Patterns of Post-socialist Urban Development in Russia and Germany

Abstract

Since 1990, urbanization in post-socialist countries has frequently resulted in a loss of urban density in the existing building stock while land use patterns at the outskirts of growing city regions began to sprawl. Formerly state-planned and controlled housing forms as well as industrial and business enterprises were suddenly exposed to new market interests and finance-led investments in a globalizing world. In the initial adaptation to socio-economic transformation pressures after the fall of the iron curtain, the countries in question took different approaches in the governance of urbanization trends. The comparison of urban development between Russian and Eastern German city regions showcases two contrasting examples. Urban development in Russian city regions is largely driven by action-oriented political control of land market interests on the project level. Today's Eastern German city regions have adopted the spatial planning regime of former West Germany. Where the German planning regime aims to coordinate long-term planning and decision-making between different tiers of government with an emphasis to empower land use management on the local community level, land use decisions in Russia are formally free of such regulatory frameworks. According to urban metrics that monitor the sustainability of urban development, both approaches result in increasing urban sprawl and related potential adverse impacts on multiple public goods. Experts interviewed for this article frequently attribute this outcome to “catch-up development” that prioritizes economic development over other land use interests. The cumulative negative effects of urban sprawl on land use efficiency are increasingly being recognized, but they are still frequently subordinate to urban development interests.

Full text

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 19 April 2022
doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.846956
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 1April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956
Edited by:
Malgorzata Renigier-Biłozor,
University of Warmia and Mazury in
Olsztyn, Poland
Reviewed by:
Lorenzo De Vidovich,
University of Trieste, Italy
Han Li,
University of Miami, United States
*Correspondence:
Stefan Fina
stefan.fina@ils-research.de
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Urban Resource Management,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
Received: 31 December 2021
Accepted: 25 March 2022
Published: 19 April 2022
Citation:
Gerten C, Boyko D and Fina S (2022)
Patterns of Post-socialist Urban
Development in Russia and Germany.
Front. Sustain. Cities 4:846956.
doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.846956
Patterns of Post-socialist Urban
Development in Russia and Germany
Christian Gerten 1, Dmitry Boyko 2and Stefan Fina 1
*
1ILS - Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development gGmbH, Geoinformation and Monitoring, Dortmund,
Germany, 2GeoClever Ltd. Russia/ARL - Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association, Hanover, Germany
Since 1990, urbanization in post-socialist countries has frequently resulted in a loss of
urban density in the existing building stock while land use patterns at the outskirts of
growing city regions began to sprawl. Formerly state-planned and controlled housing
forms as well as industrial and business enterprises were suddenly exposed to new
market interests and finance-led investments in a globalizing world. In the initial
adaptation to socio-economic transformation pressures after the fall of the iron curtain,
the countries in question took different approaches in the governance of urbanization
trends. The comparison of urban development between Russian and Eastern German
city regions showcases two contrasting examples. Urban development in Russian city
regions is largely driven by action-oriented political control of land market interests on
the project level. Today’s Eastern German city regions have adopted the spatial planning
regime of former West Germany. Where the German planning regime aims to coordinate
long-term planning and decision-making between different tiers of government with an
emphasis to empower land use management on the local community level, land use
decisions in Russia are formally free of such regulatory frameworks. According to urban
metrics that monitor the sustainability of urban development, both approaches result
in increasing urban sprawl and related potential adverse impacts on multiple public
goods. Experts interviewed for this article frequently attribute this outcome to “catch-up
development” that prioritizes economic development over other land use interests. The
cumulative negative effects of urban sprawl on land use efficiency are increasingly being
recognized, but they are still frequently subordinate to urban development interests.
Keywords: urban sprawl, spatial indicators, post-socialist urban development, sustainable development, urban
governance, Germany, Russia
INTRODUCTION
Previous studies have shown that urban development in post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union was characterized by intensive growth after the fall of the “iron
curtain” around the most dynamic city regions and capitals (Stanilov, 2007; S`
ykora, 2009; Schmidt,
2011; Hirt, 2013; Schmidt et al., 2014; Stanilov and Sýkora, 2014). Much of this growth came at
the cost of areas in the periphery that initially suffered from urban decline due to processes of
deindustrialization, the loss of jobs in agriculture, and continued out-migration of younger people
on the search for job opportunities (Stanilov, 2007; Hirt, 2013). A recent series of studies on socio-
economic disparities in five European countries (Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Romania, Italy) shows
that this trend continues with new driving forces. The spatial dualism of metropolization of very few

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
but prominent city regions on the one hand, and urban decline
in the periphery on the other hand, shows parallels to the spatial
dynamics in Western European countries. Metropolitan growth
at the cost of the periphery seems to be the dominant driver of
twenty-first century spatial development (Andersson et al., 2021;
Fina et al., 2021a,b,c,d).
When taking a deeper look, however, differences become
evident. Countries like Germany have experienced continued
in-migration from abroad over the last decade. This effect
not only stabilizes the demographic situation but also causes
“spillover effects” and new waves of suburbanization. Inner city
locations become preferred locations for residential functions in
a continuation of reurbanisation trends. Industrial enterprises
relocate to suburban locations and attract commuter and
shopping trips heavily reliant on motorized transport (Lang,
2000; Crane and Chatman, 2003; Keil, 2017b; Fina et al., 2020).
Spatial planning aims to manage such growth under free market
conditions with concepts of transit-oriented development that
connects urban hubs in polycentric city regions. Interregional
transport routes connect the main centers and high-speed
railway stations become important nuclei of urban development.
In contrast, drivers of urban development in countries like
Russia are different. Distances between city regions are much
longer which makes it more difficult to capitalize from the
synergies between interregional and intraregional transport
systems. Urbanization processes after 1990 have focused on the
provision of residential housing, the design of comfortable public
spaces, and economic development of the largest agglomerations
(Pagonis and Thornley, 2000; Kurichev and Kuricheva, 2018).
In comparison to Germany, the demography in Russia does not
receive the same level of in-migration from abroad. In Russia,
high numbers of people continue to leave the countryside to
move to larger city regions and drive metropolitan growth, others
leave for destinations abroad. A stabilizing in-migration to the
periphery is absent (S`
ykora, 2009; Mason and Nigmatullina,
2011; Stanilov and Sýkora, 2014).
On this background, the existing body of scientific literature
on the measurement of urban sprawl in post-socialist city regions
is rather limited. Some authors argue that monitoring methods
have to adequately address the contributing factor of population
decrease and urban decline as a specific form of urban sprawl
in post-socialist countries, building on similar experiences in
declining industrial areas in Northern England and Germany
(Couch et al., 2005; Nuissl and Rink, 2005; EEA, 2006, 2016;
Siedentop and Fina, 2010; Iano¸s et al., 2016). Most quantitative
research on the measurement of urban sprawl, however, has
emerged in countries where free market conditions of growth
have prevailed for a number of decades (Tsai, 2005; Wolman
et al., 2005; Frenkel and Ashkenazi, 2008; Ewing et al., 2013)
and spatial planning introduced containment strategies in due
course (Soule, 2006; OECD, 2013, 2018). This applies also to
urban development in Western German states with the exception
of urban areas in the former German Democratic Republic
(GDR). In these Eastern states the Western German planning
system was superimposed on a socialist planning regime after
the reunification in 1990. Urban expansion of city regions like
Berlin, Dresden and Leipzig are therefore showcase examples of
a system change that initially also experienced urban decline,
but was soon exposed to disruptive dynamics of sprawl-inducing
growth effects under free market conditions (Schwarz et al., 2009;
Kroll and Haase, 2010; Haase et al., 2014). Russian city regions,
in contrast, experienced a phase of limited spatial development
coordination that lasts until today. Urban development was
exposed to a crisis of regulation after the collapse of the USSR,
centralized strategic planning was no longer relevant and market-
oriented approaches were not yet empowered (Pagonis and
Thornley, 2000; Mason and Nigmatullina, 2011).
Based on these observations this paper aims to shed light
on the drivers of urban sprawl in comparison of planning
regimes between the case study of the former West Germany,
the post-socialist development in the former GDR, and the
types of urbanization visible in Russian city regions. The
following introductory subchapters provide an overview of
defining characteristics of urban sprawl and their measurability
for spatial monitoring concepts. The important lesson for
our paper is the emergence of indicator-based measurement
concepts for the key dimensions of land use efficiency and
dispersal of land use functions which we operationalize for the
selected countries of Russia and Germany. This leads to the
formulation of a research question and study design that we
explain in the following chapter. The results section summarizes
the key takeaways of a quantitative spatial analysis that were
used to lead interviews with experts in spatial development
of selected city regions. In the following discussion we reflect
about the emergence and adequacy of international monitoring
concepts to provide suitable urban metrics for our study. We
contribute to the body of scientific literature with methodological
enhancements of sprawl metrics that work globally. The value
is to differentiate undesirable urban sprawl and smart forms of
compact development for the consolidation of the urban fabric
under post-socialist conditions.
The Emergence of Urban Sprawl
Measurement Concepts
The impacts of urban sprawl on land use efficiency have been
the subject of research on spatial development and urban
land use patterns since the 1960s. In essence, urban sprawl
describes the disruption to urbanization processes after the
private motor car became available as a means of transport
for upper and middle class households. The topic emerged
especially in the United States where massive phases of planned,
car-oriented urbanization led to what pioneering researchers
like Reid Ewing labeled the Los Angeles type of urban sprawl
(Ewing, 1997). His interpretation on characteristic features to
measure are low-density development with single or duplex
family homes, strip development along major transport axes
from the business centers to the outskirts, scattered development
where buildings stand far apart, and leapfrog development where
service infrastructure has to be provided over long distances for a
limited number of users. Some measurement concept suggested
complex multi-criteria analysis to quantify such developments
comprehensively (Siedentop et al., 2007; Ewing et al., 2013).
The complexity and specific needs for tailored data proved to
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 2April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
be difficult to operationalize for planning practice where simple
but rather inadequate measures like the population density are
frequently used instead (Tikoudis et al., 2022). Other researchers
concentrate on fewer characteristics. Hasse and Lathrop (2003)
emphasize the inefficiency of land uses that results in unnecessary
costs for society and the economic loss of agricultural land. Soule
(2006) hint toward the impact of dispersed urban land use that
fails to capitalize on economies of scale when low urban densities
result in higher per capita infrastructure costs.
A recent landmark study supports the concentration on land
use inefficiency and dispersal of land uses as key characteristics
of urban sprawl (Tikoudis et al., 2022). An author group from
the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) introduces the concept of land-density allocation as
a measurable form of urban development, based on density-
allocation indicators. The authors found four distinct patterns
of urban sprawl in 100 OECD countries. In accordance with
previous research they argue that urban sprawl leads to high
opportunity costs for public spending. It also points out risks
for social desintegration and public health when affluent parts of
society resort to car-dependant and physically inactive lifestyles
in segregated sprawling neighborhoods (Ewing and Rong, 2008;
Ewing et al., 2014; Wei and Ewing, 2018).
A third aspect in this body of literature addresses
environmental impacts and the adoption of landscape metrics
for their measurement. Next to disproportionately high energy
use based on non-renewable energy (Ewing and Rong, 2008), the
fragmentation of natural habitats due to sprawling urbanization
became a topic of increasing concern. The environmental
movement started to inform concepts of urban planning with the
advent of the sustainable development paradigm in the 1990s and
subsequent years. Since then, new insights into the fragility of
ecosystems due to urbanization and industrial forms of farming,
observations on the combined impacts on biodiversity, as well as
the interaction of urbanization and global warming served as the
starting point for increased research activities worldwide. The
advancement of landscape metrics to inform such impacts led to
the development of GIS-based spatial indicators that were later
also adopted for the measurement of urban sprawl (McGarigal
and Marks, 1995;Siedentop et al., 2007; Fina, 2013).
The guiding literature on urban sprawl and its measurement
supports the interpretation that compact urban form is
advantageous for pathways to carbon neutrality and sustainable
urban development. In this respect, the United Nations
sustainable development goals (SDG) formulate a political
mandate to implement appropriate measures for this purpose.
Aspects of urban sprawl are related to SDG 11 (“Make cities
and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”)
and SDG 15 (“Protect, restore and promote sustainable use
of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation”) (United
Nations, 2016). The European Union and its member states
track progress for these goals with investments in monitoring
capacities that include earth observation techniques and regular
“state-of-the-environment” reports (EEA, 2019). Associated
research institutions like the Joint Research Commission (JRC)
and the European Environment Agency (EEA) empower newly
emerging technological options for monitoring purposes (Keil
et al., 2004, 2010; Pesaresi et al., 2013).
Based on available datasets for land use monitoring, academic
research has made some progress in the development of
indicators to benchmark sustainable development targets in
relation to urban sprawl. Different methodological approaches
have been proposed for the assumed information requirements
of urban planning and land use governance, including
contributions by the authors of this article and application
in post-socialist countries (Esswein et al., 2002; Girvetz et al.,
2007; Siedentop et al., 2007; Jaeger et al., 2008, 2009; Fina,
2013; Jaeger and Schwick, 2014). In hindsight, the levels of
complexity to source and process available datasets, remaining
uncertainties about the information value of results for planning
practice, and the reluctance of stakeholders and administration
to adopt complex forms of urban metrics prevented the roll-out
of monitoring concepts to measure urban sprawl so far. A recent
evaluation of German regional planning programmes shows
that, apart from few early adopters, there is no monitoring
of sprawling forms of urbanization in planning practice.
A dedicated expert survey supports the observation that
methodological options to overcome this shortcoming are not
sufficiently convincing for planning practitioners to invest in
respective monitoring capacities. This is also due to the fact that
mandatory tasks, as in most member states of the European
Union, are limited to deliver on quantitative aspects of new
urban land take (Fina, 2021).
The difficulties to monitor urban land conversions across
countries in a uniform way are seen as a major obstacle to
develop appropriate governance concepts for the containment
of urban sprawl. A study undertaken for the European Spatial
Planning Observation Network (ESPON) concludes that the
lack of comparable data hinders the development of monitoring
capacities and confuses stakeholders to act on the problem
of urban sprawl in a coordinated way. Research efforts that
work on similar objectives with different and changing data
options cannot capitalize on previous efforts and fail to build
upon each other (ESPON, 2020a,b). This insight comes at a
time where advocates of climate-neutral urban development
call for new forms of land use management to mitigate and
compensate carbon emissions attributed to new built-up areas. In
its interpretation of the United Nation’s sustainable development
goals, the German national government, for example, has
sharpened the nationwide quantitative target for urban land take
from under 30 hectares per day by 2030 to “zero land take” by
2050 (Die Bundesregierung, 2021).
Decoville and Schneider (2016) express substantial skepticism
if land monitoring programmes in can deliver on the “zero
land take objective.” Our own previous research finds that the
monitoring approach in the United Kingdom (UK) introduced
back in 1999 comes close to what is required. As part of the
new urban renaissance policies the UK government set out a
brownfield redevelopment target where 90% of all new urban
land take has to be located on previously developed land.
The monitoring of this target is enabled by the collection
of information on the land use of 40 million addresses and
parcels by the Ordnance Survey (DCLG, 2017). In combination
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 3April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
with small-scale geodemographics and modern data fusion
techniques, such data can potentially also provide a solid
base to monitor processes of shrinkage in the existing urban
compound. On the downside, newer liberal policies for urban
land take in the UK meant that this real-world example of
binding land redevelopment targets and supporting monitoring
systems lost momentum since 2017 (DCLG, 2017). Moreover, the
introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation in the
European Union imposes new restrictions on the use of parcel
data that is frequently associated with sensitive information on
land ownership. To the author’s knowledge there are currently
no national land monitoring systems that follow a detailed plan
to monitor urban sprawl and urban land take for dedicated
redevelopment targets.
For the study design of this paper we therefore choose
land cover information that captures urban land cover changes
in Germany and Russia in a comparable way. This choice
acknowledges that the results can contradict data from
national monitoring. This is unavoidable in the light of the
aforementioned methodological problems that all monitoring
programmes face. We use the Global Human Settlement Layer
that is available to analyze urban land use change since 1970,
in higher and comparable quality since 1990. The results are
interpreted with a special focus on the dynamics since 1990 and
the subsequent phases of post-socialist sprawl as evidenced under
Russian and German planning cultures.
The following subsections explain the respective
commonalities and differences.
Russian Spatial Development and
Urbanization
The share of the urban population of Russia in 1897 was 14.7%.
This figure nearly doubled until 1939 to 33.5% (Lappo and
Polyan, 1999). At the beginning of the twenty-first century,
almost 75% of the population of Russia lives in cities and this
share is still increasing. Land flight started already back in the
1920s and 1930s when the collectivization of agriculture and
following measures led to an erosion of traditional livelihoods
and a mass migration of peasants to cities in the search for
work. The accelerated industrialization launched by the Soviet
government required new labor resources that came from the
countryside. As a result, Soviet cities were created as residential
settlements near new factories, allocated according to state plans
(Vishnevsky, 1998). As the main stages of urbanization in Russia
took place during the Soviet period, their specific spatial form
and character of the development of Russian cities was formed
(Medvedkov, 1990; Polyan et al., 2001; Hirt and Stanilov, 2009;
Meerovich, 2015).
The economic development of the Soviet territory aimed
to maximize the added value of natural resources. Following
this logic, new cities were often built from scratch and remote
settlements were developed in proximity to such resources. The
construction of industrial enterprises served as the starting point
of urban development in the USSR. The planned number of city
residents was calculated on the basis of the number of workers
enterprises required for their operation (Meerovich, 2015). Next
to the size of the country, the spatial planning logic to develop
the Soviet territory for economic purposes with settlements
explains its expansion over long distances in comparison with the
countries of Western Europe.
In addition, land flight has led to the depopulation and
desolation of rural areas. Socio-economic disparities in the
number and variety of employment opportunities as well
as the level of wages between cities and towns prevail
(Polyan et al., 2001; Frost, 2018). As a result, Russian large
cities, and above all regional capitals, turned out to be
the main poles of urban development surrounded by rare,
remote and incomparably small settlements (Lukhmanov, 1996;
Golubchikov, 2006). Despite initiatives to mitigate inequality and
limit the growth of large cities, the trend toward polarization
persisted throughout the Soviet period and intensified after 1990
(Glazychev, 2011). This is most noticeable in the example of
the urban agglomerations of Moscow and St. Petersburg, which
have experienced accelerated growth in recent decades due to
internal migration (Antonov and Makhrova, 2019). Suburban
areas in post-Soviet time confronted extensive urban growth
(Grigorichev, 2013; Breslavsky, 2014).
The rapid influx of new urban dwellers left little time
and resources to fully meet existing housing needs, and this
issue received sufficient attention only in the late 1950s. This
is when the state program for the construction of mass
housing was launched (Meerovich, 2015). The typical residential
development, criticized for aesthetic poverty, has become a
response to a long-overdue social demand and served as a starting
point for improved construction technologies. The accumulated
experience of organizing mass housing construction formed a
stable trend which continued after the collapse of the USSR
(Glazychev, 2011).
Due to the abolition of market relations in 1917, not only
urban development, but all life in the city was subordinated
to the distribution system. Land resources were converted into
state ownership and used for urban development, virtually free
of charge. In this system, there was no mechanism to stimulate
more efficient use. Territorial expansion of built-up areas, e.g.,
for residential buildings, did not take the economic value of
land into account (Kabakova, 1973). The development of new
forms of mechanization in construction supported and enabled
the adherence of Soviet urban planners to the principles of
modernism in the 1970s−1980s. In this period, the practice of
building large-scale microdistricts became widespread. As a rule,
suburban free territories were allocated (Maleeva, 2005b). With
a high number of stories, such microdistricts contained social
infrastructure and significant open spaces between buildings.
This led to the extension of the “porous” built-up area of the city.
Territorial development since 1991, during the transition
to market relations, found itself in a difficult situation. On
the one hand, in connection with the reform of land and
property relations, the state ceased to act as the main initiator,
organizer and source of financing for urban development. On
the other hand, institutions and mechanisms for regulating urban
development were yet to be formed. This includes the structures
in local government, local political institutions as well as land
policy and urban planning adequate to market conditions. The
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 4April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
Land Code was adopted in 2001, the current Urban Development
Code in 2004. To date, it seems too early to consider the
formation of the relevant areas of legal regulation complete. Due
to insufficient control mechanisms, development has taken on
forms dictated more by the commercial logic of the construction
business than by public interests (Maleeva, 2005a). As case in
point is that the internal territorial reserves in Soviet micro-
districts were built up with single residential buildings. This led
to the loss of open spaces, disruption of infrastructure provision
and social conflicts.
