Border between West and East of Europe in the mental maps of European university students 23Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.1.2 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 2025 (1) 23–36. Introduction The terms West and East are often used in the context of Europe, or even the world, but they are typically understood in varying ways, whether as historical or civilizational enti- ties (Huntington, S. 1996; Nováček, A. 2012a; Murphy, A.B. et al. 2020), geopolitical group- ings (Ikenberry, G.J. 2024), or socio-economic macro-regions (Cole, J. 1996; Anděl, J. et al. 2019). Consequently, there is a significant inconsistency in the definition and spatial delimitation of these terms and regions. In fact, the same problem occurs in many other cases of geographical regions commonly ref- erenced in literature, media, but also people’s thinking in general (Jordan, P. 2005). One of geography’s key tasks while study- ing regions is their definition and spatial delimitation, i.e. regionalisation. Multiple methods exist for this purpose, addressed in geography by a number of authors, such as Grigg, D. (1965), Hampl, M. and Marada, M. (2015) and others. In this regard, two basic ap- proaches can be distinguished. The first, tradi- tional approach defines regions on the basis of more or less objective criteria, such as the spatial occurrence of the phenomena in question (ho- mogeneity principle) or spatial links between the centre and its surroundings (nodality principle). However, this method encounters limits with regions that do not form homoge- neous or closed units. Hartshorne, R. (1939) argued that regions are mental constructs and 1 Department of Geography, University of South Bohemia. Jeronýmova 10, 371 15, České Budějovice, Czechia. E-mails: anovacek@pf.jcu.cz, enet.z@seznam.cz 2 Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism, Charles University, Smetanovo nábřeží 6. 11001 Praha 1, Czechia. E-mail: jan.d.blaha@gmail.com Border between West and East of Europe in the mental maps of European university students Aleš NOVÁČEK 1, Jan D. BLÁHA2 and Aneta ZAJÍČKOVÁ1 Abstract The paper addresses the issue of dividing Europe into two sub-regions, West and East, which are monitored and defined through the method of cognitive mapping. The first section reviews basic approaches to this divi- sion of Europe, focusing on the concept of duality, analysing its causes, manifestations and perception in the form of the West-East division. The following empirical part presents the results of an international research conducted in the form of a questionnaire survey distributed among university students from nine European countries. Respondents were asked to define the border between the European West and East based on their subjective perceptions. The results were subsequently analysed and aggregated into map outputs using GIS tools. Although the respondents were young, the findings show that the perceived boundary between West and East still largely aligns with the Cold War-era division of Europe, with Central Eastern European countries, except Slovenia and Czechia, often classified as East. The mental maps also showed partial differences in the views of individual nations. The final part of the study is devoted to the interpretation of the results and their reflection in terms of the presented theoretical concepts and assumptions. Keywords: Europe, West, East, mental maps, spatial perception, boundaries, delimitation, GIS analysis Received October 2024, accepted January 2025. mailto:anovacek@pf.jcu.cz mailto:enet.z@seznam.cz Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.24 that any attempt to divide the world involves subjective decisions. Ambiguously defined concepts – regions “West” and “East” – are examples of such constructs. In response, new approaches in regional geography propose using subjective percep- tions of space (perceptual regions) to define regions, often tied to regional identity (e.g. Siwek, T. 2011; Johnston, R. and Sidaway, J.D. 2016). These approaches can often pro- vide a better account of the intangible and cognitive dimensions of space and regional identity, and the relationship between region and society (Paasi, A. 1986; Eder, K. 2006; Semian, M. and Chromý, P. 2014). Cognitive mapping is a key method for the delimitation of regions and studying spatial perception, where respondents transfer their cognitive experiences and ideas into a drawn map, ei- ther analogue or digital. The authors of this study have followed this approach. The main aim was to deter- mine where the inhabitants of Europe per- ceive the border dividing their territory into West and East. The research was carried out in the form of a questionnaire survey with the participation of 352 students from 21 uni- versities in nine European countries (Austria, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, and the UK). Their task was to draw the border between the European West and East on an outline map based on their subjective perceptions, and to indicate in which sense they domi- nantly perceive this duality. The findings were analysed and aggregated using GIS tools into clear map outputs intended for in- terpretation. The interface between Western and Eastern Europe is usually referred to as the broad area of Central or Central Eastern Europe (Cabada, L. 2020, and others), and more recently, the eastern borders of the European Union. Thus, one could expect a high spatial de-concentration of the divid- ing lines drawn by respondents on the maps. The main findings are based on the com- parison of cognitive mapping results with ex- isting theoretical concepts. The interpretation was focused on how much they are identical to each other and how is the influence of re- gional identity manifested here. Therefore, the study aimed to detect and explain dif- ferences in perceptions among respondents from different countries. Based on other studies relying on the cognitive mapping (Saarinen, T. 1999; Schenk, F.B. 2013; Bláha, J.D. and Nováček, A. 2016; Didelon-Loiseau, C. et al. 2018; Nieścioruk, K. 2023), it was pos- sible to assume a significant influence of the respondent’s origin or location in this respect. West and East in the concepts of the division of Europe The theoretical concepts dealing with the re- gionalisation of Europe can be divided into the following categories based on the number of territorial parts into which they divide its space: The ‘pluralist’ view divides Europe into nu- merous more or less distinct regions (Jordan, P. 2005; Delanty, G. 2012). Thus, Europe tends to be divided in various parts, into Northern, Western, Southern (or Mediterranean), Central (or Central Western and Central Eastern), Eastern and Southeastern (i.e. the Balkan states). It is often used for statistical purposes (The World Factbook 2024; UNSTAT 2024) and in textbooks and school settings to simplify and clarify the teaching of the re- gional geography of Europe. The ‘triality’ view divides the European space into three sub-regions, most often Western, Central, and Eastern Europe. This view cor- relates to some extent with the West–East di- vision of Europe, but treats Central Europe as a separate and distinct entity. The trial- ity view is especially represented in histori- cally and (politico)geographically oriented works by authors often from Central and Central Eastern Europe, such as Naumann, F. (1915), Kundera, M. (1984), Szűcs, J. (1988), Kłoczowski, J. (2005), or Křen, J. (2005). The third view is based on the principle of ‘duality’, dividing Europe into two sub-re- gions: West and East, or historically also North and South. This concept represents the main theoretical basis of our research and more de- tails about it are given in the next chapter. 25Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36. Several aspects are reflected in the men- tioned concepts of the divisions of Europe: a) The geopolitical aspect, represented be- fore WWII, e.g. by the German concept of ‘Mitteleuropa’ (Naumann, F. 1915), was com- pletely linked to the West-East bipolar division of Europe and the world during the Cold War (e.g. Heffernan, M. 1998); b) The economic aspect, on which the neo- Marxist Modern World-System (Wallerstein, I. 1974) and the associated concept of core – semi-periphery – periphery are based. In this sense, the aspect of differences in development proves to be particularly important for the re- gionalisation of Europe (Chirot, D. 1991); c) The cultural or historical aspect dividing Europe into regions based on the common historical development of their territories (Szűcs, J. 1988; Halecki, O. 2000; Delanty, G. 2012; Schenk, F.B. 2013, 2017), or according to the development and occurrence of cultural phenomena and traditions (Hajnal, J. 1983; Murphy, A.B. et al. 2020); d) The physical-geographical aspect of the west- eastern division of Europe is represented, for example, by the differences between areas with predominantly oceanic or continental climates. In addition to these single-aspect ap- proaches, there are several authors prefer- ring a more complex view combining and in- terconnecting these aspects (e.g. Nováček, A. 2012b, and others). Duality of Europe: West and East The concept of the division of Europe into West and East, the main theoretical basis for our study, has been a part of geographical think- ing for a long time. This idea gained impor- tance mainly due to the geopolitical bipolarity after WWII. Although the dual vision of Europe is strongly influenced by this legacy, it is far from being a modern construct of the 20th cen- tury and has deep historical roots. Lemberg, H. (2000) notes that until the early 19th century, the contemporary perception of Europe was predominantly viewed through a North-South division over a West-East one. The first indications of a West-East division of Europe trace back to ancient times (Latin versus Greek world). Throughout the Middle Ages, it was consistently reinforced both by the rivalry between the Frankish and Byzantine empires and, more significantly, by the divi- sion of Christianity and its associated culture (Davies, N. 2006). While the term ‘Western Europe/West’ began to solidify during the reign of Emperor Charlemagne in the late 8th and early 9th centuries, ‘Eastern Europe/(European) East’ only emerged as a designation in the early 19th century (Heffernan, M. 1998). In the 19th and 20th centuries, Europe’s awareness of the fundamental differences in values, culture and socio-economics between the West and East (historically linked to Russia and the Balkans) increased. Initially viewed as a boundary between Europe and Russia (the USSR) before WWII, the post-war division shifted westwards deep into Central Europe for four decades (Pounds, N.J.G. 1969). The fall of the Iron Curtain and the Eastern Bloc in 1989 and the integration of Central Eastern European countries into Western European or transatlantic structures prompt questions about how these changes have af- fected the West-East border perception, espe- cially among younger generations who did not experience the period before 1989. Our research aims to address this question. Our study understands the discussed con- cepts of West and East in the context of dual- ity as collective designations of two parts of Europe. They can be characterized by their identities, typical attributes (political, socio- economic, cultural or ethnic) and distin- guished by their mutual polarity and differ- ence. To define them, reference can be made to publications that have addressed this is- sue in the past, e.g. Maxwell, A. (2011), and Nováček, A. (2012a). Most of the above-men- tioned authors understand the current form of the west as a more modern, advanced, richer, liberal, democratic region, integrated into Western European (or transatlantic) econom- ic and military-political structures (EU and NATO) and standing on a long tradition of western values of humanism, individualism, Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.26 capitalism and free civil society. Conversely, the East is usually perceived as less developed, poorer, less free and democratic region, stand- ing outside Western European integration structures, drawing historically on Orthodox tradition and partly on Oriental influences, along with Western influences (Chirot, D. 1991). In an extreme sense, this concept is of- ten identified with the area of Russian civiliza- tional influence (Neumann, I.B. 1999). Boundary between West and East in literature Only a few studies that have touched on the is- sue of the division of Europe into West and East have attempted to draw a concrete dividing line between the two regions. Mostly they do so on the basis of some selected aspect of duality. Among the authors who have relied on the historical and cultural aspect are Cahnman, W.J. (1949), or Davies, N. (2014), who trace this bor- der through the territory of the present-day states of Central Eastern Europe and Germany, highlighting its temporal variability. Rupnik, J. (1992) as well as Cox, H.E. and Hupchick, D.P. (2001) move it further east to the western borders of present-day Russia, Belarus and Ukraine and into the areas that once formed the southern border of Hungary. This aligns with the boundary between western and Orthodox civilization used by Huntington, S. (1996). Hajnal, J. (1983) provided an interesting du- ality example by drawing a line from Sankt Petersburg through the Baltic, Poland, Moravia, and Trieste, based on the prevailing historical model of the family. The socio-economic aspect is often applied when defining the world’s macro-regions. Within this regionalisation, De Blij, H.J. and Muller, P.O. (1988) divide the European space into two parts, with the interface run- ning through the territory of Belarus and Ukraine. More recent studies by Anděl, J. et al. (2018a) or Fellmann, J.D. et al. (2008), shift this line to the western border of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. (Geo)politically oriented works usually view the West and the East as two competing enti- ties. Most