COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SZÉKESFEHÉRVÁR AND VESZPRÉM BASED ON GEOINFORMATIC METHODS
Zita Bognár – Dr. Péter Gyenizse
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
MATERIALS AND METHODSTHE QUESTIONNAIRE
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
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
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
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
RESULTSGEOINFORMATIC REPRESENTATION
RESULTSGEOINFORMATIC REPRESENTATION
RESULTSGEOINFORMATIC REPRESENTATION
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
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
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
