Monday, July 4, 2016

How do neighborhoods form?

Neighborhood organization is one of the few universals of urban structure. All cities, past and present, all over the world, are organized into neighborhoods. Sometimes neighborhoods are planned from the start by officials or commercial builders. Think of all the ready-made suburban neighborhoods built by developers today, with their phony bucolic- or English-sounding names. Or consider company towns, whether ancient Egyptian workers settlements or capitalist factory cities like Pullman, Illinois. The planners build in neighborhoods from the get-go. If they aren't planned out in advance, however, neighborhoods spring up on their own. People interact with those living nearby, new residents move into areas where they know people, or where people are like them culturally, and before long there are neighborhoods that are clear to residents and visitors alike.
Neighborhoods: suburban U.S., Ottoman city; Chinese city

One of the best ways to look at certain urban processes, to my mind, is to examine "semi-urban" places. These are places where large numbers of people gather together, often on a temporary basis. They aren't really cities--they aren't permanent enough. After a while, people leave and go home. But when people gather in  one place, a certain "energized crowding" takes place (see my post on Cities as  Social Reactors), and by looking at what happens, we gain a better understanding of urban processes and activities.

So, here I want to take a quick look at three very different kinds of semi-urban settlements (a company town, a protest camp, and the Burning Man festival) to see how neighborhoods develop. This post is based on a recent article (Smith et al. 2015) that looks at neighborhoods in a wider range of semi-urban settlements. I won't cite a bunch of sources here; see that article for citations and a more scholarly treatment.

Abadan, Iran, Company Town:  Top-Down Neighborhood Formation
Deir el-Medina, ancient workers village

The company town is a settlement planned and established by a central organization to house its workers so that they can work more efficiently. They tend to exhibit careful planning and regularity of housing; they show some evidence of the central authority; and they are physically set off from their neighboring settlements. We tend to think of company towns as modern features, used by capitalist enterprises. But the basic concept goes back to ancient Egypt at least. Pharaohs set up walled settlements that archaeologists call "workers villages" to house construction workers, or temple personnel. This was not by any means a capitalist economy, yet the form, function, and goals of workers villages matched closely those of a 19th century town like Pullman, Illinois. These settlements are one of the main types of what Kevin Lynch called "the city as a practical machine."

My example here is Abadan, an oil refining town set up in the early 20th century in Iran by the Anglo-Persion Oil Company (later known as British Petroleum). The company knew they would need to bring in workers from several national/cultural groups, and they were worried about possible trouble that could come if members of these groups could easily mingle with one another. So thay arranged the housing in a big band around the outside of the refinery, and
they kept individual neighborhood units separate from one another. The British executives and engineers were in one area, and various local and Near Eastern groups were distributed in other areas.
Neighborhoods laid out around the refinery, which was in the center

British neighborhood in Abadan
The plan to settle groups in physically separate neighborhoods was quite deliberate, as research into company archives has shown (see Smith et al 2015 for citations). So, Abadan ended up with a system of neighborhoods, distinguished culturally and socially, as a result of deliberate planning from the
top. Such "designed neighborhoods" are also found in other company towns, and in other regimented planned settlements such as internment camps.

Occupy Portland Protest Camp: Bottom-up Neighborhood Formation

Information from the Occupy Portland camp was gathered by Katrina Johnston-Zimmerman for her MA thesis. Katrina is an interesting urbanist; check out her "Think Urban" website or her Twitter feed. As an undergraduate at Arizona State University, Katrina worked for our interdisciplinary urban project, "Urban Organization through the Ages." She conducted ethnographic fieldwork during the "Occupy Portland" event of 2011. This was one of the many local protest camps that spring up following the initial Occupy Wall Street settlement.
Occupy Portland camp. Photo by Katrina Johnston-Zimmerman

What Katrina found was that the campers in Portland quickly formed spatial clusters of like-minded people who spent time together. They set up their tents near one another. These groups took on names. In short, these were neighborhoods. This is a clear example of the bottom-up route to neighborhood formation. People created neighborhoods on their own, following their needs and interests. No one came along and organized the campsite. In fact, the participants in the Occupy Portland event refused to submit to a top-down organization. Someone pointed out that the campsite looked messy. If they reorganized it to look neater, with tents in nice rows, then the authorities would be less likely to tear it down. (This is a basic principle in informal settlement invasions in Latin America; local governments are far less likely to destroy shantytown settlements when they have neat streets and lots than when they are a mess).  But, true to their anarchist orientation, the participants refused to submit to this top-down structure. The messy, grass-roots organized spatial organization of neighborhoods was too strong to be torn apart in an effort to please city officials.

