it addresses, and (3) a pedagogic ap­proach that directs the learner toward new questions and their effective ex­ploratio n."15 Their proposed alterna­tive for physical geography "consists of a focus on work in environmental systems at the interface, and it has a splendid coherence of its topics since all topics are acquired as illustrations of the foCUS. "16 This proposa l, to focus on environmental systems at the inter­face, has been centered on the hydro­logic cycle to provide an integrating framework for an analysis of the com­ponents of the working environment. The use of thi s hydrologic cycle as an integra ting sys tem may serve as an ex­ample of the sys tems approach put into practi ce. Many of the preceding articles on systems analysis in physical

111 Edward A. Ackerman, "Where Is a Research Fron­tierl" Annals 01 the Association 01 American Geog­raphers, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1963), 429-440.

121 Ri chard Symanski and Thomas Wi lbanks, "A Sys­lems Approach to Regions," Commission on Geog­raphy, Earth Science Division, Na tional Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1967, 2.

1' 1 Where the scientific and mathematical products of advanCing science are applied to the solution of complex problems.

141 which deals with the communication or flux of information.

15} Ludwig von Bertalanffy, "Genera l Systems Theory," General Systems , Vol. 1 (1956). 1-10.

161 Michael Chisholm, "General Systems Theory and Geography," Transactions of Ihe Institute 01 British Geographers , Transaction No. 42 (1967), 45-51.

17} Russell L. Ackoff, "General Sy5lems Theory and Systems Research : Contrasting of Systems Science," in M. D. Mesa rovic (ed.). Views on General Sys­tems Theory, New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964, 56.

II} James M. Bl au t, "Object and Relationship," Profes­siona l Geographer, Vol. 14, No. 6 (Nov., 1962), 2.

geography have worked with the sys­tems approach without ever visualizing a system around which an analysis of the physical environment mi ght take place.

Conclusion The application of systems analysis

in physical geography provided at least a glimpse of the whole, even though a total understanding of phys ical sys­tems seems to be out of the question. The systems approach has made the study of man both scientific and mean­ingful. The ideas of the systems ap­proach can be a source of inspiration in the advancement of physical geog­raphy, but first the actual content and scope of th ese ideas must be clear­ly understood .

19} Edward A. Ackerman, "Where Is a Research Fron­tierl" Annals 01 Ihe Association 01 American Geog­raphers , Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1963), 429-440.

liD} Robert W. Kates, "Links Between Physica l and Hu­man Geography: A Systems Approach," in Int ro­ductory Geography : Viewpoin ts and Themes , Com­mission on Co ll ege Geography Publica tion , No. S, Associa tion of American Geographers, Washington, 1967, 23-30.

I ll } Ibid ., 23·30. 112} Richard J. Chorl ey, Geomorphology and Genera l

Sys tems Theory, U. S. Geo logica l Su rvey Profes­sional Paper 500-B. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

I" } Arthur N. Strah ler, "The Li fe Layer," Journal 01 Geog­raphy, Vol. 59 (1970) , 70-76.

/l 4 } Robert Christopherson . nd Peter Kakela, "Life Geo­system," Journal 01 Geography, Vol. 71, 1972, 140-146.

115} D. B. Carter, T. H. Schmudde, D. M. Sharpe, "The Interface as a Working Environment: A Purpose lor Physica l Geography," Commission on College Geog­raphy Publication No. 7, Association of American Geographers, Washington, 1972, 49.

116} Ibid., 49.

25

THE AMERICAN STATE CAPITAL, A TWENTIETH CENTURY GROWTH POLE

Frederick A. Hirsch

Frederick A. Hirsch is Associate Professor of Geography at Oregon College of Education, where he is also the advisor for the Gamma Theta Upsi lon Chapter. In addi­tion , Dr. Hirsch is the G.T.U. oHicial developing the alumni chapter of G.T.U.

26

A fall-out of our avoidance of " capes and bays" geography has been a " be­nign neglect" of political capitals. In addition to the mental block arising from past tedious memorizations of their existence has been a second fac­tor of sparseness of cases. The United States with fifty state capitals has more than the number of capitals in most of the other federally organized sover­eignties. The scientifically oriented among academic geographers have preferred to analyze phenomena in greater abundance such as central places or stream beds.

This article reports on a venture into the topic of population growth of the capital regions of our forty-eight con­tiguous states in the twentieth century. The underlying thesis is that the state capital in current American society warrants attention as a significant eco­nomic and population growth pole. The author used population as a proxy for both characteristics so that investi­gation involved an analysis of popula­tion changes census by census from 1900 to 1970. County populations were used because suburbanization at the present time produces faster popu­lation growth outside the legal city containing the government buildings. City limits also are more apt to change while there has been only one outer boundary change for the county based regions used in this study since 1900. The sole exception was Laramie county

(Cheyenne, Wyoming) which had a post-1900 fission into three counties.'

Currently twenty of the capital re­gions are composed of multicounty Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) while an additional fourteen are capital regions composed of single county SMSA's.2 The balance consists of capital cities with a population be­low the 50,000 used as a criteria for central city or central cities of an SMSA. For the ' multicounty capital regions population change was ex­amined for the entire region as well as for two segments, the central .county containing the capital city, and the sub­urban counties as an aggregated unit.

During the seventy year span a ma­jority of the central city county popu­lations tended to grow more rapidly than the total SMSA as defined for the 1970 Census of Population. However, in the last decade the suburban coun­ties increased at a faster rate in eighteen of the twenty SMSA's. This was a re­versal of the general situation prior to 1920. SMSA's in the Midwest and South stand out particularly as exam­ples of a shift to suburbanization of population growth.

This paper confines itself to the coterminous U.S. since both Alaska and Hawaii have had only slightly more than a decade of statehood. By 1900 capital cities were firmly rooted even in the territories on the threshold of statehood at that time. In Alaska there are still hopes in Anchorage that it would be possible to move the capital from the Alaskan panhandle to a loca­tion with greater geographical and population centrality.

Clyde E. Browning in authoring liThe State Capitals: Meaningful Geographi­cal Analysis vs. Memorization" for the January, 1970 issue of this journal iden­tified many important characteristics of the state capitals3 of our contiguous

states including a historical perspective on location choice, centrality aspects, and population size characteristics in 1960. To be added to his insights is that generally the capital regions have in­creased population at a faster rate than the populations of the governed states, especially after the New Deal adminis­tration initiated the United States into the " big government" era in the 1930's.

Population Trends in the Twentieth Century

Since 1930 forty of the forty-eight capital regions have had faster popula­tion growth than their state compared to only thirty-one for the 1900 to 1930 time span, or thirty-five for the entire period since 1900. In terms of growth exceeding the U. S. average increase, the number of state capitals are thirty­five for 1930 to 1970; twenty-seven for the three decades before 1930; and thirty-four for 1900 to 1970. Most of the slow growers si nce 1930 were cI us­tered in the Northeast region of the U. S. On the other hand the 1900 to 1930 period had a more dispersed dis­tribution of slow growers, and several of the nonmetropolitan capital coun­ties actually experienced population declines for one or more decades prior to 1930.

Capital regions with less growth than their states, the U.S., or both, for the time periods of the above paragraph are listed in Table 1, and the twenty states which were in one or more of these categories for the 1900 to 1970 time span are presented on Figure 1.

The overall impression of growth is further confirmed by the interesting aspects of population trends for capital regions presented in Table 2. The data were further disaggregated into central city county and suburban counties where this seemed to spotlight a real differentiation. The data are ordered

27

SELECTED CAPITAL REGIONS

TO POPULATION TRENDS 1900

COMPARED

TO 1970

28

Populot ion Scal e (000")

1,000

800

600

/' /

/

4 0 0 !:..-______ ----."c:... _______ ~~=----

200

1 0 0

8 0 _~:....,..,~____::;;"",£---".L-----~~---

6 0 -----,-/-_-..~ ______ L-------

40

20

-=- ---- -""

/

""

I

/' I

/

/

"" /

1 0 ~I ____ ~ ____ L-__ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~

1900 '10 ' 20 '30 '40 '5 0 '60 ' 70

- Stat e -- Cap itol Region

Figure 1

OHIO

Columbus

WISCONSIN

Columb ia

Madison S OUTH CAROLINA

OREGON

So lem

NEW MEXICO

Santo Fe

Table 1

Capital Regions with Population Growth less than U.S. or State Population Growth, 1900 to 1970, 1900 to 1930, and 1930 to 1970

Less Rate of Population Growth in Time Period than

Capital Region 1900 to 1970 1900 to 1930 1930 to 1970

State U.S. State U.S. State U.S.

