ISSN 0354-8724 (hard copy) | ISSN 1820-7138 (online)

Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county () and the settlement of Kuršanec

Slaven KličekA*, Jelena LončarB Received: April 20, 2016 | Revised: September 9, 2016 | Accepted: November 7, 2016 DOI: 10.18421/GP20.04-05

Abstract Međimurje County stands out as a developed and densely populated county of Central Croatia. Demo- graphic and socio-economic developmental trends of Međimurje indicate the referred-to status: age structure, birth rates, population activity rates and share of jobs are significantly higher than the Croa- tian average. At the same time, Međimurje is home to one of the largest Croatian Roma communities, ethnically homogeneous and spatially isolated, whose predominantly unfavourable geographical fea- tures make the opposite developmental pole of previously described developed areas inhabited by the majority population. Development indicators at county level have omitted concrete living conditions of Roma. They inhabit the rural periphery characterized by social and spatial segregation, unemployment and existence on the margins of society and settlements. This paper provides an analysis of housing, economic and social functions of areas inhabited by Roma, as well as migratory trends and main func- tional orientation of these areas in Međimurje County. In so, the settlement of Kuršanec will be empha- sized as a representative example of areas inhabited by Roma in Međimurje County. Keywords: Roma, Međimurje, Roma settlements, migrations, functional orientation

Introduction lecting statistical data about Roma population1 (Re- Using population activity rates, aging index and em- port on enforcement of Action plan for implementa- ployment and unemployment rates as relevant indica- tion of National strategy for Roma inclusion in period tors, Živić and Pokos (2005) define Međimurje Coun- ty as a socio-economically developed county. At the 1 The reasons for low credibility of official Censuses regarding data same time, it is home to the most numerous Roma on Roma are seen in irregular registering of Roma residences, in- consistent acquiring of official data on Roma population, distrust community in Croatia. According to the official Cen- of Roma people towards official enumerators and appearance of sus of Population, Households and Dwellings 2011, a to- ethnomimicry among Roma. It is assumed that the total number tal of 5,107 residents declared themselves as Roma peo- of Roma in Međimurje is significantly higher than the informa- ple in Međimurje, comparing to the City of tion reported by the Croatian Bureau of Statistics. The research of the UNDP Croatia in 2013 shows that 5,145 Roma are report- which comes second after Međimurje with a popu- ed living in 9 of 12 areas inhabited by Roma in Međimurje Coun- lation of 2,755 declared Roma. These data should be ty that are analyzed in this paper (data for the other three areas is used carefully having in mind the difficulties of col- not available) (Šlezak, 2010), while the Action Plan for Roma In- clusion in Međimurje County 2013–2015 estimates that the num- ber of Roma in Međimurje County is between 7,000 and 9,000.

А Assistant Expert for EU projects at Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, 10 000 Zagreb; [email protected] B Department of geography, Science faculty, University of Zagreb, Marulićev trg 19/2, 10 000 Zagreb, Hrvatska; [email protected] * Corresponding author: Slaven Kliček, e-mail: [email protected]

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227-241 (December 2016) 227 Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county (Croatia) and the settlement of Kuršanec

2013-2015.) The Roma community is dispersed across and therefore will provide new insights in the re- Međimurje County, while on local level they tend to search about Roma population. concentrate in settlements of rural peripheries, spa- This paper will analyse some characteristics of the tially isolated from areas where the majority popula- Roma community, features of the area in which they tion lives. live and selected demographic structures and process- As space is divisible among many users, its use is es in which Roma participate on the example of the decided by a large number of participants with dif- settlement of Kuršanec. Based on presented findings, ferent interests. This often leads or may lead to con- a contribution to further understanding of the com- flicts of interest. Spatial relations are changing under plex interrelationship between Roma community and the influence of population change, increase of eco- the specific rural environment of Međimurje County nomic activities and other factors. Despite the long- in which Roma live will be carried out, with the main standing application and a relatively high number of objective of determining the functional focus of areas spatial plans for different areas in Međimurje County, inhabited by Roma in the county. they did not result in anticipated implementation of planned measures (Spatial Plan of Međimurje Coun- ty, 2001). The stated is especially manifested in the Theoretical framework areas inhabited by Roma, which are mostly illegally constructed, with property and legal issues unsolved. and research methodology Legalization of these sites is proceeding slowly due to In recent years, different Croatian authors researched slow involvement of the Roma community in the pro- problems of Roma with the aim of obtaining data on cess (Action Plan for Roma Inclusion in Međimurje demographic and socio-cultural features, spatial seg- County, 2013). regation issues, settlement characteristics of Roma, During the 1990s, authors have dealt with intercul- their position in society and their customs. This pa- tural relations, education of Roma and tracing his- per sets goal to make a functional analysis of areas in- torical roots of Roma migrations to specific Croatian habited by Roma in Međimurje County. The analysis regions, such as Podravina and Međimurje. United is based on field research conducted by UNDP Croa- Nations Development Programme Croatia (UNDP) tia in June and July 2013 in the settlement of Kuršanec, conducted specific research in Croatian concerning in which one of the authors participated. Interviewers Roma population, which was followed with the pub- who conducted the research are known to the inhabit- lishing of several publications (Roma and the dis- ants of Kuršanec so the credibility of collected data is placed in Southeast Europe, Roma Inclusion Working at high level, as opposed to other sources which often Papers: Civil Society, civil society involvement and So- provide questionable results. The study was conduct- cial Inclusion of Roma, Roma Inclusion Working Pa- ed as part of the UNDP project “Platform for Roma pers: Integrated household surveys among Roma pop- Inclusion in Međimurje County” (from January to ulations, The Right of Roma Children to Education). the end of December 2013). Collected data was pro- Drawing upon the stated, authors considered that spa- vided to the authors in order to write this article. The tial aspects of the Roma community, including top- field research in Kuršanec listed a total of 197 Roma ics of migration, isolation issues and functional analy- households and 1,134 inhabitants (Table 1). The ques- sis is not researched sufficiently in scientific literature tionnaire used in the research consisted of three parts

Table 1. General information on the Roma part of Kuršanec settlement

General information on the Roma part of Kuršanec settlement Number of households 197 Number of couples 200 Population 1,134 Men 579 Number of adults 444 Women 555 Number of minors 690 Average age 17,7 Religion Marriage status Roman Catholic 426 Married 57 Baptist 5 Extramarital union 314 Undecided 12 Widow / widower 21 Other 1 Divorced 4 Not in a relationship 48 Source: UNDP field survey, 2013

228 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) Slaven Kliček, Jelena Lončar by which data was collected regarding adults and mi- tive cities and municipalities with Roma population nors, households and infrastructure, facilities, finan- in Međimurje County. Considering previously de- cial standard, social and security issues, work habits, scribed areas with higher concentration of Roma peo- demographic, economic and educational structures. ple, i.e. Roma settlements, they are found in 10 munic- In addition to the field survey, information was ob- ipalities and administrative cities. tained by direct queries sent to municipal and coun- ty authorities, which pointed to other areas inhabited Spatial structure and isolation by Roma in Međimurje County. Gathered informa- of areas inhabited by Roma tion pointed to 12 areas with a higher concentration of Roma (more than 30 people), which are spatially sep- arated from parts of settlements where the majority Spatial characteristics of Roma rural settlements population lives (although both areas belong to the From 2004 to the present day, Offices for Physical same administrative units). Planning of different counties in Croatia have iden- tified 14 counties with areas inhabited by Roma, i.e. Case study Kuršanec Roma settlements, which require spatial organiza- The administrative settlement Kuršanec consists of tion and infrastructural equipping (National Strate- two spatially separated parts, in which Roma people gy for Roma Inclusion, 2012). In Međimurje County live separately from the majority population (Šlezak, there are 12 areas where a majority of Roma people 2010). The information presented in this paper regard- lives (Table 2 and Figure 1). ing Roma part of the settlement of Kuršanec will serve Međimurje’s specific land relief determined the as a framework for better understanding the 12 areas density and typology of settlements in Međimurje. of Međimurje County inhabited by Roma. Analysing Lower Međimurje has a population density greater Roma distribution on local level and according to the than Upper Međimurje, where hill terrains dominate official Census 2011, there is a total of 18 administra- and cause a dispersed population distribution. Areas

Table 2. Roma people in the ethnic structure of Međimurje County

Administrative unit Number of Roma % Area inhabited by Estimated number of (city / municipality) Roma Roma Čakovec 1039 3,83 Kuršanec 1134 (2013) Mursko Središće 285 4,52 Hlapičina * Sitnice * Belica 1 0,03 / / Domašinec 100 4,44 Kvitrovec 110 (2011) Donja Dubrava 7 0,36 / / 18 0,39 / / 32 2,29 / / Goričan 42 1,49 Goričan 42 (2011) 1 0,05 / / 320 9,93 Kotoriba 320 (2011) 694 12,73 Piškorovec 681 (2011) Nedelišće 1239 10,35 Parag 1187 (2011) Gornji Kuršanec * Orehovica 491 18,29 Orehovica 624 (2011) 224 5,78 Lončarevo 224 (2011) 608 19,39 Pribislavec 800 (2011) Selnica 1 0,03 / / Štrigova 3 0,11 / / Vratišinec 2 0,1 / / Međimurje County 5107 4,49 12 5145* Source: Atlas of Roma settlements in Međimurje County (www.hr.undp.org), Census of Population, Households and Dwellings 2011, data obtained from local administrative and other institutions * For certain areas inhabited by Roma data on number of residents was not available.

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) 229 Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county (Croatia) and the settlement of Kuršanec

Figure 1. Areas inhabited by Roma in Međimurje County

inhabited by Roma in Međimurje County are spatially fore we can say that the spatial aspect is very impor- separated from parts of settlements where the majori- tant in the marginalization of Roma (Šućur, 2000). ty population lives (Figure 2 and 3), although they be- Cases of establishing households by partitioning pre- long to the same administrative units. Certain areas vious ones usually do not appear, which is also an in- inhabited by Roma function as classic ghettos (Šlezak, dicator of the financial situation and living standard Šakaja 2012; Šlezak, 2010) and generally have no util- of Roma people who rarely have a legacy to inherit ity infrastructure. Action Plan for Roma Inclusion in and share among family members (First-Dilić, 1985). Međimurje County (2013) defines following areas of According to the survey of Roma in Prekmurje in significant concentration of Roma population: , Josipovic and Repolusk (2003) defined closed, –– isolated Roma settlements; i.e. hidden Roma settlements, where Roma live in re- –– Roma settlements as fragments of rural settle- mote locations, far away from settlements of the major- ments; ity population, next to forest or river areas. This classi- –– small group of individual houses built within fication of settlements can be applied to Međimurje as rural settlements. well, due to their similar pattern of distribution in rural areas. These areas inhabited by Roma in Međimurje are Some of these settlements originated from immi- result of individual, substandard construction of hous- gration of young families into separate housing units ing units, using available materials with limited access and by establishing independent households. There- to the infrastructure network.

