Spinning the Web: New Social Contacts of Prague`s Suburbanites

Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
Spinning the web: New social contacts of Prague’s suburbanites
Petra Špačková ⇑, Martin Ouředníček
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Albertov 6, Prague 2 128 43, Czech Republic
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 7 October 2011
Keywords:
Suburbanization
Social cohesion
Participation
Social networks
Prague metropolitan region
Czech Republic
a b s t r a c t
Suburbanization is one of the most important processes changing the nature of metropolitan regions in
Europe’s post-socialist countries. This paper evaluates the importance of social contacts of new suburbanites on local level social cohesion and development. The paper employs examples from empirical research
into new suburban communities in the Prague metropolitan region of the Czech Republic. Our results
show that both internal and external social ties are developing in such newly built areas, which is
important for the well-being of both the neighborhood and the municipality. Internal ties foster the social
cohesion of a neighborhood, while external ties encourage development of the whole municipality (e.g.,
via political participation or informal contacts).
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
At the core of a complex literature on suburban development is a
critique of suburbanization that focuses upon the erosion of social
capital (EEA, 2006; Putnam, 2000; Salamon, 2003a, 2003b; TCRP,
2002). A similarly negative perspective has also been visible in a
large part of the post-socialist urban literature, where a substantial
number of authors have criticized the social environment of suburbs
(Hirt & Stanilov, 2009; Hnilička, 2005; Sýkora, 2003; Timár & Váradi,
2001). In contrast to these scholars (who study suburbanization theoretically or use general metropolitan indicators; e.g., Putnam,
2000), we argue that suburbanization has no significant impact on
the worsening of the social environment in the Czech Republic.
The aim of our paper is to analyze and evaluate the social
relationships developing within new suburban localities in postsocialist cities, using the Czech Republic as our focus. We assess
the state of social cohesion, using a differential view of the social
ties among new suburbanites and the mechanisms evident in the
establishment of new social networks, institutions and activities.
‘‘Spinning the web’’ is a metaphor for the establishment of new
social networks, which we employ throughout this article. We
imagine the internal and external social ties of a local community
as a spider’s web, spinning both the inner and outer threads.
Suburbanization as a negative phenomenon
A negative perspective on the urban environment has a long
tradition in urban studies (Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Lupi & Musterd,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +420 221 951 970; fax: +420 224 920 657.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Špačková), slamak@natur.
cuni.cz (M. Ouředníček).
0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.09.002
2006). This applies also to studies on suburbanization. Starting in
the 1950s, the process of suburbanization has been widely criticized in the American literature. Suburbs were considered as
places of conformity, mediocrity, social anomy, and social pathology (Keats, 1956; Mumford, 1961; Whyte, 1956). These stereotypical images of American suburbia were later termed the suburban
myth (Berger, 1961). But empirical research based on participatory
observations showed a different image, illustrating the diversity of
American suburbs and the heterogeneity of local social systems
(Avenarius, 2008; Berger, 1960; Dobriner, 1960; Gans, 1967).
In recent years, a critique of the suburban social environment
has (re)appeared in connection with the introduction of the concept of social capital. Putnam (2000) regards suburbanization as
one of the causes of the loss of social capital and a degree of civic
engagement. Oliver (1999) assumes that high social homogeneity
of suburban communities implies a lower level of political participation. In addition, the time-space organization of suburbanites’
days is considered to be problematic, particularly when the
amount of time taken up by commuting considerably reduces
chances for informal contacts with neighbors (Putnam, 2000).
But Modarres and Kirby (2010) argue that such negative commentaries are not grounded by solid empirical evidence.
A similar wave of criticism of the suburbanization process has
appeared recently in the post-socialist countries (Hirt & Stanilov,
2009; Timár & Váradi, 2001). Authors in the Czech Republic blame
suburbanization for the loss of social cohesion (Sýkora, 2003) or
the social isolation of suburban residents (Hnilička, 2005). Most
of the critique is not based on thorough empirical analyses of the
social environment but rather adopts the negative insights derived
from literature on suburbanization in the West European and
North American context. Recent empirical studies show that the
reality is different and the negative consequences of social life in
342
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
suburbs are overestimated (Bernard, 2006; Leetmaa, Tammaru, &
Anniste, 2009; Puldová & Ouředníček, 2006; Soós & Ignits, 2005;
Wie˛cław-Michniewska, 2006).
A geographical perspective on social ties
In the past, there was a large debate on the significance of social
ties in urban society (Gans, 1967; Granovetter, 1973; Tönnies,
1887/1996; Wellman & Leighton, 1979; Wirth, 1938), which still
persists in various forms in the discussion of suburban development (Avenarius, 2008; Erkip, 2010; Lupi & Musterd, 2006;
Putnam, 2000; Salamon, 2003a). The importance of social networks
only loosely tied to a specific location characterizes contemporary
societies. These or other contacts take place among people over
large distances, relatively independently of the character of the
places they originate from. A considerable amount of communication has been liberated from the space, as it has moved to the
cyberspace of flows of mobile telephones, Internet, e-mail communication, discussion forums or groups (Hampton & Wellman,
2003). Discussion on the ‘‘community question’’, dealing with the
loss or survival of social cohesion within the society, was solved
using the concept of ‘‘community liberated’’ (Wellman & Leighton,
1979). Presented in a sociological perspective this concept sees social interaction as being liberated from the spatial dimension and
the transformation of social networks into regional, continental
or even global networks (Hampton & Wellman, 2003; Wellman &
Leighton, 1979). Overall social cohesion in society and the volume
of contacts inside these transformed social networks are not
declining.
Local governments, activists and geographers would not be satisfied with the declining share and number of social ties in the
neighborhoods. Gradual delocalisation of social contacts raises
numerous important questions about the consequences of transformed communities for neighborhoods or municipalities. Most
importantly, there is a concern whether the spatially liberated social ties still include those relationships and contacts that are
essential for the normal functioning of neighborhoods and municipalities (participation, local engagement, and local organisations).
In his later work, Wellman (1996) showed the persisting importance of local ties as sources of people’s routine interactions,
although active ties with neighbors were usually weaker than
other active ties.
This paper investigates whether the delocalisation of social ties
is evident in Czech suburban localities and clarifies whether suburbanization destroys social networks in suburbia or replaces traditional bonding internal ties with more diverse social networks.
The latter implies networks that consist of a combination of external (non-local) and new bridging ties between new and old suburbanites. We expect that both types of ties are developing in such
newly built areas and are important for the well-being of both
the neighborhood and the municipality. First, internal ties foster
the social cohesion of the local community (Coleman, 1988). Second, external ties could encourage the development of the whole
municipality (e.g., via political participation or informal contacts).
Some scholars believe that external (non-local) networks can enrich social contacts within a society (Guest, 2000; Hampton &
Wellman, 2003).
When we aspire to evaluate social ties embedded in a locality,
we need to delimit the extent and spatial boundaries of the units
under review. The basic question is: What is inside and what is
outside the study area and which relationships are realized inside
the spatially autonomous unit (neighborhood) and which lead outside and can be considered as bridging contacts? The problem of
geographical scale is central in studies of social networks (Forrest
& Kearns, 2001). The development of several small localities of
new housing around the core of suburban villages is typical of
post-socialist suburbanization (Kährik & Tammaru, 2008; Ouředníček, 2007; Valkanov, 2005), and their inhabitants barely interact
with each other during the initial phase of suburbanization. This
results in a fragmentation of the socio-spatial system of suburban
municipalities into several social networks. But the territory of the
municipality is the most appropriate for empirical research –
municipalities have recognizable boundaries, they have their own
administrations and budgets and a relatively autonomous public
and political life.
The character of the Czech (post-socialist) suburbanization
Suburbanization is one of the most important processes changing the nature of metropolitan regions in European post-socialist
countries (Kährik & Tammaru, 2008; Leetmaa & Tammaru, 2007;
Ouředníček, 2007; Stanilov, 2007a; Timár & Váradi, 2001).
Although the main mechanisms of suburbanization (i.e., migration
of city residents to the hinterland) are similar to Western countries
(Timár & Váradi, 2001), the process has specific features in post-socialist settings (Ouředníček, 2007). For example, it has never been
supported by large state incentives and coherent public policies.
This applies also to suburbanization in the Czech Republic. Low
levels of suburbanization during the period of state socialism and
a desire to live in the house of one’s own are the key drivers of suburbanization. Re-establishment of the land market, restitution of
state property (land and housing) to private owners and the growing number of well-off people who can afford this type of housing
contribute to suburban population growth. Relatively cheap land
around the Czech cities and the rapidly declining protection of
agricultural land and planning regulations are also crucial factors
for the deconcentration of residential function. Although new
housing construction slowed down during the economic crisis
(see Fig. 1), a 3% net migration growth still intensively changes
the socio-demographic structure of suburban areas in the capital
city of Prague.
In the post-socialist literature, the main focus is on the impact
of suburbanization on changes in the social structure of destination
localities and on the characteristics of new suburbanites (Hirt,
2007; Kok & Kovács, 1999; Ladányi & Szelényi, 1998; Leetmaa &
Tammaru, 2007). Research reveals a reduction in population polarization between the core city and surrounding metropolitan regions and a simultaneous increase in segregation within the
suburban area (Ruoppila & Kährik, 2003; Sedláková, 2005; Soós &
Ignits, 2005; Tammaru, 2001, 2005; Tammaru & Leetmaa, 2007;
Timár & Váradi, 2001). A heterogeneous population structure is
appearing in Czech suburban municipalities as a result of suburbanization (Ouředníček, 2003). New suburbanites are younger
and better-educated than old residents in the suburbs (Table 1,
see also Ouředníček, 2007; Vobecká & Kostelecký, 2007). While
Prague is more attractive to younger people at the beginning of
their housing consumption, families with children are over-represented among suburbanites (Fig. 2). Kährik and Tammaru (2008)
describe a similar development of the age structure of suburban
migrants in Estonia.
