Regional Capitals of Russia and Their Suburbs: Specifics of the Migration Balance

Mkrtchyan, Nikita

doi:10.1134/s2079970519010076

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also found that in Russia, as in other developed countries (Morrill 1995;Kulu 2008;Vobecka 2010;Johnson/Winkler 2015), families with children tend to move to the suburbs of regional centres. This type of migration can be clearly observed in the Moscow suburbs, and emerges in other parts of the country (Mkrtchyan 2019). But migration from large city centres is still low, in contrast to the countries of western Europe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Age-specific Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia

Karachurina¹,

Mkrtchyan²

2020

CPoS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ravenstein, writing in 19th century papers, observed that migration varied with the life course. However, he did not investigate this variation in detail, as the necessary data were not then available. Age-specific migration has been a focus for researchers of migration in the 20th and 21st centuries. Building on this research, the current paper explores age-specific migration in Russia focussing on its spatial diversity. We compare age-specific migration patterns found in Russia and those observed in other developed countries. For this investigation, we mainly use Russian administrative data on residence registration for 2012-2016, together with information on populations by age in the latest census in 2010. The data are analysed using a classification of local administrative units classified by degree of remoteness from Russia’s principal cities (regional centres). The main results are as follows: In Russia, young people participate strongly in migration flows between peripheral territories and regional centres. The net migration surplus in regional centres is mostly produced by the migration of 15-19 year-olds starting further and higher education courses. Peak migration occurs in this age group. This type of migration represents upward mobility in the spatial hierarchy because institutions of higher education are located in the large cities. People aged 20-29 and 30-39 migrate in much smaller numbers, but they also replenish the population of regional centres. The inflow of middle-aged migrants and families with children was directed to the areas located closest to the regional centres, the suburbs. This type of migration is observed in regions with a well-developed middle class with high purchasing power, for example, in the city of Moscow and in the Moscow Region. Peripheral territories have similar profiles of age-specific migration, but of loss rather than gain. The farther they are from regional centres, the more significant the outflow of young people and the stronger the impact of migration on population ageing. The rural periphery and small cities attract only elderly migrants, but this inflow is far smaller than the outflow of young people. The directions and age selectivity of migration observed in other countries are thus also found in Russia, although there are important differences associated with the nature of housing in Russian cities and regions. * This article belongs to a special issue on “Internal Migration as a Driver of Regional Population Change in Europe: Updating Ravenstein”.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Age-specific Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia

Karachurina¹,

Mkrtchyan²

2020

CPoS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the southern regions, to increase the activity and attractiveness of densely populated rural areas, a city with a population of 250000 and even 500000 (as a rule, the capital of region) is needed. Such strong differences in the dynamics of the rural population, its settlement pattern, and the specifics of its age structure as young people in depopulating areas depart (Karachurina and Mkrtchyan, 2016;Mkrtchyan, 2019) cannot but affect the nature of human capital and standard of living of the rural population. However, although the population is decreasing in many districts, even the official unemployment rate in rural areas (with very poor registration of rural residents) is higher than in cities, since with the modern transformation of the rural economy, enterprises require fewer employees (Nefedova, 2017;Shagaida and Uzun, 2019 ).…”

Section: Rural Social Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Transformation of Russia’s Sociogeographical Space

Nefedova,

Glezer

2023

Reg. Res. Russ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

— The article understands sociogeographical space as territorial forms of organization of people’s lives and the spatial approach as necessary in analyzing social phenomena and their evolution in the comprehensive study of Russia. It is analyzed under the influence of what processes have formed and changed Russia’s modern sociogeographical space and how its structure affects the development of cities and rural areas. Multiscale analysis is used to consider the features and problems of social development in different parts of the country. Five zones of development and the settlement pattern, differentiation of the demographic geospace, and interregional socioeconomic contrasts are presented. The characteristics of the settlement pattern are based on analysis of urban structures, rural areas, and their interrelations. Networks of cities of different size and status, urban agglomerations, and their impact on the surrounding territories are considered. Rural settlement pattern is analyzed from the viewpoint of population density, the network of settlements, its dynamics, and differences between suburban and peripheral territories. The main processes of transformation of Russia’s sociogeographical space are identified, both those ongoing for several decades and gaining momentum: differentiation, concentration, polarization, shrinkage, and fragmentation. It is emphasized that even those due to objective factors are intensified as a result of centralized administration. In addition, excessive manifestation of these processes weakens the potential for development of territories of various sizes—from districts and cities to regions—and leads to the growth of the intraregional and external (national-scale) periphery. The article ends with proposed measures to support peripheral territories and reduce the polarization of the sociogeographical space.

show abstract

“…They (Glaeser, 2011; Scott, 2012; Vlahov and Galea, 2002; Laha and Arambagh 2019) emphasized the centripetal force of the city due to global urbanization, population growth, employment and culture, and excellent infrastructure. Conversely, others (Kahn, 2022; Siemiatycki et al, 2020; Al-Kodmany, 2018; Hesse and Siedentop, 2018; Mkrtchyan, 2019) argued for the centripetal force of the city for reasons such as the price of affordable housing, clean environment, and remote work. The COVID-19 pandemic has instigated a tremendous social disaster, resulting in the recognition of a significant urban problem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Would people prefer city-center living in the post-COVID era?: Experience, status, and attitudes to social disasters

Jeong¹,

Lim

2023

Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic was a significant social disaster that radically affected the paradigm of current urbanization and city-center living. Responses to the disaster varied depending on related experiences, individual status, and attitudes. Thus, this research extends the previous literature by examining the effects of experiences related to the COVID-19 pandemic, socioeconomic status, and how perceptions and attitudes affect preferences for city-center living in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea. We use data from PSSRAC (Perception Survey of Seoul metropolitan area Residential Awareness during COVID-19) of 2021. A binary logistic regression method is used to examine significant characteristics that affected the residential preference change due to “Experience,” “Status,” and “Attitude” in the COVID-19 era. The findings showed that respondents’ experience, status, and attitude related to the pandemic could have a complex effect on predictions of preference, for central or suburban living tendencies in the post-COVID-19 era. In terms of “Experience,” people who had bad experiences during the pandemic, for example, poor economic conditions were associated with suburban area living trends. For “Status,” socially and economically vulnerable groups preferred suburban residence due to the steep rise in housing prices in the city center after the pandemic. Finally, for “Attitude,” ‘value of housing for investment” was positively associated with a preference for city-center living in the post-COVID-19 era; respondents with a higher priority for maintaining remote work tended not to change their current residence. This study may provide planners, housing developers, and policymakers with meaningful implications for addressing urban changes in the post-COVID-19 era. Additionally, it is expected that this research’s ESA analysis and results can be used as a valid reference for other global cities.

show abstract

Regional Capitals of Russia and Their Suburbs: Specifics of the Migration Balance

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Age-specific Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia

Age-specific Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia

Transformation of Russia’s Sociogeographical Space

Would people prefer city-center living in the post-COVID era?: Experience, status, and attitudes to social disasters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About