UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Analysis of manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver Richmond, Gerald Morley 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 R52.pdf [ 6.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101510.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101510-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101510-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101510-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101510-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101510-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101510-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101510-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101510.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF MANUFACTURING LOCATION IN GREATER VANCOUVER by GERALD MORLEY RICHMOND B.A. (Hon.), Un i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1970 M.A., York U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1973 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis fo r scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of School of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date April 1973. ABSTRACT This thesis represents an empirical analysis of manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver based primarily upon the analysis of the returns to a location survey questionnaire mailed to manufacturing plants in Greater Vancouver employing over fifteen employees. In this ques-tionnaire respondents are asked to assess the importance of a set of location factors in their regional locational decision. The quanti-tative techniques employed to analyze these returns seek to examine the similarity and difference i n patterns of response among various industry types and size classes of respondents. The returns to this questionnaire are shown to possess severe limitations with regard to scope of coverage and format of the ques-tionnaire i t s e l f in view of their u t i l i t y as a data base for a study of metropolitan manufacturing location. Suggestions are therefore made with regard to how these limitations could have been overcome to furnish data of greater u t i l i t y . This thesis, as a reflection of the limitations i n i t s primary empirical data base, does not yi e l d a great number of generally appli-cable findings. The findings however which do emerge are related to statements in the voluminous body of industrial location literature. The relevance of these findings to the planner concerned with the de-velopment of policy to regulate and accommodate manufacturing activity within Greater Vancouver is also discussed. i i i i i The methodology employed and supplementary approaches suggested within this thesis would be applicable to more comprehensive metropolitan industrial location questionnaire returns. Suggestions with regard to improvements in questionnaire format are of general applicability and could contribute substantially to improving the quality of industrial location surveys in general, particularly at the metropolitan level of analysis. Such improvements could also lead to the gradual construction of industrial location theory of greater empirical u t i l i t y . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank Professors H. C. Davis and P. 0. Roer, who served as ray f i r s t and second readers r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r t h e i r generous assistance during the preparation of this t h e s i s . I am es-p e c i a l l y indebted to Professor Davis f o r permission to use the l o c a t i o n survey questionnaire data from the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study." I am also indebted to Professors Guy Steed and Roger Leigh, f a c u l t y members of the Departments of Geography at Simon Fraser Univer-s i t y and the Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r making s e v e r a l unpublished reports a v a i l a b l e to me. Last, but not l e a s t , I am g r a t e f u l to Jason Halm, Programmer Analyst at the U.B.C. Computing Centre, who a s s i s t e d me on many occasions i n the "debugging" of computer programmes. i v CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . . . i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . i v LIST OF TABLES v i i i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS i x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1 Scope of this Thesis 1 II. MANUFACTURING STRUCTURE OF GREATER VANCOUVER 3 Interpretation of D.B.S. Manufacturing Data 6 III. EMPIRICAL DATA BASE 14 The Nature of the Returns 17 Information on Each Respondent 19 Improving the Rel i a b i l i t y of the Questionnaire Returns . . . 21 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS 25 A Graphical Interpretation of the Questionnaire Returns . . 25 Pattern of Response Among SIC Groups 26 Food and Beverage Industries . . . . . . 26 Wood Industries 27 Metal Fabricating Industries 28 v v i CHAPTER Page Transportation Equipment Industries 31 Machinery Industries (Except Electrical Machinery) . . . 32 Printing, Publishing and A l l i e d Industries . . . . . . . 33 Scientific and Professional Equipment Industries . . . . 33 Pattern of Response Among A l l SIC Groups 35 Pattern of Response Among Size Classes 35 Pattern of Response Among Resource and Non-Resource Processing Firms 37 Pattern of Response Among A l l Respondents 38 Analysis of the Similarity in the Pattern of Response on Question 1 Among SIC Groups and Size Classes Al Elementary Linkage Analysis 41 Establishment of the SIC Group Typal Structure Through Linkage Analysis 44 Interpretation of the SIC Group Typal Structure 50 Size Class Typal Structure 52 Analysis of Pattern of Response Based Upon Scores on Location Factor Types 55 Establishment of the Location Factor Types . . . . . . . 55 Establishment of Scores on the Location Factor Types . . 58 Interpretation of SIC Group Scores on the Location Factor Types 58 Interpretation of Size Class Scores on the Location Factor Types 64 Interpretation of Resource and Non-Resource Processing Firm Scores on the Location Factor Types 66 Index of Change in Pattern of Response Between Questions 1 and 2 68 Recapitulation on Procedures Followed to* Analyze Questionnaire Returns 71 v i i CHAPTER Page V. LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 73 Modification in the Questionnaire Format 73 Inherent Limitations i n the Questionnaire 75 Plant Location as a Multi-Stage Process 76 VI. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE OF INPUT-OUTPUT DATA TO THIS STUDY . . . 80 Interindustry Commodity Linkage as a Location Factor . . . 80 Uses of Input-Output Data in Analyzing Industrial Location 82 VII. THE LIMITED EMPIRICAL UTILITY OF INDUSTRIAL LOCATION THEORY 86 VIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS 91 General Findings 91 Improvement in the Nature and Scope of the Questionnaire Returns 94 APPENDIX A. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUPS AT THE TWO-DIGIT STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION LEVEL 98 APPENDIX B. MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AMONG SIC GROUPS (FIGURES 2 THROUGH 8), SIZE CLASSES (FIGURES 10 THROUGH 13), AND RESOURCE AND NON-RESOURCE PROCESSING FIRMS FIGURES 14 AND 15) 101 APPENDIX C. MATRICES OF SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SIZE CLASSES (TABLE III) AND LOCATION FACTORS (TABLE IV) . . . 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY 117 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. .Manufacturing Structure of Greater Vancouver, 1967 . . . 7 II. Matrix of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients Between SIC Groups 45 III. Matrix of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients Between Size Classes 115 IV. Matrix of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients Between Location Factors . . . . 116 V. Location Factor Types: Component Location Factors . . . 57 VI. Establishment of Scores on the Location Factor Types . . 59 VII. SIC Group Scores on the Location Factor Types 61 VIII. Size Class Scores on the Location Factor Types 65 IX. Resource and Non-Resource Processing Firm Scores on the Location Factor Types 67 X. Index of Change in Response Between Questions 1 and 2 . 69 v i i i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Manufacturing Location Survey Questionnaire -Question 1 15 •Manufacturing Location Survey Questionnaire -Question 2 16 2. Food and Beverage Industries: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire . . 101 3. Wood Industries: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 102 4. Metal Fabricating Industries: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . 103 5. Transportation Equipment Industries: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 104 6. Machinery Industries (except Electrical Machinery): Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 105 7. Printing and Publishing Industries: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire . . 106 8. Scientif i c and Professional Equipment Industries: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 107 9. SIC Groups: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 36 10. Size Class A (15-25 Employees): Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire . . 108 11. Size Class B (26-50 employees): Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire . . 109 12. Size Class C (51-100 employees): Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire , . 110 ix X Figure Page 13. Size Class D (101-500 employees): Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire . . I l l 14. Resource Processing Firms: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 112 15. Non-Resource Processing Firms: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 113 16. A l l Respondents: Mean Responses on Questions 1 and 2 of the Location Survey Questionnaire 39 17. SIC Group Typal Structure 49 18. Size Class Typal Structure 53 19. Location Factor Typal Structure . 56 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Scope of this Thesis The core of this empirical analysis of manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver involves the processing and analysis of a location survey questionnaire mailed to manufacturing plants within this metro-politan region employing over fifteen employees.*" Respondents are asked t o assess the importance of a set of location factors in their decision t o locate i n the Vancouver region. The pattern of similarity and d i f -ference i n response i s analyzed among various type and size classes of firms. The type categories include firms engaged i n a similar manufac-turing activity. The size classes include firms employing a similar range of employees. Respondents are also asked to assess the importance o f the same set of location factors i f they were to move from the Vancouver region. The degree of change in the assessment of the importance of this set of location factoris i s analyzed, among type and size classes o f respondents, between these two questions. *"Greater Vancouver encompasses municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t which include: the City of Vancouver, Univer-sity Endownment Lands, Lion's Bay, West Vancouver, North Vancouver City and D i s t r i c t , Burnaby, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock, New Westminster, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Fraser M i l l s , and Port Coquitlam. 1 2 Manufacturing comprises a key component of the metropolitan economy. Analysis of the returns of the location survey questionnaire provides an impression of the locational preferences of manufacturers within Greater Vancouver. Information of this nature i s of value in the formulation of policy relating to manufacturing location and develop-ment within the metropolitan area, which would involve the planner working at the regional or municipal levels. Metropolitan manufacturing planning policy should not only take manufacturers needs into consideration in isolation. The impact of manufacturing development upon other elements of the urban infrastructure (eg. transportation, u t i l i t i e s , housing) and general environment would also have to be considered in the formu-lation of such policy. The results which emerge from the processing of the above questionnaire are related to the findings of relevant studies in the literature. These results are also related specifically to the Vancouver situation. In addition to the value of this piece of research in an empirical sense this thesis is also of value methodologically. The modifications in metropolitan location survey questionnaire procedures and format which are suggested i n the text are not only applicable to the location survey questionnaire employed in this thesis. Modifications of this nature should be taken into consideration so as to greatly improve the quality of metropolitan industrial location surveys in general. Furthermore, the analytical techniques used in this thesis are applicable to other studies of manufacturing location, particularly at the metropolitan level. Thus this thesis i s deemed to be of value in a empirical and methodolo-gical sense. CHAPTER II MANUFACTURING STRUCTURE OF GREATER VANCOUVER The location survey questionnaire returns, as w i l l be shown in Chapter III, are from firms comprising only a small proportion of the total Greater Vancouver manufacturing complex. Prior to embarking upon the processing and analysis of these questionnaire returns this chapter w i l l b r i e f l y review the structure of Greater Vancouver's total manu-facturing complex. The relative importance of the various manufacturing industry types within the metropolitan manufacturing complex w i l l be reviewed. The findings of a selection of studies of the manufacturing structure of British Columbia and Greater Vancouver w i l l be cited and supplemented by tabular data based upon the processing of manufacturing s t a t i s t i c s compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Resource-processing or primary manufacturing industries have hi s t o r i c a l l y and continue to dominate the industrial base of British Columbia (British Columbia Facts and Statistics 1972:53; Ingrum, 1958: 580; O'Gorman, 1971:2; Slater, 1961:412). Primary manufacturing involves the i n i t i a l handling of raw materials coming directly from the primary forms of economic production - forestry, fishing, agriculture or mining (Alexander, 1963:323; Limitations and Attractions of British Columbia  for Industry, 1969:15; Smith, 1955:3). This dominance of primary manu-facturing in the provincial economy i s reflected in the manufacturing 3 4 structure of Greater Vancouver. The wood, and food and beverages indus-tries account for the largest proportion of Greater Vancouver's manufac-turing employment. Between them these two manufacturing groups account for some 42 per cent of the metropolitan area's manufacturing employment (Manufacturing Industries of Canada, Section G; Geographical Distribution 1967:Table 8). These two prominent manufacturing industry groups depend upon raw material inputs from the coastal forests, neighbouring coastal waters and from the agricultural sector (McGovern, 1961:199). Steed speaks of Metropolitan Vancouver as having "an unusual and deceptively narrow manufacturing structure," in that for an urban area of i t s size " i t retains a marked emphasis on f i r s t stage resource production" (Steed, 1972:4). The following quotation from McGovern, i n spite of the fact that this author's data base is somewhat dated, i s relevant in this regard In 1956 thirty-five per cent of the manufacturing employment in the Vancouver area was in primary manufacturing, this being defined as the first-stage processing of raw materials received from the agricultural or extractive sectors. In the same year the figure for Canada as a whole was 23 per cent, . and for the Toronto area only 8 per cent (McGovern, 1961:200). Within British Columbia non-resource processing or secondary manufacturing a c t i v i t i e s , which involve component fabrication or a higher degree of processing than that entailed in primary manufacturing are concentrated in Greater Vancouver (McGovern, 1961:199; 0'Gorman, 19 71:5; Steed, 1972:3). The concentration of secondary manufacturing activities i n Greater Vancouver has depended upon the growth of the regional market for consumer goods, plus Vancouver's status as the primary service centre for the rest of the province (British Columbia Facts and Statistics 5 1972:54; O'Gorman, 1971:5 and 12). The increasing importance of manu-facturing activities such as printing, petroleum refining, bakery products and the manufacture of clothing in the Metropolitan Vancouver manufacturing base reflects this growth of regional and provincial markets (McGovern, 1961:199). The provision of equipment for the province's expanding resource-based industries has also played an important part i n the development of Greater Vancouver's secondary manufacturing industries (Denike and Leigh, 1971:3; Steed, 1972:6). Transportation equipment manufacturers, including shipbuilding involves the construction of fishing vessels and tugs and barges associated with the coastal transport of forest products. The assembly of heavy-duty trucks and trailers is also included in trans-portation equipment industries. These heavy vehicles are supplied to the province's forestry and mining industries. The metal fabricating industry, through the production of chains and wire ropes, is strongly tied to the forest products industry. The industrial machinery and chemical industries are strongly tied to the province's pulp and paper industry. Shearer categorizes secondary manufacturing industries of this nature as being auxiliary to the province's dominant primary sector (Shearer, 1968:10). In sum besides meeting the demand of the expanding regional consumer market much of Vancouver's secondary manufacturing activity involves integration with the provincial hinterland, through the taking up of forward or backward linkages from the primary resource sector (Denike and Leigh, 1971:3; Steed, 