Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017, 7–32 CENTRAL SETTLEMENTS IN SLOVENIA IN 2016 CENTRALNA NASELJA V SLOVENIJI LETA 2016 Janez Nared, David Bole, Mateja Breg Valjavec, Rok Ciglič, Maruša Goluža, Jani Kozina, Nika Razpotnik Visković, Peter Repolusk, Petra Rus, Jernej Tiran, Majda Černič Istenič Because of their compact layout and functional connection, Radovljica and Lesce function as a settlement cluster. Radovljica in Lesce zaradi strnjene lege in funkcijske povezanosti delujeta kot eno – stično naselje. M A R J A N G A R B A J S 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 7 8 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4606 UDC: 911.37(497.4)»2016« COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT: This article presents central settlements in Slovenia and their main characteristics in 2016. We defined central settlements based on services of general interest and the population of an individual settlement, and developed the analysis further by using competitiveness indicators. We defined 360 central settlements at six levels of centrality, among which the significance of Ljubljana as a national center of inter- national importance and the significance of intermunicipal, local, and rural centers are increasing. The significance of certain regional centers at the second and third levels of centrality is decreasing. The level of services of general interest supplied to Slovenian territory is relatively appropriate, but it should be improved by promoting competitiveness, especially in centers of national and regional importance. KEY WORDS: geography, settlement system, central settlements, services of general interest, cohesion, competitiveness, polycentrism, settlement clusters, conurbations, Slovenia The article was submitted for publication on 31th May, 2016. ADDRESSES: Janez Nared, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si David Bole, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Mateja Breg Valjavec, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: mateja.breg@zrc-sazu.si Rok Ciglič, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.si Maruša Goluža Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: marusa.goluza@zrc-sazu.si Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 8 9 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 Jani Kozina, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: jani.kozina@zrc-sazu.si Nika Razpotnik Visković, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Peter Repolusk Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: peter.repolusk@zrc-sazu.si Petra Rus Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: petra.rus@zrc-sazu.si Jernej Tiran, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: jernej.tiran@zrc-sazu.si Majda Černič Istenič, Ph.D. Sociomedical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: majdaci@zrc-sazu.si 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 9 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 1 Introduction Central settlements have been studied since von Thünen’s (1842) work on the topic, but the concept was established only with Christaller’s (1933) central place theory. In it, central settlements are defined as »major and minor political, cultural, economic, and transport centers that arose as an expression of the political, cultural, and economic operation of human society and that must therefore be considered the basic ele- ments in the functional construction of social life« (Vrišer 1967, 143). Christaller understood them as the centers of regions that shape and define the region through their area of influence. Because of constant mutual influence, regions and their centers are constantly adapting to changing conditions, which also changes the system of central settlements. In the system of central settlements, an important role is played by cen- tral functions, such as commerce, crafts, transport, education, healthcare, administration, and cultural institutions. If the surrounding functional area is small, the settlement has only basic, frequently used cen- tral functions that are available to users in the vicinity of their residences, but, as settlements’ level of centrality increases, these functions become increasingly diverse (Vrišer 1967). Central settlements in Slovenia have been studied since the 1960s (Vrišer 1967; Kokole 1971; Pak, Batagelj and Hrvatin 1987; Vrišer 1988; Cigale 2002; Strategija … 2004; Drozg 2005; Benkovič Krašovec 2006; Zavodnik Lamovšek, Drobne and Žaucer 2008; Rus, Razpotnik Visković and Nared 2013). They are char- acterized by constant changes in their definition, in part due to changing methodology, but more due to spatial and social changes (Nared, Bole and Ciglič 2016). Different authors have used various functions and various numbers of levels of centrality, and the manner in which they obtained their data has also var- ied (surveys and institutionalized data sources; Table 1). As these studies showed, the structure of central settlements at higher levels is relatively stable, but greater changes are visible in central settlements at lower levels, especially because of spatial and social changes in past decades: local government reform, centralization, digitization and increased internet use, construction of the freeway network and increasing mobility, suburbanization and post-suburbanization, demograph- ic changes, tertiarization of the economy, privatization of public services, and the economic crisis (Bole et al. 2012; Rus, Razpotnik Visković and Nared 2013; Nared, Bole and Ciglič 2016). The otherwise scant modern studies of central settlements have added new aspects to the original examination of supply with services. At the forefront are discussions of the ratio between cohesion and competitiveness (Meijers 2008), and examinations of functional regions (Karlsson and Olsson 2006; Zavodnik Lamovšek 2011) and func- tional polycentrism (Green 2007). Meijers (2007) believes that it is necessary to further develop central place theory because towns are not only connected vertically, but also horizontally through sharing func- tions (i.e., conurbations) and functional specializations. Such »networking« is typical of the global economy, especially for growing service sectors such as finance, IT, the creative industry, and so on (Sassen 1991; Castells 1996). This article examines the network of central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 from the perspective of supply with services of general interest (i.e., the functional aspect). The functional aspect of defining cen- tral settlements, which can be understood as an analysis of ensuring the cohesiveness of the entire national territory, is further developed with selected elements of competitiveness or, specifically, an analysis of the distribution of researchers, patents, and the largest export companies. This article is based on the project The Polycentric Network of Centers and Accessibility of the Population to Services of General Interest and General Economic Interest (Nared et al. 2016), which was financed by the Slovenian Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning as part of revamping Slovenia’s current spatial strategy. 2 Methods We based our analysis of central settlements on services of general interest, which government bodies define as such and for which special public service obligations apply (ESPON Evidence Brief 2013; Noguera-Tur and Martínez 2014). Following examples from abroad (Meijers 2007), we limited the broader selection of services to four main functions: public administration, education, healthcare, and the judiciary. This nar- rower selection of services of general interest made it possible to define central settlements relatively transparently. With the addition of new functions, the definition of central settlements would be less trans- parent because the various functions appear in the same settlements and the addition of new functions 10 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 10 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 11 Ta ble 1: A co m pa ris on of th e c rit eri a a nd fin din gs of th ree se lec ted st ud ies (K ok ole 19 71 ; V riš er 19 88 ; C iga le 20 02 (R us 20 13 ). Ko ko le (1 97 1) Vr iše r ( 19 88 ) Cig ale (2 00 2) Co lle cti ng da ta on ce nt ral ac tiv itie s Qu ali tat ive ap pr oa ch : d ire cto rie s, tel ep ho ne bo ok s, Qu ali tat ive ap pr oa ch : d ire cto rie s, tel ep ho ne bo ok s, Qu ali tat ive ap pr oa ch : S lov en ian te lep ho ne bo ok , lis ts of ins tit ut ion s, su rve y; lis ts of ins tit ut ion s, Re gis ter of Co m pa nie s a nd inf or m ati on on po st off ice br an ch es , in for m ati on on qu an tit ati ve ap pr oa ch : a cti ve po pu lat ion in th e A s so cia tio ns , R eg ist er of Pr iva te En tre pr en eu rs, ce ns us ; he alt h c en ter s, inf or m ati on on pr im ar y s ch oo ls, su rve y to wn -s er vin g s ec to r qu an tit ati ve ap pr oa ch : ra tio be tw ee n p op ula tio n a nd nu m be r o f e m plo ye d ( job s) in ter tia ry an d q ua ter na ry ac tiv itie s b y l oc al co m m un itie s ( wi th to wn s t rea ted as a wh ole ) De ter m ini ng th e s co pe of th e a rea Su rve yin g p rim ar y s ch oo ls Su rve yin g l oc al co m m un itie s / co m m un ity of fic es Su rve yin g p rim ar y s ch oo ls: de ter m ini ng w he re res ide nt s of inf lue nc e sa tis fy dif fer en t n ee ds fo r d iffe ren t s er vic es Nu m be r o f le ve ls of ce nt ral ity Ni ne : K ok ole do es no t n am e l ev els of ce nt ral ity , Se ve n ( fiv e) : lo ca l c en ter s, ru ral or in du str ial ce nt ers , Th ree : m ac ro -re gio na l c en ter s, m es o- reg ion al ce nt ers , bu t o nly de fin es th e l ev el co m m un al or m un ici pa l c en ter s, dis tri ct ce nt ers , a rea m icr o- reg ion al ce nt ers ce nt ers , p rov inc ial ce nt ers , c en ter s o f Y ug os lav re pu bli cs Cla ssi fyi ng ce nt ral se ttl em en ts Cla ssi fic ati on of in dic ato rs ba se d o n f req ue nc y Cla ssi fic ati on of in dic ato rs ba se d o n f req ue nc y Su pp ly wi th fu nc tio ns / se rv ice ac tiv itie s: by hi era rch ica l le ve l o f c en tra lity of oc cu rre nc e of oc cu rre nc e • Ac tiv itie s p res en t in 15 0 t o f ive hu nd red se ttl em en ts; • Ac tiv itie s p res en t in m ore th an fif ty an d f ew er th an on e h un dr ed se ttl em en ts; • Ac tiv itie s p res en t in fe we r t ha n t we nt y s ett lem en ts 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 11 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 would not offer significantly different results. We designed a database of centers’ supply with services of general interest; in addition to georeference data this also included metadata necessary for constantly updat- ing the database. It includes 703 settlements with at least one of four main functions. The database is based on the Slovenian Business Resister (AJPES) and databases at ministries and agencies. Proceeding from definitions of central settlements to date, proposals from a focus group, and a work- shop with stakeholders (Policentrično omrežje … 2015), we defined six levels of centrality (Table 2). On the one hand, the level of centrality was defined based on the population in a particular settlement and, on the other hand, individual functions were ascribed the corresponding level of centrality. Assessment of the overall level of centrality was made using a combined index of level of centrality (lcen). The index equally weighted the average level of centrality from the four functions and the level of centrality based on population (lpop) (1) 12 l f l cen pop = +∑1 4 4 2 f1 4 4 ∑      ! Table 2: Level of centrality for settlements and criteria for individual levels. Level of centrality Population Expected functions 1. National center of international importance ≥ 100,001 • Public university • University medical center • Higher court 2. Center of national importance 20,001–100,000 • College, university faculty, or academy • Large general hospital 3. Center of regional importance 10,001–20,000 • District court • Junior college • Hospital • High school 4. Center of inter-municipal importance 3,001–10,000 • Health center • Local government office • Local court 5. Center of local importance 1,501–3,000 • Full primary school • Health station • Municipal headquarters 6. Center of rural importance 501–1,500 • Branch primary school In classifying the settlements into individual levels of centrality, we defined the following classification limits (Table 3). Table 3: Classification limits for defining levels of centrality. Level of centrality Centrality index value 1. National center of international importance ≤ 1.50 2. Center of national importance 1.51–2.50 3. Center of regional importance 2.51–3.50 4. Center of inter-municipal importance 3.51–4.50 5. Center of local importance 4.51–5.50 6. Center of rural importance ≥ 5.51 6a. Center of rural importance with fewer than 500 people Fewer than 500 people and at least two functions Figure 1: Settlement clusters (Nared, Bole and Ciglič 2016). p 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 12 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 13 G ra di šč e- Sm rje ne D ra ga Fa ra Ra če M ut a K rš ko A pa če Za vr č Pi ra n Iz ol a Vo lč ja D ra ga M ire n K an al K ra nj Ža le c N ak lo Tr ži č O rm ož Sk ok e St ič na Vo jn ik Pi vo la Že ta le Ti šin a D ek an i St ra ža Li tij a To lm in Še nč ur H rp el je Tr eb nj e D or na va A nk ar an Ko če vj e Ri bn ic a Vr hn ik a Se vn ic a M ed vo de K iso ve c Ko m en da Pr eb ol d Po lz el a M ar ib or Le nd av a D or nb er k Šm ar je ta Po ljč an e D es tr ni k Ju rš in ci Č rn om el j Tr bo vl je Je se ni ce D ra vo gr ad Ro ga šo vc i Ra zk riž je G ro su pl je Šk o% jic a Ži ro vn ic a Še nt je rn ej C er kv en ja k A jd ov šč in a Ra do vl jic a N ov a G or ic a Šk o& a Lo ka M ur sk a So bo ta G or nj a Ra dg on a Zg or nj a H aj di na Zg or nj a Ku ng ot a Ro ga šk a Sl at in a Zg or nj a Po lsk av a D ol p ri Lj ub lja ni Ra vn e na K or oš ke m St ar i t rg p ri Lo žu Še nt vi d pr i S tič ni C er kl je n a G or en jsk em K riž ev ci p ri Lj ut om er u Sv . A na v Sl ov . G or ic ah Sv et i J ur ij ob Š ča vn ic i Br ez ov ic a pr i L ju bl ja ni Šm ar je - Sa p Zg or nj e G or je Sp od nj i D up le k D om ža le /K am ni k Sp od nj e Šk o' je Za go rje o b Sa vi M ik la vž n a D ra vs ke m p ol ju A re a of se ttl em en t c lu st er s/ ob m oč je st ič ni h na se lij A re a of p op ul at io n cl us te rs / ob m oč je st ič ne p os el itv e 0 10 20 30 40 50 km C ar to gr ap he r/ ka rt og ra f: Ro k C ig lič So ur ce o f b as em ap /v ir po dl ag e: G U RS 2 01 6 © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 13 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 14 Because of dispersed settlement, in Slovenia there are a large number of well-supplied settlements with a population below five hundred, which was initially defined as the lower population limit in a central set- tlement. We therefore added a new category of central settlements with a population below five hundred but that had to contain at least two of the four functions examined. We also determined that several administrative settlements are located close to one another but that the functions are uniformly distributed between them, which means that an individual settlement is not necessarily sufficiently large or supplied, but, if it is combined with another, then the combined settlement may satisfy the criteria of both size and supply. These types of settlements are called settlement clusters (such settlements are underlined in the text). We defined them as a set of morphologically connected set- tlements that, despite their administrative division into several settlements, operate as a functionally connected whole. Such settlements had to satisfy two criteria: the majority (> 50%) of their population had to live in areas of high density of numbered housing (> 1.5 house numbers per hectare in a diameter of 800 m) and areas of high density had to be continuously connected with at least one such area in another settlement. In this manner we defined fifty-six areas, further verified them through visual inspection of aerial pho- tos and review of the presence of the four functions, and thus expanded the list of central settlements with an additional twenty-nine settlement clusters (Figure 1). Using settlement clusters, we were better able to assess the level of supply, especially in areas of compact settlement, and the sharing of functions between individual settlements; for example, Nova Gorica–Šempeter–Vrtojba, Piran–Lucija, and so on (Nared, Bole and Ciglič 2016). For analyzing the network of central settlements from the perspective of competitiveness, we studied three indicators: exports in millions of euros per company headquarters in 2015 (SLOEXPORT 2016), num- ber of researchers per workplace (SICRIS 2016), and number of patents per place of patent holder between 1991 and 2016 (Patenti 2016). The last two indicators are often a component of measuring global com- petiveness indicators (Global Competitive … 2016) and global creativity indexes (Global Creativity … 2016), and so they are also appropriate for this analysis of competitiveness. The statistical correlation between settlement size, supply with services of general interest, and competitiveness was calculated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ). 3 Results Using the methodology presented, we defined 360 central settlements in Slovenia (Figure 2) with a total population of 1,318,051, which is just under 9.2% of the country’s settlements and 64% of its population. Two settlements are national centers of international importance (Ljubljana and Maribor), five are centers of national importance (Celje, Nova Gorica, Koper, Novo mesto, and Kranj), twelve are centers of regional importance (Domžale–Kamnik, Ptuj, Velenje, Jesenice, Murska Sobota, Trbovlje, Piran, Slovenj Gradec, Izola, Škofja Loka, Brežice, and Krško), thirty-eight are centers of inter-municipal importance, fifty-five are centers of local importance, and 248 are centers of rural importance, among which we also classified forty-nine centers with a population under five hundred but at least two main functions; in the text, settlement clusters are underlined. From the perspective of the central functions and size of a settlement, Ljubljana is far in the lead. As the country’s second-largest city, Maribor also preserves an important role. Among the other regional cen- ters, the second level of centrality is achieved by five settlements (Celje, Nova Gorica, Koper, Novo mesto, and Kranj), and the third level by four (or five) (Murska Sobota, Trbovlje, Slovenj Gradec, and the conur- bation of Krško–Brežice). The weakest among the regional centers is Postojna, which is ranked at the level of inter-municipal centers. With regard to the size of the settlement and its economic strength, Velenje is undersupplied with functions, which is largely a consequence of its location between two nearby region- al centers: Celje and Slovenj Gradec. Ljubljana has great administrative and economic influence, and is becoming an important metropol- itan center. The economic significance of settlements at the second and third levels of centrality is weakening, but increased influence can be noted at the level of municipal centers, which may be ascribed to local Figure 2: Central settlements in Slovenia, 2016. p 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 14 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 15 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( K rš ko K ra nj Li tij a To lm in Ko če vj e Vr hn ik a Se vn ic a M ar ib or Č rn om el j Tr bo vl je Je se ni ce G ro su pl je A jd ov šč in a Ra do vl jic a Iz ol a N ov a G or ic a Šk oƒ a Lo ka Pi ra n M ur sk a So bo ta D om ža le /K am ni k Le nd av a Ra vn e na K or oš ke m Pt uj C el je Se ža na Id rij a Še nt ju r Ve le nj e Br ež ic e Po st oj na Lj ut om er Lj ub lja na N ov o m es to Sl ov en j G ra de c Ili rs ka B ist ric a Sl ov en sk e Ko nj ic e Sl ov en sk a Bi st ric a Ko pe r N at io na l c en tr e of in te rn at io na l i m po rt an ce / na ci on al no sr ed išč e m ed na ro dn eg a po m en a C en tr e of n at io na l i m po rt an ce / sr ed išč e na ci on al ne ga p om en a C en tr e of re gi on al im po rt an ce / sr ed išč e re gi on al ne ga p om en a C en tr e of in te rm un ic ip al im po rt an ce / sr ed išč e m ed ob či ns ke ga p om en a C en tr e of lo ca l i m po rt an ce / sr ed išč e lo ka ln eg a po m en a C en tr e of v ic in al im po rt an ce / sr ed išč e vi ci na ln eg a po m en a C en tr e of v ic in al im po rt an ce w ith le ss th an 5 00 in ha bi ta nt s/ sr ed išč e vi ci na ln eg a po m en a z m an j k ot 5 00 p re bi va lc i M un ic ip al ity b or de r/ ob či ns ka m ej a 0 10 20 30 40 50 km Le ve l o f c en tr al ity a cc or di ng to p op ul at io n an d se rv ic es / st op nj a ce nt ra ln os ti gl ed e na p re bi va ls tv o in st or itv e C ar to gr ap he r/ ka rt og ra f: Ro k C ig lič So ur ce o f b as em ap /v ir po dl ag e: G U RS 2 01 6 © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 15 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 16 government reform and the »localization« of regional policy; decisions on regional projects are made by mayors, who favor local projects. The creation of many new municipalities had a major impact on the number of central settlements at the sixth level, especially those that do not achieve the threshold of five hundred residents. In line with the size structure of Slovenian municipalities, these settlements predominate in eastern Slovenia. With regard to settlement clusters, it is especially relevant to mention Domžale–Kamnik and Nova Gorica. The settlement cluster of Domžale–Kamnik is only a morphologically connected settlement without shared functions because both of the main settlements are centers of inter-municipal importance. In contrast, the morphological connection of Nova Gorica and the settlements of Šempeter pri Gorici, Kromberk, Pristava, Rožna Dolina, Solkan, and Vrtojba is further enhanced by shared functions, especially between Šempeter pri Gorici and Nova Gorica. It is also interesting to compare the level of centrality from the perspective of settlement size and how well a settlement is supplied with individual functions. Large settlements are generally better supplied with functions than smaller ones. If the level of centrality by function exceeds the level of centrality by popu- lation, the settlement is oversupplied and, in the opposite case, it is undersupplied (Figure 3). Oversupply is especially characteristic of settlements in less urbanized parts of the country, which can be explained by the conscious uniform provision of functions across the entire territory of the country as a result of the policy of polycentric urban development from the 1960s onward. Here it has to be taken into account that, in adapting the functions to the size of the settlement, more sparsely settled areas faced a relatively poor supply of functions. Undersupply is especially characteristic of settlements near major towns, which is a consequence of suburbanization, which has been prominent especially in the last forty years (Ravbar 1997; 2005). Because residents moved to the outskirts of towns, the populations of these settlements have grown greatly, but the supply of functions has not adapted sufficiently quickly to this. Among the central settlements, only twenty-three contain the seat of a major export company (more than 0.5% of Slovenian exports). In this regard, Ljubljana, Novo mesto, and Velenje stand out, which together account for over 50% of all Slovenian exports. Among the major central settlements, Maribor (Level 1), Murska Sobota, Slovenj Gradec, Trbovlje, Brežice, and Izola (Level 3) have no headquarters of a major export company at all. With regard to level of centrality, relatively weak positions are also held by Celje, Kranj, and Nova Gorica (Level 2) and Domžale–Kamnik, Ptuj, and Krško (Level 3). Conversely, there are many export companies in Škofja Loka (Level 3) and certain central settlements at lower levels, such as Slovenska Bistrica and Idrija (Level 4), Mežica and Zreče (Level 5), and Nazarje and Spodnja Idrija (Level 6). In 2016, Slovenian research organizations employed 10,100 researchers on a full-time, additional-time, or part-time basis, which is equivalent to 8,988 full-time researchers. Their distribution among the sixty- nine central settlements is somewhat more dispersed than that of export-oriented companies, but among them stands out Ljubljana (69%), followed at a great distance by Maribor (12%), and the remaining cen- ters have significantly fewer researchers. More than one percent of researchers are also found in Koper, Novo mesto, Celje, and Rodica. In the period from 1991 to 2016, around 5,800 patents were issued in Slovenia. Their distribution among central settlements was more dispersed than that of researchers and export-oriented companies because patents may also be registered by natural persons. Nonetheless, among the 228 central settlements Ljubljana once again strongly stands out with 31% of all Slovenian patents, followed at a great distance by Maribor (7%), Velenje, Kranj, and Novo mesto (3% each), and Celje (2%), whereas the remaining settlements had less than two percent of patents issued. The competitiveness of central settlements is moderately statistically correlated with their size and sup- ply with functions (Table 4). The not very robust correlations primarily result from the great strength of Ljubljana, the relatively low competitiveness of Maribor, Level 2 settlements, and most Level 3 settlements, and the relatively high competitiveness of certain settlements at lower levels of centrality. Figure 3: Difference between level of centrality by function and level of centrality by population of the settlement. p Figure 4: Competitiveness of central settlements in Slovenia in terms of export companies, researchers, and patents. p p. 18 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 16 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 17 Ra vn e na K or oš ke m Le nd av a D om ža le /K am ni k M ur sk a So bo ta Pi ra n Šk o‚ a Lo ka N ov a G or ic a Iz ol a Ra do vl jic a A jd ov šč in a G ro su pl je Je se ni ce Tr bo vl je Č rn om el j M ar ib or Se vn ic a Vr hn ik a Ko če vj e To lm in Li tij a K ra nj K rš ko Ko pe r Sl ov en sk a Bi st ric a Sl ov en sk e Ko nj ic e Ili rs ka B ist ric a Sl ov en j G ra de c N ov o m es to Lj ub lja na Lj ut om er Po st oj na Br ež ic e Ve le nj e Še nt ju r Id rij a Se ža na C el je Pt uj 0 10 20 30 40 50 km D i er en ce b et w ee n le ve ls o f c en tr al ity ac co rd in g to p op ul at io n an d se rv ic es / ra zl ik a m ed st op nj am a ce nt ra ln os ti gl ed e na p re bi va ls tv o in g le de n a st or itv e C ar to gr ap he r/ ka rt og ra f: Ro k C ig lič So ur ce o f b as em ap /v ir po dl ag e: G U RS 2 01 6 © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU M un ic ip al ity b or de r/ ob či ns ka m ej a St ro ng ly o ve re qu ip ed c en tr e/ m oč no n ad op re lje m o sr ed išč e (> 1) O ve re qu ip ed c en tr e/ na do pr em lje no sr ed išč e (0 –1 ) U nd er eq ui pe d ce nt re / po do pr em lje no sr ed išč e (– 1– 0) St ro ng ly u nd er eq ui pe d ce nt re / m oč no p od op re m lje no sr ed išč e (< –1 ) 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 17 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 18 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < N at io na l c en tr e of in te rn at io na l i m po rt an ce / na ci on al no sr ed išč e m ed na ro dn eg a po m en a C en tr e of n at io na l i m po rt an ce / sr ed išč e na ci on al ne ga p om en a C en tr e of re gi on al im po rt an ce / sr ed išč e re gi on al ne ga p om en a C en tr e of in te rm un ic ip al im po rt an ce / sr ed išč e m ed ob či ns ke ga p om en a C en tr e of lo ca l i m po rt an ce / sr ed išč e lo ka ln eg a po m en a C en tr e of v ic in al im po rt an ce / sr ed išč e vi ci na ln eg a po m en a C en tr e of v ic in al im po rt an ce w ith le ss th an 5 00 in ha bi ta nt s/ sr ed išč e vi ci na ln eg a po m en a z m an j k ot 5 00 p re bi va lc i M un ic ip al ity b or de r/ ob či ns ka m ej a 0 10 20 30 40 50 k m Le ve l o f c en tr al ity ac co rd in g to p op ul at io n an d se rv ic es / st op nj a ce nt ra ln os ti gl ed e na p re bi va ls tv o in st or itv e C ar to gr ap he rs /k ar to gr af a: Ja ni K oz in a in R ok C ig lič So ur ce o f b as em ap /v ir po dl ag e: G U RS 2 01 6 © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU N um be r o f p at en ts / št ev ilo p at en to v N um be r o f r es ea rc he rs / št ev ilo ra zi sk ov al ce v Ex po rt o f m aj or co m pa ni es / iz vo z ve čj ih p od je tij N o oc cu re nc e/ ni p oj av a σ < 0 0 ≤ σ ≤ 1 σ > 1 N o oc cu re nc e/ ni p oj av a σ < 0 0 ≤ σ ≤ 1 σ > 1 N o oc cu re nc e/ ni p oj av a σ < 0 0 ≤ σ ≤ 1 σ > 1 Pi ra nI zo la K op er Se ža na N ov a G or ic a To lm in A jd ov šč in a Id rij a Je se ni ce Ra do vl jic a K ra nj Šk o& a Lo ka D om ža le /K am ni k Lj ub lja na Po st oj na Ili rs ka B ist ri ca K oč ev je Č rn om el jN ov o m es to K rš ko Br ež ic e Se vn ic a Li tij a Tr bo vl je C el je Še nt ju r Ve le nj e Sl ov en j G ra de c Ra vn e na K or oš ke m M ar ib or Pt uj Lj ut om er Le nd av a M ur sk a So bo ta Sl ov en sk a Bi st ri ca Sl ov en sk e K on jic e < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < <<< << < < < < < < < < < << < < < << < << << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < << < < < < < < << < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 18 Table 4: Statistical correlation between the competitiveness of central settlements and their size and supply of services (Spearman’s correlation coefficient). Exports (€ million) Number of researchers Number of patents (23 settlements) (69 settlements) (228 settlements) Settlement level by education 0.399 0.651 0.489 Settlement level by healthcare 0.511 0.480 0.511 Settlement level by public administration 0.644 0.271 0.478 Settlement level by judiciary 0.509 0.514 0.470 Average level by education, healthcare, public administration, and judiciary 0.475 0.544 0.539 Settlement level by population 0.572 0.531 0.601 Average level by education, healthcare, public administration, judiciary, and population 0.524 0.557 0.592 Italic text: correlation significant at p < 0.05 (two-tailed). Boldface text: correlation significant at p < 0.01 (two-tailed). 4 Discussion Regional policy and promoting the development of a polycentric system of settlement played an impor- tant role in shaping the settlement system in the past (Drozg 2005; Nared 2007). In addition to the abstract orientation of spatial development towards a polycentric settlement system, this was especially contributed to by both major reforms of local government: the introduction of the communal system in the 1960s, and the establishment of new municipalities in the 1990s (Drozg 2005; Rus, Razpotnik Visković and Nared 2013). This also explains the good supply to settlements at the fourth, fifth, and sixth levels of centrality. On the other hand, the role of Ljubljana is strengthening (Bole 2004; 2011; Nared 2007; Ravbar 2007; 2009; 2011; Ravbar, Bole and Nared 2005), which has especially been apparent after the most recent economic crisis, when Ljubljana has offered employment to an increasing number of people from the surrounding area (Bole et al. 2012; Rus, Razpotnik Visković and Nared 2013). However, one must be cautious in explain- ing the role of Ljubljana because data on commuting, based on which the influence of centers was analyzed (Nared et al. 2016), is connected with information about jobs. This can lead to errors because the job loca- tion is often cited as the company headquarters (e.g., in the official information at AJPES, the legal records office), and not at its branch locations distributed throughout Slovenia (e.g., Mercator grocery stores, Petrol gas stations, or the Slovenian Armed Forces). In the past decades, the role of individual regional centers has been weakening, especially that of Postojna, Kranj (Rus, Razpotnik Visković and Nared 2013), and Murska Sobota, which on the one hand points to the leveling of development within regions, and on the other hand to the increasing divide between Ljubljana and other settlements. The current situation has been strongly influenced by the polycentric arrangement of functions in the past, which points to the path-dependent development of the settlement system (Martin and Sunley 2006; Bristow and Healy 2014). This is especially reflected in the divide between the level of centrality based on settlement size and the level of centrality based on functions in the settlement, where it can be observed that functions only slowly adapt to demographic changes. A similar conclusion can also be drawn from the distribution of researchers, who are concentrated in the two main university centers, whereas patents, which also ought to reflect the activity of the academic sphere to a certain degree, are distributed among considerably more settlements. At the same time, the results point to the influence of past ideologies on spatial planning because polycentrism was also a goal of social planning under communism. Vrišer (1978) thus mentions the development of a polycentric system in line with the organization of systems of »basic organizations of associated labor,« »self-management,« and similar concepts of that era. Despite a different methodology used, our findings agree with those in a study carried out in Norway, in which Dale and Sjøholt (2007) used a definition of central settlements based on commercial and non- commercial functions within walking distance to determine that specialized services and market-oriented functions are especially concentrated in settlements with a high level of centrality, where competitiveness thus comes to the fore. On the other hand, places with a low level of centrality lose market services and Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 19 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 19 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 retain only basic functions such as schools and general stores. There, ensuring the basic cohesion of nation- al territory is at the forefront. In general, it is difficult to compare our study with modern investigations by researchers in other coun- tries, who have focused more on the role of competitiveness and the functional organization of polycentric systems than uniform provision of functions. They have especially highlighted the networking and eco- nomic specialization of settlements and regions (Parr 2004), physical polycentrism, which is measured through commuting or employment in particular centers, political-administrative polycentrism, which is a result of the administrative division of territory, functional polycentrism, which arises due to the spe- cialization of towns within the urban system, and regional-identity polycentrism, which is a result of historical, symbolic, and sociocultural processes (Kloosterman and Musterd 2001). Defining central settlements based on services of general interest captures the aspect of competitive- ness only from the perspective of establishing a supportive environment, and therefore it is appropriate for defining and directing the spatial organization of the country, but is less appropriate for directing eco- nomic development. Namely, defining the level of centrality is closely connected with the policy of polycentric development, which is one of the basic goals of spatial development in Europe and for which the so-called European Spatial Development Perspective (Evropske prostorske razvojne perspektive 2000) emphasizes three goals of spatial development in the European Union: • Economic and social cohesion; • Conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage; and • More balanced competitiveness of European territory. It is through polycentric development that countries ought to achieve these goals. Slovenia is follow- ing the guidelines established, whereby attention is focused on ensuring basic coverage of the country’s territory with services of general interest and social cohesion, but Slovenia is less consistent in ensuring more balanced territorial competitiveness. 5 Conclusion This article used selected services of general interest (public administration, education, healthcare, and the judiciary) to determine which settlements comprised the network of central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 and what are their chief characteristics. Based on our own methodology, we defined six levels of central settlements and matched the corre- sponding settlements to them: 1. National centers of international importance (two settlements; in this case, Maribor is a settlement clus- ter, which means that together with certain other settlements forms a group of morphologically connected settlements that, despite their administrative division into several settlements, operate as a function- ally connected whole; in the text, settlement clusters are underlined): Ljubljana and Maribor; 2. Centers of national importance (5): Celje, Nova Gorica, Koper, Novo mesto, and Kranj; 3. Centers of regional importance (12): Domžale-Kamnik, Ptuj, Velenje, Jesenice, Murska Sobota, Trbovlje, Piran, Slovenj Gradec, Izola, Škofja Loka, Brežice, and Krško; 4. Centers of inter-municipal importance (38); 5. Centers of local importance (55); and 6. Centers of rural importance (248). The 360 central settlements were importantly influenced by historical development; among other things, especially by both local government reforms, which in many ways defined the development of the poly- centric settlement system in Slovenia, especially from the perspective of cohesion at the level of centers of inter-municipal, local, and rural importance. Among other factors, we highlight strong centralization, which is a consequence of the concentration of essential national institutions in the capital city. Economic development also follows this, which is evidenced by Ljubljana’s dominant share of export companies, researchers, and patents. From the perspective of uniform spatial coverage, the supply of Slovenian territory with services of general interest is relatively satisfactory, but this should be improved with elements that promote com- petitiveness. In these efforts, attention should especially be directed toward centers of national and regional importance. 20 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 20 6 Literature Benkovič Krašovec, M. 2006: Vloga centralnih naselij prve in druge stopnje pri razvoju slovenskega podeželja. Doktorska disertacija, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Ljubljana. Bole, D. 2004: Daily mobility of workers in Slovenia. Acta Geographica Slovenica 44-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS44102 Bole, D. 2011: Changes in Employee Commuting: A Comparative Analysis of Employee Commuting to Major Slovenian Employment Centers from 2000 to 2009. Acta geographica Slovenica 51-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS51104 Bole, D., Gabrovec, M., Nared, J., Razpotnik Visković, N. 2012: Integrated planning of public passenger transport between the city and the region: the case of Ljubljana. Acta geographica Slovenica 52-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS52106 Bristow, G., Healy, A. 2014: Regional resilience: an agency perspective. Regional studies 48-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.854879 Castells, M. 1996: The Rise of the Network Society. Malden. Christaller, W. 1933: Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Jena. Cigale, D. 2002: Centralna naselja v Sloveniji in njihova vplivna območja v letu 1999. Geografski vestnik 74-1. Dale, B. E., Sjøholt, P. 2007: The changing structure of the central place system in Trøndelag, Norway, over the past 40 years – viewed in the light of old and recent theories and trends. Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography 89-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00257.x Drozg, V. 2005: Koncepti policentrične ureditve Slovenije. Dela 24. ESPON Evidence Brief, 2013. Internet: https://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Publications/Menu_ EvidenceBriefs/EEB4_Services-General-Interest.html (8. 3. 2016). Evropske prostorske razvojne perspektive, 2000. Ljubljana. Global Competitive Index, 2016. Internet: http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report- 2015–2016/competitiveness-rankings/ (1. 3. 2016). Global Creativity Index, 2016. Internet: http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report- 2015–2016/competitiveness-rankings/ (1. 3. 2016). Green, N. 2007: Functional polycentricity: a formal definition in terms of social network analysis. Urban Studies 44-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701518941 Karlsson, C., Olsson, M. 2006: The identification of functional regions: theory, methods, and applications. Annales of Regional Sciences 40-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-005-0019-5 Kloosterman, R. C., Musterd, S. 2001: The polycentric urban region: Towards a research agenda. Urban Studies 38-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120035259 Kokole, V. 1971: Centralni kraji v SR Sloveniji, problemi njihovega omrežja in njihovih gravitacijskih območij. Geografski zbornik 12. Martin, R., Sunley, P. 2006: Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography 6-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl012 Meijers, E. 2007: From central place to network model: theory and evidence of a paradigm change. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 98-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00394.x Meijers, E. 2008: Measuring polycentricity and its promises. European Planning Studies 16-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802401805 Nared, J. 2007: Prostorski vplivi slovenske regionalne politike. Geografija Slovenije 16. Ljubljana. Nared, J., Bole, D., Ciglič, R. 2016: Določanje stičnih naselij za vrednotenje opremljenosti naselij s storitvami splošnega in splošnega gospodarskega pomena. Prostorski podatki. GIS v Sloveniji 13. Ljubljana. Nared, J., Bole, D., Breg Valjavec, M., Ciglič, R., Černič Istenič, M., Goluža, M., Kozina, J., Lapuh, L., Razpotnik Visković, N., Repolusk, P., Rus, P., Tiran, J. 2016: Policentrično omrežje središč in dostopnost prebivalstva do storitev splošnega in splošnega gospodarskega pomena. Končno poročilo. Ljubljana. Noguera-Tur, J., Martínez, A. F. 2014: Accessibility and provision of services of general interest in rural areas of the european union: an analysis of the eurobarometer. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles 64. Pak, M., Batagelj, M., Hrvatin, M. 1987: Problematika centralnih naselij na Notranjskem. Notranjska, zbornik 14. zborovanja slovenskih geografov. Postojna. Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 21 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 21 Central settlements in Slovenia in 2016 Parr, J. 2004: The polycentric urban region: A closer inspection. Regional Studies 38-3. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/003434042000211114 Patenti, 2016. Internet: http://www2.uil-sipo.si/ (15. 1. 2016). Policentrično omrežje središč in dostopnost prebivalstva do storitev splošnega in splošnega gospodarskega pomena: zapisnik 1. javnega posveta. Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana 2015. Internet: http://giam.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/priponka_3_centralna_naselja_1_-_posvet_zapisnik.pdf (21. 6. 2016). Ravbar, M. 1997: Slovene cities and suburbs in transformation. Geografski zbornik 37. Ravbar, M. 2005: »Urban sprawl«: popačena slika (sub)urbanizacije v Sloveniji? Geografski vestnik 77-1. Ravbar, M. 2007: Geografija človeških virov v Sloveniji – pomen ustvarjalnih socialnih skupin za regionalni razvoj. Geografski vestnik 79-2. Ravbar, M. 2009: Economic geographical assessment of investments – a development factor in regional development. Acta geographica Slovenica 49-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS49105 Ravbar, M. 2011: Creative social groups in Slovenia: contribution to geographic studying of human resources. Acta geographica Slovenica 51-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51204 Ravbar, M., Bole, D., Nared, J. 2005: A creative milieu and the role of geography in studying the competitiveness of cities: the case of Ljubljana. Acta Geographica Slovenica 45-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS45201 Rus, P. 2013: Centralnost naselij z vidika dosedanjih študij. Seminarska naloga pri predmetu Filozofija in epistemologija raziskovanja. Univerza na Primorskem, Fakulteta za management. Koper. Rus, P., Razpotnik Visković, N., Nared, J. 2013: Upravljanje območij z vidika sprememb funkcijskih zaledij centralnih krajev: primer Gorenjske. Gorenjska v obdobju glokalizacije. Bled. Sassen, S. 1991: The global city. Princeton. SICRIS, 2016. Internet: http://www.sicris.si/public/jqm/cris.aspx?lang=slv&opdescr=home&opt=1 (15. 1. 2016). SLOEXPORT, 2016. Internet: http://www.sloexport.si (1. 3. 2016). Strategija prostorskega razvoja Slovenije. 2004. Internet: http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/ pageuploads/publikacije/sprs_slo.pdf (24. 3. 2016). von Thünen, J. H. 1842: Der isolirte Staat in in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nazionalökonomie. Jena. Vrišer, I. 1967: O centralnih naseljih. Geografski vestnik 39. Vrišer, I. 1978: Slovensko urbano omrežje in policentrični razvoj. Zbornik II. Slovensko-slovaškega geografskega simpozija. Maribor. Vrišer, I. 1988: Centralna naselja v SR Sloveniji leta 1987. Geografski zbornik 28. Zavodnik Lamovšek, A. (ur.) 2011: Funkcionalne regije – izziv prihodnjega razvoja Slovenije. Ljubljana. Zavodnik Lamovšek, A., Drobne, S., Žaucer, T. 2008: Majhna in srednje velika mesta kot ogrodje policentričnega urbanega razvoja. Geodetski vestnik 52-2. 22 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 22 23 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 23 Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4606 UDK: 911.37(497.4)»2016« COBISS: 1.01 IZVLEČEK: Na men pris pev ka je pred sta vi ti cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji in nji ho ve po gla vit ne zna čil no - sti leta 2016. Cen tral na na se lja smo opre de li li na pod la gi sto ri tev splo šne ga po me na in šte vi la pre bi val cev v po sa mez nem na se lju ter ana li zo nad gra di li s ka zal ni ki kon ku renč no sti. Na še stih stop njah cen tral no sti smo opre de li li 360 cen tral nih na se lij, med ka te ri mi na raš ča po men Ljub lja ne kot na cio nal ne ga sre diš ča med - na rod ne ga po me na ter sre dišč me dob čin ske ga, lo kal ne ga in vi ci nal ne ga po me na. Manj ša se po men ne ka te rih re gio nal nih sre dišč na dru gi in tret ji stop nji cen tral no sti. Oprem lje nost slo ven ske ga ozem lja s stori tva mi splo šne ga po me na je raz me ro ma us trez na, a bi jo bilo tre ba nad gra di ti s spod bu ja njem kon ku renč no sti, zla sti v sre diš čih na cio nal ne ga in re gio nal ne ga po me na. KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija, sistem poselitve, centralna naselja, storitve splošnega pomena, kohezivnost, konkurenčnost, policentrizem, stična naselja, somestja, Slovenija Ured niš tvo je pre je lo pris pe vek 31. maja 2016. NASLOVI: dr. Ja nez Na red Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: ja nez.na red @zrc-sazu.si dr. Da vid Bole Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: da vid.bole @zrc-sazu.si dr. Ma te ja Breg Va lja vec Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: ma te ja.breg @zrc-sazu.si dr. Rok Ci glič Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: rok.ci glic @zrc-sazu.si Ma ru ša Go lu ža Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: ma ru sa.go lu za @zrc-sazu.si 24 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 24 dr. Jani Ko zi na Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: jani.ko zi na @zrc-sazu.si dr. Nika Raz pot nik Vi sko vi ć Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: nika.raz pot nik @zrc-sazu.si Pe ter Re po lusk Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: pe ter.re po lusk @zrc-sazu.si Pe tra Rus Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: pe tra.rus @zrc-sazu.si dr. Jer nej Ti ran Geo graf ski in šti tut An to na Me li ka Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: jer nej.ti ran @zrc-sazu.si dr. Maj da Čer nič Is te nič Druž be no me di cin ski in šti tut Znans tve no ra zi sko val ni cen ter Slo ven ske aka de mi je zna no sti in umet no sti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljub lja na, Slo ve ni ja E-po šta: maj da ci @zrc-sazu.si Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 25 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 25 Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 1 Uvod Cen tral na na se lja so pred met stro kov ne raz pra ve že vse od von Thüne no ve ga dela (von Thünen 1842), a so se uve lja vi la še le s Chri stal ler je vo (1933) teo ri jo cen tral nih na se lij. V njej so cen tral na na se lja opre de lje - na kot »več ja in manj ša po li tič na, kul tur na, gos po dar ska in pro met na sre diš ča, ki so na sta la kot izraz po li tič ne ga, kul tur ne ga in gos po dar ske ga de lo va nja člo veš ke druž be in jih zato mo ra mo sma tra ti kot te melj ni ele ment v funk - cij ski zgrad bi druž be ne ga živ lje nja« (Vri šer 1967, 143). Chri stal ler jih poj mu je kot sre diš ča re gij, ki prek svo jih vpliv nih ob mo čij re gi jo ob li ku je jo in opre de lju je jo. Re gi je in nji ho va sre diš ča se za ra di ne neh ne ga sov pli va nja stal no pri la ga ja jo spre mi nja jo čim se raz me ram, s či mer se spre mi nja tudi si stem cen tral nih na se lij. Pri si ste mu cen tral nih na se lij ima jo po memb no vlo go cen tral ne funk ci je, kot so tr go vi na, obrt, pro - met, šols tvo, zdravs tvo, uprav ne in kul tur ne us ta no ve. Če je za led je majh no, ima na se lje le te melj ne, po go sto upo rab lja ne cen tral ne funk ci je, ki so upo rab ni kom na vo ljo v bli ži ni bi va liš ča, z na raš ča njem stop nje cen - tral no sti na se lja pa so funk ci je vse bolj raz no vrst ne (Vri šer 1967). Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji preu ču je mo že od 60-ih let pre te kle ga sto let ja (Vri šer 1967; Ko ko le 1971; Pak, Ba ta gelj in Hr va tin 1987; Vri šer 1988; Ci ga le 2002; Stra te gi ja … 2004; Drozg 2005; Ben ko vič Kra šo - vec 2006; Za vod nik La mov šek, Drob ne in Žau cer 2008; Rus, Raz pot nik Vi sko vi ć in Na red 2013). Zna čil ne so stal ne spre mem be v nji ho vem opre de lje va nju, de lo ma za ra di spre me nje ne me to do lo gi je, še bolj pa za - ra di pro stor skih in druž be nih spre memb (Na red, Bole in Ci glič 2016). Av tor ji so upo rab lja li raz lič ne funk ci je in raz lič no šte vi lo sto penj cen tral no sti, raz lič no je bilo tudi pri do bi va nje po dat kov (an ke te, in sti tu cio na - li zi ra ni viri po dat kov; pre gled ni ca 1). Kot so po ka za le ome nje ne štu di je, je struk tu ra cen tral nih na se lij na viš jih stop njah raz me ro ma sta - bil na, več je spre mem be pa so vid ne v cen tral nih na se ljih niž jih sto penj, zla sti za ra di pro stor skih in druž be nih spre memb v pre te klih de set let jih: re for me lo kal ne sa mou pra ve, cen tra li za ci je, di gi ta li za ci je in po ve ča ne rabe in ter ne ta, iz grad nje av to cest ne ga kri ža in na raš ča jo če mo bil no sti, su bur ba ni za ci je in post su bur ba - ni za ci je, de mo graf skih spre memb, ter cia ri za ci je gos po dars tva in pri va ti za ci je jav nih služb ter gos po dar ske kri ze (Bole s so de lav ci 2012; Rus, Raz pot nik Vi sko vi ć in Na red 2013; Na red, Bole in Ci glič 2016). Si cer red ke so dob ne ra zi ska ve cen tral nih na se lij so iz ho dišč no preu če va nje oprem lje no sti s sto ri tvami nad gra di le z no vi mi vi di ki. V os pred ju so raz pra ve o raz mer ju med ko he ziv nost jo in kon ku renč nost jo (Mei - jers 2008), raz pra ve o funk cij skih re gi jah (Karls son in Ols son 2006; Za vod nik La mov šek 2011) in funk cij skem po li cen triz mu (Green 2007). Mei jers (2007) meni, da je tre ba teo ri jo cen tral nih na se lij nad gra di ti, saj se me sta ne po ve zu je jo le nav pič no, tem več tudi vo do rav no prek de li tve funk cij (so mest ja) in funk cij ske spe - cia li za ci je. Tak šno »mrež no« po ve zo va nje je zna čil nost glo bal ne ga gos po dars tva, zla sti ra sto čih sto ri tve nih sek tor jev, kot so fi nan ce, in for ma ti ka, us tvar jal na in du stri ja in po dob no (Sas sen 1991; Ca stells 1996). Na men pris pev ka je preu či ti omrež je cen tral nih na se lij v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 z vi di ka oprem lje no sti na - se lij s sto ri tva mi splo šne ga po me na (funk cij ski vi dik). Funk cij ski vi dik opre de lje va nja cen tral nih na se lij, ki ga lah ko ra zu me mo kot ana li zo za go tav lja nja ko he ziv no sti ce lot ne ga dr žav ne ga ozem lja, smo nad gra - di li z iz bra ni mi ele men ti kon ku renč no sti, na tanč ne je z ana li zo raz po re di tve ra zi sko val cev, pa ten tov in naj več jih iz voz nih pod je tij. Pris pe vek je na stal na pod la gi pro jek ta Po li cen trič no omrež je sre dišč in do stop - nost pre bi vals tva do sto ri tev splo šne ga in splo šne ga gos po dar ske ga po me na (Na red s so de lav ci 2016), ki ga je fi nan ci ra lo Mi ni strs tvo Re pub li ke Slo ve ni je za oko lje in pro stor v ok vi ru pre no ve ve ljav ne pro stor ske stra te gi je Slo ve ni je. 2 Me to de Pri ana li zi omrež ja cen tral nih na se lij smo se opr li na sto ri tve splo šne ga po me na, ki jih dr žav ni or ga ni opre - de li jo kot sto ri tve v splo šnem in te re su in se za nje upo rab lja jo po seb ne ob vez no sti jav ne služ be (ESPON Evi den ce Brief 2013; No gue ra-Tur in Martínez 2014). Šir ši na bor sto ri tev smo po tu jih zgle dih (Mei jers 2007) ome ji li na šti ri po gla vit ne funk ci je, in si cer jav no upra vo, šols tvo, zdravs tvo in sods tvo. Ož ji na bor sto ri - tev splo šne ga po me na je omo go čil raz me ro ma pre gled no opre de li tev cen tral nih na se lij. Ob do da ja nju no vih funk cij bi bilo do lo ča nje cen tral nih na se lij manj pre gled no, ker se raz lič ne funk ci je po jav lja jo v is tih na - se ljih, pa do da ja nje no vih funk cij ne bi pri ne slo bis tve no dru gač nih re zul ta tov. Izob li ko va li smo po dat kov no zbir ko oprem lje no sti sre dišč s sto ri tva mi splo šne ga po me na, ki po leg geo re fe ren ci ra nih po dat kov vse bu - je tudi meta po dat ke, po treb ne za sprot no po so dab lja nje po dat kov ne zbir ke. V njej smo za je li 703 na se lja 26 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 26 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 27 Pre gle d n i ca 1: Pr i m er j a v a m e ri l in re zu l ta to v t reh iz br a n ih štu dij (K o k o le 19 71 ; V ri š er 19 88 ; C i ga le 20 02 ) ( Ru s 2 01 3) . Ko ko le 19 71 Vr i še r 1 98 8 Ci g a le 20 02 zb i ra nje po da t ko v kv a li ta t iv n i p ri s to p: ad re s ar j i, t e le fon sk i im e n i ki , kv a li ta t iv n i p ri s to p: ad re s ar j i, t e le fon sk i im e n i ki , kv a li ta t iv n i p ri s to p: te l e fo n s ki im e n ik Slo ve ni j e, po da t ki o c en tra l ni h d e ja v n o s tih se z n a m i u s ta no v, an ke ta; se z n a m i u s ta no v, Re gi s ter de lov nih or ga ni z a c ij o p oš t n ih po slo va l ni ca h, po da t ki o zd rav s tv e n ih do m o v ih, kv an ti t a ti v n i p ri s to p: ak tiv no pr e b i va ls t vo in sa m ou pr av nih sk up no sti , R e g i st er za se b n ih po da t ki o os no v n ih šo lah , a n k e ta v m e s to tvo r n em se k to r ju po d je t n i ko v, po pis pr e b i va ls t va ; kv an ti t a ti v n i p ri s to p: od no s m ed pr e b i va ls t vo m in šte vi l om za po sle nih (d e lo v n i m i m e s ti) v ter cia r n ih in kv ar tar nih de jav no sti h p o k ra j ev nih sk up no sti h (m e s ta ob rav na va na ko t c e lo ta) ug o t av lja nje ob se ga vp liv nih ob m o č ij an ke ti r a n je os no v n ih šo l an ke ti r a n je kra jev nih sk up no sti /k ra j ev nih ur a d ov an ke ti r a n je os no v n ih šo l – ug o t av lja nje , k je pr e b i va l ci za do vo lju je j o r az lič ne po tre be po ra z li č n ih sto ri t va h šte vi l o s to pe nj ce n t ral no sti 9 7 ( 5) 3 Ko ko le sto pe nj ce n t ral no sti ne po i m e n u je , lo k al n a a li k ra j ev na sr e d iš č a; ru ral na al i in du str ij s ka m a k ro r e g io n al n a s re d iš č a; m e z o re gio na l na sr e d iš č a; tem ve č d o lo či le sto p n jo sre diš ča ; k o m u n al n a a li o b č in s ka sr e d iš č a; di s tri kt n a m i kr o re gio na l na sr e d iš č a ali ok rož na sr e d iš č a; ka n t o n al n a a li o kra j na sr e d iš č a; pr o v in c ij s ka al i p o k ra j in s ka sr e d iš č a; re p ub liš ka sre diš ča raz vrš ča nje ce n t ral nih na se lij raz vr s ti t ev in di k a to r je v g le d e n a p o g o s to st raz vr s ti t ev in di k a to r je v g le d e n a p o g o s to st op rem lje no st s f un k c i ja m i/s to ri t ve ni m i d e ja v n os t m i: v h ie r ar h ič n o s to p n jo ce n t ral no sti po jav lja nja po jav lja nja • de jav no sti , k i s o z a s to pa ne v od 15 0 d o 5 00 na se ljih ; • de jav no sti , k i s o z a s to pa ne v ve č k ot 50 in m an j k ot 10 0 n a s e lj ih; • de jav no sti , k i s o z a s to pa ne v m an j k ot 20 na se ljih 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 27 Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 z vsaj eno od šti rih po gla vit nih funk cij. Po dat kov na zbir ka te me lji na Po slov nem re gi stru Slo ve ni je (AJPES) ter zbir kah mi ni str stev in agen cij. Iz ha ja joč iz do se da njih opre de li tev cen tral nih na se lij, pred lo gov fo ku sne sku pi ne in de lav ni ce z zain - te re si ra no jav nost jo (Po li cen trič no omrež je … 2015) smo opre de li li šest sto penj cen tral no sti (pre gled ni ca 2). Stop njo cen tral no sti smo na eni stra ni do lo či li na pod la gi šte vi la pre bi val cev v po sa mez nem na se lju, na dru - gi stra ni pa smo po sa mez ni funk ci ji pri pi sa li, ka te ri stop nji cen tral no sti us tre za. Vred no te nje skup ne stop nje cen tral no sti smo opra vi li s se stav lje nim in dek som stop nje cen tral no sti (stcen). V in dek su smo ena ko vredno upo šte va li pov preč no stop njo cen tral no sti, iz ha ja joč iz šti rih funk cij , in stop njo cen tral no sti z vi - di ka šte vi la pre bi val cev (stpop). (1) 28 st f st cen pop = +∑1 4 4 2 f1 4 4 ∑      ! Pre gled ni ca 2: Stop nja cen tral no sti na se lij in me ri la za po sa mez no stop njo. stop nja cen tral no sti šte vi lo pre bi val cev pri ča ko va ne funk ci je 1. na cio nal no sre diš če med na rod ne ga po me na 100.001 in več • se dež jav ne uni ver ze • uni ver zi tet ni kli nič ni cen ter • viš je so diš če 2. sre diš če na cio nal ne ga po me na od 20.001 do 100.000 • se dež vi so ke šo le, fa kul te te ali aka de mi je • več ja splo šna bol ni šni ca 3. sre diš če re gio nal ne ga po me na od 10.001 do 20.000 • okrož no so diš če • se dež viš je šo le • bol ni šni ca • se dež sred nje šo le 4. sre diš če me dob čin ske ga po me na od 3001 do 10.000 • zdravs tve ni dom • uprav na eno ta • okraj no so diš če 5. sre diš če lo kal ne ga po me na od 1501 do 3000 • po pol na os nov na šo la • zdravs tve na po sta ja • se dež ob či ne 6. sre diš če vi ci nal ne ga po me na od 501 do 1500 • po druž ni ca os nov ne šo le Pri raz vrš ča nju na se lij v po sa mez no stop njo cen tral no sti smo do lo či li na sled nje meje raz re dov (pre - gled ni ca 3). Pre gled ni ca 3: Meje raz re dov pri opre de lje va nju sto penj cen tral no sti. stop nja cen tral no sti vred nost in dek sa cen tral no sti 1. na cio nal no sre diš če med na rod ne ga po me na do 1,50 2. sre diš če na cio nal ne ga po me na od 1,51 do 2,50 3. sre diš če re gio nal ne ga po me na od 2,51 do 3,50 4. sre diš če me dob čin ske ga po me na od 3,51 do 4,50 5. sre diš če lo kal ne ga po me na od 4,51 do 5,50 6. sre diš če vi ci nal ne ga po me na nad 5,51 6a. sre diš če vi ci nal ne ga po me na z manj kot 500 pre bi val ci šte vi lo pre bi val cev pod 500 in vsaj dve funk ci ji Za ra di raz pr še ne po se li tve je v Slo ve ni ji ve li ko šte vi lo raz me ro ma do bro oprem lje nih na se lij z manj kot 500 pre bi val ci, kar smo spr va opre de li li kot spod nje šte vi lo pre bi val cev v cen tral nem na se lju. Zato smo do da li novo ka te go ri jo cen tral nih na se lij z manj kot 500 pre bi val ci, ki pa so mo ra la ime ti vsaj dve od obrav - na va nih šti rih funk cij. 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 28 Ugo to vi li smo tudi, da več ad mi ni stra tiv nih na se lij le ži te sno eno ob dru gem, funk ci je pa so ena ko - mer no po raz de lje ne med nji mi, kar po me ni, da po sa mez no na se lje ni nuj no do volj ve li ko ali oprem lje no, če pa jih zdru ži mo, zdru že no na se lje za do sti tako me ri lu ve li ko sti kot oprem lje no sti. To vrst na na se lja smo poi me no va li stič na na se lja (v be se di lu so ta na se lja pod čr ta na). Opre de li li smo jih kot sku pek mor fo loško po ve za nih na se lij, ki kljub ad mi ni stra tiv ni raz čle nje no sti na več na se lij de lu je jo kot funk cij sko po ve za na ce lo ta. Tak šna na se lja so mo ra la za do sti ti dve ma kri te ri je ma: da ima jo ve či no (> 50 %) svo jih pre bi val cev na ob moč jih več je zgo sti tve hi šnih šte vilk (> 1,5 hi šne šte vil ke/ha v pol me ru 800 me trov), in da so ob moč - ja več jih zgo sti tev nuj no ne pre ki nje no po ve za na z vsaj še enim to vrst nim ob moč jem dru ge ga na se lja. Tako smo do lo či li 56 ob mo čij, jih pre ve ri li še z vi zual nim og le dom le tal skih po snet kov in pre gle dom za sto pa - no sti šti rih funk cij ter tako sez nam cen tral nih na se lij raz ši ri li za do dat nih 29 stič nih na se lij (sli ka 1). S stič ni mi na se lji smo lah ko bo lje oce ni li ra ven oprem lje no sti zla sti na ob moč jih str njene po se li tve in de li tve funk - cij med po sa mez ni mi na se lji, na pri mer Nova Go ri ca–Šem pe ter–Vr toj ba, Pi ran–Lu ci ja … (Na red, Bole in Ci glič 2016). Sli ka 1: Stič na na se lja (Na red, Bole in Ci glič 2016). Glej an gleš ki del pris pev ka. Za ana li zo omrež ja cen tral nih na se lij z vi di ka kon ku renč no sti smo preu či li tri ka zal ni ke: iz voz v milijo - nih evrov po se de žu pod je tij leta 2015 (SLOEXPORT 2016), šte vi lo ra zi sko val cev po kra ju dela (SICRIS 2016) in šte vi lo pa ten tov po kra ju imet ni ka v ob dob ju 1991–2016 (Pa ten ti 2016). Zad nja dva ka zal ni ka sta po - go sto se stav ni del me ri tev glo bal ne ga ka zal ni ka kon ku renč no sti (Glo bal Com pe ti ti ve … 2016) in glo bal ne ga ka zal ni ka us tvar jal no sti (Glo bal Crea ti vity … 2016), zato sta pri mer na tudi za na šo ana li zo kon ku renč - no sti. Sta ti stič no po ve za nost ve li ko sti na se lij, nji ho ve oprem lje no sti s sto ri tva mi splo šne ga po me na in kon ku renč no sti smo izra ču na li s po moč jo Spear ma no ve ga ko re la cij ske ga koe fi cien ta (ρ). 3 Re zul ta ti Na pod la gi pred stav lje ne me to do lo gi je smo v Slo ve ni ji opre de li li 360 cen tral nih na se lij (sli ka 2), v ka te - rih ži vi 1.318.051 pre bi val cev, kar je sla bih 9,2% na se lij in 64% pre bi val cev. Dve na se lji sta na cio nal ni sre diš či med na rod ne ga po me na (Ljub lja na, Ma ri bor), pet je sre dišč na cio nal ne ga po me na (Ce lje, Nova Go ri ca, Ko per, Novo me sto, Kranj), 12 sre dišč re gio nal ne ga po me na (Dom ža le-Kam nik, Ptuj, Ve le nje, Je se ni ce, Mur ska So bo ta, Tr bov lje, Pi ran, Slo venj Gra dec, Izo la, Škof ja Loka, Bre ži ce, Krš ko), 38 sre dišč me dob činske - ga po me na, 55 sre dišč lo kal ne ga po me na, in 248 sre dišč vi ci nal ne ga po me na, med ka te re smo uvr sti li tudi 49 sre dišč z manj kot 500 pre bi val ci, a z vsaj dve ma po gla vit ni ma funk ci ja ma; v be se di lu so stič na na selja pod čr ta na. Sli ka 2: Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji 2016. Glej an gleš ki del pris pev ka. Z vi di ka cen tral nih funk cij in ve li ko sti na se lja je moč no v os pred ju Ljub lja na. Po memb no vlo go kot dru go naj več je me sto ohra nja Ma ri bor. Med os ta li mi re gio nal ni mi sre diš či dru go stop njo cen tral no sti do - se ga pet na se lij (Ce lje, Nova Go ri ca, Ko per, Novo me sto, Kranj), tret jo stop njo pa šti ri (pet) (Mur ska So bo ta, Tr bov lje, Slo venj Gra dec, so mest je Krš ko-Bre ži ce). Naj šib kej ša med re gio nal ni mi sre diš či je Po stoj na, ki se uvrš ča na ra ven me dob čin skih sre dišč. Z vi di ka ve li ko sti na se lja in nje go ve gos po dar ske mo či je s funkcija - mi po do prem lje no Ve le nje, kar je v ve li ki meri po sle di ca nje go ve lege med bliž nji ma re gio nal ni ma sre diš če ma, Ce ljem in Slo venj Grad cem. Ljub lja na ima ve lik uprav ni in gos po dar ski vpliv in po sta ja po memb no me tro po li tan sko sre diš če. Gos - po dar ski po men na se lij na dru gi in tret ji stop nji cen tral no sti sla bi, po ve čan vpliv pa zno va zaz na mo na rav ni ob čin skih sre dišč. Sled nje lah ko pri pi še mo re for mi lo kal ne sa mou pra ve in »lo ka li za ci ji« re gio nal - ne po li ti ke; o re gio nal nih pro jek tih od lo ča jo žu pa ni, ki da je jo pred nost lo kal nim pro jek tom. Na sta nek šte vil nih no vih ob čin je moč no vpli val na šte vi lo cen tral nih na se lij še ste stop nje, zla sti tistih, ki ne do se ga jo meje 500 pre bi val cev. Sklad no z ve li kost no se sta vo slo ven skih ob čin ta na se lja pre vla dujejo v vzhod ni Slo ve ni ji. Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 29 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 29 Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 30 Z vi di ka stič nih na se lij je smi sel no opo zo ri ti zla sti na Dom ža le-Kam nik in Novo Go ri co. Stič no na - se lje Dom ža le-Kam nik je le mor fo loš ko po ve za no na se lje brez de li tve funk cij, saj sta obe glav ni na se lji sre diš či me dob čin ske ga po me na. Nas prot no pa je mor fo loš ka po ve za nost Nove Go ri ce in na se lij Šem pe ter pri Go - ri ci, Krom berk, Pri sta va, Rož na Do li na, Sol kan in Vr toj ba nad gra je na z de li tvi jo funk cij, zla sti med Šem pe trom pri Go ri ci in Novo Go ri co. Za ni mi va je tudi pri mer ja va stop nje cen tral no sti z vi di ka ve li ko sti na se lja in z vi di ka oprem lje no sti na se lja s po sa mez ni mi funk ci ja mi. Več ja na se lja so pra vi lo ma bo lje oprem lje na s funk ci ja mi kot manj ša. Če ra ven cen tral no sti po funk ci jah pre se ga ra ven cen tral no sti po šte vi lu pre bi val cev, je na se lje na do prem - lje no, v nas prot nem pri me ru pa po do prem lje no (sli ka 3). Sli ka 3: Raz li ka med stop njo cen tral no sti po funk ci jah in stop njo cen tral no sti gle de na šte vi lo pre bi val cev v na se lju. Glej an gleš ki del pris pev ka. Nad pov preč no oprem lje na so zla sti na se lja na manj ur ba ni zi ra nih pre de lih dr ža ve, kar si lah ko razla - ga mo z za vest nim ena ko mer nim za go tav lja njem funk cij po ce lot nem dr žav nem ozem lju kot po sle di co po li ti ke po li cen trič ne ga ur ba ne ga raz vo ja od 60-ih let pre te kle ga sto let ja da lje. Pri tem je tre ba upo šte va ti, da bi se ob pri la ga ja nju funk cij ve li ko sti na se lja red ke je po se lje na ob moč ja soo ča la z raz me ro ma sla bo oprem - lje nost jo. Po do prem lje na so zla sti sre diš ča v bli ži ni več jih mest, kar je po sle di ca su bur ba ni za ci je, ki je bila izra - zi ta zla sti v zad njih 40-ih le tih (Rav bar 1997 in 2005). Za ra di se li tev pre bi val cev na obrob je mest se je v teh na se ljih moč no po ve ča lo šte vi lo pre bi val cev, os kr ba s funk ci ja mi pa se temu ni do volj hi tro pri la ga ja la. Med cen tral ni mi na se lji je samo v 23-ih se dež več je ga iz voz ne ga pod jet ja (več od 0,5 % slo ven ske ga iz vo za). V tem ozi ru nad pov preč no iz sto pa jo Ljub lja na, Novo me sto in Ve le nje, ki sku paj us tva ri jo več kot 50 % vse ga slo ven ske ga iz vo za. Od več jih cen tral nih na se lij Ma ri bor (1. stop nja), Mur ska So bo ta, Slo venj Gra dec, Tr bov lje, Bre ži ce in Izo la (3. stop nja) sploh ni ma jo se de ža več je ga iz voz ne ga pod jet ja. Gle de na stop njo cen tral no sti so raz me ro ma šib ki tudi Ce lje, Kranj in Nova Go ri ca (2. stop nja) ter Dom ža le-Kamnik, Ptuj in Krš ko (3. stop nja). Obrat no je ve li ko iz voz nih pod je tij v Škof ji Loki (3. stop nja) in ne ka te rih centralnih na se ljih niž jih sto penj, kot so Slo ven ska Bi stri ca in Idri ja (4. stop nja), Me ži ca in Zre če (5. stopnja) ter Nazarje in Spod nja Idri ja (6. stop nja). V slo ven skih ra zi sko val nih or ga ni za ci jah je leta 2016 za pol ni, do dat ni in skraj šan de lov ni čas za po - sle nih 10.100 ra zi sko val cev, kar us tre za 8988 pol no za po sle nim ra zi sko val cem. Nji ho va raz po re di tev med 69 cen tral ni mi na se lji je si cer ne ko li ko bolj raz pr še na od iz voz no us mer je nih pod je tij, ven dar med nji mi izra zi to iz sto pa Ljub lja na (69 %), ka te ri z ve li kim zao stan kom sle di Ma ri bor (12 %), os ta la sre diš ča pa ima - jo bis tve no manj ra zi sko val cev. Več kot en od sto tek slo ven skih ra zi sko val cev je še v na se ljih Ko per, Novo me sto, Ce lje in Ro di ca. V ob dob ju 1991–2016 je bilo v Slo ve ni ji po de lje nih oko li 5800 pa ten tov. Nji ho va raz po re di tev med cen tral ni mi na se lji je bolj raz pr še na od ra zi sko val cev in iz voz no us mer je nih pod je tij, saj so lah ko pa tentni Pre gled ni ca 4: Sta ti stič na po ve za nost ka zal ni kov kon ku renč no sti cen tral nih na se lij z nji ho vo ve li kost jo in oprem lje nost jo s sto ri tva mi (Spear ma nov koe fi cient ko re la ci je). iz voz (v mi li jo nih evrov) šte vi lo ra zi sko val cev šte vi lo pa ten tov (N na se lij = 23) (N na se lij = 69) (N na se lij = 228) stop nja na se lja gle de na šols tvo 0,399 0,651 0,489 stop nja na se lja gle de na zdravs tvo 0,511 0,480 0,511 stop nja na se lja gle de na jav no upra vo 0,644 0,271 0,478 stop nja na se lja gle de na sods tvo 0,509 0,514 0,470 pov preč na stop nja gle de na šols tvo, zdravs tvo, jav no upra vo in sods tvo 0,475 0,544 0,539 stop nja na se lja gle de na šte vi lo pre bi val cev 0,572 0,531 0,601 pov preč na stop nja gle de na šols tvo, zdravs tvo, jav no upra vo in sods tvo ter šte vi lo pre bi val cev 0,524 0,557 0,592 le že če ob li ko va no be se di lo: po ve za nost je zna čil na pri stop nji tve ga nja p < 0,05 (dvo stran ska). krep ko ob li ko va no be se di lo: po ve za nost je zna čil na pri stop nji tve ga nja p < 0,01 (dvo stran ska). 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 30 pri ja vi te lji tudi fi zič ne ose be. Kljub temu med 228 cen tral ni mi na se lji po nov no moč no iz sto pa Ljub lja na z 31 % vseh slo ven skih pa ten tov, ki ji z ve li kim zao stan kom sle di jo Ma ri bor (7 %), Ve le nje, Kranj in Novo me sto (vsak po 3 %) ter Ce lje (2 %), med tem ko ima jo os ta la na se lja manj kot dva od stot ka po de lje nih pa - ten tov. Sli ka 4: Kon ku renč nost cen tral nih na se lij v Slo ve ni ji z vi di ka iz voz nih pod je tij, ra zi sko val cev in pa ten tov. Glej an gleš ki del pris pev ka. Kon ku renč nost cen tral nih na se lij je zmer no sta ti stič no po ve za na z nji ho vo ve li kost jo in oprem lje nostjo s funk ci ja mi (pre gled ni ca 4). Ne naj več ji po ve za no sti bo tru je jo pred vsem ve li ka moč Ljub lja ne, re la tiv no niž ja kon ku renč nost Ma ri bo ra, na se lij 2. stop nje in ve či ne na se lij 3. stop nje ter re la tiv no viš ja kon ku renč - nost ne ka te rih na se lij niž jih sto penj cen tral no sti. 4 Raz pra va Re gio nal na po li ti ka in spod bu ja nje raz vo ja po li cen trič ne ga si ste ma po se li tve sta ime la v pre te klo sti pomemb - no vlo go pri ob li ko va nju na sel bin ske ga si ste ma (Drozg 2005; Na red 2007). K temu sta po leg de kla ra tiv ne us mer je no sti pro stor ske ga raz vo ja v po li cen trič ni si stem po se li tve pris pe va li zla sti obe po memb nej ši re - for mi lo kal ne sa mou pra ve: uved ba ko mu nal ne ga si ste ma v 60-ih in us ta no vi tev no vih ob čin v 90-ih le tih pre te kle ga sto let ja (Drozg 2005; Rus, Raz pot nik Vi sko vi ć in Na red 2013). S tem lah ko po ja sni mo tudi do - bro oprem lje nost na se lij 4., 5. in 6. stop nje cen tral no sti. Na dru gi stra ni se kre pi vlo ga Ljub lja ne (Bole 2004 in 2011; Na red 2007; Rav bar 2007, 2009 in 2011; Rav bar, Bole in Na red 2005), kar je po se bej opaz no po zad nji gos po dar ski kri zi, ko nudi Ljub lja na za po sli tev vse šir še mu za led ju de lav cev (Bole s so de lav ci 2012; Rus, Raz pot nik Vi sko vi ć in Na red 2013). Ven dar pa mo ra mo biti pri raz la gi vlo ge Ljub lja ne pre vid ni, saj so po dat ki o dnev ni mo bil no sti, na pod la gi ka te re smo pre ver ja li vpliv sre dišč (Na red s so de lav ci 2016), ve za ni na po dat ke o de lov nih me stih, kjer po go sto pri ha ja do na pak, saj je kot lo ka ci ja dela več krat na ve - den se dež pod jet ja (npr. v urad nih po dat kih AJPES-a), ne pa nje go ve iz po sta ve, raz meš če ne drug je po Slo ve ni ji (na pri mer Mer ca tor, Pe trol, Slo ven ska voj ska). V zad njih de set let jih sla bi vlo ga po sa mez nih re gio nal nih sre dišč, zla sti Po stoj ne, Kra nja (Rus, Raz - pot nik Vi sko vi ć in Na red 2013) in Mur ske So bo te, kar na eni stra ni na ka zu je na ize na če va nje raz vo ja zno traj re gij, na dru gi pa ve ča nje raz ko ra ka med Ljub lja no in dru gi mi na se lji. Na se da nje sta nje je moč no vpli va la po li cen trič na raz me sti tev funk cij v pre te klo sti, kar na ka zu je na zgo do vin sko po go je ni raz voj na sel bin ske ga si ste ma (an gleš ko path-de pen dent; Mar tin in Sun ley 2006; Bristow in Healy 2014). To zla sti od se va v raz ko ra ku med stop njo cen tral no sti gle de na ve li kost na se lja in stop njo cen tral no sti gle de na funk ci je v na se lju, kjer je zaz na ti, da se funk ci je le po ča si pri la ga ja jo de mo graf skim spre mem bam. Do po dob ne ga skle pa lah ko pri de mo tudi pri raz me sti tvi ra zi sko val cev, ki so osre do to če - ni v dveh po gla vit nih uni ver zi tet nih sre diš čih, med tem ko so pa ten ti, ki bi mo ra li biti v do lo če ni meri tudi odraz de jav no sti aka dem ske sfe re, raz po re je ni po pre cej več na se ljih. Re zul ta ti obe nem ka že jo na vpliv prete - klih ideo lo gij na pro stor sko na čr to va nje, saj je bil po li cen tri zem tudi cilj druž be ne ga pla ni ra nja v so cia liz mu. Vri šer (1978) tako ome nja raz voj po li cen trič ne ga si ste ma sklad no z or ga ni zi ra nost jo si ste mov te melj nih or ga ni za cij zdru že ne ga dela, sa mou prav lja nja in po dob no. Navkljub raz lič ni me to do lo gi ji se naše ugo to vi tve uje ma jo s ti sti mi v ra zi ska vi, oprav lje ni na Nor veškem, kjer sta Dale in Sjøholt (2007) na pod la gi opre de li tve cen tral nih na se lij s po moč jo gos po dar skih in negos - po dar skih funk cij v peš do stop no sti ugo tovila, da se spe cia li zi ra ne sto ri tve in trž no us mer je ne funk ci je zgoš ču je jo zla sti v na se ljih z viš jo stop njo cen tral no sti, kjer to rej v os pred je sto pa kon ku renč nost. Na drugi stra ni kra ji z niž jo stop njo cen tral no sti iz gub lja jo trž ne sto ri tve in ohra nja jo le te melj ne funk ci je, kot so šo le in tr go vi ne z me ša nim bla gom. Tam je v os pred ju za go tav lja nje os nov ne ko he ziv no sti dr žav ne ga ozemlja. Si cer pa je na ša ra zi ska va tež je pri mer lji va s so dob ni mi po sku si tu jih ra zi sko val cev, ki se bolj kot na ena ko mer no za go tav lja nje funk cij osre do to ča jo na vlo go kon ku renč no sti in funk cij sko or ga ni za ci jo poli - cen trič nih si ste mov. V os pred ju so pred vsem mrež no po ve zo va nje in gos po dar ska spe cia li za ci ja na se lij in re gij (Parr 2004), fi zič ni po li cen tri zem, ki se meri z dnev no mo bil nost jo ali za po sle nost jo v do lo če nih sre diš čih, po li tič no-uprav ni po li cen tri zem, ki je po sle di ca uprav ne raz de li tve ozem lja, funk cio nal ni po - li cen tri zem, ki na sta ne za ra di spe cia li za ci je mest zno traj ur ba ne ga si ste ma, ter re gio nal no-iden ti tet ni Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-2, 2017 31 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 31 Cen tral na na se lja v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 po li cen tri zem, ki je po sle di ca zgo do vin skih, sim bol nih in druž be no-kul tur nih pro ce sov (Kloo ster man in Mu sterd 2001). Do lo ča nje cen tral nih na se lij na pod la gi sto ri tev splo šne ga po me na za ja me vi dik kon ku renč no sti zgolj z vi di ka vzpo stav lja nja pod por ne ga oko lja, zato je pri mer no za opre de lje va nje in us mer ja nje pro stor ske or ga ni za ci je dr ža ve, manj pri mer no pa za us mer ja nje gos po dar ske ga raz vo ja. Opre de lje va nje stop nje cen - tral no sti je na mreč te sno po ve za no s po li ti ko po li cen trič ne ga raz vo ja, enim od te melj nih ci ljev pro stor ske ga raz vo ja v Evro pi, pri če mer so Evrop ske pro stor ske raz voj ne pers pek ti ve (2000) pou da ri le tri ci lje pro stor - ske ga raz vo ja Evro pe: • gos po dar ska in so cial na ko he zi ja, • ohra nja nje na rav nih vi rov in kul tur ne de diš či ne ter • te ri to rial no bolj urav no te že na kon ku renč nost. Te ci lje naj bi dr ža ve do se gle prav s po li cen trič nim raz vo jem. Slo ve ni ja sle di za stav lje nim us me ri tvam, pri če mer sta v os pred ju za go tav lja nje os nov ne po kri to sti ozem lja s sto ri tva mi splo šne ga po me na in so - cial na ko he zi ja, manj do sled na pa je Slo ve ni ja pri za go tav lja nju te ri to rial no bolj urav no te že ne kon ku renč no sti. 5 Sklep Na men pris pev ka je bil na pod la gi iz bra nih sto ri tev splo šne ga po me na (jav na upra va, šols tvo, zdravs tvo in sods tvo) ugo to vi ti, ka te ra na se lja se stav lja jo omrež je cen tral nih na se lij v Slo ve ni ji leta 2016 in ka te re so nje go ve po gla vit ne zna čil no sti. Na pod la gi last ne me to do lo gi je smo opre de li li šest sto penj cen tral nih na se lij in jim do lo či li us tre za - jo ča na se lja: 1. na cio nal na sre diš ča med na rod ne ga po me na (2 na se lji; Ma ri bor je v tem pri me ru stič no na se lje, kar po - me ni, da sku paj s še ne ka te ri mi na se lji tvo ri sku pek mor fo loš ko po ve za nih na se lij, ki kljub ad mi ni stra tiv ni raz čle nje no sti na več na se lij de lu je jo kot funk cij sko po ve za na ce lo ta; v be se di lu so stič na na se lja podčr - ta na): Ljub lja na, Ma ri bor; 2. sre diš ča na cio nal ne ga po me na (5): Ce lje, Nova Go ri ca, Ko per, Novo me sto, Kranj; 3. sre diš ča re gio nal ne ga po me na (12): Dom ža le-Kam nik, Ptuj, Ve le nje, Je se ni ce, Mur ska So bo ta, Tr bovlje, Pi ran, Slo venj Gra dec, Izo la, Škof ja Loka, Bre ži ce, Krš ko; 4. sre diš ča me dob čin ske ga po me na (38); 5. sre diš ča lo kal ne ga po me na (55); 6. sre diš ča vi ci nal ne ga po me na (248). Na sku paj 360 cen tral nih na se lij je po memb no vpli val zgo do vin ski raz voj, med dru gim zla sti obe re - for mi lo kal ne sa mou pra ve, ki sta v mar si čem do lo či li raz voj po li cen trič ne ga si ste ma po se li tve v Slo ve ni ji, še po se bej z vi di ka ko he ziv no sti na rav ni sre dišč me dob čin ske ga, lo kal ne ga in vi ci nal ne ga po me na. Med dru gi mi de jav ni ki iz po stav lja mo moč no cen tra li za ci jo, ki je po sle di ca osre do to če no sti bis tve nih dr žav - nih in sti tu cij v glav nem me stu. Temu sle di tudi gos po dar ski raz voj, na kar ka že pre vla du jo či de lež Ljub lja ne v iz voz nih pod jet jih, ra zi sko val cih in pa ten tih. Pre skr ba slo ven ske ga ozem lja z obrav na va ni mi sto ri tva mi splo šne ga po me na je z vi di ka ena ko mer ne pro stor ske po kri to sti raz me ro ma us trez na, a bi jo bilo tre ba nad gra di ti z ele men ti spod bu ja nja kon ku renčno - sti, pri če mer naj se po zor nost na me ni zla sti sre diš čem na cio nal ne ga in sre diš čem re gio nal ne ga po me na. 6 Li te ra tu ra Glej an gleš ki del pris pev ka. 32 57-2_01_4606-Janez Nared_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 10:21 Page 32