Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjom20
Journal of Maps
ISSN: (Print) 1744-5647 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjom20
A synthetic approach to the delimitation of the
Prague Metropolitan Area
Martin Ouředníček, Jiří Nemeškal, Petra Špačková, Martin Hampl & Jakub
Novák
To cite this article: Martin Ouředníček, Jiří Nemeškal, Petra Špačková, Martin Hampl & Jakub
Novák (2018) A synthetic approach to the delimitation of the Prague Metropolitan Area, Journal of
Maps, 14:1, 26-33, DOI: 10.1080/17445647.2017.1422446
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2017.1422446
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group on behalf of Journal of Maps
View supplementary material
Published online: 08 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Social Science
A synthetic approach to the delimitation of the Prague Metropolitan Area
Martin Ouředníček ,Jiří Nemeškal, Petra Špačková, Martin Hampl and Jakub Novák
†
Faculty of Science, Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Urban and Regional Laboratory, Charles University, Prague,
Czechia
ABSTRACT
The main objective of this paper is to apply a synthetic approach to the delimitation of
metropolitan areas, which combines traditional commuting data from the population
census with alternative approaches. The presented delimitation, which was originally
realized in response to a request from Prague’s planning authority, is based on three
methodological pillars: the use of economic and social aspects of metropolization;
suburbanization; and daily mobility within the Prague Metropolitan Area. Integrated systems
of centers calculated from population census data are complemented with the use of
mobile phone data. There was a surprising level of similarity in the spatial patterns gained
from the two methods. Zones of residential suburbanization and time spent in the core city
provided a complex perspective on the daily urban system within the Prague Metropolitan
Area. A synthetic map based on the four methods is provided, accompanied by five
analytical maps on a smaller scale.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 24 May 2017
Revised 13 December 2017
Accepted 16 December 2017
KEYWORDS
Regionalization; commuting;
suburbanization; mobile
phone data; Prague
Metropolitan Area; Czechia
1. Introduction
The delimitation of metropolitan areas is one of the
traditional practical tasks in urban/settlement geogra-
phy and planning. Frey and Zimmer (2001) offer an
overview of different approaches to the delimitation
of metropolitan areas in which they distinguish eco-
logical, economic, and social aspects of delimitation.
Ecological approaches use basic criteria connected to
population size and density. Within the Czech tra-
dition of settlement geography, the so-called areas of
maximal population density developed by Jaromír Kor-
čák (1966) serve as an example of this approach. This
method was further developed by Martin Hampl
(Hampl, Gardavský, & Kühnl, 1987). Economic
approaches to the delimitation of metropolitan areas
employ measures such as the economic structure of
the population, commuting patterns, and concen-
tration of jobs. This approach led to the establishment
of various definitions of metropolitan areas in the form
of metropolitan statistical areas, functional urban areas,
or metropolitan labor areas (Hall & Hay, 1980;John-
ston, 2009;Kostelecký & Čermák, 2004;Kraft, Halás,
&Vančura, 2014;Sýkora & Mulíček, 2009;van den
Berg, Drewett, Klaassen, Rossi, & Vijverberg, 1982).
The incorporation of social aspects is relatively rare
in comparison with the former two approaches and
involves consideration of ‘soft’characteristics such as
urban lifestyle, social climate, residential satisfaction,
and social cohesion (Doležalová & Ouředníček, 2006;
Špačková, Dvořáková, & Tobrmanová, 2016;Špačková
&Ouředníček, 2012).
The main objective of the present paper is to apply a
synthetic approach to the delimitation of metropolitan
areas, which combines traditional commuting data
obtained from the population census with alternative
approaches and new sources of data connected to
more economic and social aspects of metropolization
and suburbanization. The delimitation of the Prague
Metropolitan Area (PMA) originated from a request
from Prague’s planning authority, the Institute for
Planning and Development of the Capital City of Pra-
gue, for Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI), which
is a new tool introduced by the European Structural
and Investment Funds. ITI aims to make it easier to
manage territorial strategies that require funding
from multiple sources and to promote a more ‘place-
based’form of policy making (European Commission,
2014). This is of particular importance in the case of
the Prague Metropolitan Area, which is located at the
junction of two self-governed administrative regions
with different policies, strategies, and planning docu-
ments. For example, Prague and the Central Bohemia
Region have two separate regional master plans, and
the area within the administrative borders of the city
of Prague is coordinated independently from the
remainder of the metropolitan area. This leads to the
main research question in the present paper: Is it
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of Journal of Maps
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CONTACT Martin Ouředníček martin.ourednicek@natur.cuni.cz Faculty of Science, Department of Social Geography and Regional Development,
Urban and Regional Laboratory, Charles University, Albertov 6, Prague 2, Prague 128 43, Czechia
†
Deceased.
