KONUT YER SEÇİMİ-ULAŞIM ETKİLEŞİM TEORİLERİ: KRİTİK BİR LİTERATÜR İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu makalede, literatürdeki yerleşim ve ulaşım arasındaki etkileşim geleneksel ve çağdaş kentsel yerleşim kuramları ışığında eleştirel bir gözle incelenmektedir. Halen önemlerini korudukları halde, bu teorilerin çoğu faaliyet yerleşimi ve ulaşım arasındaki ilişkileri inceleyen araştırmacıları bir takım sorunlar ve zorluklarla karşı karşıya bırakmaktadır. İş mekanı konutsal yer seçim kararlarını yada konut yer seçimi seçilen işi, kent içinde çalışma amacıyla yapılan yolculuklarından kaynaklanan zaman kaybı ve harcamalar vasıtasıyla etkileyebilmektedir. Dolayısıyla, telekomünikasyon ve ulaşım teknolojilerindeki değişiklikler, bireylerin nerde çalıştığı ve yaşadığı üzerinde derin etkiler yaratabilmektedir. Aynı şekilde, faaliyet gösterilen mekanlar da ulaşım sistemini, değişik zaman dilimlerinde trafik hacminde meydana gelen değişimlerle etkilemektedir. Tek Merkezli Kent ve Çok Merkezli Kent gibi ekonomik modellerle sosyoloji disiplinine dayanan modellerin tüm yetersizliklerine rağmen kentlerin incelenmesinde halihazırda en iyi genel çerçeveyi sunabilmektedirler

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yerleşim kuramı, konut mekanı, ulaşım sistemi, etkileşim, tek merkezli kent.

Kaynakça

1. Cervero, Robert, “Meeting Mobility Challenges in an Increasingly Mobile World: An American Perspective”, 2001, www.perso.wanadoo.fr/ ville-en-mouvement/interventions/ Robert Cervero.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 9/11/2003).
2. Strathman, J. G. et al., Analysis of Induced Travel in the 1995 NPTS, Center for Urban Studies, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University, Portland, 2000.
3. Borja, J. and Castells, M., Local and Global: Management of Cities in the Information Age, Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, İngiltere, 1997.
4. Sui, D. Z., “Urban Forms, Urban Processes, and Urban Policies: Toward a New Conceptual Framework and a New Research Agenda for Metropolis in the 21st Century”, 2003 www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/BALTIMORE/authors/sui/paper.html (Erişim Tarihi: 10/11/2003)
5. Harvey, David, “Megacities Lecture 4”, http://www.megacities.nl/possible.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 07.09.2003).
6. Sassen, S., Cities in a World Economy, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, A.B.D., 1994.
7. Marın, M. C. “Globalleşme Sürecinde Kent ve Bölgelerin Mekansal Ekonomilerdeki Rolü ve Ekonomik Coğrafya Eşitsizliği: Bir Yerleşim Kuramı Yaklaşımı”, KEAS: 1. Kentsel Ekonomik Araştırmalar Sempozyumu, Denizli, 10-12 Eylül 2003.
8. Castells, M., The Informational City, Oxford, Blackwell, A.B.D., 1989.

9. Mallecki, E. J. and Gorman, S. P., In. D. Brunn and T. L. Leinbach; the World of Economic Commerce, New York, John Wiley, 87-105, 2001.
10. Wegener, Micheal, “Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art:What Can We Learn from North America?”, 2003, www.feweb.vu.nl/ re/STELLA/General/Genesis/MichaelWegener.doc (Erişim Tarihi: 17.09.2003).
11. Wegener, M., Fürst, F., Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art. Report to the European Commission, Berichte aus dem Institut für Raumplanung 46, Dortmund: Institut für Raumplanung, 1999, http://www.inro.tno/ transland/Deliverable%202a.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 07.10.2003).
12. Berry, B. J. L and Horton, F. E, Geographic Perspectives on Urban Systems, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, A.B.D., 1970.
13. Steiner, R.L., Residential Density and Travel Patterns: Review of the Literature. Transportation Research Record 1466, 1994, TRB National Research Council, Washington.
14. Tayyaran, Mohammad R. ve Khan, A.M., “Factors for the Study of Long-Term Impacts of Telecommuting and Intelligent Transportation Systems on Residential and Business Location Choice”, 2003, www/tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/ clearinghouse/docs/udes/tayyaran.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2003).
15. Dunn, Edgar Jr., The Location of Agricultural Production, University of Florida Press, Gainesville, A.B.D, 1954.
16. Alonso, W., Location and Land Use, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, A.B.D., 1964.
17. Muth, Richard F., Cities and Housing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, A.B.D., 1969.
18. Hall, Peter, Von Thunen's Isolated State, Pergamon, Oxford, İngiltere, 1966.
19. Samuelson, Paul, “Thünen at Two Hundred,” Journal of Economic Literature, Cilt 21, Sayı 4, 1468-88, 1983.
20. Werczberger, E., In D.A. Boyce, P. Nijkamp, ve S. Shefer, Regional Science: Retrospect and Prospect, Berlin, Springer, 1991, 79-96.
21. Werczberger, E. ve Berechman, Y., “Incorporating Neighborhood Effects into Spatial Allocation Models”, Environment and Planning A, Cilt 20, 595-607, 1988.
22. Keleş, R., Kentleşme Politikası, 7. Baskı, İmge, Ankara, 2002.
23. Krugman, Paul, In Development, Geography and Economic Theory, 4. Baskı, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1998, 31-65.
24. Chisholm, M., Rural Settlement and Land Use: An Essay in Location, Hutchinson University, London, 1962.
25. O’ Sullivan, A., Urban Economics, 3d ed., Irwin, Chicago, A.B.D., 1996.
26. Dicken, P. and Lloyd, P. E. Location in Sapce: Theoritical Perspectives in Economic Geography, 3rd edition, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 1990.
27. Cadwallader, Martin, Urban Geography: an Analytical Approach, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, ABD, 1996.
28. Waddell, P., “Exogenous Workplace Choice in Residential Location Models: Is the Assumption Valid?”, Geographic Analysis, Cilt 25, 65-84, 1993.
29. Hamilton, B. W., “Wasteful Commuting”, Journal of Political Economy, Cilt 90, Sayı. 5, 1035-1053, 1982.
30. Hanson, S., “Reconceptualizing the Links between Home and Work in Urban Geography”, Economic Geography, Cilt 64, Sayı 4, 299-319, 1988.
31. Giuliano, G. and Small, Kenneth A., “Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Spatial Structure?” Urban Studies, Cilt 30, Sayı 9, 1485-1500, 1993.
32. Coulson, N., “Really Useful Tests of the Monocentric Model” Land Economics, Cilt 67, 299-307, 1991.
33. Ingram, G., “Patterns of Metropolitan Development: What Have We Learned?”, Urban Studies, Cilt 35, No. 7, 1019-25, 1998.
34. Meyer, J. R. and Gomez- Ibanez L. K., Autos, Transit, and Cities,. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, A.B.D., 1981.
35. Park, R. E., Burges, E. and McKenzie, R., The City, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, A.B.D., 1925.
36. Anas, A., Residential Location Markets and Urban Transportation, Academic Press Inc, New York, 1982.
37. Evans, A., “The Determination of the Price of Land”, Urban Studies, Cilt 20, 119-29, 1983.
38. Scott, A., The Urban Land Nexus and the State, Pion, London, İngiltere, 1980.
39. Bertand, A., “Note on Transportation and Urban Spatial Structure”, ABCDE Conference, April 2002, www.alain-ertaud.com/images/AB_Trans-portation_and_Urban_Spatial_Structure_revised2.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.09.2003).
40. McMillen, Daniel P., “Polycentric Urban Structure: the Case of Milwaukee”, 2001, www.chicagofed.org/publications/economicperspectives/2001/2qepart2.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2003).
41. Glaab Charles N. ve Brown A. T., In Sylvia Fleis Fava, Urbanism in World Perspective: a Reader. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1970.
42. Hohenberg, Paul M. ve Lees, Lynn Hollen, The Making of Urban Europe 1000-1994, 2.Baskı, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, ABD, 1996.
43. Cox, Wendell, “The Illusion of Transit Choice”, VERITAS-A Quarterly Journal of Public Policy in Texas, March 2002, www.publicpurpose.com/illusion.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 03.11.2003).
44. Berry, B. and Kim, H., “Challenges to the Monocentric Model”, Geographical Analysis, Cilt 25, 1-4, 1993.
45. Erickson, R., “Multinucleation in Metropolitan Economies”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Cilt 76, 331-346, 1986.
46. McDonald, J. and McMillen, D., “Employment Subcenters and Land Values in a Polycentric Urban Area: the Case of Chicago”, Environment and Planning A, Cilt 22, 1561-74, 1990.
47. Wieand, K., “An Extension of the Monocentric Urban Spatial Equilibrium Model to a Multicenter Setting: the Case of Two-Center City”, Journal of Urban Economics, Cilt 21, 259-71, 1987.
48. Richardson, H., “Monocentric vs. Polycentric Models: The Future of Urban Economics in Regional Science”, Annals of Regional Science, Cilt 22, 1-12, 1988.
49. Anas, A., Richard, A. ve Small, K. A., “Urban Spatial Structure”, Journal of Economic Literature, Cilt 36, 1426-64, 1998.
50. Harris, C. D. ve Ullman,E. L., “The Nature of Cities”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, Cilt 242, Sayı 1, 7-17, 1945.
51. Schwab, William A., The Sociology of Cities, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, ABD, 1992.
52. Hoyt, H., The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities, Federal Housing Administration, Washington, D.C., ABD, 1939.
53. Tiebout, C., “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures”, Journal of Political Economy, Cilt 54, 416-424, 1956.
54. Barr, J. ve Davis, O. “An Elementary Political and Economic Theory of Local Governments”, Southern Economic Journal, Cilt 33, 149-65, 1966.
55. Black, D. “On the Rationale of Group Decision Making”, Journal of Political Economy, Cilt 56, 88-95, 1948.
56. Down, A., An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper and Row, New York, A.B.D., 1956.
57. Hamilton, B. W., “Zoning and Property Taxation in a System of Local Governments”, Urban Studies, Cilt 12, 205-11, 1975.
58. Bewley, T., “A Critique of Tiebout’s Theory of Local Public Expenditures”, Econometrica, Cilt 49, 713-40, 1981.
59. Oates, W., “The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis”, Journal of Political Economy, Cilt 77, 957-971, 1969.
60. Gramlich, E. M. ve Rubinfeld, D. L., “Microestimates of Public Spending Demand Functions and Test of the Tiebout and Median-Voter Hypothesis”, Journal of Political Economy, Cilt 90, 536-60, 1982.
61. Ben- Akiva, M. ve Lerman, S. R., Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, The MIT Press, Cambridge, A.B.D., 1985.
62. Ben- Akiva, M. ve Bowman, J. L., ‘Integration of an Activity- Based Model System and a Residential Location Model”, Urban Studies, Cilt 35, 1131-1123, 1998.
63. Beckmann, M. J., Lectures on Location Theory, Springer, Verlag Berlin, New York, ABD, 1999.
64. Stauffer, S. A., “Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and Distance”, American Sociological Review, Cilt 5, 845-67, 1940.
65. Cervero, R., “Jobs-Housing Balance and Regional Mobility”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Cilt 55, Sayı 2, 136-150, 1989.
66. Cervero, R., “Jobs-Housing Balance Revisited: Trends and Impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Cilt 62, Sayı 4, 492-511, 1996.
67. Cervero, R. and Wu, K.L. “Sub-centering and Commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-90”, Urban Studies, Cilt. 35, Sayı. 7, 1059-1076, 1998.
68. Handy, S., “Understanding the Link Between Urban Form and Nonwork Travel Behavior”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Cilt 15, Sayı 2, 183-198, 1996.
69. Hansen, W.G., “How Accessibility Shapes Land Use”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Cilt 25, 73-76, 1959.
70. Greenwald, Michael J. ve Marlon G. Boarnet, “The Built Environment as a Determinant of Walking Behavior: Analyzing Non-Work Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon”, 2001,. www.its.uci.edu/its/publications/papers/WP-01-1.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2003).
71. Vernez-Moudon, A. ve Hess, P.M., “Suburban Clusters: The Nucleation of Multifamily Housing in Suburban Areas of the Central Puget Sound”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Cilt 66, Sayı 3, 243-264, 2000.
72. Ewing, R., Haliyur, P. Ve Page, G.W., “Getting Around a Traditional City, a Suburban Planned Unit Development, and Everything in Between”, Transportation Research Record, Sayı 1466, 53-62, 1994.
73. Glen, Weisbrod, Ben-Akiva, Moshe ve Lerman, Steven, “Trade-offs in Residential Location Decisions: Transportation versus Other Factors”, 1980, www.edrgroup.com/pages/pdf/Trade-offs.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 25.10.2003).
74. Sinclair, R., “Von Thünen and urban Sprawl”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Cilt XLVII, 72-87, 1967.
75. Mills, E. S., Studies in the Structure of The Urban Economy, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., A.B.D., 1972.
76. Boyce, D., Allen, B., Mudge, R., Stater, P. ve Isserman, A., The Impact of Rapid Transit on Suburban Residential Property Values and Land Development Analysis of the Philadelphia High Speed Line, Regional Science Department, University of Pennsylvania, NTIS no. PB 220 693, 1972.
77. Dornbusch, D., “BART-Induced Changes in Property Values and Rents. Land Use and Urban Development Project, Phase 1 BART”, Working Papers WP 21-5-76, US Department of Transportation and US Housing and Urban Development, 1976.
78. Lerman S, v.d., The Effect of the Washington Metro on Urban Property Values, CS Report no. 77-18, Center for Transportation Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1977.
79. Mayo, S., Local Public Goods and Residential Location: An Empirical Test of the Tiebout Hypothesis, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C, 1973.
80. Friedman, Joseph, Housing Location and the Supply of Local Public Services, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley,1975.
81. Lerman, S., “A Disaggregate Behavioral Model of Urban Mobility Decisions”, Center for Transportation Studies, Report No. 75-5, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1975.
82. Pollakowski, M., “A Conditional Logit Model of Residential Choice”, Winter Meetings of the Econometric Society, 1975.
83. Kain, J., “Housing Segregation, Negro Employment, and Metropolitan Decentraliza-tion”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Cilt 82, 32-59, 1968.
84. Kasarda, J., In P. Peterson, the New Urban Reality, Brookings Institution, Washington D.C., 33-67, 1985.
85. Kasarda, J., In M. McGeary ve L. Lynn, Urban Change and Poverty, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 148-188, 1988.
86. Kasarda, J., “Urban Industrial Transition and the Underclass”, Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, Cilt 501, 26-47, 1989.
87. Wilson, J., The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987.
88. Mieszkowski, P. ve Mills, E., “The Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Cilt 7, 135-147, 1993.
89. Mills, E. ve Lubuele, S., “Inner Cities”, Journal of Economic Literature, Cilt 35, 727-756, 1997.
90. Levine, J., “Rethinking Accessibility and Jobs- Housing Balance”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Cilt 64, No. 2, 133-47, 1998.
91. Crane, R., Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel in Neotraditional Planning’, Journal of the American Planning Association, Cilt 62, No. 1, 51-65, 1996.
92. Wachs, M. v.d., “The Changing Commute: A Case Study of the Jobs- Housing Relationships over Time”, Urban Studies, Cilt 30, No.10, 1711-29, 1993.
93. 1000 Friends of Oregon, The Pedestrian Environment, Volume 4 A, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., 1993.
94. Genevieve, G., “Information Technology, Work Patterns and Intra- Metropolitan Location: A Case Study”, Urban Studies, Cilt 35, No. 7, 1077-1089, 1998.
95. Gareis, Karsten ve Kordey, Norbert, “Telework-an Overview of Likely Impacts on Traffic and Settlement Patterns”, Netcom, Cilt 13, No 3-4, 265-286, 1999.
96. Marin, Mehmet C. ve Altıntas, Hakan, “A Thünian -World Systems Approach to the Industrial Location and Environmental Problems: The New Role of Turkey and Caucasian Countries in the Global Production” Conference on Caucasian and Central Asian Countries in a Globalizing World, Azerbiajan, Baku 12-13 May 2003.
97. Chartrand, Sabra, “Building an Argument for Telecommuting”, Cyber Times, New York Times, July 6, 1997, www.nytimes.com/library/ jobmarket/070697sabra.html (Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2003).
98. Wunderlich, Roland, “The Urban Effects of Telecommuting”, 1997, http://www rewind.cx/ roland/reports/ Urban_Effects_of Telecommu-ting.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2003).
99. Graham, S. ve Marvin, S., Telecommunications and the City: Electronic Spaces, Urban Places, London, New York, İngiltere, 1996.
100. Nilles, Jack M., “Traffic Reduction by Telecommuting: A Status Review and Selected Bibliography”, Transportation Research A, Cilt 22A, Sayı.4, 307-317, 1988.
101. Nilles, Jack M., “Telecommuting and Urban Sprawl: Mitigator or Inciter?”, Transportation, Cilt 18, 411- 432, 1991.
102. Pendyala, Ram M. v.d., “Impacts of Telecommuting on Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Household Travel”, Transportation, Cilt 18, 383- 409, 1991.