AUC Geographica
1
THE REGION AS A CONCEPT: TRADITIONAL AND CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW
K A ROL K A SA L A 1, *, M I RO SL AV ŠI F TA 2
1
Department of Regional Geography, Protection and Planning of the Landscape, Faculty of Natural Science, Comenius University
in Bratislava, Slovakia
2 Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Czechia
* Corresponding autor:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
The main goal of this article is to assess and compare the various understandings of the concept of the region. The aim is to characterize
the concept of a region as well as how its meaning has changed through geographical history, to mention the most important personalities
and how they understood the concept of region. The article presents two diferent ways of looking at a region: 1) the region in the sense of
traditional regional geography; 2) the region in the new regional geography (region understood as a social construct). The article then compares the two approaches and outlines both their advantages and their disadvantages. The irst section presents a brief overview of how the
understanding of the concept of region developed. The following part focuses on development of the concept of region as a social construct,
especially in the context of the development of new regional geography, cultural turn and new regionalism. Finally, the article emphasizes
the essential complementarity of the two approaches and briely proposes a more complex scheme of analysis of a region.
Keywords: region; traditional regional geography; new regional geography; region as a social construct
Received 20 March 2017; Accepted 25 July 2017; Published online 31 October 2017
1. Introduction
“Geography changes as society changes.” (Livingstone
1992: 347)
According to its advocates, regional geography is the
core and heart of geography, the highest art of a geographer and the reason for its existence, and the advocates
call for “back to the basics” (Whittlesey 1954; Hart 1982;
Watson 1983; Lewis 1985). According to spatial scientists,
regional geography is not exact, it does not search for laws
and regularities, and its lack of a theoretical and methodological framework excludes it from the portfolio of exact
sciences (Fred K. Schaefer [1953] and other advocates
of geography as a spatial science). Due to its philosophic-paradigmatic background there are also diferent views
of the conceptual shape of regional geography, its idiographic or idiographic-nomothetic character, its focus on
explanation or understanding and so on.
Many authors have participated in the discussion
about the character of regional geography (Hartshorne
1939; Whittlesey 1954; Hart 1982; Johnston, Hauer, Hoekveld 1990; Entrikin, Brunn 1989; Nir 1990;
Wood 1999; Claval 2007). On one hand there are the
ever-strengthening positions of the advocates of “traditional regional geography” who emphasize a “return to
the basics”, “heart of geography”, “nature of geography”
(Hartshorne 1939), and a return to Hartshorne (Entrikin, Brunn 1989). Many of them stress the uniqueness of
locations: “Hartshorne is correct about the uniqueness of
locations” (Bunge 1979: 173). heir arguments are also
supported by an emphasis on the importance of local
scale in postmodern geography (Duncan 1996). On the
other hand, there is a new (reconstituted, transformed,
reconstructed) regional geography (Gilbert 1988) which
started the exactization process of regional geography.
his has meant there is a visible shit of approach in
regional geography, mostly a more signiicant orientation
towards processes and contexts (Tomaney 2009).
he diference between traditional regional geography and new regional geography (social-constructivist
approaches in regional geography) has kept increasing
gradually (Paasi 2009). he division of regional geography into two diferent approaches brought about several
discrepancies. As a consequence, it inluenced regional
geographical practice and the way a region was understood, i.e.: what is a region (a complex unit or a social
construct); what isn’t a region (the social-constructivist
new regional geography does not take nature suiciently
into account); how to investigate a region (social-constructivist approaches emphasize that contexts and
underlying processes are important, whereas traditional regional geography is rather a descriptive science).
Traditional regional geography uses traditional methods (statistical analysis, ieldwork, regionalization etc.),
whereas new regional geography uses qualitative and
contextual methods. Traditional regional geography
attempts to “see the region objectively”, whereas new
approaches see the region more subjectively. his has led
to our decision to focus on the meaning of the concept
of region, and to focus on how this meaning developed
over time. We also wanted to provide a comparison of
basic approaches.
https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2017.17
Kasala, K. – Šifta, M. (2017): The region as a concept: traditional and constructivist view
AUC Geographica
© 2017 The Authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
2 AUC Geographica
In this article, we focus on the changes in understanding the concept of region as follows: its complexity; its
synthetic character; its unity; the role of man, nature and
society in the formation of region; the interconnections
of its individual parts; uniqueness; dynamic vs. static
character; region as a result of development vs. region as
a process. he diference between the traditional concept
of a region and a region as a social construct (as understood in new regional geography) is as follows:
Traditional concept of a region
A region as a social construct
Complex
Predominantly social
Static
Dynamic
As a consequence of
development
As a consequence of process
Understanding
Explanation and understanding
Actors: man/society and nature
Actors: society
Geographical spheres: physicalgeographical; economic; social;
cultural; political
Geographical spheres:
predominantly social and
political
Unique, as a consequence
of unique combination of
phenomena
Unique, as a consequence of
factors and processes
As well as the term region, we also use the terms landscape (landscape, according to Carl Ortwin Sauer can
similarly be understood as a region) and place (“Even for
many new regional geographers, the meanings of region
and place are more or less similar or overlapping”; Paasi
2009: 224).
his article was written by two authors. One is a regional geographer and presents his view of a region from the
point of view of traditional regional geography. he other is a social geographer and represents the approach of
social constructivism in new regional geography.
he resulting article focuses on how the understanding of the concept of a region developed throughout the
history of geography. he main goal is to assess the various understandings of the concept of the region and to
present the most appropriate conceptual framework for
a region and understanding it. he authors attempt to
ind answers to the (following) research questions: How
has the meaning (understanding) of the concept of region
developed over time? How was the concept of region perceived by signiicant geographers? What were the weaknesses and strengths of the main approaches? What are
the main contributions of the main approaches? How
can the positive aspects (those bringing some beneits) of
both approaches be used when characterizing a region?
In the conclusion, we ofer a proposal for an analysis (and
of synthesis) of a region, using the methodological contributions of both traditional and social-constructivist
understandings of a region. he article takes the form
of a discussion between the supporters of the traditional
meaning vs. supporters of the region as a social construct
(Hart 1982; Hartshorne 1939; Johnston, Hauer, Hoekveld
1990; Murphy 1991; Paasi 1986; Sauer 1925; Semian
2016; Whittlesey 1954 etc.). his provides an analysis
of the concept of a region in individual approaches, as
well as an analysis of the concept of the region by diferent geographers. he comparison of diferent approaches (traditional vs. new regional geography) is based on
an analysis of the strengths (primarily) and weaknesses.
he strengths and weaknesses of these approaches (to
the region) relate to the theoretical-methodological area
(complex vs partial understanding of a region; static vs
dynamic region; description vs contextual and processual
understanding) and to applications (used in particular in
regional development).
2. The concept of a region in traditional regional
geography
hroughout the history of geography, the region was,
and is, its most important topic, its main concept, and
its main object of study. However, the concept of the
region was understood diferently throughout the history: a region was understood as a pure intellectual construction (Hartshorne 1939); as a concept or method
(Whittlesey 1954); as a system (Nir 1990); as a total and
complex unit (Paul Vidal de la Blache); or it was understood in the sense that a region is no more than a sum of
its components (Hartshorne 1939), etc. During the 20th
century, geography gradually split into two disciplines:
human and physical (e.g. Hartshorne 1939). his was
due to the following: 1) the importance of nature in the
process of formation and development of the region kept
decreasing; and 2) diferences between the methodologies
of natural and social sciences. As a consequence a region
is understood as a social construct.
2.1 Origins of modern geography
Carl Ritter is the father of modern regional geography.
He is the originator of new scientiic geography, which
is based on an organic unity between man and nature
(Martin 2005: 125). “Ritter’s … regional geography is
conceived as unity in diversity; not an inventory, but an
attempt to understand the interconnections and interrelations that make the area a mutual (zusammenhängig)
association” (Nir 1990: 34). For Ritter, the earth and its
inhabitants are in a close relation; the human and physical
worlds are inseparable (Cresswell 2013: 40). In 1859, Darwin published his work On the Origin of Species. he subsequent approaches – social Darwinism and environmental determinism - explain regional diferences as a result
of the geographical environment. Such an approach had
a decisive inluence on geography at the turn of the 19th
and 20th centuries (e.g. the determinist approaches of
Friedrich Ratzel and other German authors, Ellen Semple, Ellsworth Huntington were prevailing).
AUC Geographica
2.2 Paradigm of regional geography
Starting from Vidalian geography we can notice a shit
in the understanding of nature: man as an actor is being
emphasized, and nature is perceived as a “product of the
culture”. Paul Vidal de la Blache is known as a representative of possibilism. As opposed to determinism, possibilism understands nature to be the possibility for regional diferentiation. Vidalian geography and the whole of
French regional geography were holistic and complex
(Géographie Universelle as well as excellent local studies
and regional monographs). Vidalian region is holistic and
descriptive unit, with strong personality (Archer 1993:
499). Regional diferences and pays, however, occurred
mainly due to genre de vie. Man and human group can
never escape the restrictions of the milieu, the natural
surroundings upon which they depend (Mercier 2009:
148). It is necessary to add that milieu is not only the
natural environment; Vidal makes a distinction between
milieu externe (physical, not only natural world) and
milieu interne (values, habits, customs).
Carl Ortwin Sauer, an inluential American geographer, laid stress on culture in the landscape genesis, and
he is thus a follower of the possibilist Vidal de la Blache.
Carl Ortwin Sauer, however, includes nature in his view
of landscape (region): “geography is based on the reality of the union of physical and natural elements of the
landscape” (Sauer 1925: 325). He emphasized the division of forms into natural and cultural. he irst part of
his formal morphology includes both the reconstruction
and the understanding of the natural landscape (ibid,
from p. 333). It consists of geognostic and climatic factors, which are expressed in part through vegetation.
Natural factors transform the natural landscape over
time into forms (climate, land, sea and coast, vegetation),
while creating a natural landscape. he second part of the
morphologic analysis includes an analysis of the cultural
landscape. Carl Ortwin Sauer argued that culture is the
main agent in shaping the cultural landscape: culture is
the agent, the natural area is the medium, and the cultural
landscape is the result (Sauer 1925: 321 and igure, p. 343).
Both Alfred Hettner and Richard Hartshorne inluenced the character of geography from the 1930s. William
M. Davis described the landscape as a result of processes
(such as erosion cycle etc.). His approach signiicantly
inluenced Hartshorne (Harvey 2009: 22), who wrote he
Nature of Geography (Hartshorne 1939). he Hettnerian-Hartshornian chorology studied areal diferentiation,
and explained it by causal connections between phenomena. Hartshorne’s chorology understands the region
as a unique area and as a mental construct. In his diagram (Hartshorne 1939: 147, ig. 1). Richard Hartshorne
placed an emphasis on regional geography, which in the
physical-geographical and human-geographical point
of view has a strong character of unity; physical geography is an essential part of geography (Butzer 1989). For
Hartshorne, the region is the central organizing concept
3
in geography (Smith 1989: 103). Regions are unique
because they are unique combinations of phenomena.
Hartshorne’s approach is not problem-oriented; he wrote:
“the interest of the geographer is not in the phenomena
themselves, their origins and processes, but in the relations which they have to other geographic features (i.e.
features signiicant in areal diferentiation)” (Hartshorne
1939: 425–426).
2.3 Regional concept from the 1950s
American geography: inventory and prospect gives
a deep insight into the perspectives of American geography. he main area of interest in geography covers areal
diferentiation; geography focuses on interregional similarities and diferences, interconnections and movements
and on the order found in space (Whittlesey 1954: 21).
he region in Whittlesey’s sense is a kind of a formal
region. he region is a tool used by the regional method.
