Acta geographica Slovenica, 45-1, 2005, 7-33 FROM DRAWING COGNITIVE MAPS TO KNOWING THE PROTECTION ZONES FOR DRINKING WATER RESOURCES Z RISANJEM SPOZNAVNIH ZEMLJEVIDOV DO POZNAVANJA VARSTVENIH PASOV VIROV PITNE VODE Ale{ Smrekar Brest water pumping station (photograph: Ale{ Smrekar) Vodarna Brest (fotografija: Ale{ Smrekar). Ale{ Smrekar, From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources UDC: 628.1:912(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT: Using a sample of 900 persons from the urban area of Ljubljansko polje and the suburban area of I{ki vr{aj, we tried to determine how much local residents knew about the protection zones for drinking water resources. We employed a survey questionnaire and the drawing of cognitive maps. A litt-le fewer than half of the people are aware they live in water protection zones. The proportions of those who are aware of the protection zones in Ljubljansko polje (two fifths) and in I{ki vr{aj (two thirds) dif-fer considerably. Only 280 persons, just under one third of those surveyed, drew the boundaries of the protection zones on the attached map. In Ljubljansko polje, the greatest concentration of drawn protection zones was a little north of the oldest and largest pumping station at Kle~e. The second largest condensa-tion occurred in I{ki vr{aj in the immediate vicinity of the Brest pumping station. KEY WORDS: drinking water, water-protection area, questionnaire, cognitive map, Ljubljansko polje, I{ki vr{aj, Slovenia. The article submitted for publication on February 27, 2006. ADDRESS: Ale{ Smrekar, Ph. D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Contents 1 Introduction 9 2 Methods 11 3 Results 13 3.1 Awareness of protection zones for drinking water resources - questionnaire 13 3.2 Familiarity with protection zones for drinking water resources - cognitive maps 15 4 Conclusion 22 5 References 23 8 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 1 Introduction Ensuring a sufficient amount of drinking water in Europe and Slovenia depends primarily on the reser-ves of groundwater. We know that very diverse interests occur and often conflict on alluvial plains over the largest reserves of drinking water, but appropriate water management programs can provide the moni-toring and directing of encroachments on the land (Kladnik et al. 2002; Rejec Brancelj 2003; Urbanc, Breg 2005). The relationship between urban land use and the protection of drinking water resources ranks among the most distinct modern spatial conflicts. The more a city and its functions develop, the more affected are the quality and quantity of water resources suitable for drinking. The rich reserves of groundwater in the immediate vicinity and even below a large part of Ljubljana, estimated at 100 million m3 with dynamic reserves (the value of the lowest volume of flow) of 2 m3/sec, are a natural resource of regional importance (Rejec Brancelj et al. 2005). More than a century after the installation of a central waterworks system, the groundwater of Ljubljansko polje is still the most impor-tant source of drinking water for the supply of Ljubljana. It provides 90% of the required quantity while the remaining 10% is pumped from the I{ki vr{aj aquifer near the settlement of Brest on the southern edge of the Ljubljansko Barje moor, an area outside the City Municipality of Ljubljana in the neighbou-ring municipality of Ig. Drinking water from the groundwater of Ljubljansko polje is extracted by four pumping stations: Kle~e, [entvid, Hrastje, and Jar{ki prod. The first two are on the western part of Ljubljansko polje between compactly built-up urban land to the south, west, and east, and the Sava River to the north. Between the-se two stations are the still active farming settlements of Kle~e and Savlje. The Hrastje pumping station is located in the eastern part of Ljubljansko polje between the Moste industrial zone to the south and [mar-tinska cesta street to the right bank of the Sava River. The Jar{ki prod pumping station is located on the left bank of the Sava River south of the ^rnu~e industrial zone that runs west to east between ^rnu~e and Nadgorica. The fifth pumping station supplying Ljubljana is in the I{ki vr{aj area of the Ljubljansko Barje moor, the Brest pumping station located south of the settlement of the same name. The water protection zones around pumping stations in Ljubljansko polje were first defined by decree in 1955 (Odlok… 1955). They proved decisive for the protection of the water resource because they limi-ted the spread of the city in the vicinity of pumping stations (Breznik 1988). The boundaries were respected relatively consistently, but after 1966 the construction of individual houses and new neighbourhoods was permitted; thus appeared the eastern part of Savlje, the southern part of Kle~e, part of Toma~evo, and the industrial zone along Letali{ka cesta street. A new decree on water protection zones was passed in 1977 (Odlok… 1977) that also defined the protection zone around the Jar{ki prod pumping station. In addi-tion, wider (third) and influence (fourth) protection zones were defined that included areas from which water percolates or flows directly into the groundwater. Because their priority was not protection, the construction of homes and other buildings connected to the public sewage system and protected from the seeping of harmful substances into the groundwater was allowed in these zones. The protection zones for drinking water resources in Ljubljansko polje and for the first time in I{ki vr{aj discussed in this paper were defined in 1988 by the Decree on the Protection of Drinking Water Resources (Odlok… 1988), which compared with the previous decree did not bring any substantial changes to Ljubljansko polje. This decree still applies for I{ki vr{aj, while in 2004 a new Decree on the Water Protec-tion Area for the Ljubljansko polje Aquifer was passed for the Ljubljansko polje area (Uredba… 2004). Water protection areas are divided into three protection zones for drinking water resources: • the first or narrowest protection zone is devoted exclusively to the areas immediately surrounding instal-lations for the supply of drinking water (41.35 ha in Ljubljansko polje and 13.8 ha in I{ki vr{aj); • the second or narrow protection zone with a strict protection regime is intended for the direct protec-tion of pumping stations from pollution (total 1,942.71 ha in Ljubljansko polje and 520.7 ha in I{ki vr{aj); • the third or wider protection zone with a moderate protection regime is devoted to protecting the flow of groundwater toward the pumping stations (total 3,618.95 ha in Ljubljansko polje and 521.3 ha in I{ki vr{aj); A comprehensive approach of water management aims at economic efficiency on one hand and sustai-nable management on the other. Documents that discuss achieving social consensus on environmental decisions by including all interest groups in the decision-making process are increasingly important. 9 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Peter Frantar AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 012345 Protection zone/Varstveni pas ^™ I protection zone/ I. varstveni pas II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas III protection zone/ III. varstveni pas Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 An environmental awareness of water as a natural resource is a precondition for active cooperation in decision-making processes regarding land use plans and for the preservation and protection of qua-lity water resources and water in general. It is generally assumed that the population of Ljubljana and its surroundings is sufficiently environ-mentally aware. However, this stereotype is soon refuted when we consider the numerous illegal waste dumps, porous septic tanks and dung pits, the unsuitable use of phytopharmaceutical substances in agri-culture, and the unsupervised individual pumping of water (Kladnik 2002; Rejec Brancelj 2000; Kladnik et al. 2003; Smrekar in Kladnik 2004; Breg et al. 2005), all of which are significantly influenced by the actions of individuals. Experience thus far indicates that environmental awareness is closely linked to the soci-oeconomic structure, but it is also the result of long-term success in providing information and educating the population. We consider the population to be the agent and the beneficiary or victim of changes in the environment and an active or passive transformer of the landscape. In this study, we set ourselves the goal of determining and assessing public awareness of the protection zones for drinking water resources. 2 Methods In the context of a broader research project (Smrekar 2005), we tried to determine, among other things, how local residents perceive the environment in which they live. Since the people surveyed came from various areas, we were able to determine differences and similarities between specific groups and, above all, the reasons for greater or lesser environmental awareness. We were also interested how familiar local residents are with the protection zones for drinking water resources and therefore employed a combined survey method using a questionnaire and cognitive maps. In the broader research project, we studied the population supplied by drinking water via the Ljubljana waterworks system. In the period of the study (2003 and 2004), the included population lived in the protection zones for drinking water resources in Ljubljansko polje and I{ki vr{aj (Odlok… 1988) or their vicinity. A questionnaire is a method of gaining an empirical insight into a selected population and its pat-terns (To{ 1988). Our sample included 900 people. Two thirds of the questionnaires were given out in the urban environment of Ljubljansko polje and one third in the suburban environment in I{ki vr{aj. One third (300) of the questionnaires were given to »active« burdeners of groundwater in the narrower protection zones (100 farmers and 100 allotment holders in Ljubljansko polje and 100 farmers in I{ki vr{aj), one third (300) to »passive« burdeners (people who only reside in these areas) in the wider protection zone, and one third (300) to users of drinking water from the studied pumping stations who do not live in the protection zones. We achieved a representative pattern of the study population by following two demographic criteria, age and gender. The study also included the method of cognitive maps, which previously has rarely been employed in geography (Gams et al. 1993; Klemen~i~ 2002; Natek 2002a; Natek 2002b) and is more often used by psychologists. Along with primarily theoretical speculations, cognitive maps appeared and were used most-ly because of practical planning questions. They referred mainly to land use and the distribution of resources as well as to links with conceptions about the environment. Among other things, cognitive maps emplo-yed in studies of relationships between people and the environment can contribute to a more reasonable use of natural resources, encourage individuals to become involved in development and planning of a more efficient implementation of changes, and help in the preservation and recording of perceptions of the environment (Poli~ 2002; after Wyhte). Cognitive maps, a procedure through which we try to establish how people conceptualize the spatial relationships and characteristics of their environment, can be an important means of acquiring the information necessary to establish the situation, and on this basis, for further planning. Cognitive maps offer at least two types of information: • directly perceptible experience, and • cognitive processing of personal experience. There are many methods. We decided to acquire our information using a socio-spatial form. This is a more structured type of research using cognitive maps. The people surveyed were asked to encircle the area they believed was a protection zone for drinking water resources for the supply of the population. 11 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Mateja Breg \.. ^-,, © AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 K V 012345 farmers/kmetovalci ( ) allotment holders/vrti~karji r^ number of maps/ {tevilo anket II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas border of protection zone/ _, , III protection zone/ III. varstveni pas outside protection zones/ zunaj varstvenih pasov Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 In drawing such maps, individuals' drawings of the environment appear as the results of their previ-ous knowledge of maps containing location information (boundaries of protection zones). Individuals' drawings of the environment correspond with their perceptions of land use. We distinguish geographi-cal and behavioural environments because those living in the same geographical environment live in different behavioural environments and acquire information using all the senses (Poli~ 2002). Along with answering the questions asked in the survey, we asked each of those questioned to draw the boundary of a protection zone or the boundaries of several zones of drinking water resources suppl-ying the inhabitants of Ljubljana and its surroundings on a black-and-white, A3 format, approximately 1:73,000-scale map of the wider Ljubljana area covering the area between Zbilje in the northwest, Prevo-je pri [entvidu in the northeast, Smrekovec near Rakitna in the southwest, and the Kremenica hill near Predole in the southeast. Before presenting the maps, we explained to those surveyed that the ground-water is protected from pollution by the Decree on the Protection of Drinking Water Resources and that it is necessary to ensure suitable conditions for the quality and quantity of healthy water. Some 280 persons or just under a third (31.1%) of the 900 people surveyed attempted to draw the boundaries of the water protection zones. Of these, 163 or about one quarter (27.1%) of the total survey group were from Ljubljansko polje and produced just under three fifths or 58.2% of all the drawings) whi-le 117 or just under two fifths (39.0%) were from I{ki vr{aj and produced two fifths or 41.7% of all the drawings. We consider this a relatively good response because the question was intended only for those who are actually supposed to know where the boundaries of the water protection zones run. The cartographic material was prepared using the ARC GIS computer program. 3 Results 3.1 Awareness of protection zones for drinking water resources - questionnaire The key document in establishing how familiar those surveyed are with the study topic is the Decree on the Protection of Drinking Water Resources (Odlok… 1988), which included Ljubljansko polje and I{ki vr{aj. Since our survey was made in 2003 before the passing of the latest decree that applies just to Ljubljansko polje, this study considers the former boundaries of the water protection zones. After more than fifteen years of the decree's existence, we asked those surveyed whether they live (or have a garden allotment) in the water protection zone for the supply of Ljubljana and its surroundings established by the decree. From the answers of all those surveyed (from within and outside the protection zones), we found that 439 people or 48.8% answered correctly, certain they do or do not live or have gardens in water protection zones. Half of those who live outside the water protection zones (50.5% in Ljubljansko polje and 47.0% in I{ki vr{aj) responded that they do not live in water protection zones. Almost one third (31.2%) did not know the answer to the question. Analyzing the figures for just the water protection zones, we found that just under half of these people (48.5%) were aware they lived in a water protection zone. The proportions of those who know this in Ljubljansko polje (only 39.0%) and I{ki vr{aj (67.5%) differ greatly. Farmers are most aware that they live in protection zones; however, the percentages for the two areas are reversed with more than three quar-ters in Ljubljansko polje (77.0%) aware compared with just over two thirds in I{ki vr{aj (68.0%). It is obvious that farmers in Ljubljansko polje are more affected by various public services and therefore know exact-ly where they live. Farmers in I{ki vr{aj are less familiar with the boundaries. This is probably the result of less intensive cooperation with various services and the lack of intermunicipal cooperation between the City Municipality of Ljubljana and Municipality of Ig. The explanation for the lower proportion of correct answers among allotment holders (56.0%) lies in the fact that these those surveyed have a poor knowledge of the areas where they have their gardens, which are frequently far from their place of residence. The lowest proportion of correct answers occurred in the wider protection zone in Ljubljansko polje: only alittle more than a tenth of the people (11.5%) were aware they lived in a water protection zone, while more than a third (36.5%) did not believe they lived in a protection zone at all. While the people in Ljubljansko polje are somewhat familiar with the narrow protection areas around the pumping stations, which they know or at least assume are areas protected by law, the wider protection areas for the pumping stations are too distant to have any connection in their minds. It is quite clear that they are not systematically informed about the areas in which they live. 13 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Peter Frantar © AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 ¦ yes/da ¦ no/ne D I do not know/ne vem ¦ other/drugo 0 1 2345 ^H I protection zone/ I. varstveni pas II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas III protection zone/ III. varstveni pas outside protection zones/ zunaj varstvenih pasov border of protection zone/ meja varstvenega pasu OUTSIDE PZ/ Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 We expected those surveyed who answered whether they lived in a water protection zone to be able to state the name of the zone correctly. However, the proportion of those who at least approximately sta-ted the correct name (name of pumping station, area, or entire protection zone) was just above one quarter (26.5%), and of these, in spite of the half smaller sample, almost half were from I{ki vr{aj (45.5%). Names considered correct included Ljubljanski vodovod (»Ljubljana Waterworks«), Barje, I{ki vr{aj, Brest, Ig, and Matena for the I{ki vr{aj area and Ljubljanski vodovod, Ljubljana, [entvid, Stegne, Kle~e, Savlje, ^rnu~e, Jar{ki prod, Savski prod, and Hrastje for the Ljubljansko polje area. The farmers of I{ki vr{aj contribu-ted a surprisingly low proportion of approximately correct names (36.0%), and those surveyed in the wider water protection zones in Ljubljansko polje were practically without correct answers (3.0%). 3.2 Familiarity with protection zones for drinking water resources -cognitive maps With this inquiry we wished to determine whether the residents of the studied areas know that they live in areas that are protected by law as areas for the protection of drinking water resources. This time, howe-ver, we were interested not only in their behaviour but primarily in their knowledge of the boundaries. Using cognitive maps we acquired cognitive processing of personal experience. Some 280 of the 900 peo-ple surveyed, just under one third (31.1%), contributed maps. Of the 280 boundaries of protection zones drawn, six tenths are from Ljubljansko polje (58.2%) and four tenths from I{ki vr{aj (41.8%). Although this ratio does not reflect the ratio of questionnaires filled out in the two study areas (600:300), it is more advantageous from the viewpoint of interpretation since it would be more difficult to visually distinguish between two thirds of drawn boundaries of those surveyed from Ljubljansko polje and one third from I{ki vr{aj. Furthermore, given the answers of those surveyed to whether they live in a protection zone cove-red by a decree, the number of boundary drawers from the two areas is not surprising. Table 1: Survey participants who drew boundaries of water protection zones for the supply of Ljubljana and its surroundings (Smrekar 2005; N = 280). Total Proportion of participants of all Proportion of participants participants those surveyed in group (%) of all those surveyed (%) Ljubljansko polje Farmers 38 38.0% 4.2% Ljubljansko polje Allotment holders 25 25.0% 2.8% Ljubljansko polje narrower protection zone- total 63 31.5% 7.0% Ljubljansko polje Wider protection zone 65 32.5% 7.2% Ljubljansko polje Narrower and wider protection zone 128 32.0% 14.2% Ljubljansko polje Outside protection zones 35 17.5% 3.9% Ljubljansko polje Total 163 27.2% 18.1% I{ki vr{aj Narrower protection zone 45 45.0% 5.0% I{ki vr{aj wider protection zone 45 45.0% 5.0% I{ki vr{aj Narrower and wider protection zone 90 45.0% 10.0% I{ki vr{aj Outside protection zones 27 27.0% 3.0% I{ki vr{aj Total 117 39.0% 13.0% Total 280 31.1% 31.1% 15 Ale{ Smrekar, From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources kilometers/kilometri 0123 45 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Peter Frantar © AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 r~n from I{ki vr{aj/ ^-> z I{kega vr{aja /~o from Ljubljansko polje/ ^-> z Ljubljanskega polja ^m I protection zone/ ¦ I. varstveni pas II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas i III protection zone/ I III. varstveni pas Figure 4: Water protection zones for the supply of Ljubljana and its surroundings, as drawn by all those surveyed (Smrekar 2005; N = 280). 16 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 A look at the map of all drawn areas shows certain concentrations. In Ljubljansko polje, the largest concentration is in the area of the settlement of Kle~e, north of the Kle~e pumping station, with a large concentration of answers. The concentration spreads relatively concentrically but with a very small cross-sec-tion from the settlement toward the Kle~e and [entvid pumping stations. The latter is merely a coincidence since other answers indicate that the population is largely unaware of the [entvid pumping station. The concentration »cloud« becomes quite scattered toward the southeast, but it again becomes detectable in the shape of a less intensely concentrated ellipse around the Hrastje pumping station. North of it, on the left bank of the Sava River, a careful observer will notice a less distinct but still recognizable ellipse around the Jar{ki prod pumping station. Two overlapping elliptical shapes are probably the consequence of the visible spatial boundary represented by the Sava River. We could also join them as one uniform, less domi-nant circle, like the one spread around the Kle~e pumping station. The southern part of Ljubljansko polje, we could say the majority of the wider protection zone, is not rooted in the consciousness of people as a protected area. If those surveyed drew the boundaries of protection zones quite widely, in addition to Ljubljansko polje the majority of cases also included elevations such as Ro`nik, Castle Hill, and part of Golovec and on Ljubljansko Barje moor approached the nort-hern edge of I{ki vr{aj. The second strongest concentration is observed in I{ki vr{aj in the immediate vicinity of the Brest pumping station, with boundaries concentrated in the west along the foot of the Krim hills. Those surveyed apparently believe that the edge between the flat and elevated areas represents the boundary of the protection zone. Slightly blurred although still relatively distinct, the concentration »cloud« spreads toward south and east of the alluvial fan. It is interesting that the »cloud« reaches well onto the Ljubljansko Barje moor, reaching the eastern part of Ig and all the way to the southern Ljubljana expressway in the north. Those surveyed less frequently link I{ki Vintgar with the protected area. Analysis of answers according to individual groups is even more interesting. Those surveyed in the narrower protection zone, the farmers and garden allotment holders, obviously know where the narro-wer protection zones are located but often equate them with the external boundaries of protection zones. There are major concentrations of lines in the shape of a circle near the settlement of Kle~e and two ellipses near the Hrastje and Jar{ki prod pumping stations. The wider protection zone is less distinctly perceptible. Another concentration is perceptible south of Ljubljana that is widely disposed with its center gravita-ting north from I{ki vr{aj to the area of ^rna vas and Lipe. Farmers drew the boundary very widely; and in some cases it reaches from the southern edge of Ljubljansko polje all the way to the southern edge of I{ki vr{aj. Among allotment holders, this boundary is substantially more concentrated in a narrow zone from the center of the Ljubljansko Barje moor to the center of I{ki vr{aj, but with a smaller number of repetitions. Those surveyed from the wider water protection zone of Ljubljansko polje see the boundary of the protection area quite differently. Here, no concentrations on smaller areas are perceptible, with rare excep-tions in the vicinity of the Kle~e pumping station. Mainly we can trace a large vertical ellipse drawn from the northern edge of Ljubljansko polje to the southern edge of I{ki vr{aj with the perceptible distinction of two areas around the center of the Ljubljansko Barje moor. Only 17.5% of those surveyed from the edge of Ljubljansko polje who live outside the water protection zones were prepared to draw the boundaries. It appears they know the location of the Brest pumping station (from where they receive the majority of water) relatively well, they know somewhat less about Hrastje and Jar{ki prod, and by drawing one circle around the Kle~e and [entvid pumping stations they probably again proved that they do not know the exact location of the Kle~e pumping station, much less the one at [entvid. To generalize, we determined that they reduced the protection zones in Ljubljansko polje mostly to their northern and eastern sides along the Sava River and expanded the protection zones in I{ki vr{aj in a conical shape northwards all the way to the center of the Ljubljansko Barje moor. Those surveyed from the narrower water protection zone in I{ki vr{aj showed highly unusual know-ledge of protection zones, especially in their local area. Given their very solid knowledge of the fact that they live in a protection zone, we would expect that they have a clear spatial picture as well. However, in comparison with the farmers from Ljubljansko polje who limited themselves to drawing boundaries in the immediate vicinity of the pumping stations, the farmers in I{ki vr{aj only occasionally drew the immediate surroundings of the Brest pumping station. Along the western and southern edge of I{ki vr{aj, the drawings as a rule reach the foot of the Krim hills, although they frequently also stretch southeast high into the hills. The area bordered to the north stretching almost to the southern Ljubljana expressway and 17 Ale{ Smrekar, From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources kilometers/kilometri 012345 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Peter Frantar © AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 farmers/kmetovalci allotment holders/vrti~karji I protection zone/ I. varstveni pas II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas III protection zone/ III. varstveni pas Figure 5: Water protection zones for the supply of Ljubljana and its surroundings, as drawn by surveyed farmers and allotment holders from Ljubljansko polje. (Smrekar 2005; N = 63). 18 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 kilometers/kilometri 012345 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Peter Frantar © AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 from wider protection zone/ s {ir{ega varstvenega pasu outside protection zones/ zunaj varstvenih pasov I protection zone/ I. varstveni pas II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas III protection zone/ III. varstveni pas Figure 6: Water protection zones for the supply of Ljubljana and its surrounding, as drawn by those surveyed from the wider water protection zone of Ljubljansko polje and outside it (Smrekar 2005; N = 100). 19 Ale{ Smrekar, From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources kilometers/kilometri 0123 45 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Peter Frantar © AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 Q3 farmers/kmetovalci ^m I protection zone/ B I. varstveni pas II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas i III protection zone/ 1 III. varstveni pas Figure 7: Water protection zones for the supply of Ljubljana and its surroundings, as drawn by farmers from I{ki vr{aj (Smrekar 2005; N = 45). 20 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 kilometers/kilometri 01 Author/Avtor: Ale{ Smrekar Cartography/Kartografija: Peter Frantar © AMGI SRC SASA/GIAM ZRC SAZU, 2005 (~^> s {ir{ vvider rsttection zone/ v^O s širšega varstvenega p asu ousiide protection zone s/ p unaj vastveniih pasov I prst eciion zone/ varstven n pas II protection zone/ II. varstveni pas III protection zone/ III. varstveni pas Figure 8: Protection zones of drinking water resources for the supply of Ljubljana and its surroundings, as drawn by those surveyed from the wider I{ki vr{aj water protection zone and outside it (Smrekar 2005; N = 72). 21 Ale{ Smrekar, From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources to the west where it almost reaches the western edge of Vnanje Gorice is often surprisingly wide. The sec-ond boundary concentration is in the wider zone of the Sava River in Ljubljansko polje with distorted boundaries between individual narrow areas of the pumping stations. Surprisingly many farmers from I{ki vr{aj view I{ki vr{aj and Ljubljansko polje as a unified protection area that includes the Ljubljansko Barje moor located between them, but apparently none of them are aware that the protection zone in I{ki vr{aj also reaches deep into I{ki Vintgar. Those surveyed from the wider I{ki vr{aj water protection zone are surprisingly well informed, perhaps the most among the studied groups, about their protection zone. The western and southern boundaries, as well as the part stretching toward I{ki Vintgar, are often drawn very accurately, while to the north and east the boundaries spread outwards. In just a few cases the boundary is liberally drawn toward the center of the Ljubljansko Barje moor, but none of them links this area with Ljubljansko polje in one uniform protection area. Accor-ding to those who believe that Ljubljansko polje is a protected zone, the boundary in Ljubljansko polje obviously runs exclusively along the Sava River with specially demarcated areas around the pumping stations. Only a quarter (27.0%) of those surveyed outside water protection zones from the edge of I{ki vr{aj respond-ed to the request to draw the boundaries, and these revealed a very poor knowledge of the conditions in Ljubljansko polje since as a rule they drew the boundaries too far toward the north and east. Their knowled-ge of the situation in I{ki vr{aj is much better, although here too - which is interesting - they often drew the area more toward east and north since they obviously believed that they themselves lived in the protection area. Those with elementary school education drew one fifth (21.2%) of all the cognitive maps, while repre-sentatives of the other three education groups drew about three tenths each (32.8%, 29.6%, and 30.5%). We did not manage to identify any significant deviations between different groups regarding knowledge of protection zones. 4 Conclusion The results indicate that a much higher proportion of those surveyed in I{ki vr{aj know that they live in water protection zones than those in Ljubljansko polje. This is probably the consequence of smaller protection areas and the proximity of pumping stations as important objects in their area. In contrast, Ljubljansko polje has a five time larger protected area that loses importance in the consciousness of people with dis-tance from the pumping stations; furthermore, pumping stations do not stand out as much in an urban environment as they do in a more rural setting. The lack of knowledge of farmers in I{ki vr{aj is alarming since we know that agricultural advisors constantly inform them about activities allowed in protection zones. Undoubtedly, they are less exposed to the even more aggressive pressures from various professional services experienced by the farmers in Ljubljansko polje reflected by their better knowledge of the decree. Cognitive maps are certainly an appropriate supplement to classical geographical surveys. That the response was not high is probably the consequence of the modest spatial image of people in general and probably in particular of their unfamiliarity with the problem presented. Certain generalities appeared. In their drawings, the residents of Ljubljansko polje and the surroundings focused particularly on the areas around pumping stations or included an area that is much wider than just Ljubljansko polje, mainly toward the south. It is gratifying that they are aware of another protection zone south of Ljubljansko polje, although it is drawn too far to the north in the Ljubljansko Barje moor. It is surprising that the residents of I{ki vr{aj and the surrounding area have such poor knowledge of regional conditions, outlining the area of Ljubljansko polje much less distinctly and mainly following the course of the Sava River. In I{ki vr{aj we detected a minor concentration around pumping stations, but the expansion of the area, especially eastwards to the eastern edge of Ig and northwards partly to ^rna vas and Lipe and even as far as the southern Ljubljana expressway, is very evident. In their work, geographers rely greatly on geographical divisions or the regions derived from them. Regrettably, our results indicate that with the exception of the Krim hills, those surveyed as a rule did not know the natural boundaries that determine the definition of water protection zones in Ljubljansko polje and I{ki vr{aj. Very often, those surveyed connected Ljubljansko polje and the Ljubljansko Barje moor across Ro`nik, Castle Hill, and Golovec into a single area or could not distinguish I{ki vr{aj from the Ljubljansko Barje moor. Obviously, the statement that we get individuals' images that are in harmony with their perception of space but often very different from the objective environment is quite true. 22 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 Water protection zones have existed for decades, since the first decree to protect the areas around pum-ping stations is already more than half a century old (Odlok… 1955). In spite of this, it is obvious that the regulations never really took hold since many people living in these areas have no knowledge of them and they do not actually limit people in their everyday lives and activities. A lack of information and education are the key problems we face in both studied areas in all soci-oeconomic groups. We can state that people in general are still insufficiently informed and environmentally educated or aware about water as a natural resource to be willing or able to actively cooperate in the protection of water as a natural resource or participate in decision-making processes regarding land use plans for the preservation of the quality of water as existing declarations and adopted legislation allows and obli-ges them to. 5 References Breg, M., Fridl, J., Kladnik, D., Smrekar, A. 2005: Vrednotenje nedovoljenih odlagali{~ odpadkov glede na nujnost njihove sanacije. Geografski vestnik 77-1, str. 89-101. Ljubljana. Breznik, M. 1988: Analiza odlokov o za{~iti ljubljanskih virov pitne vode. Ljubljanski ekolo{ki dnevi 88. Ljubljana. Gams, I., Resnik Planinc, T., Saarinen, T. F. 1993: Poznavanje dr`av sveta pri slovenskih in tujih dijakih. Geografija v {oli 3, str. 118-129. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D. 2002: Pomen in perspektive kmetijstva znotraj ljubljanskega avtocestnega obro~a. Geografski vestnik 75-2, str. 35-52. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D., Rejec Brancelj, I., Smrekar, A. 2002: Integralna obremenjenost prodnih ravnin Slovenije. V: Bufon, M. (ur.): Geografija in njene aplikativne mo`nosti. Dela 18, str. 635-648. Ljubljana. Kladnik, D., Rejec Brancelj, I., Smrekar, A. 2003: Dung installations as dangerous point sources burde- ning the groundwater of Ljubljansko polje = Gnojni objekti kot nevarni to~kovni viri obremenjevanja podtalnice Ljubljanskega polja. Acta geographica Slovenica 43-2, str. 121-139. Ljubljana. Klemen~i~, M. M. 2002: Miselna slika pokrajin. V: Poli~, M. (ur.), Repov{, G. (ur.): Spoznavni zemljevid Slovenije. Razprave Filozofske fakultete, str. 161-180. Ljubljana. Natek, K. 2002: Risanje zemljevida Slovenije. V: Poli~, M. (ur.), Repov{, G. (ur.): Spoznavni zemljevid Slovenije. Razprave Filozofske fakultete, str. 211-251. Ljubljana. Natek, K. 2002: Odnos do doma~ega kraja (pokrajine) in njegovih (njenih) problemov. V: Poli~, M. (ur.), Repov{, G. (ur.): Spoznavni zemljevid Slovenije. Razprave Filozofske fakultete, str. 211-251. Ljubljana. Odlok o varstvenih pasovih vodnih virov v Ljubljani in ukrepih za zavarovanje voda. Uradni list SRS 18,1977. Ljubljana. Odlok o varstvu virov pitne vode. Uradni list RS 13, 1988. Ljubljana. Odlok o za{~itnem pasu Mestnega vodovoda MOL. Uradni list LRS 3, 1955. Ljubljana. Poli~, M. 2002: Doumevanje okolja. V: Poli~, M. (ur.), Repov{, G. (ur.): Spoznavni zemljevid Slovenije. Razprave Filozofske fakultete, str. 15-55. Ljubljana. Rejec Brancelj, I. 2000: Okoljski u~inki intenzivnega kmetovanja v rastlinjakih. V: Gabrovec, Matej (ur.), Oro`en Adami~, Milan (ur.): Ljubljana: geografija mesta, str. 185-193. Ljubljana. Rejec Brancelj, I. 2003: Kmetijstvo v Sloveniji z vidika obremenjevanja okolja. Geografski vestnik 75-2, str. 53-64. Ljubljana. Rejec Brancelj, I. (ur.), Smrekar, A. (ur.), Kladnik, D. 2005: Podtalnica Ljubljanskega polja, Geografija Slovenije 10. Ljubljana. Smrekar, A. 2005: Zavest o rabi vode kot naravnega vira. Doktorska disertacija, Fakulteta za humanisti~ne {tudije Koper Univerze na Primorskem. Koper. Smrekar, A., Kladnik, D. 2004: Popis vodnjakov in vrtin v zasebni lasti na obmo~ju vodnih virov Mestne ob~ine Ljubljana. Elaborat, Geografski in{titut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. To{, N. 1988: Metode dru`boslovnega raziskovanja. Dr`avna zalo`ba Slovenije. Ljubljana. Urbanc, M., Breg, M. 2005: Gravel plains in urban areas: gravel pits as an element of degraded lands- capes = Prodna ravnina v mestnem prostoru: gramoznice kot prvina degradirane pokrajine. Acta geographica Slovenica 45-2, str. 35-61. Ljubljana. Uredba o vodovarstvenem obmo~ju za vodno telo vodonosnika Ljubljanskega polja. Uradni list RS 126,2004. Ljubljana. 23 Ale{ Smrekar, From drawing cognitive maps to knowing the protection zones for drinking water resources Z risanjem spoznavnih zemljevidov do poznavanja varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode UDK: 628.1:912(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 IZVLE^EK: Med 900 osebami v mestnem okolju Ljubljanskega polja in v primestnem okolju na I{kem vr{aju smo `eleli ugotoviti njihovo poznavanje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode. Uporabili smo metodi anketiranja in risanja spoznavnih zemljevidov. Malo manj kot polovica je prepri~anih, da `ivijo na varstvenih pasovih. Dele`a tako misle~ih na varstvenih pasovih na Ljubljanskem polju (dve petini) in na I{kem vr{aju (dve tretjini) se precej razlikujeta. Meje varstvenih pasov je na prilo`en zemljevid zarisalo samo 280 oseb, torej malo manj kot tretjina zapro{enih. Na Ljubljanskem polju je najve~ja zarisana zgostitev varstvenih pasov malce severno od najstarej{ega in najve~jega ~rpali{~a Kle~e. Drugo najmo~nej{o zgostitev opazimo na I{kem vr{aju in sicer v neposredni okolici ~rpali{~a Brest. KLJU^NE BESEDE: pitna voda, vodovarstveno obmo~je, anketa, spoznavni zemljevid, Ljubljansko polje, I{ki vr{aj, Slovenija. Uredni{tvo je prejelo prispevek 27. februarja 2006. NASLOV: Ale{ Smrekar, dr. Geografski in{titut Antona Melika Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-po{ta: ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Vsebina 1 Uvod 25 2 Metode 26 3 Rezultati 27 3.1 Vsebinsko poznavanje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode - anketa 27 3.2 Prostorsko poznavanje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode - spoznavni zemljevidi 28 4 Sklep 30 5 Viri in literatura 31 24 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 1 Uvod Zagotavljanje dovolj velike koli~ine pitne vode je v Evropi in v Sloveniji odvisno predvsem od zalog podzemne vode. Vemo, da se na aluvialnih ravninah, pod katerimi so najve~je zaloge pitne vode, kri`ajo zelo razli~ni interesi, vendar lahko z ustreznim upravljanjem z vodami nadzorujemo in usmerjamo posege v prostor (Kladnik in sodelavci 2002; Rejec Brancelj 2003; Urbanc, Breg 2005). Med najizrazitej{a sodobna prostorska nasprotja lahko uvr{~amo odnos med mestno rabo prostora in varovanjem virov pitne vode. Bolj ko se mesto s svojimi funkcijami razvija, bolj sta prizadeti kakovost in koli~ina za pitje primernih vodnih zalog. Bogate zaloge podtalnice v neposredni bli`ini in celo pod precej{njim delom Ljubljane, ki so ocenjene na 100 milijonov m3, oziroma dinami~ne zaloge (vrednost najmanj{ega pretoka) na 2 m3/sek, so naravni vir regionalnega pomena (Rejec Brancelj in sodelavci 2005). Tudi ve~ kot sto let po ustanovitvi centralnega vodovodnega sistema je podtalnica Ljubljanskega polja {e vedno najpomembnej{i vir pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane. Daje 90 % potrebne koli~ine, preostalih 10 % pa se na~rpa v bli`ini naselja Brest iz vodo-nosnika I{kega vr{aja na ju`nem obrobju Ljubljanskega barja, ki pa ni ve~ v Mestni ob~ini Ljubljana, temve~ v sosednji ob~ini Ig. Pitno vodo iz podtalnice Ljubljanskega polja pridobivajo v {tirih ~rpali{~ih: Kle~e, [entvid, Hrastje in Jar{ki prod. Prvi dve sta na zahodnem delu Ljubljanskega polja med strnjeno pozidanimi mestnimi zemlji{~i na jugu, zahodu in vzhodu ter Savo na severu. Vmes sta kmetijsko {e vedno dejavni nekdaj samostojni va{ki naselbini Kle~e in Savlje. ^rpali{~e Hrastje je v vzhodnem delu Ljubljanskega polja, med mo{~ansko industrijsko-servisno cono na jugu in [martinsko cesto na desnem bregu Save. ^rpali{~e Jar{-ki prod je na levem bregu reke, ju`no od ~rnu{ke industrijsko-obrtno-servisne cone, ki se ob zahoda proti vzhodu vle~e med ^rnu~ami in Nadgorico. Peto ~rpali{~e za oskrbo Ljubljane je na obmo~ju Ljubljanskega barja oziroma njegovem I{kem vr{aju, to je ~rpali{~e Brest, ki le`i ju`no od istoimenskega naselja. Slika 1: Varstveni pasovi na Ljubljanskem polju in I{kem vr{aju iz leta 1988 (Odlok… 1988). Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Varstvene pasove ~rpali{~ na Ljubljanskem polju so prvi~ dolo~ili leta 1955 (Odlok… 1955). Bili so odlo~ilni za varovanje vodnega vira, ker so omejili {iritev mesta vbli`ino ~rpali{~ (Breznik 1988). Omejitve so razmeroma dosledno upo{tevali, po letu 1966 pa so znotraj o`jega obmo~ja dopustili gradnjo individualnih hi{ in novih sosesk; nastali so vzhodni deli Savelj, ju`ni del Kle~, del Toma~evega in industrijska cona ob Letali{ki cesti. Nov odlok o varstvenih pasovih je bil sprejet leta 1977 (Odlok… 1977). S tem odlokom je bil varstveni pas dolo~en tudi za ~rpali{~e Jar{ki prod. Dolo~ena sta bila {e {ir{i (tretji) in vplivni (~etrti) varstveni pas, ki sta obsegala obmo~je, s katerega prenikajo ali dotekajo vode neposredno v podtalnico. Ker nista bila prednostno namenjena varovanju, je bila na njiju dovoljena stanovanjska in druga zidava s priklju~itvijo na javno kanalizacijsko omre`je in z za{~ito pred pronicanjem {kodljivih snovi v podtalnico. V prispevku obravnavana varstvena pasova virov pitne vode na Ljubljanskem polju in prvi~ tudi I{kem vr{aju sta bila dolo~ena z Odlokom o varstvu virov pitne vode (Odlok… 1988), ki na Ljubljanskem polju v primerjavi s prej veljavnim odlokom ni prinesel bistvenih sprememb. Ta odlok {e vedno velja na I{kem vr{aju, medtem ko je bila za obmo~je Ljubljanskega polja sprejeta nova Uredba na vodovarstvenem obmo~ju za vodno telo vodonosnika Ljubljanskega polja (Uredba… 2004). Glede na to, da v prispevku obravnavamo varstvene pasove virov pitne vode, kot jih predvideva odlok iz leta 1988, uporabljamo `e zastarel izraz varstveni pas vira pitne vode, namesto sedaj uveljavljenega izraza vodovarstveno obmo~je. Obmo~je je razdeljeno na tri varstvene pasove virov pitne vode: • prvi ali najo`ji varstveni pas je namenjen izklju~no objektom za oskrbo s pitno vodo (41,35 ha na Ljubljanskem polju in 13,8ha na I{kem vr{aju); • drugi ali o`ji varstveni pas s strogim re`imom varovanja je namenjen neposredni za{~iti ~rpali{~ pred onesna`enjem (skupaj 1942,71 ha na Ljubljanskem polju in 520,7ha na I{kem vr{aju); • tretji ali {ir{i varstveni pas z blagim re`imom varovanja je namenjen varovanju toka podtalnice proti ~rpali{~em (skupaj 3618,95 ha na Ljubljanskem polju in 521,3 ha na I{kem vr{aju); Celosten pristop gospodarjenja z vodo te`i k ekonomski u~inkovitosti na eni strani in k sonaravne-mu gospodarjenju na drugi. Vse bolj pomembni so tudi dokumenti, ki govorijo o doseganju dru`benega konsenza pri odlo~anju o okolju z vklju~evanjem vseh interesnih skupin v odlo~evalski proces. 25 Ale{ Smrekar, Z risanjem spoznavnih zemljevidov do poznavanja varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode Predpogoj za aktivno sodelovanje v procesih odlo~anja o na~rtih rabe prostora pa tudi za ohranjanje ter varovanje kakovosti vodnih virov in vode nasploh je okoljska ozave{~enost o vodi kot naravnem viru. Splo{no prepri~anje je, da je prebivalstvo Ljubljane in okolice okoljsko dovolj ozave{~eno. Vendar se ta stereotip kaj hitro poru{i, ko se spomnimo na {tevilna neurejena odlagali{~a odpadkov, nevodotesne greznice in gnojne objekte, neustrezno ravnanje s fitofarmacevtskimi sredstvi v kmetijstvu, nenadzorovano individualno ~rpanje vode (Kladnik 2002; Rejec Brancelj 2000; Kladnik in sodelavci 2003; Smrekar in Kladnik 2004; Breg in sodelavci 2005), na katere pomembno vplivajo zlasti posamezniki. Dosedanje izku{nje ka`ejo, da je ozave{~enost tesno povezana s socialnoekonomsko sestavo, je pa tudi rezultat dolgotrajnega uspe{nega informiranja in izobra`evanja prebivalcev. Prebivalstvo {tejemo za povzro~itelja in sprejemnika sprememb v okolju ter aktivnega oziroma pasivnega preoblikovalca pokrajine. V prispevku smo si zastavili cilj, da ugotovimo in ovrednotimo poznavanje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode. 2 Metode V okviru {ir{e zastavljene {tudije (Smrekar 2005) smo med drugim posku{ali raziskati, kako lokalno prebivalstvo dojema okolje, v katerem `ivi. Glede na to, da anketiranci prihajajo iz razli~nih okolij, smo ugotavljali razli~nosti in podobnosti med posameznimi skupinami, predvsem pa vzroke za ve~jo oziroma manj{o okoljsko ozave{~enost. Zanimalo nas je, koliko prebivalci poznajo varstvene pasove virov pitne vode, za kar smo uporabili metodi anketiranja in spoznavnih zemljevidov. Slika 2: Obmo~ji anketiranja na obravnavanih varstvenih pasovih virov pitne vode in njihovih obrobjih. Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Preu~evali smo populacijo, ki se oskrbuje s pitno vodo iz ljubljanskega vodovodnega sistema. Vklju~eni prebivalci so v ~asu trajanja {tudije (2003 in 2004) `iveli na varstvenih pasovih virov pitne vode na Ljubljanskem polju in I{kem vr{aju (Odlok… 1988) ali v njihovi bli`ini. Anketiranje je metoda empiri~nega vpogleda v izbrano populacijo in njen vzorec (To{ 1988). Anketirali smo 900 oseb. Dve tretjini anket smo opravili v mestnem okolju Ljubljanskega polja in tretjino v primestnem okolju na I{kem vr{aju. Tretjina (300) anket je bila opravljena med »aktivnimi« obreme-njevalci podtalnice na o`jem pasu virov pitne vode (100 kmetovalcev in 100 vrti~karjev na Ljubljanskem polju ter 100 kmetovalcev na I{kem vr{aju), tretjina (300) med »pasivnimi« obremenjevalci (prebivalci, ki »le« `ivijo na tem obmo~ju) na {ir{em pasu virov pitne vode, tretjina (300) pa med uporabniki pitne vode iz obravnavanih ~rpali{~, ki ne `ivijo na varstvenih pasovih virov pitne vode. Reprezentativni vzorec prebivalcev smo dosegli s sledenjem dvema demografskima kriterijema: starostni in spolni sestavi obravnavanih oseb. V raziskavo je vklju~ena v geografiji doslej redkeje uporabljena metoda spoznavnih zemljevidov (Gams in sodelavci 1993; Klemen~i~ 2002; Natek 2002a; Natek 2002b), s katero se pogosteje sre~ujejo psihologi. Spoznavni zemljevidi so ob povsem teoreti~nih razmislekih nastajali in se uporabljali predvsem zaradi prakti~nih na~rtovalskih vpra{anj. Ta so se nana{ala predvsem na rabo prostora in razporeditev virov pa tudi na povezanost s predstavami o okolju. Raziskave spoznavnih zemljevidov v razmerju med ~lovekom in okoljem med drugim lahko prispevajo k bolj razumni rabi naravnih virov, spodbujajo posameznike v vpletenost pri razvoju in na~rtovanju u~inkovitej{ega izvajanja sprememb ter pomagajo pri ohranjanju in bele`enju okoljskih zaznav (Poli~ 2002; po Wyhte). Spoznavni zemljevidi, torej postopki, s katerimi posku{amo ugotoviti, kako si ljudje predstavljajo prostorske odnose in zna~ilnosti okolja, so lahko pomembno sredstvo za pridobivanje informacij, pomembnih za ugotavljanje stanja in na tej podlagi za nadaljnje na~rtovanje. Spoznavni zemljevidi nudijo vsaj dve vrsti obvestil, in sicer: • neposredno zaznavno izku{njo in • spoznavno predelavo osebne izku{nje. Za to poznamo ve~ metod. Odlo~ili smo se, da bomo podatke pridobili z dru`benoprostorskimi obrazci. To je bolj strukturirana oblika raziskovanja spoznavnih zemljevidov. Anketiranci so morali obkro`iti tisto obmo~je, za katerega so menili, da je razgla{eno za varstveni pas virov pitne vode za oskrbo prebivalstva. 26 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 Pri risanju tovrstnih zemljevidov se nam posameznikove slike okolja poka`ejo kot rezultati spoznavnih preslikav, ki vsebujejo polo`ajne informacije (meje varstvenih pasov). Posameznikova slika okolja je usklajena z njegovimi pogledi na uporabo tega prostora. Razlikujemo geografsko in vedenjsko okolje, saj vsi, ki `ivijo v istem geografskem okolju, `ivijo v razli~nih vedenjskih okoljih in si informacije pridobivajo z vsemi ~utili (Poli~ 2002). Poleg odgovarjanja na vpra{anja, zastavljena v anketi, smo vsakega anketiranca osebno zaprosili, da je zarisal mejo varstvenega pasu oziroma meje ve~ pasov virov pitne vode za oskrbo prebivalcev Ljubljane in okolice na ~rno-bel zemljevid formata A3 v merilu pribli`no 1:73.000 {ir{ega ljubljanskega obmo~ja s skrajnimi to~kami na severozahodu pri Zbiljah, na severovzhodu blizu Prevoj pri [entvidu, na jugozahodu nedale~ od Smrekovca pri Rakitni in na jugovzhodu ob Kremenici pri Predolah. [e pred tem smo anketirancem pojasnili, da podtalnico pred onesna`evanjem varuje Odlok o varstvu virov pitne vode ter da je treba zagotavljati primerne razmere za zdravstveno ustreznost vode in tudi njeno koli~ino. Meje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode je od 900 anketirancev zarisalo samo 280 oseb, torej malo manj kot tretjina (31,1 %), od tega 163 oziroma ~etrtina (27,1 %) zapro{enih na Ljubljanskem polju (slabe tri petine ali 58,2 % od vseh zarisov) in 117 oziroma slabi dve petini (39,0 %) zapro{enih na I{kem vr{aju ter prav tako dve petini (41,7 %) vseh zarisov. Odziv ocenjujemo kot dober, saj je bilo vpra{anje zastavljeno tako, da so risali le tisti, ki naj bi vedeli, kje meje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode sploh potekajo. Kartografsko gradivo je pripravljeno z ra~unalni{kim programom ARC GIS. 3 Rezultati 3.1 Vsebinsko poznavanje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode - anketa Za ugotavljanje seznanjenosti anketirancev s prou~evano problematiko je klju~en dokument Odlok o varstvu virov pitne vode (Odlok… 1988), ki vklju~uje Ljubljansko polje in I{ki vr{aj. Glede na to, da smo anketo opravljali leta 2003, torej {e pred sprejemom nove uredbe, ki pa velja le za Ljubljansko polje, je logi~no, da smo pri {tudiji upo{tevali meje takratnih varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode. Po ve~ kot 15 letih veljavnosti odloka smo spra{evali anketirance, ali `ivijo (oziroma imajo vrti~ek) na z odlokom razgla{enem varstvenem pasu virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice. Slika 3: Mnenje anketirancev o tem, ali `ivijo na z odlokom razgla{enem varstvenem pasu virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice (Smrekar 2005; N = 900). Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Ob upo{tevanju odgovorov vseh anketiranih oseb (z varstvenih pasov in zunaj njih) smo ugotovili, da jih je 439 oziroma 48,8 % pravilno odgovorilo oziroma so bili prepri~ani, da `ivijo ali imajo vrti~ke oziroma ne `ivijo na varstvenih pasovih virov pitne vode. Polovica tistih, ki `ivijo zunaj varstvenih pasov (50,5 % na Ljubljanskem polju in 47,0 % na I{kem vr{aju), je prepri~anih, da ne `ivijo na zavarovanih obmo~-jih. Skoraj tretjina (31,2 %) pa ne ve, kaj bi na zastavljeno vpra{anje odgovorila. Ob pregledu rezultatov zgolj na varstvenih pasovih ugotavljamo, da je tam malo manj kot polovica (48,5 %) prepri~anih, da `ivijo na njih. Dele`a tako misle~ih na Ljubljanskem polju (samo 39,0 %) in na I{kem vr{aju (67,5 %) se mo~no razlikujeta. Kmetovalci najbolje vedo, da `ivijo na varstvenih pasovih, vendar je razmerje med obema obmo~jema obrnjeno; tak{nih je na Ljubljanskem polju ve~ kot tri ~etrtine (77,0 %), na I{kem vr{aju pa samo nekaj ve~ kot dve tretjini (68,0 %). O~itno je, da so kmetovalci na Ljubljanskem polju bolj na udaru raznih javnih slu`b in jim je povsem jasno, kje `ivijo. Kmetovalci na I{kem vr{aju omenjeno problematiko slab{e poznajo. To je verjetno posledica manj intenzivnega sodelovanja z raznimi slu`bami in tudi pomanjkljivega medob~inskega sodelovanja med Mestno ob~ino Ljubljana in ob~ino Ig. Ni`ji dele` pravilnih odgovorov med vrti~karji (56,0 %) si lahko razlagamo le tako, da ti anketiranci slab{e poznajo obmo~ja, kjer imajo vrti~ke, saj ti pogosto niso v bli`ini njihovih bivali{~. Najni`ji dele` pravilnih odgovorov je na {ir{em varstvenem pasu na Ljubljanskem polju, saj se jih le malo ve~ kot desetina (11,5 %) zaveda, da `ivijo na varstvenem pasu, dobra tretjina (kar 36,5 %) pa je prepri~anih, da sploh ne `ivijo na varstvenih pasovih. Medtem ko ljudje na Ljubljanskem polju nekako {e poznajo o`ja obmo~ja 27 Ale{ Smrekar, Z risanjem spoznavnih zemljevidov do poznavanja varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode ~rpali{~, za katera vedo ali vsaj sklepajo, da so z uradnim aktom zavarovana obmo~ja, je {ir{a okolica teh objektov v zavesti ljudi `e tako oddaljena od ~rpali{~, da ne opazijo nobene povezave ve~. Povsem jasno je, da jih nih~e sistemati~no ne seznanja, kje `ivijo. Od anketirancev, ki so pravilno odgovorili na prej{nje vpra{anje, ~e `ivijo na varstvenem pasu, smo pri~akovali tudi, da navedejo ime tega pasu. Tak{nih, ki so vsaj pribli`no pravilno navedli ime (ime ~rpali{~a, obmo~ja oziroma celotnega varstvenega pasu), je med vsemi malo ve~ kot ~etrtina (26,5 %), od tega jih je, kljub pol manj{emu vzorcu, kar blizu polovica na I{kem vr{aju (45,5 %). Med pravilna poimenovanja smo {teli na primer na I{kem vr{aju Ljubljanski vodovod, Barje, I{ki vr{aj, Brest, Ig in Matena, na Ljubljanskem polju pa Ljubljanski vodovod, Ljubljana, [entvid, Stegne, Kle~e, Savlje, ^rnu~e, Jar{ki prod, Savski prod in Hrastje. Presenetljivo majhen je dele` pribli`no pravilnih poimenovanj med kmetovalci na I{kem vr{aju (36,0 %). Anketiranci na {ir{em varstvenem pasu virov pitne vode na Ljubljanskem polju (3,0 %) so skoraj brez, pogojno re~eno, pravilnih odgovorov. 3.2 Prostorsko poznavanje varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode -spoznavni zemljevidi Tudi s tem poizvedovanjem smo `eleli ugotoviti, ali obravnavani prebivalci vedo, da `ivijo na obmo~jih, ki so z ustreznimi pravnimi akti za{~itena kot obmo~ja varstva virov pitne vode. Tokrat pa nas ni zanimalo zgolj vedenje, temve~ predvsem prostorsko poznavanje meja. S spoznavnimi zemljevidi smo torej pridobili spoznavno predelavo osebne izku{nje. Za sodelovanje se je odlo~ilo 280 od 900 anketirancev, kar je malo manj kot tretjina oziroma 31,1 %. Tako imamo med 280 narisanimi mejami varstvenih pasov {est desetin z Ljubljanskega polja (58,2 %) in {tiri desetine z I{ke-ga vr{aja (41,8 %). ^eprav to razmerje ne odra`a razmerja opravljenih anket na obeh obravnavanih obmo~jih (600:300), je z vidika interpretacije ugodnej{e, saj bi te`je vizualno razlikovali med dvema tretjinama zarisanih meja anketirancev z Ljubljanskega polja in eno tretjino z I{kega vr{aja. [tevilo zarisovalcev meja z obeh obmo~ij pa glede na malo prej predstavljeno mnenje anketirancev o tem, ali `ivijo na z odlokom razgla{enem varstvenem pasu, sploh ne presene~a. Preglednica 1: Sodelujo~i anketiranci pri risanju varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice (Smrekar 2005; N = 280). skupaj risarjev dele` risarjev od vseh anketirancev v skupini dele` risarjev od vseh anketirancev Ljubljansko polje kmetovalci Ljubljansko polje vrti~karji Ljubljansko polje o`ji varstveni pas- skupaj Ljubljansko polje {ir{i varstveni pas Ljubljansko polje o`ji in {ir{i varstveni pas Ljubljansko polje zunaj varstvenih pasov Ljubljansko polje skupaj I{ki vr{aj o`ji varstveni pas I{ki vr{aj {ir{i varstveni pas I{ki vr{aj o`ji in {ir{i varstveni pas I{ki vr{aj zunaj varstvenih pasov I{ki vr{aj skupaj 38 38,0 % 4,2 % 25 25,0% 2,8% 63 31,5 % 7,0 % 65 32,5% 7,2 % 128 32,0% 14,2% 35 17,5 % 3,9 % 163 27,2 % 18,1% 45 45,0% 5,0 % 45 45,0% 5,0 % 90 45,0% 10,0% 27 27,0 % 3,0 % 117 39,0% 13,0% skupaj 280 31,1 % 31,1% 28 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 Slika 4: Varstveni pasovi virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice, kot so jih narisali vsi anketiranci (Smrekar 2005; N = 280). Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Pogled na zemljevid vseh narisanih obmo~ij nam poka`e dolo~ene zgostitve. Na Ljubljanskem polju je najve~ja zgostitev na obmo~ju naselja Kle~e severno od istoimenskega ~rpali{~a, z veliko koncentracijo odgovorov. Zgostitev se dokaj koncentri~no, vendar v zelo majhnem premeru, {iri od naselja proti ~rpali{~ema Kle~e in [entvid. Za slednjo le naklju~no, saj iz drugih odgovorov lahko sklepamo, da prebivalci slabo poznajo ~rpali{~e [entvid. Zgostitveni »oblak« se proti jugovzhodu precej natrga, vendar ga ponovno zaznamo v obliki manj intenzivno zgo{~ene elipse okoli ~rpali{~a Hrastje. Severno od njega na levem bregu Save pa pozornemu opazovalcu ne uide sicer manj izrazita, vendar {e vedno prepoznavna zaznava elipse okoli ~rpali{~a Jar{ki prod. Dve elipsasti obliki, ena pod drugo, sta verjetno posledica vidne meje v prostoru, ki jo predstavlja reka Sava. Lahko pa bi ju povezali v enoten, manj dominanten krog, kot se {iri okoli ~rpali{~a Kle~e. Ju`ni del Ljubljanskega polja, lahko bi rekli ve~ina {ir{ega varstvenega pasu, pa v zavesti ljudi ni zakoreninjen kot varovano obmo~je. ^e so anketiranci bolj na {iroko vrisovali meje varstvenih pasov, potem so to v ve~ini primerov storili tako, da so poleg Ljubljanskega polja vklju~ili {e vzpetine, kot so Ro`nik, Grad in del Golovca, na Barju pa se pribli`ali severnemu robu I{kega vr{aja. Drugo najmo~nej{o zgostitev opazimo na I{kem vr{aju, in sicer v neposredni okolici ~rpali{~a Brest, katere meje se gostijo na zahodu ob vzno`ju Krimskega hribovja. Anketirancem se o~itno zdi, da predstavlja mejo varstvenega pasu rob med ravnim in vzpetim svetom. Malce bolj zabrisano, ~eprav {e vedno dokaj izrazito, se zgostitveni »oblak« {iri proti jugu in vzhodu vr{aja. Zanimivo, zgostitveni »oblak« sega precej tudi na Barje, saj na vzhodu dose`e vzhodni del Iga, na severu pa vse do ju`ne ljubljanske obvoznice. I{ki Vintgar anketiranci manj pogosto povezujejo z varovanim obmo~jem. [e zanimivej{a je raz~lenitev odgovorov po posameznih skupinah. Anketiranci na o`jem varstvenem pasu, torej kmetovalci in vrti~karji, se o~itno zavedajo, kje so o`ji varstveni pasovi, vendar to pogosto ena~ijo z zunanjimi mejami varovanih obmo~ij. Slika 5: Varstveni pasovi virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice, kot so jih narisali anketirani kmetovalci in vrti~karji z Ljubljanskega polja. (Smrekar 2005; N = 63). Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Do velike zgostitve ~rt v obliki kroga prihaja pri naselju Kle~e in dveh elips pri ~rpali{~ih Hrastje in Jar{ki prod. Manj izrazito je zaznavno {ir{e obmo~je. Ju`no od Ljubljane zaznamo novo zgostitev, ki je {ir{e razporejena, njeno sredi{~e pa vendar gravitira severno od I{kega vr{aja na obmo~ju ^rne vasi in Lip. Kmetovalci so zarisali mejo precej na {iroko; v nekaterih primerih sega od ju`nega roba Ljubljanskega polja vse do ju`nega roba I{kega vr{aja. Med vrti~-karji je ta meja bistveno bolj zgo{~ena v o`jem pasu od sredine Ljubljanskega barja do sredine I{kega vr{aja, resda z manj{im {tevilom ponovitev. Slika 6: Varstveni pasovi virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice, kot so jih narisali anketiranci s {ir{ega varstvenega pasu virov pitne vode Ljubljanskega polja in zunaj njega (Smrekar 2005; N = 100). Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Anketiranci s {ir{ega varstvenega pasu virov pitne vode Ljubljanskega polja vidijo mejo varovanega obmo~ja povsem druga~e. Pri njih ne zaznamo, razen redkih izjem v okolici ~rpali{~a Kle~e, nobenih zgostitev na manj{ih obmo~jih. Predvsem lahko sledimo veliki izrisani pokon~ni elipsi od severnega roba Ljubljanskega polja vse do ju`nega roba I{kega vr{aja z zaznanim razlikovanjem dveh obmo~ij po sredini Barja. Meje je bilo pripravljenih zarisati le 17,5 % anketirancev z roba Ljubljanskega polja, ki `ivijo zunaj varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode. Pokazalo se je, da dokaj dobro poznajo lokacijo ~rpali{~a Brest (od tam dobivajo ve~ino vode) in malo manj Hrastja ter Jar{kega proda, pri ~rpali{~ih Kle~e in [entvid pa so z risanjem enega kroga verjetno zopet dokazali, da ne poznajo natan~ne lokacije ~rpali{~a Kle~e, [entvid pa jim je sploh manj poznan. ^e posplo{imo, ugotovimo, da so varstvene pasove na Ljubljanskem polju zo`ili predvsem na njegovi severni in vzhodni strani vzdol` reke Save, varstvene pasove na I{kem vr{aju pa so v koni~asti obliki raz{irili proti severu, vse do sredine Barja. 29 Ale{ Smrekar, Z risanjem spoznavnih zemljevidov do poznavanja varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode Slika 7: Varstveni pasovi virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice, kot so jih narisali anketirani kmetovalci z I{kega vr{aja (Smrekar 2005; N = 45). Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Anketiranci z o`jega varstvenega pasu virov pitne vode na I{kem vr{aju so pokazali zelo nenavadno poznavanje varstvenih pasov, {e posebej v doma~i pokrajini. Glede na njihovo zelo solidno poznavanje dejstva, da `ivijo na varstvenem pasu, bi pri~akovali, da jim je tudi prostorska slika bolj jasna. V primerjavi s kmetovalci z Ljubljanskega polja, ki so se omejili na risanje mej v neposrednih zaledjih ~rpali{~, je med tukaj{njimi kmetovalci neposredna okolica ~rpali{~a Brest zarisana le izjemoma. Izrisi se ob zahodnem in ju`nem robu I{kega vr{aja praviloma naslanjajo na vzno`je Krimskega hribovja, ~eprav pogosto segajo tudi proti jugozahodu visoko v hribovje. Presenetljivo na {iroko je pogosto omejeno obmo~je zlasti proti severu, kjer sega skoraj do ju`ne ljubljanske obvoznice, in zahodu, kjer sega skoraj do zahodnega roba Vnanjih Goric. Druga zgostitev meja je v {ir{em pasu Save na Ljubljanskem polju z nakazanimi razmejitvami med posameznimi o`jimi zaledji ~rpali{~. Veliko kmetovalcev z I{kega vr{aja vidi I{ki vr{aj in Ljubljansko polje kot enotno varovano obmo~je, ki zajema tudi vmes le`e~e Barje. Prav nobeden pa o~itno ni seznanjen, da sega varstveni pas na I{kem vr{aju tudi globoko v I{ki Vintgar. Slika 8: Varstveni pasovi virov pitne vode za oskrbo Ljubljane in okolice, kot so jih narisali anketiranci s {ir{ega varstvenega pasu virov pitne vode I{kega vr{aja in zunaj njega (Smrekar 2005; N = 72). Glej angle{ki del prispevka. Anketiranci s {ir{ega varstvenega pasu virov pitne vode na I{kem vr{aju najbolje med vsemi obravnavanimi skupinami poznajo svoje varovano obmo~je. Zelo dobro so velikokrat narisani zahodna in ju`na meja pa tudi krak, ki sega proti I{kemu Vintgarju, medtem ko na severu in vzhodu meji uhajata navzven. Samo nekaj je primerov, ko mejo {irokopotezno zarisujejo proti sredini Barja, prav nobeden pa ne povezuje tega obmo~ja z Ljubljanskim poljem v enotno varovano obmo~je. Po mnenju tistih, ki menijo, da je Ljubljansko polje varovano, o~itno poteka meja na Ljubljanskem polju izklju~no vzdol` reke Save z razmejenimi obmo~ji okoli ~rpali{~. Anketiranci zunaj varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode z roba I{kega vr{aja so se komaj ~etrtinsko (27,0 %) odzvali vabilu za risanje meja, pa {e ti ka`ejo zelo slabo poznavanje razmer na Ljubljanskem polju, saj so praviloma zarisali meje preve~ proti severu in vzhodu. Njihovo poznavanje razmer na I{kem vr{aju je precej bolj{e, ~eprav so, zanimivo velikokrat tudi oni omejevali obmo~je bolj proti vzhodu in severu, torej so o~itno menili, da tudi sami `ivijo na varovanem obmo~ju. Osnovno{olsko izobra`eni so narisali eno petino (21,2 %) vseh spoznavnih zemljevidov, medtem ko predstavniki drugih treh izobrazbenih skupin po tri desetine (32,8 %, 29,6 % in 30,5 %). V samem poznavanju problematike med razli~nimi skupinami nismo uspeli zaznati bistvenih odstopanj. 4 Sklep Rezultati ka`ejo, da na I{kem vr{aju precej ve~ji dele` anketirancev kot na Ljubljanskem polju ve, da `ivijo na varstvenih pasovih virov pitne vode. To je verjetno posledica manj{ega za{~itenega obmo~ja in bli`ine ~rpali{~a kot pomembnega objekta v njihovi okolici. Na drugi strani pa je na Ljubljanskem polju ve~ kot petkrat ve~je za{~iteno obmo~je, ki z oddaljenostjo od ~rpali{~a v zavesti ljudi izgublja pomen, poleg tega ~rpali{~a v mestnem okolju niso tako izstopajo~i objekti kot v bolj ruralnem. Zaskrbljujo~e je nepoznavanje kmetovalcev na I{kem vr{aju, saj vemo, da jih kmetijski pospe{evalci stalno informirajo o dovoljenih opravilih na varstvenih pasovih. Nedvomno so manj izpostavljeni {e bolj agresivnim pritiskom s strani raznih strokovnih slu`b kot kmetovalci na Ljubljanskem polju, kar pa se ka`e v bolj{em poznavanju odloka. Spoznavni zemljevidi so vsekakor primerna dopolnitev klasi~nega geografskega anketiranja. Odziv ni bil velik, najbr` je to posledica skromnej{e prostorske predstave ljudi nasploh in verjetno zlasti nepoznavanja predstavljene problematike. Pokazale so se zakonitosti. Prebivalci Ljubljanskega polja in okolice so se pri risanju osredoto~ili zlasti na obmo~ja okoli ~rpali{~ ali pa zajeli obmo~je, ki je precej {ir{e od samega Ljubljanskega polja, predvsem proti jugu. Pohvalno je, da imajo v zavesti {e eno varovano obmo~je ju`no od Ljubljanskega polja, resda zarisano preve~ severno, torej na Barju. Presenetljivo je, da prebivalci 30 Acta geographica Slovenica, 46-1, 2006 I{kega vr{aja in okolice slabo poznajo regionalne razmere, saj so precej manj izrazito omejevali obmo~-je Ljubljanskega polja, kolikor pa so ga `e, so sledili predvsem toku Save. Na I{kem vr{aju sicer zasledimo manj{o osredoto~enost okoli ~rpali{~, vendar je bolj opazna raz{iritev obmo~ja zlasti proti vzhodu do vzhodnega roba Iga, in proti severu, deloma do ^rne vasi in Lip, deloma celo do ju`ne ljubljanske obvoznice. Geografi se pri svojem delu zelo naslanjamo na ~lenitve oziroma regije. @al nam tokratni rezultati ka`ejo, da z izjemo Krimskega hribovja anketiranci praviloma niso zaznali niti naravnih meja, ki so pogojevale dolo~itev varstvenih pasov virov pitne vode tako na Ljubljanskem polju kot na I{kem vr{aju. Zelo pogosto so anketiranci Ljubljansko polje in Barje prek Ro`nika, Gradu in Golovca povezali v enotno obmo~je oziroma niso znali lo~iti I{kega vr{aja od Ljubljanskega barja. O~itno je povsem na mestu trditev, da se nam poka`ejo posameznikove slike, ki so usklajene z njegovim videnjem prostora, to pa je marsikdaj zelo druga~no od objektivnega okolja. Varstveni pasovi virov pitne vode oziroma najnovej{a vodovarstvena obmo~ja imajo `e ve~desetletno tradicijo, saj je prvi odlok, ki je varoval obmo~ja okoli ~rpali{~, star `e pol stoletja (Odlok… 1955). Kljub temu ti predpisi o~itno niso dejansko nikoli povsem za`iveli, saj jih precej ljudi, ki `ivi na teh obmo~jih, sploh ne pozna in jih torej pri njihovem vsakdanjem `ivljenju in ravnanju ne omejujejo. Pomanjkljivo informiranje in izobra`evanje sta klju~na problema, s katerima se soo~amo na obeh obravnavanih obmo~jih v vseh socialnoekonomskih skupinah. Zatrdimo lahko, da so ljudje na splo{no {e vedno nezadostno informirani, okoljsko izobra`eni in ozave{~eni o vodi kot naravnem viru, da bi `eleli in bili zmo`ni dejavno sodelovati pri varovanju vode kot naravnega vira in v procesih odlo~anja o na~rtih rabe prostora za ohranitev kakovostne vode, kar jim omogo~ajo in h ~imer jih zavezujejo obstoje~e deklaracije ter sprejeta zakonodaja. 5 Viri in literatura Glej angle{ki del prispevka. 31