The Burning Man Festival: From Anarchy to Planning


The annual Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert is a fascinating case study of a semi-urban settlement. What began as a bonfire on the beach in San Francisco in th 1980s has grown into a huge annual campsite with as many as 70,000 week-long residents. It has always been a festival of arts and free expression, run with a series of anarchist principles, including radical inclusion, decommodification, communal effort, radical self-reliance, and leave no trace. The entire settlement is taken down each year, all traces are removed or destroyed, and then it is planned, surveyed, and built again the following year. Urbanists have only just begun to study Burning Man, and there is much to learn there about cities, urbanization, and social patterns.

The Burning Man site is on federal land, and the festival receives a permit each year. As the festival grew during the 1990s, people naturally gravitated toward specific areas, forming neighborhoods. These were linked by friendship and social bonds, as well as by interests (e.g., all-night loud parties in one area; campers with small children in another). But by 1996, the event had grown too large to function on its anarchist principles. People were shooting guns in crowded places, driving cars too fast and destroying tents and injuring people. The government threatened to shut down the festival (by denying the permit) unless more order were achieved.

Almost overnight, the site -- called Black Rock City -- became a heavily planned settlement, with a circular layout and the burning man tower in the center. There is now a "Department of Urban Planning" in the Burning Man organization. Neighborhoods were either continued, or established anew, again, using social bonds and common interests as defining features. These anarchists were able to submit to some top-down planning in order to continue to celebrate their anti-authoritarian and free-expression values.

Whereever you look, there are neighborhoods!

These are just three examples of semi-urban settlements with clear neighborhood organization. Our study found neighborhoods at many other types, from Plains Indians tipi camps to refugee camps. The conclusion I draw from this study is that neighborhoods are indeed a  universal feature of urban life. Whether created and enforced by authorities (state or corporation), or generated by grass-roots action of individual acting in their own, neighborhoods are an integral and crucial part of urban organization, from the distant past to the present.

For more details, see:

Smith, Michael E., Ashley Engquist, Cinthia Carvajal, Katrina Johnston, Amanda Young, Monica Algara, Yui Kuznetsov and Bridgette Gilliland  (2015)  Neighborhood Formation in Semi-Urban Settlements. Journal of Urbanism 8(2):173-198.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Why we need to disentangle the concepts of city and state in the ancient world

Many people will be puzzled by this title. The city and the state are separate concepts that refer to very different things. Why would they need to be "disentangled"? But in my own home discipline—anthropological archaeology—these two concepts have long been wrapped up together in a single package. A long-standing goal of anthropological archaeology has been to figure out the origins of early cities and states. But when cities and states are not distinguished, that goal has been impossible to reach. Now evidence is accumulating that archaeologists can't ignore, and it is time to give up the old view once and for all.

Fig. 1: Old archaeological view of state and city origins

Figure 1 shows the standard model for state origins in anthropological archaeology. Various factors led to the establishment of the earliest states (archaeologists have argued a lot about the relative importance of those factors). Once states came into being, cites came along too, for the ride. Archaeologists didn't think that urbanization required a separate theory. About fifteen years ago I started focusing my comparative attention on cities and urbanization. I quickly realized that while these old views were inadequate, they were deeply engrained. I recall not long ago emailing an Egyptologist with a question about early cities in Egypt (I forget now just what I asked). This person's response was, "I can't help you, because I haven't worked on state origins for many years." Say, what? I hadn't asked anything about states, I had asked about cities.

I think one reason archaeologists were slow to separate states and cities, was because most cities in the ancient world were dominated by politics, and not by economics. Today, cities are all about economics: factories, production, trade, commerce, firms, and employment. Political processes play a decidedly secondary role for most urban issues. But in the deep past, on the other hand, most cities were all about politics. They were capitals where kings lived, or state outposts where bureaucrats operated. Economic activity took a back seat to political activity in generating urban growth and shaping the nature of cities (Jose Lobo and I develop this theme in a paper now under review, "Cities through the Ages: One Thing or Many?"). Since cities were essentially political institutions, it seemed natural to link urbanization to state formation.
 
Figure 2. State traits and urban traits, from Chick (1997:294)
Nevertheless, cities and states are quite different, whether we are talking about nation-states today or the early states and empires. Figure 2 shows one small piece of evidence supporting this idea. This table, from an article by Garry Chick (1997), shows the results of a factor analysis of a cross-cultural sample of human societies. The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample is a collection of human societies described by anthropologists that can be analyzed statistically (see Ember and Ember 2009). In this study, Garry Chick examined how a number of social variables were associated in the sample. He identified two factors, or principal components. Factor 1 has high loadings for variables related to administration and economics (red box). This shows that these traits are strongly correlated; they come as a package in some societies. Societies either tend to have writing, money, and social stratification, or else they tend to lack these things. These are state-related variables. A second set of variables scored high on Factor 2: these are urban-related features (residence patterns, density, urbanization, and agriculture). The interesting thing is that principal components defines factors that are independent of one another ("orthogonal" is the technical term). That is, knowing the score of a society on Factor 1 will not help you predict its score on Factor 2. In other words, urban features are basically independent of state features when a wide range of human societies is considered.


A recent book by Justin Jennings, called Killing Civilization: A Reassessment of Early Urbanism and its Consequences provides more evidence for the need to separate cities and states in the distant past. This is a fantastic book, and I will blog about it in more depth before long. For now, I want to emphasize one particular strand of Jennings's argument. He proposes two reasons why archaeologists and anthropologists should abandon the concept "civilization." First, the concept "helped justify colonial and racist projects of the 19th and early 20th centuries" (p. 266). If some societies are "civilizations" and others are not, this implies some peoples are civilized and others are not. But this is more of an evaluation, a value judgment that has often justified racism, and less of an analytical term. Therefore scholars should give up the concept of civilization. I agree.

Second, the idea of civilization—as in "the rise of civilization"—confuses state formation and urbanization by implying that they are both parts of a single package that came into being all at once. Much of Jennings's book is devoted to examples of early urban settlements that developed prior to state organization. If urbanization preceded state formation, then these two processes must be disentangled if we are to make any sense at all of early developments. I REALLY agree!

This last point gets into the broader and very important issue of how urbanization generates changes in society, and how the results of living together in dense settlements may have led to early state formation. This is a theme I have been working on recently; see some of my prior blog posts (such as Cities as social reactors, or Settlement scaling and social science theory). I have some papers in press and under review on this topic. But this kind of new approach only makes sense when archaeologists have actually disentangled processes of urbanization and state formation. From the point of view of comparative social-science research on cities, this is a no-brainer. But some archaeologists still need to wake up to urban reality, and Justin Jennings's book is a big step in the right direction.


Chick, Garry
1997  Cultural Complexity: The Concept and its Measurement. Cross-Cultural Research 31: 275-307.

Ember, Carol R. and Melvin Ember
2009  Cross-Cultural Research Methods. 2nd ed. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, CA.

Jennings, Justin
2016  Killing Civilization: A Reassessment of Early Urbanism and its Consequences. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Settlement Scaling and Social Science Theory



In this post I explore several branches of social science theory that support the social reactor model of settlement scaling. This is a continuation of my prior post, which explored the basis for comparing urban and village settlement systems. Like that post, this one is exploratory in nature, and I would really welcome feedback on these ideas. This post is a bit more academic and detailed than most in this blog, for which I apologize. Here is an outline of the scheme.

