The Development of General Earth Science in the USSR During the Soviet Period

General earth science, or general physical geography, is viewed as one of three synthetic physical-geographic disciplines, the two others being landscape science, or regional physical geography, and paleo-geography. General earth science is concerned with the earth's geographic or landscape envelope as a whole and with its general patterns: the laws of zonality and integrity of the landscape envelope, the circulation of matter, rhythmicity, polar asymmetry and other regularities.     

Atlas of the United States

In an attempt to distinguish between regional physical geography and the Soviet school of landscape science, the author defines the study objects of the two disciplines and provides a useful review of the present state of landscape science in the Soviet Union. Physical geography is said to be concerned with study of the entire geographical shell of the earth, ranging from the troposphere to the bottom of the layer of sedimentary rocks in the earth's crust. Landscape science focuses on the so-called landscape sphere, which is defined as the portion of the geographical shell that lies at or near the surface of the earth and is imbued with present-day life. Although some Soviet geographers treat the term “landscape” as a broad conceptual term (similar to climate), most investigators tend to give the term a classificatory or typological connotation, regarding landscape as the basic unit in a classification of natural geocomplexes. One landscape school focuses on the morphological structure of landscape, the other on model-building of the landscape mechanism.     

The Subject of Geography and the Science of the Man-Nature Relationship

A philosopher views the geographical environment as a natural-social concept, in which individual elements function simultaneously in a system of natural and social relationships. The geographical environment should be the province of a discipline called general geography, which would exist in addition to specialized physical and social geography. However, since general geography is limited spatially to the earth's landscape sphere, it cannot deal with the broader aspects of the man-nature relationship now that man's influence extends increasingly beyond the earth into outer space. A new discipline called “noology” is proposed to deal with the interplay between human society and all of nature.     

A New Work on Theoretical Geography (a review of David Harvey,Explanation in Geography)

A discussion of Harvey's book, with particular reference to the landscape concept, classification principles, modeling, the map as an information channel, the systems paradigm and the organization of geography as a science. In the reviewer's view, Harvey's book represents a useful introduction to the strategy of geography because it seeks to formulate a sort of metatheory of geography as a whole, instead of dealing with particular geographical disciplines. Sochava regards geography not as a simple collection of particular disciplines that sometimes exchange information and join in the solution of interdisciplinary problems. He views geography rather as a vast area of human knowledge that seeks to integrate within itself those elements from various disciplines that relate to the basic function of geography, leaving all that is nongeographical to such sciences as geology, biology and economics.     

THINGS THAT ARE ALMOST BUT NOT QUITE WELL KNOWN IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY

The author, a physical geographer, sees no need to despair about the present state of the discipline and the future of geography. He places geography in context among the sciences and finds a need for a synthesizing discipline that pulls together the findings of the particular disciplines. Such a function might be performed by landscape science and regional geography. In general, geographers are found to go too far afield in their research and there is a need to define the focus of the disciplines to eliminate the present centrifugal tendencies. Such a unifying focus might be found in geographical prediction. Geographers should be aware of the limits and capabilities of their discipline; geography is most effective in fostering solutions in conjunction with other disciplines. Fieldwork per se is criticized; some geographers make a fetish of fieldwork, spending their life in the field without ever writing up the results as a contribution to science. The language of geographical exposition must be cleansed of pseudoscientific jargon; too much geographical writing is incomprehensible. The use of mathematics in geography should be placed in historical perspective; it is not the panacea for all that ails geography.     

On the Problems of Geography and the Tasks of Popularizing Geographical Knowledge

A Moscow University geographer who advocates a unity of geography uses the medium of the Znaniye [Knowledge] Society, an organization for the popularization of scientific knowledge and communist ideology, to review the basic problems confronting geography as a research discipline. He reviews the historical sequence of philosophic concepts relating to the man-environment system in an attempt to justify his approach to the system as one in which both natural and social laws operate. Anuchin stresses the need for pure theoretical research in geography and polemicizes with those who seek prompt practical results. He restates his definition of the geographical environment as that part of the earth's landscape sphere in which nature and society interact as two parts of a single whole governed by distinctive laws. The metachronous character of development of the landscape sphere, with several parts formed at various times, is cited as an example of such a universal law. Anuchin agrees with the authors of The Science of Geography, the 1965 report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Geography, Division of Earth Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, that geography's overriding problem is to gain an understanding of the man-environment system and to develop tools for geographical prediction. An ability to predict the consequences of man's interference in natural processes is depicted as the principal contribution that geography can make to the pursuit of knowledge at the present stage of human development. If geography is unable to meet its responsibilities, the problem of geographical prediction may have to be taken over by other disciplines. Soviet biologists have already suggested the creation of a new science, geohygiene, to deal with the man-environment relationship.     

The Scientific Basis for Presentation of the General Geographical Relations of the Landscape Sphere in an Exhibit of the Museum of Earth Science

The author, a curator of the Earth Science Museum of Moscow University and an advocate of a general geography, reviews the methodological dispute in Soviet geography. He urges official status in education and research for a general geography that would be concerned with establishing the general geographic laws of the man-nature relationship and would delimit natural-social regions and zones. Such a general geography, in the author's view, would not supersede or dominate the other branches of geography, but would function side by side with the particular disciplines. Proposals made by I. P. Gerasimov in 1966 to restructure geography into basic problem areas instead of the traditional subdivisions are said to be in line with the efforts of those advocating a general geography.     

The Present State and Future Tasks of Physical Geography

Progress in physical geography as a separate research and teaching discipline is reviewed, and unfinished tasks for the next few years are outlined. The discipline continues to focus on the study and mapping of landscapes or geosystems as integrated areal units of the earth's physical-geographic environment. Emphasis is being placed on the use of quantitative techniques and systems theory as well as field observations, particularly at permanent field stations. New areas of application of landscape research are found to be opening up in physical planning, design engineering, evaluation and prediction.     

Theoretical Discussions and Some Research Tasks and Applied Problems in Economic Geography

Two economic geographers, commenting on Anuchin's latest book on the theory of geography, urge a halt to the fruitless debate over a “unified geography” and call for a more practical orientation of geographic research. Dwelling on a wide range of issues, from geography education to the content of geography journals, the authors hold that the man-nature relationship is no longer adequate as a conceptual framework for geography and that economic geography, in particular, must take into account political and social processes that fall within the province of political science and economics. A gap is found to have developed between political science, on the one hand, and economic geography, on the other, and the authors hold that such a gap might be filled by a discipline concerned with the spatial organization of economic processes. A legitimate role is seen here for a regional economics, or choreconomics. In the authors' view, geography would gain not only from a more pronounced economics-oriented economic geography, but also from a more practically oriented physical geography.     

On the Unity of Geography

A Leningrad University physical geographer criticizes attempts to affirm the unity of geography through the creation of new disciplines like “general geography,” which would focus on study of the man-nature relationship. He contends that such a general geography, which would seek to identify general geographic laws, is advocated primarily by economic geographers who would emphasize the role of man at the expense of physical geography. Isachenko takes issue with the view that what makes any research “geographical” is its relationship to man. He contends that the criterion of whether any investigation is “geographical” is its relationship to the geosystem, defined as any natural complex, ranging from the global to the local scale. In his opinion, the unity of geography should be furthered not through the establishment of new supradisciplines, such as general geography, but through closer ties, both in methodology and in organizational terms, between the two main groups of geographical disciplines—physical geography and economic geography.     

The Concept of Landscape and Landscapes of Different Orders

The paper is an expanded version of a Lomonosov lecture given April 12, 1956, in the Earth Science Museum of Moscow University. Yefremov criticizes the confusion derived from the dual meaning of “landscape” as used by Soviet geographers: (1) landscape as an areal unit of varying taxonomic rank constituting a complex of all components that interact within the earth's surficial sphere (or landscape sphere), and (2) landscape as an indivisible basic areal unit, or “molecule,” or “cell” of physical geography. Yefremov defends the first and assails the second point of view.     

INTEGRATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN MODERN GEOGRAPHY

A leading physical geographer reviews recent efforts in the Soviet Union to foster integration among the physical and socioeconomic disciplines of geography. He identifies a number of barriers that stand in the way of integration: the ever increasing multiplicity of conceptual approaches and models in geography, runaway terminological innovation and confusion, the increasing tendency of socioeconomic geographers to give their particular disciplines a greater economic and sociological orientation, the lack of cohesion in efforts to work out general geographic concepts and theories, the absence of physical-geographic background in work on social and economic geography, the increasing trend toward differentiation in geography, the fact that there is actually very little joint work among physical and socioeconomic geographers. In Isachenko's view, geography in the Soviet Union remains inevitably a dualistic discipline, in which progress toward genuine integration would require, for example, genuine collaboration among geographers in the various subfields.     

On the Significance of Lenin's Ideas for Soviet Geography

The president of the Geographical Society USSR reviews the present state of Soviet geographic theory in the light of Leninist philosophy. The objective existence of natural regions with definite boundaries is affirmed. The approach of “social physics,” applying natural laws to social phenomena, is rejected. The use of mathematical techniques is welcomed, but not to the extent of giving rise to a separate discipline of “theoretical geography” that would deal with whatever is common to both physical and economic geography. The geographical environment is defined as that part of the earth's natural environment in which nature and society are in direct interaction. Both geographical determinism and social determinism (geographical nihilism) are rejected. The definition of geography as a system of scientific disciplines is affirmed, and a proposed redefinition of geography as dealing with the evolution and control of dynamic spatial systems is rejected.     

Straddling the Boundaries Between Sciences

The author reverts to the theme that, in addition to the particular disciplines in physical geography and in economic geography, there is a genuine need for a general geographic approach to study of the geographical environment and of the man-nature relationship. As a result of the growing social impact on the environment, the operation of natural laws and social laws becomes so closely intertwined that no single discipline operating with one particular set of laws is capable of understanding the complex processes and phenomena in the interplay between nature and society. The growing specialized differentiation of geography as a science does not eliminate it as a distinct field of human knowledge with a common object of study. However there is a danger that the process of differentiation may be going too far, with an increasing number of scholars from adjacent disciplines coming into geography. The trend is said to be evident in the advanced training of geographers in universities, where geography facilities are turning into collections of departments turning out, say, meteorologists with little general geographic background. And yet there is a growing need for broadly trained geographers, particularly in the entire field of long-range planning and pre-planning research, in which the author is engaged.     

On Natural Aquatic Complexes of the World's Oceans

The author, an exponent of the Soviet landscape school, proceeds from the assumption that the earth's natural environment is organized in terms of natural complexes that need to be identified and delimited. Landscape geographers have thus far focused on terrestrial landscapes, which occupy only 29% of the earth's surface. There is equal need for analysis of natural aquatic complexes, accounting for the remaining 71%. Aquatic complexes cannot be characterized only in terms of the sea surface; they must be analyzed in terms of the underlying water masses and their physical-chemical characteristics and organisms. Geographers working in this new branch of natural geography would require appropriate training.     

Quantitative Methods in Physical-Geography Research

The use of quantitative techniques in physical geography is discussed with reference to three particular disciplines—climatology, glaciology and geomorphology. Although significant advances have been made in these and other particular disciplines, there is increasing need for applying quantitative methods to the composite of geographical processes, related to various forms of the exchange of matter and energy. A quantitative approach to integrated physical-geography research is needed for a resolution of the general problem of a quantitative explanation of the physical-geographic process and the formulation of a quantitative theory of physical geography. Aside from inherent difficulties in applying quantitative techniques to physical geography, particularly the biogeographic disciplines, there are additional problems of an organizational nature in the Soviet Union, where specialists in various disciplines tend to be associated with different institutes.     

On Scientific Hypotheses and Authentic Knowledge in Modern Discoveries of General Regularities in Physical Geography

The methodological aspects of the relationship between scientific hypothesis and authentic theory are examined with particular reference to the discoveries of regularities in the field of physical geography. A hypothesis is defined as a proposition whose basic content may be refuted as a result of further research; the basic content of authentic theory is beyond dispute, but may be further altered and refined. Instead of a traditional opposition of hypothesis to theory, the author recommends a broader approach treating both the formulation of a scientific hypothesis and the creation of a theory as discoveries of a theoretical character. According to this view, discoveries may be in the realm of hypothetical knowledge or in the area of authentic knowledge, depending on the weight of evidence. The Wegener hypothesis of continental drift is viewed as an example of a discovery in the realm of hypothetical knowledge; global regularities of heat-moisture relationships deriving from solar radiation are regarded as falling in the area of authentic knowledge. In general, hypothetic knowledge tends to involve the earth's interior forces, which are still relatively unknown, and authentic knowledge the better-known forces stemming from the sun. Some discoveries, such as the problem of geographical zonality and the discovery of bipolarity in the morphometry of the earth's macrorelief, contain elements of both authentic and hypothetical knowledge.     

大数据时代的人文地理研究与应用实践

信息通信技术快速发展带来了大数据时代的到来,改变着区域或城市空间组织及居民行为,流空间成为人类活动的主要载体,并使得人文地理学理论与方法面临革新。本文在梳理国内外文献基础上,认为大数据时代的人文地理研究开始更加注重自然与人文学科间的融合、数据密集型研究方法的革新、以居民活动为主体的人本科学性,并构建了人文地理学及其主要分支学科在大数据时代研究的总体框架。同时,也提出了大数据面向空间规划方法和技术、居民个体行为决策优化、企业运营决策、政府宏观政策制定与管理等方面的应用方向。