The planned nature of urban development as well as the
predetermination of the main trips in Soviet public life allowed
for a planned organization of transport services for the Soviet
city by public transport. The increase in car availability and, as
a consequence, the increase in motorization in large city regions
occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It radically changed
the Russian urban landscape. The density of the street network,
the provision of parking spaces, the traffic capacity and safety
of road infrastructure needed to be adapted for car-oriented
development in Russian city regions.
German Spatial Development and
Urbanization
In comparison to Russia, the geography of the German urban
system is characterized by much shorter distances between city
regions. Urban areas are highly interconnected and benefit
from the central location in the European network of city
regions in many ways. Until recently, economically strong city
regions were mainly located in the South (Munich, Stuttgart,
Frankfurt am Main), the West (Cologne, Dusseldorf) and the
North (Hamburg, Hanover). The “catch-up” dynamics of Eastern
German city regions has taken some time after the reunification.
For large parts of society, demographic decline and the lack of
opportunities in outdated industries stigmatized Eastern German
cities and regions for inferior living conditions in comparison to
the quality of life in Western Germany. It takes a long time and
requires substantial efforts to improve this image (Albrech et al.,
2016; Fina et al., 2019).
From today’s perspective, this endeavor is only partly
successful. By now, some regions form successful economic
hubs with the emergence of the Berlin capital region as
the forerunner. The so-called “Saxony triangle” with Dresden,
Leipzig/Halle, and Chemnitz/Zwickau follows. Explanatory
factors for this observation point toward the substantial
investments in infrastructure for territorial development in
Eastern Germany. Funding from the German government and
EU territorial development budgets went into large-scale projects
to provide competitive settings for entrepreneurship and business
locations in Eastern German city regions. In addition, the global
trend of reurbanisation that took up pace from the 2000s onwards
helped to develop Eastern German cities as attractive urban hubs
for young people in the search for educational and professional
opportunities (Nuissl and Rink, 2003, 2005; Dembski et al., 2019).
On the downside, vast areas in the Eastern German periphery
continue to suffer from demographic decline and the lack
of business and employment opportunities. Despite many
initiatives to innovate and provide framework conditions for
pioneering businesses, the socio-economic outcome is limited.
The modernization of agriculture and the retreat of old industries
led to a massive loss of workforce demand. Outside dynamic
city regions, social and public infrastructure retreats to few
central places due to decreasing demand. Administrative areas
on the municipal and county level were amalgamated in a
number of iterations since 1990. The purpose was to bundle
and consolidate government services for fewer people in central
locations. A parallel outcome, however, is that people have
to travel longer distances to central places and services like
hospitals and educational facilities. This results in a further
loss of attractiveness. Digitalization is often cited as the way
forward. It can potentially provide people in remote locations
with business opportunities regardless of location and provide
digital replacements for public services (e.g., telemedicine,
click&collect stations). Critics argue that such opportunities
might help a limited amount of self-employed people to
engage in entrepreneurship. Clusters of digital entrepreneurship
with a globally competitive outreach, however, rather emerge
in locations where agglomeration effects support business
perspectives. The periphery experiences continued structural
disadvantages in comparison (Fina et al., 2019; Steinführer et al.,
2019;WBGU, 2019).
From a spatial planning perspective, land provision
for territorial development was frequently seen as a key
responsibility of local land use planning. In the initial absence of
state and regional development plans, market-friendly policies
dominated. The abundance of derelict industrial sites, barracks
and other vacant land required strategies of decontamination
and the provision of modernized access by car and public
transport. The late development trust (“Treuhand”) of the GDR
was used as the institutional vehicle to drive this process. EU
and federal policies imposed a number of strict restrictions, for
example in conservation areas. Other restrictions followed when
state and regional plans came into force. Spatial concepts for
urban area development followed the path of Western German
city regions. The central place system acts as the backbone
of spatial development, connected by efficient transport axes
(motorways, high-speed rail) and subdivided by conservation
and open space protection areas. In anticipation of such land
use restrictions, local communities in Eastern Germany allegedly
designated surplus land supply for future projects in their plans.
Next to general economic development, the motivation lay in
the taxation system. Municipal budgets in Germany rely heavily
on business and personal income tax as income. Restrictions on
land use for urban purposes imposed by higher-level planning
bodies frequently conflict with stakeholder interests on the local
level (Siedentop et al., 2007, 2009).
This potential area of conflict between the different tiers of
planning is still prevalent today. Yet the initial motivation to
stock up land resources for urban designations is no longer
dominant, at least not in suburban locations of thriving city
regions. In the wake of the reurbanisation trends of the 2000s,
new types of “spillover” development drove suburbanization
just as in other German city regions. On the residential side,
migration is driven by younger cohorts and new arrivals from
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 5April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
countries with locational preferences for inner city locations.
The migration balance for families, however, is negative in
total. More families move out of cities into suburban locations
than the other way round. The preference for low-density
single-family homes is only one explanatory factor. Some
evidence shows that increasing rent and land prices lead to
displacement of low-income households or, for new arrivals,
an immediate evasion to suburban locations due to the lack of
affordable housing in inner city locations. The resulting socio-
economic disparities between privileged inner-city locations
and, in comparison, rather neglected suburban and peripheral
locations can become a threat to social and territorial cohesion.
Recent political programmes to combat such trends give
witness to the dynamics of the problem (WBGU, 2016; BMI,
2019).
In parallel, market-driven business suburbanization has
become a steady trend in German city regions. Regardless of
some initiatives to retain workplaces and production facilities
in inner cities (“industry and manufacturing 4.0,” see Jansen
et al., 2016), large numbers of enterprises continue to relocate
and thrive in suburban locations with high accessibilities and
lower land rents. Business parks frequently locate at high-
speed rail stations that attract knowledge workers from the
inner cities. Transport to and from these locations is seen as
a key challenge for sustainable mobility. An overall increase
in commuter numbers and related trips offsets any efficiency
gains in the transport system. Allegedly, the socio-ecological
transformation of privileged inner-city locations results in
rebound effects on the city-regional level when affordability
and lifestyle preferences attract disproportionally large parts of
the society to car dependent suburban locations (Keil, 2017a,b;
Mössner et al., 2018).
Based on these considerations, spatial planning in Germany
aims to control related impacts of urban sprawl with planning
instruments to not prohibit, but guide urbanization to suitable
locations. Sprawling types of urbanization are addressed in
policies on the federal level (spatial planning act, federal nature
conservation act, building law code, federal water act) and
embedded in EU policies on additional conservation codes
(e.g., flora-fauna-habitat directive1). Urban sprawl is addressed
mainly to prevent environmental damage in conservation
areas and improve the efficiency of the settlement system in
terms of resource use and service provision. For this reason,
state development and, in more detail, regional plans of 124
regional planning authorities map out growth nodes for new
building activities along the central places system, in some
cases with densification targets, and central transport axes
for further development (Priebs, 2013). Evaluation of such
planning designations shows that the planning objectives are
not always implementable. In practice, a lack of land resources
to build in theoretical “positive planning” locations can conflict
with interests of local communities. As a result, “second best”
choices replace for the demand, potentially contributing more
to continued urban sprawl than desirable (Friedrich et al.,
2017).
1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_2000
Study Objectives
Based on the above considerations we posit that urban sprawl
in the context of the Russian and the German planning systems
justifies their selection for a comparative study.
This is motivated by two main objectives:
1) Compare post-socialist urban sprawl based on suitable
indicators and the same data source.
2) Understand differences and commonalities in the drivers of
urban sprawl in the context of the respective planning cultures
and global trends of urbanization.
The following section explains the methods employed to answer
these study objectives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study design applies a mixed-methods approach to firstly
compare urban development between the largest Russian and
German city regions. In this step, we analyze quantitative
measurements based on selected indicators for the two countries.
In a second step of the methodology we select case studies
for each country for a complementary qualitative in-depth
study. Subsequent expert interviews help to understand the
drivers and their importance in the interaction of global
urbanization pressures, interregional socioeconomic drivers, and
the moderating effect of the respective planning regime.
The results are interpreted in section Results of this paper
with a special focus on the dynamics since 1990 and the
subsequent phases of post-socialist sprawl as evidenced under the
aforementioned system settings.
Data Source and Research Area
The main source to compare urban sprawl in both countries is
the Global Human Settlement layer (GHSL). This global dataset
contains binary information on built-up areas (built and non-
built) and population data for 1975, 1990, 2000, and 2015 (JRC,
2016). As previous experience with this dataset has shown, the
values for 1975 are in some part not comparable due to the quality
of the satellite imagery at the time (Pesaresi et al., 2013; Gerten
et al., 2019). Since we focus on post-socialist development after
1990, we can exclude this year from our analysis.
Similar to the analyses of Gerten et al. (2019) and Taubenböck
et al. (2019a) we decided to use travel time areas as the
basis for our calculations. This approach allows us to delineate
catchments based on their functional structures (e.g., commuter
relations) and natural conditions (e.g., topographic barriers for
infrastructure and settlement development). The commutershed
of the major cities in Germany and Russia was calculated with
car travel times of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 120 min to the
city center. These rings of accessibility are called isochrones in
geoinformation science. The data on these locations were sourced
from a private software and data vendor (see section References
on data availability). To calculate the isochrones, we use an on-
demand service from Esri that relies on an up-to date road
network (Esri, 2019).
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 6April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
FIGURE 1 | Examples of land use pattern and the related indicators (urbanized land in black, largest patch in red) (Gerten et al., 2019).
Urban Metrics
As explained above, there is currently no simple measure of
urban sprawl that serves all interests in the topic. Our own
experience shows that the comparison of the population growth
rate and the built-up growth rate serves as a suitable proxy to
visualize sprawling development paths. Firstly, they are decisive
parameters that shape development trends and sprawl in urban
regions in their own right (Frenkel and Ashkenazi, 2008). The
analytical value increases when comparing their development
paths with a standardized starting point. A decoupling of built-
up area development from population development over a city
region and its isochrones can be attributed to sprawl. The
magnitude of decoupling is best shown in line graphs that
visualize trends over time and isochrones.
We determine the annual growth rates for population and
built-up using the geometrical mean:
Growth rate = n
sFirst year
Last year −1!∗100
The comparison of the two indicators can also be combined
in a numeric index, the so-called land use efficiency (LUE).
The index expresses the difference between population and
built-up growth rates. Positive values indicate an efficient
development with increasing densities, whereas negative values
indicate decreasing densities and a less efficient development.
This indicator is popular for evaluating sustainable urban growth
and also part of SDG 11 (Hennings, 2021). Melchiorri et al.
