Contemporary processes in peripheral rural areas in Slovenia

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 (CelińskaJanowicz, 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).

8000

7000

number of inhabitants

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1869

1880

1900

1931

1948

1961

1971

1980

1991

2002

2011

census year

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

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 41year-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.207220.



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).