Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 14 | 15 || 17 | 18 |   ...   | 23 |

The fourth group of towns is not large. Itcomprises local organizational centers. Their common feature is insignificantshare of employed in industry (subgroup A is even two times below the average).These towns demonstrate a very high employment in agriculture and forestry (1.5to 3.0 times above the average for all towns having these industries), averageand above average employment in trade and public catering. However, somedifferences are observed across subgroups. For instance, subgroup A and Bdemonstrate higher rates of employment in construction, housing, and publicutilities, what, it seems, reflects their wish to renew material structures andhousing in order to attract population, what is related to the development ofnew functions of these towns. Subgroup A demonstrate higher share of employedin transport and the highest regional (excluding Moscow) share of employment inadministration. A specific feature of subgroup C is the high share of employedin public health care (mostly due to specialization of Zelenograd).

The fifth group comprises only 2 towns andis rather similar to local organizational centers as concerns itscharacteristics. It is the group of transport hubs (the share of employed inthis industry is 4 times above the average). In towns of this group, similarlyto the fourth group, the share of employment in industry is comparativelysmall, while trade and public health care play more important role and theshare of employed in construction is high.

The sixth group comprises polyfunctionalindustrial and organizational centers. These are mainly district centers, i.e.they have considerable organizational and service functions. At the same time,these are centers with considerable industrial potentials (the share ofemployed in this sphere across all subgroups is above the average), the shareof employment in construction is high.

Subgroup A comprises industrial andtransport centers (the share of employed in transport is 2 times above theaverage).

Subgroup B comprises large polyfunctionaldistrict centers. In this group all functions except specialized functionsmentioned above (industry and construction) are at the regional averages. Thesubgroup is characterized by a large number of towns, therefore indicators varyacross towns. For instance, this subgroup includes both Podolsk and Mozhaisk:the former demonstrates much more significant localization of industrialfunctions than other towns belonging to this subgroup, while the latter hasmore even structure of functions, a certain part of the population isemployed in forestry.

Subgroup C comprises small industrial andorganizational centers. Their peculiar feature is higher rate of employment notonly in industry, but in agriculture and forestry, what is an evidence of theirproximity to the territory of the district. In this regard they resemble thegroup of organizational centers (the fourth group) also demonstrating high rateof employment in these local branches.

The last group comprises industrial centersof the Moscow oblast (the share of employed in this sphere is 1.5 times abovethe regional average). Towns belonging to subgroup A have well developedservice functions –trade, public catering, and public health care. In contradistinction to othertowns included in the seventh group here the development of functions ofscience and education is at the regional average. Towns of subgroup B arepurely industrial centers.

Fig. 1. Functional types of Moscowoblast’s towns:

1 - Capital polyfunctional center;; 2 -Scientific centers; 3 - Satellite towns: A - industrial and scientific centers,B - Polyfunctional suburban centers, C - Large industrial centers; D - Smallindustrial centers; 4 - Local organizational centers: A - developednon-industrial functions, construction and transport, B - Developednon-industrial functions, C - Considerably developed public health care; 5 -Transport hubs; 6 - Polyfunctional industrial and organizational centers: A -developed transport functions, B - Large centers, considerable development ofindustry, C - Small centers, considerable development of industry; 7-Industrial centers: A - developed scientific and service functions, B - Purelyindustrial centers. Figures on the map indicate: 1 - Dolgoprudny; 2 - Khimki; 3- Mytishchi; 4 - Kaliningrad; 5 - Ivanteyevka; 6 - Shchelkovo; 7 - Reutov; 8 -Lyubertsy; 10 - Balashikha; 11 – Losino-Petrovsky; 12 - Elektrougli; 13 -Zheleznodorozhny

For the functional types of towns describedabove see Fig. 1 showing Zelenograd (center determined by expert evaluation),which is included in subgroup B of the third group.

The functional type of a town and specificsof its location within the territory of the Moscow oblast to a considerabledegree determine the prospects of its further development. In the Moscowagglomeration towns are linked not only by labor pendulum migrations andeconomic ties of their enterprises, but also by sharing territorial andenvironmental resources. In this situation there arises the problem offunctional zoning of urbanized territories similar to that earlier experiencedby individual towns when zoning their territories.

The map of functional types to a certainextent reflects the current overlapping in using the territory of theagglomeration. Many researchers believe that towns located close to Moscow areforming similar to it functional structures. These centers are, or will becomesome organic extension of the capital. It concerns not only the intensity ofuse of their territories, but also the character of functions they perform.

The functional structures of the Moscowoblast’s regions wereevaluated in terms of the similarity of these structures to the structure ofthe agglomeration center Moscow. The functional structure of Moscow was assumedto be the best, model one, therefore functional structures of other townswere evaluated depending on their similarity to this model.

By comparing indicators of all towns withsimilar data concerning Moscow (assumed to be model (x)) it is possible to ranktowns. For the resulting evaluation >

The most similar to Moscow in terms offunctional structures were, as it was expected, towns belonging to the thirdtype of satellite towns. Half of them has functional structures closely similarto the capital. The same group of centers most similar to Moscow also comprises4 towns belonging to the sixth type of polyfunctional industrial andorganizational centers, 2 towns belonging to the fourth type (Ruza, Taldom),and one transport hub (Domodedovo).

