Identifying "Spread" versus "Backwash" Effects in Regional Economic Areas: A Density

Functions Approach
Author(s): David L. Barkley, Mark S. Henry and Shuming Bao
Source: Land Economics , Aug., 1996, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Aug., 1996), pp. 336-357
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3147201

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Land Economics

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Identifying "Spread" versus "Backwash" Effects in Regional
Economic Areas: A Density Functions Approach

David L. Barkley, Mark S. Henry, and Shuming Bao

ABSTRACT. Patterns of spatial structural change

son 1988; Smith 1993; Rowley and Porter-
field 1993).Ar-
are investigated for eight Functional Economic
eas in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Geor-
Evidence of a renewed importance for
gia. Residential population density functions
localizationare
and urbanization economies in
estimated using census tract level data and cubic
industrial location decisions is provided by
spline regression methods. Comparisons of 1980
O'hUallachian and Satterwaite (1992). Geo-
and 1990 density profiles indicate that population
graphically
decentralization accompanied metropolitan growth isolated rural areas obviously are
disadvantaged
during the 1980s. This redistribution was limited, by this ascendance of ag-
glomeration
however, to rural tracts at the urban fringe. Popula-economies as location determi-
tion densities were stable or declined in tracts
nants more
for many manufacturing and services
distant from the nodal center. Thus, backwash ef-
industries.' Yet, rural hinterlands proximate
fects were evident in most rural areas in the eco-
to metropolitan areas may benefit from this
nomic regions' hinterlands. (JEL R11)
shift in competitive advantage if significant
positive spillover effects result from
I. INTRODUCTION metropolitan growth. Mieszkowski and Mills
(1993) argue that urban population decen-
Recent changes in industrial structures,
tralization is an expected consequence of
organization, regulations, and markets favor
urban growth due to the "natural working
the location of economic activity inhousing market" and "expanding fis-
of the
metropolitan areas over rural communities.
cal and social problems in central cities." A
For example, the principal growth sectors in
decentralization of residential activity will
the new global economy (professional and
be accompanied by employment decentral-
business services, high-tech manufacturing,
ization as firms take advantage of lower
and small businesses) have demonstrated an labor and land costs. However,
suburban
urban location bias due to their require-
this spillover of population and jobs will not
ments for sophisticated services, skilled la-
be uniform across areas near metropolitan
bor, and market access (Barkley 1988; MillerIndeed, 40 percent of the adjacent
counties.
1993; Smith 1993). Vertical disintegration
nonmetro counties lost population during
and the spread of new production methods
the 1980s while almost 25 percent grew
(e.g., computerization, product specializa-
faster than the national average (Mc-
tion, flexible machining and labor cells, just- and Salsgiver 1993). Explanations
Granahan
in-time inventory replacement) have in-variability in urban-to-rural
for this
creased the importance of proximity to differ. McGranahan and Salsgiver
spillovers
skilled labor, suppliers, and markets; andthe differences to the size and
attribute
thus, the attractiveness of urban locations
for industries adopting these innovative or-
ganizations and technologies (Barkley and
Hinschberger 1992). The globalization ofand
Barkley Henry are professors of agricultural
competition is predicted to be moreanddetri-
applied economics at Clemson University. Bao is a
research assistant in the same department. Funding for
mental to labor-intensive rural producers
this research was provided through grant 92-3740-8251
than to the more capital-intensive urban
from the United States Department of Agriculture
firms (Glasmeier and Conroy 1994). And,
National Research Initiative. Comments by two anony-
deregulation in the financial, transportation,
mous reviewers significantly improved the paper and
and communication industries has de- are gratefully acknowledged.
creased the costs of conducting business 'For
in example, McGranahan and Salsgiver (1993)
reported that approximately 60 percent of the nonadja-
metropolitan areas relative to that in rural
cent, nonmetro counties lost population from 1980 to
communities (Henry, Drabenstott, and Gib-
1990.

Land Economics e August 1996 * 72 (3): 336-57

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 337

are identified based on the strength of com-

growth rates of the proximate metropolitan
muter flows
areas. Scott (1983), Suarez-Villa (1988), and and distances between counties.
Fotheringham (1985) argue that the Third,
charac-
the application of residential density
teristics of the local industrial base (e.g.,
functions to identify regional structural
change isthe
manufacturing versus services) influence discussed, and residential popula-
shifts of population and economic activity
tion density functions are estimated for eight
from the core to periphery. Fox, economic
Herzog,areas for 1980 and 1990. For this
and Schottman (1989) and Boarnet (1994) analysis, census tracts' areas and distances
demonstrate that the direction and magni- to metropolitan cores were found using Ge-
tude of ex-urbanization are influenced by ographic Information Systems (GIS) proce-
real differences in tax structures and the dures available in ARCINFO (ESRI 1992).
Finally, differences in core-hinterland
availability and quality of public services,
infrastructure, and amenities. spillover effects are noted, causal factors
are hypothesized, and implications for rural
The purpose of this paper is to determine
development policy are provided.
the implications of metropolitan area growth
on population change in nearby and more
distant rural areas. That is, does a growingII. SPREAD-BACKWASH PROCESS
metropolitan core generate "spread" or
"backwash" effects for the fringe and hin-Interest in core-hinterland interdepen
dencies and intraregional linkages peak
terland regions in the core's economic area?
Comparisons of 1980 and 1990 population two decades ago with the promotion of t
distributions for eight Southeast Functional
growth center approach to regional devel
Economic Areas (FEAs) permit us to deter-ment (Hansen 1972; Berry 1973). This
proach engendered only fleeting popular
mine the nature of spatial structural change
for economic regions of differing sizes because
and the "trickle-down" of economic ac-
functions. Our findings indicate that both
tivity from the growth centers to their hin-
spread and backwash effects were evident terlands turned out to be, in many cases, no
among the economic regions, and in some more than a trickle. In addition, Hansen
cases, both spillover effects were detected
(1990, 32) notes in retrospect that, "critics
within the same region. These interregional
with a rural-agricultural orientation tended
and intraregional differences in spillover
to regard the growth center approach as
unduly urban in nature, while more urban-
effects appear to be associated with charac-
oriented critics complain that the desig-
teristics of the region's metropolitan core.
Evidence of both spread and backwash ef- nated centers are too numerous, too small,
fects also suggests that rural development
and too unpromising."
policy will need programs that address the Reconsideration of core-hinterland rela-
unique circumstances and development po- tionships is stimulated by concerns over the
tentials of individual rural areas. Non- spatial implications of recent technological
metropolitan communities benefiting advances
from in production and communication
spread effects gain from economic develop-
and the resulting restructuring of industrial
activity. Examples of this diverse literature
ment efforts with a regional or metropolitan
core focus, and also from programs that the spatial and social organization
include:
of metropolitan areas (Fishman 1990;
enhance their linkages to the core. Alterna-
Mieszkowski
tively, rural areas in the "backwater" re- and Mills 1993); migration
trends
quire community specific efforts targeted at between core and periphery regions
the particular deficiencies that preclude
(Cochrane and Vining 1988); trade flows
within economic regions (Hughes and
them from participating in the region's
growth. Holland 1994); models of spatial structural
Our analysis of core-hinterland spread change associated with the process of re-
effects is organized as follows. First, the gional growth (Parr 1985, 1987; Suarez-Villa
dynamic spatial processes contributing to 1988; Krugman 1991); and the implications
spillover effects in economic areas are re- of product life cycles, globalization of mar-
viewed. Next, multicounty economic regions kets, and industrial restructuring on the lo-

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 338 Land Economics August 1996

cation of economic
ity in theactivity
periphery, Gaile terms (Mack
the result- a
Schaeffer 1993). ing impact as spread. A decline in the abso-
Of interest in this lute
study is the
level of economic activitynet effect
in the periph-
of population growth in an with
ery in conjunction economic
core expansion is area
metropolitan core evidence
on population change
of a backwash effect. Economic
nonmetropolitan theory
areas proximate
suggests that the net effect of tothe a
more distant from the core.
spread-backwash processGaile (1980)
varies according to
proposes that economic development
the characteristics in t
of the core and surround-
core impacts the surrounding region
ing area (e.g., size and growth ratethroug
of the
a complex set of dynamic spatial
core, industrial structure of theprocesse
core, exist-
These processes (summarized in Table
ing spatial distribution of development, dis-
include intraregional flows
tribution of: private
of transportation and communica-ca
tal; private and public
tion networks, expenditures
and the spatial distribution of f
goods and services;sociopolitical information power). and tech
nology; residents and commuters; and poli
cal influence and public investments. Su
flows generally provide III. DELINEATION
both OF beneficial
REGIONAL a
detrimental impacts on ECONOMIC
the AREAS
peripheral r
gion with the net result depending on t
relative magnitude of It longthe has positive
been recognized among
and re-
neg
tive forces. If the cumulative gional scientists that the economic
process develop
result
in an increase in the absolute level of activ- ment prospects of rural areas generally can

TABLE 1
INTRA-REGIONAL FLOWS STIMULATED BY GROWTH OF THE METROPOLITAN CORE AREA

Flows of Investment Funds

Urban funds are invested in rural areas to take advantage of relatively low labor and land costs (spread
Rural funds are invested in urban areas to take advantage of relatively rapidly growing goods and serv
markets (backwash)

Flows of Spending for Goods and Services

Urban growth provides expanding markets for rural producers (spread)
Spending in rural trade and service markets declines due to increased competition from the more varie
and efficient urban producers (backwash)

Flows of People
Rural labor commutes to the urban area for employment (spread)
Urban families relocate residences to rural areas because of lower real estate costs and perceived higher
of life (spread)
Rural residences migrate to the urban areas for better access to employment and urban lifestyle (back

Flows of Firms/Employment
Firms in the mature or declining stage of product life cycle locate in rural areas to take advantage of lo
and land costs (spread)
Firms in the innovative or growing stage of product life cycle locate in urban areas to benefit from agg
economies, markets, and specialized labor (backwash)

Flows of Knowledge and Technology

Urban centers are the generators and diffusers of information and innovation for rural areas (spread)
Social attitudes in rural areas are transformed by the "demonstration effects" of high wages
and expanding markets in the urban core (spread)
Rural to urban migration is selective of the better educated and more highly skilled rural residents (ba

Flows of Political Influence and Government Spending

Urban growth increases socio-political conflict, contributing to a policy promoting decentralization (sp
Government expenditures enhance the infrastructure and public service delivery systems of the more h
populated urban areas (backwash)

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 339

not be analyzed or understood in type

isolation
would be noticeably increased if arbi-
from the surrounding regional trary boundaries are drawn more than a
economy
(Gaile 1980; Higgins 1983; Parr 1987;
mile or two from the true ones. Leven,
Legler,
Suarez-Villa 1989). This appreciation for and
theShapiro (1970) concur that the
FEA concept
importance of intraregional linkages en- is valid for determining re-
couraged regional scientists to view gional boundaries, and they suggest that
regions
as single economic units as opposed counties should comprise the unit of analy-
to loose
associations of economic entities. sis This per-to control computational costs,
in order
spective of interdependence also stimulatedas well as to aid in historical comparisons.
research on the appropriate criteria Leven,
for Legler,
de- and Shapiro (1970) recom-
lineating these regions and means mend of identi-
dividing the study area into clusters of
fying their boundaries. Examplescontiguous of such counties which approximate the
efforts include Karl Fox's Functional Eco- commuting fields of the metro core coun-
nomic Areas (FEAs), the Bureau of Eco-ties. Each noncentral county is assigned to
nomic Analysis's (BEA) Economic Areas, the commuting field of the core county to
the Rand/McNally Basic Trade Areas which it sent the largest number of com-
(BTA), and the USDA Commuting Zones muters.
and Local Labor Market Areas (Killian and In summary, FEAs are multicounty re-
Tolbert 1992). Our research selected Func-gional economies consisting of a relatively
tional Economic Areas as the method for large core city (MSA center) and the sur-
rounding fringe and hinterland areas that
defining economic regions due to our inter-
est in core-hinterland interdependencies. exhibit a high degree of interdependence
with the core. If spread or backwash effects
result from metropolitan growth, these ef-
Defining FEAs
fects should be most evident in the FEA for
which that MSA serves as the core.
According to Fox (1974), Functional Eco-
nomic Areas are relatively self-contained la-
bor markets consisting of a cluster of sev- Identifying FEAs
eral counties with commuting patterns fo-
cused on a central city. In general, each The county grouping procedure devel-
cluster will contain a metropolitan central oped to distinguish FEAs is based on the
city and hinterlands within commuting dis- strength of commuter flows between coun-
tance. Residents of the FEA are able to ties and on the distances between counties.
purchase many goods and services within Our its
study region consists of the 46 South
boundaries, and a relatively high percentage Carolina counties, the 21 adjacent North
of income is both earned and spent inside Carolina counties, and the 18 Georgia coun-
its boundaries. Little interaction in terms of ties adjacent to South Carolina. A three-part
working or shopping is anticipated betweenprocess is used.
the residents of neighboring FEAs. Thus First, the MSA county with the maximum
Fox views an FEA as "a city spatially ex-in-commuter flow of all the counties in the
tended to accommodate a low-density pat- MSA is identified. Next, using ARCINFO
GIS software (ESRI 1992) and the 1990
tern of land use and residential location
over the bulk of its area" (1974, 138). Census TIGER files, nonmetro counties are
Fox argues that home-to-work commut- assigned to a MSA based on the minimum
distance from each nonmetro county's cen-
ing patterns are appropriate for delineating
FEAs and suggests that FEA boundaries troid
be to the centroid of the MSA core
based on the following criteria: (1) the county.
flow This establishes a temporary FEA
of daily home-to-work trips acrossMSA
any core and proximate MSA and no
stretch of boundary would be aboutmetro
the counties. Third, journey-to-work d
same in each direction and (2) the number
from the 1990 Census of Population are us
to reallocate nonmetro and metro counties
of boundary crossings of the home-to-work

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 340 Land Economics August 1996

to FEAs so that commuter flows are maxi- density patterns within the overall decreas-
mized within an FEA.2 ing rate. Neither the often observed "crest"
The eight FEAs identified (see Figure 1) or "crater" in density at the city center nor
for the study area include four that are the leveling off of residential density at the
relatively large, each containing at least 11 boundary of the metropolis can be repre-
counties (Augusta, GA; Charlotte, NC; sented by this function. Recent literature is
Columbia, SC; and Greenville, SC). The also skeptical of the appropriateness of
three FEAs bordering the Atlantic coast monocentric models as descriptors of re-
(Charleston, SC; Myrtle Beach, SC; and Sa- gional form since such models do not repre-
vannah, GA) all have six or fewer counties. sent areas with multiple metropolitan cen-
The small number of counties in these FEAs ters, growth corridors, edge cities, and
results from their inability to expand east oflower-ordered central places (Fishman 1990;
their core counties. The remaining FEA is aWaddell and Shukla 1993).
five-county region surrounding the small Anderson (1982) suggests that density
MSA of Florence, SC.3 functions with irregularities (crater at
center, undulations at non-core centers, lev-
IV. DENSITY FUNCTIONS AND eling off at fringe) may be estimated accu-
SPATIAL PROFILES rately with the following cubic spline speci-
fication:
Specification Alternatives

Since the pioneering research by Clark

Dx = [a + bl(x - xo) + C1(x -x0)2
(1951), residential population density func-
tions have been used to provide insights into +dl(x - xo)3] Z1
differences between the spatial structures of
urban areas and the evolution of these + a2 + b2(x - X1) + c2(x -1
structures over time (e.g., Muth 1961, 1969;
Mills 1972). The findings of this early re- +d2(x - X)3]Z2
search indicate that over much of the
metropolitan field, the density of residential
+ [a3 + b3(x - x2) + C3(x -2)2
population conforms approximately to the
negative exponential function. That is, the
density of population and economic activity +d3(x -x2)3]Z3 + u [1]
falls off at a decreasing rate as distance
increases from the city center. This dis-
tance-density relationship may be repre-2The establishment of the FEA boundaries based
sented as Dx = D e-Yx where Dx is onthe
commuter flows required two steps. Step one is to
define a fixed center county grouping. Each MSA core
residential population density at x miles
county is fixed and the number of FEAs is equal to the
number of core MSAs. Counties on the borders of each
from the center, Do is the density at the
center, and -y is the density gradient. The
temporary FEA are examined and reassigned to the
FEA that receives the maximum number of out-com-
gradient -y, which is positive, is the constant
muters from a border county. Step two is to remove the
rate at which the logarithm of population
restriction that there is a fixed number of FEAs and to
density decreases with distance from the
reassign core and other counties in a temporary FEA
center.
to another FEA if there is more out-commuting from
The negative exponential density func- the temporary FEA county to counties in another FEA.
tion is a popular measure of urban spatialUsing this dynamic center method, some FEAs with
low commuter inflows may be eliminated and their
structure because calculations are not data
counties absorbed into other FEAs.
intensive (as few as two points of data-city3Two regions in Figure 1 (border counties in north-
center and rural fringe-have been used ern to Georgia and western North Carolina) were not
produce estimates of density gradients). included
Yet in this analysis as FEAs because the initial
selection of counties (all South Carolina counties plus
McDonald and Bowman (1976) argue that
adjacent Georgia and North Carolina counties) was
the negative exponential functional form is
insufficient to identify all county members of these
inadequate for capturing irregularities in
FEAs.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 341

(ChaPdone PEA)

(Grenvfa PEA)
Plraae.
(Poec PEA)

C <Y
(Colmablemat A9 C S del

PEA am emoty
I (a=a city

(Anuf PE) a r (ChaBesonPEAA

5no

(CCbmdnton PEA

(Savanah FEA

(Savwmh IFEA

FIGURE 1
MULTIPLE COUNTY FUNCTIONAL ECONOMIC AREAS: SOUTH CAROLINA REGION

gether with a nonmetropolitan part which it c

where Dx is the gross population density at
be said to dominate and which contains a rural
distance x from the center, x0 is the dis-
tance of the nearest tract, xI and population,
x2 are as well as a population located in a
network of urban centers. (Parr 1987, 536)
distances to preselected interior tracts, and
Z1, Z2, and Z3 are dummy variables locat-
Parr's
ing the tract in its interval along the dis-metropolitan-area-based-regions are
very similar to Functional Economic Areas,
tance variable. Anderson (1985) analyzed
and in this paper, the cubic spline functional
the changing pattern of residential density
specification is used to estimate the FEAs'
for Detroit with cubic spline regressions.
Skaburskis (1989) used the cubic spline
residential density functions.4
functional specification to demonstrate that
the existence of regional town subcenters
created undulations in the density profile of(1985, 1987) suggests the use of quadratic
4Parr
Vancouver, Canada. gamma and lognormal functions for the estimation of
The concept of the density function density
tradi- functions in metropolitan-area-based regions.
tionally is employed to analyze spatialBoth the density crest and (more importantly for this
struc-
study) the distinct density profiles in metro and non-
tural distribution and change for metropoli-
metro areas may be incorporated into these functions.
tan areas. Parr (1987) argues, however, that (1986) argues that a switching regression
Brueckner
the spatial structure of a region may
methodbe
is superior to cubic spline regressions in situa-
summarized using a density functiontions
if the
where striking discontinuities in population den-
sity contours result from differences in the age of the
region refers to a "metropolitan-area-
housing among urban census tracts. Our examinations
based-region." According to Parr of population density-distance scatter plots for the
eight FEAs selected for this study-did not reveal any
Such a region consists of a metropolitan part (the discontinuities. Thus cubic spline regressions
apparent
metropolitan area or regional metropolis),wereto-
selected as the appropriate estimation procedure.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
342 Land Economics August 1996

Classifying Spillover Effects

ization, core growth wi
tion, and backwash.
Comparisons of population density
poses, these pro
alternat
files over time provide insights into
are presented graphica the
gional spatial-structural
exponential transformation function wa
companying growth at in thethemetro-hinterla
region. Using
timates of centers' 2). The "crater" at the core's
population center and
densities n
the core, gradients, and
density "peaks"inflection
at subcenters are absent point
by
four general patterns ofthe
design. Also, regional
density gradient is(FEA)
repre- s
tial transformation sented
may withbea constant slope since the verti-
identified: sprea
through growth, spread through
cal axis is the logarithm decentr
of population den-

A. Spread Through Growth B. Spread Through Decentralization

In D, In D
t+1 x

t+1

_ : distance ;
+1
j t?' (x) tj t?'
1 W

Do > Do D. aDo
Y1+1, %, Y y,*+ < y'
b1+1 > b' b?1+ > b,
C. Core Growth-Hinterland Stagnation D. Backwash

In D, In D,
1+1 t+1

x x
b' tf' b'
1+1 t 1
Do > Do o > Do
b'+ > yt' by+ > by
bPt: b' 11b ' b1+1< b,
FIGURE 2
DENSITY FUNCTIONS AND SPATIAL TRANSFORMATIONS

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 343

V. ESTIMATED POPULATION
sity. The density functions are representa-
DENSITY FUNCTIONS
tive of those estimated with a linear spline
regression with one "knot" at the boundary
of the urbanized area.5 Cubic Spline Regressions
"Spread through growth" describes the
spatial transformation where residential
A spline function is a system of piece-wise
density in both the urban core and polynomial
periph- approximations. The function it-
selfgrows.
eral rural areas increase as the city is continuous and its derivatives also are
continuous.
That is, significant growth spills over to theSuits, Mason, and Chan (1978,
hinterlands but not at the expense of132) propose that "spline functions are a
growth
device
in the core. In terms of changes for approximating the shape of a
in the
density function, "spread throughcurvilinear
growth" stochastic function without the
may be depicted by an increase in necessity
city cen-of pre-specifying the mathematical
ter density (Do), little change inform of the function." Cubic spline func-
density
tions(b)
gradient (y), and an inflection point are at
especially useful in estimating pop-
greater distance from nodal centerulation
(referdensity
to functions for areas with
Figure 2A). craters near the core's center, undulations
where
"Spread through decentralization" subcenters are located, and a leveling
refers
to metropolitan growth occurring off of density in the rural hinterlands.7
primarily
away from the city center along with The cubic spline estimation begins by
signif-
icant spillovers to rural areas (Figure dividing2B).
the x axis (in this case the distance
Population spillovers evident primarily axis) intoat
segments where the dividing points
the metro fringe are referred to as are"metro-
referred to as "knots." Three segments
politan decentralization." Significant of equal length (two interior knots) are ad-
spillovers to hinterland areas are termed vised unless there are important reasons to
"regional deconcentration." The spread do otherwise (Suits, Mason, and Chan 1978).
through decentralization structural change In this study, however, we follow the proce-
may be represented by a stable or declining
central city density (D"+I < D'), a shal-
lower density gradient (y'+l < y'), and a 5Throughout this paper, the term "nodal center"
refers to the identified central business district in the
more distant boundary (b'+l > b').
FEA's metropolitan city. "Urban core" and "urban
"Core growth with periphery and hinter- field" refer to the urbanized area of the FEA's
land stagnation" refers to the development metropolitan core. The "fringe" is the rural area near
scenario where rural areas in the FEA re- est the urban core while "hinterland" is the area more
distant from the core.
ceive limited spillover of residential housing
activity as a result of growth in the FEA's 6The spatial structural changes reflected by 1980
and 1990 density functions capture only the spread and
core. In this case, the center density and
backwash effects closely associated with population
density gradient would increase but littlechange. Ideally, information on fluctuations in per
change would be evident in the density
capita income, employment opportunities, and quality
function's inflection point (Figure 2C). of life would be included to more completely assess the
impacts of metro growth on hinterland regions. How-
Finally, Gaile (1980) and Krugman (1991)ever, population growth or decline is viewed as an
note that nodal growth may lead to declin-important barometer of an area's economic well-being.
ing population densities in the surrounding
Population changes reflect changes in the area's tax
periphery and hinterlands if the core's
base, property values, retail markets, and employment
growth generates expenditure, capital, andopportunities. In addition, for the study area used in
this analysis, population density and per capita income
migration flows that are unfavorable to eco-
changes were significantly correlated. Tracts with rela-
nomic development in the hinterlands.
tively rapid population density growth also tended to be
These backwash effects may be represented those with more rapid per capita income growth.
by the following changes in the metro den- 7Density functions for the eight FEAs also were
estimated using the negative exponential, quadratic
sity function: an increase in center density,
gamma, and lognormal functional forms. The cubic-
a steeper gradient, and a reduction in fringe
spline estimations consistently provided the "best fit"
or hinterland population densities.6 and are the only results reported here.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 344 Land Economics August 1996

dure suggested by ton) toDubin

a high of 76.06 and(Greenville).
Sung The
and place the knots estimatedatcoefficients of the distance vari-peaks
expected
valleys of the density ables (miles from nodal center, miles
gradient. These
and valleys were identified squared, miles cubed) haveby the anticipated
visual e
nation of the scatter signs and are, with only a of
plots few exceptions,
census
densities versus distance from the FEA core. significantly different from zero at the .01
A spline function fitted to k + 1 intervals level. Finally, the estimated coefficients for
(defined by knots placed at the origin (x0) the distance interval dummy variables (Zi)
and distances x1,..., xk+) with corre- are generally statistically significant. These
sponding dummy variables Zz*, Z* , Z~ , is results support the hypothesis that the dis-
represented by the multiple regression tance-density functional relationship varies
equation: along the distance axis. Identification of the
density function is improved by segmenting
by the distance variable and using a piece-
wise estimation procedure.9
Dx = a + bl(x - xo) + cl(x - xo)2 + dl(x - Xo)3
k Significant estimated coefficients for the
three distance variables (linear, quadratic,
+ (di+1
i= 1
- di)(x - xl)3Z* + u. [2] and cubic) indicate undulations in popula-
tion density within the overall pattern of
Note that each additional interval included declining density with distance from the
in estimating the density function adds onenodal center. For example, a relatively large
variable to the regression equation and thusnegative coefficient on distance implies that
involves the loss of an additional degree ofdensity declines rapidly as we move away
freedom. from the center. Yet a positive coefficient
A final concern in estimating populationon the quadratic term implies an eventual
density functions using census tract data isleveling off or an increase in density further
that census tracts do not provide a randomfrom the nodal center. Finally, if the coef-
sample of regional density (Frankena 1978).ficient on the distance cubed variable is
Observations in the sparsely populated ruralnegative and relatively large, density will
regions will be underrepresented relative toagain decline as distance increases. In sum,
those from the FEA's metropolitan area.high population densities at lower-ordered
But according to Skaburskis (1989) the use central places in the FEAs will be reflected
of weighted-least squares to correct for thisin relatively large and significant coefficients
potential bias (as suggested by Frankena)on the quadratic and cubic distance terms.1?
will be an inferior procedure to OLS if Of principal interest to this study are the
numerous, large rural tracts exist in the data changes in regional population density pat-
set. Since rural densities predominate in ourterns over time. Comparisons of intercept
FEAs, the Skaburskis procedure (OLS re-
gressions) was selected for our analysis.8
8Inspection of residual plots against tract area (and
Estimation Results
distance of tract from the urban core) indicated that
the variance of the error term was not constant. Ac-
The estimated values for the 16 cubic cordingly, White's (1978) procedure was used to esti-
mate a variance-covariance matrix that adjusts for het-
spline regressions (8 FEAs for 1980 and
eroscedasticity.
1990) are presented in Appendix Table 1. In9The Greenville, SC metropolitan area has two core
general, the cubic spline functions provide a (Greenville and Spartanburg) of approximately
cities
good fit for the census tract level density-
equal size, located 25 miles apart. In this case, distance
distance observations. With the exceptionfrom
of the nodal center refers to the miles from a
specific tract to the nearest of the two centers.
the Myrtle Beach FEA, adjusted R2s for
1t0Metropolitan areas with a density function crater
the regression equations range from near
.51 the nodal center will have positive coefficients on
(Charleston) to .80 (Savannah) and the F-the density variable and negative coefficients on the
statistics vary from a low of 18.35 (Charles-
distance-squared variable.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 345

and slope values for the 1980 and areas. 1990 Interestingly enough, the frequently
density functions for the eight FEAs indi-
noted density crater at the nodal center was
cate a general trend of metropolitan evident decen- only for the most populous
tralization. In all the FEAs except Myrtle metropolitan areas (Charlotte, Columbia,
Beach, nodal center density values declined and Greenville). Also, the exception to
(lower intercept values) and the density thegra-
above generalization is again the
dients became flatter (smaller negative co-
tourism/retirement area of Myrtle Beach.
efficients on distance) between 1980We andsuspect that the "irregularities" in this
1990. Thus, residential population near function
theresult from the situation that dis-
FEA core declined relative to population tance in
is not always a good measure for
census tracts further from the metro center. proximity to the nodal center because nu-
In the Myrtle Beach FEA, however, the
merous wetlands' areas prevent direct ac-
intercept increased while the density cess from one location to another.
gradi-
ent became only marginally "flatter." As noted above, the results of the cubic
Growth in the Myrtle Beach area appears spline toregression estimations are consistent
be spread throughout tracts both near with an tooverall trend of regional population
and distant from the FEA nodal center." dispersal through decentralization. The
Our general finding of spread through graphs in Figure 3 demonstrate, however,
metropolitan decentralization is consistent that the magnitude and spatial dimensions
with the- conclusions of earlier studies of of this decentralization vary by economic
changing urban residential and business lo- region, and these trends do not always fit
cation patterns (e.g., Anderson 1985; Parr neatly into the four categories previously
1987; Waddell and Shukla 1993). Yet signif- described. The identified changes in density
icant coefficients for the quadratic and cubic patterns are grouped into three "hybrid"
distance terms and the interval control categories:
dummy variables indicate undulations in the
density gradient and significant changes in 1. Fringe Growth through Decentraliza-
the density function itself over the range of
the FEA. Because of these additional con-
tion-Hinterland Stagnation. Four
FEAs with medium-sized nodal cities
siderations, a clearer appreciation of
(Augusta, Columbia, Greenville, and
changes in population patterns throughout
the entire FEA is provided by graphical Savannah) exhibited declining popula-
tion densities near the center and in-
representations of the estimated density
functions (Figure 3). The reader will note creasing densities in areas approxi-
that the changes in the FEAs' density func- mately 10 to 30 miles from the center.
tions (as shown in Figure 3) generally are
not dramatic for the period 1980 to 1990.
This absence of major shifts in density func- 11 The Chow test was applied to determine if the
tions probably is attributable to the study's
1980 and 1990 population density functions for each
FEA differed significantly. No significant structural
relatively short time frame. Thus, our find-
changes in density functions were detected for any of
ings should be interpreted as preliminary the eight FEAs. However, the Chow test does not
evidence of spread or backwash within these
identify density changes for specific segments within
economic regions. Additional evidence may the overall density functions. Thus we recast the mod-
be provided through analysis of spatial
els in terms of changes in population density from 1980
to 1990 as a function of distance from the core and
structural change over a more extended time
estimated these models using cubic-spline regressions.
period. For all the estimated equations except the Florence
The density functions in Figure 3 gener- FEA, the coefficients on the distance variables and
ally have the anticipated shape--density de- internal control dummy variables, and the overall F-
clines rapidly with distance from the core, statistics were significantly different from zero. Thus
for seven of the eight FEAs, changes in population
"bumps" exist in the gradient at the loca-
density from 1980 to 1990 were significantly different
tion of lower-ordered central places, and from zero. The results of these regressions are avail-
population density levels off in the rural able from the authors upon request.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
346 Land Economics August 1996

Tract Tract
SAugusta
dWAg tF domily
6000 3500

S- - 1980 Desty Funcion --- 1980 Dnsiiy Function

1990 Densly 3000
Function - 1990 Denl5uy Function

2500
4000

2000

3000

1500 - -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2000 .
1000 . . . . ..- --

1000500

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Dikence(Mlbs) from core tect Dietanoe(lbs) from com trct

Tract TOWt

o ion Savann
- -- 1980 Densy Function- - - 1980 Densty Function
1990 Denity Function 1990 Density Function

........--------------------- 0000
o4000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4000 ------ ----

3000 m- --------------------------------- 3000 --

Mr2M ----------------------------------- _- - - - -

1000 -------------------- -- --- -t00

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 so so 0 10 20 30 40 so so

Distance(mileo) from corn tr

FIGURE 3
ESTIMATED DENSITY FUNCTIONS, EIGHT FEAs, 1980 AND 1990

Beyond 30 miles, population densities Two FEAs with rapid growth (Char-
remained essentially unchanged from lotte, Charleston) experienced small
1980 to 1990. Metro area population declines in population densities near
growth and dispersal had little or no their nodal centers, but increasing res-
impact on lower-ordered central placesidential densities in tracts approxi-
and rural areas in the hinterland re- mately 5 to 35 miles from their cen-
gions of these FEAs. ters. Tracts more distant from the
2. Fringe Growth through Decentraliza- metro areas exhibited declining popu-
tion-Hinterland Decline (Backwash). lation densities. Growth at the urban

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 347

Tract motr

popuon Columbia FEA p Greenville FEA

4000 450O

-- - 1980 M Dey Fstdon - - - 1960 Dksry Fnc ~rn

1990 Densy Function - 1990 Densly Funaion

000 100- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

low - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -I 1000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

00

S10 20 0 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Dian(ce(ns) from core tract Disanc(cils) from com tract

Tract Trct

oputio
dfrwiyFlorence FEA"ly
pop Myrtle Beach FEA

- -- 1980 Denity Function -- 1980 DensIy Function

1990 Demtly Function 1990 Denty Function

15oo- - - - - - ------------ a

1000 - ---------- - - 400

5oo -- - --
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 O 0 0 10 20 30 40 s0 o 0
Distanoe(nis) fromcore tract Distanom(nmis) from core tract

FIGURE 3
(CONTINUED)

fringe appears to be associated with relatively evenly over a wide region.

backwash effects in the more geo- The exceptions are the rural, agricul-
graphically isolated rural areas. tural regions more than 40 miles from
3. Core and Fringe Growth-Hinterland Myrtle Beach city. These relatively few
Stagnation. The Myrtle Beach FEA ex- census tracts reported little change in
perienced increasing population den- population density. The Myrtle Beach
sities near the nodal center as well as density patterns should be interpreted
in tracts as far as 40 miles from the with caution since Euclidean distance
center. Thus, the rapid growth experi- is not always a good measure for prox-
enced in this resort area was spread imity in this coastal region.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 348 Land Economics August 1996

Variations within FEAs

density function declined rapidly with
"peaks" in the suburban tracts and more
The derived density profiles presented in distant lower-ordered central places. The
Figure 3 give the impression of similar den- non-highway density function exhibited the
sity patterns in all directions for a given more traditional negative exponential shape
distance from the FEA nodal center. This with a small undulation at the location of
hinterland central places. Changes in the
impression of uniformity may be misleading
since earlier studies demonstrate that com-density patterns over time also differed be-
mercial and residential developments are tween the highway and non-highway census
influenced by such factors as direction, tracts. For the non-interstate tracts, spread
through decentralization was evident for ar-
transportation access, age of buildings, and
quality and availability of infrastructure andeas near the nodal center. Tracts beyond
services (Anderson 1985; Dubin and Sung approximately 35 miles exhibited declining
1987; Waddell and Shukla 1993). The de- population densities and thus evidence of
backwash effects. Among the interstate
tected spread and backwash effects for the
eight FEAs may vary along similar factors.tracts, spread was evident in areas with low
Space limitations preclude an analysis ofdensities while the more densely populated
core,
the influences of many factors on the spatial edge cities, and lower-ordered central
places experienced declining residential
dimensions of urban-rural spillover effects.
However, an example of these potential in-densities. The positive spillover effects of
growth occurred in the less developed areas
fluences is provided by analyzing the impact
of interstate highways on density patternsat the expense of the traditional residential
for the four largest FEAs (Charlotte, tracts. A deconcentration of population to
the
Greenville, Columbia, and Charleston). Fig- rural hinterlands does appear to be as-
ure 4 presents the 1980 and 1990 density sociated with interstate access in the largest
and
functions for census tracts traversed by an most rapidly growing of the eight eco-
nomic regions.
interstate highway versus those tracts for
In summary, our findings indicate that
which interstate highway access is more lim-
density functions and changes in these func-
ited. The cubic spline regression estimates
tions over time vary within FEAs. Thus
are provided in Appendix Table 2.
analysis of spatial structural change within
The disaggregation of census tract data
FEAs will be enhanced by disaggregating
by interstate access altered the shapes of
spatial data according to direction, trans-
the density gradients (Figure 4). Contrary to
portation and infrastructure availability and
popular perceptions, however, proximity to
quality, and age of housing within census
interstate highways did not appear to greatly
tracts. In addition, greater insights into ur-
enhance spread or diminish backwash ef-
ban-to-rural spread may be available with
fects associated with metro area growth. For
the use of census block groups rather than
the Greenville, Columbia, and Charles- census tracts and the substitution of travel
ton FEAs, a decentralization of population time to urban centers for distance. Such
to the fringe was evident among both tracts
data refinements will require extensive data
with and without close access to interstate
preparations for each FEA studied, a role
highways. And stagnation or decline also
for which GIS procedures are well suited.
was evident in hinterland tracts both on and
off interstate highways. Thus our earlier
preliminary findings of spatially limited
spread effects hold after accounting for po- 12 South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia have
tential differences in transportation access.12dense and well-maintained systems of state and county
Differences in the Charlotte FEA high-roads. And, with the exception of Charleston, Myrtle
Beach, and Savannah, few geographical barriers inter-
way versus non-highway density functionsfere with the flow of traffic. Thus access to interstate
are quite pronounced and deserve special
highways may not have relatively high importance in
mention. Along the interstate highways, the residential location decisions.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 349

T, o Greenville FEA Tp I Greenville FEA

desiy (highways) d en (non-highways)
4000 4m

--190 Detly Function - - 1980 Dnsity Function

1990 Denty Function 1990 DensIy Function

3000 -- - --------- --- - 3000

2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2000

1000 - ----------------------------- -------1000- - - - -

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 eo 0 10 20 30 40 50 s0
Ostance(miles) Irom core tract omeno(mm) from cor

Trc Charlotte FEA Tran Charlotte FEA

density (highways) dnsy (non-highways)
4000 4000

- - 1980 Density Function - - - 1980 Densiy Function

1990 Density Function 1990 Densy Function

3000 - - - ----------- - - 3000

2000- - - -- ------------ - 2000 - - ----------------

1- 1 00 ---------------.----
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 so 6s 0 10 20 30 40 60 60

Distance(miles) from core trct Distace(mile) from core tract

FIGURE 4
ESTIMATED DENSITY FUNCTIONS, INTERSTATE VS. NON-INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS PRO
1980 AND 1990

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND was associated with a decentralization of

IMPLICATIONS population. Residential densities declined
near the metro centers and increased in the
Our comparisons of 1980 and 1990suburbs,
den- edge cities, and in rural areas prox-
sity functions for eight Southeastern Func-
imate to the metropolitan fringe. However,
tional Economic Areas provide preliminary
rural areas and lower-ordered central places
evidence that growth in metropolitanlocated
areasdistant from the metro center (the

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 350 Land Economics August 1996

poo.T Columbia FEA Tra Columbia FEA

density (highways) (non-highways)

\ - -1 - Density Function --- 1980 Density Fundtion

-1990 Densiky Function - 1990 Density Function
_30M ------ ----- -- 3000 -------

2000 -.----.- ----- 2000-- -------- 2000 -

100oo0 ------------------- - - - -- - -oo- - -------

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(miles) from core tact Disltance(miles) from core tract

Taoo Charleston FEA Trat Charleston FEA

density (highways) (non-highways)

- -- 1980 Density Function - - 1980 Density Function

1990 Density Function 1990 Density Function

-- - - - - - - - - - - - --------- ------ 400

3000 -\-------------- - -- --- ----- 3000 ------- ----- -----

1500 - - ------------------------- 1--- 00--1 -

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance(miles) from core tract Distanoe(miles) from core tract

FIGURE 4
(CONTINUED)

FEA hinterland) benefited little from metro FEAs is consistent with earlier studies of
growth. Hinterland population density was the influence of growth centers on sur-
stagnant in four of the FEAs and declined rounding rural areas. We do not propose,
in two others. Little regional population however, that our findings are necessarily
deconcentration was evident among the representative of urban-to-rural spread ef-
eight economic areas. fects in all economic regions. With the ex-
The lack of extensive urban-to-rural ception of Charlotte, the metro areas in our
study are relatively small. Urban disec-
spread effects in our eight Southeastern

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 351

onomies probably are not of the magnitude

tions may not insure enhanced development
evident in much larger urban areas, and
opportunities for the hinterlands in the new
thus, incentives to locate more distant from
competitive environment. Stronger urban-
the urban core are weaker. A greater
rural re-
linkages reinforce both spread and
backwash
gional deconcentration of population andeffects and the net influence on
economic activity may be more likely for
geographically isolated areas is yet uncer-
economic regions dominated bytain large
(Rowley and Porterfield 1993).
metropolitan areas. Second, the absence of spread to hinter-
However, for economic regions similar land areas
to supports the continuation of
those examined in this study, our community-specific
findings rural development ef-
have two principal implications for forts rural de-
for rural communities not proximate to
velopment policy. First, current policy metropre-centers. Stagnation or decline was
scriptions (e.g., Jacobs 1985; Schmitt forth-
not, however, universal among rural tracts
coming) encourage a return to cities in the
as hinterlands.
the Some hinterland tracts
focus and stimulus for rural economic devel- possessed characteristics that enabled them
opment. With this perspective, Galston and to grow despite a strengthening of urban
Baehler (1995, 267) propose that "forging competitive advantages. Such characteristics
effective new links between cities and hin- may include industrial structure, availability
terlands is a problem to be addressed." Ourand quality of infrastructure and public ser-
results support the view that rural areasvices, quality of schools, local quality of life,
benefit from metro growth, but these availability of housing, and land use man-
spillover benefits appear to be restrictedagement regulations (Thurston and Yezer
primarily to rural areas at the metro fringe. 1994). Rural development policy must iden-
Rural areas and lower-ordered central tify characteristics associated with growth.
places in the hinterlands evidenced stagna- Enhancement of these attributes will be
tion at best, and backwash effects at worst.
critical to the survival and expansion of hin-
And the "effective new links" in the formterland
of communities as metro centers pros-
transportation and communication innova- per.
APPENDIX TABLE 1
CUBIC-SPLINE REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REGIONAL POPULATION DENSITY
FUNCTIONS, EIGHT FEAs, 1980 AND 1990
Augusta FEA
1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 5,366.97 12.19 4,760.87 12.96

Distance - 1,639.05 - 6.45 - 1,405.63 - 6.63
(Distance)2 196.95 5.57 168.03 5.69
(Distance)3 - 8.15 -5.40 -6.95 - 5.52
Z1 (8)a 8.14 5.37 6.94 5.48

Adj R2 .69 .72

F 42.71 52.46
Nb 82 82
Charleston FEA

1980 1990
Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 5,005.87 11.50 4,450.14 10.96

Distance - 650.66 - 4.53 - 548.39 - 4.09
(Distance)2 31.07 2.72 26.13 2.45
(Distance)3 - .51 - 2.08 -.43 - 1.89
Z1 (20) .51 1.58 .44 1.47

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
352 Land Economics August 1996

APPENDIX TABLE 1
(CONTINUED)
Charleston FEA

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Adj R2 .54 .51

F 25.00 18.35
N 92 92

Charlotte FEA

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 2,110.56 4.50 2,090.99 4.50

Distance 1,231.16 3.59 1,113.90 3.27
(Distance)2 - 349.65 -5.03 - 300.49 -4.37
(Distance)3 22.66 5.42 19.10 4.61
Z1 (6) - 24.48 -5.59 - 20.42 -4.71
Z2 (20) 2.72 6.04 1.94 4.36
Z3 (30) - 1.20 -3.97 -.87 - 2.92
Z4 (44) .39 2.87 .32 2.38

Adj R2 .54 .54

F 39.84 47.85
N 284 284

Columbia FEA

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 3,280.76 7.60 2,131.66 4.94

Distance 74.80 .23 739.49 2.23
(Distance)2 - 103.17 - 1.45 - 220.68 -3.10
(Distance)3 7.37 1.65 14.10 3.16
Z1 (6) - 8.25 - 1.69 - 15.13 - 3.11
Z2 (15) .73 1.32 .90 1.63
Z3 (40) .35 1.73 .32 1.61

Adj R2 .69 .65

F 40.17 44.80
N 161 161

Florence FEA

1980 1990
Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 2,909.70 9.62 2,763.65 10.70

Distance - 900.81 - 4.49 - 832.24 - 4.86
(Distance)2 101.38 3.17 92.27 3.38
(Distance)3 - 3.98 - 2.70 -3.59 - 2.86
Z1 (8) 3.79 2.42 3.42 2.56
Z2 (25) .30 1.50 .29 1.70

Adj R2 .71 .76

F 23.84 28.12
Nb 52 52

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 353

APPENDIX TABLE 1
(CONTINUED)
Greenville FEA

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 3,220.24 9.18 2,918.76 9.41

Distance 237.72 .70 189.45 .63
(Distance)2 - 248.45 - 2.78 - 197.77 - 2.49
(Distance)3 22.30 3.38 17.50 3.00
Z1 (6) - 39.04 - 3.76 - 30.14 - 3.28
Z2 (10) 20.95 3.73 15.84 3.19
Z3 (15) -4.84 - 2.59 -3.75 - 2.27
Z4 (25) .67 2.44 .61 2.45

Adj R2 .62 .63

F 70.81 76.06
N 228 228

Myrtle B
1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 399.42 5.45 661.89 7.23

Distance - 77.19 -4.16 - 117.66 - 5.08
(Distance)2 4.80 3.80 6.92 4.39
(Distance)3 - .09 - 3.66 - .12 - 4.12
Z1 (25) .16 3.43 .21 3.71
Z2 (35) .08 - 2.95 -.10 - 3.03

Adj R2 .35 .50

F 3.20 5.16
N 44 44

Savannah FEA

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 8,289.92 11.79 6,896.50 9.65

Distance - 3,522.50 -5.76 - 2,738.71 - 4.41
(Distance)2 641.89 4.65 492.94 3.52
(Distance)3 -41.96 -4.42 - 32.17 - 3.34
Z1 (5) 41.78 4.37 32.02 3.30

Adj R2 .80 .73

F 47.73 38.47
N 64 64

aThe numbe
is a dummy
following kn
bN= the num

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
354 Land Economics August 1996

APPENDIX TABLE 2
CUBIC-SPLINE REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REGIONAL POPULATION DENSITY
FUNcrIONS, TRACTS WITH INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS VERSUS NO INTERSTATE,
CHARLOTTE, CHARLESTON, COLUMBIA, AND GREENVILLE, 1980 AND 1990

Charlotte: Interstate Highways

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 2,819.68 6.75 2,449.45 5.98

Distance 453.82 1.92 626.78 2.70
(Distance)2 - 140.93 - 3.95 - 152.01 -4.34
(Distance)3 7.13 4.71 7.24 4.89
Z1 (10)a -11.08 -5.35 - 10.67 - 5.25
Z2 (20) 6.81 5.64 5.81 4.89
Z3 (30) -6.02 -4.10 - 5.02 - 3.48
Z4 (40) 8.30 2.77 6.96 2.36

Adj R2 .50 .49

F 25.83 23.65
Nb 179 179

Charlotte: Non-

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 3,876.27 23.51 826.66 23.74

Distance - 396.36 - 11.84 - 349.67 - 10.68
(Distance)2 12.66 9.08 10.58 7.77
(Distance)3 -.12 -7.73 - .10 - 6.42
Z1 (45) .20 5.09 .15 4.00

Adj R2 .66 .67

F 59.29 74.05
N 193 193

Charleston: I

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 5,787.02 12.87 5,109.71 11.69

Distance - 569.53 - 3.86 -489.71 - 3.42
(Distance)2 20.16 1.74 18.91 1.68
(Distance)3 - .24 - 1.02 - .26 - 1.12
Z (25) .17 .31 .29 .56

Adj R2 .68 .62

F 26.43 20.40
N 49 49

Charleston

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 6,197.27 12.03 5,457.11 10.74

Distance - 1,713.60 -5.85 - 1,432.51 - 4.96
(Distance)2 168.54 4.49 139.07 3.75
(Distance)3 -5.60 -4.10 -4.61 - 3.42
Z (10) 5.59 3.95 4.60 3.29

Adj R2 .69 .64

F 31.90 25.41
N 56 56

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 355

APPENDIX TABLE 2
(CONTINUED)

Columbia: Interstate Highways

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 3,732.37 6.94 2,455.37 4.92

Distance - 80.55 - .19 637.91 1.66
(Distance)2 - 90.88 - 1.03 - 215.52 - 2.62
(Distance)3 7.25 1.31 14.31 2.79
Z (6) 8.68 - 1.45 - 15.84 - 2.85
Z (15) 1.41 2.31 1.52 2.68

Adj R2 .64 .62

F 41.39 38.88
N 115 115

Columbia: N

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 3,853.52 6.30 2,543.24 4.45

Distance - 238.17 -.49 516.78 1.13
(Distance)2 -45.56 - .42 - 178.52 - 1.75
(Distance)3 3.92 .56 11.50 1.76
Z (6) -4.54 -.59 - 12.27 - 1.69
Z (15) .41 .39 .57 .57
Z (40) .48 .50 .52 .57

Adj R2 .55 .53

F 23.32 21.05
N 109 109

Greenville: I

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 4,092.39 15.43 3,582.06 15.47

Distance - 866.41 -5.70 - 652.94 - 4.92
(Distance)2 68.05 3.18 44.76 2.39
(Distance)3 - 1.95 - 2.33 - 1.15 - 1.58
Z1 (10) 1.69 1.79 .89 1.08
Z2 (25) .28 1.89 .29 2.24

Adj R2 .64 .66

F 47.11 48.99
N 138 138

Greenville: N

1980 1990

Variable Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value

Intercept 4,094.58 15.00 3,601.25 15.08

Distance - 868.75 - 6.07 - 672.66 - 5.37
(Distance)2 68.66 3.79 48.97 3.09
(Distance)3 - 1.87 - 2.97 - 1.27 - 2.31
Zi (12) 1.84 2.37 1.20 1.76

Adj R2 .58 .58

F 77.82 79.81
N 158 158

aRefer to Append
bThe number of t
tracts in the FEA because both sets included the same tracts at the nodal center.
This content downloaded from
103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 356 Land Economics August 1996

References Frankena, M. W. 1978. "A Bias in Estimating

Urban Population Density Functions." Jour-
Anderson, J. E. 1985. "The Changing Structure nal of Urban Economics 5:35-45.
Gaile, G. L. 1980. "The Spread-Backwash Con-
of a City: Temporal Changes in Cubic Spline
Urban-Density Patterns." Journal of Regional cept." Regional Studies 14 (1):15-25.
Science 75 (3):413-25. Galston, W., and K. Baehler. 1995. Rural Devel-
. 1982. "Cubic Spline Urban Density opment in the United States: Connecting Theory,
Functions." Journal of Urban Economics 12 Practice, and Possibilities. Washington, DC:
(1):155-67. Island Press.
Glasmeier, A. K., and M. E. Conroy. 1994. Global
Barkley, D. L. 1988. "The Decentralization of
High Technology Manufacturing to Non- Squeeze on Rural America: Opportunities,
metropolitan Areas." Growth and Change 19 Threats, and Challenges from NAFTA, GATT,
(1):13-30. and Processes of Globalization. State College:
Barkley, D. L., and S. Hinschberger. 1992. "In- The Pennsylvania State University, Graduate
dustrial Restructuring: Implications for the School of Public Policy and Administration,
Decentralization of Manufacturing to Non- Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation.
metropolitan Areas." Economic Development Hansen, N. 1990. "Growth Center Theory Revis-
Quarterly 6 (1):64-79. ited." In Alternative Perspectives on Develop-
Berry, B. J. L. 1973. Growth Centers in the Ameri- ment Prospects for Rural Areas, eds. D. Otto
can System, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger and S. C. Deller. Proceedings of an organized
Publishing Company. symposium, annual meetings of the American
Boarnet, M. G. 1994. "An Empirical Model of Agricultural Economics Association.
Intrametropolitan Population and Employ- - , ed. 1972. Growth Centers in Regional Eco-
ment Growth." Papers in Regional Science nomic Development. New York: Free Press.
73:135-53. Henry, M. S., M. Drabenstott, and L. Gibson.
Brueckner, J. K. 1986. "A Switching Regression 1988. "A Changing Rural Economy." In Rural
Analysis of Urban Population Densities." America in Transition, eds. M. Drabenstott
Journal of Urban Economics 19:174-89. and L. Gibson. Kansas City, MO: Federal
Clark, C. 1951. "Urban Population Densities."Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Higgins, B. 1983. "From Growth Poles to Sys-
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series
A. 114:490-96. tems of Interactions in Space." Growth and
Cochrane, S. G., and D. R. Vining, Jr. 1988. Change 14 (4):3-13.
"Recent Trends in Migration Between Core Hughes, D. W., and D. W. Holland. 1994.
and Peripheral Regions in Developed and Ad-"Core-Periphery Economic Linkage: A Mea-
vanced Developing Countries. International sure of Spread and Possible Backwash Effects
Regional Science Review 11 (3):215-43. for the Washington Economy." Land Eco-
Dubin, R. A., and C. H. Sung. 1987. "Spatial nomics 70 (Aug.):364-77.
Jacobs, J. 1985. Cities and the Wealth of Nations.
Variation in the Price of Housing: Rent Gra-
dients in Non-Monocentric Cities." Urban New York: Vintage Press.
Studies 24:193-204. Killian, M. S., and C. M. Tolbert. 1992. "Map-
Environmental Systems Research Institute ping Social and Economic Space: The Delin-
(ESRI). 1992. ARC/INFO Geographic Infor-eation of Local Labor Markets in the United
mation System (revision 6.0). Redlands, CA: States." In Inequalities in Labor Market Areas,
ESRI. eds. J. Singelmann and F. A. Deseran. Boul-
Fishman, R. 1990. "America's New City." The der, CO: Westview Press.
Wilson Quarterly 14:24-48. Krugman, P. 1991. Geography and Trade. Leuven,
Fotheringham, A. S. 1985. "Modeling Firm's Lo- Belgium: Leuven University Press and Cam-
cational Choices and Core-Periphery bridge: The MIT Press.
Growth." Growth and Change 16 (1):13-16. Leven, C. L., J. B. Legler, and P. Shapiro. 1970.
Fox, K. A. 1974. Social Indicators and Social An Analytical Framework for Regional Develop-
Theory: Element of an Operational System. New ment Policy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
York: John Wiley and Sons. Mack, R. S., and P. V. Schaeffer. 1993. "Non-
Fox, W. F., H. W. Herzog, Jr., and A. M. metropolitan Manufacturing in the United
Schlottman. 1989. "Metropolitan Fiscal Struc- States and Product Cycle Theory: A Review
ture and Migration." Journal of Regional Sci- of the Literature." Journal of Planning Litera-
ence 29 (4):523-36. ture 8 (2):124-39.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72(3) Barkley, Henry, and Bao: Regional Economic Areas 357

McDonald, J., and H. W. Bowman. 1976. metropolitan "Some Areas, ed. D. L. Barkley. Boulder,
Tests of Alternative Urban PopulationCO: Westview Press.
Den-
sity Functions." Journal of Urban Economics Schmitt, B. Forthcoming. "Advantages Compara-
3:242-52.
tifs, Dynamique de Population et Dynamique
McGranahan, D. A., and J Salsgiver. 1993. "Re- D'Empoli Des Espaces Ruraux." Revue
cent Population Change in Adjacent Non- d'Economie Regionale et Urbaine.
metro Counties." Rural Development Perspec- Scott, A. J. 1983. "Location and Linkage Sys-
tives 8 (3):2-7. tems: A Survey and Reassessment." The An-
Mieszkowski, P., and E. S. Mills. 1993. "The nals of Regional Science 17 (1):1-39.
Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization."Skaburskis, A. 1989. "Inversions in Urban Den-
Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (3):135-47. sity Gradients: A Brief Look at the Vancou-
Miller, J. P. 1993. "Small and Midsize Enterprise ver Metropolitan Area's Density Profile." Ur-
Development: Prospects for Nonmetropolitan ban Studies 26:397-401.
Areas." In Economic Adaptation: AlternativesSmith, S. M. 1993. "Service Industries in the
for Nonmetropolitan Areas, ed. D. L. Barkley. Rural Economy: The Role and Potential Con-
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
tribution." In Economic Adaptation: Alterna-
Mills, E. S. 1972. Studies in the Structure of the
tives for Nonmetropolitan Areas, ed. D. L.
Urban Economy. Washington, DC: Resources
for the Future.
Barkley. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Suarez-Villa, L. 1989. The Evolution of Regional
Muth, R. F. 1969. Cities and Housing: The Spatial
Economics: Entrepreneurship and Macroeco-
Pattern of Urban ResidentialLand Use. Chicago:
nomic Change. New York: Praeger.
University of Chicago Press.
. 1961. "The Spatial Structure of the ?. 1988. "Metropolitan Evolution, Sectoral
Housing Market." Papers and Proceedings of Economic Charge, and the City Size Distribu-
tion." Urban Studies 25:1-20.
the Regional Science Association 7:207-20.
O'hUallachian, B., and M. Satterwaite. 1992. Suits, D., A. Mason, and L. Chan. 1978. "Spline
"Sectoral Growth Patterns at the Metropoli- Functions Fitted by Standard Regression
tan Level: An Evaluation of Economic Devel- Methods." The Review of Economics and
Statistics 60:132-39.
opment Incentives." Journal of Urban Eco-
nomics 26 (1):19-32. Thurston, L., and A. M. J. Yezer. 1994. "Causal-
Parr, J. B. 1987. "The Development of Spatial ity in the Suburbanization of Population and
Structure and Regional Economic Growth." Employment." Journal of Urban Economics
35:105-18.
Land Economics 63 (May):113-27.
. 1985. "A Population Density Approach Waddell, P., and V. Shukla. 1993. "Employment
to Regional Spatial Structure." Urban Studies Dynamics, Spatial Restructuring, and the
22 (4):289-303. Business Cycle." Geographical Analysis 25
Rowley, T. R., and S. L. Porterfield. 1993. "Re- (1):35-52.
moving Rural Development Barriers Through White, K. J. 1978. "A General Program for
Telecommunications: Illusion or Reality?" In Econometric Methods-SHAZAM." Econo-
Economic Adaptation: Alternatives for Non- metrica 46 (1):239-40.

This content downloaded from

103.200.32.12 on Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:23 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms