![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
It is argued in this paper that regionalization is a similar process to classification. The terminology and procedures of the two are compared and it is concluded that there is a close similarity except that there is no direct analogy in regionalization with the individual of classification. It is suggested that operationally defined individuals partially overcome this problem. The histories of ideas about the nature and purpose of regional systems and classification systems are briefly compared and again found to be similar. Ten principles of classification derived from the work of logicians and taxonomists are then stated and the methods of constructing regional systems are examined in the light of these principles. It is shown that most of the points revealed by such an examination have been previously discussed by geographers, although they are arguing from different premises. Some of the principles, however, do raise problems which have hitherto received little attention.
Notes
1 It will be apparent that I owe a great deal to reading the work of J. S. L. Gilmour, M. G. Cline, G. G. Simpson, R. Hartshorne, and W. Bunge. I hope that I have properly understood and correctly interpreted their views. I have also received a great deal of helpful criticism on earlier drafts of this paper from many colleagues and I would like to thank D. W. Harvey, P. Hagget, R. J. Chorley, B. Garner, C. Board, B. H. Farmer, D. Anderson, R. L. Wright, and R. A. G. Savigear, and in particular G. M. Lewis and R. Hartshorne. Needless to say they do not necessarily share the opinions expressed here.
