RAZPRAVE
Dela 39 • 2013 • 5-26
SOCIAL AREAS IN LJUBLJANA
Dr. Dejan Rebernik
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Geography Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: dejan.rebernik@guest.arnes.si
Original scientific article COBISS 1.01
DOI: 10.4312/dela.39.1.5-26 Abstract
One of the most important research topics in social urban geography is spatial patterning and measuring of social difference and inequality. The main objective of the paper is to analyze and delineate the characteristics of social spatial segregation in Ljubljana. The research is based on an analysis of data from the 2011 population census. The basic method used was an analysis of the socio-economic, ethnic and family segregation of population on the territory of the Ljubljana Urban Municipality based on a comparison of the share of selected population groups in the former local communities.
Key words: social urban geography, socio-economic segregation, ethnic segregation, Ljubljana, Slovenia
SOCIALNA OBMOČJA V LJUBLJANI
Izvleček
Eno od poglavitnih raziskovalnih področij v socialni urbani geografiji je preučevanje prostorske socialne segregacije in neenakosti. Glavni namen prispevka je analiza in predstavitev značilnosti prostorske socialne segregacije v Ljubljani. Raziskava temelji na analizi podatkov iz popisa prebivalstva leta 2011. Kot poglavitna raziskovalna metoda je bila uporabljena analiza socioekonomske, etnične in družinske segregacije prebivalstva na osnovi primerjave deleža izbranih skupin prebivalstva na območju nekdanjih krajevnih skupnosti.
Ključne besede: socialna urbana geografija, socioekonomska segregacija, etnična se-gregacija, Ljubljana, Slovenija
1. INTRODUCTION
Ljubljana is the capital and the biggest city in Slovenia with the area of 170 km2 and 275,000 inhabitants (2012). The city is political, economic and cultural center of the state. Ljubljana is also the biggest employment center in Slovenia with about 25% of working places. It has a large gravitation area which covers most of central Slovenia and has more than 600,000 inhabitants. Intensive daily migration flows to Ljubljana with over 150,000 daily migrants connected with employment, education and services are present in the urban region.
Very fast demographic and spatial growth was characteristic for the period after the Second World War. As the capital of one of republics of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, manufacturing, administration and service activities have developed in Ljubljana. Intensive immigration from rural and less developed parts of Slovenia and the rest of Yugoslavia were characteristic for the period from 1950 to 1985. It resulted in a very fast population growth and Ljubljana reached 275,000 inhabitants in 1991. In the 1980s, immigration slowed down and the process of suburbanization was reinforced. As a consequence, population dropped to 260,000 in 2001, but began to grow after 2005 again.
Morphological development after 1945 is defined mainly by public high-rise housing estates, but after 1970 individual single-family housing became more important. New industrial and service zones have developed as well. Urban growth was regulated by several urban master plans. In this way, the city spread out into surrounding rural areas which were transformed and included in urban area. In the course of urban growth several distinct and specific morphological zones were formed: old medieval core, old suburbs, new part of the city center, villa's neighborhoods, working class neighborhoods, high-rise housing estates, neighborhoods of single-family houses and urbanized rural settlements.
The main objective of the paper is to analyze and delineate the characteristics of social spatial segregation in Ljubljana on the basis of analysis of 2011 population census data. We understand social spatial segregation as uneven spatial distribution of different social groups in urban area. The results of a study of the social structure of Ljubljana using factor analysis performed on census data from 1991 (Rebernik, 1999) were also used. A regionalization of the city into distinct social areas represents a synthesis of the findings from particular phases of the study.
The social structure of the city is primarily a reflection of the more general social stratification of a society. Other factors influencing social spatial differentiation are housing market and its characteristics, housing policy, the share of public housing, urban planning and others (Rebernik, 2008). The social stratification of Slovene society is in its main characteristics comparable to conditions in Central and Western European countries. During the time of the economic transition in the 1990s, social differences in the population increased, but nevertheless, in the European context, Slovenia is ranked among countries with relatively small social differences. This is also shown by the socio-economic stratification, or the income classes based on the methodology
of the Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (Socialni razgledi 2006, 2006). The shares of people in the lower and upper income classes are relatively small, and a large majority of the population, about 85%, falls in the middle income bracket. Slovenia scores favorable within the EU-27 in terms of social cohesion indicators. In 2011, Slovenia had the lowest income inequality (Gini coefficient was 0.23) among all EU countries.
The level of risk of poverty was estimated at 10.0% in 2003, 12.3% in 2008 and 12.0% in 2010, which gives Slovenia the third lowest risk of poverty in the European Union. Certain population groups are very inclined to poverty risk, among them people living alone, single parents, unemployed and elderly (Socialni razgledi 2009, 2010). Growth of level of poverty in recent years is a consequence of economic crisis, increased unemployment and cuts in social transfers and is an indicator of increasing income differentiation of Slovene society. In this context, it should be stressed that under the previous socialist political and economic system the population was socially stratified as well. Differences in income among particular occupations and classes of population were limited, but they were in no way negligible. It is clear from an analysis of the social geography of Ljubljana in 1991 that at the end of the 'socialist' period, the social segregation of the population was moderate (Rebernik, 2002).
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDS AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Cities are heterogeneous with respect to the social composition of their populations. One of the most important research topics in social urban geography is spatial patterning and measuring of social differences and inequalities (Knox, 1995). The research on social spatial segregation in cities in post-socialist transitional countries was particularly numerous in last two decades (Basic, 1994; Weclawowicz, 1997; Wiefiner, 1997; Sykora 1999; Rebernik, 2002; Parysek, 2004; Prelogovic, 2004).
We understand the social structure of a city as the spatial distribution of particular social groups of the population in urban space and the differences in social composition of the population of different parts of the city. Uneven spatial distribution of social groups can also be termed 'social spatial differentiation' or 'social spatial segregation'. Since the basis for the spatial social segregation of the population is the place of residence, we can also call it 'residential social segregation'. Segregation can also be seen in education, employment, and social networks (Rebernik, 2008).
Factor analysis has become one of the most widely used technics in social research of all kinds and the preferred approach for measuring urban socio-spatial differentiation. Spatial patterns and relationships obtained from factor analysis are known as 'factorial ecology'. The development of factorial ecology in the 1960s offered a means of constructing urban social areas based on mathematical procedure and using a larger set of variables. Factorial ecology employs the multivariate statistical technique of factor analysis to derive a smaller set of common factors from an initial larger set of variables,
measuring the social, economic and demographic characteristics of census districts in a city. The meaning of each factor is determined by the character of the original variables with which it is associated most strongly (Pacione, 2009). By far the major finding of factorial ecology was that the residential differentiation in urban areas is dominated by socio-economic, followed by family (life cycle) and ethnic status of population (Knox, 1995). Socio-economic status is determined by income, education and employment, family status by the size of household and age structure of population. Ethnic status is a reflection of ethnic heterogeneity of urban population.
Figure 1: The family status of population in Ljubljana Urban Municipality by census districts in 1991
Slika 1: Družinski status prebivalstva v Mestni občini Ljubljana po popisnih okoliših (1991)
Source/Vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
Studying the urban social geography, the original observed variables are the social, economic, demographic, and ethnic composition of the urban population by certain spatial units, usually census districts. The study of Ljubljana (Rebernik, 1999) included variables on the income, occupational, educational, ethnic and age structure of the population, the structure of households and standard of housing. It turned out that a large degree of the variance can be explained by three common factors: the socio-economic, family and ethnic status of population.
The socio-economic status of the population is determined by the educational and occupational structure and the income. The family status is determined by the age structure of the population and the structure of households. The ethnic status is a reflection of the national and religious structure of the population. The social structure of Ljubljana is thus reflected in the socio-economic, family or demographic, and ethnic or national-religious differentiation of the population, and is well fitted with the theoretical model of factorial ecology. The spatial distribution also follows the theoretical underpinnings of factor ecology: the socio-economic status of the population has a sectorial distribution, the family status a concentric one and the ethnic status a multi-nuclear one.
The research of the social spatial segregation of the city is based on an analysis of data from the 2011 population census. The basic method used was the analysis of the socio-economic, ethnic and family segregation of population on the territory of the Ljubljana Urban Municipality based on a comparison of the share of selected population groups in the former local communities. Local communities were a form of local self-management that was replaced in 1994 with neighborhood or district communities in the frames of the local self-management reforms. We selected local communities as the basic spatial unit since their size and spatial extent is very well suited to our study. Due to their pronounced non-urban characteristics, the areas of the former local communities Besnica and Lipoglav were excluded from the analysis.
3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SPATIAL SEGREGATION
The study using factor analysis of census data from 1991 showed that the dominant common factor was socio-economic status of the population. We can conclude that the social structure of Ljubljana is influenced to the largest extent by differences in the socio-economic status of the population. Our research of socio-economic spatial segregation was based on analysis of income, educational and employment structure of population by former local communities.
Figure 2: The share of population in Ljubljana Urban Municipality with elementary education by census districts in 2011
Slika 2: Deleži prebivalstva Mestne občine Ljubljana z osnovno izobrazbo po popisnih okoliših (2011)
Source/Vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
The largest part of the city has a relatively average and heterogeneous socio-economic composition of the population. However, within areas with an average socio-economic composition, there were characteristic large differences in the socio-economic status of the population over a small distance, for example between individual apartment buildings. This is, for example, highly characteristic of the old city center and in some neighborhoods of high-rise housing estates. These are areas with a highly heterogeneous social composition of the population which is primarily a result of the urban planning, population development of the city in the whole postwar period, and of the low social stratification of the
population under the previous socio-economic system. The functioning of the real estate market and the spatial mobility of the population within the city were limited until 1990, what impeded the spatial social differentiation of the city. This was connected with strong state intervention in housing construction and supply with the consequence of high share of public housing construction. The phenomenon of spatial social differentiation was considered negative and unacceptable by the values of the socialist social system. Therefore, in residential neighborhoods a portion of the apartments was intended for sale, and a portion was allocated to people entitled to social housing or so called 'solidarity apartments'.
Figure 3: The share of population in Ljubljana Urban Municipality with high education by census districts in 2011
Slika 3: Deleži prebivalstva Mestne občine Ljubljana z visoko izobrazbo po popisnih okoliših (2011)
Source/Vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
The consequence was a heterogeneous socio-economic composition of the population in high-rise housing estates. The socio-economic position of owners of apartments was usually higher than of those entitled to social housing. The privatization of socially owned housing and the introduction of market economy at the beginning of the 1990s influenced the creation of real estate market and increased the spatial mobility of the population. Households with higher incomes frequently moved out of high-rise housing estates, mostly to single-family dwellings at the outskirts of the city, or into new and higher quality apartments in Ljubljana. The result was an increase in concentration of households with below average income in high-rise housing estates.
Figure 4: Index of income tax base per capita by census districts in 1999 (mean index for Ljubljana Urban Municipality = 100)*
Slika 4: Indeks dohodninske osnove na prebivalca po popisnih okoliših (Mestna občina Ljubljana = 100; 1999)
Sources/Vira: Tax Administration of the Republic of Slovenia; Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
* Due to new legislation on publishing statistical informations more recent data are not available.
Large areas with homogeneous socio-economic composition are the exception. Parts of the city with low socio-economic status, which often overlap with an above average share of the non-Slovene population and a specific family status, stand out. These are primarily some substandard neighborhoods of single-family houses on the city outskirts which came into being through illegal construction with a high share of non-Slovenes, older working class neighborhoods and some larger high-rise housing estates. We could refer to them as socially deprived areas, with a concentration of population of the lowest socio-economic status, a high rate of unemployment and an above average share of the non-Slovene population. The eastern and southern edges of the city also stand out for the relatively low socio-economic status of the population.
Areas with good living conditions and high housing standard on attractive locations have an above average socio-economic status of the population. These are newer and larger neighborhoods of single-family houses with uniform urban layout and high-quality living environment, the traditionally elite or 'bourgeois' part of the city center, neighborhoods of villas and some newer multi-unit buildings with luxury apartments. Accelerated new market housing construction in central parts of Ljubljana has caused a concentration of population with above average incomes in previously working class neighborhoods, which has all the characteristics of the gentrification. Accelerated suburbanization has also created smaller areas with a high socio-economic status of the population in suburban areas.
We conclude with the finding that Ljubljana is characterized by moderate socio-economic segregation. An above average socio-economic status of the population can be found in much of the city center and the western parts of the city, while a below average socio-economic status is obvious in more industrial and working-class eastern parts of Ljubljana.
4. ETHNIC SPATIAL SEGREGATION
The ethnic spatial segregation in Ljubljana is a result of intensive immigration of non-Slovene population from other parts of Yugoslavia after the Second World War. For areas with a high share of non-Slovene population, there is a characteristic above-average share of lower educated and unskilled labor force employed mainly in manufacturing and services. This is a reflection of the social composition of the immigrant population from regions of the former Yugoslavia. The causes for immigration to Slovenia were primarily economic: economic underdevelopment, rural overpopulation, and a shortage of jobs in less developed regions of Yugoslavia and the demand for unskilled labor in Slovenia (particularly in manufacturing, construction, and services), relatively favorable solution of the housing problem of immigrants, etc. (Pak, 1993). Nowadays, about 10% of the population living in Slovenia is non-Slovene, and in cities this share is usually higher. The non-Slovene population moved into urban areas with more jobs for low-skilled workers. Due to the high share of people who did not specify their nationality in the 2002 population census, the exact number of ethnic groups in Ljubljana is impossible to determine. The share of the population who identified themselves as Slovenes is thus 74%. Of the remainder, only half specified their nationality, and about 13% did not specify their nationality. In the last population
census (2011), data on nationality are not available, so the number and share of immigrant population was used instead. In 2011, there were about 48,000 immigrants (18% of the total population of Ljubljana Urban Municipality) from the republics of former Yugoslavia. This number does not include the second and third generations of immigrants.
Most of the non-Slovene population moved to Ljubljana in the 1970s and 1980s, in particular between 1975 and 1982 (Repolusk, 2000). After 1991, immigration from regions of the former Yugoslavia diminished sharply. Among the more recent immigrants, there is the predominance of Bosnians and Albanians from Kosovo and Macedonia. Immigration from parts of the former Yugoslavia, especially from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, began to increase noticeably again after 2002 and we can expect an increase in the number of immigrants in the subsequent years. The number of members of ethnic groups is also growing through natural increase. The substance and meaning of ethnic belonging is the subject of constant examination and reinterpretation at the level of the individuals and the community, in accordance with social circumstances. The second and third generation of immigrants is thus subject to assimilation. This is also clear from the census data and studies which show how the inhabitants of Ljubljana change their statements regarding nationality, religious faith and even native language (Komac, Medvešek, Roter, 2007).
Ethnic segregation is defined as the uneven spatial distribution of an ethnic group relative to the rest of the population. Census data from 1991, 2002 and 2011 show that ethnic segregation is present in Ljubljana. The greatest problem for all immigrants is housing, in addition to finding employment. Therefore, new immigrants move in with relatives, friends, and acquaintances, i.e. with people from their home countries, who offer them initial assistance in accommodating to the new environment. Due to low incomes, they seek the cheapest accommodation and settle in areas with poor living and housing conditions. During the period of the most intensive immigration of the non-Slovene population into Ljubljana, settlements of barrack-type housing arose as well as neighborhoods of illegally constructed single-family houses at the southern outskirts of the city.
A very typical form of accommodation for immigrants are so-called 'bachelor dormitories' belonging to various construction and industrial companies which use them to house their workers in minimum accommodation standards. As part of solution for the housing problem of immigrants and improving shanty dwelling and other substandard settlements in Ljubljana, some public housing settlements were built, such as the row houses in Tomačevo, Zgornji Kašelj and Črnuče. Some of the new immigrants have found their housing in the older working class areas of the city with substandard accommodation. A large part of the non-Slovene population moved into the newly built apartment blocks of Štepanjsko naselje, Nove Fužine, Dravlje and Črnuče when socially owned apartments were allocated to them or, when their financial situation improved. All this influenced the spatial distribution of the non-Slovene population in Ljubljana.
The highest shares of non-Slovene population are found in the following locations:
•	substandard neighborhoods of single-family houses of Rakova Jelša, Sibirija, Dolgi
Most, Tomačevo and Zgornji Kašelj;
•	areas of bachelor dormitories in Bežigrad between Topniška and Vojkova streets and
the apartment blocks of Litostroj in Šiška;
•	older working class neighborhoods with substandard housing such as Zgornje Poljane, Stari Vodmat and Zelena Jama;
•	the high-rise housing estates from the 1970s and 1980s in Nove Fužine, Spodnje Črnuče, Nove Jarše, Dravlje, Rapova Jama, Savsko naselje and Zalog.
The share of the non-Slovene population is highest in the substandard neighborhoods of single-family houses, where it exceeds 50% and is as high as 70% in Rakova Jelša. Of the high-rise housing estates the highest share is in Nove Fužine and Črnuče (40%), while it is somewhat lower in Savsko naselje, Nove Jarše, Rapova Jama and Dravlje. In the older working class districts the share is around 30%.
Figure 5: The share ofpopulation in Ljubljana Urban Municipality with first dwelling in one of the republics of ex-Yugoslavia by census districts in 2011
Slika 5: Delež prebivalstva Mestne občine Ljubljana s prvim prebivališčem na območju nekdanje Jugoslavije po popisnih okoliših (2011)
Source/Vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
Figure 6: The share of foreign citizens in Ljubljana Urban Municipality by census districts in 2011
Slika 6: Delež tujih državljanov v Mestni občini Ljubljana po popisnih okoliših (2011)
Source/Vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
5. SOCIAL AREAS IN LJUBLJANA
The main objective of urban social geography is delimitation of distinct and characteristic social areas. It is a form of geographical regionalization of urban space. As the main criteria for division of Ljubljana into social areas, socio-economic and ethnic status of population was selected, combined with particular morphological characteristics. The city was divided into areas with high, average and low socio-economic status of population. Division of Ljubljana into characteristic morphological areas was considered as well. In this way, the following social areas were identified:
•	historical city center;
•	city center;
•	older working class neighborhoods;
•	neighborhoods of single-family houses with high socio-economic status of population;
•	high-rise housing estates, neighborhoods of single-family houses with low socio-economic status of population, and
•	urbanized rural settlements.
5.1. Historical city center
Medieval or historical city center is a part of the city with concentration of market and public services and with a constant decline in the number of inhabitants since 1981 (Rebernik, 1999) but, nevertheless, it still maintaines the residential function as well. It has a very specific social structure and represents a distinctive social area. Comparing the social structure of population between 1981 and 2012, we can conclude that one of the main characteristics of this part of the city is intensive social transformation. Geographical research in the 1970s showed that historical centers of Slovene towns had very low socio-economic status of population, with concentration of immigrants, older households and low-income population. Pak (1977) classified old historical city centers in Slovene towns as socially deprived areas. Low socioeconomic status was typical for historical centers of Celje and Ptuj in the 1990s as well (Rebernik, 1996).
Our research showed that historical city center of Ljubljana has above average socio-economic status of population, with very high share of inhabitants with higher education (40%) and above average income (data for 1999). This is a result of processes of revitalization and gentrification which took place in several parts of historical city center. Due to location in city center and very attractive architecture and living environment, the process of gentrification began already in the 1990s but, with the development of real estate market and private investment in housing, accelerated in the first decade of 21st century. Revitalization with new housing construction of luxury apartments and renovation of older houses and infrastructure was very intensive in the last two decades. As a result, the share of apartments without basic infrastructure (WC, bathroom, central heating) dropped from around 50% to less than 10%. New or renovated houses with very high prices attracted high income population. However, the socio-economic status of these 'new' residents is in a sharp contrast with socio-economic status of dwellers in non-renovated houses.
Another characteristic of historical city center is very specific age and household structure with predominance of relatively young and small households: index of ageing is below average (90 compared to 130 for the whole Ljubljana Urban Municipality), share of single households is 52% and share of two-member households is 20%. This is a result of immigration of young and middle age households without children which is a common characteristic of gentrification in European cities.
5.2 City center
City center of Ljubljana is composed of relatively small central business district with an absolute predominance of service activities, and transitional area with mixed residential and non-residential function. Due to the expansion of service activities, depopulation is intensive since the beginning of the 1960 (Rebernik, 2002). Population in city center thus dropped from around 45,000 in 1961 to 28,000 in 1991 and 24,000 in 2011. In the eastern part of the city center (neighborhoods Tabor and Ledina), redevelopment of derelict industrial areas in the form of new housing contributed to population growth. Bourgeois apartment blocks and villas from the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th century are characteristic for this social area.
These neighborhoods were traditional elite residential area which experienced intensive social transformation in the period after the Second World War. Between 1945 and 1950, the housing in this part of the city was nationalized and immigrants with low socio-economic status from rural parts of Slovenia settled in. The process of 'social deformation' of central parts of Ljubljana was described by Pak (1977) as well. Due to quality housing and good location, even in the socialist period population with high socioeconomic status moved into this social area. Research based on data from 1991 showed characteristic above average income and educational structure of population (Rebernik, 1999). After 1991, the process of gentrification of city center of Ljubljana intensified. As a consequence, the concentration of population with high education and high incomes is characteristic for this part of the city (the share of population with high education is around 50%). Another characteristic of social structure of population is very high share of old and small households.
5.3. Older working class neighborhoods
With the development of manufacturing in the second half of the 19th century, several working class neighborhoods formed in Slovene towns. They were residential areas with low quality living environment and housing, located close to industrial zones (Pak, 1977). The largest of such neighborhoods developed in Maribor, Celje and Trbovlje. In Ljubljana, the first industrial zones and working class neighborhoods of Poljane, Moste, Vodmat and Zelena Jama developed at the end of 19th and in the beginning of 20th century to the east of city center. Isolated factories and smaller working class neighborhoods developed in other parts of the city as well (Rebernik, 2002).
Development of manufacturing in Ljubljana was limited and, therefore, the working class neighborhoods remained small. Poor quality housing and low socio-economic status of population was typical for this social area. Between the 1960s and 1980s, immigrants from other republics of ex-Yugoslavia moved into working class neighborhoods and above average share of non-Slovene population is one of the main characteristics of this social area. Due to location close to city center, the process of gentrification is also taking place in some working class neighborhoods, most notably in Poljane.
5.4.	Neighborhoods of single-family houses with high socio-economic status of population
For most of neighborhoods of single-family houses, above average socio-economic status with concentration of high income population is a characteristic. This is particularly true for newer neighborhoods of single-family houses with an uniform urban layout, such as Murgle, Koseze, Brdo and Galjevica. Those neighborhoods were planned and constructed during 1970s and 1980s and soon became parts of the city with highest quality of living environment and the highest socio-economic status of population. Above average income, high share of population with high education, good housing standard and very low share of non-Slovene population are typical for this social area. This is also reflected in very high real estate prices in these neighborhoods. Data from 2011 show very high socio-economic status of population, too. With the progress of suburbanization, neighborhoods of single-family houses with high socio-economic status of population developed on the outskirts of the city as well. They are particularly characteristic for western and northern residential suburbs (Podutik, Gameljne, etc.).
5.5.	High-rise housing estates
In Ljubljana, the importance of public housing was above Slovene average. In 1970s, up to 3,000 flats in high-rise housing estates were built per year. In the second half of the 1980s, public housing construction declined as in the rest of the country. High-rise housing estates represent the most widespread form of residential areas in Ljubljana. Out of 120,000 housing units in Ljubljana, around 60,000 are in high-rise housing estates built after the Second World War.
Heterogeneous social structure is characteristic for high-rise housing estates. In most of them, the average socio-economic status of population is hiding important differences among individual households. For high-rise housing estates from 1950s and 1960s, a very specific family status with high share of old and small households is characteristic. This is a consequence of ageing of population, connected to its low residential mobility. Young families, which moved into new apartments, grew old in 30 or 40 years. Their grown-up children had left the parent's households which are now small and old. This process is not completed yet, so we can expect the share of older population will continue to grow in high-rise housing estates.
The socio-economic status of population in older high-rise housing estates is close to average for the entire urban area, but with a trend of social depravation This is a consequence of rather poor quality of housing, out-migration of population with high income, immigration of lower income groups and ageing of residents. Social depravation is combined with physical degradation of buildings and infrastructure, although the degradation of older high-rise housing estates is relatively limited.
In housing estates from 1970s and 1980s, younger and middle generation is predominant. Socio-economic status of population is very heterogeneous. Council or so-called 'social' apartments were allocated to households with lower incomes, but they were also allocated to households with average or even above average incomes, what
resulted in heterogeneous socio-economic structure of the population in these high-rise housing estates. Socio-economic status of flat owners was higher than of the tenants of public housing. As a consequence, in housing estates with higher percentage of council flats, socio-economic status of the population was lower. In certain high-rise housing estates, concentration of higher income groups occurred. This is characteristic for smaller and newer housing estates in city center or on attractive locations in the western and northern periphery.
Market housing construction helps improve the offer in the housing market, thus promoting social segregation. The population with above-average income predominantly occupies new flats in attractive areas. The intensification of social segregation and the formation of areas with homogenous population structure can be expected in the years to follow.
Another characteristic of high-rise housing estates is above average share of non-Slovene population. In the 1970s and the 1980s, a major part of the non-Slovenes either were granted council flats or their economic status improved, so they settled in the newly built high-rise housing estates. In high-rise housing estates, built in the 1970s and 1980s, the share of non-Slovene population is now between 40% and 25%. We can conclude with a general observation that high-rise housing estates in Ljubljana are not involved in an intensive process of social and physical degradation, as is the case in some other countries of Eastern and Central Europe. In certain, particularly older and larger housing estates, some characteristics of social depravation can be observed, e.g. concentration of lower income groups, older households and ethnic minorities. There are also some indicators of increased crime rates, but they are not limited only to high-rise housing estates.
5.6. Single-family houses neighborhoods with low socio-economic status of population
The only areas with a majority share of non-Slovene population which could be called ethnic neighborhoods are the areas of substandard single-family houses in Rakova Jelša and Sibirija at the southern edge of Ljubljana. Typical of these substandard neighborhoods is illegal construction on plots of land that was not designated for individual housing construction. In the first phase of construction, such settlements were without municipal, energy, telecommunication and transportation infrastructure. Gradually, the inhabitants, in cooperation with the city administration, addressed the problems of infrastruc-tural hook-ups, and today their houses have access to, at least, the water supply network and electricity, and some are also hooked up to the municipal sewage system. They are characterized by a general poor quality of public spaces (e.g. unpaved roads) and untidy and unfinished houses and surrounding landscaping. Many houses have unfinished exteriors and unlandscaped gardens and yards, with heaps of building material waste and old cars. In the 1990s, it was possible to observe a gradual cleanup of particular parts of these settlements, with the paving of roads, the fixing up of houses and the construction of new individual homes. After 2000, the Ljubljana Urban Municipality offered the possibility of legalization of housing which was accepted by the vast majority of inhabitants.
Figure 7: Index of ageing in Ljubljana Urban Municipality by census districts in 2011 Slika 7: Indeks staranja v mestni občini Ljubljana po popisnih okoliših (2011)
Source/Vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
Public investment in infrastructure (sewage system, roads, pavements, street lights) followed the legalization of houses. The socio-economic status of the population in these parts of Ljubljana remain extremely poor. More than 80% of the population consists of unskilled and skilled workers employed in industry and services. Due to such occupational structure, their incomes are only two thirds of the city average. The educational structure of the population is also poor: more than half have only primary school education or less. Immigration from the area of ex-Yugoslavia diminished in the second half of the 1980s but increased again in the middle of the 1990s. Most of these immigrants settled in substandard ethnic neighborhoods at the southern edge of the city. This is also reflected in predominance of young and large households.
5.7. Urbanized rural settlements
For transitional zone between the city and rural hinterland, an entwinement of urban and rural characteristics is typical. With spatial expansion of the city, the former rural settlements were incorporated into the urban area but certain morphological and social rural characteristics remained. The main criteria for delimitation of this social area were the presence of agricultural households. In urbanized rural settlements at urban fringe of Ljubljana, the share of agricultural households exceeds 10%, in some settlements even 20% (Rebernik, 2002). Mixed households with employment in agriculture, manufacturing and services are quite common. Urban agriculture with production of vegetables and dairy products for urban market is typical. Socio-economic status of population is generally low with high share of low-skilled workers
Figure 8: Average size of households in Ljubljana Urban Municipality by census districts in 2011 Slika 8: Povprečna velikost gospodinjstev v mestni občini Ljubljana po popisnih okoliših (2011)
Source/Vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
and under-average incomes. With the process of suburbanization, the high income population started to move into this social area as well. Family status of population is characterized by large and relatively young households which contrast with much smaller and older households in the inner city. Large households with more than four members are typical.
6. CONCLUSION
Social structure of Ljubljana is comparable in its basic features to cities in Central and Western Europe. The social geography of the city is thus expressed in the differentiation of the population by socio-economic, ethnic and family status. Social structure of Ljubljana is mainly defined by the differences in the socio-economic status of the population. Low income groups and ethnic minorities are concentrated in neighborhoods of illegally constructed single-family houses on the periphery of the city as well as in parts of the old city center, older suburbs and some high-rise housing estates. On the other hand, several areas of the city, primarily parts of the city center and some newer neighborhoods of single-family houses, have populations with very high socio-economic status. These are areas with good living conditions and a high standard of housing. However, relatively average and heterogeneous socio-economic structure of the population is characteristic of a large part of the city. This is the result of specific urban development and low social stratification of the population in the former socialist socio-economic system. The functioning of the real estate market and spatial mobility of the population within the city were limited until 1990, thus slowing down the spatial social differentiation in the city.
As a consequence of migrations, Ljubljana has about 22% of the non-Slovene population, mostly Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. The highest percentage of the non-Slovene population is recorded in illegally constructed neighborhoods on the periphery. In high-rise housing estates built in the 1970s and 1980s, the share of non-Slovene population is between 40% and 25%, reaching about 30% in older working neighborhoods.
The socio-geographic structure of Ljubljana is undergoing considerable change, especially increased social spatial differentiation of population. In certain parts of the city, like older high-rise housing estates and parts of old inner city, social depravation with concentration of low income population is present. Suburbanization and loss of population in inner parts of urban area which started already in the 1970s remain intensive and cause the concentration of higher income groups of population in certain suburban areas. Because of urban sprawl, the highest increase of population was recorded in rural areas around Ljubljana with good accessibility. At the same time rural-urban migrations continue and in some parts of inner city the processes of reurbanization and gentrification are taking place.
References
Bašic, K., 1994. Socialna topografija Zagreba - dihotomija grada i suburbija. Sociologija
sela, 32, 1-2, p. 27-42. Komac, M., Medvešek, M., Roter, P., 2007. Pa mi vi povejte kaj sem!!!? Študija o etnični
raznolikosti v Mestni občini Ljubljana. Ljubljana, Fakulteta za družbene vede, 284 pp.
Knox, P., 1995. Urban social geography: an introduction. 3rd. Harlow, Longman, 350 pp.
Pacione, M., 2009. Urban geography: a global perspective. 3rd. London, New York, Routledge, 703 pp.
Pak, M., 1977. Socialnogeografski problemi deformacij stanovanjske strukture v mestih. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, 19-20, p. 51-64.
Pak, M., 1993. Geografska problematika narodnostne sestave prebivalstva Ljubljane. In: Gosar, A. (Ed.). Geografija in narodnosti (Geographica Slovenica, 24), p. 51-64.
Parysek, J. J., 2004. The socio-economic and spatial transformation of Polish cities after 1989. Dela, 21, p. 109-119. URL: http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:-DOC-ISNF746Q (Cited 10. 5. 2013).
Prelogovic, V., 2004. Socio-spatial polarisation in Zagreb. Dela, 21, p. 381-391. URL: http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-MA69TE4H (Cited 10. 5. 2013).
Rebernik, D., 1996. Morfološka in socialnogeografska zgradba slovenskih mest (na izbranih primerih). Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za geografijo, 196 pp.
Rebernik, D., 1999. Socialna geografija Ljubljane. Doktorsko delo. Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za geografijo, 209 pp.
Rebernik, D., 2002. Socialnogeografska zgradba in preobrazba Ljubljane. In: Pak, M. (Ed.). Geografija Ljubljane. Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za geografijo, p. 85-116.
Rebernik, D., 2008. Urbana geografija. Geografske značilnosti mest in urbanizacije v svetu. Ljubljana, Znanstvenoraziskovalni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 294 pp.
Repolusk, P., 2000. Narodnostna sestava leta 1991. In: Gabrovec, M., Orožen Adamič, M. (Eds.). Ljubljana. Geografija mesta. Ljubljana, Ljubljansko geografsko društvo, Založba ZRC, p. 69-80.
Socialni razgledi 2006. 2006. Ljubljana, Urad Republike Slovenije za makroekonomske analize in razvoj, 153 pp. URL: http://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_uplo-ad/publikacije/socrazgledi/SR2006.pdf (Cited 10. 5. 2013).
Socialni razgledi 2009. 2010. Ljubljana, Urad Republike Slovenije za makroekonomske analize in razvoj, 138 pp. URL: http://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/publi-kacije/socrazgledi/2009/socialni_razgledi_2009.pdf (Cited 10. 5. 2013).
Sykora, L., 1999. Processes of socio-spatial differentiation in post-communist Prague. Housing studies, 14, 5, p. 679-701. URL: http://web.natur.cuni.cz/~sykora/pdf/Syko-ra_1999_HousingStudies_14_5_SociospatialPrague.pdf (Cited 10. 5. 2013).
Weclawowicz, G., 1997. The changing socio-spatial patterns in Polish cities. In: Kovacs, Z., Wießner, R. (Eds.). Prozesse und Perspektiven der Stadtentwicklung in Ostmitteleuropa. Münchner Geographische Hefte, 76, p. 75-82.
Wießner, R., 1997. Sozialräumliche Polarisierung der inneren Stadt Budapest. In: Kovacs, Z., Wießner, R. (Eds.). Prozesse und Perspektiven der Stadtentwicklung in Ostmitteleuropa. Münchner Geographische Hefte, 76, p. 189-201.
SOCIALNA OBMOČJA V LJUBLJANI
Povzetek
V prispevku je predstavljena socialnogeografska zgradba in preobrazbe Ljubljane. Mesta so po socialni sestavi prebivalstva heterogena. Kot socialnogeografsko zgradbo zato razumemo prostorsko razporeditev posameznih socialnih skupin prebivalstva in posledične razlike v socialni sestavi prebivalstva posameznih delov mesta. Pri tem nas zanima predvsem stopnja socialnogeografske diferenciacije mesta, oziroma ali se socialnogeografska zgradba posameznih delov mesta pomembno razlikuje. Socialnogeografska zgradba mesta je predvsem odsev splošne socialne razslojenosti družbe.
Faktorska ekologija je teoretsko-metodološki postopek preučevanja socialnogeograf-ske zgradbe urbanega prostora. Temelji na uporabi metod multivariantne analize, v prvi vrsti faktorske analize. Ta je postala ena izmed najpogosteje uporabljenih metod za preučevanje socialne prostorske diferenciacije. Jedro faktorske ekologije je ugotovitev, da lahko socialno geografijo mesta oziroma njegovo socialnogeografsko zgradbo ponazorimo s tremi osnovnimi komponentami: socioekonomskim, družinskim in etničnim statusom prebivalstva.
Raziskava socialne prostorske segregacije na primeru Ljubljane temelji na analizi podatkov popisa prebivalstva iz leta 2011. Osnovna metode je bila analiza socioekonomske, etnične in družinske segregacije na osnovi primerjave deležev izbranih socialnih skupin prebivalstva.
Glavni namen prispevka je členitev mesta na socialna območja. Kot osnovni kriterij členitve Ljubljane na socialna območja je služil socioekonomski, etnični in družinski status prebivalstva v kombinaciji z izbranimi značilnostmi morfološke zgradbe. Mesto je bilo razdeljeno na območja z nadpovprečnim, povprečnim in podpovprečnim socioeko-nomskim statusom prebivalstva. Ljubljano smo tako razdelili na naslednja socialna območja: staro mestno središče, mestno središče, starejše delavske soseske, soseske enodružinskih hiš z visokim socioekonomskim statusom prebivalstva, blokovske stanovanjske soseske, soseske enodružinskih hiš z nizkim socioekonomskim statusom in urbanizirana ruralna naselja.
Socialnogeografska zgradba Ljubljane je pogojena predvsem z razlikami v socioeko-nomskem statusu prebivalstva po posameznih delih mesta. Značilne so velike razlike med deli mesta z zelo dobrim oziroma zelo slabim socioekonomskim statusom prebivalstva, za velik del mesta pa je značilna relativno povprečna in heterogena socioekonomska sestava prebivalstva. Večja območja s homogeno socioekonomsko sestavo prebivalstva so izjema. Izstopajo deli mesta z izrazito slabim socioekonomskim statusom prebivalstva, ki se pogosto prekrivajo z nadpovprečnim deležem neslovenskega prebivalstva in specifičnim družinskim statusom. Gre predvsem za nekatere podstandardne soseske enodružinskih hiš na mestnem obrobju, dele starega mestnega središča in starejših predmestij ter posamezne dele novejših blokovskih sosesk. Govorimo lahko o območjih socialne degradacije, s koncentracijo prebivalstva z najnižjim socioekonomskim statusom, visoko stopnjo nezaposlenosti in prevlado neslovenskega prebivalstva. Po relativno slabem
socioekonomskem statusu prebivalstva izstopajo tudi posamezni deli mestnega obrobja.
Območja z dobrimi bivalnimi razmerami in visokim stanovanjskim standardom oziroma tradicionalni elitni deli mesta imajo zelo dober socioekonomski položaj prebivalstva. Sem se uvrščajo novejše soseske enodružinskih hiš in določeni deli mestnega središča ter vilske četrti. V obdobju po letu 2002 poteka v posameznih delih mesta proces gentrifika-cije, zlasti v starem mestnem središču in starejših delavskih soseskah.
Etnična segregacija je definirana kot pojav neenakomerne prostorske razporeditve neke etnične skupine glede na ostalo mestno prebivalstvo. Etnični status prebivalstva je v Ljubljani določen z nacionalno in versko, posredno tudi s poklicno in izobrazbeno sestavo prebivalstva. Tako je za območja z visokim deležem neslovenskega prebivalstva značilen tudi nadpovprečen delež nižje izobražene in kvalificirane delovne sile, zaposlene pretežno v industriji in storitvah. To je odsev socialne sestave priseljenega prebivalstva iz območij nekdanje Jugoslavije. V Ljubljano se je največ neslovenskega prebivalstva priselilo v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih 20. st., še posebej med letoma 1975 in 1982. Po letu 1991 se je priseljevanje iz območja nekdanje Jugoslavije močno zmanjšalo, med novejšimi migranti pa prevladujejo Albanci s Kosova in iz Makedonije.
Delež neslovenskega prebivalstva je najvišji v podstandardnih soseskah enodružinskih hiš, kjer povsod presega 50 %. V blokovskih soseskah iz sedemdesetih in osemdesetih let prejšnega stoletja je delež neslovenskega prebivalstva med 40 in 25 %, v starejših delavskih četrtih okoli 30 %. Nadpovprečen delež neslovenskega prebivalstva je značilen še za del starega mestnega središča. Zelo nizek, pod 10 %, je delež neslovenskega prebivalstva na večjem delu mestnega obrobja. Zaradi nizkih dohodkov in težnje po čim cenejšem bivanju iščejo ti prebivalci cenejše oblike bivanja in se naseljujejo v območjih s slabimi bivalnimi in stanovanjskimi razmerami. V času najintenzivnejšega priseljevanja neslovenskega prebivalstva v Ljubljano so tako nastala barakarska naselja in podstan-dardne, nelegalno zgrajene soseske enodružinskih hiš. Zelo značilna oblika bivanja so 'samski domovi' gradbenih in industrijskih podjetij, ki so njihovi delovni sili zagotovili minimalni stanovanjski standard. Del novih priseljencev je našel stanovanje v starejših delavskih območjih s podstandardnimi stanovanji. Velik del neslovenskega prebivalstva se je v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih 20. st. ob dodelitvi socialnih stanovanj ali zaradi izboljšanega gmotnega položaja naselil v novozgrajene blokovske soseske. Vse to je vplivalo na prostorsko razporeditev neslovenskega prebivalstva v Ljubljani.
Socialnogeografska zgradba mesta doživlja intenzivno preobrazbo, predvsem v smeri povečevanja prostorske socialne segregacije. V posameznih delih mesta, na primer v starejših blokovskih soseskah in starejših delavskih soseskah, prihaja do pojava koncentracije prebivalstva z nižjim sociekonomskim položajem, v delu mestnega središča pa do pojava reurbanizacije in gentrifikacije.