CENTRAL PLACES IN CENTRAL MICHIGAN, U.S.A

Abstract

The author conducted a series of field work including a few hundred interviews in central Michigan, U.S.A., during the period from 1957 to 1960, concerning various human aspects primarily in terms of a functional approach, and also in close relation to physical environment of the area. This study, however, is largely concerned with analysis of central place, an important constituent element of regional geography. The study area having 1, 400 square miles is to be considered to represent a typical local structure in the American Manufacturing Belt, in which Lansing, as many other large centers do, performs unparalleled significant central functions over many smaller nodal places distributed in a nested hierarchical pattern. The hierarchical grades used in this study are primarily based on one of Allen K. Philbrick with modifications by the author (Tab. 1). This hierarchy seems to be specifically characteristic because of the establishment of sub-orders. Especially the establishment of sub-second order is expected to lead to the more thorough understanding of all nodal places, since such sub-second-order centers, though seemingly too small, can rinclud every minor centers which have tended to be neglected in the central place study. In doing so, the author was able to include in this place study a considerable number of very minor centers characterized by crossroads general stores or scattered highwayoriented gas stations having been omitted even from the category of “hamlet” because of lack of surrounding non-farm residences or so-called urban landscapes. Fig. 1 was made by plotting all the central places classified by the above-mentioned hierarchical scheme after intensive field work. This map does not show the central places by administrative units, but those based largely on their morphology. That is, all clusters of urban establishments were considered to be central places, provided that they have establishments of second or higher orders. Tabs. 3 and 6 show the hierarchical structure of central places with special reference to the kinds of economic establishments. As clearly shown in the tables, central places tend to have more numerous and more diversified functions as the order of hierarchy becomes higher. It is important to note that the relation of hierarchical orders with the hierarchy of “administrative” units such as city-village-(hamlet) is quite loose. Second-order centers can be divided into two unit groups, village and so-called hamlet, both of which are almost equivalent at least in terms of the number of economic establishments. The same consideration must be made for the sub-second-order centers having two unit groups, so-called hamlet and minor centers so far neglected in the central place study. As a result, all central places, whether large agglomerations of many stores and factories together with political and social establishments or very minor local business centers, are now to be considered and analyzed in terms of one and the same series of criteria. Fig. 2 shows the 50% service areas, which Allen K. Philbrick devised, of all central places of second or higher order in central Michigan. These service areas tend to show an overlapping pattern, This fact may be thought to be a reflection of the actual service functioning in an areal pattern. The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. Allen K. Philbrick and Dr. Paul C. Morrison, of Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A. for their kind and instructive guidance for the three-year period of his stay there. He also appreciates very much the finacial support by the Fulbright Commission in Japan which enabled him to conduct intensive field work in America.