An Evaluation of Central Place Theory in a Recreation Context: The Case of Columbia, South Carolina

Abstract

AN EVALUATION OF CENTRAL PLACE THEORY IN A RECREATION CONTEXT: THE CASE OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA Lisle Series Mitchell* OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES. The objectives of this paper are to evaluate several of the spatial aspects of central place theory in a recreation context and to add to the limited store of spatial knowledge pertaining to urban recreation. These objectives will be attained by (1) a brief discussion of the applicability of recreational phenomena to central place theory, (2) an illustration of the lack of general information pertaining to the spatial aspects of urban recreation, and (3) the testing of three hypotheses. The hypotheses are drawn directly or indirectly from literature related to recreation, and they are examined under conditions as they are found in Columbia, South Carolina. CENTRAL PLACE THEORY. Central place theory as postulated by Chris­ taller is “a general deductive theory designed to explain the size, number, and distribution of towns in the belief that some ordering principles govern the distribution.” (I) Concern with these factors and variables remains basic to the theory, but recent research has extended the content and generalized the application of the theory until it may be considered a theory of tertiary activity. (2) If central place theory is considered a theory of tertiary activity then the application of recreational phenomena and the testing of recrea­ tional hypotheses in a central place context is a valid procedure. It is be­ lieved that such an approach will provide a new and different perspective to research in central place theory. The recreational central places examined in this paper are playgrounds. Playgrounds are used for three reasons: (1) they are places where fundamen­ tal recreational activities are carried on, (2) they are the most common and ubiquitous of the recreational units found in the city, and (3) they function as a central place for formal recreation programs. URBAN RECREATION. Geographers have written sparingly about the spacing and distribution of urban recreation. Only 14 articles related to the topic were published in the geographic literature of North America be­ tween 1930, when the first article pertaining to recreational geography ap­ peared, (3) and 1966. (4) A number of persons from other disciplines have considered the spatial problems related to urban recreation. For example, George Hjelte, a former manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks in Los Angeles, discusses the problems of the distribution and spacing of community facilities in the article “Community Planning for Facilities.” (5) *Dr. Mitchell is assistant professor of geography at the University of South Carolina, Colum bia. The paper was accepted for publication in April 1968. V o l . VIII, 1968 47 George D. Butler, in each of three books, (6) goes to considerable length to analyze some of the spatial characteristics of recreation sites. ASSUMPTIONS. The evaluation of any theory based upon abstract assump­ tions is difficult. In fact, the validity of such a theory can only be proven or disproven if its basic assumptions can be duplicated in reality. Since these conditions are almost never exactly reproduced in reality it is next to impos­ sible to test the theory in any direct manner. Nevertheless, it is possible to approximate equilibrium conditions in the human landscape and therefore it is possible to approximate the theory or, at least, to show the tendency of the theory to explain conditions in a realistic situation. The assumptions that most directly relate to this study of recreational central places are two in number. First, central place theory assumes a flat, uniform plain with uniform transportation mobility over given distances. This assumption is fairly well met in Columbia since the local relief is 129 feet, and even though there are some relatively steep slopes within the city they are of such limited scale as to be inconsequential. Travel to the central place considered here is for the most part limited to walking and cycling, and thus for all practical purposes mobility can be considered to be uniform. Second, central place theory assumes that population is uniformly distribut­ ed. This assumption does not hold for the study area. Population density reaches a peak relatively close to the central business district and then stea­ dily declines with increasing distance...