Regions can be single, multiple or total. Complex regions
are called total regions, compages: “Such a region is an
association of inter-related natural and societal features
chosen from a still more complex totality because they are
believed to be relevant to geographic study.” (Whittlesey
1954: 35–36). Geography as a spatial science continues to
understand a region in such a formalized way (Whittlesey
1954). his approach was dominant in 1960s and is typical for emphasizing the formal side of a region – spatial
pattern, interactions, regularities etc. Spatial science is
based on the philosophy of neopositivism and places an
emphasis on formulating regularities. As spatial science
does not deal with unique regions and their speciities, in
this article we provide an analysis only of the traditional
region and the region as a social construct.
he development of geography was further inluenced
by its division into physical and human geography and
by its further fragmentation. he ongoing process of the
loss of unity was associated with developments in geography (environmental determinism → possibilism → probabilism; from 1980s postmodern and post-structuralist
geographies). he emerging new regional geography and
cultural turn in the 1980s changed the perception of the
region into a region as a social construct. New regional
geography turned regional geographers into systematic geographers (Wei 2006: 1397). he understanding of
a region as a social construct (in Marxist approaches,
a region is produced) is obvious and some authors characterize it as “social (cultural) determinism” (Graham
1999). Due to shit to social constructivism, several articles about the social construction of nature (Demeritt
2002; Evans 2008) and the social construction of scale
(Marston 2000) were published. However, Gerard A.
Hoekveld identiied a new conceptual framework for
regional geography, including 8 key concepts, of which
only the seventh is nature, with a note: “In regional geography nowadays [nature] is still conceived in a more limited way.” (Hoekveld 1990: 27)
4 AUC Geographica
And inally, the “more traditional” Israeli regional
geographer Dov Nir wrote: “Regional geography deals
with the challenges posed to a certain society at a certain
place on the globe and with the responses made by that
society. Its focus is the study of diferentiation between
societies …” (Nir 1990: 2). A divided geography, however, is “weaker”, its competitiveness and reputation fades
(e.g. Matthews, Herbert 2004; Castree, Rogers, Sherman
2005).
3. The region as a social construct
3.1 From traditional to new regional geography
Regional geography primarily studies the relationship between humans and the environment they inhabit.
“Traditional” regional geography encompasses distinct
notions of that relationship, i.e. what is the character
of the relationship between man and his environment
(deterministic – seen from one direction [Ratzel, Semple]
or from the opposite one [Durkheim], and possibilistic
[Vidal de la Blache]). Regional geography distinguishes
geography from the other “big” ields of science because
it is interested “in everything”, although within a speciic
region, or, more precisely, because it studies and explains
the diferentiation between territories (regions). From the
point of view of practical applicability, it abounds with
great potential (regionalization, regional development).
Regions are not a purely geographical domain but
are also used in many other ields – either as a method (a methodological approach to regionalization, e.g.
comparing various regions in geopolitics), or as a tool/
purpose (a pragmatic approach to regionalization – creating regions in order to establish, for example, electoral districts). Regionalization as a method has in fact
“endured” even the harsh criticism of regional geography
by so-called ‘spatial science’ in the period following the
Second World War.
During the next paradigmatic turn and in the face of
criticism from spatial science (which is unable to explain
the differentiation of regional development, the way
a particular regional organization was established, and
the like) the dualistic concept gained strength in geography, which was by then splitting into human geography
and physical geography. Regional geography, however,
has the advantage of being able to work with knowledge
from both these geographical disciplines which sometimes are separated in an overly artiicial, dichotomous
manner. hat is where we see a great “strength” of regional geography.
From the 1960s, roughly, and then during the 1970s
and 1980s – ater positivistic spatial science encountered sharp criticism for its detachment from the reality of social and political afairs, the “dehumanization”
of human geography – human-geographical paradigms
have been fragmented into many various directions
responding to the diverse problems faced by society: radical geography, humanistic geography, feminist geography, etc.
Regional geography was not the only ield to have
undergone this change in thought, focused on the inluence of culture and society, as it also occurred in other
branches of social and human sciences and which is generally referred to as the “social” or “cultural turn” (Barnett
1998, 2009). Another response of regional geography to
the cultural turn is, besides the aforementioned multi-paradigmality, its multi-disciplinarity, i.e. adopting and
applying methods and knowledge from other branches of
social sciences and humanities (e.g. sociology, economy,
psychology, historiography and many others).
In relation to regional geography (which has oten
been regarded as “dead”, namely by the adherents of spatial science; Gregory 1978), humanistic geography in particular is understood as a “return” toward the idiographic
approaches of traditional schools of regional geography.
It is not only about a simple return toward an idiographic
conception of space; even though humanistic geography
is once more concerned with the uniqueness of specific places or regions but primarily from the perspective
of the essence of such uniquenesses, from the perspective of subjective meanings that a person (both the one
in the studied environment and the one studying a given environment) attributes to a particular place/region,
inluencing the given place/region by her/his perception
– here we see one of the roots of the so-called new regional geography. In today’s post-structuralist new regional
geography, a region is perceived as a social construct continually endowed with subjective meaning and – just as in
the case of an individual – characterized by a multi-layered identity (region as home, region as a political entity,
region as an administrative unit, etc.).
3.2 The region as a social construct
Region speciicity and incommutability had already
been emphasised by Richard Hartshorne who claimed
that a region was an arbitrarily delimitable territory, i.e.
a sovereignly subjective matter. Even despite the prevailing systematization characterizing his approach (wherein
chorology [regional geography] should involve “knowing
everything” about a given territory [based, among others, on traditional German regional geography coined by
Alfred Hettner]), his book titled he Nature of Geography:
A Critical Survey of Current hought in the Light of the
Past (1939) can be understood, owing to the idea of the
region as a social construct, as a “bridge” between traditional approaches to regional geography and the new
regional geography. he concept of a region as a social
construct later became the key concept within the new
regional geography (hrit 1983; Paasi 1986; Gilbert 1988;
Murphy 1991; Schmitt-Egner 2002; Claval 2007).
Obviously, the concept of region as a social construct
involves an enormous inluence of culture and identity,
AUC Geographica
or, more precisely, that of the cultural, historical and geographical context which plays a cardinal role in the formation of regions (other crucial concepts/key terms of
both the new regional geography and the new cultural
geography).
Traditional regional geography understood regions as
a consequence of the interactions between society and its
environment. From the point of view of the new regional
geography, research into the interactions between man
and nature, or rather, between society and environment,
is being replaced with a study of the interrelationship
between individual and society. he new regional geography no longer asks merely about “what”, “where” and
“when” but is interested primarily in the formation process of the region, in the way regions come to existence,
for what reason and for what purpose they arise.
Various forms of the concept of a region can be found
(not only) in geographical research. All the approaches mentioned above, regions created for the purpose of
determining statistical or administrative units, “natural”
regions as results of synthetizing analyses generated by
traditional regional geographers are always, in a sense,
a man-made construct. he region deined in this way
is articulated from above by researchers, politicians and
other actors; it is a secondary outcome of that particular
activity in the course of which the region was established.
