Modelling the spatial structure of Europe

Abstract

How can spatial location affect the operation of society, population or economic conditions? What is the role of neighbourhood and distance in social phenomena? In what way can a social organisation limit spatial barriers? How would spatial structures be affected by the attraction and repulsion of territorial units? Does society only use or also design regions? These questions are explored in this study.This work analyses some important issues, concepts and analysis procedures of the territorial structure of society and social processes of spatiality. It does not contain a comprehensive theory of spatiality and regional science; it is primarily a practical empirical research.Many theoretical works aim at defining the spatial structure of Europe. This article provides an overview of models describing the spatial structure of Europe. The study describes the economic spatial structure of Europe using bi-dimensional regression analysis, based on the gravity model. The spatial structure of Europe is illustrated with the help of the gravity model and spatial auto-correlation. With these patterns, it is possible to justify the appropriateness of the models based on different methodological backgrounds by comparing them with the results of this paper.The subject of field theory concepts and methods that can aid regional analyses is examined, and attempts to offer a synthesised knowledge with a wide variety of examples and methods.

Types of development paths and the hierarchy of the regional centres of Central and Eastern Europe

“…Multidimensional studies on the spatial structure of the region partly support the general findings (Kincses-Nagy-Tóth 2014). However, a deeper analysis gives a more nuanced and precise picture of the region, highlighting the imbalances.…”

Population Dynamics and Agglomeration Factors: A Non-Linear Threshold Estimation of Density Effects

“…More specifically, population growth rates under equilibrium conditions were assumed to increase with urban concentration (i.e., high population density) up to a specific density threshold, progressively decreasing for higher values of population density (e.g., reflecting over-crowded settlements). This assumption paralleled urban growth models envisaging agglomeration benefits for a level of concentration below a critical threshold, and negative externalities from urban congestion for concentrations above a critical threshold [1,7,33]. difficult because of the inherent complexity of the background context and the wealth of socioeconomic factors and constraints influencing settlement density [84].…”

“…A relatively vast consensus has been reached in the analysis of density values that determine urban congestion [31]. In these cases, urban concentration and settlement compactness are responsible for a slowdown of population growth rates compared with urban contexts where density is below that threshold [3,32,33] and which display comparatively higher growth rates [1,7,34]. Less information is available on the reverse mechanism, i.e., a positive (or negative) regulation of population growth at low densities [28].…”

“…Comparing local-scale demographic trends in homogeneous socioeconomic contexts (e.g., a country or a set of regions with similar characteristics, including the socioeconomic structure, history, and political/cultural background) provides specific knowledge in the analysis of latent mechanisms of population growth, thereby underlying both processes of urban expansion and rural development [42][43][44][45][46]. While being informative of regional growth trends, a comparative, local-scale analysis of demographic dynamics along the whole urban-rural gradient is still only partially complete in many European countries [25,33,47,48]. By considering both urban and rural dynamics over a long time span, this type of empirical analyses reveal latent socioeconomic transformations and give precise information on the density-dependent mechanisms of population growth, leading to identification of distinctive models of urban expansion/shrinkage and rural development/collapse [13,[49][50][51].…”

Dynamika funkcji kontrolno-zarządczych miast Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w czasie spowolnienia gospodarczego

“…Analizując rysunek 1, można zauważyć, że większość 600 dominujących korporacji w regionie w 2012 r. była zlokalizowana w zachodniej części Europy Środ-kowo-Wschodniej, która -ogólnie rzecz biorąc -jest lepiej rozwiniętą częścią analizowanego regionu (Kincses, Nagy, Tóth 2014). Najwyższą wartością HQ cechowała się Praga (21,27), na drugim miejscu znalazła się Warszawa (16,99), mimo że znajduje się w niej aż 101 siedzib zarządów, a w Pradze 77.…”