From Central Place to Network Model: Theory and Evidence of a Paradigm Change

Abstract

While the deficiencies of the central place model have often been highlighted, no other paradigm has replaced it. However, recently some researchers have hinted at the development of a new model of spatial organisation, a network model. This model would hold most in polycentric urban regions. This paper discusses the features of this network model in comparison with the central place model. Moreover, it explores whether this model describes spatial reality better, thereby focusing on complementarity, a main feature of the model. The relationships within multi-location hospitals and universities of professional education (hogescholen), which spread their offer of care and study programmes over multiple, close-by cities, are analysed for this reason. Within the hospital care sector there is a clear trend towards complementarity, in line with the network model. The hogescholen sector provides a more ambiguous picture. The network model, however, still seems more appropriate than the central place model. Copyright (c) 2007 by the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG.

External Urban Relational Process: Introducing Central Flow Theory to Complement Central Place Theory

“…Meijers (2007), for instance, identifies a "paradigm change" with the "network model" superseding central place theory; they are described as being "essentially opposite" to each other (p. 246). 3 Drawing on the work of Camagni and Salone (1993), Batten (1995), Davies (1998) and van der Knaap (1992), Meijers (2007) describes an intellectual "transition" (p. 248) in conceptualizing urban external relations, which is deemed strong enough to warrant Kuhn"s scientific appellation of "paradigm shift" (p.…”

Networked or Un-Networked? A Preliminary Study on KIBS-Based Sustainable Urban Development: The Case of China

“…There are two types of intercity linkages-vertical and horizontal. The former presents the connectivity between hierarchically ordered cities at various levels, while the latter refers to the connectivity between cities at the same level [7,11,30]. According to the central place theory, an urban spatial structure is solely representative of vertical linkages [11].…”

“…The former presents the connectivity between hierarchically ordered cities at various levels, while the latter refers to the connectivity between cities at the same level [7,11,30]. According to the central place theory, an urban spatial structure is solely representative of vertical linkages [11]. Nonetheless, this point of view was challenged by researchers who hinted at a new urban spatial configuration to explain urban orders [7,11,30].…”

“…According to the central place theory, an urban spatial structure is solely representative of vertical linkages [11]. Nonetheless, this point of view was challenged by researchers who hinted at a new urban spatial configuration to explain urban orders [7,11,30]. A new camp of thoughts assumes that vertical intercity linkages should not be overemphasized, instead they are blending with horizontal ones; and intercity linkages are interdependent [7,30].…”

“…A typical approach to image a city network is through Taylor's interlocking world city network model (IWCNM) that is built on four intercity relational matrices-elemental, proportional, distance, and asymmetric [31]. IWCNM offers a starting point for quantitative examination of city networks [11]. However, some facets such as the degree of city nodes and the structure of city network are still not interpretable [16,32].…”