Data and methods
The empirical part of the paper is based on field research within
the Prague Functional Urban Region (FUR). It consists of three
administrative districts – the Capital city of Prague, and the districts of Praha-východ (Prague-East) and Praha-západ (PragueWest). Our data come mainly from two surveys: ‘‘Development
of socio-spatial structure in the Prague Urban Region’’ and ‘‘Urbanization processes in the Prague Urban Region’’ carried out by the
343
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
2.5
2.2
4.0
5.0
5.9
1.5
5.9
.9
4.3
.7
5 .9
.1
8 .4
.8
8 .4
12.8
14 1
14.1
20.6
21.3
11 6
11.6
11.7
Fig. 1. Net migration rate in Prague, suburban zone and Central Bohemia Region in 1988–2010. Note: The suburban zone is created by the districts of Praha-východ and
Praha-západ. Source: Czech Statistical Office, 2011.
Table 1
Development of basic characteristics of Prague, Prague’s hinterland, Central Bohemia Region and the Czech Republic. Source: Czech Statistical Office, 1961–2008.
Characteristic
Year
Number of municipalities
1961
1990
2006
Prague
University educated residents
1961
1991
2001
7.0%
16.0%
18.8%
2.0%
6.7%
10.2%
1.4%
5.1%
7.0%
2.2%
7.2%
8.9%
Seniors (aged 60 and more)
1961
1991
2008
16.1%
21.2%
23.1%
17.4%
19.8%
19.0%
18.2%
18.9%
20.9%
14.9%
17.8%
21.4%
1
1
1
Prague’s hinterland
Central Bohemia region
Czech Republic
235
142
171
1568
770
1146
8726
4100
6248
Note: Prague’s hinterland is made up of the Praha-východ and Praha-západ districts.
Fig. 2. Age structure of immigrants to Prague and Prague’s hinterland in the period of 2006–2008. Note: Prague’s hinterland is created by the districts of Praha-východ and
Praha-západ. The average annual proportion of immigrants in respective age groups is shown in the chart. The annual average number of immigrants to Prague and Prague’s
hinterland is 21,186 and 13,032 respectively. Source: Czech Statistical Office, 2008.
authors. The surveys ‘‘Development of socio-spatial structure in
the Prague FUR’’ were conducted in May 2002, June 2004, and
October and November 2010. We asked mayors of ‘‘suburbanized’’
municipalities in the Prague FUR and peripheral city districts of
Prague to participate in a questionnaire survey. We consider mayors of municipalities and city parts to be key actors of local communities as they work and live predominantly in the local
environment. We asked about the new developments in the
municipalities and urban districts, and on its impact on local community life.
In the first two phases of the survey (years 2002 and 2004), our
interviewers contacted all respondents personally, explained the
research aims and consequently arranged a personal appointment
to complete the questionnaire with them. Although this method is
344
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
highly time-consuming, it increases the response rate considerably, exceeding 80% in each year. In total, we received 84 (of
100) completed questionnaires in 2002 and 156 (of 180) in 2004.
In 2010, our interviewers communicated with respondents by
phone and asked them to send the questionnaire by email or mail.
The response rate was still satisfactory (60% or 93 out of 155 completed questionnaires). As we succeeded in covering all suburbanized localities around Prague (see Fig. 3), the enquiry can be
considered as representative.
The second survey ‘‘Urbanization processes in the Prague FUR’’
was designed as a complementary source of information about the
social environment of suburban localities. An extensive questionnaire survey among new residents was carried out in June 2006.
As it was not possible to make a comprehensive survey and address all new residents of Prague’s hinterland, case study research
of several municipalities was carried out. The general social composition of the population (demographic variables, socio-economic
status) and physical qualities of new housing are comparable
throughout the Prague FUR. Nine suburban localities were chosen
to include both traditional as well as recent developments at a
greater distance from the central city. The survey contained questions concerning the integration of newcomers into the local community and the establishment of new local relationships, their civic
engagement and political participation.
The sample of respondents was based on random selection
within defined localities of new developments with the aim of covering approximately 50% of new housing units in each settlement
(with the exception of one municipality with extensive development where 30% of new housing units were covered). Based on
our positive experience with the previous surveys, all respondents
were contacted personally in their homes. Our interviewers
explained the research aims to them and generally arranged an
appointment to pick up the completed questionnaires (only 10%
of respondents sent the questionnaires by mail).
We received questionnaires from 562 households, consisting of
1687 inhabitants. Table 2 shows the basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents and their households. The
sex and age structure of sample households are comparable to the
entire population of new residents, which is represented by the inmigration flow to the settlement areas. Since more educated people are generally more willing to participate in research surveys,
the educational level of the sample is slightly higher than the general population.
