As already mentioned, the survey of rural residents was carried out to determine the minimum standards of comfortable living. The main task was to find out through alternative voting how one type of service is more important (more valuable) than another. In the next step, the resulting data was used to obtain a cumulative rating of each service.

The calculation of the final values ​ ​was carried out according to the following algorithm: each respondent set his assessments of the importance (value) of each utility from 1 (minimum value) to 10 (maximum value), while it was required that the estimates do not coincide. Next, the number of ratings for each utility was calculated. For example, for water supply, 59 respondents in Krasnodar Krai gave the highest score — 10; 51 respondents — 9, 48 respondents — 8, etc., and the total­ number of voters for water supply was 208 people. For gas supply, 76 people delivered 10; 35 respondents — 9, etc., with a total of 210 voters. The ratio of the number of those who gave the same estimates to the total number of voters determined their share in the assessment of a specific communal service (Table 1).

As a result of the calculations carried out, matrices for the distribution of the value of benefits among residents of rural settlements of Krasnodar Krai and Stavropol Krai were obtained. These values show the aggregate utility ratings. As one can see, with an alternative vote, 36.2% of respondents in Krasnodar Krai determine the gas supply to houses to be the most important communal service for comfortable living. In the second place is water supply 52.9% (28.4 + 24.5) in the sum of two assessments, in the third — the presence of sewage — 61.7%, in the fourth — heating — 82.6% (14.0 + 24.6 + 16.9 + 27.1). The last in the ranking of importance in the house for comfortable living was the sanitary hub. Thus, providing all houses of settlements with gas will increase the comfort of living in rural areas in the first place. In Stavropol Krai this alignment is slightly different: in the first place is water supply — 59.5%, in the second place — sewage — 61.4%, then come gas supply — 81.7%, heating — 81.9% and in the last place — the presence of a sanitary unit. It is important to note that the level of gas supply rating in Krasnodar Krai is only half of the total amount of ratings given for this service, in contrast, for example, to water supply in Stavropol Krai its weight is 59.5%.

Water and gas supply as well as sewerage are priorities for respondents who have lived in the village and are under 30 years old, while those who have lived much more increase the demand for domestic heating, and it displaces the presence of sewerage in the house from the second place in the ranking of the importance. Note also that the request for a bathroom in the house, regardless of the length of stay, remains in the last place in terms of importance.

If the strategy of improving the standard of living in the countryside of chosen regions adhered to these ratings when investing in the regions, then we could talk about conditional optimality in satisfying the choice. But even such superiority in the rating of any one service will not allow maximizing the satisfaction of all residents of the settlement, because the value indicators of other services also matter and affect comfortable living in homes. In other words, the problem arises of finding such a distribution of investments in utilities, in which the resulting utility from resources will become Pareto efficient.

Achieving collective well-being in resource utilization and equitable distribution of the usages generated among community members is one of the complex social challenges. To solve it, you need not only to identify and find an adequate model by which the benefits received would be distributed fairly, but also a way to assess investments of both sole and public resources in the final calculations of utility. “Rational community choice should be as close as possible to how individual members are selected” (Moulin, 1988). Should collective distribution provide benefits to all in the same proportion if the usefulness of the benefits is assessed differently by community members? Will the distribution be fair, whereby those who invest more in the production of public goods will receive them in an amount equal to the one whose investment is much less?

The resulting summary on the question of the priority of goods is not yet an absolutely unambiguous collective answer to the question of how the benefits available in the territory should be distributed in order to achieve maximum usefulness for each of its members. Nevertheless, understanding its meaning is much better than blindly following the accepted quantitative standards for providing utilities or other benefits.

Another challenge in addressing collective choice issues is assessing the possibility of reaching an agreement between residents on the use of public resources. In order to understand how widespread the application of the rules is in the use of free sharing resources, a number of questions were included in the questionnaire, the answers to which made it possible to make an appropriate assessment.

The first was the question of the availability of free-sharing resources on the territory of residence, including water sources, garbage sites, sewerage, etc. such as “Are there any problems with providing residents with water in the village?,” “Are there any resources of joint free use in the territory of your settlement (water sources, garbage collection sites, sewerage, etc.)?,” “Do you have (apply) rules for sharing or accessing common (shared) resources in your locality?.”

The goal was to get a general idea of ​ ​the distribution of residents to those who believe that there are such resources on the territory, and those who believe that there are no such resources. Quantitative analysis of the cumulative results is presented in Table 2. In order to clarify the availability of rules for sharing common resources, several questions were formulated in the questionnaire. It turned out that the number of respondents who have problems with the provision of drinking and industrial water is quite large — the distribution charts of typical respondents’ answers are presented in Figs 1 and 2.

As can be seen from Table 2, the share of those who believe that such resources are in the territory of the settlement of their residence is slightly less than ¼ of respondents, while in Stavropol Krai they are more than twice as high as in Krasnodar Krai. However, testing the statistical hypothesis of the influence of the regional factor on the discrepancy in the distribution of respondents’ responses showed that the resulting calculated Chi-square value was 3.775 and the critical Chi-square value at the 95% significance level was χ2 (0.95; 1) = 3.841 does not confirm the presence of a significant difference. Therefore, the available difference­ in the distribution of responses can be considered as a statistical error at the 5% level, caused by the formation of a sample set. Thus, it can be accepted that the answers of residents to the question of the availability of free sharing resources on average in other settlements of the region will be distributed as ¼ answering “yes” to the ¾ of those who answer “no.”

The next question concerned the existence of rules for using shared resources. Summary responses made it possible to see how the population perceives the ­importance of rules in using a shared resource. The responses were distributed as follows (Table 3).

The obtained statistics of the distribution of answers show that most of the res­pondents do not know anything about the availability of rules for the use of free resources. So out of 93 who answered in Stavropol Krai, there were 55 or 59.1% who did not know, and in Krasnodar Krai out of 75–39 or 52.0%. The result can be considered symptomatic, showing that a relatively large proportion of respondents believe that there are no rules for the use of common resources at all. In general, according to surveys in both regions, the number of such people is 48 people or 28.6%. The smallest share came from those who answered positively when asked about the availability of rules, there were 26 people or 15.5% of all respondents.

Despite the existing difference in the distribution of responses between the surveys in Stavropol Krai and Krasnodar Krai, the statistical test also confirmed the hypo­thesis that there was no effect of the regional difference factor on the distribution of the responses received (χ² estimated = 5.402 < χ² critical­ (0.95; 2) = 5,991). In other words, the share of those who believe that there are rules for the use of public resources is within 15.5 ± 5%, regardless of the region of the survey.

An important result for understanding the role of rules in regulating relationships was the answers obtained from respondents who indicated earlier that rules exist, to the question seeking to establish “how formalized they are in documents.” They were offered two answers: (1) there are written rules, and (2) the rules are oral. The choice of the first option assumed that there are existing rules and they are documented, the choice of the second that the rules exist, but in the format of only oral agreements.

For those who answered “No” or “Don’t know” when asked about the availability of rules, clarifying questions were also offered about how residents do if there are no rules for using shared resources. They were also offered two options: (1) each acts on the basis of their understanding of the correctness of use; (2) agree in each situation separately. The distribution of the received responses is shown in Table 4.

Summary response rates to the question of formalization of rules, if any, and how to proceed for those who believe that there are no rules (or know nothing about them), characterize the existing regulatory framework for the use of common­ resources. Only less than ¼ of respondents, who answered that the rules exist, are sure of the written rules, and all answers were given by respondents from Krasnodar Krai. The rest of the respondents believe that the rules are oral in nature.

On the other hand, those who believe that there are no rules and those who know nothing about them are convinced that in relation to public resources, people act on the basis of their understanding of the correctness of their use, and in cases where difficulties arise in deciding on their use, agree specifically when a problem arises. In fact, it can be seen that the majority of those who believe that there are rules, and those who consider there are no rules, mainly believe that when problems arise, residents rely on oral agreements when it comes to the allo­cation of public resources. With only one difference: the former believe that the previous agreements are taken into account in the present, the latter — that this may not be mandatory for each specific case.

The next question was formulated like this — “If there are rules for the use of shared resources, then by whom were they established?” And the answers are ­offered: (a) residents at the meeting; (b) territorial department/administration of a rural settlement; (c) district administration; (d) residents orally agreed among themselves.

Equally important in the study was to know the source of the rules for the use of public resources. Therefore, when asked by the questionnaire — If there are rules for using shared resources, then by whom they were established, it was initially assumed only for those who answered “Yes” to the question about the availability of rules. However, when conducting the survey, it was partially answered by those who believe that there are no rules and those who do not know about their presence. The received distribution of responses confirms the previous­ly expressed conclusions (Table 5).

Respondents who answered positively know exactly who sets the written rules. They believe that these are either the residents participating in the meetings themselves, or the so-called territorial departments (local administration). Moreover, such unambiguity is characteristic of the answers of respondents in both regions.

In contrast to them, those who replied that there are no rules (or they do not apply) and those who know nothing about them, for the most part, believe that the rules are set by the administration or residents in the process of solving problems, but orally. From which it follows that in their understanding the rules for sharing resources should still be just in the realm of knowledge, and even more so the application of them is the monopoly of the administration, and only in some cases its oral agreement of the inhabitants among themselves.

The value of these responses is important for understanding how rural people find an acceptable solution to the use of shared resources in cases where the quantitative benefits from it are much less than the demand for them, or when the benefits of using them go to one and the costs are borne by others. Answers to the question about dispute resolution in case of resource use violation show existing problems. The distribution of responses is shown in Table 6.

The final data of Table 6 characterize the participation of the population in solving issues arising from the use of common resources as best as possible. In total, those who believe that there are rules and those who believe that there are none are absolutely united: the decision remains with the administration or no decision is made. It is important to note that in Stavropol Krai, the majority of respondents believe that no one is engaged in finding solutions to the problem­ (conflict), in Krasnodar Krai — that the rural administration is engaged in the solution.

But an even more interesting result of the survey is that many have chosen the option of no disputes and conflicts when using public resources. The absence of controversial issues when using public resources emphasizes that residents ­either do not participate at all in obtaining benefits when using public resources, or in every possible way avoid a conflict situation when they arise and subsequently resolved. It would be a mistake to interpret this behavior as normality, since in the long term, accumulated problems are largely the reason for the departure of families to other settlements or cities.

Thus, most of the respondents are poorly aware of the availability of: (a) public resources used free of charge by residents; (b) rules for their use; (c) rules in dispute resolution when conflicts occur with free or shared resources.

For example, answers to the questions show that there is a problem in providing residents with water in summer. The obvious explanation for this situation is summer watering of crops on personal plots. The conflict that arises between residents who do not get water and those who have it is not regulated by the rules for sharing resources due to, most likely, the absence of such. Each resident who does not have the opportunity to receive the proper amount of water is forced to independently, or jointly with other “victims” look for a solution to this problem. The expectation of residents that village administrations will be able to resolve this issue is 30% in Krasnodar Krai and 58% in Stavropol Krai.

The main problem in the use of free public resources is the lack of complete control­ (due to disadvantage), which leads to their depletion or deterioration. Returning them to normal requires additional costs from the budget, while reducing the ability to direct funds to solve other problems. Unfortunately, this problem concerns not only the surveyed settlements but also the majority of rural communities in Russia.

To establish the priority of the directions of budget investments in the development of settlements, a special question was posed, in which residents were asked to determine the importance (value) of a particular direction. Twelve directions were formulated. Respondents were asked to choose ratings in at least four areas (Table 7).

The interviewed residents very rationally selected the directions for the social and domestic development of their settlements, which allows, from their point of view, to get the maximum usefulness in their implementation. As one can see, rural residents do not have a problem with a reasonable choice of preferences in either Krasnodar Krai or Stavropol Krai. It should be noted that the third in the rating in Krasnodar Krai and fourth in Stavropol Krai is the direction for the ‘construction and/or modernization of the water supply network,” the importance of which was mentioned earlier for many rural residents.

To obtain an assessment of how much residents of settlements are involved in the work on public improvement of the settlement, questions about self-government were asked. The total answers to these questions make it possible to assess the impact of residents on the social development of settlements (Table 8).

It can be seen that in the settlements of both regions there is a meeting of residents or initiative groups, or both, on an ongoing basis. This is an important moment in the public structure of human settlement management. In addition, 91.7% of ­res­pondents in Krasnodar Krai and 82.9% in Stavropol Krai note that issues related to the future of their settlement are discussed at meetings of these public organizations.

However, despite the discussion, it is more important how the decisions made at such meetings are taken into account, in the opinion of respondents, by municipal authorities (Table 9). It can be seen that in Krasnodar Krai 63.0% of respondents believe that municipal authorities take into account the proposals and decisions of public organizations when making their own decisions, 12.8% believe that they do not, and 17.1% do not know the answer to the question asked. In Stavropol Krai, the number of people who believe that the decisions of initiative groups or meetings of citizens are taken into account by municipal authorities is slightly higher than 83.9%, and mainly due to the reduction of those who do not know anything about the decisions made there. In either case, in both regions most of the respondents are confident that the impact of local communities on municipal authorities is significant.

The question of the personal participation of respondents in the implementation of collective projects to improve social conditions made it possible to assess how interested the respondents themselves are in this work (Table 10).

The last two questions (Tables 10 and 11) regarding the participation of the respondents themselves in the improvement of the settlement of residence show how difficult it is to make a decision, when you are also required to co-finance or participate with your labor. The number of people who are ready to take part in project discussions is always slightly more than those who are ready to bring their plans to the actual result. So, if you accept that those who spoke in favor of unconditional participation are taken with a probability of 100%, and those who chose, “perhaps yes” with a probability of 50%, then the number of participants will be:

(a) readiness of respondents to participate in the discussion:

• • in Krasnodar Krai: 112 + 58 × 0.5 = 141 or 141/211 × 100 = 66.8%;
• • in Stavropol Krai: 38 + 43 × 0.5 = 59.5 or 63.9%.

(b) respondents’ readiness for labor participation and co-financing:

• • in Krasnodar Krai: 84 + 89 × 0.5 = 128.5 or 128.5/211 × 100 = 60.9%;
• • in Stavropol Krai: 12 + 60 × 0.5 = 42 or 42/93 × 100 = 45.2%.

It is important to note here that in many rural settlements public management institutions are poorly functioning and much more expenditure and effort are required to achieve the intended goal of the project than originally planned by the participants. This reason is often the main one in the refusal of residents to participate in joint social events, especially in cases where the usefulness of the intended benefit is difficult to specify and the project costs are significant.