This study aims to determine the drivers of urban sprawl, additionally environmental impacts and socio-economic impacts of urban sprawl for Konya province in terms of three central counties. A comprehensive questionnaire, consistent with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique, was designed to get the knowledge, experiences, values, interests and suggestions of experts as the key stakeholders of urban development regarding the urban sprawl problematic occur in the city. A total of 73 local authority experts participated into the survey. The findings show that urban sprawl was accepted as a threat for Konya by the experts. Macro-economic factors such as economic growth was envisaged as the primary driver of urban sprawl. The absence of upper limit for controlling urban sprawl has been highlighted. Thus, “Development of long-term integrated plans promoting sustainable development and the limitation of urban sprawl” was proposed as the most useful precaution for combating urban sprawl that could be taken by stakeholders. On the other hand, “conserving agricultural lands” was admitted as the most significant precaution at the scale of local authorities and Ministry of Environment and Urbanization for combating urban sprawl. Experts’ overall evaluations regarding the level of urban sprawl explicitly show that Karatay was the most sprawled county conversely Selçuklu. The applied methodology also separately enables the weights of urban sprawl effect factors for each county. Results revealing the drivers, effects and the dimensions of urban sprawl in Konya are useful for local municipalities to route urban expansion in a sustainable manner. "> [PDF] Urban sprawl: An empirical analysis for Konya Province- Turkey | [PDF] Urban sprawl: An empirical analysis for Konya Province- Turkey This study aims to determine the drivers of urban sprawl, additionally environmental impacts and socio-economic impacts of urban sprawl for Konya province in terms of three central counties. A comprehensive questionnaire, consistent with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique, was designed to get the knowledge, experiences, values, interests and suggestions of experts as the key stakeholders of urban development regarding the urban sprawl problematic occur in the city. A total of 73 local authority experts participated into the survey. The findings show that urban sprawl was accepted as a threat for Konya by the experts. Macro-economic factors such as economic growth was envisaged as the primary driver of urban sprawl. The absence of upper limit for controlling urban sprawl has been highlighted. Thus, “Development of long-term integrated plans promoting sustainable development and the limitation of urban sprawl” was proposed as the most useful precaution for combating urban sprawl that could be taken by stakeholders. On the other hand, “conserving agricultural lands” was admitted as the most significant precaution at the scale of local authorities and Ministry of Environment and Urbanization for combating urban sprawl. Experts’ overall evaluations regarding the level of urban sprawl explicitly show that Karatay was the most sprawled county conversely Selçuklu. The applied methodology also separately enables the weights of urban sprawl effect factors for each county. Results revealing the drivers, effects and the dimensions of urban sprawl in Konya are useful for local municipalities to route urban expansion in a sustainable manner. ">
Fadim YAVUZ

6722

Urban sprawl: An empirical analysis for Konya Province- Turkey

Urban sprawl: An empirical analysis for Konya Province- Turkey

This study aims to determine the drivers of urban sprawl, additionally environmental impacts and socio-economic impacts of urban sprawl for Konya province in terms of three central counties. A comprehensive questionnaire, consistent with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique, was designed to get the knowledge, experiences, values, interests and suggestions of experts as the key stakeholders of urban development regarding the urban sprawl problematic occur in the city. A total of 73 local authority experts participated into the survey. The findings show that urban sprawl was accepted as a threat for Konya by the experts. Macro-economic factors such as economic growth was envisaged as the primary driver of urban sprawl. The absence of upper limit for controlling urban sprawl has been highlighted. Thus, “Development of long-term integrated plans promoting sustainable development and the limitation of urban sprawl” was proposed as the most useful precaution for combating urban sprawl that could be taken by stakeholders. On the other hand, “conserving agricultural lands” was admitted as the most significant precaution at the scale of local authorities and Ministry of Environment and Urbanization for combating urban sprawl. Experts’ overall evaluations regarding the level of urban sprawl explicitly show that Karatay was the most sprawled county conversely Selçuklu. The applied methodology also separately enables the weights of urban sprawl effect factors for each county. Results revealing the drivers, effects and the dimensions of urban sprawl in Konya are useful for local municipalities to route urban expansion in a sustainable manner.
PDF

___

  • Akseki, H. & Meşhur, M.Ç. (2013). Konya kentinin kentsel yayılma süreci üzerine bir inceleme (An investigation on the urban sprawl process of the city of Konya). [Conference presentation].
  • Yaşanabilir Kentler, 25. Uluslararası Yapı ve Yaşam Fuar ve Kongresi (Livable Cities, 25th International Building and Life Fair and Congress), Bursa, Turkey (in Turkish).
  • Bhatta, B. (2010). Causes and consequences of urban growth and sprawl. In Analysis of urban growth and sprawl from remote sensing data (17-36).
  • Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-642-05298-9. Bozdağ, A., Yavuz, F. & Günay, A.S. (2016). AHP and GIS based land suitability analysis for Cihanbeyli (Turkey). Environmental Earth Sciences, 75:813. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1007/s12665-016-5558-9
  • Bray, R., Vakil, C. & Elliott, D. (2005). Report on public health and urban sprawl in Ontario a review of the pertinent literature. Ontario Environmental Health Committee: http://www.jtc. sala.ubc.ca/reports/Urban%20Sprawl- Jan-0511.pdf
  • Burchell, R.W., Lowenstein, G., Dolphin, W.R. Galley, Downs, A., Seskin, S., Gray Still, K. & Moore, T. (2002).
  • The costs of sprawl – 2000 (TCRP Report 74), Transportation Research Board: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-a.pdf
  • Clara, T.M.J. (2008). Social problems in a global context. Retrived from https://shininglight7.wordpress. com/2008/10/17/lecture-9-urbanisation-–- urban-sprawl/
  • Correia, M. & Silva, J.A. (2015). The costs of urban sprawl on Portuguese municipalities in 2011. [Conference presentation]. 55th ERSA (European Regional Science Association) Congress World Renaissance: Changing roles for people and places, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Couch, C., Leontidou, L. & Petschel- Held, G. (Eds) (2007). Urban sprawl in Europe: landscapes, land-use change & policy. Blackwell Publishing, ISBN-13: 978-1405139175.
  • Daniels, T.L. & Lapping, M. (2005). Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 316-329.
  • David Suzuki Fundation. (2003). Getting the facts, driven to action a citizen’s toolkit the cost of sprawl. [Conference presentation]. http://meljohn. weebly.com/uploads/9/8/9/5/9895864/ driven_sprawlfacts__1_.pdf
  • Davodi-Far, M. (2014). Urban sprawl, Paper presented at IISES 9th International Academic Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • European Environment Agency. (2006a). Urban sprawl in Europe the ignored challenge (Report No 10/2006), https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ eea_report_2006_10.
  • European Environment Agency. (2006b). Urban sprawl questionnaire. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ eea_report_2006_10/Questionnaire- Urban-Sprawl.doc/view
  • Ewing, R. & Hamidi, S. (2014). Measuring urban sprawl and validating sprawl measures. https://gis.cancer. gov/tools/urban-sprawl/sprawl-report- short.pdf
  • Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 117(3), 201-217.
  • Galster, G., Hanson, R., Wolman, H., 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(4), 681-717.
  • Gurin, D. (2003). Understanding sprawl a citizen’s guide. The David Suzuki Fundation: http://www.urbancen tre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/elibrary/Suzuki. pdf
  • Hoyt, A. (2008). How urban sprawl works. http://geography.howstuffworks. com/terms-and-associations/ urban-sprawl.htm
  • Jaeger, J.A. & Schwick, C. (2014). Improving the measurement of urban sprawl: weighted urban proliferation (WUP) and its application to Switzerland. Ecological Indicators, 38:294– 308.
  • Jaeger, J.A.G., Bertiller B., Christian S. & Kienast, F. (2010). Suitability criteria for measures of urban sprawl. Ecological Indicators, 10: 397–406.
  • Jander, M. (2013). 6 of the world’s worst urban sprawls. http://www.ubmfuturecities. com/author.asp?section_ id=234&doc_id=524589
  • Karakayacı, Z. & Karakayacı, Ö. (2019). Determination of urban sprawl effects on farmlands value using GIS. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture & Planning, 7(2), 513-539.
  • Keene, J.C. (2001). Social equity and metropolitan growth, J. Barnett (Ed). In Planning for a new century: the regional agenda (49-62). Washington DC: Island Press. ISBN: 9781559638067.
  • Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi (Konya Metropolitan Municipality). (2016). 1/100.000 ölçekli Konya çevre düzeni planı plan açıklama raporu (Plan explanation report of 1 / 100.000 scaled
  • Konya environmental plan). Konya: Egeplan – Modül Planlama (Egeplan – Modül Planning Breau) (in Turkish). Kumari, K. (2015). Urban sprawl: a case study of Lucknow City. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 4 (5): 11-20.
  • Litman, T. (2015). Analysis of public policies that unintentionally encourage and subsidize urban sprawl. Victoria Transport Policy Institute:. https://files.lsecities.net/files/2015/03/ NCE-Sprawl-Subsidy-Report-021.pdf
  • Maier G., Franz G. & Schrock, P. (2006). Urban Sprawl: how useful İs this concept?. [Conference presentation]. 56th ERSA (European Regional Science Association) Congress Cities & Regions: Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive? Vienna, Austria. Majid, M.R. & Yahya, H. (2010).
  • Sprawling of a Malaysian city: what type and what solutions?. [Conference presentation]. the First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010), Hong Kong.
  • Mikhailov. L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Operational Research Society, 51(3), 341-349.
  • Morris, D.E. (2005). It’s a sprawl world after all: the human cost of unplanned growth – and visions of a better future. Canada: New Society Publishers. Pohanka, M. & Fitzgerald, S. (2004).
  • Urban sprawl and you: How sprawl adversely affects worker health. AAOHN Journal: Official Journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, 52(6), 242-246.
  • Polidoro, M., Lollo, J.A. & Fernandes Barros, M.V. (2011). Environmental impacts of urban sprawl in Londrina, Paraná, Brazil. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering (JUEE), 5(2), 73-83.
  • Qureshi, M. & King, R. (2015). 3 ways land-use planning and zoning can increase urban density. http://thecityfix. com/blog/three-ways-land-useplanning- zoning-can-increase-urbandensity- mona-qureshi-robin-king/
  • Resnik, D. B. (2010). Urban sprawl, smart growth, and deliberative democracy. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1852–1856.
  • Rezefar, A. & Kramaz, T.K. (2014). ICT in urban planning, about sustainability of the smart city. Planlama, 24(2), 64-66.
  • Saaty, T.L. (2001). Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. D. Schmoldt, J. Kangas, G.A. Mendoza & M. Pesonen (Eds). In The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making (15- 35). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN: 0-7923-7076-7.
  • Saaty, T.L., (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145 (1), 85-91.
  • Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 1(1), 83-98.
  • Saaty T.L.& Vargas L.G. (2012). The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process, In Models, Methods, Concepts
A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2564-7474
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2005
  • Yayıncı: İTÜ Rektörlüğü
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Research for evaluating perception of concrete material by using visual research methods in learning environments

Beren SEYMEN, Ervin GARIP

Exploring the ‘R’s and constructing the big picture of ‘recycling’ in architecture and construction industry

Arulmalar RAMARAJ, Jothilakshmy NAGAMMAL

The relationship between living environment and daily life routines of older adults

Rümeysa BAYAR, Handan TÜRKOĞLU

Şile and its castle: Historical topography and medieval architectural history

Hasan Sercan SAĞLAM

Understanding design creativity through pretense ability

Derya GURCAN, Deniz LEBLEBICI BASAR

Urban sprawl: An empirical analysis for Konya Province- Turkey

Fadim YAVUZ

Measuring effects of building orientation and vegetation on thermal comfort by ENVI-met (Case study: Maslak area, Istanbul)

Narges AFZALI, Hadi Rezaei RAD

Issues in the planning and design of university campuses in Turkey

Ela CIL, Berna YAYLALI

LEED certified mixed-use residential buildings in Istanbul: A study on category-based performances

Özge SÜZER

Biography of a monument: Historical and morphological survey of the Tower of Justice (Adalet Kulesi)Biography of a monument: Historical and morphological survey of the Tower of Justice (Adalet Kulesi)

Nilay ÖZLÜ