Results: spinning new webs of social ties among suburbanites
Internal social cohesion on the level of communities
It is possible to trace a certain level of agreement in the literature regarding social cohesion and the spatial impact of social relationships. While some celebrate the role of social capital (Coleman,
1988; Putnam, 2000), others argue that a high level of social cohesion at the local level should not be considered as a clearly positive
element (Briggs, 2007; Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Musil, 2005). A certain level of social cohesion in a community is necessary to ensure
its functioning and control and to supply the everyday needs of its
inhabitants (Coleman, 1988).
Suburbanites move to municipalities whose communities are
generally unknown to them and in general, few internal ties have
already been established. The creation of local webs in suburban
localities of the Prague FUR generally proceeds in two waves. First,
Fig. 3. Map of Central Bohemia Region with localities involved in questionnaire surveys. Source: Questionnaire survey of mayors, 2002, 2004, 2010; Questionnaire survey,
2006.
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
Table 2
Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the survey sample and of the
migration flows to selected municipalities in the period of 1995–2005. Source: Czech
Statistical Office, 1995–2005, questionnaire survey, 2006.
Characteristic
Respondents
(%)
Respondents’
households
(%)
Migration
flow (%)
Sex structure
Men
46
49
49
Age structure
0–14 years old
15–39 years
old
40–64 years
old
65 years and
over
0
53
21
46
21
50
43
30
24
4
3
5
University
educated
Secondary
educated
43
38
26
47
47
36
Educational
structure
Note: Data for educational structure of migrants is available for the period 1995–
2004 only.
weak ties develop between new residents in the immediate proximity, and contact with older suburbanites remains limited (Fig. 6).
The influence of physical and social distance plays a key role. New
residents generally come from similar socio-economic conditions
and most of them are at the same stage in their lives, i.e., by age.
Many share the same experience with housing construction, getting to know new living environments and solving problems connected with settling down. In newly developed localities, social
life is lively with a relatively high level of social cohesion: approximately two thirds of respondents stated that people in the neighborhood visit each other on a regular basis. Similarly, more than
half of the respondents meet with neighbors during common gatherings. More than 60% of the respondents declared frequent mutual
assistance in activities such as shopping or babysitting (Fig. 4)
among neighbors.
One of the most discussed topics in relation to suburbanization
is the mutual relationship between old and new suburbanites
(Bernard, 2006; Salamon, 2003a). As the differences between
socio-economic status and life styles of both groups are apparent (Hirt, 2007; Ouředníček, 2003; Valkanov, 2005), many
scholars have predicted a growing social distance and difficult
communication between the groups (Soós & Ignits, 2005; Timár
345
& Váradi, 2001). The evidence from the Prague hinterland shows
a rather different picture. In most municipalities, old and new
residents either respect each other or live parallel lives with no
conflict. The proportions of these two non-conflict strategies differ
in surveys, but have risen over eight years on account of conflict
related relationships (2002–2010). In 2010, about one third of
mayors stated that the social relationships between these two
groups were good or excellent. Only in a very small number of
municipalities were the relationships marked as bad (Fig. 5).
Conflicts between new residents and local authorities are more
common since many new residents demand a higher standard of
infrastructure and services than is possible for a municipality to
deliver. A similar situation has been found in other post-socialist
countries (Hirt, 2007; Soós and Ignits, 2005).
A factor that may inhibit the creation of social ties between the
two groups relates to perceived isolation. Indeed, approximately
one-third of respondents (new residents) stated that they feel
somehow isolated from the older suburbanites. Physical and/or social distance was indicated as the most frequent reason for isolation. With respect to physical distance, respondents mentioned
various forms of spatial separation of new developments from
the older parts of the village such as the large distances between
houses, a lack of roads and pavement connecting these two parts,
busy roads or the perception of new houses being built on a hill
above the old village. Social distance relates to the perceived difference by demographic and social characteristics and is often expressed as a division between ‘‘the old and poor’’ and ‘‘the young
and rich’’, but also in different lifestyles (longer working hours of
newcomers and having children in their families), prejudices
against newcomers and overall different mentalities. The
importance of both physical and social distances in hindering
neighborhood ties was discussed by Hipp and Perrin (2009). But
Fig. 5. What are the social relationships between old and new residents like in your
municipality? Note: For 2002 N = 84; for 2004 N = 156, own research. Source:
Questionnaire survey of mayors, 2002, 2004, 2010.
Fig. 4. The nature of neighboring ties within new suburban neighborhoods. Note:
The residents evaluated these assumptions: Visiting neighbors (N = 510): ‘‘People in
the neighbourhood visit each other.’’ Larger gatherings (N = 503): ‘‘People in the
neighbourhood organize common gatherings where other neighbors are invited.’’
