CC BY
9
DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE BALTIC REGION
THE EFFECT OF GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION AND EMPLOYMENT FLUCTUATIONS ON RURAL SETTLEMENT TRENDS
G. M. Fedorov1
S. Kinder2
T. Yu. Kuznetsovai
1 Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
14, A. Nevskogo ul., Kaliningrad, 236016, Russia
2 Eberhard Karls University Tübingen Geschwister-Scholl-Platz, Tübingen, 72074, Germany
Received 01.06.2021
doi: 10.5922/2079-8555-2021-4-8
© Fedorov, G. M., Kinder, S.,
Kuznetsova, T. Yu., 2021
Structural changes in the economy and spatial and inter-settlement differences in living standards and quality of life lead to fundamental alterations in the national settlement system. Settlement polarisation is gathering momentum, along with the movement of rural population from Russia's east and north to its southern and metropolitan regions. These processes benefit urban agglomerations. Typological differences between regional settlement systems, still poorly understood but essential for strategic and spatial planning, are growing. This article draws on the concept of the geographical demographic situation; it uses official statistics on Russian regions and Kaliningrad municipalities and settlements to explore the connection between rural settlement trends and employment fluctuations caused by structural shifts in Russian regional economies. It is shown how settlement polarisation affects differences in settlement trends of meso- and microdistrict levels. Regions are identified that have a capacity for rural-urban migration and corresponding rural employment structure and trends.
Keywords:
rural population, Russia, Kaliningrad region, population density, settlement pattern changes, employment rate
Introduction
There are much fewer studies into rural settlements in Russia than into urban ones. However, they do exist. For instance, Sergey Kovalev undertook extensive research into rural settlements as early as the 1960s [1]; Kazys Seselgis proposed the concept of a unified settlement system [2], which was further elaborated by
To cite this article: Fedorov, G. M., Kinder, S., Kuznetsova, T. Yu., 2021, The effect of geographical position and employment fluctuations on rural settlement trends, Balt. Reg., Vol. 13, no 4, p. 129-146. doi: 10.5922/2079-8555-2021-4-8.
BALTIC REGION ► 2021 ► Vol.13 ► №4
Boris Khorev [3]. Tatyana Zaslavskaya led a comprehensive study of rural migration, focusing on changes in rural settlement [4]. Geographical research into Russian rural areas continues, along with the identification of factors in migration, its patterns, and territorial features [6; 7]. The literature pays attention to the characteristics of rural migration processes [8 — 10] that change the structure of employment [11; 12] and lead to shifts in the economy [13 — 15]. A theoretical framework for the development of rural settlement systems is lacking, along with a typology of such systems and visions of future for each type, save for postulations of settlement polarisation and proposals to bridge the gap between standards of living in rural and urban areas, strengthen the role of smaller towns, diversify incomes, etc.
The economic and social conditions of rural development changed as the administrative-command system collapsed. Although villages require a new ekistic concept, the primary focus is on geourbanism, which has replaced population and settlement geography in the geography and regional studies curriculum. This article explores factors affecting rural settlement and some of its meso- and microdistrict features, placing them in the context of rural economic development. We believe that our findings will be of broad use when conducting feasibility studies for the general principles of urban settlement concepts suiting the new socio-economic conditions.
Methods
This study draws on the concept of the regional geographical-demographic situation [16; 17], which links demographic processes to socio-economic factors such as employment fluctuations in the agrarian sector — agriculture, hunting, forestry, logging, and fishery. Methodologically, we attempt to identify qualitative characteristics of rural settlement, using a meso- and microdistrict typology. We employ data from Rosstat on Russian regions and from Kaliningradstat on changes in the average village population. Two-way classification, economic mapping, and graph-based methods were used to process the data.
Meso-district differences in rural settlement
Population density is a principal factor affecting rural settlement trends. Although a high population density is naturally a result of earlier rapid growth, the distribution of regions according to natural increase and net migration has changed in the new socio-economic conditions. The coefficient of correlation between the population density in 2020 and the population change in 1989 — 2020 is 0.65 (a strong correlation is the absolute value of above 0.7). Another measure directly connected to rural population change is the average annual temperature in the region; the correlation coefficient is 0.63.
Grouping Russian regions by population density and change (Table 1, Fig. 1) sheds light on the spatial features of rural settlement.
