Q-analysis, which has been called “a language of structure” [1], is here applied to Central Place Theory (CPT). CPT, first published in 1933 by Walter Christaller, is concerned with the size and distribution of settlements that provide “central” goods and services to their hinterlands, and the flows of these to consumers. Briefly, Christaller argued from assumptions of an ordered set of functions, and consumers who minimize transport costs, to a stepped hierarchy of centers, functions, and hinterlands; further assumptions of uniform movement costs and evenly distributed consumers cause a regular hexagonal lattice in space (see [2]). Because there is so much going on in a central place landscape, empirical studies have to keep many balls in the air at once, suggesting that q-analysis could be very appropriate. This paper defines the territory and shows the components of a q-analysis, but disappointingly fails to clarify q-analysis, CPT, or its own case study.

Beaumont presents a hypothetical example of q-analysis applied to CPT, a Lincolnshire case study through time, a “conventional” analysis of the same area for comparison, and suggestions for modeling central place dynamics. The hypothetical example starts with a very simple set of centers and goods, presumably for readers who know nothing of CPT (and the reader is annoyingly referred three times to an unpublished paper for more background). It then turns into a brutal introduction to q-analysis; those readers who would attempt to read the paper should acquire some q-analysis background first.

It is unfortunate that the eight pages devoted to the example were not spent on Lincolnshire, since the empirical analysis seems to approach some real insights (but one is never quite sure). For example, we are told in esoteric terms that some centers have more functions than others and that some centers have functions in common (are “q-near”); since there is no attempt to isolate the specific patterns predicted by CPT, the observations by themselves are platitudes, although there may be implications peculiar to q-analysis to which the reviewer is not sensitive. An esoteric style is a common consequence of going over old ground with a new technique, especially one that has such fervid adherents as q-analysis.

The comparative study, a principal components analysis, is unfairly given very short shrift, leading to a foregone conclusion that q-analyses are superior. There is more in the components analysis than Beaumont was able to find. But despite the objections, q-analysis looks like it could be a good tool for analyzing central place networks; this simply increases the reviewer’s frustration with the paper.