YOUTH 2020 - The position of young people in Slovenia

Young people, housing, and sustainable environment  209 Similar to the general sample of the Slovenian population, the same living preferences are noticeable also among young people. In order to analyse po- tential changes in broader social trends, we tried to identify individual seg- ments of the youthpopulation that prefer specific forms of livingover others. It is interesting that the further analysis of young people that are currently living in the city also confirmed the assumption of transfer or presence of specific housing preferences linked to less dense urban settlements. The group of young people currently living in cities, like other groups of young people living outside major cities, expressed a strong desire to stay ‘in a se- cluded house’ (27.5%) or ‘in a house with a garden in a settlement’ ( 45.7%). Enthusiasm about specific forms of living among young people is associ- ated with current practices of spatial development leading to the subur- banization of Slovenia and dispersed settlements, which is not in accord- ancewith the principles of sustainable development that reject such forms of spatial development. Despite the frequentmention of value orientations that are in linewith the orientations of sustainable development, there are also strong deviant orientations, which indicates that the principles of sustainable development among young people is present, but not suffi- ciently integrated into their value structure so as to lead to reorientations towards more sustainable housing preferences. In the context of living, the principles of sustainable development among young people are pres- ent only at a declarative level or only as an adjunct to the quality of living, reflected in emphasizing the importance of green spaces and nature. These data are complemented by the responses of young people, which relate to the most important characteristics of the place of residence. When asked if they could list the three characteristics of a living place that they consider most important for quality of life, living near ‘access to nat- ural environments and natural resources’ stood out strongly, followed by ‘access to various services’. The extremely high evaluation of and linking of quality of life to access to natural resources are covered by the afore- mentioned characteristics of the “Slovenian way of living”, which is char- acterized by low densities, low concentration of settlements, a strong em- phasis on local identities, andgood access to services. There are cross-links between the desire to protect nature and living in detached houses or houses with a garden in a village. As many as 84.9% of young people men-