There are few sins in which geographers indulge with more relish than generalizing our field fi dings at a local level over the whole of an adjacent re ion. The writer was made keenly aware of this commission in returning in 1962 to travel more widely over the south-eastern part of Brazil. Speculations on the persistence of forested zones based on localized field-work in the Taubati area (Haggett, 1961) were only partly sustained when the survey was extended, via sampling methods over an adjacent area some hundreds of times larger. In this paper the results of a localized study based on a small 100-square-kilometrearea are reported alongside those of a wider regional study. It is shown that not only is the distribution different at the two levels but that the appropriate pattern of study changes in sympathy. Data available at one level are unobtainable at another, levels of measurement possible at one level are too fine at another, and statistical tests appro? priate at one level are inapplicable at another.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter Haggett (1964) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: