Content uploaded by Petr Marek
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Petr Marek on Sep 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
154
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
154
The Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geonics
journal homepage: http://www.geonika.cz/mgr.html
doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2020-0012
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
MORAVIAN
GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
Illustrations related to the paper by R. Blaheta et al. (photo: T. Krejčí, E. Nováková (2×), Z. Říha)
Fig.5.ProfessorEvaZažímalová, president of the Czech
AcademyofSciences,presentsProfessorBrynGreer-Wootten
withthehonorarymedal
Fig.6.ProfessorBrynGreer-Woottenhashisspeechduring
theawardceremony
Fig.4.TheLöw-BeerVillainBrno,a placeoftheaward
ceremony
Fig.3.MembersoftheInternationalAdvisoryBoardofthe
MGRjournalinfrontoftheInstituteofGeonics
Transformation of the identity of a region:
Theory and the empirical case of the perceptual regions
of Bohemia and Moravia, Czech Republic
Petr MAREK a *
Abstract
By using the concept of perceptual region – an essential part of the identity of a region and a part of every
person’s mental map – this paper demonstrates a way to examine the understudied transformation of (the
identity of) a region and, specifically, its territorial shape (boundaries). This concept effectively fuses the
“institutionalisation of regions” theory and the methodologies of behavioural geography. This case study
of the perceptual regions of Bohemia and Moravia shows how and why these historical regions and their
boundary/boundaries developed, after a significant deinstitutionalisation by splitting into smaller regions
in an administrative reform. Many people now perceive the Bohemian-Moravian boundary according to the
newly-emerged regional boundaries, which often ignore old (historical) boundaries. Thus, the territorial shape
of Bohemia and Moravia is transformed, with the Vysočina Region emerging as one of the new regions to
witness the most eroded consciousness concerning these historical regions and their boundaries. The impact
of administrative reforms on the perception and thus also the transformation of regions and boundaries is
obvious, but the results also suggest that the more radical the administrative changes (in terms of toponyms and
boundary mismatches), the fuzzier the collective perceptions of historical boundaries become, as well as peoples’
consciousness of historical regions.
Keywords: perceptual region; transformation of the identity of a region; administrative reform; mental maps;
Bohemian-Moravian boundary; Czech Republic
Article history: Received 29 April 2020, Accepted 20 July 2020, Published 30 September 2020
a Masaryk University, Faculty of Science, Department of Geography, Brno, Czech Republic (*corresponding author:
P. Marek, e-mail: petrmarek@mail.muni.cz)
1. Introduction
The Czech Lands have been important territorial units
since the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, with an administrative
reform in 1948, they were abolished de jure and split into
smaller regions. In comparison to some other then-socialist
countries where similar reforms took place, the historical
regions in the Czech Republic were not restored after the
fall of the totalitarian regime. Yet, Bohemia, Moravia, and
(Czech) Silesia have remained part of the everydayness of
the country until today. Their delimitation is problematic,
nonetheless. People perceive historical land boundaries
very differently – a transformation of their territorial
shape has occurred. Some authors (Marek, 2015; Siwek
and Kaňok, 2000a, 2000b; Vaishar and Zapletalová, 2016)
attribute these effects to the administrative reforms
after 1948. But is the extent of the transformation the same
along the length of the historical land boundaries? Or does it
somehow differ? And if so, how and why?
Although the need for theorising regions has already
become a “mantra” (Van Langenhove, 2013, p. 476) within
new regional geography, Paasi (2011b, p. 11) notes that
“[r] elatively little attention has been paid to such major
questions as what is a region [and] how it ‘becomes’”. It is
necessary to examine regions as social constructs (Paasi, 2010)
and dynamic processes (Paasi and Metzger, 2017), because
it can develop not only knowledge of the concept of region
but also the concepts of regional identity of people and
regionalism (Marek, 2020a). “Understanding the region then
is a means to understanding society itself” (Tomaney, 2009,
p. 140), and uncovering the nature of regions as social
constructs and dynamic processes can be seen as a “major
goal of geography” (Johnston and Sidaway, 2016, p. 216).
This article draws on the institutionalisation of regions
theory of Anssi Paasi (1986a) and deals mainly with one of
Paasi’s dimensions of regional identity – subjective images
of a region. These can be identified with perceptual regions,
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
155
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
155
implying the existence of a region (Marek, 2020b), which
allows us to also use them in researching the region’s
subsequent development – for example, its transformation
(Marek, 2020a). In this paper, the perceptual regions of
Bohemia and Moravia lingering in the minds of Bohemian-
Moravian borderland inhabitants, are used to study the
transformation of (the identity of) a region.
The main aim is to contribute to the discussion of the region
as a social construct and a dynamic process, and it encompasses
two secondary goals: (1) to demonstrate the usability of
perceptual regions in researching the transformation of (the
identity of) a region and, specifically, its territorial shape
(boundaries); and (2) to explore the nature of the perception
and transformation of historical regions/boundaries in areas
with a diverse history of administrative regions/boundaries.
The above questions will be examined using the example of
the Bohemian-Moravian boundary.
Zimmerbauer et al. (2017) stressed the necessity for research
into an insufficiently-studied region’s deinstitutionalisation
and one of its forms based on administrative reforms –
regional amalgamation (Zimmerbauer and Paasi, 2013).
This article, by focusing on an “Eastern-Bloc case”, suggests
studying a second deinstitutionalisation form – regional
splitting – which can contribute to the development of
scientific knowledge as well.
2. Theoretical and methodological background
2.1 Region as a social construct
As Cresswell (2013, p. 71) puts it: “Central to new regional
geographies was the belief that regions are social constructs.”
Among geographers, this belief is increasingly apparent
(Paasi, 2002a, 2010, 2011b; Paasi and Metzger, 2017) and
some authors state that regions “are not ‘out there’ waiting
to be discovered; they are our (and others’) constructions”
(e.g. Allen et al., 1998, p. 2).
The majority of works on the new regional geography,
however, lack the theme of the existence of region as a social
construct. Based on the theory of the social construction
of reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1971), it can be argued
that if we know about some social fact – that is, we have
knowledge or consciousness about it – this fact is real,
existing (Marek, 2020b). As the region is also a social fact
(Paasi, 2002a, 2002b, 2009a), we can say that “regions
exist (as social constructions) only if they are in people’s
consciousness” (Zimmerbauer, 2011, p. 256). Hence, their
existence depends on people and their communications about
regions: regions “are talked and written into existence”
(Neumann, 1994, p. 59; Van Langenhove, 2013). A region
emerges or rather arises – it starts to exist – when it comes
into a human’s knowledge/consciousness, typically through
the process of perception (Marek, 2020b).
There is a close two-way relationship between knowledge
and perception. On the one hand, because of perception
through our senses, our knowledge is being built
(Lynch, 1960; Rose, 2001; Siwek, 2011; Tuan, 1975b), or as
Tuan (1979, p. 410) put it: “To sense is to know.” On the
other hand, such knowledge influences our perception as
“perceptions are based on our accumulated knowledge”,
and therefore, “[w]hat we know shapes our perceptions”
(Fouberg et al., 2012, p. 26 and p. 13).
When thinking about regions as social constructions,
emphasis needs to be given to the fact that regions are not
arbitrarily created mental abstractions without a connection
to the “real world” (de Blij et al., 2010; Fouberg and
Moseley, 2015; Kasala and Šifta, 2017; Paasi, 1986a, 1986b,
1991, 2009b, 2010; Roth, 2007). According to critical realist
philosophy, regions as constructs are always based on
“materials – not only physical materials in this case, like
concrete, but ideational materials like people’s beliefs and
habits” (Sayer, 2006, p. 99). Thus, the significant role of
communication between people and the perception associated
with such interchanges, is evident.
2.2 Region as a dynamic process
Seeing regions as spatial structures (Giddens, 1984) and
as historically contingent dynamic processes (Pred, 1984),
were other important developments in establishing the
new regional geography (Gilbert, 1988). Particularly due to
Pred’s incorporation of time, the region is no longer seen
as static but as “constantly becoming” (Pred, 1984, p. 279).
Paasi (1986a, 1986b, 1991, 2001, 2002a, 2009b, 2011b)
developed these ideas in his institutionalisation of regions
theory, where he outlined four stages in the process of
regional formation: the emergence of (I) territorial shape
(boundaries), (II) symbols, (III) institutions, and (IV) regional
identity. The fourth stage permeates all three previous
stages (Paasi, 1986a, 1986b, 1991); thus, regional identity
emerges because of boundaries, symbols, and institutions.
These are also three key features of every region, consisting
of various characteristics of the region, its inhabitants, and
so on (Marek, 2020b).
Although Paasi’s theory focuses mainly on the emergence
of regions, the subsequent development of a region (or an
identity of region: see below) is also designed: “region […],
once established, is continually reproduced and gradually
transformed in individual and institutional practices”
(Paasi, 1986a, p. 110), “that is in the spheres of economics,
politics, legislation, administration, culture, etc.”
(Paasi, 1991, p. 244). Paasi (1986a, 1991, 2001, 2010) also
mentions that a region may disappear or deinstitutionalise.
Raagmaa (2002, pp. 58–60) outlines two main variations in
a region’s subsequent development: (I) continuous renewal
and (II) disappearance.
The former contains, among other
elements, a process of re-institutionalisation, which can be
seen, however, as part of an ongoing institutionalisation
process during which new institutions of the region concerned
emerge (Marek, 2020a). To Raagmaa (2002), the region can
disappear due to (1) a radical transformation of population
or (2) an administrative reform. Paasi (2009b, 2011b),
Zimmerbauer et al. (2012) and Zimmerbauer and Paasi
(2013) distinguish two forms of deinstitutionalisation based
on administrative reforms:
a. amalgamation of several regions, and
b. splitting of a region.
With respect to the concrete processes extant during
a region’s existence, based on the previously-quoted
researchers and several others (e.g. Chromý, 2003; Chromý
et al., 2014; Kasala and Šifta, 2017; Semian, 2015, 2016; Šerý
and Šimáček, 2013; Tomaney, 2009), it can be concluded
that a region (I) emerges/arises, and is subsequently (II)
reproduced, (III) transformed, and (IV) may disappear.
The institutionalisation of a region concerns primarily
its emergence, reproduction, and transformation, while
the deinstitutionalisation of a region involves especially
its reproduction, transformation, and disappearance.
Therefore, region’s reproduction and transformation may
be studied from the perspective of both an institutionalising
and deinstitutionalising region (Marek, 2020a).
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
156
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
156
1 Often is unclear whether it is, for example, the identity of the region, the regional consciousness of people, or both, which are
being discussed.
2 Indeed, it seems that the identity of region represents the region itself (Marek, 2020).
2.3 Conceptualising perceptual region
In his influential theoretical framework, Paasi (1986a,
1986b, 2002a, 2003, 2009b, 2011b, 2013) explicitly links
old concepts of region and the boundary/border with
a new concept of regional identity, while distinguishing
several dimensions of this identity: (I) identity of a region
and (II) regional identity (or regional consciousness) of
people – referring to (1) identification with a region or (2)
identification with a regional community. The identity of
a region can be divided, according to Paasi (1986a), into
(1) “objective” classifications and (2) subjective images of
a region. This author’s subsequent works (Paasi, 2001,
2002a, 2003, 2009b, 2011b), however, lack this distinction
by omitting the subjective dimension. Hence, in these texts
“the identity of a region refers to those features of nature,
culture and inhabitants that distinguish […] a region from
others” and that are used in various regional classifications
(Paasi, 2002a, p. 140; 2003). When treating regions as social
constructs, which exist as both (collective) objective reality
and (personal/individual) subjective reality (Berger and
Luckmann, 1971), this neglect is problematic. Moreover,
Paasi (2002a, p. 139) himself perceives it a problem, in that
“the link between the personal and collective dimensions of
identity remains unclear” – and something similar can be
said about region as well.
In addition, in Paasi’s later works, there is an inconsistency
regarding other previously-defined dimensions of regional
identity and even their designations1. All of these aspects
make it difficult to develop knowledge of the key concepts,
such as region and regional identity (Marek, 2020b). Thus,
it is hardly surprising that, even after many years of dealing
with this topic, Paasi says: “While regional identity has
been for a long time an important category in geographical
research, its meanings are still vague” (Paasi, 2002a, p. 138).
It “has remained thinly theorised – a sort of enigma”
(Paasi, 2011b, p. 12).
In his critical discussion of Paasi’s conceptualisation of
regional identity, Marek (2020b) focuses on the identity of
a region, which – unlike the regional consciousness of people –
is much less considered by various authors, including Paasi.
After all, it is the identity of a region which can be seen as a
primary dimension of regional identity, whilst “the regional
consciousness of people is a mere ‘superstructure’ of region,
for people must first know about region in order to identify
with it” (Marek, 2020b, p. 67). Marek (2020b) also points out
that the terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘regional consciousness’
must not be confused. The former means knowledge referring
to the identity of region and implies the existence of region
as a social fact (see above). The latter points to the regional
identity of people associated with an identification or the sense
of relationship (feeling) with a region or regional community.
Even Paasi (2009b, p. 139) suggests that identification should
refer to a feeling rather than to knowledge.
The identity of a region is thus a prerequisite for the
emergence of the regional identity of people. As well, this
is apparent from Keating’s three elements for an analysis
of the relationship between regional identity and political
action: the first element is ‘cognitive’ (“people must be aware
of […] a region”); the second is ‘affective’ (“how people feel
about the region”); and the third is ‘instrumental’ (“whether
the region is used as a basis for mobilisation and collective
action”) (Keating, 1998, p. 86). Similarly, according to
Zimmerbauer (2011, p. 245):
“A sense of identification with a region is fundamentally
based on consciousness of the existence of that regional
entity […], and it becomes evident in inhabitants’
awareness, feelings and actions and can eventually even
lead to regional activism.”
Regional activism may be comprehended as regionalism,
as for example in Soja (2009, p. 260), who defines regionalism
as “the active promotion of regional perspectives” or “an
actively practiced belief that regions are useful concepts for
achieving a wide range of objectives”. In this respect, regional
activists (regionalists) are, among others, politicians as well
as voters in regionalist parties. Hence, we have the following
argument: (I) the identity of a region based on knowledge/
consciousness closely related to perception precedes (II) the
regional consciousness of people, and the regional identity of
people is a condition for (III) regional activism or regionalism
(Marek, 2020b). In short, ‘to know about the region’ may be
followed by ‘to feel with the region’ and this can manifest
itself in ‘to do something regarding the region’. It should,
however, be mentioned that besides ‘activists’ there is also
another type of regional actor – these are the ‘advocates’
(Paasi, 2010; Paasi and Zimmerbauer, 2011). Advocates, such
as planners, are often crucial in disseminating the identities
of regions and in fostering the regional consciousness of
people (thus they definitely “do something regarding the
region”) but regional identity for them, personally, may in
fact be unimportant (Paasi, 2013). Likely, then, they may
have different motives for their agency.
As for the neglected subjective images of region, one of
the few things Paasi (1986a, p. 123) mentions about them
is that “[b]ehavioral geographers have been studying the
images of regions for a long time”. He also states that
“behavioural geographers began to study perceptual regions”
(Paasi, 2011a, p. 169). This, among other things, suggests
the possibility to identify subjective images of a region with
perceptual regions (Marek, 2020b). According to Šerý and
Šimáček (2012, p. 39), for instance, the “subjective images
are the results of processes of perception”, and Siwek (2011,
p. 70) describes perception as a “process during which the
image of reality arises in human consciousness”.
In accordance with several authors (Dokoupil, 2004;
Fellmann et al., 2003; Fouberg and Moseley, 2015;
Hobbs, 2016; Klapka and Tonev, 2008; Kuby et al., 2013;
Lynch, 1960; Paasi, 1986a; Relph, 1976; Roth, 2007; Siwek,
2011; Šerý and Šimáček, 2012, 2013; Tuan, 1991), it is
fruitful to distinguish three dimensions of the identity of
a region, that is, three regional types2:
1. ‘objective types’: (a) ‘a homogeneous/formal region’
delimited by consensus in agreeing to a particular
criterion or criteria, and (b) ‘a functional region’
delimited on the basis of relations typically between
a core and its surroundings; and
2. the ‘subjective’ image of region, in other words,
‘a perceptual region’ whose delimitation is based on the
subjective perception of an individual person (Marek,
2020a, 2020b).
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
157
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
157
But, of course, not only delimitation/boundaries set the
identity of a region apart, but also regions consist of symbols
and institutions.
It needs to be stressed that the perceptual region is
the most important dimension/type. “We now recognise
that all humans relate not to some real physical or
social environment but rather to their perception of that
environment” (Norton, 2004, p. 63). As mentioned above,
knowledge/consciousness about a region typically based on
perception is a condition for the existence of region as a social
fact/construct. Region does not exist without persistence in
a person’s mind (people’s minds) in the form of perceptual
region(s). That means every region is at least a perceptual
region lingering in at least one person’s knowledge or
consciousness. The same cannot be said for formal nor for
functional regions, because not every region can also be seen
as formal (e.g. urban areas are typically not homogenous in
any respect) or as functional (e.g. geomorphological regions
mostly lack relations between their parts) (Marek, 2020b).
Furthermore, as perceptual regions reflect “images rather
than objective data”, they “may be more meaningful in
individuals’ daily lives than the more objective regions of
geographers” (Getis et al., 2014, p. 14). It is the subjective
dimension of (the identity of) region which is the basis for
the regional consciousness of people (Marek, 2020b; Paasi,
1986a), and for regional activism / regionalism as well. For
example, as Siwek (2011, p. 49 and p. 88) puts it:
“Subjective perception is an important factor which
determines how a certain person behaves in a particular
situation in space. […] Each person decides according to
his/her subjective knowledge and the images he/she holds
in his/her head – that is, on the basis of his/her mental map
and not on the basis of objective reality.”
Formal, functional and perceptual regions are included
in the American national geography standards (Heffron
and Downs, 2012), which is probably why they all are
described in many English-language textbooks (e.g. de
Blij and Murphy, 1999; Fellmann et al., 2003; Fouberg
and Moseley, 2015; Fouberg et al., 2012; Getis et al., 2014;
Hobbs, 2016; Kuby et al., 2013; Rubenstein, 2014), whose
authors agree that perceptual regions persist in people’s
minds. Some authors (e.g. Fouberg et al., 2012; Getis
et al., 2014), however, see the perceptual region rather as
a collective than an individual/personal/subjective entity.
Even Jordan, the author of the perceptual region definition,
which has been used in some form by others
3
(e.g. Getis et
al., 2014; Shortridge, 1980; Zelinsky, 1980), sees them as
“composites of mental maps of the population” (Jordan, 1978,
p. 293). If we assume that the region is both an objective and
subjective reality, it is beneficial to treat perceptual regions as
subjective. Only a combination of several perceptual regions
creates an “objective” formal region (based on a consensus
in perception). But because the term “objective” has several
meanings (e.g. Searle, 1995; Williams, 2015), it would be
misleading to see all “objective” (formal and functional)
regions as collective objective realities – hence the quotation
marks (Marek, 2020a; 2020b).
As they are based on perception, an important research
interest in geography since the 1960s (Gould and White, 1986;
Lynch, 1960; Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1975a), perceptual regions
can be linked with the concept of the mental map. Perceptual
region can then be seen as part of a mental map just like
a “real region” is part of a “real map” (Marek, 2020a).
According to Rubenstein (2014, p. 17): “A useful way to
identify a perceptual region is to get someone to draw a
mental map.” It must, however, be a mental map in Lynch’s
(1960) sense, which demonstrates the identity of region
and is comparative. Thus, for example, a deviation in one’s
perception (subjective reality) from the historical boundary
(objective reality) of a particular region can be revealed
(Marek, 2020a; Siwek, 2011; Siwek and Bogdová, 2007;
Siwek and Kaňok, 2000b).
It is interesting to think again about the previously-
made distinction for the identity of a region into three
types of region (formal, functional, perceptual), where each
region type consists of three features (bounded territory,
symbols, institutions) and, after its emergence, undergoes
subsequent development (reproduction, transformation,
eventual disappearance). As the development of the concepts
of a region, but also of regional identity and regionalism,
is required, these analytical distinctions are very fruitful
because they enable detailed investigation of some of the
“basic components” in their combinations.
