Ljubljanica — neighbourhood profile

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

In plain terms

The district’s smallest neighbourhood by population, and the one with the fewest facilities of any well-covered neighbourhood here — just two in total. It ranks low on the main vulnerability score, but that’s worth a second look: a small population can mean genuinely lower total exposure, or it can just mean fewer people sharing an already-thin set of services. Its night-time temperature is nearly the warmest in the district, a fact its daytime-only heat classification doesn’t capture.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.31 km² — the smallest of the ten neighbourhoods
Position in the city	Trešnjevka – sjever

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	2,916 — the smallest in the district
Sex	1,373 male · 1,543 female
Age breakdown	389 aged 0–14 · 1,941 aged 15–64 · 586 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	13.3%
Share aged 65+	20.1%
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	9,406 people/km²

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens	0
Elementary schools	1
High schools	0
Health facilities (incl. pharmacies)	1
Sport facilities	0
All facilities combined	2 — the fewest of any well-covered neighbourhood in the district
Drinking fountains within a 5/10/15-minute walk	0 / 0 / 0
Nearest park	4 minutes’ walk (0.23 km)
Parks within 5/10/15 minutes	1 / 5 / 12
Nearest heat-refuge point	5 minutes’ walk — an unnamed sport field
Refuges within 5/10/15 minutes	0 / 6 / 10
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, right at the district average
Canopy shortfall	An estimated 367 hectares of additional tree canopy needed to fully offset local heat (1,623 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	Orange — second-highest risk category
Night-time temperature	20.53 °C — among the warmest nights in the district, second only to Stara Trešnjevka
Modelled daytime air temperature	27.49 °C
Hotspot classification	Not flagged as unusually hot by either the surface- or air-temperature measure — despite its near-top night-time reading above

5. How vulnerable is this neighbourhood?

Measure	Value
Main vulnerability score	0.57 — ranks #41 of 218 neighbourhoods citywide
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	Flags this as vulnerable, reading it as driven mainly by underlying climate/heat conditions
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Middling for the district
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Middling — its very warm nights are offset by a comparatively lower elderly share
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	Yes
What’s stacking up here	❌ Smallest population and fewest facilities — could mean lower need, or just fewer resources per resident ✅ Night-time temperature nearly the warmest in the district ✅ 0 fountains within 10 minutes ✅ Orange heat-risk zone

Bottom line: the district’s smallest and least-served neighbourhood — its low overall vulnerability rank should be read with real caution, since it could reflect genuinely lower exposure or simply a thin population base that the main scoring doesn’t distinguish. Its near-top night-time heat is a fact the daytime-only classification misses entirely.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	47
Self-reported heat-burden index	3.21/4 — ranks #2 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.28 (0–1 scale) — ranks #1 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.60/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	96%

The highest survey vulnerability score of the ten profiled MOs, and 2nd-highest self-reported burden — a real divergence from its HVI rank of 41/218 (9th of the ten by that measure). Worth a second look rather than assuming the two scores agree by default.

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=47 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 31 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.