Content uploaded by Martin Ouředníček
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Ouředníček on Jul 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
299
DIGEST
IN BETWEEN CITY AND VILLAGE:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPATIAL
PATTERNS OF CZECH
SUBURBANISATION 1997–2016
Martin Ouředníček1) – Adam Klsák2) – Petra Špačková3)
INTRODUCTION
Although the suburbanisation process is one of
the most studied issues within CEE urban studies,
most work published during the last two decades
has looked at separate case studies of individual cities
(Kok–Kovács, 1999; Nuissl–Rink, 2005; Ouředníček,
2007; Krišjāne–Bērziņš, 2012; Šveda–Madajová–
Podolák, 2016). The comparison of the scope and
intensity of suburban development on the national
level lacks a common methodological approach and
a generally accepted denition of the process itself.
Consequently, relatively dierent measurements used
in the case studies (Timár–Váradi, 2001; Tammaru
et al., 2013) obstruct any rigorous comparison
of the process between cities and countries.
Moreover, many social and demographic processes
are influenced by uneven regional distribution
of population, migration and demographic behaviour.
Groups of municipalities classified according
to population size are almost solely employed
as a crucial descriptive tool for the spatial and
hierarchical distribution of population in Czechia.
However, these groupings are oen inadequate for
distinguishing geographical position within the
settlement system. One of the best-known eorts to
distinguish the horizontal position of settlements is
the classication of exposed municipalities (Hampl–
Gardavský–Kühnl, 1987: 124–128 and Figure 2). Today,
the suburbanisation process has a distributive function
in new migration in terms of age and social status
and creates spatial dierences between peripheral
and suburban municipalities. us, the geographical
position of the municipality plays a crucial role for
the evaluation of contemporary demographic, social
and economic processes within the settlement system.
e assessment of the scope of suburbanisation
within the hinterlands of Czech cities is one of the core
issues of both pure and applied research of settlement
geography and related disciplines. e main objective
of this article is to furnish a coherent methodology
for the delimitation of suburban municipalities
in Czechia, to describe and explain the scope and
spatial distribution and to compare the development
of residential suburbanisation during two distinct
periods: 1997–2008 and 2009–2016. e article uses
the delimitation of zones of residential suburbanisation
(Ouředníček–Špačková–Novák, 2013; Ouředníček–
Špačková–Klsák, 2018), as an analytical tool for
the evaluation of positional aspects of municipalities
within the Czech settlement system.
DEFINITION OF SUBURBANISATION
AND SUBURBAN MUNICIPALITIES
Suburbanisation is defined as process of decon-
centration of population and its activities from
1) Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague,
martin.ourednicek@natur.cuni.cz
2) Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague,
adam.klsak@natur.cuni.cz
3) Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague,
petra.spackova@natur.cuni.cz
DIGEST
300
2019 61 (4)
the cores of metropolitan regions to their hinterland
(similarly Timár–Váradi, 2001; Tammaru et al., 2013).
e deconcentration of economic and leisure time
activities, logistics, offices, industry and services
is not evaluated in this article. Instead, we focus
on residential suburbanisation, as a partial process
of suburbanisation closely linked to the population and
housing function. Using Czech statistical information,
residential suburbanisation can be taken as migration
(change of permanent residency) of population from
the core cities of metropolitan regions towards their
hinterlands.
A matrix of nine different urbanisation pro-
cesses is presented in Table 1. According to the
analytical matrix, traditional urbanisation processes
(urbanisation, suburbanisation, counterurbanisation
and reurbanisation) are results of migration from
different types of settlement – i.e. urbanisation is
migration from countryside to cities, counter-
urbanisation from cities and suburbs to the
countryside etc. e change of residential environment
is a crucial factor in the urbanisation process which
creates tensions and gradual adaptations of the
incoming population to a new physical, functional and
social environment. ese tensions are consequently
the main topics of empirical investigation in urban
geography, sociology and demography (Špačková–
Ouředníček, 2012). Moreover, the inflow of new
residents and new residential construction are also
crucial problems for the decision-making sphere,
municipalities and planning authorities (Feřtrová–
Špačková–Ouředníček, 2013). On the other hand,
migration within the same type of settlements
is much less interesting for academic research,
even when migration moves within the urban
space or between rural municipalities make up by
far the largest group of moves between different
types of settlements. The impact of this type of
migration on tensions between the aspirations,
requirements and wishes of the newly incoming
population and the actual equipment, conditions
and social structure of target settlements is relatively
small.
To refine the definition of suburbanisation, we
can distinguish seven dierent processes of suburban
development (Ouředníček, 2007) and we argue that
these processes have specic consequences for the
local social and functional environment. erefore,
the character and minimal intensity of new housing
construction was considered as the second factor of
our denition. In the case of migration from the core
city to the suburban hinterland there are four special
migration streams according to types of housing:
(i) suburbanisation (migration to a new house);
(ii) migration to older houses (former villages);
(iii) elderly migration (to social care institutions);
and (iv) migration to recreational houses (cottages).
All these types of migrations are relatively common
within the hinterlands of Czech cities. Finally, sub-
urbanisation is dened as the migration of population
from the core city to new houses constructed within
its hinterland. Our approach to the delimitation of
suburban space used in empirical part of the article
is based exactly on this definition. A suburban
municipality is delimited as a place with a certain
minimal level of housing construction (see Table 2)
and share of new population in-migrated from the
core city. e exact values of indicators are described
in the following methodological section.
METHODS AND DATA
The main idea of the methodological approach
is to distinguish three basic types of Czech
municipalities: (i) cities and towns as core source
Table 1 Matrix of source and target types of set tlement and denition of suburbanisation
(and other urbanisation processes)
Type of settlement Target of migration
City Suburb Countryside
Source
of migration
City Intra and inter-city migration SUBURBANISATION Counterurbanisation
Suburb Reurbanisation Tangential migration Counterurbanisation
Countryside Urbanisation
(reurbanisation) Urbanisation Rural migration
301
DIGEST
areas of suburban migration and representatives
of an urban environment; (ii) suburban municipalities;
and (iii) rural villages and small towns which are only
marginally influenced by suburban development.
Municipalities with 10,000 or more permanently
resident inhabitants were selected as cores of suburban
migration (total number of 130 core municipalities).
This population threshold was chosen during the
2000s when it was not likely that towns smaller than
the centres of administrative districts (okres) would be
signicantly inuenced by suburbanisation process.
However, today it is more and more obvious that
all selected cores of suburbanisation have at least
one suburban satellite settlement and it is highly
probable that some smaller towns also generated
decentralisation of the residential function to their
own hinterlands. To secure similar samples of core
cities for the two periods of observation, we have
decided to maintain the same threshold of 10,000
inhabitants4) for the newer delimitation.
As a second step, we developed a method for
the selection of suburban municipalities. Based
on the theoretical and methodological discussion of
the delimitation of suburbanisation process above, we
can measure residential suburbanisation in the specic
context of Czech statistical evidence. We employ two
statistical sources, which are available at the level
of municipalities and are supplied annually by the
Czech Statistical Oce: (i) records of migration; and
(ii) data on housing construction. Although both
statistics have some drawbacks, they provide relatively
massive samples which are available at the level
of municipalities. Moreover, we use longer periods
of evaluation to smooth annual variations in the case
of less populous municipalities.
e combination of a minimal intensity of housing
construction and the number of completed apartments
serves as criteria for the distribution of municipalities
into three zones of suburbanisation. We decided to
employ a slightly dierent criterion for the threshold
values of new housing construction within the rst
and second periods. ese values are described in the
Table 2 below. Suburbanisation is dened as migration
from the core cities to municipalities within their
hinterland. We measured the share of in-migrated
persons on the total number of in-migrated persons to
the municipality in selected periods (1997–2008 and
2009–2016). en, the minimal share of migration
from the core city to a municipality was set at
30 per cent in the case of one core city and 40 per
cent in the case of two or three core cities5). e whole
set of suburban municipalities was then structured
into three zones with dierent intensities of housing
construction (see Table 2). We also delimitated a fourth
zone containing all municipalities which met the
criteria in the past, but whose migration and housing
construction have weakened or become restricted
and do not full the threshold values for the current
delimitation. We have distinguished two different
periods of suburban development: an initial phase
4) Municipalities, which meets the conditions for being classied as suburbs by its characteristics are not considered as core cities.
is is the case of Říčany, Brandýs n. Labem-Stará Boleslav, Čelákovice and Milovice in Prague Metropolitan Area and Kuřim
in Brno Metropolitan Area. ese exceptions were determined manually with respect to the context and qualication of authors.
5) There are also suburban municipalities with two or more sources (core cities) in Czechia. So, the threshold of minimal
in-migration share was set-up to 40 percent of in-migration from the two and three core cities altogether.
Table 2 Threshold criteria for the delimitation of three zones of residential suburbanisation in 1997–2008
and 2009–2016
Zones according to intensity
of suburbanisation
Minimal average intensity of annual
housing construction in both periods
Minimal absolute number for housing construction
in 1997–2008 (2009–2016 respectively)
Zone 1 10 apartments per 1000 inhabitants 50 (34) apartments
Zone 2 5 apartments per 1000 inhabitants 30 (20) apartments
Zone 3 - 20 (14) apartments
Source: Ouředníček–Špačková–Novák, 2013; Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018
DIGEST
302
2019 61 (4)
and gradation of suburbanisation during 1997–2008
and the period of economic crisis and contemporary
development during 2009–2016.
e methodology for the rst evaluated period
(1997–2008) is thoroughly described and discussed
in the nal chapter of the book Sub Urbs (Ouředníček–
Špačková–Novák, 2013), the new delimitation is
published on the website www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz
(Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018). e methodology
was ocially certied by the Ministry of Regional
Development (Ouředníček–Špačková–Novák, 2014)
and the two older delimitations are presented in the
form of specialised maps (Špačková et al., 2012; 2016).
e distribution of Czech municipalities into the three
categories: core cities, suburbs and rural municipalities
is available in the form of geodatabase and excel le
online: http://www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/cs/zony-2016.
SCOPE OF RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBANISATION
e scope
of residential suburbanisation in Czechia can
be measured by the absolute and relative numbers of
municipalities or inhabitants living within suburban
zones (Tables 4 and 5). It is not surprising that all
the indicators used here grow through the evaluated
periods. e structure of municipalities sorted into
the three basic categories – cities, suburbs, and
rural municipalities – through the four different
delimitations of residential suburbanisation is shown
in Table 3. e stable sample of core cities and the
gradually growing share of municipalities within the
rst and second zone are pronounced. On the other
hand, the number of municipalities within the third
zone was increasing only till 2010 and since then has
slowly fallen. However, by denition, municipalities
once inuenced by suburban development remain as
a specic category under zone 4, and their number
is, logically, growing. e situation is evaluated in
more detail in the next section focused on spatial
patterns of suburbanisation. Finally, the number of
rural municipalities decreased by 575 units between
2008
and 2016.
e population living in suburban municipalities
(1st-3rd zones) increased from 1,314,000 in 2008 to
1,438,000 in 2016. is does not of course mean that
all these people can be counted as newly in-migrated
suburbanites. We can estimate approximately one
third of the population in suburban municipalities
as new incomers. i.e. roughly 5 per cent of the total
population of Czechia, which is a surprisingly low
number. This can be derived from the share of
in-migrants per 100 permanently resident inhabitants
(third rows in Tables 4 and 5). Moreover, the intensity
of in-migration to suburbs is gradually increas-
ing from 28 per mille in 1997–2008 to 37 per mille
in the 2009–2016 period, and the intensity is very
high especially within the first zone (more than
50 per mille). us, the suburbanisation process is far
from ended and will no doubt play a signicant role
in the future.
Table 3 The structure of municipalities in zones of residential suburbanisation in 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2016
Source: Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018
Note: Total number of municipalities in each type and year.
Type of settlement Delimitation 2008 Delimitation 2010 Delimitation 2013 Delimitation 2016
Core cities 129 130 130 130
Zone 1 83 112 141 216
Zone 2 179 241 333 469
Zone 3 632 771 745 497
Zone 4 163 NA 206 440
Suburbs 1–3 altogether 894 1,124 1,219 1,182
Rural municipalities 5,073 4,996 4,695 4,498
303
DIGEST
Indicator Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total
Number of municipalities 216 469 497 1,182
Number of population (2016) 286,076 564,800 587,767 1,438,643
Average share of in-migrated inhabitants during the whole period
2009–2016 42% 29% 24% 30%
Average annual intensity of in-migration per 1000 inhabitants (2009–2016) 52‰ 37‰ 30‰ 37‰
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SUBURBS
e general description of the scope can be extended
by the evaluation of spatial patterns of suburban
development. e map in Figure 1 depicts all suburban
municipalities and core cities. e three shades of
colour correspond to the different intensities of
residential suburbanisation (zones 1–3), small
crosses inside the choropleths mark the 4th zone of
suburbanisation, i.e. 440 municipalities which did not
meet the (even soer) criteria for actual delimitation
but were recognised as residential suburbs in one or
more past delimitations. e map therefore not only
shows the actual extension of suburbanisation but also
reects past delimitations.
The interpretation of spatial patterns can be
summarised in the following way: (i) suburbanisation
is a widespread phenomenon in Czechia; (ii) there
are considerable regional dierences in the extent of
suburban development around cities of similar size
categories; and (iii) the spatial patterns have changed
signicantly between the 2000s and 2010s.
Ad (i) e map clearly shows that suburbanisation
is a relatively widespread process, which hit not
only capital city and regional centres, but literally
every small town within Czechia. All 130 selected
core centres of suburbanisation display a spatial
connection to at least one suburban municipality
which fullled the criteria of housing construction
and share of in-coming population. is nding is
very important because no literature was published
on the suburbanisation around small cities until now.
ere is not enough space to thoroughly discuss the
reasons for such extensive suburban development,
which is relatively specic to Czechia. Fragmentation
of the settlement system and especially the system
of master planning with stricter control of housing
construction inside administrative boundaries of cities
and less control and knowledge about core planning
principles within the smaller adjacent municipalities
are definitely among the main factors in such
development (Feřtrová–Špačková–Ouředníček, 2013).
Ad (ii) However, the spatial distribution of
suburbanisation is far from uniform in pattern.
Economic development within the successful and
unsuccessful urban regions signicantly inuences
purchasing power, housing construction and
deconcentration tendencies in cities of similar
Table 4 Basic characteristics of municipalities within the 1st, 2nd and 3rd zones of residential suburbanisation
in 1997–20 08
Table 5 Basic characteristics of municipalities within the 1st, 2nd and 3rd zones of residential suburbanisation
in 2009–2016
Source: Ouředníček–Špačková–Novák, 2013
Source: Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018
Indicator Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total
Number of municipalities 83 179 632 894
Number of population (2008) 96,000 190,000 1,028,000 1,314,000
Average share of in-migrated inhabitants during the whole period
1997–2008 60% 45% 33% 37%
Average annual intensity of in-migration per 1000 inhabitants
(1997–2008) 46‰ 35‰ 25‰ 28‰
DIGEST
304
2019 61 (4)
Figure 1 Zones of residential suburbanisation in Czechia 2016
Source: Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018
0 50 km
Zóny rezidenční suburbanizace
Zones of residential suburbanisation
Jádro suburbanizace
Suburbanisation core
Hranice obce
Municipality border
Hranice kraje
Region border
1. 2. 3. 4.
1 2 3
Počet jader suburbanizace
Number of suburban cores
Příslušnost k jádru suburbanizace
je vyjádřena barvou
Aliation to suburban core
isexpressed by color
305
DIGEST
Figure 2 Zones of residential suburbanisation in Czechia 2016 – detailed view of west of Prague
Figure 3 Zones of residential suburbanisation in Czechia 2016 – detailed view of east of Brno
Source: Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018
Source: Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018
DIGEST
306
2019 61 (4)
population size. is is very visible in a comparison
of the suburban ring between Ústí nad Labem with
only a number of suburban developments and České
Budějovice or Mladá Boleslav with very intensive
development.
Ad (iii) A relatively high number of crosses on the
map can be interpreted as a shrinkage or contraction
of suburban development during the second period
aer the economic crisis. During the 2000s all cities
and towns had their own satellite settlement, whereas
now many smaller cores are surrounded only by
municipalities categorised as the 4th zone. While the
suburbanisation during the 2000s could be described
as a spread of suburbanisation due to hierarchical and
neighbourhood diusion, spatial development during
the 2010s has the reverse character, i.e. contraction or
concentration of suburban development to selected
municipalities located closer to regional centres.
Suburban construction and migration around smaller
towns have almost disappeared (Rakovník, Žatec,
Kyjov, Veselí na Moravě, Uherský Brod) and the
edges of the Prague and Brno hinterlands also display
a considerable number of municipalities belonging
to the 4th zone of residential suburbanisation (see
details in Figures 2 and 3). It seems that, at least
currently, suburbanisation has reached spatial limits
and new housing construction will not expand to
more distant settlements. However, other processes
of suburban development (transformation of
second housing, migration to older houses) and also
counterurbanisation processes are likely to increase
in the near future.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The dataset of residential suburbs provides
a basis for determining the extent of residential
suburbanisation in Czechia and an analytical tool for
assessing settlement structure. In addition to the size
categorisation of municipalities based on the number
of residents, municipalities are also divided according
to their geographic position and the dynamics of
their migration growth. Three zones of suburban
municipalities with dierent intensities of housing
construction and the structure of in-migration were
dened. e suburbanisation zones can be seen as one
of the possible types of delimitation of metropolitan
areas, in addition to traditional commuting ties
(Ouředníček et al., 2018). Compared to commuting
regions, which are mainly based on the impact of the
job function, zones of residential suburbanisation
represent areas of urban population spread, indirect
urbanisation and the lifestyle that new suburbanites
bring from the urban environment (Doležalová–
Ouředníček, 2006).
According to this methodology, a total number
of 1,182 municipalities in Czechia were identied,
whose development is significantly influenced by
the process of suburbanisation. In 2016 1.4 million
inhabitants lived in the suburbs most aected by the
suburbanisation process. Approximately, one third
of them have moved from the core city, therefore
5 per cent of the total population of Czechia
could be classified as suburbanites. International
comparison of this value is relatively obstructed
due to a lack of information on the national levels
and different measurements of suburbanisation,
but we could roughly compare the situation in the
USA. According to the American Housing Survey,
more than 52 per cent of Americans categorise
their household as suburban (AHS, 2017), when
distinguishing between suburbs and exurbs it is 38.5
and, 17.8 per cent respectively (56.3 per cent; Johnson–
Shifferd, 2016). Although no similar comparison
with European countries is available, the scope of
residential suburbanisation in this light is relatively
low in Czechia.
e descriptive statistics and cartographic analysis
of residential suburbanisation during the two selected
periods – 1997–2008 and 2009–2016 – show relatively
signicant changes in spatial patterns of suburban
development. Generally, this can be explained as a shi
from an extensive to an intensive form of residential
suburbanisation. Although housing construction did
not extend signicantly to other parts of metropolitan
regions, the intensities of migration and housing
construction are even higher, thus creating more
concentrated development closer to regional centres.
Suburbs located around small towns and at the edges
of larger metropolitan areas have at least temporarily
halted suburban development.
This intensive residential suburbanisation
described during the 2010s conrms that suburban
municipalities are more and more integrated into
daily urban systems of wider metropolitan regions
307
DIGEST
with intensive commuting to core cities but also
dispersion of specific activities important for the
complex functioning of metropolitan region, i.e.
logistics, shopping, entertainment and recreational
activities. Today, a typical feature is the appearance
of new suburban nodes which serve as centres of
regional and local commuting and create new micro-
regions with a concentration of administrative
functions, retail, primary and secondary education
and a wide spectrum of services. is development
has subsequently led to creation of new jobs, many of
them tightly connected to (induced by) the growing
demand of the new suburban population. e impacts
of suburbanisation on functional dierentiation of the
Czech metropolitan regions is beyond the scope of this
article.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The paper was supported by the Czech Science
Foundation, project number GA18-14510S,
Contemporary changes of the social environment
within Czech suburbs.
References
• Doležalová, G. – Ouředníček, M. 2006. Životní styl obyvatelstva v suburbánní zóně Prahy. In:Ouředníček, M. (ed.): Sociální
geograe Pražského městského regionu. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geograe
a regionálního rozvoje, pp. 143–159.
• Feřtrová, M. – Špačková, P. – Ouředníček, M. 2013. Analýza aktérů a problémových aspektů rozhodování při nakládání
súzemím vsuburbánních obcích. In: M. Ouředníček, P. Špačková, J. Novák, eds: Sub Urbs: krajina, sídla a lidé. Praha: Academia,
pp. 234–255.
• Hampl, M. – Gardavský, V. – Kühnl, K. 1987. Regionální struktura a vývoj systému osídlení ČSR. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
• Johnson, B. E. – Shierd, J. 2016. Who lives where: A comprehensive population taxonomy of cities, suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas
in the United States. e Geographical Bulletin, 57, pp. 25–40.
• Kok, H. – Kovács, Z. 1999. e Process of Suburbanization in the Agglomeration of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 14: pp. 119–141.
• Krišjāne, Z. – Bērziņš, M. 2012. Post-socialist Urban Trends: New Patterns and Motivations for Migration in the Suburban Areas
of Riga, Latvia. Urban Studies, 49: pp. 289–306.
• Nuissl, H. – Rink, D. 2005. e “Production” of Urban Sprawl in Eastern Germany as a Phenomenon of Post-socialist Transformation.
Cities, 22, pp. 123–134.
• Ouředníček, M. 2007. Dierential Suburban Development in the Prague Urban Region. Geograska Annaler: Human Geography,
89B, pp. 111–125.
• Ouředníček, M. 2016. e relevance of “Western” theoretical concepts for investigations of the margins of post-socialist cities:
the case of Prague. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 57, pp. 545–564.
• Ouředníček, M. – Nemeškal, J. – Špačková, P. – Hampl, M. – Novák, J. 2018. A synthetic approach to the delimitation of the Prague
Metropolitan Area. Journal of Maps, 14, pp. 26–33.
• Ouředníček, M. – Špačková, P. – Klsák, A. 2018. Zóny rezidenční suburbanizace v obcích Česka 2016. Specializovaná mapa. Praha,
Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geograe a regionálního rozvoje, Urbánní a regionální
laboratoř. http://www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/cs/zony-2016
• Ouředníček, M. – Špačková, P. – Novák, J. 2013. Metodické problémy výzkumu a vymezení zón rezidenční suburbanizace
v České republice. In: M. Ouředníček, P. Špačková, J. Novák, eds.: Sub Urbs: krajina, sídla a lidé. Praha: Academia, pp. 309‒332.
• Špačková, P. – Ouředníček, M. 2012. Spinning the Web: New Social Contacts of Prague‘s Suburbanites. Cities, 29, pp. 341–349.
• Špačková, P. – Ouředníček, M. – Novák, J. – Klsák, A. 2016. Zóny rezidenční suburbanizace 2013. Specializovaná mapa. Praha,
Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geograe a regionálního rozvoje, Urbánní a regionální
laboratoř. http://www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/cs/cr-2013
• Špačková, P. – Ouředníček, M. – Novák, J. – Křivka, M. 2012. Zóny rezidenční suburbanizace 2010. Specializovaná mapa. Praha,
Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geograe a regionálního rozvoje, Urbánní a regionální
laboratoř. http://www.atlasobyvatelstva.cz/cs/cr-2010
DIGEST
308
2019 61 (4)
• Šveda, M. – Madajová, M. – Podolák, P. 2016. Behind the Dierentiation of Suburban Development in the Hinterland of Bratislava,
Slovakia. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 52, pp. 893–925.
• Tammaru, T. – van Ham, M. – Leetmaa, K. – Kährik, A. – Kamenik, K. 2013. e Ethnic Dimensions of Suburbanisation in Estonia.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39, pp. 845–862
• Timár, J. – Váradi, M. 2001. e Uneven Development of Suburbanization during Transition in Hungary. European Urban and
Regional Studies, 8, pp. 349–360.
Data sources:
• American Housing Survey 2017. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data.2017.html
• ČSÚ (2018a): Počet obyvatel v obcích k 31. 1. 2017. Praha: Czech Statistical Oce.
• ČSÚ (2018b): Databáze migrace v letech 1997–2016, individuální anonymizovaná data o změnách trvalého bydliště na úrovni
obcí. Praha: Czech Statistical Oce.
• ČSÚ (2018c): Statistika dokončených bytů 1997–2016. Praha: Czech Statistical Oce.
MARTIN OUŘEDNÍČEK
is an Associate Professor at the Department of Social Geography and Regional Development and Vice-dean for
Geography departments at the Faculty of Science, Charles University. He is the Head of the Urban and Regional
Laboratory research group and principal investigator of two research projects dealing with suburbanisation
in Czechia. He graduated from Charles University in 1994 with a master’s degree in Social and Economic
Geography, then a doctoral degree in 2002 in Social Geography and Regional Development. He is interested
in urban studies, socio-spatial dierentiation, suburbanisation and segregation. He is author of more than 120
academic publications and editor of seven books, including the Historical Population Atlas of the Czech Lands
(2017, Karolinum), Sub Urbs (2013, Academia).
ADAM KLSÁK
is a PhD student and researcher at the Department of Social Geography and Regional Development at the
Faculty of Science, Charles University, where he also graduated with a master’s degree in 2017. He is a member of
the Urban and Regional Laboratory research team. His major research interests are socio-spatial dierentiation
and ethnic residential segregation within the post-socialist cities. He is an author of a number of cartographic
works, as well as several academic and popularization publications.
PETRA ŠPAČKOVÁ
is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Geography and Regional Development at the Faculty
of Science, Charles University. Her research covers urban and settlement geography, with her main interest
being in residential mobility and migration, the suburbanisation process, housing estates, gender aspects
of everyday mobility, and neighbourhood change. She has co-edited one book and published more than 25 papers.
