Anantam IASPost · 4 September 2026

Whittlesey’s Agricultural Regions: Five Criteria, Thirteen Types

Study Notes · Agriculture · Geography · Indian Geography · World Geography

Whittlesey's classification of world agricultural regions: the five criteria he applied, the thirteen types they produce, which of them occur in India, and why the scheme has no box for the modern intensive smallholding.

Whittlesey’s agricultural regions remain the standard classification of world farming systems nearly a century after Derwent Whittlesey published them in 1936, and the reason is a single methodological choice. He classified farming by how a system works rather than by what it grows. Two regions producing the same crop by different methods fall into different types, and that is what makes the scheme analytical rather than descriptive.

The scheme gives five criteria and thirteen types. Knowing the criteria matters more than reciting the types, because the criteria are what let you place a system the list does not name.

The Five Criteria

Whittlesey applied five tests to every farming system he examined.

  1. The crop and livestock combination. What is grown, what is kept, and in what proportion to each other.
  2. The methods used. Tools, power source, rotation, fallow practice and field system.
  3. The intensity of use. How much labour, capital and land go into a unit of output.
  4. The disposal of produce. Whether it is consumed by the household or sold, which is the subsistence-commercial divide.
  5. The associated structures. Buildings, fences, storage, irrigation works and the rest of the fixed capital on the land.

The fifth criterion is the one usually forgotten and the most distinctively geographical, because farm buildings and field boundaries are the visible landscape evidence of a farming system, and they persist long after the system that built them has changed.

Whittlesey's five criteria and the thirteen types they generate.
Whittlesey’s five criteria and the thirteen types they generate.

The Thirteen Types

#TypeWhere it dominates
1Shifting cultivationHumid tropics: Amazon, Congo, South-East Asia, north-eastern India
2Nomadic herdingArid and sub-arid belts and the tundra
3Rudimentary sedentary tillageTropical margins where shifting cultivation has settled
4Intensive subsistence, rice dominantMonsoon Asia’s deltas and river plains
5Intensive subsistence, without riceDrier parts of monsoon Asia; wheat, millets and pulses
6Subsistence crop and livestock farmingParts of Africa, Latin America and interior Asia
7Commercial plantationTropical colonies: tea, rubber, coffee, cocoa, sugar
8Mediterranean agricultureThe 5 Mediterranean-climate regions
9Commercial grain farmingInterior temperate grasslands: Prairies, Steppes, Pampas
10Commercial livestock and crop, mixedWestern and central Europe, eastern North America
11Commercial dairy farmingCool humid regions near urban markets
12Livestock ranchingSemi-arid grasslands of the Americas, Australia, southern Africa
13Specialised horticultureNear large urban markets and in favoured climates

The Four Divisions Worth Holding

Thirteen types are hard to remember as a list and easy to remember as four groups, and the groups are what the criteria produce.

Where India Sits, and Why It Is Awkward

India contains at least five of the thirteen types, which is itself a useful observation about the country’s agricultural diversity.

The awkwardness is that the scheme’s central division, between subsistence and commercial, no longer describes Indian agriculture well. The irrigated, input-intensive, market-linked smallholding that the green revolution created is neither. A Punjab wheat and rice farm uses purchased seed, fertiliser and power, sells the bulk of its output to a procurement agency at a support price, and is worked largely by household and hired labour on under 4 hectares. Whittlesey has no box for it, and saying so is a stronger observation than forcing it into type 5.

The Standing Criticisms

The scheme’s strength and its weakness are the same thing: it classifies by observable practice, so it survives changes in crop but not changes in the economy around the farm.

How the Scheme Compares with the Alternatives

SchemeBasisStrengthWeakness
Whittlesey (1936)Practice: combination, method, intensity, disposal, structuresExplains how a system works; globally applicableDated; no box for the modern intensive smallholding
Von Thünen (1826)Distance from market and transport costExplains the spatial arrangement around a marketAssumes an isolated state and one market
Agro-climatic zoningRainfall, temperature, soil, topographyDirectly usable for planning inputsPhysical only; ignores institutions and markets
Agro-ecological regionsSoil, physiography, bioclimate, length of growing periodEcologically grounded and finer-grainedDescriptive rather than explanatory of practice

The comparison is the answer to most questions on agricultural regionalisation. Whittlesey explains practice, Von Thünen explains location, and the two Indian schemes explain physical potential. None of them explains all three, and the useful position is that a regionalisation should be chosen for the question being asked.

Practice Questions

Prelims

1. Which of the following is NOT one of Whittlesey’s criteria?

Answer: (c)

2. Intensive subsistence agriculture with rice dominant is characteristic of

Answer: (b)

3. Livestock ranching differs from nomadic herding chiefly in that ranching is

Answer: (b)

4. Whittlesey published his classification of agricultural regions in

Answer: (b)

5. The Whittlesey type that fits Punjab’s irrigated wheat and rice farming least awkwardly is

Answer: (d)

Mains

  1. State Whittlesey’s criteria for delimiting agricultural regions and explain why the fifth is distinctively geographical. (10 marks)
  2. Identify the Whittlesey types found in India and map their broad distribution. (15 marks)
  3. “Whittlesey classifies by practice rather than by produce.” Explain this distinction and its consequences for the resulting regions. (15 marks)
  4. Examine the relevance of Whittlesey’s typology to Indian agriculture after the green revolution. (20 marks)
  5. Compare Whittlesey’s typology with India’s agro-climatic zoning as bases for agricultural planning. (20 marks)