DELINEATION OF FUNCTIONAL URBAN REGIONS AND THEIR HISTORICAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

One basic interpretation of the formation and development of national settlement systems refers to the urban rank-size pattern. It has been generally found that the regu- larity in city rank-size distributions for individual countries tends to increase over time and that it is positively correlated with the intensity and stability of human-occupancy and economic-activity patterns (Dzieworiski, 1972).

In analyzing the rank-size distribution of urban settlements in Romania we chose an approach similar to the one proposed by Thomas (1967) using a log-normal distri- bution. We then computed the correlation coefficients of the time-series distributions over the period 1941-1975 (Enache, 1977a) as shown in Figure 2. The log-log size distribution of the Romanian cities indicates a lack of big cities, i.e. cities with populations

110 M. Enache, S. Holtier of over 250,000. The correlation coefficients are generally increasing during the period

1941-1975.

The concept of rank-size distribution, unlike alternative interpretations of the for- mation and development of national settlement systems, has no explicit spatial dimension.

One alternative intepretation refers to the hierarchical pattern of central places. This pattern evolves as a result of exogenous economic and technological factors involving the division of labor and functional specialization as well as trends towards concentration or deconcentration of population and economic activity. The growing specialization and functional interdependence on an interregional or even national scale are the base of a hierarchical central-place model.

However, Hansen (1975) and Parr (1973) have pointed out the generally ambiguous empirical role of central-place hierarchies. Reliance on a traditional market-oriented

hierarchy of central places does not provide an adequate growth model (see also Pred, 1976 and Stohr, 1974). The concept that is closest to a development theory of settle- rtlents is consequently the concept of growth poles. Despite the fact that the central-place theory is the dominant theory in studies of the settlement network in Romania it can be argued that the actual practice and decision malung on a regional scale rely heavily on a built-in and sometimes hidden concept of growth poles.

The fourth concept used in defining Functional Urban Regions (FURS) in Romania was the notion of clusters of settlements (Enache, 1 9 7 7 ~ ) . The expansion of large cities to include surrounding smaller towns and communities in their sphere of influence, as well as linkages between neighboring cities in terms of labor and raw-materials supply and infrastructure building, are factors in explaining this notion.

At present 15 such clusters of settlements can be identified; they integrate some 100 urban settlements with a total population of 4.3 d i o n people. Fourteen more clusters are taking shape now, and the future development policy will tend to stimulate the emergence of another seven (Figure 3).

The present and future clusters of settlements constitute a crucial lever of regional development since most of them emerge around county capitals, which means that a larger share of growth at county level is directed towards them. Each settlement cluster includes a major urban center and a number of smaller settlements (urban and rural) which develop linkages with the main center in terms of industrial and agricultural activities, labor and housing provision, sociocultural and commercial activities, services, recreation, etc. Socially, this implies the participation of the population residing in the sphere of influence of the main center in the activities occurring in that center.

The Romanian settlement clusters include, with six exceptions, a large city with a population of over 100,000. In most cases the main center is also a county capital. There are only eight county capitals which do not generate clusters (see Figure 3). However:

there are a few urban centers which, without being county capitals, generate settlement clusters: the Jiu Valley, the Danube-Black Sea system, etc. (Enache, 1 9 7 7 ~ ) . Finally, if large cities with populations of over 200,000 are naturally centers of clusters, smaller cities with populations of over 100,000 or so share t h s quality and have important functions either at a county or at intracounty level. All the fcregoing arguments justified our proceeding in delineating functional urban ccji.,~ on the basis of the definition of settlement clusters. (However, as strict growth limits were delineated in 1973 for every settlement in the country (either urban or rural), it is reasonable in the special case of

BULGARIA 1;IC;UKL 3 Urban s~ItI~'111ent Systems in Romanid. (Source: Enactie, 1977b.)

112 M. Enache, S. Holtier

Romania to have nonadjacent urban cores. This means that, although the settlements in a cluster are functionally adjacent, they are physically not adjacent. The hectarage data for the FUR cores were computed accordingly.)

We added several more criteria (in addition to the ones for settlement clusters) for delineating FURs: the actual and potential commuting range, based on the pattern of spatial accessibility, as well as the established population sue threshold of 50,000. (How- ever, the rigorous application of the 50,000-population criterion would have resulted in the omission of several important regions of commuting oriented towards newly developed industrial centers: namely, Slatina (33), Vaslui (44), C i l k a ~ i (24), Gh. Gh. Dej (6), and Petro~ani (22) (Figure 4). In several cases two adjacent urban settlements with populations of over 50,000 each have been included in the same FUR: namely BrZla-Galati (1 1), Deva-Hunedoara (2 l ) , and Cluj-Turda ( l4).)

Secondary regionalization criteria used in the delineating procedure refer to other major types of regionally oriented spatial interaction (e.g. service linkages and inter- relations) based on the structure of local administration whose spatial ranges, under planned-economy conditions, tend t o be highly correlated (Korcelli, 1977). As in Poland, the introduction of supplementary criteria made it possible to delineate a set of FURS that exhaustively covers the whole national territory, even when a part of this territory is situated beyond the commuting sheds of large and medium-sue urban centers. The study of present and emergent settlement clusters shows that it is possible to assume that the peripheral areas will eventually be pulled into the orbit of major urban centers. In many cases the commuting boundaries are coincident with the administrative boundaries (with some notable exceptions); this simplified the computation of size and population data for

1977 by allowing the direct use of census data.

Finally, two more criteria were taken into consideration in defining functional regions, namely, the role of individual cities as central places and potential growth centers and the potential population of urban places in the year 2000 as studied in several alterna- tives at the Institute of Planning, Housing, and Local Administration in Bucharest (ISLGC,

1977). According to these criteria, several more functional regions have been identified:

Cimpulung (41, Sighetu Marmatiei (28). Birlad (45), Roman (32), Lugoj (42), Cimpina (35), and Media9 (49) (see Figure 4). The population estimates for the year 2000 for most of these settlements according to the national physical plan are 60,000-70,000 people compared with their present populations of 35,000-45,000.

TO summarize, the steps taken in the identification of FURs in Romania fall into two broad categories: ( I ) exploratory assumptions and criteria and (2) normative inputs.

(1) The exploratory assumptions and criteria include the rank-size of urban places, the hierarchy of central places, the growth poles, the clusters of settlements with their defining criteria (size, relationships, central-place criteria, and commuting criteria) (the clusters of settlements delineate, in most cases, the FUR cores), and the FUR population threshold.

(2) The normative inputs are basically service linkages and their interrelation with the structure of local administration, regional equity considerations (i.e., the minimum gross annual industrial output per county to be reached by 1980 and by 1990), growth rates of relatively small but rapidly developing new industrial centers and the population potential of urban places in the year 2000 (indicative).

The resulting spatial units cover the whole national territory. As first-order units,

114 M. Enache. S. Holtier

TABLE 1 Aggegated data for FURS in Romania, 1956-1977

Year Division Minimum Maximum Average Average

population population population area e m ' )

1956 (February 21) Core 9,632 1,177.661 73,274 -

Periphery 54,357 656,703 276,515 -

Region 100,829 1,834,364 349,789 4,750

1966 (March 15) Core 12,443 1,366,684 96,027 29

Periphery 47,500 697,263 286.036 4,721

Region 133,496 2,063.947 382,063 4,750

1977 (January 5) Core 30,122 1,807,044 140,997 24

Periphery 43,301 790,806 290.191 1,726

Region 152,500 2,957,850 431.188 4,750

their pattern is relatively close to the present administrative division into 39 counties ("judet"). The basic objective of the 1968 reform was, however, to create regions with a high degree of internal coherence with respect to the economy, settlement networks, and commuting tields. (See Enache et al., 1978a, 1978b for a more complete description of the regionalization procedure adopted.)

There is a strong correlation between the percentage of the population that is urban

luid the level of economic development of the FURs. The least urbanized region in the carly 1970s was Bistrita (8) with 17.8%) of its population urban whde the most urbanized region was Deva-Hunedoara (21) with 68.0% of its population urban. Deva-Hunedoara has experienced a long tradition in urban living, with its early extractive and metallurgical industries. In general the hghest percentages of urban population were recorded in highly industrialized regions (Brqov (lo), Deva-Hunedoara (21), Sibiu (38), Constanfa (1 5)) while the lowest percentages were recorded in regions whose economy is still predomi- nantly agrarian (Botogani (9), Z a l h (37), etc.).

3 RECENT SPATIAL POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT CHANGES IN