Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sindija Balode, Zaiga Krišjāne
University of Latvia
Department of Human Geography
Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences
SB: sindija.balode@lu.lv,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6968-512X
ZK: zaiga.krisjane@lu.lv,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3422-1958
Divergent population dynamics: The case of
the inner city of Riga
Abstract: Population dynamics shape the spatial landscape of Europe. Although broad-
ly studied, both suburban sprawl and inner-city reurbanisation have often been treated
in isolation. Furthermore, these processes manifest distinctively across different local
contexts. This research aimed to explore the population dynamics in the inner city of
Riga from 2011 to 2021, contrasting them with the bordering municipalities of Riga, and
to analyze how these dynamics align with the urban development model. Covering 58
neighborhoods and 7 bordering municipalities of Riga, the analysis revealed a shift in the
trajectory of inner-city population dynamics during the latter half of the decade, which
was nally characterized by growth. However, suburbanisation continued to outpace
reurbanisation, indicating the coexistence of multiple urban development model stages.
Key words: population dynamics, urban development, reurbanisation
Introduction
Urban areas undergo constant transformation inuenced by a range of interrelat-
ed factors, including changes in economic structures, government policies, and
demographic landscape, which is the focus of this study. As the size and composi-
tion of a population shifts, spatial changes are inevitable. In the broadest context,
urban areas typically progress through stages of initial population growth, urban
sprawl, and a likely population return to the city.
Insights on stabilizing and growing inner-city populations in Europe have
been explored in studies frequently (Buzar et al. 2007, Haase et al. 2010, Salvati
et al. 2018), less commonly within the context of simultaneous suburbanisation.
While this has allowed certain generalisations to be made, the context-specic
characteristics of this phenomenon make it a worthwhile subject of research,
Rozwój Regionalny iPolityka Regionalna 68: 69–82
https://doi.org/10.14746/rrpr.2024.68.06
2024
70 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 71
particularly in urban areas where reurbanisation is in its infancy, but suburbani-
sation is at its peak.
This study aimed to investigate how the population dynamics in the inner city
of Riga changed compared to the bordering municipalities of Riga in the decade
between 2011 and 2021, and to analyze how these dynamics t within the urban
development model. The study was based on quantitative analyses of full-scope
population data collected by the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia.
Applicability and aws of the urban development model
Population dynamics, encompassing growth, decline, or stability, are linked to
urban development. Leo van den Berg divided urban development into the fol-
lowing four stages: urbanisation, suburbanisation, disurbanisation, and reurban-
isation (van den Berg 1982). The rst stage, urbanisation, is characterized by
fast population growth in the core. This growth slows down as the second stage,
suburbanisation, begins; thus, instead of the core, the ring grows. Then, as the
third stage, disurbanisation, starts, both the core and ring populations shrink,
but the population grows in small- and medium-sized urban areas around the
aforementioned urban area. This is a particularly hard hit on the urban core,
negatively affecting both private and public services as the overall demand of the
urban population declines. An alternative to the third stage of disurbanisation is
the stage of reurbanisation, which, according to van den Berg’s model, may or
may not naturally replace disurbanisation. It is not predetermined and depends
on the internal dynamics of the city and largely on government or municipal
measures. If reurbanisation occurs, the ring is expected to shrink while the core
grows. Nowadays, reurbanisation is of particular importance as a countermeas-
ure to unsustainable urban sprawl in shrinking cities, including post-socialist
cities where population decline has been prevalent following the transition.
The urban development model clearly shows the interconnectedness between
its stages, where growth or shrinkage in one zone to a certain extent occurs at the
expense of another. Initially, in the model’s rst two stages, the urban functional
region experiences total growth, but in the last two stages, a total decline. Thus,
when researching reurbanisation, analysis of the whole area, both the core and
the ring, is suggested to understand how reurbanisation affects the demographics
of the ring, and vice versa. The model is criticized for its limited ability to cap-
ture “wider trends”, instead capturing fullment of a set of specic conditions. A
study across England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands found that the last
two stages – disurbanisation and reurbanisation – occurred only when there was
no signicant nationwide population growth (Dembski et al. 2021). Additionally,
various studies (Kabisch, Haase 2009; Haase et al. 2010) suggest that reurbanisa-
tion may coincide with suburbanisation and disurbanisation, indicating model’s
limitations in representing contemporary demographic dynamics accurately; in-
stead of a clear dominance of reurbanisation in Europe, the coexistence of various
70 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 71
stages is anticipated, suggesting a simultaneous occurrence of reurbanizing inner
cities alongside persistent suburban sprawl.
Since the urban development model is purely based on population growth or
decline, it disregards a set of factors that characterize population composition
like age and household structures, ethnicity, occupational status, income, and
education. Changes in these, for example, a growing share of Millennials and
expatriates, an increase in non-traditional households, and indicators connected
to the built environment such as housing costs, renovation and development, and
public space (Haase et al. 2008), are also signs of reurbanisation and gentrica-
tion, which can help recognize some forthcoming trends of reurbanisation even
if the core has not yet reached stability or growth in population. Gentrication,
which is typically associated with a more adverse impact, primarily the displace-
ment of less afuent residents due to an inux of wealthier newcomers, causes
demographic change, and vice versa. Interestingly, the factors that facilitate gen-
trication include an underutilized inner city, new consumption patterns, and
notably, suburban development (Zukin 1987). Given that suburban growth is
connected to a simultaneous inner-city abandonment and subsequent inner-city
revitalisation, suburbanisation can be seen as a precursor to reurbanisation.
Urban development and local conditions
The manifestations of reurbanisation and gentrication depend on local condi-
tions – historic, institutional, social, and economic – which in turn inuence
residential preferences. In post-socialist cities, rental market peculiarities, pri-
vatisation, historic shortages of an afuent middle-class, bohemian communi-
ties, young professionals, or ethnic minorities favoring inner-city residence have
to be considered; this can cause highly selective, façade, and marginal gentri-
cation, such as an inux of students in the inner city, resulting in distinctive
forms of gentrication, compared to Western countries (Kubeš, Kovács 2020).
These changes can also be government- or foreign-investment-driven, leading
to displacement through unjustied increases in rental prices or repurposing
apartments for short-term rent (Kubeš, Kovács 2020). Thus, reurbanisation and
gentrication case studies in post-socialist context are highly relevant, given the
context variations across cities within this space and time-sensitiveness.
There are some general contrasts in the (de-)centralisation tendencies be-
tween Eastern and Western Europe. In the former, suburbanisation continues
to play a more signicant role; in the latter, population recentralisation in cit-
ies dominates (Hesse, Siedentop 2018). Before further exploring post-socialist
cities, it is worth mentioning that generalisations of this kind are problematic
in Western countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands, young afuent
families have been observed to continue to choose to eventually move to the
suburbs. Therefore, residential preferences remain largely intact after the orig-
inal inner-city gentriers relocate (Booi et al. 2020). At the same time, a recent
comprehensive research on gentrication in post-socialist cities concluded that
72 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 73
their inner cities are revitalizing, and their population composition is changing
(Kubeš, Kovács 2020). These studies illustrate the difculty of generalizing the
aforementioned observations and support the necessity of new case and compar-
ative studies.
Over the past two decades, post-socialist inner cities have undergone social
upgrading. In the inner city of Tallinn, there has been notable social restructuring
driven mainly by the market. A rise in socioeconomic status among residents is
likely attributable to residents of a lower socioeconomic status being replaced
by residents of a higher socioeconomic status, in some places accompanied by a
decrease in the average age of the population (Temelová et al. 2016, Marcińczak
et al. 2017). Similarly, the inner city of Vilnius has seen a surge in the share of
residents with higher socioeconomic status, notably in areas previously charac-
terized by lower socioeconomic status. This shift occurred after a major inner-city
population decline in Vilnius until 2011, which was connected to commercialisa-
tion, as well as expansion of upscale residential dwellings (Valatka et al. 2015).
