Zwei beitrage zum problem der bevolkerungsstruktur von Gross-Athen

Abstract

As a contribution to the step by step clarification of
the difficult and complex demographical conditions of
Greater Athens two results of an investigation concerning
the population structures of 50 of the 57 communities
belonging to the agglomeration will be shown :
1 ) some remarks on the distribution of the immigrants
of the years 1951 - 1961 within the agglomeration;
2) a typification and local articulation of the demographical
structures of Greater Athens.
Part I : Basis of the investigation are the results of
the population censuses of 1951 and 1961 published by
the National Statistical Service of Greece, which allow
work with exact and large figures. However, due to
the insufficient questionnaires as well as to the manner
of publication, the material is not sufficiently differentiated
with regards to the factors of investigation and
the local articulation. (An example: the figures were
published only for administrative units as a whole,
without considering—at least with regards to the
larger communities—necessary further split-ups).
Thus on this basis investigations on the population
structures can only lead to insufficient results. We
shall be restricted to these preliminary results until
there will be published differentiated and more complete
material which will also satisfy the needs of
the population geographer.
Part II : The population inflow adds a great deal
to the rapid growth of Greater Athens. Because of
the decisive impact of population inflow on the population
structure of a town generally, it is desirable
to know the repartition of the immigrants within the
agglomeration of Athens. However, exact figures of
the immigrants in the different communities are not
available. The author depicts a method according to 

which figures of the immigrants of the years 1951 -
1961 can be calculated upon:
1) Population of 1951 plus population 1961 divided
by 2 shows the average population of 1951/61:
2) Average population 1951/61 divided by 1.000
multiplied by the natural increase rate of 1961 multiplied
by 10 shows the absolute natural population increase
of 1951/61:
3) Population 1961 minus population 1951 minus
absolute natural population increase 1951/61 shows
the approximate absolute number of immigrants.
Based on this method fig. 2 gives the relative share
of the immigrants in the total population of each
single community. However, this method involves
some problematic factors which can only be eliminated
to a certain extent and of which the most important
are : the rates of the natural population increase can
only be fixed for the year 1961, inner-town mobility
is unknown to a large extent, and others. The
results which are attained by this method can be only 

regarded as estimates (see legend fig. 2). Taking into
account these sources of possible error, it is completely
impossible to make statements on some of the communities.
This is followed by a short interpretation of
fig. 2.
Part III : Typification and local repartition of the
demographical structures of 50 communities of
Greater Athens. Because of the insufficient statistical
material, the results can be regarded only as an attempt
to enable a first orientation. By particular analysis
(not related in this paper) the different structures of
the communities were examined. By a comparative
examination of these particular analysis and a combination
of their results those districts of Greater Athens
were determined upon, in which communities proved
equal or very similar in their population structure
(fig. 3). Based on the statistic material the following
items could be included in the analysis in particular
(commented upon in the essay with regards to their
usefulness and completeness): structure of age, natural
population mobility, repartition of sex, percentage of
economically actives (separately for men and women),
education (percentage of illiterates), immigration (see
part II, plus the economic activity of the immigrants
1956-61), population increase 1951-1961, housing conditions
(equipment of the localities). The table will
enable one to imagine the numerical value of the terms
which are used in the interpretation of fig. 3 «low»,
«middle», «high». Main types of population structure
are distinguished (A - D), which are themselves
split up in various sub - types (pointed out by figures,
e.g. A/l, A/2) respectively special types (e.g. A/2.1).
Some extreme cases (ax - d) which can be added to
several types are treated separately.
The full interpetation of fig. 3 is condensed to
a short characterization of the 4 main types : type A
signifies a young, dynamic population of lower social
status, which mainly consists of recent immigrants.
The structure of this population shows typical symptoms
of badly integrated immigrant-regions, as
they often develop at the outskirts of quickly growing
large towns. The most extreme samples are to be found
in the sub - type A/l. Type B, too, is to be found in
only recently populated regions. However, there is
an older, well settled population of upper and middle
class citizens in more preferable residential areas. The
numerous feminin service personnel—mainly immigrants—
represent an important factor in the population.
Type C is located in communities of the interior
parts of the agglomeration, which are densely and
already for a long time populated. It consists of an
older, fixed, and long established population of
most different social classes, stagnating in its development.
Certain variables vary greatly among the different
sub-types. Type D consists of a region where
only recently were still rather rural suburbs of Athens. 

This part most likely will be very important for the
future development of the agglomeration; the structures
of the still fixed, older middle-class populations
of these communities are undergoing different
phases of strongly transforming developments.
The future development tends on one hand towards
the conditions of the immigrant - regions type A/3,
on the other hand—in the regions of especially beautiful
scenery—towards an approach to type B. The
extreme cases result of the overlapping of population
structures in adjoining regions. They thus could at
the same time be taken to several population types.
The last table shows—only for an orientation