Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Note that New Zealand is the single Pacific candidate in the above lists. The
inclusion of the Pacific region raises fundamental concerns about the very meaning
of 'development' and its western ideological tenets which, among other things,
discount the non-monetized and informal economy (and alerts us to the subtle
Western bias lurking in our definition of 'success'?). The Pacific is also exceptional
in having indigenous populations, and their own customs and cultures, which have
survived the ravages of late imperialism. A suitable additional candidate to consider
including among the list of successes stories could be Samoa.
One may venture to argue that smaller size, certainly in the case of the territories
identified above, has not been a crucial handicap to development. Nor has island-
ness or peripherality. Strong levels of social capital and outward facing cultural
attitudes would also contribute to a dynamic economy, able to respond confidently
to opportunity (Baldacchino 2005 ; Pitt 1980 ; Srebrnik 2000 ). Meanwhile, for most
of these jurisdictions, and certainly for the smallest, high population density per
unit land area comes across as a common feature. And all - except the largest iden-
tified (New Zealand) - have an insignificant agricultural sector.
Islands that are political units are also geographical enclaves that tend to have
higher population densities than mainlands, since offloading people across the sea
remains more problematic than offloading them onto a contiguous land mass.
Moreover, around half of humankind dwells on or near coastal regions, because
continental interiors are disadvantaged locations for settlement. These preferences
are evinced from the much higher mean population density for islands than for
continents: excluding the large but practically empty mass of Greenland, island
units have a mean population density of 144 persons/km 2 - three times the mean
value of 48 persons/km 2 that obtains for Eurasia, America, Africa and Australia
combined 1 (see Table 5.1 ).
There is however another distinguishing feature of islands: and one that connects
us with the inclusion of Iceland and New Zealand in our listings. These two island
jurisdictions emerged as 'settlement colonies' in the Modern age, absorbing surplus
population from the colonial homeland (King 2009 ; Warrington and Milne 2007 );
but they both remain characterized by very low population densities: just 3 and
15 persons/km 2 respectively.
If one is looking for extreme cases of population density, examples of both ends
of the continuum are to be found on islands. In other words, island states and
Table 5.1 Population densities on islands and continents
Population
density (A/B)
Land mass
Population (A)
Land area (km 2 ) (B)
1. Four continents
6,550,435,000
136,071,330
48
2. As (1) above, less Australia
6,530,000,000
128,453,330
51
3. All island states and territories
588,807,050
6,263,612
94
4. As (3) above, less Greenland
588,752,050
4,088,000
144
1 Idiosyncratic Antarctica is deliberately excluded from this exercise.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search