Abstract
The countries of the Visegrad Group share a lot of similarities in their historical development and socio-economic attributes. The next to last chapter of their history, the socialist era with its centrally planned economy also had a homogenizing effect on the four countries in many aspects, including the migration patterns. However, after the political and economic transition, the rural migration processes of the Visegrad Group became more diversified. With the disappearance of the earlier hindrances, the rapidly emerging suburbanisation quickly became the most apparent migration trend of the post-socialist era. Other new migratory movements, like amenity migration/counterurbanization gained only limited space and attention so far, and their future significance is uncertain. However, a large part of the rural space in the Visegrad countries is still characterised with rural outmigration. With the application of different explanatory variables describing environmental conditions, socioeconomic attributes and relative location, this paper aims to explore the driving forces behind the rural migration patterns of the Visegrad group after the political and economic transition and to reveal the common features and country-specific traits of the process.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abrams, J. B., Gosnell, H., Gill, N. J., & Klepeis, P. J. (2012). Re-creating the rural, reconstructing nature: An international literature review of the environmental implications of amenity migration. Conservation and society, 10(3), 270–284.
Bajmócy, P. (1999). The characteristics of suburbanisation in the surroundings of Pécs (A szuburbanizáció sajátosságai Pécs környékén). Földrajzi Értesítő, 48(1–2), 127–138.
Balogi, A. (2010). Amenity migration: Foreign amenity migrants in Hungary (Jóléti migráció. Külföldiek Magyarországra telepedése). In Á. Hárs & J. Tóth (Eds.), Changing migration patterns, changing environment (Változó migráció—változó környezet) (pp. 245–262). MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézet: Budapest.
Bański, J. (2005). Suburban and peripheral rural areas in Poland: The balance of development in the transformation period. Geografický casopis, 57(2), 117–130.
Bartoš, M., Kušová, D., & Těšitel, J. (2009). Motivation and life style of the Czech amenity migrants (case study). European Countryside, 1(3), 164–179.
Bartoš, M., Kušová, D., Těšitel, J., Kopp, J., & Novotná, M. (2008). Amenity migration in the context of landscape-ecology research. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 1(2), 5–21.
Behr, M., & Gober, P. (1982). When a residence is not a house: Examining residence-based migration definitions. Professional Geographer, 34(2), 178–184.
Beluszky, P. (2000) Observations about the transformation of the cities and towns after 1990 (Adalékok a városállomány 1990 utáni átalakulásához). In G. Horváth, J. Rechnitzer, (Eds.), The spatial structure and processes of Hungary at the end of the millenium (pp 115–129). (Magyarország területi szerkezete és folyamatai az ezredfordulón). MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja, Pécs.
Beluszky, P., & Sikos, T. (2007). Villages in transition: The village types of Hungary at the end of the millenium (Változó falvaink: Magyarország falutípusai az ezredfordulón). Budapest: MTA Társadalomkutató Központ.
Bender, O., & Kanitscheider, S. (2012). New immigration into the European Alps: Emerging research issues. Mountain Research and Development, 32(2), 235–241.
Blunt, A. (2007). Cultural geographies of migration: Mobility, transnationality and diaspora. Progress in Human Geography, 31, 684–694.
Borsdorf, A., Stötter, J., Grabherr, G., Bender, O., Marchant, C., & Sánchez, R. (2015). Impacts and risks of global change. In V. I. Grover, A. Borsdorf, J. Breuste, P Ch. Tiwari, & F. W. Frangetto (Eds.), Impact of global changes on mountains: Responses and adaptation (pp. 33–76). Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group.
Boyle, P., Halfacree, K., & Robinson, V. (1998). Exploring contemporary migration. Harrow: Longman.
Brown, D. L., & Schafft, K. A. (2002). Population deconcentration in Hungary during the postsocialist transformation. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(3), 233–244.
