Name as a regional brand: The case of Local Action Groups in Czechia

This is the pre-last version of paper accepted for publishing in Journal of Language and Politics. Please cite
as follows and check out for the latest news on the process of publishing:

Semian, Michal, Chromý, Pavel & Kučera, Zdeněk (2016): Name as a regional brand: The case of Local
Action Groups in Czechia. Journal of Language and Politics 15 (5). [in print]

Michal Semian, Pavel Chromý, and Zdeněk Kučera

Michal Semian, Pavel Chromý, and Zdeněk Kučera, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science,
Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Albertov 6, CZ-12843 Prague 2, Czechia.
E-mail: semian@natur.cuni.cz; chromy@natur.cuni.cz; zdenek.kucera@natur.cuni.cz

Acknowledgements – The article has been accomplished with financial support from the Czech Science
Foundation (project P410/12/G113: ‘Historical Geography Research Centre’).

Abstract

The article addresses denominations of specific regions, Local Action Groups (LAGs), in Czechia, and
contributes to the academic debate regarding: relationships between formation of regions, their symbolic
shape and regional identity; formation of regions by means of regional development. A set of 179 LAG
names registered in the database of the National Network of Local Action Groups in the Czech Republic as
of March 2014 are examined. LAG names are first analyzed in terms of the phenomena that constitute
their essence, and subsequently their territorial differentiation is discussed. The analysis affirms the
importance of territorial approach towards regional denomination. It has equally been affirmed that
region naming strategies are spatially fragmented. Nevertheless, the territorial differentiation of names of
LAG regions mirrors the elementary spatial patterns traditionally reproduced in the Czech context, namely
west-east gradient of development Ievel, distinctions between historical lands and difference between
inland and borderland resettled after WWII.

Keywords: symbolic shape – regional names – regional identity – regional differentiation – regional
development – Local Action Groups – Czechia
Introduction

More than a decade ago, Czechia accessed the European Union (EU). This event can be understood as one
of several significant milestones in the 25-year long period of Czechia’s democratization. The post-1989
deconstruction of the totalitarian regime entailed not only a shift from the centrally-planned societal
system, but also meant an impetus toward activation of regional communities and transformation of the
country’s regional structure. Czechia’s post-socialist transition had equally been intensified through its
accession to the EU. Administrative regions inherited from the totalitarian era had been gradually
reformed and supplemented with new levels of territorial authorities. In connection with the
democratization of public administration, Czechia experienced restoration of self-government both at the
level of municipalities and self-governed regions. During the period of post-socialist transition, Czechia
witnessed a boom in the creation of various types of regions established namely on the basis of consensual
grouping of municipalities. At first, rather a formal collaboration was initiated at the level of public
administration authorities (top-down). Along with the country’s progressive integration into EU structures,
qualitatively distinct forms of cooperation based on active participation of the public, and of the voluntary
and private sectors (bottom-up) began to gain ground. That means principles of regional governance
promoted within the EU over a long period. This relatively new form of cooperation between
actors/subjects in the field of regional development not only activates regional consciousness of territorial
communities, but also contributes to the forming of new regions in terms of the theory of the
institutionalization of regions (Paasi 1986). The most recent example of such kind of cooperation are
regions of Local Action Groups (LAGs) that have been created by means of the LEADER method, which has
been applied by the EU since the 1990s (Ray 2000b).

The paper draws mainly on the paradigm of the ‘new’ European regionalism (Keating 2004; Paasi 2009)
whose essence is rethinking region as a social construction (Pred 1984; Paasi 1986, 2010). Within this
paradigm region is understood as a subject of geographical studies as well as a product and a tool in the
hands of regionalists, planners and politicians (Süssner 2002; Semian & Chromý 2014). Hence, any
territorially delimitable and conscious ad hoc initiative can be regarded as a region (Henderson 2009).
Regions understood as social constructs can be identified at different scales, that is, from the perspectives
of size, hierarchy and functionality (Lefebvre 1991; Paasi 2004; Deas & Lord 2006).

Regional name constitutes one of the most significant regional symbols and is an expression of a specific
identity. It comprises a valuable source of knowledge in research and organization of regional information
(Simon et al. 2010; Semian 2012a), and can also be considered as the main universal symbol (Paasi 1986),
integrating the region inwards while representing it outwards as a certain unit. It is because of its
downrightness, apparently unequivocal and direct intelligibility that it is often used as a specific type of
regional brand to promote particular territory (Hospers 2011; Kašková & Chromý 2014). Last but not least,
regional name is a product of socio-spatial changes; it reflects changes of the given territory as well as its
perception by individuals and the society as a whole (Olivová-Nezbedová et al. 1995). In a broader context,
regional names might provide information about regional differentiations of qualities of regional milieus.
This is one of the reasons why regional or geographical names became the subject of linguistic as well as
sociological, economic and geographical studies (Brendler & Brendler 2004; Simon et al. 2010; Semian
2012a).
At the general level, the article contributes to the debate on the relationships between the formation of
regions and regional identities, and on the forming of regions through the agency of regional development,
or, more precisely, that of regional branding (Pike 2011). Using examples of LAG names, we analyze the
symbolic shapes of particular regions in relation to the region formation process (Paasi 1986). By way of
analysis of LAGs’ denominations we search for answers to the following questions: What is the essence of
a LAG name? Does a certain spatial pattern in the differentiation of LAG names exist? Is it possible, by
analyzing LAG names, to illustrate both the dissimilar character and the degree of regional identity
depending on historical evolution of a given territory (people’s allegiance to various historical countries,
discontinuities in the development of areas)?

Alike many other administrative units, Czechia, too, is not a homogenous territory (Chromý & Janů 2003;
Havlíček et al. 2008; Jančák et al. 2008; Perlín et al. 2010). Therefore there is a good reason to suppose the
existence of territorial differentiation of the use of various LAG names in areas that vary both in natural
conditions and socio-economic or socio-cultural development. We can, furthermore, presuppose
differentiations conditioned by the influence of general modernization processes (in terms of the west-
east, or northwest-southeast gradient of development; Havlíček & Hupková 2013) and by the formation
of a settlement system (reflecting the difference between the historical lands of Bohemia and
Moravia/Silesia; Hampl et al. 1987; Heřmanová & Chromý 2009), or even differentiations conditioned by
the effects of specific processes (including the difference between inland and borderland resettled after
the WWII; Kučera & Kučerová 2012). Understanding the elementary spatial relations at play in the process
of selecting the names of regions from both linguistic and especially geographical perspective is a
necessary precondition for the potential utilization of regional names as an important study material in
the research into regions and regional identities, and into the ways of drawing up strategies of their future
development (marketing, branding) in particular. Yet, only limited attention has so far been paid to this
problem in the outlined context.

Before continuing with our text we have to briefly overview the ‘state of the art’ in the field of choronyms
as they appear in Czech onomastic literature. From the linguistic point of view, choronyms have so far been
on the margin of the interest of Czech scholars. We were not able to find any frequency study regarding
the productive formants of Czech choronyms. This topic is rarely accentuated in the ongoing discussion
about the official one-word name of our country (Česko/Czechia; e.g. Bělič 1968;1969; Krejčí 2008; Hirsch
2013; Čižmárová 2015) as the Czech onomastic studies tend to focus mainly on toponyms in general
(Profous 1918; Šmilauer 1963; Šrámek 1999), exonyms (Harvalík & Boháč 2000; David & Semian 2015) and
most of all on urbanonyms (Olivová-Nezbedová 1997; David 2013). On the other hand, choronyms are
addressed only briefly in encyclopedic publications whose authors usually contented themselves with the
simple statement that state and administrative-regional names are formed from adjectives with the use
of the sufix ‘-(s)ko’ (Čechová & Dokulil 2011).

Firstly, the paper discusses key concepts (region, regional identity, symbol of region, name of region,
regional branding) and the current position of LAG regions in Czechia. It equally deals with the
exploitability of regional names as a suitable study material, exploring the limits of their use as a source
of information. In the next sections, a set of 179 LAG names registered in the database of the National
Network of Local Action Groups in the Czech Republic (NNLAG; Národní síť Místních akčních skupin České
republiky) as of March 2014 (NSMAS 2014) is examined. LAG names are first analyzed in terms of the
phenomena that constitute their essence, and subsequently their territorial differentiation is discussed.

Regional name: symbol and brand

Region can be regarded as a social construction (Paasi 1986; 2010) that is on one level formed and
reproduced by various actors for a particular purpose (in fact, it is either a result of a regional initiative, or
a product of relations of power) and on another level, it is reproduced through its image in the minds of
people living in and outside of its territory (Semian 2012b). In this context, Paasi (1986) uses the term
‘regional consciousness of inhabitants’. At the intersection of the two levels lies regional identity, i.e. a
shared identity of a particular region wherein both of the levels are involved in. If a region is no longer
promoted from the inside and outside, it vanishes (Zimmerbauer 2011). In such a case, the region becomes
a historical entity and manifests itself in regional patterns as a certain relict structure (Chromý et al. 2009;
Paasi 2010) which may, under specific circumstances, regain importance in the future and have a role in
the establishment of a new region (Semian 2012a). The development of the symbolic shape of region plays
a very crucial role in the process of regional formation. Symbols represent the region both externally and
internally and constitute icons that the inhabitants might feel attached to.

One of the most important symbols is the name of a region (Paasi 1986). Through the use of regional
names various territorially-bound institutions present themselves: as ‘regional’, or, more precisely, as
relevant for particular identity; as being instrumental in reproducing the name along with the region itself.
In a similar way, regional populations can clearly define their origins through the regions’ names, defining
themselves as ‘us’ in opposition to ‘them’ (Semian 2012a). The study of regional denominations can thus,
among other things, facilitate orientation in the plurality of regions and regional information (Simon et al.
2010). On the other hand, the region’s name, as well as the region itself, is a social construction which
evolves and reproduces itself in time while being subject to many influences and a result of both general
and specific conditionalities (Semian 2012a). The choice of name is affected by the region’s natural or
cultural environment as well as by its history and geographical location (Chromý et al. 2014). It is under
the influence of its epoch, fashion and the various traditions of choronym formation. Therefore, regional
names, as a source of information, have their limits that we should be aware of when studying them.

On the level of general conditionalities, following factors are involved in the context of regional initiatives:
(1) the occurrence of already existing regions and their formal or popular denominations within a given
territory, including the presence of relict identities whose content and meaning is adapted to the needs of
a regional initiative; (2) customs, traditions and typical linguistic formants used in regional names; (3) legal
terms or other conditions applicable to the names of regional initiatives as defined in those legal
regulations under which the latter ones are set up; (4) the purpose which a particular region is to serve
(e.g. heritage protection, local community development, etc.).

If we conceive region as a social construct and a regional initiative, we indispensably have to take into
account its commodification which is directly linked to the formation of ad hoc regions. Commodification
of regions can be seen as one of the fundamental activities of regional marketing (see Anholt 2011;
Hospers 2011; Zimmerbauer 2011). Many authors point out that the complexity of regional marketing is
often omitted in practice and any elaborated regional development strategy gets reduced to a mere
promotion of the region (Fan 2006; Pike 2011; i.e. regional branding in actual fact). In the ideal case,
regional branding is but a partial component of regional marketing. Regional branding is likewise based
upon the region’s commodification, in particular upon commodification of its name as well as its symbolic
shape (Lee et al. 2005). The whole process involves the creation of a regional name, regional logo and
alternatively also a marketing slogan (Kašková & Chromý 2014). The aim of all such activities is either to
create a brand new image of the region, or modify or strengthen its existing image and to promote it for
the general purpose of rendering the region more attractive while placing it on the “map of the World”
(Pike 2011; Warnaby et al. 2011). Even though it is neither feasible, nor desirable to create a brand that
would comprise the region’s values in all their diversity, branding should nonetheless be patterned on local
specificities and emphasize the individuality of the promoted area, albeit manufactured in an entirely
utilitarian manner in some cases (Allen 2011; Pike 2011). When looking for a new brand, it is appropriate
to take into consideration what the local inhabitants believe to be a unique quality of their region and
what they perceive to be the symbol of their territory (Chromý et al. 2014; Šifta & Chromý 2014).

Local Action Groups and their position in Czechia

LAGs are legal entities constituted by a partnership between public, private and non-profit sectors, and
alternatively even by individuals participating in LAG activities. LAGs arise from the application of the
LEADER method, which is enforced by the EU for the purpose of implementing its rural development policy
(CEC 1996; 1997). Both the core and importance of the LEADER method, as well as that of LAGs
themselves, have abundantly been debated in specialized literature. For example, Ray (2000b: 167-170)
distinguishes four fundamental levels of such debates: (1) LEADER as a quasi-marketization of rural
development (Kovách 2000; Osti 2000); (2) LEADER as a politicization/democratization of rural
development (Bruckheimer 2000; Shucksmith 2000); (3) LEADER and endogenous development as a
discourse (Buller 2000; Esparcia Perez 2000); (4) LEADER and the potential for a humanistic/personalized
form of development (Osti 2000; Ray 2000a). In the EU, LAGs have been arising since the early 1990s; new
and old member states alike recorded a substantial growth in the number of LAGs in the 2007–2013
programming period (Thuesen 2010).

In Czechia, the LAG growth dynamics falls slightly behind the majority of other EU countries, although it
has been following a similar course. First LAGs came into existence in late 2002 and early 2003 in readiness
for the country’s EU accession (Winter 2013; MZe 2014). In the 2007–2013 programming period, Czechia
had 112 LAGs subsidized from EU funds. Yet in March 2014, NNLAG recorded as many as 179 LAGs
operating on the Czech territory (NSMAS 2014). In total, more than 90 percent of Czech municipalities are
engaged in either of these LAGs. Consequently, LAG activity presently covers approximately 95 percent of
the country’s territory in terms of both area and population.

The Czech network of LAGs is characterized by its close ties with ad hoc regions founded in the 1990s and
the early 2000s on the basis of inter-municipal cooperation resulting in ‘voluntary alliances of
municipalities’. Thus, a vast majority of LAGs emerging in Czechia are usually set up as an additional
initiative of already cooperating municipalities, or on the grounds of an interconnection of several such
alliances. The most characteristic feature of LAGs in Czechia is their considerable territorial fragmentation
(Fig. 1).

Given the fragmented nature of the Czech network of LAGs, a relatively sizeable set of regional names is
available for further analysis. Moreover, this set is specific because LAGs and their names were emerging
rather ‘unrestrainedly’ and solely from the initiative of local actors. The set of LAG names thus permits us
to develop better insight into the ways in which new spatial elements are denoted in the Czech toponymy,
thereby facilitating understanding of spatial relations that are part of the regional identities’ formation
processes.

Materials and methods

As mentioned above, this paper is based on the analysis of 179 LAG names present on Czech territory as
of March 2014. Neither old names of current LAGs, nor the names of defunct LAGs were included in the
analysis. When analyzing LAG names, one needs to be aware also of the following limitations: (1) the
official name of regional institution may not be the same as the name used for the promotion of the
region; (2) the denomination motivated by the objectives of the regional initiative may prevail over the
one based on its territorial affiliation; (3) the ‘path dependency’ factor is present in case when the newly
emerging regional initiative is named after an already existing initiative which may have initiated its
founding; (4) the necessity of selecting a unique name in cases involving identical types of regional
initiatives.

Similarly to the case of studies on regional symbols and symbolism (Šifta & Chromý 2014), and those on
regional awareness (Chromý et al. 2014), a simple categorization of names pursuant to their semantic basis
can be employed in researching regional denominations: (1) geographical; (2) historical; (3) cultural; (4)
natural/landscape; (5) another (others). In order to achieve a better understanding of the set of names it
was necessary to carry out a more detailed analysis of their individual categories, distinguishing those
subcategories that take into consideration the thematic plurality of elements constituting the semantic
basis of names. Table 1 presents a brief overview of these subgroups, including the frequency of particular
denominations within the set. In cases when a LAG name contains two or more words with a toponymical
base whose combination does not make a single toponymical unit, two different ways of analysis were
employed. If the words examined fell into the same category, the whole name was immediately ranked in
this group. If we found that the individual words of the regional name had been formed in different ways,
priority was given to the word directly related to a territorial unit of more importance in terms of
geographical scale.

The category termed as geographical encompasses names that were derived from the name of a regional
center by means of various linguistic formants (e.g. LAG ‘Jemnicko’ – ‘Jemnice Region’1) as well as names

1
Where possible, the English translation of official LAG names is mentioned in italicized parentheses. Since official
translations are unavailable for the most part, we try to provide the most accurate translation epitomizing the
derived with the aid of words related to orientation within Czechia’s territory (e.g. LAG ‘Českomoravské
pomezí’ – ‘Bohemian-Moravian Borderland’). The category of denominations connected to historical
toponyms, elements and phenomena includes, for the most part, LAGs named after historical
personalities, i.e. denominations with a honorific motive (David 2011; e.g. LAG ‘Havlíčkův kraj’2 – ‘Havlíček
County’) or those named after significant historical monuments, events and sites (e.g. LAG ‘Ploština’3). All
other types of regional appellations, such as the LAG ‘Zlatá Cesta’ (‘Golden Road’), which is named after
an important medieval commercial road linking Prague and Nuremberg, were only isolated and sporadic.
Two distinct groups of toponymical bases of regional appellations were identified within the category of
appellations derived from cultural denominations. Most frequent were names claiming allegiance to an
identity of an ethnographic region (e.g. LAG ‘Region Haná’). All of the remaining names have been derived
from cultural regions (e.g. LAG ‘Česká Kanada’ – ‘Bohemian Canada’). Since opinions regarding the
definition of ethnographic and cultural regions, and the demarcation of ethnographic regions vary even
among Czech ethnographers themselves (comp. e.g. Frolec 1985 and Jeřábek 1987), it was decided to
categorize regional appellations according to Vařeka’s definition (1997). Ranked into the category of
appellations derived from toponyms denoting natural or landscape elements were primarily regional
names inspired by watercourses (e.g. LAG ‘Vltava’ – ‘Vltava River’; LAG ‘Poodří’ – ‘Odra River Region’) and
landscape landmarks, namely dominant hills or mountain peaks (e.g. LAG ‘Vladař’). The LAG ‘Achát’
(‘Agate’), whose name refers to a major geological specificity of an area rich in agate deposits, is the only
type of appellation derived from a specific natural feature that is represented in our set. Another group of
‘natural’ appellations are those derived from nature areas, particularly from geomorphologic zones (e.g.
LAG ‘Krkonoše’ – ‘Giant Mountains’, and also LAG ‘Hříběcí hory’ – ‘Colt Mountains’, a historical, or rather
a popular name of a geomorphologic area nowadays called ‘Chřiby’). A group entitled ‘others’ was created
to embrace all the remaining appellations that belong to neither of the aforementioned groups and
originate from: general references to the countryside (e.g. LAG ‘Občané pro rozvoj venkova’ – ‘Citizens for
Rural Development’); emotionally-colored expressions (e.g. LAG ‘Krajina srdce’ – ‘Landscape of the Heart’);
expressions evoking transformation (e.g. LAG ‘Na cestě k prosperitě’ – ‘On the Way to Prosperity’);
expressions inviting potential visitors (e.g. LAG ‘Přijďte pobejt!’ – ‘Come and Stay!’4); or appellations
created in another manner.

In spite of our effort to define individual groups in a way that would facilitate an unambiguous
categorization of each regional appellation, several particular problems related to the multiple meaning
of some of the names occurred during the analysis. This ambiguity may be due to diverse factors, or even
to their various combinations. It primarily concerns cases when one toponym designates several elements
(e.g. LAG ‘Region Kunětické hory’ – ‘Kunětická Hill Region’, wherein ‘Kunětická hora’ signifies the name of
the hill as well as the name of a ruined castle sitting on its top). Another difficulty may arise from the use

meaning of the original appellation.

2
Karel Havlíček Borovský (1821–1856) was one of the most prominent Czech poets, journalists, publishers and
politicians of the National Revival period; he was also the leading representative of satirical literature and criticism.
3
Ploština, a peasant village situated in Moravia burnt down by the Nazis at the very end of WWII (19/4/1945) for
supporting partisans.
4
Here even in a non-standard, colloquial form of the term and accompanied by an exclamation mark.
of an already existing regional appellation which has acquired several different meanings throughout its
existence. For example, the name ‘Český ráj’ (‘Bohemian Paradise’), which initially stood for a cultural
region established for the purpose of tourism development in the spirit of the national revival period, has
later become a synonym for a protected landscape area, or a UNESCO Geopark of the same name, i.e. a
natural landscape region (Semian 2012b). A lot more complicated accumulations of meanings can be
found in some other appellations, such as the LAG ‘Šluknovsko’ (‘Šluknov Region’). Originally a traditional
name of a historical region, it is equally constituted of a derivation from the name of the regional center
‘Šluknov’ (by adding the formant ‘-sko’), and, last but not least, refers to the region’s specific location in
the Šluknovský headland in northern Bohemia. Likewise, the very semantics of some words and
expressions may be troublesome, as is the case with the LAG ‘Český Západ’ (‘Bohemian West’) which –
when written with capital ‘Z’ – refers not only to its position in the western part of Czechia, but also – if
we let our imagination loose – to the historical event of liberation of this territory by the U.S. Army at the
very end of WWII. This latter event may further evoke a metaphor of a harsh natural and socio-cultural
environment, or even an image of the scarcely populated and recolonized American ‘Wild West’. In such
cases, we thoroughly studied additional sources of information, including presentation materials provided
by individual regions (namely LAG logos, official documents, promotional information, internet banners,
texts revealing the motivation for the choice of LAG names, etc.) in order to learn about the intended
semantic meaning of each name. We made our final decision in accordance with these findings.

Semantic basis of LAG names

It is evident that the territorial approach towards name creation prevails in regional nomenclature, i.e. in
the selection of appellations for Czechia’s newly developing regions (see table 1). Appellations of territorial
units predominantly reflect close affiliation to their administrative centers but also to diverse natural or
cultural regions. In case of LAGs, region names are most commonly derived on the basis of the
geographical principle from the name of the respective regional center (predominantly from the name of
a micro regional center, or a center of a superior hierarchical level). The linguistic formant ‘-(s)ko’ is
employed in the vast majority of cases. Different ways of regional appellation creation are used especially
when the LAG in question is situated in the hinterland of a regional center that does not directly belong
to the respective LAG. In such instances, the center’s name is either combined with general terms such as
‘countryside’ or ‘gateway’ (e.g. LAG ‘Hradecký venkov’ – ‘Hradec Countryside’; LAG ‘Brána Brněnska’ –
‘Brno Region Gateway’), or with terms of an directional purpose (e.g. ‘Jižní Plzeňsko’5 – ‘Southern Pilsen
Region’). Similar combinations of appellations with general expressions are scarcely found in names
derived from micro regional centers (e.g. LAG ‘Brána Písecka’ – ‘Písek Region Gateway’); the same is true
for other combinations derived from another base (e.g. LAG ‘Vodňanská ryba’ – ‘Vodňany Fish’, a
combination of the name of a regional center with a typical regional product). The group of appellations
based on geographical principles is complemented with names obtained by means of directional
specification of geographical location of each region, either by declaring affiliation to a superior territorial
unit (e.g. LAG ‘Moravská cesta’ – ‘Moravian Way’), or by specifying the position of the given territory in

5
‘Jižní Plzeňsko’ (‘Southern Pilsen Region’) is a destination name used by the LAG Aktivios.
relation to a particular phenomena (e.g. LAG ‘Nad Prahou’– ‘Above Prague’; LAG ‘Českomoravské pomezí’
– ‘Bohemian-Moravian Borderland’). Following a thorough consideration of many complementary sources
we decided to include into this category the LAG names ‘Šluknovsko’ (‘Šluknov Region’) and ‘Frýdlantsko’
(‘Frýdlant Region’), which belong to the previous sub-category in terms of linguistics (because of the
formant ‘-sko’ they contain), even though in semantic terms the way they are presented refers to their
specific location in what is termed as Czechia’s headlands, most of which bear the names of their historical
centers.