Table 1
Russian regions by rural population change and density
People per sq. m.6 2020 2020, % of 1989 values
79.9 and fewer 80.0-99.9 100.0-109.9 110.0 and more
30.0-64.9 people per sq. m. - - Moscow region Republic of Ingushetia, Chechnya, Crimea, Dagestan, Kabardino- Balkaria, Adygeya, North Ossetia-Alania; Krasnodar region
10.0-24.9 people per sq. m. Republic of Mordovia and Chuvashia; Voronezh, Bryansk, Kursk, Tambov regions Republic of Tatarstan; Belgorod, Lipetsk, Tula, Vladimir regions Republics of Bashkortostan, Udmurtia; Stavropol krai; Rostov, Samara regions Republic of Karachay- Cherkessia; Kaliningrad region
5.0-9.9 people per sq. m. Penza, Kaluga, Ulyanovsk, Ryazan, Smolensk regions Oryol region; Republic of Mari El; Altai krai; Ivanovo, Chelyabinsk, Yaroslavl, Saratov, Volgograd regions Leningrad, Astrakhan, Orenburg regions -
1.0-4.9 people per sq. m. Kurgan, Omsk, Tver, Pskov, Kirov, Novgorod, Kostroma, Vologda regions; Jewish autonomous region Republic of Kalmykia; Perm, Primorsky krais; Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, Tymen (excluding the autonomous region) regions Republics of Khakassia, Altai; Sverdlovsk region -
0.01-0.99 people per sq. m. Republics of Karelia, Komi; Zabaikalsky, Khabarovsk, Krasnoyarsk, Kamchatka krais; Sakhalin, Amur, Arkhangelsk (excluding the Nenets autonomous region), Murmansk, Magadan regions; Yamal-Nenets, Nenets, Chukotka autonomous regions Republics of Tyva, Sakha (Yakutia); Irkuts, Tomsk regions Khanty-Mansi autonomous region — Yugra -
Comment: 82 Russian regions were considered, excluding Moscow, St Petersburg, and Sevastopol.
Prepared by the authors based on data from Boldyrev, B.A. Itogi perepisi naseleniya SSSR [USSR census records]. Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 1990; Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie pokazateli 2020 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators]. 2020. Moscow: Rosstat.
In the top right-hand cell of the table, there are regions of the North Caucasian and Southern federal districts distinguished by a high population density and a rapid population increase. Their situation is a product of the traditionally high replacement rate in the republics of North Caucasus and positive net migration in the Republic of Crimea and the Krasnodar krai. The rural population is growing, albeit at a slower pace, in the Moscow region. Regions with the lowest population density are in the bottom cells. These territories are located in the east of the country and its European north, where the rural population is declining. In most regions, the rural population decreased by 20 per cent in 1989-2020.
The rural population grew in only three regions with a population density of 1.0—4.9 and 10.0—24.9 people per sq. km. Territories with a high density (10.0—24.9 people, all in the European part of the country) are more evenly distributed according to population change. Still, there are more rural population losers (eleven regions) than gainers (seven regions).
In 1989 — 2020, the rural population decreased by 7.4 per cent nationwide and by more than 20 per cent in 34 regions. Nefedova and Mkrtchyan carried out a careful analysis to identify the reasons behind this decline [6, 11]. There are two chief reasons for rural migration. The first one is the striving for better living and social conditions often found in cities or milder climates. The other is the lack of jobs in rural areas — a result of the organisational and technological transformations brought about by the market transition.
Let us now turn to the effect of fluctuations in agricultural employment on rural-urban migration. Bychenko and Shabanov [18] cogently note that an increasingly smaller proportion of the rural population is employed in agriculture. Yet, their thesis that 'agriculture has gradually ceased to be the principal industry in rural areas' seems questionable: we believe that agriculture has lost some, but not all, of its significance. The main reason for a decrease in agricultural employment among the rural population is not the increase in the share of the working-age population in rural areas (which rose by 15 per cent in 1990—2009 [18]), but changes in the structure of agricultural producers (large companies, farmsteads, and smallholdings).
The main factor is the decrease in the number of people employed in agriculture; the decline was 31 per cent1 from 1990 to 2004. This process continues. Employment in agriculture, hunting, forestry, and fishery decreased by 36 per cent in
1 Prepared by the authors based on data from The economy of the RSFSR in 1990. Moscow: Republican Information and Publishing Centre. 1991. P.109; Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-eko-nomicheskie pokazateli 2005 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators 2005]. Moscow: Rosstat. 2006. P. 84.
2005 — 2019.2 The number of people employed in crop and livestock production and hunting decreased by 6 per cent from 2017 to 2019, just as it did across the agrarian sector.
These changes are a consequence of the diminishing role of farmsteads in agricultural production and the growing contribution of highly mechanised enterprises requiring less manual labour. New non-agricultural jobs are few because of competition from towns and cities offering higher profit margins. Alternative activities that cannot be pursued in cities, such as eco-tourism, are slow to develop. Commuting is flourishing on the outskirts of cities, whilst rural-urban migration continues in the periphery.
Although the exhaustion of resources for rural-urban workforce redistribution was postulated as early as the beginning of the 2000s (and the process is gaining speed), this statement seems to require verification by calculation. In 2017, rural-urban migration in Russia achieved 97.9 thousand people; in 2018, 101.3 thousand. However, the rural population of Russia grew through international arrivals: net migration was 50.6 thousand in 2017 and 31.8 thousand in 2018.3
Although, when 2020—2021 become available, the quantitative characteristics of migration will change (the Covid-19 restrictions are to blame), the general rural-urban migration patterns are likely to persist. The ratio between the proportion of people employed in the agrarian sector (including agriculture) and the share in the rural population supports this assumption. Across the country, this ratio is 26.5 per cent for the agrarian sector and 23.4 per cent for agriculture. The differences between federal districts are substantial (Table 2). The proportion is the highest in North Caucasus (35.2 per cent), with most agrarian workers employed in agriculture, as is the case in the Southern federal district. The NorthWest, Siberia, and the Far East specialise in forestry and logging, whilst fishery is the principal industry in many villages in the Far East and, to a lesser extent, the North-West.
2 Prepared by the authors based on data from Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie po-kazateli [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators] 2006. Moscow: Rosstat. 2007. P. 106; Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie pokazateli 2020 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators 2020]. Moscow: Rosstat. 2020. P. 142.
3 Demografichesky ezhegodnik Rossii [The demographic yearbook of Russia]. 2019. Moscow: Rosstat, 2019. P. 219.
Table 2
Employment in the agrarian sector, per cent of the rural population, 2019
Russia, federal districts Employed individuals as % of the share in the rural population
Agrarian sector Including
Crop production, animal husbandry, hunting and related services Forestry and logging Fishery
Russia 26.5 23.4 2.4 0.7
Central 24.4 22.3 1.8 0.3
Northwestern 24.7 15.0 7.6 2.1
including Kaliningrad region 21.1 17.1 1.5 2.5
Southern 28.7 27.7 0.3 0.7
North Caucasus 35.2 34.6 0.3 0.3
Volga 27.2 24.9 2.1 0.2
Ural 20.8 17.0 3.3 0.5
Siberian 29.1 23.7 5.0 0.4
Far Eastern 26.0 16.0 5.3 4.7
Prepared based on data from Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie pokazateli 2020 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators 2020]. Moscow: Rosstat. 2020.
Rural employment becomes more diverse when viewed at the level of regions (Fig. 1). This diversity should be taken into account when forecasting rural settlement trends. Below we examine the situation in regions with a rate of employment in the agrarian sector above 40 per cent.
In the Republic of Mordovia and the Tambov and Volgograd regions, over 50 per cent of the rural population works in the agrarian sector. In the Republic of Kabardin-Balkaria and the Omsk and Voronezh regions, this proportion is 40 per cent. In the Magadan region, it is 71 per cent, with fishery being the principal industry. This proportion is so substantial because local economically active individuals reside primarily in the urban areas. The fishery is a major employer in the Kamchatka krai, where the ratio in question is above 40 per cent, just as it is in the Kirov and Astrakhan regions. In the two latter territories, agriculture prevails, with a focus on forestry and logging in Kirov and fishery in Astrakhan.
If agriculture develops through an increase in workforce productivity, regions with a high rate of employment in agriculture will boost rural-urban migration, as more people will head to cities looking for a job. Regions where a small proportion of the rural population is involved in the agrarian sector and other employment opportunities are few may also contribute to the movement to cities. This does not apply to the Krasnodar krai and the Republic of Crimea, whose rural residents may take jobs in tourism and agriculture.
_| 25.0-29.9%
Fig. 1. Employment in the agrarian sector as a per cent of the share in the rural population
Prepared based on data from Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie pokazateli 2020 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators]. Moscow: Rosstat. 2020.
Microdistrict rural settlement trends in the Kaliningrad region
Nefedova points out that suburb-periphery differences are the key to the organisation of rural areas [19]. These variations cause the intra-regional gap between the suburbs of large cities and their peripheries to grow. Affected by many factors, the average village population changes differently in suburbs and peripheries. Let us look at the processes taking place in the Kaliningrad settlement system. An exclave, the region provides a good model for investigating a settlement system.
Ekistic processes and their link to economic development have been studied in the Kaliningrad region since the 1970s, and research into rural settlement and population continues in the 21st century [21—25]. Special attention has been paid to regional agricultural development [26 — 30], which heavily influences settlement. Although the literature has identified general polarisation trends in rural settlement and agricultural production, the features of population change in villages remain poorly understood. Moreover, the maps below and their analysis aimed at an accurate reflection of changes in rural settlement constitute the first attempt of its kind.
Rural settlement trends in the Kaliningrad region have similarities with those in Central Russia, but the situation in the exclave has distinctive features. A marked difference between suburban and peripheral areas is a clear similarity, whilst the mild climate, a high urban and rural population density, closely packed
settlements, and the abundance of paved roads make up the uniqueness of the region. Kaliningrad has positive net migration figures, with many arrivals in rural areas, where housing costs are lower than in cities. In 2020, the rural population was growing almost as fast as the urban population.
The urban and rural population of the Kaliningrad region increased in 1992 — 2020 (Fig. 2), whilst both declined across the nation, rural areas suffering the heaviest losses.
850,0
800,0
750,0
700,0
650,0
600,0
550,0
„ 500,0
S 450,0 a
g 400,0 o,
350,0 300,0 250,0 200,0 150,0 100,0 50,0 0,0
Fig. 2. Rural and urban population change in the Kaliningrad region, 1950 — 2020
Prepared by the authors based on Demografichesky ezhegodnik 2010 [The demographic yearbook 2010]. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat, 2010; Demografichesky ezhegodnik 2018 [The demographic yearbook 2018]. *https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/population (accessed 10.02.2021); Kaliningradskaya oblast v tsifrakh [Kaliningrad region in digits]. 2020. 1. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat. 2020.
The number of people employed in the agrarian sector of the region remained practically unchanged in 1990—2005, reaching 48.8 thousand people in 2005. By 2019, it more than halved to 22.5 thousand people (or 46.1 per cent of the 2005 level, compared to the national average of 63.6 per cent; the rural population decline in the Kaliningrad region was more rapid than across the country4). In 2017 — 2019, the reduction was 12.5 per cent, compared to the Russian average of 5.8 per cent.5 The number of individuals employed in agriculture fell by 10.1 per cent; in forestry and logging, 24.6 per cent; in fishery, 19.3 per cent.
4 Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie pokazateli 2002 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators 2020]. Moscow: Goskomstat. 2002. Regiony Rossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie pokazateli 2020 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators 2020]. Moscow: Rosstat. 2020.
5 Average annual size of the economically active population (calculated based on data integration) since 2017. URL: https://fedstat.ru/indicator/58994 (accessed 13.04.2021).
— — — urban rural
mmmmmvDvDvDvDvDr^r^r^r^r^wwooooooOTOTOTOTOTOoooorHrHrHï-Hï-HiN OïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOïOï ooooooooooo rHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHïHïHïHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH(N(N(N(N(N(N(N(N(N(N(N
Although fishery provides more agrarian jobs in the region than it does on average across the country, it is rapidly losing its significance as a principal employer. Once a leader in the Soviet fishing industry, the region is becoming less and less visible in trade.
The decline in the number of people employed in agriculture is due to a growing concentration of production at large mechanised enterprises, which need fewer workers than farmsteads do. This process is more pronounced in Kaliningrad than across the country (Table 3). The rate of agricultural production growth in the region is above the national average: the territory accounted for 0.54 per cent of Russian agricultural output in 2005 and 0.70 per cent in 2019.
