Ciglenica — neighbourhood profile

District-wide fields (position, terrain, bicycle infrastructure, socio-economic overview) are in district overview — not repeated here.

In plain terms

Of all ten neighbourhoods in this district, this one ranks lowest on vulnerability — it has the district’s lowest elderly share, and two independent scoring approaches both agree it’s comparatively lower-risk. That said, it’s outside the city’s official priority list, so its facility and water-access data is simply missing, not confirmed zero — and it still carries a real tree-canopy shortfall and a daytime heat-hotspot flag. “Lowest in this district” means lowest among nine genuinely high-vulnerability neighbours, not evidence of no risk at all.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.71 km²
Position in the city	Trešnjevka – sjever

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	4,573
Sex	2,095 male · 2,478 female
Age breakdown	649 aged 0–14 · 3,195 aged 15–64 · 729 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	14.2% — highest among the three neighbourhoods outside the priority list
Share aged 65+	15.9% — the lowest in the district
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	6,441 people/km²

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens, schools, health facilities, fountains	Not available — this is one of three neighbourhoods in the district outside the city’s official facility/refuge dataset, which only covers its 32-neighbourhood priority shortlist
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, right at the district average
Canopy shortfall	The largest among the three neighbourhoods outside the priority list — an estimated 841 hectares needed to fully offset local heat (3,716 ha for a more ambitious target); closing the realistic gap would cool the area by roughly 2.2 °C
Site-level field observations	None recorded for this specific neighbourhood — see district overview for the two ground-level studies that exist elsewhere in the district

4. Heat (UHI data)

Field	Value
District heat intensity	+8.98 °C (district-wide figure, see overview)
Heatwave days (2025)	7
Official heat-risk zone	Not mapped by the city’s specific heat-risk workbook — this means it wasn’t assessed by that particular study, not that it’s risk-free
Night-time temperature	20.24 °C — among the coolest nights in the district
Modelled daytime air temperature	27.44 °C
Hotspot classification	Flagged as hot by the surface-temperature measure, but not by the air-temperature measure

5. How vulnerable is this neighbourhood?

Measure	Value
Main vulnerability score	0.48 — ranks #68 of 218, the lowest rank of any neighbourhood in this district
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	Also rates this “stable” rather than a hotspot — one of only two neighbourhoods in the district to get that label, agreeing with the main score
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	The lowest of any neighbourhood in the district
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Also the lowest in the district — not because its nights are unusually cool, but because its low elderly share pulls the combined score down
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	No
What’s stacking up here	❌ Lowest elderly share in the district ❌ Both scoring models agree this is comparatively lower-priority ✅ Still carries a real tree-canopy shortfall and a daytime heat-hotspot flag ❌ Facility and water access are genuinely unknown, not confirmed zero

Bottom line: the one neighbourhood in this district where both scoring approaches agree on comparatively lower priority, driven mainly by its low elderly share. It still has a real vegetation gap and a confirmed daytime heat problem — this is “least urgent in a genuinely high-risk district,” not “no problem here.”

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	48
Self-reported heat-burden index	2.99/4 — ranks #7 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.26 (0–1 scale) — ranks #3 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.61/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	83%

A genuine divergence: HVI rank 68/218 (lowest of the ten, and outside the priority shortlist) but survey vulnerability ranks 3rd-highest of the ten MOs — the official model and the survey disagree here more than anywhere else in the district.

Data notes

Night-time elderly-exposure figure comes from a GitHub-repository dataset not yet included in the published MO master table — see district overview’s Data notes.
Citizen survey figures (respondents, self-reported burden, vulnerability, policy support, AC ownership) come from UHI citizen survey — results & key findings (2026, wave 1) (notes) (Citizen survey data), n=48 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 42 in the first snapshot) — above the n≥5 floor used across published profiles for MO-level survey figures.
Full column-by-column sourcing: Neighbourhood profile template.