1972:6>. This dominance of resource-based industries i n Vancouver's manu-facturing structure concurs with the findings of 0'Carroll's study 'of 6 the manufacturing structure of Canadian cities in that he discovers that peripheral cities in the country (i.e. those outside of the Southern Ontario-Quebec manufacturing heartland) "display less overall diversi-fication, with specialization largely confined to processing of local or regional raw materials" (O'Carroll, 1970:49). Only recently murmurings have been heard i n Ottawa concerning the eventual formulation of a programme to promote the development of secondary manufacturing activities in Western Canada. Vancouver's status as Canada's third largest metropolitan area probably would result i n i t serving as a primary Western manufacturing node in the event of the formulation of such a programme of manufacturing decentralization. The Vancouver area could serve the expanding Western Canadian and Pacific Rim markets. The empirical findings of this thesis could serve to contribute information of relevance to the development of a programme of this nature. This theme w i l l be examined i n greater detail in a subsequent chapter. Interpretation of D.B.S. Manufacturing Data This section w i l l consist of a brief analysis of tabular data relating to the manufacturing structure of Greater Vancouver (Table I). Where applicable the pattern evident in these tabular data w i l l be related to the above verbal review of the manufacturing structure of the metro-politan area. The location quotient is employed i n Table I as an index of local economic specialization. In the compilation of the location quotients in this table, manufacturing activity employment by Standard 7 TABLE I. MANUFACTURING STRUCTURE OF GREATER VANCOUVER, 1967a Location Location No. of Quotient Quotient SIC Group Employees (Canada) (B.C.)f Wood industries 14,573 (23.6) d 4.4 .7 Furniture and fixture industries 2,233 (3.6) 1.3 1.8 Metal fabricating industries 7,122 (11.5) 1.4 1.7 Machinery industries 2,422 (3.9) .8 1.5 Transportation equipment industries 3,785 (6.1) .7 1.2 Mon-metalic mineral products 1,532 (2.5) .8 1.0 Food and beverage industries 11,478 (18.6) 1.3 1.2 Textile industries 814 (1.3) .3 1.8 Paper and a l l i e d industries 2,969 (4.8) .7 .3 Printing, publishing and a l l i e d industries 3,972 (6.4) 1.25 1.4 Petroleum and coal products industries 711 (1.1) 1.22 n.a. g Chemical and chemical products industries 1,463 (2.4) .5 .9 Miscellaneous manu-facturing industries 1,753 (2.8) .7 1.7 Other major groups^ 6,939 (11.4) - — Total a l l industries 61,766 Footnotes Data in this table apply to the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) which is basically coincident with the boundaries of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t (GVRD), except for Bowen Island and Lion's Bay which are excluded from the Vancouver CMA and included in the GVRD. These data are derived from various tables, which are specifically cited below, contained in the 1967 Census of Canadian manufacturing industries. This 1967 census of manufacturing, the most recent available, i s based upon an annual mail survey covering Canada's manufacturing industries; survey returns are requested from e«iy establishment c l a s s i -fied to a manufacturing industry (Manufacturing Industries of Canada. Section G; Geographical Distribution, 1965:299-330). TABLE I - continued 8 "Other major groups" include the residual firms belonging to industry groups which cannot be published due to the secrecy provisions of the Statistics Act. These residual firms could belong to the following SIC groups: tobacco products industries; rubber and plastics products industries; leather industries; knitting mills; clothing industries; primary metal industries; and e l e c t r i c a l products industries. Whatever employment does exist within these individual SIC groups is dominated by a small number of firms which mitigate the publication of such data by individual SIC grouping (Manufacturing Industries of Canada. Section G; Geographical Districution 1967:viii). In any event none of these residual SIC groups constitute a dominant component of Greater Vancouver's manu-facturing complex. This substantial number of SIC groups lumped into this residual, classified group could be regarded as an indication of what Steed refers to as the "deceptively narrow manufacturing structure" of Greater Vancouver (Steed, 1972:4). Employment in these SIC groups i s rendered classified since only a handful of firms operate within these manufacturing groups. These employment data are derived from Manufacturing Industries  of Canada. Section G; Geographical Distribution 1967:Table 8. ^Figures in parentheses represent the per cent of Greater Van-couver's total employment in manufacturing. These location quotients are calculated by taking for each respective SIC group (Per cent of total Greater Vancouver's manufacturing employment in respective SIC group) * (Per cent of total National manufacturing employment in respective SIC group). The data to perform the above calculations are derived from: Manufacturing  Industries of Canada. Section G; Geographical Distribution 1967:Table 8 (source of Greater Vancouver data); Section A; Summary for Canada 1967: Table 4 (source of National data). ^These location quotients are calculated by taking for each respective SIC group (Per cent of total Greater Vancouver's manufacturing employment in respective SIC group) * (Per cent of total British Columbia's manufacturing employment in respective SIC group). The source of the Greater Vancouver data is the same as mentioned above. The provincial data to perform these calculations are derived from: Manufacturing Industries of Canada. Section F; British Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories 1967: Table 4. 9 TABLE I - continued It is not possible to calculate the location quotient (B.C.) for this industry group since provincial employment in this group is not published due to the secrecy provisions of the Statistics Act. This SIC group i s presumably dominated by several major o i l refining companies which result i n such employment data being rendered confidential. 10 Industrial Classification Industry Groups in Greater Vancouver is compared with employment in a larger geographical area, in this case both the nation (Canada) and the province (British Columbia) of which Greater Vancouver is a part (Mayer, 1954:117; McGovern, 1961:146; Morrissett, 1958:240). Location quotients which exceed 1.0 w i l l be interpreted as an indication of the Vancouver Metropolitan Area's specialization i n a particular manufacturing activity. The national location quotient demonstrates a specialization of the metropolitan area in such resource-processing activities as wood industries, food and beverage industries and petroleum and coal products industries (i.e. o i l refining at tidewater locations). Other manufacturing activities with national location quotients over 1.0 are furniture and fixture industries, and printing and publishing which are strongly oriented towards the expanding metropolitan area market. Metal fabricating indus-tries as mentioned previously are strongly associated with the provision of equipment to the province's dominant forest products industry. The provincial location quotients seem to reflect the concen-tration of British Columbia's non-resource processing or secondary manu-facturing activity in Metropolitan Vancouver. The provincial location quotients which exceed 1.0 are indicative of the specialization of the metropolitan area's economy in these manufacturing activities as compared to the economic structure of the province as a whole. The bulk of these activities with provincial location quotients greater than 1.0 are non-resource processing or secondary a c t i v i t i e s . One notable exception is food and beverage industries which include a substantial component of 11 firms engaged in i n i t i a l or primary processing of commodity inputs directly from agriculture or fisheries. However, such food and beverage manufac-turers are strongly oriented towards the local urban market due to the general perishable nature of a substantial proportion of their products. Within food and beverage industries i t seems likely that the majority of firms within this manufacturing industry grouping (see Appendix A) in Greater Vancouver are resource processing (i.e. engaged in processing direct inputs from agriculture or fisheries). Other members of this manufacturing industry grouping, for example bakery products manufacturers receive food inputs (eg. flour and sugar) which have already been through an i n i t i a l processing stage. This points to the difficulty of designating manufacturing activities at the manufacturing industry group, or 2-digit SIC level, as resource or non-resource processing (see Appendix A). This difficulty also affects other 2-digit SIC manufacturing industry groupings to which a blanket resource, non-resource processing designation might be applied. It is for this reason that SIC 3-digit level manufacturing industry classifications are used in Chapter IV to designate manufacturing firm respondents as resource or non-resource processing. It is interesting to note that the B.C. location quotients for wood industries and paper and allied industries are substantially below 1.0. This seems indicative of the fact that although these industries are important within the manufacturing structure of Greater Vancouver firms within these industries, in terms of their distribution within the province, are non-metropolitan in their orientation. The bulk of British Columbia's employment in these key industries is located in other parts 12 of the province rather than in the predominant metropolitan area. Such firms are oriented towards their raw material inputs from the province's forests. This pattern evident from the provincial location quotients regarding the metropolitan and non-metropolitan orientation of secondary and primary manufacturing respectively is complementary to Winsborough's findings regarding the distribution of such manufacturing activities in the United States. Winsborough found that "processing industries are less urbanized than fabricating industries" (Winsborough, 1959:129). Manufacturing activities with a provincial location quotient in excess of 1.0 might also be regarded, to use the terminology intro-duced by Czamanski, as urban-oriented - those activities which depend , upon the market and labour availability advantages of an urban setting in their location (Czamanski, 1964:183). In the light of Greater Van-couver's status as British Columbia's predominant metropolitan and manu-facturing centre this provincial location quotient could serve to identify those manufacturing activities which, within the provincial context, are urban-oriented. In sum this chapter has shown that Greater Vancouver's manufac-turing structure is strongly oriented towards resource-processing acti-vities. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the metropolitan area's secondary manufacturing activity is auxiliary to the province's dominant resource extraction and processing activities. Greater Vancouver is also British Columbia's predominant node of secondary manufacturing activity geared to the expanding regional consumer market. In lieu of Vancouver's status as Canada's third largest metropolitan centre, scope would seem 13 to exist for further diversification in the secondary manufacturing structure of the metropolitan area to serve the expanding local, provin-c i a l , Western Canadian and Pacific Rim markets. CHAPTER III EMPIRICAL DATA BASE As mentioned previously the empirical data base for this thesis consists of the returns to a location survey questionnaire, a copy of which i s presented in Figure 1. This survey was conducted by the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration (U.B.C.) as a supplementary component of the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study." The processing and analysis of the commodity sale and purchase data for this 27 sector metropolitan input-output study including the primary, manufacturing, r e t a i l , wholesale, service and public sectors of the Metropolitan Vancouver economy remain outside the scope of this thesis. However, the potential relevance of such an input-output study to this analysis of manufacturing location w i l l be reviewed in Chapter VI. It should be stressed that this questionnaire was formulated as a supplementary component of a regional input-output study. As such i t is therefore designed to complement a study of this nature. Within the context of this thesis this questionnaire serves as an empirical data base for a study of metropolitan manufacturing location. Based upon an extensive review of empirical studies of industrial location, which relied upon the processing of questionnaire returns, this location survey questionnaire has been shown to possess many limitations in view of i t s 14 FIGURE 1, MANUFACTURING LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE-QUESTION 1 VANCOUVER BOARD OF TRAM 1177 W.U Halting! StiMl, V » n c o i " > « t I IC. | THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA V A N C O U V E R I. C A N A O \ L O C A T I O N S U R V E Y C O N F I D E N T I A L L For each of the following factors would you please indicate the level of importance in your decision to locate your business in the Vancouver Region. 1. unimportant 2. fairly important 3. important 4. absolutely essential Place 'X' under appropriate column. FACTORS - 1. Nearness to markets 2, General labour supply' 3. Skilled labour supply A. Employee wage scales 5. Local property and business taxes 6. Truck transportation 7. Rail transportation 8. Water transportation 9. Air transportation 10. Land prices or lease rates 11. Construction costs 12. Local government attitude to industry 13. Cost of utilities 14. Availability of public transportation for employees 15. Availability of amenities in region 16. Availability of housing for employees 17. Availability of large tracts of land 18. Absence of traffic congestion 19 f High quality environment • Other (please specify) VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN INPUT. OUTPUT STUDY TELEPHONE 328-5504 The format of the original questionnaire has been slightly altered in that the location factors have been numbered, This is to f a c i l i t a t e referring to the factors by their num-bers during some of the subsequent s t a t i s t i c a l techniques which are used in the analysis of these questionnaire returns. FIGURE 1. MANUFACTURING LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE-QUESTION 2* VANCOUVER BOARD OF TRADE 1177 W « l H^itingi JrMt, Varaxn* 1. I C THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA V ^ N C O U V f d I, C A N A D A L O C A T I O N S U R V E Y C O N F I D E N T I A L 2. If you were Io move from the Vancouver Region, would you please indicate the level of importance of the following factors in your decision to relocate elsewhere. 1. unimportant 2. fairly important 3. important 4. absolutely essential Place 'X' under appropriate column. FACTORS 1. Nearness to markets 2. General labour supply 3. Skilled labour supply 4. Employee wage scales 5. Local property and business taxes 6. Truck Transportation 7. Rail Transportation 8. Water Transportation 9. Air Transportation 10. Land prices or lease rates 11. Construction Costs 12. Local government attitude to industry 13. Cost of utilities 14. Availability of public transportation for employees 15. Availability of housing for employees 16. Availability of amenities in region 17. Availability of large tracts of land 18. Absence of traffic congestion 19. High quality environment Other (please specify) VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN INPUT OUTPUT STUDY TELEPHONE 228-5504 The format of the original questionnaire has been slightly altered in that the location factors have been numbered. This is to f a c i l i t a t e referring to the factors by their num-bers during some of the subsequent s t a t i s t i c a l techniques which are used in the analysis of these questionnaire returns. 17 u t i l i t y as a data base for a study of metropolitan manufacturing loca-tion. Suggestions are therefore made in this and subsequent chapters with regard to how the format of this questionnaire could be improved to furnish data of greater u t i l i t y in view of the focus of this thesis. Such improved returns would also furnish the planner with information of relevance in the development of manufacturing locational and develop-ment programmes in Greater Vancouver. The Nature of the Returns The location survey questionnaire was sent out to a l l manufacturing establishments listed i n the Manufacturer's Directory of Greater Vancouver 1971-72. This directory l i s t e d 640 manufacturing firms each of whom employed more than fifteen employees in their Lower Mainland operations (Manufacturer's Directory of Greater Vancouver 1971-72:1). Such firms employing over 15 employees account for some 92 per cent of the total manufacturing employment of the Vancouver census metropolitan area. However, such firms only account for some 36 per cent of the total number of manufacturing establishments in the Vancouver census metropolitan area (Manufacturing Industries of Canada. Section G; Geographical D i s t r i -bution 1967: Table 13). Thus, although such coverage accounts for the bulk of the Vancouver region's manufacturing employment, a significant number of smaller firms (i.e. those employing less than 15 employees)-are excluded from coverage in this location survey questionnaire. As of December 1972 only 75 responses to the location survey questionnaire had been received; this represents a response rate of 18 only 12 per cent. In the ensuing two month period only a handful of additional responses trickled in. These additional responses have not been incorporated in the quantitative techniques employed in Chapter IV, for such an inclusion would have entailed the tedious task of re-running a set of computer programmes. In any event, such a tedious i n -corporation of this handful of additional respondents would not have significantly changed the pattern evident in the results of the appli-cation of these quantitative techniques. Of these 75 respondents 24 failed to answer either questions 1 or 2 or both of the location survey questionnaire. Six respondents failed to answer question 1; 15 failed to answer question 2; and 3 failed to answer both questions. 