Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development: A case of a second-tier Ukrainian city

87 Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development: A case of a second-tier Ukrainian city Oleksiy Gnatiuk1, Anna Klymenko1 1 Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine Corresponding author: Oleksiy Gnatiuk ([email protected]) Copyright: © Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko This is an open access article distributed under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International – CC BY 4.0). Research Article Abstract This study explores the drivers (explanatory factors) and spatial patterns of suburban development in Vinnytsia, a second-tier Ukrainian city, within the broader context of post-socialist urban transformation. The objective of the paper is to identify the drivers of suburban development of Vinnytsia as a second-tier Ukrainian city at the level of individual settlements and to uncover the general spatial patterns of its suburban area. Drawing on spatial features of suburbanisation including population change, housing modernisation, real estate market activity, and construction permits, the research reveals a distinct centre–periphery structure of the suburban area, asymmetrically distributed along the southwest-northeast axis. The suburban area comprises three quasi-concentric zones, each exhibiting varying levels and forms of suburban development. The first zone, directly adjacent to the city, is dominated by classical western-type suburbanisation, involving the influx of affluent residents and the emergence of low-rise and multi-storey housing. The second zone, stretching 15–20 km from the city centre, is characterised by housing modernisation rather than new construction, with commercial activity concentrated near major highways. The third zone, up to 30 km away, shows only partial transformation, mainly through the renovation of existing homes, which may be equally referred to both suburban and peri-urban development. Logistic regression confirms proximity to the central city as the most influential factor across all indicators, while landscape features and access to highways also contribute significantly. The research identifies asymmetries rooted in both natural landscape preferences and the spatial configuration of the city itself. Notably, administrative reforms have failed to align governance boundaries with functional suburban integration. The study concludes that suburbanisation in Vinnytsia reflects hybrid dynamics of post-socialist development, merging unregulated urban expansion with spontaneous and policy-driven modernisation. The findings offer insights for spatial planning in second-tier cities, advocating for more integrated approaches to suburban and peri-urban governance. Key words: Factors, post-socialist city, suburbanisation, Vinnytsia 1. Introduction The suburban area is a dynamic environment where urban and rural areas interact, leading to a fundamental transformation of traditional settlement systems, changes in the social structure of the population, the emergence of unique Academic editor: Chad Staddon Received: 26 April 2025 Accepted: 21 August 2025 Published: 01 October 2025 Citation: Gnatiuk O, Klymenko A (2025) Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development: A case of a second-tier Ukrainian city. Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118. https://doi. org/10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025) DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 88 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development land-use patterns, and landscape transformations. Researching the drivers (explanatory factors) of suburban development helps identify patterns in these processes, which is crucial for effective planning and management of urban and regional development. Understanding suburban development drivers at the level of individual settlements allows for identifying areas with the highest growth potential and those at risk of socio-economic stagnation, predicting the load on transport, social, and environmental infrastructure, preventing chaotic construction, irrational land use, and urban conflicts (McGregor et al. 2005; Ravetz et al. 2013; Kubeš and Nováček 2019). Ultimately, this contributes to the balanced development of the city and its suburban area, as well as of specific parts of the latter. In post-socialist countries, suburban development typically differs significantly from the western model, represented first of all by the typical US or Canadian suburbs (Beauregard 2006; Kubeš and Nováček 2019), due to differences in socio-economic and institutional conditions during the post-socialist era (Borén and Gentile 2007; Leetmaa and Tammaru 2007; Zakutynska and Slyvka 2016; Lozynskyi 2022). The legacy of Soviet planning also plays a significant role. During the socialist period, cities developed under strictly regulated schemes that did not account for market-driven migration mechanisms and did not allow classical suburbanisation processes to unfold fully. Instead, summer residences (so-called “dachi”) served as a socialist surrogate for classic suburbia (Leetmaa et al. 2012). However, with the collapse of socialism, control over spatial development weakened considerably, leading to chaotic suburban construction, the destruction of green spaces, agricultural land, and valuable natural landscapes, as well as an increasing imbalance between housing development and service sector expansion (Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Lozynskyi 2019; Hardi et al. 2020). This also resulted in rising commuter migration and, consequently, increased pressure on transport infrastructure, along with growing social segregation between affluent suburbanites and the less affluent local long-term residents (Gnatiuk et al. 2021). Unregulated suburban development can lead to a range of social and environmental problems, making this issue particularly critical for post-socialist countries. In turn, successful management of suburban development requires an understanding of the factors and spatial patterns of suburban expansion in post-socialist cities. Understanding differences in suburban development at the settlement level is crucial because each suburban settlement has its own unique characteristics, including the level of transport connectivity with the central city, access to urban infrastructure, natural features (terrain, presence of water bodies, forests), socio-economic composition of the population, economic characteristics, local heritage, and identity (Kok and Kovács 1999; Mantey and Sudra 2019; Gnatiuk et al. 2021; Lozynskyi 2022). This is particularly important in the context of a general trend toward decentralisation and the increasing role of local self-government in democratic countries, where many spatial development decisions are made at the local level. Thus, research focusing on a local level helps develop targeted development policies that consider the specific needs and potential of particular areas. Studying the explanatory factors of suburban development at the settlement level is essential for ensuring the balanced growth of urban regions. For post-socialist cities, which have undergone significant changes in governance structures, economy, and demographics, such 89 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development research not only helps explain current trends but also allows for forecasting future development scenarios while minimising the risks of uncontrolled urban sprawl (Slaev and Kovachev 2014; Werner et al. 2022; Cocheci and Petrişor 2023). The vast majority of literature on suburban development in post-socialist countries focuses on large metropolises, with only a few publications exploring the peculiarities of second-tier cities (Matlovič and Sedláková 2007; Gnatiuk 2016; Zakutynska and Slyvka 2016; Repaská et al. 2017; Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Hardi et al. 2020; Gnatiuk et al. 2021; Hardi 2022; Kubeš and Ouředníček 2022; Ilieva et al. 2023). Moreover, despite a significant shift in the past decade, Ukraine remains on the periphery of knowledge production regarding even post-socialist suburban development (Kryczka et al. 2025). By focusing on the second-tier city of Vinnytsia, Ukraine, we aim to address this gap and provide new insights into suburban development from a global urban periphery. The objective of this study is to identify the factors influencing suburban development in Vinnytsia as a second-tier Ukrainian city at the level of individual settlements, as well as to uncover the general spatial pattern of its suburban area. A spatial pattern of suburban area refers here to the geographic distribution and configuration of suburban growth, including the location, density, and structure of residential areas, transport networks, and land use types in relation to the central city. Traditionally, the development of the suburban area is closely associated with the process of suburbanisation. In its classical sense, suburbanisation refers to the movement of predominantly affluent city dwellers to the suburbs, driven by environmental considerations – to escape the disadvantages of urban life and seek a higher-quality and more family-oriented lifestyle in greener, more private, and socially exclusive settings. As a result, classical western-style suburbs are typically low-rise residential areas that remain highly dependent on the central city for employment, leading to increased commuting (Hirt 2007). Additionally, suburbanisation refers to the stage of urban region development when the population of suburban area is growing faster than that of the city in absolute or relative numbers (Osada 2003; Sýkora and Posová 2011; Kryczka et al. 2025). However, the observed forms of city-to-hinterland interaction worldwide are not limited to classical western-style suburbanisation. Instead, suburbanisation is just one of several processes or types of suburban development (Ford 1999; Hirt 2007; Ouředníček 2007). In particular, four types of peri-urban growth have been identified based on the origin of migrants, their relationship to the metropolitan region, their motivation, housing quality and accessibility (Ford 1999; Fisher 2003): (1) suburbanisation – migration from the metropolitan centre to the nearest suburbs; (2) counter-urbanisation – migration from the metropolitan centre to more distant suburban zone; (3) population retention – maintaining population levels within the suburban area; and (4) centrifugal migration – from the suburbs back to the metropolitan centre. Depending on the social profile, origin, employment and main motivation of migrants, the following processes changing the face of suburban area are distinguished (Hirt 2007): (1) western-type suburbanisation – the relocation of affluent households from the metropolitan centre to rural areas; (2) urban ruralisation, or de-urbanisation – the movement of low-income populations from the metropol- 90 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development itan centre to the peri-urban area; and (3) rural urbanisation – the movement of low-income populations from the rural hinterland to the metropolitan centre. Developing the framework of the differentiated suburban development, Ouředníček (2007) identified seven migration processes based on motivation, connection to the central city, housing quality, and the influence of previous and new places of residence: (1) from the metropolitan centre to newly built housing (suburbanisation); (2) from the metropolitan centre to already existing old housing; (3) from the metropolitan centre to nursing homes for the elderly; (4) from the metropolitan centre to a second home (seasonal suburbanisation); (5) from the metropolitan centre to distant locations (de-urbanisation); (6) within the suburban zone (tangential migration); (7) from other parts of the country and abroad (long-distance migration). Lozynskyi (2022) explicitly warns that suburban villages in Ukraine should not be referred to as “suburbs” or “suburbia” since only a portion of them resembles traditional American suburbs. He suggests that the term “suburbs” should be applied only to those parts of suburban villages or city outskirts that exhibit characteristics typical of American suburbs. Alongside the concept of suburban development, there is a related but distinct term – peri-urban development. The latter refers to the structural transformation of rural areas under the influence of the city, resulting in the blurring of the boundary between urban and rural spaces, the formation of a mixed urban-rural landscape, and the interweaving of urban and rural functions. Peri-urban area is generally defined as an urban-rural transition belt that experiences a substantial impact from the city in social, economic, and environmental aspects, making it significantly different from adjacent rural areas beyond the city’s direct influence (Iaquinta and Drescher 2002; McGregor et al. 2005; Avram 2009; Piorr et al. 2011; Ravetz et al. 2013; Gottero et al. 2023; Zborowski et al. 2023). Existing theoretical models of peri-urban areas describe gradual centre-periphery transition from the central city to the rural hinterland: the rural-urban continuum model (Waugh 2000) distinguishes suburban area, urban shadow and rural area, while the spatial morphology model (Thuo 2013) outlines such basic structural elements of the urban region as inner and outer urban fringes, urban shadow, and rural hinterland. Cities are seen as centres of innovation diffusion and poles of growth (Perroux 1955; Friedmann 1972), capable of significantly transforming the suburban area even in the absence of direct population migration to or from it. Given the multiplicity and diversity of forms of suburban development and approaches to define this mere concept (Forsyth 2012), in this research we often cannot clearly distinguish the features and results of pure suburbanisation from those of peri-urbanisation, and thus the terms “peri-urban area” and “peri-urban development” are often used in the article, albeit the main focus is retained on suburbanisation. The specific development trajectories of entire suburban areas and their individual parts are highly variable and resist universal systematisation, requiring a deep understanding of regional and local contexts. Firstly, the development of suburban areas is influenced by the broader social, economic, cultural, and political-institutional context (Borén and Gentile 2007; Leetmaa and Tammaru 2007; Leetmaa et al. 2009; Brade et al. 2010; Slaev and Kovachev 2014; Lozynskyi 2022). The factors and spatial patterns of suburban development depend on the combination and interplay of the pro- 91 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development cesses (e.g. suburbanisation, de-urbanisation, counter-urbanisation) occurring within a particular urban region, reflecting motivations of migrants to and from suburban area. Secondly, the transformation processes within suburban areas vary significantly depending on the size of the central city. More detailed theoretical explanation of this pattern has been proposed within the framework of a differential urbanisation theory (Geyer and Kontuly 1993; Kontuly and Geyer 2003). It has been demonstrated, including based on the Ukrainian material (Mezentsev and Havryliuk 2015; Gnatiuk 2017; Havryliuk 2021), that largest cities are faster entering the subsequent stages of urban evolution, and suburbanisation processes are more intensive, although there are numerous deviations from the general rule. The patterns of migrations (centrifugal vs. centripetal) and motifs of migrants may also differ depending on the size of a central city/urban region in the same country (Mezentsev et al. 2019, 2020). Thirdly, the vast majority of suburban areas exhibit a clear centre-periphery structure with respect to the central city, subdividing into several zones that differ in the presence, intensity, and proportion of various phenomena such as residential, commercial, and industrial suburbanisation, as well as processes like suburbanisation, counter-urbanisation, etc. (Leetmaa and Tammaru 2007; Pidgrushnyi et al. 2020; Sikorski and Szmytkie 2021). This structure tends to be more extensive, pronounced, and polycentric (with additional economic growth poles as edge cities, etc.) in large metropolitan areas (Sýkora and Ouředníček 2007; Marcińczak 2012; Tanaś 2013; Pidgrushnyi et al. 2023) and more compact, less differentiated, and monocentric in secondand third-tier cities (Matlovič and Sedláková 2007; Zakutynska and Slyvka 2016; Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Ilieva et al. 2023). The influence of local factors can introduce significant asymmetry in the development of particular sectors of the suburban area. Therefore, the presence of a general visible asymmetry (Gnatiuk 2016) or a sectoral structure aligned with the routing of major transport arteries (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017; Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Gierczak-Korzeniowska 2020; Ubarevičienė and Burneika 2020; Dudek-Mańkowska et al. 2024; Jurkowski et al. 2024) is a fairly widespread phenomenon. Fourthly, the intensity and nature of suburban development can vary significantly between different parts of the suburban area and specific suburban settlements. Research on suburban development in the Prague metropolitan area demonstrates variations in spatial patterns, the intensity of spatial processes, and the social and economic status of new suburbanites (Ouředníček 2007). Mezentsev (2017) identifies five types of suburban spaces in Ukraine, differing in their surrounding environment, the nature of changes, housing types, and lifestyles: rural settlements affected by suburbanisation, new cottage towns, former seasonal “dacha” settlements transformed into permanent residences, growing Soviet-era satellite towns, and areas of intra-urban suburbanisation. Mantey and Sudra (2019), based on the Warsaw Metropolitan Region setting, elaborated a typology of suburbs based on six criteria: (1) the level of neighbourhood (spatial scale), (2) the time when the neighbourhood was erected, (3) spatial interaction with the nearest town/city, (4) the prevailing type of investment, (5) street layout, and (6) access to the city centre by public transport. More or less similar typologies of suburban settlements have been proposed by different authors for different contexts (Zębik 2011; Repaská et al. 2017). 92 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development Fifthly, extreme heterogeneity of suburban built environments and lifestyle forms is observed (Walks 2013; Dymitrow and Stenseke 2016; Phelps 2017; Keil 2018), as well as coexistence of different built forms and lifestyles within a single suburban settlement (Mezentsev et al. 2019; Gnatiuk et al. 2021; Lozynskyi 2022), and, at times, even within a single street (Provotar and Melnychuk 2025). Given the aforementioned diversity of suburban areas, we can identify certain general groups of explanatory factors that either promote or hinder the development of suburban settlements. Despite the global trend toward increasing functional autonomy and independence of suburban areas (Golubchikov et al. 2010; Harris 2010; Pidgrushnyi et al. 2020), a significant  and in some cases critical  dependence of everyday life in the suburbia on the central city persists. With this in mind, two factors are typically decisive: the distance to the central city and the quality of transportation connections (Wolny and Źróbek 2017; Bogusz et al. 2024; Dudek-Mańkowska et al. 2024). For affluent suburbanites, a key advantage is the availability of fast and high-quality road connections, while for poorer population greater importance is placed on suburban rail and bus services, as well as the extension of urban public transport routes into the suburban area. Proximity to the central city is also important in terms of locating large retail and logistics centres in the suburban area – they must be easily accessible for urban residents as well, which makes locations at the very edge of the city, within reach of public transport, the most favourable (Ronse et al. 2015; Peiffer-Smadja and Torre 2018; Sikorski and Szmytkie 2021). In recent years, alongside transportation connectivity, the quality of mobile communication and internet access has also become increasingly important. The status and population size of a suburban settlement also matter (Kubeš and Ouředníček 2022). On the one hand, the largest suburban settlements  particularly satellite towns and urban-type settlements  typically have more developed economies (and therefore more job opportunities) and better social infrastructure, making them more attractive to migrants (Bogusz et al. 2024). In addition, due to the hierarchical nature of spatial innovation diffusion (Hägerstrand 1967), the development of commercial infrastructure in the largest and most prominent settlements occurs more rapidly (Ronse et al. 2015; Peiffer-Smadja and Torre 2018; Pidgrushnyi et al. 2020; Sikorski and Szmytkie 2021; Kazakov et al. 2024). On the other hand, from the perspective of affluent suburbanites seeking proximity to nature and social exclusivity, relatively small villages may be more attractive (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017). Important factors that attract potential residents of classical western-style suburbia include environmentally favourable living conditions and picturesque landscapes, such as the presence of rivers, lakes, and forested areas (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017; Ubarevičienė and Burneika 2020; Bogusz et al. 2024). At the same time, it should be noted that environmental factors and proximity to “unpleasant” or hazardous facilities do not always act as limiting factors. For instance, cottage towns in the suburban area of Kyiv  the Ukrainian capital  are being built in the direction of the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, near landfills for solid and construction waste, and close to the Trypillia Thermal Power Plant (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017). Natural conditions also matter as factors that either create more convenient conditions for construction (flat terrain, low groundwater levels, stable soils, access to water resources), or, on the contrary, hinder development (rugged terrain, dense forests, swamp- 93 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development iness, flood or landslide risks, etc.) (Marushchynets 2020; Ubarevičienė and Burneika 2020). This applies not only to residential