(2019) and Schiavina et al. (2019) have conducted a similar
analysis using this ratio in combination with the GHSL. Reasons
for a negative change in the LUE may include population
out-migration or expansion of non-residential development
(commercial, industrial, or transportation infrastructure). In
contrast, the efficiency may be positively affected by infill
development, e.g., when population growth is accompanied by
the conversion of non-residential to residential land.
The land use efficiency and its components focus on
development over time. In addition, the spatial composition of
built-up area is also an important aspect, considering urban
sprawl as an outcome of a development state in time. We borrow
a concept of Taubenböck et al. (2019b) to measure the dispersion
of built-up area. The dispersion index (DI) uses the normalized
number of patches (NPn) and the normalized largest patch (LPn)
of a study area to assess whether a settlement structure is compact
or disperse. With a value range from 0 to 100, low values indicate
a very compact pattern, high values show a rather fragmented,
“sprawling” structure. Example of different land use patterns are
shown in Figure 1. More details of its functionality as well as
advantages and limitations have already been discussed by other
authors (Gerten et al., 2019; Taubenböck et al., 2019a,b).
As additional measurement for the spatial composition of new
land we integrated the share of leapfrog in our analysis concept.
Leapfrog refers to newly developed built-up area that are not
attached to existing built-up areas (Angel et al., 2016). In our
approach, we have set a threshold of 500 m to define these areas.
The indicator is the ratio between the leapfrog area and the total
newly developed land. Examples of leapfrog in existing settlement
structures are shown below.
Expert Interviews
In order to better understand the results of the spatial
analysis outlined above, we contacted spatial planners and
experts on land development in selected city regions. In online
interviews conducted in November and December 2021 we
asked a set of standardized central questions, complemented
by few region-specific questions and additional complementary
background information that came up during the interviews.
The two experts for Saint-Petersburg and Krasnodar work for
private sector urban planning bureaus with over 10 years of
practical experience of research, strategic visioning and territorial
planning for the respective cities. The experts for Germany
work for regional authorities of the Leipzig region (“West
Saxany”) and the Berlin-Brandenburg metropolitan area. Next
to the planning expertise we received feedback from a specialist
on monitoring applications for regional planning in Berlin-
Brandenburg which we incorporated in the results section.
All three experts had long-standing experience of over 20
years on the job with responsibilities in policy formulation for
urban development, and witnessed post-socialist developments
personally and professionally.
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 7April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
FIGURE 2 | Examples of built-up area compositions and share of leapfrog.
FIGURE 3 | Average built-up and population growth rates for German and Russian city regions between 1990 and 2015 (Graphic: C. Gerten).
The central questions asked for an expert assessment
of the land use and population development (see Figure 3
below), which we presented during the interviews. Subquestions
asked for an interpretation of the visible trends for urban
sprawl dynamics, the underlying drivers of these developments,
and potential large projects that could explain distinctive
observations (e.g., peaks) in the trendlines. Subsequent questions
requested an evaluation of the efficacy of spatial planning
instruments to control urbanization since 1990 from the experts,
in case such instruments are employed. This also entailed
an assessment of acteur constellations and legal mandates
for stakeholder participation in the land use decision-making
process and its changes over time, which might also be related
to reformations of administrative areas and responsibilities.
The last question was then modified for the Russian and
German experts. The question asked for the changing awareness
of civil society and planning practice in relation to urban
development outcomes of formerly post-socialist city structures
in the respective planning cultures and governance systems.
RESULTS
The result section is divided into four parts. First, we analyze the
city regions in a combined dataset, divided by country, to get an
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 8April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
overview of the overall population and built-up trends in Russia
and Germany. In the second step, we have a detailed look on
the dynamics of the selected city regions in each country. Based
on this, we choose two city regions per country for an in-depth
analysis in the third part of this section. This includes the use of
an extended set of indicators, as well as interviews with experts in
the field.
Development Trends in Russia and
Germany
The analysis starts with the selection of the largest city regions
in Germany and Russia. The selection is based on population
size of the inner city, with 14 city regions in Germany (over
500,000 inhabitants) and the 26 most populated city regions in
Russia. We have decided to exclude Moscow from our analysis,
as the size of the city is not comparable to any other city in
our sample. Furthermore, Moscow has already been examined
in various analyses on growth and urban sprawl (Mason and
Nigmatullina, 2011; Kurichev and Kuricheva, 2018; Taubenböck
et al., 2019a).
Figure presents a summary graph with the average population
and built-up growth between 1990 and 2015 for Russian and
German city regions over the travel time rings along the x-axis.
For all Russian city regions together, we observe a minor increase
of built-up area (0.5%) and a loss of population (−0.4%) in the
15-min ring. Outside the urban core, we identified a significant
growth of built-up area. The maximum is in the 45-min ring
(1.6%). At the same time, the population has decreased in all rings
during this time period. The value range is −0.1 to −0.35% per
year. The land use efficiency is therefore negative. In German city
regions, we can observe other spatial trends. On average, major
German city regions show positive land use efficiency in the 15-
min ring. At this point, population growth (0.4%) is higher than
built-up growth (0.25%). Between the 15- and 90-min rings, the
following trends apply: population growth is decreasing (from 0.4
to 0.05%), and built-up growth is increasing (from 0.25 to 1.05%).
In general, the trend here is that growth outside the core city was
stronger than population growth between 1990 and 2015. This
observation shows that urban sprawl occurs in both countries,
with a higher decoupling in Russia.
A detailed look at the single city regions follows in the
next section.
Development Trends in Major City Regions
Our results for all Russian city regions in the sample are
constituted by the trends of the selected city regions in Figure 2.
Almost all city regions show negative land use efficiency for
the period from 1990 to 2015 in all travel time rings. The only
exception here is St. Petersburg, which has positive efficiency in
the 15-, 30-, and 45-min rings. However, even the city regions
with consistently negative land use efficiency show differences
within the sample. Perm, Tver, and Novokuznetsk are examples
with a strongly negative development in the land use efficiency,
with the negative peak of land use efficiency at −4. In contrast,
city regions such as Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk and Sochi have
significantly lower values for efficiency. Especially in the area of
the core city, the values are significantly below −1.
In contrast to the Russian case studies, the German city
regions show a more heterogeneous pattern (see Figure 3). We
identify city regions in the sample that have predominantly
positive land use efficiency. This applies to the largest German
city regions (Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich). The two
eastern German city regions of Leipzig and Dresden show high
negative land use efficiency across all travel time rings. Other
city regions with strongly negative values are Hanover, Bremen
and Dortmund. Due to the comparably small size of the country
and the high density of large city regions, agglomeration effects
can emerge in polycentric regions. It is possible that the results
include an overlap of travel time rings for city regions in
close proximity.
In-depth Studies
The aim of the in-depth studies is to identify factors for
varying development paths. The selection is based on qualitative
(see section Introduction) and quantitative (see Figures 2,3)
aspects. For Germany, we chose Berlin and Leipzig, which
are both part of the former GDR but have seen contrasting
development paths since 1990: Berlin with (partly) increasing,
Leipzig with decreasing land use efficiencies. The Russian city
of St. Petersburg, which registered an accelerated population
growth over the last decades, serves as a positive example of
urban growth. In contrast, Krasnodar shows high negative land
use efficiency in comparison to other Russian countries. The
selection also considered that the city regions are not exposed to
potential effects of polycentricity where neighboring city regions
influence the results. For this purpose, we limit the level of
observation to the 15-, 30-, 45-, and 60-min rings. The results
for all indicators are shown in Figure 6.Table 1 summarizes
the information presented in the graphs in a text description
and interpretation.
Berlin and Saint-Petersburg on one hand, and Krasnodar and
Leipzig on the other hand form comparable pairs by population,
while all four city regions have a significant presence of built
environment created under socialist planning approaches.
Expert Interviews
The following subsections summarize the explanations expressed
by the experts in order to better understand the drivers of the
observations presented above and comment on their perception
of policy intentions, performance and outcomes.
Russian Experts
For both city regions the experts confirmed the general pattern
of urban development discovered in the metrics to compare the
development of built-up areas and population: for St.-Petersburg,
moderate densification in the city core with an extensive increase
of built area in the outskirts, and for Krasnodar general fast
increase of built areas. With regard to the graphs, unusual “cross”
of red and green lines, more often seen in German urban regions,
and discovered in St.-Petersburg, were explained by the experts
with the historical status of its core.
The area within the 30-min-ring in Saint-Petersburg was
planned and built mostly by European architects according
to European examples in the period of 1700–1850. There
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 9April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
TABLE 1 | Summarized interpretations for the urban metrics by city.
Berlin Leipzig St. Petersburg Krasnodar
Population growth rate There is continuous positive
population growth from 1990 to
2000 with a peak in the 45-min
ring, followed by a stagnating
growth of population from 2000
to 2015 with the exception of the
45-min ring.
Increasing population in the first
two rings from 1990 to 2000. For
all other time periods and
catchments we identify a loss of
population with minor rates.
There is continuous population
growth in both time periods
(0.45–1%). The highest rates can
be observed from 1990 to 2000
in the 45-min ring.
The population in the inner city
core (15-min ring) decreased
between 1990 and 2015. During
this period we identify a positive
growth of population in the other
rings. The largest growth rate is
in the third ring (1990–2000:
1.6%).
Built-up growth rate There is almost no built-up
growth in the first ring for both
time periods, but increasing
rates in the other rings with a
maximum of 1.1% in the first
time period and 0.8% in the
second time period (both in the
4. Ring).
We observe a steady increase in
built-up area. The growth rates
are between 0.5% (2000–2015:
15-min ring) and 1.9%
(1990–2000: 30-min ring)
The growth of built-up area is
quite low in the 15- and 30-min
ring (0.1–0.3%), while it is
increasing in the outskirts of the
city (0.75–1.0%)
The built-up growth rate is
constantly high. In the inner city
area, the rates are 1.7% on
average. Between 1990 and
2000, the peak of built-up
growth can be located in the
45-min ring (3%). In the second
time period, the maximum is only
half of this (located in the second
ring).
Land use efficiency The population and built-up
growth rates result in a positive
land use efficiency in the first
ring, a highly negative efficiency
in the second ring, minor
negative efficiency in the 45-min
ring and very high negative
efficiency in the last ring.
The land use efficiency becomes
more and more negative from
the core to the periphery and
over time. While the values in the
15-min ring are still quite low
(−0.6), they rise significantly in
the 60-min ring (1990–2000:
−1.6 and 2000–2015: −2)
The growth rates results in
almost entirely positive land use
efficiency for the observed areas
of the city. Only exception is the
60-min ring, where the values lie
in the negative range between
−0.2 and −0.4.
Due to the very high built-up
growth rates, the land use
efficiency is negative over all time
periods and travel time rings.
However, it should be noted that
efficiency increases in the
second period. The maximum
values are found in the second
and third ring between 1990 and
2000 (−1.65).
Leapfrog Low rates of leapfrogging areas
in the first and second ring. In
the third and fourth ring, the
share of leapfrogging areas lies
between 2% (45 min ring) and
6% (60 min ring)
High leapfrog rates for the outer
areas in Leipzig. But also the
values for the inner city are quite
high with values from 0.5 to 2.5%
High share of leapfrog in d 2015
in the first ring (2%) and the
second ring (3.5%). High share
of leapfrog in the outskirts in
1990 (5%).
Low leapfrog in the first two rings
in 1990 and 2015 with increasing
values for the 45- and 60-min
rings. The peak is located in the
60-min ring in 2015 (4.5%).
Dispersion index (DI) Indication of compact settlement
structure for the first ring (DI:
0.1–0.2) and the second ring (DI:
6–7). From the second to the
third ring DI increases sharply. In
the third and fourth ring, the
values are very high (DI: 47–49)
and point toward a highly
fragmented settlement structure
in the periphery.
High values of DI (14-15) in the
first ring show a dispersed
structure of urban areas in the
city. The values in the second
ring are the highest (48–49), also
in comparison to the third
(39–42) and fourth ring (46–47).
Very compact inner city with low
values (DI: 3-5) in the first and
second ring. In the two outer
rings, DI increases to just below
50 and can therefore be
classified as dispersed structure.
A dispersed inner city structure
with a DI of 10. Outside the
15-min ring, the dispersion of
settlement structures increases.
The highest DI-values can be
observed in the 45-min (47) and
the 60-min ring (45).
were less available land plots to add new buildings in the
1990s than in younger Russian city regions. At the same time
Saint-Petersburg is well-known in Russia for its relatively strong
heritage preservation policies, including UNESCO status (World
heritage list). It has an active local community when it comes
to architectural heritage. Nevertheless, experts stated that infill
development projects took place in the city core. This took
place more recently in comparison to other building activities
in the city. Regarding the city middle zone (between 30 and
60 min travel zones) transformation, both experts agreed on the
explanation related to the redevelopment of old industrial areas.
As Saint-Petersburg was the first industrial city in Russia,
the historic center has been surrounded by large industrial
enterprises. After the economic stagnation period in the 1990s,
many of these factories bankrupted, and their real estate
complexes were divided and sold to new owners. “The gray belt,”
as this area is often called, is being redeveloped from industrial to
commercial and residential use. As former industrial land plots
are too large (>100 ha), adaptation and transformation processes
occur predominantly along the arterial roads, while the potential
of the whole area is underused.
The gray belt in St.-Petersburg is surrounded and intersected
by soviet mass housing districts. Infill development in this
area took place in the 1990s and still continues at a lower
level and is often called “point development intervention”
(“tochechnaya zastroika”). It is mostly seen as an example of
poor planning, when a single high-rise building appears on
a vacant plot without a proper justification of infrastructural
limits and parking capability, decreasing quality of the living
environment and raising a conflict with the neighborhood
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 10 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
local community. Further densification, which is still possible,
is related to politically less desirable and economically more
expensive solutions in comparison to more distant greenfield
alternatives of urban development.
The St.-Petersburg urban agglomeration is located in two
administrative areas of the Russian Federation: St.-Petersburg
and the Leningrad Region. While the administrative boundary
between them was changed several times since 1990, the mental
boundary is associated with the circular automobile road (CAD).
The expert stated that new development projects right behind
the CAD (such as Kudrovo, Murino, Devyatkino residential
districts) have earned the sad fame of uncomfortable high-density
residential areas, with extreme automobilization rates and a lack
of social infrastructure and open spaces (the unofficial term is
“chelovejniki,” a neologism with a meaning “human formicary”).
Experts pointed out that the calculated urban metrics did not
capture the heterogeneity of the peripheral development patterns.
Urban development in the outskirts of St.-Petersburg has
shaped different patterns in northern and southern parts of the
outer ring. Urban development of the north is driven by big
development projects, because it is possible to build high-rise
residential districts. Most of these areas in recent decades were
built so intensively that there is no place left for important
transport interchanges. The south is different, because of the
existing network of small towns with a more balanced location
of employment. The extension of built areas in the south is often
associated with a low-rise development, which is supported by
the absence of metro lines and more evident car dependency.
Due to the high recreational attractiveness of the Baltic Sea,
land prices along the shoreline are high. New developments are
usually more people-oriented on the human scale with smaller
buildings of high living quality. Further away from the shoreline
new development includes 20-story buildings and higher.
As mentioned by our interview partners, urban sprawl is
not an officially confirmed challenge in the Saint-Petersburg
agglomeration. However, growth disparities between St.-
Petersburg and the Leningrad Region caused the establishment
of coordination councils on transport infrastructure and
on economic development supported by both regional
governments. A common program (“Svetofor”) to strengthen
control over building land use was also discussed. Leningrad
Region’s government took over control on general plans of its
municipalities in order to prevent unbalanced and unjustified
urban development, which put municipalities in a subordinate
position. At the same time there is no officially approved
common planning vision for the metropolitan area of St.-
Petersburg. The expert from Krasnodar emphasized that during
the considered period land administration functions were under
command of local authorities, unable to set a metropolitan
scale vision.
As the city borough of Krasnodar is a municipality, and
not a subject of the Russian Federation like St.-Petersburg, its
spatial development has been considered to be an issue of the
municipal level. At the same time, within a 1-h-ring from the
city center, the Krasnodar agglomeration goes beyond the limits
of Krasnodarskij Krai, including settlements in the Republic
of Adygea.
The city core of Krasnodar was formed by low-rise buildings
at the beginning of the twentieth century. It encompassed
single-family urban districts that were organized according to
a rectangular grid plan. Due to the agrarian profile of the
region, a network of small towns and villages existed around the
main city, including the Cossack traditional settlements. During
the intensive period of urbanization, the Krasnodar built area
expanded mostly in northern and eastern directions. Existing
small towns acted as footholds for later extensions, leading to
their accretion into a single urban fabric. The expert explained
the changes of built area growth ratio with high demand on
new housing.
During recent decades, Krasnodar, as a southern big city
located relatively close to the warm sea, experienced an
outstanding population influx, mostly from northern regions
of Russia. In-migration led to an increase of new housing
demand. As most of the land properties in Krasnodar and its
outskirts after 1990 became privately owned, centrally located
low density urban districts confronted uncontrolled densification
(such as the Muzykalny district). In general, a large number of
land owners in the existing residential areas made negotiations
too difficult and risky. At the same time, outside of the city
privately owned agricultural land plots were available for legal
conversion for urban uses. Due to a weak control over land use
and urban development, many housing projects were realized in
distant locations, with high density and poor quality. The lack of
accessibility with other transport options determined raising car
dependency and increasing traffic congestion.
The expert mentioned that development companies, who are
also required to build social infrastructure within comprehensive
development projects for residential districts, prefer building big
schools and kindergartens in order to minimize the number of
schools needed according to the building rules. New schools have
up to 2,000–3,000 children and new kindergartens have up to 500
children, which assumes a unified unhumanistic character of the
whole neighborhood with the use of the worst of soviet features.
The new general plan of Krasnodar, approved in 2020, focuses
on single-family housing as the main type of housing in the
outskirts. There is currently no approved metropolitan scale
strategy for Krasnodar.
German Experts
According to the two German spatial planning experts, a key
explanatory factor for the post-socialist land take is “catch-up
development.” This process has taken hold in Eastern German
city regions in the years immediately after the fall of the Berlin
wall when regional planning authorities were yet to be established
and spatial planning frameworks non-existent. Figure 4 shows
a corresponding increase in the built growth rate, which the
experts attributed to structural policies to get rid off incompetive
and outdated industries according to Wester German standards
and to modernize remaining assets with private and public
investments. The new urban land take for these activities
dominated the early 1990s. Th process was managed by the
development trust (“Treuhand”) of the late GDR which was now
under the control of the new federal government.
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 11 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
FIGURE 4 | Built-up and population growth rates for selected city regions in Russia (Graphic: C. Gerten).
Figure 4 also shows that both city regions were initially
exposed to population decline. The experts explained this
picture with the initial outmigration of people and the
corresponding decreasing demand for residential housing. They
also pointed toward the management problems to restore
derelict industrial sites for new construction activities. Berlin
as the new national capital and its special situation with
a formerly Western German part of the city experienced
a trend of population increase much sooner than Leipzig.
Initial building activities to provide housing for new arrivals
concentrated on the existing housing stock. In the surrounding
new municipalities of Brandenburg, housing soon stretched
out to suburban locations, giving rise to a decreasing land
use efficiency in the peripheral areas of the commutershed
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 12 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
(see Figure 6). In 1998, the first state development plan
was introduced. It adopted a strict transit-oriented priority
for urban development along the main development axes to
connect the suburbs with the core city. Development in existing
settlements further aways from these axes is formally restricted
to the demands of the local population and limited growth
allowances (in German: “Eigenentwicklung”) since then. Overall,
however, land use decisions are subject to local community
planning sovereignty. This means that planning control of
urbanization is moderated by local decision-making processes
and stakeholder involvement. “Positive planning” designations
to direct development to locations with efficient infrastructure
provision are therefore complemented by “negative planning”
instruments. Designations like greenbelts exert additional spatial
planning logic for the subdivision of building activities in self-
contained settlements on the regional scale. The benefits of
the compact form of these settlements come at the cost of
dispersion and leapfrog development between settlements as
seen in Figure 5.
The City of Leipzig and its surrounding municipalities
experienced more drastic out-migration, especially of younger
population cohorts. In combination with a plummeting birth
rate demographic decline became the dominant trend in the
1990s (see Figure 5). This trend was complemented by decoupled
urban development dynamics that were strategically launched
to boost and modernize former industrial land assets (e.g.,
brown coal mining areas) for competetive business activities,
new retail and residential locations, large recreational facilities
and supporting transport infrastructure. It was only after 2000
that the population in the city stabilized with returning migrants
and new arrivals from other parts of Germany and abroad.
