Urban Shrinkage and Sustainability: Assessing the Nexus between Population Density, Urban Structures and Urban Sustainability

Abstract

Urban shrinkage has become a common pathway (not only) in post-socialist cities, which represents new challenges for traditionally growth-oriented spatial planning. Though in the post-socialist area, the situation is even worse due to prevailing weak planning culture and resulting uncoordinated development. The case of the city of Ostrava illustrates how the problem of (in)efficient infrastructure operation, and maintenance, in already fragmented urban structure is exacerbated by the growing size of urban area (through low-intensity land-use) in combination with declining size of population (due to high rate of outmigration). Shrinkage, however, is, on the intra-urban level, spatially differentiated. Population, paradoxically, most intensively declines in the least financially demanding land-uses and grows in the most expensive land-uses for public administration. As population and urban structure development prove to have strong inertia, this land-use development constitutes a great challenge for a city’s future sustainability. The main objective of the paper is to explore the nexus between change in population density patterns in relation to urban shrinkage, and sustainability of public finance.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Urban Shrinkage and Sustainability: Assessing the
Nexus between Population Density, Urban Structures
and Urban Sustainability
Ondˇrej Slach, Vojt ˇech Bosák, Ludˇek Krtiˇcka * , Alexandr Nováˇcek and Petr Rumpel
Department of Human Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava,
709 00 Ostrava, Czechia
*Correspondence: ludek.krticka@osu.cz; Tel.: +420-731-505-314
Received: 30 June 2019; Accepted: 29 July 2019; Published: 1 August 2019


Abstract:
Urban shrinkage has become a common pathway (not only) in post-socialist cities,
which represents new challenges for traditionally growth-oriented spatial planning. Though in
the post-socialist area, the situation is even worse due to prevailing weak planning culture and
resulting uncoordinated development. The case of the city of Ostrava illustrates how the problem
of (in)efficient infrastructure operation, and maintenance, in already fragmented urban structure
is exacerbated by the growing size of urban area (through low-intensity land-use) in combination
with declining size of population (due to high rate of outmigration). Shrinkage, however, is, on
the intra-urban level, spatially differentiated. Population, paradoxically, most intensively declines
in the least financially demanding land-uses and grows in the most expensive land-uses for public
administration. As population and urban structure development prove to have strong inertia,
this land-use development constitutes a great challenge for a city’s future sustainability. The main
objective of the paper is to explore the nexus between change in population density patterns in
relation to urban shrinkage, and sustainability of public finance.
Keywords: Shrinking city; Ostrava; sustainability; population density; built-up area; housing
1. Introduction
The study of the urban shrinkage process has ranked among established research areas in a
number of scientific disciplines [
1
–
7
]. Although shrinkage has affected 40% of medium-sized and large
cities in Europe ten years ago [
8
] and 70% in Central and Eastern Europe [
9
], today it seems that some
of the previously shrinking cities are gradually succeeding in mitigating or countering this process [
7
].
Unlike previous research on urban decline or urban decay, this process can be perceived to be somewhat
neutral [
10
], because, under certain conditions, it can be an alternative path of sustainability in a city’s
trajectory that can create a favorable environment for the renewal of urban growth [
11
]. In other words,
urban shrinkage represents a complex open-ended process [
12
]. Rich empirical evidence suggests that
there are cases in social reality where the urban shrinkage process shows both positive and negative
effects [
13
]. Finding adequate local policy responses is, however, still rather rare [
14
,
15
], although the
shrinkage presents many specific challenges for sustainability [16–18].
In terms of planning, sustainability is a very complex process of balancing economic, social,
and environmental aspects [
19
–
21
], which is further hindered in the post-socialist context by the
weakness of planning and public institutions in general [
22
]. According to the recently previewed
UN’s landmark study on the state of planet Earth, issues related to land-use have the most detrimental
impact on the sustainability of the global environment [
23
]. Thus, we focus on the development of
land-use. Nonetheless, due to a functional interdependence of individual aspects of the sustainability
Sustainability 2019,11, 4142; doi:10.3390/su11154142 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 2 of 22
concept, we also examine the impact of spatial population patterns on financial sustainability from the
public sector perspective. The key to the understanding of (un)sustainability of individual pathways
of shrinking is in the exploration of the context and dynamics of urban shrinkage [
12
,
24
]. Case studies
appear to be an appropriate method for integration of the above. The object of this study is the
industrial shrinking city of Ostrava, located in the north-eastern part of Czechia, which implements a
neoliberal pro-growth strategy [15].
For purpose of this text, we understand “urban shrinkage as an empirical phenomenon resulting
from the interplay of changing drivers at different spatial levels (from regional to global) that produces
a decline in population at the local scale“ [
12
] (p. 89). These processes bring about at an urban level
some built-up area and infrastructure sustainability issues. It can be said that these cities have too
much infrastructure available for too few residents [
25
], which is a problem especially for cities that
have started to grow rapidly in the early 19th century, as this infrastructure is now at the end of its
lifespan and requires substantial investment [
26
]. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to
identify and assess the change in population density patterns in relation to urban shrinkage at the
intra-urban level, more specifically, to set the identified patterns in the context of urban sustainability,
and the financial sustainability of public administration in particular. The main research questions are
as follows:
1. How did population density patterns change in the shrinking Ostrava at the intra-urban level?
2.
How are the identified population density patterns reflected in the present and future sustainability
of Ostrava?
To answer these two questions, the following structure has been developed. In the first part of
the paper, we discuss the issue of population density at an analytical and normative level and also
the changes in population density in association with urban shrinkage. Since we have adapted an
evolutionary perspective in the spirit of “history matters”, we analyze the city’s development in detail
and with a long-term perspective. Particularly, we employ (implicitly) a core assumption of evolutionary
economic geography (EEG) about no-ergodicity resulting in path dependency [
27
]. Furthermore, we
use several key concepts from EEG such as co-evolution (in our case built environment and population
development) and sunk costs (cf. [
28
]) related to the existing infrastructure and population development.
The core of the paper includes detailed results regarding both the changes in spatial patterns of
population density and the impact of these changes on sustainable urban development. Finally, the
broader and more general implications for the research agenda of shrinking cities as well as the limits
of the submitted research are derived from the results.
2. Population Density as An Analytical and Normative Indicator in the Context of Shrinkage
For several decades, population density has been a classic indicator [
29
,
30
], which, despite some
relative simplicity, is characterized by ambiguity (cf. [
31
]), hence it is rather difficult to interpret [
32
].
The easiest expression of population density is probably the number of residents per urban (built-up)
area [
33
]. Population density can be perceived by dual optics both as an analytical indicator and as a
normative indicator, with both of these dimensions intermingling.
In the analytical dimension, the change in the spatial patterns of population density is frequently
used to examine concentration or deconcentration processes [
34
–
36
], nonetheless it has primarily a long
tradition in urban sprawl measurements [
37
]. The importance of population density change can be
simply illustrated in relation to the classical theory of urban development of van den Berg et al. [
38
,
39
].
Suburbanization decreases population density within the administrative boundaries of the urban
region as a whole, because the population in the compact city decreases and, on the contrary, grows in
its outskirts. However, due to the dominance of the structure of single detached houses, the patterns
are dispersed. In contrast, the deurbanization process leads to a decline in population density both
in the compact city and in the outskirts. Although reurbanization should lead to an increase in
population density in urban areas, for example, due to gentrification and the smaller size of gentrifier

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 3 of 22
households, it may not have this effect [
40
,
41
]. A change in population density at intra-urban levels
can be investigated [
42
], which allows for better identification of variability and the capture of real
physical and functional diversity of larger administration units [32,43].
The normative dimension of population density is associated mostly with public spending and
sustainability. At an urban level, this approach assumes that compact urban forms are more sustainable
than dispersed ones [
44
]. According to a prevailing opinion, “as densities fall, spending for many
municipal services rises, as it is more expensive to serve expansive development in terms of investments
in infrastructure and other services” [
45
] (p. 151). The relationship between density and infrastructure
spending is not completely unambiguous. According to Westphal, this relationship takes the form
of an inverted “U” curve where the savings potential between a compact and dispersed settlement
structure ranges from 10% to 80% [
42
]. In other words, with the growing density, the cost savings
is increasing; however, after the exceeding a certain threshold, cost savings is declining due to the
congestion or high rents. This argument is analogical to an already a well-established discussion on
(dis)economies of agglomeration [46].
The key contribution, at least for this text, is the work by Hudeˇcek et al. [
47
]. The authors
investigated public spending on operation and maintenance in relation to urban spatial structures
in Czechia, based on the study of 22 cities and 6 urban districts. In this study, it was found that
compact urban structures with high population density and vice versa are the least expensive. More
specifically, they have identified that a 1% increase in population density reduces public spending by
0.75% per capita. A very important finding is that “urban structures with population density below 100
inhabitants per hectare are not financially efficient for the municipal budgets” [
47
] (p. 14). Similarly, it
was identified that with a 1% decrease in population density, water supply, and wastewater disposal
systems related costs would increase by 1% [48].
In contrast, Holcombe and Williams [
49
] did not find any positive statistical relationship between
population density and public spending on highways, water, sewer, police, and fire protection in the
U.S. However, this study looked at cities as a whole not taking into account the compactness of different
types of urban development. On the other hand, it is obvious that too high a density can generate
negative externalities in the form of traffic congestion, high real estate prices, and a negative impact on
the quality of life (cf. [
50
]). Indeed, the quality of life does not necessarily have to be associated with
urban density [
51
] and moreover, the problem of population density, due to the thermal island effect, is
growing proportionally to the progressing climate change [52].
Analytical and normative strands of analysis may pose different implications for shrinking cities.
One of the most visible manifestations of urban shrinkage is undoubtedly the decrease in population
density [
12
], which may be driven by the outflow of population, decreasing households’ size [
53
]
and by the increase in floor area per capita [
33
]. The spatial patterns of population density change
can be highly variable at the intra-urban level, with growing and decreasing locations situated in
one another’s immediate spatial proximity [
4
,
54
]. Hollander et al. [
13
] point to different forms of
population density decline in the form of hollowing-out of the inner city or spatially deconcentrated
perforation [
55
]. Other examples emphasize an increase in population density in inner-urban fringe
districts [
43
,
56
] also known as inner-suburbanization [
57
]. Finally, in some cases, irregular to random
patchwork structures may be formed [58].
Regarding the normative dimension, it is not surprising that shrinking cities face the sustainability
issues of the built environment [
26
,
59
]. Empirical studies point to the growing cost of technical
infrastructure operation [
60
] and the emergence of “cold spots“ [
48
] and the need for reduction of
school infrastructure [
61
,
62
]. The combination of rising infrastructure maintenance costs and falling,
incomes can plunge shrinking cities into a “vicious circle” of decline [63].
However, urban shrinkage cannot be simply considered fatal, since this process, under certain
circumstances, may be an opportunity to increase sustainability [
13
]. A decrease in population density
and the resulting impacts can include “vacant dwellings and derelict land”, which “present themselves
as extraordinary changes in circumstances and an opportunity to deconstruct created situations,

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 4 of 22
otherwise unthinkable” [
64
] (p. 27). Disadvantages of urban shrinking can be transformed into
advantages when applying appropriate strategies such as smart shrinking [
13
,
65
], smart decline [
5
] and
right-sizing. With regard to public spending, an increase of population density can enable reduction
of redundant infrastructure, and eventually also the financial burden, as part of a consolidation
strategy [
66
]. The newly cleared-out sites can be used to develop green infrastructure [
67
,
68
].
Ultimately, appropriately approached de-densification can result in a high quality of life in a shrinking
city [
50
,
69
]. Transformation of the disadvantages of shrinkage to advantages depends on the lens
through which shrinkage is perceived [
70
], its reflection in the urban agenda [
14
] and the planning
culture [71] resulting from the overall context.
3. Context of Shrinking Cities in Post-Socialist States
Post-socialist states are particularly prone to shrinkage due to their political and economic
transition [
36
], with the situation being aggravated by its fast and abrupt progress in comparison to
Western countries [
9
]. More than 70% of post-socialist cities with a population of over 200,000 faced a
period of shrinking [
9
] between 1990 and 2005. The most significant cause of population decline in
post-socialist cities was the economic decline, negative natural growth, and outmigration. For example,
outmigration in V4 countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary) was from the 2000s most often
directed to suburban locations in the outskirts of larger and medium-sized cities, resulting in population
decline in urban cores [
72
]. This exodus from inner cities can be explained on one hand by older
housing stock that during state socialism suffered from ideologically motivated disinvestment [
73
–
75
]
and on the other by the presence of mass housing estates of scope unknown to the West [
12
] (p. 305).
These were supposed to counteract housing shortage [
7
,
9
] in rapidly urbanizing socialist countries [
76
],
yet in some cities, the shortage has endured to this day. Thus, some shrinking post-socialist cities do
not face vacancies [
74
] to the extent common in the West (e.g., [
77
]). In the context of limitations on
redevelopment in inner cities [
78
], and ”changing consumption patterns“ [
72
] (p. 1369), economic
change has led to an increase in income disparities and emergence of blighted districts for the poor,
and flight of the rich to the newly built inner-city enclaves and suburban areas [73].
However, we cannot omit the role of governments that use their powers to regulate market-induced
spatial growth and segregation to only a limited extent [
79
], or even such patterns were directly
supported by government policies [
7
,
80
]. The reason for passivity was the fact that “urban planning
was” in the post-socialist area “perceived as contradictory to the market”, and “unregulated market”,
in turn, “as the mechanism of allocation of resources that would generate a wealthy, economically
efficient, and socially just society” [
73
] (p. 391). Subsequently, the density of settlements was reduced,
especially in the city cores, but due to the nature of the built-up area also in the hinterland of towns.
Despite the population decline in shrinking cities, urban land use has increased spatially [72].
In addition to the relocation of the population between core and hinterland, outmigration to more
distant towns or abroad also occurred, especially in cases where restructuring in the 1990s brought
significant loss of jobs (cf. [
2
,
81
]). The dominant policy strategy was to attract investment and to
turn the economic decline into economic growth hoping it would stabilize and eventually create new
population growth [
12
,
82
], even though the cause of population decline consisted of several factors,
including drop in fertility in whole post-socialist countries [
9
]. In this context, such policy reaction
does not seem adequate and is unlikely to be successful [15].
Furthermore, according to Haase et al. [
12
] (p. 314), pro-growth policies in shrinking cities
undermine the stability and sustainability of the urban regions. This pro-growth orientation stems
from the embeddedness in neoliberalism but also can be interpreted in terms of post-socialist
path-dependency, as 96% of Eastern European cities with a population of above 200,000 were between
1960 and 1985 gaining population [
9
]. Alternatively, shrinkage was considered by local political leaders
to be a temporary phenomenon associated with post-socialist transformation [
83
]. Although some
shrinking cities respond to changes in demand for public services (e.g., school closures in inner cities
and expansion of homes for the elderly, or kindergartens in suburban locations [
75
,
83
]), it is almost

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 5 of 22
always ad hoc response to isolated issues that are not attributed to the complex urban shrinkage
problem [
84
]. Cases of explicit acceptance of shrinkage by local politicians are rare and isolated and
only concern cities especially hardly hit by shrinkage (e.g., Lodz [
84
], Bytom [
15
], and Walbrzych [
75
]).
But holistic strategies aimed at adaptation to shrinkage [
15
,
84
], and particularly, problems of the land
use and built environment (cf. [85]) are still lacking in post-socialist shrinking cities.
4. Data and Methods
In this text, we have applied the interpretative case study method [
86
], which allows to fully
capture the specifics of the context, which is essential for understanding the trajectories of urban
shrinkage process [
12
]. In agreement with the aforementioned, we are loosely inspired by the
methods of evolutionary economic geography: “Follow the path” and “deep contextualization” [
87
].
The creation of the research framework was mainly based on the studies of Wolffet al. [
43
] and
Hudeˇcek et al. [
47
]. The former author’s note that due to the spatial proximity of ongoing decline and
small-scale (re)growth, there is a need to focus on district and neighborhood levels. For this reason,
basic settlement units (BSUs) data from 1991, 2001 and 2011 (see Appendix A) have been used to track
changes at the micro-spatial level. These periods were chosen because they represent different stages
of development after the end of the centrally planned economy in 1989. This data allows us to capture
trends in population changes and share of one- and two-person households.
For built-up area data from 2006, and 2012 Urban Atlas (UA) were used to calculate population
densities (for UA product description, see Appendix B). The following selected classes from UA (see
Table 1) are understood as built-up areas associated with residential housing.
Table 1. Selected residential classes of Urban Atlas.
Code Residential Area Class Sealing Degree
11100 Continuous urban fabric >80%
11210 Discontinuous dense urban fabric 50%–80%
11220 Discontinuous medium density urban fabric 30%–50%
11230 Discontinuous low-density urban fabric 10%–30%
11240 Discontinuous very low-density urban fabric <10%
11300 Isolated structures -
12220 Other roads and associated land -
Other UA classes were not used because they were not directly related to residential housing and
their representation in the defined BSUs with residential function was very low. The sealing degree
within classes 11xxx was not taken into consideration and all such sites were considered built-up areas.
Due to the unavailability of data on built areas from 1991 and the time discrepancy between UA 2006
data and the 1991 census, the data on built-up sites from UA 2006 were modified in GIS by means of
visual interpretation according to a georeferenced base map of Ostrava in scale 1: 10,000 from 1992.
In order to better match with the census in 2001, the UA data on the built-up sites from 2006 were also
partially revised using the colored orthophoto map from 2003. For the 2011 census, the UA data from
2012 were used unchanged. Subsequently, proportions of built-up sites in individual basic settlement
units were acquired in GIS for the monitored reference periods (1991, 2001, 2011), and population
density was calculated.
The individual BSUs were then cleaned (units with a population of less than 50 inhabitants
in 2011 were left-out) and divided into seven categories of types of urban structures according to
Hudeˇcek et al. [
47
], which makes it possible to assess their financial sustainability in terms of public
maintenance costs. Individual categories are distinguished by the type of housing development, by
the ratio of public space and greenery, and by the extent of public infrastructure. The categories are
as follows:

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 6 of 22
1.
Organic urban structure—this group is represented by an archetypal historic city center with
irregular streets and squares where public space is mainly designed for pedestrian traffic. Houses
form closed irregular blocks. The organic urban structure category is relatively expensive to
maintain, however, due to its usually high population density, the cost per capita is a financially
very advantageous type of housing development. In the case of Ostrava, due to its industrial
past, this type concerns a limited area of the city center.
2.
Urban block structure—this group is characterized as compact closed blocks with a regular
network of streets and pavements, complemented by greenery in the form of parks. Similarly
to the previous category, this type of housing development is very effective in terms of cost per
hectare due to the high population density. In the case of Ostrava, it is mainly an area adjacent to
the city center with primarily a residential housing function.
3.
Garden city urban structure—this category involves multi-story villas located separately in
gardens with fences. The network of streets is irregular, complemented by public parks. Although
it has lower maintenance costs, due to its low population density, it is one of the costliest types.
In the case of Ostrava, there is only one area, near the city center, in one of the most representative
housing areas.
4.
Urban structure of single detached houses—a similar category to the previous one, but the
built-up area is less dense. Garden area is also separated by fences, however the street network is
usually regular. This type is usually not accompanied by significant public amenities. The cost
per hectare is one of the costliest due to its low population density. These are represented by older
built-up areas, integrated to Ostrava during the 20th century, while the recent increase is due to
the suburbanization process.
5.
Urban structure of paired villas and row-houses—in contrast to the previous category,
it predominantly consists of semi-detached houses and terraced houses. However, despite
its higher population density, this is a rather costly type of housing development. This type
occurs in inner urban fringe districts, especially in the eastern part of Ostrava, but spatially is
rather marginal.
6.
Urban structure of mixed building types—this type of housing development is a combination of
solitary structures as well as compact blocks and semi-open blocks. In the case of Ostrava, these
are areas representing the cores of individual urban districts, often complemented by adjacent
residential districts. Due to its usually relatively high population density, this is a relatively
sustainable type of housing development. In some rare cases, these are remnants of those districts,
which, due to historical development, have lost their importance or have given way to industrial
production sites.
7.
Urban structure of estates and high rises—this type of housing development is characterized by
its large scale. The buildings are surrounded by plentiful greenery and free open space with
lots of parking spaces. Public amenities are concentrated near public transport stations. Due
to its high population density, it is one of the most financially advantageous types of housing
development. In Ostrava, it can be found especially in Ostrava-Jih and Poruba. The latter is,
however, complemented by a more generously designed public space and is characterized by a
more human scale than the mass disposition of Ostrava-Jih.
The defined categories were slightly adapted to the needs of the study, as the original categorization
was based on the model of the city of Prague, which has a much longer history compared to Ostrava,
the higher number of representatives of individual categories, and greater spatial extent of categories.
However, given the BSU scale we used, which allows for flexible coverage of changes in the type
of built-up areas and population density, the results can be considered commensurate with original
categorization. For an overview of the financial demands and sustainability of individual types of
urban development, we also used the assumed total current expenditure per hectare based on the
study by Hudeˇcek et al. [
47
], shown in Table 2. To analyze the change in population density of

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 7 of 22
individual BSUs depending on the change in the number of inhabitants and built-up area, we used
the operationalization framework of population density as set by Wolffet al. [
43
], except that we also
assess the units that have not undergone any change in population density. Stable density may be a
result of the change in relative values through either an identical increase of population and built-up
area or identical decrease of population and built-up area (see [
43
]). This process should allow us to
analyze the financial sustainability of the built-up area more closely.
Table 2. Changes of urban structures in Ostrava 1991–2011 with estimated total expenditure.
Indicators Period
Organic
Urban
Structure
Urban
Block
Structure
Garden
City Urban
Structure
Single
Detached
Houses
Paired Villas
and
Row-Houses
Mixed
Building
Types
Estates
and High
Rises
Por
Average
Value
BSU units - 3 3 1 65 8 43 46 169 *
Population
1991 6225 738 909 45,765 5010 68,301 192,654 326,244
2001 5153 6975 613 47,691 5031 66,584 182,918 314,965
2011 4983 6114 677 52,658 5069 60,915 162,695 293,111
Population change
1991–2001
−1072 −405 −296 1926 21 −1717 −9736 −11,279
2001–2011
−170 −861 64 4967 38 −5669 −20,223 −21,854
1991–2011
−1242 −1266 −232 6893 59 −7386 −29,959 −33,133
Built-up area (ha)
1991 49.75 51.36 10.74 2410.68 167.53 900.19 860.25 4450.51
2006 49.75 51.36 10.74 2669.71 171.13 890.15 864.51 4707.36
2011 49.75 51.36 10.74 2727.06 172.37 906.27 867.42 4784.96
Population density (ha)
1991 125.13 143.69 84.62 18.98 29.90 75.87 223.95 73.30
2001 103.58 135.80 57.07 17.86 29.40 74.80 211.59 66.91
2011 100.16 119.04 63.02 19.31 29.41 67.22 189.56 61.26
Share of built-up area
with population density
under 100 persons/ha
1991 22.17 67.86 100 100 100 71.35 5.61 -
2001 73.65 67.86 100 100 100 69.16 4.41 -
2011 51.48 67.86 100 100 100 74.17 3.48 -
Age index
1991 75.96 95.92 94.16 85.46 116.98 102.05 51.69 82.05
2001 101.85 99.29 162.67 81.70 66.89 82.03 88.11 83.98
2011 151.41 109.23 118.69 114.80 102.03 91.32 136.57 114.72
Average share of 1 and 2
person households
1991 56.00 65.86 59.35 50.92 53.37 59.97 51.27 53.85
2001 61.94 64.54 62.60 52.14 50.37 59.60 58.35 56.10
2011 71.94 72.44 68.67 53.70 52.21 65.30 68.60 61.38
Estimated total
expenditure (€/ha) ** - 10,361 13,033 8,182 6,683 10,018 10,224 13,614 -
Notes: * these 169 BSU represents 99.66% in 1991, 99.44% in 2001 and 98.95% in 2011 of population of Ostrava **
original data use currency CZK, (
€
/ha) is based on average yearly exchange rate in 2018 (1 EUR =25.6 CZK), source
of estimated total expenditure Hudeˇcek et al. [47].
5. Profile of Study Area
The focus of the paper is based on the development of the city after 1989. Nevertheless, in the spirit
of the “follow the path” method, it is necessary to briefly outline the history of urban development
that has been studied more in detail elsewhere [
63
]. Three basic phases can be distinguished in the
urban development of Ostrava (see Figure 1).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
5. Profile of Study Area
The focus of the paper is based on the development of the city after 1989. Nevertheless, in the
spirit of the “follow the path” method, it is necessary to briefly outline the history of urban
development that has been studied more in detail elsewhere [63]. Three basic phases can be
distinguished in the urban development of Ostrava (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Population change in Ostrava (1869–2019 [88]) and prediction of population change until
2050 according to Šotkovský [89].
The first phase defined, based on available data, from 1869 through 1930, was characterized by
massive industrialization and spontaneous urbanization, which was also typical for other cities based
on the exploitation of hard coal and steel production. Due to the combination of the above-mentioned
processes, spatial overlap and blending of (incompatible) functions [90], intensified by a polycentric
structure from originally isolated settlement cores and production premises (mines, factories), was
created. The part of the city formed in this period is often referred to as “old Ostrava”. Between 1940
and 1948, there was a small population decline (as a result of the Holocaust and the subsequent
expulsion of the German population).
The second phase (1948–1989) was characterized by ongoing urbanization, already driven by
“socialist” industrialization [91]. The renewed demographic growth had spatially highly
differentiated impacts. These were conditioned by directive urban planning [92]. Similar to other
socialist cities, large housing estates [93] were built at a considerable distance from “old Ostrava”.
First was the Poruba district situated in the western part of the city, where the population increased
from 1,596 (1950) to 83,196 (1970), with plans for this district being even 180,000 [94]. The second large
residential area was the Ostrava-Jih, where the population increased from 22,532 (1961) to 118,806
(1991). This area was also planned for a larger population (280,000).
In contrast, the process of population decline was experienced by “old Ostrava”. The area of the
narrower and wider inner city of Ostrava lagged behind during the socialism in physical, functional,
and social terms. An important feature was the relatively large demolitions of buildings and the
controlled hollowing-out of urban structures in the city center and wider inner city, resulting in a
perforated urban structure. As a result, the population of “old Ostrava” dropped from 148,281 to
90,145 (−40%) during the centrally planned economy. Thus, while in 1950 the old Ostrava
concentrated approximately 68% of the entire population, in 1991 it was only 27%. At the same time,
there was an intentional spatial concentration and segregation of socially disadvantaged and Roma
population into the inner city from the 1960s, with approximately 43% of all Roma in the city of
Ostrava residing for example, in the district of Přívoz (northern part of ”old Ostrava”) [95].
Since the early 1970s, we have been observing stagnation of the socialist growth model, which
was also reflected in a decrease in growth dynamics in Ostrava. Here, since 1975, the importance of
Figure 1.
Population change in Ostrava (1869–2019 [
88
]) and prediction of population change until
2050 according to Šotkovský[89].

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 8 of 22
The first phase defined, based on available data, from 1869 through 1930, was characterized by
massive industrialization and spontaneous urbanization, which was also typical for other cities based
on the exploitation of hard coal and steel production. Due to the combination of the above-mentioned
processes, spatial overlap and blending of (incompatible) functions [
90
], intensified by a polycentric
structure from originally isolated settlement cores and production premises (mines, factories), was
created. The part of the city formed in this period is often referred to as “old Ostrava”. Between
1940 and 1948, there was a small population decline (as a result of the Holocaust and the subsequent
expulsion of the German population).
The second phase (1948–1989) was characterized by ongoing urbanization, already driven by
“socialist” industrialization [
91
]. The renewed demographic growth had spatially highly differentiated
impacts. These were conditioned by directive urban planning [
92
]. Similar to other socialist cities, large
housing estates [
93
] were built at a considerable distance from “old Ostrava”. First was the Poruba
district situated in the western part of the city, where the population increased from 1596 (1950) to
83,196 (1970), with plans for this district being even 180,000 [
94
]. The second large residential area was
the Ostrava-Jih, where the population increased from 22,532 (1961) to 118,806 (1991). This area was
also planned for a larger population (280,000).
In contrast, the process of population decline was experienced by “old Ostrava”. The area of the
narrower and wider inner city of Ostrava lagged behind during the socialism in physical, functional,
and social terms. An important feature was the relatively large demolitions of buildings and the
controlled hollowing-out of urban structures in the city center and wider inner city, resulting in a
perforated urban structure. As a result, the population of “old Ostrava” dropped from 148,281 to
90,145 (
−
40%) during the centrally planned economy. Thus, while in 1950 the old Ostrava concentrated
approximately 68% of the entire population, in 1991 it was only 27%. At the same time, there was an
intentional spatial concentration and segregation of socially disadvantaged and Roma population into
the inner city from the 1960s, with approximately 43% of all Roma in the city of Ostrava residing for
example, in the district of Pˇrívoz (northern part of ”old Ostrava”) [95].
Since the early 1970s, we have been observing stagnation of the socialist growth model, which
was also reflected in a decrease in growth dynamics in Ostrava. Here, since 1975, the importance of
immigration has been declining, with the demographic growth becoming dependent on natural growth.
In addition, the surrounding rural communities were integrated into Ostrava in the mid-1970s [
96
]. If
socialist cities were considered generally more compact and characterized by higher density than their
capitalist counterparts [
97
], Ostrava was the exception. In its case, it was fragmented and sprawling city
over an area of 214 km
2
[
98
] with a lot of green areas. At the turn of the second and third phase (in 1990),
Ostrava had a population density (inhabitants per square mile) of 4,000, while Atlanta, being a “poster
child” of the sprawling city [
99
], had in 1990 3,000 ([
100
] cit. in [
101
] p. 26), and a comparable city of
Leipzig, which also has fought suburbanization and shrinkage, had more than a double the density of
Ostrava in 1990 [
102
]. In addition, the city was designed by socialist planners to accommodate 500,000
inhabitants, which was partly reflected by the built technical and social infrastructure.
The third phase (1989–present) is then characterized by the urban shrinkage process. Between 1990
and 2018, the population decreased to 287,265 (−13.4%) not including foreigners (11,000). The causes
of urban shrinkage are basically not much different from other cities in post-socialist Europe [
103
].
Rumpel and Slach [104] identified the following specific causes of shrinkage:
(a)
Environmental factors: Environmental pollution, especially air pollution, is one of the main
reasons for outmigration from Ostrava. Despite the fact that the amount of total emissions
dropped from 35,000 tons (1990) to 929 tons (2012) [
105
], Ostrava is one of the most polluted
cities in Europe [
106
]. Poor environmental quality still acts as a key push factor, especially for the
educated population (see below). Another environmental burden is brownfields, which account
for 8.4% of the city’s area [107].
(b)
Suburbanization: Outmigration in particular by escaping from an unsatisfactory urban
environment, known as escapism (cf. [
108
]). The main migration flows are directed to the

