Live the Garden: Post-socialist Transformation of Garden Cooperatives in the Czech Republic

etnol gické ROZPRAVY

ročník XXI| 2014 | číslo 2

27

Live the garden: Post-socialist transformation of Garden Cooperatives in the Czech Republic

Mgr. Gabriela Fatková a Peter Watson, M. A.

Kontakt: Mgr. Gabriela Fatková Katedra antropologie FF ZČU, Sedláčkova 15, Plzeň 30100, ČR e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Garden cooperatives were a characteristic feature of Czech recreation during the socialist period. They represent a specific site within the local urban and rural landscapes. In the Czech context it also carries the meaning of the collectivity existing within but not strictly controlled by the socialist state. Although there is a growing individualism in Czech society, gardening cooperatives keep elements of this residual collective spirit (e.g. sharing of water, electricity, fences, various duties, etc.). Due to their special legislative status they became places of bricoleaur creativity allowing building of houses and improvements with little or no restriction. These types of cabins are continually transformed from second homes to the primary residence. The residents of garden communities are diverse. They include initial founders and those people who seek certain types of freedom, financially modest living, and an outdoor lifestyle. The case study of one garden cooperative in Western Bohemia shows how these formerly recreational places slowly turned into permanent homes. We can observe the shift from the former values of collective leisure to the recent values of individual rejection of economic globalization and consumerism.

Kľúčové slová: druhé bydlení, zahrádkové osady, chataření, post-socialismus

Key words: second home, garden cooperative, cottages, post-socialism

Introduction

In a culture of rampant consumerism driven by a never-ending barrage of marketing campaigns we are subjected to an infinite number of status-affirming material items so that we are never content. This frivolity is not sustainable however. As many people prioritize their lives, the definition of luxury is no longer the material possessions they have amassed, but the often overlooked simpler things. Today´s luxury, according to Enzenberger, consists of six inseparable facets that function as a whole. These include time, attention, space, quietude, environment, and security. It is precisely these things which are sought in the picturesque countryside. This is exemplified by the recent trend in the

Etnologické rozpravy 2/2014

28

Czech Republic toward the large increase of people leaving cities and moving to rural areas.

During socialism the villages and rural localities always suffered a loss of residents. This trend reversed itself after the 1989 revolution and these small municipalities have been steadily growing ever since. At first it was largely the uneducated working class returning to their previous homes. Soon, a new educated elite was seeking refuge from city life. So from 1999-2008 villages of less than 200 people were the fastest-growing target areas of Czech migration. After 2001, migratory growth in rural municipalities appeared only after many decades. This means that “de-concentration movements targeting small municipalities in real peripheral areas took place” (Drbohlav – Rákoczyová 2012, s. 9). This is of course due to the usual push/pull factors and life circumstances of each individual (avoiding overcrowding, crime, education). The focus of our inquiry will be on the transformation of “cottage-like” secondary housing structures into livable primary residences. Using the Czech countryside village as a symbol will situate the larger discussion of second housing as a political refuge during the communist years as the springboard for these transformations. By specifically using the example of garden cooperatives we are able to draw on a multitude of aspects including privatization, communal responsibilities, management, and uses.

Czech Countryside as a Symbol

The myth-making surrounding the modern Czech state came from the German-influenced “passion for the pure, simple, uncorrupted peasantry” (Hobsbawm 1990, s. 103) which was characteristic of the bourgeois nationalisms of Western Europe, though only adopted and only briefly in Eastern Europe by the Czechs (Sugar 1994, s. 72). The notion of returning to the villages was an opportune way to reinvent Czechness, thereby functioning as a homogenizing mechanism to exclude other groups living in the Czech lands (Jusova 2005). This nationalistic trend only went so far as to aid in the goals of the urban middle class. The leaders of the nationalist movement, whose “endorsement of the division between the traditional village and the modern city for the covert purpose of manipulating this division to their advantage” maintained an inexpensive and steady labor force for the cities to exploit (Jusova 2005, s. 73). When the more affluent did venture

Gabriela Fatková, Peter Watson

29

out to smaller localities, their interaction with life there was shallow- an affirmation that this lifestyle still existed- and allowed them to return to the cities and modernize, thus alleviating “the burden of traditional customs for the urban middle class (Jusova 2005, s. 73). In this era then, the Czech countryside is a place where tradition and custom can be justifications for national identity during a period of rising political uncertainty in Europe. Real or imagined, they worked for the purpose of mobilization and support, pointing to the importance the Czech people placed on connection and rootedness with the simplicity and peacefulness of the countryside.

