FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

Folia Geographica 2021, 63/1, pp. 64-84

SUBURBANIZATION, BUT CENTRALIZATION? MIGRATION PATTERNS IN THE POST-SOVIET FUNCTIONAL URBAN REGION – EVIDENCE FROM KYIV

Oleksii HAVRYLIUK A*, Oleksiy GNATIUK B, Kostyantyn MEZENTSEV C

Received: March 5, 2021 | Revised: April 25, 2021 | Accepted: May 11, 2021

Paper No. 21-63/1-587

A* Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 01601, Kyiv, Ukraine

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7567-0282
oleksii.havryliuk.ukr@gmail.com (corresponding author)

B Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 01601, Kyiv, Ukraine

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1818-2415
alexgnat22@ukr.net

C Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 01601, Kyiv, Ukraine

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1974-7860
mezentsev@knu.ua

 



FULL TEXT

Abstract
Despite being one of the most influential paradigms of urban studies, the stages of urban development model have been criticised for inability to describe and explain the urban evolution in specific economic, social and political conditions. In particular, this refers to the post-socialist world. This paper presents the study of migration patterns in Kyiv functional urban region (KFUR) using the stages urban development model and the alternative approach by Sýkora and Posová (2011) derived from the original model. In this way, the paper intends to evaluate the existing methodology and to make the comparative assessment of the results. The results show that both approaches may be used for classifying urban regions in terms of growth/decline and centralization/decentralization. At the same time, they have limited potential to predict the future development of the post-Soviet urban regions. Despite the presence of common trends, revealed migration patterns in the KFUR substantially differ from the patterns of urban evolution in the post-socialist countries of the Central Europe due to specific social, economic and political conditions in the post-Soviet space.

Key words Migration pattern, post-Soviet functional urban region, stages of urban development, Kyiv, Ukraine.

REFERENCES

  1. AHLFELDT, G. M., WENDLAND, N. (2016). The spatial decay in commuting probabilities: Employment potential vs. commuting gravity. Economics Letters, 143, 125-129.
  2. BEZÁK, A. (1999). Development of urban and rural populations in Slovakia between 1970 and 1995. Geographica Slovenica, 31, 170-177.
  3. BORÉN, T., GENTILE, M. (2007). Metropolitan processes in post-communist states: an introduction. Geografiska Annaler B, 89, 2, 95-110.
  4. BRADE, I., MAKHROVA, A., NEFEDOVA, T. (2014). Suburbanization of Moscow’s urban region. In Stanilov, K., Sýkora, L., eds., Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 97-132.
  5. BRADE, I., SMIGIEL, C., KOVACS, Z. (2010). Suburban residential development in postsocialist urban regions: the case of Moscow, Sofia and Budapest. In Kilper, H., ed., German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy 2009. New Disparities in Spatial Development in Europe. Berlin: Springer, pp. 79-104.
  6. BROWN, D., SCHAFFT, K.A. (2002). Population deconcentration in Hungary during the post-socialist transition. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 233-244.
  7. CHAMPION, T. (2001). Urbanization, suburbanization, counterurbanization and reurbanization. In Paddison, R., ed., Handbook of Urban Studies. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 143-161.
  8. CHESHIRE, P. (1995). A new phase of urban development in Western Europe? The evidence for the 1980s. Urban Studies, 32, 7, 1045-1063.
  9. CHESHIRE, P., HAY, D.G. (1989). Urban Problems in Western Europe – An Economic Analysis. London: Unwin Hyman.
  10. DENYSENKO, O. (2012). Protsesy metropolizatsiji: svitohospodars’kyj aspect [Процеси метрополізації: світогосподарський аспект]. Kyiv: NAS of Ukraine.
  11. DEPARTMENT FOR ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING (2015). Draft General Plan of Kyiv and its Suburban Zone until 2025. Access mode: https://kga.gov.ua/generalnij-plan/genplan2025.
  12. DE VRIES, J.J., NIJKAMP, P., RIETVELD, P. (2009). Exponential or power distance-decay for commuting? An alternative specification. Environment and Planning A, 41, 2, 461- 480.
  13. DREWETT, R., ROSSI, A. (1981). General urbanisation trends in Western Europe. In Klaassen, L.H., Molle, W.T.M., Paelinck J.H.P., eds., Dynamic of Urban Development. Hants: Gower, pp. 119-136.
  14. FISHER, T. (2003). Differentiation of growth processes in the peri-urban region: an Australian case study. Urban Studies, 40, 3, 551-565.
  15. FORD, T. (1999). Understanding Population Growth in the Peri-Urban Region. International Journal of Population Geography, 5, 4, 297-311.
  16. GAJOVIC, V. (2013). Comparative analysis of different methods and obtained results for delineation of functional urban areas. Spatium, 29, 8-15.
  17. GAŁKA, J., WARYCH-JURAS, A. (2018). Suburbanization and migration in Polish metropolitan areas during political transition. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 58, 2, 63-72.
  18. GOH, S., LEE, K., PARK, J.S., CHOI, M.Y. (2012). Modification of the gravity model and application to the metropolitan Seoul subway system. Physical Review E – Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 86, 2, 1-6.
  19. GLATTER, J., SIEDHOFF, M. (2008). Reurbanisation: inflationary use of an iInsufficiently defined term? Comments on the definition of a key concept of urban geography, with selected findings for the city of Dresden. Die Erde, 139, 4, 289-308.
  20. GNATIUK, O. (2017). Demographic dimension of suburbanization in Ukraine in the light of urban development theories. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica, 52, 2, 13-25.
  21. GOLUBCHIKOV, O. (2004). Urban planning in Russia: Towards the market. European Planning Studies, 12, 2, 230-247.
  22. HALL, P.G., HAY, D.G. (1980). Growth Centres in the European Urban System. London: Heinemann.
  23. HALLIDAY, J., COOMBES, M. (1995). In search of counterurbanisation: some evidence from Devon on the relationship between patterns of migration and motivation. Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 4, 433-446.
  24. HERFERT, G. (2007). Regionale Polarisierung der demographischen Entwicklung in Ostdeutschland – Gleichwertigkeit der Lebensverhältnisse? Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 65, 435-455.
  25. HIRT, S. (2007). Suburbanizing Sofia: characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography , 28, 755-780.
  26. KABISCH, N., HAASE, D. (2011). Diversifying European agglomerations: Evidence of urban population trends for the 21st century. Population Space and Place, 17, 3, 236-253.
  27. KLAASSEN, L.H., SCIMENI, G. (1981). Theoretical issues in urban dynamic. In Klaassen, L.H., Molle, W.T.M., Paelinck, J.H.P., eds., Dynamic of Urban Development. Hants: Gower, pp. 8-28.
  28. KLUSÁČEK, P., MARTINÁT, S., MATZNETTER, W., WISBAUER, A. (2009). Urban development in selected Czech and Austrian city regions. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis – Geographica, 40, 2, 27-57.
