Assignment help

LAW ASSIGNMENT 代写:Urban Policy And Planning

LAW ASSIGNMENT 代写:Urban Policy And Planning

一个好的理论,可以理解为一个复杂的概念,允许在一些想法抓获(帕斯内,2008)。有一个缺点,一些理论是简单的,在他们可以反复地受到挑战的计数器的例子。一些理论也因此唯一有效的证据的总和,而其他人出现明显的全线(Parker,2004)。如果一个理论变得太具体,那么它就不再是理解现象的一个有效的概念。当然,理论不一定正确的一些反例,往往理论很诱人,因为他们提供有用的出发点,理解其他复杂的现象,看到的一般特征,并最终导致进一步的研究(帕斯内,2008)。在这项研究中,将研究一些关键概念,并与两个“关键思想家”在城市地理的想法进行了对比。

约翰逊等。(2004)提出了一个概念框架,试图说明种族隔离在USA.利用对1980-2000年的美国之间的种族隔离的人口普查数据的一般特征。他们揭示的一个概念是,种族隔离源于在住房和劳动力市场的一个缺点,因此任何数量的增加,导致隔离的增加。这第一个概念可以被破坏的程度,这种模式是依赖于不同的歧视方法(约翰逊等人,2004)。例如,当少数民族的数量增加时,他们的种族隔离也可以很容易地反驳指出,任何数量的增加,自然会导致种族隔离的增加。如果更多的人从不同的民族生活在一个地区,它更可能是不同地区包括特定族群的个体(帕斯内,1999)。此外,如果这些人在劳动力市场上处于弱势地位,那么这将影响他们的盈利能力,这将有可能导致他们选择具体的低租金的地区生活。因此,直接歧视只能解释的现象描述的一部分(帕克,2004)。这是一个实证研究,因此建立在事实上,这种现象可以通过统计观察;然而,这个过程中很容易出现结果的重新解读。

第二个特征,可以从约翰逊等人。(2004)在美国的种族隔离的研究是一个假设,即在城市人口较多的种族隔离。这部分是由他们自己的研究,这表明,有一些减轻影响这一概念的影响因素。加利福尼亚的城市表现出较低的水平,每个民族的种族隔离。隔离不同族群之间的模型:“亚裔和西班牙裔,但不是黑人,种族隔离是更加种族多元化的都市人口”(约翰逊et al.,2004,p.567)。这意味着,作者提供了一个多维模型,根据每个城市的特殊情况的变化。它不解释种族隔离,但只是表明它有不同的原因,取决于上下文。这个概念并没有提供一种方法来建立类似的模式在其他城市,因为它是必要的上下文相关的。

LAW ASSIGNMENT 代写:Urban Policy And Planning

A good theory can be understood as one that allows sophisticated concepts to be captured in a few ideas (Pacione, 2008). There is a drawback of some theories that are simple, in that they can repeatedly be challenged by counter-examples. Some theories are therefore only as effective as the sum of its evidence, whereas others appear demonstrable across the board (Parker, 2004). If a theory becomes too specific, then it ceases to be an effective concept for understanding phenomena. Of course, theories are not necessarily disproven by a few counter-examples, and often theories are seductive because they provide useful starting points for understanding otherwise complex phenomena, seeing general features, and ultimately leading to further research (Pacione, 2008). A number of key concepts will be examined in this study and contrasted with the ideas of two ‘key thinkers’ in urban geography.

Johnson et al. (2004) present a conceptual framework that attempts to illustrate general features of ethnic segregation in the USA. This makes use of census data on ethnic segregation in the USA between 1980-2000. A concept that they reveal is that segregation stems from a disadvantage in the housing and labour markets, and therefore any increase in numbers results in an increase in segregation. This first concept can be undermined by an examination of the extent to which this model is dependent upon different methods of discrimination (Johnson et al., 2004). For example, the statement that as numbers of ethnic minorities increase so too does their segregation can be easily countered by pointing out that any increase in numbers naturally results in an increase in segregation. If more individuals from different ethnicities are living in one area, it is more likely it would be that different neighbourhoods comprise individuals of specific ethnicities (Pacione, 1999). Furthermore, if such individuals are disadvantaged in the labour market, then this would affect their earning ability, which would then likely result in their choosing specific low-rent areas in which to live. Therefore, direct discrimination can only account for part of the phenomena described (Parker, 2004). This is a positivist study and therefore is founded upon the fact that such phenomena can be observed through statistical study; however, this process is prone to re-interpretation of results.

A second feature that can be taken from Johnson et al.’s (2004) study of ethnic segregation in the USA is the hypothesis that segregation was larger in cities with more population. This is undermined in part by their own study, which demonstrates that there are a number of mitigating factors affecting this concept. Cities in California showed lower levels of segregation for each ethnic group. The model for segregation varied between ethnic groups: ‘for Asians and Hispanics, but not for Blacks, segregation was greater the more ethnically diverse the metropolitan population’ (Johnson et al., 2004, p.567). This means that the authors have provided a multidimensional model that changes according to the peculiar circumstances of each city. It does not explain segregation, but merely shows that it has different causes depending on context. This concept does not offer a way to establish similar patterns in other cities because it is necessarily context-dependent.