The changing consumption patterns, such as transport, cultural and dining
preferences, and the aesthetics and character of old neighborhoods combined,
have increased the relative attractiveness of the inner city. Residing in the in-
ner city also serves as a means of ascertaining one’s identity and social repro-
duction (Zukin 1987). Additionally, evolving urban lifestyles lead to an increase
in non-traditional household structures, e.g., living alone, with a partner or
at-sharing. These trends, along with studentication and revitalisation projects,
can disrupt local communities due to disparities in attitudes and values, and
escalating socio-spatial inequalities (Fabula et al. 2017). Conversely, gentriers
are sometimes found to have the potential to initiate positive changes related to
social revitalisation that are inclusive and strengthen community ties, which to
some extent is attributable to employing bottom-up revitalisation approaches
(Grabkowska 2011). Additionally, it is worth noting that social upgrading may
also be associated with in-situ change.
Although there are numerous similarities among post-socialist cities, compar-
ative studies reveal differences in the pace of reurbanisation. For instance, when
comparing Prague and Tallinn, the inner city of Prague was observed to have a
higher degree of demographic stability (Temelová et al. 2016). However, a more
recent study characterized Prague’s inner city as undergoing a more intensied
reurbanisation processes and diversication in residential behavior (Horňáková,
Sýkora 2021), highlighting the temporal sensitivity of this research area.
The inner city and the bordering municipalities of Riga
Most post-socialist capitals have three zones – a historic area that developed be-
fore socialism, a residential and industrial area that developed under socialism,
and a suburban area that developed after socialism (Marcińczak et al. 2017). This
is also the case in Riga, the capital of Latvia. Riga has 58 neighborhoods, and it is
a shrinking city, with a total population of 621 thousand in 2021, of whom 114
72 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 73
thousand or 18% were inner-city dwellers; although the share of the inner-city
population slightly declined between 2011 and 2016, it experienced a modest
increase between 2016 and 2021 (Table 1).
The inner city of Riga consists of nine neighborhoods, separated by the River
Daugava. On the left bank – Ķīpsala, Āgenskalns, and Torņakalns, on the right
bank – Avoti, Brasa, Centrs, Grīziņkalns, Skanste, and Vecpilsēta. Additionally,
Pētersala-Andrejsala, situated on the right bank, was included in this study due
to its central location within the city’s historical center’s protection zone. Among
these ten neighborhoods, Āgenskalns and Torņakalns are the only two that sig-
nicantly extend beyond this protection zone. As of 2021, Centrs, with nearly 31
thousand residents (CSB 2023), was the largest inner-city neighborhood.
The inner-city neighborhoods are a densely built-up area, with 43% to 94%
(depending on the neighborhood) of the buildings predating 1945. Buildings
erected between 1946 and 2000 dominate in Pētersala-Andrejsala and make up
about a half of the housing stock in Āgenskalns and Brasa. Skanste is the only
inner-city neighborhood where buildings constructed since 2001 dominate, and
a considerable number of new buildings are also present in Ķīpsala and Pēter-
sala-Andrejsala. Additionally, Ķīpsala has the most varied mix of building ages
(CSB 2023).
Under socialism, inner cities were left to decay, primarily housing residents of
low socioeconomic status, but, in certain areas, also those of middle and upper
socioeconomic status (Marcińczak et al. 2017). Since the transition and until
2010, Riga, particularly its inner city, experienced a signicant population decline
(Treija et al. 2020). During this period, suburbanisation both started and intensi-
ed, yet signs of a revival of the inner city were not to become evident before the
start of the next decade.
As the decline of the inner-city slowed, indications of selective inner-city so-
cioeconomic upgrading, growing share of non-traditional households, and higher
residential mobility than the city average started to emerge (Krišjāne, Bērziņš
2014). The socioeconomic upgrading became even more evident between 2011
and 2021, resulting in a growing gap between the inner and outer city, as well
Table 1. Population in Riga, its inner city, and its bordering municipalities in 2011, 2016,
and 2021 (CSB 2023)
2011 2016 2021
Total population in Riga and its bordering
municipalities
849,838 832,774 829,160
Total population in Riga 658,637 639,357 620,974
Inner-city population (*) 117,783 (17.88) 113,011 (17.68) 113,538 (18.28)
Population in Riga’s bordering
municipalities (**)
191,201 (22.50) 193,417 (23.23) 208,186 (25.11)
* Inner-city population divided by total population in Riga (%).
** Population of Riga’s bordering municipalities divided by total population of Riga and its bordering
municipalities (%),
74 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 75
as within the inner city itself. Noteworthy is the decrease in the average age ob-
served in many inner-city neighborhoods, in a city that is otherwise experiencing
an aging population. Certain inner-city neighborhoods, particularly those located
on the left side of the river and extending beyond the historical center’s protec-
tion zone, lagged behind (Balode 2023).
Regarding the bordering municipalities of Riga, the study area includes the
city of Jūrmala and six municipalities: Mārupe, Olaine, Ķekava, Salaspils, Ropaži,
and Ādaži. In 2021, their combined population was 208 thousand residents, con-
stituting 25% of the total study area population; the absolute population gures
have been on a swift upward trajectory, attributed to suburbanisation. Notably,
their share has been experiencing a more rapid increase compared to the inner
city (Table 1).
Unlike suburbanisation, reurbanisation in Riga remains a relatively new and
unexplored phenomenon, which is understandable given the persistent decline
in inner-city population observed until recently. Additionally, the dynamics of in-
ner-city population have not been thoroughly examined in the context of ongoing
suburbanisation, nor analyzed how these population changes t within the urban
development framework.
Data and methods
The purpose of this research was twofold. Firstly, it aimed to explore the patterns
of population dynamics in the inner city of Riga between 2011 and 2021, in
comparison to the bordering municipalities of Riga. Secondly, it aimed to analyze
how these patterns align with the urban development model. In order to achieve
this, the study utilized data on population size across the neighborhoods of Riga
(neighborhood-level data) and the bordering municipalities of Riga (municipal-
ity-level data). Fig. 1 provides an overview of the study area, which includes the
neighborhoods of Riga, with a focus on the inner city, and the bordering munici-
palities of the city, which were briey described in the section above.
The data utilized in this study was collected by the Central Statistical Bureau
of Latvia and covers the year 2011 and the years from 2016 to 2021. This is a
full-scope dataset, with no sampling involved. Furthermore, the dataset relies
on geospatial data, ensuring that alterations in administrative boundaries do not
compromise its accuracy. The 2011 data originates from a population census,
while the data from 2016 to 2021 are population estimates that are based on a
combination of more than 10 different national administrative registers and are
subjected to a rigorous quality control procedure.
This research employed a quantitative method to observe the changes in pop-
ulation size in the aforementioned areas from 2011 to 2021. This decade was
split into two 5-year intervals: 2011–2016 and 2016–2021, to detect demographic
shifts efciently. The key variable in this study was the population growth rate,
calculated individually for all neighborhoods, including both inner- and outer-city
neighborhoods as well as the bordering municipalities. Additionally, the annual
74 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 75
population change in Riga between 2016 and 2021 was calculated to uncover any
possible heterogeneity within the inner city. In order to identify spatial patterns,
all population growth rates were mapped, resulting in three sets of maps. Finally,
the overall growth rates were analyzed within the framework of the urban devel-
opment model.
While straightforward and replicable, this method offers limited insights due
to its inability to conduct a more thorough analysis, such as capturing shifts in
population composition or policy effects.
Results
The results are summarized in Figs 2–4 (maps), Table 2 and Fig. 5 (ndings with-
in the context of the urban development model).
Fig. 2 illustrates the change in the total population in the city of Riga, high-
lighting the inner city, over the two ve-year periods. During the rst period, 39
out of 58 neighborhoods had a population decline of over 1%, which decreased
to 31 neighborhoods in the second period. Despite the substantial decrease in the
number of declining neighborhoods, the city still suffered an overall population
decline of 2.9% in both periods, meaning that the population loss became more
concentrated.
During the second half of the decade, there was a signicant turnaround in the
growth of the inner city of Riga. The overall growth rate increased from −4.1%
(2011–2016) to 0.5% (2016–2021). The number of growing neighborhoods in
the inner city also increased from one to six. The growth was mainly concentrat-
Fig. 1. Study area
76 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne
ed in the “inner-city core”, the area situated on the right bank, forming an inte-
gral part of the city’s historical center and its protection zone. The high growth
in Skanste and Ķīpsala, and to a smaller extent in Pētersala-Andrejsala, can be at-
tributed to the construction of new residential buildings. The rest of the growing
neighborhoods were characterized by their central location and affordable rents
in case for the more peripheral ones. Overall, the inner city of Riga witnessed a
reurbanisation trend in terms of population size, which was also paralleled by
upgrades in the socioeconomic status of the inner-city residents (Balode 2023).
Fig. 3 provides a detailed analysis of the inner-city neighborhoods exclusively,
focusing on the annual change during the latter half of the studied decade. This
analysis reveals uctuations in growth over the years and more disparities among
the inner-city neighborhoods. In particular, year 2021 highlighted a spread of the
“red” neighborhoods, primarily affecting those neighborhoods extending beyond
the “inner-city core” or facing more socioeconomic challenges (Balode 2023).
One plausible explanation for this is also the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,
which may have diminished the appeal of inner-city living. It also suggests that
the assumption of homogeneity based solely on distance from the city center is
problematic (Dembski et al. 2021). However, it is noteworthy that certain in-
ner-city neighborhoods exhibited stability and continuous growth over all these
years, but, in other areas, the growth in some years compensated for decline in
others.
Table 2 shows how the share of the population living in each of the inner-city
neighborhoods changed between 2011, 2016, and 2021. Neighborhoods that ex-
perienced growth or stability are highlighted in bold. Consistent with previous
analyses, it is apparent that the “inner-city core” neighborhoods performed bet-
Fig. 2. 5-year population growth rates in neighborhoods of Riga from 2011 to 2016 and
from 2016 to 2021
Source: authors’ calculations based on CSB (2023).
76 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 77
Fig. 3. Annual population growth rates in inner-city neighborhoods of Riga from 2017 to
2021
Source: authors’ calculations based on CSB (2023).
78 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 79
ter overall; in fact, only two neighborhoods, Āgenskalns and Torņakalns, experi-
enced a decline.
Fig. 4 provides an overview of population change across the entire study area,
focusing particularly on the bordering municipalities. During the rst half of the
decade, some bordering municipalities witnessed a decline in population, while
others experienced growth. However, during the latter half of the decade, all ad-
ministrative areas surrounding the capital saw positive population growth rates,
with many experiencing relatively high growth rates, up to a staggering 21%.
This surge can be attributed to ongoing suburbanisation activities around Riga,
evident also in the outer-city neighborhoods adjacent to the bordering municipal-
ities. The overall population growth rate escalated from 1.2% in the rst period
to 7.6% in the subsequent period, marking an over six-fold increase.