1 Thus complete responses, i.e. answers to both questions 1 and 2, were only received from 8 per cent of the total number of manufacturing firms included in this survey. The usable response rate to an industrial location survey of Metropolitan Los Angeles, com-prising 26 per cent of the total number of mailed questionnaires, was described as poor (Industrial Location Factors Survey, 1967:2). This gives an indication of how poor the response rate i s to this location survey questionnaire mailed to Greater Vancouver manufacturers. The u t i l i t y , focussing upon the planning implications of the results of the analysis of these returns, which emerge in Chapter IV, w i l l be severely restricted by this poor rate of response. "*Tn light of the large number of respondents who failed to respond to question 2 i t seems that a substantial number' of these failed to realize that there was a question 2. Question 11 was printed on one side and question 2 on the other side of the actual questionnaire sheet (Figure 1). It would have been advisable to include om the bottom of the question 1 side of the questionnaire a simple notice sudv as "please turn over." 19 Information on Each Respondent For each respondent to the questionnaire the firm's Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) at the 3-digit level was known. If the response rate was greater i t would have been possible to examine the pattern of response to the questionnaire among manufacturing industry types at the 3-digit level (see Appendix A) . Due to the meagre response rate i t is only practical to examine the pattern of response at the 2-digit SIC level. Even at this 2-digit level i t was only feasible to analyze the responses among those 2-digit SIC groups with a reasonable number of respondents. Those SIC groups with under three respondents were excluded from analysis at the 2-digit level. The SIC 2-digit level groupings whose patterns of response are.analyzed are: food and beverage industries with ten (10) respondents; wood industries with nine (9) respondents; metal fabricating industries with eight (8) respondents; transportation equipment industries with five (5) respondents; machinery industries (except e l e c t r i c a l machinery) with four (4) respondents; printing and publishing industries with four (4). respondents; and scien-2 t i f i c and professional equipment industries with three (3) respondents. "Scientific and professional equipment industries" i s actually a 3-digit manufacturing activity class within the "miscellaneous manufacturing industries" 2-digit SIC grouping. However, since the three (3) respondents Among these SIC groups various indivisllual respondents failed to reply to questions 1 or 2, or both of the location survey question-naire. This again serves to emphasize that the general applicability of the results of the analysis of these questionnaire data w i l l be severely restricted due to the poor response ratte. 20 within the "miscellaneous manufacturing industries" grouping were members of the "professional and s c i e n t i f i c equipment industries" class this SIC group has been labelled according to i t s 3-digit manufacturing activity class designation. The Manufacturer's Directory of Greater Vancouver 1971-72 c l a s s i -fies each manufacturing establishment to a size category, based upon the number of persons which each employs. These size classes are: (A) 15-25; (B) 26-50; (C) 51-100; (D) 101-500; and (E) 501 employees or more. This information was known for 73 out of the 75 respondents. Since there was only one respondent in size class (E) this firm was excluded from subsequent analysis. Thus the four remaining size classes form the basis for the analysis of the pattern of questionnaire response among manufacturing firms by various sizes. The number of respondents per size class are as follows: (A) 13; (B) 26; (C) 11; and (D) 22. If a greater number of responses were available i t would have been possible to analyze questionnaire response patterns among firms of various sizes within SIC groups. Due to the poor response rate i t was only practical to analyze responses among size classes and SIC groups independently. Greater Vancouver's manufacturing structure, as indicated i n the previous chapter, is strongly oriented towards resource processing a c t i -v i t i e s . In order to analyze the variation in the pattern of questionnaire response among resource and non-resource processing manufacturers, respon-dents were classified as resource or non-resource processing based upon their SIC 3-digit level classifications. The designation of manufacturing industry groups at the 2-digit level as resource or non-resource processing 21 was regarded as inappropriate since, as reviewed i n the previous chapter, such 2-digit groupings (food and beverage industries for example) contain both resource and non-resource processing a c t i v i t i e s . Winsborough in designating manufacturing act i v i t i e s at the 2-digit SIC level as "pro-cessing" (i.e. resource processing) and "fabricating" (i.e. non-resource processing) f a i l s to recognize the limitations involved in such a cate-gorization (Winsborough, 1959:125). Following an examination of the l i s t i n g of component manufacturing industries at the 3-digit activity class level in the SIC Manual, plus an examination of the primary resource/ fabricated material orientation of commodity inputs by SIC 2-digit groupings for manufacturing, the 3-digit level activity classifications of respondents were designated as resource or non-resource processing (Standard Industrial  Classification Manual, 1970:65-123; The Input-Output Structure of the  Canadian Economy 1961. Volume I. Table 1:262-5). On this basis twelve (12) respondents were classified as resource processing and sixty-three (63) as non-resource processing. Improving the R e l i a b i l i t y of the Questionnaire Returns In view of the poor and unrepresentative response rate to the mailed location survey questionnaire this section w i l l review measures which could have been adopted to improve the quality of these returns. The extremely poor response rate to the location survey ques-tionnaire i s related to the fact that this questionnaire was sent out along with the more comprehensive input-output questionnaire to f a c i l i t a t e 22 the construction of a regional input-output matrix of the Greater Van-couver economy. Many firms could be reluctant or unwilling to provide such input-output data on their pattern of sales and purchases. This reluctance of firms to respond primarily to the input-output component o f this survey would also mitigate their replying to the location survey questionnaire. Thus i f the location survey questionnaire would have been mailed to firms, along with i t s own introductory letter, separately from the input-output questionnaire the response rate to the location survey would have been substantially greater due to the compact nature of this locational component of the survey as compared to the input-output com-ponent. However, the separate mailing of the input-output and location survey questionnaires would have entailed a considerable additional expense and would not have been practical within the framework of the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study." A separate mailing pro-cedure within the framework of a distinct and separately financed manu-facturing location study would have yielded better quality returns from the point of view of f a c i l i t a t i n g a thorough analysis of manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver. Furthermore, i t would have been preferable to mail the location survey questionnaire to a s t r a t i f i e d , random sample of firms l i s t e d in the Manufacturer's Directory. A sample could have been s t r a t i f i e d according t o SIC group membership and size of operations. Stratification procedures would have been economical and would have ensured greater representative-ness in the returns. Several industrial location studies in the literature stress that although mailed questionnaires are less expensive for equivalent 23 coverage than personally administered interview questionnaires, the quality, r e l i a b i l i t y , and completeness of interview returns are superior to returns obtained from a mailed questionnaire (Doerr, 1954:395; Katona and Morgan, 1952:70-1; Townroe, 1971:28). Thus i t would have been desir-able, within the framework of a survey devoted solely to the analysis of metropolitan manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver, that a s t r a t i f i e d , random sample of manufacturers would have been personally interviewed so as to obtain better quality returns. In addition, through a personal interview i t would be possible to universally administer the questionnaire to an employee or group of employees of each of the sampled firms who would be truly knowledgeable, or perhaps had been responsible for determining the present location of the responding firms. In a personal interview the poss i b i l i t y would also exist for valuable supplementary feedback to the questionnaire. Through the course of such personal interview personal factors bearing upon the manufacturer's locational decision would have been identified. Such personal factors are cited in numerous empirical studies of industrial location as having influenced the entrepreneur's locational decision (Doerr, 1954:399; Greenhut, 1951:255; 1957:279; Greenhut and Colberg, 1969:464; Linge, 1963:35; Mueller and Morgan, 1962:216; Smith, 1971:91; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (Journal article):6; Tiebout, 1957:82; Townroe, 1969:23). Such a personal factor could involve the s i t i n g of a firm being influenced by the owner's or manager's desire to be close to his place of residence within the city (Keeble, 1968:42; Logan, 1966: 461). It would be extremely d i f f i c u l t i t not impossible to quantitatively 24 assess the importance of such personal or what Smith describes as "random factors" influencing industrial location (Smith, 1971:91). A personally administered questionnaire, however, would allow manufacturers to mention such personal factors; the nature of such personal factors could then be reviewed verbally. The i n a b i l i t y to incorporate or account for such personal factors, which through empirical research have been identified as influencing industrial location, in industrial location theory i s a reflection of the general problem of constructing theory (or more properly theoretical constructs) in this area which adequately reflect the com-plexities of the real world. Chapter VII w i l l review i n greater detail the limitations of economically-oriented manufacturing or industrial location theory. The personal interviewing of respondents would allow responding firms to elaborate upon the nature of the importance of various location factors. Concerning location factor (15) availability of amenities i n region, for example, respondents through a personal interview might be encouraged - or might do so spontaneously - to elaborate upon what ameni-ties of the region they consider attractive. Similarly, concerning location factor (19) high quality environment, respondents might be encouraged to elaborate upon what aspects of the environment they per-ceive as attractive in influencing their locational decision. In sum, the contacting of respondents based upon a s t r a t i f i e d , random selection process through a mailed location survey questionnaire, or through a personally administered questionnaire would yi e l d represen-tative and meaningful results to a survey devoted solely to the analysis of metropolitan manufacturing location. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS A Graphical I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Questionnaire Returns As an i n i t i a l approach to the analysis of the questionnaire returns the mean responses on each of the nineteen l o c a t i o n s factors on questions 1 and 2 of the l o c a t i o n survey questionnaire were depicted g r a p h i c a l l y . Graphs were constructed f o r the seven SIC groups and 4 s i z e classes with an adequate response rate as i d e n t i f i e d i n the previous chapter (Figures 2 through 13 i n c l u s i v e ) . ^ Graphs were also constructed f o r resource and non-resource processing firms (Figures 14 and 15). A summary graph i s also included i n which the mean responses f o r a l l respondents has been p l o t t e d (Figure 16). Figures 9 and 16 which represent summary graphs of the mean responses among a l l SIC groups and a l l respon-dents r e s p e c t i v e l y are included within the text of t h i s chapter; the remaining graphs appear i n Appendix B. In concisely analyzing the pattern evident on each of these graphs i n terms of the importance of the various l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s , these r e s u l t s where applicable w i l l be rel a t e d to statements i n the l i t e r a t u r e regarding the importance of the various l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s . ^Tn l i e u of th i s analysis of the assessment of the importance of various l o c a t i o n factors among firms belonging to various SIC groups and s i z e c l a s s e s , Czamanski stresses the importance of the consideration of i n d u s t r i a l type and s i z e of plant i n the analysis of i n d u s t r i a l l o c a -t i o n (Czamanski, 1964:185). 25 26 Pattern of Response Among SIC Groups Food and Beverage Industries It i s logical as shown in Figure 2 that nearness to markets (1) should be of substantial importance to members of this SIC group. Due to the perishable nature of the products of the majority of such firms, such manufacturers are logically oriented towards the concentrated Lower Mainland market (Harris, 1954:316; Jarrett, 1969:89). Other products of this industry group, beverages for example, experience a weight gain i n the course of their manufacture; such relatively cheaply priced goods could not bear to be transported long distances and are therefore market-oriented (Hoover, 1948:35). Truck transportation (6), as a reflection of i t s f l e x i b i l i t y In routing and scheduling, grants food and beverage industries ready access to the regional market (Breese, 1954:28; Smith, 1971:70). The importance of the general labour supply (2) to such firms could reflect their dependence primarily upon semi-skilled labour which would be available i n the metropolitan area. The degree of change in importance of the location factors between questions 1 and 2 is in most cases minimal. The increase i n importance of employee wage scales (4) could reflect these firms' adverse reaction to British Columbia's traditionally high wage rates (Atkinson, 19 73:26; Employment Earnings and Hours - July 19 72: Table 14; Limitations and  Attractions of British Columbia for Industry, 1969:20; McGovern, 1961: 196). Local property and business taxes (5) also increase substantially in importance between questions 1 and 2. This substantial increase in the importance of these two cost-related factors could reflect manufacturers' general reluctance to pay higher wages or taxes. It is conceivable that this results in respondents over-emphasizing the impor-tance of these factors in responding to question 2 of the questionnaire. The industrial location literature emphasizes that both wage and tax levels are not important determinants of industrial location at the regional level (wage rates: Hodge, 1970:23; Smith, 1971:51; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (bibliography):10; taxes: Due, 1961:167; Greenhut, 1956:139; Smith, 1971:53). Wood Industries It i s reasonable that water (8) and r a i l transportation (7) should be of substantial importance to these firms (Figure 3). Raw materials from the coastal forests of the province are transported to these firms i n the Vancouver region via coastal waterways (Hardwick, 1963:2; Holley, 1970:127; Monahan, 1966:40; Steed, 1972:13). Indeed, several, three out of ten of the respondents belonging to this SIC group to be exact, added in as an "other" factor on their location survey questionnaire returns "av a i l a b i l i t y of raw materials." These three respondents indicated that this additional factor was absolutely essen-t i a l to them in their locational decision. In his study of waterfront land use in Metropolitan Vancouver, Forward speaks of Log transport, storage and handling in water . . . [as being] considered indispensable to the economic operation of log converting industries [which includes sawmills, plywood mills and pole mills] (Forward, 1968:15). Water transport would also be important to wood industries located at tidewater locations to f a c i l i t a t e the loading of lumber products aboard ships for export abroad. 28 Rail (7) and truck transportation (6) are also of substantial importance to this manufacturing industry group. Both these transport modes could serve as means of delivery of raw material inputs to such firms. Rail transport could also serve to connect such manufacturers with the North American market for their products. The following quo-tation, from Smith's comprehensive text on industrial location, regarding the general importance of transportation, i s of relevance in this regard The entrepreneur or corporation has to assemble at the factory site the necessary inputs, combine them i n an appropriate manner for the process of manufacture, and then send the finished good to the market. Transportation therefore plays a v i t a l role in connecting the individual plant with the rest of the economic system (Smith, 1971:92). The importance of nearness (1) to markets for wood industries i s at f i r s t glance strange i n the light of the strong export-orientation of this industry. The importance of this factor could, however, be indicative of certain firms in wood industries being strongly geared to the provision of building inputs to the regional construction industry. Lumber i s used extensively in residential construction in the Lower Mainland. The importance of nearness to markets: to wood industries could also be indicative of strong commodity linkages among firms within this industry group; the output of one firm would constitute the input to another manufacturer within the same industry group. "Sash, door and other millwork plants" (SIC 3-digit class 254) for example, would receive lumber inputs from "veneer and plywood mills" (SIC 3-digit class 252); both of these SIC classes belong to the wood industries grouping. With regard to the change in importance of the various factors between questions 1 and 2 i t is worth noting float truck transportation (6) 29 increases i n importance while water transportation (8) decreases some-what in importance on question 2 as compared to question 1. Bearing in mind the unrepresentative nature of these data, this nonetheless could possibly be indicative of a trend towards truck transportation replacing water transportation as a mode of transport of raw material inputs to wood industries. If more representative data were available, particularly at the 3-digit SIC class level, this could be indicative of a trend that certain types of wood industries are becoming less water-front oriented in their locational requirements. Findings such as these could have important implications upon waterfront zoning and industrial development plans in the years to come. At present waterfront land in the Lower Mainland i s unrealistically designated almost exclusively as industrial (0'Gorman, 1971: Figure 20; The Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement, 1961:70). There i s a need to determine genuine industrial waterfront land needs. This ussue of waterfront land use w i l l be re-viewed more extensively later in this thesis. Metal Fabricating Industries As shown on Figure 4 nearness to markets (1) is important to this industry group. This is in accordance with the findings of Greenhut and Colberg who, in their study of the location of Florida industry, found that metal fabricating plants place heavy stress on locating to gain access to markets and to secure low freight cost on shipping f i n a l products (Greenhut and Colberg, 1969:456). The heavy nature of the output of such firms would also contribute to their market orientation. Labour av a i l a b i l i t y , i.e. general (2) and 30 s k i l l e d labour supply (3), within the metropolitan area is also important to this industry group. Truck transportation (6) would be important to metal fabricating industries to f a c i l i t a t e the distribution of their products to metropolitan area customers. The following statement made in reference to the locational requirements of British Columbia's fabr i -cating or non-resource processing industries in general bears particuarly close correspondence to the pattern of response of metal fabricating industries to question 1 of the location survey questionnaire. British Columbia's fabricating industry is clustered i n Greater Vancouver owing to i t s concentrated market and labour force, . . . . diverse business services and i t s diversified transportation. Expansion of the regions manu-facturing role depends on growth of the regional market, increaseddemand for equipment for use in British Columbia's expanding resource industries (O'Gorman, 1971:5). These major locational requirements of this industry group i n -crease moderately in importance in response to question 2. Employee wage scales (4) increase substantially in importance i n response to question 2. Cost of u t i l i t i e s (13) also increases i n importance. This could reflect resentment on.the part of metal fabricators to cost i n -creases in these areas. However, i t seems unlikely, based upon the views put forward in the literature, that increases in such costs would cause firms to relocate outside of the Greater Vancouver region (Hodge, 1970:23; Kerr and Spelt, 1960:20; McLaughlin, 1949:171; Smith, 1971:43; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (journal article):2). The substantial i n -crease in the importance of availability of large tracts of land (17) As mentioned i n Chapter II, metal fabricating, through the production of chains and wire ropes, i s strongly tied to the forest products industry. 31 could reflect the desire of metal fabricators for larger sites to expand their operations (Field and Kerr, 1968:67). In the light of the increasing importance of this location factor i t would be of relevance to examine recent changes in the spatial distribution of Eetal fabricating firms within the metropolitan area. Have such firms sought out more spacious suburban sites to permit expansion in their production? Transportation Equipment Industries The importance of r a i l transportation (7) to this industry group as shown on Figure 5 could reflect the dependence of such firms upon r a i l transportation to receive components or to distribute their products to the provincial market. Such firms also depend upon s k i l l e d labour (3) available in the metropolitan area. Further interpretation of the complex pattern shown on Figure 5 for this manufacturing industry group w i l l not be attempted. It is f e l t that intensive interpretation of the pattern of response for transportation equipment industries in particular would only be meaningful at the 3-digit SIC class level (see Appendix A). Among the five (5) transportation equipment industry respondents at the 3-digit SIC class level are: two (2) "aircraft and aircraft parts manufactures"; one (1) "motor vehicle manufactnnner"; one (1) "truck body and t r a i l e r manufacturer"; and one firm engaged in "shipbuilding and repair" (SIC Manual, 1970:18). Clearly the locational preferences of such a diverse group of respondents a l l belonging to the trans-portation equipment industries group would differ widely. This would account for the complex pattern evident on Figure 5. A greater response rate would have overcome this d i f f i c u l t y by pemsitting processing 32 of the questionnaire returns at the 3-digit SIC class level (Bergsman, 1972:264-5. Machinery Industries (Except E l e c t r i c a l Machinery) General (2) and s k i l l e d labour supply (3) and nearness to markets (1), as shown on Figure 6, are of greatest importance to machinery indus-tries in their locating in Greater Vancouver. The importance of nearness to markets to these firms could presumably reflect their status as branch operations of firms based in the East which have located in Vancouver to serve the expanding regional market. Indeed, among a l l respondents i t would be useful to know whether or not they are branch operations. To what extent i s Vancouver's manufacturing structure composed of branch • '1 operations oriented to serving the regional or provincial market or to what extent is Vancouver, as Canada's third largest metropolitan centre, becoming a manufacturing centre serving national or international markets. Information such as this could have, a bearing upon the development of a programme to expand the secondary manufacturing base of Greater Vancouver. Local government attitude to industry (12) increases substantially in importance between question 1 and 2 (Figure 6). It i s unfortunate that the location survey questionnaire did not obtain information on what aspects of local government attitude respondents consider important or desirable. A personal interview questionnaire could have been struc-tured to obtain such information. Local property and business taxes (5) and employee wage scales (4) also increase in importance as a reflection of the resentment by these firms to increasing costs in these areas. 33 As mentioned previously, however, the literature provides no evidence of firms being motivated to move primarily due to such factors. Printing, Publishing and A l l i e d Industries As documented in the literature, printing industries are strongly market oriented (Greenhut and Colberg, 1969:447). This is reflected in the importance of nearness to markets (1) to these firms as indicated in Figure 7. More intensive analysis of the pattern of response of this SIC group w i l l be undertaken in a later section of this chapter. Sci e n t i f i c and Professional Equipment Industries These firms regard nearness to markets (1) as important (Figure 8). The importance of a i r transportation (9) to these industries presumably reflects the a b i l i t y of such high value, precision products to bear the high cost of air transportation (Barloon, 1965:170). Air transpor-tation would be important to such firms in the prompt and efficient supply of high value, possibly fragile components. Air transportation could also enable such firms to supply distant external markets. The importance of availability of amenities in region (15) could reflect the possible spatial orientation of such light industries to more en-vironmentally attractive or "prestige" light industrial d i s t r i c t s . However, as mentioned in Chapter III, the present location survey ques-tionnaire format does not f a c i l i t a t e the determination of what regional amenities might be important to this case. It i s also conceivable that the more general regional amenities of Vancouver relating to climate 34 and scenic beauty could be attractive to such light, relatively foot-loose manufacturers of high value goods (Hoover, 1948:128; Ullman, 1954: 124). Steed points outthat Greater Vancouver's manufacturing complex is deficient i n producers of low weight, high value products. Scope would seem to exist for the attraction of firms of this nature to serve national or international markets sited in attractive locations in the vi c i n i t y of Vancouver International Airport. The substantial increase in the importance of a v a i l a b i l i t y of housing for employees (16) as a location factor between questions 1 and 2 could reflect the d i f f i c u l t y , as perceived by management, of employees of such an industry group of securing adequate, or possibly readily 3 accessible housing in relation to the present locations of these firms. The marked increase i n the importance of employee wage scales (4), as shown on Figure 8, could once again reflect manufacturers' dissatisfaction with British Columbia's rising and traditionally high wage rates (Atkinson, 1973:26). In concluding this analysis of Figure 8, i t should be emphasized that this graph is based upon the replies of a mere three respondents; a larger response rate would greatly enhance the general validity of the pattern of response for s c i e n t i f i c and professional equipment indus-tries . 3 Indeed, the present format of the location survey questionnaire does not attempt to determine specifically why respondents should change their assessment of the importance of various location factors in res-ponding to questions 1 and 2. The explanations offered for the more noticable changes, although given serious thougjfet, are conditional. Furthermore, with more comprehensive returns a substantially different and more representative pattern of response migfot have become evident on this series of graphs of the mean responses. 35 Pattern of Response Among a l l SIC Groups Figure 9 gives a visual impression of the pattern of response among a l l SIC groups. Nearness to markets (1), s k i l l e d labour supply (3), truck transportation (6) and r a i l transportation (7) appear as the most important factors in the decision of manufacturers to locate i n the Vancouver region (i.e. in response to question 1). Nearness to markets (1) and truck transportation (6) remain of substantial importance among the SIC groups i f manufacturers were to move from the Vancouver region (i.e. in response to question 2). Cost related location factors such as employee wage scales (4), land prices or lease rates (10), construction costs (11) and cost of u t i l i t i e s (13) increase substantially in importance in response to question 2. Local government attitude to industry (12) also increases substantially in importance in response to question 2 as compared to question 1. Only the most pronounced patterns shown on Figure 9 have been reviewed in this section. A more detailed analysis of the variation in the pattern of response among the various SIC groups would have been repetitive. Figure 9 however does serve to give a concise visual im-pression of the pattern of response among the various SIC groups. Pattern of Response Among Size Classes In this section rather than interpreting each graph separately Figures 10 through 13 inclusive w i l l be interpreted as a unit. The variation in the pattern of response among manufacturers as firm size increases w i l l be reviewed. 36 FIGURE 9. SIC GROUPS: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTION 1 Level of * importance QUESTION 2 Level of importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 1—|—|—m— f — t — 1 — r — i — r — r 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18.19 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential. Key to SIC groups: Food and beverage industries Wood industries Metal fabricating industries Transportation equipment industries — Machinery industries Printing and publishing industries Scientific and professional equipment industries 37 Nearness to markets (1) seems to be somewhat more important to smaller rather than larger firms in response to question 1. This could be indicative of the fact that smaller firms are more oriented towards serving the local market whereas larger firms, such as large wood indus-tr i e s , would be more oriented towards external markets. Availability of s k i l l e d labour supply (3) seems to be of general importance to a l l size classes. Truck transportation (6) shows evidence of increasing in importance with firm size. This could reflect the greater distribution requirements of larger firms. The general pattern of response among size classes on and between questions 1 and 2 of the questionnaire i s exceedingly complex and i s not readily suited to further verbal generalization. The pattern of response among size classes of firms w i l l be subjected to further analysis based upon the application of alternative analytical procedures later in this chapter. Pattern of Response Among Resource and Non-Resource Processing Firms As shown on Figures 14 and 15, r a i l (7) and water transportation (8) are more important as location factors to resource processing rather than non-resource processing firms. This i s in accordance with the findings of empirical studies in the literature (Kenyon, 1960:200; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (journal article):5; Walker, 1957:20). Such resource processing firms are dependent upon bulky raw material inputs. Such firms would also be dependent upon the water and r a i l modes for transport of their output to external and overseas markets. 38 Nearness to markets (1) i s of greater importance to non-resource rather than resource processing firms. The expanding, concentrated consumer market in the Lower Mainland has played an important part in promoting the expansion of secondary, non-resource processing manufac-turing i n this metropolitan area (0fGorman, 1971:12; Steed, 1972:6). In the light of non-resource processing firms being more oriented towards local markets i t is reasonable that truck transportation (6) should be more important to them than to resource processing firms. More intensive analysis of the pattern of response between resource and non-resource processing firms, particularly of the change in importance of various factors between questions 1 and 2, w i l l be conducted in subsequent sec-tions of this chapter. Pattern of Response Among A l l Respondents Nearness to markets (1), labour supply (2 and 3), and trans-portation f a c i l i t i e s (road and r a i l transport; 6 and 7) stand out as the most important location factors to manufacturers in general (Figure 16). Particularly notable is the minor overall importance of water trans-portation (8) as a location factor for manufacturing. This could be indicative of the fact that only a small proportion of the manufacturing base of the Vancouver region is actually waterfront oriented, in the sense that i t is essential for these firms to have direct waterfront • access to their sites. A finding such as this, i f documented by more thorough research to assess future waterfront industrial land needs FIGURE 16. ALL RESPONDENTS; MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 1 6 3 2 7 10 12 11 Location factor's (numbered as in Figure 1) 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential 40 i n t h e Lower M a i n l a n d , c o u l d h ave p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t p l a n n i n g i m p l i -c a t i o n s . A t p r e s e n t i t seems t h a t b l a n k e t a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s have been employed i n d e s i g n a t i n g t h e b u l k o f t h e r e g i o n s s a l t and f r e s h ( i . e . r i v e r ) w a t e r f r o n t a g e as i n d u s t r i a l (O'Gorman, 1971: F i g u r e 20; The Dynamics o f I n d u s t r i a l Land S e t t l e m e n t , 1961:70). Such a b l a n k e t a l l o c a t i o n seems t o be f a r i n e x c e s s o f a c t u a l i n d u s t r i a l w a t e r f r o n t l a n d n e eds. I n v i e w of t h e f a c t t h a t s u c h w a t e r f r o n t a g e w i t h i n t h e r e g i o n i s i n f i x e d s u p p l y i t w o u l d be a d v i s a b l e t o d e v i s e a more R e a l i s -t i c w a t e r f r o n t l a n d use a l l o c a t i o n scheme t o be more i n a c c o r d w i t h g e n u i n e i n d u s t r i a l needs and a t t h e same t i m e accommodate o t h e r l e g i -t i m a t e w a t e r f r o n t uses p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n and r e c r e a t i o n a l f i e l d s . The p r e s e n t b l a n k e t f u t u r e d e s i g n a t i o n o f w a t e r f r o n t l a n d as i n d u s t r i a l w o u l d e f f e c t i v e l y i s o l a t e the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n f r o m t h e r e g i o n ' s waterways. I n sum, i n t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h i s most c e r t a i n l y w a r r a n t e d t o d e t e r m i n e g e n u i n e f u t u r e i n d u s t r i a l w a t e r f r o n t l a n d n e e d s . Expanded r e s e a r c h o f t h i s n a t u r e s h o u l d n o t o n l y c o n s i d e r t h e w a t e r f r o n t l a n d needs o f m a n u f a c t u r i n g b u t a l s o c o n s t r u c t i o n , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , s t o r a g e and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , and w h o l e s a l i n g a c t i v i t i e s . On F i g u r e 16 l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g t o monetary c o s t s seem t o have g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e d i n i m p o r t a n c e on q u e s t i o n 2 as compared t o q u e s t i o n 1. Such l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s i n c l u d e : employee wage s c a l e s ( 4 ) , l a n d p r i c e s o r l e a s e r a t e s ( 1 0 ) , l o c a l government a t t i t u d e t o i n d u s t r y (12) ( w h i c h can have a b e a r i n g upon s i t e a c q u i s i t i o n and s e r v i c i n g c o s t s , and t a x r a t e s ) , c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ( 1 1 ) , c o s t of u t i l i t i e s ( 1 3 ) , and l o c a l p r o p e r t y and b u s i n e s s t a x e s ( 5 ) . T h i s would seem t o be i n d i c a t i v e 41 of manufacturers' general resentment of increased costs i n these areas. However, the impression conveyed by the l i t e r a t u r e i s that such factors would have l i t t l e i n fluence upon a f i r m to seek a new l o c a t i o n s o l e l y to reduce these costs (Hodge, 1970:23; McLaughlin, 1949:171; McGovern, 1961:195; Smith, 1971:37,51; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (bibliography): 10). Such f a c t o r s , however, as w i l l be reviewed i n Chapter V, may i n -fluence the choice of a p a r t i c u l a r community or s i t e once a regional l o c a t i o n has been decided upon. Land costs and taxes are c i t e d as con-s t i t u t i n g only a small proportion of a firm's t o t a l production or re-l o c a t i o n costs and are therefore c i t e d as being of minor importance i n i n f l u e n c i n g l o c a t i o n decisions at the regional l e v e l (Doerr, 1954:400; Hodge, 1970:26; Kerr and F i e l d , 1968:78; Smith, 1971:53; Williams, 1967: 63). Analysis of the S i m i l a r i t y i n the Pattern of Response on  Question 1 Among SIC Groups and Size Classes Elementary Linkage Analysis Elementary linkage a n a l y s i s , a technique developed by McQuitty -a psychologist - w i l l be the b a s i c methodological technique employed i n the remaining a n a l y t i c a l sections of t h i s chapter (McQuitty, 1957:1961). This technique w i l l , be used to collapse or " c l u s t e r " SIC groups, s i z e classes and l o c a t i o n factors i n t o groups or "types" (to use McQuitty's terminology) based upon the s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e i r pattern of response on the l o c a t i o n survey questionnaire as represented! by the strength of the p o s i t i v e rank c o r r e l a t i o n bonds between pains of these groups, classes 42 or location factors. The groups or "types" which emerge through the application of linkage analysis, which w i l l be described in greater detail below, w i l l consist of SIC groups, for example, which have higher coefficients of rank correlation with some other SIC group belonging to their particular type than with a SIC group outside of their type (McQuitty, 1957:213). Thus each SIC group within a type is more like another SIC group within i t s type, i n terms of i t s pattern of response to the location survey questionnaire, than any other SIC group belonging to another type. In.sum, linkage analysis, which McQuitty describes as being analogous to factor analysis, i s employed to cluster SIC groups, size classes and location factors into types representing similarity i n response to the 4 location survey questionnaire (McQuitty, 1957:212 and 227; 1961:78). The structure of these types which emerge through the application of linkage analysis w i l l then be interpreted. The mechanics of linkage analysis are virtu a l l y identical to the "basic pair" correlation bonding technique introduced by Haggett (1965:281-4). However, for- the purposes of this thesis the terminology introduced by McQuitty in his development of linkage analysis w i l l be used (McQuitty, 1957:1961). Before embarking upon the application of linkage analysis to the location survey questionnaire data, other uses of linkage analysis or comparable correlation bonding techniques in urban analysis w i l l be reviewed. 4 McQuitty demonstrates that linkage analysis yields results comparable to factor analytic solutions but that i t is less laborious to employ. Furthermore, for a concise but nonetheless quite compre-hensive review of factor analysis Rummel's text should be consulted (Rummel, 1970: particularly Chapter 6). 43 Armen uses correlation bonding to classify British cities into clusters. Each cluster consists of cities which are most similar to each other based upon a set of variables relating to their socio-economic characteristics (Armen, 1972:155-8). In his analysis of the manufacturing structure of Canadian cities 0*Carroll uses such correlation bonding techniques to group Canadian urban centres into clusters based upon their similarity in manufacturing structure (0 1Carroll, 19 70:20-24). Both Lever and Leigh use correlation bonding techniques i n studies relating to industrial location. Lever uses such techniques to establish for the U.K. pairs of SIC industry types which i n their distribution are spatially associated (Lever, 1972:373-5). Lever then expands his analysis to examine what role commodity input-output linkages between such spatially associated industry pairs might play in explaining the location of such spatially associated industries. This a r t i c l e w i l l be discussed in greater detail in Chapter VI where the possible incorporation of input-output data into this study of manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver w i l l be discussed. However, at this point Lever's recent a r t i c l e on indus-t r i a l location i s noteworthy for his usage of correlation bonding metho-dology. Leigh uses correlation bonding methodology, as introduced by Haggett, to analyze the similarity i n industrial location requirements among type-size classes of manufacturing firms within Metropolitan Van-couver (Leigh, 1969:28-33). His data base for this analysis was a com-prehensive study of industrial land needs carried out by the Lower Mainland 44 Regional Planning Board (The Dynamics of Industrial Land Settlement, 1960). Leigh's analysis is only relevant to this thesis from the point of view that he employed methodology similar to linkage analysis. However, since the data format for Leigh's study is totally different . from that used in this thesis the resuls of these two studies even though they are both of Greater Vancouver are incomparable. Thus, correlation bonding techniques strongly similar to linkage analysis have been used in a selection of recent studies relating to urban research and industrial location in particular. Establishment of the SIC Group Typal Structure Through Linkage  Analysis A 7 by 7 reciprocal matrix of Spearman rank correlation c o e f f i -cients was produced based upon the mean responses on question 1 of the location survey questionnaire for each SIC group on each of the nineteen location factors. Each of the seven SIC groups was correlated in turn with each of the others (Table II). This and succeeding matrices of rank correlation coefficients were produced using the "NONPAR CORR" subprogramme in the S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) routine (Nie, 1970:143-56). Anon-parametric or rank correlation co-efficient was deemed appropriate for application to the questionnaire data which were measured on an ordinal scale in terms of varying levels of importance of the nineteen location factors. The following s t a t i s -t i c a l sources were consulted in making this decision: Gregory, 1963: 181-4; Phillips and Thompson, 1967:13-17; Siegal, 1956:23-26, 202-13; and Smith, 1971:396. 45 TABLE II. MATRIX OF SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SIC GROUPS3 SIC Groupsb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 1 .64 .64 .08 .54 .70 .12 I C 2 .64 .25 -.26 .46 .85 .04 3 .64 .25 .40 .05 .17 .07 G r 4 .08 -.26 .40 .14 -.18 .18 o u 5 .54 .46 .05 .14 .48 .34 P s 6 .70 .85 .17 -.18 .48 .28 7 .12 .04 .07 .18 .34 .28 cl This matrix i s based upon the mean responses of each SIC group to each of the 19 location factors on question 1 of the location survey questionnaire. ^The SIC groups are as follows: 1. metal fabricating; 2. food and beverage; 3. wood; 4. transportation equipment; 5. machinery; 6. printing; and 7. sci e n t i f i c and professional equipment industries. 46 Elementary linkage analysis, involving the following steps, was employed to "cluster" the SIC groups into "types" (McQuitty, 1957: 1961). The matrix of rank correlation coefficient was scanned so that for each SIC group, the other SIC group with the highest positive corre-lation with this particular group was identified. Only correlation coefficients with a value of +.50 or greater were considered. The rationale for choosing this +.50 cut-off level was to achieve a meaningful degree of data reduction, in terms of eliminating from consideration a substantial number of the lower positive correlation bonds in this and subsequent matrices to which linkage analysis w i l l be applied. This +.50 minimum level i s consistently used to establish the "typal" structure from this and subsequent matrices. To permit generalization, based upon the complex pattern of correlation bondings in the matrices, i t i s essential to exclude the majority of the lower correlation coefficients from consideration. Furthermore, in deciding upon this +.50 level the matrices of smaller dimension in reality set the level for the larger ones. The range in dimension of the correlation matrices in this thesis to which linkage analysis is applied range from a 4 by 4 up to a 19 by 19 matrix, a l l of which are reciprocal. This +.50 level was decided upon so as to achieve a reasonable, but not excessive degree of data reduction, particularly in the case of the smaller matrices. If only matrices of larger dimension were used in this thesis the minimum consideration level for correlation coefficients could have been set substantially higher than +.50. For example, i f only a 19 by 19 matrix was under 47 consideration the minimum consideration level could have been set at +.75. This setting of a higher minimum consideration level i n a larger matrix would achieve a reasonable degree of data reduction but would at the same time s t i l l leave a reasonable number of correlation coefficients for consideration. If such a high minimum consideration level were applied to a smaller matrix only a handful of correlation coefficients would remain for consideration. In such a case data reduction would be too extreme. In sum, after a careful reading of the literature on the de-velopment and application of linkage analysis and related correlation bonding techniques i t was decided to consistently use this +.50 minimum consideration level (see i n particular: Leigh, 1969:30). The selection of such a level i s not arbi t r a r i l y decided upon but is designed to achieve a meaningful degree of data reduction to f a c i l i t a t e generalization. On scanning column one of the SIC group matrix metal fabricating i s found to have i t s highest positive association with printing industries (Table II: underlined correlation coefficient). By scanning column two of this matrix food and beverages industries i s found to have i t s highest positive association also with printing industries. A similar scanning procedure i s used to establish for each SIC group, the other group with the highest positive correlation. A SIC group whose highest positive association with another SIC group i s below +.50 is termed an isolate. For example, transportation equipment industries whose highest positive association is +.40 with wood industries i s an isolate. Scien t i f i c and professional equipment industries i s also an isolate. 48 Reciprocal pairs of SIC groups are then identified. Food and beverage industries and printing industries constitute a reciprocal pair such that food and beverage industries has i t s highest positive association with printing industries, and vice versa. Each reciprocal pair forms the basis of a type (McQuitty, 1957:216-8). There may be more than one reciprocal pair, however, in the case of the SIC groups there is only one. Once this reciprocal pair has been identified the remaining SIC groups are linked into this reciprocal pair according to their highest positive associations above +.50 (Figure 17). The SIC groups belonging to Type I have higher coefficients of correlation with another SIC group belonging to their type than with any other SIC group outside of their type. The typal structure, as shown in Figure 17, consists of one type and the two isolates which are also termed types. In addition to the correlation bonds shown in the typal structure through the application of linkage analysis Haggett mentions the "p-cluster concept" (Haggett, '1965:284). This would involve the showing of a l l correlation bonds above the +.50 level which appear in the matrix, in addition to only the highest bonds which are now shown. The inclusion of a l l ties above the minimum consideration level may indicate supple-mentary patterns in the data. However, in the case of this thesis the inclusion of a l l such ties did not indicate any meaningful supplementary patterns. Such ties have therefore been excluded from the typal structure diagrams included within the text of this thesis. 49 FIGURE 17. SIC GROUP TYPAL STRUCTURE3 Type I Type II Type III © © • reciprocal pair ties of type members The SIC groups are as follows: 1. metal fabricating; 2. food and beverage; 3. wood; 4. transportation equipment; 5. machinery; 6. printing; and 7. s c i e n t i f i c and professional equipment industries. This p i c t o r i a l style of representation i s adopted from: McQuitty, 1957:218; 1961:73. Value of rank correlation bond. Interpretation of the SIC Group Typal Structure The SIC group typal structure which emerges through the appli-cation of linkage analysis to the SIC group rank correlation matrix gives an indication of the degree of similarity in the profi l e of response to question 1, in terms of the ranked importance of the set of nineteen factors, among the SIC groups. Food and beverage industries and printing industries are shown to have a strongly similar pattern of response to question 1 whereas transportation equipment industries and s c i e n t i f i c and professional equipment industries are showa to have relatively dis-tinctive response patterns in terms of their ranked assessment of the importance of the nineteen location factors (Figure 17). It would seem reasonable to hypothesize that the stronger the rank correlation bond between pairs of SIC groups the more alike w i l l be the actual spatial distribution of such pairs, of SIC groups within the metropolitan area. Since the actual location of each of the res-pondents was confidential i t was necessary to indirectly approach the investigation of this hypothesis. Furthermore,, even i f the addresses of the respondents were known i t i s questionable that the above hypo-thesis could have been legitimately tested due to the meagre response rate. A series of maps produced by the Federal Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, at a scale of 1:25,000„ which show the d i s t r i -bution of manufacturing employment by SIC groujs for Greater Vancouver were used to conduct a visual test of the abo^sashypothesis ("Manufac-turing - Vancouver, B.C." Maps #20-24 Urban Analysis Series for Federal 51 Emergency Measures Organization (1965); based upon 1961 data). The patterns shown on these maps for the distribution of linked pairs of SIC groups, as shown on Figure 17, leads to the - albeit tentative -support of the above hypothesis. Those SIC group pairs with higher levels of association based upon their pattern of response to question 1 of the location survey questionnaire show a strong degree of similarity in their patterns of spatial distribution. Those SIC groups with the lowest degree of association, the isolates i n particular, exhibit rela-tively distinct patterns of spatial distribution. Thus i t i s albeit tentatively shown that SIC groups with strong correlation bonds as indicative of similar location factor preferences seek out similar spatial locations within the metropolitan area. More intensive investigation of this hypothesized pattern through the i n -corporation of firm location into the analysis would certainly, be warranted. The identification of manufacturing industry types having similar loca-tional and spatial preferences could lead to the development of industrial zoning schemes which would take such findings into consideration. Commodity input-output linkages could also play a part in ex-plaining the similar spatial distribution of pairs of manufacturing industry types within the metropolitan area. It could be hypothesized that pairs of SIC groups with strong input-output linkages tend to locate in close proximity to each other within the city. This issue w i l l be examined in Chapter VI. In sum, i t should be stressed that support of this hypothesis based upon a visual scanning of the above mentioned maps, and taking 52 into consideration the meagre response rate to the location survey ques-tionnaire, is at best tentative. However, the incorporation of the spatial element (i.e. firm locations within the city) into an analysis of this nature, particularly with a more representative rate of response, would certainly be warranted from the point of view of generating results of relevance to the formulation of planning policy relating to the accom-modation of manufacturing within the metropolitan area. Size Class Typal Structure A 4 by 4 reciprocal matrix of Spearman rank correlation c o e f f i -cients was produced in which each size class was correlated i n turn with each of the others based upon the mean responses on question 1 of the questionnaire for each size class (Table III: Appendix C). Through the application of linkage analysis, as outlined i n the previous section, to the highest correlation coefficients above +.50 a typal structure of size classes was formed (Figure 18). This typal structure demonstrates that a strong degree of sinii-l a r i t y in pattern of response to question 1 exists between adjacent size classes (i.e. size classes ordered based upon increasing firm size). The degree of similarity i s somewhat greater between pairs of the larger firm size classes as compared to the smaller firm size classes. This i s shown by the increase in the values of the actual correlation co-efficients. As with the preceding analysis of SIC group typal structure i t would be advantageous to broaden the scope of this analysis of similarity FIGURE 18. SIZE CLASS TYPAL STRUCTURE3 53 Type I reciprocal pair / ties of type members The size classes are as follows: A. firms with 15-25 employees; B. firms with 26-50 employees; C. firms with 51-100 employees; D. firms with 101-500 employees. Value of rank correlation bonds. 54 in pattern of response among size classes by incorporating the spatial element (i.e. firm locations by size class within the city) into the analysis. Do individual size classes of firms within Metropolitan Vancouver have distinctive locational preferences which manifest them-selves by firms belonging to a particular size class concentrating in certain parts of the city, irrespective of their SIC group memberships? Or alternately do firms of adjacent size classes, particularly larger size classes C and D as a reflection of their strong correlation bond as shown in Figure 17, have similar patterns of spatial distribution within the metropolitan area. Knowledge of the patterns and potential trends i n this regard would be of relevance to the formulation of indus-t r i a l zoning schemes to accommodate various types and sizes of manu-facturing activities within the metropolitan area. In sum then, i t would be worthwhile to incorporate the spatial element into an expanded analysis of the location survey questionnaire returns. The findings of such an analysis of the intrametropolitan spatial pattern of response- could be related to many spatially oriented studies of manufacturing location within urban areas (Goldberg, 1969; 1970; Keeble, 1968; Kerr and Spelt, 1957; Kitagawa and Bogue, 1955; Linge, 1963; Logan, 1963; 1966; Martin, 1969; Smith, 1971:39-40; Steed, 1972; Webber and Daly, 1971). Such studies suggest that i t would be worthwhile to analyze variation in location factor preferences between central city and suburban manufacturing operations. The location require-ments and policy implications regarding the accommodation of manufacturing firms in these two areas of the city seem to possess distinct differences. 55 Analysis of Pattern of Response Based Upon Scores on Location  Factor Types Establishment of the Location Factor Types In this section linkage analysis is employed to collapse or cluster the nineteen location factors into a set of types. Linkage analysis i s applied to a 19 by 19 matrix of Spearman rank correlation coefficients (Table IV: Appendix C). Based upon the pattern of response of a l l respondents to each of the nineteen location factors on question 1 of the location survey questionnaire, each factor i s correlated i n turn with each of the others.~* The typal structure which emerged from this application of link-age analysis, consistently based upon correlation bonds above +.50 is shown in Figure 19. The types which emerge consist of location factors which have higher coefficients of correlation with some other location factor belonging to their particular type than with a location factor belonging to another type. Thus the pattern of response of each location factor within a type is more like the pattern of response of another location factor i n the type than like the pattern of response of a loca-tion factor not in the particular type (McQuitty, 1957:213). The strength of this location factor typal structure is substan-t i a l . At the +.60 minimum level only three of the correlation bonds (i.e. those below +.60) drop out. The basic typal structure as shown on Figure 18 does not substantially decompose u n t i l above the minimum +.70 level. The six location factor types shown on Figure 18 are then assigned general labels according to their component location factors (Table V). "*A11 respondents consist of 69 out of 15> of the location survey questionnaire returns, representing those fires, who answered question 1 of the questionnaire. FIGURE 19. LOCATION FACTOR TYPAL STRUCTURE3 Type I Type II reciprocal pair ties of type members 3The location factors are numbered from* 1 through 19 on the location survey questionnaire (Figure 1). ^Value of rank correlation bonds. °Location factor 1 nearness to markets; is an isolate; its highest correlation bond is below +.50. This location factor there-fore comprises a distinct type. 57 TABLE V. LOCATION FACTOR TYPES: COMPONENT LOCATION FACTORS Type I: Local government receptiveness 12 Local government attitude to industry 13 Cost of u t i l i t i e s 17 Availability of large tracts of land Type II: Agglomerative factors 2 General labour supply 3 Skilled labour supply 14 Availability of public transportation for employees 15 Availability of amenities in region 16 Availability of housing for employees 9 Air transportation Type III: Monetary cost factors 4 Employee wage scales 5 Local property and business taxes 10 Land prices or lease rates 11 Construction costs Type IV: Heavy transport 6 Truck transportation 7 Rail transportation 8 Water transportation Type V: Nearness to markets 1 Nearness to markets Type VI: Environmental quality 18 Absence of t r a f f i c congestion 19 High quality environment 58 Establishment of Scores on the Location Factor Types For each of the seven SIC groups, four size classes of respon-dents, plus resource and non-resource processing firms, as identified previously, scores on each of the location factor types are established based upon mean responses to each of the nineteen location factors. Scores are established based upon responses to both question 1 and 2 of the location survey questionnaire. This establishment of location factor type scores, the procedures of which w i l l be described in detail below, enables a generalized impression to be gained of the pattern of response on and between questions 1 and 2. The SIC group scores on each of the location factor types based upon responses to questions 1 and 2 of the questionnaire were established by sunmring the mean level of response among a l l respondents belonging to a particular SIC group on each location factor within a type and then taking the means of these totals. This procedure i s illu s t r a t e d for metal fabricating industries in Table VI. A similar procedure was used to establish scores on* the location factor types for the remaining SIC groups, size classes and resource and non-resource processing firms. Interpretation of SIC Group Scores on the Location Factor Types Table V i l a indicates that, in terms of the relative importance of the location factor types in response to question 1 (i.e. in terms of their level of importance in the decision to locate in the Vancouver Region), type V - nearness to markets - is of greatest general importance among a l l SIC groups. The individual SIC groups with the higher scores 5 9 TABLE VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCORES ON THE LOCATION FACTOR TYPES Example: Metal Fabricating Industries a. Scores based upon response to question 1 Location Factor Types 1 2 a 2 . 3 b 1 3 2 . 1 1 7 + 1 . 5 5 . 9 = 1 . 9 d b. Scores based upon response to question 2 I II III IV 1 2 2 . 8 2 3 . 4 4 2 . 7 6 3 . 1 1 3 2 . 7 3 3 . 2 5 2 . 5 7 2 . 4 1 7 + 2 . 4 9 1 . 5 1 0 2 . 7 8 + 2 . 0 7 . 9 1 4 2 . 3 1 1 + 3 . 0 7 . 5 v 3 1 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 9 - 3 = 2 . 6 1 6 + 1 . 9 v 4 = 2 . 5 1 4 . 3 = 2 . 7 id = 2 . 4 II III IV V VI 2 3 . 0 4 2 . 2 6 2 . 8 1 3 . 2 1 8 1 . 7 3 3 . 2 5 2 . 3 7 2 . 2 1 9 + 1 . 6 9 1 . 6 1 0 2 . 5 8 + 1 . 8 3 . 3 1 4 1 . 7 1 1 + 2 . 5 6 . 8 * 2 1 5 2 . 0 9 . 5 * 3 = 1 . 6 1 6 + 1 . 9 v 4 2 . 3 1 3 . 4 = 2 . 4 ^ 6 = 2 . 2 VI 3 . 6 1 8 1 . 9 1 9 + 1 . 6 3 . 5 T 2 1 . 7 types. Individual location factors comprising the location factor Hiean l e v e l of response fo r th is SIC group on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r location factor. continued 60 TABLE VI - continued Sum of the mean response levels on the location factors com-prising each location factor type. ^Mean of the sum of the mean response levels which in fact represents the score of this particular SIC group on this location factor type. 61 TABLE VII. SIC GROUP SCORES ON THE LOCATION FACTOR TYPES a. Scores based upon response to question 1 Location Factor Types Sic Groups 3. II III IV V VI Metal fabr. 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.2 1.6 Food and bev. 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 3.1 1.7 Wood 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.5 1.4 Transp. equip. 2.5 2.3 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.3 Machinery .1.8 2.1 1.9 1.7 2.5 1.7 Printing 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.9 3.4 1.5 Scie n t i f i c 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.8 3.0 1.4 Mean score among a l l SIC groups 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.9 1.6 b. Scores based upon response to question 2 Location Factor Types SIC Groups J_ II III IV V VI Metal fabr. 2.6 (+.7) a 2.4 (+.2) 2.7 (+.3) 2.5 (+.2) 3.6 (+.4) 1.7 (+.1) Food and bev. 2.1 (+.1) 1.9 '(-.1) 2.3 (+.4) 2.0 (+.1) 2.8 (+.3) 1.8 (+.1) Wood 2.3 (+.3) 1.8 (+.1) 2.3 (+.2) 2.7 (+.2) 2.2 (+.3) 1.4 (+.0) Trans, equip. 2.7 (+.2) 2.1 (-.2) 3.1 (+.6) 2.4 (-.6) 2.8 (.0) 1.8 (-.5) Machinery 2.1 (+.3) 2.3 (+.2) 2.5 (+.6) 1.7 (.0) 2.5 (.0) 1.8 (+.1) Printing 2.2 (+.2) 2.4 (.0) 2.4 (+.3) 1.9 (.0) 3.0 (-.4) 1.4 (+.1) Scientif i c 1.6 (+.6) 2.2 (+.2) 2.2 (+1.1) 1.6 (-.2) 2.7 (-.3) 2.2 (+.8) Mean score among a l l SIC groups 2.2 (+.2) 2.1 (+.0) 2.5 (+.5) 2.1 (-.1) 2.8 (-.1) 1.7 (+.1) f i g u r e s in parentheses represent the change in the scores based upon the response to question 2 as compared to question 1. A positive figure signifies an increase in importance; a negative figure signifies a decrease in importance. 62 on this type serves to identify those manufacturing industries which are most dependent upon the Metropolitan market. Type VI - environ-mental quality - is of least overall importance in the decision to locate in the Vancouver region. With regard to the relative importance of the location factor types in response to question 2 (i.e. in terms of their level of impor-tance i n a decision to relocate outside- of the Vancouver Region), type V -nearness to markets - is once again of the greatest overall importance. Type VI - environmental quality - is once again of least importance. Type III - monetary cost factors - shows the greatest mean degree of increase in importance among a l l SIC groups between question 1 and 2 (Table V;b). This presumably reflects the resentment on the part of manufacturers to meet such increasing costs in the Vancouver region. The increase i n these monetary costs in Metropolitan Vancouver is docu-mented in the literature (Adams, 1972; McGovern, 1961:195-6; O'Gorman, 1971:31; Steed, 1972:24). However, there is l i t t l e indication that such location factors would, or have induced manufacturers to move out of the Vancouver region. It is conceivable, however, that British Columbia's high wages and poor labour climate reputation do discourage some manu-facturers from establishing operations in the Province (Limitations and  Attractions of British Columbia for Industry, 1969:20). Regarding this issue of firm movement, question 2 of the location survey questionnaire only relates to hypothetical moves from the Vancouver region? The location survey questionnaire does not seek to establish ^Question 2 is phrased as follows: If you were to move from the Vancouver Region, would you please indicate the level of importance of the following factors in your decision to relocate elsewhere. 63 whether respondents actually intend to move from the region or not. Furthermore, in view of the fact Greater Vancouver i s British Columbia's predominant manufacturing centre i t is unrealistic to phrase this ques-tion so that i t i s concerned with potential moves outside of this region. Within the Canadian context the phrasing of this question in this manner would be appropriate, for example, in considering hypothetical moves by manufacturers out of Metropolitan Toronto to other centres in Southern Ontario; within the British Columbia context this question i s unrealistic. Within the context of this analysis of manufacturing location i t would have been of greater u t i l i t y to phrase question 2 so that i t would be concerned with moves by manufacturers to other locations within the Vancouver region. These issues relating to the format of the location survey questionnaire and manufacturing firm movement w i l l be discussed in greater detail in Chapter V. One of the more substantial changes in location factor typal scores between questions 1 and 2 shown on Table VII;b i s the increase in importance of type III -. monetary costs - to s c i e n t i f i c and professional equipment industries. It i s conceivable that the continued increase in these costs could lead to such firms moving out of the Vancouver region and locating in other Canadian metropolitan centres. The high value nature of their products could presumably enable them to rely upon a i r transport to supply the Vancouver market from afar. Type I -local government receptiveness exhibits a substantial increase in impor-tance for metal fabricating industries between questions 1 and 2. The substantial increase in the importance of type VI - environmental quality -64 to s c i e n t i f i c and professional equipment industries could reflect the increasing desire of such light industrial firms to seek out prestigious, high amenity industrial d i s t r i c t s within the metropolitan area. Interpretation of Size Class Scores on the Location Factor Types Table VIII;a indicates a tendency for the importance of location factor type I - local government receptiveness - to increase in importance with increase i n firm size in response to question 1 of the questionnaire. This could reflect the fact that larger manufacturing operations pay greater attention to local government receptiveness in their locational decisions. A similar tendency of increase in importance with increase in firm size i s evident on type II - agglomerative factors and type IV -heavy transport. It is reasonable that labour supply, availability of f a c i l i t i e s , and transportation should be more important to larger firms with their larger scale of operations. Kenyon in his study of industrial location in a metropolitan region of New Jersey finds that r a i l trans-portation i s more important for larger rather than smaller operations (Kenyon, 1960:201). Findings such as these, and indeed findings based upon a more complete response rate, are of relevance to the planning of industrial d i s t r i c t s within the Vancouver region so as to best accommo-date manufacturing concerns of various sizes. A similar trend in the increase in the importance of location factor types with increase in firm size i s evident in response to ques-tion 2 of the questionnaire (Table VIII;b). The most pronounced change in score values between questions 1 and 2 takes place in the increase 65 TABLE VIII. SIZE CLASS SCORES ON THE LOCATION FACTOR TYPES a. Scores based upon responses to question 1 Location Factor Types Size Classes I II III IV V VI A (15 to 25) B (26 to 50) C (51 to 100) D (101 to 500) 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.4 2.2 1.7 2.3 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 Mean score among a l l size classes 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.9 1.7 b. Scores based upon responses to question 2 Location Factor Types Size Classes I II III IV V VI A (15 to 25) B (26 to 50) C (51 to 100) D (101 to 500) 2.2(+.6) 2.0(.0) 2.4C+.6) 2.4(+.2) 2.1(+.2) 2.2(+.2) 1.9C-.2) 2.8(+.7) . 2 .K-.2) 2.6(+.8) 2.4(.0) 2.4(+.2) 2.0(+.3) 2 .K-.2) 2.6(+.4) 2.6(+.l) 3.0(.0) 2 .8C-.2) 2.4(-.2) 2.9(.0) 2.2(+.4) 1.8(+.l) 1.6C+.1) 1.8(+.l) Mean score among a l l size classes 2.2(+.2) 2.1(.0) 2.5(+.5) 2.3(+.l) 2.8(-.l) 1.8(+.l) 66 i n importance of type III - monetary costs - for size classes B and C. Such medium sized firms show evidence of strongly resenting the increase in such costs; however, as mentioned previously there is l i t t l e indication that such location factors have or would induce manufacturers to move out of Vancouver. Interpretation of Resource and Non-Resource Processing  Firm Scores on the Location Factor Types With regard to the difference in scores between resource and non-resource firms, based upon responses to question 1, i t is reasonable that type V - nearness to markets, i.e. the concentrated metropolitan area market, should be more important to non-resource processing firms (Table IX;a). Resource processing firms are strongly dependent upon external markets. Similarly, i t i s reasonable that type IV - heavy transport should be more important to resource processing firms. The metropolitan or urban orientation of non-resource processing firms is reflected on type II - agglomerative factors. Type III - monetary costs increased substantially i n importance on question 2 as compared to question 1, as far as non-resource processing firms are concerned (Table IX;b). In this regard i t would seem reasonable to assume that non-resource processing firms on the average are smaller in size, in terms of number of employees, than resource processing firms. Such monetary costs could form a larger proportion of total costs for such smaller-sized operations (Townroe, 1971:85). This could account for the substantial increase in the importance of type III for non-resource processing firms. The remaining location factor score changes do not indicate a pronounced trend and are therefore not commented upon. 67 TABLE IX. RESOURCE AND NON-RESOURCE PROCESSING FIRM SCORES ON THE LOCATION FACTOR TYPES a. Scores based upon responses to question 1 Location Factor Types I II III IV V VI Resource pro-cessing firms 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.6 1.5 Non-resource processing firms 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.2 3.0 1.7 b. Scores based upon responses to question 2 Location Factor Types I II III IV V VI Resource pro-cessing firms 2.1(.0) 1.8(+.l) 2.3(.0) 2.6(+.2) 2.4(-.2) 1.5(.0) Non-resource processing firms 2.3(+.4) 2.2(.0) 2.6(+.6) 2.3(+.l) 2.9(-.l) 1.8(+.l) 68 Index of Change in Pattern of Response Between Questions 1 and 2 ' Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated based upon the ranked mean responses to question 1 and 2 on the nineteen loca-tion factors (Phillips and Thompson, 1967:247-60). Such coefficients were calculated for each of the SIC groups, size classes, and resource and non-resource processing firms. These coefficients are designed to serve as an aggregate index of change in response between questions 1 and 2 of the location survey questionnaire (Table X). The higher the value of these coefficients the greater the degree of similarity i n the pattern of response between questions 1 and 2; the lower the value of these coefficients the greater the degree of change i n the pattern of response between the two questions. Among the SIC groups transportation equipment, s c i e n t i f i c and professional equipment, and machinery industries exhibit low correlation coefficients and therefore a substantial degree of change in their patterns of response between question 1 and 2 of the questionnaire (Table X). If more complete questionnaire returns were available, i t would have been possible to calculate similar rank correlation coefficients, as indices of change, for combined SIC group size class categories of manu-facturing firms. For example, within food and beverage industries i t would have been possible to calculate indices of change for firms be-longing to this SIC group of various size classes. These coefficients could also serve as indices of potential mobility by giving a rough overall assessment of to what extent various SIC groups are dissatisfied with their present locations. In this regard i t i s unfortunate that the location survey questionnaire did not contain 69 TABLE X. INDEX OF CHANGE IN RESPONSE BETWEEN QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 SIC Groups Index of Change Transportation equipment ' ^ a Scie n t i f i c and professional equipment .38 Machinery .48 Food and beverage .75 Printing • 79 Wood .85 Metal fabricating .90 Size Classes A. (15-25 employees) .53 B. (26-50 employees) .66 C. (51-100 employees) .70 D. (101-500 employees) .82 Resource and Non-Resource Processing Resource processing .86 Non-resource processing .81 At the .05 level (one-tailed test) these two coefficients are not significant. If a larger sample was available i t i s conceivable that significant indices of change would have appeared. Nonetheless the values of the seven indices of change among SIC groups are compared in relative terms in the text. 70 a question as to whether respondents are a c t u a l l y considering a change i n t h e i r l o c a t i o n . Furthermore, i t would have been advantageous to have considered plant moves to new locations within rather than outside of the Vancouver region. I f questions of t h i s nature had been included i n the l o c a t i o n survey questionnaire i t would have been p o s s i b l e to determine whether firms among various SIC groups a c t u a l l y intending to move exhibited greater change i n t h e i r pattern of response, as com-pared to firms not contemplating a change i n t h e i r l o c a t i o n . ^ I t would be reasonable to hypothesize that movers would demonstrate a greater degree of change i n pattern of response as compared to those firms not contemplating a move. Such an analysis of the degree of change i n response among firms contemplating a move could be r e l a t e d to the change i n mean l e v e l s of response among the i n d i v i d u a l l o c a t i o n factors to i d e n t i f y those factors which change s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n importance f o r movers. The pattern of change i n response among s i z e classes i n d i c a t e s a tendency f o r la r g e r firms to e x h i b i t less change i n response between questions 1 and 2 than smaller s i z e d firms (Table X). This could be i n d i c a t i v e of the f a c t that larger firms are more s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r present locations than smaller firms. Larger concerns due to t h e i r large scale of operations and s u b s t a n t i a l f i x e d c a p i t a l investment at t h e i r present s i t e s could l o g i c a l l y be less l i k e l y to seek new locations I t i s of i n t e r e s t to note that, as established i n the l i t e r a t u r e , expansion of output which necessitates increased space requirements i s the primary force behind a c t u a l f i r m moves (Cameron, 1966:74; Fuchs, 1962:115; Goldberg, 1969 ( a r t i c l e ) : 1 6 7 ; H i l l , 1954:186; Linge, 1963:30; L u t t r e l l , 1962:40; Needleman and Scott, 1964:158; Townroe, 1969:19; 1971:35). 71 than smaller operations which would have a greater tendency to be housed i n leased or rented premises (Mueller and Morgan, 1962:211-2; Smith, 1971:91 and 215). These factors would make i t more d i f f i c u l t for larger operations to move. The indices of change for resource and non-resource processing firms do not exhibit substantial difference - both indices are quite high which i s indicative of general satisfaction among these general classes of firms i n their present sites. It is conceivable, however, that various sized firms within these two classes exhibit more substan-t i a l variation in the degree of change i n their patterns of response between questions 1 and 2. Recapitulation on Procedures Followed to Analyze Questionnaire Returns To recapitulate three primary techniques; have been used to analyze the questionnaire returns among SIC groups, size, classes, and resource and non-resource processing firms in this chapter. The mean level of importance of each of the nineteen location factors in response to ques-tions 1 and 2 were graphed. Linkage analysis was employed to gain an impression of the degree of similarity in response to question 1 among SIC groups and size classes of respondents. Linkage analysis was also used to gain a generalized impression of the pattern of response to questions 1 and 2 through the establishment of location factor types. In the preceding section of this chapter an intet of change was devised to give an indication of the degree of change am response between 72 questions 1 and 2 among SIC groups, size classes, and resource and non-resource processing firms. Such an index could also give an indication of the degree of satisfaction of firms with their present locations. Throughout this lengthy analytical chapter only the more pro-nounced trends evident in the data have been noted, and where appropriate related to findings i n the literature. It i s conceivable that with more comprehensive returns the trends evident through the processing of these data would have been more pronounced. Indeed, i t would have been desirable to have been able to conduct the analysis with more com-prehensive returns at the combined SIC group size class level, i.e. analyze the pattern of response of groups of firms of various sizes among the SIC groups. Through such an analysis i t would have been possible to examine to what extent firms of the same SIC group have similar location factor preferences irrespective of size, or alternately to what extent firms of the same size class have similar location factor preferences irrespective of SIC type (Leigh, 1969). In sum, i n spite of the limitations i n the available returns, throughout the text of this chapter the implications of the findings which did emerge to the planner, concerned with the development of policies relating to manu-facturing location within the Vancouver metropolitan area, have been indicated. CHAPTER V LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Modification in the Questionnaire Format This section w i l l review potential modification in the format of the location survey questionnaire which would serve to improve i t s quality, particularly from the point of view of yielding returns of greater u t i l i t y to this thesis, as an empirical analysis of metropolitan manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver. It would have been worth-while, as is done in several location surveys in the literature, to include a question to establish for each respondent when each firm established operations in the Vancouver region (G r i f f i n , 1956:182; Industrial Location Factors Survey, 1967:69; Kerr and Spelt, 1957:17). Such information would shed light upon the r e l i a b i l i t y of the responses of individual firms to question 1. For example, i t is questionable whether the representative of a firm which has been at i t s present site for a good number of years, say over twenty years, would be able to reliably, i f at a l l , answer question 1 (Greenhut, 1956:183; L u t t r e l l , 1962:1; Krumme, 1969:30; Sant, 1970:356).1 The original reasons for ' Question 1 ask respondents: For each of the following factors would you please indicate the level of importance in your decision to locate your business in the Vancouver Region. 73 74 locating in the Vancouver region would not be remembered; furthermore, those responsible for making this original location decision would no longer be i n the employ of the firm. Indeed, several respondents wrote in on the questionnaire that question 1 was inappropriate since they had been at their present locations for some forty years. Furthermore, in i t s phrasing question 1 seems geared to manufacturing operations which have moved into metropolitan Vancouver (i.e. branch plants) , what of local entrepreneurs whose businesses just developed in the metropolitan area; If i t was established when respondents located at the present sites within the metropolitan area i t would be possible to investigate the hypothesis as to whether longer standing firms are more dissatisfied with their present sites, in that they would therefore demonstrate a greater degree of change in their pattern of response between questions 1 and 2 (Sant, 1970:355-7; Smith, 1971:87). In this regard i t would also have been appropriate, as mentioned in Chapter IV, to ask respon-dents, as was done by Kerr and Spelt in their study of changing manu-facturing location in central Toronto, whether they actually intend to move (Kerr and Spelt, 1957:19). It could then be specifically established whether older firms are more prone to be considering a change in location. Such a question concerning intentions to move could be put into a spatial context i f respondents' present locations within the urban area were known. A supplementary question could also be included to establish where firms contemplate moving within the metropolitan area (Industrial Location Factors Survey, 1967:70; Kerr and Spelt, 1957:19). 75 In the previous chapter i t was established that i t would have been worth-while to have phrased question 2 to have considered plant moves to new locations within rather than outside of the Vancouver region. In such an expanded spatial analysis the intra-metropolitan movement trends of SIC groups, and size classes of manufacturing firms could be analyzed. More comprehensive returns containing information of this nature could form the basis of an in-depth study of the changing pattern of manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver which the planner could use in the development of policies to best accommodate manufacturing development within the metropolitan area. Such policy would be devised to take general community values and goals, plus the needs of manufacturers into better consideration. Inherent Limitations in the Questionnaire The literature brings to light what w i l l be termed inherent limitations in industrial location survey questionnaires i n which firms are asked to assess the importance of various location factors. Czamanski points out that respondents may exaggerate the importance of certain factors such as taxes which they view with resentment (Czamanski, 1965: 171). Another inherent d i f f i c u l t y in asking businessmen to assess the importance of various location factors is that they may indicate what factors they feel should be important, or those factors that have become important, rather than the factors that actually motivated the original location decision (Morgan, 1967:14 and 29). Another inherent d i f f i c u l t y of such location survey questionnaires is raised by Stevens and Brackett 76 in the introduction to their comprehensive annotated bibliography on industrial location . . . , i t is not clear that any of the surveys have e l i c i t e d honest responses. One cannot help feeling that industrialists, for a number of reasons, do not wish to divulge the real basis for their location decisions (Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (bibliography):14). The limitations reviewed i n this section are inherent in that they cannot be controlled for, but at best borne in mind. It i s con-ceivable that a personally administered interview with the opportunity for unscheduled comment or spontaneous feedback would tend to minimize, but certainly not eliminate such inherent limitations. Plant Location as a Multi-Stage Process Numerous items in the literature refer to the plant location process as a multi-staged process in that firms must decide upon a re-gional choice of location; once a regional location i s decided upon a suitable community or site must be selected within that region (Bridges, 1965:176; Greenhut, 1956:103; McLaughlin, 1949:169; McMillan, 1965:240-1; Morgan, 1967:14; Neuhoff, 1953:5 and 9; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (art i c l e ) : 1; Thompson, 1961:28; Wallace and Ruttan, 1961:136). Furthermore, several authors make reference to the fact that the location factors which lead a firm to choose a certain region may be vastly different from those governing the selection of a specific community or si t e within this region (Britton, 1967:126-7; McMillan, 1965:240; Morgan, 1967:14; Smith, 1971:90; Thompson, 1961:28; Tsagris, 1962:93). The factors which i n f l u -ence firm location at the regional level are referred to as primary 77 location factors or prerequisites of plant location. Such regional factors may include markets, location relative to raw material sources, labour availability and transportation infrastructure. The factors which influence firm location at the sub-regional level are referred to as secondary location factors or determinants of plant location (Greenhut, 1956:103; McMillan, 1965:240; Morgan, 1967:15; Thompson, 1961:30). Such sub-regional location factors which in the case of Greater Vancouver would influence the choice of the specific municipality or site within the metropolitan region may, based upon citations in the literature include: the local tax structure, quality of public services and amenities, commu-nity attitude to manufacturing including the availability of potential financial inducements, availability of land zoned for industry, and personal entrepreneurial preference or whim (Keeble, 1971: 235; Kerr and Spelt, 1960:23; Mayer, 1958:96; Smith, 1971:53-4; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (article):3; Thompson, 1961:42-50; Tsagris, 1962:93). Multi-stage location decisions, involving the determination of regional and specific location within a region according to several authors are more apt to be carried out by larger firms contemplating the establishment of branch plants or subsidiaries (Neuhoff, 1953:5; Wallace and Ruttan, 1961:140). Such multi-stage decisions would be carried out by firms who decide to locate branch plant operations in Vancouver to serve the Western Canadian market. Smaller locally based operations would not usually consider locating outside of the immediate metropolitan region but would s t i l l be faced with the consideration of their location requirements in deciding upon a specific municipality or site within the metropolitan area. 78 Very few industrial location studies involving questionnaire surveys clearly distinguish between, or even attempt to assess location factors important at the regional as against the sub-regional level. This sentiment is echoed in the following quotation . . . they [location survey questionnaires] are based on ordinal rankings of loosely defined factors that are be-lieved to be important to businessmen in making their location decisions. . . . the surveys f a i l to make a dis-tinction between the location problems of selecting a region and selecting a plant site [within the region]. It i s more lik e l y that different location forces determine the selection of the general region than the specific site within the region (Morgan, 1967:3). The questionnaire used by Thompson in his empirical analysis of industrial location i n the United States is one of the few question-naires which contains separate and distinct questions on location factors which influence location at the region (in this instance State) level and at the community level (Thompson, 1961:147). In their analysis of