PROJECT
Dutch Villages in the Czech Republic: a New Form of International Tourism in the Early
21Century
1. Summary of the present state of the problem and topicality of the research project
Recent major changes in rural development in Europe instigated by the decline in farming as a
determinant, followed by population loss, lack of public services, economic and ecological
degradation have brought about new demands made on rural space. A shift from the agricultural to the
rural known as the ‘post-productivist transition’ (Ilbery 1998) has produced a type of modern rurality
characterized by the complete integration of rural areas within the contemporary economic and social
organisation of the capitalist world (Árnason et al 2009: 54), by new forms of relationship between
urban and rural contexts. Modern rurality is frequently considered to be a positive situation because it
represents a new vitality for declining social organisations. Within the EU, upgrade of rural
development has been identified as the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy with a
purpose to diversify the rural economy, and improve the quality of life. Promotion of culture, tourism
and recreation was officially declared as a vital part of rural development policy.
The post-industrial rurality based predominantly on consumption involves different forms of
land-use consumption, concerns over the environment, and the rise of rural tourism. Rural tourism is
not a new phenomenon. From the late 19th century onwards, Czech rural areas were integral part and
target of domestic tourism, which comprised individual ownership of second homes (cottages,
weekend houses/chalets) and/or corporate possessions in terms of holiday camps and recreational
resorts during the socialist era. In Czechoslovakia, the phenomenon of second home ownership was
exclusively associated with the most common way of domestic leisure in the communist era:
cottageing (Bičík 2001; Vágner, Fialová 2004, 2005, 2009), which was above all a form of escapism
by the locals from the straightjacket of the communist regime into the private (Horáková 2010b).
However, it is only since the 1990s that tourism assumed a more central role and rural space has
emerged as a significant element of incoming tourism. New, alternative forms of tourism such as
ecotourism, green-, or international nature-based tourism are above all the outcome of the shift from
Fordist production to post-Fordist consumption, or to second modernity characterized by society´s
desire for new types of experiences and entertainment. Romeiß–Stracke (2003) uses in this respect the
term ‘society of meaning’ for which recreation in rural countryside serves as one of the illustrating
examples of leisure-time activities.
The traditional countryside characterized by a dominant agricultural sector and associated
settlement patterns has been reshaped by the declining role of agrarian economy and local
manufacture. As a result, it has become less a place of agricultural production and more an object of
consumption, whether by tourists, conservationists, or incoming residents (Sharpley 2004). The
transformation of rural landscape for tourism purposes has yielded new geographies of tourism. Novel
uses of natural environment include, above all, a rapid growth of international nature-based tourism
whose aim is to meet the needs of urbanized and industrialized societies. A case in point are Dutch
tourists seeking vacations in a Czech post-communist ‘natural’ environment. To secure a livelihood by
diversifying their agricultural activities, Czech rural populations increasingly offer their assets public space, ‘rustic culture’ and landscape - to international forms of tourism.
Basically, there are two types of Dutch nature-based tourism. Firstly, individual ownership of
second homes owned by the Dutch in Czech rural countryside, and secondly, international tourism in
recreational parks initiated by Dutch investors, attracting predominantly Dutch clientele. As for the
former, the recent foreign (predominantly Dutch) purchase of country vacation homes has become
common throughout Czech rural areas. As for the latter, rural communities are selling their vacant
farmlands, abandoned agricultural fields and meadows to foreigners seeking to build new recreational
complexes that have been commonly named as ‘Dutch villages’ (Horáková 2010a, b; Fialová,
Kadlecová 2007; Fialová et al 2009; Nožičková 2010, 2011).
The frequent outflow of original rural inhabitants is compensated for the influx of other people
(usually urbanites) who are moving into rural areas either temporarily or with the intention for
permanent residence (‘amenity migration,’ see Bartoš, Kušová 2005; Moss 2006). These in-movers
often have different perspectives and ideas on how local development should be achieved and
maintained and what a ‘better quality of life’ means. Current restructuring processes in rural areas can
challenge old identities and provide an opportunity for the construction of new identities, or the
strengthening of existing identities utilising existing resources (Hannon and Curtin 2009) and
activating of social capital ( Halpern 2005; Hampl, Dostál, Drbohlav 2007).
