Geo e e enced da a as a ool o moni o ing he concen a ion o
popula ion in Finland in 1970–1998
JARMO RUSANEN, TOIVO MUILU, ALFRED COLPAERT AND ARVO NAUKKARINEN
Rusanen, Ja mo, Toi o Muilu, Al ed Colpae & A o Naukka inen (2003).
Geo e e enced da a as a ool o moni o ing he concen a ion o popula ion
in Finland in 1970–1998.
Fennia
181: 2, pp. 129–144. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-
0010.
Changes in he dis ibu ion o popula ion in Finland o e he pe iod 1970–
1998 a e examined in e ms o a co-o dina e sys em o 1 x 1 km g id cells.
The esul s indica e ha his sys em p o ides sui able a eal uni s o a a ie y
o s a is ical and GIS me hods aimed a desc ibing and explaining he spa ial
dis ibu ion o popula ion. The sys em is capable o yielding mo e de ailed
in o ma ion han he e o o e on opics such as he concen a ion o popula ion
in he u ban cen es o Finland – a p ocess ha has been going on since he
beginning o he las cen u y, bu has slowed down no iceably in he ecen
yea s.
Ja mo Rusanen, Toi o Muilu, Al ed Colpae & A o Naukka inen, Depa -
men o Geog aphy, PO BOX 3000, FIN 90014 Uni e si y o Oulu, Finland. E-
mail: [email p o ec ed]. MS ecei ed 07 Janua y 2003.
In oduc ion
Demog aphic esea ch has a long adi ion wi h-
in geog aphy and ep esen s a discipline ha is
eminen ly sui ed o he s udy o he spa ial dis i-
bu ion o popula ion and i s changes. The esul s
o hese s udies a e equi ed o planning pu pos-
es in many sec o s o he socie y, e.g. de e mina-
ion o he capaci y and loca ion equi emen s o
a ious public se ices a he na ional, egional
o local le el. Al hough i is p ima ily he au ho -
i ies ha ha e been in e es ed in he di ec ion o
demog aphic ends, i is by no means a ma e
o indi e ence o indi idual ci izens o amilies
whe he hey li e in an a ea o expanding o di-
minishing popula ion. The gene al image o an
a ea is o a conside able ex en shaped by ends
in popula ion, as well as wi h s uc u al changes
o he a ea. The e is hus an ob ious need o s a-
is ical da a ha a e bo h up o da e and geog aph-
ically mo e de ailed han ea lie , and o p ecise
in e p e a ions o such da a. This poses new chal-
lenges no only o he p oduce s and use s o he
s a is ics bu also o hose engaged in de elop-
ing and applying analy ical and in e p e a i e
me hodologies.
The geog aphical examina ion o popula ion
dis ibu ions and hei empo al changes has yp-
ically elied on no ions such as spa ial concen-
a ion and deconcen a ion (Lipshi z 1996;
Bo gegå d e al. 1995), o u baniza ion and coun-
e u baniza ion (Håkansson 2000), while mig a-
ion esea ch has adop ed pe spec i es such as
ha o he ‘ u na ound’ phenomenon (Long &
Nucci 1997; Lewis 2000). The ac ual e ms in use
a y no only acco ding o he heo e ical basis
om which he esea ch se s ou bu also in ela-
ion o he olume o mig a ion conce ned and
i s empo al du a ion.
Ou pic u e o he spa ial concen a ion and
agglome a ion o popula ion in Finland has la ge-
ly been shaped by he publica ions o Hus ich
(1977) and Ales alo (1983). Mo e ecen ly, how-
e e , he p esen au ho s ha e discussed changes
in he se lemen s uc u e and he concen a ion
o popula ion wi h he aid o geo e e enced da a
and GIS me hods (see Naukka inen e al. 1993;
Rusanen e al. 1997).
As poin ed ou by e.g. Håkansson (2000), e-
sea ch in o he dis ibu ion o popula ion can be
g ea ly a ec ed by he employed geog aphical
uni , so ha models ha apply a one spa ial le -
130 FENNIA 181: 2 (2003)
Ja mo Rusanen, Toi o Muilu, Al ed Colpae and A o Naukka inen
el do no necessa ily hold good a ano he . One
pa icula ly di icul p oblem conce ns bounda y
changes, which indica es ha census s a is ics o
di e en yea s do no necessa ily apply o he
same a eal uni s and he e o e, canno be com-
pa ed easily (Howens ine 1993; Openshaw 1995;
Rees 1998).
The equi emen s placed on popula ion s a is-
ics and he use ulness o he da a a ailable can
a y g ea ly om one g oup o use s o ano he .
Public au ho i ies, o ins ance, a e accus omed
o using s a is ical means and de ini ions ex-
p essed in e ms o adminis a i e a eas and de-
duc ions made om hese when hey equi e in-
o ma ion on which o base hei decisions. Re-
sea che s, in con as , p e e o go back o he
sou ces o he o iginal aw da a in o de o es
hei hypo heses and cons uc hei models. Fo
his eason we will a emp o analyse and exam-
ine demog aphic da a using a ious me hods in
e ms o bo h adminis a i e and non-adminis a-
i e a eal uni s, and o e alua e he subsequen
esul s.
