The impact of suburbanization on social differentiation in Hungary: a case study of the Miskolc agglomeration

176 Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) And ea K is ó A Recei ed: Ap il 6, 2018 | Re ised: June 18, 2018 | Accep ed: June 19, 2018 DOI: 10.5937/gp22-17081 The Impac o Subu baniza ion on Social Di e en ia ion in Hunga y: a Case S udy o he Miskolc Agglome a ion A Uni e si y o Nyí egyháza, Ins i u e o Tou ism and Geog aphy, Sós ói ú 31/B, 4400 Nyí egyháza, Hunga y; k is o .and [email protected] ISSN 0354-8724 (ha d copy) | ISSN 1820-7138 (online) Abs ac The aim o his pape is o p esen how he socio-economic p ocesses o he pas ew yea s ha e a - ec ed Miskolc (p esen ly he ou h la ges ci y in Hunga y) and he nea by subu ban se lemen s wi h special ega d o changes in popula ion, educa ional a ainmen , mo i a ions o subu baniza ion and sa is ac ion wi h subu ban li ing condi ions. In addi ion o he analysis o ela ed s a is ics, he pape epo s he esul s o a esiden ial ques ionnai e su ey, conduc ed in he subu bs o he Miskolc ag- glome a ion. The pape a gues ha he subu banizing p ocess has esul ed in he social es uc u ing o he subu ban se lemen s o he Miskolc agglome a ion. Resul s p o e ha subu baniza ion has played an impo an ole in imp o ing educa ional a ainmen igu es in subu bs, since wo- i hs o people in- ol ed in subu baniza ion (acco ding o he ques ionnai e su ey) comple ed e ia y educa ion, which is highe han he a e age o Miskolc and he agglome a ion. I has been shown ha be e li ing con- di ions (less pollu ed, less c owded esiden ial a eas) ha e been one o he mos impo an ac o s o subu baniza ion in he Miskolc agglome a ion, since i has been e ealed ha he majo i y o people in- ol ed in subu baniza ion p e iously li ed in one o he c owded housing es a es in Miskolc, in he im- media e neighbo hood o hea ily pollu ing indus ial plan s. Empi ical esul s also show ha subu - ban esiden s a e leas sa is ied wi h job oppo uni ies and hei inancial posi ion, while hey a e mos sa is ied wi h heal hca e se ices, na u al en i onmen and public anspo . Finally, i has been ound ha subu ban se lemen s only p o ide basic se ices (e.g. amily doc o ), hus local esiden s gene ally hea ily ely on he highe -le el se ices (e.g. banking) o Miskolc. Keywo ds: agglome a ing a eas; subu baniza ion; Miskolc subu bia; se lemen g oups In oduc ion Some o he mos spec acula aspec s o mode n u bani- za ion a e cen aliza ion (agglome a ion) and decen al- iza ion (subu baniza ion) aking place a ound ci ies. A model o mode n u baniza ion was i s published by Leo an Den Be g and his esea ch ellows (Leo an Den Be g e al., 1982), which was adop ed in he Hunga ian li e a u e by Gyö gy Enyedi (Enyedi, 1984; Tó h, 2006). Enyedi emphasized he backg ound and causes (e.g. in- dus ial socie y is ollowed by a pos -indus ial one) o he s ages o mode n u baniza ion and inspi ed Hun- ga ian geog aphe s o do esea ch on he demog aphic (Bajmócy, 2003; Csanádi & Csizmady, 2002; Ko ács & Tó h, 2003; Kókai, 2006; Vá i Kh ., 2001), sociogeog aph- ic, as well as on he economic and in as uc u al aspec s (Dö ényi, 1999; Ha di, 2012; Ko ács, 1999; Schuchmann, 2013) o u baniza ion in Hunga y. In he pas ew decades in es iga ing he possible ways o make a dis inc ion be ween agglome a ion and K is ó And ea 177Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) subu baniza ion has become one o he mos impo - an esea ch opics o Hunga ian geog aphe s (Dö é- nyi, 1999; Enyedi, 1984; Ko ács, 1999, 2003; K is ó , 2017; Timá , 2006, 2009) who p ima ily ocused on he es uc u ing o he popula ion, he economy and he in as uc u e wi hin a pa icula u ban agglom- e a ion. Howe e , mos o hese s udies has so a deal wi h agglome a ions cha ac e ized by dynamic eco- nomic g ow h, such as he agglome a ions o Buda- pes and Győ . A signi ican sho coming o esea ch p oduced o e he pas hal cen u y is ha i has no explo ed p ope ly he social consequences o he p o- cesses o agglome a ion and subu baniza ion in one o he la ges me opoli an a eas o Hunga y, he Miskolc agglome a ion. Tha is why one o he majo goals o his p esen pape is o explo e how he socio-econom- ic p ocesses o he pas decade ha e a ec ed subu ban se lemen s in he Miskolc agglome a ion. The s udy ocuses on he demog aphic and so- cial changes o he subu ban se lemen s o he Mis- kolc agglome a ion, as well as mig a ion ends de e - mining subu baniza ion. In addi ion o he analysis o ela ed s a is ics, he pape epo s he esul s o a ques ionnai e su ey, conduc ed in he subu ban se - lemen s o he Miskolc agglome a ion, highligh ing some cha ac e is ics o he subu ban popula ion, such as he le el o educa ion, mo i a ions o mig a ion and sa is ac ion wi h he place o esidence. Speci ically, he pape aims o answe he ques ions as ollows: • How ha e he o me “p es ige esiden ial a eas” (e.g. neighbo hoods domina ed by de ached hous- es, o ac houses) o he e ol ing subu ban egion in eg a ed in o he spa ial s uc u e o indi idual se lemen s and ha o he Miskolc agglome a ion? • Wha ha e been he bene i s and oppo uni ies, and he d awbacks and con lic s o he subu ban- iza ion p ocesses o esiden s li ing in he exam- ined se lemen s? • Which pa s o he ans o ming subu ban ela- ionships can be ega ded as success ul and which pa s o hem a e p oblema ic, c ea ing con lic s? • How has he subu ban gene a ion’s li e oppo uni- y, men ali y and iden i y changed? • All his is impo an because Wes e n Eu opean e- sea che s ha e made simila esul s. (Espon 2012) Theo e ical backg ound Agglome a ions in Hunga y Resea ch on he e olu ion o agglome a ions and se lemen g oups in Hunga y s a ed app oxima e- ly six y yea s ago. These s udies (Fó izs, 1967; Pe czel, 1964) ha e shown ha he concen a ion o socialis p oduc i e o ces played he mos impo an ole in he e olu ion o agglome a ions, howe e i has also been concluded ha he cen alized de elopmen o in as uc u e also suppo ed he o ma ion o ag- glome a ions (Kőszeg al i, 1979). Fo esea che s he mos s iking ea u es o he de elopmen o agglom- e a ions in Hunga y a ha ime we e apid popula- ion g ow h and ex ensi e commu ing. The p ima- y sou ce o popula ion g ow h was mig a ion, since i is widely known ha mo e han one million peo- ple le Hunga ian illages in he 1950s and 1960s and he majo i y o hem se led down in owns and ci ies. Fo ins ance, mo e han 200 housand peo- ple mig a ed in o he capi al (Budapes ) du ing he 1950s and 1960s and o he ci ies, such as Pécs and Miskolc also saw mo e han 30 housand in-mi- g an s, espec i ely. The o he ac o , ex ensi e com- mu ing, was due o apid indus ializa ion. S a is ics show ha in 1960 he numbe o (indus ial) com- mu e s was he highes o Budapes ollowed by Mis- kolc in he second place. F om he 1970s he es uc u ing o he se lemen ne wo k in Hunga y accele a ed. In addi ion o he Budapes agglome a ion, he Miskolc-Sajó-Valley and he Lake Bala on agglome a ions e ol ed. Hun- ga ian geog aphe s p io i ized esea ch on hese ag- glome a ions, ne e heless nume ous o he u ban- izing egions exis ed in Hunga y by ha ime which we e o en e e ed o as uni ied se lemen g oups. Ou o he 32 se lemen o ma ions in Hunga y Gyö - gy Kőszeg al i (1979) classi ied 3 as agglome a ions, 5 as agglome a ing egions, 3 as u banizing egions, 8 as small and 8 as la ge se lemen g oups su ound- ing ci ies, and 5 as win o iad ci ies. The Hunga ian Cen al S a is ical O ice (HCSO) o icially iden i ied se lemen g oups ( o he i s ime a he