Our attention is focused on the processes of transformation and the strategies of development
of five Czech rural communities that are affected by the two abovementioned forms of Dutch tourism:
Dutch second home ownership and recreational complexes that have been built right within the village
territories. The project will build on the partial results of two recently completed research projects
conducted by the applicant: the FRVS F5/c research project entitled Anthropology of Tourism (2008),
and the Specific-science grant project entitled Social Anthropology of the European Union: Changing
Local Communities (2006).The project will expand on the ongoing research project GAČR
403/09/1491 (2009-2011) The significance of tourist function of settlements and municipalities in the
process of formation of regional identity and identity of regions in CR conducted by the co-applicant.
Project results will include a book, six articles published in international and Czech journals,
two workshops and an international conference resulting in a special issue of a journal. While the
primary goal of the project is academic, we would also like the research process and outcomes to
contribute to the reflection of various players involved in or concerned with the transformation and
development of rural areas in the Czech Republic.
2. Literature review: In this review of the current state of research we will situate the proposed
project within the field of social-science studies, particularly within anthropology/sociology of tourism
and mobility, and within social geography; firstly in the international context and secondly within the
Czech academe, in order to point out the distinct contribution the project will make to Czech and
international research on current transformations of rural areas.
2.1. Research on the international context of transformation and development of post-industrial
rural communities: In recent decades, a number of social scientists have engaged in debates on both
local social complexity and global social connections (Coles et al. 2005: 463).Among them,
anthropologists turned their attention to explore diverse topics relating to contemporary human travel,
such as mobility, diaspora, and tourism. Tourism offers exciting prospects for socio-cultural
anthropology. In general, this discipline appears to be a science par excellence in the analysis and
evaluation of dynamics of tourism, and, in particular, in the study of the social and cultural impacts of
tourism on dynamically evolving socio-cultural, economic and political settings. The holistic approach
of anthropological theories provides a unique framework for such a study. The list of authors who
have written about tourism, adopting the anthropological and sociological perspective, is immense
(e.g.Boissevain 1996; Boissevain,Selwyn 2006; Burns 1999; Finn 2000; Harrison 2001; Jafari 2001;
Meethan 2001; Lew at al 2004; Smith, Brent 2001; Urry 2002; Mowforth 2003). The latest trend in
this branch is the study of the interaction between hosts and guests that can, in varying degrees,
introduce social change within society (Boissevain 1996; Smith 1989; Smith, Brent 2001). In studying
the degree of socio-cultural change, we can make use of various anthropological theoretical concepts:
the theory of demonstration effects, acculturation, cultural drift, and assimilation (Burns 1999).
The centrality of tourism, especially international, to the processes of transformation and
development, has been recognized by many scholars (e.g. Hall, Tucker 2004). New conceptualisations
of tourism as a form of temporary mobility (Hall 2005) or temporary migration (Bell, Ward 2000;
Hall, Williams 2002) are currently receiving renewed scholarly attention. One of the most researched
interfaces between tourism and migration is the second home, a result of the increasing mobility of
ever-larger sections of the industrial and post-industrial world. Since the 1990s the issue of second
home tourism has been revisited due to the emergence of new mobile lifestyles (Müller 2004). Recent
research on second homes includes e.g. Shucksmith1983; Jaakson1986; Barke 1991; Girard, Gartner
1993; Chaplin 1999; Kowalczyk 1994; Willams, Kaltenborn 1999; Müller 1999, 2002, 2004;
Hoogendoorn et al. 2005; Priemus 2005. Their authors admit difficulties in drawing general
conclusions regarding the impact of second home tourism on change (Müller 1999). Second home
tourism is viewed both as a consequence of rural change, a symptom of the declining traditional
countryside, and a cause for rural decline (Gallent, Tewdwr-Jones 2000).
2.1. Research on post-communist (including Czech) rural tourism: The past two decades have
been marked by rapid transformations of tourism in post-communist countries in Central and Eastern
Europe (CEE). Yet, there has been little systematic research on tourism development in this region
from the social-science perspective and there remain many issues that have been rather ignored by
social scientists. By and large, this neglect refers to the region of post-communist Czechoslovakia and
the Czech Republic. On the whole, academic literature on tourism development processes in postcommunist societies is written in English (e.g. Harrison 2001; Hughes, Allen 2005; Johnson 1995;
Stevens 2000; Wallace 2001; Williams, Balaz 2000, etc.). Recently, a developing interest in tourism
among scholars on tourism outside the main Anglophone stream has emerged.1 Among the scarce
works oriented towards Czech tourism from the social-science perspectives, there is Johnson’s article
‘Czech and Slovak tourism, patterns, problems and prospects’ in Tourism Management (1995). What
are the reasons for such a lack of scientific interest? Firstly, it is the primary orientation of recreational
and tourist institutions towards tourism as an industry, as a system of business transactions. Czech
local tradition in the tourism literature is primarily concerned with aspects such as the description of
travel flows, economic analyses of travel, travel and tourism management, and the like. Czech higher
education in tourism studies primarily deals with auditing, categorising, listing and grouping the
outputs or consequences of tourism. Moreover, as anthropology (viewed by the Czechoslovak
communists as a ‘bourgeois science’) faces severe obstacles even today to become a fully
institutionalized discipline within the Czech academia, there appears a similar predicament in
transforming traditional tourism studies into the discipline firmly embedded in the social sciences.
Secondly, a relatively small interest results from a limited number of enthusiastic academics who
would be willing to develop their careers in tourism, which is still viewed as something that does not
deserve serious academic inquiry.
Within the Czech academia, the second home issue has been a focus of research by Czech
sociologists (e.g. Duffková 2002) and social geographers (e.g. Vágner, Fialová 2004; Bičík 2001;
Bernard 2010, 2011; Binek 2007; Musil, Müller 2008). The emergence of Dutch villages is a relatively
new phenomenon; therefore there are not yet scholars in the Czech Republic interested in this topic. 2
The applicant´s modest contribution to this topic concerns two published texts in international
journals: Horáková 2010a; Horáková 2010b, and a forthcoming monograph entitled Transformation of
Rural Communities: from Production to Consumption (LIT 2011). From the social-geography
perspective, these issues have been studied mainly within the new trends in second homes (their
internalization) by the co-applicant; partial results were presented at international forums and so far
published within Czech academe (Fialová, Kadlecová 2007; Fialová 2008; Nožičková 2010, 2011)
From this brief literature survey it is clear that in the field of Czech studies on the issue under
study there is a shortage of qualitative research as well as of theoretically informed studies. Moreover,
at present there is no ongoing research that would investigate the significance of the second home
foreign ownership and other forms of international rural tourism in the Czech Republic based
simultaneously on the anthropological and social-geographical perspective. We will therefore aim to
contribute to this significant yet under-researched issue of contemporary transformation and
development of rural communities by putting in much needed ethnographic perspective, as well as
providing novel theoretical and methodological frameworks. To sum up, our research project will
build on U.S. and European tradition of research both in anthropology of tourism and social
geography. We will critically revise the existing literature by paying close attention to how the forms
of rural development are adopted and adapted, implemented and resisted, negotiated and ignored
among local population. We believe that our project will contribute significantly to both domestic and
international literature on the processes of transformations of rural areas.
3. Theory and methodology - 3.1. Theoretical background
The project aims to understand the process of change in rural communities – to describe and compare
rural development in five rural areas in the Czech Republic that are impacted by the presence of the
phenomenon of Dutch villages. Researching rural development will take place in an interdisciplinary
framework. The conceptual setting of the project will comprise two fundamental theoretical
1
Articles in the Polish journal Problemy Turystyki, the Indian Tourism Recreation Research, Croatian Acta
Turistica and some others.
