Methodology for delimiting borders of the St. Petersburg agglomeration

Introduction. The lack of unified approaches to (1) formation and development of agglomerations, (2) the regulatory legal framework for the methodological support of agglomeration processes, (3) the official conceptual framework in this area, (4) the assessment of agglomeration effects, (5) the approved methodology for delimiting agglomeration boundaries hinders the process of making informed decisions needed to solve a number of territorial, socio-economic, and transport problems arising in connection with the expansion of trans-regional integratory interactions between various constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In this regard, development of a border delimitation methodology for the St. Petersburg agglomeration is particularly relevant. The subject of the research is regulatory and methodological support for agglomeration processes. The goal is to develop a system of methodological support for creating and developing urban agglomerations within the framework of a well-balanced urban planning policy and legal framework of integratory processes in agglomerations.

Materials and methods. The material for the study is the research focused on formation and development of agglomerations. Methods of system analysis and generalization of research results and practical work were applied to set the criteria for delimiting the boundaries of agglomerations. A methodology for delimiting the boundaries of the St. Petersburg agglomeration is proposed on the basis of analysis of research works of Russian scientists, results of practical research by St. Petersburg specialists, and special features of the St. Petersburg agglomeration.

Results. The most complex theoretical and methodological problems of delimitation of the boundaries of the St. Petersburg agglomeration are identified; basic principles of formation and development of urban agglomerations are formulated to define the requirements for establishing boundaries; the main criteria for the delimitation of the St. Petersburg agglomeration are formulated, taking into account its specific features. A methodology for establishing the boundaries of the St. Petersburg agglomeration is proposed. Its main stages and research methods, used at each stage, are highlighted. The main problems of the legal support of formation and development of agglomerations are formulated.

Conclusions. The research novelty and practical significance of the study result from the problems identified in the field of the regulatory support of agglomeration processes, which do not allow intensifying the development of agglomerations. The proposed methodology for establishing the boundaries of the St. Petersburg agglomeration is based on objective spatial development patterns of the two constituent entities of the Russian Federation and takes into account specific features of their interaction.

1. Krasovskaya O.V., Skatershchikov S.V. Delimitation of boundaries and development of the planning structure of the largest agglomerations of Russia in relation to the territorial planning scheme of the St. Petersburg urban agglomeration. Architectural Petersburg. 2018; 3(53):24-30. (rus.).

2. Ostyakova A.V., Pluisnina E.V. The landscaping of urban agglomeration park systems. Vestnik MGSU [Monthly Journal on Construction and Architecture]. 2020; 15(2):294-306. DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2020.2.294-306. EDN PFYDNG. (rus.).

3. Shvetsov A.N. Urban agglomeration — the organizational form of space transformation in the Russian Federation. Federalism. 2017; 2(86):47-60. EDN YUKASH. (rus.).

4. Minakir P.A. The national strategy of spatial development: is it the conscientious delusion or deliberate simplification? Spatial Economics. 2016; 3:7-15. DOI: 10.14530/se.2016.3.007-015. EDN WMRCNX. (rus.).

5. Melnikova L.V. City size, efficiency and economic growth. ECO. 2017; 7(517):5-19. EDN YUSMFZ. (rus.).

6. Bulycheva N.V., Gres R.A., Kuznetsov S.V., Zhikharevich B.S., Kalyuzhny N.A., Kuznetsov S.V. et al. St. Petersburg agglomeration: stages of formation and prospects development : monograph. St. Petersburg, Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science Institute of Problems of Regional Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022; 219. DOI: 10.52897/978-5-8088-1758-6-2022. EDN UJKKCI. (rus.).

7. Lappo G.M. Diversity of cities as a factor of Russia’s successful spatial development. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2019; 4:3-23. DOI: 10.31857/S2587-5566201943-23. EDN GDYQJX. (rus.).

8. Shishelova S.A. The issues of creation and development of agglomeration as a type territorial development policy in the context of economic security of the region. Architectural Petersburg. 2018; 3(53):105-107. (rus.).

9. Raysikh A. Defining the boundaries of urban agglomerations: problems, international experience, solutions and results. Demographic Review. 2020; 7(1):27-53. EDN ROCTCH. (rus.).

10. De Lejarza y Esparducer J.M., de Lejarza y Esparducer I.M.M. Delimitación de áreas metropolitanas mediante un modelo anisótropo de decrecimiento exponencial. Una aplicación al caso del Área Metropolitana de Valencia. Estudios de Economía Aplicada. 2002; 20(2):471-486.

11. Martori J.C., Suriñach J. Classical models of urban population density. The case of Barcelona Metropolitan Area. 41st Congress of the European Regional Science Association. 2001.

12. Boix R., Veneri P., Almenar V. Polycentric metropolitan areas in Europe: towards a unified proposal of delimitation. Defining the Spatial Scale in Modern Regional Analysis. 2012; 45-70. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31994-5_3

13. Dubois D., Rabuel S. L’adaptation de l’offre de transports en commun aux territoires vécus. Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement et de l’Aménagement durables centre d’Études sur les réseaux, les transports, l’urbanisme et les constructions publiques. Dépôt legal : 4e trimestre 2007. 116 p.

14. Dijkstra L., Poelman H., Veneri P. The EU-OECD definition of a functional urban area. OECD Regional Development Working Papers. 2019. DOI: 10.1787/d58cb34d-en

15. Freeman A. Towards a common standard: comparing European and American cities. Greater London Authority Economics Working Papers. 2005; 13.

16. Knapp W., Schmitt P. Re-structuring competitive metropolitan regions in North-West-Europe: on territory and governance. European Journal of Spatial Development. 2003; 1(6):1-42. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5126714

17. Bibby P., Brindley S., Brindley P. Urban and rural area definitions for policy purposes in England and wales: methodology (v1.0). Office for National Statistics. 2013; 36.

18. Florczyk A.J., Corbane C., Ehrlich D., Freire S., Kemper T., Maffenini L. et al. GHSL Data Package 2019. EUR 29788 EN. 2019. DOI: 10.2760/290498

19. Antonov E.V., Makhrova A.G. Largest urban agglomerations and forms of settlement pattern at the supra-agglomeration level in Russia. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2019; 4:31-45. DOI: 10.31857/S2587-55662019431-45. EDN DTYQEB. (rus.).

20. Makhrova A.G., Babkin R.A. Methodological approaches for Moscow urban agglomeration delimitation based on mobile network operators data. Regional Studies. 2019; 2(64):48-57. DOI: 10.5922/1994-5280-2019-2-5. EDN GIGLUP. (rus.).

21. Ulyaeva A.G. An analysis of methodological approaches to the determination of agglomerations. Regional Economics: Theory and Practice. 2016; 12(435):17-27. EDN XEJOQX. (rus.).

22. Ershova S.A., Orlovskaya T.N. Strategy of territorial planning of the St. Petersburg agglomeration: management model, quality of life, safety of the built environment. Architectural Petersburg. 2018; 3(53):98-101. (rus.).

23. Sadikova I.B., Alyoshina T.G. The scheme of territorial planning of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region — a closer look at the use and implementation of a joint territorial planning document for updating the Master Plan of St. Petersburg. Architectural Petersburg. 2018; 3(53):16-22. (rus.).

24. Sadikova I.B. Discovering agglomeration: visions and arguments in defining St. Petersburg urban agglomeration. Architectural Petersburg. 2017; 6(49):12-16. (rus.).

25. Fujita M., Krugman P. The New economic geography. Past, present and the future. Papers in Regional Science. 2004; 83(1):139-164. DOI: 10.1007/s10110-003-0180-0

26. Fujita M., Krugman P., Venables A. The spatial economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 1999. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/6389.001.0001

27. Taylor P.J. Distance Decay in Spatial Interactions. CATMOG 2. Concepts and techniques in modern decigram Nu. 2. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1983; 19.

28. Clark C. Urban population densities. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General). 1951; 114(4):490. DOI: 10.2307/2981088

29. Lösch A. Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirts-chaft. 1962; 380.

30. Christaller W. Central places in Southern Germany. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966; 230.

31. Sviridenko M.V. Formation of the concept of spatial development of the territory of the St. Petersburg agglomeration: the opportunity of a coordinated investment policy. Economics of the North-West: Problems and Prospects of Development. 2022; 1(68):92-97. DOI: 10.52897/2411-4588-2022-1-92-97. EDN BBOTIJ. (rus.).