Name:___________________________ (Geography 207, February 23, 1999)

Quiz #5

(http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/207/99/quiz5.html)

There are two parts + Bonus. (30 points, Weight 5%) Please write legibly.
Part I (15 points): Select 3 (three) from the following 5 items for brief statements [5 points each]. If you answer more than 3 questions, please identify those answers which you want to count first + foremost!

(1) Briefly describe the nature and possible causes of uncertainties in the kinds of environments which potential clients of your consultancy (= your specialization in this class) may be facing.

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Briefly suggest a "flexibility strategy" which might be part of your suggestion as a consultant to one of your clients to cope with geographically significant uncertainties in your client's environments.

 

 

 

 

 

(3) Briefly compare (i.e. identify and assess the differences and/or similarities of) two of these three theoretical tools in spatial analysis) (a) the "critical isodapane"; (b) the "threshold range"; (c) the last ring of a von Thünen land use system.

 

 

 

 

 

(4) BENCHMARK REGION FOR L.Q.:In the location quotient calculations for your project, you have compared your own project region with a larger benchmark region. Was this larger region a meaningful region for your comparison? Why or why not? Can you suggest reasons for using another benchmark region? Could the selection of such a benchmark region depend on your specific research objectives?

 

 

 

 

 

(5) RIFKIN & SL: If you have read enough about the Third (Volunteer/Non-Profit) Sector in Jeremy Rifkin's "End of Work" (optional text for this class), you may want to suggest how his analysis relates to or explains the Service Learning and Internship opportunities presented last week and their role in this class.

 

 

 

 

 

Quiz #5 / Part II

Use the opportunity to sharpen your evolving conceptual skills in Economic Geography by responding to one of these topics: (15 points). Do not hesitate to use appropriate examples for the important conceptual points and differentiations you are making.

(1) STRUCTURE: Write a concise statement on "Causes and implications of 'structural change' in the regional economy".


(2) READINGS: Assess how the authors of your required readings for week 7, that is either
Stutz & deSouza, ch.4 ("Transportation & Communications in World Economy")
OR
Dicken (pp.151-61 "Space-shriking technologies") and Hanink, Ch.6 ("Transportation and Spatial Interaction"),
helped our needs for these two weeks, namely to understand patterns of interdependence and spatial interaction.


(3) INFORMATION ECONOMY: Do economic geographers have to "regroup" (= find new conceptual frameworks and theoretical perspectives) at the dawn of the 21st Century and now that we are convinced that the "information revolution" is not just a fluke? If not, why not? If yes, where should we look for conceptual inspiration, new explanations and theories? If "it depends", then "on what?" and "How so?"


(4) GOVERNMENT: All of the consulting projects suggested by class members have direct or indirect links to government activities, policies or regulations. Based on your understanding of the criteria and principles behind "the need for government", make a meaningful case for (either)(a) a specific kind of government involvement or non-involvement related to your area of specialization OR (alternatively) why the government should hire YOU as a consultant (without wasting tax dollars).


(5) FRICTIONS OF SPACE & GOVERNMENT: Please define (again) the "distance elasticity of demand". Might there also be a "socially desirable (or simply 'social') distance elasticity of demand" which deviates from the way individuals would respond to distance? Should a goverment get involved in increasing or decreasing this private elasticity? If not, why not? If yes, how would/could this be done? Do not hesitate to provide examples for arguments you have developed.


  BONUS: Since we all (or almost all) have posted what was due last Thursday, the time may have come to visit and inspect each other's individual and/or group content plans, project structures, and early versions of Web pages. Please review (other groups') individual and group postings (via the Members' List) and provide specific and constructive feedback, recommendations, corrections, and/or resources you may be aware of via our Online Discussion Form http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/207/discussion/topic1/discuss.html [connected to 207-cover page] for a maximum of five (5) Bonus points. You may also share insights derived from your own project or collaboration experiences (if they apply to specific other members or pages) or suggest (and justify) substantive or logistic collaboration between you or your group and other individuals or groups. [Should you decide to accept this challenge, please have your comments posted by noon, Saturday (2/27)]

Rule of thumb: If sufficiently well-done, a review of two persons' individual project sites or one ("substantial") group site could potentially yield the full 5 points!