Spatial exclusion in Lithuania: peripheries as “losers”, metropolitan areas as “winners”

Abstract

This paper reports on a comprehensive evaluation of socio-spatial inequalities as a means of analysing spatial exclusion in line with demographic, social and economic components expressed using 20 key indicators. The utilised method of grouping into quartiles was able to demonstrate increasingly pronounced polarisation trends in Lithuania, with widening disparities to be noted, both between the major cities of Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda and their regions, and between peripheral areas of the country. The level of spatial exclusion is seen to be highest in Lithuania’s north-eastern and southern regions, which have been identified as problematic. It is to these regions that a majority of the attention in this work has been paid.

Social Investment Policies and Territorial Inequalities

“…The greatest problem is that the lowest concentration of the customer services is typical of most peripheral municipal LAU 2 regions where the inhabitants find it most difficult to access services in the municipal centres" (Baranauskienė, 2021, p. 222). Similar studies reveal how the principle of the "center-periphery" model works; where the largest cities experience the least territorial isolation and act as overall centers of attraction, whereas the peripheral areas experience high territorial isolation (Pociūtė-Sereikienė, Baranauskienė, & Daugirdas, 2019a.…”

“…Researchers in this field are especially cognizant of the problems of uneven regional development in Lithuania, where aspects of socio-economic well-being were analyzed not only in the whole country, but also detail urban and rural (peripheral) problems (Daugirdas et al, 2019). For example, Pociūtė-Sereikienė et al (2019a; have comprehensively assessed the spatial exclusion of Lithuanian municipalities including demographic, social and economic indicators and evaluated which municipalities experience high, medium, and non-spatial exclusion (Pociūtė-Sereikienė et al, 2019a. Referring to Baranauskienė (2021), it is important to focus on the socio-territorial segregation of sparsely populated areas in Lithuania.…”

Differences in the Quantitative Demographic Potential—A Comparative Study of Polish–German and Polish–Lithuanian Transborder Regions

“…The relevant problems have far-reaching consequences, and they have been extensively researched [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. According to German [2,3,27], Lithuanian [28,29], and Polish [30,31] experts, the fact that border areas are not included in academic research means that these areas remain in the shadow, while they need reliable studies, including demographic ones, to be able to draw correct conclusions about their specific challenges and development needs [32]. Preparation and development of appropriate aid programs are needed, among others, to function within Euroregions.…”

Delineation of health care deserts using accessibility measures: the case of Poland

“…The availability of services (including medical services) is one of the basic criteria differentiating quality of life (Martens 2016) both in the countryside (Hiscock et al 2008) and in cities (Knox 1982). Accessibility to services is therefore an important determinant of socio-spatial inequalities (Farrington and Farrington 2005;Jaroš 2017;Pociūtė-Sereikienė, Baranauskienė, and Daugirdas 2019).…”