GRAS III St.Petersburg Case Russia

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

2. 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.)

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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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”

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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!

14. 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.

15. 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)

16. 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

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

18. 3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS - 3 • Conceived Advantages (STRENGTHS)

19. 3. INTERVIEWS RESULTS - 4 • Conceived Disadvantages (WEAKNESSES)

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

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

22. 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)

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

24. 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.)

25. 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

26. SWOT ANALYSIS

27. SWOT ANALYSIS OLGINO

28. SWOT ANALYSISMOSKOVSKY / ZVEZDNAYA

29. 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

30. 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.)

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

32. 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

33. Possible Interpretations • New rich—incorporate market economy values-away 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