Aims, da a and me hods
We se ou he e o desc ibe 1) he changes in pop-
ula ion ha ha e aken place wi hin he spa ial
and se lemen s uc u e o Finland by means o
1 x 1 km g id cell da a, 2) he me hods a ailable
o he analysis o popula ion da a, and 3) he ac-
o s highligh ed by he g id cell me hod ha can-
no be iden i ied when using adminis a i e a eal
uni s. Finally, he use ulness o he esul ing in-
o ma ion o he pu poses o demog aphic e-
sea ch will be e alua ed.
Geo e e enced da a on Finland a e a ailable a
many spa ial le els. In p ac ice, any indi idual
ci izen can be assigned a se o coo dina es de-
sc ibing he geog aphical loca ion o he house
in which he o she li es. The esul ing da a can
be agg ega ed o ep esen highe -le el uni s, e.g.
pos al dis ic s, pa s o municipali ies, whole
municipali ies, g oups o municipali ies o he
NUTS hie a chy as used by he EU. I mus be e-
membe ed, howe e , ha he abo e-men ioned
p oblem o compa abili y o e ime eme ges in
he case o hese a eal uni s whene e adminis-
a i e a eas a e combined o bounda ies a e al-
e ed. On he o he hand, he ac ha he ini ial
in o ma ion is a ailable a he indi idual le el is
ega ded as a signi ican ad an age o GIS me h-
ods (Ma in & Higgs 1997; see also Openshaw &
Tu on 1996).
Thus, he p incipal uni s employed he e a e he
1 x 1 km g id cells de ined in he da a p oduced
by S a is ics Finland o he yea s 1970, 1980 and
1990–1998 (see Rusanen e al. 1997). These g id
cells a e o ixed loca ion and a e independen o
any changes in adminis a i e bounda ies. S a is-
ical in o ma ion on human ac i i ies in Finland
has been a ailable annually since 1987. Cu en
me hods enable S a is ics Finland o e ise hei
geo e e enced popula ion da a e y quickly, so
ha igu es o he popula ion on 31s Decembe
a e a ailable by he end o he ollowing Feb u-
a y, oge he wi h s a is ics o he indi idual mu-
nicipali ies. This annual in o ma ion is based on
egis e s, so ha no sepa a e popula ion census
is necessa y as in he USA, o example (see
C ews 2000).
The second basic a eal uni employed he e is
he municipali y, o independen local go e n-
men dis ic . These dis ic s ha e nume ous igh s
and obliga ions ha de ine hem as adminis a-
i e en i ies, including he igh o le y axes (Min-
is y o he In e io 2000). In acco dance wi h he
abo e p inciple, he popula ions o he munici-
pali ies a e calcula ed he e om he g id cell ig-
u es, and o his eason he igu es di e sligh ly
om hose quo ed in he o icial s a is ics, as o
ins ance in 1998, 1.42% o he na ional popula-
ion could no be assigned coo dina es on he ba-
sis o hei place o esidence. Howe e , his dis-
c epancy can be assumed no o a ec he esul s.
I should be no ed ha we a e no conce ned
he e wi h s udying he po en ial ac o s esponsi-
ble o demog aphic ends in pa icula a eas,
e.g. bi h- a es, mo ali y o mig a ion – opics
which ha e adi ionally been o he o e in pop-
ula ion geog aphy (Ogden 1998; 1999). Ins ead,
we ocus on desc ibing solely he concen a ion
o popula ion. This is de ined he e in wo ways:
as an inc ease in popula ion densi y pe squa e
kilome e when using g id cell da a, and as an in-
c easingly la ge p opo ion o he popula ion li -
ing in a p og essi ely smalle numbe o munici-
pali ies.
Da a on popula ion changes in he 1 x 1 km
g id cells and municipali ies a e analysed he e by
a numbe o me hods, and assessmen s a e made
as o whe he hese me hods yield simila o di-
e gen esul s. The me hods es ed include he
Gini Coe icien , which is mo e commonly used
o analysing he spa ial dis ibu ion o income
FENNIA 181: 2 (2003) 131
Geo e e enced da a as a ool o moni o ing he…
a es (see Chak a o y 1994) a he han popula-
ion (see B ad o d & Ken 1986; Lo ell-Smi h
1993). In addi ion, he concen a ion o popula-
ion is desc ibed in e ms o mean alues and he
Mo an and Gea y Indices used in e sion 8.0 o
he A c/In o so wa e. Changes in popula ion a e
also desc ibed by e e ence o deciles and by clas-
si ica ion o he ‘spa ial demog aphic s uc u e’.
Long- e m pa e ns a e isualized by means o a
ank size model and he k iging in e pola ion
me hod con ained in e sion 8.0 o A c/In o. The
Hoo e Index ha is equen ly used in s udies o
popula ion concen a ion (see Bo gegå d e al.
1995; Long & Nucci 1997) is no employed he e,
as he emphasis is on analysis a he g id cell le -
el a he han a he municipali y le el.
Decile analysis in ol es anking he da a uni s
in size o de om la ges o smalles wi h espec
o he s udied a iable, and di iding hem in o en
equal g oups in e ms o popula ion desc ibed by
he a iable, ega dless o whe he he a eal uni
is a g id cell o a municipali y.
Popula ion concen a ion as e lec ed
in he Mo an and Gea y indices and
he Gini coe icien
Popula ion densi y in Finland in 1998 ela i e o
land a ea was e y low by Eu opean s anda ds,
only 16.9 inhabi an s pe squa e kilome e. I ,
howe e , we use he g id cell ma e ial o calcu-
la e he mean densi y o inhabi ed cells only, we
see ha he densi y has inc eased s eadily o e
he pe iod examined he e, and is now app oach-
ing 50 inhab./km2 (Table 1).
The Mo an and Gea y me hods allow a spa ial
au oco ela ion index o be de e mined o he
g id cell ma e ial as ollows: when he Mo an In-
dex is posi i e and he Gea y Index a ies in he
ange 0–1 he dis ibu ion o popula ion can be
desc ibed as ‘simila ’, ‘ egionalized’, ‘smoo h’ o
‘clus e ed’. I he Mo an Index is nega i e and he
Gea y Index g ea e han 1, he co esponding
e ms a e ‘dissimila ’, ‘con as ing’ and ‘checke -
boa d’ ( o de ails, see A c/In o Use Manual
2000). In he p esen case, he g adual inc ease
in he Mo an Index and he simul aneous de-
c ease in he Gea y Index lend u he suppo o
he imp ession gained om he p e ious able o
a p ocess o consolida ion o he inhabi ed a ea
a he han a sca e ing o dispe sal o popula ion
(Table 2).
One ypical echnique employed o desc ibe
e enness o concen a ion in he dis ibu ion o
popula ion is he Lo enz diag am (Ales alo 1983),
o i s de i a i e, he Gini Coe icien (Fains ein
1996). Rega dless o whe he we use g id cells o
municipali ies as he a eal uni s, he ob ained Gini
Coe icien s indica e a concen a ion o popula-
ion (Table 3), al hough he highe alue o he
g id cell ma e ial as compa ed o he municipali-
y le el also indica es he essen ially local na u e
o his concen a ion. The ac ha he majo i y
o he popula ion o Finland is loca ed wi hin a
ela i ely small numbe o g id cells is indica i e
o he low p opo ion o buil -up a eas wi hin he
coun y’s o al se led a ea.
Measu ed in bo h o he abo e ways, he a e
o change was g ea es in he 1970’s, an obse a-
ion ha con i ms he gene al imp ession ega d-
ing he concen a ion o popula ion in Finland. I
is consis en wi h he esul s o he examina ion
by deciles published by Ales alo (1983). On he
o he hand, analysis o he end o e he las wo
decades in e ms o he Gini Coe icien p o ides
de ian esul s o he wo se s o a eal uni s. The
a e o popula ion concen a ion appa en ly has
slowed down when assessed in e ms o he g id
Table 1. Numbe o inhabi ed g id cells and mean popula ion densi y in Finland in 1970–1998 (Da a: S a is ics Finland).
1970 1980 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Numbe o inhabi ed g id cells 110477 104540 103242 103020 103036 103045 102873
Inhab./km241.3 44.1 47.8 48.4 48.9 49.1 49.4
Table 2. Mo an (I) and Gea y (C) Indices in 1970–1998
(Da a: S a is ics Finland).
Yea
1970 1980 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
I 0.543 0.531 0.568 0.570 0.581 0.590 0.597
C 0.427 0.435 0.400 0.394 0.384 0.377 0.370
132 FENNIA 181: 2 (2003)
Ja mo Rusanen, Toi o Muilu, Al ed Colpae and A o Naukka inen
cell da a, being only 1.1% in he 1990’s, whe e-
as he igu es o he municipali ies indica e ac-
cele a ion wi h a e minal a e o 3.5%.
The esul ob ained om he g id cell da a may
indica e a dec easing end in popula ion concen-
a ion in he denses a eas, he pa e n being a -
ibu able o he exclusion o uninhabi ed g id
cells and he concen a ion o popula ion in a
cons an ly dec easing numbe o cells and a mo e
es ic ed geog aphical a ea. This end, which is
la gely in e nal o indi idual municipali ies, ails
o be e lec ed in he analyses based on munici-
pali ies as he a eal uni s.
Decile analysis
Decile analysis employs di isions o he o al ma-
e ial in o en h pa s. I can be ega ded as a lex-
ible, non-gi en means o classi ica ion, and since
he bounda ies o he deciles end o a y om
one yea o he nex , he me hod is well sui ed o
s udies o concen a ion o dispe sal, e.g. in pop-
ula ion o incomes. Acco ding o Ales alo (1983),
he popula ion o Finland was ai ly e enly dis-
ibu ed o e he deciles a he end o he 19 h
cen u y, he ag a ian socie y o he ime showing
li le agglome a ion o he popula ion in o u ban
cen es. F om ha ime onwa ds, howe e , he
popula ion g adually became concen a ed in a
smalle numbe o municipali ies (Table 4), so ha
by he 1970’s, hal o he coun y’s popula ion
li ed in 52 municipali ies, 10.1% o hei o al
numbe . The end con inued so ha in 1998, he
co esponding igu e was 33 municipali ies, i.e.
