That's where the rainfall is for food crops and where the rivers are. Nearly all towns and cities (all around the world) are built beside a river or a sometimes a lake, except for ports and a few mining towns.
The difference between Australia and the USA is that there is regular high rainfall in most of the USA from the western edge of the Mississippi river basin to the Atlantic coast. That's why they have 310 million people and Australia has 20.7 million.
2007-03-04 22:22:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good point. Notice that there are virtually no inland cities in Australia, except Canberra (coz the government wanted its capital to be away from the coast out of national security reasons), Albury (equidistant between Sydney and Melbourne) and Ballarat and Bendigo (gold).
Australia was settled just as the industrial revolution started. Before then there was no reason to hang around in cities - people would get off the boat and head inland to start a farm or go mining like in the US. But in Australia's case people just hung around where they and their ancestors first dropped anchor.
And it is a lot drier in the inland. Hotter in summer and colder in winter. And no beach too.
====
To Tom:
There are hardly any "cities" in inland Australia. Only two inland communities have a population over 100,000 - Canberra and Albury.
2007-03-05 05:51:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mardy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In case of Australia, it's the difference between desert climate and oceanic climate.
In general, a coastal position means some degree of precipitation year round, except for a few coastal deserts (Mauretania, Kalahari or Atacama) at coasts with prevalently offshore winds. (And even there it is possible to collect the dew). In addition, coastal waters usually meant access to some kind of seafood.
Historical development can take traffic issues into account, too: Transportation on water usually takes a lot less effort than preparing an overland route. In case of large cities, this means that additional food can be shipped in rather than carried in by other means.
Most colonisation (and/or conquest) efforts tended to start from coastal bridgeheads which became established centers of trade.
2007-03-05 06:39:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by jorganos 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mostly economic reasons. In the middle of the country there is a lot of empty space, its harder to generate a decent infrastructure. Coasts can have sea ports, beaches, commercial fishing, ie. in USA= New York, Miami, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Portland, etc.
2007-03-08 22:54:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mark T 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
i'm afraid i have to disagree with mardy,there are quite a few inland cities,although not as big as sydney but still classed as cities.the main reason the coast is chosen i think is the fact you have a beach at your back door.
2007-03-05 06:17:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by TOM 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I guess it has to do with the harbon, and the gentle clima.
The harbon means trafle opportunity, and commerce. Cause of the ocean, the winters are not so cold and summer not so hot.
Besides, in australia there is almost no vegetation inline, cause of the high temperature.
2007-03-05 05:55:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by momus2k7 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
because cost of living is less in coast side
2007-03-05 05:51:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