1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Bauska District |
Lithuania |
“67 |
-.7 |
“9.4 |
4667 |
~L2 |
“8 |
Aizkraukle District |
Lithuania |
“90 |
^T2 |
T9 |
^434 |
~L2 |
“6 |
Jekabpils District |
Lithuania |
~442 |
"T2 |
12.3 |
“619 |
~L2 |
T5 |
Daugavpils District |
Lithuania, |
~229 |
"T4 |
20.5 |
~664 |
“0.8 |
~20 |
Kraslava District |
Byelorussia |
~268 |
-12.9 |
19.4 |
~226 |
“0.6 |
~23 |
Ludza District |
Russia |
^267 |
-13.2 |
24.5 |
^^238 |
“0.5 |
266 |
Balvi District |
Russia |
~220 |
-10.4 |
25.8 |
~224 |
“0.4 |
244 |
Aluksne District |
Russia, |
^200 |
-J |
“8.5 |
^^263 |
“0.5 |
Л9 |
Valka District |
Estonia |
~577 |
T5 |
T2 |
^3^23 |
“0/7 |
Лз |
Valmiera District |
Estonia |
^107 |
TI |
“8.0 |
^^845 |
T9 | |
Limbazi District |
Estonia |
“87 |
TÏ |
“7.4 |
^431 |
“0.9 |
~12 |
Source: Latvia's regions in figures 2003, Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Riga,
2003
Latvias road atlas, Jana seta, 2002
Development of Regions in Latvia, State company Ltd. “Regional Development”,
2003
Result from table 1 shows four districts particularly with negative tendencies of
development. All four districts has border with Russia or Byelorussia. There is lowest
level of living because very high unemployment rate in these regions: 3 times higher
as the average unemployment rate in Latvia in year 2002. It is connected with changes
from 1991 when there was necessity to change thinking and understandings about free
trade philosophy and start to take decisions themselves not to fill commands. This
tendency has close interaction with activity of enterprise numbers, which is also the
lowest number in these regions. The crucial indicator is number of natural increase of
population for tourism development in cross border development and cooperation
processes. It is key element of development in cross border regions because without
human resources are not possible to develop any activities: to establish enterprises; to
create new jobs; to cooperate with neighbourhoods regions, to develop economic
diversification activities. The average natural increase of population rate is negative in
all Latvia country -5.1 in 2002, but the most negative indicator is in Ludza district -
13.2. There is interaction between indicators if low number of natural increase of