Journals / PLANLAMA / 2019 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 3

The Organization of Urban Space and Socio-Economic Characteristics: A Graph Theory-Based Empirical Study Using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

Kentsel Mekân Organizasyonu ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapı: Hiyerarşik Kümeleme Analizi Kullanılan Grafik Teorisi Temelli Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Journal
PLANLAMA
Pages
259–270
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

The method described in this study can thenbe used to assess the degree of success in achieving this aim.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The relationship between the socio-economic factors and theorganization of urban space has not received adequate attentionin the literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The city of Izmir, Turkey, has been selected asthe study area and the neighborhoods over 300 in number aregrouped into 6 clusters based on their similarities pertaining tothe social and economic indicators using hierarchical cluster analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The method described in this study can thenbe used to assess the degree of success in achieving this aim.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The relationship between the socio-economic factors and theorganization of urban space has not received adequate attentionin the literature. This study aims to answer the question: Is theorganization of urban space associated with social and economiccharacteristics? The city of Izmir, Turkey, has been selected asthe study area and the neighborhoods over 300 in number aregrouped into 6 clusters based on their similarities pertaining tothe social and economic indicators using hierarchical cluster analysis. The neighborhoods which are closest to the cluster centersselected as the cluster representatives. The organization of spacein the representative neighborhoods is quantified using graph theory indices. The results from the ANOVA performed at the globallevel (or at the neighborhood level) and the post hoc Fisher’s leastsignificant difference tests performed at the local level (or at thenode or edge level) both reveal that neighborhoods with differentsocial and economic characteristics have different spatial organizations, and they are different in terms of the network accessibility levels measured through graph theory indices. The findingsclearly indicate more developed social and economic conditionsco-exist with more developed network topologies. The empirical findings of the present study put forward that the planningprocess is far from providing similar urban spatial organizationsfor people that differ in social and economic characteristics, andthat is a major real-life problem. It is clear that we cannot andshould not enforce similar spatial layouts in all neighborhoods, butwe can work for achieving a heterogeneous social and economicstructure within each neighborhood through urban policies anddevelopment plans. The method described in this study can thenbe used to assess the degree of success in achieving this aim.

Özet

Kentsel mekânsal yapı ve kent formuna ilişkin yapılmış olan geçmiş tarihli çalışmalarda, sosyo-ekonomik faktörler büyük ölçüde göz ardı edilmiş, mekânsal yapı ile sosyo-ekonomik yapı arasındaki ilişki araştırma konusu edilmemiştir. Bu çalışma: “Kentsel mekân organizasyonu sosyal ve ekonomik özelliklerle ilişkili midir?” sorusuna cevap vermeyi hedeflemektedir. Çalışma alanı olarak İzmir şehri seçilmiş ve 300’den fazla mahalle sosyal ve ekonomik göstergelere ilişkin benzerliklerine göre kademeli kümeleme analizi kullanılarak 6 kümeye ayrılmıştır. Küme merkezlerine en yakın mahalleler, küme temsilcisi olarak seçilerek temsilci mahallelerde mekânın fiziksel organizasyonu, grafik teorisi endeksleri kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Mahalle düzeyinde gerçekleştirilen tek-yönlü varyans analizi ile düğüm ve bağ ölçeğinde gerçekleştirilen çoklu karşılaştırma testleri (seri t-testleri) ile elde edilen sonuçlar, farklı sosyal ve ekonomik özelliklere sahip mahallelerde kentsel mekânsal organizasyonunun da farklı olduğunu, bu mahallelerde ölçülen ağ erişilebilirlik seviyelerinin farklı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, daha gelişmiş ağ topolojilerinin daha gelişmiş sosyal ve ekonomik koşullar ile birlikte varolduklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışmanın ampirik sonuçları, planlama sürecinin sosyal ve ekonomik özellikleri farklı olan insanlara benzer kentsel mekânsal organizasyonlar sunmaktan uzak olduğunu ve bunun önemli bir problem olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Tüm mahallelerde benzer bir mekânsal organizyon olamayacağı ve olmaması gerektiği açıktır. Ancak kentsel politikalar ve imar planları aracılığıyla her mahallede heterojen bir sosyal ve ekonomik yapı elde etmek için çalışabiliriz. Bu çalışmada açıklanan yöntem de bu amaca ulaşmada ne kadar başarılı olunduğunu ölçmek için kullanılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Boampong, E., Çubukçu, K. M. (2022). The Organization of Urban Space and Socio-Economic Characteristics: A Graph Theory-Based Empirical Study Using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. PLANLAMA, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 3, 259–270. https://ajindex.com/articles/588378

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abu-Lughod, J.L. (1969). Testing the theory of social area analysis: The ecology of Cairo, Egypt. American Sociological Review, 34 (2), 198–212.
  2. Adolphson, M. (2011). On analysing changes in urban structure: Some theoretical and methodological issues, Doktora Tezi, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Akyıldız, F. (2017) Searching for new methods in the delivery of local public services: co-production and the case of Turkey in “Current Debates In Public Finance, Public Administration & Environmental Studies vol. 13”, Ed. by Aydın, M., Pınarcıoğlu, N.Ş., & Uğurlu, Ö., IJOPEC, Londra, 308-334.
  3. Allen, W.B., Liu, D., Singer, S. (1993). Accessibility measures of US metropolitan areas. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 27 (6), 439–449.
  4. Ayhan, I., Cubukcu, K.M. (2010). Explaining historical urban development using the locations of mosques: A GIS/spatial statistics-based approach. Applied Geography, 30 (2), 229–238.
  5. Barrett, P. (1983). The Automobile and Urban Transit: The Formation of Public Policy in Chicago, 1900–1930., Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  6. Bell, W. (1953). The social areas of the San Francisco Bay region. American Sociological Review, 18 (1), 39–47.
  7. Bhat, C., Handy, S., Kockelman, K., Mahmassani, H., Gopal, A., Srour, I., Weston, L. (2002). Development of an urban accessibility index: Formulations, aggregation, and application. Report for the Center for Transportation Research.Report no. FHWA/TX–02–4938–4. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin. Boarnet, M.G., Greenwald, M.J. (2000). Land use, urban design, and nonwork travel: Reproducing other urban areas’ empirical test results in Portland, Oregon. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1722 (1), 27–37.
  8. Borruso, G. (2003). Network density and the delimitation of urban areas. Transactions in GIS, 7(2), 177-191.
  9. Buhl, J., Gautrais, J., Reeves, N., Solé, R. V., Valverde, S., Kuntz, P., & Theraulaz, G. (2006). Topological patterns in street networks of self-organized urban settlements. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 49(4), 513-522.
  10. Burgess, E.W. (1925). The Growth of The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  11. Camagni, R., Gibelli, M.C., Rigamonti, P. (2002). Urban mobility and urban form: The social and environmental costs of different patterns of urban expansion. Ecological Economics, 40, 199–216.
  12. Cohen, D.A., Lapham, S., Evenson, K.R., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., Ward, P., Hillier, A., McKenzie, T.L. (2013).Use of nei