iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry


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

Marcin Spyra   

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

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.


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

Authors’ address

Marcin Spyra
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 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

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 25014
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 20313
Abstract Page Views: 902
PDF Downloads: 2779
Citation/Reference Downloads: 18
XML Downloads: 1002

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 3719
Overall contacts: 25014
Avg. contacts per week: 47.08

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Nov 2020)

Total number of cites (since 2014): 3
Average cites per year: 0.43


Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

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

AEBR (2000)
Practical guide to cross-border cooperation (3rd edn). Association of European Border Regions - AEBR, European Commission, Gronau, Germany, pp. 405.
Online | Gscholar
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
Cantiani M (2012)
Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. iForest 5: 72-82.
CrossRef | Gscholar
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
Council of Europe (2000)
European landscape convention. Council of Europe Treaty Series no. 176, Florence, Italy, pp. 4.
Online | Gscholar
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.
Kordecki M, Smolorz D (2011)
Górny slask = Oberschlesien. Dom Wspólpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej, Gliwice, Poland.
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
Lepik KL (2009)
Euroregions as mechanisms for strengthening cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region. Trames 13: 265-284.
CrossRef | Gscholar
MacKay B, McKiernan P (2010)
Creativity and dysfunction in strategic processes: the case of scenario planning. Futures 42: 271-281.
CrossRef | Gscholar
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]
Nelson R (2010)
Extending foresight: the case for and nature of Foresight 2.0. Futures 42: 282-294.
CrossRef | Gscholar
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
Perkmann M (2003)
Cross-border regions in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 10: 153-171.
CrossRef | Gscholar
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
Ratcliffe J, Krawczyk E (2011)
Imagineering city futures: the use of prospective through scenarios in urban planning. Futures 43: 642-653.
CrossRef | Gscholar
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
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.
Steiner F (2008)
The living landscape. an ecological approach to landscape planning. Island Press, Washington, USA, pp. 8.
Stenseke M (2009)
Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26: 214-223.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Stevenson T (2006)
From vision into action. Futures 38: 667-672.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Thackara J (2006)
In the bubble: designing in the complex world. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, pp. 43.
Whittington R (1996)
Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning 29: 731-735.
CrossRef | Gscholar
van Hulst M (2012)
Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning. Planning Theory 11: 299-318.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Varum CA, Melo C (2010)
Directions in scenario planning literature - a review of the past decades. Futures 42: 355-369.
CrossRef | Gscholar

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info