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 9 of 22
south-eastern or north-western part of the region [
109
], which have better environmental
conditions. The paradox is that air quality in some (close) suburban locations is not significantly
different from Ostrava [
105
]. We should also not neglect the impact of poor-quality housing stock
or virtually non-existent spatial regulation. In the population decline of the city, suburbanization
accounts for more than 60%, losing approximately 3000 inhabitants in favor of suburban locations
between 2012 and 2017 [110].
(c) Economic factors: Transformation of the economy in the form of deindustrialization accompanied
by weak growth of the service sector. Between 1989 and 1999, approximately 50,000 jobs were
lost in hard coal mining and manufacturing industry. The crisis of the region culminated in 2004
(18.4% unemployment rate), but since then the city has been growing economically thanks to the
inflow of foreign direct investment [
63
], except for the period of economic crisis between 2008
and 2011. This economic growth was also reflected in the unemployment rate reaching 5.1% in
2019 [
111
]. An interesting fact is that Ostrava is one of the most economically successful regions
in Czechia during the transition period [112], despite that its population is still declining.
(d)
Outmigration: The lack of attractive job opportunities is listed as the main cause of outmigration
from Ostrava. It is mainly characterized by the selective outmigration of young, highly qualified
people (brain-drain). In recent years, also thanks to the above-mentioned economic growth and
low unemployment rate, the issues related to the environment and quality of life have been in the
center of attention [
113
]. To illustrate this, between 2012 and 2017, 1600 residents moved from
Ostrava to Prague and its surroundings [114].
(e) Natural demographic changes are also an important factor in the shrinkage of Ostrava. In addition
to the decline in the number of births (1990: 4516, 2017: 2970 [
115
]), aging is a major process that
can be documented by the aging index, which expresses how many people aged 65 and over
account for 100 children under 15 years of age. In 1991, Ostrava’s aging index was 55.5, thus
Ostrava was one of the youngest big cities in the Czechia in terms of demography when in 2012
the aging index was 114 and in 2025 is expected to reach 158 [116] (see Figure 2).
(f)
Policy response: The dominant strategy focused on the attraction of investment and economic
growth, while other causes and consequences (see below) of shrinkage were trivialized (cf. [
51
]).
Although we may have seen a more proactive approach to countering shrinkage [
51
], aimed at
mismatch on a real estate market, segregation, brownfield regeneration and industrial heritage
utilization [
90
], it is rather isolated cases (thematically or spatially), the funding of which is
dependent on external sources [
116
]. Despite these efforts (especially in recent years), some
shrinkage impacts have intensified.
The consequences of shrinkage will be documented in detail on the example of spatial changes in
population density. We should note that it is not possible to clearly separate causes and consequences
as they are mutually reinforcing. Briefly, we can list the following impacts of shrinkage:
(a) Outmigration driven by the need for jobs, higher quality of life, and overall higher life expectations
(cf. socio-economic escalator [
117
]) weakens the region’s knowledge base and deepens the labor
market mismatch, because of its selective nature, the “gap” grows between the required and
available workforce. To some extent, the possibility of further growth of hi-tech [
118
] and other
promising industries as well as overall urban development of Ostrava is “curbed”. Although this
effect is limited due to the economic boom.
(b)
Through social filtration, i.e., outflow of the middle and upper classes and families with children
(the main source group), the demographic and also economic (outflow of purchasing power)
potential of the city decreases [
109
]. At the same time, many residents still work in the city
and use its publicly subsidized services, although they live elsewhere. Other aspects such as
increasing traffic load and the mismatch between existing and available social and technical
infrastructure (sewer system, schools, etc.) in the inner city and the outskirts of the city [
119
]
cannot be omitted. Given the absence of mutual social and economic coordination, the existing

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 10 of 22
suburbanization process bears the characteristics of parasitic urbanization [
120
]. To summarize,
there is a simultaneous increase in spending and a decrease in revenues of local government.
(c)
The shrinking process accelerates social segregation [
119
]. Research confirms an increase in
residential segregation in the form of socially excluded localities in Ostrava [
121
]. These are
usually concentrated in a compact inner city in abandoned localities or near brownfields [
122
].
Essentially, the patterns that have already historically existed deepen. According to rough
estimates, around 6000 persons live in excluded localities, another 8000 live in second-class
housing (boarding houses), and another 20,000 persons in Ostrava are at risk of losing their
homes. Between 2006 and 2015, the number of excluded localities and boarding houses increased
from 10 to 57 [
123
]. Moreover, residential segregation can be considered to be the cause and effect
of shrinkage (cf. [82]).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22
f) Policy response: The dominant strategy focused on the attraction of investment and
economic growth, while other causes and consequences (see below) of shrinkage were
trivialized (cf. [51]). Although we may have seen a more proactive approach to countering
shrinkage [51], aimed at mismatch on a real estate market, segregation, brownfield
regeneration and industrial heritage utilization [90], it is rather isolated cases (thematically
or spatially), the funding of which is dependent on external sources [116]. Despite these
efforts (especially in recent years), some shrinkage impacts have intensified.
Figure 2. Aging index change (1991–2011) on the basic settlement units (BSU) scale of Ostrava.
The consequences of shrinkage will be documented in detail on the example of spatial changes
in population density. We should note that it is not possible to clearly separate causes and
consequences as they are mutually reinforcing. Briefly, we can list the following impacts of shrinkage:
a) Outmigration driven by the need for jobs, higher quality of life, and overall higher life
expectations (cf. socio-economic escalator [117]) weakens the region’s knowledge base and
deepens the labor market mismatch, because of its selective nature, the “gap” grows
between the required and available workforce. To some extent, the possibility of further
growth of hi-tech [119] and other promising industries as well as overall urban
development of Ostrava is “curbed”. Although this effect is limited due to the economic
boom.
b) Through social filtration, i.e., outflow of the middle and upper classes and families with
children (the main source group), the demographic and also economic (outflow of
purchasing power) potential of the city decreases [109]. At the same time, many residents
still work in the city and use its publicly subsidized services, although they live elsewhere.
Other aspects such as increasing traffic load and the mismatch between existing and
available social and technical infrastructure (sewer system, schools, etc.) in the inner city
and the outskirts of the city [119] cannot be omitted. Given the absence of mutual social and
economic coordination, the existing suburbanization process bears the characteristics of
Figure 2. Aging index change (1991–2011) on the basic settlement units (BSU) scale of Ostrava.
On the other hand, it is appropriate to mention the following specifics, especially from the national
context. Unlike most shrinking cities, Ostrava does not face the issue of empty flats and the need
for extensive demolition to any significant extent, which is generally the result of inherited housing
shortage from the era of a centrally planned economy. Lastly, although the city’s population continues
to decline, it is not reflected in its revenues. The dominant source of revenues for the municipal
budget (approximately 80%) is the centrally redistributed revenue from shared taxes by the number
of residents (in detail [
116
,
124
]). What is important is that these revenues are tied to the state of the
national economy, which explains why, despite the decline in population, the municipal income is
growing from these taxes. In the crisis year 2010, Ostrava received 221 million EUR from shared
taxes (the total budget was 248 million EUR). In 2018, shared tax revenues amounted to 283 million
EUR (a total of 383 million EUR). In particular, the inflow of money from EU funds contributes to an
increase in sources apart from tax sharing. However, the city is losing its finances, because if the 1990
population were maintained, the budget would be theoretically higher by almost 40 million EUR.

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 11 of 22
6. Results: Evolution of Spatial Patterns of Intra-urban Population Density
Our results provide the following picture. The demographic decline during the first monitored
period in Ostrava (1991–2001) was relatively weak at the micro-level (
−
3.46%), therefore the population
density changes were also relatively weak (see Figure 3, for detailed analysis use Figure S1 in
Supplementary Material). Their development was also greatly influenced by inherited patterns from
centrally planned economy, with the first transition years being characterized by a relatively low
unemployment rate (until 1997), a decline in construction due to real price growth, and real income
decline (cf. [
125
]) and by gradual development of supportive instruments of the housing supply
(cf. [126]).
The largest decline in population density was recorded in the historic city center and some
resurrecting BSUs in the inner city corresponding to the organic urban structure and the urban block
structure. This was mainly the result of the dynamic growth of the service sector in the form of
commercialization (cf. [127]) since this sector was extremely under-dimensioned during the centrally
planned economy. In the city center of Ostrava, many units were rebuilt from residential to serve
commercial use. Population density increased slightly through in-fill development in residentially
attractive locations in the dispersed inner city, where extensive demolitions took place in the past and
in the areas near parks. The population density increase was typical for the localities with low-quality
housing stock neglected during the socialist period in the northern part of Ostrava inner city. Unlike
large housing estates, the decline was not accompanied by an increase in the age index, the opposite
was true–it dropped here due to a higher birth rate of socially weaker population and lower life
expectancy (cf. [
128
], see Figure 2), and at the same time the floor area per capita decreased, all of
which reflected the social filtration process. Interestingly, this locality went through a decline in the
given period and was described as socially excluded. This development demonstrates that the change
in population density is an ambiguous indicator and other indicators need to be taken into account in
order to produce accurate interpretation.
The most visible example of the decline in built-up areas is the Hrušov locality, where the long-term
decline was accelerated by floods in 1997 resulting in this area becoming the most devastated locality
in Ostrava [
129
,
130
]. The structures of estates and high rises in “old Ostrava” and also in Poruba
and Ostrava-Jih were displaying a slight decrease in population density, but there were also growing
localities. In the Poruba district, it was one of the largest socially excluded localities [
122
], and in the
Ostrava-Jih district, the growth was driven by the construction of apartment buildings on the edge of
the structure of estate and high rises. The most homogeneous in the population density change were
localities situated in attractive inner-urban fringe districts, although population density growth was
moderate. An interesting fact was that the number of inhabitants of Ostrava-South remained virtually
unchanged, while in Poruba, despite its higher perceived attractiveness, the number of inhabitants
decreased by 9002 (
−
10.7%). A key role here is played by the earlier construction of this housing estate.
In the second monitored period (2001–2011), the shrinkage process accelerated (
−
6.93% of the
population), and the same can be said for spatial population density patterns. The period of economic
stagnation was replaced by dynamic economic growth in 2004 and delayed suburbanization gradation,
which started in the Czechia after 2002 (cf. [
126
]). In the central part of Ostrava, the number of
residents in residentially attractive localities near greenery and water has increased significantly.
A good example is a locality adjacent to the main city park. Residential buildings were constructed
by developers here, which led to an increase in the number of inhabitants from 804 to 1343 over one
decade. Identical patterns can be traced to the already described localities in the dispersed inner city,
with an above-average proportion of university-educated people being typical for all growing localities
in attractive city parts, which can be seen as an indicator of higher socio-economic status. However,
the city center as a whole was losing population. Another typical category is socially segregated
localities in the northern part of the inner city. These are generally population-wise stable localities
with decreasing age index and the minimum representation of university-educated people, as well
as with degrading built-up environment (cf. [
131
]). The prevailing trend in the densely built-up area

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 12 of 22
of the city center and the inner city is the de-densification driven mainly by the aging process and
increases in single-person households.
A similar trend, but in a more intense form, is seen in large housing estates. The ongoing decline
in density in the Poruba district is mainly due to the aging process and generally decreasing household
sizes (some localities had an age index of 240), even though the adjacent, initially rural communities
are growing. In comparison with the previous period, the process of de-densification in Ostrava-Jih
was intensified. Again, growing or stable localities in terms of population are characterized either by
the fact that they were originally sparsely built-up areas, where new homes are being built, or we are
referring to socially excluded localities with decreasing age index. Inner-urban fringe districts grew
most visibly and significantly, however, the population density increase was relatively small. The
overall picture of changes in population density in Ostrava is closest to the patchwork city model.
However, if we take into account the polycentric character of Ostrava with three dominant cores,
namely the city centre in the district of Moravsk
á
Ostrava and Pˇr
í
voz, Ostrava-Jih, and Poruba, there
is an apparent hollowing-out of the inner city syndrome, where individual de-densified city cores
are surrounded by newly densified areas formed by in particular urban structures of single detached
houses, creating a perforated structure.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
Figure 3. Patterns of population density changes under differing constellations of development of
urban population (POP) and built-up area (BA) in Ostrava typology of urban structures within basic
settlement units.
7. Connecting Population Density Changes and Sustainability
The above-mentioned changes in spatial patterns indicate a potential pitfall in relation to the
sustainability of urban development. Despite an overall decreasing trend in the population of the city
of Ostrava (−10.1%), a built-up area has increased (7.5%) during 1991–2011, which is obviously
reflected in a decrease in the average population density. When looking at developments in
individual researched BSUs, further trends can be observed at the micro level leading to deterioration
in the city sustainability (see Table 2). On the one hand, structures characterized by high population
density, such as organic urban structures, urban block structures and urban structures of housing
estates have been declining over a long period of time in terms of the population density. This
development leads to the fact that the most financially sustainable parts of the city are becoming more
expensive per capita, thus gradually losing this advantage. The organic urban structure category has,
due to this development, even approached the 100/ha limit, which is considered to be borderline for
efficient housing development from a financial perspective. On the other hand, we can observe the
trend of expanding of the urban structure area with low population density.
Figure 3.
Patterns of population density changes under differing constellations of development of
urban population (POP) and built-up area (BA) in Ostrava typology of urban structures within basic
settlement units.

