ANALYSIS OF VISUAL ELEMENTS OF LEISURE
ATTRACTIVENESS OF SLOVENIAN LANDSCAPES
ANALIZA VIDNIH ELEMENTOV PROSTOČASNE
PRIVLAČNOSTI SLOVENSKIH POKRAJIN
AUTHOR/AVTOR
dr. Dejan Cigale
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Geography, Aškerčeva cesta 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana,
Slovenia
dejan.cigale@ff.uni-lj.si
DOI: 10.3986/GV93202
UDC/UDK: 338.483.11(21)(497.4)
COBISS: 1.01
ABSTRACT
Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
This paper discusses the attractiveness of the Slovenian landscape as a leisure space. It focuses in partic-
ular on relationship of attractiveness with landscape diversity and naturalness. As a starting point, the
study of Perko et al. (2017) was used in which the authors identified the most and the least diverse Slovenian
areas, i.e. landscape hotpots and coldspots. An online survey was conducted using photographs taken in
selected hotspots and coldspots. Respondents were asked to rate the attractiveness of the landscapes shown
in the photographs as destinations for a leisure trip. The attractiveness of the landscapes did not differ depend-
ing on whether they were in a hotspot or coldspot. On the other hand, the results clearly indicate the higher
attractiveness of landscapes in which relatively natural landscape elements predominate.
KEY WORDS
landscape diversity, landscape attractiveness, landscape hotspots, naturalness, recreation, Slovenia
IZVLEČEK
Analiza vidnih elementov prostočasne privlačnosti slovenskih pokrajin
Prispevek obravnava privlačnost slovenske pokrajine kot prostočasnega prostora. Posebej se osredotoča na
povezavo privlačnosti s pokrajinsko raznolikostjo in naravnostjo. Kot izhodišče je bila uporabljena razi-
skava Perka in sodelavcev (2017), v kateri so avtorji določili najbolj in najmanj raznolika območja Slovenije,
tj. pokrajinske vroče in mrzle točke. Izvedena je bila spletna anketna raziskava, v kateri so bile upora-
bljene fotografije, posnete v izbranih vročih in mrzlih točkah. Anketiranci so bili naprošeni, da ocenijo
privlačnost pokrajin na fotografijah kot ciljev izletov. Privlačnost pokrajin se ni razlikovala glede na nji-
hovo lego znotraj vročih ali mrzlih točk. Na drugi strani rezultati jasno kažejo večjo privlačnost pokrajin,
v katerih prevladujejo razmeroma naravni pokrajinski elementi.
KLJUČNE BESEDE
pokrajinska raznolikost, pokrajinska privlačnost, pokrajinske vroče točke, naravnost, rekreacija, Slovenija
Uredništvo je prispevek prejelo 12. julija 2021.
27
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021, 27–55 Papers/Razprave
PAPERS/RAZPRAVE
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 27
1 Introduction
Landscape with its characteristics plays a key role in tourism and recreation. It has often been seen
as a pull factor (Mohd Taher et al. 2015; Mutanga et al. 2017; Fraiz, de Carlos, and Araújo 2020) and
its evaluation for tourism and recreation was an early subject of scientific interest (Nolte 2004;
Jacobsen 2007). Among the key factors of the landscape attractiveness are its visual attributes, which
have therefore often been the subject of debate in the field of recreation and tourism research (e.g., Fyhri,
Jacobsen, and Tømmervik 2009; Deghati Najd et al. 2015; Delgado Martínez and Pantoja Timarán 2016).
The issue of visual landscape quality is important in the context of recreation and tourism from dif-
ferent points of view, e.g., from the perspective of tourism development planning (Pires 2011), regional
planning (Grêt-Regamey, Bishop, and Bebi 2007) or satisfying the recreational needs of the local pop-
ulation (Arriaza et al. 2004; Bujosa Bestard and Riera Font 2009).
Landscape is not static, but is subject to constant change. Changes in the landscape that affect its
visual characteristics can positively (Hunziker 1995; Hunziker and Kienast 1999; Lindemann-Matthies
et al. 2010) or negatively (Broekel and Alfken 2015; Sæþórsdóttir and Ólafsdóttir 2020) influence its
attractiveness to tourists and recreationists, depending on the nature of these changes. However, the
relationship between tourism/recreation and the landscape is not one-sided, as tourism and recreation
are also among the factors transforming the landscape and can contribute to those changes that are
negatively evaluated by tourists (Hunziker 1992).
In the past, many approaches to the study of the visual/aesthetic quality of landscape have been devel-
oped within different disciplines. Two contrasting paradigms have been distinguished (Wu et al. 2006):
the expert approach (e.g., Jeršič 1999) and the community perception-based approach. According to
Jacobsen (2007), one approach is based on the fact that landscape quality is inherent in the actual set-
ting, while the other approach assumes that landscape quality is in the eyes of the observer. Lothian
(1999) spoke of an objectivist or physical paradigm in relation to the former and a subjectivist or psy-
chological paradigm in relation to the latter. Similar subdivisions have been cited by some other authors
(Le Floch 1996; Dirin and Popov 2010).
A good part of the assessments within the ‘subjectivist’ (Lothian 1999) paradigm was based on the
use of photographs, including in the area of assessing the attractiveness of the landscape from a tourism
perspective. Such an approach has many advantages, e.g., lower costs, experimental context control,
field visits are rarely feasible with a larger number of respondents (Daniel and Meitner 2001; Jacobsen
2007; Pastorella et al. 2017).
Empirical studies have shown that some landscape characteristics significantly influence the per-
ceived attractiveness or visual quality of a landscape. Among the factors that have often been shown
to have a positive influence on landscape attractiveness is landscape diversity. For example, in the case
of forest recreation (in Mallorca, Spain), Bujosa Bestard and Riera Font (2009) found that landscape
diversity was an important determinant of individuals’ choices of recreational sites. Similar results were
obtained by Schirpke et al. (2013) in a survey of locals and tourists in Alpine areas in Italy and Austria,
and Dramstad et al. (2006) in a survey from Norway. With regard to the agricultural landscape, Junge
et al. (2015) and Hunziker (1995) also found the positive influence of perceived diversity on the eval-
uation of the landscape.
Another factor that has often been found to be important in relation to visual landscape quality is
the naturalness of the landscape. Tveit, Ode and Fry (2006) define naturalness as proximity to a pre-
conceived natural state. When choosing a destination, among the attractiveness factors, visitors often
prefer those aspects related to nature (Fraiz et al. 2020). Arriaza et al. (2004) identified the degree of
wildness of the landscape as the most important factor influencing the perceived visual quality of the
landscape. Similarly, Wu et al. (2006) found that perceived visual quality of the landscape increased
with the degree of wildness and the proportion of natural vegetation. In line with this, de Vries et al.
(2013) and Pastorella et al. (2017) noted the positive influence of forest on visual landscape quality, and
28
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 28
Han (2007) identified tundra and coniferous forest as the most valued biomes. The attractiveness of
agricultural landscape is positively influenced by more extensive (and thus more natural) land uses
(Schüpbach, Zgraggen, and Szerencsits 2008; Lindemann-Mathies et al. 2010; Junge et al. 2015).
The presence of water also has a positive influence on landscape attractiveness. Wu et al. (2006)
found that perceived visual quality of the landscape increased with the amount of visible water area.
Similarly, Pastorella et al. (2017) stated that water surfaces (along with forests) were the most valued
features of the Alpine landscape. Smrekar, Polajnar Horvat and Erhartič (2016) focused on the attrac-
tiveness of individual landforms in the Alpine protected area (Triglav National Park), and lakes were
found to be the most attractive. Several other studies have also highlighted the positive influence of
water on landscape attractiveness (Yang and Brown 1992; Hammit, Patterson, and Noe 1994; Arriaza
et al. 2004; Polat and Akay 2015).
Previous research has also highlighted the role of a number of other factors that influence perceptions
of landscape attractiveness. These include, for example, landscape color features (Arriaza et al. 2004;
Zubelzu and del Campo 2014; Polat and Akay 2015), long vistas (Schirpke et al. 2013), building den-
sity and patterns (Tyrväinen et al. 2014), dynamic and ephemeral conditions, or variations in these features
(Dakin 2003; Junge et al. 2015; Pastorella et al. 2017). Dakin (2003) pointed out another important aspect,
which is that people value landscape more intimately and less visually than expert approaches to land-
scape evaluation assume. For residents, the value of ordinary landscapes is based on a range of criteria
related to emotions, everyday experiences, and intimate knowledge of places (Vouligny, Domon, and
Ruiz 2009). Even within the tourism context, knowledge of the tourist destination influences how the
visual elements are perceived and assessed (MacKay and Fesenmaier 1997).
On the other hand, previous research has identified those attributes that negatively affect landscape
attractiveness and are often associated with human interventions. Perceived landscape quality decreas-
es with the presence of negative man-made elements, such as roads and buildings (Wu et al. 2006) or
wind turbines (Broekel and Alfken 2015; Sæþórsdóttir and Ólafsdóttir 2020). Intensive agricultural use
is also negatively related to visual landscape quality (Lindemann-Matthies et al. 2010; Schirpke et al.
2013; 2019).
Landscape preferences vary between different groups, e.g., between different demographic and socio-
economic groups. Several authors noted differences in the valuation of wild, uninhabited areas. Thus,
the more educated (Sancho Royo 1973; Buijs, Elands, and Langers 2009), the younger (Van den Berg
and Koole 2006; Lindemann-Matthies et al. 2010), and men (Sancho Royo 1973; Gallardo et al. 1989)
value wilderness more. On the other hand, a greater preference for cultivated, agrarian landscapes has
been observed among women (Sancho Royo 1973; Vanderheyden et al. 2014), the elderly (Van den Berg
and Koole 2006; Lindemann-Matthies et al. 2010), and the rural population (Sancho Royo 1973).
Differences in the evaluation of visual landscape quality were also found between tourists and locals
(Höchtl, Lehringer, and Konold 2005; Hunziker et al. 2008; Schirpke et al. 2013), as well as between dif-
ferent cultures (Yang and Brown 1992; Buijs, Elands, and Langers 2009) or between residents of different
language groups (Vanderheyden et al. 2014). Differences between various cultural groups may be par-
ticularly relevant in relation to tourism, as many destinations are visited by tourists from numerous
countries. Differences in the evaluation of landscape quality also occur between different recreation user
groups. For example, García Pérez (2002) noted the differences between ‘ramblers’ and ‘more casual walk-
ers’, and the differences between recreation user groups in terms of preferences and perceptions have
also been highlighted by some older research (e.g., Moeller, MacLachlan, and Morrison 1974; Noe 1988).
This paper is concerned with the attractiveness of the Slovenian landscape as a leisure space, assum-
ing that the visual characteristics of landscape are an important factor in its leisure attractiveness, both
in the context of daily recreation and overnight tourist travel. As previously discussed, landscape attrac-
tiveness is associated with different landscape features. In this paper, attention is focused on two
attractiveness factors that are particularly relevant in relation to tourism and recreation in Slovenia and
are also very often highlighted as such. These are landscape diversity and naturalness.
29
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 29
On average, Slovenia is the most diverse of all European countries (Ciglič and Perko 2013; Perko,
Ciglič, and Zorn 2020). Perko, Hrvatin and Ciglič (2017) paid special attention to Slovenia’s landscape
diversity by identifying the most (landscape hotspots) and the least (landscape coldspots) diverse areas
of the country and highlighting the potential of landscape diversity in tourism in particular. Landscape
hotspots and coldspots were used as a starting point in this paper as well. Some other authors also point-
ed out the importance of Slovenian landscape diversity from a tourism perspective (e.g., Cigale and
Gosar 2017).
Slovenia is also an above-average natural country, as evidenced by the percentage of forested land,
according to which Slovenia ranks third in Europe (Šilc et al. 2020). The importance of the natural-
ness of the Slovenian landscape for tourism is shown, among other things, by the fact that in the summer
of 2019 natural beauties were a very important or important motive for 91.8% of surveyed foreign tourists
to come to Slovenia on holiday (Statistical … 2021) or by the popularity of protected areas as tourist
destinations (Koderman, Opačić, and Marković Vukadin 2020). The Slovenian tourism strategy
(Strategija…2017) also points out the important role of naturalness and landscape diversity for Slovenian
tourism, and the importance of these two factors also emerges from the travel guides that deal with
Slovenia (e.g., Bain and Fallon 2016; Bousfield and Stewart 2017). These landscape features are equal-
ly relevant for the Slovenian population and their leisure activities, whether during day trips or on vacation.
Individuals engage in a variety of activities during their leisure trips, and a variety of motives are
relevant. Different recreational activities have different spatial requirements. Moreover, (visual) land-
scape quality is not equally important for all outdoor recreational activities (Jeršič 1985). Also, recreational
activities are to varying degrees focused on the environment or the activity itself (Jacob and Schreyer
1980), and to varying degrees related to the more or less natural environment (García Pérez 2002).
Accordingly, it is to be expected that members of different recreation user groups have different atti-
tudes towards and valuations of the landscape. Since recreational activities in nature have an
above-average importance in Slovenia (Pori and Sila 2010; Cigale 2015), the question of the relation-
ship between the evaluation of visual landscape quality and the attachment of recreational activities
to the natural environment is particularly relevant, which is why it is also addressed in this study.
The paper aims to examine the usefulness of landscape hotspots in the context of research on land-
scape attractiveness, while also exploring the role of diversity and naturalness as factors of attractiveness.
The paper focuses on the following three issues:
• Are more diverse landscapes (i.e. landscape hotspots) more attractive?
• Is the leisure attractiveness of landscapes positively related to the presence of those landscape ele-
ments that are more natural?
• Is the pursuit of a recreational activity that depends on the natural environment associated with dif-
ferent evaluation of landscape attractiveness?
2 Methods and data
2.1 Selection of (visited) areas and photographs
As in many other studies, photographs were used in this research. They were taken in the field dur-
ing a visit to different Slovenian areas. The selection of the visited areas was based on landscape hotpots
and coldspots as defined by Perko, Hrvatin and Ciglič (2017). For the needs of the fieldwork, it was
necessary to select those hotspots and coldspots that were of appropriate size (not too small to justify
a field visit, and not too large, otherwise it would not be possible to visit the entire spatial unit in the
time available). A total of 39 areas were visited (Figure 1). Of these, 19 were coldspots and 20 were hotspots.
Their average size was 381.3 ha. Several sites were visited within individual hotspots/coldspots, so that
their internal heterogeneity was also recorded and each hotspot or coldspot was adequately covered
30
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 30
spatially. At least four photographs were taken at each site, pointing in four different directions. The
attractiveness of the landscapes is also related to the time of year (Junge et al. 2015; Pastorella et al. 2017).
The influence of this was largely minimized as all photographs were taken over a period of a few weeks
in spring 2016.
As a result of the field visits, an extensive database of photographs was created. Later, those that
were technically extremely unsuitable (e.g., due to significantly inadequate exposure) were excluded
from further analysis, as were those that contained individual highly dominant visual elements that
could have a decisive influence on the evaluation of the landscape in the photograph (e.g., an object
that occupies a significant portion of the photograph and could influence the perceived visual quali-
ty to a  much greater extent than the surrounding landscape). Four people (geography students)
participated in the process of excluding photographs, and only photographs that all four felt should be
excluded were left out. Thus, 620 photographs were included in the further analysis. From these, pho-
tographs were subsequently selected and used for a landscape attractiveness survey.
In the survey, one of the key limiting factors was the acceptable length of time to complete the ques-
tionnaire, as too many photos would negatively affect the respondents’ focus in evaluating the photos,
while at the same time, too long a questionnaire would discourage respondents. Taking into account
the expected duration of completing the questionnaire, 115 photos were included in the evaluation.
55 photos were taken within the coldspots and 60 within the hotspots.
The photos were selected from the aforementioned set of 620 photos in such a way that hotspots
and coldspots as well as different Slovenian landscape types (Perko and Ciglič 2020) were adequately
represented in order to include hotspots and coldspots from different landscape types and thus also
to cover the regional diversity of Slovenia. Adequate representation of different landscape types could
in fact only be ensured to a limited extent, as the distribution of hotspots and coldspots (especially those
of appropriate size) across landscape types is clearly uneven. The result is a modest representation of
31
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
coldspot
Legend
Cartography: Dejan Cigale,
Ana Seifert Barba
Department of Geography,
Faculty of Arts, University
of Ljubljana
© 2021,
0 20 40
km
hotspot
Figure 1: Locations of visited hotspots and coldspots.
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 31
individual landscape types (Pannonian Plains, Mediterranean Flysch Hills and Mediterranean Karst
Plateaus). Due to the location of the hotspots and coldspots, none of the typical tourist areas were vis-
ited. Consequently, the areas visited were not commonly known, which contributed to the fact that the
assessment of the landscapes shown in the photographs was generally not influenced by the knowl-
edge and possible previous experiences of individuals.
2.2 Diversity and naturalness
Diversity has been identified in a variety of ways in previous research. The approaches used ranged
from a set of GIS-based indicators (e.g., Dramstad et al. 2006; Bujosa Bestard and Riera Font 2009) to
the use of qualitative methods, i.e. qualitative open-ended interviews (Hunziker 1995). In this paper,
as mentioned above, landscape diversity is discussed in connection with the study by Perko, Hrvatin
and Ciglič (2017), who determined the most and least diverse areas in Slovenia. In calculating land-
scape diversity of Slovenia, the authors considered digital data on relief, rocks, and vegetation. Areas
with high landscape diversity (one-tenth of the country’s area with the highest landscape diversity) were
designated as landscape hotspots, and areas with low landscape diversity were designated as landscape
coldspots (one-tenth of the country’s area with the lowest landscape diversity) (Perko, Hrvatin, and
Ciglič 2017).
Naturalness was considered according to the presence of more or less natural landscape elements
(e.g., types of land use, human-made elements) in the photographs. The analysis of the photographs,
the purpose of which was to determine the presence of individual types of land use and some other
relevant categories, was carried out independently by four people. The representation of each element
was rated on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 means that the element is not present in the image and 3 means
that the element is predominant in the image. Evaluators rated the presence of the following categories:
water, grassland, arable land, vineyards, orchards, forest, settlement, transportation infrastructure, ener-
gy infrastructure, industrial (and similar) facilities, (supposed) cultural heritage and other. For further
analysis, the average for each of the categories was calculated from four estimates. Of these categories,
forest is the only one besides water that covers a (potential) natural landscape. The impression of nat-
uralness can also be given by grasslands, but those located within the visited areas, are in fact the result
of human influence.
2.3 Differences in the evaluation of landscape attractiveness in regard to recreational activities
Respondents were also asked about the recreational activities they engage in most often on day trips.
The questionnaire listed those activities that past research on one-day leisure trips of Slovenian pop-
ulation had identified as more important (Jeršič 1995; 1998; 1999; Cigale 2015). Subsequently, respondents
were classified into two groups according to the position of the activities they engage in on trips, with-
in a  spectrum ranging from activities most related to the natural landscape to those related to
a  distinctly transformed, anthropogenic landscape (e.g., Jeršič 1999). Among these activities ‘hik-
ing/mountaineering’ was the one most related to the natural environment. Thus, the question of whether
people who frequently spend their leisure time on outdoor recreation in the natural environment (hik-
ers/mountaineers) rate the attractiveness of more diverse (i.e. hotspots) and more natural landscapes
differently was explored. With regard to the latter, the photos were divided into two groups for analy-
sis: the first group contains those with above average natural landscapes, the second all others. Among
all land use categories present in the photos, forest is the most natural, so the presence of forest was
used as an indicator of naturalness. As photos showing a more natural than average landscape were
considered those that had an average forest presence estimate of 2.00 and above (median is 1.75). The
number of images that were more natural than average was 50, and the number of others (i.e. less nat-
ural) was 65.
32
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 32
2.4 Web survey
Photographs taken in the field were used for an online survey of adult (at least 18 years old) resi-
dents of Slovenia, conducted in 2017. A combination of convenience sampling and snowball sampling
was employed. Invitations to participate were sent via email and social media, with a request to fur-
ther share the link where the questionnaire was located. The online questionnaire contained a few
questions about respondents’ leisure behaviour and basic socio-demographic characteristics. The largest
part of the questionnaire included a rating of the attractiveness of 115 photographs. Some character-
istic examples can be seen in the Figures 2–5. Respondents were asked to look at the landscapes in the
photographs and rate on a scale from 1 (slightly attractive) to 5 (very attractive) how attractive they
found them as destinations for leisure trips. They were also asked to rate the attractiveness of the land-
scape in the photograph rather than the photograph or its quality. 149 useful questionnaire responses
were included in the analysis. Attention was focused on day trips (rather than holiday trips) because
their destinations are mostly within Slovenia, as opposed to holiday trips where the main destinations
are coastal resorts, mainly in neighbouring Croatia (Statistical … 2020b). For day trips, the site choice
is focused on geographically closer destinations due to limited free time, so the space within the nation-
al borders is particularly important, as trips with destinations outside the 100 km radius are relatively
rare (Jeršič 1971; Cigale 2015).
Statistical analysis included the use of a t-test (to determine differences between hotspot and coldspot
ratings and differences between groups of hikers and others) and a Pearson correlation coefficient (to
determine the correlation between attractiveness ratings and the presence of individual landscape
elements).
33
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
Figure 2: Example of highly rated photograph taken in a hotspot.
M
AJ
A
 S
EV
ŠE
K
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 33
34
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
Figure 3: Example of highly rated photograph taken in a coldspot.
N
IN
A
 P
LE
V
N
IK
, A
LJ
A
Ž 
ŠI
M
O
N
Figure 4: Example of poorly rated photograph taken in a hotspot.
N
IN
A
 P
LE
V
N
IK
, A
LJ
A
Ž 
ŠI
M
O
N
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 34
35
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
3 Results
3.1 Characteristics of respondents and their leisure behaviour
It is characteristic of the sample that younger respondents are clearly over-represented. Thus 43.8%
of the respondents are under 25 years of age, 33.9% 25 to 44 years old and 22.3% 45 years and older.
The gender breakdown is also inadequate, with only 38.0% men and 62.0% women. It should be noted
that similar discrepancies (above-average percentage of younger and female respondents) were also
observed in some other online surveys where photos were used (Svobodova et al. 2012; Smrekar, Polajnar
Horvat, and Erhartič 2016; Pastorella et al. 2017).
The spatial distribution of respondents is more in line with the spatial distribution of the population
of Slovenia. Respondents live in all parts of Slovenia, but there is a greater concentration in Central Slovenia.
16.5% of respondents come from the municipality of Ljubljana alone, but this share is quite close to
the share of the population of Ljubljana in the Slovenian population (14.0% in 2017; Statistical … 2020a).
43.6% of respondents come from the Osrednjeslovenska region (the corresponding share in the popula-
tion of Slovenia in 2017 was 26.1%). The same proportions of respondents (5.4%) come from the regions
of Gorenjska, Savinjska and Obalno-kraška. The shares of respondents from other regions are lower.
Respondents were asked which characteristics were important to them when selecting destination
for a day trip. Among these characteristics (Table 1), attractive landscape was ranked first, mentioned by
70.47% of the respondents (up to three answers could be selected). The second most frequent response
also relates, at least in part, to the visual characteristics of the landscape, as ‘the presence of various attrac-
tions worth seeing’ was mentioned by 48.32% of the respondents. In third place is the characteristic directly
related to the ‘technical’ recreational suitability of a particular landscape or area, i.e. the possibility to prac-
tice favourite sports activities. Other characteristics were chosen by less than 30% of the respondents.
Figure 5: Example of poorly rated photograph taken in a coldspot.
M
AJ
A
 S
EV
ŠE
K
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 35
36
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
The most frequent activities of the respondents on day trips (Table 2) are visiting natural and cul-
tural sights (55.03% of respondents) and taking a walk (52.35% of respondents), which are also the only
ones frequently undertaken by more than half of the respondents. They are followed by ‘hiking/moun-
taineering’ with 40.27%. Respondents had the option to choose up to three activities.
Thus, the focus is on activities that the majority can engage in, as they do not set any special require-
ments for the individual (e.g., high costs, special physical abilities). At the same time, these are activities
that can be approached in different ways, with varying degrees of intensity, dedication, time commitment
etc. These activities have also been identified as the most important in some other studies (Cigale 2015).
3.2 Attractiveness of landscape in regard to diversity and naturalness
Considering that many of the aforementioned studies have found that diversity is positively relat-
ed to landscape attractiveness (e.g., Bujosa Bestard and Riera Font 2009; Schirpke et al. 2013; 2019),
Table 1: Characteristics of the area that are important for the respondents when choosing the destinations
of day trips (note: respondents were given the opportunity to choose up to 3 characteristics of the area).
Number of responses % of respondents
Attractive landscape 105 70.47
The presence of various attractions worth seeing 72 48.32
The possibility to practice favourite sports activities 57 38.26
Possibilities for a pleasant walk 41 27.52
Proximity to the area 36 24.16
That I haven’t been there yet 36 24.16
Low costs 33 22.15
Good catering offer 24 16.11
Interesting events 18 12.08
Other 3 2.01
Table 2: Activities most frequently undertaken by respondents on day trips (note: respondents were
given the opportunity to choose up to 3 activities of the area).
Number of responses % of respondents
Visiting natural and cultural sights 82 55.03
Taking a walk 78 52.35
Hiking/mountaineering 60 40.27
Swimming, bathing 50 33.56
Visiting a restaurant 38 25.50
Cycling 32 21.48
Alpine skiing 27 18.12
Visiting friends, relatives, acquaintances 20 13.42
Shopping 10 6.71
Jogging 7 4.70
Other sports activities 7 4.70
Other 4 2.68
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 36
one might expect hotspots to be more attractive than coldspots, since the former have the greatest diver-
sity. The average rating of photos taken in coldspots was 3.04 and in hotspots 3.10 (Table 3). Thus, photos
taken in hotspots were rated slightly higher. However, the t-test showed no statistically significant dif-
ference between the two groups (t = 0.69, p = 0.49). Therefore, it cannot be concluded that hotspots are
more attractive than coldspots.
The calculation of the correlation (Pearson’s r) between the average rating of the presence of indi-
vidual landscape elements (rated on a scale from 0 to 3) and the average rating of photographs (on a scale
from 1 to 5) showed a positive correlation with the presence of forest (r = 0.33, p = 0.000; Table 4), grass-
land (r = 0.19, p = 0.048) and water (r = 0.25, p = 0.008), although in the latter case there was a very modest
number of photographs (14) in which water was present. On the other hand, a negative correlation is
found with respect to the presence of transport infrastructure (r = −0.39, p = 0.000) and settlements
(r = −0.27, p = 0.004), as well as industrial facilities (which are present in only 9 photographs; r = −0.37,
p = 0.000).
The presence of forest, which is relatively the most ‘natural’ type of land cover, thus has the most
positive effect on attractiveness. Grassy areas, which are also found to be positively related to attrac-
tiveness, can also give the impression of naturalness, although in the case of the photographs used in
the study, they are not native vegetation. The results therefore clearly indicate the greater attractive-
ness of landscapes in which relatively natural landscape elements predominate, while human-made
elements generally have a negative influence on leisure attractiveness of landscapes. The latter is also
related to the fact that the photographs mostly showed »average« landscapes, in which visually par-
ticularly high-quality anthropogenic elements (e.g. highly attractive agricultural landscape, cultural
heritage objects), which have a positive effect on perceived attractiveness, are only modestly represented.
37
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
Table 3: Mean ratings of photographs taken at hotspots and coldspots.
Number of photos Mean rating
Hotspots 55 3.04
Coldspots 60 3.10
Total 115 3.07
Table 4: Correlations between rated attractiveness and the presence of landscape elements.
Pearson’s r Significance (2-tailed)
Water 0.25 0.008
Grassland 0.19 0.048
Arable land −0.03 0.725
Vineyard 0.10 0.303
Orchard 0.00 0.984
Forest 0.33 0.000
Settlement −0.27 0.004
Transport infrastructure −0.39 0.000
Energy infrastructure −0.14 0.126
Industrial and similar facilities −0.37 0.000
Other disturbing objects −0.10 0.293
(Supposed) cultural heritage −0.13 0.177
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 37
3.3 Differences between hikers/mountaineers and others in the evaluation of landscape
attractiveness
In general, hikers/mountaineers rate the attractiveness of images higher (hikers/mountaineers 3.30,
others 2.92; t = 3.91, p = 0.000; Table 5), which could be related to the above-average focus of their activ-
ity on landscape. Hikers rate both less natural (t = 2.48, p = 0.012) and more natural photos (t = 5.21,
p = 0.000) higher, with the difference between the two groups significantly larger in regard to the lat-
ter, indicating that hikers have a particularly positive attitude towards the natural landscape, which is
also especially suitable for their preferred recreational activity.
Table 5: The average rating of the attractiveness of photos in hikers/mountaineers and others.
Above-average natural Other photos Total
Hikers/mountaineers 3.57 3.10 3.30
Others 3.00 2.86 2.92
Such a result is consistent with the fact that for hikers, the main motive for hiking is to experience
the landscape (Muhar et al. 2007; Brämer 2009). The above-average attachment of hikers/mountaineers
to the aesthetically high quality (attractive) landscape is also reflected in the fact that among them the
percentage of those who chose attractive landscape as a feature of the area that is important when choos-
ing destinations for day trips, was 80.0%, while among all respondents it was 70.47%.
4 Discussion
The results are largely consistent with the results of other studies (e.g., Schüpbach, Zgraggen, and
Szerencsits 2008; Lindemann-Mathies et al. 2010; de Vries et al. 2013; Junge et al. 2015; Pastorella et
al. 2017; Fraiz et al. 2020), but there are some differences. For example, no differences were found in
landscape attractiveness in terms of landscape diversity as discussed in this study, i.e. by considering
landscape hotspots and coldspots as the most and least diverse areas. The attractiveness of the land-
scapes shown in the photographs did not differ depending on whether they were in a hotspot or coldspot.
However, this does not mean that the results suggest that diversity is not relevant as an influencing fac-
tor in landscape attractiveness. The reason for the results obtained may be in the conceptualization of
diversity that served as the basis for determining hotspots. Hotspots as the most diverse areas were iden-
tified by considering relief, lithology and vegetation, but such diversity is not necessarily reflected in
the perceived diversity. In addition, it should be noted that related research has mostly focused on rel-
atively homogeneous areas (e.g., alpine landscapes). This study covered a variety of landscape types,
so the influence of factors not directly included in the analysis might be expected. This may have con-
tributed to the fact that the influence of diversity as a factor of landscape attractiveness was not obvious.
From this perspective, it would be useful to examine the applicability of landscape hotspots in the con-
text of assessing landscape attractiveness within individual landscape types to reduce the potential
influence of intervening factors that may obscure the diversity effect. It would also be useful to exam-
ine the relationship between diversity as reflected in hotspots (the most diverse landscapes according
to the criteria used) and perceived diversity (whether individuals perceive hotspots to be more diverse).
Thus, diversity as a landscape attribute is not sufficient by itself to explain landscape attractiveness,
as it may also include those elements that have a negative impact on it. That the role of diversity in assess-
ing landscape attractiveness is quite complex and by no means unambiguous is also shown by the study
of Dramstad et al. (2006) that found the influence of diversity only in relation to certain indicators (e.g.,
38
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 38
number of land types and number of patches, but not heterogeneity index) and only for one group (non-
local students, but not for the local population).
The present study demonstrated a positive influence of naturalness (more natural vegetation or land
use) on landscape attractiveness, again indicating the importance of a relatively natural landscape in
a recreational context. The largest positive relationship was between attractiveness and the presence
of forest. However, the forest does not necessarily act as a factor of landscape attractiveness in all cases
(e.g., Fyhri, Jacobsen, and Tømmervik 2009; Smrekar, Polajnar Horvat, and Erhartič 2016). In this study,
forest was the most natural landscape element, but areas with other types of natural vegetation (e.g.,
mountain areas above the forest line) were not considered.
Previous research has highlighted differences in the evaluation of visual landscape quality between
different socio-demographic groups. This paper discussed the differences between recreation user groups,
focusing specifically on hikers/mountaineers (as a group that relies on natural landscape for recreation)
and comparing them to others. The results showed that the evaluation of visual landscape quality is
related to a favourite recreational activity. Engaging in more ‘natural’ forms of outdoor recreation may
be associated with different notions of what constitutes an attractive landscape. In addition, hiking/moun-
taineering itself is more focused on the landscape. Hikers’ preference for the natural landscape may also
be a consequence of the functional evaluation of the landscape (hikers need the natural landscape, so
they perceive it as more attractive), but it cannot be excluded that an individual’s positive attitude towards
the natural landscape is among the reasons for hiking and similar activities.
The research referred to respondents as potential day visitors rather than holidaymakers. Nevertheless,
it can be assumed that the results are largely relevant in other contexts as well. It should be borne in
mind that tourism and recreation are closely intertwined. Most tourism is linked to leisure. Many areas
are visited by both overnight tourists and day visitors, and often both groups have similar behaviours
(Carr 2002; Pomfret and Bramwell 2016). Because of these similarities, it can be assumed that the find-
ings can largely apply to overnight tourists as well. At the same time, however, it should not be overlooked
that there are differences between the two groups. A tourist trip is also about the tourist breaking with
routine, of which the everyday environment is a part. At least to some extent, tourist trips are also relat-
ed to different motives, which may include the search for different, exotic landscapes.
It is also worth mentioning some of the limitations of the present study, which are mainly related
to the characteristics of the (non-random) sample, which differs in its characteristics from the char-
acteristics of the population of Slovenia.
5 Conclusion
The results shed light on some aspects of the role of naturalness and diversity as factors of land-
scape attractiveness. At the same time, they provide insight into the differences in landscape preferences
in relation to recreational activities, specifically also in relation to outdoor recreation in the natural envi-
ronment. The results underline the importance of relatively natural landscape in the recreational context.
Such a landscape in Slovenia is mainly the forest. Its area has been increasing in the long term. These
changes are valued differently by individuals. The results indicate that the landscape resulting from such
processes would be assessed relatively positively by a significant part of the population.
Understanding landscape preferences of recreationists is important as landscape features are cru-
cial for tourism and recreational use. Decisions concerning land use and development also influence
visual landscape change and therefore the attractiveness of the landscape and the quality of tourist and
recreational experience. This can have a significant impact on the satisfaction of recreationists and tourists
and might affect tourist visitation.
This study did not take into account the possibly different attitudes towards and different evalua-
tion of familiar landscapes that arise from the frequent contact with place and detailed local knowledge
39
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 39
of day visitors and overnight tourists who repeatedly visit a particular area. In the present paper, this
aspect was not considered due to the selection of areas (hotspots/coldspots), which did not include more
heavily visited recreation and tourism areas. Nonetheless, this is a topic that deserves attention in future
research, as a good portion of leisure travel (including vacation travel) has destinations in relatively
nearby and often visited areas.
Acknowledgements: This paper is partly based on the research project Landscape Diversity and Hotspots
of Slovenia (L6-6852) financed by the Slovenian Research Agency. Special thanks to geography students
at the University of Ljubljana in years 2016 and 2017 for their valuable help and to the authors of photographs.
6 References
Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., Ruiz-Aviles, P. 2004: Assessing the visual quality
of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurb-
plan.2003.10.029
Bain, C., Fallon, S. 2016: Slovenia. Carlton (Victoria), Oakland (California), London.
Bousfield, J., Stewart, J. A. 2017: Slovenia (Eyewitness Travel Guides). London.
Brämer, R. 2009: Profilstudie Wandern ‘08: 1. Basismodul »Wer wandert warum?«. Internet:
https://www.wanderforschung.de/files/prostu0811249833531.pdf (16. 2. 2021).
Broekel, T., Alfken, C. 2015: Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand.
Energy Policy 86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.005
Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H. M., Langers, F. 2009: No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in
images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 91-3. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.
Bujosa Bestard, A., Riera Font, A. 2009: Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling.
Ecological Economics 68-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.016
Carr, N. 2002: The tourism–leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of Tourism Research 29-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00002-6
Cigale, D. 2015: Prostočasna potovanja in slovensko prebivalstvo. E-GeograFF 8. Ljubljana.
Cigale, D., Gosar, A. 2017: Geography of tourism in Slovenia. The Geography of Tourism of Central
and Eastern European Countries. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42205-3_12
Ciglič, R., Perko, D. 2013: Europe’s landscape hotspots. Acta geographica Slovenica 53-1. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53106
Dakin, S. 2003: There’s more to landscape than meets the eye: Towards inclusive landscape assessment
in resource and environmental management. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien
47-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0064.t01-1-00003
Daniel, T. C., Meitner, M. M. 2001: Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects
of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology
21-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0182
de Vries, S., Buijs, A. E., Langers, F., Farjon, H., van Hinsberg, A., Sijtsma, F. J. 2013: Measuring the
attractiveness of Dutch landscapes: Identifying national hotspots of highly valued places using Google
Maps. Applied Geography 45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.017
Deghati Najd, M., Ismail, N. A., Maulan, S., Mohd Yunos, M. Y., Dabbagh Niya, M. 2015: Visual pref-
erence dimensions of historic urban areas: The determinants for urban heritage conservation. Habitat
International 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.003
Delgado Martínez, A. M., Pantoja Timarán, F. 2016: Valoración del paisaje en una propuesta de turismo
sostenible: la »Ruta del Oro«, Nariño (Colombia). Cuadernos de Geografía – Revista Colombiana
de Geografía 25-1. DOI: doi.org/10.15446/rcdg.v25n1.50157
40
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 40
Dirin, D. A., Popov, E. C. 2010: Ocenka pejzažno-èstetičeskoj privlekatel’nosti landšaftov: metodologičeskij
obzor. Izvestija Altajskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 3.
Dramstad, W. E., Sundli Tveit, M., Fjellstad, W. J., Fry, G. L. A. 2006: Relationships between visual land-
scape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning
78-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
Fraiz, J. A., de Carlos, P., Araújo, N. 2020: Disclosing homogeneity within heterogeneity: A segmen-
tation of Spanish active tourism based on motivational pull factors. Journal of Outdoor Recreation
and Tourism 30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100294
Fyhri, A., Jacobsen, J. K. S., Tømmervik, H. 2009: Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in
a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning 91-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2009.01.002
Gallardo, D., Bernaldez, F. G., Ruiz, J. P., Abello, R. P. 1989: Paysages préférés: divergence des jeunes
en Espagne. Espace géographique 18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/spgeo.1989.2824
García Pérez, J. D. 2002: Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise photographs:
Planning rural tourism in Extremadura, Spain. Landscape Research 27-3. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1080/01426390220149539
Grêt-Regamey, A., Bishop, I. D., Bebi, P. 2007: Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape
changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 34-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/b32051
Hammit, W. E., Patterson, M. E., Noe, F. P. 1994: Identifying and predicting visual preference of south-
ern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning 29, 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/0169-2046(94)90026-4
Han, K.-T. 2007: Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and
restorativeness. Environment and Behavior 39-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506292016
Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W. 2005: »Wilderness«: What it means when it becomes a reality–a case
study from the Southwestern Alps. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.006
Hunziker, M. 1992: Tourismusbedingte Landschaftsveränderungen im Urteil der Touristen. Geographica
Helvetica 47-4.
Hunziker, M. 1995: The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: perception and
aesthetical assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning 31, 1-3. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)93251-j
Hunziker, M., Felber, P., Gehring, K., Buchecker, M., Bauer, N., Kienast, F. 2008. Evaluation of land-
scape change by different social groups. Results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain
Research and Development 28-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0952
Hunziker, M., Kienast, F. 1999: Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty–a
prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology 14. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1008079715913
Jacob, G. R., Schreyer, R. 1980: Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure
Research 12-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1980.11969462
Jacobsen, J. K. S. 2007: Use of landscape perception methods in tourism studies. Tourism Geographies
9-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680701422871
Jeršič, M. 1971. Izletniška rekreacija mestnega prebivalstva in njeni prostorski učinki. Geographica
Slovenica 1.
Jeršič, M. 1985: Turistična geografija. Ljubljana.
Jeršič, M. 1995: Bližnja rekreacija prebivalcev mesta Ljubljane. Dela 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/
dela.11.151-168
Jeršič, M. 1998: Bližnja rekreacija prebivalcev Slovenije. Geographica Slovenica 29.
Jeršič, M. 1999: Prostorsko planiranje rekreacije na prostem. Ljubljana.
41
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 41
Junge, X., Schüpbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B., Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2015. Aesthetic quality of agri-
cultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning
133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010
Koderman, M., Opačić, V. T., Marković Vukadin, I. 2020: Tourism development and green horizons
in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia: synthesis and perspectives. Challenges of Tourism
Development in Protected Areas of Croatia and Slovenia. Koper, Zagreb.
Le Floch, S. 1996: Bilan des définitions et méthodes d’évaluation du paysage. Ingénieries eau-agricul-
ture-territoires 5.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., Junge, X. 2010: Aesthetic preference for a Swiss
Alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity.
Landscape and Urban Planning 98-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015
Lothian, A. 1999: Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the land-
scape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning 44-4. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/s0169-2046(99)00019-5
MacKay, K. J., Fesenmaier, D. R. 1997: Pictorial element of destination in image formation. Annals of
Tourism Research 21-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(97)00011-x
Moeller, G. H., MacLachlan, R., Morrison, D. A. 1974: Measuring perception of elements in outdoor
environments. Research Paper NE-289. Upper Darby. Internet: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/
pubs/15394 (16. 3. 2021).
Mohd Taher, S. H., Jamal, S. A., Sumarjan, N., Aminudin, N. 2015: Examining the structural relations
among hikers’ assessment of pull-factors, satisfaction and revisit intentions: The case of mountain
tourism in Malaysia. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jort.2015.11.012
Muhar, A., Schauppenlehner, T., Brandenburg, C., Arnberger, A. 2007: Alpine summer tourism: the
mountaineers’ perspective and consequences for tourism strategies in Austria. Forest Snow and
Landscape Research 81, 1-2.
Mutanga, C. N., Vengesayi, S., Chikuta, O., Muboko, N., Gandiwa, E. 2017: Travel motivation and tourist
satisfaction with wildlife tourism experiences in Gonarezhou and Matusadona National Parks,
Zimbabwe. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jort.2017.08.001
Noe, F. P. 1988: Effects of recreational and environmental values on tourists’ scenic preferences. Visual
preferences of travelers along the Blue Ridge parkway. Washington, D. C. Internet: http://npshis-
tory.com/series/science/18/index.htm (18. 3. 2021).
Nolte, B. 2004. Landschaftsbewertung für Tourismus und Freizeit: Fallstudie Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Geographie der Freizeit und des Tourismus: Bilanz und Ausblick. München, Wien.
Pastorella, F., Giacovelli, G., De Meo, I., Paletto, A. 2017: People’s preferences for Alpine forest landscapes:
results of an internet-based survey. Journal of Forest Research 22-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
13416979.2017.1279708
Perko, D., Ciglič, R. 2020: Slovenia’s Landscapes. The Geography of Slovenia: Small But Diverse. Cham.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_14
Perko, D., Ciglič, R., Zorn, M. 2020: Slovenia: A European landscape hotspot. The Geography of Slovenia:
Small But Diverse. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_1
Perko, D., Hrvatin, M., Ciglič, R. 2017: Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia. Acta geographica
Slovenica 57-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ags.4618
Pires, P. S. 2011: Marco teórico-metodológico de los estudios del paisaje. Perspectivas de aplicación en
la planificación del turismo. Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo 20-3.
Polat, A. T., Akay, A. 2015: Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area
users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14-3. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.009
42
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 42
Pomfret, G., Bramwell, B. 2016: The characteristics and motivational decisions of outdoor adventure
tourists: A review and analysis. Current Issues in Tourism 19-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2014.925430
Pori, M., Sila, B. 2010: S katerimi športnorekreativnimi dejavnostmi se Slovenci najraje ukvarjamo? Šport:
revija za teoretična in praktična vprašanja športa 58, 1-2.
Sæþórsdóttir, A. D., Ólafsdóttir, R. 2020: Not in my back yard or not on my playground: Residents and
tourists’ attitudes towards wind turbines in icelandic landscapes. Energy for Sustainable Development
54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2019.11.004
Sancho Royo, F. 1973. Análisis de respuestas subjetivas al paisaje natural: establecimiento de un test
de alternativas y tratamiento factorial de los datos. Doctoral thesis, Facultad de ciencias, Universidad
de Sevilla. Sevilla.
Schirpke, U., Hölzler, S., Leitinger, G., Bacher, M., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E. 2013: Can we model
the scenic beauty of an Alpine Landscape? Sustainability 5-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
su5031080
Schirpke, U., Tappeiner, G., Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U. 2019: Using conjoint analysis to gain deeper insights
into aesthetic landscape preferences. Ecological Indicators 96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecol-
ind.2018.09.001
Schüpbach, B., Zgraggen, K., Szerencsits, E. 2008: Incentives for low-input land-use types and their influ-
ence on the attractiveness of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 89-3. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.060
Smrekar, A., Polajnar Horvat, K., Erhartič, B. 2016: The beauty of landforms. Acta geographica Slovenica
56-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ags.3039
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia: Population. Ljubljana, 2020a. Internet: https://pxweb.stat.si/
SiStat/en/Podrocja/Index/100/population (16. 3. 2021).
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia: Tourism. Ljubljana, 2020b. Internet: https://pxweb.stat.si/
SiStat/en/Podrocja/Index/155/tourism (16. 3. 2021).
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia: Foreign tourists in Slovenia. Ljubljana, 2021. Internet:
https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/2176615S.px/ (9. 10. 2021).
Strategija trajnostne rasti slovenskega turizma 2017–2021. Ministrstvo za gospodarski razvoj in
tehnologijo. Ljubljana, 2017.
Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., Salek, M. 2012: Visual preferences for physical attributes
of mining and post-mining landscapes with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of respon-
dents. Ecological Engineering 43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.08.007
Šilc, U., Vreš, B., Čelik, T., Gregorič, M. 2019: Biodiversity of Slovenia. The Geography of Slovenia: Small
But Diverse. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_7
Tveit, M., Ode, Å., Fry, G. 2006: Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character.
Landscape Research 31-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
Tyrväinen, L., Uusitalo, M., Silvennoinen, H., Hasu, E. 2014: Towards sustainable growth in nature-
based tourism destinations: Clients’ views of land use options in Finnish Lapland. Landscape and
Urban Planning 122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.10.003
Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L. 2006: New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual
preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 78-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006
Vanderheyden, V., Van der Horst, D., Van Rompaey, A., Schmitz, S. 2014: Perceiving the ordinary: A study
of everyday landscapes in Belgium. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 105-5. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12066
Vouligny, É., Domon, G., Ruiz, J. 2009: An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its
residents: Landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use. Land Use Policy 26-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.016
43
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Papers/Razprave
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 43
Wu, Y., Bishop, I., Hossain, H., Sposito, V. 2006: Using GIS in landscape visual quality assessment. Applied
GIS 2-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2104/ag060018
Yang, B.-E., Brown, T. J. 1992: A Cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and land-
scape elements. Environment and Behavior 24-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916592244003
Zubelzu, S., del Campo, C. 2014: Assessment method for agricultural landscapes through the objec-
tive quantification of aesthetic attributes. International Journal of Environmental Research 8-4. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2014.817
44
Dejan Cigale Analysis of visual elements of leisure attractiveness of Slovenian landscapes
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 44
ANALIZA VIDNIH ELEMENTOV PROSTOČASNE
PRIVLAČNOSTI SLOVENSKIH POKRAJIN
1 Uvod
Pokrajina s svojimi značilnostmi igra ključno vlogo na področju turizma in rekreacije. Pogosto so
jo obravnavali kot privlačni dejavnik (Mohd Taher in sod. 2015; Mutanga in sod. 2017; Fraiz, de Carlos
in Araújo 2020), njeno vrednotenje z vidika turizma in rekreacije pa je že zgodaj postalo predmet znan-
stvenega zanimanja (Nolte 2004; Jacobsen 2007). Med ključnimi dejavniki pokrajinske privlačnosti so
njene vidne značilnosti, ki so bile tako pogosto obravnavane na področju proučevanja rekreacije in tur-
izma (na primer Fyhri, Jacobsen in Tømmervik 2009; Deghati Najd in sod. 2015; Delgado Martínez
in Pantoja Timarán 2016). Vprašanje vidne kakovosti pokrajine je v kontekstu rekreacije in turizma
pomembno z različnih vidikov, na primer z vidika načrtovanja turističnega razvoja (Pires 2011), regio-
nalnega planiranja (Grêt-Regamey, Bishop in Bebi 2007) ali zadovoljevanja rekreacijskih potreb
lokalnega prebivalstva (Arriaza in sod. 2004; Bujosa Bestard in Riera Font 2009).
Pokrajina ni statična, temveč se stalno spreminja. Spremembe v pokrajini, ki vplivajo na njene vidne
značilnosti, lahko glede na naravo teh sprememb delujejo na njeno privlačnost za turizem in rekrea-
cijo pozitivno (Hunziker 1995; Hunziker in Kienast 1999; Lindemann-Matthies in sod. 2010) ali negativno
(Broekel in Alfken 2015; Sæþórsdóttir in Ólafsdóttir 2020). Vendar pa odnos med turizmom/rekrea-
cijo in pokrajino ni enostranski, saj sta turizem in rekreacija med dejavniki, ki preoblikujejo pokrajino
in lahko prispevajo tudi k tistim spremembam, ki jih turisti ovrednotijo kot negativne (Hunziker 1992).
V preteklosti so se znotraj različnih strok razvili številni pristopi k proučevanju vidne/estetske kako-
vosti pokrajine. Ločevali bi lahko dve nasprotni paradigmi (Wu in sod. 2006): ekspertni pristop (na
primer Jeršič 1999) ter pristop, ki temelji na percepcijah skupnosti. Po Jacobsenu (2007) prvi pristop
izhaja iz prepričanja, da je pokrajinska kakovost svojstvena dejanskemu okolju, medtem ko drugi pri-
stop predpostavlja, da je pokrajinska kakovost v očeh opazovalca. Lothian (1999) je v povezavi s prvim
govoril o objektivistični ali fizični paradigmi, v povezavi z drugim pa o subjektivistični ali psihološki
paradigmi. Podobne členitve so navajali nekateri drugi avtorji (Le Floch 1996; Dirin in Popov 2010).
Velik del vrednotenj znotraj »subjektivistične« (Lothian 1999) paradigme je temeljil na uporabi foto-
grafij, kar velja tudi za vrednotenje privlačnosti pokrajine z  vidika turizma. Takšen pristop ima
številne prednosti, med katerimi so na primer nižji stroški, nadzor nad eksperimentalnim kontekstom,
terenski obiski so le redko izvedljivi, če gre za večje število anketirancev (Daniel in Meitner 2001; Jacobsen
2007; Pastorella in sod. 2017).
Empirične raziskave so pokazale, da nekatere pokrajinske značilnosti pomembno vplivajo na zazna-
no privlačnost ali vidno kakovost pokrajine. Med dejavniki, za katere se je pogosto izkazalo, da pozitivno
vplivajo na pokrajinsko privlačnost, je pokrajinska raznolikost. Na primer, pri proučevanju gozdne rekrea-
cije (na Majorki, Španija) sta Bujosa Bestard in Riera Font (2009) ugotovila, da je pokrajinska raznolikost
pomemben določevalni dejavnik posameznikove izbire krajev rekreacije. Do podobnih ugotovitev so
prišli Schirpke in sodelavci (2013) v raziskavi domačinov in turistov na alpskih območjih v Italiji in
Avstriji ter Dramstad in sodelavci (2006) v raziskavi iz Norveške. Tudi v zvezi s kmetijsko pokrajino
so Junge in sodelavci (2015) ter Hunziker (1995) ugotovili pozitiven vpliv zaznane raznolikosti na vred-
notenje pokrajine.
Še en dejavnik, ki je bil pogosto ugotovljen kot pomemben v povezavi z vidno kakovostjo pokraji-
ne, je naravnost pokrajine. Tveit, Ode in Fry (2006) definirajo naravnost kot bližino vnaprej oblikovanim
predstavam o tem, kaj je naravno stanje. Pri izbiri destinacije dajejo obiskovalci pogosto prednost tistim
vidikom, ki se nanašajo na naravo (Fraiz in sod. 2020). Arriaza in sodelavci (2004) so identificirali stop-
njo divjosti pokrajine kot najpomembnejši dejavnik, ki vpliva na zaznano vidno kakovost pokrajine.
45
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Razprave/Papers
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 45
Podobno so Wu in sodelavci (2006) ugotovili, da zaznana vidna kakovost pokrajine narašča s stopnjo
divjosti in deležem naravnega rastlinstva. V skladu s tem so de Vries in sodelavci (2013) ter Pastorella
in sodelavci (2017) omenili pozitiven vpliv gozda na vidno kakovost pokrajine, Han (2007) pa je pre-
poznal tundro ter iglasti gozd kot najbolj cenjena bioma. Na privlačnost kmetijske pokrajine pozitivno
vplivajo bolj ekstenzivne (in potemtakem bolj naravne) rabe tal (Schüpbach, Zgraggen in Szerencsits
2008; Lindemann-Mathies in sod. 2010; Junge in sod. 2015).
Tudi prisotnost vode pozitivno vpliva na pokrajinsko privlačnost. Wu in sodelavci (2006) so ugo-
tovili, da zaznana vidna kakovost pokrajine narašča z obsegom vidne površine vode. Podobno so Pastorella
in sodelavci (2017) navedli, da so vodne površine (skupaj z gozdovi) najbolj cenjene sestavine alpske
pokrajine. Smrekar, Polajnar Horvatova in Erhartič (2016) so se osredotočili na privlačnost posamez-
nih pokrajinskih oblik na alpskem zavarovanem območju (v  Triglavskem narodnem parku), pri
čemer so se jezera pokazala kot najbolj privlačna. Tudi nekaj drugih raziskav je opozorilo na poziti-
ven vpliv vode na pokrajinsko privlačnost (Yang in Brown 1992; Hammit, Patterson in Noe 1994; Arriaza
in sod. 2004; Polat in Akay 2015).
Pretekle raziskave so opozorile tudi na vlogo številnih drugih dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na zaznave
pokrajinske privlačnosti. Med njimi so, na primer, barvne značilnosti pokrajine (Arriaza in sod. 2004;
Zubelzu in del Campo 2014; Polat in Akay 2015), obsežni razgledi (Schirpke in sod. 2013), gostota in
vzorci pozidave (Tyrväinen in sod. 2014), dinamične in kratkotrajne razmere ali variacije v teh zna-
čilnostih (Dakin 2003; Junge in sod. 2015; Pastorella in sod. 2017). Dakinova (2003) je izpostavila še
en pomemben vidik, in sicer to, da ljudje vrednotijo pokrajino bolj intimno in manj vizualno, kot so pred-
postavljali ekspertni pristopi k vrednotenju pokrajine. Za stalne prebivalce vrednost običajnih pokrajin
temelji na vrsti kriterijev, ki so povezani s čustvi, vsakodnevnimi izkušnjami ter intimnim poznavanjem
krajev (Vouligny, Domon in Ruiz 2009). Celo znotraj turističnega konteksta poznavanje turistične desti-
nacije vpliva na to, kako zaznavajo in vrednotijo vidne elemente (MacKay in Fesenmaier 1997).
Na drugi strani so pretekle raziskave prepoznale tiste značilnosti, ki negativno vplivajo na pokrajin-
sko privlačnost in so pogosto povezane s človekovimi posegi. Zaznana pokrajinska kakovost upada s pri-
sotnostjo negativnih antropogenih elementov, kot so ceste in zgradbe (Wu in sod. 2006) ali vetrne tur-
bine (Broekel in Alfken 2015; Sæþórsdóttir in Ólafsdóttir 2020). Tudi intenzivna kmetijska raba je negativno
povezana z vidno kakovostjo pokrajine (Lindemann-Matthies in sod. 2010; Schirpke in sod. 2013; 2019).
Pokrajinske preference se razlikujejo med različnimi skupinami, na primer med različnimi demo-
grafskimi in socioekonomskimi skupinami. Več avtorjev je opozorilo na razlike pri vrednotenju
divjih, nenaseljenih območij. Tako so bolj izobraženi (Sancho Royo 1973; Buijs, Elands in Langers 2009),
mlajši (Van den Berg in Koole 2006; Lindemann-Matthies in sod. 2010) in moški (Sancho Royo 1973;
Gallardo in sod. 1989) više vrednotili bolj divjo pokrajino. Na drugi strani so dajali prednost kultivira-
nim, kmetijskim pokrajinam ženske (Sancho Royo 1973; Vanderheyden in sod. 2014), starejši (Van den
Berg in Koole 2006, Lindemann-Matthies in sod. 2010) in podeželsko prebivalstvo (Sancho Royo 1973).
Razlike v vrednotenju vidne kakovosti pokrajine so bile ugotovljene tudi med turisti in domačini
(Höchtl, Lehringer in Konold 2005; Hunziker in sod. 2008; Schirpke in sod. 2013) ter med pripadni-
ki različnih kultur (Yang in Brown 1992; Buijs, Elands in Langers 2009) ali med prebivalci iz različnih
jezikovnih skupin (Vanderheyden in sod. 2014). Razlike med pripadniki različnih kultur so lahko še
zlasti pomembne v povezavi s turizmom, saj številne destinacije obiskujejo turisti iz več držav. Razlike
v vrednotenju vidne kakovosti pokrajine se pojavljajo tudi med posamezniki, ki se ukvarjajo z različnimi
rekreacijskimi dejavnostmi. Tako je, na primer, García Pérez (2002) opozoril na razlike med pohodni-
ki in sprehajalci, razlike med skupinami rekreacijskih uporabnikov glede preferenc in zaznav pa so poudarile
tudi nekatere starejše raziskave (na primer Moeller, MacLachlan in Morrison 1974; Noe 1988).
Ta prispevek obravnava privlačnost slovenske pokrajine kot prostočasnega prostora, pri čemer izha-
ja iz domneve, da so vidne značilnosti pokrajine pomemben dejavnik njene pokrajinske privlačnosti
tako v okviru vsakodnevne rekreacije kot turističnih potovanj s prenočevanjem. Kot je bilo predhod-
no omenjeno, je pokrajinska privlačnost povezana z različnimi pokrajinskimi značilnostmi. V tem
46
Dejan Cigale Analiza vidnih elementov prostočasne privlačnosti slovenskih pokrajin
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 46
prispevku je pozornost osredotočena na dva dejavnika privlačnosti, ki sta še posebej pomembna v pove-
zavi s  turizmom in rekreacijo v Sloveniji in sta kot takšna pogosto poudarjena. To sta pokrajinska
raznolikost in naravnost.
Slovenija je v povprečju najbolj pokrajinsko raznolika od vseh evropskih držav (Ciglič in Perko 2013;
Perko, Ciglič in Zorn 2020). Pokrajinski raznolikosti Slovenije so namenili posebno pozornost Perko,
Hrvatin in Ciglič (2017), ki so identificirali najbolj (pokrajinske vroče točke) in najmanj (pokrajinske
mrzle točke) raznolika območja v državi, opozorili pa so tudi na potencial pokrajinske raznolikosti v okvi-
ru turizma. Pokrajinske vroče in mrzle točke so bile uporabljene kot izhodišče tudi v tem prispevku.
Tudi nekateri drugi avtorji so opozorili na pomen raznolikosti slovenske pokrajine z vidika turizma
(na primer Cigale in Gosar 2017).
Slovenija je tudi nadpovprečno naravna država, kar dokazuje velik delež gozda, po katerem je Slovenija
na tretjem mestu v Evropi (Šilc in sod. 2020). Pomen naravnosti slovenske pokrajine za turizem kaže-
ta, med drugim, tudi dejstvo, da so bile poleti leta 2019 naravne lepote pomemben ali zelo pomemben
motiv za prihod na počitnice v Slovenijo za 91,8 % anketiranih tujih turistov (Statistical … 2021), ter
priljubljenost zavarovanih območij kot turističnih destinacij (Koderman, Opačić in Marković Vukadin
2020). Tudi slovenska turistična strategija (Strategija … 2017) opozarja na pomembno vlogo naravnosti
in pokrajinske raznolikosti za slovenski turizem, pomen teh dveh dejavnikov pa je razviden tudi iz turi-
stičnih vodnikov, ki se ukvarjajo s Slovenijo (na primer Bain in Fallon 2016; Bousfield in Stewart 2017).
Te pokrajinske značilnosti so enako pomembne tudi za slovensko prebivalstvo in njegove prostočasne
dejavnosti, tako v okviru enodnevnih izletov kot počitniških potovanj.
Posamezniki se na svojih prostočasnih potovanjih ukvarjajo z  vrsto dejavnosti, pri čemer je
pomembna vrsta motivov. Različne rekreacijske dejavnosti imajo različne prostorske zahteve. Poleg tega
(vidna) pokrajinska kakovost ni enako pomembna za vse rekreacijske dejavnosti na prostem (Jeršič 1985).
Rekreacijske dejavnosti so tudi v različni meri osredotočene na okolje ali na dejavnost samo (Jacob in
Schreyer 1980) in v različni meri navezane na bolj ali manj naravno okolje (García Pérez 2002). V skla-
du s tem je mogoče pričakovati, da bodo pripadniki skupin, ki se ukvarjajo z različnimi rekreacijskimi
dejavnostmi, imeli različen odnos do pokrajine in da jo bodo različno vrednotili. Ker imajo rekreacij-
ske dejavnosti v naravnem okolju v Sloveniji nadpovprečen pomen (Pori in Sila 2010; Cigale 2015) je
vprašanje povezav med vrednotenjem vidne kakovosti pokrajine in navezanostjo rekreacijskih dejav-
nosti na naravno okolje še posebej upoštevanja vredno, zaradi česar je tudi obravnavano v pričujoči raziskavi.
Namen prispevka je torej proučiti uporabnost pokrajinskih vročih točk v okviru proučevanja pokra-
jinske privlačnosti, hkrati pa tudi osvetliti vlogo raznolikosti in naravnosti kot dejavnikov privlačnosti.
Prispevek se bo osredotočil na naslednja tri vprašanja:
• Ali so bolj raznolike pokrajine (tj. pokrajinske vroče točke) bolj privlačne?
• Ali je prostočasna privlačnost pokrajin pozitivno povezana s prisotnostjo tistih pokrajinskih elementov,
ki so bolj naravni?
• Ali je ukvarjanje z rekreacijskimi dejavnostmi, ki so navezane na naravno okolje, povezano z razli-
čnim vrednotenjem pokrajinske privlačnosti?
2 Metode in podatki
2.1 Izbor (obiskanih) območij in fotografij
Tako kot v številnih drugih raziskavah so bile tudi v tej uporabljene fotografije. Posnete so bile na
terenu med obiskom različnih slovenskih območij. Izbor obiskanih območij je temeljil na pokrajinskih
vročih in mrzlih točkah, ki so jih opredelili Perko, Hrvatin in Ciglič (2017). Za potrebe terenskega dela
je bilo treba izbrati takšne vroče in mrzle točke, ki so bile ustrezne velikosti (ne premajhne, da so upra-
vičile terenski obisk, in ne prevelike, saj drugače v razpoložljivem času ne bi bilo mogoče obiskati cele
47
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Razprave/Papers
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 47
prostorske enote). Skupaj je bilo obiskanih 39 območij (slika 1). Med njimi je bilo 19 mrzlih in 20 vro-
čih točk. Njihova povprečna velikost je bila 381,3 ha. Znotraj posameznih vročih in mrzlih točk je bilo
obiskanih več lokacij, da je bila tako zajeta njihova notranja heterogenost ter da je bila vsaka vroča in
mrzla točka prostorsko ustrezno pokrita. Na vsaki lokaciji so bile posnete vsaj štiri fotografije, usmer-
jene na štiri različne strani. Privlačnost pokrajin je povezana tudi z letnim časom (Junge in sod. 2015;
Pastorella in sod. 2017). Vpliv tega je bil zmanjšan na najmanjšo možno mero, saj so bile vse fotogra-
fije posnete v obdobju nekaj tednov v pomladi 2016.
Kot rezultat terenskih obiskov je nastala obsežna zbirka fotografij. Kasneje so bile tiste, ki so bile
tehnično zelo neprimerne (na primer zaradi zelo neustrezne osvetlitve), izključene iz nadaljnje anali-
ze, tako kot tudi tiste, ki so vsebovale posamezne izrazito dominantne vidne elemente, ki bi lahko odločilno
vplivali na vrednotenje pokrajine na fotografijah (na primer objekt, ki zavzema pomemben del foto-
grafije in bi lahko vplival na zaznano vidno kakovost v dosti večji meri kot okoliška pokrajina). Štirje
posamezniki (študenti geografije) so sodelovali v procesu izločanja fotografij, pri čemer so bile izlo-
čene zgolj tiste fotografije, za katere so vsi štirje menili, da si to zaslužijo. Tako je bilo v nadaljnjo analizo
vključenih 620 fotografij. Izmed teh so bile v nadaljevanju izbrane tiste, ki so bile uporabljene v anke-
tni raziskavi o pokrajinski privlačnosti.
V okviru anketne raziskave je bil eden ključnih omejitvenih dejavnikov še sprejemljiv čas za izpol-
njevanje vprašalnika, saj bi preveliko število fotografij negativno vplivalo na zbranost anketirancev pri
ocenjevanju fotografij, hkrati pa bi predolg vprašalnik odvračal anketirance. Ob upoštevanju priča-
kovanega trajanja izpolnjevanja vprašalnika je bilo v ocenjevanje vključenih 115 fotografij; 55 fotografij
je bilo posnetih znotraj mrzlih, 60 pa znotraj vročih točk.
Fotografije so bile izbrane, iz prej omenjene množice 620 fotografij, na način, da so bile ustrezno
zastopane vroče in mrzle točke, pa tudi različni slovenski pokrajinski tipi (Perko in Ciglič 2020). Tako
so bile vključene vroče in mrzle točke iz različnih pokrajinskih tipov ter s tem v večji meri zajeta pokra-
48
Dejan Cigale Analiza vidnih elementov prostočasne privlačnosti slovenskih pokrajin
mrzla točka
vroča točka
Legenda
Kartografija: Dejan Cigale,
Ana Seifert Barba
© 2021, Oddelek za geografijo
Filozofske fakultete Univerze
v Ljubljani
0 20 40
km
Slika 1: Lokacije obiskanih vročih in mrzlih točk.
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 48
jinska raznolikost Slovenije. Ustrezno zastopanost različnih pokrajinskih tipov je bilo v resnici mogo-
če zagotoviti samo v omejeni meri, saj je razporeditev vročih in mrzlih točk (zlasti tistih, ki so ustrezne
velikosti) po pokrajinskih tipih izrazito neenakomerna. Posledica tega je skromna zastopanost neka-
terih pokrajinskih tipov (na primer panonske ravnine, sredozemska flišna brda in sredozemske kraške
planote). Zaradi lokacije vročih in mrzlih točk ni bilo obiskano nobeno izmed tipičnih turističnih obmo-
čij. Posledica tega je, da obiskana območja niso splošno poznana, kar je prispevalo k temu, da v splošnem
na ocenjevanje fotografij niso vplivali poznavanje in morebitne predhodne izkušnje posameznikov.
2.2 Raznolikost in naravnost
Pretekle raziskave so ugotavljale raznolikost na različne načine. Uporabljeni pristopi so segali od
na GIS-ih temelječih kazalnikov (na primer Dramstad in sod. 2006; Bujosa Bestard in Riera Font 2009)
do uporabe kvalitativnih metod, na primer intervjujev (Hunziker 1995). V tem prispevku, kot že ome-
njeno, je bila pokrajinska raznolikost obravnavana v navezavi na raziskavo Perka, Hrvatina in Cigliča
(2017), ki so določili najbolj in najmanj raznolika območja v Sloveniji. Pri izračunu raznolikosti slo-
venske pokrajine so avtorji upoštevali digitalne podatke o reliefu, kamninah in rastlinstvu. Območja
visoke pokrajinske raznolikosti (desetina površja države z največjo pokrajinsko raznolikostjo) so bila
označena kot pokrajinske vroče točke, območja nizke pokrajinske raznolikosti (desetina površja drža-
ve z najmanjšo pokrajinsko raznolikostjo) pa kot pokrajinske mrzle točke (Perko, Hrvatin in Ciglič 2017).
Naravnost je bila obravnavana glede na prisotnost bolj ali manj naravnih pokrajinskih elementov
(na primer tipov rabe tal, antropogenih elementov) na fotografijah. Analizo fotografij, katere namen
je bil določiti prisotnost posameznih tipov rabe tal in nekaterih drugih relevantnih kategorij, so neod-
visno eden od drugega izvedli štirje posamezniki. Prisotnost vsakega elementa je bila ocenjena na lestvici
od 0 do 3, kjer je 0 pomenilo, da element ni prisoten na sliki, 3 pa je pomenilo, da element na sliki prev-
laduje. Ocenjevalci so ocenjevali prisotnost naslednjih kategorij: voda, travnate površine, njive,
vinogradi, sadovnjaki, gozd, poselitev, prometna infrastruktura, energetska infrastruktura, industrij-
ski (in podobni) objekti, (domnevna) kulturna dediščina in drugo. Za nadaljnjo analizo je bilo za vsako
kategorijo izračunano povprečje štirih ocen. Med temi kategorijami je bil gozd (poleg vode) edini, ki
je predstavljal (potencialno) naravno pokrajino. Vtis naravnosti lahko dajejo tudi travnata zemljišča,
vendar so ta, ki se nahajajo na obiskanih območjih, v resnici rezultat človekovih vplivov.
2.3 Razlike v vrednotenju pokrajinske privlačnosti glede na rekreacijske dejavnosti
Anketiranci so bili vprašani tudi po rekreacijskih dejavnostih, s katerimi se na izletih najpogoste-
je ukvarjajo. V vprašalniku so bile navedene tiste dejavnosti, ki so jih pretekle raziskave izletniškega
ravnanja (Jeršič 1995; 1998; 1999; Cigale 2015) prepoznale kot bolj pomembne. V nadaljevanju so bili
anketiranci razvrščeni v dve skupini glede na umeščenost dejavnosti, s katerimi se ukvarjajo na izle-
tih, znotraj spektra, ki sega od dejavnosti, ki so najbolj navezane na naravno pokrajino, do tistih, ki so
navezane na izrazito preobraženo, antropogeno pokrajino (v povezavi s tem glej na primer Jeršič 1999).
Med temi dejavnostmi je bilo »pohodništvo/planinarjenje« tista, ki je najbolj navezana na naravno oko-
lje. Tako je bilo proučeno tudi vprašanje, ali posamezniki, ki se pogosto v svojem prostem času ukvarjajo
z rekreacijo na prostem v naravnem okolju (pohodniki/planinci), drugače ocenjujejo privlačnost bolj
raznolikih (tj. vročih točk) in bolj naravnih pokrajin. V povezavi s slednjim so bile fotografije za ana-
lizo razdeljene v dve skupini: prva skupina je vsebovala tiste, ki so prikazovale nadpovprečno naravne
pokrajine, druga pa vse ostale. Med kategorijami rabe tal, ki so jih prikazovale fotografije, je bil gozd
najbolj naraven, tako da je bila prisotnost gozda uporabljena kot kazalnik naravnosti. Kot fotografije,
ki so prikazovale nadpovprečno naravne pokrajine, so bile upoštevane tiste, ki so imele povprečno oceno
prisotnosti gozda 2,00 in več (mediana je 1,75). Slik, ki so bile nadpovprečno naravne, je bilo 50, osta-
lih (tj. manj naravnih) pa 65.
49
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Razprave/Papers
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 49
50
Dejan Cigale Analiza vidnih elementov prostočasne privlačnosti slovenskih pokrajin
2.4 Spletna anketna raziskava
Fotografije, posnete na terenu, so bile uporabljene za spletno anketno raziskavo med odraslimi (sta-
rost najmanj 18 let) prebivalci Slovenije, ki je bila izvedena v letu 2017. Uporabljena je bila kombinacija
priložnostnega vzorčenja in vzorčenja snežne kepe. Povabila k sodelovanju so bila posredovana po elek-
tronski pošti in preko socialnih medijev s prošnjo po nadaljnji delitvi povezave, na kateri je bil vprašalnik.
Spletni vprašalnik je vseboval nekaj vprašanj o prostočasnem ravnanju in osnovnih sociodemograf-
skih značilnostih anketirancev. Večina vprašalnika je bila namenjena ocenjevanju privlačnosti 115
fotografij. Nekaj značilnih primerov je predstavljenih na slikah 2–5. Anketiranci so bili naprošeni, da
si ogledajo fotografije in na lestvici od 1 (malo privlačna) do 5 (zelo privlačna) ocenijo, kako privla-
čne se jim zdijo kot cilji izletov. Naprošeni so bili tudi, da ocenjujejo privlačnost pokrajin na fotografijah
in ne fotografij oziroma njihove kakovosti. V analizo je bilo vključenih 149 uporabnih vprašalnikov.
Pozornost je bila namenjena izletom (in ne počitniškim potovanjem), ker so njihovi cilji večinoma zno-
traj Slovenije, v nasprotju od počitniških potovanj, pri katerih so glavni cilji obmorski turistični kraji,
zlasti v sosedni Hrvaški (Statistical … 2020b). Pri izletih je zaradi omejenega prostega časa izbira loka-
cij osredotočena na bližnje cilje, zato je prostor znotraj državnih meja še posebej pomemben, saj so izleti
s cilji, ki so zunaj radija 100 km od doma, razmeroma redki (Jeršič 1971; Cigale 2015).
Slika 2: Primer visoko ocenjene fotografije, posnete znotraj vroče točke.
Glej angleško različico besedila.
Slika 3: Primer visoko ocenjene fotografije, posnete znotraj mrzle točke.
Glej angleško različico besedila.
Slika 4: Primer slabo ocenjene fotografije, posnete znotraj vroče točke.
Glej angleško različico besedila.
Slika 5: Primer slabo ocenjene fotografije, posnete znotraj mrzle točke.
Glej angleško različico besedila.
Statistična analiza je vključevala uporabo t-testa (za ugotavljanje razlik med ocenami vročih in mrzlih
točk ter razlik med pohodniki/planinci in drugimi) in Pearsonovega koeficienta korelacije (za raču-
nanje korelacije med ocenami privlačnosti ter prisotnostjo posameznih pokrajinskih elementov).
3 Rezultati
3.1 Značilnosti anketirancev in njihovega prostočasnega ravnanja
Značilnost vzorca je prevelika zastopanost mlajših anketirancev; 43,8 % anketirancev je mlajših od
25 let, 33,9 % je starih med 25 in 44 let, 22,3 % pa je starih 45 let in več. Tudi zastopanost spolov ni ustre-
zna, saj je 38,0 % anketirancev moških in 62,0 % žensk. Omeniti kaže, da so podobna neskladja
(nadpovprečna zastopanost mlajših in ženskih anketirancev) bila opažena tudi pri nekaterih drugih
spletnih anketnih raziskavah, pri katerih so bile uporabljene fotografije (Svobodova in sod. 2012; Smrekar,
Polajnar Horvat in Erhartič 2016; Pastorella in sod. 2017).
Prostorska distribucija krajev bivanja anketirancev je bolj v skladu s prostorsko distribucijo sloven-
skega prebivalstva. Anketiranci živijo v vseh delih Slovenije, vendar je njihova največja zgostitev v osrednji
Sloveniji. 16,5 % anketirancev prihaja samo iz Ljubljane, kar pa je blizu deleža prebivalstva Ljubljane v slo-
venskem prebivalstvu (14,0% leta 2017; Statistical…2020a). 43,6% anketirancev prihaja iz osrednjeslovenske
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 50
regije (ustrezen delež v prebivalstvu Slovenije leta 2017 je bil 26,1 %). Enaki deleži anketirancev (5,4 %)
prihajajo iz gorenjske, savinjske in obalno-kraške regije. Deleži anketirancev iz drugih regij so nižji.
Anketiranci so bili vprašani o tem, katere značilnosti so pomembne za njih pri izbiri cilja izleta.
Med temi značilnostmi (preglednica 1) je bila na prvem mestu privlačna pokrajina, ki jo je omenilo
70,47 % anketirancev (izbrati je bilo mogoče do tri odgovore). Tudi drugi najpogostejši odgovor se je
vsaj deloma nanašal na vidne značilnosti pokrajine, saj je »prisotnost različnih zanimivosti, vrednih
ogleda« omenilo 48,32 % anketirancev. Na tretjem mestu je značilnost, ki je neposredno povezana s »teh-
nično« rekreacijsko primernostjo pokrajine oziroma območja, tj. možnost ukvarjanja s priljubljenimi
športnimi dejavnostmi. Druge odgovore je izbralo manj kot 30 % anketirancev.
Najbolj pogosti dejavnosti anketirancev na izletih (preglednica 2) sta ogledovanje naravnih in kul-
turnih znamenitosti (55,03 % anketirancev) ter sprehodi (52,35 % anketirancev), ki sta tudi edini med
dejavnostmi, s  katerimi se pogosto ukvarja več kot polovica anketirancev. Za njima je pohodni-
štvo/planinarjenje s 40,27 %. Anketiranci so lahko izbrali do tri odgovore.
51
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Razprave/Papers
Preglednica 1: Značilnosti območja, ki so pomembne za anketirance pri izbiri ciljev izletov (opomba:
anketiranci so lahko izbrali do tri odgovore).
število odgovorov % anketirancev
privlačna pokrajina 105 70,47
prisotnost različnih zanimivosti, vrednih ogleda 72 48,32
možnost za ukvarjanje s priljubljenimi športnimi dejavnostmi 57 38,26
možnosti za prijeten sprehod 41 27,52
bližina območja 36 24,16
da tam še nisem bil 36 24,16
nizki stroški 33 22,15
dobra gostinska ponudba 24 16,11
zanimive prireditve, dogodki 18 12,08
drugo 3 2,01
Preglednica 2: Dejavnosti, s katerimi se anketiranci najpogosteje ukvarjajo na izletih (opomba: anketiranci
so lahko izbrali do tri odgovore).
število odgovorov % anketirancev
ogledovanje naravnih in kulturnih znamenitosti 82 55,03
sprehodi 78 52,35
pohodništvo/planinarjenje 60 40,27
kopanje, plavanje 50 33,56
obisk gostinskega lokala 38 25,50
kolesarjenje 32 21,48
alpsko smučanje 27 18,12
obisk prijateljev, sorodnikov, znancev 20 13,42
nakupovanje 10 6,71
tek 7 4,70
druge športne dejavnosti 7 4,70
drugo 4 2,68
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 51
Težišče je potemtakem na dejavnostih, s katerimi se lahko ukvarja večina, saj posamezniku ne posta-
vljajo posebnih zahtev (na primer visoki stroški, posebne fizične sposobnosti). Poleg tega se je mogoče
s temi dejavnostmi ukvarjati na različne načine, z različno mero intenzivnosti, predanosti, porabe časa
in podobno. Te dejavnosti so bile prepoznane kot najpomembnejše tudi v nekaterih drugih raziska-
vah (Cigale 2015).
3.2 Privlačnost pokrajine glede na raznolikost in naravnost
Glede na to, da so številne predhodno omenjene raziskave ugotovile, da je raznolikost pozitivno
povezana s pokrajinsko privlačnostjo (na primer Bujosa Bestard in Riera Font 2009; Schirpke in sod.
2013; 2019), bi bilo mogoče pričakovati večjo privlačnost vročih kot mrzlih točk, saj so bolj raznolike.
Povprečna ocena fotografij, posnetih v mrzlih točkah, je bila 3,04, v vročih točkah pa 3,10 (pregledni-
ca 3). Potemtakem so bile fotografije, posnete v vročih točkah, ocenjene nekoliko višje, vendar pa t-test
ni pokazal statistično značilnih razlik med obema skupinama (t = 0,69, p = 0,49). Potemtakem ni mogo-
če skleniti, da so vroče točke bolj privlačne kot mrzle točke.
Izračun korelacije (Pearsonov r) med povprečno oceno prisotnosti posameznih pokrajinskih ele-
mentov (na lestvici od 0 do 3) in povprečno oceno fotografije (na lestvici od 1 do 5) je pokazal pozitivno
povezanost s  prisotnostjo gozda (r = 0,33, p = 0,000; preglednica 4), travnatih površin (r = 0,19,
p = 0,048) in vode (r = 0,25, p = 0,008), čeprav je v slednjem primeru šlo za skromno število fotografij
(14), na katerih je voda prisotna. Na drugi strani je negativna povezanost opazna v primeru prisotno-
sti prometne infrastrukture (r = −0,39, p = 0,000) in poselitve (r = −0,27, p = 0,004), pa tudi v primeru
industrijskih objektov (r = −0,37, p = 0,000), ki pa so prisotni le na 9 fotografijah.
52
Dejan Cigale Analiza vidnih elementov prostočasne privlačnosti slovenskih pokrajin
Preglednica 3: Srednje ocene fotografij, posnetih v vročih in mrzlih točkah.
število fotografij srednja ocena
vroče točke 55 3,04
mrzle točke 60 3,10
skupaj 115 3,07
Preglednica 4: Korelacije med ocenjeno privlačnostjo in prisotnostjo pokrajinskih elementov.
Pearsonov r značilnost
voda 0,25 0,008
travnate površine 0,19 0,048
njive −0,03 0,725
vinogradi 0,10 0,303
sadovnjaki 0,00 0,984
gozd 0,33 0,000
poselitev −0,27 0,004
prometna infrastruktura −0,39 0,000
energetska infrastruktura −0,14 0,126
industrijski in podobni objekti −0,37 0,000
drugi moteči objekti −0,10 0,293
(domnevna) kulturna dediščina −0,13 0,177
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 52
Prisotnost gozda, ki predstavlja relativno najbolj »naravno« obliko rabe tal, potemtakem najbolj
pozitivno vpliva na privlačnost. Tudi travnate površine, pri katerih je ravno tako opazna pozitivna pove-
zanost s privlačnostjo, lahko dajejo vtis naravnosti, čeprav v primeru v raziskavi uporabljenih fotografij
ne gre za avtohtono rastlinstvo. Rezultati torej jasno opozarjajo na večjo privlačnost pokrajin, v kate-
rih prevladujejo relativno naravni pokrajinski elementi, antropogeni elementi pa na prostočasno
privlačnost pokrajin v splošnem delujejo negativno. Slednje je povezano tudi z dejstvom, da so foto-
grafije večinoma prikazovale »povprečne« pokrajine, v katerih so le skromno zastopani vizualno posebej
kakovostni antropogeni elementi (na primer izrazito privlačna agrarna pokrajina, objekti kulturne dedi-
ščine), ki na zaznano privlačnost delujejo pozitivno.
3.3 Razlike med pohodniki/planinci in drugimi v vrednotenju pokrajinske privlačnosti
Na splošno pohodniki/planinci više ocenjujejo privlačnost fotografij (pohodniki/planinci 3,30 : drugi
2,92; t = 3,91, p = 0,000; preglednica 5), kar bi lahko povezali z nadpovprečno osredotočenostjo njiho-
ve dejavnosti na pokrajino. Pohodniki višje ocenjujejo tako manj naravne (t = 2,48, p = 0,012) kot bolj
naravne fotografije (t = 5,21, p = 0,000), a je pri slednjih razlika med obojimi precej večja, kar kaže, da
imajo pohodniki še posebej pozitiven odnos do naravne pokrajine, ki je hkrati tudi nadpovprečno pri-
merna za ukvarjanje z njihovo priljubljeno rekreacijsko dejavnostjo.
Preglednica 5: Povprečna ocena privlačnosti fotografij pri pohodnikih/planincih in drugih.
nadpovprečno naravne druge fotografije skupaj
pohodniki/planinci 3,57 3,10 3,30
drugi 3,00 2,86 2,92
Takšen rezultat se sklada z dejstvom, da je za pohodnike glavni motiv za ukvarjanje z njihovo pri-
ljubljeno dejavnostjo doživljanje pokrajine (Muhar in sod. 2007; Brämer 2009). O  nadpovprečni
navezanosti pohodnikov/planincev na estetsko kakovostno (privlačno) pokrajino priča tudi to, da je
bil med njimi delež tistih, ki so izbrali privlačno pokrajino kot značilnost območja, ki je pomembna
pri izbiri ciljev enodnevnih izletov, 80,0 %, med vsemi anketiranci pa 70,47 %.
4 Razprava
Rezultati so v precejšnji meri skladni z rezultati drugih raziskav (na primer Schüpbach, Zgraggen
in Szerencsits 2008; Lindemann-Mathies in sod. 2010; de Vries in sod. 2013; Junge in sod. 2015; Pastorella
in sod. 2017; Fraiz in sod. 2020), vendar prihaja tudi do nekaterih razlik. Tako niso bile ugotovljene
razlike v privlačnosti pokrajine v povezavi s pokrajinsko raznolikostjo, kakor je bila obravnavana v tej
raziskavi, torej z upoštevanjem pokrajinskih vročih in mrzlih točk kot najbolj ter najmanj raznolikih
območij. Privlačnost pokrajin, prikazanih na fotografijah, se namreč ne razlikuje glede na to, ali so loci-
rane v vroči ali mrzli točki. To pa kljub temu ne pomeni, da je na podlagi rezultatov mogoče skleniti,
da raznolikost ni pomembna kot vplivni dejavnik pokrajinske privlačnosti. Razlog za dobljene rezul-
tate je lahko v konceptualizaciji raznolikosti, kakršna je služila kot podlaga za določanje vročih točk.
Vroče točke kot najbolj raznolika območja so bile določene ob upoštevanju reliefa, kamnin in rastlin-
stva, vendar se takšna raznolikost ne odraža nujno tudi v zaznani raznolikosti.
Poleg tega je k takšnemu rezultatu lahko prispevalo to, da so se sorodne raziskave večinoma osre-
dotočale na razmeroma homogena območja (na primer alpske pokrajine), v tem prispevku pa so bili
v raziskavo vključeni različni pokrajinski tipi, zato je mogoče pričakovati tudi vpliv dejavnikov, ki niso
53
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Razprave/Papers
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 53
bili neposredno zajeti v analizo, a so lahko prispevali k temu, da vpliv raznolikosti kot dejavnika pokra-
jinske privlačnosti ni bil razviden. S tega vidika bi bila koristna proučitev uporabnosti pokrajinskih vročih
točk v okviru vrednotenja pokrajinske privlačnosti znotraj posameznih pokrajinskih tipov, da bi tako
zmanjšali morebiten vpliv dejavnikov, ki lahko zabrišejo učinek raznolikosti. Koristno bi bilo tudi prou-
čiti povezave med raznolikostjo, kakršno odražajo vroče točke (najbolj raznolike pokrajine glede na
uporabljene kriterije), in zaznano raznolikostjo (ali posamezniki vroče točke dojemajo kot bolj raznolike).
Potemtakem raznolikost kot pokrajinski atribut sama po sebi še ne zadošča, da bi pojasnjevala pokra-
jinsko privlačnost, saj lahko vključuje tudi tiste elemente, ki na privlačnost delujejo negativno. Da je
vloga raznolikosti pri vrednotenju pokrajinske privlačnosti precej kompleksna in nikakor ne enozna-
čna, je pokazala tudi raziskava Dramstada in sodelavcev (2006), ki je ugotovila vpliv raznolikosti le
v povezavi z nekaterimi kazalniki (na primer število pokrajinskih tipov in število zaplat, ne pa tudi indeks
heterogenosti) in samo za eno skupino (nelokalni študenti, ne pa tudi domačini).
Pričujoča raziskava je pokazala pozitiven vpliv naravnosti (bolj naravnega rastlinstva oziroma rabe
tal) na pokrajinsko privlačnost, kar ponovno opozarja na pomen relativno naravne pokrajine za pre-
življanje prostega časa. Največja pozitivna povezava je bila med privlačnostjo in prisotnostjo gozda, vendar
gozd ne deluje kot dejavnik pokrajinske privlačnosti v vseh primerih (na primer Fyhri, Jacobsen in
Tømmervik 2009; Smrekar, Polajnar Horvat in Erhartič 2016). V tej raziskavi je bil gozd najbolj nara-
ven pokrajinski element, vendar območja z drugimi vrstami naravnega rastlinstva (na primer gorska
območja nad gozdno mejo) niso bila upoštevana.
Predhodne raziskave so opozorile na razlike v vrednotenju pokrajinske privlačnosti med različni-
mi sociodemografskimi skupinami. Ta prispevek je obravnaval razlike med rekreacijskimi skupinami,
pri čemer se je posebej osredotočil na pohodnike/planince (kot skupino, ki je navezana na naravno pokra-
jino kot rekreacijski prostor) in jih primerjal z drugimi. Rezultati so pokazali, da je vrednotenje pokrajinske
privlačnosti povezano s priljubljeno rekreacijsko dejavnostjo. Ukvarjanje z bolj »naravnimi« oblikami
rekreacije na prostem je lahko povezano z drugačnimi predstavami o tem, kaj je privlačna pokrajina.
Poleg tega je pohodništvo/planinarjenje že samo po sebi bolj osredotočeno na pokrajino. Naklonjenost
pohodnikov naravni pokrajini je lahko tudi posledica funkcijskega vrednotenja pokrajine (pohodni-
ki potrebujejo naravno pokrajino, zato jo doživljajo kot bolj privlačno), ni pa mogoče izključiti niti
možnosti, da je pozitiven odnos posameznika do naravne pokrajine med razlogi za ukvarjanje s pohod-
ništvom in podobnimi dejavnostmi.
Raziskava je obravnavala anketirance kot potencialne enodnevne obiskovalce, ne dopustnike. Vseeno
pa je mogoče domnevati, da so rezultati v precejšnji meri uporabni tudi v drugih kontekstih. Upoštevati
je treba, da sta turizem in rekreacija tesno prepletena. Večina turizma je povezanega s prostim časom.
Številna območja obiskujejo tako turisti, ki na območju prenočujejo, kot enodnevni obiskovalci. Za obe
skupini so pogosto značilni podobni načini ravnanja (Carr 2002; Pomfret in Bramwell 2016). Zaradi
teh podobnosti je mogoče domnevati, da ugotovitve v precejšnji meri veljajo tudi za stacionarne turiste.
Obenem pa se vendarle ne sme zanemariti dejstva, da so med obema skupinama tudi razlike. Pri turi-
stičnem potovanju gre tudi za to, da turist prekine z rutino, katere del je vsakodnevno okolje. Vsaj v določeni
meri gre tudi za drugačne motive, ki lahko vključujejo iskanje drugačnih, eksotičnih pokrajin.
Opozoriti kaže tudi na nekatere omejitve pričujoče raziskave, ki so povezane predvsem z zna-
čilnostmi (neslučajnega) vzorca, ki se je po svojih značilnostih razlikoval od značilnosti slovenskega
prebivalstva.
5 Sklep
Raziskava je osvetlila nekatere vidike vloge naravnosti in raznolikosti kot dejavnikov pokrajinske
privlačnosti. Obenem je ponudila vpogled v razlike v pokrajinskih preferencah glede na rekreacijske
dejavnosti, še zlasti v navezavi na rekreacijo na prostem v naravnem okolju. Opozorila je na pomen
54
Dejan Cigale Analiza vidnih elementov prostočasne privlačnosti slovenskih pokrajin
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 54
razmeroma naravne pokrajine v rekreacijskem kontekstu. Takšna pokrajina je v Sloveniji zlasti gozd,
katerega obseg dolgoročno narašča. Te spremembe posamezniki različno vrednotijo. Rezultati kažejo,
da bi pokrajino, ki je rezultat takšnih procesov, pomemben del posameznikov vrednotil razmeroma
pozitivno.
Razumevanje pokrajinskih preferenc rekreativcev je pomembno, saj so pokrajinske značilnosti klju-
čnega pomena za turistično in rekreacijsko rabo. Odločitve, ki zadevajo rabo tal in razvoj, vplivajo tudi
na vidne pokrajinske spremembe in potemtakem na privlačnost pokrajine ter na kakovost turistične-
ga in rekreacijskega doživetja. To ima lahko pomemben vpliv na zadovoljstvo rekreativcev in turistov
ter lahko vpliva na turistični obisk.
Raziskava ni upoštevala potencialno drugačnega odnosa do poznanih pokrajin in njihovega dru-
gačnega vrednotenja, ki je posledica pogostega stika s krajem ter njegovega podrobnega poznavanja
pri enodnevnih obiskovalcih in turistih, ki pogosto obiskujejo določeno območje. V tem prispevku ta
vidik ni bil upoštevan zaradi izbora območij (vročih in mrzlih točk), ki niso vključevala bolj obiska-
nih rekreacijskih in turističnih območij. Kljub temu gre za vprašanje, ki si zasluži pozornost v prihodnjih
raziskavah, saj ima dobršen del prostočasnih potovanj (vključno s počitniškimi potovanji) svoj cilj na
razmeroma bližnjih in pogosto obiskovanih območjih.
Zahvala: Prispevek deloma temelji na raziskovalnem projektu Pokrajinska raznolikost in vroče točke
Slovenije (L6-6852), ki ga je financirala Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije.
Posebna zahvala gre študentom geografije v letih 2016 in 2017 za njihovo dragoceno pomoč ter avtorjem
fotografij.
6 Viri in literatura
Glej angleško različico besedila.
55
Geografski vestnik 93-2, 2021 Razprave/Papers
vestnik 93_2_vestnik 82_1.qxd  23.2.2022  9:09  Page 55