comparative analysis of székesfehérvár and veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

13
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR AND VESZPRÉM BASED ON GEOINFORMATIC METHODS Zita Bognár – Dr. Péter Gyenizse

Upload: mapwindow-gis

Post on 19-Jun-2015

103 views

Category:

Software


5 download

DESCRIPTION

In our actual investigation our goal was to compare the inhabited areas of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on social claims. To survey the opinion of people we used a questionnaire. Our investigations were based on GIS so we represented the results of the questionnaire in form of geoinformatic layers so that we could model the opinion of residents. The histories of these cities show numerous similarities. We can also find identities and detect many parallels between the opinion of respondents of the two cities. The distance seems to be the main factor which influences the judgement of inhabited areas. The boundary of Veszprém in the narrow sense - thus if we do not consider those parts (former villages), which were annexed later to the city - is everywhere within 3 kilometres from the city centre. In case of Székesfehérvár this value is about 5-5,5 km. That is why in Veszprém the average score is of the inhabited area is double of the same value of Székesfehérvár. Presented by Zita Bognár

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR AND VESZPRÉM BASED ON GEOINFORMATIC METHODS

Zita Bognár – Dr. Péter Gyenizse

Page 2: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

INTRODUCTION

Our goal is the evaluation of the inhabited areas based on social claims

The methodology was firstly used in 2009 by P. Gyenizse in case of Pécs

Cities of more than 100.000 inhabitants The inhabited area of Székesfehérvár and

Veszprém

Page 3: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

MATERIALS AND METHODSTHE QUESTIONNAIRE

Page 4: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

RESULTSTHE OPINION OF RESIDENTS

Székesfehérvár Veszprém Székesfehérvár VeszprémProximity of nursery, kindergarden, primary or secondary school 3,9 3,6 1800 m 1870 mProximity of high school or university 2,1 1,8 5750 m 3130 mProximity of hospital or clinic 5,4 6,1 3310 m 3240 mProximity of busy highway -2,4 -4,8 1470 m 1200 mProximity of railway station -0,2 -1,2 2330 m 2280 mProximity of railway line -2,2 -4,5 2100 m 1470 mProximity of coach station 3,4 4,6 1120 m 1040 mProximity of bus-stop 6,2 5,8 480 m 470 mProximity of city centre 4,5 4,8 940 m 940 mProximity of shopping mall 0,9 -0,3 1310 m 2420 mProximity of hypermarket (Tesco, Interspar…) 3,4 0,0 1220 mProximity of supermarket 6,2 7,2 770 m 610 mProximity of place of entertainment (pubs, cinema) 1,1 1,9 960 m 780 mProximity of technical, horticultural or furniture store 1,1 1,1 1220 m 1300 mProximity of church 1,4 0,6 860 m 830 mProximity of factory -6,1 -6,3 6490 m 5060 mProximity of park 7,1 8,6 560 m 540 mProximity of sports ground 5,9 5,0 980 m 790 mExistence of tap water and sewer 8,8 8,8Existence of district-heating 5,5 0,8Existence of individual heating 7,3 6,5Existence of private garden 5,9 6,9Presence of disadvantaged strata -6,7 -4,6 4200 m 5150 mDeteriorated architectural, mechanical parts in the building, which are needed to be renovated -3,6 -5,6Higher air pollution -7,4 -7,6 7190 m 6370 mThe material of the building: brick 4,6 6,6

Relative score RadiusExamined object

Page 5: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

MATERIALS AND METHODSTHE REPRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS

Existence of individual heating

Existence of district-heating

Deteriorated architectural parts in

the building

Existence of private garden

The material of the building: brick

Existence of tap water and sewer

Page 6: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

Proximity of supermarket Proximity of bus-stop

Proximity of park Proximity of churchProximity of sports

ground

Proximity of hospital or clinic

Proximity of nursery, kindergarden, primary or secondary school

Proximity of city centreProximity of coach

station

Page 7: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

Proximity of factory

Presence of disadvantaged strata

Proximity of railway station

Higher air pollution

Proximity of technical or furniture store

Proximity of shopping mall

Proximity of busy highway

Proximity of railway line

Proximity of place of entertainment

Proximity of high school or university

Page 8: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

RESULTSGEOINFORMATIC REPRESENTATION

Page 9: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

RESULTSGEOINFORMATIC REPRESENTATION

Page 10: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

RESULTSGEOINFORMATIC REPRESENTATION

Page 11: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

RESULTSTHE OPINION OF RESPONDENTS ABOUT BUILDING TYPES

Szé

kesf

ehérv

ár

Vesz

pré

m

Szé

kesf

ehérv

ár

Vesz

pré

m

Szé

kesf

ehérv

ár

Vesz

pré

m

What kind of building do you

live in?

What kind of building would you choose in

case of moving?

What kind of building your financial posi-

tion makes possible to move in?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

other

detached house

terraced house

storeyed house made from brick

prefabricated house

Page 12: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

CONCLUSIONS FURTHER DIRECTIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION

Distance is the main factor the average score of Veszprém is double of that of Székesfehérvár

Further invenstigations relating to the radius of objects

Re-examination of the list of objects

Page 13: Comparative analysis of Székesfehérvár and Veszprém based on geoinformatic methods

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!