Central Place Theory: Stages of Development and New Challenges

Abstract

The purpose is to identify the advantages of the central place theory in comparison with other constructs to explain the settlement systems’ development. Materials and methods: An analysis of publications over a 90-year period was carried out in the context of the history of the development of the theory of central places (TCP), in the course of which the authors come to the conclusion about the predominant role of network theories as an alternative to the theory of central places at the present time. Axiomatic and system-structural research methods are applied. Results and discussion. The following results are obtained, rejecting the "accusations" of network theories against the theory of central places: 1) the urban population and the central places themselves are not necessarily distributed evenly in space; 2) the number of hierarchy levels is not necessarily fixed in the central place theory; 3) the central place theory makes it possible to take into account interactions not only between, but also within the same hierarchy level; 4) any hierarchy, including within the framework of network theories, does not allow for a variable number of functions for central places of the same level. 4) any hierarchy, including within the framework of network theories, does not allow for a variable number of functions for central places of the same level. Conclusions. The central place theory is not inferior, and in some cases has advantages over network theories: it defines the settlement system and justifies the population and spatial structure of the systems as theoretical entities; it has the advantage of goal-setting, since in its relativistic version it assumes the existence of structure attractors; the direction and purpose of the development of the systems’ structure within the framework of the central place theory make it possible not only to predict, but also to direct this development.