Land use is a cornerstone of human civilization, but also intrinsically linked to many global sustainability challenges-from climate change to food security to the ongoing biodiversity crisis. Understanding the underlying technological, institutional and economic drivers of land-use change, and how they play out in different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts, is therefore important for identifying effective policies to successfully address these challenges. In this regard, much can be learned from studying long-term land-use change. We examined the evolution of European land management over the past 200 years with the aim of identifying (1) key episodes of changes in land management, and (2) their underlying technological, institutional and economic drivers. To do so, we generated narratives elaborating on the drivers of land use-change at the country level for 28 countries in Europe. We qualitatively grouped drivers into land-management regimes, and compared changes in management regimes across Europe. Our results allowed discerning seven land-management regimes, and highlighted marked heterogeneity regarding the types of management regimes occurring in a particular country, the timing and prevalence of regimes, and the conditions that result in observed bifurcations. However, we also found strong similarities across countries in the timing of certain landmanagement regime shifts, often in relation to institutional reforms (e.g., changes in EU agrarian policies or the emergence and collapse of the Soviet land management paradigm) or to technological innovations (e.g., drainage pipes, tillage and harvesting machinery, motorization, and synthetic fertilizers). Land reforms frequently triggered changes in land management, and the location and timing of reforms had substantial impacts on land-use outcomes. Finally, forest protection policies and voluntary cooperatives were important drivers of land-management changes. Overall, our results demonstrate that land-system changes should not be conceived as unidirectional developments following predefined trajectories, but rather as path-dependent processes that may be affected by various drivers, including sudden events.

The paper focuses on the relationship between social capital and local socio-economic development in the case of Czech peripheries. First, based on individual-level survey data, it examines relationships among various indicators of social capital encompassing three common dimensions: social networks, trust and civic norms and values. The results (correlations) confirm the existence of statistically significant and positive relationships. Second, the paper explores regional differences in social capital in typologically diverse peripheries and reaffirms an existing dichotomy: continuously settled vs. resettled model territories. Third, using chi-square analysis, research findings stress the importance of personal characteristics (age, education and economic activity) for residents' amount of social capital. Therefore, social capital can be seen as an instrument in the activation of endogenous development potential of local communities, especially in peripheral regions.

No abstract

This article seeks to contribute to discussion concerning the concept of countryside in geographical sciences. In the first section it discusses selected approaches for assessing rural areas and presents key stimulants from the new regional and cultural geography (rural areas as a socio-spatial process and as living space). The second section presents examples of empirical findings from a field survey, the respondents to which were mayors of rural municipalities – with up to 3,000 inhabitants – in Czechia. We empirically explore the truthfulness of a thesis concerning the existence of several distinct types of rural areas in Czechia: rural areas with differing development potential and diverse problems, calling for the use of different instruments in overcoming the problems in question. The results of the survey make it possible to assess the territorial differences of so-called soft factors of ruralmunicipality development (perceptions regarding rural areas, inhabitants’ relationship to the territory of their municipality, local pride, the conditions and indicators of a successful municipality).

No abstract