2
Analyses of the new international forms of rural tourism appeared in some of the students´ bachelor/master
theses, e.g. Nožičková, V.: Dutch incoming tourism in the Czech Republic, 2009.
approaches that deal with current rural transformation and development: first, anthropological
approach to tourism as development (Burns 1999); second, concept of social exchange (Ap 1990;
Bryon 2002). As we approach the selected localities as specific tourism destinations, TALC model can
be used (Pásková, Zelenka 2002). A fruitful combination of these approaches within the same
methodological and theoretical framework will contribute to better understanding of the dynamics of
the current rural socio-cultural change.
The key notion is development. The notion of development refers to processes of social
change and continuity, encompassing both planned social change, such as ‘development projects’, and
the everyday ways of life of the people living in the communities under study. As Árnason et al (2009)
remind us, the idea of development varies among individuals and groups; one can come across
contradictory interpretations and claims about what development is; what the local interests really are;
or what is the public good. On the whole, there are both supporters and objectors of development
projects that cross the boundaries of the key categories – of ‘hosts’ and ‘guests’. Though the
environment and the cultural landscape, as well as a ‘rural’ way of life may be valuable resource, they
may also be contested. Therefore we aim to adopt a critical approach to development, in order to
evaluate how development projects impact on ongoing social life.
The concept and practice of rural development is closely associated with the impacts of the
new forms of international tourism on local population. The growing influx of international tourists to
Czech rural areas, the ongoing purchase of vacation homes and the emergence of Dutch villages in
various rural areas all over the country have contributed to profound social changes in local settings.
In particular, it brought ‘greater and closer interaction between formerly restricted host populations
and the outside world’ (Hall 2001: 99). Contemporary forms of mobility and international tourism
affect local identities. Increasing mobility into the rural area has reduced the autonomy and
homogeneity of rural communities. The increasing breakdown of old socio-spatial patterns, the
creation of new forms and processes are the major aspects in the transformation of rural society
resulting from the development of tourism. We will use a factor analysis through which diverse
aspects of impacts of tourism on local population (its development and structural transformation) will
be explored: regional differentiation and spatial distribution; socio-demographic impact on the local
structure of population caused by second home developments and international tourism forms and
practices; environmental issues; socio-economic and socio-cultural factors. In sum, we will deal with
the impacts on three key pillars of sustainable development (economic, socio-cultural and
environmental). In particular, we will concentrate on cultural identities in the making in rural
development (how people claim and attribute identities as ‘local’, on exploring senses of belonging.
The central purpose of this theme is to problematise the easy association of region, culture and
identity, as well as to challenge the perceived homogeneity of the key categories of ‘hosts’ and
‘guests.’
Our aim is to find out how rural development happens from the point of view of those actually
involved in it; how change is introduced; how development happens through social processes, and in
particular social networks. The key assumption of the project is that social processes, through
networks, are fundamental to development. Key themes of our comparison will be:
1. Networks instigated for rural development studied in the five areas. Networks are conceptualized as
established sets of actors with regular connections, through which actors gain access to some resources
(Árnason et al 2009). Thus, studying networks is essential in order to find out how people establish
such groupings and how they move among them. Three important aspects of the functioning of
networks will be compared: 1) the mechanism of local development produced or used in the networks,
2) the scope of resources that the network opens for its participants, and 3) the evolution of the quality
of network connections (Árnason et al 2009).
2. Social capital viewed as part of the total assets belonging to a community, together with physical
and human capital (Árnason et al 2009: 47). Social capital, though often considered to be a public
good, can have both positive and negative impacts on rural development; the capacity to define and
implement development strategies depends on the availability of social capital. Linked to social
capital, regional identity of actors under study will be a target of comparative research.
3.2. Methodology
Our research activities will focus on five rural communities within qualitative research collaboration.
A comparative dimension will be applied to assess the primary data of the selected research sites. The
criteria of selection of the research sites are as follows: all of them have recently embarked upon the
project of international tourism, which uses public space and rural landscape as one of its principal
attractions. All of them are heavily dependent on international tourism that was initiated by Dutch
investors, attracting a predominantly Dutch clientele. The Dutch investment includes both the
construction of recreational parks and individual ownership of second homes in the Czech rural
countryside. Though the five research sites show certain similarities, the assumption is that research
will also reveal substantial difference on the processes of transformation and the strategies of
development.
Case studies:
1. Stárkov u Broumova: its tourist resort Green Valley Park came into being in 1998 as the first ‘Dutch
village’ in the CR and so far comprises 22 villas.
2. Lipno nad Vltavou: Lipno Landal Marina Lipno was built between 1999 and 2005. There is a
continuing construction of new recreational resorts and seasonal accommodation (second homes) that
are called New Lipno, or Marina II.
3. Proseč na Chrudimsku: recreation resort Česká Rybná for Dutch tourist clientele; 33 cottages;
4. Čistá u Černého dolu: Villa Park Happy Hill, focusing predominantly on Dutch clientele; 41 houses.
5. Stupná, Vidochov: Arcadian Parc Stupná, 27 cottages for Dutch tourism clientele.
Our goal is not to present simply a set of discrete, isolated cases; rather, a set of thematic studies
which draw on the same core material but explore it in different ways. Empirical research will take the
form of a qualitative ethnographic study employing diverse methods: participant observation,
including attendance at relevant public meetings, associational activities and other activities; informal
and semi-structured interviews both with key informants and ordinary inhabitants, as well as Dutch
tourists/second-home owners; focus group interviews; study of documents, such as village chronicles
etc. Such a research design is best suited for our purposes on several grounds. Firstly, a multi-method
ethnography makes it possible to study at the same time what actors do and what they claim (to be
doing). We will be interested in these two dimensions of reality not in order to denounce actors’
possible incoherence but on the contrary to acknowledge and study them. Inspired by semiotic
approaches developed by John Law (2004) we believe that reality is incoherent, and social science
methods need to treat it as such. Secondly, we have decided to undertake a multi-sited ethnography
(Marcus 1998) in order to gain a comparative perspective on the realities under study. We do not strive
for any representativeness of transforming Czech rural areas in a strict sense; that clearly is impossible
and never is an aspiration in ethnographic research. The diversity and comparative perspective is
important as a tool for making the studied reality ‘un-natural’ for an observer. In published texts
resulting from the research, the sites under study will be kept anonymous. Data analysis by individual
researchers as well as in the team will proceed by means of comprehensive data treatment and
constant comparative method (Silverman, 2001: 237-246; for the latter see also Glaser, Strauss, 1968:
101-116). In data collection and analysis we will proceed in accordance with ethical guidelines for
social research.
4.3. Research questions
The principal research question based on our theoretical framework background and our study aims is
as follows: What are processes of transformation and strategies of development of the studied rural
communities that are impacted of the presence of Dutch villages, including Dutch second-home
ownership? Specific research questions will address important dimensions of the transformation and
development process and will focus on changes under way:
 How rural development happens from the point of view of those actually involved in it? How
change is introduced? How development happens through social processes, and in particular
social networks?
 What are the productive strategies of development in the selected rural areas?
 What are the public policies for rural development and their funding?
 What is the role of human and social capital in the process of development?
 Who benefits from the local development projects?




Can we find localities within the rural space that vary significantly from the others, due to
their developmental characteristics?
What are the aspects that facilitate or hinder the interaction between ‘hosts’ and ‘guests’?
What are the impacts of Dutch villages on physical environment?
What was the original social status of the Dutch tourists and Dutch second-home owners?
References
AP, J. 1990: Residents Perceptions Research on Social Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 17(4): 610-617.
ÁRNASON, A.; SHUCKSMITH, M.; VERGUNST, J. eds. 2009. Comparing Rural Development,
Continuity and Change in the Countryside of Western Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
BARKE, M. 1991. The Growth and Changing Pattern of Second Homes in Spain in the 1970s.
