Some Elements of Urban GeographyThe Use of these in Missiology

Urban geography is a branch of human geography concerned with various aspects of nations or cities.

• location and space• spatial processes that create patterns observed in urban areas.• the site, evolution and growth, and classification of villages, towns and cities• their location and importance in relation to different regions and cities.• Economic, political and social aspects within cities are also important in urban geography

Physical Geography is important in understanding why a city is located in a specific area as site and environmental conditions play a large role in whether or not a city deveopCultural Geography can aid in understanding various conditions related to an area's peopleEconomic geography aids in understanding the types of economic activities and jobs available in an area. Interdisciplinary: Fields outside of geography such as resource management, anthropology and urban sociology are also important.

While people group thinking is a useful approach, this cuts a different way, and can lead to alternative decision-making in terms of missions strategy.

Geographical Definitions Of a Country, State, ProvinceBy some kind of boundaries, usually with:

an administrative center and distribution of power within the boundary.

of a City• a concentration of people• with a similar way of life based on job type, cultural preferences, political views and lifestyle.• Specialized land uses, a variety of different institutions and use of resources also help

in distinguishing one city from another.

In addition, urban geographers also work to differentiate areas of different sizes.

Themes of Urban Geography

Two major themes that dominate its study today.• The first of these is the study of problems relating to the spatial distribution of cities and the

patterns of movement and links that connect them across space. This approach focuses on the city systems. Urban Connectedness

• The second theme in urban geography today is the study of patterns of distribution and interaction of people and businesses within cities. This theme mainly looks at a city's inner structure and therefore focuses on the city as a system. Economic geography is the sub-field

Different levels of analysis. In focusing on the city system, urban geographers must look at the city:• on the neighborhood• citywide level• as well as how it relates to other cities on a regional, national and global level.

Central Place Theory (Christaller)Central place theory is a spatial theory in urban geography that attempts to explain the reasons behind the distribution patterns, size, and number of cities and towns around the world. It also attempts to provide a framework by which those areas can be studied both for historic reasons and for the locational patterns of areas today.

The theory was first developed by the German geographer Walter Christaller in 1933 after he began to recognize the economic relationships between cities and their hinterlands (areas farther away). He mainly tested the theory in Southern Germany and came to the conclusion that people gather together in cities to share goods and ideas and that they exist for purely economic reasons. Before

testing his theory however, Christaller had to first define the central place. In keeping with his economic focus, he came to the conclusion that the central place exists primarily to provide goods and services to its surrounding population. The city is in essence, a distribution center.

Christaller's AssumptionsTo focus on the economic aspects of his theory, Christaller had to create a set of assumptions. He decided for example that the countryside in the areas he was studying would be flat, so no barriers would exist to impede people's movement across it. In addition, two assumptions were made about human behavior: 1) Christaller stated that humans will always purchase goods from the closest place that offers the good, and2) whenever demand for a certain good is high, it will be offered in close proximity to the population. When demand drops, so too does the availability of the good.

In addition, the threshold is an important concept in Christaller's study. This is the minimum number of people needed for a central place business or activity to remain active and prosperous.This then brings in the idea of low-order and high-order goods. Low-order goods are things that are replenished frequently such as food and other routine household items. Because these items are purchased regularly, small businesses in small towns can survive because people will buy frequently at the closer locations instead of going into the city.

High-order goods though are specialized items such as automobiles, furniture, fine jewelry, and household appliances that are bought less often. Because they require a large threshold and people do not purchase them regularly, many businesses selling these items cannot survive in areas where the population is small. Therefore, they often locate in large cities that can serve a large population in the surrounding hinterland.

Central Place Size and SpacingWithin the central place system, there are five sizes of communities. A hamlet is the smallest and is a rural community which is too small to be considered a village. Cape Dorset (population 1200), located in Canada's Nunavut Territory is an example of a hamlet. The rank order of central places is:

• Hamlet• Village• Town• City• Regional Capital

Examples of regional capitals would include Paris, France or Los Angeles, California. These cities provide the highest order goods possible and have a huge hinterland.

Central Place Theory Geometry and OrderingIf visually imagined, the central place is located at the vertexes (points) of equilateral triangles. They then serve the evenly distributed consumers who are closest to the central place. As the vertexes connect, they form a series of hexagons- the traditional shape in many central place models.

This shape is ideal because it allows the triangles formed by the central place vertexes to connect and it represents the assumption that consumers will visit the closest place offering the good.

In addition, the central place theory has three orders or principles. The first is the marketing principle and it is shown as K=3 (K is a constant). In this system, market areas at a certain level of the central place hierarchy are three times bigger than the next lowest one. The different levels then follow a progression of threes, meaning that as one moves through the order of places, the number of the next level goes up three times. For example, when there are two cities, there would be six towns, 18 villages, and 54 hamlets.

There is also the transportation principle (K=4) where areas in the central place hierarchy are four times bigger than the area in the next lowest order. Finally, the administrative principle (K=7) is the last system and here, the variation between the lowest orders and highest orders increase by a factor of seven. Here, the

highest order trade area completely covers that of the lowest order, meaning that market serves a larger area.

Losch’s Central Place TheoryIn 1954, German economist August Losch modified Christaller's central place theory because he believed it was too rigid. He thought that Christaller's model led to patterns where the distribution of goods and the accumulation of profits were based entirely on location. He instead focused on maximizing consumer welfare and creating an ideal consumer landscape where the need to travel for any good was minimized and profits were held level, not maximized to accrue extra.

Primate Cities

A country's leading city is always disproportionately large and exceptionally expressive of national capacity and feeling. The primate city is commonly at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant. (Mark Jefferson, 1939)

Geographer Mark Jefferson developed the law of the primate city to explain the phenomenon of huge cities that capture such a large proportion of a country's population as well as its economic activity. These primate cities are often, but not always, the capital cities of a country. An excellent example of a primate city is Paris, which truly represents and serves as the focus of France.

They dominate the country in influence and are the national focal-point. Their sheer size and activity becomes a strong pull factor, bringing additional residents to the city and causing the primate city to become even larger and more disproportional to smaller cities in the country. However, not every country has a primate city, as you'll see from the list below.

Some scholars define a primate city as one that is larger than the combined populations of the second and third ranked cities in a country. This definition does not represent true primacy, however, as the size of the first ranked city is not disproportionate to the second.

The law can be applied to smaller regions as well. For example, California's primate city is Los Angeles, with a metropolitan area population of 16 million, which is more than double the San Francisco metropolitan area of 7 million. Even counties can be examined with regard to the Law of the Primate City.

Examples of Countries With Primate Cities (data is 1990’s)• Paris (9.6 million) is definitely the focus of France while Marseilles has a population of 1.3

million.• Similarly, the United Kingdom has London as its primate city (7 million) while the second largest

city, Birmingham, is home to a mere one million people.• Mexico City, Mexico (8.6 million) outshines Guadalajara (1.6 million).• A huge dichotomy exists between Bangkok (7.5 million) and Thailand's second city, Nanthaburi

(481,000).

Examples of Countries that Lack Primate Cities• India's most populous city is Mumbai (formerly Bombay) with 16 million; second is Kolkata

(formerly Calcutta) with more than 13 million; and third is less than 13 million.• China, Canada, Australia, and Brazil are additional examples of non-primate-city countries.• Utilizing the metropolitan area population of urban areas in the United States, we find that the

U.S. lacks a true primate city. With the New York City metropolitan area population at approximately 21 million, second ranked Los Angeles at 16 million, and even third ranked Chicago at 9 million, America lacks a primate city.

In economics, Jane Jacobs proposes that these countries with multiple cities of the same size is what best drives economic growth – sharing between partner cities.

Rank-Size RuleIn 1949, George Zipf devised his theory of rank-size rule to explain the size cities in a country. He explained that the second and subsequently smaller cities should represent a proportion of the largest city. For example, if the largest city in a country contained one million citizens, Zipf stated that the second city

would contain one-half as many as the first, or 500,000. The third would contain one-third or 333,333, the fourth would be home to one-quarter or 250,000, and so on, with the rank of the city representing the denominator in the fraction.

While some countries' urban hierarchy somewhat fits into Zipf's scheme, later geographers argued that his model should be seen as a probability model and that deviations are to be expected.

Missiological Strategy Questions

1. Which zones in Chicago in the 1960’s would most likely be responsive to the gospel?2. Economic Geography Mapping of Slums: Where would you plant your first church in the

slums of Bangkok?3. If the gospel responsiveness follows responsiveness to change in other areas of life, how

would you apply Christaller’s Central Place Theory (Diagram Below) to determining where responsive people might be in an urbanizing Tibet?

4. Primate and Secondary City: In a resistant culture, would you expect a village, a secondary city or the primate city to be the most responsive? Explain why, in a responsive caste, the response in tippets original studies in India on people groups was in the villages and little response in the urban churches?

5. How does the GMI Mapping data assist you in determining where you spend your time? 6. How does Fractal city analysis feed into your prayer life? 7. Boundaries: What are the boundaries of your current call? Your future call? What

authority has he given you within these?

Appendices: Diagrams of the application of Geography to Urban Analysis

Places

Typical population size Boundaries

@ 30,000 (largest) Largest region

0 10,000 (large) large region

0 4,000 (medium) ----- medium-size region

0 2,000 (small) ----- small region

• 1,000 (smallest) ------- smallest region

Fig. 13-2 MARKETING REGIONS IN A SYSTEM OF CENTRAL PLACES.According to Walter Christaller, the largest central place in the region illus trated (population size: 30,000) is the most important marketing center for a large hexagonal region around it. Progressively smaller central places lie at the center of a system of smaller hexagonal marketing regions withinthe main marketing region. (Walter Christaller, Central Places in Southern Germany [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966], p. 66. Copyright© 1933 by Gustav Fisher Verlag Jena . Reprinted by permission .)

I

-------------,......._

-----....... ...........

-'-..."'-

'\

"- '-.

"

"- '-.

\.\ \

"'-\

\\

\\\\\

DEUTSCH LAND

\II \

ZONE \IN j

TRAN-SITION/

\ \\ \\ I

I II I IZONE OF I IWOAKING I

'):>-0'):>

-:,:i...\ TWO FLAT'

AREA(':'1,,,>.

'Yov8

8

MEN"S II HOMES I/ I

II

//

./

IV RESIDENTIAL

ZONE III

II

II

BRIGHT LIGHTAREA

RESTRICTED ES/DENT JALOl Si fl lC 1

// V

/ COMMUTERS// ZONE

auNG,:..Lo'l-1sEc,101'-1

Fig. 2-4 BURGESS'S CONCENTRIC ZONE MODEL. Applied to Chicago, the zonal model shows that the Loop (Chicago's CBD) is surrounded by low-income neighborhoods in Zone II. (Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie, The City, Chicago: University of Chicago Press [1925) 1974, p. 55. Copyright© 1967 by the University of Chicago. Repro duced by permission of the University of Chicago Press. All rights reserved.)

"

""

II

-

1- - - - - -

IAP 6 · AGE LEVEL OF THE SETTLEMENTS

\L NO OFSEITLE/vlENTS\LNO OFPOP (/vi/L L/ON) AGE(YEARS)SIZE (NO OF HOUSEHOLDS/DISTANCEFRO/vi THE CITY CENTRE (Kivi)ANAGE (YEARS)ANSIZE (HOUSEHOLDS / .ANDISTANCE (Kivi)

10201 0 125 3

18037 1

20.3116.5

65<15 15 20 25-30 35-45 50 >

LEMENTS("000)

IVATEIBl.JCXED.LSTATUS UM UATIER ADING

NO. "'- NO "I. NO. "' NO NO. NO %

140(137)202(198)217 229 (21 3) 146 ()4 .3) 6 (55)88 (8 7) 140 (13 8) 224 (22 2) 246 (24 3) 225 (22 3) 88 (8 7)

172 (79 3) 132 (57 6) 70 (47 9)43 (50 0)52(371) 44(218) 37(171) 88(384) 67(459)31 (360)

1 (07) 4 (20) 8 (37) 9 (39) 9 (6.2)12(140)

91 (65 0) 158 (78 2) 191 (88 0) 197 (86 0) 134 (91 8)83 (96 5)49 (35 0) 44 (21 8) 26 (22 0) 32 (14 0) 12 (8 2) 3 (3 5)

16 (11 4) 29 (14 4) 40 (18 4) 44 (19 2) 31 (21 2) 20 (23 3)124 (88 bl 173 (85 6) 177 (81 6) 185 (80 8) 115 (78 8) 66 (76 7)

HOLDS) 114 3 125 8 188.0 195 3 198 7 185 9

10BANG KH

18

-) 8 I 9 2 6 9 5 3 3 5 , .

• EXCll'DIN(, Kl O:SG TOf.Y sr:n NO lb 17 J< J HOUSLHOl.llS) ANDPR AYAKRAI SETT NO. H2 ,4 9:«1HOUS[HOLDS, DUE TO TH[ IR ATYPICAL SIZES ..,,...,.

26

.._,./

15

cBANG KAPI

22TALING CHAN

a\

20PHASI CHAROEN

.4 ""·\

24 \ 26NONG KHAEM,,,,\,.,,,,,../· SAMUT

PRAKARN

·-- ./

21 ·BANG KHUN THIAN \.

\.\

RAT

SIZE' (

DISTANCE (KM

87 (62 1) 154 176 2')

7 6

WNITY COMMITTEE

21 (150) 41 (20.3) 59127 2) 69 (30 I) 46 (31 5)24 (27 9)119 (85 0) 161 (79 7)158 (72 8) 160 (69 9) 100 (68 5) 62 (72 1)

AGE (YEARS) 9 0 15 0 20 0 27 8 39 0 59 2

HOUSE