HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX - DISTRICTS (HDI-D) 2017 …ingev.org/raporlar/HDI-D-2017-ENG.pdf · 1 human development index - districts (hdi-d) 2017 transitioning from consumer to human

1

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX - DISTRICTS (HDI-D) 2017

TRANSITIONING FROM CONSUMER

TO HUMAN

Prof Dr. Murat ŞEKER

Çağla BAKIŞ

Barış DİZECİ

2

All rights of this book is reserved and owned by İnsani Gelişme Vakfı İktisadi Ticari İşletmesi. As per

Intellectual and Artistic Works Code numbered 5846 and Turkish Commercial Code numbered 2936;

it cannot be partially or wholly photocopied, scanned, written, or replicated in any other way, and

cannot be quoted illegally.

Name of the Book

Human Development Index- Districts (HDI-D) 2017

TRANSITIONING FROM CONSUMER TO HUMAN

Author of the Book

Prof. Dr. Murat ŞEKER

Çağla BAKIŞ

Barış DİZECİ

E-Book Editing / Cover

Rasim Çağrı

E-Book Page Editing

Çizge Tanıtım & Matbaacılık Ltd. Şti.

(Maltepe Mah.Davutpaşa Cad.Kale İçi İş Merkezi No:232 Zeytinburnu /İST Tel: 0 212 482 56 28)

Editor

N. Berk ÇOKER

Certificate No / 34794

Publication No / 3

ISBN 978-605-67151-2-9

İSTANBUL 2018

3

CONTENTS TRANSITIONING FROM CONSUMER TO HUMAN FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT .. 5

1. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH .......................................................... 9

1.1. SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 9

1.2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 24

1.3. VARIABLES ....................................................................................................................... 26

1.3.1. Governance and Transparency Indicators ............................................................ 29

1.3.2. Social Inclusion Indicators ...................................................................................... 30

1.3.3. Economic Status Indicators ...................................................................................... 31

1.3.4. Educational Indicators .............................................................................................. 32

1.3.5. Health Indicators ....................................................................................................... 32

1.3.6. Social Life Indicators ................................................................................................ 33

1.3.7. Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index ........... 33

2. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX - DISTRICTS 2017 .................................................... 34

2.1. HDI-D 2017 MAIN INDEX .............................................................................................. 34

2.2. HDI-D 2017 DISTRICT GROUPS .................................................................................. 44

2.2.1. Green Zone: Districts with Very High Human Development .......................... 45

2.2.2. Blue Zone:Districts with High Human Development ........................................ 47

2.2.3. Yellow Zone:Districts with Medium Human Development ............................. 50

2.2.4. Red Zone: Districts with Low Human Development ......................................... 53

2.3. HDI-D SUB INDICES ...................................................................................................... 54

2.3.1. Governance and Transparency Indicators ............................................................ 54

2.3.2. Social Inclusion Indicators ...................................................................................... 62

2.3.3. Economic Status Indicators ...................................................................................... 69

2.3.4. Education Indicators ................................................................................................. 76

2.3.5. Health Indicators ....................................................................................................... 83

2.3.6. Social Life Indicators ................................................................................................ 90

2.3.7. Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index ........... 97

OVERALL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................. 104

ANNEX I: RESULTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX ................................................ 106

ANNEX II: DATABASE CHART OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX .......................... 110

References ......................................................................................................................................... 112

4

Graph List

Graph 1. HDI-D Average Group Values …………………………………………………………………………………………… 44

Graph 2. Governance and Transparency Indicators ………………………………………………………………………... 59

Graph 3. Social Inclusion Indicators ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66

Graph 4. Economic Status Indicators ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 73

Graph 5. Education Indicators ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 80

Graph 6. Health Indicators ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 87

Graph 7. Social Life Indicators ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 94

Graph 8. Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index ……………………………… 101

Graph 9. HDI-D Sub-Parameter Sets Percentage Distribution ……………………………………………………….. 105

Chart List

Chart 1. Districts Excluded due to Lack of Data ………………………………………………………………………..…….. 10

Chart 2. Districts Covered in the Research ………………………………………………………………………..……….….. 11

Chart 3. HDI-D Variables Chart ………………………………………………………………………..……….……………………. 27

Chart 4. Scenario Questions for “Secret Citizen” ………………………………………………………………………….… 29

Chart 5. Sample Chart for Activity Assessment- Women …….……………………………………………………….… 31

Chart 6. Sample Chart for Activity Assessment- Social Life …….…………………………………………………….… 33

Chart 7. HDI-D Main Results ………………………………………………………………………..……….…………………….…. 36

Chart 8. Change in the Number of Districts in the Zones 2016-2017 ……..…………………………………….… 44

Chart 9. HDI-D Very High Human Development Level (Green Zone) ……..…………………………………….… 46

Chart 10. HDI-D High Human Development Level (Blue Zone) ……..……………………………………………..… 47

Chart 11. HDI-D Medium Human Development Level (Yellow Zone) ……..…………………………………….… 50

Chart 12. HDI-D Low Human Development Level (Red Zone) ……..……………………………………………....… 53

Chart 13. HDI-D Governance and Transparency Indicators ……..……………………………………………........… 55

Chart 14. HDI-D Social Inclusion Indicators ……..……………………………………………................................… 62

Chart 15. HDI-D Economic Status Indicators ……..…………….……………………………................................… 69

Chart 16. HDI-D Education Indicators ……..…………………………………………...........................................… 76

Chart 17. HDI-D Health Indicators ……..………………………………………….................................................… 83

Chart 18. HDI-D Social Life Indicators ……..…………………………………………...........................................… 90

Chart 19. HDI-D Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index …………………… 97

Chart 20. HDI-D Sub-Parameter Sets ……..…………………………………………............................................. 104

5

TRANSITIONING FROM CONSUMER TO HUMAN FOR

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

According to Oxfam, 82% of the world’s wealth produced in the last year went to 1% of the

world population. There was no increase in the wealth of 3.7 billion people which is the half

of the world population.

The 4-day income of a global brand director in the ready-made clothing sector is equal to the

money a worker can earn by working for that company in a lifetime.

In the US, the salary of a CEO is 271 times more than the average salary of an employee. This

gap has increased significantly in the last 30 years. Moreover, if you look at the related

publications, you should be admiring the CEOs instead of feeling uncomfortable in this

situation.

While the poorest 5% in Turkey has only the 0.9% of the total income in the country, the richest

5% takes 21.4% of the entire income. Since we have the fourth worst income distribution

among OECD countries, the distribution by 1% income groups in Turkey is also not different

from the world as illustrated above.

The priority of "United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030" is to eliminate absolute

poverty. However, the UN’s definition of absolute poverty is quite a "humble" one. Less than

US $ 1.90 per capita per day (weighted by the purchasing power parity) is defined as the

threshold for absolute poverty. If we convert it at the current rate in order to visualize it better,

it means earning less than 7 TRY per day.

The UN and other subsidiaries often deal with poverty in the context of development. Poverty

is the biggest problem and obstacle for human development opportunities. All of the basic

areas of development such as education, health and human security are directly linked to

income levels. Therefore, poverty is at the top of the issues we work on at INGEV. Nonetheless,

we believe that handling the situation at the development axis is important but inadequate.

As the data I quoted in the beginning of the article from Oxfam points out, there is no problem

in generating income. The income generated in the world is enough to abolish not only

absolute poverty with this humble definition but also the poverty with more satisfying

definitions. This income allows everyone to take advantage of human development

opportunities.

Yet, the existing distribution mechanisms and consumption and consumer cultures inevitably

continue to create poverty. Although the world economy grows, 3.7 billion people do not

benefit from it. They are left to read about people from “Sex and the City” media who never

has a dinner without oysters, who gets on a private plane to go shopping with clothing

consultants to Europe, who has a collection of luxury cars and whose rich children have the

most luxurious passions.

6

When super luxury consumption is positioned as a way of life to be bragged about, envied,

and not to be ashamed of even a little, fighting against poverty has the danger of becoming

sterile just like a businessman going to an exotic hotel in Central Africa in a private plane to

talk about fighting poverty. Of course, this is not a personal problem but rather a reflection of

a culture.

Our species, which was described as “human” until the 60s has since been defined as a

“consumer”. A collection of values and wide literature that revolve around the consumer,

consumption, and branding, have become dominant. Now we refer to ourselves as consumers

and others call us consumers and when we talk about others we call them consumers.

Every country has its own serious poverty problems. However, we must also admit there is

an extent of difference between the poverty problem in the US and the poverty problem in

Bangladesh. The most important of the factors that create the difference between these two

countries is the value-income transfer, the majority of which is done through brands. By

definition, markets and consumer culture cannot be separated from each other. The daily

consumption of an average consumer in Turkey or a similar country transfers funds to

developed countries which are the home for global brands.

Creating a cultural denominator so that we can cease to define life through the consumption

of luxury goods and services will ease fighting poverty.

The current distribution system is a tougher but more tangible issue. Whichever way you look

at it, you end up with the outcome that states should focus on the low-income groups when it

comes to providing social services and designing wage and taxation systems, as well as taking

measures to reduce the gap between the top 1% and bottom 20%.

In this year’s study of the INGEV Human Development Index – Districts, “the secret citizen”

study is more emphasized, and the local authority activity reports and central statistics are

again included. The secret citizens we included have required information and support from

the local authorities in areas especially regarding Social Inclusion. The response of local

authorities has been indexed. Thus, we hope to contribute to raising awareness regarding the

disadvantaged segments, especially in poverty.

Our report has been prepared again by the same powerful team.

As we predicted in the preamble of the last year, Dr. Murat Şeker, whose name you began to

hear more, coordinated the work.

Barış Dizeci took the task of the compilation and classification of the data sources.

Çağla Bakış supported our statistical processes.

Zeynep Tok conducted secretarial works of the team.

Alonet gave great support for the study of "Secret Citizen".

I thank all my friends who have put any efforts into this study.

7

We hope that this report will contribute to increasing managerial sensitivity and to practice

related to human development issues.

As INGEV, we will continue to support local authorities in this regard.

Vural ÇAKIR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Human Development Index has been published at the national level by the United

Nations Development Program (UNDP) since 1990. The Human Development Index,

calculated based on per capita income, life expectancy at birth, literacy, and schooling rates,

seeks to measure human development through education and healthcare as well as income. In

the most recent report published in 2017, Turkey was ranked 71st as its human development

index score went up from XYZ to 0,767. With this score, Turkey falls in the category of

countries described as “High Human Development”.

Source: (UNDP, 2017)

The increase in Turkey’s Human Development Index scores over the years raises a question

regarding what the results would be within Turkey. At this point, observing human

development on a local scale in today’s world, where the localization of human development

is increasing, is important both for local authorities and for all segments of society. Especially

considering increasing areas of service and diversity of service provided by local authorities,

it is clear that they will play an important role in service provision vis-à-vis human

development.

INGEV is concerned with the manageable variables that can affect daily life and believes the

measurement of human development at the local level is an opportunity both to take actions

quickly and to improve the performance of local authorities. For this purpose, this research

has a new approach on the Human Development Index that UNDP has been publishing since

1990, which dissects the data to the district level in Turkey. The first Human Development

Index– Districts research, called HDI-D, was shared with the public last year. After the

publication of this research, which covered the most populous 150 districts within the

metropolitan municipality borders in Turkey, conferences, workshops and search conferences

0,5760,653

0,738 0,756 0,756 0,759 0,764 0,767

1990 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Human Development Index- Turkey

8

were held with the participation of municipalities. In these events, the index results of the

districts were evaluated together with the district administrators and non-governmental

organizations where in-depth analyses were made in terms of the internal dynamics for each

district.

This year, the scope of HDI-D was expanded to 186 districts. However, only 161 districts could

be included in the scope of the index. Those 25 districts that were not included in the index

were excluded as they did not share the activity reports, performance plans and/or budget

statistics with the public during the field study period.

Like last year, HDI-D, which is composed of social, economic and environmental components

at the district level, includs indicators for Governance, Social Inclusion, Economic Status,

Education, Health, Social Life, Environment and Transportation. However, this year, the scope

of some sub-indices was expanded in line with suggestions from municipalities in the

workshops. The number of variables collected through the "secret citizen" survey, which

attracted significant interest from the municipalities, was increased from 3 to 18. Therefore, it

was enriched both in terms of quantity and quality. On the other hand, in the Health Index

section, a more integrated approach has been shown by including the municipalities’ services

in the health field. No data could be compiled in the security field, even though it was surely

wished this year as well.

The increase in the number of the districts covered (while some of the districts included in last

year were left out of this year’s scope), the enrichment of the number of variables, and of course

the performances of the districts led to some differences in the district rankings compared to

the previous year. However, we can say there is a general improvement. For example, 18

districts fell in the Green Zone representing very high human development last year, and this

number increased to 30 this year. This rise consequently led to a decrease in the number of

districts in the Blue Zone (high human development). While the Yellow Zone (medium human

development) gave a similar appearance to last year, there was also an increase in the Red

Zone (low human development). Compared to last year, 29 districts went up 1 zone, 88

districts have remained in the same zone, and 17 districts went down 1 zone. Governance,

transparency and social life indicators were mainly responsible for the decline.

This year’s HDI-D, which is the second one to be published, was anticipated with greater

interest due to the awareness raised last year. Many districts are wondering about the results,

especially the districts where workshops were held. The value of such an index increases over

the years. When a certain series is completed, very meaningful analyses will be possible.

However, even the present state is important in terms of creating a picture of the current

environment. Of course, every work has its defects. We are aware of the defects in this study,

and try to eliminate them with each year.

I hope that this work, which we have prepared as a team that is few in number but strong in

terms of qualifications, will be beneficial to all sharers, academics, and decision makers

factoring human development into their decisions, especially local authorities.

Prof. Dr. Murat ŞEKER

9

1. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH

In this part of the report, the research methodology will be explained by listing the provinces

and districts covered by the research. Moreover, along with the theoretical explanation of the

methodology, the variables used in index calculations will be revealed at its sub-parameter

level.

Measuring human development at the local level using manageable variables that can impact

daily life is important for both taking action quickly and local authorities to increase their

performance in this context. In this research, the Human Development Index, which UNDP

has been publishing since 1990, is reinterpreted with quantitative and qualitative indicators

compiled at the micro level and a base is provided for policy makers, especially local

authorities, to be more effective in this area.

1.1. SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

In the Human Development Index District (HDI-D) 2018, all the districts of Istanbul, Ankara

and İzmir provinces were included, in addition to the most populuous 150 districts from the

previous year’s study. As it was in 2017, it was decided that provinces where metropolitan

municipalities are located should be included in order to ensure the equality of local level

comparisons of services provided by districts.

30 provinces where the metropolitan municipalities included in the scope of the research are located.

● ●

,

Excluded

Included

10

The 493 districts with the highest population within the borders of the 30 provinces with

metropolitan municipalities and all the districts in the three major cities were included in the

study. Thus, 186 districts were included in the study. During data collection phase, however,

it was observed that the activity report, budget and performance reports of 25 districts in total

were missing and and these districts were therefore excluded from the evaluation. The districts

of Kızıltepe, Artuklu, Adapazarı and Serdivan, which were intended to be included within the

study of Mardin and Sakarya provinces were not included in the study as all the above-

mentioned reports are missing in all of these districts. As a result, the final study covers 28

provinces and 161 districts. The districts that were included in the study represent 77% of the

total population.

Chart 1. Districts Excluded due to Lack of Data

NAME OF THE

PROVINCE

NAME OF THE DISTRICT

1 ANKARA ŞEREFLİKOÇHİSAR

2 ANKARA GÜDÜL

3 BALIKESİR BANDIRMA

4 DİYARBAKIR YENİŞEHİR

5 İZMİR TİRE

6 İZMİR KINIK

7 İZMİR BEYDAĞ

8 MARDİN KIZILTEPE

9 MARDİN ARTUKLU

10 SAMSUN ÇARŞAMBA

11 ŞANLIURFA VİRANŞEHİR

12 VAN ERCİŞ

13 SAKARYA SERDİVAN

14 KOCAELİ DARICA

15 ŞANLIURFA KARAKÖPRÜ

16 ADANA KOZAN

17 ŞANLIURFA HALİLİYE

18 AYDIN EFELER

19 SAKARYA ADAPAZARI

20 BALIKESİR KARESİ

21 İZMİR KİRAZ

22 ANKARA HAYMANA

23 ANKARA KIZILCAHAMAM

24 ANKARA BALA

25 ANKARA AYAŞ

11

Chart 2. Districts Covered in the Research

PROVINCE Total Number of

Districts

Number of Chosen

Districts

Percentage of Population

Included

ADANA 15 5 86%

ANKARA 25 19 98%

ANTALYA 19 5 72%

AYDIN 17 1 14%

BALIKESİR 20 2 27%

BURSA 17 4 74%

DENİZLİ 19 2 63%

DİYARBAKIR 17 3 50%

ERZURUM 20 2 48%

ESKİŞEHİR 14 2 87%

GAZİANTEP 9 3 90%

HATAY 15 3 49%

İSTANBUL 39 39 100%

İZMİR 30 26 96%

KAHRAMANMARAŞ 11 3 69%

KAYSERİ 16 3 81%

KOCAELİ 12 5 63%

KONYA 31 4 66%

MALATYA 13 2 79%

MANİSA 17 5 63%

MERSİN 13 6 82%

MUĞLA 13 3 48%

ORDU 19 2 46%

SAMSUN 17 3 51%

ŞANLIURFA 13 2 32%

TEKİRDAĞ 11 3 61%

TRABZON 18 1 42%

VAN 13 3 53%

TOTAL 493 161 77%

ADANA

Total number of districts: 15

Districts Included:

1. Seyhan

2. Yüreğir

3. Çukurova

4. Ceyhan

5. Sarıçam

(Kozan is excluded due to

lack of data)

86%

14%

Scope Rate Out of Scope

12

ANKARA


Districts Included:

1. Çankaya

2. Keçiören

3. Yenimahalle

4. Mamak

5. Etimesgut

6. Sincan

7. Altındağ

8. Pursaklar

9. Gölbaşı

10. Polatlı

11. Çubuk

12. Kahramankazan

13. Beypazarı

14. Elmadağ

15. Nallıhan

16. Kalecik

17. Çamlıdere

18. Evren

(Şereflikoçhisar, Haymana,

Kızılcahamam, Bala, Ayaş

and Güdül are excluded

due to lack of data.)

ANTALYA


Districts Included:

1. Kepez

2. Muratpaşa

3. Alanya

4. Manavgat

5. Konyaaltı

98%

2%


77%

23%


13

AYDIN


Districts Included:

1. Nazilli

(Efeler is excluded due to lack of

data.)

BALIKESİR

Total number of districts:

20 Districts Included:

1. Altıeylül

2. Edremit

(Karesi and Bandırma are

excluded due to lack of data)

BURSA



1. Osmangazi

2. Yıldırım

3. Nilüfer

4. İnegöl

14%

86%


27%

73%


74%

26%


14

DENİZLİ



1. Pamukkale

2. Merkezefendi

DİYARBAKIR



1. Bağlar

2. Kayapınar

3. Ergani

(Yenişehir is excluded due to

lack of data)

ERZURUM


Districts Included:

1. Yakutiye

2. Palandöken

63%

37%


50%50%


48%

52%


15

ESKİŞEHİR

Total number of districts


1. Odunpazarı

2. Tepebaşı

GAZİANTEP


Districts Included:

1. Şahinbey

2. Şehitkamil

3. Nizip

HATAY

Total number of district: 15

Districts Included:

1. Antakya

2. İskenderun

3. Defne

87%

13%


90%

10%


49%51%


16

KAHRAMANMARAŞ


Districts Included:

1. Onikişubat

2. Dulkadiroğlu

3. Elbistan

KAYSERİ


Districts Included:

1. Melikgazi

2. Kocasinan

3. Talas

69%

31%


81%

19%


17

İSTANBUL


Districts Included:

1. Esenyurt

2. Küçükçekmece

3. Bağcılar

4. Ümraniye

5. Pendik

6. Bahçelievler

7. Üsküdar

8. Sultangazi

9. Gaziosmanpaşa

10. Maltepe

11. Kartal

12. Esenler

13. Kadıköy

14. Kağıthane

15. Avcılar

16. Fatih

17. Ataşehir

18. Sancaktepe

19. Başakşehir

20. Eyüp

21. Sarıyer

22. Sultanbeyli

23. Beylikdüzü

24. Güngören

25. Zeytinburnu

26. Bayrampaşa

27. Şişli

28. Arnavutköy

29. Tuzla

30. Beykoz

31. Çekmeköy

32. Büyükçekmece

33. Beyoğlu

34. Bakırköy

35. Beşiktaş

36. Silivri

37. Çatalca

38. Şile

39. Adalar

100%

0%


18

İZMİR


Districts Included:

1. Buca

2.Karabağlar

3. Bornova

4. Konak

5.Karşıyaka

6. Bayraklı

7. Çiğli

8. Torbalı

9. Menemen

10. Gaziemir

11. Ödemiş

12.Kemalpaşa

13. Bergama

14. Aliağa

15. Menderes

16. Balçova

17. Narlıdere

18. Urla

19. Dikili

20. Çeşme

21. Seferihisar

22. Bayındır

23. Selçuk

24. Güzelbahçe

25. Foça

26. Karaburun

(Tire, Kiraz, Kınık and

Beydağ are excluded due to

lack of data.)

KOCAELİ


Districts Included:

1. Gebze

2. İzmit

3. Gölcük

4. Körfez

5. Derince

(Darıca is excluded due to

lack of data.)

96%

4%


63%

37%


19

KONYA


Districts Included:

1. Selçuklu

2. Meram

3. Karatay

4. Ereğli

MALATYA


Districts Included:

1. Yeşilyurt

2. Battalgazi

MANİSA


Districts Included:

1. Yunusemre

2. Şehzadeler

3. Akhisar

4. Salihli

5. Turgutlu

66%

34%


79%

21%


63%

37%


20

MERSİN


Districts Included:

1. Tarsus

2. Toroslar

3. Akdeniz

4. Yenişehir

5. Mezitli

6. Erdemli

MUĞLA


Districts Included:

1. Bodrum

2. Fethiye

3. Milas

ORDU


Districts Included:

1. Altınordu

2. Ünye

82%

18%


48%

52%


46%

54%


21

SAMSUN


Districts Included:

1. İlkadım

2. Atakum

3. Bafra

(Çarşamba is excluded due

to lack of data.)

ŞANLIURFA


Districts Included:

1. Eyyübiye

2. Siverek

(Haliliye, Viranşehir and

Karaköprü are excluded due to

lack of data.)

TEKİRDAĞ


Districts Included:

1. Çorlu

2. Süleymanpaşa

3. Çerkezköy

51%

49%


32%

68%


61%

39%


22

TRABZON

Total number of district:


1. Ortahisar

VAN



1. İpekyolu

2. Tuşba

3. Edremit

(Erciş is excluded due to

lack of data.)

MARDIN



(Kızıltepe and Artuklu were

chosen but they are excluded due

to lack of data)

42%

58%


53%

47%


0%

100%


23

SAKARYA



(Adapazarı and Serdivan were

covered but they are excluded due to

lack of data)

0%

100%


24

1.2. METHODOLOGY

Since the concept of human development is not a directly observed concept, variables that can

be directly observed are used to measure this concept. As mentioned in the previous section,

the United Nations Human Development Index is carried out at a country level and with a

limited data set. However, this study covers the 161 districts with the highest population,

among those within metropolitan areas in Turkey. Therefore, a different method is used in the

methodology of measurement in terms of both being at the district level and covering the

districts at a certain scale. The methodology is particularly structured in a framework that

reflects differences, especially at the data set level. However, in the calculation of the index,

the methodology of the United Nations has been adapted to the data set at the district level by

modeling the index.

The existence of some sub-parameters of human development makes the calculation of index

related to these parameters obligatory. The Human Development Index as the main index is a

component of these sub-parameters. Since not all parameters are assumed to affect human

growth equally, the weighted average method is used to calculate the index. First, the

calculation regarding the sub-parameters occurring in different qualities was made with the

weighted average method, and then the Human Development Index which will be used to

represent the entire data set with a single value was determined with the same method.

When studies on various index calculations including country, province, region or district

comparisons are examined in the literature, it is observed that the analysis of basic components

is usually applied. Researchers try to provide a representation with fewer variables by

performing a parameter reduction in a data matrix composed of different variables with the

help of basic component analysis, which is one of the most variable statistical methods, and

the index is calculated accordingly. However, the set of variables and parameters created as a

result of the analysis of the basic components explains only a part of the total variance. At this

point, there is a loss of information on measurement and evaluation, and sometimes there are

deviations at the results.

In this study, the method of basic component analysis was not preferred due to the

aforementioned issues, and the weighted average method was used as it allows the concept of

multi-parameter and abstract human development to be single-parameter and measurable.

The arithmetic mean is calculated by dividing the sum of all the values in the data set by the

number of units in that data set, while the weighted average is calculated by weighting the

related variables according to the significance level.

Since the data set obtained at the level of 161 districts in the scope of the research is composed

of raw data, it was subjected to data mining first. The data was converted into various

categorical gradings together with values that are per capita and per-unit*.

On the other hand, the data is normalized so that the differences in the units of measure can

be eliminated and reduced to one parameter. The min-max normalization method is adopted for

the normalization of the data set. Thus, the largest and smallest values are considered in a

variable series in normalizing the other data.

* The details of data set types and their way of conversion and implementation can be seen under variables title.

25

The whole data set is distributed in the range of 0-1 in the normalization result where the

minimum value is 0 and the maximum value is 1. On the other hand, the readability, clarity

and traceability of the normalized data set are enabled by this formula:

𝑋𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 =𝑥 − 𝑥𝑚𝑖𝑛

𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑥𝑚𝑖𝑛

With the data converted to the 0-1 range using the formula above, the data set in multiple and

different parameters are reduced to one parameter. As a result of the normalization of the

data, the calculation of the index is started with the weights determined for each variable. This

study uses the Expert Opinion Survey method which is the method applied in many

international index studies. A total of 50 participants were interviewed using a questionnaire

made by the academicians and experts related to the subject and these views were used in

weighting the parameters of the index. Using the normalized values and weights in the

calculation of index, the following formula is applied:

𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒙 =∑ 𝑨𝒋𝒊𝑿𝒋𝒊𝒊

∑ 𝑨𝒋𝒊𝒊

𝐴𝑗𝑖: 𝑗 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖(𝑡ℎ)𝑠𝑢𝑏 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠

𝑋𝑗𝑖: 𝑗 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑖(𝑡ℎ)𝑠𝑢𝑏 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠

Figure 1. Index Calculation Method

In the evaluation of the index results, a clustering analysis is used to reveal similarities between

the districts by not relying only on ranking and scoring. Clustering (Hair, et al., 1998), which

is a multivariable statical method, is an analytical technique and a process of decomposition

of units whose natural groups are unknown into subgroups according to the similarities or

differences of the characteristics of such units. At this point, the groups which are separated

from each other show a homogeneous structure within themselves.

The clustering algorithm needs to be chosen correctly in order for the clustering analysis to

produce an effective result and for the groups to be formed in a homogeneous structure. The

basic algorithms in the clustering analysis are called hierarchical and non-hierarchical

(Ketchen, et al., 1996). While hierarchical clustering analysis aims to combine units and objects

according to their degree of similarity with distance measurement units, the k-means

techniques are used in the non-hierarchical clustering method. The K-means technique is an

Raw Data

Statistical Data

Data Mining

Values such as per person, per unit, and catagorical

scoring

Normalized Value and Weighting

Index Data

Expert Review Survey

Index Values

26

iterative clustering algorithm which aims to divide units into k groups by minimizing the

variability within the group and maximizing the inter-group variability (Ketchen, et al., 1996).

In the k-means technique, the number of k sets is determined by the a priori knowledge. The

value of k in this study is decided as 4. The reason for this is the categorization of the United

Nations Human Development Index as 4 group levels. Thus, the Human Development Index,

which is formed at the level of the districts, is clustered with the Very High, High, Medium

and Low Human Development categories in terms of main and sub parameters.

1.3. VARIABLES

The relevant literature is used in determining the variables†. After the literature review, data

that will be the core of this research were grouped into 7 main categories of Governance, Social

Inclusion, Economic Status, Education, Health, Social Life, Municipal Environmental

Performance and Transportation.

Five variables in the area of Governance, sixteen variables in the field of Social Inclusion, eight

variables in the field of Economic Status, seven variables in Education, six variables in Health,

four variables in Social Life, five variables in Municipal Environmental Performance and

Transportation are used. Therefore, in the calculation of the Human Development Index of

Districts, 51 variables were considered in 7 main headings.

† The single connection clustering method, the average connection clustering method, the full connection clustering method, the median connection clustering method, the global average connection method and Wald connection clustering method. Some resources which have been used to determine the variables: - UNDP, Human Development Reports, NY, USA. - DPT, İlçelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması, Ankara, 1996. - DPT, İlçelerin Sosyo-ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması, Ankara, 2004, www.kalkinma.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/8142/ilce.pdf - DPT, İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması, Ankara, 2003, www.kalkinma.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/8143/2003-05.pdf - Kalkınma Bakanlığı, İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması-2011, - http://www.dpt.gov.tr/DocObjects/view/14197/BASIN_A% C3% 87IKLAMASI-sege_2011-v6.pdf - Şeker, M., vd.; TRC2 Bölgesi (Diyarbakır, Şanlıurfa) Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması, Karacadağ Kalkınma Ajansı Yayınları, Diyarbakır, 2016. - Şeker, M., vd.; İller Arası Rekabet Endeksi 2013-2014, Kayseri Ticaret Odası, Kayra Ofset, Kayseri, 2015. - Şeker, M., vd.; TR63 Bölgesi (Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Osmaniye) Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması, DOĞAKA Yayınları, Hatay, 2014. - Şeker, Murat; İstanbul’da Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması, İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, Yayın No: 2010-13, İstanbul, 2011, http://www.ito.org.tr/itoyayin/0023050.pdf - Şeker, M. vd; Küresel Rekabet Endeksi 2012 – 81 İl 26 Bölge, İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı Projesi, İstanbul 2012. - Şeker, M. vd; İstanbul Rekabet Endeksi – 39 İlçe, İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı Projesi, İstanbul 2012. - Şeker, M.; İstanbul’da Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Projem İstanbul, 2012. - Ulusoy, A.; Şeker, M.; Bektaş, H.; Aslantürk, O.; Trabzon’da Yaşam Kalitesini Geliştirme ve Modelleme Projesi, DOKA Mali Destek Programı, Trabzon, 2013.

27

Chart 3. HDI-D Variables Chart

SUB INDICES VARIABLES

GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY

INDEX

Municipality Information Sharing and Transparency

Index

Access to Municipality Index

Municipality Social Media Usage Index

Secret Citizen Index

Election Participation Rate

SOCIAL INCLUSION INDEX

Diversity of Services for Families

Quality Score of Services for Families

Diversity of Services for Children

Quality Score of Services for Children

Diversity of Services for Youth

Quality Score of Services for Youth

Diversity of Services for Women

Quality Score of Services for Women

Diversity of Services for Refugees

Quality Score of Services for Refugees

Diversity of Services for Disabled

Quality Score of Services for Disabled

HDI-D

GOVERNANCE

SOCIAL INCLUSION

ECONOMIC SITUATION

EDUCATION HEALTH

SOCIAL LIFE

MUNICIPALITY ENVIRONMENTAL

PERFORMANCE AND

TRANSPORTATION

28

Diversity of Services for Sick and Elderly

Quality Score of Services for Sick and Elderly

Diversity of Services of Municipality

Quality Score of Services of Municipality

ECONOMIC STATUS INDEX

Presence of Shopping Centre

Diversity of Banks

Number of Bank Branch per Ten Thousand People

Rental Housing Market Price (𝑚2)

Housing For Sale Market Price (𝑚2)

Annual Change in Housing For Sale Market Price

(𝑚2)

Precence of Hypermarket

Age Dependency Rate

EDUCATION INDEX

Literacy Rate

Literacy Rate in Women

Uneducated Women Rate

University Graduate Rate

University Graduate Rate in Women

Average Education Time

Average Education Time in Women

HEALTH INDEX

Crude Death Rate

Number of Ambulance per Ten Thousand People

Number of Pharmacy per Ten Thousand People


Quality Score of Services for Sick and Elderly

Diversity of Services for Disabled


Presence of State Hospital

Presence of Private Hospital

Presence of University Hospital

SOCIAL LIFE INDEX

Presence of Private Museum

Number of Cinemas

Number of Theatres

Diversity of Social and Cultural Services

Quality Score of Social and Cultural Services

MUNICIPALITY ENVIRONMENTAL

PERFORMANCE AND TRANSPORTATION

Diversity of Services for Stray Animals

Quality Score of Services for Stray Animals

Diversity of Services for Environment

Quality Score of Services for Environment

Presence of Subway, Light Subway and Tramway

29

1.3.1. Governance and Transparency Indicators

Governance and Transparency indicators compiled from the activity reports of the

municipalities and from official websites are examined in 5 chapters. During the review, it was

aimed to maintain equality of the comparisons by taking the annual reports which are

mandatory and the official publications issued by the municipalities into account. The

activities/fields included in the activity reports have been taken into consideration and no data

collection was done on activities/fields that are not included in the reports.

− Municipality Information Sharing and Transparency Index

− Access to Municipality Index

− Municipal Social Media Usage Index

− "Secret Citizens" Index

− Rate of Election Participation

Municipality Information Sharing and Transparency Index: It is calculated based on the

availability and sharing of some basic data regarding the accessibility and content of the

district municipal activity reports. It consists of a combination of access to the activity report,

the schedule of publishing the municipal annual report, the activity of the municipal activity

report, the sharing of the budget indicators in the municipal annual report and the sharing of

performance charts in the municipal annual report on the municipality website. The data is

based on the municipalities’ internet sites and activity reports.

Access to Municipal Access Index: District residents’ access to municipality authorities by

using the website of the district municipality is evaluated. The topics examined under this

heading are the possibility of transmitting messages to the head of the municipality via its

website, the existence of a municipal call center, the possibility of access to the municipality

website in different languages, the presence of e-municipality and mobile application.

Social Media Usage Index of the Municipality: The social media usage index was used to

evaluate the presence of Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and Twitter accounts.

Secret Citizen Index: Apart from these abovementioned data, the "Secret Citizen" method was

used to communicate with 161 district municipalities through telephone and e-mail, and pre-

formed scenario questions were directed. All municipalities are scored on the return rate and

the results are included in the index calculation.

Chart 4. Scenario Questions for “Secret Citizen”

Scenario Questions

1. Can I learn the total number of active green areas in this municipality for a research?

2. Have you ever made a public opinion research or referendum when taking important decisions?

3. My sister is disabled. Could you please help us to get a wheelchair? Where should I apply?

4. My neighbor is subject to violence from her husband. What should I do? How can you help?

30

5. Garbage is not collected properly. Whom should I contact?

6. Street lambs are not working. Whom should I contact?

7. Whom should I contact for pest control?

8. Who is taking care of the park? It is uncared.

9. I need help for taking care of my mother. Do you give home care services?

10. My dad has to undergo dialysis. Can the municipality send us an ambulance?

11. I am a housewife. Are there any courses you provide for me to obtain a profession?

12. Do you give scholarship for university students? What are your criteria?

13. What is the upper age limit for transportation aid in this municipality? How can I benefit from this service?

14. Do you have any women’s shelter?

15. I want to be educated for child development. Could you please guide me?

17. I want to sell the jewelery I make on my own. Is there any bazaar or regular organization for this?

17. Where should I apply to for fuel allowance?

18. My brother is going into the army. It will be financially hard for us. Is there any military aid?

1.3.2. Social Inclusion Indicators

All evaluation in the Social Inclusion Index is based on the municipal activity reports. The

activity reports of the district municipalities were checked and the activities included in the

report were clearly listed. More than 8,000 activities of the 161 district municipalities are

included in the list.

Activities in the categories of family, children, youth, sick and elderly, women, disabled and

refugees were taken into consideration under Social Inclusion indicators. The activities

included in the activity reports are reclassified to summarize the characteristics of the activity

besides the basic categories.

The summarized characteristics were evaluated on a triple scale. Therefore, the quality of the

activity is also evaluated by summarizing the characteristics of the activities in addition to

determining the general category of the activities carried out.

Below are examples of activities for women and the characteristics applied.

31

Chart 5. Sample Chart for Activity Assessment- Women

Activity Details Activity

Catagory

Activity Type Assessment

Women’s Shelter and Unity Centre Women Guidance and

Rehabilitation

3

Support for Child Development Expertise Women Guidance and

Rehabilitation

3

Free Medical Screening Women Health 3

Market for Women Producers Women Entrepreneurship 3

Courses for Women Women Course 2

Women’s Assembly Women Social 2

Going to the Cinema with Trainees, Activities for

Women’s Day

Women Concert, Theatre,

Cinema

1

Activity for Bargain Matinee Women Meeting 1

Handcraft Exhibition Women Exhibition 1

As a result of the evaluations detailed above, the Social Inclusion Index was based on both the

diversity of services and the quality score of services in the following headings. While the

quality score was being calculated, the composite score was formed by multiplying the

number of activities with the value of the related activity between 1 to3.

− Family

− Children

− Youth

− Sick and Elderly

− Women

− Refugees

− Disabled

− Municipality

When the Social Inclusion Index was created, the activity reports which are mandatory and

official publications issued by the municipalities were examined and the data was compiled

through the activities/fields mentioned in these reports as it was also done in the Governance

Index. It is expected that the district municipalities will prepare their activity reports more

effectively after this study as it is a document containing all the activities and its details

performed by the municipalities during the year as well as budget and transparency charts.

The lack of coordination between reports, the inability to reach details in some reports or the

lack of some sections were taken into account in the analysis process and index calculations

were made at the apparent report level.

1.3.3. Economic Status Indicators

The Economic Status Index of the Districts is composed of 11 variables. The numerical data for

retail trade, number and variety of banks, housing rates for sale and rent and age dependency

ratios are used on the basis of districts.

The data compiled on a district basis are as follows:

32

− Shopping center presence

− Bank variety

− Number of branches per ten thousand people

− Rental housing market price

− Housing market price for sale

− Rate of change in housing market price for sale

− Hypermarket presence

− Age dependency ratio (ratio of labor force to non-labor force population)

1.3.4. Educational Indicators

For this indicator, literacy, duration of education and higher education information were

compiled using a total of seven variables, measuring the general average and the average for

women.

− Literacy rate

− Female literacy rate

− Percentage of women who have never been educated

− University graduation rate

− University graduation rate of females

− Average duration of education

− Average duration of education of females

1.3.5. Health Indicators

Hospitals, pharmacies and ambulances, presence of private, public and university in districts

are compiled as Health indicators. In addition to these, the rough death rate is also one of the

topics taken into consideration. Unlike in 2017, this year a total of 10 variables are used that

include variables for the scope and quality of services for sick and elderly and their quality

score, as well as the activities related to disabilities covered in the municipality activity report

in the Health indicators.

In line with this, Health indicators are summarized in 10 variables.

− Crude mortality rate

− Number of ambulances per ten thousand people

− Number of pharmacies per ten thousand people

− Hospital presence (in private, state and university detail)

− Diversity of activities for patients and elderly

− Quality score of patient and elderly activities

− Variety of disability-oriented activities

− Quality score of activities for the disabled

33

1.3.6. Social Life Indicators

Social Life indicators include museum existence, cinema and theatre as well as social and

cultural services mentioned in activity reports of the district municipalities.

As mentioned in the Social Inclusion indicators, the activity reports of the district

municipalities were checked and the activities included in the report were clearly listed. The

activities included in the categories of cultural activities were evaluated as Social Life

indicators. As in the evaluation of Social Inclusion indicators, they were reclassified to

summarize the nature of the activity as performed and the qualifications were evaluated on a

triple scale.

The following chart presents the evaluation examples.

Chart 6. Sample Chart for Activity Assessment- Social Life

Activity Detail Activity Catagory Activity Type Assessment

Citizenship Education Program Culture Education workshop 3

Opening of Culture Centre Culture Opening of Centre 3

Cultural Trips Culture Cultural Trip 2

Theatre Culture Concert,Theatre,

Cinema

2

Public Library and Book Donations Culture Library, Book 2

Participation in Workshops of

Museums

Culture Museum 2

Spring Festival and Activities Culture Activity 1

Exhibition Opening at the Art

Museum

Culture Exhibition 1

A total of five variables were taken into consideration in Social Life indicators:

− The existence of private museums

− Number of cinemas

− Number of theaters

− Variety of social and cultural services

− Quality score of social and cultural services

1.3.7. Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index

The five variables taken into account in the Municipal Environmental Performance and

Transportation Index are as follows.

− Variety of services for the environment

− Quality scores of services for the environment

− Variety of services for stray animals

− Quality scores of services for stray animals

− Subway, light rail, tram line presence

34

The evaluations for services to stray animals and the environment are based on the open

listing from the municipal activity reports, the summarization of the quality, and the

evaluation on the triple scale.

2. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX - DISTRICTS 2017

In this section, the results of the index related to HDI-D and sub-parameters will be revealed

at the level of the districts. This year a broader scale is wished to be evaluated by extending

the scope of the HDI-D to 180 districts from 150. However, 19 districts were excluded because

they did not send the activity report to us even though it was requested. Thefore, this study

includes 161 districts. When index rankings and scores are evaluated, it should be considered

that not all the districts in the country are covered. On the other hand, when comparing last

year’s HDI-D index with this year’s, it should not be forgotten that the new districts included

in the index will also cause some changes in the rankings and scores.

2.1. HDI-D 2017 MAIN INDEX

When we look at the the general results of the Human Development Index, it is observed that

Beşiktaş (Istanbul) took the first place among 161 districts. Beşiktaş district is followed by

Kadıköy, which is also in İstanbul, and Çankaya district in Ankara is in third place. Şişli,

Bakırköy, Maltepe, and Üsküdar from İstanbul, Yenimahalle from Ankara, Nilüfer from Bursa,

Muratpaşa from Antalya, Karşıyaka from İzmir, and Tepebaşı from Eskişehir are districts that

ranked at the top of the list. Ergani from Diyarbakir, Siverek from Şanlıurfa, and Çamlıdere

and Evren from Ankara are at the bottom of the general ranking.

While the top score in the index calculated between the range of 0-1 is 0.864 (Beşiktaş), the base

score is 0.141 (XXX). The average index score is 0.490 and the number of districts above the

average is 79. The remaining 82 districts among the 161 districts covered in the Human

Development Index have below-average values. The closer a score calculated in this analysis

is to the maximum score of 1, the less problems there are in terms of human development.

When we look at the average values of the previous year, it can be said that the level of human

development generally shows signs of improvement. However, based on this study covering

the most populated 161 districts within the metropolitan borders in Turkey, there are still areas

that need to be improved in terms of human development at the local level.

When the order of the index is examined, it is observed that especially districts with high

scores and therefore the leading ones are often from the same provinces. Last year, the first 30

districts in the HDI-D ranking were from a total of 7 provinces (Ankara, Istanbul, İzmir, Bursa,

Eskişehir, Antalya and Kocaeli), and this year the number of provinces increased to 8 as

Samsun was added. While the fact that more districts are covered from these provinces due to

their higher populations also contributes to such frequency, the main reason is that the socio-

economic development is higher in these provinces than the others. There is a linear

relationship between human development and socio-economic development in the region.

While socio-economic development and human development affect and accelerate each other,

35

they also maintain the attention on these provinces that are the centre of attraction. The

common characteristics of these provinces are their diversity and wealth in social and cultural

life, and their role as industrial and commercial centres. If we look at the bottom of the index

list, we observe that these districts are usually eastern and southeastern provinces. Diyarbakır,

Van and Şanlıurfa are generally ranked high in these regions while some outskirt districts of

Ankara also have very low index scores.

4 district groups were determined according to the hierarchical clustering analysis carried out

to determine the index scores shown in Human Development Index – Districts study. The

classification is done according to the titles of Very High - High - Medium - Low Human

Development as the terminology of UNDP is adopted. These classifications are color coded for

ease of reading.

If the 161 districts, the number of districts that are in the Very High Human Development

group (Green Zone) is 30. There are 49 districts in the High Human Development group (Blue

Zone), 66 districts in the Medium Human Development group (Yellow Zone), and 16 districts

are determined to be in the Low Human Development group (Red Zone).

Very High Human

Development

High Human Development

Medium Human

Development

Low Human Development

36

Chart 7. HDI-D Main Results

PROVINCE DISTRICT HDI-D

1 İSTANBUL BEŞİKTAŞ 0,864

2 İSTANBUL KADIKÖY 0,846

3 ANKARA ÇANKAYA 0,766

4 İSTANBUL ŞİŞLİ 0,736

5 BURSA NİLÜFER 0,698

6 ANTALYA MURATPAŞA 0,692

7 İZMİR KARŞIYAKA 0,692

8 ESKİŞEHİR TEPEBAŞI 0,681

9 İSTANBUL BAKIRKÖY 0,681

10 İSTANBUL MALTEPE 0,669

11 İSTANBUL ÜSKÜDAR 0,663

12 ANKARA YENİMAHALLE 0,656

13 İSTANBUL SARIYER 0,656

14 İZMİR KONAK 0,655

15 İSTANBUL ATAŞEHİR 0,654

16 İSTANBUL ÜMRANİYE 0,648

17 İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU 0,647

18 ESKİŞEHİR ODUNPAZARI 0,646

19 KOCAELİ İZMİT 0,643

20 İZMİR BORNOVA 0,636

21 İSTANBUL FATİH 0,628

22 İSTANBUL AVCILAR 0,620

23 İZMİR GAZİEMİR 0,618

24 İSTANBUL BEYLİKDÜZÜ 0,614

25 ANKARA KEÇİÖREN 0,603

26 İSTANBUL TUZLA 0,601

27 İZMİR BALÇOVA 0,601

37

28 İSTANBUL ÇEKMEKÖY 0,600

29 İSTANBUL BAŞAKŞEHİR 0,600

30 SAMSUN ATAKUM 0,597

31 İZMİR BAYRAKLI 0,595

32 İSTANBUL PENDİK 0,594

33 İSTANBUL KARTAL 0,588

34 İSTANBUL KÜÇÜKÇEKMECE 0,587

35 BURSA OSMANGAZİ 0,580

36 İZMİR NARLIDERE 0,578

37 İSTANBUL BAYRAMPAŞA 0,575

38 İSTANBUL EYÜP 0,567

39 ANTALYA KONYAALTI 0,567

40 ANKARA ALTINDAĞ 0,560

41 ADANA ÇUKUROVA 0,557

42 İSTANBUL SİLİVRİ 0,551

43 İZMİR KARABAĞLAR 0,549

44 SAMSUN İLKADIM 0,549

45 İZMİR URLA 0,547

46 İSTANBUL BEYKOZ 0,544

47 İSTANBUL ESENLER 0,543

48 İSTANBUL KAĞITHANE 0,542

49 MANİSA YUNUSEMRE 0,539

50 BURSA YILDIRIM 0,538

51 İSTANBUL BAHÇELİEVLER 0,538

52 ANTALYA KEPEZ 0,536

53 İSTANBUL GÜNGÖREN 0,535

54 İZMİR GÜZELBAHÇE 0,534

55 İSTANBUL GAZİOSMANPAŞA 0,534

56 İZMİR SEFERİHİSAR 0,534

38

57 KAYSERİ MELİKGAZİ 0,533

58 İZMİR BUCA 0,528

59 İSTANBUL BÜYÜKÇEKMECE 0,525

60 KOCAELİ GEBZE 0,523

61 KAYSERİ TALAS 0,521

62 ANKARA ETİMESGUT 0,521

63 İZMİR MENEMEN 0,519

64 MERSİN YENİŞEHİR 0,516

65 DENİZLİ PAMUKKALE 0,515

66 KONYA SELÇUKLU 0,514

67 DENİZLİ MERKEZEFENDİ 0,510

68 ANKARA POLATLI 0,507

69 İZMİR ÇİĞLİ 0,505

70 ANTALYA ALANYA 0,505

71 ANTALYA MANAVGAT 0,504

72 İSTANBUL ZEYTİNBURNU 0,500

73 ADANA SEYHAN 0,500

74 ANKARA SİNCAN 0,498

75 İZMİR ÇEŞME 0,498

76 MERSİN TARSUS 0,493

77 İZMİR ALİAĞA 0,493

78 MUĞLA BODRUM 0,492

79 BURSA İNEGÖL 0,491

80 İSTANBUL SULTANBEYLİ 0,489

81 GAZİANTEP ŞEHİTKAMİL 0,487

82 KAHRAMANMARAŞ ONİKİŞUBAT 0,485

83 İZMİR BERGAMA 0,484

84 İSTANBUL ESENYURT 0,483

85 TEKİRDAĞ ÇORLU 0,482

39

86 MANİSA TURGUTLU 0,482

87 GAZİANTEP ŞAHİNBEY 0,478

88 İSTANBUL ARNAVUTKÖY 0,476

89 ANKARA GÖLBAŞI 0,476

90 İSTANBUL ÇATALCA 0,474

91 TEKİRDAĞ SÜLEYMANPAŞA 0,472

92 ANKARA MAMAK 0,471

93 İZMİR FOÇA 0,466

94 İZMİR SELÇUK 0,464

95 ANKARA BEYPAZARI 0,462

96 KAYSERİ KOCASİNAN 0,460

97 HATAY İSKENDERUN 0,460

98 MALATYA YEŞİLYURT 0,460

99 ORDU ALTINORDU 0,455

100 BALIKESİR EDREMİT 0,451

101 AYDIN NAZİLLİ 0,448

102 BALIKESİR ALTIEYLÜL 0,445

103 TRABZON ORTAHİSAR 0,443

104 İZMİR ÖDEMİŞ 0,442

105 TEKİRDAĞ ÇERKEZKÖY 0,441

106 MUĞLA FETHİYE 0,440

107 MUĞLA MİLAS 0,440

108 ERZURUM PALANDÖKEN 0,439

109 ADANA YÜREĞİR 0,438

110 İZMİR DİKİLİ 0,437

111 ADANA CEYHAN 0,436

112 İSTANBUL BAĞCILAR 0,432

113 ERZURUM YAKUTİYE 0,431

114 İZMİR TORBALI 0,431

40

115 MERSİN AKDENİZ 0,430

116 KOCAELİ GÖLCÜK 0,425

117 İSTANBUL SANCAKTEPE 0,424

118 İZMİR MENDERES 0,422

119 İSTANBUL SULTANGAZİ 0,422

120 KONYA MERAM 0,422

121 HATAY ANTAKYA 0,421

122 İSTANBUL ADALAR 0,418

123 HATAY DEFNE 0,417

124 MALATYA BATTALGAZİ 0,417

125 MANİSA SALİHLİ 0,417

126 İZMİR KEMALPAŞA 0,416

127 ADANA SARIÇAM 0,414

128 KOCAELİ KÖRFEZ 0,409

129 İSTANBUL ŞİLE 0,408

130 KONYA KARATAY 0,408

131 MANİSA ŞEHZADELER 0,403

132 MANİSA AKHİSAR 0,397

133 MERSİN TOROSLAR 0,391

134 ANKARA AKYURT 0,391

135 ANKARA ÇUBUK 0,382

136 İZMİR KARABURUN 0,377

137 MERSİN MEZİTLİ 0,376

138 DİYARBAKIR KAYAPINAR 0,376

139 İZMİR BAYINDIR 0,376

140 KOCAELİ DERİNCE 0,365

141 GAZİANTEP NİZİP 0,363

142 ANKARA KAHRAMANKAZAN 0,361

143 MERSİN ERDEMLİ 0,345

41

144 SAMSUN BAFRA 0,344

145 KONYA EREĞLİ 0,342

146 VAN İPEKYOLU 0,339

147 ANKARA ELMADAĞ 0,329

148 ŞANLIURFA EYYÜBİYE 0,325

149 ANKARA PURSAKLAR 0,324

150 KAHRAMANMARAŞ ELBİSTAN 0,309

151 VAN EDREMİT 0,305

152 DİYARBAKIR BAĞLAR 0,300

153 ORDU ÜNYE 0,296

154 KAHRAMANMARAŞ DULKADİROĞLU 0,287

155 VAN TUŞBA 0,282

156 ŞANLIURFA SİVEREK 0,270

157 ANKARA KALECİK 0,269

158 ANKARA NALLIHAN 0,255

159 ANKARA EVREN 0,199

160 DİYARBAKIR ERGANİ 0,162

161 ANKARA ÇAMLIDERE 0,141

42

43

44

2.2. HDI-D 2017 DISTRICT GROUPS

If the district groups are examined, it can be said that the human development level is mostly

at medium-high level.

Chart 8. Change in the Number of Districts in the Zones 2016-2017

2016 2017

Number of Districts in

Green Zone

18 30

Number of Districts in Blue

Zone

56 49

Number of Districts in

Yellow Zone

64 66

Number of Districts in Red

Zone

12 16

There is a significant increase in the number of districts in the Green Zone in comparison to

last year. On the other hand, there is a decrease in the Blue Zone and an increase in the Red

Zone. The Yellow Zone increased only by 2 districts.

The average index scores of the groups have all increased, with the Green Zone increasing

from 0.503 to 0.664; the Blue Zone from 0.394 to 0.534; the Yellow Zone from 0.303 to 0.429;

and the Red Zone from 0.172 to 0.275. At the same time, when we look at the differences

between the regions, an average decrease of about 0.10-0.13 was observed last year from very

high to low level, and this year the difference is around 0.10-0.15 as well. Therefore, the

differences between the regions are still visible even though there is a general tendency to

increase.

Graph 1. HDI-D Average Group Values

0,6

64

0,5

34

0,4

29

0,2

75

0,5

03

0,3

94

0,3

03

0,1

72

V e r y h i g h h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t

H i g h h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t

M e d i u m h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t

L o w h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t

2017 2016

45

The socio-economic imbalances monitored in the regions and provinces of Turkey are also

visible on district level. The fact that only 30 districts among the 161 districts are located in the

highest group and the majority of them are concentrated in the middle group shows that there

is a trap still existing for human development just like the middle-income trap which has been

used in economic terms in recent years. This situation is clearly observed in the following

graph.

HDI-D Group Distribution

2.2.1. Green Zone: Districts with Very High Human Development

There is a total of 30 districts from 8 provinces in the Green Zone, which is the highest group

in the Human Development Index. Beşiktaş, Kadıköy, Şişli, Bakırköy, Maltepe, Üsküdar,

Sarıyer, Ataşehir, Ümraniye, Beyoglu, Fatih, Avcılar, Beylikdüzü, Tuzla, Çekmeköy and

Başakşehir from İstanbul; Çankaya, Yenimahalle and Keçiören from Ankara; Muratpaşa from

Antalya; Karşıyaka, Konak, Bornova, Gaziemir and Balçova from

İzmir; Tepebaşı and Odunpazarı from Eskişehir; Nilüfer from Bursa; İzmit from Kocaeli and

Atakum from Samsun are the districts with the highest human development. İstanbul is the

most dominant province with 16 districts. İzmir is represented by 5 districts; Ankara with 3;

Eskişehir with 2; Antalya, Bursa, Kocaeli and Samsun are all represented with 1 each.

It is also observed that the first four districts have a higher score compared to the other districts

and they stand out in the cluster. Furthermore, the common characteristic of the districts in

the highest group of the main index is that they generally have a very high or high level of

human development in the subcategories. Those districts that are in the Green Zone in the

main index are also mostly in the Green and Blue Zone in the areas of Governance, Economic

Status, Education and Social Life. They have relatively low development indicators in the areas

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Very High Human Development


Medium Human Development


46

of Health, Environment and Social Inclusion. These districts, which stand out in terms of socio-

economic indicators, still have environmental problems, do not provide sufficient

improvements in Social Inclusion, and also have some deficiencies in the field of Health.

However, these deficiencies are low in terms of general index when compared to other

provinces, and they are not significant enough to change their rankings in the index.

Chart 9. HDI-D Very High Human Development Level (Green Zone)

























47








2.2.2. Blue Zone:Districts with High Human Development

The High Human Development is shown as the Blue Zone and it is the second cluster with the

highest scores among the groups. In this group where 49 districts are present, 20 provinces

were represented in the past year, while 14 provinces are represented this year. Istanbul is the

province with the most districts in this group as well. 14 districts are from Istanbul while 11

districts from Izmir, 4 each from Ankara and Antalya, 3 from Bursa, 2 each from Adana,

Kayseri, Mersin and Denizli, and 1 each from Manisa, Kocaeli, Konya, Muğla and Samsun.

There are some deficiencies observed in the areas Health, Social Life, Social Inclusion and

Environment in the districts of this group. Another striking point here is the existence of the

districts where human development is lower compared to economic development.

Chart 10. HDI-D High Human Development Level (Blue Zone)

PROVINCE District HDI-D











48






























49











50

2.2.3. Yellow Zone:Districts with Medium Human Development

In the medium human development level as the third level in the Human Development Index,

while there were 64 districts from 26 provinces listed last year, 66 districts from 22 provinces

are present this year. This group with the greatest diversity of provinces is coded with yellow

color. There are 10 districts from İzmir, 9 from Istanbul, 6 from Ankara, 4 each from Manisa

and Mersin, 3 each from Tekirdağ, Konya, Kocaeli, Hatay, Gaziantep and Adana, 2 each from

Balıkesir, Erzurum, Malatya and Muğla, and 1 each from Kayseri, Ordu, Samsun, Trabzon,

Aydin, Diyarbakir, and Kahramanmaraş. As the level of human development decreases, the

provincial diversity increases; and it can be seen that the socio-economically prominent

provinces of the country are in the higher groups while the provinces of Anatolia are

represented in the lower groups. There is a low performance in Social Inclusion, Social Life

and Environment in most of the districts in this group.

Chart 11. HDI-D Medium Human Development Level (Yellow Zone)



















51






























52





















53

2.2.4. Red Zone: Districts with Low Human Development

There are 16 districts from 6 provinces in the Red Zone, which is the lowest group of the

Human Development Index. 6 districts from Ankara, 3 from Van, 2 each from Diyarbakır,

Şanlıurfa and Kahramanmaraş, and 1 from Ordu are in the Low Human Development group.

Since the districts that did not publish its activity reports are excluded from the study, some

districts from Ankara are listed in this group along with districts of Diyarbakir, Şanlıurfa,

Kahramanmaraş, Van and Ordu. It is observed that the districts from Ankara in this group are

in the outskirts of the province.

Chart 12. HDI-D Low Human Development Level (Red Zone)


















54

2.3. HDI-D SUB INDICES

The main index scores of HDI-D were calculated as a composite of sub-parameters. In this

section, the results related to the Governance, Social Inclusion, Economic Status, Education,

Health, Social Life, Municipal Environmental Performance and Transportation indices which

are sub-parameters constituting HDI-D will be revealed.

2.3.1. Governance and Transparency Indicators

Since the essence of HDI-D is measuring human development at the local level, local

authorities were taken into account in the Governance area and no calculation or measurement

method was used regarding any centralized authority. 5 variables, being the Municipality

Information Sharing and Transparency Index, Municipality Access Index, Municipality Social

Media Usage Index, "Secret Citizen" Index and Local Elections Participation Rate were used

for the Governance Index which is the first of the sub-parameters of HDI-D. Last year, "secret

citizen" questions were evaluated under the Municipality Access Index with only 3 questions.

This year, the "secret citizen" section was set up as an independent index and the questions

increased to 24. 5 main indicators were examined in the Governance and Transparency Index.

The “secret citizen” method, with the indicators collected by examining the activity reports of

the district municipalities and their websites, was used to communicate with 161 district

municipalities through telephone and e-mail and the pre-established scenario questions were

directed. A scope was determined based on the responses to the questions and the rate of

return, and added into the calculation as a sub-indicator. Therefore, the Governance Index is

based on both the official website of the municipality and the activity reports it publishes, and

on the scenario questions and experience methods.

It is observed that Çekmeköy (Istanbul), Keçiören (Ankara), Çankaya (Ankara), Şişli (İstanbul)

and Üsküdar (Istanbul) are at the top of the Governance Index. These districts are followed by

Kadıköy, Beşiktaş, Maltepe and Pendik from Istanbul, Konak and Karşıyaka from İzmir,

Muratpaşa from Antalya, Yunusemre from Manisa, Odunpazarı from Eskişehir and

Yenimahalle from Ankara. Ergani (Diyarbakır), Nallıhan (Ankara), Evren (Ankara) and

Çamlıdere (Ankara) are at the bottom of the index.

55

Chart 13. HDI-D Governance and Transparency Indicators

PROVINCE DISTRICT Governance and Transparency Index











































56
















































57
















































58


























59

When the Governance Index made for HDI-D is grouped into 4 categories based on

development, it is seen that the number of districts in the Green Zone, the highest group,

increased to 34 this year while there were only 22 distrticts last year. . The number of districts

in the Blue Zone (high development) decreased from 88 to 68, in the Yellow Zone (medium

development) it increased from 33 to 38, and in the Red Zone (low development) it increased

from 7 to 21. As it can be seen from the graph below, the diffraction between the districts in

the area of Governance was in subgroups, not in the upper groups. While the upper groups

showed a more homogeneous structure, the diversity of the provinces represented was also

provided. Districts from 9 provinces, which are Istanbul, Ankara, Manisa, Antalya, Izmir,

Eskişehir, Bursa, Kocaeli and Samsun are in the Green Zone; whereas 19 provinces were

represented in the Blue Zone. However, a total of 20 provinces were ranked in two regions this

year, while a total of 23 provinces were in these two regions.

Graph 2. Governance and Transparency Indicators

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180





60

61

62

2.3.2. Social Inclusion Indicators

The Social Inclusion Index is composed of the activities within the catagories of family,

children, young, sick and elderly, women, disabled and refugee by examining the activity

reports of the district municipalities within the scope of the research. Both the activity diversity

and the quality score calculated for the effectiveness of the activity are taken into

consideration.

The districts that at the top of the index ranking for Social Inclusion according to the index

results are Ümraniye (İstanbul), Beşiktaş (İstanbul), Bayraklı (İzmir), Kadıköy (İstanbul) ve

Kepez (Antalya). These districts are followed by Yıldırım (Bursa), Sarıyer (İstanbul),

Karabağlar (İzmir) and Tepebaşı (Eskişehir). Çamlıdere (Ankara), Ünye (Ordu), Evren

(Ankara), Derince (Kocaeli) and Selçuklu (Konya) are at the bottom of the rankings. In this

index, which is entirely calculated with data from the municipality activity reports, the

number of district in the Green Zone, with the highest development, increased to 12 this year

as opposed to 8 in last year. . The number of districts in the Blue Zone (high development)

increased from 38 to 42, in the Yellow Zone (medium development) it decreased from 73 to 63,

and in the Red Zone (low development) it decreased from 44 to 31. Therefore, performance is

lower than that of the Governance Index, and it is understood that it is concentrated on the

Medium-Low level. On the other hand, the diversity of the districts in the highest group

distinguishes the Social Inclusion Index from other indices. 12 districts that have the highest

value in the ranking represent 6 different provinces. In the high region, districts from 14

different provinces are in the ranking list.

Chart 14. HDI-D Social Inclusion Indicators

PROVINCE DISTRICT Social Inclusion Index





















63
















































64
















































65
















































66

Graph 3. Social Inclusion Indicators

The diffraction between districts in both high and low groups in Social Inclusion are visible.

In both the highest and lowest groups in the area of social inclusion, breaks between the

districts are clear. Two diffractions as high group and low group are visible especially with

the accumulation in medium group.

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180





67

68

69

2.3.3. Economic Status Indicators

The Economic Situation as one of the sub-parameters of the Human Development Index is an

important factor that affects human development. A number of studies have shown that there

is a linear relationship between income and human development. Countries with high levels

of human development in country-level analyses are also countries with high income levels.

A similar situation is also observed when the results of the HDI-D Economic Status Index are

examined. The districts at the top of index ranking were also among the leading districts in

the main index of HDI-D. It is observed that Istanbul is dominant in the Economic Situation

Index. Beside the fact that the top five districts are Beşiktaş, Bakırköy, Sarıyer, Kadıköy and

Beyoğlu, 16 of the 23 provinces in the Green Zone as the highest level are from Istanbul. Çeşme,

Konak and Karşıyaka from Izmir; Çankaya from Ankara; Bodrum from Muğla; Nilüfer from

Bursa and Muratpaşa from Antalya are districts located outside of Istanbul that are listed in

Green Zone. Nallıhan (Ankara), Ergani (Diyarbakir) and Evren (Ankara) are at the bottom of

the rankings.

While there were 11 districts last year in the highest group in the Economic Situation Index,

the Green Zone, this year the number of districts increased to 23. The number of districts in

the Blue Zone (high development) decreased from 52 to 44, in the Yellow Zone (medium

development) it increased from 72 to 81, and in the Red Zone (low development) it decreased

from 14 to 13.

Chart 15. HDI-D Economic Status Indicators

PROVINCE DISTRICT Economic Status Index























70
















































71
















































72














































73

Overall, it is seen that in the Economic Situation Index there is an accumulation at the

Medium-High, but there are more districts at the medium level. In this index, just as in Social

Inclusion Index, there are diffractions on the highest and lowest district levels.

Graph 4. Economic Status Indicators

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180





74

75

76

2.3.4. Education Indicators

Education is one of the main components that factor into human development. The data

regarding education has always maintained its place in the formulas that UNDP has been

using since the beginning to measure human development. In the Education Index which is

one of the sub-parameters of Human Development Index, Beşiktaş, Kadıköy and Bakırköy

from İstanbul, Çankaya from Ankara, Karşıyaka from İzmir, and Konyaaltı from Antalya are

at the top of the rankings. These 6 districts also ranked the first 6 last year. Çamlıdere and

Evren from Ankara, Eyyübiye and Siverek from Şanlıurfa, Ergani and Bağlar from Diyarbakır,

Dulkadiroğlu from Kahramanmaraş, and Nizip from Gaziantep are at the bottom of the

rankings. As it is seen, most of the districts at the bottom of the rankings are from East and

Southeast Anatolia region. The Green Zone, the highest development among the Index

groupings, has 20 districts this year as opposed to only 6 districts last year. The number of

districts in the Blue Zone (high development) increased from 57 to 63, in the Yellow Zone

(medium development) it decreased from 79 to 61, and in the Red Zone (low development) it

increased from 8 to 17.

Chart 16. HDI-D Education Indicators

PROVINCE DISTRICT Education Index




























77
















































78
















































79









































80

In the Education Index, there is an accumulation at the Medium-High level for the 161 districts,

but there are more districts at the medium level. The diffraction points of the index are on

highest and lowest district levels.

Graph 5. Education Indicators

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180





81

82

83

2.3.5. Health Indicators

The indicators in health, just like education, are among the essentials for human development.

If we look at the results of the Health Index at the level of districts as a sub-parameter of HDI-

D, we can see Kadıköy, Şişli and Fatih from İstanbul, Çankaya and Altındağ from Ankara,

Karabağlar, Balçova and Bornova from İzmir, Muratpaşa from Antalya, and Tepebaşı from

Eskişehir at the top of the rankings. Tuşba (Van), Pursaklar (Ankara), Çamlıdere (Ankara),

Ergani (Diyarbakır) and Derince (Kocaeli) are at the bottom of the ranking. While there were

9 districts in the Green Zone, the highest-ranking group, last year, there are 21 districts in

Green Zone this year. The number of districts in the Blue Zone (high development) increased

from 24 to 45, in the Yellow Zone (medium development) it decreased from 96 to 70, and in

the Red Zone (low development) it increased from 21 to 24. Therefore we can understand that

there is an accumulation in health field at the Medium level for the 161 districts. When

examined in terms of diversity, there are 10 provinces represented in Green Zone and 16

provinces in Blue Zone. When these two zones considered as one, 19 provinces are

represented.

Chart 17. HDI-D Health Indicators

PROVINCE DISTRICT Health Index


























84
















































85
















































86











































87

It is seen that the diffractions in the groups occur in the Green Zone which is the highest

development group and the Red Zone which is the lowest development group.

Graph 6. Health Indicators

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180





88

89

90

2.3.6. Social Life Indicators

In the Social Life field, which is a sub-parameter of the Human Development Index calculated

at the level of the districts, a sub-index was created accounting for activities such as cinema,

theater, museum existence in the district and the activities facilitated by the district

municipality in the cultural and social areas. It can be said that there is diversity in terms of

provinces of the districts that are leading the index. Beşiktaş, Kadıköy, Beyoğlu and Şişli from

İstanbul, Çankaya from Ankara, Konak and Karşıyaka from İzmir, and Tepebaşı from

Eskişehir are districts that are prominent in Social Life Index as they appear in Green Zone,

the highest development group. Ünye (Ordu), Derince (Kocaeli), Ergani (Diyarbakır), Evren

(Ankara) and Kalecik (Ankara) have the lowest scores in the index rankings. There are 8

districts clustered in the Green Zone this year while there were 7 in the last year. number of

districts in the Blue Zone (high development) increased from 38 to 39, in the Yellow Zone

(medium development) it decreased from 79 to 68, and in the Red Zone (low development) it

increased from 26 to 46. There is an accumulation at the Medium level for 161 districts within

the study in regards to social life area.

Chart 18. HDI-D Social Life Indicators

PROVINCE DISTRICT Social Life Index


























91
















































92
















































93











































94

While most of the diffractions in the Social Life area are in the highest development group

(Green Zone), the diffractions in the lower groups are remarkable.

Graph 7. Social Life Indicators

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180





95

96

97

2.3.7. Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index

Within the scope of the research, a very limited set of data on environment and transportation

could be reached for the 161 districts. A solid data set, for which one of the most basic

indicators is the green area per person, was not able to be obtained. Asphalt road ratio, traffic

density, infrastructure for electricity, water and sewage data were not up to date so they could

not be included in the evaluation. In this context, the Municipality Environmental Performance

and Transportation Index was calculated by considering the existence of railway systems in

the district, and the diversity and activity of the district municipality's activities regarding the

environment. According to the results of the index, Şişli, Güngören, Başakşehir and

Bayrampaşa from Istanbul are at the top of the rankings. The districts from Izmir, Ankara,

Bursa and Antalya are also leading the index. Derince (Kocaeli), Ergani (Diyarbakır) and Evren

(Ankara) are at the bottom of the rankings. There are 20 districts clustered in the Green Zone

this year while there were 7 in the last year. The number of districts in the Blue Zone (high

development) increased from 39 to 50, in the Yellow Zone (medium development) it decreased

from 53 to 37, and in the Red Zone (low development) it increased from 51 to 53. Therefore,

there is an accumulation at the Medium- Low level for the 161 districts within the study in

regards to environment and transportation area.

Chart 19. HDI-D Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index

PROVINCE DISTRICT

Municipality Environmental

Performance

and Transportation Index






















98
















































99
















































100















































101

In the area of Environment and Transportation, the diffractions are observed especially in the

highest (Green Zone) and medium (Yellow Zone) groups.

Graph 8. Municipality Environmental Performance and Transportation Index

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180





102

103

104

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Human development is an abstract concept that is multiparameteral and difficult to measure.

According to the average, calculations are made and the indices are created. The importance

of micro indices comparing small settlement units rather than the macro indices where the

countries are compared is increasing day by day. In this study, an abstract concept of human

development was analyzed in the highest populated districts within metropolitan borders

and the indices were created. On the other hand, in the scope of the analysis, there are 25

districts out of the index due to lack of data although they were intended to be included.

This reseach is made with an aim of helping the local authorities to expedite human

development. The majority of the data used in this analysis was compiled from reports and

websites of districts municipalities. The data obtained by the “secret citizen” method was also

used in the index.

The main results are announced as in HDI-D Index and indices regarding sub-parameters.

Since HDI-D is composed of sub-parameters, the sub-parameter indices are in a decisive

position. As it can be seen on the chart below, disctricts are mostly accumulated in the Yellow

Zone, which is the group for Medium Human Development based on the indices of sub-

parameters.

Chart 20. HDI-D Sub-Parameter Sets

Green

Zone Blue Zone

Yellow

Zone Red Zone

Governance and Transparency

Indicators

34 68 38 21

Social Inclusion Indicators 12 42 63 44

Economic Status Indicators 23 44 81 13

Education Indicators 20 63 61 17

Health Indicators 22 45 70 24

Social Life Indicators 8 39 68 46

Municipality Environmental

Performance and Transportation Index

20 50 37 54

105

Graph 9. HDI-D Sub-Parameter Sets Percentage Distribution

Of course, there are also districts on the high human development level in both HDI-D and

sub-parameter index results. However, it is understood that the level of development is

clustered in the medium region. This shows that there is not a big change in the results from

the HDI-D made last year.

The improvement of human development with action plans to be made at the local level

depends on rationalizing and increasing such activities. It is observed that the role of local

authorities in the fields of Economy, Education, Health, Social Life and Environment, and

especially in the areas of Governance and Social Inclusion as revealed in this study, has

increased in recent years. From this point of view, it is clear that the local authorities will

contribute to the development of people in the regions they serve as long as they put the

human development in the center of their budget and activities.

The municipalities will play an important role in increasing the human development at the

local level by forming action plans, taking initiatives and making interventions for bettering

the deficient points in terms of human development.

12%

5%

14%

12%

14%

7%

21%

31%

24%

28%

39%

27%

26%

42%

23%

42%

43%

38%

50%

39%

24%

34%

29%

15%

11%

8%

27%

13%

M u n i c i p a l i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l P e r f o r m a n c e a n d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n d e x

S o c i a l L i f e I n d i c a t o r s

H e a l t h I n d i c a t o r s

E d u c a t i o n I n d i c a t o r s

E c o n o m i c S t a t u s I n d i c a t o r s

S o c i a l I n c l u s i o n I n d i c a t o r s

G o v e r n a n c e a n d T r a n s p a r e n c y I n d i c a t o r s

Green Zone Blue Zone Yellow Zone Red Zone

106

ANNEX I: RESULTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

PR

OV

INC

E

DIS

TR

ICT

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

AN

D

TR

AN

SP

AR

EN

CY

IN

DE

X

SO

CIA

L I

NC

LU

SIO

N I

ND

EX

EC

ON

OM

IC S

TA

TU

S I

ND

EX

ED

UC

AT

ION

IN

DE

X

HE

AL

TH

IN

DE

X

SO

CIA

L L

IFE

IN

DE

X

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E A

ND

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N I

ND

EX

HD

I-D

1 İstanbul Beşiktaş 0,944 0,685 0,867 0,981 0,732 0,900 0,775 0,864

2 İstanbul Kadiköy 0,950 0,610 0,745 0,955 0,896 0,888 0,650 0,846

3 Ankara Çankaya 0,962 0,355 0,634 0,965 0,745 0,775 0,700 0,766

4 İstanbul Şişli 0,957 0,430 0,616 0,753 0,796 0,675 0,950 0,736

5 Bursa Nilüfer 0,832 0,453 0,610 0,820 0,735 0,575 0,725 0,698

6 Antalya Muratpaşa 0,913 0,377 0,602 0,765 0,800 0,575 0,550 0,692

7 İzmir Karşiyaka 0,908 0,235 0,622 0,882 0,663 0,688 0,525 0,692

8 Eskişehir Tepebaşi 0,873 0,537 0,566 0,631 0,740 0,688 0,675 0,681

9 İstanbul Bakirköy 0,852 0,258 0,789 0,881 0,552 0,575 0,600 0,681

10 İstanbul Maltepe 0,943 0,433 0,611 0,736 0,750 0,225 0,725 0,669

11 İstanbul Üsküdar 0,956 0,303 0,663 0,753 0,677 0,375 0,588 0,663

12 Ankara Yenimahalle 0,905 0,352 0,567 0,773 0,553 0,625 0,600 0,656

13 İstanbul Sariyer 0,660 0,552 0,751 0,705 0,643 0,650 0,475 0,656

14 İzmir Konak 0,911 0,430 0,635 0,603 0,536 0,713 0,700 0,655

15 İstanbul Ataşehir 0,887 0,393 0,662 0,706 0,733 0,375 0,525 0,654

16 İstanbul Ümraniye 0,800 0,698 0,614 0,641 0,584 0,338 0,775 0,648

17 İstanbul Beyoğlu 0,878 0,428 0,718 0,513 0,599 0,775 0,525 0,647

18 Eskişehir Odunpazari 0,911 0,363 0,544 0,654 0,693 0,613 0,550 0,646

19 Kocaeli İzmit 0,814 0,425 0,579 0,647 0,720 0,575 0,650 0,643

20 İzmir Bornova 0,859 0,332 0,593 0,631 0,750 0,575 0,525 0,636

21 İstanbul Fatih 0,699 0,455 0,654 0,575 0,795 0,613 0,575 0,628

22 İstanbul Avcilar 0,835 0,458 0,590 0,605 0,546 0,600 0,600 0,620

23 İzmir Gaziemir 0,801 0,472 0,577 0,724 0,506 0,375 0,700 0,618

24 İstanbul Beylikdüzü 0,796 0,423 0,549 0,762 0,573 0,313 0,638 0,614

25 Ankara Keçiören 0,969 0,317 0,511 0,620 0,530 0,500 0,500 0,603

26 İstanbul Tuzla 0,766 0,323 0,580 0,645 0,625 0,588 0,525 0,601

27 İzmir Balçova 0,723 0,437 0,434 0,755 0,782 0,200 0,700 0,601

28 İstanbul Çekmeköy 0,995 0,430 0,541 0,644 0,403 0,263 0,525 0,600

29 İstanbul Başakşehir 0,787 0,488 0,588 0,645 0,549 0,250 0,825 0,600

30 Samsun Atakum 0,798 0,313 0,517 0,796 0,530 0,325 0,650 0,597

31 İzmir Bayrakli 0,795 0,648 0,586 0,640 0,378 0,338 0,425 0,595

32 İstanbul Pendik 0,908 0,355 0,591 0,587 0,454 0,438 0,663 0,594

33 İstanbul Kartal 0,692 0,463 0,592 0,669 0,572 0,363 0,638 0,588

34 İstanbul Küçükçekmece 0,761 0,368 0,589 0,583 0,659 0,350 0,813 0,587

107

35 Bursa Osmangazi 0,714 0,453 0,578 0,540 0,581 0,575 0,575 0,580

36 İzmir Narlidere 0,774 0,345 0,454 0,844 0,541 0,175 0,475 0,578

37 İstanbul Bayrampaşa 0,676 0,393 0,605 0,564 0,667 0,388 0,813 0,575

38 İstanbul Eyüp 0,653 0,458 0,626 0,603 0,482 0,513 0,513 0,567

39 Antalya Konyaalti 0,565 0,322 0,568 0,850 0,562 0,263 0,713 0,567

40 Ankara Altindağ 0,689 0,353 0,505 0,504 0,718 0,575 0,575 0,560

41 Adana Çukurova 0,589 0,377 0,521 0,806 0,578 0,175 0,700 0,557

42 İstanbul Silivri 0,772 0,537 0,552 0,544 0,525 0,238 0,300 0,551

43 İzmir Karabağlar 0,627 0,547 0,359 0,612 0,790 0,163 0,625 0,549

44 Samsun İlkadim 0,697 0,305 0,533 0,605 0,681 0,313 0,550 0,549

45 İzmir Urla 0,857 0,443 0,248 0,695 0,563 0,213 0,250 0,547

46 İstanbul Beykoz 0,844 0,195 0,677 0,600 0,454 0,275 0,400 0,544

47 İstanbul Esenler 0,664 0,448 0,549 0,436 0,691 0,413 0,650 0,543

48 İstanbul Kağithane 0,607 0,323 0,602 0,579 0,578 0,475 0,650 0,542

49 Manisa Yunusemre 0,944 0,422 0,528 0,573 0,332 0,125 0,300 0,539

50 Bursa Yildirim 0,593 0,560 0,556 0,505 0,553 0,363 0,675 0,538

51 İstanbul Bahçelievler 0,796 0,240 0,595 0,611 0,497 0,275 0,500 0,538

52 Antalya Kepez 0,528 0,602 0,546 0,537 0,578 0,300 0,725 0,536

53 İstanbul Güngören 0,596 0,463 0,580 0,578 0,520 0,238 0,875 0,535

54 İzmir Güzelbahçe 0,823 0,370 0,200 0,812 0,246 0,288 0,750 0,534

55 İstanbul Gaziosmanpaşa 0,741 0,305 0,568 0,503 0,661 0,275 0,538 0,534

56 İzmir Seferihisar 0,858 0,370 0,340 0,642 0,450 0,350 0,175 0,534

57 Kayseri Melikgazi 0,730 0,330 0,536 0,572 0,695 0,125 0,475 0,533

58 İzmir Buca 0,756 0,423 0,374 0,618 0,548 0,163 0,550 0,528

59 İstanbul Büyükçekmece 0,610 0,270 0,569 0,644 0,660 0,225 0,525 0,525

60 Kocaeli Gebze 0,765 0,282 0,569 0,552 0,652 0,175 0,225 0,523

61 Kayseri Talas 0,766 0,300 0,487 0,691 0,318 0,238 0,550 0,521

62 Ankara Etimesgut 0,597 0,280 0,509 0,793 0,516 0,125 0,575 0,521

63 İzmir Menemen 0,587 0,533 0,551 0,566 0,486 0,150 0,750 0,519

64 Mersin Yenişehir 0,704 0,290 0,544 0,691 0,499 0,175 0,175 0,516

65 Denizli Pamukkale 0,707 0,333 0,563 0,620 0,521 0,163 0,313 0,515

66 Konya Selçuklu 0,729 0,055 0,534 0,619 0,603 0,375 0,475 0,514

67 Denizli Merkezefendi 0,681 0,238 0,566 0,663 0,558 0,225 0,125 0,510

68 Ankara Polatli 0,563 0,518 0,494 0,492 0,605 0,400 0,225 0,507

69 İzmir Çiğli 0,660 0,243 0,562 0,649 0,490 0,125 0,650 0,505

70 Antalya Alanya 0,572 0,268 0,546 0,562 0,693 0,263 0,525 0,505

71 Antalya Manavgat 0,751 0,230 0,526 0,562 0,523 0,200 0,525 0,504

72 İstanbul Zeytinburnu 0,566 0,362 0,605 0,515 0,654 0,163 0,550 0,500

73 Adana Seyhan 0,649 0,288 0,561 0,472 0,666 0,275 0,425 0,500

74 Ankara Sincan 0,819 0,135 0,504 0,516 0,618 0,263 0,238 0,498

75 İzmir Çeşme 0,583 0,208 0,660 0,682 0,475 0,175 0,425 0,498

76 Mersin Tarsus 0,674 0,443 0,501 0,478 0,523 0,300 0,125 0,493

77 İzmir Aliağa 0,658 0,320 0,425 0,666 0,442 0,125 0,600 0,493

78 Muğla Bodrum 0,437 0,178 0,688 0,674 0,546 0,375 0,400 0,492

79 Bursa İnegöl 0,600 0,310 0,519 0,455 0,638 0,325 0,600 0,491

80 İstanbul Sultanbeyli 0,816 0,225 0,541 0,397 0,659 0,175 0,225 0,489

81 Gaziantep Şehitkamil 0,504 0,388 0,546 0,466 0,533 0,475 0,550 0,487

82 Kahramanmaraş Onikişubat 0,754 0,435 0,466 0,504 0,355 0,163 0,375 0,485

108

83 İzmir Bergama 0,766 0,208 0,486 0,516 0,494 0,175 0,525 0,484

84 İstanbul Esenyurt 0,614 0,322 0,542 0,515 0,548 0,275 0,300 0,483

85 Tekirdağ Çorlu 0,583 0,263 0,536 0,636 0,534 0,175 0,313 0,482

86 Manisa Turgutlu 0,713 0,342 0,519 0,489 0,583 0,125 0,125 0,482

87 Gaziantep Şahinbey 0,536 0,288 0,492 0,443 0,659 0,438 0,488 0,478

88 İstanbul Arnavutköy 0,736 0,288 0,534 0,398 0,511 0,375 0,175 0,476

89 Ankara Gölbaşi 0,749 0,173 0,323 0,698 0,330 0,325 0,375 0,476

90 İstanbul Çatalca 0,678 0,323 0,369 0,520 0,485 0,400 0,175 0,474

91 Tekirdağ Süleymanpaşa 0,558 0,295 0,540 0,626 0,491 0,113 0,400 0,472

92 Ankara Mamak 0,579 0,303 0,489 0,537 0,652 0,125 0,350 0,471

93 İzmir Foça 0,498 0,340 0,371 0,689 0,511 0,163 0,475 0,466

94 İzmir Selçuk 0,622 0,292 0,165 0,530 0,615 0,425 0,525 0,464

95 Ankara Beypazari 0,714 0,100 0,520 0,532 0,463 0,325 0,250 0,462

96 Kayseri Kocasinan 0,631 0,135 0,470 0,522 0,437 0,375 0,663 0,460

97 Hatay İskenderun 0,553 0,350 0,505 0,587 0,435 0,175 0,325 0,460

98 Malatya Yeşilyurt 0,568 0,263 0,485 0,569 0,497 0,163 0,525 0,460

99 Ordu Altinordu 0,574 0,322 0,516 0,555 0,509 0,125 0,175 0,455

100 Balikesir Edremit 0,544 0,190 0,520 0,577 0,418 0,450 0,125 0,451

101 Aydin Nazilli 0,428 0,133 0,518 0,569 0,674 0,413 0,125 0,448

102 Balikesir Altieylül 0,679 0,105 0,556 0,618 0,398 0,075 0,250 0,445

103 Trabzon Ortahisar 0,316 0,230 0,521 0,635 0,659 0,325 0,200 0,443

104 İzmir Ödemiş 0,682 0,277 0,334 0,458 0,324 0,325 0,700 0,442

105 Tekirdağ Çerkezköy 0,535 0,298 0,509 0,527 0,537 0,125 0,225 0,441

106 Muğla Fethiye 0,461 0,173 0,554 0,613 0,492 0,225 0,350 0,440

107 Muğla Milas 0,651 0,183 0,554 0,481 0,458 0,125 0,350 0,440

108 Erzurum Palandöken 0,483 0,238 0,469 0,570 0,485 0,325 0,250 0,439

109 Adana Yüreğir 0,598 0,263 0,495 0,374 0,690 0,175 0,175 0,438

110 İzmir Dikili 0,595 0,338 0,199 0,591 0,558 0,075 0,425 0,437

111 Adana Ceyhan 0,752 0,080 0,506 0,458 0,402 0,213 0,425 0,436

112 İstanbul Bağcilar 0,563 0,172 0,587 0,466 0,473 0,175 0,475 0,432

113 Erzurum Yakutiye 0,526 0,295 0,490 0,568 0,466 0,125 0,125 0,431

114 İzmir Torbali 0,589 0,233 0,315 0,489 0,481 0,325 0,500 0,431

115 Mersin Akdeniz 0,480 0,303 0,526 0,386 0,525 0,425 0,250 0,430

116 Kocaeli Gölcük 0,528 0,245 0,328 0,634 0,485 0,163 0,175 0,425

117 İstanbul Sancaktepe 0,601 0,132 0,538 0,511 0,442 0,213 0,125 0,424

118 İzmir Menderes 0,569 0,263 0,340 0,543 0,506 0,075 0,425 0,422

119 İstanbul Sultangazi 0,606 0,233 0,396 0,414 0,522 0,175 0,550 0,422

120 Konya Meram 0,510 0,132 0,301 0,542 0,632 0,375 0,225 0,422

121 Hatay Antakya 0,461 0,160 0,505 0,529 0,631 0,175 0,175 0,421

122 İstanbul Adalar 0,537 0,145 0,250 0,654 0,485 0,275 0,225 0,418

123 Hatay Defne 0,767 0,318 0,146 0,523 0,356 0,125 0,250 0,417

124 Malatya Battalgazi 0,553 0,095 0,491 0,483 0,596 0,163 0,300 0,417

125 Manisa Salihli 0,589 0,203 0,504 0,475 0,454 0,125 0,250 0,417

126 İzmir Kemalpaşa 0,659 0,155 0,303 0,500 0,405 0,113 0,775 0,416

127 Adana Sariçam 0,575 0,372 0,461 0,479 0,343 0,075 0,300 0,414

128 Kocaeli Körfez 0,499 0,225 0,503 0,539 0,455 0,125 0,125 0,409

129 İstanbul Şile 0,529 0,125 0,395 0,513 0,622 0,125 0,275 0,408

130 Konya Karatay 0,476 0,357 0,182 0,451 0,540 0,325 0,550 0,408

109

131 Manisa Şehzadeler 0,546 0,183 0,525 0,541 0,347 0,125 0,125 0,403

132 Manisa Akhisar 0,498 0,180 0,501 0,478 0,434 0,163 0,325 0,397

133 Mersin Toroslar 0,683 0,135 0,501 0,450 0,262 0,125 0,125 0,391

134 Ankara Akyurt 0,482 0,428 0,314 0,488 0,377 0,125 0,225 0,391

135 Ankara Çubuk 0,508 0,182 0,500 0,433 0,294 0,275 0,350 0,382

136 İzmir Karaburun 0,325 0,258 0,176 0,631 0,533 0,113 0,575 0,377

137 Mersin Mezitli 0,329 0,135 0,513 0,738 0,246 0,125 0,125 0,376

138 Diyarbakir Kayapinar 0,439 0,170 0,478 0,533 0,406 0,125 0,125 0,376

139 İzmir Bayindir 0,641 0,108 0,302 0,403 0,457 0,113 0,425 0,376

140 Kocaeli Derince 0,540 0,055 0,502 0,600 0,238 0,050 0,000 0,365

141 Gaziantep Nizip 0,575 0,087 0,508 0,334 0,393 0,125 0,425 0,363

142 Ankara Kahramankazan 0,570 0,090 0,256 0,522 0,405 0,125 0,200 0,361

143 Mersin Erdemli 0,366 0,248 0,311 0,517 0,362 0,125 0,250 0,345

144 Samsun Bafra 0,410 0,092 0,488 0,446 0,391 0,175 0,125 0,344

145 Konya Ereğli 0,504 0,075 0,502 0,465 0,248 0,075 0,188 0,342

146 Van İpekyolu 0,397 0,083 0,511 0,393 0,454 0,125 0,250 0,339

147 Ankara Elmadağ 0,375 0,255 0,273 0,492 0,291 0,163 0,225 0,329

148 Şanliurfa Eyyübiye 0,495 0,340 0,450 0,107 0,317 0,325 0,125 0,325

149 Ankara Pursaklar 0,366 0,240 0,339 0,553 0,122 0,125 0,300 0,324

150 Kahramanmaraş Elbistan 0,359 0,172 0,262 0,417 0,446 0,125 0,125 0,309

151 Van Edremit 0,399 0,115 0,137 0,423 0,434 0,200 0,288 0,305

152 Diyarbakir Bağlar 0,345 0,215 0,444 0,348 0,281 0,125 0,125 0,300

153 Ordu Ünye 0,371 0,025 0,460 0,366 0,412 0,050 0,175 0,296

154 Kahramanmaraş Dulkadiroğlu 0,447 0,130 0,143 0,333 0,450 0,075 0,250 0,287

155 Van Tuşba 0,503 0,180 0,250 0,371 0,046 0,113 0,250 0,282

156 Şanliurfa Siverek 0,341 0,222 0,424 0,192 0,262 0,125 0,350 0,270

157 Ankara Kalecik 0,404 0,098 0,082 0,373 0,456 0,075 0,125 0,269

158 Ankara Nallihan 0,190 0,272 0,066 0,459 0,319 0,125 0,175 0,255

159 Ankara Evren 0,280 0,040 0,072 0,244 0,418 0,075 0,125 0,199

160 Diyarbakir Ergani 0,167 0,090 0,071 0,263 0,232 0,075 0,125 0,162

161 Ankara Çamlidere 0,316 0,015 0,076 0,063 0,219 0,125 0,125 0,141

110

ANNEX II: DATABASE CHART OF HUMAN

DEVELOPMENT INDEX

VARIABLES SOURCE PERIOD

GOVERNANCE AND

TRANSPARENCY

Municipality Information Sharing and

Transparency Index

Municipality Activity Reports

Official Websites of Municipality 2016-2017

Access to Municipality Index Official Websites of Municipality 2017

Municipality Social Media Usage Index Municipality Activity Reports


Secret Citizen Index Secret Citizen Survey 2017

Election Participation Rate

Turkish Statistics Institute/

Statistics by Supreme Election

Committee

2014

SOCIAL INCLUSION

INDEX

Diversity of Services for Families



Quality Score of Services for Families

Diversity of Services for Children

Quality Score of Services for Children

Diversity of Services for Youth

Quality Score of Services for Youth


Quality Score of Services for Sick and

Elderly

Diversity of Services for Women

Quality Score of Services for Women

Diversity of Services for Refugees


ECONOMIC STATUS

INDEX

Presence of Shopping Centre AMPD Data/ Web Search 2017

Number of Shopping Centre AMPD Data/ Web Search 2017

Diversity of Banks TBB Data 2017

Number of Bank Branch per Ten

Thousand People TBB Data 2017

Rental Housing Market Price (m2) Hürriyet Emlak / Sahibindex 2017

Housing For Sale Market Price (m2) Hürriyet Emlak / Sahibindex 2017

Annual Change in Housing For Sale

Market Price (m2) Hürriyet Emlak / Sahibindex 2017

Number of Minimarket per Ten

Thousand People Websites of markets 2017

Number of Supermarket per Ten

Thousand People Websites of markets 2017

Presence of Hypermarket Websites of markets 2017

Age Dependency Rate Turkish Statistics Institute

ADNKS-2016 2016

EDUCATION INDEX Literacy Rate Turkish Statistics Institute-

Education Statistics 2016 2016

111

Literacy Rate in Women Turkish Statistics Institute-

Education Statistics 2016

2016

Uneducated Women Rate Turkish Statistics Institute-


2016

University Graduate Rate Turkish Statistics Institute-


2016

University Graduate Rate in Women Turkish Statistics Institute-


2016

Average Education Time Turkish Statistics Institute-


2016

Average Education Time in Women Turkish Statistics Institute-


2016

HEALTH INDEX

Crude Death Rate Turkish Statistics Institute-

ADNKS-2016 2016

Number of Ambulance per Ten

Thousand People Ministry of Health 2017

Number of Pharmacy per Ten Thousand

People TEB 2017

Presence of Hospital Ministry of Health 2017

Total Number of Hospital Ministry of Health 2017

Diversity of Services for Sick and Elderly Municipality Activity Reports


Quality Score of Services for Sick and

Elderly



Diversity of Services for Disabled Municipality Activity Reports


Quality Score of Services for Disabled Municipality Activity Reports


SOCIAL LIFE INDEX

Presence of Private Museum Ministry of Culture 2017

Number of Cinema Web Search 2017

Number of Theatre Web Search 2017

Diversity of Social and Cultural Services Municipality Activity Reports

2016-2017

Quality Score of Social and Cultural

Services


2016-2017

MUNICIPALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL

PERFORMANCE AND

TRANSPORTATION

INDEX

Diversity of Services for Stray Animals Municipality Activity Reports

2016-2017

Quality Score of Services for Stray

Animals


2016-2017

Diversity of Services for Environment Municipality Activity Reports

2016-2017

Quality Score of Services for

Environment


2016-2017

Presence of Subway, Light Subway and

Tramway Web Search 2017

112

References

David J. K., C. L. Shook, "The Application Of Cluster Analysis in Strategic Management Research: An

Analysis and Critique", Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17, pp.441-458, 1996.

DPT, İlçelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması, Ankara, 1996.

DPT, İlçelerin Sosyo-ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması, Ankara, 2004,

www.kalkinma.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/8142/ilce.pdf

DPT, İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması, Ankara, 2003,

www.kalkinma.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/8143/2003-05.pdf

Hair, F.J, vd.; Multivariate Data Analysis, Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall International Inc., 1998.

Hürriyet Emlak, Emlak Endeksleri, http://www.hurriyetemlak.com/Emlak-Endeksi/Detayli-Analiz

İNGEV, İnsani Gelişme Nedir, http://ingev.org/hakkimizda/insani-gelisme-nedir/

Kalkınma Bakanlığı, İllerin ve Bölgelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması-2011,

http://www.dpt.gov.tr/DocObjects/view/14197/BASIN_A% C3% 87IKLAMASI-sege_2011-v6.pdf

Sahibindex, Emlak Endeksleri, https://www.sahibinden.com/emlak-endeksi-tanitim

Şeker, Murat; İstanbul’da Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması, İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, Yayın No: 2010-13,

İstanbul, 2011, http://www.ito.org.tr/itoyayin/0023050.pdf

Şeker, M. vd; Küresel Rekabet Endeksi 2012 – 81 İl 26 Bölge, İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı Projesi, İstanbul

2012.

Şeker, M. vd; İstanbul Rekabet Endeksi – 39 İlçe, İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı Projesi, İstanbul 2012.

Şeker, M.; İstanbul’da Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması, İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Projem İstanbul,

2012.

Şeker, M., A. Saldanlı, H. Bektaş; TR63 Bölgesi (Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Osmaniye) Yaşam Kalitesi

Araştırması, DOĞAKA Yayınları, Hatay, 2014.

Şeker, M., A. Saldanlı, H. Bektaş; İller Arası Rekabet Endeksi 2013-2014, Kayseri Ticaret Odası, Kayra

Ofset, Kayseri, 2015.

Şeker, M., A. Saldanlı, H. Bektaş; TRC2 Bölgesi (Diyarbakır, Şanlıurfa) Yaşam Kalitesi Araştırması,

Karacadağ Kalkınma Ajansı Yayınları, Diyarbakır, 2016.

Türkiye Bankalar Birliği, İstatistikler, https://www.tbb.org.tr/tr

Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, İstatistikler, https://www.tuik.gov.tr

Ulusoy, A.; Şeker, M.; Bektaş, H.; Aslantürk, O.; Trabzon’da Yaşam Kalitesini Geliştirme ve Modelleme

Projesi, DOKA Mali Destek Programı, Trabzon, 2013.

http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/8143/2003-05.pdf

http://www.hurriyetemlak.com/Emlak-Endeksi/Detayli-Analiz

http://ingev.org/hakkimizda/insani-gelisme-nedir/

http://www.dpt.gov.tr/DocObjects/view/14197/BASIN_A%C3%87IKLAMASI-sege_2011-v6.pdf

https://www.sahibinden.com/emlak-endeksi-tanitim

http://www.ito.org.tr/itoyayin/0023050.pdf

https://www.tbb.org.tr/tr

https://www.tuik.gov.tr/

Documents

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX - DISTRICTS (HDI-D) 2017 …ingev.org/raporlar/HDI-D-2017-ENG.pdf · 1 human development index - districts (hdi-d) 2017 transitioning from consumer to human