Dynamiques spatiales de la population en République tchèque (1989-2007), Spatial dynamics of the population inthe Czech Republic (1989 - 2007)

-

Documents
227 pages
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

Description

Sous la direction de Bertrand Schmitt, Ludmila Fialova
Thèse soutenue le 30 août 2010: PRAGUE Université Charles (République Tchèque), Dijon
L'objectif central de la thèse est de décrire, analyser et discuter la dynamique spatiale de la population tchèque entre 1989 et 2007. La structure démographique et les migrations, les deux composantes de cette dynamique spatiale, sont analysées par le biais de deux articulations de l’espace : le gradient urbain-périurbain-rural et la distinction régionale centre-périphérie. Des outils quantitatifs sont utilisés, avec en particulier un modèle gravitaire explicatif des migrations. L’orientation principale de l´analyse repose sur les migrations internes, comme étant l’agent majeur de la dynamique spatiale de la population. La structure, les déterminants, et l’évolution dans le temps de ces migrations sont étudiés, ainsi que leurs conséquences sur la structure démographique des ensembles spatiaux. La thèse indique que le processus de périurbanisation est récemment devenu un facteur majeur, influençant la dynamique spatiale de la population tchèque. Il est également établit que le facteur explicatif clé de la destination des migrations est le statut social du migrant, tandis que son âge ne présente qu’une importance secondaire. Cependant, étant donné que les Tchèques sont généralement peu mobiles, la déconcentration de la population s’opère à une échelle plus modeste que dans les pays d’Europe de l´Ouest. Cette constatation permet d’expliquer en quoi les tendances récentes des migrations résidentielles ont un impact mesuré relativement faible sur les structures sociales et démographiques de la population dans les catégories d´espace.
-Périurbanisation
-Migrations internes
-Modèle gravitaire
-Structures de la population
-Régions tchèques
The aim of the thesis is to describe, analyse and discuss the development of spatial population dynamics in the Czech Republic between 1989 and 2007. Demographic structure and migration, the two components of spatial population dynamics, are analysed using two spatial dimensions, the urban-suburban-rural gradient and the core-periphery region distinction, using quantitative analyses, including gravity regression modelling of migration. The analysis primarily focuses on domestic migration as the main vehicle of spatial population dynamics. It discusses the structure, determinants, and temporal evolution of migration and its consequences on the population structure in different spatial categories. The thesis indicates that suburbanisation has recently become the main factor influencing Czech spatial population dynamics. The key factor determining migration destination is the social status of migrants, whereas age has only secondary importance. However, since Czechs are not very mobile, population dispersal is less large-scale than in Western-Europe. This explains why recent domestic migration patterns have had only a small measurable influence on the social or demographic structures of the population across spatial categories.
-Suburbanisation
-Domestic migration
-Gravity modelling
-Population structures
-Czech regions
-Transformation
Source: http://www.theses.fr/2010DIJOE006/document

Sujets

Informations

Publié par
Nombre de lectures 30
Langue English
Poids de l'ouvrage 1 Mo
Signaler un problème

CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
Faculty of Science
Departement of Demography and Geodemography

UNIVERSITÉ DE BOURGOGNE IN DIJON
UMR INRA-AgroSup DIJON




SPATIAL DYNAMICS OF THE POPULATION
IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC,
1989-2007


Ph.D. Thesis



JANA VOBECKÁ




Thesis directors:
Doc. RNDr. Ludmila Fialová, CSc.
2010 Bertrand Schmitt, Research Director I.N.R.A.
1











This bi-nationally supervised doctoral thesis (doctorat en cotutelle) was written under the
joint supervision scheme between Charles University in Prague and Université de
Bourgogne in Dijon.
I declare on my honour that this thesis is my own work under the joint tuition of Ludmila
Fialová and Bertrand Schmitt. Where other sources of information have been used, they
have been acknowledged.
I agree to land this thesis for study reasons and agree that the thesis will be added to the
borrower’s database.

thIn Prague, 5 March 2010
2 Abstract

The aim of the thesis is to describe, analyse and discuss the development of spatial
population dynamics in the Czech Republic between 1989 and 2007. Demographic
structure and migration, the two components of spatial population dynamics, are analysed
using two spatial dimensions, the urban-suburban-rural gradient and the core-periphery
region distinction, using quantitative analyses, including gravity regression modelling of
migration. The analysis primarily focuses on domestic migration as the main vehicle of
spatial population dynamics. It discusses the structure, determinants, and temporal
evolution of migration and its consequences on the population structure in different spatial
categories. The thesis indicates that suburbanisation has recently become the main factor
influencing Czech spatial population dynamics. The key factor determining migration
destination is the social status of migrants, whereas age has only secondary importance.
However, since Czechs are not very mobile, population dispersal is less large-scale than in
Western-Europe. This explains why recent domestic migration patterns have had only a
small measurable influence on the social or demographic structures of the population across
spatial categories.


Key words: suburbanisation, domestic migration, gravity modelling, population structures,
Czech regions, transformation




Abstrakt

Cílem této disertační práce je popsat, analyzovat a diskutovat vývoj prostorové dynamiky
obyvatel v České republice mezi lety 1989 a 2007. Demografická struktura a migrace, dvě
komponenty prostorové dynamiky obyvatel, jsou analyzovány ve dvou prostorových
dimenzích, v gradientu město-suburbium-venkov a v regionálním rozlišení jádrových a
periferních regionů, prostřednictvím kvantitativní analýzy, včetně gravitačního regresního
modelu migrace. Analýza se zaměřuje především na vnitřní migraci jako hlavního hybatele
prostorové dynamiky obyvatel. Zabývá se strukturou, determinanty migrace a jejím
vývojem v čase a také jejími dopady na strukturu obyvatel v jednotlivých prostorových
kategoriích. V disertaci je ukázáno, že suburbanizace se v poslední době stala
nejdůležitějším faktorem ovlivňujícím prostorovou dynamiku obyvatel v České republice.
Hlavním faktorem určujícím směr migrace je sociální status migrantů, zatímco jejich věk
má pouze druhořadý význam. Nicméně, tím, že Češi nejsou příliš migračně aktivní,
populační dekoncentrace dosahuje menších rozměrů a objemů než v západoevropských
zemích. To vysvětluje, proč novodobé migrační trendy měly zatím jen malý měřitelný
dopad na sociální a demografické struktury obyvatel jednotlivých prostorových kategorií.

Klíčová slova: suburbanizace, vnitřní migrace, gravitační regresní model, populační
struktura, české regiony, transformace

3 Résumé

L’objectif central de la thèse est de décrire, analyser et discuter la dynamique spatiale de la
population tchèque entre 1989 et 2007. La structure démographique et les migrations, les
deux composantes de cette dynamique spatiale, sont analysées par le biais de deux
articulations de l’espace : le gradient urbain-périurbain-rural et la distinction régionale
centre-périphérie. Des outils quantitatifs sont utilisés, avec en particulier un modèle
gravitaire explicatif des migrations. L’orientation principale de l´analyse repose sur les
migrations internes, comme étant l’agent majeur de la dynamique spatiale de la population.
La structure, les déterminants, et l’évolution dans le temps de ces migrations sont étudiés,
ainsi que leurs conséquences sur la structure démographique des ensembles spatiaux. La
thèse indique que le processus de périurbanisation est récemment devenu un facteur majeur,
influençant la dynamique spatiale de la population tchèque. Il est également établit que le
facteur explicatif clé de la destination des migrations est le statut social du migrant, tandis
que son âge ne présente qu’une importance secondaire. Cependant, étant donné que les
Tchèques sont généralement peu mobiles, la déconcentration de la population s’opère à une
échelle plus modeste que dans les pays d’Europe de l´Ouest. Cette constatation permet
d’expliquer en quoi les tendances récentes des migrations résidentielles ont un impact
mesuré relativement faible sur les structures sociales et démographiques de la population
dans les catégories d´espace.

Mots clés : périurbanisation, migrations internes, modèle gravitaire, structures de la
population, régions tchèques








4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents 1
List of tables 4
List of figures 7
List of annexes 8
INTRODUCTION 10
P A R T I. Theoretical concept, societal context and research questions 15
1. Theoretical background 16
1.1 Terminological note 18
1.2 Towards a general description and explanation of agglomeration mechanisms –
New Economic Geography Perspective 19
1.3 Observations in population spatial dynamics – toward a common pattern? 24
2. General context of societal development in the Czech Republic 34
2.1. Pre-1989 shifts in economic orientation, policies and their repercussions on
regional development 34
2.2. Post-1989 societal transformation and its repercussions on regional development 38
3. Research questions, hypothesis and outline of the thesis 48
3.1 Research questions and hypothesis 49
3.2 Outline of the thesis 55
P A R T II. Quantitative conceptualisation of space and definition of spatial categories 56
4. Existing approaches to definitions of the urban-rural gradient and core-periphery regions 57
1 4.1 Urban – rural approach 57
4.1.1 Existing approaches in the Czech Republic 57
4.1.2. Existing approaches in Europe 61
4.2 Core-periphery regional approach in the Czech Republic 65
5. Commuting based classification: a new approach to the urban-rural gradient definition in
the Czech Republic 69
5.1 Method 70
5.2 Discussion 75
P A R T III. Analysis of the spatial population dynamics in the Czech Republic 77
6. Descriptive analysis of population structure and dynamics in spatial categories 78
6.1. General characteristics of space and population 78
6.2 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the population from a
regional and urban-rural gradient perspective 89
6.2.1 Structural-geographical analysis: analytical tool description 90
6.2.2 Population change differentiation 95
6.2.3 Family and fertility patterns differentiation 98
6.2.4 Differentiation of social and economic characteristics of the population 107
6.2.5 Spatial differentiation of demographic, social and economic characteristics of
the population – general remarks 114
7. Analysis of migration flows as the main component of spatial population dynamics 115
7.1 Residential migration data set 116
7.2 General patterns of residential migration in the Czech Republic 120
7.3 Description of residential migration across the spatial categories and data
reduction 127
7.3.1 Protocol 127
7.3.2 Social status, life cycle or sex? Findings about the main determinants of
residential migration from descriptive analysis 133
8. Structure and determinants of residential migration: explorative analysis 138
8.1. Gravity model 138
8.2 Results 146
CONCLUSIONS: A tale of conservative commuters and population not-very-dynamics in
the Czech Republic after 1989 156
2 References 169
Annexes 180

3 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of municipalities in the Czech Republic..............................................38
Table 2: Municipalities and population by size of municipalities in France and in the
Czech Republic, in %.......................................................................................................70
Table 3: Municipalities and population by commuting approach classes, 2001 .............79
Table 4: Population change by residential categories between 1991 and 2001 and
between 2001 and 2007 ...................................................................................................84
Table 5: Components of population change by residential category, 2001 - 2005 .........86
Table 6: Population change in regions between 1991 and 2001 and between 2001 and
2007 .................................................................................................................................88
2Table 7: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for the shift-share
analysis of two factors .....................................................................................................95
Table 8: Total population change rate between 1991 - 2001 and 2001 - 2007, regional
and gradient effects, decomposition for gradient effect ..................................................96
Table 9: Total population change rate between 2001 - 2007, regional and gradient
effects, decomposition for regional effect .......................................................................97
2Table 10: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of two factors ...................................................................................................................97
Table 11: Natural increase and net migration rates between 2001 and 2005, regional and
gradient effects.................................................................................................................98
2
Table 12: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of two factors ...................................................................................................................99
Table 13: Proportion of households with dependent children in 2001, regional and
gradient effects, decomposition for gradient effect .........................................................99
Table 14: Proportion of households with dependent children in 2001, regional and
gradient effects, decomposition for regional effect .......................................................100
2Table 15: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of two factors .................................................................................................................100
Table 16: Proportion of one-parent families out of all families with dependent children
in 2001, regional and gradient effects, decomposition for gradient effect ....................101
4 Table 17: Proportion of one-parent families out of all families with dependent children
in 2001, regional and gradient effects, decomposition for regional effect ....................102
2Table 18: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of four factors.................................................................................................................104
Table 19: Average number of children ever born per 1 000 women (cohort fertility) in
2001, regional and gradient effects, effects of age and education, decomposition for
gradient effect ................................................................................................................104
2Table 20: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of four factors.................................................................................................................105
Table 21: Proportion of divorced in population in 2001, regional and gradient effects and
effect of age, decomposition for gradient effect ............................................................106
Table 22: Proportion of divorced in population in 2001, regional and gradient effects and
effect of age, decomposition for age effect....................................................................106
Table 23: Proportion of divorced in population in 2001, regional and gradient effects and
effect of age, decomposition for regional effect ............................................................107
2Table 24: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of two factors .................................................................................................................108
Table 25: Proportion of 15+ population with A-levels and higher education in 1991 and
2001, regional and gradient effects, decomposition for gradient effect ........................108
Table 26: Proportion of population aged 15+ and 25-34 with A-levels and higher
education and its differences from national average in 1991 and 2001.........................109
2Table 27: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of two factors .................................................................................................................110
Table 28: Service/industry index in 1991 and in 2001, regional and gradient effects,
decomposition for gradient effect ..................................................................................110
2
Table 29: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of two factors .................................................................................................................111
Table 30: Unemployment rate in 2001, regional and gradient effects, decomposition for
regions............................................................................................................................111
2Table 31: Coefficient of determination (R ) and Fischer statistics for shift-share analysis
of two factors .................................................................................................................112
Table 32: Proportion of low income households in 2003 (households receiving housing
allowances with an income of between 1.0 and 1.4 of the life minimum), regional and
gradient effects, decomposition for urban-rural gradient categories .............................113
Table 33: Proportion of low income households in 2003 (households receiving housing
allowances with an income of between 1.0 and 1.4 of the life minimum), regional and
gradient effects, decomposition for regions...................................................................113
Table 34: Population by level of education in 2001 and migrants by level of education in
2004, in %......................................................................................................................127
5