Axiomatic Foundation of the Central Place Theory: Revision from the Position of the Russian Scientific School

The article is devoted to clarifying the axiomatic foundation of the central place theory (CPT) and identifying the possibilities and limitations of the logical transition in research from real settlement systems to central place systems. The necessity of relying on the CPT axioms is determined in the following form: (1) the space of the CP system is not infinite, but finite: the basis of each system is formed by an isolated lattice; theory deals with physical space, not mathematical or geographical; (2) space is homogeneous and isotropic in all respects, with the exception of the distribution of not only the urban, but also the rural population; (3) the hexagonal lattice corresponds to the equilibrium state of an isolated CP system as an attractor; deviations from the hexagonal shape are the result of only external influence on the system; (4) CP systems are polymorphic–they can exist in modifications both with the same and with different values of K-parameter ∈ (1; 7] for all levels of the hierarchy. The axiom about the “rational” behavior of the consumer is accepted when establishing the hierarchy of the CP in terms of the functions performed; when establishing their hierarchy in terms of population, it is redundant. In contrast to the foreign approach to CPT, which involves the transfer of the properties of an ideal CP system to a real settlement system, within the framework of the Russian school approach, they are compared. The possibility of the latter is due to the equivalence principle in the relativistic version of the theory: the formation of settlement systems in geographic space occurs similarly to the formation of CP systems in physical space. In both cases, if the gravitational effects are compensated, it is impossible to distinguish the settlement system from the CP system, that is, a heterogeneous and anisotropic geographic space from a homogeneous and isotropic physical one. The immediate consequence of this is the equivalence, on the one hand, of the population size of settlements and population size of central places, and, on the other hand, of the distances between them in real settlement systems and CP systems.

1. Allen P., Sanglier M. A dynamic model of growth in a central place system. Geogr. Anal., 1979, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1979.tb00693.x

2. Armand A.D. Samoorganizatsiya i samoregulirovanie geograficheskikh system [Self-Organization and Self-Regulation in Geographic Systems]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1988. 264 p.

3. Baklanov P.Ya. Approaches and general principles of structurization of geographical space. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2013, no. 5, pp. 7–18. (In Russ.).

4. Cherkashin A.K. Hierarchical epidemic risk modeling of spreading new COVID-19 coronavirus. Probl. Analyza Riska, 2020, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 10–21. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2020-17-4-10-21

5. Chugreev Yu.V., Logunov A.A., Mestvirishvili M.A. On noncorrect formulations of equivalence principle. Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk, 1996, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 73–79. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.1070/PU1996v039n01ABEH000128

6. Church R.L., Bell T.L. Unpacking central place geometry I: single level theoretical k systems. Geogr. Anal., 1990, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1990.tb00198.x

7. Dacey M.F. A probability model for central place locations. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 1966, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1966.tb00579.x

8. Dmitriev R.V. Application of gravity models to spatial analysis of settlement systems. Narodonaselenie, 2012, no. 2 (56), pp. 41–47. (In Russ.).

9. Dmitriev R.V. Is the share of a central place in the population of the area, served by this central place, a constant for all levels of the Christaller’s hierarchy? Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2019, no. 1, pp. 128–135. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587-556620191128-135

10. Dmitriev R.V. Metrics of urban settlement systems in terms of the central place theory: constancy vs variability. Geogr. Bull., 2019, no. 2 (49), pp. 24–34. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17072/2079-7877-2019-2-24-34

11. Dmitriev R.V. Evolutionary Processes in Systems of Central Places. Dr. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation. Moscow: Institute of Geography RAS, 2022. 223 p. (In Russ.).

12. Dmitriev R.V., Gorokhov S.A. Rural population of central place systems. Geopolitika i Ekogeodinamika Reg., 2021, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 26–33. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37279/2309-7663-2021-7-3-26-33

13. Dmitriev R.V., Gorokhov S.A. Central place systems: early stages of the continual development. Prostranstvennaya Ekon., 2022, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 38–55. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.14530/se.2022.2.038-055

14. Drezner Z. A note on the location of medical facilities. J. Reg. Sci., 1990, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1990.tb00098.x

15. Gusein-Zade S.M. Comment on “A note on the location of medical facilities” by Z. Drezner. J. Reg. Sci., 1992, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 229–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1992.tb00180.x

16. Ikeda K., Murota K. Bifurcation Theory for Hexagonal Agglomeration in Economic Geography. Tokyo: Springer, 2014. 313 p.

17. Iodo I.A., Protasova Yu.A., Sysoeva V.A. Teoreticheskie Osnovy Arkhitektury [Theoretical Foundations of Architecture]. Minsk: Vysshaya shkola, 2015. 114 p.

18. Khudyaev I.A. Evolution of the spatial-hierarchical structure of regional settlement systems. Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation. Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 2010. 161 p.

19. Kirichenko N.A., Krymskii K.M. Obshchaya Fizika. Mekhanika [General Physics. Mechanics]. Moscow: MIPT, 2013. 290 p.

20. Lösch A. Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft. Jena, 1940. 348.

21. Liu H., Liu W. Rank-size construction of the central place theory by fractal method and its application to the Yangtze river delta in China. In 2009 International Conference on Management and Service Science. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2009.5301777

22. Saushkin Yu.G. Ekonomicheskaya Geografiya: Istoriya, Teoriya, Metody, Praktika [Economic Geography: History, Theory, Methods, Practice]. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ., 1973. 557 p.

23. Shatilo D.P. Transformation of the Global Cities’ Social Space. Moscow: INION RAS, 2021. 78 p. https://doi.org/10.31249/citispace/2021.00.00

24. Shuper V.A. Samoorganizatsiya gorodskogo rasseleniya [Selforganization of Urban Settlement Pattern]. Moscow: Rossiiskii Otkrytyi Univ., 1995. 168 p.

25. Shuper V.А. The principle of complementarity and the central place theory. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 1996, no. 4, pp. 88–94. (In Russ.).

26. Sivukhin D.V. Obshchii Kurs Fiziki. T. 1. Mekhanika [General Course of Physics. Vol. 1. Mechanics]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1979. 520 p.

27. Stepin V.S. Filosofiya Nauki. Obshchie problemy [Philosophy of Science. Common Problems]. Moscow: Gardariki, 2006. 384 p.

28. Theo L. Simplifying central place theory using GIS and GPS. J. Geogr., 2011, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2010.511244

29. Vazhenin А.А. The evolution of urban settlement: the need for a critical analysis of the theory of central places. In Vtorye sokraticheskie chteniya po geografii [Second Socratic Readings in Geography]. Moscow: URAO Publ., 2001, pp. 85–89.

30. Vionis A.K., Papantoniou G. Central place theory reloaded and revised: political economy and landscape dynamics in the Longue Durée. Land, 2019, vol. 8, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8020036