-
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD
JERZY KOSTROWICKI
Chairman, Commission on Agricultural Typology, International
Geographical Union, Institute of Geography PAN, Warsaw, Poland
SUMMAR Y
After reviewing briefly the regional and systematic syntheses in
agricultural geography published to date, the author characterises
the activity and contribution to this problem of the Commission on
Agricultural Typology of the International Geographical Union.
First the general concept of agricultural typology is presented and
discussed, then the criteria, methods and techniques accepted to
identify types of agriculture are explained, and finally the
practical application of agricultural typology in modelling the
spatial organisation of agriculture and in planning agricultural
development is discussed, based on a few examples.
INTRODUCTION
An attempt at ordering the investigated facts and/or processes
according to a certain system is a characteristic stage of
development of any scientific discipline. The same is true for
agricultural geography. Founded by a common effort of geographers
and agricultural economists (Krzymowski, 1911; Bernhard, 1915;
Studensky, 1927; Waibel, 1933; Gregor, 1970), it passed quite early
from the stage of describing facts and processes to that of
synthesis, whether of a territorial, regional or zonal character
(Arseniev, 1818; Engelbrecht, 1898-1899; 1939; Jonasson, 1925-1926;
Baker, 1926-1933; Jones, 1928-1930; Taylor, 1930; Van Valkenburg,
1931-1936; Hartshorne & Dicken, 1935; Busch, 1936; Whittlesey,
1936; Shantz, 1940-1943); Darby, 1954'; Henshall, 1967"; Grigg,
1969) or of a systematic, typological character (Pavlov, 1821;
Sovetov, 1867; Hahn, 1892; Brinkmann, 1913; Chevalier, 1925; Laur,
1926; Waibel, 1933; Elliott, 1933, 1935; Krokhalov, 1960").
Recent decades, in particular, have witnessed a great expansion
of studies of * Review papers.
33 Agricultural Systems (2) (1977)-- Applied Science Publishers
Ltd, England, 1977 Printed in Great Britain
-
34 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
what are known as agricultural or farming systems (Faucher,
1949; Hoffmann, 1954; Koper, 1960; Manteuffel, 1961; Andreae, 1964,
1972; Duckham & Mase- field, 1970; etc.), types of farming
(USDA 1950; Stern, 1957; Manteuffel, 1961 ; Highsmith, 1966;
Moskva, 1968, 1973; etc.), farm classification (Klatzmann, 1952;
Jones, 1956-1957; Malassis, 1960; Nikolitch & McKee, 1965),
farming-type regions (Birch, 1954; Scott, 1961; Chisholm, 1964),
agricultural regions (Helburn, 1957; Jackson, 1961; Spencer &
Horvath, 1963; Steczkowski, 1966; Grigg, 1969; Rakitnikov, 1970;
etc.), crop and enterprise combinations (Weaver, 1954; Weaver et
al., 1956; Coppock, 1964; etc.) elaborated either for limited
territories such as individual countries or regions (Birch, 1954,
1965; Hudson et aL, 1959; Scott, 1961 ; Jackson et al., 1968) or
more extensive territories such as groups of countries (EEC, 1960),
continents, or the whole world (Kawachi, 1959; Andreae, 1964;
Enyedi, 1965; Grigg, 1969; Duckham & Masefield, 1970; Spencer
& Stewart, 1973).
Most of these studies have been based on the general knowledge
and experience of their authors. Some of these authors listed the
criteria adopted while a few only proposed bases on which
individual cases could be classified. Therefore the results of
these studies are often hardly comparable with each other, since
the criteria, methods and techniques used to identify the units
proposed vary greatly and thus cannot serve as bases for broader
syntheses.
At the same time, both the development of agricultural geography
as a scientific discipline and its practical application in solving
the immediate problems of agri- cultural development, require
ordering our knowledge of its spatial organisation on a regional,
national and world scale in a more systematic way, by which differ-
ences or similarities between various agricultures in time and
space can be disclosed and better understood. This aim would not be
achievable if individual aspects or characteristics of agriculture
were studied separately.
Such comparisons in time and space require sharper methods of
characterising various agricultures than studies of a merely
descriptive character can provide. The purpose of research,
however, is not only to obtain better knowledge and understanding
of reality but to make it instrumental in changing reality.
Synthetic studies of agriculture can therefore be of practical
importance, in particular for planning or programming agricultural
development and its spatial organisation.
To deal with these problems on a world scale, the Commission on
Agricultural Typology of the International Geographical Union was
established during the International Geographical Congress held in
London in 1964.
The tasks of the Commission were determined as follows: (1) to
establish common principles, criteria, methods and techniques of
agricultural typology; (2) to initiate, promote and co-ordinate
regional studies on agricultural types; (3) to elaborate the
typological and regional classification of world agriculture
(Kostrowieki, 1960, 1964, 1966, 1968; Kostrowicki &
Tyszkiewicz, 1970a).
To reach these objectives, on the basis of several
questionnaires distributed among numerous scholars, representing
various disciplines (geography, agricultural
-
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 35
economics, social anthropology, rural sociology, planning,
etc.), theoretical con- cepts, criteria, methods and techniques
were successively discussed, based on numerous case studies that
tested the proposed solutions. The meetings of the Commission held
in Mexico City in 1966, New Delhi in 1968 (Kostrowicki &
Tyszkiewicz, 1970b), Verona in 1970 (Vanzetti, 1972), Hamilton,
Canada in 1972 (Reeds, 1973) and again in Verona in 1974 (Vanzetti,
1975) and Fontenay-aux- Roses in 1975, mark the consecutive stages
of its activity.
Besides the proceedings of these meetings, a number of other
publications appeared which discussed the proposed criteria and
methods, offering new solu- tions or presenting their applications
in various countries (Enyedi, 1965; Felizola Diniz, 1969; Bonnamour
et al., 1971; Anderson, 1972, 1973; Benneh, 1972; Klatzmann, 1972;
Kostrowicki & Szczesny, 1972; Pecora, 1972; Rakitnikov, 1972;
Spencer & Stewart, 1973; Bonnamour, 1973; Kostrowicki, 1973;
Gregor, 1974; etc.).
On the basis of all these discussions the concept of
agricultural typology has been finally accepted, the criteria
established, methods and techniques of identifying types of
agriculture agreed (Kostrowicki, 1968, 1973, 1974a; Kostrowicki
& Tyszkiewicz, 1970a) and a preliminary scheme of world types
of agriculture, as a comparative framework for more detailed
studies, proposed (Kostrowicki, 1973, 1974a). Some weak points of
this scheme and possible improvements, together with a number of
case studies testing the scheme in various countries, were
discussed at the Commission meeting in Fontenay-aux-Roses in 1975
(Kostrowicki, 1976). The last meeting of the Commission was held in
Odessa, USSR, in 1976.
During the period of the Commission's activity contacts with FAO
have been established. Some of the FAO experts took part in the
Commission meetings; as one put it some time ago, FAO is interested
in the typological studies because if one of their development
projects proved to be successful they may be sure that the
application of the same methods will also be successful if applied
to the same or a similar type of agriculture. Recently, however, in
view of the growing food crisis, the interest of FAO in some kind
of world agricultural classification has increased. The proposed
scheme of agricultural typology has been sent to them. Subsequent
discussion will determine whether this scheme can be fully accepted
for FAO purposes or whether certain modification or simplifications
will have to be made.
1. THE CONCEPT OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY
Theoretical premises that underly the typological approach to
agriculture may be summarised as follows.
As agriculture as a whole should not be considered as a simple
sum of its components but as a set of highly interconnected and
interrelated phenomena and
-
36 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
processes, it can be treated as a complex or a system (see
Birch, 1972), in terms of a systems approach. Individual
agricultures, understood as such complexes or systems, can be
compared with each other and then grouped into types according to
their similarities.
Following these assumptions, the type of agriculture is
understood:
(i) As a more or less established form of crop growing and/or
livestock breeding for production purposes, characterised by a set
or association of its attributes (characteristics, features,
properties).
(ii) As a supreme and overall concept in agricultural
classification comprising all other concepts used in classifying
agriculture, such as land tenure systems, land use systems,
cropping systems, systems of livestock breeding, farming systems,
types of farming etc.
(iii) As a hierarchical concept encompassing types of varying
orders, from types of farms based on a study of individual
holdings, through several intermediate orders to the highest
order--types of world agriculture.
(iv) As a dynamic concept, changing in an evolutionary or
revolutionary way along with a change of its basic attributes.
Typology is often confused with regionalisation. Although both
concepts are meant to synthesise a complicated reality in order to
make it more comprehensible, they belong to two distinct
categories. A type is a systematic or taxonomic concept, and its
definition is based essentially on similarities between various
individuals. As individuals, characterised by similar sets of
attributes, may occur repeatedly both in time and in space, the
same types can be identified in various periods or territories. As
agricultures with similar sets of their attributes are often
distributed in space in a mosaic-like pattern, the distribution of
resulting types does not necessarily form a contiguous area, but
agricultures of the same type are usually dispersed and
intermingled with some others.
By contrast, the region is a spatial or territorial concept. It
is delimited on the basis of differences between places, rather
than similarities between individuals. Consequently, the region
should be understood as a fraction of the earth's surface,
extending within definite limits and characterised by a peculiar
association of features that render its character unique and
differentiate it from all other territorial units.
Both the type and the region are hierarchical concepts. On the
basis of their similarities, types of a lower order may be grouped
into types of a higher order, irrespective of their distribution in
space and time, while regions of a lower order always form
territorial parts of regions of a higher order. By its very
significance, regionalisation is then a static concept, while
typology is a dynamic one, involving all possible changes.
If typology has already been established, agricultural regions
can be easily delimited by generalisation of a more complicated
typological pattern to a simpler
-
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 37
regional picture, based on dominance or co-dominance of
individual types over a given territory.
An agricultural holding is the best basic unit in agricultural
typology, as it is the only real unit of operation. At the same
time, however, irrespective of all their deficiencies, other units
(administrative areas or whatever is convenient) can be used, at
least in macro-scale typologies and particularly when dealing with
a great number of smallholdings for which no separate data are
available. This is par- ticularly true of the so-called village
agricultures, with plots belonging to different holdings scattered
throughout the village territory. But even in the countries where
farms are larger, farm data are often confidential and therefore
available only in an aggregate form, which may contain a
considerable variety of inter-farm differences. Therefore, when
studying such aggregates, it should always be kept in mind that the
data do not refer to real units, but are averages for certain
territories, with a more or less unknown internal differentiation.
This is why detailed sample studies are highly recommended,
whenever possible, not only to verify the range of those
differences but also to assess the accuracy of the statistical
data.
In fact, nowhere in the world are agricultural statistics fully
accurate or provide all necessary material for agricultural
typology. Therefore, even in those countries where agricultural
statistics are relatively good, there are always certain gaps that
can be filled only by using estimates. In some countries, however,
the scarcity of data or their unreliability makes it necessary to
base typological studies on esti- mates, rather than on the
statistical data. When the problem and area under study are
sufficiently known to the scholar, his estimates might even yield
better results than the direct use of unreliable statistics.
In accordance with the logic of any classification, the
identification of agricultural types ought to be based on internal
(inherent or endogenous) attributes of agriculture: external (or
exogenous) attributes, or, rather, conditions in which agriculture
develops, should not be used as a basis for agricultural typology,
important though they might be for explaining why, in a particular
place and time, individual types of agriculture have developed. The
simultaneous use of such exogenous, natural and other conditions
alongside endogenous attributes of agriculture is futile, since it
presupposes rather than proves their impact on the formation of
agricultural types. This can be proved much better by the study of
agricultural characteristics and their associations, independently
of the con- ditions of their development, and then by a subsequent
analysis of their inter- relationships by means of correlation
calculus.
On the other hand, the external or exogenous conditions, such as
natural, locational, transportation and market conditions, the
effect of supply and demand on agricultural products, prices, etc.
certainly play an important role in the formation of agricultural
types and their separate attributes, which change with a change of
those conditions. Their study is therefore necessary for both
understanding and interpretation of the development and spatial
distribution of agricultural types.
-
38 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
2. CRITERIA OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY
The characteristics of agriculture can be grouped as
follows:
1. Social and ownership characteristics. 2. Operational
(organisational and technical) characteristics. 3. Production
characteristics.
The first group provides answers to such questions as who is the
landowner, the holding operator or the decision-maker and what is
the scale of operation. The second group explains what the labour
and capital inputs are and how the holding is operated. The third
group discloses how much is produced and for what purpose. A fourth
group can be added, differing from the others not so much by its
content, but rather by its character--namely that of structural
characteristics, which answer questions about the proportion of
land used for different purposes, about the proportion in which
various farm animals are raised, and about how much is sold or
delivered off the farm, i.e. what are the enterprise combinations
in terms of land use, livestock breeding, gross agricultural output
and commercial production.
Variables representing all the essential inputs and outputs
combined with all others, representing social, operational,
production and structural attributes of agriculture, provide a
basis for identification of agricultural types.
Irrespective of the order and area concerned, to retain the
comparability of the results, the identification of agricultural
types should always be based on the same criteria, whether or not
they differentiate a given territory. The uniformity of variables
representing accepted criteria can reflect the uniformity of
agriculture and correctly characterise the situation, whereas the
irrelevance or low impact of certain variables can also be
characteristic for certain types.
However, in the studies of the lower order, when the detailed
differentiation of a limited area is required and comparability
with other territories is not essential, not only sharper tools of
type identification but also some additional variables of local
importance can be admitted.
3. METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY
Whenever possible variables applied in agricultural typology
should be expressed quantitatively. Although it is true that a good
expert, with a deep and intimate knowledge of the problems and area
concerned, can produce excellent typology, without using any
quantitative methods, it is also true that nobody else, not even
the same scholar, is likely to obtain--after some lapse of
time--comparable results, because the line of thinking and the way
of interpreting facts cannot be
-
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 39
repeated. It would be even more difficult to obtain in this way
comparable results for another area or for another period. Only the
use of quantitative data and techniques can guarantee that the same
method, when applied to the same data, will always yield the same
results, irrespective of when and by whom the data are
processed.
Another advantage of the application of quantitative methods is,
of course, that results can be obtained much quicker, particularly
if computer technique is involved, than by means of traditional,
labour-absorbing methods and techniques. Particularly when one has
to deal with a great number of basic units of study, the processing
of data without a computer is almost beyond the possibility of a
single scholar, or even of an institute.
Some important characteristics of agriculture, however, can
hardly be expressed quantitatively; nevertheless, most of them can
also be expressed in a way that would make their quantitative
comparison possible, if only appropriate techniques are used.
There are two important methodological problems with which any
scholar is faced when starting to work on agricultural typology of
any order or area, namely: (1) the choice and adequate expression
of variables (diagnostic features) that represent the various
agricultural characteristics and (2) the choice of technique for
comparing and grouping--according to their similarities--the
individual basic units of study, characterised by sets or
association of those characteristics.
As the expression of selected variables that represent various
agricultural characteristics and the method of grouping them are
closely interrelated, these two procedures have to be decided at
the same time.
Out of several possible ways of selecting variables, the one
based on the purpose- ful choice of a limited number of variables
of a synthetic or composite character, as nearly as possible of
universal, significant and representative character, is recommended
by the Commission. The synthetic character of these variables
implies that each variable comprises a number of elementary
attributes of agri- culture. Their universal character indicates
that the selected variables are relevant in describing most, if not
all, possible types of world agriculture. The significant character
will ensure that the selected variables represent only the
important attributes of agriculture. The representative character
means that the most important aspects of agriculture are
represented in a balanced way by the selected set of variables.
Preference was given to such an approach over that based on an
unlimited number of variables of an elementary character, and not
solely because they might be too numerous. With the development of
computer techniques the problem of numerous variables can be easily
solved. When, however, the number of variables is un- limited, the
degree of coverage of all the important aspects of agriculture by
those variables, as well as their influence on type formation, can
hardly be assessed. Consequently, the use of a large number of
variables to represent only one aspect
-
40 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
of agriculture, with a much smaller number of variables
representing another, may result in exaggerating the type-forming
influence of the one aspect while, at the same time, reducing the
influence of the other. On the other hand, the use of variables
representing some aspects of agriculture only will result in
producing either partial typologies or classifications, such as
land use systems, enterprise combinations etc., or even a spatial
distribution of a few selected variables com- bined. Such partial
classifications can be useful, as the so-called special-purpose
typologies, oriented towards specific problems. It should be
emphasised, however, that only a classification based on all the
important aspects of agriculture can be considered as an absolute
or all-purpose typology, similar to the systematics used in botany,
zoology or plant sociology, that are useful per se, for a better
under- standing of reality.
As in those disciplines, such a typology does not imply that
certain units are ascribed to certain types for ever. On the
contrary, their attachment to a given type can be changed both: (i)
as a result of a change of its attributes or (ii) as a result of
better knowledge of them.
In both approaches, however, the accepted variables are assumed
to possess the same type-forming influence. This evidently false
assumption immediately pro- duces a difficult, if not insoluble,
problem of weighting individual variables, as the type-forming
influence of individual variables cannot be assessed
accurately.
However, with a smaller number of variables it is also easier to
balance their respective significance. The use of a smaller number
of more universal variables also facilitates comparisons in space
which would be difficult if numerous elemen- tary variables, often
of a local character, were taken into account.
The second methodological problem in agricultural typology (i.e.
the selection of the best possible method for comparing and
grouping individual multi-featured units into types according to
their similarities) has not been solved to the degree that would
enable the Commission to recommend any specific technique for all
agricultural typologies, irrespective of their scale, territory and
time, although several investigations have been made to test
various available techniques. The experiences from the
investigations in which various techniques have been applied to
process the same data, and the discussion on this problem, have
clarified at least the following points. (1) The proper selection
of diagnostic variables and their appropriate expression is more
important because the identification of agricultural type depends
more on the criteria selected and their expression than on the
techniques of their comparison and grouping. Therefore the use of
one or other technique for their comparison and grouping does not
greatly alter the typological pattern, provided that the same sets
of variables are used. (2) As the comparability of results, both in
time and space, is essential for agricultural typology, all tech-
niques that do not guarantee such a comparability cannot be
recommended, irrespective of whether they are primitive and
qualitative or highly refined and quantitative. (3) Since, as has
been stated above, agricultural statistics or estimates
-
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 41
rarely provide full, accurate and reliable data for agricultural
typology, the application of highly refined methods to data that
are not accurate brings only seemingly accurate results. Provided
that the variables are properly selected and expressed, and the
quality of statistical data is acceptable, the more accurate the
technique of their comparison and grouping, the more accurately and
objectively types of agriculture are identified. Therefore, if data
allow it, the effort should be made to apply the most accurate
possible quantitative techniques.
However, as the data available and the possibilities of data
processing differ between countries, it has been decided that
individual scholars should be free to select the most efficient
technique of comparing and grouping the basic units of study,
characterised by sets of variables representing various aspects of
agriculture, as they are better able to decide which, out of the
many existing techniques, will give the best results for a given
country or region.
4. PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY
The purpose of agricultural typology is not only to obtain
better knowledge and understanding of reality but also to make its
results instrumental in changing reality. Typological studies can
therefore be of practical importance, particularly for programming
and planning agricultural development and its spatial
organisation.
Agriculture is a dynamic phenomenon. Individual holdings or
aggregate units not only differ in space along with their varied
environmental and other exogenous conditions, but also change in
time following the change of their attributes. The change of one or
more variables will not, however, change a type until their number
is so great that they change the entire character of a given
agriculture, i.e. until quantitative changes will suffice to
transform a given type into a new quality - -a new type of
agriculture.
The typology made for a certain period of time is therefore
nothing more than a static picture, a snap-shot of the situation.
This picture becomes dynamic, as in a film when shap-shots are
repeated several times. Only such a dynamic picture of changes in
the types of agriculture can be interpreted in terms of trends in
the development of the agriculture's spatial organisation which may
be used for both forecasting and programming agricultural
development.
In fact, some successful attempts have been made already to
apply typological methods for forecasting and programming further
changes in the spatial organisation of agriculture (Kostrowicki,
1974b, 1975a and b). Based on two or more snap-shots of the
situation in subsequent periods of time, first the extra- polation
of individual typological variables was made, then these variables
were compared and grouped together into types of agriculture
showing the situation that would occur if the former tendencies and
the rate of changes were continued. That extrapolation has already
revealed certain deficiencies in the present spatial
-
42 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
differences of agriculture that would cause serious problems if
former tendencies are continued. It is obvious, however, that a
simple extrapolation cannot provide an adequate basis for
forecasting any further development. Thus, an analogy method has
been additionally applied, i.e. conclusions based upon the
experiences --attained already in comparable exogenous
conditions--by other countries or regions.
The studies mentioned above (Kostrowicki, 1974b, 1975a and
b)were not limited to merely forecasting. Besides analogies, the
outline data of future demand for agricultural products, of the
tasks of agriculture and possible means for their implementation,
have been used to revise and correct the results of extrapolation.
As typology has revealed the weak points of the development of
agriculture, it was also possible to assess which of them could be
improved, with the means to be allocated for agricultural
development in long-term planning, and what would be the possible
production results of such improvement. In this way, models of
spatial organisation of Polish agriculture for 1980 and 1990 have
been constructed, expressed in a typological manner, taking into
account all possible predictable socio-economic transformations in
the spatial organisations of the country. The whole study has been
transferred to the State Planning Commission to be used in its work
on long-term planning.
As the statistical data used in this study were not adequately
compiled, the study had a preliminary character and was therefore
mainly of methodological signifi- cance. As such, it was discussed
several times with leading Polish agricultural economists and
planners and, in spite of some initial reservations, won their
approval as a general line of thinking. At the same time a number
of valuable remarks and proposals were offered that will be used to
prepare a new improved version of the study, based on statistical
data better adapted to spatial analyses in which the whole
procedure will be repeated.
It seems that the methods and techniques of agricultural
typology, in this way or another, possibly with some modifications
and adaptation, could also be success- fully used for either
forecasting or planning of the spatial development of agricul- ture
in other countries.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, J. R. (1972). Possibilities for typological studies of
American agriculture. In (W. P. Adams & F. M. Helleiner, Eds)
International geography 1972. Vol. 2. University of Toronto Press,
702-4.
ANOERSON, J. R. (1973)./1 geography of agriculture in the United
States' Southeast. Geography of world agriculture, Vol. 2.
Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest.
ANDI~AE, B. (1964). Betriebsformen in der Landwirtschaft.
Entstehung und Wandlung von Boden- nutzungs, Viehhaltungs- und
Betriebssystemen in Europa und fibersee sowie neuer Methoden ihrer
Abgrenzung. Systematischer Teil einer Agrarbetriebslehre. E. Ulmer,
Stuttgart.
ANDREAE, B. (1972). Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsformen in den
Tropen. Paul Parey, Hamburg u. Berlin.
ARSENIEV, K. (1818). Nachertaniye statistiki Rossiyskogo
gosudarstwa. (Outline of the statistics of the Russian State). St.
Petersburg.
-
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 43
BAKER, O. E. (1926-1933). Agricultural regions of North America.
Economic Geography 2 (1) 459-93; 3 (1) 50-87; 3, 309-40; 4 (1)
44-74; 4, 399-434; 5 (1) 36-57; 6 (2) 166-91; 3, 278- 309; 7 (2)
109-53; 3, 325-65; 8 (4) 325-77; 9 (2) 167-98.
BENNEH, G. (1972). Systems of agriculture in Tropical Africa.
Economic Geography 48 (3) 244-57. BERNHARD, H. (1915). Die
Agrargeographie als wissenschaftliche Disziplin. Petermanns
Geo-
graphische Mitteilungen, 61, 12-18, 99-103, 179-82. BIRCH, J. W.
(1954). Observation on the delimitation of farming type regions in
the Isle of Man.
Institute of British Geographers. Transactions and Papers, 20,
141-58. BIRCH, J. W. (1965). On the stability of farming systems
with particular reference to the
Connecticut Valley. In (J. P. Whitton & P. D. Wood, Eds)
Essays in geography for Austin Miller, University of Reading,
225-46.
BIRCH, J. W. (1972). Farming systems as resource systems. In (C.
Vanzetti, Ed) Agricultural typology and land utilisation. Center of
Agricultural Geography.
BONNAMOUR, J. 0973). Gdographie rurale. Methodes etperspectives,
Masson et Cie, Paris. BONNAMOUR, J., GILLETTE, CH. & GUERMOND,
Y. (1971). Les syst6mes regionaux d'exploitation
agricole en France. Methode d'analyse typologique. Etudes
Rurales 43-4, 76-168. BRINKMANN, T. (1913). ~ber die
landwirtschaftlichen Betriebssysteme und ihre Standort-
orientierung. Fr~.hling Landwirtschaftliche Zeitung, 6, 185-219.
BUSCH, W. (1936). Die Landbauzonen in deutschen Lebensraum, Elmer,
Stuttgart. CHEVALIER, A. (1925). Essai d'une classification
biog6ographique des principaux syst6mes de
culture pratiqu6s sur la surface du globe, Revue Internationale
de Renseignement Agricole. Nouvelle Serie. 3 (3), 71-728.
CHISHOLM, M. 0964). Problems of the classification and use of
farming-type regions, Institute of British Geographers.
Transactions and Papers, 35, 91-103.
CoPPOCK, J. T. 0964). Crop, livestock and enterprise
combinations in England and Wales. Economic Geography, 40 (1)
65-81.
DARBY, H. C. (1954). Early ideas on the agricultural regions of
England. Agricultural History Review, 2, 30-47.
DUCKHAM, A. N. & MASEFIELD, G. B. (1970). Farming systems of
the worM. Chatto & Windus, London.
EEC (1960). Agricultural regions in the EEC. European Economic
Community Studies. Set. Agriculture, 1, Brussels. (Also in French
and German).
ELLIOT, F. F. (1933). Types of farming in the United States. US
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
ELLIOT, F. F. (1935). Regional problems in agricultural
adjustment. Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Washington,
DC.
ENGELBRECHT, T. H. (1898-1899). Die Landbauzonen der
aussertropischen Liinder, Berlin. ENGELBRECHT, Z. H. (1939). Die
Landbauzonen der Erde. Petermanns Geagraphische Mitteilungen.
Ergiinzungsheft 209. ENYEDI, G. (1965). Fi~M mezi~gazdastiga.
AgrtirJ'dldrajzi tanulmtiny. (The agriculture of the world.
A study in agricultural geography). Mez6gazdas~tgi Kiad6,
Budapest. FAUCHER, D. (1949). Gdographie agraire, types des
cultures, M. T. G6nin, Pads. FELIZOLA DINIZ, J. S. (1969). IGU's
suggestions and types of agriculture: A case study. Revista
Geografica, 70 (June), 91-108. GREGOR, H. (1970). Geography of
agriculture: Themes on research. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs. GREGOR, H. F. (1974). An agricultural typology of
California. Geography of worm agriculture.
Vol. 4. Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest. GRIGG, D. (1969). The
agricultural regions of the world. Review and reflections.
Economic
Geography, 45, 95-132. HAHN, E. (1892). Die Wirtsehaftsformen
der Erde. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen,
38, 8-12. HARTSHORNE, R. & DICKEN, S. N. (1935). A
classification of the agricultural regions of Europe
and North America on a uniform statistical basis. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 25, 99-120.
HELBURN, N. (1957). The bases for a classification of world
agriculture. The Professional Geo- grapher, 9 (2) 2-7.
HENSHALL, J. (1967). Models in agricultural activity. In (R. J.
Chorley & P. Haggett, Eds). Models in geography, Methuen,
London, 425-60.
HIGHSMITH, R. M. (1966). HOW types of farming divide world
agriculture into regions. Foreign Agriculture, 4 (11) 3-5.
HOFFMANN, E. (1954). Zur Systematik der Bodennutzung und
Betriebsformen. Agrarwirtschaft, 3. HUDSON, S. C. et al. (1959).
Types of farming in Canada. Canada Dept. of Agriculture, 825.
-
44 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
JACKSON, B. G., BARNARD, C. S. STURROCK, F. (1968). The pattern
of farming in the Eastern counties. Farm Economic Branch. School of
Agriculture. Cambridge Univ. Occasional Papers No. 8.
JACKSON, W. A. D. (1961). The problem of Soviet agricultural
regionalization. Slavic Review, 20 (4) 656-78.
JONASSON, O. (1925-1926). Agricultural regions of Europe,
Economic Geography, 1 (3) 217-314; 2 (1) 19-48.
JONES, C. F. (1928-1930). Agricultural regions of South America,
Economic Geography 4 (1) 1-30; 2, 159-186; 3, 267-94; 5 (2) 109-40;
3, 277-307; 4, 390-421 ; 6 (1) 1-36.
JONES, R. B. (1956-1957). Farm classification in Britain: An
appraisal. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 12, 201-15.
KAWACHI, K. (1959). On a method of classifying world
agricultural regions. In Proceedings of the IGU Regional Conference
in Japan, 1957, 355-8.
KLATZMANN, J. (1952). La classification des entreprises
agricoles suivant leur importance 6cono- mique, Economie Rurale
(Avril) 38-58.
KLATZMANN, J. (1972). Gdographie agricole de la France. Paris,
PUF Que sais-je ?, 420. KoPEk, B. (1960). Systemy gospodarcze w
rolnictwie polskim w latach 1955-1965. (Economic
systems in Polish agriculture in 1955-1965). PWRiL, Warsaw.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1960). Land utilization survey as a basis for
geographical typology of agri-
culture. Przeglad Geograficzny, 32 (Supplement), 169-83.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1964). Geographical typology of agriculture.
Principles and methods. An
invitation to discussion. Geographia Polonica, 2, 159-67.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1966). Tipologia geografica de la agricultura
mundial. Principos y metodos. In
Union Geografica Internacional. Conferencia Regional
Latino-Americana, Vol. 2, Mexico, DF, 793-807.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1968). Agricultural typology, agricultural
regionalization, agricultural develop- ment. Geographia Polonica,
14, 265-74.
KOSTROWtCKI, J. (1973). Zarys geografii rolnictwa. (Outline of
agricultural geography), PWN, Warsaw.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1973). The typology of world agriculture. A
preliminary scheme. In (L. G. Reeds, Ed) Agricultural typology and
land use, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
KOSTROWIeKI, J. (1974a). The typology of world agriculture.
Principles, methods and model types. International Geographical
Union. Commission on Agricultural Typology, Warsaw.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1974b). Les transformations darts la
repartition spatiale des types d'agricul- ture en Pologne et essai
du pronostic de l'6votution ult6rieure. Geographia Polonica, 29,
307-30.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1975a). An attempt to define the trends in the
transformation of the spatial organization of Polish agriculture in
1960-1990. Geographia Polonica. (In Press).
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1975b). An attempt to apply typological methods
for forecasting and/or programming further changes in the spatial
organization of agriculture. In Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of
the IGU Commission on Agricultural Typology. Verona 1974. (In
Press).
KOSTROWICKI, J. (1976). World types of agriculture.
International Geographical Union. Commis- sion on Agricultural
Geography, Warsaw.
KOSTROWICKI, J. & SZCZ~SNY, R. (1972). Polish agriculture.
Characteristics, types and regions. Geography of worm agriculture,
Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest.
KOSTROWlCKL J. & TYSZKIEWlCZ, W. (Eds) (1970a). Agricultural
typology. Selected methodo- logical materials, Dokumentacja
geograficzna, 1, 60.
KOSTROWICKI, J. & TYSZKIEWlCZ, W. (Eds) (1970b). Essays in
agricultural typology and land utilization. Proceedings of the
Third Meeting of the Commission on Agricultural Typology,
Geographia Polonica, 19, 290.
KROKHALOV, F. S. (1960). O sistemakh zemledelia. Istoricheskiy
ocherk. (On agricultural systems: An historical outline).
Moskva.
KRZYMOWSKI, R. (1911). Die wirtschaftliche Stellung der
Landwirtschaftsgeographie, Frghlings landwirtschaftliche Zeitung,
60, 252-65.
LAUR, E. (1926). Die Bodennatzungsysteme in der Schweiz und ihre
Verbreitung, Brngg. MALASSlS, L. (1960). Classification des
exploitations agricoles, Etudes d'Economie Rurale, mai. MANTEUFFEL,
R. (1961). Typy, systemy, kierunki. Pr6ba ustalenia pojee$ i
definicji. (Types, systems,
orientations. An attempt to establish some concepts and
definitions), Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej, 4, 95-103.
MOSKVA (1968, 1973). Proizvodstvenniye tipy
selsko-khozyaystvennykh predpriyatii (Production types of
agricultural enterprises). 2 v. Kolos, Moskva.
NIKOLITCH, R. & McKEE, D. E. (1965). The contribution of the
economic classification of farms to the understanding of American
agriculture. Journal of Farm Economics, 47 (5) 1545-55.
-
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 45
PAVLOV, M. G. (1821). O glavnych sistemakh selskogo khozyaystva
s priuravlenyem k Rossii. (On the principal systems of agriculture
as compared with Russia), Moskva.
PECORA, A. (1972). Types of agriculture in Ecuador. In (W. P.
Adams & F. M. Helleiner, Eds) International Geography 1972,
Vol. 2, University of Toronto Press, Montreal, 746--7.
RAKITNIKOV, A. N. (1970). Geografia selskogo khozyaystva.
Problemy i metody issledovaniya. (Agricultural geography. Problems
and Methods of Research), Moskva.
RAKITNIKOV, A. (1972~. Crit~res et indices de la typologie de
ragriculture mondiale. In (W. P. Adams & F. M- Helleiner, Eds)
International Geography 1972, Vol. 2, University of Toronto Press,
Montreal, 750-2.
REEDS, L. G. (Ed.) (1973). Agricultural typology and land use.
Proceedings of the Agricultural Typology Commission Meeting,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
SCOTT, P. (1961). Farming-type regions of Tasmania. New Zealand
Geographer, 17 (2) 155-76. SHANTZ, H. L. (1940-1943). Agricultural
regions of Africa. Economic Geography, 17 (1) 1-47;
2, 122-61 : 4, 341-69; 18 (3) 217-49; 4, 353-79; 19 (3) 229-46;
20 (I) 77-109; 3, 217-69. SOVETOV, A. V. (1867). O sistemakh
zemledelia. (On agricultural systems). St. Petersburg. SPENCER, J.
E. & HORVATH, R. J. (1963). How does an agricultural region
originate?, Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 53, 74-94. SPENCER, J.
E. & STEWART, N. R. (1973). The nature of agricultural systems.
Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 63 (4) 529-44. STECZKOWSKr,
J. (1966). Zasady i metody rejonizacji produkcji rolnej.
(Principles and methods of
regionalization of agricultural production). PWRiL, Warsaw.
STERN, H. (1957). Untersuchungen landwirtschaftlichen Betriebstypen
als sozial-6konomische
Einheiten, Kiel. STUOENSKY, G. (1927). Die Grundideen und
Methoden der landwirtschaftlichen Geographic.
Weltwirtschaftliches Archly, 25, 179-97. TAILOR, G. (1930).
Agricultural regions of Australia. Economic Geography, 6 (2)
109-34; 3,
213--42. USDA (1950). Generalized types of farming in the United
States. US Dept. of Agriculture. Bureau
of Agricultural Economics. Information Bulletin No. 3.
Washington DC. VAN VALKENBURG, S. (1931-1936). Agricultural regions
of Asia. Economic Geography, 7 (3)
217-37; 8 (2) 109-33; 9 (1) 1-18; 2, 109-33; 10 (1) 14-24; 11
(3) 227-46; 4, 325-37; 12 (1) 27-44; 3, 231-49.
VANZETTI, C. (Ed.) (1972). Agricultural typology and land
utilization. Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Commission on
Agricultural Typology. Center of Agricultural Geography,
Verona.
VANZETTI, C. (Ed.) (1975). Agricultural typology and land
utilization. Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the Commission on
Agricultural Typology. Center of Agricultural Geography,
Verona.
WA1BEL, L. (1933). Probleme de Landwirtschaftsgeographie. Hirt,
Breslau. WEAVER, J. C. (1954). Crop combination regions in the
Middle East. Geographical Review, 44 (2)
175-200. WEAVER, J. C., HOAG, L. P. & FENTON, B. L. (1956).
Livestock units and combination regions in
the Middle West, Economic Geography, 32 (3) 237-59. WHITILESEY,
D. (1936). Major agricultural regions of the Earth, Annals of the
Association of
American Geographers, 26, 199-240.