Page 214 - Pelc, Stanko. 2015. Mestno prebivalstvo Slovenije. Založba Univerze na Primorskem, Koper.
P. 214
Mestno prebivalstvo Slovenije
ence on population structure of Ljubljana. University of Ljubljana is not
only the oldest, but also far biggest one in Slovenia with about 50.000 stu-
dents in 2011 (the number is falling). We assume on the basis of the num-
ber of beds in student homes that about one fourth lives in Ljubljana as
non-permanent residents. If so, that would mean about 5 % of total po-
pulation. University of Maribor is much smaller and has several faculties
in other cities and therefore the non-permanent student residents are pro-
bably only about 3 % of total population of Maribor. The influence of stu-
dents in other cities where students reside during their study on age and sex
structure is much less important.
To conclude we can say that urban population of Slovenia as a result
of different demographic processes that we tried to reveal troug the analy-
sed data is:
214 • above average educated,
• multicultural and multinational with up to half immigrants from
abroad and their descendants in some cities,
• older than the national average with the highest shares of elderly in
small cities with retirement homes,
• with below average share of families of parents and children and
above average of single parent families,
• and with slightly above average unemployment rate and the share
of self-employed.
We believe that we managed to reveal at least a small part of popula-
tion characteristics as can be recognized trough the analysis of the availa-
ble data. We were more focused on demographic processes and the popu-
lation structure and not so much on population growth. There are many
open possibilities to continue and upgrade this work, but the question is
whether the division of population into urban and non-urban has any sen-
se at all. The criteria for the division is by our opinion wrong and we did
not manage to find a better one. To consider population of statistically de-
fined cities as urban and the other part as non-urban (rural?) is not a good
starting point to get a fairly homogenous subpopulation considering de-
mographic characteristics and reproduction behaviour that could be consi-
dered as urban. Our division according to the dwelling density also did
not prove to be much more appropriate. Obviously people are not »free«
enough to chose the preferred place of their residence and there are many
different reasons for them to live in either a family house or in a high-ri-
se apartment building. That creates the mixture of people that differ a lot
in their characteristics and in their life-styles. Therefore we cannot encom-
ence on population structure of Ljubljana. University of Ljubljana is not
only the oldest, but also far biggest one in Slovenia with about 50.000 stu-
dents in 2011 (the number is falling). We assume on the basis of the num-
ber of beds in student homes that about one fourth lives in Ljubljana as
non-permanent residents. If so, that would mean about 5 % of total po-
pulation. University of Maribor is much smaller and has several faculties
in other cities and therefore the non-permanent student residents are pro-
bably only about 3 % of total population of Maribor. The influence of stu-
dents in other cities where students reside during their study on age and sex
structure is much less important.
To conclude we can say that urban population of Slovenia as a result
of different demographic processes that we tried to reveal troug the analy-
sed data is:
214 • above average educated,
• multicultural and multinational with up to half immigrants from
abroad and their descendants in some cities,
• older than the national average with the highest shares of elderly in
small cities with retirement homes,
• with below average share of families of parents and children and
above average of single parent families,
• and with slightly above average unemployment rate and the share
of self-employed.
We believe that we managed to reveal at least a small part of popula-
tion characteristics as can be recognized trough the analysis of the availa-
ble data. We were more focused on demographic processes and the popu-
lation structure and not so much on population growth. There are many
open possibilities to continue and upgrade this work, but the question is
whether the division of population into urban and non-urban has any sen-
se at all. The criteria for the division is by our opinion wrong and we did
not manage to find a better one. To consider population of statistically de-
fined cities as urban and the other part as non-urban (rural?) is not a good
starting point to get a fairly homogenous subpopulation considering de-
mographic characteristics and reproduction behaviour that could be consi-
dered as urban. Our division according to the dwelling density also did
not prove to be much more appropriate. Obviously people are not »free«
enough to chose the preferred place of their residence and there are many
different reasons for them to live in either a family house or in a high-ri-
se apartment building. That creates the mixture of people that differ a lot
in their characteristics and in their life-styles. Therefore we cannot encom-
