LESSON 2 – QUANTITATIVE REVOLUTION IN GEOGRAPHY

After the Second World War, geographers, especially those of the developed countries, realized

the significance of using mathematical language rather than the language of literature in the

study of geography.

Consequently, empirical descriptive geography was discarded and greater stress was laid on the

formulation of abstract models. Mathematical and abstract models need rigorous thinking and

use of sophisticated statistical techniques. The diffusion of statistical techniques in geography

to make the subject and its theories more precise is known as the ‘quantitative revolution’ in
geography.

Traditionally, geography was considered to be a description of the earth surface, but in due

course of time its definition and nature changed. Now, it is concerned with providing accurate,

orderly, and rational descriptions and interpretations of the variable character of the earth

surface. In the words of Yeats, “geography can be regarded as a science concerned with the

rational development, and testing of theories that explain and predict the spatial distribution

and location of various characteristics on the surface of the earth”. In order to achieve this

objective and to obtain the real picture of a region, geographers began to use and apply

quantitative tools and techniques to which qualitative geography was opposed, especially till

the 1960s.

Thus, the most obvious change brought about by the quantitative revolution is the change of

methods and techniques. After this revolution, quantitative techniques and general system

theory have been used quite extensively in geography. The new electronic devices have made

possible the use of complex mathematical computations never before attempted.

Quantitative Revolution:

1
The application of statistical and mathematical techniques, theorems and proofs in

understanding geographical systems is known as the ‘quantitative revolution’ in geography.

Statistical methods were first introduced into geography in the early 1950s (Burton, 1963).

Consisting mainly of descriptive statistics, there was also some attempt at hypotheses testing

using, for example, chi-square. Bivariate Regression Analysis followed shortly but it was not

until the 1960s that the General Linear Model was fully explored. It was I. Burton who published

a research paper, ‘The Quantitative Revolution and Theoretical Geography’ in the Canadian

Geographer (7: pp.151-62) in 1963.

The statistical methods are employed in geography for the generating and testing hypotheses

using empirical data, whereas the mathematical techniques and theorems are used for deriving

models from a set of initial abstract assumptions. In other words, statistical methods are used

to estimate, and test the significance of, various parameters associated with a given

mathematical model such as the distance decay and gravity models.

There has been confusion among the geographers and the public mind about the nature and

social relevance of geography, especially after the Second World War. The status of geography

as a university discipline was under discussion. It was also a topic of debate that what should be

taught as geography at various stages of the educational processes. In 1948, James Conant,
President of the Harvard University, had reportedly come to the conclusion that “geography is

not a university subject”.

The Department of Geography of Harvard University was closed soon after and the discipline of

geography was gradually eased out in many of the private universities of U.S.A. The continual

threat of departmental closure or staff reduction also lead to frantic search in American

universities for new ideas and research programs. This resulted into the development of the

‘spatial sciences school’, also called ‘quantitative revolution’ in geography.

2
The last three decades have been characterized by an almost continuous debate among human

geographers concerning the philosophy, nature and methodology of geography. Moreover, the

geographers of the post-Second World War suffered from a complex that they did not have

standard theories, models and laws like that of other social and biological sciences.

Consequently, their efforts and researches were not considered of much social relevance. In

order to overcome these complexes and to put the subject on a sound theoretical footing,

geographers started using quantitative techniques to interpret the organization of space, to

generalize and to formulate their own theories and models about the man and environment

relationship.

The main objectives of the quantitative revolution in geography were as under:

1. To change the descriptive character of the subject (geography) and to make it a scientific

discipline;

2. To explain and interpret the spatial patterns of geographical phenomena in a rational,

objective and cogent manner;

3. To use mathematical language instead of the language of literature

4. To make precise statements (generalizations) about locational order;

5. To test hypotheses and formulate models, theories and laws for estimations and predictions;

6. To identify the ideal locations for the various economic activities so that the profit may be

maximized by the resource users; and

7. To provide geography a sound philosophical and theoretical base, and to make its

methodology objective and scientific.

