Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:08:08.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Planning and Management of Water Resources in the Ljubljana Region of Yugoslavia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Thomas R. Angotti
Thomas R. Angotti
Affiliation:
Research Consultant, Piazza San Cosimato 56, 00153 Roma, Italy.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In spite of a relatively pollution-free ground- and surface-water system in the Ljubljana region of Yugoslavia, large public investments are planned for waste-water treatment systems. This is due to a high level of public awareness of pollution dangers and to particular characteristics of the decentralized economic and political institutional framework of the Yugoslav self-management system. The decentralized framework leads to a trend towards parsimonious decisionmaking—that is, adoption of the simplest solutions to otherwise complex policy-problems.

The new ‘water self-management communities’ in Slovenia may potentially become the instruments for regional basin-wide planning, but face four major existing problems: (1) the proliferation of local wastewater facilities throughout the region; (2) without consideration of their cost-effectiveness, the major policy goal is simply to provide sewers for 90% of the population, and not optimization of water-quality or investments; (3) the fragmentation of water management institutions hinders a comprehensive basinwide approach; and finally (4) the system of waterquality monitoring is not related to the planning process, while discharge standards and stream classifications are not based on utilization of in-stream assimilative capacity.

Three alternative systems of waste-water treatment and disposal are considered: decentralization, regionalization, and the present trend towards local communal treatment facilities but with a centralized system. Even taking into account scale economies, regionalization is probably the most costly because of the low-density urban pattern in the region, and the last-mentioned trend should be the least costly in terms of short-run capital outlays. The study could have wide implications as an example.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1976 , pp. 189 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angotti, Thomas (1975). Planning for regional waste-water systems. Growth and Change, 6(2), pp. 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bower, Blair T. & Basta, Daniel (1973). Residuals Environmental Quality Management—Applying the Concept. Johns Hopkins/Urbanistični Institut Environmental Project, Ljubljana: 88 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Downing, Paul B. (1969). The Economics of Urban Sewage Disposal. Praeger, New York: 195 pp.Google Scholar
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (1970). The Economics of Clean Water. U.S. Government Printer, Washington, D.C.: Vol. I, xi + 168 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Zavod, Geološki (1968). Študija podtalnice Ljubljanskega Polje. Geološki Zavod, Ljubljana: five volumes [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Hrovat, Dušan (1966). Nekateri vplivi na kvalitate vode Ljubljanskega vodovoda. Zavod za Zdravstveno Varstvo, Ljubljana [not available for checking].Google Scholar
InŠTitut Za Zdravstveno Hidrotehniko (1966). Raziskava Save in pritokov. Ljubljana [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Kneese, Allen V. & Bower, Blair T. (1968). Managing Water Quality: Economics, Technology, Institutions. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland: 328 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles (1951). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 30(Spring), pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Logan, John A. (1962). An analysis of the economics of wastewater treatment. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 34, pp. 868 ff. [not available for checking].Google Scholar
RepubliŠki Sekretariat Za Urbanizm Srs (1969). Studija o perspektivem porestu porobe vode in o potrebnik ukrepih za zašč;ito razpoložljivih voda, Ljubljana [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Sajovic, Dušan (1974). [Interview at] Elektroinštitut, Milan Vidmar (10 10).Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert (1957). Administrative Behavior. Macmillan, New York: xlviii + 259 pp.Google Scholar
Sketelj, Janko (1974). Razvojna pot ljubljanskega vodovoda in statistični podatki 1870–1971. Inštitut za zdravstveno hidrotehniko, Ljubljana [not available for checking].Google Scholar
SkupŠČina Mesta Ljubljana (1972). Pereci Komunalno—Higienski Ter Sanitarno—Tehnični Problemi Preskarbe z vodo, Odvanjange odplak ter baz enskih kopališč v Ljubljana, Ljubljana [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1974). Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Dopisna Delavska Univerza, Ljubljana: 310 pp.Google Scholar
SocialistiČne Republike Slovenije (1974). Uradni List SRS, N° 16 (04 26), pp. 822–32. (Also various draft laws and regulations supplied by the Office of Water Management and the water self-management agency).Google Scholar
United Nations (1972). Study for the Regulation and Management of the Sava River in Yugoslavia. United Nations, New York, General Report and 12 volumes.Google Scholar
White, Gilbert (1969). Strategies of American Water Management. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor: 155 pp.Google Scholar
Zavod za Vodno Gospodarstvo (1972). Projekt raziskav za izdelavo programa urejene dispozicije industrijskih odpadnih voda v SRS. Ljubljana: 6 volumes [not available for checking].Google Scholar