While satellite towns are similar to Moscowin terms of lower share of employed in industry and higher employment inscience and education, the polyfunctional centers are similar to Moscowprecisely in terms of their multifunctional character, almost equal weight ofall functions within the structure of their economy. At the same time, localorganizational centers demonstrate higher share of employed in administrationand lower share of industrial functions at the expense of prevalence of othersectors (similarly to Moscow), while the transport hub (Domodedovo) resemblesthe capital in terms of its leading function and service functions developingat the expense of a certain decrease in the localization of industry.Therefore, the towns most similar to Moscow belong to different types eachborrowing some specific feature of the model.

Fig. 2. Similarity of the Moscowoblast’s towns interms
of the degree of similarity of theirfunctional structures
to their modelMoscow:


1 - model; 2 – close similarity; 3– some similarity;4 – littlesimilarity; S – nosimilarity. Figures on the map indicate1 - Dolgoprudny; 2 - Khimki; 3 -Mytishchi; 4 - Kaliningrad; 5 - Ivanteyevka; 6 - Shchelkovo; 7 - Reutov; 8 -Lyubertsy; 10 - Balashikha; 11 – Losino-Petrovsky; 12 - Elektrougli; 13 -Zheleznodorozhny

The second group of towns most similar tothe model is different. The majority of the group belongs to centers of thesixth type (3 towns out of 4), one local organizational center, and for thefirst time there appears an industrial town (Klimovsk, type 7), where scienceplays a certain role alongside with the main function.

The third group is the most varied in termsof town types. It includes 5 industrial centers, only 3 polyfunctional ones,and 2 local organizational centers, one third of towns belonging to type 3, 2out of 3 scientific centers. At the same time, this group is the mosthomogenous among other groups in terms of the indicator of similarity of itstowns to Moscow. The gap between the first and the last towns belonging to thisgroup made only 2.0 conventional units (3.7 conventional units for group1; 2.1 conventional units for group 2; 6.9 conventional units for group4).

The fourth group mainly comprisesindustrial centers (9 out of 15), which in terms of their functional structuresare least similar to Moscow, one scientific center (Dubna), and one transporthub (Ozherelye).

The study demonstrates that even in townslocated in the environs of Moscow the employment structure considerably differs from Moscow,what rises a number of problems related either to re-orientation ofspecialization of these centers, or to the evaluation of the degree to which theirfunctional structures complement that of Moscow. It became apparent that heavy andecologically harmful industries isolated of other sectors (monofunctionalindustrial centers are least similar to Moscow), agriculture, and forestry areamong functions unacceptable for towns neighboring Moscow. In general, allmonofunctional towns bear little resemblance to Moscow (for instance, Dubna, ascientific center). This fact may be seen as a hint that such centers shallbe located at the periphery of the region.

As it was shown above, towns havingstructure of functions similar to that of Moscow may be>

13. Complex typology of Americancities

In the cities’ >

14 the following indices have been used:

Economic components. Enter more than 25 indices, which include indices of individualeconomic well being of inhabitants and economic well being of a community (forexample, share of households that live below the poverty line, rate ofunemployment);

Political components. Enter more than 20 indices, which include individual activity ofthe population (for example, share of households with TV sets) and localgovernment (for example, local budget revenues and expenditure percapita);

Ecological components. Enter indices characterizing ecological and environmentalconditions;

Health-care and educationalcomponents. Enter 13 indices among them areindividual aspect of health-care (for example, rate of infant mortality) andeducation (for example, share of men between 16 and 21 years without secondaryeducation), as well as the state of health-care and education in the community(for example, number of doctors per 1000 inhabitants and expenditure of localgovernments on education per person;

Social components.Enter more than 50 indices, which characterize a potential for individualdevelopment, fairness towards an individual, community lifeconditions.

For the >

14. Typology of US cities by quality oflife

In works by Boyer R. and SavageauD.*

15 as well as in a work by Thomas G.S.*

16* the following set of criteria isused:

  • Cost of life;
  • Characteristic of labor market;
  • Crime rate;
  • Health-care level;
  • Characteristic of transport system;
  • Education level;
  • Characteristic of cultural sphere;
  • Characteristic of entertainment and recreation;
  • Weather and climate conditions.

Thomas in his work uses a wider set ofindices for determining the quality of urban life:

  • Weather and climate conditions and environment;
  • Characteristic of recreation sphere;
  • Level of economic development;
  • Level of population activity in social life;
  • Level of education;
  • Level of health-care;
  • Housing conditions;
  • Life security in the community;
  • Characteristic of transport system;
  • Position with respect to bigger nucleus of urbanlife.

These two works used a less complicatedmethod of city>

15. >

For example, American researcherTrevarta*

17 offered his >

1. National cities with the population over600 thousand inhabitants. Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe, Kyoto and Yokohamabelonged to this type.

2. Local cities with the population of 25– 250 thousandinhabitants. This type comprised 101 cities.

3. Agricultural cities numbered less than25 thousand inhabitants. This type comprised 8 thousand cities.

16. Investment rating ofRussia’sregions

Over a hundred statistics data of regionaldevelopment for 1992-1999 was used for compiling an investment rating ofregions in this research. We also used such indices as real personal income,Jinni Index, etc. We also evaluated a number of qualitativecriteria.

Investment climate of the regions wasassessed as aggregate feature consisting of several sub-systems:

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 14 | 15 || 17 | 18 |   ...   | 23 |

2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .