RELATEQNS 3F ECOLOGWAL AND SQCIQLOGfiCAL CHARAETERISTICS OF URBAN SUB-ARfiAi'» OF A MIDQLE-SIIED CITY Thesis f6: fi'w Bugs“ cf Ph. D‘ MleGM STATE CGLLEGE James Danéeé Cawhig 1954- This is to certify that the thesis entitled Relations of Ecological and Sociological Character- istics of Urban Sub—Areas of a Middle—Sized City presented by James Daniel Cowhig has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for fl.— degree in 1352;191:251 flaw Maior professor .— —_———_. 4—y— - .w— - - 'v“- A _ qp_~?:' ‘ p REL‘XTIOI‘IS OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGIS‘AL CELUiACTERIS‘TICS OF UREA} SUB- AREL’XS OF A MIDDLE-SIZED CITY By James Daniel Cowhig AN ABS EQCT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and AnthrOpolOgy Year 19514 Approved 22 ;%¢ ,. 4% M THEQ'Q ABSTRACT A continuing problem in urban sociology has been that of the refinement of the analysis of the phenomena of urban life. This dissertation was concerned with the problem of the delineation of sub-areas within the city on the basis of criteria which were pri- marily sociological. This delineation permitted the comparison and analysis of intra-urban.areas. Interviews of an areal sample of 573 residents of the city of lensing, Michigan were utilized as a basis for a delineation of intra-urban areas. These areas were delineated on the basis of the degree of inter-personal contact within the local area. Three gen- eral types of areas were delineated: Those characterized by a high, middle, and low degree of inter-personal contact -- or degree of ’intimacy.‘ These areas were then.analyzed on the basis of ecologi- cal.and urban sociological theory, and the information available from formal agencies. In general, it was found that social areas characterized by a hrjidegree of intimacy were also characterized by’a high average land value and a high preportion of owner-occupied dwelling units. A more intensive analysis revealed certain exceptions to this general rela- tionship, and thus those areas presented problems for additional re- search. It was also found that the relationship between the location cfiie dwelling unit and the land value of the dwelling unit was con- trary to that hypothesized by the Burgess Zonal Hypothesis, i.e., there 'z/IQf-Eé;t;’ #fi— — -— _ .L ww:__.-.__ ., _. was an inverse relationship between land value of the dwelling unit and distance from the functional center of the city. The social psychological definition of high-status areas was found to be compatible in all cases with the economic definition of high-status areas. An analysis of the local area revealed that although the local area -- or neighborhood - served as a shopping center for thegnpu- lation of the area, social activities were carried ontvith little re- gard to the local area. Formal organizational membership was found to be less important within.the local area than outside of the local area, and in all cases, members of.formal organizations had a higher socio- economic status than non—members. The presence of friends within the local area was not significantly related to the degree of local intimacy, but the fact that three friends could be named, did differentiate high social areas from low social areas. Informal associations within the Irmal.area were found to be relatively unimportant for residents of all of the types of social intimacy areas. These findings suggest that the usual picture of the urban dweller which is painted by the urban.sociologist is in need of some modifica- tion. Comparability and applicability of the findings of this study may be evaluated by comparing the functional description of Lansing offered in this study with a functional description of other cities. It was also suaeested that human ecology and sociology would con- 00" tinue to develop in divergent directions. - -:- ..¢..._l..—_.y.u-. .t.._ 9‘ a A..__ g..- g__‘_,d, - REIATIWS 0F ECOUJGICAL AND SOCIULDGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN SUB—- AREAS OF A MIDDLE-SIZE CITY By dimes Dtniel Cowhig A masrs Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Miohigln State College of.Agrioulture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of D00 1013 or PHIIDSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropoloey 19 54 I." ll It‘llilll all 1 ACKNC’WLEII‘IEMENTS To attempt to acknowledge the aid of all the persons who haVe contributed in one way or another to this dissertation would be a pleasant, but unfortunately impossible, task. The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Charles P. Loomis, Head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Michigan State College, under whose general direction this study was done. One of the more pleasant experiences in the writing of this dissertation was the opportunity to work closely with Dr. The writer wishes to express his most sincere His con— William H. Form. gratitude to Dr. Form for his guidance and assistance. stsnt encouragement and invaluable assistance are largely respon- sible for whatever merit this study may possess. To the Lansing City Plan Commission and the East Lansing City council, thanks are due for the financial assistance which made possible the research upon which this study was based. An important influence on the development cf this study was that of 'a friend of Prufrock's,' and this influence is hereby fully acknowledged. II. III. IV V. EBLE 0? CO?! "PEI TS IN Thowc um . C O O O I O O O O O O D I O O SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL THEORY . . e Humsm Ecological meory . . . . . . . UrwaOOiOIOm’eeeeeeeeeee RESEhRCH PROBLEMS DERIVED FROM ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO- LOGICAL moon! AND INTRA-URBAN RESEARCH Intro-Urban Area Research . . . . . . Generalizations t0 be TBStede e e e e METHODS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . 'Introduction.............. 0 0 Conditions and Limitations of Research. . Delineation of Social Areas . . . . . A FUNCTIQIAL DESCRIPTIOI OF UC‘ISDIG. . . The Founding of Lansing . . . . . . . . . Population Growth and Distribution in lanaiugSMA............. Lansing as a Functional Center. . . . Ihe Functional Position of Lansing. . Summary............... AN ANALYSIS OF THE GROWTH AND LOCATICN the O O O 0 0? RES I DEN I'— IAL AREAS IN LANSING AND A COMPARISW OF 138 ECG}- OMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDEV TIAL ARms. . O O O I O O C O O O O C O C O O O O O O O O IntTOdUOtloneeheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee A Comparison of the Lansing SMA and Lansing with Other Michigan SHA's and Other Michigan . O O O O O O O O O O O C O O CitiOfle e e e ee e e Residential Areas in lensing: 1934-1950 . . . . . Accessibility as a Factor in Residential location me Social-Psychological Definition of High- StatueAreas................... Summarye.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 10 33 4O 54 58 58 58 61 67 68 7O 76 80 85 88 88 90 91 102 109 Ill Cheater ME DISIRIBUTIQI OF SOCIAL AND ECCNUMIC AC‘flVIflES VII. LY mE SOCIAL AMS. 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 . Introduction............o..... Formal Organizational Membership and participa- tion in the 300131 Arease e e e e e e e e e O Ebonomic Activities in the Social Areas lbs 089 Of 1003.1 FEOilitios e e e e e e Summry................ CWCIHSIWS AND SUGGESTIUJS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . Q . . VIII. IntrOdUOtiOneeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeee lheoretioal Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . e GOTIOP‘ICOHCluBiODBeeeeeeeeeeeee Suggestions for Further Research. . . . . . . APPm Duns LITERA was CI 131) 137 137 137 140 142 liable I. II. III. IV. V. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. LIST OF TABLES DEMOGRAPHIC, ECGVOMIC, EDUATILNAL, AND HOUSING CHAR- ACI'ERISTICS OP POPULATION 0P LANSING, 1950, AND OF SAMPLE, 1953. PERCENT POPULATIOI INCREASE BY cuss, SIZE, AND RE- GICN 0R 511A, 1900-1950. PERCENT 90901111011 INCREASE WITHIN IRE LANSING SMA, 1900-1950. NUMBER AND PERCENT or POPULATION IN LANSING SMA AND IN CENTRAL CITY, 1900-1950. DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL TRADE, WHOLESALE TRADE, AND BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, AND REPAIR SERVICES BY EST- ABLISIDIEN Is, PROPRIEIORS, EMPLOYEES, AND YEARLY SALES, FOR IANS'JNG AND ME LANSING sum, 1948 INDUSIRY or mPLOYED PERSONS IN LANSING AND LANSING SMA, 1950. DISTRIBUTICN OF MANUFACTURING ESIABLISHMEI TS, AND PERCENT OF PERSG‘JS EMPLOYED IN MANUFACIURING IN LANSING AND LANSING SMA, 1947. A FUNCTICNAL CLASSIFICATION OF MICHIGAN CPN TRAL CITIES. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYED PERSONS BY OCCU- PATRN 1N LANSING, 1930-1950, ANJD'PERCENT CHANGE, 1930-1950. COEFFICIENTS OP DISSIMILARITY FOR SEGdfiN TS OF ME LANSING LABOR FORCE, 1930-1950 DISTRIBUTIQI OF QUE-UNIT WELLING STRUCTURES BY AVERAGE IAND VALUE, FOR LANSING, 1950. DISIRIBUTICN OF ALL REPORIED DWELLING curs BY TYPE or SOCIAL IN TIMACY AREA, FOR LANSING, 1950 AND FOR SAMPLE, 1953. L? 64 70 71 72 77 78 79 81 83 84 94 Table XIII . XIV. XVI XVII XVIII XIX XXI IDLII XXIII XXIV PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF OWNER—OCCUPIED WEL- LING UNITS BY AVERAGE IAND VALUE AND SCEIAL INTIMACY AREA. AVERAGE LAND VALUE OF ALL REPORTED DWEIIJNG UNITS BY SOCIAL INTmACY AREA FOR LANSING, 1950. AVERAGE WEEKLY FAMILY INCOME BY SOCIAL INTJMACY AREA FOR SAMPLE, 1953 AVERAGE DISTANCE 01“ HIGHEST AND WEST LAND VALUE DWELLING UNITS FRO“! THE POINT 01“ MAX,- IMUM ACCESSIBILITY BY INCCME CLASS OF DWEL- LING UNIT, LANSING, MICHIGAN. PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS HAVING NO FOIMAL GRCXJP MEMBERSHIP, BY FAMILY INCOWE AND OCCUPATION 0F HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS IN TYPES OF SOCIAL AREAS BY MEIBERSHIP IN LOCAL FCRNAL CRGANIZATIONS PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS BELONGING TO AND. PARTICIPATING IN NON-LOCAL FCRMAL OIGANIZA- TIOI‘B BY TYPE OF SOCIAL INTIMACY AREA (RGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIP BY LOCATION OF ORGANIZATION AND TYPE OF SOCIAL INTDIACY CATEGGIY LENGTH OF REsmEInE AT PRESENT ADDRESS BY TYPE OF SOCIAL INTJMACY AREA MOBILITY 0F RESIDENTS BY TYPE OF SJCIAL 'INTIMACY AREA UTILIZATION OF ECONCMIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE LOCAL AREA BY TYPE OF SOCIAL INTIMACY AREA PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENI'S IN SOCIAL INTIMACY AREAS WHO UTILIZE LOCAL SHOPPING FACILITIES AND DISTANCE TRAVEILED T0 FACILITY Page 97 98 99 105 117 1.18 119 121 122 129 130 Page Table XXV PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO NEVER UTILIZE FACILITY NOR PERFOH‘I ACTIVITY WITHIN THE LOCAL AREA, BY TYPE OF SOCIAL INTINACY AREA 132 XXVI DISTRIHITION OF RESPONSES CONCERNING INFCTMAL IEETING PLACES WITHIN THE LOCAL AREA, BY SOCIAL L; 13 INTIMACY AREAS IN LANSING LIST 01“ F1 GURES Follows figure Page 1 AREAS OF LANSING BASED ON THE INDEX OP SOCIAL INTINACY 66 2 chxs mm mE-IEIRD OR MORE DNELLING UNITS CONSTRUCIED IN 1899 OR EARLIER AND STILL IN USE IN 1940 69 3 AGE-SEX COMPOSITION FOR LANSING AND FOR STATE, URBAN, 1950 73 4 DISCRETIGAL DISTRIBUTILH 0? REM AREAS 1N LANSING, MICHIGAN. 1934 91 5 DISTRIBUTE)! 01" HIGHEST AND [ONEST LAND VALUES, LANSING, 1950 92 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Few topics in Arnerican sociology have received as much attention as the 'conmunity study.‘ Shilsl maintains that, 'Urban sociology ,' which included the stuchr of practically every process of social life occurring within the urban terri- tory and 'community study' with its canprehensive, relatively unfocused description of the 'entire community' in all of the interconnections of its parts were the two leading (sanetimes identical, and almost always parallel) lines of development of research and theoretical speculation. It is largely within the framework of the tvpotheses and subject matter connected with these studies, or as offshoots of them, that sons of the major subsequent deveIOpments have occurred. Despite the tremendous amount of sociological research which has been done in the field of urban sociology, the sociologist has frequently treated the phenomenon of urban life in broad and general terms. He has for example, pointed out the diversity and heterogeneity which are taken to be characteristic of urban life, and at the same time has implicitly assumed that t his very diversity produces similar results. Much urban research has been unguided by aw coherent consistent theory, and in this respect at least, is distressingly similar to a good deal of other sociological research. The results may be ‘interesting' or'insightful' but as far as their direct contribution to a systematic theory of human behavior and social organization them is no value in them.2 'Urban' has often been used as a category into which are placed events which use 1. E. A. Shils. 113 Present State 93 American Socioloq. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. 1955. p. 7 2. Ibid., p. 11 1-. Ala—"4.3.,- uw ‘_. . -2- Wmay be quite dissimilar. It is here maintznned that one of the requirements for am discipline which aspires to be 'scientific' is a classification which permits the analysis of a class of phenomena in such a way so as to abstract and relate whatever Simil- arities and differences the phenomena may exhibit. This means Specifi- cally for the urban sociologist, that the category 'urban' must be socio- logically significant. It is not sufficient for sociological analysis to base such a classification upon criteria which do not permit adequate description of the sociological aspects of city life. The classification must be one which permits analysis of the phenomena in a more refined fashion than that of classifying them as ‘urban,’ and which permits analysis of differences within an urban area. Sociologists have long recognized the existence of the problem concerning the classification of the city into smaller areas which would facilitate sociological research and analysis. The sociologist has also recognized that political and administrative areas are not always sociologically significant; neither 1 are those areas defined solely on the basis of demographic characteris- tics; nor those based solely upon ecological factors. ‘ It is precisely this problem of the sociological delineation of intra-urban areas with which the Department of Sociolog am Anthro- pology at Michigan State College has been concerned for the past two years. During this period, a research pray-am has been under way with the express purpose of constructing sub-areas for a census tract plan which takes into account sociological as well as demographic and eco- logical factors. The present dissertation has grown out of this research, in the course of which a number of problems have been selected for more intensive analysis. The analysis is based upon selected theoretical and "‘ P... _ _' V _ . ___ ._ , _‘ . . , V . .. empirical propositions drawn from human ecology and urban sociology which are related to intra-urban area research.3 Chapter II is devoted to a discussion of the specific ecological and sociological theory which will guide the analysis of data gathered to test certain of these theories. This theoretical discussion has two purposes. First, and more important for the immediate purposes of this study, is the selection of certain Specific twpotheses, relating to intra-urban areas, which can be tested in this study. On a more general level, the discus- sion is concerned with the relationship of ecological and sociologcal theory, particularly in regard to the future development of the two dis- ciplines. The discussion of ecological theory is concerned with an ex- position of a particular school of human ecology, perhaps best represented at present by the work of Amos Hawley. The general orientation of this theory and some of the more significant assumptions of the theory are ex- amined. The orientation of this school of human ecology limits - as any theory must limit -- the problems which can be cmsidered. Obviously, not all of the 'activities of organisms‘ are the province of the tmman ecologist. The prepositions of human ecolog with which this study is concerned are those pertaining to the location of residential units and the relationship between the inhabitants of residential areas and other M ‘ m— 3. The research was partially financed by grants from the Lansing City Plan Omission and the East lensing City Council. Members of the research Committee include: J.A. Beagle, J. Cowhig, J .R. Debora, V1.11. Form, (Chairman), C.P. Loomis, J. Smith, G.P. Stone, D.G. Steinicke, and «1.17. Thaden of the Department of Sociology and Anthropologr of Michigan State College; and G. Belknap of the Department of Political Science and Public Administration of Michigan State College. D.L. Gibson of the Departmnt of Sociolog and Anthropology of Michigan State College con- tributed many helpful ccmnents and criticisms. ' ...- _ _ __ v.,_ _ . ..H I — —— v~‘————— ‘ ' *— l - ... Hm.p_~gr, .. In..." ”..-, . ... ,, ., .mm‘ a». ~ ..L... functional units of the community. There are many questions which arise in this exposition which can only be stated and not answered. One section of the theoretical discussion is concerned with these questions, and major anphasis is placed on an attempt to show some of the consequences of this theory for the development of human ecology, and particularly for the re- lationship between ecology and socioloy. Since analysis of the data in terms of urban sociological theory presents a number of difficulties, the second part of Chapter II contains a disscussion of urban sociological thoery. Urban sociological research, largely under the influence of the 'Chicago school' has been geatly con- cerned with the investigation of unusual or 'deviant' or hberrant' forms of behavior, which may be most apparent in the city. One consequence of this approach has been the lack of consideration given to factcrs which tend to 'organize' the community, and the concentration upon factors which are taken to be signs, of 'disorganization.‘ It has been relatively re- cently that sociologists have treated the city as a coxmmnity where large numbers of people do manage to exist. For the purposes of an investigation into the activities of groups of peeple who are not obviously 'disorganized' -- that is, into the com- munity' in a larger sense -- urban sociological theory leaves much to be desired. There is it is true, agreement on certain general characteris- tics of cities, e.g., large groups of peOple are functicnally interdepend- ent; many functions are dispersed to Specialized institutions; the pOpu- lation is socially heterogeneous. Studies of voluntary associational mem. bership, religious participation, and economic activities have been made, but in no sense does aw adequate sociological theory of urbanism exist. Therefore, the sociological theory discussed is that which seems to embody ww— _ .— -..-Lut—lw." —.-. - .-.-..H... . Lin—«d W.- M 0.. the dominant view of urban sociologists at present. A suggested theory of urbanism, that of Louis Mirth, is presented and briefly discussed. Pravious urban sociological research is examined for the purpose of gain- ing information relevant for this investigation, i.e., information con- cerning the relationship between residence in a specific intra-urban area and the behavior of the residents Of these areas. Both social and econom- ic activities are considered, insofar as they are related to residence in a particular locality. Sane of the methodological problems faced in attempting a study of this kind are discussed and the Specific methods utilized in this stuck: are presented. A fundamental difficulty has already been suggested, i.e. , the inadequacy of present intra-urban classifications for sociOlogical re- search. Data on the city which was the subject of this study were limited to block statistics on housing within the city. These data were gathered and canpiled by political units (wards) which bear little or no resemblance to cry of the sociological areas of the city. Thus the relatively meager information available had to be supplemented by information which could not be obtained from ary formal agency or source. In other words, infor- mation concerning sociological criteria had to be obtained by the initial research in order to devise a suitable classification of intra-urban areas. The research upon which this study is based attempted to secure infome- tion on sociological criteria through the use of a rather intensive inter- view of an areal sample of the city. In this way, it was possible to supplement demographic and ecological data with data on the sociological characteristics of thepOpulation. A major assumption of this study is that the social organization of an area must be considered, as well as demogaphic and ecological factors. To state this assumption in a negative \ on! ,- fashion: If no significant sociological differences exist in the behavior of groups of people in different areas of the city, then it makes no dif- ference (to the sociologist) what the intra-urban classification happens to be. i This study is concerned with the analysis of intra-urban areas de- lineated on the basis of data which are primarily sociological. For eac- ample: The available data make possible the mapping of the spatial dis- tribution of a large number of and wide range of activities and charac- teristics of the population. From these data, it is possible to discover what, if my, activities or characteristics serve to differentiate areas within the city, i.e., in what ways do areas delineated on the basis of sociological criteria differ in respect to the performance of various social and economic activities? It is possible to compare economic areas of the city with the social areas of the city; data relating to the sub- jective definition of the 'neighborhood' may be canpared with the 'neigh- borhood' as defined by the performance of economic functions. One of the main functions of this study is to point out areas of the city which differ from surrounding areas, and which require further investigation to provide explanations for this difference. Thus, sane light may be shed on the question of whether the concept of 'neighborhood,’ in the traditional sociological sense has any validity for urban areas. The general applicability of the findings of this study cannot, of course, be determined without additional research; but in order to enable a comparison of Lansing with other urban areas, one chapter is devoted to a denographic and functional description of Lansing. This description in- dicates the factors which are suggsted by the ecologist and the sociologist as being important for the analysis of the city, (9.3., size, pOpulation ‘ $4.,4‘ .‘Mfiw‘ ' composition, and functional basis. Trends in pepulation growth and dis- tribution for the Lansing Standard MetrOpolitan Area as well as for Lans- ing from 1900 to 1950 are discussed. The occupational and industrial com- position of both areas is examined in order to determine the present occu- pational and industrial structure, and also to point out the way in which changes in this structure have taken place over the past twenty years. This description not only permits the Specification of certain conditions which may be related to the social characteristics of the papulation of lensing, but also makes possible a comparison of Lansing with other cities of a similar type. Clearly, the more complete the description of Lansing, the greater the possibility of determining the applicability of the find- ings of this study for other cities. For example: The fact that lensing is of relatively small area minimizes the importance of time-cost distance for those persons residing in the central city, and may affect the general applicability of the conclusions concerning the relationship between acces- sibility and residential location. The result. of the analysis of intra-urban areas of Lansing is pre- sented in two substantive chapters. One chapter deals with the develop- ment and present structure of residential areas in Laming. The economic status of residential areas is described, and the relationship between econanic and social areas is explored. The economic characteristics associ- ated with the types of social areas are also examined. A specific preposi- tion of urban sociology, dealing with the theoretical location of residential areas of various economic levels is examined as to its applicability in the case of Lansing. The last section of the chapter presents evidence relat- ing to the compatibility of a definition of residential areas based on economic criteria, and the social psychological definition of high-status areas by the residents of the city. of- Chapter VII contains an analysis of the use of several types of facilities and the performance of various kinds of social activities, in an attempt to indicate the relative importance of the local area for the performance of these activities. Data in regard to formal organizational membership and the frequency of the utilization of local facilities are analyzed in order to determine what, if any, differences obtain between these variables and the social and economic characteristics of the social areas of Lansing. The final chapter summarizes the findings of the study, and points out topics for further research. Several points should be kept in mind in considering the study. (1) This study is concerned with the analysis of specific types of intra- urban areas, delineated on the basis of sociological criteria. An import- ant assumption of the research design was that certain areas of the city were characterized by residents who differed significantly in behavior. This, then, is not a study of the population of Lansing, but a comparative analysis of the social and economic behavior of residents in areas of the city which have been distinguished from other areas of the city on the basis of personal contact within the local area. (2) This study was, in a sense, a pilot study. Therefore, the analysis is based on data which are, for the most part, by no means complete. In fact, one of the principle results of the study may be to point out certain problems for analysis in the contem- plated contiming research in the Lansing Area. In the following chapter, the ecological and sociological theory which guided the analysis is discussed. The first section of the chapter deals with a specific school of ecological theory; the latter section deals with what is considered to be the dominant urban sociologcal approach. CHAPTER II ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Any analysis implies the acceptance of some criteria by which certain eventsare considered to be relevant and certain other events are ignored. In this chapter, the two approaches utilized in the analysis of intra- urban areas are discussed. Neither approach is particularly coherent nor systematic, and in the sense in which the term 'theory' is often used in sociology little more than a beginning of theory exists in either disci- plineJ" An immediate consequence of this condition is that the range, gener- ality, and precision of the statements which may be made concerning a Specif- ic problem are rather limited. 'Wrong' questions may be asked, imprecise methods used, and the basis for the interpretation of results may not be sound. The first section is concerned with the exposition of the approach of one school of human ecology. This approach provides part of the theoreti- cal frmework for this dissertation. The discussion is an attempt to make _—“__A_ ‘— h. This assertion is documented in the following sections. These remarks are not intended to disparage theory nor discourage research -- quite the contrary. Bit it is felt that it would be naive to imply that sociological research is guided by a theory which is either very adequate Or very sophisticated. See: Hobbs, A. H. The Claims of Sociolo . The Stackpole Compamr, Harrisburg, Pa. , 1952, sums SociafiroBIems and Scientism 1953 for a rather extreme view of the condition of cool-Slog. Sale I . cit.‘ is more favorably disposed, but is still quite critical. Mina A Kre- Social Ecolo (Columbia University Press, New York, 1938) is a critical ems-{s one ecological school. explicit the assumptions of this theory, its general orientation, and some specific prOpositions of the theory which can be tested in this research. Human Ecological Theory When one attempts to define precisely the field of human ecology and to show the relevance of human ecology for urban sociology, one is faced with a bewildering array of contrary and s ometimes contradictory views which are held by those who call themselves 'human ecologists.’ As Quinn pointed out in the first review of literature in the field, The field of human ecology has been variously defimd, and no clear-cut outline of topics to be included within it has been unani- mously accepted. According to certain authors, the current liter- ature on human ecology would include anthropology, biology, demogra- ptv, economics, geography, and psychology.5 It is necessary to select from the various views of human ecologists one view which would seem to offer promise in the analysis of intra-urban areas. The viewpoint which has been selected for this study is that which is perhaps best represented at present in the work of Amos Hawley, and which is referred to, for lack of a better term, as the 'Hawley school.‘ Alternative viewpoints will be considered only for purposes of compari- son, since a comprehensive analysis of all the alternative positions would be far beyond the scope of this dissertation. The discussion of this specific school of ecological thought entails an exposition of the general orientation of the school, and the selection of certain specific propositions in regard to the structure and canposition of intra-urban areas, which can be tested in this study. _-___ “Topical Smmary of Current literature on 5. James A. Quinn. Human Ecoloy,“ American Journal of; _S_gciolog. XLVI:2. p. 191 It seems quite plausible that Hawley's view of science, which is one that achnits of no fundamental distinction between 'natural' and 'social' science, has been one of the major reasons for his emphasis upon the util- ity of general ecological theory. This basic distinction is evident when Hawley's view is compared with that of Firey. Firey, influenced by Weber, Parsons, and Sorokin would seem to hold a contrary conception of the nature of science -- a conception which is in the neo-Kantian tradition -- and one which would also seem to negate Hawley's conception of a unity of science. This negation leads Firey to insist upon variables which am either taken as constants by Hawley, or for his purposes, ignored. Now it is quite clear that while basic philosophical differences may affect the development of theory, basic philos0phioal agreement does not guarantee theoretical agreement. In fact, it might be argued that die- agreement within a particular discipline will be most evident among those who are in basic agreement on philOSOphical aounds; and that a disagree- ment which stems from fundamental orientations which are incompatible can- not be resolved in the same fashion as the former. Thus, it would seem to be important to point out differences of this latter kind, which are more fundamental than differences in terminolog or in specific RB thods or techniques. It should be made clear that the concern here is not with the write of any particular philosOphy of science, but with the theoretical conse- quences of a specific philosophical orientation. In other words, the as- smuptions (often implicit) upon which a given theory is based, do make a difference in the develOpment of the theory. These assumptions would seem to set certain broad limits within which future developnent takes place. In this specific case, the importance of the general view of science held by Hawley will become clear as his conception of human ecology is discussed. The discussion begins with a 're-examination and reappraisal' of ecology.6 Hawley acknowledges an indebtedness to R.D. McKenzie for many of his ideas, but the statement of these ideas and their elaboration is his. Hawley feels that this re-examination is necessary, for, ". .after twenty years, it (human ecology) remains a somewhat crude and ambiguous conception."7 He maintains that much of the research following the early fomulations of McKenzie, Park, and Burgess failed to explore the full implications of ecology as applied to humans: . . .responsibility for the existing chaos in human ecology, it seems to me, rests upon certain aberrant intellectual tendencies which have dominated most of the work that has been done. The more significant of these may be described as: (l) the failure to main- tain a close working relationship between human ecology and general or bioecologr; (2) an undue preoccupation with the concept of com- petition; and (3) the persistence in definitions of the subject of a misplaced emphasis on ‘spatial relations." This first criticism is closely related to the point which was made above, i.e., it reflects Hawlye's conception of, or philosophy of, science. It is an important criticism, for in his Opinion: "Probably most of the difficulties which beset human ecology may be traced to the isolation of the subject from the mainstream of ecological thought.“9 The central importance of this position in regard to the relationship between general A 6. Amos H. Hawley. "Ecology and Human Ecology." Social Forces 22m. pp. 398 - 1105. 7. Ibidog p. 398 8. Ibide, p. 399 90 Ibido, p. 399 "' —“--*- ' ___. HAQH—u_-_-_eq--_,_ '..”‘..".W" 1‘ '3" 4— ’ .~_1._....~ --' -- ~3~ '-"' ecologr and human ecology can be seen in Hawley's writing, for example: ". . .very few persons who regard themselves as human ecologists indicate an awareness that they are logically committed to follow out in the study of man the implications of ecology."10 Further, Hawley criticizes two specific treatments of this relationship. Park and Hollingshead are criticized for borrowing terminology while ignoring any striving for theoretical unity. Gettys is criticized for attempting to develop human ecology independently of general ecology. Hawley believes that, ". . the majority of human ecologists. . .have proceeded without benefit from the theoretical position they believe themselves to have adopted."11 The second criticism illustrates a different type of disagreement. That is, the use of the concept of competition may well have arisen from "The desire on the part of human ecologists to achieve a thorough-going natural science treatment of human behavior. . ."12 Here is found dis- agreauent, not on fundamental philOSOphical grounds, but on the basis of a position which is based upon similar philOSOphical assumptions, but which is in Hawley's opinion, an erroneous conception. For him, “What is important, if true, is that individuals do affect one another through affecting the available supply of required materials. This is all that need concern the ecologist."13 For Hawley, questions as to whether or not competition is conscious or unconscious are irrelevant. He mrther ‘- A 10. Ibid., p. 399 11. Ibid., p. 399 12. Ibid., p. too 13. Ibid., p. too points out that the lack of an adequate taxonomy makes it difficult to ascertain when competition is taking place, and therefore that, "The utility of competition as an explanatory tool will remain in daubt until a fuller knowledge of functional or social types is deve10ped."u‘ He also points out the fact that combination and cooperation have been ignored, and that as a result the concept of cooperation has been treated as a monistic explanatory device. "Certainly competition is not the pivotal conception of ecology; in fact it is possible to describe the subject with- out even an allusion to competition."15 The misplaced emphasis upon spatial relations he believes to be another result of the divorcement of human ecology from general ecology, and he maintains that, ". . .One of the techniques employed in ecological research-- mapping -- has been mistaken for the discipline itself."16 As far as he is concerned, mapping is at best geography, and 'often it is geography which exhibits "inferior cartographic skill." He stresses the fact, "That space and time are merely convenient abstractions by which to measure activ- ities and relationships."17 He points out that every science must deal with the Spatial and temporal aspects of its own subject matter. For Hauley, 'the problem‘s the thing,' and considerations of a spatial and taupora], nature are incidental to the investigation of the problem. The above then, are some of the reasons for the confusion existent in ecological thought, according to Hawley. It is now necessary to dis- cuss Hawley's conception of human ecologyo __ 11*- 3.2% p. km. 15. 919-: p. 1.01 16. Ibid., p. hoe 17. Ibid.’ p. [1.02 -—‘ ...-... -.- w — - .w- m“ «0' sac-u —- First of all, a discipline must have a problem, and the problem must be one which is not already preempted by other disciplines. Secondly, the discipline must be, ". . .coherent within itself and consistent with the point of view it pretends to represent. There is no basis, in other words, for calling a study mutanecolog if it is not ecological."13 Once again, it is clear that his conception of ecology is one which seems to follow from his conception of science. Hawley's concern with general ecology leads him to discuss the rudi- ments of this discipline: ' . . .ecolog is concerned with the elemental problem of how growing, multiplying beings maintain themselves in a constantly changing but ever restricted enviroment. It is based on the fundamental assumption that life is a continuous struggle for adjustment of the organism to environment. However, the mani- fest inter-relatedness of living forms, which leads students to speak of the 'web of life,’ suggests that adjustment, far from being the action of independent organisms, is a mutual or col- lective phenomenon. Drawing together the relevant facts, it seems tint the inevitable crowding of living forms upon limited resources produces a complex action and reaction of organism with environment and organism with organism in the course of which individuals becane related to one another in ways condu- cive to a more effective utilization of the habitat. As the division of labor which thus develops approaches equilibrium, such that the number of organisms engaged in each of the sev- eral activities is sufficient to provide all the needs that are represented, the aggregate of associated individuals assumes the aspect of a compact viable entity, a superorganism, in fact. The (biotic) community, as such a functionally or symbiotically integrated population may properly be called, is in effect a collective response to the habitat, it constitutes the adjust- ment, in the fullest sense of the term, of organism to environ- ment. The subject of ecological inquiry then is the community, the fom and deve10pment of which are studied with particular reference to limiting and supporting factors of t he environment. Ecology, in other words, is a study of the morphologr of col- lective life in both its static and its dynamic aSpects. It attempts to determine the nature of community structure in gen- eral, the types of communities that appear in different habitats, and the specific sequence of change incumnunity develoment.19 18. Ibido’ p. 1402 19. Ibid.’ p. [$03 4M ‘o ‘ l r, At - 1(3 - The data of ecology are the activities of organisms. It is in this connection that Hawley makes a point that has direct relevance for this study, "Taxonomic characteristics are relevant only so far as they serve as indexes of behavior traits.“20 In addition, ecology views life as an agg'egate rather than as an individual phenomenon. "The individual enters into ecological theory as a postulate and into ecological investigation as a unit of measurement. . ."21 One of Hawley's more important conclu- sions: "Thus, deepite the great difference between the behavior of men and that of lower forms of life - a difference which appears to be one of degree rather than of kind -- the approach described as general ecology may be applied to the study of man without radical alteration."22 The significant thing to note in this regard, is that the correctness of the position may be of only secondary importance for theoretical development; of more immediate importance is the fact trnt this position canndts Hewley to a specific delimitation of the discipline, and definition of the ele- ments to be considered. For example, "The external and descriptive approach of ecology is ill-suited to the direct study of the psychologi- cal counterpart of symbiosis, although it may serve as a fruitful source of Impotheses concerning that aspect of the community."23 Hawley con- eludes: The distinctive feature of the study (human ecology) lies in the conception of the adjustment of man to habitat as a process of cdnmunity develognent. Whereas this may be an implicit as- sumption in most social science disciplines? it is for human ecology the principle working hypothesis.2 20. Ibid., p. m3. 21. Ibid., p. 1m 22. Ibid., p. hot 230 Ibid.’ p. 1:01; 21‘. Ibide, p. 1405 -17- To summarize Hawley's view: The subject of ecological study is the community; its data are the activities of organisms viewed as an aggregate, and hence the problems of ecolog are pOpulation problems; there is no difference in 193d between ecological carmmnities; the ecologist is con- cerned with the formation of communities, the way in which this formation is affected by the size, composition, and rate of growth or decline of the population; the significance of migration, and the factors which make for change in the structure of the c omrminity. Ecology is concerned with the functions and relationships of 'habits' and not with the way in which these habits are acquired. In another article ,25 Hawley deals with the relationship between ecology and urban areal research. He points out that interest in the city and its problems was one of the major sources of the application of an ecological point of view to areal research. The enviroment of the city differs from that of other regions. The one exception -- the one common denominator -- in the enviroment of the city and the open country is area, but, "It is area without content, area reduced to the abstraction of space."26 Space; has two aspects. It presents Opportunity to carry on activity, and it also demands time and energy to pass through space. Hawley terms these aSpects as complementary, i.e., resistance and site. "The essential virtue cursite is accessibility."27 Accessibility is related both to distance and the means of overcoming distance and to the type of relationship involved, i.e., frequency of the relationship.28 For Hawley, "The city, or preferrably the urban community is an aggregate of interdependent units disposed about m 25. Amos H. Hawley. "The Approach of Human Ecology to Urban Areal Research." The Scientific Monthly. IXXIIId (July, 1951) pp. 1:53-16 26. Ibid., p. h8 27. Ibid., p. be 28. Ibid. -18- a localized area in such a way that the accessibility of one to another bears a direct relationship to the frequency of exchanges between them."28 An important hypothesis states that there is an eXpression of social- structure in spatial patternings, "In other words, space constitutes a dimension on which social structure can be measured."29 (It can be seen that this twpothesis is evident in the writings of Park and McKenzie). In order to test this hypothesis, it is necessary to have a, ". . .rather full knowledge of social structure; at least the essential units and their interrelations should be so clearly identified as to be readily observable . "30 It has been seen that the 'community' is the subject of ecological inquiry as Hawley conceives of it. Since this term has various and sundry meanings, it might be well to examine just what the concept of canmunity entails for Hawley’s approach to ecology. "The community may be defined as comprising that area the resident pepulation of which is interrelated and integrated with reference to its daily requirements whether contacts be direct or indirect."31 Community life takes place along two axes -- the symbiotic and commensalistic, and the community is a symbiotic-cormsmsalistic phenomenon.32 Symbiotic relationships give rise to corporate groups while cormnensalistic rela- tionships give rise to categoric groups. Thus, a corporate group is com- posed of units of dissimilar functions; ". . .(it) is internally differ- entiated and symbiotically integrated; it constitutes an organ of the larger communal organism."33 An assocation of functionally homogeneous A. 29‘ Ibide’ p. 119 30. Ibido’ p. ’49 3‘1. Amos H. Hawley. Human Ecolo : g Theog gi; Omnity Structure. Ronald Press. New York. 1955. p. 32. Ibid., p. 209 33. Ibid., p. 210 -19- individuals is a categoric group. For the purposes of this study, major emphasis is placed on the examination of these categoric groups as they exist within a city.3h "The role of the city, its gaison d'etre, is. to function as a service center."35 The predominant basis of categorization in the community is occupational. Into these occupational divisions, ". . .are classed all individuals who habitually perform the same or very similar functions. Aw other terms used to designate or identify existing categories either pertain to convenient reference points for the ascription of function, e.g., age, sex, race, or are indexes of functions regularly discharged, e.g., wealth, place of residence, etc."36 In any community, "the nut"- ber of occupational differences in a comnnmal aggregate determines in a general way the number of categoric units that may appear."37 It should be noted here that the term 'occupation' is used in a broad sense to mean ”am? sustenance producing activity." This means that occupation is not restricted to 'respectable' activities, but includes illicit or criminal activities; nor is the term restricted to wage-commanding activities . ”fi- 0' —-* 311. Some discussion of this terminology may be helpful. Hawley points out that these two types of groups are not mutually exclusive, "Corporate groups combine portions of different categoric groups; for emmple, in the family different sex and age categories are represented and the business enterprise includes representatives of many different occupational categories. 0n the other hand, categoric groups cut through the corporate groups embracing all individuals who exercise similar demands on and make similar contributions to the community. . . every individual may be thought of as standing at one or more inter- sections of the symbiotic and commensalistic axes. Every role he occu- Pies in a corporate group qualifies him for membership in an appropriate categoric unit.” Ibid., p. 210 35. Ibid., p. 216 36. Ibid., p. 217 37. Ibid., p. 217 -20- At this point a significant and important aspect of the ecologist's view is apparent: Although categoric units based on occupation are the most stable and significant units of that type in the community structure, the phenomenon of groupings with reference to common interest (i.e., common function or requirement) occurs in almest limitless variety. Cliques, clubs, 'societies,‘ neighborhood associat§ons, and the like, are all representative of the categoric reaction.3 In a footnote to this paragraph, Hawley remarks: An important question concerning such groupings is: To what extent are they units of the community? The test, no doubt, is the degree to which they affect the functioning of the community as a whole. This may be difficult to determine. What is at issue here, of course, is the matter of relevance, clearly oncof the most crucial problems in social science. It hinges, in this case, upon the clarity and demonstrability of the definition of communal unit. That, in turn, requires a great deal more exploratory re- search than community structure has received to date.” It seems as though Hawley is not sure just what the function of new categoric units is, or indeed, whether or not they have a function for the maintenance of the community as a whole. In other words, it may be that many of these units may be safely ignored by the ecologist. This suggests a difference in emphasis between the ecological and socio- logical approaches, a difference which is discussed in another section of this chapter. One of the concerns of this dissertation is with the distribution of residential units within the city. Hawley accounts fcr the distribu- tion of functions and units on the basis of the Operation of, "certain fundamental life conditions. (1) the interdependence among men, (2) the dependence of activities or functions upon various characteristics of land, and the friction of spaceJd-JO Furthermore, "The territorial __ 38. Ibid., p. 218 39. Ibid., p. 218 to. Ibid., p. 236 -21- pattern of collective life is largely a result of the friction of space as manifested in time-cost distance.“‘1 The interests of this study are restricted to areas of residential location, and not those of the loca- tion of industry. In regard to this tOpic, Hawley says: "Familial units are distributed with references to land values, the locations of other types of units, and the time and cost of transportation to centers of activity. The influence of the three factors are combined in a single measure, namely, rental value for residential use. . .Thus while land values, in the main, gade downward with distance from concentrations of associational units, rental values for residential buildings grade upward. That is, rental values for residential property tend to vary inversely with land values. . .Rent Operating through income is a most important factor in the distribution and segregation of familial units. Those with comparable incomes seek similar locations and consequently cluster together in one or two selected areas within the community. . . .Families of the same income class tend to have like needs. . The attraction of similar family units for one another in residential site selection has its basis, tfi a large extent, in the uniformity of their location requirements. 2 In canmenting upon Firey's criticism of this position, Hawley says, "Firey's reasoning confuses motive with an external limiting factor. Regardless of the motive for the occupancy of a site, that occupancy in- volves certain costs which must be paid. If the family can pay the costs, then it may exercise amr conceivable motive.“3 Here Hawley suggests a number of relationships between residence and familial characteristics which can be explored in this study. For examme, it would be expected that similar types of families would be found in similar areas as the result of certain location requirements. This is one general hypothesis which can be examined in this study. hl. Ibid., p. 237 he. Ibid., pp. 280-282 _k h3. Ibid., p. 286 -22- It has been seen that Hawley emphasizes the importance for human ecology to follow in the mainstream of general ecology, and it has been pointed out that this position implies a certain phiIOSOphy of science. Now perhaps some of the more specific and immediate implications of this view can be more closely examined. Fifteen years ago, Clements and Shelford said, ". . .bio-ecology is considered to be ecologr in the widestsense, but with the recognition the the inclusion of human ecologr will be delayed until the feeling for synthesis and experiment becomes more general."m4 In a more recent work, a group of animal ecologistsremark, "We have purposely avoided emphasis on human sociology, but we hope that in time a maturing ecology will be properly fused with that field."h5 Dicel‘6 ' is in agreement with these authors in viewing the human community as a province of ecology, but he too points out the necessity for future re- search and synthesis. - If the above examples are any indication of the prevailing trend in ecological thought, it can be seen that the 'general' ecologists would agl‘ee with Hawley; but it is instructive to note tint these writers —— A- A“ u. Frederic E. Clements and Victor E. Shelford. gig—Ecolog. J°hn Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1939. p. 2 15. W.C. Allee, Orlando Park, A.E. Finerson, Thomas Park, and Kark Schmidt. Princi lee of Animal Ecolog. W.B. Saunders Canpany, Philadelphia, 1W5. p. i ..- h6- 166 R. Dice. Natural Communities. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, 1952. p. is -23- continue to delay the analysis of the human comxunity until general ecological theory becomes more highly developed. It might also be men- tioned that there seems to have been a parallel development of ecology and sociology. The following comments of a group of ecologists would seem to apply to the development of sociology as well as to the devel- opment of ecology : In 1900 the basic ecological emphasis was relatively simple. Most biologists were aware of the fact than an organism lived in an exploitable environment, and now and then this environment- organism nexus was subjected to analysis. However, the analysis was concerned with that problem as an individual imtance. There was not much interest in generalization or theory. . .The early workers, through intelligent and enthusiastic labor, unearthed mam significant data, and it would be stupid to under-estimate their contributions. As the years were on, a need arose for the integration of facts and concepts. This had a salubrious effect on the development of ecology. It sharpened the awareness of workers to the existence of new and unsolved problems. It brought younger investigators into the field. It demanded the adaption of new techniques deve10ped by other sciences and technologies. It increased the outlets for discussion, publication, review, criticism, and intellectual intercourse generally. . . An interest in animal aggregations grew up along with and slightly later than community studies. This interest dates far back into ecological history as a descriptive phase, but it did not attain more precise treatment until the last two decades. We lave shown already how this trend is currently merging into a general sociolog. Our review of ecological history also uncovers an urge toward quantification. At the turn of the century research was essentially descriptive and qualitative, with certain notable exceptions par- ticularly prevalent among the marine biologists. . . We attribute in part the rise of interest in natural and ex- perimerfital populations during the third decade to this quantifi- cation. 7 These authors also point out the difficulties of employing an objective terminology -- a difficulty which the sociologist can well understand. ‘- h7. w. c. Allee, 33. 3;. 92. git. pp. 67-68 -211- 7 7 V 7 m The purpose of the foregoing is simply to point out the fact that at present, the acceptance of general ecological theory does not supply a theoretical framework which is particularly sephisticated or advanced. Perhaps the sociologist, human ecologist, and 'bio-ecologist' face simi- lar difficulties. Within the field of animal ecology fcr example, di- . vergent positions are quite common. Dice rejects the idea of 'supra- organism‘ in reference to the community, and prefers the term, 'epi- organismflh8 The definitions of 'community' offered by the animal ecologist place emphasis upon the inter-relations of species. Dice says, An ecologic community is an assemblage of ecologically re- lated organisms composed of 2 or more species. Such a commity may be of any ecologic rank and may include an number of associ- ated individuals. An assemblage of individua s all of the same species is not a community, but is a society. 'Allee holds that, I . . .the major community may be defined as a natural assemblage of organisms which together with its habitat has reached a survival value such that it is relatively independent of adjacent assemblages of equal rank; to this extent, given radiant energy, it is self- sustaining. . .It (the community) is composed of a variable number of species populations, which occupy continuous or discontinuous 50 portions of the physics-biological envirorment, the habitat niches. Hailey defines the community: ". . .frcm a spatial standpoint, the commnity may be defined as conprising tint area the resident pepula- tion of which is inter-related and integrated with reference to its daily requirements whether contacts be direct or indirect."51 — ___ 148. he Re D100. a. 92:30, Do hal‘ 19. Ibid., p. 15 so. we Ce A1133, 92. 2.1-... $0 2320’ pp. h36‘h37 51. Amos H. Hawley. Human Ecolog. 92. 93:2" pp. 257-258 Perhaps enough has been said to indicate some of the consequences of this approach to human ecology for the urban sociologist. The empha- sis placed upon routine daily activities in Hawley's definition of the community, seems to mean that those activities which are not routine nor related to the sustenance activities of the community are not the concern of the ecologist. This is one of the self-imposed limitations of the ecologist. It has been pointed out that this emphasis may make it difficult to determine whether or not Specific groupings are part of the community -- a fact which Hawley recognizes. This definition of the field also means that much of what sociolo- gists have treated as ‘ecology' or as being 'ecologiml' is, for Hawley not ecology nor ecological at all. That is, the spatial distribution of various social events, characteristics, or activities may be geogra- phy -- but it is not ecology. An obvious result of this view of Hawley's is that the city- as a political or administrative area -- is not the subject of study for the ecologist. If present trends in this develOp- ment of human ecology continue, it is suggested that studies of larger cammnities, e.g., Bogue's study of the metropolitan community52 will becone the representative study of the ecologist. Quite clearly, then, what is suggested is that a logical result of Hawley's position will be a divorcemsnt of ecology fran sociolog. Fm- phasis upon the structure and development of the community necessarily implies that those events which are not part of this structure and de- veloment are not the concern of the ecologist. The contribution of ecology to sociology becomes, it would seem, a general rather than a ‘- ———-— 52. Donald J. Bogus. The Structure 92 the Metropolitan Cormuunit, : fl 3131121 93 Dominance a_x_l_c_i_ Sub-Dominance. Inn Arbor, MicfiliganTl313‘9‘—“I specific one, 1.8., the description of the structure of the urban com- munity, and partially at least, of the city. It seems that the concept of time-cost distance is of minimum utility in a.study such as this. Furthermore, since the city is, for the ecologist, primarily a service area, major emphasis is placed on the location and Operation of service units, and less interest is shown in the location of residential areas, and still less in the sub-areas within the city. One of Hawley's students has made a statement which illustrates another important concern of the ecologist: ‘The functional or occupational niche is basic (if not determin- ant.) in the spatial-temporal distribution of man. In other words, the space which a man will occupy and the time at which he will occupy it will in general, be based upon his occupational or func- tional niche. 5 There are several things to be noted about this statement. One is economic. Occupation is a major -—- and quite often, the only -- source of income for a man. This income enables him to pay the costs of liv- ing at a particular location. It does not determine where he must live, but it sets limits to the amount he can pay for rent, and thus narrows the possible location to one within a given economic range. Secondly, where he works is influenced by his occupation, and he must live close enough to his place (or places) of work to pay the cos ts of transporta- tion. The type of function performed influences his relationships with other units of the community, upon which he is dependent. It would seem that, for the ecologist, residence is determined by location requirements, ability to pay rent, and the function performed by the unit concerned. It should be made quite clear at this point that _ 53. Gladys Engel-Frisch. "Some Neglected Temporal Aspects of Human Ecology." Social Forces. 22 (October, 191:3) p. 1:3 i - ~ — ..‘___— .av.‘_.__-_.'-__.M_e— _ -27- these factors imply nothing more about the areas of residence, i.e., there is nothing implied concerning the. extra-sustenance relationships which arise or which may arise; furthermore, this aspect of community life seems to be quite consciously ignored. It is suggested that Hawley's position here is closer to that of the economist than it is to the interests of the urban sociologist. For example, Ratcliff says, "In summary, one might say that the structure of the city is determined through the dollar evaluation of the importance of convenience."Sh It seems as though this statement is quite similar to Hawley's emphasis upon the importance of accessibility, and in an urban site, the measurement of this importance in pecuniary terms, that is, the ability to pay rent. 'Convenience,' in the sense in which Rat- cliff uses it, includes other location requirements as well as accessi- bility. Since the interest of this study lies primarily in the location of residences rather than in the location of other units, Hawley's position in regard to this matter must be eXplored. It would be expected that family units would be found to be in a disadvantageous position in competing with other functional units for land. In fact, Hawley suggests that, ". . .while land values, in the main, grade dowmward with distance from concentrations of associational units, rental values for residential building grade upward."SS Earlier it was mentioned that rent is a most important factor in the distribu- tion and segregation of family units. A statement by Hawley on the ‘w 5’4. Richard U. Ratcliff. Urban Land Economics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, 1919. pfj-TS _—_ 55. Amos H. Hawley. Human Ecolog. 92. 93.3., p. 281 tepic of residential areas may serve to indicate the types of relation- ships'which are examined in this study: . . .the presence on a site of a given type of familial unit is a localizing factor for others ofthat type. A number of simi- lar units can create by their congregation various amenities that are not inherent in location. If together in sufficient number they can attract special services to their area, can engage in their own peculiar forms of collective behavior and can when neces- sary offer relatively effective Opposition to undesirable encroach- ments from without. The attraction of similar units for one another on this basis is apparent in the foreign-immigrant settlements found in mm communities, particularly in the inner sectors of the central cities. The same principle doubtless applies in some degree in most areas of homgeneous settlement. But, such an attraction can Operate only in a zone where rengg do not exceed the purchasing power of the familial units involved. He points out also that the limiting factor of rent decreases with increase in income -- which of course, means increased ability to pay costs of occupancy. The location of homogeneous rental areas, and the amenities which they create by their congregation, is one of the topics with vhich this study is concerned. It is suggested that this topic is one in which the sociologist is interested, and, if Hawley is understood correctly, in which the ecologist is least interested - if interested at all. If Hawley is correct when he says, "The comunity pattern, then may be described as a constellation of centers set upon a patchwork of small internally homogeneous areas ,E'Sthen it would be expected that areas with- in the community -- and presumably the city -- of this type would be found. The social aspect of this homogeneity of land and rental values h‘ '— 56. Ibid., p. 282 570 INCL, p. 287 -29- is one of the major concerns of this study. The data which are available enable the examination of intra—urban areas in regard to hemgeneity of land values and homogeneity in regard to social characteristics. In this examination, there are several Specific hpyothese which may be tested. These motheses are quoted below: 1. Location tolerance varies inversely with specialization of the unite 2. The less transportable the product (function) of a unit, the greater is the tendency to seek a location at the point of maximum accessiblity. 3. The territorial distribution of participants in the function of any unit varies with the time and/ or cost of transporta- tion. it. The more intense is a unit‘s use of land the greater is its ability to occupy a location of maximum accessibility. 5. Units of a given mmtional type tend to cluster in Space. The distancesseparating functional units tend to vary in- versely with the frequency of exchanges between them. 7. The tendency to seek a location of maximum accessibility'is reduced by the extent to which location requirements other than that of maximum accessibility are involved in the function of the unit. These hypotheses are selected from a series of assmnptiors, corrol- laries, and hypotheses which were utilized in a course taught by Hawley on the subject of T_h_e_ Urban Community. They were made available to the writer through the courtesy of Dr. Hawley, and they should in no sense be taken to be final or definitive. It should be kept in mind that the primary concern of Hawley is not with the location of residential units. The above hypotheses were selected because they seemed to be most applicable in this Specific case. Per- haps it would be wise to elaborate some of the implications of these mamas, particularly as they related to residential location. -30- l. Hawley points out that the family unit is a relatively unspecial- ized unit, and would thus have a higher degree of location tolerance ‘ than many other more specialized units, e.g., retail stores, factories, etc. 2. The 'transportability' of the residential unit‘s function refers, it would seem, to the tranSport of the worker to his place or places of work. Under most circumstances, this tranSport is rather easily ac- complished. If this is correct, then the tendency to seek a location of maximum accessibility would be generally reduced. The ability to pay costs of transport would depend upon the economic resources of the specific unit involved. 3. Tine-cost distance as has been earlier suggested, may Operate to a less important degree in the city than it would if the community ' were to be considered. The presence of cheap public transportation and automobile ownership would affect this cost. ’4. Since residential land use is not an intensive use of land, the ability to occupy a location of maximum accessibility would be consider- ably reduced. 5. The assumptions upon which this hypothesis is based are: a. Units of a given functional type tend to have similar loca- tion requirements. b. Sites with given location requirements are clustered in space. 6. This hypothesis should locate the relative location of those units which are most often used by residents. 7. It seems that this hypothesis is an important qualification for the analysis of residential location, particularly since the ecologist does not see to be concerned with mam of these 'other factors. -31- In this necessarily brief exposition of Hawley's theory, some of the problems and questions which arise in the attempt to utilize the theory can only be suggested. It is difficult to ascertain just how important it is for Hawley that human ecologr develop along the lines of general ecological theory. It has been said that this view presupposes a certain philosophy of science; but Hawley does not make this philosophy of science eXplicit, and thus it is impossible to determine the extent to which he would accept all of the implications involved in this position. This remark could be made about most theories in the social sciences. Hawley, at least attempts to limit the discipline, and perhaps this limitation, i.e., the specification of those events with which he is not concerned is the most apparent consequence of his emphasis upon general ecology. When the attempt is made to apply the concept of community to the study of a political and administrative area -- which is not a commnity ~- violence is done to the theory. In the present case this is unavoidable, but this short-coming should be recognized. This limitations which are self-imposed by the ecologist mean that, in Hawley's view, much of what sociologists have termed 'ecology' is not ecology, To this extent ecolog is of limited use to the sociolo- gist. This should be obvious, and to say that a discipline is limited is not intended as a criticism. In Hawley's view, ecology supplies in- formation as to the structure of social groups. It is possible to see if ecological theory does lead to accurate description of the location and structure of residential areas, by testing the above hypotheses in the course of this study. Although any extended critical analysis here is impossible, some difficulties -- or at least sane questions - in regard to Hawley's position are suggested. One question arises when Hawley's definition of the community is compared with that offered by plant and animal ecologists. These writers stress the importance of the inter-relations of smcies; a tepic which Hawley treats only indirectly. This comment would be particularly relevant if the unity of science which Hawley accepts were to be based upon a unity of language. The role of space (or more precisely, the concept of space) remains unclear, at least to this writer. In Spite of Hawley's insistence on the dependence of this variable, it would seem to be anexceptionally important dependent variable . It is suggested that one of the more important consequences of Hawley's view of ecology is the divorce - or at least the separate maintenance -- of ecology and sociolog'. In Hawley's terms, it might be suggested that what had been a commensalistic relationship would better be a symbiotic relationship, in which the two disciplines per- form functions which are inter-related, but which are different. . 