|Surface area (sq km)||88361||2014|
|Population (proj., 000)||8813||2016||Including Kosovo.|
|Pop. density (per sq km)||100.8||2016||Including Kosovo.|
|Capital city pop. (000)||1182||2015||Refers to Belgrade settlement.|
|Population growth rate (average annual %)||-0.5||2010-2015||Including Kosovo.|
|Urban population growth rate (average annual %)||-0.3||2010-2015||Including Kosovo.|
|CO2 emission estimates (000 tons/tons per capita)||44869/5.0||2013|
|Population using improved drinking water sources (urban/rural, %)||99.4/98.9||2015|
|Population using improved sanitation facilities (urban/rural, %)||98.2/94.2||2015|
|Urban population ('000)||5,379||5,429||5,235|
|Level of urbanization (%)||51.8||54.5||55.6|
|Urban Gini Coefficient||0.29||2002i|
National Report Executive Summary:
According to 2013 data, youth unemployment was 23.4% at the level of the EU, while it amounted to 41.7% and 33.27% for those aged 15-30 in August 2014 in the Republic of Serbia. In addition, young in Serbia are inactive in the labour market. In August 2014, the youth inactivity rate was 71.2%, and 52.87% for young aged 15-30. Also, 19.7% of young people aged 15 to 24 belonged to the NEET (Not in employment, education or training) category of young people in Serbia in 2013.
Serbian geospace is relatively well covered by a network of cities and towns. However, due to the large differences in their demographic size, quality, territorial scope and diversity of their functions, as well as the area of their influence, their role in the regional integration of the Serbian geospace varies. The decentralisation of the labour function and the creation of sub migration systems in urban agglomerations and peri-urban areas would enable the implementation of a decentralised model of concentration of population and functions. Model of decentralised concentration corresponds to the principles of sustainable development, it is economical in terms of space utilisation, resources, energy and transport. Experiences of spatial planning in Serbia indicate that the most appropriate instrument for the implementation of decentralized concentration model (of population and functions) is the concept of micro-developing nuclei - settlements with a developed public and social infrastructure and social activities in the service sector in which industrial facilities are located and adapted to modern technology environmental standards and indigenous raw materials. Performing regionalization by the principles of polycentrism, or performing the division of large territorial units into smaller spatial entities with relatively uniform functional characteristics, make it easy to consider regional development problems and opportunities to improve individual regions by applying adequate methods.
Unequal spatial distribution of human resources and spatial disbalance in the demographic structure are one of the biggest weaknesses and limitations of sustainable development of Serbia. Such spatial demographic development is a result of an insufficient degree of the urbanisation of Serbian geospace, demographic disproportion, especially manifested in the inter-regional level (between the centre and its periphery) as well as the functional concentration and domination of the Capital city of Belgrade comparing to the rest of the territory.
The current typology of settlements and classification of urban and rural settlements, which is dysfunctional and inadequate constitutes the major constraint for the establishment of a balanced settlement system and disables a realistic perception of the relation between urban and rural population. This raises questions about the redefinition of the concept of settlements and the introduction of new criteria that would lead to a more accurate classification and typology of settlements (urban, rural, mixed, etc.) that would be compatible with Eurostat standards and needs of the Republic of Serbia.
Basic services and infrastructure
Urban population with access to safe drinking water (%)
Urban population with access to adequate sanitation (%)
Urban population with access to regular waste collection (%)
Level of effective decentralization
Share of both income and expenditure allocated to local governments from the national budget (%)
Share of local authorities’ expenditure financed from local revenue (%)
Indicators for urban policies, legislation and economy
Local authorities having implemented plans and designs that are inclusive and respond to urban population growth adequately (%)