{"title":"Cross-border cooperation in selected Carpathian countries","authors":"A. Pieniążek","doi":"10.36874/riesw.2022.1.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross-border cooperation helps to mitigate the negative effects of the border and overcome the consequences of the location of border areas. The article aims to identify the ways of using the cultural and natural potential in EU Cross-border Cooperation Programmes implemented in the Polish, Slovak, and Ukrainian areas of the Carpathians. The analysis covers the existing data using the method of examining strategic documents of the Programmes: Poland-Slovakia, Poland-Belarus-Ukraine, Hungary-Slovakia-Ukraine, and Hungary- Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine, implemented in three programming periods (2004-2020). A quantitative analysis of the projects concerning the use of cultural and natural heritage, which was implemented under the presented Programmes, was also carried out. The research was used to answer the following questions: (1) what kinds of projects with the use of cultural and natural heritage are carried out, (2) are there differences in the ways of using cultural and natural heritage, (3) are there differences between the Programmes implemented in internal and external border regions of the EU. The study made it possible to establish that in the case of all the Programmes, cultural and natural values are considered a strength of the regions and are associated with significant expectations in terms of their use in the development of these areas. At the same time, it is noticed that they are used insufficiently. Activities related to the use of cultural and natural heritage were supported in all the Programmes; however, it was the method of financing that largely determined the taking of action. Traditional (typical) ways of using natural and cultural resources are still dominant.","PeriodicalId":231114,"journal":{"name":"Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36874/riesw.2022.1.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Cross-border cooperation helps to mitigate the negative effects of the border and overcome the consequences of the location of border areas. The article aims to identify the ways of using the cultural and natural potential in EU Cross-border Cooperation Programmes implemented in the Polish, Slovak, and Ukrainian areas of the Carpathians. The analysis covers the existing data using the method of examining strategic documents of the Programmes: Poland-Slovakia, Poland-Belarus-Ukraine, Hungary-Slovakia-Ukraine, and Hungary- Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine, implemented in three programming periods (2004-2020). A quantitative analysis of the projects concerning the use of cultural and natural heritage, which was implemented under the presented Programmes, was also carried out. The research was used to answer the following questions: (1) what kinds of projects with the use of cultural and natural heritage are carried out, (2) are there differences in the ways of using cultural and natural heritage, (3) are there differences between the Programmes implemented in internal and external border regions of the EU. The study made it possible to establish that in the case of all the Programmes, cultural and natural values are considered a strength of the regions and are associated with significant expectations in terms of their use in the development of these areas. At the same time, it is noticed that they are used insufficiently. Activities related to the use of cultural and natural heritage were supported in all the Programmes; however, it was the method of financing that largely determined the taking of action. Traditional (typical) ways of using natural and cultural resources are still dominant.