CC BY
47
5. Маккарти Т. Либеральный империализм и дилемма развития//Логос. -2006. - № 5. - с. 14-38.
6. Переслегин С., Переслегина E., Боровиков С. Социальная термодинамика и проблема идентичностей//Проблемы и перспективы междисциплинарных фундаментальных исследований. Материалы Второй научной конференции Санкт-Петербургского союза ученых 10-12 апреля 2002, Санкт-Петербург, 2002.
7. Сусская, О. А. Информационное поле личности. Формирование информационного выбора аудитории в условиях современной социокультурной среды: Монография - К.: ДАККЮМ, 2003. - 188 с. - укр.яз.
8. Сусская О. А. Гуманизация и персонификация масс-медиа: Гуманизация и персонификация коммуникативного взаимодействия в медиапространстве. Монография. - Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, AV Akademikerverlag GmbH &Co. KG, 2013. - 110 c.
9. Тощенко Ж. Т. Парадигмы, структура и уровни социологического анализа// Социологические исследования. - 2007. - № 9. - с. 5-16.
Sushko Valentina Afanasievna, PhD of Sociological Science, Associate Professor, Associate head of the department of Sociological Research Methodology Lomonosov Moscow State University E-mail: valentina.sushko@gmail.com Pronchev Gennadi Borisovitch, PhD in Physics and Maths, Associate Professor, Associate head of the department of Sociological Research Methodology of the Lomonosov Moscow State University E-mail: pronchev@rambler.ru
Local perception of regional sustainability issues - the Volgograd case
Abstract: The Volgograd region (Russian Federation) is known as an area of socio-economic contrasts. Hotspots of economic activity are surrounded by deserts of less-favoured rural and urban areas with minimal levels of development and problematic employment prospects. This results in suboptimal environmental management. Deficiencies in available published data on environmental and socio-economic issues affecting the region call for research into the inhabitants’ attitude towards environmental quality and sustainable development.
Keywords: sustainability, environmental quality life, urban, rural, perception, survey.
The scope of sustainable development practices encompass a broad range of parameters considering facets of the concept, but complementary bottom-up approach taking into account local citizens’ awareness, demands and attitudes are still absent. Relatively few studies touch community participation in defining concept, indicators, and goals for sustainability.
The objective of this study is to measure attitudes and perceptions with regard to the components of sustainable development, to define the importance of environmental features among all the other factors contributing to quality of life and to examine how these attitudes differ according urban and rural living. As the case of this study Volgograd region is chosen.
Volgograd region (Volgogradskaya oblast) is located in the southeast part of European Russia. The area of the region is 112.900 km 2 which is almost equal to that of Bulgaria (110.900 km 2), greater than the Benelux countries (the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg — 74.640 km 2), double that of Croatia (56.590 km 2) and three times greater than Switzerland (41.285 km 2).
However, for such a relatively large area, the population of the region is only 2,6 million inhabitants, a mere tenth of the Benelux (27,5 mln.) and nearly equal to the population of Latvia (2,3 mln.). The region consists of 33 rural areas and 6 cities (with a population 75,5 % of all regional population).
The method chosen to assess environmental and development of the region was subjective based on a sociological questionnaire.
In the first section, the respondents asked about the existence and importance of environmental and social issues. Among the problems respondents chose three the most important of them. The list of environmental issues includes air pollution, polluted potable water, increase of garbage, reduction of fish catch, decreasing of soil fertility, felling of trees, deficiency of greenery in public places, increase of tourists, increase of homeless animals on the streets. The list of social issues includes income, unemployment, education, medical service and others.
Wellbeing ofcitizens is an integral part ofsustainable society, which can be determined by social, economic, environmental, cultural and other factors [1, 64]. It concerns the ability to live in existing environmental conditions, in particular, to be satisfied with certain personal issues such as question ofhealth, income, job, environment and life in general [2, 95].
In the second section, questions directed to know about participation of citizens in local events devoted to protection of environment.
A key section of the questionnaire is devoted to the construction of a social portrait of the respondents. A breakdown of data gathered from the total 629 respondents reveals a gender division of 47,3 female and 52,7 male of whom 20 % are living in
urban and 80 % in rural areas. Age grouping produces a breakdown 48,5 % youth and 51.5 % adult. Students compose the largest individual grouping being 23 % of the total, 11,6 are retirees and 9 % are in full time work in the agricultural sector. Further analysis shows approximately equal distribution of respondents from the widely differing spheres of gainful employment: entrepreneurs 3,4 %, public servants 5,4 %, commerce 4,3 %, teachers 4,3 %, medical staff 2,6 %. 3,6 % of sample is unemployed.
The majority of interviewees, 32,5 %, have a monthly income of less than 5000 Rub. (approximately 125 €). 24,5 have income in the range 5000-10.000 Rub. Every sixth respondent (16,8 %) has an income of10.000-15.000 Rub. 14,8 % have income of 15.000-20.000 Rub. A minority has monthly income in excess of 20.000 Rub. (500 € or more).
Despite the very low and modest level of income, most of the respondents, 66,2 %, consider their lifestyle to be average. We may assume that citizens of the Volgograd region are relatively satisfied with their lifestyle because they value non-materialistic advantages of the region, which may compensate for low financial income. Only 26,3 % consider they have a very poor level of existence and only 7,5 % with income of 20.000 Rub. consider they have a high lifestyle.
Future resident status of individuals is defined by the question, which asks if they would prefer to remain in their present homes for the next 5 years. 41,9 % of inhabitants would prefer to remain in their present abode, 32,2 % have the intention to leave their current place and 25,8 % were unsure. This may to some extent be explained by the bivalent outlook typical of many Russian people; on the one hand there are the patriotic emotions and traditional values of family, friends, environment but on the other hand — it is the wish to improve income, to have a better j ob and living conditions, improved education and prospects which causes the breakup of local social networks. It is noteworthy that country dwellers (39,9 %) have a higher tendency to desert their locality than city dwellers (28,9 %). This may be explained by the harsh conditions of rural life.
1) Which problems do inhabitants highlight?
There is a high degree of consensus about environmental matters among the population of Volgograd region. The top priority problem is increasing rubbish 22,8 %, than it is followed by air pollution 19,9 % and polluted drinkable water 13 %. It is very alarming data, because health of people, facilities of living and quality of life overall directly depends on these problems. Also people mentioned other significant problems: decreasing of greenery 12,1 %, felling of trees 9 %, increasing of homeless animals on the streets 7,9 %, increasing of tourists 5,9 %, decreasing of soil fertility 4,9 %. The least important problem is reduction of fish catch 3,2 %.
Among social problems the most significant one is low income 22,8 %, followed by social disease alcoholism 20,6 % and then go problems with health 14,4 % together with medical service 14,1 %. Besides top-priority problems respondents mentioned
problem of unemployment 11,6 %, migration youth from rural to urban areas 6,9 %, crime 5,8 % and decreasing of birth rate 2,8 %.
2) Do inhabitants satisfied with life?
In order to analyze the attitude of the respondents to life in general and some of it’s aspects it is offered to estimate five statements using five-grades scale from «very satisfied» and «very dissatisfied». 60 % of the citizens are satisfied and very satisfied with life in general, only 5 % dissatisfied and very dissatisfied.
Volgograd with a population 1014,9 thousand of inhabitants compared to Coruna (1107,7) in Spain an в Birmingham (1017,3) in UK; Volzhsky with a population 304,7 thousand of inhabitants compared to Vitoria-Gasteiz (217,3) in Spain; Kamyshyn with a population 116,0 thousand of inhabitants compared to Maribor (115,5) in Slovenia and Reggio-Emilia (141,3) in Italy and Urupinsk with a population 39,8 thousand of inhabitants compared to Blagoevgrad (78,8) in Bulgaria.
Data gained suggests that, in general, residents of medium and small sized cities tend to be more satisfied with their local environment than are residents of large cities. The greater level of satisfaction may be due to the fact that, in general, medium and small cities are not usually orientated on a large-scale industrial economy typical oflarge cities. This in turn suggests that living conditions and environment in general in medium and small cities is more pleasant than that of large cities. A further aspect for consideration is the fact that life in large cities tends to be more stressful due to the faster tempo in all aspects.
Spatial analysis of Volgograd municipalities shows, that people form the south part of the region are less satisfied with life comparing with other municipalities. Western part of the Volgograd region is fairly homogeneous and the most satisfied population lives there. Exception is Kletskiy and Kalachevskiy regions — capitals of Cossacks. Cossacks are known for their essential attitude to life in general, nature and society. 59 % of municipalities have average level of satisfaction with life (fairly and moderately satisfied).
3) Do inhabitants have opportunities to change the situation?
Nearly 60 % of those interviewed agreed personally to influence in resolving problems associated with regional ecological situation, but at the same time 88,7 % recognized that every person can influence the ecological situation. This difference can be explained, that people by every person mean the whole community. United with common ideas and aims the community can do more than just one person. Even so, governmental at all levels (local administration, regional deputies, and central government) ought to a play the most significant role in resolving problems.
The problems generated by improved quality of lifestyle and the development of its qualitative content is building an environmental crisis at this present stage of Russian economic development. Continued development, particularly towards economic and political stability, is largely dependant on facing and resolving the above-mentioned problems. This demands objective governmental policy, at the centre of which must
be mankind and his well-being in terms of physical and social health. Russian society is becoming increasingly sensitive to the impact of change and development on their real sense of well-being and this is leading to sceptical reactions across the social groupings.
By analysing data across all the districts of the Volgograd region it has been discovered that resolving environmental issues is becoming a priority. The scale of anthropogenic impact has increased to such an extent that negative issues are creating a barrier to real improvement in the quality of life.
Approximately 60 % of the population is constantly aware of, or frequently think about environmental issues and 67,5 % — aware of social issues, 34 % think about environmental and 29 % about social issues from time to time, 6 % and 5 % accordingly never thinks about it. There are no significant variations in awareness levels according to rural/urban living. This data raises the question: Why does a relatively rich region of Russia experience such socio-ecological problems?
Knowledge and understanding of what is happening around them in the new throw away consumer society can only be achieved by informing, educating, warning the people affected, the individuals who make up that society, of the dangers which they confront. Although no immediate threat, it is already clear that the volume of domestic waste from the new and developing consumer society is increasing by quantum leaps; evidence shows that the people and the powers that be are totally unprepared for this state of affairs. Education ofthe risks and the alternatives is urgently needed for all parties, both common citizens and those in authority if we wish to pass on to our children a living space of the highest environmental standards. Education leads to understanding and then on to formation ofbeliefs and values. Sustainability demands not merely following laws and regulations, but also involvement of community in the management process with local authorities with regard to such issues as improving health, employment opportunities and care of the environment.
Much as our personal micro environmental behaviour in the home, workplace, street, town and countryside impacts on our neighbours, careless attitudes abound, the result being evident and our surroundings spoiled. Awareness can affect attitudes and attitudes affect behaviour, but the individual may be hard to convince if the big players focus only on financial gain. There is a price to pay; this may be reduced commercial profits or higher prices to the consumer. Localised success can become a focal point and influence the bigger picture.
References:
1. Donovan, N., Halpern, D., Sargeant, R. (2002). Life satisfaction: The state of knowledge and implications for government. London. 64 pp.
2. Anderson, R., Mikulif, B., Vermeylen, G., Lyly-Yrjanainen, M., Zigante, V. (2009). Second European Quality of Life Survey. Overview. Luxemburg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 95 pp.
