AGRI CULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND

METHOD
JERZY KOSTROWICKI
Chairman, Commission on Agricultural Typology,
International Geographical Union, Institute of Geography PAN, Warsaw, Poland
SUMMAR Y
Af t er reviewing briefly the regional and systematic syntheses in agricultural geography
published to date, the author characterises the activity and contribution to this problem
of the Commission on Agricultural Typology of the International Geographical Union.
First the general concept o f agricultural typology is presented and discussed, then the
criteria, methods and techniques accepted to identify types o f agriculture are explained,
and finally the practical application o f agricultural typology in modelling the spatial
organisation o f agriculture and in planning agricultural development is discussed,
based on a f e w examples.
INTRODUCTION
An attempt at ordering the investigated facts and/or processes according to a
certain system is a characteristic stage of development of any scientific discipline.
The same is true for agricultural geography. Founded by a common effort of
geographers and agricultural economists (Krzymowski, 1911; Bernhard, 1915;
Studensky, 1927; Waibel, 1933; Gregor, 1970), it passed quite early from the stage
of describing facts and processes to that of synthesis, whether of a territorial,
regional or zonal character (Arseniev, 1818; Engelbrecht, 1898-1899; 1939;
Jonasson, 1925-1926; Baker, 1926-1933; Jones, 1928-1930; Taylor, 1930; Van
Valkenburg, 1931-1936; Hartshorne & Dicken, 1935; Busch, 1936; Whittlesey,
1936; Shantz, 1940-1943); Darby, 1954'; Henshall, 1967"; Grigg, 1969) or of a
systematic, typological character (Pavlov, 1821; Sovetov, 1867; Hahn, 1892;
Brinkmann, 1913; Chevalier, 1925; Laur, 1926; Waibel, 1933; Elliott, 1933,
1935; Krokhalov, 1960").
Recent decades, in particular, have witnessed a great expansion of studies of
* Review papers.
33
Agricultural Systems (2) (1977)-- Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1977
Printed in Great Britain
34 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
what are known as agricultural or farming systems (Faucher, 1949; Hoffmann,
1954; Koper, 1960; Manteuffel, 1961; Andreae, 1964, 1972; Duckham & Mase-
field, 1970; etc.), types of farming (USDA 1950; Stern, 1957; Manteuffel, 1961 ;
Highsmith, 1966; Moskva, 1968, 1973; etc.), farm classification (Klatzmann, 1952;
Jones, 1956-1957; Malassis, 1960; Nikolitch & McKee, 1965), farming-type
regions (Birch, 1954; Scott, 1961; Chisholm, 1964), agricultural regions (Helburn,
1957; Jackson, 1961; Spencer & Horvath, 1963; Steczkowski, 1966; Grigg, 1969;
Rakitnikov, 1970; etc.), crop and enterprise combinations (Weaver, 1954; Weaver
e t al . , 1956; Coppock, 1964; etc.) elaborated either for limited territories such as
individual countries or regions (Birch, 1954, 1965; Hudson e t aL, 1959; Scott,
1961 ; Jackson e t al . , 1968) or more extensive territories such as groups of countries
(EEC, 1960), continents, or the whole world (Kawachi, 1959; Andreae, 1964; Enyedi,
1965; Grigg, 1969; Duckham & Masefield, 1970; Spencer & Stewart, 1973).
Most of these studies have been based on the general knowledge and experience
of their authors. Some of these authors listed the criteria adopted while a few only
proposed bases on which individual cases could be classified. Therefore the results
of these studies are often hardly comparable with each other, since the criteria,
methods and techniques used to identify the units proposed vary greatly and thus
cannot serve as bases for broader syntheses.
At the same time, both the development of agricultural geography as a scientific
discipline and its practical application in solving the immediate problems of agri-
cultural development, require ordering our knowledge of its spatial organisation
on a regional, national and world scale in a more systematic way, by which differ-
ences or similarities between various agricultures in time and space can be disclosed
and better understood. This aim would not be achievable if individual aspects or
characteristics of agriculture were studied separately.
Such comparisons in time and space require sharper methods of characterising
various agricultures than studies of a merely descriptive character can provide.
The purpose of research, however, is not only to obtain better knowledge and
understanding of reality but to make it instrumental in changing reality. Synthetic
studies of agriculture can therefore be of practical importance, in particular for
planning or programming agricultural development and its spatial organisation.
To deal with these problems on a world scale, the Commission on Agricultural
Typology of the International Geographical Union was established during the
International Geographical Congress held in London in 1964.