Development proposals in suburban locations met up with a
welcoming and market-friendly planning culture that provided,
similar to the Berlin-Brandenburg region, for the swift availability
of land resources granted by local planning sovereignty (see
the peak in the Leipzig graph of Figure 3). The first state
development plan in Saxony (that Leipzig belongs to) has been
authorized in 1994. The first regional plan for the area was drafted
up until 1998 but only came into force in 2001. The proximity
of the neighboring state of Saxony-Anhalt and the nearby City
of Halle across the state border influences the development
in the Leipzig region. A case in point is the development of
the Leipzig/Halle airport and its downstream effect on urban
development dynamics.
When asked about the drivers of urban expansion, the
expert in Berlin-Brandenburg points toward a phase of
reduced development dynamics in the early 2000s where
urban development slowed down temporarily (see Figure 5).
The attraction of the capital region soon regained pace
with international businesses of global exposure and an
internationalization of the population. Berlin-Brandenburg
has now exhausted many of the (affordable) land resources
designated for urban purposes in the state development plan.
Continuing demand leads to development pressures further
out. Building activities “spill-over” to municipalities in larger
distances to the core city, suburban business locations attract
their own growth. The expert sees a dominance of market-led
urban development that, on the one hand, attracts new arrivals
and returnees with a dwelling stock that meets their specific
lifestyle preferences. On the other hand, increasing land prices
and rents have led to the displacement of not only low-income
but also middle-class households. This observation is likely to
be reflected in the data analysis presented for the leapfrog and
dispersion index in Figure 5, where areas in more than 30 min
driving time from the Berlin core experience sharp increases for
both indicators.
The impact of large development projects on urban
development can be exemplified by many rather uniform single-
family homes in suburban municipalities in the Berlin region,
accompanied by the large industrial and business developments
of the 1990s. The City of Berlin remains the main business
hub with most employment opportunities. Suburban locations,
however, have been attractive to businesses with large space
requirements like logistics. The most prominent example is the
recent establishment of a large-scale “giga factory” production
facility of an international electric car manufacturer. The expert
expects additional building activities in the surroundings of
this development in due course. Increasing problems to find
office space in the inner city, combined with conflicts with the
local population, lead to new drivers of business relocations
to suburban municipalities (e.g., IT). The expert explains
this process as a cycle that starts with land shortages for
businesses and industry in the inner city. Attractive locations
become more expensive, businesses with high land demands
experience increasing pressure to relocate to the suburbs and
beyond. An increased decoupling of land take from population
development can therefore be seen in the land use efficiency
in Figure 5 in distances beyond 45 min driving time of the
core city.
In the Leipzig-West Saxony region, large scale projects in
the inner city focused on the demolition or renovation and
modernization of vacant pre-fabricated multi-story buildings
initially. The town planning objective was to restore urban
compactness in the inner city that was lost due to the out-
migration of people. It was only after 2000 that especially
young population cohorts moved into the city and stabilized
the population base, at least in the inner city. Until 2010, most
of the vacant dwelling stock came back into use. The city is
now engaged in the activation of vacant land to provide infill
potentials for new residential dwellings. Old industrial sites
and derelict former railway areas are preferred locations. At
the same time, suburbanization is driven by a high quality
rapid transit system that improves accessibility between nearby
subcenters and the central city. It is here where large globally
active businesses (e.g., from the domestic automobile sector)
drove large-scale developments early on after the reunification,
followed by small and large-scale retail businesses. Accessibility
by air transport and proximity to the motorway system
were seen as locational advantages. For land use efficiency,
however, this trend leads to decreased land use efficiency in
a much higher magnitude than in Berlin, and higher rates of
leapfrog (see Figure 6).
Spatial planning in Berlin-Brandenburg implements a radial,
transit-oriented spatial design concept for the metropolitan
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 13 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
FIGURE 5 | Built-up and population growth rates for selected city regions in Germany (Graphic: C. Gerten).
settlement structure. Since 1995, the state planning authorities
of Berlin and Brandenburg have a strong mandate to define the
spatial details, e.g., for focal points of settlement. The institutional
setup, where the states have a rather strong position, has been
the same since then. When asked about the performance of
spatial planning instruments, the Leipzig expert points toward
the successful revitalization and reuse of the vacant building
stock, derelict land and infill potentials. The graphs in Figure 5
support this reading for the inner city only. There was hardly
any space for additional large-scale residential or business
development projects. Such activities had to take place in the
suburbs where new multistory block housing emerged in the
1990s mainly in the proximity of public transport stations. This
has changed since then. Today, single family homes are the
preferred building type in the suburbs, driving leapfrog and
dispersion of new land take. In the inner city, city mansions
and two-story townhouses were in high demand in the 1990s.
Toda, multistory buildings are the preferred building type
for new developments, be it for residential or commercial
use. The regional plan sets out the basic spatial concepts
that are further refined in complementary areal plans. The
region engages in research projects on city-regional relationships
(“Stadt-Land-Plus”) funded by the federal government to inform
these plans. One guiding principle, for example, posits that
residential development can only occur along public transport
axes with good service quality. The municipalities in the city
region have a strong position in the institutional setup of
the regional planning authority. Municipalities partly constitute
the regional body which represents their combined interests.
Regional planning is then responsible to ensure planning
control according to regional planning objectives. One problem
is the lack of human resources in local planning. Many
municipalities struggle to find qualified personnel for this task.
In the past, this has frequently led to a form of laisser-
faire planning practice for investor-led development projects.
The high rates of leapfrog and dispersion in Figure 5 can be
interpreted as a result.
The last question about the critical awareness of civil
society and spatial planning on post-socialist city development
was answered by the Berlin expert with a hint toward the
system disruption and the special situation of the formerly
divided city. After the fall of the Berlin wall, the focus lay
on the core city initially. There was hardly any segregation
or suburbanization happening. (Prefabricated) socialist housing
supported a social mix with spatial structure and zoning
instruments. The suburbanization set in when middle-class
households left socialist housing for small suburban single
and duplex family homes. The expert speaks of migration
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 14 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
FIGURE 6 | Urban sprawl metrics for Berlin, Leipzig, St. Petersburg and Krasnodar (Graphic: C. Gerten).
motivated by a form of despair, some groups search for a
new rural idyll that matches their current lifestyle preferences.
The permanent effects of the COVID 19 pandemic that acted
as a catalyst for flexible forms of working cannot be fully
predicted yet. It is evident though that trends of multi-local
living, campaigning for co-working spaces in suburban locations,
and digital trends in business activities lead to more flexible
work arrangements.
The Leipzig-West Saxony expert pointed out that the building
stock in the inner city was never dominated by socialist
architecture. It was and is still a rather historic European
city, with the exception of the large socialist district in
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 15 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
Leipzig Grünau. The reuse of industrial and derelict sites
as well as former barracks helped to stabilize the city and
combat the demographic decline of the 1990s. Accompanying
experiences of social infrastructure closures (e.g., schools and
kindergartens) motivated authorities and stakeholders to stop the
trends of out-migration and attract new arrivals and returnees.
In comparison with Berlin, the data analysis presented in
Figures 4,5show that Leipzig does not experience the same
growth pressures.
Synthesis and Key Takeaways of the Data
Analysis and Interviews
Overall, the experts confirmed the trend analysis presented to
them in terms of the data analysis conducted for this paper. Their
expertise helped to provide explanatory context and insights into
the driving factors of urban development.
A synthesis of the data analysis and interviews suggests the
following key takeways:
- Post-socialist urban sprawl occurs under both
planning systems.
- The main characteristic is a decoupling of population and land
use development.
- Initially, outmigration leads to lower land use efficiency,
later accompanied by new waves of suburbanization which
continues until today.
- “Catch-up” development is an important motivation
and justification for laisser-faire building activities in
both countries.
- There is no formal regional coordination of urban
development in Russia. Developer-led projects can therefore
be dispersed and sprawling.
- In Germany, it took a number of years to establish regional
coordination of urban development after the fall of the iron
curtain. Spatial development plans can conflict with the strong
legal empowerment of local municipalities to pursue own
interests for designating new urban land uses.
The next section discusses these finding in the light of the
literature analysis and future challenges.
DISCUSSION
Similar to the results of Taubenböck et al. (2019a), we
observe significant differences in the development trends
between German and Russian city regions. Russian city regions
are exposed to the post-socialist forces of urban sprawl
due to a stronger decoupling of population development
from building activities. An exception is St. Petersburg
with densification of inner-city districts (<30-min drive
time from the center). Planning and design paradigms of
Soviet large residential districts influenced the way new
residential urban development was realized in Russia after
1990. Inertia of Soviet planning education and practice could
be seen in the mechanical spatial organization of residential
districts, following the tradition of standardized mass housing.
Meanwhile, urban development experienced a change in driving
forces: instead of a centralized planning and distribution
mechanism, the main driving role in the urban development of
the Russian urban agglomerations belongs to private investors.
Maximizing profits from real estate investment projects and
using existing opportunities of lobbying, they shape the suburban
landscape accordingly.
German city regions experience more heterogeneous
development paths. Western German city regions, including
the reunited Berlin, show convergence of population and
built-up growth in proximity to the inner city. In the outskirts,
the decoupling trend remains dominant. The reason can
be indirectly interpreted from the expert statement that
Eastern German city regions had to allow for “catch-up
development” after the reunification. This means that most
Western German city regions had a more mature urban
fabric with consolidated inner cores and suburbs earlier.
Post-socialist city regions like Leipzig and Dresden initially
lost their compactness due to forces of urban decline in the
early 1990s. It was only after 2000 that stabilizing demography
and infill development reversed this trend. Urban sprawl in
all German city regions continues in suburban rings, although
spatial planning concepts direct growth to the central places
system and growth nodes along the transport system. This is
only partly successful due to stakeholder conflict of interests
and the local municipality sovereignty for land-use decisions.
Market-induced spillover effects lead to suburban densification
not only in growth nodes. Continued metropolization of
city regions leads to the formation of new suburbanization
rings further out. The catchments of some city regions
overlap in the rings furthest out with other city regions. In
such locations we also see convergence of population and
built-up development.
The GHSL allows us to compare urbanization and sprawl
trends in Russia and Germany. With this globally available data
on population and built-up area, this layer offers the possibility to
compare sustainable urban development worldwide (Melchiorri
et al., 2019). But as mentioned in the methodology section,
we also need to highlight limitations in the dataset. Based
on discussions with experts and previous experience with this
dataset, we assume that the population development is valid.
However, we found that the development of built-up area in
the GHSL does not always match the information of national
statistics on land use, especially for German city regions. On
average, the growth of built-up area seems to be higher in
our analysis. Reasons for this may lie in the misinterpretation
of land use and change detections. E.g., areas of raw material
extraction or agricultural land are designated as sealed surfaces.
The over-coverage is also probably due to the fact that the
official land statistics do not have an individual listing for sealed
surface. They collect land use information from a nomenclature
of land use types that differs substantially from remotely
sensed land cover features. Disruptions in the time series of
the German official statistics are a well-known issue. False
detections in remote sensing, however, cannot be ruled out as a
source of error.
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 16 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
The results of this paper showcase how the spatial sciences can
bridge the gap between knowledge generation based on spatial
analysis and the interpretation of monitoring results in planning
practice. Methodological advancement is urgently needed in
urban sprawl research to transfer knowledge about potentially
negative development outcomes to the early planning stages. It is
at this stage where decision-making sets out the paths for future
urban structures, frequently in an irreversible way. Sprawling city
regions are ill-prepared for the pressing tasks of carbon-neutral
and less car dependant lifestyles and business activities if they
neglect the necessity to work toward compact urban form and
higher land use efficiency.
Insights into planning practice, however, are also important
for spatial science to understand the conditions under which
planning operates in different governance regimes like Russia
and Germany. Such insights are important to learn about the
information requirements to monitor trends and evaluate the
efficacy of policies and planning instruments.
This paper shows an approach that works on the metropolitan
level, visualizes trends for ease of communication and
acknowledges the functional relationships between cities
and their catchments. Limitations are that small-scale land use
changes for infill development, which are important for planning
practice to cater for growth without further sprawl, only take
effect in a cumulative way. This limitation can be overcome with
location-specific land use changes published in interactive maps
in web portals. The authors are currently preparing a web portal
for this purpose for German city regions. This could be extended
to other countries like Russia in due course.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data
can be found at: https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datasets.php.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
CG has sourced the data for this project, developed the indicator
concept, and conducted the spatial analysis. DB and SF have
provided the information on the governance of post-socialist
spatial development in Russia and Germany (Introduction
and Discussion), respectively. All authors have contributed to
formulate the research question for this paper and conducted the
expert interviews.
REFERENCES
Albrech, J., Fink, P., and Tiemann, H. (2016). Ungleiches Deutschland.
Sozioökonomischer Disparitätenbericht 2015. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-
Foundation.
Andersson, L.-F., Bengtsson, H., Fina, S., and Heider, B. (2021). Unequal Sweden.
Regional Socio-Economic Disparities in Sweden. Stockholm: Friedrich-Ebert-
Foundation.
Angel, S., Blei, A. M., Parent, J., Lamson-Hall, P., and Sanchez, N. G. (2016). Atlas
of Urban Expansion - 2016 Edition. Volume 1: Areas and Densities. Cambridge:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Antonov, E. V., and Makhrova, A. G. (2019). Largest urban agglomerations and
forms of settlement above the agglomeration level in Russia [Krupneyshie
gorodskie aglomeratsii i formyi rasseleniya nad aglomeratsionnogo
urovnya v Rossii]. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya geographicheskaya 2019, 31–45.
doi: 10.31857/S2587-55662019431-45
BMI (2019). Unser Plan für Deutschland. Gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse überall.
Berlin: BMI.
Breslavsky, A. S. (2014). Unplanned Suburbs: Rural-Urban Migration and the
Growth of Ulan-Ude in the Post-Soviet Period [Nezaplanirovannye prigorody:
selsko-gorodskaya migratsiya i rost Ulan-Ude]. Ulan Ude: Publishing House
of BSCSBRAS.
Couch, C., Karecha, J., Nuissl, H., and Rink, D. (2005). Decline and sprawl.
An evolving type of urban development - observed in Liverpool and
Leipzig. Euro. Plann. Stud. 13, 117–136. doi: 10.1080/09654310420003
12433
Crane, R., and Chatman, D. G. (2003). As jobs sprawl, wither the commute?
Access 23, 14–19.
DCLG. (2017). The Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register)
Regulations. London: Department for Communities and Local Government
(DCLG).
Decoville, A., and Schneider, M. (2016). Can the 2050 zero land take objective
of the EU be reliably monitored? A comparative study. J. Land Use Sci. 11,
331–349. doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2014.994567
Dembski, S., Sykes, O., Couch, C., Desjardins, X., Evers, D., Osterhage, F., et al.
(2019). Reurbanisation and suburbia in Northwest Europe. A comparative
perspective on spatial trends and policy approaches. Progress Plann. 150, 1–47.
doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2019.100462
Die Bundesregierung (2021). Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie.Weiterentwicklung
2021. Berlin: Die Bundesregierung.
EEA (2006). Urban sprawl in Europe. The Ignored Challenge. EEA Report No
10/2006. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
EEA (2016). Urban Sprawl in Europe. EEA Report No 11/2016. Copenhagen:
European Environment Agency.
EEA (2019). State of the Environment Report 2020.Knowledge for Transition to a
Sustainable Europe. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
ESPON (2020a). SUPER-Sustainable Urbanization and Land-Use Practices in
European Regions. Draft FinalReport. Luxembourg: ESPON.
ESPON (2020b). SUPER-Sustainable Urbanization and Land-Use Practices in
European Regions. Annex 3.1. Luxembourg. ESPON.
Esri (2019). ArcGIS-Online - Network Analysis Coverage. Available online at:
https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-online/reference/network-coverage.htm
(accessed December 31, 2021).
Esswein, H., Jaeger, J., Schwarz-von Raumer, H.-G., and Müller, M. (2002).
Landschaftszerschneidung in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Akademie
für Technikfolgenabschätzung.
Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 63,
107–126. doi: 10.1080/01944369708975728
Ewing, R., Meakins, G., Hamidi, S., and Nelson, A. C. (2014). Relationship
between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity - update and
refinement. Health Place 26, 118–126. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.12.008
Ewing, R., Pendall, R., and Chen, D. (2013). Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact.
Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.
Ewing, R., and Rong, F. (2008). The impact of urban form on
U.S. residential energy use. Housing Policy Debate 19, 1–30.
doi: 10.1080/10511482.2008.9521624
Fina, S. (2013). Indikatoren der Raumentwicklung.Flächeninanspruchnahme
und Landschaftszersiedelung (Dissertation). Eberhard Karls Universtität,
Tübingen, Germany.
Fina, S. (2021). Nachhaltigkeitslücke Landschaftszersiedelung. Berichte Geographie
und Landeskunde 94, 278–299. doi: 10.25162/bgl-2021-0014
Fina, S., Heider, B., and Masso, M. (2021a). Unequal Estonia. Regional Socio-
Economic Disparities in Estonia. Riga. Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
Fina, S., Heider, B., Mattila, M., Rautiainen, P., Sihvola, M.-W., and Vatanen,
K. (2021b). Unequal Finland.Regional Socio-Economic Disparities in Finland.
Stockholm: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 17 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
Fina, S., Heider, B., and Prota, F. (2021c). Unequal Italy.Regional Socio-Economic
Disparities in Italy. Rome: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
Fina, S., Heider, B., and Rat, C. (2021d). Unequal Romania.Regional Socio-
Economic Disparities in Romania. Bucharest: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
Fina, S., Osterhage, F., Rönsch, J., Rusche, K., Siedentop, S., Volgmann, K.,
et al. (2020). “Monitoring StadtRegionen,” in Jahrbuch StadtRegion 2019/2020:
Schwerpunkt: Digitale Transformation, eds C. Hannemann, F. Othengrafen,
J. Pohlan, B. Schmidt-Lauber, R. Wehrhahn, and S. Güntner (Wiesbaden:
Springer Fachmedien), 225–288.
Fina, S., Osterhage, F., Rönsch, J., Rusche, K., Siedentop, S., Zimmer-Hegmann,
R., et al. (2019). Ungleiches Deutschland. Sozioökonomischer Disparitätenbericht
2019. Karten, Indikatoren und wissenschaftliche Handlungsempfehlungen.
Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
Frenkel, A., and Ashkenazi, M. (2008). Measuring urban sprawl: how can we deal
with It? Environ. Plann. B 35, 56–79. doi: 10.1068/b32155
Friedrich, M., Birkmann, J., Fina, S., Rönsch, S., Feldmeyer, D., Valleé, D.,
et al. (2017). Überprüfung und Weiterentwicklung des Instrumentariums zur
Koordination von Siedlungs- und Verkehrsentwicklung vor dem Hintergrund
erforderlicher CO2-Reduktion und der demografischen Entwicklung für die
Region Stuttgart. Stuttgart: Verband Region Stuttgart.
Frost, I. (2018). Exploring varieties of (post)Soviet urbanization: reconciling the
general and particular in post-Socialist urban studies. Europa Regional 25, 2–14.
Gerten, C., Fina, S., and Rusche, K. (2019). The sprawling planet: simplifying
the measurement of global urbanization trends. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 140.
doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00140
Girvetz, E., Jaeger, J., and Thorne, J. (2007). Comment on ’roadless space of the
conterminous United States’. Science 318, 1240. doi: 10.1126/science.1145349
Glazychev, V. L. (2011). Limitless City.[Gorod bez granits]. Moscow: Publishing
House ’Territory of the Future’.
Golubchikov, O. (2006). Interurban development and economic
disparities in a Russian province. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 47, 478–495.
doi: 10.2747/1538-7216.47.4.478
Grigorichev, K. V. (2013). In the Shadow of a Large City.Social Space of Suburbia
[V teni bolshogo goroda. Socialnoye prostranstvo prigoroda]. Irkutsk: Ottisk.
Haase, A., Rink, D., Grossmann, K., Bernt, M., and Mykhnenko, V. (2014).
Conceptualizing urban shrinkage. Environ. Plann. A 46, 1519–1534.
doi: 10.1068/a46269
Hasse, J. E., and Lathrop, R. G. (2003). Land resource impact indicators of urban
sprawl. Appl. Geogr. 23, 159–175. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2003.08.002
Hennings, A. (2021). SDGs: Indicator 11.3.1. Ratio of Land Consumption Rate to
Population Growth Rate. Avialble online at: https://landportal.org/node/52272
(accessed December 16, 2021).
Hirt, S. (2013). Whatever happened to the (post) socialist city? Cities 32, 29–38.
doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.010
Hirt, S., and Stanilov, K. (2009). Twenty Years of Transition: The Evolution of Urban
Planning in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, 1989-2009. Nairobi:
UN Habitat.
