Samoborček — neighbourhood profile

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

In plain terms

Of the seven neighbourhoods in this district with reasonably full data, this one scores comparatively lowest on vulnerability — below-average elderly share, and the only neighbourhood in the district specifically flagged “stable” rather than a hotspot. But it’s also the neighbourhood with the most missing data of the group (no official heat-risk-zone mapping, no hotspot classification), so “lower vulnerability” here should be read as “lower on what could be measured,” not a clean bill of health.

1. Geography

Field	Value
Area	0.37 km²
Position in the city	Trešnjevka – sjever
Notable features	Dom sportova Zagreb, a sports centre 5–6 minutes’ walk away — the nearest heat-refuge point

2. Demographics

Field	Value
Population	3,985
Sex	1,809 male · 2,176 female
Age breakdown	534 aged 0–14 · 2,672 aged 15–64 · 779 aged 65+
Share aged 0–14	13.4%
Share aged 65+	19.6% — below the district average
Chronically ill residents	Not tracked anywhere in the data
Education level	District-wide only — see Trešnjevka – sjever district overview
Density	10,770 people/km²

3. Urban form and greenery

Field	Value
Kindergartens	0
Elementary schools	0
High schools	0
Health facilities (incl. pharmacies)	1
Sport facilities	5 — the most of any neighbourhood in the district
All facilities combined	6
Drinking fountains within a 5/10/15-minute walk	0 / 0 / 0
Nearest park	4 minutes’ walk (0.19 km)
Parks within 5/10/15 minutes	2 / 5 / 13
Refuges within 5/10/15 minutes	0 / 8 / 14
Greenness (NDVI)	0.30, right at the district average
Canopy shortfall	An estimated 438 hectares of additional tree canopy needed to fully offset local heat (1,937 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	20.32 °C
Modelled daytime air temperature	27.47 °C
Hotspot classification	Not classified — this is the one neighbourhood in the district where the underlying model couldn’t produce a confident surface- or air-hotspot reading, for reasons unrelated to actual risk (a data-sparsity issue, not a “not hot” finding)

5. How vulnerable is this neighbourhood?

Measure	Value
Main vulnerability score	0.58 — ranks #38 of 218 neighbourhoods citywide
Second vulnerability score (independent model)	The only neighbourhood in this district rated “stable” rather than a hotspot — consistent with its below-average elderly share. Note: the underlying confidence check for this second model couldn’t be run here at all (a genuine data gap, not a low-confidence result)
Daytime elderly-heat exposure	Below the district average
Night-time elderly-heat exposure	Below the district average
On the city’s official priority shortlist?	Yes
What’s stacking up here	❌ Elderly share (19.6%) is below the district average ✅ Still 0 fountains within 10 minutes ❌ Heat-risk zone unmapped and hotspot classification unavailable — this is the most data-sparse neighbourhood in the district’s priority set, not confirmed evidence of lower risk

Bottom line: on paper this looks like the district’s calmest neighbourhood — but that reading rests on the fact that two of its key risk measures simply couldn’t be computed, not on those measures actually showing low risk. Treat “stable” here with more caution than the same label would deserve for a neighbourhood with complete data.

6. Citizen survey signal (2026, wave 1)

Field	Value
Survey respondents from this MO	61
Self-reported heat-burden index	2.97/4 — ranks #8 of the district’s 10 profiled MOs
Survey vulnerability score	0.23 (0–1 scale) — ranks #7 of the 10
Mean support for the 28 proposed interventions	4.60/5
Self-reported working-AC ownership	93%

Low on both self-reported burden (8th of 10) and vulnerability (7th of 10) — consistent with its comparatively low score in the district’s blended HRPI-based ranking above.

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. This figure was available for Samoborček even though the daytime hotspot classification wasn’t, since it comes from a separate source file.
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=61 for this MO (updated 2026-09-08, up from 49 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.