Assessment of the level of urbanization of the region of Kazakhstan: index method

The study of urbanization is a hot topic, since it is a global trend, and the concentration of economic, innovative, scientific, social activities can significantly increase the efficiency of the economy. The purpose of the study is to assess the level of urbanization of the regions of Kazakhstan, to identify the difference between the regions, as well as the reasons for this difference in order to conduct a more balanced policy in the field of urbanization. The study involves the use of an index method for assessing the level of urbanization. As primary data, such indicators as the total population and the urban population were used. Secondary data were obtained by calculating the number of cities with the corresponding number of inhabitants in the region. The results of the study made it possible to identify significant disproportions in the levels of urbanization of the regions of Kazakhstan, due to various factors, the most significant of which are geographical features. In addition, the results show the following areas of lagging behind some cities in terms of urbanization: a high share of self-employment, high cost of living compared to rural areas against the background of low incomes of rural residents, which together limit the migration of the rural population to cities. By including the number of cities and their sizes in the index, we were able to rank the cities of Kazakhstan according to the following levels of urbanization: very high; high; average; low and very low.

1. International Monetary Fund of the World Bank (2013). Global Monitoring Report 2013: Rural-Urban Dynamics and the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, DC, URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/13330 (In English).

2. Efimova E.A. (2014). Regional’nye aspekty urbanizacii v Rossii [Regional aspects of urbanization in Russia]. Regional’naja jekonomika: teorija i praktika, no. 43, P. 2–12. (In English).

3. Altaev A.Sh., Kozhakeeva L.T. (2020). Urbanizacija i dinamika izmenenija chislennosti gorodskogo naselenija v Kazahstane v 2000–2017 [Urbanization and dynamics of urban population in Kazakhstan in 2000– 2017]. Vestnik Karagandinskogo universiteta. Serija: Istorija. Filosofija, no. 97(1), 38–43. (in Russian).

4. Alonso W. (1971). The economics of urban size. Papers. Regional Science Association., No. 26, 67–83. (In English).

5. Chebanova L.A. (2013). Ispol’zovanie statisticheskogo metoda pri izuchenii naselenija v kurse jekonomicheskoj i social’noj geografii [The use of the statistical method in the study of the population in the course of economic and social geography]. Polilingvial’nost’ i transkul’turnye praktiki, no. 2, pp. 83–88. (in Russian).

6. Peng J. et al. (2016). Identifying the urban-rural fringe using wavelet transform and kernel density estimation: A case study in Beijing City, China. Environmental Modelling & Software, no. 83, pp. 286–302. (In English).

7. Brown D.L. et al. (2015). The Migration-commuting nexus in rural England. A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Rural Studies, no. 41, pp. 118–128. (In English).

8. Doan P., Oduro C.Y. (2012). Patterns of population growth in peri-urban Accra, Ghana. International journal of urban and regional research, no. 36(6), pp. 1306–1325. (In English).

9. Rogus S., Dimitri C. (2015). Agriculture in urban and peri-urban areas in the United States: Highlights from the Census of Agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, no. 30(1), pp. 64–78. (In English).

10. Ulucak R. et al. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, no. 54, рр. 101–996. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996. (In English).

11. Destek M.A. et al. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emission, energy consumption, urbanization and trade openness for selected CEECs. Research in World Economy, no. 7(1), pp. 52–58. (In English).

12. Pribadi D.O., Pauleit S. (2016). Peri-urban agriculture in Jabodetabek Metropolitan Area and its relationship with the urban socioeconomic system. Land Use Policy, no. 55, pp. 265–274. (In English).

13. Tu J. (2011). Spatially varying relationships between land use and water quality across an urbanization gradient explored by geographically weighted regression. Applied Geography, no. 31(1), pp. 376–392. (In English).

14. Moreira F. et al. (2016). Contrasting static versus dynamic-based typologies of land cover patterns in the Lisbon metropolitan area: Towards a better understanding of peri-urban areas. Applied Geography, no. 75, pp. 49–59. (In English).

15. Fernando M., Samita S.,Abeynayake R. (2012). Modified factor analysis to construct composite indices: illustration on urbanization index. Tropical Agricultural Research, no. 23(4), pp. 327–337. DOI: 10.4038/tar.v23i4.4868. (In English).

16. McDade T.W., Adair L.S. (2001). Defining the “urban” in urbanization and health: a factor analysis approach. Social science & medicine, no. 53(1), pp. 55–70. (In English).

17. Maličká L. (2020). Consumption of food in the EU by the degree of urbanization: data visualization and cluster analysis of the EU sample. Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, no. 14, pp. 343–350. DOI: 10.5219/1282. (In English).

18. Liu H. et al. (2018). Spatio-temporal evolution of population and urbanization in the countries along the Belt and Road 1950–2050. Journal of Geographical Sciences, no. 28(7), pp. 919–936. (In English).

19. Humboldt A. (1959). Views of Nature. Moscow: Geografgiz. (In English).

20. Jiaming L. et al. (2018). Comparative research on regional differences in urbanization and spatial evolution of urban systems between China and India, no. 28(12), pp. 1860–1876. URL: https://doi.org.10.1007/s11442-018-1568-8. (In English).

21. Dutta D. et al. (2020). Estimating urban growth in peri-urban areas and its interrelationships with builtup density using earth observation datasets. The Annals of Regional Science, no. 65(1), pp. 67–82. (In English).

22. Dewan A.M., Yamaguchi Y. (2009). Land use and land cover change in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh: Using remote sensing to promote sustainable urbanization. Applied geography, no. 29(3), pp. 390–401. (In English).

23. Trutnev Je.K. (2008). Gradoregulirovanie: Osnovy regulirovanija gradostroitel’noj dejatel’nosti v uslovijah stanovlenija rynka nedvizhimosti [Urban regulation: Fundamentals of regulation of urban planning activities in the context of the formation of the real estate market]. M.: Fond «Institut jekonomiki goroda»(in Russian).

24. Harris C.D., Ullman E.L. (1945). The Nature of Cities. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, no. 242, pp. 7–17. (In English).

25. Zhang G., Zhang N., Liao W. (2018). How do population and land urbanization affect CO2 emissions under gravity center change? A spatial econometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, no. 202, pp. 510– 523. (In English).

26. Comar I.V. (1975). Racional’noe ispol’zovanie prirodnyh resursov i resursnye cikly [Rational use of natural resources and resource cycles.]. Moskva: Nauka. (in Russian).

27. Sherin E.A. (2019). Koncepcija cikla proizvodstv kak instrument regional’nogo analiza [The concept of the production cycle as a tool for regional analysis.]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Serija «Biologija. Nauki o Zemle», no. 2, P. 310–318. (in Russian).

28. Zipf G.K. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Addison-Wesley Press. (In English).

29. Muratova R.A., Bajgozhaeva D.E. (2020). Voprosy urbanizacii v Kazahstane [Issues of urbanization in Kazakhstan]. Vestnik nauchnoj mysli, no. 3, P. 95–101. (in Russian)

30. Seitz W. (2021). Urbanization in Kazakhstan: desirable cities, unaffordable housing, and the missing rental market. International Journal of Urban Sciences, no. 25(1), pp.135–166. (In English).