This article analyses the changing perceptions of residents of Tatarstan's industrial cities about their city, the leading actors in urban development, and the population itself, as well as the dynamics of their migration sentiments in the context of changes occurring in the country and globally. This article is based on an analysis of data obtained from a mass trend survey of the population in four industrial cities of the region: Naberezhnye Chelny, Nizhnekamsk, Almetyevsk, and Zelenodolsk. Data from Kazan was also included for some aspects. In the context of the extreme turbulence of modern society, research has shown that self-identification with residents of the same settlement has increased, along with civic (Russian), regional, and ethno-confessional identities. Conflicting trends in attitudes toward the city were identified, with, in the author's view, a predominance of positive ones. They are influenced by a multitude of factors, ranging from the development and strategies of leading enterprises' participation in urban processes (determined by the directions of state economic policy, the industry affiliation of production, and the priorities of their management), the interaction of multiple actors and the media coverage of their activities, to regional programmes for improving infrastructure and the urban environment. According to city residents, a positive trend is the growing opportunity to choose a job, a profession, and find well-paying employment in the region's industrial settlements. Some settlements are offering greater opportunities for high-quality education, and cultural and leisure activities are developing. Others are distinguished by relatively low housing prices and a favourable environmental situation. According to the majority of respondents, the leading actors in urban development are the city administration and local governments, city-forming and other large enterprises, and regional authorities. Survey results also showed a weakening of migration sentiment among residents in the industrial cities of Tatarstan studied, although it remains quite high. Among possible migration destinations, Moscow and St. Petersburg are currently the priority, as are other cities in the region (preferably its capital, Kazan).

industrial city, attitude to the city, identification with the inhabitants of the city, actors of urban development, migration sentiments, trend sociological survey, Republic of Tatarstan

1. Anikieva A. V., Shvindt U. S. The mobility of Ural region company town residents: social practices and peculiarities of city spaces. Vestnik instituta sotziologii, 2020: 11: 4: 167−189 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/vis.2020.11.4.684; EDN: BOTCUK.
2. Artemova O. V., Logacheva N. M., Savchenko A. N. Harmonisation of Space in an Industrial City: Social Guidelines. Ekonomika regiona, 2021: 17: 2: 538−551 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17059/ekon.reg.2021-2-13; EDN: KDCMEI.
3. Artemova O. V., Logacheva N. M., Uzhegov A. O. Single-Industry Towns Within the Industrial Regions of the Urals Federal District and the Features of Their Local Identity. Vestnik CHelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2024: 11: 493: 35−46 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.47475/1994-2796-2024-493-11-35-46; EDN: ITYECO.
4. Volkov A. D., Simakova A. V. Arctic Single-Industry City: The Population’s Perception of Their Future in the Prospects for its Development. Regionologiya, 2022: 30: 4: 851–881 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.15507/2413-1407.121.030.202204.851-881; EDN: EXWOGQ.
5. Devyatko I. F. Metody sociologicheskogo issledovaniya [Methods of sociological research]. Yekaterinburg, Izd-vo Ural. Un-ta, 1998: 208 (in Russ.).
6. Ishkineeva F. F. Social'no-stratifikacionnye processy v postmonopromyshlennom gorode v usloviyah transformacionnogo obshchestva (na primere goroda Naberezhnye CHelny Respubliki Tatarstan). Avtoreferat dis. … k. sotsiol. n. [Socio-stratification processes in a post-industrial city in a transformational society (on the example of the city of Naberezhnye Chelny in the Republic of Tatarstan)]. Kazan, 2000: 19. Accessed 28.07.2025. URL: https://cheloveknauka.com/v/37587/a?#?page=1 (in Russ.).
7. Nikonorov S. M., Krivichev A. I. et al. Methodology for Assessing and Ranking of the Socio-Economic Development of Single-Industry Towns Based on Multifactor Analysis of Fractal Indicators. Regionologiya, 2024: 32: 2: 326–344 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.15507/24131407.127.032.202402.326-344; EDN: WXDVCX.
8. Shalina D. S., Stepanova N. R. Renovation, redevelopment, revitalization and gentrification of urban space. Fundamental'nye issledovaniya. 2019: 12: 2: 285−289 (in Russ.). EDN: TKKRZT.
9. Yurovskaya D. A. The impact of the urban revitalization on the gentrification of decadent areas of the city (on the example of Volgograd). Innovacionnye nauchnye issledovaniya, 2021: 9-1(11): 19−24. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5529288; EDN: VDLLIT.
10. Bole D., Kozina J., Tiran J. The socioeconomic performance of small and mediumsized industrial towns: Slovenian perspectives. Moravian Geographical Reports, 2020: 1(28): 16−28. DOI: 10.2478/mgr-2020-0002.
11. Bonfiglioli C. Class, Gender, and Industrial Structures of Feeling After Socialism: Post-Industrial Lives in the Post-Yugoslav Space. In: The Routledge International Handbook of Deindustrialization Studies. Routledge, 2025: 218−231. DOI: 10.4324/9781003308324.
12. Destek M. A., Hossain M. R., Khan Z. Premature deindustrialization and environmental degradation. Gondwana Research, 2024: 127: 199−210. DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2023.06.006.
13. Emery J. After coal: affective-temporal processes of belonging and alienation in the deindustrializing Notthinghamshire Coalfield, UK. Frontiers in Sociology, 2020: 5: 1–16. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2020.00038.
14. Goicoechea M. E., Mejica M. S. A. Tertiary spaces. Urban restructuring trends in the deindustrialization context? Cadernos Metrópole, 2024: 27: e6266001. DOI: 10.1590/2236-9996.2025-6266001-en.
15. Heydarov A. Sustainable Development Goals: The Case of Industrial Ecology. Advances in Science and Technology, 2024: 148: 3−12. DOI: 10.4028/p-kBSJ0c.
16. Luger J., Schwarze T. Leaving post-industrial urban studies behind? Dialogues in Urban Research, 2024: 2: 2: 188−209. DOI: 10.1177/27541258241230058.
17. Niftiyev I. The Impact of Plant Closures or Deindustrialization on Local Labor Relations in Small and Mono-industrial United States Cities. Proceedings: TNKU FEAS II. Tekirdağ, Türkiye: Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 2024: 19−40.
18. Rosenbaum M. S. The limits of a service-dominated economy: the case for reindustrialization. Journal of Services Marketing, 2025: 39(4): 282−283. DOI: 10.1108/JSM-04-2025-0249.
19. Wolff M., Wiechmann T. Urban growth and decline: Europe’s shrinking cities in a comparative perspective 1990-2010. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2017: 25(3): 122–139. DOI: 10.1177/0969776417694680.
20. Yang C., Qian Z. “Art district without artists”: urban redevelopment through industrial heritage renovation and the gentrification of industrial neighborhoods in China. Urban Geography, 2024: 45(6): 1006−1028. DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2023.2246846.