Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
SP baner

Tom 48 Nr 2 (2020)

Podzielone wyspy

Symboliczne łączenie transgranicznych miast nadmorskich. Przykład Świnoujście – Heringsdorf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/STP.2020.48.2.09
Przesłane: 29 września 2020
Opublikowane: 25 września 2020

Abstrakt

The aim of the article is to show the elements of cooperation that foster the connection of border cities, with particular emphasis on infrastructure, means of transport and tourism, using the example of coastal cities. An example of such a place is the island of Uznam and the coastal cities of Heringsdorf (Germany) and Świnoujście (Poland) separated by the state border. With the opening of the internal borders of the European Union, it became possible to organise the undeveloped spaces between the settlement units in the cross-border areas. This is aimed at both: managing the initial border and the related elements (which can lead to their visual disappearance – destruction, deliberate dismantling and so on – and to maintaining the visibility of these elements) and at symbolically connecting the space by blurring or symbolically highlighting the elements of the border or integration (such as lines, inscriptions, monuments).
In the case of Świnoujście and Heringsdorf, the most important elements of the symbolic connection of the neighbouring countries were the creation of border crossings, the launch of ship cruises and bus connections. Moreover, the border has become a symbol of barriers and also of integration, that is, a connecting element. In 2011, the Cross-border Promenade Świnoujście-Heringsdorf was commissioned. It is one of the most interesting architectural projects showing the integration of the states. The promenade itself, as well as special monuments, plaques and border markings have a high symbolic value and therefore function as tourist attractions. At the same time, they contribute to the protection of heritage. The border is an element of modernisation and an impulse for economic growth. Thanks to the European Union’s policy, it is also a specific place for access to financial resources.

Bibliografia

  1. Blasco J., Guia L., Prats L., Emergence of governance in cross-border destinations, „Annales of Tourism Research” 2014, nr 49.
  2. De Boe Ph., Grasland C., Healy A., Spatial integration, „Study Program on European Spatial Planning” 1.4, Strand 1999 (working-paper).
  3. Dołzbłasz S., Symmetry or asymmetry? Cross-border openness of service providers in Polish-Czech and Polish-German border towns, „Moravian Geographical Reports” 2015, nr 23, 1.
  4. Dołzbłasz S., Raczyk A., Different borders-different cooperation? Transborder cooperation in Poland, „Geographical Review” 2015, nr 105 (3).
  5. Duda T., Kierunki i perspektywy rozwoju turystyki kulturowej w transgranicznej przestrzeni współdzielonego dziedzictwa (przykład Pomorza Zachodniego), „Folia Turistica” 2018, nr 48.
  6. Guichonnet P., Raffestin C., Géographie des Frontières, PUF, Paris 1974.
  7. Hartshorn R., Suggestions on the terminology of political boundaries, „Annals of the Association of American Geographer” 1936.
  8. Jędrusik K., Usedom/Uznam, w: The Political Economy of Divided Islands. International Political Economy, ed. G. Baldacchino, Palgrave Macmillan, London 2013.
  9. Kolosov V., Więckowski M., Border changes in Central and Eastern Europe: An introduction, „Geographia Polonica” 2018, nr 91, z. 1.
  10. Komornicki T., Granice Polski. Analiza zmian przenikalności w latach 1990–1996, „Geopolitical Studies”, nr 5, IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa 1999.
  11. Kristof L.D.K., The nature of frontiers and boundaries, „Annals of the Association of American Geographers” 1959, 49.
  12. Kulczyńska K., Miasta podzielone jako przedmiot zainteresowań geografii oraz innych nauk, „Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna” 2013, nr 24.
  13. Kulczyńska K., Miasta podzielone w Europie, „Studia Miejskie” 2014, t. 15.
  14. Mayer M., Zbaraszewski W., Pieńkowski D., Gach G., Gernert J., Cross-Border Tourism in Protected Areas: Potentials, Pitfalls and Perspectives, „Geographies of Tourism and Global Change”, Springer, Cham 2019.
  15. Nilsson J.H., Mobility and regionalisation: Changing patterns of air traffic in the Baltic Sea Region in connection to European integration, „Geographia Polonica” 2018, vol. 91, iss. 1.
  16. Pounds N.J.G., Political geography, McGraw Hill, New York 1963.
  17. Prescott J.R.V., Political frontiers and boundaries, Unvin Hyman, London 1987.
  18. Prokkola E.K., Resources and barriers in tourism development: cross-border cooperation, regionalization and destination building at the Finnish-Swedish border, FENNIA 2008, 186, 1.
  19. Prokkola E.K., Lois M., Scalar politics of border heritage: an examination of the EU’s northern and southern border areas, „Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism” 2016, 16:sup1.
  20. Scott J.W., Border politics in Central Europe: Hungary and the role of national scale and nation-building, „Geographia Polonica” 2018, nr 91, z. 1.
  21. Studzieniecki T., Meyer B., The programming of tourism development in Polish cross-border areas during the 2007–2013 period, The 6th Central European Conference in Regional Science – CERS 2017.
  22. Timothy D.J., Tourism and political boundaries, Routledge Advances in Tourism, London – New York 2001.
  23. Więckowski M., Turystyka na obszarach przygranicznych Polski, „Prace Geograficzne”, Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN, Warszawa 2010.
  24. Więckowski M., Tourism space: an attempt at a fresh look, „Tourism” 2014, nr 24, 1.
  25. Więckowski M., Cerić D., Evolving tourism on the Baltic Sea coast: perspectives on change in the Polish maritime borderland, „Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism” 2016, 16:sup1.
  26. Żelichowski R., Baarle Nassau–Hertog, Seria Europa w skali mikro, Instytut Studiów Politycznych PAN, Warszawa 2015.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.