beginning o he 1980s) on he basis o Kőszeg al i’s wo k (Pálné Ko ács & Rechni ze , 1982). By 1996 he HCSO educed he numbe o ob- se ed se lemen o ma ions o 23, which mean ha he numbe o se lemen s included in hese o ma- ions also dec eased om 646 o 517. In some cases he nomencla u e o hese se lemen o ma ions also changed. Today he s a is ical o ice classi ies 613 se - lemen s in o one o 23 se lemen o ma ions in Hun- ga y (Table 1). E olu ion o he Miskolc agglome a ion Miskolc is cu en ly he ou h la ges ci y in Hunga- y, which lies in no heas e n Hunga y, a he mee - ing poin o he Bükk Moun ains and he Cse ehá The Impac o Subu baniza ion on Social Di e en ia ion in Hunga y: a Case S udy o he Miskolc Agglome a ion 178 Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) hills1 ( he Miskolc Ga e and i s b oade su oundings). F om he second hal o he 19 h cen u y he de elop- men o he ci y accele a ed, om he 1880s i became he cen e o one o he as es de eloping hea y in- dus ial egions o his o ical Hunga y. The ci y’s pop- ula ion inc eased almos wo and a hal imes be ween 1870 and 1910, and su ounding se lemen s, which we e o me ly au onomous bu now hey a e pa o Miskolc, also showed simila popula ion dynamics. The explosi e popula ion g ow h was p ima ily due o he de elopmen o hea y indus y. The ole and posi- ion o Miskolc in he Hunga ian se lemen ne wo k undamen ally changed ollowing he T ea y o T i- anon (1920), which se up new bo de s and educed he e i o y o Hunga y. Be o e he T ea y o T ianon Miskolc was only he 12 h mos populous ci y in his- o ical Hunga y, howe e , a e he ea y i became he 6 h. A e 1920, Miskolc became he leading ci y o 1 Cse ehá is a hilly egion which is pa o he No h Hunga ian Moun ains. no heas e n Hunga y in e ms o he indus y, com- me ce, inance and cul u e, since i s mos impo an i al Košice became pa o Czechoslo akia. Be ween he wo wo ld wa s e e s onge ela ion- ships de eloped among Miskolc and su ounding se - lemen s, which we e e lec ed by he dynamic pop- ula ion g ow h. The popula ion o he ci y oge he wi h ha o Diósgyő g ew o o e 100 000 as ea ly as 1941 and i was only a ma e o ime be o e he unc- ionally in eg a ed se lemen s we e me ged h ough law (‘G ea e Miskolc’). The idea o c ea ing ‘G ea e Miskolc’ occu ed as ea ly as he u n o he 19 h and he 20 h cen u ies, bu i became eali y only in 1945, when 3 nea by se lemen s (Diósgyő , Hejőcsaba and Tapolca) we e a ached o Miskolc. The a ea and pop- ula ion o ‘G ea e Miskolc’ inc eased u he in 1950, when ano he h ee se lemen s (Gö ömböly, Hámo and Szi ma) we e a ached o i s a ea, hus Miskolc became he second la ges ci y in Hunga y. A e he Second Wo ld Wa indus ializa ion be- came he mos impo an goal o economic policy in Table 1. Se lemen o ma ions in Hunga y acco ding o he HCSO and he changes in he numbe o se lemen s included in hem Se lemen o ma ion Numbe o se lemen s in Popula ion 2014 1996 2003 2014 Budapes agglome a ion 79 81 81 2421831 Győ agglome a ion 30 29 68 182776 Miskolc agglome a ion 17 13 36 205626 Pécs agglome a ion 62 21 41 183406 Bala on agglome a ing egion 41 52 52 147018 Ege agglome a ing egion 8 10 17 77861 Szomba hely agglome a ing egion 45 31 52 117815 Zalaege szeg agglome a ing egion 44 29 51 87852 Békéscsaba se lemen g oup 10 10 9135779 Deb ecen se lemen g oup 18 913 267949 Dunaúj á os se lemen g oup - - 5 59438 Kapos á se lemen g oup 13 14 23 84259 Kecskemé se lemen g oup 18 9 8 133434 Nagykanizsa se lemen g oup - - 24 62290 Nyí egyháza se lemen g oup 12 510 148416 Salgó a ján se lemen g oup 19 910 50975 Sop on se lemen g oup 21 612 75313 Szeged se lemen g oup 10 12 15 204301 Székes ehé á se lemen g oup 17 13 35 167908 Szekszá d se lemen g oup 16 510 48112 Szolnok se lemen g oup 11 612 101996 Ta abánya se lemen g oup 15 12 11 86151 Veszp ém se lemen g oup 11 10 18 83708 To al 517 386 613 5134214 Sou ce: Edi ed by he au ho based on h p://www.ksh.hu K is ó And ea 179Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) Hunga y which c ea ed a ou able ci cums ances o he de elopmen o he ci y, since Miskolc had long been an impo an indus ial cen e in no heas e n Hunga y. As a esul , du ing he socialis e a he de- elopmen o Miskolc was p io i ized and he ci y also ecei ed dis inguished poli ical a en ion in Hunga- y. Meanwhile he ci y expe ienced signi ican popu- la ion g ow h, since mo e han 30 housand (30 479) people mig a ed o Miskolc be ween 1949 and 1960. The ex ensi e indus ial g ow h o Miskolc was cou- pled wi h a geog aphical expansion as well, many se - lemen s we e a ached o he ci y be ween 1950 and 1981 hus Miskolc had become one o he la ges (a ea: 224 km2) indus ial ci ies o Hunga y. Meanwhile nume ous a emp s we e made by e- sea che s o delimi he a ea o he Miskolc agglom- e a ion and o iden i y he se lemen s belonging o i . Fo ins ance, Fó izs (1967) g ouped 35 se lemen s in o he Miskolc se lemen g oup based on ou ac o s (heal hca e, seconda y educa ion, e ailing, and in- dus ial commu e s). O he esea che s iden i ied he a ea o he Miskolc agglome a ion acco ding o com- plex indica o s (Szán ó, 1979; Süli-Zaka , 1989). Lukács and Pe ge (1975) iden i ied he Miskolc agglome a ion on he basis o 23 indica o s (e.g. concen a ion o p o- duc i e o ces, popula ion and supply o se ices, e c.). Kőszeg al i (1979) iden i ied Miskolc and he nea - by se lemen s as an agglome a ion, which was la e adop ed by he HCSO as well. Since hen Miskolc and he nea by se lemen s ha e o icially been ecognized as one o he agglome a ion o Hunga y. Acco ding o he HCSO he Miskolc agglome a ion comp ised 17 se - lemen s in 1996, which numbe was educed o 13 in 2003 due o changes in me hodology. The mos ecen (Tó h, 2014) delimi a ion o he Miskolc agglome a ion by he HCSO includes 36 se lemen s (Figu e 1). Me hodology To explo e he impac o subu baniza ion on he so- cie y o he Miskolc agglome a ion, he s udy had o be delimi ed i s . I would ha e been qui e ob i- ous o use he a ea o he Miskolc agglome a ion as delimi ed by he HCSO as a s udy a ea, which cu - en ly consis s o 36 se lemen s, howe e o he pu - pose o he s udy his g oup o se lemen s would no ha e been adequa e, since he s a is ical o ice delim- i s he agglome a ion on he basis o wo k o ce com- mu ing and no on subu baniza ion p ocesses. As a esul , hose se lemen s had o be selec ed o s udy wi hin he agglome a ion, which we e he mos hea - ily a ec ed by subu baniza ion. To iden i y hese se - lemen s, he ele an li e a u e was e iewed, s a is- ical da a analysis was pe o med (indica o s used by he HCSO o delimi agglome a ions we e applied and se lemen s we e ega ded as subu ban when he alues o hese indica o s we e highe han ha o he Miskolc agglome a ion and Bo sod-Abaúj-Zem- plén coun y) and in-pe son in e iews we e conduc - ed wi h p ominen local people (e.g. mayo s, no a ies and head eache s). As a esul o hese in es iga ions ele en se lemen s we e iden i ied as hea ily in ol ed in subu baniza ion a ound Miskolc: Mályi, Kis okaj, Onga, Felsőzsolca, Nyékládháza, Szi mabesenyő, A nó , Bükka anyos, Bükkszen ke esz , Kisgyő and Alsózsolca (Figu e 1). Howe e , u he esea ch and on-si e s udies e ealed ha one o hese se lemen s (Alsózsolca) canno be ega ded as a ‘ eal’ subu ban se lemen , since subu ban social and economic p o- cesses did no play a decisi e ole he e be ween 1990 and 2011, so his se lemen was excluded om u he in es iga ions (K is ó , 2017b). In he nex phase o he esea ch s a is ical da a on he demog aphics (e.g. changes in popula ion, le el o educa ion, e c.) and in as uc u e o he selec ed se - lemen s we e ga he ed and a ques ionnai e was de- signed o p o ide in o ma ion ha was no included in s a is ics. The ques ionnai e, was based on Gün - e He e ’s wo k (B ake e al., 2001), which was la - e modi ied by Dö ényi and Ko ács (2006). The i- nal e sion o he ques ionnai e comp ised 34 open and closed ques ions conce ning he changes in lo- cal communi ies due o subu baniza ion, he com- posi ion and mo i a ions o people in ol ed in sub- u baniza ion, he in eg a ion o new amilies in o he local socie y, as well as he changing geog aphical pa - e n o se ices used by newcome s. A e es ing he ques ionnai e, he su ey was conduc ed om Feb u- a y 2016 o June 2016. Du ing he su ey pape -based ques ionnai es we e used ha we e comple ed by pe - sonal in e iews. Pa icipa ion in he su ey was ol- un a y and anonymous, esul s we e p ocessed and analyzed by using SPSS so wa e. A he end o he esea ch a o al o 975 comple ed ques ionnai es we e ob ained. Table 2 shows he numbe o comple ed ques ionnai es in each se lemen . As Table 2 shows he numbe o ques ionnai es was no equally dis ibu ed among se lemen s. The eason o his was ha in e iews conduc ed wi h p ominen local people e ealed ha people ha - ing been in ol ed in subu baniza ion (i.e. newcom- e s) a e geog aphically no e enly dis ibu ed in he examined se lemen s, bu hey li e in smalle o la ge communi ies concen a ing in a ew s ee s o neighbou hoods. As a esul , s a i ied sampling The Impac o Subu baniza ion on Social Di e en ia ion in Hunga y: a Case S udy o he Miskolc Agglome a ion 180 Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) was applied, so esiden s o he se lemen s selec - ed o s udy we e no andomly asked, bu espond- en s we e selec ed om only hose neighbou hoods whe e he p opo ion o newcome s was he high- es . In addi ion, he pe cen age o subu ban esi- den s co e ed by he su ey a ied om se lemen o se lemen , ha is, subu bani e samples we e no equally ep esen a i e o analyzed se lemen s. The pe cen age o subu bani es comple ing he su ey was he highes in Onga (52.5%) and he lowes in Figu e 1. Te i o ial changes o he Miskolc agglome a ion and se lemen s o he Miskolc subu bia (2003–2015) Sou ce: Edi ed by he au ho based on he 2001 and 2011 na ional censuses Table 2. Numbe o comple ed ques ionnai es by se lemen s Se lemen Numbe o comple ed ques ionnai es Popula ion (2015) Comple ed ques ionnai es as a pe cen age o he o al popula ion (%) A nó 161 2387 7 Bükka anyos 15 1499 1 Bükkszen ke esz 54 1179 5 Felsőzsolca 156 6486 2 Kisgyő 48 1677 3 Kis okaj 132 2083 6 Mályi 102 3929 3 Nyékládháza 54 4865 1 Onga 166 4764 3 Szi mabesenyő 87 4111 2 To al 975 38586 3 Sou ce: edi ed by he au ho (da a on popula ion: HCSO) K is ó And ea 181Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) Bükka anyos (19.5%). As a esul he numbe o se - lemen ques ionnai es was no p opo ional o he popula ion o each se lemen and esponden s aged 30 and o e we e o e ep esen ed due o he na u e o he in es iga ion. Thus, i is highly impo an o emphasize ha he sample is un ep esen a i e o he o al popula ion o he subu ban se lemen s so e- sul s should be in e p e ed wi h cau ion. Howe e , i should also be men ioned ha sample is ep esen a- i e o he people in ol ed in subu baniza ion, since he su ey co e ed 975 households (app. 1700 people), which accoun s o mo e han 20% o he es ima ed numbe o people (6-8 housand) in ol ed in subu - baniza ion a ound Miskolc be ween 1990 and 2011. Resul s Mig a ion and seg ega ion One o he basic cha ac e is ic ea u es o popula ion concen a ion ela ed o mode n u baniza ion is mi- g a ion, which necessa ily gene a es social dispa i ies among and wi hin se lemen s. I was al eady obse able ea lie ha low and high socioeconomic g oups ended o be geog aphical- ly seg ega ed (e.g. in ci y agglome a ions), howe e , i was no un il he egime change ha his p ocess oc- cu ed and became a jus i ied esea ch a ea in social- is coun ies (including Hunga y as well). I ag ee wi h he opinion o esea che s in his ield who claim ha subu baniza ion in ensi ied his p ocess, esul ing in (acco ding o public judgemen ) bo h posi i e (e.g. ga ed communi ies) and nega i e (e.g. ghe os) con- sequences (Csanádi & Csizmady, 2005; Miskolc ITS, 2013; Pe czel, 2003; ; Ladányi & Szelényi, 1997). I is a peculia i y o Miskolc ha , due o he esi- den s mo ing ou o housing es a es (e.g. A as, which used o be a highe s a us esiden ial a ea) and o he declining p es ige o inne ci y neighbo hoods, he social s uc u e o Miskolc was dis up ed in ac on an almos unp eceden ed scale as compa ed o p e i- ous pe iods. As a esul o his p ocess g oups o he eli e s a ed o seg ega e in o new neighbo hoods (e.g. A asalja, Be ekalja, Egye em á os, e c.). The eme - gence o ghe o dis ic wi hin Miskolc (e.g. he so- called ‘Numbe ed s ee s’, Lyukó alley, e c.) was also Figu e 2. Sha e o he popula ion wi h seconda y educa ion aged 18 o abo e (2011) Sou ce: Edi ed by he au ho based on HCSO da a The Impac o Subu baniza ion on Social Di e en ia ion in Hunga y: a Case S udy o he Miskolc Agglome a ion 182 Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) in ensi ied by subu ban mig a o y ends. The p o- cess ma kedly changed and pola ized he subu ban se lemen s o he Miskolc agglome a ion as well (Fig- u e 2-3). On he one hand, he ole o small se lemen s in he Bükk Moun ains (e.g. Kisgyő , Bükkszen ke esz , e c.) in concen a ing he eli e became s onge . On he o he hand, he e also eme ged se lemen s espe- cially nea he adminis a i e bo de s o Miskolc wi h a o able economic and anspo condi ions (e.g. Mályi, Kis okaj, Szi mabesenyő, e c.), which also be- came he ocal poin s o he new eli e wi h high s a- us esiden ial a eas and ga ed communi ies. The con- cen a ion o low socioeconomic g oups also became s onge , wi h one o he esul s o hese p ocesses be- ing ha a con iguous eas e n slum egion (e.g. Gesz e- ly, He nádkak, Alsózsolca, Újcsanálos, e c.) eme ged wi hin he Miskolc agglome a ion cha ac e ized by he ma ked p esence o e hnic mino i ies. (Roma peo- ple had al eady been li ing in he subu bs be o e he 1990s, howe e , in he pas 25 yea s hei numbe has inc eased a a as e a e han wha would be expec - ed on he basis o hei na u al inc ease, which implies ha hei numbe was also inc eased by Roma people mo ing ou o Miskolc.) The low and high socioeconomic g oups o Miskolc ha e been signi ican ly di e en ega ding he di ec- ions o hei mo emen s, which augmen ed he seg e- ga ion wi hin and be ween he subu ban se lemen s. S a is ical da a indica ed ha in some subu ban se lemen s (e.g. Felsőzsolca, Mályi, Kis okaj, e c.) he numbe o people wi h highe educa ion le el in- c eased dynamically – su passing he coun y and ag- glome a ion means (Table 3). S a is ical da a and ques ionnai es ha e e ealed ha amilies mo ing ou o Miskolc did no ha e ou - s anding incomes o signi ican sa ings, he e o e hey did no ha e enough inancial esou ces o mo e o a highe quali y dwelling wi hin Miskolc. Based on em- pi ical esea ch i can be concluded ha a signi ican po ion o ou -mo e s was a ac ed by he a o a- ble en i onmen al and anspo condi ions o se le- men s, low p ope y p ices and by bene i s o e ed by local go e nmen s (e.g. cheap plo s; ax b eaks). These ac s also unde pin one o he peculia i ies o he socie y o he Miskolc subu bia, namely ha he majo i y o subu ban gene a ions belong o he low- e middle class which is mo e ulne able han o he laye s o he Hunga ian socie y in e ms o social (e.g. in eg a ion, local ies, e c.) and economic condi ions Figu e 3. Sha e o he popula ion wi h e ia y educa ion aged 25 o abo e (2011) Sou ce: Edi ed by he au ho based on HCSO da a K is ó And ea 183Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) (e.g. inancial c isis, p oblems conce ning he epay- men o o eign cu ency loans, unemploymen ). This is pa icula ly ue o disad an aged social g oups in- cluding lowe educa ed, low income and unemployed people as well as he Roma. The inancial and economic ecession eaching Hunga y oo, he c edi c isis and he social aspec s o nonpe o ming loans (e.g. indeb edness, unemploy- men , impo e ishmen , e c.) changed he p ocesses o mobili y in he agglome a ions o Hunga ian ci ies as well, o which ha dly any in o ma ion exis s excep o he Budapes agglome a ion. In ac , he unce ain y caused by he inancial and economic c isis may de- cele a e o accele a e mig a o y mo emen s in he u- u e. Howe e , such s udies ha e no ye been ca ied ou in he Miskolc agglome a ion, he e o e he de- g ee o which he socie y is a ec ed by his p ocess bo h e ically and ho izon ally is unknown. Based on he su ey, i has been shown ha he sig- ni ican inc ease in he cos s associa ed wi h he sub- u ban way o li e, he apa hy o he subu ban gene a- ion, he de e io a ion o he o me “p es ige li ing spaces”, and he social e ec s o he inancial-eco- nomic c isis all ha e con ibu ed o he decline o he Table 3. Educa ion le el o esponden s Se lemen Women (%) Men (%) echnical school seconda y oc. sch. g amma school uni e si y o college deg. echnical school seconda y oc. sch. g amma school uni e si y o college deg. A nó 12.5 35.4 14 37.5 4.9 29.5 18 47.5 Szi mabesenyő 2.1 32.6 6.5 52.1 30.7 15.3 2.5 51.2 Felsőzsolca 8.8 26.4 11.7 52.9 16.6 27.7 22.2 38.8 Kisgyő 2.9 8.8 8.8 79.4 025 075 Bükka anyos 16.6 0 0 83.3 033.3 33.3 33.3 Bükkszen ke esz 3.2 38.7 29 29 1 5 15 50 Kis okaj 4.16 29.1 37.5 29.1 16.6 16.6 1.8 1.8 Nyékládháza 8.3 16.6 33.3 41.6 033.3 066.6 Mályi 5.3 25 29.6 37.5 10 20 20 50 Onga 9.5 19 20 45.7 8.1 40.9 16.3 34.4 To al (%) 826.8 20.7 44.5 10.5 28.2 18.6 42.9 Sou ce: Edi ed by he au ho based on ques ionnai e su ey Table 4. Popula ion, na u al inc ease and ne mig a ion a e o he Miskolc agglome a ion and subu bia (1990–2015) Se lemen s 1980-1990 1990 1990-2001 2001 2001-2011 2011 2015 1* 2* 3* 1* 2* 3* 1* 2* 3* 3* Miskolc 1487 -13148 196442 -6785 -5532 184125 -8425 -7946 167754 159554 Miskolc agglome a ion 2927 -1253 92719 1058 3674 97451 -1764 -1475 94212 92347 o which he se lemen s o he subu bia: Alsózsolca 308 -175 5723 355 -34 6044 161 -439 5766 5606 A nó 170 352 2082 107 368 2557 34 62597 2387 Bükka anyos -39 -10 1122 16 255 1393 30 25 1448 1499 Bükkszen ke esz 21 -22 1374 -96 -4 1274 -85 17 1206 1179 Felsőzsolca 368 446 6939 193 -105 7027 58 -472 6613 6486 Kisgyő 7-67 1572 -18 55 1609 -39 72 1642 1677 Kis okaj 39 205 1489 9370 1868 -27 237 2078 2083 Mályi 168 685 3353 4795 4152 -72 44 4124 3929 Nyékládháza 57 185 4432 -67 541 4906 -204 321 5023 4865 Onga 213 213 4042 278 441 4761 58 39 4858 4764 Szi mabesenyő 144 -77 4836 -123 16 4729 -238 -53 4438 4111 To al 1456 1735 36964 658 2698 40320 -324 -203 39793 38586 *1 na u al inc ease, 2 ne mig a ion a e ( he di e ence be ween he numbe o in-mig an s and ou -mig an s o e he examined pe iod), 3 popula ion Sou ce: edi ed by he au ho based on TeIR and HCSO-TSTAR da a The Impac o Subu baniza ion on Social Di e en ia ion in Hunga y: a Case S udy o he Miskolc Agglome a ion 184 Geog aphica Pannonica • Volume 22, Issue 3, 176–188 (Sep embe 2018) a e o social s a a which p e e and a e able o ake he subu ban way o li e (Table 4). Mo i a ions behind mo ing ou o Miskolc o subu ban se lemen s Social and economic ans o ma ions ela ed o he e- gime change s ongly a ec ed p ope y asse s in Hun- ga y, he p ices o en ed dwellings o me ly owned by he s a e o ci y councils inc eased (Csanádi e al., 2010). By selling hese dwellings amilies li ing in blocks o la s could c ea e a inancial basis o mo ing home and ealizing he d eam o he middle class: buying a de ached house (Csanádi & Csizmady, 2002). The mos impo an mo i a ion o people mo ing ou o ci ies (which s a ed as a spo adic phenomenon, bu la e became widesp ead) is gene ally associa ed wi h he nega i e aspec s o u ban li e (e.g. en i onmen- al pollu ion, c owdedness, aliena ion, e c.), howe - e , hese nega i e elemen s we e no o jus sca cely p esen in Hunga ian ci ies. Howe e , he condi ions o Miskolc we e peculia in his espec as well, since du ing he yea s o he egime change 60% o i s es- iden s li ed in blocks o la s in he immedia e neigh- bou hood o hea ily pollu ing indus ial plan s (e.g. I onwo ks o Diósgyő , e c.). The esul s o he ques- ionnai e su ey p o e ha inadequa e li ing condi- ions g ea ly con ibu ed o subu baniza ion, since he signi ican majo i y o people mo ing ou o Mis- kolc o me ly li ed in blocks o la s (Table 5). Da a on Bükkszen ke esz , Szi mabesenyő, Kis- okaj and Kisgyő indica e ha he simple p ocess o mo ing om blocks o la s o de ached houses was no he only ea u e o subu baniza ion a ound Mis- kolc. Fo he mo e a luen gene a ions, paying pa - icula a en ion o en i onmen al condi ions, mo - ing ou o Miskolc was also a quali a i e change, since hey mo ed o se lemen s o high p es ige, despi e he ac ha hey had o accep he disad an ages o lack o anspo and o he in as uc u e in a o o ha - ing a bigge house and ga den. The dominan majo i y o he new inhabi an s o he subu ban egion a i ed om he c owded blocks o la s in Miskolc. The subu ban socie y’s sa is ac ion wi h i s place o esidence Las bu no leas , esponden s we e asked o ell hei opinions on li ing condi ions in subu bs. Na u ally, subjec i e ac o s (such as pe sonal cha ac e is ics, i- nancial s a us) play an impo an ole in one’s le el o sa is ac ion wi h hei esiden ial en i onmen , how- e e , he su ey ocused especially on esponden s’ pe cei ed sa is ac ion wi h quasi objec i e ac o s (such as income le el o public anspo ). The ques- ionnai e measu ed he le el o sa is ac ion wi h ele - en p e-gi en ac o s on a i e-g ade scale (Figu e 4). Resul s show ha subu ban esiden s a e leas sa is- ied wi h job oppo uni ies (2.3) and hei inancial po- si ion (2.6), while hey a e mos sa is ied wi h heal h- ca e se ices (3.6), he na u al en i onmen (3.7) and public anspo (3.9). Thus, i can be s a ed ha a sig- ni ican po ion o people in ol ed in subu baniza- ion was a ac ed by he a o able en i onmen al and anspo condi ions o subu ban se lemen s, low p ope y p ices and by bene i s o e ed by local go - e nmen s. We should no o ge ha he a ailabili y o se - ices may also in luence he le el o sa is ac ion wi h Table 5. Fo me dwellings o people mo ing ou o Miskolc Se lemen Fo me dwellings (%) by owne ship by ype p i a e en ed local go e nmen de ached house e aced house block o la s ( i e s o ies o less) block o la s (six s o ies o mo e) B ick block o la s A nó 67.7 19.8 12.4 20.4 9.9 39.7 19.8 9.9 Szi mabesenyő 77 14.9 8.04 44.8 4.59 12.6 19.5 18.3 Felsőzsolca 89.7 5.7 4.4 30.7 2.5 26.2 34.6 5.7 Kisgyő 77 10.4 12.5 10.4 6.2 29.1 39.5 14.5 Bükka anyos 80 1 2 2 1 4 5 3 Bükkszen ke esz 83.3 7 2 29 515 3 2 Kis okaj 81 11 14 35 18 34 41 4 Nyékládháza 77.7 5 7 12 319 17 3 Mályi 100 1 1 15 841 32 6 Onga 113 38 15 26 21 73 36 10 To al 772 122 81 244 83 316 256 76 Sou ce: Edi ed by he au ho based on ques ionnai e su ey