Agricultural Typology Concept and Method

A G R I C U L T U R A L TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD

JERZY KOSTROWICKI

Chairman, Commission on Agricultural Typology, International Geographical Union, Institute of Geography PAN, Warsaw, Poland

SUMMAR Y

After reviewing briefly the regional and systematic syntheses in agricultural geography published to date, the author characterises the activity and contribution to this problem of the Commission on Agricultural Typology of the International Geographical Union. First the general concept of agricultural typology is presented and discussed, then the criteria, methods and techniques accepted to identify types of agriculture are explained, and finally the practical application of agricultural typology in modelling the spatial organisation of agriculture and in planning agricultural development is discussed, based on a few examples. INTRODUCTION

An attempt at ordering the investigated facts and/or processes according to a certain system is a characteristic stage of development of any scientific discipline. The same is true for agricultural geography. Founded by a common effort of geographers and agricultural economists (Krzymowski, 1911; Bernhard, 1915; Studensky, 1927; Waibel, 1933; Gregor, 1970), it passed quite early from the stage of describing facts and processes to that of synthesis, whether of a territorial, regional or zonal character (Arseniev, 1818; Engelbrecht, 1898-1899; 1939; Jonasson, 1925-1926; Baker, 1926-1933; Jones, 1928-1930; Taylor, 1930; Van Valkenburg, 1931-1936; Hartshorne & Dicken, 1935; Busch, 1936; Whittlesey, 1936; Shantz, 1940-1943); Darby, 1954'; Henshall, 1967"; Grigg, 1969) or of a systematic, typological character (Pavlov, 1821; Sovetov, 1867; Hahn, 1892; Brinkmann, 1913; Chevalier, 1925; Laur, 1926; Waibel, 1933; Elliott, 1933, 1935; Krokhalov, 1960"). Recent decades, in particular, have witnessed a great expansion of studies of * Review papers.

33 Agricultural Systems (2) (1977)--© Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1977 Printed in

Great Britain

34

JERZY KOSTROWICKI

what are known as agricultural or farming systems (Faucher, 1949; Hoffmann, 1954; Koper, 1960; Manteuffel, 1961; Andreae, 1964, 1972; Duckham & Masefield, 1970; etc.), types of farming (USDA 1950; Stern, 1957; Manteuffel, 1961 ; Highsmith, 1966; Moskva, 1968, 1973; etc.), farm classification (Klatzmann, 1952; Jones, 1956-1957; Malassis, 1960; Nikolitch & McKee, 1965), farming-type regions (Birch, 1954; Scott, 1961; Chisholm, 1964), agricultural regions (Helburn, 1957; Jackson, 1961; Spencer & Horvath, 1963; Steczkowski, 1966; Grigg, 1969; Rakitnikov, 1970; etc.), crop and enterprise combinations (Weaver, 1954; Weaver et al., 1956; Coppock, 1964; etc.) elaborated either for limited territories such as individual countries or regions (Birch, 1954, 1965; Hudson et aL, 1959; Scott, 1961 ; Jackson et al., 1968) or more extensive territories such as groups of countries (EEC, 1960), continents, or the whole world (Kawachi, 1959; Andreae, 1964; Enyedi, 1965; Grigg, 1969; Duckham & Masefield, 1970; Spencer & Stewart, 1973). Most of these studies have been based on the general knowledge and experience of their authors. Some of these authors listed the criteria adopted while a few only proposed bases on which individual cases could be classified. Therefore the results of these studies are often hardly comparable with each other, since the criteria, methods and techniques used to identify the units proposed vary greatly and thus cannot serve as bases for broader syntheses. At the same time, both the development of agricultural geography as a scientific discipline and its practical application in solving the immediate problems of agricultural development, require ordering our knowledge of its spatial organisation on a regional, national and world scale in a more systematic way, by which differences or similarities between various agricultures in time and space can be disclosed and better understood. This aim would not be achievable if individual aspects or characteristics of agriculture were studied separately. Such comparisons in time and space require sharper methods of characterising various agricultures than studies of a merely descriptive character can provide. The purpose of research, however, is not only to obtain better knowledge and understanding of reality but to make it instrumental in changing reality. Synthetic studies of agriculture can therefore be of practical importance, in particular for planning or programming agricultural development and its spatial organisation. To deal with these problems on a world scale, the Commission on Agricultural Typology of the International Geographical Union was established during the International Geographical Congress held in London in 1964. The tasks of the Commission were determined as follows: (1) to establish common principles, criteria, methods and techniques of agricultural typology; (2) to initiate, promote and co-ordinate regional studies on agricultural types; (3) to elaborate the typological and regional classification of world agriculture (Kostrowieki, 1960, 1964, 1966, 1968; Kostrowicki & Tyszkiewicz, 1970a). To reach these objectives, on the basis of several questionnaires distributed among numerous scholars, representing various disciplines (geography, agricultural

AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD

35

economics, social anthropology, rural sociology, planning, etc.), theoretical concepts, criteria, methods and techniques were successively discussed, based on numerous case studies that tested the proposed solutions. The meetings of the Commission held in Mexico City in 1966, New Delhi in 1968 (Kostrowicki & Tyszkiewicz, 1970b), Verona in 1970 (Vanzetti, 1972), Hamilton, Canada in 1972 (Reeds, 1973) and again in Verona in 1974 (Vanzetti, 1975) and Fontenay-auxRoses in 1975, mark the consecutive stages of its activity. Besides the proceedings of these meetings, a number of other publications appeared which discussed the proposed criteria and methods, offering new solutions or presenting their applications in various countries (Enyedi, 1965; Felizola Diniz, 1969; Bonnamour et al., 1971; Anderson, 1972, 1973; Benneh, 1972; Klatzmann, 1972; Kostrowicki & Szczesny, 1972; Pecora, 1972; Rakitnikov, 1972; Spencer & Stewart, 1973; Bonnamour, 1973; Kostrowicki, 1973; Gregor, 1974; etc.). On the basis of all these discussions the concept of agricultural typology has been finally accepted, the criteria established, methods and techniques of identifying types of agriculture agreed (Kostrowicki, 1968, 1973, 1974a; Kostrowicki & Tyszkiewicz, 1970a) and a preliminary scheme of world types of agriculture, as a comparative framework for more detailed studies, proposed (Kostrowicki, 1973, 1974a). Some weak points of this scheme and possible improvements, together with a number of case studies testing the scheme in various countries, were discussed at the Commission meeting in Fontenay-aux-Roses in 1975 (Kostrowicki, 1976). The last meeting of the Commission was held in Odessa, USSR, in 1976. During the period of the Commission's activity contacts with FAO have been established. Some of the FAO experts took part in the Commission meetings; as one put it some time ago, FAO is interested in the typological studies because if one of their development projects proved to be successful they may be sure that the application of the same methods will also be successful if applied to the same or a similar type of agriculture. Recently, however, in view of the growing food crisis, the interest of FAO in some kind of world agricultural classification has increased. The proposed scheme of agricultural typology has been sent to them. Subsequent discussion will determine whether this scheme can be fully accepted for FAO purposes or whether certain modification or simplifications will have to be made.

1. THE CONCEPT OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY

Theoretical premises that underly the typological approach to agriculture may be summarised as follows. As agriculture as a whole should not be considered as a simple sum of its components but as a set of highly interconnected and interrelated phenomena and

36

JERZY KOSTROWICKI

processes, it can be treated as a complex or a system (see Birch, 1972), in terms of a systems approach. Individual agricultures, understood as such complexes or systems, can be compared with each other and then grouped into types according to their similarities. Following these assumptions, the type of agriculture is understood: (i) As a more or less established form of crop growing and/or livestock breeding for production purposes, characterised by a set or association of its attributes (characteristics, features, properties). (ii) As a supreme and overall concept in agricultural classification comprising all other concepts used in classifying agriculture, such as land tenure systems, land use systems, cropping systems, systems of livestock breeding, farming systems, types of farming etc. (iii) As a hierarchical concept encompassing types of varying orders, from types of farms based on a study of individual holdings, through several intermediate orders to the highest order--types of world agriculture. (iv) As a dynamic concept, changing in an evolutionary or revolutionary way along with a change of its basic attributes. Typology is often confused with regionalisation. Although both concepts are meant to synthesise a complicated reality in order to make it more comprehensible, they belong to two distinct categories. A type is a systematic or taxonomic concept, and its definition is based essentially on similarities between various individuals. As individuals, characterised by similar sets of attributes, may occur repeatedly both in time and in space, the same types can be identified in various periods or territories. As agricultures with similar sets of their attributes are often distributed in space in a mosaic-like pattern, the distribution of resulting types does not necessarily form a contiguous area, but agricultures of the same type are usually dispersed and intermingled with some others. By contrast, the region is a spatial or territorial concept. It is delimited on the basis of differences between places, rather than similarities between individuals. Consequently, the region should be understood as a fraction of the earth's surface, extending within definite limits and characterised by a peculiar association of features that render its character unique and differentiate it from all other territorial units. Both the type and the region are hierarchical concepts. On the basis of their similarities, types of a lower order may be grouped into types of a higher order, irrespective of their distribution in space and time, while regions of a lower order always form territorial parts of regions of a higher order. By its very significance, regionalisation is then a static concept, while typology is a dynamic one, involving all possible changes. If typology has already been established, agricultural regions can be easily delimited by generalisation of a more complicated typological pattern to a simpler


