How do our economic geographic principles "look" in "the real world"?

• Do location rent levels really decline with distance from a point of maximum accessibility?
• Do location rent gradients really flatten as the costs of transportation fall?
• Does the intensity of agricultural land use really fall, as we move farther from major markets?
• Does interaction really decline with distance between the origin and destination, and increase with the size of the origin and/or destination?
• Does interaction increase as the cost of transportation falls?
• Can we really distinguish transportation networks according to their degree of connectivity?
• Does the size of a regional economy increase in proportion to growth in the economic base?

1. state a principle we cover in this class,
2. explain how you would like to illustrate it with empirical information (information drawn from actual observation),
3. explain the source of your information,
4. present the relevant information, and
5. conclude whether or not it supports the principle.

You might devote a paragraph to each of the components:

1.  State and define the principle, concept, or relationship that you're illustrating.  You should be able to get this from your lecture notes, the on-line notes, or one of the text books.  Possible principles include:
• distance decay;
• the negative relationship between location rent (define) and distance (from what?);
• the expectation that location-rent gradients (define) become less steep if transportation costs fall;
• the expectation that agricultural land uses become less dense, further from major markets;
• the relationship between the amount of interaction (of a specified type) between two places and the size of the two places as well as the distance between them;
• the expectation that there is a regularity between the size class of city (<10,000;  10,000-100,000;  100,000-500,000;  500,000-1,000,000; >1,000,000) and the number of cities in that size class in any given territory;
• a proportional relationship between the size of a regional economy and the size of its economic base (define).
2.  Explain how you would like to illustrate it with empirical information.
• Relate the amount of interaction (of a specific type:  migration?  number of airline flights per day?  number of long-distance buses per day?) between Seattle (or some other place) and several other places, where you know the sizes and distances of those other places.
• Compare the amount of retail activity at two different stores (or shopping centers) to the size of the stores, their distance from competitors, and the total income of their major market areas.
• Relate the location rent for the same activity within a metropolitan area to the distance from the point(s) of maximum (or high) accessibility.
3.  Explain the source of your information, any concerns about the information, and any adjustments you need to make.
• Sources could include:
• real estate or rental ads in newspapers (think about the difference between location rent and contract rent);
• US Census of Population;
• the Official Airline Guide;
• the published schedule of the major long-distance bus lines serving a particular city;
• maps of land use;
• an account written in an academic or trade book or article [see note 2].
• Concerns could include:
• the accuracy of the information (why might the source not know or tell all the relevant information?);
• the completeness of the information (how likely is it that you couldn't uncover important pieces of information?)
4.  Present the relevant information.  A table or a map might be the way to do it.  A table could list:

5.  Conclude whether the information supports the principle or relationship.  If not, why not?  Do you conclude that the data are incomplete?  That the principle doesn't hold in this case for some particular reason?