Premium
The Spatial Urban Hierarchy in Turkey: Its Structure and Some of Its Determinants
Author(s) -
MUTLU SERVET
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
growth and change
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.657
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1468-2257
pISSN - 0017-4815
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2257.1988.tb00475.x
Subject(s) - hierarchy , urban hierarchy , turkish , economic geography , geography , regional science , per capita income , distribution (mathematics) , terrain , stratum , econometrics , mathematics , economics , cartography , sociology , demography , population , geology , linguistics , philosophy , market economy , mathematical analysis , paleontology
This paper gives a detailed description of the Turkish spatial hierarchy, tests certain aspects of the central place theory, and identifies the principles by which the hierarchy is organized. From the results of a country‐wide survey, a seven‐level hierarchy is identified. The system does not conform to any of the pure theoretical networks. The number of lower order satellites per center and the sizes and populations of the nested tributary areas vary both vertically and horizontally‐that is, both across and within levels in the hierarchy. The spreads around the means of center sizes in each level and the populations and sizes of tributary areas are too great to permit unequivocal statements about typical magnitudes of the variates. The trade areas of centers consist mostly of monopolistic zones of influence showing the effects of a centralized administrative system especially at the second and third levels of the hierarchy. Regression analysis reveals that different factors operate at different levels and with varying intensities in ordering the structure of the system with no one factor being predominant. Income per capita, the density of the road network, the nature of the terrain, the degree of spatial mobility, the structure of economic activity in rural areas, and the distribution of labor force by type of activity emerge as ordering the frequency of centers and the sizes of their nested tributary areas. The regression analysis also reveals that the hypothesized positive relationship between center size and complementary area population, although holding at the second and third order levels, breaks down at the first order, suggesting that first order centers are quasi‐central places, with primary activities as the dominant mode of their economies. These centers appear to serve themselves principally, and only secondarily their hinterlands. Possibly this results from a lack of connectivity with the settlements in their tributary areas.