Cities 36 (2014) 145–157

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /c i t ies

Do shopping centers abate the resilience of shopping streets? The co-existenceof both shopping venues in Ankara, Turkey

Burcu H. Ozuduru ⇑, Cigdem Varol, Ozge Yalciner ErcoskunGazi University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Available online 17 November 2012

Keywords:Shopping streetsShopping centersUrban resilienceRetail planning policyAnkara

0264-2751/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.003

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Gazi UniversiDepartment of City and Regional Planning, Celal06570, Turkey. Tel.: +90 312 582 3701, mobile: +90 530586.

E-mail addresses: bozuduru@gazi.edu.tr (B.H. OzuVarol), ozgeyal@gazi.edu.tr (O. Yalciner Ercoskun).

The sustainability of cities highly depends on city center viability and shopping street resilience. With theincreasing number of shopping centers and their strong impact on existing retail systems, the majorurban challenge has become maintaining a balance in the market. When shopping centers appeared,shopping streets began suffering from the negative influence of these new centers. Turkey, as a develop-ing country, suffered from this change in last two decades. With the shopping center supporting policiesand regulations of both central and local governments, the situation has become worse, and detrimentalto small, independent retailers located on shopping streets. The controlled, trendy and convenient shop-ping environment, variety, quality and pricing of goods and services have attracted customers to shop-ping centers. This has been a revisited topic in the planning literature and the common statement wasthat the emergence of shopping centers abates the viability of city centers and shopping streets. However,in time, the shopping streets have adapted to the changes, thus become more resilient to the negativeimpacts of shopping centers. The current planning literature has been limited to the analysis of eithershopping center systems, or shopping streets. In contrast to this approach, in this study, we are analyzingboth retail venues, and comparing their consumer profiles, preferences and spatial behaviors. The pur-pose is to exhibit the strengths and weaknesses of shopping centers and shopping streets, and identifythe qualifications attractive to their customers. This will provide an opportunity for urban policy makersto redefine a retail policy framework which will contribute to shopping street resilience and city centerviability. Ankara is selected for two reasons: (1) as of 2011, the shopping center gross leasable area per1000 people was the highest in Turkey, (2) the city center is still vivid, and shopping street retailers con-tinue to survive amid the high level of shopping center floor space. Two separate questionnaires weregiven in 13 shopping centers, and 11 main shopping streets in Ankara. The findings reveal that: (1) shop-ping centers are used by consumers from all districts, in particular, from suburban districts, and shoppingstreets are mainly used by consumers living in inner city districts, (2) the consumer profiles of shoppingcenters and shopping streets are distinctive in terms of age, occupation and education, (3) shopping cen-ters are usually preferred by car owners, which encourages development of new shopping centers at theurban fringe, (4) shopping centers and shopping streets are preferred for similar purposes, and shoppingstreets, in particular, are preferred for entertainment. Therefore, the major conclusion is that the shop-ping streets in Ankara have a certain level of resilience in terms of consumer diversity, retailer variety,quality and complementary degree. This level can be further increased by new retail planning policiesthat will focus on attracting consumers from different backgrounds, offering a conducive business envi-ronment for special brands, and initiating new revitalization plans and programs for maintenance anddesign of city centers.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ll rights reserved.

ty, Faculty of Architecture,Bayar Blv., Maltepe, Ankara3 225 4814; fax: +90 312 232

duru), cvarol@gazi.edu.tr (C.

Introduction

The concept of resilience has increasingly been used in urbanand regional planning literature as a key topic to study the dynam-ics of spatial economic systems, specifically to identify how suchsystems respond to major shocks, disruption and disturbances(Bristow, 2010; Martin, 2012; Simmie & Martin, 2010). It also re-fers to the anticipatory or reactive capacity of systems to minimizethe impacts of these major shocks (Wrigley & Dolega, 2011). Two

146 B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157

approaches are defined for the concept’s applicability: (1) the equi-librist approach that refers to systems remaining in equilibrium,and (2) the evolutionary approach that refers to systems that reor-ganize to evolve into a stage, where new social, economic and eco-logical relations are defined (Davies, 2010; Pendall, Foster, &Cowell, 2010; Pike, Dawley, & Tomaney, 2010). The two types ofresilience, engineering and ecological, are described with relationto the former one. The third type, economic resilience, however,is described with the latter approach. It involves adaptive capacityand regional economic realignment of the systems and embodiesthe ‘Schumpeterian creatively destructive’ potential of systems inorder to provide new configurations and trajectories of growth(Wrigley & Dolega, 2011).

The integration of the resilience concept with retail planning,including large retail centers on one side and local retailers onthe other, is extremely important in current debates of economicrestructuring processes. Global forces of capitalism and the eco-nomic crisis of 2007–2009 had a major impact on consumer spend-ing, thus the vitality of retail businesses throughout the world. Themost vulnerable business groups have been small scale, indepen-dent retailers located in town centers/high streets (Wrigley &Dolega, 2011). Shopping centers, with their higher levels of adapta-tion to the macroeconomic shocks and relatively well-organizedbusiness structure, seem to have relatively easily adapted to thenew economic conditions.

In the case of Turkey, the so-called ‘major shock’ or ‘distur-bance’ appeared via a macroeconomic process evolved with thepolitical aspirations of the country and it has been in effect for adecade now. Since its election in 2002, the ruling party, Justiceand Development Party has been influencing Turkey’s economicand geopolitical scene. The Party had a pro-business stand thathas modernized the economy, exercised free-market economics,and further, opened up the economy to global entrepreneurships(Filkins, 2012). The Party has the ability to change laws withoutthe necessity of concession to other political parties or public opin-ion that leads to the concentration and centralization of power.This ability has encouraged government decision-makers and plan-ners to make urban transformations faster than other countries,thus changing the spatial configuration and structure of major sec-tors, including real estate, finance and retail (Turkun, 2011). Interms of urban planning, this political stand supported the devel-opment of shopping centers and luxurious residences at the fringesof major cities. More specifically, the number of shopping centershas been tripled since 2002 (Ozuduru & Varol, 2011).

Ankara, one of the major cities and the capital of Turkey, hasexperienced this growth in such a way that in 2008, on the vergeof global economic crisis, the number of shopping centers was atits peak, and in 2011 the total gross leasable area of shoppingcenters per capita was the highest in Turkey, which increased theconstruction of more shopping centers in the city. Against thisfast-paced growth, it has been pointed out that the shopping streetsin Ankara have lost their vitality and viability (Bariskent, 2008). In2012, despite the strong stand of the ruling party and consequent‘so-called’ decline of shopping streets, the local retailers inshopping streets have survived. This conforms to the resilience ofshopping streets and the co-existence of both shopping venues inAnkara (Ercoskun & Ozuduru, 2011; Erkip & Kizilgun, 2011).

This study, analyzing the terms of this co-existence, shows thatthere are two major aspects of the issue although, they are inte-grated: (1) the retailers are diverse in number of businesses/insti-tutions (Levent, 2010), and have the capacity to reorganize andprovide the mutual use of local assets, capacities, resources andlocalized production, trading and exchange. (2) The customers pre-fer both venues for the activities of strolling, window-shopping,eating and drinking. Therefore, the preferences and culture ofTurkish customers encourages and envigorates shopping streets.

It is important to point out that the findings of this study showdemographic and socio-economic differences across street shop-pers and shopping center customers. It is also important to notethat suburban residents prefer shopping centers and inner city res-idents prefer both venues.

Effective retail planning depends on the level of decision mak-ers’ control of shopping center developments, the qualificationsthat make shopping streets resilient or more prone to impact,and the competence of local revitalization plans and programs.The key resolutions for increasing the level of effectiveness areembedded in an understanding of consumer profiles, preferencesand spatial behaviors. In the planning literature, such topics havebeen discussed extensively, however, the research that aims to fo-cus on the mutual assessment of consumers profiles, preferencesand spatial behaviors in both venues are limited. The field surveyof this study with 3775 questionnaires is designed to comparethe demographic and socio-economic characteristics, preferences,and spatial behavior of both shopping street and shopping centerconsumers. The main aim of this paper is to distinguish the exist-ing and potential strengths and weaknesses of both venues by ana-lyzing the customer characteristics, and focus on the issues thatcan further increase the resilience of shopping streets. The resultswill provide an understanding of how shopping streets and shop-ping centers co-exist in a major city of a developing country, suchas in Ankara. In addition, they will offer a framework for retailplanning policy-making, which can further be extended to definingthe global principles of a strong shopping street revitalizationprogram.

The paper proceeds in the following way. First, it explains therelationship between the theory of resilience in economic systemsand its implications to retail change along with the issues in theTurkish retail sector and the shopping center expansion. Next, itprovides information on the methodology and findings of the sur-vey in both shopping centers and shopping streets. In the final sec-tion, it aims to provide a contribution to the retail planning policydebate in a conceptualization of ‘adaptively resilient high streets’.

Resilience in economic systems and its implications to retailchange

The challenges of global change and transformation processescan evolve into disturbances for the urban planning systems. Cities,by nature, are always evolving complex systems and each elementof the urban system is vulnerable to such disturbances and drasticchanges (Pickett, Cadenasso, & Grove, 2004). Understanding thisvulnerability helps build resilience. The concept of resilience is de-fined as the capacity and ability of ecosystems, individuals, organi-zations or materials to retain or recover form and positionfollowing a disruption and stress (Hudson, 2010; Martin, 2012).Recently, it has been adapted into an interdisciplinary context ofevaluating relationships between people and nature, with refer-ence to the co-evolving social and ecological systems (Folke,2006; Folke et al., 2010; Hudson, 2010). For such systems, resil-ience requires consideration of three properties: the amount ofchange that a system can undergo while retaining its structureand functionality; the degree to which it can reorganize; and thedegree to which it can create and sustain the capacity to learnand adapt. Adaptive capacity, self-organization and learning areof particular importance for social scientific approaches to resil-ience (Hudson, 2010).

The retail sector, which is one of the complex urban systems,has been under constant disturbance from the global and nationalretail markets. The economic dynamics, such as intrusion of large-scale outlets, changing wholesale structure, and distribution andproduction channels cause drastic changes. The two major actors

B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157 147

of the sector are large- and small-scale retailers. They constantlyevolve in the market and adjust to new conditions in various wayswith the influences of the disturbances. The local retail marketsprove that the two types of retailers can co-exist in a competitivebusiness environment and adapt to changes induced by the socialand economic processes.

Knox (2008) exemplifies a version of these processes by dis-cussing that the American society shifted into a more materialist,self-focused, culturally narcissistic and consumption-orientedway of life. This is observed in many other countries all over theworld. The change in the social structure and consumption-oriented behavior requires a distinguished retail environmentwhich showed itself with the spread of large-scale retail environ-ments. In the US, shopping centers emerged in the 1920s with astream of department stores, and in Western European countries,they emerged in the 1960s with supermarkets. Large-scale retailenvironments required large subdivisions, which are easier to allo-cate at urban fringes. For this reason, suburban developments havebecome the new norm of urban growth patterns along with decen-tralizing residences; shopping centers have spread at the outerskirts of cities (Lang, 2003). The major reasons for these growthpatterns have been specified in many ways, some of which are:(1) increased mobility of consumers, (2) new economic opportuni-ties that increased overall income, (3) better quality of life at theperipheries of cities, (4) lower prices that larger stores offer (Birch,2009; Guy, 1998). The shopping centers have become the new sub-centers and the conveniences they offer, such as ample parkingspaces, lower prices, attractive shopping atmosphere conducivefor comparison and multipurpose shopping, also have attractedinner city residents.

Shopping streets were disturbed by this shift. Eventually, theconsumers began to prefer shopping centers over shopping streetsby attracting a significant share of residents, which had a negativeeconomic impact on existing retailers and local communities (Guy,1998). Some social groups, such as: lower income groups (Erkip,2003), the elderly, and households without cars were excludedfrom shopping centers and this caused socially unsustainable ur-ban living (Guy, 2007b). The lack of regulatory and comprehensiveurban planning policies for shopping street improvement, theweaknesses of local authorities, and the increasing power of pri-vate companies and investors have encouraged the deteriorationof city centers (Moreno-Jimenez, 2001; Watson, 2009).

Consequently, the governments have attempted to reversethese negative impacts by developing proactive policies and pro-grams. Business Improvement District program appeared as a ma-jor community economic development model in the 1990s (for anextensive review see MacDonald, Stokes, & Bluthenthal, 2010).Main Street Programs, centralized retail management, corporatecenter approach, and skywalks in the US (Neamtu & Leuca, 2006;Robertson, 1997) are counted as other attempts. In the UK, thesequential approach, tests for assessing need and impact in retaildevelopment proposals (Guy, 2007a, Guy, 2007b; Guy, 1998), recy-cling of old retail developments with ‘open A1’ planning consent,participation in urban regeneration projects and development orredevelopment of ‘district shopping centers’ in urban areas (Guy,2002) have appeared. In Western European countries, specific leg-islation controls, such as size caps, enforcement of special retailmarket assessments before construction, coordination and combi-nation of retailing with other land uses, encouragement of dialoguebetween parties (planners, traders, promoters, etc.) for retail devel-opments have been effective (Davies, 1995; Guy, 1998). These pol-icy implications have been successful by deterring the negativeimpacts of shopping centers and increasing shopping streets’resilience. Many shopping streets, such as the main street inSandy, Oregon (Brown & Scott, 2011), have benefited from thesepolicies.

Recent developments of retail sector in Turkey

In the 1980s, the retail sector in Turkey was dominated by tra-ditional, independent retailers and food production and distribu-tion systems (Ozcan, 2000). The change began in the 1990s afterthe liberalization of the economy, and the democratization of thepolitical system (Ozcan, 2000; Tokatli & Boyaci Eldener, 2002),similar to the experience of several Southern European countries,such as Greece (Bennison, 1995), Portugal and Spain (Davies,1995). With export oriented policies and internationalization, themarket became a target for foreign investors. After the 1990s, therewas a shift from manufacturing to the service sector, includingretailing (Tokatli & Boyaci, 2001; Tokatli & Erkip, 1998). The shareof foreign direct investments (FDIs) in manufacturing dropped,whereas the share of services rose (Tokatli & Boyaci, 1997). The re-tail market became increasingly popular for investors and the sizeof retail establishments had increased markedly, in particular, be-tween 1992 and 1998 (Tokatli & Boyaci Eldener, 2002).

The changes in the international markets and the new trends inconsumption have had the strongest spatial existence in new retaildevelopments. The liberal, market-oriented development strategycaused the increment of shopping centers in Turkey. Metropolitanareas became the main focus of these investments with their enor-mous potential for consumers, thus 70.1% of the shopping centerslocated in metropolitan areas. According to the turnover rates, theorganized retail sector ranks in fourth place following energy, edu-cation and health sectors. In the retail sector, the workforce hasreached 2,500,000 and the total retail sales area has reached16,000,000 m2. The total gross leasable area per 1000 people hasincreased to 102 m2 per 1000 people. It is still lower than theEuropean average of 210 m2 per 1000 people (Eva GMK, 2012).

The introduction of FDI in retailing was through partnershipswith Turkish firms (Erkip, 2005), in particular on food retailingand supermarket developments (Ozcan, 2000), and later, on shop-ping center developments. As a result of the direct and indirectinfluences of international retailers, large retailers have becomepowerful through their significantly growing market shares(Tokatli and Boyaci, 2002; Varol & Ozuduru, 2010). The WesternEuropean retail companies began to seek opportunities for retailinvestments outside their countries because the supply in theseretail markets was consolidated, and the demand was saturatedwith increased and strict planning restrictions, aging population,and tough competition (Ozcan, 2000). The Turkish retail market,as well as other Southern European country markets, have beenattractive for investors for various reasons: (1) the population ishigher than most European countries and the share of youngerpeople inclined toward shopping is also high, (2) the share of grossleasable area per person is lower than many European countries,(3) because of the relatively lower shopping center supply, theinvestments have higher turnover rates than many countries.

There has been a shift from international investors to local andnational investors since 2002. While there was a peak of interna-tional investors in 2000, the local and regional investors becameaware of the opportunity for fast returns and a higher level of prof-its in the short term. For this reason, with their high equity capital,they also have joined the retailing business (Ozuduru & Varol,2009). The centralized political power of Justice and DevelopmentParty (Turkun, 2011) has also enabled these investors with flexibil-ity and lack of investment controls. Today, the share of investmentsby local investors (40.0%) is higher than international (36.0%) andnational investors (23.9%) (Varol & Ozuduru, 2010). The total grossleasable area (m2) has increased from 237,293 in 1995 to 1,173,623in 2000. Fig. 1 shows the total accumulated number of additional,newly established shopping centers each year. The most recentpeak was in the 2006–2008 period, where the number of shoppingcenters and total gross leasable area were almost doubled.

Fig. 1. Number of shopping centers and total gross leasable area (m2) (1988–2010). Source: Association of Shopping Center Investors, 2010.

148 B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157

Shopping street retailers have adapted new strategies to survivealbeit these conditions in favor of shopping centers. They have in-creased the diversity and share of specialty goods and services byselling imitated products or overstocks for cheaper prices, provid-ing phone and internet ordering, credit sales (Erkip & Kizilgun,2011). They have merged to bear the economic instabilities andformed associations, alliances or lobbying groups for solidarity,such as TESK, PerDer. In addition, the special open-air designnaturally embedded in the shopping street design (Ercoskun &Ozuduru, 2011) and the retail and service facility mix provide adynamic and exciting urban life, which helps their co-existencealong with shopping centers.

Retail developments in Ankara

Ankara is selected as a case study for several reasons. First, asthe capital city, it has the second largest population in Turkey.Although, it was originally planned to be a compact city (Gunay,2005), decentralization policies of the 1970s (Tekeli et al., 1986)and corridor developments of the 1990s have expanded the city to-ward its fringes, in particular, toward the West and Southwest.Along with these policies, the major employers in Ankara, the ma-jor government institutions, are relocating on the Southwest. Thesepolicies have caused the city to become increasingly car-depen-dent (Ankara Greater Municipality, 2007; Babalik Suttcliffe, forth-coming). The number of cars per 1000 people is 191, the highestin Turkey (Turkish Statistical Institute/Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu(TUIK), 2009). Fig. 2 illustrates the population densificationson these corridors as well as in some districts on the North andEast.

Another reason for selecting Ankara is that the city ranks secondplace among other cities, particularly according to its urbanizationlevel, shares of wage earners, literacy, university graduates, andgross domestic product, which are significant indicators of urbandevelopment in a national study (T.R. Ministry of Development/T.C. Kalkinma Bakanligi (DPT), 2003). This has supported the inves-tors to choose Ankara for their investments (Ozuduru & Varol,2009). The total gross leasable area per 1000 people reached148 m2 in 2010, the highest at the time of the research (Soysal Re-search Corporation, 2010).

The pace of change in retail supply in Ankara has increased afterthe 1990s, parallel to the changes in Turkey. The first shoppingcenter, Atakule, was established in 1989, followed by other shop-ping centers in the 1990s, such as Karum, Begendik, Galleria, Anku-va/Bilkent Center. The boom of shopping centers was actually afterthe 2000s. In 2005 there were only nine shopping centers in An-kara, but this number increased three times within 5 years and

reached to 30 in 2010. The number of shopping centers increasedparticularly in 2007–2010. In this short period of time, 14 newshopping centers opened and the total gross leasable area wasmore than doubled in Ankara (Ozuduru & Varol, 2011). Currently,in Ankara, there are 32 shopping centers and total gross leasablearea is 1,182,496 m2.

Similar to the retail investor characteristics in Turkey, the shareof local investors is higher than national and international inves-tors (48.0%) in Ankara. Most of the local and national investorshad been active in either construction or manufacturing sectors.These investors have constituted multiple partnerships and aremanaged by international consulting companies. In general, theshopping centers in Ankara are designed to attract B and C marketsegments. For this reason, most of the centers are located on majorintercity and public transit routes, or the centers’ developers at-tract new transit opportunities. Some of the centers also are lo-cated close to suburbs, where most households have moredisposable income. A few of them form clusters and complementeach other which in turn attracts a wider range of consumers formultipurpose shopping. The centers are occupied by a mix of chainstores and the major anchors are either hyper/supermarkets or do-it-yourself stores, such as Praktiker, Bauhaus.

In site selection of these retail investors five distinctive vari-ables appear as significant: age, household structure, education,employment status and occupation. They show significant diver-gences across space, thus creating distinctive districts in Ankara(Ozuduru & Varol, 2011). The analysis showed that the northernand eastern districts were the locations of larger families withhigher share of primary school graduates, unemployed and lowerincomes. The picture is reversed on the south and southwesterndistricts where the share of highly educated, higher income house-holds, CEOs and higher status administrators locate. The variablesare combined by using fuzzy partitioning (Miroslawa, 1999) andspecific statuses are designated for each of the districts presentingsimilar socio-economic characteristics. Fig. 3 shows that the dis-tricts on the southwest and inner city neighborhoods have similarcharacteristics; the upper–middle and middle income statuses livein these districts; these districts are surrounded by districts withdifferent characteristics which are also similar. The householdshave middle or lower–middle income statuses. Finally, the districtson the north and east sides of the city and a few districts on the ur-ban fringe show similarity. These districts have lower-income sta-tuses (Ozuduru & Varol, 2011). Shopping centers are locatedaccording to these statuses, particularly in the western and south-western districts of Ankara.

Along with these changes in shopping center developments, thestructure of the Central Business District (CBD) also changes. The

Fig. 2. Share of district population to total population in Ankara (2008).

B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157 149

boundaries of the main CBD of Ankara can be designated easily. Itcan be described in three sections: (1) The historical center, Ulus,(2) the newer center, Yenisehir–Kizilay, (3) the prestigious center,Kavaklidere. Ataturk Boulevard is the major transportation route ofthe CBD, and it provides access from South to the North of the city.Other major streets, primarily Gazi Mustafa Kemal (GMK), ZiyaGokalp, Necatibey, Mesrutiyet, Anafartalar, Tunali Hilmi, and moresubtly, Sakarya, Izmir and Arjantin streets provide access from Eastto West. These streets are also the major shopping streets. Cur-rently, the prestigious center, Kavaklidere serves wealthier house-holds because of its proximity to the wealthier districts located onthe South and Ulus serves the less wealthy districts. Yenisehir–Kizilay area is the center of the city where offices, banks, publicinstitutions, the Parliament, and majority of retailers are located(Fig. 4).

The local governments’ approach toward CBD cannot be identi-fied as comprehensive in Ankara. It is rather pragmatic. Several ur-ban design projects have been undertaken at secondary pedestrianstreets. The major junctions at Ataturk Boulevard have been trans-formed into underground bypasses, which increase the speed ofthe traffic and prohibit pedestrian crossing, thus detrimental on-street retail businesses. The historical sites have been restored, alevel of vitality has been reached and security has been increasedat deteriorated sections of the city center; however, these attemptshave been only partial and their relation to the rest of the city israther unstructured. Most historical sites are left uncared, and havevanished from the urban scene. The remaining areas have not beenrebuilt. In the past decade, the major strait of the local retailershave seen the increase in the number of shopping centers and

the shift of chain stores to these centers (Hurriyet Gazetesi,2008). The need for new revitalization and rehabilitation plansand programs specifically designed for CBD preservation anddevelopment has become a crucial issue in Ankara.

The Turkish planning legislation authorizes the GreaterMunicipalities for regulating the site selection, size and otherdevelopment issues of shopping centers. Since the 1990s, thedevelopment plan of Ankara has been subject to many partialchanges that have altered the major planning decisions of the city.For this reason, and for a long time, its growth has been withonly partial plans and plan amendments. The plan for WesternAnkara has been subject to 85 partial plans and 180 plan amend-ments between 1985 and 2008 (Balta & Eke, 2011; Eceral, Varol,& Alkan, 2009). This points a certain level of land speculationand fast-paced transformation of the city, causing the constructionsector to boom (Oktem, 2011). This is reflected on local municipal-ities as flexible regulation of development and urban growth.The development of the city can be changed by partial plansor planning decisions, such as change in land use, floorarea ratio, height, the requests of the developers and the necessi-ties of the land market (Ozuduru & Varol, 2009). This has had a sig-nificant impact on flexible site selection of shopping centers inAnkara.

Methodology

Following the investigation of the restructuring of the retail sec-tor in Ankara, the profiles, preferences and spatial behaviors of itsmajor actors, the consumers of shopping centers and shopping

Fig. 3. Fuzzy partitioning: status of districts.

150 B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157

streets, are analyzed. Two separate questionnaires were prepared.The shopping center questionnaire was given in 13 shopping cen-ters in Ankara. These centers were selected using the ‘‘probabilityproportional to size sampling method’’. At the time of the survey(in May 2010), there were 28 shopping centers in Ankara. Theywere classified into 6 groups (super regional, regional, medium-scale, outlet, community, and themed centers) and 3 super regio-nal, 3 regional, 2 medium-scale, 2 outlet, 2 community and 1themed centers are selected to represent each group. The totalnumber of visitors is gathered for each shopping center from eachshopping center manager. The questionnaire quota for each centeris specified according to this number. Using the Simple RandomSampling Method, and specifying the tolerance degree asd = 0.02, the total number of samples is computed as 2970. In thequestionnaire sampling, the visitor frequencies by day of the weekand time of day were considered. In order to obtain the best fittingsample representation, 50.9% of the questionnaires were appliedon weekdays, 49.1% were applied on weekends; 50.8% were ap-plied between 12 p.m. and 5 p.m. and 49.2% were applied between5 p.m. and 9 p.m.

The shopping street questionnaire was given in 11 shoppingstreets (Ataturk and GMK Boulevards, Necatibey, Mithatpasa,Mesrutiyet, Ziya Gokalp, Izmir, Sakarya, Tunali Hilmi, Arjantin,Anafartalar Streets) located at the CBD in May 2010. These streetsare the major shopping streets of the CBD where the majority ofretailing units are clustered. For practical purposes, it is assumedthat each unit length of the street serves a specific number of con-sumers, in other words, the density of each main street assumed to

be the same. Thus, the number of consumers for the questionnaireis specified in proportion to the unit length of the street. For in-stance, in the longest street, Ataturk Boulevard with 1.5 km, 131consumers were interviewed. In total, a sample of 805 respondentsis considered as representative of the shopping street population.The questionnaire was applied by considering the time of the dayand the week.

Both questionnaire respondents had to characterize themselvesbased on their demographic variables, such as age, gender, and so-cio-economic characteristics, such as education and income levels,home and car ownership. Their shopping behavior, spending, fre-quency, accessibility, preferences, and spatial behavior are alsoinvestigated. Next, the significance of the difference between thetwo questionnaire results are compared using a t-test. The H0

hypothesis states that the differences between the two ratios areinsignificant. The t-value of each variable is computed and testedat the 0.05 significance level (p = 0.05). The results show the simi-larities and significant differences between the questionnaireresults.

Findings

The survey findings can be summarized in relation to consumerprofiles, preferences and spatial behaviors. They show that theshopping streets and shopping centers in Ankara can co-exist inthe highly competitive retail market. Although there has been lim-ited intervention from local and central governments to improve

Fig. 4. The locations of shopping centers, selected shopping centers and shopping streets at the CBD in Ankara.

B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157 151

their conditions, the shopping street retailers have the adaptivecapacity and self-organizing behavior to diminish the negative im-pact of shopping centers. Overall, the findings indicate that, in con-trast to the common view, both venues are frequently used, andare economically and socially viable though competitive. The shop-ping centers and shopping streets, and their customers show vari-ations depending upon locations, the quality and quantity of retailgoods and services they offer, and the physical connectivity andaccessibility levels with means of transportation. The details arepresented in the following sections.

Characteristics of the respondents

Locations of shopping centers play a significant role in terms oftheir proximity to other major land uses and characteristics of sur-rounding residential areas. As shown in Table 1, shopping centerslocated close to the CBD and have easy access to transportationmodes are preferred by younger population aged 18–24 (44.6%)and students (43.9%). On the other hand, because of their proxim-ity to suburbs, shopping centers, such as Bilkent Center andBatikent Carrefour, are preferred by the older (45+) population(42.3% and 41.3%) and retirees/housewives/unemployed (28.3%and 28.8%). The customers of the shopping centers located closeto wealthier neighborhoods, such as Bilkent Center (60.5%) andKarum (59.9%), have higher education levels and the centers, suchas Panora, 365 AVM, and Bilkent Center have higher incomes. Con-trary to this, lower income households prefer more accessible

shopping centers, such as Ankamall, Cepa, Malltepe Park, and low-er priced outlets, such as ACity and Optimum Outlets. Neighbor-hood centers located closer to middle and lower-incomehouseholds, such as FTZ and Batikent Carrefour, are also preferredby these groups.

The quality and quantity of retailing goods and services offeredat the shopping centers play a distinctive role on customer profiles.The overall income status of customers shows high variance. Whenthe findings in Table 1 are tested by the Student–Newman–Keulstest, it can be concluded that customers of shopping centers offer-ing high-end goods and services with the market segmentation A+,such as in Panora, classify themselves as higher income house-holds. Shopping centers with the market segmentation B and C,such as in Optimum Outlet, Batikent Carrefour, Malltepe Parkand Karum are classified as a different group that serve both mid-dle and lower income households (Ozuduru & Varol, 2011). Centerswith the tenants of common chain stores, such as Cepa, attract awider range of shoppers, classified as B+, B, C, tending towardupper–middle and middle income groups. Antares, ACity Outlet,Batikent Carrefour and Optimum Outlet are known to offer lessexpensive retail goods and services. For this reason, the share ofmiddle-income customers is more than the share of higher andupper–middle income groups.

Shopping centers which are located at major transportationroutes or at the CBD are easily accessible by various modes oftransportation. For this reason, they are easily accessed by custom-ers regardless of car ownership. Centers, such as Ankamall,

Table 1Customer characteristics, market segments and sizes by shopping centers (%).

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Age groups%(N = 2970)

18–24 44.6 25.9 12.7 21.2 23.3 29.0 33.8 38.3 10.0 28.0 0.6 15.1 31.725–44 44.0 54.0 45.0 46.3 59.4 51.5 46.9 50.0 62.5 54.0 58.1 61.7 54.745+ 11.5 20.0 42.3 32.5 17.3 19.5 19.2 11.6 27.6 18.0 41.3 23.1 13.6

Employment status%(N = 2970)

Wage-earner/self-employed 43.5 54.9 55.8 50.2 52.0 46.0 47.7 45.0 54.9 55.7 62.5 57.2 45.7Student 43.9 20.0 15.1 24.3 27.3 30.0 28.5 40.0 16.2 28.0 0.6 18.0 36.7Retirees/housewife/unemployed

11.5 24.7 28.3 25.1 20.7 22.5 23.1 15.1 28.8 15.6 36.2 22.9 17.3

Education status%(N = 2970)

Primary/secondary/highschool graduates

54.7 42.8 34.9 42.1 42.7 54.0 56.9 51.7 38.8 41.3 53.7 42.3 43.6

University/higher degreegraduates

43.4 56.0 60.5 55.4 54.7 45.0 43.1 48.3 59.9 58.7 46.2 57.8 56.3

Income status%(N = 2970)

Higher 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.9 1.3 1.0 2.3 5.1 3.8 2.3 0.0 2.6 4.3Upper–middle 25.7 17.2 29.1 22.1 32.7 24.1 23.8 13.6 16.2 29.7 13.1 16.9 33.0Middle 65.4 72.2 56.4 64.6 62.7 74.4 66.2 69.5 65.0 61.0 81.2 71.1 56.7Lower–middle 3.9 6.2 9.5 9.6 2.7 0.5 0.8 5.1 7.5 6.3 5.0 6.0 5.0Lower 2.6 2.2 2.7 0.8 0.7 0.0 6.9 6.8 7.5 0.7 0.6 3.4 1.0

Homeownership%(N = 2970)

Homeowner 62.8 68.0 67.7 62.5 74.0 63.5 63.1 45.0 63.8 60.0 82.5 69.4 73.3Owns a second home 37.3 13.5 38.2 31.7 34.0 23.5 24.6 18.3 30.0 32.3 20.6 30.6 28.0

Car ownership%(N = 2970)

Owns a car 51.4 47.8 71.8 57.9 70.7 56.0 54.6 26.7 57.5 64.5 63.1 62.6 59.7

Means oftransportation%(N = 2970)

Vehicle 36.0 42.7 78.7 65.0 65.3 52.0 36.1 16.7 37.6 56.0 51.2 50.3 64.0On foot 2.9 15.3 4.5 4.2 10.7 3.0 24.6 30.0 36.2 12.7 2.5 3.4 3.0Public transportation/shopping center shuttle

59.8 41.8 16.0 29.2 22.0 43.5 38.5 53.3 25.0 30.6 46.3 43.4 32.7

Market segmentationa A+, A, B+, B, C B,C B+, B A, B+,B

B B B, C B, C B, C B+, B B+, B,C

B, C B, C A+, A,B

Shopping center size Size (m2) 149,330 112,000 47,467 50,000 29,000 25,000 7,124 14,500 23,500 72,420 16,930 43,000 80,000

1: Ankamall, 2: Antares, 3: Bilkent Center, 4: Gordion, 5: 365 AVM, 6: ACityOutlet, 7: FTZ, 8: Malltepe Park, 9: Karum, 10: Cepa, 11: Batikent Carrefour, 12: Optimum Outlet,13: Panora.

a Source: Shopping Center Manager Interviews.

152 B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157

Antares, Cepa, Batikent Carrefour and Optimum Outlet have morethan 40.0% accessibility by means of public transportation andMalltepe Park and Karum have strong pedestrian connections tothe urban network.

Location also plays a significant role for identification of thecharacteristics of shopping street shoppers. The shares of shoppersaged 18–24 are higher on major shopping streets, such as Ziya Go-kalp (68.6%) and Mesrutiyet (58.2%) Streets, where university exampreparation courses are clustered. The share of students is alsohigher on these streets (62.9% and 64.2%). The share of shoppersaged 25–44 are higher on the shopping streets, such as Necatibey(59.5%) and GMK Boulevard (54.5%), where major governmentinstitutions and offices are located. The share of wage-earners/self-employed is high on Arjantin (69.7%) and Anafartalar (63.5%)Streets, where private and public institutions are located. The cus-tomers on Anafartalar Street, which is in the historical center andhas proximity to lower-income neighborhoods, has residents withlower education levels, and a higher share of residents with pri-mary/secondary/high school graduates (77.4%). The share of higherincome customers is significantly high on Arjantin Street (18.2%),which is closer to the wealthier inner city residential areas. Otherindicators of higher income status on this street are homeowner-ship and car ownership.

The variety and complementary level of retailers is also impor-tant for identifying the characteristics of customers. Various shop-ping streets offer different goods and services that attract differentprofile groups. The clothing and accessories stores (41.4%) and cur-rency exchange/jewelry stores (75.5%) are higher in Ataturk Boule-vard; electrical and electronic goods in Necatibey Street (32.6%),café and restaurants (24.2%) and stationery stores (23.1%), theatreand entertainment venues (40.0%) in GMK and Ziya Gokalp Streetsare high. Tunali Hilmi Street is popular for cosmetic stores, café and

restaurants and Anafartalar Street is known for its currency ex-change/jewelry stores and clothing and accessories (Ercoskun &Ozuduru, 2011). For example, the activities on Ataturk Boulevardand GMK and Ziya Gokalp Streets attract the students and the cus-tomers aged 18–24.

The shopping streets act as major public transportation transferhubs in Ankara because they intersect with all transportationmodes, such as metro, public bus, and dolmus, an informal transpor-tation mode special to Turkey (Tekeli & Okyay, 1980). The findingsshow that the share of customers that access the shopping streetsby public transport are significantly higher, ranging from 36.4% inArjantin Street to 87.1% in Ziya Gokalp Street (Table 2). This indi-cates the resilience of shopping streets and is supported by its highaccessibility level. The share of residents using vehicles can be aslow as 10.0% because of the lack of parking options in the city center.

Table 3 presents a comparison of the overall characteristics ofcustomers in both shopping venues. The lifestyles of customersare significantly different. The findings show that married coupleswith children prefer going to shopping centers (42.9% versus33.1%). Shopping center amenities, such as enclosed space for cli-mate control, availability of restrooms, activity organizations forchildren, make it more attractive for families with children. In con-trast, the younger population aged 18–24 (42.5%) prefer going toshopping streets but the older population aged 25–44 (52.3%),and aged 45 and older (21.7%) prefers going to shopping centers.This conforms to the fact that the proportions of students prefer-ring shopping streets are definitely more than the share of studentspreferring shopping centers (38.2% versus 26.6%). The number ofthe wage earner/self-employed population does not indicate anysignificant differences. However, the results indicate that the shareof retirees/housewife/unemployed population in shopping centersis almost twice of that in shopping streets (21.1% versus 12.7%).

Table 2Characteristics of shopping street customers (%).

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Age groups% (N = 805) 18–24 35.7 18.2 58.0 27.3 31.0 58.2 37.5 21.5 25.0 48.2 68.625–44 45.2 48.5 29.8 54.5 52.4 35.8 46.9 59.5 53.6 42.7 28.645+ 19.1 33.3 12.2 18.2 16.7 6.0 15.6 19.0 21.4 9.1 2.8

Employment status% (N = 805) Wage-earner/self-employed 63.5 69.7 38.9 60.7 47.6 32.8 60.4 57.0 42.9 45.5 28.5Student 24.3 12.1 50.4 21.2 33.3 64.2 23.8 27.8 32.1 43.6 62.9Retirees/housewife/unemployed 11.3 18.2 10.7 18.2 19.0 3.0 15.9 15.1 24.9 10.9 8.6

Education status% (N = 805) Primary/secondary/high school graduates 77.4 60.6 71.0 62.1 45.2 77.7 61.0 67.1 42.8 66.3 71.4University/higher degree graduates 22.6 39.4 29.0 37.8 54.8 22.4 39.1 32.9 57.1 33.6 28.6

Income status% (N = 803) Higher 9.6 18.2 6.2 9.1 7.1 10.6 4.7 3.8 3.6 5.5 18.6Upper–middle 14.8 3.0 22.3 18.2 16.7 10.6 18.8 15.2 28.6 14.5 28.6Middle 67.0 69.7 60.0 65.2 61.9 72.7 64.1 53.2 57.1 69.1 52.9Lower–middle 6.1 3.0 9.2 1.5 11.9 1.5 7.8 13.9 7.1 9.1 0.0Lower 2.6 6.1 2.3 6.1 2.4 4.5 4.7 13.9 3.6 1.8 0.0

Homeownership% (N = 803) Homeowner 56.5 33.3 52.7 56.1 61.9 59.7 64.1 62.0 57.1 55.6 74.3Owns a second home 26.1 12.1 27.9 24.2 33.3 35.8 31.3 19.0 39.3 30.6 34.3

Car ownership% (N = 801) Owns a car 40.9 45.5 46.6 42.4 47.6 46.3 48.4 30.4 30.8 47.2 51.4

Means of transportation% (N = 804) Vehicle 27.8 36.3 12.3 16.6 16.7 13.4 18.8 14.1 10.7 23.6 10.0On foot 7.0 27.3 13.7 10.6 2.4 4.5 9.4 14.1 17.9 26.4 1.4Public transportation 65.2 36.4 74.0 68.2 81.0 82.1 71.9 71.8 71.4 50.0 87.1

1: Anafartalar St., 2: Arjantin St., 3: Ataturk Blv., 4: GMK Blv., 5: Izmir St., 6: Mesrutiyet St., 7: Mithatpasa St., 8: Necatibey St., 9: Sakarya St., 10: Tunalı Hilmi St., 11: ZiyaGokalp St.

Table 3Comparison of consumer characteristics in both shopping venues.

Shopping center(%)

Shopping street(%)

Marital statusMarried 52.9 35.0Single 47.1 65.0

ChildrenWithout Children 57.1 68.8With Children 42.9 33.1

Age groups18–24 25.9 42.525–44 52.3 43.245+ 21.7 14.3

Employment statusWage earner/self-employed 51.3 49.0Student 26.6 38.2Retirees/housewife/unemployed 21.1 12.7

EducationPrimary/secondary/high school

graduates45.9 67.2

University/higher degree graduates 52.6 32.8

Income statusHigher 2.4 8.4Upper–middle 23.8 17.6Middle* 66.2 63.0Lower–middle** 5.4 6.9Lower 2.2 4.1

HomeownershipHomeowner 62.8 58.0Owns a second home 37.3 28.3

Car ownershipOwns a car 58.3 43.9

Means of transportationVehicle 33.6 15.9On Foot 2.9 12.2Public Transportation 59.8 69.2

* Indicates that the difference is significant at 10% level.** Indicates that the difference is not significant.

B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157 153

The educational status results also prove that the population with ahigher level of education prefers shopping centers, and lower levelsof education prefer shopping streets. The results also indicate that

the higher income (8.4%) and upper–middle income (17.6%) statuspopulation also prefer patronizing shopping streets periodically.This outcome challenges the common consensus that the shoppingstreets are not used by higher income populations at all. The pro-portions of middle, and lower–middle income status populationare not significantly different for both shopping venues. The shareof lower income status population is higher in shopping streetsthan shopping centers (2.2% versus 4.1%), pointing to the fact thatshopping streets attract a wider range of income groups. Home andcar owners are more apt to patronize shopping centers than streetshops (Table 3).

It has long-been a topic of debate in planning literature purport-ing that shopping centers support the use of private vehicles(Banister, 1997). Comparing the various means of transportationshows that the number of people who have accessed the shoppingcenters by car is more than twice as those who have accessed theshopping streets (33.6% versus 15.9%). Shopping streets supportthe use of various forms of transportation. The majority of custom-ers (69.2%) patronizing shopping streets use public transportationand a significant number shop on foot (12.2%), indicating the posi-tive contribution shopping streets make to increased pedestriantraffic, which is a fundamental issue for street vitality in urbanplanning.

Consumers’ preferences include: frequency of visits, purpose,types of retail goods bought and services provided; all are indica-tors of understanding how people use both shopping venues. Theypresent insight for understanding the resilience level of shoppingstreets. A significant portion of the respondents (41.5%) indicatedthat they visit shopping streets every day, which points that shop-ping streets have loyal visitors. Only 13.8% of the respondents sta-ted that they come rarely. On the contrary, it is significant to notethat there is a portion of residents in Ankara, 25.7% of shoppers inshopping centers, who do not go to shopping streets at all. Thelocations of employment opportunities are important for the fre-quent use of shopping streets and in maintaining resilience ofthose streets. Respondents (45.2%) to the survey stated a prefer-ence for shopping in the streets on weekdays. On weekdays, themajority of the consumers (36.3%) visit shopping centers afterwork (between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m.) and shopping streets in theafternoon (2 p.m. and 5 p.m.). A significant portion of shoppingstreet customers (40.4%) state that they still go to shopping streets.

Table 4Comparison of visiting purposes.

Visiting purpose Shopping center (%) Shopping street (%)

Shopping 63.8 72.9Eating and drinking places 71.4 65.6Entertainment 16.7 35.4Buying groceries 30.0 33.8Strolling/window shopping 59.0 74.5Meeting friends 20.3 68.1Public transportation transfer 0.0 23.0Other activities/facilities 3.1 20.1

154 B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157

Similarly, 79.4% of shopping street customers state that they go toshopping centers as well. This shows that a significant portion ofcustomers use both venues.

Shopping streets and shopping centers are generally preferredfor the same purposes (Table 4). They are preferred for shopping,eating and drinking and grocery shopping. A significant portionof respondents patronize shopping streets for entertainment,strolling/window shopping, meeting friends, transportation trans-fer, and other venues, such as beauty parlors, travel agencies, artgalleries. These results show that shopping centers are mainly usedfor shopping for basics, eating and drinking, which are major con-sumption activities. Therefore, shopping streets’ resilience isembedded in the fact that they offer more diverse services thatare attractive to some consumers.

Table 5 shows that shopping centers are preferred for the basicssuch as clothing/footwear/accessories (80.2% versus 59.9%). Thepreferences for eating and drinking places, books/stationery is sim-ilar. Shopping streets are specifically preferred for groceries/super-markets, technology products, furniture, kitchen appliances,theater and the arts and other cultural activities.

The most important attributes of shopping centers are cleanli-ness (88.5%), store and product variety (84.0%) and existence ofspecific brands (83.1%). These are followed by pricing (82.8%), acomfortable shopping experience with restrooms and air condi-tioning (82.6%), pleasant and attractive atmosphere (81.9%) andconvenient accessibility (81.3%). The least important attributesare cultural and social activities (54.8%), proximity to the respon-dents’ workplace and home (53.1%), child friendliness (51.9%),and the brand of do-it-yourself store (50.0%).

The important attributes of shopping streets are their strengths,and for this reason, these strengths should be transferred to shop-ping streets to increase their resilience. The most important attri-butes of shopping streets are the ability to stroll in open space/window-shopping (80.7%), open urban public spaces (65.7%), con-venient prices (58.6%). The least important attributes are proximityto workplace (39.1%), existence of buyer-specific goods and ser-vices (35.1%), and the familiarity to local retailers (30.1%).

Table 5Shopping goods and services.

Shopping goods and services Shoppingcenter (%)

Shoppingstreet (%)

Clothing/footwear/accessories 80.2 59.9Eating and drinking goods 51.7 56.1Books/stationery 36.4 38.4Groceries/supermarkets 33.4 47.4Technology products 25.6 40.7Theaters and other cultural activities 21.0 42.3Furniture, kitchen appliances, decoration 1.9 31.3Other (jewelery, exchange offices,

pharmacies, etc.)38.3 28.1

The reasons for shopping center and shopping street prefer-ences are ranked by the likert scale. Indicators show that shoppingcenter consumers point to traffic and insufficient parking spaces asmain reasons for their dislike of shopping streets. In addition, thelow level of interesting design and quality of shopping streetsand lack of safety appear to be problems of shopping streets. Shop-ping street consumers point out that they do not like going toshopping centers because of their tiring atmosphere (80.5%) andenclosed design (70.7%). The lack of access to private means oftransportation and the prices of retail goods and services areranked lower at 59.8% and 56.1%. Surprisingly, shopping street cus-tomers are indifferent to pricing and car ownership as their visitingpurposes.

The consumers in shopping centers stated that they go to theclosest shopping center to purchase groceries and conveniencegoods (75.5%). They go to the shopping streets for entertainment(24.2%) and shopping for electronics/kitchen appliances (14.9%).They use shopping centers farther away to purchase clothing/foot-wear and accessories (48.1%). In shopping streets, the respondentsalso pointed out that they purchase groceries and conveniencegoods in other shopping centers (86.5%). A significant portion ofrespondents (40.4%) indicated they prefer shopping streets forentertainment and 35.4% indicated that they buy furniture, elec-tronic and kitchen appliances at major shopping streets. Cloth-ing/footwear and accessories is also a distinguishing factor inselection of shopping centers for shopping street consumers. Abouthalf of the respondents (50.9%) indicated that they go to shoppingcenters farther away for clothing/footwear and accessories.

Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the districts by spatial behavior ofcustomers of both venues. In this section, comparisons are madebetween both the shopping streets’ and shopping centers’ consum-ers. The higher shares are illustrated on the map. It depicts con-sumers residing in suburban areas are more likely to preferpatronizing nearby shopping centers. When the inner city districtssurrounding the shopping streets are analyzed, the map indicatesthat the consumer in these districts also prefer going to shoppingcenters. Consumers residing on or around shopping streets exceptfor the more commercialized parts of the CBD, where there are notany residences, prefer going to shopping streets. Therefore, thesefindings clearly show that the shopping centers attract from mostof the districts in Ankara, particularly from suburban districts. Theinner city neighborhood consumers use both shopping streets andshopping centers. The significant amount of population that acces-ses shopping centers by public transportation (59.8%) also contrib-utes to the high accessibility of shopping centers by inner cityresidents.

Both shopping center and shopping street consumers point outthat super regional shopping centers are more attractive than othershopping centers. The share of shopping street consumers whoprefer easily accessible and lower-priced shopping centers arehigh. This indicates that the shopping street consumers’ travelbehavior relies on public transportation, which clearly motivatestheir shopping center choices. These consumers also are knownto prefer changing their behavior for access to lower priced goodsand services.

The respondents at shopping centers identified themselves onlyas shopping center consumers, and pointed out that the frequencyof their shopping street visits has diminished significantly (47.4%).The patrons of the shopping streets indicated that they went to thecity center only a few days ago (26.3%). The average spent on pur-chases by shopping center consumers is almost three times thepurchases by shopping street consumers (702TL versus 276TL pervisit). The purchases are particularly clothing/footwear and acces-sories and convenience goods. Both shopping center and shoppingstreet consumers’ expenditures on entertainment are the same(about 20TL per visit).

Fig. 5. Districts by consumer preferences of shopping streets and shopping centers.

B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157 155

Conclusion

In many countries, large-scale retail developments, such asshopping centers, big-box stores, and retail parks have been dom-inating the retail markets at the expense of deteriorating shoppingstreets. In developed countries, the decision makers are increas-ingly becoming aware of the importance of enhancing the resil-ience of shopping streets to eliminate this domination, thusrelevant retail planning policies are in effect. A healthy retail mar-ket is important to the sustainability of city centers, the urbaneconomy, and social and economic vitality. The shopping streetscan become more resilient to the disturbance of new retail devel-opments by adapting new capacities, creating new methods of ac-cess to customers, and self-organizing themselves. This researchshows an example to this process and complements the existingurban planning literature that presents limited research on thissubject by presenting consumer profiles, preferences and spatialbehaviors in the context of a city, where the number of shoppingcenters has increased dramatically in the past decade. The findingsshow that the shopping streets and shopping centers do currentlyco-exist in retail markets despite the popularity of shoppingcenters.

The literature presents evidence of the struggle shoppingstreets has in several countries; however, surprisingly our researchfindings show that the shopping streets of Ankara are becomingresilient and impervious to the negative impacts of shoppingcenter developments. Their strengths have been identified as the

unique locations, distinctive consumer and specific retailer charac-teristics. More specifically, they are the variety of characteristics ofthe consumers who still prefer patronizing shopping streets andthe success of retailers with adaptive capacity and self-organizedbehavior. In addition, it is an interesting point to note that centraland local government policies and regulations have not supportedincreasing shopping street resilience. To the contrary, they haveencouraged the growth of shopping center development and haveexercised flexible regulations of development plans toward thispurpose.

Locations of shopping venues offer special advantages, depend-ing on their proximity to (1) major land uses, such as employmentcenters and the CBD, and (2) residential areas, such as suburbs,lower/higher income residences. The customer characteristics ofboth venues in terms of lifestyle are specific. The older, higher edu-cated, car owner households with children living in suburban areasare more likely to prefer shopping centers over shopping streets.Younger population, students or wage-earner/self-employed popu-lation prefer patronizing shopping streets. In addition, the retailerswith their complementary structure, raised levels of quality andservice, creative ways of marketing and fitting the market (Wrigley& Dolega, 2011) have been adaptive to new market dynamics in-duced by shopping centers. In other words, the retailers in shop-ping streets of Ankara offer a wide range and quality of goodsand services; have a mixed-use characteristic with various clustersof activities, complemented by a variety of diverse retailer types.For example, the university exam preparation courses are located

156 B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157

on shopping streets and these facilities are complemented by theretailing and service activities offered, such as cafes, restaurants,stationery stores. In a similar fashion, the existence of workplaceson these streets is beneficial for attracting wage-earners/self-employed population. However, today, the major governmentinstitutions are in the process of relocating outside the CBD. Thefindings prove that such relocation processes of major workplacescan be against maintaining the resilience of shopping streets andcan create another major disruption for them. It is necessary torepurpose the remaining buildings in the CBD for strategic, attrac-tive functions and for other public use.

Although the results show that shopping centers are preferredby upper–middle and middle income customers, they indicate thathigher income customers also prefer shopping streets. This showsthat by allocating more variety in retail goods and services, otherfacilities could attract this group of customers thereby contributingto the diversity of shopping street customers. The physical connec-tivity and accessibility of shopping streets for pedestrian traffic andpublic transportation contribute to resilience. Majority of shoppersin Ankara still use means of public transportation although theyare not efficient and reliable. Shopping streets act as major publictransportation hubs, which increases the pedestrian traffic and use.In addition, the proximity of small-scale shopping centers to shop-ping streets brings advantages to both venues, and contributes tothe resilience of both.

Shopping venues are preferred for the similar purposes, such asshopping, strolling, eating and drinking. Shopping streets are par-ticularly preferred for entertainment and cultural activities. There-fore, shopping streets’ resilience is also embedded in the fact thatthey offer more diverse services that are attractive to consumers.It is also a unique finding that a significant share of consumers inAnkara does not go to shopping streets at all. Therefore, it is easierfor people belonging to this group to state that the shopping streetsare dying, which diverts the speculative conclusions to a common,but untrue, consensus. There is also a significant portion of cus-tomers using both venues. The higher accessibility of shoppingcenters by means of public transportation contributes to this situ-ation. In particular, the inner city residents use both venues andsuburban city residents mainly use shopping centers.

The consumers’ spatial behaviors also reveal interesting results.The private vehicle dependency is supported by shopping centerdevelopments but an important share of the consumers use publictransportation for accessing the shopping centers. The locations ofshopping centers with increased accessibility attract consumersfrom all around the city, except from its eastern and north easterndistricts, where relatively lower-income households reside. Shop-ping streets, however, are particularly frequented by residentsfrom surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the suburban resi-dents, which are mostly residing in higher income level districtson western and southern sides of the city, patronize shopping cen-ters instead of shopping streets. They are somewhat left out of theurban scene. A comprehensive revitalization plan should incorpo-rate strategies to attract all segments of the city and offer a sociallydiverse built environment, given the consumers’ expectations. Thiswill also contribute to the resilience of city centers.

Further surveys can focus on identification of local retailerexpectations. Local retailers play important roles in both the socialand economic lives of shopping streets. Their expectations are dri-ven by profit-making and being part of the urban public life. Forthis reason, their contribution to the resilience of shopping streetswill be significant. This study will hopefully bring further attentionto retail planning policy-making to improve the shopping streets’quality in Turkey and in other developing countries.

Finally, in the resilience context of the co-existence of shoppingstreets and shopping centers in Ankara, the local and centralgovernments should commit to identifying the strengths and

weaknesses of shopping streets and carefully observe the possibleimpact of shopping centers on the existing retailing network. Forexample; clean, well-designed and maintained urban spaces con-venient for strolling; allocation of a variety of stores and brands;various amenities such as restrooms, and green spaces will in-crease the resilience of shopping streets in a fair competitive envi-ronment. It is also important to provide a better perception ofshopping streets in terms of parking facilities, design and quality,and safety because the shopping center customers have a distortedperception of these streets. The local authorities should plan anddesign shopping streets as meticulously as shopping center man-agers. By doing that, they should commit to define the principlesof effective retail planning and offer an integrated framework ofretailing and urban planning policy. This should open up a new dis-cussion to the specific role of governments in increasing the resil-ience of urban networks.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank The Scientific and Technological Re-search Council of Turkey for supporting the two research projects:An Analysis of the Spatial Distribution of Shopping Centers andShopping Potential in Ankara with Retail Location Models, ProjectNo. 108K547 and The Impact of Shopping Space Transformationon Social Sustainability: A Case Study of Ankara, Project No.109K325. The authors owe special thanks to the two anonymousreviewers and the editors of the special issue for their majorcontributions.

References

Ankara Greater Municipality (2007). 2023 Baskent Ankara Nazim Imar Plani AciklamaRaporu (2023 development plan report of the capital city Ankara), FersaMatbaacılık, Ankara.

Association of Shopping Center Investors (2010). Turkiye’deki Alisveris Merkezleri(shopping centers in Turkey). Personal communication.

Babalik Suttcliffe, E. (forthcoming). Urban form and sustainable transport: Lessonsfrom the Ankara case. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation.

Balta, M. O. A., & Eke, F. (2011). Spatial reflection of urban planning in metropolitanareas and urban rent: A case study of Cayyolu, Ankara. European PlanningStudies, 19(10), 1817–1838.

Banister, D. (1997). Reducing the need to travel. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 24(3), 437–449.

Bariskent, GMK (2008). Alisveris Merkezleri Toplumsal Yasantımızı Nasil Etkiliyor?(How do shopping centers influence our social life?). Ankara: PiGrup ResearchCompany.

Bennison, G. (1995). Retail planning policy in Greece. In R. L. Davies (Ed.), Retailplanning policies (pp. 105–119). London: Routledge.

Birch, E. L. (2009). Downtown in the ‘‘New American City’’. The Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 626, 134–153.

Bristow, G. (2010). Resilient regions: Re-‘Place’ing regional competitiveness.Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 153–167.

Brown, T., & Scott, L. (2011). Main street face-lift. Public Management, 93(9), 14–17.Davies, R. L. (1995). Retail planning policies in Western Europe. London: Routledge.Davies, S. (2010). Regional resilience in the 2008–2010 downturn: Comparative

evidence from European countries. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy andSociety, 4(3), 369–382.

Eceral, T. O., Varol, C., & Alkan, L. (2009). Kentsel Arazi Deger Artis Sureci: MustafaKemal Mahallesi Ornegi (A process of urban land rent increase: The case studyof Mustafa Kemal District, Ankara). Toprak Mulkiyeti Sempozyumu Ankara (pp.307–325).

Ercoskun, O. Y., & Ozuduru, B. H. (2011). Alisveris Mekanlarindaki Degisimin SosyalSurdurulebilirlige Etkisi: Ankara Ornegi (The impact of shopping spacetransformation on social sustainability: A case study of Ankara), The Scientificand Technological Research Council of Turkey Project Report No. 109K325,Ankara.

Erkip, F. (2003). The shopping mall as an emergent public space in Turkey.Environment and Planning A, 35(6), 1073–1093.

Erkip, F. (2005). The rise of shopping mall in Turkey: The use and appeal of a mall inAnkara. Cities, 22(2), 89–108.

Erkip, F., & Kizilgun, O. (2011). Kentlerin Surdurulebilirligi icin PerakendeSektorunun Planlanmasi (Retailing Sector planning for sustainability of cities),The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Project Report No.108K614, Ankara.

B.H. Ozuduru et al. / Cities 36 (2014) 145–157 157

Eva GMK & Akademetre (2012). AVM Potansiyel Ihtiyac Analizi Raporu(shoppingcenter potential demand analysis report), <http://www.evagyd.com> Accessed05.12.2012.

Filkins, D. (2012). Letter from Turkey: The deep state. The New Yorker. March 12th.Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).

Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability.Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/> Accessed 07.15.2012.

Gunay, B. (2005). Ankara Cekirdek Alaninin Olusumu ve 1990 Nazim Plani HakkindaBir Degerlendirme (An evaluation of the city center of Ankara and 1990development plan). In T. Senyapılı (Ed.), Cumhuriyetin Ankara’si (The Republic’sAnkara). Ankara: ODTU Yayincilik.

Guy, C. M. (1998). Controlling new retail spaces: The impress of planning policies inWestern Europe. Urban Studies, 35(5–6), 953–979.

Guy, C. M. (2002). Is retail planning policy effective? The case of very large storedevelopment in the UK. Planning Theory and Practice, 3(3), 319–330.

Guy, C. M. (2007a). Planning for retail development. New York: Routledge.Guy, C. M. (2007b). Is ‘Demonstration of Need’ necessary in retail planning policy?

Regional Studies, 41(1), 131–137.Hudson, R. (2010). Resilient regions in an uncertain world: Wishful thinking or a

practical reality? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 11–26.Hurriyet Gazetesi (2008). Alisveris Merkezleri Krizi Kapıda (on the verge of the crisis of

shopping centers). May 5th.Knox, P. L. (2008). Metroburbia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Lang, R. E. (2003). Edgeless cities: Exploring the elusive metropolis. Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institution.Levent, T. (2010). Hizmet Faaliyetlerinin Mekansal Orgutlenmesi: Ankara Ornegi

(the spatial organization of service facilities: The case study of Ankara). In VI thenational geography symposium proceedings (TUCAUM) (pp. 213–227). AnkaraUniversity, Ankara, 3–5 November.

MacDonald, J. M., Stokes, R., & Bluthenthal, R. (2010). The role of community contextin business district revitalization strategies: Business improvement districts inLos Angeles. Public Performance and Management Review, 33(3), 436–458.

Martin, R. (2012). Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks.Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 1–32.

Miroslawa, L. (1999). Strategic planning. In H. J. Zimmerman (Ed.), Fuzzy theory andits applications (pp. 419–442). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Moreno-Jimenez, A. (2001). Interurban shopping, new town planning and localdevelopment in Madrid metropolitan area. Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, 8(5), 291–298.

Neamtu, B., & Leuca, C. R. (2006). Adapting the US main street philosophy andprogram to the Romanian urban context. Could it possibly work? TransylvanianReview of Administrative Sciences, 18, 80–95.

Oktem, B. (2011). The role of global city discourses in the development andtransformation of the Buyukdere–Maslak axis into the international businessDistrict of Istanbul. International Planning Strategies, 16(1), 27–42.

Ozcan, G. B. (2000). The transformation of Turkish retailing: Survival strategies ofsmall and medium-sized retailers. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans,2(1), 105–120.

Ozuduru, B. H., & Varol, C. (2009). Kent Merkezlerine Yeni Bir Alternatif:Ankara’daki Alisveris Merkezlerinin Kentsel ve Mekansal Gelisime Etkileri (Analternative to city centers: The impact of shopping centers in Ankara on Urban

and spatial development) 6–8 Kasım 33. Sehircilik Gunu Kolokyumu Kitabı (pp.307–324). Akdeniz University, Antalya.

Ozuduru, B. H., & Varol, C. (2011). Ankara’daki Alisveris Merkezlerinin ve AlisverisPotansiyelinin Mekansal Dagiliminin Perakende Yersecim Modelleriyle Analizi(an analysis of the spatial distribution of shopping centers and shoppingpotential in Ankara with retail location models). The Scientific andTechnological Research Council of Turkey Project Report No. 108K547, Ankara.

Pendall, R., Foster, K. A., & Cowell, M. (2010). Resilience and regions: Buildingunderstanding of the metaphor. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy andSociety, 3(1), 71–84.

Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning,models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, andplanning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 369–384.

Pike, A., Dawley, S., & Tomaney, J. (2010). Resilience, adaptation and adaptability.Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 59–70.

Robertson, K. A. (1997). Downtown retail revitalization: A review of Americandevelopment strategies. Planning Perspectives, 12, 383–401.

Simmie, J., & Martin, R. L. (2010). The economic resilience of regions: Towards anevolutionary approach. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1),27–44.

Soysal Research Corporation (2010). Alisveris Merkezleri Katalogu (Shopping centercatalogue). Soysal Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Tekeli, _I., Altaban, O., Guvenc, M., Turel, A., Gunay, B., & Bademli, R. (1986). Ankara1985’den 2015’e (Ankara from 1985 to 2015). Ankara Buyuksehir Belediyesi, EGOGenel Mudurlugu, Ankara.

Tekeli, _I., & Okyay, T. (1980). Dolmusun Oykusu (The story of Dolmus). Ankara: Cevreve Mimarlık Bilimleri Yayinlari.

Tokatli, N., & Boyaci, Y. (1997). Internationalization of retailing in Turkey. NewPerspectives on Turkey, 17, 97–128.

Tokatli, N., & Boyaci, Y. (2001). The changing wholesaling industry in the post-1990Turkey: Three case studies. Journal of Euromarketing, 10, 65–92.

Tokatli, N., & Boyaci Eldener, Y. (2002). Globalization and the changing politicaleconomy of distribution channels in Turkey. Environment and Planning A, 34,217–238.

Tokatli, N., & Erkip, F. (1998). Foreign investment in producer services: TheTurkish experience in the post-1980 period. Third World Planning Review, 20,87–105.

T.R. Ministry of Development/T.C. Kalkinma Bakanligi (DPT) (2003). Iller ve BolgelerItibariyle Gayri Safi Yurtici Hasiladaki Gelismeler (1987–2000) (The improvementin gross domestic product in cities and regions (1987–2000)). Devlet IstatistikEnstitusu Matbaasi, Ankara.

Turkish Statistical Institute/Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu (TUIK) (2009). BolgeselGostergeler, TR51 (Regional Indicators, TR51), TUIK Yayinlari, Ankara.

Turkun, A. (2011). Urban regeneration and hegemonic power relationships.International Planning Studies, 16(1), 61–72.

Varol, C., & Ozuduru, B. H. (2010). Turkiye’de Perakende Sektorunun ve AlisverisMerkezlerinin Orgutsel ve Yasal Durumları (The administrative and legalstatuses of the retail sector and shopping centers in Turkey). Mimarlık DergisiDosya Serisi, 22, 30–40.

Watson, S. (2009). The magic of the marketplace: Sociality in a neglected publicspace. Urban Studies, 46(8), 1577–1591.

Wrigley, N., & Dolega, L. (2011). Resilience, fragility, and adaptation: New evidenceon the performance of UK high streets during global economic crisis and itspolicy implications. Environment and Planning A, 43(10), 2337–2363.