Innovations and Changing Role of Public Sector in Spatial Development Strategies: Problems and Challenges for Local and Regional Development in Central and Eastern European Countries After 2020

  • Milan HusárEmail author
  • Maroš Finka
  • Ľubomír Jamečný
  • Vladimír Ondrejička
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)


The global transformation processes of the society at the edge of twentieth and twenty-first century accelerated by the transition processes in majority of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe represent huge challenge for spatial development. Moreover, they deeply concern not only the development of the physical and functional structures, functioning and qualitative and quantitative changes in the Central European cities and regions, but they represent crucial changes in the nature of the spatial development management as well. The shift from government to governance framed by the movement towards civil society development is combined with the fuzzification and softening of the borders between functional and administrative spatial units, with the multiplication of the relevant actors in spatial development and increased spatial effects of their individual decisions, with the regionalisation of local policies, as well as state policies and with the shift from ecologisation towards economisation of spatial planning (Understanding geographies of polarization and peripheralization: perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe and Beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2015). Spatial development is about intensive interplay between all hierarchical levels, between different temporal dimensions, and between public and private actors. The public sector representatives are more and more diverse, going far behind the governmental and self-governmental bodies. They play specific role in the management of spatial development being more and more limited in their operational space by strong economic interests, interests expressed by broad public and responsibilities for safeguarding societal values and sustainability. The role of public authorities is changing in the development and implementation of spatial development strategies as their position among public sector representatives is changing (Multilevel governance for balanced development between core and peripheral spaces. České vysoké učení technické, Praha, 2015). The examples from Slovakia and other European Countries show the problems and challenges connected with this development as well as the whole range of creative solutions and possibilities to strengthen the quality and efficiency of public interventions towards meeting the goals of spatial development.


Role of public sector Global transformation Spatial planning Ecologisation Central and Eastern Europe Territorial development 


  1. Dostál I, Jedlička J, Kortanová J (2010) Planning for sustainable development of towns and villages. In: Adamec V, Jandová V (eds) IV Czech-Slovak scientific conference “Transport, Health and Environment”. Transport Research Centre, BrnoGoogle Scholar
  2. Finka M, Kluvánková T (2015) Managing complexity of urban systems: a polycentric approach. Land Use Policy 42:602–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Finka M et al (2012) Bezpečnosť ako kvalita priestoru—úvod do problematiky [Safety as spatial quality—introduction into the topic]. ROAD/Centrum urbánnej bezpečnosti, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  4. Finka M et al (2013) Governing under the complexity and uncertainty. In: Kluvankova-Oravska T, Jilkova J (eds) From governing to governance resonsidered. Verbum, Ružomberok, p 2013Google Scholar
  5. Finka M, Kluvánková T, Ondrejička V (2015) Concept of polycentric governance for fuzzy soft spaces as a challenge for Central European Peripheral Spaces. In: Lang T, Henn S, Sgibnev W, Ehrlich K (eds) Understanding geographies of polarization and peripheralization: perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe and Beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Husár M (2015) Cities of tomorrow? Smart city as an imperative for sustainability in the future. Bratislava: In Terra Spectra STU. Planning Studies., 2015. Zv. 7, 1Google Scholar
  7. Husár M, Varis SC, Ondrejicka V (2017) Analysis of the planning education in the light of the contemporary trends in planning. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 95(5):052005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jamečný L, Husár M (2016) From planning to smart management of historic industrial brownfield. Procedia Engineering. Prague: World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering-Architecture-Urban Planning Symposium 2016, WMCAUS 2016Google Scholar
  9. Jaššo M (2008) Cross-border cooperation challenges: positioning the Vienna-Bratislava region. In: Cross-border governance and sustainable spatial development: mind the gaps! Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaššo M, Petríková D (2016) Place attachment and social communities in the concept of smart cities. In: Leon-Garcia A et al (eds) Smart City 360°. SmartCity 360 2016, SmartCity 360 2015. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 721–728Google Scholar
  11. Jaššo M et al (2014) Plánovací systém priestorového rozvoja a plánovacia kultúra v slovenskej republike [Planning system of spatial development and planning culture in the Slovak Republic]. In: Schoeffel J, Jamečný L, Ondrejičková S (eds) Participatívne plánovanie na úrovni samospráv [Participative planning on municipality level]. SPECTRA Centre of Excellence, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  12. Lang T (2015) Socio-economic and political responses to regional polarisation and socio-spatial peripheralisation in Central and Eastern Europe: a research agenda. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64(3):171–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. OECD (2005) “The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data: Oslo Manual, Third Edition” prepared by the Working Party of National Experts on Scientific and Technology Indicators, OECD, Paris, para. 71Google Scholar
  14. Ondrejička V, Finka M (2016) Innovative approaches to strategic socioeconomic planning of territorial subjects. Vysoka Skola Ekonomicka v Praze, Praha, pp 176–188Google Scholar
  15. Ondrejička V, Ondrejičková S (2014) “Trenčín si Ty” [You are Trencin]—best practice of participatory planning in Slovak Republic. In: Finka M, Schoeffel J, Ondrejička V (eds) Participative planning in planning culture of Slovak Republic and Switzerland. IRAP, Raperswill, pp 41–61Google Scholar
  16. Petríková D, Ladzianska Z (2012) Social and cultural issues and participation in brownfield redevelopment. In: Petríková D, Vojvodíková B (eds) Brownfields—handbook BROWNTRANS. VŠB—Technical University of Ostrava, OstravaGoogle Scholar
  17. Poklembova V, Maco M, Ondrejicka V (2013) Ako spravovať priestor, o ktorý sa delíme? Teória commons a verejné priestory [How to manage the space we are sharing? The theory of Commons and public spaces]. URBION, Bratislava, pp 28–31Google Scholar
  18. Schoeffel J et al (2014) Participative planning in planning culture of Slovak republic and Switzerland. 1.vyd. Rapperswil IRAP. RapperswillGoogle Scholar
  19. Špaček M (2015) Multilevel governance for balanced development between core and peripheral spaces. České vysoké učení technické, Praha, pp 7–15Google Scholar
  20. Zajko M, Brighton D (2015) Conceptual frameworks for higher education institution and industry collaboration. In: Brighton D, Zajko M, Pezoldt K (eds) Successful innovations? Efficient knowledge and technology transfer and international collaboration. Universitätsverlag Ilmenau, IlmenauGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milan Husár
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maroš Finka
    • 1
  • Ľubomír Jamečný
    • 1
  • Vladimír Ondrejička
    • 1
  1. 1.Spectra Centre of Excellence of the EUSlovak University of Technology in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations