ArticlePDF Available

In Between City and Village: The Development of Spatial Patterns of Czech Suburbanisation 1997–2016


Abstract and Figures

The 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. The 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. The 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.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Martin Ouředníček1) – Adam Klsák2) – Petra Špačková3)
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 denition of the process itself.
Consequently, relatively dierent 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 oen inadequate for
distinguishing geographical position within the
settlement system. One of the best-known eorts to
distinguish the horizontal position of settlements is
the classication 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 dierences 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.
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,
2) Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague,
3) Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague,
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
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
To refine the definition of suburbanisation, we
can distinguish seven dierent processes of suburban
development (Ouředníček, 2007) and we argue that
these processes have specic 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 denition. 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 dened 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.
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 denition of suburbanisation
(and other urbanisation processes)
Type of settlement Target of migration
City Suburb Countryside
of migration
City Intra and inter-city migration SUBURBANISATION Counterurbanisation
Suburb Reurbanisation Tangential migration Counterurbanisation
Countryside Urbanisation
(reurbanisation) Urbanisation Rural migration
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
signicantly inuenced 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 specic
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 Oce: (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 dierent 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 dened 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 dierent 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 full 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 classied 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 qualication 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
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
(Ouředníček–Špačková–Klsák, 2018). e methodology
was ocially certied 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
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 denition, municipalities
once inuenced by suburban development remain as
a specic 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
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 signicant 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
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‰
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 soer) 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
reects 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 dierences in the extent of
suburban development around cities of similar size
categories; and (iii) the spatial patterns have changed
signicantly 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 fullled 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 specic 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 signicantly inuences
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‰
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
Aliation to suburban core
isexpressed by color
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
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
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
aer 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 diusion, 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.
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 dierent intensities of housing
construction and the structure of in-migration were
dened. 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 identied,
whose development is significantly influenced by
the process of suburbanisation. In 2016 1.4 million
inhabitants lived in the suburbs most aected 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
signicant 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 signicantly 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 conrms that suburban
municipalities are more and more integrated into
daily urban systems of wider metropolitan regions
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 dierentiation of the
Czech metropolitan regions is beyond the scope of this
The paper was supported by the Czech Science
Foundation, project number GA18-14510S,
Contemporary changes of the social environment
within Czech suburbs.
Doležalová, G. – Ouředníček, M. 2006. Životní styl obyvatelstva v suburbánní zóně Prahy. In:Ouředníček, M. (ed.): Sociální
geograe Pražského městského regionu. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geograe
a regionálního rozvoje, pp. 143–159.
Feřtrová, M. – Špačková, P. – Ouředníček, M. 2013. Analýza aktérů a problémových aspektů rozhodování při nakládání
súzemím vsuburbánních 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. – Shierd, 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. Dierential Suburban Development in the Prague Urban Region. Geograska 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 geograe a regionálního rozvoje, Urbánní a regionální
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 geograe a regionálního rozvoje, Urbánní a regionální
Špačková, P. – Ouředníček, M. – Novák, J. – Křivka, M. 2012. Zóny rezidenční suburbanizace 2010. Specializovaná mapa. Praha,
Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, katedra sociální geograe a regionálního rozvoje, Urbánní a regionální
2019 61 (4)
Šveda, M. – Madajová, M. – Podolák, P. 2016. Behind the Dierentiation 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.
ČSÚ (2018a): Počet obyvatel v obcích k 31. 1. 2017. Praha: Czech Statistical Oce.
ČSÚ (2018b): Databáze migrace v letech 1997–2016, individuální anonymizovaná data o změnách trvalého bydliště na úrovni
obcí. Praha: Czech Statistical Oce.
ČSÚ (2018c): Statistika dokončených bytů 1997–2016. Praha: Czech Statistical Oce.
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 dierentiation, 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).
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 dierentiation
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.
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.
... These factors changed after the fall of the Iron Curtain, when many families were able to realize their dream of owning a house with a garden. Today, because it is easier to do so than previously, people often move away from the centres of large cities, meaning that suburbanization is one of the most important processes to occur in Prague and the Central Bohemian Region as well as in other regions of Czechia (Ouředníček et al., 2019). ...
... In general, the residents of these suburbs were younger and better educated. Over the years, the spatial patterns of the suburbs have changed significantly, and currently 5% of Czechs are suburbanites (Ouředníček et al., 2019). However, in Czechia, people's tendencies for residential mobility and willingness to move are still lower than in Western Europe and the Anglosphere (Caldera Sánchez & Andrews, 2011;Kemper, 2008). ...
Full-text available
Suburbanization is the most significant process involved in shaping the socio-spatial structure of many western European and post-Socialist cities. In Prague, suburbanization began in the mid-1990s. In contrast with most studies, we consider the suburbs not as a final residential destination but as a place that people leave as a result of life-phase changes. For example, families who moved to the suburbs in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, and are now empty-nest households, may wish to move away. In an attempt to analyse future residential mobility and strategies for later-life suburban households in Czechia, we conducted a questionnaire survey in two suburban municipalities (n = 177). Respondents were aware that as they aged, their current residences and residential environments were likely to become less suitable. Nevertheless, most of our respondents were “stayers” and employed various assimilative coping strategies to adapt their homes, rather than moving or leaving the suburbs. It is suggested that a greater emphasis be placed on the promotion of barrier-free housing solutions and the use of innovative technologies.
... Several studies have focused on suburbanisation (e.g. Kok andKovacs, 1999 Tammaru et al. 2004;Hirt 2007) but very few studies have been conducted in recent years (Galka and Warych-Juras 2018;Ourednicek et al. 2019). Also, there seem to be an absence of papers that highlight the situation in areas just outside agglomerations. ...
... While the impact of suburbanites on the flows has been somewhat ambiguous, from a sheer numerical standpoint, suburbanisation has slowed down over time, with very few exceptions. This is contrary to developments in Czechia, where, after the financial crisis period, the intensity of in-migration increased in all agglomeration zones (Ourednicek et al. 2019). The situation in Rīga agglomeration is somewhat similar to the situation in the functional urban areas of Poland. ...
After the fall of socialism, the most pronounced changes in the spatial structure of the population have been caused by suburbanisation. These changes have been especially notable since the end of the transition period. Therefore, the aim of this research was to characterise the features of suburbanisation in the vicinity of Rīga after transition. Characteristics of suburbanisation were analysed based on the share of and number of people moving out of Rīga among all people moving. This was done for two periods – 2000 to 2011, and 2011 to 2019 – “the second of which has been less studied. The results showed that there were significant differences between the three share groups – a high proportion often went hand in hand with a large number of suburbanites. On the other hand, the differences between agglomeration and non-agglomeration areas were less clear-cut, as there were significant differences in the number of people previously living in Rīga and its changes, while there were no significant differences in the share for the first stage and share changes.
... Cara kerja bumdes pada dasarnya adalah dengan jalan menampung kegiatan-kegiatan ekonomi masyarakat dalam sebuah bentuk lembaga atau badan usaha yang dikelola secara profesional, namun tetap bersandar pada potensi asli desa. Hal tersebut sesuai dengan pernyataan Ourednicek et al., (2019) bahwa salah satu agenda pembangunan pemerintah Indonesia adalah membangun Indonesia dari daerah pinggiran dan pedesaan yang ada aksesibilitas rendah, namun tetap mengacu pada potensi asli desa. ...
Full-text available
Desa memiliki potensi untuk dapat meningkatkan perekonomian masyarakat. Potensi tersebut berasal dari usaha yang dimiliki oleh masyarakat. Langkah nyata untuk mendorong serta membangun masyarakat dan mengasah potensi sumber daya yang ada di desa dapat dilakukan dengan menjalin kerjasama melalui badan usaha milik desa (BUMDES) untuk menghasilkan produk-produk berkualitas. Tujuan utama dari BUMDES adalah meningkatkan kesejateraan masyarakat desa. Kegiatan pengabdian ini dilakukan melalui beberapa tahap antara lain 1) sosialisasi persiapan BUMDES, 2) sosialisasi program BUMDES, dan 3) sosialisasi kerja sama BUMDES di Desa Gubugklakah Kecamatan Poncokusumo Kabupaten Malang. Pengabdian masyarakat ini menggunakan metode pendidikan masyarakat yang bertujuan untuk melakukan penyuluhan guna meningkatkan pemahaman serta kesadaran masyarakat. Sosialisasi terkait program pada BUMDES Amanah GubugKlakah yaitu Unit Perbankan, Unit HIPPAM, Unit Pertanian, dan Unit Pariwisata. Selanjutnya sosialisasi terkait hubungan kerjasama BUMDES Amanah di Desa Gubugklakah yaitu kerjasama dengan BNI dalam hal pembayaran cicilan motor, kartu kredit, cicilan bank lain, dan pendaftaran KUR mikro. Melalui pengabdian masyarakat ini diharapkan mampu meningkatkan perekonomian masyarakat di desa Gubugklakah Kecamatan Poncokusumo Kabupaten Malang.
... However, unlike in eastern Germany, the economic decline in Czechia was, in general, not accompanied by high rates of rural outmigration and depopulation. On the contrary: during the 1990s and 2000s, a distinctive suburbanization process had strong effects not only on the fringes of the large urban centers, but also on semi-rural and rural areas, and resulted in population growth in large parts of the Czech countryside (Ouředníček et al., 2019). In addition to their diverging migration patterns, a further major difference between the rural areas in Czechia and eastern Germany is in their administrative structures: in Czechia, rural areas are made up of a large number of small municipalities; whereas in eastern Germany, the municipal units are generally much bigger, with administrative and social services being increasingly concentrated in small town centers (Lešková and Vaishar, 2019;Steinführer, 2018). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The aim of this Working Paper is to introduce a conceptual model and study design for researching social disadvantage in rural peripheries, focusing on the interplay of social disadvantage and spatial disadvantage. The paper presents the theoretical concepts, understandings, and definitions, as well as the research design we draw on in the international research project ‘Social disadvantage in rural peripheries in Czechia and eastern Germany: opportunity structures and individual agency in a comparative perspective.’ The project investigates the multifaceted relationships between social disadvantage, local and regional opportunity structures, and individual agency in rural peripheries in Czechia and eastern Germany from a comparative perspective. It focuses on two sets of research questions. The first set concerns the quantitative patterns of social disadvantage and spatial disadvantage in rural areas. The second set asks about the impact of opportunity structures as part of the residential context on particularly disadvantaged groups in four case study regions. The project applies theories of peripheralization and rural restructuring, and considers social networks and individual agency. Area-level secondary data and accessibility analyses and qualitative case studies, including ego-centered network analyses and GPS mapping of time-space activity patterns, are used. Keywords: Social disadvantage; peripheralization; rural areas; rural peripheries; rural restructuring; opportunity structure; social networks; agency
This paper explores the implementation of grand spatial planning narratives such as the compact city and polycentricity in planning practice. The effects of overlapping scales on the application of spatial imaginaries in metropolitan space are examined. Using post‐socialist space, the research enriches the geographical context of metropolitan studies. On the basis of a spatial analysis of metropolitan form and centrality and a textual analysis of the relevant spatial plans of three Czech metropolitan areas, the key features in efforts of planning polycentric and compact metropolitan areas are identified as “Administrative blindness”, “(De)centralization ambiguity”, and “Reactive passivity”. By identifying the limits of translating spatial visions into the practical language of statutory regional and land‐use plans, the paper contributes to the debate on the effectiveness of metropolitan planning based on the specific context of Central Europe.
Full-text available
The study makes a brief overview of the demographic processes and research on them in Czechia and Slovakia during the past three decades, the period following the splitting of the common Czechoslovak state. General trends in selected demographic processes are identified and described. Research is summarised and critically evaluated in three basic areas: an analysis of recent trends, forecasting and, finally, applied demographic research. The study focuses more on applied research and forecasting because they have been less frequently appearing in the recent review studies. We intentionally omit the structures and general population dynamics. While recognizing several advancements in developing research topics and methodologies, and their increasing representation in prestigious journals, this study also highlights certain reservations and future challenges inherent to these developments.
Internal migration is an important process investigated by spatial and regional sciences. When intensive, it can significantly change settlement and regional systems. The paper reveals the structures of internal migration based particularly on distance of movements and partly on their motivations. In order to distinguish between short and long distance migration based on informed decision and not on ad hoc threshold (estimate) we employ (i) the concept of the time geography as behavioural framework, (ii) the concept of daily urban (spatial) systems as spatial framework, and (iii) the concept of (sub)urbanisation as theoretical framework. The results are based on the combination of these three concepts, together with the quantitative analysis of statistically recorded internal migration in the Czech Republic (length of movements and their motivations). The daily urban system of the city of Olomouc (the Czech Republic) is further analysed using the time geographic approach and time use diaries of individuals. The analysis of internal migration in the Czech Republic showed us that short distance migration was defined by 50 km upper distance limit, by other motivations than employment, by intra-regional rather than inter-regional flows, and by the existence of areal overlap of activity time spaces before and after the move was completed. Patterns of time-space behaviour for urban and rural (suburban) population sample in the daily urban system of Olomouc have been generalised and two basic types of time space existence of individuals identified: radial for urban population and circular for rural (suburban) population.
Contemporary housing preferences and related behaviour are highly diverse due to the variety of lifestyle cultures in cities, dissimilarities in residents’ resources, and urban changes. In recent years, the Prague Metropolitan Area in Czechia has seen gradual changes in residential mobility patterns. While suburbanization remains the most significant type of residential change, other processes have emerged. The aim of the article is to examine changes in the residential mobility patterns of families with young children living in and moving between different residential zones in the Prague Metropolitan Area. Migration data relating to individuals are used to examine spatial and temporal shifts in mobility flows. Even though suburbs are still the main destination for families with young children, the authors identified a certain degree of diversification in residential behaviour. They conclude that this finding points to the emergence of reurbanization tendencies towards the housing estates and intensifying mobility within residential zones with housing that is similar in appearance.
Full-text available
The academic debate on methodological approaches to the measurement of urban sprawl, particularly its most cited dimension, the density of residential settlement, is discussed in this article. The methodology of point pattern analysis, and its benefits in comparison to land-use data analysis, especially for researching the morphology of residential development, is examined. This empirical study was conducted in the hinterland of Prague and is based on point data from 2007, 2010 and 2016. The paper contributes to the scholarly discussion of suburbanisation in Central and Eastern European countries, including the morphology of suburban development. The role of scale is also emphasised, given our observation of two ambiguous means of development, namely spatial dispersion at the regional scale and increasing density at the local scale. The findings support claims regarding the crucial role of micro-scale research in understanding suburban form. The largest Czech suburb of Jesenice serves as a case study, where the morphology of built-up areas is analysed in the local context.
The article brings a perspective of governmentality theory to the studies on residential suburbanization of the European postsocialist cities. By examining the accounts of the mayors of fringe urban districts and municipalities located in the metropolitan area of Brno, the second-largest Czech city, we identify two interlinked discourses – the reactive discourse and the proactive discourse, both underlined by a specific sociospatial imaginary of rurality. The lens of governmentality theory led to the focus on the mayors' understanding of the process, their position within it, the political tools they did (not) apply and the legitimation of their decisions. The two-wave research design (2006–2009 and 2019, 26 interviews in total) enabled us to capture the substantial change in the intensity of these discourses over time to examine how they relate to the construction of the boundaries of municipal responsibility within the challenging suburbanization process.
Full-text available
The main objective of this paper is to apply a synthetic approach to the delimitation of metropolitan areas, which combines traditional commuting data from the population census with alternative approaches. The presented delimitation, which was originally realized in response to a request from Prague’s planning authority, is based on three methodological pillars: the use of economic and social aspects of metropolization; suburbanization; and daily mobility within the Prague Metropolitan Area. Integrated systems of centers calculated from population census data are complemented with the use of mobile phone data. There was a surprising level of similarity in the spatial patterns gained from the two methods. Zones of residential suburbanization and time spent in the core city provided a complex perspective on the daily urban system within the Prague Metropolitan Area. A synthetic map based on the four methods is provided, accompanied by five analytical maps on a smaller scale.
Full-text available
Several tendencies seem to indicate that in the hinterland of Bratisla-va specifi c new residential zones are forming with a different socioeconomic structure. This article analyses the hinterland of Bratislava from various perspectives of suburban development. The selection of variables covers the origin of in-migrants and their economic activity, education, and family status. Indicators of land use, housing construction, and property prices supplement these data. The data are processed based on a factorial ecology approach, which tries to discover the basic dimensions of the socio-spatial structure, and cluster analysis. Using these methods the authors identify similar clusters and categorise individual municipalities into relatively homogeneous units—sub-urban development types. The results lead to a number of very interesting fi ndings. The same types of suburban municipalities are not arranged in concentric zones, which means that the factor of distance from the city does not play a prominent role. The prevailing factor is the sectorial structure, which refl ects the different levels of attractiveness municipalities hold for different socioeconomic groups of in-migrants. This article seeks to identify key factors that affect the formation of individual suburban zones and thus contributes to a better understanding of the processes that decisively shape the socio-spatial organisation of hinterlands in post-socialist cities today.
Full-text available
Analysis of actors and problematic aspects of decision making processes in territorial management of suburban municipalities
Full-text available
Large scale suburbanisation is a relatively recent phenomenon in East Central Europe and responsible for major socio-spatial changes in metropolitan areas. Little is known about the ethnic dimensions of this process. However, large minority population groups, mainly ethnic Russians, remained into the former member states of the Soviet Union after its dissolution in 1991. We use individual level Estonia Census data in order to investigate the ethnic dimensions of suburbanisation. The results show that ethnic minorities have a considerably lower probability to suburbanise compared to the majority population, and minorities are less likely to move to rural municipalities – the main sites of suburban change – in the suburban ring of cities. Individual characteristics that measure strong ties with the majority population and host society exert a positive effect on ethnic minority suburbanization, and on settling in rural municipalities.
Full-text available
The paper examines the causes, features and consequences of the vigorous dynamics of urban sprawl seen in recent years in eastern Germany. Firstly, regarding the theory of urban development, it demonstrates that this case of sprawl displays certain peculiarities—and so cannot be sufficiently understood by drawing on ‘western’ experience. Secondly, concerning the management of urban development, it is particularly striking that urban sprawl in eastern Germany has largely proved to be the product of specific legislative and political conditions. Changes in these conditions ought thus to significantly affect urban development. To help contain urban sprawl in the context under scrutiny, however, these changes need to be geared to the situation of urban stagnation and decline.
This paper answers the question: how many Americans live in cities, suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas in the United States? Previous works have examined only one or some of these settlement types instead of accounting for the entire country’s population, or have employed highly technical classifications uncommon in common parlance. This paper develops a comprehensive classification scheme using vernacular settlement types, then organizes U.S. Census data into the taxonomy presented here. This research contributes to the existing literature by (1) reporting the number and percentages living in all four major settlement types rather than covering only one or two of these categories; (2) delineating the population into four categories in order to adequately detail the full variety of major settlement types rather than classifying the population into a simple urban/nonurban scheme; and (3) using settlement type names that are common parlance rather than jargon.
The exceptional dynamics of urban change in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries sparked an almost immediate revitalization of urban studies during the 1990s. In academia, this interest implied an urgent need to make use of theoretical concepts that would inform the description and interpretation of observed new social and spatial phenomena and processes. Consequently, developmentalism – the belief in the realignment of former socialist cities to their Western counterparts and in the gradual “correction” of their socialist character – became the dominant paradigm of urban studies throughout the 1990s in most CEE countries. A strong confidence in the explanatory and predictive function of theoretical concepts that functioned well in Western cities was typical of this period. However, more than two decades of post-socialist urban research have led to the recognition of the limited utility of some imported Western concepts. This paper documents these trends using the example of the outer areas of Czech (post-socialist) cities, which, having been shaped by socialist planning practice for decades, convinced many CEE urban scholars of the need to seek alternative theoretical concepts. It is hoped that this may create fertile ground for new ideas, which would be then exported as a part of wider and internationally more relevant urban theory.
One of the major developments in post-socialist cities is the increasing outflow of people from the city to the surrounding settlements. Budapest is a case in point. The agglomeration used to receive migrants coming to live and work in the capital (i.e., rural urbanization). After the political and economic changes of the 1980s and 1990s, the suburban area around Budapest has received people moving out of the city. Macro statistics from the Hungarian Statistical Office show that suburbanization is unevenly spread over the agglomeration. Some settlements have a dynamic building policy and a growing population, while other settlements have moderate building programmes and a stagnating or even declining population. This pattern cannot be explained simply by preferences - i.e., where people would like to live. More precise explanations can be based upon housing construction opportunities, availability of building sites, and the attitude of local governments towards suburban development. This paper is based on analyses of micro data derived from the Budapest Agglomeration household survey, conducted in July 1997. Our results show that suburbanization around Budapest is spatially a highly segregated process. Higher-status people and lower-status people have different destinations and tend to cluster in homogeneous areas, as they did in the city. Suburbanization seems to be a radial process; people tend to cross the city boundary at the shortest distance and settle in one of the nearest settlements. The moves from the city to the suburbs are initiated by the desire to adapt the housing and neighbourhood situations to the aspirations of the household. The change of job is less important as a reason. Job motives, however, are important for households moving into the agglomeration from elsewhere. This rural urbanization process is rather strong in the Eastern zone, implying that rural urbanization has not come to an end.
Methodological problems of research and zoning of residential suburbanization in the Czech Republic
This paper considers how far suburbanization in Hungary has followed the Western model. The authors argue that the transition period, as a distinctive era, will not bring about fundamental changes in the cause-and-effect relationships of surburban development. The decisive role of capital in Hungarian suburbanization is evident in the uneven development of this spatial process. It is contended that the actors in the suburbanization of transition, although labelled ‘distinctive’ by some commentators, do not have a trajectory which is essentially different from that of their western counterparts. Differences arise from the means and pace of acquiring property and capital. As in advanced capitalism, suburbanization in Hungary results in social tensions, segregation and exclusion.