Iano¸s, I., Sîrodoev, I., Pascariu, G., and Henebry, G. (2016). Divergent patterns of
built-up urban space growth following post-socialist changes. Urban Stud. 53,
3172–3188. doi: 10.1177/0042098015608568
Jaeger, J., Bertiller, R., Schwick, C., and Kienast, F. (2009). Suitability
criteria for measures of urban sprawl. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 397–406.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.007
Jaeger, J., and Schwick, C. (2014). Improving the measurement of urban sprawl.
Weighted Urban Proliferation (WUP) and its application to Switzerland. Ecol.
Indicat. 38, 294–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.022
Jaeger, J., Schwick, C., Bertiller, R., Kienast, F. (2008). Landschaftszersiedelung
Schweiz - Quantitative Analyse 1935 bis 2002 und Folgerungen für
die Raumplanung. Wissenschaftlicher Abschlussbericht. Schweizerischer
Nationalfonds, Nationales Forschungsprogramm NFP 54 Nachhaltige
Siedlungs- und Infrastrukturentwicklung, Zürich, Germany.
Jansen, H., Roost, F., and Wünnemann, M. (2016). “Suburbane
nutzungsmischung?,” in Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 289–301.
JRC (2016). Operating Procedure for the Production of the Global Human
Settlement Layer From Landsat Data of the Epochs 1975, 1990, 2000, and 2014.
Copenhagen: JRC Publications Office.
Kabakova, S. I. (1973). Urban Planning Assessment of Urban Areas
[Gradostroitelnaya otsenka territorij gorodov]. Moscow: Strojizdat.
Keil, M., Bock, M., Esch, T., Metz, A., Nieland, S., and Pfitzner, A.
(2010). CORINE Land Cover Aktualisierung 2006 für Deutschland. Wessling:
Deutsches Fernerkundungsdatenzentrum.
Keil, M., Kiefl, R., and Strunz, G. (2004). CORINE Land Cover 2000
- Europaweit harmonisierte Aktualisierung der Landnutzungsdaten für
Deutschland. Wessling: Deutsches Fernerkundungsdatenzentrum.
Keil, R. (2017b). Suburban Planet.Making the World Urban From the Outside in.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Keil, R., and Ren X. (2017a). “Global suburbanization,” in The Globalizing Cities
Reader (London: Routledge), 433–440.
Kroll, F., and Haase, D. (2010). Does demographic change affect land use
patterns? A case study from Germany. Land Use Policy 27, 726–737.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.10.001
Kurichev, N. K., and Kuricheva, E. K. (2018). Relationship of housing
construction in the moscow urban agglomeration and migration to the
metropolitan area. Reg. Res. Russ. 8, 1–15. doi: 10.1134/S207997051801
0069
Lang, R. E. (2000). Office Sprawl.The Evolving Geography of Business. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
Lappo, G. M., and Polyan, P. M. (1999). Urbanization Results in Russia by the End
of XX Century [Rezultaty urbanizatsii v Rossii k kontsu XX veka]. Moscow: Mir
Rossii.
Lukhmanov, D. N. (1996). Settlement structure of rural Russia: recent
decades’ changes. [Poselencheskaya i rasselencheskaya struktura sel’skoi Rossii:
izmeneniya poslednikh let]. Vestnik Evrazii 2, 18–30.
Maleeva, T. V. (2005a). Land Use Problems in Large Cities. [Problemy
zemlepolzovaniya v krupnykh gorodakh]. Problemy sovremennoj economiki
1/2 (13/14). Availble online at: http://www.m-economy.ru/art.php?nArtId=718
(accessed December 20, 2021).
Maleeva, T. V. (2005b). Issues of land use in large cities. [Problemy
zemlepolzovaniya v krupnykh gorodakh]. Problemy sovremennoj economiki,
1/2 (13/14), p. 295–298.
Mason, R. J., and Nigmatullina, L. (2011). Suburbanization and
sustainability in metropolitan Moscow. Geograph. Rev. 101, 316–333.
doi: 10.1111/j.1931-0846.2011.00099.x
McGarigal, K., and Marks, B. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS.Spatial Pattern Analysis
Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Portland: USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Medvedkov, O. (1990). Soviet Urbanization. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Meerovich, M. G. (2015). The uniqueness of urbanization in the
USSR. [Unikalnost’ urbanizatsii v SSSR]. Vestnik TGASU 2015,
9–16.
Melchiorri, M., Pesaresi, M., Florczyk, A., Corbane, C., and Kemper, T.
(2019). Principles and applications of the global human settlement layer
as baseline for the land use efficiency indicator - SDG 11.3.1. IJGI 8, 96.
doi: 10.3390/ijgi8020096
Mössner, S., Freytag, T., and Miller, B. (2018). Die Grenzen der Green City.
Die Stadt Freiburg und ihr Umland auf dem Weg zu einer nachhaltigen
Entwicklung? Planung neu denken, 1–8. Availble online at: http://www.
planung-neu- denken.de/ (accessed January 24, 2018).
Nuissl, H., and Rink, D. (2003). Urban Sprawl and Post-Socialist Transformation.
The case of Leipzig (Germany). UFZ-Report 4/2003, Leipzig, Germany.
Nuissl, H., and Rink, D. (2005). The ’production’ of urban sprawl in eastern
Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation. Cities 22, 123–134.
doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2005.01.002
OECD (2013). Compact City Policies. Copenhagen: OECD Green Growth Studies.
OECD (2018). Rethinking Urban Sprawl. Moving Towards Sustainable Cities.
Copenhagen: OECD.
Pagonis, T., and Thornley, A. (2000). Urban development projects in Moscow:
market/state relations in the new Russia. Euro. Plann. Stud. 8, 751–766.
doi: 10.1080/713666440
Pesaresi, M., Huadong, G., Blaes, X., Ehrlich, D., Ferri, S., and Gueguen, L. (2013).
A global human settlement layer from optical HR/VHR RS data: concept and
first results. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Observ. Remote Sens. 6, 2102–2131.
doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2013.2271445
Polyan, P., Nefyodova, T., and Treyvish, A. (2001). City and Village in
European Russia: A Hundred Years of Changes. [Gorod i derevnya v
Evropeiskoj Rossii: sto let peremen]. Moscow: OGI. Available online at: http://
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 18 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956

Gerten et al. Post-socialist Urban Development
www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/gorod/gorod.html (accessed December 20,
2021).
Priebs, A. (2013). Raumordnung in Deutschland. Braunschweig:
Westermann Verlag.
Schiavina, M., Melchiorri, M., Corbane, C., Florczyk, A., Freire, S., Pesaresi,
M., et al. (2019). Multi-scale estimation of land use efficiency (SDG 11.3.1)
across 25 years using global open and free data. Sustainability 11, 5674.
doi: 10.3390/su11205674
Schmidt, S. (2011). Sprawl without growth in eastern Germany. Urban Geogr. 32,
105–128. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.1.105
Schmidt, S., Fina, S., and Siedentop, S. (2014). Post-socialist sprawl.
A cross-country comparison. Euro. Plann. Stud. 23, 1–26.
doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.933178
Schwarz, N., Haase, D., and Seppelt, R. (2009). Omnipresent sprawl? A review of
urban simulation models with respect to urban shrinkage. Environ. Plann. B 37,
265–283. doi: 10.1068/b35087
Siedentop, S., and Fina, S. (2010). Urban sprawl beyond growth. The
effect of demographic change on infrastructure cost. Flux 79/80, 90–100.
doi: 10.3917/flux.079.0090
Siedentop, S., Heiland, S., Lehmann, I., and Schauerte-Lüke, N. (2007).
Nachhaltigkeitsbarometer Fläche.Regionale Schlüsselindikatoren
nachhaltiger Flächennutzung für die Fortschrittsberichte der Nationalen
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie - Flächenziele. Bonn: Bundesamt für Bauwesen
und Raumordnung.
Siedentop, S., Junesch, R., Strasser, M., Zakrzewski, P., Samaniego, L., and
Weinert, J. (2009). Einflussfaktoren der Neuinanspruchnahme von Flächen.
Bonn: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung..
Soule, D. C. (2006). Urban Sprawl: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Stanilov, K. (2007). The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations
in Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism. Luxembourg: Springer Science
& Business Media.
Stanilov, K., and Sýkora, L. (2014). Confronting Suburbanization: Urban
Decentralization in Postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Steinführer, A., Porsche, L., and Sondermann, M. (eds.). (2019).
Positionspapier Kleinstadtforschung. Hanover: Akademie für Raumforschung
und Raumplanung.
S`
ykora, L. (2009). Post-socialist cities. Int. Encycl. Human Geogr. 8, 387–395.
doi: 10.1016/B978-008044910-4.01072-5
Taubenböck, H., Gerten, C., Rusche, K., Siedentop, S., and Wurm, M. (2019a).
Patterns of Eastern European urbanisation in the mirror of Western trends
- convergent, unique or hybrid? Environ. Plann. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 46,
1206–1225. doi: 10.1177/2399808319846902
Taubenböck, H., Wurm, M., Geiß, C., Dech, S., and Siedentop, S. (2019b).
Urbanization between compactness and dispersion: designing a spatial model
for measuring 2D binary settlement landscape configurations. Int. J. Digital
Earth 12, 679–698. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2018.1474957
Tikoudis, I., Farrow, K., Mebiame, R. M., and Oueslati, W. (2022). Beyond average
population density: measuring sprawl with density-allocation indicators. Land
Use Policy 112, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105832
Tsai, Y.-H. (2005). Quantifying urban form: compactness versus ’sprawl’. Urban
Stud. 42, 141–161. doi: 10.1080/0042098042000309748
United Nations (2016). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. A/RES/70/1. New York, NY: United Nations.
Vishnevsky, A. G. (1998). Sickle and Ruble. Conservative Modernization in the
USSR [Serp i rubl. Konservativnaya modernizatsiya v SSSR]. Moscow: OGI.
WBGU (2016). Der Umzung der Menschheit.Die transformative Kraft der Städte.
Hauptgutachten. Berlin. WBGU.
WBGU (2019). Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale
Umweltveränderungen. Unsere gemeinsame digitale Zukunft. Hauptgutachten.
Berlin: WBGU.
Wei, Y. D., and Ewing, R. (2018). Urban Expansion, Sprawl and Inequality.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wolman, H., Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M., Furdell, K., and
Sarzynski, A. (2005). The fundamental challenge in measuring sprawl.
Which land should be considered? Professional Geographer 57, 94–105.
doi: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.2005.00462.x
Conflict of Interest: DB is employed by GeoClever Ltd.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of
any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential
conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Gerten, Boyko and Fina. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 19 April 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 846956