CITIESnoncity areas. Beginning with the public-health
movement and concerns with urban housing, so-
cial scientists documented ‘‘pathologies’’ of urban
life through the use of social surveys, the purpose
of which was to provide policy-relevant findings.
But since ‘‘urbanism as a way of life’’ has permeat-
ed the United States, many of the social and eco-
nomic problems of cities have spread into smaller
towns and rural areas, thus rendering the notion
of unique urban pathologies less valid than when it
was formulated.
In the first six decades of the twentieth century,
explanations of city development were based largely
on Western human ecology perspectives, and disa-
greements have arisen (Sjoberg 1968, p. 455).
Theories based on Social Darwinism (Park [1916–
1939] 1952) and economics (Burgess 1925, pp. 47–
52) were first used to explain the internal struc-
tures of cities. ‘‘Subsocial’’ aspects of social and
economic organization—which did not involve
direct interpersonal interaction—were viewed as
generating population aggregation and expansion.
Market related competitive-cooperative process-
es—including aggregation-thinning out, expansion-
contraction, centralization, displacement, segre-
gation, migration, and mobility—were believed to
determine the structures and patterns of urban
neighborhoods (Quinn 1950). The competition of
differing urban populations and activities for opti-
mal locations was described as creating relatively
homogeneous communities, labeled ‘‘natural are-
as,’’ which display gradient patterns of decreasing
densities of social and economic activities and
problems with increasing distance from the city center.
On the basis of competitive-cooperative proc-
esses, city growth was assumed to result in charac-
teristic urban shapes. The Burgess hypothesis speci-
fies that in the absence of countervailing factors,
the American city takes the form of a series of
concentric zones, ranging from the organizing
central business district to a commuters’ zone
(Burgess 1925, pp. 47–52). Other scholars empha-
sized star-shaped, multiple-nuclei, or cluster pat-
terns of development. These views were descrip-
tive rather than theoretical; assumed a Western
capitalist commercial-industrial city; were distort-
ed by topography, and street and transportation
networks; and generally failed to take into account
use of land for industrial purposes, which is found
in most city zones.
Theodorson (1982) and Michaelson (1976,
pp. 3–32) have described research on American
cities as reflecting neo-orthodox, social-area analy-
sis, and sociocultural approaches, each with its
own frame of reference and methods. Neo-ortho-
dox approaches have emphasized the interdepend-
ence of components of an ecological system, in-
cluding population, organization, technology, and
environment (Duncan 1964). This view has been
applied to larger ecological systems that can ex-
tend beyond the urban community. Sustenance
organization is an important focus of study (Hawley
1986). While neo-orthodox ecologists did not inte-
grate the notion of Social Darwinism into their
work, the economic aspects of their approach have
helped to guide studies of population phenome-
na, including population shifts and urban differ-
entiation (Frey 1995, pp. 271–336; White 1987),
residence changes (Long 1988, pp. 189–251), ra-
cial and ethnic diversity (Harrison and Bennett
1995, pp. 141–210), segregation (Farley and Allen
1987, pp. 103–159; Lieberson and Waters 1988,
pp. 51–93), housing status (Myers and Wolch 1995,
pp. 269–334), and industrial restructuring and the
changing locations of jobs (Kasarda 1995, pp.
215–268).Social-area analysis, in contrast, regards mod-
ern industrial society as based on increasing scale,
which represents ‘‘increased rates and intensities
of social relation,’’ ‘‘increased functional differen-
tiation,’’ and ‘‘increased complexity of social or-
ganization’’ (Shevky and Bell 1955). These con-
cepts are related to neighborhood dimensions of
social rank, urbanization, and segregation, which
are delimited by the factor analysis of neighbor-
hood or census tract measures. ‘‘Factorial ecolo-
gy’’ has been widely used for classifying census
tracts, sometimes for planning purposes. There
are disagreements concerning whether factor-analy-
sis studies of urban neighborhood social structure,
which are associated with social-area analysis and
similar approaches, result in theoretically useful
generalizations (Janson 1980, p. 454; White 1987,
pp. 64–66)Sociocultural ecology has used social values
such as sentiment and symbolism to explain land
use in central Boston (Firey 1947) and other as-
pects of city life. While values and culture are
relevant to explanations of city phenomena, this
perspective has not led to a fully developed line of
investigation.