In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

SOME TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS " OF BASIC URBAN DIMENSIONS IN THE SOUTHEAST: A FACTOR ANALYSIS SOLUTION Gerald H. Romsa and Wayne L. Hoffman9 For many years urban geographers have struggled with the problem of developing a rational and multivariate method of classifying cities. From Harris (1 ) to Hart (2 ) city classification schemes have been devised, but all with the major limitations of being constructed on one or a severely limited number of variables. With the advent of the modem computer and sophisticated statistical techniques, however, this problem has been largely overcome. Factor analysis solutions have allowed large numbers of variables to be simultaneously considered and basic urban dimensions identified. Once these key components emerge, classification on the generated factor scores can take place in several different ways. Two recent geographical studies illustrate this trend and procedure. Qazi Ahmad’s analysis of Indian cities subjected 62 variables for 102 political cities in India to statistical manipulation, and identified ten signifi­ cant urban dimensions. (3) The ten components were then employed in a grouping algorithm to classify and regionalize the cities. In their study of 157 British towns, Moser and Scott performed essentially the same operation. (4 ) A principal components solution was obtained for 57 variables and four underlying urban patterns identified. The factor scores obtained for each one of the cities then provided a basis for a qualitative classification. Despite these advances, much of the literature dealing with this problem remains devoid of hypothesis-formulation and theoretical significance, par­ ticularly when evaluating the stability of urban dimensions through time. Such evaluation is essential, for, if urban dimensions are not stable, classifica­ tion schemes would have to be revised accordingly. It is the purpose of this study to test the stability of urban dimensions for two points in time—1950 and 1960. Eighty-six political cities having populations of 25,000 or more in 1950 in the Southeastern United States have been selected for use (Fig. 1). That dimensions do remain stable and are not affected by the use of different city boundaries has been demonstrated by Ahmad. (5) Berry, in addition, states that dimensions for regional systems are stable through time. (6 ) King has attacked these contentions in his recent article on Canadian cities. (7) Collecting data for two time periods—1951 and 1961, for 106 *Mr. Rom sa and M r. H offm an are both d octoral ca n d id a te s in geography at the U niversity of F lo rid a , G a in e sv ille . The paper w as accepted fo r p u b lica tio n in Ja n u ary 1969. 2 S o u t h e a s t e r n G e o g r a p h e r Fig u re 1. South eastern c itie s in clu d e d in study. A LA B A M A 15. G a in e sv ille 34. Rom e 16. Ja ck s o n v ille 35. S avannah 1. A nn iston 17. Key W est 2. B essem er 18. Lake lan d K E N T U C K Y 3. B irm in g h am 19. M iam i 4. Gadsden 20. M iam i Beach 36. A sh lan d 5. M obile 21. O rland o 37. Covington 6. M ontgom ery 22. Panam a C ity 38. Lexington 7. T u scaloosa 23. Pensacola 39. L o u isv ille 24. St. Petersb urg 40. New port A R K A N S A S 25. T a llah assee 41. O w ensboro 26. Tam pa 42. Paducah 8. Fort Sm ith 27. W est Palm Beach 9. H ot S prin gs LO U ISIAN A 10. L ittle Rock G EO RGIA 11. N orth L ittle Rock 43. A lexandria 12. P in e B lu ff 28. A lb an y 44. Baton Rouge 29. A thens 45. Lafayette FLO R ID A 30. A tlanta 46. Lake Charles 31. Augusta 47. Monroe 13. D aytona Beach 32. C o lu m b u s 48. New O rleans 14. Fort...

pdf

Share