Augusta X X X Concord X X X X X X Montpelier X X X X Boston X X X X X Providence X X X X

Albany X X X X X X Trenton X X X X Harrisburg X X X X Dover X X X X Annapolis X I ndianapol is X Lansing X

Springfield X X X X X X

Jefferson City X X X

Lincoln X X Topeka X Charleston X Tallahassee X X X X Frankfort X X X X Nashville X Montgomery X X X X

Jackson X Austin X Helena X X X X Cheyenne X Santa Fe X X X Carson City X X X Salem X X Sacramento X X

So urce : Co mputati ons based on Census of Popula tion

29

r

w o

!Zoo

,30°

POPULATION TRENDS OF STATE CAPITAL REGIONS COMPARED WITH U.S. AND STATE

,X/--··- ·· - .. _GROWTH 1900 TO 1970 "- "- "- "

C=:J Less than U.S. and state

1·;' ·:··:·1 Less than U.S. , more thon state

IZZ2l More than U.S. , less than state

~ More than U.S . and state

Fi gure 2

o 200 Miles

by four major comparisons, the first three continue the emphasis over time.

1. Number of decades in which the total capital region continued to in­crease population. Thirty-five of the forty-eight showed increase in every decade, a maximum possibility of seven. The thirteen with occasional loss tended to be from the non metro­politan examples. In addition, adjacent columns list the number of decades with growth greater than the state or U. S. experience. Each grew faster than its state average in at least one decade. Albany, Boston, and Montpelier did not outgrow the U. S. in any of the per­tinent decades.

2. The per cent change for the seventy years from 1900 to 1970 which shows as a significantly higher growth rate in the West and South compared to the Northeast portion of the United States. New England had the slowest growing areas. The growth has been especially marked for the capital re­gions in the sunshine belt, and notable in the industrialized part of the Mid­west. Phoenix outdistanced all others by a wide margin. The median growth value was slightly below 300 per cent while the U. S. growth has been only about 167 per cent since 1900 (Figure 2) .

3. Identification of the end year of the intercensal decade with the most significant increase; either in numeri­cal volume, or rapidity of growth. The decade of maximum absolute growth in the twentieth century has generally been either 1950 to 1960 or 1960 to 1970 except for some Northeast U. S. capital regions. The decade of maxi­mum rate of population growth tended to end in either 1910 or 1960. There does not appear to be either a marked regionalization for this data, or a sig­nificant relationship to size. A different decade for these two growth elements

should not be surprising since a size­able volume on a large population base may still be only a modest growth rate. The last decade of drop, if any, is also li sted and this situation appears to be more common prior to 1930. For many aggregations identified as sub­urban counties in this paper the last drop frequently occurred while the counties were beyond the urban fringe. A few with a large central city have had central city county population de­cline in recent decades. A handful of capital regions had a drop from 1960 to 1970, generally in states with popu­lation stagnation or decline.

4. The per cent of a state's 1970 population found in the capital area. This ranges from a high in the "city state" of Rhode Island of more than eighty per cent to a low for Missouri and Kentucky of a value slightly more than one per cent. The median value is about ten per cent with multicounty SMSA's more likely to exceed this. There does not appear to be a geo­graphic concentration of low or high values. While this value was not cal­culated for preceding population counts, the data in other columns of Table 2 strongly support the general­ization that there is a tendency for the capital area to get a larger share of a state's population over time.

Classification of State Capital Regions

After examination of growth and relative size characteristics, the capital areas were distributed among one of the followin.g six categories.

1. The regional economic metropo­li s which forms the largest numeric group, and is exemplified by such as Nashville and Columbia with a slight majority of the cases exceeding the median growth value. Many of these are multicounty SMSA.

31

Table 2

Population Trends 1900 to 1970 of Counties in Capital Regions

Number of Decades End of 20th Century Decade with Growth 1900 to 1970 Per Cent 1970 Per

Growth Highest Highest Last Cent of

Capital Region More than 190010 Numer- Per- Loss of i tate

rate of 1970 ical centage Popu- opu-

Growth Growth lation latlon Total State U.S.

Northeast

Augusta 7 5 1 61.1 1930 1930 9.6

Concord 6 2 2 54.3 1970 1970 1920 11.0

Montpelier 5 2 0 30.2 1910 1910 1940 10.7

Boston SEA 7 3 0 100.2 1910 1910 59.3 Central County 4 0 0 20.2 1910 1910 1970 Suburban Counties 7 7 2 145.8 1960 1910

Providence SEA 7 2 1 107.0 1910 1910 81 .2 Central County 6 2 1 76.9 1910 1910 1960 Suburban Counties 7 6 6 336.7 1960 1960

Hartford 7 6 6 317.8 1960 1920 26.9

Albany SMSA 7 2 0 87.1 1960 1910 4.0 Central County 7 1 0 72 .5 1960 1960 Other Cou nties 7 2 1 98.1 1910 1910

Trenton 7 3 5 218.8 1970 1910 4.2

Harrisburg SMSA 7 4 2 114.9 1960 1960 3.5 Central County 7 3 1 95.6 1960 1910 Suburban Counties 7 5 4 143.9 1970 1960

Dover 5 2 3 150.0 1960 1960 1920 14.9

Annapolis 6 5 5 651.0 1970 1960 1910 7.6

Charleston 6 6 5 319.6 1950 1910 1970 13.2

32

Table 2 (Continued)

Population Trends 1900 to 1970 of Counties in Capital Regions

Number of Decades End of 20th Century Decade with Growth Per Cent

1970 Per 1900 to 1970 Growth Highest Highest Last Cent of

Capital Region More than 1900 to Numer- Per- Loss of State

rate of 1970 ical centage Popu- Popu-

Growth Growth lation lation Total State U.S.

Middle West

Columbus SMSA 7 7 6 320.5 1960 1960 8.6 Central County 7 7 7 406.7 1960 1960 Suburban Counties 5 1 2 55.3 1960 1960 1920

Indianapo lis SMSA 7 7 4 207.4 1960 1960 21.4 Centra l County 7 7 7 301.7 1960 1910 Suburban Counties 4 3 3 93.8 1960 1960 1930

Springfield 7 3 1 125.3 1910 1910 1.5

Lansing SMSA 7 3 6 291.6 1970 1930 4.3 Central County 7 6 7 555.6 1970 1920 Suburban Counties 5 3 4 106.6 1970 1970 1920

Madison 7 6 6 318.0 1970 1960 6.6

Saint Paul SMSA 7 7 7 294.5 1970 1910 47.7 Central County 7 5 5 179.2 1960 1910 Other Counties 7 7 7 362.5 1970 1910

Des Moines 7 7 4 246.3 1920 1920 10.1

Jefferson City 7 6 3 124.6 1930 1930 1.0

Topeka 7 7 3 189.1 1960 1960 6.9

Lincoln 7 7 4 159.0 1960 1960 11.3

Pierre 4 5 4 216.0 1960 1910 1970 1.7

Bismarck 7 7 6 569.6 1960 1910 6.6

33

Table 2 (Continued)

Population Trends 1900 to 1970 of Counties in Capital Regions

Number of Decades End of 20th Century Decade with Growth Per Cent 1970 Per 1900 to 1970 Growth Highest Highest Last Cent of

Capital Region More than 1900 to Numer- Per- Loss of State

rate of 1970 ical centage Popu- Popu-

Growth Growth lation lation Total State U.S.