Once the goals of the national revival were realized with the recognition of Czechoslovakia as an independent state, the countryside again became solace for the urban Czech identity. Young people began to spend their free time in nature, away from the ills of city life, as the only affordable means of recreation. After statehood, many Czechs returned from the Americas with romantic tales of the vast natural expanse and the lawlessness of the frontier. American western films and novels further intrigued the youth, creating a uniquely Czech phenomenon. The “wild scouts” movement was founded and grew on the “notion of the countryside as ‘elsewhere’, as beyond the reach of state control”, and “as a form of resistance against the dominant political ideology of capitalist, conservative, bourgeois values” (Bren 2002, s. 128). In the late 1920s they adopted the moniker “Tramps” (Trampove). This came from Jack London’s 1907 book “The Road”, an autobiographical account of his train-hopping hobo days. Though initially disenfranchised by capitalist ideology, the tramps were philosophically dangerous to the Communist regime as the “movement’s association of personal freedom” could be “when necessary, a vehicle for resistance” (Bren 2002, s. 131). Tramps and tramping are still part of the Czech subculture and as long as pristine natural environments exist for each generation’s adventurous and outward-looking youth, they always will. The Tramps are a cultural phenomenon in the Czech Republic whose lifestyle is romanticized and appreciated as though they are the folk hero protectors of natural preserves and distrustful watchdogs of political and social trends. Their use of the Czech landscape as an escape, where they alone made the rules was a direct act of resistance. This turned the countryside into sacred place, once again illustrating how powerful a philosophic tool unadulterated nature can be to the Czech people.


30

Second Homes and the Genesis of the “Chata” Phenomenon

Tramping may not have been for everyone, but its contribution to the second home surge can be seen in the “chata” (cabin). These often ramshackle structures were built by the tramps based on the design of Canadian log cabins seen by the re-immigrants while they were abroad. Though the weekend getaway hut did not immediately catch on, a boom in second housing occurred in the post-war years. This is attributed to a number of factors: primarily the abandonment of many rural localities. In 1946, President Eduard Beneš expelled all Germans from the Czech lands, mostly in the rural Sudetenland periphery, bordering Austria and Germany. The Communist regime redistributed the homes to the Czech populace. The closure of military training camps in the interior also left unattended dwellings open for seizure. Rapid industrialization in the early communist years further emptied the villages as job opportunities in cities promised brighter futures. The villages were left with residents of retired age who soon willed these properties to heirs who would use them as second homes.

As conditions worsened during the normalization period1 and foreign travel was increasingly restricted by the hard line communists in power, the chata became the most attractive of the limited options for leisure. The “chata-mania” of the 1970s and 1980s was further enabled by increased access to automobiles and a reliable bus and train infrastructure which allowed people the mobility to travel greater distances from the cities. A shortened work week then provided the time needed for a weekend of leisure. The advent of multigenerational block housing apartments (panelák) in the cities and towns created overcrowding and the sense of a lack of privacy, urging more people to chatas as an escape. As their popularity grew and more chatas were built, new lands had to be purchased. At the same time building materials became more abundant. Throughout the Czech lands “chatové osady” (cottage settlements) were established and are still in use today. Access to and the ability to own a chata for those who could afford it leveled the playing field within society and provided the basis for an emerging middle class. Traffic jams became legendary on Fridays around the cities as the masses fled to the countryside. Inevitably people tried to avoid

1 Normalization period refers to the return of strict authoritarian rule after 1968.


31

traffic by leaving eariler on Friday and later on Monday, ironically using the shrinking work week as downtime from a busy weekend at the chata.

Time was generally spent on building and modernization projects and various home improvements along with other chataření (cottage activities or cottaging) such as picking mushrooms and berries in the forest, hiking, gadgetry, and most of all, gardening. Time at the chata was important due, not only to the strict regime and chaos of city, but most importantly to a sense of ownership and self-expression in at least one small aspect of life. Under a system that criminalized the visibility of private property, the chata was one area of legal investment opportunity (Duffková 2006).

These second homes were not merely compensation for everyday living, but rather a more real and important life experience (Cílek 2007, s. 388). The freedom to express oneself among family and friends invited an element of truth into an otherwise masked existence. Visible self-expression also helped alleviate stress as ornaments and quirky statues adorned the environs of most chatas, adding to the uniqueness and individual personality of each. This decorative impulse was only possible away from the party-accepted propaganda allowed in the city. The space around the chata was ideal. Chata-mania was overlooked by the regime despite its materialist and capitalist undertones resonating with dissent. It was the only real consensus they were willing to reach in return for an inactive and compliant population. Empty cities avoided large scale street level politics while home improvement projects took time and energy away from such concerns. Again the Czech countryside was transformed into a place of freedom, expression, and self-realization, albeit a seemingly detached and impersonal one.

Garden Cooperatives Within Second Home Development Trends

The beginning of the twentieth century saw the rise of gardening among the working class. Garden-allotments were located on land which was un-cultivable with heavy machinery, usually close to industrial towns and cities. Their main purpose was to soften the food shortages during wars and to improve the lives of the working classes inhabiting the small, substandard flats of workers’ quarters. This means of side-production did not flourish in the Czech lands before the twentieth century- much later than in other European countries such as


32

Britain, France, Denmark, and Germany. Together with second living, (“chata“) gardening formed a specific category of leisure in socialist Czechoslovakia while second living in the post-Socialist period evolved into the primary residence.

The density of second homes in the Czech Republic is one of the highest in Europe where one quarter of the population owns or has access to a second home (Pospíšilová 2013, s. 16). A high density is quite common in post-Socialist countries (Fialová – Vágner 2009, s. 91). In 1991 the Czech Republic recorded almost 400,000 second homes, twice as many as in the 1970´s. After 1991 there was a downturn in both the construction of second homes and the transformation from secondary to primary homes. This was primarily due to the collapse of heavily state-subsidized housing construction and a distorted housing market (Drbohlav – Rákoczyová 2012, s. 8). There have been a few positive developments since the Socialist Period regarding second living in the Czech Republic that allow owners to transform their summer-houses into permanent dwellings. These have arisen due to the difficult financial situation of young families and pensioners, the rise of jobs with flexible working hours, and the possibility to work from home due to information technologies (Fialová 2001, 2003). A recent study of second housing shows that more than half the owners of second homes are considering or are actually planning this transformation in the near future (Fialová – Vágner 2009, s. 101). Along with this transformation we observe growing commercialization and internationalization of second homes (building, buying, or time-shares of weekend-houses abroad (Pospíšilová 2013, s. 33). The differences between second and first houses and between second living and commercial usage of the object are blurred in the last several years (Fialová – Vágner 2009).

Second homes in the Czech Republic can be divided into three ideal types. The first one is called “chalupa“. It is a house in a village, usually abandoned by farmers or the former German population. Chalupa as a former permanent house could be located in a village or isolated in a hamlet (samota). Compared to the following types of second homes chalupa are well suited for permanent dwelling (having electricity and water distribution, drainage, barns, cellar, etc. and are also quite spacious). The second type “chata” has already been mentioned. This is usually found outside of village settlements in a scenic place (near water, in the forest, or on an attractive mountainside). Contrary to the chalupa, the floor space of a chata was often regulated by local legislation and


33

initially only allowed to be 30 m2 and grew to 80 m2 by the 1990s (Fialová 200 1). Furthermore chata often did not have water, electricity, and heat distribution until they were modified. The third type of second home is represented by various cabins, cottages, and houses in garden cooperatives. Garden cooperatives are usually near towns or cities. Quite rare are garden cooperatives in or attached to villages. Cabins standing in the garden cooperatives are strongly regulated by local administration and their transformation to solid houses or places of first housing is the most complicated. On the other hand, readily available water and electricity distribution (often communal) are the basic pre-requisites of modern housing, making these places most easily habitable if the floor-space is sufficient for the dweller.

Garden Cooperative as a Place for Permanent Living

Under communism garden activities of any sort were centrally administered by the Czech Gardener´s Association (CGA). The CGA administered whole plots in the settlement and distributed the allotment among applicants, collected rents and electricity payments, administered the major payments for the settlement as a whole, organized workshops for the maintenance of communal property, and demanded from the dwellers their adherence to a set of rules. This often included prohibiting a permanent dwelling on the allotment. The CGA was founded in 1957 and by the end of the communist era the number of settlements grew seven-fold from 676 to 4,477 (48,000 members to 400,000) (Vágner 2004).

During this period of rapid growth, coinciding with chata-mania, people had to endure long waiting lists for an allotment. The organization was no longer relevant after the Socialist Era and a significant loss of land and membership followed with only 3,000 properties today (170,000 members) (Klouparova 2010, s. 6). Troubles for the local coordinators began when the allotments were privatized because people felt that the communal rules no longer applied.

Currently, collectives are usually run based on the principles of a civic organization. Garden cooperatives outside this organization could work in a similar way or as a privately owned aggregation of allotments without communal regulations. After the fall of Socialism, second homes (chalupa, chata and gardens) were in a state of proprietary ambiguity. The plots considered chata or garden settlements were often state-owned and were returned to the original (pre-Socialist) owner after 1989. During the


34

first years of this uncertainty, some people started to re-build and enlarge their second homes without anyone´s consent. After a few years some settlements were transformed and villages had to deal with these discrepancies with zoning changes.

Picture 1: Enlarged cabin (strategies of maintenance of the floor space and

extension of the upper dwelling space), author: Gabriela Fatková

Although garden cooperatives are not legislatively the easiest solution for permanent living, they attract various types of people. The Czech law of citizen registry allows people to ascribe a permanent address to structures having descriptive or evidence number and defined as an object for dwelling, accommodation, or individual recreation. This broad definition of a habitable structure is not self-evident in other post-Socialist countries. In Russia, for example, only places defined as objects for dwelling are designated as suitable for living (Kasatkina 2011, s. 19). Although living in a garden cooperative on a private allotment in a private building is legislatively allowed in the Czech context, dwellers


35

often experience negative reactions from local municipalities2, police3, and local service providers4. The practical problems show up mainly in the spheres of garbage management, mail delivery and safeguarding.

Garden cooperatives today are dwelled by people of all ages. “Garden dwellers” in most cases relish their decision to live in these settlements. The older generation consists mainly of former recreational gardeners who had used their allotments for a long time and decided to move there for retirement (Fialová 2001). The younger generation is usually represented by young gardeners (people living in the garden cooperatives to be environmentally diligent and self-sustainable), young families unwilling to live in the city and run into debt by buying a village house, or just young people who want to live outside the urban areas and focus on open-air activities (sport, breeding of animals, beekeeping, etc.). We use this division only for the needs of our analysis because in practice the inhabitants are a combination of more than one or all three categories.

Until now we have spoken about “garden dwellers” who moved into their garden cabins based on their own decision, not due to inaccessibility of other dwellings. The media often highlights the issue of homeless people inhabiting garden cooperatives during the winter or even year round. Homeless people move into garden cooperatives very often because of its financial accessibility. Some of them turn into voluntary and satisfied “garden dwellers”5, some use gardens only during the cold period of the year as an emergency shelter when the owners are likely away. Some of them have a legal contract with the owners to live as caretakers in the off-season. Media portrayal of this phenomenon is usually negative, ignoring the positive side of such

2 The first reaction of the municipality to our application to register a permanent address on a private plot in the garden settlement was a strong contract that we were forced to sign. In it we agree that village governance will not provide any ordinary services for us (public lighting, road maintenance, garbage services). However we do have to pay for the garbage services. In practice it means we have to drive our garbage to a collecting place in the neighboring village). 3 The unwanted attention of police and transients is descibed by dwellers of garden settlements near Prague. – http://www.novyprostor.cz/clanky/402/navrat-do-zelene.html. 4 Local rescue workers (firemen, ambulance drivers) complain about the inaccesibility of garden cooperatives – http://www.munimedia.cz/prispevek/je-to-cekani-na-tragedii-rika-o-zahradkar skych-osadach -hasic-2953/. 5 Garden cooperatives could be transformed into platforms hosting regular social projects. A group of legal „garden dwellers“ originating from former homeless people has been researched by anthropologist Pavla Burgos – http://anthropictures.blog.respekt.ihned.cz/c1-60267170-homeless-sem-homeless-tam-aneb-o-tom-jak-je-clovek-cloveku-nejlepsim-lekem.


