The Problem of Identification of Rural Areas: The Case of Lithuanian Elderships

Abstract

This article presents an attempt to classify Lithuanian LAU-2 regions (elderships) according to the level of their urbanization. The research was based on inductive methodology. Data on changes of the number of population in 2001 – 2018 was the primary source of the analysis. The typology of LAU-2 regions was based on 3 main criteria: formal status of the area (urban or rural), the location of the area in relation to urban centre and trends of change of the number of population in formally nonurban areas in 2001-2018. The final goal was the distinction of regions, which weren’t influenced by urbanisation (suburbanisation) processes and therefore potentially should be facing most severe processes of peripherisation and socio-spatial exclusion. The results suggest that actual share of rural areas and rural population is much smaller that statistical data show. Furthermore, territorial differentiation into urbanized and non-urbanized areas perfectly reflects "centre-periphery" model, though Lithuania withhold polycentric character of development. Three central urban regions - Vilnius, Kaunas, and Klaipėda act as major growth poles, while remaining country is shrinking fast. On the other hand, even smaller and decreasing urban centres are spatially expanding and changing rural areas around them. As a consequence number of population is growing in suburban regions. According to the research, 244 elderships, which occupy some 36% of the Lithuanian territory, are classified as urbanized or semi urbanised areas (it inhabits 83% of the population); the rest 312 elderships are classified as 'purely' rural peripheral areas. They cover 64% of the country’s territory and inhabit around 17% of its population.