TdESls This is to certify that the thesis entitled The American Population Abroad: A Case Study of Their Residential Patterns and the Selection of Residential Housing in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia presented by Asaad Mohammed Atiyah has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH - D . degree in GGOQI'QPhY Ian M. Matley '3 'mw.{\(M/LCC\ Major professor q— 0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution hV1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from _,—_ your record. FINES will i - be charged if book is l returned after the date stamped below. Law '9’— if“ '\ .‘,’. I? 83:1:ng ‘hfifi'm; ff?" 3H,: “h W ii‘lfi USE 031%? . THE AMERICAN POPULATION ABROAD: A CASE STUDY OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS AND THE SELECTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ’ IN JEDDAH CITY, SAUDI ARABIA By Asaad Mohammed Atiyah A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1984 ABSTRACT The American Population Abroad: A Case Study of Their Residential Patterns and the Selection of Residential Housing in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia by Asaad M. Atiyah This study examines the problem of how members of a foreign-born population group manage to select their residential housing within the territorial limit of an alien city. The participants in the study are Americans living overseas in Jeddah City, a cosmopolitan city in Saudi Arabia which draws people from the four corners of the world. This investigation does not undertake a new approach, employing more sophisticated techniques, but reviews and reassesses pertinent information already available to expand our knowledge of the dynamics of residential-locational decisions. Such cross—cultural replication should generate new parameters from data collected in different spatial settings. Unlike previous studies, the main concern of the present study is with the current residential pattern and the selection of residential housing, and with the socioeconomic characteristics of the American population, Asaad M. Atiyah rather than with the American's adjustment problems or social interaction with the host population-~concerns which figure more appropriately in different disciplines other than geography. Continued research in this vein will improve our theoretical and empirical understanding of overseas Americans' distributional patterns, about which very little research has been done. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A large number of people provided invaluable help during the time necessary for the completion of this study: The American respondents of Jeddah City contributed to the research by lending their time and knowledge for interviews and the questionnaire. Professor Ian M. Matley, who served as the prin- cipal advisor during the course of the Doctoral program and provided the author with both timely guidance and intellectual freedom. I am particularly appreciative of this association. During the course of my graduate study, I benefited from the intellectual curiosity and insights of Professor Joe T. Darden. Professor Robert N. Thomas provided me‘ with constant encouragement, along with an unyielding Vconfidence. Professor J. Allen Beegle of the Department of Sociology and the Dean's Representative at the Dissertation oral examination contributed to the author's refurbished interest in the sociological perspective. ii To my parents, without whom I would never have come this far; to my wife Refah Al-Ghamdi, who bore with me the hardships; and to our children, Ii lovingly' dedicate this work. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter ' Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . ix I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . 1 American Population Living Abroad . 1 Americans Living Abroad: The Emergence of a General Pattern . . 7 Need for the Study . . . . . 22 Statement of the Problem . . . 23 Objectives of the Study . . . . 24 Hypotheses . . . . . . . 24 Organization of the Study . . . 28 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . 30 Introduction . . . . . . 30 Traditional Theories . . . . 31 The Preindustrial Model . . . . 35 Residential Patterns: The Study of Variability . . . . . . 39 Residential Patterns . . . . 45 Economic Considerations Behavioral Considerations The Decision-Making Process and the Selection of Residential Housing . 54 Major Factors Influencing the Selection of Residential Housing . 61 iv Chapter III IV Foreign-Born or Ethnic Population Patterns A Final Remark . . . . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Definition of Variables The Other Source of Data: The Survey Method Discussion of the Questionnaire Method of Analysis . The Study Area and the Selection of The American Population . . AMERICANS RESIDING IN JEDDAH CITY: THE SELECTION PROCESS AND SPATIAL PATTERN OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING . Characteristics of the American Population in Jeddah City Educational Background of the American Population . The Occupations of the American Population . The Origins of the Americans in Jeddah City . . . The Distribution of the American Population in Jeddah City Results of the Correlation Matrix Discussion and Interpretation Results of Regression Analysis . The Americans' Level of Search Intensity for Houses in Jeddah City . . Page 85 87 91 91 93 102 104 111 111 114 115 120 123 134 136 155 157 Chapter Page Factors Relating to the Selection of Residential Housing by the Americans in Jeddah City . . . . . 162 The Rank Ordering of the Factors . . 177 Post-Facto Evaluation of the Residential Factor . . . . . . 180 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . 189 Background . . . . . . . . 189 Summary of Findings . . . . . 191 Conclusions . . . . . . . 198 Avenues for Further Research . . . 202 Appendix A AMERICAN POPULATION RESIDING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES: A WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION . . 206 B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE WITH COVER LETTER . . 213 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . 223 vi Table 10 11 12 13 LIST OF TABLES DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS AND THE SELECTED HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE IN JEDDAH CITY, BY DISTRICT . JEDDAH'S POPULATION GROWTH (1946-—1974) SAUDI AND NON-SAUDI POPULATION OF JEDDAH CITY (1978-1983) DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY AGE . EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY . . DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY OCCUPATION . DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY ANNUAL INCOME TOTAL MONTHLY FAMILY INCOMES OF HOUSEHOLDS BY NATIONALITY . . . . . . . DEGREE OF CONTIGUITY OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY . ' . A SYMMETRIC CORRELATION MATRIX OF ELEVEN VARIABLES . . RESULTS OF THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS DEGREE OF INTENSITY OF SEARCH FOR A HOUSE BY THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY DISTRICT . . . . . . ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF THE IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO THE FOLLOWING FACTORS IN THE SELECTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING BY THE SAMPLE POPULATION (S) IN JEDDAH CITY (S = 471) . . vii Page 94 105 108 112 112 113 113 118 132 135 158 160 165 Table 14 15 16 17 RANK ORDER AND CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION OF A RESIDENCE BY AMERICAN RESIDENTS OF JEDDAH CITY . . . . . . . . . ‘POST-FACTO EVALUATION OF THEIR CURRENT .RESIDENCES BY THE SAMPLE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF THE EVALUATIVE RESPONSES TO THE LISTED ATTRIB— UTES OF THEIR OWN CURRENT DWELLINGS BY THE AMERICANS IN JEDDAH CITY (N = 471) ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF THE SATISFIED, DISSATISFIED, MOVER, AND NON- MOVER RESPONDENTS BY AGE GROUP, LEVEL OF EDUCATION, INCOME LEVEL, OCCUPATION, LENGTH OF RESIDENCE, AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE viii Page 179 181 182 184 Figure 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIST OF FIGURES AMERICAN POPULATION RESIDING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES (1980) PLAN OF JEDDAH IN 1938 . JEDDAH HARAS (DISTRICTS) HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE OF AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY . JEDDAH POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS STATE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY . . . . . DISTRIBUTION OF AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY . . . . . DEGREE OF CONCENTRATION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY RESIDENTIAL CONTIGUITY OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AMERICANS AND EUROPEANS IN JEDDAH DISTRICTS PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AMERICANS, YEMENIS, AND AFRICAN NON-ARABS IN JEDDAH DISTRICTS . . . . AREAS WITH SUB-STANDARD HOUSING CONDITION JEDDAH POPULATION DENSITY DISTRIBUTION . PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS AS RELATED TO DISTANCE FROM CENTER Page 37 90 95 106 122 124 127 131 137 138 141 144 151 FACTORS RELATED TO THE SELECTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING WHICH WERE CITED AS "VERY IMPORTANT" BY 50+ PERCENT OF THE AMERICANS IN JEDDAH CITY 168 ix CHAPTER I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY A simple scientific fact is that people are people throughout the world, and yet they differ despite the basic biological similarity found in Homo sapiens. This is empirically verifiable reality, whether man is Negroid, Caucasoid, or a member of another ethnic subgroup of the human species. The important differences, however, are largely cultural. As Oliver (1962, p. 154) points out, "If we would communicate across cultural barriers, we must learn what to say and how to say it in terms of the expectations and predispositions of those we want to live with." This is a study of a small population group in a cross-cultural situation in the Middle East. The partic— ipants in the study are Americans living overseas who reside at Jeddah City, a cosmopolitan city in Saudi Arabia which draws peOple from many different countries. American Population LivingAbroad "Living abroad" is defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as residing outside the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas of the United States' sovereignty or jurisdiction. The population abroad includes members 1 2 of the armed forces, federal civilian employees, the dependents of these two groups, crews of merchant ves— sels, and other United States citizens living abroad. Americans temporarily abroad on vacations, business trips, and the like are excluded. Americans residing abroad are not an entirely new phenomenon. An estimated 100,000 people fled the U.S. to avoid the Revolutionary War; Canada received half of them (Casey, 1981). By virtue of geographical prox— imity, Mexico and Latin America played host to the great- est bulk of American migrants after the Civil War. In this connection, Casey (1981) indicates: The big wave of American migration did not occur until after the Civil War, when perhaps 10,000 disgruntled Southerners left for Mexico and Latin America, with 4,000 going to Brazil alone. Brazil has several large enclaves today composed in good measure of their Portuguese-speaking decedents, who are now as totally Brazilian in outlook as someone whose family has been in America for 100 years is American in outlook (p. 4)- The exact number of overseas Americans is not known prior to 1900. However, the following official number of United States citizens abroad clearly demon— strates the steadily rising total of Americans who live abroad: 1900 91,219 1910 55,608 1920 117,238 1930 89,453 1940 118,933 3 1950 481,545 1960 1,374,421 1970 2,400,000 1980 2,008,263 Dulles (1966), in his article, "A Historical View of Americans Abroad," comments on the increase in annual visits to the Old World by Americans from a few thousand visitors in the early nineteenth century to more than a million in the 1960s. He attributes the increase to tourism becoming within the economic reach of an average American, along with the increased sharing of expertise in business technology as well as the military and social importance of the United States. Rubin (1966) provides a statistical overview of Americans abroad and came up with some very interesting statistics. In the sixty years since 1900, the U.S. pop- ulation residing abroad increased by 1500 percent, and more than 50 percent of this population in 1960 was below the age of forty. 0f the total Americans employed abroad, 70 percent were privately employed in 1960. Additionally, the study provides information regarding the distribution by sex, age, and years of education completed by Americans living abroad. The study also enumerates the following facts and trends among U.S. citizens abroad: 1. Between 1960 and 1966, there was a decline in the number of females between the ages of 20 and 40 4 and of children of both sexes. There was an increase in the number of males belonging to the armed forces per- sonnel. 2. The overseas group is younger, better edu— cated, and more remuneratively employed than the domestic national population. As of 1975, Casey (1981) indicates that there were 2,078,900 Americans living abroad--923,000, or 44.4 percent of them and their dependents, in government (both civilian and military), and 1,155,900, or 55.6 percent, as private citizens. The breakdown of private citizens by category is shown as follows: Businesspeople 485,000 'Social Security Recipients 104,000 Veterans Receiving Benefits 68,700 Students 50,000 Missionaries 43,500 Retired Government Workers 26,000 College Teachers 6,500 Others 352,200 TOTAL: 1,155,900 (Source: D. R. Casey, 1981, p. 4.) At present, there are few urban centers in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand that do not contain Americans. (The total number of Americans living abroad in different countries is 5 given in Appendix A, and a graphic representation of their distribution in the world's regions is shown in Figure 1.) The overseas Americans, as Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960) indicate, come from all types of fam- ilies and from every region of the United States. Furthermore, Americans abroad, like other Americans, are dragged to church, sneak off to go fishing, manage the school baseball team, have dates and flirtatious, awake to knowledge early or late, go to war, and get married. Some- where along the line they decide to live overseas (Cleveland et a1. 1960, p. 8). However, the Foreign Service Institute of the Department of State (1965) indicates that when Americans go abroad, they carry a stack of cultural baggage with them--those typically American traits which are so natural to them , that Americans tend not even to be conscious of them--' but which nevertheless make them strange and recognizable to people of other cultures around the world. Moreover, there is a basic,profound difference in outlook between Americans and many of the people they meet abroad. In general, this is less of a problem in Europe than in areas such as the Middle East. That is, one might expect an American to find the going easier in Western Europe because much of America's own culture has its roots there. Cultural differences become issues of crucial importance when an American interacts with such foreign value systems as those embodied in the culture of the Middle East, for example. ‘I’otoi Population 6 Figure (1) American Population Residing in 500.0001 400.0003 300.0001 200.000'I 100.000- Foreign countries (1980') Americans Living Abroad: The Emergence of a General Pattern A vital concern of the social scientist is to make it possible for individuals belonging to one cul- ture to function effectively in an alien culture for the benefit of all. Social scientists have begun to under— stand and increase their perception of the problem of how an individual feels in an alien culture. In this context, a large number of studies in the last 30 years, with subjects ranging from young American students abroad to highly specialized experts, have examined cross—cultural interaction. Professors Jeanne and John Gullahorn studied American students abroad in the context of personal and professional development in 1966. The investigators used interviews and questionnaires to collect their data, which were put through multivariate analyses. The investigators arrived at the broad conclusion that those reporting more extensive interaction with host nationals and greater personal development and satisfaction tend to be less settled in adult roles and less committed to academic goals; whereas those indicating that study abroad furthered their profes- sional development and advancement tend to be older, advanced graduate students who incorporated data gathered abroad in dis- sertations for advanced degrees, enabling them to obtain college faculty positions (p. 43). The situation for young students can hardly be described as stressful in a European (French) context. 8 Because the American students generally belong to the same race as their European counterparts, they are almost unnoticed. This eliminates one serious source of stress. The American students complain that they have "few opportunities to interact with host nationals in a home setting." The investigators conclude that Vlanguage plays an important role in interaction, though they are not sure if a higher level of language profic- iency is due to heightened contact with the host nationals or vice versa. The host nationals, however, assume the Americans are more tourists than students. It is here, the inves— tigators point out, that misunderstanding arises out of preconceived assumptions about rules; the American students are put off by the impersonal approach of their professors and feel frustrated. These frustrations and disappointments are easily traceable to the cultural experiences of each group--the hosts and the guests. Compared with this situation, the experience of American students in India bears a striking contrast. Cormack (1973) records the following factors that con- tribute to frustration and the development of a negative attitude among the American.students living in India: 1. The American students stand out as ethnically different. 2. The American students find the ways of their Indian counterparts mysterious and often puzzling. 9 3. The American students are forced into a representational role. 4. The American students find their attitudes toward sex, friendship, studies and social and moral issues completely opposed by their Indian counterparts. 5. The American students note that intellectual discussions follow nationalist attitudes rather than rational consideration. 6. The American students note that international political points of View get in the way of intellectual discussion. 7. The demands fin'friendship made on American students by their Indian counterparts are so total and 'time-consuming that they often avoid such contacts. "The American Student in Taiwan" is a study by seven investigators working in six different institu- tions of higher learning. The conclusion they arrive at is based on interviews with 40 above-average American students in Taiwan. An interesting fact noted in this article is that the American students' responses are strikingly similar to those of students in India under similar circumstances: The students' stay in Taiwan increases their sense of being Americans, as they are constantly reminded of being different. One student expresses a typical View: In the United States, I have always thought of myself as being off to the side, not like the others. But over here, I realize that 10 I am an American: I think like an American, I like to see the job done, I respect efficiency, I like to speak my mind (p. 363). Taiwanese society has well-defined roles and is tradition bound. American students complain that they cannot come to know their teachers' feelings because of the distance that persists between teachers and students. It is difficult for American students to make friends among the local population, and this leads them to seek company among their fellow countrymen. In the case of eleven American married couples who consider themselves self-sufficient, "not one established a warm, friendly relationship as a couple with a Chinese." Most single students have Chinese boyfriends or girlfriends, but in no case did they feel that "the barriers to marriage seemed likely to be overcome." Most of the difficulties in establishing closer social contacts are due to the fact that the Taiwanese are dependent, other-directed, and conservative, as opposed to Americans' independence, assertiveness, and expressiveness. American students experience the same racial conspicuousness in Taiwan as in India, which leads to their social isolation. They are pushed into an ambassadorial role. The inves- tigators came to the conclusion almost identical to that reached regarding India: Adaptations involving deep and intimate in- volvement with host country nationals are difficult to achieve, and have the widest range of effects-—from the positive and sat- isfying to the negative and painful (p. 370). 11 It is interesting to note how the problems of adjustment and response to an alien culture follow the same pattern with regard to different host cultures. John Useem (1966) investigated the work patterns of Americans in India. He is credited with originating the concept of the "third culture"--the "patterns gen- erated by Indians and Americans working together in shared transactional enterprises and sustaining common social life." The emergence of this culture is the result of pressures of post-independence India. From a long history of being colonized, India has emerged out of a role subordinate to whatever is Western. The members of the "third culture" group among the Indians are highly skilled in their professions and have created patterns that are easily shared by their American counter— parts. Yet this culture does not ensure the same degree of harmony between members of the same culture in their home environments. However, this "third culture," which Prof. Useem suggests is not peculiar to India, is like a "systematic link between societies." Participants in this culture, particularly the Americans, have oppor- tunities to be creatively involved in the evolution of the culture, and in that involvement lies the key to reduction of stress for an American worker in India. However, outside of the third culture, the problems faced by Americans in India are more stressful. In studying the American family in India, Ruth 12 H. Useem (1966) comes up with the following conclusions: 1. The American family is forced into a repre- sentational role which is a cultural shock to the wife, who is used to privacy of family life. 2. Social structures in India are so different from the structures one encounters in the mother country that adjustment is a serious problem. 3. The third culture poses stressful adjustment problems for an inexperienced wife. 4. Three areas produce the maximum amount of stress: (a) servants; (b) health; and (c) education of the children. Wives handle these situations differently, according to their personality traits. In interacting with the host culture, the wife finds it difficult to maintain an egalitarian outlook. She begins to act as if she is superior, but often finds she does not know how to handle it. The native standards of hygiene are far below what she is used to in the United States. _Even though she is not used to servants in her country, to fulfill her role as a representative of her culture she is forced to employ servants, whose habits of cleanliness do not meet her standards. Education of children poses another serious problem because the system and standard of education in India are not adequate according to her perception. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that an article published in Harper's Magazine (March 1959) 13 anticipated Prof. Ruth Useem's scientific study of American wives' problems in an Indian setting. The Harper's article ends with nine tips for the wives of American officials, ranging from familiarizing themselves with the local customs and culture to acting in keeping with their representational roles. However, since this ”article was written.for popular consumption, it did not attempt to examine the deep-rooted sociological and cultural dimensions of the problem. Lambert (1966) focuses on how Americans respond to the stress of adjustment to a new setting. Gener- ally, Americans go through a cycle from euphoric enthu- siasm to disappointment to outright anti-Indian feelings prompted by cultural differences, health conditions, the expectations of the Indians for friendship with the Americans, and language difficulties. Most Americans end up in an "enclaved" situation, confining their social activities mainly to their fellow countrymen or having none at all. - Tarr (1966) contributes important insights regarding the American military abroad. There were a million and a half military personnel stationed in Europe and Asia in the 19603. Often, these military personnel lived a highly disciplined, closely supervised life, because of their sensitive assignments. They were discouraged, as a rule, from mixing with the local population. Therefore, Tarr indicates, "Military 14 personnel tend to live somewhat apart from the community which surrounds the base." Whatever relations fall within the permissible contact level, "the military en- courages good relations." Otherwise, the military per- sonnel remain isolated. One Army psychiatrist reported that "23% of all military teenagers have never been down— town in their German communities." The problem the military faces abroad is not that of adjustment or of homesickness because, within the military establishment, conditions similar to those at home are present. Another study that testifies to the ever- increasing commitment in personnel and materials abroad was made by Wilkins (1966). She notes that American investments abroad have increased, as has the number of businesspeople all over the world. Wilkins identifies four categories of business enterprises in which Amer- icans abroad are engaged: those working for foreign firms; the self-employed; those representing trading firms; and, by far the largest number, those who work for Americans headquartered in international operations and service organizations. The professions in which they are engaged include management, advertising and even drilling and construction. Furthermore, these business- men strike people in the host countries and others as affluent and therefore are generally alienated from the people in countries for which they are working. Strangely enough, they experience an alienation from 15 their home country, too, even though they are largely treated as representatives of their country. A direct consequence of the alienation from the host country is that the host population's uniform reaction that they are overpaid and have no specific role from the per- spective of larger national interests. Wilkins concludes that the impression is incorrect, but it contributes to stress. As American missionaries were expelled from com- munist countries after World War II, their number in Asia, Africa, and Latin America increased manyfold. Latourette (1966) indicates that 83.3 percent, or five- sixths, of these missionaries belong to the Protestant denomination, and most of these missionaries work with the Christian community in their respective areas of operation. Generally, their areas of concern are med- icine, health, education, and agriculture. Latourette is quick to add that, though the number of missionaries reached a high mark in the 19603, they constitute a very small proportion of all Americans abroad (implying the breadth of involvement of American expertise and service abroad). Since the missionaries are a more dedicated lot, they tend to endure the pressures of change and the stresses of adjustment in a much better manner than do their fellow countrymen working in other fields abroad. Another advantage they enjoy is that their spouses, too, are committed to their line of work, and thus the 16 spouses do not have as much difficulty adjustihg as do other American spouses abroad and do not become a source of extra pressure for the missionaries. As a trained observer, Kimball (1956) provides excellent insights into the entire gamut of an American's life in Saudi Arabia. His article contains important basic information regarding the work conditions in the oil fields, the housing, and the social and cultural situations encountered in that country. Kimball has divided his study into five sub- sections, including: Cultural Restrictions; American Cultural Characteristics; The Female World; The Male World; and The Spatial Setting. The cultural restric— tions imposed by the strict Islamic law that governs the private and public behavior of the Saudis is found too restrictive by Americans living in the cities of Dhahran, Ras Tanura, and Abqaiq. These restrictions are obviously contrary to American habits, and the Americans openly and vociferously complain about them. Particular note has been made of the fact that contact between members of the opposite sexes of the two nations is totally pro- hibited. Kimball gives a profile of the cultural per- sonality of the American in terms of restrictions and permissible style of life in Saudi Arabia. In the Saudi Arabian world, the position of the American single female is very interesting. Kimball is surprised that in a heavily male-oriented society, a 17 good many women have found profitable positions. He postulates that these women employees perhaps are on husband-hunting expeditions, or that single women must be in great demand. However, his actual observation counters these assumptions. Women have reasons for employment as varied as men have. Wives of the employees form a group of their own. With the availability of local help to work as servants, wives have a great deal of free time on their hands. Kimball recognizes that the city of Dhahran is a male-dominated work world. It is noted that American men and women employed there are stratified socially and in terms of their living conditions, according to the income and position of the breadwinner. It is a surpris- ing fact that in a so-called egalitarian society like America, this social segregation should be such an obvious, patent fact. The setting subsection of the present report describes the living conditions and amenities available to the stationed Americans, who are essentially the employees of Aramco. It is within the residential areas where they live that one can find the major retail and service centers that are reserved for use by the "senior" staff, a group composed largely of Americans but with a scattering of other nationalities (p. 471). By Saudi standards, Americans live a much more comfortable life than one might expect. Furthermore, it is 18 interesting to note that the Americans remain largely separated from the local population in Dhahran, Ras Tanura and Abqaiq. In each of these cities, Kimball identifies four distinctive types of residential areas: First, no Westerner would have difficulty in ident- ifying the senior staff "camp" as a settle- ment built by Americans in our southwestern tradition of town planning (p. 471). It is an area of single-story dwellings for employees and their families. Each house is surrounded by a small, grassed yard, usually enclosed by a hedge. There are other plantings, including flowering shrubs, low desert trees, and in some instances flower gardens. Only in Dhahran is there a variation on the grid pattern of streets and walks. Here one finds a few curving streets and irregularly shaped blocks. Streets are paved and frequently curbed, and have night lighting. There are only slight variations between the recreational facil— ities of each senior staff camp. Each one possesses an auditorium that is also used as a movie theatre and for amateur productions; a luxurious club with snack bar, bowling alleys, library, dining room, lounge, and terrace for dancing and social gatherings. The two senior staff camps of Dhahran and Abqaiq have swimming pools, while Ras Tanura residents may use an immense beach on the Gulf. In addition, each senior staff camp possesses new modern elementary junior high school buildings that 19 provide facilities for instruction through the ninth grade. There is a well-staffed and well-equipped hos— pital in Dhahran which serves all employees; there are medical clinics in the other two cities. One factor of 'American community life that is conspicuously absent is the church building. ‘Furthermore, in describing the variation in size and construction of habitations, Kimball adds that the upper echelons of the bureaucracy occupy the larger and most elaborate residences. Lesser employees live in more modest quarters. The more fortunate single men and women live in multiple-roomed modern house-type buildings. The "bachelors," a term applied to all single men including those with families in the United States, may live in barrack-type structures which, however, have many conveniences. Be- cause of a shortage of family—type housing, a system of assignment based primarily on seniority has been developed (p. 472). Second is the "intermediate" camp which houses those employees who are rated in the personnel system as primarily semiskilled and nonsupervisory. The bulk of these are other "nationals"; that is, they have been recruited from most countries of the Middle East and some from Africa and the Mediterranean. They include Indians, Pakistanis, Sudanese, Adenese, Palestinians, Lebanese, Italians, etc. The barrack-type dwellings are permanent concrete or cement—block structures. Third is the camp for "general" or "Saudi" employees, which is of similar construction and arrange- ment as the intermediate camp. It has modest recreational 20 facilities, a market for buying foodstuffs and other items, and one or more mosques. It is an area which is constructed to house only bachelors. The last residential area is the one that was neither planned nor welcomed. To Western eyes "it is reminiscent of the Hoovervilles of Depression days." Here the employees, mostly Saudis, may bring their families. Each of the above-mentioned residential areas is separated from the other by either space or some type of barrier. The divisions correspond closely with the structure of the bureaucratic hierarchy and ethnic divisions among the employees, a correspondence which gives emphasis to the social divisions within the whole. Moreover, Kimball points out that their internal divisions reflect the bureaucratic structure of an American corporation, divisions that are sharply accentuated by the concidence of status levels and national origin. Only in the fringe natural community of the Arabs has there been thus far an escape from planned arrangement. . . . It is also, however, a position that imposes a high degree of cultural isolation, some uncer- tain restrictions upon the American behavior, and contributes to an omnipresent sense of precar- iousness (p. 473). The pattern that emerges from the numerous studies that began appearing in the early 19503 with regard to the major problems faced by Americans abroad are: 1. Americans abroad can be classified as businesspeople, technical experts, missionaries, students and scholars, tourists and transit passengers. 21 , 2. The stress experienced and adjustments effect- ed by people in these categories are dependent upon the duration of their stay and the professions in which they are engaged. 3. The stress experienced, adjustments effected, and overall attitudinal change reflected at the end of the experience is closely related to the age of the American living abroad, his or her sex and role in the foreign country, and the satisfaction derived from the foreign assignment. 4. Wives of Americans with foreign assignments face problems in the areas of health, daily homemaking routines, social adjustment, and education of their children. 5. Unfamiliar religious orders and sociocultural systems in the host countries account for a share of the stress the Americans face abroad. 6. The limited knowledge of the native language is a further handicap often standing in the way of promotion for Americans abroad and sets them apart from the indigenous peoples. 7. Those American employees abroad joining larger companies such as Aramco are not allowed free choice in selecting their residential housing. Instead, they are assigned to live in a camp—type settlement and are totally separated from the indigenous population. 22 Need for the Study Overseas Americans may at first appear to be a minor transfer of population, both in terms of the numbers involved and the surface settlement areas. If examined within a scientific framework, their decision to live abroad may appear as just one of the many popula— tion movements which have dotted the history of humanity since time began. In fact, living abroad presents con- siderations which go far beyond the delight of eating new foods and sharing folkways, interesting though these may be. When living abroad, Americans (and other nationality groups) face the reality of interacting in a new and different spatial setting. What has been done in regard to research dealing with the American population living abroad is a concen- tration of studies tackling the problems of cultural adjustment and the personal disruption which often occur within individuals as a result of a clash of cultures. With the exception of Kimball's 1956 study, there is far less research dealing with the problem of how overseas Americans manage to select their residential housing and decide where to live within the territorial limit of an alien city. In addition, whereas a substantial body of research has analyzed the spatial distribution of a par- ticular national or ethnic group in one location-—e.g., Asians in Nairobi (Tiwari, 1969), Pakistanians in Dundee 23 (Jones and Davenport, 1972), Chinese and Germans in Sydney (Wolforth, 1974), Puerto Ricans in New York (Rollwagen, 1975), Philippinos and Indians in Detroit (Carlson, 1975), Dutch people in Auckland (Trlin, 1975), Arabs in Detroit (Siryani, 1977), Armenians in Montreal (Chichekian, 1977), Italians in Bedford (King & King, 1977), and Russians in Sacramento (Hardwick, 1979)-- it is hard to justify the lack of interest, particularly among geographers, in studying the residential patterns and the selection of residential housing of overseas Americans in Jeddah or in any other city. It is earnestly hoped that this study will increase the level of our understanding of how Americans, who possess common attributes whether existing intrinsically or having been assigned by the prevailing society, manage to live where they do in Jeddah City. Statement of the Problem Of all the challenges and problems that face mankind in today's life, there are few that are so intractable, yet affect so immediately the daily life of a great many people, as the problem of where to select a residential dwelling within the territorial limits of an alien city. This study examines the spatial distrib- ution and important factors responsible for the creation of the residential pattern of the American population living in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia. 24 Objectives of the Study The primary objectives of this study are three— fold: 1. to determine the current geographic distrib- ution of the American population in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia; 2. to identify the variables affecting the decision-making process as to the residential site selection; and 3. to assess the general characteristics of the residential patterns of the American population living in a largely alien sociocultural environment. In light of these objectives, the specific questions that merit investigation are: Why does the American population of Jeddah City live where it does, and not in some other areas? What are the choicest, most desirable residential locations among the American population in Jeddah City? Are there certain districts --inner, middle, or peripheral-~within Jeddah City which have a higher concentration of Americans? What are the residential characteristics that are regarded as impor— tant bythe Americans in Jeddah City? Hypotheses 1. In Jeddah City, there is a correlation between the locations of Americans' residences and areas of low population density. 2., In Jeddah the locations of Americans' 25 City, there is a correlation between residences and areas with high percentages of Europeans in residence. 3. In Jeddah between the locations with high percentages ' 4. In Jeddah the locations of Americans' City, there is a correlation of Americans' residences and areas of residents with high incomes. City, there is a correlation between residences and areas where a high percentage of residents have completed high levels of education. 5. In Jeddah between the locations with high percentages 6. In Jeddah between the locations where low percentages Arabic dwellings. 7. In Jeddah between the locations with high percentages 8. In Jeddah between the locations City, there is a correlation of Americans' residences and areas of newly-constructed dwellings. City, there is a correlation of Americans' residences and areas of residents live in traditional City, there is a correlation of Americans' dwellings and areas of highly valued housing units. City, there is a correlation of Americans' residences and areas where high percentages of the dwellings have high rental rates. 9. In Jeddah between the locations where low percentages City, there is a correlation of Americans' residences and areas of the housing units are 26 substandard. 10. In Jeddah City, there is a correlation between the locations of Americans' residences and areas which are relatively distant from the city's center. The hypotheses are related to where the Americans live in Jeddah City. The data to be examined with regard to these people's reasons for selection of present residences should reveal the importance of certain dwelling and housing characteristics, as well as of a number of accessibility variables, in the residential location decision-making process. Although it cannot be hypothesized that the same housing characteristics are equally important to all decision makers, three research questions have been raised to assist in clarifying why Americans in Jeddah City selected their present residen- ces. These questions are: 1. What residential characteristics are considered important to most Americans? 2. What is the rank order of these character- istics? 3. How are these characteristics traded off? To identify these housing characteristics, each American respondent in the survey conducted for the present study was asked how important 30 different factors had been in the initial selection of the person's present dwelling.. Each household head was allowed three 27 degrees of response: very important, moderately import- ant, and not important. For the purpose of analysis, the respondents' answers were grouped in tabular form, and the absolute and relative frequencies were recorded. To determine how well the Americans' selection of their residential housing in Jeddah City has worked out for them, respondents were asked several questions to elicit information regarding their satisfaction with the choice made. The word satisfaction was not defined for the respondents, with a view to letting them focus on their feelings rather than the definition of the word satisfaction. The data obtained from the questionnaire were converted to tabular form, and a series of chi- square (x2) tests of significance were administered to test the following hypotheses: H There is no significant difference between OA' different age groups of Americans in Jeddah City with regard to satisfaction with residential housing. HO : There is no significant difference between B . American respondents who have different levels of edu- cation with regard to satisfaction with their residential housing. H0 : There is no significant difference between C American respondents who have different income levels with regard to satisfaction with their residential housing. Ho : There is no significant difference between D 28 American respondents who are in different types of occu- pations with regard to satisfaction with their residen- tial housing. HOE: There is no significant difference between American respondents who have lived in Jeddah City for different periods of time with regard to satisfaction with their residential housing. (Recent residents are those who have lived in Jeddah City fewer than five years, and older residents are those who have lived in Jeddah City ten or more years.) H0 : There is no significant difference between F heads of small-sized and large—sized households with regard to satisfaction with their residential housing. (A small—sized household has fewer than three persons living in the same residence, and a large-sized household has five or more persons living in the same residence.) Organization of the Study Including this introduction, the present disser- tation is divided into five chapters. Chapter II dis— cusses the extant theoretical and empirical works in residential patterns and factors relating to the selec- tion of residential housing. The means of data collec- tion, the sampling procedure, and a general description of the study area are outlined in Chapter III. Chapter IV discusses the principal findings regarding residential patterns and the factors relating to selection of res— idential housing by the American population in Jeddah 29 City. The last chapter summarizes the findings, pro- vides the conclusions, and points to prospect32knrfuture research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The majority of theoretical statements concerning the geographical distribution of any population groups in cities can be traced back, directly or indirectly, to such sources as the classical land use models of Burgess (1925) and Hoyt (1939), with a later extension by Harris and Ullman (1945); the preindustrial city model of Sjoberg (1960); and the social area and factorial ecology analysis of Shevky and Bell (1955), with later extensions by Berry and Horton (1970). The bases for these theoretical statements include two distinct but interrelated components: spatial and ecological. The spatial component can be equated with the geometric aspects of territorial occupancy in two-dimensional space, while the ecological component is more concerned with the relationships between the group and the attrib— utes of the environment. The degree of concentration of a population group in specific areas is seen as important among the geometric aspects of territorial occupancy. Of prime importance among the ecological 30 31 aspects are the factors differentiating the area of residence of the group from the rest of the city. Traditional Theories Early attempts to unravel urban residential patterns have emerged out of three "classical" theories, namely the concentric-ring theory of Burgess (1925), Hoyt's sector theory (1939), and the multiple-nuclei theory developed by Harris and Ullman (1945). The basic underlying objectives of these theories have always been to identify the key dimensions of the urban residen- tial structure and to describe the spatial patterns associated with them. Burgess (1925), in his model, assumed the existence of a fixed and inverse association between the neighborhood density and the average socioeconomic status of home seekers. He argues that population and housing form a falling gradient from the center of the city. The result is a "concentric" pattern of the .spatial distribution of home seekers exhibiting a fundamental preference for more spacious living environ- ments away from the crowded conditions found near the core of the city, as their real incomes increase. Home seekers with lower incomes eXhibit a preference for more central locations with respeCt to the major urban center of employment. The quality and cost of the houses, therefore, increase with distance from the center 32 and consequent decrease in residential density. The empirical basis for Burgess's hypothesis was largely rejected in the 19303 when Hoyt clearly dem- onstrated that the actual distribution of socioeconomic groups and the rental values of houses tend to vary by "sectors" rather than by concentric zones. With regard to these sectors, Herbert (1974) pointed out: The high-grade residential areas pre-empted the most desirable space and were powerful forces in the pattern of urban growth. Other grades of residential area were aligned around the high-grade areas, with the lowest-grade areas occupying the least desirable land, often adjacent to manufacturing districts (p. 72). Hoyt qualified his observation by stating that the high-grade areas would move toward amenity land along transport routes and towards the homes of leaders of the community. Unlike Burgess, he postulated that the fun- damental preference of home seekers is a social attrac— tion to prestigious or socially compatible neighbors and the accessibility to the employment areas forming a secondary order of preference. While possessing similarities in the way space can be organized into zones and sectors, the descriptions of the residential locational behavior found in the Burgess and Hoyt models suggest that home seekers are influenced in their choice of residential location by a variety of preferences. Moriarty (1974) summarizes these preferences as: 33 (1) a social accessibility preference to reside close to households of prestigious or compatible neighbors, (2) an employment accessibility pref- erence to reside close to job locations, (3) a life-style preference for a more spacious living environment, and (4) a segregation preference to reside close to households of similar racial or ethnic status (p. 450). The multiple—nuclei model, first presented by Mckenzie in 1933, is based on the observation that fre— quently there are a series of nuclei in the patterning of the urban land uses rather than a single central core, as in the Burgess and Hoyt models. The multiple-nuclei model's main distinctive contribution to the theory of residential distribution was its abandonment of the central business district as sole focal point, replacing it by a number of discrete nuclei to which individual land uses were geared (Herbert, 1974, p. 72). Elabor— ating on Mckenzie's concept, Harris and Ullman (1945) observe that these nuclei are distinct centers as origins of metropolitan areas. The centers have perished as growth has continued between them, and have sometimes emerged as new centers, as urbanization has proceeded. This explains the presence of important sub-centers subsidiary to and competing with the central business district of modern cities. These sub-centers, or nuclei, are described by Chapin (1966) as follows: The central business district clearly serves as one nucleus. Others may appear in the form of industrial or wholesaling centers where specialized economic activities of 34 similar or complementing character have grav- itated together. Still others may emerge in the guise of a major outlying retail center or a university center. Finally, the suburban center and the more distant satellite community for commuters are mentioned as nuclei to be recognized in this conception of the urban land use configuration (p. 19). These sub-centers, it is argued, represent an important modification of Burgess's concentric-zone theory rather than an alternative or a refutation, as one would expect the concentric rings to form around each nucleus. However, the three theoretical models have been criticized by an array of writers, mainly on the grounds that they have failed to explain, independently, spatial residential differentiation (Davie, 1938; Redwin, 1961; Timms, 1971). Most of the criticism is directed against the fact that each of these models is, in its original form, a very poor representation of the spatial structure of a modern city. But the value of a theory does not consist in the slavish imitation of the reality on the ground; it lies in its ability to enhance our under- standing of a complicated phenomenon by means of sound simplification and generalization. On the whole, the three models are a fair representation, at least, of certain parts of the residential differentiation problem. The urban residential differentiation discussed here is characteristic principally of Western industrial cities. Though few cities in the world remain untouched by industrialization, it is useful to examine the patterns 35 of "preindustrial" cities to gain a better understanding of residential differentiation. The Preindustrial Model Basing his study on a large body of data, Sjoberg (1960, p. 5) argues that "preindustrial cities everywhere display strikingly similar social and eco- logical structures, not necessarily in specific cultural content, but certainly in basic form." According to Sjoberg, the elite of a city reside at the center, while "the disadvantaged members of the city fan out toward the periphery, with the very poorest and the outcasts living in the suburbs, the farthest removed from the center." That is, the wealthy population clusters into one segment of the original town and the have-nots build their cottages in the remaining areas. The attrac- tion of the original core, Sjoberg explains, is a product of both choice and constraint. Prominent political, religious, and economic institutions are situated in the city center, conferring upon it a prestige unrivaled by other quarters. The elite choose central homes not only because they are socially desirable but also because they provide easy access to the central institutions in which their power is based. The major features characterizing preindustrial Middle Eastern cities are summarized by Costello (1977) as the following: the citadel, the palace, the mosque— 36 bazaar complex, and courtyard houses of seVeral stories. In addition, Khan (1982) has suggested that the typical preindustrial Arab city would include: clearly defined boundaries; a small gateway; narrow, winding street patterns; organization based on a hierarchy of spaces; a mosque as a central feature, a souk; residential quarters; and caravanserais. ' Before the demolition of its old wall, Jeddah City was circular in layout, with a circumference of approximately one kilometer, and was surrounded by a wall which contained five gates (Figure 2). Initially, the residential areas in Jeddah City were studded with housing for the nobles, merchants, and otherelites, mainly at the center of the city. The common people and the transient population lived in the middle parts of the city. What made the old town of Jeddah significantly different from many of the other preindustrial cities was a lack of central space allocated to governmental and religious institutions. Instead, the core of the old town emerged around the central souk, surrounded by a few great family houses and the general residential quarters (Khan, 1982, p. 195). Expansion of the res- idential districts was discouraged, mainly because of the physical limitation imposed by the wall. Emergence of new residential areas began in a 37 nuwavs AL-BAHR . I I a . '.L HUWAYS AL-BAHH e ... e ‘ e 20 e‘ ’ 4 3:333; “(‘94 HANGAR :‘f‘:::' .m.. 0* “‘33 Iv 19 .3, 04° _AL-KANDARAH .e I . ’P .. . 4* " ‘ li‘ia {’ ‘ 1 e Eve’s Tomb ’ . 9 C r ""5” v '1 // O r; é B A R R A C K 8 2. 9. I 9 O» I I 1 1 1 P R I 3 O N 13 . 9 u 5 'I'I'2'1'2'1'fi'2‘1‘f‘f'fi'fi'fii‘tfi'fi:i:::::::::::I:2:: ".133. G .1 0 9‘ 'A'fi'i'fi'fi'fi‘IiVI‘fi'I'I'I'I‘fi'fi‘fi'i'fii‘fi'fi'fi' 17 a O1 VIAVAVA‘AWA'A'A'A'AVA'A'A'LvAvAvA—AvA'A'A'IA'A'A'AV 1 WW vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 2 fit} .3 . C U 3 T O U 3 / C .— / a $ let‘n 1W 4 ‘ ' _'~ "'-~fl"~flfli'~' e 2 m 3 W. 10 Mlar Hotel Figure (2) Plan of Jed C'i.ufl"'-flfll'-hflfllv§ 2:: %;W‘;\‘, ‘:.€\u“ " ' Bab Sharit 3:322322:3323:33332333333335:2: we», 3:222:22:1:13:21:2:2:2:::1:i:2:2:1:2:1 rug-y _A_A.A.A_A_~_A.A_A.A.AVA.A.A ................ A. A I a. II I.- 8 "" NAKATU European Cemetery J Y: British Location 11 House of H. St. John B. Philby 2 Police 12 Al-Falah School 3 ltalian Consular Chancery 13 Pasha Mosque 4 lta_ilan Location 14 Municipality 5 British Consulate 15 Akash Mosque a Dutch Location 18 Post Office 7 House of Calll. Ar. Standard 17 Bob al-Bunt Oil 00. employees 18 Mlmar Mosque 8 Oaimaqamat 19 House 01 the Amir ai-Bahr O Emotion Leoation 20 House 01 the Saudi Ar. Mining Syndicate employees Source: Analo Pesco. Jeddah, Portrait of An Arabian Cit!I 1978 dahln 1938 38 big way in 1947, the year when the city's wall was demolished. In the 19503, the number and size of res— idential districts increased notably. This increase was later transformed by two factors--modern technology, and the influx of people from different cultures as a direct result of the exponential increase in oil revenues. Technological improvements in transportation have led to a rapid inversion of the residential pattern and, hence, the traditional geographical distribution of social classes as asserted by Sjoberg has changed under the impact of transportation innovation. In other words, the residential pattern changed away from that charac- terizing Sjoberg's theoretical preindustrial city. The increase in population, together with demands for a better standard of housing, led to substantial new construction outside the central area. Much social and economic disruption occurred when houses were torn down for roads and the residents were relocated into the newer districts. It should be pointed out that some residents still cling to their ancestral homes in the original city for sentimental reasons. The vast majority, however, were widely scattered across the city, and this caused a major shift in the center of the city. Newer districts began to be filled with residential houses of different status groups for several reasons, among which are: (a) a shortage of space at the city's center; . 39 (b) improvements in the transportation system; (c) heavy immigration; and (d) government action in recognition of the severe shortage of housing, along with the goal of establishment of "a home for every citizen." The govern- ment approached the problem with three simultaneous solutions: the construction of the Jeddah Rush Housing Project; loans for home building; and outright grants of land. Thus, beginning in the early 19703, a large number of residential areas have sprung up along the major arterial roads and highways.‘ In the process, as urban sprawl moved outward to the periphery, a major residential shift away from the center became inevitable. At present, most of the residential districts on the periphery belong to the middle- and upper-income groups; the majority of the poorest have not shown much inclination to inhabit the peripheral areas. Residential Patterns: The Study of Variability One of the major domains of geographic research is the study of spatial variation of a phenomenon. The realization that urban residential pattern is a multi- dimensional phenomenon has brought about more sophis- ticated approaches to the study of its geographic expression. The factorial-ecology approach posits the existence of a multidimensional pattern of variations among residential areas in terms of economic, social, 40 demographic,_and housing characteristics. This pattern is comprised of three basic dimensions: the socio- economic status, the family status or stage in the life- cycle, and the ethnic status (Lansing & Morgan, 1955; Lansing & Kish, 1957; Butler et al., 1969). (These three dimensions were first propounded by Shevky and Bell, 1955, as part of a more general deductive model of social change known as social area analysis theory.) The social-area analysis provides one an obvious approach to a definition of "objective social space." Social spaces originally denoted groupings of census tracts which displayed a degree of homogeneity in terms of socio-demographic characteristics (Shevky & Bell, 1955). Rees (1979) describes the approach of social area analysis as a technique for constructing indexes that sum- marize the characteristics of small areas within cities. The indexes were computed for each census tract in the city and the variation among tracts in social area scores was exam- ined. The indexes were regarded by their authors as summarizing the social variation among neighborhoods in American cities (p. 6). This method of index construction was criticized on the" grounds that the measures employed to index each construct were assumed, without careful testing, to be highly associated with each other and to be dissociated with measures used to index other constructs (Rees, 1979). The danger here is that the researchers may be guilty of promulgating a self-fulfilling prophecy if the data 41 collected reflect only the three Shevky dimensions. Another point of criticism was proposed by Hawley and Duncan (1957): Looking suspiciously like an ex post facto rationalization for their choices of indexes . . one searches in vain among these materials for a statement explaining why residential areas should differ one from the other or be internally homogeneous (pp. 339—40). Here, Hawley and Duncan (1957) see little justification for social—area analysis, except as a classificatory device, a much more limited function than its originators would accept. The difference between social-area analysis and the factorial-ecology approach is in the data input: While social-area analysis is theoretical, factorial~ ecology utilizes a wider range of variables in the input, including the social area analysis variables. Another major difference is described by Herbert (1974): The social area analysts have been constrated with urban ecologists in that they begin with a theory of social differentiation, identify- ing variations in social space which then translated into geographical space. By con— trast, urban ecologists have always sought initially to identify natural areas as geograph— ical territories and to study them in terms of their social characteristics (p. 139). The interpretation of the social area analysis theory and the spatial framework of the classic models was subsequently adopted by geographers and other social scientists in numerous factorial ecological studies. The application of factorial ecology as a model of a residential 42 variation has confirmed the postulate of multi-dimension- ality and amplified its spatial expression. That is, the ecological domain of an urban area is structureh, and then similar cells are grouped to yield a "hierar- chical typology" of residential structure. The central stimulus of factorial ecology has been to determine the inter-areal variation of the principal axes of residen— tial differentiation. The actual nature of factorial ecology analysis, as a technique, is, in detail, highly abstracted and mathematical. In concept, however, it provides a way in which the appearance of a number of interrelated variables in the urban area can be reduced to a more limited number of independent factors. For example, fifty variables were factor-analyzed for the urban region of Chicago, with 147 municipalities inhab- ited by 2,500 people (Berry & Horton, 1970). This analysis found that a large proportion of the differ- ences between neighborhoods in the city could be explained on the basis of only ten independent or nearly independent factors related to social, economic, and ethnic character- istics. Similar factor analyses provide a powerful means of organizing large masses of data and identifying underlying patterns of interrelation among variables (Schmid & Tagashira, 1964; Brown & Horton, 1970; Herbert, 1974; and Rees, 1979). In the successive international application of 43 factorial ecology, Rees (1971) indicates that factor analysis has been employed as an explanatory model in a gradually expanding range of cross-cultural investigations. However, not in common with overseas studies, factorial ecologies of the North American urban areas suggest three major dimensions of residential differentiation, namely: (a) "family status" (or "stage in life cycle"); (b) "socioeconomic status" (or "social rank"); and (c) a third dimension reflecting the role of "ethnicity" or "minority groups." Outside North America, studies of factorial ecology have been characterized by Trlin (1977) as being based on the question: Do similar dimensions and associated spatial patterns £§imilar, that is, to those of the host popu ationl underlie the intra-urban residential dis ribution of immigrant and indigenous ethnic and racial minorities? (p. 152) ‘ The evidence from non-North American cities reveals some points of contrast. For example, an ex- plicit "ethnic status" factor has not been found outside the North American cities; the factor is usually descrip— tive of a "relatively deprived" population, especially in terms of its access to the available resources (Bowman & Hosking, 1971; Timms, 1971; Herbert, 1974). This may be because of the smaller number of persons in the ethnic categories in non-North American cities in com- parison with those in North America. Thus, to generalize the evidence of factorial ecologies, Herbert (1974, p. 44 174) suggests that "any comparison of results from studies in factorial ecology from various parts of the world rests upon the assumption that findings from var- ious inputs are representative of societal contrasts and this expression in the spatial structure of cities." A groWing body of research has provided much of the information required for an understanding of im- migrant residential patterns.‘ However, Trlin (1976) indicates that the value and effectiveness of this research has been limited by two shortcomings: the uncoordinated, ad hoc manner in which the research has been conducted, and the absence of any real attempt to evaluate and integrate the results obtained from the studies conducted within the conceptual frameworks of various academic disciplines (Trlin, 1976, p. 80). Berry and Rees (1969) provide a basis for an "integrated" model of residential pattern by specifying how the prin- cipal findings of factorial-ecological studies can be linked with individual household data. But, given the diversity of approaches and sometimes narrow viewpoints employed by researchers, only a few studies have managed to integrate the factors which are most often considered separately in the literature. For eXample, Duncan (1967) has managed to integrate some of the historical, phys- ical, economic, and sociological factors contributing to the contemporary residential pattern. In other words, a substantial number of factors remains unexplained, and often enough, they provide only a partial explanation of 45 the urban residential pattern. Despite this limitation, findings generated via the ecological apprOach are use— ful, chiefly as a foundation on which to build models in search of explanations as to how and why residential patterns come about. Residential Patterns Economic Considerations In some respects, quite different from the ap— proaches discussed so far, the economic approach advances the conceptualization of urban residential pattern in the tradition of economic theory. The fundamentals of this approach remain virtually the monopolistic preserve of the economists who have long been interested in land rent and land value, as the earlier work of, for example, Von Thunen (1826), Hurd (1903), and Haig (1926) showed. That is, the spatial-economic basis of residential location has been developed by spatially conscious economists rather than economics-oriented geographers. This is due to the fact that economists have had a clearer conception than have other social scientists of the systematic nature of the residential patterns which figure typically in their market demand and supply framework. Implicit in the economic approach to residential location is the assumption that the selection of a res- idential site by a household is influenced by its place of employment. That is, it stipulates residential choice 46 as being the outcome of a trade—off between price, space, and accessibility (Alonso, 1964; Muth, 1969), based on the assumption that the human is a "rational economic being." First, they postulate that the people selecting residential locations consciously weigh economic factors when deciding where to live. They then assume an urban residential "rent surface" that declines as distance from a center of employment (in most cases, the central bus— iness districts) increases. Their third assumption is that transport costs increase as the distance between the place of work and the place of residence increases. Finally, Alonso (1964) and Muth (1969) point out that there is only one constraint, that of the household bud- get, on household actions. Although their models contain no specific house type or locational preferences on the part of a household, Alonso and Muth imply that choice rather than constraint is the dominant factor. Directing his attention mainly to the residential development, Alonso (1964) has proposed an indifference surface for individual households in examining level of satisfaction, and has linked together consumer prefer- ences, transportation costs to households, prices ofland, and quantities of space demanded. Alonso summarizes his conclusions in the following words: The Philadelphia data show the usual regular- ities: (1) price decreases with distance from the center; (2) density decreases with distance 47 from the center, or in other words, lot-size in- creases with distance from the center; (3) site size increases with income; and (4) distance from the center increases with income (Alonso, 1964, p. 126). Furthermore, Alonso uses "bid price curves" as a basis for distributing residential users to the selected sites. In describing these curves, Chapin (1966) states: Beginning at the center of the city, land is "put up for bid," and on the basis of these curves the bid for the most central site is compared to the next preferred alternative, with this preferred alternative being the mar- ginal combination of price and location for that particular use. 0n the basis of the steepest bid price curve, the highest bidder takes the most central site; the next highest bidder corresponding to the second steepest curve takes the next most central site still available; and so on (p. 89). ". This means that the residential location decision is a function of the area of the land in which the unit is located and the distance from the center of the city. The spatial distribution of the density of the residen- tial areas in the urban centers involves the density- gradient concept, with the gradient falling from the center of the city down to the outskirts. The effect of the workplace location in terms of its impact on gross housing price has also been suggested. In his formulation, Straszheim (1973) views the gross price of any given housing type in any particular residen- tial area or zone as the sum of the prices of that house type in that zone plus the transportation costs between that zone and a household's workplace. A limitation to 48 this approach lies in the fact that it overlooks the time factor. In this regard, Evans (1973), in his work on residential location, includes an additional temporal constraint in his "basic utility maximization" model, while still neglecting the essential trade-off between journey—to-work costs and housing consumption as central to this model. The economic approach to residential patterns, with its assumptions, has been severely criticized. Senior (1977) points out: Monocentric, uniform cit assumptions are common for example, but others fpther economic models] include the emphasis on a long-run static equil- ibrium which allows the durability and short-run flexibility of housing supply to be ignored and attention to be focused on the spatial unique- ness of housing and the consequent price varia- tion by location. The whole topic of residential mobility--the decision to move as opposed to the residential choice decision--is neglected. In addition externality effects in the housing market are dismissed; individual decision making is assumed independent of decisions by other con- sumers (p. 285). . Furthermore, since the 19603, geography has attempted to overcome some of the limitations of the economic-location theory by bringing behavioral models to the fore. As Olsson (1969, p. 23) points out, "large-scale data with small variance has been used as the basis for inferring small—scale behavior with large variance." This, as Stegman (1969) indicates, is evidenced by the confusion over the importance individual decision makers place on journeying to work when choosing a residence. 49 The incompleteness of the economic approach re- sults from assumptions inconsistent with the realities of human nature and behavior. The approach incorporates the assumptions of perfect information, rationality, and “optimization of utility. In this regard, Burnett (1976, pp. 29-30) asserts that people possess perfect informa- tion about the external world and use this information correctly and in identical ways, and that people are identically motivated to maximize utility. This argument assumes that there are mental processes which accurately evaluate the utility of residential space, and that decision makers trade off accessibility and site-space utility in choosing an "optimal dwelling." But in the search process of selecting a residential location, infor- mation regarding vacancies is biased. The spatially biased information is inherent in the concepts of action, activity, awareness, and search space, and has a direc- tional bias hiintra-urban mobility. Behavioral geographers, however, have retained several "economic-man" assumptions. The notion of "utility" is often called by them "place utility," the value attached to a configuration of attributes of a residential unit or location (Brown & Longbrake, 1970; Gustavus & Brown, 1977; Leiber, 1978). The behavioral decision maker, like the rational economic person, is able to assign utility values to criterion variables-- the values that are subjectively defined and are likely 50 to vary from person to person. Other geographers have recognized the real merit of the normative economic approach in that it provides a set of useful assumptions for setting up an "ideal" against which the "actual" may be gauged. For example, Gould (1976, p. 84) points out that "when actual behavior falls short of the normative expectations, the researcher is . . . in a position to ask sensible questions about information, motivation, and evaluation, and the varying degrees to which these may be important in a particular case of study." Behavioral Considerations In c0ntrast to the other approaches, several geographers have called for a new emphasis on the study of human variables in locational analysis (Pred, 1967, 1969; Harvey, 1969; Olssen, 1969; Claus & Claus, 1971). The aim of the behavioral approach is to discover how people cognitively define areas and places, including the criteria they use. According to Herbert and Johnston (1978), the major dimensions 0f the behavioral approach revolve around concepts like "reputation," "responsibil- ity," "security,” "beauty," and "harmony with nature." The proponents of the behavioral approach to the study of residential differentiation point out that human beings act in keeping with their perception and subjec- tive interpretation of the environment. In contrast to the advocates of the economic approach, the prOponents 51 of the behavioral approach argue that people do not possess perfect information and do not always find the optimal solution to a problem. Rather, they argue, people make "satisfactory decisions" which meet "levels of aspiration." Along these lines, Wolpert (1964) argues that the decision maker merely classifies the var— ious alternatives in his subjective environ- ment as to their expected outcomes, whether satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the el- ements of the set of satisfactory outcomes can be ranked, then the least satisfactory outcomes of this set may be referred to as the level-of—aspiration ad0pted by the de- cision maker for that problem. His search is complete and the action is taken. The theory suggests that aspiration levels tend to ad- just to the attainable, to past achievement levels, and to levels achieved by other in- dividuals with whom he compares himself (p. 545). More recent research by geographers makes refer- ence to various new concepts designed to assist in the explanation of the dweller's decision to select a res- idential location. The concept of "place utility" has been defined by Wolpert (1965) as "the net composite of utilities which are derived from the individual's in— _ tegration at some position in space," and by Simmons (1968) as "a measure of attractiveness or unattractive- ness of an area, relative to alternative locations, as perceived by the individual decision maker." The theoret- ical structure suggested by the place-utility paradigm is described by Brown and Longbrake (1970) in the following quotation: 52 To measure place utility both the aspirations of the household in terms of residential en-. vironment and the environment of its present residence(s) should be considered. Environ- ment in this context includes the neighbor- hood, dwelling unit, the site on which it is located, and the relative location of dwelling unit and neighborhood vis-é-vis other nodes in the urban area. Since the same set of vari- ables may be seen as describing both household aspirations and dwelling units (residential sites), maximizing place utility may be oper- ationally viewed as the outcome of matching household aspiration profiles with dwelling unit profiles on each variable (p. 370). That is to say that the "place utility" measures an individual's level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a given location, and that the individual household can be considered to be under the influence of two sets of forces. One is internal, in that it is generated by the household itself and defined in terms of its own needs and expectations; the other is external and defined by the characteristics of the locale. Residential satisfaction is another approach considered in the place-utility paradigm. What disting- uishes this approach from the other behavioral approaches is its emphasis on the characteristics and aspirations of the household, its members' social bonds to other individuals, and their "attachment" to jobs, neighborhood- based organizations, and services. Again, this approach emphasizes the relationship between people's behavior and their residential environment in terms of how that environment is perceived and subjectively interpreted, 53 not in terms of an external "objective" environment. Many studies have examined the factors influenc- ing people's satisfaction or lack of satisfaction with residential housing. Rent and Rent (1978) list struc- . tural aspects of the housing unit, previous housing experience, degree of integration or social participation in society, housing aspirations, and occupants' social- psychological perspective toward society as being among the factors affecting residential satisfaction. Other studies focus on the possible influences of social— system characteristics on people's relative satisfaction with their residential housing. Onibokun (1976) argues that factors such as the socioeconomic status, a stage in the life cycle, the degree of social interaction, the lifestyle and the self-conceived image determine or strongly influence people's levels of satisfaction with their dwellings. This means that by analyzing satis- faction, the factors leading to it, and the factors that determine its degree, one can better delineate the individual's values and preferences regarding residential housing. In the context of studying residential differen- tiation, geographic research using the behavioral approach presupposes that an individual who chooses a particular spatial alternative reveals a preference for that alter- native and a rejection of the other available alternatives 54 (Rushton, 1970; Timmermans, 1981). That is, the basic underlying assumption is that an individual reveals a preference for the alternative he or she patronizes. Rushton (1970) justifies the preference paradigm on the ground that to say that choice is made consistent with a preference structure is simply to assert that, before the particular opportunities from which choice must be made are encountered, a prefer— ence ordering of all the conceivable oppor- tunities that might be encountered exists in the mind of the chooser. If such an ordering did not exist, a real possibility would exist that the particular set of opportunities confronting the chooser might contain two or more opportun- ities that are not ranked in his mind, thus making choice impossible (p. 147). This suggests that decisions regarding the selection of a residence are influenced by preference systems, and before people act as they match environments, images and other cognitive schemata. The Decision-Makipg Process and the Selection of Residential Housing The concept of urban housing selection is old: Aristotle pointed out that people stay in the city to live a good life (Rapopart, 1977, p. 82). The problem is that it is not easy to define what constitutes "a good life" and what its environmental correlates are. A broad objective like "a good life" provides no insight into what alternatives may be worth pursuing. It does, however, make for a useful starting point for specify- ing detailed attributes in more operational terms. For 55 example, when a would-be residence searcher looks for a house, he may regard "spaciousness of dwelling" and "social homogeneity" as his two housing objectives. For each of these objectives the searcher might consider how well various alternatives meet his objectives. Once the attributes are identified, their magnitudes can be represented as a vector, measuring the degree to which they satisfy the overall objectives. The spaciousness of dwelling may be represented by such an attribute as the "size of rooms" and provide a scale for measuring the degree to which it meets his or her requirements. It is very likely that the demand for these at- tributes may be valid even if the home-seeker insists on living in a particular neighborhood or residential dis- trict. In fact, when we think of where to live in a city, we have to think not only of the dwelling with pre— ferred specification, but also of the setting of the house and of the services, facilities, and structures which support and complement the individual needs and makeup of the residential environment. This requires an ordering of concepts in evaluating the area in which to live and reflects a personal taste which, though unique to each individual, partakes of the commonly sought-after requisitions and constraints, which can be identified as exhibiting recognizable patterns. The selection of a residential location is a key 56 problem area for research in social science. The concern for this problem has received much greater attention from geographers and other spatially oriented social sci- entists, for a person's location and its immediate res- idential environment constitute an important stimulus to a wide variety of behaviors, ranging from the socializa- tion of children to the development of consumption sys- tems which are complementary to the location of the home. Thus, choosing an appropriate residential location is a very important and crucial decision, for it may well be a wrong decision in terms of proximity, preference, value, or may be incorrectly related to other elements in the spatial and sociocultural systems of the city. Also, when a preferred environment cannot be selected, people's life is affected by having to adopt, having to reduce incongruencies and having to give up certain activities which become too difficult (Rapoport, 1977, p. 83). Within the framework of human uniqueness and impossibility to replicate any set of circumstances in their entirety, research studies have identified a broad pattern involved in a search for a residence. When an individual household is either forced by circumstances to seek a new home or decides on its own to move to a new place, it is found that such specific variables as family life styles, economic considerations, accessibility to 57 places of interest, locational features, social implica- tions, and the quality of the neighborhood and environ- ment play an important role in the selection of homes. Furthermore, these variables are so closely interlinked that a slight change in one may significantly alter the form and nature of the transaction. This suggests that when a would-be residence seeker looks for a house, he or she has a set of criteria in mind against which the residence offered for purchase or rent is measured and compared, andthat some assumptions do enter into the determination of which dwelling the person will choose. On the other hand, there must be some constraints or restrictions on the range of choices. That is, while some pebple consciously assess a broad range of oppor- tunities available to them in deciding where to live, others find their search process constrained by the potentially restrictive factors. In this regard, Lee (1977, p. 41) suggests that "rather than viewing residential choice as a determinant force in housing, it may be more appro- priate to envisage a continuum from complete choices to complete constraints, and to identify each individual's position in the housing market in relation to this continuum." Within these two extremes, total freedom and total restriction of choice, it is clearly possible to postulate other constraints. The identification of these constraints is so 58 important that if constraints are overwhelmingly dominant, gfree choice becomes subordinate to or even irrelevant in the search for a dwelling. For example, the ability to gain access to housing resources might be tightly con- strained by "social barriers." Weisbrod and Vidal (1981) identified the following barriers which limit housing choice: racial/ethnic discrimination, discrimination against children, age distribution, discrimination be— cause of the source of income, discrimination because of the marital status, and sex discrimination. The practice of such discriminations might be a function of a deliberate policy of decision makers, reflected by discriminatory allocation procedures, and/or by the level of prejudice in society. Furthermore, some real- estate agents may justify their residential control practices on the grounds of social pressures exerted by neighborhood residents. Other real-estate agents, in the name of "protecting" the neighborhood, deliberately prevent minority groups from entering white neighbor- hoods. Such acts, as Barressi (1968, p. 60) declares, serve to add legitimacy and moral justification for the discriminatory practice of many real-estate agents, and reinforce their "gatekeeper" role. It must, however, be recognized that some thinkers have sharply disagreed with the view that a real—estate agent has such a major role in society. Bordessa (1978, p. 338) asserted that 59 "real estate agents have very little impact on the basic social geography of a city in a case such as Toronto when there is an absence of spatial discrimination against a particular group." Another major source of constraint is the inabil- ity of the people with limited incomes to afford some homes. Lee (1977, p. 42) indicates that "inability to pay high rents imposes severe constraints on a person's choicecnfaccommodation and residential location." This, in general, suggests that the rich have greater pur- chasing power than do the poor, and gives rise to the notion that locational options differ considerably for people of different incomes and social classes. Other studies have indicated that lower-status workers are expected to live in the inner city in order to avoid heavy commuting costs, and high-status workers tend to move to more spacious houses in peripheral areas. The more economically oriented of these studies, basically the work of Muth (1969) and Alonso (1964), further in— dicate that the more affluent in the city have a greater freedom in choosing where to live and can thus afford to trade accessibility for more space and to live in a more pleasing environment on the periphery of the urban area. The more disadvantaged classes, however, are restricted in the selection of the range of residential areas by the demand for proximity to central locations. 60 Concerning the limitations imposed on one by one's economic resources, Damm (1971, p. 137) points out that "one's choice of a residential location may be limited by economic factors. It may be limited by the urban historical legacy, by one's social class or even by one's wife's opinion on kitchens. It may be limited by the amount of time the major wage-earner is willing to devote to commuting to work, but within these limitations, there is usually a wide latitude for choice." This suggests that residential location is not a totally volitional process. There are a great many factors--per- sonal, social, and economic--that limit and determine the area into which one may or may not locate. The examples of constraints discussed in the fore- going passages will serve as a background to our examina- tion of the alternative available to an individual in search of a dwelling. Usually, by the time a person has come to the point of choosing a particular residence, the remaining alternatives are reordered according to their pr03pects to meet the objectives of the choice maker. This prioritizing is not an easy task. Rossi (1955) attempts to explicate this complexity by computing an "index of incompatibility." His results show that a house superior in its costs tends to be inferior in a large number of other ways. Houses which maximize outside appearances tend to be larger and locate in a neighbor- hood with good reputation. Accessible homes tend to be cheaper, smaller, of poor appear- ance, and located in neighborhoods with poorer reputations (p. 127). 61 In other words, the final decision is a very difficult one in that a particular alternative may be superior in. some requirements but deficient in others. This phenom- enon does not affect the dwelling seeker, either in specifying his or her detailed alternative needs or in pursuit of overall, broad, worthwhile requirements in a dwelling. Major Factors Influencing the Selection of Residential Housing The decision of where to live, and the concomit— ant actions taken by a multiplicity of individuals and groups, lead to the spatial pattern of residential growth and locational outcomes. Much empirical research has been directed to finding out what housing attributes consumers demand, as revealed by their actual choices. Rossi (1955) found that the price and floor space requirements, notably the number of bedrooms, are of paramount importance to house seekers. Weiss et a1. (1966) have determined that among the factors influ- encing the residential choice are several important locational considerations, including: 1. nearness to the place of work 2 nearness to shopping centers 3 nearness to the church 4. nearness to schools 5 the character of the individual site (trees and landscaping) 62 6. the size of the individual dwelling (number and arrangement of rooms)’ 7. social accessibility (nearness to friends and relatives) 8. the social environment (types of people living in the area) 9. services and facilities in the area (security) 10. financial considerations (resale value and monthly payments) In addition to these, among the other locational attributes often cited are: the urban or suburban "char— acter," the neighborhood, and accessibility. Simmons's (1968) review of evidence reveals that people disting- uish between urban and suburban locations and concludes that there is a strong preference for the latter, which is often associated with the desire for quiet, spacious- ness, and a "suburban image." Another factor that receives frequent mention in research on housing selection is accessibility. People take account of accessibility to various ac- tivity nodes, such as the sh0pping centers, downtown, medical facilities, parks and playgrounds, schools, religious institutions, and one's one relatives. This is especially important for people who are restricted and have limited personal mobility, such as the poor and the handicapped. Typically, most accessibility 63 measures employ some unit of distance, time, cost, and convenience between origins and destinations in an urban area. Yamada (1972), viewing accessibility from the perspective of the time consumed in getting to places, saw it as a part of the transportation cost. Most studies have identified accessibility to the workplace as the key variant in the selection of a residence, and view accessibility to other amenities as a tradeoff with the accessibility to the workplace (Alonso, 1964; Chapin, 1966; Muth, 1969). This import- ance of accessibility varies with the size of the city. Dahms (1971) points out that In very large cities, access to the workplace may be an important factor influencing the choice of residential location, but this con— sideration decreases in importance with decreasing city size. Obviously, no one will worry much about access to work if all jobs are within a mile or two. In large cities, high-speed public passenger transport systems and controlled—access motorways have reduced the importance of the distance between place of work and place of residence (p. 136). - Other studies have totally deemphasized the role of accessibility as a determinant of residential location. As Brown (1975, p. 38) indicates, "the alternatives to the workplace-based residence location models assume that a household's residence location choice can be explained on the basis of a household's tastes and preferences and neighborhood characteristics without regard to the place of work." Another factor that influences the selection 64 of a residence is distance. Distance can be easily. confused with acce33ibility, but accessibility and distance are two different concepts. An amenity or a place may be accessible, but it may be distant. At the same time, what is accessible in one situation may be inaccessible in another. In the traditional studies of residential location, distance from the central business district (CBD) was assumed to represent only acces— sibility and was thought of as a commodity with negative utility (Alonso, 1964; Muth, 1969). Other studies point to different aspects of distance as it relates to the selection of homes. Yamada (1972) explains that in most cities, environmental quality increases as distance increases. ,Hempel and Tucker (1979, p. 418) found that "the rank order of the distance attributes indicates clearly that distance to where the husband works was the primary consideration in residential choice. _Dis— tance to shopping facilities and schools were also considered by most home buyers to be of major import- ance." The importance of distance in the choice of a home is.summed up by Daly (1968, p. 14) when he in- dicates that "the choice of a home represents a balance between convenience to work and commerce, and rival disadvantages of freedom from industrial nuisance, bush surroundings, and in some cases, cheap land." He further indicates that a distinct proportion of high— income workers desires to be close to work, but the 65 proximity of householders to parents and relatives is not considered important by the New Castle respondents._ One of the most important factors that influence the selection of residential housing is economics. In this connection, Dahms (1971, p. 138) suggests that there is little doubt that there are absolute economic limits on one's choice of a home or neighborhood. Obviously, the possibilities of choice are greatest for those with the highest incomes and least for those with the lowest incomes or, as Weisbrod and Vidal (1981, p. 472) indicate, "It is frequently the case that, within a given housing stock, the choice of affordable housing units is more limited for those with low incomes." Furthermore, Dahms (1971) added that within the absolute economic limitations, the location-selection process will involve an assessment of the amount of money one is willing to spend on transportation to work and of a subjective rating of the prospective residence. Indeed, Stucker (1975) was interested in deriving an equation that attempted to predict the behavior of the home buyer with regard to the cost of transportation to and from work. He points out that the effect on the preferred residential site brought about by a change in transport cost is composed of two terms--an income effect and a substitution effect. The income effect of a decrease in transport costs may be viewed as an increase in families' disposable income. However far they were commuting previously, they now have some amount of surplus income that had been spent on commuting--and a portion 66 of this surplus income may be allocated to a change in residential location; that is, they may oncose a more desirable location with higher rent, or they may choose a location farther from their place of employment with higher commuting costs (Stucker, 1975, p. 130). With regard to the substitution effect, he points out that this effect operates in a slightly different manner, but with similar results. A change in transport costs typically includes a change in the cost per mile of commuting-- the marginal cost or price—-as well as a change in the fixed element of transport costs. This change in the marginal price of location affects the household's mar- ginal tradeoffs between location and other goods and may encourage them to make a further locational change (Stucker, 1975, p. 130). This purely economic consideration of tackling the prob- lem of residential selection was based on the assump- tion that each household, in choosing its location site, faces a three-way tradeoff between the site, the quality and quantity of housing located on the site, and a composite commodity representing all other goods and services (Stucker, 1975, p. 124). Other studies, espec- ially those by Schnare and Struyk (1976) and Ball and Kirwan (1977), usually assume that the selection of a dwelling unit depends on three sets of attributes: (a) accessibility to the urban center, (b) the physical attributes of the dwelling unit itself, and (c) the social and ecological amenities of the neighborhood. One of the most important factors emphasized in 67 the housing—selection process is the features of the dwelling itself. The choice of the specific features of dwelling units usually varies from person to person. Rossi (1955, p. 202) indicates that "some households will be mainly interested in a house within a partic- ular locality; others will be interested primarily in units of a particular size, and so on." Because of the degree to which neighborhood and dwelling character- istics are related, one could argue that families seeking specific types of houses will tend to gravitate to a limited number of subareas in a city. Such argu— ments are ba3ed on the assumption that better-quality houses are often associated with less density, an at- tractive physical environment, the age of the area, and the socioeconomic level of the population living in that area. To illustrate this point, an example is provided by the relationship between the city center and the social status of the residents. Cox (1968) indicates that in U.S. cities the center is seen as a dense, lower class, dark area of a low environmental quality and with a high crime rate. The concept of housing quality can be opera- tionally defined to include the physical measurements of dilapidation and plumbing facilities. It can also be supplemented by the measurement of the living space to identify crowding conditions, for example. Additional criteria can be added to ascertain the quality of 68 housing in particular and the quality of the residential area in general. Such criteria can include street con-- ditions, noise level, traffic congestion, street crime, trash, odors, etc. According to Peterson (1967), the qualities of the residential area most sought after by households include a low density, quiet and clean surroundings, and a suitable environment for bringing up children. A report issued by the Office of Manage- ment and Budget (1973) points to the quality of housing in a neighborhood perceptually measured by the per— centage of persons expressing overall satisfaction with such neighborhood attributes as convenience, upkeep of housing, neighbors, and safety. Another factor that influences the decision as to where to live is the area's social environment as reflected in the type of inhabitants, their lifestyles and social class levels, and the stage in the life cycle of the residents. Johnston (1966) indicates that people tend to choose areas where one's status can be deter- mined from one's address. Eng (1978) states that, for Singa- pore with its multiracial society, racial mixing as a determinant of residential choice is a minor consider- ation influencing the household choice. Eng found that f0r a small, homogeneous group of households, the choice is influenced by opportunities for socialization with friends and relatives. McCarthy (1976, p. 55) asserts that "housing choices are powerfully conditioned by the 69 demographic configuration of the households, as meas- ured jointly by the marital status and age of the households, the presence of children in the household, and the age of the youngest child." Other studies of residential locational choice suggest that some socio- economic groups exhibit a social—oriented preference structure when they decide where to live (Moriarty, 1974). In this regard, Hempel and Tucker (1979, pp. 409—410) note that "the decisions of home buyers, in total, result in communities being segmented into homogeneous social areas containing households that have similar lifestyles; possess similar ethnic, racial, or status characteristics; and live in homes of comparable quality." Foreign-Born or Ethnic Population Patterns Most studies researching the spatial concentra- tions of foreign-born or ethnic populations focus largely on three broad areas of investigation: the actual spatial residential patterns of ethnic or foreign-born groups, the degrees to which the individ— ual ethnic groups' residential concentration vary from those of the native populations' concentration, and the extent to which the patterns of residential concen- tration are similar or dissimilar among the groups themselves. Further, these studies have identified a number of factors that produce the residential 70 concentration patterns of foreign-born or ethnic pop- ulations in parts of certain urban centers, based on the investigation of the nature of these urban societies in different parts of the world and the residential patterns of ethnic populations in cities in and around these societies. Jones (1976) recognizes language, religion, cul- ture, and social organizations among immigrants from India and Pakistan living in Birmingham, England as a set of potent self-segregating forces that reaffirm the immigrants' cultural identity. Supported by their ethnic institutions in an alien territory, the ethnic individuals remain within in—group orbits, spending their leisure in social interactions with members of their native communities. In this connection, Trlin (1975) points to the extent and strength of kinship obligations among the Southern Europeans, Asians, and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand cities for their preference for in-group social interactions and norms-- the factors which, in their turn, inhibit residential dispersal. Also, Burnley (1976) finds that the Italian neighborhood concentrations in parts of metropolitan Sydney reflect regional origins of chain migration streams with their associated kinship networks. In an immigrant setting, language has always provided an initial basis for social cohesion. In this ' 71 connection, Doeppers (1974) points out that the personal bonds and need for orientation and help which lead many new arrivals to seek relatives and hometown mates are still likely to operate when the immigrant is unable to communicate in the principal language of the city (p. 551). However, Doeppers, with regard to the Philippine urban setting, concludes that language groupings among Chris- tian Filipinos in a given city is not reflective of a dichotomized linguistic status and the intermarriage between language groups represents less a flow of groups and individuals than the absence of a firm ethnic boundary. Without much information about the kinship of the migrant to the city and his contacts in the locality of origin, minority language alone is of limited use in predicting where a Filipino immigrant will settle in a given city. In another setting--that is, Detroit and its suburbss-Carlson (1975) found no strong concentration of either Filipino or Indian immigrants. -Instead, there was a fairly wide distribution of both groups throughout the city, except in Detroit's densest black areas north- west and northeast of the central business district. According to Carlson, this settling pattern of both groups can be attributed to two factors: Neither group has language difficulties which might have disposed them to cluster together for reasons of communication (both immigrant groups speak English); and most of them are 72 technically trained professionals, for whom it is easy to find employment throughout the Detroit metropolitan area. Other cultural traits, as diverse as food pref— erences and religion, help them express and maintain their ethnic identity. Raitz (1979) points out that in many ethnic communities, the celebration of simple religious festivals, and cooking and sharing of trad- itional ethnic meals, are means through which the first-generation immigrants maintain nostalgic ties with the old country and introduce the succeeding gen- erations to an important element of their heritage. In this connection, Allen (1977) points out that the Filipino immigrants in the U.S. preserve and maintain their cultural identity through such diverse means as 1. the publication of a great many newspapers serving their interests and cultural needs in this country; 2. the establishment of assistance programs by large Filipino communities to help their less— fortunate compatriots tide over their initial dif- ficulties; and 3. the promotion of ethnic study programs on university campuses designed to foster a sense of group identity among young Filipinos. Most immigrant groups tend to maintain some kind of cultural ties with their original homes. In 73 this connection, Driedger (1979, p. 97) adds that "an immigrant minority can be assumed to groom and water its culture within a territorial enclave where it can build a concentration of ethnic institutions." Chichekian (1977) examines the distribution and clustering patterns of the Armenian community on the Island of Montreal, and explains that its cluster is not accidental. Like many other ethnic groups, the Armenians feel strongly about the preservation of their ethnic identity, language, culture, and traditions. They tend to be in-group oriented, evidenced in their social attitudes and behavior. For example, they still display a fairly noticeable aversion to exogamy. The majority fraternizes largely with their own peOple, subscribes to Armenian clubs and associations and supports relatives with more than an inordinate concern. Thus, the choice to be located near their compatriots appears to have been the most significant independent variable affecting the location of residence among the Armenians on the island of Mbntreal (Chichekian, 1977). Further, since proximity to the Sourp Hagop Church and associated organizations provides frequent opportunities for close social contact, this ethnic group is concentrated around the church. In Sacramento, California, the residential dis- tribution of Russians reveals several major population distribution trends, including clustering in a western 74 suburb, minor clustering in two other neighborhoods, and a dispersed settlement through many of the remaining census tracts of that city (Hardwick, 1979). The largest group of Russian immigrants was attracted to the small suburb of Bryte around the already existing nuclei of Russian settlements. Also, religion seems to be a factor in the Russian settlements in two minor areas in Sacramento. Since the Fruitridge Baptist Church originally sponsored many Russian families, the area served by the Church has grown in Russian settlements (Hardwick, 1979). In Globevill, Colorado, each European immigrant group brought its own separate national and religious heritage. In this connection, Doeppers (1967) points out: The Volga-Deutsch set up the German Congrega- tional Church, St. Paul's German Lutheran Church, and the Garden Place Seventh Day Adventist Church. The Poles formed St. Joseph's Polish Catholic Church. The Serbs and Russians combined to build the Russo- Serbian Orthodox Church of the Transfigura- tion (p. 509). In other words, the Volga-Deutsch, the Poles, the Serbs and the Russians tend to concentrate in small neighborhoods which share their language and religious beliefs. As time weakens the old language and national ties because, as Doeppers explains, the immigrants' children come to adopt English, American education and values, the ethnic concentrations tend to disperse and 75 increasingly integrate with the native population. Another important factor affecting the residen- tial concentration of ethnic or foreign-born populations is the duration of their residence. Indeed, variations in residential concentration among various ethnic groups can be partly explained in terms of the difference in the length of time ethnic groups have lived in the host country, However, Burnley (1975) points out that despite the differences in the duration and its effect on the residential concentration within the major immigrant populations in Sydney and Melbourne, the Greeks and the Maltese who have been resident for a long time have continued to live much longer in their ethnically con- centrated areas than the members of other immigrant groups with equivalent durations of residence in Australia. Yet, as Burney (1976) explains, recent Greek arrivals in Sydney have tended to be more heavily concentrated in their chosen areas of residence than their long—settled compatriots. That is, the Greeks settled for over 12 years show a strong tendency to live in their ethnically heavy concentrations, though mark- edly less so than those Greeks who have been resident for under five years. Further, new Greek arrivals tend to concentrate much more strongly in areas of low rent than the old, settled ethnic groups. As the economic conditions of these old ethnic residents improve, they tend to transfer to high-rent areas, though a moderate 76 pr0portion of this population continues to live in low- rent areas. . The residential distribution of ethnic groups is ,often affected by the "entrance" status of the ethnic group and the spatial expression of the social strat- ification within the urban system (Burnley, 1976). The entrance status, as Burnley explains, reflects the social origin of the ethnic group and often enough determines the group's occupational structure and income, which has a direct bearing on the nature of housing it can afford. Conversely, the distribution and concentration patterns may well reflect the status system of the urban host society and the niche the ethnic group has carvedv for itself in the structure. Trlin (1976), among other scholars, points to a high positive correlation between various levels of socioeconomic status and the nature of residence across the immigrant and host populations. In Toronto, Trlin found that the degree of variation in the nature of residence between specific immigrant groups and the host population is closely matched by the degree of variation in the incomes and occupations of the host and immigrant sub—groups. Yet, the economic factors can hardly account for more than a small part of the residential concentration of Polynesian Pacific Islanders in the New Zealand city of Auckland. Of considerable importance, Curson (1970) explains, is the fact that their concentration is 77 socially determined and perpetuated. Most new arrivals, Curson points out, express a natural tendency to live either with or in close proximity to friends and rel— atives. Since many owe their presence in Auckland to the sponsorship and financial generosity of their kin, it is more than natural that they should stay with them on arrival. Similarly, Trlin (1976) explains that many immigrant families--Samoans, Niueans, Cook Islanders, Greeks, Italians, Yugoslavs, Indians, and Chinese-- elect to purchase dwellings in areas of their group concentration in New Zealand cities. In other words, residential proximity to the people of the same ethnic background provides an ethnic group with an important means to preserve a concentrated residential pattern of group identity. Conversely, it may be pointed out that the concentration about the people of the same ethnic background is an obstacle to the residential and social integration with the host population. For example, the heavy concentration of the New Commonwealth immigrants in certain areas of Nottingham in England, as Husain (1974) indicates, is due to a strong sense of community feeling and the distinctive cultural charac- teristics of the people, which influence their residen- tial location decisions. On the other hand, a number of Indians with English spouses live in mixed areas together with the host population. Their presence in the3e mixed areas may be explained by the weakening of 78 connections with the Asian community, and their keen- ness to adopt a wholly English way of life (Husain, 1974). Trlin (1977) shows that Asians and Pacific Islanders are residentially concentrated in small ethnic neighborhoods in Auckland, New Zealand. However, con- tinental Europeans, particularly the Dutch (who are well represented over a wide range of occupational and income groups), are residentially dispersed. They, as Trlin (1977) explains, are racially "invisible," culturally akin to the host population; are well aware of the favorable attitude of New Zealand's native popula- tion toward them; and are obviously free from strong in- group pressures that inhibit residential choice and the establishment of relationships with out—group neighbors and workmates. Economic constraints are a dominant factor in the ethnic or foreign-born population's residential choice. The general poverty of urban Polynesians is often cited as determinant of their residential concen- tration in specific areas of Auckland (Curson, 1970). Filipinos in Los Angeles and San Francisco, although dispersed throughout most sections of both cities, are highly concentrated in certain low-income areas (Allen, 1977). 'The "colored" immigrant population in Birming- ham, England lives largely in the underprivileged sector of the housing complex (Jones, 1976). Immigrants 79 from the Indian subcontinent in Greater Nottingham can afford only low-cost accommodations in the old housing areas (Husain, 1974). Pakistanis in the industrial cities of Britain buy low-priced houses to ensure a maximum of income flow to their families in Pakistan (Dahya, 1974). For both Indians and Pakistanis in Nottingham, Husain (1974) explains, the money available for housing is extremely restricted by obligations to their families back home. Consequently, they seek the cheapest accormnodations in the center of the city, with the result that the concentration of these immigrants in poorer areas increases steadily. Pakistanis in Dundee are highly concentrated in the decaying, dilap- idated inner residential zone, now in the early stages of development (Jones & Davenport, 1972). The typical housing unit in this area consists of two or three rooms, with an outside toilet (no bathroom), and can be bought for two to three hundred pounds. Though foreign-born or ethnic settlers generally lack the income to buy houses in desirable areas, there is an upward filtering of ethnic immigrants in the income scale. After a few years of work and saving, these immigrants tend to move to better dwellings. Many Indian and Pakistani residents who live in peripheral locations, as opposed to those who live in the decaying areas of Nottingham, have been successful in business and the professions. They have made a complete break 80 with their own community and have dispersed throughout the city (Husain, 1974). The type of housing available to an ethnic group is often cited as a key factor that determines the close clustering of the group. For Hindus from India, the nature of the house is a factor responsible for their concentration in specific areas of Nairobi, Kenya. In this connection, Tiwari (1969, p. 148) indicates that the main reason for the concentration of Hindus in Nairobi is the communal house shared by four or more families, with two or three storeys--apartments on the upper floors and a community area on the ground floor. This type of house is usually shared by one caste or community of Hindus. The type of housing available in Bedford, England to the Italians has been a major factor affect— ing the spatial distribution of the immigrant Italian community (King & King, 1977). On their arrival in Bedford, Italians are rarely able to afford more than a couple of rooms. Initially, comfort is sacrificed for low—cost living. For most, the aim is to scrimp and save for the day when their families may join them in Bedford. The supply of such accommodation, King and King explain, is limited to certain areas, notably to the lodging-house district of old houses which can be easily shared for high-density occupancy. The nature of the profession of the ethnic 81 population is another factor contributing to the concentra- tion of ethnic groups. The Sikhs and Punjabi Hindus of Nairobi, for instance, are largely in the car-repair and furniture businesses. As Tiwari (1969) points out, they all have shops in the same residential area-~that is, the Light Industrial Area or Grogan Road. Asians in Glasgow usually have poorly paid jobs with irregular hours in the transportation and warehousing industries. They also find work in the restaurant business (as waiters and dishwashers), where they acquire valuable experience and skills that enable them to set up the Indian restaurants that are found throughout central Glasgow (Kearsley & Srivastava, 1974). This ethnic group is concentrated in areas of low-cost accommodation, close to their place of work, and like most immigrant groups in similar circumstances, the Asian immigrant finds himself in the twilight zone of the central business district. The residential concentration of unskilled and skilled manual workers, as well as high—salaried groups, within the major immigrant populations in Australia's large cities was analyzed by Burnley in 1975. He found that the unskilled manual and the civil-services workers from all immigrant groups were more residentially concentrated than were the skilled manual workers. The contrast is all the greater within the southern European communities. In general, Burnley argues, the 82 managerial workers within immigrant groups have greater residential choicethan high income gives them. They -are, in fact, residentially more concentrated than the unskilled or skilled manual workers within the same ethnic group. The notable exceptions are the highly grouped Polish-born, particularly of Jewish extraction, who are not only in high managerial or executive po- sitions and independent proprietorships, but also live in relatively high-status, confined residential areas. Burnley (1975) found that the British, German, and Dutch unskilled workers were more similar in their population distribution vis-a-vis their native Australian counterparts than were the Greek and Italian unskilled workers, who reflected a higher degree of residential concentration in Australian cities. In this connection, Burnley (1975) adds: The residential and occupational stratifica- tion pattern in Australian cities is clearly a complex mosaic and the pattern of occupa- tional differentiation not only of cities but also of residential neighborhoods is being reinforced by ethnicity. It was shown that the unskilled members of the overseas- born, especially those populations more cul— turally dissimilar from the Australian-bern, were very strongly residentially concen- trated, more so than skilled manual or other workers (p. 19). In other words, a low occupational status of an ethnic group limits its choices of residential location and influences the concentration pattern of the cultural group. Further, it may be asserted that the occupa- tional and socioeconomic status of an immigrant group 83 affects its distribution within a metropolis, depend- ' ing on the rent and cost of residential houses. In another study, Burnley (1972) analyzed the degrees of residential concentration of eight overseas—born im- migrant groups in metropolitan Sydney. He found that the British and Irish immigrants were the least concen- trated; the Dutch, Polish, Yugoslav, and Italian—born were moderately concentrated; and the Greek and the Maltese were the most concentrated. Burnley concludes that‘uKapatterns of migrant settlement in Sydney resemble those in Melbourne, with the inner city heavy with southern European concentrations and the smaller, east- ern European refugee concentration in the western industrial suburbs, along with the Maltese, Italians, and Germans. The Netherlanders concentrated in higher- rent and -status suburbs on the urban periphery, and the Poles and Germans of Jewish faith settled in higher-status, eastern suburban areas of Waverly and Waallahra, the equivalents of Melbourne's St. Kilda and Caulfield. The factors responsible for these residential patterns have been the low socioeconomic status of the southern Europeans, Yugoslavs, and Poles; the chain migrations of the southern Europeans; and the higher occupational status of the British and the Netherlanders who, eVen if in low—status occupations, avoid the inner suburbs. Attempts to find a pattern in the spatial 84 location of various ethnic groups with respect to dis- tance from the city center add another dimension to the literature. Thong (1976) indicates that in Kuala Lumpur, the Chinese are concentrated in the central area, especially in the so—called Chinatown district, and that their proportions relative to other ethnic groups decline with the distance from the city center. The Malay and Indian proportions, however, tend to increase slightly with distance from the city center. For the Greeks and the Poles in Wellington-Butt, an urban area in New Zealand, low-cost housing encour- ages initial concentration in the inner-city areas, while with the Italians, availability of physical resources to produce primary goods for the urban markets are a factor in encouraging settlement develop- ments in separate outer suburban localities (Burnley, 1972). Occupational structures, he explains, are important in the inner-city concentrations of Greeks and Poles, especially in Newtown, where significant populations of the unskilled members of these groups reside as compared with the middle-distance and outer suburbs, except industrial Petone. Curson (1970) points out that there has always been a tendency in Auckland for non-European groups to concentrate in central—city areas, and such a tendency lends support to the Zonal Theory of city structure. The Polynesian, as the most recent arrivals in Auckland, 85 have concentrated within the older, innermost sections' of that city, the areas that since the early 19503 have been experiencing a process of invasion and succession by various minority groups, with a related outward movement of the original European population. Husain (1974) indicates that as a result of both the self-imposed and the superimposed forces, the . present Indian and Pakistani immigrant populations in Nottingham are concentrated in segregated, poor housing areas near the city centers, though such segregation is' without exception regarded as undesirable. However, a significant level of dispersal can be achieved if the immigrants decide that they no longer wish to reside in the central-city area--at the cost of severance of some ties with their own community—-if the indigenous population accepts the migrants as part of their own communities. A Final Remark The review of the literature indicates that a very substantial body of the geographic literature is devoted to patterns of urban residential differentiation and the factors affecting the selection of residential housing. The studies reviewed are based largely on the investigation of the nature of urban societies and residential patterns of foreign—born or ethnic groups in selected cities in several parts of the world. In View of the lopsided nature of research in residential 86 differentiation, we must continue not only to undertake new studies employing more sophisticated techniques, but also to review and reassess pertinent information already available to increase the explanatory power of such data in order to expand our knowledge of the dynamics of residential—locational decisions. To increase our predictive ability, we must replicate the research approaches across different data sets from different parts of the world. Such cross-cultural replications may generate new parameters from data collected in different spatial settings. It is earnestly hoped that the study of the residential patterns and the selection of residential dwellings by the Amer- ican population in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia, will increase the level of our understanding of residential differentiation and selection. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Detailed census data on the characteristics of the people living in various parts of Jeddah City are not readily available. However, socioeconomic survey data are available, particularly in the following reports prepared by Sert-Jackson International/Saudi Consult: Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Ministry of Town Planning. Policy Review Papers, Jeddah Action Master Plans, Technical Report No. 3, 1978. Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Ministry of Town Planning. Evaluation of the Existing Master Plan, Jeddah Action Master Plans, Technical Report No. 4, 1978. 'Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Town Planning. Existing Con- ditions of the Metropolitan Area, Jeddah Action Master Plans, Technical Report No. 5, 1980. Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, and the Ministry of Town Planning. Land Development Policy, Jeddah Action Master Plans, Technical Report No. 8, 1980. 87 88 Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, and the Ministry of Town Planning. Definitions of Projects for the Third Five-Year Development PlanL Jeddah Action Master Plans, Technical Report No. 14, 1980. Other data were obtained from the Central Department of Statistics, the Ministry of Finance and National Economy. The most valuable and detailed in- formation was contained in Technical Report No. 5. This report is based on a 5-percent random sampling of the heads of households in the residential area in the out- lying districts of Jeddah City. The total number of households in the sample was 8,675, and, as indicated in the report (pp. 4-5), the following categories and types of people were excluded from the socioeconomic enumeration: 1. People sleeping in hotels and offices, in or near trucks, on apartment roofs and in corridors, at building sites, construction-site tents, and elsewhere. The consumer—habit survey indicates that this floating populace constitutes approximately 1 percent of the total population of Jeddah City. 2. The survey did not include people living within the restricted military bases, hospitals, certain company residences, the oil refineries, and the air and sea ports, for security reasons. 89 3. Members of the family and their staff living in and around the royal palaces. A ’2 Another valuable source of information was the unpublished data for the 1980 socioeconomic survey made available for this investigation by the Central Depart- ment of Statistics. This information contained in these documents is orderly and was systematically col- lected from households in each 2352 (district) in such detail that it includes the occupations or social classes of the householders; the age, sex, nature of employment, marital status, place of birth, household and income expenditure, conditions of the building, construction materials used, and leisure activities of the members of the household.‘ For purposes of statistical analysis, the data from the socioeconomic survey are grouped according to hagas. Recently, district boundaries have been extended to include the recent expansion areas of Jeddah City. The names of the 35 haras and their boundaries are shown in Figure 3. In all, ten independent variables were selected for use in analyzing the spatial distribution of the American population in Jeddah City. In selecting these variables, an attempt has been made to select not only those variables which show some significant variation over the total number of Jeddah districts, but also to attain a reasonable balance of variables of different 90 SEA KHOl|01070 mucosa-o... NNNNNNNd-ed-ed-ed-a“ .O‘uNdOOONCO‘ON-OOO 27 QISTRICTS SHARRAZ NAME Bitrumln Ghuiaii Gurayat and Thalbaa Nufla YemeMa Bukhafla Hindauia Shau Sabeel Harat Sarah Sahaua MadauiFahad Haly AL-Jami 'ah AthThaghr Harat Yemen Aacham Saghdadia and Amaria Kandara Sharaflyah SanlMaHk Huwala Musharuah Aziziyah AL-Hamra AL-Andalua AL-Khaildia Rawdhah AL-Fayaauyah Aaaalamah Aazahra Aaaafl AL-Maana Arradhwa Ukaz Bawdl Atn-Thamad Abhur AL-Janubiyyah Scarce: 1- Kingdom of Saudi Arabia mm 01 Metal and lint Allah. Existhu Gondliom oi the Menopolltan Area. Jeddah. 1980 2-l-Inseh Hanza Bhdaoil. City Map of Jeddah. Oxiord Lhiversity Press. 1982 Figure (3) Jeddah Haras (Districts) 91 types to better explain the Americans' residential patterns in Jeddah City. Definition of Variables The dependent variable is the spatial distribu- tion of the American population in Jeddah. This variable is represented by the percentage of Americans in each district in Jeddah City. The independent variables are: density of population per hectare in each district; percentage of European population in each district; percentage of households earning five thousand or more Saudi Riyals per month in each district; percentage of population which has completed secondary school or higher education in each district; percentage of dwellings by building age in each district; percentage of dwellings by type--that is, cottage/shanty, Arabic traditional, villa-apartment—-in each district; average value of housing in each district; average monthly rent in each district; percentage of dwellings with sub- standard conditions (such as lack of water and sewage facilities) in each district; and distance from the center of the city, in kilometers. The Other Source of Data: The SurVey Method For the purpose of investigating the reasons for the selection of their present residences by the American population in Jeddah City, a properly constituted social 92 survey provides the only effective means of obtaining reasonably reliable, detailed data. The first require- ment for such a survey is a complete list of persons belonging to the group which is being studied, so that an appropriate sample may be obtained for intensive study. To obtain a list of American residents in Jeddah City, several agencies were contacted, among which the following supplied most of the information used in the present study: 1. The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia at Washington, D.C. 2. The U-S. Embassy at Jeddah City. 3. The American Cultural Center at Jeddah City. A list of 4,689 household addresses, which is a complete list of Americans living in Jeddah City, was made available to this investigator by the U.S. Embassy and the American Cultural Center at Jeddah City. This list was found to be accurate and up-to—date as far as the numbers and the residential addresses of the American population then residing in Jeddah City were concerned. The distribution of American househOlds in the city’s districts had been carefully plotted on a map of the city. American households were found in 28 of the city's 35 districts. After their geographic distribution was determined, a uniform lO-percent sample from each of the 28 districts was considered. The major emphasis in 93 selecting this percentage for each district was to assure a fair and equal representation of all districts, with no district to be either over— or underrepresented. Using the names in alphabetical order, a total of 471 households was chosen by means of random-number tables (Table 1). A surplus of names was chosen, using the random table, to provide a reserve list to make up for inaccessible or unavailable heads cf household. The initial random sample was considered representative of the entire American population living in Jeddah City, as indicated in Figure 4. Information was then collected by use of personal interviews guided by a questionnaire. The data collection was undertaken during the winter of 1982-1983. Discussion of the Questionnaire A questionnaire consisting of 46 questions was designed with a view toward collecting information from the American population resident in Jeddah City regarding their selection of residential site. The questionnaire, in its final form, has been appended to this study (Appendix B). Although it is difficult to arrive at a defin- itive listing or description of a universal set of housing attributes which are sought after by all fam- ilies in search of dwellings, it was possible to iden— tify, through the first 30 questions, certain important 94 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS AND THE SELECTED HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE IN JEDDAH CITY, BY DISTRICT District Total Number Total Number of Households Number of Households Sampled (10% of Each Dist . ) 1 61 ' 6 3 76 8 4 90 9 10 55 6. 11 , 72 7 12 87 9 13 69 7 15 . 153 ' 15 16 102 10 17 137 14 18 91 9 19 238 24 20 161 16 21 106 11 22 285 . 29 23 201 20 24 ‘ 226 23 25 . 223 22 26 114 11 27 258 26 28 209 21 29 170 17 30 94 9 31 308 31 32 305 31 33 235 24 34 262 26 35 301 30 TOTALS 4,689 _ 471 95 DISTRICTS (HARRA) NAME - BHfUMHI - GhMaH- - Gurayal and Thalbaa - Nun: YomoMa Bukhana - Hlndawla - Sham - Sabool Hora: Sarah Sahaua MIdIH‘FthId Holy AL-Jaml ‘ah AthThaohr Harat‘Yomon Aachom Baghdadlo and Amorla Kandara OVOW‘UN-D I SEA a O I d d a. nu. N O (l b I I I I Sharanyah Bani MINI: Ruwoh Muohorflah Azlzlyah' AL-Hamra AL-AndaMs AL-Khoudla Rowdhah AL-Fayoaflyah Aooolamah Azzahra Aston AL-Masna Arradhwa Ukoz Bowdl Ath-Thamad Abhur AL-Janubiyyah d O I c. o I In) 0 0 G 0 I) N N M N h) NI M I0 I0 # 0 NI d O O O ‘I O (I ‘ II) N d O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' an a One Dot Represents A» One Household O 1 2 3 \\ Kilometers \ gs \ Figure (4) Household Sample of American Population In Jeddah City 96 housing characteristics for most residential selection processes. These 30 questions contained the following dimensions of the selection process: 1. specific dwelling unit attributes 2. types and styles of houses 3. dwelling space and room size 4. importance of the exterior of the dwelling 5. specific neighborhood attributes 6. general appearance of the residential area 7. general nature of the population in the area 8. nature 325: a.:oo0.o.._o:< .33: u..- .oo.o.:=2 .o >225: £392 :23” .o Boone; "cocoon NEE. Door Ooa— 050—. chop thaw who— 660.com 060.0 9 a Ooogno.’ 86.3!— 23.8233 OOEmL z<.—n. hzm2m04m>mo .80 00351 2‘: Pzw2m04w>wn “EN 0033; 2; EmEGOAm>mo wow r. 60:22 _. I 62...: N I .3222 9 NOILV1ndOd 107 1980), the population of Jeddah City's metropolitan area shows a linear annual growth rate of 12.64 percent and an exponential growth rate of approximately 11.3 per— cent. One important theoretical question in urban demography concerns the process through which urban centers increase their population. There are two important ways through which urban growth can occur: natural increase, and in-migration. There is also a third factor--population of an urban center can increase through annexation.. In Jeddah City, given the frequent occurrence of epidemics and other calamities, there might not have been much growth through natural increase. But the available evidence supports the idea that in the last few years the population of Jeddah City grew primarily through in-migration. Table 3 shows that between 1978 and 1983, the percentage of Saudi population residing in Jeddah City has never reached the level of 50 percent. 0n the other hand, a large influx of foreign immigrants makes the non-Saudi component of the population over half of Jeddah's total. That is, the proportion of the non-Saudis in the total population exceeds that of the Saudis. This means that over the past few years, there has been a dramatic change in the nature of Jeddah's population. Although foreign population has always formed an identifiable element of Jeddah's population, they are now clearly in 108 , TABLE 3 SAUDI AND NON-SAUDI POPULATION OF JEDDAH CITY (1978-1983) Date Total Saudi %age .Non-Saudi %age 1978 (Socio- Economic 916,000 432,000 47.2 484,000 52.8 Survey) . ' 1980 (Start of first yr. of Third 1,037,000 479,000 46.2 558,000 52.8 Development Plan) 1981 (End of first yr. of- Third Devel- 1,118,000 528,000 47.2 590,000 52.8 opment Plan) 1982 (End of second year of Third 1,201,000 579,000 48.2 622,000 51.8 Development Plan) 1983 (End of third year of Third 1,285,000 631,000 49.1 654,000 50.9 Development Plan) ‘ NOTE: Figures are to nearest 1,000. SOURCE: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Deputy Ministry for Town Planning. the majority, and have caused the city to change from a patriarchal to a pluralistic society. Furthermore, whereas before socioeconomic groups were hardly in evidence, let alone spatially differentiated, the 109 geographical repartition of the residential districts reflects not only the differences which separate the foreign population from the native population, but also the economic and social cleavage which divides the pop- ulation into various social strata. The focus of this research will be on one spec- ific foreign population group: the American population now residing in Jeddah City. They are a minority even among the total foreign population in this city. 0f the eleven leading sources of foreign population in Jeddah City, the United States ranked tenth, contributing 1.6 percent of all foreigners. Selection of the American population for this investigation was based upon three general characteristics which were deemed ideal for the purpose of this study. These characteristics were as follows: 1. Americans in Jeddah City experienced a tremendous increase in population in the last few years. 2. Americans remain conscious of their vastly different cultural background, and appear to regard Jeddah as a place to work where they might settle for a while, and whence they remit substantial sums of money to families to whom they intend ultimately to return. 3. In Jeddah City, little attention has been giv— en to analyzing the geographic distribution and the sel- ection of residential housing of the foreign population, of whom Americans form an entirely different group, 110 adapted to highlrise living and representing a different lifestyle.”I The main concern of the present study is with the current residential pattern and the selection of residential housing, and with the socioeconomic char- acteristics of the American population in Jeddah City, rather than with the Americans' adjustment problems or social interaction with the host population--concerns which figure more appropriately in a purely socio— logical investigation. CHAPTER IV AMERICANS RESIDING IN JEDDAH CITY: THE SELECTION PROCESS AND SPATIAL PATTERN OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING Characteristics of the American Population in Jeddah City Based on the information supplied by the sample population of the Americans resident in Jeddah City regarding their ages, levels of education and income, and occupations, Tables 4 through 7 were compiled. Table 4 reveals that 22.1 percent of the American pop- ulation in Jeddah City is in the 25-29 age group; 39.9 percent is in the 30—39 age group; 27.6 percent is in the 40—49 age group; and 10.4 percent is in the 50-59 age group. None of the respondents was younger than 25 or older than 59. It is generally believed that people between the ages of 25 and 49 are economically most productive, and 89.6 percent of the American population in Jeddah City falls in this age group. If we examine the distribution of the population by age groups, it does not seem to be evenly distributed. Rather, the heaviest concentration (39.9 percent) occurs in the 30-39 age group, followed by 27.6 percent in the 40-49 age group. These two age groups, between the ages of 30 and 49, combine rich 111 112 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY AGE Absolute Relative Age Group Frequency Frequency 25-29 104 22.1 30-39 188 39.9 40-49 130 27.6 50-59 49 10.4 TOTALS 471 100.0 TABLE 5 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY Level of Education Completed Absolute Relative Frequency Frequency High-school graduates 62 13.2 Technical school or 198 42.0 some college College graduates 82 17.4 Advanced or professional degree 129 27.4 TOTALS 471 100.0 113 TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY OCCUPATION Absolute Relative Type of Occupation Frequency Frequency Technical and professional 204 43.3 Administrative and managerial 138 29.3 Finance and insurance 58 12.3 Independent contractor 53 11.3 Teacher 18 3.8 TOTALS 471 100.0 TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY ANNUAL INCOME Income Group. Eggfiflgflt; Eggzflgfig; Less than $10,000 19 4.0 $10,000-$19,999 116 24.6 $20,000-$29,999 137 29.1 $30,000-$39,999 146 31.0 $40,000+ 53‘ 11.3 TOTALS 471 100.0 114 experience and training in their professions, and they constitute 67.5 percent of the total American population in Jeddah City. In general, the American population in Jeddah City can be described as essentially youthful. Educational Background of the American Population With regard to the educational level of the American population, Table 5 reveals that no one in the sample population of Americans in Jeddah City has had less than a high-school education. Nearly 87 percent of the population has had technical training, graduated from college, or acquired advanced or professional degrees. Just under fifty of these have been through technical schools in the United States. The latter constitute the largest group among Americans in Jeddah City. The second-largest group (27.4 percent), after the tech- nically trained group, consists of those who have ad- vanced or professional degrees. Together, these two groups form 69.4 percent of the total American population in Jeddah City and provide the technological base for the industrial, technological, and educational needs of Saudi Arabia. In fact, they are the ambassadors of inter- national goodwill and understanding. In this respect, Smith (1956) writes: These people experience] the reciprocal process 0 learning and adjustment that occurs when in— dividuals sojourn for educational purposes in a society that is culturally foreign to them, nor- mally returning to their own society after a 115 limited period. At the societal level, it is a process of cultural diffusion and change, involving temporary exchange of persons for training and experience (p. 3). The Occupations of the American Population The occupation of a person is reflective not only of his or her economic status and place in the social structure, but also of the person's educational attain— ment, intellectual sophistication, social grace, stand— ard of living, choice of housing, clothes, and the food and health he or she enjoys. The absolute and relative frequencies of the dis- tribution of the American population in Jeddah City by occupation, shown in Table 6, points to the fact that an overwhelming part of the American population is involved in business, industry, and skill-related services. That is, 43.3 percent of the American popu- lation in Jeddah City is in technical and professional jobs, 29.3 percent is in administrative and managerial posts, and 12.3 percent is in finance and insurance. Another 11.3 percent of the Americans work as inde- pendent contractors, and 3.8 percent of them are in the teaching profession. It seems that Americans' decisions to work in Saudi Arabia are made primarily to improve their professional and financial prospects. As Cleveland and Adams (1960) point out: 116 The overseas job often carries more responsib— ility than a comparable position at the same level in America would carry. Young engineers, for example, find that they are more likely to be placed in charge of a large field construc- tion job abroad than at home--if they are willing to trade some physical inconvenience- for the opportunity (p. 14). To illustrate further why some Americans prefer working overseas to being employed in familiar surroundings in similar jobs at home, Cleveland and Adams quote an American executive hired to help run a small airline in an underdeveloped country as saying: "You see, one thing about this country is that you do everything in a little country. Some- time you are the only one around. You are the one who decides whether an aircraft will take off or not, whether the load will make money or not. You have an unlimited amount of authority; no one tells you what you can do, what you can't do. You have the responsibil- ity. Back in the States with a big airline, even the district manager--he can't change the schedule. He's got to wire the home office (p. 14). Yet the American'population's participation in the public services in Jeddah City is minimal. This may be attrib—. uted to the fact that, unlike the Yemenis and the Egyp- tians who are employed in large numbers in the city's services, the Americans do not speak Arabic--a fact that limits their usefulness in clerical and other public service jobs. Also, there are hardly any Americans in the construction or retail industries (as compared to 79.4 percent of the Yemeni aliens and 56.3 percent of the Egyptian aliens). 117 Income Leve1S'0f4theWAmerican Population in Jeddah City An American resident's occupation determines his or her income, which in turn determines the person's lifestyle. Table 7 records the distribution of the American population in Jeddah City by annual income. A comparison of Tables 7 and 8 shows that the American households in the city belong to the highest income brackets among the foreign-born populations in the city. A closer look at Table 8 further shows that low-income TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY BY ANNUAL INCOME. Income group 饧:fl:::; Frggfiggg; Less than $10,000 19 4.0 $10,000-$19,999 ‘ 116 24.6 $20,000-$29,999 137 29.1 $30,000-—$39,999 146 31.0 $40,000+ 53 11.3 TOTALS 471 100.0 118 HHHQuam omso:oooo~oom:v m .Ho> .6 .oz vacuum HaochomE 6666666 undone caaHHo .u6666: 666 «6 6=oH6H6666666H66H66 .HHsmcoo H6666\H6=oH66=H6H=H 6666666 6666 "666666 .6H66H6 H6666 66.6 a 66HH66 .6.6 6:6 .6H66H6 H6666 6H 666 666:6H6 HH< "6662 6.H H6H.6 6.6 6H6.6H 6.H6 666.66 6.66 66H.66 6.6H 666.66 6.6 666.6 666.66H 666666 H.6 66 6.6H 666 6.66 666 6.66 666 6.6H 666 H.6 66 H66.6 66HH66mwmmm » . . . . . . . >Haczoo H 6 6HH H 6 6HH 6 H6 666 6 66 666 H 6 6H 666 6 H 66 666 6 e6Hmoa 66666 6.6 66 6.66 6H6.H H.H6 666 6.6 666 -6- -6- -6- -6- 66H.6 =66H66e< 6.H 66 6.66 H66 6.66 666.H 6.66 H66 6.H 66 6.6 66 666.6 66666666 6.6 66 6.6 666 6.66 666.H 6.66 666.6 6.6H 666.H 6.6 666 66H.6 H6666H666 6.H 66 6.6 666 6.66 666 6.6H 666.H 6.6H 666 6.6 66H 6H6.6 66H6=H . . . . . . . . £66 H.6 666.H 6.HH 666.6 6.66 666.6H 6.66 666.H6 6.6H 666.6H 6.6 666.6 666.66 cawmuum mmmmllhmml, oMMM .oz Guam}. .0: 666$ .02 omaml .oz ouaM}l.oz .oz >HH~660H662 36:6 6.666 666 6H 66>o 6666:6666 6666-6666 666H-666H 666H 666:6 H6666 >BHA4H2 zm>fidm ho NHmB<= ZOHB3.~a=o . . . «and augment m o v u an no" a no man cessamaaoa se.: a. as: 6.2 m m.mn mm“ «.mm can «one scamsog use was as so: o.n a" o.- no ~.nm Hoe not. was so coauasznoc «.ma «a v.m on ~.vs men «one one so co.u_mogaoo ~a.oom . . . «one wzu :« a e an a mg on a we «on uca>a~ canoes so amass n.8v «an n.m~ he m._n 4 and u=.~_ouu was so smoo n.n« mag m.mm on" o.mv can ucaaflosv was .0 ou< o.o n s.aa ma o.ms can meaaacau use so gauges .0 osasm . . . usaasmse mas .o m vn veg n «a can u «v non mocauaoaaa evacuao use guano: o.on ova a.nn sea n.nn en“ mecca .0 Lassa: o.—n emu n.mm no" n.mn on“ meaaaoau 0:0 .0 ouam -¢um>o accoscouh aoccsaopm accosemhm accoscouh accoscohk accoscoum o>uuu~oz o»:—omn< o>uua—0¢ ousaomn< o>qaa~0¢ ousaomn< accuseds~ uoz acauuoas_ manuauovox acaauoae— >u0> Afibv u my WBHU =~9sua_mu cu as.e_xc.a s.m~ nn— ~.- an ~.an mam mecm_». on suasaxoua . . . moqai~uoau s an no" u on mas c He was ucaaaogm was on auae.xoua n.nm mnv o.n «A w.m my umncoo >020 0:5 cs assesxoga . . . awasszloa. V cm new a a m n v an :ouaauLCchaLu ea >u—Eaxcad mien m3 new 2; «.3 2.. 20:23:23. as. 9:2. 3 3.5.6.5 . . . mm.ua~ao¢. lacunae a mm "as n on as“ o cc mm“ as» on 43.5sxoua «.2. in me an mg: no 32.3 2.5.635 0.: 3 3:5on o.mn new e.m~ boa n.m~ Hm 00a_axnos one on 43.5.xona . . . . nous ecu :. c on «a v av can 6 an av" m0c.>nwm saao so >n_—.na__a>< . . . sous Gnu cu m .N cos o ma #6 m no can mango: was comzsmn moaam . . . . «on: 0:» cu a no new m cm nag n a— rm o.aooa was so». soa>ata n.u AH H.on can c.5v «mm «was use =_ moss. 05.no so; n.nm «NH n.nm mc~ n.om emu «was was as o...uuu smotnm 30; v.n o" n.m~ as ~.~m «an dong 0:» .0 mmo=._:sm.o mouosooam >oco=amum mocmaaohm aocwzcouh >o=o=cmhm >ocmscouh, 0>~ua~ox Ousuomn< o>ua¢~oz ousmomnc o>uaa_om ou=~omn< acdauoaau uaz «caauonsm >_0aduouox acauncasu >Lo> omscwu:OOIlmH mamaom ownsvouHH canoes mo mesheo «can on» no cowpeuamomn manowaoa< amnuo ow mpwefixoamn 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H o.OOH o.OOH 0.00H fihfinfi o.wN w.OH a.w m.m m.m m.m m.m H.mH O.NN o.mN w.om ccoomm m.w m.N N.m m.m m.m b.m ¢.® m.b ¢.¢H m.wH b.HN pmhfih HQUHO xfldm has Ass lac has Ame lav Ame lea loo has lac .msameeoammm WBHU mAO>zH mmoeo¢h fine no WUZMDGMGK W>HB¢ADEDO 92¢ memO M2spoaaemw a.m mm H.H m o.mm was «was one so seesaw «was 0 a m.wH hm ®.ON hm $.00 wa HO mmmdpfldmmmflm . poo so am on o a m.mm HHH m.m HH H vs men eonmmweaweemamm . moan 05p m.wH ®w m.H Q fl 0m GEM MC >PHHHD$HHW®Q m.em HmH m.a m m.os Hmm moeaempeams m.mm moH o.om em H.sm mom wmoa>uom m.mm «ma w.m ma m.me Hom mmson was no nude >ocoacmam mocozuoam >ocosumam accosvoam mucosuohm .mocmSGoam m>HpaHmm masaown< m>aeesmm mssflomn< m>apaamm opsaomn< measnaupp< w : AHV cam on can noa< HH .eea H _ AHHV cmospom muonsoeom ®>fiunmoz o>fluamom AfibvnuZV weHD EHBM NIB m0 mmHOZWDGmmh m>HB¢Amm Qz< mBDAOmm< 0H mdm<9 183 many as 40 percent of the residents considered their environment noisy. The American residents were also asked to record their perceptual response as to whether they were "very satisfied," "satisfied," or "dissatisfied" with their current living environments. The word "satisfied" was deliberately left undefined to allow the respondents to focus on their feelings and percep- tions rather than on the definition of the word. The respondents were also asked to indicate whether their propensity to move was due only to their dissatisfaction with their residential environment,.or to something else. An attempt has been made in Table 17 to compare the satisfied and dissatisfied American residents to determine whether the satisfied group differed signif— icantly from the dissatisfied in terms of age, educational level of the head of household, total family income, householder's occupation, length of residence in Jeddah City, or number of people living in the household. The data collected via the questionnaire were reduced to tabular form and converted into nominal and ordinal numbers to render them amenable to chi-square (x2) tests of significance. An analysis of Table 17 shows that 338 American residents out of 471 surveyed—-that is, 71.8 percent of the survey population--were satisfied or very satisfied with their current lodgings and environment. Of this 1134: ..e.zc «e.~ r x ..n.a. «n.a I x v I Away [evocau uo sesame: « « o.u~ 0v 9.0“ h a.cu on a.uu on n.—u no +oco.ovo o.on va— v.~n «a u.on ov v.nn can c.—n con aco.omiooo.ono «.oa pun 0.0“. on «.0n av b.0u ha —.a« pan aoo.ouiooc.oao v.03 co h.an an o.o« en n.va «- n.vu can aoa.o«:~oc.cna c.v an n.v a a.” a ~.v v- o.v a. ooo.o~. saga seed aqeaeg accus— A.m.z~ an.o I «x ..a.lv «n.« I «x n I Age. lacunae «0 sees-ea “.9“ ecu o.¢« on n.o« an 0.9“ on v.p« man eeaueu nose—eae~0ua ac oeusaavc 6.9" up n.v~ :— o.cu «« ¢.h« on v.9— «a valence! emenuou v.~v ecu h.ov an v... on —.~v Gnu c.Nv no. one—nee aloe pea usages geoqcaeph u.n~ Jo v.—~ o o.un bu «.m— av «.n« an escape». nooaoeisuan cog causes as cacao... ago.cvav 30.00 I «x “no.0vna o~.«u I ax n I Ase. levees. no sesame: 0.9— av v." a a.« n o.n~ 0v v.o~ av ease» onion o.—n can a.« « n.~u an o.vn and c.p« and ease; avicv 0.00 avg «.90 av v.ao up «.mm «ca 5.60 can ease; anion n.au vs 0.09 ha ".6“ on «.0u co n.«n can ease» Quinn 3 nos-avast masseuse; accesses. aueeaeeuu successes aoeeaeeah uoeeacuaa sunscreen ens—can. sauce—e: cos—oaa< sagas—oz cue—ceac eaauanes ova—oead caucuses aoeeaoeah aoseaeeAL o>.ue—e¢ eaa~cea< eaeaolieo: Cacao. thuaaudlnua nodulualm sausages» «seasons: naval aencauaa> decadence:— mNHm oqommmao: oz< .mozmaammm mo meczmq .zoaemq msoozH .zoaemg .asomo mo< rm mezmozoammm mm>o=lzoz oz< .mm>o= .omammaeaeOI queen “no" I any coda-«adulufi unaOa "nan I an» vouuouall «coca "uhv I A!» lucOOGOBIOL uluph unnbbz Rae.eva. se.—a I «x Aao.evac se.. I «x u I Ace. levees. so Iona-Ia p.«« .o 9.. a e.e «a e.v« an utensi- In 6.5. «an e.¢v on _..o on «.6. and neon-Ia v-” p.ou ea. —.pv an ~.en «a e.e« ec— utes-Ia «-— euua 6.050050: .ae.eva. an.ae I «x .ae.eva. ~«.«- I «x a I .ae. access. so Iona-Io u.v. on 6.“ u o.. a «.9. on a.«. on Inna. Ina a.n— ea n.v a e.o «. awn. av _.«. pa chaos «AI:— p.au no e.o o a... nu n.«« on v._« so. It... o—Io p.9a pea v.~n «a e.~a «I e.on no v.p« an" In... eIo v.e« on s.o« ea n.ea on a.va a. ¢.a~ In Inna. v-« a.» .« ~.p« an o.u~ pa o.e nu o.o cc I»... « gags III; a..o sauces a. ensues-II so guano; ..e.z. ha.» I «x ..m.:. a.._ I «x v I .ae. sevens. .0 Icon-Io p.n as n.v n a." v —.v I. a.» ca Iuogougp a.a~ ev e.ea s n..~ a— «.a— as n.~a no IIosoIIsIoo senescence. o.n~ a. n.v~ on o.«~ pa —.«— _v n.«~ on noo.IIoI ounces-a. ea. oocaeaa «.on a." e.on «a o.on av p..« we n.e« on. Ioo.IIoI _I.IIaI:II on. IIasausoaeanea 0.”. as. v._v an _.«v on o.ao ova n.nv ecu Ioo.IIII _Ieo_IIo.cIa ea. .Iuaaguop acquauauoo no emnw auaeaeeaa aoeeavouu Cede-08 Goa—ODD. accesses: aoeeaceah sauce-es Isaac-n. successes aoeeaeeuh lead-08 eaa~oea< noeeaceah noeeaueah senescent auceaaehh eaauanel ova—oen< segue—ac euaqoaa< oneseliso: aaoaoa teuuluudllqn aoucaaaaa «concedes:— academy.» ee—nauaa> acecceaeo nbvlz emsespeoonlea mam an :m. Ivory Coast 167 162 876 1205 Jamaica 100 114 9000 9214 Japan 2800 37104 22444 62348 Jordan 62 143 2000 2205 Kenya 347 222 5000 5569 Khmer Republic (Cambodia) — - — - Korea 1527 14978 6200 22705 Kuwait 43 98 2500 2641 Laos 6 8 7 21 Lebanon 45 13 2300 2358 Lesotho 145 22 323 490 Liberia 376 346 4100 4822 Libya 10 15 2198 2223 Luxembourg 32 39 925 996 Madagascar 13 12 172 .197 Malawi 32 28 580 640 Malaysia 259 91 2890 3240 Mali 112 49 337 498 Malta 9 13 1300 1322 Mauritania 51 - 3 54 Maritius 16 13 37 66 Mexico 443 749 207187 208379 Morocco 92 206 1148 1446 210 APPENDIX A--continued Countries (U.S. Government American Agencies Dependent Areas) (a) (b) Residents Total Mozambique ll 18 45 74 Nepal 189 52 346 587 Netherlands 334 3445 10250 14029 Netherland Antilles 4 2 1600 1606 New Zealand 45 266 7600 7911 Nicaragua - - - - Niger 188 62 158 408 Nigeria 89 115 6150 6354 Norway 49 517 14500 15066 Oman 48 29 265 342 Pakistan 109 271 854 1234 Panama 204 1818 7000 9022 Papua New Guinea - — - - Paraguay 208 95 1274 1577 Peru 123 246 11010 11379 Philippines 1586 22541 59500 83627 Poland 55 94 7350 7499 Portugal 199 2233 6980 9412 Portuguese Azores 20 6 1388 1414 Qatar 6 9 250 265 Romania 35 48 550 633 Rwanda 19 18 113 150 211 APPENDIX A--continued :2:::::s.::.:..::::::t 13:53:51 Total Saudi Arabia 1963' 1119 29394 31621 Senegal 180 89 301 570 Sierra Leone 254 25 435 714 Singapore 51 108 6500 6659 Somali Republic 26 30 100 156 South Africa, Republic of 76 149 9109 9334 Soviet Union 143 246 1492 1881 Spain 848 14185 37300 52363 Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 50 43 302 395 Sudan 48 61 550 659 Surinam 6 7 425 438 Swaziland 132 32 460 624 Sewden 46 80 6132 6258 Switzerland 121 203 20080 20404 Syria 57 82 600 739 Tanzania 43 63 1002 1108 Thailand 635 665 3017 4317 Togo 135 38 185 358 Trinidad and Tobago 20 37 2393 2440 Tunisia 65 142 556 763 Turkey 297 4326 1847 6470 Uganda 212 APPENDIX A-—continued :2:23:33.3..223222: a» A: United Arab Emirates 19 27 2300 2346 United Kingdom 1440 32586 102350 136376 Upper Volta 152 47 123 322 Uruguay 44 108 1059 1211 Venezuela 74 198 23000 23272 Vietnam _ - - _ Yemen Arab Republic 146 67 2240 2453 Yugoslavia 67 108 2197 2372 Zaire 172 241 1832 2245 Zambia 21 30 867 918 Other: Undistributed - 352 - 352 TOTALS 43875 405142 1559246 2008263 aEmployees, excluding military personnel bDependents, including military and civilian personnel's dependents CThe information for Iran is dates Dec. 31, 1978. SOURCE: Douglas R. Casey, International Invest- ing (New York: Everest House, 1981), p. 5. APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE WITH COVER LETTER Killing: 22:00! ARABIA . 9%.;2fl'm' Int. mum Imam! jgjallagcéloflifla ymummmmu u‘m ,,|.n,.,.1mu‘ 3.1.11-5.1191111 ............ A .lAAfeXKI r r‘ )1 DIII..D«..33. ..... I. m. ...... . .. ..\L-‘(t.{..x¢... 3,14! Dear Residem: I want to learn more about the way people like yourself choose their residential housing. You have been selected from a list of American people who have chosen their residence within Jeddah City. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about how you selected your present house or apartment. Your responses will remain anonymous and will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Given the great number of possible housing choices available in the Jeddah area. the questions largely focus on what you wanted in a house, how you chose your present residence. and how well you like your present home and residential area now. Most questions can be answered without much effort. as your personal response. I would be grateful for your answering each question. and your cooperation in this regard would be greatly appreciated. I thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely, Au/nlggé I Asaad M. Atiyah Doctorate candidate Michigan Sate University 3m 0379404 \IuI-I/uvuor . art-nu “SD Lats-tut? (:31 5.1.? m. a“; “mi-JF— mi .15: m-«v :43» TelexwllfltaunISJ CahleJameatabdulaais 9.0.35“me 213 RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS AND THE SELECTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING: THE CASE OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION IN JEDDAH CITY, SAUDI ARABIA Questionnaire Sample Number] District Number Please give your answers to the following ques- tions by writing in the appropriate space or by marking an "x" in the boxes as indicated. Each of the following 30 questions contains a "factor" that people consider when selecting residential housing. For each question, please check in the appro- priate box to show how important each factor was for you. Very Important means that you gave a great deal of thOught to the factor. Moderately Important means that you may have considered the factor. Not Important means you did not think about the factor at all. 1. Overall size of dwelling very important[:] moderately important[:] not important [:] 214 215 Number of rooms very import ant [:1 moderate 1y not import ant [:3 import ant [:1 Design and outside appearance of dwelling very import ant [3 moderate 1y not import ant E] State of repair of the dwelling very import ant [:J moderately not import ant [3 Age of dwelling very import ant [:] moderate 1y not import ant [:J Costs of dwelling very import ant C] moderately not import ant [3 Type of people living in the area very import ant D moderately not important [:1 Social composition of the area very import ant [:3 moderate 1y not import ant [:I import ant [:1 import ant I: import ant [:I import ant E] import ant [:j I import ant [:3 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Reputation of the area very important [3 not import ant [3 Not in old housing area very import ant [:1 not import ant [:1 216 moderately import ant [:3 moderately import ant [:1 Not in high population density area very import ant [:1 not import ant [:I moderate 1y import ant [:I Quality of children's school in the area very important [:3 not import ant [:I Quietness of the area very important [:I not important I: Cleanliness of the area very import ant [:3 not import ant I: moderately important [:3 moderately import ant E] moderate 1y import ant E] Low street traffic in the area very important [:1 not import ant [:1 moderately import ant [:] 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 217 Low crime rate in the area very important E] not important [:1 Privacy from people in the very important [:1 not important [:1 Spacing between houses in t very important [:1 not import ant [:1 Availability of city servic very import ant [:I not important [3 Proximity to workplace very important [3 not important [:1 moderately important [:1 area moderately import ant C] he area moderately import ant E] es in the area moderately important [:1 moderate 1y import ant C] Proximity to children's school very important E] not import ant E] Proximity to medical facili very import ant [:1 not import ant C] moderately import ant [:l ties moderately import ant E] .23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 218 Proximity to parks and playground very import ant [:] moderate 1y not import ant [:1 Proximity to transportation facilities very import ant [:l moderately not important [:1 Proximity to city center very import ant [:l moderately not import ant [:3 Proximity to shopping opportunities very import ant E] moderate 1y not import ant [3 Proximity to friends very import ant [:l moderately not import ant D Proximity to relatives very important [:3 moderately not import ant [:3 Proximity to an American household or very import ant [3 moderate 1y not import ant [:I import ant [:1 import ant [:I import ant [:3 import ant El import ant [:I import ant E] fellow citizen import ant [:J 219 30. Proximity to an American social institution very important [1 moderately importantl:j not import ant E] 31. Now, after you have seen these numerous factors, please rank in order the three most important factors that affected your decision to select your present residence. First Second Third 32. Compared with what you wanted before you selected your present residence, how would you say the selec- tion of your current dwelling has worked out? Better than expected [:3 About as expected [:1 Not at all as expected. [:] 33. Here are some descriptions which I would like to use to describe your residential area as it seems to you. By residential area I mean just what you can see from your house or yard; that is, the nearest ten or so homes to yours. well planned [:1 good services [:1 well kept up [:1 desirabl friendly people pleasant safe E] attracti 9:] C] [:1 ve[:] quiet [:1 clean [:3 220 Residential Area poorly planned [:1 poor services [:1 poorly kept up D undesirable [:] unfriendly people D unpleasant D unsafe [:1 unattractive [:J noisy D unclean [:I somewhere [:1 in between somewhere [:1 in between somewhere [:1 in between somewhere D in between somewhere in between D somewhere [:l in between somewhere [:1 in between somewhere in between [:1 somewhere in between D somewhere C] in between 34. How satisfied are you with your present residence? very satisfied satisfied dissatisfied [:1 [:1 [:1 very dissatisfied E] 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 221 If dissatisfied, please describe the specific unsatisfactory features of your residence. Are 3nn1 planning to move from your present residence only because you feel dissatisfied with its features? yes [:I no [:I How many vacancies have you seriously searched before you finally chose your present residence? How long did it take you to do such search? How long have you lived in your present residence? years months How long have you lived in Jeddah City? years months What was the place of your last residence in the United States? Please give name of state How many persons live at this address? (Do not include visitors) 222 43. What is your age? 44. What is your occupation? 45. How much education have you completed? didn't complete high school high school graduate technical school or some college experience college graduate advanced or professional degree 46. Please indicate which letter--A, B, C, D, or E--best describes your annual household income? A. Less than $10,000 B $10,000 - $19,999 ' C $20,000-$29,999 D. $30,000-$39,999 E $40,000+ Thank you very much for answering these questions. B I BL I OGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, James P. "Recent Immigration from the Philippines and Filipino Communities in the United States." The Geographical Review 67(2) (April 1977):195- 208. Alonso, William. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1964. Ball, M. J., and Kirwan, R. M. "Accessibility and Supply Constraints in the Urban Housing Market." Urban Studies 14 (1977):11-32. Barressi, C. M. "The Role of the Real Estate Agent in Residential Location. Sociological Focus 1(4) (1968):59-71. Barrett, Frank. "The Search Process in Residential Relocation." Environment and Behavior 8(2) (June 1976):169-98. Berry, B. J. L., and Horton, F. E. Geographic Perspec- tives on Urban Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Berry, B. J. L., and Rees, Philip H. "The Factorial Ecology of Calcutta." American Journal of Sociol- ogy 64 (1969):445-91. Biswas, A.; Chatterjee, P.; and Chaube, J. S. "the Ethnic Composition of Calcutta and the Residential Pattern of Minorities." Geographical Review of India 38(2) (June 1976):140-66. Bordessa, Ronald. "Real Estate Salesmen and Residential Relocation Decisions." The Canadian Geographer 22(4) (Winter 1978):334-9. Bowman, R. A., and Hosking, P. L. "A Factorial Ecology of Auckland." In Proceedings of the Six New Zealand Geography Conference. Edited by R. J. Johnston and J. M. Soons. Christchurch, New Zealand, 1971, pp. 273-80. 223 224 Brown, H. J. "Changes in Workplace and Residential Locations." JOurnal of the American Institute of Planners 41(1) (January 1975):32-9. Brown, L., and Horton, F. "Social Area Change: An Empirical Analysis." Urban Studies 7 (1970): 271-88. Brown, L., and Longbrake, D. "Migration Flows in Intra- urban Space: Place Utility Considerations." Annals_of the Association of American Geographers 60*(1970):368-84. Burgess, E. W. "The Growth of the City." In The City. Edited by R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925, pp. 47-62. Burnett, P. "Behavioral Geography and the Philosophy of the Mind." In Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior, edited by R. G. Golledge and G. Rushton. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1976, pp. 23—50. Burnley, I. H. "European Immigration Settlement Patterns in Metropolitan Sydney." Australian Geographical Studies 10(1) (April 1972):61-87. . "Ethnic Settlement Formation in Wellington- Hutt." New Zealand Geographer 28(2) (October 1972): 151-70. . "Ethnic Factors in Social Segregation and Residential Stratification in Australia's Large Cities." The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 11(1) (February 1976):12-20. . "Greek Settlement in Sydney, 1947-1971." Australian Geographer 13 (1976):200—214. Butler, E. W.; Chapin, F. 8., Jr.; Hemmons, G. C.; Kaiser, E. J.; Stegman, M. A.; and Weiss, S. F. Moving Behavior and Residential Choice: A NgtionalSurvey. Highway Research Record. Washington, D.C.: National Cooperative Highway Research Record Report No. 81, 1969. Carlson, Alvar W. "Filippino and Indian Immigrants in Detroit and Suburbs, 1961-1974." The Philippine Geographical Journal 19(4) (1975):199—209. 225 Casey, Douglas R. International Investing. New York: Everest House Publishers, 1981. Chapin, F. S. Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana, I11.: University of Illinois Press, 1966. Chichekian, Garo. "Armenian Immigrants in Canada and Their Distribution in Montreal." Cahiers De Geggraphie De Quebec 21(52) (1977):65-82. Clark, Colin. "Urban Population Densities." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (114) (1951):490:96. Claus, R. J., and Claus, Karen E. "Behavioral Location Theory: A Review and Discussion of Pred's Dynamic Location Model." The Australian Geographer 11(5) (1971):522-30. Cleveland, Harlen. "The Pretty Americans: How Wives Behave Overseas." Harper's Magazine 218 (March 1959):31—6. Cleveland, Harlen; Mangone, G. L.; and Adams, John C. The Overseas Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Cormack, Margaret L. "American Students in India: Ambassadors or Cultural Polluters?" International Studies Quarterly 17(3) (Sept. 1973):337-57. Costello, V. F. Urbanization in the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Cox, Harvey. "The Restoration of a-Sense of Place: A Theological Reflection on the Visual Environ— ment." Ekistics 25 (June 1968). Curson, P. H. "Polynesians and Residence in Auckland." New Zealand Geographer 26(2) (October 1970): 162-73. Dahms, Frederic A. "Urban Residential Structure: Some Neglected Factors." New Zealand Geographer 27(2) (October 1971):130-50. Dahya, Badr. "The Nature of Pakistani Ethnicity in ‘ Industrial Cities in Britain." In Urban Ethnicity. Edited by Abner Cohen. London: Tavistock Pub- lications, 1974, pp. 77-118. 226 Daly, M. T. "Residential Location Decisions, New Castle, New South Wales." The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 4(1) (April 1968):36-48. Davie, R. J. "The Pattern of Urban Growth." In Studies in the Science of Society. Edited by G. P. Murdoch. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938, pp. 131—161. Doeppers, Daniel F. "The Globeville Neighborhood in Denver." The Geographical Review 57(4) (October 1967):506-22. "'Ethnic Urbanism' and Philippine Cities." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64(4) (December 1974):549-59. Driedger, Leo. "Maintenance of Urban Ethnic Boundaries: The French in St. Boniface." The Sociological Quarterly 20 (Winter 1979):89-108. Dulles, Foster R. "A Historical View of Americans Abroad." The Annals of the American Academy 368 (November 1966):11-20. Duncan, Beverly. "Variables in Urban Morphology." In Urban Society. Edited by Ernest W. Burgess and Donald JliBogue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Duncan, 0. D., and Duncan, B. "Residential Distribution and Occupational Stratification." American Journal of Sociology 60 (1975):493-503. Eng, Toe Siew. "Residential Choice in Public and Private Housing in Singapore." Ekistics 45(270) (June 1978):246-9. Evans, A. W. The Economics of_Residential Location. London: Macmillan, 1973. Farsi, Mohamed Said. Jeddah: The City and the Future. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Dar Al-Asfahani, 1980. Farsi, M. S., and Amer, H. I. "Islamic Architectural Features in the Arabian Peninsula and Their Reflection in Planning Old and New Jeddah." In The Arab City: Its Character and Islamic Cultur- aIHeritagg. Edited by Ismail Serageldin and Samir El-Sadek. Arab Urban Development Institute, 1982, pp. 184—190. 227 Foote, Nelson; Abu-Lughad, Janet; Foley, M.; and Winnick, L. Housing Choices and Housing Constraints. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Foreign Service Institute. When Americans Liye Abroad. Department of State Publications, 1965. Gould, P. "Cultivating the Garden: A Commentary and Critique of Some Multidimensional Speculations." In Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior. Edited by R. G. Golledge and G. Rushton. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1976, pp. 83-94. Gullahorn, Jeanne E., and Gullahorn, John T. "American Students Abroad: Professional Versus Personal Development." The Annals of the American Academy 368 (November 1966):43-59. Gustavus, Susan 0., and Brown, L. A. "Place Attributes in a Migration Decision Context." Environmental Planning 9 (1977):529-48. Hardwick, Susan W. "A Geographical Interpretation of Ethnic Settlement in an Urban Landscape: Russians in Sacramento." The California Geographer 19 (1979): 87-104. Harris, C. D., and Ullman, E. L. "The Nature of Cities." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 424(November 1945):7-17. Harvey, David. "Conceptual and Measurement Problems in the Cognitive-Behavioral Approach to Location Theory." In Behavioral Problems in Geography. Edited by Kevin R. Cox and R. G. Golledge. Evanston, I11.: Department of Geography, North- western University, 1969, pp. 35-68. Hawley, Amos, and Duncan, Otis D. "Social Area Analysis: A Critical Appraisal." Land Economics 33 (1957): 337-44. Hempel, Donald J., and Tucker, Lewis R. "Citizen Pref- erences for Housing as Community Social Indicators." Environment and Behavior 11(3) (September 1979): 399-428. Herbert, David. Urban Geography: A Social Perspective. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1974. 228 Herbert, D. T., and Johnston, R. J., editors. Social Areas in Cities. Volume I, "Spatial Process and FOrm." New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. Hoyt, H. The Structure of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Washington: U.S. Federal Housing Administration, 1939. Husain, M. S. "The Increase and Distribution of New Commonwealth Immigrants in Greater Nottingham." The East Midland Geographer 6(2) (December 1974): 105;129. Ismail, Ahmed A. "Jeddah City: A Geographic Study of Saudi Cities." Al—Khafji 6(4) (1976):16-25. Johnston, R. J. "The Location of High Status Residen- tial Areas." Geografiska Annaler 48(B)(1966): 23-35. Jones, Colin. "Housing: The Element of Choice." Urban Studies 16(2) (1979):197—204. Jones, Huw R., and Davenport, Maureen. "The Pakistani Community in Dundee: A Study of its Growth and Demographic Structure." Scottish Geographical Magazine 88(2) (September 1972):75-85. Jones, Philip. "Colored Minorities in Birmingham, England." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 66(1) (March 1976):89-103. Kearsley, Geoffrey W., and Srivastava, S. R. "The Spatial Evolution of Glasgow's Asian Community." Scottish Geoggaphical Magazine 90(2) (September 1974):110-24. Khan, Sultan M. "The Influence of Arabian Tradition on the Old City of Jeddah: The Urban Setting." In The Arab City: Its Character and Islamic Cultural Heritage. Edited by Ismail Serageldin and Samir E -Sadek. Arab Urban Development Institute, 1982, pp. 191-7. Kimball, Solon T. "American Culture in Saudi Arabia." The New York Academy of Science Transactions 18(5) (March 1956):469-84. 229 King, R. L., and King, P. D. "The Spatial Evolution of the Italian Community in Bedford." The East Midland Geographer 6(7) (June 1977):337-45. Lai, Chuen—Yan David. "An Analysis of Data on Home Journeys by Chinese Immigrants in Canada, 1892- 1915." The Professional Geographer 29(4) (November 1977):359-6 . Lambert, Richard D. "Some Minor Pathologies in the American Presence in India." The Annalsgf the AmeriCan Academy 368 (November 1966):157-70. Lancaster, K. J. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory." Journal of Political Economy 74 (1966):132-57. Lansing, John B., and Barth, Nancy. Residential Location and Urban Mobiliyy: ‘A Multivariate Analysis. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1964. Lansing, J. B., and Morgan, J. N. "Consumer Finances Over the Life Cycle." In The Life Cycle of Consumer Behavior. Edited by L. Clark. New York: New York University Press, 1955. Lansing, J. B., and Kish, L. "Family Life Cycle as an Independent Variable." American Sociological Review 22 (1957):512—19. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. "Missionaries Abroad." The Annals of the American Academy 368 (November 1966):2143O. Lee, Eve. The American in Saudi Arabia. Chicago: InterculturaICPress, Inc.,—1980. Lee, Trevor R. "Choice and Constraints in the Housing Market: The Case of One-Parent Families in Tasmania." The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociolggy 13(1) (February 1977):41—6. Lieber, Stanley R. "Place Utility and Migration.” Geografiska Annaler 60 (1978):16—26. McCarthy, Kevin F. "The Household Life Cycle and Housing Choices." Papers of the Regional Science Association 37 (1976):55480. 230 Moriarty, Barry M. "Socioeconomic Status and Residen- tial Choice." Environment and Behavior 6(4) (December 1974):448-69. Muth, R. F. Cities and Housing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Oliver, Robert T. Culture and Communication. Springfield, I11.: Charles C. Thomas Publishing Co., 1962. Olsson, G. "Inference Problems in Locational Analysis. " In Behavioral Problems in Geography: A Symposium. Edited by K. R. Cox and R. G. Golledge. North- western University Studies in Geography No. 17. Evanston, I11.: Northwestern University, 1969, pp. 14-34. Onibokun, Adepoju G. ”Social System Correlates of Residential Satisfaction." Environment and Behavior 8(3) (September 1976):323-44. Pesco, Angelo. Jeddah: Portrait of an Arabian City. Falcon Press, 1976. Peterson, G. L. "A Model of Preference: Quantitative Analysis of the Perception of the Visual Appear- ance of Residential Neighborhoods." Journal of Regional Science 7(1) (1967):19-32. Pred, Allan. Behavior and Location: Foundations for a Geo raphic and Dynamic Location Theory. Part I. Lun Studies in Geography, Series B, Human Geography No. 27. Lund, 1967. Behavior and Location: Fopndations for a Geo— graphic and Dynamic Location Theory. Part II. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B., Human Geography No. 28. Lund, 1969. Raitz, Karl B. "Themes in the Cultural Geography of European Ethnic Groups in the United States." The Geographical Review 69(1) (January 1979): :g-QI. Rapoport, Amos. Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man-Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977. Rees, Philip H. "Factorial Ecology: Extended Definition, Survey and Critique of the Field." Economic Geography 47(2) (1971):220-33. 231 Resigential Patterns in American Cities: 1960. Chicago: The University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 189, 1979. Rent, George S., and Rent, Clyda S. "Low—Income Housing: Factors Related to Residential Satisfaction." Environment and Behavior 10(4) (December 1978): 459:88. Rossi, Petter H. Why Families Move. Glencoe, I11.: Free Press, 1955} Rubin, Ernest. "A Statistical Overview of Americans Abroad." The Annals of the American Academy 368 (November 1966):1-10. Rushton, G. "Preference and Choice in Different Environ- ments." Proceedipgs of the Association of American Geographers 2 (1970)7146-50. Schmid, C., and Tagashira, J. "Ecological and Demographic Indices: A Methodological Analysis." Demography 1 (1964):194-211. Schnare, A. B., and Struyk, R. "Segmentation in Urban Housing Market." Journal of Urban'Economics 3 (1976):146-66. Senior, M. L. "Residential Location." In Models of Cities and Regions: Theoretioal‘and Empirical Development. Edited by A. G. Wilson, P. H. Rees, and C. M. Leigh. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977, pp. 283-321. Skevky, E., and Bell, W. Social Area Analysis: Theory, Illustrative Applications and Computational Procedures. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1 Simmons, James W. "Changing Residence in the City." Geographical Review 58 (1968):622-51. Sjoberg, Gideon. The Preindustrial City: Past and Present. New York: The Free Press, 1960. Smith, M. B. "Cross-Cultural Education As a Research Area." The Journal of Social Issues 12 (1956): 3-8. . 232 Speare, A. "Residential Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable in Residential Mobility." Demography 11 (1974):173-88. Straszheim, M. R. "Estimation of the Demand for Urban Housing Services from Household Interview Data." The Review of Economics and Statistics 55 (Febru- ary 1973). Stucker, James P. "Transport Improvements, Commuting Costs, and Residential Location." Journal of Urban Economics 2(2) (April 1975):123-43. Tarr, David W. "The Military Abroad." The Annals of the American Academy 368 (November 1966):31-42. AThomlinson, Ralph. Urban Structure: The Social and Spatial Character of Cities. New York: Random House, 1969. Thong, Lee Boon. "Patterns of Urban Residential Segre- gation: The Case of Kuala Lumpur." The Journal of Tropical Geography 43 (December 1976):41—8. Timmermans, Harry. "Spatial Choice Behavior in Differ- ent Environmental Settings: An Application of the Revealed Preference Approach.” Geografiska Annaler 63(B) (1981):57—67. Timms, D. W. G. The Urban Mosaic: Towards a Theory of Residentia1 Differentiation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Tiwari, Ramesh C. "An Analysis of the Social Agglomera- tion Among Asians in Nairobi." Scottish Geo- graphical Magazine 85(2) (September 1969):141-9. Trlin, A. D. "Dutch Immigrants in Auckland: A Factorial Ecology." New Zealand Geographer 31(2) (1975): 124-41. "Toward the Integration of Factors Affecting Immigrant Intra—Urban Residential Patterns." New Zealand Geographer 32(1) (1976):56-89. "Samoan Immigrants in Auckland: A Factorial Ecology." Australia and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 13(2)1(1977):152L60. 233 U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Social Indicator. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1973. Useem, John. "Work Patterns of Americans in India." The Annalsfof the American Academy 368 (November 1966):146-56. Useem, Ruth H. "The American Family in India." The Annals of the American Academy 368 (November 1966):132-45.l Weisbrod, Glen, and Vidal, Avis. "Housing Search Barriers for Low-Income Renters." Urban Affairs Quarterly 16(4) (June 1981):465-82. Weiss, Shirley F.; Smith, John E.; Kaiser, Edward J.; and Kenney, Kenneth B. Residential Developer Decisions: A Focused View of the Urban Growth Process. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina, 1966. Wilkins, Mira. "The Businessman Abroad." The Annals of the American Academy 368 (November 1966):83-94. Wolpert, Julian. "The Decision Process in Spatial Context." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54 (1964):537-78. "Behavioral Aspects of the Decision to Migrate." Proceedings of the Regional Science Association 15 (1965):159:69. Yamada, Hiroyuki. "On the Theory of Residential Location: Accessibility, Space, Leisure, and Environmental Quality." Paper and Proceeding of the Regional Science Association 29 (1972):125-35. Yeh, Eng—Kung, et al. "The American Student in Taiwan." International Studies Quarterly 17(3) (1973):359— 72.