Based on existing theory and limited empirical findings, it is hypothesised that groups of similar occupational status will have similar residential patterns; and, as the status level widens, location of residence will become increasingly dissimilar. To measure residential status differentiation, locational indices and correlation techniques are employed. Using Pittsburgh data, the study finds little relationship between the relative concentration of an occupational group's residence and distance from the central business district. Nevertheless, the study corroborates the generalisations of other researchers that the most segregated occupations are those at the highest and lowest ends of the socio-economic scale. Furthermore, occupations that are most alike in residential location are also similar in socio-economic rank; those with the greatest locational differences represent the extremes of status levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Recent studies reflecting this traditional emphasis include: J. Tait Davis, 'Middle Class Housing in the Central City', Economic Geography, 41 (July 1965), pp. 238-51; T.L.C. Griffin, 'The Evolution and Duplication of a Pattern of Urban Growth', Economic Geography, 41 (April 1965), pp. 133-56 ; and Richard E. Preston, 'The Zone in Transition: A Study of Urban Land Use Patterns', Economic Geography, 42 (July 1966 ), pp. 236-60.
2.
Maurice D. Van Arsdol, Jr., Santo Camilleri, and Calvin F. Schmid, 'The Generality of Urban Social Area Indexes', American Sociological Review , 23 (June 1958), pp. 277-84; Eshref Shevky and Wendell Bell, Social Area Analysis (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1955); Calvin F. Schmid, Earle H. MacCannell and Maurice D. Van Arsdol, Jr., ' The Ecology of the American City: Further Comparison and Validation of Generalizations ', American Sociological Review, 23 (August 1958), pp. 392-401; and J. Richard Udry 'Increasing Scale and Social Differentiation: New Tests of Two Theories, of Shevky and Bell ', Social Forces, 42 (May 1964), pp. 403-13.
3.
Raymond E. Murphy, The American City: An Urban Geography (New York : McGraw-Hill, 1966).
4.
Beverly Duncan , George Sabagh and Maurice D. Van Arsdol, Jr., ' Patterns of City Growth', American Journal of Sociology, 67 (January 1962), pp. 41829; Sidney Goldstein and Kurt B. Mayer, 'Demographic Correlates of Status Differences in a Metropolitan Population', Urban Studies, 2 (May 1965), pp. 67-84; Bernard Lazerivitz, 'Metropolitan Community Residential Belts, 1950 and 1960', American Sociological Review, 25 (April 1960), pp. 245-52; Leo F. Schnore, 'The Socio-Economic Status of Cities and Suburbs', American Sociological Review, 28 (February 1963), pp. 76-85.
5.
Homer Hoyt, 'Where the Rich and the Poor People Live', Technical Bulletin, 55 (Washington, D.C. : Urban Land Institute, April 1966 ); P.J. Smith , 'Calgary: A Study in Urban Pattern', Economic Geography, 38 (October 1962), pp. 315-29; B.T. Robson, 'An Ecological Analysis of the Evolution of Residential Areas in Sunderland', Urban Studies, 3 (June 1966), pp. 120-39.
6.
Otis D. Duncan and Beverly Duncan, 'Residential Distribution and Occupational Stratification', American Journal of Sociology , 60 (March 1955), PP. 493-503-
7.
Theodore R. Anderson, 'Social and Economic Factors Affecting the Locations of Residential Neighbourhoods', Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 9 (1962), pp. 161-70.
8.
John F. Kain, 'The Journey-to- Work as a Determinant of Residential Locations', Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 9 (1962), pp. 137-60 ; William Alonso, 'A Theory of the Urban Land Market', Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 6 (1960), pp. 149-57; William Alonso, Location and Land Use ( Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press , 1964); John D. Herbert and Benjamin H. Stevens, 'A Model for the Distribution of Residential Activity in Urban Areas', Journal of Regional Science, 2 (Fall 1960), pp. 21-36; and Lowdon Wingo, Jr., Transportation and Urban Land (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future , 1961).
9.
See Leslie J. King, 'Approaches to Locational Analysis: An Overview ', The East Lakes Geographer, 2 (August 1966), p. 7: 'There has been little ... vigorous testing of ... urban rent-models .'
10.
These data are based on a 4 per cent sample of households in the 420 square mile Pittsburgh metropolitan area and represent 92 per cent of the population of Allegheny County (about 1-5 million persons). Data were made available on some 14,000 IBM punch cards, each card representing a residential location of a member of the work force.
11.
Alba M. Edwards, 'Socio-Economic Groups of the United States', Journal of the American Statistical Association, 15 (June 1917), pp. 643-61.
12.
Cecil C. North and Paul K. Hatt, 'Occupational Status and Prestige', Opinion News, 9 (September 1947), pp. 3-13.
13.
Duncan and Duncan, op. cit, pp. 502-3; and Beverly Duncan, 'Factors in Work-Residence Separation: Wage and Salary Workers, Chicago 1951', American Sociological Review, 21 (February 1956), pp. 48-56.
14.
Location quotients are computed by:
15.
where X i equals the number in occupation X residing in zone i and N represents the total members of all occupations residing in zone i.
16.
The index of dissimilarity is computed by:
17.
where X i represents one occupation and Yi represents another occupation residing in zone i.
18.
The coefficient of geographic association is computed by:
19.
where X i and Ni are defined in reference 14. The coefficient has a range from zero to one.
20.
21.
Sidney Goldstein and Kurt Mayer, 'Migration and Social Status Differentials in the Journey-to-Work', Rural Sociology, 29 (September 1964), pp. 278-87 ; Louis K. Loewenstein, Residences and Work Places in Urban Areas (New York: The Scarecrow Press, 1965); James O. Wheeler, 'Occupational Status and Work-Trips: A Minimum Distance Approach', Social Forces, 45 (June 1967), pp. 508-15.