Table 2. Share of the population living in the inner-city neighborhoods in 2011, 2016, and
2021
Total population (2021) Share (%)
2011 2016 2021
Centrs 30,673 4.67 4.58 4.94
Āgenskalns 24,024 4.07 3.94 3.87
Avoti 17,857 2.82 2.73 2.88
Brasa 12,721 2.01 2.05 2.05
Grīziņkalns 12,133 1.95 1.93 1.95
To r ņakalns 6341 1.05 1.05 1.02
Pētersala-Andrejsala 5089 0.79 0.78 0.81
Vecpilsēta 1968 0.29 0.29 0.32
Skanste 1863 0.12 0.20 0.30
Ķīpsala 869 0.12 0.11 0.14
Source: CSB (2023).
Fig. 4. 5-year population growth rates in neighborhoods of Riga and its bordering munici-
palities from 2011 to 2016 and from 2016 to 2021
Source: authors’ calculations based on CSB (2023).
78 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 79
In general, the suburbanisation rates observed during the study period far
surpassed the relatively moderate rates of reurbanisation. These ndings also
further underscore previous research indicating aws in the core-ring model, as
areas within both the core and the ring can display substantial variations from
each other and from the average indicators. This heterogeneity is particularly
pronounced in the core, where factors such as location (including being part
of the “inner-city core” and the historical center or its protection zone), hous-
ing stock, socioeconomic environment, fragmentation, and pace of gentrication
likely contribute to signicant differences in population growth rates.
In the framework of the urban development model (Fig. 5), there was a sig-
nicant positive increase in population within the ring during the study peri-
od, which theoretically conforms to the suburbanisation stage and total growth.
However, despite this pronounced suburbanisation trend, the overall study area
was in total decline, associated with either disurbanisation or reurbanisation
stage. The model denes reurbanisation as resurgence in the share of the core
population within the functional urban region. This can happen when the core
declines slower than the ring or when the core grows while the ring simultane-
ously declines. Neither of these conditions apply in this case; however, there are
signs of relative centralisation, marked by a modest increase in the inner-city
population share within the study area between 2016 and 2021. Overall, these
results suggest that the model indeed reects specic conditions being met; in-
stead, Riga experienced relative centralisation alongside simultaneous suburban
growth. It is essential to note, as discussed earlier, that this unique outcome is a
product of local conditions and particularly characteristic of post-socialist cities.
Fig. 5. Urban development model with the corresponding ndings in the study area
Source: adapted from van den Berg (1982).
80 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne
Conclusion and discussion
According to various case studies (Sýkora 2009, Haase et al. 2018), it is gener-
ally possible to conclude that, in the 21st century, post-socialist inner cities are
experiencing reurbanisation, although it tends to differ from its forms observed
in Western countries. One of the shortcomings in this research eld has been the
lack of investigating inner-city reurbanisation in the context of ongoing subur-
banisation.
Analysis of population dynamics in the study area revealed that the inner-city
population was growing alongside suburban population. Importantly, the in-
ner-city population started to grow only in the latter half of the decade between
2011 and 2021. In the context of the urban development model, the results indi-
cate a mix of suburbanisation, disurbanisation and reurbanisation stages, chal-
lenging the notion of the model’s stages taking place sequentially.
This study has provided deeper insights into the current patterns of reurban-
isation and suburbanisation processes in the inner city of Riga and its bordering
municipalities. Between 2011 and 2021, after a prolonged decline, inner-city pop-
ulation nally experienced relative stability and even slight growth that aligns
with urban development model’s reurbanisation stage and the previous research
on post-socialist cities discussed earlier. Additionally, the study identied hetero-
geneity within the inner city, with inner neighborhoods consistently outperform-
ing outer neighborhoods. Population growth rates in the bordering municipali-
ties of Riga were notably higher in the study period than those in the inner city,
and the persistent suburbanisation trend is also a characteristic of post-socialist
cities (Hesse, Siedentop 2018). Despite this, the total population decline ob-
served in the study area suggests the model’s closest tting stage is disurbanisa-
tion, although it appears to be more of a mixed or parallel stage scenario.
