2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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
6. 5
Summary
“F+” CITIES
Key conclusions of Urban Index Russia 2011
Bulat Stolyarov, Director General, IRP Group
Svetlana Serebryakova, Director for strategic consulting, IRP Group
While preparing Moscow Urban Forum 2011 we have performed the first profound of how 12
Russian million cities are perceived by their corps d’elite. For this purpose we have interviewed
over 300 experts from such cities using the same form, which allowed estimating the following
on the 100-point scale:
What happens? How experts characterize the condition of their cities in terms of the main
development factors?
What is important? What are the priorities of research participants as users of municipal services?
What’s to be done? Which methods for perfection of urban environment experts believe in, and
which – they don’t?
The research was conducted with the participation of experts from Moscow, Saint-Petersburg,
Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Novosibirsk, Chelyabinsk, Ufa, Rostov-on-Don, Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk,
Samara and Volgograd. The expert sample for all cities was formed in equal proportions of
architects, city planners, businessmen, cultural figures, politicians, officials, social workers,
journalists and public services workers.
The key results of research are given briefly in this summary.
What happens?
53,6 points – is a summary Index of urban environment condition in Russian million cities as
perceived by the experts who participated in 2011 research. It means an “F+” grade.
Accordingly, all other grades which are higher than 53,6 points are referred to the spheres of
urban life, which were characterized by the experts as relatively positive. All the factors, which
received less than 53,6 points – pull the values of comfort of our cities down.
Here is the list of the worst factors of Russian urban environment according to experts.
22,3 points. Road network, traffic jams. Similarly low values for all cities except Chelyabinsk.
7. 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.
8. 7
62,4 points. Quality of cultural offers in the city – theaters, museums, concerts. Equally high values
with the highest satisfaction in Saint-Petersubrg (77,8 points), except for Volgograd, experts from
Volgograd characterize the condition of cultural product of the city as catastrophic (29,2 points).
The most obvious metaphor to be used for analysis of these results – Maslow’s pyramid. Our
cities cannot yet satisfy a large number of basic human needs (transport, ecology, safety, doc-
tors, schools, having grades from F to F+), that we start to feel that the condition of services,
culture, education and architecture is generally acceptable. The cities which generally have
higher estimates of the quality of basic products become considerably more demanding to the
values of the following order.
What is important?
Any city as a system consists of hundreds of various services. Which of them are the most im-
portant today for advanced users of Russian million cities?
83,5 points. Development of road network, junctions, parking lots. This is the subject of absolute
consensus of the experts from all cities. We would like to remind that this is not only priority 1
for the experts of research, but it is also a factor, condition of which is estimated as the most
negative. Therefore transport situation is the main challenge for all Russian million cities.
81,3 points. Condition of health care and education. It is the subject of consensus of experts
from different cities as well, having the registered peak magnitude (93,1 points) for the experts
from Saint-Petersburg.
77,1 points. Public services. We would like to remind that experts estimate public services in
million cities as generally acceptable, but this does not mean that in their opinion it becomes
less significant for the life of the cities.
75,2 points. Safety in the city. This is the most distinctive priority for the two capitals (84,7 points
Saint-Petersburg and 81,1 points Moscow), which, of course, results from low values of the ex-
isting safety situation in the capitals.
74,2 points. Ecology. This is one more obviously critical challenge for the municipal policy: ecologi-
cal situation in million cities is characterized by the experts as problematic and top-priority sphere.
What is less important for Russian million cities today, in the opinion of Russian million cities?
51,8 points. Development of communication infrastructure. As we remember, this can be ex-
plained by rather high experts’ satisfaction with the existing situation in this sphere.
56 points. Transport and logistic connections with the external world. Only Chelyabinsk (73,1
points) is excluded from the common row of low values of this priority.
60,8 points. Development of urban public spaces. It is a paradox, but estimating their current
level of development composedly (52,5 points), the experts do not consider this part of munici-
pal policy to be a significant priority, with two exceptions – Rostov-on-Don and Novosibirsk.
The analysis of responses given by the research participants regarding their priorities in municipal
policies confirms the hypothesis of applicability of Maslow’s pyramid: as far as our cities fail to sat-
isfy the basic needs of their users, the experts cannot give the priorities to the improvement of public
spaces, formation of high-quality cultural product or development of “digital city” infrastructure.
9. 8
Whom our cities are comfortable for?
The experts of the research estimated the comfort in major Russian cities for three groups of con-
sumers: community, business and tourists. Generally, according to respondents, the conditions for
investors in our cities are more attractive today, than conditions for inhabitants and tourists.
67,9 points – summary Index of comfort of Russian million cities for business. The highest value in
Yekaterinburg (77,4 points), the lowest – in в Volgograd (39,6 points). Positive factors which increase
the values of business climate in Russian cities include availability of real estate for conduct of
business and availability of adequate labor resources. Among the negative factors for the business
environment of the cities are: absence of sites prepared for construction and general inability of
city authorities to work with instruments of private and state partnership and support of investment
activities.
Estimating the current comfort of million cities for business rather high, the experts consider the
progress of urban business environment as an important factor (priority 73,3 points).
52,3 points – summary Index of comfort of Russian million cities for tourists. The respondents from
Saint-Petersburg and Kazan consider their cities the most comfortable for tourism, the experts from
Volgograd and Omsk consider them the least comfortable. According to the experts, the advan-
tages of tourist services in Russian cities include first of all the variety of services sector, cafes,
restaurants. Among drawbacks – insufficient supply in the market of hotels and hostels. At the same
time the spread of estimates regarding the situation of hotel room stock is huge – almost 70 points
in well-developed Kazan and Yekaterinburg and 25 points in depressive Volgograd.
It is indicative that giving low values for the current tourist attraction of their cities, the experts do
not consider the development of tourist industry to be an important priority (62,8 points). Only Saint-
Petersburg, Kazan and Yekaterinburg (priority values exceeding 70 points) want to become more
attractive for tourists.
51,2 points – summary Index of comfort of Russian million cities for inhabitants. The spread of esti-
mates is almost double. 63,1 points for Yekaterinburg and 35,4 points for Volgograd. It is apparent
for the experts that the cities must become more comfortable for their residents (priority 69,8 points).
What’s to be done?
The experts were also proposed to estimate the alternate paths for improvement of urban environ-
ment. We conventionally divided them into three vectors: management (various aspects of perfec-
tion of city management), civil (the stake is placed on the activity of citizens in urban improvement)
and technological (the stake is placed on improved technical equipment of municipal service and
facilities).
The experts put their highest hopes on the management progress (73,4 points). This index contains
the most significant indicators for the experts – need of an intelligent strategy and general plan (80,4
points), fighting corruption (78 points) and increased quality of management team (74,2 points).
The experts far less believe in civil vector of perfection. The need of focusing on the support of
public initiatives and grassroots activity received only 62,4 points. Experts in Novosibirsk believe in
value of public initiatives for the municipal progress more than the others (72,6 points), experts from
Samara believe in it less (50 points).
The prospects of technological vector for development of the cities were estimated by the
10. 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.
11. 10
TABLE 1. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC STUDY INDICES
St Petersburg
Yekaterinburg
Chelyabinsk
Novosibirsk
Rostov-on-
Volgograd
Novgorod
Moscow
Average
Samara
Nizhny
Kazan
Omsk
Don
Ufa
Indices
I INDEX OF STATE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT
53 ,6 60,2 55,8 56,5 60,5 57,4 52,4 53,0 49,7 52,3 49,7 49,5 41,6
“WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVORINOMENT LIKE?”
A. Environment for living in the city 56,8 57,3 60,4 57,2 65,7 60,3 54,7 56,6 52,9 54,3 52,4 58,4 46,4
Natural environment Environmental situation in the city 33,2 35,7 38,6 33,3 47,6 25,0 37,5 24,7 38,1 36,8 30,8 38,9 27,1
(ecology)
Quality of potable water 45,8 31,0 33,0 43,1 78,6 50,0 49,0 46,4 35,7 35,9 55,8 44,4 50,0
"Sound comfort" level in the city (absence of unpleasant
41,3 48,8 44,3 45,8 47,6 40,4 42,7 30,6 42,5 53,1 44,2 43,1 47,9
noises)
Green planted areas (woods, parks, squares) 53,7 56,0 35,2 45,8 58,3 63,5 67,7 53,6 60,5 50,0 61,5 55,6 31,3
Housing Diversity of housing for offer in the purchase market 61,6 65,5 72,7 64,7 70,2 73,1 52,2 57,8 61,3 57,8 48,1 73,4 47,9
Diversity of housing for offer in the rental market 59,7 60,7 68,2 64,7 69,0 69,2 52,1 57,7 63,1 54,7 52,1 67,2 35,4
Communal re- Regularity and accessibility of public utilities (water,
66,8 65,5 69,3 65,3 70,2 65,4 65,6 76,7 51,2 58,8 63,5 55,6 62,5
sources heating, gas, electricity)
B. Environment for safety, health, self-reliance 43,0 54,7 46,6 40,4 51,3 43,4 35,9 45,4 37,8 40,0 38,3 36,7 32,0
Safety Personal safety, protection from crime 41,6 51,2 48,9 38,9 54,8 46,2 42,7 31,6 40,0 43,3 50,0 38,2 45,8
Evening and night-time lighting 58,5 63,1 61,9 73,6 58,3 65,4 50,0 65,2 52,5 51,5 46,2 44,4 45,8
Social sphere Healthcare services 41,1 42,9 50,0 33,3 55,0 51,9 43,8 35,3 35,7 39,7 46,2 38,9 37,5
Provision of pre-school and educational institutions 36,2 41,7 42,0 37,5 38,1 46,2 31,3 37,3 35,7 39,1 30,8 25,0 22,9
Jobs Possibility of finding work to match one's qualifications
43,6 62,5 39,3 39,7 48,8 37,5 28,1 54,3 38,1 38,2 33,3 37,5 22,9
and with adequate salary
C. Environment for social life 60,2 63,5 62,3 61,9 65,6 66,2 64,0 60,2 56,1 57,5 56,1 54,6 47,6
Retail, public Shops, retail centres, networks 76,9 86,9 84,1 79,2 81,0 75,0 75,0 74,0 75,0 76,6 67,3 81,9 66,7
catering
Restaurants, cafes, fast food 70,9 83,3 76,1 76,4 73,8 73,1 64,6 68,8 68,8 70,3 67,3 70,8 58,3
Public spaces Availability of public recreational areas with amenities 52,5 56,0 55,7 55,6 53,6 71,2 55,4 47,7 55,0 48,4 51,9 48,6 45,8
Availability of attractive modern museums, theatres,
62,4 65,5 67,0 77,8 63,1 61,5 57,6 65,8 58,3 56,3 65,4 59,7 29,2
concert venues
Amenities Clean and well maintained streets and yards 48,4 45,2 48,9 51,4 58,3 57,7 51,0 55,9 45,2 43,8 38,5 26,4 22,9
Public transport Comfortable and accessibile public transport 53,7 57,1 50,0 44,4 59,5 55,8 67,7 52,6 46,4 54,7 55,8 50,0 50,0
Modern types of Coverage of the urban environment with new
communication, information technologies (internet acess points, 61,0 63,1 65,5 65,3 75,0 71,2 70,8 55,6 53,6 57,4 53,8 58,3 52,1
new technologies information boards, cash machines etc)
Telephone network, internet, other modern types of
75,2 77,4 77,3 77,9 76,2 80,8 75,0 76,4 64,3 73,4 69,2 76,4 75,0
communication
D. Environment for career, personal development 47,9 59,7 51,9 47,7 55,2 60,0 47,9 43,6 43,0 48,0 45,0 45,4 38,3
Education (higher, High quality education after school
66,0 77,4 72,6 67,6 72,6 65,4 52,1 65,0 60,0 68,8 69,2 61,1 64,6
vocational)
Environment for Conditions for running a small business
40,3 59,2 45,5 34,7 52,4 43,8 47,9 31,6 40,5 45,3 32,7 44,4 18,8
small business
Road network, Possibility of traffic without traffic jams, availablity of
convenience for free parking 22,3 29,8 20,2 18,1 29,8 71,2 31,3 11,2 17,9 18,3 32,7 12,5 22,9
drivers
Logistical links with Convenient transport links with the main centres of
66,5 82,1 69,3 70,6 70,2 57,7 66,7 72,3 59,5 55,9 43,8 69,1 41,7
the world Russia and the world
E. Cultural, aesthetic environment 61,3 66,1 58,5 76,7 64,9 58,7 63,9 60,3 61,3 63,3 59,6 53,1 44,3
External attractiveness, beauty spots, views 65,7 73,8 68,2 83,3 66,7 57,7 68,8 63,2 63,1 68,8 61,5 59,7 52,1
Condition of cultural and historical monuments 50,1 51,2 30,7 62,5 63,1 57,7 60,4 49,0 53,8 46,7 50,0 33,3 43,8
Availability of attractive modern museums, theatres,
62,4 65,5 67,0 77,8 63,1 61,5 57,6 65,8 58,3 56,3 65,4 59,7 29,2
concert venues
12. 11
St Petersburg
Yekaterinburg
Chelyabinsk
Novosibirsk
Rostov-on-
Volgograd
Novgorod
Moscow
Average
Samara
Nizhny
Kazan
Omsk
Don
Ufa
Indices
II. INDICES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
FACTORS ”WHAT DOES THE QUALITY OF URBAN 47,1 56,8 51,6 47,7 56,0 52,9 49,1 42,8 44,5 46,1 44,6 44,7 34,9
ENVIRONMENT DEPEND ON?”
F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 41,5 50,6 43,1 41,5 51,0 41,5 38,2 40,4 40,1 41,4 41,6 38,0 28,4
Culture, attitude Behavioural culture, attitude of residents to their city
37,1 46,4 39,3 37,5 48,7 34,6 40,2 31,6 38,8 39,1 38,5 34,7 27,1
to city
Public activity Citizens' participation in public and charitable projects
51,5 61,9 50,0 50,0 58,3 50,0 44,8 56,6 44,0 48,4 48,1 48,6 31,8
of citywide significance
Residents' involvement in improving their home, yard 43,8 47,6 38,6 33,3 58,3 55,8 38,5 44,1 45,2 43,8 46,2 40,3 31,8
Citizens' assistance in protecting and restoring city
42,3 53,6 44,0 51,4 45,2 40,4 28,1 46,4 35,7 40,0 40,4 34,7 31,8
monuments and significant places
G. MANAGEMENT 43,4 60,3 51,6 44,7 53,2 52,2 47,7 32,2 45,0 48,0 43,8 42,8 30,2
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 48,5 73,8 51,1 59,7 59,5 51,9 58,3 34,9 46,4 45,6 53,8 43,1 35,4
development
Existence of a current general plan that meets the
requirements of the city and ensures its sustainable 48,0 76,2 50,0 54,2 58,3 51,9 57,3 32,9 47,6 57,4 46,2 43,1 37,5
development
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
60,4 75,0 68,8 59,7 65,8 65,4 56,3 58,4 57,1 60,9 43,8 62,5 45,8
cooperation with other cities
H. TECHNOLOGIES 56,6 59,5 60,1 56,9 64,3 65,4 62,0 57,3 48,1 48,5 48,1 52,8 47,9
Technological Technical equipment of city management and services
52,3 56,0 55,7 48,6 53,6 59,6 53,1 59,0 42,5 39,7 42,3 47,2 43,8
potential responsible for the city
Coverage of the urban environment with new
information technologies (internet acess points, 61,0 63,1 65,5 65,3 75,0 71,2 70,8 55,6 53,6 57,4 53,8 58,3 52,1
information boards, cash machines etc)
III. INDEX OF SATISFACTION OF TARGET GROUPS
57,5 65,2 63,8 61,1 58,6 60,2 58,3 56,7 58,6 55,7 46,5 57,1 37,6
“ARE YOU SATISFIED?”
I. Convenience for residents as a whole 51,2 63,1 53,4 52,9 54,8 57,7 53,1 47,7 50,0 48,4 50,0 51,4 35,4
J. Conditions for business 67,9 77,4 71,6 62,5 71,4 76,9 68,8 69,9 71,4 63,2 47,9 70,6 39,6
Business and Sites for new construction (availability, accessibility,
42,5 42,9 44,6 48,6 54,8 55,8 45,8 40,1 40,5 42,6 36,5 38,9 18,8
investment climate readiness of infrastructure)
components
Office/retail spaces for rental (accessibility, quality,
62,2 59,5 72,8 66,7 72,6 61,5 58,3 58,2 51,2 58,8 71,2 63,9 52,1
convenient location)
Possibility of finding workers with necessary
58,1 58,3 55,4 66,7 58,3 51,9 63,5 64,5 60,7 52,9 53,8 56,9 54,2
qualifications in the city
Availability of loans 56,1 50,0 57,6 55,6 63,1 57,7 59,4 52,3 50,0 58,8 59,6 59,7 50,0
Mechamisms of state and municipal support for
41,0 40,5 47,8 43,1 52,4 36,5 44,8 32,9 32,1 48,5 40,4 41,7 31,3
projects
K. Conditions for tourists 52,3 54,8 65,9 68,1 46,4 42,3 52,1 52,3 52,4 54,4 39,6 47,2 37,5
Components of Hotels, hostels, short-term accommodation rentals 55,1 69,0 69,6 65,3 52,4 67,3 56,3 45,1 52,4 45,6 51,9 61,1 25,0
attractiveness to
Information, city web portal 56,2 64,3 60,9 59,7 61,9 71,2 62,5 47,7 57,1 50,0 48,1 59,7 31,3
tourists
Trips round the city, to museums (accessibility, quality,
53,4 60,7 56,5 73,6 56,0 57,7 44,8 61,5 56,0 51,5 44,2 51,4 27,1
attractiveness)
Cafes, restaurants etc for tourists (varbiety, price/quality
66,3 82,1 70,7 68,1 73,8 76,9 62,5 63,8 63,1 63,2 63,5 63,9 43,8
correlation)
Ease of finding your way around in city: is it easy to find
53,2 64,3 52,2 50,0 59,5 57,7 58,3 43,8 56,0 47,1 63,5 44,4 41,7
the street, sight or apartment block you need?
Residents' attitute to tourists (friendly, ready to help) 61,4 66,7 63,0 68,1 71,4 55,8 62,5 48,4 63,1 61,8 63,5 58,3 54,2
13. 12
TABLE 2. PRIORITIES OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT
Nizhny Novgorod
Saint-Petersburg
Rostov-on-Don
Yekaterinburg
Chelyabinsk
Novosibirsk
Volgograd
Moscow
Average
Samara
Kazan
Omsk
Ufa
I. URBAN ENVIRONMENT INDEX (What is
69,6 71,1 74,4 75,3 73,1 70,6 65,5 67,9 72,3 69,4 71,4 62,6 68,8
the condition of urban environment?)
A. Living environment 71,0 75,9 74,0 71,8 76,4 74,6 69,2 66,1 70,2 75,8 74,6 67,4 72,5
Natural environment Ecology, installation of waste treatment
74,2 78,6 77,4 80,6 73,8 88,5 71,9 70,3 78,6 71,9 76,9 67,6 66,7
(ecology) facilities
Housing Construction of municipal housing 64,3 64,3 69,3 62,5 71,4 57,7 66,7 61,5 57,1 68,3 73,1 65,3 62,5
Construction sites preparation and attraction
62,7 70,0 63,6 52,8 75,0 67,3 72,9 52,0 58,3 81,3 61,5 55,9 77,3
of construction investors
Public utilities (power, heat, water and gas
Utility resources 77,1 82,1 80,7 81,9 83,3 76,9 65,6 75,0 78,6 78,1 81,3 70,8 81,3
supply)
B. Safety, health self-dependence
74,5 69,6 75,0 83,9 74,6 73,4 73,6 74,6 78,1 75,2 76,2 68,1 69,8
environment
Safety in the city, decreased level of
Safety 75,2 79,8 71,6 84,7 76,2 72,9 71,9 81,1 75,0 67,6 75,0 62,5 60,4
criminality
Social sphere Social sector (health care, education, etc.) 81,3 76,2 78,4 93,1 82,1 85,4 75,0 80,3 86,9 85,9 86,5 72,1 83,3
Workplaces (creation of new workplaces,
Workplaces 68,0 57,1 75,0 76,4 67,9 67,3 74,0 64,7 73,8 71,7 69,2 60,3 66,7
retraining)
C. Social life environment 64,0 65,9 69,6 68,4 70,2 63,0 58,6 62,7 72,0 59,0 63,0 56,3 58,9
Arrangement of open public spaces for
Public spaces 60,8 65,5 69,3 58,3 69,0 58,3 57,3 59,2 70,2 48,5 61,5 52,8 58,3
leisure and communication
Municipal improvement Improvement of streets and neighborhoods 71,4 71,4 73,9 80,9 71,4 73,1 69,8 67,1 76,2 70,3 76,9 66,7 77,1
Public transport Public transport 72,0 71,4 73,9 88,2 82,1 71,2 57,3 75,7 73,8 68,8 65,4 62,5 58,3
Modern types of
Development of communication means
communication, new 51,8 56,3 61,4 51,4 58,3 48,1 50,0 48,7 67,9 45,6 48,1 43,1 41,7
(telephone, internet, etc.)
technology
D. Career, self-development environment 69,5 73,1 74,9 72,6 74,9 67,3 64,5 66,8 74,2 66,6 77,1 60,4 69,3
Education (higher,
Education (higher, vocational, retraining, etc.) 67,3 64,3 70,5 72,2 67,9 59,6 72,9 69,7 79,8 55,9 59,6 61,1 52,1
vocational)
Conditions for small Conditions for development of small
71,0 78,8 79,5 73,6 73,8 81,3 57,3 66,1 76,2 68,8 86,5 56,9 79,2
business business and free enterprise
Road network, Development of road network, construction
83,5 89,3 89,8 86,1 92,9 71,2 70,8 82,9 78,6 85,9 94,2 73,6 93,8
convenience for drivers of junctions and parking lots
Repairs of the existing road infrastructure 77,3 82,1 84,1 84,7 82,1 67,3 67,7 74,0 73,8 77,9 90,4 73,5 83,3
Logistic connections to Transport and logistic connections with
56,0 64,3 59,1 52,8 67,9 73,1 52,1 47,3 60,7 56,7 71,2 43,1 56,3
the world other cities and countries
E. Cultural, aesthetic environment 68,3 70,2 78,0 77,8 68,5 73,1 59,2 68,2 65,6 67,5 63,5 59,0 71,9
City appearance (appeal, bright features) 67,9 75,0 76,2 69,4 67,9 76,9 64,1 62,5 68,8 68,3 63,5 66,7 75,0
Protection of cultural and historical heritage 69,0 65,5 79,5 86,1 69,0 69,2 56,3 73,7 64,3 67,2 63,5 51,4 68,8
14. 13
Nizhny Novgorod
Saint-Petersburg
Rostov-on-Don
Yekaterinburg
Chelyabinsk
Novosibirsk
Volgograd
Moscow
Average
Samara
Kazan
Omsk
Ufa
II. INDEX OF ENVIRONMENT
DEVELOPMENT FACTORS (What does the 67,3 67,2 69,7 72,6 74,4 70,4 58,9 65,1 69,6 71,8 72,3 59,5 67,0
quality of urban environment depend on?)
F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 62,9 66,7 65,3 63,9 72,6 68,8 59,4 59,3 66,7 67,5 61,5 52,1 61,5
Culture, attitude to Municipal patriotic education, cultural
67,9 75,0 76,2 69,4 67,9 76,9 64,1 62,5 68,8 68,3 63,5 66,7 75,0
the city behavior in the city
Support of public initiatives, grassroots
Public activity 69,0 65,5 79,5 86,1 69,0 69,2 56,3 73,7 64,3 67,2 63,5 51,4 68,8
activity
G. MANAGEMENT 73,4 70,5 77,0 82,1 79,8 74,7 59,9 72,5 71,7 77,0 81,5 66,3 77,8
Improvement of city management system,
Management team 74,2 67,9 76,1 82,4 82,1 73,1 60,4 73,6 70,2 79,7 90,4 64,7 83,3
selection of managerial human resources
Elaboration of intelligent strategy, town-
Strategies 80,4 81,0 84,1 94,1 85,7 78,8 64,6 79,7 76,2 85,9 84,6 73,5 87,5
planning policy
Fighting corruption in management and
Corruption fighting 78,0 75,0 80,7 86,1 77,4 83,3 60,4 83,3 81,0 71,9 84,6 66,7 77,1
municipal services
Support of public initiatives, grassroots
Public control 62,2 64,3 64,8 63,9 72,6 67,3 57,3 61,3 60,7 64,1 61,5 50,0 62,5
activity
Development of cooperation with other cities
External relations 60,2 60,7 71,6 58,3 69,0 76,9 59,8 48,0 65,5 67,2 71,2 57,8 56,3
and regions
H. TECHNOLOGY 64,6 64,3 65,5 69,4 70,2 67,3 57,3 62,0 70,2 70,3 71,2 58,3 58,3
Technical equipment of municipal services
Technological potential 64,6 64,3 65,5 69,4 70,2 67,3 57,3 62,0 70,2 70,3 71,2 58,3 58,3
and facilities
III. TARGET GROUPS SATISFACTION INDEX
68,9 72,1 76,0 75,6 72,1 75,5 61,2 64,8 73,0 71,7 70,5 59,8 72,5
(Are you satisfied?)
I. General comfort for community 69,6 71,1 74,4 75,3 73,1 70,6 65,5 67,9 72,3 69,4 71,4 62,6 68,8
J. Conditions for business 73,3 73,8 79,5 77,8 79,8 84,6 63,5 66,3 79,8 77,9 80,8 63,9 81,8
Attraction of investments, creation of
73,3 73,8 79,5 77,8 79,8 84,6 63,5 66,3 79,8 77,9 80,8 63,9 81,8
comfortable business environment
K. Conditions for tourists 62,8 71,4 73,9 73,6 60,7 69,2 53,1 59,5 65,5 66,7 53,8 51,5 64,6
Attraction of tourists, development of
62,8 71,4 73,9 73,6 60,7 69,2 53,1 59,5 65,5 66,7 53,8 51,5 64,6
hospitality industry
16. 15
Research methodology
The Urban Index Russia 2011 research is based on surveying three hundred experts from twelve
cities of Russia with the population exceeding one million people, according to the 2010 census
records: Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara,
Omsk, Kazan, Chelyabinsk, Rostov-on-Don, Ufa , Volgograd.
The survey was conducted by quota sampling taking into account the distribution of expert by
their place of residence (city) and professional occupation or status. The professional groups
experts were chosen from were:
architects;
journalists and mass media editors;
social workers (doctors, teachers);
scientists;
men of art and culture;
public services managers (hotels, restaurants, travel companies);
officers of administrations (city and regional administrations);
deputies (city and regional deputies);
businessmen (large- / medium- /small-size enterprises; international / local businesses).
FIG. 1. DISTRIBUTION OF EXPERTS PARTICIPATING IN SURVEY, BY PROFESSIONAL AREA, %
5 Journalists and media editors
7 Deputies
8 Managers of city
26 Social sphere and
businesses in expert community
the service sector representatives
9 Workers of
culture and
people of art
10 Architects
21 Representatives of
large and medium-
sized business
14 Officials
The questionnaire of the expert survey, as well as the research program, was formed on the
basis of the initial analytical model specifying the components of the urban environment and
main factors that may affect it. The structure of the main components and factors is given on
figure 2.
17. 16
FIG. 2. URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS AND FACTORS
WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVORINOMENT LIKE? WHAT DOES THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEPEND ON?
(URBAN ENVIRONMENT COMPONENTS) (URBAN ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT FACTORS)
А-1. Natural environment
(ecology) A. ENVIRONMENT FOR
А-2. Housing LIVING IN THE CITY
А-3. Public utilities resources
B-1. Safety
B. ENVIRONMENT TO F-1. Citizens’ cultural
B-2. Social sphere and behavior, their
SUSTAIN THE LEVEL F. QUALITY OF SOCIAL
expert community attitude to their city
OF LIFE, SELF- ENVIRONMENT
representatives RELIANCE F-2. Social activities
B-3. Jobs
С-1. Retail, public catering
С-2. Public spaces G-1. Management team
С-3. Amenities C. ENVIRONMENT FOR URBAN G-2. Strategies
SOCIAL LIFE G. MANAGEMENT G-3. Absence of
С-4. Public transport ENVIRONMENT
corruption
С-5. Modern types of
communication, new G-4. Public control
technologies G-5. External relations
D-1. Professional, vocational
H. TECHNOLOGICAL
education H-1. Technologies
POTENTIAL
D-2. Environment for small D. ENVIRONMENT FOR
business CAREER, PERSONAL
DEVELOPMENT
D-3. Municipal road network
D-4. Transport links with the world
E-1. Beauty, attractiveness E. CULTURAL
AESTHETIC
E-2. Cultural heritage ENVIRONMENT
The system urban environment components is defined based on the idea of hierarchy of the
citizen’s needs (by the analogy with the well-known “Maslow’s pyramid”), starting from the
space, at least with the minimum amenities for living, allocated for such citizen, and to the higher
cultural and symbolic needs.
The set of factors within our model assumes that the state of the city is formed and changed by
the combined impact of citizens, city authorities and objective opportunities granted by the level
of the technological development.
Index components and factors are assigned statistically calculated by the main components
method weight coefficients, which considerably coincided with their initial expert assessment.
The research questionnaire offered the experts to asses each component and factor of the
urban environment using “school-based” five-point grading system from 1 (bad) to 5 (excellent).
Each parameter was assessed by the expert three times: (1) assessment of current state; (2)
much priority should be given to a component or a factor by the city authorities.
18. 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 I. State of urban environment II. Urban environment III. Level of comfort of
INDICES development factors urban environment for
(What is the urban environment like?) target groups
(What does the quality of the ur-
ban environment depend on?) (Are You satisfied?)
SPECIAL A. Environment for living (ecology F. Quality of social envi- I. For residents
INDICES and housing) ronment J. For business
B. Environment for life and self- G. Management model K. For tourists
reliance (jobs, safety, social infra- H. Technological potential
structure)
C. Environment for social life (com-
fort, communications, availability)
D. Environment for career and
self-development (higher education,
small and large business, external
links)
E. Cultural, aesthetic environment
(beauty, attractiveness, historical
heritage)
19. 18
Final index assessments are given using a hundred-point grading system received by simple
arithmetic translation from the initial (five-point) system:
TABLE 3. EVALUATION SCALE OF THE STUDY INDICES
EVALUATION ON A STATE OF URBAN PRIORITY EVALUATION ON A
5-SCORE SCALE ENVIRONMENT 100-SCORE SCALE
5 Excellent main priority 100
4 Good above average priority 75-99
3 Average average priority 50-74
2 Problem below average priority 25-49
1 Poor not a priority 1-24
Urban environment components and factors indices are used for evaluating the comfort of the
city for its permanent residents. The experts were also asked to speak by the similar scheme
and concerning certain important parameters for certain target groups about the state of the
urban environment for tourists and business investors. Based on their answers, additional target
groups satisfaction indices were calculated using the same procedure as the main indices.
Statistical processing of data received from the expert survey was conducted using the meth-
ods of correlation, regression (multiple linear regression) and factor (varimax) analysis.
Along with the questions required for building primary and special urban environment indices,
the research questionnaire included additional topics we consider to be important for under-
standing urban development in modern Russia. They include:
Effect on affairs in the city the concerned groups reside in (stakeholders): public authorities
(federal, regional and urban), law enforcement agencies, business (large-, medium and small-
size businesses, governmental and private businesses), public associations and action groups,
scientists and specialists, clerisy;
Participation of the concerned groups (businessmen, representatives of regional authorities,
public organizations, experts, specialists, common citizens) in development of the city strategy;
Assessment of business, political, ethical merits required for city authorities: ideal (as should
be) and actual, as the experts see them;
Projects of the last five years having positively affected, in the experts’ opinion, the environment of their city;
Recommendations for federal and regional authorities and business: what, in the experts’
opinion, they must do for their city.
20. 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.
22. 21
А. Working typology of cities and experts
What is common between Rostov and Nizhny, in what business
society and architects are consentient?
Urban Index Russia has as the aim not only to evaluate the general condition of million-cities
of Russia and its experts’ evaluation, but also to follow the patterns that are characteristic for
different experts’ types defined by us in our sampling.
The results of the expert survey are of course useful and interesting but still insufficient source
for understanding the differences between the cities. By offering the experts to assess the
state of the urban environment using the “bad/good” scale we obviously can not expect that
the experts’ opinions on good and bad lie within the same objective plane. The results of the
survey also reflect how much the experts’ opinions depend on their profession and status. It
can be assumed that the experts from the larger, more developed city, may be more exigent and
give their urban environment – which is objectively more comfortable – a lower grade than the
experts from the city, which is less developed but the citizens of which have lesser demands.
For the purpose of more reliable assessment we also used statistical data that does not depend
on subjective evaluations.
We took two statistical indices as the comparison coordinates: the population of the city
and intensity of trading calculated as a volume of retail turnover per capita (see fig. 4). The
demography of the city is important for us first of all due to that as the population grows, the
complexity of problems the urban economy meets grows as well, new demands concerning
the urban environment emerge as well as the new opportunities for its development. We can
assume that the larger cities, given other similar conditions, will be relatively more developed
and fitted: the soviet town-planning gave priority to their construction, and within the market
economy they are typically more attractive for investors (e.g. for distribution networks).
The importance of index of trading intensity per capita was emphasized a century ago by Veniamin
Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, an outstanding Russian economic geographer, who considered that
the “briskness” of industrial production and turnover are key characteristics distinguishing the
“true city” from the city officially called that.
During the period of post-industrial development, the importance of industry for major cities have
significantly changed, and the weight of the post-industrial economy, innovative production and
tourism is still barely taken into account in the statistical indices, while we still take the trade as
an approximate yet some guide for assessment of the intensity of urban life.
23. 22
FIG. 4. LARGEST RUSSIAN CITIES: BASIC STATISTICAL INDICES (POPULATION, TRADE
TURNOVER PER CAPITA) AND EXPERT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
56
48
City population (million people)
1 1,1 1,3 4 +
Saint Petersburg
60 Retail turnover (thousand roubles per capita)
57 52
46
50 100 +
50
45
Moscow 60 57
56 52 56
Nizhny 48 1.What is the urban
environment like?
Novgorod
2. Factors’ condition the
Kazan
quality of the urban en-
vironment depends on
Yekaterinburg 50
Rostov-on-Don 45 1 2
Samara
Volgograd 49 Ufa
42 45 Chelyabinsk Situation change forecasts (score)
35 52 49 60
57 53 56
Omsk
1 10 15 20 +
Novosibirsk
In the two-dimensional space “population – trade turnover intensity”, the capital cities – Moscow
and Saint-Petersburg (type I) – have left the others considerably behind both in population (10.6
million and 4.6 million people) and trade turnover (293.3 thousand and 133.6 thousand rouble
per capita), while the other cities are divided as follows (see fig. 5):
24. 23
FIG. 5. POPULATION AND TRADE TURNOVER PER CAPITA OF THE LARGEST CITIES OF
RUSSIA (EXCEPT FOR MOSCOW AND SAINT-PETERSBURG)
“SMALL MILLION-POPULATION CITIES” “REGIONAL CAPITAL CITIES”
WITH HIGH ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
65 III II
Retail turnover (thousand roubles per capita)
60 Rostov-on-Don Samara
Nizhny Novgorod Yekaterinburg
55
Kazan Novosibirsk
50
IV I
45 Volgograd Chelyabinsk
40
Ufa
35
Omsk
30 “SMALL MILLION-POPULATION
CITIES” WITH LOW ECONOMIC
25 ACTIVITY
20
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Population (thousand people)
Difference between the experts from the different types of cities is quite obvious, especially
when comparing the current and forecasted evaluations of the urban environment (see fig. 6)
Typically, the more critically the current state of urban environment is assessed, the more
considerable improvement is expected during the following 10-15 years, and vice-versa, a
relatively high evaluation of the current state is suggests the moderateness in assessment of
future developments.
25. 24
FIG. 6. ASSESSMENT OF PERCEPTION OF THE STATE OF URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND
FORECAST OF ITS DEVELOPMENT DURING THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS BY CITIES
“GOOD, NO CHANGES “GOOD, BUT WE WENT IT TO BE BETTER”
REQUIRED“
Status of the state of urban environment
14,0
III Kazan II
12,0 Volgograd
Samara Nizhny Novgorod
10,0 Rostov-on-Don Ufa
Omsk Chelyabinsk
8,0
6,0
IV Moscow Yekaterinburg I
4,0 Novosibirsk
2,0
Saint Petersburg “BAD, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CHANGED”
0
40 45 50 55 60 65
Forecast of changes in 10-15 years
“Capital cities” and “interregional capital cities”
“Small million-population cities“ with high economic activity
“Small million-population cities“ with low economic activity
Correspondingly, the experts in the cities of I and II type, i.e. the largest ones, with the most
intensive economic turnover distinguish (except from Nizhny Novgorod) by the lower evaluation of
the current state of environment and higher optimism concerning future development, and the III
and IV type cities (lower population, lower economy and trade intensity) give a high assessment of
the current situation and put less trust in the future.
From the professional point of view, the research has revealed considerable differences in perception
of the urban problems by the experts, and such differences allow us to better understand the
survey results.
At first approximation we identify the “optimists” and “pessimists” among the expert groups
surveyed. Deputies, officials, and fewer service and social workers tend to evaluate the state of
urban environment and the factors affecting it higher. Businessmen, men of art and professional
architects on the contrary are inclined towards more critical evaluations (see fig. 7).
The journalists distinguish by that they more often give the assessment, which is different from that
of the average sample of experts in both directions, – positive and negative (putting it differently,
distinguish by the deviations that can not be explained by the common attitude, either more critical
or more optimistic). It can be assumed that the assessment of journalist experts represents the
point of view that is more close to that of the common people, a “man in the street”.
26. 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)
60 “OPTIMISTS”
Factors the quality of urban environment depends on
55
Deputies
Officials
Media
50
Urban services
Social sphere
45
Architects
Business
40
Culture
Level of satisfaction of target groups
below 50 points
35 “PESSIMISTS” above 50 points
30
48 50 52 54 56 58
What is the urban environment like?
Having supplemented the overall picture by the opinions of experts on the state of their cities in
the 10-15 years perspective, we obtained the better understanding of the respondents. Generally,
the same regularity was revealed: critical assessment of the current state usually coincides with
the better hopes for improvement, and the high assessment of the current conditions on the
contrary results in less optimistic forecasts (see fig. 8).
27. 26
FIG. 8. ASSESSMENTS OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ITS
DEVELOPMENT IN 10-15 YEARS BY EXPERTS’ PROFESSIONS
“OPTIMISTS NOW AND “OPTIMISTS NOW AND
PESSIMISTS IN THE FUTURE” IN THE FUTURE”
Status of the state of urban environment
14,0
III II
Deputies
12,0
and its factors of development
Architects
10,0
Business
8,0 Officials
Culture
6,0 Social sphere
IV I
4,0 Urban services
2,0 Media “PESSIMISTS NOW,
OPTIMISTS IN THE FUTURE”
0
40 45 50 55 60 65
Forecast of changes of urban environment and its factors in 10-15 years
The model “present pessimists, future optimists” are architects, which can be explained by
their professional mission. The opposite opinion – “everything is not bad today, but no great
improvements should be expected” – belongs to the journalists and city service sector workers
(utility services, trade, cafes and restaurants).
The experts belonging to the sector of culture and business, on the one hand, and the officers
and state employees on the other hand, are moderately optimistic about next 10-15 years, but
substantially distinguish in assessment of the current state: the public officials tend to give
a better assessments, and the men of culture and business on the contrary to give critical
assessments. It should be noted that in the average values the most advanced indices are sub-
indices “Culture and aesthetics of Russian cities” (61.3 points) and “Business environment”
(67.9 points). Apparently, the rhetorical question of whether the culture and business will ever
be heard in Russia is still urgent.
The most “rose-colored” view is given by the deputies giving the highest assessment of both
current situation and future development. They also distinguish by the weakest ability to determine
the development priorities (they picked the most detailed lists of factors the authorities should
concentrate on).
For the purposes of our research such differences mean that the relatively full and weighted
assessment can be received only through its “stereoscopy”, by comparing the opinions of
experts of different professional groups.
Joint discussions, participation in decision-making by the professionals with different experience
shall become, in our opinion, one of the main elements of city policy. To what extent such
participation is characteristic for the largest cities of modern Russia is one of the topics of our
research.
30. 29
B. Urban environment index
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).
FIG. 9. WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT LIKE? CURRENT AND FORECASTED STATE
1
Environment for living in the city Status
100 Forecast
57,8
56,2
5
Cultural and aesthetic 65,2 54,5 2
environment 60,8 42,2 Environment for safety,
0 healthcarecare, self-reliance
47,2 59,8
56,7
68,2
4 3
Environment for career, Environment for social life
personal development
Marked by experts as high-
priority areas of work
