Population distribution system in the Odesa region in the conditions of the new administrative system

The article summarizes the adequacy of the population settlement system in the Odesa region under the new administrative structure. To assess the population settlement system of the region, the Zipf-Medvedkov methods (rule) were used, as generally accepted in geodemography. Based on the obtained indicators, a typification of settlements was carried out according to their settlement component, and the leading features and patterns characteristic of different districts and communities of the region were identified. Our research has established that current trends in geodemographic processes in the Odesa region are characterized by depopulation and migration activity. At the same time, factors influencing these processes, which are determined by historical, cultural, natural conditions and modern socio-political transformations caused by the war, have been identified. The analysis of population settlement indicators in the region generally demonstrates the consideration of demographic indicators to substantiate the administrative-territorial division of the district level and is important in the preparation of geodemographic zoning of the Odesa region and further improvement of community territory planning, decentralization (unification) reforms at the district and community levels, etc. The characteristics of the network of urban settlements and urban-type settlements and their typification by population in the Odesa region are as follows: uneven distribution across the territory of the region of the settlement network; the predominance of small cities, in which 18.1 % of the population lives, a small share of medium-sized cities (8.1 %) and large ones (the regional center of Odesa, in which the lion's share of the region's citizens live – 2/3); the formation of the Odesa agglomeration deepens the depression of the periphery; urban-type settlements, together with cities, essentially form the supporting settlement framework of the region. From 2024, the reorganization of urban-type settlements into a village necessitates further methodological and practical development of the classification and typification of the settlement network, however, currently, due to the lack of official statistical up-to-date information, such studies cannot be performed. The results of the calculations showed that for cities the level (index) of real urbanization is 23.1, while for cities and urban-type settlements this indicator is already 29.1. The real urbanization index indicator of 23.1 for cities indicates an average level of urbanization development in the Odessa region, which determines the development of infrastructure and may indicate problems with access to social services and resources. At the same time, a slightly higher real urbanization index indicator of 29.1 for cities and urban-type settlements indicates a more active development of suburbanization in the region. This is due to the migratory activity of the population, the tendency to an increase in the number of moves from rural areas to cities and towns, which generally increases the overall level of urbanization both at the district level and at the regional level in general. The development of suburbanization in the region can, especially around Odessa, on the one hand increase agglomeration trends, and on the other hand make it difficult for the population to receive quality services due to the lag in the development of infrastructure, including social ones. These trends have especially intensified in the context of the incompleteness of the decentralization reform and martial law. The decrease in the share of the rural population and the increase in the share of the urban population against the background of depopulation and the attenuation of migration processes indicate the need to revise the demographic policy in the region and pay special attention in further administrative reform to taking into account the geodemographic situation and trends of changes in the strategic planning of the development of communities and the region as a whole. Analysis of the settlement system in the region in relation to urban settlements according to the Zipf-Medvedkov rule characterizes the population distribution as monocentric. For all urban settlements, which include cities and urban-type settlements, a significant difference between the actual and theoretical values is recorded in the range from 5 to almost 14 times. Analysis of the regional settlement system based on the presence of only cities indicates the predominance of urbanization processes, but does not reach theoretical indicators, while the theoretical population of cities exceeds the actual one by 5–7 times. The greatest discrepancies between theoretical population indicators are observed for cities with high ranks (large and medium-sized cities). The proposed method «rank-size» is extremely important for the study of urbanization processes, since its universality allows analyzing settlement not only at the level of the country, region, but also at the district level or even the local community level. We emphasize that taking into account the historical-genetic approach in the typification, zoning and formation of future macroregions in Ukraine under the conditions of the new administrative-territorial structure (ATU) and its further improvement will bring our country closer to the best European models. Further improvement of planning of community territories, continuation of the decentralization reform, in particular by merging insolvent communities, should be based on taking into account the proposed indicators of contrast and primacy of urban settlements, geodemographic transformations in general, should pursue the goal of forming sustainable connections in planning through leveling the gaps between the center and the periphery, revising internal policies of planning socio-economic development, infrastructure provision, sustainable development of communities and regions in general, etc. Keywords: geodemography, population, settlement system, «rank-size», Zipf-Medvedkov rule, decentralization reform, administrative-territorial structure.