SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Engineering / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 4

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Based Analysis of Accessibility to Schools in Çankırı (Türkiye)

Neşe Duman(Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi)0000-0002-5398-8388
Mustafa Recep İrcan(ÇANKIRI KARATEKİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3787-7688
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, accessibility values in kindergartens and primary schools are very low.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Education is vital in terms of providing the individual with behaviours in the desired direction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is necessary to ensure a sustainable and accessible education planning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, accessibility values in kindergartens and primary schools are very low.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Accessibility · Network Analysis · Çankırı

Abstract

Education is vital in terms of providing the individual with behaviours in the desired direction. It is necessary to ensure a sustainable and accessible education planning. Thus, it is important that children of school age have access to educational institutions. Because every child who is not in the accessible field is exposed to inequality of opportunity. In addition, studies have shown that the education of these children in schools located at long distances may cause problems in their physical and social development as well as affecting their academic success. For this purpose, the study analyzed the accessibility of children of educational age to public schools in Çankırı city. Accessibility maps for schools were produced by performing network analysis in this software. The distances in the Spatial Planning Regulation were considered to determine the accessibility problem. According to the results, accessibility values in kindergartens and primary schools are very low. In secondary and high schools, it is observed that there is no accessibility problem except in some neighbourhoods. Especially in Esentepe and Kırkevler neighbourhoods in the area, it is observed that accessibility is insufficient due to the lack of educational institutions. The findings obtained from the study provide information to school administrators, local governments, city planners, educators and local residents. Knowing which areas of the city have access problems, the structures and which areas the city is developing towards, will be a guide in the education and urban planning that will be conducted.

🔖

Cite This Article

Duman, N., İrcan, M. R. (2026). Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Based Analysis of Accessibility to Schools in Çankırı (Türkiye). Turkish Journal of Engineering, Volume: 10 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.2006372

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Ertürk, S. (1972). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: Yelkentepe Yayınları.
  2. Alkan, C. (1997). Eğitim Teknolojisi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  3. Tozlu, N. (2003). Eğitim Felsefi Üzerine Makaleler, Elis Yayınları.
  4. Hansen, W. G. (1959). How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25 (2): 73–76. doi:10.1080/01944365908978307.
  5. Dalvi M. Q. & Martin K. M. (1976). The measurement of accessibility: Some preliminary results. Transportation 5: 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165245
  6. Weibull, J. W. (1980). On the Numerical Measurement of Accessibility. Environment and Planning A, 12(1), 53 – 67. doi:10.1068/a120053
  7. Bach, L. (1981). The problem of Aggregation and Distance For Analyses of Accessibility and Access Opportunity in Location-Allocation Models, Environment and Planning A, 13, 955– 978.
  8. Şen, Ö. (2019). Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi ilçelerinin coğrafi ve potansiyel erişilebilirlik analizi. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi 73: 61-66. doi:10.17211/tcd.544288
  9. Tango, U, & Topçu, M. (2021). Kentsel Donatı Alanlarının Erişilebilirlik Analizi: Mardin Kızıltepe Örneği. Türkiye Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Dergisi, 3(2): 104-115.
  10. Schlossberg, M., Greene, J., Phillips, P. P., Johnson, B., & Parker, B., (2006). School Trips: Effects of Urban Form and Distance on Travel Mode. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (3): Routledge: 337–346. doi:10.1080/01944360608976755.
  11. Mitra, R., Buliung, R. N. & Roorda. M. J. (2010). Built Environment and School Travel Mode Choice in Toronto, Canada. Transportation Research Record 2156 (1): SAGE Publications Inc: 150–159. doi:10.3141/2156-17.
  12. Woods, C. B., & Nelson, N. M. (2014). An evaluation of distance estimation accuracy and its relationship to transport mode for the home-to-school journey by adolescents. Journal of Transport & Health, 1(4), 274–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.07.001.
  13. Ewing, R., Forinash, C. V. & Schroeer, W., (2005). Neighborhood Schools and Sidewal Connections: What Are the Impacts on Travel Mode Choice and Vehicle Emissions? TR News 23: 4–10.
  14. Müller, S., Tscharaktschiew, S., & Haase, K., (2008). Travel-to-School Mode Choice Modelling and Patterns of School Choice in Urban Areas. Journal of Transport Geography 16 (5): 342–357. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.12.004
  15. McDonald, N. C. (2008). Children’s Mode Choice for the School Trip: The Role of Distance and School Location in Walking to School. Transportation 35 (1): 23–35. doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9135-7.
  16. Timperio, A., Ball, K., Salmon, J., Roberts, R., Giles-Corti, B., Simmons, D., Baur, L. A. & Crawford, D. (2006). Personal, Family, Social, and Environmental Correlates of Active Commuting to School. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30 (1): 45–51. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.047.
  17. Bringolf-Isler, B., Grize, L., Mäder, U., Ruch, N., Sennhauser, F. H. & Braun-Fahrländer, C. (2008). Personal and Environmental Factors Associat-ed with Active Commuting to School in Switzerland. Preventive Medicine 46 (1): 67–73. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.015.
  18. Babey, S. H., Hastert, T. A., Huang, W., & Brown E. R., (2009). Sociodemographic, Family, and Environmental Factors Associated with Active Commuting to School among Us Adolescents. Journal of Public Health Policy 30 (1): S203–S220. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.61.
  19. Larsen, K., Gilliland, J., Hess, P., Tucker, P., Irwin, J., and He, M. (2009). The Influence of the Physical Environment and Sociodemographic Characteristics on Children’s Mode of Travel to and from School. American Journal of Public Health 99 (3): American Public Health Association: 520–526. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.135319.
  20. Lin, J-J, & Chang, H-T, (2010). Built Environment Effects on Children’s School Travel in Taipai: Independence and Travel Mode. Urban Studies 47 (4): SAGE Publications Ltd: 867–889. doi:10.1177/0042098009351938.
  21. Woods, C.B. & Nelson, N. M. (2014). An Evaluation of Distance Estima-tion Accuracy and Its Relationship to Transport Mode for the Home to School Journey by Adolescents. Walking & Cycling: The Contributions of Health and Transport Geography 1 (4): 274–278. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2014.07.001.
  22. Pojani, D. & Boussauw, K. (2014). Keep the Children Walking: Active School Travel in Tirana, Albania. Journal of Transport Geography 38 (June): 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.05.012.
  23. Christiansen, L. B., Toftager, M., Schipperijn, J., Ersbøll, A. K., Giles-Corti, B. & Troelsen, J. (2014). School Site Walkability and Active School Transport Association, Mediation and Moderation. Journal of Transport Geog-raphy 34 (January): 7–15. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.10.012.
  24. Ramage, R., & Howley, A., (2005). Parents’ Perceptions of the Rural School Bus Ride. The Rural Educator 27 (1): 15–20. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v27i1.500.
  25. Howley, C. B., Howley, A. A. & Shamblen, S., (2001). Riding the School Bus: A Comparison of the Rural and Suburban Experience in Five States. Journal of Research in Rural Education 17 (1): 41–63.
  26. Edwards, D. S. (2021). Another One Rides the Bus: The Impact of School Transportation on Student Outcomes in Michigan. https://www.daniellesandersonedwards.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AnotherOne-Rides-the-Bus-AEFP-2021.pdf
  27. Spence, B. (2000). Long School Bus Rides: Stealing the Joy of Childhood. Covenant House, Inc., of Charleston, WV. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441640.pdf
  28. Thomas, C. A. (2016). Going the Distance! How Distance to School Relates to Education Outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles: Universi-ty of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/97f0n3mq
  29. Fox, M. (1996). “Rural Transportation as a Daily Constraint in Students’ Lives.” Rural Educator 17 (2): 22–27.
  30. Talen, E. (2001). School, Community, and Spatial Equity: An Empirical Investigation of Access to Elementary Schools in West Virginia. Annals of the Associa-tion of American Geographers 91 (3): Routledge: 465–486. doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00254
  31. Andre-Bechely, L. (2007). Finding Space and Managing Distance: Public School Choice in an Urban California District. Urban Studies 44 (7): SAGE Publications Ltd: 1355–1376. doi:10.1080/00420980701302304
  32. Official Gazette. 2014. Mekânsal Planlar Yapı Yönetmeliği. (2014). Yayın Tarihi, Sayısı: 29030. Vol. 29030.
  33. Güray, E., & Kemeç, S. (2016). Van Metropolitan Alanında Bulunan Okul Öncesi, İlk ve Orta Dereceli Okulların Mekânsal Erişilebilirlik Analizi. in, 582–589. http://uzalcbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016_1275.pdf
  34. Sezer, A., Deniz, M. & Topuz, M. (2018). Uşak Şehrinde Okullara Erişebilirliğin Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) İle Analizi. Journal of History Culture and Art Research 7 (5): 470–494
  35. Yasak, Ü. (2020). Evolution of Accessibility to Educational Institutions in City of Kula by Network Analysis. In Advances Social Science Research, edited by V. Krystev, M. S. Dınu, R. Efe, and E. Atasoy, 343–357. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press
  36. Yasak, Ü. (2021). Sürdürülebilir Kentleşme Bağlamında Kentsel Hizmetlere Erişebilirlik: Eğitim Kurumlarına Erişebilirlik Yönüyle Muğla Kenti Üzerine Bir Analiz. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research 8 (74): 2353–2367. http://dx.doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.2672
  37. Güngör, S., Güngör, Ş., & Taşdelen, H. İ. (2020). Okullara Erişebilirliğin CBS Yardımı İle Analizi: Nevşehir Örneği. In Kapadokya Araştırmaları İnsan ve Mekân, edited by Şenay Güngör and Fatih Adıgüzel, 193–207. İnceleme-Araştırma 227. Konya: Literatürkacademia Nüve Kültür Merkezi
  38. Duman, N., & İrcan, M. R. (2020). Karaköprü’deki Okullara Erişilebilirliğin Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) Tabaninda Analizi. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education, 42, 543-566. https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.745603
  39. Deniz, M. (2023). Analysis of Accessibility to Public Schools with GIS: A Case Study of Salihli City (Turkey). Children’s Geographies 22 (1): 30–51. doi:10.1080/14733285.2023.2209532.
  40. Türkan, O. (2020). Çankırı şehri sınırları ve yönetsel coğrafya bağlamında mahallelerin yeniden değerlendirilmesi. In Çankırı şehir coğrafyası, edited by M. M. Kale ve O. Türkan. 99-133. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel Eserler
  41. Yasak, Ü. (2019). An analysis on the accessibility of family health centers in Kula city. In New Trends İn Social Sciences, edited by Özdoğru, H. Çetin, T. Kara, H, 93-104. Lithuanian: SRA (Strategic Researches Academy) Academic Publishing
  42. Soydan, O. (2021). Analysis of Accessibility to Family Health Centers in Antalya Using GIS. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 9, 2442-2448. doi: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9isp.2442-2448.4846
  43. İrcan, M. R., Aslaner, E., & Duman, N. (2023). Eğitim Kurumlarına Erişilebilirliğin Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) Tabanında Analizine Bir Örnek: Altıeylül (Balıkesir). Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.54558/jiss.1158637
  44. Rowe, E. E. (2016). Middle-Class School Choice in Urban Spaces: The Economics of Public Schooling and Globalized Education Reform. 1st ed. London: Routledge.
  45. OpenStreetMap contributors. 2021. https://download.geofabrik.de/europe/turkey.html#
  46. Howley, C. B., Howley, A, A. & Shamblen, S. (2001). Riding the School Bus: A Comparison of the Rural and Suburban Experience in Five States. Journal of Research in Rural Education 17 (1): 41–63. Edwards, D. S. (2021). Another One Rides the Bus: The Impact of School Transportation on Student Outcomes in Michigan. https://www.daniellesandersonedwards.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AnotherOne-Rides-the-Bus-AEFP-2021.pdf
  47. Sert, E., Osmanlı, N., Eruc, R., & Uyan, M. (2017). Determination of transportation networks base on the optimal public transportation policy using spatial and network analysis methods: a case of the Konya, Turkey. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 2(1), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.286034
  48. Batur, M., Alkan, R. M., Karaman, H., & Özener, H. (2025). Multi-dimensional optimization of nuclear emergency shelters: balancing capacity, evacuation efficiency, and supply accessibility. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 10(2), 244-261. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1596244
  49. Bünyan Ünel, F., Kuşak, L., Yakar, M., & Doğan, H. (2023). Coğrafi bilgi sistemleri ve analitik hiyerarşi prosesi kullanarak Mersin ilinde otomatik meteoroloji gözlem istasyonu yer seçimi. Geomatik, 8(2), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.1136951
  50. Orhan, O., Kırtıloğlu, O. S., & Yakar, M. (2020). Konya Kapalı Havzası Obruk Envanter Bilgi Sisteminin Oluşturulması. Geomatik, 5(2), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.29128/geomatik.577167
  51. Mohammed Hassan, G., Valizadeh Kamran, K., Ghanbari, A., & Ajaj, Q. (2025). GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis for Solar Energy Cells Site Selection Over Kirkuk City. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 10(1), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1800036
  52. Official Gazette. 2014. Mekânsal Planlar Yapı Yönetmeliği. (2014). Yayın Tarihi, Sayısı: 29030. Vol. 29030.