International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XXXIX-B4, 2012 
XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August — 01 September 2012, Melbourne, Australia 
  
  
Loss of agricultural land 
tj Loss ot Agricultural land S0les to S0les In % 
M ANSAIAR INSS IN KMÉ 
     
   
  
  
  
     
Marsæile pére. 
= 
$ 3 
E 
= 
5 
v 
  
  
Padus-Mesire MERERI 
  
Figure 13: loss of agricultural land in “MOLAND”-cities 
Regarding the urban growth, we have to compare the lost areas, 
which in most cases are taken from the agricultural land. An 
overview is given in figure 13, which points out Istanbul on a 
high level of agricultural loss. The percentage is computed by 
the lost area in relation to the size of agricultural land in the 
50ies. So far the absolute size in the oldest period is an 
important fact for this result. Strongly agricultural structured 
areas and the size of the study area influence these results. If we 
regard the absolute values, Istanbul has with a loss of 562 ha in 
average 5 times higher level than the others. In some other cases 
the loss was also compensated by natural area, depending what 
is available for urban development in the analysed area. 
Figure 14 points out more clearly where the urban area was 
placed in. In nearly all cases the agricultural land was the main 
source for the urbanisation. There are only a few exceptions like 
Setubal in a growth from urban structures into agriculture area 
and parallel from nature land to agriculture as well. Might be 
that agriculture in this area was given up due to small parcel 
sizes. This reason might be in other cases as well basis for the 
strong loss of agricultural land. Lyon as an example based the 
urbanisation fully on agricultural land. Urbanisation based only 
on natural area cannot be found here. There is no city, where 
agriculture was not touched anyway. 
  
  
    
Setibal50 
& Nalural Arga 
oO Agricultural Area 
& Urban Area 
  
  
Figure 14: land-use transformation in “MOLAND”-cities 
7. ISTANBUL IN RELATION TO 
TURKISH AND NEIGHBOURING CITIES 
  
1.000 
  
  
100 + 
1850 
  
  
  
Figure 15: Growth of inhabitants of neighbouring 
agglomerations on logarithmic scale, based on Data of the 
World Urbanisation Prospects - Revision 2003 
Many of the selected cities have a similar growth; especially 
Istanbul and Cairo correlate on similar absolute level. Athens 
stopped its growth at the end of the 70ies while Thessaloniki 
decelerates the population growth at the same time. Yerevan, 
Sofia, Baku and Tbilisi show the collapse of socialism in their 
countries since end of 80ies as a negative trend due to a re- 
privatisation of the agricultural lands and a flight from the 
cities. The cities in Israel stop their internal growth at the end of 
the 80ies, but they profit from the socialistic break down in the 
former Soviet-Union and received a new impulse of 
immigrants, clearly to be seen in the graphic. Therefore, these 
cities are excluded from the further analyses. Grouping the 
cities related of the state of development would result in the 
statement that many of these cities can be seen as indicator for a 
threshold country. But first a look at the growth-rates of these 
cities should be done to compare the results independent from 
their absolute size. 
  
  
1 
Mos BAG - 
Baghdad IRAQ 
Aleppo SY HIS 
Bursa TURREY 
Domeacus 9YRU 
cen Gazienteo TURKEY 
x Taney RAN 
c Alexa niu EOYPT 
Caro, EOVPE 
  
  
  
  
  
VT 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
upeeeee dee GHIMHA 
  
8 = 
  
  
0-55 
ces-60 
SEO-65 
“ces 70 
2075 
5 
50.85 
£0.95 
CCO-05 
20510 
2010-15 
Figure 16: Annual growth-rates of the neighboured 
agglomerations, based on Data of the World Urbanisation 
Prospects - Revision 2003 
This graphic shows the actual growth-rates per year. Istanbul 
with an annual rate of 1.32 in 2015 moves closer to the level of 
Greece cities while all the other Turkish cities are still growing. 
This will be analysed separately. Since the 1980ies, Istanbul has 
340 
  
Inte 
a relativ 
sustainab 
growth, | 
smaller in 
There can 
every city 
discussed 
the Turki: 
Surprising 
homogenc 
level forc 
Soviet-Un 
It can be | 
become n 
about 2% 
Thessalon 
grow by o 
Islamic w 
become in 
What is tl 
business c 
World's u 
Turkey. Re 
study, thes 
in Turkey. 
mainly of 
Istanbul, F 
relatively 
neighbours 
Ankara is 
plateau. 
  
  
Figure 17: / 
based on D: 
2003 
During the 
level as all 
future. Betw 
growth-rate 
industrialisa 
rate around 
this time, TI 
this effect, : 
from the sec 
1980 and |