TRANSFORMATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN MOSCOW: SOCIOLOGICAL DIMENSION

. The paper assesses transformation of environmental situation in Moscow and citizens’ attitude toward those changes. It analyzes a mass poll of 800 Moscovites conducted in June–July 2015. The research was aimed at identifying the correlation between subjective perception of residents and objective spatial and environmental differentiation in Moscow as well as assessing the potential of Moscovites’ involvement in solution of environmental problems. Air pollution caused by production enterprises and cars, solid household waste and waste incineration plants were given special consideration. The article analyzes how Moscovites perceive problems of the whole city and of their own districts.


INTRODUCTION
With 12197 thousand residents, Moscow is the largest Russian city [Demographic Yearbook of Russia, 2015]. After city borders were moved in 2012, its area became 2511 sq.km (the research reviews the area of old Moscow, which accounts for approximately one-third of that value). Moscow is administratively divided into 12 districts which include 125 municipalities.
Among all Russian cities, Moscow is the 7th based on the integral index of human impact, the 2nd based on emissions, the 1st based on water consumption and waste waters, and the 16th based on reduced volume of waste given their toxicity [Bityukova, 2015]. The air is polluted, average annual concentration of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), nitrogen oxide (NO) and formaldehyde (CH 2 O) are above allowed sanitary standards and growing in 2010-2014 [Yearbook…, 2015]. In other words, objective deterioration of the environment on specific indicators or its aggregated value exceeds self-purification capacity of natural constituents. According to sociologists, there is also a subjective criterion of unfavorable environmental situation (ES), when a person (segment, group, territorial community, etc.) considers it to be a real threat to his/her interests and quality of life [Sosunova, 2005].
In terms of municipal administration and self-administration, subjective assessment of environmental situation in a city often turns out to be more important than objective assessment. Public opinion, environmental maturity of public consciousness, and preference of active or passive environment protection measures may create an information field and intensify nature conservation activities in districts or in the city. The way residents perceive the state of the environment (SE) in different districts influences their perception of the quality of urban environment as well as development of housing market in the city.
First sociological research on how Russians perceive SE was carried out in Moscow in the 1990s. Moscovites noted environmental problems, on the one hand, objectively due to an always complex environmental situation (large scale, rapid development of transport, and inherited industrial facilities ensured Moscow's top place in a country-wide ranking), and, on the other hand, subjectively due to a high level of education.
1993-1999 saw the number of Moscovites, who were primarily concerned with «the dirt and environmental situation», decreased from 26 to 17 %, but environmental problems remained at the 3rd place after elevating crime level and high cost of living up until 1997 when a greater number of Moscovites mentioned non-payment of salary [Yakovlev, 1999]. Citizens invariably consider air pollution to be the main environmental problem and cars to be the main polluter, while paying almost no attention to noise pollution. However, as for industrial areas, 50 % of respondents mentioned closing them as a high-priority measure; however, as for cars, 47 % proposed new environmentally safe public transport and new roads and thought that the least benefits could be achieved through underground crosswalks and increased taxes on old cars as those problems were not widely discussed by mass media. «Lack of administrative attention toward environmental problems» was the second among reasons for unfavorable SE in 1993 and the seventh, the last, in 1999 [Fomichev, 1999].
The poll of 2015 when respondents could choose top three problems revealed that 67.5 % of Moscovites blame transport, 51.2 %environmental situation and 51.1 %healthcare. 62 % of respondents consider ES in Moscow to be rather unfavorable or nearly catastrophic. According to them, main polluters are cars (59 %), industrial and energy facilities (27 %), now they also include household waste and waste incineration plants (17 %).
Main purpose of the research is to define correlation between subjective perception of environmental situation and actual spatial differentiation in Moscow in 2015, factors influencing SE in various districts, and Moscovites' attitude toward environmental changes after the collapse of the USSR.

OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
Publications pursue one of three directions. Research based on anthropological approaches and aimed at studying attitudes toward the environment, in particular, waste and garbage, in different communities. "Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value" by M. Thompson, focused on conceptual study of waste, was one of the earliest works in this group [Thompson, 1979]. A monograph by М. Douglas, first published in 1966 and classics already, studies various pollution concepts and taboos in different communities [Douglas, 2001]. The majority of publications are dedicated to specific environmental and waste issues in cities [Melosi, 2005] and attitudes toward pollution in public discussions [Bickerstaff, 2003].
The second direction represents a systemic approach to study correlation between society and environment, functioning of ecosystems, and applied dimensions of solutions for sustainable development of ecosystems [McGinnes, Ostrom, Ostrom, 2009, Plieninger, еtc.].
The third direction may be referred to as critical sociology or radical approach in studying society and environment. Those publications study and criticize consumer society that damages the environment. have laid foundations for a discipline that later became known as environmental sociology [Ahiezer., 1969, Baranov, 1984, Kogan, 1967, Kogan, Listengurt, 1975, Yanitsky, 1998]. In the 1990s, there have been a number of research projects in Moscow related to Moscovites' attitude toward environmental situation in the city and changes in pollution [Bityukova V., Sokolova, 2008, Fomichev, 1999, Yakovlev, 1999.

DATA AND METHODS
There were two stages of research: objective assessment and community study.
Transformations in spatial structure of industrial pollution were assessed based on integral indices of human impact for industrial areas (IA) in Moscow, including amount of emissions (according to statistical accounting of industrial emissions), emission density, pollution areas, and structural complexity of emitted aerosol and its toxicity.
Intensity and structure of traffic in Moscow were measured and subsequently used in order to analyze pollution from cars. Impact areas of streets were calculated based on OND-86 method [Tischenko, 1991]; amount and density of pollution in the areas -based on running exhaust emission.
A mass poll was conducted in June-July, 2015 in order to understand how Moscovites perceive environmental problems. Six municipal districts of Moscow have been selected for polling: Novokosino, Perovo, Sokolinaya Gora, Mozhaisky, Krylatskoye, and Novo-Peredelkino. The selection was based on the following: it had to include districts with different levels of environmental pollution, districts located in semi-peripheral and peripheral parts of the city, approximately equally remote from the center. Within the districts, respondents were selected based on quota sampling consistent with sex-age structure of each district.
Central districts were excluded from the research as there are totally different reasons for choosing the city center as a place of residence (prestige, high quality of housing, including new housing). Residents do not take environmental situation into account. Therefore, resulting sample structure is similar to sex-age structure (SES) of district population. Overall, there were 800 respondents, from 103 in Novokosino to 170 in Perovo. The questionnaire consisted of the following parts: assessment of changes in the environmental situation in Moscow and in the district; ranking of polluters in the city and in the district; questions about environmental behavior of Moscovites and others.

Changes in environmental situation in Moscow and in the districts.
More than half of respondents (53.5 %) believe that environmental situation has deteriorated over the past five years. Another 26 % think that it has not changed. Most likely they are more interested in municipal improvement than in environmental problems. Respondents mention the following specific manifestations of deteriorating environment: air pollution (84 %), deterioration of health and parks (38 %), dirty ponds (32.5 %), and disappearing green belts (32.5 %); only 1 % mention increasing noise pollution ( Fig. 1).
However, there is no objective proof: industrial and car emissions have not grown in Moscow, average annual concentrations have decreased or remained stable, within allowances: СО -0.2 daily average threshold limit value (TLV); particulate matter pollution that was 10 microns in diameter or less (РМ10) -0.9; NO average annual TLV -0.7; NO 2 -1.3.

Assessment of changes in industrial pollution.
Two main trends are currently typical of environmental situation in Moscow: deindustrialization and decreasing industrial pollution and growing car pollution. Air pollution from stationary sources has declined  Industry remains a crucial factor of toxicity due to specific emissions. Production enterprises were combined into special areas for two main reasons: to minimize chemical, noise, and other impact on residential areas and to boost efficiency due to large production complexes on limited territories. But gradually houses approached industrial areas despite urban development standards. Thus, in terms of urban development programs it is important to assess whether residents understand that industrial areas are a hazard.

Residents'assessment of industrial pollution
The results of the poll were rather unexpected. Eighty two and a half percent of respondents in Novokosino consider industry to be the main environmental problem in Moscow (as compared to the average Russian value of 40 % [Abramov, 2014]), almost 40 % believe that waste incineration plant is the key environmental threat in the district. Residents of Mozhaisky and Sokolinaya Gora placed industry on the 2nd place and residents of Krylatskoye, Novoperedelkino and Perovoon the 3rd. Only 35 % of residents in Perovo and 40 % in Sokolinaya Gora mentioned industry as the main polluter in their districts.
Therefore, in general, residents understand the role of industry and its impact on environmental situation in Moscow (slightly more) and in their districts. However, when it comes to purchasing residential property, Moscovites stop seeing the problem both for objective and subjective reasons [Popov and others, 2016]. Their subjective attitude toward environmental situation depends less on lack of information and environmental illiteracy in the housing market and more on difficulties in interpreting ecological information for an ordinary person, and impossibility to assess the potential threat.

Assessment of changes in car pollution
Car pollution has grown only by 14  Remarkably, the past fifteen years have seen a more equally distributed car pollution that is moving from working to residential areas. Implementation of construction projects and road reconstruction decrease the number of areas with maximum pollution ( now distributed more evenly. This could have been a positive trend, but growing pollution in peripheral areas compensated for declining peaks (primarily, at the intersection of radial motorways and the Garden Ring). Moreover, the number of areas with low density has decreased as well.
Therefore, selected districts have car emissions proportional to the population size but for Mozhaisky district (Western Administrative District) where the share of emissions is larger due to Kutuzovsky Avenue that is daily used by up to 250 thousand cars.
Model districts have different structure of car pollution in the affected areas along main motorways (Fig. 3): -Perovo and Sokolinaya Gora have the majority of car emission areas with the density of 1000-1300 tons/sq.km, with certain areas near industrial zones of 3000-3500, and certain areas of up to 4000 tons/sq.km. Novokosino is dominated by areas with the density of 1000-1300 tons/sq.km, but has no local highly dense areas.
-Krylatskoye and Mozhaisky have the majority of car emissions areas with the density of 1500-2000 tons/sq.km along the streets. Novo-Peredelkino has the same density along the roads, but has less internal pollution areas of 500-1000 tons/sq.km.
Therefore, cars are a background factor of the quality of the environment; its pollution and noise are rather homogeneously distributed across the city.
Cars are the main polluter in all districts: 90 % of overall emissions in Perovo and Sokolinaya Gora and 98 % in other districts. From Moscovites' perception, the role of cars is less significant. In terms of their districts, the majority of respondents consider cars to be the main reason for environmental degradation: from 48 % in Perovo and Sokolinaya Gora to 78 % in Krylatskoye. But in terms of Moscow, 20-30 % plus, on average, consider cars to be the main polluter.
What is more important, despite the fact that it was the transition to Euro-5 fuel that ensured better quality of the air, Moscovites have little understanding of its environmental advantages. In 2014, only 18 % of the respondents said that they had heard of Euro-5 environmental standard and 44 % knew nothing about planned ban on fuels below Euro-5. Only 40 % agreed that Moscow oil refinery exclusive production of Euro-5 fuel since 2013 ensured less air pollution in Moscow and only 26 % suggest prohibiting sale of fuel below this standard. At that no more than 66 % feel positive effect of the implementation of this standard, and 21 % are for closing Moscow roads for old cars. This attitude is likely to reflect growing fuel prices.

Involvement in solution of environmental problems
Moscow undergoes a more rapid social and demographic modernization than other Russian regions, including greater environmental responsibility of residents.  The analysis of this part of the questionnaire should take into account the large number of university-educated respondents that influences the number of respondents interested in environment protection.
The majority of respondents rest responsibility upon municipal authorities. However, a good sign is that 34.8 % believe that residents themselves are responsible for the environment. They could form a proactive group of citizens concerned with the environment (Fig. 4).

CONCLUSIONS
Comparative analysis of ES indicators and sociological research revealed that the main objective factors for difference between the actual situation and the residents' attitude are as follows: -Environmental situation improves or remains stable while residents, on the contrary, pay more attention to it as the result of less social tension. During the transition period, this factor had much less impact due to existential threats that caused declining interest toward environmental values.
-Recent years have seen leveling of urban pollution as the result of breakthroughs in the industry and transport. The westeast differentiation has become less obvious. This confirms that environmental requirements are, to a great extent, programmed, i.e., people either got used to (or accepted) conditions they live in, or took them into account when moving to a given district.
-Environmental situation in Moscow is characterized by a substantially decreasing role of factors that could be influenced by large investment aimed at technological production modernization, i.e., an increasing role of waste that Moscovites do not consider to be an obvious environmental factor; this problem demands involvement of citizens. However, according to the research, citizens do not perceive it locally.

Subjective factors include:
-lack of knowledge and environmental illiteracy, difficulties in interpreting ecological information for an ordinary person, and impossibility to assess potential threat of polluters; -absence of accurate and objective criteria of environmental conditions that results in divergence of visually-based perception of environmental situation in separate districts from actual situation.
-latent nature of environmental factors in residents' consciousness and, as the result, underestimation of environmental threats and consequences of current actions. Social studies call this phenomenon the shift of future plans in human preferences. Sometimes, human behavior is irrational; the results we choose now do not always match the outcomes we want later [Medvedev, Aladsheva, 2001].
-despite the dominant role of car pollution among environmental problems, ease of travel largely compensates for the harm in residents'opinion.
-assessments of environmental situation in the districts are usually based on comparisons. That is why transit districts are underrated. Life of the majority of residents is limited to the center and the middle belt; residents of remote districts see a broader picture, as they daily travel across all the belts. That is why dynamics of assessments requires special attention.
Public opinion, environmental maturity of public consciousness, and preference of active or passive environment protection measures may create an information field and intensify nature conservation activities in the districts or in the city. The majority of environment protection measures are not initiated by residents but are organized by the government. Until now, despite a more dynamic interaction between the population and authorities in management, cultural, and even urban development spheres, potential of environmental consciousness as an important resource for territorial development and better urban environment remains unclaimed and is not used by municipal administration or environmental NGOs.