3
In order to achieve these objectives, the preachers of quantitative techniques stressed on field

surveys for the collection of data and empirical observations.

In the formulation of models and theories they assumed:

1. Man is a rational (economic) person who always tries to optimize his profits.

2. Man has infinite knowledge of his space (environment and resources).

3. They assumed ‘space’ as an isotropic surface.

4. There is no place for the normative questions (questions about social values) in scientific

research and objective interpretation of the geographical reality.

5. They assumed that normative questions, like cultural values, beliefs, attitudes, customs,

traditions, likes and dislikes, prejudice, and aesthetic values have no place in geographical

research and scientific explanation of geographical patterns.

Disadvantages of Application of Quantitative Techniques in Geographical Studies!

The application of quantitative techniques in geographical studies have been criticized on

several counts.

Some of the weaknesses and limitations of quantitative techniques have been given as under:

1. The quantitative revolution was based on the philosophy of positivism (originally proposed

by August Comte in 1820) which distinguishes science from religion and metaphysics. It

followed the methodology of spatial science and thus reduced the subject to space geometry.

The man and environment relationship cannot be properly established by the mechanistic

models designed with the help of quantitative techniques.

4
The advocates of quantitative revolution pleaded for the language of geometry. Geometry is

not an acceptable language to explain the man and environment relationship—the main theme

of human geography.

3. The models and theories developed on the basis of empirical data exclude the normative

questions like beliefs, taboos, emotions, attitudes, desires, hopes, fears, likes and dislikes,

prejudices and aesthetic values. This is mainly being done to make the study objective and

scientific. In the real world, in the interrelationships of man and environment, and decision

making processes, the normative questions and social, moral, religious and ethical values have

a close bearing. In fact, in any economic activity and in the decision making process about the

utilization of resources, people are largely governed by their religious, moral, cultural and social

values. It is because of these values that dairying is not developing among the Khasias

(Meghalaya) and Lushais (Mizoram) of the north-east India. In fact, taking milk is a taboo in

these tribes. The Muslims, all over the world hate piggery, and the Sikhs dislike the cultivation

of tobacco. By excluding the normative questions, the study may be objective, but it gives only

a parochial picture of the man and environment relationship.

4.The advocates of quantitative techniques in geography focused on ‘locational analysis’. The

main weakness of the locational analysis is that it promotes capitalism. In a capitalistic society,
there is exploitation of human and environmental resources (land, water, forest and minerals)

which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

5. With the development of sophisticated machinery and automation, there is less scope of

employment. Thus, it leads to unemployment and it is a system of wasteful production. The

assumption that man is a ‘rational person’ who always tries to optimize his profit has also been

criticized.

5
6. In the real world location decisions are seldom if ever optimal in the sense of maximizing

profits or minimizing resources used. In the opinion of Simon, man, in a limited number of

alternative, chooses one that is broadly satisfactory rather than optimal. In most of the cases

the satisfying model applies and man takes decisions about the utilization of his resources to

satisfy his aspirations and desires.

7. The assumption that man has ‘infinite knowledge’ of his space or environment (resources)

has also been criticized. The knowledge about a resource changes as the new technology

develops. Hence, say that he has a full knowledge about his environment.

8. Models developed with the help of quantitative techniques reduced people (decision-

makers, workers) to passive agents. To a large extent such models may be seen as one of

determinism.

9. Application of quantitative techniques demands not only considerable mathematical power;

they also demand reliable data which is rarely available in the developing countries like ours. In

fact, the data collected in the developing countries has many pitfalls and shortcomings. The

models or theories developed on the basis of unreliable data is bound to give only a distorted

and faulty picture of the geographical reality.

10. The overenthusiastic preachers of quantitative techniques have sacrificed many good

qualitative statements which were quite useful in the interpretation of regional personalities.

11. The estimations and predictions made with the help of sophisticated quantitative

techniques proved erroneous many a time and there remains a danger of overgeneralization.

12. The models developed with the help of statistical techniques give more prominence to

some features and distort some others.

6
13. Making reliable models and universal laws in human geography like other social sciences

with the help of quantitative techniques is, however, not possible. According to one school of

thought of physics, the probabilities can be calculated but definite predictions are not possible

even in pure sciences like physics. In the opinion of Stephen Hawking, “the laws of science

cannot completely determine the future of the universe”. God (God as a metaphor for the laws

of nature) plays dice and God may turn out to be “an inveterate gambler”.

Despite all these merits and demerits of quantitative revolution, it may be summarized that

‘spatial science’ was inaugurated in North America. By the end of 1960s it was dominating

many of the journals published throughout the English speaking world. Most research was

positivist in its tone. Most of the researchers used quantitative methods, and thus contributed

to the development of theories and models. But these theories and models presented only a

partial picture of the man-environment relationship. This methodology was criticized and as a

reaction to this behavioral and humanistic approaches were introduced in human geography. In

some cases, even in social science, a purely quantitative approach is necessary and in others

requires a purely qualitative approach, and often a combination of the two is more satisfactory

for making estimations and predictions in geography.

Whatever the merits and demerits of the quantitative revolution from American centers in
Washington, Wisconsin and Iowa, it spread to Europe, especially in Britain and Sweden. In

Sweden, the department of geography at Lund University soon became renowned as a center

of theoretical geography, attracting scholars from many countries. The major advances towards

a unifying methodological and philosophical basis for the quantitative schools were made in the

1960s by British geographers, notably Peter Haggett, Richard Chorley and David Harvey.

These scholars suggested that geography should adopt quantitative methods and the use of

computer to handle data to develop geographical paradigms and models. A model was defined

as an idealized or simplified representation of reality which seeks to illumine particular

7
characteristics. According to Chorley and Haggett, a model was either a theory or a low or a

hypothesis of structured idea.

The over-enthusiasm of the preachers of quantitative revolution has, however, given way to the

present phase in which mathematical and statistical methods are just one of the many tools for

approaching geographical problems. In the 1970s, even Harvey—a staunch supporter of the

quantification philosophy—became an apostate, and declared that quantitative revolution has

run its course and diminishing marginal returns are setting in L.D. Stamp vehemently opposed

the quantitative revolution and preferred to term quantitative revolution a ‘civil war’ and noted

that quantification had many points in common with a political ideology; it was more or less a

religion to its followers, “its golden calf is the computer”. Stamp pointed out that there are

many fields of enquiry in which quantification may stultify rather than aid progress, because

there will be temptation to discard information which cannot be punched on a card or fed onto

a magnetic tape; there is also a danger that ethical and aesthetic values will be ignored.

Minshull observed that the landscape was becoming a nuisance to some geographers, that

many of the models will only apply to a flat, featureless surface, and warned that there is a real

danger that these ideal generalizations about spatial relationships could be mistaken for

statements about reality itself. Minshull also sounded a note of warning that scholars would try
to justify their models or hypotheses many a time in a subjective way which could give a

distorted picture of the geographical reality.

The quantitative revolution, as stated above, began in the developed nations of the west where

theories and models were constructed on the basis of data collected. There is certainly a danger

that the models developed in Europe and America may be elevated to general truth and

universal models. In reality we do not have universal urban geography and universal

agricultural geography.

8
There are different urban and agrarian processes which are working in different parts of the

world and leading to different cultural landscapes. Owing to this factor, generalization on the

basis of quantitative techniques may be misleading and negative instead of being positive.

Apart from the above fact, the data used by the western experts hardly refer to a period of

about one hundred years. Further, it reflects the modes of production and distribution of the

developed capitalist societies.

The processes which operate in the rigidly planned economies of the socialist countries of

Europe and in the East European countries are altogether different. The processes of

urbanization and development which change in space and time are different in different

economic and political systems. In brief, quantitative revolution also could not enable the

geographers to formulate universal laws and paradigms.