JOURNAL OF MAPS, 2018
VOL. 14, NO. 1, 26–33
https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2017.1422446
possible to employ a common tool for metropolitan
planning and more specifically to overcome the con-
temporary polarity of the self-governed administrative
division within the Prague Metropolitan Area? A deli-
mitation of the Prague Metropolitan Area can be per-
ceived as one of the first steps towards more
coordinated governance of the largest urban center in
Czechia.
In the Czech context, the term ‘metropolitan area’is
closely related to the process of metropolization, which
can be perceived as a high level of urbanization featur-
ing a profound spatial division of labor and a growing
inter-relationship between different parts of the
regional settlement system (Musil, 1967, p. 203). The
metropolitan area is a functional region that is formed
through the socio-spatial division of labor, and func-
tions between different settlements of the region. This
functional differentiation developed during the prein-
dustrial, industrial, and post-industrial periods of the
settlement system (see Figure 1). The contemporary
development of the settlement system and large metro-
politan regions features reciprocal (centripetal and cen-
trifugal) relationships, the organic cooperation of
settlements, and high spatial concentrations of contacts
within the metropolitan region (Hampl et al., 1987;
Hampl, 2005). The first pillar of our methodological
approach to the delimitation of the Prague Metropoli-
tan Region (Integrated systems of centers) is developed
from these ideas.
The most important urban process contributing to
the internal differentiation of metropolitan regions in
post-socialist countries is suburbanization (Ouřední-
ček, 2007;Pászto, Brychtová, Tuček,Marek,&Burian,
2015 in this journal). Suburbanization can be defined
as the movement of populations and their activities
(residential function, jobs, services, administration,
etc.) from the core cities to the hinterland. Both the
residential and commercial forms of suburbanization
are developed around Prague (Sýkora & Ouředníček,
2007), but monitoring residential suburbanization is
more useful for the delimitation of a metropolitan
region. While locations alongside the main highways
and radial patterns are more characteristic of the dis-
tribution of commercial functions (logistics, hyper-
markets, and offices), residential suburbanization
creates concentric patterns of new development. The
distinctive features of residential suburbanization
are new housing construction and the migration of
the population from the core city of the metropolitan
area (similarly Halás, Klapka, & Tonev, 2016). There-
fore, these two measures –migration from the core
city to the hinterland and intensity of housing con-
struction –are used in the present paper for the deli-
mitation of zones of residential suburbanization
(Ouředníček, Špačková, & Novák, 2013), which rep-
resents the second pillar of our methodological
approach.
There is another form of spatial mobility, in
addition to migration, that can be used to identify
daily urban systems (Doxiadis, 1970). In accordance
with concepts of time–space geography (Hägerstrand,
1982), individual mobility within the metropolitan
area for various kinds of activities can structure the
social and functional environment of that metropolitan
region (Giddens, 1984;Novák & Sýkora, 2007). The
Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis at University
College London has developed systematic studies of
daily mobilities within cities (Kitchin, 2014;Zhong
et al., 2016). Daily routines within the metropolitan
area can be traced using data from mobile phone oper-
ators on an aggregate level (Ahas, Laineste, Aasa, &
Mark, 2007,2009,2010;Pospíšilová & Novák, 2016).
For example, such data were used for mapping com-
muting patterns and functional regionalization in Esto-
nia (Novák, Ahas, Aasa, & Silm, 2013 in this journal).
In the case of Prague’s hinterland, mobile phone data
were employed in a case study of the Dolní Břežany
suburb (Novák & Novobilský, 2013). Mapping of
daily paths using mobile phone data is, therefore, the
third pillar of our methodological approach.
The main map presented here is a cartographic syn-
thesis of these three different pillars used to deliminate
the Prague Metropolitan Area based on statistical ana-
lyses and the combination of results from each pillar.
The area consists of 14 administrative units –the Capi-
tal City of Prague and 13 adjacent areas of municipali-
ties with extended powers (MEPs) (official units of
public administration). Each partial pillar is visualized
in one or two smaller scale maps.
2. Methods and data
2.1. General approach to the delimitation of the
Prague Metropolitan Area
The delimitation of the Prague Metropolitan Area is
based on several inter-related requirements. First, we
aim to use theoretically and methodically verified con-
cepts and to base the final delimitation on the triangu-
lation of these concepts. At the same time, however, we
test the relevance of new data sources used for such
purposes.
Second, the delimitation must reflect primarily the
socio-economic relations in the regions. The Prague
Metropolitan Area should represent the region of
intensive daily contacts (thus being smaller than the
settlement agglomeration) of a centripetal, centrifugal,
or tangential character. Also, the spatial arrangements
of both existing and planned structures and networks
(mainly connected to transport) should be reflected.
While reflecting these requirements, we delimit the
Prague Metropolitan Area through a synthesis of four
different methods, which combine population census
data, annual statistics of migration and housing
JOURNAL OF MAPS 27
construction, and mobile phone location data. The
different methods are used to delimit (i) the integrated
system of centers based on commuting patterns (first
pillar); (ii) the integrated system of centers based on
mobile phone location data (first pillar); (iii) residential
suburban zones (second pillar); and (iv) the average
time spent in Prague by local populations (third pillar).
The essential basic requirement of policymakers and
practitioners is to delimit the Prague Metropolitan
Area at the level of administrative areas where planning
authorities already exist. Therefore, we chose the
spatial unit of delimitation to be the administrative dis-
tricts of MEPs,
1
representing areas of decentralized
state government (building offices, cadastral offices,
planning offices etc.). For very similar reasons, the Pra-
gue Metropolitan Area should not exceed the area of
the Central Bohemia Region. In addition, integrated
functional units in the form of sub-regions, micro-
regions, catchment areas, or daily contact areas should
be delimited on the borders of the Prague Metropolitan
Area to enable local actors to participate actively in the
ITI program.
We present a mosaic of six maps. First, there are five
smaller scale analytical maps: two showing the inte-
grated system of centers (commuting patterns and
mobile phone location data; first pillar)), two for resi-
dential suburban zones (second pillar), and one for
the average time spent in Prague (third pillar). Second,
we provide one synthetic map displaying the final deli-
mitation of Prague Metropolitan Area. We describe the
different maps below.
2.2. The integrated system of centers
The methodology used to produce the integrated sys-
tem of centers (ISC) is derived from the ideas of
socio-geographic regionalization, and particularly the
theory of Martin Hampl (Hampl, 2005). It is based
on an analysis of the mutual commuting relationships
within the municipalities of the Central Bohemia
Region. The density/concentration of spatial contacts
within inner units of metropolitan areas are measured
through the combined distances involved in work and
school commutes between different pairs of municipa-
lities, measured according to the road distance between
units. The data are derived from the results of the last
Population Census conducted by the Czech Statistical
Office in 2011, where places of residence and places
of work are combined with commuting streams of all
municipalities. By road distance, we mean the shortest
distance by motorway or first or second class roads.
This definition of spatial contacts density is signifi-
cantly conditioned by a unit’s population, the number
of jobs it contains, and its school sizes. It is, therefore,
appropriate to limit the monitoring to relatively large
units. Therefore, Hampl introduced a criterion of com-
plex functional size (CFS) and, based on the results of
previous studies (e.g. Hampl, 2005), set its minimum
threshold to 2500. CFS is defined as an average of
shares according to two functions: residential (one-
third; the number of people living there) and working
(two-thirds; the number of jobs) parts (see Hampl,
1999, p. 43). These weights can better describe the
Figure 1. Development of the spatial structure of the socio-geographical system. Source: Hampl et al. (1987).
28 M. OUŘEDNÍČEK ET AL.
significance of cities not only as residential but also as
job centers. The centers are mainly identified with
municipalities, but in some cases, municipalities are
merged into agglomerations (e.g. Beroun and Králův
Dvůr).
There is a relative continuity in the distribution of
the intensity of interactions between pairs of centers
in the Central Bohemia Region. However, it is appro-
priate to distinguish at least three levels of intensity
(strong, medium, and weak) and to define a three-
tier ISC. In the particular case of the Prague Metropo-
litan Area, it is possible to distinguish only two distinct
zones: the core zone connected by strong ties, and the
wider/marginal zone connected primarily by weak ties
(see the map Integrated system of centers 2011). The
core zone represents a dominant part of the entire
PMA and consists of a circle of centers including Ber-
oun, Kladno, Kralupy nad Vltavou, Neratovice, Bran-
dýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav, Říčany a Černošice.
The wider delimitation includes the MEPs of Český
Brod, Slaný, Mělník, and Lysá nad Labem. Two
MEPs in the southern part of the Central Bohemia
region have ties that are too weak to be incorporated
in the ISC of the Prague Metropolitan Area.
2.3. The integrated system of centers based on
mobile phone location data
The characteristics of mobile phone data allow us to
repeat methodically almost the same procedure as in
the previous case of the ISC based on census data.
However, the different nature of the data should be
highlighted. While the population census data cover
the entire population, mobile phone spatial data
show a representative sample of the population only.
