İkametgâh memnuniyeti bağlamında konut yeri seçimi ve ikametgâh hareketliliği: Bolu kenti örneği

Year 2013, , 149 - 168, 01.08.2013

Ragıp Kalelioğlu M. E.murat Özgür

https://doi.org/10.1501/Cogbil_0000000147

Cited By: 7

Abstract

İkametgâh memnuniyeti, konut ve semtin özellikleri, hane halkının çeşitli hizmet ve olanaklara erişebilirliği, ekonomik fırsatlar ve sosyal ağlarla ilişkilidir. Memnuniyet, kentleşmenin gelişimiyle birlikte konut alanı yer seçimi ve hane halkının yer seçimi davranışları konut veya emlak piyasası içerisinde değerlendirilen önemli bir konudur. Farklı sosyo-ekonomik ve demografik yapıdaki hane halkının yer seçimi davranışları, kentsel yapı ve alanının gelişimi ile emlak piyasası içerisinde önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı, Türkiye’de, orta ölçekli bir kentte ikametgâh memnuniyeti bağlamında hane halkının taşınmayı düşünmesi durumunda hangi belirleyici unsurların konut yeri seçiminde etkili olduğunu ampirik olarak analiz etmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda konut yeri seçimi Bolu kenti örneklem alanında kartopu yöntemiyle hane halkına yapılan anketlere dayalı veri seti kullanılarak oluşturulan davranışsal model, faktör, regresyon ve varyans analizi ile tahmin edilmiş ve bu analizlerden elde edilen ampirik bulgular, kentsel mekandaki hane halkının taşınmayı düşünmesi durumunda, sosyo-ekonomik ve demografik göstergelerine göre konut yer seçimi ya da tercihinin de değiştiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu değişimde hane halkının eğitim, gelir düzeyi, konutun mülkiyet sahipliği ve hane halkı reisi yaşının etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, genel olarak Türkiye’de ikametgâh memnuniyeti bağlamında hane halkının taşınmayı düşünmesi durumunda sosyo-ekonomik ve demografik unsurların konut yeri seçiminde etkili olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır

Keywords

Davranışsal coğrafya, ikametgâh memnuniyeti, konut yer seçimi, hareketlilik, Bolu

Housing location choice and residential mobility in the context of residential satisfaction: The case of Bolu city

Abstract

Residential satisfaction is related to the qualities of housing and neighbourhood, the accessibility of the household to different services and facilities, and economical opportunities and social networks. Morever, with the development of urbanization, the choice of housing location and the attitudes of the household in choosing the location have become an important subject which is evaluated in the housing and real estate market. Housing location choice attitudes of the household, having different socio-economical and demographic structures, play a significant role in the development of urban structure and urban area, and real estate market. The aim of this article is to empirically analyze the effective determinants (or factor) in the choice of housing location with respect to household mobility in the context of residential satisfaction in a medium-sized city. In accordance with this aim, housing location choice is estimated by the behavioural model and statistical (factor, regression and variant) analysis which were obtained by using the data set based on the questionnaires selected by snowball households in the sample area of Bolu city. The results show that housing location choice or preference changes in accordance with the socio-economical and demographic indicators of the household in terms of housing mobility in the spatial area of Bolu city. This change was determined to be effective of household the education, salary, the ownership of the property and the age of the head of the household. In conclusion, socio-economical and demographic factors are effective in housing location choice in the context of residential satisfaction in Turkey in general

Keywords

Behavioural geography, residential satisfaction, housing location choice, mobility, Bolu

References

• Alkay, E. (2011). The Residential Mobility Pattern in the İstanbul Metropolitan Area. Housing Studies, 26(4), 521-539.
• Alonso, W. (1964). Location and Land Use. Cambridge: Harward University Press.
• Amérigo, M., Aragones, J.I. (1990). Residential satisfaction in council housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 313-325.
• Amerigo, M., Aragones, J.I. (1997). A theorical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 47-57.
• Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students’ housing, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 76- 85.
• Baillie, S.T., Peart, V. (1992). Determinants of housing satisfaction for older married and unmarried women in Florida. Housing and Society, 19 (2), 101-116.
• Baker, E. (2003). Public Housing Tenant Relocation: Residental Mobility, Satisfaction, and the Development of a Tenant’s Spatial Decision Support System, Ph.Doc.Thesis, The Adelaide University Departement of Geographical and Environmental Studies, Adelaide, Australia.
• Berköz, L. (2008). İstanbul’da korunaklı tek aile konutları: Konut kalitesi ve kullanıcı memnuniyetinin belirlenmesi, İTÜ Dergisi 7(1), 110-124.
• Bonvalet, C., Carpenter, J., White, P. (1995). The Residential Mobility of Ethnic Minorities: A Longitudinal Analysis. Urban Studies, 32(1), 87-103.
• Brown, L.A., Moore, E.G. (1970). The intra-urban migration process: A perspective. Geografiska Annaler, Series B 53,1-13.
• Brueckner, J.K. (1987). The Structure of Urban Equilibria: a Unified Treatment of The Muth Mills Model, Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 2, 821–845
• Büyüköztürk,Ş., Çakmak,E.K., Akgün,Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Bruch E.E., Mare, R.D. (2006) Neighborhood choice and neighborhood change. American Journal of Sociology, 112 (3), 667 709.
• Bruin, M.J., Cook, C.C. (1997). Understanding constraints and residential satisfaction among low-income single-parent families Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 532-553.
• Burrows, R., Rhodes, D. (2000). The Geography of Misery: Area Disadvantage and Patterns of Neighbourhood Dissatisfaction in England. In J. Bradshaw and R. Sainsbury (eds) Researching Poverty, Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Cadwallader, M. (1992). Migration and residential mobility: Macro and micro approaches. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
• Carp,F.M., Christensen,D.L. (1986). Technical Environmental Assessment Predictors of Residential Satisfaction. A Study of Elderly Women Living Alone. Res Aging, 8(2), 269-287.
• Carvalho, M., George, R.V., Anthony, K.H. (1997). Residential satisfaction in condominios exclusivos (gate-guarded neighborhoods) in Brazil. Environment and Behavior, 29(6), 734-768.
• Clark, W.A.V., Deurloo, M.C., Dieleman, F.M. (2006). Residential mobility and neighbourhood outcomes. Housing Studies, 21(3), 323-342.
• Clark, W.A.V., Dieleman, F.M. (1996). Households and housing: choice and outcomes, In the Housing Market. New Brunswick,
• N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
• Clark, W.A.V., Van Lierop, W.F.J.(1987). Residential mobility and household location modelling. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 1, 97-132.
• Clark, W.A.V., Onaka, J.L. (1983). Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanations of residential mobility. Urban Studies, 20, 47-57.
• Clark, W.A.V., Withers, S.D. (2007). Family migration and mobility sequences in the United States: Spatial mobility in the context of the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 591-622.
• Crull, S.R. (1994). Housing satisfaction of households at risk of serious housing problems. Housing and Society 21(2), 41- 51.
• Cutter, S. (1982). Residential satisfaction and the suburban homeowner. Urban Geography, 3(4), 315–327.
• Çubukçu, E., Girginer-Akdeniz, S. (2006). Toplu konut ve kent merkezi konut yerleşimlerinde kullanıcı memnuniyeti, Ege Mimarlık Dergisi, 57, 18-21.
• Doherty, P., Poole, M.A. (1997). Ethnic Residential Segregation in Belfast, Northern Ireland, 1971-1991. Geograpcial Review, 87(4), 520-536.
• Dökmeci, V., Berköz, L. (2000). Residential-location preferences according to demographic characteristics in Istanbul. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 45-55.
• Dökmeci, V., Berköz, L., Levent, H., Yürekli, H., Çagdas, G. (1996). Residential preferences in Istanbul. Habitat International, 20(2), 241-251.
• DPT, (2004). İlçerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması 2004. Ankara: DPT Yayınları.
• Dündar, Ö. (2002). Patterns of inner-city migration in Ankara. In C.A. Brebbia, J.F. Martin-Duque, L.C. Wadhwa (Eds.), The Sustainable City II, The Regeneration and Sustainability (pp:207-216). Southampton, Boston: WIT Press,.
• Earhart, C.C., Weber, M.J. (1996). Attachment to home: A contributing factor to models of residential mobility intentions. Familiy and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 24 (4), 422-437.
• Fang, Y. (2006). Residential satisfaction, moving intention and moving behaviours: a study of redeveloped neighborhoods in inner Beijing. Housing Studies, 21(5), 671-694.
• Fernández, G.F.M., Pérez, F.R., Abuín, J.M.R. (2003). Components of the residential environment and socio-demographic characteristics of the elderly. Journal of Housing For the Elderly,18(1), 25-49.
• Freeman, L.C., Sunshine, M.H. (1976). Race and intra-urban migration. Demography 13 (4), 571-575.
• Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: sources of residential and community satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38(3),107 119.
• Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical critique. Environment and Behavior 19(5), 539-568.
• Galster, G.C., Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environment and Behavior 13(6), 735-758.
• Golant, S.M.(1982).Individual differences underlying the dwelling satisfaction of the elderly. Journal of Social Issues 38, 121-133
• Golant, S.M. (1985). The Suitability of Old People’s Residential Environment: Insights from the Geographic Literature. Urban Geography, 7(5), 437-447.
• Hanushek, E.A., Quigley, J.M. (1978). An explicit model of intra-metropolitan mobility. Land Economics, 54, (4), 411-429.
• Hourihan, K. (1984). Context-dependent models of residential satisfaction: an analysis of housing groups in Cork, Ireland. Environment and Behaviour, 16 (3), 369-393.
• Ineichen, B. (1981). The housing decisions of young people. The British Journal of Sociology, 32 (2), 252-258.
• Jagun, A., Brown, D.R., Milburn, N.G., Gary, L.E. (1990). Residential satisfaction and socioeconomic and housing characteristics of urban black adults. Journal of Black Studies 21(1): 40-51.
• James, R.N. (2008). Residential Satisfaction of Elderly Tenants in Apartments Housing. Soc. İndic. Res., 89, 421-437.
• Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., Kahana, M. (2003). Person, Environment and Person Environment Fit as Influences on Residential Satisfaction of Elders. Environment and Behavior, 35, 434-453.
• Kasarda, J., Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review 39(3), 328-339.
• Kellekci, Ö.L., Berköz, L. (2006). Konut ve çevresel kalite memnuniyetini yükselten faktörler. İTÜ Dergisi/A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 5(2), 165-176.
• Kendig, H.L. (1984). Housing careers, life cycle and residential mobility: Implications for the housing market. Urban Studies, 21, 271-283.
• Kintrea, K., Clapham, D. (1986). Housing choice and search strategies within an administered housing system. Environment and Planning, A-18, 1281-1296.
• Knox, P., Pinch, S. (2010). Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. Sixth edition, Harlow: Pearson.
• Kocatürk, F., Bölen, F. (2005). Kayseri’de konut alanı yer seçimi ve hanehalkı hareketliliği. İTÜ Dergisi, 4 (2), 17- 24.
• Korkmaz, A. (2005). Eğitim ve mesleğin sosyal hareketliliğe etkisi. Sosyoloji Konferansları Dergisi, 30, 79-92.
• LaGory, M., Russell W., Susan S. (1985). The Ecology of Aging: Neighborhood Satisfaction in an Older Population. Sociological Quarterly 26, 405–418.
• Lee, E.S. (1966). A theory of migration, Demography, 3, 47-57.
• Lee, S.W., Roseman, C.C. (1999). Migration determinants and employment consequences of white and black families, 1985 1990. Economic Geography, 75(2), 109-113.
• Liu, A.M.M. (1999). Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective. Automation in Construction, 8, 511 524.
• Loo, C. (1986). Neighbourhood satisfaction and safety: a study of a low-income ethnic area. Environment and Behaviour,18(1), 109-131.
• Lu, M. (1998). Analyzing migration decisionmaking: Relationship between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behavior. Environment and Planning A 30, 1473-1495.
• Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs. regression model. Growth and Change, 30 (2), 264- 276.
• Marans, R.W., Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward Understandingof Community Satisfaction. Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspectives (pp:299-352). In Vincent P. Rock (eds), New York: Halstedd Press.
• Marın, M.C., Altıntas, H. (2004). Konut yer seçimi-ulasım etkilesim teorileri: Kritik bir literatür incelemesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19 (1), 73-88.
• McAuley, W.J., Nutty, C.L. (1982). Residential preferences and moving behavior: A family life cycle analysis. Journal of Marrage and the Family, 44 (2), 301-309.
• Miller, F.D., Tsemberis, S., Malia, G.P., Grega, D. (1980). Neighborhood satisfaction among urban dwellers. Journal of Social Issues, 36 (3), 101-117.
• Mills, E.S. (1972). Studies in the structure of the urban economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
• Mills, E.S. (1991). The Measurement and Determinants of Suburbanization. Journal of Urban Economics, 32, 377-387.
• Morris, E.W., Winter, M. (1975). A theory of family housing adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family 37, 79-88.
• Muth, R.F. (1969). Cities and Housing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Nathan, V. (1995). Residents’ satisfaction with the sites and services approach in affordable housing. Housing and Society 22 (3), 53-78.
• Newman, S.J., Duncan, G.J.(1979). Residential problems, dissatisfaction and mobility. Journal of the American Planning
• Association, 45, 154-166.
• Onaka, J.L. (1983). A Multiple- Attribute Housing Disequilibrium Model of Residential Mobility. Environment And Planning A- 15, 751-765.
• Onibokun, A.G. (1976). Social system correlates of residential satisfaction. Environment and Behavior 8 (3), 323-344.
• Özcan-Kocatürk, F. (2006). Konut alanı yer seçimi ve hanehalkı hareketliliğine yönelik kuramsal bir inceleme. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(2), 73-95.
• Özdamar, K. (2009). Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi 1. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
• Özgür, E.M, (2009). İkametgâh memnuniyeti ve şehir içi ikametgâh hareketliliği. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 111-127
• Özgür, E.M., Yasak, Ü. (2009). Şehir içi ikametgâh hareketliliğine kuramsal bir bakış. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 39-50.
• Pacione, M. (2009) .Urban Geography A Global Perspective. Third Edition, London: Routhledge press.
• Pickles, A.R., Davies, R.B. (1991). The empirical analysis of housing careers: A review and a general statistical modelling Framework. Environment and Planning A 23, 465-484.
• Pickvance, C.G. (1974). Life cycle, housing tenure and residential mobility:A path analytic approach. Urban Studies,11,171- 188.
• Rent, G. S., Rent, C. S. (1978). Low-income housing: factors related to residential satisfaction. Environment and Behavior 10, 459–488.
• Rossi, P.H. (1955). Why Families Move. Beverly Hills and London: Sage publication.
• Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1), 1-28.
• Sabagh,G., Van Arsdol, M.D., Butler, E.W. (1969). Some deteriminants of intrametropolitan residential mobility: Conceptual Considerations. Social Forces, 48 (1), 88-98.
• Schwirian, K.P., Schwirian, P.M. (1993). Neighboring, residential satisfaction, and psychological well-being in urban elders. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 285-299.
• Speare, A. Jr. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography 11, 173-188.
• South,S.J., Crowder, K.D. (1997). Residential mobility between cities and suburbs: Race, suburbanization, and back-to-the city Moves. Demography, 34 (4), 525-538.
• South, S.J., Deane, G.D. (1993). Race and Residential Mobility: İndividual Determinants and structural Constraints. Social Forces, 72 (1), 147-167.
• Tognoli, J. (1987). Residential environments, Handbook of Environmental Psychology. In D. Stokols and I. Altman, Eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 655-690.
• Tümertekin, E., Özgüç, N. (2002). Beşeri Coğrafya İnsan, Kültür, Mekan. İstanbul: Çantay Kitabevi.
• Türkoğlu, H. (1997). Resident’s satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 55-67.
• Vrbka, S.J., Combs, E.R. (1993). Predictors of neighborhood and community satisfactions in rural communities. Housing and Society 20(1), 41-49.
• Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R. (1982). Residents’ perception of satisfaction and safety: A basis for change in multifamily Housing. Environment and Behavior, 14, 695-724.
• Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. I. Altman ve C. H. Werner, (Ed.), Home Environments içinde, New York.:Plenum Press, 153–182.
• Wolpert, J. (1965). Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 15, 159-169.
• Wolpert, J. (1966). Migration as an adjustment to environmental stres. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 91-102.
• Yavan, N. (2006). Türkiye’de Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Lokasyon Seçimi. Ünal Aysal Tez Değerlendirme Yarışması Dizisi, İstanbul: İktisadi Araştırmalar Vakfı Yayınları.
• Yavan, N. (2012). Türkiye’de Yatırım Teşviklerinin Bölgesel Belirleyicileri: Mekânsal ve İstatistiksel Bir Analiz. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (1), 9-37.
• Yıldız, M.Y. (2006). Bolu il merkezinde hane halkının konut tercihine etki eden faktörlerin incelenmesi. Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Yirmibesoğlu, F. (1997). İstanbul’da iskân alanlarının yer seçiminde hane halkı nitelikleri ve konut talebi. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: İT.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.