4.3 Article

Typology of Urban Shrinkage in Russia: Trajectories of Russian Cities

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000739

关键词

Shrinking cities; City typology; Russian cities; Urban decline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that 73% of Russian cities are experiencing shrinkage to varying degrees, while only 27% are growing or maintaining stable development. It provides a detailed exploration of urban shrinkage issues in Russia and offers a new typology approach for understanding the phenomenon.
Most cities experience growth periods, leading to a population boom and to stagnation periods followed by population decline. Russian scientific literature uses terms such as depressed, crisis, problematic, and waning cities to describe the processes inherent to the phenomenon of shrinkage. To this day, there is no unanimity in the terms and definitions used, so each study sets its own criterion to define shrinkage. The current study aims to elaborate a growth-shrinkage typology of Russian cities, outline major shrinkage features, and answer the question of what might have initiated shrinking processes in the Russian Federation. The authors applied cluster analysis to 883 cities to study growth trajectories and decline over the last 30 years. Six types of cities were revealed: constantly growing, growing with stumbling, parabolic type, inverse parabolic type, continuous shrinkage after the year 1998, and continuous shrinkage after the year 1991. The main findings are that 73% of Russian cities have been experiencing shrinkage to various degrees, and only 27% are growing or have stood on the path of stable development recently. This study provides a better understanding of urban shrinkage in Russia, brings additional insights into the types of shrinkage of Russian cities, and fills the scientific literature gap. Current typology covers a broad range of Russian cities and could provide a new perspective on shrinkage problems in Russia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据