( , , , , , . , ), , , , , , - [1][2][3].
|
|
[]
: , . , , , , , , .
[]
, , .
, , , , , , .
, , , , . , ; . , .
[]
, , , , .
[]
[]
:
. , , , «» .
, , , . , , , , . (, , ), .
[]
, , : , (), (), -, .
, : , ( ), , . , , , , , , . , , .
( ) .
[]
- . . - // . . . .. .: 1960, № 5.
- Kimble, G.H.T. (1951): The Inadequacy of the Regional Concept, London Essays in Geography, edd. L.D. Stamp and S.W. Wooldridge, pp. 151174.
- Schaefer, F.K. (1953): Exceptionalism in Geography: A Methodological Examination, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 43, pp. 226245.
[] .
[]
- . . - // . . . . 1960. № 5.
- . // . 2007, № 7.

