order goods and services are: newspaper stalls, groceries, bakeries and post offices. Examples for high order goods
and services are: jewellery, large shopping arcades and malls. They are supported by a much larger threshold
population and demand. 'Bold text'''''''Bold text
K = 3 Marketing principle
K = 4 Transport principle
K = 4 Principle
K = 7 Administrative principle
K = 7 Principle
Central place theory 3
Evaluation
The validity of the central place theory may vary with local factors, such as climate, topography, history of
development, technological improvement and personal preference of consumers and suppliers.
Economic status of consumers in an area is also important. Consumers of higher economic status tend to be more
mobile and therefore bypass centers providing only lower order goods. The application of central place theory must
be tempered by an awareness of such factors when planning shopping center space location.
Purchasing power and density affect the spacing of centers and hierarchical arrangements. Sufficient densities will
allow, for example, a grocery store, a lower order function, to survive in an isolated location.
Factors shaping the extent of market areas:
• Land use: industrial areas can provide little in the way of a consuming population
• Poor accessibility: this can limit the extent of a center's market area
• Competition: this limits the extent of market areas in all directions
• Technology: high mobility afforded by the automobile allows overlapping of market areas
Market area studies provide another technique for using central place theory as a retail location planning tool. The
hierarchy of shopping centers has been widely used in the planning of "new towns". In this new town, the hierarchy
of business centers is evident. One main shopping center provides mostly durable goods (higher order); district and
local shopping centers supply, increasingly, convenience (lower order) goods. These centers provided for in the new
town plan are not free from outside competition. The impacts of surrounding existing centers on the new town
centers cannot be ignored.
Examples
The newly reclaimed polders of the Netherlands provide an isotropic plane on which settlements have developed and
in certain areas 6 small towns can be seen surrounding a larger town, especially in the Noord-Oostpolder and
Flevoland. The Fens of East Anglia in the UK also provide a large expanse of flat land with no natural barriers to
settlement development. Cambridge is a good example of a K=4 Transport Model Central Place, although it is
surrounded by 7, rather than 6, settlements. Each satellite is 10-15 miles from Cambridge and each lies on a major
road leading out of Cambridge:
• Ely - A10 north
• Newmarket - A1303 (now bypassed by A14/A11) northeast
• Haverhill - A1307 southeast
• Saffron Walden - A1301 south
• Royston - A10 southwest
• St Neots - A428 west
• St Ives - A14 northwest
As all of the satellite settlements are on transport links, this is a good example of a K=4 CPT model (although in this
case it is K=4.5 due to 7 rather than 6 settlements).
Central place theory 4
Criticism
The Central Place Theory has been criticized for being static; it does not incorporate the temporal aspect in the
development of central places. Furthermore, the theory holds up well when it comes to agricultural areas, but not
industrial or postindustrial areas due to their diversified nature of various services or their varied distribution of
natural resources.
Newer developments
Newer theoretical developments have shown that it is possible to overcome the static aspect of CPT. Veneris (1984)
developed a theoretical model which starts with (a) a system of evenly distributed ("medieval") towns; (b) new
economic activities are located in some towns thus causing differentiation and evolution into an hierarchical
("industrial")city system; (c) further differentiation leads into a post-hierarchical ("postindustrial") city system. This
evolution can be modelled by means of the three major CPT theories: stage (a) is a system of von Thunen "isolated
states"; stage (b) is a Christallerian hierarchical system; stage (c) is a Loschian post-hierarchical system.
Furthermore, stage (b) corresponds to Chris Alexander's "tree" city, while (c) is similar to his "lattice" system
(following his dictum "the city is not a tree").
Notes
[1] Goodall, B. (1987) The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography. London: Penguin.
References
• Openshaw S, Veneris Y, 2003, "Numerical experiments with central place theory and spatial interaction
modelling" Environment and Planning A 35(8) 1389 – 1403 ( (http://www.envplan.com/abstract.
cgi?id=a35295b))
• Veneris, Y, 1984, Informational Revolution, Cybernetics and Urban Modelling, PhD Thesis, University of
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
External links
• Walter Christaller's Theory of Central Places (http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/christaller.htm)
• Walter Christaller: Hierarchical Patterns of Urbanization (http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/67)
• Christaller's Central Place Theory (http://www.thinkgeography.org.uk/AS Human Settlement/cpt 2.pdf)
• Christaller - Course notes (http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/450/christaller.html)
• Central Places Theory (http://www.hypergeo.eu/article.php3?id_article=188)
Article Sources and Contributors 6
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/