1 / 30

ZAFER ÖZER CEM BURAK GÜVEN MEHMET YEŞİLTEPE

MONOCENTRIC CITY LAND USE BEHAVIOLAR MODEL: STATE OF SAKARYA, URBAN CITY, CENTRAL TOWN “ BID-RENT FUNCTIONS”. ZAFER ÖZER CEM BURAK GÜVEN MEHMET YEŞİLTEPE. Aim of the Article.

chaela
Download Presentation

ZAFER ÖZER CEM BURAK GÜVEN MEHMET YEŞİLTEPE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MONOCENTRIC CITY LAND USE BEHAVIOLAR MODEL: STATE OF SAKARYA, URBAN CITY, CENTRAL TOWN “BID-RENT FUNCTIONS” ZAFER ÖZER CEM BURAK GÜVEN MEHMET YEŞİLTEPE

  2. Aim of the Article • This study aims to determine whether monocentric city model bid-rent function can explain land use behaviour of economic agents in the town of Adapazarı, Adapazarı Urban City and in the State of Sakarya.

  3. Key Definations • City Area: An area which has economic and politic activity and high population density and has more than 50000 population. • City Population: A population which includes the people living in the city and resort population is more than 2500 related or not related with city.

  4. Bid-rent function: Land users bid against one another paying high rent for proximity to the center of business on representive tranportation costs. Hence, rent is a function of distance from the center of economic activity. • CBD: Central Business District

  5. Literature Survey • Fujita (1990): cities have richness, welfare, power and innovation so land and house’s prices are high in the center of the cities. • Von Thünen (1926): Bid-rent function was firstly used in agricultural location, land use. • Alonso (1964): applied the bid rent functions in urban land use.

  6. Literature Survey • Ernest William Burgess (1925)

  7. Assumptions • All working possibilities are at the CBD. • Households have the same income and taste levels. • Public services, taxes and weather qualities are same in everywhere. • Transportation costs take into consideration only for working.

  8. Bid-Rent Graph 1

  9. Bid-Rent Graph 2

  10. Theoratical Model • Ψ (r,u)=max{(Y-T( r )-Z(s,u) )/s} • s= land use. • u= utility. • r= distance. • Ψ (r,u)= the bid-rent function. • Y= income. • T( r )= the transportation cost with respect to distance.

  11. On the otherhand bid-rent function differs related to land and amount of land used. The bid-rent function is less elastic, where the available amount of land use is more.

  12. The cases of the article; • Central Town of Adapazarı • Adapazarı Urban City • State of Sakarya • The study includes the years between 1990-2002 for Central Town of Adapazarı and 1994-2002 for Adapazarı Urban city & State of Sakarya

  13. Identifications • There are only wards and streets considered for Central Town of Adapazarı. • In the Urban City of Adapazarı case the towns are also considered which are bound to Adapazarı • Finnaly, State of Sakarya involves all of city.

  14. Differences From Theoretical Bid-Rent Function • First; considering transportation distance rather than radialdistance from center. • Second; using dummy variables depend on towns which have touristic characteristics and land discrepancy.

  15. Data and Variables • Metersquare of land prices calculated by geometric mean for Central Town of Adapazarı, by aritmetic mean for Adapazarı Urban city and State of Sakarya. • Because of the prices of land for Adapazarı Urban city and State of Sakarya does not change anormally like Central Town of Adapazarı. • The distance from center is based on the highway km.

  16. Empirical Model • Ln Ψi = Ln α + β Γi + ε i (+ Dummy) • Ψ= Real land price. This variable is endogenous in the model. • α is the constant term. • Γ = distance from the center of Adapazarı, (km). • There are also some dummy variables with respect to base years and cases.

  17. Dummy Variables • DHAN = Dummy variable for HANLI town. • DSAP = Dummy variable for SAPANCA town. • DKAY = Dummy variable for KAYNARCA town. • DKOC = Dummy variable for KOCAALI town. • DESEN= Dummy variable for ESENTEPE town. • DYAZ= Dummy variable for YAZLIK town.

  18. Results of Empirical Study • The empirical study of bid-rent function theory has done for both; Central Town of Adapazarı, Adapazarı Urban city, State of Sakarya. • The negative relationship is found for all cases but the most feasible for the theory is Central Town of Adapazarı case.

  19. Central Town of Adapazarı

  20. Results of Empirical Study • In the results of the study shows that the prices of the land per metersquare is decreasing more rapidly in central town of Adapazarı where has the less available amount of land to use. In contrast, in the State of Sakarya the prices of the land per metersquare is decreasing more slowly depends on the wideness of this area.

  21. Central Town of Adapazarı • The statistical analysis is made for central town of Adapazı in 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2002. • The most reliable result is obtained in 1990. • The negative relationship between prices & distance is decreasing until 1999 Adapazarı earthquake.

  22. Adapazarı Urban City • Urban city express the more wide municipal area than the central town. • The statistical analysis is made for Adapazarı Urban City in 1994, 1998 and 2002.

  23. Adapazarı Urban City • Some key dummy variables are used in the model to get more explanotary results. • The most significant result is founded in 1994. • We can see that the negative relationship between the prices&distance getting weaker year by year.

  24. State of Sakarya • The statistical analysis is made for State of Sakarya in 1994, 1998 and 2002. • There are also some dummy variables included to model.

  25. State of Sakarya • According to the average prices of the three years, monocentric city model is significant for state of Sakarya. • As the included areas in State of Sakarya are wider than the Adapazarı Urban City and Central Town of Adapazarı the model is less illustrative than the others.

  26. Conclusion • The monocentric city model is statistically significant for both; Central Town of Adapazarı, Adapazarı Urban city, State of Sakarya • According to “bid-rent function” the bidded rent is decreasing as getting far from center in this study.

  27. Conclusion • As Land use gets wider, the bidded rent is decreasing less rapidly. • To sum up, sakarya is matches with the monocentric city model conditions and Sakarya is on the way of becoming a metropol.

  28. Istanbul Case • According to study of Çıracı and Kundak, Istanbul has been changing its monocentric structure to the polycentric structure. The development of this structure causes the formation of the new sub-business districts.

  29. Istanbul Case • This polycentric structure provides with some vital benefits to Istanbul Metropolitan Area such as the deduction of transportation charge between the residential areas and the CBD, the preventation of the consumption of the resources and the environmental pollution, and the integration of unplanned and illegal areas with their surroundings due to the new developping subcentres.

  30. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

More Related