This is the essential distinction from understanding
a region as a social construct within the realm of the new
regional geography. Here, regions are not approached
as objects of study but rather as subjective constructs,
a socio-spatial process. Regions arise from regional,
social interactions that take place among individuals,
groups and institutions in regional areas. Allen, Massey,
Cochrane (1998: 50) suggest that a region is “the product
of the networks, interactions, juxtapositions and articulations of the myriad of connections through which all
social phenomena are lived out”. Regions arise from interactions occurring at diferent hierarchical and scale levels
of the society, i.e. through the actions among individuals, groups, institutions both within and outside a given
region (Paasi 1986). As part of region formation, these
relationships (all of them) are seen as reciprocal; constituting a condition for these interactions while being their
result. It is not of substance whether or not a given individual considers a region to hold an important place in
his/her everyday life, yet it is always produced and reproduced via ordinary activities. Kaj Zimmerbauer states
that “at the core of social constructionism is the idea of
region as a socially produced entity in which the regional
consciousness of its inhabitants creates the whole idea”
(Zimmerbauer 2011: 255). Individuals, groups and institutions active outside the region are of equal importance
in the region-building process, regardless of whether or
not they have the power to inluence that process, and
whether or not they do so deliberately (Paasi 2010).
5
Leaving aside all actors, their networks and mutual interactions, region formation is closely linked to the
physical environment wherein a region is being constructed. A particular landscape and a speciic natural
environment markedly predetermines and afects both
the material and the symbolic aspects of the region forming process, both its material form and its image (Šita,
Chromý 2014; Šita, Chromý 2017). Many new regional
geographers no longer pay much attention to the importance of the physical environment for regional formation.
We do not suggest any return to Vidalian possibilism but
‘pays’ and ‘genre de vie’ cannot be entirely separated from
the ‘milieu’ (the physical environment) wherein they get
their shape and which they obviously inluence and transform (Claval 2007; Paasi 2010).
his understanding of the concept of the region as
a socio-spatial process has not, however, been unanimous. In the past three decades during which the region
as social construct was establishing itself within the new
regional geography (hrit 1983; Pred 1984; Paasi 1986;
Gilbert 1988; Murphy 1991), the understanding of this
and the approach to it naturally difered in terms of both
space and time. Following this initial stage of theoretical
and conceptual development of the social constructivist
approach toward the region, a wave of (neo-)regionalism
could be observed in the 1990s.
Regions as a result of (neo-)regionalistic tendencies
In Europe, (neo-)regionalism manifested itself (in connection to the building of a ‘Europe of the regions’ within
the EU) through an approach to regions from a political
and economic perspective (Hettne 2005). We can distinguish two basic types of regionalism: one bottom-up and
one top-down. he irst one developed mainly owing to
voluntary initiatives of citizens living in each particular region or those of local subjects (e.g. microregions,
transborder Euroregions and consensual associations of
municipalities, etc.). In the second type of regionalism,
the development of regions is initiated (taking the example of Europe) by the EU’s central institutions with the
aim of enhancing regional competiveness and reducing
socioeconomic gaps between the developed and the less
developed regions (Bristow 2010). hus new regionalists,
by supporting not only socioeconomic, but also sociocultural development of regions (the forming of regional
identity including its impact on regional development),
respond to the deepening processes of globalization and
uniication (Chromý 2009; Paasi 2012). hey emphasize
and take as a basis regional diversity as well as the speciic
material and cultural values of the given region (Keating
1998; Chromý 2009; Paasi 2012; Jones, Paasi 2013).
Similar manifestations of (neo-)regionalism were also
observed in the United States (e.g. Wheeler 2002) and in
those Eastern European countries that are not (or were
not) EU members (e.g. McMaster 2006).
6 AUC Geographica
The region as a brand
he economic or marketing concept of regions represents another approach to regions as social constructs,
which was well-marked especially in the irst decade of
the new millennium. Place marketing and place branding
researchers point to the fact that regions are treated as
commodities in order to make proit (either by attracting
investors, encouraging new inhabitants to move in, or by
increasing the turnout of tourism). However, the majority of regions “operate” with place branding and place
marketing strictly at the level of “selling” a region as merchandise, using its brands with the aim of commodifying
and commercializing it without taking into consideration
that the two concepts must be seen as a long-term strategic, synthetic and integral, complex process. his process, which makes part of an overall strategy of the given
region for preserving and enhancing its competitive ability, is supposed to satisfy all target groups (Anholt 2003;
Hospers 2011; Zimmerbauer 2011; Pike 2009, 2011).
Overlapping regions
Another possible generalizing stream of working with
the region as a social construct is constituted by “regional
conlict” research projects, which we expect to grow in
number in the near future. As is evident from the above,
there are increasingly more regions of diverse character
(administrative, economic and cultural; numerous tourist
regions are emerging, NUTS system regions, transborder
regions, all of them of various scale levels, etc.). Many
of these more or less spatially delimited units overlap.
Along with the changing context, many of them see their
meaning change over time. hus, conlicts of interest
between diferent actors in regional initiatives become
more frequent and regional identity becomes internally
more fragmented. In addition, outward regional identity
becomes ambiguous (Kašková, Chromý 2014).
4. Comparison of approaches: traditional and/or
reconstructed region
4.1 The view presented by new regional geography
Owing to the revival of interest in regions within
regional geography and beyond, research is becoming increasingly idiographic. When studying speciic
regions, new regional geographers, however, strive to
reveal details on the functioning of regions, trying to
make sense of the mechanisms of their formation, transformation and vanishing. heir objective is to interpret
this idiographic knowledge, as it seems at irst sight, by
nomothetic means. he results of such eforts include,
for example, Anssi Paasi’s theory of institutionalization
(Paasi 1986) as well as plentiful attempts to put this into
practice (testing the region institutionalization process on
speciic regions). It is thus a combination of idiographic
and nomothetic approaches.
We can, however, ask whether the existence of regional geography is legitimate and necessary. he pieces of
knowledge that we learn about a region (as the main
research topic) can be simply extracted from all the other systematic subdisciplines of geography, or from other
scientiic ields as a whole. For example, Gordon MacLeod and Martin Jones (2001) claim that priority is no
longer given to only one discipline (regional geography),
as regions are consistently studied in the whole ield of
geography. Regional geography is thus not necessary, but
regions are what is needed in geography (MacLeod, Jones
2001). Regional geography can still be substituted by using
regions as a delimitation of where other disciplines should
be applied. he strength of regional geography, however,
is in its complexity of synthetizing such pieces of knowledge, analysing them through a perceptive approach
and allowing for the historic-geographical context of
development in the studied region. Nobody but “complex” regional geographers can adopt such an approach
which is crucial to not only understanding the formation process, existence and functioning of a region, but
also to applying it, for example, in regional development.
When perceiving the region as a social construct, the
strengths of such an approach include the following:
– he nomothetic character of such an approach, which
is achieved by providing an explanation of processes and contexts; this is a signiicant methodological
contribution. Contexts and processes enable a better
understanding of functioning of regions and thus predict their future changes.
– Focus is given to those social topics, the signiicance of
which within the region is growing constantly.
– A greater emphasis is put on those concepts which
were neglected in regional geography in the past:
political power and the whole of politics; social differences and social changes; global and local scale etc.
hat enables a better understanding of the current
state of a region.
It is necessary to point out that weaknesses include, in
particular, the following:
– Nature is missing; there is a non-complex character;
– Too much emphasis is given to social problems.
– Weaknesses relate to, in particular, the somehow
reduced character of a region (the region is not so
complex).
– Solutions to problems in a particular region created
and suggested within new regional geography research
cannot be fully transferable to solutions of similar
problems elsewhere (due to speciic conditions and
time-space context).
4.2 The view presented by traditional regional geography
Understanding a region as a social construct has some
weaknesses. It is obvious that the importance of society is
growing – and as a result the region as a social construct
is becoming more and more important. Despite that, the
AUC Geographica
role of nature cannot be ignored (global warming, natural
hazards, etc.). Within regional diferentiation, nature is
still the real power. he division of Canada into heartland
and hinterland cannot be explained only by communication connections and economic advances, as they themselves are a result of climatic conditions.
A diferent understanding of the concept of the region
is questionable. he increasing inluence of reductionism in regional geography may be subject to criticism.
Not only is the complexity of the region reduced, also the
social component itself (the role of excluded minorities
and diferent social communities is overvalued). Social
sciences and geography still relect social reality and now
anticipate it, and they bring their own moral criteria to
this. he identity of a region and region formation, as
a theme, has been overestimated. Geography rejects tradition, it is “revolutionized”. A positivist “epistemological turn” led to the formalization of the region; since the
1990s, an “ontological turn” has led to, it seems, growing
vagueness and “mistiness” of geographical texts (see the
increasing incomprehensibility of the fourth and ith
edition of he Dictionary of Human Geography). he
traditional regional-geographical characteristics provide
a more balanced, more complex, more usable (for planning etc.) and more vivid image of a region.
As to the traditional approach (the region in the
sense of traditional geography), its strengths include the
following:
– a complex approach; well-balanced characteristics of
individual spheres and topics; a systematic approach
– focus is given to central (main) topics;
– it is “demanded” by the public (a growing demand for
regional information);.
The weaknesses of traditional regional geography
include the following:
– its descriptive character;
– little emphasis is given to society and to social topics;
– static characteristics of the region.
4.3 Towards a more complex regional geography
he development of knowledge may be perceived as
evolution, as a gradual addition of new ideas, contributions, methodologies, and procedures. Regional geography and the concept of the region may thus include contributions from spatial science as well as humanistic and
radical geographies. hey may also accept contributions
from social constructivism. It is easier to understand
a region when accepting humanistic-geographic concepts
of topophilia, topophobia (Tuan 1974), the sense of place,
and placelessness (Relph 1976); Marxists’ concepts of
social justice in the city and in rural areas (Harvey 1973);
as well as the impacts of globalization and postmodern
cultures on local environments and communities (Savage,
Bagnall, Longhurst 2005), etc.
here are strong examples of “good regional geography” (more balanced and complex, more aimed at the
7
most important phenomena) in the history of geography: Jordan’s Texas emphasized the conluence of cultures
(Jordan, Bean, Holmes 1984); Harm de Blij presented his
deep understanding of the world by applying geographical concepts to world regions (de Blij, Muller 2010). Such
regional geography can provide more complex studies of
society, as well as studies focusing better on central problems and explanation.
Dov Nir’s conception of regional geography (Nir 1990)
is based on systems theory. “Society and its physical environment is not a dichotomy: each is part of a whole,
a system.” (Nir 1990: 8). Dov Nir introduces the concept
of the region as a holon, “when viewed from the inside
it is something closed, something final and defined,
but when viewed from the outside appearing as part of
something larger” (Nir 1990: 25). Dov Nir introduces the
region as a system with phenomena that are components
of a whole, with relationships between components, and
relationships between components and their environment; system is more than the sum of its components.
And Nir’s model of a systemic region is a way to study
“hidden factors” (ibid. p. 103). Instead of providing an
exhaustive characterization of all the elements, a focus
on the central issue is proposed (Nir 1990: 39; Baranskij
1953).
he authors present several proposals that are aimed
towards better characteristics of regions:
1. Regions are complex and holistic in the sense of physical-geographical – human-geographical unity.
2. A region is an open system with its own structure and
relations between its parts and components as well as
relations between the region and its environment.
3. Emphasis should be laid not only on a detail description of the region, but also on the central issue and on
the most important phenomena.
4. Regional analysis includes all the basic geographical
spheres (natural, economic, cultural, social and political system); sub-spheres are not a must. Social sciences
and new regional geography stress the importance of
social factors and processes; social factors and processes (and relevant processes and actors) should be
incorporated into regional-geographical research.
5. Characteristics of a region can be made “more exact”
by including the processes, contexts and transformation, and by formulating research questions that would
lead to explanation and understanding (Kasala 2014).
6. Regional geography must be more relevant, more
practice-oriented, should fulil public expectations
and provide vivid descriptions.
Regional-geographical characteristics may be identified by analyzing several “layers” gradually. Older
approaches, which focus on the process of transformation, are of “Vidalian style” (i.e. they see the countryand-town symbiosis in the phases of historical succession
[Wooldridge, East 1967: 158–159]) or they are in the form
of Whittlesey’s concept of sequent occupance. Sequent
occupance of Southern California means the gradual
8 AUC Geographica
transformation of the landscape in four stages: aboriginal
– Spanish – American – international era. Niko Lipsanen’s Master’s thesis (Lipsanen 2001) ofers three levels
of analysis: the naturalistic analysis of Roseau (position,
structure, function, texture); existential analysis (visiting,
dwelling, changing); and synthesis (districts of Roseau,
Roseau as a place). A triple model of place (Matlovič
2007) is composed of place as the illing of a part of timespace (physical and technical sphere components); as an
arena, process – social construction (social sphere components); and as meaning, identity (noosphere and cyber
sphere). John Agnew (2005: 89) presents an idea of three
components of place: place as a location or a site; place
as a locale (a setting for everyday activities); and place as
a sense of a place (a place of identiication).
“he ultimate goal of a regional descriptive synthesis
was achieved through a thematic “layering” of subject
matter, extending from the physical environment through
several layers of human intervention.” (Pudup 1987: 1) In
conclusion we would like to propose a scheme of layers of
regional-geographical analysis. he analytical part of our
research consists of three layers of analysis. he irst layer is the “objective region”. his layer provides an insight
(detailed information) and broad understanding (comparative, processual and contextual). he second layer
focuses on the personality of the region – by identifying
its speciities, its central phenomena. And the third layer
deals with subjective experience, sense of place, identity.
hose three layers enable a synthesis and provide a deep
understanding of the region. hey can be a good basis for
regional development and other applications.
5. Conclusion
“Regional geography cannot divorce itself from the empirical world. If it did, it would be likely to become a bloodless
Platonic Universe of Ideas, merely producing theories for
their own sake.” (Wood 1999: 205)
“he highest form of the geographer’s art is producing good
regional geography – evocative descriptions that facilitate
an understanding and an appreciation of places, areas and
regions.” (Hart 1982: 2)
One of the contributions of regional geography is that
it deines regional diferentiation and explains it. Changes
within any scientiic discipline are necessary; yet changes do not necessarily mean certain progress. Growth
of knowledge is an evolutionary process. Our current
knowledge is based on contributions which we “achieved”
in previous periods. Traditional as well as new regional
geography – both of them have advantages and disadvantages. Each of them can beneit from the other.
A comparison of these two basic approaches to the
concept of region is one of the contributions of this
article. By comparing the two approaches the authors
present a brief proposal of a more complex approach in
regional geography, showing that these two approaches
are complementary, which is a benefit. Traditional
regional geography is more complex, as it allows a better understanding of a region. On the other hand, new
regional geography (as an example of socio-constructivist
approach) is a contribution to geographical methodology,
because it facilitates explanation by using contexts and
processes.
In the introduction, the authors formulated several
research questions. he 1st research question was: “How
has the meaning (understanding) of the concept of the
region developed over time?” he most typical changes in
the meaning of the concept of the region included a loss
of complexity as well as shit to a more social understanding. Regional geography gradually “split” into two main
directions: traditional geography and new regional geography. he 2nd research question was: “How was the concept of region perceived by signiicant geographers?” he
article focuses on key personalities – geographers and on
their understanding of region. Carl Ritter looked for unity within diversity, interconnections and interrelations;
for Ritter, human and physical worlds are inseparable.
Starting with Paul Vidal de la Blache, nature is perceived
as a “product of the culture”. Vidalian French regional
geography was holistic and complex. Carl Ortwin Sauer
researched the landscape (i.e., region) by applying a morphological analysis which was composed of both analyses: analysis of the natural landscape and analysis of the
cultural landscape. Richard Hartshorne understands the
region as a unique area and as a mental construct. Hartshorne’s chorology is typical of his strong character of unity.
he traditional understanding of the region underwent changes in its meaning in mid-twentieth century. Derwent Whittlesey (1954) understands a region as
a formal region; and geography, as a spatial science, leaving the idea of a unique region completely behind, and
investigating regional patterns, regularities, and interactions. Anssi Paasi and other representatives of the new
regional geography understand the region as a social construct. he concept of the region presented by the Israeli
geographer Dov Nir (1990) is based on systems theory.
he authors identify the most important strengths and
weaknesses (research question No. 3: What were the
weaknesses and strengths of the main approaches?). he
region as a social construct has advantages: a nomothetic
approach with explanation based on processes and contexts; a strong emphasis on political and social themes;
weaknesses (disadvantages) are the problem of transferability of solutions from one region to others; a non-complex character due to leaving out nature. he strengths
of the traditional concept of a region are its complex and
systematic approach; focus is given to central (main) topics, while the weaknesses of this traditional understanding of a region are its descriptive character and the static
characteristics of the region with little emphasis placed
on society. he 4th research question was: “What are the
main contributions of the main approaches?” he main
advantages as and contributions of the traditional concept
AUC Geographica
of a region include complexity and a focus on the main
phenomena and speciities of region. he main contributions of new regional geography (the region understood
as a social construct) include a greater emphasis given
to social topics and methodological contributions (processes, contexts). he answer to the last research question
(“How can the positive aspects of the two approaches
be used when characterizing a region?”) leads us to an
attempt to ind more optimal characteristics of a region.
As analyzed in the last part of the article, a more
complex regional geography is based on systems theory
(Nir 1990), a holistic complex understanding of a region
(Nir 1990) as well as a socially produced and reproduced
region (Gilbert 1988; Paasi 1986), and thus uses also new
methodologies focused on processes and contexts (Johnston, Sidaway 2004). “Layering” of the research (see also
Lipsanen 2001; Matlovič 2007; Agnew 2005; Pudup 1987,
1988) provides a deeper understanding of a region. he
authors present “a model” with three layers of analysis,
which include three ways of understanding (verstehen):
1) an “objective” region with comparative, processual and
contextual understanding; 2) the personality of a region
understood through its speciities, central phenomena; 3)
the subjective meaning of a region understood through
its identity, sense of place and subjective experience.
Acknowledgements
he article is supported by the VEGA project “Social,
economic and environmental determinants of regional
development and transformation: a regional geographic
approach” (No. 1/0540/16) and the Czech Science Foundation project “Historical Geography Research Centre”
(No. P410/12/G113).
REFERENCES
AGNEW, J. (2005): Space: Place. In: Cloke, P., Johnston, R. J.
(eds.): Spaces of geographical thought. Deconstructing human
geography’s binaries. London, Sage Publications, pp. 81–96, https://
doi.org/10.4135/9781446216293.n5.
ALLEN, J., MASSEY, D., COCHRANE, A. (1998): Rethinking
the Region. London, Routledge.
ANHOLT, S. (2003): Branding places and nations. In: Cliton,
R., Simmons, J.: Brands and Branding. London: he Economist &
Proile Book, pp. 213–226.
ARCHER, K. (1993): Regions as social organisms: the
Lamarckian characteristics of Vidal de la Blache’s regional geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83(3),
498–514, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1993.tb01947.x.
BARNETT, C. (1998): The cultural turn: fashion or progress in human geography? Antipode 30(4), 379–394, https://doi
.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00085.
BARNETT, C. (2009): Cultural turn. In: Gregory, D., Johnson R,
Pratt G., Whatmore, S. (eds.) he Dictionary of Human Geography.
Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 134–135.
9
BRISTOW, G. (2010): Critical relections on Regional Competiveness. London, Routledge.
BARANSKIJ, N. N. (1953): Náčrtok školskej metodiky
socioekonomickej geograie. Bratislava, NSAV.
BUNGE, W. (1979): Perspective on heoretical Geography.
AAAG 69(1), 169–174, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1979
.tb01248.x.
BUTZER, K. W. (1989): Hartshorne, Hettner, and he Nature
of Geography. In: Entrikin, J. N., Brunn, S. D. (eds.): Relections
on Richard Hartshorne’s he Nature of Geography. AAAG, Washington, pp. 35–52.
CASTREE, N., ROGERS, A., SHERMAN, D. (eds.) (2005):
Questioning geography. Fundamental debates. Malden, Blackwell
Publishing.
CHROMÝ, P. (2009): Region a regionalismus. Geografické
rozhledy 19(1), 2–5.
CLAVAL, P. (2007): Regional geography: Past and present
(a review of ideas, approaches and goals). Geographica Polonica
80(1), 25–42.
CRESSWELL, T. (2013): Geographic thought. A critical introduction. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell.
DE BLIJ, H., MULLER, P. O. (2010): Geography: regions and
concepts. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
DEMERITT, D. (2002): What is the ‘social construction of nature’? A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography 26(6), 766–789, https://doi
.org/10.1191/0309132502ph402oa.
DUNCAN, N. (1996): Postmodernism in human geography.
In: Mathewson, E. (eds.): Concepts in human geography. Boston,
Rowman and Littleield, pp. 429–458.
ENTRIKIN, J. N., BRUNN, S. D. (eds.) (1989): Relections on
Richard Hartshorne’s he Nature of Geography. Washington, Association of American Geographers.
EVANS, J. (2008): Social constructions of nature. In: Daniels, P.
et. al. (eds): Introduction to human geography. Harlow, Pearson,
pp. 256–272.
GILBERT, A. (1988): he new regional geography in English
and French speaking countries. Progress in Human Geography
12(2), 208–228, https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258801200203.
GREGORY, D. (1978): Ideology, Science and Human Geography. London, Hutchinson.
HETTNE, B. (2005): Beyond the ‘new’ regionalism. New Political
Economy 10(4), 543–571, https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460
500344484.
HOSPERS, G.,J. (2011): Four of the most common misconceptions about place marketing. Journal of Town & City Management
2(2), 167–176.
GRAHAM, S. (1999): Towards urban cyberspace planning:
grounding the global through urban telematics policy and planning. In: Downey, J., McGuigan, J. (eds.): Technocities. London,
Sage, pp. 9-33, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279991.n2.
HART, J. F. (1982): he highest form of the geographer’s art.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 72(1), 1–29,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1982.tb01380.x.
HARTSHORNE, R. (1939): he nature of geography: a critical
survey of current thought in the light of the past. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 29(3), 173–412, https://doi
.org/10.2307/2561063.
HARVEY, D. (1973): Social justice and the city. London, Edward
Arnold.
HARVEY, F. (2009): Hartshorne, R. In.: Kitchin, R., hrit, N.
(eds.): International encyclopedia of human geography.
Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 21–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978
-008044910-4.00619-2.
10 AUC Geographica
HOEKVELD, G. A. (1990): Regional geography must adjust to
new realities. In: Johnston, R. J., Hauer, J., Hoekveld, G. A. (eds.):
Regional geography. Current developments and future prospects.
London and New York, Routledge, pp. 11–31.
JOHNSTON, R. J., HAUER, J., HOEKVELD, G. A. (eds.) (1990):
Regional geography. Current developments and future prospects.
London and New York, Routledge.
JOHNSTON, R. J., SIDAWAY, J.D. (2004): Geography and
Geographers: Anglo-American human geography since 1945. 6th
ed. London, Arnold.
JONES, M., PAASI, A. (2013): Guest Editorial: Regional world
(s): Advancing the geography of regions. Regional Studies 47(1),
1–5, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.746437.
JORDAN, T. G., BEAN, J. L., HOLMES, W. M. (eds.) (1984):
Texas: a geography. Boulder and London, Westview Press.
KASALA, K. (2014): Geograia Japonska. In: Gurňák, D., Danielová, K., Kasala, K., Tolmáči, L., Blažík, T.: Geograia Ázie. Bratislava, Univerzita Komenského, pp. 348–392.
KAŠKOVÁ, M., CHROMÝ, P. (2014): Regional product labelling
as part of the region formation process: he case of Czechia. AUC
Geographica 49(2), 87–98, https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980
.2014.18.
KEATING, M. (1998): The New Regionalism in Western
Europe: Territorial Restructuring and Political Change. Northampton, Edward Elgar Publishing.
LEWIS, P. (1985): Beyond description. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 75(4), 465–478, https://doi.org/10.1111
/j.1467-8306.1985.tb00088.x.
LIPSANEN, N. (2001): Naturalistic and existential realms of
place in Roseau, Dominica. Master thesis. Helsinki, University of
Helsinki. http://www.domnik.net/dominica/roseau/.
LIVINGSTONE, D. (1992): he geographical tradition. Malden,
Blackwell.
