How is the Third Law of Geography different?
Three overarching principles governing patterns of geographic phenomena have been proposed that have been referred to by some as ‘laws of geography’. The first and the second principles address the spatial proximity and spatial heterogeneity of geographic phenomena. These principles, while powerful,...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Annals of GIS |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2022.2026467 |
| _version_ | 1819279011516252160 |
|---|---|
| author | A-Xing Zhu Matthew Turner |
| author_facet | A-Xing Zhu Matthew Turner |
| author_sort | A-Xing Zhu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Three overarching principles governing patterns of geographic phenomena have been proposed that have been referred to by some as ‘laws of geography’. The first and the second principles address the spatial proximity and spatial heterogeneity of geographic phenomena. These principles, while powerful, fail to resonate with much geographical inquiry. The more recently proposed third principle concerns geographic similarity. The differences of it from the first two can be perceived in three basic aspects: principle expressed, form of expression and role of geographic examples (samples). The third principle emphasizes the geographic context of geographic variables in the form of geographic configuration, compared to a single spatial dimension that are emphasized in the first two principles. The third principle focuses on the comparative nature in the geographic configuration in terms of similarity, that is, in the form of ‘similar to’, as opposed to the relationships ‘between’ that are key to the first and second principles. The third principle emphasizes the individual representation of geographic examples, as opposed to the global representation of geographic examples. These differences not only distinguish the third principle as an important addition to the other two, but also provide a potentially transformative way to address the rigid requirements on samples in geographic analysis, particularly during this age when the collection and provision of geographic data are crowd-sourced and VGI-based. These differences also point to the potential of the third principle opening up a space of inquiry that would resonate more successfully with place-based approaches in human geography. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-24T00:21:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8e476d43ccec45df83715640a683ab1d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1947-5683 1947-5691 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-24T00:21:07Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Annals of GIS |
| spelling | doaj.art-8e476d43ccec45df83715640a683ab1d2022-12-21T17:24:35ZengTaylor & Francis GroupAnnals of GIS1947-56831947-56912022-01-01281576710.1080/19475683.2022.20264672026467How is the Third Law of Geography different?A-Xing Zhu0Matthew Turner1University of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonThree overarching principles governing patterns of geographic phenomena have been proposed that have been referred to by some as ‘laws of geography’. The first and the second principles address the spatial proximity and spatial heterogeneity of geographic phenomena. These principles, while powerful, fail to resonate with much geographical inquiry. The more recently proposed third principle concerns geographic similarity. The differences of it from the first two can be perceived in three basic aspects: principle expressed, form of expression and role of geographic examples (samples). The third principle emphasizes the geographic context of geographic variables in the form of geographic configuration, compared to a single spatial dimension that are emphasized in the first two principles. The third principle focuses on the comparative nature in the geographic configuration in terms of similarity, that is, in the form of ‘similar to’, as opposed to the relationships ‘between’ that are key to the first and second principles. The third principle emphasizes the individual representation of geographic examples, as opposed to the global representation of geographic examples. These differences not only distinguish the third principle as an important addition to the other two, but also provide a potentially transformative way to address the rigid requirements on samples in geographic analysis, particularly during this age when the collection and provision of geographic data are crowd-sourced and VGI-based. These differences also point to the potential of the third principle opening up a space of inquiry that would resonate more successfully with place-based approaches in human geography.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2022.2026467first law of geographysecond law of geographythird law of geographynomotheticgeographic similarityidiographic |
| spellingShingle | A-Xing Zhu Matthew Turner How is the Third Law of Geography different? Annals of GIS first law of geography second law of geography third law of geography nomothetic geographic similarity idiographic |
| title | How is the Third Law of Geography different? |
| title_full | How is the Third Law of Geography different? |
| title_fullStr | How is the Third Law of Geography different? |
| title_full_unstemmed | How is the Third Law of Geography different? |
| title_short | How is the Third Law of Geography different? |
| title_sort | how is the third law of geography different |
| topic | first law of geography second law of geography third law of geography nomothetic geographic similarity idiographic |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2022.2026467 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT axingzhu howisthethirdlawofgeographydifferent AT matthewturner howisthethirdlawofgeographydifferent |