5_Kubes_Novacek.indd 65Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.68.1.5 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 2019 (1) 65–78. Introduction While strong residential suburbanisation in Northwest Europe occurred after World War II, this was not the case in the socialist part of Europe (Musil, J. and Ryšavý, Z. 1983; Sze- lényi, I. 1983; Bertaud, A. and Renaud, B.M. 1997 and others). The construction of prefabri- cated housing estates on the edges of socialist cities, especially for people coming from ru- ral areas, cannot be considered as suburbani- sation. It was the territorial and population growth of these cities in urbanization. The ex- pansion of the second home recreational cab- ins and cottages to the hinterlands of Czech and other CEE socialist cities is sometimes re- ferred to as “second home” or “seasonal sub- urbanisation” (Ouředníček, M. 2007; Vágner, J. et al. 2011; Makhrova, A.G. et al. 2016). Real residential suburbanisation did not have fa- vourable conditions in the period of socialism in this region. People did not have enough money to build a new family house, there were no developers and construction compa- nies focused on this type of individual con- struction, there was a lack of building material and the level of car was low (Kubeš, J. 2015a and others). The only scholars who confirmed the weak socialist residential suburbanisation around larger CEE cities were Tammaru, T. (2001) around Tallinn, Brade, I. et al. (2009) near Budapest or Mantey, D. and Sudra, P. (2018) around Warsaw. Since the second half of the 1990s, the situation has changed – suburbanisation be- came the most significant process transform- ing settlement system in post-socialist CEE countries (Borén, T. and Gentile, M. 2007, 1 University of South Bohemia, Department of Geography, Jeronýmova 10, 371 15 České Budějovice, Czech Republic. E-mails: kubes@pf.jcu.cz, anovacek@pf.jcu.cz Suburbs around the Czech provincial city of České Budějovice – territorial arrangement and problems Jan KUBEŠ 1and Aleš NOVÁČEK1 Abstract The article is a contribution to discussions about the territorial arrangement of suburbs, their types and other settlements in suburban zones around post-socialist CEE provincial cities, based on the example of the South Bohemian “one-hundred-thousand” city of České Budějovice, including territorial development problems of suburbs and other settlements. Suburbs, separated from the city by free space, originate there from the original villages. These suburbs are population-growing settlements with the majority of flats in newer houses, immigrants from the city and economically active people working in the city (based on census data and ongoing registrations). Nearby, moderately distant and more distant suburbs occur in three concentric suburban sub-zones around the examined city, in which the population and spatial size of the suburbs gradu- ally diminish. Semi-suburbs with partial suburbanisation and small towns also occur there. The territorial development problems of some suburbs are mainly associated with the disordered (sub)urban sprawl, the inadequate architecture of new houses, the poor quality and capacity of the technical infrastructure, the lack of public transport connections to the city, the absence and low capacity of kindergartens and elementary schools, clashes with recreational second homes, the lack of greenery and the losses of agricultural land. Keywords: suburbanisation, suburbs, small towns, suburb zone, post-socialist city, Czechia Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.66 and others). Sýkora, L. and Stanilov, K. (2014) described this process of the massive construction of suburban family houses in the hinterlands of the larger post-socialist Central European and Baltic cities after 2000 as a “post-socialist suburban revolution”. Commercial suburbanisation began in the mid-1990s (Nuissl, N. and Rink, D. 2005 – Leipzig; Sýkora, L. and Ouředníček, M. 2007 – Prague and Brno). The process of residential suburbanisation started shortly afterwards in the hinterland of Budapest and big East German cities (see Kok, H. and Kovács, Z. 1999, or Brown, D.L. and Schafft, K.A. 2002). In the Eastern part of Germany, this was ac- companied by a marked fall in the popula- tion of cities (also due to migration to the western part of Germany; Bontje, M. 2005; Nuissl, N. and Rink, D. 2005). Only since 1997 has residential suburbanisation begun to appear in the hinterlands of other Central European post-socialist big cities and at the time of the turn of the millennium around CEE provincial cities (Hardi, T. 2002 – Hungarian Győr; Matlovič, R. and Sedláková, A. 2007 – Slovakian Prešov; Halás, M. et al. 2012 – Moravian Olomouc; Szczepańska, A. and Senetra, A. 2012 – Polish Olsztyn; Novotný, L. 2012 – Slovakian Košice). After the strong development of the first decade of the new millennium, residential suburbanisation has weakened somewhat in this region due to the previous strong development, the ongoing economic crisis and the ending population shrinking of cities (Haase, A. and Rink, D. 2015; Kubeš, J. 2015a). The above and further studies on CEE sub- urbanisation have focused on suburban mi- gration (1), the population growth of suburbs and suburban zones (2), also in comparison with the population development of cities in the background of the processes of urbani- sation, suburbanisation and reurbanisation (3), the demographic and social structure of residents in suburbs (4), the daily mobility of these residents (5), the residential satisfac- tion of immigrants in the suburbs and their coexistence with native inhabitants (6), the development of suburban house construction (7), commercial suburbanisation (8) and the transformation of land cover in connection with suburbanisation (9). Studies on the ter- ritorial arrangement of suburbs and other types of settlements in the suburban zones (10) and the territorial development prob- lems of these types of settlements (11), which are important for this article, are discussed in the third and fourth chapter. This article is a contribution to discus- sions about the delimitation and territorial arrangement of suburbs, their types and other settlements in suburban zones around post- socialist CEE provincial cities based on the example of the South Bohemian “one-hun- dred-thousand” city of České Budějovice. Attention is also paid to the territorial devel- opment problems of the suburbs and other set- tlements around this city. The article deals with “outer suburbs”, which are separated by open space from the continuously urban- ised city area (hereinafter referred to as “sub- urbs”). The need to clarify the post-socialist CEE suburbanisation, specifically in the hinterland of provincial cities, comes in the first step. The next step is to investigate the territorial arrangement of types of suburbs and other settlements around that city. The reason is also the fact that the territorial de- velopment problems of settlements located in the suburban zone (the last step) are related to their type. Suburbanisation around large and provincial cities in post-socialist CEE The post-socialist CEE residential suburbani- sation is perceived as a process that began in the second half of the 1990s (after a long socialist period with no or little socialist residential suburbanization) in the course of which some inhabitants from the continu- ously urbanised area of the city (hereinafter referred to as “the city”) began to migrate into villages, small cities and other enclaves in the near hinterland of this city. It is es- pecially new suburban family houses that are being built for these mostly younger 67Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78. middle-income incomers forming families with children. They and other inhabitants of suburbs are connected with the city by daily commuting for work and services. The aforementioned villages and other set- tlement enclaves are gradually becoming (outer ) suburbs in this way. Due to the de- scribed suburban migration, the population of suburbs is growing and rejuvenating while it is decreasing and aging in the city. Authors from post-socialist CEE define post-socialist CEE residential suburbanisation and suburbs similarly (Ouředníček, M. 2003; Tammaru, T. et al. 2009 and others). In the hinterlands of large post-socialist CEE cities, suburbs are growing mainly from villages, but also from small towns, pre-war or socialist suburban enclaves and socialist recreational cabin settlements. Only some- times do new suburbs arise as new settle- ments on “greenfields”. Particularly in the closest suburban sub-zone of these large cit- ies, the transformation of the landscape is very strong, sometimes chaotic, creating par- tially interconnected “carpets” and belts of new solitary and row family houses, less often multi-apartment houses and commercial ar- eas (see Hirt, S. 2007 – around Sofia; Mantey, D. and Sudra, P. 2018 – Warsaw). Commercial suburbanization is strengthening there after the completion of the motorway network (Sýkora, L. and Ouředníček, M. 2007). Around the smaller provincial CEE cit- ies, the post-socialist suburbs gradually grew out of the near lying villages (derived from maps in Matlovič, R. and Sedláková, A. 2007; Czaková, G. 2009; Halás, M. et al. 2012; Novotný, L. 2012; Repaská, G. et al. 2017). The emergence of suburbs as new settlements is the exception here (Kubeš, J. 2015b). New family houses for migrants from the provincial city are built in smaller groups at the edges of former villages or on open plots inside them (Zębik, G. 2011); less often these are significantly reconstructed village houses. In these suburbs live the original ru- ral inhabitants which work mainly in agricul- ture, original rural inhabitants who are com- muting to work to the city and new incomers from the city commuting to work to the city. Non-residential suburbanisation is usually weak around provincial cities, because in the fringe parts of these cities, there is enough space for the development of commercial and industrial activities. Types of suburbs and the spatial extent of suburbanisation in post-socialist CEE The intensity of suburban migration was a frequent criterion for “statistical” typologies of suburbs in CEE. Using suburban migration, Leetmaa, K. and Tammaru, T (2007) defined nearby and distant suburbs and also satellite small towns in the hinterland of the city of Tallinn in Estonia. Tanaś, J. (2013) did it simi- larly around Poznań. On the basis of suburban migration and also construction of suburban homes, Špačková, P. et al. (2016) identified 4 zones of residential suburbanization in the hinterland of Prague and other Czech towns. Suburban migrations, prices and the numbers of transactions involving building plots near the Polish city of Olsztyn were input data for the typology of suburban municipalities in Szczepańska, A. and Senetra, A. (2012). A com- prehensive approach was chosen by Halás, M. et al. (2012), when they identified types of sub- urban municipalities on the basis of suburban migration, commuting to work and the con- struction of flats in the hinterland of the Mora- vian city of Olomouc. Marcińczak, S. (2012) defines suburban belts around Łódź according to commuting to work. Also in Tammaru, T. (2005), different intensities of commuting to work from suburbs to the city form two subur- ban sub-zones around Tallinn. Vobecká, J. and Piguet, V. (2012) took a similar approach to the hinterlands of the cities in the Czech Repub- lic. The typology of suburban municipalities in Šveda, M. et al. (2016) is based on extensive statistics on migration, the construction of flats, their prices and the structure of land-use. Other authors define morphological typolo- gies of suburbs in CEE. Zębik, G. (2011) and Repaská, G. et al. (2017) developed a typol- ogy of suburbs in Poland and Slovakia on the Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.68 basis of the space-structural arrangement of new houses in suburbs formed from earlier villages. Dinić, M. and Mitković, P. (2016) delineated protrusions of new suburban fab- ric penetrating from the city to the surround- ing landscape and suburban-rural satellites. Existing typologies of suburbs use three alternative approaches: statistical, based on available data; morphological, based on a de- tailed analysis of spatial structures and ge- netic; each with certain limitations – Mantey, D. and Sudra, P. (2018). The authors created a morphological typology of Warsaw’s sub- urbs, when they first determined the spatial scale (block, neighbourhood, settlement, dis- trict or municipality) and then evaluated the period of origin, the prevailing type of invest- ment, access to the city by public transport, and finally determined the morphology of suburbs in the form of the spatial interaction of suburban fabric with the city (linear, leap frogging, etc.) the prevailing type of street layout (street grid, cul-de-sac streets, along a main street). The ground plan, height, vol- ume and shape of the building are evaluated as secondary, as well as the connection to the original settlements. Sýkora, L. and Ouředníček, M. (2007) delineated two zones of suburban munici- palities in the Prague hinterland, the first is located between the continuously urbanised Prague and the administrative boundary of this city, while the second is defined by sur- rounding municipalities with a greater con- struction of suburban houses and a higher level of commuting to work to the city. Kok, H. and Kovács, Z. (1999) identified 4 types of municipalities in Budapest’s hinterland from the point of view of their representa- tives’ willingness to construct houses in their area for inhabitants from Budapest. The spatial extent of post-socialist CEE subur- banisation mostly depends on the population size of the city. Suburbs can now be found up to 25–30 kilometres from the edge of a city in the case of one-millionth Prague or Warsaw (especially along highways and railroads), 20 kilometres in the case of Czech Brno, Estonian Tallinn or Slovakian Bratislava with 400,000 inhabitants (derived from Kährik, A. and Tammaru, T. 2008; Špačková, P. et al. 2016; Šveda, M. et al. 2016; Wolny, A. and Źróbek, R. 2017) and up to 13 kilometres in the case of the Bohemian provincial one-hun- dred-thousand city of České Budějovice and similarly sized cities in post-socialist Central Europe (Matlovič, R. and Sedláková, A 2007 – Slovakian Prešov; Czaková, G. 2009 – Slovakian Nitra; Halás, M. et al. 2012 – Moravian Olomouc). However, the defini- tion of suburbs in studies is important in this respect. Western typologies of suburbs reflect several decades of development of suburbanisation. The North American urban scholars have cre- ated a number of studies focused on the types of US and Canadian suburbs (see references in Bourne, L.S. 1996, or Mikelbank, B.A. 2004). They are coming out of socio-economic, de- mographic, ethnic, functional, morphologi- cal, developmental and positional features of suburbs (Brown, M.A. 1981; Logan, J.R. and Golden, R.M. 1986; Orfield, M. 2002; Mikelbank, B.A. 2004; Hanlon, B. 2009; Hall, M. and Lee, B. 2010 and others). Some American and Canadian suburbs are larger than the towns of Central and Eastern Europe. Some suburbs are 50 or more km away from the city (Davis, J.S. et al. 1994, or Mikelbank, B.A. 2004). It is a quantitatively, qualitatively and developmentally (historically) different story. In CEE countries, there is not yet experi- ence with the US very far “exurbs” (Davis, J.S. et al. 1994), very large “superb-urbs” (Bourne, L.S. 1996), “ethnic suburbs” (Hanlon, B. 2009) or the suburban “edge cities” (Garreau, J. 1992) with many job opportunities and ser- vices for suburban people. There are few publications dedicated to the distinction and characteristics of suburbs around Western European cities. Baccaini, B. (1997) characterizes the demographic types of Parisian suburbs, Bontje, M. and Burdack, J. (2005) sought the analogy of American “edge cities” around Paris and in central Holland, Montagné Villette, S. and Hardill, I. (2007) described spatial peripher- ies, social peripheries or communities with 69Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78. a cultural identity in the suburban zone of Paris, and Motte-Baumvol, B. et al. (2010) de- fined variously car-dependent outer Parisian suburbs. Studies on suburbanisation in Great Britain and the diversity of British suburbs, especially in Greater London, are more nu- merous – Vaughan, L. et al. (2009) and the literature in this study. The London suburbs have been developing for over 200 years. In recent years, many have been physically and socially transformed. Study area The provincial, second- to third-tier, “one- hundred-thousand” city of České Budějovice is based on the Vltava River in South Bohemia, 130 km to the south of Prague and 60 km to the north of Linz in Austria. It is the capital of the South Bohemian Region, which had 640,000 inhabitants in 2017. Currently (2017), the city (continuously urbanised area) has 91,978 inhabitants, compared with 98,026 in 1998, when post-socialist suburbanisation began there. The decline is mainly due to emigration to suburbs (suburban migration). The latest data over the past 5 years shows population stabilization. The municipality of the city is slightly larger because it also includes several suburbs and villages near the city. On the basis of the suburbanisation defined, the agglomeration of the city of České Budějovice includes the city, suburbs, semi-suburbs and small towns in suburbanised hinterland, including two villages inside it. Based on the analyses done in this article, at present (2017), about 32,500 people live in 53 suburbs and others in semi-suburbs and small towns Unlike in other Czech cities, there was weak suburbanisation during socialism between 1970 and 1989. Non-residential suburbanisa- tion is weak in the study area. For a long time, the city has been waiting for the construction of a freeway from Prague to Linz, which is currently being built on the eastern edge of the city and which will attract commercial suburbanisation. Methodology of delimitation, typology and analysis of suburbs around the provincial city of České Budějovice Delimitation of suburbs The delimitation and typology of suburbs around the (smaller) provincial city of České Budějovice is based on the characteristics of post-socialist CEE suburbanisation and suburbs around provincial cities (Chapter 2), the above-mentioned typologies of sub- urbs (Chapter 3) and from experience with gradual suburbanisation research around the study city (Kubeš, J. 2009, 2015b). The follow- ing criteria for delimitation suburbs used in the study area can be applied to similar Czech and possibly CEE provincial cities and their hinterlands. The criteria can be divided into positional (a–d), population-social (e–g) and morphological (h). The suburb is a geographically deline- ated mostly compact settlement (criterion a), which emerged from the original village (b; exceptions exist) and which is territori- ally separated from the city and from other settlements (c). The suburb is an administra- tive part of a municipality (d; exceptions). Commercial areas and buildings may be lo- cated in suburbs (old or newer thanks to com- mercial suburbanization), but territorially separated commercial areas without residents are not considered as suburbs in this study. The suburb should grow in terms of popu- lation (e), mainly due to suburban migration. At least half of the population of the suburb has come from the city (and other towns) to the suburb since 1970 (f). Czech migration data has only been available since 1990 (how- ever, Kára, J. and Kučera, T. 1986 describe the socialist migration from České Budějovice to the near suburbs), so it was necessary to set a criterion to 40 per cent +. Suburb residents should be closely connected with the city through commuting for work and services. Most economically active residents in sub- urbs commute to work to the city (or to the surrounding suburbs; g). It was necessary to set this criterion to 40 per cent + because the Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.70 Czech 2011 census was not complete in this regard (Špačková, P. et al. 2016). Most of the flats (50% +) in a suburb should be relatively new – built since 1970, when family houses of suburban type (unconnected with farming) were built in the village/suburb later (h). This criterion ensures the presence of new non- farm houses in the suburbs. New houses can take the form of individual or row family houses of a suburban type or, rather rarely, smaller multi-apartment houses. They mostly grow up in groups at the edges of the original village/suburb later (Kubeš, J. 2015a). Criteria “e” and “f” apply only during the develop- ment of suburbanisation. Typology of suburbs and other settlements The concentric-genetic typology of suburbs in suburban zone of the provincial city of České Budějovice takes into consideration the dis- tance of the suburb from the city (by road) and the related time of origin of the suburb from a village. The location and time of emer- gence of the suburbs is reflected in other fea- tures of the suburbs. The concentric chain of large nearby suburbs is located in the first sub- urban sub-zone of the semi-urban landscape. Weak residential suburbanization began here in the 1970s and 1980s under socialism. The concentric chain of post-socialist moderately remote suburbs forms the second suburban sub-zone of the semi-rural landscape from the new millennium. More distant suburbs ap- pear after 2005 in the rural landscape. There are also settlements in the suburban zone where suburbanisation is beginning to develop but they still do not meet the criteria “f” (suburban migration) and “h” (new flats) for suburbs. These settlements can be consid- ered as semi-suburbs (Kubeš, J. 2015b). Criterion “f” is reduced to 25 per cent for them, “h” to 30 per cent, while other criteria remain. Small towns with 1,500–5,000 inhabitants and with the majority of indigenous inhabitants have also existed for a long time. These small towns around a provincial city are not suburbs be- cause only a few migrants from the city come to them. A suburban-defined agglomeration of the provincial city will be delineated through the city, suburbs and semi-suburbs, including small towns and residual villages lying within the agglomeration. Initial data for the delimitation and ty- pology of suburbs and other settlements around the study city was taken from Czech censuses (1970, 1980, 1991, 2001 and 2011) – the number of inhabitants, the age of flats and the number of commuters to work from Czech continuous registration – the number of inhabitants (2017), new flats (2011–2017) and migrants (1990 – 2017). Commuting and migration data for municipalities are recalculated to data for individual settle- ments. Analyses of suburbanisation using municipalities are not appropriate because the municipality of a city includes not only a city but also several of the nearest suburban municipalities are often made-up of different settlement types – of suburbs, semi-suburbs or villages. Analysis of territorial development problems of suburbs and other settlements The authors of many studies mention territo- rial development problems caused by strong post-socialist CEE suburbanisation, but only some of them deal with these problems pri- marily. Haase, D. and Nuissl, H. (2007) eval- uated Leipzig’s suburbanisation in terms of its impact on the water environment in the suburban landscape (reduced water reten- tion, increased flood hazard, water quality degradation). Petrova, S. et al. (2013) discuss issues of low carbon satellite settlements in Czechia and Kroll, F. et al. (2012) assessed the supply and demand of different ecosys- tem services in the suburban zone of Leipzig. A number of articles specify agricultural land losses due to suburban construction (Spilko- vá, J. and Šefrna, L. 2010; Grigorescu, I. et al. 2012; Stanilov, K. and Sýkora, L. 2012; Roose, A. et al. 2013). Hirt, S. (2007) draws attention to the blurring of Sofia’s urban edge due to poorly regulated suburbanisation and 71Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78. ment in the form of the construction of new houses in individual settlements (and their types) is proposed in a moderate (++), small (+) or near zero (–) range. Delimitation and types of suburbs around the provincial city of České Budějovice If the agglomeration of České Budějovice is de- fined as the sum of the city, its suburbs, semi-suburbs and also small towns between them (+ two villages inside) (Figure 1) then it currently (2017) has about 147,400 inhab- itants (Table 1). Most inhabitants still live in the city (92,000 – 62.4%), less in growing sub- urbs (32,500 – 22.0%), stabilized small towns (18,300 – 12.4%) and the least in semi-suburbs (4,500 – 3.0%). Due to the gradual transforma- tion of villages and semi-suburbs to suburbs, the number of suburbs rose from about 13 (1989), to 41 (2008) (Kubeš, J. 2009) and to 53 (2017). Since 1970, the population of contem- porary suburbs has doubled (Table 1) and their area has increased by 75 per cent (Table. 2). There is a relatively mixed set of suburbs and other settlements with regard to the timing of suburban migration, home construction, population growth, with regard to distance from the city, current size by population and area and with regard to territorial develop- ment problems in them. The most important suburbs are the nearby suburbs forming a concentric chain in the first suburban sub-zone of the semi-urban land- scape, both in numbers (22 suburbs) and in population (64.2% of population in suburbs). Suburban construction in them and their population growth began in about the 1970s within weaker socialist residential suburbani- sation. Over 68 per cent of newer flats (built after 1970) in these suburbs and their popu- lation have more than doubled since 1970. Seven of them exceeded 1,000 inhabitants. In the study area, they lie within 4 kilometres of the edge of the city. The concentric chain of post-socialist moderately distant suburbs (21 suburbs) and their surroundings forms the second suburban sub-zone with a “semi- to the architectural problems within Sofia’s suburbs. Mantey, D. and Sudra, P. (2018) emphasize the need to create public spaces in new suburban areas in Warsaw’s suburbs. The intrusion of residential suburbanisation into recreational cabin settlements is a cur- rent spatial planning problem (Vágner, J. et al. 2011; Leetmaa, K. et al. 2012, or Nuga, M. et al. 2015). Ott, T. (2001) points to the monot- ony of construction forms and styles of new constructions around the East German pro- vincial city of Erfurt. According to Palang, H. and Peil, T. (2010), Spilková, J. and Perlín, R. (2010), Halleux, J.M. et al. (2012), Kladivo, P. et al. (2015) or Mantey, D. and Sudra, P. (2018), post-socialist spatial planners and building officials should regulate the con- struction of houses in individual suburbs on the basis of the spatial plan of the entire ag- glomeration and adhere to the regulations of construction contained in the spatial plans of individual suburban municipalities. The simple assessment of territorial develop- ment problems of individual suburbs, other set- tlements and their types in the study area is carried out on the basis of field surveys, aerial photographs, municipal spatial plans and in- terviews with local experts. Specifically, settle- ments with disordered (sub)urban sprawl in the form of poorly organized built-up areas, streets and roads (U), the inappropriate and monotonous architecture of new (suburban) houses and their inconsistency with original houses (A), the insufficient quality and capac- ity of technical infrastructure in connection with a new (suburban) development (T), pre- viously created recreational cabin areas and with the negative impacts of suburban devel- opment on them (R), a lack of woody greenery inside new (sub)urban areas (G), few connec- tions of public transport into the city (P), the absence or small capacity of kindergartens and schools in connection with the increase in the number of children due to suburbanisa- tion (S) and with a large devouring of quality agricultural land in connection with suburban construction (L) will be searched for. Based on the occurrence of these territorial devel- opment problems, further suburban develop- Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.72 Ta bl e 1. V al ue s of s el ec te d cr it er ia fo r su bu rb s, th ei r ty pe s an d ot he r se ttl em en ts in th e ag gl om er at io n of c it y of Č es ké B ud ěj ov ic e, 2 01 7 T yp e of s ett le m en ts N um be r of se tt le m en ts Sh ar e of P op ul at io n gr ow th 4 P op ul at io n fl at s in n ew er ho us es 1 im m ig ra nt s fr om th e ci ty 2 co m m ut er s to w or k to th e ci ty 3 19 70 = 1 00 19 90 = 1 00 T he c it y Su bu rb s N ea rb y su bu rb s M od er at el y di st an t s ub ur bs M or e di st an t s ub ur bs Se m i- su bu rb s Sm al l t ow ns V ill ag es 1 53 22 21 10 23 7 3 59 .7 5 67 .1 5 68 .2 5 66 .2 2 63 .7 9 48 .2 8 50 .2 8 32 .6 9 – 57 .3 0 59 .9 3 54 .8 8 48 .3 1 55 .7 9 33 .2 9 46 .7 1 – 58 .9 2 55 .8 3 58 .3 9 71 .4 0 59 .8 1 42 .9 0 59 .2 5 1. 