This analysis contributes to existing research on urban areas in post-socialist
contexts, highlighting shortcomings in the urban development model. Specif-
ically, it underscores the potential coexistence of different stages of the model
and emphasizes the importance of examining inner-city reurbanisation within
a broader context. This broader context should not only include an exploration
of demographic processes in outer city and suburban areas but also consider
migration data between the inner city and suburbia. Could the growth observed
in the inner city be attributable to younger suburbanites arriving, or is it a result
of in-migration or international migration? At this moment, it may be prema-
ture to draw denitive conclusions, considering the relatively short history of
suburbanisation in a post-socialist setting. The gradual increase in the inner-city
population share relative to the suburban population presents an intriguing trend
to monitor in the future. It remains to be seen whether, or rather when, reurban-
isation rates will outpace suburbanisation rates. These are crucial considerations
for future research.
Furthermore, conducting a mixed-methods research study on the residential
preferences of both current inner-city residents and suburbanites would provide
valuable insights. Understanding whether individuals currently fueling reurban-
80 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne Divergent population dynamics: The case of the inner city of Riga 81
isation may eventually opt for suburban living, and elucidating the factors inu-
encing their decision-making process would be crucial not only for the inner city
of Riga, but also the inner cities of Tallinn, Vilnius, and Budapest, which have
also experienced high levels of residential mobility (Valatka et al. 2015, Temelová
et al. 2016).
Research on reurbanisation holds signicant implications for policymakers.
Selective inner-city revitalisation and gentrication may intensify spatial inequal-
ities, disrupt communities, undermine social cohesion, diminish residents’ sense
of belonging, or even cause displacement. An insight into residential behavior
patterns can inform policymakers on how to mitigate spatial inequalities and
sustainably facilitate reurbanisation to contain urban sprawl in shrinking cities.
References
Balode S. 2023. Shifting inner-city sociodemographics: the case of Riga. Folia Geographica, 20(2):
64–73. https://doi.org/10.22364/fg.20.2.7
Booi H., Boterman W., Musterd S. 2020. Staying in the city or moving to the suburbs? Unravelling the
moving behaviour of young families in the four big cities in the Netherlands. Population, Space
and Place, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2398
Buzar S., Ogden P., Hall R., Haase A., Kabisch S., Steinihrer A. 2007. Splintering Urban Populations:
Emergent Landscapes of Reurbanisation in Four European Cities. Urban Studies, 44(4): 651–677.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601185544
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (CSB). 2023 (https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/lv/OSP_PUB/
START__POP__IR/).
Dembski S., Sykes O., Couch C., Desjardins X., Evers D., Osterhage F., Siedentop S., Zimmermann
K. 2021. Reurbanisation and suburbia in Northwest Europe: A comparative perspective on spa-
tial trends and policy approaches. Progress in Planning, 150: 100462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
progress.2019.100462
Fabula S., Boros L., Kovács Z., Horváth D., Pál V. 2017. Studentication, diversity and social cohe-
sion in post-socialist Budapest. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 66(2): 157–173. https://doi.
org/10.15201/hungeobull.66.2.5
Grabkowska M. 2011. Inner-city transformations after socialism ndings from interviews with new
residents of pre-war tenement houses in Gdańsk. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series,
15(15): 117–129. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10089-011-0008-7
Haase A., Kabisch S., Steinführer A., Bouzarovski S., Hall R., Ogden P. 2010. Emergent spaces of reur-
banisation: Exploring the demographic dimension of inner-city residential change in a European
setting. Population, Space and Place, 16(5): 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.603
Haase A., Wolff M., Špačková P., Radzimski A. 2018. Reurbanisation in Postsocialist Europe – A
Comparative View of Eastern Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Comparative Population
Studies, 42. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2018-02
Haase D., Haase A., Kabisch S., Bischoff P. 2008. Guidelines for the ‘Perfect inner city’. Discussing the
appropriateness of monitoring approaches for reurbanisation. European Planning Studies, 16(8):
1075–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802315765
Hesse M., Siedentop S. 2018. Suburbanisation and suburbanisms – making sense of continental Eu-
ropean developments. Raumforschung und Raumordnung/Spatial Research and Planning, 76(2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-018-0526-3
Horňáková M., Sýkora J. 2021. From suburbanisation to reurbanisation? Changing residential mo-
bility ows of families with young children in the Prague metropolitan area. Norsk Geogrask
Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography, 75(4): 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/002919
51.2021.1970014
82 SindijaBalode,ZaigaKrišjāne
Kabisch N., Haase D. 2009. Diversifying European agglomerations: Evidence of urban popu-
lation trends for the 21st Century. Population, Space and Place, 17(3): 236–253. https://doi.