1. Theories of population growth and its effects
  1. Large-scale social consequences of population size
  2. Scalar stress
  3. Dual inheritance theory
2. Community theory
  1. Social interaction generates communities
  2. Social interaction generates successful communities
  3. Communities can accomplish goals
3. Urban economics

Yes, I realize this is a motley collection of themes—some are well-worked out theories or theoretical approaches, one is a discipline, and others are specific research topics or claims. But as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” I am not any kind of theoretician, and I’m afraid this is the best I can do for now. Don’t like this scheme? Then help me out; send me comments and critiques.

1. Theories of population growth and its effects

The first group of theories focus on the role of population growth—and population size—on society and behavior. This is a long-standing research theme in the social sciences. I divide this area into three categories.

A. Large-scale social consequences of population size


Social scientists have recognized the large-scale social consequence of increasing group size for more than a century. The great sociologist Georg Simmel noted in 1898: “Every quantitative extension of a group requires certain qualitative modifications and adjustments” (Simmel 1898:834).” The growth of larger social groups, and the association between group size and socio-political complexity, have been major themes in the literature on cultural evolution in anthropology. Quantitative analysis directed at this theme was common in anthropology in the 1950s and 1960s (Carneiro 1962; Naroll 1956), and this work even included some early settlement scaling analyses (Cook and Heizer 1965)!

A popular topic of research on population change in the 1960s and 1970s was the role of “population pressure” in generating various social changes (Cohen 1977; Spooner 1972). The resulting consensus held that simplistic models positing population increase as the sole cause of political change were inadequate; for example, Carneiro’s (1970) model of population growth causing warfare, which in turn caused the rise of states, is rarely invoked now, except as a foil or a historical note. But narrower models, focused on economic and environmental variables—such as Netting’s (1993) model of population pressure causing agricultural intensification in smallholder farming—have fared better with time, even appearing in best-selling popular science books (e.g., M.E. Smith 2016a) (well, I hope I do sell a few copies......).

The two relationships mentioned above—(1) group size has increased over time in many areas of the world; and (2) group size is strongly predictive of sociopolitical complexity—might be considered “stylized facts” in archaeology. That is, they are well-documented relationships whose explanation has been the subject of dispute. I am intrigued by the concept of stylized facts in economics, and I’ll probably blog about this on Publishing Archaeology soon. But the relevant conclusion here is that group size is important, and—in some circumstances—has causal effects on social and economic life. This is similar to the claims of the social reactor model, although the cultural evolutionary models tend to gloss over specific social interactions within set places in their pursuit of more general results. If this discussion does not seem sufficiently “theoretical,” then I’ll invoke the “demographic-structural theory” of Jack Goldstone (1991, 2002), further elaborated by Turchin and Nefedov (2009). This is a productive political-economy approach in economic history and historical sociology that melds population increase theory with structural models of power relations.

B. Scalar stress

Archaeologist Gregory Johnson (1982) coined the term “scalar stress” to refer to social stress or difficulties created by increases in the size of a social group. His focus was on the size of the decision-making group, and he analyzed the development of hierarchies of social decision making as group size increases. Research on scalar stress focuses on the negative aspects of larger social groups. The best-known archaeological example is Roland Fletcher’s (1995) model of thresholds in settlement size and density, caused by scalar stress. This kind of analysis of archaeological site size continues today (Alberti 2014).

There is a large literature in social psychology on the role of population density in generating psychological stress (Evans 2001; Spruill 2010), and research on the “urban health penalty”—the negative health consequences of living in dense cities (Vlahov and Galea 2002; Vlahov et al. 2004)—follows a similar tack. In fact, if we step back a bit, there is a major historical line of research in sociology on the negative effects of growing city size. This is too big a topic to get involved in here (and I don’t know if very well......), but one element that remains a topic of discussion after many decades is “social disorganization theory,” concerning the negative social consequences of urban life, particularly in large cities (Kornhauser 1978; Kubrin and Weitzer 2003; Sampson 2004).

Scalar stress and social disorganization theory are relevant to settlement scaling in that they emphasize the negative consequences of life in large cities. Urban scaling of contemporary cities shows that superlinear scaling is not only about positive economic outputs; crime, poverty, and disease rates also exhibit superlinear scaling (thanks to Deborah Strumsky for her nice lecture today at ASU, reminding us about superlinear scaling of disease levels). Social interactions in the built environment have both positive and negative consequences.

C. Dual inheritance theory

Dual inheritance theory is about how human genes and culture evolve separately, yet inter-relatedly; they co-evolve. Starting with Boyd and Richerson (1985), this is now a major line of research in anthropology and biology (Henrich 2015; Richerson and Christiansen 2013). What does it have to do with scaling? A major focus in dual inheritance theory is the mechanisms of cultural transmission. How do people learn from others? How do new traits arise and spread through a population? What are the roles of skill, teaching, prestige, and conformity in the spread of knowledge? Many of these traits depend on population size.

This research is relevant to settlement scaling in its analysis of how the size of social groups relates to technology and other cultural adaptations. No single person in any social group has all of the knowledge needed to survive or to reproduce the group’s culture. Successful cultures require the combined knowledge and skills of many members. Larger groups have a greater diversity of tools and concepts (Henrich 2015), and if a group gets too small, it can lose effective technological adaptations rapidly, as in ancient Tasmania (Henrich 2004).

Unfortunately, the dual inheritance scholars have not thought much about how their models relate to settlements and urbanism; their models lack a spatial dimension. If technological diversity depends on group size, then perhaps larger settlements have distinctive technological attributes compared to smaller settlements. But the emphasis on learning and cultural transmission of dual inheritance research does relate to the social interaction basis of the social reactor model.

2. Community theory

By “community theory” I mean work from a political-economy perspective that studies communities as sites of social interaction. This perspective diverges from a common approach to communities in archaeology, in which the emphasis is on idealist and social constructionist models that claim communities are generated by shared meanings in people’s heads. For some discussion of these differences, see two posts on Publishing Archaeology:  here,  and here. I sometimes wish I worked in a discipline that didn’t have so much silliness and ridiculousness taken seriously as theory.

The three sections that follow are not distinct theoretical approaches; they are major claims of the political-economy approach to communities. This approach—particularly these three claims—is broadly supportive of the social reactor model of settlements.

A. Social interaction generates communities (“connection, not affection”)

The dominant view in the social sciences views communities as generated from processes of social interaction. This goes back to Emile Durkheim at least. Sociologist Steven Brint (2001) shows different definitions of community in a nice tree diagram:


Notice that neighborhood groups and other social communities (lower left) are based on activities and frequent interactions. Here is how economists Sam Bowles and Herbert Gintis (Bowles and Gintis: F420) define community:

“By community we mean a group of people who interact directly, frequently and in multi-faceted ways. People who work together are usually communities in this sense, as are some neighbourhoods, groups of friends, professional and business networks, gangs, and sports leagues. The list suggests that connection, not affection, is the defining characteristic of a community. Whether one is born into a community or one entered by choice, there are normally significant costs to moving from one to another.”  (p.F420)

Most definitions of community in the social sciences are based on three factors: social interaction, spatial locality, and some kind of common ties (Hillery 1955; Jabareen and Carmon 2010). My definition of neighborhood—intended to be useful for archaeologists—is quite similar (M.E. Smith 2010). Again, see my prior blog posts for a critique of the social constructionist views of community in archaeology (here, and here), or see my paper on quality of life (M.E. Smith 2016b).


B. Social interaction generates successful communities

Social interaction is emphasized in a number of normative theories of successful communities. Anthropologists and archaeologists, take note: planning and other social scientists use the term “normative” in a very different way than it is used in anthropology and archaeology. Normative in these other fields means theory with an evaluative dimension; for example, theory about what makes for “good city design” (Lynch 1981) is called normative theory. I discuss this briefly in Smith (2011).

How to use urban design to promote social interactions is a major component of normative planning theory. Social interactions—with friends, neighbors, and other residents—are seen as one of the prime indicators of successful cities and towns. Social interaction—particularly in reference to neighborhood physical facilities like parks, playgrounds, and pedestrian-friendly streets—is a key dimension of social cohesion in cities (R.A. Smith 1975). Urban planners give considerable attention to designing neighborhoods and streets that promote interactions (Kısar Koramaz 2014). Stable neighborhoods facilitate social interaction, which promotes social cohesion or integration (Brower 2011).

Here are some passages from Robert Putnam and Lewis Feldstein, in their book on social capital and successful communities in the U.S. today:

“Again and again, we find that one key to creating social capital is to build in redundancy of contact. … Common spaces for commonplace encounters are prerequisites for common conversations and common debate ... Urban planning, architecture, and technology can each fosters redundancy and multistrandedness by creating opportunities for encounters that knit together existing ties. Because local arrays of built space and communications technology act as ‘background structural factors’ in most of our cases, their true importance is not always manifest.” (Putnam and Feldstein 2003:291)


C. Communities can accomplish goals

Communities are important not just as places where people live, but also because they can accomplish tasks and get things done. The great social scientist Charles Tilly (one of my intellectual heroes) asked, “Do communities act?” (Tilly 1973). He was discussing the ways in which communities in early modern France applied resources toward common goals. This line of analysis has continued in several branches of the social sciences. Bowles and Gintis, for example, note that communities can solve problems that are difficult for markets or states to solve. See their typology, based on the differing types of social relations that characterize the three kinds of institution:


Bowles and Gintis (2002:F422-F423) state:

“communities solve problems that might otherwise appear as classic market failures or state failures: namely, insufficient provision of local public goods such as neighborhood amenities, the absence of insurance and other risk-sharing opportunities even when these would be mutually beneficial, exclusion of the poor from credit markets, and excessive and ineffective monitoring of work effort. Communities can sometimes do what governments and markets fail to do because their members, but not outsiders, have crucial information about other members’ behaviours, capacities, and needs. Members use this information to uphold norms.”

The ability of communities to act—effectively and with positive outcomes—is at the heart of the work of Elinor Ostrom (1990, 2005). One of her basic arguments parallels precisely the argument of Bowles and Gintis: local communities can manage common-pool resources more successfully and sustainably than either states (government ownership) or markets (privatization). Here is her basic model:


Notice the role of face-to-face communication on the left side. Basic social interactions within a community promotes trust, reputation and reciprocity.

The upshot of this perspective on communities is that social interactions in a specific spatial locale have a variety of positive effects for residents. These effects are felt on both the individual and the group levels. To these basic findings of social science research, the social reactor model of settlement scaling adds two things: (1) social interactions in a given built environment have an even wider range of specific outcomes than social-science research might suggest; and (2) they exhibit a surprising level quantitative regularity.

3. Urban economics

I’ve just about run out of steam here. I guess that’s a convenient excuse to avoiding talking about a discipline I know little about. So let me just cite an article that not only has a fantastic title—“Buzz”—but also provides an excellent introduction to the role of face-to-face interaction in cities (Storper and Venables 2004). And I will close with two brief quotes from urban economist Edward Glaeser’s excellent book, The Triumph of Cities (Glaeser 2011):


“The central theme of this book is that cities magnify humanity’s strengths. Our social species’ greatest talent is the ability to learn from each other, and we learn more deeply and thoroughly when we’re face-to-face.” (p.250)

“Cities enable the collaboration that makes humanity shine most brightly. Because humans learn so much from other humans, we learn more when there are more people around us.”  (p. 247)


References


Alberti, Gianmarco
2014 Modeling Group Size and Scalar Stress by Logistic Regression from an Archaeological Perspective. PLOS-one 9 (3): e91510.


Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis
2002 Social Capital and Community Governance. The Economic Journal 112 (483): F419-F436.


Boyd, Robert and Peter J. RIcherson
1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.


Brint, Steven
2001 Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the Community Concept. Sociological Theory 19: 1-23.


Brower, Sidney N.
2011 Neighbors and Neighborhoods: Elements of Successful Community Design. APA Planners Press, Chicago.


Carneiro, Robert L.
1962 Scale Analysis as an Instrument for the Study of Cultural Evolution. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 18: 149-169.


1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169: 733-738.


Cohen, Mark Nathan
1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven.


Cook, Sherburne F. and Robert F. Heizer
1965 The Quantitative Approach to the Relation Between Population and Settlement Size. Reports, vol. 64. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.


Evans, Gary W.
2001 Crowding and Other Environmental Stressors. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, pp. 3018-3022. Elsevier, New York.


Fletcher, Roland
1995 The Limits of Settlement Growth: A Theoretical Outline. Cambridge University Press, New York.


Glaeser, Edward L.
2011 The Triumph of Cities: How our Greatest Invention Makes us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin, New York.


Goldstone, Jack A.
1991 Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. University of California Press, Berkeley.


2002 Population and Security: How Demographic Change can Lead to Violent Conflict. Journal of International Affairs 56: 3-21.


Henrich, Joseph
2004 Demography and cultural evolution: How adaptive cultural processes can produce maladaptive losses-The Tasmanian case. American Antiquity 69 (2): 197-214.


2015 The Secret of Our Success: How Learning from Others Drove Human Evolution, Domesticated our Species and Made us Smart. Princeton University Press, Princeton (in press).


Hillery, George A., Jr.
1955 Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement. Rural Sociology 20: 111-124.


Jabareen, Yosef and Naomi Carmon
2010 Community of Trust: A Socio-Cultural Approach for Community Planning and the Case of Gaza. Habitat International 34 (4): 446-453.


Johnson, Gregory A.
1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southamton Conference, edited by Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Rowlands, and Barbara A. Wegraves, pp. 389-421. Academic press, New York.


Kısar Koramaz, Elif
2014 The Spatial Context of Social Integration. Social Indicators Research 119 (1): 49-71.


Kornhauser, Ruth
1978 The Social Sources of Delinquency Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.


Kubrin, Charis E. and Ronald Weitzer
2003 New Directions in Social Disorganization Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40 (4): 374-402.


Lynch, Kevin
1981 A Theory of Good City Form. MIT Press, Cambridge.


Naroll, Raoul
1956 A Preliminary Index of Social Development. American Anthropologist 58 (4): 687-715.


Netting, Robert McC.
1993 Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford.


Ostrom, Elinor
1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York.


2005 Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton.


Putnam, Robert D. and Lewis M. Feldstein
2003 Better Together: Restoring the American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York.


Richerson, Peter J. and Morten H. Christiansen (editors)
2013 Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology, Language, and Religion. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.


Sampson, Robert J.
2004 Networks and Neighbourhoods: The Implications of Connectivity for Thinking about Crime in the Modern City. In Network Logic: Who Governs in an Interconnected World?, edited by Helen McCarthy, Paul Miller, and Paul Skidmore., pp. 157-166. Demos, London.


Simmel, Georg
1898 The Persistence of Social Groups, II. American Journal of Sociology 3: 829-836.


Smith, Michael E.
2010 The Archaeological Study of Neighborhoods and Districts in Ancient Cities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29 (2): 137-154.


2011 Empirical Urban Theory for Archaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18: 167-192.


2016a        At Home with the Aztecs: An Archaeologist Uncovers their Domestic Life. Routledge, New York.


2016b        Quality of Life and Prosperity in Ancient Households and Communities. In The Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and Applied Archaeology (book in press), edited by Christian Isendahl and Daryl Stump. Oxford University Press, New York.


Smith, Richard A.
1975 Measuring Neighborhood Cohesion: A Review and Some Suggestions. Human Ecology 3: 143-160.


Spooner, Brian (editor)
1972 Population Growth: Anthropological Implications. MIT Press, Cambridge.


Spruill, Tanya M.
2010 Chronic Psychosocial Stress and Hypertension. Current Hypertension Reports 12 (1): 10-16.


Storper, Michael and Anthony J. Venables
2004 Buzz: Face-to-Face Contact and the Urban Economy. Journal of Economic Geography 4 (4): 351-370.


Tilly, Charles
1973 Do Communities Act? Sociological Inquiry 43: 209-240.


Turchin, Peter and Sergey A. Nefedov
2009 Secular Cycles. Princeton University Press, Princeton.


Vlahov, David and Sandro Galea
2002 Urbanization, Urbanicity, and Health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 79 (4-supplement 1): s1-s12.


Vlahov, David, Emily Gibble, Nicholas Freudenberg, and Sandro Galea
2004 Cities and Health: History, Approaches, and Key Questions. Academic Medicine 79: 1133-1138.