CONTEMPORARY PROCESSES IN PERIPHERAL RURAL AREAS IN SLOVENIA

Jani Kozina, PhD and Mimi Urbanc, PhD

Final draft version, February 2014

Published in: A., Calcatinge, ed. 2014. Critical Spaces: Perspectives in Urban, Spatial and

Landscape Studies. Zürich, Münster: LIT‐Verlag, pp. 147‐166.

Abstract

Rapid technological development, brought on and prompted by processes like

industrialization, tertiarisation, urbanization, and globalization, has tended to increase the

differences between areas in the Western world in terms of their level of social-economic

development. Two groups of areas have formed: central and peripheral areas. These kinds of

effects of landscape development are apparent in the demographic structure, the settlement

image, land use, infrastructure equipment, etc. Slovenia has been paying considerable

attention to peripheral and less developed rural areas for quite a few decades, mostly through

research work and the authorities’ endeavours to boost their economic development. The

measures for defining these kinds of areas have been altered a few times; however, the same

regions were usually classified as the problem areas. One of these is Suha krajina (literal

English translation: dry landscape), characterized by its remoteness from the main transport

axes and development centres, as well as by its karst terrain with less favourable conditions

for agriculture. The article presents some of the main social-economic characteristics of

peripheral rural areas in Slovenia. Special emphasis is placed on Suha krajina, where intense

field work was carried out to study the demographic and landscape processes that remain

poorly documented or wholly unknown to the official statistics.

Key words: peripheral rural areas, depopulation, migrations, settlement image, transport

accessibility, Suha krajina, Slovenia

1 Introduction

Rapid technological development in conjunction with processes such as industrialization,

tertiarisation, urbanization, and, in recent times, globalization has largely increased the

differences between areas in many countries based on the level of their social-economic

development. Two types of areas have formed: the first are large city regions that are

expanding to neighbouring rural settlements as a consequence of suburbanization; the second

are peripheral rural areas that are seeing a decline in population. The rural drain processes

first began in the late nineteenth century in developed countries as a consequence of

industrialization. The first areas to be affected were the ones burdened by agrarian

overpopulation and areas with less suitable conditions for settlement and economy (Celińska-

Janowicz, et al., 2010).

Bucher and Mai (2005) differentiate between three country types with regard to depopulation

in Europe:

- Countries with large depopulation areas, but small interregional differences (the Baltic

countries, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Russia);

- Countries with regional bipolarity, which means larger or smaller depopulation areas and

clearly geographically separated areas of population growth (Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy,

Poland, France, Greece, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Hungary);

- Countries with depopulated regions, but having no depopulation problems in general (Great

Britain, Ireland, Island, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Austria, and Macedonia).

According to this typology, Slovenia falls in the larger group of European countries, where a

polarization occurs between the areas that are gaining in population and the areas that are

seeing a decline in this regard. The latter areas are usually categorized as less developed. The

most important factors here are the location and position of the rural areas. The areas with

superior accessibility and connectedness with their surroundings are privileged to a certain

extent, while rural areas, more remote from larger regional centres, less accessible, and closer

to smaller centres, have significantly less opportunities for development (Klemenčič, Lampič,

and Potočnik Slavič, 2008). Good transport accessibility to regional centres that have

concentrated supply and public functions and employment positions remains one of the

fundamental conditions for social-economic development. Improved accessibility namely

reduces the length and need for travel, which contributes to the decrease of numerous negative

effects of transport (time and energy use, over-suburbanization, environment pollution, etc.)

(Kozina, 2010). This also lowers costs for the economy (Polyzos, Sdrolias and Koutseris,

2008; Paez, 2004), ensures greater social equality (Currie and Stanle,y 2008; Stanley and

Vera-Brodrick, 2009), and reduces the negative impacts on the environment (Ewing and

Cervero, 2010; Bertolini, le Clercq and Kapoen, 2005).

The article aims to highlight certain fundamental characteristics of peripheral rural areas in

Slovenia with special emphasis on Suha krajina, one of the most distinctive less developed

areas. It is mainly characterized by its remoteness from the main transport axes and

development centres, as well as a karst terrain with less favourable conditions for agriculture.

The intensive field work, during which the local inhabitants were interviewed and the

buildings were charted, allowed for the study of the current migration flows and the

settlement image in eighteen selected settlements. The migration research focused on the state

and causes that were prevalent after 1990, with both emigration and immigration being factors

in the study. The settlement image section focused mainly on the condition of the buildings as

well as (economic) changes/novelties in the settlements and land use.

2 Peripheral rural areas in Slovenia

In terms of landscape, Slovenia is one of the most diverse countries in Europe (Ciglič and

Perko, 2013), which is supported by numerous geographic, historical, economic, cultural, and

linguistic facts. This country with a surface of merely 20,273 km², inhabited by only two

million people, sees the intertwining of many distinctly different natural and social units.

Slovenia’s territory (in comparison to the broader European area, its miniscule size might

even be deem it a spot) has an expressly transitional character; here, South Europe/the

Mediterranean transitions into Central Europe, and Eastern into Western Europe. Speaking

from the natural aspect, the area is a connecting point to the Alps, the Mediterranean, the

Dinaric Alps, and the Pannonian Basin; socially speaking, as many as four different language

groups share this space: Slavs, Germanic peoples, Latin peoples, and Finno-Ugric peoples

(Hungary). For nearly half a century, this had been the course of the Iron Curtain, which spun

from Szczecin in Poland to Trieste in Italy, in the direct vicinity of Slovenia’s western border.

This places Slovenia in an area, where two fundamental global concepts of social-economic

order once bordered each other not long ago (Kozina, 2013). Though it is a general rule that

areas with diverse landscapes have a better biodiversity in cases of only minor human

interferences, along with a greater economic potential (especially due to the tourism), and a

greater likelihood of using natural resources, it must be acknowledged and noted that the

transfer of good practices is more difficult in these areas, because different cultural and

natural systems react differently to interferences, which also makes regional/rural planning

more difficult (Ciglič and Perko, 2013).

The great differences in Slovenia’s landscapes also generate important differences between

the individual rural areas; these are extensive in terms of surface area as well as in the number

of inhabitants; according to the methodology of the Statistical Office of the Republic of

Slovenia, more than half of all the population resides in non-city settlements (Topole, et al.,

2006). In comparison to other European countries Slovenia is facing an urban gap in its

settlement system (Hočevar, et al., 2005). Slovenian rural areas in general are highly

heterogeneous, distinguished by various natural conditions and obstacles, and diversified

demographic, economic, and social structures. Some rural areas are more successful and more

developed than others as a result of different factors (Perpar and Kovačič, 2002; Klemenčič,

2003; Perpar, Kastelec and Udovč, 2013).

The less developed rural areas have been paid more attention by the Slovenian expert public

since the 1970s. These areas lie on the edge of lively economic activities and consequently

fall behind in development (Klemenčič, 2005). Legislation gave these areas various names

and different criteria were included in their designation (Benkovič, 2003); they can be

chronographically divided into four groups:

1. Less developed areas (demographic, economic, and infrastructure indicators);

2. Demographically vulnerable areas (demographic indicators);

3. Areas with specific developmental problems (economic indicators);

4. Problem bordering areas (economic indicators, geographic location).

Less developed areas in Slovenia became increasingly more apparent after World War II

along with the process of intensive industrialization. At that time, economic, social, and

spatial development was mostly focused on a smaller number of the most developed regions,

distinguished by their superior geographic location and position, tradition, natural resources, a

qualified work force, the presence of research agencies, and other factors. In contrast to these

concentrated areas, numerous areas fell behind in development. Bordering, mountain areas,

and some older industrial centres were particularly affected. Areas lacking in development are

characterized by an inefficient economic structure, low income, a high unemployment level,

depopulation, an aging population, insufficient supply, poorly developed infrastructure, and

limited natural-geographic factors (terrain intensity, extreme climates, barren soil, lack of

natural sources) (Kušar, 2005).

Even though the authors of one of the most thorough studies on peripheral rural areas in

Slovenia claim they are demographically impoverished, socially-economically weak and

financially undernourished, there are said to be occurrences of demographically sound

settlements that have development potential and represent a hope for the future (Klemenčič,

Lampič and Potočnik Slavič, 2008). Despite this fact, they predict that further development

will be expressly selective. The decline of life will lead to the older period’s expiration, along

with a good portion of its heritage: way of life, economy, folk culture, toponyms, etc. The

cultural landscape will become less diverse and increasingly more monotonous. A new,

“island” landscape structure will appear (overgrowth surrounding the settlements), the

inactive and only periodically present inhabitants will become the deciding factor of

“development” (Klemenčič, 2003).

3 Suha Krajina – a case of a peripheral rural area

Suha krajina is one of the most typical peripheral rural and less developed areas in Slovenia.

Its natural characteristics designate it as a dry plateau landscape. Limestone covers nearly the

entire surface. This is generally a levelled landscape, but it is very diversified and rich in karst

phenomena on the smaller scale. Half the surface lies on an elevation of up to 400 m, with the

highest peaks reaching over 700 m. With the exception of the Krka River, which divides the

landscape into two parts, there are no surface water flows (Urbanc, 2002). The area shows

traces of early, especially prehistoric settlement. The deciding factor for this was the easily

accessible deposits of limonite in the red karst soil. Since then, settlement has been constant in

the area and, despite relatively unfavourable natural conditions, quite dense. In the nineteenth

century, mining and foundry activities caused the area to flourish economically and see a rise

in the number of inhabitants, while the twentieth century was mostly marked by emigration

and a decrease in the population (Gabrovec, 1998).

Figure 1: The position of Suha krajina in Slovenia.

The population drain from Suha krajina began as early as in the late nineteenth century. The

main reasons for this were the iron works in Dvor closing and transport routes (railway,

highway) circumventing Suha krajina. This caused the area to become less accessible, despite

its relative proximity to larger centres (Ljubljana: national centre, Novo mesto: regional

centre). Most of the inhabitants emigrated to the US and other more developed European

countries at the break of the century (Valant, 1971). The population was further affected by

both World Wars; after World War II, the area was intentionally neglected by the authorities,

because of the inhabitants’ wartime collaborations with the Slovene Home Guard, who were

opposed to the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia.

For some, the inhospitable natural-geographic conditions were reason enough to emigrate.

The rocky plots with shallow soils led to a cease in land cultivation and an agrarian

overpopulation. The lack of water greatly contributed to emigration, as the inhabitants still did

not have proper water supply until a few decades after World War II (in some places this is

still the case today). This is where the area’s name originates from, as Suha krajina literally

translated means “dry landscape”. The poor economic efficiency of agrarian economies is also

a consequence of the extensive property distribution/partition, caused by the diverse terrain

and the inheritance laws, under which the estates are to be divided into smaller plots. A

further influence on emigration was the lack of any central functions in the entire Suha

Krajina area and the dispersed settlement type and with it, the excessive costs for building a

water distribution system, electrical mains, transport connections, and other infrastructure.

There had been no municipal centre in Suha Krajina before 1994, even though the area

measured roughly the same in size as the average Slovenian municipality. Suha krajina

remained on the edges of four large municipalities.

One of the most prominent factors for emigration from Suha Krajina was the country’s

politics after World War II, which neglected the agriculture and searched for work force in the

countryside. Consequently, the share of the population engaged in agriculture halved between

1981 and 1991; at the end of this period, the share of that population amounted to 18% of the

inhabitants of Suha krajina (Gliha, 1997; Gartner, 2002; Volčini, et al,. 2002). During the

industrialization period and the social-demographic transformation after World War II,

especially in the 1960s, the population sought employment in non-agricultural activities; since

employment positions were scarce in Suha krajina, the people would commute daily, usually

to Ljubljana and Novo mesto. Permanent emigration of workers and their families were

curtailed mainly by the construction of a more modern transport infrastructure and an

increased rate of motorization, which enabled daily commuting to work and school. The

younger and educated population mostly emigrated permanently during this period. All the

stated factors combined caused the number of inhabitants in Suha Krajina to decrease by as

much as 40% between 1880 and 2011. This process was especially intense in the first half of

the twentieth century, but has somewhat subsided in the second half and has stagnated in

recent times (Figure 2) (Urbanc, 2002).

Figure 2: Population movements in Suha krajina in census years between 1869-2011 (Gliha,

1997; Orožen Adamič, Perko and Kladnik, 1995; SURS, 2013).

4 Current migration flows in Suha krajina

In the last two decades, migration flows have subsided in Suha Krajina. Since the 1990s, a

slight immigration over emigration trend has even been detected in most of the studied

settlements. Even in villages, where the migration balance had been negative the entire time,

the difference was only in one or a few individuals in favour of immigrants. Suha krajina

therefore transformed itself from an area of population decline to an area of population

stagnation or even slight immigration. After a century of population decline and intense

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1869 1880 1900 1931 1948 1961 1971 1980 1991 2002 2011

nu

mb

er o

f in

hab

itan

ts

census year

emigration, perhaps the time has come for Suha krajina to experience a more favourable

demographic development.

Emigrations

Nearly all the studied villages have seen at least one local emigrate in the past two decades.

The most common reason for emigrating has been marriage or people moving away to their

partner, followed by moving for employment. Among those who left for employment, they

were predominantly young people who studied in larger cities and later gained employment

there; Ljubljana has seen the majority of this, with Novo mesto and Žužemberk (municipal

centre) in a minority of cases. People married away to numerous different settlements;

however, the majority of individuals keep residing within the region. The interviewees stated

discord within their families and a desire for better conditions as further reasons for

emigrating. Interestingly, women moved to a great extent more than men from most

settlements. Consequently, numerous settlements typically express high shares of single,

middle-aged men. For example, the youngest inhabitant of the village Malo Lipje is a 41-

year-old single man. The reason for this phenomenon is said to be more women moving away

when they marry, while men are more tied to their home as the heirs and are therefore less

likely to move (Zupančič 1989). After talking to the locals, it was established that most

women indeed married away, while men or boys, as they were at that time, were more

interested in male company than in settling down. Now, that it is “too late”, they console

themselves with: “What woman would want to move to these rocks?”

Immigrations

There are four reasons for moving to Suha krajina: marriage, inheritance, the quiet

environment, and the partner’s return to their home environment. People immigrate from

larger settlements as well as from other neighbouring villages. Similarly to emigrations, a few

migration flows can be detected within Suha krajina. Some families have opened restaurants

or started companies in the place of their new residence. These cases of young families, who

still see some prospects and development possibilities in these parts, represent the impetus

and hope for a brighter future of Suha krajina.

Returning locals

A special category in studying migration flows are locals who moved from their villages and

are returning for various reasons. They state serene life in the countryside, inheritance, or

peaceful retirement as the reasons for their return. Retirees are the ones moving back to the

countryside the most, because they want to spend their old age enjoying the nature and

peaceful environment. These inhabitants are important for preserving the cultural landscape,

since they are still able to do work around their house and manage smaller gardens to cultivate

some food. The most common cities to emigrate from are Ljubljana and Žužemberk.

Returning families with small children mostly relocate to settlements along the main transport

routes, from where they can easily make their daily commute to work and school into larger

centres.

5 Settlement image in Suha krajina

Most of Suha krajina’s largest settlements lie on the level ground above the Krka River, as its

narrow stream does not offer enough suitable space for settlement. The settlement sizes

generally seem to gradually decrease with distance from the Krka Valley. Settlements near the

Krka River have seen a more intensive development due to numerous advantages in the past.

The Krka River was once the main axis of Suha krajina’s economic development. A number

of industrial plants (mills, saws, iron works, paper factories, etc.) were positioned alongside it.

This was the main transport connection through Suha krajina, with a special emphasis on the

vicinity of drinking water.

Today, the area along the Krka River is still the centre of Suha krajina’s economic activities;

however, it has lost much of its previous significance. The economic sectors that went under

in the late nineteenth century have mostly been replaced by less important tourism. When the

water mains were built after World War II, the settlements on the right bank of the Krka River

were supplied with drinking water, but the water distribution system still circumvented some

settlements on the left bank. The significance of the position along the river has retained its

value, as the main transit route is the same. As a consequence, the settlements along the Krka

River have better accessibility to work, education, services, and other functions, necessary for

the life of an individual.

Condition of the buildings

The condition of the buildings is the best in settlements near the Krka River. Typically, these

have a high share of maintained and adapted buildings (over 70%) and a lower share of

unmaintained and deserted buildings (under 30%). The poorest condition of the buildings was

noted in individual settlements on the right side of the Krka River, where over 50% of the

buildings are deserted and unmaintained. The owners of most of the homes moved away or

passed away, leaving entire settlements to decay.

The rest of the settlements on both banks of the river are somewhat more maintained than

these, but still less well maintained than settlements that lie closer to the river. Some villages

on the left bank are quite remote from the Krka Valley and are one of the few still without a

water distribution system. The land is predominantly limestone, making the soil shallow and

the terrain markedly rocky. This makes the only profitable agricultural direction livestock

breeding. A good example of an adequate adjustment to the natural conditions in such an

environment is a horse breeder in Brezova Reber pri Dvoru, who owns more than a hundred

horses, making him one of the biggest private horse breeders in Slovenia. It is noticeable that

the condition of the buildings is better in settlements along prominent local transport routes.

There are no major distinctions in the share of newly constructed buildings between the

settlements. In most cases, such buildings lie on the outskirts of the settlements, where there is

more space. Particularly owners of secondary dwellings tend to move away from the

condensed settlement center. Aside from building holiday cottages, this kind of construction

can be connected to the processes of suburbanization or periurbanization.

The condition of barns and hayracks is worse compared to residential buildings. There are

practically no newly constructed buildings in these categories. Only a few new outbuildings

have been built in the last two decades. The barns and hayracks are in the best condition in the

settlements along the Krka River and in the village of Reber. These buildings’ condition tends

to deteriorate with distance from the river. This implies that deagrarization also increases in

this direction.

Residential characteristics

Residential characteristics have been closely connected to the migrating dynamics in the past

decades. Similarly to the condition of the buildings, the best conditions can again be found in

the settlements near the Krka River, while the situation gets increasingly worse with distance.

The villages with the worst condition of the buildings on the right bank also have the biggest

share of permanently empty homes. This is largely a consequence of the victims of wartime

and post-wartime events and emigration during the period of intensive industrialization. Most

of the young people moved away because of the poor transport and communal conditions, a

lack of employment opportunities, and a disinterest for farming in unfavourable conditions.

The number of permanently empty homes continues to increase due to the decreasing

numbers of the older population. Today, there are barely any individuals left who could

emigrate. The only people who remain are older individuals who are no longer able to have

children. Because of this, the only revitalization possibility remains entirely new inhabitants

settling. With inheritance, affordable plots, and a wish to live in a calm and clean

environment, this is already happening in some settlements, but the number remains too low.

The country and the local communities will have to lead a much more active policy in the area

for preserving and encouraging settlement in these villages in the future if they want to keep

them afloat.

6 Model of settlement development

For a better understanding of today’s settlement conditions in Suha krajina, settlement

development was simplified using a model that depicts different phases of the settlement

development from the nineteenth century to the present (Figure 3). The settlements in Suha

krajina are typically laid out in a nucleated, irregular order around a central area, with usually

a church or a prominent tree. This kind of morphological settlement composition has been

preserved over time and can still be observed today. The original inhabitants gained space by

deforestation, which was repurposed for settlement or farming plots. Man’s increased

activities in the space meant the settlement spread outward in concentric circles. Residential

buildings were radially followed by outbuildings, barns, and hayracks. These were followed

by orchards, meadows, pastures, and finally, forest (phase 1).

These processes saw their culmination in the second half of the nineteenth century, when

Suha krajina was at the peak of its economic power (Valant 1971). The population gained

employment in numerous non-agrarian activities, especially the iron works in Dvor. At the

same time, agriculture continued to gain in importance. The fields, meadows, and pastures

were additionally expanded to deforested surfaces. During this period, the development of the

settlements reached its highest point in the number of inhabitants as well as in their external

image (phase 2).

After the iron works in Dvor were closed and the rest of the traditional non-agrarian activities

failed in the late nineteenth century, people were left without employment. Since the

agriculture conditions were too meek, mass migrations began. The younger inhabitants left to

work elsewhere and the older inhabitants no longer had the strength for farming. Farming was

abandoned and with that, barns, hayracks, and other outhouses on the settlements edges lost

their purpose. The cultural landscape started overgrowing. Forests covered meadows and

pastures, these spread to fields and orchards. Through this, settlement development changed

directions. Instead of outward expansion, the settlements began “collapsing into themselves”

(phase 3). All these processes were additionally strengthened after World War II, when Suha

krajina fell victim to wartime and post-wartime events and intensive emigrating, suffering

further population decrease. Under the influence of intensive industrialization and the state’s

stepmotherly attitude to the countryside, deagrarisation was a constant process, most visible

through further overgrowth and forestation (phase 4).

Today, settlements in Suha krajina could be divided according to two characteristic phases.

Phase 5a is the final phase before the extinction of a settlement in the direction of “introverted

development”. Some dying villages on the right bank of the Krka River could be ascribed this

phase. Here, farming activities have all but ceased and only an old population remains; the

buildings are in disarray and the shrubbery has almost overgrown the centres of the

settlements in some places. On the other hand, the enduring settlements in the vicinity of the

Krka River can be ascribed phase 5b. Typically, these settlements are experiencing a rebirth

in development due to the favourable age structure of the population, returning locals, and

strengthened entrepreneurship. Despite the weak agrarian activities, the cultural landscape is

being maintained. In the village centres, returning locals and immigrants are renovating old

houses or erecting newly constructed buildings on the outskirts. The rest of the settlements on

both sides of the Krka River are stagnant and are somewhere between phases 5a and 5b.

Further development will show whether they will travel the route of re-expansion and

strengthening the population and demographic vitality or the route toward extinction.

Figure 3: Phases in the settlement development in Suha krajina from the nineteenth century to

the present.

7 Conclusion

After a century of emigration, population numbers have started to stagnate in Suha krajina in

the last twenty years. The migration flows have settled: there is even a weak trend of

immigration over emigration. People who come or return to Suha krajina, most often do so for

certain family reasons (marriage, inheritance, partner’s return to their home environment) and

for the serene environment the area has to offer. On the other hand, the departed chose to

move mostly for marriage or moved to their partner, with the second most important reason

being leaving for work. Setting aside family reasons, which are difficult to influence with

developmental policies, the conclusion can be made that Suha krajina is losing its population

(along with a higher mortality because of the older population) because of the lack of

employment possibilities. After more than a hundred years, the economy in these parts still

has not managed to get closer to the state it was in when iron foundry and iron works

flourished here, employing a great share of the local population.

On the other hand, Suha krajina has attractive contents to offer that are high on the wish list of

a considerable number of Slovenians, especially a peaceful and green environment with an

easy route for daily commuting (Hočevar and Uršič, 2007). Even though the main transport

routes circumvented Suha krajina and consequently placed it on the edges of development, it

still boasts a sufficient vicinity to larger employment and supply centres. From now on, the

local authorities should first ensure a complete infrastructure installation (water distribution

system, sewerage system, IT technology, etc.) and village restoration (some of the remoter

villages from the main transport axis in the Krka Valley are in extremely poor condition); the

next step would be to use different approaches to attract especially younger and highly

educated population. A recent research has namely shown that the newer settlement processes

of the most highly qualified work force in Slovenia run in the direction from deconcentration

from more urbanized settlement types to more scarcely settled suburbanized and rural

settlements. For these people, the most important factors are a quality living environment,

adequate infrastructure, identity, workplace and service accessibility, workplace quality, and

transport accessibility (Kozina, 2013). In this sense, Suha krajina should see its opportunity in

being an outskirt area for the national (Ljubljana) and regional centre (Novo mesto), because

it is rich in preserved natural landscape and cultural heritage. The area’s further development

could be based on tourism, which is becoming an increasingly popular form of modernization

and commercialization of the European rural area (Bole, Pipan and Komac, 2013). In this

way, entrepreneurship and the local economy along with regional identity can be strengthened

while looking after the environment and quality living conditions.

Despite certain developmental potentials that Suha krajina possesses as a peripheral rural area,

it still faces some difficult decisions in the future. What to do with the settlements that saw

most of its population emigrate and the rest grown old, while the cultural landscape is

overgrowing? Should they be left to further slow decay or should they receive new

infrastructure furnishing, encourage the younger population to move here and revitalize

themselves in this way? The answer to such questions awaits not only Suha krajina, but also

other peripheral rural areas, because Slovenia does not have clearly defined strategies for

these cases. From the viewpoint of suburbanization and dispersion of the Slovenian settlement

system, it may be sensible to consider concentrated development in the “healthy cores”.

Acknowledgement

The field work in Suha krajina was carried out in 2007 by students in the fourth year of study

at the Department of Geography of the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana: Helena Ilc, Daniel

Kastelic, Melita Kobol, Jani Kozina, Teja Logar, Andreja Miljevič, Vesna Simonič, Tomaž

Štembergar, andAndrej Trošt, under the mentorship of associate professor Marijan M.

Klemenčič, PhD.

8 References

Benkovič, M., 2003. Strukturni problemi depopulacijskih območij v Sloveniji

[Structural problems of depopulated areas in Slovenia]. MSc. Univerza v Ljubljani.

Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., Kapoen, L., 2005. Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual

framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in

the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy, 12(3), pp.207-

220.

Bole, D., Pipan, P. and Komac, B., 2013. Cultural values and sustainable rural

development: A brief introduction. Acta geographica Slovenica, 53(2), pp.367-370.

Bucher, H. and Mai, R., 2005. Depopulation and its consequences for the region of

Europe. Brussels: Council of Europe, Directorate General III – Social cohesion.

Celińska-Janowicz, D., Miszczuk, A., Płoszaj, A. and Smętkowski, M., 2010. Current

Demographical Problems of the Eastern Poland Macroregion. [online] Warsaw:

Centre for European Regional and Local Studies EUROREG. Avilable at:

http://www.euroreg.uw.edu.pl/dane/web_euroreg_publications_files/1617/demografia

_polska_wschodnia_2010_english_fin.pdf [Accessed 9 January 2014].

Ciglič, R. and Perko, D., 2013. Europe's landscape hotspots. Acta geographica

Slovenica, 53(1), pp.117-139.

Currie, G. and Stanley, J., 2008. Investigating Links between Social Capital and

Public Transport. Transport Reviews, 28(4), pp.529-547.

Ewing, R. and Cervero, R., 2010. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis.

Journal of the American Planning Assocoation, 76(3), pp.265-294.

Gabrovec, M., 1998. Suha krajina in Dobrepolje [Suha krajina and Dobrepolje]. In: D.,

Perko, M. and Orožen Adamič, eds. 1998. Slovenija – pokrajine in ljudje. Ljubljana:

Založba Mladinska knjiga, pp.472-483.

Gartner, M., 2002. Demografska, gospodarska in pokrajinska problematika Hinj,

Hriba pri Hinjah in Lazine v Suhi krajini [Demographic, economic and landscape

problems in Hinje, Hrib pri Hinjah and Lazina in Suha krajina]. Seminar paper.

Univerza v Ljubljani.

Geopedia, 2014. Map of Slovenia. [online] Available at:

http://www.geopedia.si/#T105_x496000_y111560_s9_b4n [Accessed 31 January

2014].

Gliha, S., 1997. Gibanje površine kmetijskih zemljišč, števila prebivalstva in števila

živine v Suhi krajini [Changes of agricultural land, number of population and number

of livestock in Suha krajina]. In: M., Legan, ed. 1997. Žužemberški grad –

Suhokranjski zbornik. Žužemberk, Novo mesto: Krajevna skupnost, Dolenjski list,

pp.71-80.

Hočevar, M., Uršič, M., Kos, D. and Trček, F., 2005. Changing of the Slovene urban

system: specific socio-spatial trends and antiurban public values/attitudes. In: F.,

Eckardt, ed. 2005. Paths of urban transformation. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang,

pp.299-300.

Klemenčič, M.M., 2003. Civilizacijske razvojne stopnje in razvojni problemi obrobnih

območij v Sloveniji [Civilization development stages and development problems of

peripheral areas in slovenia]. Dela, 19, pp.153-164.

Klemenčič, M.M., 2005. Nova razvojna strategija pokrajinsko homogenih obrobnih

območij Slovenije [New development strategy of the peripheral, landscape

homogenious areas in Slovenia]. Dela, 24, pp.185-193.

Klemenčič, M.M., Lampič, B. and Potočnik Slavič, I., 2008. Življenjska (ne)moč

obrobnih podeželskih območij v Sloveniji [The (Non)Vitality of Slovenian Peripheral

Rural Areas]. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v

Ljubljani, Oddelek za geografijo.

Kozina, J., 2010. Transport accessibility to regional centres in Slovenia. Acta

geographica Slovenica, 50(2), pp.231-251.

Kozina, J., 2013. Življenjsko okolje prebivalcev v ustvarjalnih poklicih v Sloveniji

[Living environment of inhabitants in creative occupations in Slovenia]. PhD.

Univerza v Ljubljani.

Kušar, S., 2005. Manj razvita območja kot element politike skladnejšega regionalnega

razvoja v Sloveniji: pretekle izkušnje in prihodnji izzivi [Less developed areas as an

element of balanced regional development policy in Slovenia: past experiences and

future challenges]. Dela, 24, pp.113-124.

Orožen Adamič, M., Perko, D. and Kladnik, D. eds., 1995. Krajevni leksikon

Slovenije. Ljubljana: DZS.

Paez, A., 2004. Network Accessibility and the Spatial Distribution of Economic

Activity in Eastern Asia. Urban Studies, 41(11), pp.2211-2230

Perpar, A. and Kovačič, M., 2002. Typology and development characteristics of rural

areas in Slovenia. In: M.M., Klemenčič, ed. Rural areas at the millennium shift :

challenges and problems. Ljubljana, 19-21 September 2001. Ljubljana: Oddelek za

geografijo Filozofske fakultete.

Perpar, A., Kastelec, D. and Udovč, A., 2013. Situation in Slovenian Rural Areas and

Main Factors of their Economic Development and Performance. In: D., Kovačević, ed.

Fourth International agronomic symposium "Agrosym 2013". Jahorina, 3-6 October

2013. Sarajevo: Faculty of Agriculture, University of East Sarajevo.

Polyzos, S., Sdrolias, L. and Koutseris, E., 2008. Enterprises' locational decisions and

interregional highways: an empiric investigation in Greece. Acta geographica

Slovenica, 44(1), pp.147-168.

SURS, 2013. Population data. [online] Available at:

http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=05C4002S&ti=&path=../Database/D

em_soc/05_prebivalstvo/10_stevilo_preb/20_05C40_prebivalstvo_obcine/&lang=2

[Accessed 15 December 2013].

Stanley, J. and Vella-Brodrick, D., 2009. The usefulness of social exclusion to inform

social policy in transport. Transport Policy, 16(3), pp.90-96.

Topole, M., Bole, D., Petek, F. and Repolusk, P., 2006. Spatial and functional changes

in built-up areas in selected slovene rural settlements after 1991. Acta geographica

Slovenica, 46(2), pp.189-249.

Urbanc, M., 2002. Kulturne pokrajine v Sloveniji [Cultural landscapes in Slovenia].

Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU.

Uršič, M. and Hočevar, M., 2007. Protiurbanost kot način življenja [Antiurbanity as a

way of life]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Valant, M., 1971. Zgodovina Žužemberka in Krajine [The history of Žužemberk and

Krajina]. 2nd ed. Ljubljana: published by the author.

Volčini, K., Orožen Adamič, T., Kuzmič, B. and Šetina, T., 2002. Razvojni problemi

in možnosti občine Žužemberk [Developmentproblems and possibilities of Žužemberk

municipality]. Dela, 17, pp.238-249.

About the authors:

Jani Kozina, PhD, research fellow, graduated in Ggeography in 2008 from the University of

Ljubljana, Slovenia. He acquired his PhD from the same university with a dissertation entitled

Living environment of inhabitants in creative occupations in Slovenia. His fields of interest

include geography of creativity and human resources, regional and spatial development,

economic geography, transport geography, and geographic information system. He is a

member of the Regional Studies Association, and member of the Ljubljana Geographical

Society executive board. He is also a member of the organization committee of the Regional

development in Slovenia symposium and deputy member of the Statistical advisory

committee of the population statistics at the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. He

received the Faculty of Arts Prešeren Award for Students (University of Ljubljana, 2008) and

the Award for contribution to sustainable development of society (Slovene Human Resources

and Scholarship Fund, 2009 and 2010) for his research achievements.

Mimi Urbanc, PhD, senior research fellow, graduated in Geography and History in 1996

from the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. She acquired her master’s degree in 2002 from the

same university and her PhD from the University of Primorska in 2007. Her fields of interest

include: regional geography, environmental protection, agrarian geography, geographical

names, cultural geography, and cultural landscapes. She was the project coordinator for

several European projects. She is currently assisting director for an international cooperation

at the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. She is also a member

of the Commission for the Standardization of Geographical Names of the Government of the

Republic of Slovenia, member of two working groups (on exonyms, and toponyimic data files

and gazetteers) at The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, the national

representative of The Permanent European Conference for the Study of Rural Landscape for

Slovenia, member of the Geografski obzornik editorial board, president of the Commission on

Awards at the Association of Geographers of Slovenia, member of the EUCALAND network

(European Cultural and Agricultural Landscapes), deputy member of ISCAR (International

Scientific Committee on Research in the Alps), and member of EARMA (European

Association of Research Managers and Administrators).