South

Richmond SMSA 7 7 6 252 .0 1960 1950 11.2 Central County 7 4 5 251.0 1970 1910 Suburban Counties 6 5 4 255.4 1960 1960 1920

Raleigh 7 6 6 318.2 1970 1970 4.5

Columbia SMSA 7 7 5 343.2 1960 1960 12.5 Central County 7 7 6 413 .0 1960 1920 Suburban Counties 6 5 3 226.5 1970 1970 1940

Atlanta SMSA 7 7 7 547.8 1970 1960 30.3 Central County 7 6 5 354.6 1930 1910 Suburban Counties 7 7 6 866.7 1970 1960

Tallahassee 5 3 5 418.1 1970 1950 1920 1.5

Montgomery SMSA 6 4 3 105.1 1960 1930 1920 5.8 Central County 5 4 4 132.9 1960 1930 1970 Suburban Counties 4 2 1 28.5 1930 1930 1960

Frankfort 6 5 2 65.4 1970 1970 1920 1.1

Nashville SMSA 7 7 5 207.4 1960 1930 13.8 Central County 7 7 5 264.7 1960 1930 Suburban Counties 5 1 2 75.2 1970 1970 1930

Jackson SMSA 6 6 5 252 .0 1960 1930 1920 11.7 Central County 6 6 6 308.8 1960 1930 1920 Suburban Counties 6 4 3 109.6 1970 1940 1920

Baton Rouge 7 6 6 815.5 1960 1950 7.8

Little Rock SMSA 7 7 7 323.7 1960 1910 16.8 Central County 7 7 7 354.6 1960 1910 Suburban Counties 6 5 5 175.2 1970 1910 1930

Oklahoma City SMSA 7 7 7 999.5 1970 1910 25.0 Central County 7 7 7 1932.4 1960 1910 Suburban Counties 6 5 4 252.4 1970 1970 1920

Austin 7 5 5 523.6 1970 1950 2.6

34

...

Table 2 (Continued)

Population Trends 1900 to 1970 of Counties in Capital Regions

Number of Decades End of 20th Century Decade with Growth PerCent 1970 Per 1900 to 1970 Growth Highest Highest Last Cent of

Capital Region More than 1900 to Numer- Per- Loss of State

rate of 1970 ica l centage Popu- Popu-

Growth Growth lation lation Total State U.S.

West

Santa Fe 7 3 4 266.7 1940 1940 5.3

Denver SMSA 7 7 7 567.6 1960 1960 55.6 Central County 7 5 5 284.5 1950 1910 Suburban Counties 7 5 7 1325.4 1970 1960

Cheyenne 6 4 5 297.5a 1950 1950 1970 17.0

Helena 5 3 2 73.6 1970 1940 1930 4.8

Boise 7 6 6 870.8 1960 1910 15.8

Salt Lake City SMSA 7 7 7 550.5 1960 1910 52.6 Central County 7 7 7 490.1 1960 1910 Suburban County 7 5 6 1137.9 1970 1960

Phoenix 7 7 7 4633 .6 1960 1920 54.6

Carson City 5 3 4 435.3 1970 1960 1930 3.2

Sacramento SMSA 7 3 7 963 .1 1960 1960 4.0 Central County 7 2 7 1275.2 1960 1960 Suburban County 7 2 5 475.6 1970 1960

Salem SMSA 7 3 6 396.0 1970 1910 8.9 Central County 7 5 7 446.0 1970 1910 Suburban County 7 2 5 256.4 1970 1910

Olympia 7 5 7 674.3 1970 1910 2.3

aln the 1900 and 1910 census the county containing Cheyenne was including territory of counties created after 1910. Th is per cent is ca lculated on the assumption that most of the 1900 popula-tion was clustered around Cheyenne.

35

W 0\

[=::J Less than 100 0J0 increase

1:-:-: -: 1 100 to 2990J0 increase

IZZZI 300 to 799 0/0 Increose

~ 800 to 1599 0J0 increase

_ More than 4000 0J0 increase

GROWl H OF S CAPITAL 1900

o 200 ~

Figure 3

Classification

Regional Economic Capital s

Educational Capitals

" Shadowed" Metropolitan Capitals

" Shared" Metropolitan Capitals

Suburban Capital

Small City Capitals

Table 3

Classification of State Capital Regions

State Capital Regions in Classification

Boston Providence Hartford Columbus Indianapolis Des Moines Richmond Charleston Columbia Atlanta

Lansing Madison Lincoln Raleigh

Harrisburg Trenton Springfield Topeka

Albany

Annapolis

Augusta Concord Montpelier Dover Frankfort Jefferson City

Jackson Nashville Little Rock Oklahoma City Denver Cheyenne Boise Salt Lake City Phoenix

Tallahassee Baton Rouge Austin

Montgomery

Salem Sacramento

Saint Paul

Bi smarck Pierre Helena Santa Fe Carson City Olympia

37

Table 4

1900 and 1970 Population and Rate of Increase for Selected Capital Regions and Host State

Capital and 1970 Population Region (000)

Washington D.C. 2,861 .1 U.S.A. 203,211.9

Columbus 916.2 Ohio 10,652.0

Madison 290.3 Wisconsin 4,417.7

Columbia 322.9 South Carolina 2,590.5

Santa Fe 53.8 New Mexico 1,016.0

Salem 186.7 Oregon 2,091.4

Source: u .S. Census of Population 1900, 1970

2. The government-educational me­tropolis which forms a small cluster with the educational component being an important state university such as is the case of Austin and Madison. These tended to have a more rapid growth than the median of about 300 per cent growth in this century.

3. The " overshadowed" metropoli­tan area which forms a small group typified by Harrisburg and Salem. These tend to grow more slowly than the median.

4. The non metropolitan capital which forms a fourth of the total , and as typical cases we have Concord and Santa Fe. These tend to be in states with smaller populations, and most of them tend to grow relatively more slowly. One capital , not yet in the metropolitan class, Cheyenne, was in-

38

1900 Population Per Cent Increase (000) 1900 to 1970

411.7 594.9 76,212.2 166.6

217.9 320.5 4,157.5 156.2

69.4 318.0 2,069.0 113.5

72.9 343.2 1,340.3 93.3

14.7 266.7 195.3 420.2

37.6 396.0 413 .5 405.8

cluded in the regional economic me­tropolis category rather than this one since it is the largest city in Wyoming.

5. The metropolitan capital in a multicity SMSA forms a two member group composed of Albany and Saint Paul.

6. The suburban capital which is the unique distinction of Annapolis, a state capital which is now engulfed within the Baltimore metropolitan area, one of the larger SMSA's in pop­ulation in the United States.

A li st of state capital regions grouped according to this classifica­tion scheme is presented in Table 3. A graphic presentation of population for each census from 1900 to 1970 was prepared for a selection of capitals from the first four groups of Table 3. To permit visual comparison of growth

rates for capital regions and host states of disparate size, a logarithmic scale is used. Figure 3 then shows the popu­lation each decade for the selected state capital areas, the host states, and as a comparison, for the national capi­tal and national population. The data for the terminal dates of 1900 and 1970 also appear on Table 4.

In general , state capital regions re­flect the upward trend of state popu­lations, but with a generally greater growth slope. This greater growth is re-emphasized by the vertical bars on the right half of Figure 3 which in those cases where the capital region had a faster growth rate than the state, it will have a bar of greater length than the one representing the state popu­lation.

Conclusion In general the data for the forty-eight

capital regions suggest that the growth trend is most marked when the state capital is either the location of a grow­ing state university, or an important

regional trade center. The growth syn­drome for college towns may not be as marked in the future as college en­rollments at large state institutions peak out.

The population patterns of the state capital regions can be of interest to teachers concerned with units on urbanization and urban problems. It may also be appropriate for popula­tion and political geography. Similar investigations could be applied to state or provincial populations in other countries where census data are re­liable over many decades. These pat­terns could be developed into inquiry material to illustrate the growth of government employment as an influ­encing factor in shifts of population.

{l l 15th U. S. Census of Popu lation: 1930. Volume 1. Number and Di stribution of Inhabita nts, Wyoming, Table 3. p. 1210.

121 19th U. S. Census 01 Population : 1970. United States Summary. Number of Inhabitants . PC(1)-A1. Table 32. pp . 171-178.

1'1 Clyde E. Browning. " The State Cap ita ls: Meaningfu l Geographica l Ana lysis vs. Memorization." Journal of Geography. Volume LXIX, No. 1 (January, 1970) , pp .40-44.

39

4