MacLEOD, G., JONES, M. (2001): Renewing the geography of
regions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19(6),
669–695, https://doi.org/10.1068/d217t.
McMASTER, I. (2006): Czech regional development agencies
in a shiting institutional landscape. Europe-Asia Studies 58(3),
347–370, https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130600601727.
MARSTON, S. (2000): The social construction of scale.
Progress in Human Geography 24(2), 219–242, https://doi.org
/10.1191/030913200674086272.
MARTIN, G. J. (2005): All possible worlds. A history of geographical ideas. 4th ed. London and New York, Oxford University Press.
MATLOVIČ, R. (2007): Hybridná idiograicko-nomotetická
povaha geograie a koncept miesta s dôrazom na humánnu geograiu. Geograický časopis 59(1), 1–23.
MATTHEWS, J. A., HERBERT, D. T. (eds.) (2004): Unifying
geography. Common heritage, shared future. London and New
York, Routledge.
MERCIER, G (2009): Vidal de la Blache, P. In: Kitchin, R.,
hrit, N. (eds.): International encyclopedia of human geography. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 147–150, https://doi.org/10.1016
/B978-008044910-4.00605-2.
MURPHY, A. (1991): Regions as social constructs: the gap
between theory and practice. Progress in Human Geography 15(1),
23–35, https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259101500102.
NIR, D. (1990): Region as a socio-environmental system. An
introduction to a systematic regional geography. Dordrecht, Kluwer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0483-5.
PAASI, A. (1986): he institutionalization of regions: A theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the
constitution of regional identity. Fennia 164(1), 105–146, https://
doi.org/10.11143/9052.
PAASI, A. (2009): Regional geography. In: Kitchen, R., hrit,
N.: International encyclopedia of human geography. Amsterdam
and Oxforrd, Elsevier, Vol. 9, pp. 214-227, https://doi.org/10.1016
/B978-008044910-4.00736-7.
PAASI, A. (2010): Regions are social constructs, but ‘who’ or
‘what’ constructs them? Agency in question. Environment and
Planning A 42(10), 2296–2301, https://doi.org/10.1068/a42232.
PAASI, A. (2012): Border studies reanimated: going beyond the
territorial/relational divide. Environment and Planning A 44(10),
2303–2309, https://doi.org/10.1068/a45282.
PIKE, A. (2009): Geographies of brands and branding.
Progress in Human Geography 33(5), 619–645, https://doi
.org/10.1177/0309132508101601.
PIKE, A., ed. (2011): Brands and Branding Geographies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857930842.
PRED, A. R. (1984): Place as historically contingent process:
Structuration and the time-geography of becoming places. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 74(2), 279–297,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1984.tb01453.x.
PUDUP, M. B. (1987): Reinventing regions: toward a new regional geography of Appalachia. Research Paper 8701 – paper accepted
for presentation in the Warren Nystrom Award Session, Association
of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon.
PUDUP, M. B. (1988): Arguments within regional geography. Progress in human geography 12(3), 369–390, https://doi
.org/10.1177/030913258801200303.
RELPH, E. (1976): Place and placelessness. London, Pion.
SAUER, C. O. (1925): he morphology of landscape. In. Leighly,
J. (ed.): Land and life: a selection from the writings of Carl Ortwin
Sauer. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press,
pp. 315–350.
SAVAGE, M., BAGNALL, G., LONGHURST, B. (2005): Globalization and belonging. London, Sage.
SCHAEFFER, F. K. (1953): Exceptionalism in geography. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 43(3), 226–249,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00045605309352114.
SCHMITT-EGNER, P. (2002): The concept of ‘region’:
Theoretical and methodological notes on its reconstruction.
Journal of European Integration 24(3), 179–200, https://doi
.org/10.1080/07036330270152196.
SEMIAN, M. (2016): Region in its complexity: A discussion on
constructivist approaches. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica 51(2), 177–186, https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2016.15.
SMITH, N. (1989): Geography as museum: private history
and conservative idealism. In: Eentrikin, J. N., Brunn, S. D. (eds.):
Relections on Richard Hartshorne’s he Nature of Geography.
AAAG, Washington, pp. 91–120.
ŠIFTA, M., CHROMÝ, P. (2014): Symboly a identita regionu:
analýza vnímání přírodních symbolů oblastí s intenzivně přeměněnou krajinou v Česku. Geograický časopis 66(4), 401–415.
ŠIFTA, M., CHROMÝ, P. (2017): he Importance of Symbols in
the Region Formation Process. Norsk Geograisk Tidsskrit-Norwegian Journal of Geography 71(2), 98–113, https://doi.org/10.1080
/00291951.2017.1317285.
THRIFT, N. (1983): On the determination of social action in
space and time. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
1(1), 23–57, https://doi.org/10.1068/d010023.
TOMANEY, J. (2009): Region. In: Kitchen, R., hrit, N.: International encyclopedia of human geography. Amsterdam and
Oxforrd, Elsevier, Vol. 9, pp. 136–150, https://doi.org/10.1016
/B978-008044910-4.00859-2.
TUAN, Y.-F. (1990) [1974]: Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. New York, Columbia University Press.
AUC Geographica
WATSON, J. W. (1983): he soul of geography. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 8, pp. 385–399,
https://doi.org/10.2307/621958.
WEI, Y. D. (2006): Commentary. Geographers and globalization: the future of regional geography. Environment and Planning
A 38(8), 1395–1400, https://doi.org/10.1068/a38458.
WHEELER, S. M. (2002): he new regionalism: Key characteristics of an emerging movement. Journal of the American
Planning Association 68(3), 267–278, https://doi.org/10.1080
/01944360208976272.
11
WHITTLESEY, D. (1954): he regional concept and the regional method. In: James, P. E., Whittlesey, D. (1954): American geography: inventory and prospect, pp. 19–68.
WOOD, G. (1999): On the future of regional geography.
Geographica Helvetica 54(4), 199–207, https://doi.org/10.5194
/gh-54-199-1999.
WOOLDRIDGE, S. W., EAST, W. G. (1967): he spirit and purpose of geography. New York, Capricorn Books.
ZIMMERBAUER, K. (2011): From image to identity: building regions by place promotion. European Planning Studies 19(2),
243–260, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.532667.