3 Urban Sociology A comprehensive review of urban-sociological literature is not only beyond the scope of this study, but is not required for the purposes of the study. Urban sociological literature is examined with the following question in mind: What is the general position of the sociologist in regard to phenomenon of urban life? That is, what are the characteristics which distinguish urban life from life in other environments? What are the statements which seem to typify current sociological thought on this matter? On this basis, some general prOpositions which should characterize fl city, and which should therefore apply in the case of a specific city, are selected for examination. Throughout this examination the theoretical generalizations which relate social activities to residence in an intra-urban area are of major concern. In one of the best known analyses of urban life, Louis Wirth sets forth those characteristics which distinguish urban life from life in other types of environment.58 This essay is examined rather closely, since it constitutes an attempt to set forth a theory of urbanism and offers some trenchant criticisms of urban sociological thought. ____ 58. Louis Wirth. "Urbanism as a Way of Life." The Axnerican Journal 91.: Sociolog, Vol. 1414 (Jilly, 19113). The page nEn'Bers Even here refer to those of the article as it is reprinted in: Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss. Reader in Urban Sociolog. The Free Press. Glencoe, Illinois. 1951. 135737-59.- Wirth seems to be in essential agreement with Shils' posi- tion in regard to the status of urban sociological theory. For example: ". . .we do not as yet have a comprehensive body of canpendent hypotheses which may be derived from a set of postulates implicitly contained in a sociological definition of the city, and from our general sociological knowledge which may be substantiated through empirical research." p. 37 -3h- Mirth points out that the importance of the city cannot be measured solely by the number of peeple who live in the city, but that tto in— fluence of the city as an economic, political, and cultural center must he considered.59 As a minimal definition of the city, Wirth suggests that, "For sociological purposes a city may be defined as a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous indi- viduals."60 The problem of the sociologist of the city, ". . .is to discover the forms of social action and organization that typically emerge in relatively permanent compact settlements of large numbers of heterogene- ious individuals.61 Wirth says, "There are a number of sociological prepositions con- cerning the relationship between (a) numbers of pepulation, (b) density of settlement, (c) heterogeneity of inhabitants and group life which can be formulated on the basis of observation and research."62 The presence of large numbers of people in a given area increases the likelihood for variation. He suggests that, "The greater the num- ber of individuals participating in a process of interaction, the great- er is the potential differentiation between them."63 ‘When this individu- al variation is found together with racial, ethnic, cultural, social, and economic heterogeneity, Spatial segregation takes place. Under these conditions, competition and formal control mechanisms take the place of the bonds of solidarity that hold a folk society together.6h Insofar as 'mutual acquaintship between inhabitants‘ is necessary for a ‘ w 59,- This view is certainly compatible with that of the ecologist, who considers the city as a dominant element in the community. 60. Ibid., p. 36 61. Ibid., p. 37 62. Ibid., p. 38 63. Ibid., p. 39 6h. Ibido, p. 39 'neighborhood' to exist, these conditions minimize the possibility. The urbanite, although having many more acquaintances than the rural person, has an intensive knowledge of a very small preportion of these acquaint- ances. As for urban contacts: Characteristically, urbanites meet one another in highly segmental roles. . .The contacts of the city may indeed be face— to-face, but they are nevertheless impersonal, superficial, transi- tory, and segnental. . .Whereas, therefore, the individual gains, on the one hand, a certain degree of emancipation or freedom from the personal and emotional controls of intimate groups, he loses, on the other hand, the spontaneous self-expression, the morale, and the sense of participation that comes with living in an inte- grated society. This constitutes essentially the state of anomie or the social void to which Durkheim alludes in attempting to account for the vaggous forms of social disorganization in tech- nological society. ' Following Durkheim, Wirth says that an increase in density, ". . . tends to produce differentiation and Specialization, since only in this way can the area support increased numbers. Density thus reinforces the effect of numbers in diversifying men and their activities and in increasing the complexity of the social structure."66 Diversity and density produce homogeneity insofar as segregation can be viewed as establishing homogeneity. "The city consequently tends to resemble a mosaic of social worlds in which the transition from one to the other is abrupt.”7 These conditions also make necessary formal controls. Heterogeneity implies different interests, and in the urban environ- ment these interests are represented best by different groups, none of which demand the full 'personality' of the individual: "Rather the groups With which the person typically is affiliated are tangential to each other or intersect in highly variable fashion. "58 As a partial result of social u 65. Ibid., p. to 66. Ibid., p. in 67. 13351., p, 1,2 t: 68. Ibid., p. h2 -36- mobility, the task of maintaining these groups is difficult: This applies strikingly to the local areas within the city into which persons become segregated more by virtue of differ- ences in race, language, income, and social status, than through choice or positive attraction to peOple like themselves. In his discussion of the relation between a theory of urbanism and sociological research, Wirth says, Urbanism as a characteristic mode of life may be a proached empirically from three inter-related perspectives: (l as a physical structure comprised of a population base, a technology, and an ecological order; (2) as a system of social organization involving a characteristic social structure, a series of social institutions, and a typical pattern of social relationships; and (3) a set of attitudes and ideas, and a constellation of person- alities engaging in typical forms of collective behayfior and sub- ject to characteristic mechanisms of social control. Although the concern here is not with a critical evaluation of the position which Wirth represents, a few comnents of a critical nature may be in order, together with an effort to show the relevance of some of the propositions he suggests for this research. Whether the propositions which Wirth suggests can be derived from the three variables which he employs has been questioned by Stone.71 Regardless of the logical consistency of his Iresentation, his general view seems to be typical and representative of the view of urban life which American sociologists have held. It should be pointed out also, that the ecologist would approach the study of the city fran the first perspective which Wirth indicates. ——- Thesecond perspective delimits the area within which this research falls ‘ 690 Ibid.’ p. 1.13 70. Ibido, pa “1 71. Gregory P. Stone. Unpublished monograph. Michigan State College. 19530 P0 69 -37- with the important modification that the interests in this study are in the sub-areas within the city, and not with the city as ' 4. whole. The ecologist would not be interested in the 'choice'rrade by individuals who are segregated -- a factor to which Wirth attaches considerable importance. Janek takes a different approach from that of Wirth, and suggests that the city exhibits those, ". . .oornplexes of Western Civilization which may be regarded as mainstays of the total pattern."72 He lists sane 16 of these complexes, ranging from the factory system and the use of steam, internal-combustionengines, and electricity, to sports and athletics. In summary he says: The habitual acceptance of and dependence on modern technology, a habituation which may be termed gadget behavior. . .it is this dependence on and the increasing habituation to our modern tech- nolog and the delegation of primary group satisfaction to the impersonalized institutions and controls that set us apart from other cultures . ‘ The great heterogeneity of peOples and interests is only a conccmitant of the above condition, as are also. . .the ever increasing mobility and transience coupled with anoInmous and impersonal behavior and the rapid changes of interest and the variety of nervous stimulation.73 In spite of this rather fundamental difference in approach, both Janek and Wirth arrive at conclusions which are quite similar, although Janette definition of the city is a more restricted one than is Wirth's. In a recent analysis of the conditions which affect 'normative integration‘ in an urban area, the following conditions are stressed: 7?. Oscar W. Janek. "What Is the Total Pattern of Our Western Civilization." Arterican Apthropolggist. 1:8: 3. p. 399 730 EEO, p. [L03 -38- Large masses of men are functionally interdependent. They face common problems as a consequence of the Industrial Revolu- tion and especially as a result of tranSportation and communica— tion developments. Their lives are bound up together, regard- less of their individual wishes. They tend to live in or organize their lives with reference to commnities with large and densely settled pepulations. The pepulation is heterogeneous. This is partly due to Us diversity of functions and experience required by a complex divi- sion of labor. It is also partly due to the recent deve10pment of interdependence and communication between distinctive areas. Large numbers of functions .of the family in the folk community are diapersed among specialized institutions. . .The place of work tends to be separated from the home. The overwhelming majority of the peeple who are interdependent do not lmow each other or see each other. Even most of those who know each other or are in face-to-face contact do not have canmon membership in primary groups. Such membership has been the basis for the social crganization under which most men have lived in the past. Necessarily, in the urban community interdependence far transcends the limits of the small groups which meet problems in terms of cannon experience in the folk community. The fact of dense settlement and interdependence of a large papulation necessitates a high degree of specialization in the population. The net resultof all these conditions is that a large hetero- geneous pepulation of widely dispersed persons faces many new it problans for which common solutions do not exist in the culture.7 In a study by Miner, it is maintained that, "The city provides a social milieu in which economic success may be achieved with less - regard for activities which are not primarily econanic in nature. . . the market rewards secular and impersonal behavior."75 Miner also 7h. Ronald Freedman, Amos Hawley, Werner Landecker, Horace Miner. Principles of. Sociolog. Henry Holt and Company. New York, 1952. p. 1:92 75. Horace Miner. 1'13: Primitijg City 93 Timbuctoo. Princeton University Press. 1953. p. 27H emphasizes the fact that the heterogeneity characteristic of the city may stem fran different cultural origins and also from an extensive division of labor. Deepite sane important and rather fundamental differences in approach, urban sociologists are in essential agreement on those dis- tinctive characteristics of urbanism. The following is a summary of the statements about urbanism with which most urban sociologists would agree.76 Large numbers of peOple inhabit densely settled areas. The peeple and their interests are heterogeneous. This heterogeneity is due to (1) different social, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds and (2) to in- creasing Specialization and division of labor. The functional inter- dependence of these peOple exists without any necessary personal acquaintanceship. Femalycontrols are substituted for informal con- trols, and secondary relationships replace primary relationships. New institutions are developed to perform func tions which had been performed by the family. The intimacy which had been the basis of social life is replaced by impersonality and anonymity. It is apparent from the foregoing, that this theory of urbanism is a very general theory, indeed. The very characteristics of urban life which these writers stress make it exceptionally difficult to Speak of the city in amr but the most general terms, e.g., 'heterogeneity' as an urban characteristic is hardly more than a very general descriptive i... 76. The question as to whether urbanism is to be considered as a result of the three variables withwhich Wirth deals, or as a phenane- non peculiar to a modern high-energy society, while of theoretical im- portance, is not of concern here. In either case, the conditions and characteristics of urbanism upon which the writers agree, should apply to the study of a modern U.S. city. -Lo- term. The investigator is fnced with the problem of determining the degree to which these characteristics are present in any specific city. The realization that the influence of the city extends far beyond the political limits of the city suggests that the classification 'urban' indicates relatively little about those groups of people so classified. It is clear that the concept 'urban' is, in Blumer's words, a "sensi- tizing" rather than a 'definitive" concept." There are, however, certain generalizations which can be made on the basis of this suggested theory of urbanism. The following list of such generalizations contains those which can be examined in this study. These generalizations are based on the literature which has been discussed above, and are thus limited to the tepics considered by the writers discussed. 1. With an increase in density, specialization, and hetero- geneity, the area of residence decreases in importance, and social and economic activities are carried out with little reference to place of residence. 2. Membership in voluntary organizations is high in an urban area. 3. Membership in voluntary organizations is not related to residence, but to other factors, e.g., occupation, which have no necessary locality basis. it. The degree of heterogeneity of an area within an urban area will affect the social organization of that area. 5. The greater the diversity of an area, the less the degree to which social and economic relationships are confimd to the area. 6. Areas which are homogeneous should least exhibit the char- acteristics of urbanism. 77. Herbert Blumer. "What Is Wrong with Social Thecry." Ameri- gin Sociolo ical Review. 19:3. pp. 1-13 ...—...... 7. Home ownership is directly related to low social mobility, and also to the presence of and stability of voluntary organizations. 8. Choice of residence is directly related to income. 9. Those areas inhabited by those peOple who have the greatest 'ability' to reside there, will have a higher degree of social and economic activity carried on within the area. The above generalizations are illustrative of those which may be tested in this research. As other sociological research is examined, other generalizations about urbanism are suggested for testing in this study. In the following chapter, recent research devoted to the establish- ment and analysis of social areas within a city is discussed. On the basis of the theories discussed in this chapter and the information gained from the review of other research on the topic of intra-urban areas, the specific hypotheses utilized in this study are presented. CI-nPTcz III RESEARCH PROBLFMS DERIVED more mom-30.1091. mm remission new no IZ‘JI’RA-URBMI ANALYSES Thus far, two theoretical approaches used in this study have been discussed, and'the general orientation of one school of human ecology and a dominant urban sociological view have been examined. In this chapter, the relevance of these points of view for testing some em- pirical generalizations is discussed. In addition, a brief review of some of the recent analyses of intra-urban areas is undertaken. Certain generalizations, selected from this review, are presented for testing in this research. Intra-Urban Area Research In the past 15 years, and particularly since the end of World War II: the investigation of urban areas has been considerably broadened in scape, This broadened interest is well illustrated by a symposium, held in 1951, in which biologists, geographers, sociologists, and an economist t°°k part. In a discussion of the points of view presented, Quinn makes the following comment: The Papers summarized here and the informal discussions of the Symposium together disclosed considerable agreement among the “lions disciplines as related to the study of urbanereas. In fa“: Points of agreement far outweighed points of difference. . . In general, it is interesting to note that differences in emphasis -53- and in point of View seem more characteristic of individual parti- cipants than of academic diSCiplirBS.7U One of the statements upon which the participants did agree has relevance for this research. "Urban areas of varying size and inclu- siveness may be studied -- for example, the city as a whole,.sub-areas within the city, the city hinterland, region.”9 The work of Shevlqt and Williams is the first report on a contemplated series of studies designed to make available comparative knowledge of the city.80 The authors state that, "This study is chiefly concerned with the description and measurement of social differentiation associated with urban phenomenon of Los Angeles."81 An effort was made to con- struct types of social areas on the bases of social rank, urbanization, and segregation. 'Social rank' is an index composed of three variables: level of occupation, level of schooling, and rent as a measure of income.82 "Symposium on Viewpoints, Problems, and Methods of Research Pp. 37'50 78. The Scientific Monthly. July, 1951. Vol. 73. in Urban Areas." 79. Ibid., p. 50 The Social Areas of. Log 80. Eshref Shevky and Marilyn Williams. Ageles. University of California Press. Berkeley. I959 81. Ibid., p. 33 82. Ibid., p. 68. The 'level of occupation' is measured by the number of craftsmen, Operatives, and laborers per 1,000 employed. The higher the ratio, the lower the occupational level of the area. 'Level of Schooling' is measured by the number of persons who had completed grade school or less per 1,000 persons 25 years old and over. Rent The measurement of fertil- per capita was used as the measure of income. lty used is the number of children under five per 1,000 women lS-hh. The number of women in the labor force per 1,000 wanen 111 years old and over constitutes the second index of urbanization, and the percentage Of occupied dwelling units which are single family detached is the third variable. The five most highly segregated groups are Mexicans, Orientals, Negroes, Russians, and Italiam. In discussing the association of these indexes, the authors point out that, "The trend at each level of urban- ization is toward a higher occupation level with higher social rank. . . --".«'.t- 'Urbanization', ". . .is an average of the percentile scores of three variables: fertility, women in the labor force, and single familyr dwelling units."83 'Segregation‘ for each social area in the percent- age of the pepulation represented by the five most isolated groups. It is important to note that Shevky and Williams were able to use census data which were not available for this study. Therefore the delineation of intra-urban social areas in this study had to be made without the data upon which these authors based their various types of areas. It should also be noted that the only social characteristics with which they were concerned were those which could be derived from census data. 82. (can't) The trend at each level of urbanization is toward a higher level of schooling with increasing social rank. The general trend at the low and high levels of social rank is toward a lower level of schooling with increasing social rank. The general trend at the low and high levels of social rank is toward a lower level of schooling with increasing urbanization, but, within the middle range of social rank, the trend is toward high level of schooling with increasing urban- ization." (pp. 68-69) In regard to fertility, women in the labor fcrce, and single family dwelling units, "The highest fertility is in area I, with low social rank and low urbanization, while the lowest ratio is in area III with high social rank and high urbanization. Fertility de- creases with increasing social rank and with increasing urbanization. The percentage of wanen in paid enployment increases with urbanization and social rank. (p. 69) Further, ". . .the association of segrega- tion with the low level of social rank is emphasized. At each level of urbanization the index at the low level of social rank is highest." (pp. 69-70) On the basis of these variables, mine basic social areas 03‘ P0191118 tion types were identified. 83. Ibid., p. 70 In a'very critical review' of this book8h and in a rejoinder85 to cements on the review by Greenwooda6 and Scl'midBT, Ericksen points out the limitations of these data and suggests that, "Life in Los Angeles, of all places, no longer revolves around the place of residence. No longer is it helpful to know where you sleep, but where you work, play, worship, and what not." The validity of this objection can be examined in this study, since data are available on these activities. The San Francisco Bay Area has also been the subject of investiga- tion from a somewhat different point of view. In a comparative analy- sis of Tryon's approach and that of Shevky and Williams, Bell summarizes Tryon's approach: The theoretical orientation underlying the work of Tryon is social psychological in character. . .Tryon is interested in broadening the psychologist' 3 study of an individual‘ 3 re- sponse to a situation by studying that part of the equation not usually studied by the psychologist -- the presenting Underlying this view of the large urban aggregate situation. are two fundamental postulates (l) The individual has a variety of basic needs which must be satisfied if he is to survive (these are the fundamental tissue needs for water, food, grati- fying sex stimulations, places to rest and sleep, means of protecting the bod;r tissues, as well as higher order needs, many of which are culturally created). (2) These basic needs can be satisfied best when the individual joins fogges with some group rather than operating as an individual. 81;. E. Gordon Ericksen. American Sociological Review. 111:6. p. 699 85. E. Gordon Ericksen. American Sociologicalfieview. 15:2 pp. 296-970 86. Ernest Greenwood. pp. 108-09 87. Calvin.Schmid. Ibid., pp. 109-110 Wendell Ball. "A Cmparative Study in the Methodolog of University of California American Sociological Review. 15:1 88. Urban Analysis." Unpublished PhD. Thesis. at Lcs.Angeles. 1952. pp. 17-18 In the determination of these 'sub—cultures‘ Tryon utilized physio— graphic characteristics, land use, demographic characteristics, socio- economic indices, and evidence of social disorganization. Some 33 vari- ables were utilized and measures of variability, diSpersion, and skew- Q ness were computed for each” Bell found that the results yielded by each method of analysis were substantially in agreement. Bell does not discuss the substantive find- ings of Tryon's attempt to discover the psychological aspects of sym- biosis (as Hawley might term the study), but it should be noted once again that census tract data were available to Tryon which were not available for this study. However, the relationship between residence in a Specific area and various types of social and economic behavior can be investigated. In an intensive study of a Rochester (New York) residential area, Foley raised the question, ". . .as to how extensively a single resi- dential district serves its inhabitants as a 'local canmunity.‘ “90 His problem was one which, ". . .has been a continuing problem in the social and psychological sciences: the relation between behavior, ecologically viewed, and attitudes and identifications, social psycho- logically viewed."91 The author claims no answer to the problem, but two hypotheses are confirmed. (l) ". . .city residents typically fall considerably short of being thoroughgoing 'urbanites.‘ " and (2) ”. . .city residents, as individuals and as family units, show marked 89' {Ea-9°: PP- 33-31; 90. Donald L. Foley. Neiggbors 9E- Urbanites? The 31.311? 21: 9. Rochester Residential District. p {It 0? Sociolog, The Diversity 0-11' Rochester. (Mmeographed) I952. p. 7 91. Ibid., p. 57 -b7- variability in their positions along a local to metropolitan dimension."92 The last of Foley's concluding cements is of particular interest for this study: As a final canment, let it be emphasized that for the large urban community we know very little -- at least in the form of systematically conducted and reported empirical research -- about the ways b which urban residents are linked to the city's social structure. It should be clear by now that this 'linkage' of the residents of an urban area to the structure of the city is one of the problemwith which this study is concerned. It is significant to note that this general problem is viewed as being important, not only by American sociologists, but also by their French colleagues. In an impressive study of Paris, the investigators were concerned with the notion of le cadre spatial and more generally with the notion of espace socialflh This interest resulted in a study of the relations between physical structure of an area and the various social and cultural aspects of the area. Ies rapports entre les structures spatiales, les conditions de vie et les representations collectives posent un deuxieme problems qui a plus particuliérenent pre’occupé les repre’sentants de la morpho- logies social dans l'Ecole Sociologique francaise: celle des rapports entre le cadre Spatial qui apparait sur .les documents photographiques ou graphique et les diver especes sociaux-culturels correspondat aux representations des groupes. The researchers were convinced that there was a close relation be- tween ecological structure of an area and the social and cultural compo- sition of the area. (It might be pointed out here that this is an .-¥ 92. Ibid., p. 59 930 222$}, p. 62 9h. P.-H. Chombart De Lauwe, 8. Antoine, J. Bertin, L. Couvreur, J. Gauthier: Paris at y agglomeration Parisienne. Tome Premier. L‘espace Sociamfiswne Grafide Cite. Pr'esses Universitaires de France 19520 p. 2h1 95. Ibid., p. 2&3 interest with which Hawley would be only minimally concerned, i.e., he would be concerned primarily with the demographic and occupation charac- teristics of the pOpulation, but not with the attitudes of tie population) This relationship seems to be a reciprocal one, e.g., "De representations de classes influent ici sur des distributions."96 On the basis of an admittedly limited analysis of the types of social and cultural relations, certain findings appear to be significant. The number of relations of the bourgeois family is greater than those of the'working class. The greater leisure time of the bourgeois, their access to more efficient means of transportation, greater income, and the greater importance of tradition, are suggested as some of the reasons for this state of affairs.” The relations among the working class tend to be much more localized than those among the bourgeois, as well as much less dispersed. For the bourgeois, the Quartier in which they live has little importance for [daily life, while for the working claSs, the contrary is true. A greater affectivity is attributed to the relations of the working class.98 Unfortunately, “La nature des relations ne peut pas Etre analysee dans cette etude. . ."99 Nonetheless one generalization is made with considerable force and assurance: Most of the relations of daily life take place within an extremely small area, and outside of this area, impressions of the rest of the city are vague and impersonal. 96. Ibid., p. 21.1 97. Ibid., p. 10h 98. Ibid., p. th-S 99. Ibid., p. 106 I7 \A In the analysis of specific generalizations, refercz'zce is made to previous research on the Specific topic concerned, but at presez‘zt the interest is only in the way in wit? ch t’re studies cited affect the gen- eralizations made on the basis of a general theory of urbanisrr. The study of Paris is informative, both for its findings and for it orientation. The authors point out the importance and significance of historical factors, of social class membership, and of social psycho- logical factors. For the bourgeois _-- as contrasted with the working class -- the area of residence is of less importance; the actual number of relations is greater. The working class relations tend to be local- ized in areas characterized by the dominance of the working class, while for the bourgeois greater dispersion is found. As to the nature of these relations, those of the working class, ". . .ont une plus grands im- portance affective en milieu ouvrier, et, en milieu bourgeois, sont plus generahent des relations au sens etroit, parfois des relations d'affaires."loo On the basis of these findings homogeneity of an area would seem to have consequences which would differ depending upon the socio-economic composition of the area. Thus, the 'ability' to select one's residence from a wide range of possible sites, the ability to bear transportation costs, and a different life-style affect the nature, localization, and dispersion of activities. These data on the function of the local area call for some discus- sion of the concept of 'neighborhood' as it has been used by sociologists. A... -—-___ o u ‘w w ._v 100. Ibid., p. 106 McKenzie discusses locality groupings in residential areas. He points out that mobility of modern life facilitates disorganization of traditional group and institutional structures. In Columbus, Ohio, change of residence was much more frequent among the lower economic classes than among the well-to-do. "But dependence upon local institutions is consid- erably greater in the poorer neighborhoods than in the better residential sections on account of inability to use secondary means of comunication."lOl The neighborhood which McKenzie studied was chiefly a working-class neigh- borhood, but heterogeneous in regard to families and economic level, al- though its average economic level was low. It should be noted here that the cause of the dependence of the less mobile inhabitants upon the neigh- borhood is, "The comparative absence of secondary means of oomnunication, such as telephones and automobiles. . ."102 ‘a state of affairs which does not exist at present. It is interesting to note that McKenzie anticipated the formulations of urban sociologists when he pointed out the influence of modern means of tranSportation and communication on the significance of Spatial prox- imity as a group bond. For example: Neighborhood sentiment is most easily engendered when the physi- cal basis of life affords a unitary character sufficient to differ- entiate the neighborhood from the larger community. Neighborhood sentiment thrives best where there is a homogeneity and a stability of population accompanied by a high percentage of home ownership. . . .the difficulty of maintaining local interest in local projects varies directly with the extent of the territory covered and the number of families included. ' “— 101. R. D. McKenzie. The Neighborhood: A Stu 9}; Local Life of Columbus, Ohio. University of Chicago grass. T323 in the Cit This quotation E from the aricle which appeared prior to the publication of the book; Arnerican Journal 2.1:: SOCiOJ-Ofl- 27:3 Po 1’45 102. Ibid., p.362 McClenahan cuggests that the neighborhood as a primary group has largely disappeared, and she prefers the term 'nigh-dweller' rather than neighbor.103 The physical, economic, and social changes which the area she studied had undergone indicated that residence signifies, "lodgement She suggests that the communality to be found 101; rather than settlement." is functional and not Spatial. Caroline Ware offers a smnmary of her findings together with some comments on the concept of neighborhood: It has long been the presumption that living near-by makes people into 'neighbors' -- that it either molds them to common pattern or brings them together and gives them, in spite of per- sonal differences a common point of view as a member of the same 'neighborhood.‘ The 'neighborhood' has, in fact, beenvery dear to the heart of the sociologist as being, with the family, the primary face-to face group which is 'fundarneptal in forming the social nature and ideals of the individual." It has held an important place in the American culture pattern largely because of the assumption of Arnerican democracy that community of inter- est is identical with common residence, and that interest groups and social classes do not exist. . . .The evidence of this community indicates that where such forms of urbanism as can here be seen are at their height, the neighborhood very largely ceases to be a basis for social inter- course and a formative influence on the lives of the residents. Only selectively did neighbors in Greenwich Village know each other, identify themselves with the neighborhood and engage in common activity, either formally or informally. The social code enforced by the public opinion of the neighborhood group was effective only upon the elements which led its life in the street.105 1. Charles H. Cooley. Social Organization. New York. 1925 p. 23 103. Bessie C. McClenahan. The Changin Urban Neighborhood. University of California Studies, Social Science Seri es 0. . niversity Po 103 Of Southern California, Los Angeles. 1929. 1014. Ibid., p. 108 105. Caroline F. Ware. Greenwich Village: 1920-1930. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, 1935. p. 82 ! In a more recent discussion of the concept of the neighborhood, Dewey is also somewhat critical of the concept. He suggests that, ". . .homogeneity of income classes, nationality, racial and religious composition. . ." make random neighboring possible. He also questions the functions which the primary group performs, and suggests that many of these functions can be performed by primary groups centered around the place of work.107 It is evident that these studies discussed above have introduced factors which Wirth did not consider in his treatment of urbanism. The three variablswith which Wirth dealt -- numbers of population, density of settlement, and heterogeneity of inhabitants and group life -- are supplemented by others, having to do with social class membership, oc- cupation, and some social psychological factors. The addition of these other variables means that the possible logical relationships between the variables is increased. It also means that until it is ‘known which of the various logically possible relationships do obtain in a specific urban area, there is little basis for the selection of one hypothesis in preference to another. For example: On the basis of the reported research on Paris, it was found that the bourgeois exhibited behavior which was more 'urban' -- in Wirth's sense -- than the behavior of the working class. Yet on the basis of Wirth's theory of urbanism, the contrary should be the case, since high income makes possible greater selectivity of residence, increases ability to use land extensively (thus decreasing density), and increases the possibility of home "The Neighborhood, Urban Ecology, and City 106 Richard Dewey. 15m p. 506 Planners ," American Sociological1 Review. 107. Ibid., p. 507 ownership, thus making for stability of residence and maintenance of social organizations. But, in support of the Paris findings, it might also be pointed out that high income increases accessibility to any other area of the city, and makes for relative independence of local facilities. What is suggested here is that the general relationships which are assumed to hold between these variables do not furnish an adequate basis for the selection of one proposition rather than its contrary, in the study of a Specific area, where these general relationships may be con- siderably modified by factors which are not considered in the original theoretical formulation. Unless the specific conditions under which the theoretical generalizations hold are stated, and unless the speci- fic relationships between the variables in a given area are known, the basis for the selection of hypotheses is unsatisfactory. Lest this be taken as too harsh a criticism, let it be pointed out that the generalizations made on the basis of these variables are at least 'sensitizing' ones. Even though the specific propositions which state the results if certain conditions obtain, are not possible, still the factors that 'should' be taken into account are specified. One of the purposes of this research, then, is the Specification of the relationships between the suggested variables, together with an attempt to show how they are related to residence in a specific area. Generalizations To Pi Tested The relatively explicit statement of the theoretical orientation which is used in this study, together with the review of the research in the field of intra-urban area analysis, make possible the selection of gen- eralizations which may be tested on the basis of the research on which this study is based. The following generalizations are those which guided the selection of data in this study. Ecological Generalizations to be M The hypotheses derived by Hawley which were selected for discussion in Chapter II were those which were most applicable to the analysis of residential areas.108 The first four of these hypotheses state, in effect, that residential units are distributed with regard to special- ization of the unit, transportability, ability to pay costs of occupancy and transportation, and degree of intensity of land use. Since resi- dential units are relatively unspecialized and are characterized by non- intensive use of land, they have a high location tolerance and are not likely to be located at points of high accessibility. Furthermore, if 'function' is broadly interpreted, hypothesis five means that residential units of a given economic class will be found grouped within the city. It is clear that major emphasis in Hawley's approach is placed on ability to pay costs of land occupancy. For the resident, this ability is indicated by his economic status. This emphasis suggests that the in- come of the urban dweller is an important factor in determining his 108. See Chapter II, page 29. residential location and thereby in influencing other aspects of his social life. Thus, the delineation of residential areas of Specific economic categories becomes a necessary task for the analysis of intra- urban areas. Accordingly, the distribution of economic classes of dwelling units for Lansing was determined from census data, using the average land value of the dwelling unit as the best available indication of incune. Not only does this permit the isolation of specific types of residential areas, but it also permits the comparison of these economic areas with social areas -- delineated on the basis of inter-personal con- tacts -- so that the relationship between economic status and some aSpects of social behavior may be determined. The role of accessibility in the determination of the location of residential areas can also be examined by calculating the distance from the point of maximum accessibility of the dwelling units in specific economic classes. In this way, general- izations concerning the relationship between accessibility and income can be tested for their applicability to Lansing. The sixth hyppthesis selected from Hawley's paper states that ex- changes between residential units and other functional units will be most frequent between the residence and theunits which are closest to the residence. Data available on the shapping patterns of lensing residents enable a test of this hypothesis concerning tie importance of accessiblity in the performance of routine daily activities. The major concepts utilized in this examination are those dealing with economic status and accessibility, both of which play an important part in ecological theory. \\ Sociological Generalizations to be Tested Some of the generalizations of urban sociological theory also deal with economic factors, and these generalizations are examined on the basis of residential areas of specific economic status. Urban sociolo- gists have assumed that 'choice' of residence and home ownership are directly related to the social stability and social organization of an area. The relationship of economic status and hone ownership to the degree of personal contact and interaction within a local area can be examined in order to determine whether the expected relationship does, in fact, obtain. It would be expected that those residential areas characterized by higheconomic status and a high prOportion of home ownership would least exhibit 'urban' characteristics. Consequently, these areas should be high in degee of personal interaction and contact. Data from another study of lensing are utilized to examine the re- lationship between the definition of high status areas based on economic characteristics of the dwelling units and the social psychological defi- nition of high-status areas offered by Lansing residents. The examina- tion of the relationship between the two definitions tests the importance of economic status for a more general social status. The. delineation of residential. areas on an economic basis permits a comparison and analysis of these areas from the point of view of both ecological and sociological theory. From a sociological 130th Of view, there are general characteristics of urbanism, not necessarily related tc income, which are also examined in this study. The assumption of the urban sociologist that the city dweller is, and must be, a manber of a large number of formal organizations can be examined in the light of data gathered in this study. Furthermore, the importance of the locality basis of the formal organization can also be examined, by comparing the prOportion of reapondents who belong to both local and non-local organ- izations. The expectation is that in areas characterized by a high degree of personal contact and interaction, local formal organizational membership will also be high. The importance of the 'neighborhood' in a strictly functional sense as well as in a social sense is explored. The relationship between the neighborhood as defined by the reSpondent, the functional neighborhood as defined by the performance of routine economic activities, and the social neighborhood as defined by the performance of activities of a social nature is examined, and the importance of the local area for both economic and social activities can be determined. Throughout the analysis, the social areas -- delineated on the basis of interpersonal contact -- will be treated as the 'independent' variable. These social areas are analyzed on the basis of the generalizations de - scribed above. The principle variables are those of economic status, accessiblity of the residence to other functional units of the conmunity, those social characteristics which have been presumed to make for stability within an area, i.e., a high degree of bone ownership, lengtlnr residence Within the area, and low pl'wsical mobility within the area. The methods utilized in the determination of infra-urban areas on the basis of social characteristics, and the limitations of these methods, are described in the following Chapter. CHAPTER IV METHODS OF INVESTIGATION Introduction In previous chapters, the theoretical and empirical generalizations which guided this research and analysis were discussed. In this chap- ter, the methods of investigation which were utilized in this stuchr are described. The reasons for the selection of the methods used are indicated, and some of the conditions under which the study was done are discussed. Urban sociologists have long recognized the necessity of dividing the city into small units which could be studied by an individual or a small group of individuals. The studies of the 'Chicago school' of urban sociology approached this necessity in two ways. Wirth's study of $32 m and Zorbaugh's study of The Gold Coast and the m are examples of intensive studies of specific areas within the city. Cavan's study of Suicide, Thrasher's analysis of 1133 flag and Faris and Dunham's study of the distribution of nental illness within Chicago, are illustra- tive of another approach; the study of a Specific class of events, with particular emphasis upon the location of the occurrence of these events. In both cases, the areas and events to be studied were usually selected because of their apparent differences from the rest of the city or from other events. Often they were taken to be at least symtomatic of social and/ or personal dis organization. 109 In most large U.3. cities, the necessity for intra-urban classifica- tion has been dealt with by the establishment of census tracts, which supplies a degree of homogeneity with reSpect to number of inhabitants, demographic characteristics of the inhabitants, and character of land use within the tract.110 This procedure has proved to be mite satis- factory for many purposes. For example, many of the studies of Chicago, the Shem—Williams analysis of Los Angeles, and other studies were possible only because of the establishrnent of census-tract plans. How- ever, this procedure utilizes criteria which are not primarily socio- logical, and in fact the studies cited have been in part, an effort to analyze areas on the basis of additional, and presumably more sociolog- ically significant criteria. In this study, the concern is primarily with intra-urban areas de- lineated on the basis of sociological criteria, rather than demog'aphic or ecological criteria.111 The research was not directly concerned with 109. Anderson suggests that this concern with these particular aSpects of city life may be related to the early interest of the sociolo- gist in social reform. See: Nels Anderson. "The Trend of Urban Sociolor " in Trends in American Socioloq. edited by G. A. Lundberg, R. 335-11, and N. Won. Harper and Borthers. New York. 1929. 110. See: Calvin F. Schmid. "The Theory and Practice of Plan- ning Census Tracts." Sociolo and Social Research. 22: (1938) pp. 228- 238; Census Tract Manual mean of the CEnsus, January, 19147; Donald 0 CowgiII, Tie Methodo Io of Plannin Census Tracts for Wichita Kansas. Bulletin No. E, University of Ni ctahf ,Kansas. February, T916“ 111. For a discussion of the treatment of demographic data, see: Joel Smith, "A Method for the Classification of Areas on the Basis of Demographically Homogeneous Populations." American Sociologcal Review 1:9 2 pp. 201-207 the fun—LT! establishmsnt of census tracts, a procedure which involves a number of necessary comprcmises in order to conform to the requirements of formal agencies. The study was, however, concerned with a comparison of social areas with other data. In order to make this comparison pos- sible, information on the social organization of intra—urban areas and the activities of the inhabitants of these areas was obtained. This in— formation on the social characteristics of the residents of social areas makes possible comparisons on these bases. The methods by which this in- formation was obtained are discussed in this section. Before beginning this discussion, the more important conditions which influenced the re— search are indicated. Conditions and Limitations 33 Research A major assumption upon which this research was based, and which guided the entire research design, was that within an urban area there are sub-areas which are sociologically distinguishable, and that the in- habitants of these sub-areas differ in social and economic characteristics. The emphasis, then, is upon the sub—area, and not upon the city as a Whole. The acceptance of this assumption influenced the sample design, and the gathering of the relevant information from the sample selected. The funds allocated to the research committee for the project were limited. As a consequence it was impossible to hire fully trained inter- viewers, or to obtain a sample which was both representative of the pup... ulation of Lansing, and which also cmstituted an areal sample of the city. Many of the comparisons made in this study involve the canparison of sets of data fran different periods of time. The interviews were :t “ up. Ct —61- gathered in 1952 and 1953, while census data on the papulation were gathered in 1950, and census data on sane of the functional characteris- tics of the city were compiled in 19M and l9h8. No complete land-use maps of the city were available, and the expense involved in the con- struction of such maps was prohibitive. This research was viewed by the research committee as the first step in a long time research program in the city. One of the functions of the research was considered to be that of a pilot study which would lay the groundwork for continuing urban research, and which would point out prob- lens which merited mture exploration. The above is a partial list of the conditions under which this re- search was done. None of these conditions nor limitatiorsis thought to be peculiar to this research, but rather seem to be present in a great deal of sociological research of a similar type. They are made explicit here solely for the purpose of clearly stating the background and charac- teristics of this research, and to indicate an awareness on the part of the writer of the conditions under which the research was done. Delineation of Social Areas Data on the demographic characteristics of the Lansing population and block data on housing characteristics were secured from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In addition to the published census bulletins, capies of the ennumeration district counts were secured from the Bureau of the Census. These data furnished the basis for one set of canparisons which is discussed in the analysiS. -62- Infomation on the social and economic activities of the population could not be secured frcm aw formal source. The only feasible way to get this information was to ask the residents of the city about their social and economic activities. Two questions arise when this is con- sidered: What questions are to be asked? and of whom are they to be asked? In regard to the first question, the general orientation of this research was one of the determinants of the questions selected. Four main categories of questions were devised, relating to informal associa- tions within the area; formal associations within the area; the social activities carried on within the area; and the routine daily economic activities carried on within the area. Since these questions were asked prior to arm attempt to secure a definition of that the respondent con- sidered to be his 'neighborhood,‘ it is possible to compare the area within which certain funtions take place with the area defined by the respondent as constituting his neighborhood. The original questionnaire was pro-tested on 1814 informants, and was revised on the basis of these interviews} The selection of those to whom the questionnaires would be admin— istered was also guided by the principle assumption of the study, thus the sample to be interviewed was a sample of areas in the city. A listing of all blocks in the city was used as the source of the sample. Every other block which had at least two dwelling units was selected. Within the block, the selection of the dwelling unit in which the inter- flew was to be taken was determined by a regular rotating selection of w— * Kppendix A contains a copy of the final questionnaire. Ith not an identical cepy, since it has been typed on 8% by 11 inch paper, rather than the legal-sized paper which was used in the actual question- hairs. The wording and order of the questions in identical -63- dwflling units by location on the block. The interviewers used were students in the research committee members' classes. Sets of general and specific instructions were furnished each interviewer, and before beginning the task the interviewers were verbally instructed by one of the committee members. Each interviewer's first assigment was treated as a 'practice interview,‘ and was closely examined by a member of the committee, to see that the instructions had been followed. The use of relatively untrained and inexperienced interviewers is a limitation of the study, but one that could not be avoided. Interviewing was completed in the Spring of 1953, and S73 completed interviews were obtained. The sample unit was the city block, and since these blocks differ in size, population, and density, representativeness of the sample in terms of characteristics of the population was not pos- sible. However, representativeness in terms of area, i.e., blocks dis- tributed throughout the city, is claimed. This characteristic of the sample should be kept in mind when examining the comparison of the sample with the Lansing population, which is presented in Table I. In general, the sample is composed of a much higher proportion of females than the city. Occupationally, there is an over-representation of retired persons, skilled workers, and managers and proprietors , and an under-representation of professional, clerical, and service workers. It should be mentioned here that the occupational categories used in this study were not strictly comparable to the census categories, and that some categories from the sample were combined to enable a comparison. It should also be mentioned that the census data include all workers, while the sample consisted largely of families. This may be one of the reasons why clerical workers are under-represented and why skilled workers are over-represented in the sample. The sample and the city are Tublc"i:'"fisfi6GRAPHic: reassure BfifibATioNAi; AND HbUSiNE EHKfilcTERISTiCS --OF LANSING POPULATION, 1950, AND. 9134qu ....195)..... , .-..____. Lansing_i Samp1e_ Demog'aphic Characteristics Percent Percent_ Sex Male he'l‘a 2103 Race White 96.7 95 .3 N830 302 be? Other 40.08 0.0 Econanic Characteristics Occupation b Professional and semi-professional 11.9 9.6 Managers and pro rietors 6.6 10.6 Clerical (office§ 19.3 7.2 Clerical (sales ) 9.9- 5.9 Skilled workers 114.9 25.8 Semi-skilled workers 21.? 21.8 Service and dunestic 11.11 3.7 Retired, occupation not reported 1.3 11.9 'Median family_income $15097 ___«;’$h,§ .8..__... Educational Characteristics Median school year completed 11.5c 330 Housing Characteristics Number of persons per household 3.6‘1 3.14 Percent owners 63.5 80.8 Percent renters“- _- _ W .-..-ééeim. - “19.2 ___ a. U.S. Bureau of the Census. I_J_=§.. Census of Population: 1950 Vol. II characteristics of the P ulation. Part 22'; hichiganfhmp- 3t? B. Bus Gavcrmnent Pr—fiiffi'g-gg'mce, ashington, 13.0. 1952. Table .9 Po 0- " b. Ibid., Chapter C. Table 75, p. 2146. Categories of less than one percent not included for Lansing. c. Ibid., Chapter B. Table 311, p. 80 d. 3.3. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Housi : 1950. Block _S_t_atistics. Vol. v. Part 95. 075? Co'wverment fiat—Eating (Silica. “8851mm, P.C._~_1_.252. p. 3_._ ..- . .- .. ......M...c_,._.. .--__- -6h- quite similar in racial composition, educational status, and number of persons per household. The sample contained a larger preportion of home owners than the city. In a study of the distribution of cammnity knowledge, Sykes con- eluded that as the proportion of home owners increases, the preportion of knowledgable individuals increases.112 The same is true in the case of income, educational status, and occupational status. This would seem to indicate that the composition of the sample might be such that would constitute a favorable factor in gaining knowledge about the community. The responses to four questions of the interview schedule, all of which related to social contacts within the area, were selected for the purpose of delineating social areas within the city.“113 The responses to these questions were assmned to indicate a certain degree of 'intimacy‘ within the area.1114 Each of these reSponses to these mestions was as- simd a numerical value from zero to four, with zero indicating no in- timacy and four indicating high intimacy. The canbination of these numberioal values was taken to indicate a relative ranking of the degree of social interaction for the block concerned.115 By plotting the values on a block map of the city, it was possible to determine the areas in which blocks with similar scores were located. The areas characterized by blocks with similar responses to these questions were then delineated. These areas are presented in Figure 1. 112. Gresham M. Sykes. 7% BEferential Distribution of Community Knowledge." Social Forces. (May, 191:1) p. 382. 113. These questions were questions 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the interview schedule. (See Appendix A). For a more extended discussion of this procedure, see: W.H. Form, G.P. Stone, J. Smith, and J. Cowhig. "The Compatibility of Alternative Approaches to the Delineation of Urban Sub-Areas." American Sociologcal Review. (In press). 111;. ‘Intimacy' is used here to signify the relative rank of areas on the basis described. No other significance is intended. 115. It is recognized that this procedure treats non-additive quantities as thoth thev were additive. -65- These social areas, then, were treated as the 'independent variable ,' and the social and economic characteristics of the residents of the social areas were analyzed and compared on the basis of the generalizations dis- cussed in Chapter III. The respondent's estimate of the degree of inter- personal contact was part of the basis for\the delineation of the intra- urban social areas.* Since some of the characteristics of these respond- ents are compared with the characteristics of the entire social area, the sample was eocamined in crder to indicate possible sources of bias. This examination is contained in Appendix B, and is summarized below. The analysis indicated, in general, that there was a close relation- ship betwaen high land value of the dwelling unit and high monthly rental, Justifying the use of average land value of the dwelling unit as the unit of measurement of economic status for the total area; and that variation of average land value within the area was not significantly related to the size of the area. It also indicated that areas which had the lowest aver- age land value of the dwelling units were the most econonically homogeneous areas. The sample had a higher proportion of females than the entire city, but this over-representation of females was characteristic of each of the three types of social areas. The fact that the interviews were obtained during the day-tine probably accounts for this bias. The median age of the respondents was the same in each of the three types of intimacy areas. Thus, there seems to be no reason to think that the differences in the responses among the social areas are a result of differences in the age- sex distribution of the sample. 011 the basis of occupation, high social intimacy areas had a significantly higher prOportion of persons in higher status occupations, a finding which may also indicate higxer socio-econanic _k * In a some, the respondent was viewed as an 'infm'mant' in regard to the local area. CO status. Midcfle social intimacy areas had a significantly greater pro- portion of service workers and a significantly lower proportion of skilled and semi-skilled workers than either of the other two types of areas. The aspects of the sample which have been discussed thus far indi- cate the ways in which the sample deviates from the total city. In spite of these differences, it would seem that the sample is not serious- ly distcrted, and is adequate for the purposes at hard. In the course of the analysis, further canparisons of the sample with the total area are made in connection with specific relationships. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that although the sample is relatively small when canpared with the total population of the city, it constitutes a very large sample when this research is compared with previous research of a similar nature. In order to furnish information on the social structure of Lansing and to enable a comparison of Taming with other U.S. cities, the follow- ing chapter is devoted to a demographic and functional analysis of the Lansing Standard MetrOpolitan Area and the central city of lensing. / re ”0 {- CHAP'IIER V A FUNCTICNAL DESCRIPTION OF LANSING In preceding chapters, it has been seen that both the ecologist and the sociologist attach considerable importance to the city's role as a service, business, and industrial center, and to the size and population . composition of the city, in influencing the structure and developnent of the city and the community. It is obvious that a city which is primarily a manufacturing center will differ in some respects from a city which is a resort center or governmental center. These differences will be re- flected not only in the physical structure of the city, but also in the types of groups within the city. For example, the labor force of a man- ufacturing city will not be the same as the labor force of a resort or governmental center. Therefore, it is important to know the functional position and economic. basis of a city. This information not only pro- vides a fuller description of the city, but makes it possible to relate these factors to whatever other description or analysis may be desired. In addition, a complete functional description of the city should be offered, in order to facilitate an evaluation of the study and the extent to which the results of this study may apply in the case of other cities. The present chapter is devoted to a functional analysis of Lansing, Michigan. First a very brief description of the conditions under which the city was founded and devleped is presented. Second, the Standard MetrOpolitan Areas of which Lansing is the central city, is considered __ Are a The abbreviation, sun, will be used for Standard Metropolitan 3. in relationship to other SMA'S in the United States from the point of view of pOpulation grcwth since 1900. Third, the growth and distribu- tion of the pOpulation within the Lansing SMA is examined for a similar period with particular attention to the pOpulation of the central city. Fourth, the role of the central city as an economic center for its SMA is examined, and its importance as a trade center, service center, and manufacturing center discussed. Use will be made of current research on the subject of the functional classification of cities in order'to classify Lansing. The analysis of the Lansing SMA serves to overcane some of the limita- tions of the restriction of this study, for the most part, to the politi- cal area of the city. It also provides a basis for determining the finic- tional importance of Lansing for the rest of the 'ccmmunity.‘ The Founding _c_>_f_ Lansing Lansing has been the capitol of Michigan since March 16, 18M. The selection of the city as the State Capitol has a rather unusual back- ground: Lansing was develOped by a legislative prank. Until l8h7, Detroit was Michigan's capitol. The constitution of 1835 pro- vided that the capitol 'shall be at Detroit. . .unitl 18W, when it shall be permanently located by the legislatm.’ The legis- lators, after two of their number had been burned in effigy by a gang of rowdies, concluded that Detroit, being on the border, was in danger of a foreign invasion and were glad enough to abide by the constitution. For months the legislature wrangled, as every settlement in lower Michigan was considered. When, in light humor, ”the township of Lansing" was suggested, the impasse was relieved amid laughs, and, for want of a better solution, the seat of government was moved to it gilderness location that had but one log house and a sawmill. 1 116. Michi an. A. Guide to the Wolverine m. Compiled by workers of the Writers' 'Program 07‘ the works Egress Administration in the State of Michigan. Oxford University Press, New York. 19M. pp. 331- 332 . The city's industrial growth centered around.the automotive industry: When the gasoline engine and the automobile were made commercially practical in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the city had three or four large carriage and wagon factories and a wheel company, which were converted into automobile body and wheel factories. An important factor in Lansing's industrial devolopmeni.was the ability to finance the 'radical' proposals of automobile inventors. Six or eight local men had accumulated large fortunes by deve10ping the surrounding country and selling dense timber stands, and, when the timber gave out, they were interested in new business ventures. . . Gasoline engines and automobiles made Lansing a.manufacturing and trading center. More than 200 manufacturers established them- selves in the area. In 190h, Lansing was a world leader in the production of agricultural implements, automobiles, and gasoline engines, and held second place in the manufacture of wheel-barrows, trucks, and store-fixtures. The industrial age inaugurated an area of unprecedented expansion. The pOpulation increased from 16,000 in 1900 to 32,000 in 1910. Some idea of the historical deveIOpment of residential areas in Lansing can be gained from an examination of Figure 2, which shows those city blocks on which at least one-third of all dwelling units standing in 19h0 were constructed in 1899 or earlier. (The concentric circles in this figure are drawn at one-half mile intervals). As this figure indicates, early residential development took place along the Grand River in the northern, central, and southern parts of the city. The greater development seems to have taken place in the western part of the city along eaStawest transportation routes; and a lesser deve10pment in the eastern part of the city along north-south tranSportation routes. In the next section, the growth and distribution of papulation in Lansing and in the Lansing SMA is analyzed in order to see what effect industrialization had upon the population size and distribution, and to determine the relative importance of the central city for the SMA —— 11?. Ibid., pp. 331-332 This account, while lacking the embellish- ments of, Lansing“ and Its Yesterdays, Lansing, Michigan, 1930, pp- 10-15, is in agreement with *thEs latter version. FIGURE 2 atoms WITH ONE-THIRD 0" wows mum ums cowsmucTED m '8” OR EARLER M0 5"” m USE N I940 I a —_ :- i I - I _ I 1““! { FIGURE 2 BLOCKS WITH (WE-THIRD OR MOE DIELLING WTS OONSTRUCTED IN l899 m EARLER ND STILL IN USE N I940 Population I7rowth and Distritution in the Lzsm 1:135).le ..- -... -‘-.-——--o “‘ The Lansing SMA qualified as a 'principalb “JA' in 1930, and on this basis is placed in Class IV.113 A principal SMA is defined as, ". .(one) with a central city of 50,000 inhabitants and a total pOpulation of 100,000 or more at a given census. . ."1-19 In Table H, the Lansing SMA is canpared with all SMA's of its class, with all SMA's of its region, and with all SMA'S of the same region, size, and class. Table II. PERCENT POPULATION INCREASE BY CLASS, SIZE, AND REC‘xIOI‘l OF SMA, * 1900-1959 w p _ All North SMA‘s of Lansing Class IV Central Same Region! *Decade SMA SMA's SMA's Size and Class 1920-50 32.1; 28.2 18.1 2134 1930-110 12 .0 11.3 S .3 7 .5 1920-30 113.0 29.1 29.9 27.3 1910.20 53.0 28.0 32.2 26.6 1900-10 33.9 36.6 29.9 214.0 1900-50 3311.3 221.9 177.3 160.9 4" Source: Donald J. Bogue. Population Growth In Standard Metro- politan Areas: 1900—52. Housing and Hone Finance Agency. U .S. Govern- mnt Printing Office, washington, D. c.1953. _ ‘w From an examination of Table I, it can be seen that the pattern of percent of population increase in the Lansing SMA was the same as the pattern of increase in all North Central SMA's, and that the Lansing SMA ___ 1‘“-, 118. Donald J. Bogue. POEulatiinw Growth _i_n_ Standard Metropolitan Areas: 1900-50. Housing and Hans Finance Agency. *1]. S. Government Print— ing Office, Washington, D. C. 1953. p. 10 119. Ibid., p. 10 -71- grew at a more rapid rate than any of the other three classes of Shh's with Which it can be compared. It can also he seen that the greatest percentage increase in the pepulation of the SMA was during the period of industrial expansion. The changing distribution of the population within the Lensing St’ indicates in.what areas of the SMA the greatest growth of population has occurred. Table III presents this comparison. _ar .. . _ -— _ ——h- Table III. PERCENT POPULATION INCREASE WITH [N THE LAT-ISING SMA, 1900—1950 _—-.._—~___.. . Lansing Central Decade Stilt City Ring Urban Rural 19ho-So 32.t 17.0 55.8 173.8 32.0 1930-80 12.0 0,5 35.8 23.0 38.2 1920-30 h3.o 36.8 57.6 ... 28.9 1910-20 53.0 83.6 9.7 ... 9.? 1900—10 33.9 89.h 9t.6 ... -C.h 1900-50 33t.3 h58.9 2t6.3 ... 18h.2 Source: Donald J. Bogue. POpulation Growth _i_n_ Standard metro- pglitan Areas: 1900-50. Housing and Home Finance Agency. U.S. Govern- kment Printing Office. Washington, 13.0., 1953. Table l, p. 65 Table III indicates that the period of greates. population growth for the Lansing SMA occurred a decade later than for the central city, and that for both the 8!le and the central city the period from 1900-1920 was marked by the greatest pOpulation increase. It is also evident that the growth of the central city has been at a slower rate than that of the SMA or the ring. in order to examine this developnent more closely, the prOportion of pepulation in the central city is compared with the propor- tion of pOpulation in the entire SMA. This comparison is made in Table IV. _Y'd‘. ‘ . . ‘ _i_- ‘Tible Iv. unisex AND EtRCENT or fiEPULATIOM IN_lANSiNG 5mg Ana 1N CnthAL CITY, 1900—1950 Lansing Central Percent P0pula— SMA City tion within the Year Population P0pulati on A Central City ‘- 1950 172,9h1 92,129 53.3 191:0 130 .616 78 , 753 (30 . 3 1930 116,587 73,397 62.9 1920 81.5514 57,327 70.3 1910 53.310 31,229 58.t 1900 39,818 16,h85 u1.u Source: Donald J. Bogue. Pppulation Growth _i_n Standard Metropoli- tan Leas: 1900-SO. Housing and Home Finance Agency. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1953. Table l, p. 65 Table IV indicates that the central city had the greatest pr0p0rtion of the SMA p0pulation in 1920 -- the time of industrial expansion during and immdiately following the first World War.-- and that this pr0p0rti0n has constantly decreased since that time. Schnore has analyzed all U.S. SMA's on this basis, and has pointed out seven distinct types of SMA'S 0n the basis of the percent of pepulation in the central city at various decades since 1900.120 The Lansing SMA is one of [.2 She's which shows an increasing proportion of population in the central city frcm 1900 to 1920 and a decreasing preportion from 1930 to 1950. Schnore suggests that this may be an indication of centralization fron 1900 to 1920, and of decentralization from 1930 to the present. A 120. 1460 F. Schnore. Suburbs and Satelites, University of Mich... 18311, 1951;. This canparison was suggested by Schnore on the basis of a preliminary report of his study. The writer wishes to eXpress his ap- preciation to Schnore for making these preliminary findings available. Of the eight Michigan SMA's, only Flint and Saginaw are of a different type, and in both cases, decentralization began a decade later. These data indicate that the greatest growth of Lansing and the Lansing SMA in papulation occurred during the period of industrial ex: pension. They also suggest that additional growth since 1920 has taken place in areas outside the central city. The age-sex distribution of the Lansing p0pulati0n is compared with the age sex distribution of the urban part of the State for 1950. Any comparison of the age-sex distribution of the central city with the re- mainder of the SMA would be of only limited utility, due to a change in the classification of the place of residence of college students by the Bureau of the Census in 1950. Since the Lansing SMA is the location of Michigan State College, this comparison would show a diSproportionate increase of persons between the ages of 20-214, and would also indicate a high birth rate. However, the comparison of the central city with the urban part of the State indicates the similarity of the age-sex distribution of these two areas. In Figure 3, the calculation of. the urban part of the State was made by subracting the appropriate amounts for the Lansing papulation, so that Lansing is canpared with the urban part of the State minus the Lansing pOpulation. ..7 h- Figure 3. AGE—SEX COMPOSITION FOR LANSING AND FOR THE STATE, URBAN, 1950 Lansing 5. 13 State, Urban l_ [ a Help Female Figure 3 indicates that the age-sex distribution of the Lansing population closely resembles that of the urban part of the State. Lansing resembles the urban part of the State more closely in fertility ratio and in birth rate, than it does the rest of the Lansing SMA. Both the fertility ratio and birth rate are lower for the central city than for the rest of the SMA.121 In regard to the growth and distribution of the population and the age-sex structure of the pOpulation, it would seem that Lansing resembles the urban part of the State more closely than it does the Lansing SMA; and it would also seem that decentralization of the population has taken place since 1920, which marked the peak of industrial development within the central city. In the following section, the function of the central city as a business and service centn'for the SMA is examined, and the functional and economic base of the city are described. 121. ‘Ihese conclusions were derived fron the following sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census. HQ.- Census gf Papulatipn: l9§ . Vol. II Characteristics 92 the. P ulation. Michigan. U.S. Goverment Printing Office, Washington, 13.0., 19 2. Data for Lansing were taken from Table 33, p. 7. Data for the lensing em were taken from Table 33, p. 61;. A canparison of 1910 data with 1950 data showed that in- crease in both measures took place for all three areas, but that the Lansing and urban part of the State increases were less than those of the Lansing SMA. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Pepulation; 19 0. Second Series. Characteristics 91.: the Population. 11mgan, . . Goverment Printing (Ti‘fi'ce, Washington, D.C., 155: Data for Lansing taken frcn Table 32, p. 129; for the Lansing SEA, Table 22, p. 1&5; and for the State, Urban fran Table 7, p. 1h -76... Lansing as_ a L ctional _anter From both an ecological and sociological point of view, the city serves as a business, industrial, and service center both for the resi- dent papulation and the population in the surrounding area. This sec- tion is devoted to an examination of the role of Lansing in this respect. The relative importance of the central city as a trade and service cen- ter is examined by comparing Lansing with the rest of the Lansing em. The occupational and industrial structure of Lansing and the Lansing SMA is described in order to indicate the, functional and economic base of the city, and the importance of the central city for the SEA. Table V presents a canparison of Lansing with the Lansing SIM in regard to the prepcrtion of retail and wholesale trade, and business, professional, and repair services, which takes place in, or is provided by, the central city. The data presented in Table v clearly indicate that the central city serves as a trade and service center for the SMA. This function is seen most clearly when the proportion of wholesale trade establish- manta, employees, and sales of the central city is compared with the rest of the Lansing SKA. -77.. 'fiihle v. _2-- DISTRIBUTION! (F RETAIL TRADE, WHOLESALE TRADE, AND BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL AND REPAIR SERVICES BY ESTABLISHMENTS, PROPRIETCRS, EM- PLOYEES, AND YEARLY SALES, FOR LANSING AND THE LANSING SMA, 19118. Function Total Area Lansing Lansing 5M5 Percent Percent _“h Retail Trade-I , Establishments 1582 61 .8 38 .2 Active Pr0prietors 15514 53.2 345.3 Unpaid Family Workers 638 52.2 147.8 Paid Elnployees 10.th 79.5 20.5 Sales (in thousands) 1814,3131 77.5 : 22.5 Wholesale Tradee A Establishments 202 82.7 ’ 17.3 Active Proprietors 95 70.5 29.5 Paid mployeee 2089 93.1 6.9 Sales (in thousands) lh8,568 90.6 9J4 Business, Professioaal, and Repair Services Establishnents M6 70.6 29.11 Pr0prietors 1‘51 3 68 a}. 3109 Paid Employees 1351; 1 86.9 13.1 Receipts 8335 8h.8 15.2 e (LET. Bureau oTThe Census. Census of Bus' ess. Vol. III, Retail Trade 19h8. Data for Lansng taken-Rm ab 9 los; for the ing MA, fran Table 102. 0 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Lansing sm, fran Table 102. # U.S. Bureau of the Census. Sewicc . 19h8 . _Lansing 5m taken frat: Table 102A Census;g_i_‘_ Business. Wholesale Trade. Data for Lansing taken iron Table 103; data for Germs of Business. Data for Lansing taken from Table 103A, data for Vol. V. Vol. VII . '-78- The industrial basis of Lansing and the Lansing SMA is analyzed ‘1 Table VI, where the percentage of persons employed by industry for Lansing and the Lansing SMA is shown, together with the proportion of the total employed by industries in Lansing Table VI. INDUSTRY OPEMPLOYLD PERSOIs m~MNSlNG mi) memo sh». l99o ME Percent Lansing .....lndnaim -_ . Total A, _ Area PLWSP‘B 5% ' Lansing E Lansing SMA 65,581; I Percent“ _ “Mfercent . Agriculture 2,817 0.14 Eu} 0.1 Construction 3,616 5.2 E 5.6 56.3 Manufacturing 20,218 33.8 E 30.8 65.6 Transportation i 3.192 E 5.6 E 11.9 E 68.3 E ! Wholesale and E 2 E E Retail Trade ;. 12,927 i 20.9 E 19.? i 63.h , 5 g > Finance, Insur- E E E E _ ance, Real Estate E 2,587 E u.6 E 3.9 g 69.7 i z I Business and I j, E E Repair Service E 1,1.95 E 2.14 E 2.3 E 62.5 : 1 3 Personal Service E 2,879 E 11.7 E 15.1: E 63.8 . l. 1 Professional E 9,167 E 9.3 E 113.0 E 39.9 E . iz Public Administra—E E t 1 tion E h,627 ‘ 8.7 E 7.1 g 73.1; 1 z 1 Not Reported El l,h00 1. 6 {L 2.1 E 15.6 Source: U.S. Census of :gpulation: 1950. Vol. II. Characteristics of the PopulatT-fi. Part ”22— Michigan. pter C. 0.8. Goverment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1952. Table 81: War 293 and 298. ‘3‘ "a a. u _ A ...th A O Table VI indicates the dominance of manufacturing in both Lansing and the Lansing SMA. That the central city is the location of the great majority of manufamu'ing establishments can be seen from an exam- ination of Table VII. ‘mwmuh - Table VII. DISTRInu'rIon op MANUFACI‘URING ESTABLISHIIEENTS 3136 ”didn‘t 0F 1““ ‘50”5 81°59???“ WWAEDimc—mawsmmwmsbvn F‘unotion Total _____§_re_§"m _ -- . ‘_~_ Lagging 1 Lansing SMA-..” _ Barcent Percent” ...... W Establishnents lho 77.3 22.7 All Workers I 25,852 E 96.3 3.7 Production WorkersE 21,355 EL 9633 E 3.8 ”W M’Wi r!- «thv Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census 23‘- Manufacturers. Vol. III, 1911?. Table 2,1). 192 “ ‘- J-i—‘f _a-a ~*——~ Ihe manufacture of autunotive vehicles and equipnent is the largest single specific industry in the manufacturing group, employing 67 per... cent of all persons engaged in manufactm‘ing.122 The functional basis of the SMA of which Lansing is the central city has been described, and in the next section, attention is focused upon the central city itself. 122. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census 23 Manufacturers. Vol. HI. 19157. Table 83. — ‘80-. l'he Emotional Position of Lansing The rate of papulation increase within the central city of Lansing has been traced from 1900 to 1950. The increase in pOpulation frun 19110 to 1950 is partly due to the increase in the administrative city through annexation which occurred during this decade. Thus, in l9b0 the population of Lansing was 78,753, distributed within an 11.6 square mile area. In 1950, a papulation of 92,129 was distributed within a 111.1 square mile area. Approximately 119 percent of the population in- crease in Lansing was the result of annexation of land. The functional basis of lansing is presented in Table VIII, where Lansing is compared with the other central cities of Michigan sure?” The basis of this classification has been modified recently, and it should be noted that the employment-ananufacturing ratio for 1950 is not comparable to the ratio for 19110 or earlier years. Jones makes this clear : This study differs from Grace Kneedler Ohlson's in that service industries are excluded from the employment—residence ratio. The ratio used here also differs from milson‘s in that the ratio of employment in manufacturing and trade is not to the total resident population of the city. Separate ratios were obtained for manufacturing and trade employment to the resident labor force in these cities. . .‘lhe employment-residence 123. These data are taken frat: Victor Jones. "Econonic Llassificatign 9}: Cities," Municipal Year Book. Vol. 20. 1953 . 50. The classification is that deveIOped by Harris (Chauncey Harris. ”A Functional Classification of Cities in the 0.8.“ Georgraphic Review, January, l9h3, pp. 86-99 and his "Suburbs,“ American Journal of Sociolcg, July, 1913, pp. 1-13) which was modified by mlson Tarace edler Qilson, “Econanic Classification of Cities ." Municipal Year 13.22.15. 1119. pp. $1.70 -81- Ill :9 kmm.ooaom;mmmsa unocfimon MSJEWMQoa¢ ca 5 o o o campfi3.xnox canoes cues ..o.« ..szo as H so. as n mm~0finsz .u00fl>non saunas can .0 .Q .m ma .xoom anew H . m m .mcflaspoumsnas ca envenoaaso opamoummu weanspoumssds one * 1“ .. lIlO‘nF-‘ 'la‘l‘ll‘lll ' lllv". :8 .d .wwwm?£mglmeiew a: beep: descended“ one can» moms» odd mcwasponmsnoa no no commode ends mH moansdq ewconaoa .mmonfinsn find «ovens HonoHonF can Hanson no perched a ma mcwhsponusnms cw cohoaaso Aspens on» we oaaaa cm .a .mmmH .xoom stow mummmmmmm. .hpwo on» a“ opfia on: camera cohoaaso Ho gonads on» o» moca>nom seamen can ammocflmsn eadcomhom new «open» adamoaonc.ch «Heaven «mcfinspouhsnds ca .38 o5 5 messages no homes: can mo 03¢." 2.5 as 9.32 Scoufimojcoshoflso 93. Q .as .e .mmea .aeee use» Haaawwnsa c.9soEboaaeo opomoammd we reached on song mmofi we onus» Aeneas ca vocaboaa lac cod .oow>uom one nouns» emswhspoumsnds ca psoEAOHQEo opamohmmm Mo punched om gamma an nu .hoflo mcwaspoeusnae. < cs ,1 HI. 3 - mm mmmwwmwsmssas as pcoshoaaem: quuonc.haflo a ma pudenda mo n,mmwiw mcaasponmsnd: zuufimdm am H2 wastage: consensus No mbH mcflaspoumsnua conxouw mo . mJH mafiasposussd: mcwamm cacao 4N 04H wcflnspoumsnsx asaflm ow oaa wcwaspoumsna: nachaon MM ONH wcfinspcnmsnua made hem flames,neamaesmeafimmfl he - assesses as...” ,2: Accesmmwmee teem entrees .as finance r mmw:~§truwr:bsdwnn - . , 1!. mWEb qumo 24on8: ems BHmawIWaHmmmwflMGmezE 4..an can; E ’9’ ...! . t . .II I. '.‘!I' III!!!" IE -‘ --—w-;_--- - .r— “-— WA- -82.. ratio differentiates three types of cities on the basis of 223 daily migration to and flgfi the city for purposes of working in manufacturing and trade. Thus, in the case of Lansing, the employment~residence ratio indicates that for every 177 workers in manufacturing, trade, and service, 7? workers in these categories do not reside in Lansing. It can be seen from Table VIII that Lansing has the highest employment—residence ratio of any of the eight Michigan central cities. For Lansing, as for the Lansing SMA, the largest single industry is manufacturing which employs over one-quarter of all employed persons in Lansing.125 The specific occupational structure of Lansing and the changes in this occupational structure over the past twenty years are presented in the following tables. The data presented in Table IX are for the entire labor force. When the labor force was analyzed on the basis of sex, it was found that the greatest changes in the male labor force took place among professionals and Operatives which increased 5.53 and 5.29 percent reapectively; and _among laborers, which decreased 7.67 percent. In the female labor force, the major changes occurred in the clerical category which increased 9.63 percent, and in the service worker category which had a similar decrease of 9.59 percent. When the occupational structure of Lansing was compared with that of the urban part of the State and with the urban part of the U.S., it * 12h. Victor Jones. Op. cit., p. 7h 125. U.S. Bureau of’the Census. H;§. Census gngopulation:1950 Vol. II. Characteristics 2£.§ 3 Population. Part 22. Michigan, Chapter C. 0.3. Government Printing Office,‘washington, D.C. ‘Table 81, p. 298 III ul '3". lllll some 00: nouns.— mefio 0.033% El . n‘l‘l‘ ..\ ... '1 Cull I" .‘II. it ... ‘I. x w "l ... iii Q"ti.'} II} I ‘1 l.II.'-'| \II‘I.‘ OPGQOHQQ NM non. vmmmm 26 0 0.8an: 00.50:? 05 02,3223. :Comguo 05 5.. 00: 20300200 3:» on 50a 0030 05. .33m 05 How eon use 8302 on» .8.“ cokww 0.8 0.833 nogoehoo 05 0050 .p , e o a OAHHO manunafihnm o... Geno 000 0 98¢ 0 .0 0 000 o h ..n H 0.393 .m 3.. a o n 98.353003 0 H 5 .n p v .5 WI. mle. o 1:030 2000 0>30m10m§o .mchwxvm 3H4 semecn0>oo .0.: .oemHnONQH .m.= 0:» n00 moapmapmpm 33 55m 0.833 5300.300 0%. mo 3009 0.3 no 009380 0.83 OmmH you 00m3c00h0m Q 000305 pom ..v0pnoa0u co: 53.33000. 0:0 $80.3.“ 0G0 30:» 000A :33 00.203900 ... 055 090 an .3083 . 20303 .Ivl..u..I\I‘lI.II|I... '1‘ - -.- 'III . sad... mum.-. «as. $3 3.0 3.0 mod fi.m 30:09.5: 0.0.03.5 .3088 6.8078: 00.283 woé SA ow.m math 20020... 30:00.90: 305$ 24 2.2 8:3 3.8 20x8: Bang and. 82.3208 2.7 34.0. 3.2 3:: Eels: amuse: as .8598.“ 8059020 was“ 5.3 9.4m 3.3 20x8: convene new $38 .2338 2.0.. $6 mwé 0.0.6 Emu 3088 .mnopmwnnona 090 «3303.3 .mumwsqms 49m ma; om.w amend Fugue: 003:3 0:0 33:203. .amcoammomoum , 1 -.edwwm! -1433 )0me - 1 1 omwwmammwa .80» #8335000 1‘]: ‘1 .Ill... ll": . . ‘ 1| U lili‘i .' . -- | w. -. ..... dmmdhodmm; ..mozéo 92.0.0- . Imam, p.24- ..ommmuomoa .ofiwzaq 2H onmMWDUS mm 059mm 55.35 .6 BHSmHmamHa Smog .NH 0309 . I‘l‘!‘ It: ...‘| l‘ 'I t}. II. was found that Lansing: resembled the urban part of the U.S. more closely than it did the urban part of the State. ThiS'waa due to the relatively low proportion of operatives and kindred workers and the relatively high preportion of clerical sales, and kindred workers, in Lansing as compared to the urban part of the State. In order to determine the period at which various segments of the labor force underwent the greatest change, coefficients of dissimilarity were canputed. The results of this computation are presented in Table X. Table x. coarncmms OF Dissmma‘fi'f fidefiéé’rhfifii‘s “or"iiii”f'm”§ifidfishi- _ MASDQsL959lw- ,-- ... ..., Air-r a-,_ A -~_ . Total Male Female - ‘ m-“ «‘N." -.»I.._- *l. s Q - - 7. .,~- 1’”in Lab” i213- . RP°£E939€ - _, - MWPbPE'flF399- 1930-.1910 22.1 ‘ 2m no.7 19140-1950 l7 .5 16 oh ' l9 .7 1930—1950 26.2 29.9 23.2 “..-—... “to“- ...—— 'I-F'fl-_- M w... t Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 9.2.?! Census of P lation: 19 0. Vol. II Characteristics 93 the Population—r. Par—_t Higgi‘—‘hapter c. .8. Government fiinting Office, Washington, 13.0., 1952, for 1950 data U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of P0pulation: l9h0. Characteristics of the figpuhtion. —Second Series, furnishgd 1W0 data. . . can of the Census. y_=_S_. Census of Population: 192 . Vol. IV. Occupation, was the source of 1530 data It can be seen fran Table I that the greatest percentage change in both the total labor force and male labor force took place fran 1930- 1950, while the female labor force changed most fran 1930 to 19140. This was largely the result of approximately a ten percent decrease in the percentage of service workers and approximately a ten percent increase in the prOportion of clerical, sales, and kindred workers. It was also found that the percentage of females in the labor force in Lansing has increased steadily since 1920. The proportion of females in the labor force in 1920 was 23.1 126 and in 1950 it was 36.3.127 It will be remembered that it was suggested that one index of urbaniza- tion is an increasing proportion of women in the labor force. It would seem then, that this increase in the Lansing female labor force may be an indication of increasing urbanization. Summary In this chapter, data have been presented on the Lansing SMA, and the Lansing SMA was compared to other SMA's of its size, region, and class. An analysis of pepulation growth and distribution within the SMA was made, and an analysis of the central city was based upon its pepulation growth and distribution; its economic base; and its industrial and occupational composition. These data make it possible to relate information on other more Specific characteristics of Lansing with which this stuck} deals, to these general characteristics. They also permit a comparison of Lansing with other cities in regard to the relationship of the central city to the SMA and the functional position of the central city. It was found that the Lansing SMA resembles other SMA's of its class, size, and region in the pattern of pepulation growth since 1900, __‘ 1 126. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Causes 2f Egg U.S. 9; . Population. Vol. IV. Occupation bygtates. 0.3. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. ., 933. The data for 1930 are not strictly cunparable with those for 1910 and 1930, due to a change in the definition of the labor force. 127. Ibid., Table 2, p. 780 although its growth, in general, has been more rapid than that of the other SilA's with which it was compared. Since 1920, the pOpulation of the central city has been a decreasing prOportion of thepOpulation of the SMA, and it was suggested that this was an indication of decentral— ization since 1920. Data on retail and wholesale trade, and business, professional, and repair services. indicated that Lansing functions as a trade and service center for its SMA. The central city itself has an age-sex conposition similar to that of other urban areas of the State. Lansing is classed as an employing city, with an employment—residence ratio higher than that of any other central city in Michigan, and a manufacturing ratio which ranks second among Michigan central cities. Lansing's econanic base is manufacturing, and the major industry is the manufacture of autonotive vehicles. The Lansing labor force has decreased in the preportion of skilled workers and laborers and has increased in the preportion of semi-skilled workers and white collar workers since 1930. An increasing preportion of females have been in the labor force since 1920, perhaps an indication of increasing urban- ization. Thus far, the theoretical framework within which this study was done, the generalizations selected for testing, the methods utilized in the study, and a functional description of Lansing, have been presented. It is now possible to begin the analysis of the social areas of Lansing. In the following chapter, the relationship between econanic areas of Lansing and the social areas is discussed. CHAPTER VI AN ANALYSIS OF THs' GROWTH AND LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN LANSING AND A CWPARISQ‘I OF THE ECONWIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS In_tr odgction The occupational and industrial couposition of Lansing which was described in the previous chapter, furnishes information as to the economic base of Lansing and the economic status of the city. This chapter is con- corned with the further analysis of the economic status of the residents of the social areas. It was pointed out in Chapter II that both the eco- logist and urban sociologist view the city as, at least in part, an econom- ic response, in that the city is essentially a service center, business and financial center, and often an industrial and manufactung center. In an urban enviromnent with the specific aSpects of contemporary tech- nology and econaw, the possession of a minimum level of income is a necessary condition of urban life.128 Thus, to ignore the econanic char- acteristics of urban residents would be to ignore a most significamt facet of city life. For the ecologist, the ability to pay costs of land occupancy is of great importance in influencing the location of residential areas. It has also been seen that the urban sociologist is concemed with the same — Am _# __‘ ‘- A , 128. Simmel has stressed the importance of a money econonw for the urban dweller. See: ”The MetrOpolis and Mental Life,“ in The Social 35 Georg Simel. Translated by Kurt Wolff. The Me‘fiesa. G ncoe, Illinois. 1E0. pp. 1:09-4:21; -88- factor. For example, Wirth maintains that 'choice' of residential area is an important element in determing the social organization and stability of an area,129 and choice, it might be added, is dependent upon the ability to pay costs of Land occupancy. The possession of an incane at a level sufficient to pay a given cost means that as): location with a cost equal to or less than that amount is a possible residential site. This implies as Hawley says, I'. . .(that) the limiting influence of rent declines with an increase in income.“-30 The possession of a given level of income ..'_ referred to here as economic statuslBl-a- is taken by both the ecologist and the sociologist to be an index of other characteristics, either 'similar location re- quirements,‘ or 'homogeneity of groups and interests. ' The asstmption seems to be that areas which are homogeneous in regard to economic status are homogeneous in other reapects, sons of which are not solely economic. Thus, in an area of relatively high economic status, land may be used more extensively, thereby decreasing density; the fact that only a small pro- portion of the population is able to pay the necessary costs of occupancy restricts the possible nunber of inhabitants, and may well 'select' those who are similar in other economic and social characteristics. In this h #- 129. Louis Wirth. 220 22:20, Do ’43 130. Amos H. Hawley. Human Egolgg. 22. 9313., p. 286 131. This is a restricted use of the tem, and implies only the possession of an income sufficient to pay the necessary costs of occupancy. Until further research is canpleted, no information as to the source of igcom, or the amount of incane in excess of this minimum will be avail- e. 1e. -89- chapter, the relationship between economic areas and social areas of the city, and the econonic characteristics of the social areas is examined. First, in order to furnish a basis for possible generalization, a comparison of the Lansing SMA with the other Michigan SMA's is made in terms of econanic criteria. Next, the city of Lansing is compared with the other cities of Michigan in regard to these same criteria. These comparisons indicate the relative standing of the Lansing SMA and of the central city in regard to these econanic criteria. Second, the way in which various types of econonic areas win the city have developed within the past twenty years is exmined. Al- though this study is primarily concerned with the structure of Lansing as of 1950, this description makes possible the isolation of those areas within the city which have maintained a relatively stable economic posi. ‘ tion. It also permits the delineation of those areas of the city which are characterized by a relatively recent developnent. Third, the relationship between economic areas and social areas is examined. An attempt is made to determine what economic variables are related to local intimacy. Fourth, the relationship between accessibility and econcmic status is analyzed. Since accessiblity is a 'ksy concept' for the ecologist, it is important to determine the relationship between various types of residential units and other functional units of the community. Finally, the social psychological identification of high status residential areas is compared with the actual economic structure of the areas. -90— g 001113”ng _o_i_‘ the Lansing SMA and Lansing with other; Michigan SMA's and other: gichigan Cities The econanic characteristics with which this analysis deals are land value of the dwelling unit, and the prOportion of owner-occupied dwelling units within the social areas. These variables were selected because it was believed that the former is the best available indication of econonic status for the intra-urban areas, and the latter is a minimum indication of the stability of an area. The Lansing SMA ranks fourth among the eight Michigan SHA's in med- ian value of ale-unit dwelling structures. In preportion of owner- occupied dwelling units, the Lansing SKA ranks seventh, with only the Detroit SEA having a lower preportion.132 Compared with the urban part of the State, Lansing's median value of one-unit dwelling structures of 87,336 is below that of the rest of the urban part of the State at $8,182. Ihile 613.1: percent of Lansing's one-unit dwelling structures were owner-occupied in 1950, 62.8 percent of all urban one—unit dwelling structures were owner-occupied. Of the 57 urban places in Michigan, Lansing ranks 25th in value of dwelling units, and 3hth in percent of owner-occupied dwelling units .133 These data indicate that neither the Lansing SMA nor the central city are unusual when compared with other Michigan SlA's and other lichi. San cities in terms of economic characteristics. 132. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.__§. Census of Housin 2 9g . V01. 1, _Ge__n_____era1 Characteristics. Chapter ‘22, Michigan. .3. Government. Printing-*— Office,_: Washington, 13.0., 1952. Calculations made fron table 1: P. 3. The preportion of owner-occupied dwelling units ranged Iran 37.0 in Highland Park to 914.3 in Allen Park. 133. Ibid,, The range of land values in lichigan cities was from $14,361; in Ironwood to over $20,000 in Grosse Pointe Park. -/_L— Eesidential Areas in Lansing: l93h-1950 In order to show clearly the present location of residential areas in Lansing and the development of these areas, the location of specific economic residential areas in 1950 was compared with the location of econonic areas in 1931;. In 19314, on the basis of a real property inventory, Hoyt plotted the distribution of dwelling units having a given range of rent. This dis- tribution is presented in Figure ["1311 From this map, it can be seen that the highest rent areas ($50.00 and above) were located in the western part of the city, and that the majority of low-rent dwelling units were located in the eastern part of the city. ... 13h. Haner Hoyt. _T_he gtructlirg and Growth 2;: Residential Nei - borhoods in American Cities. Federal Housing ministration, Iashingtcn, D.C., 1939. p. 77. It should be pointed out here that Hoyt was con- cerned with the examination (and refutation) of the Burgess Zonal Hypo- thesis, and that this is the theoretical pattern of distribution. . Q: the basis of an examination of the distribution of rents in 11.2 American cities, Hoyt suggests the following description of the structure and growth of residential areas: The highest rent areas of a city tend to be located in one or more sectors of the city. There is a gradation of rentals down. ward fron these high rental areas in all directions. Intermediate rental areas, or those ranking next to highest rental areas adj oin the high rent area on one or more sides and tend to be located in the same sector as the high rental areas. Low rent areas occupy other entire sectors of the city fron the center to the periphery. (h the outer edge of sons of the high rent areas are intemediate rental areas. (p. 76) For an analysis and critique of Hoyt's theory, see: Lloyd Rodwin. "Middle Insane Housing Problems in Boston.“ Unpublished PhD. disserta- tion. Harvard University, l9h9. Part of this dissertation was reprinted as: "The Theory of Residential Growth and Structure," The Appraisal” Journal: 18:3 (July, 1950) pp. 295-317. Rodwin suggests the necessity for the consideration of additional factors in the analysis of residential location, particularly an emphasis on class structure, and "greater on. phasis on a mnctionally adequate physical and social environment." (p. 317) For a rather unusual rejoinder to Rodwin, see: Hmer Hoyt. "Residential FIGURE 4 THEORETICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RENT AREAS IN LANSING, MICHIGAN, I934 AVERAGE MONTHLY RENT - a 5000 OR MORE - e 20.00 29.99 - $10-00 19.99 ( a -)2- In the analysis of the distribution of economic areas in Lansing for 1950, several problems were encountered. In the first place, the use of rent as the criterion. of economic status means that over one-half of the units would not be considered, since they are non-rental properties. In addi- tion, rents were under economic control during a large part of the 19140- 1950 decade, and the average rent in 1950 was actually lower than the average rent in 192.0 , when cmpared on the basis of dollars of constant purchasing power.135 For these reasons, the measure of economic status used in this study was the average land value of owner-occupied dwelling units, i.e., ". . .the amount for which the owner estimates that the property, in- cluding such land as belongs with it would sell under ordinary conditions, and not at a forced sale."136 Table II presents the distribution of dwelling units by average land value for the city of Lansing, and Figure 5 presents the spatial distribution of these dwellng units. 131:. (can't) Sectors Revisited."raisa.1 Journal. 18:h (October, 1950) pp. 1.1.5.50, Rodwin replies to oyt imfi ejoinder to Dr. Fircy and Dr. Hoyt," ib___i__d., pp. IiSIi-57. The discussion in which these authors engage is stimulating and instructive, but it also indi- cates the difficult problems which must be faced in dealing with the analysis of residential areas. 135. Dollars of constant purchasing power were calculated on the basis of: 1913 3 100; l9Il0 3 72,1950 I 110. Real Estate Mar______ket Price Imiicator,l 95 . Roy Wenzlick and Co., St. Louis. 136. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U __§_.. Census of Housing: l__9__SO Vol. V. Block Statistics, Part 95. 0.8.“ Goverment fiinting Office Washington, 5.C., 1935. p. 2 ’ WW1 s: mm W mwmms mm-aam m .05 MM ”as 93 FIGURE 5 USTRIKJTION OF HIGHEST AND LOEST AVERKE LAND VALUES LANSING, I950 Table x1. DIS"TR"IB"""UT‘10N or (Mil-UNIT DWELLfNG sfaucr‘mss film" RAGE LAND VALUE, FCR LANSING, 1950 Value .of Que—Dwelling Unit Structures? __ WW “limbs: _ want , Less than 82,000 122 0.8 $2,000 to 82,999 281 1.8 $3,000 to ‘3’999 609 I400 $14,000 to $4,999 1,035 6.7 $5,000 to $5,999 1,755 llgIJ 86,000 to 37,1.99} 3,112 20.2\ $7,500 to 39,999 3,285 21.h 810.000 to $114,999 2:386 150,4 $15,000 to $19,999 507 3.3 $20,000 or more 261 1.7 Not reported 2,035 13.2 Total 15,386 100.0 * fiestricted to owner-occupied, one-:dwelling _unit structures. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census _o_f Housingxl9§0 .9 Vol. 1, General Characteristics. Chapter 22: Michigan. U. . Government Printing-"Ofwfflioe,1ashington, “0.0., 1952 lhile the data in Table II present information as to the total- distribution of dwelling units of various incane classes within the city, they do not permit analysis of the spatial distribution of these dwelling units. In order to determine the actual physical location of the dwel- ling units, reliance must be placed on block statistics for the city, which report the average Land value for each block. Thus, the distri- bution of land values calculated from block data differs fran the dis- tribution given in Table II. In order to determine the relationship between social areas and residential areas of specific economic categories, the social areas were analyzed on this basis. As the first step in the analysis, the distribution of all dwel- ling units and owner-occupied dwelling units within the three types of social intimacy areas was determined. Table III summarizes these data. Tibia XII. DISTRIBUTION 09 ALL REPORTED MLLINGfiNIT‘sTFYWIPE‘WO“? 3670 if 411me AREA FOR lasing. measles amen. 19.53.-. . “—7—- .-__«- Type of Social Percent Percent 1...... Area 3.1.1.. seesaw --mr-ocevsed ...IQEQ... _._._3_§IFP.1_9.-_. 11.....32153}... -_S_31‘.1P19. High 2b.o 28.1 70.2 89.5 Middle 16.6 214.1: 142.6 85.0 Low g 59.1. 2.7.5 I 57.9 73.1 Total Dwelling Units I2818__8_7_M______190.0 573 6.3.5,???“ ”-..—....J. -w—.-r—w-w-_-_m_ * Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Housi : 1950. Vol. v. Block Statistics. Part 95. 0.87Mwmmnm—fi—Etmg Office. Washington, D.C. 1952 44* This figure differs frat that given in: U.S. Census of Housi : 1950. Vol. 1. General Characteristics. Chapter 2271mm- gan, Table I, p. 3, which figure refill percenf There is no eXplana- tion for this difference, ard since other data are taken from the source 'simdfirstithe transects-cs _was utilizeéjsriallfiatao _ Table XII indicates that the majority of dwelling units in the en- tire city, and a plurality of the dwelling units in the sample, were located in areas of low social intimacy. It also indicates that the sample had a consistently higher pr0portion of owner-occupied dwelling units than did the total city. This would seem to indicate that the sample was biased in this respect. A goodness of fit test revealed that the distribution of all dwelling units among the three types of social intimacy areas in the sample differed significantly Iran the ~96- distribution in the entire city.* Thus, it would seem that the sample considered as three general types of areas, differed significantly from the city in respect to the distribution of dwelling units.“ *- Chi square 1* 214.93, p < .01. H- In order to examine the effect of this possible bias more closely, the 27 separate social areas were analyzed in regard to the pr0portion of owner-occupied dwelling units within the sample and with- ing their respective universes. The association between the rank of the social intilnacy areas in intimacy and home ownership in the uni- verse was .627 (the statistic used was the tau rank-order correla- tion). The same association when the areas were ordered on the basis of data derived from the sample was .6011. The same test was applied in the case of the relationship between intimacy and economic status. The association between the rank of the social area in intimacy and average land value in the universe was H6148 when the areas were ordered on the basis of data derived from the sample in regard to average week- ly family income and intimacy, the association was .6145. It would seem then, that when the 27 social intimacy areas were considered as sepa- rate areas and were ranked and compared in terms of owner-occupancy and economic status, that there was a close relationship between the sample and the universe. (Due to the nature of the sample, the com- putation of the standard error of the association would not be legiti- mate). Since the sample consisted of blocks, there was a variation in the sample rate among the areas, and the combination of the 27 areas into three general types of areas does not take this variation into account. That this is the case is also suggested by the results of an analysis of the total variation among and within the social intimacy areas. The statistic used in the analysis was that described by Kruskal and Wallis, which is called the H test and deals with the ranks of sets of data. B may be interpreted as chi square. When both the sample data and the total area data were analyzed in regard to the relative position of the social areas in prOportion of owner- occupied dwelling units, it was found that for both sets of data there was not a significantly greater amount of variation among the three types of areas than there was within the area. (For the total area, H- S. 92~ .10> p) .05; for the sample data, H - h. 62 ~.lO> p > .013.) However, when the significance of difference between the mean ranks of the areas was computed it was found that differences between high and low and middle and low social intimacy areas in proportion of owner -occupied dwelling units were statistically sig- nificant for both sets of data, while the difference in the ranks of 1. William H. Kruskall and “..1 Allen Wallis. "Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. " Journal of the querican Statisti- cal ._i_s_socation. Vol. 1:7: 260.. pp. 58 The next step in the analysis was to determine the location of dwelling units of Specific economic status (as indicated by average land value of the dwelling unit) in the general type of social area. These data are presented in Table XIII. Table XIfl. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF dam—OCCUPIED D'MEILIBJG UNITs‘B‘I’ ’ assesses “Wild”? smegma: 383$..-“ f _ -..-~‘ku-.-.r Land Value mm-..” Exp: 9£1§99§a_.1..a.r§a__w --..-.Llloiele, High Middle Low Number Percent $11,999 or less 29.2 22.8 38.0 505 100 $5,000 to 89,999 28.6 214.1. 147.0 9,953 100 810,000 to $111,999 3b.). 36.7 28.9 14.82; 100 $515,000 to 819,999 83.5 S .1 11.8 255 100 $20,000 or more, __“___-WL29_.§W M 1-91o9__._-__.9-5,. -1 q ,_ 35 100 _ .Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census 9_i_‘_Hous' : 1950. Vol. v. Block Statistics. Part 95. 373.17%er inting ‘ Office. Washington, D.C. 1952 Weifleedm...t-§ih$ .91.-.- - -1-” _ “.1 Table XIII indicates that over four-fifths of all dwelling units in the two highest land value categories were located in areas of high M _‘ A— .4.— v _— _— —_- W.- * (con' t) high arr! mieel areas was not statistically significant for either of the sets of data. (For the total area, the significance of the mean rank difference between high and low social intimacy areas had a s of 2.28 and a p of .0113; between middle and low social intimacy areas, 2 equalled 2.28, p equalled .0113; between high and middle social intimacy areas, 2 equalled 1.18, p equalled .12. For tie sample data, the significance of the mean rank difference between high and low social intimacy areas had a z of 2.91 and a p of .0018; between middle and low social intimacy areas, 2 equalled 1.66, p equalled .0h8b; between middle and high social intimacy areas, 2 equalled .1438, p equalled .33). -98--m social intimacy, while less than one-third of the dwelling units in the two lowest economic classes were located in high intimacy areas. The two lowest economic categories have the two highest percentages of dwelling units in the low intimacy area. The middle economic category is the only one with a plurality of dwelling units in the middle intimacy category. The relationship between high intimacy and high land value is most pronounced at the highest average land value level, and Isast evident in the middle economic category. A further examination of the relationship between high intimacy and high economic status was undertaken both for the total area and for the sample. Table XIV indicates the average land value of all reported dwelling units in the three general types of social intimacy areas 0 "— _Table' in" . AVERAGE‘LAN‘EWEEE o' r 'X‘LL' RE’PCSRTED‘ manna URIS BI" socmijmmicrmm FOR LANSING. 1950. ‘— Type of Sociallaiiiecrfirea .- _ ._ . ,, , Average. Ear? [3.139, __ _ _ I-.- _ High $8,771 Middle 7 ,869 Low 7,0148 Totgljimty , _ j, _ - _ _ _. 5739;].- I._-..... my--- Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census 9}: Housin : 1950. Vol. V. Block Statistics. Part 95. 'UTS. Goverment Prinéing MOB . Washing Eon, D cc 0 1 I952! -- --—-.~o———‘»__.-. .. .- .....-A‘.—-q...- —.._.,._ .... - , 8 Table XIV shows that average land value decreases as intimacy decreases. Unfortunately, strictly comparable data on economic status are not available for the sample areas. However, data on aver age weekly family income are available for the sample, and Table XV presents tiese data. Table XV. AVERAGE WEEKLY FAMILY INCCME BY SOCIAL INTIMACY AREAFOR WI... .-.“ __._,. Type of Social Intimacy Area fl Average Weekly Family Inc one High $109.89 Middle 93.93 Low 89.59 Total sample .. 3 93:14: _‘gv— -m“ Differences in average weekly family incane between high and middle and high and low social intimacy areas were found to be statistically significant. The difference between middle and low social intimacy areas was not statistically significant.* These two measures of economic status, while not strictly com- parable, are rather closely related, and furnish the best available comparison of the sample and the total area.“ Both measures (average lam value of the dwelling unit and average wedcly family income) indi- cate that as economic status declines, so also does the degree of intimacy. It is suggested here that these various analyses point to the same general conclusions. Differences among the sample areas in in- come and preportion of owner-occupied dwelling units are reflected * ‘fi * The measurement used was the significance of difference between means. For the difference between high and middle intimacy areas, t C 3.91, p =- <.Ol; between high and low intimacy areas, to ' 5.37, p ' < .01; between low and middle social intimacy areas 1'» ' 1.10, p - > .25. ' H- The rank-order correlation between average land value and -100- in differences in their apprOpriate universes in average land value and preportion of owner-occupied dwelling units. In addition, the fact that high social intimacy areas have a significantly greater proportion of high status occupations and that in these areas are located over ninety percent of the highest land value dwelling units and over eighty percent of the next highest land value dwelling units, would seem to indicate that high intimacy is associated with a rela- tively higher economic status. It is also suggested that the middle intimacy areas may be better characterized as 'mixed' intimacy areas, since they exhibit the characteristics of both high and low social intimacy areas. These analyses also made it possible to determine those specific social areas which held ranks they ‘should not' have held if the gen- eral relationship between high socio-economic status and high intimacy had been perfect and direct. That is, some areas which ranked high in land value, proportion of owner-occupied dwelling units, and incane, were relatively low in degree of intimacy. Since one of tre purposes of this study was to point out areas for future research, the isolation of intra-urban areas for additional investigation is of sane importance. Social area 18, which ranked ninth in land value and seventh in proportion of owner-occupied dwelling units was characterized by 1a: intimacy. Social area 21; ranked lowest in both of these characteristics , yet was classed as an area of high intimacy. Social area 26 ranked 18th in land value and 23rd in proportion of owner-occupied dwelling units, but was characterized by a high degree of intimacy. h— _* (con' t7 and average family “$133301... was .87 Signifi- cant beyond the .01 level. (See Appendix B) -101- Some plausible explanations can be suggested, e.g., social area 21; is ecologically isolated, a situation which may make for a higher degree of interaction within the local area; social area 18 is adjacent to an industrial site and is characterized by heterogeneity of land values; social area 26 has long been a residential area. None of these suggested eXplanations is satisfactory, and additional investigation is required. The important point is, however, that these anomalous cases can be distinguished and singled out for further investigation. For example , the demographic canposition of these areas can be examined in order to see if the composition differs from that of other areas. Availability of complete census data will permit an examination of the occupational structure of the areas. It is also possible to investi- gate the social organization of the area from the point of view of fcrmal and informal associations and activities, in an attempt to ascertain the role of organizational activity. The economic analysis with which this chapter has been concerned makes possible the examination of the social areas from two additional points of view. The first of these, that of the human ecologist, is discussed in the following section, in which the relationship between economic stems and accessibility is examined. The second point of view is that of the social psychologist, which is discussed in the last section of this chapter, where the social psychological defini- tion of high status areas is ccmpared with the economic definition of residential areas . -102- Accessibilig; a3 a Factor ill Residential Location Since. accessibility is a 'key concept' for the ecologist, it would be expected that the location of residential units in relation- ship to the functional center of the city would be of interest to the hmnan e cologist. Implicit in much of the sociological treatment of the city have been assumptions concerning accessiblity. For example, the Burgess Zonal Hypothesis has as an assumption that value of land for resi- dential purposes varies with distance from the city center; in gen- eral, this variation is assumed to be direct. From an ecological point of view, Hawley assumes an inverse relationship between rent for business sites and rent for residential sites, i.e., the latter increase with distance from the city center. For Hawley, the tendency to seek a location of maximum accessiblity is one of the major determinants of location for the functional units of the cormnunity.137 Since residential units cannot compete efficiently with other types of functional units for maximally accessible locations, they must utilize other less accessible sites. Although Hawley recognizes that other factcrs enter into the determination of residential location, he does not make clear the role of accessibility for residential units. One purpose of this 137. Amos H. Hawley. Human Ecolog. 22' _c_i_._t_;_., pp. 280-281 ~103- discussion is to show the relationship between economic status of the resident -- as indicated by the average land value of the dwelling unit -- and the accessiblity of the resident to the functional center of the city. In this discussion, data on the location of residential units of highest and lowest economic status with reference to the point of maximmn accessibility (the central business district) in Lansing, are compared with data from a study .of Flint (Michigan) which was concerned with the same question. Linear distance from the func- tional center of the city is used as the measure of accessibility, since the difference between time-cost distance and limardistance has been found to be negligible in an area the size of Lansing, possessing abundant transportation routes.138 In Kantner's study of Flint, the hypothesized relationship was, ". . .that the socio-economic status of residential land -- as in- dicated by monthly rental of housing, number of persons per room, occupation of resident -- varies directly with distance from the center, or inversely with accessibility to the center."139 The Similarity of this statemsnt to the propositions of the Burgess Zonal hypothesis should be clear. However, it was found that this relationship did not holid.]‘)"O Kantner's conclusion is that, "Flint sanity and 138. John Kantner. The Relationshi between Access Swim-Economic Status of Reside-nth]: End's, vaichi an.. (Mimeo- grap d nasti"'tute"“'ror“mmn Adjustment, University of M1 gan. ””011: 19148. p. 12, fn. 18. 139. Ibid., p. ii Ibo. Ibid., pp. 29-32 -10h- is an atypical city with reSpect to the status distribution of its pOpula‘tion."1’"1 In the analysis of Lansirg data, the only measure used as an indication of socio—economic status was average land value of the dwelling unit, and in this sense was not as refined a measure as that used by Kantner, who was able to utilize census-tract data for Flint. On the other hand, block statistics, rather than census tract statis- tics, were utilized in this analysis, a procedure which Kantner suggested as lending a greater degree of accuracy to the findings. The results of this analysis are smmnarized in Table XVI. m1. Ibid., p. 290 This conclusion in regard to 'atypicality' is discussed below. -105- '1st filT‘AVERA‘dE‘“Dl§TANCE ‘03" HIGHEST AND WES'T‘LAED VALU‘EEIELLNG UNITS ram THE POINT or mm ACCESSIBILITY BY moms cuss OF mm. LING: W11; WING; "WHEN—— .-m —~—_.~—-L—.M_—-v——-— A ..-» .- ... .... --.. _ .. Average Distance in Average Distance in Miles, 1950 City Miles, 1950 City by Amgsihm Valee-_.-_. __. - Defirfitiewfl- -‘ __ ”191.49.2855911991 $3,999 or less 1.86 1.65 “1,000 to M399 1.96 1.60 85,000 to 35,999 1.65 1.2a. $10,000 to $19,999 1.h8 1.39 $20,000 or more _ -135, g _ _-_.-e__.._e...__.._._.,. 1.2.5.. “-.-... Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census o£Housi : 1950. Vol. V. Block Statistics. Part 95. U.S. Government—fling ce. Washington, 13“..“ - ‘i-_m ,._.-—rl_. we- ..-_..... UM- - _ ——-—— -..- ~— * Distance measured radiallyfrom the city center. -‘_- “a“... When average distance fran the central business district was calculated for the 1950 city, a general decrease in distance with increase in land value was found. However, the position of the two lowest economic classes of dwelling units is 'reversed.‘ If area is held constant, i.e., if the location of dwelling units in 1950 is calculated on the basis of the 19110 city area, a consistent decrease in distance is found. This is taken to be an indication that the imreased area of the city in 1950 was an area characterized by low land value dwelling units, a conclusion which is substantiated by Fielre S. The conclusion, on the basis of the evidence presented in Table XVI is similar to that of Kantner. That is, the relationship between -106- * land value and accessibility is a direct and not an inverse one -- from the standpoint of accessibility. It is suggested that Lansing and Flint may not be 'atypical' in this reSpect, but that this relationship may be characteristic of the cities of the same functional type and size. This latter hypothesis can be readily tested, and the extent of 'atypicality' can be determined. These findings should be interpreted with caution, due to the following theoretical and methodological limitations of the analysis which was made': (1) The analysis of the city —- defined as an administrative area -- necessarily ignores other areas of the community which migxt concievably show a different pattern of development, e. g., fringe areas and high-status residential suburbs. (2) The fact that 77 of every 177 workers employed in manufacturing and trade in Lansing live outside the administrative limits of the city, is evidence that accessiblity is not a major factor in the residmtial location of this segment of the labor force. Kantner also suggests that, "Another contributing factor to this configuration is the desire fcr small holding of land and home ownership on the part of workers in the highly seasonal automobile industry. This is reinforced by the vulnerability of such a durable goods industry to cyclical economic 11:2 changes." (3) As in the case of Flint, there is some evidence “LA M2. Ibid., p. 30 -107.- to suggest that the orientation of Lansing is to the periphery of the city rather than to the city center, e.g., the increase in the proportion of population in the area outside the central city, and the development of an urban fringe and suburban deve 10pments . It may also be the case that accessibility to the central business dis- trict is not the most important point of accessibility, but rather accessibility to work plants in the city is more important. (b)- As Figure 2 indicates, early residential develonment in Lansing took place to the west and north of The Grand River. This area is presently characterized by a high proportion of high land value dwelling units (only 16 .14 percent of low land value dwelling units are located in this area). Since this area contains the central business district, those residents who are able to pay the highest costs of lard occupancy within the city will necessarily ‘be closer to the central business district than those of a lower economic status who cannot afford to pay the high costs of occupancy within the city. One of the conclusions then, is that in the case of Iansing, as in the use of Flint, the factor of accessibility offers a sure satisfactory explanation of the location of residential areas than does the airplanation suggested on the basis of the Burgess Zonal Hypothesis. In spite of the limitations of the analysis, the import... ance of accessibility m the city is Clear. Investigations of areas outside the city can further test the role of accessibility for those areas . ~108- In the next section of this chapter, the relationship between the economic status of areas within the city is compared with the social- psychological definition of high status areas within the city. ~109- The Social-Psychological Definition pf High-Status Areas In a study of social stratification done in Lansing by Form and Stone, residents of the city were asked to Specify residential areas of the city which they considered to be 'upper,' 'middle,‘ or 'working,' 11:3 class areas. Although only 31; respondents replied to this question, this information may serve to suggest, at least, the degree to which the social psychological definition of certain types of residential areas corresponds to an economic definition of the area. The great majority of the reapondents (30) named the Moores River Drive area as an upper class area. This area is in the southwest corner of the city, and is the location of the highest land value dwelling units in the city. The southeast corner of the city was named by four respond- ents as an upper class area, and the high rent area of 19314 and high land value area of 1950 located in the western portion of the city was named by five reapondents. In all cases, the areas named as upper class areas were those of high land value. The majority of respondents considered the 'middle' class to be distributed in residential areas throughout the city, and in no case was an area named as both an upper-class and as a middle-class area. Lower class or working class areas were located by the respondents as, ". . .along the River.” (13); “. . .in‘the'North End of town. ." '. - .in the old section of town." (12); ". . .around the Olds(mobile) plant. . ." (6); and in an area on the east-central edge of the city.(7) These areas identifiedas lower class areas correspond to low land value areas as indicated in Figure 5. (hoe again, no area named as either a 1143. I. H. Form and G. P. Stone. "Tests of Status in Anonymous Urban Situations." Unpublished monograph, Department of Sociology and Anfl'n‘opology, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan. 1951.: A total of 1.12 interviews were obtained. ~110- middle class or upper class area was also named as a lower class area. The only low land value area which was not named as a lower class area was in the southern part of the city, a district which was annexed by the city between 19h0 and 1950, and is characterized by a high degree of home ownership of relatively recently constructed low land value dwelling units. This evidence suggests that high land value areas determined on the basis of economic criteria, are socially defined as high-status areas; that areas of low land value are defined as low status areas; and that middle class areas are broadly and rather vaguely defined. In no case was there any contradiction between the social psychological assessment of residential areas and the economic status of the area. While this evidence is admittedly based on a very small number of responses, the close correspondence between the social identification of residential ares and the economic status of the area, suggests that economic status is related to the social status of the area Summary In this chapter, it has been shown that Lansing resembles other cities in Midhigan in regard to the economic characteristics of dwelling units, and in proportion of owner-occupied dwelling units. It was also shown that, in general, high social intimacy is directly related to high economic status and.high preportion of home ownership. There were significant differences in the occupational structure of the three types of social areas. This finding lends support to the conclu- Sion that high socio-economic status is directly related to intimacy. -111. A direct relationship between high land value,and accessibility was shown to exist in Lansing, and it was suggested that this relationship may be characteristic of cities of a certain functional type, rather than an 'atypical' relationship, as the Burgess Zonal Hypothesis would indicate. The social-psychological definition of high status areas was found to be compatible with the economic definition of high status areas. In the following chapter, the economic and social activities of the residents of the three types of social intimacy areas are analyzed, with particular reference to the role of the local area. CHAPTER VII THE DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL AND ECONWIC ACTIVITIES IN THE SOCIAL AREAS Introduction In this chapter, the ways in which various social and economic func— tions are performed.by the inhabitants of the social areas are investi- gated. First, the role of the formal organization in the social areas is considered. In this consideration, sociological and ecological theory are used as guides, and some of the empirical research which has been done on the topic of formal.organizational membership in urban.areas is examined. The three types of social areas are compared with reference to membership and participation in various types of formal organizations. Second, those social and economic activities which are not of a formal nature, e.g., the use of local area facilities for shOpping, recre- ation, and other activities are investigated. The expectation is that social areas which differ in regard to the use made of local facilities and membership and participation in.formal organizations, also differ in regard to economic status and degree of social intimacy within the local area. Formal Organizational fiembership and farticipation_ The traditional sociological view of the urban dweller is charac- terized by a strong emphasis upon the importance of voluntary organiza— tions in the life of the urbanite. This view is well illustrated by'lirth: -113- Being reduced to a stage of virtual impotence as an individual the urbanite is bound to exert himself by joining with others of similar interests into organized groups to attain his ends. This results in the enormous multiplication of voluntary organizations directed toward as great a variety of objectives as there are hu- man needs and interests. . .It is largely through the activities of the voluntary groups, be their objectives economic, political, educational, religious, recreational, or cultural, that the urban- ite expresses and develOps his personality, acquires status, and is able to effigy on the round of activities that constitutes his life career. If this rather extreme view is correct, then organizational member- ship becomes an absolute necessity for the urban dweller. From an ecological point of view, Hawley has pointed out that in- creasing specialization and division of labor result in a large number of corporate groups, and that for every one of these corporate groups, one or more categoric groups are possible. Unlike Wirth, however, Hawley cannot attribute any great importance to these categoric groups, since he is not at all sure of the relevance of these groups for the community. He does suggest, however, that group activity is more likely to occur in those areas inhabited by peOple with similar location requirements.1hS Empirical investigations of the place of voluntary organizations in a city suggest that some modification of Wirth's view is required. Kanarovsky's study of voluntary associational membership in New York City in 1935-36 suggests that the urbanite as described by Firth is the deviant -— at least in a statistical sense. She concludes that, ". . the majority of citizens remain completely outside the stream of organized mu. Louis Wirth. 32. 933., p. 1.7 1115. Amos H. Hawley. Human Ecolog. 22. 05.13., p. 282 -111;- social life."l)"6 The social and economic differences in organizational membership which Komarovsky found, i.e., a direct relationship between econanic status and occupational status and membership, are confirmed in a more recent and broader study of U.S. cities, in which it was reported that [:2 percent of all respondents reported no formal group membership of amr kind. Table 1711 summarizes the findings of this research. able iv“mm T GB or die" HAVIN 0 ..- -T GRUP . ‘BEI IP, B FAMILY INCQIE AND OCCUPATION OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD No Formal No Formal Group Group Family Income Membership .... Occupationhmflm_fipfljhsmgbggshgpw . $5,000 or more 33 Professional 23 Sh,000 to $14,999 31; Self—employed 1.2 $3,000 to $3,999 10 Other White collar 37 32,000 to $2,999 53 Skilled and semi-skilled hh $2,000 or less 51 Unskilled and service work 1.5 All respondents [ h2 All respondents uz . 4r . ‘ L Source: Ronafifd Freedman, gt. al. Principles of Sociolog. Henry Holt and 00., New York. 1952. p. 1:971. ‘Quoted fran an unpublished study directed by Burton R. Fisher and George M. Belknap, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. A study of Michigan's largest central city shows that 37 Percent of the papulation of Detroit belongs to no formal organization, and that of those who do belong, h? percent belong to less than three. The two most important organizations (numerically) are church-connected organiza- tions and labor unions which account for 58 percent of all memberships.u‘7 __..- _— —-- *— lhé. Mirra Kanarovslq. “The Voluntary Assoca'tions of Urban Dwellers.” American Sociological Reviej. December, 191:6, pp. 686-98. Reprinted in: Wilson and Kalb. Sociolo ical Analysis. Harcourt Brace and 00., New York, 191.9. pp. 378-91 Page numbers refer to this source. 1147.. A Social Profile 9}; Detroit. University of Michigan. OCtOber’ 19520 p. D: Data irom this study also indicate that a majority of Detroiters either do not belong to any organization, or if they do belong, do not attend any meetings.1b'8 0n the basis of this brief review of literature and research, cer- tain general conclusions seem warranted, and perhaps sane comments may be in order. One conclusion which is evident is that the role assigned to organizational membership by the urban sociologist differs from the role which the organization actually plays in urban life. Organizational membership does seem to be directly related to high occupational and economic status in the urban community. There seems to be little reason to suppose that organizational membership has any very definite locality basis, since the greatest percentage of membership occurs in organizations which are only indirectly related to residence in a specific area. or more importance than these general conclusions is the lack of evidence as to Just what organizational membership signifies. Whether organizational membership is to be taken as an indication of some kind of i'integration,‘ or to indicate that those who, “. . .are isolated and lonely and who seek satisfactions which other segments of the papulation find more fully in unorganized social relations of a neighborhood, a gang, or a strong family unit. . ."n‘9 are more likely to belong to voluntary organizations, is not clear. It is suggested here that the term 'volun- 1317' may be a misleading term, since membership in some fonnal organiza- tion may be a requirement of the occupation of the person, e.g., the pro- fessional association for the physician, or the labor union for the skilled * U48. £229." p. 18 1149. Mirra Kmarovslq'. 32. 233., p. 391 .116- worker. For this reason, the term ‘formal‘ rather than 'voluntary' is used in this discussion. The analysis of membership and participation in formal organizations was based, in part, upon responses to question 15 of the interview sched- ule, which was designed to gain information as to the number and type of formal organizations BEE-fl the local area. It has alreachr been shown that previous research has established a direct relationship between high socio-econonic status and general organizational membership. Thus, the eXpectation is that organizational membership would be highest in the areas of high social intimacy -— which are generally of a high socio- economic status. If this is found to be the case, then it would seem that organizational membership may indicate some type of locality orien- tation, and may reflect a higher degree of personal contact within the local area. In the analysis, social characteristics which are presumed to influence organizational membership are examined. The most striking aspect of the analysis is the relative absence of locality based organizations in all types of social intimacy areas. TableXVlII shows the percentage of respondents in each social intimacy category and their organizational membership status. Fran an examination of this table, it can be seen that approximately seventy percent of all respondents said either that there were no formal organizations within the local area, or did not know whether there were. It can also be seen that knowledge of locality-based organizations decreased with a decrease in degree of social intimacy. If a distinction is made between those who said that they belonged to at least one organization and those who -117- TTlee 1mm: orTsf PWMDEN T8 or 00111. ~ .. — SHIP IN 1.061;L may. munitions ~— __ m Reaponse to question 15: Belongs to Participates "Are there any organizations at least in at least Type of around here mainly for the one local one local Social Area ‘ people of this neighborhood? Organization Organization No Don't Know Yes I High 57.1; 13.0 29.6 29.6 { 22.9 Hiddle 52.1 15 .7 32.2 31.91 1 16s. Low . 51.. 3 23.6 22.1 | 22.1 1.1.6 said that they belonged and participated, i.e., attended meetings, then it is found that organizational participation was highest in high intimacy areas and lowest in low intimacy areas. While over three-fourths of the reapondents in high intimacy areas who belonged to formal organizations also participated in the organizations, only about one-half of those in the other two areas belonged and participated.” Although information on the types of organizations in which the residents participated was limited due to the small number of cases, cer— tain tentative conclusions may be drawn in regard to the relative import- ance of various kinds of formal organizations. In all three social areas educational organizations '(mainly P.-T.A.'s) were named most often in re... gard to both membership and participation. Recreational and fraternal organizations ranked second in both membership and participation in high intimacy areas, and second in membership in the other two areas. However, * The difference in participation between high and low intimacy areas was statistically significant beyond the .01 level; the difference between high and middle intimacy areas was not statistically significant. _‘-———— u -110; in the middle and low social areas, actual participation was greatest in church-connected organizations, and recreational and fraternal organiza- tions were third in actual participation. These data suggest that formal organizational membership has but slight locality basis. It is possible to compare membership and participation in locality based organizations with participation in organizations which are located outside the local area, by analyzing the responses to question 16 of the interview schedule. Table XIX sumarizes these data. Table ' . PERCENT CF RES NTS G G TO AN PAR 10 P TING IN _ NON:LOCAL FGIMAL @JETIOES BYEPE OF SOCIAL INTIMACY A835 Response to question 16: "Are there any other organ- izations, lodges, or clubs in which you participate Type of at least once a month?" ‘ Social Area _. 1M g No Yes No Anner Number Paroent High 5b.!) 1.5.3 0.7 161 100.0 Middle 56.). 1.2.9 0.7 11:0 100.0 Law I 614.3 3h.6 1.2 272 100.0 Fran Tables XIX and xvfllit can be seen that a higher proportion of respondents in each of the social intimacy areas belonged to and partici- pated in formal organizations which had no necessary locality basis, than participated or belonged to organizations which were located within the local area. A significantly greater pr0portion of residents in high social intimacy areas participated in formal organizations. Church- connected organizations and lodges, fraternities, sororities and auxiliar- ies had the highest preportion of reported participation. 9119- ‘W fl 7‘ 7 7* A comparison of the membership in organizations within the local area with membership in organizations outside the local area was made in order to determine the relative importance of each type of membership. Table II - presents these data. - ole " ‘66 l" 1‘ v . ' Io - .Ffl‘zT’SHIP 5 (W- D‘ 0' O'GA I ATION AND TYPE $3021“. INTIMACY CATEGCRY Type of Social Intimacy Area Type of ' ‘** “" ******* ”a“ Organization _. High Mi£1§e~~vaow - .. -... Percent Percent Percent ' All organizations 53.1; 50.7 h1.2 Percent of organizational W”- A .2--. - 2-- A members who belong to: Non-local organizations only i 57.0 66.2 69.6 Non-local and local organiz— ! tims : 27.9 1803 11403 Local organizations. only I 15.1 15.5 16.1 3 Number of cases 5 86 71 112 g;— It should be noted that the above Table refers to organizational membership only, and not to organizational participation. These data indicate that organizational membership - including local and non-local organizations -— decreases as intimacy decreases .* It should also be noted that membership in non-local organizations only is greatest in areas of low social intimacy, and that dual membership is highest in the areas of high social intimacy. These data indicate that, in general, membership at The difference in percentage of organizational membership between high and low social intimacy areas was statistically significant beyond the O ler. ~120- and participation in formal organizations is highest in areas of high social intimacy, and that the local formal organization is of less tnport— ance than those with no necessary locality basis. When a comparison of members of organizations with non-members was made, it was found that the only characteristics in.which.members and non- members differed in all three areas were occupational status and average weekly income. In each of the social intimacy areas, members of organiza- tions were characterized by higher occupational status than nonpmembers. The differences were statistically significant, whether high-status oc— cupations were defined as including professional, managers and officials, and skilled workers; or as also including white—collar workers. Differ- ences in income were not as marked, and only within the high intimacy category was the difference statistically significant. It would seem then, that organizational.membership is a consequence of socio-econunic status -- as indicated by occupation and income -- rather than of differences in length of time lived in the area, mobility within the area, age, or family structure. This conclusion is canpatible with the finding that organizational.membership within the local area'was less important than organizational.membership in nonplocality based organiza- tions. This conclusion was based on an anlaysis of these factors as they were related to organizational membership, and.more generally, as they were related to residence in the three types of social areas. It would be expected that length of time of'residence within the area'would. be positively related to a high degree of social inttmaqy, since the longer a person has resided in a specific location, the greater the pos- sibility of personal contacts with others in the locality, and presumably the greater the stability of the locality. However, when this relationship --121- was examined it was found that there was no direct relationship between length of residence at a specific address and the type of social intimacy area.“0 These dataare presented in Table XXI. Table.XXI.. LENGTH or RESIDENCE AT PRE§Efi§“K5fifiE§§“§Y‘TY§E Year Moved to A‘- r O 4 4 I a High ‘m—u—Ms—fi "AP-«.4- I Type of Social Area A... Jpn-nod-..” -’ a9. “-9- ovfliddham-l_l&w Present Address , _H._...Ee,r99r}§_-_-greasiwrsrceato_ 1953-1952 h.9 1h.3 16.2 1951-1910 30 . 8 28 .6 23 . 5 19!;8-19’45 21 . 7 19 .3 l8 .8 191414-1937 2b. 7 17 .8 15 .9 1936 or earlier 17.3 20.0 2h.9 Median year moved to present address IBM-’15 191434;? 19,4341? It can be seen from the above Table, that the lowest social intimacy category had the highest proportion of long-time residents. It should be noted, however, that in areas of high social intimacy there was a very low preportion of newly-arrived residents. This may indicate a lower rate of physical mobility within these areas. When the three types of social in- timacy areas were compared on this basis, with the number of houses lived in since 191:6 used as an indication of mobility, it was found that mobil— ity was lowest in the high social areas. Table XXIIpresents these data. #_‘ 150. For further discussion of these and related factors, see: Joel Smith, William H. Form, and Gregory P. Stone. “Some Characteristics 01‘ Locality Based Intimacy in a Middle-Sized City," The _Alnerican Journal 32 Sociology. (In press). ...—...... Table ml MOBILITY or Rasmtnfs'sr mesmmnm; MAC? AREA - e -..—w few. -'-'"—‘—-.~.- Tineefédcial intimacy Arse. .,__ Number of houses -_. Lin in “$811-----,_¥id.d}?_., ..., “L?" m. _ wel___ l . Passes: $3399? _ Essen? - Two or less 85.? 81.1: 73.2 . Three 14.3 9.3 10.3 Four ‘ 6.8 5.7 7.). Five or more 3.1 2.1 _ 9.8 ~_‘~_’-m“--m-—I——‘~. ~— m- _. \.’ --_ ---..—__.——-————- Approximately one-quarter of all respondents in 10!! social intimacy . areas have lived in three or more houses since 19h6, while less than one-seventh of all respondents in high social intimacy areas have lived in three or more houses since mm.“ It will also be remembered that high social intimacy areas showed the highest prOportion of home owner- ship, a factor which quite probably decreases mobility. The relationship of several other variables which might be presmned to affect intimacy was also considered. These variables were age, fam. ily structure, and location of previous residence. In both the middle and low social intimacy areas, the median age of me chief wage earner was 10.5 years; in the high social intimacy. areas, the median age of the chief wage earner was 39.5 years. In all areas, the largest single age group was the 35 - Sh group. High inti... May areas had the highest preportion of young peeple ( ZO—Bh) and the lowest prOportion of old people (over 55). Middle intimacy areas a- There was a statistically significant difference (beyond the .01 level) between the prOportion of residents who had lived in only one or two houses since 19h6 in the high social intimacy areas and low social intimacy areas. The difference in proportions between high and middle intimacy areas, was not significant. ' -12 3.. had the lowest prOportion of young people and the highest prOportion of persons 35-511. Low intimacy areas had the highest proportion of old people, and were in an inter mediate position in regard to the other age groups. It was found that high and middle social intimacy areas had a significantly greater proportion of persons in the middle age groups, and a significantly lower proportion of persons in the oldest age groups. There were no significant differences among the social areas in propor- tion of persons in the youngest age group.* Neither previous residence within the community nor previous resi- dence within an urban area were significantly related to degree of in- timacy. In all three social areas, over 80 percent of all respondents re- ported membership in a family unit. Low intimacy areas had the highest prOportion of non-family unit respondents, but this difference was not statistically significant. Econonirc Agtivities i_n_ the M £935 In Chapter II, it was pointed out that the chief concern of the ecologist is with the performance of routine daily activities by the pepulation of a canmunity. The units of a conmunity are necessarily distributed in space, and their distribution is influenced by the type of fimction performed. A 'key concépt' in the analysis of the comrmmity is accessibility. In this section, the role of accessibility, as indi. cated by distance travelled in the exchanges between units is examined. 'Iwo types of activity are considered. The first general type of activity it The .05 level was used as the level of significance. —— —ldh— considered is that which may be broadly termed 'econanic,‘ i.e., the rou- tine daily activities directly related to the maintenance of the p0pula- tion. The second type of activity considered includes those activities which are primarily social and not directly related to p0pulation main- tenance. In the analysis of both types of activity, the residential unit is of major interest, and the accessiblity of the residential units to other units of the community receives most attention. Before beginning the analysis, it might be wise to mention once again some of the theoretical limitations suggested earlier in the dis- cussion of ecological theory. Most important is the fact that the can- .munity -- in an ecological sense -- is not the subject of this study. The ecologist might well point out that residence within a city provides maximum accessibility, as well as other location requirements -- for the resident population. In addition, the ecologist has been more concerned with the location and function of units of the community other than resi- dential units, and has somewhat neglected the analysis of residential areas. These limitations should be kept in mind during the following discussion. It has been shown that, for the ecologist, 'occupation' is of great importance in the analysis of the structure of the cormnunity.151 Thus a. logical point of departure in the analysis of econanic activities is to begin with an analysis of the relationship between the location of the residential unit and the location of place of work. ‘ 151. It is suggested here that the sociologist and ecologist have a mutual and potentially beneficial interest in the role of occupa- tion in the community. For example, Engel—Frisch arrives at conclusions concerning occupation through an analysis of the temporal aspects of conununity life (Gladys Engel-Frisch. gp. 931.) Which am quite similar to those at which Oottrell arrived at in a social-psychological study of the railroader. W.F. Cottrell. _Tllg Railroader. Stanford University Press. 19110. -12 S- It will be remembered that the ecologist defines occupation as "any sustenance producing activity." Under this definition, illegal occupations and occupations such as that of the housewife, are included. It is clear that the housewife is immediately accessible to her place of work. However, the relationship between occupation, considered as the principal work done by the person who is the chief wage earner in the residential unit, and place of work is not so easily determined. Evidence was presented in Chapter IV to indicate that accessibility plays a minor pet in detennining the residential location of the labor force within the city. It was shown that 1&3 percent of all persons em- ployed in manufacturing in Lansing lived outside the political limits of the city. Clearly, maximum accessibility is not an important factor for this segnent of the labor force.152 The present study tended to confirm this conclusion, even though it was necessarily restricted to intra-urban residents. In order to de- termine the relationship between residential area and work area, the city was divided into seven rather large areas, using main thoroughofares and 'natural barriers' as boundaries of these areas. For each respondent information was obtained regarding the location of his place of work, and whether the work area was the same as the residential area. In areas of A ‘ 152. A large proportion of thee employed in manufacturing are in relatively low-status occupations, and there is some evidence to suggest that settlement of workers in low status occupations at the periphery of the canmunity may be characteristic of cities of the same functional type as Lansing. See: Nansen Kantner. . git; Walter Firey, Social As%cts 32 Land Use Planning in the Country _i_ty Frin e: _T_h_e_ Case of Flint, ich... _i_ggl. East Lansing, fichigan. Michigan tate College-.Er'fc’ultural ESE- periment Station, Special Bulletin, 339. 19146; Solon T.‘ Kimball, The New Social Frontier. _T_1_1_e_ Fr_i_n_ge. East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State- high social intimacy, 87.5 percent of the respondeMs worked in a differ- ent section of the city than the section in which they resided; 68 .5 percent of respondents in middle social intimacy areas, and 69.3 percent of respondents in low social intimacy areas worked in an area other than that of residence. These data indicate that even within the city, maxi- mum accessibility to work area is not of great importance in determining residential location. In other words, location requirements other than maximum accessibility to place of work are involved in the residential settlement within the city. This is scarcely a surprising conclusion, in view of the growth of urban fringes, residential suburbs, and 'bed- roon' towns. The ecologist would maintain that the developnent of these residential areas has been made possible only by the development of means of transportation which decrease time-cost distance and thereby increase accessibility, in spite of an increase in actual mileage travel. led. It would seem then, that in the case of Lansing, 'the separation of place of residence frat: place of work - a develoment characteristic of urbanism —- is intensified. Furthermore, if it is true that decentral- ization of population is taking place in Lansing, then this separation of residence from work will continue.153 ”fl”; - 152. (con't) College, Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 360, 1919; Leo F. Schnore. ”The Separation of Hans and work: A Problem for Hanan Ecology," Unpublished monograph, University of “ichigan, 1951:. 153. The treatment of this topic has been necessarily brief. For a more complete treatment, see: Kate K. Liepnann. The Journgy to 1035, Oxford University Press, New York, 1911;. For an anfiysis of the city Of Flint, Michigan, see: L.F. Schnore, 92. 92.2. In regard to exchanges between residential units and non-residential units of a relativelymspecialized type, accessibility would, theoretically, be of greater importance. For instance: In a city such as Lansing, with a manufacturing economy based laregly on the autonotive industry, there are relatively few industrial units. These few units are highly Special- ized units which require a large supporting population, i.e., labor force and market. But when the function of the non—residential unit is to provide fairly general requirements for a relatively small population, possible sites for the location of the unit are increased. A retail outlet, 6.3., grocery store, may be located at any one of a number of sites, where a sufficient supporting pepulation and adequate tranSpor- tion routes are available. Therefore, the exchanges between residential units and units supplying econanic necessities would be expected to be frequent, and distance minimized. It would also be expected that retail units with similar location requirements would be found grouped together. -1_‘_h_e_ £133 9f Local Facilities In this section, the use of local facilities by the respondents in the three types of social areas will be examined. This examination indicates the relative importance of accessibility for various types of activity. The first general type of activity to be considered is that which may be considered as 'economic' activity, i.e., those activities which are essential for the maintenance of the pepulation. The second type of activity considered is that which is of a more 'social' nature, 1.6. , those activities which are not directly related to the maintenaoe of the population. Before beginning the discussion of the use of local facilities, a brief statement concerning the theoretical location of these facililities is made. Ratcliff reviews some of the studies concerned with the location of retail outlets.15’" He points out that ," It is a common misconception that the majority of retail trade is done in the central district,"155 and suggests that the community business areas are the most important in supplying the routine daily requirements of the pepulati on. The rela- tive importance of these community business areas is indicated by the proportion of stores and sales of a given business group which are located in community business areas. Ch the basis of a study of Philadelphia in 1935, it was found that 81.9 percent of all food stores, 85.h percent of all filling stations, and 77.2 percent of all drug stores, were located in community business areas.156 It would be expected, then, that the use of these three types of retail outlets would exhibit most clearly the relative importance of accessiblity; while the examination of the per- formance of social activities should indicate the importance of the local area in regard to non-economic activity. Sane indication of the presence of community business areas in Lansing is furnished by the results of another phase of the research upon which this study is based, in which some 80 areas within Lansing were found to be characterized by the presence of three or more retail outlets in one location. The following analysis is based upon responses to question 19 of the interview schedule, which had reference to the 15h. Richard U. Ratcliff. "The noblest of Retail Site Selection." Vol. IX, No. l. Michi an Business Studies, University of liichigan, School of Business 'nistration, Won Michigan. 1939. 155. Ride, 13. 9 156. Ibid., p. 9-10 -12 9.. utilization of various facilities and the performance of various activities within the local area. If the respondent considered the facility to be located within the local area, the location of the facility was obtained. ()1 the basis of this information, it was possible to determine the he- quency of utilization of the facility as well as the distance travelled to the facility. TableXXIJI summarizes this information on the utilize.- tion of three specific facilities by frequency of utilization and dis- tance travelled to the facility, and by social intimacy area. Tablenlll. UTILTZ-KTICN 0F ECCNCMIC FACILITIES WITHIN THE LOCAL AREA _ p BY TYPE or socm. _m'rIMicr nun W Econauic Activity _. Median Frequency~vm_ Jeggllistancef fl Grgcgry shopping High Intimacy Areas 2-14 times per week 344 blocks - Middle Intimacy Areas Z-h times per week 3-1; blocks Low Intimacy Areas 24; times per week 5-6 blocks Drugstore Shopping High Intimscy Areas Z-h times per week 3-)). blocks Middle Intimacy Areas 2—1; times per week 3—1; blocks Low Intimacy Areas Z—h times per week 3—1; blocks Purchase Gasoline High Intimacy Areas 2-h times per week 39-h blocks Middle Intimacy Areas 2-14 times per week 3-1; blocks Low Intimacy Areas Z-h times per week 3-1; blocks Hap-w.- “Wm --- “m”—‘ H *Distance calculated was linear disace. Three to four blocks is equal to .11 to .114 miles; five to six blocks is equal to .19 to 023 311185. I It can be seen that these three types of econanic facilities are utilized frequently be all reSpondents, and that distance travelled is minimized. -130- A more detailed comparison of the use of these three types of econcm- ic facilities, showing the percentage of respondents and the distance they travelled to each facility, is presented in Table XXIV. Table XXIV. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDEN IS IN SOCIAL INTIMACY AREAS WHO UTILIZI'J LUUAL SHOPPING FAQELILIES AND DISTANCE TRAVELLED T0 FACILITY s...“ —.a—.——o~o M“- “w? Parcent of Number of blocks* others who travelled by these use local who use local Never use facilities facilities local at least Econanic Activity facilities once awweek 5—6 9.10 Sh High Intimacy mice 27.9 9m 7m 89.3 Middle Intimacy Areas# 22 .8 96.2 68.0 85.6 Low Intimacy Areas& 213.6 93.h ‘58 .0 92.8 S in . . . High Intimacy Areas 22 .h 67.2 81.1 9h.2 Middle Intinmcy Areas 20.? 60.1; 81.6 91.8 Low Intimacy Areas 30.5 58.0 81.6 93.6 Em High Intimacy Areas 147.3 85.9 78.7 92.5 Middle Intimacy Areas h9.9 83.3 66.1 89.8 Low Intimacy Areas 513.1; 87.7~ 7hc3 87.6 M .m. «a» Five to six blocks equals .19 to .23 miles; nine to ten blocks equals .31; to .38 miles. @ Total respondents equals 161 # Total reSpondents equals lhO & Total respondents equals 212 . I .. .- 7—. I ‘ ,__ .... I ~‘" -h. s“- There is no statistically significant difference between the pro— portion of reapondents who use the various facilities in the three types of social intimacy areas. Utilization of grocery facilities was most frequent in all areas, if both frequency of utilization and number of respondents utilizing the facility are considered. In all cases, the ..131. ‘ great majority of respondents travelled less than four—tenths of a mile to the facility, and over‘half travelled less than oneequaraa'of a mile to the facility. These data would seem to indicate that these routine daily activities are carried on within what the respondent considers to be the 'neighbor- hood,‘ and what has here been termed the 'local area.‘ It would seem also that accessibility of functional units is high, and that for re- Spondents in all the social intimacy categories, economic requirements are provided by units within the local area or neighborhood. In order to compare the use of local facilities and the performance of other activities within the local area with the utilization of the econanic facilities discussed above, the proportion of respondents utiliz- ing the facilities or performing the activities listed in question 19 was calculated for each of the social intimacy areas. The items listed in question 19 were classified into five categories. Included in the category of economic activities were grocery shopping, drugstore shOp— ping, purchases of gasoline, shopping for clothes, and shepping for shoes. Activities which were considered to be primarily social were, visiting relatives, playing cards, viewing television outside of the home, and going to a park. Activities classed as commercial recreation were attending movies, bowling, going to a tavern, and eating in a restaurant. Service facilities included car repair services, barber and beauty shop utilization, shoe repair services, and banking services. Church attendance was treated separately. Data on the utilization of these facilities and the performance of the activities within the local area are presented for the types of social intimacy areas in Table XXV. A. . AAA aim sic? ici?”assessesnewsman5.41.! 9.. IIIrILinAz-... 0. do: M 1!... .mo .lulurll .75 W meowwflem m. uses 9: ~ dares Es eaves mg m .3858 4.193423 0.3 _ 0.939% 42E Ncowimbo :22. mowzow 4184.8 m.mm A 0.088% m.mw “.maumém fimm sentences assesses H.mmlm.m~. flow ‘ 0.3.14.8 NSNN. w.mw1m.mn We» Hmwoom 988% {essence awewmmwm success _ hemmed second, Writiwflmwmmwd 95 3&sz Mmeswmwe . .. A | mammal 2|. 8.3 e895 #38 .8 ca? yuly ...}.u, \qur'lllrt’ur . . A . A -amea Masses 38m .8 an? em; «sea 88g as A .A AA EEE sesame gamma moz 238% E85 seems. om: 2888882855er - .Ee flea -133- It is apparent from Table XXV that the local area is not the place wherein most activity - other than the economic activities dis- cussed earlier - takes place. Utilization of business, personal, and repair service; and religious activities are the categories which rank highest in percentage of local users in all three intimacy categories, but even here, less than 35 percent of the respondents in any category con- sider these activities to be performed within the local area or neigh- borhood. The performance of social activities within 'the local area accounts for less than 28 percent of all reapondents in any social in- timacy area. It would seem then, that the local area, which does seem to func- tion as a shapping center for the purchase of groceries, drugs, gasoline, does not serve as an area in which social or recreational activities are carried out .- The pattern of facility use and performance of activities was similar in all three social intimacy categories. There remain at least two other types of social factors which have not been considered, and which may have a locality orientation. One type of relationship is informal association within the local area, the other, the presence of friends within the local area. Data are avail- able which enable an exploration of these remaining possibilities of locality orientation. meetion 17 of the interview schedule was de. signed to gain information as to informal meeting places and associations within the 'neighborhood.‘ The pattern of responses to this question was similar to that in regard to formal organization membership within the local area. hble XXVI smrizes the responses to this question. ~13b- * * ‘ ~“n331e‘m1 “‘fiién‘mm’mror E"SMSES' comm ‘ mo INFGME" mmmc'rn‘css' _ .-mm,-m.am. BX. i021“: MTIMACI-WLIN-W§EQ .. _ ReSponse to Question 17: "Are there any places in the neighborhood, such as stores, restaurants, lodges, taverns, or halls where peOple get to- gether informally?" 1 A"t~‘.—.~-~-- _h-‘an -..—.-.” ..— . __., 1-1..--“ .-----”Peroeat . . _ , . flaming, w.-. -__,, ”1193:, ...,W ,9? 31409 Type of Grocery , Drug-'3" __ _50.cial_ Area ; “___,,_,,______ ,_,,,_,, , __-T,averps ..Stcree, psiorea _ High (Na-161) E 71.0 6.2 6.2 11.3 Middle (unto) 75.8 8.6 2.9 M 3491119272) ' _,72.3,..-.,,_.,- - w, ,1.____o.o, ___2.9 2.2 _, In all three types of social intimacy areas, some type of business establishment accounts for over one-half of all the informal meeting places which were indicated. It should be noted however, that over 70 , percent of the reSpondents in all three categories either said that there were no informal meeting places within the neighborhood, or knew of none. None of the differences among the types of social areas in this regard were statistically significant. Whether or not the respondent had friends within the area as well as the distance to the iriend's residence was determined ircm data gained on the basis of question 114 of the interview schedule. Although over 90 percent of respondents in all social intimacy areas named at least one friend, there was no tendency for the friend to be located within the neighborhood or local area. For example, in the high social intimacy areas, the median distance to the residence of all three friends was 21-30 blocks, or approximately three-quarters to over one mile. If the local area is assumed to consist of no more than five or six blocks, which was the median distance travelled for the use of econanic facilities, I Y A‘ V. -135- then there is no significant association between the social character- istics of the residents of the social areas and the presence of friends within the local area. However, there was a statistically significant difference between high and low social intimacy areas in the prOportion of respondents who named three friends and those who did not name three friends. As would be expected, the residents of high social intimacy areas named three friends significantly more often than residents of low social areas. This may indicate that the presence of friends within the city is related to intimacy, but that there is no basis for expecting friends to be located within the local area. m Formal organizational membership in the social areas was shown to have but slight locality basis. Members of formal organizations in each of the social intimecy areas were characterized by a higher socio-econanic status than non-members. The facilities used most frequently within the local area were econcm- ic facilities (shOpping for groceries, shapping for drugs, and purchases of gasoline). Distances travelled to these facilities were less than the distances travelled to any other facilities, an indication of the importance of accessiblity for the location of these functional units. There was no statistically significant difference between the pr0portion of residents in the three types of social areas who used local econcmic facilities. The performance of other types of activities; social, recreational, service, and religious, showed a different pattern of use both frun the 0.. the point of view of distance and frequency. For none of these non- econanic activities was the local area, as defined by the respondent, the area in which these other activities were carried out. Fewer than thrity-five percent of reSpondents in all types of social areas performed these activities within 'the local area. These data were taken to indi- cate that the local area, as defined by the respondent and by the use of economic facilities, was net the. same as the area or areas in which other types of activities were performed. This conclusion applied to all the social areas. Informal associational participation followed a pattern similar to that found in the analysis of formal organizations. That is, fewer than thirty percent of all respondents in all social areas utilized local meeting places for informal assocations. The local tavern was the place most often named by those who did take part in informal associations within the local area. There was no tendency for the friends named by the respondents to reside in the local area. However, those reSpondents inhigh intimacy areas were significantly different in that they most often named three friends . —_L)l- CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIGNIS AND SUGGEST IONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Introduction This study has constituted an attempt to apply selected propositions of ecological and sociological theory to the analysis of intra-urban areas delineated on the basis of sociological criteria. The social and economic characteristics of the reapondents in the social areas were examined in order to discover the differences among social areas. In this final chap- ter, the substantive conclusions of the study are sumarized, and topics for further research are suggested. Before beginning this presentation, however, some brief comments on the theories utilized in this study are made, and an attempt is also made to indicate the relationship between Hawley's approach to human ecology, and the approach of the urban sociolo— gist. Theoretical Conclusions One of the reasons why Hawley's approach was selected for use in this study was that it offered a more coherent approach to human ecology than did other views.157 It will be remembered from the discussion of —— 157. That this state of affairs has not imporoved is indicated by an examination of a recent sociological journal devoted to human ecology, see: Social Forces. Vol. 32:14 (May, 1951;). This was published after the discussion of ecological theory in Chapter II had been written, The topics considered range from a consideration of 'political ecology,‘ to Spatial relationships within a work plant; and the terminological usage is just as varied, and includes the use of psychological concepts. -138- ecological theory presented in Chapter II that Hawley emphasizes the relevance of general ecology for human ecology. Related to this empha— sis is the assumption of a 'unity of science.‘ One question which he does not attempt to answer has to do with the meaning of the phrase, 'unity of science.‘ If this is to be a unity of language, then serious difficulties arise when general ecological concepts or propositions are applied to human societies, e.g., although the human ecologist has stated that he is concerned with the 'web of life' the great majority of his 'work has been restricted to a single Species. The use of the concept camunity raisa problems relating to the delineation of the boundaries of the 'community.‘ Hawley does recognize the difficulty of determin_ ing the boundaries, and also recognizes the difficulty of ascertaining the relevance for the community of some of the groups within the commun. ity. It is suggested here that Hawleyis view of ecology entails a greater separation of human atology from sociology. Hawley suggests that this separation may be beneficial, not for the reason that one discipline is in any way superior to the other, but solely on the basis of a division of labor and along lines of personal interest. To use ecological termi- nolog, the relationship might well be a symbiotic rather than a common... salistic relationship. It is also suggested here that this orientation of Hawley‘s will lead to a type of research which will differ greatly from the research which has been termed 'ecological' in the past.* '* Perhaps a brief illustration of the possible differences in Approach.might be suggested. It has been mentioned that the area of 'occupation' is one which may be of mutual interest to the ecologist and the sociologist. If the ecologist were to make a study of an occupation, he would be concerned with a functional analysis of the t 1|! llizval ‘lllnlll . 1:3. l-:.|1 -13 9— The alliance of human ecology with general ecology may be relatively slow in producing any new develognents, since general ecological theory is not noted for coherence. However, one of the principle virtues of Haley's view of human ecology is the possibility of deriving testable hypotheses. It is suggested that a rigorous logical analysis of the assumptions, prOpositions, and hypotheses of the theory would be helpful in this reapect. The emphasis upon the community and upon the study of groups within the community only insofar as they affect the functioning of the camnun- ity leaves a wide range of behavior untouched by the ecologist.158 The social function of the groups which may have no direct relevance for the functioning of the 'community' may be a subject in which the sociolo- gist is interested. The point of the discusssion is simply this: Ecology and sociology seem to be proceeding in increasingly divergent directions; there is no cause for alarm about this development, but the development should be recognized if the two disciplines are to benefit from it. A ”g 157. (can't) occupational structure of the conmunity, and the ways in which one occupation was related to another. He would not be con. cerned with the 'conception' that the person held of his occupation, nor with the 'conception' which others held of it. Labor force statis- tics rather than interview schedules or participant observation would be his main source of information. This illustration could be elaborated, and others could be suggested. It is offered ally as a suggestion as to the likely development in the relations between human ecology and sociology. No invidious distinctions are intended. 158. For suggestions as to areas for further research, see: William H. Form. “The Place of Social Structure in the Determination Of Land Use: Some hplications for a Theory of Urban Ecology." Social £91935: Vol. 3232; (May, 1,9511) PP. 317-23 ~1h0— General Concl‘us ions The analysis of intra-urban areas has been chiefly concerned with the social and econcmic characteristics of the residents in three types of social areas; those distinguished by a high, middle, and low degree ‘ of social intimacy. It was found that the great majority of dwelling units in the city were located in areas characterized by low intimacy. When compared to areas of high social intimacy, the low intimacy areas were found to be in a lower economic position and to have a lower proportion of owner- occupied dwelling units. V The degree of intimacy within the local areas seemed to be a con- comitant of high socio-economic status and low physical mobility within the area. The eXpected differences in length of time lived in the area between high and low social intimacy area residents were not found to be significant. Differences in family structure in the three types of social areas were not significant, but there was a significantly greater proportion of older persons in areas of low intimacy. Contrary to the Burgess hypothesis, land values of dwelling units , did not increase with distance from the center of the city. High land value dwelling units were, in general, located nearer to the city center than low land value dwelling units. This finding was in accord with the results of a study of Flint, Michigan. _ The social-psychological definition of high status areas was found to be canpatible with the economic defintion of high land value areas. In no case was there any contradiction between the social psychological definition of an area and the econanic defintion of an area. —lhl- Organizational membership, in general, was found to exhibit charac- teristics similar to those found in studies of other urban areas in the U.S. Organizational membership and participation within the local area were less fi'equent than participation in organizations located outside the local area. Formal organizational membership was significantly greater for residents in high social intimacy areas than for residents in low social intimacy areas. Differences between members and non-members were found to reflect occupational and economic differences in each of social intimacy areas. The use of local facilities showed a pattern in which accessiblity was greatest between residence and the functional units which provided economic requirements for the population. The neighborhood as defined by the respondent and by the use of economic facilities was not the area in which social activities took place, an indication that the local area was not of great social significance for the performance of these social activities. There was no tendency for friends to be located in the local area, although there was a significant difference between high and low intimacy areas in the proportion of reapondents who named three friends. In no case was there a tendency for the friends named to be residents of the local area. V Informal associational participation was low in all social areas, and no significant differences were found among the social intixnacy areas in this respect. The places named most often as meeting places within the local area were business establishrnents; mainly taverns, grocery stores, and drug stores. In general, then, it would seem that degree of intimacy as indi. cated by the extent of personal relationships within the local area, —l£‘12— was most closely related to socio—economic status, and bore little re- lationShip to the performance of routine economic activities, or the performance of other social activities within the local area. Formal organizational membership was significantly greater in areas of high intimacy than in areas of low intimacy. EXpected differences in the length of time that the respondent had lived in the neighborhood or city; previous residence in an urban area; and family structure were not found to be significant when the three types of social intimacy areas were analyzed in these terms. This evidence suggests that the neighborhood is of little importance for the performance of social activities, but that it does form a func. tional area for the provision of economic goods and services for the population. Suggestions for Further Research It has been pointed out earlier that this study was a pilot study, based on the first stage of a contemplated long-range sociological re- . search plan for Lansing and for the Lansing SMA. It can hardly'be over- emphasized that unless continued research is carried out, a major goal of this study -— that of providing guides for further research-— will have been lost. The discussion of possible tOpics for this research is restricted to those subjects whidh have been considered in this study. The discussion is also restricted to ecological and sociological preh— lems. From an ecological point or view, future research should not be confined to the political and administrative boundaries of the city, but should also include, at the very least, the urbanized area which surrounds Lansing. Investigations of these urbanized areas could be made in order to discover if the relationships which were found to exist within the city also existed outside of the political city, e.g., the relationship of land value to accessibility. The analysis should also be broadened to include other functional units of the community, e.g., the retail outlets which provide economic necessities for the residents of an area. The location of the labor force in relationship to place of occupation also demands further investi- gation. The shifts in pepulation distribution within the central city and the SMA which were discussed call for additional research. The location of types of functional units in relationship to the pepulation is a question which can be explored. Of interest sociologically, are those intra-urban areas which deviate from their surrounding area, or which exhibit characteristics which are associated with low intimacy, and yet fall into a high intimacy category. For example, social areas eighteen and five might be further investigated in order to discover in what ways they differ fran other areas of the same type. The social functions of the units of the community in relationship to the social organization of the area require examination. The rela— tionship of other types of behavior, e.g., political, to the economic and social characteristics of the area might also be investigated. It has been indicated that the local area plays a relatively minor role in the social life of theresidents of the area. It may well be that occupation and place of work are of more importance to the resident, than his area of residence. It might be asked, then, if those sub—areas which are characterized by high intimacy also characterized by occupa~ tional homogeneity? The areas of high econanic status delineated in this study furnish a general basis for a more refined approach to the analysis of the social class structure of the city. Reliable evidence has been presented as to the location of the extreme economic status groups within the city, and thus the analysis of other differences may be facilitated. These are but a few of the possible areas of further research which may be suggested. The major problem would seem to be not one of seeking subjects and tapics for research, but of doing a certain amount of basic research. In addition to these proposed studies, it should not be overlooked that a great deal _of information on the structure of Lansing and the Lansing SMA as of 1950 has been presented. The growth and structure of residential. areas of various econanic types has been‘described, as has the occupational and industrial structure of the area. This, together with the demographic analysis of the area, mrnishes a basis for the analysis of future developments within the canmunity. APPEN DIX IN TERVIE' SCHEDJLE I! k I Resident Interview Schedule Social Research Service Census Tract Study 11 Michigan State College 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. What year did you move to this part of tovn1?_____(YEAR NUJBER) dow many different houses have you lived in since 1946?” What year did you move to this address?” Was your last address in either Lansing or East Lansing? “Yes: What was It? (NAME or mace) _ (NAME or com 1“!) 'w' ”(NAME or STATE) ...—“0‘ Where was it? __ About how many people lived there? (GET A NUIBER) Did you live in town or open oomtfl’w—mm Open Country 30" did you happen to move to this part of town rather than some- Ihare else? a; 223 m your choice, would you continue living _i_n_ this neig- rhood! "" """‘" "'""""‘"' "’ ______Y088 What do you like about it? ”Not lhat do you dislike about it? Where would you move? (IIP A Dem 113 Locum IS GIVEN) What do you like about that plao a? ______Don't Know: Do you have any reasons for wanting to stay? Do you have any reasons for wanting to move? (It msms FOR 110vava arm) you want to move? Where would (IF A DEPIN mi: macs 13 am) What do you like about that place? 9° 17011 have definite plans for moving in the near future? 30 You Where are you 1110va t”? 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. (IF A new In: moaned IS 01m) :[ow did you come to decide on this place? For the most part what kinds of jobs do peeple in this area have? Where do most of them work? How well do you think that the people in the neighborhood around here know each other? (READ) Not at all Not so well hirly well Quite well Very well (Dov! READ) Don't Know ’. About how many of them would you say then: you know by name None a few About half lost All on come in contact About how many families in your neighborhood do y (NEWER) with for at least a few minutes every day 0“ ‘0 ......— afternoon or evening with every About how many do you spend a whole now and men! (nausea) ur three best friends-m can call they live (It comes LANSING) Will you think for a moment of yo men 1. 2. and 3--end tell me when II E meme on rasr meme) 1 0° étreet Nearest two crossing streets flame of 2 a 1. fwd/WM 2. u _fi M ...—”M :5. fl/ e co 1e of Are there any organizations around here mainly for W P P thi s nei gxborho od? No Don' t Know Yes l. 2. 3. 4. 16. 17. 18. Which of these do you, (ASK ONLY FOR THOSE ORG— or members of your AN IZAIIU‘IS BM GED ‘10) faznilyL belong to? __ What proportion of the 7 meetings do you or mem- bers of your family attend? Most All ‘5‘ HH \E H\\\ \m What are they? Belong Don't 21123.3 E393- M” ——1 —_-_# _— _‘fl’ _f ________,.___.._.——-——- UH HH Are there any other organisations. 1058". or clubs in which you Participate at least once a month? Yes No A" there any places in the neiglborhood, such as swfizgfifiumts. 10‘1608. taverns, or halls where people get together No “You: What are they? DO you think that an. neighborhood is getting better or getting worse? Don't know Getting better: one examples? ......‘htting worse: How did it happen? 8 can you give Ih-l tr! rvvaa’w‘o-‘ruvnz {.as—u ..nL._JAV I Ann...za._.lv.l.....a nor—aaav ...-.4 pf! . ..-.. ..m .a. I. .... a ..z» av ... 1.4..n ._ -.«..d~_unyu.oe Q.__;..~_‘-y... es.. ....,.., ..-. ..T.... ......u u u. ... . A... . )y»...,...7 Janet- -.:.. .P..- «..ruon sour-..~,.. .. .l) .. . or u.. ‘. .. . u... .c - n...I- 5 pay .)l-l..4 Anus Iuava»; linodpsfisosoa fiow hosvHHV pong? on. ow 'lv.‘l\|v I's). Ills. 1'9.¢u'l I‘. ll‘ x59 moose b5 budge.» now p.90 30% 33 90.689 .3239 no mongoose.» d on, em oeopmwsuc s on ow .30 .39» no econ dies 95: 8.3on b5 95.333." e a.“ pee on £6 ow seen 55% 0333 3. scene. cm 985» .8 £50.53: a 3. cm mouse head o... om sing a op cm 3.289% .8.“ wagons om nose: :opmo amok noses xook avenue» macho oneness mood flaw mmofi eomammgmz BHmnbo Hafiz 924 Bram mm 93.; .anoomammcHflz 8.5. 2H HAZO QUE poonpm hobo: note use" 585 nook nmoa noomammuHmz EON 2H 3.8% .885 .850 5. owewno no mango.» om oases s 3. cm i! 3353?» 33..» op ow . . .mow on Etc 8: 83 5:5 mafifieoa :8 98303 So .03 .22:qu seams. mos.” 2H .9. BE: fixes» a made as. .55qu sees: as 2H ..H. E NEE .. .aonmm mane mzo H920 8a 3233mm HE. mos entrance noes a3 anm e.goomammamwz 8.2.. mm“... .as“: 4 and. "Eng £50: 924 ..aHmZHa mam .EEEEV «omens» omens no and on so» seems .6: o Ila-I s HHS. onmodm noun fiasco .mH 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. On the average, how many times a week do you go downtown? How do you usually get there! We've been using the word neignborhood for some time now, and we'd like to get an idea of what area you 're thinking of when you talk about your neipiborhood. (museum: RECORD smear NAMES) About how far north does it go? About how far east does it go? About how far south does it go? About how far west does it go? How did you decide on these boundaries? a. Does this neigtborhood have a name? Ho Yes: What is it? 0' . Do you think of it as part of a larger area! No Yes: What is the name of this larger area? 8’ you own or rent this place! On Rent 5' many: Bedrooms do you have! Living rooms do you have? Dining roans do you have? Kitchens do you have? Bathrooms do you have? Other rooms do you have? “hat are they! (mmvmvsa 39301:!) Total Closed Porch - . Finished Basment: (1!! WWW: no NOT INCLUDE m TOM. ) Would you mind telling us where you grew up' ______le.nsing or East Lansing Elsewhere: Where? W ...... Wow?) (8 Did you live in town or open country? oomtry nun: About how many people lived there than? ..— W “ '. PI 9 '3“- | As». 1 i in h“! 27. Where were your parents born? nth” Hot-her ___1a:1sing or East Lansing lensing or East lensing “Elsewhere: Where? Elsewhere: More? 28. Are you married or single? Married ____$in gle Widowed Divorced 39- We'd appreciate knowing who else lives with you and 1'th 3191’ approximte ages and education are. Relationship to Respondent Approximate Age lest Grade Com- -m plated in school Responth #_ _ _ _______1'0tal living in dwelling unit (I! mess ms cam 11me 12 was om) DO you use baby sitters? Re ____Yes: Are they from an agency? Are they relatives? Are they adult friends? Are they adolescents? (Ir EI'IHER "RELATIVES," ‘AWL‘I' FRIENDS," on "ANLESCEI 15* ARE USED) lbr the most part, do they come from inside or outside the nei ghborhood' \HHE HUI: ”Inside nei giborhood Outside neighborhood # 30 ‘ ‘ ‘ 1' our ' '0 m we need to have a mud: idea o y r the purposes of our su y, culd d 11 g 10 famil 's total weekly income. GIRD Rgpm an of these classes it falls? (mmw‘ map To D ) (mmvxm. mum cons NUMBER) _______________.....- -7- 31. a. What contributes the most money to the family income? _Respondent other: - Who? # (mrmvm: ASK 3-? mm mm 'RIE mm WAGE EMUER m m: mum) (INTERVIBNER: use 1313 job? 1). What is your (his, her) job called? AS SPECIFIC as POSSIBLE) o. What kinds of things to you (does he, does she) do on the d. Where do you (does he,(does she) work? o. How do you (does he, does she) get ’50 “03'1" f. What is the name of your (his. her) place of employment? 32. Do you own a television set? No Yes 1"" “11050 is going to establish w'11'1 the opening of the college station influence an ultra-11151 frequency television “3131011. Will you have your set you to purchase a set? ”1th to receive this new sta- tion! Yes ___Yes _Don't know ”Don't know esesssssseeee ‘ (uranium. no 110'1' ASK yon m or me rename mmwnm muss NECESARY) Sex of respondent. Race of respondent. What kind Of a residence is it? -—H°“‘° 11.1. ”mm .....Apertnmt ”Panels J e gro --—-R°m “— ____Otherx What! ...—0&0?! What! A; ' AREA WEBER would! or Street “mm“: (1? NWIDD r me 3100!) (It at A comm) side of Street __ Other street forming 'ho nearest «3?; streets: cornerfi ____. 1. Location of corner. 2. : NE___ ss___ SW___ NW, ”mum: um __c1,.s Section DATE: If -8- IMERVIE‘ER: Enter here your impressions dfnce, covering all tho tions, and anything els of the respondent and the resi- se matters suggested in the instruc- e that may strike you as important. APPENDIX B APPENDIX B This appendix contains an analysis of the sample upon which this study was based. The analysis is concerned with a fuller description of the characteristics of the sample and the examination of possible sources of bias in the sample. First, the characteristics of the re- apondents in the three types of social intimacy areas are examined. Next, the relationship between various housing characteristics of the social areas is discussed, and the housing characteristics of the sample are compared with those of the total area of which the sample is a part. The major purpose of the analysis is to discover whether or not differences among the social areas could be a consequence of bias in the sample. Sharacteristicg 21; 313 Iiespondents As was shown in Table I (Chapter IV) 78.7 percent of all respond- ents were females. In areas of low social intimacy, 80.7 percent of all respondents were females; in middle social intimacy areas, 77.1 percent were females; and in high social intimacy areas, 77,2 percent were females. These differences were not statistically significant, am thus there seems to be no reason to think that there was a sex bias among the social areas.* The median age 03 ”10 respondents in each of the three types of social intimacy areas was 39.5, an indication that the age differences of the respondents were not a factor in the responses given. magnifies” used was that of the sighflicance 0? difference between percentages. The level of significance accepted was Hi: L | . , “Waco ..vbJ‘ . A .J 'v 1A {'1‘. The occupational distribution within the three types of social intimcy areas is presented in Table l. Table 1. OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTEWWTEE’NT‘TWE' 'T'1‘ih‘E’E‘“'fi§E§"6F‘soc'Ili 43—.- mg “mum”... immune-s turns-attrr "‘ *“ ~=— Occupation» Type of Social Intimacy Areas.-..- ...... . ‘ High (erél) Middle (n-iho) Low (Nu-g2) Percent _pitifsncaniWiriicfelicsntw Professionals 9.9 h.0 5.9 Semi-professionals { 3 . 1 10.9 2 .6 Proprietors ; 7 .h 5 2 .3 2.9 Managers and officials 9- 6e8 heo Sez Clerical (office) ' 5.6 .j 6.3 8.9 Clerical (sales) 7.1; I 9.1 5.5 Skilled workers ' 23.5 E 17.7 26.6 Semi~skilled workers ‘, 2h.l ; 12.6 21.15 Unskilled workers ' 2.5 8.6 this Service and domestic i» 1.9 1 .... 1.331 2.2“ u... -4 a.“ * Occupation not reported and retired, not included. Chi 3311330 " 75.995 deface of freedom 'MIB; p < j01 It was found that the proportion of high-status occupations (professionals, semi-professionals, preprietors, and managers and officials) in high social intimacy areas was significantly greater than in low social intimcy areasut- There was also a significantly greater preportion of skilled and semi-skilled workers in both the high and low social intimacy areas}? while middle intimacy areas had a significantly greater proportion of dunestic and service workers.” Differences in 3? fi test of significance used was that of the significance}? difference between percentages. t- 2.36, p < .01 # The test of significance used was that of the significance of difference between percentages. V3.35, p < .01 *l The test of significance used was that of the significance of difference between percentages. t-2.96, p < .01 preportions of white collar workers were not statistically significant. These data on the occupational distribution within the three general types of social areas suggest that areas of high intimacy are character- ized by a significantly greater preportion of high status occupations, which is gemrally taken to indicate higler soc io—econanic status. Housing Characteristics Since Chapter VI deals with the housing characteristics (average land value of the dwelling unit and proportion of owner-occupied dwelling units) of the sample on which the social areas were based as well as those for the entire area, an analysis of these characteristics is called fcr. The relationship between land value and rental is examirsd, since average land value is the criterion used for the classification of economic areas. The factor of size of area is eacanxined, insofar as size is related to the economic homogeneity of the area. For each of the twenty-seven social intimacy areas, the distribution of average land value of the dwelling units was determined, ani the median md mean land value for each of the social intimacy areas were obtained from this distribution. The per- centage of miner-occupied dwelling units togetl'er with the mean monthly rent for all rental units within the area were conputed. As an indication of relative dispersion, the coefficient of variation for each of the areas was computed. These measures made it possible to rank the social areas as to their relative position in each of these respects, and this rela- tive position could be canpared with the intimacy category into which the area fell, as well as compared with the other social areas. The rank-arder ccrrelation between average land value of the dwel- ling units within the social areas and the average monthly rental was .790, significant beyond the .01 level.* This would indicate that the use of average land value of ttn dwelling unit as the basis of classi- fication for economic areas has the additional Justification of being significantly related to the average monthly rental of the dwelling unit. This relationship also held for the total area.“ Data from the sample on average family income permitted a comparison of the sample in terms of income with the total area of which the sample was a part, in terms of average land value of the dwelling units within the area. The rank- order correlation between these two variables was relativeb' high and statistically significant (R . .877, p < .01). Thus, it would seem that average land value may be rather closely related to income, and consti- tutes the best available index of the econoulic status of the total area." In order to determine whether variation within the area was related to the size of the area, a rank-order correlation was‘calculated between the size of the area (as indicated by the number of dwelling units) and the relative dispersion of average land values within the area (as in- dicated by the coefficient of variation). R equalled .260, which was nct simificant at the .05 level. That the areas which were economically most homogeneous were areas of relatively low average land value, was 1micated by the fact that the relationship between rark order in co- efficient of variation and rank in low land value of the dwelling unit was .771 which was significant beyond the .01 level. - at These conputatiom were made on the tasis of ti; formulas given in: Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev. Statistical inference. Henry Holt and Compar‘w. New York. 1953. PP- 272-80. *N' R equalled .757, p < 001 # Neither data on income for the total area, nor average land value for the sample were available; thus a precise canparison of economic status was not possible. ..fi 3-H - 3"ka I! I Iv ...b‘.‘ Mum. tut : - t ed t M . 3.»; . . ' ‘1‘ d-- (r) The above analysis indicated, in general, that there was a close relationship between high land value of the dwelling unit and high monthly rental, justifying the use of average land value of the dwelling unit as the unit of measurement of economic status for the total area; and that variation of average land value within the area was not signi- ficantly related to the size of the area. It also indicated that areas which had the lowest average land value of the dwelling units were the most economically homogeneous areas. Since the sample data form the basis for the classification of the social areas, these sample data are compared with census data for the entire area thus delineated. This examination permits a further com- parison of the sample data with complete census data. As was shown in Table I (Chapter IV) the sample used in this stuchr was characterized by a higher proportion of owner-occupied dwelling units than the city as a whole. When the sample on which the social areas were delineated was compared with the total area of which the sample was a part, it was found that the rank-order correlation between proportion of owner-occu- pied dwelling units in the sample areas and in their appropriate universes was .610, significant at the .01 level. Table 2 presents a comparison of the eagle with the total universe in this respect. able . PERCENTACE OF owes-ocwpfibmfififffié Mfrs? ”SEER mime éfiééeggfisééfléiflgreL25QeAE2:Egfixlflfleéfitflhfieeylgileeea-.eti_~-_- Type of Social “..----” , .. ...- - - - ............Slnnnls..."_w (Nh18,285) (Nr573) High 26.6 31.2 Middle 19.1 2507 Low 514.3 143.1 T0231 “q”..- --- “A,“ _ 100.0 -- , . ,. -IWOO“ This analysis indicated that the relative position of the social areas, delineated on the basis of the sample, and the relative position of the total social areas as indicated by census data, were significantly related in respect to the proportion of owner-occupied chvelling units, and that the relatively slight differences between the sample and the total city were not of major importance. m The sample upon which this stuck,v was based had a higher proportion of females than the entire city, but this over-representation of females was characteristic of each of the tines types of social areas. The fact that the interviews were obtained during the day-time pr obably accounts for this bias. The same bias is characteristic of most census pepulation data. The median age of the respondents was the same in each of the three types of social intimacy areas. Thus, there seems to be no reason to sus- pect that the differences in the maponses among the social areas are a result of differences in the age-sex composition of the sample. It was found that areas of high social intimacy had a significantly greater preportion of persons in higher status occupations, perhaps an index of higher socio-economic status. It was also found that there was a significant relationship between average land value and average monthly rental. There was not a signifi- cant relationship between size of the area and the relative dispersion of land v alues within the area. The rank-order correlation between aver- age land value and income was relatively high and statistically significant. The aspects of the sample which have been examined indicate the ways in which the sample deviates from the total. city. These differences limit the applicability of the findings of this study, and this should be kept in mind when reading the analysis of the social areas. LI'ERAfiIRE CITED .u 3,. LITERA'EIE CITED Alihan, Milla. Social Ecolog. Columbia University Press. New York 1938. Allee, ‘N.C., Park, Orlando, Enerson, Alfred E., Park, Thomas, and Schmidt, Karl. Principles 93; Animal Ecology. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1949. * Anderson, Nels. ”Trends in Urban Sociology,” in Trends _in_ gericg _Sgc- iolog, edited by G.A. hmdberg, Nels Anderson, and Reed Rain. and Brothers. New York. 1929. Harper Bell, Wendell. ”A Comparative Study in the Methodology of Urban Analy- sis.” Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. 1952. Bogus, Donald J. Po lation Growth in Standard Metropolitan Areas: 1900.. 1950. Housing and Home Finance Agency. 53. Covernment Printing Office. Washington, Deo- 19530 l}9gue, Donald J. lbs Structure 9}; the Metrgpolitgg Community: A 3mg 9_f_ Dominance _apd Sub-Dominance. Ann Arbor, lichigan. 1949. Clements, Frederic E. and Shelford Victor E. Eg-m- J01“) "1101? and Sons, Inc. New York. 1939 Cowgill, Donald 0. "m. Methodology of Planning Cmsus boots for Wichita, lenses.‘I 313 Municipel University g_f_ Wichita Bulletin. Bulletin No. 19. Wichita, Kansas. 1949. Dewoy, Richard. "lhe Neighborhood, Urban Ecology, and the City Planners,“ American Sociological Review. 15:4. pp. 508-377. Dice, Lee R. Natural Commities. University of lichigan Press. Ann Arbor. 1952 Edwards, Alba. Comparative Occupational Statistics for £113 Ma 1870" 1940. U.S. Government ting Office. Washington,-'DTC. 1943 Rigel-Frieoh, Gladys. “Some Neglected Temporal Aspects of Human Eocloy.” Social Forces. 22: (Oct., 1943) pp. 45-60. Firey, Walter. “Social Aspects to land Use Planning in the Country—City Fringe: m. Case of Flint, liehigan." Eest lensing, Iichigan. Hichi- gen State College. Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin N0. 339. 1946. Foley, Donald L. ”Neighbors or Urbanites‘! The Study of a Rochester Residential District.“ (Mimeographed) Departnent of Sociology, University of Rochester. 1952. Porn, William H. "lhe Place of Social Structure in the Determination of land Use: Some Implications for a ‘lheory of Urban Ecology." Social Forces. 22:4 (May, 1954). pp. 317-323. Form, William 3., Smith, Joel, Stone, Gregory P., and Cowhig, J. ”'lhe Compatibility of of Alternative Approaches to the Delineation of Urban Sub-Areas." Apnerican Sociological Review. (In press) ' 35"195’9 Amos H. ”‘lhe Approach of Human Ecolo to Urban Areal Analysis? 'lhe §9_ientific Monthly. Donna (July, 1951 pp. 48-49 Hawley, Amos H. Human Ecolog: A_ moor: '2}: Community Structure. 'lle Ronald Press Company. New York. 1950. ‘79 Hawley, Amos H. ”Ecology and Human Ecology." Social Forces. 22:4 p1“? / 9) pp. 398-405. Hobbs, A. H. Social Problems and Scientigg. he Stackpole Company. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 1953. HOW”. A. 11. pp. Slain; 9i Sociolog. She Stackpole Company. Harris- burg, Pennsylvania. 1952. 30315. Homer ”Residential Sectors Revisited." ‘lhe Appraispl Journal. 18:4. pp. 445-50. 303”» Homer. me Structugg and Growth 9_t_'_ Residential Neighborhoods in. American Cities. Federal Housing Administration. Washington, D.C. 1939 Jun“. Oscar W. “What is the ibtal Pattern of our Western Civilization!” American Anthropologist. 48:3 pp. 399-402. Jones, Victor. ”Economic Classification of Cities.‘ 111111101951 Y0" 10.93.. Vol. 20, pp. 50-54. 1953. Kaniner, John. ”me Relationship between Accessibility and Socio— Economic Status of Residential lands, Flint, Michigan." (limeographed) Instiblte for Human Adjustment. University of Michigan. March, 1943. Kimball, Solon I. “in. New Social Frontier, ‘lhe Fringe." East lensing, Michigan. Kiohigan State College. Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin No. 360. 1949. Komarovsky, lirra. “me Voluntary Associations of Urban Dwellers." W Sociological Revipl. n (1946). pp. 695-699. Iauwe, P.-H. Chombart De, Antoine, S, Bertin, J, Couvreur, L., Gauthier, J. 2913 fil'Agglomeratipp grisienne. 'lbme Premier. L'Espace Social dang 321m Cite: Presses Universitaires de France. 1952 Liepmann, Kate K. 'Ihc Journey _t_o_Work. Oxford University Press. New York. 1944. ' l’cClenahan, Bessie C. file Changing Urban Neighborhood. University of Southern California Studies. Social Science Series No. 1. University of Southern California,'140s Angeles. 19 8. McKenzie, R. D. 'lhe Neighborhood: A Study 9}: Local Life _i_z_l_ the City 9_§‘__C_olumbu§J Ohio. University of Chicago Press. 19 23 Elohim. A Glide to the Wolverine State. Writers' Program of the Works Progress Amfistration in the State of Michigan. Oxford University Press. New York. 1941 Miner, Horace. 1he Primitive City 9}; Timbuctoo. Princeton University Presse 19530 Q3133. James A. "topical Summary of Current Literature on Human Ecolog.” .E‘iéflrican Journal _o_£_‘_ Sociolog. XLV132. pp. 191-205. Ratcliff, Richard U. Urban land Economics. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York. 1949. Ratcliff, Richard U. ”me Problem of Retail Site Selection.“ Michigan Business Studies. IX:1 University of llichigan. Ann Arbor. 1939. R£>clwin, Lloyd. "me 'lheory of Residential Growth and Structure." 33 421mm. 18:3 pp. 295-317. Rodwin, Lloyd. ”Middle-Income Housing Problems in Boston“ Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. Harvard. 1949. Social Profile of Detroit. A Report of the Detroit Area Shady. _— University of Michigan. October, 1952. Sam“. Calvin F. "lhe moor-y and Practice of Planning Census h‘aots" Mil—MES. Social Research. 22 (1938) pp. 228-38. Schnore, Leo I“. “he Separation of Home from Work: A Problem for 31mm Ecology.“ Social Forces. "22:4 (Hay, 1954) pp. 336-43. Schnore, Leo F. "Suburbs and Satelites" Unpublished Monograph. Univers- ity of llichigan. 1954.. Shevky, Eshrei‘ and William, Marilyn. 'lhe Social Areas g Los Angeles. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1949. Shils, Edward A. 'lhe Present State giAmerican Sociolog. 'Ihe Free Press. Glencoe, Illinois. 1948. Simmel, Georg. 'lhe Sociology of Georg Simmel. __ __ 'h'anslated by Kurt Wolff. lhe Free Press. Glencoe, Illinois. 1950. #1 Smith, Joel. "A Method for 'the Classification of Areas on the Basis of Demographic Homogeneous Populations." American Sociological 1R9- view. 19:2 pp. 201-07. Sykes, Gresham M. ”The Differential Distribution of Community Knowlc-lge." Social Forces. 29:4 (May, 1941) pp. 378-83. "Symposium on Viewpoints, Problems, and Methods of Research in Urban Areas.‘I 'Dle Scientific Monthly. (July, 1951) pp. 37-50. U. 3. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census ggfgpulation: 1950. Vol. II Characteristics _o_f the Population. Part 22. Michigan. Chapter B. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1952. U. 3. Bureau of the Census. U. 8. Census of Population: 1950. Vol. II Characteristics o_i_'_ the Population. Part 22. Michigan. Chapter C. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1952 U.S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census 2__f Housi_g:1950. Vol. V. Block Statistics. Part 95. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1952. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census 9_f_Housing: 1950. Vol. 1. Gen— _e_ral Characteristics. Chapter 22. Michigan. U.S. Government Printirg Office. Washington, D.C. 1952. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census 9___f Business. Vol. III Retail Trade U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1948 5. Bureau of the Census. Census 25 Business. '01. V. Wholesale bade .8. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1948. S. Bureau of the Census. Census giBusiness. Vol. VII. Service. .3. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1948. ads: as: .8. Bureau of the Census. Census pf. Manufaculrers. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, 5.0. 1947. U. 3. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census o__£_‘_ _Pppulations 1940 Secpnd Series. Characteristics of the Population. U. S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1942. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census 21.11511" U.S. Vol. IV ngulation. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1942 Wirth, Louis. "Urbanism as a Way of Life.” 'lhe American «_Jp‘urnal 9_i_'_ Sociology. 44 (July, 1943) pp. 1-24. Ware, Caroline F. Greenwich £11m: 1920-1930. Houghton Miffline Co. Boston, 1955. ROOM use ONLY ,- r‘. w * 125E *.57‘ib-%. ‘ 4, ... fi * u, hiul 4 3:3 \ in . " C :, -,- ‘ m ‘9’. V Jul 26 56 Aug 9 ‘ Oct \ HICHICQN STQTE UNIV MW "111111! 1111 111111 101909376