Hinterland Development

Judit Timár, Center for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Acadey of Sciences, Békéscsaba; and Eötvös Loránd University,
Budapest, Hungary
Zoltán Kovács, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Glossary
Exurb A loose zone lying beyond the suburbs and within the commuting zone of a metropolitan area. Exurbs are usually
residential in character, presenting a diverse mixture of land uses.
Gravity model A mathematical model to predict flows of people, commodity, etc. The initial application of the model in
human geography drew on the relationship formalized by Newton in his law of universal gravitation. Later, the model was
fitted by regression methods or exponential model. It is widely used in planning, among others, for measuring the relative
attractiveness of settlements as centers.
Rural–urban fringe A zone of transition at the edge of a continuously built-up urban area. It is characterized by a changing mix
of rural and urban land uses and often seen as a zone of potential social conflicts.

Hinterland is a German word originally used in colonial law that constituted part of international public law in the 19th and early
20th Centuries to denote such areas over which the conquering country had already been exercising power, where, however, its own
laws had not yet been enforced. Hinterland usually meant inland areas behind the coastal zones which were the first to be
conquered. The origin of the term is closely related to the fact that expeditions to discover remote continents set off from river estu-
aries; therefore, for a long time, it was used to refer to the areas, stretching from the occupied estuary to inland regions, to which the
conquering country laid claim. For instance, Portugal, which, under international public law, possessed the estuary of the River
Congo, laid claim to all the areas along the river even in the 19th Century. Pursuant to the contemporary interpretation of inter-
national public law, only where a state was, in effect, able to exercise its power (via public offices, the military, etc.) could we speak
of colonial territories. In contrast, areas which are although not under state control but in the sphere of the conquerors’ influence
were officially considered to be hinterland.
The term also reflects the fact that in the late 15th Century, that is, the era of discoveries, the exploration, and conquest of conti-
nents, islands, or peninsulas were a gradual process, often with a place, for example, a port, taken into possession and serving as
a starting point. Such ports were often hubs of colonial commerce: they were where ships arrived and set sail in the course of trading
with the homeland. They were where the neighboring areas, strongly dependent on the home port, started to become settled. The
term was later also used to refer to relationships between settlements, hinterland came to mean rural areas which surrounded, and
which were economically strongly dependent on larger cities/towns.
The use of the German word “hinterland” gradually gained currency in non-German-speaking countries as well. In Northern
Italy, for instance, as a relic of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the rural areas surrounding Milan are still referred to as hinterland.
In Australia, it refers to regions a long way away from the coastal areas as opposed to the vast expanses of land inside the country
(outback). In the English-language literature on human geography, it means a tributary area of a port, where exports are collected
and which is also the destination of imports. Hinterland is also used in a much broader sense, meaning the sphere of influence of
any (mainly urban) settlement.
Several synonyms of the word “hinterland” in this broader sense exist in technical literature, e.g., catchment area, exurb, urban-
rural fringe, and peri-urban zone. Hinterlands can be interpreted at several different scales and represent a wide variety of geographic
places. In addition, they are also linked to different complementary areas. Generally referred to as foreland or heartland, these stra-
tegically, economically, or militarily vital complementary areas are central regions, ports, metropolises, cities, or small towns. It is no
coincidence that adjectives, for example, rural, urban, or commuting, are often used to clarify (i.e., narrow) the meaning of
hinterland.

Hinterlands in a Context of Sociospatial Relations

The structural and functional characteristics of hinterlands are generally described in the context of sociospatial relations. The land-
use pattern, settlement structure, or the distribution of population of a city’s hinterland, each used frequently to characterize the
peculiarities of the hinterland, is defined as different from that of the city. So much so that, for example, theories arguing for the
cyclicity of urbanization differentiate between the individual phases of urbanization mostly on the basis of trends in the population
change in the ring, delimited as a commuting hinterland in the functional urban region, relative to the population change in the
core. The evaluation/perception in human geographical literature of the relationship between the city/town/heartland and the

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd edition, Volume 7 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10079-4 5

6 Hinterland Development

hinterland, embodied in production, consumption, exchange, and communication, reflects a variety of social theoretical
approaches. What follows highlights a few major components of the differences between them.

