Territorial identity of a region: A review of data collection techniques 37Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.1.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 2025 (1) 37–55. Introduction Boundaries, delimiting the territorial shape of a region, have attracted the attention of geographers for a long time (see Minghi, J.V. 1963). Recognised as an essential component of the identity of a region (Paasi, A. 1986), they have also been studied from the perspective of new regional geography, in which this paper is anchored. While this study engages with scholars explicitly aligned with this field, it also draws on earlier works (e.g. Brownell, J.W. 1960; Reed, J.S. 1976) predating its formal establishment in the 1980s (a detailed overview of regional geography evolution provide, e.g. Kasala, K. and Šifta, M. 2017) and incorpo- rates insights from related sub-disciplines in linguistics (e.g. Preston, D.R. 2010). Histori- cally, many studies aimed to delimit particu- lar regions (Zelinsky, W. 1980), with potential for applications in education (e.g. Alderman, D.H. and Good, D.B. 1996) or regional develop- ment (e.g. Stoffelen, A. et al. 2024). Recently, however, research has increasingly shifted to- wards redefining the concept of a region (e.g. Vukosav, B. and Fuerst-Bjeliš, B. 2016). Ad- 1 Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Faculty of Science, Department of Geography. Pasteurova 3544/1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem-město, Czechia. E-mail: martin.bartunek@ujep.cz 2 Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of International Relations and European Studies. Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czechia E-mail: petrmarek@mail.muni.cz Territorial identity of a region: A review of data collection techniques Martin BARTŮNĚK 1 and Petr MAREK 2 Abstract This scoping review focuses on methodological approaches and, in particular, data collection techniques, for investigating part of the identity of a region – the territorial identity (boundaries) – within the field of new regional geography. The paper builds on a continuously expanding compilation of studies from academic databases and supplementary reference searches in geographically oriented journals. Reviewing 76 articles, it identifies the principal data collection techniques, including the utilisation of secondary sources (e.g. lit- erature and maps or databases of place names) and strategies for obtaining primary data with questioning. These represent two analytical perspectives: indirect (secondary data) and direct (primary data) identifica- tion of territorial identity. The techniques are analysed concerning methodological approaches, including the use of territorial identity markers or territorial identity perception, as well as in terms of various scales and research character (single or multiple regions examination). The findings demonstrate that secondary data are predominantly used for delimiting regions through territorial identity markers whereas primary data are employed mainly to delimit regions reflecting territorial identity perception. Furthermore, the choice of data is not inherently dependent on region scale, as even world regions can be studied using questioning. Additionally, the absence of temporal analysis and the under-representation of mixed research designs in the studies suggest avenues for future research. Integrating diverse data collection techniques and methodological approaches might capture the concept of the region better, offering valuable insights for theoretical advance- ment and practical applications. Keywords: new regional geography, territorial identity, territorial shape, delimitation of region, border, boundary, identity of region, data collection techniques Received December 2024, accepted March 2025. Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.38 ditionally, some point out that where (and how) people perceive regions can influence their identification with those regions as well as re- gionalism (Jordan, T.G. 1978; Marek, P. 2023). Despite long-standing interest in the ter- ritorial shape (boundaries) of a region, the methods employed for delimiting regions often receive insufficient attention. This scoping review employs a content analysis of existing literature to address the following goals: first, to classify and discuss the tech- niques employed to collect data; second, to examine their interrelationship with method- ological approaches used to delimit regions’ territories/boundaries (the territorial identity of a region); and third, to analyse how the scale of a region influences the choice of data collection techniques. The study highlights research gaps, proposes future directions and offers recommendations for advancing boundary research. Territorial identity as seen by new regional geography New regional geography explores the con- cept of the region theoretically, as a social construct, spatial structure and dynamic pro- cess (Thrift, N. 1983; Paasi, A. 1986; Gilbert, A. 1988; Jonas, A. 1988; Pudup, M.B. 1988; Murphy, A.B. 1991). The region as a social construct implies it is created and exists pri- marily in people’s minds as a perceptual re- gion (Zimmerbauer, K. 2011; Vukosav, B. and Fuerst-Bjeliš, B. 2016; Marek, P. 2020, 2023). Conversely, the region as a spatial structure influences people and may be an important source of, among other things, their identifi- cation with a certain spatial unit, as well as a driving engine of regionalism (Keating, M. 1998; Paasi, A. 2009a; Zimmerbauer, K. 2011; Marek, P. 2023). Paasi, A. (1986, 2002) and the previously mentioned authors conceptu- alised/classified regional identity into three dimensions. An instrumental dimension, that is, regionalism (regional activism), is reached by the smallest number of regions, while more regions attain an affective dimension – people’s identification with the region and/ or regional community (the regional iden- tity of people). Ultimately, all regions have a cognitive dimension, that is, their identity (the identity of a region). These dimensions are in continuous change/development, as regions (and generally regional identities) are dynamic processes that are “constantly becoming” (Pred, A. 1984, 279). Region (and regional identity) not only emerges but also reproduces, transforms and may eventu- ally disappear (Paasi, A. 1986; Raagmaa, G. 2002), as evidenced, for example, by Chromý, P. et al. (2009), studying the reproduction of several Czech historical regions, by Konop- ski, M. (2021), investigating the transforma- tion of a Polish region of Podlasie, and by Simon, C. et al. (2010), exploring a Dutch dis- appearing region of Noordoostpolder. The identity of a region (cognitive dimen- sion) is categorised into two types: (1) “objec- tive” formal and functional regions, based on objective criteria, and (2) subjective images of the region, based on perception, that is, perceptual regions (Paasi, A. 1986; Marek, P. 2023). According to Paasi’s institutionalisa- tion of regions theory, all regions (including formal, functional and perceptual regions) have three “shapes” that give identity to the region: (1) its territorial shape delimited by boundaries, (2) its symbolic shape, mainly its proper name (a choronym) and (3) its institu- tional shape (Paasi, A. 1986, 2002). This article focuses on the territorial shape of a region, referred to as its territorial identi- ty. Although the relational view of the region questions the territorial approach, down- playing boundaries (e.g. Allen, J. et al. 1998), the territorial approach, as well as boundaries, remain relevant (Paasi, A. and Zimmerbauer, K. 2016; Zimmerbauer, K. et al. 2017) and wide- ly studied to the present. Methods for studying territorial identity in new regional geography differ in (1) data collection techniques and (2) methodologi- cal approaches, although Peng, J. et al. (2020, 11–12), for example, do not distinguish them. Although the result section details data col- lection techniques, their close interrelation- 39Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. ship with methodological approaches used to delimit regions’ territories/boundaries requires attention. Therefore, an overview of these approaches is provided; their more profound conceptualisation (as well as re- lated data evaluation and interpretation tech- niques) should also be discussed closely, but this is out of the scope of this article. Some authors (e.g. Lowry, J. 2013; Melnychuk, A. et al. 2014) note that territorial identity can be studied (and delimited) in two major ways. The first examines people’s perceptions (terri- torial identity perception), as apparently initiated by Brownell, J.W. (1960). The second focuses on territorial identity markers, attributed within new regional geography to Reed, J.S. (1976), however, defining regions based on various ethnographic characteristics, for example, was already established among ethnographers much earlier (see Drápala, D. and Pavlicová, M. 2014). Melnychuk, A. et al. (2014, 159) propose a third methodological approach involving an analysis of historical-geographical conditions of territorial identity development. Finally, a fourth methodological approach can be identified as the territorial identity discourse, which should precede the previous one since the region is a dynamic process and it is beneficial to under- stand its current shape before proceeding with its development. This approach, apparently initiated by Sinnhuber, K.A. (1954), focuses on analysing territorial identity through the subjec- tive perceptions of various experts, who define these regions using a scientific methodology. Nevertheless, territorial identities can also be approached based on objective criteria (the for- mal and functional regions mentioned above) within new regional geography (e.g. Staut, M. et al. 2007; Marek, P. 2023). Methodology This study employed an initial compilation of 59 published articles obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, along with other sources, intending to identify data collection techniques for the identification of territorial identity. The compilation, devel- oped during the authors’ previous years- long interest through the “snowball” tech- nique, revealed significant methodological challenges related to the ambiguity of key- word definitions (Figure 1, A) for subsequent supplementary reference searches. This is- sue, previously highlighted by Kitchin, R. (1994), for example, may be attributed to the absence of a sophisticated theory of bound- aries (Paasi, A. 2009b), which significantly limits the precision of a systematic search process within the context of a “scoping re- view” (Tricco, A.C. et al. 2018). To identify other relevant sources, the search in the Web of Science database relied on a com- bination of keywords such as (vernacular or perceptual) region, mental map, identity, bor- der, territorial, perception, marker, delineation and their synonyms (e.g. boundary, cognition, spatial). Conducted in mid-September 2024, this search yielded additional potential arti- cles to enhance the compilation (Figure 1, B). However, four inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen: (1) only articles were included, excluding books and other sources; (2) the fo- cus was narrowed to geographically oriented journals, excluding those focusing on medi- cine or engineering; (3) only English-language publications were considered due to language barriers; (4) duplicates and incomplete cita- tions (without abstracts) were removed. The review selection process comprised four additional stages. Initially, abstracts lack- ing terms “border, boundary, zone, frontier, area, territory, space (spatial), delimit (delineat), percept or vernacular” were excluded, as these terms broadly reflect the concept of delimiting re- gions. Concurrently, the aforementioned key- words encompassed studies from the initial compilation and, thus, were subsequently ex- cluded from the subsequent compilation. An analysis of keyword frequency in abstracts fa- cilitated the identification of relevant studies, which were then subjected to a cross-check screening by the authors based on the arti- cle title. Ultimately, only those studies that addressed the delimitation of regions under the conceptual framework of new regional geography were selected following a com- Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.40 Fig. 1. List of the most frequent keywords in the initial compilation of studies (A), and the process of identifying studies for the subsequent compilation of studies (B). Source: Authors’ own elaboration. 41Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. prehensive review of the articles’ full texts. As a result, 17 more studies were added. It is important to acknowledge the inherent sub- jectivity of this selection process, as well as its potential limitations, particularly the reliance on a single database and the exclusive focus on English-language studies, which may not fully capture the width of relevant studies. In the latest modifications, mainly English texts were selected from the initial compilation (with three exceptions from the Czech envi- ronment due to their exceptional specificities in data collection), and when several articles of the same author(s) were written from one data collection only one representative study was selected. The data collection techniques and their details are outlined in the result section. While only a few selected studies showcase their use, these techniques are commonly applied in other research context as well. Moreover, the identified studies sometimes combine various methodological approaches to delimit the region, using a combination of data collection techniques. All the techniques identified in the studies are analysed in terms of the methodological approaches used, and their connection to the regions being studied. Identified data collection techniques to delimit a region This chapter reviews data collection tech- niques employed in past research. Each subchapter addresses distinct techniques and the sources of data for analysis. Two principal techniques may be recognised in the research of territorial identity: (1) tech- niques relying on secondary sources, and (2) techniques generating primary data. Despite efforts to structure data collection techniques under the identified methodological ap- proaches to delimit a region, overlaps among them complicate this structuring, as certain data collection techniques are linked to mul- tiple methodological approaches (Figure 2). Literature, spatial Information and researchers’ field notes analysis A comprehensive review of the literature is crucial for understanding any research (Clif- ford, N. et al. 2010), including territorial iden- tity. This technique involves investigating the current boundaries of a region, that is, the ter- ritorial identity discourse, through analysis of Fig. 2. Interrelationship of techniques and approaches and their frequency of usage in the compilation of studies. Source: Authors’ own elaboration. Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.42 regional geography textbooks, cartographic documents, GIS databases, laws or academic and popular literature in general. This initial step provides insight into a region’s contem- porary territorial identity, guiding subse- quent evaluation and interpretation of data obtained through other techniques. Further- more, some authors employ this technique to investigate territorial identity development, as literature and maps provide both contem- porary and historical perspectives. Numerous authors have drawn upon the aforementioned sources of information, par- ticularly in studies on (de)institutionalised regions, where the current or past state of the region’s borders serves as a research founda- tion (e.g. Bartůněk, M. and Bláha, J.D. 2023; Marek, P. 2023). However, some research- ers compare the territorial shape of the same region across several studies, highlighting variations in boundaries influenced by dif- ferent geographical aspects, as demonstrated by Hale, R.F. (1983), and Tandarić, N. et al. (2013). Other studies explore varying bound- aries based on the geographical location of the study, such as Bláha, J.D. and Nováček, A. (2016), or Pánek, J. and Šenkeříková, M. (2018), who employ a systematic description accompanied by an analytical map. Temporal approaches to boundary evolu- tion are exemplified by Vukosav, B. (2015), who analysed the boundaries through car- tographic representations and Semian, M. (2012), who examined evolving discourses on delimitation of the region by various au- thors and institutions. Finally, the analysis of researchers’ field notes offers additional insights, such as the documentation of cultural traits (Štika, J. 1961), which are methodologically classified under territorial identity markers. Census and electoral behaviour analysis Processing secondary data from government sources, particularly census records, allows the identification of territorial identity markers by providing insights into socio-cultural charac- teristics of the population such as language, re- ligion and nationality/ethnicity, which, in some countries, can assist in defining boundaries. Illustrative studies include those con- ducted by Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. (2016), and Siwek, T. and Kaňok, J. (2000), which examine nationality data to inform further research. Although Bartos-Elekes, Zs. (2019) also employs ethnicity as a vari- able, the ethnic group under examination exhibits a wide range of distinct socio-cul- tural characteristics, including language and religion. Phillips, D.W. and Montello, D.R. (2017) adopt a more comprehensive approach, incorporating a wider range of demographic data and applying geodemo- graphic classification. In addition, Weakliem, D. and Biggert, R. (1999) propose using political preferences de- rived from election results to determine the territorial distribution of regional identity. Directories, gazetteers and other databases analysis The use of symbolic shape elements (prop- er names, emblems, logos, etc.) in cultural landscapes reflects the perception of the in- habitants who belong to that particular area (Melnychuk, A. et al. 2014). Accordingly, the identification of territorial identity markers or territorial identity development can be achieved through the utilisation of secondary data from (government) directories, gazet- teers and other databases. For more details on proper names, see their categorisation in ICOS Terms (2023), or for symbolic elements in gen- eral, refer to Šifta, M. and Chromý, P. (2017). A common technique in the reviewed stud- ies is delimiting regions through institutions (businesses, educational, governmental and non-profit organisations) using choronyms in the institutions’ names, that is, chremato- nyms. This application can be demonstrated in the context of a single region (e.g. Colten, C.E. 1997; Vukosav, B. and Fuerst-Bjeliš, B. 2016; Sublett, M.D. 2021), or two overlapping regions (e.g. Reed, J.S. 1976; Ambinakudige, S. 43Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. 