21 2. 00 2. 21 1. 85 1. 45 1. 23 1. 34 0. 77 0. 96 1. 65 1. 68 1. 72 1. 41 1. 37 1. 13 0. 86 91 ,9 78 32 ,5 00 20 ,8 96 8, 23 8 3, 36 6 4, 47 0 18 ,3 17 16 7 Su bu rb an z on e of th e ci ty 5 A gg lo m er at io n of th e ci ty 6 C om pa re d v ill ag es 7 86 87 9 62 .4 3 60 .7 4 32 .0 8 54 .2 7 – 31 .1 5 54 .7 1 – 45 .0 2 1. 69 1. 36 0. 56 1. 45 1. 09 0. 87 55 ,4 54 14 7, 43 2 55 9 N ot es : 1 T he s ha re o f fl at s in n ew er h ou se s co ns tr uc te d in 1 97 0– 20 17 o ut o f al l fl at s in 2 01 7; 2 T he s ha re o f im m ig ra nt s fr om t he c it y (a nd f ro m o th er c it ie s, to w ns a nd s ub ur bs ) m ig ra ti ng in 1 99 0– 20 17 o ut o f al l p op ul at io n in 2 01 7; 3 T he s ha re o f co m m ut er s to w or k to t he c it y (a nd a ls o to o th er t ow ns ) ou t of a ll ec on om ic al ly a ct iv e po pu la ti on i n 20 11 ; 4 In d ex o f po pu la ti on g ro w th 1 97 0– 20 17 a nd 1 99 1– 20 17 ; 5 T hi s in cl ud es s ub ur bs , s em i- su bu rb s, s m al l to w ns , a nd tw o sm al l vi lla ge s; 6 T hi s in cl ud es a ls o th e ci ty ; 7 T he se v ill ag es l yi ng b eh in d t he a gg lo m er at io n w er e m on it or ed f or c om pa ri so n. S ou rc es : C en su se s an d co nt in uo us r eg is tr at io ns o f in ha bi ta nt s in t he C ze ch R ep ub lic . Ta bl e 2. O th er c ha ra ct er is ti cs a nd te rr it or ia l d ev el op m en t p ro bl em s of ty pe s of s ub ur bs a nd o th er s ett le m en ts in th e ag gl om er at io n of c it y of Č es ké B ud ěj ov ic e, 2 01 7 T yp e of s ett le m en ts A ve ra ge Te rr it or ia l d ev el op m en t pr ob le m s of su bu rb s4 Fu rt he r co ns tr uc ti on o f ne w h ou se s5 d is ta nc e fr om th e ci ty 1 , km nu m be r of po pu la ti on se tt le m en t a re a in h ec ta re s d is ta nc e of n ea rb y se tt le m en t3 , k m 20 17 19 70 20 17 19 70 2 N ea rb y su bu rb s 1. 9 1, 00 6 45 4 36 18 1. 3 U , a , r ,G , s , L − M od er at el y d is ta nt s ub ur bs 5. 0 39 2 20 9 16 10 2. 1 a, t , r , g , p , S , l ++ M or e d is ta nt s ub ur bs 10 .5 42 4 28 8 15 11 2. 6 a, t , r , p , S , l ++ Se m i- su bu rb s 7. 5 17 9 14 5 7 5 2. 4 a, t , r , p ++ Sm al l t ow ns 7. 7 2, 95 7 2, 18 3 93 82 2. 4 u, g , l + N ot es : 1 Fr om t he e d ge s of t he c it y to t he c en tr es o f th e se tt le m en ts ; 2 T hi s in cl ud es h ou se s, o th er b ui ld in gs , c om m un al s pa ce s an d g ar d en s ar ou nd h ou se s; 3 A m on g th e ed ge s of s ett le m en ts i n su bu rb an s ub -z on e; 4 Se le ct ed t er ri to ri al d ev el op m en t pr ob le m s of t yp es o f se tt le m en ts ( m or e fr eq ue nt w it h bi gg er le tt er s) – t he l ett er s ar e ex pl ai ne d i n th e te xt ; 5 T he p os si bi lit y of c on st ru ct io n of n ew h ou se s: i n a m od er at e (+ +) , s m al l (+ ) or n ea r ze ro ( −) e xt en t. So ur ce : O w n re se ar ch . 73Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78. rural landscape” usually up to 8 kilometres away from the city. The population of these suburbs increased primarily after 2000. Their current approximate population size is about 392 inhabitants (whereas for the previous type it was 950). They have retained their village appearance and there are more extensive ag- ricultural areas and ponds in their surround- ings, to the east and south even smaller for- ests. Their development is mostly well-reg- ulated by spatial planning (Kubeš, J. 2015a). The territorially disordered set of post-so- cialist more distant suburbs (10 suburbs) is still small in number. These suburbs are located primarily in the southwest (in the undulat- ing and partly wooded rural landscape) at a distance up to 13 kilometres from the city and attract more affluent and environmental- ly oriented inhabitants of České Budějovice (according to the interviews done in these suburbs). The mentioned moderately dis- tant and more distant suburbs in the study area can be classified as “suburbs with a ru- ral character” due to their small population size, greater distance from the city, rural im- age and incidence of rural and natural land- scapes around them. Semi-suburbs (23; mainly in the third sub- zone) are located at a distance of up to 13 kilo- metres from the city and they have a predomi- nantly village appearance. They could also be settlements where the construction of new houses is limited (flood risk, a lack of building plots). Inhabitants of semi-suburbs also com- mute to work primarily into České Budějovice (see Table 1). Also semi-suburbs infringe the circular distribution of the agglomeration because they exist mainly on the northwest or southwest of the study area where there are substantial roads leading from the city or valuable landscape (see Figure 1). Small towns (7) are of a varying size and they are still slowly growing. In the socialist period, small industrial plants were in these small towns. However, they were closed down in the course of the transformation in the 1990s, and thus local inhabitants – when they are not employed in local services – commute to work to the city (see Table 1). These towns have a small-town core with town architecture and facilities of services. New family houses were built on the edges of small towns but for the most part these are for local inhabitants. Territorial development problems of suburbs around the provincial city of České Budějovice Especially the large nearby suburbs near the city borders (e.g. Hrdějovice, Dobrá Voda, Včelná or Litvínovice) can be characterized by symptoms of disordered (sub)urban sprawl in the form of poorly organized built-up areas (chaotic urban structure with no centre, with poorly arranged streets, with commerce and industry enclaves, with intensive road traffic; “U” in Figure 1 and Table 2). In the east, nearby suburbs are heavily hit by the ongoing high- way construction. Suburbanisation damages the architectural environment of the original villages, the existing suburbs, mainly due to the inappropriate architecture of new subur- ban family houses compared to the original farmhouses and due to the monotonous and foreign architecture of these new houses (“A” in Table 2; see Kubeš, J. 2015a). Small towns with small-town architecture and urbanism do not usually have such problems. The tech- nical infrastructure of suburbs (water supply, sewerage, WWTP, electrical station) is some- times not ready for a substantial increase in the number of houses and inhabitants (“T” in Table 2). However, it does not usually apply to nearby suburbs that are connected to the technical infrastructure of the city or have al- ready dealt with these problems earlier. Small towns also do not have technical infrastruc- ture problems. Recreational cabin areas may be adversely affected by expanding suburbs and some recreational cabins are inappropri- ately converted into permanently occupied houses (“R” in Figure 1 and Table 2; similarly, Leetmaa, K. et al. 2012 around Tallinn). The lack of woody greenery in new subur- ban areas in suburbs is particularly noticeable in nearby suburbs with dense buildings and small plots around houses (“G” in Table 2). Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.74 Fig. 1. Suburbs, their types, semi-suburbs, small towns and suburban sub-zones around the city of České Budějovice (2017). Source: Own processing, GIS by Tomíček, F. 75Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78. Moderately distant and more distant suburbs, as well as semi-suburbs, are mostly surround- ed by woody greenery that penetrates to the interior of these settlements. Few public trans- port connections into the city have suburbs and semi-suburbs if they are located outside the main roads and railways and if city public transport does not reach them (“P” in Figure 1 and Table 2). The nearby suburbs are well con- nected to the city via city public transport (city trolleybuses and buses). Due to the sharp in- crease in the number of children in the suburbs after the arrival of young families from the city, the capacity of local kindergartens and elemen- tary schools is often insufficient (similarly Kladivo, P. et al. 2015 in Olomouc’s suburbs). Suburbanisation creates irreversible changes to the landscape (Sýkora, L. and Ouředníček, M. 2007) and often “devours” quality agricultural land (“L” in Figure 1 and Table 2; literature in the methodological chapter). Since 1970, the suburbs and semi-suburbs have absorbed 578 hectares of unbuilt (largely agricultural) land, small towns absorbed 77 hectares (both cal- culated from the data in Table 2) and České Budějovice expanded by 950 hectares. Suburbanisation should be regulated through spatial planning. The key task is the re-introduction of a spatial plan for the whole agglomeration of the city (see citations in the methodological chapter ). This plan should regulate the further construction of houses in suitable settlements and locations in them. Conclusions České Budějovice grew in population until the beginning of the post-socialist suburbanisation in 1998; thereafter the population has been de- creasing, mainly due to suburban migration. The latest data shows population stabilization in the city: 91,735 in 2011 and 91,978 in 2017. The suburban zone of this city has a more or less concentric character with protrusions along the major roads to the northwest, north- east and east and into the aesthetically and naturally valuable landscape of the Šumava foothills in the southwest (see Figure 1). The number of suburbs around the city in- creased from 13 (1989) to 53 (2017), gradually according to individual suburban sub-zones. The population of former villages and to- day’s suburbs has doubled since 1970 (from 2008 slower growth). Suburbs are territorially separated and relatively compact settlements originating from the villages. Different types of suburbs and other settle- ments in individual suburban sub-zones can be distinguished. The first concentric subur- ban sub-zone is characterised as a semi-urban landscape with a chain of larger nearby sub- urbs. Some of these suburbs have signs of dis- ordered (sub)urban sprawl, a lack of greenery and they are loaded with intense road traffic. Nearby suburbs should no longer continue to expand. Smaller moderately distant suburbs are distributed in a chain in the semi-rural landscape (the second concentric suburban sub-zone). They can be further developed if they do not “eat” quality agricultural land and nature in the surrounding area and have good connections to the city and the availabil- ity of schools and other services. Stabilized small towns may help alleviate the harmful monocentric settlement system in the ag- glomeration of the city in some ways. More distant suburbs and semi-suburbs in the third suburban sub-zone have similar territorial development problems as moderately distant suburbs. The third sub-zone does not have a sharply defined outer boundary, and it forms protrusions up to a distance of 13 kilometres from the edge of the city. Nearby, moderately distant and more dis- tant suburbs and semi-suburbs in the subur- ban zone and also villages lying at greater distances are settlement elements on the urban-rural continuum in the hinterland of the provincial city of České Budějovice. This continuum is “disturbed” by small towns, only a few of which are affected by subur- banisation. A similar territorial arrangement of suburbs created by “suburban leapfrog-to- villages development” can be found around other similar Czech provincial cities, such as Hradec Králové, Pardubice or Olomouc (based on local literature, field surveys and Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.76 aerial photographs). Suburbs in the subur- ban zone of one-millionth Prague are more diverse in terms of the types examined in this article. In addition to the suburbs emerging from the villages, there are also large suburbs in the form of suburban small towns created by strong post-socialist suburbanisation from original settlements (small towns or villages), pre-war, socialist and post-socialist suburban enclaves outside original settlements (espe- cially near the city) and suburban enclaves formed from recreational cabin settlements (Vágner, J. et al. 2011 and others). Prague’s suburban zone reaches up to 30 km from Prague (Špačková, P. et al. 2016). R E F E R E N C E S Baccaini, B. 1997. Types and causes of recent growth in the suburban districts of Ile-de-France. Population 52. (2): 291–325. Bertaud, A. and Renaud, B.M. 1997. Socialist cities without land markets. Journal of Urban Economics 41. (1): 137–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ juec.1996.1097 Bontje, M. 2005. Facing the challenge of shrinking cit- ies in East Germany: The case of Leipzig. GeoJournal 61. (1): 13–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708- 005-0843-2 Bontje, M. and Burdack, J. 2005. Edge cities, European-style: examples from Paris and the Randstad. Cities 22. (4): 317–330. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2005.01.007 Borén, T. and Gentile, M. 2007. Metropolitan pro- cesses in post-communist states: an introduction. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89. (2): 95–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0467.2007.00242.x Bourne, L.S. 1996. Reinventing the suburbs: Old myths and new realities. Progress in Planning 46. (3): 163–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305- 9006(96)88868-4 Brade, I., Smigiel, C. and Kovács, Z. 2009. Suburban residential development in post-socialist urban regions: The case of Moscow, Sofia, and Budapest. In German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy 2009. Ed.: Kilper, H., Berlin–Heidelberg, Springer, 79– 104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03402-2 Brown, D.L. and Schafft, K.A. 2002. Population de-concentration in Hungary during the post- socialist transformation. Journal of Rural Studies 18. (3): 233–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743- 0167(01)00046-8 Brown, M.A. 1981. A typology of suburbs and its public policy implications. Urban Geography 2. (4): 288–310. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.2.4.288 Czaková, G. 2009. Development and formation sub- urban hinterland of the city of Nitra. Geographia Cassoviensis 3. (2): 34–42. Davis, J.S., Nelson, A.C. and Dueker, K.J. 1994. The new burbs: the exurbs and their implica- tions for planning policy. Journal of the American Planning Association 60. (1): 45–59. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/01944369408975551 Dinić, M. and Mitković, P. 2016. Suburban design: from “bedroom communities” to sustainable neighbourhoods. Geodetski Vestnik 60. (1): 98–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15292/geodetski-vest- nik.2016.01.98-113 Garreau, J. 1992. Edge city: Life on the New Frontier. New York, Anchor Books. Grigorescu, I., Mitrică, B., Kucsicsa, G., Popovici, E.A., Dumitrascu, M. and Cuculici, R. 2012. Post- communist land use changes related to urban sprawl in the Romanian metropolitan areas. Human Geographies-Journal of Studies & Research in Human Geography 6. (1): 35–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5719/ hgeo.2012.61.35 Haase, A. and Rink, D. 2015. Inner-city transforma- tion between re-urbanisation and gentrification: Leipzig, eastern Germany. Geografie 120. (2): 226–250. Haase, D. and Nuissl, H. 2007. Does urban sprawl drive changes in the water balance and policy?: The case of Leipzig (Germany) 1870–2003. Landscape and Urban Planning 80. (1–2): 1–13. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.011 Halás, M., Roubínek, P. and Kladivo, P. 2012. Urban and suburban space of the city of Olomouc: theo- retical approaches, definition, typology. Geografický časopis/Geographical Journal 64. (4): 289–310. Hall, M. and Lee, B. 2010. How diverse are US sub- urbs? Urban Studies 47. (1): 3–28. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098009346862 Halleux, J.M., Marcińczak, S. and van der Krabben, E. 2012. The adaptive efficiency of land use plan- ning measured by the control of urban sprawl. The cases of the Netherlands, Belgium and Poland. Land Use Policy 29. (4): 887–898. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.008 Hanlon, B. 2009. A typology of inner-ring suburbs: Class, race, and ethnicity in US Suburbia. City & Community 8. (3): 221–246. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2009.01287.x Hardi, T. 2002. Szuburbanizációs jelenségek Győr környékén (Suburbanisation phenomena around city of Győr). Tér és Társadalom 16. (3): 57–83. Hirt, S. 2007. Suburbanizing Sofia: Characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography 28. (8): 755–780. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.2747/0272-3638.28.8.755 77Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78. Kährik, A. and Tammaru, T. 2008. Population composi- tion in new suburban settlements of the Tallinn met- ropolitan area. Urban Studies 45. (5–6): 1055–1078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008089853 Kára, J. and Kučera, T. 1986. Migrační bilance obcí v zázemí velkých měst (Migration balance of munici- palities in the hinterlands of large Czech cities). In Nové tendence ve vývoji osídlení Československa, Ed.: Ryšavý, T., Prague, Československá demografická společnost, 135–143. K l a d i v o , P . , R o u b í n e k , P . , O p r a v i l , Z . a n d Nesvadbová, M. 2015. Suburbanization and lo- cal governance-positive and negative forms: Olomouc case study. Bulletin of Geography. Socio- economic Series 27. (27): 95–107. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1515/bog-2015-0007 Kok, H. and Kovács, Z. 1999. The process of sub- urbanisation in the agglomeration of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 14. (2): 119–141. Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D. and Fohrer, N. 2012. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem service supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29. (3): 521–535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2011.07.008 Kubeš, J. (ed.) 2009. Urbánní geografie Českých Budějovic a Českobudějovické aglomerace I. (Urban Geography of the city of České Budějovice and the Agglomeration of České Budějovice I). Banská Bystrica, Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici. Kubeš, J. 2015a. Analysis of regulation of residential sub- urbanisation in hinterland of post-socialist ‘one hun- dred thousands’ city of České Budějovice. Bulletin of Geography, Socio-economic Series 27. (27): 109–131. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/bog-2015-0008 Kubeš, J. 2015b. Suburbia a typy suburbií v zázemí většího města – Českých Budějovic (Suburbs and types of suburbs in the hinterland of a larger town – the town of České Budějovice). Regionální rozvoj mezi teorií a praxí 2015. (2): 1–10. Leetmaa, K. and Tammaru, T. 2007. Suburbanization in countries in transition: destination of subu- rubanizers in the Tallinn Metropolitan Area. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89. (2): 127–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0467.2007.00244.x Leetmaa, K., Brade, I., Anniste, K. and Nuga, M. 2012. Socialist summer-home settlements in post-socialist suburbanisation. Urban Studies 49. (1): 3–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397399 Logan, J.R. and Golden, R.M. 1986. Suburbs and satel- lites: Two decades of change. American Sociological Review 51. (3): 430–437. Makhrova, A.G., Nefedova, T.G. and Pallot, J. 2016. The specifics and spatial structure of circular migra- tion in Russia. Eurasian Geography and Economics 57. (6): 802–818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1538721 6.2016.1274663 Mantey, D. and Sudra, P. 2018. Types of suburbs in post-socialist Poland and their potential for creat- ing public spaces. Cities (in press). DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.001 Marcińczak, S. 2012. The evolution of spatial patterns of residential segregation in Central European cities: The Łódź Functional Urban Region from mature socialism to mature post-socialism. Cities 29. (5): 300–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cit- ies.2011.08.008 Matlovič, R. and Sedláková, A. 2007. The impact of suburbanization in the hinterland of Prešov (Slovakia). Moravian Geographical Reports 15. (2): 22–31. Mikelbank, B.A. 2004. A typology of U.S. suburban places. Housing Policy Debate 15. (4): 935–964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2004.9521527 Montagné Villette, S. and Hardill, I. 2007. Spatial peripheries, social peripheries: reflections on the “suburbs” of Paris. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27. (2): 52–64. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1108/01443330710722751 Motte-Baumvol, B., Massot, M.H. and Byrd, A.M. 2010. Escaping car dependence in the outer suburbs of Paris. Urban Studies 47. (3): 604–619. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1177/0042098009349773 Musil, J. and Ryšavý, Z. 1983. Urban and regional processes under capitalism and socialism: a case study from Czechoslovakia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 7. (4): 495–527. Novotný, L. 2012. Migrácia a prirodzený pohyb ako komponenty rastu obyvateľstva vo funkčnom mestskom regióne Košice (Migration and natural movement of the population as a component of population growth in the functional city region of Košice). Geographia Cassoviensis 4. (2): 152–164. Nuga, M., Metspalu, P. and Leetmaa, K. 2015. Planning post-summurbia: from pragmatism to collaboration? Moravian Geographical Reports 23. (4): 36–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2015-0023 10.1515/mgr-2015-0023 Nuissl, N. and Rink, D. 2005. The ‘production’ of urban sprawl in east Germany as a phenomenon of post-socialist transformation. Cities 22. (2): 123–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2005.01.002 Orfield, M. 2002. American Metropolitics: The new suburban reality. Washington, Brookings Institution Press. Ott, T. 2001. From concentration to de-concentration – migration patterns in the post-socialist city. Cities 18. (6): 403–412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264- 2751(01)00032-4 Ouředníček, M. 2003. The suburbanisation of Prague. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 39. (2): 235–253. Ouředníček, M. 2007. Differential suburban devel- opment in the Prague urban region. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89. (2): Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68 (2019) (1) 65–78.78 111–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0467.2007.00243.x Palang, H. and Peil, T. 2010. Mapping future through the study of the past and present: Estonian sub- urbia. Futures 42. (7): 700–710. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.007 Petrova, S., Posová, D., House, A. and Sýkora, L. 2013. Discursive framings of low carbon urban transitions: the contested geographies of ‘satel- lite settlements’ in the Czech Republic. Urban Studies 50. (7): 1439–1455. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098013480964 Repaská, G., Vilinová, K. and Šolcová, L. 2017. Trends in development of residential areas in suburban zone of the city of Nitra (Slovakia). European Countryside 9. (2): 287–301. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1515/euco-2017-0018 Roose, A., Kull, A., Gauk, M. and Tali, T. 2013. Land use policy shocks in the post-communist urban fringe: A case study of Estonia. Land Use Policy 30. (1): 76–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2012.02.008 Špačková, P., Ouředníček, M. and Novák, J. 2016. Zóny rezidenční suburbanizace 2013 (Zones of resi- dential suburbanisation 2013). In atlasobyvatelstva. cz, Eds.: URRlab team, Prague, Faculty of Science of Charles University in Prague. Spilková, J. and Perlín, R. 2010. Czech physical planning at the crossroads: towards the regulation of large-scale retail developments? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28. (2): 290–303. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c08116 Spilková, J. and Šefrna, L. 2010. Uncoordinated new retail development and its impact on land use and soils: a pilot study on the urban fringe of Prague, Czech Republic. Landscape and Urban Planning 94. (2): 141–148. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2009.09.001 Stanilov, K. and Sýkora, L. 2012. Planning, markets, and patterns of residential growth in metropolitan Prague. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 29. (4): 278–291. www.jstor.org/stable/43030982 Šveda, M., Madajová, M. and Podolák, P. 2016. Behind the differentiation of suburban develop- ment in the hinterland of Bratislava, Slovakia. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 52. (6): 893–925. Sýkora, L. and Ouředníček, M. 2007. Sprawling post-communist metropolis: commercial and resi- dential suburbanisation in Prague and Brno, the Czech Republic. In Employment de-concentration in European Metropolitan Areas: market forces versus planning regulations, Eds.: Razin, E., Dijst, M. and Vázquez, C., Dordrecht, Springer, 209–233. Sýkora, L. and Stanilov, K. 2014. The challenge of post-socialist suburbanization. In Confronting Suburbanisation: Urban Decentralization in Post- Socialist Central and Eastern Europe, Eds.: Stanilov, K. and Sýkora, L., Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 1–32. Szczepańska, A. and Senetra, A. 2012. Migrations of city dwellers to suburban areas – the example of the city of Olsztyn. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18. 117–124. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ v10089-012-0024-2 Szelényi, I. 1983. Urban inequalities under state socialism. New York, Oxford University Press. Tammaru, T. 2001. Suburban growth and suburbani- sation under central planning: The case of Soviet Estonia. Urban Studies, 38. (8): 1341–1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120061061 Tammaru, T. 2005. Suburbanisation, employment change, and commuting in the Tallinn metropolitan area. Environment and Planning A 37. (9): 1669–1687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a37118 Tammaru, T., Leetmaa, K., Silm, S. and Ahas, R. 2009. Temporal and spatial dynamics of the new residential areas around Tallinn. European Planning Studies 17. (3): 423–439. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/09654310802618077 Tanaś, J. 2013. Differentiation of suburbanization processes in Poznań agglomeration. International Journal of Academic Research 5. (3): 369–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/remav-2013-0030 Vágner, J., Müller, D.K. and Fialová, D. 2011. Second home tourism in light of the historical-political and socio-geographical development of Czechia and Sweden. Geografie 116. (2): 191–210. Vaughan, L., Griffiths, S., Haklay, M. and Jones, C.K.E. 2009. Do the suburbs exist? Discovering complexity and specificity in suburban built form. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34. (4): 475–488. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40270732 Vobecká, J. and Piguet, V. 2012. Fertility, natural growth, and migration in the Czech Republic: an urban-suburban-rural gradient analysis of long-term trends and recent reversals. Population, Space and Place 18. (3): 225–240. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1002/psp.698 Wolny, A. and Źróbek, R. 2017. The interdependence between suburban enclaves and the road network in the development process: A case study in Poland. Geographia Polonica 90. (2): 41–57. DOI: https://doi. org/10.7163/GPol.0086 Zębik, G. 2011. Typology of suburban communities in Poland. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic series 16. 173–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ v10089-011-0021-x