Spatial Aspects of Social Area Analysis

Anderson, Theodore R.; Egeland, Janice A.

doi:10.2307/2090666

Cited by 62 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First one is the theory of Von Thünen, 1826, where concentric zones of different uses of land tend to form an urban market/centre (McLoughlin, 1969). This was taken one step further by Burgess' concentric zone hypothesis of the location of residential areas by type (Anderson and Egeland, 1961). The second descriptive theory is Hoyt's sectoral theory from sociological concepts of segregation (Berry, 1964).…”

Section: Evolution Of Urban Theory Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their conclusion for spatial aspects of social area analysis, Anderson and Egeland (1961) state that social rank varies sectorially, urbanisation concentrically, and segregation on the basis of concentration of certain minority groups-clusters-in limited neighbourhoods of the city. The importance of social area analysis regarding segregation is that it gives important insights on how social aspects are independently influential on spatial location: "Shevky and Bell turned the focus of study from zones and sectors in the city to nuclei or population clusters within the city" (Driedger, 2003).…”

Section: • Social Area Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implications for socio-spatial segregation in urban theories

Caner¹,

Bölen²

2013

Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, our understanding of cities has gone through important changes due to major sociospatial processes. Specifically, over the last few decades processes like globalisation and decolonisation have produced significant consequences in cities and these have attracted the attention of prominent urban scholars. Of these consequences, segregation has become infamous in the discourse of numerous disciplines, including governmental debates and policies. However, sociospatial transformations have been a source of new challenges for urban theory makers throughout history. At a certain point, the physical focus of early urban theories was no longer sufficient to interpret the city, causing a shift towards process-oriented theory-making. The central theme of this paper is to investigate this shift by analysing the evolution of urban theories with regard to their implications for urban social geography. In this context, the analytical focuses of main urban theories are evaluated and their explanatory power for socio-spatial segregation is stressed. Such a developmental perspective enables us to observe urban theories' receptiveness to changing circumstances, as well as their power to guide urban scholars. The evaluation reveals that urban theories capture the spirit of their time (zeitgeist) through their own lenses and explain the social geography of the city either partially or fully with regard to these lenses. In conclusion, it may be said that urban theories which have implications for segregation are not generated universally, but rather in specific frameworks which might or might not be explanatory for other circumstances. All in all, it is believed that this evaluation will provide guidance for future studies that aim to understand and/ or develop the role of urban theories in explaining socio-spatial segregation in the city.Key words: Segregation; socio-spatial segregation; urban social geography; urban theories. ÖZYirminci yüzyıl başlarından beri, kentler hakkındaki anlayışımız, büyük ölçekli sosyo-mekansal süreçler nedeniyle önemli deği-şimler geçirmiştir. Özellikle 1950'lerden bu yana, küreselleşme ve sömürgecilik sonrası süreçler, kentsel araştırmacıların dikkatini çeken olumsuz kentsel sonuçlar doğurmuşlardır. Bu sonuçlar arasında, ayrışmanın kötü bir ün saldığı ve yönetim birimlerinin söylem ve politikalarında yer edindiği görülmektedir. Ancak, bu sosyo-mekansal dönüşümler, kentsel kuramcılar için uzun zamandır yeni mücadele alanları ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Belirli bir noktaya gelindiğinde, önceki kentsel kuramların fiziksel yaklaşım-ları kenti yorumlamak için yetersiz kalmış ve bu da, süreç odaklı kuram geliştirmeye doğru bir kaymanın yaşanmasına neden olmuştur. Bu makalenin ana konusu; bu yaşanan dönüşümü incelemek için, kentsel kuramların evrimini, kentsel sosyal coğrafyaya ilişkin çıkarımları bağlamında analiz etmektir. Bu çerçevede, temel kentsel kuramların analitik odak noktaları değerlendirilerek, sosyo-mekansal ayrışmayı açıklama konusundaki yeterlilikle...

show abstract

Section: Evolution Of Urban Theory Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: • Social Area Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications for socio-spatial segregation in urban theories

Caner¹,

Bölen²

2013

Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results here are mixed with findings that each of these competing models explains a portion of the variation in residential patterns. Although it is unclear what conditions make for either zonal or sectoral predominance, it appears that both sets of ecological forces play important roles (Anderson and Egeland 1961;Schwirian and Matre 1974). Hawley (1950) and more recently Schwirian (1983) have argued that the Burgess and Hoyt models may be complementary rather than antagonistic paradigms.…”

Section: Urban Spatial Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Spatial Determinants of Neighborhood Structure: Cleveland, Ohio, 1930–1980

Hankins

1991

Sociological Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, the differing spatial configurations of the two 'models' have been integrated by a number of workers (Anderson and Egeland, 1961;Murdie, 1969;and, Rees, 1970) in an endeavour to impose structure on the North American city.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Residential Structure of Metropolitan Sydney

Badcock

1973

Australian Geographical Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE GRAFTING OF FACTOR ANALYSIS onto classical social area analysis (Parkes, 1971) has provided the geographer with a methodology with which to explore the social geography of urban areas. While social area analysis, senm stricto, has been shown to be operationally unsatisfactory as a model of the dynamics of increasing societal scale (Abu-Lughod, 1969) it has nevertheless provided a stimulus because of its spatial potentiality. The theory of societal scale (Wilson and Wilson, 1945) fails to explain the structural differentiation of urban subareas, an end-product of social area analysis, and laterly, factorial ecology. Because of this fundamental shortcoming Udry (1964) recommended that a theory of the dimensions of urban differentiation be considered in its own right. Concurring with this proposition McElrath (1968) sets out to demonstrate that variations in residential structure can be regarded as a function of social differentia, per se. The adaptation of the social area model to this end has culminated in the formulation of a theory of residential differentiation by blending aspects of sociological and geographical theory (see Timms, 1971, 95-121).The progress is due, in part, to the reconciliation of the divergent approaches to spatial structure implicit in the concentric (Burgess) and sectoral (Hoyt) models. An underlying assumption of both models was that, a priori, the differentiation within cities is unidimensional. Shevky and Bell (1955), who maintained that this assumption had no valid foundations, deduced at least three dimensions of differentiation in their theory -social rank, urbanization and ethnicity -each possibly with its own unique pattern of distribution.The adoption of factor structure as a model of residential structure has confirmed the postulate of multidimensionality, and amplified its spatial expression.In an important piece of work Anderson and Egeland (1961) concluded that the zonal and sectoral models 'were not mutually exclusive but were in fact legitimate descriptions of two different aspects of reality' (Abu-Lughod, 1969). The conMr Badcock is a Lecturer in the

show abstract

Spatial Aspects of Social Area Analysis

Cited by 62 publications

References 0 publications

Implications for socio-spatial segregation in urban theories

Implications for socio-spatial segregation in urban theories

The Spatial Determinants of Neighborhood Structure: Cleveland, Ohio, 1930–1980

The Residential Structure of Metropolitan Sydney

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About