ACTAGEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA 2019 59 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-1 • 2019 Contents Maja KOCJANČIČ, Tomislav POPIT, Timotej VERBOVŠEK Gravitational sliding of the carbonate megablocks in the Vipava Valley, SW Slovenia 7 Małgorzata KIJOWSKA-STRUGAŁA, Anna BUCAŁA-HRABIA Flood types in a mountain catchment: the Ochotnica River, Poland 23 Irena MOCANU, Bianca MITRICĂ, Mihaela PERSU Socio-economicimpactofphotovoltaicpark:TheGiurgiucountyruralarea,Romania 37 Andrej GOSAR The size of the area affected by earthquake induced rockfalls: Comparison of the1998 Krn Mountains (NW Slovenia) earthquake (Mw 5.6) with worldwide data 51 Matej GABROVEC, Peter KUMER Land-use changes in Slovenia from the Franciscean Cadaster until today 63 Mojca FOŠKI Using the parcel shape index to determine arable land division types 83 Mateja FERK, Matej LIPAR, Andrej ŠMUC, Russell N. DRySDALE, Jian ZHAO Chronology of heterogeneous deposits in the side entrance of Postojna Cave, Slovenia 103 Special issue – Green creative environments Jani KOZINA, Saša POLJAK ISTENIČ, Blaž KOMAC Green creative environments: Contribution to sustainable urban and regional development 119 Saša POLJAK ISTENIČ Participatory urbanism: creative interventions for sustainable development 127 Jani KOZINA, Nick CLIFTON City-region or urban-rural framework: what matters more in understandingthe residential location of the creative class? 141 Matjaž URŠIČ, Kazushi TAMANO The importance of green amenities for small creative actors in Tokyo: Comparing natural and sociocultural spatial attraction characteristics 159 ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 2019 ISSN: 1581-6613 COBISS: 124775936 UDC/UDK: 91© 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Internationaleditorialboard/mednarodniuredniškiodbor: DavidBole(Slovenia),MichaelBründl(Switzerland),RokCiglič(Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), BlažKomac (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCharty (United Kingdom), SlobodanMarković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Nika Razpotnik Visković(Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) Editor-in-Chief/glavni urednik: Blaž Komac; blaz@zrc-sazu.si Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko; drago@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for physical geography/glavni urednik za fizično geografijo: Matija Zorn; matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for human geography/glavna urednica za humano geografijo: Mimi Urbanc; mimi@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for regional geography/glavni urednik za regionalno geografijo: Drago Kladnik; drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for spatial planning/glavni urednik za regionalno planiranje: Janez Nared; janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si Chiefeditorforruralgeography/glavnaurednicazageografijopodeželja:NikaRazpotnikVisković;nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for urban geography/glavni urednik za urbano geografijo: David Bole; david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for geographic information systems/glavni urednik za geografske informacijske sisteme: Rok Ciglič; rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for environmental protection/glavni urednik za varstvo okolja: Aleš Smrekar; ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Editorial assistant/uredniški pomočnik: Matjaž Geršič; matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZUPublished by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/Naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija The papers are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznike, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove. Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznike, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove. Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Tiskarna Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 350 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia coreresearchprogramme(P6-0101)/revijaizhajaspodporoJavneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnostRepublikeSlovenijein nastajav okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,Geoscience e-Journals, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google scholar,and CrossRef. Oblikovanje/Design by: Matjaž Vipotnik. Front cover photography: Stone bridge over the Rak River on the outskirts of the Rakov Škocjan polje, which is otherwiseknown for its beautiful natural bridges (photograph: Matej Lipar).Fotografija na naslovnici: Kamniti most čez reko Rak na obrobju kraškega polja Rakov Škocjan, ki je sicer bolj znano počudovitih naravnih mostovih (fotografija: Matej Lipar). CITY-REGIONORURBAN-RURAL FRAMEWORK:WHATMATTERS MOREINUNDERSTANDING THERESIDENTIALLOCATION OFTHECREATIVECLASS? Jani Kozina, Nick Clifton Direction of creativity DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5137 UDC: 911.375.63: 331.102.312(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 City-region or urban-rural framework: what matters more in understanding the residential location of the creative class? ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the key question as to what matters more in understanding the resi­dentiallocationofthecreativeclassinSlovenia:thecity-regionortheurban-ruralframework?Ouranalysis showsthatdifferencesinresidentialconcentrationsofthecreativeclassvarymorewithincity-regions(on anurban-rural framework) thanbetweencity-regions. Moreover,thecreativeclassismoving outofdensely populatedurbanareastomoresparselypopulatedsuburban/ruralareaswithinallcity-regions.Therealso are significant differences between more developed western Slovenia (denser settlement structures) and lessdevelopedeasternSlovenia(sparsersettlementstructures).Weconcludethatnewmodelsoflivingpro-mote dispersion. KEYWORDS:creativeclass,knowledgeeconomy,regionalisation,urbanisation,suburbanisation,dispersion, residential preferences, economic geography Delitev na regije ali mesto in podeželje: kaj je pomembneje za razumevanje razporeditve ustvarjalnih ljudi po kraju bivanja? POVZETEK:Namenprispevkajeodgovoritinavprašanje,kajjepomembnejezarazumevanjerazporeditve ustvarjalnih ljudi po kraju bivanja v Sloveniji: delitev na regije ali mesto in podeželje? Analize kažejo, da se razlike v koncentraciji ustvarjalnih ljudi po kraju bivanja bolj razlikujejo znotraj regij (med mesti in podeželjem)kotmedregijami.Polegtegaseustvarjalniljudjepomikajoizgostejeposeljenihmestnihobmočij v redkeje naseljena primestna/podeželska območja v vseh regijah. Obstajajo tudi velike razlike med bolj razvitozahodnoSlovenijo(gostejšaposelitev)inmanjrazvitovzhodnoSlovenijo(boljrazpršenaposelitev). Sklepamo, da novi modeli življenja spodbujajo razpršenost. KLJUČNE BESEDE: ustvarjalni ljudje, ekonomija znanja, regionalizacija, urbanizacija, suburbanizacija, disperzija, bivanjske preference, ekonomska geografija Jani Kozina Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute jani.kozina@zrc-sazu.si Nick Clifton Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff School of Management nclifton@cardiffmet.ac.uk The article was submitted for publication on May 11th, 2017. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 11. maja 2017. 1 Introduction The key question addressed by this paper is what matters more in understanding the residential location of the creative class: city-region or urban-rural framework? A detailed investigation aims to get a deeper insight into residential characteristics of the creative class within city-regions in Slovenia from the per­spective of their level of urbanisation. By doing this, we seek to set the frame for studying intraregional relations in attracting, retaining or releasing the creative-knowledge potential in specific territorial con­texts. The hypothesis is that differences in residential concentration of the creative class between urban and rural areas are bigger than between city-regions. In this way the paper intends to add weight to an urban-rural framework for studying and planning creative-knowledge city-regions. Inaddition,much of the theoreticalwork oncity-regions is firmly located in theurban experience of NorthAmericaandWesternEurope(Roy2009),sothecontributionofthispapermayalsobeunderstood asanextensionoftheresearchagendatootherEuropeanterritoriesandasamodetoreconfigurethethe­oretical heartland of urban, rural and regional analysis by presenting new evidences from Slovenia. Although we can trace the origins of the city-region paradigm back to the 1909 Plan of Chicago (Geddes 1915;McKenzie1933;Dickinson1947),theconceptofthecity-regiondoesstillnotenjoyacom­mon definition in present times (Parr 2005; Harrison 2007; Davoudi 2008; Rodríguez-Pose 2008). However,theneedforaspatialdefinitionofthecity-regionisimperativewhenconcerniswithsuchmat­tersastheanalysisofstructuralchange,thedesign,implementation,andevaluationofpolicy,spatialandtemporal comparisons (Parr 2008). Investigating city-region’s structure and nature is an ongoing and relevant task since city-regions form a network of supranational economic systems (Scott and Storper 2003; Jonas and Ward 2007; Harrison and Heley 2015). In global competition, those city-regions that are able to capture eminentpositions and to gain economic advantages cancreate favourableconditionsfor both their cities and wider regions (Egedy, Kovács and Kondor 2016). To this end we need a better insight about the rela­tionship of a city-region’s material-physical structure to its economic performance (Storper 2013). Theminimumcommondenominatorofvirtuallyalldefinitionsofacity-regionisthepresenceofacore city linked by functional ties to a hinterland (Rodríguez-Pose 2008). The core city possesses some speci­fiedsetoffunctionsoreconomicactivities;thusitmayaccountforasubstantialproportionofthepopulation of the city-region (sometimes in excess of 50%) and is invariably the dominant urban centre. The hinter-landcontainsaruralpopulationand(inadvancedeconomies)amuchlargerurbanpopulation,arranged withinahierarchyofcentres,thecorecityrepresentingthehighestlevelofthehierarchy(Parr2005;2008). AsexposedbyDavoudi(2008),multifaceteddefinitionsofacity-regionsharetwocommonfeatures.Firstly, theyportrayanurban-centricconceptionofthecity-regionthatputsemphasisonthecorecity,sometimes at the expense of neglecting the region and rural areas. Secondly, they represent an economically driven approachtocity-regiondefinitioninwhichthedominanteconomicflowsdeterminetheextentofthecity­region. Despite the variations among nations of the developed world, it was generally the case that well into the 20th century there was a continuing trend toward concentration of the spatial structure, with the core city increasing its share of the city-region’s population, employment and income. This was prompted in nosmalldegreebytheriseofmanufacturingthat,becauseoftheimportanceofagglomerationeconomies, favoureddevelopmentinthecorecity.Inmorerecentdecades,however,thespatialstructureofcity-regions in the developed world had undergone something of a transformation and was evolving differently. Due to technical change, developments in transport and communication, changing patterns of work, mobili­ty and lifestyle in rural areas, steadily rising levels of income, and negative externalities of the core city, population (first) and employment (later) gradually began to shift to the hinterland, the overall outcome representing a trend toward deconcentration within the city-region (Parr 2005). Thus the city-region is not a static construct (Parr 2008) and as Harrison and Heley (2015) empha­size there is a need for taking into consideration the hitherto neglected temporal dimension into sharper focus.Therecenttrendsofspatialorganizationofcity-regionsclearlyimplydispersion–territorialaspect and diversification – sectorial aspect. However, in recent times the focus is on the creative-knowledge economy (Bontje, Musterd and Pelzer 2011) that is sharply different from the past. Thus it is similarly expected to produce its own space through reshaping the industrial city and region to a new form that wouldsuitthenewconditionsforeconomicproductionandtheirassociatedsocialhabitsandinstitutions (Madanipour 2011). 1.1 Urban-rural framework: an underutilized aspect of a city-region concept When discussing the structure and nature of city-regions the accent is clearly on urban areas or super-agglomerationsandtheirdevelopment(ScottandStorper2003).Thisisproblematicfromtwoperspectives. First,itseemsthattheprevailingliteratureoncity-regionalismismoreinterestedincomparisonsbetween thanwithincity-regions,typicallyemphasisingnarrowdefinitionsofcompetitivenessattheexpenseofmore holistic considerations of internal cohesion and resilience (as per Bristow 2010). Since city-regions may containgreatervariationsineconomiccharacteristicswithinthem(e.g.,urbanvs.rural)thanbetweenthem, comparisons between city-regions can potentially be misleading (Bakhshi et al. 2015). Second, a debate remains concerning the extent to which rural localities are incorporated within city-region boundaries (Healey 2009) and development policies (Harrison and Heley 2015). Subsequently, there is the view that city-regionapproachestoeconomicdevelopmentarehavingadetrimentalimpactonthecompetitiveness ofruralareas(Gülümser,Baycan-LeventandNijkamp2010;HugginsandClifton2011)andcanreinforce rather than resolve the problems of uneven development and socio-spatial inequalities (Etherington and Jones 2009). ThefirstideasofcombiningurbanandruralaspectsinplanningdatesatleastbacktoEbenezerHoward and his book Garden Cities of Tomorrow (first published in 1898 under the title To-morrow, and repub­lished under its better-known title in 1902) in which he argued that both cities and countryside had an indissolublemixtureofadvantagesanddisadvantages(HallandTewdwr-Jones2011).However,itwasonly inthe1960swhenthespatiallinkagesbetweenurbanandruralareasbecameacommonconcernthaturban analyststurnedtheir attentionawayfromthe cityand towardsthe city-region(Davoudi andStead2002). Proponentsontheonehandarguethatthecity-regionmodelprovidesapotentiallinkbetweenurbanand ruralareasinawaythatthecompetitiveandcomplementaryaspectsofurban-ruralrelationsbecomemore transparent,andthisisparticularlysoforlabourandhousingmarkets,aswellasforshoppingandleisure patterns (Parr 2005; 2008; Davoudi 2008). Conceptualized as such, city-regions are increasingly regarded astheappropriatesub-regionalscalefortheimplementationofdevelopmentpolicies(Rodríguez-Pose2008). However,opponentsontheotherhandarguethatthereisalimittohowfarcity-regionalism–ascur­rently constructed – can represent the interests of the population at large (Harrison and Heley 2015). As stated by Woods (2009), it carries the risk of addressing rural localities solely in terms of their relation to the urban, of disregarding any sense of an overarching, interregional rural condition, and of marginaliz­ingruralconcernswithinstructuresdominatedeconomicallyanddemographicallybycities.Furthermore, it establishes and reinforces out-of-date notions of geographical centrality and hierarchies, and it active­ly marginalises places, consigning them to the periphery, dividing and polarising (Ward 2006). This can alsoincreasedifferencesinvaluesandpoliticalorientationbetweenurbanandruraldwellers(Tiran2011; 2015). Pemberton andShaw (2012) addedthatwhilstsignificantattention hasbeenplacedon theimpact of new sub-regional governance arrangements on urban areas, there has been little consideration of the nature and effectiveness of such arrangements on rural areas. Because economic activities are territorialized (Storper 1997), there is a need for more integrated, locallyspecific,placedevelopmentagendas(Healey2009;Bontjeetal.2011).Nevertheless,thereremains anoticeablesilence incity-regiondebatesconcerninghowruralspacesareconceptualised, governedand represented(HarrisonandHeley2015),despitethefactthattheyareimportantspacesthatcannotbeignored (PembertonandShaw2012).Researchthatexplicitlyinterrogatestheroleofruralareaswithinacity-region framework is therefore important and welcome (Woods 2009). However, whilst there is considerable lit­erature on both rural and urban development issues, there is much less concerning the linkages between them (Davoudi and Stead 2002). 1.2 Creative-knowledge economy and a city-region Theliteratureontheemergingcreative-knowledgeeconomyoftensuggeststhatcity-regionsarethefocal points of thiseconomy. Hence, it is hard toimaginean alternativeeconomic growthpath for city-regions in advanced capitalist countries that would replace the current focus on creativity, knowledge and inno­vation (Bontje, Musterd and Pelzer 2011). However,tounderstandthegeographyofthecreativity,andtoformulatesupportivepoliciesforbothurban and rural areas, it is necessary to analyse it at a sub-regional or even neighbourhood level (Clifton 2008). Analysisatahighdegreeofspatialresolutionallowsconcentrationsofaparticularactivitytobemoreaccu­ratelyidentified;tothisend,inthispaperweemployanoccupational,residence-basedoperationalisation ofcreativeactivity –akathecreativeclass(Clifton2008;BoschmaandFritsch2009;seethesectionbelow for afull discussion ofthismethodology). Concentrations of such activity may alsooccur atsmall spatial scales,soitisdesirabletoanalysethedataatthesmallestpossiblescaleforwhichofficialstatisticsareavail­able (Bakhshi et al. 2015). Nevertheless, most of the previous mappings concerned with the creative economy addressed regional ormetropolitanscale(e.g.Florida2002;MarletandvanWoerkens2007;Clifton2008;RuttenandGelissen2008; BoschmaandFritsch2009;Andersenetal.2010).Theyrevealedthatcreative-knowledgeworkersaremore intensivelylocatedinpredominantly urban regions. Therehavebeen rare attempts to unveil intraregion­al disparities by simultaneously examining urban and rural areas, despite sub-regional scales of working increasingly being promoted as means of securing greater spatial equity and economic competitiveness (Harrison and Heley 2015). The reasons for this can be ascribed to a historical focus on the benefits of urbanareasontheaccountoftheircreativecapacityandthelimitedavailabilityofsecondarydataonrural areas, plus the difficulty in collecting accurate primary data and the lack of comparable data (Gülümser, Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp 2010). However, as investigated in selected European metropolitan areas of Amsterdam, Birmingham, Helsinki, Poznan, Riga, and Toulouse, creative-knowledge workers are con­centrated not only in traditional core cities, but also in new centres on the city edges and beyond. More specifically,citycentresmaymainlyattractthe»creativecore«(scientistsandengineers,architectsanddesign­ers,academicsandteachingprofessionals),whilecityedgesandbeyondmaybemoreattractivefor»creative professionals« (associated professional and technical occupations of the creative core, managers, finan­cial and legal professionals) (Bontje and Kepsu 2013). Recent theories on regional creativity often focus on urban areas without taking into account rural localities. Inaddition,theapplicationofsuchanalysestoruralareasmayleadtomisrepresentationormis­understandingofruralcreativecapacity.Thus,thereisaneedtocombinethecurrentknowledgeoninnovation and rural areas in order to conduct more effective research (and policies) for achieving sustainable rural development (Gülümser, Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp 2010). Although conditions for creating or stimu­lating creative-knowledge economies in the context of a global world certainly depend on urban history (Pareja-Eastaway and Pradel i Miquel 2015), they also play a significant role in the development of rural areas (McGranahan and Wojan 2007). As suggested by Madanipour (2011), the creative workers can be foundanddevelopednot onlyinelitecentres,butalso inthe peripheries,smallercitiesand towns,and in the»less-favoured«partsoflargercities.However,little,ifany,locality-specificqualitativeorquantitative researchhasbeenundertakentoassesstheresidentialpreferencesofcreative-knowledgeworkersinaregion­al context (Verdich 2010). 2 Methods The aim of this paper is to measure the (re)distribution of the creative class across and within the city-regionsofSloveniaintheperiod2000–2011.Tothisend,itemploysmicrodatafromtheStatisticalRegister ofEmployment by theStatistical Office of theRepublic of Slovenia. The fine-graineddataallows distinc­tion between different types of urbanisation as residential places of the creative class. The investigated city-regions are functional regions. Their boundaries correspond to a large extent to travel-to work areas (see Bole 2004). In size they are similar to NUTS 3 regions. The latter are twelve, whereas we distinguish between eight city-regions in Slovenia. Such regionalization is often mentioned as one of the most appropriate as the second level of local self-government (Ravbar 1997; Plut 1999; Kozina 2010) but is officially not established yet. The largest city-region is the Osrednja Slovenija (core city:Ljubljana),withapopulationofalmostathirdofthecountry’spopulation(2mintotal).ThePodravska (core city: Maribor) and Savinjsko-Koroška (core city: Celje) city-regions represent half of its size, while other city-regions are even smaller. Central and western city-regions are more successful than the east­ernones,whichlagbehind(Ravbar2009). Thedifferencesaregreaterwithregardtoeconomicissuesand smaller with regard to social and environmental issues (Vintar Mally 2018). The urban-rural typology used in this paper is based on the work of Ravbar (1997). The data were later revised by Krevs et al. (2005) and the number of types were simplified and diminished from seven to four. The types were estimated on the basis of a set of sociogeographic, physiognomic, structural, and functional criteria. The urban-rural typology consists of four residential types as follows: • urbansettlements(degreeofurbanisation=100%); • suburbanisedsettlements(75%