Urban Index Russia 2011 is a complex research of perception by the expert community of theurban environment in Russia and the factors affecting its development. What are the main tendencies and current state of the urban environment in Russia? What factors define the level of its development, how do they affect various components ofa city as a system? Where, in what areas of the urban life the main problems are concentrated, where is thegrowth potential can be found? What factors should be paid attention to, what factors should be taken for further development?The Urban Index Russia 2011 research prepared by IRP Group for the Moscow Urban Forum“Global Solutions for Russian Cities” proposes its own answer to these questions for million-population cities of Russia.What affects our urban index?«What is the urban environment like?» – Perception of the urban environment from the point ofview of possibilities for satisfying the basic needs of the citizens, as well as safety and health,social life, means of personal development and career building, cultural needs and generalurban aesthetics.«What does the quality of urban environment depend on?» – Perception of factors forming thequality of urban environment through the instruments of public activity and control, attitude tothe city, quality of government and technological potential.«Are you satisfied?» – Perception of the level of satisfaction with the urban environment by themain target groups: permanent residents, businessmen and tourists.
Project TeamBulat Stolyarov, General Director of IRP GroupSvetlana Serebryakova, PhD in Sociology, Director for strategic consultingEvgeniya Shvets, PhD in Economics, senior expertAleksey Titkov, PhD in Geography, senior expertSergei Makrushin, PhD in Technical Sciences, senior expertNikolai Ryabtsev, analyst
ContentsSummaryResearch methodologyA. Working typology of cities and experts What is common between Rostov and Nizhny, in what business society and architects are consentient?B. Urban environment index What needs can be satisfied by the Russian million-population cities today and what can be ex- pected within 10-15 years?C. Target groups satisfaction index For whom the largest Russian cities are comfortable, how can the situation can be changed to better?D. Urban environment development factors index D1. System of government, technologies or human capital: which is the catalyst for develop- ment of urban environment in Russia? D2. What factors should be taken for development today?E. Success history What are the Russian million-population cities proud of?Conclusion
5Summary“F+” CITIESKey conclusions of Urban Index Russia 2011Bulat Stolyarov, Director General, IRP GroupSvetlana Serebryakova, Director for strategic consulting, IRP Group While preparing Moscow Urban Forum 2011 we have performed the first profound of how 12 Russian million cities are perceived by their corps d’elite. For this purpose we have interviewed over 300 experts from such cities using the same form, which allowed estimating the following on the 100-point scale: What happens? How experts characterize the condition of their cities in terms of the main development factors? What is important? What are the priorities of research participants as users of municipal services? What’s to be done? Which methods for perfection of urban environment experts believe in, and which – they don’t? The research was conducted with the participation of experts from Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Novosibirsk, Chelyabinsk, Ufa, Rostov-on-Don, Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk, Samara and Volgograd. The expert sample for all cities was formed in equal proportions of architects, city planners, businessmen, cultural figures, politicians, officials, social workers, journalists and public services workers. The key results of research are given briefly in this summary.What happens? 53,6 points – is a summary Index of urban environment condition in Russian million cities as perceived by the experts who participated in 2011 research. It means an “F+” grade. Accordingly, all other grades which are higher than 53,6 points are referred to the spheres of urban life, which were characterized by the experts as relatively positive. All the factors, which received less than 53,6 points – pull the values of comfort of our cities down. Here is the list of the worst factors of Russian urban environment according to experts. 22,3 points. Road network, traffic jams. Similarly low values for all cities except Chelyabinsk.
6 33,2 points. Ecological situation in the city. Equally low values, except for the experts from No- vosibirsk (47,6 points). 36,2 points. Availability of day-care facilities and schools. The situation is somewhat better in the opinion of experts from Yekaterinburg and Kazan (over 40 points). Absolutely negative – by Samara and Volgograd residents (less than 25 points). 40,3 points. Conditions for small business. The lowest value – Moscow (31,6 points), the high- est – Yekaterinburg (almost twice as high). 41,1 points. Affordability of medical services. The biggest problems in Moscow and Saint-Petersburg (less than 35 points). Novosibirsk and Chelyabinsk estimate the situation better (over 50 points). 41,3 points. Noise in the city. Muscovites suffer from noise most (30,6 points), other cities esti- mate the problem relatively equally. 41,6 points. Safety of life, protection against criminality. Yekaterinburg and Omsk feel safer than the others (over 50 points), the least safety in Moscow (31,6 points). 43,6 points. Possibility to find an interesting well-paid work. Here we see a huge difference between the estimates: if Yekaterinburg inhabitants feel that they literally live in a “city of oppor- tunities” (62,5 points), then Volgograd experts assess the labor market of their city as extremely depressive (22,9 points) At the same time a series of spheres of urban life in Russian million cities is seen by the research participants as comparatively acceptable. The list of the best factors of Russian urban sphere, as seen by the experts, is given below. 76,9 points. Level of commerce – stores, malls, retail chains. Generally, equally high values, except respondents from Volgograd. 75,2 points. Communication infrastructure – telephone, internet, mobile communication. Almost equally high satisfaction in all cities. 70,9 points. Food services – restaurants, cafés, fast-food. The highest value for catering ser- vices is given by Yekaterinburg (83,3 points), the lowest – by Volgograd (58,3 points). 66,8 points. Regularity and availability of public services. Equally high value with satisfaction peak of Moscow experts (76,7 points) and dissatisfaction peak of Rostov-on-Don experts (51,2 points). 66,5 points. Convenience of transport connection with other cities of Russia and the world. It is notable that the experts from Yekaterinburg (82,1 points) feel even more integrated with the external world, than Moscow (72,3 points). Experts from Volgograd consider their city a neck of the woods (41,7 points). 66 points. Quality of higher and vocational education. Maximum satisfaction – Yekaterinburg, Kazan and Novosibirsk. Minimum – Ufa. 65,7 points. Appearance of the city, visual attraction. Paradoxically, the satisfaction with this factor is high enough. Petersburgers are most satisfied with the appearance of their city (83,3 points), Volgograd residents have the largest number of claims to the visual look of the city (52,1 points), Moscow has medium values.
7 62,4 points. Quality of cultural offers in the city – theaters, museums, concerts. Equally high values with the highest satisfaction in Saint-Petersubrg (77,8 points), except for Volgograd, experts from Volgograd characterize the condition of cultural product of the city as catastrophic (29,2 points). The most obvious metaphor to be used for analysis of these results – Maslow’s pyramid. Our cities cannot yet satisfy a large number of basic human needs (transport, ecology, safety, doc- tors, schools, having grades from F to F+), that we start to feel that the condition of services, culture, education and architecture is generally acceptable. The cities which generally have higher estimates of the quality of basic products become considerably more demanding to the values of the following order.What is important? Any city as a system consists of hundreds of various services. Which of them are the most im- portant today for advanced users of Russian million cities? 83,5 points. Development of road network, junctions, parking lots. This is the subject of absolute consensus of the experts from all cities. We would like to remind that this is not only priority 1 for the experts of research, but it is also a factor, condition of which is estimated as the most negative. Therefore transport situation is the main challenge for all Russian million cities. 81,3 points. Condition of health care and education. It is the subject of consensus of experts from different cities as well, having the registered peak magnitude (93,1 points) for the experts from Saint-Petersburg. 77,1 points. Public services. We would like to remind that experts estimate public services in million cities as generally acceptable, but this does not mean that in their opinion it becomes less significant for the life of the cities. 75,2 points. Safety in the city. This is the most distinctive priority for the two capitals (84,7 points Saint-Petersburg and 81,1 points Moscow), which, of course, results from low values of the ex- isting safety situation in the capitals. 74,2 points. Ecology. This is one more obviously critical challenge for the municipal policy: ecologi- cal situation in million cities is characterized by the experts as problematic and top-priority sphere. What is less important for Russian million cities today, in the opinion of Russian million cities? 51,8 points. Development of communication infrastructure. As we remember, this can be ex- plained by rather high experts’ satisfaction with the existing situation in this sphere. 56 points. Transport and logistic connections with the external world. Only Chelyabinsk (73,1 points) is excluded from the common row of low values of this priority. 60,8 points. Development of urban public spaces. It is a paradox, but estimating their current level of development composedly (52,5 points), the experts do not consider this part of munici- pal policy to be a significant priority, with two exceptions – Rostov-on-Don and Novosibirsk. The analysis of responses given by the research participants regarding their priorities in municipal policies confirms the hypothesis of applicability of Maslow’s pyramid: as far as our cities fail to sat- isfy the basic needs of their users, the experts cannot give the priorities to the improvement of public spaces, formation of high-quality cultural product or development of “digital city” infrastructure.
8 Whom our cities are comfortable for? The experts of the research estimated the comfort in major Russian cities for three groups of con- sumers: community, business and tourists. Generally, according to respondents, the conditions for investors in our cities are more attractive today, than conditions for inhabitants and tourists. 67,9 points – summary Index of comfort of Russian million cities for business. The highest value in Yekaterinburg (77,4 points), the lowest – in в Volgograd (39,6 points). Positive factors which increase the values of business climate in Russian cities include availability of real estate for conduct of business and availability of adequate labor resources. Among the negative factors for the business environment of the cities are: absence of sites prepared for construction and general inability of city authorities to work with instruments of private and state partnership and support of investment activities. Estimating the current comfort of million cities for business rather high, the experts consider the progress of urban business environment as an important factor (priority 73,3 points). 52,3 points – summary Index of comfort of Russian million cities for tourists. The respondents from Saint-Petersburg and Kazan consider their cities the most comfortable for tourism, the experts from Volgograd and Omsk consider them the least comfortable. According to the experts, the advan- tages of tourist services in Russian cities include first of all the variety of services sector, cafes, restaurants. Among drawbacks – insufficient supply in the market of hotels and hostels. At the same time the spread of estimates regarding the situation of hotel room stock is huge – almost 70 points in well-developed Kazan and Yekaterinburg and 25 points in depressive Volgograd. It is indicative that giving low values for the current tourist attraction of their cities, the experts do not consider the development of tourist industry to be an important priority (62,8 points). Only Saint- Petersburg, Kazan and Yekaterinburg (priority values exceeding 70 points) want to become more attractive for tourists. 51,2 points – summary Index of comfort of Russian million cities for inhabitants. The spread of esti- mates is almost double. 63,1 points for Yekaterinburg and 35,4 points for Volgograd. It is apparent for the experts that the cities must become more comfortable for their residents (priority 69,8 points). What’s to be done? The experts were also proposed to estimate the alternate paths for improvement of urban environ- ment. We conventionally divided them into three vectors: management (various aspects of perfec- tion of city management), civil (the stake is placed on the activity of citizens in urban improvement) and technological (the stake is placed on improved technical equipment of municipal service and facilities). The experts put their highest hopes on the management progress (73,4 points). This index contains the most significant indicators for the experts – need of an intelligent strategy and general plan (80,4 points), fighting corruption (78 points) and increased quality of management team (74,2 points). The experts far less believe in civil vector of perfection. The need of focusing on the support of public initiatives and grassroots activity received only 62,4 points. Experts in Novosibirsk believe in value of public initiatives for the municipal progress more than the others (72,6 points), experts from Samara believe in it less (50 points). The prospects of technological vector for development of the cities were estimated by the
9participants for 64,6 points. Notably, the need of technical perfection of municipal service andfacilities is estimated equally by the experts from different cities, regardless of their status, andthe spread of opinions is extremely narrow.These are the key conclusions of Urban Index Russia 2011, conducted by IRP Group on the eveof Moscow Urban Forum. We hope that now you are interested enough to review the full versionof research. We will be glad if this information proves useful to arrange a professional discussionregarding the prospects for development of Russian cities during the forum. We plan to developRussian Urban Index as a regular annual project; it means that by the end of 2012 you will havean opportunity to assess the changes in experts’ perception of quality of their cities for the year.Next year the research will be conducted in all Russian cities with the population over half amillion people.
10 TABLE 1. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC STUDY INDICES St Petersburg Yekaterinburg Chelyabinsk Novosibirsk Rostov-on- Volgograd Novgorod Moscow Average Samara Nizhny Kazan Omsk Don Ufa Indices I INDEX OF STATE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT 53 ,6 60,2 55,8 56,5 60,5 57,4 52,4 53,0 49,7 52,3 49,7 49,5 41,6 “WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVORINOMENT LIKE?” A. Environment for living in the city 56,8 57,3 60,4 57,2 65,7 60,3 54,7 56,6 52,9 54,3 52,4 58,4 46,4 Natural environment Environmental situation in the city 33,2 35,7 38,6 33,3 47,6 25,0 37,5 24,7 38,1 36,8 30,8 38,9 27,1 (ecology) Quality of potable water 45,8 31,0 33,0 43,1 78,6 50,0 49,0 46,4 35,7 35,9 55,8 44,4 50,0 "Sound comfort" level in the city (absence of unpleasant 41,3 48,8 44,3 45,8 47,6 40,4 42,7 30,6 42,5 53,1 44,2 43,1 47,9 noises) Green planted areas (woods, parks, squares) 53,7 56,0 35,2 45,8 58,3 63,5 67,7 53,6 60,5 50,0 61,5 55,6 31,3 Housing Diversity of housing for offer in the purchase market 61,6 65,5 72,7 64,7 70,2 73,1 52,2 57,8 61,3 57,8 48,1 73,4 47,9 Diversity of housing for offer in the rental market 59,7 60,7 68,2 64,7 69,0 69,2 52,1 57,7 63,1 54,7 52,1 67,2 35,4 Communal re- Regularity and accessibility of public utilities (water, 66,8 65,5 69,3 65,3 70,2 65,4 65,6 76,7 51,2 58,8 63,5 55,6 62,5 sources heating, gas, electricity) B. Environment for safety, health, self-reliance 43,0 54,7 46,6 40,4 51,3 43,4 35,9 45,4 37,8 40,0 38,3 36,7 32,0 Safety Personal safety, protection from crime 41,6 51,2 48,9 38,9 54,8 46,2 42,7 31,6 40,0 43,3 50,0 38,2 45,8 Evening and night-time lighting 58,5 63,1 61,9 73,6 58,3 65,4 50,0 65,2 52,5 51,5 46,2 44,4 45,8 Social sphere Healthcare services 41,1 42,9 50,0 33,3 55,0 51,9 43,8 35,3 35,7 39,7 46,2 38,9 37,5 Provision of pre-school and educational institutions 36,2 41,7 42,0 37,5 38,1 46,2 31,3 37,3 35,7 39,1 30,8 25,0 22,9 Jobs Possibility of finding work to match ones qualifications 43,6 62,5 39,3 39,7 48,8 37,5 28,1 54,3 38,1 38,2 33,3 37,5 22,9 and with adequate salary C. Environment for social life 60,2 63,5 62,3 61,9 65,6 66,2 64,0 60,2 56,1 57,5 56,1 54,6 47,6 Retail, public Shops, retail centres, networks 76,9 86,9 84,1 79,2 81,0 75,0 75,0 74,0 75,0 76,6 67,3 81,9 66,7 catering Restaurants, cafes, fast food 70,9 83,3 76,1 76,4 73,8 73,1 64,6 68,8 68,8 70,3 67,3 70,8 58,3 Public spaces Availability of public recreational areas with amenities 52,5 56,0 55,7 55,6 53,6 71,2 55,4 47,7 55,0 48,4 51,9 48,6 45,8 Availability of attractive modern museums, theatres, 62,4 65,5 67,0 77,8 63,1 61,5 57,6 65,8 58,3 56,3 65,4 59,7 29,2 concert venues Amenities Clean and well maintained streets and yards 48,4 45,2 48,9 51,4 58,3 57,7 51,0 55,9 45,2 43,8 38,5 26,4 22,9 Public transport Comfortable and accessibile public transport 53,7 57,1 50,0 44,4 59,5 55,8 67,7 52,6 46,4 54,7 55,8 50,0 50,0 Modern types of Coverage of the urban environment with new communication, information technologies (internet acess points, 61,0 63,1 65,5 65,3 75,0 71,2 70,8 55,6 53,6 57,4 53,8 58,3 52,1 new technologies information boards, cash machines etc) Telephone network, internet, other modern types of 75,2 77,4 77,3 77,9 76,2 80,8 75,0 76,4 64,3 73,4 69,2 76,4 75,0 communication D. Environment for career, personal development 47,9 59,7 51,9 47,7 55,2 60,0 47,9 43,6 43,0 48,0 45,0 45,4 38,3 Education (higher, High quality education after school 66,0 77,4 72,6 67,6 72,6 65,4 52,1 65,0 60,0 68,8 69,2 61,1 64,6 vocational) Environment for Conditions for running a small business 40,3 59,2 45,5 34,7 52,4 43,8 47,9 31,6 40,5 45,3 32,7 44,4 18,8 small business Road network, Possibility of traffic without traffic jams, availablity of convenience for free parking 22,3 29,8 20,2 18,1 29,8 71,2 31,3 11,2 17,9 18,3 32,7 12,5 22,9 drivers Logistical links with Convenient transport links with the main centres of 66,5 82,1 69,3 70,6 70,2 57,7 66,7 72,3 59,5 55,9 43,8 69,1 41,7 the world Russia and the world E. Cultural, aesthetic environment 61,3 66,1 58,5 76,7 64,9 58,7 63,9 60,3 61,3 63,3 59,6 53,1 44,3 External attractiveness, beauty spots, views 65,7 73,8 68,2 83,3 66,7 57,7 68,8 63,2 63,1 68,8 61,5 59,7 52,1 Condition of cultural and historical monuments 50,1 51,2 30,7 62,5 63,1 57,7 60,4 49,0 53,8 46,7 50,0 33,3 43,8 Availability of attractive modern museums, theatres, 62,4 65,5 67,0 77,8 63,1 61,5 57,6 65,8 58,3 56,3 65,4 59,7 29,2 concert venues
