urban index russia 2011 (en)

Urban Index Russia 2011 is a complex research of perception by the expert community of the

urban 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 of

a city as a system?

Where, in what areas of the urban life the main problems are concentrated, where is the

growth 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 of

view 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 general

urban aesthetics.

«What does the quality of urban environment depend on?» – Perception of factors forming the

quality of urban environment through the instruments of public activity and control, attitude to

the city, quality of government and technological potential.

«Are you satisfied?» – Perception of the level of satisfaction with the urban environment by the

main target groups: permanent residents, businessmen and tourists.

Project Team

Bulat Stolyarov, General Director of IRP Group

Svetlana Serebryakova, PhD in Sociology, Director for strategic consulting

Evgeniya Shvets, PhD in Economics, senior expert

Aleksey Titkov, PhD in Geography, senior expert

Sergei Makrushin, PhD in Technical Sciences, senior expert

Nikolai Ryabtsev, analyst

Contents

Summary

Research methodology

A. 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

Summary

5

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.

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.

Summary

“F+” CITIES

Key conclusions of Urban Index Russia 2011

Bulat Stolyarov, Director General, IRP Group

Svetlana Serebryakova, Director for strategic consulting, IRP Group

What happens?

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.

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.

What is important?

8

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).

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

Whom our cities are comfortable for?

What’s to be done?

9

participants for 64,6 points. Notably, the need of technical perfection of municipal service and

facilities is estimated equally by the experts from different cities, regardless of their status, and

the spread of opinions is extremely narrow.

These are the key conclusions of Urban Index Russia 2011, conducted by IRP Group on the eve

of Moscow Urban Forum. We hope that now you are interested enough to review the full version

of research. We will be glad if this information proves useful to arrange a professional discussion

regarding the prospects for development of Russian cities during the forum. We plan to develop

Russian Urban Index as a regular annual project; it means that by the end of 2012 you will have

an 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 a

million people.

10

I INDEX OF STATE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT

“WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVORINOMENT LIKE?”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

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

(ecology)

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

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

noises) 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

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-

sources

Regularity and accessibility of public utilities (water,

heating, gas, electricity)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

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 one's qualifications

and with adequate salary43,6 62,5 39,3 39,7 48,8 37,5 28,1 54,3 38,1 38,2 33,3 37,5 22,9

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

catering

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

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,

concert venues 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

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

communication,

new technologies

Coverage of the urban environment with new

information technologies (internet acess points,

information boards, cash machines etc)

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

Telephone network, internet, other modern types of

communication75,2 77,4 77,3 77,9 76,2 80,8 75,0 76,4 64,3 73,4 69,2 76,4 75,0

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,

vocational)

High quality education after school66,0 77,4 72,6 67,6 72,6 65,4 52,1 65,0 60,0 68,8 69,2 61,1 64,6

Environment for

small business

Conditions for running a small business40,3 59,2 45,5 34,7 52,4 43,8 47,9 31,6 40,5 45,3 32,7 44,4 18,8

Road network,

convenience for

drivers

Possibility of traffic without traffic jams, availablity of

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

Logistical links with

the world

Convenient transport links with the main centres of

Russia and the world 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

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,

concert venues 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

Indices Avera

ge

Yekate

rin

bu

rg

Kazan

St

Pete

rsb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ch

ely

ab

insk

Ufa

Mo

sco

w

Ro

sto

v-o

n-

Do

n

Niz

hn

y

No

vg

oro

d

Om

sk

Sam

ara

Vo

lgo

gra

d

TABLE 1. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC STUDY INDICES

11

II. INDICES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT

FACTORS ”WHAT DOES THE QUALITY OF URBAN

ENVIRONMENT DEPEND ON?”

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

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 28,4

Culture, attitude

to city

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 27,1

Public activity Citizens' participation in public and charitable projects

of citywide significance 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

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

monuments and significant places 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

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 30,2

Management 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 27,1

Strategies Existence of a current strategy that meets the

requirements of the city and ensures its sustainable

development

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

Existence of a current general plan that meets the

requirements of the city and ensures its sustainable

development

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

Anti-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 20,8

Public scrutiny Public's 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 22,9

External relations Level of development of economic links and

cooperation with other cities 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

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 47,9

Technological

potential

Technical equipment of city management and services

responsible for the city 52,3 56,0 55,7 48,6 53,6 59,6 53,1 59,0 42,5 39,7 42,3 47,2 43,8

Coverage of the urban environment with new

information technologies (internet acess points,

information boards, cash machines etc)

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

III. INDEX OF SATISFACTION OF TARGET GROUPS

“ARE YOU SATISFIED?” 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

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 39,6

Business and

investment climate

components

Sites for new construction (availability, accessibility,

readiness of infrastructure) 42,5 42,9 44,6 48,6 54,8 55,8 45,8 40,1 40,5 42,6 36,5 38,9 18,8

Office/retail spaces for rental (accessibility, quality,

convenient location) 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

Possibility of finding workers with necessary

qualifications in the city 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

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

projects 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

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 37,5

Components of

attractiveness to

tourists

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 25,0

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 31,3

Trips round the city, to museums (accessibility, quality,

attractiveness) 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

Cafes, restaurants etc for tourists (varbiety, price/quality

correlation) 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

Ease of finding your way around in city: is it easy to find

the street, sight or apartment block you need? 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

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

Indices Avera

ge

Yekate

rin

bu

rg

Kazan

St

Pete

rsb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ch

ely

ab

insk

Ufa

Mo

sco

w

Ro

sto

v-o

n-

Do

n

Niz

hn

y

No

vg

oro

d

Om

sk

Sam

ara

Vo

lgo

gra

d

12

I. URBAN ENVIRONMENT INDEX (What is

the condition of urban environment?)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

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)

Ecology, installation of waste treatment

facilities74,2 78,6 77,4 80,6 73,8 88,5 71,9 70,3 78,6 71,9 76,9 67,6 66,7

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

of construction investors 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

Utility resourcesPublic utilities (power, heat, water and gas

supply)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

B. Safety, health self-dependence

environment74,5 69,6 75,0 83,9 74,6 73,4 73,6 74,6 78,1 75,2 76,2 68,1 69,8

SafetySafety in the city, decreased level of

criminality 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

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 Workplaces (creation of new workplaces,

retraining)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

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

Public spacesArrangement of open public spaces for

leisure and communication60,8 65,5 69,3 58,3 69,0 58,3 57,3 59,2 70,2 48,5 61,5 52,8 58,3

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

communication, new

technology

Development of communication means

(telephone, internet, etc.)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

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,

vocational)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

Conditions for small

business

Conditions for development of small

business and free enterprise71,0 78,8 79,5 73,6 73,8 81,3 57,3 66,1 76,2 68,8 86,5 56,9 79,2

Road network,

convenience for drivers

Development of road network, construction

of junctions and parking lots 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

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

the world

Transport and logistic connections with

other cities and countries 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

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

TABLE 2. PRIORITIES OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT

Avera

ge

Yekate

rin

bu

rg

Kazan

Sain

t-P

ete

rsb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ch

ely

ab

insk

Ufa

Mo

sco

w

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Niz

hn

y N

ovg

oro

d

Om

sk

Sam

ara

Vo

lgo

gra

d

13

II. INDEX OF ENVIRONMENT

DEVELOPMENT FACTORS (What does the

quality of urban environment depend on?)

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

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 61,5

Culture, attitude to

the city

Municipal patriotic education, cultural

behavior in the city 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

Public activity Support of public initiatives, grassroots

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

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

Management teamImprovement of city management system,

selection of managerial human resources74,2 67,9 76,1 82,4 82,1 73,1 60,4 73,6 70,2 79,7 90,4 64,7 83,3

Strategies Elaboration of intelligent strategy, town-

planning policy 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

Corruption fightingFighting corruption in management and

municipal services78,0 75,0 80,7 86,1 77,4 83,3 60,4 83,3 81,0 71,9 84,6 66,7 77,1

Public controlSupport of public initiatives, grassroots

activity62,2 64,3 64,8 63,9 72,6 67,3 57,3 61,3 60,7 64,1 61,5 50,0 62,5

External relationsDevelopment of cooperation with other cities

and regions 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

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

Technological potentialTechnical equipment of municipal services

and facilities 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

III. TARGET GROUPS SATISFACTION INDEX

(Are you satisfied?)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

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

comfortable business environment73,3 73,8 79,5 77,8 79,8 84,6 63,5 66,3 79,8 77,9 80,8 63,9 81,8

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

hospitality industry62,8 71,4 73,9 73,6 60,7 69,2 53,1 59,5 65,5 66,7 53,8 51,5 64,6

Avera

ge

Yekate

rin

bu

rg

Kazan

Sain

t-P

ete

rsb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ch

ely

ab

insk

Ufa

Mo

sco

w

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Niz

hn

y N

ovg

oro

d

Om

sk

Sam

ara

Vo

lgo

gra

d

15

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

26

21

7

8

9

10

14

Social sphere and

expert community

representatives

Representatives of

large and medium-

sized businessOfficials

Architects

Workers of

culture and

people of art

Managers of city

businesses in

the service sector

Deputies

Journalists and media editors

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

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.

FIG. 2. URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS AND FACTORS

WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVORINOMENT LIKE?

(URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS)

WHAT DOES THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEPEND ON?

(URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT FACTORS)

D-1. Professional, vocational

education

D-2. Environment for small

business

D-3. Municipal road network

D-4. Transport links with the world

E-1. Beauty, attractiveness

E-2. Cultural heritage

B-1. Safety

B-2. Social sphere and

expert community

representatives

B-3. Jobs

С-1. Retail, public catering

С-2. Public spaces

С-3. Amenities

С-4. Public transport

С-5. Modern types of

communication, new

technologies

A. ENVIRONMENT FOR

LIVING IN THE CITY

B. ENVIRONMENT TO

SUSTAIN THE LEVEL

OF LIFE, SELF-

RELIANCE

C. ENVIRONMENT FOR

SOCIAL LIFE

D. ENVIRONMENT FOR

CAREER, PERSONAL

DEVELOPMENT

E. CULTURAL

AESTHETIC

ENVIRONMENT

F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENT

F-1. Citizens’ cultural

behavior, their

attitude to their city

F-2. Social activities

H. TECHNOLOGICAL

POTENTIAL

G-1. Management team

G-2. Strategies

G-3. Absence of

corruption

G-4. Public control

G-5. External relations

G. MANAGEMENT

H-1. Technologies

А-1. Natural environment

(ecology)

А-2. Housing

А-3. Public utilities resources

URBAN

ENVIRONMENT

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 RUSSIA

PRIMARY

INDICES

SPECIAL

INDICES

I. State of urban environment

(What is the urban environment like?)

A. Environment for living (ecology

and housing)

B. Environment for life and self-

reliance (jobs, safety, social infra-

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)

II. Urban environment

development factors

(What does the quality of the ur-

ban environment depend on?)

F. Quality of social envi-

ronment

G. Management model

H. Technological potential

III. Level of comfort of

urban environment for

target groups

(Are You satisfied?)

I. For residents

J. For business

K. For tourists

18

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.

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

5-SCORE SCALE

STATE OF URBAN

ENVIRONMENT

PRIORITY EVALUATION ON A

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

19

IRP Group would like to thank all experts, who have participated in this research and who

have taken the trouble to pass the interview. Subject to the confidentiality obligations un-

dertaken by the researchers, all answers are kept anonymous.

А. WORKING TYPOLOGY OF

CITIES AND EXPERTS

21

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.

А. Working typology of cities and experts

What is common between Rostov and Nizhny, in what business

society and architects are consentient?

22

5648

Saint Petersburg

56 52

Rostov-on-Don

60

50

56

45

Novosibirsk

Omsk

Kazan

SamaraVolgograd

Chelyabinsk

Yekaterinburg

Ufa

Nizhny

Novgorod

6057

Moscow

5246

5045

60 57

57 5352 49

494542

35

Retail turnover (thousand roubles per capita)

50 100 +

City population (million people)

1 1,1 1,3 4 +

1 2

5648 1.What is the urban

environment like?

2. Factors’ condition the

quality of the urban en-

vironment depends on

Situation change forecasts (score)

1 10 15 20 +

FIG. 4. LARGEST RUSSIAN CITIES: BASIC STATISTICAL INDICES (POPULATION, TRADE

TURNOVER PER CAPITA) AND EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

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):

23

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

Reta

il tu

rno

ver

(tho

usand

ro

ub

les p

er

cap

ita)

800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Population (thousand people)

IIIII

IVVolgograd

Yekaterinburg

Kazan

Nizhny Novgorod

Novosibirsk

Omsk

Rostov-on-Don Samara

Ufa

Chelyabinsk

“REGIONAL CAPITAL CITIES”“SMALL MILLION-POPULATION CITIES”

WITH HIGH ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

“SMALL MILLION-POPULATION

CITIES” WITH LOW ECONOMIC

ACTIVITY

FIG. 5. POPULATION AND TRADE TURNOVER PER CAPITA OF THE LARGEST CITIES OF

RUSSIA (EXCEPT FOR MOSCOW AND SAINT-PETERSBURG)

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.

I

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

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”.

14,0

12,0

10,0

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0Sta

tus o

f th

e s

tate

of

urb

an e

nviro

nm

ent

40 45 50 55 60 65

Forecast of changes in 10-15 years

IIIII

IV

Volgograd

Yekaterinburg

Kazan

Nizhny Novgorod

Novosibirsk

Omsk

Rostov-on-Don

Samara

Ufa

Chelyabinsk

Saint Petersburg

Moscow

“BAD, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CHANGED”

“GOOD, BUT WE WENT IT TO BE BETTER”“GOOD, NO CHANGES

REQUIRED“

“Capital cities” and “interregional capital cities”

“Small million-population cities“ with high economic activity

“Small million-population cities“ with low economic activity

I

25

FIG. 7.TYPES OF RESPONDENTS BY ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE

URBAN ENVIRONMENT, FACTORS OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AND TARGET GROUPS

SATISFACTION FACTORS (IN POINTS)

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).

Business

60

55

50

45

40

35

30Facto

rs t

he q

ualit

y o

f urb

an e

nviro

nm

ent

dep

end

s o

n

48 50 52 54 56 58

What is the urban environment like?

Culture

Architects

Urban services

Level of satisfaction of target groups

below 50 points

above 50 points

OfficialsMedia

Deputies

Social sphere

“OPTIMISTS”

“PESSIMISTS”

26

FIG. 8. ASSESSMENTS OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ITS

DEVELOPMENT IN 10-15 YEARS BY EXPERTS’ PROFESSIONS

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.

14,0

12,0

10,0

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0Sta

tus o

f th

e s

tate

of

urb

an e

nviro

nm

ent

and

its

facto

rs o

f d

evelo

pm

ent

40 45 50 55 60 65

Forecast of changes of urban environment and its factors in 10-15 years

IIIII

IV

Business

Social sphere

Architects

Officials

Media

Deputies

Culture

Urban services

I

“OPTIMISTS NOW AND

PESSIMISTS IN THE FUTURE”

“OPTIMISTS NOW AND

IN THE FUTURE”

“PESSIMISTS NOW,

OPTIMISTS IN THE FUTURE”

В. URBAN ENVIRONMENT INDEX

29

FIG. 9. WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT LIKE? CURRENT AND FORECASTED STATE

Status

Forecast

5 Cultural and aesthetic

environment

1 Environment for living in the city

2 Environment for safety,

healthcarecare, self-reliance

3Environment for social life

4 Environment for career,

personal development

56,2

42,2

59,847,2

60,865,2

56,768,2

54,5

57,8

100

0

Marked by experts as high-

priority areas of work

What needs can be satisfied by the Russian million-population cities

today 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).

B. Urban environment index

30

FIG. 10. “PRIORITIES PYRAMID” AND ASSESSMENT OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS

V Culture, aesthetics

IV Career, personal development

III Social life

II Safety, health, self-reliance

I Life in the city



III Social life


I Life in the city



III Social life


I Life in the city



III Social life


I Life in the city

0 20 40 60 80 100

The categories are positioned bottom-up from the basic ones (I, II) to more “advanced“ (III, IV, V)




0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

100 80 60 40 20

100 80 60 40 20

100 80 60 40 20

100 80 60 40 20

Priority

Priority

Priority

Priority

Status

Status

Status

Status

73,7

67,3

65,5

56,5

69,7

69,3

70,0

47,4

65,8

65,7

64,0

58,1

79,1

73,7

71,8

37,0

69,0

70,1

74,2

53,0

43,1

46,7

53,7

69,6

57,5

57,4

62,0

65,9

61,7

57,9

60,8

61,2

46,1

40,7

47,6

73,2

69,7

57,2

58,2

72,8

“CAPITAL CITIES”

“MILLION-POPULATION TRADE CITIES” WITH INTENSIVE ECONOMIC TURNOVER

“MILLION-POPULATION TRADE CITIES” WITH NON-INTENSIVE ECONOMIC TURNOVER

“REGIONAL CAPITAL CITIES”

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: “development

pains” and underperformers’ concernsExamination 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

“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.

TABLE 4. WHICH INDICES EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITIES?*

№ FACTORS CONTRIBUTION TO

EXPLANATION OF THE

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

THE CITIES, %

GROUPS OF INDICIES OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT

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)

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 where

to 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

Forecast:

growth over 10%

growth up to 10%

decline below 10%

decline over 10%

“GOOD AND POOR,

IT WILL DEVELOP

ON ITS OWN”

“GOOD AND

IMPORTANT NOW, BUT

THE FORECAST IS

DEPRESSING”

85.0

80.0

75.0

70.0

65.0

60.0

55.0

50.0

45.0

Prio

rity

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Status

Road network

convenience for

drivers

Social sphere

Education

Public utilities

resourcesConditions for

business

Conditions for tourists

Beauty,

attractiveness

Living conditions

Jobs

Comforts

Ecology

Safety

Housing

Public transport

Cultural heritage

Urban

environment

Public spaces

Transport links

with the world

Modern types of

communication

Environment for

small business

“BAD AND POOR”

“BAD AND IMPORTANT”

35

FIG. 12. EXPERTS’ PERCEPTION OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT PROBLEM AREAS, IN POINTS

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.

Higher education

Beauty, attractiveness

Public transport

Cultural and historical monuments

State of streets and yards

Jobs

Personal safety

Small business

Medicine

Schools and kindergartens

Ecology

Road network

0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20

Excellent, goodPoor and bad

60,5

58,5

34,5

31,9

26,9

25,1

17,3

18

15,3

13,1

8,0

8,1

10,2

21,8

28,9

27,3

41,0

37,9

46,3

43,8

54,4

56,5

77,7 5,5

DO NOT SEE ANY

ISSUE OF CONCERN

AREA OF PROBLEMS

36

FIG. 13. ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE: CONDITION, FORECAST AND PRIORITY BY CITIES

100,0

80,0

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rin

burg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk Status

Forecast

Priority

Linear trends of main indices

are shown with dashed lines of

corresponding colours

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.

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

Negative situation is observed in

all cities, aggravation is expected

everywhere in the future, but

particularly in the “capital cities” and

the largest million-population cities.

37

FIG. 14. CONDITIONS FOR INVESTORS (LARGE BUSINESS): CONDITIONS, FORECAST

AND PRIORITY BY THE TYPES OF CITIES

90,0

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk

Status

Forecast

Priority




Note:





The situation is stable, but the priority

of improvement of the environment

comfort level for large business is

going to decrease

38

FIG. 15. CONDITIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS: CONDITIONS, FORECAST AND PRIORITY

BY THE TYPES OF CITIES

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

20,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk Status

Forecast

Priority



corresponding coloursNote:





The level of attractiveness of the

environment for small business is low,

but the work in improvement of that

index is one of the highest priorities in

the years to come

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.

39

TABLE 5. WHAT DOES THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT LOOK LIKE AS PERCEPTED BY

VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL GROUPS TODAY?

ENVIRONMENT COMPONENT AV

ER

AG

E

AR

CH

ITE

CT

S

MA

SS

ME

DIA

CU

LTU

RA

L S

PH

ER

E

RE

PR

ES

EN

TAT

IVE

S

SO

CIA

L S

PH

ER

E R

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SE

RV

ICE

SE

CT

OR

M

AN

AG

ER

S

DE

PU

TIE

S

OF

FIC

IAL

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

Index of state of urban environment 53,4 48,8 56,3 49,1 54,8 55,7 57,1 57,3 50,3

Natural environment (ecology) 41,2 39,6 40,0 29,8 42,0 39,1 50,5 47,8 39,3

Housing 60,8 56,3 69,2 55,7 62,1 66,3 68,8 61,1 56,3

Public utilities resources 67,0 58,7 61,5 65,6 70,7 70,5 63,8 72,2 64,7

Safety 45,8 44,0 48,6 35,2 45,0 45,5 51,6 52,0 45,5

Social sphere 38,6 41,5 33,7 29,3 40,2 38,6 45,0 45,5 33,4

Jobs 43,4 37,5 50,0 40,2 44,4 38,6 46,3 42,4 46,4

Retail, public catering 73,6 66,3 78,8 71,4 75,2 79,5 76,9 74,3 70,9

Public spaces 56,6 48,1 55,8 51,7 58,5 63,0 61,5 60,0 54,0

Amenities 48,6 43,3 50,0 45,8 51,4 48,9 47,5 55,6 44,2

Public transport 53,5 50,0 46,2 54,2 59,1 56,8 53,8 54,2 47,8

Modern types of communication, new technologies 68,3 64,6 71,2 62,0 72,2 73,9 70,6 70,8 62,5

Education (higher, professional) 65,6 70,0 65,4 55,2 64,0 71,6 68,8 70,8 63,0

Environment for small business 40,2 33,7 38,5 31,5 45,2 35,2 52,5 45,1 35,3

Road network, convenience for drivers 22,1 25,0 25,0 16,7 21,7 21,6 27,5 27,1 17,9

Transport links with the world 66,2 58,3 78,8 67,7 67,2 71,4 62,5 68,1 63,2

Beauty, attractiveness 65,5 55,8 76,9 60,4 65,6 76,1 66,3 71,5 61,2

Cultural 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

INDEX COMPONENT AV

ER

AG

E

AR

CH

ITE

CT

S

MA

SS

ME

DIA

CU

LTU

RA

L S

PH

ER

E

RE

PR

ES

EN

TAT

IVE

S

SO

CIA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SE

RV

ICE

SE

CT

OR

M

AN

AG

ER

S

DE

PU

TIE

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

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).

41

FIG. 16. FORECAST OF CHANGE IN AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC UTILITIES IN 10-15 YEARS

10,0

5,0

0,0

-5,0

-10,0

-15,0

-20,0

-25,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Yekate

rinb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Kazan

Sam

ara

Om

sk

Chely

ab

insk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Ufa

Vo

lgo

gra

d

OPTIMISM

PESSIMISM

Note:





The situation in the future gets

quite pessimistic evaluations in

the “capital cities” and the largest

million-population cities

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

0,0

-5,0

-10,0

-15,0

-20,0

-25,0

-30,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Yekate

rinb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Kazan

Sam

ara

Om

sk

Chely

ab

insk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Ufa

Vo

lgo

gra

d

OPTIMISM

PESSIMISM

Note:





The overall concern for the future

of higher and professional educa-

tion (with the exception of Ufa)

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.

43

FIG. 18. LIFE SAFETY: CONDITIONS, FORECAST AND PRIORITY BY CITIES

90,0

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk

Status

Forecast

Priority




Note:





One of the highest-priority indices,

the expected change of the situation

is insignificant, the work is aimed at

containment of negative factors

44

FIG. 19. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: CONDITIONS, FORECAST AND PRIORITY BY CITIES

90,0

85,0

80,0

75,5

70,0

65,0

60,0

55,0

50,0

45,0

40,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk

Status

Forecast

Priority




“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.

Note:





The worst the situation gets, the more

the citizens are concerned, a critical

issue for the “capital cities” and the

largest million-population cities

45

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.

FIG. 20. WHICH URBAN ENVIRONMENT PARAMETERS SHOULD BE HANDLED,

ACCORDING TO EXPERTS

Road network

Personal safety

Ecology

Small business

Public transport

Historical and cultural monuments

Jobs

State of streets and yards

Education

Appearance of the city

Quality of public recreational areas

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Important

Average

Poor

30,4

30,4

34,6

39,2

60,0

34,1

35,5

37,1

31,5

22,9 9,8

22,0

19,9

24,2

30,0

26,6

27,6

7,3

7,3

8,5

9,9

10,9

11,8

27,0 35,4

24,6 36,0

21,9 48,2 24,5

20,7 38,9 30,9 9,5

15,9 47,6 29,2 7,4

12,4 35,3 37,8 14,5

5,5

5,5

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.

48

С. TARGET GROUPS SATISFACTION

INDEX

49

С. Target groups satisfaction index

For whom the largest Russian cities are comfortable, how can the

situation 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?

Pleasant,

comfortableFairly pleasant,

comfortable

Average Fairly unpleasant Unpleasant

Investors, business

Highly qualified specialists

Creative people

Scientists, research workers

Workers without special skills or education

Russian tourists

Foreign tourists

0 20 40 60 80 100

20,6 41,2 29,8

17,2 39,9 26,4 13,6

15,1 32,5 32,5 13,3

15,9 31,5 30,0 14,4 8,1

12,9 28,4 41,0 13,3

11,6 29,5 37,5 18,5

8,8 23,7 39,4 24,1

4,0

2,9

4,4

6,6

2,9

2,2

6,3

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.

Cities for work, and

not leisure

51

TABLE 7. ASSESSMENT BY EXPERTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT COMFORT FOR

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 possibilities

The cells reflect the values of negative or positive evaluations

Most favourable

Average

Less favourable

CITY INV

ES

TO

RS

AN

D

BU

SIN

ES

S

SC

IEN

TIS

TS

AN

D

RE

SE

AR

CH

WO

RK

ER

S

CR

EAT

IVE

PE

OP

LE

HIG

HLY

QU

ALIF

IED

SP

EC

IALIS

TS

WO

RK

ER

S W

ITH

OU

T

SP

EC

IAL S

KIL

LS

OR

ED

UC

AT

ION

RU

SS

IAN

TO

UR

IST

S

FO

RE

IGN

TO

UR

IST

S

Saint Petersburg 55,6 61,1 66,7 77,8 50,0 83,3 66,7

Rostov-on-Don 76,2 52,4 57,1 66,7 55,0 38,1 42,9

Kazan 59,1 54,5 40,9 54,5 45,5 68,2 54,5

Moscow 70,3 45,1 56,2 69,3 42,7 40,0 45,3

Yekaterinburg 81,0 76,2 71,4 76,2 42,9 47,6 42,9

Novosibirsk 66,7 81,0 52,4 70,0 61,9 57,1 47,6

Ufa 54,2 41,7 54,2 45,8 45,8 41,7 45,8

Nizhny Novgorod 47,1 50,0 46,7 43,8 56,3 52,9 47,1

Samara 70,6 50,0 38,9 44,4 52,9 44,4 38,9

Chelyabinsk 84,6 61,5 61,5 53,8 58,3 46,2 53,8

Omsk 66,7 38,5 53,8 46,2 38,5 53,8 50,0

Volgograd 50,0 83,3 66,7 50,0 58,3 41,7 58,3

Average for cities 62,8 58,0 53,4 50,6 53,1 48,3 48,8

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.

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%).

TABLE 8. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMFORT FOR PARTICULAR TARGET

GROUPS (BY EXPERT GROUPS)

Environment for investors: what are the problems, who can resolve them

PESSIMISTS OPTIMISTS

TARGET GROUPS OV

ER

AL

L

AR

CH

ITE

CT

S

MA

SS

ME

DIA

CU

LTU

RA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SO

CIA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SE

RV

ICE

SE

CT

OR

MA

NA

GE

RS

DE

PU

TIE

S

OF

FIC

IAL

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

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



53

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.

FIG. 22. WHAT IS COMFORTABLE AND WHAT IS UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE URBAN

ENVIRONMENT FOR INVESTORS?

Excellent Good Average Poor Bad

Mechanisms of state or municipal support for

projects

Sites for new production

Availability of loans

Office / retail spaces for rental

Possibility of finding staff with necessary

qualifications in the city

0 20 40 60 80 100

15,0 42,5 28,2 12,4

17,2 42,2 28,4 9,3

9,3 36,2 34,7 13,8 5,0

11,1 45,4 29,5

11,6 41,4 31,7

1,9

3,0

2,8

4,913,1

12,1

Comfort zone – infrastructure

and human capital assets

Discomfort zone –

inactive mechanisms

of public private

partnership

54

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.

Environment for tourists: backdoor urban policy

TABLE 9. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FOR TOURISTS

BY PROFESSIONAL GROUPS



TARGET GROUPS OV

ER

AL

L

AR

CH

ITE

CT

S

MA

SS

ME

DIA

CU

LTU

RA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SO

CIA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SE

RV

ICE

SE

CT

OR

MA

NA

GE

RS

DE

PU

TIE

S

OF

FIC

IAL

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

Mechanisms of state or municipal support for

projects41,4 29,6 44,6 36,9 43,2 44,0 53,8 49,3 35,5

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

qualifications in the city61,8 50,0 57,1 65,2 67,8 65,9 63,8 63,9 56,5

Office/retail spaces for rental 62,9 60,2 73,2 60,9 61,8 63,6 70,0 66,9 58,6

55

FIG. 23. ASSESSMENT OF PARTICULAR URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FOR

TOURISTS

Ease of finding your way around in city

Hotels, hostels, short-term accommodation rentals

Information, city web portal

Trips round the city, to museums

Residents’ attitute to tourists

Cafes, restaurants etc for tourists

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Average

Poor

Bad

7,4

6,3

32,4

30,9

36,8

36,8

19,5

20,8

7,4 34,9 37,1 16,5

6,2 34,1 42,5 14,2

8,0 45,8 35,2

22,2 40,0 27,8

3,7

4,0

4,0

3,9

3,2

5,2

8,2

7,2

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.

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

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.

TABLE 10. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FOR TOURISTS

BY PROFESSIONAL GROUPS

PESSIMISTS

TARGET GROUPS OV

ER

AL

L

MA

SS

ME

DIA

AR

CH

ITE

CT

S

CU

LTU

RA

L S

PH

ER

E

RE

PR

ES

EN

TAT

IVE

S

SO

CIA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SE

RV

ICE

SE

CT

OR

MA

NA

GE

RS

DE

PU

TIE

S

OF

FIC

IAL

S

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



57

TABLE 11. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS FOR TOURISTS BY CITIES

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.

OV

ER

AL

L

MO

SC

OW

ST.

PE

TE

RS

BU

RG

NIZ

HN

Y N

OV

GO

RO

D

YE

KA

TE

RIN

BU

RG

NO

VO

SIB

IRS

K

RO

ST

OV

-ON

-

DO

N

SA

MA

RA

KA

ZA

N

VO

LG

OG

RA

D

CH

ELY

AB

INS

K

UFA

OM

SK

Ease of finding your way

around in city53,1 44,9 52,9 50,0 64,3 59,5 56,0 50,0 54,5 41,7 57,7 58,3 68,8

Hotels, hostels, short-term

accommodation rentals54,9 45,1 65,3 48,4 69,0 52,4 55,0 61,1 72,7 27,3 67,3 56,3 56,3

Information, 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 52,1

Trips round the city, to

museums56,6 61,5 73,6 54,7 60,7 56,0 56,0 51,4 59,1 29,5 57,7 44,8 47,9

Residents' 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 68,8

Cafes, restaurants etc for

tourists68,1 64,7 72,1 67,2 82,1 73,8 63,1 67,6 73,9 47,7 76,9 62,5 68,8



58

D. URBAN ENVIRONMENT

DEVELOPMENT FACTORS INDEX

59

D. Urban environment development factors index

“What is important for the city development?”

D1. System of government, technologies or human capital: which is

the 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)

FIG. 25. WHAT AREAS OF URBAN LIFE ARE OF TOP PRIORITY THAT CITY AUTHORITIES

SHOULD IMPROVE IN FIRST PLACE? (POINTS)

7 External relations

8 Тechnological potential

1 Culture,attitude to the city

2 Social activities

Status

Forecast

3City management team

4Strategies

5Anti-corruption

6Public control

57

37

46

46

3130

60

48

56

100

0

Marked by experts as the

high priority areas of work

58

6153

66

72

57

49

Highest priority Above average

priority

Average priority Below average priority or not quite

priority and Below average priority

Fight against corruption in city management and municipal servicesDrawing up a reasonable strategy and town planning policyImproving city management system, selection of management staff

Support for civil initiatives, bottom-up activity

Upbringing city patriotism, cuture of behaviour in the city

Technical equipment of city facilities

Development of cooperation with other cities, regions

0 20 40 60 80 100

50,7 24,3 16,2 8,8

48,5 31,6 14,3 5,5

36,9 33,6 21,8 7,7

19,0 32,5 33,6 15,0

18,0 35,3 33,1 13,6

16,5 34,8 40,3 8,4

12,6 33,8 39,3 14,4

Have to be of high

priority according

to experts

Areas with no

priority

61

FIG. 26. WHICH FACTORS’ LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT RUSSIAN CITIES ARE PROUD OF

TODAY, ACCORDING TO EXPERTS?

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)

* A

to

p d

ow

n f

acto

r avera

ge p

rio

rity

scale

External relations

Technological potential

Strategies

Social activities

City management team

Culture,attitude to the city

Anti-corruption

Public control

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk

Facto

r’s p

ositio

n o

n t

he s

cale

of

exp

ert

assessm

ent

1

2

3Mo

st

favo

ura

ble

facto

rs

6

7

8Less f

avo

ura

ble

facto

rs

62

FIG. 27. TOP 3 OF THE MOST IMPORTANT URBAN DEVELOPMENT FACTORS (BY CITIES

THAT ARE NEEDED TO BE WORKED WITH (ACCORDING TO EXPERTS)

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.

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk

1

2

3

Facto

r’s p

ositio

n o

n t

he s

cale

of

exp

ert

assessm

ent

Mo

st

favo

ura

ble

facto

rs

* A

to

p d

ow

n f

acto

r avera

ge p

rio

rity

scale Strategies

Anti-corruption

Management team


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 URBAN

ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT, ACCORDING TO EXPERTS (BY PROFESSIONAL GROUPS,

POINTS)P

ES

SIM

IST

S

PE

SS

IMIS

TS

OP

TIM

IST

S

OV

ER

AL

L

AR

CH

ITE

CT

S

ME

DIA

CU

LTU

RA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SO

CIA

L S

PH

ER

ER

EP

RE

SE

NTA

TIV

ES

SE

RV

ICE

SE

CT

OR

MA

NA

GE

RS

DE

PU

TIE

S

OF

FIC

IAL

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 41,5 38,8 41,9 40,5 41,3 41,6 48,3 44,4 39,2

Culture, attitude to the city 37,1 37,5 34,6 33,3 38,5 35,2 42,5 41,2 33,3

Social activities 46,1 40,2 49,7 48,3 44,1 48,0 54,4 48,4 44,4

G. MANAGEMENT 43,4 35,5 50,2 33,8 42,7 41,7 55,0 57,3 37,2

Management team 45,9 34,3 48,2 33,7 48,6 45,5 60,0 60,5 38,5

Strategies 48,2 46,0 68,8 37,5 44,7 44,9 61,3 66,1 37,5

Anti-corruption 31,2 22,2 30,4 21,6 30,0 26,2 45,0 46,5 28,4

Public control 30,2 24,1 28,6 24,0 27,4 31,8 43,8 44,1 25,0

External relations 60,4 51,9 62,5 52,2 62,0 72,7 60,5 65,5 56,0

H. 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)

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.

Culture,

attitude to city

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0

-5,0

-10,0

-15,0

-20,0

Priority

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Status

Social activities

Strategies


External relations

Management team

Anti-corruption Public control

Growth in forecast significance

High (more than 20 points)

Average (from 10 to 20 points)

Low (less than 10 points)


“BAD AND UNIMPORTANT” “GOOD AND UNIMPORTANT”

“GOOD AND IMPORTANT”

65

FIG. 29. ESSENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT: STATUS, PRI-

ORITIES, FORECAST (“GOVERNMENT” CATEGORY, POINTS ON THE GIVEN SCALE)

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).

Public control Culture,

attitude to city

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0

-5,0

-10,0

-15,0

-20,0

Priority

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Status

Social activities

Strategies


External relations

Management team

Anti-corruption







66

FIG. 30. ESSENTIAL FACTORS FOR THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT: STATUS,

PRIORITIES, FORECAST (“BUSINESS” CATEGORY, POINTS)

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.

Public control

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0

-5,0

-10,0

-15,0

-20,0

Priority

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Status

Social activities

Strategies

Technological potential External relations

Culture,

attitude to city

Management teamAnti-corruption





Social activity in the cities:

what is the optimism conditioned by?



“GOOD AND IMPORTANT”

67

FIG. 31. SOCIAL ACTIVITY: ASSESSMENT, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES BY CITIES

80,0

75,0

70,0

65,0

60,0

55,0

50,0

45,0

40,0

35,0

30,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk Status

Forecast

Priority




Note:





Now the indices are low, but the

experts expect their growth in the

future: less considerable in the “capital

cities” and more intensive in other

millionpopulation cities

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)

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.

Take part in public and charitable projects of citywide

significance

Involved in improving their own home, yard

Help to protect, restore city monuments, significant places

Carry on business, started or plan to start a business

Above averageBelow average

FIG. 33. PREPAREDNESS OF THE MILLION-POPULATION CITIES TO IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE “BOTTOM UP” DEVELOPMENT MODEL (“COMMUNITY INITIATIVE”) AND “TOP

DOWN” (“POWER INITIATIVE”) (POINTS)

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Volgograd

Yekaterinburg

Kazan

Nizhny Novgorod

Novosibirsk

Omsk

Rostov-on-Don

Samara

Ufa

Chelyabinsk

Saint Petersburg

Top Down

(“Government incentives”)

Bottom Up

(“Grassroots initiatives”)

Moscow

0 20 40 100 80 60 40 20

19,1

49,5

15,3

30,3

25,9

36,1

7,0

7,0

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”.

FIG. 34. THE BEHAVIORAL CULTURE AND ATTITUDE OF CITIZENS TO THEIR CITY

(EXPERT ASSESSMENT, %)

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.

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.

1,58,9

37,8

11,5

40,4

Good

AveragePoor

Bad

Excellent

70

FIG. 35. CULTURE AND ATTITUDE TO THE CITY: ASSESSMENTS, FORECAST AND

PRIORITIES BY CITIES

Status

Forecast

Priority




80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk

Note:





The “small million-population cities”

are more susceptible to the problem,

but in them it is harder to get the

matter off the ground than in the

million-population cities with more

intense economic processes

71

FIG. 36. BEHAVIOR, ATTITUDE OF CITIZENS TO THEIR CITY (% OF RESPONDENTS)

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.

Novosibirsk

Yekaterinburg

Saint Petersburg

Rostov-on-Don

Kazan

Nizhny Novgorod

Ufa

Omsk

Chelyabinsk

Moscow

Volgograd

Samara

0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20

Excellent and goodPoor and bad

26,3

19,0

16,7

15,0

14,3

12,5

8,7

7,7

7,7

52,4

55,6

33,3

36,8

50,0

50,0

58,3

63,2

39,1

53,8

53,8

50,0

0,0

5,3

0,0

72

FIG. 37. TECHNOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: ASSESSMENTS, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES BY

CITIES

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.

Technological support of the urban environment:

a matter of time?

Status

Forecast

Priority




90,0

80,0

70,0

60,0

50,0

40,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk

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.

Note:





Technological potential and its

perspectives are not connected with

the level of economic development of

the city

73

FIG. 38. SATURATION OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT WITH NEW INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGIES (EXPERTS’ PERCEPTION, POINTS)

Novosibirsk

Ufa

Chelyabinsk

Kazan

Yekaterinburg

Saint Petersburg

Nizhny Novgorod

Moscow

Samara

Rostov-on-Don

Volgograd

Omsk

0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20


85,7

75,0

69,2

66,7

57,1

50,5

41,2

40,8

38,9

38,1

33,3

30,8

7,7

19,0

11,8

17,1

23,8

25,0

7,7

4,8

4,8

5,6

5,6

4,2

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)

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.

Moscow

Chelyabinsk

Kazan

Novosibirsk

Yekaterinburg

Ufa

Saint Petersburg

Volgograd

Rostov-on-Don

Samara

Omsk

Nizhny Novgorod

0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20


48,0

38,5

36,4

33,3

33,3

29,2

22,2

16,7

15,0

11,1

7,7

10,7

14,3

13,6

14,3

16,7

35,0

27,8

41,7

16,7

30,8

29,4

0,0

0,0

75

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%).

Government: influencers and trends

FIG. 40. ASSESSMENT BY THE GROUPS OF EXPERTS OF THE STATE OF STRATEGIC

DOCUMENTS

A) STRATEGY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY

B) CITY MASTER PLAN

Architects

Media Representatives

Cultural and Social SphereRepresentatives

Business and Service SectorManagers

Deputies and Officials

Correspond Mainly correspond Mainly do not

correspond

Do not correspond No answer

0 20 40 60 80 100

12,0 20,0 28,0 12,0 28,0

21,4 57,1 14,3 7,1

8,3 25,5 26,2 37,3

6,3 28,0 28,0 7,8 29,2

26,8 34,9 15,4 7,8 15,1

2,7

0 20 40 60 80 100

36,0 24,0 12,0 24,0

14,3 50 28,6 7,1

30,3 27,6 34,5

26,0 30,8 18,0 25,2

21,6 41,3 23,0 11,4

4,1

4,0

3,4

2,6

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

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY

Omsk

Chelyabinsk

Rostov-on-Don

Novosibirsk

Kazan

Nizhny Novgorod

Samara

Ufa

Moscow

Saint Petersburg

Volgograd

Omsk

0 20 60 40 20

51,3

50,0

44,4

41,7

38,5

30,4

29,2

28,6

19,0

19,0

17,6

15,4

13

14,3

14,3

23,8

15,4

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

5,9

5,9

4,2

0 20 40 40 20

Omsk

Novosibirsk

Kazan

Ufa

Chelyabinsk

Rostov-on-Don

Saint Petersburg

Omsk

Nizhny Novgorod

Moscow

Samara

Volgograd50,0

38,9

38,9

34,2

34,2

33,3

30,8

23,8

23,8

23,5

17,4

15,4

16,7

11,1

28,6

21,7

7,7

33,3

14,3

15,4

0,0

0,0

2,6

5,9

B) CITY MASTER PLAN

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 OF

STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS OF MAIN STAKEHOLDERS (POINTS)

The cells reflect the negative, the positive and the neutral perception in accordance with the colours of the cells

mainly excessive

optimal

mainly insufficient

CITY NO

N-

GO

VE

RN

ME

NTA

L

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

S

RE

GU

LA

R C

ITIZ

EN

S

EX

PE

RT

S,

SP

EC

IAL

IST

S

RE

GIO

NA

L

AU

TH

OR

ITIE

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

RE

PR

ES

EN

TA

TIV

ES

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

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.

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.

FIG. 42. EXTENT OF INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT GROUPS ON THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

SITUATION

City authorities

Regional authorities

Federal authorities

Law enforcement agencies, Procurator’s

office, courts

State companies

Private big business

Creative intelligentsia

Scientists, experts, specialists

Small and medium business

Public associations, civil initiative groups

Very strong Strong Average Weak Very weak

0 20 40 60 80 100

12,8

25,7

34,9

39,0

33,1

37,9

39,0

37,2

36,8

27,5

19,0

19,3

14,3

7,4

8,2 23,0 43,9 19,7

7,1 33,8 41,0 15,4

5,4 21,8 36,0 35,6

5,6 26,0 41,6 25,7

5,3 33,2 40,1 20,6

7,0 26,3 42,2 23,7

0,7

1,0

1,5

3,0

5,2

2,6

1,1

1,1

0,8

0,7

3,7

5,2

“Cities’s owners”

“Outsiders of

development”

79

FIG. 43. WHO HAS THE POSITIVE AND WHO HAS THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON THE URBAN

ENVIRONMENT, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIALS? (POINTS)

FIG. 44. WHO HAS THE POSITIVE AND WHO HAS THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON THE URBAN

ENVIRONMENT, ACCORDING TO THE BUSINESSMEN? (POINTS)

Positive and probably positiveNegative and probably negative

City authorities

Federal authorities


Law enforcement agencies,

Procurator’s office, courts


State companies

Public associations, civil

initiative groups



Creative clerisy

0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20

84,2

81,6

47,4

18,4

40,5

40,5

15,8

8,1

10,8

60,5

56,8

10,5

23,7

55,3

24,3

29,7

64,9

2,6

2,6

5,3

Positive and probably positiveNegative and probably negative

City authorities

Federal authorities


Law enforcement agencies, Procurator’s office, courts


State companies


Public associations, civil initiative groups


Creative clerisy

0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20

77,8

70,9

67,3

54,5

38,2

41,8

81,5

72,7

14,5

7,4

9,1

16,4

61,8

20,0

27,3

83,0

3,7

1,9

3,6

0,0

Self-praise

Business agrees

with authorities,

it does not

consider itself

the owner of the

city

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).

State

Experts

Business

0 20 40 60 80 100

Excellent

Good

Average

Problem

Poor

27,6 32,8 27,6 12,1

23,9 40,3 29,6

22,8 38,6 33,3

1,2 5,0

5,3

FIG. 45. ASSESSMENT BY THE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF RESPONDENT OF ABILITY OF

THE COMMUNITY TO INFLUENCE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AUTHORITIES

81

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.

Honesty, resistance to corruption

Qualifications, professionalism

Strategic planning and management skills

Ability to negotiate with federal and regional authorities

Skills in resolving operational issues and urgent problems

Skills in public policy, dealing with residents

Creative abilities, original thinking

Skills in working with major investors

Experience of working in business, entrepreneurial skills

0 20 40 60 80 100

Available

Very much needed

13,982,3

29,679,0

29,173,1

46,454,5

36,649,6

31,736,4

19,535,4

37,531,6

39,313,9

FIG. 46. WHICH SKILLS AND QUALITIES IS THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TEAM REQUIRED

TO POSSESS AND WHICH ONES DO THEY POSSESS AT THE MOMENT? (EXPERT

ASSESSMENT, POINTS)

82

FIG. 47. FOREIGN RELATIONS: ASSESSMENT, FORECAST AND PRIORITIES BY CITIES

80,0

75,0

70,0

65,0

60,0

55,0

50,0

45,0

40,0

35,0

30,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Yekate

rinb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Sam

ara

Kazan

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Chely

ab

insk

Ufa

Om

sk Status

Forecast

Priority



corresponding coloursNote:





Where the situation is bad, they

appreciate the importance. It is a

constraining factor for “small million-

population cities”

83

FIG. 48. FORECAST OF CHANGES OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS FACTOR IN 10-15 YEARS

BY CITIES

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

-5,0

-10,0

-15,0

-20,0

I II III IV

Mo

sco

w

Sain

t P

ete

rsb

urg

No

vo

sib

irsk

Yekate

rinb

urg

Niz

hny N

ovg

oro

d

Kazan

Sam

ara

Om

sk

Chely

ab

insk

Ro

sto

v-o

n-D

on

Ufa

Vo

lgo

gra

d

Note:





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.

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.

FIG. 49. WHICH FACTORS SHOULD BE HANDLED IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE STATUS OF

OTHER FACTORS? (CORRELATION OF FACTORS)

Coefficients of correlation:

0.50 – 0.65 The most significant interrelations

0.45 – 0.49 Most significant interrelations

Number of significant links (coefficient

of correlation not less than 0.40)(3)

Public control (3)

Social

activities (0)

Technological

potential (2)

External relations (2)

Culture,

attitude to the city (1)

Management team (5)

Anti-corruption (4)

Стратегии (3)

85

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

FIG. 50. EFFECT OF KEY FACTORS ON DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE

URBAN ENVIRONMENT

Management team

1. Environment for

personal safety,

health and self-

reliance

2. Environment for living in the

city (public utilities resources,

housing, natural environ-

ment – primary needs)

Environment for

small business

Beauty,

attractiveness

Education (higher,

vocational)

Technologies

3. Environment for social

life (services, transport,

amenities)

Cultural

heritage

Transport links

with the world

Public control

Modern types of

communication, new

technologies

Anti-corruption

Public spaces

Safety

Social

sphere

4. Environment

for career and

personal devel-

opment

5. Cultural, aes-

thetical environ-

ment

Natural environment

(ecology)

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.

87

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

TABLE 14. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FEDERAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES AND

BUSINESS FROM THE REGIONAL AUTHORITIES, BUSINESS AND EXPERTS

TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO THE REGIONAL AUTHORITIES TO BUSINESS

Regional

authorities

Change of the tax system, redistribution

of tax revenues in order to increase the

authority of regions and municipalities,

their consolidation and improvement of

financial security (33% of respondents in this

category).

--- Investment of revenues into

socially significant projects,

consolidation for purposes of

elaboration of a unified policy of

activity in urban environment (30%

of respondents in this category).

Business Development of the social and the transport

infrastructure, financing of the projects

connected with the improvement of urban

zone (20% of respondents in this category).

Increase of the investment

prospects of cities, improvement

of conditions for development

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

respondents), fight against corruption (18%


Fight against the high level of

corruptness of the governing

bodies (18% of respondents in

this category).

Increasing the level of social

responsibility, investments in

charitable activity, development

of social infrastructure and

improvement of urban zone (40%


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

90

E. SUCCESS HISTORY

91

E. Success history

What 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

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.

FIG. 51. BREAKDOWN OF PROJECTS IN TERMS OF SCOPE WHICH HAVE POSITIVELY

AFFECTED THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT (FOR ALL CITIES IN GENERAL)

3,4

3,1

28,8

11,6

11,0

5,1

5,1

7,1

9,9

10,2

Road network

(construction,

maintenance, flyovers,

bridges)

Housing

construction,

maintenance

Social development

(education, healthcare), social

security

Public spaces,

cultural establishments

Maintenance

of yards,

green areas

Public

transport

Trade

Business infrastructure,

congresses, exhibitions

Holidays, festivals,

voluntary work parties etc

New technical facilities

for citizens (state/

municipal services,

transport)

93

TABLE 15. BREAKDOWN OF PROJECTS IN TERMS OF ORIENTATION WHICH HAVE

POSITIVELY AFFECTED THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT (FOR SEPARATE CITIES)

Percent of positive responses

Above 25%

10-25%

5-10%

Up to 5%

TYPE OF PROJECT TO

TA

L

MO

SC

OW

ПЕ

ТЕ

РБ

УР

Г

NIZ

HN

Y N

OV

GO

RO

D

YE

KA

TE

RIN

BU

RG

НО

ВО

СИ

БИ

СР

К

RO

ST

OV-O

N-D

ON

SA

MA

RA

KA

ZA

N

VO

LG

OG

RA

D

CH

ELY

AB

INS

K

UFA

OM

SK

Road network (construction, maintenance,

flyovers, bridges)29 23 31 38 10 29 32 36 21 43 83 22 25

Housing construction, maintenance 12 11 19 14 11 18 16 8 16

Social development (education,

healthcare), social security11 6 31 2 11 9 37 14 8 30 6

Public spaces, cultural establishments10 22 3 6 5 3 9 21 14 8 19

Maintenance of yards, green areas 10 21 16 19 5 8 5 5 6

Public transport 7 9 16 6 14 3 5 5 13

Trade 5 2 10 5 14 14 14 3 19

Business infrastructure, congresses,

exhibitions5 1 19 21 3

Holidays, festivals, voluntary work parties etc 3 2 3 2 14 11 14 8

New technical facilities for citizens (state/

municipal services, transport)3 1 3 7 8 5

Other 5 1 9 12 3 9 14 5 5 13

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

№ PROJECT COST (BLN

ROUBLES)

CITY SECTOR INDEX ELEMENT

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-

burg

Road network D3

4 Integrated social security programme (2010) 107.9 Moscow Social sphere B2

5 Construction of integrated protective structures 71.9 Saint Peters-

burg

Road network D3

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-

burg

Public transport C4

9 “1,000th anniversary of Kazan” programme 65.0 Kazan Amenities, Housing

construction, Road network

A2, C3, D3

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

network

Invest.

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

(2011-2015)

27.5 Rostov-on-

Don

Road network D3

16 The 2013 Universiade 26.2 Kazan Public spaces, сойциальная

сфера

C2, B2

17 Refurbishment of Gorky Park 21.7 Moscow Public spaces C2

18 Refurbishment of the road transport network (2005-

2010)

18.0 Omsk Road network D3

19 Highway between Zvenigorodsky Shosse and “Moscow-

City” business centre (2.5 km)

18.0 Moscow Road network D3

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

Novgorod

Road network, Public transport D3, C4

22 Refurbishment of Koltsovo airport 12.0 Yekaterinburg Links with outside world D4

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

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 THEIR

CITIES, IN MILLION ROUBLES:

А) ALL PROJECTS

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Co

st

of

pro

ject,

bill

ion r

oub

les

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of projects

MKAD (Moscow Ring

Highway)

Ring automobile road

(St. Petersburg)

Business Center

“Moscow City”

Comprehensive social

protection program

– Most expensive projects in “capital cities”

(above 100 billion roubles)

– 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

(see details in the next figure)

Road building

96

B) PROJECTS WITH COST UNDER 20 BILLION ROUBLES.

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Co

st

of

pro

ject,

mill

ion r

oub

les

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Number of projects

Business infrastructure, road

construction, public transport

Business infrastructure, road

construction, public transport,

leisure and recreation, social

protection

Housing and utility services,

business infrastructure, road

construction, production projects

Road construction, amenities, housing

and utility services, new technologies,

leisure and recreation

Road construction, exhibitions and conferences,

leisure and recreation, new technologies, production

projects, provision of amenities and planting, public

transport, schools and kindergartens

“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.

97

Projects in the sphere of housing and utilities services, including the projects implemented on

the 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 and

recreational 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 the

improvements of the recent years can be obtained from the prepared list with brief description

of 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 “Resettling

of 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 from

houses recognized unsuitable for living; demolition and/or reconstruction of 83,201.44 square

meters 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 “Roads

of 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 been

reconstructed, flyover construction work is underway, future scope of work in construction of

bridge 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, provision

of free-of-charge WiFi access across the whole territory of the park, improvement of the strand

zone, arrangements for work of the musical theater, construction of an underground parking

garage for 600 lots, cafes and restaurants. It is assumed that the original park plan developed

in 1929 by Konstantin Melnikov, where the legendary “Girl with a paddle” monument 8 meters

high 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 all

sources equaled to approx. 65 billion roubles.

Scope: a number of metropolitan railway and road infrastructure facilities has been constructed, a

mosque has been erected. With the support of the government of ST. Petersburg Peterburgskaya

Street 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 Museum

have been opened; many streets in the town center have been restored, a number of houses

and buildings have been reconstructed: city hall, riverside, suburban railway and bus stations,

international airport and other cultural, religious cult, entertainment facilities and facilities of the

2 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) NOVOSIBIRSKProject: “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) SAMARAFinancing: 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.

99

Scope: an organizing committee has been created for preparation and hosting the football

matches of FIFA World Cup 2018 in Samara region (chief of committee – region governor). An

inter-agency task force has been created for preparation and hosting FIFA World Cup, a plan

of high-priority preparation activities has been approved. The borders of the site design for

construction of the stadium and the related infrastructure have been established, the overall

building area will be 101 hectares. The project suggests construction of a stadium, new riverside

station, laying of new engineering utilities, construction of a distribution and sewerage pump

station. A question of possible modernization of transport infrastructure is being discussed in

order to ensure accessibility of the stadium. By the year 2015 Kurumoch International Airport will

have been reconstructed. Mileage of subway is planned to be increased. The plan also comprises

construction of two-level road junctions. The Russian Railways (RZhD) included Samara regional

in the concept of modernization of the railway infrastructure for organization of transport services

during FIFA World Cup. In 2012 construction of Frunzensky bridge will commence. The route

from the airport to the new stadium will modified into a highway by increasing its traffic capacity

from the current 450 passengers per hour to 2,000 passengers per hour.

8) ROSTOV-ON-DON

Project: “Introduction of an automated accounting and cashless public transport fare payment

system”, March 2009 (complete introduction with coverage of up to 80% of passengers – by

May 2011).

Financing: the municipal administration will take only those expenses which are related to the

issue of plastic cards which will be called “electronic travel cards”. The project itself will be

implemented by investors with the use of their own resources to the amount of 110-120 million

roubles.

Scope: payment of fare with a microprocessor plastic card will be available for all types of

passenger 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 card

the fare will be reduced by 50% of the established rate. Other passengers use transport cards

for travelling in public transport which do not suggest any fare discounts. The transport cards

has a zero balance and in order to start using it, it is necessary to make a credit to the amount of

at least one public transport fare. Such transport card is personalized and is issued to each user

on 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 by

means of sales and top-up terminals or by checking the information on the ticket (it contains

information on the card balance), which will be automatically issued by on-board terminals upon

payment of the fare with a card.

9) NIZHNY NOVGORODProject: “Construction of sports and recreation centers,” 2010–2015

Funding: 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. The

construction is paid by the municipal and regional budget at 50/50. Overall, above 7 billion

rubles will be allocated to sports and recreation centers by 2015. The annual maintenance of a

sports and recreation center costs around 48 million rubles.

Scope: by 2015 there should be two sports and recreation centers in every district of Nizhny

Novgorod. The building of a sports and recreation center in Perekopskaya Street in leninskiy

district of Nizhny Novgorod consists of three functional units: a skating ring with artificial ice for

hokey and figure skating; a central part with two swimming pools (a swimming pool with four

lanes and an entertainment pool with water attractions), facilities of a sports school for children

and youth, workout rooms, a conference hall for 80 seats with a possibility to watch films, and

a 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) CHELYABINSKProject: “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 PETERSBURGProject: “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) YEKATERINBURGProject: “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:

101

2005 – 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 – 15 400

square 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 connecting

the airport with the center of the Yekaterinburg (private-public partnership, total amount of

funding – 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) VOLGOGRAD Project: “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 document

sets 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 was

awaiting approval by the city council for more than a year. Experts believe that lack of this

document was the key obstacle for investors.

14) KAZAN Project: “Healthcare modernization,” 2007–2010.

Funding: 1,96 billion rubles (municipal budget).

Scope: this project has been implemented in scope of the ”Healthcare modernization program

in Kazan” in 2007–2010. The goal of the program is to introduce modern medical technologies

with consideration of marketing mechanisms and competition among providers of medical

services. The concept of the program is focused on elimination of overlapping healthcare

functions of the city and the Republic, restructuring and conversion of bedspace, efficient use

of available capacities, delivery of highly specialized medical assistance. As a result, the number

of beds has been increased from 25 to 70 per every 10 thousand residents; the number of

nurses per 1 medical doctor has increased to 6. The system or reception by phone has been

put 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 inpatient

treatment from 11,8 to 10 days. Production capacities have been expanded with an option of

performance increase of up to 3 times. A system of routing from medical and obstetrical centers

and rural hospitals to specialized multifunctional diagnostic centers has been put in place. An

increase in demographic figures has been observed. Prolongation of healthcare measures over

the long term is anticipated: development of legislative support of healthcare services market;

development of medical tourism; development of healthcare business based on 3 advanced

technological centers: State Enterprise “Interregional clinical and diagnostics center,” medical

unit of OJSC “Tatneft” and town of Almentyevsk, State Autonomous Healthcare Institution of the

Republic of Tatarstan “Emergency Care Hospital”.

102

Conclusion

103

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).

Conclusion

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.

105

III. INDEX OF LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF TARGET GROUPS

For business

For tourists

For residents

II. INDEX OF ENVIROMENTAL DEVELOPMENT FACTORS

Technologies

Administration

Social sphere

I. INDEX OF STATE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT

Culture and aesthetics

Social comfort

Ecology and housing

Career and self-development

Safety and convenience

0 50 100

53,6

47,1

57,5

61,3

56,6

67,9

52,3

51,2

43,4

41,5

60,3

56,8

47,9

43,0

FIG. 53. FINAL VALUES OF INDICIES OF THE STUDY

urban index russia 2011 (en)

Technology