7.3% o he o al. Pa o his e ec may be a ib-
u ed o he amalgama ion o municipali ies wi h-
in he sys em o local go e nmen , bu he p inci-
pal ac o has wi hou doub been he ac ual con-
cen a ion o popula ion wi hin a p og essi ely
smalle numbe o owns and ci ies (Rusanen e
al. 2000).
Is his concen a ion isible in he g id cell
da a? Fo answe ing his, a decile analysis com-
pa able o ha in Table 4 is p esen ed in Table 5.
The deciles indeed indica e a con inua ion o he
concen a ion p ocess, so ha hal o he coun-
y’s popula ion ( he popula ion o deciles 1–5)
occupied a o al o 1541 km2 in 1970, 1167 km2
in 1980, 1294 km2 in 1990 and 1284 km2 in
1998. The 1970’s we e a pe iod o hea y popula-
ion concen a ion, whe eas om he end o ha
decade onwa ds Finland was a ec ed by a ‘ u n-
a ound’ phenomenon, as no ed by se e al au ho s
(Kauppinen 2000). This p ocess was expe ienced
in many wes e n coun ies, en ailing abo e all a
Table 3. Concen a ion o popula ion as shown by he Gini Coe icien s o he yea s s udied and pe cen age change
o e he pe iod 1970–1998 (Da a: S a is ics Finland).
Yea
A eal uni 1970 1980 1990 1998
G id cell 0.78558 0.83450 0.85365 0.86324
Municipali y 0.59228 0.62145 0.62962 0.65186
Change in Gini Coe icien (%)
1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–1998
G id cell 6.2 2.3 1.1
Municipali y 4.9 1.3 3.5
Table 4. Concen a ion o popula ion by deciles o munici-
pali ies in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1998 (Da a: S a is ics Fin-
land).
Numbe o municipali ies
Yea
Decile 1970 1980 1990 1998
1 1 1 2 1
2 4 4 3 3
3 6 5 5 4
4 151010 9
5 26201816
6 38292723
7 50424038
8 66585756
9 97888788
10 212 204 206 214
To al 515 461 455 452
FENNIA 181: 2 (2003) 133
Geo e e enced da a as a ool o moni o ing he…
decline in he popula i y o u ban a eas as li ing
en i onmen s o amilies wi h child en.
The inhabi ed a ea o Finland in 1998 amoun -
ed o ca. 30.4% o he o al su ace a ea o 338
145 km2, wi h a consis en decline o his p opo -
ion om one decade o he nex since 1970. The
mos p onounced decline, almos 6000 km2, ook
place du ing he 1970’s, al hough i has also been
claimed ha he ma e ial o 1970 con ained
some e o s in he coo dina es de e mined o in-
di idual dwellings and ha he ac ual ne de-
c ease was no necessa ily as g ea as his. I
should also be no ed ha he end was a ela-
i ely s eady o e he pe iod 1990–1998 ela i e
o he 1980’s, al hough da a on he inal yea s o
he decade a e s ill lacking.
Changes may also be obse ed in he popula-
ion densi ies o he deciles (Table 6). The high-
es densi ies o all we e eco ded in deciles 1 and
2 in 1970, when Finland was expe iencing a p o-
nounced mig a ion om he coun yside in o he
owns and also ab oad, p ima ily o Sweden (see
Kauppinen 2000). A ha ime he mean popula-
ion densi y in he op decile was a ound 9700
inhab./km2, whe eas he co esponding igu e in
1998 was abou 6200. The maximum popula ion
densi y was eached in Helsinki, he capi al. In
he 1970 da a he densi y peaked a 29 234 in-
hab./km2, whe eas he igu e o 1998 showed a
educ ion o mo e han a hi d, 19 172 inhab./
km2.
A numbe o ac o s can be iden i ied ha con-
ibu ed o he educ ion o popula ion densi y in
Finland o e he s udy pe iod. The mos signi i-
can ac o was he ans e in he u ban cen es
om dwellings o o he uses, mainly o ices and
comme cial p emises. O he ac o s we e chang-
es in he s uc u e o households, including educ-
ions in he a e age amily size and he numbe
o amilies wi h child en and an inc ease in he
numbe o single-pe son households.
I should be poin ed ou , howe e , ha he
mean popula ion densi y o he wo mos densely
inhabi ed deciles began o inc ease again in he
1990’s, pa ly on accoun o he e o s made o
ill in he se lemen pa e n in buil -up a eas in
acco dance wi h he p inciples o sus ainable de-
elopmen .
Ande sson (1988) ecognizes ou s ages in he
de elopmen o owns in Finland: u baniza ion,
subu baniza ion, disu baniza ion and eu baniza-
ion. U baniza ion s age e e s o he g ow h o a
cen al u ban nucleus, while he subu baniza ion
s age in ol es a slowing down and e en ually ces-
sa ion o his end. A he disu baniza ion s age,
Table 5. Numbe s o inhabi ed g id cells by deciles in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1998 (Da a: S a is ics Finland).
