Yaşlı Dostu Toplu Ulaşım Sistemi'nin Fraktal Analizleri: İstanbul Kadıköy ve Beşiktaş'ın Karşılaştırması

Öz

Küresel ölçekte yaşlı nüfusta ve kentselleşmede dikkate değer bir artış görülmektedir. Kent tasarımı, yaşlı nüfusun taleplerini karşılamak ve sosyal katılımlarını ve bağımsızlıklarını teşvik etmek açısından önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (WHO), yaş dostu şehirler için sekiz alanlı bir rehber yayınlamıştır. Ulaşım, Dünya Sağlık Örgütü tarafından vurgulanan başlıca ilgili alan olarak kabul edilmektedir. Erişilebilir ve güvenilir ulaşım, yaşlı yetişkinlerin bağımsızlıklarını sürdürmelerine ve çeşitli sosyal ve rekreasyonel etkinliklere katılmalarına yardımcı olur. Bu araştırma, İstanbul’un Beşiktaş ve Kadıköy bölgeleri olmak üzere iki belirli alanında, şehir ulaşım ağlarının ne kadar yaş dostu olduğunu incelemeyi, değerlendirmeyi ve karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Fraktal geometri kullanarak ulaşım sisteminin karmaşıklık ve kapsamını değerlendirerek, Beşiktaş ve Kadıköy toplu taşıma ağları üzerinde kutu sayma analizi yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, Kadıköy’deki toplu taşıma sisteminin Beşiktaş’taki sisteme kıyasla daha yüksek bir karmaşıklık ve özbenzerlik düzeyi sergilediğini göstermektedir. Kadıköy’deki toplu taşıma sistemi, Beşiktaş’taki sisteme kıyasla daha yüksek bir fraktal boyut sergileyerek, bağlantı ve verimlilik düzeyinde artış olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, mevcut ulaşım altyapısı ile ilişkilendirilerek, toplu taşıma bağlamında etkinliğini değerlendirmek için kullanılabilir. Dolayısıyla, bu yaklaşımın amacı, politika yapıcılara ve planlamacılara, mevcut ulaşım altyapısıyla ilişkili avantajlar ve dezavantajlar konusunda kapsamlı bir anlayış sağlamaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yaş Dostu Kentler
• Fraktal Geometri
• Kutu Sayma Yöntemi
• Görüntü Işleme
• Türkiye
• Uzaysal analiz

Fractal Analyzes of Age-Friendly Transportation System: A Comparison of the Istanbul Kadikoy and Besiktas

Öz

There has been a notable rise in the elderly population and urbanization on a global scale. Urban design plays a crucial role in meeting the demands of the older population and promoting their social engagement and independence. The World Health Organization has published an eight-domain guide to age-friendly cities. Transportation is considered one of the primary concerns highlighted by the WHO. Accessible and reliable transportation helps older adults maintain independence and participate in various social and recreational activities. This research aims to investigate, evaluate, and compare the age-friendliness of urban transportation networksby assessing the complexity and extent of the transportation system using fractal geometry in two particular areas of Istanbul, namely Beşiktaş and Kadıköy. The box-counting analysis was conducted on both the Beşiktaş and Kadıköy public transportation networks in Istanbul, which are part of the age-friendly network, to assess their age-friendliness and efficiency. The findings of this study indicate that the public transportation system in Kadıköy exhibits a greater level of complexity and self-similarity compared to the system in Besiktas. The public transportation system in Kadikoy demonstrates a higher fractal dimension, suggesting a heightened level of connectivity and efficiency compared to the system in Beşiktaş. The findings of this study can be utilized in the context of public transportation to assess its efficacy by identifying its advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, the objective of this approach is to assist policymakers and planners in obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the existing transportation infrastructure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Age-Friendly Cities
• Fractal Geometry
• Box-Counting Method
• Image processing
• Turkiye
• Spatial analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abid, R. I., & Tortum, A. (2021). The Fractal Geometry of Turkey’s Urban Transportation Networks. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(4), 1455–1466. doi:10.1007/s12205-021-1538-z
2. Abid, R. I., Tortum, A., & Atalay, A. (2021). Fractal Dimensions of Road Networks in Amman Metropolitan Districts. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60(4), 4203–4212. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2021.03.020
3. Benguigui, L., Czamanski, D., Marinov, M., & Portugali, Y. (2000). When and where is a city fractal? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(4), 507–519. doi:10.1068/b2617
4. Besiktas Municipality - Age-Friendly World. (2019). Retrieved 14 January 2024, from https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/network/besiktas-municipality/
5. Bokolo, A. Jnr. (2023). Inclusive and Safe Mobility Needs of Senior Citizens: Implications for Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. Urban Science, 7(4), 103. doi:10.3390/urbansci7040103
6. Chen, W.-K., & Wang, P. (2013). Fuzzy Forecasting with Fractal Analysis for the Time Series of Environmental Pollution (pp. 199–213). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33439-9_9
7. Dasari, S., & Gupta, S. (2020). Application of Fractal Analysis in Evaluation of Urban Road Networks in small sized city of India: Case city of Karimnagar. In Transportation Research Procedia (Vol. 48, pp. 1987–1997). Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.227
8. Deng, H., Wen, W., & Zhang, W. (2023). Analysis of Road Networks Features of Urban Municipal District Based on Fractal Dimension. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 12(5). doi:10.3390/ijgi12050188

9. Fatima, K., & Moridpour, S. (2019). Measuring Public Transport Accessibility for Elderly. doi:10.1051/matecconf/20192
10. Fitzgerald, K. G., & Caro, F. G. (2014). An Overview of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Around the World. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 26(1–2), 1–18. doi:10.1080/08959420.2014.860786
11. Frankhauser, P. (2015). From fractal urban pattern analysis to fractal urban planning concepts. In Computational Approaches for Urban Environments (pp. 13–48). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11469-9_2
12. Ghanat Bari, M., & Tekel, A. (2022). Fractal Dimension of Streetscape as a Proxy to the Design Dimension of the Built Environment in Walkability Research. Gazi University Journal of Science, 35(3), 793–806. doi:10.35378/gujs.721355
13. Golob, T. F., & Hensher, D. A. (2007). The trip chaining activity of Sydney residents: A cross-section assessment by age group with a focus on seniors. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(4), 298–312. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.09.005
14. Islam, M. R. (2016). Ageism and Age Discrimination in Old Age: An Overview. Philosophy and Progress, 91–108. doi:10.3329/pp.v55i1-2.26392
15. Jahanmiri, F., & Parker, D. C. (2022, April 1). An Overview of Fractal Geometry Applied to Urban Planning. Land. MDPI. doi:10.3390/land11040475
16. Kadıköy - Age-Friendly World. (2016). Retrieved 14 January 2024, from https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/network/kadikoy/
17. Kim, K., Buckley, T., Burnette, D., Kim, S., & Cho, S. (2022). Measurement Indicators of Age-Friendly Communities: Findings from the AARP Age-Friendly Community Survey. Gerontologist, 62(1), E17–E27. doi:10.1093/geront/gnab055
18. Klicnik, I., & Dogra, S. (2019). Perspectives on active transportation in a mid-sized age-friendly city: “you stay home”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24). doi:10.3390/ijerph16244916
19. Lagarias, A. (2008). Evaluating Urban Sprawl Patterns through Fractal Analysis: The Case of Greek Metropolitan Areas and Issues of Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254415007
20. Lagarias, A., & Prastacos, P. (2020). Comparing the urban form of South European cities using fractal dimensions. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(7), 1149–1166. doi:10.1177/2399808318820911
21. Lagarias, A., & Prastacos, P. (2021). Fractal dimension of European Cities: A comparison of the patterns of built-up areas in the urban core and the peri-urban ring. CyberGeo, 2021. doi:10.4000/cybergeo.37243
22. Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009, September). What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6612.2009.00355.x
23. Marsden, G., Jopson, Cattan, & Woodward. (2007). Citation:) Transport and Older People: Integrating Transport Planning Tools with User Needs. Project Report. Institute for Transport Studies. Retrieved from https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/844/
24. Batty, M., & Longley, P. (1994). Fractal cities: A geometry of form and function. Academic Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/fractalcitiesgeo0000batt
25. Michael, Y. L., Whitlock, E. P., Lin, J. S., Fu, R., O’connor, E. A., & Gold, R. (2010). Primary Care-Relevant Interventions to Prevent Falling in Older Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Retrieved from www.annals.org
26. Muñoz, V., Domínguez, M., Alejandro Valdivia, J., Good, S., Nigro, G., & Carbone, V. (2018). Evolution of fractality in space plasmas of interest to geomagnetic activity. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 25(1), 207–216. doi:10.5194/npg-25-207-2018
27. Musselwhite, C. B. A., & Shergold, I. (2013). Examining the process of driving cessation in later life. European Journal of Ageing, 10(2), 89–100. doi:10.1007/s10433-012-0252-6
28. Ostwald, M. J. (2013). The fractal analysis of architecture: Calibrating the box-counting method using scaling coeffi cient and grid disposition variables. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40(4), 644–663. doi:10.1068/b38124
29. Saif, M. A., Zefreh, M. M., & Torok, A. (2018). Public transport accessibility: A literature review. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering. Budapest University of Technology and Economics. doi:10.3311/PPtr.12072
30. Santos, N. M., & Santos, D. M. F. (2018). A fractal dimension minimum in electrodeposited copper dendritic patterns. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 116, 381–385. doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2018.09.042
31. Shen, G. (2002). Fractal dimension and fractal growth of urbanized areas. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(5), 419–437. doi:10.1080/13658810210137013
32. Sreelekha, M. G., Krishnamurthy, K., & Anjaneyulu, M. V. L. R. (2016a). Interaction between Road Network Connectivity and Spatial Pattern. Procedia Technology, 24, 131–139. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.019
33. Sreelekha, M. G., Krishnamurthy, K., & Anjaneyulu, M. V. L. R. (2016b). Interaction between Road Network Connectivity and Spatial Pattern. Procedia Technology, 24, 131–139. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.019
34. Sreelekha, M. G., Krishnamurthy, K., & L R Anjaneyulu, M. V. (2017). Fractal Assessment of Road Transport System (Vol. 65).
35. Terzi, F., & Kaya, H. S. (2011). Dynamic spatial analysis of urban sprawl through fractal geometry: The case of Istanbul. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 175–190. doi:10.1068/b35096
36. Thomas, I., Frankhauser, P., & Biernacki, C. (2008). The morphology of built-up landscapes in Wallonia (Belgium): A classification using fractal indices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(2), 99–115. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.002
37. Wang, H., Luo, S., & Luo, T. (2017). Fractal characteristics of urban surface transit and road networks: Case study of Strasbourg, France. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 9(2). doi:10.1177/1687814017692289
38. WHO. (2007). Global Age-friendly Cities : a Guide. World Health Organization.