Vol 8, No 2 (2018)

Global urban science has established the notion of a megalopolis (a city with a population of over 10 mln people), the characteristics of which, after publication of the classical work by J. Gottman and the results of numerous studies by foreign and domestic scientists, were described in detail, making it possible to isolate megalopolises into a separate group of settlements that play a leading role in global and national socioeconomic systems. In Russia, the only megalopolis is Moscow; at the same time, there are about 100 other cities exhibiting features characteristic of megalopolises. In this article these are labeled megalopolis-type cities that involve above all regional capitals—the administrative centers of the federal subjects. These centers host federal and subfederal state power bodies (very important administrative resource in Russia), and practically all of them surpass in terms of population other cities and towns of their respective regions (in some cases, concentrating 40% or more of the region’s entire population). Consolidating about 30% of Russia’s population, megalopolis-type cities make up 40–70% of GRP and the bulk of revenues of each federal subject; their actual unemployment levels are 30–40% lower than in the rest territory of the region. They concentrate the majority of service sector facilities, higher education (about 90% of the Russia’s higher education students study there), modern health care and cultural and leisure organizations. Russian megalopolis-type cities for many years have been the foci of relative (compared to the periphery) well-being, and their influence on the spatial environment is limited mainly to providing low-skilled jobs to labor migrants and sites to chain hypermarkets on the outskirts. Experts voice concerns that the implementation of plans to form large agglomerations based on several megalopolis-type cities would deepen socioeconomic and demographic differences between these cities and the periphery.

The paper studies a big city as an independent central place system. For this purpose, the author has developed and tested a methodology for quantitative assessment of central functions based on an integrated set of the most important socioeconomic indicators. This methodology helped to prove the possibility of not only measuring the value of central functions in different parts of a big city, but also of determining the affiliation of all the system’s elements with different hierarchical levels or a service area. The study was based on the model of Moscow’s central place system. The study evaluated how the factor of the Russian capital’s considerable territorial expansion has influenced the dynamics of its central place system from 2009 to 2015. We have found that there is a strong interrelation between Moscow’s radial–circular structure and a relatively uniform reduction in the value of central functions with increasing distance from the city center, which is disturbed by the largest highways, which concentrate a significantly higher value of the key factor compared with neighboring elements.

The paper analyzes changes in fertility rates recorded across the federal districts and regions of Russia over the period from 1990 to 2014. The analysis was based on β- and σ-convergence. It has been shown that differences in fertility rates tended either to decrease or increase in the considered period and were associated with specific events in the country’s socioeconomic development. The patterns were similar at the level of federal districts, but the values of variation were lower. There were no significant patterns of convergence in the Siberian and Ural federal districts, divergence was observed in the Northwestern and Volga federal districts, and the differences in other districts tended to decrease. Demographic policy measures had an appreciable effect on the behavior of the population, but additional measures are needed to reduce interregional differences, since there are “clubs” of regions according to the fertility rate that may negatively interfere with the country’s socioeconomic development. The concluding section of the paper contains recommendations for demographic policy—future measures should be aimed at changing reproductive attitudes in regions with low fertility rates.

The paper discusses the problem of so-called “populated places with no population,” or, in other words, unpopulated settlements. It is approved that the accounting for these rural settlements in statistical reporting tends to distort the actual situation with the settlement pattern and development of territories. It is suggested to differentiate between real and nominal numbers of settlements. Data are presented with regards to the number and share of settlements with no population in the Russian Federation, its economic areas, and federal subjects. Differences between municipal districts are pointed out, using the case of Tver oblast. The actual state of settlements recorded as populated places with no population is revealed. It is proposed to amend the accounting rules for statistical reporting on rural settlements.

The paper discusses how to restore economic growth in the regions of the Siberian Federal District (SFD). It is shown that in 2014–2016 the positions of SFD regions have worsened in most of their indicators. The shares of the SFD in gross regional product, employment, and fixed assets have decreased. An emerging tendency is the decline in the technological level of industry. The consumer market and fixed capital investment are undergoing greater contractions in the SFD than in the rest of Russia. Analysis of the dynamics in public debt and deficits in the consolidated budgets of federal subjects of the SFD shows that these subjects do not have sufficient financial resources for a proactive policy for stimulating economic growth. Recommendations are given on how to reduce the impact of the existing adverse trends in different economic sectors.

Ongoing global warming and growth in climate extremeness affect all areas with particular climate conditions. Therefore, Russian territorial zoning in terms of natural conditions of vital activity of the population is becoming increasingly relevant for evaluating contemporary climate conditions and predicting vital conditions of the population in the future, especially for areas with particular climatic conditions. The zoning is based on the level of impact of the main natural factors on vital activity of the population: cold, heat, moisture, height above sea level, and natural disasters. The study uses maps of “Russian Federation Territory Zoning in Terms of Natural Conditions of Lives of the Population” prepared at the Laboratory of Climatology, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, for the climatic conditions of the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, as well as the assessment of changes in these conditions in the mid-21st century according to the results of numerical experiments on a global climatic model developed by the Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences. It has been established that warming from 1991 to 2010 has led to a significant reduction in area with absolutely unfavorable and very unfavorable conditions. The scale of reduction is comparable with changes in discomfort in the “hard” anthropogenic scenario for the period from 2046 to 2055.