This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by DeVerteuil, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reconsidering the legacy of urban public facility location theory in human geography

Department of Geography, KAP 416, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0255, USA

In 1968, Michael Teitz initiated a new locational theory, focusing on how best to locate urban public facilities given the need to balance efficiency and equity. This locational problematic would evolve into a coherent set of geographical concepts steeped in normative, neoclassical and quantitative assumptions. Building on Teitz's original formulations, quantitative geographers and regional scientists focused on operationalizing efficiency and equity concerns according to distance, pattern, accessibility, impacts and externalities. The legacy of these concepts in human geography, however, has not been systematically traced. While both reflecting and bolstering wider stances in welfare, urban and behavioral geography during the quantitative era, the legacy of urban public facility theory in the postquantitative era is decidedly uneven. On the one hand, the legacy was effectively refuted by situating location theory within a much broader political, economic and social matrix. Adopting a more conflictual framework, geographers shifted the focus of locational theory to larger questions of how costs and benefits are spatially distributed in urban society. On the other hand, the legacy was sustained by retaining the normative interest in balancing equity with efficiency within a model-building paradigm, while jettisoning the reliance on neoclassical economics and universalistic assumptions for more nuanced, socially embedded accounts. In this sense, the legacy of urban public facility location theory emerges as a nested sequence of normative models that grew increasingly sophisticated, inclusive and contextualized over time. The rise of the nonprofit and privatized sectors, however, threatens to erode the existence of a distinctly public facility location theory.

Key Words: efficiency • equity • location theory • public facilities

Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 24, No. 1, 47-69 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/030913200668094045


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Joassart-Marcelli and J. R. Wolch The Intrametropolitan Geography of Poverty and the Nonprofit Sector in Southern California Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, March 1, 2003; 32(1): 70 - 96. [Abstract] [PDF]