2.4 Transformation of (the identity of) region
As the recognised institutionalisation of regions
theory enables a straightforward connection with
empirical data (Paasi, 1986b), there is extensive use of
this theory in the research of various regions, as shown
in many case studies (e.g. Chromý, 2003; Frisvoll and
Rye, 2009; Hammarlund, 2004; Jones and MacLeod, 2004;
Kašková and Chromý, 2014; MacLeod and Jones, 2001;
Paasi, 2002a, 2013; Semian, 2015; Sepp and Veemaa, 2010;
Šifta and Chromý, 2017; Zimmerbauer, 2011; Zimmerbauer
et al., 2017). As indicated above, Paasi’s theory deals
especially with the emergence of regions; therefore,
naturally, many subsequent researchers study this process
in particular. On the other hand, as “region” has been seen
as a dynamic process since the 1980s, it is fairly surprising
that analyses of a region’s subsequent development are
still rare. Moreover, Paasi’s theory can be used for the
study of such subsequent developments (Marek, 2020a).
Hence, this paper aims to fill in this gap by focusing on the
transformation of (the identity of) a region and, specifically,
its territorial shape (boundaries).
Such a transformation is tightly bound with the
reproduction of the identity of a region where institutions,
in particular and in the broadest sense, play a crucial role
(Paasi, 1986a, 1991, 2001, 2002a, 2009b, 2011b). Institutions
constantly remind people of a given region, so they can
perceive it. This ensures a region’s existence into the future.
Depending on the nature of particular institutions, however,
a region’s transformation can occur. The processes of the
region’s transformation and reproduction are two sides of
the same coin, but for analytical purposes, they can be dealt
with in separate ways (Marek, 2020a).
Among those studies focusing on the transformation of
region(s), we note the following features:
1. some concentrate on the transformation of administrative
regional systems (e.g. Paasi and Zimmerbauer, 2011),
rather than on the transformation of subjective images
of particular region(s);
3 Some of them (e.g. Zelinsky, 1980), however, write about “vernacular regions” and use other delimitation methods beyond asking
people’s perceptions.
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
158
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
158
2. some deal also with the transformation of the regional
consciousness of people (Melnychuk and Gnatiuk, 2018),
which obscures an understanding of the transformation
of (the identity of) region
4
;
3. some are concerned more with institutions and symbols
than with territories/boundaries (see Zimmerbauer
et al., 2017); and
4. some do not demonstrate the discussed territorial
change or boundary transformations through empirical
data grounded in the perceptions of ordinary people
(Ambinakudige, 2009; Gnatiuk and Melnychuk, 2019;
Paasi, 2001; Reed et al., 1990; Vukosav and Fuerst-
Bjeliš, 2016).
On the other hand, there are many empirical works which,
for the most part, touch on this issue: e.g. Brownell, 1960;
Didelon-Loiseau et al., 2018; Good, 1981; Hale, 1984;
Holmén, 2017; Homanyuk, 2019; Jordan, 1978; Lamme
and Oldakowski, 2007; Lowry, 2013; Lowry et al., 2008;
Shortridge, 1980, 1985, 1987; Siwek and Bogdová, 2007;
Siwek and Kaňok 2000a, 2000b; Ulack and Raitz, 1981, 1982;
Zdorkowski and Carney, 1985. The purpose of such studies,
however, is mostly to delimit regions existing in people’s
minds – thus, the theory of regions is of little relevance
to them. Others do care about the theory, but their
contribution to the discussion of a region’s transformation
is rather limited (Heath, 1993; Semian, 2012a, 2012b; Šerý
and Šimáček, 2012, 2013; Vaishar and Zapletalová, 2016,
Vukosav, 2011).
To better understand not only the concept of a region
(but also the concepts of the regional identity of people, and
of regionalism), delimitation must be a means, not a goal.
Subsequently, the transformation (and other processes
in a region’s subsequent development) must be handled
explicitly and in great depth. The extreme usefulness of the
perceptual region presented above can be seen here – as it is
both an essential part of the identity of a region and a part
of every person’s mental map, it efficiently fuses the theory
(of Paasi, especially) and the methodology (of behavioural
geography) (Marek, 2020a).
The above-quoted empirical studies indicate that
delimitation based on perception is widespread particularly
for regions without administrative or de jure status, such as
Asia or the US Middle West. Regions with a “lost” official
(administrative / de jure) status (e.g. Moravia, Podolia
[UKR]) are also appropriate in this respect. Although the
perception-based delimitation can be applied to all regions
(Marek, 2020a), such delimitations of administrative regions
or states are almost always not conducted because these
regions are typically perceived on the basis of their official
boundaries. Perception of today’s Poland, for example,
is usually bound to contemporary official boundaries, but
a century ago this region was undoubtedly perceived as
partly “elsewhere”. This “simple” transformation would not
have occurred without Poland’s official status, as indicated
by regions with a lost administrative / de jure status
whose current perception-based delimitations are rather
problematic. Nevertheless, focusing on regions without
official status can help to reveal how and why people
construct their perceptual regions, and how and why these
subjective images develop over time.
The Czech Lands are very suitable regions for studying
the transformation of (the identity of) regions. Moreover,
some authors have already partly researched this theme.
The perception of Silesia, Moravia, their boundary, and de
facto also their transformation is described by Siwek and
Kaňok (2000a, 2000b) and Šerý and Šimáček (2012, 2013).
The first researchers to deal in part with the perception
of the Bohemian-Moravian historical land boundary were
Toušek et al. (1991), who mapped the inhabitants’ opinions
of which land they would like to live in, given the land
restoration. In addition, Vaishar and Zapletalová (2016)
outlined the role of administrative reforms on the perception
of this boundary, but they also dealt with many other
factors such that attention to the regions’ transformation
is overshadowed. The perception of the boundary between
Bohemia and Moravia was examined using mental maps for
the first time by Chalupa (2015), focusing on knowledge of
the boundary’s historical location, and by Marek (2015), who
was more interested in present-day perceptions. The latter
work constitutes the initial research phase of this article.
3. Case study regions
The development of the administrative regional system in
what is the present-day Czech Republic has been described
by many authors (e.g. Burda, 2014; Daněk, 1993; Hledíková
et al., 2005; Jordan, 2001; Munzar and Drápela, 1999;
Semian, 2015; Siwek and Kaňok, 2000a, 2000b; Yoder, 2003).
These accounts include Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, whose
emergence dates back to the first millennium AD. In the 9
th
century, Moravia became a core of the Great Moravian
Empire, the first predominantly West Slavic state, which
ruled also several neighbouring areas, including Bohemia.
After its fall early in the 10
th
century, however, the political
centre moved to the Duchy of Bohemia. Since then, except
for several interruptions, Bohemia (as the Kingdom of
Bohemia since 1198) and Moravia (as the Margraviate of
Moravia since 1182), and later also Silesia or at least its
part, have formed the Czech state, with a dominant role for
Bohemia. In spite of being part of the same state, the Czech
Lands retained, due to various activists (e.g. some noblemen)
and advocates (e.g. the Holy Roman Emperors), a relatively
high level of autonomy – including their own legislatures –
until the emergence of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918.
As a result, a strong identity and exclusiveness of these
historical lands, as well as a strong rootedness of their
boundaries (which had almost not changed for centuries),
formed in people’s consciousness.
For this research paper, administrative reforms of the
last century are the most important – for the evolution of
Czech regions, see Figure 1. Ten years after Czechoslovakia
was created, the Czechoslovak/Czech part of Silesia
5
was amalgamated with Moravia in 1928. Moravia and
(Czechoslovak/Czech) Silesia did not disappear, however.
According to Paasi (1986a; 2002b; 2009a; 2009b), regions can
exist on various spatial scales, and more importantly, a single
region is not inevitably bound to one specific scale. Thus,
because of a toponym, the newly-formed Moravia-Silesia
continued to reproduce both historical lands for they were
deinstitutionalised and (re)institutionalised at the same
time. Moreover, many municipal names, among other things,
continued to reproduce Moravia and Silesia.
4 Texts emphasising the transformation of the regional consciousness of people do exist as well (e.g. Terlouw, 2017), but many
authors do not distinguish between these two dimensions of regional identity.
5 The major part of Silesia is now located in Poland.
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
159
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
159
During the German occupation, the Protectorate of
Bohemia and Moravia was established, and an ephemeral
change in the Bohemian-Moravian boundary also occurred.
After World War II, the two pre-war lands were restored – but
they were abolished by the new communist government at
the end of 1948. From 1
st
January 1949, the administrative
layer of the Czech Lands was split into thirteen newly-formed
regions (kraje in Czech) named after their capitals – and they
did not respect historical land boundaries. This represents
a significant deinstitutionalisation of the Czech Lands. Even
so, they still persist.
Another administrative reform took place in 1960, during
which eight new regions (kraje) were formed replacing the
previous ones. These regions also did not respect the historical
land boundaries, but seven of them referred to Bohemia or
Moravia in their names, meaning a (re)institutionalisation of
Bohemia and Moravia as the new regions began to reproduce
previously (and partly) deinstitutionalised historical lands.
A year after the 1989 “Velvet Revolution”, regional
committees were abolished, but this was not the case for the
regions in their entirety, as they persisted in some agendas
(e.g. the judiciary) to this day. Their boundaries are also
adhered to by districts created during the same 1960 reform
and replacing previous districts. During a subsequent debate
about future administrative division, the restoration of
the Czech Lands as administrative units seemed logical.
Political parties – mainly in Moravia – seeking restoration,
initially succeeded in the elections but the dissolution of
Czechoslovakia raised concerns about a further possible
disintegration of the state. This led to a rejection of the
restoration of large historical lands. Instead, fourteen much
smaller regions (kraje still) emerged in 2000. Because of
the renaming some of them in 2001, Bohemia, Moravia,
and this time also Silesia, became (re)institutionalised and
reproduced by four regions. The new regional boundaries
ignored the historical land boundaries again, however.
In other states of the “Eastern Bloc”, centralised
communist regimes also frequently changed administrative
divisions in which historical regions were typically ignored
and often split (Jordan, 2001; Melnychuk and Gnatiuk, 2018;
Roth, 2007; Sepp and Veemaa, 2010; Yoder, 2003). Unlike
some of them, in the Czech Republic historical regions
(lands) were not restored as administrative units after the
collapse of the socialist regime. They have no official status
even in the European Union NUTS system.
4. Data and methods
In the author’s initial research (Marek, 2015),
a significant role of the 1960/2000 administrative regions
in the perception and transformation of Bohemia, Moravia,
Fig. 1: Development of the highest-level de jure administrative regions in the area of the Czech Lands during the
last century (except for the war-years 1939–1945, Slovakia and the present-day Czech Republic formed one state –
Czechoslovakia, which emerged in 1918 and was split at the end of 1992).
Source: author’s reconstruction based on Růžková and Škrabal (2006), Štůla and Semík (1941), and ArcČR® 500
Geographic Database
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
160
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
160
and their boundary/boundaries was revealed. Therefore,
subsequent research into two qualitatively different areas
of the Bohemian-Moravian borderland was conducted, to
further unravel the nature of these regions’ perception and
transformation. The location of the three study areas within
the Czech Republic is shown in Figure 4.
The name of a region, a toponym, needs emphasis here. It
is the most important regional symbol (Paasi, 1986a, 1986b,
1991; Raagmaa, 2002; Semian, 2012a; Simon et al., 2010)
necessary for the existence of a region. According to Tuan
(1991, p. 688): “Naming is power – the creative power to call
something into being”; thus, there is “no region without a
name” (Simon et al., 2010, p. 413). Regional names can then
be used as a tool to study the territorial shapes of the regions
in people’s minds (Semian, 2012a, 2012b). In other words,
thanks to toponyms, perceptual regions and their boundaries
can be investigated.
The transformation will be studied following a comparison
of perceptions:
1. “in time”, as we can assume that, until the Czech Lands
lost their official status, their perceived delimitation
roughly coincided with then-official land boundaries; and
2. in three study areas where diverse administrative
regions/boundaries emerged after 1948. The former
focuses mainly on boundaries, the latter on territories.
In the first study area (hereinafter referred to as SA1) in
the northern part of the Bohemian-Moravian borderland,
a part of Moravia was inserted into the East Bohemian
Region in 1960. The regions from 2000 are named after their
capitals here. On the contrary, in the second study area (SA2),
around the regional capital of Jihlava, a portion of Bohemia
was inserted into the South Moravian Region in 1960. This
whole area belongs to the current Vysočina Region
6
, making
the present-day regional boundary far from the historical
one. The third study area (SA3) in the southern part of
the borderland in question is similar to SA1, as the South
Bohemian Region has included a part of Moravia since 1960.
There are two differences, however: the course of regional
boundaries (1960/2000) in the north of SA3 diverges, and one
of the current regions still bears Bohemia in its name.
The necessary data were gathered during three field
research activities. The first (initial) research was conducted
in thirty-three municipalities of SA1 and took place in the
period August – October, 2014. The other two field research
projects, which took place in twenty-four municipalities
in both SA2 and SA3, were carried out in July 2016 and
September 2016, respectively. Altogether, 454 residents
aged 15–88 were interviewed face-to-face: 240 in SA1, 107
in SA2, and 107 in SA3. The respondents were chosen by the
author searching through all eighty-one municipalities on
foot or by bicycle to conduct an interview with at least 1 per
cent of permanent inhabitants aged fifteen and older in each
researched municipality and, especially, to make a proper
quota sampling according to sex, age, and place of residence
to fit the requirement of a representative sample. In each
study area, all requirements were met using data from the
last census (CZSO, 2014, 2016a, 2016b).
Each field research activity used a questionnaire survey
whose content is described by Marek (2015). In this article,
only responses to one task have been employed – the only
one respondents drew/wrote themselves. Each respondent
was given a sufficiently large (approximately 16 × 18 cm)
study area map with basic elements, particularly all the
municipalities, their names, and also the main roads, needed
for orientation and was asked to draw the Bohemian-
Moravian boundary and to mark each historical land where
she/he currently perceives it (see Fig. 2). To correctly
Fig. 2: Maps of the three study areas (top), and all perceptual region boundaries drawn by respondents (240 in SA1,
107 in SA2, and 107 in SA3: bottom). Source: author’s field research, 2014–2016
6 Vysočina means highlands.
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
161
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
161
interpret the data, various field notes written by the author-
interviewer (usually during conversations with respondents)
have also been taken into account.
All Lynch-type mental maps were analysed using a method
introduced by Šerý and Šimáček (2012, 2013), which also
offers the possibility of data presentation. In order to be
more illustrative of the regions’ transformations, however,
it was partly modified. After these authors’ stage of counting
raster layers, the resulting clusters were simply categorised
into ten classes and visualised to indicate the percentage of
respondents who perceive a particular area in the respective
historical land (see Fig. 4).
5. Results and discussion
According to the perceptual regions and their boundaries
drawn by the respondents, the administrative reforms of 1960
and 2000 seem to be crucial in the transformation of (the
identity of) Bohemia and Moravia. Right after the interview
assignment, several interviewees asked, in the words of one of
them: “Should I draw a historical boundary or a current one?”
It was repeated to them to draw the Bohemian-Moravian
boundary where they perceive it now. In all three study areas,
though often conscious of the current regions, many people
drew it in a similar way to the historical land boundary (1928).
As one respondent said: “I still perceive it as it was
historically.” Others drew the “current” boundary, i.e. the
regional boundary from 1960 or 2000. In all study areas, many
respondents understood that the historical land boundary had
changed with the reform in 1960 – some explicitly mentioned
this year – and/or with the later reform in 2000. “Today,
I comprehend it by the regions [kraje]”, stated one of them.
This corresponds to the assertion by Vaishar and Zapletalová
(2016, p. 20): “The borderline [of historical regions] is often
equated with administrative boundaries.”
Nevertheless, it would be misleading to think that
respondents perceive the Bohemian-Moravian boundary
either in conformity with the historical land boundary or
the regional boundaries. There are no such distinct groups
of people. Rather interviewees drew their perceptual regions
diversely – for example, partly along the 1928 historical
land boundary, partly according to the regional boundary
(1960 and/or 2000), and partly in keeping with something
else (e.g. local specifics). As already stated, people’s
perceptions are based on their knowledge that, in turn, is
highly dependent on distance (from place of residence,
specifically), but also on various mediated representations.
Perceptions/knowledge can be dependent also on a person’s
sex/gender, age, educational level, nativity, nationality,
and so forth (Chalupa, 2015; Good, 1981; Gould and
White, 1986; Lowry, 2013; Lowry et al., 2008; Lynch, 1960;
Marek, 2015; Relph, 1976; Shortridge, 1985; Siwek, 2011;
Šerý and Šimáček, 2012, 2013; Ulack and Raitz, 1982).
Also, the power of institutions reproducing the regions and
imprinting themselves into people’s perceptual regions vary
contextually (Marek, 2020a). Further discussion of these
influences on respondents’ perceptions, however, is beyond
the scope of this paper.
According to some residents of SA1, Moravia in the East
Bohemian Region, which is often regarded as East Bohemia,
is no longer Moravia, but Bohemia – even the whole current
Pardubice Region is perceived as Bohemian by some
interviewees, since it is often considered a successor to the
East Bohemian Region (which is probably supported by the
coincidence of their boundaries)7. Thus, for example, even the
former district town of Moravská Třebová (Moravská meaning
Moravian) is now perceived by them to be located in Bohemia:
“Moravská Třebová is today Bohemian and previously
Moravian”. Others would disagree, however. Although they
are aware of the East Bohemian Region and/or the Pardubice
Region, they still think/perceive that this town is located in
Moravia. Moreover, some respondents, living further away and
without knowledge of the regions to which this town belongs,
drew it through common sense into Moravia: “Moravská
Třebová – so it will probably be in Moravia”. In this study
area, interviewees were “confused” mainly in the south, where
the historical land and regional boundaries diverge the most;
therefore, subjective images of Bohemia and Moravia vary
considerably here (see Fig. 2). On the contrary, in the middle
of SA1, the respondents’ perceptual regions mostly agree with
one another, which can be elucidated through the accordance
of the historical land and regional boundaries, although these
results are partly influenced by the selection of researched
municipalities (see below).
Similarly, in SA3, Moravia in the South Bohemian Region
is perceived as Bohemia by some respondents because the
South Bohemian Region is often identified with South
Bohemia
8
. Thus, for instance, the former district town
of Dačice is described by some people as having “used to
belong to Moravia, now it is in Bohemia”. Also, in this case,
some would not agree because for them Dačice still lies in
Moravia. Respondents in this study area were confused in
the south while being in relative accordance in the middle
(Fig. 2) for similar reasons to SA1. The northern part of SA3,
where all three monitored boundaries diverge, causes the
greatest confusion. Hence, before interviewees finally drew
the borderline, though often by just guessing, some were
refusing to complete this task for some time. Interestingly,
several respondents talked about the Vysočina Region
as if it was neither Bohemian nor Moravian. This may be
explained by the strong identity of the Vysočina Region since
its emergence (Chromý, 2004, 2009), as well as the partial
deinstitutionalisation of the South Moravian Region and the
South Bohemian Region in the Vysočina Region area, as they
de jure “shrank” in 2001 (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the terms
“South Moravia” and “South Bohemia” seem to be currently
less used for this area, and the identity of the Vysočina
Region somehow replaces the identities of the historical
lands. Some interviewees also mentioned they perceived the
Vysočina Region either as Bohemian or Moravian, instead of
Bohemian-Moravian.
On the contrary, but similarly at the same time, in SA2
a part of Bohemia inserted into the South Moravian Region
is seen as Moravia by some interviewees, as the South
Moravian Region can be considered as South Moravia.
Although, as outlined above, the identity of South Moravia
7 Furthermore, the neighbouring Olomouc Region is typically perceived as Moravian, since Olomouc is one of two historical
Moravian capitals (together with Brno).
8 As seen from some interviews with the SA3 respondents, however, it is more complicated. Some people do not perceive a mutual
exclusiveness between South Bohemia and Moravia; they have no problem stating that Dačice, for instance, is located in South
Bohemia and in Moravia, at the same time. For them, the South Bohemian identity does not struggle with nor contest the
Moravian identity. Thus, seeing South Bohemia as a part of Bohemia, which then eliminates Moravia in the minds of all people,
would be too simplistic.
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
162
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
162
(and South Bohemia) has been weakened here, and according
to many residents of SA2, their municipalities lie primarily
in the Vysočina Region rather than in Moravia or Bohemia.
Previous examples focused on towns beyond the researched
municipalities, but of course, the 1960 administrative regions
influence the perception of historical lands even inside the
researched areas. For instance, a resident of Dobronín, the
most populated researched Bohemian municipality in the
South Moravian Region, described her village as follows:
“Now it is the Vysočina Region but, previously, the South
Moravian Region, therefore, Moravia”. Likewise, in other
study areas, respondents typically began to draw in a familiar
place. In SA2, it was in Jihlava in particular where many
people perceived the Bohemian-Moravian boundary thanks
to large boundary stones. This rare congruence on the course
of the historical land boundary in the middle of the study
area (Fig. 2) can also be explained by both the selection of
studied municipalities (see below) and the absence of the
Vysočina Region boundary in SA2. On the other hand, this
absence of the most recent administrative boundary, as well
as the existence of the Vysočina Region itself, contributes
to the extreme confusion as to where the studied boundary
leads. After drawing a point in Jihlava, one interviewee
sighed: “I don’t know on which side to draw at all”. Thus, the
interviewer had a difficult job in persuading many to finish
the task. Of all three study areas, SA2 seems to possess the
most eroded consciousness about Bohemia, Moravia, and
their boundary.
As for the other administrative reforms, the 1949 regions
are not imprinted in the respondents’ perceptual regions.
It is probably because their names did not resemble historical
lands and, moreover, they only functioned for eleven years.
In addition, no one mentioned Moravia-Silesia while drawing
the borderline. This land has presumably always been seen as
artificial, serving as an administrative unit for only a limited
time, unlike Moravia and Silesia, each with more than
a millennium of history. On the contrary, ephemeral changes
during World War II still influence people’s perceptions of
the Bohemian-Moravian boundary in particular localities.
Some interviewees were confused by the former affiliation
to Moravia (in SA2 and SA3) and even by the Protectorate
border (in SA1 and SA3). These influences are far less
significant than those of 1960/2000, however.
It is possible to put forward examples of perceptual
regions based on the 1928 historical land boundary or
the 1960/2000 regional boundaries across the whole of
their documented courses (see Fig. 3), though the number
is low – mainly in SA2 and SA3 where the monitored
boundaries greatly diverge. It is worthless to count them
because many others also drew the borderline according to
these boundaries but, as indicated above, only partly. If, for
example, an area of five kilometres from a certain boundary
is considered, there are some people who fit within the
tolerance accidentally, while others who perceive Bohemia
and Moravia according to that boundary are just outside of
it, since the knowledge of an area decreases with increasing
distance (Gould and White, 1986). Or, they were partly
confused by another administrative boundary or something
else. Furthermore, the selected method has undisputed
limitations as mental maps cannot be regarded as universal
spatial representations; thus, it is not suitable for everyone
(Mulíček et al., 2013; Tuan, 1975a). There is a difference in
what some people draw and what they think they draw. For
instance, some interviewees mistook Králický Sněžník, the
northernmost point of the historical land boundary, for a hill
nearer to the town of Králíky, which distorts the results (see
below). Another problem is that some stated what historical
land a certain municipality was located in but drew the
borderline through it. Some perceptual regions are also
biased by elements indicated in the questionnaire maps
(e.g. some respondents drew the boundary along the roads
as seen in Fig. 2). Yet, it is obvious that the respondents’
perceptions of Bohemia and Moravia are highly structured
by knowledge of the administrative regions/boundaries
from 1928/1960/2000, and that the mental maps method
is a satisfactory tool to illustrate where the Bohemian-
Moravian boundary is perceived to be.
A mean boundary of Bohemia and Moravia – 50 per
cent of all interviewees of the respective study area placed
Bohemia on one side of this borderline with Moravia on
the other – is approaching the 1960 regional boundaries in
most places, except for the Králíky area, for instance (see
Fig. 4). Towns between the boundaries from 1928 and 1960
are clear evidence of the impact that the 1960 reform had
on the transformation of Bohemia and Moravia. All of them
(or at least their parts) were drawn by no less than half of
the respondents in the historical land opposite to that which
would correspond to the 1928 boundary. Regarding this
reform, the toponyms (of new administrative regions), in
particular, seem to have played a crucial role in the historical
lands’ transformation. The (non-)usage of toponyms can also
explain the “retreat” of Silesia (towards the Polish border)
Fig. 3: Examples of respondents’ subjective images of Bohemia and Moravia based on the historical land boundary
(1928) or the regional boundaries (1960/2000). Source: author’s field research, 2014–2016
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
163
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
163
in favour of Moravia, as recorded by Siwek and Kaňok
(2000a; 2000b) and by Šerý and Šimáček (2012, 2013). For
example, Siwek and Kaňok (2000a, p. 197) interpret the weak
Silesian identity in the Czech Republic as “a consequence of
the long-term marginalisation of the name of Silesia during
the communist period” (see Fig. 1). Since 1960, the Czech
part of Silesia has often been labelled as North Moravia.
The on-going transformation of Bohemia and Moravia
associated with the administrative reforms (of 1960
as well as 2000) is also evident from the mapped
“isolines”/“isopercepts”, as some of them strikingly resemble
the 1960/2000 regional boundaries (see Fig. 4). The more
the respondents’ perceptual regions differ (Fig. 2), the
more blurred the resulting map is (Fig. 4), and vice versa.
Thus, a collective image of Bohemia and Moravia is the
sharpest in the middle of SA1, while the most unclear is in
the Vysočina Region. The Bohemian-Moravian boundary,
whose course was already stabilised in some locations in
the Middle Ages (Schulz, 1970), used to be one of the most
stable administrative boundaries in East-Central and South-
East Europe over the last millennium (Gurňák, 2003).
Presumably no later than 1960, however, it became fuzzy
in people’s perceptions, though naturally it could have been
perceived slightly differently due to knowledge/distance also
before that point in time. Contemporarily, the boundary
is perceived by respondents in all study areas more or
less fuzzily, particularly because of both the 1960/2000
administrative regions/boundaries, which are very actual
in people’s daily lives, and of the 1928 historical regions/
boundaries still lingering in people’s consciousness.
The research results thus correspond with two seemingly
contradictory arguments. On the one hand, it was suggested
that regions with official status in the past (historical regions)
“are very durable in the minds of people” (Chromý et al., 2009,
p. 18; Melnychuk and Gnatiuk, 2018; Vukosav, 2011; Vukosav
and Fuerst-Bjeliš, 2016), and “administrative boundaries or
political frontiers, once marked out, have substantial inertia
and thus a tendency to persist” (Zimmerbauer et al., 2017,
p. 12). On the other hand, the crucial role of administrative
reforms – connected mainly with both the names and the
Fig. 4: Collective perception of Bohemia, Moravia, and their boundary by all interviewees of the three respective study
areas. Source: author’s field research, 2014–2016
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
164
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
164
boundaries of the new regions – in the transformation of
historical regions/boundaries was observed (Gnatiuk and
Melnychuk, 2019; Melnychuk and Gnatiuk, 2018; Siwek
and Kaňok, 2000a, 2000b; Vaishar and Zapletalová, 2016).
Although, the transformation of historical regions/
boundaries may occur (or actually be facilitated) even if they
are not reflected in the later administrative divisions, as was
illustrated in the example of Zagora (Vukosav and Fuerst-
Bjeliš, 2016) or Tavria/Tauride (Homanyuk, 2019). Even
in such cases, however, the role of toponyms (in various
informal usages) is crucial.
In addition to these findings, the comparison of the three
study areas shows how and why the transformation extent of
historical regions/boundaries differs: Where the new regions’
names and/or boundaries agree with the names/boundaries
of historical regions, a collective perception of historical
regions and historical boundaries is the sharpest
9
. On the
contrary, where the most radical reforms took place (in
terms of toponyms and boundary mismatches), the fuzziest
collective perception of the Bohemian-Moravian historical
land boundary, as well as the most eroded consciousness
about Bohemia and Moravia, was documented. The absence
of 90 per cent of Moravia in SA2 and SA3 is an excellent
example of this (Fig. 4).
According to Gnatiuk and Melnychuk (2019, pp. 185–186),
all Ukrainian modern administrative regions (oblasti), which
do not respect historical boundaries as well, may be classified
either as “anchor regions”, where unification/homogenisation
process leads to a dominance of one historical identity in
a given administrative region, or as “swing regions”, where
several historical identities persist. In this respect, mainly
thanks to its name, the South Bohemian Region seems to be
an example of the former. In the Pardubice Region, however,
the unification/homogenisation process is weaker – not only
because of the region’s name but also some other toponyms,
such as Moravská Třebová, for instance. The Vysočina
Region might be comprehended rather as a swing region,
although in the minds of some people, it seems to be more
a region with a lost historical (land) identity.
Bohemia and Moravia could be delimited not only on the
basis of the 50% isoline but also by a consensus of say 60%
or 80% of respondents, while creating a residual transitional
or boundary zone between them. Nevertheless, the “objective”
formal regions created this way are mere scientific constructs.
Their objectivity is not ontological but epistemological,
which means they contain the subjectivity of their creator(s)
(Marek, 2020b; Paasi, 1986a; Searle, 1995). The author is
well aware of this, particularly with respect to the chosen
study areas and researched municipalities. The results are
representative only for residents of these municipalities; they
would differ if other municipalities were involved because
9 Additionally, if the two different historical regions are divided by a state border (for example, Bohemia and neighbouring German
Saxony), their perceived delimitation may really be very sharp. Hence, one of the arguments of Vaishar and Zapletalová (2016,
p. 20) that “the centres of historical regions are clear, while the borderline is fuzzy”, may not always be completely true. The
context matters.
10 For many respondents, the “real Moravia” is South Moravia, with its wine and hearty people (Marek, 2015), and therefore far from
their homes. On the contrary, nobody refused to draw Bohemia, presumably because the term often serves as a synonym for the
whole Czech Republic (Jeleček and Rubín, 1998). This, in fact, contributes to the fuzziness of the Bohemian-Moravian boundary as
well. It then resembles the above-mentioned “retreat” of Silesia due to the usage of the term North Moravia, accompanied by the
blurred perceptions of the Moravian-Silesian boundary (Siwek and Kaňok, 2000a; 2000b; Šerý and Šimáček, 2012; 2013).
11 In Czech, there is only one expression (Češi) to describe the inhabitants of both Bohemia and the Czech Republic.
12 The unification/homogenisation process in the South Bohemian Region is led by various activists (for example, there is a political
party called Jihočeši, meaning South Bohemians) and advocates (for instance, the whole South Bohemian Region is officially
propagated in tourism as South Bohemia). In its first elections (the 2018 elections to local/municipal councils), the Moravian Land
Movement was supported by 15.7 per cent of Dačice voters, making it the third most successful party in this town (CZSO, 2018).
the perceptions depend strongly on knowledge/distance. For
example, people from SA3 have much lower knowledge of
the Jihlava boundary stones; therefore, a mean boundary of
Bohemia and Moravia according to them does not lead through
this city (instead in the north, it leads, quite accidentally, near
the 1960 regional boundary). More importantly, the above-
described results revealing the sharpest collective perception
in the middle of all study areas, are partly influenced by the
location of researched municipalities just in these middle
zones. But still, the comparison of the study areas clearly
illustrates the crucial role of the 1928/1960/2000 regions/
boundaries in people’s perceptions: in SA1, where all three
monitored boundaries converge on the longest section, 90 per
cent Bohemia and 90 per cent Moravia are the closest; while
in SA2, where only two monitored boundaries approach, 90
per cent Bohemia and 80 per cent Moravia are the most
distant from each other.
With an increase in distance from the studied
municipalities, the collective image of Bohemia and Moravia
is increasingly blurry. Yet, in SA1, the Olomouc Region, for
example, is relatively clearly perceived as Moravian, while in
SA2 and SA3 the Vysočina Region disturbs the perception of
historical lands to the greatest degree. In addition to this, the
content of the questionnaire maps, as well as their extent,
were suggestive. Five interviewees in SA2 (and one each in
SA1 and SA3) initially did not want to draw the borderline,
as they did not perceive Moravia to be in the respective study
area
10
. Geographers may indeed delimit “objective” regions,
but these may be very distant from ordinary people’s
perceptions (Tuan, 1975b), even though such criteria are
used in drawing these “objective” regions.
Although “objective” regions (collective perceptions)
allowed us to assess the regions’ transformation, it seems
preferable to focus on individual subjective images of
regions, for, as stated above, perceptual regions are a basis
for regionalism. Some respondents felt “injustice” because
of the perceived Bohemian-Moravian boundary change
in 1960. “They stole us from Moravia”, as one said. Another
commented that “Dačice residents are still angry that they
are now in Bohemia”. According to Chromý (2004, p. 68):
“Moravism […] ‘survives’ in the local conditions of the Brno
centre and in the areas ‘annexed by Bohemians/Czechs’
11
(e.g. in the Dačice area)”. This clearly illustrates that some
people possess a resistance identity which may manifest in
regionalism (Castells, 2010; Zimmerbauer and Paasi, 2013;
Zimmerbauer et al., 2012). One of the most recent examples
of such a resistance identity is the formation of the Moravian
Land Movement (a political party) in 2018, symbolically
based in Dačice, fighting against the above-outlined
unification/homogenisation process and striving to restore
the Czech Lands
12
(MZH, 2020).
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
165
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
165
The most “problematic” in this respect are certain
“schizophrenic regions” (Chromý, 2003; Marek, 2015) –
areas between the 1928 historical land boundary and
the 1960 regional boundary – where, due to toponyms,
the identity of both Bohemia and Moravia is essentially
reproduced and perceived to the present-day. Even then,
the resistance identity and associated regionalism seem to
concern only people from the historical land of Moravia,
not Bohemia. It should also be noted that for the majority
of our respondents it is not important whether they live in
Bohemia or Moravia (which is basically understandable in
the borderland), and thus these people often identify rather/
more with other regions (e.g. municipalities or the state). For
others, however, it is a significant topic. Therefore, regional
consciousness of these people regarding the Czech Lands is
more or less present. But only several of them – mainly in
the Moravian municipalities of the Dačice area – mentioned
they would support the restoration of the historical lands
(the motive often seems to be both their resistance identity
and regional consciousness). In general, land restoration is
a marginal problem in the contemporary Czech Republic
(cf. Siwek and Kaňok, 2000a). Hence, the politicians and
other regionalists wishing to renew the “faded glory” of the
historical lands face a huge challenge.
6. Conclusions
The perceptual region conceptualised in this paper as
the subjective image of region is both an essential part of
the identity of region and a part of every person’s mental
map. This concept is employed to examine the understudied
transformation of (the identity of) region and specifically
its territorial shape (boundaries). In agreement with
previous research, it can be concluded that the durability/
persistence of historical regions and boundaries in people’s
minds is strong. People are more or less influenced, however,
by the new/later administrative regions and boundaries
which emerged due to the split of old (historical) region(s).
Historical boundaries are then often identified with the new
regional boundaries, notwithstanding that their courses
may diverge. This results in the transformation of historical
regions/boundaries. But, as several “time layers” may persist
and thus imprint themselves into people’s perceptual regions,
the extent of the transformation may differ. For example,
where the historical regions’ and the new regions’ names
and boundaries agree the most, we find that the sharpest
collective perception of historical regions/boundaries occurs.
Conversely, the more radical the administrative changes (in
terms of toponyms and boundary mismatches), the fuzzier
the collective perception of historical boundaries, as well as
the more eroded the consciousness about historical regions.
New regions, with their names and boundaries (among
other less important institutions), may thus cause the
transformation of historical regions – but they also reproduce
them. In particular, the toponyms are significant. We see this
effect when the new region’s name refers to the historical
region: together with the deinstitutionalisation of the
historical region, its significant re-institutionalisation takes
place. This may happen regardless of the particular spatial
scale, since regions are social constructs often institutionalised
across scales. Nevertheless, the institutions as such are not
enough for the existence of regions – in order for regions
to exist as social facts, two conditions must be met: regions
have names, and they “linger” (through the imprints of
institutions) in people’s consciousness as perceptual regions.
Regions are thus ideas about certain geographical areas,
while the toponyms are tools to handle such ideas. These
ideas (regions) are dynamic processes that develop as our
thinking about the areas in question change. In particular,
the administrative reforms have a crucial impact on people’s
perceptions of regions/boundaries and, therefore, also on the
development of these regions and their boundaries – including
their transformation. In particular, official (administrative or
de jure) status seems to be an extremely powerful instrument.
Before all administrative reforms, it is thus advisable to
consider the perceptions of ordinary people, because later
changes, potentially perceived by some as unjust, may feed
into resistance identity manifesting in regionalism.
Such developments were illustrated in this case study
of the Czech Lands and their boundaries, which have
undergone several different administrative reforms over the
last century – but did not disappear. Although significantly
deinstitutionalised by abolishing de jure and splitting at
the end of 1948, they were later (re)institutionalised by
the new regions (kraje) and, presumably, mainly by some of
their names. As these kraje started to reproduce Bohemia,
Moravia, and Silesia, people can perceive the historical lands
because of them. Presumably, every administrative reform
in the last century created a certain new layer of historical
land identity, but the 1960 and 2000 administrative regions/
boundaries especially influenced respondents’ perceptual
regions of Bohemia and Moravia. As the historical land
boundaries are not respected by these new regions/
boundaries, however, the above-mentioned transformation
occurs, with the Vysočina Region being the region which has
witnessed the most eroded consciousness about Bohemia,
Moravia, and their boundary. Hence, the kraje can probably
be considered the most important institutions for both the
reproduction and transformation of the Czech Lands. But
still, some interviewees “perceive it as it was historically”,
though there are no distinct groups of people preferring
a particular “time layer”.
From this research project, further work will be
published in forthcoming articles, dealing mainly with the
transformation of the regional identity of people, which
occurs as well, and with the differences in perceptions based
on respondents’ sex/gender, age, educational level, nativity,
nationality, and place of residence. First of all, however,
other institutions reproducing Bohemia and Moravia,
besides the kraje as such and their names, must be explored
to further explain the outlined transformation. Future
research needs to focus on the kraje and their role not only
in the reproduction/transformation of the Czech Lands, but
also in Moravian (and eventually Silesian) regionalism. The
question also remains as to where the Bohemian-Moravian
boundary was perceived right after 1948, that is, whether it
had already become fuzzy in 1949.
In addition, research into ordinary people’s perceptions
of other (partly) deinstitutionalised – whether split or
amalgamated – historical regions, as well as various other
regions, is strongly suggested. It is possible to deal with the
emergence, reproduction, transformation, and disappearance
of both subjective perceptual regions and collective
“objective” formal regions based upon the perceptual ones,
while the focus may be placed more on their territories
(boundaries, but also centres/cores), symbols, or institutions.
All such research efforts will help us to understand regions
as social constructs, and also the dynamic processes more
profoundly. Knowledge of both the regional consciousness of
people and regionalism can also be expanded as a result of
such empirical research.
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
166
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
166
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Masaryk University
project “MUNI/A/1356/2019” for financial support in the
preparation of this article. He is also very grateful to Associate
Professor Tomáš Řezník of Masaryk University for the
cartographic advice, as well as to the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments.
References:
ALLEN, J., MASSEY, D., COCHRANE, A., CHARLESWORTH, J.,
COURT, G., HENRY, N., SARRE, P. (1998): Rethinking the
Region. London, Routledge.
AMBINAKUDIGE, S. (2009): Revisiting “the South” and
“Dixie”. Delineating Vernacular Regions using GIS.
Southeastern Geographer, 49(3): 240–250.
BERGER, P. L., LUCKMANN, T. (1971): The Social
Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
BROWNELL, J. W. (1960): The Cultural Midwest. Journal of
Geography, 59(2): 81–85.
BURDA, T. (2014): Význam změn správních hranic v procesu
formování vnitřních periferií na území Česka od poloviny
19. století. PhD thesis. Praha, Charles University.
CASTELLS, M. (2010): The Power of Identity. The
Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture.
Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.
CHALUPA, J. (2015): Historickogeografická česko-moravská
zemská hranice: rekonstrukce, percepce, významy.
Master’s thesis. Praha, Charles University.
CHROMÝ, P. (2003): Formování regionální identity:
nezbytná součást geografických výzkumů. In: Jančák,
V., Chromý, P., Marada, M. [eds.]: Geografie na cestách
poznání (pp. 163–178). Praha, Charles University.
CHROMÝ, P. (2004): Kdyby byla Morava... Geografie –
sborník České geografické společnosti, 109(1): 66–69.
CHROMÝ, P. (2009): Region a regionalismus. Geografické
rozhledy, 19(1): 2–5.
CHROMÝ, P., KUČEROVÁ, S., KUČERA, Z. (2009): Regional
identity, contemporary and historical regions and the
issue of relict borders – the case of Czechia. Regions and
Regionalism, 9(2): 9–19.
CHROMÝ, P., SEMIAN, M., KUČERA, Z. (2014): Regionální
vědomí a regionální identita v Česku: případová studie
Českého ráje. Geografie, 119(3): 259–277.
CRESSWELL, T. (2013): Geographic Thought. A Critical
Introduction. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.
CZSO (2014): Public database. All about territory Czech
Statistical Office [online]. [cit. 10.08.2014]. Available at:
http://vdb.czso.cz/sldbvo/#!stranka=podle-tematu&tu=
0&th=&v=&vo=null&vseuzemi=null&void
CZSO (2016a): Public database. Customized selection Czech
Statistical Office [online]. [cit. 03.09.2016]. Available at:
https://vdb.czso.cz/vdbvo2/faces/cs/index.jsf?page=uziv-
dotaz#
CZSO (2016b): Public database. All about territory.
Czech Statistical Office [online]. [cit. 03.09.2016].
Available at: https://vdb.czso.cz/vdbvo2/faces/cs/index.
jsf?page=profil-uzemi&uzemiprofil=31288&u=__
VUZEMI__43__554979#
CZSO (2018): Election results. Elections to local councils.
Municipality: Dacice. Czech Statistical Office [online].
[cit. 17.06.2020]. Available at: https://1url.cz/Iz4Fj
DANĚK, P. (1993): Moravian and Silesian Nationalities: a
New Phenomenon it the Ethnic Map of the Czech Lands?
GeoJournal, 30(3): 249–254.
DE BLIJ, H. J., MURPHY, A. B. (1999): Human Geography.
Culture, Society, and Space. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
DE BLIJ, H. J., MULLER, P. O., NIJMAN, J.,
WINKLERPRINS, A. M. G. A. (2010): The World Today.
Concepts and Regions in Geography. New York, John
Wiley & Sons.
DIDELON-LOISEAU, C., DE RUFFRAY, S., LAMBERT, N.
(2018): Mental maps of global regions: identifying and
characterizing “hard” and “soft” regions. Journal of
Cultural Geography, 35(2): 210–229.
DOKOUPIL, J. (2004): Hranice a hraniční efekt. In:
Jeřábek, M., Dokoupil, J., Havlíček, T. et al.: České
pohraničí – bariéra nebo prostor zprostředkování?
(pp. 47–58). Praha, Academia.
FELLMANN, J. D., GETIS, A., GETIS, J. (2003): Human
Geography. Landscapes of Human Activities. Boston,
McGraw-Hill.
FOUBERG, E. H., MOSELEY, W. G. (2015): Understanding
World Regional Geography. Danvers, John Wiley & Sons.
FOUBERG, E. H., MURPHY, A. B., DE BLIJ, H. J. (2012):
Human Geography. People, Place, and Culture. Hoboken,
John Wiley & Sons.
FRISVOLL, S., RYE, J. F. (2009): Elite discourses of regional
identity in a new regionalism development scheme:
The Case of the “Mountain Region” in Norway. Norsk
Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography,
63(3): 175–190.
GETIS, A., BJELLAND, M. D., GETIS, V. (2014): Introduction
to Geography. New York, McGraw-Hill Education.
GIDDENS, A. (1984): The Constitution of Society. Outline
of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, Polity Press.
GILBERT, A. (1988): The new regional geography in English
and French-speaking countries. Progress in Human
Geography, 12(2): 208–228.
GNATIUK, O., MELNYCHUK, A. (2019): Identities with
historical regions – are they adapting to modern
administrative division? The case of Ukraine. European
Spatial Research and Policy, 26(1): 175–194.
GOOD, J. K. (1981): The vernacular regions of Arkansas.
Journal of Geography, 80(5): 179–185.
GOULD, P., WHITE, R. (1986): Mental maps. London,
Routledge.
GURŇÁK, D. (2003): Fenomén stability hraníc v priestore
stredovýchodnej a juhovýchodnej Európy. In: Novák, S.
[ed.]: Geografické aspekty středoevropského prostoru
(pp. 21–25). Brno, Masaryk University.
HALE, R. F. (1984): Commentary: Vernacular Regions of
America. Journal of Cultural Geography, 5(1): 131–140.
HAMMARLUND, K. G. (2004): Regional reform and citizen
participation in Sweden. Innovation, 17(2): 145–163.
HEATH, D. E. (1993): Highly Localized Vernacular
Regionalization in the Allentown-Bethlehem Area, PA-
NJ. Professional Geographer, 45(3): 251–263.
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
167
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
167
HEFFRON, S. G., DOWNS, R. M. [eds.]. (2012): Geography
for Life: National Geography Standards. Washington,
National Council for Geographic Education.
HLEDÍKOVÁ, Z., JANÁK, J., DOBEŠ, J. (2005): Dějiny
správy v českých zemích od počátků státu po současnost.
Praha, Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
HOBBS, J. J. (2016): Fundamentals of world regional
geography. Boston, Cengage Learning.
HOLMÉN, J. (2017): Changing mental maps of the Baltic
Sea and Mediterranean regions. Journal of Cultural
Geography, 35(2): 230–250.
HOMANYUK, M. (2019): “Battle for Tavria”: A historical
region in politics and in the market of goods and services.
Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna Geografiya, 82: 20–26.
JELEČEK, L., RUBÍN, J. (1998): Čechy jako synonymum
pojmů Česká republika, Česko, české země, země Koruny
české, aneb ztrácejí se nám Morava a české Slezsko.
Geografické rozhledy, 7(4): 100–102.
JOHNSTON, R., SIDAWAY, J. D. (2016): Geography and
Geographers. Anglo-American Human Geography since
1945. London, Routledge.
JONES, M., MACLEOD, G. (2004): Regional spaces, spaces
of regionalism: territory, insurgent politics and the
English question. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers New Series, 29(4): 433–452.
JORDAN, P. (2001): Regional Identities and Regionalization
in East-Central Europe. Post- Soviet Geography and
Economics, 42(4): 235–265.
JORDAN, T. G. (1978): Perceptual regions in Texas. The
Geographical Review, 68(3): 293–307.
KASALA, K., ŠIFTA, M. (2017): The region as a concept:
traditional and constructivist view. AUC Geographica,
52(2): 111–121.
KAŠKOVÁ, M., CHROMÝ, P. (2014): Regional product
labelling as part of the region formation process. The
case of Czechia. AUC Geographica, 49(2): 87–98.
KEATING, M. (1998): The New Regionalism in Western
Europe. Territorial Restructuring and Political Change.
Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
KLAPKA, P., TONEV, P. (2008): Regiony a regionalizace.
In: Toušek, V., Kunc, J., Vystoupil, J. et al.: Ekonomická
a sociální geografie (pp. 371–397). Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk.
KUBY, M., HARNER, J., GOBER, P. (2013): Human
Geography in Action. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons.
LAMME, A. J., OLDAKOWSKI, R. K. (2007): Spinning a New
Geography of Vernacular Regional Identity: Florida in
the Twenty-First Century. Southeastern Geographer,
47(2): 320–340.
LOWRY, J. (2013): Perceptual New England. The
Northeastern Geographer, 5: 54–71.
LOWRY, J., PATTERSON, M., FORBES, W. (2008): The
Perceptual Northwest. Yearbook of the Association of
Pacific Coast Geographers, 70(1): 112–126.
LYNCH, K. (1960): The image of the city. Cambridge, MIT
Press.
MACLEOD, G., JONES, M. (2001): Renewing the
geography of regions. Environment and Planning D,
19(6): 669–695.
MAREK, P. (2015): Vnímání reliktní hranice na příkladu
severní části česko-moravské zemské hranice. Master’s
thesis. Brno, Masaryk University.
MAREK, P. (2020a): Region coby dynamický proces
a využití konceptu percepčního regionu při výzkumu
institucionalizace a deinstitucionalizace regionů.
Geografický časopis, 72(2): 193–213.
MAREK, P. (2020b): Region coby sociální konstrukt
a kritická diskuze Paasiho konceptualizace regionální
identity. Geografie, 125(1): 47–68.
MELNYCHUK, A., GNATIUK, O. (2018): Regional identity
and the renewal of spatial administrative structures:
The case of Podolia, Ukraine. Moravian Geographical
Reports, 26(1): 42–54.
MULÍČEK, O., OSMAN, R., SEIDENGLANZ, D. (2013):
Imaginace a reprezentace prostoru v každodenní
zkušenosti. Sociologický časopis, 49(5): 781–809.
MUNZAR, J., DRÁPELA, M. V. (1999): Czechia = Bohemia
+ Moravia + Silesia. Moravian Geographical Reports,
7(2): 58–60.
MZH (2020): Kontakt – Moravské zemské hnutí [online].
[cit. 10.02.2020]. Available at: http://moravskehnuti.cz/
kontakt/
NEUMANN, I. B. (1994): A region-building approach to
Northern Europe. Review of International Studies,
20(1): 53–74.
NORTON, W. (2004): Human Geography. Don Mills, Oxford
University Press.
PAASI, A. (1986a): The Institutionalization of regions: a
theoretical framework for understanding the emergence
of regions and the constitution of regional identity.
Fennia, 164(1): 105–146.
PAASI, A. (1986b): The Institutionalization of regions.
Theory and comparative case studies. Joensuu,
University of Joensuu.
PAASI, A. (1991): Deconstructing regions: notes on the
scales of spatial life. Environment and Planning A,
23(2): 239–256.
PAASI, A. (2001): Europe as a Social Process and Discourse:
Considerations of Place, Boundaries and Identity.
European Urban and Regional Studies, 8(1): 7–28.
PAASI, A. (2002a): Bounded spaces in the mobile world:
Deconstructing “regional identity”. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(2): 137–148.
PAASI, A. (2002b): Place and region: regional worlds and
words. Progress in Human Geography, 26(6): 802–811.
PAASI, A. (2003): Region and place: regional identity in
question. Progress in Human Geography, 27(4): 475–485.
PAASI, A. (2009a): Regional Geography I. In: Kitchen, R.,
Thrift, N. [eds.]: International Encyclopedia of Human
Geography. Vol. 9 (pp. 214–227). Amsterdam, Elsevier.
PAASI, A. (2009b): The Resurgence of the “Region” and
“Regional Identity”: theoretical perspectives and
empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe.
Review of International Studies, 35(11): 121–146.
PAASI, A. (2010): Regions are social constructs, but who
or what “constructs” them? Agency in question.
Environment and Planning A, 42(10): 2296–2301.
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3)
168
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS 2020, 28(3): 154–169
168
PAASI, A. (2011a): From Region to Space. Part II. In:
Agnew, J. A., Duncan, J. S. [eds.]: The Wiley-Blackwell
Companion to Human Geography (pp. 161–175).
Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.
PAASI, A. (2011b): The region, identity, and power. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 14: 9–16.
PAASI, A. (2013): Regional Planning and the Mobilization of
“Regional Identity”: From Bounded Spaces to Relational
Complexity. Regional Studies, 47(8): 1206–1219.
PAASI, A., METZGER, J. (2017): Foregrounding the region.
Regional Studies, 51(1): 19–30.
PAASI, A., ZIMMERBAUER, K. (2011): Theory and practice
of the region: a contextual analysis of the transformation
of Finnish regions. Treballs de la SCG, 71–72: 163–178.
PRED, A. (1984): Place as Historically Contingent
Process: Structuration and the Time- Geography of
Becoming Places. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 74(2): 279–297.
RAAGMAA, G. (2002): Regional Identity in Regional
Development and Planning. European Planning Studies,
10(1): 55–76.
REED, J. S., KOHLS, J., HANCHETTE, C. (1990): The
Dissolution of Dixie and the Changing Shape of the
South. Social Forces, 69(1): 221–233.
RELPH, E. (1976): Place and placelessness. London, Pion.
ROSE, G. (2001): Visual Methodologies. An Introduction
to Researching with Visual Materials. London, SAGE
Publications.
ROTH, K. (2007): What’s in a Regions? Southeast European
Region Between Globalization, EU-Integration and
Marginalization. In: Roth, K., Brunnbauer, U. [eds.]:
Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern
Europe (pp. 17–41). Ethnologia Balkanica, 11.
RUBENSTEIN, J. M. (2014): The Cultural Landscape. An
Introduction to Human Geography. Harlow, Pearson
Education Limited.
RŮŽKOVÁ, J., ŠKRABAL, J. (2006): Historický lexikon
obcí České republiky 1869–2005. I. Díl. Praha, Český
statistický úřad.
SAYER, A. (2006): Realism as a basis for knowing the world.
In: Aitken, S., Valentine, G. [eds.]: Approaches to Human
Geography (pp. 98–106). London, SAGE Publications.
SCHULZ, J. (1970): Vývoj českomoravské hranice do 15.
století. Historická geografie, 4: 52–79.
SEARLE, J. R. (1995): The Construction of Social Reality.
New York, Free Press.
SEMIAN, M. (2012a): Název jako symbol regionu. Historická
geografie, 38(2): 335–352.
SEMIAN, M. (2012b): Searching for the Territorial Shape
of a Region in Regional Consciousness: The Český
ráj (Bohemian Paradise), Czech Republic. Moravian
Geographical Reports, 20(2): 25–35.
SEMIAN, M. (2015): Historical Aspects and Influences of the
Reproduction of Regions in Czechia. In: Riukulehto, S.
[ed.]: Between Time and Space (pp. 23–43). Newcastle
upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
SEMIAN, M. (2016): Region in its complexity. A discussion
on constructivist approaches. AUC Geographica,
51(2): 179–188.
SEPP, V., VEEMAA, J. (2010): The reproduction of Estonian
provinces in the context of transitional administrative
reform. European Urban and Regional Studies,
17(4):417–432.
SHORTRIDGE, J. R. (1980): Vernacular regions in Kansas.
American Studies, 21(1): 73–94.
SHORTRIDGE, J. R. (1985): The Vernacular Middle West.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
75(1): 48–57.
SHORTRIDGE, J. R. (1987): Changing Usage of Four
American Regional Labels. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 77(3): 325–336.
SIMON, C., HUIGEN, P., GROOTE, P. (2010): Analysing
regional identities in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(4): 409–421.
SIWEK, T. (2011): Percepce geografického prostoru. Praha,
Česká geografická společnost.
SIWEK, T., BOGDOVÁ, K. (2007): České kulturně-historické
regiony ve vědomích svých obyvatel. Sociologický časopis,
43(4): 1039–1053.
SIWEK, T., KAŇOK, J. (2000a): Mapping Silesian Identity
in Czechia. Geografie – sborník České geografické
společnosti, 105(2): 190–200.
SIWEK, T., KAŇOK, J. (2000b): Vědomí slezské identity v
mentální mapě. Ostrava, University of Ostrava.
SOJA, E. W. (2009): Regional Planning and Development
Theories. In: Kitchen, R., Thrift, N. [eds.]: International
Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Vol. 9 (pp. 259–270).
Amsterdam, Elsevier.
ŠERÝ, M., ŠIMÁČEK, P. (2012): Perception of the historical
border between Moravia and Silesia by residents of
Jeseník area as a partial aspect of their regional identity
(Czech Republic). Moravian Geographical Reports,
20(2): 36–46.
ŠERÝ, M., ŠIMÁČEK, P. (2013): Vnímání hranic
obyvatelstvem regionů s rozdílnou kontinuitou socio-
historického vývoje jako dílčí aspekt jejich regionální
identity. Geografie, 118(4): 392–414.
ŠIFTA, M., CHROMÝ, P. (2017): The importance of symbols in
the region formation process. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift
– Norwegian Journal of Geography, 71(2): 98–113.
ŠTŮLA, F., SEMÍK, M. (1941): Německo. Příruční školní
mapa Protektorátu Čechy a Morava a přilehlých území.
Měřítko 1 : 900 000. Praha a Brno, Ústřední učitelské
nakladatelství a knihkupectví.
TERLOUW, K. (2017): Transforming identity discourses to
promote local interests during municipal amalgamations.
GeoJournal, 83(3): 525–543.
TOMANEY, J. (2009): Region. In: Kitchen, R., Thrift, N.
[eds.]: International Encyclopedia of Human Geography.
Vol. 9 (pp. 136–150). Amsterdam, Elsevier.
TOUŠEK, V., ŠICH, P., VAŠÍČEK, P. (1991): Zemská hranice
mezi Čechami a Moravou. Sborník Československé
geografické společnosti, 96(1): 45–48.
TUAN, Y.-F. (1975a): Images and Mental Maps. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 65(2): 205–213.
TUAN, Y.-F. (1975b): Place. An Experiential Perspective. The
Geographical Review, 65(2): 151–165.
2020, 28(3) MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
169
2020, 28(3): 154–169 MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
169
TUAN, Y.-F. (1979): Space and Place. A Humanistic
Perspective. In: Gale, S., Olsson, G. [eds.]: Philosophy
in Geography (pp. 387–427). Dordrecht, D. Reidel
Publishing Company.
TUAN, Y.-F. (1991): Language and the Making of Place:
A Narrative-Descriptive Approach. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 81(4): 684–696.
ULACK, R., RAITZ, K. (1981): Appalachia: A Comparison
of the Cognitive and Appalachian Regional Commission
Regions. Southeastern Geographer, 21(1): 40–53.
ULACK, R., RAITZ, K. (1982): Perceptions of Appalachia.
Environment and Behavior, 14(6): 725–752.
VAISHAR, A., ZAPLETALOVÁ, J. (2016): Regional identities
of Czech historical lands. Hungarian Geographical
Bulletin, 65(1): 15–25.
VAN LANGENHOVE, L. (2013): What is a region? Towards
a statehood theory of regions. Contemporary Politics,
19(4): 474–490.
VUKOSAV, B. (2011): Geographic name Zagora and its
reference to areas in the Dalmatian hinterland in the
selected newspaper medium. Geoadria, 16(2): 261–281.
VUKOSAV, B., FUERST-BJELIŠ, B. (2016): Labels of
interest groups as indicators of a vernacular region:
A case study in Croatia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en
Sociale Geografie, 107(4): 454–467.
WILLIAMS, R. (2015): Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture
and Society. New York, Oxford University Press.
YODER, J. A. (2003): Decentralisation and Regionalisation
after Communism: Administrative and Territorial
Reform in Poland and the Czech Republic. Europe-Asia
Studies, 55(2): 263–286.
ZDORKOWSKI, R. T., CARNEY, G. O. (1985): This Land is
My Land: Oklahoma’s Changing Vernacular Regions.
Journal of Cultural Geography, 5(2): 97–106.
ZELINSKY, W. (1980): North America’s vernacular regions.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
70(1): 1–16.
ZIMMERBAUER, K. (2011): From Image to Identity:
Building Regions by Place Promotion. European
Planning Studies, 19(2): 243–260.
ZIMMERBAUER, K., PAASI, A. (2013): When old and new
regionalism collide. Deinstitutionalization of regions
and resistance identity in municipality amalgamations.
Journal of Rural Studies, 30: 31–40.
ZIMMERBAUER, K., RIUKULEHTO, S., SUUTARI, T. (2017):
Killing the regional Leviathan? Deinstitutionalization
and Stickiness of Regions. International journal of urban
and regional research, 41(4): 1–18.
ZIMMERBAUER, K., SUUTARI, T., SAARTENOJA, A.
(2012): Resistance to the deinstitutionalization of
a region. Borders, identity and activism in municipality
merger. Geoforum, 43(6): 1065–1075.
Please cite this article as:
MAREK, P. (2020): Transformation of the identity of a region: Theory and the empirical case of the perceptual regions of Bohemia and
Moravia, Czech Republic. Moravian Geographical Reports, 28(3): 154–169. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2020-0012
