Axiomatic Foundation of the Central Place Theory: Revision from the Position of the Russian Scientific School

The article is devoted to clarifying the axiomatic foundation of the central place theory (CPT) and identifying the possibilities and limitations of the logical transition in research from real settlement systems to central place systems. The necessity of relying on the CPT axioms is determined in the following form: (1) the space of the CP system is not infinite, but finite: the basis of each system is formed by an isolated lattice; theory deals with physical space, not mathematical or geographical; (2) space is homogeneous and isotropic in all respects, with the exception of the distribution of not only the urban, but also the rural population; (3) the hexagonal lattice corresponds to the equilibrium state of an isolated CP system as an attractor; deviations from the hexagonal shape are the result of only external influence on the system; (4) CP systems are polymorphic–they can exist in modifications both with the same and with different values of K-parameter ∈ (1; 7] for all levels of the hierarchy. The axiom about the “rational” behavior of the consumer is accepted when establishing the hierarchy of the CP in terms of the functions performed; when establishing their hierarchy in terms of population, it is redundant. In contrast to the foreign approach to CPT, which involves the transfer of the properties of an ideal CP system to a real settlement system, within the framework of the Russian school approach, they are compared. The possibility of the latter is due to the equivalence principle in the relativistic version of the theory: the formation of settlement systems in geographic space occurs similarly to the formation of CP systems in physical space. In both cases, if the gravitational effects are compensated, it is impossible to distinguish the settlement system from the CP system, that is, a heterogeneous and anisotropic geographic space from a homogeneous and isotropic physical one. The immediate consequence of this is the equivalence, on the one hand, of the population size of settlements and population size of central places, and, on the other hand, of the distances between them in real settlement systems and CP systems.