1970 1980 1990 1998 Inhab. km2
Decile N N N N in 1998
1 denses 47 66 84 82 4171–19172
2 se lemen 116 133 159 158 2633–4170
3 207 200 234 234 1795–2632
4 384 297 336 334 1257–1794
5 787 471 481 476 881–1256
6 1 856 825 751 721 536–880
7 4 992 1 928 1 420 1 299 267–535
8 11 290 6 816 4 635 3 813 70–266
9 spa ses 22 331 19 590 16 579 14 980 20–36
10 se lemen 68 462 74 209 78 561 80 770 1–19
Numbe o g id cells 110 472 104 535 103 240 102 873
Table 6. Popula ion densi y by deciles in 1970, 1980, 1990
and 1998 (Da a: S a is ics Finland).
Inhab. km2
Decile 1970 1980 1990 1998
1 9703 6980 5876 6202
2 3932 3464 3104 3219
3 2203 2303 2109 2173
4 1188 1551 1469 1523
5 579 978 1026 1068
6 246 558 657 705
7 91 239 348 392
8 40 68 106 133
9 20243034
10 7666

134 FENNIA 181: 2 (2003)
Ja mo Rusanen, Toi o Muilu, Al ed Colpae and A o Naukka inen
he end is e e sed, un il he eu baniza ion
s age ma ks new g ow h in he u ban nucleus. I
is in e es ing o conside how hese s ages migh
be e lec ed in an empi ical decile analysis.
The u baniza ion s age seems o ha e aken
place in Finland be o e 1970, as he popula ion
o he mos densely inhabi ed cen al a eas
(deciles 1 and 2) began o decline a e ha ime.
Hence, he 1970’s and 1980’s may be assigned
o he subu baniza ion and disu baniza ion s ag-
es, as hese igu es in pa icula declined ma k-
edly a i s and hen le elled ou somewha in
he 1980’s, when he changes we e less p o-
nounced in o he espec s, oo. The 1990’s ep e-
sen he eu baniza ion s age, in which he popu-
la ion o he mos densely inhabi ed a eas again
s a ed o inc ease.
I is impo an o bea in mind when e alua -
ing hese indings ha he s ages a e dis inguished
on he s eng h o only a single a iable. A mo e
p ecise conside a ion would call o an in e nal
analysis o he s uc u e o he en la ges ci ies,
o example, and also o he in o ma ion ele an
o he g ow h o u ban a eas, e.g. hei de elop-
men and planning policies.
Popula ion changes by deciles in
1990–1998
Dual ends in popula ion densi y and in he
numbe o inhabi ed g id cells a e obse able du -
ing he 1990’s, he cu -o poin being eached in
1993. The minimum a ea occupied by hal o he
popula ion o Finland, i.e. deciles 1–5, inc eased
nume ically o e ha ime (Table 7a), implying a
sligh decline in popula ion densi y in he u ban
nuclei and subu bs (Table 7b). F om 1993 on-
wa ds, he end owa ds dense communi ies can
be obse ed, al hough no qui e amoun ing o he
igu es eco ded in 1970 and 1980.
The mos spa sely popula ed u al a eas (decile
10) inc eased in numbe h oughou he 1990’s,
whe eas hei mean popula ion densi y emained
mo e o less s able. The inc ease may be a ibu -
ed almos en i ely o educ ions in he popula ion
o some g id cells p e iously con ained in decile
9, ep esen ing he u al a eas p ope , causing
hei ans e o decile 10.
The e e sal in he end in 1993 is p obably
linked o he ac ha his was he wo s yea o
he economic ecession in Finland, i.e. he pe i-
Table 7. Changes in he numbe o g id cells (A) and popula ion densi y (B) in he 1990’s (Da a: S a is ics Finland).
A. Numbe o g id cells T end
Decile 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1990– 1994– 1990–
1993 1998 1998
1 84858686858483 8282+–
2 159 162 164 164 163 161 160 160 158 + – –
3 234 238 241 241 240 239 236 235 234 + – 0
4 336 339 342 344 343 339 338 336 334 + – –
5 481 484 487 488 485 482 480 477 476 + – –
6 751 751 750 751 744 736 728 724 721 0 – –
7 1420 1406 1400 1390 1364 1345 1329 1316 1299 – – –
8 4635 4500 4409 4332 4214 4096 4012 3915 3813 – – –
9 16579 16305 16105 15930 15746 15548 15380 15204 14980 – – –
10 78561 78815 79038 79314 79652 80007 80299 80583 80770 + + +
B. Popula ion densi y inhab./km2
1 5876 5840 5802 5831 5923 6015 6100 6191 6202 – + +
2 3104 3064 3043 3058 3089 3138 3165 3173 3219 – + +
3 2109 2086 2071 2081 2098 2114 2145 2160 2173 – + +
4 1469 1464 1459 1458 1468 1491 1498 1511 1522 – + +
5 1026 1026 1025 1028 1038 1048 1055 1064 1068 + + +
6 657 661 665 668 677 687 695 701 705 + + +
7 348 353 356 361 369 376 381 386 391 + + +
8 106 110 113 116 119 123 126 130 133 + + +
9 30303131323233 3334+++
10 6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 6,3 0 0 0
FENNIA 181: 2 (2003) 135
Geo e e enced da a as a ool o moni o ing he…
od in which he unemploymen peaked. Simila -
ly, housing p oduc ion declined s eadily, o each
i s lowes ebb in 1994. This was ollowed by a
pe iod o economic eco e y (SVT 1999), wi h a
new s imula ion o building ac i i y, especially in
he me opoli an a ea o Helsinki and o he la ge
municipali ies. This end was accompanied by a
ise in popula ion densi ies, as he housing capac-
i y o he buil -up a eas inc eased while he land
a eas conce ned emained mo e o less cons an .
The inc eased housing densi y was hence e lec -
ed in he popula ion densi y.
The abo e obse a ion demons a es he usabil-
i y o he g id cell da a as an aid in moni o ing
changes in spa ial s uc u e, and po en ially
achie ing de ailed explana ion. This me hod al-
lows, o ins ance, obse ing small changes in
popula ion wi hin a municipali y e y easily.
The spa ial demog aphic s uc u e in
1970–1998
The epea abili y o he decile me hod allows i
o be applied o any coun y o any a eal uni ,
and any esea che can a i e a he same esul s.
I should be emembe ed, howe e , ha such ac-
cu a e geo e e enced da a a e a ailable in selec -
ed coun ies only. We will u n ou a en ion now
o s uc u al ea u es o he spa ial dis ibu ion o
popula ion and he changes de ec ed in he dis-
ibu ion in he c oss-sec ional da a o 1970,
1980, 1990 and 1998, wi h pa icula e e ence
o de elopmen s du ing he 1990’s. The classi i-
ca ion employed may be e e ed o as he ‘spa-
ial demog aphic s uc u e’, as i ep esen s an a -
emp o desc ibe he ela ion be ween popula-
ion densi y and se lemen s uc u e. Hence, i
does no ake in o accoun he unc ional ele-
men s no mally implied in he e m egional s uc-
u e, e.g. dwellings, jobs and he aspec s o in a-
s uc u e ha suppo hese. The concep has been
used ea lie o classi ica ion pu poses by
Räisänen e al. (1996) and Rusanen e al. (1997).
We will i s conside he si ua ion o e he whole
o Finland and subsequen ly concen a e he anal-
ysis on one speci ic egion, Kainuu.
The in e p e a ion p o ided he e is based on he
assump ion ha he cha ac e o a g id cell can
be deduced om he size o i s popula ion. The
classi ica ion conce ned is no necessa ily appli-
cable o all a eas o o all coun ies, and i has
been cons uc ed knowing well ha he dis inc-
ion be ween u al and u ban is by no means un-
ambiguous (see Malinen e al. 1994; Be y e al.
2000). I is impossible o build a model ha would
apply equally well o all coun ies and unde all
condi ions. The ollowing classi ica ion o spa ial
demog aphic s uc u e is used:
Inhab./km2Elemen o spa ial demog aphic
s uc u e
1–5 Sca e ed se lemen
6–20 Ru al a eas p ope
21–100 Ru al a eas wi h buil -up ea u es
101–1000 Build-up a eas and subu bs wi h
mos ly p i a e housing
Mo e han High- ise cen es and subu bs o
1000 majo ci ies
Examina ion o he si ua ion in he yea s men-
ioned abo e indica es ha he mos densely pop-
ula ed a eas, wi h o e 1000 inhab./km2, g ew
mos apidly in he 1970’s, he a e o g ow h di-
minishing in he 1980’s and eaching i s slowes
in he 1990’s (Fig. 1). The a eas o subu ban p i-
a e housing depa ed om his pa e n some-
wha , howe e , as hese unde wen hei g ea es
popula ion g ow h in he 1980’s. By con as , he
ansi ional ca ego y be ween u al and u ban
condi ions, ha wi h densi ies o 21–100 inhab./
km2, declined in popula ion h oughou he pe i-
od s udied he e, al hough mos ma kedly in he
1970’s and leas so in he 1990’s. The u al a eas
p ope dec eased subs an ially in ex en , while he
a eas o sca e ed se lemen inc eased somewha
in bo h o al popula ion and ex en , la gely as a
esul o con ac ions in he popula ion o g id
squa es p e iously included in he ca ego y o u-
al a eas p ope .
The end in popula ion densi y o e he whole
coun y in he 1990’s was pola ized. The popula-
ion o he densely inhabi ed a eas inc eased
s eadily h oughou he decade, amoun ing o a
o al ise o 4.6%, o 110 000 pe sons, be ween
1990 and 1998 (Fig. 2). The subu ban p i a e
housing popula ion g ew in a simila manne ,
wi h he excep ion o a small decline in 1997. The
popula ion o he u ban- u al ansi ion zone wi h
densi ies o 21–100 inhab./km2, declined om
1993 onwa ds, howe e , and simul aneously he
a ea con ac ed sligh ly. The ca ego y o u al a -
eas p ope declined in bo h popula ion and o al
a ea h oughou he s udied pe iod, whe eas sca -
e ed se lemen ca ego y inc eased sligh ly in
bo h o al popula ion and a ea.
136 FENNIA 181: 2 (2003)
Ja mo Rusanen, Toi o Muilu, Al ed Colpae and A o Naukka inen
Fig. 1. Popula ion changes in
di e en pa s o he spa ial
demog aphic s uc u e o e
he whole o Finland in
1970–1998 (Da a: S a is ics
Finland).
