15.10.2026
Field research in Celje: What is life like in the city?
What makes a home a pleasant place to live? What influences how people travel to school or work? Why do young people leave their city, and what would encourage them to return? Within the MAG-NET Alliance, we explored these and other questions through conversations and fieldwork with people who encounter these challenges in Celje every day.
Five thematic teams investigated affordable housing, sustainable mobility, urban atmosphere, Industry 4.0, and energy communities. Their work followed the Urban Real-Life Learning Labs (U-RLLL) methodology, which is based on involving people in developing and testing solutions. The methodological framework was developed by the University of Ljubljana’s Institute for Innovation and Development (IRI UL), while teams from the project partner organisations conducted the field research in collaboration with local stakeholders.
Understanding context and everyday realities
The ethnographic approach we use in our work focuses on how people live, make decisions, and make sense of the world around them. It considers people’s decisions and expectations in close connection with their relationships, habits, responsibilities, and opportunities. In applied projects (projects in which research supports the development of practical solutions), this understanding helps identify needs and barriers that may be overlooked when attention is focused solely on technical implementation, often resulting in solutions that are less effective in practice. Research can therefore change how we understand the very problem a solution is intended to address.
In MAG-NET, this approach was put into practice through a combination of methods tailored to each challenge. The teams used semi-structured interviews, focus groups, expert discussions, workshops, and field visits. In some cases, these were complemented by surveys, spatial analyses, and reviews of existing research.
This type of work requires preparation. At a workshop led by IRI UL researchers in February, the teams developed research questions, identified target groups, and selected appropriate methods. They also addressed informed consent, data protection, and the inclusion of diverse groups.
Research questions, however, served as a starting point for conversations rather than a rigid list limiting what might emerge in the field. Being open to the unexpected is, after all, an essential part of field research. For example, the final reports on housing and urban atmosphere describe how participants raised additional topics arising from their own experiences, beyond those covered by the original questions. Rather than simply testing initial assumptions, the research therefore brought to light further questions that the teams might not have considered at the outset.
Conversations reveal what surveys cannot
The work of the Affordable Housing team offers a good example of the value of in-depth conversations. In a focus group with older residents, the discussion went beyond asking whether they would be willing to live in a shared housing community. It began with participants’ personal housing histories and associations with the idea of home. The facilitators then used visual cards to introduce different models of communal living. This approach enabled a discussion of concrete expectations, concerns, and conditions under which participants might consider changing their current living arrangements.
The facilitator summarised the participants’ initial reservations as follows: “It sounds great, but I wouldn’t want it for myself.” After being introduced to specific models, their willingness increased slightly. At the same time, it became clear that the central question was not only where and how they would live, but above all, with whom. Participants valued the opportunity to get to know prospective housemates, privacy, having their own bedroom and bathroom, and the freedom to choose when to socialise. They also favoured a gradual approach: starting with a daytime community before potentially moving towards communal living.
This is particularly important when developing affordable housing solutions. Rather than simply measuring support for a particular housing model, the team gained insight into the conditions under which people would find such an arrangement acceptable. Elderly participants also pointed out that the main problem with their existing homes was not necessarily their size, but costs and a lack of accessibility features, such as stairs, missing lifts, or unsuitable bathrooms. The research therefore opened up possibilities for considering both new housing models and adaptations that would enable people to remain in their own homes.
Numbers reveal trends, experiences help explain them
In the Sustainable Mobility challenge, particular attention was given to bringing together different sources of data. The team analysed 286 survey responses from primary school employees, used data on pupils’ travel habits from the Aktivno v šolo (Active Travel to School) programme, and interviewed school management representatives and two local advocates for the redesign of Vodnikova Street. Data on pupils’ residential locations were also used for spatial accessibility analyses. Each source shed light on a different aspect of how people travel in their daily lives and what prevents them from changing their habits.
One teacher described her experience as follows: “I travel to and from work carrying bags full of materials, handouts and books, and I live 25 kilometres from my workplace.”
Such a statement adds important context to the general finding that someone travels to work by car. At the same time, the analysis showed that some employees commute over much shorter distances, with convenient and often free parking also playing an important role in their decisions. The shared category of “commutes by car” therefore does not mean that everyone has the same reasons for doing so or the same opportunities to switch to another mode of transport.
