ABSTRACT
Settlement studies form a traditional part of Human geography. They have held a dominant place in early statements, like that of Brunhes (1925), and in contemporary reviews like that by Jones (1964). Forming such distinctive features in the landscape, they were viewed as a fundamental expression of ‘Man-Land’ relationships. Perhaps not surprisingly, studies have traditionally emphasized strong links between the physical environment and various aspects of human occupance of regions; patterns of settlement distribution and morphology were all too often ‘accounted’ for by physical features. With the realization that urban areas themselves are regions full of interest for study it was merely a matter of applying the traditional ‘Man-Land’ concepts to the untapped sources for geographical investigation. The ‘Townscape’ became the urban equivalent of landscape and attention was drawn immediately to microscopic differences in the ‘feel’ or character of the various parts of urban areas. Emphasis was placed on form and patterns were essentially viewed as a reflection of physical controls supplemented heavily by historical influences. Although there is no question of the usefulness of these kinds of study, new frameworks are needed if a deeper understanding of the spatial organization of this particular aspect of human activity is to be obtained.