  29. KOK, H., KOVÁCS, Z. (1999). The process of suburbanization in the metropolitan area of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 14, 2, 119-141.
  30. KOSTINSKIY, G. (2001). Post-Socialist Cities in Flux. In Paddison, R., ed., Handbook of Urban Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 451-465.
  31. KOVÁCS, Z., TOSICS, I. (2014). Urban Sprawl on the Danube: The Impacts of Suburbanization in Budapest. In Stanilov, K., Sýkora, L., eds., Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 33-64.
  32. KRISJANE, Z., BERZINS, M. (2012). Post-socialist urban trends: new patterns and motivations for migration in the suburban areas of Riga, Latvia. Urban Studies, 49, 2, 289-306.
  33. LEETMAA, K. (2008). Residential Suburbanisation in the Tallinn Metropolitan Area. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
  34. LEETMAA, K., KÄHRIK, A., NUGA, M., TAMMARU, T. (2014). Suburbanization of Moscow’s urban region. In Stanilov, K., Sýkora, L., eds., Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 192-224.
  35. LEETMAA, K.,  TAMMARU, T. (2007). Suburbanisation in countries in transition: destinations of suburbanizers in the Tallinn metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 89, 127-146.
  36. LINDGREN, U. (2003). Who is the counter-urban mover? Evidence from the Swedish urban system. International Journal of Population Geography, 9, 5, 399-418.
  37. LISOWSKI, A. (2005). Procesy centralizacji i decentralizacji w aglomeracji warszawskiej w latach 1950–2002. Prace i Studia Geograficzne, 35, 13-44.
  38. MALCHYKOVA, D., PYLYPENKO, I. (2017). Vid “rozirvanoho” prostoru do metropolizatsiji i suburbanizatsii: Khersonska miska ahlomeratsija u novykh vymirakh urbohenezu [Від «розірваного» простору до метрополізації і субурбанізації: Херсонська міська агломерація у нових вимірах урбогенезу]. In Mezentsev, K., Olijnyk, Ya., Mezentseva, N., eds., Urbanistychna Ukrajina: V Epitsentri Prostorovykh Zmin [Урбаністична Україна: в епіцентрі просторових змін]. Kyiv: Feniks, pp. 326-338.
  39. MANSHYLINA, T. (2015). Suspil’no-heohrafichne doslidzhennia rozvytku mist-suputnykiv ta prymis’koji zony Kyjeva [Суспільно-географічне дослідження розвитку міст-супутників та приміської зони Києва]. PhD thesis. Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.
  40. MASUCCI, A.P., SERRAS, J., JOHANSSON, A., BATTY, M. (2013). Gravity versus radiation models: On the importance of scale and heterogeneity in commuting flows. Physical Review E – Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 88, 2, 1-9.
  41. MATZNETTER, W. (2004). The Vienna and Bratislava urban regions: comparing urban development under (welfare) capitalism and (post-) communism. European Spatial Research and Policy, 11, 1, 61-77.
  42. MEZENTSEV, K., KLIUIKO, T. (2015). Prostorovi transformatsiji zhytlovykh funktsij u prymis’kij zoni Kyjeva [Просторові трансформації житлових функцій у приміській зоні Києва]. Human Geography Journal, 18, 1, 87-93.
  43. MEZENTSEV, K., BRADE, I., MEZENTSEVA, N. (2012). New social and economic processes in Kyiv’s hinterland. Human Geography Journal, 12, 1, 156-160.
  44. MEZENTSEV, K., BRADE, I., MEZENTSEVA, N. (2014). Suburbanizatsija v metropolitenskikh regionakh: opyt Ukrajiny [Субурбанизация в метрополитенских регионах: опыт Украины]. In Druzhinin, A. G., ed., Pozicionirovanie Rossii i ee regionov v sovremennom mire: obshchestvenno-geograficheskij analiz i prognoz. Saint-Petersburg – Rostov-on-Don, pp. 120-125.
  45. MEZENTSEV, K., HAVRYLIUK, O. (2015). Testuvannia modeli dyferentsial’noji urbanizatsiji v Ukrajini [Тестування моделі диференціальної урбанізації в Україні]. Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna Geografija, 73, 15-26.
  46. MEZENTSEV, K., MEZENTSEVA, N. (2012). Urbanizovani terytoriji Ukrajiny: prychyny ta naslidky transformatsiji u postradyans’kyj period [Урбанізовані території України: причини та наслідки трансформації у пострадянський період]. In Berghauer, O., Genci, S., Dnistrianskyi, M., eds., Social Geographical Challenges in the Eastern Central Europe of the XXI Century, vol. 1. Uzhhorod: Lira, pp. 310-317.
  47. MEZENTSEV, K., MEZENTSEVA, N. (2017). Zhytlova suburbanizatsija v Ukrajini: trendy ta vidminnosti [Житлова субурбанізація в Україні: тренди та відмінності]. In Mezentsev, K., Olijnyk, Ya., Mezentseva, N., eds., Urbanistychna Ukrajina: V Epitsentri Prostorovykh Zmin [Урбаністична Україна: в епіцентрі просторових змін]. Kyiv: Feniks, pp. 268-287.
  48. NEFEDOVA, T.G., SLEPUKHINA, I., BRADE, I. (2016). Migration attractiveness of cities in the post-Soviet space: a case study of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Regional Research of Russia, 6, 2, 131-143.
  49. NOVOTNÝ, L. (2012). Trendy migracji i rozwój miejskiego regionu funkcjonalnego Bratysława. Przestrzeń i forma, 17, 381-394.
  50. NUISSL, H., RINK, D. (2005). The ‘production’ of urban sprawl in Eastern Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation. Cities, 22, 2, 123-134.
  51. NYSTRÖM, J. (1992). The cyclical urbanization model: a critical analysis. Geografiska Annaler B, 74, 2,133-144.
  52. OECD. (2013). Definition of Functional Urban Areas (FUA) for the OECD metropolitan database.
  53. OLIJNYK, YA., ZAPOTOTSKYI, S., ZAPOTOTSKA, V. (2019). Rynok zhytla Kyjivskoho rehionu: suspilno-heohrafichnyj vymir [Ринок житла Київського регіону : суспільно-географічний вимір]. Kyiv: Taras Shevchenko National University.
  54. OSADA, S. (2003). The Japanese urban system 1970–1990. Progress in Planning, 59,  3, 125-231.
  55. OUŘEDNÍČEK, M. (2000). Teorie stádií vývoje měst a diferenciální urbanizace. Geografie – Sborník České geografické společnosti, 105, 4, 361-369.
  56. OUŘEDNÍČEK, M. (2005): New suburban development in the post-socialist city: the case of Prague. In Eckardt, F., ed., Paths of Urban Transformation. Peter Lang, pp. 143-156.
  57. OUŘEDNÍČEK, M. (2007). Differential suburban development in the Prague urban region. Geografiska Annaler B, 89, 111-125.
  58. PERSYN, D., TORFS, W. (2015). A gravity equation for commuting with an application to estimating regional border effects in Belgium. Journal of Economic Geography, 16, 155-175.
  59. PICHLER-MILANOVIĆ, N. (2014). Confronting suburbanization in Ljubljana: from “urbanization of the countryside to urban sprawl. In Stanilov, K., Sýkora, L., eds., Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 65-96.
  60. PIDGRUSHNYI, G., DENYSENKO, O. (2013). Kyjiv ta prylehla terytorija v systemi tsentro-peryferijnoji vzajemodiji [Київ та прилегла територія в системі центро-периферійної взаємодії]. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 1, 27-35.
  61. POSOVÁ, D., SÝKORA, L. (2011). Urbanizace a suburbanizace v městských regionech Prahy a Vídně: strukturální rozdíly v podmínkách odlišných politicko-ekonomických režimů. Geografie, 116, 3, 276-299.
  62. RAŹNIAK, P., WINIARCZYK-RAŹNIAK, A. (2013). Spatial distribution and differences in migration patterns and revenues of gminas in the Kraków Metropolitan Area. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series, 19, 73-86.
  63. ROBERTS, S. (1991). A critical evaluation of the city life cycle idea. Urban Geography, 12, 5, 431-449.
  64. RODRIGUES DA SILVA, A.N., MANZATO, G.G., PEREIRA, H.T.S. (2014). Defining functional urban regions in Bahia, Brazil, using roadway coverage and population density variables. Journal of Transport Geography, 36, 79-88.
  65. SIMINI, F., GONZÁLEZ, M.C., MARITAN, A., BARABÁSI, A.-L. (2012). A universal model for mobility and migration patterns. Nature, 484, 96-100.
  66. SJÖBERG, O. (1992). Underurbanisation and the zero urban growth hypotheses: diverted migration in Albania. Geografiska Annaler B, 74, 3-19.
  67. STANILOV, K., ed. (2007). The Postsocialist City: Restructuring of Urban Form and Space in Central and Eastern Europe after Communism. Dordrecht: Springer.
  68. STANILOV, K., HIRT, S. (2014). Sprawling Sofia: postsocialist suburban growth in the Bulgarian capital. In Stanilov, K., Sýkora, L., eds., Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 163-191.
  69. STANILOV, K., SÝKORA, L. (2014). Postsocialists suburbanization patterns and dynamics: a comparative perspective. In Stanilov, K., Sýkora, L., eds., Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 256-295.
  70. SÝKORA, L., CERMÁK, D. (1998). City growth and migration patterns in the context of ‘communist’ and ‘transitory’ periods in Prague’s urban development. Espace, Population, Sociétés, 3, 405-416.
  71. SÝKORA, L., MULÍCEK, O. (2014). Prague: urban growth and regional sprawl. In Stanilov, K., Sýkora, L., eds., Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 133-162.
  72. SÝKORA, L., NOVÁK, J. (2007). A city in motion: time-space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and the structuration of the spatial organization of Prague metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler B, 89, 2, 147-167.
  73. SÝKORA, L., POSOVÁ, D. (2011). Formy urbanizace: kritické zhodnocení modelu stadií vývoje měst a návrh alternativní metody klasifikace forem urbanizace. Geografie, 116, 1, 1-22.
  74. VAN DEN BERG, L. (1999). The urban life cycle and the role of a market-oriented revitalization policy in Western Europe. In Summers, A., Cheshire, P., Senn, L., eds., Urban Change in the United States and Western Europe. Comparative Analysis. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, pp. 539-558.
  75. VAN DEN BERG, L., DREWETT, R., KLAASSEN, L.H., ROSSI, A., VIJVERBERG, N.H.T. (1982). A study of growth and decline. Oxford: Pegasus.
  76. VARTIANEN, P. (1989). Counterurbanization: a challenge for socio-theoretical geography. Journal of Rural Studies, 5, 123-136.
  77. WOLFF, M. (2017). Understanding the role of centralization processes for cities – evidence from a spatial perspective of urban Europe 1990 – 2010. Cities, 75, 20-29.
  78. ZAKIROVA, B. (2010). Shrinkage at the urban fringe: crisis or opportunity? Berkeley Planning Journal, 23,1, 58-82.