Champion, T. (1998). Studying counterurbanisation and the rural population turnaround. In P. Boyle & K. Halfacree (Eds.), Migration into rural areas: Theories and issues (pp. 21–40). Chichester: Wiley.
Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern western world. London: Routledge.
Csatári, B. & Kiss, A. (Eds.). (2004). A kaleidoscope of scattered farms: The results of the Tanyacollege of 2002–2003 (Tanyai kaleidoszkóp. A 2002–2003. évi tanyakollégium munkájának eredményei). MTA RKK Alföldi Tudományos Intézet, Kecskemét.
Csurgó, B. (2013). Residing in rural, living in rural (Vidéken lakni és vidéken élni). Argumentum: MTA Társadalomtudományi Kutatóközpont Szociológiai Intézet, Budapest.
Degórska, B. (2012). Spatial growth of urbanised land within the Warsaw Metropolitan Area in the first decade of the 21th century. Geographia Polonica, 85(3), 77–95.
Dijsktra, L. & Poelman, H. (2008). Remote rural regions—How proximity to a city influences the performance of rural regions. Regional Focus 2008(1).
Elder, G. (1978). Family history and the life-course. In T. Hareven (Ed.), The family and the life course in historical perspective (pp. 19–64). New York: Academic Press.
Enyedi, G. (1984). The cycle of urbanisation and the transformation of the Hungarian settlement network (Az urbanizációs ciklus és a magyar településhálózat átalakulása). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Enyedi, G. (1989). Is there a socialist urbanisation? (Van-e szocialista urbanizáció?) Tér és Társadalom 3(2), 92–103.
Enyedi, G. (2011). The stages of urbanisation—revisited (A városnövekedés szakaszai—újragondolva). Tér és Társadalom, 25(1), 5–19.
Fejős, Z., & Szijártó, Z. (2002). The changes of a landscape: Case studies about the Káli-basin (Egy tér alakváltozásai: esettanulmányok a Káli-medencéről). Budapest: Néprazi Múzeum.
Fishman, R. (1987). Bourgeois utopias: The rise and fall of suburbia. New York: Basic Books.
Gilleard, C., & Higgs, P. (2002). The third age: Class, cohort or generation? Ageing & Society, 22(3), 369–382.
Glorioso, R. S. (1999). Amenity migration in the Šumava bioregion, Czech Republic: Implications for ecological integrity. In P. M. Gode, M. F. Price, & F. M. Zimmermann (Eds.), Tourism and development in mountain regions (pp. 275–295). CAB International, Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Golding, S. A. (2014). Moving narratives: Using online forums to study amenity outmigration in the American Midwest. Journal of Rural Studies, 33, 32–40.
Graves, P. E. (1979). A life-cycle empirical analysis of migration and climate, by race. Journal of Urban Economics, 6(2), 135–147.
Halás, M., Roubínek, P., & Kladivo, P. (2012). The urban and suburban space of Olomouc: Theoretical approaches, delimitation and typology (Urbánní a suburbánní prostor Olomouce: teoretické přístupy, vymezení, typologie). Geografický Časopis, 64(4), 289–310.
Hardi, T. (2002). The characteristics of suburbanisation in the surroundings of Győr (Szuburbanizációs jelenségek Győr környékén). Tér és Társadalom, 16(3), 57–83.
Hardi, T., Lados, M., & Tóth, K. (2010). (Slovakian-Hungarian agglomeration in the surroundings of Bratislava) Magyar-szlovák agglomeráció Pozsony környékén. Nyugat-magyarországi Tudományos Intézet, Fórum Kisebbségkutató Intézet, Győr-Somorja: MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja.
Illés, S., & Michalkó, G. (2012). Real estate purchasing by foreigners in Hungarian Settlement system as seen from the angle of niche concept. In T. Csapó & A. Balogh (Eds.), Development of the settlement network in the Central European countries: Past, present, and future (pp. 175–189). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
Ilnicki, D. (2002). Changes in the demographic structures of Wroclaw suburban area. Example Mirków and Bielany Wrocławski (Przemiany w strukturach demograficznych w miejscowościach strefy podmiejskiej Wrocławia. Przykład Mirków i Bielany Wrocławskie). Bulletin of geography: Socio-economic series 1, 201–214.
Jankó, F. (2004). Suburbanisation processes around Sopron: The transformation of the Lővérek (Szuburbán folyamatok Sopron térségében: a Lőverek átalakulása). Földrajzi Értesítő, 53(3–4), 295–312.
Járosi, K. (2006). Moving to another world: Residence tourists, experience and amenity migrants in the Hungarian villages (Felkerekedni egy másik világba. Rezidenciaturisták, élmény- és jóléti migránsok magyarországi falvakban). Regio 17(3), 116–139.
King, R. (2012). Geography and migration studies: Retrospect and prospect. Population, Space and Place, 18, 134–153.
Klepeis, P., & Laris, P. (2008). Hobby ranching and Chile’s land-reform legacy. Geographical Review, 98(3), 372–394.
Kontuly, T. (1998). Contrasting the counterurbanisation experience in European nations. In P. Boyle & K. Halfacree (Eds.), Migration into rural areas: Theories and issues (pp. 61–78). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Korec, P. (2003). Population development, urbanization and regional disparities of Slovakia. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica, 38(1), 167–180.
Kovács, Z. (1999). The characteristics of suburbanisation in the agglomeration of Budapest: Case studies (A szuburbanizáció jellemzői a budapesti agglomerációban: esettanulmányok). Földrajzi Értesítő, 48(1–2), 93–125.
Kulcsár, J. L., & Curtis, K. J. (2012). International handbook of rural demography. Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer.
Ladányi, J., & Szelényi, I. (1998). Class, ethnicity and urban restructuring in postcommunist Hungary. In G. Enyedi (Ed.), Social change and urban restructuring in Central Europe (pp. 67–86). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Lee, E. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47–57.
Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supply of labour. The Manchester School, 22(2), 139–191.
Mabogunje, A. L. (1970). Systems approach to a theory of rural-urban migration. Geographical Analysis, 2, 1–18.
Masik, G. (2010). The quality of life of suburbanities: A case study of the Gdańsk agglomeration. Bulletin of Geography: Socio-Economic Series, 14, 91–100.
Matarrita-Cascante, D., & Stocks, G. (2013). Amenity migration to the global south: Implications for community development. Geoforum, 49, 91–102.
Matlovič, R., & Sedláková, A. (2007). The impact of suburbanisation in the hinterland of Prešov (Slovakia). Moravian Geographical Reports, 15(2), 22–32.
Mithchell, C. J. A. (2004). Making sense of counterurbanization. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), 15–34.
Mitchell, K. (1997a). Transnational discourse: Bringing geography back in. Antipode, 29, 101–114.
Mitchell, K. (1997b). Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity. Society and Space, 15, 533–553.
Moss, L. A. G. (1994). Beyond tourism: The amenity migrants. In M. Mannermaa, S. Inayatullah, & R. Slaughter (Eds.), Coherence and chaos in our uncommon futures: Visions, means, action (pp. 121–128). Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre Turku School of Economics and Business.
Moss, L. A. G. (2006). The amenity migrants: Ecological challenge to our contemporary Shangri-La. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 3–25). Cambridge, MA: CAB International.
Novotná, M., Preis, J., Kopp, J., & Bartoš, M. (2013). Changes in migration to rural regions in the Czech republic: Position and perspectives. Moravian Geographical Reports, 21(3), 37–54.
Ondoš, S., & Káčerová, M. (2007). Migration aspects of the urbanisation in post-socialism: Bratislava case. Forum Statisticum Slovacum, 3(3), 176–180.