Scottish Geographical Magazine 107: 12-21.
BARTOŠ, M., KUŠOVÁ, D. 2005. „Amenitní“ migrace jako specifická forma globální migrace
obyvatel a její vliv na kvalitu života. Životné prostredie 39 (6): 315 – 318.
BERNARD, J. (ed.) 2010. Endogenní rozvojové potenciály malých obcí a místní samospráva.
Sociologické studie. Praha: Sociologický ústav AV ČR.
BERNARD, J. 2011. Je venkov homogenní a zaostalý? Prostorové vzorce rozvojových dimenzí
venkovských obcí. SOCIOweb_02: 1-3.
BIČÍK, I. a kol. 2001. Druhé bydlení v Česku. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
BINEK, J. a kol. 2007. Venkovský prostor a jeho oživení. Georgetown.
BOISSEVAIN, J. (ed.) 1996. Coping With Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism. Oxford:
Berghahn Books.
BOISSEVAIN, J.; SELWYN, T. (eds.) 2006. Contesting the Foreshore: Tourism, Society, and
Politics on the Coast. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
BURNS, P. M. 1999. An Introduction to Tourism and Anthropology. London: Routledge.
CHAPLIN, D. 1999. Consuming work/productive leisure: the consumption patterns of second home
environments. Leisure Studies 18: 41–55.
COLES, T.; DUVAL, T. D.; HALL, C. M. 2005. Tourism, Mobility and Global Communities. In:
THEOBALD, W. F. (ed.) Global Tourism. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 463 – 481.
DE KADT, E. 1979. Tourism: Passport to Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DUFFKOVÁ, J. 2002: První a druhý domov: Vývoj české záliby v chataření a chalupaření z pohledu
sociologie. Přítomnost 7.
FIALOVÁ, D. 1999: Druhé bydlení–nedílná součást našeho venkova. Geograf. rozhledy 9(4): 92 – 93.
FIALOVÁ, D. 2001: Druhé bydlení a jeho vztah k periferním oblastem. In: Geografie 106(1): 36–47.
FIALOVÁ, D. 2003: Regional differentiation of second housing transformation in Czechia. Acta
Universitatis Carolinae Geographica, XXXVIII, 1, Praha: Univerzita Karlova, p. 59 – 66.
FIALOVÁ, D. 2006: Rekreace a cestovní ruch ve venkovském prostoru. In: Majerová, V. ed. Venkov
je náš svět. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference. Praha: ČZU, p. 328 – 332
FIALOVÁ, D. 2008: Rizika transformace a nových trendů v druhém bydlení. Aktuální problémy cestovního
ruchu „Trvale udržitelný rozvoj v cestovním ruchu“.Vysoká škola polytechnická Jihlava, Jihlava.
FIALOVÁ, D. 2009: Hledisko času při výzkumu rekreačního prostoru. Acta Geographica Universitatis
Comenianae 52: 101 – 108.
FIALOVÁ, D., KADLECOVÁ, V. 2007: Nové trendy a dopady druhého bydlení. In: Kraft,S. et al.
Česká geografie v evropském prostoru. Sborník XXI. SČGS, České Budějovice: JČU, p. 36-41.
FIALOVÁ, D., VÁGNER, J. 2005: Struktura, typologie, současnost a perspektivy druhého bydlení
v Česku. Geografie – Sborník ČGS, 109, 2, ČGS, Praha, p. 73 – 81.
FIALOVÁ, D., VÁGNER, J. 2006: New trends in second housing in Czechia. Acta Geographica
Universitatis Comenianae 48, Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, p. 265-272.
FINN, M. et al. 2000. Tourism and Leisure Research Methods. Longman.
GALLENT, N.; TEWDWR-JONES, M. 2000. Rural Second Homes in Europe. Brookfield: Ashgate.
GIRARD, T. C.; GARTNER, W.C. 1993. Second Home Second View: Host Community Perceptions.
Annals of Tourism Research 20: 685-700.
GLASER, B. G.; STRAUSS, A.L. 1968. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
GORSUCH, A.E.; KOENKER, D. (ed.) 2006. Turizm: the Russian and East European tourist under
capitalism and socialism. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.
HAMPL, M.; DOSTÁL, P.; DRBOHLAV, D. 2007: Social and Cultural Geography in the Czech
Republic. Social and Cultural Geography 8 (3): 475-493.
HALL, D.R. 2000. Europe Goes East: EU Enlargement, Diversity and Uncertainty. Stationary Office.
HALL, D. R. 2001. Tourism and Development in Communist and Post-Communist Societies. In:
HARRISON, D. (ed.) Tourism and the Less Developed World. CABI Publishing, p. 91 – 107.
HALL, M. C. 2005. Reconsidering the Geography of Tourism and Contemporary Mobility.
Geographical Research 43(2):125–139.
HALL, M. C.; TUCKER, H. (eds.) 2004. Tourism and Postcolonialism. Contested Discourses,
Identities and Representations. London & New York: Routledge.
HALL, M. C.; & WILLIAMS, A.M. (eds.) 2002. Tourism and Migration: New Relationships between
Production and Consumption. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
HALPERN, D. 2005: Social Capital. Cambridge: Polity press.
HANNON, F.; CURTIN, Ch. 2009. The Role of Identity in Contemporary Rural Development
Processes. In: ÁRNASON, A. et al. Comparing Rural Development, Continuity and Change in the
Countryside of Western Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, p. 125-142.
HARRISON, D. 2001.Tourism and the less developed world: issues and case studies. London: CABI.
HOOGENDOORN, G.; MELLETT, R.; VISSER, G. 2005. Second Homes Tourism in Africa:
Reflections on the South African Experience. Urban Forum 16(2-3): 112-154.
HORÁKOVÁ, H. 2010a.Transformation of Rural Communities: Mobility, Tourism and Identity. Acta
Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis XX, p. 37-51.
HORÁKOVÁ, H. 2010b. Post-Communist Transformation of Tourism in Czech Rural Areas: New
Dilemmas. Anthropological Notebooks 16 (1): 59–77.
HORÁKOVÁ, H. 2009. Europe and Culture: Anthropological Perspectives on the Process of
European Integration. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 18 (2): 6-27.
HORÁKOVÁ, H. 2008. Kultura místního společenství.Analýza globálních a lokálních faktorů obce
Dolní Roveň. In: BITTNEROVÁ, D. et al. Kultura českého prostoru. Prostor české kultury. Praha:
Ermat, p. 102-116.
HORÁKOVÁ, H. 2007. The Local and the Global: In Search of European Identity in the Czech Local
Community. The Anthropology of East Europe Review 25(1): 112 – 116.
HORÁKOVÁ, H.; BOSCOBOINIK, A. 2011. Transformation of Rural Communities in Europe: from
Production to Consumption. Berlin: LIT Verlag [forthcoming].
HUGHES, H.; ALLEN, D. 2005. Cultural Tourism in Central and Eastern Europe. : the views of
'induced image formation agents'. Tourism Management. Elsevier.
ILBERY, B. (ed.) 1998. The Geography of Rural Social Change. Harlow: Longman.
JAFARI, J. 2001. Encyclopedia of Tourism. London: Routledge.
JOHNSON, M. 1995. Czech and Slovak Tourism, Patterns, Problems and Prospects. Tourism
Management 16(1): 21 - 28.
KADLECOVÁ, V., FIALOVÁ, D. 2010: Recreational housing, a phenomenon significantly affecting
rural areas. Moravian Geographical Reports 18 (1): 38-44.
KOWALCZYK,A. 1994:Geograficzno-spoleczne problem zjawiska drugich domow. Warszawa.
LAW, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
LEW, A. A.; HALL, C. M.; WILLIAMS, A.M. 2004. A Companion to Tourism. Blackwell.
MARCUS, G. E. 1998. Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton University Press.
MOSS, A. G. 2006: The amenity migrants: seeking and sustaining mountains and their cultures.
Wallingford: CABI.
MOWFORTH, M.; MUNT, I. 2003. Tourism and Sustainability: Development and New Tourism in
the Third World. London: Routledge.
MÜLLER, D. K. 2004. Mobility, Tourism, and Second Homes. In LEW, A. A.; HALL, C. M.;
WILLIAMS, A. M. (eds.) A Companion to Tourism. Blackwell Publishing, p. 387-398.
MÜLLER, D. K. 2002. Second Home Ownership and Sustainable Development in Northern Sweden.
Tourism and Hospitality Research 3: 343-56.
MÜLLER, D. K. 1999. German Second Home Owners in the Swedish Countryside: On the
Internalization of the Leisure Space. Umeå: Department of Social and Economic Geography.
MUSIL, J. MÜLLER, J. 2008. Vnitřní periferie České republiky, sociální soudržnost a sociální
vyloučení. CESES, FSV UK: Praha.
NOVOTNÁ, H. 2005. Ethnography of Popular Culture: Problems of Method. In: SKALNÍK, P. (ed.)
Anthropology of Europe: Teaching and Research. Prague: SET OUT, p. 177 – 187.
NOVOTNÁ, H.2004.Globální versus lokální: podíl globální kultury na kultuře lokálního společenství.
In SKALNÍK, P. (ed.) Dolní Roveň: Poločas výzkumu. Pardubice, p. 179 – 207.
NOŽIČKOVÁ, V. 2010: Nově vzniklé rekreační lokality v kontextu sídelní struktury a ochrany
krajiny v Česku. Diplomová práce. Praha: KSGRR PřF.
NOŽIČKOVÁ,V. 2011:Nové rekreační lokality ve vlastnictví cizinců.Geograf. rozhledy 20(3): 28-29.
PÁSKOVÁ, M., ZELENKA, J. 2002: Výkladový slovník cestovního ruchu. Praha: MMR ČR.
PRIEMUS, H.2005.Importing and Exporting Spatial Needs. European Planning Studies 13,3,371-386.
SILVERMAN, D. 2001. Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
SMITH, V. L. (ed.) 1977. Hosts and Guests. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
SMITH, V. L.; BRENT, M. (eds.) 2001. Hosts and Guests Revisited. Cognizant Communication Corp.
STEVENS, T. 2000. Tourism in Central and Eastern Europe. Travel & Tourism Intelligence.
PERLÍN, R. KUČERA, Z.; KUČEROVÁ, S. 2010. Typologie venkovského prostoru Česka.
Geografie – Sborník ČGS 115(2): 161-187.
ROMEIß – STRACKE, F.2003: Abschied von der Spassgesellschaft: Freizeit und Tourismus im 21.
Jahrhundert. Büro Wilhelm, Amberg.
SHARPLEY, R. 2004. Tourism and the Countryside. In: LEW, A. A. et al. A Companion to Tourism.
Malden, Oxford & Carlton: Blackwell Publishing, p. 374-386.
SHUCKSMITH, M.D. 1983. Second Homes: A Framework for Policy.Town Planning Rev. 54:176-93.
URRY, J. 2002. The Tourist Gaze. Theory, Culture and Society. London: Sage publications.
VÁGNER, J.; FIALOVÁ, D.a kol. 2004. Regionální diferenciace druhého bydlení v Česku. Praha:UK.
WALLACE, J. N. Tim. 2001. Putting ‘Culture’ Into Sustainable Tourism In: SMITH, V. L. et al.
Hosts and Guests Revisited. Cognizant Communication Corp., p. 398-314.
WILLAMS, A. M.; BJØRN P.; KALTENBORN 1999. Leisure Places and Modernity. In CROUCH,
D. (ed.) Leisure /Tourism Geographies. London: Routledge, p. 214-30.
WILLIAMS, A. M.; BALAZ, V. 2000. Tourism in Transition. Economic Change in Central Europe.
London, New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers.