An evaluation is made of the contribution of the behavioural approach in agricultural geography, paying particular attention to the concepts of game theory and satisficing behaviour. Despite the obvious attraction of this approach it appears to have contributed less to our understanding than might have been anticipated. A major reason for this is suggested as being the lack of complementary methodologies between behavioural and classical economic explanations of agricultural location. A methodological framework involving the use of conditional probabilities and incorporating aspects of both of these methodologies is outlined as a possible basis for future agricultural location studies. This involves the treatment of farm and farmer characteristics as decision-making indicators and it is exemplified with figures from a study in Eastern England, in which behavioural factors were of particular significance. Finally, some of the problems of the behavioural approach are underlined and areas requiring specific attention are identified. A review of the development of agricultural geography reveals two possibly surprising features of the quest for acceptable explanations of spatial patterns of land use. The first is the resilience of modes of explanation developed some time ago, notably the von Thunen model. Related to this is an apparent satisfaction with two different approaches which are not, at first sight, compatible with each other, at least in the methods they employ: the economic and the behavioural approaches. In this paper the development of the more recent of these (i.e. the behavioural) is analysed to examine the degree to which it may complement the more traditional approach. The development of the economic approach in agricultural geography The von Thunen model of agricultural location is adequately described elsewhere (Grotewold, 1959; Chisholm, 1962). Its resilience has already been alluded to and is demonstrated by the attention which is still paid to it in recent texts on economic geography (Boyce, 1974; Lloyd and Dicken, 1977) and agricultural geography in particular (Morgan and Munton, 1971; Tarrant, 1974). Although expounded in the early nineteenth century (von Thunen, 1826), these ideas have provided a starting point or framework for many subsequent workers (Losch, 1954; Dunn, 1954; Isard, 1956). These elaborations have become increasingly sophisticated, although the underlying principles remain the same. It is the conceptual simplicity of these principles which have ensured the model's continued acceptance and made it applicable to a wide range of agricultural situations. It has been shown to be relevant in different parts of the world, at various scales and at different periods of time (Prothero, 1957; Chisholm, 1962; Horvath, 1969; Peet, 1969; Muller, 1973). Most modifications take the form of either an elaboration of the implications of relaxing just one or a few of the limiting assumptions (Hoover, 1948), or an expansion into a more general rent theory (Dunn, 1954; Garrison and Marble, 1957). Despite its adaptability various criticisms have been levelled against the model and its descendents (Harvey, 1969). In its initial form it is an example of a partial equilibrium model. This involves the neutralisation of various factors by means of assumptions, in order to isolate the effects of just one, i.e. distance, although Morgan (1973) has shown that some of these factors might actually reinforce the overall concentric pattern. Some writers have attempted to incorporate temporal changes into the model by transforming it into more of a general equilibrium model, notably by tracing the effects of changes in demand at the central market. Found (1971), however, suggests that complete equilibrium is unlikely to be achieved. 'Since the probability of change is so high, the best one could expect would be for land-use patterns to reflect a constant attempt to