development but especially to industrial and commercial construction. Therefore, the same natural conditions may have opposite effects on the development dynamics of a suburban settlement depending on the local context. Among other drivers, the image and reputation of a particular settlement must be mentioned. Settlements with a well-developed local identity and landmarks may experience higher development rates. Low land and property prices also contribute to the development of suburban areas (Bogusz et al. 2024). However, intensive suburban growth typically leads to a surge in prices, meaning that often prices should be considered not as a driver but rather as a feature of suburban development. In some cases, the factor of ethnicity matters too (Ubarevičienė et al. 2015; Šveda et al. 2016). Finally, legal and administrative settings play an important role, including local authorities and their policies regarding territorial development (Kok and Kovács 1999). In particular, this concerns the development strategy of the suburban community (e.g., whether to integrate into the central city or to remain a separate community), spatial planning and permitting policies (such as whether multi-story, industrial, or commercial construction is allowed), and investment policy. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Case study area The city of Vinnytsia, a regional centre in the south-west of Ukraine with a population of ca. 370000, has already been the subject of suburbanisation studies in Ukraine (Gnatiuk 2016, 2017; Gnatiuk et al. 2021). Over the past decades, Vinnytsia has been among the Ukrainian cities demonstrating pronounced population growth in the peri-urban area, while the population of the city itself has stagnated or even declined (Gnatiuk 2017). This trend indicates that the city and its urban region have entered the suburbanisation stage of the urban development lifecycle (for different approaches to the definitions of the suburbanisation stage of urban development see Osada (2003), Sýkora and Posová (2011) and Havryliuk et al. (2021)). Research on housing modernisation based on remote sensing data (Gnatiuk 2016) suggests that the suburban development of Vinnytsia is influenced by several key factors: the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, the configuration of major transport arteries, differences in the functional profiles of various parts of the central city, and geographical position relative to other adjacent cities. The area influenced by the central city was found to have an average radius of 25 km, albeit with distinct spatial asymmetry. In particular, the highest rates of suburban growth were observed in the south-western and western sectors. Two factors may be potentially important for shaping this uneven suburban development around Vinnytsia. The first of them is a pattern of natural landscapes (Fig. 1). The landscapes to the west and south-west of Vinnytsia exhibit higher aesthetic appeal due to more dissected terrain, greater forest coverage, and picturesque granite outcrops in river valleys, in contrast to the predominantly flat and heavily cultivated landscapes to the north-east and east of the city. Thus, the landscapes in the western sector may be more attractive 94 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development to suburbanites. Simultaneously, plain terrain and more fertile soils may favour the industrial and agricultural development eastward of the city. The second explanatory factor may be spatial structure of the central city (Fig. 2). Vinnytsia’s historical core is located in its western (right-bank) part and contains the majority of the city’s educational and cultural institutions. The largest residential neighbourhoods are concentrated in the western and south-western peripheries of the city. Residential and commercial-service developments, oriented toward the end-user, directly border the suburban area in this part of the city. In contrast, the north-eastern and eastern outskirts of Vinnytsia represent an almost continuous belt of industrial and warehouse zones, which form an undesirable neighbouring environment for potential suburban residents and hinder access to commercial infrastructure – for example, the nearest shopping malls in the inner city. This may hinder residential suburbanisation, however, it does not necessarily impede industrial and, to a lesser extent, service-oriented suburban development (cf. Ubarevičienė and Burneika 2020). More recent research (Gnatiuk et al. 2021) focusing on Ahronomichne, a village on the urban fringe of Vinnytsia (marked with the letter A in Fig. 1), has revealed a dominant western-type pattern of peri-urban development. Specifically, the majority of newcomers are former urban residents, most of whom relocated from the central city. These newcomers tend to be more affluent than Figure 1. The study setting. Elaborated by the authors based on Google Maps (2024), Population Statistic of Eastern Europe (2024), and Denysyk GI et al. (2008). 95 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development long-term residents and have higher social status. Their primary motivations for moving to suburbia include a quieter living environment and better health conditions, aligning with the broader concept of urban escape. Furthermore, most newcomers reside in newly constructed housing. However, some suburbanites in Ahronomichne reported mixed motivation  urban escape combined with lower housing costs  indicating that the stream of migrants to suburbia is not homogeneous: wealthy migrants are accompanied by individuals with relatively lower incomes (Gnatiuk et al. 2021). Of course, Ahronomichne is only one rural settlement in the suburban zone of Vinnytsia, so the conclusions drawn from it cannot be unconditionally extended to other parts within the suburban or, more so, peri-urban area. Nevertheless, it provides some general understanding of the suburban development on the city’s urban fringe. Therefore, the suburban development of Vinnytsia should be classified as suburbanisation (migration from the central city to the nearest suburban belt) (Ford 1999; Fisher 2003), western-type suburbanisation (relocation of wealthy households from the central city to the countryside) (Hirt 2007), and centrifugal migration from the central city to the suburban area, predominantly to the newly-built housing (Ouředníček 2007). Figure 2. Spatial structure of Vinnytsia: main morphological and functional areas. Elaborated by the authors based on the Vinnytsia Master Plan (Vinnytsia City Council 2021). 102 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development fully attributed to methodological limitations (such as the underestimation of modernised housing units in multi-storey apartment buildings). Given its extensive chronological coverage, this indicator appears to most comprehensively reflect changes in the housing sector of Vinnytsia’s suburban area, capturing both the direct process of suburbanisation and the modernising influence of the central city. In particular, residents of suburban villages tend to engage more actively in the modernisation of their homes due to increased income opportunities from employment in the city, improved physical access to goods and services markets in Vinnytsia, and emulation of the lifestyles and housing aesthetics of more affluent suburban migrants (Gnatiuk et al. 2021). The spatial pattern reflected by the third indicator represents a snapshot of the real estate market in the suburban area of Vinnytsia as of 2024 (Fig. 3C). Again, we observe the leading development of the urban fringe, a more distant zone characterised by a gradual decline in real estate market activity to background hinterland levels, and a general asymmetry along the southwest–northeast axis, which is evident within both zones. However, the similarity between the patterns is not complete. In particular, a significant number of settlements with a relatively high share of new or modernised housing exhibit very low real estate market activity. This discrepancy may be attributed to differences in the temporal coverage of the two indicators, as well as to instances of housing modernisation undertaken by suburban residents without property transactions – a phenomenon more typical of the more remote suburban zone. The analysis of the fourth indicator  the number of issued construction permits (Fig. 3D)  reveals a somewhat different spatial pattern. Firstly, the contrast between the urban fringe and the more remote suburban zone is less pronounced. Secondly, while the overall spatial asymmetry persists, its nature is different: within the urban fringe, the most intensive development traditionally occurs in the western direction, whereas in the more distant suburban zone, it is observed toward the east and south-east. Overall, the area of evident urban influence extends approximately 15–20 km beyond the city’s outer boundary. Thirdly, the size and status of the settlement appear to matter: towns and urban-type settlements stand out with higher numbers of issued construction permits, both within the zone of clear urban influence and beyond it, at distances exceeding 20 km from the city boundary. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the previous indicators referred exclusively to the residential sector, whereas construction permits cover various sectors of development. In this case, it may be supposed the role of small towns located 20–25 km from Vinnytsia as secondary centres of modernisation. A deeper understanding of the situation can be gained by analysing the functional affiliation of the facilities under construction or reconstruction (Fig. 4). Permits for the construction and reconstruction of housing were issued in a limited number of suburban settlements, primarily those located near the border of Vinnytsia. These are the areas where individual apartment buildings, entire residential complexes, as well as large townhouses and gated cottage communities are being developed. The same settlements recorded the highest number of permits in the commercial real estate sector, indicating that commercial suburbanisation around Vinnytsia largely follows residential development and is oriented toward serving the suburban population (cf. Matlovič and Sedláková 2007; Pidgrushnyi et al. 2020, 2023). At the same time, commercial real estate 103 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development permits were also issued in other settlements that are not undergoing mass housing development. These are mainly settlements located near major highways, where commercial facilities cater not only to the local population but also to transient flows of clients, including those from the central city. In particular, auto service stations, logistics centres, and large chain supermarkets are thriving in these areas (cf. Dębińska and Pałubska 2021). It is also evident that residential suburbanisation has triggered the development of the social infrastructure in the suburban zone, especially in the areas closest to the central city. The typical spatial asymmetry of issued construction permits across the analysed sectors is again observed, with the western and south-western sectors developing ahead of the north-eastern and eastern sectors. By contrast, the eastern sector is more active in the implementation of infrastructure projects – a likely explanation being that part of this sector belongs to the Vinnytsia urban territorial community, which, since its establishment in 2020, has carried out significant municipal investments in the infrastructure development of suburban villages. The question that has remained unaddressed thus far concerns the reason for the overall spatial asymmetry observed in Vinnytsia’s suburban area. This asymmetry follows a distinct and recurrent pattern across various indicators. Based on the range of identified empirical facts, both differences in the natural landscapes to the west and the east of the city and the spatial structure of the central city itself may contribute to the observed pattern. Before drawing final conclusions on the factors influencing suburban development in Vinnytsia, it makes sense to examine the results of the logistic regression analysis (Tables 2, 3). The most important factor, by far outweighing all others in magnitude, is proximity to the central city. In particular, a distance of less than 10 km from the centre of Vinnytsia (reference category: >20 km) increases the likelihood of a settlement experiencing very intensive suburban development by between 14 times (construction permits) and 1430 times (realty advertisements); a distance within the 10–20 km range increases these odds by between 6 times (population growth) and 43 times (realty advertisements). A distance to a major highway of less than 4 km proved to be a statistically significant predictor only for real estate advertisements (both strong and soft criteria, with odds ratios of 13.3 and 4.9, respectively), and for construction permits (only for the soft criterion, with an odds ratio of 2.7). In several models, landscape type also has a statistically significant impact. For instance, settlements located within landscape type 1 were significantly more likely to fall into the category of those with the highest population growth (odds ratio: 5.6) and the largest share of new or modernised residential units (odds ratio: 11.2). Similarly, settlements within landscape type 2 had higher odds of experiencing strong population growth (odds ratio: 3.9) and the highest activity of realty market (odds ratio: 2.4). However, the forest coverage factor, initially hypothesised as a predictor of more intensive suburban development, turned out to be largely insignificant; in one of the models (forest coverage >20%, construction permits, soft criterion), it was even a statistically significant predictor of weaker suburban development (odds ratio: 0.3). The water coverage factor was also mostly statistically insignificant, except in one model (water coverage 0.2–0.5%, new/modernised residential units, soft criterion), 104 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development Figure 4. Absolute numbers of issued construction permits and functional types of (re) constructed objects. Elaborated by the authors based on Official Register of Planning Conditions and Restrictions (2025). where a positive relationship between water coverage and suburban development was detected. Regarding the size and status of the settlement, it was found that the smallest villages (population < 500) were significantly more likely to be among those with the highest share of new or modernised residential units. At the same time, small settlements (population in between of 500 and 1000) were less likely to have large number of construction permits issued. For factors such as proximity to suburban railway stations and proximity to undesirable facilities, no statistically significant influence on suburban development indicators was detected. Thus, the most important driver determining the intensity of settlement development in the suburban area of Vinnytsia during the post-socialist period is proximity to the central city. At the same time, proximity to major highways, landscape type, and settlement size also play a significant role. Considering that landscape type appears as a statistically significant predictor only for certain indicators of suburban development, it is likely that the internal spatial 105 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development structure of the central city (as previously discussed) also exerts an influence. At the same time, no statistically significant effects were identified for forest coverage, water coverage, proximity to suburban railway stations, or proximity to undesirable facilities. Based on the multivariate average of all four indicators (features of suburban development), the suburban area of Vinnytsia exhibits a centre-periphery structure consisting of three quasi-concentric zones, asymmetrically distributed around the central city, with clear hints of sectoral star-shaped pattern related to the main river and motorways (Fig. 4). Drawing on the findings of this study, including field observations, and previous studies (Mezentsev et al. 2019; Gnatiuk et al. 2021), these zones can be characterised together as follows. Table 2. Binary logistic regression results (odds ratios): predictors for ‘very intense’ suburban development. Independent variables (covariates) Population growth (1989-2001), % > 0.00 New/modernised residential units (2024), %, > 9 Construction permits per 1000 residents (2017–2024), > 2 Realty advertisements (February 2025) per 1000 residents (2001), > 25 Distance to central city centre: 10–20 km (ref. > 20 km) 5.825* 33.843*** 7.146** 42.770*** Distance to central city centre: < 10 km (ref. > 20 km) 36.987*** 774.700*** 14.220** 1430.736*** Distance to main motorway: < 4 km (ref. > 4 km) 1.845 2.632 3.380 13.345* Distance to suburban train station: < 4 km (ref. > 4 km) 0.895 1.547 0.801 0.786 Forest coverage: 10 –20% (ref. < 10%) 0.502 2.753 0.804 1.384 Forest coverage: > 20% (ref. < 10%) 1.144 2.022 0.941 1.659 Water coverage: 0.2–0.5% (ref. < 0.2%) 0.611 1.033 0.657 0.656 Water coverage: > 0.5% (ref. < 0.2%) 0.689 3.598 1.030 3.590 Landscape: type 1 (ref. type 3) 5.590* 11.282* 0.603 0.215 Landscape: type 2 (ref. type 3) 3.870* 4.431 0.563 2.444* Undesired object: at least 1 object in 5 km (ref. no objects) 2.734 2.309 2.057 2.617 Population (1989): 500–1000 (ref. > 1000) 0.660 1.522 0.700 0.967 Population (1989): < 500 (ref. > 1000) 0.541 9.692* 0.879 2.117 Constant 0.010 0.000 0.029 0.000 Overall correct predictions, % 89.2 89.9 83.5 93.0 Hosmer-Lemeshow Test (Sig.) 0.046 0.927 0.266 0.948 Nagelkerke R Square 0.327 0.604 0.323 0.723 Note: odds coef. = Exp(B); * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Source: Calculations by the authors. 106 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development The first zone includes settlements directly adjacent to Vinnytsia and is characterised by the highest intensity of suburban development. The primary driver of growth here is classical western-type suburbanisation. Large clusters of new suburbs are emerging in this area, coexisting with older parts of villages and townships, which are also undergoing substantial modernisation. This is the only zone where multi-storey residential construction with apartment blocks is present. In some locations, the new housing merges seamlessly with that of the city, making this area increasingly resemble a natural extension of the urban fabric. Commercial suburbanisation is oriented, on the one hand, towards meetTable 3. Binary logistic regression results (odds rations): predictors for ‘moderately intense’ suburban development. Independent variables (covariates) Population growth (1989–2001), % > - 0.25 New/modernised residential units (2024), %, > 5 Construction permits per 1000 residents (2017–2024), > 0 Realty advertisements (February 2025) per 1000 residents (2001), > 5 Distance to central city centre: 10–20 km (ref. > 20 km) 3.737* 12.338*** 4.346** 41.191*** Distance to central city centre: < 10 km (ref. > 20 km) 8.612** 189.357*** 3.349 269.738*** Distance to main motorway: < 4 km (ref. > 4 km) 1.723 1.566 2.731* 4.904* Distance to suburban train station: < 4 km (ref. > 4 km) 1.156 1.120 1.151 1.015 Forest coverage: 10–20% (ref. < 10%) 0.704 1.410 0.591 1.285 Forest coverage: > 20% (ref. < 10%) 0.684 1.463 0.263* 3.288 Water coverage: 0.2–0.5% (ref. < 0.2%) 1.784 3.695* 0.532 0.533 Water coverage: > 0.5% (ref. < 0.2%) 1.055 1.684 0.976 2.148 Landscape: type 1 (ref. type 3) 2.319 4.198* 1.014 0.450 Landscape: type 2 (ref. type 3) 1.952 6.614** 0.523 1.042 Undesired object: at least 1 object in 5 km (ref. no objects) 2.591 0.529 1.236 0.956 Population (1989): 500–1000 (ref. > 1000) 0.710 1.588 0.172** 0.938 Population (1989): < 500 (ref. > 1000) 0.381 4.415* 0.082*** 1.630 Constant 0.006 0.015 0.947 0.120 Overall correct predictions, % 82.9 82.3 81.6 88.6 Hosmer-Lemeshow Test (Sig.) 0.758 0.625 0.483 0.921 Nagelkerke R Square 0.261 0.514 0.467 0.683 Note: odds coef. = Exp(B); * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Source: Calculations by the authors. 107 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development ing the needs of Vinnytsia residents (e.g., large retail chains), and on the other hand, follows residential suburbanisation by responding to the demands of the new suburban population. While the lifestyle of residents in this zone is mostly suburban, it increasingly acquires urban characteristics (cf. Gnatiuk et al. 2021). The second zone includes settlements located approximately 15–20 km from Vinnytsia’s centre in south-western direction, narrowing to 5–10 km in the north-eastern direction. Western-type suburbanisation is also present here, though large-scale clusters of new suburban development are rare. A more significant role is played by the modernisation of existing housing stock – either by newcomers or by long-term residents. Commercial activity is weak and generally consistent with typical rural development patterns in the region, with the exception of settlements along major highways, where commercial services are more oriented toward serving transit traffic. The everyday life of residents in this zone likely combines elements of both suburban and rural lifestyles. The third zone extends up to approximately 30 km from the city centre in the south-western direction and narrows to 15–20 km in the north-eastern direction. The influence of the central city is substantially weaker here, centrifugal migration plays only a minor role, and continuous suburban development clusters are largely absent. Nonetheless, levels of suburban development  particularly in terms of modernising existing housing  remain above the background Figure 5. Spatial structure of Vinnytsia’s suburban area. 108 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development levels observed in the wider hinterland. The prevailing lifestyle in this zone is rural, with isolated suburban elements. Commercial suburbanisation has not reached this zone up to the moment. 4. Discussion The spatial extent of post-socialist suburbanisation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) mostly depends on the population size of the city (Kubeš and Nováček 2019). This study confirms the previous estimate of the suburban zone of Vinnytsia as extending approximately 15–20 km from the city boundary (cf. Gnatiuk 2016). At the same time, the settlements that can be classified as suburbs according to the criteria presented in the literature (Kubeš and Nováček 2019), are located within 5–10 km from the city boundary. When compared with other CEE cities (Matlovič and Sedláková 2007; Czaková 2009; Halás et al. 2012; Šveda et al. 2016; Wolny and Źróbek 2017; Kubeš and Ouředníček 2022; Zborowski et al. 2023), it becomes evident that the suburban area of Vinnytsia (with a population of around 400000) corresponds in spatial extent to that of CEE cities with populations of approximately 100000. This relative underdevelopment of Vinnytsia suburban area – at least in terms of residential and commercial suburbanisation – can be attributed to the later onset and lower intensity of suburbanisation processes in Ukraine compared to other CEE countries (Mezentsev 2017; Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017). Furthermore, the spatial extent of Vinnytsia suburban area is significantly smaller than that of Ukraine’s capital city, a major metropolitan centre (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017; Pidgrushnyi et al. 2023). At the same time, it is slightly larger than the suburban zone of Ivano–Frankivsk, a second-tier city in western Ukraine with a population of approximately 250000 (Zakutynska and Slyvka 2016). This is consistent with Vinnytsia’s larger population and its evident transition to the suburbanisation stage, in contrast to Ivano–Frankivsk, where the central city has continued to grow at a faster pace than its suburban area (Gnatiuk 2017). The suburban area of Vinnytsia exhibits a relatively simple quasi-concentric structure that aligns well, in terms of suburban development intensity, dominant processes, and prevailing lifestyles, with existing theoretical models of peri-urban areas. For instance, within the rural-urban continuum model (Waugh 2000) the first concentric zone can be interpreted as suburban, the second as the urban shadow, and the third as a rural area with a modest, yet non-negligible, urban influence. According to the spatial morphology model of urban regions (Thuo 2013), the first zone corresponds to the outer urban fringe, the second to the urban shadow, and the third to the rural hinterland. According to Zborowski et al. (2023), the first concentric zone is a zone of suburbanization, taking a form of typical urban sprawl, while the second and third zones form a zone of peri-urbanization/commuting. Clear parallels can be drawn with the centre-periphery spatial structure observed in other cities of similar rank both in Ukraine (Zakutynska and Slyvka 2016) and beyond (Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Ilieva et al. 2023). At the same time, as in many other cases, the concentric structure of Vinnytsia suburban area is distorted by sectoral asymmetry. Unlike larger metropolitan areas, where this asymmetry is typically driven by the orientation of radial road and rail corridors (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017; Podawca et al. 2019; Kubeš and Ouředníček 2022; Pidgrushnyi et al. 2023; Dudek-Mańkowska 109 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development et al. 2024; Jurkowski et al. 2024), in the case of Vinnytsia, it can be primarily attributed to differences in natural landscapes and the specific spatial configuration of the central city itself (cf. Šveda et al. 2016; Zakutynska and Slyvka 2016; Ubarevičienė and Burneika 2020). The spatial asymmetry of suburban development observed in the case of Vinnytsia poses significant challenges for the integrated development of the city and its suburban area. Following the administrative-territorial reform of 2020, the least developed suburban settlements located to the east and northeast of Vinnytsia opted not to establish independent territorial communities, but instead chose to join the Vinnytsia urban territorial community. Lacking strong sources of revenue for their local budgets, these settlements prioritised the benefits of cooperation with the city, particularly in terms of budgetary investments in infrastructure development. In contrast, settlements to the west, north, and south of Vinnytsia  characterised by more intensive suburbanisation and stronger economic capacity  chose to establish their own separate territorial communities, thereby retaining control over their local resources. As a result, a paradoxical and inefficient situation emerged in terms of city-suburb governance: the suburban settlements most closely integrated with the city (some parts of them are effectively transforming into de-facto urban neighbourhoods) were excluded from the boundaries of the urban territorial community. This is partly the result of the shortcomings of the 2015–2020 administrative-territorial reform and the absence of an effective mechanism for intermunicipal cooperation within urban agglomerations in Ukraine (Udovychenko et al. 2017; Pavlov et al. 2024). New challenges also arise in the context of the Russian– Ukrainian war. In 2023, a modular settlement for internally displaced persons was established in the urban-type settlement of Voronovytsia, located southeast of Vinnytsia. It can be assumed that the choice of location for the modular settlement was driven by the “lower prestige” of this sector of the suburban area. As a result, the socio-spatial contrast between different sectors of the suburban area is further exacerbating, while the residents of the modular settlement turn out to be maximally isolated in spatial terms from the main benefits of urban life compared to being located in another part of the suburban area (cf. Havryliuk 2024). The identified drivers shaping the development of the suburban area of Vinnytsia align with the western-type suburbanisation process: affluent suburbanites, motivated by the pursuit of more comfortable and higher-quality living conditions in closer proximity to nature, relocate from the central city while maintaining strong ties to it. Depending on their financial capacities, these suburbanites choose more expensive housing in detached houses or townhouses, opt for more affordable apartments in multi-storey buildings, or invest in the modernisation of older homesteads. The availability of social infrastructure and local employment opportunities in the suburban area is not a decisive factor for such migrants due to their regular connection with the central city. This situation mirrors that of post-socialist secondand third-tier cities (Matlovič and Sedláková 2007; Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Ilieva et al. 2023), but contrasts with post-socialist metropolises, where economic development and social infrastructure are among the key drivers of suburban growth (Brade et al. 2010; Bogusz et al. 2024; Dudek-Mańkowska et al. 2024; Kazakov et al. 2024). A similar contrast exists with Kyiv, where clusters of western-style classical suburbs 110 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development coexist with high-rise suburban developments inhabited by various categories of in-migrants, including those from other regions of the country, who are in search of cheaper housing and a more affordable lifestyle in proximity to the capital (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017; Mezentsev et al. 2019, 2020). Since affluent Ukrainians primarily rely on private vehicles rather than the largely uncomfortable suburban rail services, and given the relatively limited spatial extent of the suburban area, suburban rail connectivity proves insignificant for the development of suburban areas in second-tier cities –unlike in first-tier cities. At the same time, as in the case of Kyiv (Mezentsev and Mezentseva 2017), the presence of unpleasant or undesirable facilities does not appear to hinder the suburban development of Vinnytsia. Considering the environmentally driven motivations of classical suburbanites, this phenomenon deserves further in-depth investigation. Although the process of suburbanisation primarily residential and, to a lesser extent, commercial  plays a key role in transforming the suburban area of Vinnytsia, the city’s influence on its periphery extends beyond suburbanisation alone (cf. Zborowski et al. 2023). We also observe both spontaneous and intentional modernisation effects of the central city on suburban settlements. The spontaneous, unregulated impact  outside the direct control of state or municipal authorities  manifests itself through the modernisation of housing by local residents, their utilisation of the advantages of proximity to a large city, partial adaptation of everyday practices to urban lifestyles, and changes in land use patterns (cf. Gnatiuk et al 2021). The intentional influence is expressed through state and municipal policies targeting the development of the suburban zone or its specific parts, as exemplified by the intensified investments made by the Vinnytsia city administration into the transport and social infrastructure of the eastern section of the suburban area, which was incorporated into the Vinnytsia municipal territorial community. Accordingly, what we observe is not merely suburbanisation but rather a multiplicity of suburbanisms and the gradual maturation of a holistic urban-rural continuum within the peri-urban area (Iaquinta and Drescher 2002; McGregor et al. 2005; Avram 2009; Piorr et al. 2011; Ravetz et al. 2013), where urban, suburban, and rural architectural forms, lifestyles, and land-use practices coexist, hybridise, and fluidly interact in varying proportions (Waugh 2000; Thuo 2013; Phelps 2017; Keil 2018; Ubarevičienė and Burneika 2020; Lozynskyi 2022). Importantly, the same factors may have different, sometimes even diametrically opposed effects depending on the processes and development aspects in question, the balance of which may shift over time even within the same suburban zone. For instance, a hilly landscape and high forest coverage – attributes valued by a classical suburbanite seeking a picturesque environment – may be irrelevant or even undesirable for a low-income migrant in search of affordable housing with good access to the city via public transportation, or for an entrepreneur looking for a location to establish a logistics hub or industrial facility. Although the development of the peri-urban area  and suburbanisation in particular  entails numerous social, economic, and environmental challenges, including for second-tier post-socialist cities (Matlovič and Sedláková 2007; Slaev and Kovachev 2014; Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Lozynskyi 2019; Hardi et al. 2020; Ubarevičienė and Burneika 2020; Ilieva et al. 2023), these processes can and should be managed (Kubeš and Nováček 2019; Lozynskyi 2019; Cat- 111 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development tivelli 2021; Hardi 2022; Ilyniak 2024; Kazakov et al. 2024; Pavlov et al. 2024). Understanding the drivers that lead different parts of the peri-urban area to develop in distinct ways and identifying the spatial patterns that may emerge at different stages of development will enable urban planners to design more effective spatial development strategies for suburban spaces and their interaction with the central city (Lozynskyi 2019). Thus, scientists, local authorities, real-estate developers and the local population represent the principal beneficiaries of the current study’s results. 5. Conclusions The present research contributes to a relatively underrepresented body of literature on second-tier cities in Ukraine with regards to their suburban/peri-urban development. It advocates for greater attention to smaller urban centres, whose peri-urban transitions may differ markedly from those of larger metropolises yet are equally crucial for national spatial development strategies. The suburban development of Vinnytsia demonstrates the spatial and functional complexity typical of post-socialist second-tier cities. Although suburbanisation – particularly residential and, to a lesser extent, commercial – plays a central role in reshaping the city’s suburban area, this study reveals that the city’s influence extends beyond mere population relocation. A nuanced blend of suburbanisation and broader modernisation processes is evident, manifesting in both spontaneous and policy-driven transformations. The analysis of four key indicators  population growth, housing modernisation, real estate market activity, and construction permits  enabled the delineation of three concentric suburban zones with varying developmental dynamics. The dominant driver across all indicators is the proximity to the central city. Settlements located within 10 km of the city centre are most likely to experience intensive suburban development, consistent with the classical model of western-style suburbanisation. Beyond this range, housing modernisation becomes more prominent than new construction, reflecting a different set of motivations and capacities among residents. Additional factors influencing suburban development include proximity to highways, landscape aesthetics, and settlement size. While forest and water coverage showed limited statistical significance, hilly terrain and forested areas appear to attract wealthier suburban migrants. Conversely, the spatial configuration of Vinnytsia, particularly the industrial zones on its north-eastern fringe, contributes to spatial asymmetry in suburban growth. These dynamics underscore the importance of both natural and urban structural factors in shaping peri-urban development. For urban planners and policymakers, the research underscores the need to reconcile administrative boundaries with actual patterns of urban influence and mobility. Strengthening inter-municipal cooperation mechanisms, enhancing data availability, and tailoring planning strategies to local socio-spatial realities are critical for promoting balanced development. The findings support the notion that suburban development in post-socialist settings diverges from western trajectories, displaying hybrid patterns marked by unregulated sprawl and selective modernisation. This hybridisation necessitates flexible and context-specific policy responses. 118 Journal of the Bulgarian Geographical Society 53: 87–118 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/jbgs.e157082 Oleksiy Gnatiuk & Anna Klymenko: Drivers and spatial pattern of post-socialist suburban development Additional information Conflict of interest No conflict of interest was declared. Ethical statement No ethical statement was reported. Use of AI No use of AI was reported. Funding No funding was reported. Author contributions Conceptualization: OG. Data curation: OG. Investigation: OG. Methodology: OG. Visualization: AK. Writing - original draft: OG, AK. Author ORCIDs Oleksiy Gnatiuk https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1818-2415 Anna Klymenko https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9571-8661 Data availability All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text or Supplementary Information. Supplementary material 1 Datasheet Authors: Oleksiy Gnatiuk Data type: Datasheet Explanation note: A Table in MS Excel format containing the raw data per suburban settlement for analysis. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/jbgs.e157082.suppl1