Otero, A., Nakayama, L., Marioni, S., Gallego, E., Lonac, A., Dimitriu, A., et al. (2006). Amenity migration in the Patagonian mountain community of San Martín de los Andes, Nequén, Argentina. In L. A. G. Moss (Ed.), The amenity migrants: Seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures (pp. 200–211). Cambridge, MA: CAB International.
Ouředníček, M. (2007). Differential suburban development in the Prague urban region. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 89(2), 111–126.
Partridge, M. D. (2010). The duelling models: NEG versus amenity migration in explaining US engines of growth. Papers in Regional Science, 89(3), 513–536.
Perger, É. (2002). The dilemmas of the administrative orgranisation of Great-Budapest (Nagy-Budapest közigazgatás-szervezési dilemmái). Tanulmányok Budapest múltjából, 30, 177–200.
Piore, M. J. (1979). Birds of passage: Migrant labor and industrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167–235.
Rossi, P. (1955). Why families move? A study in the social psychology of residential mobility. Glencoe: Free Press.
Schuchmann, J. (2012). Suburbanisation processes in the Budapest metropolitan region. In: V. Szirmai, H. Fassmann, (Eds.), Metropolitan regions in Europe (pp 100–120). Austrian—Hungarian Action Fund, Budapest-Vienna.
Silvey, R. (2006). Geographies of gender and migration: Spatializing social difference. International Migration Review, 40, 64–81.
Stockdale, A., Findlay, A., & Short, D. (2000). The repopulation of rural Scotland: Opportunity and threat. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 243–257.
Szczepańska, A., & Senetra, A. (2012). Migrations of city dwellers to suburban areas—The example of the city of Olsztyn. Bulletin of Geography Socio Economic Series, 18, 117–124.
Szelényi, I. (1983). Urban inequalities under state socialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szepesi, G. (2008). Political ambition as a factor of Hungarian urbanisation (A politikai akarat mint a magyarországi városodás befolyásoló tényezője). Földrajzi Értesítő, 57(3–4), 389–398.
Timár, J. (1999). Theoretical questions about suburbanisation (Elméleti kérdések a szuburbanizációról). Földrajzi Értesítő, 48(1–2), 7–32.
Tóth, J. (2008). Meditation about the practice of granting township rights in Hungary (Meditáció a városokról és a várossá nyilvánítás hazai gyakorlatáról). Területi Statisztika, 48(3), 237–244.
Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Polity, Cambridge.
van den Berg, L., Drewett, R., Klaasen, L. H., Rossi, A., & Vijverberg, C. H. T. (1982). Urban Europe: Study of growth and decline (Vol. I). New York, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Vigašová, D., Papajová, M., Krížová, L., & Šveda, M. (2010). Land use change in the suburban zones of Banská Bystrica and Zvolen (Slovakia). Moravian Geographical Reports, 18(3), 43–52.
Vincent, J. A., Phillipson, C., & Downs, M. (Eds.). (2006). The futures of old age. London: Sage Publications.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system. New York: Academic Press.
Warnes, A. (1992). Migration and the life course. In A. Champion & A. Fielding (Eds.), Migration processes and patterns volume 1: Research progress and prospects (pp. 175–187). London: Belhaven.
Zelinsky, W. (1971). The hypothesis of the mobility transition. Geographical Review, 61(2), 219–249.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
A detailed description (R square, standardised beta coefficients, significance levels) of the multiple linear regression models presented in Figs. 6.5 and 6.6 (own elaboration based on the data from EEA, Corine Land Cover, Google Maps, KSH, GUS, ČSÚ and ŠÚ).