Fig. 2. Popula ion changes in
di e en pa s o he spa ial
demog aphic s uc u e o e
he whole o Finland in
1991–1998 (Da a: S a is ics
Finland).
The Kainuu egion in No he n Finland, selec -
ed he e o mo e de ailed examina ion, is cha -
ac e ized by economic and demog aphic eces-
sion. I belongs o he Objec i e 1 EU suppo a -
eas on accoun o i s low income le els and
spa se se lemen . I s popula ion, which has been
on he decline since he 1960, was 93 218 pe -
sons in 1998, and he egion has consis en ly
been one wi h pi o al unemploymen in he
whole coun y.
The demog aphic end in Kainuu du ing he
1990’s depa ed ma kedly om ha ob ained o
he whole coun y (Fig. 3). The mos densely in-
habi ed a eas expe ienced a popula ion decline
om 1992 onwa ds, and he same end a ec ed
he p i a e housing a eas om 1996 onwa ds.
Co espondingly, he ansi ion zone and he u-
al a eas p ope los popula ion h oughou he
decade, as in he whole coun y, and he popula-
ion inc ease in he a eas o sca e ed se lemen
FENNIA 181: 2 (2003) 137
Geo e e enced da a as a ool o moni o ing he…
appea s o ha e come o an end in 1998. This was
p obably he i s occasion du ing he cen u y
when he popula ion o Kainuu dec eased in e e-
y single ca ego y o i s spa ial s uc u e. I is p ob-
able ha demog aphic ends in he spa se popu-
la ion densi y classes in Fig. 9 we e he same as
in Kainuu. Elsewhe e hey ha e esembled hose
o he whole coun y.
Finland became a membe o he EU in 1995.
Kainuu was an Objec i e 6 a ea in 1995–1999
and is cu en ly an Objec i e 1 a ea o he pe i-
od 2000–2006. Based on he abo e esul s one
can a gue ha he de elopmen measu es imple-
men ed in he egion unde he EU p og ammes
ha e ailed o imp o e he nega i e demog aphic
end in all elemen s o he spa ial sys em.
De ailed analyses o popula ion ends a e pos-
sible only wi h he aid o geo e e enced da a ha
allow p ecise loca ion o he popula ion uni s. A
‘sliding scale’ e alua ion o popula ion densi y
based on local le el da a helps a oiding he al-
lacies ha a ise when one examines he whole
coun y o la ge agg ega e a eas (Ma in 1991).
The un a elled nega i e demog aphic end in
Kainuu se es as an example o he use o g id
cell da a o moni o ing egional de elopmen .
The ank size model
Rank size models ep esen a well-es ablished
me hod o geog aphical esea ch ha has been
applied o he s udy o hie a chical s uc u es in
a ious a eal uni s and changes aking place in
hese s uc u es. The uni s employed o his pu -
pose a e usually owns o o he adminis a i e o
unc ional en i ies (see, e.g. B ad o d & Ken 1986;
Das & Du 1993). The me hod in ol es a ang-
ing he da a uni s in size o de and p esen ing he
esul s in diag amma ic o m. We in end o apply
he ank size app oach o he 1 x 1 km2 g id cells,
and use he densi y classes o desc ibing he
ypes o se lemen and any changes in popula-
ion. Fo compa ison pu poses, he app oach was
done a wo le els: he whole coun y and he
Kainuu egion.
The 452 municipali ies o Finland a ied in
popula ion om a me e 100 up o 500 000 in-
habi an s in 1998 (Fig. 4). Wi h he municipali y
le el as he a eal uni o in e es , he ank size
model indica es ha abou one hund ed la ges
municipali ies showed an inc ease in popula ion
o e he pe iod 1970–1998, while he o he s ex-
pe ienced popula ion decline.
A he g id cell le el, he ank size model ails
o p o ide de ailed in o ma ion o spa ial demo-
g aphic s uc u e as e icien ly he classi ica ion
(Figs. 5 and 6). I does, howe e , se e well in
highligh ing he decline in he o al numbe o in-
habi ed g id cells o e he whole coun y, i.e. he
con ac ion in he a ea o human se lemen . Fu -
he mo e, i emphasizes ce ain majo u ning
poin s such as he beginning o he decline in
popula ion in he mos densely inhabi ed a eas
Fig. 3. Popula ion changes in
di e en pa s o he spa ial
demog aphic s uc u e in
Kainuu in 1991–1998 (Da a:
S a is ics Finland).
144 FENNIA 181: 2 (2003)
Ja mo Rusanen, Toi o Muilu, Al ed Colpae and A o Naukka inen
Haa sen T, P G oo e & PPP Huigen (2003). Measu -
ing age di e en ials in ep esen a ions o u ali y
in The Ne he lands.
Jou nal o Ru al S udies
19,
245–252.
Håkansson J (2000). Changing popula ion dis ibu ion
in Sweden.
GERUM – Kul u geog a i
2000: 1.
Howens ine E (1993). Measu ing demog aphic
change: he spli ac p oblem.
P o essional Ge-
og aphe
45: 4, 425–430.
Hus ich I (1977). Suomen “ku is umisen” auh i hil-
jenee (The speed o he “sh inkage” o Finland is
slackening).
