Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

Development of urban hierarchies at the country and regional levels in Turkey

Pages
131–149
DOI
—
🏛️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)

This results in shortage of jobs and thus it becomes a vicious cycle for underdevelopment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the hierarchical distribution of differ-ent city size groups at the country and regional level between 1945 and 2015 in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:During this period, previous studies have illustrated that human mobility played an important role for the physical and socio-economic transformation of cities and regions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This results in shortage of jobs and thus it becomes a vicious cycle for underdevelopment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the hierarchical distribution of differ-ent city size groups at the country and regional level between 1945 and 2015 in Turkey. During this period, previous studies have illustrated that human mobility played an important role for the physical and socio-economic transformation of cities and regions. At the country level, first, while the growth rate of the number of smaller cities was higher than the others, the growth rate of population was the highest in the large cities. However, later, despite the population increase, the number of small cities was decreased due to transformation of economy from rural to industrial. During the post-modern era, globalization contributed even further the growth of large cities. As a result, hierarchical distribution of different size cities according to regions reveals the wide gap with respect to urbanization between the East and the West of the country. While the metropolitan cities are over urbanized in the urban hierarchy due to globalization, some of the regions in the East do not have large cities due to lack of economic development and higher out-migration rate. Mobility of capital and the people from the East to the West do not allow the full-fledged development of the urban hierarchy in the Black Sea and the East Anatolia Regions. This results in shortage of jobs and thus it becomes a vicious cycle for underdevelopment.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, H. S., DÖKMECİ, V. (2017). Development of urban hierarchies at the country and regional levels in Turkey. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 131–149. https://ajindex.com/articles/144659

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Akın, D., & Dökmeci, V. (2015). Cluster Analysis of Interregional Mi-gration in Turkey. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(3). Albaum, M., & Davies, C. S. (1973). The spatial structure of socio-econom-ic attributes of Turkish provinces. In-ternational Journal of Middle East Stud-ies, 4(03), 288-310.
  2. Alexander, J. R. (1978). Population policies in Appalachia: Investment strategies and the problem of out-mi-gration. Growth and Change, 9(3), 14-21.
  3. Allen, P. M., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization, and decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A, 13(2), 167-183.
  4. Alonso, W., & Medrich, E. (1978). Spontaneous growth centers in twenti-eth-century American urbanization. In N. Hansen (Ed.), Growth Centers and Regional Development. New York: The Free Press.
  5. Angotti, T. (1996). Latin American urbanization and planning: inequali-ty and unsustainability in North and South. Latin American Perspectives, 23(4), 12-34.
  6. Beckman, M. (1968). Location theo-ry. New York: Random House. Berry, B. J. (1961). City size distri-butions and economic development. Economic development and cultural change, 9(4), 573-588.
  7. Brutzkus, E. (1975). Centralized versus decentralized pattern of urban-ization in developing countries: an at-tempt to elucidate a guideline princi-ple. Economic development and cultural change, 23(4), 633-652.
  8. Celebioglu, F., & Dall’erba, S. (2010). Spatial disparities across the regions of Turkey: an exploratory spatial data analysis. The Annals of Regional Sci-ence, 45(2), 379-400.
  9. Chase-Dunn, C., & Manning, E. S. (2002). City systems and world sys-tems: Four millennia of city growth and decline. Cross-Cultural Research, 36(4), 379-398.
  10. Coffey, W. J., & Polese, M. (1984). The Concept of Local Development: A Stages Model of Endogenous Regional Growth*. Papers in Regional Science, 55(1), 1-12.
  11. Dinler, Z. (1978). Bölgesel iktisat: Bursa İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akade-misi. Dokmeci, V. (1975). Optimization of central places in an industrial econ-omy. The Annals of Regional Science, 9(3), 51-55.
  12. Dökmeci, V. (1986). Turkey: distri-bution of cities and change over time. Ekistics; reviews on the problems and science of human settlements, 53(316-317), 13-17.
  13. Dökmeci, V. (1989a). Multi-plant lo-cation with respect to uniform pricing. The Annals of Regional Science, 23(1), 29-39.
  14. Dökmeci, V. (1989b). Multiplant location with respect to price-elastic demand. Environment and Planning A, 21(9), 1169-1178.
  15. Dökmeci, V., & Balta, N. (1999). The evol