37

regional picture, based on dominance or co-dominance of individual types over a given territory. An agricultural holding is the best basic unit in agricultural typology, as it is the only real unit of operation. At the same time, however, irrespective of all their deficiencies, other units (administrative areas or whatever is convenient) can be used, at least in macro-scale typologies and particularly when dealing with a great number of smallholdings for which no separate data are available. This is particularly true of the so-called village agricultures, with plots belonging to different holdings scattered throughout the village territory. But even in the countries where farms are larger, farm data are often confidential and therefore available only in an aggregate form, which may contain a considerable variety of inter-farm differences. Therefore, when studying such aggregates, it should always be kept in mind that the data do not refer to real units, but are averages for certain territories, with a more or less unknown internal differentiation. This is why detailed sample studies are highly recommended, whenever possible, not only to verify the range of those differences but also to assess the accuracy of the statistical data. In fact, nowhere in the world are agricultural statistics fully accurate or provide all necessary material for agricultural typology. Therefore, even in those countries where agricultural statistics are relatively good, there are always certain gaps that can be filled only by using estimates. In some countries, however, the scarcity of data or their unreliability makes it necessary to base typological studies on estimates, rather than on the statistical data. When the problem and area under study are sufficiently known to the scholar, his estimates might even yield better results than the direct use of unreliable statistics. In accordance with the logic of any classification, the identification of agricultural types ought to be based on internal (inherent or endogenous) attributes of agriculture: external (or exogenous) attributes, or, rather, conditions in which agriculture develops, should not be used as a basis for agricultural typology, important though they might be for explaining why, in a particular place and time, individual types of agriculture have developed. The simultaneous use of such exogenous, natural and other conditions alongside endogenous attributes of agriculture is futile, since it presupposes rather than proves their impact on the formation of agricultural types. This can be proved much better by the study of agricultural characteristics and their associations, independently of the conditions of their development, and then by a subsequent analysis of their interrelationships by means of correlation calculus. On the other hand, the external or exogenous conditions, such as natural, locational, transportation and market conditions, the effect of supply and demand on agricultural products, prices, etc. certainly play an important role in the formation of agricultural types and their separate attributes, which change with a change of those conditions. Their study is therefore necessary for both understanding and interpretation of the development and spatial distribution of agricultural types.

38

JERZY KOSTROWICKI

2.

CRITERIA OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY

The characteristics of agriculture can be grouped as follows: 1. Social and ownership characteristics. 2. Operational (organisational and technical) characteristics. 3. Production characteristics. The first group provides answers to such questions as who is the landowner, the holding operator or the decision-maker and what is the scale of operation. The second group explains what the labour and capital inputs are and how the holding is operated. The third group discloses how much is produced and for what purpose. A fourth group can be added, differing from the others not so much by its content, but rather by its character--namely that of structural characteristics, which answer questions about the proportion of land used for different purposes, about the proportion in which various farm animals are raised, and about how much is sold or delivered off the farm, i.e. what are the enterprise combinations in terms of land use, livestock breeding, gross agricultural output and commercial production. Variables representing all the essential inputs and outputs combined with all others, representing social, operational, production and structural attributes of agriculture, provide a basis for identification of agricultural types. Irrespective of the order and area concerned, to retain the comparability of the results, the identification of agricultural types should always be based on the same criteria, whether or not they differentiate a given territory. The uniformity of variables representing accepted criteria can reflect the uniformity of agriculture and correctly characterise the situation, whereas the irrelevance or low impact of certain variables can also be characteristic for certain types. However, in the studies of the lower order, when the detailed differentiation of a limited area is required and comparability with other territories is not essential, not only sharper tools of type identification but also some additional variables of local importance can be admitted.

3.

METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY

Whenever possible variables applied in agricultural typology should be expressed quantitatively. Although it is true that a good expert, with a deep and intimate knowledge of the problems and area concerned, can produce excellent typology, without using any quantitative methods, it is also true that nobody else, not even the same scholar, is likely to obtain--after some lapse of time--comparable results, because the line of thinking and the way of interpreting facts cannot be


39

repeated. It would be even more difficult to obtain in this way comparable results for another area or for another period. Only the use of quantitative data and techniques can guarantee that the same method, when applied to the same data, will always yield the same results, irrespective of when and by whom the data are processed. Another advantage of the application of quantitative methods is, of course, that results can be obtained much quicker, particularly if computer technique is involved, than by means of traditional, labour-absorbing methods and techniques. Particularly when one has to deal with a great number of basic units of study, the processing of data without a computer is almost beyond the possibility of a single scholar, or even of an institute. Some important characteristics of agriculture, however, can hardly be expressed quantitatively; nevertheless, most of them can also be expressed in a way that would make their quantitative comparison possible, if only appropriate techniques are used. There are two important methodological problems with which any scholar is faced when starting to work on agricultural typology of any order or area, namely: (1) the choice and adequate expression of variables (diagnostic features) that represent the various agricultural characteristics and (2) the choice of technique for comparing and grouping--according to their similarities--the individual basic units of study, characterised by sets or association of those characteristics. As the expression of selected variables that represent various agricultural characteristics and the method of grouping them are closely interrelated, these two procedures have to be decided at the same time. Out of several possible ways of selecting variables, the one based on the purposeful choice of a limited number of variables of a synthetic or composite character, as nearly as possible of universal, significant and representative character, is recommended by the Commission. The synthetic character of these variables implies that each variable comprises a number of elementary attributes of agriculture. Their universal character indicates that the selected variables are relevant in describing most, if not all, possible types of world agriculture. The significant character will ensure that the selected variables represent only the important attributes of agriculture. The representative character means that the most important aspects of agriculture are represented in a balanced way by the selected set of variables. Preference was given to such an approach over that based on an unlimited number of variables of an elementary character, and not solely because they might be too numerous. With the development of computer techniques the problem of numerous variables can be easily solved. When, however, the number of variables is unlimited, the degree of coverage of all the important aspects of agriculture by those variables, as well as their influence on type formation, can hardly be assessed. Consequently, the use of a large number of variables to represent only one aspect

40

JERZY KOSTROWICKI

of agriculture, with a much smaller number of variables representing another, may result in exaggerating the type-forming influence of the one aspect while, at the same time, reducing the influence of the other. On the other hand, the use of variables representing some aspects of agriculture only will result in producing either partial typologies or classifications, such as land use systems, enterprise combinations etc., or even a spatial distribution of a few selected variables combined. Such partial classifications can be useful, as the so-called special-purpose typologies, oriented towards specific problems. It should be emphasised, however, that only a classification based on all the important aspects of agriculture can be considered as an absolute or all-purpose typology, similar to the systematics used in botany, zoology or plant sociology, that are useful per se, for a better understanding of reality. As in those disciplines, such a typology does not imply that certain units are ascribed to certain types for ever. On the contrary, their attachment to a given type can be changed both: (i) as a result of a change of its attributes or (ii) as a result of better knowledge of them. In both approaches, however, the accepted variables are assumed to possess the same type-forming influence. This evidently false assumption immediately produces a difficult, if not insoluble, problem of weighting individual variables, as the type-forming influence of individual variables cannot be assessed accurately. However, with a smaller number of variables it is also easier to balance their respective significance. The use of a smaller number of more universal variables also facilitates comparisons in space which would be difficult if numerous elementary variables, often of a local character, were taken into account. The second methodological problem in agricultural typology (i.e. the selection of the best possible method for comparing and grouping individual multi-featured units into types according to their similarities) has not been solved to the degree that would enable the Commission to recommend any specific technique for all agricultural typologies, irrespective of their scale, territory and time, although several investigations have been made to test various available techniques. The experiences from the investigations in which various techniques have been applied to process the same data, and the discussion on this problem, have clarified at least the following points. (1) The proper selection of diagnostic variables and their appropriate expression is more important because the identification of agricultural type depends more on the criteria selected and their expression than on the techniques of their comparison and grouping. Therefore the use of one or other technique for their comparison and grouping does not greatly alter the typological pattern, provided that the same sets of variables are used. (2) As the comparability of results, both in time and space, is essential for agricultural typology, all techniques that do not guarantee such a comparability cannot be recommended, irrespective of whether they are primitive and qualitative or highly refined and quantitative. (3) Since, as has been stated above, agricultural statistics or estimates


41

rarely provide full, accurate and reliable data for agricultural typology, the application of highly refined methods to data that are not accurate brings only seemingly accurate results. Provided that the variables are properly selected and expressed, and the quality of statistical data is acceptable, the more accurate the technique of their comparison and grouping, the more accurately and objectively types of agriculture are identified. Therefore, if data allow it, the effort should be made to apply the most accurate possible quantitative techniques. However, as the data available and the possibilities of data processing differ between countries, it has been decided that individual scholars should be free to select the most efficient technique of comparing and grouping the basic units of study, characterised by sets of variables representing various aspects of agriculture, as they are better able to decide which, out of the many existing techniques, will give the best results for a given country or region.

4.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY

The purpose of agricultural typology is not only to obtain better knowledge and understanding of reality but also to make its results instrumental in changing reality. Typological studies can therefore be of practical importance, particularly for programming and planning agricultural development and its spatial organisation. Agriculture is a dynamic phenomenon. Individual holdings or aggregate units not only differ in space along with their varied environmental and other exogenous conditions, but also change in time following the change of their attributes. The change of one or more variables will not, however, change a type until their number is so great that they change the entire character of a given agriculture, i.e. until quantitative changes will suffice to transform a given type into a new quality - - a new type of agriculture. The typology made for a certain period of time is therefore nothing more than a static picture, a snap-shot of the situation. This picture becomes dynamic, as in a film when shap-shots are repeated several times. Only such a dynamic picture of changes in the types of agriculture can be interpreted in terms of trends in the development of the agriculture's spatial organisation which may be used for both forecasting and programming agricultural development. In fact, some successful attempts have been made already to apply typological methods for forecasting and programming further changes in the spatial organisation of agriculture (Kostrowicki, 1974b, 1975a and b). Based on two or more snap-shots of the situation in subsequent periods of time, first the extrapolation of individual typological variables was made, then these variables were compared and grouped together into types of agriculture showing the situation that would occur if the former tendencies and the rate of changes were continued. That extrapolation has already revealed certain deficiencies in the present spatial

42

JERZYKOSTROWICKI

differences of agriculture that would cause serious problems if former tendencies are continued. It is obvious, however, that a simple extrapolation cannot provide an adequate basis for forecasting any further development. Thus, an analogy method has been additionally applied, i.e. conclusions based upon the experiences --attained already in comparable exogenous conditions--by other countries or regions. The studies mentioned above (Kostrowicki, 1974b, 1975a and b)were not limited to merely forecasting. Besides analogies, the outline data of future demand for agricultural products, of the tasks of agriculture and possible means for their implementation, have been used to revise and correct the results of extrapolation. As typology has revealed the weak points of the development of agriculture, it was also possible to assess which of them could be improved, with the means to be allocated for agricultural development in long-term planning, and what would be the possible production results of such improvement. In this way, models of spatial organisation of Polish agriculture for 1980 and 1990 have been constructed, expressed in a typological manner, taking into account all possible predictable socio-economic transformations in the spatial organisations of the country. The whole study has been transferred to the State Planning Commission to be used in its work on long-term planning. As the statistical data used in this study were not adequately compiled, the study had a preliminary character and was therefore mainly of methodological significance. As such, it was discussed several times with leading Polish agricultural economists and planners and, in spite of some initial reservations, won their approval as a general line of thinking. At the same time a number of valuable remarks and proposals were offered that will be used to prepare a new improved version of the study, based on statistical data better adapted to spatial analyses in which the whole procedure will be repeated. It seems that the methods and techniques of agricultural typology, in this way or another, possibly with some modifications and adaptation, could also be successfully used for either forecasting or planning of the spatial development of agriculture in other countries. REFERENCES

ANDERSON,J. R. (1972). Possibilitiesfor typologicalstudies of American agriculture. In (W. P. Adams & F. M. Helleiner,Eds) International geography 1972. Vol. 2. Universityof Toronto Press, 702-4. ANOERSON,J. R. (1973)./1 geography o f agriculture in the United States' Southeast. Geography of world agriculture, Vol. 2. AkademiaiKiad6, Budapest. ANDI~AE,B. (1964). Betriebsformen in der Landwirtschaft. Entstehung und Wandlung von Bodennutzungs, Viehhaltungs- und Betriebssystemen in Europa und fibersee sowie neuer Methoden ihrer Abgrenzung. Systematischer Teil einer Agrarbetriebslehre. E. Ulmer, Stuttgart. ANDREAE,B. (1972). Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsformen in den Tropen. Paul Parey, Hamburg u.

Berlin. ARSENIEV,K. (1818). Nachertaniye statistiki Rossiyskogo gosudarstwa. (Outline of the statistics o f the Russian State). St. Petersburg.

AGRICULTURALTYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD

43

BAKER, O. E. (1926-1933). Agricultural regions of North America. Economic Geography 2 (1) 459-93; 3 (1) 50-87; 3, 309-40; 4 (1) 44-74; 4, 399-434; 5 (1) 36-57; 6 (2) 166-91; 3, 278309; 7 (2) 109-53; 3, 325-65; 8 (4) 325-77; 9 (2) 167-98. BENNEH,G. (1972). Systems of agriculture in Tropical Africa. Economic Geography 48 (3) 244-57. BERNHARD, H. (1915). Die Agrargeographie als wissenschaftliche Disziplin. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 61, 12-18, 99-103, 179-82. BIRCH, J. W. (1954). Observation on the delimitation of farming type regions in the Isle of Man. Institute of British Geographers. Transactions and Papers, 20, 141-58. BIRCH, J. W. (1965). On the stability of farming systems with particular reference to the Connecticut Valley. In (J. P. Whitton & P. D. Wood, Eds) Essays in geography for Austin Miller, University of Reading, 225-46. BIRCH, J. W. (1972). Farming systems as resource systems. In (C. Vanzetti, Ed) Agricultural typology and land utilisation. Center of Agricultural Geography. BONNAMOUR,J. 0973). Gdographie rurale. Methodes etperspectives, Masson et Cie, Paris. BONNAMOUR,J., GILLETTE,CH. & GUERMOND,Y. (1971). Les syst6mes regionaux d'exploitation agricole en France. Methode d'analyse typologique. Etudes Rurales 43-4, 76-168. BRINKMANN, T. (1913). ~ber die landwirtschaftlichen Betriebssysteme und ihre Standortorientierung. Fr~.hling Landwirtschaftliche Zeitung, 6, 185-219. BUSCH, W. (1936). Die Landbauzonen in deutschen Lebensraum, Elmer, Stuttgart. CHEVALIER, A. (1925). Essai d'une classification biog6ographique des principaux syst6mes de culture pratiqu6s sur la surface du globe, Revue Internationale de Renseignement Agricole. Nouvelle Serie. 3 (3), 71-728. CHISHOLM, M. 0964). Problems of the classification and use of farming-type regions, Institute of British Geographers. Transactions and Papers, 35, 91-103. CoPPOCK, J. T. 0964). Crop, livestock and enterprise combinations in England and Wales. Economic Geography, 40 (1) 65-81. DARBY, H. C. (1954). Early ideas on the agricultural regions of England. Agricultural History Review, 2, 30-47. DUCKHAM, A. N. & MASEFIELD,G. B. (1970). Farming systems of the worM. Chatto & Windus, London. EEC (1960). Agricultural regions in the EEC. European Economic Community Studies. Set. Agriculture, 1, Brussels. (Also in French and German). ELLIOT, F. F. (1933). Types of farming in the United States. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. ELLIOT, F. F. (1935). Regional problems in agricultural adjustment. Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Washington, DC. ENGELBRECHT,T. H. (1898-1899). Die Landbauzonen der aussertropischen Liinder, Berlin. ENGELBRECHT,Z. H. (1939). Die Landbauzonen der Erde. Petermanns Geagraphische Mitteilungen. Ergiinzungsheft 209. ENYEDI, G. (1965). Fi~M mezi~gazdastiga. AgrtirJ'dldrajzi tanulmtiny. (The agriculture of the world. A study in agricultural geography). Mez6gazdas~tgi Kiad6, Budapest. FAUCHER,D. (1949). Gdographie agraire, types des cultures, M. T. G6nin, Pads. FELIZOLADINIZ, J. S. (1969). IGU's suggestions and types of agriculture: A case study. Revista Geografica, 70 (June), 91-108. GREGOR, H. (1970). Geography of agriculture: Themes on research. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. GREGOR, H. F. (1974). An agricultural typology of California. Geography of worm agriculture. Vol. 4. Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest. GRIGG, D. (1969). The agricultural regions of the world. Review and reflections. Economic Geography, 45, 95-132. HAHN, E. (1892). Die Wirtsehaftsformen der Erde. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 38, 8-12. HARTSHORNE,R. & DICKEN, S. N. (1935). A classification of the agricultural regions of Europe and North America on a uniform statistical basis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 25, 99-120. HELBURN, N. (1957). The bases for a classification of world agriculture. The Professional Geographer, 9 (2) 2-7. HENSHALL, J. (1967). Models in agricultural activity. In (R. J. Chorley & P. Haggett, Eds). Models in geography, Methuen, London, 425-60. HIGHSMITH,R. M. (1966). HOW types of farming divide world agriculture into regions. Foreign Agriculture, 4 (11) 3-5. HOFFMANN,E. (1954). Zur Systematik der Bodennutzung und Betriebsformen. Agrarwirtschaft, 3. HUDSON, S. C. et al. (1959). Types of farming in Canada. Canada Dept. of Agriculture, 825.

44

JERZY KOSTROWICKI

JACKSON,B. G., BARNARD,C. S. • STURROCK,F. (1968). The pattern of farming in the Eastern counties. Farm Economic Branch. School of Agriculture. Cambridge Univ. Occasional Papers No. 8. JACKSON, W. A. D. (1961). The problem of Soviet agricultural regionalization. Slavic Review, 20 (4) 656-78. JONASSON,O. (1925-1926). Agricultural regions of Europe, Economic Geography, 1 (3) 217-314; 2 (1) 19-48. JONES, C. F. (1928-1930). Agricultural regions of South America, Economic Geography 4 (1) 1-30; 2, 159-186; 3, 267-94; 5 (2) 109-40; 3, 277-307; 4, 390-421 ; 6 (1) 1-36. JONES, R. B. (1956-1957). Farm classification in Britain: An appraisal. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 12, 201-15. KAWACHI, K. (1959). On a method of classifying world agricultural regions. In Proceedings of the IGU Regional Conference in Japan, 1957, 355-8. KLATZMANN,J. (1952). La classification des entreprises agricoles suivant leur importance 6conomique, Economie Rurale (Avril) 38-58. KLATZMANN,J. (1972). Gdographie agricole de la France. Paris, PUF Que sais-je ?, 420. KoPEk, B. (1960). Systemy gospodarcze w rolnictwie polskim w latach 1955-1965. (Economic systems in Polish agriculture in 1955-1965). PWRiL, Warsaw. KOSTROWlCKI,J. (1960). Land utilization survey as a basis for geographical typology of agriculture. Przeglad Geograficzny, 32 (Supplement), 169-83. KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1964). Geographical typology of agriculture. Principles and methods. An invitation to discussion. Geographia Polonica, 2, 159-67. KOSTROWlCKI,J. (1966). Tipologia geografica de la agricultura mundial. Principos y metodos. In Union Geografica Internacional. Conferencia Regional Latino-Americana, Vol. 2, Mexico, DF, 793-807. KOSTROWlCKI,J. (1968). Agricultural typology, agricultural regionalization, agricultural development. Geographia Polonica, 14, 265-74. KOSTROWtCKI, J. (1973). Zarys geografii rolnictwa. (Outline of agricultural geography), PWN, Warsaw. KOSTROWlCKI,J. (1973). The typology of world agriculture. A preliminary scheme. In (L. G. Reeds, Ed) Agricultural typology and land use, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. KOSTROWIeKI,J. (1974a). The typology of world agriculture. Principles, methods and model types. International Geographical Union. Commission on Agricultural Typology, Warsaw. KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1974b). Les transformations darts la repartition spatiale des types d'agriculture en Pologne et essai du pronostic de l'6votution ult6rieure. Geographia Polonica, 29, 307-30. KOSTROWlCKI,J. (1975a). An attempt to define the trends in the transformation of the spatial organization of Polish agriculture in 1960-1990. Geographia Polonica. (In Press). KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1975b). An attempt to apply typological methods for forecasting and/or programming further changes in the spatial organization of agriculture. In Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the IGU Commission on Agricultural Typology. Verona 1974. (In Press). KOSTROWICKI,J. (1976). World types of agriculture. International Geographical Union. Commission on Agricultural Geography, Warsaw. KOSTROWICKI,J. & SZCZ~SNY, R. (1972). Polish agriculture. Characteristics, types and regions. Geography of worm agriculture, Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest. KOSTROWlCKLJ. & TYSZKIEWlCZ,W. (Eds) (1970a). Agricultural typology. Selected methodological materials, Dokumentacja geograficzna, 1, 60. KOSTROWICKI,J. & TYSZKIEWlCZ,W. (Eds) (1970b). Essays in agricultural typology and land utilization. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Commission on Agricultural Typology, Geographia Polonica, 19, 290. KROKHALOV,F. S. (1960). O sistemakh zemledelia. Istoricheskiy ocherk. (On agricultural systems: An historical outline). Moskva. KRZYMOWSKI,R. (1911). Die wirtschaftliche Stellung der Landwirtschaftsgeographie, Frghlings landwirtschaftliche Zeitung, 60, 252-65. LAUR, E. (1926). Die Bodennatzungsysteme in der Schweiz und ihre Verbreitung, Brngg. MALASSlS,L. (1960). Classification des exploitations agricoles, Etudes d'Economie Rurale, mai. MANTEUFFEL,R. (1961). Typy, systemy, kierunki. Pr6ba ustalenia pojee$i definicji. (Types, systems, orientations. An attempt to establish some concepts and definitions), Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej, 4, 95-103. MOSKVA (1968, 1973). Proizvodstvenniye tipy selsko-khozyaystvennykh predpriyatii (Production types of agricultural enterprises). 2 v. Kolos, Moskva. NIKOLITCH,R. & McKEE, D. E. (1965). The contribution of the economic classification of farms to the understanding of American agriculture. Journal of Farm Economics, 47 (5) 1545-55.


45

PAVLOV, M. G. (1821). O glavnych sistemakh selskogo khozyaystva s priuravlenyem k Rossii. (On the principal systems of agriculture as compared with Russia), Moskva. PECORA, A. (1972). Types of agriculture in Ecuador. In (W. P. Adams & F. M. Helleiner, Eds) International Geography 1972, Vol. 2, University of Toronto Press, Montreal, 746--7. RAKITNIKOV, A. N. (1970). Geografia selskogo khozyaystva. Problemy i metody issledovaniya. (Agricultural geography. Problems and Methods of Research), Moskva. RAKITNIKOV, A. (1972~. Crit~res et indices de la typologie de ragriculture mondiale. In (W. P. Adams & F. M- Helleiner, Eds) International Geography 1972, Vol. 2, University of Toronto Press, Montreal, 750-2. REEDS, L. G. (Ed.) (1973). Agricultural typology and land use. Proceedings of the Agricultural Typology Commission Meeting, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. SCOTT, P. (1961). Farming-type regions of Tasmania. New Zealand Geographer, 17 (2) 155-76. SHANTZ, H. L. (1940-1943). Agricultural regions of Africa. Economic Geography, 17 (1) 1-47; 2, 122-61 : 4, 341-69; 18 (3) 217-49; 4, 353-79; 19 (3) 229-46; 20 (I) 77-109; 3, 217-69. SOVETOV, A. V. (1867). O sistemakh zemledelia. (On agricultural systems). St. Petersburg. SPENCER, J. E. & HORVATH,R. J. (1963). How does an agricultural region originate?, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 53, 74-94. SPENCER, J. E. & STEWART, N. R. (1973). The nature of agricultural systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 63 (4) 529-44. STECZKOWSKr,J. (1966). Zasady i metody rejonizacji produkcji rolnej. (Principles and methods of regionalization of agricultural production). PWRiL, Warsaw. STERN, H. (1957). Untersuchungen landwirtschaftlichen Betriebstypen als sozial-6konomische Einheiten, Kiel. STUOENSKY, G. (1927). Die Grundideen und Methoden der landwirtschaftlichen Geographic. Weltwirtschaftliches Archly, 25, 179-97. TAILOR, G. (1930). Agricultural regions of Australia. Economic Geography, 6 (2) 109-34; 3, 213--42. USDA (1950). Generalized types of farming in the United States. US Dept. of Agriculture. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Information Bulletin No. 3. Washington DC. VAN VALKENBURG,S. (1931-1936). Agricultural regions of Asia. Economic Geography, 7 (3) 217-37; 8 (2) 109-33; 9 (1) 1-18; 2, 109-33; 10 (1) 14-24; 11 (3) 227-46; 4, 325-37; 12 (1) 27-44; 3, 231-49. VANZETTI, C. (Ed.) (1972). Agricultural typology and land utilization. Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Commission on Agricultural Typology. Center of Agricultural Geography, Verona. VANZETTI, C. (Ed.) (1975). Agricultural typology and land utilization. Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the Commission on Agricultural Typology. Center of Agricultural Geography, Verona. WA1BEL,L. (1933). Probleme de Landwirtschaftsgeographie. Hirt, Breslau. WEAVER,J. C. (1954). Crop combination regions in the Middle East. Geographical Review, 44 (2) 175-200. WEAVER,J. C., HOAG, L. P. & FENTON, B. L. (1956). Livestock units and combination regions in the Middle West, Economic Geography, 32 (3) 237-59. WHITILESEY, D. (1936). Major agricultural regions of the Earth, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 26, 199-240.

Agricultural Typology Concept and Method

Recommend Documents