A recent paper by Masser and Scheurwater (1980) favoured the adoption of the intramax procedure for functional regionalization, without satisfactorily investigating the independent effects of the approach of the procedure to standardization and to clustering. From an examination of these phases of the intramax procedure it is shown that the superiority of Masser and Scheurwater's approach is based on doubtful criteria.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoydJ, 1980“Asymmetric clusters of internal migration regions of France”IEEE, Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics10(2) 101–105
2.
FindlayA, 1978“Internal migration regions in Tunisia” in Proceedings of the IGU Symposium on Population Redistribution in Africa Eds ClarkeJKosinskiL, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, p 28
3.
FindlayA, 1980Patterns and Processes of Tunisian Migration PhD thesis, University of Durham, Durham, England
MasserIScheurwaterJ, 1980“Functional regionalisation of spatial interaction data: An evaluation of some suggested strategies”Environment and Planning A12(12) 1357–1382
6.
MostellerF, 1968“Association and estimation in contingency tables”Journal of the American Statistical Association631–28
7.
SavageIDeutschK, 1960“A statistical model of the gross analysis of transaction flows”Econometrica28551–572
8.
SlaterP B, 1975“A hierarchical regionalization of Russian administrative units, using 1966–69 migration data”Soviet Geography16453–465
9.
SlaterP B, 1976“A hierarchical regionalization of Japanese prefectures using 1972 inter-prefectural migration Rows”Regional Studies10123–132
10.
SlaterP B, 1980“1965–70 interstate migration in the United States: An extension of the multiterminal method to multiple sources and sinks”Computers and Operations Research6205–208
11.
SlaterP B, 1981“Comparisons of aggregation procedures for interaction data: An illustration using a college student international flow table”Socio-economic Planning Sciences151–8
