GeographiaPolonica 2017,Volume90,Issue2https://doi.or
g/10.7163/GPol.0085 INSTITUTEOFGEOGRAPHYANDSPATIALORGANIZATION POLISHACADEMYOFSCIENCES www.igipz.pan.pl www.geographiapolonica.pl
DOESSUBURBANISATIONCONTRIBUTE
TOTHEREJUVENATIONOFAMETROPOLITANAREA?
CHANGESINTHEAGESTRUCTUREOFTHEKRAKÓWMET ROPOLITANAREAINPOLANDINTHELIGHT
OFRECENTSUBURBANISATION SławomirKurek
1•
MirosławWójtowicz
1•
JadwigaGałka
21 InstituteofGeog raphy
PedagogicalUniversityofKraków Podchorążych2,30-084Kraków:Poland
e-mails:sgkurek@up.krakow.pl•mwojt@up.krakow.pl 2 InstituteofGeographyandSpatialManagemen
t
JagiellonianUniversity Gronostajowa7,30- 387Kraków:Polande- mail:jadwiga.galka@uj.edu.pl
Abstract
Theprocessofresidentialsuburbanisationmaycausechangesintheagestructureofthepopulationastheagecompo sitionofin-migrantsisyoungerthanlong-termresidents.However,thedemographicchangeassoci-
atedwiththeseconddemographictransitionaswellastheco-
existenceofsuburbanisationandreurbanisationofinnercityareasmayhaveambiguousimpactsontheagecomposition.
Theaimofthispaperistoshowchangesintheagestructureofthepopulationinapost-
socialistcityinthelightofsuburbanisationusingtheexampleoftheKrakówMetropolitanArea.Inparticular,wesoughtt oshowwhethertheintensivedevelopmentofthisprocessresultsintheinhibitionofpopulationageingduetotheinfluxofpeoplein suburbanareasalongwiththeoutwarddiffusionofthebehavioursassociatedwiththeseconddemographictransition.
Introduction
Suburbanisationisacommonfeatureofl a r g epost-
socialistcitiesi nC e n t r a la n d EasternEurop e(Ouředníček2003;Drozg2004;Reberik2004
;Sedláková2005;Kåhrik
&Tammaru2008).Itisastageofurbande- velopmentwhichu n d o u b tedlychangesthep hysiognomyofmetropolitanareasbothinpost- socialistcountries,e.g.intheCzechRe- public(Ouředniček2007),inEstonia(Leetmaa
Doessuburbanisationcontributetotherejuvenationofametropolitanarea?Changesintheage…
GeographiaPolonica2017,90,2
&Tammaru2007),inPoland(Lisowski&Gro- chowski2008)andSlovenia(Mihaietal.2015)as wellasinwesternEuropeancountriesandtheUS A(Cheshire1995;Chin2002).Thepro-
cessleadstourbansprawlandthespread- ingofthecity’slifestylesintosuburbanareas(Pi chler-
Milanović2007).Suburbanisationmayalsoinflue ncethechangeinthedemographiccompositiono fapopulationasaresultofmo-
bilitybetweentheinnercityandthesuburbs(
Ouředníček&Temelová2009).
However,theissueoftheimpactofsubur- banisationonchangesintheagecompositionofa populationlivinginsuburbanareashas b eenneglectedinPolandandothercountriesinCe ntral-EasternEurope.Amainshort-
comingi nthecurrentl i teratureisthefocusofm a nystudiesontotalp o p u l a t i o nchangeatthem acro-scale,whileneglectingtorecog-
nisechangesintheagecomposition,especial- lyatthemicro-
level(Kabisch&Haase2011;Kabischetal.201 2).Existingresearchconcen-
tratesmoreontherejuvenationofcitycentresduet ogentrificationandinsometownsduetoreur banisation(Haaseetal.2010;Kabischetal.2 010
;Kroll& K abisch2 012).Inperi- urbanareaslong-
standingtrendstowardsgreaternaturaldecreas ehavebeenreversedbythein-
migrationa n dretentionofy oungadultsinchildb earingagegroups.Inthisring-
shapedzone,growthprocessesgeneratenetin- migrationf r o mboththeinnera n do u tersides(
migrationfromoutlyingruralandurbanareas)and populationincreaseswithinthere-
gionitself(Ford1999).
Apartfromtheaboveresearch,fewstudiesco ncludethatsuburbanisationcauseschang- esintheagestructureofapopulation,eventhoug htheyoccurmoreslowlythanchangesassociate dwiththenaturalmovementofthepopulation.The influxofyoungeragegroupstosuburbanareaswi llinitiallyslowdowntheageingofthepopulati oninthoseareas,butitwillalsoincreasethi sprocessinurbancentres(Kurek2011a,b;Ma rcińczak2012).Theslowingdownofpopulati onageingmay bealsoaneffectofincreasingf e rtilityduetotheselectivesuburbanisationofhou
seholdsandwomenwhointendtohavealargerfami ly
SławomirKurek•MirosławWójtowicz•JadwigaGałka
GeographiaPolonica2017,90,2
(Kulu&Boyle2009;Vobecka&Piguet2012).T hisgeneralisationalsoappliestosuburbswithl argenumbersofforeignimmigrants(Bayona- Carrasco&Gil-Alonso2012).
Anincreaseintheshareoftheelderlypopula tioni nu r b a ncentresmay,however,slowdow novert i m eduetog e n t rification,butinthene arbysuburbanareastheprocessofageingin- placecanbeobserved(Swiacz-
nye tal.2 0 0 8 ;Kerbler2 015).F orexample,int hemetropolitanareasofKraków,Poznańan dWarsaw,rapidageingofthepopulationwasob servedduringthe1990sinthecentralareasoft hecities,whereasinthefirstdecadeofthetwenty -
firstcenturytheexternalzonesofthesemetropo litanareaswereexperiencingmorerapidageing (Kurek2011b).
Theageingofthepopulationinsuburb anareashasbeenthesubjectofresearchf o r s ometimenowduebothtothepooradapta- tionofthetransportinfrastructureandtothedecr easingmobilityofpeopleinoldage(Rosenbloo m2003;Lord&Luxembourg2006;Zeitleretal.2 012).Insuburbanareas,theresi-
dentsmostlyusetheirownmeansoftransportan dlacksufficientt rans portacc essibility f ortheelderlyi ntermsofthenumberofpub- lict r a n s p o rtstops,facilitiesf o rusingp u b l i c transporta n dconnectionsinsidethesubur- banareaitself.
Theaimofthispaperistoanswerthequestio nw h ethers u bu rb an is at i o n is l e ad in g to arejuvenationofthepopulationagecom- positioni nKrakówM etropolitanAreai nPo- land.I np a rticular,wea dd re ss t h e f o l l owin gresearchquestions:
1. Howistheagecompositionofin-
migrantstosuburbanareasdifferentfromin -mi-grantstotheinnercity?
2. Whichchangeswererecordedintheag ecompositionofthepopulationlivinginth eKrakówM etropolitanA r e a a n d i n p a rti cu-larcertainrings?
3. Aref ertilityl evelsa nd bi rthr a tec h a n g e s intheinnercityandsuburbanzonethere- sultofsuburbanisation?
Toanswerthesequestionswefirstprovidea nanalysisofthemigrationflowstoandfromKrak ówaswellasitssuburbanzone.Then
weinvestigatethepercentagechangesintheage compositionofthepopulationoftheinnercity,sub urbana n dc o m m u t i n gzones.N ext,weobser vetrendsinrecenttotalfertilityratesaswellasbirth ratesintheKrakówMetropoli-
tanArea.Finally,weconcludebyaddressingh owcurrentprocessesofurbandevelopmentand populationchange,includingtheseconddemogr aphictransition,affectpopulationagecompositio ninmetropolitanareasinCentral EasternEu rope.
Methodologyandstudyarea
Ourinvestigationoutlinedinthisarticleisbased onstatisticaldataderivedf romtheCentralSta tisticalOfficeinWarsaw.Westud-
ieddataonchangesinspecificeconomicage
classes(thatis,thepre-
workingp o p u l a t i o n agedunder18,mobilew orkingpopula-tionaged18-
44,immobileworkingpopulationoffemalesaged 4 5 - 5 9femalesa n dmalesaged44-
64andpost-
workingpopulationaged6 0 +f o rfemalesa n d 6 5 +f o rmales)int h eK ra kówM etropolitanA r e a (K MA ) an d itsmainrings(Fig.1).Ananalys iswasmadeoftheperiod1988-
2012,mainlybasedonthefollowingyears:1988, 1995,2002and2012.Inaddition,theyear19 88presentsthecon-
ditionsbeforethebeginningofthesocio-eco- nomict r a n s f o rmation,w h i c h h a d a n i mpa ctondemographicchangesinpost-
socialistcountries(declinesinbirthratesandincr easesininternationalmigration).Theagecomp osi-tionofin-
migrantstoKrakówandthesubur- banzone,asnotedabove,isourmajorfocus.
Figure1.ThespatialextentoftheKrakówMetropolitanArea(KMA)(PPZWM2003)
TheKrakówMetropolitanArea(KMA)isa f unctionalregionwhichincludesthecityalong withadjacentcounties.TheKMAhas65spatial units,allwhichwereincludedinthisanalysis.In20 12,theKMAregionhadapopulationof1.493 millionpeople,ofwhich758thousandor60.8p ercentresideinKrakówitself.
Results
Themaindemographicfactorresponsibleforthel evelofsuburbanisationi ntheKrakówMetropolit anAreawastheh i g hlevelofin-
migrationa n danagecompositionofnew- comerst h a twasyoungert h a ntheresidentpop ulation.Accordingtoofficialstatisticaldataabou t45thousandpeoplemigratedfromKrakówtosu burbanareasand23thou-
sandtothecommutingzonefrom1990- 2012.Ontheotherhand, Krakówitself main tainedpositivevaluesofnetm i grationi nthispe- riodasi ta t t r a c teda b o u t57thousandpeo- plefromoutsideoftheKMA.Morethantwo- thirdso f a l l i n -
m i grationtoK r a kówf r o m 1990- 2012constitutedpeopleofmobilework- ingage,thatis,thosefrom18to44yearsold,while a b o u t18percentaccountedf o rthepre- workingagepopulation (agedunder18;Ta b.1).However,whenwetakeintoaccount
thetotalin-
migrationtot hes uburb an z ones oftheK M A,wenoticet h a tthep r o p o rtionofmigrantsa gedunder18wasmuchhigherthantoKraków(al most28percent)andthepercentagesofpre- workingandyoungwork-
ersaccountedformorethan80percentofto-talin- migrants(Tab.1).Thedifferenceintheshareofth eworkingpopulationwasinfavourofin-
migrantstoKraków(almost10percent)whichw asassociatedwithmoreemploymentopportuniti esfortheeconomicallyactivepop-
ulation.Thetransferofindustrialactivityand services(especiallyservicesrelatedtoretailan dwholesale)knownasindustrialandser- vicesuburbanisationwasmuchslowert ha n res identialsuburbanisation(Hermelin2 0 07;Syko ra&Ouředniček2007;Kureketal.2014).Morein- migrantstosuburbanareaswereintheolderwor kingagecohortt h a ntherewereinKrakówitse lf. Mutu al flowsbetweenKrakówanditssubur banzonesrecordedahighpercentageofpre- workingpopulationwhilethein-
flowf r o moutsideofthemetro-
politanareatoKrakówwascharacterisedbyahig hershareofyoungerworkers.