11 St Petersburg Yekaterinburg Chelyabinsk Novosibirsk Rostov-on- Volgograd Novgorod Moscow Average Samara Nizhny Kazan Omsk Don UfaIndices II. INDICES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT FACTORS ”WHAT DOES THE QUALITY OF URBAN 47,1 56,8 51,6 47,7 56,0 52,9 49,1 42,8 44,5 46,1 44,6 44,7 34,9 ENVIRONMENT DEPEND ON?” F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 41,5 50,6 43,1 41,5 51,0 41,5 38,2 40,4 40,1 41,4 41,6 38,0 28,4Culture, attitude Behavioural culture, attitude of residents to their city 37,1 46,4 39,3 37,5 48,7 34,6 40,2 31,6 38,8 39,1 38,5 34,7 27,1to cityPublic activity Citizens participation in public and charitable projects 51,5 61,9 50,0 50,0 58,3 50,0 44,8 56,6 44,0 48,4 48,1 48,6 31,8 of citywide significance Residents involvement in improving their home, yard 43,8 47,6 38,6 33,3 58,3 55,8 38,5 44,1 45,2 43,8 46,2 40,3 31,8 Citizens assistance in protecting and restoring city 42,3 53,6 44,0 51,4 45,2 40,4 28,1 46,4 35,7 40,0 40,4 34,7 31,8 monuments and significant places G. MANAGEMENT 43,4 60,3 51,6 44,7 53,2 52,2 47,7 32,2 45,0 48,0 43,8 42,8 30,2Management team Professionalism of city administration staff 45,9 61,3 52,4 43,1 57,1 65,4 50,0 35,3 47,5 48,4 39,6 48,6 27,1Strategies Existence of a current strategy that meets the requirements of the city and ensures its sustainable 48,5 73,8 51,1 59,7 59,5 51,9 58,3 34,9 46,4 45,6 53,8 43,1 35,4 development Existence of a current general plan that meets the requirements of the city and ensures its sustainable 48,0 76,2 50,0 54,2 58,3 51,9 57,3 32,9 47,6 57,4 46,2 43,1 37,5 developmentAnti-corruption Incorruptibility of city officials 31,2 38,2 38,8 27,8 48,8 37,5 39,6 15,7 38,8 45,6 33,3 31,7 20,8Public scrutiny Publics ability to influence the authorities 30,2 44,0 36,4 30,6 47,6 34,6 25,0 20,4 30,0 28,1 36,5 33,3 22,9External relations Level of development of economic links and 60,4 75,0 68,8 59,7 65,8 65,4 56,3 58,4 57,1 60,9 43,8 62,5 45,8 cooperation with other cities H. TECHNOLOGIES 56,6 59,5 60,1 56,9 64,3 65,4 62,0 57,3 48,1 48,5 48,1 52,8 47,9Technological Technical equipment of city management and services 52,3 56,0 55,7 48,6 53,6 59,6 53,1 59,0 42,5 39,7 42,3 47,2 43,8potential responsible for the city Coverage of the urban environment with new information technologies (internet acess points, 61,0 63,1 65,5 65,3 75,0 71,2 70,8 55,6 53,6 57,4 53,8 58,3 52,1 information boards, cash machines etc) III. INDEX OF SATISFACTION OF TARGET GROUPS 57,5 65,2 63,8 61,1 58,6 60,2 58,3 56,7 58,6 55,7 46,5 57,1 37,6 “ARE YOU SATISFIED?” I. Convenience for residents as a whole 51,2 63,1 53,4 52,9 54,8 57,7 53,1 47,7 50,0 48,4 50,0 51,4 35,4 J. Conditions for business 67,9 77,4 71,6 62,5 71,4 76,9 68,8 69,9 71,4 63,2 47,9 70,6 39,6Business and Sites for new construction (availability, accessibility, 42,5 42,9 44,6 48,6 54,8 55,8 45,8 40,1 40,5 42,6 36,5 38,9 18,8investment climate readiness of infrastructure)components Office/retail spaces for rental (accessibility, quality, 62,2 59,5 72,8 66,7 72,6 61,5 58,3 58,2 51,2 58,8 71,2 63,9 52,1 convenient location) Possibility of finding workers with necessary 58,1 58,3 55,4 66,7 58,3 51,9 63,5 64,5 60,7 52,9 53,8 56,9 54,2 qualifications in the city Availability of loans 56,1 50,0 57,6 55,6 63,1 57,7 59,4 52,3 50,0 58,8 59,6 59,7 50,0 Mechamisms of state and municipal support for 41,0 40,5 47,8 43,1 52,4 36,5 44,8 32,9 32,1 48,5 40,4 41,7 31,3 projects K. Conditions for tourists 52,3 54,8 65,9 68,1 46,4 42,3 52,1 52,3 52,4 54,4 39,6 47,2 37,5Components of Hotels, hostels, short-term accommodation rentals 55,1 69,0 69,6 65,3 52,4 67,3 56,3 45,1 52,4 45,6 51,9 61,1 25,0attractiveness to Information, city web portal 56,2 64,3 60,9 59,7 61,9 71,2 62,5 47,7 57,1 50,0 48,1 59,7 31,3tourists Trips round the city, to museums (accessibility, quality, 53,4 60,7 56,5 73,6 56,0 57,7 44,8 61,5 56,0 51,5 44,2 51,4 27,1 attractiveness) Cafes, restaurants etc for tourists (varbiety, price/quality 66,3 82,1 70,7 68,1 73,8 76,9 62,5 63,8 63,1 63,2 63,5 63,9 43,8 correlation) Ease of finding your way around in city: is it easy to find 53,2 64,3 52,2 50,0 59,5 57,7 58,3 43,8 56,0 47,1 63,5 44,4 41,7 the street, sight or apartment block you need? Residents attitute to tourists (friendly, ready to help) 61,4 66,7 63,0 68,1 71,4 55,8 62,5 48,4 63,1 61,8 63,5 58,3 54,2
12 TABLE 2. PRIORITIES OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT Nizhny Novgorod Saint-Petersburg Rostov-on-Don Yekaterinburg Chelyabinsk Novosibirsk Volgograd Moscow Average Samara Kazan Omsk Ufa I. URBAN ENVIRONMENT INDEX (What is 69,6 71,1 74,4 75,3 73,1 70,6 65,5 67,9 72,3 69,4 71,4 62,6 68,8 the condition of urban environment?) A. Living environment 71,0 75,9 74,0 71,8 76,4 74,6 69,2 66,1 70,2 75,8 74,6 67,4 72,5 Natural environment Ecology, installation of waste treatment 74,2 78,6 77,4 80,6 73,8 88,5 71,9 70,3 78,6 71,9 76,9 67,6 66,7 (ecology) facilities Housing Construction of municipal housing 64,3 64,3 69,3 62,5 71,4 57,7 66,7 61,5 57,1 68,3 73,1 65,3 62,5 Construction sites preparation and attraction 62,7 70,0 63,6 52,8 75,0 67,3 72,9 52,0 58,3 81,3 61,5 55,9 77,3 of construction investors Public utilities (power, heat, water and gas Utility resources 77,1 82,1 80,7 81,9 83,3 76,9 65,6 75,0 78,6 78,1 81,3 70,8 81,3 supply) B. Safety, health self-dependence 74,5 69,6 75,0 83,9 74,6 73,4 73,6 74,6 78,1 75,2 76,2 68,1 69,8 environment Safety in the city, decreased level of Safety 75,2 79,8 71,6 84,7 76,2 72,9 71,9 81,1 75,0 67,6 75,0 62,5 60,4 criminality Social sphere Social sector (health care, education, etc.) 81,3 76,2 78,4 93,1 82,1 85,4 75,0 80,3 86,9 85,9 86,5 72,1 83,3 Workplaces (creation of new workplaces, Workplaces 68,0 57,1 75,0 76,4 67,9 67,3 74,0 64,7 73,8 71,7 69,2 60,3 66,7 retraining) C. Social life environment 64,0 65,9 69,6 68,4 70,2 63,0 58,6 62,7 72,0 59,0 63,0 56,3 58,9 Arrangement of open public spaces for Public spaces 60,8 65,5 69,3 58,3 69,0 58,3 57,3 59,2 70,2 48,5 61,5 52,8 58,3 leisure and communication Municipal improvement Improvement of streets and neighborhoods 71,4 71,4 73,9 80,9 71,4 73,1 69,8 67,1 76,2 70,3 76,9 66,7 77,1 Public transport Public transport 72,0 71,4 73,9 88,2 82,1 71,2 57,3 75,7 73,8 68,8 65,4 62,5 58,3 Modern types of Development of communication means communication, new 51,8 56,3 61,4 51,4 58,3 48,1 50,0 48,7 67,9 45,6 48,1 43,1 41,7 (telephone, internet, etc.) technology D. Career, self-development environment 69,5 73,1 74,9 72,6 74,9 67,3 64,5 66,8 74,2 66,6 77,1 60,4 69,3 Education (higher, Education (higher, vocational, retraining, etc.) 67,3 64,3 70,5 72,2 67,9 59,6 72,9 69,7 79,8 55,9 59,6 61,1 52,1 vocational) Conditions for small Conditions for development of small 71,0 78,8 79,5 73,6 73,8 81,3 57,3 66,1 76,2 68,8 86,5 56,9 79,2 business business and free enterprise Road network, Development of road network, construction 83,5 89,3 89,8 86,1 92,9 71,2 70,8 82,9 78,6 85,9 94,2 73,6 93,8 convenience for drivers of junctions and parking lots Repairs of the existing road infrastructure 77,3 82,1 84,1 84,7 82,1 67,3 67,7 74,0 73,8 77,9 90,4 73,5 83,3 Logistic connections to Transport and logistic connections with 56,0 64,3 59,1 52,8 67,9 73,1 52,1 47,3 60,7 56,7 71,2 43,1 56,3 the world other cities and countries E. Cultural, aesthetic environment 68,3 70,2 78,0 77,8 68,5 73,1 59,2 68,2 65,6 67,5 63,5 59,0 71,9 City appearance (appeal, bright features) 67,9 75,0 76,2 69,4 67,9 76,9 64,1 62,5 68,8 68,3 63,5 66,7 75,0 Protection of cultural and historical heritage 69,0 65,5 79,5 86,1 69,0 69,2 56,3 73,7 64,3 67,2 63,5 51,4 68,8
13 Nizhny Novgorod Saint-Petersburg Rostov-on-Don Yekaterinburg Chelyabinsk Novosibirsk Volgograd Moscow Average Samara Kazan Omsk Ufa II. INDEX OF ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT FACTORS (What does the 67,3 67,2 69,7 72,6 74,4 70,4 58,9 65,1 69,6 71,8 72,3 59,5 67,0 quality of urban environment depend on?) F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 62,9 66,7 65,3 63,9 72,6 68,8 59,4 59,3 66,7 67,5 61,5 52,1 61,5Culture, attitude to Municipal patriotic education, cultural 67,9 75,0 76,2 69,4 67,9 76,9 64,1 62,5 68,8 68,3 63,5 66,7 75,0the city behavior in the city Support of public initiatives, grassrootsPublic activity 69,0 65,5 79,5 86,1 69,0 69,2 56,3 73,7 64,3 67,2 63,5 51,4 68,8 activity G. MANAGEMENT 73,4 70,5 77,0 82,1 79,8 74,7 59,9 72,5 71,7 77,0 81,5 66,3 77,8 Improvement of city management system,Management team 74,2 67,9 76,1 82,4 82,1 73,1 60,4 73,6 70,2 79,7 90,4 64,7 83,3 selection of managerial human resources Elaboration of intelligent strategy, town-Strategies 80,4 81,0 84,1 94,1 85,7 78,8 64,6 79,7 76,2 85,9 84,6 73,5 87,5 planning policy Fighting corruption in management andCorruption fighting 78,0 75,0 80,7 86,1 77,4 83,3 60,4 83,3 81,0 71,9 84,6 66,7 77,1 municipal services Support of public initiatives, grassrootsPublic control 62,2 64,3 64,8 63,9 72,6 67,3 57,3 61,3 60,7 64,1 61,5 50,0 62,5 activity Development of cooperation with other citiesExternal relations 60,2 60,7 71,6 58,3 69,0 76,9 59,8 48,0 65,5 67,2 71,2 57,8 56,3 and regions H. TECHNOLOGY 64,6 64,3 65,5 69,4 70,2 67,3 57,3 62,0 70,2 70,3 71,2 58,3 58,3 Technical equipment of municipal servicesTechnological potential 64,6 64,3 65,5 69,4 70,2 67,3 57,3 62,0 70,2 70,3 71,2 58,3 58,3 and facilities III. TARGET GROUPS SATISFACTION INDEX 68,9 72,1 76,0 75,6 72,1 75,5 61,2 64,8 73,0 71,7 70,5 59,8 72,5 (Are you satisfied?) I. General comfort for community 69,6 71,1 74,4 75,3 73,1 70,6 65,5 67,9 72,3 69,4 71,4 62,6 68,8 J. Conditions for business 73,3 73,8 79,5 77,8 79,8 84,6 63,5 66,3 79,8 77,9 80,8 63,9 81,8 Attraction of investments, creation of 73,3 73,8 79,5 77,8 79,8 84,6 63,5 66,3 79,8 77,9 80,8 63,9 81,8 comfortable business environment K. Conditions for tourists 62,8 71,4 73,9 73,6 60,7 69,2 53,1 59,5 65,5 66,7 53,8 51,5 64,6 Attraction of tourists, development of 62,8 71,4 73,9 73,6 60,7 69,2 53,1 59,5 65,5 66,7 53,8 51,5 64,6 hospitality industry
15Research methodology The Urban Index Russia 2011 research is based on surveying three hundred experts from twelve cities of Russia with the population exceeding one million people, according to the 2010 census records: Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Omsk, Kazan, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, Ufa , Volgograd. The survey was conducted by quota sampling taking into account the distribution of expert by their place of residence (city) and professional occupation or status. The professional groups experts were chosen from were: architects; journalists and mass media editors; social workers (doctors, teachers); scientists; men of art and culture; public services managers (hotels, restaurants, travel companies); officers of administrations (city and regional administrations); deputies (city and regional deputies); businessmen (large- / medium- /small-size enterprises; international / local businesses).FIG. 1. DISTRIBUTION OF EXPERTS PARTICIPATING IN SURVEY, BY PROFESSIONAL AREA, % 5 Journalists and media editors 7 Deputies 8 Managers of city 26 Social sphere and businesses in expert community the service sector representatives 9 Workers of culture and people of art 10 Architects 21 Representatives of large and medium- sized business 14 Officials The questionnaire of the expert survey, as well as the research program, was formed on the basis of the initial analytical model specifying the components of the urban environment and main factors that may affect it. The structure of the main components and factors is given on figure 2.
16 FIG. 2. URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS AND FACTORS WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVORINOMENT LIKE? WHAT DOES THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEPEND ON? (URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS) (URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT FACTORS) А-1. Natural environment (ecology) A. ENVIRONMENT FOR А-2. Housing LIVING IN THE CITY А-3. Public utilities resources B-1. Safety B. ENVIRONMENT TO F-1. Citizens’ cultural B-2. Social sphere and behavior, their SUSTAIN THE LEVEL F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL expert community attitude to their city OF LIFE, SELF- ENVIRONMENT representatives RELIANCE F-2. Social activities B-3. Jobs С-1. Retail, public catering С-2. Public spaces G-1. Management team С-3. Amenities C. ENVIRONMENT FOR URBAN G-2. Strategies SOCIAL LIFE G. MANAGEMENT G-3. Absence of С-4. Public transport ENVIRONMENT corruption С-5. Modern types of communication, new G-4. Public control technologies G-5. External relations D-1. Professional, vocational H. TECHNOLOGICAL education H-1. Technologies POTENTIAL D-2. Environment for small D. ENVIRONMENT FOR business CAREER, PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT D-3. Municipal road network D-4. Transport links with the world E-1. Beauty, attractiveness E. CULTURAL AESTHETIC E-2. Cultural heritage ENVIRONMENT The system urban environment components is defined based on the idea of hierarchy of the citizen’s needs (by the analogy with the well-known “Maslow’s pyramid”), starting from the space, at least with the minimum amenities for living, allocated for such citizen, and to the higher cultural and symbolic needs. The set of factors within our model assumes that the state of the city is formed and changed by the combined impact of citizens, city authorities and objective opportunities granted by the level of the technological development. Index components and factors are assigned statistically calculated by the main components method weight coefficients, which considerably coincided with their initial expert assessment. The research questionnaire offered the experts to asses each component and factor of the urban environment using “school-based” five-point grading system from 1 (bad) to 5 (excellent). Each parameter was assessed by the expert three times: (1) assessment of current state; (2) much priority should be given to a component or a factor by the city authorities.
17 Based on independent assessments, composite and special indices of urban environment were calculated, as well as the factors affecting it, satisfaction of main target groups (see fig.3):FIG. 3. STRUCTURE OF URBAN INDEX RUSSIAPRIMARY I. State of urban environment II. Urban environment III. Level of comfort ofINDICES development factors urban environment for (What is the urban environment like?) target groups (What does the quality of the ur- ban environment depend on?) (Are You satisfied?)SPECIAL A. Environment for living (ecology F. Quality of social envi- I. For residentsINDICES and housing) ronment J. For business B. Environment for life and self- G. Management model K. For tourists reliance (jobs, safety, social infra- H. Technological potential structure) C. Environment for social life (com- fort, communications, availability) D. Environment for career and self-development (higher education, small and large business, external links) E. Cultural, aesthetic environment (beauty, attractiveness, historical heritage)
18 Final index assessments are given using a hundred-point grading system received by simple arithmetic translation from the initial (five-point) system: TABLE 3. EVALUATION SCALE OF THE STUDY INDICES EVALUATION ON A STATE OF URBAN PRIORITY EVALUATION ON A 5-SCORE SCALE ENVIRONMENT 100-SCORE SCALE 5 Excellent main priority 100 4 Good above average priority 75-99 3 Average average priority 50-74 2 Problem below average priority 25-49 1 Poor not a priority 1-24 Urban environment components and factors indices are used for evaluating the comfort of the city for its permanent residents. The experts were also asked to speak by the similar scheme and concerning certain important parameters for certain target groups about the state of the urban environment for tourists and business investors. Based on their answers, additional target groups satisfaction indices were calculated using the same procedure as the main indices. Statistical processing of data received from the expert survey was conducted using the meth- ods of correlation, regression (multiple linear regression) and factor (varimax) analysis. Along with the questions required for building primary and special urban environment indices, the research questionnaire included additional topics we consider to be important for under- standing urban development in modern Russia. They include: Effect on affairs in the city the concerned groups reside in (stakeholders): public authorities (federal, regional and urban), law enforcement agencies, business (large-, medium and small- size businesses, governmental and private businesses), public associations and action groups, scientists and specialists, clerisy; Participation of the concerned groups (businessmen, representatives of regional authorities, public organizations, experts, specialists, common citizens) in development of the city strategy; Assessment of business, political, ethical merits required for city authorities: ideal (as should be) and actual, as the experts see them; Projects of the last five years having positively affected, in the experts’ opinion, the environment of their city; Recommendations for federal and regional authorities and business: what, in the experts’ opinion, they must do for their city.
19IRP Group would like to thank all experts, who have participated in this research and whohave taken the trouble to pass the interview. Subject to the confidentiality obligations un-dertaken by the researchers, all answers are kept anonymous.
21А. Working typology of cities and expertsWhat is common between Rostov and Nizhny, in what businesssociety and architects are consentient? Urban Index Russia has as the aim not only to evaluate the general condition of million-cities of Russia and its experts’ evaluation, but also to follow the patterns that are characteristic for different experts’ types defined by us in our sampling. The results of the expert survey are of course useful and interesting but still insufficient source for understanding the differences between the cities. By offering the experts to assess the state of the urban environment using the “bad/good” scale we obviously can not expect that the experts’ opinions on good and bad lie within the same objective plane. The results of the survey also reflect how much the experts’ opinions depend on their profession and status. It can be assumed that the experts from the larger, more developed city, may be more exigent and give their urban environment – which is objectively more comfortable – a lower grade than the experts from the city, which is less developed but the citizens of which have lesser demands. For the purpose of more reliable assessment we also used statistical data that does not depend on subjective evaluations. We took two statistical indices as the comparison coordinates: the population of the city and intensity of trading calculated as a volume of retail turnover per capita (see fig. 4). The demography of the city is important for us first of all due to that as the population grows, the complexity of problems the urban economy meets grows as well, new demands concerning the urban environment emerge as well as the new opportunities for its development. We can assume that the larger cities, given other similar conditions, will be relatively more developed and fitted: the soviet town-planning gave priority to their construction, and within the market economy they are typically more attractive for investors (e.g. for distribution networks). The importance of index of trading intensity per capita was emphasized a century ago by Veniamin Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, an outstanding Russian economic geographer, who considered that the “briskness” of industrial production and turnover are key characteristics distinguishing the “true city” from the city officially called that. During the period of post-industrial development, the importance of industry for major cities have significantly changed, and the weight of the post-industrial economy, innovative production and tourism is still barely taken into account in the statistical indices, while we still take the trade as an approximate yet some guide for assessment of the intensity of urban life.
22 FIG. 4. LARGEST RUSSIAN CITIES: BASIC STATISTICAL INDICES (POPULATION, TRADE TURNOVER PER CAPITA) AND EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT 56 48 City population (million people) 1 1,1 1,3 4 + Saint Petersburg 60 Retail turnover (thousand roubles per capita) 57 52 46 50 100 + 50 45 Moscow 60 57 56 52 56 Nizhny 48 1.What is the urban environment like? Novgorod 2. Factors’ condition the Kazan quality of the urban en- vironment depends on Yekaterinburg 50 Rostov-on-Don 45 1 2 Samara Volgograd 49 Ufa 42 45 Chelyabinsk Situation change forecasts (score) 35 52 49 60 57 53 56 Omsk 1 10 15 20 + Novosibirsk In the two-dimensional space “population – trade turnover intensity”, the capital cities – Moscow and Saint-Petersburg (type I) – have left the others considerably behind both in population (10.6 million and 4.6 million people) and trade turnover (293.3 thousand and 133.6 thousand rouble per capita), while the other cities are divided as follows (see fig. 5):
23FIG. 5. POPULATION AND TRADE TURNOVER PER CAPITA OF THE LARGEST CITIES OFRUSSIA (EXCEPT FOR MOSCOW AND SAINT-PETERSBURG) “SMALL MILLION-POPULATION CITIES” “REGIONAL CAPITAL CITIES” WITH HIGH ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 65 III II Retail turnover (thousand roubles per capita) 60 Rostov-on-Don Samara Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg 55 Kazan Novosibirsk 50 IV I 45 Volgograd Chelyabinsk 40 Ufa 35 Omsk 30 “SMALL MILLION-POPULATION CITIES” WITH LOW ECONOMIC 25 ACTIVITY 20 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Population (thousand people) Difference between the experts from the different types of cities is quite obvious, especially when comparing the current and forecasted evaluations of the urban environment (see fig. 6) Typically, the more critically the current state of urban environment is assessed, the more considerable improvement is expected during the following 10-15 years, and vice-versa, a relatively high evaluation of the current state is suggests the moderateness in assessment of future developments.
24 FIG. 6. ASSESSMENT OF PERCEPTION OF THE STATE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND FORECAST OF ITS DEVELOPMENT DURING THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS BY CITIES “GOOD, NO CHANGES “GOOD, BUT WE WENT IT TO BE BETTER” REQUIRED“ Status of the state of urban environment 14,0 III Kazan II 12,0 Volgograd Samara Nizhny Novgorod 10,0 Rostov-on-Don Ufa Omsk Chelyabinsk 8,0 6,0 IV Moscow Yekaterinburg I 4,0 Novosibirsk 2,0 Saint Petersburg “BAD, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CHANGED” 0 40 45 50 55 60 65 Forecast of changes in 10-15 years “Capital cities” and “interregional capital cities” “Small million-population cities“ with high economic activity “Small million-population cities“ with low economic activity Correspondingly, the experts in the cities of I and II type, i.e. the largest ones, with the most intensive economic turnover distinguish (except from Nizhny Novgorod) by the lower evaluation of the current state of environment and higher optimism concerning future development, and the III and IV type cities (lower population, lower economy and trade intensity) give a high assessment of the current situation and put less trust in the future. From the professional point of view, the research has revealed considerable differences in perception of the urban problems by the experts, and such differences allow us to better understand the survey results. At first approximation we identify the “optimists” and “pessimists” among the expert groups surveyed. Deputies, officials, and fewer service and social workers tend to evaluate the state of urban environment and the factors affecting it higher. Businessmen, men of art and professional architects on the contrary are inclined towards more critical evaluations (see fig. 7). The journalists distinguish by that they more often give the assessment, which is different from that of the average sample of experts in both directions, – positive and negative (putting it differently, distinguish by the deviations that can not be explained by the common attitude, either more critical or more optimistic). It can be assumed that the assessment of journalist experts represents the point of view that is more close to that of the common people, a “man in the street”.
25FIG. 7.TYPES OF RESPONDENTS BY ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THEURBAN ENVIRONMENT, FACTORS OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AND TARGET GROUPSSATISFACTION FACTORS (IN POINTS) 60 “OPTIMISTS” Factors the quality of urban environment depends on 55 Deputies Officials Media 50 Urban services Social sphere 45 Architects Business 40 Culture Level of satisfaction of target groups below 50 points 35 “PESSIMISTS” above 50 points 30 48 50 52 54 56 58 What is the urban environment like? Having supplemented the overall picture by the opinions of experts on the state of their cities in the 10-15 years perspective, we obtained the better understanding of the respondents. Generally, the same regularity was revealed: critical assessment of the current state usually coincides with the better hopes for improvement, and the high assessment of the current conditions on the contrary results in less optimistic forecasts (see fig. 8).
26 FIG. 8. ASSESSMENTS OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IN 10-15 YEARS BY EXPERTS’ PROFESSIONS “OPTIMISTS NOW AND “OPTIMISTS NOW AND PESSIMISTS IN THE FUTURE” IN THE FUTURE” Status of the state of urban environment 14,0 III II Deputies 12,0 and its factors of development Architects 10,0 Business 8,0 Officials Culture 6,0 Social sphere IV I 4,0 Urban services 2,0 Media “PESSIMISTS NOW, OPTIMISTS IN THE FUTURE” 0 40 45 50 55 60 65 Forecast of changes of urban environment and its factors in 10-15 years The model “present pessimists, future optimists” are architects, which can be explained by their professional mission. The opposite opinion – “everything is not bad today, but no great improvements should be expected” – belongs to the journalists and city service sector workers (utility services, trade, cafes and restaurants). The experts belonging to the sector of culture and business, on the one hand, and the officers and state employees on the other hand, are moderately optimistic about next 10-15 years, but substantially distinguish in assessment of the current state: the public officials tend to give a better assessments, and the men of culture and business on the contrary to give critical assessments. It should be noted that in the average values the most advanced indices are sub- indices “Culture and aesthetics of Russian cities” (61.3 points) and “Business environment” (67.9 points). Apparently, the rhetorical question of whether the culture and business will ever be heard in Russia is still urgent. The most “rose-colored” view is given by the deputies giving the highest assessment of both current situation and future development. They also distinguish by the weakest ability to determine the development priorities (they picked the most detailed lists of factors the authorities should concentrate on). For the purposes of our research such differences mean that the relatively full and weighted assessment can be received only through its “stereoscopy”, by comparing the opinions of experts of different professional groups. Joint discussions, participation in decision-making by the professionals with different experience shall become, in our opinion, one of the main elements of city policy. To what extent such participation is characteristic for the largest cities of modern Russia is one of the topics of our research.
29B. Urban environment indexWhat needs can be satisfied by the Russian million-population citiestoday and what can be expected within 10-15 years? What are the typological differences found in the previous section, what do they mean for million- population cities of Russia today and what future is expected for them? In order to understand this relation, we have first of all examined the most obvious theory that the largest and most developed cities distinguish from others by more advanced, more complex requirements to the urban environment, which in other cities are still not so advanced, and high level of criticism among the experts from capital cities rests on this. Our data support this theory only partially. The environmental components forming the integral assessment of the city in this research may be ranged within the “human needs pyramid” logics depending on how basic or, vice- versa, how advanced the needs relating to these components are. In our scheme, basic needs include the need for living space (I), safety, health, earnings for living (II), more advanced needs include the need in social liaisons, socializing (III), career and personal development (IV), beauty, aesthetics and composition of the urban environment (V).FIG. 9. WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT LIKE? CURRENT AND FORECASTED STATE 1 Environment for living in the city Status 100 Forecast 57,8 56,2 5 Cultural and aesthetic 65,2 54,5 2 environment 60,8 42,2 Environment for safety, 0 healthcarecare, self-reliance 47,2 59,8 56,7 68,2 4 3 Environment for career, Environment for social life personal development Marked by experts as high- priority areas of work
30 FIG. 10. “PRIORITIES PYRAMID” AND ASSESSMENT OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS “CAPITAL CITIES” Status Priority 57,5 73,7 V Culture, aesthetics 43,1 69,7 IV Career, personal development 61,7 65,8 III Social life 46,1 79,1 II Safety, health, self-reliance 69,7 69,0 I Life in the city 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 The categories are positioned bottom-up from the basic ones (I, II) to more “advanced“ (III, IV, V) “REGIONAL CAPITAL CITIES” Status Priority 62,0 65,5 V Culture, aesthetics 53,7 70,0 IV Career, personal development 60,8 64,0 III Social life 47,6 71,8 II Safety, health, self-reliance 58,2 74,2 I Life in the city 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 The categories are positioned bottom-up from the basic ones (I, II) to more “advanced“ (III, IV, V) “MILLION-POPULATION TRADE CITIES” WITH INTENSIVE ECONOMIC TURNOVER Status Priority 57,4 67,3 V Culture, aesthetics 46,7 69,3 IV Career, personal development 57,9 65,7 III Social life 40,7 73,7 II Safety, health, self-reliance 57,2 70,1 I Life in the city 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 The categories are positioned bottom-up from the basic ones (I, II) to more “advanced“ (III, IV, V) “MILLION-POPULATION TRADE CITIES” WITH NON-INTENSIVE ECONOMIC TURNOVER Status Priority 65,9 56,5 V Culture, aesthetics 69,6 47,4 IV Career, personal development 61,2 58,1 III Social life 73,2 37,0 II Safety, health, self-reliance 72,8 53,0 I Life in the city 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 The categories are positioned bottom-up from the basic ones (I, II) to more “advanced“ (III, IV, V)
31 Environment components relating to type I and II basic needs are generally given a lower evaluation of the current state than the environment components for more advanced needs (IIIV): average assessment of environment for basic needs is 51 points, for advanced needs – 56 points. “Needs pyramid” of the modern citizens considerably differs from the classic Maslow’s pyramid. where satisfaction of the basic needs has considerable priority over satisfaction of the more advanced needs. Thus, in the priorities structure the experts of capital cities distinguish from others by the higher demands in the urban environment to the cultural sense and aesthetics (priority assessment is 74 points, state assessment is 70 points), which turn out to be less important for other cities despite the bad state (66 and 57 points respectively). In other terms, the state of the cities represented by our experts is not as predicted by the “pyramid model”. Needs and assessments profiles on one hand are almost the same for the cities of different types (cultural and aesthetic component is the only exception), on the other hand they demonstrate the “broken” distribution (see fig. 10), which can be better explained not by the pyramidal logic but the failures or successes in certain areas of city policy. The most significant deviations from the “pyramidal” model result from very low assessment of the social sector (healthcare, schools, kindergartens) and road network, which drag down the assessment of the current state and vice-versa considerably improve the assessment of priorities in their components (environment for healthcare and safety and environment for career and personal development respectively). 77% of respondents say that in Russian megalopolises it is impossible to move freely without traffic jams and park freely. Only 15.3% of people believe there is adequate and high-quality healthcare in the major cities, and even less – 13.1% believe in sufficient availability of pre-school and educational institutions. At the same time, 81% of respondents consider that the social sector shall have the above-average priority in the work of the city authorities. The same assessment in respect of development of road infrastructure, building of interchanges, parking lots and overhaul of the existing road infrastructure is given by 82.9% and 76.7% of experts respectively.Assessment of particular parameters: “developmentpains” and underperformers’ concerns Examination of particular parameters of the special indices (the full list was given above, see page 16) was initially planned with respect to how well these parameters allow to identify the differences between the cities and types of cities. “Distinctive” indices were not necessarily selected from the top-priority ones: they were as required and as sufficient as to ensure that the assessment of these particular indices by the experts from different cities vary particularly vastly. The search for such “distinctive” elements of the urban environment was conducted using the method of factor analysis (of the main components), which allows to considerably reduce the number of the indices analyzed and reduce them to a small number of summarized factors. The following main factors were identified (see table 4):
32 TABLE 4. WHICH INDICES EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITIES?* № FACTORS CONTRIBUTION TO GROUPS OF INDICIES OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CITIES, % 1 level of economic development 52 external relations (0,91), transport links with the world (0,83), retail and public catering (0,85), availability of hous- ing (0,79), environment for small business (0,74), man- agement team (0,72), jobs (0,60), technological potential (0,57), modern types of communication (0,54) 2 downside of living in a capital 12 ecology (0,81), absence of corruption (0,77), public trans- port (0,75), culture of citizens (0,69), environment for small business (0,59), strategic planning(0,54) 3 level of residents’ activity 9 education (0,95), public control (0,70), safety (0,68), social activities (0,60) 4 beauty and amenities 7 cultural heritage (0,90), beauty(0,80), amenities (0,63), public spaces (0,52), safety (0,51) * Based on the factor analysis results (average indices for cities) “Economic development” factor can be taken as the principal one: it explains a half of all differ- ences in experts’ evaluations of the cities. “Capital cities’ problems” is called so because it includes the elements that were given the most stern assessment by the experts from Moscow and Saint-Petersburg (type I). According to the experts of capital cities, the worst elements are ecology, public transportation, small-size business. It is here where the authorities are corrupted and have less ability for strategic gov- ernment, and the citizens are most indifferent to their city. The experts from type II cities (Novo- sibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod) and even type IV cities (Ufa, Omsk) on the opposite consider these environmental components in their cities to be relatively fine. “Citizens’ activity” factors divide the experts from the larger type II cities (Yekaterinburg, Novo- sibirsk) and small type III million-population cities (Rostov-on-Don, Samara). The opportunities for social activity and education in their cities the former give high assessment, and the latter, vice-versa, assess it below average. “Urban landscape and development” factor emphasizes rather the individual peculiarities of the cities: Saint- Petersburg and Rostov-on-Don are on the positive pole, Volgograd and Samara are on the negative pole. Thus, according to factor analysis, we can pick out the main groups of problems and strengths identified by the experts from the cities of different types: Type I (“capital cities”): problems concerning the state of roads, public transportation, corruption, strategic planning, ecology, social sector, small enterprises, public spaces, safety. Strengths are technological availability (Moscow) and urban landscape (Petersburg). Type II (“regional capital cities”): the problems, as in the capital cities, refer to the roads, social sphere, public spaces. Relatively strong positions belong to education, social activity, ecology, small enterprises, public transportation, strategic planning.
33 Type III (“small million-population cities” with high economic activity): the problems refer to tech- nological potential, education, social activity, and the strengths include residential spaces, small enterprises, foreign connections. Type IV (“small million-population cities” with low economic activity): the problems refer to edu- cation, residential spaces, employment, trade, safety. low social activity and foreign connections are noted. Small ecological problems (despite hazardous factories in all cities of the group), public transportation, strategic planning and corruption (the latter does not refer to Volgograd).Urban environment diagnosis: where it hurts and whereto start? Each of the indices of the urban environment was assessed by our experts by three components: assessment of the current state, assessment of the expected future state in 10-15 years, and assessment of priority for the city. The interim conclusion demonstrates the reactive nature of selection of priorities of urban policy. It means that as the priorities areas are picked, which are the worst and thus require immediate action, and the areas that do not “hurt” right now but may result in significant growth or, viceversa, deterioration of the situation in the long-term perspective can be postponed. Thus, for example, the most developed areas according to experts – social environment and cultural and aesthetic environment – are of less priority. One of the most important components for career and personal development – conditions for small business – was assessed by the respondents as currently unsatisfactory, problematic and bas (82% of respondents), 65.9% of the respondents consider that this aspect of urban environment should have an above-average priority for the city authorities; as a result, 83.9% of the respondents believe that the conditions for small business will not get worse in the nearest future. On the average, the main priorities were identified as safety and healthcare conditions and conditions for career and personal development. Further analysis demonstrates that the assumption of the reactive nature of priorities selection is true only in part. First of all, the comparison of current assessments, forecasts and priorities by certain indices demonstrates that the experts identify the priorities of at least two different types (see fig. 11): first, the parameters with the lowest assessment of the current state but with hope for substantial improvement within 10-15 years (improvement by 26-30 points, priority of 70-80 points) are road infrastructure, social sphere, conditions for small business; second, the parameters with high assessment of the current state (priority of 67 to 77 points) but expected to worsen (drop by 5-11 points): public utilities availability and conditions for business, major investors and education – of less priority but with even more troubling forecast for the next 10-15 years. Further analysis is built primarily around these indices.
34 FIG. 11. THE STATE THE MAIN URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS ARE IN: STATE, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES Priority 85.0 “GOOD AND Public utilities Social sphere IMPORTANT NOW, BUT 80.0 Road network resources Conditions for THE FORECAST IS “BAD AND IMPORTANT” convenience for Safety DEPRESSING” business 75.0 drivers Public transport Ecology Education Environment for Living conditions 70.0 Comforts small business Cultural heritage Jobs Urban Beauty, 65.0 environment attractiveness Housing Conditions for tourists 60.0 Public spaces 55.0 Transport links “GOOD AND POOR, with the world IT WILL DEVELOP “BAD AND POOR” Modern types of ON ITS OWN” 50.0 communication 45.0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Status Forecast: growth over 10% growth up to 10% decline below 10% decline over 10%
35FIG. 12. EXPERTS’ PERCEPTION OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROBLEM AREAS, IN POINTS Poor and bad Excellent, good 8,1 60,5 10,2 58,5 Higher education Beauty, attractiveness 21,8 34,5 DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUE OF CONCERN Public transport 28,9 31,9 Cultural and historical monuments 27,3 26,9 State of streets and yards 41,0 25,1 Jobs 37,9 17,3 Personal safety 46,3 18 Small business AREA OF PROBLEMS 43,8 15,3 Medicine 54,4 13,1 Schools and kindergartens 56,5 8,0 Ecology 77,7 5,5 Road network 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Condition of the road infrastructure and convenience for drivers is a problem primarily for the experts from the largest cities and the cities with the highest economic intensity. The lower the population and intensity of economic turnover, the less the problem is serious. In the “capital cities”, the problem of road infrastructure is more burning than in the type II “large millionpopulation cities”(Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk): average assessment is 15 points against 24 points. In “small million-population cities” with intensive economic turnover (type III) it is assessed as more acute than in the cities with lower intensity of economic turnover (type IV): average assessment is 17 points against 38 points. The future forecasts smooth these differences a bit, but they still preserve. The priority of the road infrastructure for the city policy is also higher in the “ capital cities” and “ large million- population cities”(types I and II: priority is 82 and 85 points respectively) and is lower in “ small million-population cities”(types III and IV: priority is 79-80 points). While in the cities of the first two types at least two of three experts consider the problem of development of road infrastructure to have the top priority within the activity of the city authorities, in the cities like Samara, Ufa, Chelyabinsk this opinion is supported by 44.4%, 37.5% and 15.4% of respondents respectively.
36 FIG. 13. ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE: CONDITION, FORECAST AND PRIORITY BY CITIES I II III IV Negative situation is observed in 100,0 all cities, aggravation is expected 80,0 everywhere in the future, but 60,0 particularly in the “capital cities” and the largest million-population cities. 40,0 20,0 0,0 Status Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity Assessments of the social sphere on the contrary are relatively equal by all types of cities; the same can be told about the assessment of future conditions and priority. Assessment of urban environment conditions for large business (see fig. 14) and small business (see fig. 15) are contrasting, with considerably different values, but similar in distribution by the cities of different types, which evidences the typicality of problems of large and small businesses in the Russian cities. Conditions for major investors are assessed generally high but with expected deterioration in future, and the conditions for small business, vice-versa, have low assessment of the current state but favorable forecast for the next 10-15 years. Both indices drop, on the one hand, for capital cities and, on the other hand, for type IV cities (first of all, for Volgograd and Omsk), which have less population and less intensive economic turnover. The experts from capital cities forecast future improvement of conditions for small business (forecasted improvement is by 24 points), and the experts from type IV cities forecast a little lower improvement for the major business investor (forecasted improvement is by 6 points). The priority of forming the conditions both for major investors and small business increases in type IV cities (Volgograd, Chelyabinsk, Omsk), but generally, the priority assessments are distributed relatively evenly.
37FIG. 14. CONDITIONS FOR INVESTORS (LARGE BUSINESS): CONDITIONS, FORECASTAND PRIORITY BY THE TYPES OF CITIES The situation is stable, but the priority 90,0 I II III IV of improvement of the environment 80,0 comfort level for large business is going to decrease 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 Status Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity
38 FIG. 15. CONDITIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS: CONDITIONS, FORECAST AND PRIORITY BY THE TYPES OF CITIES The level of attractiveness of the I II III IV environment for small business is low, 80,0 70,0 but the work in improvement of that index is one of the highest priorities in 60,0 the years to come 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 Status Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity When considering the urban environment conditions for different types of businesses, a brief stop should be made on the differences of assessments of urban environment by the different professional groups of respondents. Notably, during the assessment of the current conditions none of the aspects of the urban environment received very overwhelmingly high or low assessments. At the same time, in identification of priorities, all experts were more or less consentient in lower priority of public spaces and, on the average, priority of residential spaces. Civil servants (“officials” and “deputies” categories), public utilities and mass media bloc distinguish by the higher assessment of all aspects of urban environment. While the “deputies” put the highest priorities based on “everything is important” principle, the “officials” tend to cut the priorities, starting from the less important ones, i.e. to focus on the most problematic aspects. The most diverse in identification of priorities are the workers of mass-media, culture and public utilities. The most pessimistic in assessment of the current state are the entrepreneurs and men of art and culture. The most average group in all respects includes experts and scientists, i.e. the very same expert team modern cities need most.
39TABLE 5. WHAT DOES THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT LOOK LIKE AS PERCEPTED BYVARIOUS PROFESSIONAL GROUPS TODAY? CULTURAL SPHERE REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES SERVICE SECTOR SOCIAL SPHERE MASS MEDIA ARCHITECTS MANAGERS BUSINESS DEPUTIES OFFICIALS AVERAGEENVIRONMENT COMPONENTIndex of state of urban environment 53,4 48,8 56,3 49,1 54,8 55,7 57,1 57,3 50,3Natural environment (ecology) 41,2 39,6 40,0 29,8 42,0 39,1 50,5 47,8 39,3Housing 60,8 56,3 69,2 55,7 62,1 66,3 68,8 61,1 56,3Public utilities resources 67,0 58,7 61,5 65,6 70,7 70,5 63,8 72,2 64,7Safety 45,8 44,0 48,6 35,2 45,0 45,5 51,6 52,0 45,5Social sphere 38,6 41,5 33,7 29,3 40,2 38,6 45,0 45,5 33,4Jobs 43,4 37,5 50,0 40,2 44,4 38,6 46,3 42,4 46,4Retail, public catering 73,6 66,3 78,8 71,4 75,2 79,5 76,9 74,3 70,9Public spaces 56,6 48,1 55,8 51,7 58,5 63,0 61,5 60,0 54,0Amenities 48,6 43,3 50,0 45,8 51,4 48,9 47,5 55,6 44,2Public transport 53,5 50,0 46,2 54,2 59,1 56,8 53,8 54,2 47,8Modern types of communication, new technologies 68,3 64,6 71,2 62,0 72,2 73,9 70,6 70,8 62,5Education (higher, professional) 65,6 70,0 65,4 55,2 64,0 71,6 68,8 70,8 63,0Environment for small business 40,2 33,7 38,5 31,5 45,2 35,2 52,5 45,1 35,3Road network, convenience for drivers 22,1 25,0 25,0 16,7 21,7 21,6 27,5 27,1 17,9Transport links with the world 66,2 58,3 78,8 67,7 67,2 71,4 62,5 68,1 63,2Beauty, attractiveness 65,5 55,8 76,9 60,4 65,6 76,1 66,3 71,5 61,2Cultural heritage 56,5 47,1 55,8 53,8 59,4 58,0 60,0 59,4 54,8 – The most positive evaluations (horizontally) – The most negative evaluations (horizontally)
40 TABLE 6. PRIORITIES OF THE WORK WITH THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT ACCORDING TO VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL GROUPS REPRESENTATIVES SERVICE SECTOR CULTURAL SPHERE SOCIAL SPHERE REPRESENTATIVES ARCHITECTS MASS MEDIA MANAGERS BUSINESS BUSINESS DEPUTIES AVERAGE INDEX COMPONENT Natural environment (ecology) 74,1 70,2 84,6 69,6 78,3 79,5 75,0 71,4 69,6 Housing 63,3 64,6 63,5 60,3 63,1 56,8 75,6 71,1 57,4 Public utilities resources 77,2 81,7 80,8 76,0 75,7 76,1 78,9 76,4 76,8 Safety 75,0 72,2 71,2 79,2 77,6 75,0 78,8 66,0 76,9 Social sphere 81,7 78,8 72,9 77,1 81,9 83,3 86,3 85,4 82,1 Jobs 68,6 76,0 61,5 67,7 69,1 62,5 76,3 70,8 64,8 Public spaces 60,7 63,9 59,6 61,5 64,9 53,6 70,0 56,3 56,3 Amenities 71,5 69,2 80,8 74,0 71,4 75,0 78,8 74,3 63,8 Public transport 72,5 76,9 77,1 65,6 69,6 76,1 78,8 72,2 72,7 Modern types of communication, new technologies 51,4 52,8 40,4 50,0 52,5 45,5 56,3 54,9 50,9 Education (higher, professional) 67,5 68,5 51,9 67,7 73,6 68,2 71,3 66,0 62,3 Environment for small business 70,5 73,1 86,5 64,6 66,9 71,6 75,0 65,3 74,1 Road network, convenience for drivers 80,5 80,3 90,4 76,0 77,8 76,7 90,0 80,9 81,5 Transport links with the world 55,8 65,4 50,0 47,8 54,3 58,0 65,0 55,6 53,7 Beauty, attractiveness 67,5 67,3 61,5 67,7 70,6 67,0 77,6 71,5 58,8 Integral assessment of urban environment 69,7 71,2 68,9 68,2 70,4 69,3 76,0 69,7 66,7 – The most priority factors (horizontally) – The least priority (horizontally) Availability of public utilities (the assessment included both availability of gas, water, power supply and condition of the utility systems), as the conditions for business just considered, is also identified as the future problem forecasted by the experts from the largest cities (type I and II; see fig. 16).
41FIG. 16. FORECAST OF CHANGE IN AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC UTILITIES IN 10-15 YEARS 10,0 The situation in the future gets I II III IV quite pessimistic evaluations in 5,0 the “capital cities” and the largest OPTIMISM million-population cities 0,0 Moscow Saint Petersburg Novosibirsk Yekaterinburg Nizhny Novgorod Kazan Samara Omsk Chelyabinsk Rostov-on-Don Ufa Volgograd -5,0 PESSIMISM -10,0 -15,0 -20,0 -25,0 Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity The same problem with the expected aggravation in future and concentration of the negative forecasts in the largest cities is the education for adults (post-secondary education). 44.1% of respondents believe that nothing will change in this area even in 10-15 years, each fifth citizen of the Russian megalopolises considers that the situation will just worsen (see fig.17). The most profound concern with the future state is expressed by the experts from the traditionally strong university and academic centers, mainly those of Saint-Petersburg (forecasted drop is by 15 points) and Novosibirsk (drop by 25 points).
42 FIG. 17. FORECAST OF CONDITIONS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN 10-15 YEARS 5,0 The overall concern for the future I II III IV OPTIMISM of higher and professional educa- 0,0 tion (with the exception of Ufa) Moscow Saint Petersburg Novosibirsk Yekaterinburg Nizhny Novgorod Kazan Samara Omsk Chelyabinsk Rostov-on-Don Ufa Volgograd -5,0 PESSIMISM -10,0 -15,0 -20,0 -25,0 -30,0 Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity Life safety and condition of public transportation are another two indices (see fig.18), which are mainly important for “capital cities” (type I) (see fig.19), where the current state of safety and public transportation is assessed most critically, and the priority of both problems is particularly high. Critical assessments of the public transportation also prevail in “small million-population cities” with developed trade and economy (type III: Rostov-on-Don, Samara), but by the experts from these cities the priority of this problem is assessed lower.
43FIG. 18. LIFE SAFETY: CONDITIONS, FORECAST AND PRIORITY BY CITIES One of the highest-priority indices, 90,0 I II III IV the expected change of the situation 80,0 is insignificant, the work is aimed at containment of negative factors 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 Status Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity
44 FIG. 19. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: CONDITIONS, FORECAST AND PRIORITY BY CITIES The worst the situation gets, the more 90,0 I II III IV the citizens are concerned, a critical 85,0 issue for the “capital cities” and the largest million-population cities 80,0 75,5 70,0 65,0 60,0 55,0 50,0 45,0 40,0 Status Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity “Non-capital” problems, which are more typical for “small million-population cities” (types III and IV) include, first of all, the problems of urban development, employment, transport communication with other countries. Volgograd and Omsk, according to the local experts, are the cities experiencing these particular problems. Other problems and priorities in the framework of our survey should be considered more like individual, relating to particular cities. Ecological conditions of the city is identified as the top priority in Chelyabinsk, Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, and the most critical assessment (without high priority) of the natural environment in the city was given by the experts in Moscow and Volgograd. Accommodation availability was given the top priority in Volgograd and Nizhny Novgorod, employment needs – in Rostov-on-Don, Kazan and Petersburg, cultural heritage and creation of good travel conditions – in Petersburg and Kazan.
45FIG. 20. WHICH URBAN ENVIRONMENT PARAMETERS SHOULD BE HANDLED,ACCORDING TO EXPERTSRoad network 60,0 22,9 9,8 7,3Personal safety 39,2 31,5 22,0 7,3Ecology 34,6 37,1 19,9 8,5Small business 30,4 35,5 24,2 9,9Public transport 30,4 34,1 30,0 5,5 Very importantHistorical and cultural monuments 27,0 35,4 26,6 10,9Jobs 24,6 36,0 27,6 11,8 ImportantState of streets and yards 21,9 48,2 24,5 5,5 AverageEducation 20,7 38,9 30,9 9,5 PoorAppearance of the city 15,9 47,6 29,2 7,4Quality of public recreational areas 12,4 35,3 37,8 14,5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Of course, such forecasts should be trusted with care, especially because we already demon- strated that the estimates of the experts are first of all specifically interpreted assessment and identification of problems of current conditions and vastly depend on the professional activity of the respondents. Nevertheless, these assessments can also be useful as a preliminary guide one does not need to agree with – the more important is the incentive to think about the changes that will occur in the cities in 10-15 years. The future forecasted by our experts – let’s imagine their forecasts come true – may be de- scribed very briefly: “everything is as now, but less contrasts, the difference between the cities is smoothed”. Well-off cities and cities with problems, strong and weak components – all of them, according to the experts, will tend to some average level, though they will not reach it. In such conditional future, for example, the significant difference between the “large million popu- lation cities” and “small million-population cities” (types II-IV) will considerably decrease: right now the “small million-population cities” (types III and IV), by their own assessment, are behind “large” ones (type II), but in the near future they will align themselves and together outstrip the two “capital cities”. Despite the unlikeliness of such scenario, it reflects one of the tendencies we continuously observe in the urban and regional development. Achievements that once belonged to a few leaders became wide-spread over time: city lighting, drainage systems, schools, multi-storey houses, telephone communication – all of these urban elements, as many others, have passed this way. The diffusion of innovations model describing such expansion may give us some very general guidelines on what the largest Russian cities will become in 2020s.
46 Along with evening the conditions following the spreading of novelties from some cities to oth- ers, more and more factors for preservation of inequality arise. The leading cities do not allow to outstrip them: they reach a new stage of development and “vanish in the distance”. Moscow and Saint-Petersburg, the primary drivers of the urban development in our country, are also subject to this regularity. They are the part of the system of global cities and also adopt everything that occurs in the largest cities of the world. This part of the urban development is not covered much by our research, it should be studied by other methods. Our survey, as we hope, will allow to find something else: what achievements and problems that are inherent in the capital cities now will in future become typical for other million-population cit- ies? The list of problems and priorities drawn up according to the experts’ answers is a hint. First of all, we can suppose that today’s problems – roads, healthcare, schools and kindergartens, to some extent – ecology and safety can really become the areas, the state of which will improve. It may occur particularly because these problems must become the point of application of con- siderable resources and efforts accumulated in our capital cities. Analysis of projects that in the opinion in of our experts already improve the state of the cities (see section E) supports such assumption. Investments in roads and social projects that take place today, may be successful to a higher or lower extent, but there still will be some output, whether considerable or not. Another harbinger of future for the million-population cities of Russia may become the problems that currently bother mainly the experts of capital cities: public utilities condition and infrastruc- ture, as well as higher and vocational education. It is doubtful that the authorities and residents of millionpopulation cities will be able to prevent the crisis in these areas, if any, but they can prepare for it, study the relevant experience and stock up the necessary resources – firstly, it is needed to concentrate on these problems, monitor them more closely. One of the likely symptoms of the upcoming crisis is the state of business environment, condi- tions for major investors. 2000s (the period of major urban development devoted to megaproj- ects and anniversaries, active phase of work of the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation, foundation of the governmental corporation based on Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs, launch of the special economic zones instrument, etc) almost for all million-population cities were the period of growth, introduction of new techniques of work with investors. 2010s and 2020s will most likely address the problems and limitations in this area. Deterioration of the investment environment is expected in 10-15 years mainly in “capital cities” and ”large million-population cities” (Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod). Another hint the diffusion of innovations model can give is the idea of “inheriting” the problems and advantages from the most economically developed cities to the least economically devel- oped cities This model assumes that in the perspective considered, the cities of each type will probably rise to the problems more advanced cities experience now (see above). Hopefully, they will gain not only the problems but the possibilities and schemes that will be found in the pioneering cities working in these areas now. This is another reason why the expertise of the leading Russian cities, their problems and decisions are important not only for themselves but, in close perspective, for the second-level cities, not only those with the million population, but all large cities.
49С. Target groups satisfaction indexFor whom the largest Russian cities are comfortable, how can thesituation can be changed to better? Apart from the overall assessment for an average citizen, our research was aimed at the comfort of the city for certain target groups of citizens or visitors. Generalized assessment given by the experts identifies two contrasting groups – consumers of urban environment. The experts consider that in million-population cities of Russia the most favorable conditions are present for business investors rather than for other identified groups, while for the tourists, both foreign and, to the lesser extent, Russian, the city conditions are the least comfortable. The generalized values of partial indices of comfort of Russian million- population cities are: for residents and tourists – 51.2 and 52.3 points respectively against 67.9 points for business needs. Such assessment gives us the image of cities that are better for work, economy and production rather than for recreation and creativity. The conditions of the leisure time (including for tourists as the most obvious type of “lazybones” that requires attention) in the city is considered now the secondary priorities of development of the urban environment. “City for citizens” – a slogan that became popular in the western urban studies after Jane Jacobs, – in Russian context it means the improvement of everyday life, home rest and primary needs in care about oneself, family and children (healthcare, school, etc.), but not the new approach in town-planning. A city as a place for rest outside of one’s apartment (“conditions for tourists”, “public spaces”, “aesthetics and beauty” components in our survey) looks insufficiently developed according to our experts, but the objective to correct the situation is postponed for an indefinite time (see section B “Urban environment index”). The priorities are still improvement of the cities’ functionality, overcoming the collapses of their growth. Two opposite, in the opinion of experts, groups – investors and tourists – were studied by us in better details: what parameters important for these groups are better in the largest Russian cities, and which, according to experts, are behind.
50 FIG. 21. WHO THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT IS COMFORTABLE FOR IN RUSSIA? Investors, business 20,6 41,2 29,8 6,3 4,0 Highly qualified specialists 17,2 39,9 26,4 13,6 2,9 Creative people 15,1 32,5 32,5 13,3 4,4 Scientists, research workers 15,9 31,5 30,0 14,4 8,1 Workers without special skills or education 12,9 28,4 41,0 13,3 6,6 Cities for work, and Russian tourists 11,6 29,5 37,5 18,5 2,9 not leisure Foreign tourists 8,8 23,7 39,4 24,1 2,2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Pleasant, Fairly pleasant, Average Fairly unpleasant Unpleasant comfortable comfortable The peculiarities of assessments for the target groups distinguishing the cities and categories of experts were generally predictable. In certain cities, the trend “city for work, and not leisure” is expressed to quite a different extent. As the most “single-profile” cities, well-developed first of for business, the experts from Chelyabinsk (assessment of comfort for business – 85 points, for tourists – 46 points) and Samara (70 and 39 points respectively) assessed their cities. More diverse but also with the trend towards business interests were Yekaterinburg (for business – 81 point, for tourists – 43 points), Rostov-on-Don (76 and 38 points respectively) and Moscow (70 and 40 points respectively). As relatively more comfortable for all of the above listed groups, Saint-Petersburg, Kazan and Rostov- on-Don were assessed. Even if we consider that such high scores are given only against the less developed environment of the “regular, average” Russian million-population cities, and comparison with European cities of the same size would give a more critical assessment, the perception itself of their cities as relative leaders in development of the urban environment may become and incentive to enhance these advantages, put work into them. As relatively more comfortable for all of the aforesaid groups, Petersburg, Kazan and Rostov-on-Don were assessed. Even if we consider that such high scores were given first of all in comparison with the less developed environment of “regular, average” Russian million-population cities, and comparison with the European cities of the similar size would result in more critical assessment, the perception itself of their cities as relative leaders in development of the urban environment may become a stimulus for enhancing these advantages, put work into them. In comparison with the average assessments by particular target groups, the experts from the regional capital cities (Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk) distinguish by their high optimism, while the experts from the “regular” million-population cities (Volgograd, Omsk, Chelyabinsk, this group also includes Samara) are more pessimistic.
51 Petersburg experts assess the environment of their city as favorable for tourists (for Russian tourists – 83 points, for foreign ones – 67 points) and men of art (67 points); Novosibirsk and Yekaterinburg experts consider their cities favorable for scientific workers (comfort score – 81 and 76 points respectively). Novosibirsk and Yekaterinburg experts, along with those from Petersburg and Moscow, consider their cities to be favorable for highly-qualified specialist. Yekaterinburg and Chelyabinsk respondents identify high attractiveness of their cities for businessmen (comfort score – 81 and 85 points respectively). In all of these cases, it is typically spoken about the accumulated advantages, about traditional specialization of the city or region. Unfavorable, against the average value, assessments belong to three-four cities. Experts from Volgograd and Omsk consider their cities to be low-comfortable for investors, tourists and qualified specialists (in Chelyabinsk – only for tourists), experts from Volgograd and Chelyabinsk identify unfavorable conditions for the men of art. Thus, negative assessment is most often given in “regular million-population cities” (type IV) with lower population and economic possibilitiesTABLE 7. ASSESSMENT BY EXPERTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT COMFORT FOR RESEARCH WORKERS WORKERS WITHOUT FOREIGN TOURISTS RUSSIAN TOURISTS SPECIAL SKILLS OR HIGHLY QUALIFIED CREATIVE PEOPLE SCIENTISTS AND INVESTORS AND SPECIALISTS EDUCATION BUSINESSCITYSaint Petersburg 55,6 61,1 66,7 77,8 50,0 83,3 66,7Rostov-on-Don 76,2 52,4 57,1 66,7 55,0 38,1 42,9Kazan 59,1 54,5 40,9 54,5 45,5 68,2 54,5Moscow 70,3 45,1 56,2 69,3 42,7 40,0 45,3Yekaterinburg 81,0 76,2 71,4 76,2 42,9 47,6 42,9Novosibirsk 66,7 81,0 52,4 70,0 61,9 57,1 47,6Ufa 54,2 41,7 54,2 45,8 45,8 41,7 45,8Nizhny Novgorod 47,1 50,0 46,7 43,8 56,3 52,9 47,1Samara 70,6 50,0 38,9 44,4 52,9 44,4 38,9Chelyabinsk 84,6 61,5 61,5 53,8 58,3 46,2 53,8Omsk 66,7 38,5 53,8 46,2 38,5 53,8 50,0Volgograd 50,0 83,3 66,7 50,0 58,3 41,7 58,3Average for cities 62,8 58,0 53,4 50,6 53,1 48,3 48,8 The cells reflect the values of negative or positive evaluations Most favourable Average Less favourable
52 Among the professional groups the most critical almost in respect of all positions are architects: their assessments coincide with the average ones only for two most unpretentious groups – low-qualified workers and Russian tourists, and for remaining groups of assessment well below average. Deputies and officials assess the comfort for the men of art and scientists higher than other experts, service specialist are more critical in assessment of environment for the men of art and highly-qualified specialists, and other assessments are generally around average. Assessments of business area experts are, unexpectedly, particularly close to average, without any significant difference from the generalized assessment. TABLE 8. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMFORT FOR PARTICULAR TARGET GROUPS (BY EXPERT GROUPS) PESSIMISTS OPTIMISTS REPRESENTATIVES SERVICE SECTOR CULTURAL SPHERE SOCIAL SPHERE REPRESENTATIVES MASS MEDIA ARCHITECTS MANAGERS OFFICIALS BUSINESS DEPUTIES OVERALL TARGET GROUPS Investors, business 67,9 59,3 73,2 64,6 69,7 70,5 65,0 71,6 67,5 Highly qualified specialists 63,7 54,8 66,1 62,5 66,3 53,4 68,8 68,4 63,6 Creative people 59,0 42,3 48,2 58,3 63,0 50,0 61,3 68,4 61,2 Scientists, research workers 58,1 45,0 60,7 52,2 60,2 52,3 65,0 63,8 59,2 Workers without special skills or education 58,0 57,4 60,7 51,1 60,1 50,0 60,0 60,5 58,5 Russian tourists 57,1 52,7 53,6 53,1 63,5 55,7 56,3 55,9 55,3 Foreign tourists 52,3 40,2 48,2 55,2 56,9 52,3 51,3 53,4 51,8 – The most positive evaluations (horizontally) – The most negative evaluations (horizontally) Environment for investors: what are the problems, who can resolve them Infrastructural limitations and quality of management, ability of city and regional administrations to interact with investors, are the weakest environmental components in the Russian cities. The following components were assessed critically low: (1) availability of sites for new production (37.7% of negative assessments of experts) and (2) mechanisms of state or municipal support of investors (40.6%).
53FIG. 22. WHAT IS COMFORTABLE AND WHAT IS UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE URBANENVIRONMENT FOR INVESTORS?Mechanisms of state or municipal support forprojects 1,9 15,0 42,5 28,2 12,4 Discomfort zone – inactive mechanismsSites for new production 17,2 3,0 42,2 28,4 9,3 of public private partnershipAvailability of loans 9,3 36,2 34,7 13,8 5,0Office / retail spaces for rental 11,1 45,4 29,5 12,1 2,8Possibility of finding staff with necessary 11,6 41,4 31,7 13,1 4,9qualifications in the city 0 20 40 60 80 100 Comfort zone – infrastructure and human capital assets Excellent Good Average Poor Bad The quality of administrative support is assessed as quite high (“C+”) only by the officials and deputies themselves. The situation with investment sites is assessed as minimally satisfactory (52.3 points of 100) only by the men of culture, who, as a rule, are not involved in this area. The businessmen themselves assess the availability of sites much more critically than other groups (37.3 points). For certain cities a relative optimism was expressed by the experts from Novosibirsk (sites and support), Chelyabinsk (sites), Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan (support). This “optimism” is also quite relative, meaning only the minimum satisfactory assessment against unsatisfactory ones in other cities. Thus, the problem is also acknowledged here.
54 TABLE 9. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FOR TOURISTS BY PROFESSIONAL GROUPS REPRESENTATIVES SERVICE SECTOR CULTURAL SPHERE SOCIAL SPHERE REPRESENTATIVES MASS MEDIA ARCHITECTS MANAGERS OFFICIALS BUSINESS DEPUTIES OVERALL TARGET GROUPS Mechanisms of state or municipal support for 41,4 29,6 44,6 36,9 43,2 44,0 53,8 49,3 35,5 projects Sites for new production 44,0 43,5 41,1 52,3 46,8 46,6 46,3 43,1 37,3 Availability of loans 57,3 49,1 57,1 63,6 60,0 61,9 62,5 57,6 51,7 Possibility of finding staff with necessary 61,8 50,0 57,1 65,2 67,8 65,9 63,8 63,9 56,5 qualifications in the city Office/retail spaces for rental 62,9 60,2 73,2 60,9 61,8 63,6 70,0 66,9 58,6 – The most positive evaluations (horizontally) – The most negative evaluations (horizontally) Environment for tourists: backdoor urban policy Urban environment for tourists is a so-called “grey zone” which is considered by our experts to be not very successful and not of high priority in comparison with other areas (see section B “Urban environment index”). The position of authorities seems the same: its enough to compare the administrative and political weight of officials responsible for work with investors and for tourism (typically, in addition to sports, youths and entrepreneurship) almost in any city or regional administration. The positive side of this situation is only that from the crouch of not very good initial conditions more impressive progress can be achieved, but in order to do this, at least the change in priorities of the city authorities, and, after all, of the citizens themselves is required. Right now, in the territorial marketing, city investment strategies, the stake is usually made on “chimney hunt”, on work with a limited number of major investors, whether actual or potential. The problems of such policy, its inevitable limitations will be realized only gradually, and so gradually, most likely, the importance of work with tourists, or rather, for tourists, will be enhanced. Now, among the projects that, in the experts’ opinion, have changed the environment of their cities to better (see section F “Success history”), an entire set of project was named aimed at large businesses – exhibitions, business centers, state-private projects, while the projects that have somehow improved the environment for the tourists were never named. Almost the only exception, rather supporting the overall tendency, was mentioning by one of the Petersburg experts of the city program for replacing the street signs with new one improving orientation (navigation) in the city.
55 Insufficient comfort for the tourists the experts refer first of all to convenience (or rather inconvenience) of navigation in the city, i.e. ability to find the required object (a house, a place of interest, etc.) and the opportunity to rent the accommodation of the required class (hotels, hostels, apartment for rent). The best situation is with cafes and restaurants.FIG. 23. ASSESSMENT OF PARTICULAR URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FORTOURISTSEase of finding your way around in city 6,3 30,9 36,8 20,8 5,2Hotels, hostels, short-term accommodation rentals 7,4 32,4 36,8 19,5 4,0 ExcellentInformation, city web portal 7,4 34,9 37,1 16,5 4,0 GoodTrips round the city, to museums 6,2 34,1 42,5 14,2 3,9 AverageResidents’ attitute to tourists 8,0 45,8 35,2 8,2 3,7 PoorCafes, restaurants etc for tourists 22,2 40,0 27,8 7,2 3,2 Bad 0 20 40 60 80 100 The assessments made by the managers of the service sector are interesting first of all by that the assessments of the public service workers – of those who, supposedly, must perceive the city as a service industry – were very close to the average assessments. No considerable differences in assessments of the particular components of the “city for tourists” were found, deep down: primarily, general attitude to the urban environment is seen, whether more critical (architects) or more optimistic (journalists, deputies, officials). See table 10.
56 TABLE 10. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FOR TOURISTS BY PROFESSIONAL GROUPS PESSIMISTS REPRESENTATIVES SERVICE SECTOR CULTURAL SPHERE SOCIAL SPHERE REPRESENTATIVES MASS MEDIA ARCHITECTS MANAGERS OFFICIALS DEPUTIES TARGET GROUPS OVERALL Ease of finding your way around in city 53,1 42,3 64,3 51,0 55,1 47,6 61,3 58,1 Hotels, hostels, short-term accommodation rentals 54,9 44,4 64,3 56,3 58,0 52,3 60,5 54,7 Information, city web portal 56,3 48,1 58,9 52,1 62,0 51,1 60,5 62,8 Trips round the city, to museums 56,6 50,0 60,7 65,6 57,6 56,8 59,2 56,1 Residents attitute to tourists 62,0 58,3 66,1 52,1 61,8 56,3 72,2 68,2 Cafes, restaurants etc for tourists 68,1 63,0 76,8 67,7 68,6 69,0 73,7 66,9 – The most positive evaluations (horizontally) – The most negative evaluations (horizontally) On the territorial basis, on one hand, there are cities with higher assessment of majority of touristic parameters – Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Saint-Petersburg; on the other hand – in many respects polar Moscow and Volgograd united by similarly low expert assessments of tourist environment. Given the different complexity of objectives required for development of those cities for tourists, different criteria of quality of such development, such unexpected similarity becomes understandable.
57TABLE 11. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FOR TOURISTS BY CITIES ST. PETERSBURG YEKATERINBURG NIZHNY NOVGOROD CHELYABINSK NOVOSIBIRSK VOLGOGRAD ROSTOV-ON- MOSCOW OVERALL SAMARA KAZAN OMSK DON UFAEase of finding your way 53,1 44,9 52,9 50,0 64,3 59,5 56,0 50,0 54,5 41,7 57,7 58,3 68,8around in cityHotels, hostels, short-term 54,9 45,1 65,3 48,4 69,0 52,4 55,0 61,1 72,7 27,3 67,3 56,3 56,3accommodation rentalsInformation, city web portal 56,3 47,7 59,7 53,1 64,3 61,9 57,1 59,7 63,6 34,1 71,2 65,2 52,1Trips round the city, to 56,6 61,5 73,6 54,7 60,7 56,0 56,0 51,4 59,1 29,5 57,7 44,8 47,9museumsResidents attitute to tourists 62,0 50,3 72,1 65,6 66,7 71,4 69,7 65,6 69,0 59,1 55,8 62,5 68,8Cafes, restaurants etc for 68,1 64,7 72,1 67,2 82,1 73,8 63,1 67,6 73,9 47,7 76,9 62,5 68,8tourists – The most positive evaluations (horizontally) – The most negative evaluations (horizontally) Two parameters of the urban environment we selected – “business environment” and “tourist environment” – differ substantially, including by their position in the current priorities of the city authorities. First is relatively good (for now) and recognized, but threatens to worsen, the second is on the background, with unclear perspectives of improvement. What is common between these two areas is that in both cases the crucial importance will be the developments in Moscow and Petersburg. Secondly, in both cases the expert assessments of all samples were ideally close to the assessments that are, supposedly, more professional: assessments of the businessmen in case of investment environment, and assessment of the service workers in case of tourism. Such coincidence may be considered another argument in favor of the public examination of the urban problems, in which the people with different professional experience are involved. In order to find managerial and strategic decisions of what to be done with investment and tourism environment, we can also rely, at least at first approximation, on recommendations resulting from our expert survey. The work for the favor of business shall be concentrated primarily on the mechanisms of administrative support and availability of investment sites. The work for tourists shall be concentrated on understandable, easy navigation in the city and provision of short-term renting of accommodation for visitors.
58 D. URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT FACTORS INDEX
59D. Urban environment development factors index “What is important for the city development?”D1. System of government, technologies or human capital: which isthe catalyst for development of urban environment in Russia? Condition of factors determining the level of development of Russian million-population cities is analyzed by a number of indices (over 10), which are further organized in three categories: (1) quality of social environment, (2) government, (3) technologies (the details see above on page 16). As in case with different aspects of the urban environment, all indices were assessed by the experts as of current state of affairs, in 10-15 years perspective and priority in the activity of city authorities. The condition of the environment development factors was assessed by the experts lower (index is 47.1 of 100 points) than the condition of the urban environment as a whole (53.6 points) and satisfaction by the quality of urban environment by the main target groups (57.5 points). This fact allows to conclude that there is a considerable potential of development of the urban environment in Russia, the exact model of implementation of which is yet to be identified. The residents of Russian megalopolises are mostly satisfied with the level of their integration in the country-wide context, primarily, by the level of development of foreign relations and communications; current level of technological development and state of affairs concerning strategic documents on the city level (60,4; 56,6 and 48,2 points respectively). We can not say that, according to the experts’ assessment, agglomeration potential in Russia is used efficiently: in our 100-point grading system, this factor occupies an average position. In future, no stake is also made on it: 53.7% of the experts consider it the average priority and assess it as a perspective area of activity of city authorities below average. We have united the factors with such assessments by the conditional principle: “why change while it is still not bad”. The primary concern of the citizens no is the state of public control, anticorruption policy and city culture (30,2; 31,2 and 37,1 points respectively). At the same time, 48.6% of respondents consider these factors to be of average priority and assess their opportunities in the activity of the authorities below average (principle “too bad, no sense to try to improve”) (fig. 24)
60 FIG. 24. FACTORS THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITIES DEPEND ON: STATUS, FORECAST, PRIORITIES (EXPERT ASSESSMENT, POINTS) 1 Culture,attitude to the city 100 8 2 Status Тechnological potential Social activities Forecast 57 72 56 57 37 46 7 66 60 0 46 58 3 External relations 30 City management team 31 48 53 61 49 4 6 Strategies Marked by experts as the Public control high priority areas of work 5 Anti-corruption FIG. 25. WHAT AREAS OF URBAN LIFE ARE OF TOP PRIORITY THAT CITY AUTHORITIES SHOULD IMPROVE IN FIRST PLACE? (POINTS) Fight against corruption in city management and 50,7 24,3 16,2 8,8 municipal services Have to be of high Drawing up a reasonable strategy and town planning 48,5 31,6 14,3 5,5 policy priority according Improving city management system, selection of to experts management staff 36,9 33,6 21,8 7,7 Support for civil initiatives, bottom-up activity 19,0 32,5 33,6 15,0 Upbringing city patriotism, cuture of behaviour in the city 18,0 35,3 33,1 13,6 Technical equipment of city facilities 16,5 34,8 40,3 8,4 Areas with no priority Development of cooperation with other cities, regions 12,6 33,8 39,3 14,4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Highest priority Above average Average priority Below average priority or not quite priority priority and Below average priority
61 When identifying the priorities for the authorities, explicit preference was given to strengthening the managerial function without setting precise objectives. In Russian cities, the hope for effec- tive management team is high. The experts surveyed consider that city authorities should pri- marily develop the competent strategy and town-planning policy (identified as priority by 75% of respondents), anticorruption drive in city government and economy (80.1%), should improve the system of government of the city by hiring professional managers (51.5%) (fig. 25). The resulting image does not differ much for different cities, the differences mainly relate to po- sitioning the first three priorities (see fig. 26)FIG. 26. WHICH FACTORS’ LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT RUSSIAN CITIES ARE PROUD OFTODAY, ACCORDING TO EXPERTS? Nizhny Novgorod Saint Petersburg Rostov-on-Don Yekaterinburg Chelyabinsk Novosibirsk Volgograd Moscow Samara Kazan Omsk Ufa 1 Most favourable factors Factor’s position on the scale of expert assessment 2 3 6 Less favourable factors 7 8 * A top down factor average priority scale External relations Technological potential Strategies Social activities City management team Culture,attitude to the city Anti-corruption Public control
62 The level of economic activity of the city in many aspects predetermines the assessment by its residents of the urban environment development factors: it is “large” and “small” millionpopulation cities with high level of economic activity (city types II and III), where the assessments were the highest. Yekaterinburg is an absolute leader in terms of the status of the factors, which are essential for the urban environment development, it is followed by Kazan and Novosibirsk. Given that it is these cities are the first by the urban environment current status indices (after Saint- Petersburg, though), a conclusion can be made that it is these cities, where the development of the urban environment is managed best (most efficiently). The category of cities with the lowest assessment of environment development factors includes, on the one hand, the largest city – Moscow – as a result of the maximum “Capital cities’ problems” and, on the other hand, Volgograd, as a representative of the most “problematic” IV type of cities with the worst urban environment indices. FIG. 27. TOP 3 OF THE MOST IMPORTANT URBAN DEVELOPMENT FACTORS (BY CITIES THAT ARE NEEDED TO BE WORKED WITH (ACCORDING TO EXPERTS) Nizhny Novgorod Saint Petersburg Rostov-on-Don Yekaterinburg Chelyabinsk Novosibirsk Factor’s position on the scale of expert assessment Volgograd Moscow Samara Kazan Omsk Ufa 1 Most favourable factors 2 3 Strategies * A top down factor average priority scale Anti-corruption Management team Technological potential Culture, attitude to the city Social activities Public control External relations
63 The importance of anticorruption policy is still urgent in all megalopolises: in no city this factor occupies the position lower than third in the list of priorities, and in Moscow, Chelyabinsk and Rostov-on-Don it even took the first place (see fig.27). Only in three cities – Ufa, Rostov-on-Don and Yekaterinburg – the most important factors also included city culture and attitude to the city. For Chelyabinsk, one of the top priorities was availability of the well-developed foreign relations, which is possibly conditioned by the border position of the Chelyabinsk region (bordering Kazakhstan).TABLE 12. PERCEPTION OF THE STATUS OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE URBANENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT, ACCORDING TO EXPERTS (BY PROFESSIONAL GROUPS,POINTS) PESSIMISTS PESSIMISTS OPTIMISTS REPRESENTATIVES SERVICE SECTOR CULTURAL SPHERE SOCIAL SPHERE REPRESENTATIVES ARCHITECTS MANAGERS OFFICIALS BUSINESS DEPUTIES OVERALL MEDIAF. QUALITY OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 41,5 38,8 41,9 40,5 41,3 41,6 48,3 44,4 39,2Culture, attitude to the city 37,1 37,5 34,6 33,3 38,5 35,2 42,5 41,2 33,3Social activities 46,1 40,2 49,7 48,3 44,1 48,0 54,4 48,4 44,4G. MANAGEMENT 43,4 35,5 50,2 33,8 42,7 41,7 55,0 57,3 37,2Management team 45,9 34,3 48,2 33,7 48,6 45,5 60,0 60,5 38,5Strategies 48,2 46,0 68,8 37,5 44,7 44,9 61,3 66,1 37,5Anti-corruption 31,2 22,2 30,4 21,6 30,0 26,2 45,0 46,5 28,4Public control 30,2 24,1 28,6 24,0 27,4 31,8 43,8 44,1 25,0External relations 60,4 51,9 62,5 52,2 62,0 72,7 60,5 65,5 56,0H. TECHNOLOGIES 56,6 51,3 59,8 51,6 60,0 60,8 60,6 61,2 50,2 Most positive perception (horizontally) Most negative perception (horizontally)
64 FIG. 28. ESSENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT: CONDI- TION, PRIORITIES, FORECAST (ALL RESPONDENTS, POINTS ON THE GIVEN SCALE) “BAD AND IMPORTANT” “GOOD AND IMPORTANT” 20,0 Priority 15,0 Strategies 10,0 Anti-corruption Public control Management team 5,0 Status 0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Culture, -5,0 Technological potential attitude to city Social activities External relations -10,0 -15,0 “BAD AND UNIMPORTANT” “GOOD AND UNIMPORTANT” -20,0 Growth in forecast significance High (more than 20 points) Average (from 10 to 20 points) Low (less than 10 points) The resulting distribution of assessments of factors by different categories of experts allows to suppose that modern city authorities sees itself as an “only European”, successful, competent and honest surrounded by poorly active citizens: 55% of deputies and 60.6% of officials consider the activity of members of city administrations as good and excellent, but only 10.4% of businessmen, 30,6% of scientists and independent experts and 27.4% of all respondents as a whole share this opinion. Launching the process of closing of society and authorities in the cities of Russia seems impossible without involvement of independent examination, the role of which in our country is definitely underestimated. 50.2% of the experts assessed the participation of independent experts and specialists in development of strategic city documents (strategies of social and economic development and master plans) as insufficient, 65.5% respondents believe that the extent of participation of public organizations in this process shall be increased (see below in more details). As a result, we see the situation when the independent experts and members of the scientific community weakly or very weakly affect the situation in the cities (opinion of 67.4% of respondents), while the influence of power vertical dominates (in strong and not very strong influence of which over 3/4 of respondents are positive). This definitely dramatically limits the access to Russian and international examination, application of the world’s best practices while deeply understanding the Russian realities and peculiarities.
65FIG. 29. ESSENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT: STATUS, PRI-ORITIES, FORECAST (“GOVERNMENT” CATEGORY, POINTS ON THE GIVEN SCALE) “BAD AND IMPORTANT” 20,0 Priority 15,0 Anti-corruption Strategies 10,0 Management team 5,0 Status 0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Technological potential -5,0 Culture, Social activities Public control -10,0 attitude to city -15,0 External relations “BAD AND UNIMPORTANT” “GOOD AND UNIMPORTANT” -20,0 Growth in forecast significance High (more than 20 points) Average (from 10 to 20 points) Low (less than 10 points) If the assessment of experts from business area turns out to be true, in 2020s we will live in the cities provided with better strategic plans, but they still will be implemented by the same corrupted city authorities. 32.4% of businessmen believe that the definiteness and clarity of strategy by that time will improve. 47.7% of entrepreneurs said that in 10-15 years the corruption of the city officials will remain the same; 28.1% consider that it will substantially aggravate. The success of such government will, according to businessmen, be quite relative, if to judge, for example, by the forecast of development of technological potential. The best assessment was given by the businessmen to the factors of technologies and foreign relations, i.e. the factors conditions to the large extent not by the actions of the city authorities, but objective processes in economy and society. Only every third entrepreneur believes that technical equipment of the city economy and development of cooperation with the other cities and regions are of above average priority within the activity of the city authorities. At the same time, 91.1% of the businessmen assess the improvement of future saturation of the city environment with new information technologies very optimistically. Businessmen, in their turn, distinguish by the far more critical assessment of the current city government. High priority of the managerial staff in this case meets the principle “what is important is currently all bad” (see fig.30).
66 FIG. 30. ESSENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT: STATUS, PRIORITIES, FORECAST (“BUSINESS” CATEGORY, POINTS) 20,0 Priority “BAD AND IMPORTANT” “GOOD AND IMPORTANT” 15,0 Strategies 10,0 5,0 Management team Anti-corruption Culture, attitude to city Status 0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Technological potential External relations -5,0 Public control Social activities -10,0 -15,0 “BAD AND UNIMPORTANT” “GOOD AND UNIMPORTANT” -20,0 Growth in forecast significance High (more than 20 points) Average (from 10 to 20 points) Low (less than 10 points) Social activity in the cities: what is the optimism conditioned by? The representatives of the sectors of culture and art, public services and business, independent experts and scientists put the factor of development of social initiatives in top 3 of the factors in the best condition. And none of the experts included this factor in the priorities of the activity of the city authorities. The highest level of the social activity, in the experts’ opinion, can be seen in the largest millionpopulation cities with high intensity of economic processes, i.e. in type I and II cities. The number of active citizens concerned about the social aspects of urban development is much less in socalled “small million-population cities” (types III and IV): probably, it is the current unsatisfactory situation of development of civil initiatives allows the citizens of this cities to give more optimistic forecasts of development of the social activity within 10-15 years.
67FIG. 31. SOCIAL ACTIVITY: ASSESSMENT, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES BY CITIES 80,0 Now the indices are low, but the I II III IV experts expect their growth in the 75,0 future: less considerable in the “capital 70,0 cities” and more intensive in other 65,0 millionpopulation cities 60,0 55,0 50,0 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Status Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity The results of the regression analysis conducted confirmed that the high level of social activity is crucial for forming high-quality social environment (in respect of healthcare, pre-school and secondary education). It is these areas, where the residents of type III and IV cities expect some improvements in 10-15 years. Representatives of “Mass-media” category, along with deputies, gave the highest assessments to the role of the social activity (50.4 and 54.4 points respectively), it is their job to reflect the public attitude and identify the problems. At the same time, the architects, who do not have the instruments of constructive and understandable dialog with the community have assessed this factor considerably lower (39.5 points). Relatively low assessments were given to the participation of citizens in the public and charity projects important for the city: every third resident of megalopolis considers that the extent of participation in such events in his city is lower than in other large cities of Russia. Self- identification is improved when it comes to improvement of own home or adjacent territory: a third of respondents believe they are more active than the citizens of other cities. The most important social activity became the activity for protection and restoration of the monuments and places of interest: every second respondent agreed that there much more of such activists in his city than in other cities (see fig. 32).
68 FIG. 32. DO YOU THINK THERE ARE MANY ACTIVE CITIZENS IN YOUR CITY IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES OF RUSSIA? (% OF THE RESPONDENTS ANSWERED) Below average Above average 36,1 19,1 Take part in public and charitable projects of citywide significance 25,9 15,3 Involved in improving their own home, yard 7,0 30,3 Help to protect, restore city monuments, significant places 7,0 49,5 Carry on business, started or plan to start a business 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 The overall level of development of the social activity in Russian million-population cities is not sufficient enough in order to talk to some extent about the implementation of the “bottom up” government model, when the city community participates in forming the vector of development of the urban environment identifying its current and future needs. The cities that are closest to this model are Chelyabinsk and Rostov-on-Don. In the vast majority of the largest cities, the “top down” development model prevails, when the initiator and the catalyst of all innovations and changes in the urban environment is the vertical of power. FIG. 33. PREPAREDNESS OF THE MILLION-POPULATION CITIES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “BOTTOM UP” DEVELOPMENT MODEL (“COMMUNITY INITIATIVE”) AND “TOP DOWN” (“POWER INITIATIVE”) (POINTS) Top Down (“Government incentives”) Bottom Up (“Grassroots initiatives”) Saint Petersburg Kazan Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Yekaterinburg Ufa Nizhny Novgorod Omsk Chelyabinsk Moscow Samara Volgograd -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
69 Explanation to Fig. 33: The fact that the “government incentive” is effective is proved by high evaluations of the following factors: 1) safety in the city, decrease in crime levels; 2) development of open public spaces for socializing and leisure; 3) conditions for development of small business and entrepreneurship; 4) transport and logistics relations with other cities and countries; 5) support of civil “bottom up” initiatives. As the signs of the “Top down” models, the following environment development factors were identified: 1) construction of social accommodation; 2) preparation of sites for certain functions and involvement of investors; 3) development of the road infrastructure, construction of interchanges, parking lots at budget funds; 4) improvement of the city government system, managerial staffing; 5) development of “top down strategies”. The residents of million-population cities are unsatisfied with the current behavior and attitude of citizens to their city: 51.9% of the respondents consider the state of this factor problematic or bad, only every tenth respondent was satisfied with its state.FIG. 34. THE BEHAVIORAL CULTURE AND ATTITUDE OF CITIZENS TO THEIR CITY(EXPERT ASSESSMENT, %) 1,5 Excellent 8,9 Good 11,5 Bad 40,4 Poor 37,8 Average As the most “cultural” cities, the following cities were identified: Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg and Saint-Petersburg, i.e. the cities of first two types. It should be noted that these cities are the leaders in the urban environment index as a whole.
70 FIG. 35. CULTURE AND ATTITUDE TO THE CITY: ASSESSMENTS, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES BY CITIES The “small million-population cities” I II III IV are more susceptible to the problem, 80,0 but in them it is harder to get the 70,0 matter off the ground than in the 60,0 million-population cities with more 50,0 intense economic processes 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 Status Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity
71FIG. 36. BEHAVIOR, ATTITUDE OF CITIZENS TO THEIR CITY (% OF RESPONDENTS) Poor and bad Excellent and good 36,8 26,3 Novosibirsk 33,3 19,0 Yekaterinburg 55,6 16,7 Saint Petersburg 50,0 15,0 Rostov-on-Don 52,4 14,3 Kazan 50,0 12,5 Nizhny Novgorod 39,1 8,7 Ufa 53,8 7,7 Omsk 53,8 7,7 Chelyabinsk 63,2 5,3 Moscow 58,3 0,0 Volgograd 50,0 0,0 Samara 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 The results of forecast of the future attitude of the citizens to their city demonstrate the tendency “it’s bad and it won’t get better”. The striking example are Samara and Volgograd (types III and IV), where none of the respondents assessed the overall city culture above average.
72 Technological support of the urban environment: a matter of time? Russian megalopolises are weakly differentiated by the level of technological potential. General tendencies demonstrate that in larger and more economically active cities, the forecast of the future state of the level of technological base and the priority of that factor. FIG. 37. TECHNOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: ASSESSMENTS, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES BY CITIES 90,0 Technological potential and its I II III IV perspectives are not connected with 80,0 the level of economic development of 70,0 the city 60,0 50,0 40,0 Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Status Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity In assessment of forecast of technical equipment of the city economy and saturation of the urban environment with the new information technologies, an aforementioned novelties diffusion (expansion) principle is seen, according to which the novelties first appear in the largest cities and in the cities located close to the sources of novelties.
73FIG. 38. SATURATION OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT WITH NEW INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGIES (EXPERTS’ PERCEPTION, POINTS) Poor and bad Excellent and good 4,8 85,7 Novosibirsk 4,2 75,0 Ufa 7,7 69,2 Chelyabinsk 19,0 66,7 Kazan 4,8 57,1 Yekaterinburg 5,6 50,5 Saint Petersburg 11,8 41,2 Nizhny Novgorod 17,1 40,8 Moscow 5,6 38,9 Samara 23,8 38,1 Rostov-on-Don 25,0 33,3 Volgograd 7,7 30,8 Omsk 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 The first places by the level of informational and technological saturation of the urban environment are occupied by the million-population cities of Siberia and Ural. Novosibirsk, Ufa and Chelyabinsk, in the experts’ opinion, are the most innovative cities concerning the introduction in the city economy of information technologies: Internet access points, informational boards, ATMs, etc.
74 FIG. 39. TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, RESPONSIBE FOR SERVICING THE CITY (EXPERTS’ ASSESSMENT, POINTS) Poor and bad Excellent and good 10,7 48,0 Moscow 0,0 38,5 Chelyabinsk 13,6 36,4 Kazan 14,3 33,3 Novosibirsk 14,3 33,3 Yekaterinburg 16,7 29,2 Ufa 27,8 22,2 Saint Petersburg 41,7 16,7 Volgograd 35,0 15,0 Rostov-on-Don 16,7 11,1 Samara 30,8 7,7 Omsk 29,4 0,0 Nizhny Novgorod 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 In respect of the technical equipment of the urban economy and public utilities, the first place is taken by Moscow: the bulk of urban problems (utilities, transportation, etc.) is best resolved every day in the capital. In 7 of 12 million-population cities, over 50% of experts consider that the improvement of the technical condition of the public utilities and city economy is of above- average priority among the objectives of city authorities.
75Government: influencers and trends During the research, a number of issues was dedicated to the state of strategic documents (strategies and master plans) in the Russian cities as to the important factor of development of urban environment. Their importance is confirmed by the experts: 80.1% of the respondents consider that the availability of strategy is an above-average priority factor, and 48.5% believe it must have the top priority for the city authorities. Undoubtedly, the situation with availability of “mandatory” master plans is better than that with availability of strategies. According to the respondents (the authors did not undertake to assess which of the existing documents can be considered full-scale strategies, and which not), of 12 million-population cities, only in three there are existing and approved strategies (Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Chelyabinsk), in one city the developed strategy is pending approval (Samara). Master plans are available in all cities participating in survey. The results concerning the quality of strategic documents look less promising. 48.8% of businessmen and service sector in the largest Russian cities believe that the master plans of their cities do not meet the current needs of urban development. This position is also supported by 36% of the practicing architects and town-planners. At the same time, about one-forth of the respondents (25.2% and 24% respectively) were undecided. Most of all the quality of social and economic development strategies are valued by the deputies and officials (61.7% of positive answers) and mass-media workers (78.5%), while businessmen assess it almost twice lower (35.1%).FIG. 40. ASSESSMENT BY THE GROUPS OF EXPERTS OF THE STATE OF STRATEGICDOCUMENTSA) STRATEGY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC B) CITY MASTER PLANDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY Correspond Mainly correspond Mainly do not Do not correspond No answer correspond 12,0 20,0 28,0 12,0 28,0 Architects 4,0 36,0 24,0 12,0 24,0 21,4 57,1 14,3 7,1 Media Representatives 14,3 50 28,6 7,1 8,3 25,5 26,2 2,7 37,3 Cultural and Social Sphere 3,4 30,3 27,6 4,1 34,5 Representatives Business and Service Sector6,3 28,0 28,0 7,8 29,2 26,0 30,8 18,0 25,2 Managers 26,8 34,9 15,4 7,8 15,1 Deputies and Officials 21,6 41,3 23,0 2,6 11,40 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
76 The most useful strategies, in the experts’ opinion, are present in Yekaterinburg and Kazan. The situation is bad with building strategy and town-planning (the documents do not meet the current city requirements and need to be updated) in two capital cities – Moscow and Saint- Petersburg, as well as in Volgograd, Samara and Omsk. FIG. 41. EXPERTS’ ANSWERS TO “TO WHAT EXTENT IN YOUR OPINION THE STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS MEET THE CURRENT NEEDS OF YOUR CITY, ENSURE ITS STABLE DEVELOPMENT IN PERSPECTIVE?” А) STRATEGY OF THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC B) CITY MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY 23,8 33,3 Omsk 19,0 23,8 Omsk 33,3 28,6 Novosibirsk 15,4 15,4 Chelyabinsk 17,4 21,7 Kazan 19,0 14,3 Rostov-on-Don 34,2 16,7 Ufa 28,6 14,3 Novosibirsk 15,4 15,4 Chelyabinsk 30,4 13 Kazan 23,8 14,3 Rostov-on-Don 17,6 5,9 Nizhny Novgorod 38,9 11,1 Saint Petersburg 44,4 5,9 Samara 30,8 7,7 Omsk 29,2 4,2 Ufa 23,5 5,9 Nizhny Novgorod 51,3 0,0 Moscow 34,2 2,6 Moscow 50,0 0,0 Saint Petersburg 38,9 0,0 Samara 41,7 0,0 Volgograd 50,0 0,0 Volgograd 38,5 0,0 Omsk 40 20 0 20 40 60 40 20 0 20 For the modern Russia, the issue of updating the strategic planning model that will allow to develop the urban environment as a result of changing global context is still urgent. While the Russian cities during the recent years were developing in “top down” strategies, indicative government systems, approach to forecast of three “nowhere” scenarios (innovation, pessimistic and average), on the basis of uncontrolled factors; in the world planning the discourse of new planning paradigm – collaborative planning – has started, the main objective of which is generation of potential for future development, and not only building up of the proposed image of outcome. The main principles of this area still are: setting stable development objectives, improvement of mechanisms of coordination at the stage of implementation of strategies, development
77 of instruments of government and private sector partnership, importance of organization of collaborative planning. As for the latter, the Russian million-population cities have nothing to say yet: we still do not involve business in the processes of development of strategies and master plans (all cities, apart from Saint-Petersburg, support this opinion) still trying to guess its development and annually adjust the forecasts, as well as involve the community (most negative assessment in all cities) deciding for the citizens what is the quality of living norm and urban environment comfort (see table 13).TABLE 13. ASSESSMENT BY THE EXPERTS OF PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT OFSTRATEGIC DOCUMENTS OF MAIN STAKEHOLDERS (POINTS) REGULAR CITIZENS REPRESENTATIVES GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AUTHORITIES SPECIALISTS REGIONAL BUSINESS EXPERTS, NON- CITY Moscow 81,5 87,0 74,5 40,7 64,2 Novosibirsk 61,1 72,2 66,7 50,0 66,7 Yekaterinburg 52,3 81,0 42,9 52,4 57,1 Saint Petersburg 66,7 66,7 61,1 66,7 38,9 Nizhny Novgorod 71,4 80,0 57,1 64,3 60,0 Rostov-on-Don 64,3 85,7 57,1 64,3 57,1 Chelyabinsk 55,6 88,9 66,7 55,6 55,6 Samara 100,0 92,9 53,8 53,8 53,8 Ufa 61,9 95,2 66,7 57,1 61,9 Volgograd 70,0 80,0 55,6 50,0 50,0 Kazan 52,6 63,2 50,0 38,9 52,9 Omsk 63,6 81,8 63,6 54,5 63,6 The cells reflect the negative, the positive and the neutral perception in accordance with the colours of the cells mainly excessive optimal mainly insufficient
78 Further in our research we tried to answer another question: who influences the urban environment development? In the process of averaging there were no surprises, and the picture is as follows: influence of the large private businesses is almost twice lower than that of the city authorities (40.9% against 76.2%), small and medium businesses (13.3%) are in the end of the list, approximately in the same weight category as clerisy, scientists, public organizations and experts. FIG. 42. EXTENT OF INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT GROUPS ON THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT SITUATION City authorities 39,0 37,2 19,3 3,7 0,7 “Cities’s owners” Regional authorities 34,9 39,0 19,0 5,2 1,0 Federal authorities 25,7 37,9 27,5 7,4 1,5 Law enforcement agencies, Procurator’s office, courts 12,8 33,1 36,8 14,3 3,0 State companies 8,2 23,0 43,9 19,7 5,2 Private big business 7,1 33,8 41,0 15,4 2,6 Creative intelligentsia 1,1 5,4 21,8 36,0 35,6 Scientists, experts, specialists 1,1 5,6 26,0 41,6 25,7 Small and medium business 0,8 5,3 33,2 40,1 20,6 “Outsiders of development” Public associations, civil initiative groups 0,7 7,0 26,3 42,2 23,7 0 20 40 60 80 100 Very strong Strong Average Weak Very weak At the same time, the most useful for the urban environment was identified the group “Scientists, experts, specialists”: 37.5% among mass-media, about 32% among architects, businessmen and public services, 33.3% among the officials and deputies. The second useful is clerisy and public organizations. However, as it was said above, according to almost unanimous assessment of respondents, these groups have quite low weight (6.5% and 7.7% respectively). Of “high and mighty”, the most positive are city authorities (24.1% of votes for positive influence; 33.1% – for negative); the most destructive influence on the urban environment comes from private large business (15.5% for positive influence, 38.8% – for negative). Correlation analysis demonstrated that high assessment of the positive influence of the city authorities is not in drastic changes of the urban environment but in quality of the governing team: the skills of resolution of urgent problems and issues, strategic planning skills, skills of public communication with the citizens are appreciated.
79FIG. 43. WHO HAS THE POSITIVE AND WHO HAS THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON THE URBANENVIRONMENT, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIALS? (POINTS) Negative and probably negative Positive and probably positive 2,6 84,2 City authorities 2,6 81,6 Federal authorities 10,5 47,4 Regional authorities Law enforcement agencies, 23,7 18,4 Procurator’s office, courts Self-praise 24,3 40,5 Private big business 29,7 40,5 State companies Public associations, civil 55,3 15,8 initiative groups 56,8 8,1 Small and medium business 60,5 5,3 Scientists, experts, specialists 64,9 10,8 Creative clerisy 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100FIG. 44. WHO HAS THE POSITIVE AND WHO HAS THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON THE URBANENVIRONMENT, ACCORDING TO THE BUSINESSMEN? (POINTS) Negative and probably negative Positive and probably positive 7,4 77,8 City authorities 9,1 70,9 Federal authorities 14,5 67,3 Regional authorities Law enforcement agencies, 16,4 54,5 Procurator’s office, courts Business agrees 20,0 38,2 Private big business with authorities, 27,3 41,8 it does not State companies consider itself 61,8 3,6 the owner of the Small and medium business city Public associations, civil 72,7 0,0 initiative groups 81,5 3,7 Scientists, experts, specialists 83,0 1,9 Creative clerisy 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
80 When considering the answers separately by groups of respondents, the following tendencies evidencing the stagnation, according to our opinion, can be seen: 1) Trust in supreme power. Considerable effect of the federal power on the urban environment is seen by the community (this group assessed the federals as the most significant player – 77.5% of votes), deputies, on the opposite, assessed its effect low (4th place, 30.8% of votes) – they have much higher assessed the role of law enforcement agencies. 2) Struggle for powers. The opinions on the priority of the regional and city authorities split. The former was voted for by the following groups of respondents (descending): deputies, social sector, service sector, mass-media. The following groups see the city authorities as the decisive power (descending): business, cultural sector, architectural and town-planning community. The officials, as expected, split into 2 equal blocs according to their powers (in the bulk of respondents, the number of regional and city officials was almost equal). 3) Negativity and self-reproach. Almost all groups of respondents saw in others (including themselves) more negative rather than positive effect on the urban environment. Given these tendencies for Russia, it is interesting to consider two things: 1) What are the perspectives of development of the collaborative control, under which we understand the ability of the community to affect the activities of the authorities? Experts believe that these factors may be present to the larger extent in Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk and Omsk. At the same time, this index has the lowest importance within the general sub-index “Government factors” (30.2 points of 100). Its importance is even more diminished by the fact that the total optimists in answering this question were still the officials themselves (see fig. 45). It should be also noted that among the aggregate value of all 50 parameters of Urban Index Russia, the more pessimistic value belongs only to the environment index “Possibility to move without traffic jams, availability of free parking” (22.3 points). FIG. 45. ASSESSMENT BY THE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF RESPONDENT OF ABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY TO INFLUENCE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AUTHORITIES 27,6 32,8 27,6 12,1 Excellent State Good Experts 1,2 5,0 23,9 40,3 29,6 Average Problem Business 5,3 22,8 38,6 33,3 Poor 0 20 40 60 80 100
81FIG. 46. WHICH SKILLS AND QUALITIES IS THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TEAM REQUIREDTO POSSESS AND WHICH ONES DO THEY POSSESS AT THE MOMENT? (EXPERTASSESSMENT, POINTS) 13,9Honesty, resistance to corruption 82,3 29,6Qualifications, professionalism 79,0 29,1Strategic planning and management skills 73,1 Available 46,4Ability to negotiate with federal and regional authorities 54,5 Very much needed 36,6Skills in resolving operational issues and urgent problems 49,6 31,7Skills in public policy, dealing with residents 36,4 19,5Creative abilities, original thinking 35,4 37,5Skills in working with major investors 31,6 39,3Experience of working in business, entrepreneurial skills 13,9 0 20 40 60 80 100 2) What should be the competence profile of an ideal team in the opinion of respondents? The scourge of Russian existence is the negative assessments of the decency and absence of corruption of the city officials (the gap between the desired and current state is 68.4%). As of the time when these materials were being prepared for publication, Transparency International has published the report on corruption in foreign developed countries: in the global aspect, Russia is also a leader in corruption level (28th position of 28), leaving behind Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia. The most honest officials, according to the experts, operate in Novosibirsk (48.8% of positive replies of respondents), Ufa (39.6%) and Nizhny Novgorod (45.6%); and on the opposite, the local authorities of Moscow (15.7% of negative replies) and Volgograd (20.8%) can not boast it. Factor analysis has in its turn identified the strong interconnection of these processes with the necessity to improve the mechanisms of state and municipal support of investment projects; operating the other factors is less efficient. The situation with qualification and professionalism of the city officials is also bad (49% gap between required and actual state), creativity and originality of mind (15.9%). Surprisingly for us, they are not just irrelevant, but even have inverse relation, according to the resulting picture and correlation indices, with the skills of work with major investors, experience in business and business skills. Maybe, it’s even better? The level of development of foreign relations directly depends on the amount of population of the city and intensity of its trade and economic relations. Therefore, the state of this factor this factor and give a more optimistic forecast of its development in comparison with type I and II cities.
82 FIG. 47. FOREIGN RELATIONS: ASSESSMENT, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES BY CITIES 80,0 Where the situation is bad, they I II III IV appreciate the importance. It is a 75,0 constraining factor for “small million- 70,0 population cities” 65,0 60,0 55,0 50,0 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 Status Moscow Saint Petersburg Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg Novosibirsk Rostov-on-Don Samara Kazan Volgograd Chelyabinsk Ufa Omsk Forecast Priority Linear trends of main indices are shown with dashed lines of corresponding colours Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity
83FIG. 48. FORECAST OF CHANGES OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS FACTOR IN 10-15 YEARSBY CITIES 30,0 I II III IV 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 Novosibirsk Yekaterinburg Nizhny Novgorod Kazan Omsk Chelyabinsk Rostov-on-Don Ufa Volgograd -5,0 Saint Petersburg -10,0 Moscow Samara -15,0 -20,0 Note: I – “capital cities”, II – “interregional capital cities”, III – “small million-population cities” with high economic activity, IV – “small million-population cities” with low economic activity Moscow and Yekaterinburg leave other cities far behind in the level of development of economic relations and cooperation with other cities: 81% and 70% of respondents from these megalopolises have respectively assessed the “openness” of economies for development of interregional and international cooperation of their cities as above average.
84 D2. What factors should be taken for development today? The statistical analysis conducted, namely building regression and correlation functions, allowed to identify key development factors for urban environment as main purposeful forces, as well as a number of urban environment aspects affecting certain aspects of environment, but indirectly. When analyzing the interdependence of urban environment development factors, the most “strong” factors were identified, both in the value of correlation coefficient and the number of important relations: administration team, anticorruption, strategies and public control. Actually, through these factors it is possible to affect a major portion of other factors and urban environment (see fig. 49). The second “strong influence” block includes technological potential and foreign relations (in relation with the administration team), which act like the instruments with narrow coverage. The overall city culture and attitude of the residents to the city are susceptible to the favourable anticorruption climate. Understanding of the importance of the social activity in large Russian cities by the experts was not identified: for this factor no relation to other factors and minimum relation with the urban environment aspects was found. FIG. 49. WHICH FACTORS SHOULD BE HANDLED IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE STATUS OF OTHER FACTORS? (CORRELATION OF FACTORS) Management team (5) Coefficients of correlation: Technological potential (2) 0.50 – 0.65 The most significant interrelations Social 0.45 – 0.49 Most significant interrelations activities (0) (3) Number of significant links (coefficient of correlation not less than 0.40) External relations (2) Стратегии (3) Culture, Public control (3) attitude to the city (1) Anti-corruption (4) When determining the mutual influence of different urban environments on each other, we proceeded from the fact that all of these environments can not exist independently. Being united under the common city space, they are superimposed (as different information layers on a map), and a person never experiences the influence of only one environment, but always of a set of environments with prevailing of one of them. Important dependencies are given on fig. 50.
85FIG. 50. EFFECT OF KEY FACTORS ON DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THEURBAN ENVIRONMENT Natural environment Management team (ecology) 1. Environment for 2. Environment for living in the 4. Environment 3. Environment for social 5. Cultural, aes- personal safety, city (public utilities resources, for career and life (services, transport, thetical environ- health and self- housing, natural environ- personal devel- amenities) ment reliance ment – primary needs) opment Education (higher, Environment for Cultural Safety vocational) small business heritage Beauty, Transport links Technologies Anti-corruption attractiveness with the world Modern types of Social communication, new Public spaces Public control sphere technologies Environment for safety, health and self-sufficiency is formed by: 1) ecological potential; 2) level of the higher and vocational education; 3) environment for social life as a whole. The most important development factor is the administration skills of the city authorities. The factor of administration team ensures the sufficiency of educational and healthcare institutions in accordance with existing city population. City policy for improving the level of employment allows to flexibly satisfy particular staff needs (management of staff supply and demand, activity of the city employment services). High-quality environment for living in the large city is identified by the level of development of the social sphere, service economy, small and medium businesses. A considerable influence is caused by the factor of the administration team: it is important to ensure timely and efficient control over compliance with ecological norms and requirements in the territory of the city, develop adequate legislative basis for construction sector and affordable housing policy, ensure sufficiency and availability of public utility resources in the territory of the city. Social life environment assumes considerable involvement of a person in all types of communications, which predetermines the dominant effect on it of the factor of technologies
86 and public spaces. In the social life environment there are many elements relating to the aesthetic environment, therefore the work with cultural heritage and ability of the town-planning regulations to form stylistic characteristics of the urban environment are of great importance. Understanding of the high-quality environment for social life is formed in the citizens under the influence of opportunities for development of career and business, availability of transport routes with other countries, good ecology. The two environment development factors are determinative here – administration team and quality of the social environment (overall city culture and social activity). Competent city administration determines the key characteristics of trade and catering (quality of services in cafes, fast-food restaurants; lease rates and spaces for stores, trade centers and networks, etc.). The role of well-developed public spaces for leisure and communication, as well as attractive modern museums, theaters and concert venues is also important, as the cities start differentiating generally by the quality of leisure they can offer to their residents. Generation in the Russian cities of the comfortable environment for career and personal development is one of the most complex objectives today, as it is important, on the one hand, to ensure the proper environment for living and social communication (see above), and on the other hand, form the conditions for development of proper civil society, creativity. This type of environment is very sensitive to the social security and freedom of speech factors, transparency or power and strong positions of the public control. Finally, cultural and aesthetic environment is formed mainly under influence of adequately and substantially organized public spaces and aesthetics of the architectural environment and development of the city. No key factors affecting this environment were found according to our criteria. Work with urban environment: business is the only hope? Russia as a country where industrial development practice was used in urban planning for many years will have to elaborate successful process control technologies for urban development and to create an attractive environment for various target groups. A change of context has taken place, the structure of economy, technologies and the institutional environment have changed – cities have to develop in line with the new society’s demands. There is no hope that this process for Russia is going to be fast. It is obvious that there are shortfalls in municipal budgets for financing of production of high-quality strategic documents for regional development, modernization of social, transport and housing and utilities infrastructure, which will be capable of providing comfort for city visitors and residents, lack of competences of management teams to elaborate successful investment proposals, etc. In our study we asked the experts to lay down their vision of a control model for this process at the national level in the nearest perspective, distribute the roles and tasks for urban development issues which, according to them, remain unsolved.
87TABLE 14. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FEDERAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES ANDBUSINESS FROM THE REGIONAL AUTHORITIES, BUSINESS AND EXPERTS TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO THE REGIONAL AUTHORITIES TO BUSINESSRegional Change of the tax system, redistribution --- Investment of revenues intoauthorities of tax revenues in order to increase the socially significant projects, authority of regions and municipalities, consolidation for purposes of their consolidation and improvement of elaboration of a unified policy of financial security (33% of respondents in this activity in urban environment (30% category). of respondents in this category).Business Development of the social and the transport Increase of the investment ---- infrastructure, financing of the projects prospects of cities, improvement connected with the improvement of urban of conditions for development zone (20% of respondents in this category). of small and medium-sized businesses, reduction of tax rates for entrepreneurs (20% of respondents in this category).Experts Solving the transport problems (12% of Fight against the high level of Increasing the level of social respondents), fight against corruption (18% corruptness of the governing responsibility, investments in of respondents in this category). bodies (18% of respondents in charitable activity, development this category). of social infrastructure and improvement of urban zone (40% of respondents in this category). The basic vision can be laid down as follows: The concept of decentralization is still alive: almost all experts speak in favor of decentralization of the current tax system and change of the system of taxation for small and medium-sized businesses, considering this to be a determining factor for its development and increase of its investment prospects. Officials and deputies suggest that the federal government vests more authority in regions, loosens the “vertical of power” consolidation strategy by reducing the degree of control and supervision on behalf of regional structures of the federal authorities. But if that is not the case, “then it is OK anyway” as long as the federal government continues to cofinance the transport infrastructure development (creation and expansion of the public transport system, construction of roads and multi-level junctions, airports), increases the number of the social infrastructure development projects (improvement in quality of services provided by housing and utilities service organizations, dealing with the water supply problem, construction of social and cultural facilities). Some respondents think that it is necessary to tighten the control over regional authorities, particularly in terms of budget funds spending, and toughen the punishment measures for corruption-related crimes. Respondents from Moscow pay great attention towards the problems of migration policy and suggest that the federal authorities tighten the legislation, as well as improve the quality of migration flow control. Residents of St. Petersburg, which is the seventh city in Europe in terms of tourist traffic, suggest that the registration process for tourists in the Federal Migration Service should be simplified despite the fact that the migration problem there is very acute as well. The structure of proposals to the regional authorities looks less ambiguous: apart from the
88 request that the regional authorities continue to execute their duties, determined by legislation of the Russian Federation, experts’ proposal towards to regional authorities, in short, is as follows: 1) increase the transparency of the regional government activity; 2) integrate the social incentives into the processes of the urban environment development; 3) provide more autonomy to local governments; 4) stop the war against municipal administrations. In the most active and creative way the respondents laid down their requests to business: They suggested to invest the funds into the urban environment and social infrastructure development (improvement of yards and playgrounds, roads, parks and recreational areas, community facilities, construction of hotels and even improvement of the urban architectural composition by means of creating esthetically attractive downtown areas, financing of the cultural sector). The respondent experts also quite often called the business community to pay attention towards the ecological component. If their business is connected with production and manufacturing, they should minimize the environment pollution by introducing the state-of-art equipment and to control the emissions, discharges and other types of pollution within the limits stipulated by the legislation. Or to invest funds in projects aimed at improvement of the ecological situation within the city limits. A great number of proposals to business were connected with charity: from establishment of endowment funds and participation in charity projects to targeted support of sick children, “the elderly and everyone who needs help”1. By all means, under conditions of high load upon budget a high-quality transformation of the urban environment and modernization of the infrastructure require significant amount of extrabudgetary resources. It is obvious that exercising the instruments for laying down civilized requirements to business, improvement of the public-private partnership practices and competitive environment, provision for development of specialized institutions for cooperation with various types of investors within city limits is still a critical issue for Russia. 1 Quotation from an expert’s questionnaire
91E. Success historyWhat are the Russian million-population cities proud of? The first parts of the study were largely dedicated to the typological explanation of the interview results, i.e. to the way the experts’ assessments of city conditions are connected with the general characteristic which determines the place of a city among other million-population cities (in the first place, it is the size of a city and the level of economic activity in it). Another equally important task is to determine to which extent the cities can improve their situation, step out of the limits created by long-term structural conditions. Strategies and urban planning projects can be considered rather a precondition for changes that will take place in a long-term perspective. Changes noticeable to urban residents, including the experts, are connected, in the first place, with the projects which are underway now or were completed recently. The changes in the urban environment are certainly not limited by major projects – on the contrary, their significant part, as a rule, takes place “on its own”, gradually and by small steps. Nevertheless, if we talk about the policy and strategy for urban development, the project-based way of organizing the changes shall be the primary. We asked the experts to name the projects of recent years, which, according to them, had changed the condition of the urban environment to the best. The main parameters describing those projects are the following: Project proponents. The majority of the projects named by the experts are related to the competence of municipal or regional government and were implemented with the use of budget funds or, less frequently, within the framework of a public-private partnership. Exception to this are, first of all, large shopping and entertainment malls, created at the initiative of private sector (“Mega/IKEA’, Metro, “O’Kay” and others), hotel business and profitable transport projects like “Aeroexpress” in Moscow region. Generally speaking, there are almost no public initiatives in respondents’ answers, as opposed to the administrative and business ones. The public or merely massive component, humble in number, falls to the events arranged by the administration, to the traditional or slightly modified “drive belts” between the authorities and the people: neighborhood clean-ups in Samara and Ufa (organized, accordingly, by the municipal administration and the government of the Republic of Bashkortostan), pre-election “people’s control” in Omsk, festivals with fair-sales (“milk days”) and other. A relatively advanced method for interaction between the authorities and the citizens lies in the public expertise, included in the list by an expert from Samara. The scope of projects, named by the experts, is determined, on the one hand, by peculiar features of the policies of the municipal government and business; by what they have been doing in the recent years; on the other hand – by personal idea of the experts on the directions of work they consider the most significant and therefore mention them in the first place. Indeed, if we compare the scope of projects named by the experts from different cities (see fig. 51, table 15), we shall see that it has much in common with the list of priorities (see section B “Urban environment index”). The road network and the social sphere are the two high-priority sectors which, in fact, received the lowest ratings of the current state they are in, that were named most frequently and almost everywhere: road development projects – in all cities, social problems – in all cities with the exception of Samara and St. Petersburg. Public transport and provision of urban amenities is another example of the highest priority directions of activity frequently mentioned among the projects that had affected the urban environment.
92 FIG. 51. BREAKDOWN OF PROJECTS IN TERMS OF SCOPE WHICH HAVE POSITIVELY AFFECTED THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT (FOR ALL CITIES IN GENERAL) 3,4 Holidays, festivals, New technical facilities voluntary work parties etc for citizens (state/ municipal services, 3,1 transport) Business infrastructure, 5,1 congresses, exhibitions 5,1 Trade 28,8 Road network 7,1 Public (construction, transport maintenance, flyovers, bridges) 9,9 Maintenance of yards, green areas 11,6 Housing construction, 10,2 Public spaces, maintenance cultural establishments 11,0 Social development (education, healthcare), social security Of course, there is no full conformity. The list of projects named in our study includes a lot of projects which the experts did not consider to be of the highest priority, – nevertheless, they were also deemed useful for the cities they were implemented in. Among such projects are exhibitions, festivals, construction of cultural facilities, business centers. Whether we should consider such “side” projects, from the point of view of the expert community (let us imagine that urban citizens think somewhat the same), merely the not-so-necessary expenses, or, vice versa, see the far sightedness of the municipal authorities (preliminary contribution to the amenities and festivals even if the citizens cannot see the significance of such activity) – is a separate and complicated question. The data of our study is not enough to answer that question. We can simply draw a more humble conclusion: municipal authorities, as a rule, have sufficient liberty to appropriate the municipal resources to the projects that the authorities consider necessary without taking into account the citizens’ opinion.
93TABLE 15. BREAKDOWN OF PROJECTS IN TERMS OF ORIENTATION WHICH HAVEPOSITIVELY AFFECTED THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT (FOR SEPARATE CITIES) NIZHNY NOVGOROD ROSTOV-ON-DON YEKATERINBURG НОВОСИБИСРК CHELYABINSK VOLGOGRAD ПЕТЕРБУРГ MOSCOW SAMARA KAZAN TOTAL OMSK UFATYPE OF PROJECTRoad network (construction, maintenance, 29 23 31 38 10 29 32 36 21 43 83 22 25flyovers, bridges)Housing construction, maintenance 12 11 19 14 11 18 16 8 16Social development (education, 11 6 31 2 11 9 37 14 8 30 6healthcare), social securityPublic spaces, cultural establishments 10 22 3 6 5 3 9 21 14 8 19Maintenance of yards, green areas 10 21 16 19 5 8 5 5 6Public transport 7 9 16 6 14 3 5 5 13Trade 5 2 10 5 14 14 14 3 19Business infrastructure, congresses, 5 1 19 21 3exhibitionsHolidays, festivals, voluntary work parties etc 3 2 3 2 14 11 14 8New technical facilities for citizens (state/ 3 1 3 7 8 5municipal services, transport)Other 5 1 9 12 3 9 14 5 5 13 Percent of positive responses Above 25% 10-25% 5-10% Up to 5% We can assume that a relevant limiting factor for selection of projects to be implemented is their cost, that there is a scope of expenses that is affordable to some cities and not available to others. Probably, the most obvious example of such “projects affordable not for all” are complex programs coinciding the events of all-Russian or even international significance implemented with serious investments from the federal budget and major private investors. SCO Summit in Yekaterinburg (2009), 1000 year anniversary (2000–2005) and Universiade (2013) in Kazan – those are the events that were almost unanimously supported by the experts of the cities where they took place, especially if we take into account not only those who named them directly, but also the respondents who mentioned the significant measures implemented during the preparation for those events (for instance, programs for streets improvement and demolition of shabby
94 houses). It is clear that the number of such project is small, that it is limited by the capabilities and intentions of the federal authorities, though the new reasons for such projects continue to appear (among them – FIFA World Cup 2018, preparation for which has already been mentioned by one of experts from Samara as the event with positive influence upon the city). Another type of projects affordable to a limited number of cities is large-scale infrastructural construction projects, often protracted, inherited from the previous periods and, finally, finished. Among such long-term construction projects are Metro bridge across the Oka in Nizhny Novgorod and road bridge across the Volga in Volgograd (the now-famous “Dancing bridge”). TABLE 16. MOST EXPENSIVE PROJECTS WHICH HAVE POSITIVELY AFFECTED № PROJECT COST (BLN CITY SECTOR INDEX ELEMENT ROUBLES) 1 Refurbishment of Moscow ring road (20 km) 850.0 Moscow Road network D3 2 "Moscow-City" Business Centre 310.0 Moscow Business infrastructure Invest. climate 3 Construction of Ring Road (142.15 km) 134.5 Saint Peters- Road network D3 burg 4 Integrated social security programme (2010) 107.9 Moscow Social sphere B2 5 Construction of integrated protective structures 71.9 Saint Peters- Road network D3 burg 6 Akademichesky district (first stage) 70.0 Yekaterinburg Housing construction A2 7 Third transport ring (20 km) 69.0 Moscow Road network D3 8 Construction of new Metro stations (Frunzensky line) 66.1 Saint Peters- Public transport C4 burg 9 “1,000th anniversary of Kazan” programme 65.0 Kazan Amenities, Housing A2, C3, D3 construction, Road network 10 Construction of the Alabyano-Baltiysky tunnel (2,150 m) 63.0 Moscow Road network D3 11 Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit 60.0 Yekaterinburg Business infrastructure, Road Invest. network climate,D3 12 Construction of bridge across the Volga 50.0 Volgograd Road network D3 13 City amenities improvement programme (2010) 34.7 Moscow Amenities C3 14 “Afimall City” shopping and entertainment complex 27.9 Moscow Public spaces C2 15 Street and road network development programme 27.5 Rostov-on- Road network D3 (2011-2015) Don 16 The 2013 Universiade 26.2 Kazan Public spaces, сойциальная C2, B2 сфера 17 Refurbishment of Gorky Park 21.7 Moscow Public spaces C2 18 Refurbishment of the road transport network (2005- 18.0 Omsk Road network D3 2010) 19 Highway between Zvenigorodsky Shosse and “Moscow- 18.0 Moscow Road network D3 City” business centre (2.5 km) 20 Construction of elevated light Metro (first section) 16.0 Omsk Public transport C4 21 Metro bridge across the Oka (1.2 km) 15.0 Nizhny Road network, Public transport D3, C4 Novgorod 22 Refurbishment of Koltsovo airport 12.0 Yekaterinburg Links with outside world D4
95 The set of urban “mega projects” distinguished from all others by their cost (see table 15) is primarily represented by Moscow projects (next, with a great lag, come Saint-Petersburg and Yekaterinburg), and in terms of sectorial composition – primarily by road and other transportrelated projects (housing construction is represented in a more humble, yet remarkable way).FIG. 52. COST OF PROJECTS MARKED BY EXPERTS AS POSITIVELY INFLUENCING THEIRCITIES, IN MILLION ROUBLES:А) ALL PROJECTS 900 MKAD (Moscow Ring Highway) 800 – Most expensive projects in “capital cities” (above 100 billion roubles) 700 – The main scope of projects implemented in the million- population cities are projects with cost up to 20 billion roubles, composing both hard and soft components 600 (see details in the next figure)Cost of project, billion roubles Road building 500 Business Center 400 “Moscow City” 300 Ring automobile road (St. Petersburg) 200 Comprehensive social protection program 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of projects
96 B) PROJECTS WITH COST UNDER 20 BILLION ROUBLES. 20 Business infrastructure, road construction, public transport 18 16 Cost of project, million roubles Business infrastructure, road construction, public transport, 14 leisure and recreation, social protection 12 10 Housing and utility services, business infrastructure, road construction, production projects 8 6 Road construction, amenities, housing and utility services, new technologies, leisure and recreation 4 Road construction, exhibitions and conferences, leisure and recreation, new technologies, production 2 projects, provision of amenities and planting, public transport, schools and kindergartens 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of projects “Mega projects”, requiring large-scale investments, make up at most one-tenth of the total number of projects mentioned by experts, the rest were more humble in cost. Moreover, some mentioned activities did not require any significant expenses and still, according to experts, they had improved the life of citizens. For example, such a possibility can be provided by reducing the excessive administrative control, just like it was done in Moscow for issue of permissions for installation of air conditioners (since this year such permissions are required only for houses – monuments of architecture). Relatively inexpensive, yet significant in their useful effect, are the projects which incorporate new technologies that make the administrative, bank and transport services more comfortable for the citizens (projects in Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Rostov-on-Don, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Moscow): registration and filling out the forms on the Internet, electronic queue, unified transport card and other. Relatively expensive projects (with a cost of over 10 billion roubles), including the road and other infrastructural projects, can be implemented, as our data shows, in all million-population cities of Russia. Under conditions of limited resources they could be focused on one significant direction of activity. As judged by responses given by the respondents, an impressive history of success in a separate region was “the road revolution” in Chelyabinsk, noted as an example of significant improvement by the majority of local experts. Experts from Nizhny Novgorod and Ufa unanimously noted construction and repair of facilities of social significance – healthcare, sports, educational facilities.
97Projects in the sphere of housing and utilities services, including the projects implemented onthe basis of public-private partnership, turn out to be a sort of “landmark” of Rostov-on-Don,Ufa and St. Petersburg. Investments, both budget and private, in public spaces, cultural andrecreational areas distinguish Moscow (Gorky Park, “Krasny Oktiabr” and other) and Omsk.A more detailed grasp of the projects which experts from different cities associate with theimprovements of the recent years can be obtained from the prepared list with brief descriptionof the projects which we considered most significant and interesting2.1) KAZANProject: “Kazan Housing Improvement Program”, 2008–2015.Financing: 4.7 billion roubles (49% – federal budget funds, 10% – extra-budgetary resources).Scope: development of housing is included into the municipal dedicated program “Resettlingof citizens from houses recognized unsuitable for living in Kazan” for the years 2008–2015.Expected outcome: implementation of resettling until 1 January 2016 of 2,425 families fromhouses recognized unsuitable for living; demolition and/or reconstruction of 83,201.44 squaremeters of housing.2) OMSKProject: “Omsk Road Infrastructure Development”, 2007–2016.Financing: 35 billion roubles.Scope: the project is included into the development plan for the traffic network of Omsk “Roadsof the city” for the years 2007–2010, which was prolonged up to 2016. 49 facilities included.For the purposes of the plan a number of highways of municipal significance have beenreconstructed, flyover construction work is underway, future scope of work in construction ofbridge crossings has been determined.3) MOSCOWProject: “Gorky Park reconstruction in Moscow”, 2011–2013 (expected term of implementation).Financing: 60 billion roubles (according to expert evaluation).Scope: the project comprises reconstruction of the existing components – worn-out utilities,the strand, transport and pedestrian system, disassembly of amusement attractions, provisionof free-of-charge WiFi access across the whole territory of the park, improvement of the strandzone, arrangements for work of the musical theater, construction of an underground parkinggarage for 600 lots, cafes and restaurants. It is assumed that the original park plan developedin 1929 by Konstantin Melnikov, where the legendary “Girl with a paddle” monument 8 metershigh stood in the center of the main pond, will be used as a basis.4) KAZANProject: “1000-year Anniversary of Kazan’, 2005.Financing: the total amount of financing for construction and reconstruction projects from allsources equaled to approx. 65 billion roubles.Scope: a number of metropolitan railway and road infrastructure facilities has been constructed, amosque has been erected. With the support of the government of ST. Petersburg PeterburgskayaStreet was reconstructed and decorated. Among sports facilities a new race track and “Tatneft-Arena” have been constructed, reconstruction of the central stadium has been performed.Millenium Park has been created. A branch of the State Hermitage and Kazan Millenium Museumhave been opened; many streets in the town center have been restored, a number of housesand buildings have been reconstructed: city hall, riverside, suburban railway and bus stations,international airport and other cultural, religious cult, entertainment facilities and facilities of the2 Based on the information from open sources and official program documentation
98 transport sector. Several monuments and busts have been erected in the city, components of city amenities have been renovated (flowerbeds and flower planters, posts, litterbins and other), structures with celebratory billboards and chemical toilets have been installed, etc. A number of events of municipal significance have been held: festivals of art, children’s creative work, youth-oriented festivals; economic forums; students, young scientists, prize winners in various spheres have been awarded with prizes and scholarships of the city mayor; the National Archive of Kazan, museum of history of Kazan, museum of industry of Kazan have been opened; historical names of the streets, squares, parks, etc. have been restored; various sports competitions and intellectual games have been held; cultural and educational program “Hermitage – Kazan” has been implemented. 5) UFA Project: “Construction of the 3rd municipal sewer line and waste water cleaning facility”, 2009– 2012. Financing: estimated cost – 4.6 billion roubles. Scope: the project is being implemented with the support of the government of the republic and Ufa municipal administration by own resources of Municipal Unitary Enterprise “Ufavodokanal”: capacities of the existing municipal sewage disposal plants have been increased, a new inlet chamber has been put into operation with capacity 530 thousand m3 per day, a sewage mechanical purification plant has been constructed (automated grids and grit catchers). Construction of a biological treatment unit number 3 is in progress upon completion of which there will be no more discharges of raw waste waters into the Belaya river. 6) NOVOSIBIRSK Project: “Introduction of new information systems in healthcare service in Novosibirsk”, 2011– 2012. Financing: for the purposes of the program for 2011–2012 it is expected to commit over 386 million roubles from the Federal Fund of compulsory health insurance and Novosibirsk Oblast budget to introduction of information systems in healthcare service. The amount of financing in 2011 is expected to be over 191 million roubles. Scope: the healthcare service modernization program for Novosibirsk region suggests that at the beginning of 2013 more than one third of all patients in the region will have electronic medical records. Moreover, by that moment all government healthcare authorities will start using automated systems for scheduling doctor’s appointments with the use if the Internet and information and reference touch screen terminals, as well as to use electronic document flow for exchange of medical information. 7) SAMARA Financing: the estimated cost of construction of a stadium with infrastructure, movement and erection of a new riverside station – 11 billion roubles; the cost of construction and reconstruction of a road network – 33.4 billion roubles.
99Scope: an organizing committee has been created for preparation and hosting the footballmatches of FIFA World Cup 2018 in Samara region (chief of committee – region governor). Aninter-agency task force has been created for preparation and hosting FIFA World Cup, a planof high-priority preparation activities has been approved. The borders of the site design forconstruction of the stadium and the related infrastructure have been established, the overallbuilding area will be 101 hectares. The project suggests construction of a stadium, new riversidestation, laying of new engineering utilities, construction of a distribution and sewerage pumpstation. A question of possible modernization of transport infrastructure is being discussed inorder to ensure accessibility of the stadium. By the year 2015 Kurumoch International Airport willhave been reconstructed. Mileage of subway is planned to be increased. The plan also comprisesconstruction of two-level road junctions. The Russian Railways (RZhD) included Samara regionalin the concept of modernization of the railway infrastructure for organization of transport servicesduring FIFA World Cup. In 2012 construction of Frunzensky bridge will commence. The routefrom the airport to the new stadium will modified into a highway by increasing its traffic capacityfrom the current 450 passengers per hour to 2,000 passengers per hour.8) ROSTOV-ON-DONProject: “Introduction of an automated accounting and cashless public transport fare paymentsystem”, March 2009 (complete introduction with coverage of up to 80% of passengers – byMay 2011).Financing: the municipal administration will take only those expenses which are related to theissue of plastic cards which will be called “electronic travel cards”. The project itself will beimplemented by investors with the use of their own resources to the amount of 110-120 millionroubles.Scope: payment of fare with a microprocessor plastic card will be available for all types ofpassenger transport with the exception of fixed-route taxi-buses. Benefits for retired persons,students of educational institutions and some other categories of citizens will remain in effect.For this purpose the so-called “social cards” have been introduced. With the use of a social cardthe fare will be reduced by 50% of the established rate. Other passengers use transport cardsfor travelling in public transport which do not suggest any fare discounts. The transport cardshas a zero balance and in order to start using it, it is necessary to make a credit to the amount ofat least one public transport fare. Such transport card is personalized and is issued to each useron an individual basis with specification of the name, last name and patronymic of the holder.In case of loss or failure of the card the user can block it. The card balance can be checked bymeans of sales and top-up terminals or by checking the information on the ticket (it containsinformation on the card balance), which will be automatically issued by on-board terminals uponpayment of the fare with a card.9) NIZHNY NOVGORODProject: “Construction of sports and recreation centers,” 2010–2015Funding: 450-500 million rubles per 1 sports and recreation center. The design, expert appraisal,georeferencing and networks are performed at the expense of the Nizhny Novgorod. Theconstruction is paid by the municipal and regional budget at 50/50. Overall, above 7 billionrubles will be allocated to sports and recreation centers by 2015. The annual maintenance of asports and recreation center costs around 48 million rubles.Scope: by 2015 there should be two sports and recreation centers in every district of NizhnyNovgorod. The building of a sports and recreation center in Perekopskaya Street in leninskiydistrict of Nizhny Novgorod consists of three functional units: a skating ring with artificial ice forhokey and figure skating; a central part with two swimming pools (a swimming pool with fourlanes and an entertainment pool with water attractions), facilities of a sports school for childrenand youth, workout rooms, a conference hall for 80 seats with a possibility to watch films, anda cafe; a general gym with terraces for 700 seats designed for volleyball, basketball, handball
100 and tennis. It is anticipated that sports and recreation centers will have karate, Greco-Roman wrestling and boxing classes. 10) CHELYABINSK Project: “Increasing coverage of preschool education,” 2006–2010. Funding: regional budget: 76,3 million rubles (parent payment privileges for economically disadvantaged families, strengthening kindergarten infrastructure, acquisition of modern educational programs, training and education of preschool experts; 10 million rubles are distributed among 100 best kindergartens on results of a tender; nonrecurring assistance to individual kindergartens for repair and renewal); up to 15% of the social infrastructure budget for major repairs is allocated to kindergartens. Scope: two target programs “Developing preschool education in Chelyabinsk region” have been implemented in the region since 2003 which are aimed at expanding the network of preschool educational institutions and making it financially available for all social groups. Overall, 10 new kindergartens have been built in the course of the program and 4 attachments for the existing kindergartens have been built. Preschool groups and sections have been opened in 90 buildings of schools and vocational education institutions. 99 buildings have been returned to the system of preschool education from among preschools closed or converted to other purposes at the start of the 1990-s. In January of 2010 the regional government passed regional target program “Support and development of preschool education in Chelyabinsk region for 2010–2014.” However, in spite of a high rate of coverage the dynamics of this figure begins to decline. 11) SAINT PETERSBURG Project: “Municipal information navigation program” for 2005–2006. Funding: up to 150 million dollars. (a part of costs is compensated due to sale of advertising space on stands and signposts; however, the advertising should not occupy more than one fourth of all space). Scope: the program envisions creation of a system of different signposts, signs and stands helping tourists and other guests of our Northern Capital to find a historic object, hotel, office and location. A list of 320 significant social objects and sights has been drawn up. The navigation system is based on information stands in the form of classic lightboxes located near architectural and historic monuments. The main goal of such stands is to provide information about location of main tourist attractions, the best route plans and (which is a must for tourists visiting the city for the first time and not speaking the language) to indicate the tourist’s exact location. Similar stands should be located in subway. Their goal is to show routes and distance from a subway station to the nearest tourist attraction. All information carriers have a unified style. All names are duplicated in Latin alphabet, and all helpful information is in English. All objects have generally accepted icons on them. The address program of installation of information stands was developed in collaboration with the media relations committee of the Government of Saint-Petersburg and municipal center of advertising, and covers almost all districts of the city. The initiative to place icons, suggested by the Saint-Petersburg, was supported by the Federal Agency for Tourism of Russia, which developed a national system of icons to be implemented all over Russia. 12) YEKATERINBURG Project: “Program of major reconstruction of Koltsovo airport,” 2003–2009. Funding: overall investments amounted to circa 12 billion rubles, where 8 billion rubles were private investments (for development of an air terminal complex and technical re-equipment of buildings) and 4 billion rubles of state investments (for reconstruction of airfield pavement and construction of a flight control tower). Scope: in 2003 the program of developing the airport as a hub was initiated in Koltsovo under the auspices of the Ministry of transport of Russian Federation, Government of the Sverdlovsk Region and “Renova” Group. The newly commissioned objects are listed below:
1012005 – catering (capacity – 10 thousand ratios per day; value of the object is 95 million rubles);international airlines terminal (passenger capacity – 600 passengers per hour; space – 15 400square meters, object value – 940 million rubles);2006 – business aviation terminal reconstruction (106 million rubles);2007 – terminal of internal Russian airlines (passenger capacity – 1000 passengers/hour; space –19 600 square meters, object value – 1 billion 236 million rubles);2008 – new railroad station “Koltsovo Airport” and commissioning of express train connectingthe airport with the center of the Yekaterinburg (private-public partnership, total amount offunding – 450 million rubles);2009 – new terminal of international airlines (passenger capacity – 1600 passengers per hour;space – 45 000 square meters, object value – 2 billion 860 million rubles);2009 – completion of the first phase of reconstruction of airfield pavement (federal funding);completion of a new air navigation complex – a flight control tower (federal funding).13)VOLGOGRADProject: “land use and development rules of urban district of hero-town Volgograd”Contents: the land use and development rules took effect on January 1, 2011. This documentsets out in detail the general layout and procedures for the use of specific urban territories,including such object properties as number of floors and functional purpose. The draft wasawaiting approval by the city council for more than a year. Experts believe that lack of thisdocument was the key obstacle for investors.14)KAZANProject: “Healthcare modernization,” 2007–2010.Funding: 1,96 billion rubles (municipal budget).Scope: this project has been implemented in scope of the ”Healthcare modernization programin Kazan” in 2007–2010. The goal of the program is to introduce modern medical technologieswith consideration of marketing mechanisms and competition among providers of medicalservices. The concept of the program is focused on elimination of overlapping healthcarefunctions of the city and the Republic, restructuring and conversion of bedspace, efficient useof available capacities, delivery of highly specialized medical assistance. As a result, the numberof beds has been increased from 25 to 70 per every 10 thousand residents; the number ofnurses per 1 medical doctor has increased to 6. The system or reception by phone has beenput in place. A hotel has been built for the highly technological medical center State Enterprise“Interregional clinical and diagnostics center,” which reduces the standard time of inpatienttreatment from 11,8 to 10 days. Production capacities have been expanded with an option ofperformance increase of up to 3 times. A system of routing from medical and obstetrical centersand rural hospitals to specialized multifunctional diagnostic centers has been put in place. Anincrease in demographic figures has been observed. Prolongation of healthcare measures overthe long term is anticipated: development of legislative support of healthcare services market;development of medical tourism; development of healthcare business based on 3 advancedtechnological centers: State Enterprise “Interregional clinical and diagnostics center,” medicalunit of OJSC “Tatneft” and town of Almentyevsk, State Autonomous Healthcare Institution of theRepublic of Tatarstan “Emergency Care Hospital”.
103Conclusion When preparing our study we took as a premise the need of contemporary Russia to modernize its urban model, which would enable the development of the urban environment as a consequence of the shifted global context (advancement of new technologies, renewed economic structure, changes of the social and cultural aspect). A functional industrial city cannot operate in the current environment because the situation and demands of society have changed. Although this was not a primary goal of the study, in this conclusion we have endeavored to analyze the degree and character of readiness of Russian million-plus cities for such transformation. 1) Mostly probably, over a long perspective the urban development market in Russia will go hand-in-hand with improvement of government institutions in the country. Due to low level of activity of local community with regard to urban issues and in view of inefficiency or complete lack of local development institutes (financial and nonfinancial), there is strong hope for efficient management team. The municipal authorities should focus on development of a competent strategy and townbuilding policy (according to 75% respondents) and form a vertical city management structure with a professional management team (51,5%). According to international experience, the model of the future is the following: “city – social and network-based community” where the factors of public activity and control, that stimulate deeper participation of urban community in urban problems and independent professional expertise in solving urban problems, become paramount. So far, there are no premises for realization of this model in Russia in the nearest future. 2) General urban development plans, which are among the primary management documents, do not take into account modern challenges and strategic guidelines of urban development; they simply communicate the inefficient policy of urban development. 48,8% representatives of business and service economy in largest cities of Russia believe that general urban development plans for their cities do not meet the current demands of urban development. 36% practicing architects and town planners hold to this opinion. Business is not engaged in strategy and general urban development processes to a desired degree (this is observed by all cities except Saint-Petersburg) and general public (according to 65,5% respondents). Also, 50,2% respondent experts assessed the participation of independent experts and specialists in development of strategic town-planning documents as insufficient. 3) The Russian million-plus cities address their primary consumers (people, residents) least of all. The “new urbanism” model still remains postponed for an indeterminate future. So far, Russian cities are unattractive from the point of view of leisure industry and have a significant amount of unsolved strategic challenges in terms of their functional development (above all those related with collapse of transport systems against the background of the growing car dependency, centripetal urbanization vector and compression of economic processes). In scope of our study, the lowest figures received the following indices: comfort level of urban environment for residents (51,2 points), tourists (52,3 points); urban environment level for career and personal development (47,9 points); urban safety and comfort for people (43,0 points).
104 4) During the last decades, the Russian cities have to a certain extent adjusted and realized their attractiveness for business. 10 cities out of 12 in our study showed the values of this sub-index at above 60 points. For comparison, this barrier of resident attractiveness of urban environment for residents and tourists has been overcome only by Yekaterinburg (for residents) and Saint- Petersburg (for tourists). However, we anticipate problems with development of business environment in large cities of Russia within the next 10-15 years (mostly for large investors); primarily this will affect capitals and larger cities (Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Nizhniy Novgorod), where the predicted values are low (on the average 8,3 points with a minus). The operation of development institutes at all levels and mechanisms of state-private partnership remain bottlenecks of development, which is further aggravated by physical lack of free space for development of the social and economic fabric of a city, and lack of management team competencies for elaboration of investment proposals. 5) According to experts, the Russian bureaucrats have low qualifications and professionalism (49% difference between the actual and the required, according to them, figures), creative talents and unorthodox thinking (15,9% of the similar index). The scourge of Russian realities is in negative figures of ethics and non-corruptness of municipal bureaucrats (the gap between the desired and the actual amounted to 68,4%). In turn, the factor analysis pinpointed a strong connection between these processes and a need to renovate the mechanisms of state and municipal support of investment projects; the remaining methods of fight against corruption are less effective. 6) The low quality of management capital is further exacerbated due to the anticipated aggravation of a situation with professional education in large Russian cities. It is indicative, that the experts of traditionally best university and academic centers show the gravest concern with this aggravation, primarily those of Saint-Petersburg (forecast– drop from 67 to 48 points) and Novosibirsk (forecast – drop from 75 to 50 points). 7) In view of a present Russian tendency of the centripetal vector of migrations and infrastructural unreadiness of large cities to cope with the growing population density, the regional and municipal authorities do not see the potential in high-speed transits and agglomerative links. 53,7% of experts consider interterritorial connections a medium priority and evaluate them as less than perspective areas of activity for municipal authorities. 8) However, the urban environment development model via technology transfer in Russian cities will most likely continue to work. In the analyzed perspective cities of each type will “grow” to face issues that are currently faced by more advanced cities, but along with issues they will receive the recipes discovered by the pioneer cities that work in those areas now. It is important to avoid stagnation, for today the experts undervalue the development of factors contributing to the transformation of urban environment (index 47,1 points against 53,6); however the growth potential is estimated as stronger in less developed cities and reduced significantly the more metropolitan the city is. It is important that powerhouse cities also submit to these laws, become integrated into international trends of urban development, act as generators, and adopt the existing new technologies and best international practices with the purpose of assisting balanced strategic development of Russian cities in a global context.
105FIG. 53. FINAL VALUES OF INDICIES OF THE STUDY I. INDEX OF STATE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT 53,6 Culture and aesthetics 61,3 Social comfort 60,3 Ecology and housing 56,8 Career and self-development 47,9 Safety and convenience 43,0 II. INDEX OF ENVIROMENTAL DEVELOPMENT FACTORS 47,1 Technologies 56,6 Administration 43,4 Social sphere 41,5 III. INDEX OF LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF TARGET GROUPS 57,5 For business 67,9 For tourists 52,3 For residents 51,2 0 50 100