Sustainable urban transportation performance in Ankara: A comparative study

Year 2024, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 23 - 29, 31.03.2024

Ebru Arıkan Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.30939/ijastech..1369878

Abstract

Urban mobility is increasing rapidly due to the increasing population, number of motor vehicles and economic developments in Türkiye. Private vehicles are given priority in ur-ban transportation policies and practices in metropolitan municipalities. Therefore, prob-lems such as traffic congestion, delays, air pollution, noise, improper land use, traffic ac-cidents and decrease quality of life are experienced. Although sustainable transportation is generally referred to with air pollution, global warming and climate change; It refers to a wide transportation structure that is sustainable in terms of economic, social and envi-ronmental effects. In this study, Ankara's sustainable urban transportation performance was compared with İstanbul, İzmir, Konya and Antalya, using the Sustainable Urban Transportation Index (SURKENT), which was previously developed by the author. In SURKENT, 15 sub-indicators are defined under 4 main indicators. The main indicators are Environmental Performance (EP), Transportation Performance (TP), Energy Perfor-mance (EnP) and Municipality Governance Performance (MGP). 4 sub-indicators were used under Environmental Performance, 7 under Transportation Performance, 2 under Energy Performance and 2 sub-indicators under Municipality Governance Performance. Minimum-maximum normalization was used for sub-indicators containing quantitative data, and 0-100 scoring was used for qualitative data. The ranking of cities with the high-est sustainable urban transportation performance was found as follows: İstanbul, İzmir, Konya, Ankara, Antalya. Ankara; it is 3rd in EP, 3rd in TP, 5th in EnP and 2nd in MGP.

Keywords

Urban transport, Performance index, Sustainable transport, Ankara

References

• [1] Khor N, Arimah B, Otieno R, Oostrum MV, Mutinda M, Martins JO. Envisaging the Future of Cities, World Cities Report 2022. UN-Habitat press; 2022.
• [2] Nuray A, Reis Manap G, Sarioğlu K, A. Sanalan T, Aydi S. Environmental Indicators. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. ISBN: 978-625-7076-19-7, Publication No: 49-2; 2021.
• [3] Brundtland Commission. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press. UK; 1987.
• [4] Öncü E, Öncü Yıldız A. Sürdürülebilir Ulaşım: Devlet Bunun Neresinde? IMO 9. Ulaştırma Kongresi. Türkiye/İstanbul, 16-18 May 2011.
• [5] Watson J. European Green City Index: Assessing the environmental impact of Europe’s major cities. Publisher: Siemens AG; Munich, Germany, 2009
• [6] Litman T. Sustainability and Livability. Summary of Definitions, Goals, Objectives and Performance Indicators. Victoria Transport Pplicy Institute. 11 March 2011.
• [7] Ahn KY. Sustainable Urban Transport Evaluation (SUTE) and the Way Forward. The Korea Transport Institute Report; 2015.
• [8] Regmi MB, Shivanand Swamy HM. Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) Data Collection Guideline. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) Report; 2019.
• [9] Rupprecht Consult-Forschung & Beratung GmbH. Sustainable Urban Mobility Indicators (SUMI): Harmonisation Guideline. World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2020.
• [10] Rupprecht Consult-Forschung & Beratung GmbH. Sustainable Urban Mobility Indicators (SUMI) Project Details; 2020.
• [11] Arıkan Öztürk E. Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SURKENT). TRANSIST 2017 International Istanbul Transportation Congress. Türkiye/İstanbul, 02-04 November 2017.
• [12] Dündar AO. Comparative Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Transport in the Metropolitan Cities of Türkiye. The Journal of Natural Hazards and Environment. 2021;7(2): 318-337.
• [13] WHO World Health Organization. Air Quality Database; Excel version of the database - Ambient (outdoor) air quality database, by country and city; 2022.
• [14] Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change.National Air Quality Monitoring Network; 2022.
• [15] Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Istanbul Noise Level Reduction Action Plan (İSGEP); 2018.
• [16] İzmir Metropolitan Municipality. İzmir Noise Action Plan (İGEP); 2022.
• [17] Akbulut Çoban N, Doğan G. Assessment of Environmental Noise Management Policiy in Antalya. The Second National Acoustics Congress And Exhibition, İzmir; 14-15 September 2017.
• [18] Konya Metropolitan Municipality. Konya Environmental Noise Action Plan; 2017.
• [19] Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. Strategic Noise Maps; 2020.
• [20] Aksoy Y, Akpınar A. A Research About Public Green Area Use and Green Area Demand In Istanbul Fatih District. İstanbul Commerce University Journal of Science; 2011;10(20): 81-96.
• [21] Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. 2021 Annual Activity Report; 2021.
• [22] İzmir Metropolitan Municipality. 2021 Annual Activity Report; 2021.
• [23] Antalya Metropolitan Municipality. 2021 Annual Activity Report; 2021.
• [24] Kaya ÜN. Exploring the relationship between accessibility of urban greenspace and user's psychological well-being: A sample from Konya city. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Konya Technical University, Graduate Education Institute; 2022:34.
• [25] Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. 2021 Annual Activity Report; 2021.
• [26] Özalp M. The approaches in urban transportation planning studies in Türkiye; problems and solutions. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Gazi Üniversity, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences; 2007: .64, 76, 87, 107, 120.
• [27] TURKSTAT Turkish Statistical Institute. The number of road motor vehicles by province 2021.
• [28] Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. İstanbul Transport Annual Report; 2017.
• [29] Boğaziçi Project. Konya Transportation Master Plan; 2015.
• [30] Boğaziçi Project. Antalya Transportation Master Plan; 2017.
• [31] Akı, M. Roadmap Workshop for the Development of Bicycle Transportation for Municipalities. WRI Türkiye, Livable Cities Symposium; 25 October 2018
• [32] WHO World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2018.
• [33] TURKSTAT Turkish Statistical Institute. Road Traffic Accident Statistics; 2021.
• [34] Republic of Türkiye Eastern Mediterranean Development Agency (DOĞAKA). Energy Sector Report; 2014.
• [35] Republic of Türkiye Energy Market Regulatory Authority. Türkiye Oil Market Sector Report; 2021.
• [36] Karagöl ET, Kavaz İ. Renewable Energy in the World and Türkiye. SETA Foundation for Politics, Economics and Society Research Press; Issue: 197 April 2017.
• [37] Türkiye Wind Power Plants Distribution Atlas, Türkiye Wind Energy Potential Map, enerjiatlasi.com; 2022.
• [38] Akkuş İ, Alan H. Türkiye's Geothermal Resources, Projections, Problems and Recommendations Report 2016. Chamber of Geological Engineers of Türkiye Press; ISBN: 978-605-01-0852-1; 2016.
• [39] Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. Solar Energy Potential Atlas; 2022.
• [40] Talih, Ö, Tektaş, N.. A brief survey on cooperative intelligent transportation systems and applications. International Journal of Automotive Science and Technology.2023:7(3), 259-268.
• [41] Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change. Smart Cities Successful Examples. İstanbul, İzmir, Antalya, Konya, Ankara; 2023.
• [42] WHO World Health Organization. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life; 2012.
• [43] Boğaziçi Üniversity & Mastercard. Türkiye's Cities Sustainability Research; 2011.
• [44] Rupprecht S, Brand L, Böhler-Baedeker S, Brunner LM. Rupprecht Consult (Editor), Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, Second Edition; 2019.
• [45] Gül ES, Bozdeveci S. İstanbul Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP). İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Ove Arup & Partners International; 2022