Whenexaminingchangesinthestructurebye conomicagegroupinKrakówMetropol- itanA re a( K M A ) , it is cl ea rt h a t t h eyd o n ot deviatefromthegeneralworldwidetrendsrelate dtotheagingofthepopulation.These
Table1.MigrationflowstoKrakówandsuburbanareas:1990-2012
Flowdirection Pre-working Mobilewor
king Immobile
working Post-
working Total numberofpeople
In-migrationsuburbantoKraków 4,156 9,687 1,834 1,152 16,829
In-migrationKrakówtosuburban 12,738 21,912 7,457 2,880 44,987
In-migrationtoKrakówtotal 24,885 97,574 10,492 8,280 141,231
In-migrationtosuburbantotal 22,668 45,919 11,087 4,947 84,621
percentages
In-migrationsuburbantoKraków 24.7 57.6 10.9 6.8 100
In-migrationKrakówtosuburban 28.3 48.7 16.6 6.4 100
In-migrationtoKrakówtotal 17.6 69.1 7.4 5.9 100
In-migrationtosuburbantotal 26.8 54.3 13.1 5.8 100
Source:OuranalysisbasedondatafromtheCentralStatisticalOffice,Warsaw(thesameappliestoTab.2).
Table2.AbsoluteandrelativechangesinthepopulationoftheKrakówMetropolitanArea(KMA)anditszonesby agegroup:1988-2012
Agegroup
1988 2012 Change1988-2012
Kraków Subur- ban
Com-
muting KMA Kraków Subur- ban
Com-
muting KMA Kraków Subur- ban
Com- muting KMA
Inthousandsofpeople 1988=100
Pre-working 187.6 51.6 142.1 381.3 117.1 45.9 105.8 268.9 62.4 89.9 74.5 70.5 Mobilew o rking 321.2 68.3 172.7 562.2 316.2 92.8 209.0 618.0 98.5 135.8 121.0 109.9 Immobileworking 142.8 30.3 76.6 249.7 169.6 51.6 114.1 335.3 118.7 170.5 149.0 134.3 Post-working 94.0 23.5 64.7 182.2 155.3 35.0 80.5 270.8 165.2 148.8 124.5 148.6 Total 745.6 173.7 456.0 1375.4 758.3 225.3 509.4 1493.0 101.7 129.7 111.7 108.6
showadecreaseintheshareofpeopleinthepre- workingageandanincreaseintheshareofthepop ulationinretirementageasaresultoffertilitydecl ine,increasing lifeexpectancyandmigrati on(Rogers&Raymer1999;Wal-
ford& Kurek2 0 0 8 ;Stockdale2 011;Botev20 12;Pavlova& Silbereisen2 012;Sharma 2012;Songe tal.2 012;Reese tal.2 012).Inthep eriod1988-
2012,thetotalpopulationofK M A i n c r e a s e d f r o m 1375to1493t h o u -
sand,howeverthehighestpercentageincreasew asrecordedinthesuburbanzone(by30percent).
Despitetheincreaseintotalpopulation,therewer ed i fferencesb etweent h e p o p u l a -
tionchangesinparticularagegroups(Tab.2).Inal lzonesoftheKMAthenumberinthepre-
workingp opulat iondeclined, whi lethen um-
bero f t h e i m m o b i l e a n d r etiredp o p u l a t i o n showedamarkedincrease. Theper centagedeclineofthepre-
workingpopulationamount-
edton e a rly10p e r c e n tagep o i n t s , a n d t h e increaseintheproportionofpeopleofretire- mentagestoodatnearly5percentagepoints.Inth eperiodanalysed,therewasanincreaseint h e s h a r e o f t h e workinga g e p o p u l a t i o n , exce ptthatthisgrowthwasmainlytheresultofanincrea sei nthep r o p o rtionofpeopleintheimmobilew orkingage(Fig.2).
Takingaccountofa l lzonesi ntheK M A inthe periodoftimeanalysed,thelowestper-
centageofpeopleinthepre-workingageco-
hortwasfoundinKraków(Fig.3).Furthermorethes hareofthepopulationinthisagegroupwasincreasi ngwithincreasingdistancefrom
thecitycentre.Howeverinrecentyearsth epercentageofthispopulationwasalmostthes ameinthesuburbanzoneandinthecom- mutingzone,whichrecordedthelarge std e-cline(10.4percent).
IncontrasttostudiesdonebyOuředničekin Prague(2007),whichindicatethatthemigratio ntos uburb anz ones has a n impactonther ejuvenationoftheagestructureofthepopulatio nthroughaselectiveinfluxofpopu-
lationinthereproductiveage,inKrakówMet- ropolitanArea,selectivein-
migrationofyoungpeopleofchild- bearingagedoesnotnecessar-
ilymeananincreasingproportionofchildrenasi n-migrantstransferredlow-
fertilitymodelsofthefamilyfromthecitycentre.
Similarly,thehighestpercentageofthewor kingagep opulat ion(the totalofthemo- bileandimmobilepopulation),wasfoundinK r a kówi n 1988,1995a n d i n 2 0 0 2 . H ow- ever,in2012,thisindexwasalmostthesameina l lthezonesstudied.Asa resultofthemigration bal ance inKra ków(a tlea stinthe officials tatistics),a n d t h e growingmi grationbalance inthesuburbanareaan dcommut-
ingzones,therewasadecreaseintheshareofth eworkingagepopulationinKrakówintheearly yearsofthetwenty-
firstcentury.Itwasalsoinfluencedbythetid esofdemo-
graphichighsandlows(thegenerationofthepo stwarbabyboomwasretiringortherewasashri nkingsupplyoftheworkingagegroupduetoane versmallergroupofpeopleborninthesecon dhalfofthe1990s).Thesuburban
[%]
[%]
[%]
Figure2.Thevariationintheagestructureofthepop ulationintheKrakówMetropolitanArea(KMA)in19 88,1995,2002and2012(inpercent)
Source:ouranalysisbasedondatafromtheCen- tralStatisticalOffice(thesameappliestoFigs.3,4,5,6, 7and8).
Figure3.Changesinthepercentageofthepre- workingagepopulationinthezonesoftheKMA:198 8-2012
Figure4.Changesinthepercentageofthemo- bileworkingagepopulationinthezonesoftheK MA:1988-2013
[%]
[%]
areaandcommutingzonehaverecordedgrowth sintheproportionsoftheworkingagepopulations incethemid-
1990s.Inthegroupoft hemobile workinga ge group,t he re wassymmetryi nthechangesbet weenthecitycentreandtheouterzonesofthe metropoli-
tanarea(Fig.4).Whileinthelate1980sand199 0stherewasadeclineinthepercentagesofpeopl eofyoungerworkingageinKraków,inboththesu burbanareaa n dc o m m u t i n g zone,thereha salsobeenanincreaseintheshareofthispopul ationgroup.Ontheotherhand,attheturnofthe century,thissituationwasreversedandinrecent years,Krakównowexperiencesadeclineofthem obilepopula-
tiona n dthereisanincreasei nthep r o p o r- tionofthisgroupofpeopleintheouterareas.
Figure5.Changesinthepercentageoftheim- mobileworkingagepopulationinthezonesoftheKM Aintheyears:1988-2012
Figure6.Changesinthepercentageofthere- tirementagepopulationinthezonesoftheKMA:19
8 8- 2 0 1 2
I =[P – ]+ –
+ – ]+ –
P
P
]
]
P
P
Thelargestincreaseoftheimmobileworkingage populationoccurredinthesuburbanareaandthe commutingzone,especiallyinthelate1990s(Fig.
5).Inthelastdecadethesuburbanarearecorded adeclineofalmost1percentintheshareofth isgroupofpopulation. Thelargestchangeco ncernedthoseofretirementage.I n1988t h e h i g h e stp e r c e n tageo f t h is groupwasnotedinth ecommutingzoneandthelowestinKrakówits elf,butinthelastpe-
riodconsidered,Krakówhadthehighestvalueindex (Fig.6).
Whenexaminingchangesintheagestructur eof t h e po pu l a t i on , i t i s worthref e r- ringtodynamicindices,suchasanindicator
Apositivevalueoftheindexofchangesinthea gestructureindicatesanongoingpro-
cessofageingofthepopulationinthegivenunitint heperiodanalysed,andthehigherthevalueofth eindex,themoredynamicisthis process.B yanalogy,anegativevalueoftheindexh i g h l i g h t s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n isrejuv enating.
Observingthechangesofthisi n d i c a torlea dsustoconcludethatthisprocessistend- ingtoslowdowninthesuburbanzoneoftheKMA andinKrakówitself,althoughinrecentyear stherewasalsoanincreaseintherateofage ingwithin thecom mut ing zonewhere the annualvaluesarenowthehighest(Tab.3).
of‘economicageing’(I )(Kurek2008),based Thisconditionisduetothedecreaseinpopu- onpercentagedifferencesbetweenthe4eco-EA
nomicagegroupsinthetwotimeperiods, lationgrowth,whichwaspreviouslyveryhighbec auseofhighbirthrates.
Ana n a l y s i s o f t h e f e rtilityt r e n d s i n t h e
EA (0-
17)t (0-
17)t+n (18-
44)t (18-44)t+n studya r e a s h owst h a t t h eyd o n otd i verge
(45-59/64)t+n
where:
(45- 59/64)t
(60/65+)t+
n
(60/65+)t fromnationaltrends.Inallringsthebirthrates
recordedaconsiderabledecreasefrom1988- 2003,t h e n a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e waso b s e rved
(0-17)
(18-44)
(45- 59/64)
(60/65+)
– shareofp o p u l a t i o nofpre- workingage(0-
17years)atthebeginning(t)andattheend(t +n)ofthestudyperiod,
– shareofp o p u l a t i o nofy oungw orking age(18-
44years)atthebeginning(t)andattheend(t+n) ofthestudyperiod,
– shareofpopulationofolderworkingage(45 -59yearsforfemalesand45-
64yearsformales)atthebeginning(t)andatt heend(t+n)ofthestudyperiod,
– shareofpopulationofpost-
workingage(60andmoreyearsforfemales and65andmoreyearsformales)atthebegin -
ning(t)andattheend(t+n)ofthestudyperi od.
(until2009).Thisincreasewasassociatedwithani mprovementi n t h e e c o n o m i c s i t u a t i o n , aboominthehousingmarketandPolandjoin- ingt h e E u r o p e a n Union;h owever,i n r e c e n t years,whenafinancialcrisisoccurred,anotherd ownturnhasbeennoted(Fig.7).Thedifferenc- esbetweentheinnercityandthecommutingaswe llasthesuburbanzonediminishedinthestudyperi od.Asimilarsituationwasnotedwithregardtothet otalfertilityratewiththelowestvaluesinKrakówits elfandslightlyhigherval-
uesinadjacentregions(Fig.8).Itshouldbenot- ed,however,thattheleveloffertilityinallthemetro politana r e a i s f a r b e l owr e p l a c e m e n t level,notexceeding1.4.
Table3.ChangesinthedynamicsofageingindifferentareasoftheKMAbasedonanindicatorofeco- nomicageing
EconomicAgeingIndex 1988-1995 1995-2002 2002-2012
Kraków 7.5 9.1 5.5
SuburbanZone 1.6 8.4 4.9
CommutingZone -0.3 6.8 8.0
KrakówMetropolitanArea(KMA) 4.1 8.2 6.1
KMAwithoutKraków 0.2 7.3 7.1
birthspert housandp opulation
Figure7.BirthratesinKrakówMetropolitanAreaandadjacentzones:1988-2012
children born/woman
Figure8.TotalFertilityRatesinKrakówandtheKrakówsubregion–
NUTS3(NomenclatureofUnitsforTerritorialStatistics,LevelThree):2002-2012
Summaryanddiscussion
Thisstudyrevealedthatsuburbanisationcontri butesneithertoa rejuvenationofthepopulationn ort oanincreaseinthefertil-
itylevelresultingfromchangesassociatedwitht heseconddemographictransition.Themod elofthesmallfamilyhasspreadfromtheinnercity t othesuburbanzonesand,therefore,changin gtheplaceoflivinginas-
sociationwithanimprovementinlivingcon- ditions(largersizeofhouses,andagarden)w illnotnecessarilyb ringab ou tanincrease
infertility.Fromtheaboveanalysisitshowsthatt heeffectofsuburbanisationonthechangesinth eagestructureisnotclearlydefined.I nt h ee nt i re K M A,s ub u r ba n i s a t i on itselfhashadl it t leeffectonchangesintheagestructureo ft he p opulat ionpe riodstud-
ied.Theproportionofpre-
workingpopulationdeclinedwhiletheshareofeld erlyincreased,notablyintheKMAInsomemunici palities,however,withintensesuburbanisation oc-
curring,aninhibitionoftheagingprocesshasbee
nobservedinrecentyears.Despitethelarge i nfluxof people from youngerage
groups,thereisnoincreaseintheshareofchildre n,duetotheprocessesassociatedwiththeseco nddemographictransitionandthespreadof lowfertilityaswellastheurbanfamilymodelf ro m thecore tot hesub urban zone.Althoughitis higherthaninthecitycen-
tre,thechangesintheleveloffertilityinsub- urbanareash avebeen inl ine withnat ion al trendsi nthedemographica n dageingpro- cesses.Onlyinthecaseoftheworkingpopu- lationcohortwerepositivechangesrecordedfro m2002-
2012withanincreaseofyoungerworkersinthe suburbanandcommutingzoneaswellasadecrease ofolderworkersininnercityandsuburbanareas.
Animportantfactorcontributingtotheslow- downinpopulationageingrelatestothevolumea ndage structureofin-
migrantsfromKraków;almost80percentofthes eareunder45years;theyresidemostlyinthesub- urbanzone.Itshouldalsobenotedthatthein- tensityofmigrationtothesuburbanareawasnot soh i g hastosignificantlyi n fluencetheagecom positionofthetotalpopulationlivinginbothth esuburbanandcommutingzones.Thedy namicageingindexshowedthatwhiletherewasa slow-
downintheageingprocesscomparedtoanearlier period,itaffectedboththesuburbanareasa n dth einnercity.Thereasonforthisisthatsuburbanisat ionisnotonlyastageofurbandevelopmentoperat ingintheKrakówM etropolitanArea.Wehaveals oobservedtheprocessofareurbanizationoftheinn ercity.Kraków,beinga universitytown,attracts manyyoungpeopleandoffersbetterj o bo p p o rtunitiest h a nnon-metropoli-
tanareas(Haaseetal.2010;Steinführeretal.2010 ).Theco-existenceofanintensifyingsub-
urbanisationandadevelopingreurbanisation,w hichismainlydrivenbyyoungerhouseholds,iswi delyrecognisedintheliterature(Kabisch
&Haase2011).
AccordingtovandenBerg’straditionalmodel describingurbandevelopment(vandenBerget al.1982),theprocessofsubur-
banisationispredominantinKrakówandoth- ercitiesinCEE,andaccompaniesaprocessofr e u r b a n i s a t i o n a n d g e n t rification.M o d e rndevelopmentoftheKrakówurbanregioncan
beseeninthecontextoftheconceptofhetero- politanisation,associatedwiththeemergenceof newsocialandspatialpatternsintheCEEcity,in cludingincreasedsocio-
spatialmixinganddemographicchangesacr osstheurbanspace(Gentilee tal.2012).A lar geinflowofn ewp o p u l a t i o n groupsc o m i n g f r o m b othmetropolitana nd n o n -
m etropolitana r e a s re -
sultsinthemixtureofagecompositionwithintheK M A,b u tisnotchangingthed i r e c t i o n ofrejuv enation.Wefindthatsomeofthere-
centresearchonreurbanisationidentifiesthisreju venationprocessoratleastnotesacoin- cidencebetweenageingprocessesandreju- venationtrends(Haaseetal.2010).Amoder- ate,inner-
cityresurgenceandacontinuationoftheprocess ofsuburbanisationofthemainPolishcities(nam elyWarsawandKraków)wasmentionedbyKabi schetal.
(2012).Theypointedo u tt h a tboththesecitiesa rel a r g e universitycitiesw i t ha m u l t i f u n c t i o n a leco-
nomicstructureandagrowingservicesector.De spitethemigrationofstudentsandyoungprofe ssionalscontributingtoaslight popula- tiongrowthinbothinnercitiesandsuburbana reas,theoutwarddiffusionofthebehavioursasso ciatedwiththeseconddemographictransitiona l s o co nt ributestoa weaki mpactonthedeceler ationofageing(Steinführer
&Haase2007).
Fertilityratesarecurrentlywellbelowre- placementlevelandthein-
migrationofyoungpeopledoesnotnecessarily contributetoanincreaseinbirthrates.Itmeritsno thing,however,thatdifferencesinthelevelofdem o-
graphica gein gand t h e dy nam ics o fagei ngprocessesaresubjecttoanumberofcomplexf actorsandpastdemographicevents.Theim- pactofpastmigrationtocitiesisstillevidentasa redecliningfertilityrates.Itisanticipatedthati n t he f u t u r e t h e r e wi l l b e al ar ge i n fluxofyout hfromKrakówitselftootherpartsofthesuburban areasandcommutingzones,botho fwhic h wi ll som ewhatd epend ont hefuturerealestatem
arketandtheregion’soveralleconomicconditio ns.
Itseemsthatdespitetheyoungagecom- positionofnewsuburbani tes,fertilitybeha v-
iourassociatedwiththeseconddemographic
transitiondoesnothaveastrongimpactonthede celerationofpopulationageing.Thiscanbeanal ysedalongwiththeconceptofheteropolitanisati on,whichisinducedbybothglobalandlocalinfl uences.There-sultsfromapost-
socialistcitycancontributetoi n ternationalu r b a n t h e o ryi n t h a t m o d e rndemographiccha ngesinsuburbanareasaremorecomplexandsp atiallydifferentiated.Theprocessesdescribeda bovecouldalsobeap-pliedoutsidethepost- socialistcontext.
Acknowledgements
ThestudywasfundedbytheNationalScienceCent rebasedontheprojectdecisionnumberDEC-
2012/05/B/HS4/04200entitledthe"Transfor mationofselectedsocio-demograph-
icstructuresintheKrakówMetropolitanArea".
Editors’note:
Unlessotherwisestated,thesourcesoftablesandfigur esaretheauthors’,onthebasisoftheirownresearch.
References
BAYONA-CARRASCOJ.,GIL-ALONSOF.,2 012.Sub- urbanizationandinternationalImmigration:theca seoftheBarcelonaMetropolitanRegion(1998- 2009).Tijdschriftv oorEconomischeenSocialeGe ografie,vol.103,no.3,pp.312-329.
BOTEVN.,2012.PopulationageinginCentralandEa sternEuropeanditsdemographicandsocialcont ext.EuropeanJournalofAgeing,vol.9,no.1,pp.69- 79.
CHESHIREP.,1995.A newphaseofurbande- velopmentinWesternEurope?
Thee videncefort he1980s.UrbanStudies,v ol.3 2 ,no.7,pp.1045-1063.
CHINN.,2 0 0 2 .Unearthingtherootsofurbansprawl :Acriticalanalysisofform,functionandmethod ology.London:UniversityCollege,Lon- don,CentreforAdvancedSpatialAnalysis.
DROZGV.,2004.SpatialdevelopmentofSloveniantow nsinthelastdecade.Dela,21,pp.121-129.
FORDT.,1999.Understandingpopulationgrowthin theperi-urbanregion.InternationalJour- nalofPopulationGeography,vol.5,no.4,pp.297- 311.
GENTILEM . ,TAMMARUT.,VANKEMPENR.,2012.
Heteropolitanization:Socialandspatialchang einCentralandEastEuropeancities.Cities,vol.29, no.5,pp.291-299.
HAASEA.,KABISCHS.,STEINFÜHRERA.,BOUZAROVS-
KIS.,HALLR.,OGDENP.,2010.Emergentspacesofr eurbanization:Exploringthedemographicdi- mensionofinner-cityresidentialchangeinaEu- ropeansetting.Population,SpaceandPlace,vol.1 6,no.5,pp.443-463.
KABISCHN.,HAASED.,2011.DiversifyingEuropeanag glomerations:Evidenceofu r b a np o p u l a t i o n tr endsforthe21stCentury.Population,Spaceand Place,vol.17,no.3,pp.236-253.
KABISCHN.,HAASED . , HAASEA.,2012.Urbanpop- ulationdevelopmentinEurope,1991-
2008:Th eexamplesofPolanda n dt heUK.I n tern ationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,vol .36,no.6,pp.1326-1348.
KABISCHN.,HAASED.,HAASEA.,2 010.E volving reurbanisation?Spatio-temporaldynamicsasex- emplifiedbytheEastGermancityofLeipzig.Ur- banStudies,vol.47,no.5,pp.967-990.
KÅHRIKA.,TAMMARUT.,2 0 0 8 .Suburbanizationand residentialdifferentiationintheTallinnmet- ropolitanarea.UrbanStudies,vol.45,nos.5- 6,pp.1055-1078.
KERBLERB.,2015.PopulationaginginSlove- nia:A s p a t i a lperspective.ActaGeographicaSl ovenica,vol.55,no.2,DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.39 86/AGS.1885.
KROLLF.,KABISCHN.,2012.Therelationofdiverg- ingu r b a ng rowthp rocessesa n ddemographicc hangealo nga nurban-ruralgradient.Popula- tion,SpaceandPlace,vol.18,no.3,pp.260-276.
KUREKS.,2008.TypologiastarzeniasięludnościPol skiwujęciuprzestrzennym.Kraków:Wydaw- nictwoNaukoweAkademiiPedagogicznej.
KUREKS.,2011a.D ou bl e transitions?Regionalpat - ternso f p o p u l a t i o n a g e i n g i n Poland.G e o gr afis-
kaAnnaler:SeriesB,HumanGeography,vol.93,n o.2 , p p . 163-184.
KUREKS . ,2011b.Zmianywstrukturzewiekulud- nościPolskinatleprocesówsuburbanizacji[in:]
J.S łodczyk( e d . ) , P r o c e s y s u b u r b a n i z a c j i w w y-
branychmiastachPolski,StudiaMiejskie,3,pp.81-98.
KUREKS.,RACHWAŁT.,WÓJTOWICZM.,2014.Indus- triala n dcommercialsuburbanizationi npost- socialistcity:TheKrakówMetropolitanArea(Pola nd).AnnalesU niversitatisPaedagogicaeCracovi ensisStudiaGeographica,5,pp.55-76.
LEETMAAK.,TAMMARUT.,2007.Suburbanizationinc ountriesintransition:Destinationsofsubur- banizesin theTallinnMetropolitanArea.Ge o- grafiskaAnnaler:SeriesB.HumanGeography,v ol.89,no.2,pp.127-146.
LISOWSKIA.,GROCHOWSKIM.,2008.Procesysubur- banizacji.Uwarunkowania,formyikonsekwencje[i n:]EkspertyzydoKoncepcjiPrzestrzennegoZa- gospodarowaniaKraju2008-2033.Warszawa.
LORDS.,LUXEMBOURGN.,2006.Themobilityofel- derlyresidentslivinginsuburbanterritories.Journ alofHousingfortheElderly,vol.20,no.4,pp.103- 121.
MARCIŃCZAKS.,2 012.T h e evolutiono f s p a t i a l p a t -
ternso f residentials e gregationi n C e n t ralE u ro- peanC i t i e s : T h e Ł ódźFunctionalUrbanRegionf romm a t u res o c i a l i s m tom a t u rep o s t - s o c i a l i s m.Cities,vol.2 9 , n o . 5 , p p . 3 0 0 - 3 0 9 . MIHAIB . , NISTORC . , SIMIONG . ,2015.Post-socialist
urbangrowthofBucharest,Romania–
Achangedetectiona n a lysisonLandsati m a g e r y(1984-
2010).ActaGeographicaSlovenica,vol.55,no.2 , D O I : h t t p : / / d x . d o i . o r g / 10.3986/AGS .709
OUŘEDNIČEKM.,2003.SuburbanizacePrahy.CzechS ociologicalReview,vol.39,no.2,pp.235-253.
OUŘEDNIČEKM.,2007.Differentialsuburbandevel- opmentinthePragueUrbanRegion.Geografis- kaAnnaler:SeriesB.HumanGeography,vol.89,no.2, pp.11-126.
OUŘEDNÍČEKM.,TEMELOVÁJ.,2 0 0 9 . Twentyyears aftersocialism:ThetransformationofPrague’si nnerstructure.StudiaUniversitatisBabeş-Bolyai –Sociologia,vol.54,no.1,pp.9-30.
PAVLOVAM.K.,SILBEREISENR.K.,2012.Perceivedlev- elandappraisalofthegrowingexpectationsforacti veageingamongtheyoung-
oldinGermany.ResearchonAging,vol.34,no.1,pp.
80-99.
PHILLIPSM.,2 010.Counterurbanisationa n dru- ralg e n t rification:Anexplorationoft heterms.Popul ation,SpaceandPlace,v ol.16,no.6,pp.5 3 9 - 5 5 8 .
PICHLER-
MILANOVIĆN.,2014.Europeanurbansprawl:Su stainability,culturesof(anti)urbanismand“hyb ridcityscapes”.Dela,27,pp.101-133.
PZPWM,2003.PlanZagospodarowaniaPrze- strzennegoW ojewództwaMałopolskiego.Kr aków:UrządMarszałkowskiWojewództwaMało polskiego.
REBERNIKD.,2004.RecentdevelopmentofSloveneto wns–
Socialstructureandtransformation.Dela,21,pp.
139-144.
REESP.,VANDERGAAGN.,D EBEERJ.,HEINSF., 2012.Europeanr egionalpopulations:Currenttr ends,futurepathways,andpolicyoptions.Europ eanJournalofPopulation,vol.28,no.4,pp.385 -416.