2009; Andrews, J.R. and Finchum, A. 2020). Other authors concentrated on the potential for regionalisation within an administra- tive unit, that is, on the scale of a state (e.g. McEwen, J.W. 2014; Liesch, M. et al. 2015) or even a continent (e.g. Zelinsky, W. 1980). Additionally, some scholars (e.g. Weaver, R. and Holtkamp, C. 2015; Holtkamp, C. et al. 2018) have traced the characteristic appellatives for the region in toponyms or urban place names (e.g. hodonyms) and the occurrence of regions’ names within them (Melnychuk, A. et al. 2014). In addition, some authors (Konopski, M. 2021; Marek, P. 2023) have identified, although through a distinct data collection technique, that territorial iden- tity is shaped by settlement names, indicating an additional data source. Authors addressing temporal aspects in their research either track the evolution of business names by repeating studies after several years (Reed, J.S. et al. 1990) or com- pare results with earlier studies (Alderman, D.H. and Beavers, R.M. 1999). Alternatively, they analyse the current use of business and institution names to observe transformations of the territorial identity from the previous state (Gnatiuk, O. and Melnychuk, A. 2019). It is evident that proper names represent the most prevalent source of data within this category. However, as Gnatiuk, O. and Melnychuk, A. (2021) have demonstrated, the utilisation of other symbols representing the region, such as emblems and flags, has the potential to contribute to the definition of territorial identity as well. Media, volunteered geographic information and warranty cards analysis Unlike previous expert-based/government data, the data used in this technique em- phasises subjective attitudes and utilises quantitative methods to analyse patterns of ordinary people’s perceptions. Several au- thors have used newspaper articles, language corpora, and the media in general (Vukosav, B. and Fuerst-Bjeliš, B. 2015). A further ex- ample is volunteered geographic information (VGI) utilising the web, where the content is generated by internet users themselves (Goodchild, M.F. 2007). From a methodolog- ical perspective, all this represents an indirect approach to territorial identity perception. In content analyses conducted by Vukosav, B. (2011), or Vukosav, B. and Fuerst-Bjeliš, B. (2015), newspapers were analysed to examine the relationship between munici- palities and regions of interest, specifically looking at which municipalities are linked to which regions and how frequently these associations occur. Within VGI, two principal aspects of data collection can be identified: first, trigger phrase searches are utilised (e.g. Jones, C.B. et al. 2008; Reinbacher, I. et al. 2008), as web- sites frequently link specific locations, such as cities, with the region’s name; second, the use of geotags from platforms like Flickr, Instagram, Twitter and Wikipedia helps de- limit a region (e.g. Gao, S. et al. 2017). A no- table example is Shortridge, J.R. (1987), who used warranty cards in a case study specific to the United States. Questioning A survey is a key method for collecting pri- mary data on territorial identity, capturing attitudes across large populations (Babbie, E. 2007) and allowing the direct exploration of territorial identity perception, and even ter- ritorial identity development and territorial identity markers. It encompasses research design elements like sampling and analysis (for further details on sampling see, e.g. Clif- ford, N. et al. 2010; for guidance on word- ing of questions see, e.g. Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. 2005). This subchapter focuses on a questionnaire as the data collection tech- nique (Gregory, D. et al. 2009) and empha- sises differences across the reviewed studies, particularly in the formulation of questions, strategies employed throughout the question- naires and the inclusion of a base map, all in relation to different attributes of regions. Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.44 Important factors within this technique are (1) the number of regions studied, and (2) their scale, as these elements influence the questionnaire design, strategy and interpre- tation, in other words, the presentation of the region’s territorial shape. Regarding the number of regions, territorial identity can be investigated by focusing on (a) a single region (e.g. Pleić, T. et al. 2021), or a partial shape of one region through complementary stud- ies (e.g. Staut, M. et. al. 2007; Tandarić, N. et al. 2013); (b) a border between neighbour- ing regions (e.g. Šerý, M. and Šimáček, P. 2012), or (c) multiple regions (e.g. Good, J.K. 1981). Regarding the scale of regions, ques- tionnaires are typically used for (a) smaller regions within a single state (e.g. Heath, D.E. 1993; Semian, M. 2012); however, some stud- ies focus on (b) regions that extend beyond a single state (e.g. Shortridge, J.R. 1985; Bláha, J.D. and Nováček, A. 2016), or even (c) regions on a global scale (e.g. Polonský, F. et al. 2010; Didelon, C. et al. 2011). In designing questionnaires, two key as- pects must be considered: (1) the formula- tion of questions by the researcher and (2) how respondents can answer. Questions may include requests to (a) “draw the boundary on a map” (e.g. Geršič, M. 2017), (b) “rate each cell in a polygon grid” (Montello, D.R. et al. 2014), (c) “include/exclude your local area in/from the region” (e.g. Brownell, J.W. 1960), or (d) “name local areas in the region” (e.g. Schlemper, M.B. and Panozzo, K.A. 2020). The nature of these questions de- pends on the ability to record the answer: for instance, (a) closed-ended questions can be used (e.g. Konopski, M. 2021), (b) multiple- choice questions allow respondents to select from multiple regions (e.g. Lamme, A.J. and Oldakowski, R.K. 1982), or (c) open-ended questions can be used, enabling respondents to identify their region without prompts (e.g. Jordan, T.G. 1978; Hale, R.F. 1984). Questionnaires enable the implementation of opposite strategies: (1) in-person interac- tion with the respondent, or (2) avoiding such interaction. Face-to-face questioning represents an in-person strategy (e.g. Marek, P. 2023); one may also consider incorporat- ing elements of interviews (e.g. Marek, P. 2020) or focus groups (e.g. Edmondson, D. 2018). In contrast, impersonal strategies in- clude (a) telephone calls (e.g. Lamme, A.J. and Oldakowski, R.K. 2007), (b) sending the questionnaire to respondents by post (e.g. Zdorkowski, R.T. and Carney, G.O. 1985), or (c) using internet-based forms (e.g. Pánek, J. and Šenkeříková, M. 2018). Special attention should be given to the base maps possibly used for recording re- gional boundaries concerning (1) their form and (2) their content. While most authors rely on (a) printed base maps (e.g. Ulack, R. and Raitz, K. 1981), the use of (b) online base maps has recently gained prominence (e.g. Pánek, J. and Šenkeříková, M. 2018). It is not always necessary for the map content to be displayed at all, as shown by the use of (a) blank paper (e.g. Kaisto, V. and Wells, C. 2021); conversely, (b) map content can abound with various topography elements (e.g. Marek, P. 2020), but frequently (c) it is reduced to representations of states with cit- ies (e.g. Lowry, J. et al. 2008; Konopski, M. 2021). The topography elements and their lettering should be carefully considered es- pecially for printed base maps, taking into account scale and map sheet size (Zaga, M. and Waisel, T.Y. 2023). Although many au- thors use base maps, the map content is often insufficiently considered, despite its influ- ence on the results (see Stachowski, K. 2017). Perceptual dialectology, while focusing on language and linguistic region’s delimita- tion (e.g. Bounds, P. 2015; Alhazmi, J. 2017), places greater emphasis on map content (e.g. Bounds, P. and Sutherland, C.J. 2018; Cramer, J. 2021; Jeszenszky, P. et al. 2024), a practice that should be more aligned with geographic studies. The investigation of the distribution of language and dialect through question- naires and the adaptation of standalone so- ciolinguistic interviews (e.g. Fotiou, C. and Grohmann, K.K. 2022) within perceptual dialectology represents a direct approach to territorial identity markers. A comparable 45Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. approach is implied in a study conducted by Lowry, J. (2013), which asked respondents to identify symbols associated with the region that could serve as indicators of its bounda- ries, effectively linking the territorial and symbolic shapes of the region. Finally, some authors (e.g. Miroševič, L. and Vukosav, B. 2010; Melnychuk, A. and Gnatiuk, O. 2018) use the regional identity of people as a mark- er of territorial identity, similar to how cen- sus data is analysed in relation to nationality (although nationality represents only a part of the affective dimension). Territorial identity development can also be investigated through questioning. Marek, P. (2020) and Konopski, M. (2021) demon- strate this in the case of historical regions, whose initial perceptual delimitation can be expected to align with the historical bound- ary. Kaisto, V. and Wells, C. (2021) explicitly asked their respondents how the current re- gion’s boundaries changed according to their opinion in a certain period. Similarly, ques- tioning can also address temporal factors by comparing generational perspectives or adopting (semi-)longitudinal study (Lamme, A.J. and Oldakowski, R.K. 2007). Conclusions and future research recommendations This scoping review analysed 76 studies on the delimitation of territorial part/shape of the identity of regions, sourced through the “snowball” technique and targeted Web of Science searches. The paper classified data collection techniques in territorial identity research and demonstrates their integration within broader methodological approaches extensively used in new regional geography, emphasising the need for further investiga- tion into these methods. In general, secondary data sources (includ- ing literature with spatial information, maps, census data, place names databases) provide indirect, expert-based/government indicators for boundary identification. Conversely, the direct gathering of primary data through questionnaires, in conjunction with the re- trieval of secondary data through media or VGI analysis, provides insights into the perceptions of ordinary people. Figure 2 il- lustrates the interdependence of these tech- niques with methodological approaches, highlighting their (in)occurrence in analysed studies and presenting key patterns – espe- cially secondary data being used predomi- nantly for delimiting regions through territo- rial identity markers whereas primary data being employed mainly to delimit regions reflecting territorial identity perception. First, in realised studies, the most preva- lent technique is the analysis of literature and spatial information, as it is frequently com- bined with other techniques in a single study. These data are typically linked to territorial identity discourse, which may involve the integration of previous delimitations of the region by the researcher or an administra- tive boundary. Alternatively, the data inform research on territorial identity development, particularly when historical boundaries are utilised. A further substantial proportion of the secondary data comprises a variety of database analyses incorporating proper names to identify territorial identity markers. Of these, the most frequently used are chre- matonyms, also known as ergonyms. The aforementioned secondary data are consid- ered to be easily adaptable to other regions, whereas others, like warranty cards, are lim- ited to specific countries due to their (non-) availability. The utilisation of VGI analysis has not been extensively employed, appar- ently due to the higher demand for computer skills; nevertheless, there exists a significant potential for its application. In general, the use of primary data is constrained by its lack of availability and the fact that it takes longer and costs more than using already existing secondary data; despite this, questioning is employed in a substantial proportion of studies. This challenge was frequently ad- dressed by recruiting (geography) students as respondents, though some authors ac- knowledge the limitations of unrepresenta- tive sampling (Lowry, J. 2013; Bláha, J.D. Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.46 and Nováček, A. 2016). A study’s reliabil- ity may be enhanced by asking the general population, although this may be limited by a lack of geographical education among the respondents. To eliminate these difficulties, real-time (face-to-face or telephone) ques- tioning includes the possibility of guidance for the respondent (which is often needed particularly when utilising a base map). However, this strategy may affect/manipu- late resulting data – so it is double-edged. Second, other techniques, particularly those related to territorial identity markers and territorial identity development, are in- frequently applied or may be classified only as applicable. For instance, territorial identity markers combined with media or VGI analy- sis may serve as alternatives to researchers’ field notes, documenting cultural traits in the perceptions of ordinary people. The choice of techniques, however, often depends on the type of secondary data used; in cases involv- ing census data or proper names that can be extracted from various databases, alternative techniques may be more appropriate. A more significant gap in the studies is the lack of attention to temporal dimensions within ter- ritorial identity development research – an oversight that hinders building the theory of region as a dynamic process. To address this, future research should emphasise ex- amining the evolution of the population’s socio-cultural characteristics, for example, through the analysis of census data. Media and VGI analysis also holds the potential for investigating temporal aspects by filtering data from specific periods. Third, disconnections exist between data collection techniques and methodological ap- proaches, suggesting that not all techniques can be integrated into all approaches. Concurrently, this study relates the find- ings to regions of varying scales demonstrat- ing the applicability of techniques and ap- proaches, whether in the context of a single region or multiple regions (regionalisation) research (see Figure 3, or a list of all the re- gions studied in Appendix). First, research on single or multiple regions is balanced, particularly evident below the state scale. At the state scale, existing research slightly favours multiple regions studies, whereas above state scale research tends to focus on single regions. This is related to the fact that research on the de jure territorial shape of a single region such as a state may appear redundant, but this may not always be the right assumption. In terms of techniques, a higher proportion of single region studies occurs at below state scale with the use of directories, gazetteers and other databases analysis, whereas media and VGI analysis and questioning are more frequently applied in multiple region research. Second, conversely, there is a notable dis- crepancy in the extent of research conducted on regions of varying scales. The regions that have been the subject of the greatest num- ber of studies are those that are below state scale, with the remaining studies distributed evenly between research on regions at the state scale and on regions above state scale. Similarly, all techniques exhibit an identical representation across scales. However, it is noteworthy that research on regions above state scale employs a greater proportion of primary data than secondary data, although primary data are typically less available. The discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that the utilisation of secondary data neces- sitates the integration of foreign data sources, which may present linguistic barriers for a researcher, or that the secondary data for above state scale regions may not exist at all. In contrast, collecting primary data may, in fact, be less challenging. For instance, (geog- raphy) students may be involved (see above), or collaborations between foreign research institutes may be realised. This study is intended to encourage the im- plementation of triangulation design in the social sciences, wherein multiple research methods converge in a single study (mixed research designs) to provide a more nuanced and multifaceted comprehension of territo- rial identity. The findings demonstrate that many techniques are complementary and, in some cases, methodological approaches 47Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. Fig. 3. Interrelationship of techniques with regions under study. Source: Authors’ own elaboration. Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.48 are effectively combined – particularly with a territorial identity discourse (in 59% of all studies). Despite this, the combination of methodological approaches, such as the in- tegration of territorial identity markers with territorial identity perception or territorial identity development, remains a relatively uncommon practice. An exception is, for ex- ample, the study by Homanyuk, M. (2019), employing various methodological ap- proaches and data collection techniques for the same research subject (although without a clear description of the research methodol- ogy), which helps to put the pieces together into a comprehensive picture of the territo- rial shape of the region. Upon subtraction of territorial identity discourse, 25 percent of the studies employ two methodological approaches, while all methodological ap- proaches are employed in only 4 percent of the studies. Future research should focus on combining techniques within various methodological approaches while critically examining the interconnectedness of find- ings. This will help advance both theoretical understanding of territorial identity and its potential applications in fields such as educa- tion or regional development. Acknowledgement: The article was composed as a component of the “Perspectives of European integration in the context of Global Politics VII“ (MUNI/A/1665/2024) project, and gratitude is extend- ed to the Internal Grant Agency of the Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem for finan- cial support (Project UJEP-SGS-2022-53-001-3: “Participatory Mapping as a Tool for Visualising Regional Dynamics”). In addition, the reviewers deserve particular credit for their insightful com- ments, which have enabled the incorporation of more precise information. REFERENCES Aadland, M., Farah, C. and Magee, K. 2016. µ-shapes: Delineating urban neighbourhoods using volunteered geographic information. Journal of Spatial Information Science 12. 29–43. https://doi. org/10.5311/JOSIS.2016.12.240 Alani, H., Jones, C.B. and Tudhope, D. 2001. Voronoi- based region approximation for geographical information retrieval with gazetteers. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15. (4): 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810110038942 Alderman, D.H. and Beavers, R.M. 1999. Heart of Dixie revisited: An update on the geography of naming in the American South. Southeastern Geographer 39. (2): 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1999.0017 Alderman, D.H. and Good, D.B. 1996. Mapping the names of American businesses: A teaching and soft- ware aid. Journal of Geography 95. (6): 281–286. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00221349608978741 Alhazmi, J. 2017. A perceptual dialect map of western Saudi Arabia. WRoCAH Journal 3. 2–16. Allen, J., Massey, D., Cochrane, A., Charlesworth, J., Court, G., Henry, N. and Sarre, P. 1998. Rethinking the Region. London, Routledge. Ambinakudige, S. 2009. Revisiting “The South” and “Dixie”: Delineating vernacular regions using GIS. Southeastern Geographer 49. (3): 240–250. https://doi. org/10.1353/sgo.0.0051 Andrews, J.R. and Finchum, A. 2020. Paring old Dixie down: The Dixie highway and the mapping of a vernacular South. Southeastern Geographer 60. (4): 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2020.0028 Babbie, E. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. 11th Edition. Belmont, Thompson Wadsworth. Bartos-Elekes, Zs. 2019. Mapping the core and pe- riphery applied to a Choronym. The case of Székely Land. In Proceedings of the International Cartographical Association (ICA). Articles, Vol. 2. 1–4. https://doi. org/10.5194/ica-proc-2-8-2019 Bartůněk, M. and Bláha, J.D. 2023. Visualising ad- ministrative division dynamics: Transformation of borders and names in the Bohemian-Saxonian borderland. GeoScape 17. (2): 118–134. https://doi. org/10.2478/geosc-2023-0008 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 Bounds, P. 2015. Perceptual regions in Poland: An in- vestigation of Poznań speech perceptions. Journal of Linguistic Geography 3. 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/ jlg.2015.1 Bounds, P. and Sutherland, C. J. 2018. Perceptual base- maps reloaded: The role basemaps play in eliciting perceptions. Journal of Linguistic Geography 6. 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2018.7 Brownell, J .W. 1960. The cultural Midwest . Journal of Geography 59. (2): 81–85. https://doi. org/10.1080/00221346008982048 Chromý, P., Kučerová, S. and Kučera, Z. 2009. Regional identity, contemporary and historical regions and the issue of relict borders – the case of Czechia. Regions and Regionalism 9. (2): 9–19. Clifford, N., French, S. and Valentine, G. 2010. Key Methods in Geography. 2nd Edition. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2016.12.240 https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2016.12.240 https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810110038942 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1999.0017 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349608978741 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349608978741 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.0.0051 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.0.0051 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2020.0028 https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-proc-2-8-2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-proc-2-8-2019 https://doi.org/10.2478/geosc-2023-0008 https://doi.org/10.2478/geosc-2023-0008 https://doi.org/10.1553/moegg158s193 https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2015.1 https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2015.1 https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2018.7 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221346008982048 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221346008982048 49Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. Colten, C.E. 1997. The Land of Lincoln: Genesis of a vernacular region. Journal of Cultural Geography 16. (2): 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873639709478337 Cramer, J. 2021. Mental maps and perceptual dialectol- ogy. Language and Linguistics Compass 15. (2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12405 Didelon, C., De Ruffray, S., Boquet, M. and Lambert, N. 2011. A world of interstices: A fuzzy logic ap- proach to the analysis of interpretative maps. The Cartographic Journal 48. (2): 100–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1179/1743277411Y.0000000009 Drápala, D. and Pavlicová, M. 2014. Etnografická rajonizace: úvahy nad jejím historickým vývojem a smyslem současné existence (Ethnographic region- alisation: reflections on its historical development and the meaning of its current existence). Národopisná revue 3. 171–188. Edmondson, D. 2018. Regionalization: A story map les- son on regions. The Geography Teacher 15. (1): 36–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338341.2017.1413001 Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. 2005. Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project. 2nd Edition. Harlow, Pearson. Fotiou, C. and Grohmann, K.K. 2022. A small island with big differences? Folk perceptions in the con- text of dialect levelling and koineization. Frontiers in Communication 6. 770088: 1–19. https://doi. org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.770088 Gao, S., Janowicz, K., Montello, D.R., Hu, Y., Yang, J-A., Mckenzie, G., Ju, Y., Gong, L., Adams, B. and Yan, B. 2017. A data-synthesis-driven method for detecting and extracting vague cognitive regions. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 31. (6): 1245–1271. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816. 2016.1273357 Geršič, M. 2017. Changing denotations of selected Slovenian choronyms. Acta geographica Slovenica 57. (1): 77–96. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4600 Gilbert, A. 1988. The new regional geography in English and French-speaking countries. Progress in Human Geography 12. (2): 208–228. https://doi. org/10.1177/030913258801200203 Gnatiuk, O. and Melnychuk, A. 2019. Identities with historical regions – are they adapting to modern ad- ministrative division? The case of Ukraine. European Spatial Research and Policy 26. (1): 175–194. https://doi. org/10.18778/1231-1952.26.1.09 Gnatiuk, O. and Melnychuk, A. 2021. Historical heraldic symbols as a marker of reproducing and transforming regional identity: The case of Ukraine. Geographia Polonica 94. (4): 589–607. https://doi. org/10.7163/GPol.0222 Good, J.K. 1981. The vernacular regions of Arkansas. Journal of Geography 80. (5): 179–185. https://doi. org/10.1080/00221348108980675 Goodchild, M.F. 2007. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69. (4): 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M.J. and Whatmore, S. 2009. The Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th Edition. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. Hale, R.F. 1983. Wisconsin’s vernacular regions. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Council for Geographic Education 4. (1): 12–16. Hale, R.F. 1984. Commentary: Vernacular regions of America. Journal of Cultural Geography 5. (1): 131– 140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873638409478566 Heath, D.E. 1993. Highly localized vernacular region- alization in the Allentown–Bethlehem area, PA–NJ. Professional Geographer 45. (3): 251–263. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1993.00251.x Holtkamp, C., Weaver, R. and Butler, D.R. 2018. The Rocky Mountains and the Southwest: Using feature names to study two iconic subregions in the American West. Geographical Review 108. (3): 410–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/gere.12262 Homanyuk, M. 2019. “Battle for Tavria”: A historical region in politics and in the market of goods and services. Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna Geografiya 82. 20– 26. https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-7154/2019.82.20-26 ICOS Terms 2023. List of Key Onomastic Terms. International Council of Onomastic Sciences. Opensource. https://icosweb.net/wp/wp-content/ uploads/2019/05/ICOS-Terms-en.pdf Jeszenszky, P., Steiner, C., von Allmen, N. and Leemann, A. 2024. What drives non-linguists’ hands (or mouse) when drawing mental dialect maps? Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 39. (2): 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqae003 Jonas, A. 1988. A new regional geography of locali- ties? Area 20. (2): 101–110. Jones, C.B., Purves, R.S., Clough, P.D. and Joho, H. 2008. Modelling vague places with knowledge from the web. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 22. (10): 1045–1065. https://doi. org/10.1080/13658810701850547 Jordan, T.G. 1978. Perceptual regions in Texas. Geographical Review 68. (3): 293–307. https://doi. org/10.2307/215048 Kaisto, V. and Wells, C. 2021. Mental mapping as a method for studying borders and bordering in young people’s territorial identifications. Journal of Borderlands Studies 36. (2): 259–279. https://doi. org/10.1080/08865655.2020.1719864 Kasala, K. and Šifta, M. 2017. The region as a concept: Traditional and constructivist view. AUC Geographica 52. (2): 208–218. https://doi. org/10.14712/23361980.2017.17 Keating, M. 1998. The New Regionalism in Western Europe. Territorial Restructuring and Political Change. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Kitchin, R. 1994. Cognitive maps: What are they and why study them? Journal of Environmental Psychology 14. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272- 4944(05)80194-X https://doi.org/10.1080/08873639709478337 https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12405 https://doi.org/10.1179/1743277411Y.0000000009 https://doi.org/10.1179/1743277411Y.0000000009 https://doi.org/10.1080/19338341.2017.1413001 https://www.taylorfrancis.com/search?contributorName=Robin%20Flowerdew&contributorRole=editor&redirectFromPDP=true&context=ubx https://www.taylorfrancis.com/search?contributorName=David%20M.%20Martin&contributorRole=editor&redirectFromPDP=true&context=ubx https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.770088 https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.770088 https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2016.1273357 https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2016.1273357 https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4600 https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258801200203 https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258801200203 https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.26.1.09 https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.26.1.09 https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0222 https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0222 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221348108980675 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221348108980675 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y https://doi.org/10.1080/08873638409478566 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1993.00251.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1993.00251.x https://doi.org/10.1111/gere.12262 https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-7154/2019.82.20-26 https://icosweb.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ICOS-Terms-en.pdf https://icosweb.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ICOS-Terms-en.pdf https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqae003 https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701850547 https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701850547 https://doi.org/10.2307/215048 https://doi.org/10.2307/215048 https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2020.1719864 https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2020.1719864 https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2017.17 https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2017.17 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80194-X https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80194-X Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.50 Konopski, M. 2021. The role of administrative bor- ders in determining regional identity: The case of Podlasie, Poland. Moravian Geographical Reports 29. (1): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2021-0005 Lamme, A.J. and Oldakowski, R.K. 1982. Vernacular areas in Florida. Southeastern Geographer 22. (2): 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1982.0012 Lamme, A.J. and Oldakowski, R.K. 2007. Spinning a new geography of vernacular regional identity: Florida in the twenty-first century. Southeastern Geographer 47. (2): 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1353/ sgo.2007.0029 Liesch, M., Dunklee, L.M., Legg, R.J., Feig, A.D. and Krause, A.J. 2015. Use of business-naming practices to delineate vernacular regions: A Michigan exam- ple. Journal of Geography 114. (5): 188–196. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2014.965187 Lowry, J., Patterson, M. and Forbes, W. 2008. The perceptual Northwest. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 70. (1): 112–126. https:// doi.org/10.1353/pcg.0.0009 Lowry, J. 2013. Perceptual New England. The Northeastern Geographer 5. 54–71. Marek, P. 2020. Transformation of the identity of a region: Theory and the empirical case of the per- ceptual regions of Bohemia and Moravia, Czech Republic. Moravian Geographical Reports 28. (3): 154–169. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2020-0012 Marek, P. 2023. Reproduction of the identity of a region: Perceptual regions based on formal and functional regions and their boundaries. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 105. (1): 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2022.2097113 McEwen, J.W. 2014. Louisiana: Apprehending a complex web of vernacular regional geography. Southeastern Geographer 54. (1): 55–71. https://doi. org/10.1353/sgo.2014.0001 Melnychuk, A., Gnatiuk, O. and Rastvorova, M. 2014. Use of territorial identity markers in geo- graphical researches. Scientific Annals of „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi – Geography Series 60. (1): 157–184. Melnychuk, A. and Gnatiuk, O. 2018. Regional identity and the renewal of spatial administrative structures: The case of Podolia, Ukraine. Moravian Geographical Reports 26. (1): 42–54. https://doi. org/10.2478/mgr-2018-0004 Minghi, J.V. 1963. Boundary studies in politi- cal geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53. (3): 407–428. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1963.tb00457.x Miroševič, L. and Vukosav, B. 2010. Spatial identi- ties of Pag island and the southern part of the Velebit littoral. Geoadria 15. (1): 81–108. https://doi. org/10.15291/geoadria.546 Montello, D.R., Friedman, A. and Phillips, D.W. 2014. Vague cognitive regions in geography and geographic information science. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 28. (9): 1802–1820. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.201 4.900178 Murphy, A.B. 1991. Regions as social constructs: The gap between theory and practice. Progress in Human Geography 15. (1): 23–35. https://doi. org/10.1177/030913259101500102 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 Paasi, A. 2002. Bounded spaces in the mobile world: Deconstructing ‘regional identity’. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93. (2): 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00190 Paasi, A. 2009a. Regional geography I. In International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography 9. Eds.: Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N., Amsterdam, Elsevier. 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00736-7 Paasi, A. 2009b. Political boundaries. In International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography 8. Eds.: Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N., Amsterdam, Elsevier. 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00793-8 Paasi, A. and Zimmerbauer, K. 2016. Penumbral bor- ders and planning paradoxes: Relational thinking and the question of borders in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A 48. (1): 75–93. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15594805 Padło, T., Struś, P. and Gil, A. 2021. Danube as a symbol of Europe. Perception of the river from varied geographical perspectives. PLoS ONE 16. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260848 Pánek, J. and Šenkeříková, M. 2018. Kde leží Blízký východ? Srovnání definic a mentální mapy regionu očima vysokoškolských studentů (Where does the Middle East lie? A comparison of definitions and mental maps of the region with the eyes of university students). Informace ČGS 37. (2): 31–41. Peng, J., Strijker, D. and Wu, Q. 2020. Place identity: How far have we come in exploring its meanings? Frontiers in Psychology 11. 294: 1–19. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00294 Phillips, D.W. and Montello, D.R. 2017. Defining the community of interest as thematic and cognitive regions. Political Geography 61. 31–45. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.06.005 Pleić, T., Glasnović, V., Prelogović, V. and Kaufmann, P.R. 2021. In search of spatial percep- tions: The Balkans as a vernacular region. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 112. (3): 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12470 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 Pred, A. 1984. Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2021-0005 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1982.0012 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2007.0029 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2007.0029 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2014.965187 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2014.965187 https://doi.org/10.1353/pcg.0.0009 https://doi.org/10.1353/pcg.0.0009 https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2020-0012 https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2022.2097113 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2014.0001 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2014.0001 https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2018-0004 https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2018-0004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1963.tb00457.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1963.tb00457.x https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.546 https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.546 https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.900178 https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.900178 https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259101500102 https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259101500102 https://doi.org/10.11143/9052 https://doi.org/10.11143/9052 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00190 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00736-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00793-8 https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15594805 https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15594805 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260848 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00294 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00294 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12470 https://doi.org/10.4113/jom.2010.1083 51Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74. (2): 279–297. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1984.tb01453.x Preston, D.R. 2010. Language, people, salience, space: Perceptual dialectology and language regard. Dilectologia 5. 87–131. Price, M.D. 1996. The Venezuelan Andes and the geographical imagination. Geographical Review 86. (3): 334–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/215498 Pudup, M.B. 1988. Arguments within regional geogra- phy. Progress in Human Geography 12. (3): 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258801200303 Raagmaa, G. 2002. Regional identity in re- gional development and planning. European Planning Studies 10. (1):55–76. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654310120099263 Reed, J.S. 1976. The heart of Dixie: An essay in folk geography. Social Forces 54. (4): 925–939. https://doi. org/10.2307/2576184 Reed, J.S., Kohls, J. and Hanchette, C. 1990. The dissolution of Dixie and the changing shape of the South. Social Forces 69. (1): 221–233. https://doi. org/10.2307/2579615 Reinbacher, I., Benkert, M., van Kreveld, M., Mitchell, J.S.B. and Wolff, A. 2008. Delineating boundaries for imprecise regions. Algorithmica 50. 386–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-007-9042-5 Schlemper, M.B. and Panozzo, K.A. 2020. Identity, social interaction, and networks in the region of Wisconsin’s Holyland. Journal of Cultural Geography 37. (2): 184–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2 020.1731226 Semian, M. 2012. 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. Shortridge, J.R. 1980. Vernacular regions in Kansas. American Studies 21. (1): 73–94. Shortridge, J.R. 1985. The vernacular Middle West. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 75. (1): 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1985. tb00057.x Shortridge, J.R. 1987. Changing usage of four American regional labels. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77. (3): 325–336. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00162.x Simon, C., Huigen, P. and Groote, P. 2010. Analysing regional identities in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 101. (4): 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00564.x Sinnhuber, K.A. 1954. Central Europe – Mitteleuropa – Europe Centrale: An analysis of a geograph- ical term. Transactions and Papers of the Institute of British Geographers 20. 15–39. https://doi. org/10.2307/621131 Siwek, T. and Kaňok, J. 2000. Consciousness of Silesian Identity in the Mental Map. Ostrava, Ostravská univerzita. Stachowski, K. 2017. An experiment in labelling draw-a-map maps. Studies in Polish Linguistics 12. (4): 221–240. https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920 SPL.17.011.8243 Staut, M., Kovačič, G. and Ogrin, D. 2007. The spatial cognition of Mediterranean in Slovenia: (In)consis- tency between perception and physical definitions. Acta geographica Slovenica 47. (1): 105–131. https:// doi.org/10.3986/AGS47105 Stoffelen, A., Kamminga, O., Groote, P., Meijles, E., Weitkamp, G. and Hoving, A. 2024. Making use of sense of place in amalgamated municipalities. Regional & Federal Studies 34. (4): 521–543. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2022.2161526 Sublett, M.D. 2021. Corn Belt as an enterprise-nam- ing custom in the United States. Names: A Journal of Onomastics 69. (4): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5195/ names.2021.2254 Šerý, M. and Šimáček, P. 2012. Perception of the historical border between Moravia and Silesia by residents of Jeseník area as a partial aspect of their regional identity (Czech Republic). Moravian Geographical Reports 20. (2): 36–46. Šifta, M. and Chromý, P. 2017. The importance of symbols in the region formation process. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 71. (2): 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.20 17.1317285 Štika, J. 1961. Rozšíření karpatské salašnické kultury na Moravě (The spread of Carpathian shepherd culture in Moravia). Český lid 48. (3): 99–105. Tandarić, N., Maček, M., Cvitanović, M., Tekić, I., Flegar, M., Okmaca, A. and Tvrdojević, J. 2013. Spatial cognition of the Mediterranean in Croatia. Geoadria 18. (2): 181–197. https://doi.org/10.15291/ geoadria.233 Thrift, N. 1983. On the determination of social action in space and time. Environment and Planning D 1. (1): 23–57. https://doi.org/10.1068/d010023 Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E.A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M.G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C.M., Macdonald, M., Langlois, E.V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tuncalp, Ö. and Straus, S.E. 2018. PRISMA exten- sion for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169. (7): 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 Ulack, R. and Raitz, K. 1981. Appalachia: A compar- ison of the cognitive and Appalachian Regional Commission regions. Southeastern Geographer 21. (1): 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1981.0003 Vaishar, A. and Zapletalová, J. 2016. Regional identities of Czech historical lands. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65. (1): 15–25. https://doi. org/10.15201/hungeobull.65.1.2 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1984.tb01453.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1984.tb01453.x https://doi.org/10.2307/215498 https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258801200303 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120099263 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120099263 https://doi.org/10.2307/2576184 https://doi.org/10.2307/2576184 https://doi.org/10.2307/2579615 https://doi.org/10.2307/2579615 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-007-9042-5 https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2020.1731226 https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2020.1731226 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1985.tb00057.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1985.tb00057.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00162.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00162.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00564.x https://doi.org/10.2307/621131 https://doi.org/10.2307/621131 https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.17.011.8243 https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.17.011.8243 https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS47105 https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS47105 https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2022.2161526 https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2022.2161526 https://doi.org/10.5195/names.2021.2254 https://doi.org/10.5195/names.2021.2254 https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1317285 https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1317285 https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.233 https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.233 https://doi.org/10.1068/d010023 https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.1981.0003 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.65.1.2 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.65.1.2 Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.52 Vukosav, B. 2011. Geographic name Zagora and its reference to areas in the Dalmatian hinterland in the selected newspaper medium. Geoadria 16. (2): 261–281. https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.289 Vukosav, B. 2015. Perception of the spatial extent of the Zagora region in selected cartographic sources. Kartografija i geoinformacije 14. (23): 20–36. Vukosav, B. and Fuerst-Bjeliš, B. 2015. Media perception of spatial identities: Constructing an imaginative map of Dalmatian interior. Geoadria 20. (1): 23–40. https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.29 Vukosav, B. and Fuerst-Bjeliš, B. 2016. Labels of interest groups as indicators of a vernacular region: A case study in Croatia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 107. (4): 454–467. https://doi. org/10.1111/tesg.12168 Weakliem, D. and Biggert, R. 1999. Region and political opinion in the contemporary United States. Social Forces 77. (3): 868–886. https://doi. org/10.2307/3005964 Weaver, R. and Holtkamp, C. 2015. Determinants of Appalachian identity: Using vernacular traces to study cultural geographies of an American region. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106. (1): 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/0004560 8.2015.1090266 Zaga, M. and Waisel, T.Y. 2023. Mapping the Middle East: Israeli student’s geographical knowledge and perceptions. Journal of Borderlands Studies 39. (5): 931–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.20 23.2255191 Zdorkowski, R.T. and Carney, G.O. 1985. This land is my land: Oklahoma’s changing vernacular regions. Journal of Cultural Geography 5. (2): 97–106. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08873638509478552 Zelinsky, W. 1980. North America’s vernacular regions. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70. (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980. tb01293.x Zimmerbauer, K. 2011. From image to identity: Building regions by place promotion. European Planning Studies 19. (2): 243–260. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/09654313.2011.532667 Zimmerbauer, K., Riukulehto, S. and Suutari, T. 2017. Killing the regional Leviathan? Deins- titutionalization and stickiness of regions. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41. (4): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12547 https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.289 https://doi.org/10.15291/geoadria.29 https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12168 https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12168 https://doi.org/10.2307/3005964 https://doi.org/10.2307/3005964 https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1090266 https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1090266 https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2023.2255191 https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2023.2255191 https://doi.org/10.1080/08873638509478552 https://doi.org/10.1080/08873638509478552 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01293.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01293.x https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.532667 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.532667 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12547 53Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. A pp en di x N am e of th e re gi on (r es ea rc h ar ea ) w ith c ou nt ry /c on tin en t c od e Re se ar ch c ha ra ct er in va ri ou s re gi on s’ s ca le * D at a co lle ct io n te ch ni qu e co m bi ne d w ith m et ho do lo gi ca l a pp ro ac h* * Pu bl ic at io ns K ib er a ci ty – K EN / A F ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 4 –D A ad la nd , M . e t a l. (2 01 6) M id dl e Ea st – – / A F, A S, E U O 1– A , 5 –D Pá ne k, J. a nd Š en ke ří ko vá , M . ( 20 18 ); Za ga , M . a nd W ai se l, T .Y . ( 20 23 ) W es te rn S au di A ra bi a – SA U / A S ◦◦ ◦ 5– C A lh az m i, J. (2 01 7) C yp ru s – C YP / EU oo o 1– A , 5 –C Fo ti ou , C . a nd G ro hm an n, K .K . ( 20 22 ) Bo he m ia n Pa ra di se – C ZE / EU ◦ 1– A , 1 –B , 5 –D Se m ia n, M . ( 20 12 ) C ze ch ia – C ZE / EU ◦◦ ◦ | o oo 1– A , 1 –B , 2 –C , 5 –B , 5 –C , 5 –D C hr om ý, P . e t a l. (2 00 9) ; Š er ý, M . a nd Š im áč ek ,, P. (2 01 2) ; V ai sh ar , A . a nd Z ap le ta lo vá , J . (2 01 6) ; M ar ek , P . ( 20 20 , 2 02 3) ; B ar tů ně k, M . an d Bl áh a, J. D . ( 20 23 ) Si le si a – C ZE / EU ◦ 1– A , 1 –B , 2 –C , 5 –B , 5 –D Si w ek , T . a nd K aň ok , J . ( 20 00 ) W al la ch ia – C ZE / EU ◦ 1– A , 1 –C Št ik a J. (1 96 1) So ut he as t S ax on y – D EU / EU ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 1 –B Ba rt ůn ěk , M . a nd B lá ha , J .D . ( 20 23 ) Fi nl an d – FI N / EU o 1– A , 1 –B , 5 –B , 5 –D K ai st o, V . a nd W el ls , C . ( 20 21 ) M id lo th ia n re gi on – G BR / EU ◦ 1– A , 3 –C A la ni , H . e t a l. (2 00 1) U ni te d K in gd om – G BR / EU ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 4 –D Jo ne s, C .B . e t a l.( 20 08 ); Re in ba ch er , I . e t a l. (2 00 8) C ro at ia – H RV / EU ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 1 –B , 3 –C , 5 –C , 4 –D M ir oš ev ič , L . a nd V uk os av , B . ( 20 10 ); V uk os av , B. a nd F ue rs t- Bj el iš , B . ( 20 15 , 2 01 6) Za go ra – H RV / EU ◦ 1– A , 1 –B , 3 –C , 4 –D V uk os av , B . ( 20 11 , 2 01 5) ; V uk os av , B . a nd Fu er st -B je li š, B. (2 01 6) H og el an d – N LD / EU ◦ 1– A , 5 –D St of fe le n, A . e t a l. (2 02 4) Po dl as ie – P O L / E U ◦ 1– A , 1 –B , 5 –B , 5 –C , 5 –D K on op sk i, M . ( 20 21 ) Po la nd – P O L / E U oo o 5– C Bo un ds , P . ( 20 15 ); St ac ho w sk i, K . ( 20 17 ) Sl ov en ia – S V N / EU oo o 5– D G er ši č, M . ( 20 17 ) Sz ék el y La nd – R O U / EU ◦ 1– B, 2 –C Ba rt os -E le ke s, Zs . ( 20 19 ) Po do lia – U K R / E U ◦ | ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 1 –B , 5 –B , 5 –C M el ny ch uk , A . a nd G na ti uk , O . ( 20 18 ) Ta vr ia /T au ri de – U K R / E U ◦ ** *1 –A , 1 –B , 3 –B , 3 –C , 4 –D , 5 –C , 5 –D H om an yu k, M . ( 20 19 ) Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.54 A pp en di x co nt in ue d N am e of th e re gi on (r es ea rc h ar ea ) w ith c ou nt ry /c on tin en t c od e Re se ar ch c ha ra ct er in va ri ou s re gi on s’ s ca le * D at a co lle ct io n te ch ni qu e co m bi ne d w ith m et ho do lo gi ca l a pp ro ac h* * Pu bl ic at io ns U kr ai ne – U K R / E U oo o 1– A , 1 –B , 3 –B , 3 –C M el ny ch uk , A . e t a l. (2 01 4) ; G na ti uk , O . a nd M el ny ch uk , A . ( 20 19 , 2 02 1) Ba lk an s – – / E U O 1– A , 5 –D Pl ei ć, T . e t a l. (2 02 1) C en tr al E ur op e – – / E U O 1– A , 5 –D Si nn hu be r, K .A . ( 19 54 ); Bl áh a, J. D . a nd N ov áč ek , A . ( 20 16 ) D an ub e – – / E U O 5– C Pa dł o, T . e t a l. (2 02 1) M ed ite rr an ea n – – / E U O 1– A , 5 –C , 5 –D St au t, M . e t. al . ( 20 07 ); Ta nd ar ić , N . e t a l. (2 01 3) A lb er ta – C A N / N A ◦◦ ◦ 5– D M on te ll o, D .R . e t a l. (2 01 4) A pp al ac hi a – U SA / N A ◦ 1– A , 3 –C , 5 –D U la ck , R . a nd R ai tz , K . ( 19 81 ); W ea ve r, R . a nd H ol tk am p, C . ( 20 15 ) A rk an sa s – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 5– D G oo d, J. K . ( 19 81 ) C al ifo rn ia – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 4 –D , 5 –D M on te ll o, D .R . e t a l. (2 01 4) ; G ao , S . e t a l. (2 01 7) C or n Be lt – U SA / N A ◦ 1– A , 1 –B , 3 –C Su bl et t, M .D . ( 20 21 ) D ix ie – U SA / N A ◦ 3– B, 3 –C Re ed , J .S . ( 19 76 ); Re ed , J .S . e t a l. (1 99 0) ; A ld er m an , D .H . a nd B ea ve rs , R .M . ( 19 99 ); A m bi na ku di ge , S . ( 20 09 ); A nd re w s, J.R . a nd Fi nc hu m , A . ( 20 20 ) Fl or id a – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 5 –B , 5 –D La m m e, A .J. a nd O ld ak ow sk i, R. K . ( 19 82 , 2 00 7) K an sa s – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 3– C , 5 –D Sh or tr id ge , J .R . ( 19 80 ) Le hi gh V al le y – U SA / N A ◦ | ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 5 –D H ea th , D .E . ( 19 93 ) Lo ui si an a – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 3 –C M cE w en , J .W . ( 20 14 ) M ic hi ga n – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 3– C Li es ch , M . e t a l. (2 01 5) M id w es t – U SA / N A ◦ 3– C , 5 –D Br ow ne ll , J .W . ( 19 60 ); Sh or tr id ge , J .R . ( 19 85 ) N ew E ng la nd – U SA / N A ◦ 1– A , 5 –D Lo w ry , J . ( 20 13 ) N or th A m er ic a – – / N A ◦◦ ◦ 3– C Ze li ns ky , W . ( 19 80 ) N or th w es t – U SA / N A ◦ 5– D Lo w ry , J . e t a l. (2 00 8) O kl ah om a – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 5– D Zd or ko w sk i, R. T. a nd C ar ne y, G .O . ( 19 85 ) 55Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55. A pp en di x co nt in ue d N am e of th e re gi on (r es ea rc h ar ea ) w ith c ou nt ry /c on tin en t c od e Re se ar ch c ha ra ct er in va ri ou s re gi on s’ s ca le * D at a co lle ct io n te ch ni qu e co m bi ne d w ith m et ho do lo gi ca l a pp ro ac h* * Pu bl ic at io ns Ro ck y M ou nt ai ns – U SA / N A ◦ 1– A , 3 –C H ol tk am p, C . e t a l. (2 01 8) Sa nt a Ba rb ar a ci ty – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 1– A . 2 –C , 5 –C Ph il li ps , D .W . a nd M on te ll o, D .R . ( 20 17 ) So ut h – U SA / N A ◦ 3– B, 3 –C Re ed , J .S . ( 19 76 ); Re ed , J .S . e t a l. (1 99 0) ; A m bi na ku di ge , S . ( 20 09 ) So ut hw es t – U SA / N A ◦ 1– A , 3 –C H ol tk am p, C . e t a l. (2 01 8) Te xa s – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 5 –D Jo rd an , T .G . ( 19 78 ) Th e La nd o f L in co ln – U SA / N A ◦ 3– C C ol te n, C .E . ( 19 97 ) U ni ed S ta te s of A m er ic a – U SA / N A oo o 3– C , 4 –D , 5 –D G oo d, J. K . ( 19 81 ); H al e, R .F . ( 19 84 ); Sh or tr id ge , J .R . ( 19 87 ); A ld er m an , D .H . a nd G oo d, D .B . ( 19 96 ); Ed m on ds on , D . ( 20 18 ) W is co ns in – U SA / N A ◦◦ ◦ 1– A , 5 –D H al e, R .F . ( 19 83 ) W is co ns in ’s H ol yl an d – U SA / N A ◦ 5– D Sc hl em pe r, M .B . a nd P an oz zo , K .A . ( 20 20 ) Ve ne zu el an A nd es – V EN / SA ◦ 1– A , 1 –B Pr ic e, M .D . ( 19 96 ) Th e W or ld – – / – O O O 1– A , 5 –D Po lo ns ký , F . e t a l. (2 01 0) ; D id el on , C . e t a l. (2 01 1) *R es ea rc h ch ar ac te r in v ar io us r eg io ns ’ s ca le : ◦ = b el ow s ta te s ca le ; o = s ta te s ca le ; O = a bo ve s ta te s ca le ; ◦ = s in gl e re gi on ; o oo = m ul tip le r eg io ns (r eg io n- al is at io n) . * *D at a co lle ct io n te ch ni qu e co m bi ne d w ith m et ho do lo gi ca l a pp ro ac h: 1 = li te ra tu re , s pa tia l i nf or m at io n an d re se ar ch er s’ fi el d no te s an al ys is ; 2 = ce ns us a nd e le ct or al b eh av io ur a na ly si s; 3 = d ir ec to ri es , g az ett ee rs a nd o th er d at ab as es a na ly si s; 4 = m ed ia , v ol un te er ed g eo gr ap hi c in fo rm at io n an d w ar ra nt y ca rd s an al ys is ; 5 = q ue st io ni ng . A = te rr ito ri al id en tit y di sc ou rs e; B = te rr ito ri al id en tit y de ve lo pm en t; C = te rr ito ri al id en tit y m ar ke rs ; D = te rr ito - ri al id en tit y pe rc ep tio n. * ** A ss um ed m et ho do lo gy . Bartůněk, M. and Marek, P. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (1) 37–55.56