An important period in the development of geography as a discipline is the spatial science and quantitative revolution of the 1950’s and 1960’s. During this period many geographers faced public and academic allegations that the field of geography was too humanistic and idiosyncratic. These claims spurred the rapid attempts to quantify geography. This was done by trying to incorporate mathematical models, create generalizable theories, and overall transform the field into a hard science.

What was geography like before the quantitative revolution?

Prior to the spatial science and quantitative revolution in geography, there had only been a few attempts to create generalizable models or theories, such as environmental determinism devised by Semple. However, all of these early attempts to make geography more nomothetic were disproved and later dismissed. Most of the time geography was lumped into the geology department in universities, and this sorting was not always favored by geologists or geographers. Because of the lack of models and theories established in the field, geography was not viewed as a hard science, or even a true science in many cases, nor did it have much support in universities and in academia at large.

Geography, as a collective field, was mainly rooted in concepts of the region and regional geography. The idea of regions was critiqued as being too specific and particular, which drew geography away from being scientific. Regions were also criticized as purporting uniqueness when they should have been developed into an overarching theory in geography that involved movement and processes across spaces. The desire to move away from specific and unique studies in geography to theories and generalizable rules was manifested in the new aerial focus of spatial geography.

Regions were partially decried as being too traditional and only suitable for a more rural landscape when reality was in fact much more urbanized. Once this was realized, geographers began looking at the world as a dynamic place filled with many processes, interactions, and movements across space.

With this insight, geography could then not only analyze current information, but could predict new patterns in movement or connections. Theoretical images, graphs, and diagrams were also used to describe hypothetical landscapes, networks, and environments. Notions about movement and dynamic processes evolved into new analyzes of city and urban development. The acknowledgement of dynamic processes across many spatial landscapes naturally progressed into the development of laws and models that represented general situations.

The generation of models and theories was a major goal of the spatial science and quantitative revolution in geography. This new step was built on the expansion of mathematical methods within the field. Sculpted after many of the physical science fields, which were considered hard sciences in academia, quantitative geography required numbers, equations, and statistical relationships across space. Geography was urged to be both less of a collection of facts and a descriptive account of particular places. The heavy emphasis on quantitative models and methods allowed for new ideas and pathways to be generated in the field.

How was geography actually quantified?

The field of geography was largely description-based and focused on regional analysis. Quantitative geography, however, shifted away from description-based and individual bias by establishing five principles in a version of the scientific method. This geographical scientific method was created by August Comte and is widely known as positivism. Geographical positivism establishes that ideas must be rooted in observable reality, must be available for other scientists to review, must be testable and verifiable, must be useful, and lastly is never quite finished until an utopian society exists.

Geographers, prior to the quantitative revolution, observed the world as stationary and largely unconnected. Quantitative geography, in addition to creating generalizable theories and models, changed these perceptions by thinking of the world dynamically, as always changing, and as centered on the movement of people, items, and ideas.

Out of this grew the Central Place Theory, developed by Walter Christaller, which criticized uniqueness of a location for settlement placement. This concept attempted to create a general rule for the size, number, and distribution of settlements in an area rather than using a case-by-case explanation coupled with the distance to natural resources. Central Place Theory includes the concepts of connection between people, goods, and places, as well as size and availability of markets and urban centers.

Several other models of urban layouts, city design, and transportation were developed. Burgess, Ullman, and Hoyt are several notable geographers that created ring models of cities with zones of development and at least one central business district. These models of cities heavily relied on transportation of goods and people, which was one of the major developments from the spatial science and quantitative revolution in geography.

The spatial interaction theory, gravity models, and Zipf’s inverse distance law were all manifestations of the focus of transportation and movement during the spatial science quantitative revolution. Other models of geomorphology, population migration, behavioral stability, and economic dispersion had their roots in the quantitative revolution due to changes in geographic methodology. These developments also incorporated the push for more mathematics and equations in geography in order to revamp the field as a hard science, therefore making geography more prestigious.

Let’s summarize this

The spatial science and quantitative revolution was a monumental movement within the field of geography, and it forever altered the perceptions of geography as well as the practiced methodology within the field. After loss of academic support in many universities, geographers sought to transform the description-based, soft science, regionally-focused efforts of geography into something greater – something that could be viewed as respected, one of the hard sciences, and worthy of its own department in any college.

But the desire to transform the field was also to improve upon existing ideas and create better avenues for understanding the world. Previous attempts at creating broad geographic theories failed, but quantitative geographers surmised that this could be remedied with the help of mathematics, modeling, equations, and a better scientific process. Geographers rallied behind new concepts of spatially relating things, people, and places rather than merely listing information about each of these separately.

As geography acknowledged the advancements of urban society and its effects on location, movement, transportation, economics, and human interaction, new models were developed to try and understand these processes in detail. Although many of the theories and models created during this time period are not presently widely used, there are still many that served as the foundation for current theories, models, and statistical analysis.

The quantitative revolution spurred geographers to lean so far from humanistic influences that the field became too staunch in its use of numbers of lack of description. However, as different waves of humanistic geography began to compensate for the mindset established during the quantitative revolution, geography as a whole has retained many of the values and procedures created during the quantitative revolution. Even purely humanistic geographers must still engage in quantitative and spatial science methodology and training. This modern practice highlights the long-lasting influence of the spatial science and quantitative revolution in geography.

Want to know more?

• Bunge, W. W. (1962) Theoretical Geography, Royal University, Lund.
• Cresswell, T. (2013). Geographic thought: A critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Golledge, R. G. (2006). Chorley, R.J. and Haggett, P., editors 1967: Models in geography. London: Methuen. Progress in Human Geography, 30(1), 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph595xx.
  
• Gottdiener, M., Hohle, R., & King, C. R. (2019). The new urban sociology (6th ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  
• Haggett, P. (2008), The Local Shape of Revolution: Reflections on Quantitative Geography at Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s. Geographical Analysis, 40: 336-352. https://doi-org.marshall.idm.oclc.org/10 .1111/j.1538-4632.2008.00731.x.
  
• Harris, C. D., & Ullman, E. L. (1945). The Nature of Cities. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 242(1), 7–17. https://doi-org.marshall.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/000271624524200103.
  
• Michel, B. (2016). Seeing Spatial Structures: On The Role Of Visual Material In The Making Of The Early Quantitative Revolution In Geography. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 98(3), 189–203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44861807.
  
• Parr, J. B. (2017). Central Place Theory: An Evaluation. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 29(3), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/rurd.12066.
  
• Schaefer, F. K. (1953). Exceptionalism in geography: a methodological examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 43, 226-249.
  
• Smith, N. (1987). Academic war over the field of geography: the elimination of geography at Harvard, 1947-1951. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, 155-172.