ROGERSA.,RAYMERJ.,1999.Theregionaldemo- graphicsoftheelderlyforeign-bornandnative- bornpopulationsintheUnitedStatessince1950.R esearchonAging,vol.21,no.1,pp.3-35.
ROSENBLOOMS.,2003.Themobilityneedsofold- erAmericans:Implicationsfortransportationrea uthorization.TransportationR eformSe- ries,Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution,http s://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/up- loads/2016/06/20030807_Rosenbloom.pdf[
3January2016].
SEDLAKOVAA.,2005.Thecity-
peripherymigrationandt hep rocessofsuburba nizationi nCzechandSlovakpost-
communistcities[in:]T.Michal-
ski(ed.),GeographicalAspectsofTransformation ProcessinCentralandEast-CentralEurope,Pelp- lin:Wydawnictwo-Bernardinum,pp.71-78..
SHARMAA.,2012.Thec hainisonlyasstrongasthe weakestl in k : O l d e r a d u l t m i grationa n d thef irstmove.ResearchonAging,vol.35,no.5,pp.507 -532.
SHUCKSMITHM.,2011.Exclusiverurality:Planners asagentsofgentrification.Interface,Plann i ng,TheoryandPractice,vol.12,no.4,pp.605-611.
SONGL.,LIS.,FELDMANM.W.,2012.Out-migration ofyoungadultsandgenderdivisionofintergen- erationalsupportinruralChina.ResearchonAg- ing,vol.34,no.4,pp.399-424.
STEINFÜHRERA.,BIERZYŃSKIA.,GROSSMANK.,HAASEA., KABISCHS . , KLUSÁCEKP.,2 010.Popu-
lationdeclineinPolishandCzechcitiesdurin gpost-socialism?Lookingbehindtheofficialstatis- tics.UrbanStudies,vol.47,no.11,pp.2325-2346
STEINFÜHRERA.,HAASEA.,2 0 07.Demographic changeasa futurechallengeforcitiesinEast
70 SławomirKurek•MirosławWójtowicz•JadwigaGałka CentralEurope.GeografiskaAnnaler:SeriesB.Hu-
manGeography,vol.89,no.2,pp.183-195.
STOCKDALEA.,2011.Areviewofdemographicage- ingintheUK:Opportunitiesforruralresearch.Po pulation,SpaceandPlace,v ol.17,no.3,pp.204- 221.
STOCKDALEA.,CATNEYG.,2014.Alifecourseper- spectiveonurban-ruralm i gration:Thei mpor- tanceofthelocalcontext.Population,SpaceandPlac e,vol.20,no.1,pp.83-98.
SWIACZNYF.,GRAZEP.,SCHLÖMERC.,2008.Spatial impactsofdemographicc hangei nGermany:Urb anPopulationProcessesReconsidered.Zeitschr iftfürBevölkerungswissenschaft,vol.33,no.2,pp.1 81-205.
SÝKORAL.,BOUZAROVSKIS.,2012.Multipletransfor- mations:Conceptualisingt hepost-
communisturbantransition.UrbanStudies,vol.49 ,no.1,pp.43-60.
SÝKORAL.,OUŘEDNÍČEKM.,2 0 07.S p rawlingp o s t - communistmetropolis:Commercialandresi- dentialsuburbanisationinPragueandBrno,theCz echRepublic[in:]E.Razin,M.Dijst,
C.Vázquez(eds.),EmploymentDeconcentra- tioni nEuropeanM etropolitanAreas:M a rketFor cesversusPlanningRegulations.Dordrecht:Sprin ger,pp.209-233.
VANDENBERGL.,DREWETTR.,KLAASENL.H.,ROSSIA.,VIJV ERBERGC.H.T.,1982.UrbanEu-
rope:A studyofg rowtha n ddecline.Oxford:Perga monPress.
WALFORDN.S.,KUREKS.,2 0 0 8 .Acomparative analysisofpopulationageinginurbanandruralare asofEnglandandWales,andPolandoverthelastthr eecensusintervals.Population,SpaceandPlace,v ol.14,no.5,pp.365-386.
ZBOROWSKIA.,2005.Przemianystrukturyspołecz- no-
przestrzennejregionumiejskiegowokresierealn egosocjalizmui t ransformacjiustrojowej(naprzy kładzieKrakówa).Kraków:InstytutGeo- grafiiiGospodarkiPrzestrzennejUniwersytetuJa giellońskiego.
ZBOROWSKIA.,CHABERKOT.,GRADN.,KRETOWICZP., 2010.DelimitacjaKrakowskiegoObszaruMetro- politalnego[in:]Badaniefunkcji,potencjałuoraztr endówrozwojowychmiastwwojewództwiemałop olskim,Elaborat,Kraków:UrządMarszał- kowskiWojewództwaMałopolskiego.
ZEITLERE.,BUYSL.,AIRDR.,MILLERE.,2012.Mobil- ityandactiveageinginsuburbanenvironments:Fin dingsfromin-depthin terviewsa n dperson- basedGPStracking.CurrentGerontologyandGe riatricsResearch,vol.2012,no.3,pp.1-10.
©SławomirKurek•MirosławWójtowicz•JadwigaGałka
©GeographiaPolonica
©InstituteofGeographyandSpatialOrganization PolishAcademyofSciences•Warsaw•2017
Articlefirstreceived•May2016Ar ticleaccepted•February2017
