is there still a place for the central place

Is there still a place for the Central Place?

Christaller’s location theory re-applied

to the 21st century. A case of the city of

Eindhoven

Is there still a place for the Central Place? Christaller’s location theory re-applied to the 21st century. A case of the city of Eindhoven

Chris Steenhuis (0869726)

07-06-2015 Supervised by: dr. Sergio M. FigueiredoUrban Concepts (7W265)Eindhoven University of Technology

AbstractThe Central Place theory (CPT) developed by German geographer Walter Christaller (1893 – 1969) is an economic model that simulates the economic activity of cities in a strict hierar-chical way. Although much criticized (Parr, 1980; Ullman, 1941; Von Böventer, 1969; Fish-er, 2011) it is argued that it still serves a certain value. Applicability of the CPT in the 21st century is discussed. The model is applied in practice on the city of Eindhoven. The results show profound implications on the city. In order to achieve the central place structure the city center must be de-densified in order to to strengthen surrounding central places and satellite towns of Eindhoven must been moved invoking severe spatial and social implica-tions for the center of Eindhoven. These implications often conflict with the current policy employed by the city.

Keywords: Central Place Theory, Walter Christaller, Location theory, Spatial organization

1

1. INTRODUCTION

This paragraph will give a brief introduction to the Central Place Theory (CPT), its limitations and its historical foundations. Finally a short overview of the paper will be given.

Foundations

Modern Angelo-American location analysis predominated during the 1950’s and 1960’s (Coe et al, 2007), during this period regional planning found a strong scientific basis in the development of spatial distribution models (Eiselt & Marianov, 2011). These quantitative focused models for the allocation of distribution places for goods try to answer the question why economic activities are concentrated in a certain space and not in others. One of these theories is the Central Place Theory (CPT) developed by German geographer Walter Christaller (1893 – 1969). The model simulates the economic activity of cities in a strict hierarchical way. Christaller was however not the only one who working in this field. Two other important names need to be mentioned here, those of Thünen’s (with his Ring Theory) and Lösch’s Theory of Economic Regions. Johann Heinrich von Thünen’s (1783 – 1850) developed his land-use theory prior to Christaller. His theory was fully focused on the agricultural use of land (Fisher, 2011). Von Thunen considers an “isolated state” where there is a central city surrounded by wilderness. Like the Central place the land is considered homogeneous and farmers are rational in maximizing their profit. Von Thünen wants to determine to which use the land should for what kind of use, depending on the distance to the central town. In 1940, August Lösch (1906 – 1945) published his book “Die Räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft”. The English translation “The

Economics of Location” appeared in 1954. In this book he refined and generalized Christaller’s theory of central places — but, as he claims, without even knowing Christaller’s book beforehand. Lösch’s approach leads to different types of places which specialize in different goods, but are not in a strict hierarchical order (Fisher, 2011). Lösch’s main contribution is the creation of a more flexible Central place theory. What these models all have in common is that they consider the land to be homogeneous and they assume that consumers are rational in their choices, something that will be discussed later.

The Central Place Theory

The CPT is comparatively simple and is based on two key variables (Coe et al, 2007): the first being maximum distance people are willing to travel to buy the good (the range), in other words the economic distance. The second one being the minimum level of business required to be viable (the threshold). The CPT combines these two variables in a hexagonal distribution of suppliers, reflecting the theoretically most efficient geometrical design. Christaller was the first to research the hierarchy of different towns, instead of studying them as a single unit. Christaller is mainly interested in the laws and principles that determine the number, size, and distribution of towns, in order to explain the existing structures he observed in Southern Germany (Fisher, 2011). From his point of view, these could not be explained by geographical aspects, but only through economic theory and, therefore, economic laws. The CPT theory is based around the concept of central places. Christaller defines

2

7W265 Urban Concepts Central Place theory

central places as those settlements which are important for the surrounding area because they provide it with so-called central goods. Central goods and services are produced at only a few central places, but are needed and consumed at many different and dispersed places. Examples include medical services, cinemas, schools, and stores. The centrality is not so much about the production of the goods but more about the consumption of it. To make the CPT work Christaller had to make three important assumptions (Fisher, 2011; Von Böventer, 1969). Firstly, the land is considered a flat homogenous surface on which the population is evenly distributed. Secondly all consumers have the same demand regarding the “central goods,” and they all have the same income and identical purchasing power. The assumption is that the market is uniform and the same everywhere. Thirdly, transportation costs are assumed to be proportional to the distance. Travel costs are the same everywhere and in every direction and increase in proportion to the distance traveled. Customers will therefore

always travel to the nearest central place.

Hierarchy

From the assumption that every customer is always served from its nearest location, Christaller developed his iconic hexagonal spatial pattern. With relation to the sphere of influence, Christaller distinguishes between centers of high and low order. The higher the order of the central place (and usually, the larger the place itself), the more different central goods are on offer (Fisher, 2011). The characteristics of the goods are important as well: A central good that can easily be substituted will have a lower range, than a good which can hardly be substituted at all. For example, bread can be bought in many stores and hence can be substituted without difficulty, while a special wedding cake has to be ordered at a specialized bakery. Within his model Christaller has made various versions of his theory all based on the same economic laws. Every model uses a different K-value. These K-values represent the sphere of influence of that central place. In

Figure 1 A cut out of Christaller’s theoretical model. Source: Author.

3

Chris Steenhuis:Is there still a place for the Central Place?

P1 HIGHER ORDER CENTRAL PLACE

P2 LOWER ORDER CENTRAL PLACE

P3 LOWEST ORDER CENTRAL PLACE


figure 2 a simplified version of the K=3 model is explained. The principle here is that central places are on the edges of the hexagon. This maximizes the number of connections to it. Therefore this model has minimal distance to each point, but not the most efficient, having to turn at every corner.

Limitations of the Central Place Theory

From the literature four main points of critics have been derived. They are not so much based on the model itself but the assumptions Christaller had to do to make his theory work. The three main points of critique are that agglomeration economies are not taken into account (1), that there is no such thing as a homogeneous plain (2), that no economic relation is being considered (3) (Parr, 1980; Ullman, 1941; Von Böventer, 1969; Fisher, 2011) and (4) that consumers are always fully informed (Goodchild, M. F. (1997). The point of agglomeration economies (1) can be best illustrated with the economic principle of Hotelling’s law. This theory is often explained with the example of ice-cream sales on a beach. Imagine a

beach where two carts, orange and green, are selling ice-cream with an equal distance to each other. They both serve their own part of the beach. However one day the orange cart decides to move his cart a little closer to the middle of the beach capturing some of the customers that where going to the green stand before. To equalize the customer base the green cart moves more to the middle as well and regains its customers. The following days they keep on moving closer to the middle of the beach and ultimately they both end up at the center and have an equal base of customers. Christaller’s model does not consider agglomeration benefits since every central place has its own customer base. Spillover effects and localization benefits of certain businesses are not considered. Christaller thinks of the land as a flat plain where landscape characteristics have no role, he considers it as a homogeneous plain (2). There is however no such place and therefore there is no place that the model can applied to in reality. Most important factors he did not consider are:

1) Climate and soil qualities: Fertility/

Figure 2 Division of central places of the higher and lower order (K=3 model). Source: Author.

HIGHER ORDER CENTRAL PLACE

LOWER ORDER CENTRAL PLACE

LOWEST ORDER CENTRAL PLACE

4

productivity of the soil,

2) Course of rivers and natural traffic routes,

3) Spatial distribution of natural resources,

4) Political and social factors (Von Böventer, 1969).

Most of this critics where not very relevant when Christaller developed his initial theory for the southern Germany. The economy was mainly agricultural at the time, the plain was more or less homogeneous and politics was little central government. Walter Christaller considers no economic relation (3) between the central places of the same sizes. It only considers central places supplying to their hinterlands. Also not considered is the fact that people can buy multiple goods in one trip. For example going to the shoe repairman and doing groceries at the same time. The last important assumption Christaller makes is that economic rationality always prevails and that consumers are always fully informed (4). Shoppers are treated as isolated actors who base their judgement on decisions that maximize their gain, they considered as the ‘homo economicus’ (Coe et al, 2007), they know what there is on offer at which facilities and at which price and always act on their own self interest.

Most important contributions

The theory is because of this simplicity much criticized (Parr, 1980; Ullman, 1941; Von Böventer, 1969). It would most of all not consider the complexity of the real economy. The CPT however succeeded in creating a comprehensive model for location theory, where other theories fail in this extensiveness. The first contribution is the hierarchy of locations or market places (Fisher, 2011). The notion that each city of a certain order

has a certain number of “satellite” cities of the next lower order. The second contribution according is the hexagonal structure of locations and market areas. His model has influenced many scholars after Christaller and is still applied as a planning method although not as strict hierarchical (Fisher, 2011).

Overview of the paper

In this first chapter a broad introduction was given to the CPT. In the next chapter the methods used to conduct the research for this paper have been outlined. The aim, scope and research question are discussed. In the following chapter the model has been put into practice. Eindhoven is the case to test the implications the urban concept will have on the city form. In the fourth chapter implications are discussed, the CPT is placed in a 21st century perspective with a reflection on the model. In the last chapter some final conclusions are drawn.

2. METHODS

This research attempts to find out if the central place theory is still applicable in the 21st century. In order to do so an analysis has been made how this would shape Eindhoven in practice. This chapter will outline the research that was conducted and will introduce the aim, scope and research question of this paper.

Aim, scope and research question

The aim of the study is to apply a version of the CPT to Eindhoven. The goal in this is to research what the practical implications would be of this urban concept. The scope of the research is to give a broad indication of the possible impact the CPT could have on Eindhoven. For this the following research question has been formulated:


5


6

What are the social, functional and physical implications if the Central Place theory would be applied to Eindhoven?

Simultaneously with this question an attempt will be made to answer if Christaller’s theory still applies in the 21st century economy. To what extend is the Central Place theory still useable in the contemporary complex distribution of goods? In a world that is shaped by cheap and efficient transport systems where cities are just mere nodes in a global economy the theory does not seem very applicable anymore. Design for Eindhoven

Christaller has developed different models of his CPT. For this research it was chosen to apply the K=3 model to Eindhoven with its most direct satellite towns. The model is called K=3 because the market area of a higher order place is three times the size of the market area of the next lower order place. The smallest central places (those of the lowest order) are only ‘supportive places’ found in the middle of the triangles (Fisher, 2011). The K=3 model (also known as the supply principle or the marketing principle) is chosen because it provides the smallest distance between each central place translating into the most fine grained available model and most efficient central places. The grid was first applied to the current situation (see figure 3). The placement was done so the P1 central places were as close as possible to the existing city centers. Then adjustments were made (figure 5). The most important adjustments are summarized in appendix 1.

3. APPLICATION TO EINDHOVEN

Eindhoven provides an interesting case to apply the CPT to. This is because of the fact Eindhoven is not a city in a historical sense,

only a agglomeration of different smaller towns grown into each other. Only in 1920 town of Eindhoven was officially merged with its surrounding towns (Gestel, Stratum, Strijp, Tongelre and Woensel) forming the municipality of Eindhoven as we know. These historical cores are still visible in the urban form of the city, although maybe not as important as they once were. The center of Eindhoven has now developed as he center with the highest hierarchy. The hierarchical impact also manifests itself on a regional level with Eindhoven being the fifth largest town in the Netherlands and the largest one in the southern part of the country.

Applying the K=3 model

Instead of adjusting the model to Eindhoven, the urban form has been adjusted to the model, in which no concessions have been made. This is approach is different from the one Christaller took himself when he applied his theory to the south of Germany where he warped his grid to fit the region. In the relocation of functions the focus was on the central places of the highest order. The following steps were taken in adjusting the urban form. First the central places of the highest hierarchy (P1) were adjusted (see figure 4 for a legend of the different P-values). This involved the relocation of several satellite towns in order to conform to the grid. Important shopping centers other than the city center (such as Ekkersrijt and shopping center Woensel) have been relocated to central places of the highest order because in the current situation they where situated on the edges of the P1 hexagons. Secondly the places lower (P2) order were checked by creating more mass around them to provide a more solid base of consumers to provide these central places. More important the city center was de-densified of some of its retail functions to strengthen the other central places of equal

Figure 3 Current situation of Eindhoven with the application of Christallers grid (K=3). Source: Author.


8

hierarchical value and creating a more equal base of central places for the people to go to. It is however important to consider that in the new situation the city center still has a higher hierarchy then the other central P1 places considering Eindhoven has a broader function on a larger scale serving the whole Brabant region say on a level level P0 or level P-1 (minus one). Take for example the IKEA in the north of Eindhoven. This furniture shop might very well serve the whole East-Brabant region as the central place for furniture shopping. Places of the lowest order (P3) were mostly untouched since they are only “supportive places” (Fisher, 2011) found only in the middle of the triangles. Shops of the lower order (such as bakeries for example) don’t have a high priority to move because they are probably already distributed quite evenly each serving their own customer base.

Implications

The proposed alterations for Eindhoven are substantial and have consequences for the urban life within Eindhoven invoking social implications for the center of Eindhoven and are conflicting with the current policy employed by the city.

In Christaller’s Eindhoven people would be more evenly distributed over the cities’ satellite towns distributed more evenly to the offered central places. This contradicts Eindhoven’s current policy intentions where the mayor has recently declared that he wants the city in the near future to grow to 300.000 inhabitants within the city borders densifying the existing city (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2015). The intentions of the city hall therefore contradict Christaller’s even distribution of people and goods, which according to his idea would mean that expansion should happen in the satellite towns creating an equal distribution of places of the same hierarchy. Clusters of shops that are themed to a certain retail segment that are now present in Eindhoven, such as the Ekkersrijt furniture boulevard, would be non existent in Christaller’s Eindhoven. These furniture shops would be relocated through the city in a hierarchical way distributed evenly over the amount of people. The most important and largest shops would located at the highest central place. In Christaller’s vision, taking the IKEA example again, the IKEA would be relocated from the north of Eindhoven to the center of the city. This move would provoke severe infrastructural implications for the city. The IKEA now conveniently located next to the A50 highway would move to the car free shopping center of Eindhoven. The increase of cars in the city center contradicts current policy employed by the municipality which is aimed at reducing the amount of cars in the center (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2014). To end with a positive note another implication of the CPT could be to help maintain the retail facilities of shrinking satellite towns around Eindhoven. The trend that shops in smaller towns are struggling to keep their stores open could be reversed. The CPT can provide a new critical mass of the consumers in order to sustain these

P1

P2

P3

(P4)

Figure 4 Division of central places of the higher and lower order. Source: Author.

Figure 5 Altered situation of Eindhoven where a devision has been made to distribute the central places more evenly. Source: Author.


9

facilities. No longer local neighborhood supermarkets will close down because there are to few people. Government policy will direct these people back to these towns by building new houses to support these facilities (theoretically speaking).

4. DISCUSSION

In this chapter possible policy implications are discussed. What would the effects be on the city of Eindhoven. What important modifications would need to be made. How realistic would these be?

Application

Eindhoven’s rough hourglass shape proved to be a difficult urban form to apply the Central Place theory to. The areas closest to the bodice are mostly green and not densely populated. In the present situation they would only have central places of the lower order. Christallers theory however demands an equal distribution of the central places. This translated in the creation of new centers of the highest order in the east and west parts around the city giving the fringe of Eindhoven more body. In this research the K=3 model has been applied to Eindhoven (see figure 6). This might have not been the best choice of the available options. With hindsight it could have been better to apply the K=4 (see figure 7) model to the city because conforms more to the natural shape of Eindhoven considering the artery system of roads connection to the inner ring of the city as the main lines where central places are situated. Reflecting on this situation smaller adjustments could have been made with the K=4 model and the city could have been more true to its original urban form.

Thoughts and implications of the 21st century

Christaller published his book “Die Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland” (“Central Places in Southern Germany”) in 1933. This was before

principle

Figure 6 K=3 model. Central places are located at the intersections of the hexagons. Source: Author.

principle

Figure 7 K=4 model. Central places are located in the middle of the hexagons. Source: Author.


10

wide spread space shrinking techonology, such as the automobile, took place. Besides this the economy in the south of Germany was at that time mostly centered around agriculture (Von Böventer, 1969). Today however the economy operates on a much faster pace. When looking at consumer retail the internet and the emergence of digitalized shopping has had a real impact on the existence of brick and mortar shops. Geography however still matters for e-shopping. Research conducted by Farag et al (2006) suggests that people in highly urbanized areas have a higher likelihood of buying online, but people with a low shop accessibility buy more often online. Other research by Farag et al (2005) suggests that online buyers make more shopping trips than non-online buyers do. The implications of e-shopping vary per product, non-daily goods are most often bought online (Weltevreden and van Rietbergen, 2004). As far as I could find there is little to no theory available covering the relation between the CPT and the impact of digitalized shopping. It is however an interesting concept to put more thought in. Two of the main points of critique on Christaller’s initial theory discussed in the introduction could be addressed by the uniformity and accessibility of the internet. Firstly it was argued that there is no such thing as a homogeneous plane in the world and the CPT would therefore always be an theoretical exercise. In theory the internet is homogeneous and uniform. There are no boundary conditions, everyone has the same basis. If you have access to the internet everyone can shop online (or start a web shop) regardless of their place in the world (to a certain extend). Secondly it was argued that no economic relation is considered between central places of the same size. The internet has a very good infrastructure to compare and pick from different web stores. Internet search engines

have made consumers more aware of what is available and have made comparisons of different web stores very accessible. Consumers are now more informed than they ever were. Consumers have more potential of becoming the ‘homo economicus’ described in the introduction. Offline (brick and mortar) shopping is however still an important economic driver. One factor however not considered by Christaller is the attractiveness of shopping. Shoppers do not necessarily shop at the closest available place. “Rather, they take into account many aspects of shopping destinations and, when considered on aggregate, distribute their (nonfood) shopping expenditure according to their assessments of the attractiveness of the destinations (Dennis et al, 2002: p.196)”. The CPT model is of today used in a much broader sense then only for economic spatial planning situations. Examples of other applications of the CPT model include access to sports and recreation (Daniels, 2007), schools (Boussauwa et al, 2014) and green space (Smith & Floyd 2013). This research has however been limited to research consumer retail goods. For this type the model it was most appropriate for comparing internet related activity such as e-shopping for example.

5. CONCLUSION

First and foremost it must be said that this research has been a theoretical exercise and is by no means a realistic proposal for the readjustment of the city of Eindhoven. The research has however shown that according to the principles of Christaller Eindhoven and its satellite towns are not an optimally distributed. To achieve an optimal situation, severe adjustments are needed. Most of these adjustments are directly opposite of the current policy intentions of the city hall.

6. LITERATURE

Boussauwa, K., M. van Meeterena, F.Witlox (2014) Short trips and central places: The home-school distances in the Flemish prima-ry education system (Belgium). Applied Ge-ography 53: 311–322.

Coe, N. M., P. F. Kelly & H. W. C. Yeung (2007) Economic Geography. A Contemporary In-troduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Daniels, M.J. (2007) Central place theory and sport tourism impacts. Ann Tourism Res 34: 332–347.

Dennis, C., D. Marsland & T. Cockett (2002) Central place practice: shopping centre at-tractiveness measures, hinterland bound-aries and the UK retail hierarchy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 9: 185–199.

Eiselt, H. A. & V. Marianov (2011) Pioneering Developments in Location Analysis. In: H. A. Eiselt & V. Marianov, editors, Foundations of Location Analysis. New York: Springer, 3-22.

Eindhovens Dagblad (2014) Vestdijktun-nel in Eindhoven wellicht definitief dicht: minder ruimte voor autoverkeer in centrum. Eindhovens Dagblad 18 August 2014 [on-line] http://www.ed.nl/regio/eindhoven/vestdijktunnel-in-eindhoven-wellicht-defin-itief-dicht-minder-ruimte-voor-autover-keer-in-centrum-1.4490148. Last accessed on 07-06-2015.

Eindhovens Dagblad (2015) Burgemeester Van Gijzel: ‘Eindhoven heeft 300.000 inwon-ers nodig’. Eindhovens Dagblad 5 January 2015 [online] http://www.ed.nl/regio/eind-hoven/burgemeester-van-gijzel-eindhoven-heeft-300-000-inwoners-nodig-1.4700418. Last accessed on 07-06-2015.

Farag, S., J. Weltevreden, T. van Rietbergen,

M. Dijst (2006) E-shopping in the Nether-lands: does geography matter? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33: 59-74.

Fischer, K. (2011) Central Places: The Theo-ries of von Thünen, Christaller, and Lösch. In: H. A. Eiselt & V. Marianov, editors, Founda-tions of Location Analysis. New York: Spring-er, 471-505.

Goodchild, M. F. (1997) Towards a geogra-phy of geographic information in a digital world. Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 21 (6): 377-391.

Parr, J. B. (1980) Frequency Distributions of Central Places in Southern Germany: A Fur-ther Analysis. Economic Geography 56 (2): 141–54.

Smith, J. W., M. F. Floyd (2013) The urban growth machine, central place theory and ac-cess to open space. City, Culture and Society 4 (2): 87–98.

Ullman, E. (1941) A Theory of Location for Cities. American Journal of Sociology 46 (6): 853–64.

Von Böventer, E.. (1969) Walter Christaller’s Central Places and Peripheral Areas: The Central Place Theory in Retrospect. Journal of Regional Science 9 (1): 117–24.


11


12

7. APPENDIX 1: ADJUSTMENTS URBAN FORM

The following most important adjustments were made to Eindhoven to fit within the K=3 model.

Adjusments of the largest impact:• BliksemboschandEkkersrijtareturned around • ThetownofAchtismovedtotheeastcreating a new central place• De-densifiedthecitycenterofEind-hoven and moved those buildings to the P2 areas.

Adjustments with smaller impact:• ThetownofAalstismovedtothesouth• ThetownofWaalreismovedtotheeast• ThetownofBestismovedtothenorth• ChangedthecentersoftheWoenselshopping center with the Geldrop subcenter• MovedthetownofSonandBreugelto the east to create a new central place

is there still a place for the central place

Documents