Various world regions have different and sometimes interconnecting regional construction. The occurrence thus creates an avenue for contrasting the increasing interconnection of global regions and constructs using continuing diversity through geographical frameworks. The purpose of this paper is to examine the North American region and assess its coherence as a whole, investigate whether its sub-regions make sense and identify the criteria that make the divisions sound or unsound. Administrative, cultural, physical, and climatic features have some form of significance in the demarcation of regions.
What Region is North America
North America is among the largest, rich, and politically powerful regions in the world. The area constitutes of many environments and is comprised with a manifold of cultures with different income generating activities. According to Pulsipher (2005), the term North America mainly refers to people of Canada and people in the United States. The author defines the region as being linked together using similarities in culture, history, and administrative features. It can also be connected using geographical proximity. The North American region possesses almost every climatic condition or physical landform. Division also characterizes it into sub-regions.
What is the climate of North America?
The region as a whole does not cohere. The rationale for the statement is the fact that there exist multiple forms of diversity in climate, landforms, resources, and demographic composition (King, 2015). For instance, not all residents in the region are the original settlers. The region has been occasioned by the influx of individuals of diverse ethnicities, cultures, languages, and modes of livelihood. Different interests, backgrounds, experiences, socioeconomic statuses and religious views, also characterize the residents. Additionally, the residents of the region belong to the following ethnic groups: African Americans, Whites, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians.
Similarly, various states in the area are subjects to different climate conditions. The East of the Pacific of the coastal mountains has a drier climate while places such as North San Francisco have wet climate (Mearns et al., 2012). On the other hand, the region is characterized by different landforms located in different areas. There are plains, mountainous regions, and lowlands. Another reason as to why the region is not cohesive is the diverse endowment of resources. Different areas capitalize on a particular type of resource. For instance, some areas are rich in oil others areas are rich in copper, while others are rich in fertile soil instrumental for agriculture (Pulsipher, 2005). Another reason as to why the region does not cohere is differing population size from sub-region to sub-region. Besides, lack of coherence may be because of different forms of population distribution. Some areas may have scattered population, spatial population, linear population, or sparse population (Taylor et al., 2012).
Do the Sub-regions of North America Make Sense?
The sub regions do not make sense. The rationale for the position is because the constituent countries of North America, Canada, and the United States are linked together by geographical proximity. People living in both countries have a similar historical background and speak the same language (Pulsipher, 2005). They are also governed using the same principles. Both countries in the region have similar cultural, economic, and political features such as their subscription or norms, ethnic, economic novelties and political agendas (Johnston and Sidaway, 2015). Another factor that makes the sub-regions not to make sense is the fact that they are subjected to similar economic conditions in that if there is a recession in the United States, it will have an impact on Canada. In some areas, the sub-regions do make sense due to demarcations based on finite aspects such as climatic, physical features and population factors. The creation of sub-regions using regulatory elements also makes sense since they take into account the functions of these areas. Additionally creating sub-regions using cardinal points such as the East Coast and West Coast makes sense due to the creation of a region-based on physical location (Johnston and Sidaway, 2015).
Criteria Used to Make the Division Sound or Unsound
The criteria that are used to make the division sound are the existence of some forms of ethnic diversity that are reflected in dialects used in the region. The aspect evidences the fact that Native Americans use different terms they prefer and those preferences tend to change over time. For example, Americans fancy the phrase American-Indians while Canadians prefer using the term aboriginals. On the other hand, people from the United States affirm their origin by calling themselves Americans while those from Canada call themselves Canadians (Knox and Marston, 2013). Another criterion that is used in making the division sound is setting apart areas and locations using cardinal points. For instance, North America has sections that are differentiated using the terms ‘East Coast’ and ‘West Coast.’ The differentiation sets apart regions using compass cardinal points: East and West.
According to Subulwa (2012), another factor that is used to make the division sound is the use of the function of human settlement. For instance, some regions are marked as agricultural producing areas while there are others that are demarcated as manufacturing zones. Similarly, there are areas marked as being dominated by the service sector. Another criterion that makes the division sound is administrative functions. The aspect is observable in the way the East of North America, specifically the region with Washington DC, houses numerous federal administrative duties (Knox and Marston, 2013).
How I Might Do It Differently
If it were up to me, I would make divisions based on language. Thus, areas that consist of persons with a particular and distinct language would have their sub-regions. The size of the region would also depend on the occupancy levels regarding the population size. I would also create sub-regions based on history. The undertaking would entail creating boundaries based on the location where settlers settled during periods of migration. Thus, a region would be differentiated mainly based on its composition of inhabitants that originated from a particular area (Harrison, 2013). Besides, sub-regions would be set up based on equally sizable partitions such that regions are subdivided, and each region has a similar size to another. The undertaking would occur in such a way that the whole area is quantified in square meters, then assigned a name identifying the uniqueness of the region (Knox and Marston, 2013).
Another way that I may use to make divisions is based on how people interact with the physical environment. For instance, if an area consists of beautiful landscapes such as mountains, plains, and valleys and is used for tourism destination, it then can be demarcated as a tourism hub. On the other hand, if an area is used as a valuable source of natural resources, it can then be categorized as a resource hub.
North America is characterized by a wealth of diversity that constitutes diversity in history, geographical composition, climate, culture, and language. The occurrence creates non-conformity. The sub-regions, on the other hand, do not make sense because there are many similarities among individuals in the region.
References
Harrison, J. (2013). Configuring the new ‘regional world’: on being caught between territory and networks. Regional Studies, 47(1), 55-74.
Johnston, R., & Sidaway, J. D. (2015). Geography and geographers: anglo-american human geography since 1945. Routledge.
King, P. B. (2015). Evolution of North America. Princeton University Press.
Knox, P. L., & Marston, S. A. (2013). Human geography: Places and regions in a global context. Pearson.
Knox, P. L., & Marston, S. A. (2013). Human geography: Places and regions in global context. Pearson.
Mearns, L. O., Arritt, R., Biner, S., Bukovsky, M. S., McGinnis, S., Sain, S., … & Takle, E. S. (2012). The North American regional climate change assessment program: an overview of phase I results. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93(9), 1337-1362.
Pulsipher, L. (2005). World regional geography: Global Patterns and Local Lives (1st ed.). Macmillan.
Subulwa, A. (2012). World regional geography. Sage, 4459, 424-7110
Taylor, P. J., Ni, P., Derudder, B., Hoyler, M., Huang, J., & Witlox, F. (2012). Global urban analysis: A survey of cities in globalization. Routledge.