36

contracts.6 Aside from the negative articles about robberies and colonization by people without stable homes, we also encounter articles about “representative garden dwellers” in many magazines. These articles are very often under sub-headings of building and house decorating or alternative ways to solve your housing situation.7

Although “garden dwelling” seems to be an individual private project governed only with building plans in a particular locality, there are, in practice, many more aspects which need to be taken into account. Even in the most private types of garden cooperatives there is shared property and activities (water and electricity distribution, maintenance of fences, garbage management or noise limitations). “Garden dwellers” are therefore never just private owners, but are part of a larger social organism with many relics from Socialist times.

Case Study of a Permanently-Dwelled Garden Cooperative: Turnip-ville

We will expand on this phenomenon of “garden dwelling” and its post-Socialist development in a case study of a garden cooperative in the Pilsen region. For protection of personal information we will not mention the name of the village or settlement. For the purpose of this study we will call this garden cooperative “Turnip-ville”. The authors started with fieldwork in Turnip-ville in autumn 2013, when they permanently moved into the cooperative and spent all four seasons there. Turnip-ville, founded in 1984, lies 15 km from Pilsen (Plzen), the center of the West-Bohemian region. The settlement is at the edge of an agricultural village with a mild climate. The settlement can be reached using a 300m long dirt road and is connected with Pilsen by multiple

6 Např. http://usti.idnes.cz/zatah-na-bezdomovce-v-zahradkarske-kolonii-f2r-/usti-zpravy. asp x?c=A120710_123208_usti-zpravy_mav; http://brnensky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/kolonie-misto-zahradek-vetsinou-utulky-bezdomovcu.html; http://www.rozhlas.cz/zpravy/regiony/_z prava/pri-kontrole-chatovych-oblasti-v-praze-policiste-objevili-i-malou-pestirnu-konopi--1267641. 7 Case of young couple who moved from a block house („panelák“) into a garden cooperative living in a Mongolian yurt – http://bydleni.idnes.cz/par-z-brna-bydli-v-jurte-0vy-/architekt ura.aspx?c=A130814_1964223_brno-zpravy_Ka1. Case of young family who built a small house in a garden cooperative - http://www.lidovky.cz/zahradkarska-kolonie-a-pudorys-3x7-metru-rodinny-dum-za-400-tisic-pv0-/design.aspx?c=A130527_202241_ln-bydleni_ter. Case of man living in a garden cabin because of debt - http://bydleni.idnes.cz/trvale-bydliste-zahradni-chatka-dn9-/stavba.aspx?c=A070122_123233_rodinne_domy_pet.


37

daily buses. The village is a target area for suburban development projects, therefore “old” Turnip-ville has been vastly reshaped.

Contemporary Turnip-ville is a mixed-type second home area. The allotments are all private property. Some of the owners keep using them as gardens (for vegetables or flowers), while others turned them into recreational chatas (low-cut grass, swimming-pool, trampoline, decorative plants, for example). The settlement consists of 23 plots (all with cabins). In 2013, only three of them were permanently dwelled in. The majority of the non-permanent dwellers is of retirement age and spends the five to seven warm months of the year there. The buildings in this area were mostly built in the 1990s, when the administration of these plots was loosened. During the 1990s most of the gardeners spent their energy planting high hedge fences, transforming seedbeds into places of leisure, and slowly building their own “simulated forest corner” (places visually private, but unfortunately acoustically public).

Picture 2a: Strategy of creating own “simulated forest corner”, author: Peter

Watson


38

Picture 2b: Strategy of creating own “simulated forest corner”, author: Peter

Watson

Picture 3 – Aerial view of Turnip-ville (showing the density of swimming-

pools, trampolines, and other leisure equipment), source: GoogleEarth

The contemporary permanent dwellers are singles of various ages. The oldest permanent dweller is a retired woman living in a little house, built on the foundation of the former cottage. She is local from the nearby village and has many family ties there. After her divorce, she moved into the garden house, where she lives alone, often getting visits


39

from her son and grandchildren. In a similar house lives another elderly woman, who still works in the nearby factory and lives with two dogs in the garden cottage customized for permanent living. Both ladies focus on their gardens where they grow half fruit and vegetables and half flowers. The third permanently dwelled house is occupied by a 32 year old man, who improved the cottage for permanent living. His main motivation for life in the garden cooperative is the open-air running and breeding of dogs.

As we can see none of the permanent “garden dwellers” are the type of environmentally aware enthusiastic grower, as gardeners are portrayed by sociologist Jan Keller in his article “Boast of the growers”. Keller´s gardener balances on the fragile tightrope over the gulf of greedy market society and state control. Although from Keller´s article it is clear that he did not mean it as a conscious and purposeful activity. In our case study we have to point out that local “garden dwellers” are neither purely self-sustainable growers nor slaves to market society and state control. Growing is a self-evident regular activity of most of the seasonal gardeners; the case of the permanent “garden dwellers” is not so axiomatic.

What all local permanent “garden dwellers” have in common is the compound usage of their allotments. Allotments are usually divided into the housing area, which never consists of a major share of the space, partly due to the fear of making building code violations too visible, and partly due to the utilitarian use of the rest of the allotment. The second largest occupiers of the plots are greenhouses, seed-beds, and shelter for wood and other fuel for winter. Quite a significant part of the allotment is assigned to social activities (pergola with table and chairs, terrace or other gathering spaces). Almost all gardeners have their own cars therefore most allotments have parking spaces specifically assigned to particular gardeners in a maintained order, easily broken by newcomers unfamiliar with the parking-space designations.


40

Picture 4a: Common composition of the “garden dweller´s” allotment (cabin,

fuel, seed-beds, pergola, parking space), author: Gabriela Fatková

Picture 4b: Common composition of the “garden dweller´s” allotment (cabin,



41

Picture 4c: Common composition of the “garden dweller´s” allotment (cabin,


Gathering places are mostly used for occasions when relatives and friends come to visit. The communal spirit among the permanent dwellers, described by Keller, subsided to the contemporary individualist conceptualization of one’s own space and time.

“Gardens represent small and quite neat oasis in the wide wasteland of the social market economy. On one side relentless market dictation and on the other administrative pressure of state care isolate the people from each other. In the gardens they could be gathered together, if they want to. … In the garden cooperative is valid: My garden – my fortress. One-own´s allotment within the garden cooperative allows all to seek and keep that fragile equilibrium between autonomy – independence and completely voluntary cooperation.” (Keller 2000)

The recent significant suburban development in the village caused a change in the notion of the “garden dwellers” from the side of local autochthons. As the garden cooperative has been in the village for 30 years, it is perceived as “ours” by the locals, that is, part of the village. When unknown people come to the village, the dialog will usually look like this:

“Where are you from?”


42

- “From here, from up the hill.” “And are you from the settlement of from the satellite?” - “Settlement.” “Ok, so you are ours.”

Gardening and Living

In the last several years the flow of urban dwellers to the rural areas has intensified. This wave mostly consists of people motivated by an unsatisfactory quality of life in the cities or by the economic accessibility of rural life. Rural life and the countryside are strong symbols since the national movement and are reflected in the contemporary urban-rural migration trends. The countryside is still today perceived as a place of privacy, safety and healthy lifestyle. To live in a village and to work in the city is a dream of most young families.

In between those two broad categories of urban life and rural life stands the intermediate phenomenon of garden cooperatives. Garden cooperatives are located in most cases on the city’s edge but offer quite a rural experience for its owner. Contemporary cooperatives are composed of private owners on separate allotments, though in most cases they are bound by various communal equipment or duties of the cooperative. Life in the garden cooperative is like living half in the city and half in the village, part alone, part tied to other dwellers. Turning an allotment into a permanent dwelling is not an unusual strategy, in accordance with the broader trend of transforming second homes into primary ones such as chatas.

