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

The relationship between the socio-economic factors and the organization of urban space has not received adequate attention in the literature. This study aims to answer the question: Is the organization of urban space associated with social and economic characteristics? The city of Izmir, Turkey, has been selected as the study area and the neighborhoods over 300 in number are grouped into 6 clusters based on their similarities pertaining to the social and economic indicators using hierarchical cluster analysis. The neighborhoods which are closest to the cluster centers selected as the cluster representatives. The organization of space in the representative neighborhoods is quantified using graph theory indices. The results from the ANOVA performed at the global level (or at the neighborhood level) and the post hoc Fisher’s least significant difference tests performed at the local level (or at the node or edge level) both reveal that neighborhoods with different social and economic characteristics have different spatial organizations, and they are different in terms of the network accessibility levels measured through graph theory indices. The findings clearly indicate more developed social and economic conditions co-exist with more developed network topologies. The empirical findings of the present study put forward that the planning process is far from providing similar urban spatial organizations for people that differ in social and economic characteristics, and that is a major real-life problem. It is clear that we cannot and should not enforce similar spatial layouts in all neighborhoods, but we can work for achieving a heterogeneous social and economic structure within each neighborhood through urban policies and development plans. The method described in this study can then be used to assess the degree of success in achieving this aim.

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

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.

PDF

___

Abu-Lughod, J.L. (1969). Testing the theory of social area analysis: The ecology of Cairo, Egypt. American Sociological Review, 34 (2), 198–212.

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.

Allen, W.B., Liu, D., Singer, S. (1993). Accessibility measures of US metropolitan areas. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 27 (6), 439–449.

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.

Barrett, P. (1983). The Automobile and Urban Transit: The Formation of Public Policy in Chicago, 1900–1930., Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bell, W. (1953). The social areas of the San Francisco Bay region. American Sociological Review, 18 (1), 39–47.

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.

Borruso, G. (2003). Network density and the delimitation of urban areas. Transactions in GIS, 7(2), 177-191.

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.

Burgess, E.W. (1925). The Growth of The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 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.

Cohen, D.A., Lapham, S., Evenson, K.R., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., Ward, P., Hillier, A., McKenzie, T.L. (2013).Use of neighbourhood parks: Does socio–economic status matter? A four-city study. Public Health, 127 (4), 325–332.

Cronon, W. (2009). Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Crucitti, P., Latora, V., Porta, S. (2006). Centrality measures in spatial networks of urban streets. Physical Review E, 73(3), 036125.

Cubukcu, E., Cubukcu, K.M. (2017). The urban patterns in “informal” and “formal” neighborhoods: a graph theory-based study. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Studies, 2(2), 42-47.

Cubukcu, K.M. (2015). Examining the Street Patterns in Izmir in the 19th Century: A network based spatial analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 436-441.

Gallion, A.B., Eisner, S. (1950). The Urban Pattern: City Planning and Design. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. Glaab, C.N., Theodore, B. (1967). A History of Urban America. London: Macmillan Press.

Haggerty, L.J. (1982). Differential social contact in urban neighborhoods: En vironmental vs. sociodemographic explanations. The Sociological Quarterly, 23 (3), 359–372.

Haggett, P., Chorley, R.J. (1969). Network Analysis in Geography. London: Edward Arnold.

Hammond, R. & McCullagh, P. S. (1978). Quantitative techniques in geography: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Handy, S.L., Clifton, K.J. (2001). Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: Possibilities and practicalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 4 (2/3), 67–78.

Handy, S.L., Niemeier, D.A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of ıssues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29 (7), 1175–1194.

Hansen, W.G. (1959). How Accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25 (2), 73–76.

Harris, C.D., Ullman, E.L. (1945). The nature of cities. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 7–17.

Hofmeister, B. (2004). The study of urban form in Germany. Urban Morphology, 8, 3–12.

Holmes, P.G. (1962). Urban Form. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 (3), 190–194.

Hoyt, H. (1939). The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Washington DC: Federal Housing Administration.

Ingram, D.R. (1971). The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5 (2), 101–107.

Kansky K. & Danscoine, P. (1989). Measures of network structure. Flux, 5(1), 89-121.

Kansky, K. (1963). Structure of transportation networks: Relationships between network geography and regional characteristics. Research Paper, Department of Geography No. 84., University of Chicago, Chicago.

Kostof, S.K. (1991). The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History. London: Thames and Hudson.

Kwan, M.P., Murray, A.T., O’Kelly, M.E., Tiefelsdorf, M. (2003). Recent advances in accessibility research: Representation, methodology and applications. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5 (1), 129–138.

Larkham, P.J. (1996). Conservation and the City. London: Routledge.

Mack, R. W., & McElrath, D. C. (1964). Urban Social Differentiation and the Allocation of Resources. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 352(1), 25-32.

McElrath, D.C. (1965). Urban differentiation: Problems and prospects. Law and Contemporary Problems, 30 (1), 103–110.

Miller, H.J. (1996). GIS and geometric representation in facility location problems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 10, 791–816.

Morris, A.E.J. (1972). History of Urban Form: Prehistory to the Renaissance. London: George Godwin Ltd.

Morris, J.M., Dumble, P.L., Wigan, M.R. (1979). Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transportation Research Part A, 13(2), 91–109.

Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History: Its Origins, its Transformation, and its Prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Murray, A.T., O’Kelly, M.E. (2002). Assessing representation error in point– based coverage modeling. Journal of Geographical Systems, 4, 171–191.

Omer, I., Goldblatt, R. (2012). Urban spatial configuration and socio–economic residential differentiation: The case of Tel Aviv. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36 (2), 177–185.

Porta, S., Crucitti, P., Latora, V. (2006). The network analysis of urban streets: A primal approach. Environment and Planning B, 33 (5), 705–725.

Rashid, M. (2017). The geometry of urban layouts. Cham: Springer. Sevtsuk, A., Mekonnen, M. (2012). Urban network analysis. A new toolbox for ArcGIS. Revue Internationale de Géomatique, 22 (2), 287–305.

Shevky, E., Bell, W. (1955). Social Area Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Shevky, E., Williams, M. (1949). The Social Areas of Los Angeles: Analysis and Typology. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Theodore, R.A., Egeland, J.A. (1961). The spatial aspects of social area theory. American Sociological Review, 26 (3), 392–398.

Van Arsdol, M.D., Camilleri, S.F., Schmid, C.F. (1958). The generality of urban social area ındexes. American Sociological Review, 23 (3), 277–284.

Ward, J.H. (1963). Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.