REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA Quality of life COLLECTION BROCHURES /A^ STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA www.stat.si/eng Quality of life Author Brigita Vrabič Kek Cover photo by Dunja Wedam; source www.slovenia.info The publication is available at www.stat.si/eng/pub.asp Information: Information Centre phone: + 386 1 241 64 04 e-mail: info.stat@gov.si CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 330.59:311(497.4) VRABIČ Kek, Brigita Quality of life / [author Brigita Vrabič Kek]. - Ljubljana : Statistični urad Republike Slovenije = Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2012. - (Collection Brochures / Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia) ISBN 978-961-239-259-8 1. Gl. stv. nasl. 264124672 Issued, published and printed by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Litostrojska cesta 54 - © SURS - Use and publication of data is allowed provided the source is acknowledged - Printed in 140 copies - ISBN 978-961-239-259-8 FOREWORD Measuring well-being, the quality of life and the progress in society is a key priority both in the national and international environment. For a statistical system the measuring of well-being is particularly challenging, because of the complexity and multidimensionality of the phenomenon. What are well-being and the quality of life, how to measure them statistically, which key indicators to use - all these are the topics of different forums and professional meetings both within the statistics community and the research community. Well-being as the standard of living, the amount of money or the individual's access to goods and services can relatively easily be measured. Its other dimensions - satisfaction, happiness, health, the environment and innovation - cannot be measured so easily. The elements of well-being and the quality of life as well as guidelines for measuring and monitoring them have already been outlined in some international initiatives and documents, and these encourage us, statisticians, to even more comprehensively monitor this phenomenon. The most important documents among them are the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report1, GDP and Beyond2, and the Europe 2020 Strategy3. In its report the expert group (Mr. Stiglitz, Mr. Sen, Mr. Fitoussi) therefore identified the key dimensions of well-being and the quality of life: the material living conditions (income, consumption and wealth), health, education, personal activities including work, political voice and governance, social connections and relationships, the environment (present and future conditions) and insecurity (of an economic as well as a physical nature). As a measure of well-being there are becoming increasingly important also the people's feelings, their perception of the world and surroundings in which they live, and the societal development. Therefore, one of the key issues is also how to supplement objective information with subjective monitoring of the quality of life to the utmost extent and how to include them to the utmost extent in the monitoring and analysing of well-being. The present publication is devoted to the professional and general public. It tries to reveal how the well-being and quality of life in Slovenia are mirrored in the available statistical data and to place the individual in his/her domestic and international environment according to the specific dimensions of well-being. Some findings are also supported by the data from the other surveys that are conducted by the institutions beyond the statistical system. We kindly invite you to read our new publication and become familiar with the indicators and the other statistical data which illustrate how we live. Irena Križman Director-General 1 The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm, 20. 10. 2011) 2 Commission of the European Communities (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0433:FIN:EN:PDF, 20. 10. 2011) 3 European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm, 20. 10. 2011) to HOUSING CONDITIONS LIFE SATISFACTION MATERIAL LIVING CONDITIONS LIFELONG LEARNING IMrn.,c TURISM INCOME HEALTH ECONOMIC SECURITY ACTIVITY QUALITY OF AND WELL-BEING LIFE EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION ^ CČ. CČ. CRIME ENVIRONMENT so n < U LU O th LO —I ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND WELL-BEING........ I. MATERIAL LIVING CONDITIONS........................ 1 INCOME...................................................... 1.1 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME................. 1.2 MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY............. 1.3 SOCIAL PROTECTION.......................... 1.4 MATERIAL DEPRIVATION.................... 1.5 DURABLE CONSUMER GOODS .......... 1.6 THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY................. 2 HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION........................ 3 HOUSING CONDITIONS................................. 3.1 DWELLING EQUIPMENT..................... 3.2 HOUSING DEPRIVATION .................... 3.3 HOUSING COSTS............................... 4 EMPLOYMENT............................................ 4.1 THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY............. II. QUALITY OF LIFE....................................... 1 SATISFACTION WITH LIFE............................ 2 HEALTH....................................................... 2.1 LIFE EXPECTANCY.............................. 2.2 HEALTHY LIFE YEARS ......................... 2.3 GENERAL HEALTH STATUS ................ 2.4 LONG-STANDING ILLNESSES OR LONG-STANDING HEALTH PROBLEMS 2.5 CAUSES OF DEATH............................. 2.6 SUICIDES........................................... 2.7 EATING HABITS.................................. CONTENTS 6 3 WORKING HOURS..................................................................................................33 8 4 LIFELONG LEARNING..........................................................................................35 4.1 EDUCATION..................................................................................................35 9 4.2 TERCIARY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT................36 11 4.3 LEAVING SCHOOL EARLY............................................................38 14 4.4 LANGUAGE SKILLS..............................................................................39 15 4.5 ADULT EDUCATION............................................................................40 16 5 TIME USE............................................................................................................................41 17 6 SOCIAL LIFE....................................................................................................................42 19 6.1 VISITS TO FACILITIES AND EVENTS..............................42 6.2 CONTACTS......................................................................................................43 20 6.3 PARTICIPATION IN THE ACTIVITIES 21 OF FORMAL ORGANISATIONS............................................44 21 23 7 TOURISM............................................................................................................................45 24 8 SECURITY............................................................................................................................46 25 8.1 ROAD SAFETY ............................................................................................46 8.2 INTERNET SAFETY ................................................................................47 27 9 CRIME......................................................................................................................................48 27 10 ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................................50 10.1 OUR ENVIRONMENT........................................................................50 28 10.2 WATER POLLUTION............................................................................51 28 10.3 MUNICIPAL WASTE ............................................................................51 29 10.4 AIR POLLUTION ........................................................................................52 29 DEFINITIONS OF SOME TERMS USED ............................................................53 30 STATISTICAL AND OTHER SIGNS, ABBREVATIONS 30 AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ............................................................................56 31 LITERATURE AND SOURCES ........................................................................................57 31 ADDITIONAL LITERATURE................................................................................................57 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND WELL-BEING GDP, a measure of economic activity and economic well-being Gross domestic product is the best known measure of economic activity (income and expenditure) of each economy and the basis for measuring and understanding the economic and societal progress. Chart 1: GDP per capita, Slovenia EUR, current prices, current exchange rate 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 -,-,-,-,-,-1-,-,-,-,-, 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ©surs Source: SURS In Slovenia in the 2000-2008 period GDP per capita increased, and in 2008 it amounted almost to EUR 18,500. In 2009 it decreased to almost EUR 17,300 and this value held also in 2010. GDP is often used as a measure of economic well-being, but experts already for some time now recognize that this indicator is not sufficient for measuring the well-being and that it should be complemented with the indicators that measure also other economic as well as social and environmental factors that impact well-being and the quality of life. Development of indicators for the measuring of well-being For this purpose, numerous international institutions have therefore developed various new indicators. The EU and its Member States have developed and use a wide range of social and environmental indicators, and among these are also the sustainable development indicators and those that support the Europe 2020 Strategy. The United Nations have developed the Human Development Index for measuring the development, founded on GDP, health and education data. In 2011 the Human Development Index (HDI) for Slovenia was 0.884 and according to this value Slovenia ranked 21st among 187 countries which placed her among the countries with a very high level of human development. Chart 2: Human Development Index, Slovenia index 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 -1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-, 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 ssurs Source: UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org, 12. 1. 2012) ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND WELL-BEING Figure 1: Better Life Index, Slovenia and selected OECD member countries, 2011 7T ^ ^(s 1_____W______MatVarlonrlc TtT____ m Slovak Republic , vn Spain i m^^SwHz erland w rnited Kingdom United States Slovenia Source: OECD (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/slovenia/, 20. 10. 2011) At its 50th anniversary the OECD presented the Better Life Index, based on eleven key dimensions of well-being: material living conditions (housing, income, employment) and the quality of life (social inclusion, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety, and the work and life balance). Each dimension consists of one to three equally important indicators, whereas all dimensions together form a daisy. The daisy for Slovenia revealed that the values for the dimensions of safety, and work and life balance were then the highest, while the lowest value was assigned to income. Residents and households whose wealth is measured The population of Slovenia has been growing in the last decade; in the middle of 2005 it exceeded 2 million and at the beginning of 2011 it numbered 2.05 million, of these nearly 1.015 million were men. On 1st January 2011, there lived 2,016,423 persons (98.4% of population) in 813,531 (private) households in Slovenia. From 2002 until 2011, the number of households increased by 128,000, but the average household size decreased from 2.8 members to 2.5 members. In Slovenia the most frequent household type is a one-family household, i.e. a household in which all members are also members of one family (according to recent data there are 450,000 such households or 55%). An average resident of Slovenia lives in a four-person one-family household. Lone parent families represent one-quarter of all families in Slovenia. The current birth rate of the population does not provide simple recovery of the population, therefore the population in the future could increase only as the result of immigration. This will in fact change the relationship between the young and the old population, and these changes will also have the effect on the quality of life. Presentation of the material living conditions and quality of life in Slovenia with selected data for the EU-27 This publication is focused on the well-being of people in Slovenia, which is reflected in the material living conditions or economic well-being and quality of life, and not on the indicators of macroeconomic performance. The material living conditions determine the individual's financial ability, while the quality of life combines the non-monetary aspects of living through different occasions. MATERIAL LIVING CONDITIONS The state in Slovenia is as follows: INCOME The indicators show a relatively equal distribution of income. Most households make ends meet with some difficulty and they can afford themselves one week annual holidays away from home, a meal with meat or vegetarian equivalent at least every second day and they can face unexpected expenses. MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY In 2010 the at-risk-of-poverty rate was 12.7%, one of lowest in the EU-27. The persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate is decreasing. HOUSING CONDITIONS Most of the population in Slovenia lives in houses and they are satisfied with their dwellings. The dwellings are mostly in good condition. The external factors (such as pollution, grime or other environmental problems) also have an impact on the living conditions, but to a lesser extent. Accessibility to certain public services is easy. Housing costs represent on average slightly more than 14% of disposable income and for most households they represent a slight burden. MATERIAL DEPRIVATION 15% of persons were materially deprived in 2010. Almost all households had a refrigerator, a colour TV and a washing machine. More than 90% of households had a mobile phone and more and more households had a personal computer, a dishwasher and a drying machine. THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY In 2010 in Slovenia 18.3% of persons (367,000) were at-risk-of-poverty or otherwise socially excluded. The employment rate in the age group 20-64 years was in 2010 just over 70%. HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION Households earmark the largest part of disposable income for the purchase of consumer goods, i.e. food and non-alcoholic beverages, the transport and housing (i.e. water, electricity, gas). I. MATERIAL LIVING CONDITIONS Well-being is largely dependent on the material position of the population. The situation is quite well demonstrated with the monetary indicators. These are: income, consumption, housing, and also employment as a key factor for the social security of individuals and the primary source of material well-being. 1 INCOME 1.1 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME Chart 3: Distribution of income in households, Slovenia -so oooooooooo ° o oiooi^iCLn^-rorMi- - - - - - - - - □ 5,hquintile □ 41hquintile B^quintile 1 12ndquintile I | 1"quintile © surs _ : 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Eurostat (SILC) In the 2005-2010 period the distribution of income among different income groups did not change significantly. 40% of households with the highest income had on the average slightly more than the half (56%) of the disposable income at their disposal. Households with the lowest incomes, i.e. those in the 1st quintile, had on the average 10% of disposable income, while households in the 2nd quintile had 15% and the households in the 3rd quintile had 19% of disposable income at their disposal. Table 1: Income and poverty indicators, Slovenia 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Gini coefficient (%) 23.8 23.7 23.2 23.4 22.7 23.8 S80/S20 quintile share ratio 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4 Relative at-risk-of-poverty gap (%) 19.1 18.6 19.4 19.3 20.2 20.2 Source: SURS (SILC) The indicators show a relatively equal distribution of income > Gini coefficient1 is an indicator that shows how income is distributed among the population. Its value is between 0 (perfect equality) and 100% (complete inequality). In the 2005-2010 period, the value of Gini coefficient ranged between 22.7% and 23.8%, indicating relatively equal distribution of income, and in comparison with the other EU-27 Member States this placed Slovenia among the countries with one of the lowest values of this indicator over the last three years. 1 More: Definitions of some terms used INCOME > S80/S20 quintile share ratio1 in the observed period ranged between 3.2 and 3.4, which means that the disposable income in the top quintile was more than 3-times higher than the disposable income of people placed in the lowest quintile. In comparison with EU-27 Member States, the value for Slovenia was the lowest for the last three years. > Relative at-risk-of-poverty gap1 over the years 2005 to 2010 increased from 19.1 (in 2005) to 20.2 (in 2010), which means that the persons who lived below the poverty threshold in 2010 were further away from at-risk-of-poverty threshold and therefore in a worse financial position. According to this value Slovenia was in the group of EU-27 Member States with the lowest value. ABILITY TO MAKE ENDS MEET In addition to objective measurement of the value and distribution of income, subjective perceptions of individuals about their financial situation are also important. In the view of the financial ability of the households, some data are presented that explain their abilities to make ends meet, their capacity to afford some goods or their capacity to face unexpected financial expenses. In Slovenia in the 2005-2010 period on average most households (almost 41%) made ends meet with some difficulty while a fifth (21%) of them did this fairly easy. It was easy or very easy to make ends meet for on the average 12% of households, while this was done with difficulty or even with great difficulty by on the average 27% of households. More: Definitions of some terms used Chart 4: How do households in Slovenia make ends meet? % easily, very easily fairly easily with some difficulty I—| with difficulty, great difficulty 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ®surs Source: SURS (SILC) Compared with EU-27 Member States, Slovenia was placed in the middle among the Member States whose households found it difficult or very difficult to make ends meet and also by those for whom it was easy or very easy to make ends meet. The level of income makes large differences among households In the observed period it was on average difficult to make ends meet for half of the households with the lowest incomes made; this was easily done by only a bit more than 4% of households. For the rest of those households it was with some difficulty or fairly easy to make ends meet. Among the households with the highest incomes mostly (35%) prevailed those for whom it was fairly easy to make ends meet, for 27% of them it was easy or very easy to make ends meet. For 32% of households it was with some difficulty that they made ends meet, while for 6% of them it was difficult or very difficult to make ends meet. INCOME Chart 5: Capacity to afford a particular item in Slovenia, 2010 households could afford a meal with meat or vegetarian equivalent at least every second day and 85% of households could face unexpected expenses. In the EU-27 Member States in 2010 we could afford these items: > One week annual holidays away from home could be afforded by 63% of persons. This was less than in Slovenia (69%). Slovenia was placed before the Czech Republic and Italy, but after France and the United Kingdom. > Meat or vegetarian equivalent at least every second day could be afforded by 91% of persons, or slightly less than in Slovenia (92%). This figure placed Slovenia in the middle of the EU-27 Member States (before Austria and Germany, and after France and Greece). > Unexpected expenses could be faced by 64% of persons, or more than in Slovenia (55%). This placed Slovenia before Ireland and Poland, and after Slovakia and Estonia. persons (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ... holidays ... a meal with meat or vegetarian equivalent every second day n . unexpected expenses Source: SURS (SILC) In 2010, on average 69% of persons could afford to have one week annual holidays away from home. A meal with meat or vegetarian equivalent at least every second day could be afforded by 92% of persons, while 55% of persons could face unexpected expenses. Households with the lowest income can afford to have much less than the wealthiest ones In the 2005-2010 period, 37% of households among the lowest income households could afford to have one week annual holidays away from home, 75% of these households could afford a meal with meat or vegetarian equivalent at least every second day and 29% of these households could face unexpected expenses. Among households with the highest income there were 93% of households where all members could afford one week annual holidays, 98 % of 1.2 MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION OF POVERTY Poverty is a generally undesirable social phenomenon. In solving it, it is particularly important for us to recognize it, so initially it must be defined. Then it is necessary to assess the dimension of the phenomenon and to determine the methods and concepts upon which to measure it. This is namely the only way to find out the true causes of its origin and to find the solutions with an appropriate social policy. INCOME Chart 6: People are poor when ..., Slovenia and EU-27, 2010 ... they depend on charity or public subsidies ... they cannot afford the basic goods they need to live ... they have less than the national poverty threshold per montn to live on ... their resources are so limited that they cannot participate fully in the life of the society they live in ... they have a very low social status in our society, independently from their resources other (impossible to define...) 10 15 20 25 30 % © surs Source: European Commission. (Eurobarometer) When people in Slovenia were asked in 2010 to define when people are poor, 26% of the respondents said the people were poor when they depended on charity or public subsidies, 23% of the respondents said that when they could not afford the basic goods they needed to live and 22% of the respondents that when they had less money than determined as the national poverty threshold. According to their opinions the following population groups would be at greatest risk of finding themselves in poverty: the unemployed, the disabled and the longstanding sick people, the elderly and the adolescents. According to the respondents in the EU-27 Member States, in particular those were considered to be poor who had their financial resources limited to such an extent that they could not participate fully in the life of the society they lived in, and those who depended on charity or public subsidies. In Slovenia in the last 3 years poverty keeps rising According to the vast majority of respondents (91%) poverty in the last 3 years (2008-2010) increased, while only a small proportion of respondents (2%) felt that it decreased. When asked how many people were poor in Slovenia at that time, a third of them answered it was one out of three, 30% answered that it was one out of five people, 19% that it was one out of ten people, 8% of respondents answered it was one out of 20 people. RISK OF POVERTY In addition to the subjective perception of poverty there are another two concepts of measuring of poverty. These are the absolute poverty (as a minimum amount of resources needed for life) and the relative poverty (as the concept for determining which groups of people are relatively in a worse position than the others). The statistical measurement of poverty is based on the relative concept. The at-risk-of-poverty rate is not an indicator of absolute poverty, but a measure of inequality within a population. It does not take into account price changes, housing conditions and other factors that also effect the standard of living. According to this concept a person is poor when s/he lives in a household with a disposable income that is below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. INCOME Chart 7: The at-risk-of-poverty rate and the impact of social benefits, Slovenia % 45 40 35 30 25 20 15------_— 10 5 0 -,-,-,-,-,-, 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 at-risk-of-poverty rate before social benefits and pensions at-risk-of-poverty rate before social benefits at-risk-of-poverty rate — at-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a fixed moment in time (2005) - persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate © SURS Source: SURS (SILC) The at-risk-of-poverty rate around 12% The at-risk-of-poverty rate in Slovenia in the 2005-2010 period was about 12%; it was lowest in 2009 (11.3%) and highest in 2010 (12.7%) when 254,000 people lived below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. In 2010 the at-risk-of-poverty threshold amounted to just over EUR 7,000 per year for a one-member household and a little less than EUR 14,800 per year for a four-person household (two adults and two children). Among the EU-27 Member States, Slovenia ranked among those with the lowest values for the at-risk-of-poverty rate. The at-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a fixed moment in time2 (2005) increases This indicator can assess the impact of economic growth on the standard of living of persons below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. During the 2005-2010 period its value kept decreasing until 2009 and in 2010 it increased to 8.3%. This means that in 2010 there were 8.3% of people who lived below the 2005 at-risk-of-poverty threshold. The persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate decreases The persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate in 2010 was 6.8%. Thus in 2010 and also in two out of three previous years 6.8% of persons were living below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. Social benefits diminish the at-risk-of-poverty rate The at-risk-of-poverty rate would double in almost all years, if the social benefits were not added to the disposable income. If also the pensions were not added to the disposable income, the at-risk-of-poverty rate would increase for another two thirds. It would be higher in all age groups and the highest in the age group 64+. These data indicate that in Slovenia the social benefits, including pensions, still play an important role in decreasing the at-risk-of-poverty rate. Table 2: Annual at-risk-of-poverty threshold, Slovenia EUR Households 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 one-member 5,278 5,590 5,944 6,536 7,118 7,042 two adults and two children 11,085 11,740 12,483 13,725 14,949 14,787 Source: SURS (SILC) 2 More: Definitions of some terms used STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA INCOME Expenditure for total social benefits and social benefits per capita in the 2000-2009 period increased. As a percentage of GDP, the social benefits decreased till 2007 and then they started to rise. In 2009, Slovenia earmarked nearly a quarter (23.7%) of GDP for social benefits. The most earmarked for the old age function Over the entire period, the largest amount was earmarked for the old age function (on average 42%), followed by the sickness and health care function (on average 32%). For each of the areas of family and children, invalidity accounted for on average 8%. For the survivors', unemployment function and social exclusion not elsewhere classified together less than 4% were earmarked. Social benefits in Slovenia lower than the EU-27 average The EU-27 Member States in 2008 earmarked on average more than a quarter of GDP. Slovenia thus earmarked over a fifth of its GDP which placed her, together with Ireland and Spain, in the middle of the scale of EU-27 Member States. There were, however, significant differences among countries, as France, Denmark and Sweden earmarked more resources (each more than 28% of GDP), whereas Latvia, Romania, Estonia and Bulgaria each earmarked less resources (each less than 15% of GDP). Table 3: Expenditure for social benefits, Slovenia 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 bn. EUR 5.1 5.4 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.5 6.9 7.2 7.8 8.4 % GDP 23.6 23.9 23.8 23.2 22.8 22.5 22.2 20.8 21.0 23.7 EUR/capita 2,546 2,725 2,930 2,990 3,103 3,235 3,430 3,555 3,845 4,1121) 1) Estimate. Sources: SURS, Eurostat 1.3 SOCIAL PROTECTION Chart 8: Structure of expenditure on social benefits by social protection function, Slovenia % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 i—i social exclusion not elsewhere —^ classified function I I unemployment function I I survivors' function I I invalidity function I I family and children function I I sickness and health care function I I old age function ©surs 2000 2009 Source: SURS INCOME 1.4 MATERIAL DEPRIVATION Though the at-risk-of-poverty rate is a measure of inequality in income, it fails to show how people actually live. It is the measurement of material deprivation that gives a more complete picture of the situation in which people actually live. Materially deprived persons are those living in households that cannot afford some items (goods) due to lack of financial resources, irrespective of a person's preference or habits. Persons who live above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold may also be materially deprived; but not all persons living below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold are always materially deprived. Chart 9: Material deprivation rate for at least 3 of 9 items, Slovenia ] total above at-risk-of-poverty threshold below at-risk-of-poverty threshold 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: SURS (SILC) In Slovenia in the 2005-2010 period the material deprivation rate for people who could not afford at least three3 of the nine deprivation items was on average 15%. Among the persons who lived below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold on average 41% were materially deprived, while among those who did not live below that threshold on average 12% were materially deprived. Rate of material deprivation for at least three of nine items in Slovenia below the EU-27 average With 15% of materially deprived persons Slovenia was below the EU-27 average (17% of persons) and around the middle of the scale of the EU-27 Member States, between Italy (16%) and the Czech Republic (15%). Chart 10: Severe material deprivation rate (for at least 4 of 9 items), Slovenia % 25 20 15 10 5 0 I total above at-risk-of-poverty threshold below at-risk-of-poverty threshold 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: SURS (SILC) More: Definitions of some terms used INCOME Among persons who lived below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, 19% of persons were materially deprived and among those who lived above the at-risk-of-poverty on average 4% were materially deprived. According to Eurostat estimates, 8% of persons were severely materially deprived in the EU-27 Member States in 2010. Also in case of this indicator Slovenia ranked in the middle of the scale, i.e. between the old EU Member States (with a lower level of material deprivation) and mostly the new Member States (with a higher level of material deprivation). A slightly lower value of this indicator than the average was recorded for instance in France, Malta and Germany, whereas a slightly higher one was recorded in Italy and the Czech Republic. 1.5 DURABLE CONSUMER GOODS Chart 11: Households with durable consumer goods, Slovenia colour TV washing machine mobile telephone telephone car personal computer microwave dishwasher drier 0 25 50 75 100% ©SURS Source: SURS (HBS) For households and of individuals alike, the availability of consumer durables is an important aspect of living conditions and the quality of life. In Slovenia in the observed 2000-2009 period almost all households (over 97%) had a refrigerator, a colour TV and a washing machine. 80% of households had a car. The largest increase in households with a mobile phone and a microwave In Slovenia in 2000 a mobile phone was owned by only 22% of households, but in 2009 their number increased to almost 92%. The percentage of fixed telephones, however, keeps declining (a little less than 82% households in 2009). A microwave was owned only by each tenth household in 2000, but already by every second in 2009. Many more households with a personal computer, a dishwasher and a dryer In 2000, a personal computer was owned by 34% of households, while in 2009 it was owned by already 64% of households. In 2009, a dishwasher was already owned by every second household and a drying machine by every fourth household in Slovenia. Households in EU-27 Member States that in 2010 could not afford certain goods: > Cars were scarce in Romania (44% of households could not afford it) and common in Cyprus (1% of households could not afford it); in Slovenia 3% of households could not afford to have it. > PC was owned by the fewest households in Romania (27% of households could not afford it) and the most in Sweden (1% of persons could not afford it); in Slovenia 5% of households could not afford it. > Washing machines could rarely be afforded by households in Romania (16% of them did not have it) and most easily afforded in Sweden; in Slovenia 0.3% of households did not own it. > A phone or TV could not be afforded by on average less than 1% of households in EU-27 Member States. INCOME 1.6 THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY To monitor progress in meeting the Europe 2020 goals (i.e. the strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy in the field of combating the poverty and social exclusion) the following indicators were determined: the at-risk-of-poverty rate, the severe material deprivation rate and the percentage of people living in households with very low work intensity (the employed household members work less than 20% of work time). The combinations of these three indicators reflect the dimensions of poverty and social exclusion. The target of the strategy for the EU area in 2020 is at least 20 million people fewer in- or at-risk-of-poverty and socially excluded. The target in Slovenia is to have at most 320,000 people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold or otherwise socially excluded. Chart 12: Persons at-risk-of-poverty, severely materially deprived persons and persons living in households with very low work intensity, Slovenia, 2010 In 2010 in Slovenia 18.3% of persons (367,000) were at-risk-of-poverty or otherwise socially excluded. Slovenia was among the countries with a low percentage of persons at-risk-of-poverty or otherwise socially excluded. Nearly 82% of persons (more than 1.6 million persons) were not at-risk-of-poverty or otherwise socially excluded. The at-risk-of-poverty rate almost 13% In 2010 there were 8% of persons (161,000) who were at-risk-of-poverty in Slovenia. 1.5% of persons (31,000) were below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and also severely materially deprived. A further 2.1% of persons (41,000) were below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and living in households with very low work intensity. 1.1% of persons (21,000) were at-risk-of-poverty and at the same time severely materially deprived and living in households with very low work intensity. The severe material deprivation rate almost 6% 3.2% of persons (64,000) were severely materially deprived, 0.1% of persons (3,000) were also living in households with very low work intensity. The remaining severely materially deprived persons were at the same time also living at-risk-of-poverty. Almost 6% of persons living in households with very low work intensity 2.3% of persons (46,000) were living in households with very low work intensity. The remaining persons living in households with very low work intensity were also either materially deprived or at-risk-of-poverty. at-risk-of-poverty severely materially deprived low work intensity persons (1,000) Source: Eurostat (SILC) INCOME Map 1: Persons at-risk-of-poverty and otherwise socially excluded persons, EU-27, 2010 According to Eurostat's estimate, in the EU-27 Member States in 2010 there were more than 23% of persons (115.5 million) at-risk-of-poverty or otherwise socially excluded. Slovenia was among the countries with a low percentage of persons at-risk-of-poverty or socially excluded persons. The lowest percentages of such people were in the Czech Republic (14.4%), Sweden (15.0%) and the Netherlands (15.1%), and the highest in Bulgaria (41.6%), Romania (41.4%) and Latvia (38.1%). Source Eurostat (Europe 2020 Strategy) (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/mapTool Closed.do?tab=map&init=1&plugin = 1&language=en&pcode=t2020_50&toolb ox=classes, 29. 11. 2011) 2 HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION The material living conditions of the population are well reflected also Chart 13: Average allocated assets of households, Slovenia % 100 90 I | other expenditure I I miscellaneous qoods and services 80 restaurants and hotels 70 60 recreation, culture and education 50 transport and communication 40 I_I health 30 I-i housing, water, electricity, 1-1 gas ana other fuels 20 clothing and footwear 10 0 food, beverages and tobacco 2000 2009 QSURS Source: SURS (APG) Households spend a part of their disposable income for various expenses and save the rest of it. Allocated assets include consumption expenditure and expenditure for a dwelling or a house (its purchase, renovation, major works in a dwelling or house). Most of the disposable income is allocated for the purchase of consumer goods Households earmark most of their disposable income for consumption expenditure. In 2009 households earmarked the largest part of their in the consumption and in the structure of consumption expenditures. disposable income for food, beverages and tobacco (nearly 15%), transportation and communication (14%) and housing, water, electricity, gas, etc. (almost 12%). Large differences between households in income level In the structure of total household consumption the consumption expenditure in the 2000-2009 period in Slovenia decreased in all income groups except in the first quintile. In this income group of households these expenses decreased until 2005 and then they began to increase. Thus, in 2005 the households in the first quintile spent for food, beverages and tobacco over 31% of their disposable income, while households in the top (5th) quintile spent for such purchases less than 20% of their disposable income. In 2009 this disparity increased: households with the lowest incomes still earmarked for purchases of food, beverages and tobacco 26% of their disposable income, while households in the highest income quintile earmarked for such purchases only 13% of their disposable income. Household savings rank Slovenia 3rd in EU-27 In 2000 households saved more than 14% of their disposable income. The percentage then gradually increased until 2006, when it peaked at 17.5%. With the economic crisis it started to decrease and in 2009 it reached 15%. In 2010 it increased slightly, to 15.7%. According to the value of this indicator Slovenia ranked 3rd among EU-27 Member States, after Germany (17%) and Belgium (16.2%). 3 HOUSING CONDITIONS An essential part of our material living conditions, which arise from income and are seen in consumption, are housing conditions. The following chapter focuses on the housing conditions in which households live, the burden of the self-perceived housing costs and also on some indicators to better illustrate the housing conditions. Chart 14: The housing conditions of households, Slovenia 88% of households are satisfied with their dwelling In 2007, 58% of households were satisfied with their dwelling, 30% of households were even very satisfied. 4% of households were not satisfied (were very dissatisfied) with their dwelling. Most of us live in houses In 2010, 71% of persons lived in houses, slightly more than 20% lived in flats in buildings with more than 10 dwellings) and 8% of persons lived in flats in buildings with less than 10 dwellings). In the owner-occupied dwellings there lived 78% of persons, the rest were mostly tenants and users. The condition of dwellings keeps deteriorating In 2005, 20% of households lived in a dwelling with bad conditions, while in 2010 the figure increased to 33% of households. The dwelling is in a bad condition when it has at least one of the following problems: a leaking roof; damp walls, foundation or floors; rot in window frames or floor. In 2010, tenants and sub-tenants (42% of households) had more such problems than the owners-occupiers (33% of households). No significant impact of the external factors on living The external factors, such as pollution, grime or other environmental problems caused by traffic or industry, noise and crime and vandalism also impact the living conditions, but to a lesser extent. In the observed period this impact did not change significantly. In 2010, 18% of households had problems with noise, 19% of households with pollution and 10% of households with crime, violence and vandalism. Certain public services are easily accessible to most people In 2009, 25% of households had very difficult or difficult access to public transport, 64% of households had very easy or easy access to public transport and 11% of them did not use the public transport. For 76% of households postal or banking services were easily accessible (very easy or easy). adequately warm dwelling bad dwelling conditions environmental problems problems with noise too dark dwelling crime in the area I I 2005 I I 2010 20 40 60 80 100 % © surs Source: SURS (SILC) HOUSING CONDITIONS 3.1 DWELLING EQUIPMENT Most dwellings in 2007 were properly equipped and suitable for residence. Table 4: Dwelling equipment, Slovenia, 2007 % Dwellings equipped with air conditioning facilities Dwellings comfortably cool during summer time No shortage of space in dwellings Dwellings comfortably warm during winter time Adequate plumbing/water installations Adequate electrical installations 11 79 89 96 98 99 Source: SURS (SILC) Summer heat, the most frequently described problem Most households (21%) had problems with the heat during the summer. To alleviate the summer heat, 11% of households used air conditioning. 89% of households had enough space for living and more than 98% households had adequate installations (plumbing, drains, electricity, etc.). Outstanding housing loans If households in Slovenia get into debt, they mainly do so in order to buy a dwelling. Among the loans in 2010, home loans dominated with 52%; consumer loans accounted for 31% of loans and the other kinds of loans accounted for 16%. 3.2 HOUSING DEPRIVATION In assessing the housing conditions, the indicators on both housing deprivation and housing cost burdens are also very important. Chart 15: Housing deprivation items, Slovenia bad dwelling conditions too dark dwelling not having bath or shower in the dwelling not having indoor flushing toilet for sole use of the household 0 10 20 30 40% □ 2005 □ 2010 ©surs Source: SURS (SILC) Among the elements of housing deprivation it was bad dwelling conditions that most clearly stood out. In 2005, 19% of persons faced bad dwelling conditions while in 2010 the figure increased to over 32% of persons. In 2005, 7% of people lived in dwellings which were too dark and in 2010 about 11% of people faced this difficulty. In 2010, 1% of persons was deprived of the remaining two elements. HOUSING CONDITIONS Most persons are not deprived of their housing The first indicator on housing conditions is housing deprivation. It expresses the percentage of people who are deprived of at least one of the four items (see Chart 15). In 2010, the majority of such persons (31%) was deprived of one of these items, 6% of persons were deprived for two items. Persons deprived of three or four items accounted for almost 1%. In 2005, 77% of persons were not deprived of their housing; then this percentage gradually declined and in 2010 there were slightly less than 63% of such persons. Table 5: Overcrowding rate, Slovenia % Overcrowding rate 42.0 40.3 39.9 39.5 38.0 34.9 Source: SURS (SILC) In the 2005-2010 period in Slovenia on average one person had more than one room (1.1 rooms). In 2009, 11% of households estimated they lived in too small dwellings. The shortage of space was estimated to be great in households who lived in 1-room dwellings (27 % of households). A shortage of space was recorded in case of 16% of households in 2-room dwellings. The overcrowding rate is declining In the 2005-2010 period the overcrowding rate declined and in 2010 it was almost 35%. Taking into account the number of household members this means that, in 2010 nearly 35% of persons lived in dwellings with an inadequate number of rooms. Table 6: Severe housing deprivation rate of persons, Slovenia % 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL 12.3 13.1 12.3 16.6 17.5 15.4 Below poverty threshold 21.1 19.2 22.6 26.8 24.6 25.4 Above poverty threshold 11.1 12.2 10.9 15.1 16.6 13.9 Source: Eurostat (SILC) The severe housing deprivation rate is a combination of both previously described indicators. In fact it illustrates the synthesis of housing conditions. In 2005, 12.3% of persons lived in households that faced severe housing deprivation. In 2009, such persons accounted for 17.5% and in 2010 for 15.4%. This means that 15.4% of persons lived in a dwelling which was considered to be overcrowded and they were deprived of at least one of the four housing deprivation items. Differences in income of households In view of their income and housing conditions, differences among households are significant. In 2010, every fourth person who faced severe housing deprivation lived in a household below the poverty threshold. On the other hand, the percentage of persons with severe housing deprivation who lived above the poverty threshold fell to 14%. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 HOUSING CONDITIONS 3.3 HOUSING COSTS Chart 16: Housing cost burden, Slovenia, 2005-2010 not a burden at all somewhat a burden a heavy burden Chart 17: Housing cost overburden rate and housing costs in disposable income, Slovenia 25 20 15 10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 housing cost overburden rate - below at-risk-of-poverty threshold housing cost overburden rate - above at-risk-of-poverty threshold housing cost overburden rate - total housing costs in disposable income Source: Eurostat (SILC) Source: SURS (SILC) Expenses related to housing represent a large part in the structure of disposable income and consequently a significant burden on households. Housing costs are a slight burden for most households In the observed 2005-2010 period the housing costs were not a burden at all for on average 12% of households, but they were a slight burden for 54% of households and a heavy burden for 34% of households. The burden of housing costs falls with income growth For more than half of the households in the 1st quintile the housing costs were a heavy burden over the entire period; only slightly less than 8% of households these costs were not a burden at all. In the 2nd quintile housing costs represented a heavy burden to 40% households, in the 4th quintile to 25% of households and in the 5th quintile to 14% of the households. In the 2005-2010 period housing costs represented on average more than 14% of disposable income and were a particularly heavy burden for persons with incomes below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. In 2005 the housing cost overburden rate was 4.7%. It then declined slightly and in 2007 it reached its highest value. In 2010 it was 4.3%, which means that 4.3% of persons lived in households where the housing costs accounted for more than 40% of the total disposable income of the household. 4 EMPLOYMENT Employment is one of the key factors of an individual's social security and his/her primary source of livelihood. The societies with higher levels of employment are wealthier, healthier and politically more stable. Long-term unemployment is especially problematic, when the individuals are jobless for a year or longer. Chart 18: The employment rate, unemployment rate and long-term unemployment rate, Slovenia In the 2000-2010 period, the number of persons in paid employment continued to increase till 2008. In 2009, there were nearly 981,000 persons in employment and in 2010 this number dropped to 966,000. In 2010 in labour force the employment rate in the age group 20-64 years was just over 70%. It was highest in the age group 25-54 years (almost 84%) and the lowest in the age group 15-24 years (34%). Employment rate in Slovenia above the EU-27 average In the observed period the employment rate in Slovenia was above the EU-27 average: in 2010 it was by 1.7 percentage points higher in the age group 20-64 years. Also in all other age groups the employment rate in Slovenia was above the EU-27 average, the only exception being the age group 55-64 years with more than 46% in the EU-27 and 35% in Slovenia. In Slovenia both the unemployment rate and the long-term unemployment rate under the EU-27 average Till 2008 the number of unemployed persons declined but in 2009 and 2010 unemployment began to rise. In 2010, the unemployment rate in Slovenia amounted to 7.3%, while in the EU-27 it was 9.7%. After the unemployment rate had been decreasing for a long period, it increased to 3.4% in 2010. This means that over 47% of all unemployed persons were unemployed for 12 months or more. In Slovenia, the long-term unemployment in 2010 increased more than the EU-27 average, but it was still below it with 3.9%. The long-term unemployed were mostly young people who entered from education to employment, the elderly who lost their job and for whom it was harder to find a new job, and the less educated. EMPLOYMENT 4.1 THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY Map 2: The employment rate in the age group 20-64 years, EU-27, 2010 To measure progress in meeting the Europe 2020 goals, 5 headline targets have been agreed for the whole EU. The EU target for inclusive growth includes reducing poverty and social exclusion and also the raising of Europe's employment rate. The target by 2020 is the 75% employment rate for men and women aged 20-64. The same target is also valid in Slovenia. In 2010, the target was already achieved in Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Cyprus. More data on the labour market are also available in the collection Brochures. Source: Eurostat (Europe 2020 Strategy) (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/mapTool Closed.do?tab = map&init = 1&plugin = 1&language=en&pcode=t2020_10&toolbo x=types#) QUALITY OF LIFE The state in Slovenia is as follows: HEALTH The vast majority of people was satisfied with their life and with their general state of health. Life expectancy is increasing. Children born in 2009 can expect not to have any disease or health problems until they are 60 years old. WORKING HOURS Persons in employment performed in one week on average almost 40 hours and every tenth of them did over 50 hours. Every third person in employment worked in shifts, nearly every fourth worked on Saturdays and every seventh on Sundays. ENVIRONMENT Protecting the environment is important for almost all people. The main environmental factors which we are concerned about are water pollution, increased quantities of waste and air pollution. LIFELONG LEARNING 90% of young people aged 18 years participate in training. 83% of people have at least secondary educational attainment. Among young people aged 30 to 34, 35% of people had tertiary educational attainment. 92% of adults speak at least one foreign language, most commonly English, followed by German. SAFETY At the end of 2010, passenger cars were on average just over 8 years old. Most people use a car daily, but one in five does not drive a car. As major security problems are perceived drunk driving, speeding and cell phone use while driving. SOCIAL LIFE Integration with relatives, neighbours and friends is good, as almost all can rely on them in case of need. At least one cultural event or attraction was visited by 40% of the people, and cinemas and sporting events by a slightly lower percentage of people. At least one tourist trip was attended by more than half of the population and the most frequent destinations were Croatia, Italy and Greece. II. QUALITY OF LIFE Quality of life focuses not only on an individual's financial ability (how much we earn and what we can buy) but also on the sense of our satisfaction with our lives. A high standard of living does not necessarily mean high quality of life. 1 SATISFACTION WITH LIFE Chart 19: Satisfaction with life in general and with the present standard of living, Slovenia satisfaction with life in general satisfaction with the present standard of living I 2009 I 2010 01 23456789 10 esuR Source: European Commission. (Eurobarometer) In November 2010 in Slovenia 85% of persons were satisfied with their lives in general, 21% of them were even "very satisfied". 3% of them were "very dissatisfied". In the EU-27 Member States on average 78% of people were very satisfied or satisfied; Slovenes were thus among the more satisfied EU residents. The most satisfied with their lives were those in Denmark (97%), the Netherlands (96%) and Sweden (96%); less satisfied were those in Bulgaria (38%) and Portugal (45%). On a scale from 1 to 10, the standard of living in Slovenia in 2010 was estimated to be 6.4 On a scale from 1 to 10, in September 2009 the standard of living in Slovenia was estimated to be 6.7 and a year later 6.4. In the EU-27 Member States the standard of living was both in 2009 and in 2010 estimated to be 6.7. In 2010, the standard of living was evaluated with the highest grade in Denmark (8.1) and Sweden (7.8) and with the lowest grade in Bulgaria (4.4) and Hungary (5.0). On a scale from 1 to 10, the feeling of happiness in EU-274 was in 2007 estimated to be 7.5 There were not so many differences among the EU-27 Member States regarding the feeling of happiness. In 2007 the most happy were the Danes (estimate of 8.3), followed by the Finns (8.3) and the Swedes (8.2). The least happy were the Bulgarians (5.8), followed by the Portuguese (6.9) and the Latvians (6.9). The Slovenes (7.7) were above the EU-27 average (7.5), together with the Cypriots. In the EU-27 good health is very important for the quality of life 81% of persons in the EU-27 Member States estimated that good health was important for the quality of life. EQLS, 2007. 2 HEALTH Health is a universal value and the key factor for the productive life of high quality of every individual and the society as a whole. Therefore health and health care are not only in the interest of individuals, but they are the responsibility of the whole society. As health still cannot be measured directly, quantitatively, indirect indicators and subjective assessments of health are used. Thus, to assess the health status of the population various indicators are used, inter alia, average life expectancy, healthy life years, falling sick, mortality, eating habits and subjective estimates on our own health. 2.1 LIFE EXPECTANCY Chart 20: Life expectancy, Slovenia at birth m n men women at age 65 I 2000 I 2010 Sources: SURS, Eurostat The life expectancy at birth and at the age of 65 is increasing in Slovenia. Longer life expectancy is a reflection of many factors including the higher level of the standard of living, improved way of living, better education, as well as better access to high quality health services. If mortality remains the same, it is expected that boys born in 2010 will live more than 76 years or 4 years longer than those who were born in 2000. Girls born in 2010 can expect to live over 83 years or more than 3 years longer than girls born in 2000. The life expectancy at 65 years has prolonged as well; men at this age can expect to live another 16.8 years and women 21 years. Male life expectancy in 2008 under EU-27 average, female above EU-27 average In Slovenia in 2008 male life expectancy at birth was 75.5 years. It ranked 10th among EU-27 Member States and was below the average life expectancy in the EU-27 Member States (76.4 years). Female life expectancy at birth in Slovenia in 2008 was 82.6 years. It ranked 17th among EU-27 Member States, as the average female life expectancy in the EU-27 Member States was 82.4 years. HEALTH 2.2 HEALTHY LIFE YEARS The Healthy life years indicator measures the number of remaining years that a person of a certain age is still supposed to live without disability. Chart 21: Healthy life years, Slovenia, 2009 years 70 men women at birth men women at age 65 6SURS Source: Eurostat In 2009 born boys could expect to live 60.6 healthy life years (HLY) and girls even slightly more, 61.5 HLY In 2009, men at 65 years could expect to live another 9.3 HLY and women another 9.9 HLY Better health outcomes for women In the EU-27 Member States, men can expect to live 60.9 HLY and women 62 HLY which was slightly longer than in Slovenia. In 2008 the number of healthy life years was highest for men in Sweden (69.2 HLY) and for women in Malta (71.9 HLY). 2.3 GENERAL HEALTH STATUS Chart 22: General health status of persons, Slovenia, 2010 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 H fl h H M I I very bad I I bad □ fair I I good I I very good total 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66+ years Source: SURS (SILC) Generally we are fairly satisfied with our general health status. In 2005, 54% of persons evaluated their general health status as "good" or "very good" and 5 years later their number increased to 60%. The percentage for men was on average slightly higher that for women (on average by 10%). Young people are the most satisfied ones with their health status In 2010, 87% of young people (16-25 years) evaluated their general health status as "good". With years the percentage of those satisfied with their general health status declines. At the age of 66 or more, only every 4th person assessed his/her health status as "good". HEALTH The general health status of persons in Slovenia is below the EU-27 average In the EU-27 Member States in 2009 on average 68% of persons evaluated their general health status at least as "good". The value of this indicator ranked Slovenia 7th among EU-27 Member States and below the EU-27 average. The percentage of those satisfied with their health status was lowest in Latvia and Portugal (48% in each) and highest in Ireland (83%) and then in the UK (nearly 80%). 2.4 LONG-STANDING ILLNESSES OR LONG-STANDING HEALTH PROBLEMS Chart 23: Persons with a long-standing illness or a long-standing health problem, Slovenia, 2009 Source: Eurostat (SILC) A long-standing illness or health problem is any illness/problem that lasts or is expected to last at least 6 months or more. In the 20052008 period, the percentage of people with a long-standing illness or health problem increased, but in 2009 it fell to the 2005 value. In 2009 there were 30.6% of persons aged 16 or more who had a longstanding illness or health problem. This percentage increases with age: among persons aged 75-84 there were then 65% of such persons and among persons aged 16-24 there were 11% of such persons. The percentage of such women was on average slightly higher (33%) than the percentage of such men (29%). Slovenia below the EU-27 average In 2009 in the EU-27 Member States on average 31% of people had a long-standing illness or health problem. The least of those problems were recorded in Romania (20%) and Bulgaria (21%), but the most in Finland (43%). 2.5 CAUSES OF DEATH Chart 24: Most frequent causes of death per 1,000 population, Slovenia, 2010 per 1,000 populatiotn 0 1 2 3 4 5 diseases of the circulatory system neoplasms injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes diseases of the digestive system diseases of the respiratory system I total men women Sources: IVZ, SURS HEALTH The number of deaths per year does not change significantly; about 18,500 people die each year or slightly over 9 per 1,000 population. The average age at death keeps increasing and in 2010 it was 75 years. The men who died in 2010 were on average 70.7 years old and the women who died in the same year were on average 9 years older than them. Recently the diseases of the circulatory system have become the most frequent cause of death In 2010, 3.6 persons per 1,000 population died due to diseases of the circulatory system, followed by neoplasms (2.9 persons per 1,000 population). Among the deceased men the most frequent cause of death were neoplasms (3.2 per 1,000 population). Among the deceased women the most frequent cause of death were diseases of the circulatory system (4.2 women per 1,000 population). The number of people who die due to suicide keeps diminishing -in 2010 still 416 people died thereof. This means that on average 1 person died every 21 hours or more than 1 person died per day. Among the deceased there were more men. Death as the result of suicide was most common in the age group 1519 years, i.e. with 10 such instances or 37% of deaths. Among deaths in the age groups 10-14 years, 20-24 years and 25-29 years, suicide was the 2nd most frequent cause of death. In the age group 30-44 years it was the third. Slovenia 4th among EU-27 Member States due to the suicide rate In 2009, the suicide rate was highest in Lithuania, followed by Hungary, Latvia and Slovenia, and lowest in Greece and Cyprus. 2.7 EATING HABITS The genes, environment and lifestyle, physical activity and nutrition influence health. Nutrition is the factor with a significant effect on people's health. With healthy eating habits we protect our health and at the same time prevent the risk factors for disease. Compared to 2000, in 2009 the consumption was most markedly reduced on eggs, bread and milk, but it most markedly increased on mineral and spring water, yogurt and citrus fruit. 2.6 SUICIDES Chart 25: Deaths due to suicide, Slovenia number 700 - total men women 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Sources: IVZ, SURS HEALTH Table 7: Consumption of foods and beverages, Slovenia Unit of measure per household member 2000 2005 2009 Bread and pastries kg 69.0 46.1 37.9 Pasta products kg 6.7 6.7 5.9 Rice kg 3.9 3.0 2.5 Beef (fresh and frozen) kg 13.8 10.3 8.7 Pork (fresh and frozen) kg 16.4 11.0 10.0 Poultry (fresh and frozen) kg 11.3 9.6 9.9 Milk and low fat milk litre 81.4 69.9 64.5 Yogurt kg 10.7 15.2 15.9 Cheese kg 5.1 6.3 6.5 Eggs piece 147.6 102.2 100.7 Citrus fruit kg 13.0 15.2 15.9 Apples kg 23.2 18.5 18.5 Garden lettuce kg 10.9 9.3 10.3 Potatoes kg 46.1 38.3 30.5 Sugar kg 15.0 10.9 9.9 Coffee and coffee substitutes kg 3.3 3.1 3.4 Mineral and spring waters litre 31.4 39.5 42.0 Fruit juices litre 34.6 26.2 22.4 Wine litre 25.2 16.9 13.1 Beer (including non-alcoholic) litre 22.9 23.3 25.6 Source: SURS (HBS) A quarter of us eat fruits at least once a day Eating habits vary. The 20075 data revealed that 38% of people ate fruit daily, 37% of people ate fruit twice or several times a day, 10% 4-6-times a week, 11% 1-3-times a week and 4% less than once a week; 1 percentage of people did not eat fruit. Vegetables were consumed daily by 55% of people daily, two or several times a day by 20% of people, 4-6-times a week by 13%, 1-3-times a week by 8% of people, less than once a week by 2% of people; 1% of people did not consume vegetables. Overweight and obesity more common in men, also in EU-27 Unsuitable eating habits can lead to overweight. In 2007 there were among those aged 15 or over 48% of men and nearly 30% of women who were overweight. Obesity represents a greater health risk for health than being overweight. According to the 2007 data, 17% of men and nearly 16% of women were obese. In the EU-27 Member States 15% of the adults were obese; half of all adults were either overweight or obese. The least obese people were in Romania and Italy (less than 10% in each), the most in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta (over 20% in each). 5 European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA 3 WORKING HOURS The individual's well-being is greatly affected also by job satisfaction, especially by reconciliation between work and family life. Excessive occupation and disorderly working hours badly influence an individual's health. Chart 26: Working hours, Slovenia _ 2005 fD +-» -° 2010 c 2005 a; - E 2010 S 2005 E -i 2010 I 50 100% □ full-time I I part-time Source: SURS (LFS) In the entire observed period an absolute majority of the persons in employment worked full time, but the percentage keeps gradually decreasing since 2005. More men than women had fulltime employment: in 2010 this applied to 91% of men and nearly 85% of women. On the other hand the share of those in part-time employment keeps increasing: in 2010 there were nearly 12% of people in part-time employment (among men almost 9%, among women 15%). Slovenia under the EU-27 average by the number of part-time employees In 2010 in the EU-27Member States 19% of persons in employment on average worked part-time (8% of men and 31% of women). Chart 27: Average hours usually worked per week by persons in paid employment, Slovenia total men women 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: SURS (LFS) During the observed period the average number of working hours performed in one week by persons in employment declined and in 2010 it amounted to 39.4 hours. The working week was on average slightly longer for men than for women. In 2005, nearly 14% of WORKING HOURS persons in employment worked more than 50 hours per week and till 2010 the percentage of these declined and in 2010 it was just over 10%. Most persons in paid employment can reconcile work with family life The perception of the persons in paid employment regarding flexibility of their posts in view of family reasons is important for the reconciliation between work and family life. In 201 06, 59% of persons in paid employment stated that they had a possibility to start or end the working day an hour later/earlier for family reasons. 25% of persons in paid employment stated that this would be rarely possible, while 17% of persons in paid employment thought they could start or end the working day an hour later/earlier for family reasons. Most persons in paid employment have a fixed start and a fixed end of their working day More than two thirds of the persons in paid employment in 2010 had a fixed start and a fixed end of their working day. More than a quarter of persons in paid employment had varying working hours which meant that they could begin/end work earlier/later than normal. Almost a tenth of the persons in paid employment had flexible working time. Persons in paid employment favour pay over leisure If persons in paid employment in 2 0047 had the possibility to choose between a shorter working time with the same salary and the same working time with a higher salary, 69 % of them would decide on the second option. In other words, persons in paid employment preferred money to free time. Shorter working time for the same salary was more popular among young persons (16-29 years) and especially among those with higher education. Chart 28: Persons in employment who work..., Slovenia 6 Labour Force Survey, 2nd quarter 2010 7 Survey on the labour market flexibility, June 2004 WW _ □ 2005 □ 2010 ...on ...on ...on ...at ...in the Saturday Sunday shift work night evening Source: Eurostat In the observed period on average 23% of persons in employment usually worked on Saturdays, 14% worked on Sundays, 32% worked in shifts, 8% worked at night and 21% worked in the evening. Compared to 2005, in 2010 only the percentage of persons in paid employment who worked on Saturdays declined; the most increased the percentages of those who worked in the evening and on Sundays. On Saturdays more people work in the EU-27 than in Slovenia In 2010, only on Saturdays more employees (26%) worked in the EU-27 Member States than in Slovenia. All the other percentages were lower in the EU Member States (on average 18% worked in shifts, 20% in the evening, 8% at night and 13% on Sundays) than in Slovenia. 4 LIFELONG LEARNING Lifelong learning8 is a process that includes all forms of learning, formal and non-formal education, coincidental or occasional learning. It is performed in different learning situations, from birth through early childhood and adulthood until the end of life, with the aim to improve one's personal knowledge and skills. Education is an important factor for an individual's well-being and his/her success. More often than not it holds that the higher the education, the more likely it is that a person will get the job and therefore his/her well-being is greater. In addition, the analysis9 shows that better educated people live longer and have fewer health problems. Therefore, the importance of education is also emphasized in the EU 2020 Strategy as the target for smart growth. 4.1 EDUCATION Chart 29: Participation in education, Slovenia 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 I I at age 18 I I 15-24 years 2005 2009 In 2009, at the age of 18 years almost 90% of persons were in education, while at the ages of 15-24 there were 70% of persons in education. Slovenia with higher participation in education than the EU-27 The EU-27 average revealed that in 2009 at age of 18 years 78% of persons were in education. The highest percentages were in Iceland (97%) and Sweden (95%) and the lowest in Cyprus (40%) and the United Kingdom (52%). In the EU-27 Member States in 2009 there were at the age of 15-24 on average 60% of persons in education; the highest percentage was in Poland (72%) and the lowest in Luxembourg (43%). School expectancy in Slovenia above the EU-27 average In 2009 the school expectancy in Slovenia was 18.5 years and in the EU-27 Member States it averaged 17.2 years. The school expectancy was the longest in Finland (20.4 years), followed by Belgium and Sweden (19.6 years); it was the shortest in Luxembourg (14.0 years), followed by Malta (15.2 years). Source: Eurostat 8 Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport, (Lifelong learning strategy in Slovenia, 2007) IVZ (Health inequalities in Slovenia, 2011) LIFELONG LEARNING Chart 30: Educational attainment in the age group 25-64 years, Slovenia n -1-1-1- 2005 - 2010 ■ I I I I 0 20 40 60 lower secondary educational attainment upper secondary educational attainment tertiary educational attainment 80 100% SSURS Source: Eurostat During the observed 2005-2010 period, the structure did not change significantly. The majority of persons aged 25-64 had upper secondary educational attainment (60%), whereas the percentage of those with tertiary educational attainment increased. In 2010 almost 17% of persons had lower secondary educational attainment and almost 24% of persons had tertiary educational attainment. Percentage of people with at least secondary educational attainment in Slovenia above the EU-27 average In 2010, in all countries (except Portugal and Malta) almost half of persons aged 25-64 had at least secondary educational attainment. In the EU-27 Member States this level was obtained by on average almost 73% of persons (in Slovenia 83%). In 2010 people with tertiary educational attainment prevailed in Ireland (37.3%) and Finland (38.1%). The fewest of them were in Romania and Malta (in each by 13.8%). Slovenia ranked 11th with almost 24% of people with tertiary educational attainment (between Bulgaria and Greece). 4.2 TERCIARY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Chart 31: Persons aged 30-34 with tertiary educational attainment, Slovenia % 40 - 35 - 30 --— — 25 — 20 15 10 5 o I—I-—,—I-1—,_l-LJ-L,_l-LJ-L, 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 SSURS Source: Eurostat To measure the progress in meeting the Europe 2020 goals, among the targets for smart growth in the field of education the headline targets are also: > at least 40% of 30-34 year-olds with third level education, whereas this target is also valid for Slovenia; > to reduce school drop-out rates below 10%; in Slovenia, the target is set at 5%. In the observed period the percentage of young people aged 30-34 with tertiary education in Slovenia increased - from 25% (in 2005) to almost 35% (in 2010). If the trend continues, we can expect this target to be met. LIFELONG LEARNING Map 3: Persons aged 30-34 with tertiary educational attainment, EU-27, 2010 13 EU-27 Member States with 40% of young people with tertiary education In 2010, in the EU-27 Member States on average almost 34% of persons aged 30-34 had tertiary educational attainment. In 13 EU-27 Member States they exceeded 40%. Slovenia ranked 13th with 34.8% of such persons, behind Latvia (32.3%) and before Poland (35.3%). The fewest young people with tertiary educational attainment were in Romania (18.1%) and Malta (18.6%), and the most in Ireland (49.9%) and Denmark (47.0%). Source: Eurostat (Europe 2020 Strategy) (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table. do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_41&plugin = 1) LIFELONG LEARNING 4.3 LEAVING SCHOOL EARLY Map 4: Early leavers from education and training in the age group 18-24 years, EU-27, 2010 The percentage of early leavers from education and training in Slovenia lower than in EU-27 Slovenia in 2010 ranked 3rd among the countries with very low percentages of early leavers from education and training. In the EU-27 Member States the share of early school leavers in the 2005-2010 period decreased and in 2010 it averaged 14.1%. It was the lowest in Slovakia (4.7%) and the Czech Republic (4.9%), the highest on Malta (36.9%) and in Portugal (28.7%). Source: Eurostat (Europa 2020 Strategy) (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?ta b=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_40&plugin = 1) LIFELONG LEARNING Chart 32: Early leavers from education and training in the age group 18-24 years, Slovenia total men women 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: SURS In the 2005-2010 period the percentage of young people aged 18-24 who left school early ranged from 4.9% (in 2005) to 5.0% (in 2010). In most years the figure for men was at least twice higher than that for women. 4.4 LANGUAGE SKILLS Knowledge of foreign languages provides opportunities for personal development of individuals both in their professional and private life. Knowledge of foreign languages has become even more important since Slovenia has joined the European Union. One of the goals that were set by the European Commission10 is that every citizen of the European Union should in addition to his/ her mother tongue speak at least two foreign languages. Table 8: Knowledge of foreign languages in the age group 25-64 years, Slovenia 2007 Language Persons (%) Language Persons (%) English 60.3 Italian 16.3 German 46.1 French 4.3 Serbian 34.6 Russian 2.9 Croatian 30.4 Spanish 1.7 Source: Eurostat In 2007 the most commonly spoken foreign languages in Slovenia were English and German. The percentage of persons who spoke English rapidly declined with the person's age. In the age group 25-34 years English was spoken by most persons (76%), in the age group 35-49 years it was spoken by nearly 50% of them and among those aged 50+ it was spoken by almost 28% of persons. The differences in shares of those who spoke German were small. The largest percentage of those who spoke German was in the age group 50-64 years (31% of persons) and the lowest in the age group 35-49 years (26% of persons). 92% of adults in Slovenia speak at least one foreign language 92% of adults spoke at least 1 foreign language in 2007; of these 21% spoke 1 foreign language, 37% spoke 2 foreign languages and 34% spoke 3+ foreign languages. These data on mastering foreign languages placed Slovenia among the more developed European countries. The most adults who spoke foreign languages were those in Lithuania (98%), followed by those in Sweden (95%); the fewest foreign languages were mastered in in Hungary (25%) and Romania (30%). White Paper on Education and Training: Teaching and Learning - Towards the Learning Society. LIFELONG LEARNING Foreign language learning in primary education In elementary school in Slovenia in 2010 pupils learned on average 1.4 foreign languages, which placed Slovenia in the middle of EU-27 Member States. At least 2 foreign languages were learned in elementary school by 43% of pupils. The most foreign languages were learned in Luxembourg (2.5) and Finland (2.2) and the least in the United Kingdom, Hungary and Ireland (1 foreign language). Foreign language learning in secondary education In general pupils learned on average 2 foreign languages in secondary education in Slovenia in 2010. The most languages were learned in Luxembourg (3.0) and Finland (2.7) and the least in the United Kingdom and Portugal. 4.5 ADULT EDUCATION Almost 41% of adults participated in any form of education. In formal education there participated almost 9% of adults aged 25-64. Most of these were 25-34 years old and women dominated. In non-formal education there participated 36% of adults. Most of the participants were 35-49 years old. Participation of adults in education in Slovenia above the EU-27 average In the EU-27 Member States almost 35% of adults participated in any form of education. The lowest percentage of participants was in Romania (7.4%) and Hungary (9.0%), and the highest in Sweden (73.4%) and Finland (55.0%). Chart 33: Participation rate of persons aged 25-64 in education and training, Slovenia, 2007 total non-formal education formal education 10 20 30 40 50% ©SURS More data on education and training are available in the brochure Education in Slovenia. _J Source: SURS 5 TIME USE One of the factors of the quality of life of individuals is leisure, spare time, as it can diminish many physical and psychological problems if it is spent meaningfully. Therefore it is important how we spend it. Leisure is the time that is not fulfilled with the employment, educational and other daily obligations. It means relief and free choice among different activities, such as rest, various kinds of entertainment or various forms of socializing or non-formal education. Chart 34: Time use of persons aged 10+ by sex, Slovenia, April 2000-March 2001 hours/minutes 0.00 2.24 4.48 7.12 9.36 sleeping employment household care and informal help to other households TV eating travelling culture, sport, hobies social life study personal care resting, time out other mass media family care participatory activities, religious activities other, unspecified The most recent Time Use Survey was conducted in 2000-2001 and it revealed that men and women spent about the same amount of time on sleeping, personal care and eating. On average men spent more time at the workplace and women on housework. Men also spent more time than women on culture, sports, hobbies and watching television. As regards spending the time for their social life and on other mass media, the situation between both sexes was quite similar. The latest, 201011 data reveal that men have more spare time than women In 2010 persons spent on leisure activities on average 24 hours per typical week. Men spent slightly more time (27 hours per week), while women spent 21 hours per week. The most spare time was recorded by persons aged 66+ (35 hours per week), while youth aged 16-25 spent on average 28 hours per week on leisure activities. The least free time was recorded by persons aged 36-45 (18 hours per week). Persons spent on average 17 hours per typical week on housework, childcare and other similar activities, whereas men dedicated significantly fewer hours (on average 11 hours per week) to these activities than women (on average 24 hours per week). Persons in paid employment spent for commuting to and from work on average 4 hours per typical week. Source: SURS SILC 6 SOCIAL LIFE Various forms of socializing and entertainment are important ways of spending time on leisure and these comprise: visits to cultural events and public libraries, various forms of social contacts with relatives, friends, and voluntary help to others. 6.1 VISITS TO FACILITIES AND EVENTS Chart 35: Visits to cinemas, theatres, museums and museum collections, Slovenia number (in 1,000) 3,500 3,000 2005 I_I cinemas museums, galleries and exhibition theatres 2010 Source: SURS Since 2007 the number of visitors to cinemas kept increasing and in 2010 there were almost 2.9 million visitors. On average every resident of Slovenia visited 1.4 movies and 1.4 exhibitions. Theatre performances had slightly fewer visitors: on average 40% of the residents of Slovenia visited the theatre. Chart 36: Participation on cultural events and sports events, Slovenia, 2006 seeing live performances visits to cultural sites going to the cinema attending live sport events 0 20 I I none I I 1-3 times 40 60 80 100' I I 4-6 times more than 7 times Source: SURS (SILC) In 2006, at least one cultural event or a cultural performance was attended by 40% of persons. Fewer persons went at least once to the cinema (34%) or to a sports event (28%). The most frequently visited SOCIAL LIFE events were the sports ones (9% of respondents visited sport events more than 7 times in the last 12 months), followed by cinemas (7%) and visits of live performances such as theatre plays, concerts, ballet and similar performances. Cultural sights were not so commonly visited. Chart 37: Visits to public libraries and borrowing of books there, Slovenia units (in 1,000) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 I I visitors i—i units — borrowed 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 The number of visitors to public libraries gradually increased until 2008 and in 2009 it slightly fell. In 2010, public libraries recorded more than 9.5 million visitors, which in general means that every resident of Slovenia visited a public library more than 4 times. Visitors borrowed nearly 24.5 million books which means on average more than 2.6 books per visitor. 6.2 CONTACTS Chart 38: Contacts with relatives, friends and neighbours and voluntary assistance to others, Slovenia, 2006 100 80 60 40 20 I I never I I at least once a year I I once a month I I every week I I daily getting getting contacts contacts voluntary together together with with help to with with relatives friends others relatives friends Source: SURS (SILC) The contacts of people with their relatives (not living in the same household), their neighbours and their friends are good. In 2006 it was recorded that 59% of persons got together with friends at least once a week and 46% of persons with their relatives. The most frequent were daily contacts with friends (20% of persons), slightly less frequent were those with relatives (14%). The vast majority of persons (96%) could count on the help of relatives, friends or acquaintance when they needed it. As much as 71% of persons voluntarily helped others. 55% of persons helped people outside their household at least once a month. Source: NUK SOCIAL LIFE Chart 39: Frequency of internet use among users aged 10-74 years, Slovenia % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ,—, less than I—I monthly monthly weekly i—i daily or — almost daily 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: SURS Among the factors that influenced time use was (and still is) the internet. An increasing number of internet users use the internet every day. In 2004, the internet was used almost every day by every second user. In 2010, there were more than three-quarters of such users. According to statistical data12 in 2009 the average internet user was 33 years old. In 2011 his/her age rose to 36 years, also due to the growing use of the internet among the individuals aged 55 + . MOSS survey 6.3 PARTICIPATION IN THE ACTIVITIES OF FORMAL ORGANISATIONS Chart 40: Persons participating in various organisations, Slovenia, 2006 in other groups or organisations in church and other religious organisations in recreational groups or organisations in charitable organisations in professional associations in political parties or trade unions 10 15 20 25% IS surs Source: SURS (SILC) Participation in church and other religious organisations and other groups or organisations was most common. Recreational groups or organisations attracted 20% of persons and 12% of persons took part in charitable organisations and professional associations. In the EU-27 the most frequent is participation in sports and recreational groups or organisations On average the most people participated in recreational groups (20% of persons) and in church and other religious organisations (20% of persons), followed by other groups and associations (8% of persons) and charitable organisations (7% of persons). The smallest participation was recorded in professional associations and political parties, trade unions (each by 4% of persons). 7 TOURISM An important part of leisure activities are also various forms of travelling as it offers a chance to escape from everyday life or of getting to know something new, as well as the opportunity for rest, recreation or socializing. Chart 41: Participation in tourist trips, Slovenia, 2010 Chart 42: Travels of domestic tourists and their overnight stays by countries of destination, Slovenia, 2010 business trip I I total men women Turkey E9yPl Slovenia Source: SURS other countries other countries Serbia Germany Bosnia in Hercegovina France In 2010 over 1 million (or 58%) of Slovenian residents aged 15 + participated in either at least one tourism trip, a business trip or in a longer private trip (at least 4 consecutive overnight stays) or both. Among private trips, shorter trips abroad dominated In 2010 most Slovenes decided on shorter (1-3 overnight stays) trips abroad which they made by car. On a private trip they spent on average 4.4 overnight stays and about EUR 208. Source: SURS In 2010 the Slovenian travel agencies organized travels with at least one overnight stay for nearly 822,000 domestic tourists. Of these almost 108,000 travelled in Slovenia and more than 714,000 abroad. Most of those who travelled abroad went to Croatia (49% of travels), Greece and Italy (over 6% of travels to each) and Austria, Turkey, Egypt and Montenegro (just over 3% to each). Each of the other destinations represented less than 3% of travels abroad. 8 SECURITY Another key factor in individual well-being is the sense of security. Here we especially focus on road safety and the security when using the internet. 8.1 ROAD SAFETY Table 9: Some indicators of transport, Slovenia 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of passenger cars (per 1,000 inhabitants^) Average age of passenger cars People in road traffic accidents (per 1,000 inhabitants) Number of inebriated people in accidents (% of all people in road traffic accidents Deaths in road traffic accidents (per 100,000 inhabitants) 479 488 501 514 517 518 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.2 31 31 29 22 19 20 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.6 13 13 14 11 8 7 1) Excluding special passenger cars. Source: SURS On 31 December 2010, Slovenia had 1,061,646 registered passenger cars (518 cars per 1,000 inhabitants). Thus one in two Slovenes had a car. Passenger cars are getting older and older On average, passenger cars registered in 2010 were 8.2 years old. More than a quarter of them had 12 years, 19% of personal cars had 9-11 years, another 19% of them had 6-8 years and 3-5 years. The least passenger cars, 16%, had less than 3 years. The number of participants in road traffic accidents decreases through years. The percentage of the intoxicated participants increased till 2009 and then it declined in 2010. The number of fatal accidents has decreased since 2007 when 293 persons were killed in that year and 138 persons in 2010. Chart 43: Frequency of driving a car, Slovenia, June 2010 do not drive a car less than once a month 1 -3 times per month 1-3 times per week most days Source: European Commission. Eurobarometer. In 2010 in Slovenia, 60% of persons drove the car most days. 18% of people drove it 1-3-times per week and 3% of people 1-3-times per month. Every fifth person did not drive the car. SECURITY Chart 44: Perception of the seriousness of road safety problems, Slovenia, June 2010 ... people driving under the influence of alcohol _I ... drivers exceeding the speed fimits ... people driving while talking on a mobile phone without a hands-free kit ... drivers and passengers not wearing seatbelts ... people driving while talking on a hands-free mobile phone 0 20 40 60 80 100% © surs 8.2 INTERNET SAFETY Chart 45: The internet users have experienced in the last 12 months ..., Slovenia, 2010 . receiving unsolicited e-mails . catching a virus or other computer infection ... children accessing inappropriate web-sites ... abuse of personal information 10 20 30 40' Source: SURS Source: European Commission. (Eurobarometer) In June 2010, most of the respondents were aware of the risk factors concerning road safety, these being: driving under the influence of alcohol and exceeding the speed limits. Driving while talking on a hands-free mobile phone was considered a major security problem only to a small percentage of the respondents. Measures to improve road safety In 2010 over a third (36%) of all respondents thought the government should improve road infrastructure safety, 20% of them believed the government should raise awareness among the participants in traffic on the importance of road safety and 14% of respondents felt that enforcement of traffic laws should be improved. In the last 12 months 35% of persons received unsolicited e-mails and 27% of persons caught a virus or other computer infection resulting in loss of data. Most users provide for computer safety In order to protect their private computer and data a majority (63%) of persons used some kind of security software or tool. A virus checking program or anti-spyware program was used by 58% of persons, 53% used a hardware or software firewall and 39% used e-mail filtering to prevent spam. Web filtering software was used by 15% of persons and parental control software by 4% of persons. 9 CRIME In the statistical sense, criminal damage is a rare phenomenon. The more severe the crime, less frequently it appears; but this does not mean that the phenomenon can be neglected. It is important to speak about it to raise the awareness of both victims and perpetrators. Table 10: Crime indicators, Slovenia 2005 2006 2007 2008 Crimes recorded by the police (1,000) 84 90 88 82 Police officers (per 100,000 inhabitants) 395 392 396 384 Prison populations (per 100,000 habitants) 57 56 66 65 Source: Eurostat In the observed 2005-2008 period in Slovenia there were on average slightly less than 7,900 police officers. The police in this period recorded on average 86,000 offences. The most satisfied with police work are those who experienced theft from vehicle As regards the victims who reported an incident to the police, the most satisfied with the police work in Ljubljana were those who experienced theft from their vehicle. Slightly less satisfied were victims of motor vehicle thefts and victims of car vandalism. The most unsatisfied with the police work in Ljubljana were those who experienced bicycle thefts and those who were robbed. Chart 46: Share of people victimized at least once and their households by type of crime, Ljubljana car vandalism theft of bicycles theft from car home burglary □ 2001 personal theft □ 2008 robbery 3 attempted burglary theft of cars, mopeds, scooters 3 0 2 \ 6 8 10 12 % © SURS Source: SURS (Crime Victimization Survey) The percentage of victims in Ljubljana from 2001 to 2008 increased in almost all types of criminal events. The largest increase in the percentage was by people who were victims of car vandalism and bicycle theft. CRIME Chart 47: Structure of crimes by type of crime, Ljubljana, Chart 48: Feeling safe after dark and at night, Slovenia, 2008 2008 : m safe unsafe walking alone in the area after dark very safe fairly safe a bit unsafe, very unsafe alone at home at night Ljubljana □ Maribor ©surs Source: SURS (Crime Victimization Survey) In 2008, most of the crimes in Ljubljana were car vandalism (37%), followed by bicycle thefts (16%), and thefts from the vehicle (15%). Around 14% of all crimes in Ljubljana involved home and holiday home burglary. The lowest share of crimes (only about 1%) was that of motor vehicle thefts (cars, motors, scooters, mopeds, etc.). Attempted burglaries represented 7% of all crimes, robberies 6% and personal thefts 4%. Source: SURS (Crime Victimization Survey) There were no significant differences between Ljubljana and Maribor in terms of people feeling safe; in 2008 there were 90% of people in Ljubljana and 89% of people in Maribor who felt safe in their neighbourhood after dark. As regards feeling safe at home after dark, in both cities the share was lower: about 70% of people in each Ljubljana and Maribor felt very safe at home after dark and just over 3% of people in each of these cities felt unsafe or very unsafe. Both in Ljubljana and Maribor respondents worried the most that strangers would physically attack their family members or people close to them. The other possible incidents that worried the respondents the most were theft from vehicle and car vandalism, burglary and physical attacks by strangers. 10 ENVIRONMENT Individuals have an impact on the environment with their daily decisions about: the products and services they buy, how they use them, where and how they live and work, how they spend their spare time, how they travel, etc. Thus the environment is also one of the key factors of quality of life. 10.1 OUR ENVIRONMENT Chart 49: What do people think of when they talk of "the environment"?, Slovenia and EU-27, April-May 2011 pollution in towns and cities the quality of life where you live protecting the nature green and pleasant landscapes climate change 0 10 20 □ SI □ EU-27 40 50 60 % ©surs Source: European Commission. (Eurobarometer) When people talked of the word "environment", in April 2011 more than half of them thought of the quality of life in the place where they lived, the pollution in cities and settlements and of protecting the nature. The importance of environmental protection Environmental protection in Slovenia was important for 98% of persons. To this end 73% of persons were prepared to buy environmentally friendly products, although these were slightly more expensive. In general people are familiar with environmental issues, as in the opinion of 55% of respondents the environmentally friendly products had labels that allowed the identification of an environmentally friendly product. When thinking of the word environment, the residents of the EU-27 Member States firstly thought of the protection of nature and then of the climate change and pollution in towns and cities. Among the inhabitants of the EU-27 Member States the protection of the environment was important for 95% of people and 72% of them were prepared to buy environmentally friendly products to this end. Concerns about the environment The main environmental issues people were worried about were water pollution (52% of people), growing waste (44%), air pollution (39%), use of pesticides and fertilizers (38%), the impact of chemicals in products for everyday use on our health (37%), man-made disasters (oil spills, industrial accidents, etc.; 34%), natural disasters (32%), climate change (31%) and the use of genetically modified organisms in farming (30%). IRONMENT 60 50 40 30 20 10 tk IL ■ - Slovenija Celje Koper Kranj Ljubljana Maribor Murcka Nova Sobota Gorica Novo mesto I I small supply areas (50-1000 inhab.) I I medium supply areas (1001 -10000 inhab.) I I large supply areas (<10000 inhab.) 10.3 MUNICIPAL WASTE Chart 51: Municipal waste, Slovenia Source: SURS Source: ARSO The main environmental factor that made the people worried was the water pollution. The quality of drinking water in Slovenia in the 2004-2007 period did not improve significantly, both in terms of microbiological and chemical contamination. Reduction of faecal pollution improved slightly only in medium and large supply areas. Especially in large supply areas the proportion of chemically non-compliant samples decreased slightly. Small supply areas, especially the smallest ones, serving 50-500 people, still remain problematic due to microbiological and especially faecal contamination. Another factor that makes people concerned was the increasing amount of waste. In Slovenia in the 2005-2010 period on average almost 436 kg of municipal waste per capita per year were generated. The amount of waste decreases after 2008. 520 kg of waste per capita in the EU-27 In the EU-27 Member States in the 2002-2008 period, approximately 520 kg per capita per year were generated, but the amount of municipal waste has been decreasing since 2009. ENVIRONMENT 10.4 AIR POLLUTION Table 11: Average annual concentrations of PM101(, Slovenia Celje 43 35 32 30 31 32 Koper 31 29 25 23 25 Nova Gorica 34 32 33 31 28 29 Trbovlje 55 40 37 38 33 34 Maribor center 43 43 40 34 30 33 Zagorje 52 46 41 44 36 36 Murska Sobota - Rakičan 37 34 30 30 29 30 Iskrba 16 16 15 16 16 19 ... not available 1) The annual limit is 40 ug/m3. Source: ARSO Among the factors related to the environment we have to mention the people who are concerned about air pollution. In the last 5 years the quality of air improved. In 2009 and also in 2010 it did not exceed the annual limit value of 40 ug/m3 at any of the monitoring stations in Slovenia. More data are available in the brochure Environment, energy and transport in figures ___y Chart 52: Number of days exceeding the daily maximum concentration of PM101(, Slovenia, 2010 number of days 80 Ljubljana Celje Koper Nova Trbovlje Maribor Zagorje Murska Iskrba Bežigrad Gorica center Sobota - Rakičan © SURS 1) The daily limit of PM]0 concentration (50 ug/m3) can be exceeded up to 35 times per calendar year; the 35-days' limit is marked with a red stripe. Source: ARSO Nevertheless, in Slovenia in 2010 there were monitoring stations where the maximum number of days (35) with the daily maximum concentration of PM10 (50 ug/m3) was exceeded. The results show that the pollution with particulate matter is mostly influenced by weather conditions and individual heating appliances (during the heating season), and partly by also traffic, industry and re-raising and floating of particulate matter in the atmosphere. ug/m3 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ljubljana Bežigrad 37 33 32 30 29 30 DEFINITIONS OF SOME TERMS USED Gross domestic product (GDP) equals value added at basic prices by activities plus taxes on products less subsidies on products. Gross domestic product thus equals the sum of value added at basic prices of all domestic (resident) production units and net taxes on products (taxes less subsidies on products). By expenditure approach, gross domestic products equals total domestic consumption plus external trade balance with the rest of the world. Gross domestic product by income approach equals the sum of compensation of employees, net taxes on production (taxes on production less subsidies on production) and gross operating surplus and mixed income. Disposable income of a household covers financial income that was received by household members in 12 months: income from employment, income from self-employment, pensions, family allowances, social benefits and other income. S80/S20 quintile share ratio is the ratio between the sum of equivalised disposable household income of the top 20% of the income distribution to the bottom 20%. The persons are divided into five quintiles according to the net disposable income per equivalent household member. The first quintile includes 20% of persons from the households with the lowest equivalised income; the fifth quintile includes 20% of persons from the households with the highest equivalised income. Relative at-risk-of-poverty gap is the difference between the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and median equivalised income of persons below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, expressed as a percentage of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. Gini coefficient is the measure of income concentration. Its value is between 0 and 1 - or between 0% and 100% when it is shown in percent. At-risk-of-poverty rate is the percentage of persons living in households where the equivalised total disposable net household income is below the threshold. At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a fixed moment in time (2005) is the percentage of persons whose equivalised disposable income in a survey year is below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold from the base year 2005; the 2005 threshold is recalculated to the survey year by means of the consumer price index. Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate is the percentage of persons whose equivalised disposable income was below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold for the current year and at least 2 out of the preceding 3 years. Material deprivation rate is defined as the percentage of materially deprived persons. Materially deprived persons are those living in households that cannot afford to have at least three or at least four of the nine deprivation items due to lack of financial resources, irrespective of the persons' preference with respect to having these items. The nine items concerned are: 1. arrears on mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, hire purchase instalments or other loan payments; 2. capacity to afford paying for one week's annual holiday away from home in the summer; 3. capacity to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day; 4. capacity to face unexpected financial expenses (amount corresponding to the monthly national at-risk-of-poverty threshold of the previous year); DEFINITIONS OF SOME TERMS USED 5. household cannot afford a telephone (including mobile phone); 6. household cannot afford a colour TV; 7. household cannot afford a washing machine; 8. household cannot afford a car and 9. ability of the household to pay for keeping its home adequately warm. Low work intensity of households means that household member work less than 20 % of working time. Allocated assets cover consumption expenditure, expenditure for a dwelling or house (purchase of a dwelling, house, major works and renovations) and other expenditure. Other expenditure covers taxes and self-imposed contributions, savings, money transfers and gifts, life insurance, voluntary pension and disability insurance, fines and indemnity money. Allocated assets include the value of purchased goods and services, irrespective of whether they were paid in cash or bought on credit. Covered is all expenditure of household members according to COICOP, irrespective of whether used for their personal needs or for gifts to other persons. Housing deprivation rate by item is the percentage of persons who are deprived of each item. In the calculations, four housing deprivation items are concerned: 1. bad dwelling conditions (the percentage of persons living in dwellings with leaking roof, damp walls/floor/foundation or rot in window frames/floor); 2. bath or shower in the dwelling (the percentage of persons who do not have a bath or shower in the dwelling); 3. indoor flushing toilet for sole use of the household (the percentage of persons who do not have indoor flushing toilet for sole use of the household); 4. too dark dwelling (the percentage of persons considering their dwelling as too dark, not having enough daylight). Overcrowding rate is the percentage of persons living in dwellings with not enough rooms in view of the number of household members. The condition for a dwelling to be overcrowded is that it does not have one room per household and at the same time one room per couple in the household, one room for each single person aged 18 or more, one room per pair of single persons of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age, one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category, and one room per pair of children under 12 years of age. A kitchen is not counted as a room. Severe housing deprivation rate is defined as the percentage of population living in the dwelling which is considered as overcrowded, while also exhibiting at least one of the housing deprivation measures. Housing cost overburden rate is the percentage of the population living in households where the total housing costs ('net' of housing allowances) represent more than 40 % of disposable income ('net' of housing allowances). Long-standing illness or long-standing health problem is any illness/problem that lasts or is expected to last 6 months or more (EHIS). Early school leavers not in education or training is the share of total population of 18-24 year-olds having achieved ISCED level 2 or less (elementary school or less) and not attending education or training. DEFINITIONS OF SOME TERMS USED Social protection by ESSPROS methodology encompasses all interventions from public or private bodies intended to relieve households and individuals of the burden of a defined set of risks or needs, provided that there is neither a simultaneous reciprocal nor an individual arrangement involved. According to ESSPROS, the following social benefits are included in individual social protection functions: • Sickness/health care - benefits in connection with physical or mental illness and health care intended to maintain, restore or improve the health of the people protected, irrespective of the origin of the disorder (above all compensation in case of sick leave, health care and pharmaceutical products). • Disability - benefits in connection with the inability of physically or mentally disabled people to engage in economic and social activities (above all disability pensions to persons under a defined age and provision of goods and services to the disabled). • Old age - benefits in connection with old age (above all old-age pensions, disability and survivors' pensions to persons above a defined age and provisions of goods and services to the elderly). • Survivors - benefits in connection with the death of a family member (above all survivors' pensions to persons under a defined age). • Family/children - benefits in connection with the costs of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption, bringing up children and caring for other family members (above all maternity leave compensation and child allowance). • Unemployment - benefits in connection with unemployment (above all unemployment benefits and vocational training). • Housing - benefits in connection with the costs of housing. • Social exclusion not elsewhere classified - benefits intended to poor people and other socially excluded groups to combat social exclusion where they don't belong to other functions. Life expectancy is the average number of years people aged x years are expected to live if the age-specific mortality rate during their lifetime remains the same as the values in life tables for the observed year. Healthy life years (also known as expected life free of disability) is the indicator used to measure the number of years for which it is expected that the person of a certain age will live without disability. It is used to distinguish between years of life without limitations in performing activities and years with at least one limitation. The emphasis is not on the length of life itself - as for the life expectancy at birth - but on the quality of life. Municipal waste is waste from households, as well as other waste from production, trade, service or other activity, which, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from households. STATISTICAL AND OTHER SIGNS, ABBREVATIONS AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ... not available + and over (years population, etc.) LFS Labour Force Survey HBS Household Budget Survey EU European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product E.coli Escherichia coli EQLS European Quality of Life Survey Eurostat Statistical Office of the European Union HDI Human Development Index OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development SILC Survey on Income and Living Conditions UNDP United Nations Development Programme ARSO Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia IVZ Institute of Public Health of the Republic of Slovenia MOSS media research on measuring website visits under the auspices of the Slovenian Advertising Chamber MŠŠ Ministry of education and sports NUK National and University Library SURS Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia EUR euro bn. billion (1,000 million) mio. million HLY healthy life years PM10 particulate matter PM10 ug/m3 microgram per cubic metre LITERATURE AND SOURCES ~ The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Retrieved on 20. 10. 2011 from the website: http:// www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm ~ Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. GDP and beyond. Measuring progress in a changing world. Brussels, 20. 8. 2009. Retrieved on 20. 10. 2009 from the website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = COM:2009:0433:FIN:EN:PDF ~ European Commission, Europe 2020. Retrieved on 20. 10. 2011 from the website: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm ~ OECD, Better life index. Retrieved on 20. 10. 2011 from the website: http://oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ ~ UNDP, Human development index. Retrieved on 12. 1. 2012 from the website: http://hdr.undp.org ~ MŠŠ, Strategija vseživljenjskosti učenja v Sloveniji, 2007. Retrieved on 20. 10. 2012 from the website: http://www.mss.gov.si/fileadmin/mss. gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/razvoj_solstva/IU2010/Strategija_VZU.pdf ~ White book "Teaching and Learning: towards the learning society". ~ Standard EB 75.2 (Spring 2011). European Commission. ~ Standard EB 74.1 (Autumn 2010). European Commission. ~ Special Eurobarometer 355. Eurobarometer Special Surveys. Wave EB74.1 (2010). European Commission. ~ Flash Eurobarometer reports No 301 (2010). European Commission. ADDITIONAL LITERATURE ~ Statistical Yearbook. (2010). Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 22. 4. 2011 from the website: http://www. stat.si/eng/pub_letopis_prva.asp Rapid Reports: ~ Labour force survey results, Slovenia, 2009 - final data (28. 9. 2010). Rapid Reports. Labour market, No. 21/7. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ~ Survey on the labour market flexibility, Slovenia, June 2004. (15. 9. 2005). Rapid Reports. Labour market, No. 246/23. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ~ Adult education survey results, Slovenia, 2007. (9. 2. 2010). Rapid Reports. Education, No. 3/1. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ADDITIONAL LITERATURE ~ Education in Slovenia, 2007-2008. (20. 11. 2009). Rapid Reports. Education, No. 36/3. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ~ Tourism travels of domestic population, Slovenia, 2010 - final data. (7. 6. 2011). Rapid Reports. Tourism, No. 9/1. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ~ Time use survey, Slovenia, April 2000 - March 2001. (20. 6. 2002). Rapid Reports. Level of Living, No. 155/3. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. SI-STAT: ~ Population and social conditions. Statistical database. Luxemburg: European Commission, EUROSTAT. Retrieved on 14. 6. 2011 from the website: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database ~ Demography and social statistics. Population. SI-STAT data portal. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 16. 8. 2011 from the website: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Demographics/Demographics.asp ~ Demography and social statistics. Level of Living. SI-STAT data portal. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 10. 11. 2011 from the website: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Demographics/Demographics.asp ~ Demography and social statistics. Culture and Sport. SI-STAT data portal. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 7. 7. 2011 from the website: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Demographics/Demographics.asp ~ Economy. National Accounts. SI-STAT data portal. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 16. 8. 2011 from the website: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Economy/Economy.asp ~ Economy. Tourism. SI-STAT data portal. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 6. 6. 2011 from the website: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Economy/Economy.asp ~ Economy. Transport. SI-STAT data portal. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 16. 6. 2011 from the website: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Economy/Economy.asp ~ Environment and natural resources. Environment. SI-STAT data portal. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 17. 8. 2011 from the website: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Environment/Environment.asp First Releases, Special Releases: ~ Household budget survey, Slovenia, 2009 - final data. (22.7.2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 14. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=4055 ~ Road traffic accidents, Slovenia, 2010 - final data. (20. 9. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 21. 9. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=4148 ~ Registered road motor vehicles and trailers, Slovenia, 2010 - final data (1. 6. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 24. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id = 3940 ADDITIONAL LITERATURE ~ World Telecommunication and Information Society Day 2011. (16. 5. 2011). Special Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 24. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id = 3908 ~ Usage of information and communication technologies in households and by individuals, Slovenia, 2010 - final data (5. 10. 2010). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 24. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/ novica_prikazi.aspx?id = 3462 ~ Survey on living conditions, Slovenia, 2010 - provisional data. (16. 9. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 10. 11. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=4178 ~ Income and poverty indicators, Slovenia 2010 - provisional data. (16. 9. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 10. 11. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=4177 ~ Households and families, Slovenia, 1 January 2011 - final data. (30. 6. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 24. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=4029 ~ Population projections for Slovenia, 2010-2060 - final data. (17. 6. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 24. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id = 3989 ~ World Suicide Prevention Day 2011. (8. 9. 2011). Special Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 16. 9. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=4162 ~ Population, Slovenia, 1 January 2011 - final data. (29. 4. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 24. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id = 3876 ~ Reconciliation between work and family life, Slovenia, 2nd quarter 2010 - final data. (31. 3. 2011). First Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 10. 5. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id = 3821 ~ Pilot victimization survey, 2009. (23. 4. 2010). Special Release. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved on 24. 8. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id = 3035 ~ 86 % mesečnih uporabnikov interneta splet uporablja vsak dan. (2011). MOSS. Retrieved on 29. 7. 2011 from the website: http://www.ris. org/db/27/12127/Raziskave/86_mesecnih_uporabnikov_interneta_splet_uporablja_vsak_dan/ Other: ~ Kazalci okolja v Sloveniji - Kakovost pitne vode, 2009 Ljubljana Agencija Republike Sloveniji za okolje. Retrieved on 21. 9. 2011 from the website: http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?data = indicator&ind_id = 151 ~ Kazalci okolja v Sloveniji - Onesnaženost zraka z delci PM10, 2009 Ljubljana Agencija Republike Sloveniji za okolje. Retrieved on 21. 9. 2011 from the website: http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?data = indicator&ind_id = 388 ~ Murn, A. (2010).Merjenje ekonomske blaginje prebivalstva. 20. Statistični dnevi, Radenci 8.-10.11.2010. Retrieved on 10. 5. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/StatisticniDnevi/Docs/Radenci%202010/Murn-Merjenje%20ekonomske%20blaginje-prispevek.pdf ADDITIONAL LITERATURE ~ Lautar, K., in Poljak J. (2010). Cilji EU za leto 2020 in merjenje razvoja - Slovenski pristop. 20. Statistični dnevi, Radenci 8.-10. 11. 2010. Retrieved on 10. 5. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/StatisticniDnevi/Docs/Radenci%202010/Lautar_Poljak_EU2020-prispevek.pdf ~ Intihar, S. (2010). Merjenje blaginje prebivalcev na oddelku za statistiko življenjske ravni. 20. Statistični dnevi, Radenci 8.-10. 11. 2010. Retrieved on 10. 5. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/StatisticniDnevi/Docs/Radenci%202010/INTIHAR_Radenci%202010-prispevek. pdf ~ Žnidaršič, E. (2010). Evropa 2020 - oblikovanje kazalnikov za Spremljanje EU cilja na področju revščine in socialne izključenosti. 20. Statistični dnevi, Radenci 8.-10. 11. 2010. Retrieved on 10. 5. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/StatisticniDnevi/Docs/Radenci%202010/ Znidarsic-prispevek.pdf ~ Jacovič, A. (2010). Merjenje razvoja sistema socialne zaščite v Sloveniji. 20. Statistični dnevi, Radenci 8.-10.11.2010. Retrieved on 10. 5. 2011 from the website: http://www.stat.si/StatisticniDnevi/Docs/Radenci%202010/JACOVIC_prispevek.pdf ~ Health and health care in Slovenia. (2009). Collection Brochures. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ~ The demographic portrait of Slovenia. (2010). Collection Brochures. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ~ Bras, K. (2010). Dolgotrajno brezposelne osebe na ZRSZ. Ljubljana: ZRSZ. Retrieved on 29. 7. 2011 from the website: http://www.ess.gov. si/_files/2251/Analiza_DBO.pdf ~ Buzeti, T. (2011). Neenakosti v zdravju v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Inštitut za varovanje zdravja ~ Eurofound, European Quality of Life Survey, Retrieved on from the website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eqls/index. htm