Poland | ||
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 1995–2001 | |
R square | 0.363 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | 0.262 | 0.000 |
Elevation | 0.005 | 0.786 |
Sh. of protected areas | 0.005 | 0.788 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | 0.039 | 0.045 |
Sh. of forests | −0.478 | 0.000 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.594 | 0.000 |
Unemployment rate | −0.162 | 0.000 |
Distance of capital | −0.002 | 0.914 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | −0.254 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | −0.046 | 0.044 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | −0.104 | 0.000 |
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 2001–2011 | |
R square | 0.367 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | 0.303 | 0.000 |
Elevation | −0.068 | 0.000 |
Sh. of protected areas | −0.016 | 0.368 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | 0.055 | 0.004 |
Sh. of forests | −0.052 | 0.144 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.176 | 0.000 |
Unemployment rate | −0.184 | 0.000 |
Distance of capital | −0.044 | 0.014 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | −0.233 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | −0.106 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | 0.098 | 0.000 |
Czechia | ||
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 1990–2000 | |
R square | 0.071 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | 0.091 | 0.000 |
Elevation | 0.002 | 0.921 |
Sh. of protected areas | 0.032 | 0.036 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | 0.029 | 0.059 |
Sh. of forests | −0.156 | 0.000 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.231 | 0.000 |
Unemployment rate | 0.026 | 0.087 |
Distance of capital | −0.066 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | −0.003 | 0.830 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | −0.148 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | −0.032 | 0.089 |
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 2001–2011 | |
R square | 0.195 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | −0.056 | 0.000 |
Elevation | −0.043 | 0.006 |
Sh. of protected areas | −0.019 | 0.184 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | 0.026 | 0.070 |
Sh. of forests | −0.096 | 0.006 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.198 | 0.000 |
Unemployment rate | −0.059 | 0.000 |
Distance of capital | −0.255 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | −0.063 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | −0.190 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | −0.063 | 0.000 |
Slovakia | ||
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 1996–2000 | |
R square | 0.061 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | 0.033 | 0.104 |
Elevation | −0.077 | 0.019 |
Sh. of protected areas | 0.009 | 0.698 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | −0.055 | 0.023 |
Sh. of forests | −0.341 | 0.000 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.323 | 0.000 |
Unemployment rate | 0.111 | 0.000 |
Distance of capital | −0.151 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | −0.002 | 0.950 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | −0.039 | 0.245 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | −0.103 | 0.001 |
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 2001–2011 | |
R square | 0.126 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | −0.072 | 0.000 |
Elevation | −0.043 | 0.173 |
Sh. of protected areas | −0.007 | 0.747 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | 0.018 | 0.443 |
Sh. of forests | −0.189 | 0.004 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.144 | 0.034 |
Unemployment rate | −0.006 | 0.852 |
Distance of capital | −0.228 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | −0.075 | 0.003 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | −0.056 | 0.087 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | −0.116 | 0.000 |
Hungary | ||
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 1990–2001 | |
R square | 0.203 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | 0.150 | 0.000 |
Elevation | 0.031 | 0.182 |
Sh. of protected areas | 0.031 | 0.189 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | 0.025 | 0.297 |
Sh. of forests | −0.045 | 0.225 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.007 | 0.845 |
Unemployment rate | 0.042 | 0.332 |
Distance of capital | 0.186 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | 0.081 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | 0.143 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | 0.089 | 0.000 |
Dependent variable | Yearly average migration rate 2001–2011 | |
R square | 0.226 | |
Explanatory variables | Standardised beta coefficients | Significance level |
Population size | 0.097 | 0.000 |
Elevation | 0.064 | 0.005 |
Sh. of protected areas | 0.026 | 0.258 |
Sh. of Natura 2000 areas | 0.013 | 0.584 |
Sh. of forests | −0.268 | 0.000 |
Sh. of agricultural areas | −0.239 | 0.000 |
Unemployment rate | −0.144 | 0.000 |
Distance of capital | 0.179 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 100,000 inhabitants | 0.047 | 0.022 |
Distance of city over 50,000 inhabitants | 0.132 | 0.000 |
Distance of city over 30,000 inhabitants | 0.073 | 0.001 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lennert, J. (2019). Rural Migration Patterns in the Visegrad Group. In: Bański, J. (eds) Three Decades of Transformation in the East-Central European Countryside. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21237-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21237-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21236-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21237-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)