2
Therefore, it is not possible to assume the same
thresholds for the density of spatial contacts, and two
partial changes are made in the delimitation by mobile
phone spatial data. First, we use a different set of spatial
units among which the density of spatial contacts is
assessed. In addition to centers with a CFS of 2500
and higher, the set is further extended to centers that
do not reach this CFS threshold, but which have a
population of over 2500. This change makes the ISC
delimitation more precise. Second, the thresholds for
distinguishing various levels of spatial contact density
are set differently, and we use a relativization according
to the average value of spatial ties between selected cen-
ters. Subsequently, three categories for the intensity of
ties based on frequency distribution are defined as
weak (300–600), medium (601–1500), and strong
(1501 and more).
At this point, the basic three-tier framework of the
Prague ISC is created. The presence of any town in
the set of spatial units implies the inclusion of that par-
ticular MEP in the Prague Metropolitan Area. The
maximum value of the intensity in each MEP then
determines its classification in the three-tier metropo-
litan area delimitation. Although it does not meet the
defined criteria, the MEP of Český Brod in the eastern
part of the metropolitan area is also included in the ISC
because of the character of its spatial ties at lower levels
(municipalities) and its territorial integrity (see the
map Integrated system of centers based on mobile
phones location data 2014).
2.4. Residential suburbs
Residential suburbanization is operationalized as
migration (the change of permanent residence) of the
population from the core cities of metropolitan regions
to their hinterlands (see the detailed description of the
theoretical framework in Ouředníček et al., 2013). The
spatial level of a municipality is chosen as a basic stat-
istical unit to monitor the extent of suburbanization.
Although suburban development can also be found
within the administrative borders of cities (especially
in Prague), we do not take these cases into account
when assessing macro-regional patterns of suburbani-
zation. The delimitation of the zone of residential sub-
urbanization is carried out in two consecutive steps.
First, all municipalities with at least 10,000 inhabi-
tants are labeled as possible cores of suburban
migration, except large suburban municipalities in
the close hinterland of Prague (among which Brandýs
nad Labem-Stará Boleslav, Říčany, Čelákovice, and
Milovice exceed this size). Second, we set the criteria
for selecting municipalities affected by the suburbani-
zation process. These criteria include: (i) the new devel-
opment of residential function, defined as the intensity
of housing construction (a minimum of 20 dwelling
units in the period of 1997–2012), (ii) a high intensity
of migration from the core city to the suburb, defined
as a minimal share of suburban in-migrants originating
in the core city (a minimum of 30% or 40% in the case
of two core cities, e.g. Prague and Kladno), and (iii) a
high ratio between population sizes of suburb and
core city (a minimum of 1:20 or 1:5 in the case of
less populated core cities). All data were collected by
the Czech Statistical Office; the intensity of housing
construction use the number of finished dwellings
during the period 1997–2012, migration data cover
all registered changes of permanent living during the
same period. More details on the delimitation criteria
can be found in Ouředníček, Nemeškal, Hampl, Špačk-
ová, & Novák, 2014;Špačková, Ouředníček, Novák, &
Křivka, 2014).
In total, we delimit three suburban zones based on
the different intensity of the suburbanization process
in the hinterland of core cities in the Central Bohemia
Region, and 376 of these municipalities are located in
Prague’s hinterland (see the map Residential suburban
zones in the hinterland of Prague 2012). In the next
step, we determine the share of suburban municipalities
JOURNAL OF MAPS 29
within the total number of municipalities in terms of
MEPs in which at least five Prague suburban municipa-
lities are located. The threshold for the inclusion of an
MEP into the Prague Metropolitan Area is defined as
25% (i.e. at least a quarter of municipalities must be Pra-
gue suburbs). Supplementary threshold values to cap-
ture the intensity of suburbanization in the
metropolitan region are set at 40–70% (see the map
Structure of residential suburban zones in the hinterland
of Prague 2012).
2.5. Average daily time spent in Prague
Mobile phone location data (see description in note 2)
also allow us to capture how intensively the Central
Bohemian Region inhabitants use the territory of Pra-
gue. In general, the intensity of use is defined as the
average time which municipal inhabitants spend in
different parts of Prague and the Central Bohemian
Region. We used the indicator of average time spent
in Prague as an alternative way to delimit the metropo-
litan area. Based on the distribution of indicator values,
we define the thresholds to distinguish various degrees
of the intensity of use of the territory of Prague. Then a
four-tier scale of the choropleth map was prepared,
using intervals of 5.1 hours and more, 2.1–5 hours,
1.1–2 hours, and 1 hour and less.
The MEP regions are included in the metropolitan
area if they meet the criterion of a minimum share of
municipalities in particular categories defined accord-
ing to the average daily time spent in Prague. The distri-
bution of municipalities according to the average daily
time spent in Prague depicts fairly sharp boundaries
that allow us to delimit a three-tier metropolitan area.
The threshold for the inclusion of an MEP into the Pra-
gue Metropolitan Area is defined as at least 60% of
municipalities whose inhabitants spend at least 1 hour
per day in Prague. Supplementary threshold values to
capture the intensity of the daily use of Prague are set
at 50% and 90% of municipalities whose inhabitants
spend at least 2 hours per day in Prague.
This analysis of mobile phone location data shows
somewhat different areas compared to previous delimi-
tations and also includes the MEPs of Benešov, Dobříš
or Český Brod; generally, MEPs with small population
sizes. Along with the use of residential suburbanization
zones, this method rectifies the significant influence of
center size, which is inherent in the calculation of the
integrated system of centers.
3. Results and discussion: The delimitation
of the Prague Metropolitan Area
The final step in the delimitation of the Prague Metro-
politan Area is to synthesize the research outcomes of
the four partial approaches described above. We used
the following criteria for inclusion of a MEP into the
Prague Metropolitan Area: (i) the presence of a city
integrated into Prague’s integrated system of centers
as delimited on the basis of data from the 2011 Census
(commuting data) and a strong level of relationship
(the thresholds of spatial contact density are set at 90
and 40 respectively), (ii) the presence of a city inte-
grated into Prague’s integrated system of centers as
delimited on the basis of mobile phone location data
(2014) and a strong level of relationship (the thresholds
of relativized spatial contact density are set at 1500,
600, and 300, respectively), (iii) a high proportion of
the municipalities within the MEP are included in Pra-
gue’s residential suburban zone (the thresholds are set
at 50% and 25% respectively), and (iv) a high pro-
portion of municipalities whose inhabitants spend on
average at least one (or two) hours per day in Prague
(the threshold was set at 40%). The thresholds were
set by the authors on the basis of natural breaks within
the empirical distribution of values with the aim to
clearly differentiate three levels of integration of
MEPs into the PMA, which is expressed by two, one,
or no asterisks within the individual cells of Table 1.
By applying these criteria, we can delimit the Prague
Metropolitan Area and within this distinguish two
types of metropolitan area based on the level of inte-
gration of MEPs into the PMA (see the main map Pra-
gue Metropolitan Area). The Inner Prague
Metropolitan Area (IPMA) includes those administra-
tive districts of MEPs which show a very strong level of
integration with Prague in at least three out of four cri-
teria and a strong level of integration in the remaining
one. The IPMA is comprised of seven administrative
districts of MEPs, which either share administrative
boundaries with Prague (Černošice, Brandýs nad
Labem-Stará Boleslav, Říčany) or have strong long-
term commuting ties to Prague (Kladno, Neratovice,
Kralupy nad Vltavou, and Beroun).
The delimitation of the Outer Prague Metropolitan
Area (OPMA) consists of administrative districts of
MEPs that show a strong level of integration with Pra-
gue in at least two criteria. It is interesting to note that
the IPMA and the OPMA are distinguishable when
commuting patterns are considered (the integrated sys-
tems of centers). The OPMA includes six administra-
tive districts of MEPs with different functions in
relation to Prague. Northern districts constitute the
commuting area (to work and school) and have good
transport accessibility to Prague (Slaný and Mělník).
They have good economic relations with Prague and
other centers in the metropolitan area. On the contrary,
southern and eastern districts represent the residential
and recreational hinterland of Prague with smaller cen-
ters and with potential for the development of suburba-
nization (Český Brod, Lysá nad Labem, Benešov, and
Dobříš). In general, the OPMA is an area of anticipated
(and to a large extent also certain) future growth within
the Prague Metropolitan Area.
30 M. OUŘEDNÍČEK ET AL.
In total, the Prague Metropolitan Area consists of 14
administrative districts of MEPs and 515 municipali-
ties. More than 2 million inhabitants live there in an
area of 5000 km
2
. Although it occupies only 5% of
the total area of the Czech Republic, almost 20% of
the Czech population is concentrated in the Prague
Metropolitan Region. For more detailed information,
see Table 2.
4. Conclusions
The synthetic delimitation of the Prague Metropolitan
Area includes the capital city of Prague, an inner
metropolitan area consisting of seven districts of
MEPs, and an outer metropolitan area with six other
districts of MEPs. While the inner part of the metropo-
litan area is strongly integrated into the capital, the
outer part represents a potential area of the city for
future spatial development and influence. Four differ-
ent approaches were used to delimit the Prague Metro-
politan Area. First, we used the traditional method of
defining an integrated system of centers on the basis
of data on commuting to work and school from the
2011 Population census. Second, the delimitation was
based on three zones of residential suburbanization;
i.e. the connectivity of suburbia with the core cities
and the intensity of housing construction. Third and
fourth, a completely new approach was applied for
the first time in the Czech Republic using mobile
phone data to show the integrated systems of centers
and average time spent in Prague.
3
While the results of the two methods based on com-
muting (either from census data or mobile data) pro-
duced very similar spatial patterns, the delimitation
of the metropolitan area based on average time spent
in Prague showed surprising outcomes in the form of
a relatively narrow area in which intensive contact
takes place between suburban residents and Prague.
This raises the possibility of the establishment of new
suburban nodes with relatively autonomous micro-
regional centers including education (kindergartens
and elementary schools), basic healthcare, local admin-
istration, retail, and other services meeting the daily
needs of people within the catchment areas around
these centers. In the case of residential suburbaniza-
tion, the results have confirmed the relatively intensive
development of the southern part of the metropolitan
area with its attractive natural conditions for residential
functions, which is also the traditional recreational hin-
terland of Prague. Although the methods used in the
analysis could not cover the recreational function
(weekend commuting to cottages), we believe that
most concentrations of second homes are included
within the delimited area.
Table 1. The delimitation of Prague Metropolitan Area: a synthetic evaluation.
Name of MEP
Integrated system of
centers (Census data,
2011): spatial contact
density
Integrated system of
centers (mobile phone
location data, 2014):
relative spatial contact
density
Residential suburban
zone: the share of
Prague’s suburbs
Average daily time spent in Prague:
the share of municipalities whose
inhabitants spend on average at least
one (two) hours daily in Prague
Type of
metropolitan
area
Černošice 204 (Roztoky)** 3817** 93.7** 100.0 (98.7)** Inner
metropolitan
area
Brandýs nad
Labem –
Stará
Boleslav
132** 5613** 86.2** 100.0 (98.3)**
Říčany 155** 2832** 84.6** 100.0 (96.2)**
Kladno 276** 2507** 62.5** 89.6 (33.3)*
Beroun 104** 509* 45.8** 97.9 (64.6)**
Neratovice 97** 581* 50.0** 100.0 (33.3)**
Kralupy nad
Vltavou
90** 606* 50.0** 94.4 (50.0)**
Český Brod 31 147 45.8** 100.0 (91.7)** Outer
metropolitan
area
Lysá nad
Labem
41* (Milovice) 459* (Čelákovice) 33.3* (3 municipalities
only)
100.0 (66.7)**
Slaný 51* 594* (Kladno) 13.5 76.9 (7.7)*
Mělník 42* 216 15.4 61.5 (12.8)*
Benešov 36 105 52.9** 84.3 (33.3)*
Dobříš27 131 29.2* 96.0 (56.0)**
Note: The level of integration into Prague: **a very strong level of integration, *a strong level of integration.
Sources: CE Traffic a.s. (2014), Database of migration (1997–2012), Housing construction (1997–2012), and Population and housing census 2011.
Table 2. Basic statistics for the Prague Metropolitan Area (2016).
Region Area (km
2
)
Number of MEPs
(municipalities) Population
Population density
(inhabitants/km
2
)
The capital city of Prague (administrative boundaries) 496.2 1 (1) 1,267,449 2554
Inner Prague metropolitan area 2346.9 7 (315) 550,857 235
Outer Prague metropolitan area 2140.0 6 (199) 209,441 98
Prague Metropolitan Area 4983.1 14 (515) 2,027,747 407
Note: MEP –administrative districts of municipalities with extended powers.
Source: Czech Statistical Office (2016).
JOURNAL OF MAPS 31
Today, there is no accepted definition of metropoli-
tan areas in the Czech Republic, which to a great extent
relates to the inability of spatial planning to address
problems at the level of metropolitan areas. Regional
planning formerly used so-called Large Regional
Areas but has now changed to focus on the territories
of entire self-governed regions (Territorial Develop-
ment Policy) or MEPs. Particularly in the case of the
division of territory between the two autonomous
self-governed regions (Prague vs. Central Bohemia
Region), this approach creates problems for both
analytical purposes and practical activities (statistical
monitoring, coordination of activities of regional
activities, regional planning, etc.). This study should
thus largely eliminate these problems and, together
with alternative methods of defining the metropolitan
areas of other large Czech cities (within ITI), also con-
tribute to reviving a discussion of this topic at the
boundaries of research and practical applications.
Software
Microsoft Excel 2013 was used for initial data sorting and
calculation of variables shown in the map. ESRI ArcGIS
10.3.1 was used for map processing and final visualization.
Notes
1. We can distinguish between a ‘municipality’and an
‘administrative district’of MEPs. When using the
term MEP, we always mean the whole administrative
district. In total, the Central Bohemia Region consists
of 26 districts of municipalities with extended powers.
2. We employed T-Mobile data, which cover approxi-
mately 40% of the total population within the Central
Bohemia Region. Then we used an origin–destination
matrix on the level of municipalities. The location of
the person during the time interval between 1 am
and 5 am was set as place of residence and 10 am to
2 pm as place of work.
3. Recently, the Institute for Planning and Development
of the Capital City of Prague produced a web appli-
cation for Prague and Central Bohemia Region using
mobile phone data http://app.iprpraha.cz/apl/app/
dynamika-obyvatelstva/.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation
[grant number GA16-20991S ‘Spatial Mobility, Everyday Life
and Personal Ties: The Case Study of Women in Prague Metro-
politan region’] and by Charles University [UNCE/HUM 018].
ORCID
Martin Ouředníček http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3399-7233
References
Ahas, R., Laineste, J., Aasa, A., & Mark, Ü. (2007). The spatial
accuracy of mobile positioning: Some experiences with
geographical studies in Estonia. In G. Gartner, W.
Cartwright, & M. P. Peterson (Eds.), Location based ser-
vices and telecartography (pp. 445–460). Berlin: Springer.
Ahas, R., Silm, S., Järv, O., Saluveer, E., & Tiru, M. (2010).
Using mobile positioning data to model locations mean-
ingful to users of mobile phones. Journal of Urban
Technology,17(1), 3–27. doi:10.1080/10630731003597306
Ahas, R., Silm, S., Saluveer, E., & Järv, O. (2009). Modelling
home and work locations of populations using passive
mobile positioning data. In G. Gartner & K. Rehrl
(Eds.), Location based services and telecartography II
(pp. 301–315). Berlin: Springer.
CE Traffic a.s. (2014). Mobile phone location data. Prague.
Czech Statistical Office. (2016). Database of demographic
data for municipalities of the Czech Republic. Prague.
Database of migration for the municipalities of the Czech
Republic.(1997–2012). Prague: Czech Statistical Office.
Doležalová, G., & Ouředníček, M. (2006). Životní styl obyva-
telstva v suburbánní zóněPrahy [Lifestyle of the popu-
lation in the suburban zone of Prague]. In M.
Ouředníček (Ed.), Sociální geografie Pražského městského
regionu (pp. 143–159). Praha: Univerzita Karlova v
Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geografie
a regionálního rozvoje.
Doxiadis, C. (1970). Man’s movement and his settlements.
Ekistics,29(174), 296–321. doi:10.1080/0020723700870
9391
European Commission. (2014). Integrated territorial invest-
ment [Factsheet]. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/iti_en.
pdf
Frey, W. H., & Zimmer, Z. (2001). Defining the city. In R.
Paddison (Ed.), Handbook of urban studies (pp. 14–35).
London: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the
theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Halás, M., Klapka, P., & Tonev, P. (2016). The use of
migration data to define functional regions: The case of
the Czech Republic. Applied Geography,76,98–105.
doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.010
Hall, P., & Hay, D. (1980). Growth centres in the European
urban system. London: Heinemann Educational.
Hampl, M. (Ed.). (1999). Geography of societal transform-
ation in the Czech Republic. Prague: Department of
Social Geography and Regional Development, Charles
University in Prague, Faculty of Science.
Hampl, M. (2005). Geografická organizace společnosti v
České republice: transformační procesy a jejich obecný kon-
text [Geographical organization of society in the Czech
Republic: Transformation processes and their general
context]. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze,
Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geografie a
regionálního rozvoje.
Hampl, M., Gardavský, V., & Kühnl, K. (1987). Regionální
struktura a vývoj systému osídlení ČSR [Regional structure
and settlement system development in the CSR]. Praha:
Universita Karlova.
Hägerstrand, T. (1982). Diorama, path and project.
Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie,73(6),
323–339. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.1982.tb01647.x
Housing construction database in municipalities of the Czech
Republic.(1997–2012). Prague: Czech Statistical Office.
32 M. OUŘEDNÍČEK ET AL.
Johnston, R. (2009). Metropolitan area. In D. Gregory, R.
Johnston, G. Pratt, M. J. Watts, & S. Whatmore (Eds.),
The dictionary of human geography (5th ed.) (p. 459).
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urban-
ism. GeoJournal,79,1–14. doi:10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
Korčák, J. (1966). Vymezení oblastí maximálního zalidnění
[Definition of maximum population density areas]. Acta
Universitatis Carolinae –Geographica,1,65–72.
Kostelecký, T., & Čermák, D. (2004). Metropolitan areas in
the Czech Republic –definitions, basic characteristics, pat-
terns of suburbanisation and their impact on political
bahaviour. Sociological studies 04/03. Praha: Institute of
Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Kraft, S., Halás, M., & Vančura, M. (2014). The delimitation
of urban hinterlands based on transport flows: A case
study of regional capitals in the Czech Republic.
Moravian Geographical Reports,22(1), 24–32. doi:10.
2478/mgr-2014-0003
Musil, J. (1967). Sociologie soudobého města [Sociology of the
contemporary city]. Praha: Svoboda.
Novák, J., Ahas, R., Aasa, A., & Silm, S. (2013). Application
of mobile phone location data in mapping of commuting
patterns and functional regionalisation: A pilot study of
Estonia. Journal of Maps,9(1), 10–15. doi:10.1080/
17445647.2012.762331
Novák, J., & Novobilský, J. (2013). Inovativní přístupy k
zachycení přítomného obyvatelstva: data mobilních
operátorů[Innovative approaches to catch the actual
population: Data from mobile operators]. Urbanismus a
územní rozvoj,3,14–18. Retrieved from http://www.uur.
cz/images/5-publikacni-cinnost-a-knihovna/casopis/
2013/2013-03/04_inovativni.pdf
Novák, J., & Sýkora, L. (2007). A city in motion: Time–space
activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and
structuration of spatial organisation in the Prague metro-
politan area. Geografiska Annaler B: Human Geography,
89(2), 147–168. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00245.x
Ouředníček, M. (2007). Differential suburban development
in the Prague urban region. Geografiska Annaler B:
Human Geography,89(2), 111–126. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0467.2007.00243.x
Ouředníček, M., Nemeškal, J., Hampl, M., Špačková, P., &
Novák, J. (2014). Vymezení funkčního území Pražské
metropolitní oblasti pro potřeby uplatnění Integrovaných
teritoriálních investic [Delimitation of functional area of
Prague Metropolitan Area for integrated territorial invest-
ments purposes] (Research report). Retrieved from http://
www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/sites/default/files/_UPLOAD/
vymezenipmo_komplet_01062014.pdf
Ouředníček, M., Špačková, P., & Novák, J. (2013). Metodické
problémy výzkumu a vymezení zón rezidenční suburbani-
zace v České republice [Methodological problems of
research and delimitation of residential suburbanization
zones in the Czech Republic]. In M. Ouředníček, P.
Špačková, & J. Novák (Eds.), Sub Urbs: krajina, sídla a
lidé (pp. 309–332). Praha: Academia.
Pászto, V., Brychtová, A., Tuček, P., Marek, L., & Burian, J.
(2015). Using a fuzzy inference system to delimit rural
and urban municipalities in the Czech Republic in 2010.
Journal of Maps,11(2), 231–239. doi:10.1080/17445647.
2014.944942
Population and housing census.(2011). Prague: Czech
Statistical Office.
Pospíšilová, L., & Novák, J. (2016). Mobile phone location
data: New challenges for geodemographic research.
Demografie,58(4), 320–337.
Sýkora, L., & Mulíček, O. (2009). The micro-regional nature
of functional urban areas (FUAs): lessons from the analy-
sis of the Czech urban and regional system. Urban
Research & Practice,2(3), 287–307. doi:10.1080/
17535060903319228
Sýkora, L., & Ouředníček, M. (2007). Sprawling post-com-
munist metropolis: commercial and residential suburba-
nisation in Prague and Brno, the Czech Republic. In E.
Razin, M. Dijst, & C. Vázquez (Eds.), Employment decon-
centration in European metropolitan areas: Market forces
versus planning regulations (pp. 209–233). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Špačková, P., Dvořáková, N., & Tobrmanová, M. (2016).
Residential satisfaction and intention to move: The case
of Prague’s new suburbanites. Geografiska Annaler:
Series B, Human Geography,98(4), 331–348. doi:10.
1111/geob.12108
Špačková, P., & Ouředníček, M. (2012). Spinning the Web:
New social contacts of Prague’s suburbanites. Cities,29
(5), 341–349. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.09.002
Špačková, P., Ouředníček, M., Novák, J., & Křivka, M.
(2014). Zóny rezidenční suburbanizace 2013 [Residential
suburbanization zones 2013] [Map]. Retrieved from
http://www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/cs/suburbanizace
van den Berg, L., Drewett, R., Klaassen, L. H., Rossi, A.,
& Vijverberg, C. H. T. (1982). A study of growth and
decline: Volume 1 of urban Europe. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Zhong, C., Batty, M., Manley, E., Wang, J., Wang, Z., Chen,
F., & Schmitt, G. (2016). Variability in regularity: Mining
temporal mobility patterns in London, Singapore and
Beijing using smart-card data. PLoS ONE,11(2),
e0149222. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149222
JOURNAL OF MAPS 33
