Are Post-Soviet Cities 15-Minute? Differences in Pedestrian Accessibility of Basic Urban Services by Residential Morphotypes in Krasnodar, Saratov, and Naberezhnye Chelny

The 15-minute city concept suggests redesigning cities and urban areas in such a way that every resident could reach basic necessities and services, including education, medicine, shopping, leisure, etc., within a 15-minute walk or bicycle ride. The underlying goal of the concept is to improve urban environment, to reduce pressure on transportation systems, and to make cities more resilient to events like the COVID-19 pandemic, when many cities imposed restrictions on cars and public transport. In this paper, we use the 15-minute city concept as an analytical framework for an accessibility index describing the quality of the urban environment in contemporary Russian cities. The study is based on the assumption that the morphologically heterogeneous environment of the post-Soviet cities creates different conditions for the location of facilities that provide residents with basic necessities and services; as a consequence, the accessibility of these facilities varies greatly within cities. Three large and morphologically different post-Soviet cities, Krasnodar, Saratov, and Naberezhnye Chelny, were chosen as the study cases. The investigation draws on publicly available data as well as data from 2GIS on social, commercial, and transportation infrastructure. From our results, the highest accessibility of the facilities is observed in the historical city centers, which concentrate the facilities that provide unique and city-wide services. The Soviet microdistricts show the higher accessibility values compared to modern high-rise apartment buildings, while the lowest accessibility is observed in the lowrise neighborhoods: the average walking time to the basic services and facilities here is three times longer than in the historical centers, and twice as long as in the Soviet microdistricts. Among the three cities studied, Naberezhnye Chelny is the closest to the 15-minute city model. For daily demand facilities, the accessibility varies little between the cities, with 86.0 to 92.2% of residents living within 15-minute walking distance. The strongest differences between cities and urban areas of different morphological types in the accessibility of the facilities are observed only when including in the index rare facilities that provide unique and city-wide services, such as hospitals, theaters, universities, etc. Their accessibility can be improved, for example, by developing public transport systems or creating sub-centers of urban activity in high-density residential areas.

1. Aksenov K.E., Braude I., Rox K. Social-spatial differentiation in the residential high-storied areas of Leningrad – St. Petersburg in the post-Soviet period. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2010, no. 1, pp. 42–53. (In Russ.).

2. Aksenov K.E., Zinovyev A.S., Morachevskaya K.A. The role of retail in the transformation of the microdistrict organization of the urban environment. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2019, no. 3, pp. 13–27. (In Russ.).

3. Aksenov K.E., Kraskovskaya O.V., Rennie F.M. Spatial organization of new forms of online food and readymade food trade in a large Russian city. Baltic Region, 2022, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 28–48.

4. Barbarossa L. The post pandemic city: Challenges and opportunities for a non-motorized urban environment. An overview of Italian cases. Sustain., 2020, vol. 12, no. 17, art. 7172.

5. Burdziej J. Using hexagonal grids and network analysis for spatial accessibility assessment in urban environments–a case study of public amenities in Toruń. Misc. Geogr., 2019, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 99–110.

6. Carr L.J., Dunsiger S.I., Marcus B.H. Walk score™ as a global estimate of neighborhood walkability. Am. J. Prev. Med., 2010, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 460–463.

7. Corazza M.V., Favaretto N. A methodology to evaluate accessibility to bus stops as a contribution to improve sustainability in urban mobility. Sustain., 2019, vol. 11, no. 3, art. 803.

8. Dokhov R.A., Sinitsyn N.A. Sprawl in Russia: Growth and structural transformation of the Belgorod suburbs. Reg. Res. Russ., 2020, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970520020057

9. Gerten C., Boyko D., Fina S. Patterns of post-socialist urban development in Russia and Germany. Front. Sustain. Cities, 2022, vol. 4, art. 846956.

10. Grigorichev K.V. The invisible twin of the Russian city: The “private housing sector” between the sloboda and the inner suburb. Oikumena. Regionoved. Issled., 2021, no. 1, pp. 7–18. (In Russ.).

11. Lachininskii S.S., Logvinov I.A., Vasileva V.A. Assessment of urban sprawl of St. Petersburg urban areas based on Landsat satellite images. Vestn. S.-Peterb. Univ. Nauki Zemle, 2023, no. 3, pp. 471–489. (In Russ.).

12. Lebedeva E.V. Public space of the post-Soviet city: Opportunities for the development of sociality and the “crisis of publicity”. Zh. Sotsiol. Sots. Antropol., 2017, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 74–92.

13. Makhrova A.G. Regular cottage settlements: a new settlement type (a case of Moscow region). Reg. Issled., 2008, no. 2, pp. 13–20. (In Russ.).

14. Makhrova A.G., Golubchikov O.Yu. Russian town under capitalism: Social transformation of intraurban space. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., 2012, no. 2, pp. 26–31. (In Russ.).

15. Mkrtchyan N.V. Regional Capitals of Russia and Their Suburbs: Specifics of the Migration Balance. Reg. Res. Russ., 2019, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970519010076

16. Moreno C., Allam Z., Chabaud D., Gall C., Pratlong F. Introducing the “15-minute city”: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities, 2021, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 93–111.

17. Olivary B., Cipriano P., Napolitano M., Giovannini L. Are Italian cities already 15-minute? Presenting the Next Proximity Index: A novel and scalable way to measure it, based on open data. J. Urban Mobil., 2023, vol. 4, art. 100057.

18. Parker J., Simpson G.D. Public green infrastructure contributes to city livability: A systematic quantitative review. Land, 2018, vol. 7, no. 4, art. 161.

19. Protasova Yu.A., Gustova A.Yu. Metodika analiza arkhitekturno-planirovochnoi organizatsii mikroraionov [Method of Analysis of Architectural and Planning Organizations of Microdistricts]. Minsk: BNTU, 2023.

20. Prvan M., Ožegovic J., Mišura A.B. A review of embedding hexagonal cells in the circular and hexagonal region of interest. IJACSA, 2019, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 339–348.

21. Shalygina D.N., Erokhin G.P. Development of housing construction in the largest regional center in the postsoviet period (on the example of Novosibirsk). Vestn. Grazhdan. Inzhener., 2020, no. 5, pp. 33–40. (In Russ.).

22. Sharifi A. From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development. Sustain. Cities Soc., 2016, no. 20. pp. 1–16.

23. Sharifi A., Khavarian-Garmsir A.R. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, vol. 749, art. 142391.

24. Varentsov M., Vasenev V., Dvornikov Y., Samsonov T., Klimanova O. Does size matter? Modelling the cooling effect of green infrastructures in a megacity during a heat wave. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, vol. 902, art. 165966.

25. Vendina O.I., Panin A.N., Tikunov V.S. The Moscow social space: Features and structure. Reg. Res. Russ., 2019, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970519040117

26. Woods R., Masthoff J. A comparison of car driving, public transport and cycling experiences in three European cities. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract., 2017, vol. 103, pp. 211–222.