Table 3
Changes in the structure of agricultural output by the type of producer, 2005—2019
Type of produce Type of producer
Agricultural enterprises Smallholdings Farms
2005 2019 2005 2019 2005 2019
Livestock and poultry
Russia 46.2 79.8 51.4 17.1 2.4 3.1
Kaliningrad region 67.6 92.8 28.8 5.7 3.6 1.5
Milk
Russia 45.1 54.1 51.8 37.4 3.1 8.5
Kaliningrad region 38.4 59.5 57.1 35 4.5 5.5
Grain
Russia 80.6 70.1 1.1 0.7 18.3 29.2
Kaliningrad region 78.9 90.1 0.4 0.7 20.7 9.2
Potatoes
Russia 8.4 21 88.8 65.7 2.8 13.3
Kaliningrad region 11.9 27.9 72.2 50 16 22.1
Vegetable
Russia 18.7 28.1 74.4 51.7 6.9 20.2
Kaliningrad region 5.5 14.1 83.1 54.1 11.4 31.8
Prepared by the authors based on data from RegionyRossii. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie pokazateli 2020 [Russian regions. Socio-economic indicators]. 2020. Moscow: Rosstat. 2020.
Intra-regional differences in settlement trends are substantial and correspond to the polarisation patterns. In 2010—2020, the population growth rate was high in the regional centre and even higher in its suburbs (Table 4, Fig. 3). People migrated from remote suburbs and especially the periphery. A distinctive feature of the territory is a higher rate of population change in rural areas than in towns and cities across all the three zones — near and remote suburbs and the periphery.
Table 4
Rural population change in the Kaliningrad region, 2010 — 2020
Zone of Kaliningrad region Population, people, as of 01.01.2020 2020, % of 2010
Urban Rural
Kaliningrad region, total 1012.5 107.6 107.1
Kaliningrad 489.4 113.3 —
Near suburbs 257.7 113.4 114.9
Remote suburbs 65.8 93.9 97.5
Periphery 191.7 91.9 95.1
Prepared by the authors based on Demografichesky ezhegodnik 2010 [The demographic yearbook 2010]. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat, 2010; Population of the Kaliningrad region as of 01.01.2020. URL: https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/population (accessed 10.02.2021)
Fig. 3. Population of towns and cities at the beginning of 2020; urban and rural population change, 2020,% of 2010
Prepared by the authors based on Demografichesky ezhegodnik 2010 [The demographic yearbook 2010]. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat, 2010; Population of the Kaliningrad region as of 01.01.2020, URL: https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/population (accessed 10.02.2021).
All villages and rural municipalities of the near suburban zone have a high rate of employment outside the agrarian sector; residents commute to Kaliningrad and nearby towns. Economically active individuals work primarily in the villages where they live — at service enterprises or local industrial facilities. Agriculture accounts for most jobs in the other municipalities. A similar conclusion can be drawn from data in Table 5 showing the ratio between the contribution of a municipality to regional agricultural output and its share in the rural population.
Table 5
Municipal districts* Share in the rural population, % Contribution of the municipality to regional agricultural output, % of its share in the rural population
Near suburbs
Bagrationovsk** 11.84 45.9
Baltiysk 0.68 62.8
Zelenogradsk 9.59 52.1
Guryevsk 22.52 59.0
Svetly 3.09 15.2
Svetlogorsk'' 2.40 17.0
Remote suburbs
Gvardeysk 7.01 67.8
Polessk 4.96 150.5****
Pravdinsk 6.43 191.1
Periphery
Gusev 4.00 184.7
Krasnoznamensk 3.78 97.0
Neman 3.35 156.2
Nesterov 4.78 233.9
Ozersk 4.17 158.0
Slavsk 6.60 151.1
Chernyakhovsk 4.80 120.5
* Excluding Kaliningrad, Pionersky, and Sovetsk (no rural population).
** Including the Ladushkin and Mamonovo districts.
*** The Yantamy district.
**** Values above 100 per cent are shown in semibold.
Prepared by the authors based on data from Demografichesky ezhegodnik Ka-liningradskoy oblasti 2018 [The Demographic Yearbook of the Kaliningrad region 2018]. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat. 2018. URL: https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/ population (accessed 10.02.2021); Munitsipalnye obrazovaniia Kaliningradskoi oblasti. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskoe razvitie v 2015—2019 godakh [Municipalities of the Kaliningrad region. Socio-economic development in 2015—2019]. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat. 2020.
