The LDR has to do with the combinations of factors of production. Geography is not an explicit part of the discussion and transport costs should initially probably be left out in order not to muddle the argument. However, now we introduce transport costs as a factor which reduces revenues. Thus, accessibility of a location would influence the marginal revenues which a unit of land would be able to achieve. HIGH TRANSPORT COSTS WOULD DIMINISH THE ABILITY OF THE LAND TO OVERCOME THE EFFECTS OF THE LDR. In other words, less accessible land (i.e. land at locations with high transport costs) would be expected to be cultivated at (relatively low) intensity levels where the returns have NOT YET BEEN DIMINISHED as much as they would be at more accessible and preferred locations. OR: The increasing transport costs associated with more peripheral locations are "crowding out" (reducing the feasibility of) other cost increases which would be associated with more intensive land use. OR: The higher the value of land (due to high accessibility or agglomeration economies) or the opportunity costs of a particular land use, the greater is the incentive to work with relatively high marginal costs. The high price for floor space will justify possibly strongly diminishing returns (as long as the total product/floor space is not declining).