Analysis of Honolulu Interaction with the Hawaiian Archipelago
The phrase ‘regional interaction’ emphasizes the fact that no city no matter how large or small – no matter how isolated or connected – exists in a vacuum. It encapsulates a series of theories used to explain the forces that connect an urban center to its surrounding locality. Some of these forces: economic, technological, place-based, and population are produced by, and affect the cities where we live work and play. In the three articles “Central Place Theory”, “The North American City”, and “The Evolution of the American Urban System” Bell, Hartshorn, and Kaplan respectively, attempt to explain these theories to the future generation of urban geographers and planners. This paper gives a brief explanation of what regional interaction theories can tell us about our cities, and how these pertain specifically to Honolulu, HI. Finally, this paper gives an analysis of Honolulu based upon two specific regional interaction theories: The Vance Mercantile Cities Model, and the Rank – Size Rule.
What is Regional Interaction?
Regional interaction and its theories describe the effect cities have on their hinterland, and how conversely these regions affect the development of said cities. There are four primary categories of theories/models that make up the regional interaction literature: population, economic, technological, and place-based. In the 1930s the economic viability of region was defined by population size; the greater the size – the more complex the society. With this in mind the urban geographer Zipf developed his Rank – Size Rule, which allows the academic to show graphically the level of complexity in a region, based upon the slope of a line. In this rule, ideal diversity and interdependent functionality is expressed through the line y=(-x). Movement of the line in either direction displays regional inequity or monotony (Hartshorn 1996).
The two primary economic theories of regional interaction are Pred’s model of circular and cumulative causation and The Vance Mercantile Cities Model. First, Pred’s model postulates that expanding industries hold the ability to create sustainable local growth through an economic multiplier effect. This theory is problematic because it doesn’t account for the multiplier’s corresponding rate of decay, a reality that requires for an impossible continual opening of new expanding industries. Second, The Vance Mercantile Cities Model describes the developmental steps of a city experiencing forced imperialism. This model can be very useful in analyzing the economic disparities found within the global south. However, caution in using this model is recommended as it is written from a neo-imperialistic perspective (Kaplan, Wheeler and Holloway 2009).
Honolulu and its Relation to the Hawaiian Archipelago
The city of Honolulu is isolated by thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean on all sides. Therefore, its immediate region of influence is easily defined as the other towns on Oahu and the cities, towns and villages in the neighboring main islands of Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui. The way the citizens of Honolulu interact with the residents of the neighboring islands has changed dramatically over time. Technology has played an immense role from having to canoe from one island to another (Kuykendall 1926), to being able to use an airplane and/or telecommunication to travel in person or in aloha spirit (Harris 2004). Economically, the city of Honolulu has become incredibly diverse, and is developing and exporting knowledge, culture, goods, and services throughout the immediate region. So much so, the University of Hawaii has a campus on each major island (University of Hawai'i 2014). However, the greatest challenge that Honolulu faces is that it does not have any comparable cities in the immediate region. Though, this will be presented in greater detail, the main challenge of a primate city is to work towards economic equity throughout the population. This is made increasingly difficult in Hawaii by the high cost of living due to its geographic and economic isolation.
Innovation in technology can also fuel regional development. This concept is described in two regional integration theories. According to the theoretical waves of Nikolai Kondratiev, there is a reason for both the economic expansion and contraction throughout the history of the United States (Kaplan, Wheeler and Holloway 2009). This 60-year wave runs on the assumption that a new economy altering technology will arrive at the birth of every innovation-market saturation-recession-depression cycle. In addition to driving economic revolutions, technological innovation has also transformed transportation. Bochert’s theory of transportation epochs in the history of American urban development describes how different technological advances in transportation (Horse and Wagon, Regional Railroad, National Railroad, Automobile/Airplane) changed the definition of what it means to be a region, and how interconnected said regions can be.
Technological innovation often hinges on the local availability of crucial natural resources such as fossil fuels and precious metals. The three pertinent place-based theories have an enormous impact on how a city and region develop. First is the German geographer Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory, which states that urban development occurs as a result of being in the optimal location for providing a series of services to its hinterland. The providing of services results in localized economic prosperity, which allows for the diversification of services, and development of an urban population density (Bell 1996) (Kaplan, Wheeler and Holloway 2009). Secondly, ‘Site and Situation Theory’ states that the dimensions of space and time play an equal role in how a city interacts with its region. For example, a city that is near rich uranium deposits will only benefit when the region has developed the science of atomic energy, and an effective processing infrastructure. Thirdly, place based interaction can be analyzed through a lens of ‘Location Patterns’. These patterns, which are usually linear, clustered, and hierarchical in nature form from regional advantages created by the natural and/or built environment that plays a part in connecting a region together.
Rank-Size Rule
As mentioned above, the Rank – Size Rule can be used to determine the level of diversity/disparity or lack there of in an urban center’s hinterland. In the case of Honolulu, there is a great disparity in the population size of Honolulu in compared with both the next largest city and next largest island. When compared by city, the difference between Honolulu and East Honolulu (the next largest city) the slope of the line is almost completely vertical. When compared by island the population line from Oahu to Hawaii is still quite dramatic, but less than that of the former graph (See Figures 1 and 2). Conversely when the city of Honolulu is not factored into the calculation, the graph line of both city and island appear to resemble a horizontal line (See Figures 1 and 2). This analysis tell us that the economy is very evenly distributed throughout the rest of the island, making Honolulu the economic winner, and everyone else losers (Hartshorn 1996) (Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism 2014).
The observation of this primate city model tells us much about Honolulu’s hinterland of sorts. First, without knowing the history of the city, we can make the accurate assumption that the process of urbanization of Hawaii has been short such as Korea, that it is a smaller ‘nation’ or region such as Portugal, and that the majority of the land inhabitable terrain such as Australia (Hartshorn 1996). Of course, Hawai’i’s population graph was not always this skewed towards Honolulu. This only became an issue after the introduction of European traders who picking an ally enabled him to unify the islands
under one rule in the late 18th century. Additional stratification took place when Honolulu was claimed as the capital of the Hawaiian nation, and even further when the American government seized the islands in its first act of international imperialism (Kuykendall 1926). Since that point, and then statehood in 1959, the stratification of population size has increased exponentially (Harris 2004). The difference in urbanization across the Hawaiian Islands can be seen as well in the difference in land use. There are more acres devoted to urban space on Oahu than there are on all of the other islands combined (See Figures 3 and 4) (Harris 2004).
The Vance Mercantile Cities Model
The Vance Mercantile Cities Model was developed in 1970 by the urban geographer Dr. James Vance to analyze “the development of the North American urban system based on (1) the role of merchants during five eras and (2) the role of long distance trade” (Kaplan, Wheeler and Holloway 2009). The original model was developed to explain the relationship between the economic development of the urban centers in North America and British imperialism. However, the same theory can be coopted to explain the relationship between the economic development of Honolulu, Hawaii and American imperialism. As stated, this model is broken up into five economic developmental stages: (1) exploration; (2) harvesting of natural resources; (3) the emergence of farm-based staple production; (4) interior gateway cities; and (5) economic maturing and central place infilling (Kaplan, Wheeler and Holloway 2009). These developmental stages relate directly to Honolulu’s story of economic development.
Even though the most imperialist economic influence came from the United States, first explorers to the Hawaiian Islands were not American, but rather British, who were shortly followed by the French and Russians. This first age of exploration was marked by the British intervention in the unification of Hawaii as mentioned above, and the eventual sovereignty of Hawaii as a recognized independent monarchy. While the bourgeoning monarchy was still finding its footing, the European and American whalers took advantage of Honolulu as a slowly
growing port city, and set up a trading post for their extraction of the oceans precious natural resources. Shortly after this time, American imperialism gained control of the city. It became a hub for two primary cash crops that were shipped back to the mainland: sugar and pineapple (Kuykendall 1926). When Dole Pineapple began harvesting their crop, they realized that it wasn’t staying fresh by the time it reached the mainland, so they began a rigorous canning operation near the Chinatown district of the newly industrializing city (Coffman 2003). As time continued to progress, and the territory of Hawai’i was granted statehood, the city burst into a multifaceted economic powerhouse with diversified growth and infrastructure for the modern age.