Table 6, Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate the spatial features and trends in rural settlement in the suburbs and periphery of the Kaliningrad region.
Table 6
Rural population in the suburban and periphery municipalities of the Kaliningrad regions, 2010-2020
Average village population Population, 2020, % of 2010
Guryevsk and Zelenogradsk suburban municipalities Krasnoznamensk and Nesterov periphery municipalities
2000-5999 132.8 —
1000-1999 125.2 102.3
500-999 130.1 90.8
200-499 105.6 89.8
100-199 107.4 91.5
50-99 104.6 91.8
0-49 102.3 86
Total 121.4 91.9
Prepared by the authors based on data from The urban and rural population of the Kaliningrad region as of 1 January 2020. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat. 2020. URL: https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/population (accessed 25.02.2021).
Fig. 4. Rural settlement trends in the Guryevsk and Zelenogradsk municipal districts of the Kaliningrad region, 2010 — 2020
Prepared by the authors based on data from The urban and rural population of the Kaliningrad region as of 1 January 2020. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat. 2020. URL: https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/population (accessed 25.02.2021).
Fig. 5. Rural settlement trends in the Krasnoznamensk and Nesterov municipal districts of the Kaliningrad region, 2010 — 2020
Prepared by the authors based on data from The urban and rural population of the Kaliningrad region as of 1 January 2020. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradstat. 2020. URL: https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/population (accessed 25.02.2021).
Settlement trends are qualitatively different in the suburban (Fig. 4) and periphery (Fig. 5) zones. In the suburbs, all villages became more populous in 2010 — 2020. As expected, larger settlements grew more impressively than smaller ones. In the periphery, only the '1,000 — 1,999' group witnessed a population increase; decline occurred in one village in each district; a settlement at the Russian-Lithuanian border checkpoint Chernyshevskoe-Kybartai gained residents. All four villages of the '2,000—5,000' group and eight out of the nine settlements of the '1,000 — 2,000' category saw a population increase in the suburban Gur-yevsk district. In the Zelenogradsk district, both '1,000 — 2,000 people' villages gained residents (Fig. 4). All the larger settlements are within 25 km from the regional centre, many bordering the city.
Location in the suburban zone does not automatically guarantee population growth. A decline was observed in many villages in the west of the Zelenogradsk
district, which have poorer transport links than settlements along the thoroughfares linking Kaliningrad with the seaside resorts. Lying far from the regional centre, the villages of the Curonian Spit are losing population.
Bordering Kaliningrad, the Guryevsk district has a smaller proportion of villages losing population than the Zelenogradsk district. Such settlements are usually small and located far from main roads and Kaliningrad.
In 2010 — 2020, the population declined in many periphery villages — 38 out of 53 in the Krasnoznamensk district and 42 out of 53 in the Nesterov district. The administrative centres of the districts also lost residents. Most villages with a growing or stable population are located in the northern parts of the territories, which have better infrastructure and lie closer to the administrative centres.
The Kaliningrad regional policy has prioritised support for the economic development of periphery municipalities. A soft-loan programme, Vostok, was launched in 11 eastern municipalities in 2020.6 Investment projects eligible for the programme can receive 50m roubles for seven or ten years (the latter applies to agrarian operations) at an interest rate of 1 per cent per year. The region allocated 150m roubles to support the initiative. It is hopefully the first of many measures that will comprise a comprehensive periphery development programme for Kaliningrad. Similar programmes should be launched in other Russian regions suffering from economic and settlement polarisation.
Conclusion
Many districts have sufficient workforce to fuel ongoing rural-urban migration replenishing urban human resources. Settlement polarisation will continue until working and living conditions in rural areas can rival the city lifestyle (and surpass it in ecological terms). Without turning into towns, villages should develop unique and appealing environments.
Better working and living conditions can be attained in rural areas by taking advantage of the scientific and technological revolution, which mostly has benefitted cities so far. Rural development strategies will depend on the socio-economic type of the region, its geographical location, and natural resources. Further research is needed to provide a scientific rationale for rural development proposals. It is essential to devise a theoretical and methodological framework for georuralism, which remains poorly developed compared to geourabanism, in line with the new socio-economic conditions. Concepts for settlement improvement
6 The Vostok soft-loan programme resumed in the Kaliningrad region. URL: https:// xn—90aifddrld7a.xn — plai/novosti/news/v-kaliningradskoy-oblasti-vozobnovlyaetsya-pro-gramma-lgotnogo-finansirovaniya-vostok/ (accessed 23.04.2021).
in rural areas should be worked out for various types of regions with different natural resources, socio-economic performance, and ecology. This article examined some typological differences between Russian regions and Kaliningrad microdistricts. It is crucial to draw on the experience of Russian and international territories that have made progress in solving rural development problems. Today's ecological agenda should encourage research into rural areas as a healthier alternative to urban environments.
The focus of strategic and spatial planning should be shifted to the periphery in the Kaliningrad region and most of Central Russia. It is vital to encourage and support local businesses while prioritising the development of social, transport, and utility infrastructure. However, migration from the rural periphery to the Kaliningrad agglomeration will continue, and measures for accommodating migrants will be requisite.
The research was carried out with the financial support of the RFBR grant № 20-55-76003 "Social innovations and increasing the value of the area in rural regions".
References
1. Kovalev, S.A. 1963, Sel'skoe rasselenie [Rural settlement], Moscow, Publishing house of Moscow State University M. Lomonosov, 371 p. (in Russ.).
2. Sheshelgis, K.K. 1967, Edinaya sistema rasseleniya na territorii Litovskoi SSR [Unified system of settlement on the territory of the Lithuanian SSR.], PhD Thes., Minsk, Belarus, Polytechnic Institute, 43 p. (in Russ.).
3. Khorev, B.S. 1971, Problemy gorodov [Problems of cities], Moscow, Mysl, 415 p. (in Russ.).
4. Zaslavskaya, T.I. 1970, Migratsiya sel'skogo naseleniya [Rural migration], Moscow, Mysl, 348 p. (in Russ.).
5. Alekseev, A.I., Safronov, S.G., Savoskul, M.S., Kuznetsova, G. Yu. 2019, The main trends in the evolution of rural settlement in Russia in the XX — early XXI century, ECO, no. 4 (538), p. 26—49 (in Russ.).
6. Nefedova, T.G. 2018, Factors and tendencies of changes in rural settlement in Russia // Vestnik Assotsiatsii rossiiskikh geografov-obshchestvovedov [Bulletin of the Association of Russian Geographers and Social Scientists], no. 7, p. 1 — 12 (in Russ.).
7. Zayonchkovskaya, Zh.A. 2000, Migration of the population of the USSR. Russia in the 20th century: evolution through cataclysms, Problemy prognozirovaniya [Forecasting problems], no. 4, p. 1 — 15 (in Russ.).
8. Mkrtchyan, N.V. 2019, Migration in the Russian countryside: territorial differences, Naselenie i ekonomika [Population and economy], no. 1 (3), p. 39 — 52. doi: https:// dx.doi.org/10.3897/popecon.3.e34780 (in Russ.).
9. Kvartiuk, V., Petrick, M., Bavorova, M., Bednarfkova, Z., Ponkina, E. 2020, A brain drain in russian agriculture? migration sentiments among skilled russian rural youth, Europe - Asia Studies, vol. 72, no. 8, p.1352 — 1377. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966 8136.2020.1730305.
10. Kashnitsky, I. 2020, Russian periphery is dying in movement: A cohort assessment of internal youth migration in central Russia, GeoJournal, vol. 85, no. 1, p. 173 — 185. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10708—018 — 9953 — 5.
11. Nefedova, T.G., Mkrtchyan, N.V. 2017, Migration of rural population and dynamics of agricultural employment in the regions of Russia, Vestnik Moskovskogo universite-ta. Seriya 5. Geografiya, no. 5, p. 58—67 (in Russ.).
12. Gunko, M., Nefedova, T. 2017, Coping with employment issues through commuting: Evidence from central Russia, Moravian Geographical Reports, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 118 — 128. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2017-0011.
13. Zubarevich, N.V. 2013, Rural Settlement Transformation and Rural Service Networks, Izvestiya Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Seriya geograficheskaya [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Geographic series], no. 3, p. 26 — 38 (in Russ.).
14. Mikhaylov, A.S., Mikhaylova, A.A., Lachininskii, S.S., Hvaley, D.V. 2019, Coastal countryside innovation dynamics in North-western Russia, European Countryside, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 541—562. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/euco-2019—0030.