Many authors state that chata culture and chataření are typically Czech or post-Socialist phenomena (e. g. Duffková 2006). The same can be said about garden cooperatives, which exist in other countries but did not take the same form of asylum, expression, and self-realization as in the Czech lands. This outlook persists beyond the Socialist Period every time the contemporary “garden dwellers” turn their little cabins into creatively built little houses, circumventing the public zoning plans and registering themselves as permanent dwellers. In the case study of a 30-year old West-Bohemian garden cooperative it was shown how the settlement turned into a place of primary living in just a few years. Czech “garden dwellers” surf not only between the market and self-sustainable economy (as Keller 2000 - points out), but also between the


43

official and unofficial building process and residence strategies and foremost between urban and rural lifestyles.

References

BREN, P. (2002). Weekend getaways: The chata, the tramp and the politics of private life in post-1968 Czechoslovakia. In: CROWLEY, D. – REID, S. E. (eds.). Socialist spaces: sites of everyday life in the Eastern Bloc, Oxford: Berg. s. 123 – 140. CÍLEK, V. (2007). Chatařství jako fenomén, mentalita a osud. In: ZAPLETALOVÁ, V. Chatařství – Summerhouses. Brno: ERA, s. 379 – 397. DRBOHLAV, D. – RÁKOCZYOVÁ, M. (2012). Social Impact of Emmigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and Eastern Europe: Final Country Report – Czech Republic. [cit. 24. 6. 2014] a prístupné na <http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?pager.offset=10&langId=fr&mode=advancedSubmit&policyArea=0&subCategory=0&year=0&country=0&type=0&advSearchKey=EmigrationMigrationCentralEasternEurope&orderBy=docOrder>. DUFFKOVÁ, J. (2005). Životní způsob/styl a jeho variantnost (Malé zamyšlení nad tím, co všechno se může skrývat pod označením „alternativní životní styl “). In: FAZIK, A. – MATĚJŮ, M. (eds.) Aktuální problémy životního stylu, Praha: Univerzita Karlova, s. 79 – 90. DUFFKOVÁ, J. (2006). O tom, jak a proč vzniklo a (zatím) nezaniklo chataření a chalupaření v Čechách. [cit. 24. 6. 2014] a prístupné na <http://www.jan aduff.estranky.cz/>. FIALOVÁ, D. (2001). Druhé bydlení a jeho vztah k periferním oblastem. In: Geografie–Sborník ČGS, roč. 106, č. 1, s. 36 – 47. FIALOVA, D. (2003). Regional differentiation of second housing transformation in Czechia. In: Geographica, č. 1, s. 59 – 65. FIALOVÁ, D., VÁGNER, J. (2009). Sociogeografické aspekty druhého bydlení a jejich regionální diferenciace (na příkladu Česka). In: Geografický časopis, roč. 61, č. 2, s. 89 – 110. HOBSBAWM, E. J. (1990). Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. JUSOVÁ, I. (2005). Gabriela Preissova’s Women Centered Texts: Subverting the Myth of the Homogenous Nation. In: Slavic and East European Journal, roč. 49, č. 1, s. 63 – 78.


44

KASATKINA, A. (2011). Public And Private In Contemporary Russia: The Case of Garden Cooperatives. disertační práce, Budapešť: Central European University. KELLER, J. (2000). Chvála zahrádkářů. In: Právo. Příloha Salon. 25. 5. 2000. KLOUPAROVA, P. (2010). Zahrádkářská kolonie jako kulturní fenomén. Etnologická interpretace. diplomová práce. Brno: MUNI Ústav evropské etnologie. POSPÍCHALOVÁ, L. (2013). Sociogeografický průzkum druhého bydlení vybrané oblasti jižních Čech. diplomová práce, Brno: MUNI Ekonomicko-správní fakulta. SUGAR, P. (1994). Nationalism in Eastern Europe. In: HUTCHINSON, J. – SMITH, A. D. (eds.) Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 171 – 177. VÁGNER, J. (2004). Vznik a vývoj zahrádkových osad na území Česka. In: Geografie a proměny poznání geografické reality. Sborník příspěvků z Mezinárodní geografické konference. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, s. 231 – 37. ZAPLETALOVÁ, V. (2007). Chatařství–Summerhouses. Brno: Vydavatelství ERA.
