occu rs as a res u lt of changes in th e
functio nal re latio nships be tween the
major compo nen ts of the system of
the city. Two majo r prin ciples are used
to explai n stru ctural changes in the
city: the law of all ometri c growth,
and the prin cip le of re nt as th e pri ce
of accessibili ty.
fl i 80ulding, Kenne th , " The Death of the City," Col-
lecled Papers, Volume Two: Economics, Fred Glahe
(ed.), (Colorado: Colorado University Press, 1971),
p.267 .
t2) Sjoberg, G., The Pre- Induslrial Ci ly (New York :
The Free Press, MacMillan Co., 1960), p . 11 .
t' ) Dickenson , R. E., The Wesl European Cily (Lo nd o n,
Hum anities Press, Inc., 1951).
14) Sch no re, L. F., " Th e City As a Social Organism,"
Urban Allairs Quarlerly, Vol. 1 (1966), p. 58.
IS )
Alber, R., Adams, J., and Gould, P., Spalia l Orga nizalion : The Geographer' s View 01 Ih e World (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Pre ntice-Hall , Inc. , 1971) , p.
3S4.
(' ) Jull iard, E. , "The Re gio n : An Essay of Definition ,"
in Eng lish, P., and Mayfield, R. , e ds.), Man , Space
and Environmenl : Concepts in Conlemporary Human Geography (New York: Oxford Uni v. Press,
1972) , p . 439 .
(11 Medvedkov, Yuri, " Interna l Stru cture of a City. An
Ecological Assessment," Papers , Ih e Regiona l Science Associalion , Vol. 27 (1971), p. 95.
II ) Forrester, J. W ., Counterintuitive Behavior of Socia l Syste m," Ekislics, 1B9 (1971), p . 135.
(9) Berry, B. J. L. , " Inte rnal Structures of the City, " Law
and Con l emporary Problems, Vol. 30 (1965), p . 112.
1101 5chofer, J. L. , "Sys l em Ana lysis in Transportation
Planning," in Berry, B. a nd Horton , E. (eds .), Geographic Perspeclives o n Urban Systems (Englewood
Cliffs, New Je rsey. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p . 548.
Il l )
Teitz, Michael, " Regio nal Theory and Regional
Models, " Papers and Proceedings of Ih e Regional
Science Associalion, Vol. 9 (1962), p . 46.
112) Bovini , C. P., Simulation 01 Inlormalion and Decisicon Syslems in Ihe Fi rm (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), p. 6.
(" ) Schofe r, op . cil. , p. 548.
11 4 ) Harvey, David , Explanalion in Geography (London :
Edward Arn o ld LId ., 1970), p. 450.
l I S ) Bovini, op . cil. , p. 4.
116) Forreste r, J. w., "A Deeper Knowledge of Social
Systems," Technology Review (1969), p. 36.
117) Forrester, op. cil. , p . 36.
(18 ) Harvey, op. cil .. p . 459 .
119 ) Newling, B. E., " Urban Growth and Spatial Structure : Mathemalical Models and Empirical Evidence,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 56 (1966) , p . 213.
(20) Newling, op . cil. , p . 220.
121 ) Winsbo rough, H., " City Growth a nd City Structure, " Journal 01 Regional Science, Vol. 4 (1962) , p .
135.
(22) Alber, Adams, and Gould, op. cit. , p . 356.
t23 ) Hai g, R. M., " Towa rd a n Unders tanding of the
Metropolis : The Assignment of Activities to Areas
in Urban Regions," in Smit h, Taa ffe , and King,
(eds.), Readings in Economic Geography (Chicago :
Ra nd McNally Co., 1969), p . 46.
124) Andrews, R. B. , Urban Land Economics and Publ ic
Pol icy (Ne w York : The Free Press, Collier MacMilla n
LId ., 1971 ), p. 100.
(25 1 Andrews, op. cil. , p. 103.
1261 Me dve dkov, op . cil. , p . 117.
127 ) Simmons, J. W ., " Changing Resi dence in the City :
A Review of Intr3u rban Mobility," The Geographica l Review, Vol. 58 (1968), p. 622 .
(281 Wolpert, J., " Migration as an Ad justm e nt to Environmental Stress," Journ al 01 Social Issues, Vol.
22 (19661, p . 93.
29
1 ) Si mmons, op . cil. , p. 628.
('01 Richardson, H. W ., Urban Economics (Ba ll imore :
Peng uin Book LId. , 1971), p . 83 .
Ill ) Ma malakis, M. J., " The Theory 01 Secloral Cl as hes
and Coalitions Revised," u LaHn American Research
Review, Vol. 6 (1971 ), p . 89.
1321 Soja, Edward, Th e Polilical Organizalion 01 Space
(Washingto n : Commission on College Geography,
Reso urce Pape r, No. 8, 1971), p . 19.
133) Richardson , op. ci l. , p. 79.
1' 41 Richardson , op . ci l. , p. 80.
21
SYSTEMS APPROACH IN
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
Hubert B. Stroud
Mr. Stroud is a graduate student at the University of
Tennessee, has served as secretary of the local G.T.U.
chapter and is now teaching at Arka nsas Sta te University.
22
The concept of a system is not new
and the emergence of systems analysis in academia has caused controversy over the significance of this
approach as a viable means of scientific analysis. Some geography scholars
feel that the use of systems analysis
would definitely put us on the research
frontier,1 while others view the term
" systems" as nothing more than jargon . Nevertheless, the simplest definition for system is " a set of interrelated
elements." The demand for the systems approach arose because scholars
in a number of disciplines recognized
in their own research that individual
components of a problem or an entity
almost never operate in isolation . Interrelationships were the rule rather
than the exception in real problem
solving situations. 2
Systems analysis has been used in
scientific circles for several years. But,
for geography, the systems approach
is more recent and discussion of systems analysis did not appear in geographic journals until the early 1960's.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of the systems
approach in physical geography. A
brief treatment of the evolution of the
systems approach in geography in general will precede a more specific discussion of the practical application of
systems analysis in physical geography.
First, let us digress for a moment to
trace the development of a " general
systems th eo ry" in sci en ti fi c ci rcl es.
With the revolution of complex information processing machines, a new
group of disciplines arose. Cybernetics, defined as the analysis and control
of animate and inanimate systems, was
primary in this new group. Further refinements in the study of cybernetics,
operations research,3 and information
theory or information science4 aided
in the development of a "general systems theory" in the mid-1950's. A
founder of "general systems theory"
was Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who favored the development of a theory or
level of knowledge where the multitude of sciences could find common
ground. s The application of the "general systems theory" is probably best
developed in geomorphology.
The whole concept of a "general
systems theory" has received much
criticism and the role of this theory in
geography has come under sharp attack. Michael Chisholm found no value
in " general systems theory." He saw
systems and systems analysis as important tools but viewed "general systems theory" as an irrelevant distractraction. 6 Others found the practice
of systems research rather than the
group or school of "general systems
theory" as a more effective unifier of
science because it takes systems as it
find them?
goal of geography was a real integration in terms of systems. 8
In contrast to Blaut's methodological statements is the 1963 Presidential
Address of Edward A. Ackerman which
stressed systems analysis as a means
for geographers to reach the " research
frontier." The paper also emphasized
the practical application of systems in
geography. Ackerman felt geographers
should no longer concern themselves
with whether they are doing geographic research but should note
"what, if anything, do geographic observations and analyses tell us about
systems generally, and the man-envi ronment system particularly?"9
In addition to Blaut and Ackerman,
a number of other geographers have
expressed their views on the relevance
of the "systems" approach to geography. Perhaps some of these geographers have succeeded in placing
geography clo se r to the " frontiers of
science. " Yet, nothing particularly
earth-shaking has evolved from their
pronouncements. Geographers have,
for many years, viewed the world as a
system in a slightly less rigorous manner. The greatest result of the systems
approach research ha s been the introduction of alternate directions and the
utilization of techniques previously
common only to other disciplines.
Advocates of the Systems Approach
in Geography
Several geographic studies have attempted to put the thoughts of the
systems advocates into use. The remainder of this paper will concentrate
on geographers who have used the systems approach in physical geography.
While entire textbooks applying systems analysis are lacking, Robert W.
Kates's proposal of a course in physical geography was published by the
Commission on College Geography.10
Despite some discontent with "general systems theory" as a viable school
of thought, the concept of systems and
systems analysis continued to permeate scientific research and the field of
geography. James Blaut was the first
American geographer to emphasize
systems analysis in the methodology
of geography and he felt the central
Application of the Systems Approach
in Physica l Geography
23
Kates has four main thoughts for an
introductory course and ca ll s for the
use of the hydrologic cycle in the
teaching of this course. This article is
rather superficial in that it fails to point
out the advantages of the hydrologic
cycle or the need for Kates's six subsystems: 1. atmospheric, 2. oceanic,
3. land surface, 4. subsurface, 5. biotic
community, and 6. resource use.11
Moreover, Kates has provided nothing
more than a technique for physical
geography and provides no practical
application of the systems approach.
Since the early 1950's many attempts
have been made at applying " general
systems theory" to the study of geqmorphology and much of geomorphology has turned to "general systems theory" for its cu rrent orientation .
One of the most noteworthy articles
was written by Richard J. Chorley,
" Geomorphology and General Systems Theory." In this publication Chorley distinguished between open and
closed systems and stressed the importance of an open systems approach.
Finally, Chorley presented seven advantages for treatment of landforms
within an open system framework in
an attempt to denounce William Morris Davis for using a closed systems
approach. In actuality, the Davisian
approach has elements of both the
closed and open system . In summary,
Chorley's article was primarily an attempt to promote the open systems
approach and had little to offer in
terms of a coherent systems approach.
The works and influence of Strahler
have appeared in recent journals concerning the use and the importance of
systems analysis in physical geography.
In " The Life Layer" Strahler states " the
system concept can serve as a pervasive
influence toward achieving the unification of knowledge at a time when
24
fragmentation threatens to defeat the
entire learning process.13
In addition, Robert Christopherson
and Peter Kakela presented the " Life
Geosystem" in which they contended
that " the systems analytic method provides the organizing tool around which
the content is structured ."14 They are
concerned with the theme " relevance
of man" and based their subject matter according to topics in physical
geograp hy really important to man
and his future. According to Strahler,
Kakela and Christopherson included all
major flow sys tems of energy and matter, both physical and organic, that enter into the processes of the interface.
For each system they exa mine inputs,
internal dynamics, outputs, man 's impact upon the system, and an assessment of constraints imposed by the
system .
Strahler, Kakela and Christopherson,
in attempts to work at the " frontiers of
knowledge," have published the previously mentioned articles in which
they favor the use of the systems approach . But their work, while concentrating on the " Life Layer," is still too
comprehensive. In a sense, the Strahler
type of systems analysis seems very
similar to the older methods and approaches that have plagued physical
geography for years-the attempt to
cover everything without a basis for
doing so.
Finally, Carter, Schmudde and
Sharpe present an alternative for physical geography in their publication
" The Interface As a Working Environment: A Purpose for Physical Geography." They found traditional physical geography courses wanting with
respect to three criteria: "(1) a unifying
internal theme and methodology, (2) a
clear functional articulation with the
rest of the discipline and the questions