ACTA GEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA THE GEOGRAPHY OF URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN SLOVENIA: THE CASE OF LJUBLJANA GEOSCAPES 1 2019 59 3 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK THE GEOGRAPHY OF URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN SLOVENIA: THE CASE OF LJUBLJANA GEOSCAPES1 59-3 2019 2 ZNANSTVENORAZISKOVALNI CENTER SLOVENSKE AKADEMIJE ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTI GEOGRAFSKI INŠTITUT ANTONA MELIKA • RESEARCH CENTRE OF THE SLOVENIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS ANTON MELIK GEOGRAPHICAL INSTITUTE ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK THE GEOGRAPHY OF URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN SLOVENIA: THE CASE OF LJUBLJANA GEOSCAPES 1 59-3 2019 LJUBLJANA 2019 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 2019 ISSN: 1581-6613 COBISS: 124775936 UDC/UDK: 91© 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika International editorialboard/mednarodniuredniški odbor:DavidBole(Slovenia),MichaelBründl(Switzerland),RokCiglič(Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), BlažKomac (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCharty (United Kingdom), SlobodanMarković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Nika Razpotnik Visković(Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) Editor-in-Chief/glavni urednik: Blaž Komac; blaz@zrc-sazu.si Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko; drago@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for physical geography/glavni urednik za fizično geografijo: Matija Zorn; matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for human geography/glavna urednica za humano geografijo: Mimi Urbanc; mimi@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for regional geography/glavni urednik za regionalno geografijo: Drago Kladnik; drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for spatial planning/glavni urednik za regionalno planiranje: Janez Nared; janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si Chiefeditorforruralgeography/glavnaurednica zageografijopodeželja:NikaRazpotnikVisković;nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for urban geography/glavni urednik za urbano geografijo: David Bole; david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for geographic information systems/glavni urednik za geografske informacijske sisteme: Rok Ciglič; rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for environmental protection/glavni urednik za varstvo okolja: Aleš Smrekar; ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Editorial assistant/uredniški pomočnik: Matjaž Geršič; matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZUPublished by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/Naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija The papers are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/Letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznike, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove. Single issue/Cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznike, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove. Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Birografika Bori Print run/naklada: 400 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia coreresearchprogramme(P6-0101)/Revijaizhajas podporo Javneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnost RepublikeSlovenijeinnastajav okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/Revija je vključena tudi v: SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,Geoscience e-Journals, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google scholar,and CrossRef. Design by/Oblikovanje: Matjaž Vipotnik. Front cover photography: Ljubljana is rich with urban green spaces (photograph: Bojan Erhartič).Fotografija na naslovnici: Ljubljana je bogata z zelenimi površinami (fotografija: Bojan Erhartič). ISSN: 1581-6613 UDC: 91 Number: 59-3 Year: 2019 Contents Aleš SMREKAR, Mateja BREG VALJAVEC, Katarina POLAJNAR HORVAT,Jernej TIRAN The geography of urban environmental protection in Slovenia: The case of Ljubljana 5 6 THE GEOGRAPHY OF URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN SLOVENIA: THE CASE OF LJUBLJANA Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Breg Valjavec, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Jernej Tiran Green spaces improve quality of urban life. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7638 UDC: 911.375:502.1(497.4Ljubljana) COBISS: 1.02 The geography of urban environmental protection in Slovenia: The case of Ljubljana ABSTRACT: This paper uses findings from sustainability studies to present the development of environ­mental urban geography in Slovenia in recent decades. Modern European cities, of which Ljubljana is no exception, depart significantly from sustainable development concepts. Compared to other similar cities, Ljubljana has an effective green space system, which its residents also perceive as offering a better-quali­tylivingenvironment.Themajor,poorlyaddressedproblemsareprimarilyinheritedissues,suchasgravel pits, illegal dumping sites, and unregulated gardens in suburbanized water protection areas on which res­idents depend. These, however, show a large gap between claimed and actual environmental awareness. KEYWORDS:urbangreenspaces,environmentaldegradation,environmentalprotection,qualityofurban life Geografija varstva mestnega okolja v Sloveniji: primer Ljubljane POVZETEK: Z rezultati trajnostno naravnanih študij, želimo predstaviti razvoj okoljske urbane geografi­je v Sloveniji v zadnjih desetletjih. Sodobna evropska mesta, med katerimi Ljubljana ni izjema, bistveno odstopajo od konceptov trajnostnega razvoja. V primerjavi z drugimi primerljivimi mesti ima Ljubljana učinkovit sistem zelenih površin, kar kot večjo kakovost bivalnega okolja dojemajo tudi prebivalci. Eden odvečjih,slaboreševanihproblemovsopredvsempreteklabremena,kotsogramoznice,divjaodlagališča odpadkov in neurejeni vrtički na suburbaniziranih vodovarstvenih območjih, od katerih so odvisni pre­bivalci. Ti pa izkazujejo veliko razliko med deklarativno in dejansko okoljsko ozaveščenostjo. KLJUČNEBESEDE:urbanezelenepovršine,degradacijaokolja,varovanjeokolja,kakovostživljenjavmestu Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Breg Valjavec, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Jernej Tiran Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si,mateja.breg@zrc-sazu.si,katarina.polajnar@zrc-sazu.si,jernej.tiran@zrc-sazu.si The paper was submitted for publication on October 14th, 2019. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 14. oktobra 2019. 1 Introduction Humans act upon the natural environment – the human habitat – introducing not only positive impacts butalsonumerousnegativeones,whichareunderstoodasenvironmentalpollutionordegradation(Polajnar Horvat 2015a). Although there is a widespread belief that people in the past were more respectful of the environment and that they interacted with it rationally and responsibly, the current generation is not the first to degrade the environment (Plut 2014). With ongoing innovations, but especially industrialization and a growing population, negative environmental impacts have been continually on the rise and increas­inglymorenaturalresourcesarebeingused.Humanactionsarehavingevermoreimpactontheenvironment, with many negative effects. The level of economic and technological development is not the only factor in environmental impacts; people’s relationship with the environment also matters. Especially since the 1980s,peoplehaveenjoyedabetterstandardoflivingthaneverbeforeinhistoryandhaveusedgoodsand services not available in the past. This affects the method of production and consumption of these goods, which have become the main sources of negative environmental impacts (Polajnar Horvat 2015a). Our productionandconsumptionhaveincreasedourecologicalfootprintandsurpassedtheenvironment’scar­rying capacity (Meadows et al. 2004; Polajnar Horvat 2015a). Today it is commonly believed that the key to economic progress is growth and the dominant forms of awareness and people’s environmental behav­ior are personal gain and fulfilling ones’ own desires as much as possible (Mohorič 2011). During the industrial revolution, cities became the locus of the greatest concentration of industries, which brought population increases and also environmental problems. All of these processes intensified throughoutthetwentiethcentury.Tertiarization,globalization,andtheinformationrevolutiondrastically changed cities’ appearance and function in the second half of the twentieth century (Relph 2016). At the start of the twenty-first century Earth’s surface has now been reshaped by anthropogenic processes more thaneverbefore(EllisandRamankutty2008;SmrekarandBregValjavec2014),althoughPerkoetal.(2019) did not identify this in their Slovenian typology, because they based it on natural elements. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda points the way to ultimately including sustainable devel­opment concepts in all aspects of global society in order to end poverty, protect the planet, and improve thelivesandprospectsofeveryone,everywhere.Citysystemsarethesubjectofoneofthegoals,whoseaim is for cities to become inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable (Sustainable…2015). Modern European citiesunfortunatelydepartsignificantlyfromsustainabledevelopmentconcepts,becauseinordertomeet their material and energy needs, as well as emissions and waste disposal, they require very extensive land, which would otherwise be used for production and other quality-of-life activities (Plut 2003). This cre­ates conflicts, in which humans benefit but the environment suffers (Cieślak 2019). AlthoughtheshareofurbanpopulationinSloveniahasstagnatedinrecentdecadesat49.8%(Pelc2015), on the global level this has already exceeded half of the world’s population. Projections show that more thantwo-thirdsoftheworld’spopulationwillbeurbanby2050(World…2018).Urbanlifemeansencoun­teringarangeofpositiveandnegativeimpactsofactionsbyvariousactorsandactivities(residents,business, traffic, services), which have different interests and change with time and place. These actions and their impacts are also reflected in quality of life, which affects people’s decisions about where to live and work, inwhichmentionmustalsobemadeofthefollowingfactors:economicallycompetitivecities(Florida2002), changesinlanduse,andmobilitypatterns(MaransandStimson2011).Effortstowardgoodqualityofurban life have become an important component of urban planning and spatial documents at the local, nation­al, and international levels. The Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (2007) offers guidelines for comprehensive urban development policy within EU member states. It is the foundation of national urban policies, offers strategies for remediation of degraded areas (Smrekar 2007), and is a good basis for further actions that improve the quality of the urban environment (Podobnik 2007). Last but not least, modernurbanplanningarosepreciselyforthepurposeofprotectingandimprovingthehumanenvironment, especiallycities(Mušič1980).Harveyevenwritesthatthe»qualitiesofurbanlivinginthetwenty-firstcen­tury will define the qualities of civilization itself« (Harvey 1996, 403). CentralEuropeancities’historicaldevelopmentiscloselytiedtogravelplains,becausemostcitiesarosealonglargeriversortheirtributaries,whichcreatedtheseplains(Šifrer1969;GalluserandSchenker1992). The natural processes that shaped these areas before significant human settlement gained a competitor, as human inhabitants changed how these landscapes looked and functioned. They did this primarily with intensiveagriculture,utilizingandextractingmineralresources(gravel,sand,andclay),anduncontrolled industrial development, all of which led to changes in land use and in some places also permanent degra­dation (e.g., backfilling gravel pits with waste). Land use is affected by numerous interdependent factors stemming from the relationship between humans and their needs on the one hand and the environment and itscharacteristicsonthe other(GabrovecandKumer2019). Thetechnological,economic,and spatial developmentthatLjubljanaanditssurroundingareashaveexperiencedinthepastcenturyhavecontributed to a greater intensity and extent of anthropogenic impacts on the natural environment, which in certain periodshasbeenreflectedasdegradationofvariouslandscapecharacteristicsinthecityitselforonitsperiph­ery. Landscape degradation of Slovenian cities in riverine gravel plains (Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje, Kranj, NovoMesto,andMurskaSobota)arisesfromunclosedmaterialcycles,whichcreateenvironmentalimpacts incitiesandchangesinthelandscapedynamicsofperi-urbanareas(UrbancandBreg2005;Bregetal.2007). In the past, cities faced the problems of air polluted by sulphur dioxide from industry and coal burning, whereastodaytheproblemisparticulate,nitrogenoxide,andozone,whicharegeneratedbytrafficandalso extendtotheurbanperiphery(e.g.,ozone).Landscapeelementsthatareunderconstantpressurefromurban­izationincludegroundwater(e.g.,wastewaterseepagefromthesewersystemandagriculturalfertilizersfrom nearby farms) and soil (along areas with more traffic, i.e., the bypass and arterial roads). In the 1990s Slovenian cities experienced major functional changes in the shift from an industrial to apost-industrialsociety(Bole2008).OfallSloveniancities,Ljubljanahasthemostpronouncedpost-indus­trialcharacterwithitsemphasisontertiaryandquaternaryactivities(Rebernik2007).Consideringitscentral functions, Slovenia’s capital is also the strongest economic center because companies located in Ljubljana represent one-third of Slovenian capital, create one-third of its added value, and employ one-fourth of all workers in Slovenia (Pichler-Milanović 2001; Ravbar et al. 2005; Nared et al. 2017). Ljubljana faces numerous environmental challenges, such as limited self-cleaning capacity due to its location in a poorly ventilated plain; the Ljubljanica River has a karst catchment area and its landscape-forming elements are relatively highly susceptible to environmental pollutants, especially its air (traffic, heating)andwater(Plut2007);thecityisalsothreatenedbyearthquakes(KilarandKušar2009)andfloods (Natek 2011). However, Ljubljana has met these challenges with relative success, as acknowledged when it was named the 2016 Green Capital of Europe, which the European Commission determined in 2014 based on high environmental standards and commitments to ambitious goals for further environmental improvements and sustainable development. The most positive changes in Ljubljana are those involving traffic regulation, conserving and protecting green spaces and heritage, revitalizing degraded areas, and waste and wastewater treatment (Ljubljana, Zelena prestolnica…2015). Other indicators of Ljubljana’s achievements include being named to the Global Top 100 Sustainable Destinations and World’s Best Sustainable Destination lists (Kozina et al. 2019). This issue presents findings from past geographical studies focusing on sustainable development in the urban and peri-urban environment. It shows how Slovenian geographers, and especially those in the Environmental Protection Department of the Anton Melik Geographical Institute of the Research Centre oftheSlovenianAcademyofSciencesandArts(ZRCSAZU),havecontributedtosustainableurbandevel­opment in Slovenia in recent decades with their research, which analyzed the situation, drew attention to problems, and proposed potential solutions. An outline of the development of environmental thinking in Slovenia helps explain what happened in Slovenian urban areas, using the case of Ljubljana, as the driver of Slovenian development. It seeks to determine how environmentally oriented Ljubljana residents claim to be and how much they are actually willing to do in order to improve the quality of their living envi­ronment. Thus, it determines objective standards for quality of urban life and also how residents perceive it. It also examines the effectiveness of Ljubljana’s green space system, of which it can be proud, and the reasons for unbuilt land degradation and its remediation. 2 Building environmental awareness in Slovenia The conservation movement began in the early twentieth century in Slovenia, but awareness of the impor­tance of environmental protection began to really take hold in the 1960s, shortly after the environmental movement’sbeginningsinwesternEurope(PolajnarHorvatetal.2014).Peoplebecameconcernedwithimprov-ingthequalityoftheirlivingenvironmentandthisledtogreaterpromotionofenvironmentalprotection(Polajnar Horvatetal. 2014). ThehistoryofSlovenianenvironmentalismcanberoughlydividedintofourperiods. 2.1 Before the Second World War The conservation movement in Slovenia emerged in the 1920s. In 1920, the Slovenian Museum Society’s Section for the Protection of Nature and Natural Monuments submitted a memorandum to the regional government, which is considered the first nature conservation program in Slovenia (Spomenica 1920). Although environmental protection was still in its infancy at the time, the Triglav Lakes Valley was pro­tected under this memorandum in 1924 (Erhartič 2012). Compared to environmentalist movements in the West at that time, which emphasized the issue of industrial pollution, in Slovenia the main focus was the importance of nature conservation rather than environmental protection. Slovenia did not yet have significant industrial development and its direct, visible consequences at the time, but the beauty and rar­ity of its natural environment were very highly prized (Smrekar et al. 2016a; Polajnar Horvat et al. 2017). The first example of industrial pollution in Slovenian cities was caused by the Celje zinc plant in the early 1930s. Individuals were already calling attention to the fact that factory gases were causing environmen­tal damage, primarily in the surrounding forests due to sulphur dioxide emissions (Špes 1998). 2.2 The »flower power« era ThesecondwaveoftheenvironmentalprotectionmovementcametoSloveniafromtheUnitedStates(Carson 1962; Hardin 1968; Meadows et al. 1972) and western Europe (Barnes and Barnes 1999) during the 1960s (Smrekar 2006a). What was probably the first European »ecological« film, the twelve-minute documen­tary Strupi (Poisons) by director Mako Sajko released in 1964, had a big impact in Europe and even the United States. The film shows polluted water and air and how these lead to illness and even death in ani­mals and humans (Cingerle 2014). They did not have trouble showing the film in communist Yugoslavia, eventhoughthefilmmakershowedthatfactorysmokestacksbillowingthicksmokewerenotonlysymbols Figure 1: The first articles to raise awareness of environmentalism among the public were published in the magazine Tovariš. of the proletarian revolution, but also of extensive pollution. He filmed it in Trbovlje, and it is practical­ly unbelievable how enthusiastically the factory directors cooperated with him; not only did they cheerfully show him their effluents running into the river, they even asked how much smoke he needed so that it would be visible (Butala 2017). The first general-interest articles were published in the maga-zineTovariš(Comrade;Figure1),forwhichDragoKraljwroteaseriesofarticlescalled»Strupi«(Poisons)and Željko Kozinc wrote »Zrak, ki ga diham in kruh, ki ga jem« (The air that I breathe and the bread that I eat). Both used their writing to raise awareness of the issue of industrial pollution, something that wasnot well understood at the time (Merljak Zdovc 2008; Ščuka 2009). Because the general mindset of that timewaspositivelyinclinedtowardindustryandurbanization,andtheirpositiveeffectswereemphasized, the authorities were not fans of such articles. However, people enjoyed reading them, because they dis­cussed examples from their local environments. In the early 1970s, due to influences from other countries, environmental protection gained promi­nenceinsocietyandlegalregulationsbutenvironmentalconditionsvisiblydeteriorated.Atthispointthere was a shift, and society began to open to new ideas; people began to think critically about unlimited eco­nomic growth (Toš 2012). In 1970, representatives of the Natural Science Society (Prirodoslovno društvo) took part in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, which is seen as the beginning of institutional regulation of environmental protection. The Green Book on Environmental Threats in Slovenia (Zelena knjiga o ogroženosti okolja v Sloveniji; Peterlin 1972), was published on this occasion. It described acute environmental degradation and was first to also address the problematic atti­tude toward the environment. Throughout the country, environmental protection institutions at both the policy level (the Environmental Protection Community and Republican Committee for Environmental Protection) and civil-society level (the Association of Environmental Protection Societies) were founded (Smrekar2006a;Bahor2009).Asignificantmilestonewasalsoachievedinthebusinessworld,whereenvi­ronmental topics were now addressed through environmental impact assessments (Anko 2009). 2.3 Environmental protection movement development in the 1980s Theconceptof»sustainabledevelopment«wasfirstusedinthewell-knownBrundtlandReport(OurCommon Future;WCED1987),whenenvironmentalsocietiesandorganizationsinSloveniaalsogainedmorepromi­nenceandlegitimacyasshapersofpolicy(Drevenšek2002).Thetriggerfortheenvironmentalmovement’s formation was pollution in the Krupa River in White Carniola. Analyses in 1983 indicated that the level ofpolychlorinatedbiphenylsintheKrupa’skarstspringwas400timeshigherthanthemaximumpermitted level (Plut 1988). The pollution came from capacitors being disposed of in karst dolines near the largest karst spring in White Carniola, which was also a source of drinking water. In answer to this highly haz­ardous waste disposal, which seriously threatened human health, in 1984 Dušan Plut published an article in the White Carniola youth bulletin Razmerja (Relationships), in which he called attention to the eco­logical catastrophe and the inadequate regulation that had allowed it (Polajnar Horvat et al. 2017). A globally significant milestone that affected change in people’s thinking was the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. This increased people’s awareness of how dangerous nuclear power plants were, and it sparkedquestionsaboutwhethertobuildmoreofthem.Thisgaverisetotheanti-nuclearmovement,which calledattentiontotheproblematicnatureoftheKrškonuclearpowerplantandthesenselessnessofbuild-ingtheplannedpowerplantnearDolpriLjubljani.Atthattime,environmentalactivistVaneGošnikorganized anenvironmentalprotestinVelenjeagainstthedisposalofnuclearwasteatVelunskiGraben.LeoŠešerko, politician and environmentalist, held numerous round tables to warn of the dangers of nuclear radiation (Pesek 2009). Public warnings about air pollution caused by the Šoštanj coal-fired power plant also began around this time. There was visible damage to the vegetation in its vicinity. The main initiator behind this was again Vane Gošnik (Pesek 2009). At this time there was a shift in informing the general public about envi­ronmental issues: many articles, especially in the weekly Mladina (Youth; Figure 2), pointed to the link between sociopolitical conditions and pollution. In 1988, in order to shed light on the issue of environmental degradation and highlight growing envi­ronmentalproblems,theCouncilfortheStudyandProtectionoftheEnvironmentattheSlovenianAcademy of Sciences and Arts published the volume Slovenija 88 – okolje in razvoj (Slovenia 88: Environment and Development)withoverfortycontributions(Lah1989).Thesearticlesassessedtheenvironmentalsituation Figure 2: The weekly Mladina has been a staunch supporter of the envi­ronmental movement since the 1980s. and compared it to the findings of the Green Book on Environmental Threats in Slovenia (Peterlin 1972). At that time, the idea of coming together and forming a Green Party began to mature. The individuals involvedbelievedthatchangecouldonlybeachievedbyincorporatingenvironmentalprotectionintopub­lic discussion. At the beginning of 1989, Dušan Plut published the »Osnutek zelenega manifesta« (Draft Green Manifesto; Plut 1989), emphasizing that Slovenia needed a Green Party to combat the multifaceted economic, technological, sociopolitical, and moral/ethical crisis, and that they would no longer passive­ly and irresponsibly accept further poisoning of the population and the country (Pesek 2009). That same year, the Greens of Slovenia political party was founded. The party was formed at a time when the first democraticpartieswerebeingestablishedinSloveniasincetheSecondWorldWar,anditimmediatelybecame actively involved in political life (Vodopivec 2007). In 1990, it participated in the first multi-party parlia­mentaryelectionssincetheSecondWorldWarand,with8.8%ofvotes,becameproportionatelythestrongest GreenPartyinEurope(Pesek2009).In1994,itmergedwiththeLiberalDemocrats,andsubsequentattempts by»green«partiestogainparliamentaryseatshavebeenunsuccessfulduetotheirfragmentationandlack of political power. 2.4 Environmentalism following Slovenia’s independence and accession to the European Union Slovenia’s independence brought a marked shift to environmental protection, because the economic, politi­cal,andlegislativecontextsforsolvingenvironmentalproblemsallchangedatthesametime.Theestablishment of democracy has meant more shared decision-making on environmental issues. The right to a healthy living environment was enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Ustava 1991). People began to recognize the environment as valuable. In 1993, the first Environmental Protection Act (Zakon 1993) was adopted, which laid the foundations for modern environmental protection. It was amended in 2004 (Zakon 2004) when, instead of addressing increasingly serious environmental problems by seeking technicalsolutionstoreduceenvironmentalimpacts,theconceptofsustainabilitywasintroducedasaway to approach environmental problems (Smrekar 2006a). This means that environmental protection is not merely or primarily cleaning up polluted areas, but also preventive management and prudent decision-making regarding new encroachments on the environment and exploiting natural resources. One of the fundamental principles applied in this act is the principle of integrity, which is based on the recognition that environmental protection cannot be successfully implemented only partially, without consensus orcooperation (Špes 2008). After the law was adopted, the number of legal acts dealing with environmen­tal protection increased dramatically. This was further boosted by Slovenia’s accession to the European Union, when Slovenia committed itself to systematically integrating EU environmental policy and prin­ciples into national law, the economy, and everyday life (Plut 2004). Environmentalissueshavethuscometotheforefrontofpublicdebateandbecomethesubjectofpub­lic policy. Concern for the environment has become a positive value, but often only at the claimed level. Peoplehavebeguntosupportenvironmentalprotectioninprinciplebecausethishasbecomesociallydesir­able.However,whenfacedwithrestrictionsthatinterferewiththeirlifestyles,thisenthusiasmquicklyfades (Smrekar2006a).Principledsupportforenvironmentalprotectionhasoftennotbeenmanifestedinactu­al behavior, which is far from achieving a transition to an environmentally-friendly society. In the past year (2019), the global climate change movement led by the young activist Greta Thunberg from Sweden has led to increased interest in the environment among Slovenian youth, leading to increased media pres­sure on state institutions (Prezelj 2019). 2.5 Development of urban environmental issues in Slovenian geography The Environmental Protection Department of the Anton Melik Geographical Institute (ZRC SAZU) has a rich foundation that dates from long before its creation in 2005. Darko Radinja, a professor at the Department of Geography (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana) was undoubtedly a key figure in the environmental education of the students that were later hired by the institute, because he served as advi­sor to their undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral theses (Lampič 2019). Radinja’s understanding of environmental processes in the landscape is evidenced by his statement that »destructive environmental change is also based on the belief that the essential components of the natural environment are virtually inexhaustible. It is true that these materials have not run out yet, but even now there is already a lack of goodair,goodwater,andgoodsoil,becausetheregenerationcapacityofthegeosphereandindividualland­scapes is exceeded« (1972, 37). Thus, even before the advent of climate change at the global level, Radinja (1972) warned of exceeding the planet’s regenerative capacity and drew attention to the interconnected­ness of the local, regional, and global geographical environment (Plut 2009). In the 1960s and 1970s, individual environmental studies primarily concerned with nature conser­vation were conducted by institute members (Orožen Adamič 1970). The first more urban topics that arethe subject of this issue began to emerge toward the end of the 1970s. Špes (1977, 1978, 1979) was pri­marily concerned with the societal challenges of pollution in the industrial town of Celje, whereas Černe(1977) used factor analysis to examine the industrially degraded Velenje Basin. For the next decade, Špes (1981) focused on environmental problems in Celje and narrow, poorly ventilated industrial valleys suchas the Mežica Valley (Špes 1987). In the 1990s, the environmental group grew stronger with the additionsof Irena Rejec Brancelj, Igor Šebenik, Barbara Lampič, and Aleš Smrekar. Under Špes’s leadership, theyfirstbegantoexploresustainableurbandevelopment(Špesetal.1995),environmentaldegradationasaspa­tial factor in differentiating urban landscapes (Špes 1998), and the impact of the urban environment onpopulation health (Špes et al. 1997). Šebenik focused on using geographic information systems to inven­tory illegal dumping sites in cities and remediate them (Šebenik and Šimec 1993), so he was probably the first geographer in Slovenia to tackle environmental issues with this very new digital tool, which was not yet widely used. The new millennium brought a comprehensive assessment of impacts on gravel plains, especially in cities, under the leadership of Irena Rejec Brancelj (Kladnik et al. 2002; Andjelov et al. 2005). In addition tothese,studieswereconductedofdiffuseanduncontrolledpollutionsourcessuchasillegaldumpingsites (Smrekar 2008) and options to remediate them (Breg Valjavec et al. 2005), private wells (Smrekar 2007; 2009), and community gardening (Jamnik et al. 2009). Smrekar surveyed 600 Ljubljana residents to deter-mineenvironmentalawarenessindifferentdemographicgroups(Smrekar2006a).Afterthe2005establishment of the Environmental Protection Department (Oddelek 2019), headed by Aleš Smrekar, the department wasjoinedbyMatejaBregValjavec,KatarinaPolajnarHorvat,andJernejTiran,mostofwhomwereadvised by Smrekar during their doctoral studies and who began to focus more heavily on environmental urban issues. In the 2010s, they continued their research by studying environmental risks from past urban and suburban degradation (Breg Valjavec et al. 2018), environmental behavior and social influences (Polajnar Horvat2015a;PolajnarHorvat2017;PolajnarHorvatandSmrekar2017),andalsobegantacklingtheissue of the (over-) congestion of protected areas in cities using the case of an urban landscape park (Smrekar etal.2011),andtheopportunitiesforrecreationnotonlyinprotectedareas,butwithinallthegreenspaces inanurbanenvironment(Smrekaretal.2018).Inordertoprovideacomprehensiveunderstandingofthe urban environment and the impact of its characteristics on the population, research on the quality of the residential environment was carried out on the case of Ljubljana (Tiran 2015; 2017). 3 Methods Researchontheurbanenvironmentreflectsitscomplex,dynamicsystem,andthereforeitconsistsofmul­tiple work phases and methods that aim to analyze, present, and interpret the findings as objectively as possible.Ourresearchonurbanenvironmentalprotectiontodatehasmadeuseofvariousmethods,from fielddatacollection,measurementofphenomena,statisticalanalysis,spatialanalysis,andpresentingcom­plex phenomena and their causal relationships, to analyzing the interdependence and combined effects of phenomena in the urban environment. This issue explains in more detail the most relevant methods used to research green space, urban degradation due to waste disposal, community gardening, quality of the residential environment, and environmental awareness. Ourgreenspaceresearchhasreliedoncontemporaryapproachesthataddresstheroleandimportance ofgreenspacesincitiesbygoingbeyondtheanthropocentricperceptionofcitiesandgreenspaces.Wehave put green spaces in the contextof ecosystem services (Escobedo et al. 2019) and determined how they are valued by visitors (users) of urban green spaces. As part of the urban ecosystem, green spaces affect bio­diversity,bioclimate,andotherculturalecosystemservices(Smrekaretal.2018)andtheybuildandconnect ecologicalcorridors,therebyallowingthesurvival,reproduction,andmigrationofplantandanimalspecies. Theyalsosupportthepopulation’squalityoflife,whichiswhyexaminingpeople’srelationshipswithgreen spaces, visitor profiles, visitors’ priorities, and movement patterns offers valuable information for plan­ning new urban green spaces and improving the status and function of existing ones. In short, because we understand the city as an ecosystem, our research is a comprehensive analysis of the urban landscape. Themethodsindevelopmentandfrequentuseinourresearchwithinandoutsidetheurbanenvironment are outlined below. Following is a brief summary of some essential methods most commonly used in the study of illegal dumping sites over the last two decades. Combinedmethodologicalapproachesareusedtoexamineenvironmentalimpactsandconsequences ofanthropogenicdegradationinthepastandtoday,becausetheyhaveproveneffective(BregValjavec2013; BregValjavecetal.2018).Triedandtestedfieldanddeskresearchmethodsareprimary,butthesearesup­plemented and improved with the development and availability of high-resolution remote sensing data (high-resolution aerial and satellite images, unmanned aerial images (UAV), lidar terrain and vegetation data),andtheever-growingaccessibilityanddiversityofnoninvasivegeophysicalmethods(georadar,elec­trical tomography). Integralstudyofsecondarysourcesoffersbasicdataonpriorproductionofhazardoussubstancesand hazardouswaste,potentialstoragelocations,illegaldisposalbasedonpastresearch,andthelike(Smrekar and Breg Valjavec 2014). This desk research thus determines the locations of former sources of pollution, locatestheminthelandcadaster(lots),determinestheircontinuityintheseareas,anddeterminestheoccur­rence and danger of such current activities and current environmental risk (e.g., to groundwater) in these areas. Determining the dumping locations requires a spatial approach (Smrekar et al. 2005; Urbanc and Breg 2005; Breg Valjavec et al. 2007). Fieldinventoryisabasicmethodthatcanbeusedforaninitialcaptureofdumpingsitedataorasafield check.Inventoriesofillegaldumpingsites,analysisoftheircondition,andpreparationofremediationpro­posals havebeen carriedout inseveral workstages (Breg Valjavec, Janža andSmrekar2018; Smrekar etal. 2005; Smrekar 2006b). Spatial historical-geographical analysis of archival aerial images was used to further cross-reference the producers’ locations with dumping sites that are not related to the producer’s location (Smrekar and Breg Valjavec 2014). By analyzing archival aerial images or a time series of aerial images from the second halfofthetwentiethcentury,wedeterminedthelocationsofonce-activegravelpits(UrbancandBreg2005; BregValjavec2013).Furtherphotogrammetricanalysis,whichenablesthree-dimensionalanalysisofobjects, alsodeterminedthedepthandvolumeofeachgravelpitandcompareditwiththecurrentstateofthesur­face on a digital terrain model (Breg Valjavec 2013). The method makes it possible todeduce the presence of a dumping site even if the terrain of a former pit is now flattened. Laser remote sensing (Breg Valjavec 2014) is a more modern method that produces high-resolution earth-surface data. A digital terrain model with a resolution of 1m provides visual and automatic algo­rithm-supporteddetectionoftheconsequencesofwastedisposal,whichweredetectedasmicro-reliefchanges (Zakšek et al. 2011; Breg Valjavec 2013; 2014). Objective and subjective assessments of the quality of the residential environment are the two differ­entmethodsemployedtostudyresidentialenvironmentquality.Objectiveassessmentincludesmeasurements with various indicators that aim to evaluate the environmental characteristics or conditions that enhance quality of life. The objective assessment does not necessarily correspond to the residents’ opinions; there-fore,subjectiveassessmentsthatmeasurequalityoflifethroughtheperceptionandevaluationoftheresidential environment,usuallywiththelevelofresidents’satisfactionwiththeirhome,neighborhood,orcity(Tiran 2015; 2016), are also important and much more frequently used. Both types of research are important: if the concept is measured in only a subjective way – that is, by interviewing the population – there is a risk that people’s satisfaction with their residential conditions may reflect ignorance of the situation, which is characteristicofpeoplewithlowersocialstatus(FelceandPerry1995).Objectiveassessmentsarealsoimpor­tant from the point of view of environmental protection in urban areas, in order to identify potentially unhealthy living conditions that residents may not even recognize or simply become accustomed to and are not aware of the potential adverse effects on their health. The quality of Ljubljana’s residential envi­ronment was objectively measured at the building scale using partial indices and a synthetic index using the method of aggregating standardized unweighted indicators (Tiran 2017). Research into residential preferences is also very important from the subjective perspective, because it helps authorities and planners build housing or design its surroundings so that residents are happy with it.Atthesametime,itisagoodalternativetoresearchonhousingsatisfaction,whichoftenshowsnomajor differences between residents of different areas (McCrea et al. 2014; Tiran 2017). Subjective quality of the residential environment was also assessed with a questionnaire. This asked peoplehowsatisfiedtheywerewiththeirhome,neighborhood,thecity,anditsindividualelements,whether they planned to move away in the future, and whether they were satisfied with personal aspects of their livesorlifeingeneral.Therelationshipbetweentheirdesiredandactualresidentialenvironmentswasalso used to determine the level of housing deprivation, which indicates how many people have included ele­ments they also assessed as problematic in their residential preferences. In the original survey the questionnairewassentouttotheresidentsoffourselectedurbanareasinLjubljana,butthisissueislim­itedtothehistoricalcitycentrearea(n=113).Therelationshipbetweenqualityoftheresidentialenvironment and quality of life at the citywide level was analyzed with the Quality of Life in Ljubljana (Kos et al. 2010) surveyfindings.Structuralequationmodelingandmultiplelinearregressionanalysiswereused(seeTiran 2016).Theparticularareasofinterestweretheimpactoftheresidentialenvironmentonqualityoflifecom­paredtootherdomainsoflife.Thissurveyalsoindirectlysoughttoanswerthequestionofhowmuchand in what ways city authorities and urban planners can improve the population’s quality of life by improv­ing residential conditions. The subjective method of direct surveying answers many questions about how local residents evalu­ate the types of freely accessible public areas and how much and in what ways they use them. Of all urban green spaces used for recreation, one or two spaces were selected to represent »hot spots« where people spend most of their free time. Inordertoassessenvironmentalawarenessandknowledge,Smrekar(2006a,2011)conductedanexten­sive survey on drinking water provision in Ljubljana. The survey covered several levels, such as setting environmentalpriorities,knowledgeoftheissue,ahypotheticalwillingnesstopayforenvironmentalcosts, andtheextentofcommitmenttoenvironmentalactionreflectedinactualenvironmentally-friendlyactions taken. Similarly, a comprehensive survey was used to assess active environmental action among 302 com­munity gardeners as direct users of space and water in the Ljubljana area. We also used the multi-level approach to collecting information in this survey. The latest Polajnar Horvat (2015a) study, in addition toalarge-scale,multilevelenvironmentalawarenessstudyonwateruseamong408individualsinLjubljana, alsoincludedanactualsix-monthmeasurementofchangesinhouseholdbehaviorthatofferedinsightinto actualbehaviors.Socio-geographicalfactorswerealsomeasuredinthesesurveys.Thedimensionsof envi­ronmental action were measured by individual statements using a 5-point Likert scale (5– strongly agree, 1 – disagree). The Polajnar Horvat (2015a) study assessed claimed environmental awareness at the first, hypothet­ical level, and actual willingness to carry out environmentally-friendly actions was assessed at the second level.Thefinal,thirdlevelexaminedtheextentofcommittedenvironmentalactions,asmeasuredbyindi­cators of actual environmentally-friendly practices. This method views the individual as both the causer and the receiver of environmental changes and an active or passive landscape modifier (Smrekar 2011). The advantage of this questionnaire over most comparable ones is in determining the active function of the environmentalist body as measured by indicators of actual behavior. The three-level question struc­ture largely succeeded in eliminating the bias toward the socially more desirable answers, which can be observed to a greater extent at lower levels.Method verifications by sociologists indicate that respondents oftenreportahigherfrequencyofdesiredbehaviors(suchasvisitinglibrariesandvoting)thanactualones, or a lower frequency of behaviors that could damage their reputation (such as drinking alcohol; Malnar 2002). In addition, the questionnaire used a method of transitioning from examining the general attitude toward the environment to assessing the specific attitude toward groundwater and active willingness to protect it. Past research (Kaiser and Shimoda 1999; Stern 2000; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002) has shown that attitudes toward the environment, environmental awareness, and action itself is predicted more suc­cessfully if specific environmental topics are examined and measured, rather than general ones. The k-means clustering method was used to divide respondents into groups according to their char­acteristics by similarity; that is, each group contains the individuals most similar in the factors studied, andthegroupsareasdifferentaspossiblefromoneother(PolajnarHorvat2015).Thegroupsthusobtained wereanalyzedaccordingtothesocialfactorsstudied,theirmotivationforenvironmentally-friendlybehav­iors, and the behaviors themselves. 4 Ljubljana’s development and environmental challenges Ljubljana, the capital of the Republic of Slovenia (Nared et al. 2017), located in the southern part of the Ljubljana Plain in central Slovenia (Perko et al. 2015), has developed into a political, administrative, eco­nomic, transport, and gravitational center, resulting from heavy urbanization in Slovenia and especially in the Ljubljana Plain (Gabrovec and Kumer 2019). Its economic and employment strengths have been growing in recent decades, which is reflected in the increasing concentration of jobs, daily mobility flows, and the expansion of its functional region (Ravbar 2009; Kozina 2010; Bole 2011; Nared et al. 2017). Ljubljana is at the junction of the Ljubljana Plain in the north and the Ljubljana Marsh in the south, and between the Polhov Gradec Hills in the west and Sava Hills in the east. The city developed along the 1.5km wide Ljubljana Gate (elevation 298 m), where the Ljubljanica River broke through a low barrier ofcarbonaceousshalebetweenRožnikandŠiškahills(394mand429m,respectively)inthewestandCastle andGolovechills(366mand450m,respectively)intheeast.ItisparticularlynoteworthythattheLjubljana Gate is the lowest natural barrier between the Alps and the Mediterranean (Ogrin 2010) and is one of the major transport junctions of the fifth and tenth Pan-European corridors (Pak 2010). The Sava and Ljubljanica rivers filled the sinking Ljubljana Plain, 60km long and 20km wide, withtheir deposits, forming the plain relief (Šifrer 1969) with the Ljubljana Plain, 20km long and up to 6km wide, in the eastern part. A well-permeable gravel embankment with intermediate, less permeable layers ofconglomerateandloamwasformedinthePleistocene(Gams1992).ThetotalthicknessoftheHolocene and Pleistocene gravel and conglomerate layers varies greatly, because the Quaternary substrate is at var­ious depths. In the carbonate gravel aquifers there is a large amount of groundwater, estimated at up to 100 million m3, which is one of the largest reservoirs of groundwater in Slovenia and a natural resource ofregional importance (Figure 3). Theestimated groundwater flow velocity isfroma fewmeters to severaldozens of meters per day (Bračič Železnik et al. 2005). The annual groundwater level regime from 1974 to 1990indicatesasmallaverageannualfluctuation,rangingfrom20to70cm.Dynamicgroundwaterreserves are estimated at 3–4m3/s (Andjelov et al. 2005). Medno– č –pumping station Hrastje–Zadobrova– pumping station Kle ecentral sewage treatment plant pumping station K č le e 2pumping stationKle e 1 č pumping stationHrastje 1 central sewage treatment plant Sandy gravel Brown and gray clay Shale, and sandstone Conglomerate Gravel with conglomerate interlayers Figure 3: Hydrogeological profile of the Ljubljana Plain (Bračič Železnik et al. 2005). The Ljubljana Marsh is the southern and youngest part of the Ljubljana Plain, measuring 163km2. It is characterized by an extensive bottom with more recent deposits of loam, clay, and lake chalk. This wide tectonic depression is located at the junction of two tectonic units: the older Dinaric and the younger Alpine thrust structures (Gams 1992; Pavšič 2008; Verbič andHorvat 2009). Despite the unstable soils of the Ljubljana Marsh, reflected in subsidence and greater earthquake and flood risk, Ljubljana has been expanding rapid­ly to the south over the last few decades (Gašperič 2004). The main water supply for the Ljubljana Plain and Marsh is the Sava River, which is generally followed by groundwater, whereas the precipitation infiltration throughout the Ljubljana Plain is smaller (Auersperger et al. 2005). A larger surface watercourse in the Ljubljana Plain is the Ljubljanica River. Its flow is slow, and a bed full of fine-grained sediment severely restricts the exchange of water between the river and the aquifer (Ristić 2013). Due to a sinking groundwater level, which mainly results from erosion of the Sava riverbed due to a small­er inflow of sediments after the construction of hydroelectric power plants, numerous springs and surfaceoutflows in the northeastern and southern parts of the Ljubljana Plain have dried up (Bračič Železnik et al. 2005). Groundwater level fluctuation is greatest in Brod to the north (6 m), decreasing to 2 to 3m to the east (Auersperger et al. 2005). The largest anthropogenic impact is extraction, which averages nearly 1m3/s for drinking water supply alone, and water losses due to soil sealing are also not insignificant, at 0.5m3/s (Smrekar 2004).The difference in surface and underground inflows and outflows from the Ljubljana Plain is 2.6m3/s, which can be attributed to several factors in the final balance, in particular water leak­age from the aquifer into the Ljubljanica and Sava rivers, industrial water extraction, and groundwater runoff in the area between Podutik and Rožnik Hill (Andjelov et al. 2005). Between 1,400 and 1,500 mm of precipitation falls annually in the Ljubljana Plain and Marsh, with an average annual air temperature between 8 and 10°C. Because Ljubljana lies in a plain wind is reduced, heat inversions are more frequent and more pronounced, and there is a greater number of days with fog, most often in September and October (Komac et al. 2020). In anticyclone weather, only local winds are common. Ljubljana most commonly has northeast winds (in anticyclone weather and after cold fronts) and south­west winds (before cold fronts). However, northeast winds are present only in the northern and eastern parts of the city, because cooler air flows into the city from the surrounding area there (Jernej 2000). Thebeginningsofthesettlementthatdevelopedintothecoreoftoday’sLjubljanadatebacktotheBronze Age,fromwhichtracesofhumansettlementhavebeenfoundintheelevatedareabetweentheLjubljanica riverbed and Castle Hill (Tičar et al. 2017). The first major settlement was the Roman town of Emona, in thesouthernpartoftoday’snewerdowntownarea,followedbythemedievaldevelopmentofthecity,which developedfromthreecitysquaresonbothsidesoftheLjubljanicabelowCastleHill.Abreakthroughoccurred after1857,whentheVienna–TriesterailwaylinewasbuiltthroughthecityandLjubljanabecameincreas­ingly the political, economic, and cultural center for Slovenians within Austria-Hungary. After the severe earthquake of 1895 and the ambitious reconstruction afterward, the city became completely modern in character.AftertheendoftheFirstWorldWar,whenthenewsouthernSlavicstatewasformed,Ljubljana’s rolefurtherincreased,andby1931italreadyhadapopulationof60,000.AftertheSecondWorldWarthere was a major economic and spatial development and expansion of the city along its thoroughfares, which significantlyincreasedthepopulation(Figure4).Thepopulationwasalready267,008atthetimeofSlovenia’s independencein1991(Gams1992),thisnumberclimbedto294,113by2019(Population2019).Thenum­ber of jobs increased from 142,000 in 1997 (Pak 2010) to a whopping 267,000 in 2017 (Internet 1). Due to the long history and size of its built-up area, Ljubljana has a very diverse functional and mor­phologicalstructurecomparedtootherSloveniancities(Tiranetal.2016).SinceSloveniabecameindependent, Ljubljanahasundergonearapidspatialandfunctionaltransformationduetonewpolitical,economic,and social conditions such as investment centralization (Ravbar 2009; Foški and Zavodnik Lamovšek 2019). From a spatial point of view, more intensive »internal development« of the city is noticeable, especially in the form of housing construction and rehabilitation and reuse of certain degraded urban areas (Nastran and Regina 2016). There are two conflicting processes taking place in the functional transformation of the city: on the one hand there is increasing functional heterogeneity, including through a mixed land use system, and on the other there is a spatial concentration of certain activities (notably trade). In the down-townareaandinthelocalsupplycenters,shopsaredisappearingattheexpenseofsuburbanshoppingcenter development(Rebernik2007),inrecentyearsalsoduetotherapiddevelopmentoftourismandtheaccom­panying touristification. Duetoitsconcentrationofpopulation,jobs,servicesofgeneralinterestsuchaseducation,health,admin­istration, and the courts (Nared et al. 2017), and business (especially service) activities, Ljubljana is also the traffic hub of Slovenia. Traffic flows were further increased by the construction of the freeway net­work with Ljubljana at its crossroads (Kozina 2010; Bole 2011). Centralization and suburbanization are also typical (Bole et al. 2012). Ljubljana attracts 127,660 commuters daily (Persons 2018), mostly by car and often alone in a vehicle (Celostna…2017), whereas poor public transport provision in conjunction with traffic and environmental problems increases the potential for social exclusion especially for young people (Gabrovec and Rasputnik 2018). Due to the intersection of the fifth and tenth Pan-European cor­ridors,theLjubljanabeltwayfacesincreasingfreighttransportpressures(Celostna…2018).Thelatestavailable information on travel habits shows that most trips are carried out by car and on foot (Figure 6). Duetothehighproportionofcommutingroutesbycarandpoorself-cleaningcapabilitiesoftheLjubljana Plain (Plut 2007), traffic is a major air pollutant. Levels of nitrogen oxides, black carbon, and particulate matterexceedacceptablevaluesinLjubljana’sdowntown,especiallyalongcorridorsandalsodirectlyadja-cent to arterial roads and the beltway (Ogrin 2007; Ivančič and Vončina 2014; Ogrin et al. 2018). Traffic is also one of the main sources of noise. The first noise studies conducted in the 1990s show that the main sourceofnoiseinLjubljanaistraffic,especiallyroadtraffic(Špesetal.2002).Thesituationhasnotchanged significantlysincethen.Morethanhalfofthepopulationareexposedtovaluesabove55decibels–which, according to the World Health Organization, can cause anxiety or sleep disorders – due to road noise in Ljubljana, and one-sixth of the population experiences values above 65 decibels, which is the limit value for road and rail noise indicators (Novelacija…2014). The residents’ perceptions largely agree with the results of measurements and modeling (Lampič and Cigale 2005). Figure 4: Index map of Ljubljana with inhabited buildings (Tiran 2017). p p. 20 Figure 5: Morphological structure of Ljubljana (Tiran et al. 2016). p p. 21 Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Šiška Moste Zalog Center Legend Vič Rudnik Inhabited buildingBuilt–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej TiranMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: Central Population Register, GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Morphological type Older neighbourhoods of single–unitdetached houses Newer neighbourhoods of single–unitČrnuče detached houses Older terraced housesNewer terraced houses Šentvid Quarters of urban villas Urbanized villages Bežigrad Šiška Semi–urbanized villagesHistorical city centreNewer city centre Acta geographica Slovenica, 59-3, 2019 21 Older suburbs of apartment buildingsOlder working class neighbourhoods Moste Zalog Mixed single– and multi–unit buildingsBetween–war block apartment buildings Center Post–WWII older apartment buildingsNeighbourhoods with newer apartmentbuildingsVič Rudnik Contemporary apartment buildingsBuilt–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, David Bole, Peter KumerMap by: Jernej Tiran, David Bole, Peter Kumer, Manca Volk BahunSource: City of Ljubljana Municipal Spatial Plan 2014, GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Walking Public transport Figure 6: Proportions of completed routes in Ljubljana by travel mode Cycling Car (Klemenčič et al. 2014). Ljubljana has one of the best public transport systems in Slovenia. It was introduced in 1901 and has been modernized several times since then (Ogrin and Dovečar 2014). However, the proportion of routes using public transport remains at a similar level, indicating its non-competitiveness compared to cars (Klemenčič et al. 2014). Accessibility is best in downtown and suburban Ljubljana and along most arter­ial roads, where it is at a relatively high level, and worst on the less densely populated outskirts and also in more recently built areas. This is a concern for sustainable mobility. Modern residential areas are sig­nificantly less accessible compared to older residential neighborhoods built before 1991. Of the overall population,93.1%live640m(orabouteightminutes’walk)fromthenearestbusstop,and78.6%live400m (or about five minutes’ walk) from the nearest bus stop (Figure 7; Tiran et al. 2017). Gaps in acceptable accessibility (outside the radii listed above) occur in individual parts of the urban periphery. Ljubljana is characterized by the appearance of an urban heat island. The intensity of the Ljubljana heat island was calculated by comparing weather stations in the city and at the Brnik airport outside the city.Thedistancebetweenthetwostationsis17kmandthealtitudedifferenceis65m.From1980to2011, the heat island effect was greatest at maximum temperatures (3.74°C) and lower at average temperatures (1.54°C) and minimum temperatures (0.79°C). In addition, these differences increased over the period observed (Komac et al. 2017). Satellite thermal imaging of central Ljubljana (Cedilnik et al. 2016) indi­cates that year-round hot spots occur mainly in the area of large groups of industrial plants and shopping centers, and are more pronounced in the northern part of the capital than in the south. The most promi­nentareshoppingmalls,industrialplants,andwarehouses.Largeparkingareas,whichabsorbalargeamount of heat, contribute to this. Among the »mitigating circumstances« that reduce the heat capacity of these surfaces is the fact that most of them are not enclosed by taller buildings, which allows them to be better ventilated and to cool faster. The heat island also affects air pollution, because city warming causes the air to rise above the city and especially downtown, which triggers air inflows from the outskirts, increasing the concentration of air pollutants in the downtown area, especially nitrogen oxides and dust particles. In Ljubljana, approximately 54% of total NOx emissions were due to traffic in 2011 (Ogrin et al. 2018). In practice, Ljubljana is torn between a sustainable transport paradigm that places walking, cycling, and public transport at the forefront, and »old« traffic planning that adapts to traffic demand or increas­es in car traffic. Proof of this is the current spatial plan, which, as a solution to the congestion, envisages the expansion of existing roads, the elimination of bottlenecks, and the construction of many new roads Figure 7: Access to public bus transport in Ljubljana using the PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) method (Tiran et al. 2015). p Črnuče Šentvid City bus accessibility level 0 (outside 640 m accessibility) Bežigrad 1a (very poor)1b (very poor)Moste Šiška 2 (poor)3 (medium) Zalog Center Vič 4 (good)5 (very good)6a (excellent)6b (excellent) Acta geographica Slovenica, 59-3, 2019 23 Rudnik Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute and even tunnels (Odlok o občinskem…2010). From the sustainable mobility perspective, some of the measures implemented are problematic: the completion of the »inner beltway« (the Fabiani Bridge) was carriedoutexpresslyinfavorofmotortraffic.Thereisatendencytoexpandactivitiestotheurbanperiph­ery in the vicinity of the beltway (shopping centers, higher education institutions). The number of urban publictransportpassengersisstagnantordeclining(Tiranetal.2017),andaccessibilityisdecreasing,espe­cially due to the reduced frequencies of public transport on city arterial roads (Bole et al. 2016).Although urban public transport has seen some improvements (increased travel speed on Slovenska cesta, updating thefleets,extendedlinestothesurroundingcountryside,dedicatedbuslanesonsomearterialroads),these measuresareincomplete.Thecitybus,withafewexceptions,remainsuncompetitivecomparedtocartrav-el, with longer travel times and also an outdated and dysfunctional route network (Koblar 2017). The construction of new parking garages in the urban core is also problematic because of its car-friendliness, and parking lots also occupy certain undeveloped, degraded land in the core that is slated for develop­ment in the future. Data show that after the closure of Slovenska cesta in the downtown area and the introduction of yellow bus lanes on arterial roads such as Celovška cesta and Dunajska cesta, the amount of traffic on these roads decreased, and the amount of traffic on parallel roads such as Bleiweisova cesta did not increase as much as it decreased on Slovenska cesta (Koblar 2016). Measures to limit car traffic were therefore effective despite predictions to the contrary. In 2007, a systematic closure of the downtown area to motor traffic was begun, at which time it was closed,includingtheformermainroutethroughit.Trafficwasdivertedtotheadjacentroadsofthe»inner beltway,« which avoids the downtown area. At the same time, downtown streets were completely closed, with some allowing restricted motor traffic. Driving and parking on these streets is only allowed for vehi­cleswithpermits.In2013,apartofSlovenskacestabetweenŠubičevacestaandGosposvetskacestawasclosed to private vehicles. Currently,twenty-onestreetsinornearthehistoricalcitycentreareintendedforpedestriansandcyclists only. Also, in view of limiting the detrimental effects of motor traffic, the introduction of one-way streets and regulation and the expansion of paid parking areas toward the city’s outskirts were positive measures. Ljubljanahasalsoundertakenasystematicpromotionofbicyclecommuting,includingtheintroduction and designation of new bicycle lanes, the provision of secure bicycle parking through the installation of stands and the introduction of a bicycle rental system at several accessible points throughout the city core called BicikeLJ, which complements public transport system. For those with difficulty walking, access to allmajordestinationsinthecity’spedestrianzoneisprovidedwiththreefreeelectricvehicles,the»Cavaliers« (Mobilna…2012; Internet 1). Cyclingisnotonlyimportantfromtheperspectiveofmaintainingahealthyenvironment,butalsofor maintainingthehealthylifestyleoftheresidentsandvisitorstothecity.Accordingly,thedevelopmentand operation of functional green urban areas, which play an important role in recreation, is also important for modern sustainable cities. Green urban areas in Ljubljana have a rich continuity, based on the natur­al and cultural heritage of urban gardens (initially private and later public), parks, and later also urban forests,sotheirroleiswider,offeringculturalecosystemservicesthatenrichtheemotionsandsenses,and thus are »places of senses.« 5 Green spaces in Ljubljana ModernEuropeancitiesaresustainable(LEIPZIG…2007),smart,andgreen,oratleaststrivingforit.Green cities have a functioning and effective system of green urban areas such as parks, gardens, markets, ceme­teries, community gardens, and forests, and also protected grasslands or forested areas in the wider urban andsuburbansystem(SmrekarandTiran2013;Woodetal.2017).Thegreenenvironmentisofparamount importance for human health and wellbeing within a predominantly built-up environment (Ward Thompson et al. 2012; Wolch et al, 2014) and provides cultural ecosystem services (Millennium…2005). In order for people to develop more awareness of the importance of the environment, they need to have enough free time that they feel the need for a quality environment. Therefore, people need to change their Figure 8: Recreation areas in Ljubljana. p Črnuče Šentvid Type of outdoor recreation space Urban forest Bežigrad Šiška Park & riverbank greenSport facility Moste Zalog Recreational path Center Outdoor tnessTrim islandPlaygroundBuilt–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiver Rudnik Road Vič 0123 km Content by: Jernej TiranMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: MOL, GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute lifestyles so that spatial values become an integral part of them. This is the only way to maintain a healthy environment, which is especially true of the urban environment (Smrekar 2007). Most oftheurbangreenareas inSloveniancities arepoorly designed,offerfewactivity andrecreation options,haveindistincttypologiesandpurposes,arepoorlymanagedandmaintained,andalsousedinap­propriately(ŠukljeErjavec2006).Asaresult,greenspacesareincreasinglyexposedtoconstructionpressures and, as a result, our cities are losing important potential for planning solutions that can increase the qual­ity of life. However, the urban green space situation is improving, especially in larger cities such as Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje, Velenje, and Koper. Urban green spaces have been consistently maintained in Ljubljana for the past two centuries through spatial and socioeconomic development, with changes to their shape, size, purpose, protection, and popularity. Residents’ attitudes toward different types of green spaces are emphasized here. Particular attention is paid to recreation and sports, which are the most common cul­tural ecosystem services and indicate changes in services over time (Figure 8; Ribeiro and Šmid Hribar 2019). They are seen in various land-use types in Ljubljana, which is also consistent with the Europeanperspective (Kenward and Sharp 2008). They are especially prominent at Tivoli, Rožnik, and Šiška Hills Landscape Park, which extends into the downtown area. The promotion of healthy lifestyles, the desire for physical activity in a quality environment, and good transport accessibility significantly increases the amount of leisure time spent in protected and other unspoiled areas (Mavri 2018). 5.1 Green infrastructure in Ljubljana The deliberate planning of urban green spaces in Europe only began after the industrial revolution in the firsthalfofthenineteenthcenturyandtheemergenceofthefirstenvironmentalproblemsofrapidlygrow­ing industrial cities (Smrekar and Tiran 2013). The cornerstone of Ljubljana’s green system is green wedges, which are connected by pointedly cir­cular and transverse connections and a network of public parks. These green wedges descend from theperipheryintothecity,withRožnikandŠiškahillsandCastleHillextendingrightintothedowntownarea, comprising a green belt along with the surrounding area (Smrekar and Tiran 2013). Ljubljana has a good structureofparksbothsmallandlarge,includingsmallpublicgreenspacesbetweenapartmentbuildings, which are often characterized by management difficulties due to ownership issues (Simoneti and Vertelj Nared 2017). TheextensivegreenspacesinLjubljanawerenotcreatedfromcomplexplans,butarearesponsetonat­uralconditions(itspositionalongtheriver,betweenhills)andalsoowemuchtocertainindividuals’efforts (Smrekar and Tiran 2013). At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were extensive urban greenareas in Ljubljana onCastle,Golovec, Šiška, andRožnik hills. The first greenspaces inthebuilt-up down­town were public parks. The aristocracy had houses with gardens, and the workers were given a public park – an informal communal environment that nurtured a sense of community, where people interacted with each other, relaxed, and enjoyed their leisure time. Many parks were privately owned and closed to thepublic,suchastheZoisGardensinLjubljana,whichwereopenedtothepublicin1789(Smrekarand Tiran 2013). The development of Tivoli Park was also important for the city. Figure 9 (top) shows the green areas of the narrow (medieval) core of Ljubljana on the Franciscan Cadaster of 1826 and the land cover of the parks of that time in today’s city (aerial photo from 2016; Figure 9, bottom). Green urban parksthathavebeenpreservedinwholeorinpartsincethebeginningofthenineteenthcenturyareStar (Zvezda)Park(49),MiklošičPark(15),FoersterPark(5),SlovenianReformationPark(14),andtheKnafelj Passage (17). The main functions of green areas in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth cen­tury were walking and sitting; that is, moderate recreation in the fresh air, relaxation, and enjoyment of theoutdoors. TherecreationalaspectofgreenspacesincitieswasfirsthighlightedbytheAthensCharter (1933), which had a major impact on urban planning development in Slovenia after the Second World War. In the 1950s and 1960s, the design and construction of new housing developments (e.g., Litostroj Figure 9: Green urban parks in 1826 and a comparison with the situation in 2016, when most had been built-up. A part of Ljubljana where the site of a beautiful city park from 1826 is now densely built-up is highlighted as an example. p Year 1826 24 and Savsko naselje) took into account the importance of green spaces, but these were limited to orna­mental plantings with an aesthetic touch but without useful value to the residents (Jančar 1970). In the 1970s,urbanplanning(Generalni1965)consideredgreenurbanareastobejustasimportantasthebuilt environment. Numerous well-plannedneighborhoodsof apartment buildings werecreated atthattime, with many green spaces and a 33-kilometer green belt along the route once traced by the barbed wire thatsurroundedLjubljanaduringtheSecondWorldWar(TrailofRemembranceandComradeship;Smrekar and Tiran 2013). 5.2 Evaluation of urban green spaces Greenareas inLjubljana arevery heterogeneous anddiverse,as seenintheprevious subsection.This sub­section presents how the residents, visitors, and other users perceive and experience urban green spaces. Direct surveying was implemented to provide information on how the local residents evaluate the select-edtypesoffreelyaccessibleurbangreenspacesandhowmuchtheyusetheseareas.Smrekar,PolajnarHorvat and Tiran (2018) compiled an inventory and typology of recreation spaces in the City of Ljubljana that arebelievedtohaveacertainculturalecosystemvalue.Theyevaluatedurbangreenspacesandtheirrestora­tive capacities. The typology consists of the following recreation spaces: • Large urban parks (Tivoli Park), • Small urban parks (Star Park, Argentina Park, Toscanini Park), • Green spaces in housing developments (Šiška, Nove Fužine), • Urban forests (Rožnik and Golovec hills), • Riverbank green spaces (Ljubljanica and Gradaščica rivers), • Sport facilities (green spaces; Kodeljevo Park and Svoboda Sport Center) and • Playground green spaces (Šmartno Street and Kodeljevo parks). The types of green spaces in Ljubljana described here play different roles in people’s minds and per­ceptions in terms of recreation, and they see them as represent different cultural ecosystem services. Recreational and sports green spaces (Figure 10) matter most to the middle generation; that is, to active Large urban park Small urban park Neighbourhood green space Urban forest Riverbank green Sport facility Playground % Negligible A little Very much Average Very little Moderately Exceptionally Figure 10: Assessment of recreation and sports values of different types of urban green spaces among Ljubljana residents. urbanresidentsthatareawareofahealthylifestyle.Residentsgenerallydonotrecognizesmallurbanparks asvaluablespacessuitableforrecreationandsports,buttheirfunctionsareseenasmoreaesthetic.However, residents are most likely to satisfy their aesthetic needs in well-maintained and well-equipped children’s playgrounds, the large and beautifully landscaped urban park, and waterfront areas, of which there are many in Ljubljana. Residents gave urban forests a surprisingly low rating, because 13% of them evaluat­edthemasnegligibleorlessvaluableareas.A»wilder«and»moreunkempt«naturalenvironmentobviously doesnotseeminvitingtourbanresidents,whichisprobablyaconsequenceoftheirgreateralienationfrom more pristine natural environments. On the other hand, residents relax the most precisely in the urban forests, followed by the large urban park, waterfront areas, and green sports areas. The most people (51%) also determined that sports areas were exceptionally valuable to them. This is in line with the findings of Beiling et al. (2014), that more natural areas are more attractive than ones showing greater human inter­vention. From the natural heritage protection point of view, residents see Tivoli Park (Figure 11), a large urban park, as most important, closely followed by the Ljubljanica waterfront; surprisingly, the urban forests are notrankedthehighestand,evenmoresurprisingly,thesportsareashavethesamescoreandeventhehigh­estshareofpeopleanswering»extremelyvaluable«(32%).ThisalignswiththePlieningeretal.(2015)study findingsthatresidentsonlyrarelyhavecontactwithmorenaturalareas,andthustheyfeelbetterinamore urbanized natural setting. There is a positive correlation between attributing more importance to natur­al heritage and education. The green areas that evoke the most emotion are the waterfront areas. It is interesting that only one-tenthoftherespondentsratedthisspace»extremelyvaluable«butasmanyas46%ratedit»veryvaluable.« Greenspacesinhousingdevelopmentsaremostperceivedas»extremelyvaluable«(by27%ofrespondents). Residentsdrawinspirationmostoftenfromsportsfacilities,butjustbehindthesearewaterfronts,green areas in housing developments, and playgrounds (each at 4.2). Surprisingly, urban forests only appear on the list after that (4.1), followed by the large urban park (4.0). People with a primary school education are least likely to draw inspiration from public outdoor spaces (3.7), whereas people with higher education levels are significantly more likely to, and at relatively similar levels (from 4.0 to 4.1). Large urban park Small urban park Neighbourhood green space Urban forest Riverbank green Sport facility Playground % Negligible A little Very much Average Very little Moderately Exceptionally Figure 11: Ljubljana residents’ rankings of the wellbeing benefits of various types of urban green spaces. Residents mostly seek out waterfront areas for mental relaxation, although these were given the high­est rating of »extremely valuable« by only 7% of respondents, placing waterfronts only in sixth place on thelistofnine.Thisisfollowedbysmallurbanparksandplaygrounds,eachat3.8(Figure11).Peoplehave the greatest sense of »escape« from everyday life in the urban forests (4.7), which is unsurprising, because they gave similar answers on the recreation survey as well. The other place mentioned as offering a sense of escape is sports facilities (4.6). One of the reasons for this is an increasingly greater emphasis on recre­ation and sports activity. In recent years recreation as a way to spend leisure time has grown considerably. A third place offering escape is green spaces in housing developments (4.4). Respondentsreportthefeelingof»fascination«mostinwaterfrontareas(4.26)andleastinsmallurban parks (3.63) and green spaces in housing developments (3.82), which is probably because they are used every day. They have the strongest feeling of »coherence« in the old part of the city (4.53), at sports facil-ities(4.48),andatplaygrounds(4.42).Theyfeeltheleastcoherenceinsmallurbanparks(3.72)andurban forests (3.76), probably due to their alienation from nature. Thegreatestsenseof»compatibility«ischaracteristicofsportsfacilities(4.86)andthelargeurbanpark (4.78),andtheleastinsmallurbanparks(3.97).Thegreatestsenseof»novelty«isfeltinurbanforests(4.4) and the least in green spaces in housing developments (3.59) and small urban parks (3.79). Thefeelof»dissatisfaction«isverylowinalltheurbangreenspacesselected.Residentsfeelittheleast in the large urban park (1.3), where 73% rank it as insignificant, and they feel it the most in green spaces in housing developments (1.9). Thesameistrueof»fear,«forwhichrankingsrangefrom1.2(shoppingcentersandsmallurbanparks) and 1.5 (urban forests). Residents are bothered more by noise, surprisingly least of all in green spaces in housing developments (1.6) and more logically in urban forests (1.8). Residents most often visit green spaces in housing developments, at 46% daily and 38% several times a week, and sport facilities (37% daily and 38% several times a week). They least often visit shopping cen­ters (6% once a year or less and 31% a few times a year) and urban forests (4% once a year or less and 23% a few times a year; Figure 12). Residents spend the longest in urban forests (48% of respondents spend more than 60 minutes and 39% of respondents spend from 41 to 60 minutes). On the other hand, they spend the least time in small urban parks (34% of respondents spend 20 minutes or less and 36% of respondents spend from 21 to 40 minutes), which they pass through on the way to various errands or are directly adjacent to their homes (Figure 13). Ljubljana residents most often go for walks in selected urban green spaces, because 65% of respon­dents do this. More than nine-tenths of these walks are in urban forests (91%). More than half (53%) sit on benches or the ground, generally in waterfront areas (73%) and small urban parks (68%), and the least inurbanforests(27%).Residentsalsoenjoysittingatcafes,bars,andrestaurantsandsportsfacilities(68%). They frequently conclude their sports activities by sitting at a nearby cafe, bar, or restaurant. More pristine natural settings, in this case urban forests, have greater recreation capacity than less natural areas (Paracchini 2014). Thus the 18% of residents that run most often do this in urban forests (44%) and significantly fewer at sports facilities (28%). Dog walkers make up 16%, most often also in urbanforests(27%)andsportsfacilities(24%).Anotherfifthofthepopulationareinvolvedwithallother sports. Amongtheoutdoorgreenspaceswithinaten-minutewalkingdistance,greenspacesinhousingdevel­opments (81%) are visited most frequently, followed by urban forests (57%) and outdoor sports facilities (56%).Urbanforestsaremostlyusedonlybyresidentslivingnearby,whereasothersobviouslydonotrec­ognize them as having significant ecosystem value. Green recreational spaces are often a good way to improve degraded areas, something that has also taken place in Ljubljana. A golf course has been built on disused and remediated landfill sites of the city waste disposal area. ThenewrecreationalareaontherightbankoftheSavaRiverisarevitalizedareawherelargeamounts of construction waste were dumped at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, Ljubljana has a heritage of degraded areas that are the result of past human activity and the destruction of the nat­uralbalance,andtheywillneedtobeaddressedinthefurtherurbanandsuburbandevelopmentofLjubljana. This topic is discussed in the next section. Llarge urban park 5,9 Small urban park Neighbourhood green space Urban forest 8 4 Riverbank green 2 Sport facility 2 Playground 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Everyday Several times per month Once per year Several times per week Several times per year or more seldom Figure 13: Types of recreation among Ljubljana residents by selected urban green spaces. 6 Anthropogenic degradation of urban and peri-urban Ljubljana Degradation is caused by various human activities in the landscape that have varying impact on different landscape elements. In cities, soil is permanently degraded through construction, and air is frequently polluted by industry and traffic (Ogrin 2007; Ogrin and Vintar Mally 2013). In most western European industrializedcities,industryandmininghavecausedthelongest-lastingeffectseveninperi-urbanareas, in the form of disused mines, polluted watercourses, polluted aquifers, and devastated agricultural land. The effects of anthropogenic degradation in urban areas differ from those in peri-urban spaces. During the communist era, from the mid-twentieth century to the 1990s, Slovenia was characterized byineffectiveimplementationofenvironmentalregulationsand»industocracy«(Breznik1988).Thismeans thatindustryhadsuchpowerfulinfluenceonpolicyandmanagement,bothinSloveniaandLjubljana,that it was able to pollute the environment for many years without consequences (Smrekar and Breg Valjavec 2014). In the 1970s and 80s, industry in Ljubljana was characterized by: • Great heterogeneity (almost all industrial sectors were represented); • Fragmented capacities; • Actual and technological obsolescence of facilities and equipment; • Insufficient automation of technological processes; • A considerable focus on imported raw materials. Landscape changes that have taken place over the past half-century result from changes in mindset more than from official measures (Urbanc and Breg 2005). In recent decades, Ljubljana has also expand­ed into former agricultural land. Many vacant areas have emerged in the immediate vicinity of the water utilitiesintheLjubljanaPlainnorthofthecity,whicharenowbeingusedforsquattergardens,illegalextrac­tion of water and gravel, and illegal dumping. The area is easily accessible, crisscrossed with trails, and theunregulatedownershipfurtherpromotesillicitandundesirableactivity.Themainreasonfortheseenvi-ronmentally-unfriendlyconditionsisundoubtedlythelackofamatureattitudetowardthelivingenvironment (Smrekar 2006a). GroundwatermonitoringintheLjubljanaPlainshowsthatgroundwatercontainspollutantsoriginating from past or contemporary industrial production (Cr6+, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene; Janža et al.2005),sothisareahasbeenthoroughlyexaminedinthelasttwodecades.Thestudyfocusedonananaly­sisofthesituationandasearchforsourcesofpollution,boththoseimpactingtheenvironmentinthepast (Smrekar and Breg Valjavec 2014) and those created by modern production facilities and warehouses. This section focuses on the issue of illegal dumping sites in Ljubljana and their potential producers, as well as past and current locations. 6.1 Sources of hazardous industrial waste In the Ljubljana area, which is now almost entirely a water protection area for drinking water, at least 170 plants were operating in the 1980s (Figure 14) that produced or stored environmentally hazardous sub-stances(GrilcandHusić1984;RihtarandBerkopec1989).Theseplantsmainlyengagedinmachineryand metalworkingactivities(metalprocessing,electroplating,painting,machine-making,machineryandvehi­cleservicing),foodproduction(breweries,dairies),chemicalproduction(pharmaceuticals,paints,chemical treatmentequipment,productionandstorageofchemicals),andotheractivities(textileindustry,petroleum product storage). Today’s land use in known areas of hazardous activity from the 1980s is quite diverse. It encompass­ es 309 business units (Figure 15) located on the grounds of the 170 former plants. Their primary activities have the potential to pollute groundwater used as drinking water. We found that 76% of sites (130 out of 170) still have activities that produce, store, or sell hazardous substances. These tend to be larger areas, whereas smaller ones have more often been transformed. AttheLjubljanaurbanregionallevel,Bole(2008)notesthedecentralizationofbusinessactivitiesfrom the city to suburbanized areas. Our study findings can only partially confirm this, because despite the Figure 14: Former hazardous waste producers (as of 1989), quantity of waste generated (as of 1982), and the condition of gravel pits as potential sites for industrial waste disposal on the Ljubljana Plain at that time (Smrekar and Breg Valjavec 2014). p intensive relocation of shopping and service activities to shopping and industrial zones on the outskirts (BTC, Vič, Rudnik), a large amount of preserved old and new (post-Fordist) production remains at the sites of old pre-transition companies. The main industrial area in Ljubljana is the industrial zone between the Kamnik and Upper Carniola railway lines and between the Upper Carniola railway line and Celovec Street (Celovška cesta).The area lies above groundwater in the Ljubljana Plain and is a threat toLjubljana’s drinking water supply. The areas have good transport connections and accessibility and well-maintained municipal infrastructure. Individual degraded urban areas remain within the built-up urban space(Koželj 1998; Špes et al. 2012), which over time have either renewed their original industrial role, or their usehascompletelychangedintoatertiaryorquaternaryactivityorresidentialarea(includingparks,park­ing lots, and playgrounds). Former producers of hazardous waste also left traces of hazardous substances in production sites in Ljubljana due to improper waste handling and disposal, which also affected the transformation or conti­nuity of activities in these areas (Urbanc and Breg 2005; Smrekar 2007; Breg Valjavec 2013). The larger the area, the more difficult it is to convert to other uses; conversely, the smaller the area, the more often its intended use changes (Elliott and Frickel 2011). Areas with »traditional« production of environmen­tally hazardous substances have a greater negative impact on environmental pollution than smaller areas. Areas that may be contaminated by past production of hazardous substances limit future land use plan­ning, especially if they are above drinking water sources (Smrekar and Breg Valjavec 2014). 6.2 Waste dumping sites FieldworkwascarriedoutinMunicipalityofLjubljanaterritoryforthefirsttimein1996inordertoinven­tory illegal dumping sites (Kobal et al. 1999). This fieldwork identified 457 landfills with a total volume of 32,782m3. A few years later (Berden et al. 2004), 278 illegal dumping sites with an estimated total vol-umeof100,000m3wererecordedinLjubljana’scitydistricts.Inbothstudies,thelowerlimitoftherecorded landfillswas1m3ofwaste.Comparingdatafromthetwostudiesrevealsthatthenumberoflandfillsdecreased by almost four-tenths between 1996 and 2004, but there was more than three times as much waste. The first thorough examination of illegal dumping sites in Slovenia (Šebenik 1994) was innovative,because its quantitative parameters were much more accurate than in previous studies. Šebenik analyzed 3,501 landfills ranging in size from 1 to 10,000m3. The average dumping site was 135m2 and had 47m3 of waste. Large sites up to 1,000m3 accounted for 39% of the waste, which means that smaller landfills are also important in terms of volume and not just because they are so numerous (Breg et al. 2007). Snaga, the company responsible for waste management in Ljubljana, disposed of 36,499m3 of waste fromallillegaldumpingsitesintheCityofLjubljanafrom2000to2005,followingordersfromtheinspec­tion services (Breg et al. 2007). In a survey conducted in 2006/2007 (Breg et al. 2007), as many as 1,445 illegal dumping sites were discovered and inventoried in the Municipality of Ljubljana water protection areas. Their total area is 120,816m2, which means that 0.28% of the total area is covered with waste. It is therefore one of the areas most polluted with illegal waste in Slovenia. The volume of waste is 209,422m3. The average dumping site measures 83.6m2 and has 145.5m3 of waste material. 6.3 Illegal dumping sites’ impact on groundwater Most industrial areas in Ljubljana are located on the Ljubljana Plain with its water-bearing layers of grav­el/sand and conglomerate, which make it one of the largest groundwater reservoirs in Slovenia (BračičŽelezniketal.2005). Thelargestnumberofdumpingsitesrecordedadecadeago(760sites,or52.6%ofall sites,withatotalareaof57,340m2or47.5%andavolumeof118,975m2or56.8%)areinadesignatedarea with a strict water protection regime. Dumping sites closer to the pumping stations (Water Protection AreaI)representagreaterthreat,butintheselocationsthereissignificantlylesswaste(71siteswithatotal area of 8,589m2 or 7.2% and a volume of 10,249m3 or 4.9%). The remaining 831 dumping sites are within a defined area with a less stringent regime. Figure 15: Areas of continuous and modified production of hazardous substances and their risk of groundwater contamination (Smrekar and Breg Valjavec 2014). p Four thematic groups were used to determine the priority order of remediation (Figure 16; Breg et al. 2007). Due to the great weight given to thearea’s vulnerability in this methodology, it is not surprising that fifty-eight illegal dumping sites inthe first priority group are located near pumping stations. Some of them arealsodownstreamofthepumpingstations,butpumpingoutdrinkingwaterleadstotheformationofdepres­sioncones(BračičŽelezniketal.2005),whichmeansthattheyareinthestations’catchmentareas.Someof themostpolluted illegal dumpingsites are informer gravel pits, where the groundwater isclose to the sur­face.Ifhydroelectricpowerplantswerebuilt,thegroundwaterwouldrisestillfurtherandpermanentlyflood thewaste-filledgravelpits(BregValjavec,JanžaandZorn2018). Thisincreasedmoisturewouldchangethe conditions for waste decompositionand the rate of decomposition products’ leaching into groundwater. AnalysisofthesoilbeneaththeillegaldumpingsiteinthewaterprotectionareaoftheJarškiProdpump­ing station, a dumping site with weathered metal barrels whose contents have already leaked out, did not indicate increased presence of hazardous substances (Breg Valjavec et al. 2008). Despite this, groundwa­ter monitoring indicates that it contains pollutants originating from past or current industrial production (SmrekarandBregValjavec2014).Oldgravelpitsbackfilledwithwasteareparticularlyhazardoustowater protectionareas.Oftheeighty-sevengravelpitsinventoriedontheLjubljanaPlain,onlyfifteenwereempty. Gravel pits started being used this way more frequently after 1958 (Breg Valjavec et al. 2005). A compre­hensiveapproachtotheproblem,whichthreatensLjubljana’swatersupply(groundwater),hasneverbeen undertaken by either the city or the state. ThesestudiesofdegradationsinLjubljana’surbanandperi-urbanareas,carriedoutinthefirstdecades ofthetwenty-firstcenturyaspartofgeographicalresearch,provideaverypreciseassessmentoftheextent ofdegradation.TheyhavebeenpublishedintheformofonlinelistsandinteractivemapsINCOME(Internet2) and scholarly volumes (Smrekar 2008; Breg Valjavec 2013). The potential threats due to past industrial activities and unregulated waste disposal in gravel pits, and their impact on groundwater, have been pro­fessionally assessed. It is crucial that in the future all these findings be taken into account in planning and implementingspatialdevelopment,suchastheplannedconstructionofhydroelectricpowerplantsonthe Sava River and other development projects in water protection areas. 7 Community gardening in Ljubljana The practice of urban community gardening, which does not include gardening in the yards next to indi­vidual houses but rather various community garden-plot areas, goes back to the origins of cities. In the earliest settlements therewas nogreatdistinctionbetween urban andrural foodproduction.InEuropean cities there was a completely different way of organizing agricultural production in the fifteenth century, through the gardening movement with the onset of industrialization in the nineteenth century, the alien­ation from nature on the one hand and the desire for recreation on the other in the twentieth century, to the establishment of community gardens and urban farming laboratories in recent years (Lohrberg et al. 2016). Urban gardening has been experiencing a resurgence across Europe in recent times, closely linked to increasing public awareness of maintaining or establishing sufficient green spaces, food security, and urban quality of life (Bell et al. 2016). The contemporary literature (Lohrberg et al. 2016) divides urban gardening into two types: individ­ualcultivation(gardenplots,privateyards)andcollectivecultivation(educational,community,therapeutic, horticulture). Falling somewhere in between are »squatter gardens,« where food is produced on idle land. Gardening is farming in miniature, so it may not seem to fit in a modern city at first glance, but in fact it is quite the opposite; it contributes to sustainable development in modern cities (Pearson et al. 2010) and also helps in the fight against poverty and social exclusion (Scheromm 2015; Kozina et al. 2019). Garden-plot areas are present in Slovenia’s largest cities such as Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje, Koper, and Velenje. They have been thoroughly studied only in Ljubljana (Goriup 1984; Simoneti et al. 1997; Jamnik et al. 2009) and Velenje (Lovšin 2014; Kozina 2016). This section presents a study (Jamnik et al. 2009) that examined the garden plots’ locations and their role in environmental protection, health, and administrative planning, as well as who the gardeners are and what they do. Figure 16: Illegal dumping sites on the Ljubljana Plain by remediation priority in 2005. p Legend 1st class – 71 to 90 points (69)2nd class – 61 to 70 points (252)3rd class – 51 to 60 points (529)4th class – 41 to 50 points (511)5th class – below 40 points (186)study area border 0123 km Content by: Mateja Breg Valjavec, Aleš Smrekar Map by: Mateja Breg Valjavec, Jerneja Fridl, Peter Pehani, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute 7.1 Garden-plot areas as spaces for leisure activities In Ljubljana, tenants on smaller parcels of land emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century, when they cultivated garden beds and produced food on them (Vastl 2000). These are some of the forerunners of community gardening. Until the end of the Second World War, this development typically offered pri­vateoutdoorspaceforpeoplewithlimitedhousingspaceandensuredminimalsubsistenceforthesocially disadvantaged through producing vegetables and fruits and raising small animals. People’s reasons for gardening changed after the Second World War, because the need to grow food declinedandleisureandrecreationtookcenterstage.ThefirstdetaileddataforLjubljanacomefrom1984, when community gardening in Ljubljana was already in full swing (Figure 18). Garden plots in 289 areas occupied exactly two square kilometers of territory. These spontaneously growing garden-plot areas were distributed throughout the flat part of Ljubljana. By 1995, the total garden area had grown by one-third, increasing to 267 ha, and the number of garden-plot areas had increased to 378, an increase of just under one-third. By2005,thesurfaceareaandnumberofgardenshaddeclinedsignificantlybecauseofthemoreurban way of life, and they had shrunk to a lower amount than in 1984 (Figure 19). The greatest decline took placeinthecompactinnerpartofthecityandtheperipheralareasthattendtobeusedfornewconstruction. Also thanks to the interventions by the city authorities, the number of garden-plot areas decreased to 218 by 2008, and the garden area was reduced to only 130 hectares. Precise data for the past decade are not available, but we estimate that the surface area has further shrunk a bit, and that the number is no longer declining so dramatically. In 2006, a survey in Ljubljana (Jamnik et al. 2009) covered 302 community garden plots with a total sample of 551 respondents. It found that in 2005 there were garden-plot areas of varying size, from only a few dozen square meters to a few dozen hectares. A rental structure for garden plots was typical. Only 7% of the 302 gardeners surveyed also owned the land. Among the 93% that were tenants, under half of the respondents actually paid rent for their land, whereas the rest (half of all gardeners surveyed) used 160 Number of statements 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Former Green Green areas Green Green Former Areas Other farmland areas by housing areas strips construction adjacent by parks developments beneath next land to industrial or water electric lines to roads premises Figure 17: Locations of Ljubljana garden-plot areas. »nobody’s land,« which was mostly owned by the municipality or the state, and for which they did not pay rent. As many as three-quarters of gardeners did not have a signed lease, and 91% said they did not wanttorentadditionallandforgardening.Onlyone-thirdwouldbewillingtobuythelandtheywereusing. Municipalinfrastructureingarden-plotareaswasrelativelypoor.Only15%ofgarden-plotareaswere reportedly connected to the public water supply system, but many had access to wells, and most did not have electricity. Shared facilities were available in only a handful of garden-plot areas. Two-thirds of gardeners had a shack on their plot. The average structure measured 14m2 and occu­pied around 7% of the garden area (Figure 20). They were built without plans, makeshift, using a great variety of materials. They were reminiscent of emergency shelters and did not contribute to the attractive appearance of the garden-plot areas. Quite often, these were not just simple sheds for storing tools and gardenproduce,butactualvacationhomes.Thedominantbuildingmaterialusedforwallswaswood;93% of structures were wooden. The rest were mostly made of sheet metal; only four structures were masonry. A few percent of Ljubljana residents are actively engaged in community gardening. The precise num­ber is unknown, but in the 1990s it was estimated at around 12,000 (Simoneti et al. 1997). Considering that there was a sharp decrease in garden-plot areas around the start of the twenty-first century, we esti­mate that the number of active gardeners has fallen below 10,000. Thisreductioningardenernumbersdoesnotmeanthattheneedforthistypeofleisureactivityisdwin­dling, because the activity passes from generation to generation. As Goriup (1984) determined, as many as 89% of gardeners come from families that had gardens, and so they were attached to them from child-hood.Thepresenceofmanyimmigrantsamongthemmeansthattheyhadcertaincontactwithgardening even in their former homes, before moving to the Slovenian capital. The same study also revealed the gar­deners’ persistenceand perseverance. Over timeonly about one in every six gardeners gave up gardening, mainly for health reasons. There were marginally more women than men among gardeners. They were mostly older, with the Ljubljana community gardener’s average age being 60.6 years. The gardeners’ education level was lower than that of the overall population of Ljubljana; this gap was most evident in the highest educational cat­egory. Garden plots were most often visited by two persons (54%), usually spouses. Gardeners spent an averageofanhourandahalfperdayattheirgardens.Interestingly,thistimewassignificantlyshorterthan thetwotothreehoursmentionedinastudyfromthe1980s(Goriup1984).Thisreductionofthetimespent gardening was certainly the result of changes in working hours that have occurred in parallel with recent sociopolitical changes. The need to make a »gardening« escape into nature was felt especially keenly by residents of high-rise buildingsorapartmentbuildingsinhigh-densityhousingdevelopments,whichprovidedpeoplewithalmost no individuality other than inside their homes. These accounted for nearly three-fifths of the surveyed populationofgardeners.Anothernearlyone-quartercamefromhigh-risesorapartmentbuildingsinlow-density residential areas. Thegardenerssurveyedin2006reportedthatgardeningprimarilyprovidedthemwithrecreationand relaxation (29%), followed by satisfying the need for direct contact with nature (22%), and satisfying the need for physical activity (20%). One-fifth of respondents considered gardening an opportunity to pro­duce healthy food. It was interesting that only just under one-tenth of the respondents still considered community gardening an opportunity to produce food for existential reasons. A similar proportion used the garden for leisure time (Figure 21). The main problems gardeners reported were polluted produce along roadsides and garden damage caused by passersby. The respondents were also bothered by theft of their produce, damage by wild ani­mals,alackofnearbywater,noisefromnearbyfreeways,raillines,andfactories,odorsfromnearbyillegal dumping sites, and lack of municipal infrastructure. Some were also disturbed by the unkempt appear­ance. They also mentioned damage to garden structures, vandalism, disruptive partying on garden plots, dogs running across the gardens, waste accumulation, improper use of protective substances, unregulat­ed parking, and access difficulties due to poorly maintained access roads and the distance of their garden plotfromhome,whichwasrelatedtoheavytrafficanddelayedaccessontheonehandandthepoormobil­ity of elderly gardeners on the other. Figure 18: Garden plots in Ljubljana in 1984. p p. 40 Figure 19: Garden plots in Ljubljana in 2005. p p. 41 Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Šiška Legend Moste Zalog Garden–plot areas in 1984 Center Water protection zone border 1977ForestBuilt–up landVič Rudnik Settlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: David Bole, Mateja Breg Valjavec, Bojan Erhartič,Drago Kladnik, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Aleš SmrekarMap by: Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Manca Volk BahunSource: © GURS, Odlok o varstvenih ... (UL SRS 18/1977)© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Šiška Legend Moste Zalog Garden–plot areas in 2005 Center Vič Water protection zone border 2004ForestBuilt–up land Rudnik Settlement boundary of Ljubljana River Road 0123 km Content by: David Bole, Mateja Breg Valjavec, Bojan Erhartič,Drago Kladnik, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Aleš SmrekarMap by: Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Manca Volk BahunSource: © GURS; Uredba o vodovarstvenih ... (UL RS 120/2004, 7/2006)© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Vegetable garden Ornamental garden Orchard Paved yard Vineyard Unpaved yard Ornamental lawn Structure Figure 20: Proportion of Ljubljana garden plots by specific land use. Number of statements 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Direct contactwith nature Desire to makeuse of green areas Creativityand aestheticsatisfaction Physical activity Leisure timewith family Recreation,relaxation Producing foodin order to reducecost of living Producinghealthy food Other Very important Important The most important Figure 21: Ljubljana community gardeners’ main reasons for gardening. Soil fertility analyses at Ljubljana garden-plot areas indicated that the great majority of gardens were overfertilized.Thisisinlinewithexpectations,becausethesurveyresultsindicatedthatthegardenerslacked basic understanding of fertilizers. Phosphorus and potassium inputs were too high, whereas the concen­tration of nitrogen in the soil, which is the most exposed to leaching, was generally acceptable. However, theresultsforresidualpesticidesinsoilandplantspecimensfromgardenplotswereveryfavorable,because residues were not found in any plant samples and only one soil sample. Heavy-metal contamination of soil in Ljubljana is proportional to the city’s size, level of industrial­ization, and traffic load. Analyses of the heavy metal content in garden plot soil indicated that they were mostcontaminatedwithleadandcadmium.Theleadcontentinsoilwasmostoftenelevateddirectlyadja­cent to roads, so it can be concluded that the main source of lead contamination in Ljubljana garden-plot soil was traffic from when leaded gasoline was still in use. Elevated levels of copper were also detected, which in some locations is connected with many years’ use of copper preparations to prevent plant dis-eases.Thehighcoppercontentinsoilcanbeconnectedwiththesamesourceofpollutionthatalsocaused contamination with cadmium, zinc, nickel, and arsenic. Community gardening in Ljubljana has already been through several phases of life. In 2009, howev­er, the city authorities hoped for a new era and hence sought an agreement with the gardeners within the frameworkofthenewlyadoptedordinanceonrentingandmanaginggardenplots(Odlokourejanju…2009). Theordinancedefinesgardenplotsasspecialurbangreenspaces,whichshallnolongerbelocatedindes­ignated water protection areas, downtown, and more exposed locations, where they might reflect poorly on the Ljubljana cityscape. That is why there are now to be no garden plots near cultural monuments or cemeteries, which did happen in the past. Successful garden-plot management also depends to a large extent on ownership status, which may provetobeveryproblematic.Thatis,themunicipalitycontrolsonlyasmallportionofthelandattheplanned locations of new garden plots, and it therefore has relatively limited levers for regulating them uniform­ly and harmoniously. The general attractiveness of the garden-plot areas is also what their further destiny and the whole project of »regulated community garden plots« in Ljubljana depend on. 8 Ljubljana’s quality of residential environment ThespatialimpactofcommunitygardeninginLjubljanaconfirmsthethesisthatvariousactorsandactiv-itiesincitieshaveintersectingintereststhatneedtobecontinuallycoordinated.Amongotherthings,these activitiesandtheirimpactsreflectonthequalityoftheresidentialenvironment.Becausethisqualityaffects people’s decisions about where to live and work, it is a factor in cities’ economic competitiveness (Florida 2002), and also built-up land and mobility flows (Leitmann 1999; Marans and Stimson 2011). The»residentialenvironment«isamultifacetedconcept,becauseitdescribesavarietyofactivitiesthat intersect and change within the space and have a specific spatial relationship with the residents (Drozg 1994; Pacione 2003; van Kamp et al. 2003). Cities are a dynamic and also contradictory spatial phenom­enon (Mira et al. 2005). The term is closely tied to related terms, such as »quality of life« (Kahneman et al.1999),»livability«(Kaal2011),»residentialwellbeing«(PerlaviciuteandSteg2012)or»livingenvironment» (Kozina 2016). The range of aspects within »residential environment« that lend themselves to analysis are often too broad and inconsistent, especially in relation to »non-spatial« areas of life such as financial status, health, andfamilylife(MaransandStimson2011).Neverthelessthe»residentialenvironment«isnotdefinedsole­lyfromtheviewpointofthe»physicalenvironment,«butinitsbroadersense:ascharacteristicsofthehome and its immediate and more distant surroundings, all of which are important for meeting basic human needs and performing basic human functions (Tiran 2015). Past research (Krevs 1998) shows that the standard of living in Ljubljana as a whole is high on the Slovenianscale,especiallyintermsofleisureactivities,services,supply,education,employment,andtrans-port, and residents’ wages and wealth. Quality of life is also high, with three-quarters of the population satisfied with the residential environment and only one-tenth dissatisfied (Kos et al. 2010). According to anECsurveyonthequalityoflifeinEuropeancities,71%ofpeopleareverysatisfiedwithlivinginLjubljana, which ranks it twentieth among the eighty-three European cities included in the survey. Its sports infra­structure, educational institutions, streets and roads, public spaces, safety, cleanliness, and green spaces are particularly highly ranked (Quality of Life 2016). However, less is known about the quality of the res­idential environment in individual parts of the city, as such research in Ljubljana is relatively rare (Krevs 2002;Rebernik2002;2013),butnolessimportantfordecidingonfuturespatialdevelopment.Thisistrue of both objective and subjective research. 8.1 Objective quality of residential environment in Ljubljana In choosing the residential environment factors to study we looked to various social theories and prior research on quality of living factors and residential preferences. TheHousingConditionsIndex(Figure22)combinestheindicatorsofhousingage,infrastructurecon­nections,andsize.Thehighestqualityofhousingisinareaswithlowpopulationdensityandapredominance of detached, semi-detached, row, or atrium single-unit detached houses. They are distinguished by their size (usually between 30 and 40m2 per person) and above-average number of rooms (usually more than 1.3 per person). These include the older districts with large homes just outside the downtown area. The worst housing conditions are found in housing built without permits and urbanized rural settlements on the periphery, areas with large, older apartment buildings and workers’ housing more than sixty years old with less than 20m2 of usable floor area per person, and the historical city centre, where space per per­son exceeds 35m2 per but more than three-quarters of the buildings are from the nineteenth century or even older. The Safety Index (Figure 23) covers a variety of topics such as local flood risk, local road traffic safe-ty,andcrimerate.Intermsofsafety,residentsofLjubljanaareasoutsidethebeltwayliveinthebestpossible residential environment. The area inside the beltway is the most problematic in terms of safety, as areas along arterial roads. Particular emphasis should be placed on flood risk due to river flooding in the pop­ulated floodplains of the Ljubljanica and Ižica rivers in the south and floods of small waterways from the surroundingarea,especiallyontheeasternperiphery.FloodshaveaffectedLjubljanatwiceinthelastdecade, in 2010 and 2014 (e.g., Golob and Polajnar 2015). TheAestheticValueIndexconsistsoflandcover,diversityofculturalheritage,anddistancefromdegrad­edurbanareas.Areasclosetolargerprotectedareas,suchasTivoli,Rožnik,andŠiškaHillsLandscapePark and the Ljubljana Marsh Landscape Park, have a high index. The historical city centre is a special case; although its aesthetic value index is reduced by a relative lack of greenery, it is also a »heritage hot spot«.Individual areas in the Bežigrad, Šiška, and Moste neighborhoods, and the downtown area score low due to their proximity to degraded urban areas. These areas expanded after the 2008 financial crisis but have been shrinking in recent years. The Urban Accessibility Index (Figure 24) combines indicators for walking accessibility to supplies, services, primary education institutions, green spaces, and leisure activities. Residents of the urban core have the best walking distance to urban amenities, despite the increasing touristification in the historical citycentre(Daugul2018)andtherelocationofsomeactivitiestotheperiphery(Rebernik2007).Thedown­townareaparticularlystandsoutforitsgoodaccessibilitytoleisureactivities,especiallyculturalinstitutions. Most of the area inside the beltway also has above-average accessibility to urban amenities. The accessi­bilityindexsteadilydecreasesfromthecentertowardtheperiphery,andisbelowaverageinmosturbanized ruralsettlementsontheperiphery,aswellasinsomehousingdevelopmentscontainingsingle-unitdetached houses or social housing. These areas have no basic infrastructure (preschool or primary school, and ser­vices such as ATM, pharmacy, post office, and health center), and in some places there is even no grocery store.Attheperiphery,theindexisaboveaverageonlyinsomewell-equippedneighborhoodcenters(Črnuče,Šentvid, and Zalog). Environmental pollution (Figure 25) were measured by noise level and air pollution (sulfur dioxide, dustparticles,nitrogenoxides,andnitrogendioxide).Areasunderthemostenvironmentalpollutionoccur in a narrow band along the arterial roads and the beltway. It is noteworthy that respondents rank even the widerurbancore(Špesetal.2002)asoneofthenoisiestareasduetoservices,leisureactivities,andalarge number of pedestrians. Areas with the fewest environmental pollution are the urban areas in the far east Figure 22: Housing Conditions Index in Ljubljana (Tiran 2017). p p. 45 Figure 23: Aesthetic Value Index in Ljubljana (Tiran 2017). p p. 46 Figure 24: Urban Accessibility Index in Ljubljana (Tiran 2017). p p. 47 Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Šiška Housing Conditions Less than –2.5 . –2.5 to –1.5 . Moste Zalog –1.5 to –0.5 . Center –0.5 to 0.5 . Vič Rudnik to 1.5 .0.5 to 2.5 .1.5 . and more2.5Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Aesthetic value Šiška Less than –2.5 .Moste –2.5 to –1.5 .–1.5 to –0.5 . Zalog Center –0.5 do 0.5 . do 1.5 .0.5 do 2.5 .1.5 . and more2.5 Vič Rudnik Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Šiška Accessibility to urban amenities Less than –1.5 . Moste Zalog –1.5 to –0.5 . Acta geographica Slovenica, 59-3, 2019 47 Center –0.5 to 0.5 . Vič Rudnik to 1.5 .0.5 to 2.5 .1.5 . and more2.5 Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute (Zalog), north (Črnuče), and northeast (Šentvid), and within the Ljubljana beltway Rožna Dolina to the southwest of the downtown area and Rudnik and Galjevica in the southeastern part of the city. In gener­al, there is much less air pollution outside the beltway, because there are many larger compact residential areas with a very favorable index value there. The city does not have issues with noise from railways and industrial plants. TheSocialEnvironmentIndex(Figure26)combinesindicatorsforeducationalstructure,officialunem­ployment, and average income per capita, in which Murgle in the south, Koseze in the northwest, and the westernpartofthedowntownstandout.Withtheexceptionofthedowntown,thesearemostlywell-planned, compact neighborhoods of single-unit detached houses, primarily semi-detached or atrium houses with a uniform urban design. Socially disadvantaged areas of the city include the eastern part of Ljubljana, thelarge apartment buildings in Dravlje and Šiška, and areas of substandard single-unit detached houses in the south, such as in Rakova Jelša. The Urban Mobility Index (Figure 27) combines indicators for public bus accessibility, distance from thenearestfreewayinterchange,andpedestrianaccesstothenearestBicikeLJbicyclerentalpoint.Residentsin the broader urban core, Bežigrad, Šiška, and Dravlje have the best mobility conditions, whereas resi­dents in the far eastern part of Ljubljana have the worst. Thesynthesisofallindexesandindicators–thatis,thequalityoftheresidentialenvironmentasawhole– is shown in Figure 28. It shows that the best residential conditions are enjoyed by inhabitants of Murgle, Trnovo, parts of the city west of downtown, and large parts of Rožna Dolina, Bežigrad, and Koseze. The worst residential conditions are in southern parts of town where the housing was built without permits (RakovaJelšaandSibirija),inmosturbanizedruralsettlementsatthenortheasternperiphery,andinlargeparts of Moste and Šiška near the industrial zones located there. Thehistoricalcitycentreisaspecialcasethatistypifiedby»bipolar«residentialconditions:ithasabove-average access to urban amenities, a great concentration of cultural heritage, and very good mobility conditions, but its overall score is reduced by the higher crime rate and very old housing stock. An accu­mulation of unfavorable residential conditions in some urban areas due to not implementing appropriate measures could lead to increased social degradation and differentiation and jeopardize the implementa­tion of sustainable urban development. 8.2 Subjective quality of residential environment in Ljubljana Thesubjectivequalityoftheresidentialenvironmentwasmeasuredwithaquestionnaire.WefocusedonLjubljana inhabitants’ residentialpreferencesandthequalityoflifeinthehistoricalcitycentre(seesection3). Ljubljana residents considered factors related to the city’s aesthetic value, safety, environmental impact, and housing conditions to be the most important. The least significant factors were proximity to a bicycle rental point, the socioeconomic characteristics of their neighbors, and proximity to a freeway or highway interchange (Figure 29). The respondents’ residential preferences are very similar to those of Slovenians in general (Hočevar et al. 2004; Mandič and Cirman 2006; Kozina 2016). Presented in greater detail below are the survey results for the historical city centre, with its charac­teristic compact medieval layout and buildings from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. We focused on this area for two reasons: 1) its »bipolar« residential conditions mentioned above, measured objectively, and 2) its rapid spatial, social, and economic transformation (Uršič and Kos 2004; Rebernik 2007; Uršič 2016; Daugul 2018). Residentialsatisfactioninthehistoricalcitycentreincreaseswiththespatiallevelconsidered(home:4.0, neighborhood:4.1,wholecity:4.2).Althoughitscoredrelativelyhigh,thedowntownareawasratedworse than any other Ljubljana area surveyed in the original study (three representative neighborhoods: single-unit detached houses, modern multi-family housing, and a housing development with large apartment buildings; Tiran 2015). The most problematic aspects reported by the residents include the unfavorable Figure 25: Environmental Pollution Index in Ljubljana (Tiran 2017). p p. 49 Figure 26: Social Environment Index in Ljubljana (Tiran 2017). p p. 50 Figure 27: Urban Mobility Index in Ljubljana (Tiran 2017). p p. 51 Figure 28: Overall Quality of Residential Environment in Ljubljana (Tiran 2017). p p. 52 Šiška Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Environmental pollution Less than –2.5 .Moste –2.5 to –1.5 .–1.5 to –0.5 . Zalog Center Vič –0.5 to 0.5 . to 1.5 .0.5 to 2.5 .1.5 . and more2.5 Acta geographica Slovenica, 59-3, 2019 49 Rudnik Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Črnuče Šentvid Social environment Bežigrad Šiška Less than –2.5 . –2.5 to –1.5 . Moste Zalog –1.5 to –0.5 . Center –0.5 to 0.5 . Vič Rudnik to 1.5 .0.5 to 2.5 .1.5 . and more2.5Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Šiška Transportation conditions Less than –2.5 .Moste –2.5 to –1.5 .–1.5 to –0.5 . Zalog Center Vič –0.5 to 0.5 . to 1.5 .0.5 to 2.5 .1.5 . and more2.5 Acta geographica Slovenica, 59-3, 2019 51 Rudnik Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiver Road 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Šiška Črnuče Šentvid Bežigrad Overall quality of the residential environment Less than –2.5 .Moste –2.5 to –1.5 .–1.5 to –0.5 . Zalog Center Vič –0.5 to 0.5 . to 1.5 .0.5 to 2.5 .1.5 . and more2.5Rudnik Built–up landSettlement boundary of LjubljanaRiverRoad 0123 km Content by: Jernej Tiran, Simon KoblarMap by: Jernej Tiran, Manca Volk BahunSource: GURS© 2019, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute 53 housingmicroclimate(2.8)anddilapidatedhousing(2.6);mostproblematicatthelevelofthesurrounding areaareparking(3.9)andthenoiseofneighbors,pubs,orothersources(3.3;Figure30).Atthesametime, as many as one-quarter of the residents are seriously considering moving out in the next five years, which is 10% more than in the other three Ljubljana neighborhoods. In can be concluded that the area is char­acterized by a high level of residential deprivation based on the ratio between residential preferences and residential environment scores. In the light of these findings indicating the continuing flight from the historical city centre, which has beengainingnewmomentumrecentlywithtouristificationandrisingrealestateprices,ourresearchcon-firms the finding that maintaining or even enhancing the residential function of urban centers is one of the key strategic and sustainable tasks for policy-makers in Slovenian cities (Strategija 2004; Cork 2006; Nacionalno 2016). The historical city centres represent what is potentially a very high-quality residential environment because of their great cultural, historical, and experiential value and central location. 8.3 The impact of residential quality on quality of life Structural modeling results (see section 3 and Tiran 2016) indicate that satisfaction with one’s home and neighborhood and assessed quality of urban life have a statistically significant impact on Ljubljana resi­dents’ quality of life, because together they explain a high 39% of variance in quality of life. Satisfaction with one’s home has by far the greatest impact (ß=0.53). The regression analysis results, in which the dependent variable is illustrated by the composite vari­able of »happiness and life satisfaction in general,« significantly relativize the importance of residential satisfactionforqualityoflife,becausethestandardizedregressioncoefficientvaluesofindividualresidential qualityvariablesarenotstatisticallysignificant(Table1);theonlyexceptionis»satisfactionwithone’shome,« which even has a negative value (ß=-0.10). Ljubljana residents’ perception of their quality of life is pri­marily affected by the socioeconomic areas of life described by »living standard« (ß=0.29), »family life« (ß=0.25), and »social life« (ß=0.20). Table 1: Regression model results: impact of individual domains of life on quality of life. B SEB ß Constant –3.278 0.16 Home –0.10 0.03 –0.10** Neighborhood 0.05 0.03 0.05 City 0.04 0.03 0.04 Living standard 0.30 0.04 0.29** Family life 0.25 0.03 0.25** Health 0.11 0.03 0.10** Social life 0.22 0.04 0.20** Work 0.06 0.03 0.07* Adjusted R2 =0.44** n=849 *p . 0.05, **p . 0.01 B =multiple regression coefficient, SEB=standard error of the multiple regression coefficient, ß=standardized multiple regression coefficient We found that the results obtained were highly dependent on the definition of »quality of life« and theinclusionofvariablesinthemodel.Theregressionanalysisresultsevencausedustohavedoubtsabout whether the city authorities and urban planners can have much impact on the Ljubljana residents’ qual­ity of life. However, most socioeconomic determinants of quality of life are at least indirectly related to the quality of the residential environment, which ultimately has a significant effect on residents’ desire to movetoanotherlocation.Inthislight,thegreatesteffortshouldbeinvestedinrenovatingtheexistingbuild­ingstockandbuildingnew,high-qualityhousing,whichwillhelpstoptheprocessesofsocio-geographical differentiation and migration from Ljubljana to its surroundings, and consequently to improve its resi­dents’ quality of family and social life. 9 Ljubljana residents’ environmental awareness and behavior Oneoftheimportantmeasurestoensureaqualitylivingenvironmentisappropriateenvironmentalbehav­iororraisingawarenessofone’sresponsibilitytotheenvironment,whichisalsoaprerequisiteforaqualitylifestyle(Špes1998). Environmentalawarenessandrelatedenvironmentallyfriendlybehavioraremodern concepts that formthe basis of a sustainable society (Polajnar Horvat 2015a). Environmental awareness is aperson’sperception,understanding,andawarenessofenvironmentalproblems,whichisexpressedthrough concernandwillingnesstosolvethem(Rojšek1987;GardnerandStern2002).Itsignifies,aboveall,acog­nitive or conscious component of human activity in the environment, which is not necessarily reflected inenvironmentallyfriendlybehavior(Rojšek1987;Kirn2004).Thesetwoconceptsareessentialcomponents ofseekingbalancebetweenmaterialwell-being,socialsecurity,andahealthyenvironment,oressentialcom­ponents ofcontemporarysustainability-basedparadigms ofsocialdevelopment(Gardner and Stern2002). Although almost everyone has already come face-to-face with information about environmental pol-lutionandtheneedtoprotecttheenvironment,peopleusuallydonotthinkabouttheirownnegativeattitude toward the environment or tend to attribute it to the social mindset and widely accepted social behavior (Malačič 2007). They feel alienated from the environment and often act on the notion that »it makes no sense to take care of the environment to the best of my ability unless others do so too« (Smrekar 2011). They are not aware of their role and the importance of their own actions, and often even environmental­ly conscious people are caught in the trap of collective environmental apathy (Polič 2002). At the same time,peopleareoftenorientedtoomuchtowardtheshorttermtothinkaboutlong-termtopicsandthere-fore tend not to be active enough (Špes 1998; Kirn 2004). Ljubljana residents’ environmental awareness has been studied several times so far, mainly from the point of view of their attitude toward water as a key environmentalcomponent.Smrekar(2006a;2011)examinedenvironmentalawarenessrelatedtowater,later alarge-scalestudyofcommunitygardeners’awareness(Smrekar2009)wasconducted,inwhichtheiratti­tudestowaterwerealsostudied,andPolajnarHorvat(2015a)publishedthefindingsofastudythatmeasured environmentalbehaviorregardingwater.Thissectionpresentsthelevelofenvironmentalawarenessrelat­ed to water in Ljubljana, the extent to which residents differ in environmental awareness, and what their actualbehavioris.Theaimistousethesefindingstodeterminehowdifferentpeople’sawarenessandbehav­ior are, whether and how environmental awareness has changed over the past ten years, and what future solutions are possible. 9.1 From words to actions: claimed and actual environmental awareness in Ljubljana In 2010, we surveyed 408 people in Ljubljana, using the statement »Someone like me is able to do some-thingfortheenvironment«todeterminehowpeopleonahypotheticallevelsupportenvironmentalprotection andhowmanyfeelabletoactinenvironmentallyfriendlyways(Figure31).Thefeelingoftheirowncapa­bility for environmentally friendly action is a basic condition for active environmental engagement. Just under two-thirds of the respondents (60.2%) felt capable of acting in environmentally friendly ways (the answers »Completely agree – 5,« »Mostly agree – 4,« and »Somewhat agree – 3«) with a median value for the statement of 3.73. These respondents were aware, at least at the claimed level, that not only other liv­ingbeingsbutalsotheythemselveswereinvolvedincontributingtohumanenvironmentalimpacts.Only one-tenth felt incapable or powerless todoanythingfor the environment (the answers »Disagree –2,« and »Completely disagree –1«). People’shypotheticalwillingnesstoprotecttheenvironmenthasincreasedovertheyears.In2004,56% of respondents were willing to do something for the environment (the answers »Completely agree« and »Mostly agree«). In the past few years there has been a social shift, in which the general economic crisis has led to the realization that the current social system based on constant growth and a lack of environ-mentalbalanceneedstochange.Awarenessandunderstandingoftheconnectionbetweenenvironmental pressures and the environment’s condition have increased, as has people’s sensitivity to the environmen-t’s condition and their awareness of the importance of a healthy environment for quality of life now and in the future (Polajnar Horvat 2015a). Because only environmentally active individuals can change current mindsets and help remedy envi­ ronmental degradation and prevent new degradation, this study (Polajnar Horvat 2015a) examined how many people were willing to pay higher prices for various articles in order to protect drinking water. This leads to the second level of the study, which examines actual willingness to take environmental action (Figure 32). The median value of answers was 3.08, which indicates a reduction in willingness when the questioncentersonthecostsofenvironmentalprotectiontotheindividual.Onlyabitmorethanone-third (35%)answered»completelywilling«and»somewhatwilling.«Individuals’actualenvironmentalattitudes gave way to their hypothetical ones in one-fourth (25.2%) of respondents. Actual willingness to take environmental action was measured in two time periods within six years. Between 2004 and 2010, actual willingness to behave in environmentally friendly ways increased in one-third of respondents. One of the reasons was that the past decade has seen considerable positive changes regarding environmental protection, including at the legislative level (Toš 2012). Research to date indicates that education has significant impact on individuals’ environmental atti­tudes (Gardner and Stern 2002). Only one-fifth of people with a vocational education and a good fourth ofthosewithprimaryandsecondaryschooleducationarewillingtotakeenvironmentallyfriendlyaction. In contrast, nearly a third of people with higher education are willing to do so. Study findings from 2004 (Smrekar 2006a) were not much different; the main difference was only among those with higher educa­tion, among whom nearly half demonstrated willingness to behave in environmentally friendly ways. Further research (Smrekar 2011, Polajnar Horvat 2015a) explored whether respondents were really willingtoactivelyparticipateingroundwaterprotectionasasourceofdrinkingwater,therebycontributing toahealthylivingenvironment.Respondentswerepresentedwithan(imaginary)»HealthyDrinkingWater Foundation,«whosepurposewastoimprovegroundwaterqualityasasourceofdrinkingwaterinLjubljana. Themostburningissuesinneedofresolutionwerepresented(watertightdrainageandtreatmentofhouse-hold and industrial wastewater, illegal dumping sites, and seepage from manure pits). The funds for these programs were to be collected through a permanent additional monthly charge on people’s electric bills, wherebythechargewastobelistedasanindependentitemonthebill.Thepowercompany,asaneutralorga­nization, was to credit the funds to the »Healthy Drinking Water Foundation.« Most respondents did not questiontherealityofthisfund,whichfacilitatedthestudy,inwhichweexaminedwhetherrespondentswould be willing to spend €2.00 or more per month inorder tosolve the problems listed above (Smrekar 2011). Completely unwilling Fairly willing Completely disagree Mostly agree Somewhat unwilling Very willing Mostly disagree Completely agree Moderately willing Somewhat agree Figure 31: Agreement with the statement »Someone like me is able to Figure32:Respondents’willingnesstopayhigherpricesforvariousarticles do something for the environment« (Anketa 2010; n=408). in order to protect drinking water (Anketa 2010; n=408). 10% 0 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 39 8 . 65 0. 80 9. 60 2 . 35 0. 19 1. Hypothetical level Actual level Active level No Yes Figure 33: Willingness to behave in environmentally friendly ways at the hypothetical, actual, and active levels (Anketa 2010; n=408). Active Passive Thrifty Indifferent Claimed Figure 34: Segmentation of participants by environmental attitude (Anketa 2010; n=386). 57 Onlyone-fifth(19.1%)ofrespondentsexpressedwillingnesstocontribute€2.00tothe»HealthyDrinking WaterFoundation,«indicatingafurthersignificantdeclineinzealcomparedtothehypotheticalstatements of support mentioned above (Figure 33). Almost exactly the same proportion (20.9%) was also observed in2004(Smrekar2006a),whentherespondentsexpressedtheirwillingnesstocontributeSIT500(€0.84), which is close to the same amount. Despite the fact that lifestyles across Slovenia are pretty similar, with regard to their level of environ-mentalawarenessandaction,Sloveniansarenotahomogeneousgroupthatiseasytoidentifyanddescribe (Gilg, Barr and Ford 2005; D’Souza et al. 2006; Culiberg and Rojšek 2007), because they differ in educa­tionandeconomicstatus(Vukovič2011).Therefore,inordertoimprovepeople’senvironmentalawareness and sustainability-oriented behavior, it is crucial to fine-tune the categories and define them more pre­cisely, and then ways to promote environmental awareness and behavior can be tailored to the individual group. Therefore, in her study Polajnar Horvat (2015b) divided respondents into groups based on their attitudes, norms (personal and subjective), claimed behavioral control, values, and intention and behav­ior.Theparticipantsweredividedintofivegroups:claimed(28.7%ofparticipants),active(20.7%),thrifty (20.7%), passive (19.2%), and indifferent (11.4%; Figure 34; Polajnar Horvat 2016). The»active«groupischaracterizedbyhighenvironmentalawareness,whichiswhytheymostlyagree or strongly agreewiththesurvey statements. This group,whichwe consider the »environmental body« oftheareastudied,ischaracterizedbypersonalresponsibilityforenvironmentalactionandpositivefeel­ingswhenengaginginenvironmentallyfriendlybehavior.Peopleinthe»thrifty«grouparemostlyneutral or moderately positive, because rather than believing that one of the goals of human life is environmental protection, members of this group are guided by values such as wealth, money, power, fame, and influ­ence. »Claimed« people feel capable of acting in an environmentally friendly manner and are sure that they are well-informed about how to act appropriately. At the claimed level they express very high support forenvironmentalprotection,whichisreflectedintheirveryhighlevelofenvironmentalaware­ness. »Passive« people are aware of the need for environmentally friendly action on a claimed level and so they do care about the environment, but they do not put this belief into practice. The »indifferent« grouphasnegativefeelingstowardtheneedforenvironmentallyfriendlybehavior.Theydonotfeelcapa­ble of this kind of action, are unaware of the consequences of inappropriate environmental behavior, anddonotfeelresponsibleforthem.Theylargelyhavenofeelingsofguiltoverbehavingenvironmentally inappropriately, do not have any sense of moral responsibility, believe that they cannot contribute to protecting the environment, and they are markedly uninformed about the environment (Polajnar Horvat 2015a; 2016). The question about the »Foundation,« with which we measured Ljubljana residents’ actual environ­mental attitudes, was key for determining actual environmental behavior. This question raised concern amongtherespondentsthatthe»Foundation«wouldreallycometolifebasedonthesurvey,andthatthus itwouldalsodependontheiranswershowmuchtheywouldactuallyhavetocontributetoafundforresolv­ing the most urgent groundwater pollutants in their environment. Likewise, we also found that education hadasignificantimpactonwillingnesstoactivelyparticipateinenvironmentalprotection.Themostenvi­ronmentally active group are those with university degrees, followed by graduates of vocational higher educationprogramsandthensecondaryschools.Better-educatedpeoplearemorelikelytohavepost-mate­rialist values, which, rather than the desire for economic security and comfort, are reflected in protecting the environment and caring for others (Duch and Taylor 1993; Warwick 1998). On the other hand, the reason less-educated people are less willing to sacrifice their own financial resources is that they have less capacity for additional financial expenditures. 10 Discussion Slovenia has a long tradition of environmental protection and an institutional and administration system of environmental protection, which has the support of NGOs and other professional bodies and individ­uals.Ljubljanahasadoptedanenvironmentalprotectionprogram(Program2014)thatidentifieschallenges and measures to deal with them. Despite this, the way toward sustainable development requires system-aticchangestothedevelopmentmodel,whichtakeintoconsiderationenvironmentallimits.Naturalcapital must come to be understood as development potential and not an obstacle to development, and so it is necessary to establish mechanisms for aligning priorities and various policies. Slovenia’s regulations are mostlygood;bettermonitoringisneeded,whichisoneofthemostimportantpolicyimplementationlevers. Itisveryimportanttoinvolveallrelevantstakeholdersinenvironmentaldecision-makingprocesses,edu­catethestakeholders,becausesuccessfuldevelopmentofasustainablesocietyisseenonlywithbroadinclusion (Smrekar et al. 2016b). Maintaining a healthy environment and natural resources should be in everyone’s interest, so the starting point for planning development is awareness of the scarcity of natural resources and space (Multiannual…2019). MajorenvironmentalproblemsinLjubljanaaretrafficanduncontrolledactivitiesinriparianareaslocat­ed above large quantities of drinking water in aquifers. The challenge is to raise residents’ environmental awareness; for example, through social impact methods. A major current environmental problem in Ljubljana is traffic. Since the turn of the third millenni­um, the City of Ljubljana has begun to address transport issues more decisively, especially downtown, but trafficthroughoutthemunicipalityremainsoneofthekeyenvironmentalpollutants.Amodern,user-friend­ly, and environmentally-friendly approach to transport management and planning is exemplified by the integrated transport strategy (Celostna…2017), which builds on the transport policy adopted in 2012, whichhasneverbeenimplementedinpractice.Alsoimportantistherecentlyadoptedintegratedtransport strategy at the regional level (Celostna…2018), which focuses on improving public transport (modern regional rail, modernizing and electrifying lines, additional trains) in relation to the Park and Ride col-lectionpoints.Althoughthesituationisimprovingcomparedtothepastwithregardtobothnitrogenoxides (OgrinandVintarMally2013)andPM10particles(Poročilo…2017),thedirectimpactoftransportmea­sures is difficult to assess. The closure of Slovenska cesta to car traffic and the replacement of the bus fleet with cleaner vehicles contributed to an impressive 72% reduction in black carbon emissions in this sec­tion (Titos et al. 2015). Acombinationof(un)favorablenaturalandsocialtrendshavecausedpartoftheLjubljanaPlain,which should be strictly protected because of its water pumping function, to become a degraded landscape. Economic exploitation based on an egocentric attitude to the environment has reduced the value of this delicate riparian area. So far, groundwater analyses still indicate its suitability, but the area is under hid­den threat due to uncontrolled activities in the past and present. The riparian landscape is under great pressurefromcertaingroupsofpeoplethatseethislandscapeasaplaceforharmfulactivitiessuchascom-munitygardening(Jamniketal.2009),gravelextraction(BregValjavec2013),andillegaldumping(Smrekar etal.2017).Thewaterprotectionareaiseasilyaccessible,crisscrossedwithtrails,andtheunregulatedown­ership further promotes illicit and undesirable activity. To achieve a successful and long-term solution to the problem, remediation of the degraded spaces will not be enough; it will be necessary to restore the cultural and social value of the area and place it durably within the population’s value system and mem­ory. In the long run, areas whose primary function will remain supplying drinking water should also be given a new purpose, and today’s degraded areas should be turned into green (peri)urban spaces through remediation. Such a change is made possible by the use of various social impact techniques based on a bottom-up approach; that is, engaging the individual from the beginning, step by step. The approach should therefore be applied across the entire population, making use of targeted techniques that are tailored to differentgroups(Kozina2018).Interactionbetweenindividualgroupsormutualawarenessraisingenables thetransferofknowledgebetweenyoungerandolderpeople. Thecaseofacreativespatialplanningpro­ject of an urban community garden called »Beyond the Construction Site« demonstrates the potential of a participatory process for physical and social changes to public space, as an example of how the bot­tom-up initiative contributed to the sustainable environmental and social development of the urban environment(PoljakIstenič2019). However,thisisfarfromsufficientforspatialchanges;supportfrom cityauthoritiesandearmarkedfundsarealsonecessarytoaddressthenegativesituation.Inthelastdecade, steps have been taken toward addressing environmental problems in Ljubljana based on environmen­tal studies on garden plots (Jamnik et al. 2009), private wells (Smrekar and Kladnik 2004), and illegal dumpingsitesandgravelpits(Smrekaretal.2005;Smrekaretal. 2006),inwhichgeographershaveplayed the main role. With residents’ increased environmental awareness and education and the activity of civil initiatives (suchasJane’sWalk)comenewchallengesinenvironmentalprotectioninLjubljana.Withthecity’ssocioe­conomic development, the development of tourism, and the spread of cosmopolitanism on the one hand, and the impact of European Union recommendations and legislation on the other, the city administra­tionandtheresidentsarebecomingevermoreawarethatgreenspacesaremorethanjustgrass,trees,shade, or public space. They offer diverse types of ecosystem services, act as bio-corridors and, as outdoor class­rooms, emphasize their conservation and educational importance. Various formal measures will be able to become effective when Ljubljana residents recognize green spaces as an even greater value and when they gain a special place in their consciousness as public spaces. People should perceive them as an »outdoor room,« as Ward Thompson (2002) puts it, where they can relax and enjoy various activities. Of course, activities like community gardening, for example, need to be coordinated with the most important function: supplying quality drinking water. 10.1 Looking ahead to geographic research in areas with the greatest concentration of people and activities Geography,asacrossroadsbetweennaturalsciences,socialsciences,andhumanities(Urbanc2017),plays an important role on the way to increasingly sustainable cities due to its basic connection of interdisci­plinarity and sustainability with its comprehensive view, breadth, and openness (Smrekar 2007; Brečko GrubarandKovačič2017)andemphasisonthespatialapproach.Thiswillalsopromptandguideresearch at the Department of Environmental Protection. A prominent research topic that will have a greater role to play in the transition to the third decade of the twenty-first century is innovative sustainable manage­ment of protected areas (including protected areas in cities) and urban areas, which, from the perspective of geography and heritage, are undoubtedly a »place of sense.« The superiority of Ljubljana’s urban space isachievedthroughitsrichculturalheritage,whichtestifiestothecontinuoussettlementofLjubljanafrom prehistoric times, as well as through its status as Slovenia’s capital, spanning several decades. Thecityisalsocharacterizedbynaturalheritage.ItcontainstheTivoli,Rožnik,andŠiškaHillsLandscape Park,whichislargelylandscapedasapark.AtLjubljana’speriphery,however,istheLjubljanaMarshLandscape Park, which aside from the UNESCO world heritage site with prehistoric pile dwellings (UNESCO) also containsawealthofnaturalheritageandgreatbiodiversity,withnumerousprotectedspeciesofplantsand animals.Allofthislandscapediversityopensupnewopportunitiesforgeographicalresearch,alsoindevel-oping new methods and research approaches for the ongoing development of basic geography, as well as numerous challenges connected with related disciplines such as history, archeology, botany, forestry, and others.Accordingly,theresearchtopicsalsoaddressanumberofappliedareasforwhichtheyprovideexpert support. Thenextsectiontouchesontopicsthatrepresentnewresearchchallenges,butcurrentspatialprocess-es are calling for even more intensive research. Theinterpretationofnaturalandculturalheritagethatthedepartmenthasbeguntodevelopinrecent years is an important topic of ongoing research. Heritage can also be preserved through the integration of heritageanditsprofessionalinterpretationwithinthecontextofsustainabletourism(Skowroneketal.2018). Heritageinterpretationisanintenselyevolvingprofessionaldiscipline.Itpresentsasetofdifferentknowl­edge,techniques,andtoolsthatexplainhowtoextractkeyfactsaboutparticularheritagefromanextensive body of knowledge. Interpretation reveals ways of bringing heritage closer to the public in an interesting way (Smrekar et al. 2014; Smrekar et al. 2016c). In the future, we will upgrade our research methods and applications in environmental psychology. Numerouspastawareness-raisingactivitiesamongurbanlocalsandvisitorshaveconfirmedtheirusefulness and success, as well as some of the weaknesses that will be addressed in the future. With urban growth and development, the pressures of construction, and the pressures of increasing traffic and population, we can also expect many new dimensions of anthropogenic land degradation and degradation of landscape elements. Throughout its post-industrial development, Ljubljana has at various times faced the degradation of various landscape elements. In the future, increasing anthropogenic pressures will primarily affect air (dust particles), groundwa­ter(wastemanagementandsewage),andnatureinandaroundthecity(biodiversity).Accordingly,special attention will be paid to the further spatial and functional development of green infrastructure in urban areas, as well as protection of environmental components in the urban environment (linking physical and social topics). As pointed out in our presentation of urban green spaces, exploring these areas opens up new opportunities in the context of ecosystem services research and environmental assessment. Research onthequalityofgreenurbanareasiscloselylinkedtothestudyofthequalityofurbanlife,whichhasbeenpartofSloveniangeographyforseveraldecades(Špes1977;1998;Krevs2002;Rebernik2002;Tiran2017) and will undoubtedly also be relevant in the future. 11 Conclusion Even in the environmental movement’s infancy, in Slovenia the environmental mentality was quite insightful and sensitive to the issues of sustainable development of society, although of course there was no such theoretical basis at the time. The first questions on this topic appeared in the media in the 1960s, and not long after that (the 1970s), Slovenian geographers began exploring environmental issues, along withothers,ofcourse,suchasbiologists,hydrologists,geologists,andsoon.Theideaspreadmoreandmore amongthepublicinthe1980s,whenthefirstenvironmentalmovementsemerged,andwhenSloveniagained its independence, at which time it had the most powerful Green Party of any European country. Joining theEuropeanUnionhaspermeatedsocietyevenmorewiththesustainableparadigm.Today,environmental protection is an important branch of Slovenian geography. This issue has presented the most important aspects of quality living environment experienced not only in Ljubljana, but also in increasingly more Slovenian cities. Animportantaspectofresidents’satisfactionisurbangreenareas,whicharequiteextensiveinLjubljana, conveniently distributed, and suitable for maintaining a quality environment, both in terms of physical geography (especially air quality and reducing the thermal island effects) and recreation and relaxationinthenaturalenvironment.Inparticular,allthisisemphasizedintheTivoli,Rožnik,andŠiškaHillsLandscape Park, which extends into the downtown area. In the future, green spaces will be a great asset to modern, sustainable cities. In Ljubljana, residents feel above-average wellbeing along riverbanks and in city parks; certain other types of urban green spaces in Ljubljana still need to be made meaningful and inviting to residents and visitors. One of the major challenges facing Ljubljana is the unregulated and insufficiently controlled activi­ties in water protection areas, where proper use is a prerequisite for maintaining good drinking water. It is absurd that designated water protection areas, which were protected early enough, but not effectively monitored,havebeendegradedthroughillicitexcavationofgravelforconstructionmaterials,illegaldump­ing,andthespontaneousdevelopmentofgardenplots.Theseveryplotsareoneofthebiggestinsufficiently controlled activities, which has already grown difficult to manage due to the unregulated conditions of the past decades. The prohibition of garden plots in some current locations, especially near the pumping stations, is necessary, despite the resistance of the affected people. Some of this has already happened and the city has set up new and well-maintained community gardens, which remain difficult for some resi­dents to accept. Ljubljana’s quality of the residential environment is quite high, but it differs significantly within the city, with an accumulation of unfavorable residential conditions in some urban areas. This can lead to increased social degradation and differentiation and jeopardize the implementation of sustainable urban development.Ljubljanaresidents’qualityoflifeisinfluencedbytheirsatisfactionwithsocioeconomicareas of life, such as material and financial status, family life, and social life, more than the residential environ­ment. However, this does not diminish the responsibility of urban planners and city authorities in spatial planning. Of course, residents with increased environmental awareness, which is achieved through social impacts, can exert the greatest pressure on spatial decision-makers, who will subsequently have to change some inappropriate practices. In the past, predominantly natural processes such as earthquakes, floods, and fires caused landscape changes; today, human beings largely direct these processes in the (urban) environment. Hence, geogra­ phers’ work will have to be more actively involved in the »construction« of modern, sustainable cities. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:TheauthorsacknowledgereceivingfinancialsupportfromtheSlovenianResearch Agency, research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and The Invisible Life of Waste: DevelopmentofanEthnography-BasedSolutionforWasteManagementinHouseholds(L6-9364)project. 12 References Andjelov, M., Bat, M., Frantar, P., Mikulič, Z., Savić, V., Uhan, J. 2005: Pregled elementov vodne bilance. Podtalnica Ljubljanskega polja. Ljubljana. Anketao rabi vode kot naravnega vira/Survey on the use of water as a natural resource. Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana, 2010. Anko, B. 2009: Pojem trajnosti in razvoj ideje. Berilo o trajnosti. Ljubljana. Auersperger,P.,ČenčurCurk,B.,Jamnik,B.,Janža,M.,Kus,J.,Prestor,J.,Urbanc,J.2005:Dinamikapodzemne vode. Podtalnica Ljubljanskega polja. Ljubljana. Bahor, M. 2009: Ekološka pismenost. Za manj negotovosti: aktivno državljanstvo, zdrav življenjski slog, varovanje okolja. Ljubljana. Barnes,P.M.,Barnes,I.,G.1999:EnvironmentalPolicyintheEuropeanUnion.Cheltenham,Northampton. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., Baum, A. 2001: Environmental psychology. Fort Worth. Bell,S.,Fox-Kämper,R.,Keshavarz,N.,Benson,M.,Caputo,S.,Noori,S.,Voigt,A.2016:Urbanallotment gardens in Europe. Abingdon. BerdenZrimec,M.,Ružič,R.,Leskovar,R.2004:Popisdivjihodlagališčodpadkov(črnedeponije)naobmočju Mestne občine Ljubljana. Ljubljana. Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., Vogl, C. 2014: Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: Anempiricalexplanationwithshortinterviews.EcologicalEconomics105.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2014.05.013 Bole, D. 2008: Ekonomska preobrazba slovenskih mest. Ljubljana. Bole,D.2011:ChangesinEmployeeCommuting:Acomparativeanalysisofemployeecommutingtomajor Slovenianemploymentcentersfrom2000to2009.ActageographicaSlovenica51-1.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS51104 Bole, D., Gabrovec, M., Koblar, S. 2016: Dnevna mobilnost na ljubljanskih vpadnicah. AB. Arhitektov bilten 46, 207-208. Bole, D., Gabrovec, M., Nared, J., Visković, N. R. 2012: Integrated planning of public passenger trans­port between the city and the region: the case of Ljubljana. Acta geographica Slovenica 52-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ags52106 BračičŽeleznik,B.,Frantar,P.,Janža,M.,Uhan,J.2005:Ranljivostpodzemnevode.PodtalnicaLjubljanskega polja. Ljubljana. Bračič Železnik, B., Pintar, M., Urbanc, J. 2005: Naravne razmere vodonosnika. Podtalnica Ljubljanskega polja. Ljubljana. BrečkoGrubar,V.,Kovačič,G.2017:Odnosdotrajnostnegarazvojainviriznanja.Geografskivestnik90-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV89105 Breg Valjavec, M. 2013: Nekdanja odlagališča odpadkov v vrtačah in gramoznicah. Ljubljana. Breg Valjavec, M. 2014: Detection of former landfills in gravel plain using geomorphometric analysis and high-resolution LiDAR DTM/Odkrivanje prikritih odlagališč odpadkov v prodni ravnini z geomor­fometrično analizo in LiDAR DMR. Acta geographica Slovenica 54-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ AGS54106 Breg Valjavec, M., Fridl, J., Kladnik, D., Smrekar, A. 2005: Vrednotenje nedovoljenih odlagališč odpadkov glede na nujnost njihove sanacije. Geografski vestnik 77-1. Breg Valjavec, M., Grilc, V., Jamnik., B., Kladnik, D., Smrekar, A. 2008: Impact of illegal dumping sites on the groundwater of Ljubljansko polje. Sanitarno inženirstvo 2-1. Breg Valjavec, M., Janža, M., Smrekar, A. 2018: Environmental risk resulting from historical land degra­dation in alluvial plains considered for dam planning. Land degradation in development 29–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3168 Breg Valjavec, M., Kladnik, D., Smrekar, A., 2007: Dumping sites in the Ljubljansko polje water protec­tion area,theprimary sourceof Ljubljana’s drinkingwater/Odlagališča odpadkov na vodovarstvenem območjuLjubljanskegapolja,glavnemviruoskrbeLjubljanespitnovodo.ActageographicaSlovenica 47-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS47104 Breznik, M. 1988: Analiza odlokov o zaščiti ljubljanskih virov pitne vode. Ljubljana. Butala,G.2017:MakoSajko,scenaristinrežiserdokumentarnihfilmov:Kojeresničnostipreveč.Dnevnik. Carson, R. 1962: Silent Spring. Harcourt. Cedilnik,R.,Kokalj,Ž.,Oštir,K.2016:SatelitskotermičnosnemanjeLjubljane.Digitalnipodatki.Ljubljana. Celostna prometna strategija Mestne občine Ljubljana. Mestna občina Ljubljana. Ljubljana, 2017. Celostna prometna strategija Ljubljanske urbane regije. Regionalna razvojna agencija Ljubljanske urbane regije. Ljubljana, 2018. Cieślak,I.2019:Spatialconflicts:Analyzingaburdencreatedbydifferinglanduse.ActageographicaSlovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5181 Cingerle,K.2014:MakoSajkonepotrebujebesed.Družina.Internet:https://druzina.si/ICD/spletnastran.nsf/ clanek/mako-sajko-ne-potrebuje-besed (3. 10. 2019). Culiberg, B., Rojšek, I. 2007: Who cares? Segmentation of environmentally conscious consumers. Values and economy: proceedings of the 32nd IAREP Conference. Ljubljana. Černe, A. 1977: Proučitev degradacije okolja v Velenjski kotlini s pomočjo faktorske analize. Geografski vestnik 49. Daugul,L.2018:TurizemvLjubljani:»Izgubljaseraznovrstnostnjenihprebivalcev«.MMCRTVSLO.Internet: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/turizem-v-ljubljani-izgublja-se-raznovrstnost-njenih-prebivalcev/463322 (10.11.2019). Decree on the landfill of waste. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 32/2006. Ljubljana. Drevenšek, M. 2002: O socioloških izhodiščih okoljskih odnosov z javnostmi. Teorija in praksa 39-5. Drozg,V.1994:Kvalitetabivalnegaokolja–poskusinterpretacije.Znanstvenarevija:Družboslovjeinfilo­ zofija 6-1. D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. 2006: An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers.CorporateCommunications:AnInternationalJournal11-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13563280610661697 Duch,R.M.,Taylor,M.A.1993:PostmaterialismandtheEconomicCondition.AmericanJournalofPolitical Science 37. Elliott,J.,R.,Frickel,S.2011:Environmentaldimensionofurbanchange:uncoveringrelictindustrialwaste sitesandsubsequentlanduseconversionsinPortlandandNewOrleans.JournalofUrbanAffairs33-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00533x Ellis,S.E.,Ramankutty,N.2008:Puttingpeopleinthemap:anthropogenicbiomesoftheworld.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/070062 Escobedo, F. J., Giannico, V., Jim C. Y., Sanesi, G., Lafortezza, R. 2019: Urban forests, ecosystem services, greeninfrastructureandnature-basedsolutions:Nexusorevolvingmetaphors?UrbanForestry&Urban Greening 37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.011 Erhartič, B. 2012: Geomorfološka dediščina v Dolini Triglavskih jezer. Ljubljana. Felce,D.,Perry,J.1995:Qualityoflife:itsdefinitionandmeasurement.ResearchinDevelopmentalDisabilities 16-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(94)00028-8 Florida, R. 2002: The rise of the creative class. New York. Foški, M., Zavodnik Lamovšek, A. 2019: Monitoring land-use change using selected indices. Acta geo­ graphica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5276 Gabrovec, M., Kumer, P. 2019: Land-use changes in Slovenia from the Franciscean Cadaster until today. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9409-2 Gabrovec,M.,RazpotnikVisković,N.2012:UstreznostomrežjajavnegapotniškegaprometavLjubljanski urbani regiji z vidika razpršenosti poselitve. Geografski vestnik 84-2. Gabrovec,M.,RazpotnikVisković,N.2018:Dostopnostdojavnegapotniškegaprometakotpogojzasocialno vključenost dijakov. Geografski vestnik 90-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV90206 Galluser,W.A.,Schenker,A.1992:DieAugenamOberrhein–LeszonesalluvialesduRhinsupérior.Basel, Boston, Berlin. Gams, I. 1992: Ljubljanska kotlina. Enciklopedija Slovenije 6. Ljubljana. Gardner, G. T., Stern, P. C. 2002: Environmental problems and human behaviour. Boston. Gašperič,P.2004:TheexpansionofLjubljanaontotheLjubljanskobarjemoor.ActageographicaSlovenica 44-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS44201 Generalni plan urbanističnega razvoja Ljubljane. Ljubljanski urbanistični zavod. Ljubljana, 1966. Gilg, A., Barr, S., Ford, N. 2005: Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016 Golob, A., Polajnar, J. 2015: Visoke vode v Sloveniji leta 2014. Ujma 29. Goriup, Z. 1984: Planiranje in urejanje območij malih vrtov (vrtičkov) v Ljubljani. Elaborat. Urbanistični inštitut Slovenije. Ljubljana. Grilc,V.,Husić,M.,1984:KatasterposebnihodpadkovvLjubljanskiregiji.Kemijskiinštitut»BorisKidrič« Ljubljana. Ljubljana. Hardin,G.1968:Thetragedyofthecommons.Science162.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 Harvey, D. 1996: Justice, nature in the geography of difference. Cambridge, Oxford.Hočevar,M.,Kos,D.,Makarovič,J.,Trček,F.,Štebe,J.,Uršič,M.2004:Vrednoteprostorainokolja3.Sumarnik javnomnenjske raziskave – ankete in interpretacija rezultatov. Ljubljana. Internet 1: https://www.ljubljana.si/sl/o-ljubljani/ljubljana-v-stevilkah/ (12.8.2019). Internet 2: http://akvamarin.geo-zs.si/incomepregledovalnik/ (15.8.2019). Ivančič,M.,Vončina,R.2014:DeterminingtheinfluenceofdifferentPM10sourcesonairqualityinLjubljana basinwithCALPUFFdispersionmodel.InternationalJournalofEnvironmentandPollution54,2-3-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijep.2014.065126 Jamnik, B., Smrekar, A., Vrščaj, B. 2009: Vrtičkarstvo v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Jančar,M.1970:ProblematikajavnegazelenjanaobmočjuLjubljane.Zelenjevurbanemokolju.Ljubljana. Janža, M., Prestor, J., Urbanc, J., in Jamnik, B. 2005: TCE contamination plume spreading in highly pro- ductiveaquiferofLjubljanskopolje.AbstractsoftheContributionsoftheEGUGeneralAssembly,2005. Vienna. Jernej, S. 2000: Mestna klima. Ljubljana: geografija mesta. Ljubljana. Kaal,H.2011:Aconceptualhistoryofliveability.City15-5.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2011.595094 Kaiser,F.G.,Shimoda,T.A.1999:Responsibilityasapredictorofecologicalbehaviour.JournalofEnvironmental Psychology 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.9123 Kahneman,D.,Diener,E.,Schwarz,N.1999:Well-being:Thefoundationsofhedonicpsychology.NewYork. Kenward, R., Sharp, R. 2008: Use nationally of wild resources across Europe (UNWIRE). Berlin. Kilar,V.,Kušar,D.2009:Assessmentoftheearthquakevulnerabilityofmulti-residentialbuildingsinSlovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 49-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ags49103 Kirn, A. 2004: Narava – družba – ekološka zavest. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D., Rejec Brancelj, I., Smrekar, A. 2002: Integralna obremenjenost prodnih ravnin Slovenije. Geografija in njene aplikativne možnosti: znanstveno in strokovno srečanje. Ljubljana.Klemenčič,M.,Lep,M.,Mesarec,B.,Žnuderl,B.2014:PotovalnenavadeprebivalcevvMestniobčiniLjubljana in Ljubljanski urbani regiji. Končno poročilo, Univerza v Mariboru. Maribor.Kobal, J., Spruk, B., Špendl, R. 1999: Popis odlagališč odpadkov v Mestni občini Ljubljana. Ljubljana. Koblar, S. 2016: Prometna obremenjenost cest v Ljubljani. Urbani izziv. Koblar, S. 2017: Predlog alternativnega omrežja javnega potniškega prometa v Ljubljanski urbani regiji. Magistrsko delo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Kollmuss,A.,Agyeman,J.2002:Mindthegap:Whydopeopleactenvironmentallyandwhatarethebarriers topro-environmentalbehaviour?EnvironmentaleducationResearch8-3.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13504620220145401 Komac, B., Ciglič, R., Pavšek, M.,Kokalj, Ž. 2017: Naravne nesreče v mestih – primer mestnega toplotnega otoka, Naravne nesreče 4. Ljubljana. Komac, B., Pavšek, M., Topole, M. 2020: Climate and weather of Slovenia. The Geography of Slovenia. Springer. Kos, D., Zorman, A., Hočevar, M., Trček, F., Uršič, M., Zavratnik, S. 2010: Kakovost življenja v Ljubljani 2. Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Kozina, J. 2010: Transport accessibility to regional centres in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 50-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ags50203Kozina, J. 2016: Življenjsko okolje ustvarjalnih ljudi v Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Kozina,J.2018:Demographiccharacteristicsofcreativeworkers:under-activateddevelopmentpotentials in Slovenia? Acta geographica Slovenica 58-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4602 Kozina,J.,PoljakIstenič,S.,Komac,B.2019:Greencreativeenvironments:Contributiontosustainableurban and regional development. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7030 Koželj, J., 1998: Degradirana urbana območja. Ljubljana. Krevs,M.1998:GeografskividikiživljenjskeravniprebivalstvavSloveniji.Doktorskadisertacija,Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Krevs, M. 2002: Geografski vidiki življenjske ravni prebivalstva Ljubljane. Ljubljana. Lah, A. 1989: Slovenija 88 – okolje in razvoj. Ljubljana. Lampič, B., Cigale, D. 2005: Hrup kot okoljski problem. Geografski obzornik 52-2. Lampič,B.2019:RazvojgeografijenaSlovenskem–100letštudijageografijenaUniverzivLjubljani.Historia Facultatis. Ljubljana. LEIPZIGCHARTERonSustainableEuropeanCities.2007.Internet:https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/ archive/themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf (24.2.2020). Leitmann, J. 1999: Can city QOL indicators be objective and relevant? Towards a participatory tool for sustainingurbandevelopment.LocalEnvironment4-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725591 Ljubljana, Zelena prestolnica Evrope 2016. Luxembourg, 2015. Lohrberg, F., Lička, L., Scazzosi, L., Timpe, A. 2016: Urban Agriculture Europe. Berlin. Lovšin,P.2014:Betweentheurbanandtherural:backtothecity.Ph.D.Thesispaper,BauhausUniversity, Faculty of Art and Design, Weimar. Malačič, E. 2007: Oblikovanje ekološko ozaveščenega posameznika in vpliv njegovih ukrepov na okolje in družbo. Diplomsko delo, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Malnar, B. 2002: Ekološke orientacije – trajne vrednote ali prehodni preplah? Družboslovne razprave 18. Mandič, S., Cirman, A., 2006: Stanovanje v Sloveniji 2005. Ljubljana. Marans, R. W., Stimson, R. 2011: An overview of quality of urban life. Investigating quality of urban life. New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_1 Mavri,R.2018:PriporočilazatrajnostnonačrtovanjerekreacijenaprostemvzavarovanihobmočjihSlovenije. Geografski vestnik 90-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV90103 McCrea, R., Shyy, T. K., Stimson, R. 2014: Satisfied residents in different types of local areas. Measuring what’smostimportant.SocialIndicatorsResearch118.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0406-8 Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., Behrens, W. W. 1972: Limits to growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. 2004: Limits to growth: The 30-year update. Vermont. Melik, A. 1951: Naša velika dela. Ljubljana. MerljakZdovc,S.2008:Literarnonovinarstvo:pojavinrabasodobnepripovednenovinarskevrstevZDA in Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Millennium Ecosystem assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington. Mira, R. G., Uzzell, D. L., Real, J. E., Romay, J. 2005: Housing, space and quality of life. Burlington. Mobilna Ljubljana. Mestna občina Ljubljana. Ljubljana, 2012. Mohorič, L. 2011: Gospodarska rast in trajnostni razvoj. Neformalno izobraževanje za trajnostni razvoj. Ajdovščina. MultiannualWorkProgramme2014–2018.Expandingtheknowledgebaseforpolicyimplementationand long-term transitions. Luxemburg, 2014. Mušič,V.1980:Urbanizem–bajkeinresničnost:zapisinarobudvajsetletnegarazvojanašegaprostorskega načrtovanja. Ljubljana. Nacionalno poročilo o urbanem razvoju – Habitat III. Ljubljana, 2016. Nared,J.,Bole,D.,BregValjavec,M.,Ciglič,R.,Goluža,M.,Kozina,J.,RazpotnikVisković,N.,Repolusk,P., Rus, P., Tiran, J., Černič Istenič, M. 2017: Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016. Acta geographica Slovenica 57-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4606 Nastran,M.,Regina,H.2016:AdvancingurbanecosystemgovernanceinLjubljana.EnvironmentalScience and Policy 62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.011 Natek, K. 2011: Mali vodni tokovi in njihovo poplavno ogrožanje Ljubljane. Ljubljana. Novelacija karte hrupa za Mestno občino Ljubljana, 2014. Ljubljana. Internet: https://www.ljubljana.si/ assets/Uploads/novelacija-karte-hrupa-MOL.pdf (26.10.2019). Oddelek za varstvo okolja. Internet: https://giam.zrc-sazu.si/en/oddelek/7814#v (10.10.2019). Odlok o občinskem prostorskem načrtu Mestne občine Ljubljana – strateški del. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 78/2010. Ljubljana. Odlok o urejanju in oddaji vrtičkov v zakup. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 28/2009. Ljubljana. Ogrin, D. 2010: Physical-geographical factors relevant for the development of Ljubljana. Challenges of spatial development of Ljubljana and Belgrade. Ljubljana. Ogrin, M. 2007: Air pollution due to road traffic in Ljubljana. Dela 27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/ dela.27.11.199-214 Ogrin,M.,Dovečar,M.2014:VrednotenjesistemovjavnegapotniškegaprometavizbranihobčinahSlovenije. Dela 42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dela.42.115-127 Ogrin,M.,VintarMally,K.2013:PrimerjavapoletneonesnaženostizrakazdušikovimdioksidomvLjubljani med letoma 2005 in 2013. Dela 40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dela.40.55-72 Ogrin,M.,VintarMally,K.,Planinšek,A.,Gregorič,A.,Drinovec,L,Močnik,G.,Ogrin,D.2018:Nitrogen dioxide and black carbon concentrations in Ljubljana. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamič, M. 1970: Kako naj vrednotimo pokrajino? Proteus 33-4. Ourcommonfuture:ReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment.1987.Internet: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf(25.11.2019). Pacione,M.2003:Urbanenvironmentalqualityandhumanwellbeing–asocialgeographicalperspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 65, 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00234-7 Pak,M.2010:IntroducingLjubljana.ChallengesofspatialdevelopmentofLjubljanaandBelgrade.Ljubljana. Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Kopperoinen, L., Maes, J., Schägner, J. P., Termansen, M., Zandersen, M., Perez-Soba, M., Scholefield, P. A., Bidoglio, G. 2014: Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A frame­work to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators 45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018 Pavšič. J. 2008: Geologija barja in njegovega obrobja. Ljubljansko barje: neživi svet, rastlinstvo, živalstvo, zgodovina in naravovarstvo. Ljubljana. Pearson, L. J., Pearson, L., Pearson, C. 2010: Sustainable urban agriculture: stocktake and opportunities. InternationalJournalofAgriculturalSustainability8,1-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0468 Pelc, S. 2015: Mestno prebivalstvo Slovenije. Koper. Perko,D.,Ciglič,R.,Hrvatin,M.2019:Theusefulnessofunsupervisedclassificationmethodsforlandscape typification:thecaseofSlovenia.ActageographicaSlovenica59-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7377 Perko,D.,Hrvatin,M.,Ciglič,R.2015:AmethodologyfornaturallandscapetypificationofSlovenia.Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1938 Perlaviciute,G.,Steg,L.,2012:Qualityoflifeinresidentialenvironments.PsyEcology3-3.DOI:http://doi.org/ 10.1174/217119712802845732 Personsinemployment[excludingfarmers],labourmigrantsbetweenmunicipalitiesandthelabourmigra­tion index by sex, municipalities, Slovenia, annually. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana, 2018. Internet: https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatDb/pxweb/en/10_Dem_soc/10_Dem_soc__07_trg_dela__ 05_akt_preb_po_regis_virih__10_07234_delovne_migracije/0723420S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ (10.11.2019). Pesek, R. 2009: Stranka Zelenih Slovenije. Ljubljana. Peterlin, S. 1972: Zelena knjiga o ogroženosti okolja v Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Pichler-Milanović,N.2001:PrimerjalnealikonkurenčneprednostiLjubljanevprocesuevropskihintegracij. Urbani izziv 12-1. Pirnat,T.2015:Divjaodlagališčaznevarnimiodpadkiogrožajookolje,državasenanjepožvižga.Internet: https://podcrto.si/divja-odlagalisca-z-nevarnimi-odpadki-ogrozajo-okolje-drzava-se-nanje-pozvizga (10.11.2019). Plieninger,T.,Bieling,C.,Fagerholm,N.,Byg,A.,Hartel,T.,Hurley,P.,López-Santiago,C.,Nagabhatla,N., Oteros-Rozas,E., Raymond, C., vander Horst, D., Huntsinger, L. 2015: Therole of cultural ecosystem servicesinlandscapemanagementandplanning.CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.02.006 Plut, D. 1988: Belokranjske vode. Novo mesto. Plut, D. 1989: Osnutek Zelenega manifesta: Predlog programa gibanja zelenih. Delo 31-10. Plut, D. 2003: Geografske teoretične in metodološke zasnove proučevanja degradacije okolja: študijsko gradivo za Varstvo geografskega okolja. Ljubljana. Plut, D. 2004: Zeleni planet? Prebivalstvo, energija in okolje v 21. stoletju. Ljubljana. Plut,D. 2006: Mestain sonaravni razvoj. Geografske razsežnosti indilemeurbanegasonaravnega razvoja. Ljubljana. Plut, D. 2007: Ljubljana in izzivi sonaravnega razvoja. Ljubljana. Plut,D.2009:Orisraziskovanjanapodročjuokoljskegeografijeob90-letnicioddelkazageografijoljubljanske filozofske fakultete. Dela 32. PlutD.2014:Ekosoci[a]lizemalibarbarstvo:demokratičniekološkisocializemintrajnostnisonaravnirazvoj. Ljubljana. Podobnik, J. 2007: Za večjo teritorialno kohezijo in trajnostna mesta. Okolje in prostor 128. Polajnar Horvat, K. 2015a: Okolju prijazno vedenje. Ljubljana. PolajnarHorvat,K.2015b:SegmentationoftheinhabitantsofLjubljanawithregardtoenvironmentalissues. Hrvatski geografski glasnik 78-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21861/HGG.2016.78.01.02 PolajnarHorvat,K.2016:SegmentationoftheinhabitantsofLjubljanawithregardtoenvironmentalissues/ SegmentacijastanovnikaLjubljanesobziromnanjihovodnospremaokolišu.Hrvatskigeografskiglas­nik 78-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21861/HGG.2016.78.01.02 Polajnar Horvat, K. 2017: Učinkovitost socialnega vplivanja pri okoljskem ozaveščanju in vedenju v povezavi z vodo. Geografski vestnik 89-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV89202 Polajnar Horvat, K., Smrekar, A. 2017: From words to action: improving drinking water behaviour in the urban environment. Geographia Polonica 90-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0094 Polajnar Horvat, K., Smrekar, A., Zorn, M. 2014: The development of environmental thought in Slovenia: A short overview. Ekonomska i ekohistorija 10-1. Polajnar Horvat, K., Smrekar, A., Zorn, M. 2017: Environmental thought in Slovenia. Environmentalism in Central and Southeastern Europe. London. Polič, M. 2002: Odnos do okolja, vedenjske in socialne pasti. Panika 7-1. Poljak Istenič, S. 2019: Participatory urbanism: creative interventions for sustainable development. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5142 Population by sex, municipalities, half-year and age. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana, 2019. Internet: https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatDb/pxweb/en/10_Dem_soc/10_Dem_soc__05_prebivalstvo__ 10_stevilo_preb__20_05C40_prebivalstvo_obcine/05C4002S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/(18.11.2019). Poročilo o kakovosti zraka v Ljubljani v povezavi z izvedenimi ukrepi podrobnejšega programa ukrepov OdlokaonačrtuzakakovostzrakanaobmočjuMOL.Ljubljana,2017.Internet:https://www.ljubljana.si/ assets/Uploads/Porocilo-o-kakovosti-zraka-v-Ljubljani.pdf (18.11.2019). Prezelj,M.2019:Podnebniprotestnivalseširiposvetu.Internet:https://siol.net/novice/svet/po-vsem-svetu­danes-veliki-podnebni-protesti-507599 (13.11.2019). Program varstva okolja Mestne občine Ljubljana 2014–2020. Ljubljana, 2014. Quality of life in European cities. The European Commission, Luxemburg, 2016. Radinja, D. 1972: Onesnaženost človekovega okolja v luči geografske terminologije. Geografski obzornik 19-1. Ravbar, M. 2009: Economic geographical assessment of investments – a development factor in regional development. Acta geographica Slovenica 49-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS49105 Ravbar, M., Bole, D., Nared, J. 2005: A creative milieu and the role of geography in studying the compet­itivenessofcities:thecaseofLjubljana.ActageographicaSlovenica45-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/ AGS45201 Rebernik,D.2002:Urbano-geografskoproučevanjeblokovskihstanovanjskihsoseskkotelementurbanističnega planiranja. Dela 18. Rebernik,D.2007:TrajnostniprostorskirazvojinnovejšiprocesivprostorskemrazvojuLjubljane/Sustainable spatial development and new trends in urban development of Ljubljana. Dela 27. Rebernik, D. 2013: Social areas in Ljubljana. Dela 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/dela.39.1.5-26 Relph E. 2016: The modern urban landscape. New York. Ribeiro,D.,ŠmidHribar,M.2019:Assessmentofland-usechangesandtheirimpactsonecosystemservices in two. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.6636 Rihtar,H.,Berkopec,G.1989:StanjenavarstvenihpasovihvirovpitnevodenaobmočjuLjubljaneizkaterih se oskrbuje nad 10.000 prebivalcev. Ljubljana. Ristić,M.2013:AnalizapotekarekeLjubljanicepoLjubljanskembarju.Diplomskodelo,Fakultetazagrad­beništvo in geodezijo, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Rojšek, I. 1987: Trženje in varstvo naravnega okolja. Ljubljana. Scheromm, P. 2015: Motivations and practices of gardeners in urban collective gardens: The case of Montpellier.UrbanForestry&UrbanGreening14-3.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.007 Simoneti,M.,Bevk,J.,Pintar,M.,Zupan,M.,Gajšek,P.,Golobič,M.,Pleško,R.,Bevk,M.1997:Usmeritve inpogojizanadaljnjirazvojvrtičkarstvavLjubljani.Poročiloorazvojno-raziskovalninalogi.Ljubljanski urbanistični zavod. Ljubljana. Simoneti,M.,VerteljNared,P.2017:Vlogazelenihindrugihjavnihpovršinvurbaniprenovi.Urbaniizziv7. Skowronek,E.,Tucki,A.,Huijbens,E.,Jóźwik,M.2018:Whatisthetouristlandscape?Aspectsandfeatures of the concept. Acta geographica Slovenica 58-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3311 Smrekar,A.2004:ReducedpermeationofprecipitationwaterintogroundwateronLjubljanskopolje.Acta geographica Slovenica 44-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS44202 Smrekar, A. 2006a: Zavest ljudi o pitni vodi. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A. 2006b: From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources. Acta geographica Slovenica 46-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS46101 Smrekar, A. 2007: Stihijski (ne)razvoj neurbaniziranega dela mesta na primeru Ljubljane. Dela 28. Smrekar, A. 2009: Allotment keeping in Ljubljana. Geographia Polonica 82-2. Smrekar, A. 2011: From environmental awareness in word to environmental awareness in deed: the case of Ljubljana. Acta geographica Slovenica 51-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51203 Smrekar, A. 2008: Divja odlagališča odpadkov na območju Ljubljane. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A., Breg Valjavec, M. 2014: Vrednotenje nekdanje in sedanje proizvodnje nevarnih odpadkov vLjubljanizvidikaobremenjevanjapodtalnice.Geografskivestnik86-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/ GV86201 Smrekar, A., Breg Valjavec, M., Fridl, J., Kladnik, D., Urbanc, M., Bračič-Železnik, B., Jamnik, B., Grilc, V., Husić, M., Kušar, S. 2005: Izdelava katastra in predloga prednostne sanacije odlagališč odpadkov vodozbirnega območja črpališča Jarški prod. Ljubljana. Smrekar,A.,BregValjavec,M.,Slavec,P.,Bračič-Železnik,B.,Jamnik,B.,Grilc,V.,Husić,M.2006:Odlagališča odpadkovnavodovarstvenemobmočju,pomembnemzaoskrboMestneobčineLjubljanaspitnovodo. Ljubljana. Smrekar,A.,BregValjavec,M.,Zorn,M.2017:Illegaldumpsitesasdegradedlandscapeelements.Environmental degradation: types, causes and impacts. New York. Smrekar, A., Erhartič, B., Šmid Hribar, M. 2011: Krajinski park Tivoli, Rožnik in Šišenski hrib. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A., Kladnik, D. 2004: Popis vodnjakov in vrtin v zasebni lasti na območju vodnih virov Mestne občine Ljubljana. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A., Kladnik, D. 2008: Gnojišča na Ljubljanskem polju. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A., Kladnik, D. 2007: Zasebni vodnjaki in vrtine na območju Ljubljane. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A., Šmid Hribar, M., Tiran, J., Erhartič, B. 2014: Interpretacija okolja na primeru Ljubljanskega barja. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A., Polajnar Horvat, P., Erhartič, B. 2016a: The beauty of landforms. Acta geographica Slovenica 56-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3039 Smrekar,A.,ŠmidHribar,M.,Erhartič,B.2016b:StakeholderconflictsintheTivoli,RožnikHill,andŠiška Hillprotectedlandscapearea.ActageographicaSlovenica56-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.895 Smrekar, A., Šmid Hribar, M., Tiran, J., Erhartič, B. 2016c: A methodological basis for landscape interpre­tation:thecaseoftheLjubljanaMarsh.ActageographicaSlovenica56-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/ AGS.875 Smrekar, A., Tiran, J. 2013: Pomen zelenih površin za kakovost bivanja v mestih: razvoj misli skozi čas. Geografski vestnik 85-2. Smrekar, A., Tiran, J., Polajnar Horvat, K. 2018: The Hepness perspective. A framework to enhance cultural ecosystemservicesinEuropeancitieswithexperienceinLjubljana.TheHepnessperspectiveforactive cities development. Venice. Spomenica Odseka za varstvo prirode in prirodnih spomenikov 1920. Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 1. Stern, P. C. 2000: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175 Strategija prostorskega razvoja Slovenije. Ministrstvo za okolje, prostor in energijo, Ljubljana, 2004. Ščuka, A. 2009: Okoljskonovinarstvov slovenskih časnikih. Diplomskodelo, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Šebenik,I.,Šimec,R.1993:DivjaodlagališčavosrednjemdeluobčineCelje–značilnosti,prednostnalista sanacije in način sanacije, Savinjska – možnosti regionalnega in prostorskega razvoja. Celje.Šebenik,I.1994:PokrajinskeznačilnostimanjšihneurejenihodlagališčodpadkovvSloveniji.Geographica Slovenica 26-1. LjubljanaŠifrer, M. 1969: Kvartarni razvoj Dobrav na Gorenjskem. Geografski zbornik 11.Špes, M. 1977: O problemih življenjskega okolja v Celju. Geografski vestnik 49. Špes, M. 1978: Problemi življenjskega okolja v Celjski kotlini. Naše okolje 3, 5-6. Špes, M. 1979: Degradacija okolja na primeru Celja. Geographica Slovenica 9.Špes, M. 1981: Problemi življenjskega okolja v Celju. Geographica Slovenica 12.Špes,M.1987:Pokrajinskiučinkionesnaževanjaokoljavkotlinahinozkihdolinah.ZbornikXIIkongresa geografa Jugoslavije. Novi Sad.Špes,M.1998:Degradacijaokoljakotdejavnikdiferenciacijeurbanepokrajine.GeographicaSlovenica30.Špes, M. 2008: Pomen okoljske ozaveščenosti in sodelovanja javnosti za trajnostni razvoj. Dela 29. Špes,M.,Gspan,P.,Hočevar,M.,Lampič,B.,Letnar-Žbogar,N.,Otorepec,P.,Požeš,M.,Smrekar,A.1997: Vpliv fizičnega in družbenega okolja na zdravje prebivalstva v mestu Ljubljana: 2. faza. Inštitut za geografijo, Inštitut za varovanje zdravja Republike Slovenije, Zavod za zdravstveno varstvo Ljubljana, Fakultetaza kemijo in kemijsko tehnologijo,oddelek za tehniškovarnost, MOP-Hidrometeorološki zavod R Slovenije. Ljubljana. Špes,M.,Cigale,D.,Gspan,P.,Jug,A.,Lampič,B.2002:RegionalizacijaLjubljanezvidikahrupneobremenjenosti. Raziskovalno poročilo, Inštitut za geografijo. Ljubljana. Špes,M.,Krevs,M.,Lampič,B.,Mrak,I.,Ogrin,M.,Plut,D.,VintarMally,K.,VovkKorže,A.2012:Sonaravna sanacija okoljskih bremen kot trajnostno razvojna priložnost Slovenije, Degradirana območja. Ciljni raziskovalni program (CRP) »Konkurenčnost Slovenije 2006–2013«. Ljubljana. Špes, M., Lampič, B., Smrekar, A. 1995: Case study: Ljubljana: the cultural and economic conditions of decison-making for the sustainable city. Moravian geographical reports 3. ŠukljeErjavec,I.2006:Podrobnejšapravilanačrtovanjainurejanjajavnihzelenihpovršinvmestihinnaseljih: konkurenčnost Slovenije 2001–2006. Končno poročilo o rezultatih raziskovalnega dela, Urbanistični inštitut Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana. The sustainable development Agenda 2015. Internet: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ development-agenda/ (10.10.2019). Tičar,J.,Komac,B.,Zorn,M.,Ferk,M.,Hrvatin,M.,Ciglič,R.2017:Fromurbangeodiversitytogeoheritage: the case of Ljubljana (Slovenia). Quaestiones Geographicae 36-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ quageo-2017-0023 Tiran,J.2015:Geografskovrednotenjebivalnegaokoljavizbranihslovenskihmestih.Doktorskadisertacija, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Tiran,J.2016:Measuringurbanqualityoflife:casestudyofLjubljana/Merjenjekakovostiživljenjavmestu: primer Ljubljane. Acta geographica Slovenica 56-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.828 Tiran, J. 2017: Kakovost bivalnega okolja v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Tiran,J.,Bole,D.,Kumer,P.2016:MorfološkatipologijastanovanjskihobmočijvLjubljani/Morphological typologyofresidentialareasinLjubljana.Geografskivestnik88-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/GV88103 Tiran,J.,Koblar,S.,Mladenovič,L.2017:AccessibilitytopublictransportinLjubljana:Review,development and challenges. Research on the road: Methodology and practice of studying traffic, driving habits, and sustainable mobility. Ljubljana. Tiran,J.,Mladenovič,L.,Koblar,S.2015:AccessibilitytopublictransportusingthePTALMethod:thecase ofLjubljana.GeodetskiVestnik59-4.DOI:https://doi.org/10.15292/geodetski-vestnik.2015.04.723-735 Titos, G., Lyamani, H., Drinovec, L., Olmo, F. J., Močnik, G., Alados-Arboledas, L. 2015: Evaluation of the impact of transportation changes on air quality. Atmospheric Environment 114. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.05.027 Toš, N. 2012: Vrednote v prehodu VII: Slovenija v mednarodnih in medčasovnih primerjavah SJM – ISSP 1991–2012. Dunaj, Ljubljana. Urbanc, M. 2017: (Ne)omejene možnosti geografije na projektnem trgu?!. Geografski vestnik 89-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV89204 Urbanc, M., Breg, M. 2005: Gravel plains in urban areas: gravel pits as an element of degraded landscapes. Acta geographica Slovenica 45-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS45202 Uršič, M., Kos, D. 2004: Results of the questionnaire survey in Ljubljana. ReUrban Mobil 2. Internet: http://www.eling-saalmann.com/re-urban.com/downloads/SurveyReportLjubljana.pdf(16.10.2019). Uršič, M. 2016: Characteristics of spatial distribution of creative industries in Ljubljana and the Ljubljana region. Acta geographica Slovenica 56-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.745 Ustava Republike Slovenije. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 33/1991. Ljubljana. vanKamp,I.,Leidelmeijer,K.,Marsman,G.,deHollander,A.2003:Urbanenvironmentalqualityandhuman well-being.Towardsaconceptualframeworkanddemarcationofconcepts:aliteraturestudy.Landscape and Urban Planning 65, 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00232-3 Vastl,N.2000:Vrtičkarstvo.Specialističnanaloga.Fakultetazaarhitekturo,UniverzavLjubljani.Ljubljana. Verbič,T.,Horvat,A.2009:ThegeologyofLjubljanskobarje.Ljubljanica–kulturnadediščinareke.Ljubljana. Vodopivec, P. 2007: Od Pohlinove slovnice do samostojne države. Ljubljana. vonDöhren,P.,Haase,D.2015:Ecosystemdisservicesresearch:Areviewofthestateoftheartwithafocus on cities. Ecological Indicators 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027 Vukovič,M.2011:Segmentiranjeporabnikovzvidikaokoljskeproblematike.Diplomskodelo,Ekonomska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Ljubljana.Zakšek, K., Oštir, K., Kokalj, Ž. 2011: Sky-View Factor as a relief visualization technique. Remote Sensing 3-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3020398 Wamberger, K. 2013: Očistimo Slovenijo 2012: zaključno poročilo. Ljubljana. WardThompson,C.2002:Urbanopenspaceinthe21st century.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning60.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2 WardThompson,C.,Roe,J.,Aspinall,P.,Mitchell,R.,Clow,A.,Miller,D.2012:Moregreenspaceislinked tolessstressindeprivedcommunities:Evidencefromsalivarycortisolpatterns.LandscapeandUrban Planning 105-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015 Warwick, P. V. 1998: »Disputed causes, disputed effects: The postmaterialism thesis re-examined.« Public Opinion Quarterly 62-4. WCED–Worldcommissiononenvironmentalanddevelopment:Ourcommonfuture–Brundtlandreport. Oxford, 1987. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J, Newell, J. P. 2014: Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challengeofmakingcities‘justgreenenough’.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning125.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017 Wood, L., Hooper, P., Foster, S., Bull, F. 2017: Public green spaces and positive mental health – investi­gating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health in Place 48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.09.002 WorldconservationStrategy1980.LivingResourceconservationforSustainabledevelopment.International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). World Urbanization Prospects 2018. New York. Internet: https://population.un.org/wup/ (1.10.2019). Zakon o varstvu okolja. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 32/1993. Ljubljana. Zakon o varstvu okolja. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 41/2004. Ljubljana. Guidelines for contributing authors in Acta geographica Slovenica EDITORIAL POLICIES 1 Focus and scope TheSloveniangeographicaljournalActageographicaSlovenica(printversion:ISSN:1581-6613,digitalver­sion: ISSN: 1581-8314) is published by the Anton Melik Geographical Institute of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Research Center. Acta geographica Slovenica publishes original research papers from all fields of geography and related disciplines,andprovidesaforumfordiscussingnewaspectsoftheory,methods,issues,andresearchfind­ings, especially in central and southeast Europe. We accept original research papers and review papers. Paperspresentingnewdevelopmentsandinnovativemethodsingeographyarewelcome.Submissions should address current research gaps and explore state-of-the-art issues. Research based on case studies shouldhavetheaddedvalueoftransnationalcomparisonandshouldbeintegratedintoestablishedornew theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Thetargetreadershipisresearchers,policymakers,anduniversitystudentsstudyingorapplyinggeog­ raphy at various levels. Submissions are accepted in English or Slovenian. Thejournalisindexedinthefollowingbibliographicdatabases:SCIE(ScienceCitationIndexExpanded), Scopus,JCR(JournalCitationReport,ScienceEdition),ERIHPLUS,GEOBASEJournals,CurrentGeographical Publications,EBSCOhost,Geosciencee-Journals,Georef,FRANCIS,SJR(SCImagoJournal&CountryRank), OCLC WorldCat, and Google Scholar. The journal’s publisher is a member of CrossRef. 2 Types of papers Unsolicited or invited original research papers and review papers are accepted. Papers and materials or sections of them should not have been previously published or under consideration for publication else­where. The papers should cover subjects of current interest within the journal’s scope. 3 Special issues The journal also publishes special issues (thematic supplements). Special issues usually consist of invited papers and present a special topic, with an introduction by the (guest) editors. The introduction briefly presents the topic, summarizes the papers, and provides important implications. 4 Peer-review process Allpapersareexaminedbytheeditor-in-chief.Thisincludesfact-checkingthecontent,spellingandgram­mar,writingstyle,andfigures.Papersthatappeartobeplagiarized,areghost-written,havebeenpublished elsewhere, are outside the scope of journal, or are of little interest to readers of Acta geographica Slovenica mayberejected.Ifthearticleexceedsthemaximumlength,theauthor(s)mustcorrectthisbeforethearticle isreviewed.Thepaperisthensenttoresponsibleeditors,whochecktherelevance,significance,originality, clarity,andqualityofthepaper.Ifacceptedforconsideration,thepapersarethensenttopeerreviewer(s)for double-blindreview.Paperarerejectedoracceptedbasedonthepeerreviewsandeditorialboard’sdecision. 5 Publication frequency Acta geographica Slovenica is published twice a year. 6 Open-access policy This journal provides immediate free open access to its content and supports greater global exchange of knowledge by making research freely available. The papers in Acta geographica Slovenica and its prede­cessorsActageographica/GeografskizbornikandGeographicaSlovenicaareavailableonlinefreeofcharge. The author(s) receive a free print copy. The journal’s publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is available online, as well as information on subscriptions and prices for print copies. AUTHOR GUIDELINES Beforesubmittingapaper,pleasereadthedetailsonthejournal’sfocusandscope,peer-reviewprocess,pub­lication frequency, history, and open-access policy. This information is available in the editorial policies. 1 The papers Research papers must be prepared using the journal’s template and contain the following elements: – Title: this should be clear, short, and simple. – Informationaboutauthor(s):submitnames(withoutacademictitles),institutions,ande-mailaddresses through the online submission system. – Abstract: introduce the topic clearly so that readers can relate it to other work by presenting the back­ground, why the topic was selected, how it was studied, and what was discovered. It should contain one or two sentences about each section (introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions). The maximum length is 800 characters including spaces. – Key words: include up to seven informative key words. Start with the research field and end with the place and country. – Main text: limit the text of the paper to 25,000 characters including spaces and without the reference list, and tables. Do not use footnotes or endnotes. Divide the paper into sections with short, clear titles markedwithnumberswithoutfinaldots:1Sectiontitle.Useonlyonelevelofsubsections:1.1Subsection title. Research papers should have the following structure: • Introduction: present the background of the research problem (trends and new perspectives), state of the art (current international discussion in the field), research gap, motivation, aim, and research questions. • Methods: describe the study area, equipment, tools, models, programs, data collection, and analysis, define the variables, and justify the methods. • Results:followtheresearchquestionsaspresentedintheintroductionandbrieflypresenttheresults. • Discussion: interprettheresults, generalize fromthem, and present related broaderprinciples and relationshipsbetween the study and previous research. Critically assess the methods and their lim­itations, and discuss important implications of the results. Clarify unexpected results or lacking correlations. • Conclusion:presentthemainimplicationsofthefindings,yourinterpretations,andunresolvedques­ tions, offering a short take-home message. Review papers (narratives, best-practice examples, systematic approaches, etc.) should have the follow­ ing structure: • Introduction:include1)thebackground;2)theproblem:trends,newperspectives,gaps,andconflicts; and 3) the motivation/justification. • Materialandmethods:provideinformationsuchasdatasources(e.g.,bibliographicdatabases),search terms and search strategies, selection criteria (inclusion/exclusion of studies), the number of studies screened and included, and statistical methods of meta-analysis. • Literaturereview:usesubheadingstoindicatethecontentofthevarioussubsections.Possiblestruc-ture:methodologicalapproaches,modelsortheories,extentofsupportforagiventhesis,studies that agree with one another versus studies that disagree, chronological order, and geographical location. • Conclusions:provideimplicationsofthefindingsandyourinterpretations(separatefromfacts),iden­tify unresolved questions, summarize, and draw conclusions. – Acknowledgement: use when relevant. – Reference list: see the guidelines below. 2 Paper submission 2.1 Open journal system Author(s) must submit their contributions through the Acta geographica Slovenica Open Journal System (OJS) using the Word document template. Enter all necessary information into the OJS. Any addition, deletion, or rearrangement of names of the author(s) in the authorship list should be made and confirmed by all coauthors before the manuscript has been accepted, and is only possible if approved by the journal editor. Tomakeanonymouspeerreviewpossible,thepapertextandfiguresshouldnotincludenamesofauthor(s). Donotusecontractionsorexcessiveabbreviations. Useplaintext,withsparinguseof bold and italics. Do not use auto-formatting, such as section or list numbering and bullets. If a text is unsatisfactory,the editorial boardmay return it to theauthor(s)forprofessional copyediting orrejectthepaper. Seethesectiononthepeer-reviewprocessfordetails.Author(s)maysuggestreviewers when submitting a paper. 2.2 Language Papers are published in English. Papers are submitted in English or Slovenian and copyedited/translated after acceptance by a profes­sional chosen by the editorial board. The translation or copyediting costs are borne by the author(s) (translation €500, copyediting €200) and must be paid before layout editing. All papers should have English and Slovenian abstracts. 2.3 Supplementary file submission Supplementary files (figures) can be submitted to the OJS packed in one zip file not exceeding 50 MB. 2.4 Submission date Thejournalpublishesthesubmissiondateofpapers.Pleasecontacttheeditorwithanyquestions. 3 Citations Examples for citing publications are given below. Using “gray literature” is highly discouraged. 3.1 Citing papers • deKerk,G.V.,Manuel,A.R.2008:Acomprehensiveindexforasustainablesociety:TheSSI–theSustainable Society Index. Ecological Economics 66-2,3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.029 • Fridl, J., Urbanc, M., Pipan, P. 2009: The importance of teachers’ perception of space in education. Acta geographica Slovenica 49-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS49205 • Gams, I. 1994a: Types of contact karst. Geografia fisica e dinamica quaternaria 17. • Gams, I. 1994b: Changes of the Triglav glacier in the 1955-94 period in the light of climatic indicators. Geografski zbornik 34. • Perko, D. 1998: The regionalization of Slovenia. Geografski zbornik 38. • van Hall, R. L., Cammeraat, L. H., Keesstra, S. D., Zorn, M. 2016: Impact of secondary vegetation suc­cessiononsoilqualityinahumidMediterraneanlandscape.Catena,Inpress.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.catena.2016.05.021 (25.11.2016). 3.2 Citing books • Cohen, J. 1988: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York. • Fridl, J., Kladnik, D., Perko, D., Orožen Adamič, M. (eds.) 1998: Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana. • Luc,M.,Somorowska,U.,Szmańda,J.B.(eds.)2015:Landscapeanalysisandplanning.Heidelberg.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13527-4 • Nared, J., Razpotnik Visković, N. (eds.) 2014: Managing cultural heritage sites in Southeastern Europe. Ljubljana. 3.3 Citing parts of books or proceedings • Gams,I.1987:AcontributiontotheknowledgeofthepatternofwallsintheMediterraneankarst:acase study on the N. island Hvar, Yugoslavia. Karst and man, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Influence in Karst. Ljubljana. • Hrvatin,M.,Perko,D.,Komac,B.,Zorn,M. 2006:Slovenia. SoilErosioninEurope. Chichester. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/0470859202.ch25 • Komac, B., Zorn, M. 2010: Statistično modeliranje plazovitosti v državnem merilu. Od razumevanja do upravljanja, Naravne nesreče 1. Ljubljana. • Zorn, M., Komac, B. 2013: Land degradation. Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Dordrecht. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4_207 3.4 Citing expert reports, theses, and dissertations • BregValjavec,M.2012:Geoinformaticmethodsforthedetectionofformerwastedisposalsitesinkarstic and nonkarstic regions (case study of dolines and gravel pits). Ph.D. thesis, University of Nova Gorica. Nova Gorica. • Holmes, R. L., Adams, R. K., Fritts, H. C. 1986: Tree-ring chronologies of North America: California, Eastern Oregon and Northern Great Basin with procedures used in the chronology development work includingusermanualforcomputerprogramCOFECHAandARSTAN.ChronologySeries6.University of Arizona, Laboratory of tree-ring research. Tucson. • Hrvatin, M. 2016: Morfometrične značilnosti površja na različnih kamninah v Sloveniji. Ph.D. thesis, Univerza na Primorskem. Koper. • Šifrer, M. 1997: Površje v Sloveniji. Elaborat, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. 3.5 Citing online material with authors and titles • Bender,O.,Borsdorf,A.,Heinrich,K.2010:TheinteractivealpineinformationsystemGALPIS.Challenges formountainregions,Tacklingcomplexity.Internet:http://www.mountainresearch.at/images/Publikationen/ Sonderband/bender-borsdorf-heinrich.pdf (4.8.2014). 3.6 Citing online material without authors • Internet: http://giam.zrc-sazu.si (18.11.2016). • Internet 1: http://giam.zrc-sazu.si/ (22.7.2012). • Internet 2: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (23.7.2012). 3.7 Citing sources without authors • Popisprebivalstva,gospodinjstev,stanovanjinkmečkihgospodarstevvRepublikiSloveniji,1991–končni podatki. Zavod Republike Slovenije za statistiko. Ljubljana, 1993. • WCED–Worldcommissiononenvironmentalanddevelopment:Ourcommonfuture–Brundtlandreport. Oxford, 1987. 3.8 Citing cartographic sources • Buser,S. 1986:OsnovnageološkakartaSFRJ1:100.000,listTolmininVidem(Udine). Saveznigeološki zavod. Beograd. • Digitalni model višin 12,5. Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana, 2005. • DržavnatopografskakartaRepublikeSlovenije1:25.000,listBrežice.GeodetskaupravaRepublikeSlovenije. Ljubljana, 1998. • FranciscejskikatasterzaKranjsko,k.o.Sv.Agata,listA02.ArhivRepublikeSlovenije.Ljubljana,1823–1869. • The vegetation map of forest communities of Slovenia 1:400,000. Biološki inštitut Jovana Hadžija ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana, 2002. 3.9 Citing official gazettes • 1999/847/EC: Council Decision of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection. Official Journal 327, 21.12.1999. • Zakon o kmetijskih zemljiščih. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 59/1996. Ljubljana. • Zakonovarstvuprednaravnimiindrugiminesrečami.UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije64/1994,33/2000, 87/2001, 41/2004, 28/2006 in 51/2006. Ljubljana. 3.10 In-text citations Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also in the reference list (and vice versa). In-text cita­tionsshouldstatethelastnameoftheauthor(s)andtheyear,separateindividualcitationswithsemicolons, order the quotes according to year, and separate the page information from the name of the author(s) and yearinformationwithacomma;forexample:(Melik1955),(Melik,IlešičandVrišer1963;Kokole1974,7–8; Gams 1982a; Gams 1982b). For sources with more than three authors, list only the first followed by et al.: (Melik et al. 1956). Cite page numbers only for direct citations: Perko (2016, 25) states: »Hotspots are…« To cite online material with authors, cite the name: (Zorn 2010). To cite online material without authors, cite only Internet fol­lowed by a number: (Internet 2). 3.11 Works cited list Arrange references alphabetically and then chronologically if necessary. Identify more than one reference by the same author(s) in the same year with the letters a, b, c, etc., after the year of publication: (1999a, 1999b). Use this format for indirect citations: (Gunn 2002, cited in Matei et al. 2014). Include the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) in the reference if available. Format the DOI as follows: https://doi.org/… (for example: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1812). 4 Tables and figures Number all tables in the paper uniformly with their own titles. The number and the text are separated by a colon, and the caption ends with a period. Example: Table 1: Number of inhabitants of Ljubljana. Table 2: Changes in average air temperature in Ljubljana (Velkavrh 2009). Tablesshouldcontainnoformattingandshouldnotbetoolarge;itisrecommendedthattablesnotexceed one page. Upload figures to the OJS as separate supplementary files in digital form. If the graphic supplements prepared cannot be uploaded using these programs, consult the editorial board in advance. Numberallfigures(maps,graphs,photographs)inthepaperuniformlywiththeirowntitles.Example: Figure 1: Location of measurement points along the glacier. All graphic materials must be adapted to the journal’s format. Illustrations should be exactly 134mm wide (one page) or 64mm wide (half page, one column), and the height limit is 200mm. To make anonymous peer review possible, include the name of the author(s) with the title of the illus­tration in the supplementary file metadata, but not in the paper text.MapsshouldbemadeindigitalvectorformwithCorelDraw,AdobeIllustrator,orasimilarprogram,espe­cially if they contain text. They can exceptionally be produced in digital raster form with at least 300 dpi resolution, preferably in TIFF or JPG format. For maps made with CorelDraw or Adobe Illustrator, two separate files should be prepared; the original file (.cdr or .ai format) and an image file (.jpg format). For maps made with ArcGIS with raster layers used next to vector layers (e.g., .tif of relief, airborne or satelliteimage),threefilesshouldbesubmitted:thefirstwithavectorimagewithouttransparencytogeth­er with a legend and colophon (export in .ai format), the second with a raster background (export in .tif format), and the third with all of the content (vector and raster elements) together showing the final ver­sion of the map (export in .jpg format). Do not print titles on maps; they should appear in a caption. Save colors in CMYK, not in RGB or other formats. Use Times New Roman for the legend (size 8) and colophon (size 6). List the author(s), scale, source, and copyright in the colophon. Write the colophon in English (and Slovenian, if applicable). Example: Scale: 1:1,000,000 Content by: Drago Perko Map by: Jerneja Fridl Source: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2002 © 2005, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Graphs should be made in digital form using Excel on separate sheets and accompanied by data. Photos must be in raster format with a resolution of 240 dots per cm or 600 dpi, preferably in .tif or .jpg formats; that is, about 3,200 dots per page width of the journal. Figures containing a screenshot should be prepared at the highest possible screen resolution (Control Panel\AllControlPanelItems\Display\ScreenResolution).ThefigureismadeusingPrintScreen,andthe capturedscreenispastedtotheselectedgraphicprogram(e.g.,Paint)andsavedas.tif.Thesizeoftheimage or its resolution must not be changed.Examples of appropriate graphic data forms: see the templates of maps in cdr and mxd files for a whole­pagemapinlandscapeviewandanexampleofcorrectfilestructureforsubmittingamapmadewithESRI ArcGIS. SUBMISSION PREPARATION CHECKLIST Aspartofthesubmissionprocess,checkyoursubmission’scompliancewiththefollowingitems.Submissions may be returned to author(s) that do not follow these guidelines. 1. The journal policies have been reviewed. 2. The submission has not been previously published and is not being considered for publication else­where (or an explanation has been provided in comments to the editor). 3. Themetadata(title,abstract,keywords,fulladdress,etc.)areprovidedinEnglishandSlovenian,when applicable. 4. The submission isin Microsoft Word format and the document template was used (single-spaced text, 12-point font, no formatting except italics and bold). 5. The manuscript has been checked for spelling and grammar. 6. Allfigurelocationsinthetextaremarked.Figuresarenotinthetextandareprovidedassupplementary files: cdr, .ai for maps and illustrations; .tif for photographs; xlsx for graphs. 7. Tables are placed in the text at the appropriate place. 8. The reference list was prepared following the guidelines. 9. All references in the reference list are cited in the text, and vice versa. 10. Where available, URLs and DOI numbers for references are provided. 11. Supplementary files are in one .zip file not exceeding 50 MB. 12. I agree for this article to be translated or copyedited at my expense AFTER the article is accepted for publication (see guidelines for details). 13. Permissionhasbeenobtainedfortheuseofcopyrightedmaterialfromothersources,includingonline sources; see the copyright notice below. 14. The instructions for ensuring a double-blind review have been followed. ACTAGEOGRAPHICASLOVENICAEDITORIALREVIEWFORM Acta geographica Slovenica editorial review form 1 The paper is an original scientific one – the paper follows the standard IMRAD scheme and is original andthefirstpresentationofresearchresultswiththefocusonmethods,theoreticalaspectsorcasestudy.) Yes No 2 The paper's content is suitable for publishing in the AGS journal – the paper is from the field of geog-raphyorrelatedfieldsofinterest,thepresentedtopicisinterestingandwellpresented.Incaseofnegative answer add comments below.) Yes No 3 Editorial notes regarding the paper's content. 4 Length of the paper is acceptable for further processing (25.000 characters including space). If longer, the paper has to be shortened by the author and resubmitted. • The paper has less than 25.000 characters. • The paper has more than 25.000 characters, but less than 30.000. • The paper has more than 30.000 characters. 5 ThestyleandformattingofthepaperisaccordingtotheAGSguidelines–thepaperispreparedinplain text,noothertextformattingisusedthanboldanditalic.SeetheGuidelinesofAGSjournalfordetails.) Yes No 6 Notes regarding style and formatting. 7 Citing in the paper is according to the AGS guidelines and style, including DOI identificators. Yes No 8 The reference list is suitable (the author cites previously published papers with similar topic from other relevant scientific journal). Yes, the author cited previously published papers on similar topic. No, the author did not cite previously published papers on similar topic. 9 Scientific language of the paper is appropriate and understandable. Yes No 10 Supplementary files (ai, cdr, pdf, tif, jpg, xlsx etc.) that were added to the paper are in proper format andresolution(includingtheintroductoryphoto),mapsarepreparedaccordingtotheAGSGuidelines. (In this step contact the technical editor [rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.si] for assistance if needed). • Supplementary files are correct. • Supplementary files are not appropriate and need a major correction. • Some supplementary files need corrections. 11 Describe the possible deficiencies of the supplementary files: 12 DECISION OF THE RESPONSIBLE EDITOR The paper is accepted for further processing and may be sent to the reviewer. The paper is accepted for further processing but needs technical improvements (see notes). Thepaperisacceptedforfurtherprocessingbutitscontentneedsadditionalimprovements(seenotes). The paper is not accepted for publication because: • It is more suitable for a specialized journal. • Does not fit the aims and scopes of the AGS journal. • Is not an original scientific paper. • The presentation of the results is poor. • The paper is of very low quality. • The paper has already been published elsewhere. • Other (see comments below). • Other reasons for rejection of the paper. ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA REVIEW FORM 1 RELEVANCE 1a) Are the findings original and the paper is therefore a significant one? Yes No Partly 1b) Is the paper suitable for the subject focus of the AGS journal? Yes No 2 SIGNIFICANCE 2a Does the paper discuss an important problem in geography or related fields? Yes No Partly 2b Does it bring relevant results for contemporary geography? Yes No Partly 2c What is the level of the novelty of research presented in the paper? High Middle Low 3 ORIGINALITY 3a Has the paper been already published or is too similar to work already published? Yes No 3b Does the paper discuss a new issue? Yes No 3c Are the methods presented sound and adequate? Yes No Partly 3d Do the presented data support the conclusions? Yes No Partly 4 CLARITY 4a Is the paper clear, logical and understandable? Yes No 4b If necessary, add comments and recommendations to improve the clarity of the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods or conclusion: 5 QUALITY 5a Isthepapertechnicallysound?(Ifno,theauthorshoulddiscusstechnicaleditor[rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.si] for assistance.) Yes No 5b Does the paper take into account relevant current and past research on the topic? Yes No Propose amendments, if no is selected: 5d Is the references list the end of the paper adequate? Yes No Propose amendments, if no is selected: 5e Is the quoting in the text appropriate? Yes No Partly Propose amendments, if no is selected: 5f Which tables are not necessary? 5g Which figures are not necessary? 6 COMMENTS OF THE REVIEWER Comments of the reviewer on the contents of the paper: Comments of the reviewer on the methods used in the paper: 7 RECOMMENDATION OF THE REVIEWER TO THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF My recommendation is: Please rate the paper from 1 [low] to 100 [high]: Personal notes of the reviewer to editor-in-chief. COPYRIGHT NOTICE TheActageographicaSlovenicaeditorialboardandthepublisher,theZRCSAZUAntonMelikGeographical Institute, are committed to ensuring ethics in publication and the quality of published books and jour­nalsbyfollowingtheActaGeographicaSlovenicaPublicationEthicsandPublicationMalpracticeStatement. Authorsmustrespectthecopyrightrulesofdataowners;forexample,therulesoftheSlovenianSurveying and Mapping Authority are available at its webpage. ForpapersenttoActageographicaSlovenica,authorsagreethatallmoralrightsoftheauthorsremainwith the authors; material rights to reproduction and distribution in Slovenia and other countries are exclusively cededtothepublisherfornofee,foralltime,forallcases,forunlimitededitions,andforallmedia;andmate­rialrightstothepaperfigures(maps,photos,graphs,etc.)arecededtothepublisheronanon-exclusivebasis. Authors allow publication of the paper or its components on the internet. Authors give permission to the publisher to modify the paper to conform to its guidelines, including the length of the paper. Authors shall provide a professional translation of papers not originally in English. The name of the translator must be reported to the editor. No honoraria are paid for papers in Acta geographica Slovenica or for the reviews. The first author of the paper shall receive one free copy of the publication. PRIVACY STATEMENT Thenamesande-mailaddressesprovidedtothisjournalsitewillbeusedexclusivelyforthestatedpurposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. PUBLISHER Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts PO Box 306 SI–1001 Ljubljana Slovenia SOURCES OF SUPPORT Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Slovenian Research Agency JOURNAL HISTORY Acta geographica Slovenica (printversion:ISSN: 1581-6613, digital version: ISSN: 1581-8314) was founded in 1952. It was originally named Geografski zbornik / Acta geographica (ISSN 0373-4498). Altogether 42 volumes were published. In 2002 Geographica Slovenica (ISSN 0351-1731, founded in 1971, 35 volumes) was merged with the journal. Since2003(fromvolume43onward)thenameofthejointjournalhasbeenActageographicaSlovenica. The journal continues the numbering system of the journal Geografski zbornik / Acta geographica. Those interested in the history of the journal are invited to read the paper »The History of Acta geo­graphica Slovenica in volume 50-1.« All published issues of Acta geographica Slovenica are available free of charge at http://ags.zrc-sazu.si or http://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/ags. ISSN: 1581-6613 UDC – UDK: 91 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-3 2019 © 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Print/tisk: Birografika Bori Ljubljana 2019 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-3 • 2019 Contents Aleš SMREKAR, Mateja BREG VALJAVEC, Katarina POLAJNAR HORVAT, Jernej TIRAN The geography of urban environmental protection in Slovenia: The case of Ljubljana ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010