Mutual help (N = 480): ‘‘People in the neighbourhood help each other (e.g.,
shopping, borrowing of gardening tools or babysitting).’’ The frequencies are set
as follows: often = more than once a month; sometimes = from once a month to
several times a year; rarely = approximately once a year. Source: Questionnaire
survey, 2006.
Fig. 6. Number of newcomers’ friendship and acquaintances ties in suburbia. Note:
N = 521. Source: Questionnaire survey, 2006.
346
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
Fig. 7. Reasons of positive influence of discussion forums on social relations in suburban municipalities. Note: Data from questionnaire survey, N = 123. Source: Susová, 2009.
such high levels of isolation could be temporary and the integration of newcomers into the community life increases the longer
they live there (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Ouředníček, 2003;
Sampson, 1988).
Bridging people, institutions, activities and places
Having shown the evidence of new relations developing in suburbia, a question arises about the mechanisms of spinning the
webs of such relationships. The integration process of newcomers
into the community usually starts from children who often interact
with other children in the neighborhood on a daily basis (Campbell
& Lee, 1990; Davies & Herbert, 1993). In car-dependent suburbia,
the local ties of children may be especially important, bringing together their parents as well. Indeed, some survey respondents stated that the children had been an important trigger mechanism for
developing social ties with other people from the village: ‘‘With the
birth of our son, my wife started to come into contact with the local community.’’ Young women on maternity leave were shown to
be very active in establishing new social relations. Their daily
activity space is limited due to caring of children or restrictions imposed by poor access to transport – either due to poor public transport availability or having only one car in the household (Hirt,
2008; Novák & Sýkora, 2007). These integration pioneers play a
key role in further spinning the community web as they represent
important bridging contacts to the other members of households
and their immediate surroundings. Similarly, Galčanová and
Vacková (2008) pinpointed the role of women with children as
an important integrating factor in a local community in the hinterland of Brno.
There are also other bridging components operating in suburbia: places where the residents can meet each other. These include
public spaces (appropriately designed streets, a central village
square, park, bus stop etc.), the sites of local services and institutions (pub, grocery store, schools, sports clubs) as well as places
where other social activities can be performed with neighbors
(e.g., celebrating Czech traditional festivals of Children’s day and
the annual Witch Burning fire).
Institutions and places with the highest impact on the rapprochement of old and new suburbanites are those focused on children’s activities. Pre-school baby clubs, kindergartens and primary
schools act as main institutions. A specific phenomenon in new
suburban settlements is the rise of institutionalized centers for
childcare, which provide babysitting services and leisure activities.
They are generally founded and operated by active mothers and
mostly recruit from new suburban neighborhoods. Childcare centeres partially complement kindergartens that provide insufficient
capacity in the majority of suburban municipalities. Day-care centeres, kindergartens and primary schools are places for the socialization of children and the most important institutions for the
integration of new residents into suburban communities. New
types of meeting places such as women’s and mothers’ clubs
emerge in suburban localities as well.
Mayors and municipal councils are often very active in promoting social life in a municipality. As one respondent stated: ‘‘the municipal council organizes many social activities and festival for all
the residents – e.g., the witch burning fire, a celebration of the
founding of the municipality, sports and children’s activities‘‘.
According to the respondents, a sufficient number of meeting
places may help overcome the negative effects of social and physical distance and suppress the sense of isolation. The experience
from suburbs where the meeting places are lacking illustrates
the importance of their presence. As one respondent claimed:
‘‘We have very few opportunities for contact with the other residents. There are no cultural events, no decent pubs, grocery stores
nor sport fields. The only place where people could meet each
other is the post office.’’
An important integrating factor is local media. Many municipalities and locally-based organizations publish local bulletins, newspapers and websites on the Internet. The Internet discussion
forums represent a unique new phenomenon serving as a meeting
place in cyberspace. Susová (2009) found out that discussion forums enable the creation of social ties among new suburbanites
even before they move to their new houses. According to her research, new residents assigned a positive influence to discussion
forums, as they were able to get in contact with their neighbors
quickly, organize social activities, share information, or jointly
solve practical problems connected to the house construction
(see Fig. 7). The contacts in cyberspace do not eliminate the contacts in physical space but help facilitate local contacts with neighbors (cf. Mesch & Levanon, 2003).1 Wired suburbia enables
residents to work at home, which reduces daily commuting and extends time spent within suburbia.
1
A similar positive role of housing-estate discussion forums in post-socialist city is
described by Kotus and Hławka (2010) in Poznań.
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
347
Fig. 8. Do new residents participate in public affairs in your municipality? Note: For 2002 N = 84; for 2004 N = 156. Source: Questionnaire survey of mayors, 2002, 2004, 2010.
Newcomers’ contribution to community well-being
New residents bring many important contacts, but it is crucial
how they are used for local development. The empirical evidence
from the Prague suburban zone shows examples of newcomers’
contribution to community well-being in a variety of forms. We
find rehabilitation and activation of certain institutions useful for
the functioning of municipality and community, such as kindergartens, primary schools, centers for childcare and various leisuretime activities. New suburbanites also serve as key activators of
the civic and political life within the municipalities – the share of
municipalities where new residents participate in public affairs
at least partially increases over time (Fig. 8).
New suburbanites take part in a variety of social activities,
motivated by the desire to enhance the community well-being.
For example, a number of suburbanites actively work on the
improvement of physical environments in their neighborhoods
(greenery, parks, and children’s playgrounds), organize social
events (the majority of them dedicated to children) and leisuretime activities (football and tennis clubs, traditional associations
of fishermen and hunters) (Fig. 9). Some of the new citizens took
part in more formalized activities such as working for civic associations focused on community development or local political
participation.
Discussion and conclusions
The article examined claims about a loss of social cohesion, social anomy and overall worsening of the social environment within
the hinterlands of post-socialist cities as a result of intense suburbanization. The empirical findings of this study provide little evidence of the erosion of social cohesion due to suburbanization.
Old and new suburbanites generally ‘‘respect each other’’ but they
do not need frequent contact and prefer weak ties to strong ones.
These weak social ties emerge as a result of the efforts to effectively organize one’s everyday life among new suburbanites. We
find a gradually increasing integration into local communities
and participation in public affairs within the municipalities as time
proceeds. The number and intensity of contacts between new and
old suburbanites also grows over time. The spinning of the web of
social contacts often starts between people with the highest
Fig. 9. The structure of newcomers’ activities in their local community. Note: N = 154. Source: Questionnaire survey, 2006.
348
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
probability of interrelationships. Children’s activities around kindergartens, schools and sport clubs and the gradual socialization
of their parents (especially mothers) serve as mediators of initial
contacts among the parents as well.
We did not find any evidence of why a specific – suburban –
location would facilitate the isolation or segregation of selected social groups. Similar coexistence of new and old residents is found
elsewhere in post-socialist urban regions (Stanilov, 2007; Temelová, Novák, Ouředníček, & Puldová, 2011; Valkanov, 2005). It has
also been well established in the literature that the total amount
and especially the diversity (quality) of social ties increase with
the length of residence (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). The important
factors for the establishment and sustainability of social cohesion
and a good social climate in a particular locality relate also to residential stability and a low fluctuation of inhabitants in the area.
Although intense suburbanization significantly changes population
size and composition in suburban areas, they represent a longterm destination in the residential experience of inhabitants; for
example, in comparison with many areas of the inner city and large
housing estates (cf. Haase, Großmann, & Steinführer, 2012; Ouředníček & Temelová, 2009). This residential stability is supported
by the largely private ownership of land and houses and the gradual networking of children in schools and local society. New suburban residential areas thus have solid preconditions to become
stable parts of metropolitan regions in the Czech Republic and also
elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe.
It is true that only some social ties must inevitably be tied to
neighborhoods, while other parts of social networks, which are
equally important for the functioning of local communities, should
be delocalized from suburbia. Apart from the allocation of a large
percentage of social contacts in other areas of the metropolitan regions, a proportion of relationships have been liberated from spatial entrapment and shifted into virtual space. Internet discussion
forums represent a unique new phenomenon serving as meeting
places in cyberspace.
External ties, which connect suburbanites especially to people
active in the core city of a metropolitan region, also play an important role for suburban communities. Investigation of these networks seems to be a relevant topic of future research in the field
of post-socialist suburban studies. The inflow of new suburbanites
can be viewed as an improvement of socio-economic status and a
widening of social networks to other extra local social groups enabled by bridging contacts outside the local community. External
bridges are important as they can facilitate contacts and information from different (external) groups of actors (Burt, 2004), i.e., in
the case of suburbanization predominantly with the core city of
the metropolitan area. For example, most new suburbanites commute to work in the core city (Tammaru, 2005). The transfer of
information and knowledge must at the same time be enabled by
the establishment of networks between new and old suburbanites
(Guest, 2000) – i.e., by the incorporation of new residents into the
public life of municipalities.2 We conclude that the most important
building blocks of the new organization of social networks within
suburbia are ties established both inside the local communities
and those leading outside these communities. We believe that this
newly spun web could transform suburban areas into more open, active and prosperous parts in the Central and Eastern European
metropolitan regions.
2
Larsen et al. (2004) consider collective action of local population against
externally generated threats to their health and safety as the product of bridging
social capital. They argue, in line with our results, that extended contacts beyond the
members of the neighbourhood must be based on pre-existing bonding social capital.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank guest editors of this special volume T. Tammaru, R. van Kempen and M. Gentile, editor of the journal A. Modarres, and the anonymous referees for providing
insightful and very helpful suggestions and comments on an earlier
draft of this paper, which aided greatly in revision. The authors are
grateful for the financial support provided by the projects SP/4i5/
212/07 of Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic and
404/10/0523 of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic.
References
Avenarius, Ch. B. (2008). Knitting social networks: Gender and immigrant responses
to life in urban sprawl. In J. N. DeSena (Ed.), Gender in an Urban World
(pp. 140–200). Bingley: Emerald.
Berger, B. M. (1960). Working-class suburb. A study of auto workers in suburbia.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Berger, B. M. (1961). The myth of suburbia. Journal of Social Issues, 17, 38–49.
Bernard, J. (2006). Sociální integrace přistěhovalců z velkoměsta na vesnici v České
republice a v Rakousku. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 42,
741–760.
Briggs, X. dS. (2007). Some of my best friends are . . .: Interracial friendships, class,
and segregation in America. City & Community, 6, 263–290.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110,
349–399.
Campbell, K. E., & Lee, B. A. (1990). Gender differences in urban neighboring. The
Sociological Quarterly, 31, 495–512.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Davies, K. D., & Herbert, D. T. (1993). Communities within cities. An urban social
geography. London: Belhaven Press.
Dobriner, W. M. (1960). The natural history of a reluctant suburb. In J. Kramer (Ed.),
North American suburbs: Politics, diversity and change (pp. 47–63). Berkeley: The
Glendessary Press (1972).
EEA, 2006. Urban Sprawl in Europe. The Ignored Challenge. European Environment
Agency Report, no. 10. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Erkip, F. (2010). Community and neighborhood relations in Ankara: An urban–
suburban contrast. Cities, 27, 96–102.
Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the
neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38, 2125–2143.
Galčanová, L., & Vacková, B. (2008). Rezidenční suburbanizace v postkomunistické
České republice, její kořeny, tradice a současnost, IVRIS Papers 08/02, Masaryk
Univerzity, Brno.
Gans, H. J. (1967). The lewittowners. Ways of life and politics in a new suburban
community. London: The Penguin Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78, 1360–1380.
Guest, A. M. (2000). The mediate community: The nature of local and extralocal ties
within the metropolis. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 603–627.
Haase, A., Großmann, K., & Steinführer, A. (2012). Transitory urbanites: New actors
of residential change in Polish and Czech inner cities. Cities, 29(5), 318–326.
Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the internet
supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2,
277–311.
Hipp, J., & Perrin, A. (2009). The simultaneous effect of social distance and physical
distance on the formation of neighbourhood ties. City & Community, 8, 5–25.
Hirt, S. A. (2007). Suburbanizing Sofia: Characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban
change. Urban Geography, 28, 755–780.
Hirt, S. A. (2008). Stuck in the suburbs? Gendered perspectives on Libiny at the edge
of the post-communist city. Cities, 25, 340–354.
Hirt, S. A., & Stanilov, K. (2009). Twenty Years of Transition: The Evolution of Urban
Planning in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, 1989–2009. Human
Settlements Global Dialogue Series, No. 5, United Nations Human Settlements
Programme (UN-HABITAT), Nairobi.
Hnilička, P. (2005). Sídelní kaše: Otázky k suburbánní výstavbě kolonií rodinných
domů, Era 21, Brno.
Kährik, A., & Tammaru, T. (2008). Population composition in new suburban
settlement of the Tallinn metropolitan area. Urban Studies, 45, 1055–1078.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society.
American Sociological Review, 39, 328–339.
Keats, J. (1956). The crack in the picture window. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kok, H., & Kovács, Z. (1999). The process of suburbanization in the agglomeration of
budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 14, 119–141.
Kotus, J., & Hławka, B. (2010). Urban neighbourhood communities organised on-line
– a new form of self-organisation in the Polish city? Cities, 27, 204–214.
Ladányi, J., & Szelényi, I. (1998). Class, ethnicity and urban restructuring in
postcommunist Hungary. In Gy. Enyedi (Ed.), Social change and urban
restructuring in Central Europe (pp. 67–86). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Larsen, L., Harlan, S. L., Bolin, B., Hackett, E. J., Hope, D., Kirby, A., Nelson, A., Rex, T.
R., & Wolf, S. (2004). Bonding and bridging. Understanding the relationship
P. Špačková, M. Ouředníček / Cities 29 (2012) 341–349
between social capital and civic action. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 24, 64–77.
Leetmaa, K., & Tammaru, T. (2007). Suburbanization in countries in transition:
Destinations of suburbanizers in the Tallinn metropolitan area. Geografiska
Annaler – Human Geography, 89B, 127–146.
Leetmaa, K., Tammaru, T., & Anniste, K. (2009). From priority-led to market-led
suburbanisation in a post-communist metropolis. Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie, 100, 436–453.
Lupi, T., & Musterd, S. (2006). The suburban ‘community question’. Urban Studies,
43, 801–817.
Mesch, G. S., & Levanon, Y. (2003). Community networking and locally-based social
ties in two suburban localities. City & Community, 2, 335–351.
Modarres, A., & Kirby, A. (2010). The suburban question: Notes for a research
program. Cities, 27, 114–121.
Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Musil, J. (2005). Současná pojetí sociální soudržnosti a Česká republika. In: Musil, J.
(Ed.), Pojetí sociální soudržnosti v soudobé sociologii a politologii (pp. 7–16). CESES
Papers, Prague.
Novák, J., & Sýkora, L. (2007). A city in motion: Time-space activity and mobility
patterns of suburban inhabitants and structuration of spatial organization in
prague metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler – Human Geography, 89B,
147–168.
Oliver, E. (1999). The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on local civic
participation. American Journal of Politician Science, 43, 186–212.
Ouředníček, M. (2003). Suburbanizace Prahy. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological
Review, 39, 235–253 (Suburbanization of Prague).
Ouředníček, M. (2007). Differential suburban development in the Prague Urban
Region. Geografiska Annaler – Human Geography, 89B, 111–125.
Ouředníček, M., & Temelová, J. (2009). Twenty years after socialism: The
transformation of Pragués inner structure. Studia Sociologia, 54, 9–30.
Puldová, P., & Ouředníček, M. (2006). Změny sociálního prostředí v zázemí Prahy
jako důsledek procesu suburbanizace. In Ouředníček, M. (Ed.) Sociální Geografie
Pražského městského regionu (pp. 128–142), Charles University in Prague, Prague
[The changes of social environment in the hinterland of Prague as a
consequence of suburbanization process].
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ruoppila, S., & Kährik, A. (2003). Socio-economic residential differentiation in postsocialist Tallinn. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 18, 49–73.
Salamon, S. (2003a). Newcomers to old towns: Suburbanization of the heartland.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Salamon, S. (2003b). From hometown to nontown: Rural community effects of
suburbanization. Rural Sociology, 68, 1–24.
Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass
society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766–779.
Sedláková, A. (2005). Comparative study of migration tendencies in suburban zones
of post-communist cities Prešov and Olomouc. Acta Facultatis Studiorum
Humanitatis et Naturae Universitatis Prešoviensis, Prírodné vedy, 43, 171–179.
349
Soós, G., & Ignits, Gy. (2005). Suburbanization and its consequences in the Budapest
metropolitan area. In F. Eckardt (Ed.), Paths of urban transformation
(pp. 195–217). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Stanilov, K. (2007a). Taking stock of post-socialist urban development: A
recapitulation. In K. Stanilov (Ed.), Post-socialist city (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Stanilov, K. (2007b). Housing trends in Central and Eastern European cities during
and after the period of transition. In K. Stanilov (Ed.), Post-socialist city
(pp. 173–190). Dordrecht: Springer.
Susová, K. (2009). Vliv internetu na komunitní zivot v suburbiích, Master thesis.
Charles University in Prague, Prague (Impact of the Internet on community life
in suburbia).
Sýkora, L. (2003). Suburbanizace a její společenské důsledky. Sociologický časopis/
Czech Sociological Review, 39, 217–233 [Suburbanization and Its Social
Consequences].
Tammaru, T. (2001). Suburban growth and suburbanisation under central planning:
The case of Soviet Estonia. Urban Studies, 38, 1341–1357.
Tammaru, T. (2005). Suburbanisation, employment change, and commuting in the
Tallinn metropolitan area. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1669–1687.
Tammaru, T., & Leetmaa, K. (2007). Suburbanisation in relation to education in the
Tallinn Metropolitan area. Population, Space and Place, 13, 279–292.
TCRP (2002). Costs of sprawl – 2000, Transit cooperative research program.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Temelová, J., Novák, J., Ouředníček, M., & Puldová, P. (2011). Housing estates in the
Czech Republic after socialism: Various trajectories and inner differentiation.
Urban Studies, 48, 1811–1834.
Timár, J., & Váradi, M. M. (2001). The uneven development of suburbanization
during transition in Hungary. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8,
349–360.
Tönnies, F. (1887/1996). Community and society. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.
Valkanov, Y. (2005). Suburbanisation in sofia: Changing spatial structure of a postcommunist city. In F. Eckardt (Ed.), Paths of urban transformation (pp. 175–194).
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Vobecká, J., & Kostelecký, T. (Eds.), 2007. Politické důsledky suburbanizace,
Sociological Studies 07, no. 8. Prague: Sociological Institute of the Czech
Academy of Science.
Wellman, B. (1996). Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian
reconsideration. Social Networks, 18, 347–354.
Wellman, B., & Leighton, B. (1979). Networks, neighbourhoods, and communities:
Approaches to the study of the community question. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14,
363–390.
Whyte, W. H. (1956/2002). The organization man. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Wie˛cław-Michniewska, J. (2006). Krakowskie suburbia i ich spolecznosc. Krakow:
Jagiellonian University.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. In R. T. LeGates & F. Stout (Eds.), The city
reader (pp. 189–197). London, New York: Routledge (1996).