Te a
89: 4, 214–221.
Kauppinen J (2000). Muu oliike Suomessa uosina
1989–1994 koo dinaa ipohjais en paikka ie ojen
pe us eella (English summa y: Mig a ion o pop-
ula ion in Finland in 1989–1994, examined om
coo dina e-based GIS da a). 155 p.
Sii olaisuus-
ins i uu in u kimuksia
A 22.
Lang o d M & DJ Unwin (1994). Gene a ing and
mapping popula ion densi y su aces wi hin a
geog aphical in o ma ion sys em.
The Ca o-
g aphic Jou nal
31, June, 21–26.
Lewis G (2000). Changing places in a u al wo ld.
The popula ion u na ound in pe spec i e.
Geog-
aphy
85: 2, 157–165.
Lipshi z G (1996). Spa ial concen a ion and decon-
cen a ion o popula ion: Is ael as a case s udy.
Geo o um
27: 1, 87–96.
Long L & A Nucci (1997). The Hoo e Index o pop-
ula ion concen a ion: A co ec ion and upda e.
P o essional Geog aphe
49: 4, 431–440.
Lowell-Smi h EG (1993). Regional and in ame o-
poli an di e ences in he loca ion o ees and-
ing ambula o y su ge y cen e s.
P o essional Ge-
og aphe
45: 4, 398–407.
Malinen P, R Ke änen & H Ke änen (1994). Ru al
a ea ypology in Finland – a ool o u al policy.
78 p.
Uni e si y o Oulu, Resea ch Ins i u e o
No he n Finland. Resea ch epo s
123.
Ma in D (1991).
Geog aphic in o ma ion sys ems
and hei socioeconomic applica ions.
182 p.
Rou ledge, New Yo k and London.
Ma in D & G Higgs (1997). Popula ion geo e e enc-
ing in England and Wales: basic spa ial uni s e-
conside ed.
En i onmen and Planning
A 29: 2,
333–347.
Ma in R (2000). In memo y o maps.
T ansac ions o
he B i ish Geog aphe s, New Se ies
25: 1, 3–5.
Minis y o he En i onmen (2000).
<h p://www.
yh. i/ajankoh / iedo e/ym/ ied99/
ym12299.h m>.
15.12.2000
Minis y o he In e io (2000).
<h p://www:
in e min. i/eng/municipal/municipali ies.h ml>.
15.12.2000
Muilu T & J Rusanen (2003). Ru al de ini ions and
sho - e m dynamics in u al a eas o Finland in
1989–1997. Submi ed manusc ip .
Naukka inen A, J Rusanen & A Colpae (1993). The
u u e o u al se lemen s uc u e in Finland.
Geog aphy Resea ch Fo um
13, 61–70.
Ogden PE (1998). Popula ion geog aphy.
P og ess in
Human Geog aphy
22: 1, 105–114.
Ogden PE (1999). Popula ion geog aphy.
P og ess in
Human Geog aphy
23: 4, 617–631.
Openshaw S (1995). The u u e o he census. In
Openshaw S (ed).
Census Use ’s Handbook
, 389–
411. GeoIn o ma ion In e na ional, Glasgow.
Openshaw S & I Tu on (1996). New oppo uni ies
o geog aphical census analysis using indi idu-
al le el da a.
A ea
28: 2, 167–176.
Räisänen S, J Rusanen & A Naukka inen (1996). So-
cio-economic g id da a and GIS o analyzing he
changes in he Finnish coun yside. Second Join
Eu opean Con e ence & Exhibi ion on Geog aph-
ical In o ma ion, Ma ch 27–29, 1996. Ba celona,
Spain.
Geog aphical In o ma ion. F om Resea ch
o Applica ion h ough Coope a ion
Vol 1, 651–
660.
Rees PH (1998). Wha do you wan om he 2001
Census? Resul s o an ESRC/JISC su ey o use s
iews.
En i onmen and Planning
A 30, 1775–
1796.
Rusanen J, A Naukka inen, A Colpe & T Muilu
(1997). Di e ences in he spa ial s uc u e o he
popula ion be ween Finland and Sweden in 1995
– a GIS iewpoin . 46 p.
S a is ics Finland Re-
sea ch Repo s
221.
Rusanen J, T Muilu, A Colpae & A Naukka inen
(2000). Asu un Suomen äes ömää ä yli ää 50
asukas a neliökilome illä.
Tie oaika
5/2000, 14–
17.
Sil as i T (2002). Maaseudun muu u a me ki ykse
– uo annon ilas a kulu uksen koh eeksi. (Chang-
ing meanings o he coun yside – om a p oduc-
ion space o an objec o consump ion.)
Yh-
dyskun asuunni elu (Communi y Planning)
40,
11–25.
Wheele J O (1998). Mapphobia in Geog aphy?
1980–1996.
U ban Geog aphy
19: 1, 1–5.
SVT (Suomen i allinen ilas o) (OSF = O icial S a-
is ics o Finland) (1999).
Raken aminen ja asu-
minen. Vuosiki ja 1999.
(Cons uc ion and Hous-
ing. Yea book 1999). Raken aminen 1999: 20.
226 p. Tilas okeskus. S a is ics Finland.