A different gap emerged among pupils: while actual travel patterns varied between schools, their preferences for cycling, using scooters, or rollerblading were similar. The research focused on the conditions that enable or prevent these preferences from becoming reality, from infrastructure and actual road safety to how parents perceive the safety of routes. The findings therefore point to the need to combine infrastructure improvements with accompanied journeys to school, engagement with parents, and support for schools, rather than introducing a single measure across all school catchment areas.
Different perspectives change the perception of a challenge
In the Urban Atmosphere challenge, participants described life in Celje in terms of proximity to services, spontaneous social encounters, and the convenience of everyday routines. The city’s compactness allows them to move around independently, save time, and meet friends and acquaintances spontaneously. One participant summed this up by saying: “Living in Celje means freedom.”
The conversations also helped distinguish between the number of events taking place and the feeling that a city is alive. Several participants emphasised the importance of regular, everyday activities rather than occasional major events. Others pointed to overlapping schedules and fragmented communication about events. The findings therefore broadened the question “Does Celje need more events?” into a discussion about how events are scheduled, how organisers cooperate, and how accessible information about activities is. Young people also highlighted the need for informal spaces where they can develop their own initiatives and communities, rather than simply attend organised activities.
In the Industry 4.0 challenge, it was similarly important to bring together the perspectives of groups approaching the same issue from different starting points. Conversations with business representatives highlighted the need for skilled workers and relevant competencies, while discussions with young people revealed their aspirations for the future. The young participants did not describe leaving Celje to study or live elsewhere as a rejection of the city. Their potential return was linked to the quality of employment opportunities, which they knew relatively little about locally. Alongside pay, they valued positive working relationships, mentoring, opportunities for development, and meaningful work.
Comparing these perspectives broadened the question of attracting skilled workers: how can local companies be introduced to young people early enough, how can they gain practical experience, and how can they become active contributors to local development? The report also connects economic competitiveness with affordable housing, mobility, and quality of life. In everyday life, the project’s five challenges are not separate from one another.
Field research can lead to new collaborations
In the Energy Communities challenge, company visits, presentations of good practices, and expert discussions played an important role. These activities shed light not only on technical opportunities, such as the use of waste heat, renewable energy sources, and the integration of energy needs, but also on organisational questions: who would coordinate joint activities, how decisions would be made, and how responsibilities and benefits would be shared.
The field research report describes a progression from initial discussions and field visits to working meetings focused on the Energy Alliance of Celje, an expert working group, and project proposals. These research activities created opportunities for collaboration between institutions with different interests and responsibilities. Trust, transparency, clearly defined mutual benefits, and regular meetings emerged as essential conditions for continued cooperation. At the same time, the report distinguishes between potential and feasibility: specific investments will require further technical, legal, and financial assessments.
From individual findings to shared insights
Fieldwork does not end with the final conversation. Notes, summaries, responses, and observations need to be compared, organised, and interpreted. Researchers must distinguish between what a participant actually said, their interpretation of that statement, and the recommendations the team develops on that basis. It is this process that turns the collected material into useful foundations for developing solutions.
During the analysis, the teams compared findings from different groups of participants, identifying recurring themes, complementary perspectives, and differences of opinion. The latter are equally important, as they help explain why people experience the same challenges differently.
A common message also emerged from the five reports: there is often a considerable gap between the existence of an opportunity and its actual uptake. A support programme is not necessarily recognised as a career opportunity; technical potential does not automatically translate into a joint energy project; and a physical space does not necessarily become a community in which people want to participate. Participants’ experiences, concerns, and expectations help us understand this gap.
A foundation for the next step
Recognising the limitations of the collected data is also an important part of the research process. The reports do not provide a single, statistically representative picture of all residents. In the housing challenge, some of the originally planned target groups could not be included because of limited responses and time constraints. In the energy communities challenge, the findings so far mainly reflect institutional and business perspectives, while the direct experiences of residents and vulnerable groups require further attention. These limitations indicate which groups will need to be involved as work on the challenges continues.
The field research reports already identify several directions for further work: adapting mobility measures to different school catchment areas, establishing clearer conditions for communal living, connecting young people with local companies at an earlier stage, improving the coordination of activities and events across the city, and developing new forms of cooperation in the energy sector.
The value of fieldwork lies not only in its findings, but also in gaining a better understanding of the people for whom solutions are intended and the circumstances in which they will use them. This increases the likelihood that proposed solutions will address real needs, be feasible in practice, and be well received by those they are intended to serve. In the next phase of MAG-NET, the teams will work with stakeholders to apply these insights to the development and testing of solutions in the local environment.