Examining Spatial Efficiency of Cities Using Fractal Dimension

Year 2020, Volume: 24 Issue: 2, 289 - 301, 26.08.2020

Gizem Erdogan

https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufenbed.484622

Abstract

The dynamic structure of the urban changes and the specification of the parameters affecting this process facilitate the perception, designing and description of the space. The aim of this study is to discuss the urban growth phenomenon based on sustainability principle and the urban macroforms, shaped as the spatial reflection of this phenomenon. The study aims at developing a method suggestion for urban space analysis under the frame of the determined acceptances and limitations to be able to attain these purposes. In this sense, 29 randomly chosen cities are defined as samples fractal sizes are measured. The comparable parameters groups, which are considered to affect the space-filling efficiency of the urban macroforms is formed and whether there is a reasonable relation between fractal dimension value, which is admitted to be the criterion of space-filling efficiency through multiple direct regression analysis. The study is considered to contribute, accompanied by urban macroform parameters which are shaped as urban growth phenomenon and spatial reflection of that phenomenon, over the organization of the space and leading the development. Furthermore, fractal parameter considered that a new method approach based on the space-filling efficiency presented will have a leading role in the future for urban planning.

Keywords

Fractal dimension, Urban growth, Urban morphology, Space-filling efficiency

Kent Makroformlarının Mekânı Kullanma Verimliliklerinin Fractal Boyut ile İncelenmesi

Abstract

Kentsel mekân, kullanıcı ve fiziksel çevrenin birbirini etkilemesi ile vücut bulur. Kentsel mekândaki bu değişimler, farklı yerleşmelerin kendilerine özgü dokular geliştirmesine neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, sürdürülebilirlik ilkesi temelinde kentsel büyüme olgusu ve bu olgunun mekânsal yansıması olarak biçimlenen kentsel makroformlarının göstergeler eşliğinde fraktal boyut ve regresyon analizleri yoluyla tartışılması ve mekânsal verimlilik açısından yorumlanmasıdır. Çalışma, bağlamda ulaşabilmek için belirlenen kabuller ve kısıtlılıklar çerçevesinde mekânsal verimlilik analizine yönelik yöntem önerisi geliştirilmesi hedeflemektedir. Bu kapsamda, Dünyada en yoğun nüfuslu ilk 500 kent arasından rastgele seçilmiş farklı dinamiklere sahip 29 kent örneklem olarak belirlenmiş, seçilen kentlerin uydu fotoğrafları üzerinden kentleşme lekeleri üzerinden belirlenmiş fraktal boyutları ölçülmüştür. Örneklem kentler için kentsel makroformların mekânsal verimliliğine etki edebileceği öngörülen karşılaştırılabilir sosyo-ekonomik göstergeler seti oluşturulmuş ve mekânsal verimliliğin ölçütü kabul edilen fraktal boyut değeri ile bu göstergeler arasında anlamlı ilişki olup olmadığı çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi ile ölçümlenmiştir. Çalışmanın, kentsel makroformların göstergeler eşliğinde kentsel mekânın organizasyonu ve gelişimini yönlendirmesi üzerinde karar vericiler ve mekânsal plancılar için katkıları bulunacağı düşünülmektedir. Aynı zamanda, fraktal parametrelerin gelişmekte olan ülkelerin kentsel teorileri ve planlamaları açısından yardımcı olacağı, ortaya konulacak mekânsal verimlilik temelli yeni bir yöntem yaklaşımının gelecekte kentsel sistemlerin yönetimi ve kent planlama açısından da yol gösterici olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Fraktal boyut, Kentsel büyüme, Kentsel morfoloji, Mekansal verimlilik

References

• [1] United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), http://www.unfpa.org, (20.03.2015)
• [2] Burton E., Jenks M., Williams K. 2004. The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, Taylor & Francis.
• [3] Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. W. 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?, Journal of the American planning association, (1997), 63(1), 95-106.
• [4] Newman, P.W.G., Kenworthy, J. 1989. Gasoline consumption and cities: comparison US cities with a global survey Q. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55 (1989), 24– 37.
• [5] Newman, P. W.G., Kenwothy, J. 1989. Cities and automobile dependence: an ınternational sourcebook. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
• [6] Banister, D., Wood, C., Watson, S. Sustainable cities-transport, energy and urban form. 1997 Environment and Planning, B24 (1) (1997), 125–143.
• [7] Alonso, W. 1964. Location and land use. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• [8] Mills, E.S. 1973. Studies in the structure of the urban economy, London: Johns Hopkins Press.
• [9] Gordon, P., Kumar, A. & Richardson, H.W. 1989. Congestion, changing metropolitan structure and city size in the United States. International Regional Science Review 12 (1) (1989), 45-66.
• [10] 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(2) (2002), 199– 216.
• [11] Muñiz, I., & Galindo, A. Urban form and the ecological footprint of commuting. 2005. The case of Barcelona. Ecological Economics, 55(4) (2005), 499-514.
• [12] Breheny, M.J., Gordon, I.R. & Archer, S. 1996. Can planning for a more compact city secure sustainable levels of urban travel in the London Region? ESRD papers on London Seminar.
• [13] Cervero, R. 1989. Jobs-housing balance and regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55 (2) (1989), 136– 150.
• [14] Ewing, R., De Anna, M. & Li, S.-C. 1996. Land use impacts on trip generation rates. Transportation Research Record, 1518 (1996), 1-6.
• [15] Van den Dobbelsteen, A., De Wilde, S. 2004. Space use optimisation and sustainability—environmental assessment of space use concepts. Journal of environmental management, 73(2) (2004), 81-89.
• [16] Barbosa, J. A., Bragança, L., & Mateus, R. 2014. Assessment of land use efficiency using BSA tools: Development of a new index. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(2) (2014), 04014020.
• [17] Ball, P. 2004. Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another, Arrow Books, London.
• [18] Batty, M. 1995. New ways of looking at cities. Nature, (1995), 377, 574.
• [19] Benguigui, L., & Daoud, M. 1991. Is The Suburban Railway System a Fractal? Geographical Analysis, 23 (1991), 362–368.
• [20] Chen Y. 2012. Fractal Dimension Evolution and Spatial Replecement Dynamic of Urban Growth, Chaos, Solution & Fractal,45 (2012),115-124.
• [21] De Keersmaecker M.-L., Frankhauser P., Thomas I. 2003. Using Fractal Dimensions For Characterizing İntra-Urban Diversity: The example of Brussels, Paper presented at the ERSA 2003 Congres September 2003 in Jyvaskyla, Finland.
• [22] Thomas, I., Frankhauser, P. & Biernacki, C. 2008. The Morphology of built-up landscapes in Wallonia (Belgium): A classification using fractal indices, Science Direct, Landscape And Urban Planning, 84 (2008)., 99–115.
• [23] Shen, G. 2002. Fractal Dimention and Fractal Growth of Urbanised Areas, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16 (5) (2002), 419-437.
• [24] Chen Y. 2013. Fractal Analytical Approach of Urban Form Based on Spatial Correlation Function, Chaos, Solitions & Fractals, 49 (2013), 47-60.
• [25] Şıklar E., 2000. Regresyon Analizine Giriş, T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, no. 1255, Fen Fakültesi Yayınları np. 16, Eskişehir.
• [26] Kayacan Y. E. 2015. İstatistik II, http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/eda.yalcin/, (20.11.2015).
• [27] Clawson, M. 1962. Urban Sprawl and Speculation in Suburban Land, Land Economics, Vol. 38, No. 2, May, 1962, 99-111.
• [28] Ewing, R. 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?. Journal of the American planning association, 63(1) (1997), 107-126.
• [29] Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. 2000. Sustainable urban form: the big picture. Achieving sustainable urban form, 109-120.
• [30] Galster , G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M. R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S. & Freihage, J. 2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept, Housing Policy Debate, 12 (2001)., 681-717.
• [31] Dieleman, F., Wegener, M. 2004. Compact city and urban sprawl. Buılt Envıronment, 30 (4) (2004), 308-323.
• [32] Karataş, N. 2007. İzmir’deki Şehirsel Saçaklanma Eğilimlerinin Torbalı-Ayrancılar’da Arazi Sahipliği El Değişim Süreçlerine Etkileri (1968–2000), Planlama Dergisi, 40(2) (2007), 3-12.
• [33] Downs, A., 2010. Neighborhoods and urban development. Brookings Institution Press.
• [34] Eryılmaz, S.S., Cengiz, H., Eryılmaz, Y. 2008. The Urban Sprawl Model for an Affected Metropolis: Bursa – Istanbul Example, 44th ISoCaRP Congress.
• [35] OECD, 2000. Managing Urban Growth. DT/Tdpc, Paris.
• [36] CEC, Commission of the European Communities (2004), Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment, COM (2004)60 Final, Bruxell.
• [37] Sutton, P. C. 2003. A scale-adjusted measure of ‘‘urban sprawl’’ using nighttime satellite imagery, Remote Sensing of Environment, 86 (2003), 353–369.
• [38] Torrens P. M., Alberti M. 2000. Measuring Sprawl, Working Paper Series, CASA- Center for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London.
• [39] Arbury, J., (2000). From Urban Sprawl to Compact City An Analysis of Urban Growth Management in Auckland. http://portal.jarbury.net/thesis.pdf. (23.04.2015)
• [40] Glaeser, E. L., Kahn, M. E. 2003. Sprawl and urban growth. Harvard Institute of Economic Research (No. 2004). Discussion paper.
• [41] Batty, M., Besussi, E; Chin, N. 2003. Traffic, Urban Growth and Suburban Sprawl. (CASA Working Papers), Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL): London, UK.
• [42] Topçu, M., Kubat, A. S. 2009. Konut bölgelerinde mekânsal yapı-arazi değer ilişkisi. İTÜDERGİSİ/a, 8(2) (2009).
• [43] Chapin Jr, F. S. 1965. Urban Land Use Planning.
• [44] Ottensmann, J. R. 1977. Urban sprawl, land values and the density of development. Land economics, 53(4) (1977), 389-400.
• [45] Akbulut, M. R. & Başlık, S. 2012. İstanbul: Growth in the Fast Lane Land Values and Urban Growth of Istanbul, 48th ISOCARP Congress 2012, http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/2087.pdf
• [46] Capozza D. R., Helsley R. W. 1989. "The Fundamentals Of Land Prices And Urban Growth", Journal of Urban Economics, Volume 26 (1989), Issue 3, 295–306.
• [47] Brigham, E. F. 1965. The determinants of residential land values. Land Economics, 41(4) (1965), 325-334.