studies based on Cold War realities accepting the Iron Curtain line as the divid- ing line belonged to this group (e.g. Pounds, N.J.G. 1969). More recent works then see this boundary more between Russia (and Belarus) on the one hand, and the NATO states on the other (Ikenberry, G.J. 2024). Other contempo- rary studies derive this division from differ- ences in political views within the European Union (Cabada, L. 2020), or on issues of na- tional identity and migration (Bartasevicius, V. 2022; Lewicki, A. 2023). In this context, the aforementioned authors draw attention to the dichotomy between old and new EU member states, thus, placing the boundary of duality de facto back to the line of the former Iron Curtain. A more comprehensive view of the boundary be- tween West and East was applied by Stehlík, J. (1996), who, in addition to the states west of the Iron Curtain, also included the territory of Czechia and Slovenia in the west. Based on a comprehensive analysis, Nováček, A. (2012a), in contrast to Stehlík, also includes the ter- ritories of the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, i.e. the whole Central Eastern Europe, in the west. Hampl, M. (2009) went even further in his demarcation of global sys- tems, leaving only Russia, Belarus and Ukraine to the east of this main dividing line. The delimitation of the boundary between macro-regions based on cognitive mapping was used by Polonský, F. et al. (2010) or Didelon- Loiseau, C. et al. (2018). Both studies focused on the division of the world into macro-re- gions through the eyes of university students. In the first study, Czech students most often divided Europe into two macro-regions, with the dividing line running dominantly beyond the western border of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. A slightly smaller proportion of respondents identified the interface with the eastern border of Germany and Austria. Similar to the smaller group of respondents in the first study, the respondents in the sec- ond, more internationally focused study ap- proached the division in the same way. These perceptual probes effectively confirm the conclusions drawn from the previous dis- cussion of the literature. That is, that the defini- 27Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36. tion of the boundary between the West and the East is not uniform, with two views prevailing. The first sees it roughly at the border between the German-speaking countries and the other Central European countries, while the second pushes it to the eastern border of the EU. Cognitive mapping and methodology Cognitive mapping, defined by Downs, R.M. and Stea, D. (1973, 9) as “a process composed of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes, stores, re- calls, and decodes information about the rela- tive locations and attributes of phenomena in space,” enables the transfer of mental models of space onto paper or other recording media. In general, the effectiveness of cognitive map- ping studies relies heavily on respondent selec- tion, task wording, the method of collecting the mental maps, and their subsequent processing, including aggregation. With regard to the objectives of this study (an effort to collect the subjective opinions of respondents regarding regional geography), the selection of respondents was aimed at univer- sity students of geography or related fields, e.g. international relations. This group was chosen for their likely interest in European affairs and basic knowledge of European regional geog- raphy. It was also important that the respond- ents’ knowledge of the history and conditions of European dualism was not too deep. For this reason, as far as possible, mainly students in their first or second year of undergraduate studies were contacted. Thus, the research serves as a probe into the views of a younger generation lacking direct experience of the era preceding the fall of the Iron Curtain. To compare the opinions of respondents of different nationalities, the questionnaire was provided in multiple languages (English, German, Polish and Czech). The distribution of the questionnaires was carried out either personally by the authors during their nu- merous internships abroad or online through contacts with lecturers or students working at these universities. The questionnaire featured an outline map of Europe with state borders and names, along with a form for collecting respondent information (age and nationality) and a task statement reading: “According to your subjec- tive opinion, define a line in the map dividing Europe into parts: West and East. The line does not have to follow existing state borders. If you decide to fill it out online, you may use MS Paint (or another software).” This wording allowed respondents freedom in drawing the line, without restrictions regarding state borders or map format (analogue vs. digital). To understand the reasoning behind the drawn boundaries, the final part of the ques- tionnaire asked: “On what basis did you domi- nantly define the line? (For example: economic, natural, political, historical, cultural, religious, complex or something else)”. The research included 21 institutions from 18 locations across Austria, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. The loca- tions and countries were selected to prioritize mental maps from Central Europe, supple- mented by data from two western countries (Germany, UK) and two eastern countries (Lithuania, Ukraine) for comparison. The dis- tribution method ensured that the origin of the sample was embedded in the final maps, serv- ing as a key parameter for subsequent analysis. As shown in Table 1, the number of resulting maps obtained was not the same in all coun- tries, however, previous studies by the authors (i.e. Bláha, J.D. and Nováček, A. 2016) have suggested that a sample of approximately 25 maps from each target country can be consid- ered representative for the purposes at hand. Most of the 352 completed questionnaires were collected during the main wave of the research, i.e. from April 2021 to January 2022. Processing of mental maps All operations for processing the digitized mental maps were performed in ArcGIS Pro. The maps were first georeferenced and then the drawn boundaries between West Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.28 and East were vectorized. The individual boundary drawings were aggregated in two steps: 1) Based on respondents’ affiliation with each of the nine states; 2) Overall for all respondents, but with relativized results for each state. This ensured equal weight for each state in the final aggregation, despite varying numbers of respondents. To interpret the aggregated results, it was necessary to perform a spatial analysis. For the sake of clarity, the following software, i.e. tools of extended Spatial Statistics and visualization, was used to perform the analy- sis of perceived boundaries between Western and Eastern Europe by individual groups of respondents. To aggregate results, contour lines marking 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the volume sur- face were used and graphically adjusted, i.e. using the Smooth Polygon tool. This approach clearly identifies territories perceived by a cer- tain percentage of respondents as West (blue shades), East (red shades), and transitional zones (white). Additionally, the line method was applied, with lines of varying thickness corresponding to the percentage of respond- ents (intervals 5–20–40–60–80–100%) who drew the boundary between the West and the East of Europe in this line. This way of visualising the aggregated results in turn al- lows to better see the dominance of the course of each border. This is also why this visuali- zation method was chosen for the individual national views and their effective comparison. Results and discussion Delimitation of the perceptual boundary between West and East In analysing the aggregated mental maps, the authors looked at a) the degree of vari- ability of the perceptual boundary between West and East; b) its dominant course; c) the predominant classification of a country as West or East; d) the dominant aspect for defining duality; e) the identification of “na- tional” views and their differences. When drawing the perceptual boundary between West and East, about two-thirds of respondents largely followed existing state borders. The others either drew the dividing line as a straight line or deliberately bisected a state whose classification they were unsure of in this way. Some accepted specific natu- ral or historical borders (the western border of the former East Germany, the western border of Moravia, the eastern border of the German Empire, etc.). The most cited aspects in defining the border were economic (17% of respondents), complex (14%), and, to a lesser extent, political (11%). Cultural and histori- cal aspects were the main factor in 8 percent of cases, while natural aspects were cited by 5 percent. A total of 29 percent of respond- ents did not take the opportunity to express themselves at all. This suggests that current socio-economic differences – developed West vs. underdeveloped East – are favoured over historical factors when defining the border. The aggregated map of all respondents (Figure 1) shows a high variability in opinions on the border’s course, especially in the Central European region. Conversely, in the north and partly in the south, the consensus was signifi- cantly higher. In the North, over 60 percent of respondents identified the border with the border between Finland and Russia and over 70 percent with the Baltic Sea. Similarly, in the south, the Adriatic and Ionian seas were seen as boundaries. The higher variability in Central Europe may stem from the greater number of countries and potential border op- tions, as well as the concentration of respond- ents from this region. Most respondents identified the dividing line with the German eastern border (in the section with Poland about 60%, with Czechia 40%) and with the Austrian eastern (55%) and southern borders (30%). Although only a portion agreed on the entire border, it can be considered the most dominant. The reason for placing the border here likely relates to significant developmen- tal differences, particularly felt by Central European respondents. Although this was a younger generation of people with no direct personal experience of the Cold War division 29Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36. of Europe, the relic Iron Curtain effect con- tinues to manifest itself in various forms. As Domański, B. (2004) and Lewicki, A. (2023) suggest, the influence of the political profiling of the EU’s eastern wing (the Visegrad Group countries – V4) is also involved. A similar de- marcation of the dividing line within Europe can be seen in a number of cultural-geograph- ic studies (Fellmann, J.D. et al. 2008; partly Murphy, A.B. et al. 2020). Other alternatives to the perceptual border be- tween the West and the East have in some Fig. 1. Aggregation of all the respondents’ mental maps. Source: Authors’ own research and processing. 45°N 60°N 15°W 0° 15°E 30°E 0 500 km 100 75 50 25 25 50 75 100 % 100 80 60 40 20 5 % West East Territorial alignment with West/East Europe (contours) Frequency of recording of the boundary segment by respondents (lines) Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.30 cases also included an attempt to run it in the Baltic and Central Europe along the eastern border of the EU, possibly passing through the Baltic states and the V4 countries in vari- ous ways. However, the overall consensus for these lines was only between 10 and 25 percent depending on the particular section. This delimitation can be justified on his- torical and cultural grounds (e.g. Western Christianity vs. Orthodoxy; Cox, H.E and Hupchick, D.P. 2001; Davies, N. 2006) as well as the current geopolitical division of the world – NATO vs. Russia (Ikenberry, G.J. 2024). A similarly localized boundary can most often be found in works devoted to the delimitation of the world’s macro- regions (Huntington, S. 1996; Hampl, M. 2009; Anděl, J. et al. 2018a, b). These results align partly with earlier cognitive mapping studies among Czech geography students by Polonský, F. et al. (2010). However, in con- trast to our study, they found the eastern bor- der of the EU to be the dominant dividing line of both variants. As shown by the values in Table 1 and the colour shades in Figure 1, more than 90 percent of all respondents agreed on the inclusion of Sweden, Germany (including former East Germany), most of Italy and all countries west of these in the West. Slightly fewer agreed on Austria (88%) and the south or north-east of Italy (89%), followed by Finland (67%) and Slovenia (56%). Half of the respondents placed the Czech territory in the West and half in the East. Countries east of these were more likely classified as East (in order: Croatia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina) or clearly in the east (Greece, the remaining Balkan states and the rest of Eastern Europe). Table 1. Ranking of selected territories according to respondents from each country Country (territory) Country of respondents* UK GE AT CZ SK PL HU LT UA Total Number of respondents 32 36 24 88 68 25 31 25 23 352 Share of respondents who classified the country (all or most of its territory) to the West Territory of respondents’ own country 100 100 96 50 32 36 10 28 0 41 East of Germany (former GDR/Bavaria) 91 89 96 94 99 100 97 92 100 95 Sweden 75 92 87 94 97 98 100 84 87 91 Italy (south/north-east) 87 92 92 94 88 96 81 88 100 89 Austria 66 86 96 95 91 96 90 80 74 88 Finland 43 78 67 70 81 68 87 52 21 67 Slovenia 50 19 88 61 49 68 65 72 43 56 Czechia 34 19 83 50 50 52 61 68 45 50 Croatia 31 19 79 31 31 48 35 60 35 37 Poland 22 6 58 34 28 36 19 44 30 30 Slovakia 19 0 54 31 32 32 10 48 32 28 Hungary 22 0 50 27 32 36 10 48 30 27 Bosnia and Herzegovina 22 3 67 18 18 44 10 44 35 24 Greece 28 6 46 13 15 20 3 40 13 18 Other western Balkans 16 3 38 11 13 24 3 40 30 16 Baltic states 6 3 54 15 15 20 6 24 0 15 *UK = United Kingdom, GE = Germany, AT = Austria, CZ = Czechia, SK = Slovakia, PL = Poland, HU = Hungary, LT = Lithuania, UA = Ukraine. Source: Authors’ own research and processing. 31Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36. National views If we compare the aggregated maps pro- duced by merging the mental maps from respondents in a given country (Figure 2), we can observe both some similarities and differences between these “national views”. The greatest variability within national view in drawing the dividing line occurred among respondents from the UK, Austria, Poland, Fig. 2. Definition of the border between West and East by respondents from each country. Source: Authors’ own research and processing. United Kingdom LithuaniaHungary Germany Poland Austria Ukraine 100 80 60 40 20 5 % Respondents’ country of origin Frequency of recording of the boundary segment by respondents (lines) 0 1,000 km Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.32 and Lithuania. In contrast, respondents from Germany, Hungary, and Ukraine displayed the most unified views. On average, the British, Germans and, surprisingly, Hungarians placed the border the furthest west of the na- tions surveyed, while Poles and Lithuanians placed it furthest east. The comparison accord- ing to where the respondents predominantly placed the territory of their own country is also interesting (see Table 1). The Germans and Austrians, and unsurprisingly the British, al- most unanimously placed their own country (all or most of it) as part of the West, with only 11 percent of German respondents separat- ing the eastern areas of their state (the former East German territory) to the East. By contrast, half of Czech respondents, and only about a third of Poles, Slovaks, and Lithuanians, saw their country as part of the West. With the exception of Lithuanians, the ambivalence of opinion can be partly attributed to their incli- nation towards Central Europe as a distinct sub-region (Kłoczowski, J. 2005; Bláha, J.D. and Nováček, A. 2016). While it is unsurpris- ing that Ukrainians identified with the East, the strong identification of Hungarians with the East is somewhat striking. Clear differences between the different national views appear in the inclusion of the territories of Finland, the Baltic states, the V4 countries, Slovenia, Croatia, or the Western Balkan countries (see Table 1), as noted in various theoretical works (e.g. Cahnman, W.J. 1949; Jordan, P. 2001; Todorova, M. 2009). Despite these differences, several national views show notable similarities. The aggregated maps from United Kingdom and Germany, for ex- ample, are highly similar, reflecting a typical Western European view. These nations tend to perceive Central Eastern Europe as part of the East, sometimes looking down on them (Domanski, B. 2004). Accordingly, they shift the West-East boundary westward, often aligning it with the former Iron Curtain or the eastern borders of present-day Germany and Austria. The Czech and Slovak respondents also displayed significant similarity, with two main dividing lines dominating. The more common one fol- lows the eastern borders of Finland, Germany, and Austria, reflecting persistent developmen- tal differences (Stehlík, J. 1996). This economic aspect by Slovak respondents mentioned as the main dividing basis. The other runs along the eastern borders of the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia. Interestingly, respondents from eastern Slovakia often drew the dividing line through their country, reflect- ing the long-standing dichotomy in maturity within (Matlovič, R. et al. 2018). The high simi- larity between Czech and Slovak views can be attributed to a shared tradition of geographic education, media, and awareness of a common history dating back to the Czechoslovak state. A third significant similarity emerged be- tween respondents from Poland and Lithuania. Like the Czechs and Slovaks, the same two concep- tions dominated their views. However, Poles and Lithuanians showed a greater tendency to integrate the Baltic states and some Balkan areas into the West. This view may stem from a simi- lar historical experience marked by antagonism toward both Russia, identified here with the East, and Germany, identified with the West, leading to a dilemma about their European clas- sification. In contrast to a number of renowned works by Polish authors who emphasize more on the political and cultural aspects of duality (e.g. Solarz, M.W. 2022), the Polish respond- ents themselves preferred a border defined by economic differences reminiscent of the Iron Curtain. While the Polish respondents derived their division mainly according to economic as- pects, their Lithuanian colleagues do it based on cultural, historical and also natural ones. The Austrian view can be considered a kind of intersection of all three previous groups. Due to their location and history, the Austrians feel closer to the nations of Central Eastern Europe than Germans do. This may explain their ten- dency to push the West-East boundary further east, even more so than V4 countries’ respond- ents themselves. The high variability of marked lines also corresponds to the fact that none of the mentioned aspects of duality significantly prevailed among the Austrian respondents. Hungarian respondents demonstrated a relatively specific and homogeneous view. Like others, they mainly referenced the Iron 33Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36. Curtain, but they more frequently classi- fied Czechia and Slovenia as Western, thus, agreeing with Stehlík, J. (1996). Although Hungarian respondents often mentioned his- torical and cultural aspects as the main basis of duality, they almost exclusively referred to their own country as a part of the East, a dis- tinction from other V4 countries. This may be due to Hungary’s noticeable developmental gap with neighbouring Austria and Slovenia, a sense of belonging to the Danube region of historical Hungary (Rupnik, J. 1992), or do- mestic media portraying Hungary as political- ly distancing itself from the EU and the West (Cabada, L. 2020; Bartasevicius, V. 2022). Ukrainian respondents did not show any ambition to place their state in the West, fur- thermore locating the duality border as far west as the border of Germany and Austria and even Sweden, i.e. further west than the Central Eastern European nations. The Ukrainian point of view corresponds to the fact that cultural-historical and political as- pects were mentioned as the most common reason for the division. Their geographical distance from the perceptual border, like the British, may have allowed for a less subjec- tive view than the Central European nations. However, this research was conducted just before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, raising questions about how the conflict may have subsequently altered Ukrainians’ views. Conclusions The initial discussion of the literature high- lighted inconsistencies in the regionalisation of Europe, particularly in the perception and spa- tial delimitation of West and East. This study, using cognitive mapping, confirmed these in- consistencies. Aggregating mental maps from a larger number of respondents helped objectify individual opinions and enabled comparison across groups, demonstrating the effectiveness of this method applicable in the context of re- gional and cultural geography. Most mental maps showed a strong cor- relation between the West-East boundary and current state borders. Despite consider- able variability and spatial dispersion of the marked border lines, the greatest consensus emerged on a line dividing Europe along the eastern border of Finland across the Baltic Sea, along the eastern borders of Germany, Austria and Italy, crossing the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. Although the respondents were young, this result reflects a continuity of per- spective reminiscent of the Cold War division of Europe. Most respondents, including those from the V4 countries, thus, perceived the countries of Central Eastern Europe, with the partial exception of Slovenia and Czechia, pri- marily as part of the East. This finding partly contrasts with the popular claim, narrated in the media especially in the 1990s in post-so- cialist Central Eastern Europe, that “with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989, they are once again returning to the West of which they used to be a historical part” (Rupnik, J. 1992). The second highest consensus was on a line running through the Baltic and Central Europe along the eastern border of the EU. Other marked boundaries mostly fell in the zone between these two lines, creating a space understood as an interpenetration and overlap between West and East (Kundera, M. 1984; Halecki, O. 2000; Jordan, P. 2001; Meinhof, U.H. 2002). The data from the re- spondents further show that they preferred to look at the current reality of socio-econom- ic differences (more advanced West vs. the lagging East) rather than historical factors when defining the border. Aggregated results for the states revealed both differences and similarities between dif- ferent “national” views. Respondents gen- erally tended to push the boundary close to their own country, with those from western states locating it further west and those from eastern states locating it further east. This could possibly happen because of certain tendency of nations clearly identified with the West (respondents from United Kingdom and West Germany) to perceive the East as a less developed and less civilized region (Said, E.W. 1978) and to define themselves against it may play a role in this. On the Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.34 contrary, the surprisingly high proportion of respondents from Eastern and Central Europe who assigned their own country to the East may indicate self-deprecation and frustration with their more economically ad- vanced western neighbours. While intra-state differences in views were generally minimal, aggregate views differed for geographical- ly close locations located in different states (such as Passau and České Budějovice, or Vienna and Bratislava). This highlights the strong influence of an individual’s origin on the perception of space and the definition of regions. As Saarinen, T. (1999) suggests, these differences can stem from variations in educational systems, i.e. textbooks and atlas conceptions, different historical expe- riences, politics, and media portrayals of the countries concerned. All of these shape the individuals’ cognitive maps and their own subjective regional identities (Paasi, A. 1986). The authors of the research acknowledge that the results may be influenced by the specific survey conditions, such as the strict requirement to define a single line and the fact that only young geography enthusiasts participated. The results, thus, represent a specific probe that may not fully reflect the views of the general population. It can be as- sumed that different age groups, influenced by memories of other geopolitical realities and schooling, might produce different re- sults. As a study relying on the cognitive mapping method, it brings a new perspective to the debate on delimitation of regions. The insights generated here may inspire further similar research at different levels of regions. REFERENCES Anděl, J., Bičík, I. and Bláha, J.D. 2018a. Macro- regional differentiation of the world: Authors’ concept and its application. Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development 22. (3): 117–122. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0025 Anděl, J., Bičík, I. and Bláha, J.D. 2018b. Concepts and delimitation of the world’s macro-regions. Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development 22. (1): 16–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/ mgrsd-2018-0001 Anděl, J., Bičík, I. and Bláha, J.D. 2019. Makroregiony světa. Nová regionální geografie (World’s mac- ro-regions. The new regional geography). Praha, Karolinum. Bartasevicius, V. 2022. Popular understandings of na- tional identity in Europe: Still a gulf between West and East? Nations and Nationalism 29. (3): 939–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12917 Bláha, J.D. and Nováček, A. 2016. How Central Europe is perceived and delimited. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 158. 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1553/moegg158s193 Cabada, L. 2020. Central Europe between the West and East: Independent region, the bridge, buffer zone or ‘eternal’ semi-periphery? Politics in Central Europe 16. (2): 419–432. https://doi.org/10.2478/ pce-2020-0018 Cahnman, W.J. 1949. Frontiers between East and West in Europe. Geographical Review 39. 605–624. https:// doi.org/10.2307/210675 Chirot, D. (ed.) 1991. The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe. Economic and Politics from the Middle Ages until the Early Twentieth Century. Berkeley–Los Angeles–Oxford, University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520911918 Cole, J. 1996. Geography of the World’s Major Regions. New York, Routledge. Cox, H.E. and Hupchick, D.P. 2001. The Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Eastern Europe. New York, Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04817-2 Davies, N. 2006. Europe East and West: A Collection of Essays on European History. London, Jonathan Cape. Davies, N. 2014. Europe: A History. London, Vintage Publishing. De Blij, H.J. and Muller, P.O. 1988. Geography: Regions and Concepts. New York, Wiley. Delanty, G. 2012. The historical regions of Europe: Civilizational backgrounds and multiple routes to modernity. Historická sociologie 4. (1): 9–24. https:// doi.org/10.14712/23363525.2014.35 Didelon-Loiseau, C., de Ruffray, S. and Lambert, N. 2018. Mental maps of global regions: identify- ing and characterizing “hard” and “soft” regions. Journal of Cultural Geography 35. (2): 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2018.1426950 Domański, B. 2004. West and East in ‘New Europe’: The pitfalls of paternalism and a claimant attitude. European Urban and Regional Studies 11. (4): 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776404046272 Downs, R.M. and Stea, D. 1973. Cognitive maps and spatial behavior: Process and products. In Image & Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Eds.: Eder, R.M. and Stea, D., New Brunswick, N.J., AldineTransaction, 8–26. Eder, K. 2006. Europe’s borders: The narrative con- struction of the boundaries of Europe. European Journal of Social Theory 9. (2): 255–271. https://doi. org/10.1177/1368431006063345 https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0025 https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0001 https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0001 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366031450_Popular_understandings_of_national_identity_in_Europe_Still_a_gulf_between_West_and_East?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaCIsInBvc2l0aW9uIjoicGFnZUhlYWRlciJ9fQ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366031450_Popular_understandings_of_national_identity_in_Europe_Still_a_gulf_between_West_and_East?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaCIsInBvc2l0aW9uIjoicGFnZUhlYWRlciJ9fQ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366031450_Popular_understandings_of_national_identity_in_Europe_Still_a_gulf_between_West_and_East?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaCIsInBvc2l0aW9uIjoicGFnZUhlYWRlciJ9fQ https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12917 https://doi.org/10.1553/moegg158s193 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347126726_Central_Europe_between_the_West_and_East_Independent_Region_the_Bridge_Buffer_Zone_or_'eternal'_Semi-Periphery?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJzZWFyY2giLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347126726_Central_Europe_between_the_West_and_East_Independent_Region_the_Bridge_Buffer_Zone_or_'eternal'_Semi-Periphery?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJzZWFyY2giLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347126726_Central_Europe_between_the_West_and_East_Independent_Region_the_Bridge_Buffer_Zone_or_'eternal'_Semi-Periphery?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJzZWFyY2giLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19 https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2020-0018 https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2020-0018 https://doi.org/10.2307/210675 https://doi.org/10.2307/210675 https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520911918 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04817-2 https://doi.org/10.14712/23363525.2014.35 https://doi.org/10.14712/23363525.2014.35 https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2018.1426950 https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2018.1426950 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258136784_West_and_East_in_'New_Europe'_The_Pitfalls_of_Paternalism_and_a_Claimant_Attitude?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaCJ9fQ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258136784_West_and_East_in_'New_Europe'_The_Pitfalls_of_Paternalism_and_a_Claimant_Attitude?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InNlYXJjaCJ9fQ https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776404046272 https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431006063345 https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431006063345 35Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36. Fellmann, J.D., Getis, A. and Getis, J. 2008. Human Geography: Landscapes of Human Activities. New York, McGraw-Hill. Grigg, D. 1965. The logic of regional systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 55. (3): 465–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1965.tb00529.x Hajnal, J. 1983. Two kinds of preindustrial house- hold formation system. In Family Forms in Historic Europe. Eds.: Wall, R., Robin, J. and Laslett, P., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 65–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511897535.003 Halecki, O. 2000. Historia Europy – jej granice i podzialy (The limits and divisions of European history). Lublin, Institut Europy Srodkowo-Wschodniej. Hampl, M. 2009. Global system: situation, contem- porary tendencies and possible perspectives of the power potential distribution. Geografie 114. (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2009114010001 Hampl, M. and Marada, M. 2015. Sociogeografická regionalizace Česka (Socio-geographic regionaliza- tion of Czechia). Geografie 120. (3): 397–421. https:// doi.org/10.37040/geografie2015120030397 Hartshorne, R. 1939. The nature of geography: A critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 29. (3): 173–412. https://doi.org/10.2307/2561063 Heffernan, M. 1998. The Meaning of Europe: Geography and Geopolitics. London, Arnold. Huntington, S. 1996. The Clash of Civilisation and the Remaking of the World Order. New York, Simon & Schuster. Ikenberry, G.J. 2024. Three worlds: The West, East and South and the competition to shape global order. International Affairs 100. (1): 121–138. https://doi. org/10.1093/ia/iiad284 Johnston, R. and Sidaway, J.D. 2016. Geography and Geographers. Anglo-American Human Geography since 1945. London, Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203523056 Jordan, P. 2001. Regional identities and regionaliza- tion in East-Central Europe. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 42. (4): 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1 080/10889388.2001.10641171 Jordan, P. 2005. Großgliederung Europas nach kul- turräumlichen Kriterien (Large-scale structuring of Europe according to cultural space criteria). Europa Regional 13. (4): 162–173. https://nbn-resolving.org/ urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-48072-8 Kłoczowski, J. (ed.) 2005. Central Europe between East and West. Lublin, Instytut Europy Środkowowschodniej. Křen, J. 2005. Dvě století střední Evropy (Two centuries of the Central Europe). Praha, Argo. Kundera, M. 1984. The tragedy of Central Europe. The New York Review of Books 31. (7): 33–38. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/MEB404/um/ Kundera_1984.pdf Lemberg, H. 2000. Ke vzniku pojmu „východní Evropa“ v 19. století. Od „severní“ k „východní“ Evropě (On the emergence of the term „Eastern Europe“ in the 19th century. From „Northern“ to „Eastern“ Europe). In Porozumění: Češi – Němci – východní Evropa 1848–1949. Ed.: Lemberg, H., Praha, Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 249–299. Lewicki, A. 2023. East–West inequalities and the am- biguous racialisation of ‘Eastern Europeans’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49 (1): 1–19. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2154910 Matlovič, R., Klamár, R., Kozoň, J., Ivanová, M. and Michalko, M. 2018. Spatial polarity and spatial polarization in the context of supranational and national scales: Regions of Visegrad countries after their accession to the EU. Bulletin of Geography. Socio- economic Series 41. 59–78. https://doi.org/10.2478/ bog-2018-0026 Maxwell, A. 2011. Introduction: Bridges and bulwarks: A historiographic overview of East–West discourses. In The East–West Discourse: Symbolic Geography and its Consequences. Ed.: Waxwell, A., Oxford, Peter Lang, 1–32. Meinhof, U.H. (ed.) 2002. Living (with) Borders. Identity Discourses on East–West Borders in Europe. Aldershot, Ashgate. Murphy, A.B., Jordan-Bychkov, T.G. and Jordan, B. 2020. The European Culture Area. New York, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Naumann, F. 1915. Mitteleuropa (Central Europe). Berlin, Reimer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112385241 Neumann, I.B. 1999. Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Nieścioruk, K. 2023. Evaluating individual carto- graphic skills using mental sketches. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 50. (3): 306–320. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2023.2176929 Nováček, A. 2012a. Dualita Evropy: historickogeografická analýza (The duality of Europe: historical-geograph- ical analysis). Praha, Česká geografická společnost. https://geography.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ eg9.pdf Nováček, A. 2012b. Historical-geographical aspects of duality in Europe. Historická geografie / Historical Geography 38. (1): 185–203. https://www.hiu.cas. cz/user_uploads/vydavatelska_cinnost/periodika/ historicka_geografie/hg_38_1_2012_fin.pdf Paasi, A. 1986. The institutionalization of regions: a theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of re- gional identity. Fennia 164. (1): 105–146. https://doi. org/10.11143/9052 Polonský, F., Novotný, J. and Lysák, J. 2010. Cognitive mapping of major world regions among Czech geography students. Journal of Maps 6. (1): 311–318. https://doi.org/10.4113/jom.2010.1083 Pounds, N.J.G. 1969. Eastern Europe. London, Longman. Rupnik, J. 1992. Jiná Evropa (The other Europe). Praha, Prostor. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1965.tb00529.x https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511897535.003 https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2009114010001 https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2015120030397 https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2015120030397 https://doi.org/10.2307/2561063 https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad284 https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad284 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203523056 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203523056 https://doi.org/10.1080/10889388.2001.10641171 https://doi.org/10.1080/10889388.2001.10641171 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-48072-8 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-48072-8 https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/MEB404/um/Kundera_1984.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/MEB404/um/Kundera_1984.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2154910 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2154910 https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2018-0026 https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2018-0026 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112385241 https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2023.2176929 https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2023.2176929 https://geography.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/eg9.pdf https://geography.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/eg9.pdf https://www.hiu.cas.cz/user_uploads/vydavatelska_cinnost/periodika/historicka_geografie/hg_38_1_2012_fin.pdf https://www.hiu.cas.cz/user_uploads/vydavatelska_cinnost/periodika/historicka_geografie/hg_38_1_2012_fin.pdf https://www.hiu.cas.cz/user_uploads/vydavatelska_cinnost/periodika/historicka_geografie/hg_38_1_2012_fin.pdf https://doi.org/10.11143/9052 https://doi.org/10.11143/9052 https://doi.org/10.4113/jom.2010.1083 Nováček, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 23–36.36 Saarinen, T. 1999. The Eurocentric nature of mental maps of the world. Research in Geographic Education 1. (2): 136–178. https://hdl.handle.net/10877/16535 Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. New York, Pantheon Books. Schenk, F.B. 2013. Mental maps: The cognitive mapping of the continent as an object of research of European history. European History Online (EGO). Mainz, Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG). https:// www.ieg-ego.eu/schenkf-2013-en Schenk, F.B. 2017. Eastern Europe. In European Regions and Boundaries. Eds.: Mischkova, D. and Trencsényi, B., New York–Oxford, Berghahn, 188–209. https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctvw04gdx.13 Semian, M. and Chromý, P. 2014. Regional identity: Driver or barrier in regional development. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift / Norwegian Journal of Geography 68. (5): 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2 014.961540 Siwek, T. 2011. Percepce geografického prostoru (Perception of geographical space). Praha, Česká geografická společnost. Solarz, M.W. (ed.) 2022. Atlas of Poland’s Political Geography. Poland in the Modern World: 2022 Perspective. Warsaw, Drukarnia Legra. https://atlas2022.uw.edu. pl/materialy-edukacyjne/ebook-do-pobrania/ Stehlík, J. 1996. Zařazení České republiky v ev- ropském prostoru (Localization of the Czech Republic in the European Space). Mezinárodní vztahy 2. 95–106. https://doi.org/10.32422/cjir.1453 Szűcs, J. 1988. The three historical regions of Europe. In Civil Society and the State. Ed.: Keane, J., London, Verso, 291–332. Todorova, M. 2009. Imagining the Balkans. New York, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oso/9780195387865.001.0001 The World Factbook 2024. Published by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), USA. UNSTAT 2024. New York, UN United Nations Statistics Division. Available at https://unstats. un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System. Vol. I: Capital Agriculture and the Origins of European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York– London, Academic Press. https://hdl.handle.net/10877/16535 https://www.ieg-ego.eu/schenkf-2013-en https://www.ieg-ego.eu/schenkf-2013-en https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw04gdx.13 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw04gdx.13 https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2014.961540 https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2014.961540 https://atlas2022.uw.edu.pl/materialy-edukacyjne/ebook-do-pobrania/ https://atlas2022.uw.edu.pl/materialy-edukacyjne/ebook-do-pobrania/ https://doi.org/10.32422/cjir.1453 https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195387865.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195387865.001.0001 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/