15. Bondarenko, L.V. 2018, Urban and rural socioeconomic disparities: Scientific views and domestic practices, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 88, no. 5, p. 320—329. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618050027.
16. Fedorov, G.M. 1991, Nauchnye osnovy kontseptsii geodemograficheskoi obsta-novki [Scientific foundations of the concept of geodemographic situation], Leningrad, 180 p. (in Russ.).
17. Fedorov, G. 2014, Current Issues in the Geodemographic Studies in Russia, Balt. Reg., no. 2, p.4—21. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2014-2-1.
18. Bychenko, Yu.G., Shabanov, V.L. 2012, Modern migration of the rural population: features, directions, consequences, Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsi-al'no-ekonomicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Saratov State Social and Economic University], no. 2 (41), p. 138 (in Russ.).
19. Zayonchkovskaya, Zh.A. 2000, Migration of the population of the USSR. Russia in the 20th century: evolution through cataclysms, Problemy prognozirovaniya [Forecasting problems], no. 4, p. 1 — 15 (in Russ.).
20. Fedorov, G.M. 1977, The economic and demographic situation in the countryside of the Kaliningrad region. In: Narodnoe khozyaistvo Kaliningradskoi oblasti: problemy i puti razvitiya [National Economy of the Kaliningrad Region: Problems and Ways of Development], Kaliningrad, p. 100 — 108 (in Russ.).
21. Belova, A.V. 2011, The role of small and semi-medium-sized towns in solving the problems of regional development, Bait. Reg., no 1, p. 111 — 117. doi: https://dx.doi. org/10.5922/2079-8555-2011-1-14.
22. Kuznetsova, T. Yu. 2016, Geodemographic typology of municipalities of the region, IKBFU's Vestnik. Natural and medical sciences, no. 1, p. 15 — 27 (in Russ.).
23. Levchenkov, A. V. 2013, Genesis and the current state of the territorial organization of rural settlement of the Kaliningrad region. In: Alekseev, A. I., Tkachenko, A. A. (eds.) Voprosy geografii. Sb. 135: Geografiya naseleniya i sotsial'naya geografiya [Geography issues. Sat. 135: Geography of population and social geography], Moscow, p. 302 — 322 (in Russ.).
24. Levchenkov, A.V. 2006, Transformation of the settlement system of the former East Prussia (Kaliningrad region), Regional'nye issledovaniya [Regional studies], no. 4, p. 77 — 86 (in Russ.).
25. Romanova, E. A., Vinogradova, O. L. 2014, Measuring social well-being in the rural areas of the Kaliningrad region, Bait. Reg., no. 1, p. 69 — 78. doi: https://dx.doi. org/10.5922/2079-8555-2014-1-6.
26. Voloshenko, K. Yu., Mikhailova A. A. 2012, Innovative factors and conditions of sustainable development of rural territories, Bait. Reg., no. 3, p. 79 — 87. doi: https://dx. doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2012-3-7.
27. Voloshenko, K. Yu., Fedorov, G.M. 2018, Promising directions of institutional changes in agriculture of the Kaliningrad region, Regional'nye issledovaniya [Regional studies], no. 2, p. 89—100 (in Russ.).
28. Dudin, M.N. 2016, Features of the development of agriculture in the Kaliningrad region, Regional'naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika [Regional Economics: Theory and Practice], no. 10, p. 92 — 100 (in Russ.).
29. Nikiforova, I.V., Puryzhova, L.V. 2017, The current state of agriculture in the Kaliningrad region, IKBFU's Vestnik. The humanities and social science, no. 2, p. 74—82 (in Russ.).
30. Fedorov, G., von Braun, J., Korneyevets, V. (eds.) 1997, Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft im Oblast Kaliningrad. Situation and Strategien zur Entwicklung, Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG, 124 p.
The authors
Prof. Gennady M. Fedorov, Director, Centre for Baltic Geopolitical Studies, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Russia E-mail: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4267-2369
Prof. Sebastian Kinder, Head of Department of Economic Geography, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany E-mail: [email protected]
Dr Tatyana Yu. Kuznetsova, Leading Research Fellow, Centre for Baltic Geopolitical Studies, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Russia E-mail: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1523-2280