The tasks of the Commission were determined as follows: (1) to establish common
principles, criteria, methods and techniques of agricultural typology; (2) to initiate,
promote and co-ordinate regional studies on agricultural types; (3) to elaborate
the typological and regional classification of world agriculture (Kostrowieki, 1960,
1964, 1966, 1968; Kostrowicki & Tyszkiewicz, 1970a).
To reach these objectives, on the basis of several questionnaires distributed
among numerous scholars, representing various disciplines (geography, agricultural
AGRI CULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 35
economics, social anthropology, rural sociology, planning, etc.), theoretical con-
cepts, criteria, methods and techniques were successively discussed, based on
numerous case studies that tested the proposed solutions. The meetings of the
Commission held in Mexico City in 1966, New Delhi in 1968 (Kostrowicki &
Tyszkiewicz, 1970b), Verona in 1970 (Vanzetti, 1972), Hamilton, Canada in 1972
(Reeds, 1973) and again in Verona in 1974 (Vanzetti, 1975) and Fontenay-aux-
Roses in 1975, mark the consecutive stages of its activity.
Besides the proceedings of these meetings, a number of other publications
appeared which discussed the proposed criteria and methods, offering new solu-
tions or presenting their applications in various countries (Enyedi, 1965; Felizola
Diniz, 1969; Bonnamour e t a l . , 1971; Anderson, 1972, 1973; Benneh, 1972;
Klatzmann, 1972; Kostrowicki & Szczesny, 1972; Pecora, 1972; Rakitnikov,
1972; Spencer & Stewart, 1973; Bonnamour, 1973; Kostrowicki, 1973; Gregor,
1974; etc.).
On the basis of all these discussions the concept of agricultural typology has
been finally accepted, the criteria established, methods and techniques of identifying
types of agriculture agreed (Kostrowicki, 1968, 1973, 1974a; Kostrowicki &
Tyszkiewicz, 1970a) and a preliminary scheme of world types of agriculture, as a
comparative framework for more detailed studies, proposed (Kostrowicki, 1973,
1974a). Some weak points of this scheme and possible improvements, together with
a number of case studies testing the scheme in various countries, were discussed at
the Commission meeting in Fontenay-aux-Roses in 1975 (Kostrowicki, 1976). The
last meeting of the Commission was held in Odessa, USSR, in 1976.
During the period of the Commission' s activity contacts with FAO have been
established. Some of the FAO experts t ook part in the Commission meetings; as
one put it some time ago, FAO is interested in the typological studies because if
one of their development projects proved to be successful they may be sure that
the application of the same methods will also be successful i f applied to the same or
a similar type of agriculture. Recently, however, in view of the growing food crisis,
the interest of FAO in some kind of world agricultural classification has increased.
The proposed scheme of agricultural typology has been sent to them. Subsequent
discussion will determine whether this scheme can be fully accepted for FAO
purposes or whether certain modification or simplifications will have to be made.
1. THE CONCEPT OF AGRI CULTURAL TYPOLOGY
Theoretical premises that underly the typological approach to agriculture may be
summarised as follows.
As agriculture as a whole should not be considered as a simple sum of its
components but as a set of highly interconnected and interrelated phenomena and
36 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
processes, it can be treated as a complex or a system (see Birch, 1972), in terms
of a systems approach. Individual agricultures, understood as such complexes or
systems, can be compared with each other and then grouped into types according
to their similarities.
Following these assumptions, the type of agriculture is understood:
(i) As a more or less established form of crop growing and/or livestock breeding
for production purposes, characterised by a set or association of its attributes
(characteristics, features, properties).
(ii) As a supreme and overall concept in agricultural classification comprising
all other concepts used in classifying agriculture, such as land tenure systems, land
use systems, cropping systems, systems of livestock breeding, farming systems,
types of farming etc.
(iii) As a hierarchical concept encompassing types of varying orders, from types
of farms based on a study of individual holdings, through several intermediate
orders to the highest order--t ypes of world agriculture.
(iv) As a dynamic concept, changing in an evolutionary or revolutionary way
along with a change of its basic attributes.
Typology is often confused with regionalisation. Although bot h concepts are
meant to synthesise a complicated reality in order to make it more comprehensible,
they belong to two distinct categories. A type is a systematic or taxonomic concept,
and its definition is based essentially on similarities between various individuals.
As individuals, characterised by similar sets of attributes, may occur repeatedly
bot h in time and in space, the same types can be identified in various periods or
territories. As agricultures with similar sets of their attributes are often distributed
in space in a mosaic-like pattern, the distribution of resulting types does not
necessarily form a contiguous area, but agricultures of the same type are usually
dispersed and intermingled with some others.
By contrast, the region is a spatial or territorial concept. It is delimited on the
basis of differences between places, rather than similarities between individuals.
Consequently, the region should be understood as a fraction of the earth' s surface,
extending within definite limits and characterised by a peculiar association of
features that render its character unique and differentiate it from all other territorial
units.
Both the type and the region are hierarchical concepts. On the basis of their
similarities, types of a lower order may be grouped into types of a higher order,
irrespective of their distribution in space and time, while regions of a lower order
always form territorial parts of regions of a higher order. By its very significance,
regionalisation is then a static concept, while typology is a dynamic one, involving
all possible changes.
If typology has already been established, agricultural regions can be easily
delimited by generalisation of a more complicated typological pattern to a simpler
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 37
regional picture, based on dominance or co-dominance of individual types over a
given territory.
An agricultural holding is the best basic unit in agricultural typology, as it is the
only real unit of operation. At the same time, however, irrespective of all their
deficiencies, other units (administrative areas or whatever is convenient) can be
used, at least in macro-scale typologies and particularly when dealing with a great
number of smallholdings for which no separate data are available. This is par-
ticularly true of the so-called village agricultures, with plots belonging to different
holdings scattered throughout the village territory. But even in the countries where
farms are larger, farm data are often confidential and therefore available only in an
aggregate form, which may contain a considerable variety of inter-farm differences.
Therefore, when studying such aggregates, it should always be kept in mind that
the data do not refer to real units, but are averages for certain territories, with a
more or less unknown internal differentiation. This is why detailed sample studies
are highly recommended, whenever possible, not only to verify the range of those
differences but also to assess the accuracy of the statistical data.
In fact, nowhere in the world are agricultural statistics fully accurate or provide
all necessary material for agricultural typology. Therefore, even in those countries
where agricultural statistics are relatively good, there are always certain gaps that
can be filled only by using estimates. In some countries, however, the scarcity of
data or their unreliability makes it necessary to base typological studies on esti-
mates, rather than on the statistical data. When the problem and area under study
are sufficiently known to the scholar, his estimates might even yield better results
than the direct use of unreliable statistics.
In accordance with the logic of any classification, the identification of agricultural
types ought to be based on internal (inherent or endogenous) attributes of
agriculture: external (or exogenous) attributes, or, rather, conditions in which
agriculture develops, should not be used as a basis for agricultural typology,
important though they might be for explaining why, in a particular place and time,
individual types of agriculture have developed. The simultaneous use of such
exogenous, natural and other conditions alongside endogenous attributes of
agriculture is futile, since it presupposes rather than proves their impact on the
formation of agricultural types. This can be proved much better by the study
of agricultural characteristics and their associations, independently of the con-
ditions of their development, and then by a subsequent analysis of their inter-
relationships by means of correlation calculus.
On the other hand, the external or exogenous conditions, such as natural,
locational, transportation and market conditions, the effect of supply and demand
on agricultural products, prices, etc. certainly play an important role in the formation
of agricultural types and their separate attributes, which change with a change
of those conditions. Their study is therefore necessary for bot h understanding and
interpretation of the development and spatial distribution of agricultural types.
38 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
2. CRITERIA OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY
The characteristics of agriculture can be grouped as follows:
1. Social and ownership characteristics.
2. Operational (organisational and technical) characteristics.
3. Production characteristics.
The first group provides answers to such questions as who is the landowner, the
holding operator or the decision-maker and what is the scale of operation. The
second group explains what the labour and capital inputs are and how the holding
is operated. The third group discloses how much is produced and for what purpose.
A fourth group can be added, differing from the others not so much by its content,
but rather by its character--namely that of structural characteristics, which
answer questions about the proportion of land used for different purposes, about
the proportion in which various farm animals are raised, and about how much
is sold or delivered off the farm, i.e. what are the enterprise combinations in terms
of land use, livestock breeding, gross agricultural out put and commercial
production.
Variables representing all the essential inputs and outputs combined with all
others, representing social, operational, production and structural attributes of
agriculture, provide a basis for identification of agricultural types.
Irrespective of the order and area concerned, to retain the comparability of the
results, the identification of agricultural types should always be based on the same
criteria, whether or not they differentiate a given territory. The uniformity of
variables representing accepted criteria can reflect the uniformity of agriculture and
correctly characterise the situation, whereas the irrelevance or low impact of certain
variables can also be characteristic for certain types.
However, in the studies of the lower order, when the detailed differentiation of a
limited area is required and comparability with other territories is not essential,
not only sharper tools of type identification but also some additional variables of
local importance can be admitted.
3. METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY
Whenever possible variables applied in agricultural typology should be expressed
quantitatively. Although it is true that a good expert, with a deep and intimate
knowledge of the problems and area concerned, can produce excellent typology,
without using any quantitative methods, it is also true that nobody else, not even
the same scholar, is likely to obt ai n--aft er some lapse of time--comparable
results, because the line of thinking and the way of interpreting facts cannot be
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 39
repeated. It would be even more difficult to obtain in this way comparable results
for another area or for another period. Only the use of quantitative data and
techniques can guarantee that the same method, when applied to the same data,
will always yield the same results, irrespective of when and by whom the data
are processed.
Another advantage of the application of quantitative methods is, of course, that
results can be obtained much quicker, particularly if computer technique is
involved, than by means of traditional, labour-absorbing methods and techniques.
Particularly when one has to deal with a great number of basic units of study, the
processing of data without a computer is almost beyond the possibility of a single
scholar, or even of an institute.
Some important characteristics of agriculture, however, can hardly be expressed
quantitatively; nevertheless, most of them can also be expressed in a way that would
make their quantitative comparison possible, if only appropriate techniques are
used.
There are two important methodological problems with which any scholar is
faced when starting to work on agricultural typology of any order or area, namely:
(1) the choice and adequate expression of variables (diagnostic features) that
represent the various agricultural characteristics and (2) the choice of technique for
comparing and grouping--according to their similarities--the individual basic
units of study, characterised by sets or association of those characteristics.
As the expression of selected variables that represent various agricultural
characteristics and the method of grouping them are closely interrelated, these two
procedures have to be decided at the same time.
Out of several possible ways of selecting variables, the one based on the purpose-
ful choice of a limited number of variables of a synthetic or composite character,
as nearly as possible of universal, significant and representative character, is
recommended by the Commission. The synthetic character of these variables
implies that each variable comprises a number of elementary attributes of agri-
culture. Their universal character indicates that the selected variables are relevant
in describing most, if not all, possible types of world agriculture. The significant
character will ensure that the selected variables represent only the important
attributes of agriculture. The representative character means that the most
important aspects of agriculture are represented in a balanced way by the selected
set of variables.
Preference was given to such an approach over that based on an unlimited number
of variables of an elementary character, and not solely because they might be too
numerous. With the development of computer techniques the problem of numerous
variables can be easily solved. When, however, the number of variables is un-
limited, the degree of coverage of all the important aspects of agriculture by those
variables, as well as their influence on type formation, can hardly be assessed.
Consequently, the use of a large number of variables to represent only one aspect
40 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
of agriculture, with a much smaller number of variables representing another,
may result in exaggerating the type-forming influence of the one aspect while,
at the same time, reducing the influence of the other. On the other hand, the use
of variables representing some aspects of agriculture only will result in producing
either partial typologies or classifications, such as land use systems, enterprise
combinations etc., or even a spatial distribution of a few selected variables com-
bined. Such partial classifications can be useful, as the so-called special-purpose
typologies, oriented towards specific problems. It should be emphasised, however,
that only a classification based on all the important aspects of agriculture can be
considered as an absolute or all-purpose typology, similar to the systematics used
in botany, zoology or plant sociology, that are useful per se, for a better under-
standing of reality.
As in those disciplines, such a typology does not imply that certain units are
ascribed to certain types for ever. On the contrary, their attachment to a given
type can be changed both: (i) as a result of a change of its attributes or (ii) as a
result of better knowledge of them.
In both approaches, however, the accepted variables are assumed to possess the
same type-forming influence. This evidently false assumption immediately pro-
duces a difficult, if not insoluble, problem of weighting individual variables, as the
type-forming influence of individual variables cannot be assessed accurately.
However, with a smaller number of variables it is also easier to balance their
respective significance. The use of a smaller number of more universal variables
also facilitates comparisons in space which would be difficult if numerous elemen-
tary variables, often of a local character, were taken into account.
The second methodological problem in agricultural typology (i.e. the selection
of the best possible method for comparing and grouping individual multi-featured
units into types according to their similarities) has not been solved to the degree
that would enable the Commission to recommend any specific technique for all
agricultural typologies, irrespective of their scale, territory and time, although
several investigations have been made to test various available techniques. The
experiences from the investigations in which various techniques have been applied
to process the same data, and the discussion on this problem, have clarified at least
the following points. (1) The proper selection of diagnostic variables and their
appropriate expression is more important because the identification of agricultural
type depends more on the criteria selected and their expression than on the
techniques of their comparison and grouping. Therefore the use of one or other
technique for their comparison and grouping does not greatly alter the typological
pattern, provided that the same sets of variables are used. (2) As the comparability
of results, both in time and space, is essential for agricultural typology, all tech-
niques that do not guarantee such a comparability cannot be recommended,
irrespective of whether they are primitive and qualitative or highly refined and
quantitative. (3) Since, as has been stated above, agricultural statistics or estimates
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 41
rarely provide full, accurate and reliable data for agricultural typology, the
application of highly refined methods to data that are not accurate brings only
seemingly accurate results. Provided that the variables are properly selected and
expressed, and the quality of statistical data is acceptable, the more accurate the
technique of their comparison and grouping, the more accurately and objectively
types of agriculture are identified. Therefore, if data allow it, the effort should be
made to apply the most accurate possible quantitative techniques.
However, as the data available and the possibilities of data processing differ
between countries, it has been decided that individual scholars should be free to
select the most efficient technique of comparing and grouping the basic units of
study, characterised by sets of variables representing various aspects of agriculture,
as they are better able to decide which, out of the many existing techniques, will
give the best results for a given country or region.
4. PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY
The purpose of agricultural typology is not only to obtain better knowledge and
understanding of reality but also to make its results instrumental in changing
reality. Typological studies can therefore be of practical importance, particularly
for programming and planning agricultural development and its spatial organisation.
Agriculture is a dynamic phenomenon. Individual holdings or aggregate units
not only differ in space along with their varied environmental and other exogenous
conditions, but also change in time following the change of their attributes.
The change of one or more variables will not, however, change a type until their
number is so great that they change the entire character of a given agriculture, i.e.
until quantitative changes will suffice to transform a given type into a new quality
- - a new type of agriculture.
The typology made for a certain period of time is therefore nothing more than
a static picture, a snap-shot of the situation. This picture becomes dynamic, as in
a film when shap-shots are repeated several times. Only such a dynamic picture
of changes in the types of agriculture can be interpreted in terms of trends in the
development of the agriculture's spatial organisation which may be used for bot h
forecasting and programming agricultural development.
In fact, some successful attempts have been made already to apply typological
methods for forecasting and programming further changes in the spatial
organisation of agriculture (Kostrowicki, 1974b, 1975a and b). Based on two or
more snap-shots of the situation in subsequent periods of time, first the extra-
polation of individual typological variables was made, then these variables were
compared and grouped together into types of agriculture showing the situation
that would occur if the former tendencies and the rate of changes were continued.
That extrapolation has already revealed certain deficiencies in the present spatial
42 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
differences of agriculture that would cause serious problems if former tendencies
are continued. It is obvious, however, that a simple extrapolation cannot provide
an adequate basis for forecasting any further development. Thus, an analogy
method has been additionally applied, i.e. conclusions based upon the experiences
--attained already in comparable exogenous conditions--by other countries or
regions.
The studies mentioned above (Kostrowicki, 1974b, 1975a and b)were not limited
to merely forecasting. Besides analogies, the outline data of future demand for
agricultural products, of the tasks of agriculture and possible means for their
implementation, have been used to revise and correct the results of extrapolation.
As typology has revealed the weak points of the development of agriculture, it was
also possible to assess which of them could be improved, with the means to be
allocated for agricultural development in long-term planning, and what would be
the possible production results of such improvement. In this way, models of spatial
organisation of Polish agriculture for 1980 and 1990 have been constructed,
expressed in a typological manner, taking into account all possible predictable
socio-economic transformations in the spatial organisations of the country. The
whole study has been transferred to the State Planning Commission to be used in
its work on long-term planning.
As the statistical data used in this study were not adequately compiled, the study
had a preliminary character and was therefore mainly of methodological signifi-
cance. As such, it was discussed several times with leading Polish agricultural
economists and planners and, in spite of some initial reservations, won their
approval as a general line of thinking. At the same time a number of valuable
remarks and proposals were offered that will be used to prepare a new improved
version of the study, based on statistical data better adapted to spatial analyses in
which the whole procedure will be repeated.
It seems that the methods and techniques of agricultural typology, in this way or
another, possibly with some modifications and adaptation, could also be success-
fully used for either forecasting or planning of the spatial development of agricul-
ture in other countries.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, J. R. (1972). Possibilities for typological studies of American agriculture. In (W. P.
Adams & F. M. Helleiner, Eds) International geography 1972. Vol. 2. University of Toronto
Press, 702-4.
ANOERSON, J. R. (1973)./1 geography o f agriculture in the United States' Southeast. Geography of
world agriculture, Vol. 2. Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest.
ANDI~AE, B. (1964). Betriebsformen in der Landwirtschaft. Entstehung und Wandlung von Boden-
nutzungs, Viehhaltungs- und Betriebssystemen in Europa und fibersee sowie neuer Methoden
ihrer Abgrenzung. Systematischer Teil einer Agrarbetriebslehre. E. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
ANDREAE, B. (1972). Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsformen in den Tropen. Paul Parey, Hamburg u.
Berlin.
ARSENIEV, K. (1818). Nachertaniye statistiki Rossiyskogo gosudarstwa. (Outline of the statistics
o f the Russian State). St. Petersburg.
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 43
BAKER, O. E. (1926-1933). Agricultural regions of North America. Economic Geography 2 (1)
459-93; 3 (1) 50-87; 3, 309-40; 4 (1) 44-74; 4, 399-434; 5 (1) 36-57; 6 (2) 166-91; 3, 278-
309; 7 (2) 109-53; 3, 325-65; 8 (4) 325-77; 9 (2) 167-98.
BENNEH, G. (1972). Systems of agriculture in Tropical Africa. Economic Geography 48 (3) 244-57.
BERNHARD, H. (1915). Die Agrargeographie als wissenschaftliche Disziplin. Petermanns Geo-
graphische Mitteilungen, 61, 12-18, 99-103, 179-82.
BIRCH, J. W. (1954). Observation on the delimitation of farming type regions in the Isle of Man.
Institute of British Geographers. Transactions and Papers, 20, 141-58.
BIRCH, J. W. (1965). On the stability of farming systems with particular reference to the
Connecticut Valley. In (J. P. Whitton & P. D. Wood, Eds) Essays in geography f or Austin
Miller, University of Reading, 225-46.
BIRCH, J. W. (1972). Farming systems as resource systems. In (C. Vanzetti, Ed) Agricultural
typology and land utilisation. Center of Agricultural Geography.
BONNAMOUR, J. 0973). Gdographie rurale. Methodes etperspectives, Masson et Cie, Paris.
BONNAMOUR, J., GILLETTE, CH. & GUERMOND, Y. (1971). Les syst6mes regionaux d'exploitation
agricole en France. Methode d'analyse typologique. Etudes Rurales 43-4, 76-168.
BRINKMANN, T. (1913). ~ber die landwirtschaftlichen Betriebssysteme und ihre Standort-
orientierung. Fr~.hling Landwirtschaftliche Zeitung, 6, 185-219.
BUSCH, W. (1936). Die Landbauzonen in deutschen Lebensraum, Elmer, Stuttgart.
CHEVALIER, A. (1925). Essai d'une classification biog6ographique des principaux syst6mes de
culture pratiqu6s sur la surface du globe, Revue Internationale de Renseignement Agricole.
Nouvelle Serie. 3 (3), 71-728.
CHISHOLM, M. 0964). Problems of the classification and use of farming-type regions, Institute of
British Geographers. Transactions and Papers, 35, 91-103.
CoPPOCK, J. T. 0964). Crop, livestock and enterprise combinations in England and Wales.
Economic Geography, 40 (1) 65-81.
DARBY, H. C. (1954). Early ideas on the agricultural regions of England. Agricultural History
Review, 2, 30-47.
DUCKHAM, A. N. & MASEFIELD, G. B. (1970). Farming systems of the worM. Chatto & Windus,
London.
EEC (1960). Agricultural regions in the EEC. European Economic Community Studies. Set.
Agriculture, 1, Brussels. (Also in French and German).
ELLIOT, F. F. (1933). Types of farming in the United States. US Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC.
ELLIOT, F. F. (1935). Regional problems in agricultural adjustment. Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, Washington, DC.
ENGELBRECHT, T. H. (1898-1899). Die Landbauzonen der aussertropischen Liinder, Berlin.
ENGELBRECHT, Z. H. (1939). Die Landbauzonen der Erde. Petermanns Geagraphische Mitteilungen.
Ergiinzungsheft 209.
ENYEDI, G. (1965). Fi~M mezi~gazdastiga. AgrtirJ'dldrajzi tanulmtiny. (The agriculture of the world.
A study in agricultural geography). Mez6gazdas~tgi Kiad6, Budapest.
FAUCHER, D. (1949). Gdographie agraire, types des cultures, M. T. G6nin, Pads.
FELIZOLA DINIZ, J. S. (1969). IGU' s suggestions and types of agriculture: A case study. Revista
Geografica, 70 (June), 91-108.
GREGOR, H. (1970). Geography of agriculture: Themes on research. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs.
GREGOR, H. F. (1974). An agricultural typology of California. Geography of worm agriculture.
Vol. 4. Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest.
GRIGG, D. (1969). The agricultural regions of the world. Review and reflections. Economic
Geography, 45, 95-132.
HAHN, E. (1892). Die Wirtsehaftsformen der Erde. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen,
38, 8-12.
HARTSHORNE, R. & DICKEN, S. N. (1935). A classification of the agricultural regions of Europe
and North America on a uniform statistical basis. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 25, 99-120.
HELBURN, N. (1957). The bases for a classification of world agriculture. The Professional Geo-
grapher, 9 (2) 2-7.
HENSHALL, J. (1967). Models in agricultural activity. In (R. J. Chorley & P. Haggett, Eds).
Models in geography, Methuen, London, 425-60.
HIGHSMITH, R. M. (1966). HOW types of farming divide world agriculture into regions. Foreign
Agriculture, 4 (11) 3-5.
HOFFMANN, E. (1954). Zur Systematik der Bodennutzung und Betriebsformen. Agrarwirtschaft, 3.
HUDSON, S. C. et al. (1959). Types of farming in Canada. Canada Dept. of Agriculture, 825.
44 JERZY KOSTROWICKI
JACKSON, B. G., BARNARD, C. S. STURROCK, F. (1968). The pattern of farming in the Eastern
counties. Far m Economic Branch. School of Agriculture. Cambridge Univ. Occasional
Papers No. 8.
JACKSON, W. A. D. (1961). The problem of Soviet agricultural regionalization. Slavic Review,
20 (4) 656-78.
JONASSON, O. (1925-1926). Agricultural regions of Europe, Economic Geography, 1 (3) 217-314;
2 (1) 19-48.
JONES, C. F. (1928-1930). Agricultural regions of South America, Economic Geography 4 (1)
1-30; 2, 159-186; 3, 267-94; 5 (2) 109-40; 3, 277-307; 4, 390-421 ; 6 (1) 1-36.
JONES, R. B. (1956-1957). Far m classification in Britain: An appraisal. Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 12, 201-15.
KAWACHI, K. (1959). On a method of classifying world agricultural regions. In Proceedings of
the IGU Regional Conference in Japan, 1957, 355-8.
KLATZMANN, J. (1952). La classification des entreprises agricoles suivant leur importance 6cono-
mique, Economie Rurale (Avril) 38-58.
KLATZMANN, J. (1972). Gdographie agricole de la France. Paris, PUF Que sais-je ?, 420.
KoPEk, B. (1960). Systemy gospodarcze w rolnictwie polskim w latach 1955-1965. (Economic
systems in Polish agriculture in 1955-1965). PWRiL, Warsaw.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1960). Land utilization survey as a basis for geographical typology of agri-
culture. Przeglad Geograficzny, 32 (Supplement), 169-83.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1964). Geographical typology of agriculture. Principles and methods. An
invitation to discussion. Geographia Polonica, 2, 159-67.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1966). Tipologia geografica de la agricultura mundial. Principos y metodos. In
Union Geografica Internacional. Conferencia Regional Latino-Americana, Vol. 2, Mexico,
DF, 793-807.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1968). Agricultural typology, agricultural regionalization, agricultural develop-
ment. Geographia Polonica, 14, 265-74.
KOSTROWtCKI, J. (1973). Zarys geografii rolnictwa. (Outline of agricultural geography), PWN,
Warsaw.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1973). The typology of world agriculture. A preliminary scheme. In (L. G.
Reeds, Ed) Agricultural typology and land use, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
KOSTROWIeKI, J. (1974a). The typology of world agriculture. Principles, methods and model types.
International Geographical Union. Commission on Agricultural Typology, Warsaw.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1974b). Les transformations darts la repartition spatiale des types d' agricul-
ture en Pologne et essai du pronostic de l' 6votution ult6rieure. Geographia Polonica, 29,
307-30.
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1975a). An attempt to define the trends in the transformation of the spatial
organization of Polish agriculture in 1960-1990. Geographia Polonica. (In Press).
KOSTROWlCKI, J. (1975b). An attempt to apply typological methods for forecasting and/or
programming further changes in the spatial organization of agriculture. In Proceedings of the
6th Meeting of the IGU Commission on Agricultural Typology. Verona 1974. (In Press).
KOSTROWICKI, J. (1976). World types of agriculture. International Geographical Union. Commis-
sion on Agricultural Geography, Warsaw.
KOSTROWICKI, J. & SZCZ~SNY, R. (1972). Polish agriculture. Characteristics, types and regions.
Geography of worm agriculture, Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest.
KOSTROWlCKL J. & TYSZKIEWlCZ, W. (Eds) (1970a). Agricultural typology. Selected methodo-
logical materials, Dokumentacja geograficzna, 1, 60.
KOSTROWICKI, J. & TYSZKIEWlCZ, W. (Eds) (1970b). Essays in agricultural typology and land
utilization. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Commission on Agricultural Typology,
Geographia Polonica, 19, 290.
KROKHALOV, F. S. (1960). O sistemakh zemledelia. Istoricheskiy ocherk. (On agricultural systems:
An historical outline). Moskva.
KRZYMOWSKI, R. (1911). Die wirtschaftliche Stellung der Landwirtschaftsgeographie, Frghlings
landwirtschaftliche Zeitung, 60, 252-65.
LAUR, E. (1926). Die Bodennatzungsysteme in der Schweiz und ihre Verbreitung, Brngg.
MALASSlS, L. (1960). Classification des exploitations agricoles, Etudes d'Economie Rurale, mai.
MANTEUFFEL, R. (1961). Typy, systemy, kierunki. Pr6ba ustalenia pojee$ i definicji. (Types, systems,
orientations. An attempt to establish some concepts and definitions), Zagadnienia Ekonomiki
Rolnej, 4, 95-103.
MOSKVA (1968, 1973). Proizvodstvenniye tipy selsko-khozyaystvennykh predpriyatii (Production
types of agricultural enterprises). 2 v. Kolos, Moskva.
NIKOLITCH, R. & McKEE, D. E. (1965). The contribution of the economic classification of farms
to the understanding of American agriculture. Journal of Farm Economics, 47 (5) 1545-55.
AGRICULTURAL TYPOLOGY CONCEPT AND METHOD 45
PAVLOV, M. G. (1821). O glavnych sistemakh selskogo khozyaystva s priuravlenyem k Rossii. (On
the principal systems of agriculture as compared with Russia), Moskva.
PECORA, A. (1972). Types of agriculture in Ecuador. In (W. P. Adams & F. M. Helleiner, Eds)
International Geography 1972, Vol. 2, University of Toronto Press, Montreal, 746--7.
RAKITNIKOV, A. N. (1970). Geografia selskogo khozyaystva. Problemy i metody issledovaniya.
(Agricultural geography. Problems and Methods of Research), Moskva.
RAKITNIKOV, A. (1972~. Crit~res et indices de la typologie de ragriculture mondiale. In (W. P.
Adams & F. M- Helleiner, Eds) International Geography 1972, Vol. 2, University of Toronto
Press, Montreal, 750-2.
REEDS, L. G. (Ed.) (1973). Agricultural typology and land use. Proceedings of the Agricultural
Typology Commission Meeting, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
SCOTT, P. (1961). Farming-type regions of Tasmania. New Zealand Geographer, 17 (2) 155-76.
SHANTZ, H. L. (1940-1943). Agricultural regions of Africa. Economic Geography, 17 (1) 1-47;
2, 122-61 : 4, 341-69; 18 (3) 217-49; 4, 353-79; 19 (3) 229-46; 20 (I) 77-109; 3, 217-69.
SOVETOV, A. V. (1867). O sistemakh zemledelia. (On agricultural systems). St. Petersburg.
SPENCER, J. E. & HORVATH, R. J. (1963). How does an agricultural region originate?, Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 53, 74-94.
SPENCER, J. E. & STEWART, N. R. (1973). The nature of agricultural systems. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 63 (4) 529-44.
STECZKOWSKr, J. (1966). Zasady i metody rejonizacji produkcji rolnej. (Principles and methods of
regionalization of agricultural production). PWRiL, Warsaw.
STERN, H. (1957). Untersuchungen landwirtschaftlichen Betriebstypen als sozial-6konomische
Einheiten, Kiel.
STUOENSKY, G. (1927). Die Grundideen und Methoden der landwirtschaftlichen Geographic.
Weltwirtschaftliches Archly, 25, 179-97.
TAILOR, G. (1930). Agricultural regions of Australia. Economic Geography, 6 (2) 109-34; 3,
213--42.
USDA (1950). Generalized types of farming in the United States. US Dept. of Agriculture. Bureau
of Agricultural Economics. Information Bulletin No. 3. Washington DC.
VAN VALKENBURG, S. (1931-1936). Agricultural regions of Asia. Economic Geography, 7 (3)
217-37; 8 (2) 109-33; 9 (1) 1-18; 2, 109-33; 10 (1) 14-24; 11 (3) 227-46; 4, 325-37;
12 (1) 27-44; 3, 231-49.
VANZETTI, C. (Ed.) (1972). Agricultural typology and land utilization. Proceedings of the Fourth
Meeting of the Commission on Agricultural Typology. Center of Agricultural Geography,
Verona.
VANZETTI, C. (Ed.) (1975). Agricultural typology and land utilization. Proceedings of the Sixth
Meeting of the Commission on Agricultural Typology. Center of Agricultural Geography,
Verona.
WA1BEL, L. (1933). Probleme de Landwirtschaftsgeographie. Hirt, Breslau.
WEAVER, J. C. (1954). Crop combination regions in the Middle East. Geographical Review, 44 (2)
175-200.
WEAVER, J. C., HOAG, L. P. & FENTON, B. L. (1956). Livestock units and combination regions in
the Middle West, Economic Geography, 32 (3) 237-59.
WHITILESEY, D. (1936). Maj or agricultural regions of the Earth, Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 26, 199-240.