DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF POPULATION OF SLOVENIAN CITIES IN THE FIRST DECADE OF 21st CENTURY Stanko Pelc PhD., Assoc. prof. Department of Geography Faculty of Humanities University of Primorska Titov trg 5, SI-6000 Koper, Slovenia e-mail: stanko.pelc@fhs.upr.si UDK: 911.37:312 COBISS: 1.01 Abstract Demographic characteristics of population of Slovenian cities in the first decade of 21st century We analyzed available statistical data to establish present demographic characteristics of the population of Slovenian cities and their recent changes. According to the statistical definition of cities the share of urban population in Slovenia represents half of its total population. The number of population in Slovenian cities is generally decreasing or stagnating, the coefficient of masculinity was growing in the last decade, but not much more than in Slovenia in general, the ageing of population was also a bit faster in urban areas and their ageing index is considerably higher than the Slovenian average. Urban areas also had a considerably larger share of immigrants from abroad in comparison with the national average while employed and unemployed persons were relatively equally distributed among urban and other areas. The level of education was considerably above the national average. We also compared natural growth data which showed that urban areas in 2002 experienced the decrease that was below national average and the increase in 2011 that was also lower than in Slovenia in general. Key words Slovenian cities, demography Stanko Pelc: Demographic characteristics of population of Slovenian cities ... 1. Introduction Population of Slovenian cities and its demographic characteristics have not been a research topic in Slovenian geography for quite some time. There were some studies about Slovenian cities that had to take into consideration some basic demographic data and some that are taking into consideration only Ljubljana or Maribor (Rebernik 2000; 2005; Dolenc 2000; Pockaj Horvat 1997; Pak 1994), but Slovenian urban population itself was seldom if ever the main subject of the study at least not since the 1st Slovenian demographic symposium where Vriser discussed "the populational development of Slovenian cities" (Vriser 1974). This paper therefore tends to fill up this gap at least for the period of the first decade of the 21st century. The task is not easy at all. The first problem we face is the definition of urban population and we could easily devote the whole paper to this question alone. However, no matter how important this question is, that was not our aim. Therefore we simply used the statistical definition from 2003 (Pavlin 2003) with all of its deficiencies. That also has a practical reason. The statistical office of the Republic of Slovenia publishes the data about urban population aggregated according to the above mentioned definition of so called urban areas. There are 104 such areas with 156 settlements included. Maribor urban area consists of Maribor and 21 adjacent settlements, while Ljubljana urban area encompasses only 3 adjacent settlements. The vast majority of urban areas are in fact single cities and their main characteristic is that they are small and their urban character is dubious. Tab. 1: Number of settlements in urban areas as defined by Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (Pavlin 2003). Settlements within urban area Number of urban areas Total number of settlements 1 settlement 86 86 2 settlements 10 20 3 settlements 1 3 4 settlements 5 20 5 settlements 1 5 22 settlements 1 22 Total 104 156 Slovenia with roughly 2 million of inhabitants cannot have large cities. Otherwise it would have to have only few cities and extremely high level of urbanization. That is not the case. Slovenia has about 6.000 settlements, most of them with very low numbers of inhabitants and we can state something similar for the urban areas as defined by Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Even Slovenian capital Ljubljana with a bit more than a quarter of a million inhabitants cannot be considered a big city. Other cities or, to use statistical definition, urban areas are even smaller. Even according to the rank size rule most of them are well above the line of this rule (Fig. 1). The numbers of inhabitants fall under 50.000 already at the 3rd ranked urban area, under 30.000 at the 5th and under 20.000 at the 8th. Only 18 urban areas had more than 10.000 inhabitants in 2011 (1st January). Most of our analysis includes this group of urban areas as they can undoubtedly be considered as urban while the rest of them are due to low numbers of inhabitants less appropriate for demographic analysis and many of them also lack urban character. Fig. 1: Population of Slovenian urban areas in 2011 and the line of Rank size rule according to the size of Ljubljana (only 25 largest urban areas are shown on the graph). In our analysis we used the data of Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SI-STAT Data Portal, data provided by D. Dolenc). We expected that the population of Slovenian urban areas is older than the national average and that the major cities are losing population due to suburbanization (emigration of urban population to suburban and rural areas within commuting distance from the central city). We also expected that the population is better educated while considering employment and unemployment that there are considerable differences among more and less economically prosperous urban areas. 2. Growth of urban population and urban areas At the beginning of the nineties in the past century the growth of Slovenian cities already stopped (Jakos 1993). And before that since sixties they had grown mainly because of immigration from other Yugoslav republics. At the beginning of the new millennium the total number of urban population was slightly decreasing while at the same time the number of population in Slovenia moderately grew. The period 2003-2011 includes a break in the series due to the introduction of the new statistical definition of population, harmonized with the definition of population and migrants in the Regulation on Community Statistics on Migration and International Protection (Methodological explanation of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia). For data after January 1st, 2008 the same criteria are applied for citizens of the Republic of Slovenia and for foreigners in preparing statistics on the number of population. The basis of the concept is the so-called usual residence, which in the case of Slovenia includes permanent or temporary residence (one year). The foreigners according to this new definition became inhabitants of Slovenian settlements and most of them lived in the cities. We can therefore observe a sudden leap in growth of urban population in 2008 (Fig. 2). Population of urban areas continued to grow in the following years, but in 2011 the number was lower again than in 2010. Both largest cities/urban areas were losing population before the break in the series. After the leap in 2008 Ljubljana continued to grow, but less and less from year to year while Maribor grew only one year after 2008 and in 2010 and 2011 was again faced with a slight decrease. There were considerable differences among other urban areas. There were 7 with constant decrease (Ptuj, Trbovlje, Murska Sobota, Ravne na Koroškem, Zagorje ob Savi, Sevnica and Lendava) and 5 with constant growth (Postojna, Slovenska Bistrica, Grosuplje, Brezovica pri Ljubljani and Ivančna Gorica). How different the urban areas are is best shown with the fact that in 2008 (break in the series) only 35 of them increased in the number of inhabitants while the rest 69 were faced with a decrease. Nevertheless the total number of urban population in that year went up by almost 50.000 due to urban areas with a higher number of foreigners such as Celje, Velenje, Koper, Izola, Novo mesto. Because of its size Ljubljana's number of inhabitants jumped up by more than 14.000. Sežana (13,7 %) had the highest relative change, a city with a lot of construction workers at that time. Fig. 2: Changes in the number of inhabitants in the period 2003-2011 in Slovenia, urban areas, Ljubljana and Maribor (break in series because of the new statistical definition of population is marked grey; left scale for Ljubljana and Maribor, right scale for Slovenia and Urban areas). Among 18 urban areas with more than 10.000 inhabitants in 2011 only 8 had a higher share of total urban population in 2011 than in 2003 and 10 of them lower. Ljubljana increased its share from 25,8 % to 26,7 %. The growth was mainly reserved for urban areas in central Slovenia around Ljubljana, but not at all exclusively, there were also some urban areas with considerable positive change in the number of inhabitants in other parts of Slovenia. On the other side the top loser among the above mentioned 18 urban areas is Murska Sobota, the center of a less developed Slovenian region Prekmurje, followed by Trbovlje, the center of Zasavje, the region economically depressed because of a coal mining decline. Fig. 3: Changes in the number of inhabitants in the period 2003-2011 in 16 urban areas (break in series because of the new statistical definition of population is marked grey; urban areas with the higher share of total urban population at the end of period - bold, with lower share - italic). 3. Population of Slovenian urban areas by age and sex As expected the population of urban areas in average is older than in other settlements. Ageing index went up considerably in the 9 year period 2002-2011 (census years). Urban areas average grew more (for 26,7) than the national one (for 22,4). There are of course important differences among different urban areas. Considering the 18 largest, 8 of them had ageing index below the national average. Ljubljana's satelite cities Domžale, Kamnik and Vrhnika even below 100. The worst ratio between the old and the young population in 2002 as well as in 2011 was in Maribor with ageing indexes 141,7 and 174,7 among 18 largest urban areas and in Portorož (169,6 and 228,1) among all urban areas. We analyzed the distribution of 3 basic age groups of urban population among urban areas by computing locational quotients and coefficients of localization. Coefficient of localization 0 means equal distribution while 1 means total concentration at one single location. In our case the coefficient of localization of the young population of 1 would mean that all 0-14 years old urban residents live in one single urban area while all the other urban areas should have only population older than 14 years. Of course that is not possible and in our case the coefficients of localization for all 3 age groups were close to 0. The age group of the population from 15 to 64 years was the most equally distributed among all urban areas and had coefficients of localization only slightly above 0 (0,01) for both years. Old population on the other hand was the most unevenly distributed, but still with a coefficient of localization 0,06 in 2002 and 0,04 in 2011 which is the same as the values of this coefficient for young population in both years. 200.0 LO lO II nj 'c d) > _o £ -20% * » * * m » . « u * mi * * * m j * * - , ** * » « »! , * « » « * * « m * * » ' .*• * " V » A » . «f » » -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% relative coefficient of masculinity change 2002 - 2011 Fig. 5: Relative change of the coefficient of masculinity and number of population in the period 2002 to 2011 in 104 urban areas. Sex ratio of Slovenian urban population was analyzed by the computation of the coefficient of masculinity (the ratio between the number of men and the number of women multiplied by 1000). In 2002 this coefficient was 925 for urban population and 957 for Slovenian population in general. In the period 2002 to 2011 the coefficient of masculinity grew as age specific mortality for men decreased more in all 5 year age groups than age specific mortality for women (Life expectancy at birth in Slovenia grew by 5.5% for men and only for 3.2% for women). The growth of coefficient of masculinity was higher in urban areas than in general so in 2011 it was 951 in urban areas while national average was 980 men per 1000 women. As shown on Fig. 5 vast majority of all urban areas experienced the growth of the coefficient of masculinity (80) and also major part of them grew in terms of the number of population (66). The cross at the extreme right of the graph represents a rather small industrial town Šoštanj with 22% growth of the coefficient of masculinity (from 952 to 1159). This must be the consequence of a new statistical definition of population. The number of population in this town with a stagnating number of inhabitants just a bit above 4000 jumped up by 205 between 2007 and 2008. That means that mainly male (industrial) workers of foreign origin became a part of town's population and therefore radically changed sex ratio. This was also the case in some other urban areas with industry that used workers without Slovenian citizenship (Solkan, Trebnje etc.). 4. Natural increase/decrease of Slovenian urban population In 2002 Slovenian urban areas had birth and death rates above national average. In that year Slovenia was experiencing a period of negative natural growth (decrease) as death rate was higher than birth rate. Natural decrease at the national level was -0,60 per 1000 while urban areas' natural decrease was -0,28 per 1000 inhabitants. Over the 9 year period birth rates grew and the decrease was substituted with a natural growth of 1,58 per 1000 at national level and 0,91 per 1000 inhabitants for urban population. The death rate in urban areas also grew from a relatively small value of 8,70 to a relatively high 9,49 while death rate for Slovenia in general went down. Individual values of natural increase for 18 largest Slovenian urban areas are shown in Fig. 6. Average values for whole Slovenian population and urban population are relatively close together while the values of urban areas are quite dispersed around them. At the lowest positions are Trbovlje and Ptuj, both with considerable natural decrease in both years. Maribor, Izola as well as Koper and Nova Gorica are all in a similar situation only their values are closer to zero. Jesenice and Murska Sobota are also in an unfavourable position. These two urban areas still had a natural increase in 2002, but not any more in 2011. On the other side the top position is taken by Kamnik followed by the group of urban areas consisting of regjonal centers Kranj, Novo mesto, Velenje and Ljubljana's neighbors Domžale, Škofja Loka and Vrhnika. Ljubljana itself and Celje as well are on the other hand urban areas that switched from a natural decrease in 2002 to a natural increase in 2011. Their natural growth was above the Slovenian average. o o o 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 O KAMNIK KRANJA __„ flpOMŽALE N OVO M ESTO^rWj CELJE ¡¿BLMAWj»i «VRHNIKA i Slovenia NC .....?i------ IV A Urban wjsrs» | i areas ^INICE MURSK SOBOT KCffE IZOLA MfiBTRnB . \ A A / <* 9 TRBOVLJE —i— -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 _natural increase 2002 (per 1000) 8.0 Fig. 6: Birth rates and death rates for 18 largest Slovenian urban areas in 2011. 5. Migrational characteristics of Slovenian urban population Cities and urban areas should normally have more immigrants than non-urban settlements. In 2002 urban areas in total had only a slightly smaller share of nonmigrant population than Slovenia in average. The share of immigrants from other countries was, however considerably above the national average. Considering only the 18 largest urban areas there were some exceptions such as Domžale, Ptuj and Murska Sobota. Littoral cities and mining and industrial center Velenje, as well as Jesenice (city known by its steelwork) all had a lot of inhabitants that immigrated from other countries. Change from 2002 to 2011 was characterised by the growth of share of foreign immigrants and the decrease of the share of population that lived in the same settlement since birth. Among the 18 largest Trbovlje remained to be the urban area with the highest share of non-migrant population while Domžale and Murska Sobota were urban areas with the lowest share of foreign immigrants. Fig. 7: Immigrants from another statistical region per 1000 in 2002 and 2011. Considering interregional migrations (Fig. 7) Ljubljana was undoubtedly in "the winning position" while its neighboring urban areas were not having many immigrants from other Slovenian statistical regions. Murska Sobota had the most considerable change from 72 to 116 per 1000 which is still less than half of the Ljubljana's number. 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 ~0T08-0708- Lived in the same Immigrants from Immigrants from settlement since another abroad birth statistical region Fig. 8: Coefficients of localization for urban population according to migration status. Coefficients of localization (Fig. 8) are showing fairly equal dispersion of population that lived in the same place since birth among urban areas (low coefficients). Less equally dispersed are immigrants from abroad as well as immigrants from other statistical regions. Coefficients in 2011 were either lower than or equal to those in 2002. Therefore we cannot claim that the differences among urban areas were growing - obviously they were not. 6. Unemployment and education In 2011 the rate of employed persons per 1000 inhabitants in urban areas was almost equal to national average (407 and 408) the values for unemployed were also very close together (55 and 53). As shown on the graph (Fig. 9) old industrial centers Maribor, Kočevje and Trbovlje were characterized by moderate deconcentration of employed persons, while the center of least developed region in Slovenia Murska Sobota as well as an important industrial center Velenje were facing concentration of unemployed. Urban areas with moderate deconcentration of unemployed and moderate concentration of employed persons were mainly from central and western Slovenia. These two groups as well as the group of urban areas with moderate deconcentration of inactive (15 and older) population (3 Ljubljana's satellites) were obviously better economically situated than those from the upper side of the graph. To analyze differences in education we computed the so called "Educational attainment index" as a ratio between the number of persons (15 years and older) with high education and the number of people with basic or no education multiplied by 100. The first thing to be pointed out is a relatively high above national average index of urban areas in total. The level of education in urban areas is therefore still considerably higher than elsewhere, but the growth of index in urban areas in the period 2002-2011 was below the national average. The difference is therefore slowly decreasing. 140.0 120.0 100.0 SO.O 60.0 40.0 20.0 Ljubljč nai® Mursk a Sobe p' Urba Kam Domža n area nik. «i Hanbo Nova Gorica « JiVrhni \ 3 Sko$ Loka •Kope Vel Trbo ïrije £ vije o ssenice Jesi 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 _2002_ Fig. 9: Unemployed and employed persons per 1000 inhabitants in 18 largest Slovenian urban areas in 2011 grouped according to locational quotients for employed, unemployed and inactive population. 100 90 & I 30 .a m ^ 70 o o o o Cl T3 0) >. _o O. E O C 3 60 50 40 30 20 <> •1 urska sobota <> Ma ribor • V elenje O Trbov C je 3 Celjs Urb < an arc Slove > Ptuj ïa.sx î> ti V Kranj ■hnika Ljub N< janaQ )va Go ovo m senice u g ^ -S sto Šli cofja Lc )ka A~ s = n> -—; — Groups according to locational quotients concentration of * unemployed 0moderate concentration of unemployed déconcentration of "employed ^moderate déconcentration vof employed .J déconcentration of inactive i I moderate concentration of employed .moderate déconcentration □ aie 'of unemployed 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 _employed per 1000 inhabitants_ Fig. 10:"Educational attainment index" (ratio between higher and lower educated) for 18 largest Slovenian urban areas in 2002 and 2011. Trzin had the highest educational attainment index in 2002 as well as in 2011, a small city at the northeast outskirts of Ljubljana with relatively recent urban development with attractive housing in a suburban setting with relatively good accessibility to the center of Ljubljana. In 2002 net migration in this small city was high above all other urban areas (31,9 per 1000) while in 2011 it already had negative net-migration. Nevertheless it attracted many highly educated and economically well situated residents and remains to be their residential area. Among the 18 largest Slovenian urban areas, as we can see on the graph (Fig. 10), Ljubljana is positioned high above all others, followed surprisingly by Murska Sobota. Index of this center of least developed Slovenian region grew from 68,8 to 104,5, partly because of the growth of the number of persons with post-secondary education and even more because of decrease of number of persons with basic or no education. Urban areas below the national average are or were industrial centers with industry largely based on low educated labor force. We classified all 104 urban areas according to locational quotients for 3 levels of education in 2011 into several groups and the most numerous were the group with deconcentration of persons with higher education (29) and the group with concentration of persons with basic or no education (15). One third of the largest 18 urban areas was also in these two groups that include urban areas with relatively lower educated population. In 2011 40 urban areas had educational attainment index below the national average among them 5 from the group of 18 largest (Fig. 10). 7. Conclusion We can conclude that the population of Slovenian urban areas in the first decade of 21st century is older than the national average, but the difference is not at all very significant. There are many urban areas with ageing index below the national average even among the 18 largest. The expected loss of population due to suburbanization is not something that can be generalized for all major urban areas in Slovenia. Some Slovenian cities had a decreasing number of population in the first decade of 21st century, but others did not. For urban areas around Ljubljana (within commuting distance up to 30 or even 45 minutes by car) we can contest that many of them were gaining on behalf of Ljubljana. Ljubljana on the other side gained on behalf of many rural and urban settlements from all over Slovenia and in large part on behalf of international migrations. Its' population grew since 2008 (the new definition of population), not radically, but at least the number of inhabitants stopped decreasing. Not only in urban areas, but in Slovenia in general, a natural component is a rather unreliable factor of population growth. With ageing population and modern reproduction behavior we cannot expect a high natural increase. 10.0 10.0 ■20.0 J-t-r- 40.0 140.0 240.0 Fig. 11: The distribution of pairs of values for 104 urban areas for ageing index (x) and natural increase per 1000 (y) in 2002 (left) and 2011 (right) As shown on the graph, the natural increase is in negative correlation with the ageing index. Higher ageing index generally means a smaller increase (or a bigger decrease). The Pearson coefficient of correlation for 2002 was -0,50 and for 2011, the correlation is rather stronger: -0,66. Urban areas with a relatively large share of old population tend to have a natural decrease. However, this is not the case just in the cities, many other settlements have similar problems as average values for urban areas and for Slovenia are not that much apart from each other. Another important outcome of our investigation is that Slovenian urban areas differ the most from other settlements in Slovenia by their migration characteristics. In 2011 only 6 out of 104 had locational quotient of population that lived in the same settlement since birth above 1 (computed for all population). More than two thirds of all persons that immigrated to their place of residence from another statistical region lived in urban areas and 60% of those that immigrated from a foreign country (50% of total Slovenian population in 2011 lived in urban areas). Considering only urban areas we acknowledged that according to coefficients of localization immigrants from another statistical region and immigrants from foreign countries are the most unevenly distributed among urban areas. We expected that urban areas would have population with a higher level of education and the data is showing that this really is the case. Actually the 50/50 line is between vocational upper secondary and technical upper secondary education and from there up the share of persons with a certain degree of education that live in urban areas is growing up to % for 3rd cycle of higher education (in 2011). The employed and unemployed are relatively equally distributed among urban and rural areas, but the distribution of unemployed among different urban areas is relatively uneven (coefficient of localization for 2011: 0,10). Unemployment as expected is not the matter of urban or rural environment. It is more a matter of economic situation in employment centers (usually urban areas). However, due to commuter based working force in Slovenia the consequences of economic decline in certain employment center are rather equally influencing urban center itself as well as the surrounding suburban and rural areas. At the end we would like to express our dilemma about the urban character of Slovenian urban areas as they are defined by Statistical office. We believe that they consist in large part of settlements with only partly urban character. Many of them are very similar to their neighboring settlements that are not defined as urban. As most of Slovenian urban areas also have a very small number of inhabitants, demographic indicators may not be very accurate and tend to vary from year to year on the basis of coincidental factors. Finally we may contest that Slovenian urban population is rather differentiated. We may assume that differences in the demographic characteristics of population within individual urban settlements are rather important and deserve to be analyzed; wich we believe is an important task for further investigation of urban population in Slovenia. References Dolenc, D. 2000: Prostorska mobilnost prebivalstva. V: Gabrovec, M., Orožen- Adamič, M.: Ljubljana: geografija mesta. Ljubljana. Jakoš, A. 1993: Demografske spremembe in mesta v Sloveniji. Urbani izziv 5-23/25. Ljubljana. Pak, M. 1994: Bevölkerungsentwicklung und -struktur. V: Leib, J. and Pak, M.: Marburg - Maribor: Geographische Beiträge über die Partnerstädte in Deutschland und Slowenien. Marburg. Pavlin, B. 2003: Mestna naselja v Republiki Sloveniji, 2003 = Urban settlements in the Republic of Slovenia, 2003. Ljubljana. Počkaj Horvat, D. 1997: Demografske značilnosti Maribora in njegova notranja členitev. Geografski vestnik 69. Ljubljana. Rebernik, D. 2000: Prebivalstveni razvoj po letu 1945. V: Gabrovec, M., Orožen- Adamič, M.: Ljubljana: geografija mesta. Ljubljana. Rebernik, D. 2005: Urbanization trends and processes of population change in the Ljubljana urban region in the 1990s. Geographia Polonica 78-1. Warszawa. Rebernik, D. 2010: Demographic characteristics and processes in Ljubljana. V: Dabovic T. et al.: Challenges of spatial development of Ljubljana and Belgrade. Ljubljana. Vrišer, I. 1974: Populacijski razvoj slovenskih mest. Separat, Univerza v Ljubljani Filozofska fakulteta. Ljubljana. DEMOGRAFSKE ZNAČILNOSTI PREBIVALSTVA SLOVENSKIH MEST V PRVEM DESETLETJU 21. STOLETJA Povzetek V zadnjih letih se slovenski avtorji niso kaj dosti ukvarjali s preučevanjem prebivalstva slovenskih mest, še največ je o tem pisal Rebernik (2000; 2005; 2010), pa še on se je v glavnem ukvarjal z Ljubljano, oziroma njeno mestno regijo. Na Statističnem uradu Republike Slovenije so (Pavlin 2003) izdelali študijo, v kateri so na podlagi štirih kriterijev opredelili 104 mestna območja, ki vključujejo skupno 156 naselij. Z vidika analize mestnega prebivalstva delitev ni najbolj ustrezna, saj tako opredeljena mestna območja vključujejo tako pravo mestno prebivalstvo kot prebivalstvo primestnih naselij. Slednje je po svojih značilnostih vsekakor bolj podobno prebivalstvu obmestnih naselij, ki niso vključena v mestna območja kot pa prebivalstvu osrednjega dela mesta. Ker pa Statistični urad nekatere podatke objavlja za mestna območja po njihovi opredelitvi, smo to delitev, kljub navedeni pomanjkljivosti, uporabili v naši analizi. Pri preučevanju slovenskega mestnega prebivalstva je treba upoštevati tudi majhnost naselij, ki jih v Sloveniji imamo za mesta. Če Ljubljano s četrt milijona prebibivalci morda še lahko uvrstimo med srednje velika evropska mesta, pa tega za Maribor z okoli 100.000 prebivalci najbrž že ne moremo storiti. V Sloveniji torej velikih mest ni, niti ne premore srednje velikih (razen Ljubljane in pogojno Maribora). Ta prebivalstvena majhnost slovenskih mest pride še posebej do izraza, če slovenska mesta primerjamo z Ljubljano. Po pravilu reda velikosti (Rank size rule) vsa po vrsti bolj ali manj odstopajo navzdol od teoretičnega števila prebivalcev, ki je enako številu prebivalcev največjega mesta (Ljubljana), ki ga delimo s številom, ki je enako številu vrstnega reda, ki ga po številu prebivalcev zaseda obravnavano mesto (Slika 1). Leta 2011 je imelo samo 18 mestnih območij več kot 10.000 prebivalcev in predvsem tem smo se posvetili v naši analizi (grafične ponazoritve), čeprav smo v izračune vključili vsa 104 mestna območja. V teh je živelo približno pol prebivalcev Slovenije, kar naj bi pomenilo 50% stopnjo urbanizacije. A temu bi, iz prej navedenih razlogov, težko pritrdili. V glavnem se polovica prebivalcev Slovenije, ki živijo v mestnih območjih, po svojih značilnostih bolj ali manj razlikuje od povprečnih vrednosti celotnega slovenskega prebivalstva. Ob tem pa velja tudi poudariti, da so razlike med posameznimi mestnimi območji sorazmerno velike. Pogosto so vrednosti kazalnikov za posamezna mestna območja na drugi strani državnega povprečja kot povprečna vrednost za vse mestno prebivalstvo. V naši analizi smo uporabili podatke, ki so objavljeni na spletni strani Statističnega urada Republike Slovenije. Podatke za mestna območja od leta 2004 naprej objavljajo v Statističnem letopisu (posebno poglavje), nekaj jih je v Si-stat statističnem portalu, nekaj še neobjavljenih podatkov pa nam je posredoval D. Dolenc. Glede rasti števila prebivalcev v naših mestih, bi pričakovali, da se mesta praznijo zaradi selitve mladega aktivnega prebivalstva v obmestje in na podeželje. Torej bi se moralo število prebivalcev v mestih zmanjševati na račun rasti v nemestnih naseljih. Posledično bi morali imeti v mestih tudi manj ugodno starostno strukturo. Glede rasti števila prebivalcev smo ugotovili, da so v obdobju 2003-2011 slovenska mestna območja skupaj res izgubljala prebivalstvo. Toda le do leta 2008, ko je bila spremenjena statistična opredelitev prebivalstva. Tuji državljani so po novem postali prebivalci Slovenije in teh je bilo v mestih bistveno več kot v nemestnih naseljih. Skok v letu 2008 je torej zgolj statističen, čeprav se je tudi v naslednjih letih rast nadaljevala, a se je do leta 2011 tudi že ustavila. Razlike med mestnimi območji so velike. Med njimi so taka, ki so v celotnem obdobju izgubljala prebivalstvo (Ptuj, Trbovlje, Murska Sobota, Ravne na Koroškem, Zagorje ob Savi, Sevnica in Lendava) in taka, ki so iz leta v leto prebivalstveno rasla (Postojna, Slovenska Bistrica, Grosuplje, Brezovica pri Ljubljani in Ivančna Gorica). Prav pri slednjih bi lahko govorili o njihovem (vsaj delno) obmestnem značaju, kar je eden od pomembnih privlačnih dejavnikov za priseljevanje. Starostna struktura slovenskega mestnega prebivalstva občutno odstopa od slovenskega povprečja, pri čemer se ta razlika povečuje. Indeks staranja za celotno prebivalstvo se je v obdobju 2002-2011 s 94,1 povečal na 116,5. V istem obdobju se je vrednost samo za mestno prebivalstvo povečala s 103,3 na 130,0. Od treh temeljnih starostnih skupin prebivalstva je bila med mestnimi območji najbolj enakomerno razporejena srednja starostna skupina (15-64 let), najmanj pa staro prebivalstvo, a tudi za to koeficienta lokalizacije 0,06 leta 2002 in 0,04 leta 2011 ne kažeta posebej velike osredotočenosti starega prebivalstva v zgolj nekaterih mestnih območjih. Še najbolj izstopajo obalna mesta Portorož, Lucija, Koper, Izola z zelo nizkimi lokacijskimi količniki. Za leto 2011 smo na podlagi lokacijskih količnikov za mlado, srednje in staro prebivalstvo vsa mestna razvrstili v različne skupine glede na soramerno osredotočanje posamezne starostne skupine v njih. V skupini s sorazmerno koncentracijo mladega prebivalstva so predvsem naselja, ki bi jim lahko pripisali obmestni značaj, oziroma bi jih lahko opredelili kot satelitska naselja Ljubljane (Domžale, Grosuplje, Kamnik, Mengeš, Trzin, Vir, Vrhnika). V zvezi s strukturo po spolu podatki kažejo, da se je v večini mestnih območij delež moških povečal. To je posledica večjega zmanjšanja smrtnosti pri moških kot pri ženskah, kar seveda ni značilno le za mestno prebivalstvo, ampak za prebivalstvo Slovenije nasploh. Deloma pa lahko spremembo pripišemo tudi spremenjeni statistični opredelitvi prebivalstva. Tujci, ki so na novo postali prebivalci slovenskih mest, so bili pretežno moški. Podatki o naravni rasti prebivalstva pri majhnih številkah nimajo prave verodostojnosti, zaradi vpliva naključnih dejavnikov. Pa vendar ugotavljamo, da je slovensko prebivalstvo, če primerjamo popisni leti 2002 in 2011, prešlo iz stanja absolutne depopulacije nazaj v stanje potencialne depopulacije. V letu 2002 se je prebivalstvo Slovenije po naravni poti zmanjševalo za 0,60 na 1000 prebivalcev, mestno prebivalstvo pa za 0,28. To se je, predvsem na račun nadpovprečne rasti smrtnosti mestnega prebivalstva, obrnilo v podpovprečno naravno rast mestnega prebivalstva leta 2011 (mestna območja 0,91 in Slovenija 1,58 na 1000). Povprečna vrednost za mestno prebivalstvo ne odstopa tako zelo od slovenskega povprečja kot vrednosti za posamezna mestna območja. Med večjimi imata največji naravni upad prebivalstva Trbovlje in Ptuj pa tudi Maribor in Izola, z upadom pa sta se tako 2002 kot 2011 soočala še Koper in Nova Gorica, medtem ko sta Murska Sobota in Jesenice z rasti v 2002 zdrsnili na negativne vrednosti v 2011. Vsaj ponekod je neugodne naravne dejavnike rasti števila prebivalstva izničilo priseljevanje. Za prebivalstvo mestnih območij je značilen večji delež prebivalstva, ki se je že selilo in ta delež se je v obdobju 2002-2011 povečal. Predvsem je v mestnih območjih nadpovprečen delež priseljenih iz tujine, saj so mesta običajno prvi kraji, kjer se tujci, ki iščejo delo, naselijo. Po deležu prebivalcev, ki od rojstva živijo v kraju bivanja med 18 največjimi mestnimi območji izstopajo Trbovlje, kjer je ta delež največji. Domžale in Murska Sobota izstopata zaradi nizkega deleža priseljenih iz tujine, Ljubljana pa po deležu priseljenih iz drugih statističnih regij. Priseljeni iz tujine so bili med vsemi mestnimi območji najbolj neenakomerno razporejeni (koeficienta lokalizacije v 2002 in 2011: 0,17 in 0,16). Po zaposlenosti se prebivalstvo mestnih območij skoraj ne razlikuje od slovenskega povprečja, so pa razlike med posameznimi mestnimi območji sorazmerno velike. Murska Sobota in Velenje med 18 večjimi sodita v skupino s sorazmerno koncentracijo nezaposlenih, nekdanja oziroma stara industrijska (rudarska) središča Maribor, Trbovlje in Kočevje pa v skupino s sorazmerno dekoncentracijo zaposlenih. Na drugi strani imamo ljubljanska satelitska mesta Vrhniko, Domžale in Kamnik, ki sodijo v skupino z dekoncentracijo vzdrževanega prebivalstva, Kranj, Novo mesto in Škofja Loka pa po naših izračunih sodijo v skupino s sorazmerno koncentracijo zaposlenih. Največje odstopanje od slovenskega povprečja ima mestno prebivalstvo pri izobrazbi. To nam kaže "izobrazbeni indeks", ki smo ga po analogiji z indeksom staranja izračunali tako, da smo delež višje in visoko izobraženih delili z deležem prebivalcev z zgolj osnovno izobrazbo in manj in rezultat pomnožili s 100. Med 18 največjimi mestnimi območji (Slika 10) močno navzgor odstopa Ljubljana, navzdol pa Jesenice (tudi Kočevje in Trbovlje). Ob upoštevanju tudi manjših mestnih območij, je daleč pred vsemi drugimi Trzin (lahko bi ga imenovali kar intelektualno predmestje Ljubljane). Za mestno prebivalstvo Slovenije, kot ga opredeljuje Statistični urad Republike Slovenije lahko trdimo, da je odvisno od opazovane značilnosti bolj ali manj različno od slovenskega povprečja. Predvsem pa se mestna območja močno razlikujejo med seboj. Razlike so nedvomno rezultat številnih medsebojno delujočih dejavnikov, zato je marsikdaj težko sklepati, kaj je temeljni razlog za odstopanje od povprečja. Zelo verjetno ima na izračunane kazalnike določen vpliv tudi to, da mestna območja zajemajo tako obmestno kot "pravo" mestno prebivalstvo (tudi tam, kjer je mestno območje eno samo naselje). Demografska analiza, ki bi upoštevala navedeno delitev, je vsekakor izziv za prihodnje preučevanje slovenskega mestnega prebivalstva.