XIV А А А АК ИЯ В ’2014 14th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2014 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS, URBANIZATION AND URBAN SPRAWL IN SOFIA, ROME AND BELGRADE Peter Nikolov 1 Varna Free University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies Abstract: There is a clear relationship between the population growth, population density, growth of the urban areas and the processes of Sprawl. As urban Sprawl does, the urban growth also usually leads to an expansive enlargement of the urban areas. The essential difference is that the general growth of the city is the reason for the increase in the density of occupation, while Sprawl is characterized by decreasing density. Therefore, for this study is particularly important to investigate two of the major factors related to the processes of growth and / or Sprawl in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome: - First, the growth of the urban area , and - Second, the changes in the density of habitation. Key words: urban sprawl, drivers of urban sprawl, urbanization, population growth, population density 1. Introduction Globally population of the major cities, agglomerations and especially their capitals is constantly growing, and this process occurs at different rates in different parts of the world[1]. Urban population growth leads to an urban increase and a spatial restructuring of the urban areas, showing as a change in the environment, living conditions, infrastructure, distribution of the social - utilities and the functional zoning. Europe is not staying behind the common global trends, moreover historically it has always been a highly urbanized continent. The ever increasing per capita consumption of urban land is putting a high development pressures for urbanization of the suburban areas. In its report of 2006 EEA published data for more than a double difference in urban (78% ) and population (33%) growth in Europe from the 1950s to around 1990 [2]. Over the last 20 years the trend is maintained, and according to Jansson et al. 2009, cited by Ravetz et al 2013, it is mainly as a result of increased numbers of households and the reduction of their size. These facts are showing a trend towards continued de-concentration and urban sprawl, which in the form of low density, discontinuous and dispersed urban development is now a common phenomenon throughout Europe [2]. Many researchers ( Ravbar, 1997; Timár and Váradi, 2001; Brown and Schafft, 2002; Tammaru et al., 2004; Sýkora and Novák, 2007 ), cited by Krisjane, Z. and Berzins, M. ( 2010 ) [3], have claimed that suburbanisation in central and eastern Europe (CEE) at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of 21st century was one of the most visible 1 Peter Nikolov, MArch, Chaika Resort, 9007 Varna, Bulgaria, e-mail: peter.n.nikolov@gmail.com XIV А А А АК ИЯ В ’2014 14th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2014 processes of socio-spatial restructuring. The process is mainly described with the suburban and hinterlands growth of big cities and capitals as a result of population migration from the compact city, and often from other settlements. Suburbanisation is mostly evident in the suburbs of capital cities and centers of economic activity and is one of the many reasons for uncontrolled expansion of the urban areas, defined as urban sprawl. Issues concerning urban sprawl are considered in a significant amount of literature, but still it can not be claimed that there is a uniform definition for the process. However, from all the definitions perhaps the most - short is that of Brueckner (2000)[4], who argues that sprawl can be characterized as “excessive spatial growth of cities”. Of course this definition is too general, as sprawl is a multifactorial phenomenon ( Galster et al, Malpezzi, Torrens and Alberti, Ewing et al, Brueckner и др.). For the needs of this study, urban sprawl needs to be examined in the aspect of demographic processes, as part of the socio - economic factors driving sprawl. And as Ewing et al (2002)[5] concluded for the presence of sprawl can be claimed when the urban growth rate significantly exceeds the population growth rate. Suburbanisation and urban sprawl as its negative trend can be mainly divided into two patterns [6], occuring most frequently : - Western type, characterized mostly with processes of intra - urban migration led by upper- and upper-middle-class population, searching for a better living standart in sparsely inhabitated areas adjacent to natural environment, and - Eastern type, characterized mostly with processes of rural-to-urban migration, in search for a better job and salary. 2. Object and subject of the research For object of the current research are selected three capital cities - Sofia, Belgrade and Rome. Subject of the research are the demographic and urbanization processes that took place there during the 2001-2011 period. This period was chosen deliberately so, because of its coinciding with cycles of the official national censuses. The analysis of these processes is intended to show to what extent one can speak of suburbanization with patterns of urban sprawl in the peripheral areas of the examined cities. This will be done in terms of the most - widely spread and known indicator for the presence of sprawl - the population density (Ewing et al 2002)[5]. During the study of demographic and urbanization dynamics will be made an attempt to determine the type of suburbanisation – eastern or western. 3. Specifics in the historical development and the administrative structure of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome. Historicaly the development of former socislist countries differs substantially from that of the capitalist countries. As a result of the lack of a free market and the presence of a centralized planning (Pichler-Milanovic, 2009)[7] Sofia and Belgrade till 1990 grew much more compact from the capitalist Rome. That’s why during the communist period, the process of suburbanisation has not been so significant in Bulgaria and Serbia. But with the collapse of the socialist system and the creation of new capitalist societies countries of the Eastern bloc faced the negative effects of the loss of certain markets, an increase in interior and exterior migration and the impoverishment of significant parts of the society. As very important factors, heavily interrupting the development of former Yugoslavia and having serious consequences on the development of Belgrade between 1990 and 2000 must be considered the division of the country, the subsequent military conflicts and the embargo imposed by NATO. At the same time Bulgaria experienced some periods of high inflation and a severe economic crisis, which also slowed its development and caused significant demographic changes. Sofia, as the capital of Bulgaria, XIV А А А АК ИЯ В ’2014 14th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2014 due to these reasons, in the transition period experienced a population decline and decrease in its economic development . With respect to Rome at this stage of the research this was not studied. In terms of their administrative structure it is difficult to identify interdependencies for the three cities, although in terms of administrative - spatial division all the three capitals are classified into NUTS3 territorial level. In fact, in all the three Countries under review, considering the administrative units, we have subdivisions extremely varied: both as regards the areas of jurisdiction, both in the number of administrative levels. It is therefore hard to draw clear interconnections and relationships between the capitals Sofia, Belgrade and Rome based on administrative - spatial characteristics. 4. Analysis of the population and urban growth dynamics in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome during the 2001 – 2011 period. There is a clear relationship between the population growth and density, the urban growth and the processes of sprawl. Usually urban growth is manifested by uniformity and simultaneousness in the territory and density increase, while sprawl trends towards anticipating growth of the urban areas compared to population growth rates, which leads to a low population density. Therefore, for the present research is essential to study two major factors related to the processes of growth and/or sprawl in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome: - First, the changes in the density, and - Second, the growth of the urban area. According to MOLAND [8] data, between 2000 and 2006, the total urbanized area in all the three agglomerations reviewed grew as also their population did. This indicates that Sofia, Belgrade and Rome are indeed growing. For the period from 2000 to 2006 the urban territory of Sofia region increased by 2.2%, while for the same period the population grew by almost 6%. For Rome the figures are almost 5% average growth of urbanized areas and only 0.36% population growth. For Belgrade the data is still not full. Considering the facts available they didn’t show any evidence of sprawl for the region of Sofia. On the contrary is the municipality of Rome, where the urban growth outpaces 14 times the population growth which is an indication of city sprawling. The analysis in this section focuses initially on the quantitative indicators concerning the population dynamics in the examined different areas of the case study cities. Demographic characteristics and assessments of the demographic status of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome are based on analyzes of certain number of demographic indicators – population growth, population density and migration. To outline certain demographic trends, the course of demographic processes over the last 10 years (2001 – 2011) is monitored in the present paper. The data shows processes of uniformly population distribution over the period in Sofia- city and Sofia region, while the processes in Belgrade and especially in Rome are towards greater increase in the region than in the compact city. 4.1 Sofia In contrast to the situation between 1991 and 2000 (From 1,190,126 people in 1992, the population of Sofia-city dropped to 1,170,842 in 2001) during the last decade in the demographic development of the city, continuing positive trends are observed [9]. The mechanical movement of the population (internal migration) strongly influences on its number and structure in Sofia, especially given the enduring trend for negative levels of natural population growth throughout the period. Over the past ten years, the mechanical movement in the area remained relatively the same, without substantial deviations observed – newcomers are always more than the leaving ones. The amount of the positive mechanical growth is quite large, which is explainable by the fact that the capital city is an XIV А А А АК ИЯ В ’2014 14th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2014 attractive place for living mainly due to the significantly better, compared to other areas, economic conditions. The demographic development of the different districts of Sofia is not uniform and, in fact, considerable differences might be observed that reflect, above all, the trends of suburbanization. Suburban districts of Sofia, according to their level of influence on the distribution of population in the area can be combined into two main groups: - Northern comprising Vrabnitsa, Novi Iskar and Kremikovtsi, and - Southern, comprising Vitosha, Ovcha kupel and Pancherevo. Northern suburban areas show an average population and density change at the rate of 4.1%, which is two times lower than the average for the urban areas. At the same time for the southern suburban areas the average rate gains 26.5 percent, equal to more than six times the average growth in the northern regions and three times the average for the compact city [9]. And it is clear that the processes of inter-urban and intra-urban migration in the metropolis of Sofia Municipality, during the considered decade have been obviously focused mostly on the southern suburban areas, near Vitosha mountain, and not to the northern territories of Sofia. These facts are evidence of serious investment interests namely to the southern territories, and it is reasonable to suggest that right there may eventually be sought a faster land urbanization, which is a precondition to talk about suburbanization with urban sprawl. 4.2 Belgrade During the considered ten-year period, between the last censuses, the population of Belgrade grew by nearly 8%. Given the fact that from the 1992 Census until now the city recorded a constant negative natural growth, it can certainly be claimed that population increase in the region is entirely due to mechanical growth [10]. A major share in it, during the nineties of the twentieth century have war refugees in the former Yugoslav republics, and later settlers from Kosovo and Metohija. Certainly part of the immigrants come from other parts of Serbia, but all have one in common - the search for a better socio-economic conditions for living. Suburban territories of Belgrade, as these in Sofia, do not develop equally. There are significant demographic differences between them, primarily reflecting trends towards suburbanisation. According to their degree of impact on the allocation of population into the area, as well as according to their geographical location two main groups can be determined: - Suburban 1( S1 ), located in a direct contact with the compact city, to the north of it and including: Barajevo, Grocka and Surčin and - Suburban 2( S2 ), located in the southern part of the municipality and including: Lazarevac, Mladenovac, Obrenovac and Sopot. The three areas of S1 group, during the period of 2001-2011, averaged a population and density of occupation change at 11.4%, which is more than ten points higher compared to the average for the S2 group (0.93%) [10]. It can be clearly seen that the processes of inter- and intra-urban migration in the Belgrade municipality during the analysed decade were mainly focused on the suburban areas from the first group, but not to the southern, end areas of the second group. But also it is of great importance to note the strong trend of depopulation in the central areas where the historical center lost between 8 and 15 per cent of its population. 4.3 Rome For a period of twenty years between the censuses of 1981 and 2001, the population of Rome was steadily decreasing but from 2001 to 2011 there is a slight increase in the compact city and almost a triple in the greater province of Rome. Having regard the data XIV А А А АК ИЯ В ’2014 14th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2014 from the "Annuario Statistico 2011, Roma" [11], it can be clearly seen that during that period the number of registered foreigners in Rome increased a lot. Therefore, from 18.3% population growth in suburban areas of Rome, more than one third is due to the settlement of foreign nationals. Considering these data and the data for the “ Municipios ” in urban core it can be concluded that there is not enough evidence for significant processes of migration from central to suburban areas of Rome, and the growth in suburban areas is mainly due to inter-urban migration wave of immigrants. Various suburban areas of Rome as well as those of Sofia and Belgrade, demographically also do not grow in a uniform pattern. Among them there are substantial differences, some of which reflect the trends towards suburbanization. After a thorough review of "Annuario Statistico 2011, Roma", it turned out that the suburban areas that registered the highest growth during the period are actually the ones with the youngest population and the greatest percentage of foreigners. Based on these indications were established two basic groups of suburban areas: - Suburban 1 ( S1 ), including municipios VIII, XII, XIII and XX, and - Suburban 2 ( S2 ), including municipios IV, IX and XIX. S1 group areas, for the period between 2001-st and 2011-th, averaged a population and density of occupation change at 25.7%, which is three times higher - than the average for urban and S2 areas. Meanwhile for the last the average rate is 8.9%, which is comparable to that achieved for the compact city [11]. It is absolutely clear that the processes of inter and intra-urban migration in Roma Capitale, during the analyzed decade obviously have been focused mainly on the suburban areas of S1 group. These facts lead to the assumption that there is a strong interest faced to these particular areas, so it is reasonable to suggest that right there may eventually be sought an anticipative urbanization of land, which is a precondition to speak of suburbanization with urban sprawl. Conclusion All three cities, object of the research, recorded an overall increase of the population and the urban territory during the examined period. Although the demographic development of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, to varying degrees, shows a trend of negative natural growth. They all marked a population increase but while in Belgrade the rate change in the compact city and the peripheral areas are comparable in Rome and Sofia the population growth in the periphery outpaces the increase in the compact city. The data themselves are certainly a strong evidence of significant suburbanization. And since all three cities recorded a negative natural and positive mechanical growth in the period considered, it can be certainly argued that the population growth is due to their mechanical growth owed to the different migration processes. However because at this stage of the research there is no suficient data available for the urbanized area of each of the municipalities of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome throughout the given period, and though the significant population growth in most of the suburban areas it can only be suggested for processes of urban sprawl and their intensity. Despite this, the three capital cities can be treated as comparatively compact urban forms, with high densities in the compact city – something very common for South-eastern and Southern Europe. Acknowledgement This paper is a result of the research carried out within the scientific project “Transition towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability” (TURAS) funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the EC. XIV А А А АК ИЯ В ’2014 14th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE VSU'2014 REFERENCES [1] United Nations,Department of Economic and Social Affairs, PopulationDivision. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/urbanization/index [2] EEA (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 10/2006 [3] Krisjane, Z. and Berzins, M., 2010. Post-socialist Urban Trends: New Patterns and Motivations for Migration in the Suburban Areas of Rıga, Latvia [4] Brueckner, J.K., 2000a. Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies. International Regional Science Review 23, 160-171 [5] Ewing, R., Pendall R., Chen, D. (2002), Measuring Sprawl and its Impact, Volume 1 (Technical Report), Washington D.C.: Smart Growth America, www.smartgrowthamerica.org [6] Hirt,S., 2007a. Suburbanizing Sofia: characteris¬tics of post-socialist peri-urban change, Urban Geography, 28(8), pp 755–780 [7] Pichler-Milanovich, N., 2009. Тhe process and pattern(s) of residential sprawl in postsocialist cities: a story of Leipzig-Ljubljana-Warsaw, Studia universitatis BabeşBolyai, sociologia, liv, 1, 2009 [8] http://moland.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.htm [9] National Statistical Institute, 2012a. Census 2011, Sofia (Capital). Sofia, Bulgaria [10] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 2012 [11] Annuario Statistico 2011, Roma, dicembre 2011, U.O. Statistica e Censimento Sistema Statistico Nazionale