org/10.1002/psp.600
Krišjāne Z., Bērziņš M. 2014. Intra-urban residential differentiation in the post-Soviet city: The case
of Riga, Latvia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 63(3): 235–253. https://doi.org/10.15201/
hungeobull.63.3.1
Kubeš J., Kovács Z. 2020. The kaleidoscope of gentrication in post-socialist cities. Urban Studies,
57(13): 2591–2611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019889257
Marcińczak S., Tammaru T., Ogrodowczyk A. 2017. Exploring patterns of socioeconomic residential
intermixing in Tallinn. Cities, 67: 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.011
Salvati L., Serra P., Bencardino M., Carlucci M. 2019. Re-urbanizing the European City: A Multivariate
Analysis of Population Dynamics During Expansion and Recession Times. Eur. J. Population, 35:
1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9462-0
Sýkora L. 2009. Post-Socialist Cities.[W:] International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier,
s. 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.01072-5
Temelová J., Novák J., Kährik A., Tammaru T. 2016. Neighbourhood Trajectories in the Inner Cities
of Prague and Tallinn: What Affects the Speed of Social and Demographic Change? Geograska
Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 98, 4: 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12109
Treija S., Bratuškins U., Barvika S., Bondars E. 2020. The Liveability of Historical Cities: Current
State and Prospects for Habitation. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment. https://doi.
org/10.2495/gd170021
Valatka V., Burneika D., Ubarevičienė R. 2015. Large social inequalities and low levels of socio-eco-
nomic segregation in Vilnius. Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities: East Meets
West, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.7480/abe.2017.9.3626
van den Berg L., Drewett R., Klaassen L. 1982. Urban Europe: A Study of Growth and Decline. Vol.
1. Pergamon Press.
Zukin S. 1987. Gentrication: Culture and capital in the urban core. Annual Review of Sociology,
13(1): 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.001021.
Dywergencja dynamiki populacji: przypadek centrum Rygi
Zarys treści: Dynamika populacji wpływa na krajobraz przestrzenny Europy. Choć w literaturze po-
dejmuje się badania w tym aspekcie zarówno obszarów podmiejskich, jak i śródmiejskich, to często
traktowane są one oddzielnie. Co więcej, procesy te są odmienne w różnych kontekstach lokalnych.
Celem opracowania było zbadanie dynamiki populacji w centrum Rygi w latach 2011–2021, porów-
nanie z sąsiadującymi gminami Rygi, a także przeanalizowanie sposobu, w jaki dynamika ta odpo-
wiada modelowi rozwoju obszarów miejskich. Analiza, obejmująca 58 dzielnic Rygi i 7 sąsiadujących
gmin, wykazała zmianę trajektorii dynamiki populacji śródmiejskiej w drugiej połowie dekady, któ-
ra ostatecznie charakteryzowała się wzrostem. Należy podkreślić, że urbanizacja w dalszym ciągu
wyprzedzała reurbanizację, co wskazuje na współistnienie wielu etapów modelu rozwoju obszarów
miejskich.
Słowa kluczowe: dynamika populacji, rozwój miast, reurbanizacja