Regional appellations derived from various natural/landscape phenomena constitute less than a third of
the examined set. To be more precise, LAG names are most frequently derived either from the name of a
watercourse, or from the name of a natural region. In the first case, we distinguish two strategies of name
derivation: (1) adoption of original names of rivers or creeks without additional modifications (LAG ‘Vltava’
– ‘Vltava River’); (2) use of the linguistic, regionally productive formant ‘-í’ along with the prefix ‘Po-‘
referring to a river basin (e.g. LAG ‘Pomalší’ – ‘Malše River Region’), sometimes in combination with an
adjective bearing an locational meaning, e.g. Horní - Upper, Střední – Middle and Dolní – Lower (LAG ‘Horní
Pomoraví’ – ‘Upper Morava River Region’). Only two cases involved designations derived from river names
are formed with the aid of the regionally productive formant ‘- (s)ko’ (LAG ‘Lužnicko’ – ‘Lužnice River
Region’ and LAG ‘Orlicko’ – ‘Orlice River Region’). Despite their expectedly dispersed occurrence, this type
of LAG names can be identified mainly in the axis of Bohemia’s most important water courses, i.e. Vltava
and Labe. It is needless to say that to a great extent regional appellations are not derived from the names
of just these two rivers, but are rather associated with the lower basins of their tributaries (all along the
Vltava river and along the upper and middle part of the Labe River). We might suppose a similar
phenomenon within the basin of Moravia’s principal watercourse Morava, but it is not the case. The
majority of appellations derived from a natural region adopted the name of a geomorphologic unit. In only
a few isolated cases, the name of a geomorphologic unit was complemented with a linguistic formant or
a term of a regionalization nature (e.g. LAG ‘Železnohorský region’ – ‘Železné Mountains Region’). The LAG
appellation ‘Třeboňsko’ (‘Třeboň region’), which is linguistically formed by a derivation from the name of
a regional center, deserves special attention. However, the name of a regional center can also be found in
the designation of the geomorphologic unit ‘Třeboňská pánev’ (‘Třeboň Basin’) as well as in the name of
the local nature/landscape protection institution: ‘Třeboňsko Protected Landscape Area’. On the ground
of these facts and additional information, ‘Třeboňsko’ was included in the group of appellations derived
from natural regions. A less significant group of appellations derived from landscape landmarks comprises
especially designations derived from the names of mountains or hills (e.g. LAG ‘Světovina’ – ‘Světovina
Hill’). Names belonging to this subcategory occur uniquely in Bohemia.

The category of appellations derived from cultural phenomena consists of designations derived from
ethnographic or cultural regions. In all these cases, the name of the region is adopted in its original form
(e.g. LAG ‘Luhačovské Zálesí’), or combined either with a general term (e.g. LAG ‘Kyjovské Slovácko
v pohybu’ – ‘Kyjovské Slovácko in Motion’), or – especially in case of larger ethnographic areas – with words
bearing an locational notion (LAG ‘Střední Haná’ – ‘Central Haná’). Denominations formed on the basis of
historical phenomena were represented in our set only to a limited extent. Most of them were derived
from the name of historical monuments (castles, pilgrimage sites) and historical personalities, or
aristocratic families and their heraldic symbols (e.g. LAG ‘Zubří země’ – ‘Bison Land’6). LAGs falling into the
category others account for more than one-tenth of the analyzed set. The internal differentiation of this
category is irrelevant for our research.

Spatial differentiation of LAG names

When focusing our attention on spatial differentiation of LAG names (Fig. 1), a difference become
immediately evident between Czechia’s western and eastern parts, i.e. between its historic lands Bohemia
and Moravia/Silesia. In contrast to the western part, which is very heterogeneous, the east gives the
impression of a lot more compact territory. While the historical border between Bohemia and
Moravia/Silesia does not seem to be an obstacle to collaboration among municipalities, its repercussion
still persists in regional patterns even though the boundary line between western and eastern territories
according to the composition of LAG names runs more westward from the historical border, namely in the
northern part of the country. Many studies (Siwek & Kaňok 2000; Šerý & Šimáček 2013) show through the
example of the historical boundary separating Moravia from Silesia that the perceived course of this
historical borderline may considerably differ from its real shape. Since the research in this issue
exemplified by the Bohemian-Moravian frontier is in the early stages (Chalupa 2015), we cannot but
pronounce a supposition that the perceived boundary runs more west. However, this supposition may also
be supported by the presence of the LAG Českomoravské pomezí (‘Bohemian-Moravian Borderland’),
whose name reveals the group’s allegiance to its geographical location on the borderline of historic lands,
albeit five-sixths of its area are situated on Bohemia’s historical territory.

As suggested above, the eastern parts of Czechia, or, more precisely, the historic lands of Moravia and
Silesia, are a way more homogenous in terms of LAG appellations than Czechia’s west, i.e. Bohemia. In
Moravia, we identified a distinctive way of LAG name derivation from traditional ethnographic regions.
These appellations are, to a limited extent, supplemented with denominations derived from the names of
natural regions and watercourses, especially in areas situated in the vicinity of appellations derived from
ethnographic regions (namely Haná, Slovácko, Valašsko and Horácko). Rather surprisingly, denominations
derived from the names of administrative centers are also very important in east Czechia, representing
one of the common ways of designating those areas wherein traditional ethnographic regions have been
losing their significance or already lost it (Vařeka 1997). It was on the ground of this supposition that we
expected to find this type of designation particularly in west part of the country. Yet this type of LAG name
derivation does not prevail in Bohemia where such denominations are rather dispersed. More compact
LAG blocks were only identified in southern and eastern parts of this historic land (i.e. in territories
showing a higher degree of regional identity; Chromý & Janů 2003; Chromý et al. 2009). By contrast,
appellations derived from the name of an administrative center are extremely rare in regions affected by
population exchange after WWII (Kučera & Kučerová 2012). In many cases, this concerns those
denominations that can be categorized as ‘derived by means of orientation’ because of their localization

6
The Bison head is the emblem of the Pernštejn noble family, which owned lands in the environs of Nové Město na
Moravě and Bystřice nad Pernštejnem, present-day LAG centers.
in Czechia’s headlands of identical names (including not only the LAGs ‘Šluknovsko’ – ‘Šluknov Region’ and
‘Frýdlantsko’ – ‘Frýdlant Region’, but also the LAG ‘Broumovsko+’ – ‘Broumov Region+’). Denominations
related to natural regions predominate in all these resettled borderlands. This fact is quite logical, as the
group of appellations derived from natural regions is largely composed of names of geomorphologic units.
It should be noted that Czechia’s most remarkable mountain ranges are found in border areas and that
the country’s most important natural complexes are also accentuated in LAG names in Moravia and Silesia.
Moreover, natural regions and natural elements in general have a non-conflicting and universally positively
perceived content (Chromý et al. 2014) which justifies the presumption that resettled areas of north-west
Bohemia strive to develop a ‘clean’ environment image contrasting with other landscape images (Kučera
et al. 2008; n.d.). Denominations belonging to the group ‘others’ constitute an important component of
LAG nomenclature in the resettled areas of Czechia.

In contrast to Moravia and Silesia, a greater plurality of approaches to LAG designation reigns in
continuously inhabited areas of inland Bohemia; it is reflected in their spatial fragmentation. We can find
there more representative samples of all the categories defined above but none of them outweighs the
others. The only exception are the names of LAGs derived from ethnographic regions. These embody the
specificity of Moravia while in Bohemia their importance has been diminishing and the notion of
ethnographic regions has been substituted with more ‘modern’ cultural regions whose designations are
derived mainly from administrative centers or from the names of mountain ranges and hills (Vařeka 1997).
Such names were identified exclusively in Bohemia, particularly in its continuously populated inland areas.
The only exceptions are the LAGs Podještědí (‘Region under Mount Ještěd’) and Česká Kanada (‘Bohemian
Canada’). Bohemian Canada's area of activity covers the Bohemian-Moravian historical borderline as well
as the recolonized and the continuously inhabited territory (Havlíček et al. 2008). Nonetheless, it should
not be omitted that the number of the remaining LAGs named after cultural regions is not high at all.

Conclusions

The paper contributes to academic debates on the formation of regions, regional identity and symbolic
shapes of regions. With this objective in mind, we studied the names of regions on the example of Local
Action Groups, a relatively new regions in the Czech regional system. On the basis of an analysis of a set
of 179 LAG names we can draw the following conclusions:

The most productive formant in the LAG nomenclature is the derivation from the name of the regional
center. Nomenclature related to natural and landscape phenomena has a very considerable share in the
researched set of appellations. Symbols of natural beauties and landscape landmarks are considered as
universally positively perceived, and make it possible, among other things, to disguise certain negative
environmental aspects of some areas. The most productive regional appellation formant from the
linguistic point of view is the suffix '-(s)ko', distantly followed by the formant '-í'. These formants are often
combined, namely in case of appellations derived from natural phenomena, with the prefixes 'po-' and
'pod-'. It is with the aid of these prefixes that regional actors grant, whether consciously or unconsciously,
their region a dimension of those cultural regions wherewith these prefixes are commonly associated.
In Czechia, the spatial organization of LAGs is highly scattered and the same is true for individual LAG
names. Nevertheless, a polarity between the historic lands of Bohemia and Moravia/Silesia is apparent in
the examined set of appellations; it equally corresponds with the west-east, or rather with the northwest-
southeast gradient of development level. This polarity, which is conditional on, among other things, the
long-term evolution of every region, the specific development of its settlement system and the general
transformation processes (e.g. the phase shift at the onset of the industrialization period), has been
proven by other research works (e.g. Chromý et al. 2009; Perlín et al. 2010). The importance of this
dichotomy in the formation of identities of new regional units, such as LAGs, should be pointed out.
Regional identification based on the cultural and social components and their spatial organization
dominates in more traditionalist and conservative regions. By contrast, in dynamically developing regions
these traditional bonds tend to gradually disappear. In such areas, regional nomenclature is a lot more
heterogeneous.

LAGs are regional initiatives the purpose of which is to promote territorial development in economic, social
and cultural aspects alike. In this context, every outward expression of regional identity thus becomes a
tool serving regional actors, subjects and interest groups to strengthen general awareness of social and
territorial togetherness, but also helps to promote the given region beyond its borders, boosting its
position within the present constellations of power. In such a case, regional appellation is one of the most
important regional symbols. Yet it is equally a subject of political consensus and rearticulation of values
and meanings for various purposes. That is why its research requires a lot of perceptiveness towards
historical, spatial and societal context through which it may become a very valuable source rich in
information.

To illustrate this complexity we can highlight the fact that the choice of the name involves a decision of
individuals or diverse interest groups. Thus, the decision is largely affected by personal preferences,
knowledge and experience of individual regional actors, as well as by the relationships among them. As
regards regions originating from cooperation between Czech municipalities, for example, mutual
relationships between mayors and other actors come into play (often in an irrational manner),
codetermining whether or not a municipality will join a regional alliance and what name that alliance will
bear. The question of power relations in regional name formation was not the subject of our research. An
exploration thereof would go beyond the chosen methodology and the extent of the present study. It can,
however, be understood as an impulse for further study. Based on the results of our research, several
assumptions related to this impulse can be formulated with a view to being verified by future research.
During the process of identity forming and institutionalization of new regional structures, such as LAGs, a
clash with the already existing territorial entities occurs regularly. Our selection of regional appellations
enabled us to identify four distinctive strategies used by regional actors throughout this process: (1)
adoption of an original identity and reproduction of ‘original’ traditions in the spirit of uncritical patriotism;
(2) utilization of an original identity and its rearticulation/revitalization in a ‘new’ context when new
meanings and values are attributed to old traditions; (3) utilization of traditionally present but rather
unused identities whose major traits include non-conflictness and capacity of evoking positive mental
associations; (4) formation of brand new identities that may or may not prove to be innovative, creative
solutions capable of anchoring in regional patterns, or whether they stand for an ephemeral idea of
fashion. In areas with strong traditional regional identity (primarily characterized by a common acceptance
of its presumed long-term historical continuity), local actors tend to use the first two strategies and, thus,
reproduce well-embedded traditions and thereby both the internal and external image of their region,
because the local communities are not only unlikely to accept any radical innovations, but with regard to
general awareness about the existence of such regions there is no need to change their image. On the
contrary, in areas without any strong traditional regional identity, we can identify the usage of various
strategies, including the possibility for local actors of formulating new identities and launching ‘innovative’
processes. This latter pattern is, however, intensified in areas resettled after WWII.

References

Allen, April. 2011. "The role of history in place marketing: Can branding create a sense of place?" Journal
of Town & City Management 2 (1): 75–83.

Anholt, Simon. 2011. "Beyond the nation brand: The role of image and identity in international relations."
In Brands and Branding Geographies ed. by Andy Pike, 289–301. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Bělič, Jaromír. 1968. "Čech – Česko?" Naše řeč 51 (5): 299–300.

Bělič, Jaromír. 1969. "Ještě jednou Česko." Naše řeč 52 (4): 256–259.

Brendler, Andrea, and Silvio Brendler. 2004. Namenarten und ihre Erforschung: Ein Lehrbuch für das
Studium der Onomastik. Hamburg: Baar Verlag.

Bruckheimer, Karl. 2000. "LEADER in Germany and the discourse of autonomous regional development."
Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2): 219–227.

Buller, Henry. 2000. "Re-creating rural territories: LEADER in France." Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2): 190–199.

CEC, Commission of the European Communities. 1996. The Cork Declaration: A Living Countryside. [online:
accessed in Nov. 2014]: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/cork_en.htm

CEC, Commission of the European Communities. 1997. CAP 2000 Working Document: Rural
Developments. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Čechová, Marie, and Miloš Dokulil. 2011. Čeština – řeč a jazyk. Praha: SPN.

Chalupa, Jan. 2015. Historickogeografická česko-moravská zemská hranice: rekonstrukce, percepce,

významy. [Master thesis]. Praha: Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague.

Chromý, Pavel, and Helena Janů. 2003. "Regional identity, activation of territorial communities and the
potential of the development of peripheral regions." AUC Geographica 38 (1): 105–117.

Chromý, Pavel, Silvie Kučerová, and Zdeněk Kučera. 2009. "Regional identity, contemporary and historical
regions and the issue of relict borders: the case of Czechia." Region and Regionalism 9 (2): 9–19.

Chromý, Pavel, Michal Semian, and Zdeněk Kučera. 2014. "Regionální vědomí a regionální identita v Česku:
případová studie Českého ráje." Geografie 119 (3): 259–277.

Čižmárová, Libuše. 2015. "History of and popular attitudes towards names for the Czech-speaking
territory." AUC Geographica 50 (1): 7–22.
David, Jaroslav. 2011. Smrdov, Brežněves a Rychlonožkova ulice: kapitoly z moderní české toponymie.
Praha: Academia.

David, Jaroslav. 2013. "Street names – between ideology and cultural heritage." Acta Onomastica 54: 53–
60.

David, Jaroslav, and Michal Semian. 2015. "Bohemian Manchester, Moravian Klondike and Silesian
Versailles: Attributive structures of foreign place names in contemporary Czech journalism." Slovo a
slovesnost 76 (2): 129–147.

Deas, Iain, and Alex Lord. 2006. "From a new regionalism to an unusual regionalism? The emergence of
non-standard regional spaces and lessons for the territorial reorganisation of the state." Urban Studies 43
(10): 1847–1877.

Esparcia Perez, Javier. 2000. "The LEADER programme and the rise of rural development in Spain."
Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2): 200–207.

Fan, Ying. 2006. "Branding the nation: What is being branded?" Journal of Vacation Marketing 12 (1): 5–
14.

Frolec, Václav. 1985. Etnografické regiony a subregiony v ČSR. [Mezi hudci supplement]. Brno: Blok.

Hampl, Martin, Václav Gardavský, and Karel Kühnl. 1987. Regionální struktura a vývoj systému osídlení
ČSR. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.

Harvalík, Milan, and Pavel Boháč. 2000. "Exonyme und Standardisierung fremder geographischer Namen
im Tschechischen." Onoma 35: 229–257.

Havlíček, Tomáš, Pavel Chromý, Vít Jančák, and Miroslav Marada. 2008. "Innere und äussere peripherie am
beispiel Tschechiens." Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 150: 299–316.

Havlíček, Tomáš, and Martina Hupková. 2013. "Sacred structures in the landscape: The case of rural
Czechia." Scottish Geographical Journal 129 (2): 100–121.

Henderson, George. 2009. "Region." In The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th edition, ed. by Derek
Gregory, Ron Johnston, Geraldine Pratt, Michael J. Watts, and Sarah Whatmore, 630–632. Chichester:
Wiley‒Blackwell.

Heřmanová, Eva, and Pavel Chromý et al. 2009. Kulturní regiony a geografie kultury. Praha: ASPI.

Hirsch, Vladimír. 2013. "Pokus o analýzu odporu proti jednoslovnému názvu českého státu." Klaudyán 10
(1–2): 1–12.

Hospers, Gert-Jan. 2011. "Four of the most common misconceptions about place marketing." Journal of
Town & City Management 2 (2): 167–176.

Jančák, Vít, Tomáš Havlíček, Pavel Chromý, and Miroslav Marada. 2008. "Regional Differentiation of
Selected Conditions for the Development of Human and Social Capital in Czechia." Geografie 113 (3): 269–
284.

Jeřábek, Richard. 1987. "Ethnische und ethnographische Gruppen und Regionen in den Böhmischen
Ländern." Ethnologia slavica 19: 122–164.
Kašková, Magdalena, and Pavel Chromý. 2014. "Regional product labelling as part of the region formation
process: The case of Czechia." AUC Geographica 49 (2): 87–98.

Keating, Michael (ed). 2004. Regions and Regionalism in Europe. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Kovách, Imre. 2000. "LEADER, a new social order, and the Central- and East-European countries."
Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2): 181–189.

Krejčí, Pavel. 2008. "Don’t be afraid of CZECHIA, it needs your help!" Klaudyán 5 (1): 30–37.

Kučera, Zdeněk, Silvie Kučerová-Kuldová, and Pavel Chromý. 2008. "Landscape heritage between areal
preservation and areal development – the case of Czechia." Geographia Polonica 81 (2): 5–23.

Kučera, Zdeněk, and Silvie Kučerová. 2012. "Historical geography of persistence, destruction and creation:
The case of rural landscape transformation in Czechia's resettled borderland. Historická geografie 38 (1):
165–184.

Kučera, Zdeněk, Michal Semian, and Pavel Raška. n.d. "(Re)presented image of the region: The case of local
postcards." (manuscript; available from authors on request).

Lee, Jo, Arnar Árnason, Andrea Nightingale, and Mark Shucksmith. 2005. "Networking: Social capital and
identities in European rural development." Sociologia Ruralis 45 (4): 269–283.

Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. [La production de l'espace, trans. by Donald Nicholson-
Smith, originaly published in 1974]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Mze, Ministerstvo zemědělství ČR. 2014. Venkov: Místní akční skupiny. [online: accessed in Feb. 2014]:
http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/venkov/mistni-akcni-skupiny/

NSMAS, Národní síť Místních akčních skupin ČR. 2014. Seznam Místních akčních skupin. [online: accessed
in Feb. 2014]: http://nsmascr.cz/seznam-mistnich-akcnich-skupin/

Olivová-Nezbedová, Libuše. 1997. "Jména ulic, náměstí, nábřeží a sadů na katastru města Choceně v
minulosti a současnosti." Acta Onomastica 38: 43–68.

Olivová-Nezbedová, Libuše, Miroslava Knappová, Jitka Malenínská, and Jana Matúšková. 1995. Pomístní
jména v Čechách: o čem vypovídají jména polí, luk, lesů, hor, vod a cest. Praha: Academia.

Osti, Giorgio. 2000. "LEADER and partnerships: The case of Italy." Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2): 172–180.

Paasi, Anssi. 1986. "The institutionalization of regions: A theoretical framework for understanding the
emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity." Fennia 164 (1): 105–146.

Paasi, Anssi. 2004. "Place and region: Looking through the prism of scale." Progress in Human Geography
28 (4): 536–546.

Paasi, Anssi. 2009. "The resurgence of the region and regional identity: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical observation on regional dynamics in Europe." Review of International Studies 35: 121–146.

Paasi, Anssi. 2010. "Regions are social constructs, but ‘who’ or ‘what’ constructs them? Agency in
question." Environment and Planning A 42: 2296–2301.
Perlín, Radim, Silvie Kučerová, and Zdeněk Kučera. 2010. "Typologie venkovského prostoru Česka."
Geografie 115 (2): 161–187.

Pike, Andy. 2011. "Introduction: Brands and branding geographies." In Brands and Branding Geographies
ed. by Andy Pike, 3–24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Pred, Allan R. 1984. "Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography of
becoming places." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74 (2): 279–297.

Profous, Antonín. 1918. O místních a zvláště pomístních jménech v okrsku chrasteckém u Chrudimě. Praha.

Ray, Christopher. 2000a. Endogenous Socio-Economic Development and Trustful Relationships:

Partnerships, Social Capital and Individual Agency. [Working Paper 45]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Centre for
Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Ray, Christopher. 2000b. "The EU LEADER programme: Rural development laboratory." Sociologia Ruralis
40 (2): 163–171.

Semian, Michal. 2012a. "Název jako symbol regionu." Historická geografie 38 (2): 335–352.

Semian, Michal. 2012b. "Searching for the territorial shape of a region in regional consciousness: The
Český ráj (Bohemian Paradise), Czech Republic." Moravian Geographical Reports 20 (2): 25–35.

Semian, Michal, and Pavel Chromý. 2014. "Regional identity as a driver or a barrier in the process of
regional development: A comparison of selected European experience." Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift –
Norwegian Journal of Geography 68: 1–8. [available online; DOI: 10.1080/00291951.2014.961540]

Šerý, Miloslav, and Petr Šimáček. 2013. "Vnímání hranic obyvatelstvem regionů s rozdílnou kontinuitou
socio-historického vývoje jako dílčí aspekt jejich regionální identity." Geografie 118 (4): 392–414.

Shucksmith, Mark. 2000. "Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: Perspectives from
LEADER in the UK." Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2): 208–218.

Šifta, Miroslav, and Pavel Chromý. 2014. "Symboly a identita regionu: analýza vnímání přírodních symbolů
oblastí s intenzivně přeměněnou krajinou v Česku." Geografický časopis 66 (4): 401–415.

Simon, Carola, Paulus Huigen, and Peter Groote. 2010. "Analysing regional identities in the Netherlands."
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 101 (4): 409–421.

Siwek, Tadeusz, and Jaromír Kaňok. 2000. "Mapping Silesian identity in Czechia." Geografie 105 (2): 190–
200.

Šmilauer, Vladimír. 1963. Úvod do toponomastiky. Praha: SPN.

Šrámek, Rudolf. 1999. Úvod do obecné onomastiky. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.

Süssner, Josefina. 2002. "Culture, identity and regional development in the European Union."
Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (4–5): 199–206.

Thuesen, Annette Aagaard. 2010. "Is LEADER elitist or inclusive? Composition of Danish LAG boards in the
2007-2013 rural development and fisheries programmes." Sociologia Ruralis 50 (1): 31–45.
Vařeka, Josef. 1997. "Národopisné oblasti v Čechách ve světle etnokartografie." In Evropský kulturní
prostor – jednota v rozmanitosti, ed. by Josef Vařeka, Markéta Holubová, and Lydia Petráňová, 40–49.
Praha: AV ČR.

Warnaby, Gary, David Bennison, and Dominic Medway. 2011. "Branding a Roman frontier in the twenty-
first century." In Brands and Branding Geographies ed. by Andy Pike, 248–263. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Winter, František. 2013. Role MAS je vyjasněna již dávno. [online: accessed in Feb. 2014]:
http://nsmascr.cz/aktuality/2013/role-mas-je-vyjasnena-jiz-davno/

Zimmerbauer, Kaj. 2011. "From image to identity: Building regions by place promotion." European
Planning Studies 19 (2): 243–260.
 Total Percentage of
Category number total
Geographical 75 41,90
Derived from center 62 34,64
Orientation 13 7,26
Historical (region, personality, monument, event, pathway) 13 7,26
Cultural 19 10,61
Ethnographic region 11 6,15
Cultural region 8 4,47
Natural/landscape 51 28,49
Landscape landmark 7 3,91
Natural region 20 11,17
Watercourse 23 12,85
Other (geology) 1 0,56
Others 21 11,73
Total 179 100,00
Tab. 1: Semantic base for LAG name derivation

Source: Authors.

Note: As regards the historical basis of appellations, the number of individual subcategories was too low
to continue to subdivide this group. In parentheses we mention those subcategories that appeared at least
once in our set of data. Examples of denominations according to individual subcategories are specified in
the body of the article.
Fig. 1: Typology of LAG name derivations in Czechia, March 2014

Source: Authors.