Showing papers on "Katz centrality published in 1970"

Two Centrality Models

Abstract: 1 Christaller differentiated clearly between "absolute importance" (called Nodality here) and "relative importance" or Centrality. Nevertheless, scholars have consistently evaluated central places by measures of absolute importance, associated the term Centrality with their derived values, and then related their findings to classical central place theory as if such measurements met the re quirements of Centrality as originally defined. This point can be abundantly demonstrated by comparing "absolute importance" and Centrality as defined in W. Christaller, Central Places in Southern Germany, translated by C. W. Baskin, (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), pp. 17-18, and the variety of measures associated with Centrality reviewed in M. Palomaki, "The Func tional Centers and Areas of South Bothnia, Finland," Fennia, Vol. 88 (1964), pp. 10-19; S. Godlund, "The Function and Growth of Bus Traffic within the Sphere of Urban Influence," Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, No. 18 (1956), pp. 11-37; and R. Klopper, "Methoden zur Bestimmung der Zentralitat von Siedlungen," Geographisches Taschenbuch, (1953), pp. 512-519. It would be remiss, however, to imply that either the distinctions between Nodality and Centrality or the significance of the concept of Centrality in ap plied central place research has gone totally unnoticed; for example, see E. L. Ullman, "A Theory of Location for Cities," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46 (1941), pp. 858-859; A. Losch, Die raumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft (Jena 1941), translated by W. H. Woglom and W. F. Stolper as, The Economies of Location (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), pp. 431-438; R. E.