Figure 2. Example of spatial segregation of Kuršanec Figure 3. Example of spatial segregation of Sitnice

230 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) Slaven Kliček, Jelena Lončar

The phenomenon of Roma settlements, i.e. specific ment. Only parts of areas inhabited by Roma are built areas inhabited by the Roma, is a sign of spatial seg- on regulated building plots. In this way, future legal- regation of a significant part of the Roma minority. ization efforts are threatened as unplanned construc- Some of these settlements are completely polarized tion is widely represented. by ethnicity of its inhabitants. According to Šlezak According to the analysis of building areas in (2009), absolute distances and physical barriers, such Međimurje County, the part of Kuršanec inhabited as forest areas, channels and/or railways, exist be- by Roma is the only Roma settlement included in the tween settlement parts inhabited by Croat and Roma Spatial Plan of Međimurje County. The situation in residents and thus define spatial segregation. In ad- other areas is much more complex; land is owned by dition to high housing densities, inadequate planning the state, municipality, city and/or private parties and and sometimes temporary features of areas inhabit- the level of legalization is different from settlement to ed by the Roma, many of these areas are not integrat- settlement (Table 3). In any case, it is necessary to de- ed in local spatial plans or they are built in areas not termine concrete features of Roma settlements, their designed for housing. The Roma community cannot surface, legalization status and size, in order to plan solve these problems alone, as they do not have suffi- current and future needs in new construction and cient institutional capacity in terms of acting in local development. Detailed spatial plans have been car- government (Štambuk, 2000). ried out and accepted for 8 isolated areas inhabited by The main problem is that areas inhabited by Roma Roma in Međimurje County, while other settlements are built illegally on lots owned by the state, munici- have been included in spatial planning documents on pality, city and/or private parties, which complicates municipal and city level (Action Plan for Roma Inclu- legislative issues for further construction or improve- sion in Međimurje County, 2013).

Table 3. Property issues and construction data of areas inhabited by Roma

Areas inhabited Housing units size Land ownership Legalization Construction material by Roma ( m²) Most of housing units State and city owned (City Brick (95%), concrete, tile, Kuršanec currently undergoing 40,77 m² (average) of Čakovec) cement material legalization (92%). Private ownership of 61 of 226 housing units Brick, concrete, tile, Parag 16 – 90 m² residents legalized. cement material Gornji Private ownership of Brick, concrete, tile, 16 illegal housing units. 16 – 90 m² Kuršanec residents cement material 80% undergoing Private and (mostly) legalization. 20% of illegal Pribislavec municipal ownership 50 – 200 m² Concrete blocks, tile housing units, not included (Municipality Pribislavec) in detailed spatial plans. 103 housing units legalized, Tile, cement material. Few Private ownership of Orehovica 24 housing units undergoing / older housing units built residents legalization. from brushwood and clay Municipal ownership (Mala Piškorovec Illegal objects. 20 – 100 m² Brick, tile Subotica) Municipal, state and private Kotoriba ownership (Municipality Illegal objects. 50 m² Brick, tile Kotoriba) City ownership (Mursko Legalization process under Sitnice 70 m² ( average ) Brick, tile Središće) way. Hlapičina / / / / Private and municipal Lončarevo Part of housing units ownership (Municipality 40 – 80 m² Brick, tile, concrete naselje undergoing legalization. Podturen) Goričan / Illegal objects. / Concrete Municipal and state Part of housing units Domašinec ownership (Municipality 30 – 100 m² Brick, tile undergoing legalization. Domašinec) Source: field survey conducted by UNDP in 2013, data obtained from local administrative and other institutions, Census of Population, Households and Dwellings 2011

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) 231 Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county (Croatia) and the settlement of Kuršanec

In order to effectively start solving issues of Roma Table 4. Economic characteristics of Roma in Kuršanec settlements, Roma representatives stressed out pri- Status Abs. Rel. orities of increasing areas for future housing con- Employed in Croatia 6 1,35 struction, providing financial assistance for housing Employed abroad 0 0 and infrastructure and cleaning illegal waste dispos- Temporarily employed in Croatia al sites. Despite poor living conditions of these settle- 7 1,58 (with contract) ments, Roma people are not inclined to moving into Temporarily employed in Croatia neighbourhoods where mostly live (Action 0 0 (without contract) Plan for Roma Inclusion in Međimurje, 2013. Periodically employed in Croatia 8 1,8 Economic structure of areas inhabited by Roma (without contract) Periodically employed abroad Roma people secure basic necessities and resources in 0 0 (without contract) different ways, but their professions, where employ- ment exists, are mostly low-status. They mostly do oc- Unemployed 419 94,37 casional work in construction industry, agriculture or Receiving unemployment benefits 4 0,9 collect recyclable materials, which is today becoming Receiving social welfare 333 75 more limited because of strict regulations on waste Receiving childbirth benefits 54 12,16 disposal and classification (Šućur, 2000). Roma peo- Receiving child benefits 292 65,77 ple mostly choose economic activities in which a large Self-employed: registered firm or craft 2 0,45 number of family members can be included, ranging Self-employed: unregistered firm or craft 0 0 from the youngest to the oldest (Štambuk, 2005). Partner in a firm 0 0 Considering the part of Kuršanec inhabited with Roma residents, the economic function is virtually Old-age pension 6 1,35 non-existent (Table 4), taking into account that of 444 Disability pension 6 1,35 adults only 6 persons perform a full-time job. Only Taking care of households free of charge 7 1,58 15 Roma are occasionally employed (with or without Student 0 0 a contract), while the rest of 419 people are unem- Receiving studentship 0 0 ployed, i.e. 94.37% of adult residents in the Roma part Attending job training 0 0 of Kuršanec. A great share of 75% of the adult pop- Other reasons for not working 0 0 ulation is receiving social assistance. The percentage of residents who receive child benefits is very high as Receiving alimony 0 0 Financial support from friends or well (66%), which is not surprising considering the 1 0,23 relatives from Croatia number of children. Also, more than half of the popu- Financial support from friends or lation (nearly 56%) has never actively sought employ- 0 0 relatives from abroad ment. The explanation for this is seen in low educa- Financial support from Church and tion levels of Roma and inadequate job qualifications, 0 0 charity but also discrimination and prejudice which Roma often face when seeking employment. When asked Source: UNDP, field survey 2013 about skills that can help in employment, Roma state babysitting (33.6%), cooking and baking (24.6%) and by Roma as places of residence and work. In some ar- construction work (37.8%) as most helpful. To avoid eas communal infrastructure was built with EU co-fi- long-term unemployment of Roma, it is necessary to nancing, but support and funding is needed for fur- develop measures through a system of informal edu- ther improvement. Current infrastructural features of cation which would limit their excessive reliance on areas inhabited by Roma are shown in Table 5. social assistance. This could be achieved by co-financ- Beside electric outlets, households do not have ba- ing their education and would result in a better quali- sic utilities such as sewage system, gas and water sup- ty of life (Development strategy of Međimurje Coun- ply (only a minority of households has water outlets), ty, 2011-2013). thus access to hot water is not secured either. The gravity of the situation is evident in information re- Communal infrastructure and utilities garding sanitary facilities; 56.9% of Roma house- Transport and communal infrastructure are of great holds in Kuršanec have toilets outside housing units importance in shaping the quality of life and have a and another 22.3% of households share external toi- crucial role in economic development. Therefore, im- lets with neighbours. Waste is collected once a week, proving the standard of communal infrastructure is but the problem of waste disposal sites remains. The necessary for further development of areas inhabited situation is better when considering access to electric-

232 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) Slaven Kliček, Jelena Lončar

Table 5. Selected infrastructure indicators in 12 areas inhabited by Roma in Međimurje County

Organized Roads Electrical Water Gas Street- Telephone Road Area Sewerage waste inside of energy supply access light outlet access disposal settlement ü (25 ü (4 times Kuršanec ü û û ü ü Asphalt Asphalt outlets) a month) ü (50 ü (not Parag ü û û ü - Asphalt Asphalt outlets) used) Gornji ü û û û ü - ü Macadam Macadam Kuršanec Asphalt, ü (23 û (part of Pribislavec ü û ü ü ü Asphalt pedestrian- outlets) settlement) bike path ü (5 ü (2 times Orehovica ü - - ü - Asphalt Asphalt outlets) a month) Asphalt, Piškorovec ü ü û û ü ü û Asphalt pedestrian path ü (12 Kotoriba ü û û ü - û Asphalt Asphalt outlets) ü (42 Sitnice ü û û ü - ü Asphalt Asphalt outlets) Hlapičina ------ü (11 û (under Lončarevo ü û ü - ü - - outlets) construction) ü (5 Goričan ü - - - - ü - - outlets) Domašinec ü û (well) û û ü - ü Macadam Macadam Source: UNDP, field survey 2013 ity grid, where over 90% of households have access, tions for the Roma, 2012). Other researched areas in- although illegal outlets prevail. The most common habited by Roma also share similar spatial and social means of transportation is by bicycle. Domestic appli- characteristics. ances have become widely used in households (such as Social factors as development indicators, which en- washing machines, for example) as well as devices for compass living and work conditions, social, cultural leisure and entertainment (a majority of households and sport needs, health, education, services and es- have colour TV and about one-third has a radio). By pecially housing, are not satisfactory in areas inhab- using these utilities, the Roma population is adapting ited by Roma in Međimurje County. United Nations to contemporary housing standards, although still re- program on Housing defines appropriate housing as maining in social ghettos (Hodžić, 1985). Thus other more than a roof over one’s head. It includes space, utilities, such as access to the Internet, computers and physical access, appropriate insurance, structural sta- telephones, are underrepresented. Only 6 households bility and durability, adequate lighting, heating and have computers, while households with access to the ventilation, suitable basic infrastructure such as wa- Internet are not represented at all. ter supply, sanitary utilities, space for waste dispos- Regarding the housing standard (Table 6), most of al and an adequate and accessible location concern- the housing units were built in an unplanned man- ing place of work and living. All of the stated should ner by family members, using available materials and be available with affordable costs (National Strategy resulting with a modest quadrature. A large num- for Roma Inclusion, for the period 2013 to 2020). Most ber of facilities are less than 10 square meters in size. of it is non-existent in areas inhabited by Roma, al- More than three quarters of the settlement uses ex- though new construction or adaptions happened rela- ternal toilets. The consequences are visible in the un- tively recently (two thirds of housing objects was built attractive visual state of Kuršanec, marked by illegal or had adaptions after 1990) (Miletić, 2005). construction and an extremely low living standard Therefore authorities competent for matters of so- which supports the view that Roma live in conditions cial welfare should have up-to-date registers of so- far worse than the majority population (Living condi- cial and living conditions for Roma population. The

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) 233 Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county (Croatia) and the settlement of Kuršanec

Table 6. Selected infrastructural and housing indicators in Kuršanec, household level

Housing Infrastructural outlets Individual (family House construction Sewerage 0,0% members), 88,3% Construction material Brick, 98,5% Drinking water from household (water supply) 9,1% Average size 40,77 m² Access to warm water 9,6% Average room number 1,57 Gas 1,0% Average number of glass-windows 3,03 Electricity 92,9% External (private) 56,9% Telephone outlet 18,8% External (shared with Toilet location Internet 0,0% neighbours) 22,3% Internal (private) 9,1% Cell phone 50,8% Drinking water source Well, hand pump, 88,8% Car 17,3% Wood 67,0% Colour TV 89,9% Material used in cooking Gas (tank) 47,2% Bed for every family member 42,1% Material used for heating Wood, 99% Computer 3,0% Source: UNDP, field survey 2013

fact is, however, that social and economic problems ty. Altogether, 22 % immigrated from other settle- of the Roma minority are not solved successfully, due ments. As expected, the largest mobility occurs in the to measures implemented by competent authorities. young age-group. Thereby, 60 % of all migrations into Rather than implementing integrated social and eco- Kuršanec refer to the age-group of 15-19 years, while nomic incentives, these measures rely mostly on finan- larger age-groups, i.e. Roma up to 19 years of age, cov- cial imbursements with no follow-up. A way to create er more than 4/5 of all immigrants. According to gen- new opportunities and integrate Roma in Međimurje der characteristics, a predominance of Roma women is seen through the implementation of education pro- in immigration occurs, which is explained in the fol- grams, (re)qualification programs and targeted activi- lowing text. ties to reduce unemployment and social imbursement Table 7. Inhabitants of Kuršanec according to place of reliance. Therefore, it is necessary to solve infrastruc- immigration ture problems, adapt inadequate housing units and encourage housing integration of Roma families in Place of birth Number of immigrated persons (18+) municipalities and cities, but at the same time take care of the environment, in order to improve the qual- Pribislavec 20 ity of life in areas inhabited by Roma. Trnovec 20 Strmec* 15 Migratory characteristics of Roma people in Orehovica 8 Međimurje Piškorovec 8 Considering migratory characteristics of Roma, it Kotoriba 4 can be concluded that most of Roma population in Podturen 4 Međimurje County is indigenous. According to Cen- Sitnice 2 sus 2001, 84 % of Roma in Međimurje county lives in the same settlement since birth (Pokos, 2005), and the Varaždin* 2 data are confirmed by UNDP’s research in 2013. In the Goričan 2 settlement of Kuršanec for example, 1,005 inhabitants Gojanec* 1 or 88,62% lives in this settlement since birth, while Totovec 1 there is only 100 newly settled persons (Table 7). Domašinec 1 Analysis of migratory characteristics according to 1 age groups indicated new understandings (Table 8). Ludbreg* 1 On the grounds of birthplace and year of immigra- tion, migratory characteristics of Kuršanec inhab- Other settlements 10 itants are determined. Of 444 adult inhabitants, 100 Total 100 immigrated from other, mostly Roma settlements Source: UNDP, field survey 2013 of Međimurje and neighbouring Varaždin Coun- * Varaždin County

234 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) Slaven Kliček, Jelena Lončar 0 100 Rel. 18,0 82,0 0 18 immigrants 82 100 Abs. Total numberTotal of 0 100 Rel. 43,7 56,3 M 7 9 0 16 Abs. 0 100 13,1 Rel. 86,9 W 0 11 73 84 Abs. + 60 Total 0 - 19 groups 20 - 59 Large age 0 100 Rel. 75,0 25,0 0 immigrants 75 25 100 Abs. Total numberTotal of 0 100 Rel. 31,3 68,7 M 5 0 11 16 Abs. 0 100 Rel. 76,2 23,8 W 0 20 64 84 Abs. + 65 Total 0 - 14 15 - 65 groups Large age 5,0 9,0 3,0 0,0 6,0 4,0 100 Rel. 57,0 16,0 0,00 5 3 9 6 0 4 16 immigrants 57 0,0 100 Abs. Total numberTotal of 0,0 6,3 6,3 100 Rel. 12,5 12,5 18,8 18,8 25,0 0,00 M 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 4 16 0,0 Abs. 1,2 2,4 3,6 3,6 0,0 8,3 100 Rel. 17,8 63,1 0,00 W 1 7 2 3 3 0 0 15 53 84 Abs. + 40 5 – 9 0 – 4 Total 15 – 19 10 – 14 25 - 29 35 – 39 20 – 24 30 – 34 Age group Age Immigrants into Kuršanec according age to and gender, 2013.* Table 8. MigrationTable Kuršanec into * Data presented in the analysis migrations of includes adult inhabitants the of Roma part Kuršanec of which immigrated from other settlements Kuršanec, into according age at which to they migrated (starting when the first from 1950 caseof immigration Data aboutis recorded underage and to theup 2013). year inhabitantsRomaof partKuršanecof are not included because information on theiryear of immigration not is available. * The research has determined that there were no cases migration of in older age groups, therefore data on age groups above not 40 is included. UNDPSource: fieldsurvey, 2013

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) 235 Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county (Croatia) and the settlement of Kuršanec

Table 9. Householdes in Kuršanec with relatives in other settlements

Name of settlement Number of Share (%) of households households Pribislavec 70 35,53 Parag 66 33,50 Strmec* 45 22,84 Orehovica 41 20,81 Kotoriba 16 8,12 Piškorovec 10 5,08 Gornji Kuršanec 8 4,06 Sitnice 4 2,03 Podturen 3 1,52 Goričan 2 1,02 Puščine 2 1,02 Other settlements in Croatia 29 20,87 Marriage, 86 % Family circumstances, 6 % Total 296 156,4 Death of parents, fostering issues, remmariage, 5 % Source: UNDP, field survey 2013. Unknown, 3 % * Varaždin County Figure 4. Reasons for migration to Kuršanec Migration reasons explain the main motives for the settlement, while the rest of 196 households not- Roma to move into Kuršanec (Figure 4). Most of Ro- ed they have (mostly) close family in the settlement. ma’s spatial mobility (90 %) is connected with mat- Most answers relate to brothers or sisters in the settle- rimonial circumstances. Differences between Roma ment (174 households), then parents (96), mothers in men and women occur at this point; of the total num- law and fathers in law (58) and children (54). A signif- ber of immigrants to Kuršanec, 83,5 % are women who icant number of households noted they have relatives immigrate because of marriage reasons. in nearby settlements of Međimurje county (70,56 %) Further understanding of spatial mobility of Roma (Table 9) and abroad (17,26 %). in Kuršanec can be explained by analysing family re- The presented data on migration characteristics of lations on household level. Only one household in Roma point to the importance of traditional way of Kuršanec stated that they do not have any relatives in life and early matrimony as factors for better under-

Figure 5. Number of Roma residents

236 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) Slaven Kliček, Jelena Lončar standing spatial mobility of underage Roma. Large dominant in most areas2. Besides housing units, there number of the Kuršanec households with family ties are practically no other institutions or facilities with in neighbouring areas inhabited by Roma confirm other purposes. But the quality of infrastructural fa- the link between the spatial mobility of Roma and cilities in settlements with several functions is ques- traditional family values based on specific social or- tionable (cases of Orehovica and Piškorovec with ganization of extended families and Roma family re- existing recreational functions, i.e. unmaintained lations (Posavec, 2000). According to Hrvatić (2004) playgrounds). The monofunctional settlement struc- there are two different Roma statuses; the isolated ture brings us to a conclusion that Roma people sat- one in the rural surroundings with preserved eth- isfy their primary needs in settlements with the ma- nical and cultural self-consciousness, and the other jority population, where most of supply, educational where Roma people live in a non-segregated way with and health facilities are located. The stated is realized the majority population and mostly in urban areas. regarding supply and health needs, but from the pre- The author also highlights Međimurje and 14 satel- vious analysis it is evident that economic and social lite Roma settlements of different sizes, connected interactions, as most relevant functions from a social with kin roles and family ties. The Roma society con- and economy perspective, are practically non-exist- siders family as a basis of organization, which part- ent. Minimum formal employment, low work activi- ly explains marginalization of Roma; a high degree ty, large shares of social incomes and low education- of self-dependence of Roma families, existing also in al levels, leaves these areas in Međimurje’s periphery. the economic aspect (Štambuk, 2005), allows exist- Exceptions are Roma employed in seasonal work (al- ence in spatially segregated areas. It is assumed that though a small number of cases), who often change Roma people migrate between Roma settlements in places of residence, and Roma who collect and pro- family groups rather than individually (Štambuk, cess secondary resources. Cases of theft in neighbour- 2005). Economic migration does not occur, except in ing agricultural areas occur in doing so (where Roma a minor number of cases, which implies lower work people are oftentimes considered as most likely sus- activity of Roma population, in spite of a favourable pects), as well as prohibited waste burning, which age structure. Main motives for migration, such as leads to conflicts with local inhabitants. new work opportunities, possibilities to improve life City of Čakovec, as a functional centre for a large standard and make higher earnings, which are com- part of Međimurje, does not influence Kuršanec, mon for the general population (Nejašmić, 2005), are which is administratively part of the Čakovec area. less important in the Roma situation because of pre- The rest of the areas populated with Roma are located viously mentioned ways of making earnings and im- near smaller work centres, such as Kotoriba, Nedelišće portance of traditional values. and Mursko Središće. The functional orientation of these centres does not influence areas inhabited by Functions of Roma settlements Roma people, as is the case with Čakovec as well. When analysing functions of Roma settlements, it The conducted analysis carried out the fact that the is necessary to highlight that areas populated with health function in areas populated with Roma is non- Roma are not separated statistical settlements (except existent, as well as recreational ones. Sport facilities, Parag and Piškorovec), although they are spatially and sport halls, playgrounds and fields, as well as drug- ethnically segregated. Therefore, taking into consider- stores, are missing in these areas. ation their rural location in Međimurje’s hinterland, But the recreational function shows some specifici- it is logical to conclude that Roma people satisfy most ty regarding the Roma population. Recreation is con- of the needs outside settlements, as the settlements nected with Roma settlements; that is, different ways of themselves lack basic facilities. socialization in Roma families and traditional values To better understand functional orientation of ar- occur in link with recreation. It is this form of social- eas populated by Roma, data on the infrastructure ization that encourages cultural and language preser- is used. In Figure 6 we can analyse these functions, vation, but at the same time reduces interaction be- based on the research of Roma settlements in Prek- tween Roma people and the majority population, thus murje county, Slovenia (Zupančić, 2007), in which further playing a role in segregation and social mis- functions of living and housing, education, recreation, balance. Although 90 % of Kuršanec’s adult inhabit- work and supply are used as representative indicators of processes and structures regarding Roma popula- 2 Based on the conducted research, there was no available data tion in rural area. This paper adds health function to to determine if certain functions existed in certain settlements the analysis. (indicated on the functional orientation map). It is assumed A monofunctional orientation of Roma areas is ev- that these functions are non-existent in these settlements, due to their overall low infrastructure, economic and social stand- ident from the analysis, with housing functions as ard.

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) 237 Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county (Croatia) and the settlement of Kuršanec

Figure 6. Functional structure of areas populated by Roma

ants claim they speak Croatian fluently, only 1,8 % use to the conclusion that besides socio-cultural habits of Croatian as their mother tongue. On the other hand, Roma people there are no significant functional fac- 98 % stated that they use Roma language (“bajaški”) tors which mobilize the Roma community, as Roma as mother tongue. The language issues, among other, interactions with the majority population occur rarely. may be seen as obstacles in interacting with local peo- Unemployment and unfavourable education struc- ple and seeking employment. ture leaves these areas in the rural periphery without Kuršanec has a more favourable situation in com- adequate education, recreation and supply infrastruc- parison with other settlements; a football field and ture. In that way, identification of economic and ed- children’s playground have been built, as well as kind- ucational potential as well as diversification of social er garden and a grocery store. In the Spatial plan for resources of the Roma community is somewhat diffi- County Međimurje, Kuršanec is the only Roma settle- cult. This situation is at the same time the reason and ment with defined recreational, educational and sup- stimulation for further isolation of Roma community. ply functions. The initiative to found a kinder garden - When researching the quality of communal and so- and the adjoining family centre - is an example of new cial infrastructure in Roma settlements (Rogić, 2005), projects seeking integration and functional improve- Roma people identify certain disadvantages. Accord- ment in areas inhabited with Roma. ing to the results, the most desirable facilities which Of all the previously mentioned functions, it is im- are missing in settlements are schools and kinder gar- portant to emphasise education, because Roma leader- dens, then infirmaries and drugstores, grocery stores ship and local government of Međimurje County have and sport and recreational facilities. clearly identified education as priority (Strategy of Ru- An encouragement to further improve the existing ral Development in Međimurje County, 2009). Conse- conditions is the establishment of the Family centre quently, this function in Roma settlements should be Kuršanec with a complementary kinder garden. UN- more prioritized. Local governments should be con- DP’s presence over the last few years has set to mo- sidered as bearers of positive change and the ones re- tion new changes as well as set path to new actors. The sponsible for developing new functions in Roma set- Social agricultural cooperation was established and tlements. In order to implement changes, cooperation started with ecological agricultural production. A of the Roma community, education institutions and cooperation which gathers unemployed Roma wom- NGO associations must be realized in order to estab- en between 17 and 35 years of age started with activ- lish a complete education system and to further con- ities as well. Potential to improve the socio-econom- tribute to social and economic development (Hrvatić, ic situation of Roma is seen in starting Roma family 2005). farms and ideas to legalize crafts in which Roma peo- In this context, the problem of functional orienta- ple are traditionally involved, such as collecting and tion of areas inhabited by Roma is emphasised. Ex- processing secondary raw material. At the same time isting situation in the Roma part of Kuršanec leads a sensible question is asked: how to improve the living

238 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) Slaven Kliček, Jelena Lončar standard of Roma people and stop further segregation Degradation and devastation in areas inhabited by through integration and not assimilation. Roma starts with unplanned construction of mostly housing units of bad quality. Various, mostly discard- The state of environment in Roma settlements ed materials are used to build such objects on coun- The environment is the total visual manifestation of ty, state or municipal land. Existing buildings – if any topography, shapes, created patterns. It is a result of – or the environment is not taken into consideration numerous factors and processes which happened or (Figure 7 and 8). are happening in space. It reflects the former and The ethnic border between areas inhabited by present relations of people towards the environment Roma and the majority population has its own spa- (Spatial plan for Međimurje County, 2001). The en- tial mark. These visual connotations mark a specific vironment in which Roma people are settled is of- cultural landscape of Roma-inhabited areas, whereas ten characterized by the lack of green areas, a num- they contribute to perceptions of Roma as closed com- ber of waste disposal sites (in the settlements itself), munities (Šlezak, 2010). uncared-for common areas and an overall disrupted By coherent planning of settlements and building state of environment. areas, the sustainability of these settlements could be

Figure 7. Children in Kuršanec

Figure 8. House in Kuršanec

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) 239 Analysis of migration trends and functions of areas inhabited by Roma: example of Međimurje county (Croatia) and the settlement of Kuršanec

achieved without further endangering of the environ- Authors also believe that local governments and ment. It is crucial to utilize space rationally, which Roma representatives should jointly design a develop- must be done by analysing its capacity, needs and the mental plan for areas populated by Roma, since they optimal usability of available resources. The objectiv- possess first-hand experience and insight concerning ity behind this model of use must be based on actu- Roma settlements. al and future population numbers, economic capabili- ties and specific needs of certain settlements. References Atlas of Roma in Međimurje County, UNDP in Cro- Conclusion atia 2013. Available at: www.hr.undp.org (in Croa- This paper tried to explain some of the characteris- tian) tics and shortcomings of areas inhabited by Roma in Action plan for inclusion of Roma in Međimurje Međimurje County, including infrastructure, eco- county from 2013 to 2015 Čakovec, 2013. Available nomic status and functions of settlements. Kuršanec at: www.medjimurska-zupanija.hr (in Croatian) settlement was selected as a case study, serving as ba- First-Dilić, R. 1985. Space stabilization and Roma do- sis for certain conclusions for other areas inhabited by mestification.Sociologija sela 23, 35-53. (in Croatian) Roma. Hodžić, A. 1985. Living standard of Roma households. Although case study of Kuršanec provides under- Sociologija sela 23, 27-34. (in Croatian) standings of the Roma situation with its following Hrvatić, N. 2004. Roma in Croatia: From migration to problems very well, it is recommended to conduct intercultural relations. Migracijske i etničke teme similar analysis for other areas too. The fact is that the 20(4), 367–385. (in Croatian) level of segregation of Roma is higher in Croatia than Hrvatić, N. (ed. Štambuk, M.) 2005. Education of in certain neighbouring countries. This tells us about Roma in Croatia: assumption for better life quality?. the necessary and emergent need to change our atti- In: Biblioteka Zbornici „Kako žive hrvatski Romi“, tudes towards the Roma population. Besides the men- Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, 177- tioned, other numerous issues have been indicated 200 pp. (in Croatian) during the analysis, which need higher engagement of Report on enforcement of Action plan for implemen- local and county, but also state officials. tation of National strategy for Roma inclusion in The existing state is characterized by the lack of period 2013-2015, 2014. Available at: www.vlada.gov. central functions and the predominance of housing hr (in Croatian) in Roma settlements, which also contributes to seg- Josipovič, D., Repolusk, P. 2003. Demographic Char- regation. In the so called social ghettos where Roma acteristics of the Romany in Prekmurje. Acta Geo- live, it is necessary to insure access to new facilities, graphica Slovenica 43(1), 127-147. employment and education opportunities in order to Miletić, G.-M. (ed. Štambuk, M.) 2005. Dwelling con- decrease the existing social distance. A great impor- ditions and dwelling aspiration of Roma). In: Bib- tance behind this approach lies in the functional val- lioteka Zbornici „Kako žive hrvatski Romi“, Insti- orisation of Roma informal life, which was in many tut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, 159-176 cases an obstacle to quantification and objective con- pp. (in Croatian) sideration of Roma social resources and, consequen- National strategy for inclusion of Roma for the period tially, to efficient employment policies as well. 2013-2020. Vlada Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb, 2012. From the aforementioned experiences, we believe (in Croatian) this kind of approach can recognize the economic Nejašmić, I. 2005. Demogeogaphy: population in spa- potential of Roma people. However, we should have tial relations and processes). Zagreb, 283 pp. (in in mind that spatial planning of areas populated by Croatian) Roma, legalization of existing construction and fur- Pokos, N. (ed. Štambuk, M.) 2005. Demogeograph- ther construction ventures must be an integral part ic analysis of Roma on statistical basis. In: Bibli- of this approach, in order to improve the inadequate oteka Zbornici „Kako žive hrvatski Romi“, Insti- infrastructural standard of the analysed areas. Fur- tut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, 35-52. (in ther analyses are necessary to adequately compre- Croatian) hend the complex issues of Međimurje’s Roma pop- Posavec, K. 2000. Sociocultural characteristics of ulation, as the largest Roma community in one of Roma – From exile to integration. Društvena Croatia’s counties. Previous research and papers are istraživanja 46-47, 229 – 250. (in Croatian) more than a decade old so it would be useful to ‘re- Spatial plan of Međimurje County 2001. Zavod za vise’ them and ascertain if and in which way the sit- prostorno uređenje Međimurske županije. Čakovec. uation has changed. Available at: www.zavod.hr (in Croatian)

240 Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) Slaven Kliček, Jelena Lončar

Development strategy of Međimurje County 2011- Šlezak, H., Šakaja, L. 2012. Spatial problems of social 2013, 2011. Available at: www.redea.hr (in Croatian) distance towards Roma.Hrvatski geografski glasnik Rogić, I. (ed. Štambuk, M.) 2005. Some socioecolog- 74(1), 91-109. (in Croatian) ical determinants of Roma settlements. In: Bibli- Štambuk, M. 2000. Roma in social space of Croatia. oteka Zbornici „Kako žive hrvatski Romi“, Institut Društvena istraživanja 9 (46-47), 197-210. (in Cro- društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, 53-90 pp. (in atian) Croatian) Štambuk, M. (ed. Štambuk, M.), 2005. Characteristics Strategy of rural development of Međimurje Coun- of Roma family – households. In: Biblioteka Zbor- ty 2009. Regionalna razvojna agencija Međimurje, nici „Kako žive hrvatski Romi“, Institut društvenih Čakovec. Available at: www.redea.hr (in Croatian) znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, 91-110 pp. (in Croatian) Šlezak, H. 2009. Spatial segregation of Roma popu- Šućur, Z. 2000. Roma as marginalise group. Društvena lation in Međimurje County. Hrvatski geografski istraživanja 9 (46-47), 211-227. (in Croatian) glasnik 71(2), 65-81. (in Croatian) Zupančić, J. 2007. Roma settlements as special part of Šlezak, H. 2010. Demogeografska i sociokulturna settlement system in Slovenia. Dela 27, 215-246. (in obilježja romske populacije u Međimurju (Demo- Croatian) geographic and sociocultural characteristics of Živić, D., Pokos, N. 2005. Selected sociodemographic Roma population in Međimurje). Magistarski rad, indicators of Croatia and county development. Re- Geografski odsjek Prirodoslovno-matematičkog vija za sociologiju 36(3-4), 207-224. (in Croatian) fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.

Geographica Pannonica • Volume 20, Issue 4, 227–241 (December 2016) 241