Advanced search

Neighbourhood and perceptions in small cities on different Russian borders

Full Text:


National neighbourhood have a significant influence on the life of people living along the state borders. They shape human interactions across borders and border residents’ attitude towards neighbours. Many concepts like ‘neighbourhood’, ‘proximity’, ‘trust’, ‘(un)familiarity’, and ‘otherness’ are usually used to explain this processes in border studies. However, insufficient attention has been paid to the comparing of perceptions, life strategies and everyday life of borderland population depends on neighbouring policy, border regime and neighbourship. Here we focus on different Russian borders with Ukraine (the new contested border in Crimea), Kazakhstan (the EAEU`s internal border), and China (old international and contact border) using different sources of information, including expert interviews as well as field observations and focus groups conducted with locals. We find that people differentiate between the neighbors they know and the neighbouring state they do not trust. Significant differences between neighbouring territories, unfamiliarity, and otherness are not allowed to get in the way of contact, because it is this contact that allows local residents to make a living. In conclusion, our results suggest that while the objective differences between the various sections of Russian borders serve to diversify the neighbourhood situations, their subjective perceptions and social representations serve to unite them.

About the Authors

Maria V. Zotova
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation

Anton A. Gritsenko
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences; Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
Russian Federation




1. Aure M. (2011). Borders of understanding: re-making frontiers in the Russian-Norwegian contact zone. Ethnopolitics, 2, 171-186.

2. Balogh P. (2013). Sleeping abroad but working at home: cross-border residential mobility between transnationalism and (re)bordering. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 95(2), 189-204.

3. Boschma R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A Critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.

4. Brambilla C. (2015). Exploring the critical potential of the borderscapes concept. Geopolitics, 1, 14-34.

5. Brazhalovich F.L., Kljuchnikov M.I., Kolosov V.A., Pavljuk S.G., Popov F.A. and Turov N.L. (2017). Life over the conflict borders: socioeconomic aspects of cross-border relations within divided cities (on the example of Bender and Dubossary). Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seria Geograficheskaya, 3, 45-57 (in Russian).

6. Dolińska K. and Niedźwiecka-Iwańczak N. (2017) German neighbours from across the river – Insiders? Strangers? Others? Social Studies, 1, 95-116.

7. Domaniewski S. and Studzińska D. (2016) The small border traffic zone between Poland and Kaliningrad region (Russia): The impact of a local visa-free border regime. Geopolitics, 21(3), 538-555.

8. Ghosh S. (2011). Cross-border activities in everyday life: the Bengal borderland. Contemporary South Asia, 19, 49-60.

9. Gudkov L. (1999). Fear as a frame of comprehension. Monitoring public opinion 1999, 6 (44), 46-53.

10. Helleiner J. (2009). Young borderlanders, tourism work, and anti-Americanism in Canadian Niagara. Identities: global studies in culture and power, 16 (4), 438-462.

11. Houtum H. van (1999) The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries. Geopolitics 10(4), 672-679.

12. Koch K (2018). The spatiality of trust in EU external cross-border cooperation, European Planning Studies, 26(3), 591-610

13. Kolosov V.A. and Zotova M.V. (2019) China and Russian-Chinese relations in the mirror of Russian discourse. Problems of Geography, 148, 281-308 (in Russian).

14. Kozera B. (1999). «Stranger» and «Insider». Three reflections of an uninstrumental reason. In: Others insiders. Studies on ethnic issues. Katowice, 39-48.

15. Laine J. (2016). Threats, challenges, and Finnish-Russian cross-border security cooperation: a Finnish perspective tourism and geopolitics. In: Derek Hall, ed., Tourism and geopolitics: issues and concepts from central and Eastern Europe, Wallingford, CAB International, 178-191.

16., (2015). Fears [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 Dec. 2019] (in Russian).

17. Newman D. and Paasi A. (1998). Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography, 22 (2), 186-207.

18. Rippl S., Petrat A., Kindervater A. and Boehnke K. (2009). Transnational social capital: Are border regions a laboratory of social integration in Europe? Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 19, 79-103.

19. Schack M. (2001). Regional identity in border regions: The difference borders make, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 16 (2), 99-114.

20. Scott J.W., Celata F., Coletti R. (2019). Bordering imaginaries and the everyday construction of the Mediterranean neighbourhood. Introduction to the special issue European Urban and Regional Studies, 26(1), 3-8

21. Spierings B. and Velde M. van der (2013). Cross-Border Differences and Unfamiliarity: Shopping Mobility in the Dutch-German RhineWaal Euroregion. European Planning Studies, 1, 5-23

22. Stoklosa K. (2013). The border in the narratives of the inhabitants of the German-Polish border region. In: European Border Regions in Comparison, 257-274.

23. Szytniewski B. and Spierings B. (2014). Encounters with Otherness: Implications of (Un)familiarity for Daily Life in Borderlands. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 29(3), 339-351.

24. Szytniewski B., Spierings B. and Velde M. van der (2017). Socio-cultural proximity, daily life and shopping tourism in the Dutch-German border region. Tourism Geographies, 19(1), 63-77.

25. Timothy D. J. (1995). Political boundaries and tourism: Borders as tourist attractions, Tourism Management, 16(7), 525-532

26. Torre A. and Rallet A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59.

27. Trippl M. (2010). Developing cross-border regional innovation systems: Key factors and chal- lenges. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101, 150-160.

28. Velde B. and van der Spierings B. (2008). Cross border shopping and the «bandwith of familiarity»: exploring the positive impact of national borders on consumer mobility in the Euregion Rhine, Nijmegen, Nijmegen School of Management.

29. Vendina O.I. and Kolosov V.A. (2007). Partnership to bypass barriers. In: Russia in global politics, 1, 142-154 (in Russian).

30. Zotova M., Gritsenko A. and Sebentsov A. (2018). Everyday Life in the Russian Borderlands: the motives and determinants of crossborder practices. Mir Rossii, 4, 56-77 (in Russian).

For citation:

Zotova M.V., Gritsenko A.A. Neighbourhood and perceptions in small cities on different Russian borders. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2020;13(1):64-73.

Views: 249

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

ISSN 2071-9388 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1565 (Online)