MONOCENTRIC CITY LAND USE BEHAVIOLAR MODEL: STATE OF SAKARYA, URBAN CITY, CENTRAL TOWN “BID-RENT FUNCTIONS”

ZAFER ÖZER CEM BURAK GÜVENMEHMET YEŞİLTEPE

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.

Key Definations City AreaCity Area: An area which has economic and

politic activity and high population density and has more than 50000 population.

City PopulationCity Population: A population which includes the people living in the city and resort population is more than 2500 related or not related with city.

Bid-rent functionBid-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.

CBDCBD: Central Business District

Literature Survey Fujita (1990):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):Von Thünen (1926): Bid-rent function was firstly used in agricultural location, land use.

Alonso (1964):Alonso (1964): applied the bid rent functions in urban land use.

Literature Survey Ernest William Burgess (1925)Ernest William Burgess (1925)

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.

Bid-Rent Graph 1

Bid-Rent Graph 2

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.

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.

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

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.

Differences From Theoretical Bid-Rent Function

First; considering transportation distance

rather than radial distance from center.

Second; using dummy variables depend on

towns which have touristic characteristics

and land discrepancy.

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.

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.

Empirical Model

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.

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.

Central Town of Adapazarı

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION