Comparative Factorial Ecology: Some New Zealand Examples

Abstract

The use of factorial ecology in the analysis of residential differentiation is illustrated by data on the four main urban areas in New Zealand and by some historical data on Auckland. The article concludes by examining some of the implications of factorial ecology for urban theory.

Recent community analyses have indicated a renewed interest in one of the chief concerns of the early human ecologists: the effects and implications of residential differentiation and segregation. A notable aspect of the trend has been the application of factor-analytic methods to data generated for urban sub-communities⁽¹⁾. Analyses of census tract or enumeration district data in several North American, Scandinavian, and Australasian cities have shown that much of the detailed variation in the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the urban population may be expressed in terms of a small number of underlying factors relating to social rank, style of life or family type and, in ethnically heterogeneous populations, ethnic composition. Beshers (1962) suggests that the axes of differentiation are so clear that virtually any form of analysis will reveal their existence. Within the general pattern, however, it may be anticipated that local and regional differences in socio-cultural, economic, and political circumstances will result in variations in ecological structure. An attempt to delineate these variations is essential if the goal of developing a genuinely cross-cultural model of urban society is to be attained. It is in the pursuit of this end that the procedures of factorial ecology promise most. According to Sweetser (1965, p.219): “Modern factor analysis, using factor structure as a model for ecological structure, is the method par excellence for comparing cross-nationally (and intranationally) the ecological differentiation of residential areas in urban and metropolitan communities”. In the present example data from New Zealand is used to examine the usefulness of the factorial ecology approach for comparative studies at both the inter-city and the temporal levels.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abu-Lughod

Janet

, 1969, “Testing the theory of social area analysis: The ecology of Cairo, Egypt”, American Sociological Review, 34, 198–212.

van Arsdol

M. D.

Jr. Camilleri

S. F.

Schmid

C. F.

, 1958, “The generality of the Shevky social area indexes”, American Sociological Review, 23, 277–284.

van Arsdol

M. D.

Jr. Camilleri

S. F.

Schmid

C. F.

, 1961, “An investigation of the utility of urban typology”, Pacific Sociological Review, 4, 26–32.

van Arsdol

M. D.

Jr. Camilleri

S. F.

Schmid

C. F.

, 1962, “Further comments on the utility of urban typology”, Pacific Sociological Review, 5, 9–13.

Bell

, 1953, “The social areas of the San Francisco Bay Region”, American Sociological Review, 18, 39–47.

Bell

, 1955, “Economic, family, and ethnic status: An empirical test”, American Sociological Review, 20, 45–52.

Bell

, 1965, “Urban neighbourhoods and individual behaviour”, in Problems of Youth, Eds. Sherif

Sherif

C. W.

(Aldine, Chicago), pp.235–264.

Bell

, 1968, “The city, the suburb, and a theory of social choice”, in The New Urbanization, Eds. Greer

McElrath

D. C.

Minar

D. W.

Orleans

(St. Martin's, New York), pp.132–168.

Bell

Moskos

C. C.

Jr. , 1964, “A comment on Udry's ‘Increasing scale and spatial differentiation’”, Social Forces, 42, 414–417.

10.

Berry

B. J. L.

Rees

, 1969, “The factorial ecology of Calcutta”, American Journal of Sociology, 74, 447–491.

11.

Beshers

, 1962, Urban Social Structure (Free Press, New York).

12.

Cooley

W. W.

Lohnes

P. R.

, 1962, Multi-variate Procedures for the Behavioural Sciences (John Wiley, New York).

13.

Harman

H. H.

, 1960, Modern Factor Analysis (Chicago University Press, Chicago).

14.

Hawley

A. H.

Duncan

O. D.

, 1957, “Social area analysis: A critical appraisal”, Land Economics, 33, 337–345.

15.

McElrath

D. C.

, 1965, “Urban differentiation”, Law and Contemporary Problems, 3, 103–110.

16.

McElrath

D. C.

, 1968, “Societal scale and social differentiation”, in The New Urbanization, Eds. Greer

McElrath

D. C.

Minar

D. W.

Orleans

(St. Martin's New York), pp.33–52.

17.

McNemar

, 1942, “On the number of factors”, Psychometrika, 7, 9–18.

18.

Murdie

R. A.

, 1969, “Factorial ecology of metropolitan Toronto, 1951–1961”, Department of Geography Research Paper 116, University of Chicago.

19.

Nunnally

J. C.

, 1967, Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York).

20.

Robson

, 1969, Urban Analysis: A Study of City Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

21.

Schmid

C. F.

Tagashira

, 1964, “Ecological and demographic indices: A methodological analysis”, Demography, 1, 194–212.

22.

Shevky

Bell

, 1955, Social Area Analysis: Theory, Illustrative Application, and Computational Procedures (Stanford University Press, Stanford).

23.

Shevky

Williams

, 1949, The Social Areas of Los Angeles (University of California Press, Berkeley).

24.

Sweetser

F. L.

, 1965, “Factor structure as ecological structure in Helsinki and Boston”, Acta Sociologica, 8, 202–225.

25.

Sweetser

F. L.

, 1969, “Ecological factors in metropolitan zones and sectors”, in Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences, Eds. Dogan

Rökan

(MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.), pp.413–456.

26.

Timms

D. W. G.

, 1970a, “Modernization and the factorial ecology of the Cook Islands, Brisbane, and Auckland”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 6.

27.

Timms

D. W. G.

, 1970b, The Urban Mosaic: Towards a Theory of Residential Differentiation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

28.

Tryon

R. C.

, 1955, Identification of Social Areas by Cluster Analysis: A General Method with an Application to the San Francisco Bay Region (University of California Press, Berkeley).

29.

Udry

J. R.

, 1964, “Increasing scale and spatial differentiation: New test of two theories from Shevky and Bell”, Social Forces, 42, 403–413.