GRAS III St Petersburg Case Russia Project Results

GRAS III St. Petersburg Case Russia Project Results TEAM: Ksenia Shelest Ulrika Åkerlund Lena Petrova Galina Schelkanova Maria Tysiachniouk

CONTENTS • 1. Methodology of Research – Enquiries and Interviews Phases (K. Sh. , L. P. &G. Sch. ) • 2. Analysis of Results on Enquiries and Interviews (K. Sh. ) • 3. Conclusions: Differences & Similarities, Problems, Perspectives for S. D. (K. Sh. &M. T. )

1. METHODOLOGY OF GRAS III RESEARCH in SPB • TWO PHASES - Enquiries and Interviews COLLECTION • RESULTS ANALYSIS AND REPORTING • TEAM ORGANIZATION – Senior Researcher, Ph. D Student- Coordinator, Student Team leader, Students

Phase of Enquiries collection (Lena) • Field Trips to Areas with All team • Contacts with local residents • • • Informing about the international research programme Guidance of students about the process Collecting of Enquiries by students Weekly organizational meetings Checking of filled enquiries

Phase of Interviews collection (Galina) • Field Trips to Areas with All team • Contacts with local residents • Interviews doing by the Senior & Students with recording & written comments • Transcription of records in Russian • Interviews Translation into English

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -1 • 100 filled enquiries (50 – SHA , 50 – MHA) • • RESPONDENTS CATEGORIES: Very young people (from 15 years) Young people 20 -30 without children Lone mothers with child(ren) Single persons Adult couples with children Middle age persons Pensioners NORMAL DISTRIBUTION 11 11 6 13 17 16 27

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -2 • HOUSEHOLDS & OCCUPATION: Families (2 adults with children) Full-time working and Old age pensioners Three genaration families (15 -20%) • EDUCATION & INCOME LEVEL: College/Special (SHA)&High Education (MHA) Average (50%) and Low (45%) income

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -3 • Rather Stable Habitations (>6 years 80%) (from which >20 years – 40%) • SATISFACTION & INTENDANCY: Average level - (yes, mostly) 80% - intend to stay here longer Not nigh Mobility Potential

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -4 • PHYSICAL RESOURSES SHA – use less resourses, but don’t think about environment mostly MHA – more important for people (education), but easier access & more use Env. issues (WASTE, ENERGY SAVING) are ”important for future”/ ”coming”

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -5 MHA ENV. THOUGHTS SHA ENV. THOUGHTS RESOURSES

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -6 • ECONOMIC RESOURSES Living costs are more or less reasonable. SHA – more control for costs MHA – less control (general services fee) SHA – 82% Intersested in Self-Management of Common Areas

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -7 • BIOLOGICAL RESOURSES SHA - considered as more valuable green areas and water. MHA - people are quite unsatisfied with green structure and access. SHA with Vegatable Gardens has a Strength CULTIVATION FOOD SUPPLY

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS -8 • SOCIAL RESOURSES SHA – Good interconnection with neighbours. Social control is important for security reason. MHA –More people don’t meet with neighbours Less open to people, less important. GENERAL: openess to people around!

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS - 9 • ORGANIZATIONAL RESOURCES Transportation: more good & developed in MHA, less in SHA Telephones & Computers: MHA – all, SHA - some people lack telephones Car Parking: Bad, there is no common parking place both. Other Infrastructure (shops, school, post, bank): Good and rather developed, more in MHA.

2. ENQUIRIES RESULTS - 10 • CULTURAL RESOURSES More values and interest for history in SHA It’s valuable to develop the local culture!!! Propositions: • Info materials could be places in common space (near shops, schools, meeting points) • Organization of special local tours/ excursions • Tradition of writing about historical & cultural heritatge (book about Olgino)

3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS - 1 • 20 INTERVIEWS (10 for SHA, 10 for MHA) 12 females & 8 males Normal age distribution Rather stable residences (more than 20 years) Families (2 adults & 1 -2 children) High level of Satisfaction High Intendence to Stay longer

3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS - 2 GREEN AREA WITH BAD COMMUNAL SERVICES ”SLEEPING DISTRICT” SUPPORTED WITH ALL BASIC RESOURSES • Respondents View OLGINO MOSKOVSKY

3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS - 3 • Conceived Advantages (STRENGTHS) OLGINO • Fresh Air & Valuable Green & Water Areas • Good Neighbours • Small Population • Vegetable Gardens • Active role of Municipality Council MOSKOVSKY • Very good Transport Connection • Developed Shops and Markets & Services • Good House Infrastructure • Lot of Green Areas

3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS - 4 • Conceived Disadvantages (WEAKNESSES) OLGINO 1. Bad Communal Services (no central water, gas, heating) & House Infrastructure 2. Few Shops and Lack of Customer Services 3. Old destroyed Houses MOSKOVSKY 1. High Density of People 2. No Common Car Parking places 3. Garbage Problem 4. Huge Traffic & Air Pollution 5. Lack of Meeting Places

3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS – 5 • Proposed changes (Opportunities) OLGINO 1. Creation of Central Communal Services (water, gas, heating, canalisation) 2. Improvment of Infrastructure of the Area (roads, transport, meeting places) 3. Improvment of Aestethic view of the Area

3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS – 5 • Proposed changes (Opportunities) MOSKOVSKY 1. Improvement of Quality of Grean areas 2. Spatial Structure Organization & Creation of Cars Parking places 3. Organizing of Garbage Collection and Street cleaning 4. Creation of Meeting Places (Children Playing Grounds, Sport places, Indoors centers)

3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS – 6 • Very Important Values for Area BOTH: Conservation of Green Areas !!! • SHA – OLGINO Conservation of Cultural/Historiacl Haritage Human relations in Neighbourhood • MHA – MOSKOVSKY Stable Living Conditions (good infrastructure)

3. Conclusions: Differences & Similarities • Problems of Small house and Multi-family house Areas • SWOT Analysis of areas • Perspectives for Future Development towards Sustainabilty

Problems of Olgino (SHA) • Lack of Central Water Supply, Gas, Heating and Canalisation Systems • Unsufficient Electricity Supply • Bad Conditions of Historical Old Houses • Lack of Social Services (Medical Center, Drug Store, etc. )

Problems of Moskovsky/ Zvezdnaya (MHA) • Uncontrolled Housing Development • Not-organized Parking Places (on pavements, loawns • Huge traffic (close to Highways and big roads) • Gabage Collection and Streets Cleaning • Lack of Cultural Value of Area

SWOT ANALYSIS STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

SWOT ANALYSIS STRENGTHS 1. Cultural & Historical Value of Dacha Tradition 2. Rich Green Areas & Private Gardens 3. Social Relations with Neighbours OPPORTUNITIES 1. Central Water & Gas Infrastructure 2. Cultivation Development 3. Creation of Meeting Places – Indoor & Outdoor OLGINO WEAKNESSES 1. Communal Services 2. Transport Access 3. Local Social Services THREATS 1. New Houses and Fences 2. Lack of Services (loss of Ambulance) 3. ”Newcomers” (with other individual values)

SWOT ANALYSIS MOSKOVSKY / ZVEZDNAYA STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES 1. Transport Access 2. Communal Infrastructure & Customer Services 3. Lot of Green Areas 1. Social Relations with Neighbours 2. Lack of Cultural Value 3. Not-organized Green Areas OPPORTUNITIES THREATS 1. Organization of Green Space & Parking places 2. Creation of Meeting Places – Indoor & Outdoor 1. New Houses & People – >pressure on resourses 2. Destroying of Green Structure and Pavements 3. Overloading of Services

Perspectives for Olgino (SHA) • City/ Municipal Support for Creation of Central Communal Services • Govermental Strategy for Historical & Cultural Heritage Protection • Municipal Support for Social Infrastructure Development (Medical Centre, etc. ) • Improvement of Transport Connection

Perspectives for Moskovsky/ Zvezdnaya (MHA) • Control for New Houses Building • Improvement of Quality & Quantity of Green Areas • Improvement of Infrastructure (gabage, parking places, roads repair) • Organization of Local Cultural Life within the Area (Events, Projects, etc. )

Theoretical Points from Community and Globalization Sociology • “ patterned interactions among people in a local geographical setting” (Warren 1978, p. 417 -418 • “community always exist” , “communitynatural outgrowth of community interaction” (Wilkinson 1991) • “social imaginaries” impact community (Castoriadis 1987, Gaonkar 2002, Taylor 2004)—we draw on this statement

Peculiarities of the Period of Transition • No spatial separation of pour and rich • Low income households own houses • Intelligentsia-new poor, but continue to be a driving forse • New rich-mixed enterty • Small appartments—strive for social space • Private houses- individual orientation • Peculiar understanding of public participation

Possible Interpretations • New rich—incorporate market economy valuesaway from collective-separate infrastructure, loan-monoculture, cut trees • High fense as a symbol of social stratification • Mobilization capacity and civic initiatives highher in Moscovski urban community driven by old intelligentsia, which turned to be succeptable to new western sustainability initiatives • In Olgino the rich sponsor infrastructure and get governing positions