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 13 of 22
7. Connecting Population Density Changes and Sustainability
The above-mentioned changes in spatial patterns indicate a potential pitfall in relation to the
sustainability of urban development. Despite an overall decreasing trend in the population of the
city of Ostrava (
−
10.1%), a built-up area has increased (7.5%) during 1991–2011, which is obviously
reflected in a decrease in the average population density. When looking at developments in individual
researched BSUs, further trends can be observed at the micro level leading to deterioration in the city
sustainability (see Table 2). On the one hand, structures characterized by high population density,
such as organic urban structures, urban block structures and urban structures of housing estates have
been declining over a long period of time in terms of the population density. This development leads
to the fact that the most financially sustainable parts of the city are becoming more expensive per
capita, thus gradually losing this advantage. The organic urban structure category has, due to this
development, even approached the 100/ha limit, which is considered to be borderline for efficient
housing development from a financial perspective. On the other hand, we can observe the trend of
expanding of the urban structure area with low population density.
The vast majority of the urban housing development growth in the Ostrava area was driven
by an urban structure of single detached houses, which is one of the most expensive structures per
capita. This development represents a double trap for Ostrava, because on one hand the revenues from
population size decreases, and on the other hand, the maintenance costs of the urban structure itself are
increased by reducing the sustainability of economically advantageous types of housing development
and by increasing the areas of financially disadvantageous urban structures. Currently, the development
of infrastructure (e.g., planned new buildings for the Scientific Library or Philharmonic Orchestra),
but also a considerable part of regeneration projects for some selected Ostrava sites is subsidized
by EU funds or national funds (Lower Vitkovice Area, Black Meadow). However, these funds are
intended for construction only, whereas the financial burden that the operation and maintenance of the
implemented projects will represent for the city budget in the future is not taken into account. Similar
investments in shrinking cities, while ignoring the unavailability of adequate housing for low-income
groups, appear, according to Silverman ”...paradoxical and grotesque” [
132
] (p. 6). In addition, this
strategy setting of land use development does not reflect the obsolescence of older types of housing
development and infrastructure, which primarily documents the city’s pro-growth orientation.
Figure 4shows that identified trends have actually continued after the monitored period
(1991–2011), when, however, the data are only available disaggregated to whole city districts. Those
districts with dominating urban structure of single detached houses show sustained population growth,
confirming the importance of inner-suburbanization. In the center of Ostrava, there is a mitigation
of depopulation in selected areas, and similar patterns are in the inner city, but it should be noted
that these are usually socially excluded localities. Urban structures of estates and high rises in terms
of population decline further. Their decline is driven mainly by aging, and due to low residential
attractiveness resulting in a low inflow of new residents, which is especially the case of Ostrava-Jih
district. According to the demographic projection [
89
], Ostrava copies the lower, pessimistic variant,
according to which the Ostrava population should be only approximately 223,000 people by 2050,
which represents a shrinkage of approximately one-third of the population compared to the peak.
Again, shrinkage does not necessarily have to bring negative effects, but it depends on the city’s
response to this problem. In the first decades following 1989, the problem was rather trivialized, as
evidenced by a statement made in 2012 by the then Mayor: “And there (Pittsburgh) the population
declined from approximately half a million to three hundred thousand people. So, we haven’t ended
up so badly yet” [
133
]. As already indicated, there has been some shift in recent years, but this is
somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, the vision of the city’s current strategy is to mitigate the
negative migration balance by attracting new (especially young) residents, while on the other hand the
current Mayor expresses the conviction that “[i]f Ostrava only ends up having 250,000 people in the
end, but they are all happy, it won’t mind” [
134
]. In other words, the city adopted an almost solely
pro-growth strategy to countering shrinkage [
51
], therefore instruments related to the management

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 14 of 22
of decline have been ignored [
116
]. Obviously, the question is not whether the city will or will not
implement such instruments, but when and at what price (cf. [70]).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22
these are usually socially excluded localities. Urban structures of estates and high rises in terms of
population decline further. Their decline is driven mainly by aging, and due to low residential
attractiveness resulting in a low inflow of new residents, which is especially the case of Ostrava-Jih
district. According to the demographic projection [89], Ostrava copies the lower, pessimistic variant,
according to which the Ostrava population should be only approximately 223,000 people by 2050,
which represents a shrinkage of approximately one-third of the population compared to the peak.
Figure 4. Population change on the level of districts of Ostrava during period 2011–2019.
Again, shrinkage does not necessarily have to bring negative effects, but it depends on the city’s
response to this problem. In the first decades following 1989, the problem was rather trivialized, as
evidenced by a statement made in 2012 by the then Mayor: “And there (Pittsburgh) the population
declined from approximately half a million to three hundred thousand people. So, we haven't ended
up so badly yet” [133]. As already indicated, there has been some shift in recent years, but this is
somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, the vision of the city’s current strategy is to mitigate the
negative migration balance by attracting new (especially young) residents, while on the other hand
the current Mayor expresses the conviction that "[i]f Ostrava only ends up having 250,000 people in
the end, but they are all happy, it won’t mind” [134]. In other words, the city adopted an almost solely
pro-growth strategy to countering shrinkage [51], therefore instruments related to the management
of decline have been ignored [116]. Obviously, the question is not whether the city will or will not
implement such instruments, but when and at what price (cf. [70]).
8. Discusion and Conclusions
The paper aimed to analyze and assess the nexus between spatial patterns of population density
and their sustainability in the context of the shrinking city of Ostrava, which was for better
understanding set in the context of a dominant strategy of responding to urban shrinkage. The main
findings of the research can be summarized as follows.
The city entered a transition period with a highly fragmented and sprawled urban structure
inherited from the past, with the overall decline in the average population density of the BSUs (1991:
Figure 4. Population change on the level of districts of Ostrava during period 2011–2019.
8. Discusion and Conclusions
The paper aimed to analyze and assess the nexus between spatial patterns of population density and
their sustainability in the context of the shrinking city of Ostrava, which was for better understanding
set in the context of a dominant strategy of responding to urban shrinkage. The main findings of the
research can be summarized as follows.
The city entered a transition period with a highly fragmented and sprawled urban structure
inherited from the past, with the overall decline in the average population density of the BSUs (1991:
73.3 inhabitants/ha, 2011: 61.26 inhabitants/ha) being relatively modest. Much more substantial
changes took place at an intra-urban level. The evolution of spatial patterns of population densities at
this level pointed to processes of three types, showing some connection between shrinkage intensity
and fragmentation of spatial patterns of population densities. First, the most visible manifestation is
the continued hollowing-out of three Ostrava cores in favor of less densely built-up areas situated on
the city fringe, being a crystalline example of inner-suburbanization. Here the number of inhabitants
and also the built-up area are growing. Secondly, in some parts of the center and inner city, “pockets”
of population density growth of two types are formed. The first type is localities driven by higher
socio-economic status inhabitants in attractive locations in the city center and inner city, while the
latter type is characterized by the growth driven by socially weaker population groups.
In the localities of large housing estates, which are losing population, there is the second listed
type of (socially excluded) locality or the localities with single housing units with a high age index.
To summarize, the evolution after 1989 accelerated and intensified the inherited fragmented and
sprawled structure, which is also illustrated by the mismatch between population decline and built-up
area growth. Surprisingly, it seems, at least, in contrast to the outlined development, that the extent
of demolition is minor. This phenomenon can be attributed to the combination of inherited housing

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 15 of 22
shortage, and the growth of the number of one- and two-person households due to aging, especially in
large housing estates.
However, the most significant implication is the change in population densities in relation to
the sustainability of public finances. The results clearly show that the change in population densities
continuously increases costs and thus reduces sustainability. Basically, in the localities with a high
population density that are cheaper in terms of their maintenance, the population is declining, and vice
versa. In addition, while the built-up area of the first group is stagnating, costly maintenance localities
are experiencing relatively rapid growth. If the lower variant of demographic development forecast is
fulfilled, it can be assumed that a number of localities with the population above a critical threshold
of 100 inhabitants/ha would fall below this threshold if the existing built-up area was maintained.
Already in 2011, despite both the qualitative and quantitative development of the service industry, the
very center of Ostrava was already at this level, with the less equipped and less attractive locations
likely to follow this trend even more intensively. The results found are in contrast to the city’s approach
addressing urban shrinkage impacts.
Corresponding with the adapted neoliberal pro-growth governance regime, emphasis has been
placed on the economic revitalization of the city over the long term, which was supposed to subsequently
also solve social or demographic problems. Despite a partial shift in recent years in the perception of
urban shrinkage, responses are, compared to the previous pro-growth strategy aimed at attraction of
foreign direct investment, focused instead on the attraction of young and educated people, but without
any adequate measures. The ongoing suburbanization process suggests that, similar to other industrial
cities, Ostrava is attractive to work in, but not to live in (cf. [
135
]), and while other cities have used
economic growth for reurbanization by making the inner city more attractive [
7
], Ostrava has thus far
missed this opportunity to increase sustainability.
Ignoring the unsustainable pathway of urban shrinkage also corresponds to the good financial
condition of the city, which, similar to other shrinking cities, is dependent on external sources and
decision-making mechanisms [
11
]. In the opposite sense, one can cite the experience that “the awareness
of the challenges brought about by shrinkage developed only when related problems became highly
visible” [
10
] (p. 11). In the case of Ostrava, it seems that the acceptance of urban shrinkage and the
resulting measures will most likely be driven by a change of external environment. It can be stated
that the city is becoming more vulnerable, losing its ability to influence its own destiny in the long run.
Furthermore, this case study provides implications for the research agenda of shrinking cities.
Findings show the financial unsustainability of neoliberal pro-growth governance in shrinking cities [
22
],
and its vulnerability to external influences. Although the shrinking process has not yet significantly
affected the city’s revenues or economic growth, in the long run, a possible change in the external
environment, combined with long-term local trivialization of the process, could bring a profound
structural crisis. This may be potentiated by the long inertia of the development of demographic and
physical structures, or by the high cost of possible remediation, which, given the limited powers of the
municipality, will not be easy to implement. Here, the proverb “prevention is better than cure” proves
true (cf. [
66
]). If we paraphrase Rink et al. [
11
], we can state that Ostrava serves as the “worst practice”
city, a city that, despite rising revenues and economy, continues to lose its population, thus creating a
problematic future situation. We have documented the case of the spatially growing shrinking city,
which can serve as a warning to cities in a similar situation before they choose this path of development.
Through the lens of EEG, based on the abovementioned results, we can conclude that the identified
development path has intensified inherited negative path dependency and thus creates a constraining
rather than enabling environment for the more sustainable development path (cf. [
136
]). To put it
simply, the city is locked-in in a highly unsustainable path and potential de-locking will be extremely
complicated. The results also seem to be in contrast to the assumption held in post-socialist countries
about the role of market and planning (cf. [
73
]). The unregulated market does not only lead to spatially
unjust land use patterns, but also harms the effectivity of resource allocation, and hence the financial

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 16 of 22
functioning of the city. Yet the role of planning that should resolve these urban challenges is still to be
fully appreciated in the mindsets of post-socialist societies.
Furthermore, the available data allowed us to only examine a period limited by censuses. For a
deeper underpinning of urban shrinkage dynamics, it will be necessary to integrate the future results of
the census (probably available in 2022) that will re-examine whether the identified trends at the micro
level continue or not. A promising alternative for further research into intra-urban spatial patterns is
the relational comparison with other cities in an analogical context, and above all, the use of new, more
dynamic data sources such as mobile phone location data (eg. [137,138]).
Lastly, we are aware that policy response is not only about accepting shrinkage at the local level, but
is embedded in a broader policy framework that guides the allocation of resources [
14
]. In the context
of sustainability, it is essential to study not only the (un)sustainability of the processes themselves, but
also the adaptive capacity of the system to adequately respond to such processes [
19
]. In this sense, it
would be valuable to further examine the national and supranational institutional settings, as well as
economic conditions that impair finding sustainable solutions to discussed challenges.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4142/s1,
Figure S1: Geographic layers (ESRI Shapefile format) with calculated population densities within BSU for
1991–2001 and 2001–2011 periods.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, O.S.; data curation, L.K.; funding acquisition, O.S.; investigation, L.K.
and A.N.; methodology, O.S. and L.K.; resources, L.K. and A.N.; supervision, O.S. and P.R.; validation, L.K.;
visualization, L.K. and A.N.; writing—original draft, O.S., V.B., A.N. and P.R.; writing—review & editing, O.S.,
V.B., L.K., A.N. and P.R.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Czech Science Foundation through a research grant ‘Paths development
in traditional industries in old industrial regions in Czechia: governance, actors, institutions and leadership’,
grant number 18-11299S.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Basic settlement units (BSU) represent the smallest territorial unit for which the public has the
possibility to obtain data for the population and housing census. In cities, they were defined as
urbanistic districts according to the principle of dividing the city from urban and spatial planning
aspects according to prevailing functional use (residential areas, industrial areas, transportation,
agricultural areas, forest areas, recreational areas, etc.) [139].
Appendix B
Urban Atlas is a freely available harmonized data land use/land cover for European cities and
their hinterland created under the GMES/Copernicus program. Coverage includes 305 functional
urban areas (FUA) for 2006 and 697 FUA for 2012 on a 1: 10,000 scale. The minimum mapping unit is
0.25 ha for urban areas and 1 ha for rural areas. Thematic data resolution includes 20 landscape classes
for 2006, which were subsequently extended to 27 classes in 2012. Minimum overall accuracy for
level 1 class 1 “Artificial surfaces” is 85%. Classes in 112xx (Discontinuous urban fabric) are classified
according to their sealing degree [140].
References
1. Oswalt, P.; Rieniets, T. Atlas of Shrinking Cities; Hatje Cantz: Ostfildern, Germany, 2006; ISBN 3775717145.
2.
Nuissl, H.; Rink, D. The ‘production’ of urban sprawl in eastern Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist
transformation. Cities 2005,22, 123–134. [CrossRef]
3.
Stryjakiewicz, T.; Ciesi
ó
łka, P.; Jaroszewska, E. Urban shrinkage and the post-socialist transformation: The
case of Poland. Built Environ. 2012,38, 196–213. [CrossRef]
4.
Wiechmann, T.; Pallagst, K.M. Urban shrinkage in Germany and the USA: A Comparison of Transformation
Patterns and Local Strategies. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2012,36, 261–280. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 17 of 22
5.
Hollander, J.B.; N
é
meth, J. The bounds of smart decline: A foundational theory for planning shrinking cities.
Hous. Policy Debate 2011,21, 349–367. [CrossRef]
6.
Großmann, K.; Beauregard, R.; Dewar, M.; Haase, A. European and US perspectives on shrinking cities.
Urban Res. Pract. 2012,5, 360–363. [CrossRef]
7.
Haase, A.; Wolff, M.; Špaˇckov
á
, P.; Radzimski, A. Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe–A Comparative
View of Eastern Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Comp. Popul. Stud. 2017,42, 353–390.
8.
Turok, I.; Mykhnenko, V. The trajectories of European cities, 1960–2005. Cities
2007
,24, 165–182. [CrossRef]
9.
Mykhnenko, V.; Turok, I. East European cities-Patterns of growth and decline, 1960-2005. Int. Plan. Stud.
2008,13, 311–342. [CrossRef]
10.
Rink, D.; Haase, A.; Bernt, M.; Krzysztofik, R. Specification of Working Model; Workpackage 1; Helmholtz
Centre for Environmental Research: Leipzig, Germany, 2009.
11.
Rink, D.; Haase, A.; Grossmann, K.; Couch, C.; Cocks, M. From long-term shrinkage to re-growth? The
urban development trajectories of Liverpool and Leipzig. Built Environ. 2012,38, 162–178. [CrossRef]
12.
Haase, A.; Bernt, M.; Großmann, K.; Mykhnenko, V.; Rink, D. Varieties of shrinkage in European cities. Eur.
Urban Reg. Stud. 2016,23, 86–102. [CrossRef]
13.
Hollander, J.B.; Pallagst, K.M.; Schwarz, T.; Popper, F.J. Planning Shrinking Cities. Prog. Plan.
2009
,72,
223–232.
14.
Bernt, M.; Haase, A.; Großmann, K.; Cocks, M.; Couch, C.; Cortese, C.; Krzysztofik, R. How does(n’t) Urban
Shrinkage get onto the Agenda? Experiences from Leipzig, Liverpool, Genoa and Bytom. Int. J. Urban
Reg. Res. 2014,38, 1749–1766. [CrossRef]
15.
Rink, D.; Couch, C.; Haase, A.; Krzysztofik, R.; Rumpel, P.; Rink, D.; Couch, C.; Haase, A.; Krzysztofik, R.
The governance of urban shrinkage in cities of post-socialist Europe: Policies, strategies and actors. Urban
Res. Pract. 2014,7, 258–277. [CrossRef]
16.
Herrmann, D.L.; Shuster, W.D.; Mayer, A.L.; Garmestani, A.S. Sustainability for Shrinking Cities. Sustainability
2016,8, 911. [CrossRef]
17.
Rocak, M.; Zuyd, H.; Hospers, G. Searching for Social Sustainability: The Case of the Shrinking City of
Heerlen. Sustainability 2016,8, 382. [CrossRef]
18.
Runge, A.; Kantor-Pietraga, I.; Runge, J.; Krzysztofik, R.; Dragan, W. Can depopulation create urban
sustainability in postindustrial regions? A case from Poland. Sustainability 2018,10, 4633. [CrossRef]
19.
Bossel, H. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications: A Report to the Balaton Group;
International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1999; ISBN 1895536138.
20.
Campbell, S. Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable
Development. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1996,62, 296–312. [CrossRef]
21.
Pike, A.; Rodr
í
guez-Pose, A.; Tomaney, J. What kind of local and regional development and for whom? Reg.
Stud. 2007,41, 1253–1269. [CrossRef]
22.
Haase, A.; Rink, D.; Grossmann, K. Shrinking Cities in Post-Socialist Europe: What Can We Learn from Their
Analysis for Theory Building Today? Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2016,98, 305–319.
23.
IPBES. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’; IPBES:
Bonn, Germany, 2019.
24.
Großmann, K.; Bontje, M.; Haase, A.; Mykhnenko, V. Shrinking cities: Notes for the further research agenda.
Cities 2013,35, 221–225. [CrossRef]
25.
Vale, L.J.; Campanella, T.J. The Resilient City: How Modern Cities Recover from Disaster; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; ISBN 0195175840.
26. Rybczynski, W.; Linneman, P. How to save our shrinking cities. Public Interest 1999,135, 30–44.
27.
Martin, R. Pfadabhängigkeit und die ökonomische Landschaft. In Denkanstöße zu Einer Anderen Geographie
der Ökonomie; Berndt, C., Glückler, J., Eds.; Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld, Germany, 2006; pp. 47–76. ISBN
978-3-8394-0454-6.
28.
Hassink, R. Regional resilience: A promising concept to explain differences in regional economic adaptability?
Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010,3, 45–58. [CrossRef]
29. Clark, C. Urban population densities. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1951,114, 490–496. [CrossRef]
30.
Dovey, K.; Pafka, E. The urban density assemblage: Modelling multiple measures. Urban Des. Int.
2014
,19,
66–76. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 18 of 22
31.
Soja, E.W. Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions; Blackwell Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2000; ISBN
1577180011.
32.
Kasanko, M.; Barredo, J.I.; Lavalle, C.; McCormick, N.; Demicheli, L.; Sagris, V.; Brezger, A. Are European
cities becoming dispersed? A comparative analysis of 15 European urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2006
,77,
111–130. [CrossRef]
33.
Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Haase, A. Endless Urban Growth? On the Mismatch of Population, Household and
Urban Land Area Growth and Its Effects on the Urban Debate. PLoS ONE 2013,8, 1–8. [CrossRef]
34.
McDonald, J.F. Econometric studies of urban population density: A survey. J. Urban Econ.
1989
,26, 361–385.
[CrossRef]
35.
Batty, M.; Sik Kim, K. Form follows function: Reformulating urban population density functions. Urban Stud.
1992,29, 1043–1069. [CrossRef]
36.
Wolff, M.; Wiechmann, T. Urban growth and decline: Europe’s shrinking cities in a comparative perspective
1990–2010. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2018,25, 122–139. [CrossRef]
37. Sýkora, L. Suburbanizace a jejíspoleˇcenskéd˘
usledky. Sociol. ˇ
Cas. 2003,39, 217–232.
38.
Van den Berg, L.; Drewett, R.; Klaasen, L.H.; Rossi, A.; Vijverberg, C.H.T. Urban Europe: A Study of Growth
and Decline; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 1982; ISBN 9780080231563.
39. Ouˇredníˇcek, M. Teorie stádiívývoje mˇest a diferenciálníurbanizace. Geografie 2000,105, 361–369.
40.
Siedentop, S.; Zakrzewski, P.; Stroms, P. A childless urban renaissance? Age-selective patterns of population
change in north american and german metropolitan areas. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2018,5, 1–20. [CrossRef]
41.
R
é
rat, P. The return of cities: The trajectory of Swiss cities from demographic loss to reurbanization.
Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019,27, 355–376. [CrossRef]
42. Westphal, C. Density figures for urban restructuring? Raumforsch. Raumordn. 2009,67, 7–20. [CrossRef]
43.
Wolff, M.; Haase, A.; Haase, D.; Kabisch, N. The impact of urban regrowth on the built environment.
Urban Stud. 2017,54, 2683–2700. [CrossRef]
44.
Jabareen, Y.R. Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res.
2006
,26,
38–52. [CrossRef]
45.
Edwards, M.M.; Xiao, Y. Annexation, local government spending, and the complicating role of density.
Urban Aff. Rev. 2009,45, 147–165. [CrossRef]
46. Turok, I. Cities, regions and competitiveness. Reg. Stud. 2004,38, 1069–1083. [CrossRef]
47.
Hudeˇcek, T.; Hniliˇcka, P.; Dlouh
ý
, M.; Leˇno Cut
á
kov
á
, L.; Leˇno, M. Urban structures, population density and
municipal expenditures: An empirical study in the Czech Republic. Urban Stud. 2019, 1–16. [CrossRef]
48.
Moss, T. ‘Cold spots’ of Urban Infrastructure: ‘Shrinking’ Processes in Eastern Germany and the Modern
Infrastructural Ideal. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2008,32, 436–451. [CrossRef]
49.
Holcombe, R.; Williams, D. The Impact of Population Density and Racial Composition on Municipal
Government Expenditures. Public Financ. Rev. 2008,36, 1–15. [CrossRef]
50.
Hartt, M. The Prevalence of Prosperous Shrinking Cities. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr.
2019
,109, 1651–1670.
[CrossRef]
51.
Hospers, G.J. Policy responses to urban shrinkage: From growth thinking to civic engagement.
Eur. Plan. Stud.
2014,22, 1507–1523. [CrossRef]
52.
Schwarz, N.; Schlink, U.; Franck, U.; Großmann, K. Relationship of land surface and air temperatures and its
implications for quantifying urban heat island indicators—An application for the city of Leipzig (Germany).
Ecol. Indic. 2012,18, 693–704. [CrossRef]
53.
Hartt, M.; Hackworth, J. Shrinking cities, shrinking households, or both? Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.
2018
, 1–13.
[CrossRef]
54.
Tighe, J.R.; Ganning, J.P. The divergent city: Unequal and uneven development in St. Louis. Urban Geogr.
2015,36, 654–673. [CrossRef]
55.
Rink, D.; Siemund, S. Perforation als Leitbild für die schrumpfende Stadt? Erfahrungen aus Leipzig.
disP Plan. Rev. 2016,52, 50–60. [CrossRef]
56.
Krzysztofik, R.; Kantor-Pietraga, I.; Runge, A.; Sp
ó
rna, T. Is the suburbanisation stage always important in
the transformation of large urban agglomerations? The case of the Katowice conurbation. Geogr. Pol.
2017
,
90, 71–85. [CrossRef]
57.
Frank, S. Inner-city suburbanization–no contradiction in terms. Middle-class family enclaves are spreading
in the cities. Raumforsch. und Raumordn. Spat. Res. Plan. 2018,76, 123–132. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 19 of 22
58.
Florida, R.; Adler, P. The patchwork metropolis: The morphology of the divided postindustrial city.
J. Urban Aff.2018,40, 609–624. [CrossRef]
59.
Rieniets, T. Shrinking cities: Causes and effects of urban population losses in the twentieth century. Nat.
Cult. 2009,4, 231–254. [CrossRef]
60.
Naumann, M.; Bernt, M. When the tap stays dry: Water networks in eastern Germany. Local Environ.
2009
,
14, 461–471. [CrossRef]
61.
Martinez-Fernandez, C.; Weyman, T.; Fol, S.; Audirac, I.; Cunningham-Sabot, E.; Wiechmann, T.; Yahagi, H.
Shrinking cities in Australia, Japan, Europe and the USA: From a global process to local policy responses.
Prog. Plan. 2016,105, 1–48. [CrossRef]
62.
Nelle, A.B. Tackling human capital loss in shrinking cities: Urban development and secondary school
improvement in Eastern Germany. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016,24, 865–883. [CrossRef]
63.
Rumpel, P.; Slach, O. Governance of Shrinkage of the City of Ostrava; European Science and Art Publishing
Praha: Prague, Czech Republic, 2012; ISBN 8087504194.
64.
Sousa, S.; Pinho, P. Planning for shrinkage: Paradox or paradigm. Eur. Plan. Stud.
2015
,23, 12–32. [CrossRef]
65.
Rhodes, J.; Russo, J. Shrinking ‘smart’?: Urban redevelopment and shrinkage in Youngstown, Ohio.
Urban Geogr. 2013,34, 305–326. [CrossRef]
66.
Hummel, D. Right-Sizing Cities in The United States: Defining Its Strategies. J. Urban Aff.
2015
,37, 397–409.
[CrossRef]
67.
Haase, D. Urban ecology of shrinking cities: An unrecognized opportunity? Nat. Cult.
2008
,3, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
68.
Rink, D. Wilderness: The nature of urban shrinkage? The debate on urban restructuring and restoration in
Eastern Germany. Nat. Cult. 2009,4, 275–292. [CrossRef]
69. Pallagst, K. Das Ende der Wachstumsmaschine. Berl. Debatte Initial 2007,18, 4–13.
70.
Hartt, M. Shifting perceptions in shrinking cities: The influence of governance, time and geography on local
(In)action. Int. Plan. Stud. 2018, 1–16. [CrossRef]
71.
Pallagst, K.; Fleschurz, R.; Said, S. What drives planning in a shrinking city? Tales from two German and
two American cases. Town Plan. Rev. 2017,88, 15–28. [CrossRef]
72.
Schmidt, S.; Fina, S.; Siedentop, S. Post-socialist Sprawl: A Cross-Country Comparison. Eur. Plan. Stud.
2015,23, 1357–1380. [CrossRef]
73.
S
ý
kora, L. Post-Socialist Cities. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography; Kitchin, R., Thrift, N., Eds.;
Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2009; Volume 8, pp. 387–395. ISBN 9780080449111.
74.
Szafra´nska, E.; Coudroy de Lille, L.; Kazimierczak, J. Urban shrinkage and housing in a post-socialist
city: relationship between the demographic evolution and housing development in Ł
ó
d´z, Poland. J. Hous.
Built Environ. 2019,34, 441–464. [CrossRef]
75.
Jaroszewska, E. Urban Shrinkage and Regeneration of an Old Industrial City: The Case of Wałbrzych in
Poland. Quaest. Geogr. 2019,38, 75–90. [CrossRef]
76.
Kabisch, S.; Grossmann, K. Challenges for large housing estates in light of population decline and ageing:
Results of a long-term survey in East Germany. Habitat Int. 2013,39, 232–239. [CrossRef]
77.
Accordino, J.; Johnson, G.T. Addressing the vacant and abandoned property problem. J. Urban Aff.
2000
,22,
301–315. [CrossRef]
78.
Kazimierczak, J.; Szafra´nska, E. Demographic and morphological shrinkage of urban neighbourhoods in a
post-socialist city: The case of Łód´z, Poland. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2019,101, 138–163. [CrossRef]
79.
Sagan, I.; Grabkowska, M. Urban Regeneration in Gda´nsk, Poland: Local Regimes and Tensions Between
Top-Down Strategies and Endogenous Renewal. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012,20, 1135–1154. [CrossRef]
80.
Ruzicka, M. Continuity or rupture? Roma/Gypsy communities in rural and urban environments under
post-socialism. J. Rural Stud. 2012,28, 81–88. [CrossRef]
81.
Birch, K.; Mykhnenko, V. Varieties of neoliberalism? Restructuring in large industrially dependent regions
across Western and Eastern Europe. J. Econ. Geogr. 2009,9, 355–380. [CrossRef]
82.
Šer
ý
, O.; Svobodov
á
, H.; Šilhan, Z.; Szczyrba, Z. Shrinking of cities in the Czech Republic and its reflection
on society: Case study of KarvináCity. Geogr. Pannon. 2018,22, 68–80. [CrossRef]
83.
Buˇcek, J.; Bleha, B. Urban Shrinkage as a Challenge to Local Development Planning in Slovakia.
Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2013,21, 2–15. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 20 of 22
84.
Stryjakiewicz, T.; Jaroszewska, E. The Process of Shrinkage as a Challenge to Urban Governance. Quaest. Geogr.
2016,35, 27–37. [CrossRef]
85.
Hackworth, J. The limits to market-based strategies for addressing land abandonment in shrinking American
cities. Prog. Plan. 2014,90, 1–37. [CrossRef]
86.
Ženka, J.; Kofroˇn, J. Metodologie V
ý
zkumu V Soci
á
ln
í
Geografii–Pˇr
í
padov
é
Studie; Ostravsk
á
Univerzita: Ostrava,
Czech Republic, 2012; ISBN 978-80-7464-148-0.
87.
Pike, A.; MacKinnon, D.; Cumbers, A.; Dawley, S.; McMaster, R. Doing evolution in economic geography.
Econ. Geogr. 2016,92, 123–144. [CrossRef]
88. CSO. Population of municipalities 2019; Czech statistical office: Prague, Czech Republic, 2019.
89.
Šotkovsk
ý
, I. Changes of the population size and ageing process in Ostrava. In Sborn
í
k pˇr
í
spˇevk˚u z XXII.
sjezdu ˇ
Cesk
é
geografick
é
spoleˇcnosti; Ostravsk
á
univerzita: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2010; pp. 665–673. ISBN
978-80-7368-903-2.
90.
Bos
á
k, V.; Nov
á
ˇcek, A.; Slach, O. Industrial culture as an asset, barrier and creative challenge for restructuring
of old industrial cities: Case study of Ostrava (Czechia). GeoScape 2018,12, 52–64. [CrossRef]
91.
Illner, M.; Viturka, M.; Havl
í
k, V.; Falt’an, L.; Zubek, L.; Ježek, J.; Maier, K.
Ú
zemn
í
aspekty politick
é
a
ekonomick
é
transformace v ˇ
Cesk
é
republice. Available online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-
01496195/document (accessed on 17 July 2019).
92. Špaˇcková, E. Vize socialistického mesta na príkladu NovéOstravy. Archit. Urban. 2016,50, 18–37.
93.
Sailer-Fliege, U. Characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation in East Central Europe. GeoJournal
1999,49, 7–16. [CrossRef]
94.
Strakoš, M. Nov
á
Ostrava a Jej
í
Satelity: Kapitoly z Dˇejin Architektury 30.-50. Let 20. Stolet
í
; N
á
rodn
í
Pam
á
tkov
ý
Ústav, ÚzemníOdbornéPracovištˇe: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2010; ISBN 8085034603.
95.
Davidov
á
, E. Romany Immigrants in Ostrava-Sound into the 60ties of the 20th century. Hist. Hist. Relat. Sci.
2009,16, 317–328.
96. Havrlant, M. Geografie Severomoravského kraje; Pedagog. Fak. v Ostrav ˇe: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 1980.
97.
Musil, J. Changing urban systems in post-communist societies in Central Europe: Analysis and prediction.
Urban Stud. 1993,30, 899–905. [CrossRef]
98.
Zarecor, K.E. What Was So Socialist about the Socialist City? Second World Urbanity in Europe.
J. Urban Hist.
2018,44, 95–117. [CrossRef]
99.
Green, J. Atlanta Counted Among Five Global Cities Boldly Fighting Consequences of Sprawl. Available
online: https://atlanta.curbed.com/2019/3/15/18267588/atlanta-cities-national-geographic-sprawl (accessed
on 17 July 2019).
100. Downs, A. New Visions for Metropolitan America; Brook: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; ISBN 0815719256.
101.
Farris, J.T. The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart growth. Hous. Policy Debate
2001
,
12, 1–30. [CrossRef]
102.
Bontje, M. Facing the challenge of shrinking cities in East Germany: The case of Leipzig. GeoJournal
2004
,61,
13–21. [CrossRef]
103.
Döringer, S.; Uchiyama, Y.; Penker, M.; Kohsaka, R. A meta-analysis of shrinking cities in Europe and Japan.
Towards an integrative research agenda. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 1–20. [CrossRef]
104. Rumpel, P.; Slach, O. Je Ostrava “smršt’ujícím se mˇestem”? Sociol. ˇ
Cas. Czech Sociol. Rev. 2012,48, 859–878.
105.
Jiˇr
í
k, V.; Machaczka, O.; Miturov
á
, H.; Tom
á
šek, I.; Šlachtov
á
, H.; Janoutov
á
, J.; Velick
á
, H.; Janout, V. Air
pollution and potential health risk in Ostrava region—A review. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health
2016
,24, 4–17.
[CrossRef]
106.
Sram, R.J.; Dostal, M.; Libalova, H.; Rossner, P.; Rossnerova, A.; Svecova, V.; Topinka, J.; Bartonova, A. The
European hot spot of B [a] P and PM 2.5 exposure—the Ostrava region, Czech Republic: Health research
results. ISRN Public Health 2013,2013, 1–12. [CrossRef]
107.
Kunc, J.; Martin
á
t, S.; Tonev, P.; Frant
á
l, B. Destiny of urban brownfields: Spatial patterns and perceived
consequences of post-socialistic deindustrialization. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2014,41, 109–128.
108.
Bourne, L.S. Reinventing the suburbs: Old myths and new realities. Prog. Plan.
1996
,3, 163–184. [CrossRef]
109.
Ivan, I.; Hor
á
k, J. Population Changes Caused by Industrialization and Deindustrialization–Comparison of
Ostrava and Glasgow. Geogr. ˇ
Cas. 2011,63, 113–132.
110.
CSO. Population of Municipalities of the Czech Republic 2013; Czech statistical office: Prague, Czech Republic, 2013.

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 21 of 22
111.
Prokop, P. KOMENT
Á
ˇ
R k V
ý
voji Nezamˇestnanosti v Okrese Ostrava za Mˇes
í
cˇ
Cerven 2019; CSO: Ostrava, Czech
Republic, 2019.
112.
Ženka, J.; Pavl
í
k, A.; Slach, O. Resilience of metropolitan, urban and rural regions: A Central European
perspective. GeoScape 2017,11, 25–40. [CrossRef]
113.
Nov
á
ˇcek, A.; Slach, O.; Schachlov
á
, N. Šetˇren
í
Kvality Života (Vˇcetnˇe Push a Pull Faktor ˚u) z Pohledu Obyvatel
Centra Ostravy; University of Ostrava: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2019.
114. CSO. Population of Municipalities 2017; Czech statistical office: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017.
115. MOS. Mˇestskáa ObecníStatistika; Czech statistical office: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017.
116.
Rumpel, P.; Slach, O.; Koutsk
ý
, J. Shrinking cities and governance of economic regeneration: The case of
Ostrava. Ekon. Manag. Econ. Manag. 2013,16, 113–128.
117.
Kooiman, N.; Latten, J.; Bontje, M. Human capital migration: A longitudinal perspective. Tijdschr. Voor Econ.
En Soc. Geogr. 2018,109, 644–660. [CrossRef]
118.
Tödtling, F.; Skokan, K.; Höglinger, C.; Rumpel, P.; Grillitsch, M. Innovation and knowledge sourcing of
modern sectors in old industrial regions: Comparing software firms in Moravia-Silesia and Upper Austria.
Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2013,20, 188–205. [CrossRef]
119.
Grossmann, K.; Haase, A.; Arndt, T.; Cortese, C.; Rumpel, P.; Rink, D.; Slach, O.; Tich
á
, I.; Violante, A.
How Urban Shrinkage Impacts on Patterns of Socio-Spatial Segregation: The Cases of Leipzig, Ostrava,
and Genoa. In Urban Ills: Twenty-First-Century Complexities of Urban Living in Global Contexts; Carol, C.Y.,
Sanders Thompson, V., Wells, A., Eds.; Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA, 2013; pp. 241–268. ISBN
978-0739177006.
120.
Beauregard, R.A. The radical break in late twentieth-century urbanization. Area
2006
,38, 218–220. [CrossRef]
121.
Baum, D.; Vondroušov
á
, K.; Tich
á
, I. Charakteristika Soci
á
lnˇe Prostorov
é
Segregace ve Srovn
á
n
í
Dvou Mˇest
(Halle-Ostrava); OstravskáUniverzita v Ostravˇe: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2014; ISBN 807464491X.
122.
Inspektor, T.; Ivan, I.; Hor
á
k, J. Mapping and monitoring unemployment hot spots towards identification of
socially excluded localities: Case study of Ostrava. J. Maps 2014,10, 35–46. [CrossRef]
123.
Strategick
ý
Pl
á
n Soci
á
ln
í
ho Zaˇcle ˇnov
á
n
í
Ostrava 2015–2018; Agentura pro soci
á
ln
í
zaˇcle ˇnov
á
n
í
: Ostrava, Czech
Republic, 2018; Available online: https://ostrava.cz/cs/urad/hledam-informace/aktualni-informace/agentura-
pro-socialni-zaclenovani-na-magistratu-mesta-ostravy/SPSZ.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2019).
124.
Roub
í
nek, P.; Kladivo, P.; Hal
á
s, M.; Koutsk
ý
, J.; Opravil, Z. Changes in the financing of municipalities
and local governments of selected cities: Possible effects on disintegration processes and municipal policy.
Econ. Manag. 2015,18, 134–150. [CrossRef]
125.
S
ý
kora, L. Suburbanizace a jej
í
d˚usledky: v
ý
zva pro v
ý
zkum, usmˇer ˇnov
á
n
í
rozvoje
ú
zem
í
a spoleˇcenskou
angažovanost. In Suburbanizace a jej
í
soci
á
ln
í
, ekonomick
é
a ekologick
é
d˚usledky; S
ý
kora, L., Ed.;
Ú
stav pro
ekopolitiku: Prague, Czech Republic, 2002; pp. 9–19.
126.
Ouˇredn
í
ˇcek, M.; Posov
á
, D. Suburb
á
nn
í
bydlen
í
v Pražsk
é
m mˇestsk
é
m regionu: Etapy v
ý
voje a prostorov
é
rozm
í
stˇen
í
;
Soci
á
ln
í
Geogr. Pražsk
é
ho mˇestsk
é
ho Reg. Univerzita Karlov. v Praze, Pˇr
í
rodovˇedeck
á
Fak. Kated. soci
á
ln
í
Geogr. a Reg. rozvoje: Praha, Czech Republic, 2006; pp. 96–113.
127.
S
ý
kora, L. Changes in the internal spatial structure of post-communist Prague. GeoJournal
1999
,49, 79–89.
[CrossRef]
128. Van de Kaa, D.J. Europe’s second demographic transition. Popul. Bull. 1987,42, 1–59.
129.
Maes, M.; Loopmans, M.; Kesteloot, C. Urban shrinkage and everyday life in post-socialist cities: Living
with diversity in Hrušov, Ostrava, Czech Republic. Built Environ. 2012,38, 229–243. [CrossRef]
130.
Martin
á
t, S.; Dvoˇr
á
k, P.; Klus
á
ˇcek, P.; Kunc, J.; Havl
í
ˇcek, M. Hybn
é
s
í
ly dlouhodob
ý
ch promˇen
industrializovanékrajiny (pˇrípadovástudie Hrušov). Acta Pruhoniciana 2014,106, 35–44.
131.
Krejˇc
í
, T.; Martin
á
t, S.; Klus
á
ˇcek, P. Spatial differentiation of selected processes connected to the second
demographic transition in post-socialistic cities (the examples of Brno and Ostrava, Czech Republic). Morav.
Geogr. Reports 2011,19, 39–50.
132.
Silverman, R.M. Rethinking shrinking cities: Peripheral dual cities have arrived. J. Urban Aff.
2018
, 1–18.
[CrossRef]
133.
Gabzdyl, J. Konec jedn
é é
ry. Ostrava po mnoha letech nem
á
ani 300 tis
í
c obyvatel. MF Dnes,
13 December 2012.
134. Lesková, I. Ostravan˚u ubývá. Lidémíˇríza mˇesto, kde hledajípˇrírodu a bezpeˇcí.MF Dnes, 24 April 2018.

Sustainability 2019,11, 4142 22 of 22
135.
Kühn, M. Immigration strategies of cities: local growth policies and urban planning in Germany.
Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018,26, 1747–1762. [CrossRef]
136.
Martin, R. Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography—Rethinking regional path dependence: Beyond lock-in
to evolution. Econ. Geogr. 2010,86, 1–27. [CrossRef]
137. Ouˇredníˇcek, M.; Nemeškal, J.; Špaˇcková, P.; Hampl, M.; Novák, J. A synthetic approach to the delimitation
of the Prague Metropolitan Area. J. Maps 2018,14, 26–33. [CrossRef]
138.
Šveda, M.; Barl
í
k, P. Daily commuting in the Bratislava metropolitan area: case study with mobile positioning
data. Pap. Appl. Geogr. 2018,4, 409–423. [CrossRef]
139.
CSO. Territorial Identification Register of Basic Settlement Units. Changes in 1996–2013; Czech statistical office:
Prague, Czech Republic, 2013.
140.
Meirich, S. Mapping Guide for A European Urban Atlas. GSELandInformationServices. 2008, pp. 1–36. Available
online: https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/urban-atlas-mapping-guide (accessed on
1 July 2019).
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).