Hinterlands in the Central Place Theory

The relationship between the city/town and the hinterland is a major component in central place theories. The basis for these theo-
ries is the simple realization according to which settlements develop in space in a manner that there are strong ties between them.
Some settlementsdcentral placesdstand out in the settlement network because they have such functions (e.g., commerce, educa-
tion, health care, and public administration) that neighboring areas do not. As neighboring settlementsdconstituting the hinter-
landdlack the institutions that perform central functions or if they do not, the standard of the functions performed is not
satisfactory, these settlements depend on the central place, of which they become the supplied areas. Based on the weight of the
presence of central functions, a peculiar settlement hierarchy evolves.
A classic theoretician of this issue is Christaller, whodstudying the spatial location of the central places supplying their neigh-
borhood, while performing empirical observations in southern Germanydfound that, ideally, central places of differing ranks were
in the centers of hexagons linked to each other. Central functions are concentrated here, in the centers of hexagons, which fill the
space perfectly, while subordinate settlements, at a level lower in the settlement hierarchy, are the apexes of hexagons, constituting
the hinterland of the central place.
Lösch analyzed the regularity of the spatial arrangements of various economic activities and the manner in which economic
supply areas had evolved in an idealized perfectly flat space. He did research in the United States, where the agricultural settlements
that surround goods-manufacturing cities had a uniform and the highest possible density. Lösch concluded that there emerged six
city-rich and six city-poor corridors or sectors in the hinterland of any given city as a result of the existence of major radial transport
routes or corridors.
Both Christaller and Lösch agree that the hexagonal arrangements of market areas around a central place represent the optimal
spatial organization for a single good, under the assumption of uniform densities on an unbounded plain with equal access in all
directions. These theories, though they agree that the central place needs the functionally linked hinterland for its growth, assign the
latter the role of a mere consumer in a closed, hierarchically structured system without external trade linkages or dialectics.
Nevertheless, these two theories featured prominently in geographical studies conducted within the framework of quantitative
revolution in several countries. Christaller himself participated in the preparation of putting his theory into practice. As an employee
at Himmler’s Planning and Soil Office in the Nazi Germany, he worked out integration and public administration-related reform
plans for the areas occupied during World War II. Focusing primarily on Poland, he planned a system of inferior and superior spatial
units, cities, and their respective hinterlands which was envisaged to be an “efficient” part of the Third Reich. The theory of the
central placedthough not necessarily linked to Christaller due to the above political role he haddwas applied in several countries.
Thus, it can be detected in the planning of settlements in some polders in Holland (Fig. 1). It was easy to adjust to the policy of
centrally planned settlements and the practice of settlement development in state socialist countries. For instance, in Hungary it
featured, in addition to geographical theories (Fig. 2), in settlement development plans in as early as the late 1940s. Under the
public administration reform in 1984, the “zones of influence” of cities became official categories of spatial planning. In several
countries, the strengthening of the economy and supplying institutions of the central place is still considered to be a sine qua
non of (or even a key to) the regional development of the rural hinterland, especially in the case of hinterlands around small
settlements.

Figure 1 “Christaller” planning of settlement in the North East Polder: (A) geometrical diagram of the settlement pattern, (B) plan with five new
villages, and (C) the revised plan as carried out. Source: Daniel, P. and Hopkinson, M., 1989. The Geography of Settlement. Conceptual Framework in
Geography (W.E. Marsden, General Editor), Figure 8.3 p 272. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
 Hinterland Development 7

Figure 2 The hierarchical order of the urban network in Hungary. The hierarchical levels were classified according to the annual turnover of the
specialist shops in 1961. At the right bottom there is the Christaller model applied to the territory of Hungary. Source: Major, J., 1964. A magyar vár-
oshálózatról. Településtudományi Közlemények 16, 32–65. p 57.

“Interdependency” Approaches to Hinterland Development

In studying the relationship between the hinterland and the town/city/metropolis, several researchers focus on the interaction
between them, considering mutual dependence and support to be the essence of such relationship. One of the reasons for such
a standpoint is an ecological approach represented, for example, by Gras’s oeuvre, inspired by the Chicago school of sociology in
the pre–World War II era. According to his analysis of economic history, “metropolitan economy” is the last stage of the devel-
opment that has been going on since prehistory, during which society as a whole and individual communities developed into
more complex organisms. At that stage the urban system was characterized with high interdependence, which materialized
through specialization and the division of labor between communities. Metropolises became the nodal points of basic urban
functions (commerce, industry, transportation, and finance) which had evolved gradually. As a result, metropolises came to
dominate their regions. Gras, however, used the word “dominance” in accordance with the ecological concept of the Chicago
school of sociology, that is, it did not mean power relation; rather, it was used to denote coordination function. In this context,
metropolitan dominance meant the function of organizing business for a wide metropolitan area as well as the role of an inter-
mediary in respect of the external relations of the individual hinterland towns. That is to say, the relationship between a metro-
politan city and its hinterland can be compared to that between the human brain and other integrated parts of the body, where
interdependence is evident.
Emphasis on mutual dependence can be attributed to empirical studies, carried out in the Third World, of the relationship
between small towns and their rural hinterlands. This approach is adopted by Titus and Hinderink, whodin agreement with
a number of researchersdargue that the diversity and quality of the functions of small centers depend on the developments
in their hinterland rather than the other way round. They claim that a fundamentally unequal rural–urban relationship can be
made more equal. Toward this end, rural economy should be integrated into national and international market economy in
a manner that this leads to some net increase in rural surplus production, part of which should remain in the region; in a manner
that there is an emerging modern middle class which reinforces small town functions, while creating more efficient hinterland
relations. Such conditions may enable rural producers to achieve certain bargaining power in both the private and the public
spheres, while small towns may act as intermediaries in addressing any conflict that may arise. In an increasing competition
for the purchasing power of rural areas with more efficient higher-order centers, small towns “cannot afford” extremely exploit-
ative relations with their hinterlands.
Any rural policy relying on the foregoing and aiming at selective support for small regional centers means a fundamentally
different attitude and brings different results in terms of hinterland development from an urban-biased growth-center policy based
on the central place theory.
8 Hinterland Development

“Dependency” and “Exploitation” Approaches to Hinterland Development

Several approaches perceive the development of hinterlands, interpreted at various geographical scales, as dependent on and
controlled, subordinated, and exploited by the heartland/metropolis/city. Some views lack strong theoretical foundation. Others
are complex bodies of thoughts, such as the dependency theory, the core–periphery model or the theory of uneven development.
In contrast to the exchange-based core–periphery model, some consider the geography of production to be the engine of the
increasing development gap between the core and its hinterland. According to the dependency theory, deeply rooted in Latin Amer-
ica, “metropole” uses economic surplus from its satellite (hinterland) for its own development. The hinterland (i.e., in this context,
the Third World) supplied the First World with primary products and low-technology manufactures in exchange for high-value-
added goods. The economic dependency that had thus evolved was also reflected in political and cultural neocolonialism.
While some claim that concentration in the metropolis of the power facilitating the exploitation of the hinterland is a universal
and timeless phenomenon, others blame centralized control and bureaucratic structures, not specific to any particular political and
economic order, for the exploitation of the hinterland, which is considered to be the place of a local action and self-reliance. By
contrast, dependence theorist Frank (supported by Marxist theoreticians of the uneven development) claims that the underdevel-
opment of peripheral satellites or hinterlandsdsimilarly to the development of the metropolitan centerdis generated by the devel-
opment of capitalism itself. It is no coincidence, therefore, that under this approach, neither the decentralization of planning and
decision making nor the reinforcement of grass-roots participation at the local level, recommended by the advocates of the former
view, can be considered to be “a final solution.” Only a radical change in the existing political and economic order is likely to bring
true successes.

Geography of Hinterland Development

Depending on the geographical scale, the place and the political-economic and cultural context, etc., hinterlands have differing char-
acteristics, with their relationship with the core/heartland/central place changing in space and time. Such changes led to the emer-
gence of an increasing number of versions of the above theoretical approaches. For instance, Vance did not find the rather closed
system modeled by Christaller and Lösch suitable for studying such settlement patterns where the emergence and the development
of the cities and their hinterlands are driven mainly by external forces. Studying the history of US settlements, he tried adapting the
Christaller model to the early (preindustrial) settlement system of the continent. Going beyond Christaller’s theses, he sought to set
up a new theory which was able to provide an explanation for the development of settlement patterns in not only Northern Amer-
ica, but also in colonies outside Europe in general as well as the evolvement of an early settlement hierarchy. Under Vance’s
“mercantile” model, the settlement hierarchy in North America evolved through trading between the motherland and the colonies.
The settlement network in North America evolved into a hierarchical system, with evolution starting at the ports along the Eastern
coast and settlements gradually diffusing into the inland. First, the highest levels of the settlement hierarchy evolved, then gradual-
lydthrough the remaining four stagesdthe settlements at the lower levels of the hierarchy did, which, thus, was just the opposite of
how the settlement network in Europe evolved. The towns established on the seaside in the first phase became the most important
trade centers. The extension of their hinterland along the waterways (rivers, lakes, canals) made easier and more efficient the collec-
tion of inland staples for export. In his model, Vance cites examples of a settlement network that was brought into existence by
external forces (trading across the Atlantic) rather than one that came into being as a result of endemic bottom-up development
(Fig. 3).
Unlike research on settlement history, port geography offering new approaches has been a primary contributor to understanding
recent hinterland development in the port–hinterland context. The fast development of international trade, intermodal transport,
and global supply chains has made hinterland access a key factor of increasing port competition by the 21st Century. Changes in the
port–hinterland relationship have led to the emergence of new conceptual approaches. Notteboom and Rodrigue introducing
a model extending existing ones identified a new phase, that is, that of “regionalization,” in the development of the port and
port system. It is in this phase that “regional load center networks” evolve (phase 6 in Fig. 4), the underlying reasons being a strong
functional interdependency between and even the joint development of specific load centers and (selected) multimodal logistics
platforms in their hinterland. Such regionalization and the integrated hinterland networks lead to the formation of new structures.
Transport corridors and logistics nodes help the emergence of discontinuous hinterlands beyond the direct continuous hinterland
of seaports, at distant locations. Relying on strong functional relationships established with certain terminals, ports may penetrate
into the natural hinterland of competing (rival) ports as well (Fig. 5). Such penetration may result in the emergence of “islands”
(even in remote hinterlands), an example of which is Virginia Inland Port in the United States lying 350 km from the main port
and linked with it by daily rail service, as is presented by the authors of the model. This port regionalization and, as a result, hinter-
land expansion are a means of capturing freight flows from other ports (mainly Baltimore) through, in part, railroad transport.
Research into the strategies of interacting actors, and the governance of port–hinterland connections, that is, a new institutional
analysis of the port regionalization phase, helps identify such port actions (e.g., making investments in the hinterlands).
Current empirical studies also highlight the importance of external relations in developing countries, though in a different
context. Series of case studies attest that rural hinterland development around small towns derives its impetus and resources
from macro-policies and macroeconomic processes at the national level, rather than from impulses from their own local centers.
In Latin America, externally induced forms of rural hinterland incorporation in national and international market economies
 Hinterland Development 9

Figure 3 The Vance’s mercantile model of settlement evolution. Five stages in the evolution of settlement under the mercantile model (left) and the
central-place model (right). The term “exogenic” refers to external, and “endogenic” to internal forces. The term “entrepot” is the French word for
storehouse and means a commercial center for the import and export, collection, and distribution of goods. From Hagett, P., 1983. Geography. A
Modern Synthesis (Revised third edn.) HarperCollins Series in Geography. D.W. Meining Advisor., Figure 15, p 379. New York: HarperCollins.

are often related to agricultural colonization areas. Their coming into existence owes nothing to the intermediation of local service
centers similarly to what the case is in the densely populated and commercialized rural areas of South and Southeast Asia where
increasing marketing and employment opportunities in higher-order centers and other regionsdby means of improved communi-
cations and labor mobilitydled to hinterland development. Although rural–urban relations at several places in sub-Saharan Africa
are much less developed (due to higher degrees of rural self-sufficiency and lower level of productivity), research provides evidence
for cases of externally induced rural hinterland development.
The rural–urban relations also lie at the heart of recent studies on hinterland development in Europe. According to some research
carried out in the EU, generating development, while also exerting pressure, new demands for rural areas (i.e., for quality food
production, public amenity space, space for housing, and environment protection) can be experienced. These studies
claim thatdafter a relationship based on the consumption of agricultural produce, followed, after the era of the industrial
10 Hinterland Development

Figure 4 The spatial development of a port system. Source: Notteboom, T. E., Rodrigue, J-P., 2005. Port regionalization: towards a new phase in
port development. Maritime Policy Management 32 (3), 297–313. Figure 2 p. 5.

Figure 5 Intruding the natural hinterland of rival ports through the creation of corridor-based “islands” in the distant hinterland. Source: Notte-
boom, T. E., Rodrigue, J-P., 2005. Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy Management 32 (3), 297–313.
Figure 2 p. 5.
 Hinterland Development 11

revolution, by the dependence of rural areas on urban economiesdtoday hinterlands are shaped by more complex rural–urban
relationships which can be characterized with increasing interdependencies. The reality of some principles of the EU policies aimed
at supporting such a relationship is called into question by the comparative studies conducted by Hoggart et al. in Germany, France,
Spain, and England. Rather than promising hinterland functional heterogeneity and improved city-region environmental sustain-
ability, current trends point toward more homogeneity (mainly of residential functions) and increasing travel distances for work,
leisure, and services. However, instead of the expected social diversity, through the “invasion of new population,” social heteroge-
neity and segregation prevail; a change in social composition which creates a distinctive social profile in hinterland settlements.
In addition, related to both central place and core periphery theories, the concept of hinterland is still present in regional policies
across the world. It is perhaps the development pole theory, first evolved and conceived in an abstract economic space by French
economist Perroux, which has gained the widest currency. Credit for transforming it into an operational tool for regional planning
goes to Boudeville. This concept, linked to theories on modernization, diffusion, and innovation, was put to practice in some devel-
oped countries mainly in the 1960s and in the developing ones in the 1970s. Development was interpreted as economic growth to
which innovation, technological progress, and industrialization were keys. Development (growth) poles with economies of scale
and agglomeration as their leverage were expected to counterbalance congested metropolitan areas, support the integration of back-
ward areas, and generate beneficial spread effects to the hinterlands in their immediate vicinity. The fullfilment of the objectives was,
however, challenged, due to, among other things, the rather limited beneficial impact on hinterland areas.

Critiques, Challenges

The chaotic usage of the term calls the usability of the concept of hinterland into question. Its meaning ranges from bounded spaces
and separate territories to a symbolic meaning of urban-influence sphere in literature on human geography. What makes orientation
rather difficult is that the meaning of word “influence” under the functional geographic approach differs from, for example, that
under the cultural geographic approach. An international comparison of the use of the term “hinterland” reveals discrepancies
in and inequalities of knowledge production similar to what is generally mentioned in reference to traveling concepts/terminolo-
gies. Literature in the past decade, for instance, clearly reflects the unmistakable spread of hinterland research in Central and Eastern
Europe. In fact, what has happened is that postsocialist transformation has given way to the evolvement of suburbanization (and
urban sprawl). The word “hinterland” seems to be preferred to “suburban area” in English language papers published in countries,
where the national schools of thoughts in geography are traditionally linked to their German counterparts. This is all the more
important because such differing preferences may lead to misunderstandings in international academic discourses, especially if
different definitions and approaches are applied to the study of suburbanization. The issue of the trickiness of the hinterland
concept is mainly raised by researchers conducting international empirical studies. For them, the fact that the interpretation of
this term varies from one country to the next makes comparison difficult. Furthermore, very often, the hinterland is, at best, the
site rather than the subject of research.
No “comprehensive” history of research in the evolvement of hinterlands is available either. Therefore, it is especially important
that critique leveled at hinterland concepts should be studied and evaluated in the given social, political, cultural, and institutional
context. The hinterland concept has been and is still used in connection with the widest possible use (and even testing) of the central
place theory. Though with differing intensity, the boundaries of hinterlands as discrete regions are still being drawn around cities, in
the course of which the mapping of the spatial changes in these regions describes the development of hinterlands. Cities can serve as
a starting point for the surveys needed for such mapping. These surveys can identify the settlements that use, for example, certain
institutions in the city or the targets of supply. In contrast, rural areas can also serve as starting points for surveys that can identify the
places where rural residents use urban services. For delimitation, quantitative methods and models (e.g., the gravity model) are
applied. However, while the approach of locational analysis, a school of thought under the aegis of which hinterland studies are
also conducted, were severely criticized from various directions (e.g., humanistic, radical geography) in the United States and Great
Britain in the 1970s for its positivism and because it was thought to serve the interest of the capital, this approach and similar studies
were perceived as progressive in Central and Eastern Europe. The geographic studies that employed this approach revealed that
during state socialism centrally designated catchment areas (e.g., those for health care services and schools), which were mandatory
places for the provision of services for the population existed side by side with hinterlands (e.g., the retail hinterland) spontaneously
evolving as a result of free choice of population. Using this realization as their starting point, many researchers managed to point out
the difficulties that the differences in the various hinterlands and their location from mass transportation networks caused in
people’s daily life.
In contrast to the above, the studies that apply the political-economy approach to hinterland development in order to under-
stand the nature of the heartland/city/town–hinterland relationship focus on economic relations, the flow of people, products,
capital, technology, and information. However, for this purpose they often find the core–periphery or the urban–rural concept
more suitable. Applying the global–local framework also raised further issues. Early studies pointed out that hinterlands overlapped
each other (Fig. 6). However, under conditions of contemporary globalization in the “world-city network formation” every city’s
hinterland overlaps with every other city’s hinterland. The service provision of world cities is of global proportions; therefore, as
Taylor puts it, these cities already have “hinterworlds.” Today the traditional concept of hinterland, he claims, can only be inter-
preted at the level of local catchment areas (e.g., the zones of the circulation area of local newspapers or those where rural people
do their shopping in local cities).
12 Hinterland Development

Figure 6 The zones of influence of Wrexham. Source: Johnson, J. H., 1968. Urban Geography. An Introductory Analysis. Fig 22. p 82. Oxford, Lon-
don, Edinburgh, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Braunschweig: Pergamon Press.

Research focusing on power relations rather than adopting the functional approach drew attention to, for example, the fight that
hinterland communities fought with administrative centers at higher levels of the hierarchy. That having said, however, advocates of
this approach (like the ones of the functional concept) confine themselves to the heartland/city–hinterland dichotomy, which may
easily divert attention from power relations within hinterlands and paper over social–cultural differences and inequalities.
Criticism regarding certain applications of the hinterland concept in regional policies point to similar concerns. It highlights the
problems arising from the top-down nature of the development pole strategies, among them to the way political regimes can use
these strategies to serve their economic interests to the detriment of the poorest social strata in the hinterlands and at the expense of
environmental development.
Nevertheless, the issues related to the poorest social strata clearly suggest that critical geography ought to try an interdisciplinary
approach to the concept of hinterland and abandon interpreting it as mere physical space. The complex approach adopted by Wac-
quant in urban research pointing out the emergence of a new regime of marginality (“advanced marginality”) in the past decades
may offer some useful lessons in this respect. In addition to the spatial characteristics of this new regime of marginality such as
territorial fixation, stigmatization, and the spatial alienation, as well as the dissolution of place, the loss of viable (social) hinter-
lands also plays a key role.

See Also: Central Place Theory; Chicago School; Core–Periphery Models; Cultural Geography; Humanism and Humanistic Geography; Quantitative
Revolution; Radical Geography; Uneven Development.

Further Reading

Beluszky, P., 1971. Central places developing in county Szabolcs-Szatmár. In: Sárfalvi, B. (Ed.), The Changing Face of the Great Hungarian Plain. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest,
pp. 165–181.
Berry, B.J.L., 1967. Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey and London.
 Hinterland Development 13

Boudeville, J.R., 1966. Problems of Regional Economic Planning, University Press. Edinburgh, University Press.
Christaller, W., 1933. Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Eine ökonomisch-geographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der
Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen. Jena. In: Fischer, G. (Ed.), English Translation: Central Places in Southern Germany. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey and
London, 1967.
Davis, D.F., 1985. The ʻmetropolitan thesisʼ and the writing of Canadian urban history. Urban Hist. Rev. 14 (2), 95–113.
Frank, A.G., 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Gras, N.S.B., 1922. An Introduction to Economic History. Harper and Brothers, New York.
Hintjens, J., 2018. A conceptual framework for cooperation in hinterland development between neighbouring seaport authorities. Marit. Policy Manag. 45 (6), 819–836.
Hoggart, K. (Ed.), 2005. The City’s Hinterland. Dynamism and Divergence in Europe’s Peri-Urban Territories. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Jiang, Y., Sheu, J.B., Peng, Z., Yu, B., 2018. Hinterland patterns of China railway (CR) express in China under the belt and road initiative: a preliminary analysis. Transp. Res. E
Logist. Transp. Rev. 119, 189–201.
London, B., 2019. Metropolis and Nation in Thailand: The Political Economy of Uneven Development. Routledge.
Lösch, A., 1944. Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft. Jena. In: Fischer, G. (Ed.), English Translation: The Economics of Location. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1954.
Perroux, F., 1955. Note sur la notion de pôle de croissance. Économie Appliquée 7, 307–320.
Robertson, S., Blackwell, B., 2016. Remote mining towns on the rangelands: determining dependency within the hinterland. Rangel. J. 37 (6), 583–596.
Serra, M.A., 2003. Development pole theory and the Brazilian Amazon. Estudos Econômicos 33 (1), 71–113.
Taylor, P., 2001. Urban hinterworlds. Geography 86 (1), 51–60.
Titus, M., Hinderink, J. (Eds.), 1998. Town and Hinterland in Developing Countries. Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.
Vance, J.E., 1970. The Merchant’s World: The Geography of Wholesaling. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Wacquant, L., 2007. Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Elev. 91, 66–77.

Relevant Website

ESPON. http://www.espon.eu.