M, Spicer A (2007)
“Healing the scars of history”: projects, skills and field strategies in institutional entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 28: 1101-1122.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(16)

Ratcliffe J, Krawczyk E (2011)
Imagineering city futures: the use of prospective through scenarios in urban planning. Futures 43: 642-653.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(17)

Sevenant M, Antrop M (2010)
Transdisciplinary landscape planning: does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Land Use Policy 27: 373-386.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(18)

Spyra M (2013)
Economic Development Opportunities for the Pradziad Euroregion Borderland. In: “Cross-border landscape of Euroregion Pradziad” (Spyra M eds). Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Opolskiej, Opole, Poland, pp. 84-91.
Gscholar

(19)

Steiner F (2008)
The living landscape. an ecological approach to landscape planning. Island Press, Washington, USA, pp. 8.
Gscholar

(20)

Stenseke M (2009)
Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26: 214-223.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(21)

Stevenson T (2006)
From vision into action. Futures 38: 667-672.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(22)

Thackara J (2006)
In the bubble: designing in the complex world. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, pp. 43.
Gscholar

(23)

Whittington R (1996)
Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning 29: 731-735.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(24)

van Hulst M (2012)
Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning. Planning Theory 11: 299-318.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(25)

Varum CA, Melo C (2010)
Directions in scenario planning literature - a review of the past decades. Futures 42: 355-369.
CrossRef | Gscholar

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry

Contents

Search

Journal Info

Journal Subjects and Fields

For Authors

For Reviewers

For Readers

SISEF Publishing

Search iForest Contents