the location of the primary metal, metal fabricating and machinery indus-tries in Hamilton, Ontario, Bater and Walker asked such firms to identify the locational advantages and disadvantages of both the Hamilton area (the region) and their particular sites within the city (Bater and Walker, 1971:40-42). The factors which were mentioned at the regional and site levels lend credence to the above mentioned l i s t i n g of factors which are deemed important at the regional and sub regional levels in the plant location process. In view of the focus of this thesis i t is unfortunate that the location survey questionnaire was not phrased to consider manufacturing location as multi-stage process. However, since this questionnaire was designed as a component of a regional input-output study i t is understandable 79 that the location survey questionnaire should only be concerned with i interregional location. Within the framework of an input-output study the regional economy is regarded as a point in space. Locational changes within the region are of no consequence. Question 1 i s phrased to consider the importance of the nineteen location factors in the decision to locate in the Vancouver region. It would have been of value i f a supplementary question was also i n -cluded to establish the importance of these same location factors i n the decision to locate in a particular municipality or at a particular site within the region. Through the analysis of returns of this nature i t would be possible to gain an impression of the importance of various location factors at different stages in the location process. Further-more, i f question 2 was phrased so as to consider actual movement within the region, an impression would be gained of the location factors i n -fluencing the changing pattern of manufacturing location within the region. Data of this nature would be of substantial value to planning authorities at the regional and at the individual municipal levels within Greater Vancouver concerned with the formulation of manufacturing develop-ment policy guidelines. The location factors important to various SIC groups and size classes of manufacturing firms at both the regional and municipal levels could be identified. Metropolitan Vancouver, as Canada's third largest metropolitan centre would invariably figure highly in any long-term programmes ini t i a t e d at the Federal level to promote manufac-turing - primarily secondary manufacturing - in Western Canada. Data of the above mentioned nature would be of great value in devising sound policies to best accommodate such industry in the Vancouver region. CHAPTER VI POTENTIAL RELEVANCE OF INPUT-OUTPUT DATA TO THIS STUDY Interindustry Commodity Linkage as a Location Factor Since as mentioned previously the location survey questionnaire constitutes a supplementary portion of the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study," this brief chapter w i l l review what potential relevance or u t i l i t y such input-output data could eventually be to this study of manufacturing location. The "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study" seeks to construct a 27 sector input-output matrix representing sales and purchase relationships among the industrial, wholesale, r e t a i l and service sectors of the metropolitan economy. Since this input-output matrix for Metropolitan Vancouver i s s t i l l under construction the approach adopted in this chapter w i l l depend primarily upon a review of select cases i n the literature where input-output data has been used in an indus-t r i a l location context. The implication i s that when such input-output data i s available for Metropolitan Vancouver i t too w i l l be able to be employed in a similar fashion. Interindustry linkages are cited as being important determinants of plant location within urban areas (Bater and Walker, 1971:46-7; Brewis, 1969:36; Keeble, 1969:181; Smith, 19 71:503). For those industries with 80 81 strong commodity ties with other activities within a region there i s a strong incentive for such firms to locate with good access to their regional suppliers and/or business customers (Hoover, 1970:48; Keeble, 1969:163 and 181; Richter, 1969:19). Industrial linkages represent commodity flows of goods between industries within a particular geo-graphic area; within the context of this analysis the focus would be upon linkages between industries within Metropolitan Vancouver.''' As Townroe states A detailed input-output matrix showing how the sales and purchases of each industry relate to the sales and pur-chases of a l l other industries is perhaps the best con-ceptual tool for analysing linkage, but local [e.g. metro-politan area] data are very d i f f i c u l t to obtain, . . . (Townroe, 1970:20). In the case of the input-output matrix for Metropolitan Vancouver, which i s under construction at present, the collection and obtaining of data on purchases and sales from firms within the metropolitan area has been a tedious and time-consuming task. Among the 27 sectors considered in this Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study are the following nine manufacturing industry sectors: food and beverages, wood industries, In addition to such commodity or tangible linkages several authors make reference to the role of non-commodity or intangible link-ages between industries in promoting the concentration of economic a c t i -vity (Kerr and Field, 1968:14; Tornquist, 1968:101; Townroe, 1970:20; Wood, 1969:33). Such non-commodity linkages include communication links which involve information exchanges between industrial concerns, par-ticularly within a metropolitan economy. However, outside of mentioning non-commodity linkages, the previously cited authors a l l admit to the. di f f i c u l t y - i f not impossibility - of empirically measuring such linkages. No empirical studies seem to exist in which researchers have tried to measure or assess the strength or actual importance of such intangible linkages within a metropolitan area. One useful approach to this problem might be through the analysis of interindustry telephone conversation (volume of calls) within the metropolitan area. Does the pattern of such intangible linkages bear close correspondence to the pattern of interindustry commodity linkages? 82 paper and a l l i e d industries, chemical and chemical product industries, petroleum and coal products, non-metallic mineral products, metal fabr i -cating industries, printing publishing and al l i e d industries, and manu-facturing not elsewhere classified (which includes apparel and fabricated textile products, furniture and fixtures, and other manufacturing) ("Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study" (pamphlet), 1972:2-3). When available such intermanufacturing industry input-output data w i l l be able to be used in a manner similar to that in the several studies, which w i l l be reviewed below, to study the strength and importance of intra-metropolitan manufacturing commodity linkages. Uses of Input-Output Data in Analyzing Industrial Location Using a comprehensive interindustry table prepared for the Metro-politan Philadelphia economy in 1960 as his data base, Karaska analyzes the strength of the linkage of local manufacturing firms with the local manufacturing system (Karaska, 1966:89; 1969:354). In analyzing the strength of linkages to the local economy Karaska determines the degree of attraction "for industries to locate close to one another [i.e. within Metropolitan Philadelphia] so as to be assured of an inexpensive, e f f i -cient and flexible supply of goods and services" (Karaska, 1966:96). Two summary indices are constructed to measure the extent of local link-ages One index measures the degree to which each industry . . . can be characterized as having local manufacturing supply linkages. The other index measures the degree to which Philadelphia industries can be characterized as having 83 local manufacturing demand linkages. The f i r s t index then, classifies Philadelphia industries' on the basis o f their input characteristics (linkages). The second, classifies the inputs on the basis of their linkages with the Philadelphia manufacturing market (Karaska, 1969:363). Karaska uses these indices to classify local industries, at the 2-digit SIC level, as having strong or weak local demand and/or supply linkages with the metropolitan economy The following . . . industries may be characterized as having strong local demand linkages: printing, lumber, fabricated metals, and machinery in that order. Con-versely, the following . . . industries exemplify weak local demand linkages: miscellaneous manufacturing apparel, rubber, food i n that order. . . . industry classes of petroleum, lumber, printing, instruments, furniture and machinery have important linkages with the Philadelphia economy in both their supply and demand components. Conversely industries such as rubber, apparel, and paper show evidence of weak linkages to their supply and demand components (Karaska, 1969:368). Furthermore, i t would have been possible within the context of such an analysis to examine the nature of the linkage ties between local industries. Industry pairs complementary to each other, based upon strong input-output ties, could then be identified (Bergsman, 1972:263; Czamanski, 1964:183; 1965:170; Keeble, 1969:181; Moses and Williamson, 1967:125). A comprehensive impression of the importance of local markets t o various local manufacturing industry groups would be gained. In sum, an approach similar to Karaska's, which Gilmour refers to as the "most significant study yet undertaken of the relationships between agglomeration and industrial linkages" could be applied to the Metropolitan Vancouver input-output data (Gilmour, 1971:288). 84 Lever's recent analysis of the strength of input-output linkages between spatially associated industries, conducted at the interregional level for the U.K., is quite innovative; i t would be extremely worthwhile to conduct a similar type of analysis at the intrametropolitan level (Lever, 1972). Specifically Lever tests the validity of the following hypothesis for pairs of SIC industry types on a regional basis for the U.K. If external economies associated with access to suppliers and customers are important in the industrial location process pairs of industries which are functionally linked by flows of goods are l i k e l y to be located closer together than i f each industry in the pair located irrespectively of the other's location (Lever, 1972:373). Through the use of correlation bonding techniques Lever estab-lishes pairs of industry types which are spatially associated (Lever, 1972:373-5). Through the use of interregional input-output data he then establishes industry pairs which have strong functional or commodity linkages between each other. Lever then examines the degree of asso-ciation between industries that are functionally linked and those that are spatially associated; he finds a significant relationship to exist between functional linkage and spatial association at the regional level for the U.K. (Lever, 1972:376-9). This significant relationship " i n -dicates the importance of access to suppliers and to customers as a constraint on locational or re-locational choice in British industry" (Lever, 1972:382). Within the Metropolitan Vancouver context i t would be of interest to adapt Lever's methodology and to examine to what extent manufacturing industry types in close spatial proximity to each other (i.e. with similar 85 patterns of distribution) within the metropolitan area have significantly stronger input-output linkages. Information of this nature could be of relevance to industrial zoning programmes; strongly linked industries which are spatially associated could be allocated to similar areas of the city when contemplating intrametropolitan changes in location, so as to permit the most efficient operation of the metropolitan manufacturing complex. In addition to i t s potential relevance to this study of manufacturing location, the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study" matrix would also be of value i n giving a general impression of the potential impact upon the metropolitan economy of the expansion or diversification of various components of Metropolitan Vancouver's manufacturing complex. Such infor-mation would be of value i n determining the nature of the Greater Van-couver component of any Western Canadian manufacturing promotion programme, which was mentioned in the previous chapter. Through the use of this input-output matrix i t would be possible to determine the relative impact upon the metropolitan economy of the expansion of select industries. CHAPTER VII THE LIMITED EMPIRICAL UTILITY OF INDUSTRIAL LOCATION THEORY In this next to f i n a l chapter various themes in the voluminous industrial location literature w i l l be reviewed stressing the limited u t i l i t y of industrial location theory in aiding in the explanation or prediction of the actual location of industry, particuarly within the metropolitan area. The general limitations of industrial location theory, which has been strongly rooted within the discipline of economics, w i l l be reviewed without specific reference being made to the numerous theore-t i c a l contributions of various individuals.^ Numerous authors make reference to the abstract nature of the many theoretical constructs within the body of industrial location theory. These authors stress the limited empirical u t i l i t y of such theoretical formulations in terms of explaining or predicting the actual distribution of industry, particularly within the metropolitan area (Goldman, 1958:92; Groves, 1971:1; Keeble, 1971:230; King, 1966:452-3; Smith, 1966:95; Stevens and Brackett, 1967 (article):1; 1967 (bibliography):7; Townroe, 1971:2; Webber and Daly, 19 71:130). Since this thesis i s devoted to an "'"If the reader i s interested in obtaining a grasp of the specific nature of the major contributions by various individuals in the f i e l d of industrial location theory the following references are suggested: Hamilton, 1967; King, 1966; Smith, 1971:113-273. 86 87 empirical analysis of manufacturing location within Metropolitan Van-couver there has therefore been no reason, in the other chapters of this study, to make specific reference to the numerous, diverse and abstract theoretical formulations of various individuals. Nonetheless these theoretical formulations, although of limited predictive power, aided i n the interpretation of the results of the analysis of the ques-tionnaire returns in Chapter IV. By having a knowledge of the essence of these theoretical contributions i t was possible to make sense of some of the patterns which emerged from the analysis witii regard to the impor-tance of the various location factors. It is also reasonable to assume that familiarity with the essence of these theoretical formulations influenced the drawing up of the location survey questionnaire, as part of the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study," i n terms of affecting the choice of location factors which are liste d in this questionnaire. A substantial number of the theoretical contributions review the select impact of various location factors upon industrial location. After an extensive review of many of the contributions by various individuals within the body of industrial location theory Smith concludes . . . abstract theory must be constantly related to reality i f i t i s to be anything more than an exercise i n applied logic or mathematics, and must be judged by i t s capacity to explain industrial location patterns in the real world. Furthermore, It must be conceded . . . that very l i t t l e progress has yet been made in the direct application of industrial location theory to real-world situations. . . . , the space economists [in their foimulation of theory] have generally been more concerned with the- construction of elegant theories of locational equilibrium,, or with the fusion of location theory and production theory, than with providing a guide for empirical inquiry (Smith, 1971:275). 88 The following somewhat apologetic remarks are made by Alonso at the onset of a theoretically-oriented contribution of his to the literature It must be understood that the intent here [ i . e . within his article] is not to provide techniques of solution for actual problems of location. The approach, in common with most of classical location theory, considers only those factors that are continuous differentiable functions over, geographic territory. It neglects discontinuities, such as steps in transport networks, terminal costs, cheap labour, power, or other factors that exist at particular locations, etc. The interest of the partial model presented here i s to show how certain factors affect the logic of location; actual decisions would consider other factors as well (Alonso, 1967:23). This abstract and p a r t i a l nature of theoretical constructs is a reflection of the complex nature of locational decision making which involves the consideration of many factors by entrepreneurs (Brewis, 1969:33; Logan, 1966:453; Smith, 1966:112). As Smith remarks in his comprehensive text on industrial location The truth is that industrial location, like many other forms of human behaviour, is very d i f f i c u l t to understand, and no theory w i l l ever produce models that can perfectly replicate and completely explain actual patterns of plant location (Smith, 1971:277). Furthermore, the construction of more r e a l i s t i c and comprehensive theoretical formulations is severely limited by the paucity and d i f f i -culty of acquiring adequate data at the regional (e.g. metropolitan area) or sub-regional levels (Lloyd and Dicken, 1968; Smith, 1971: 276). Even where metropolitan area surveys are conducted at considerable expense many firms refuse, on grounds of confidentiality, to furnish data on their operations. This d i f f i c u l t y has affected the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study" and location survey questionnaire. 89 Numerous empirical studies of industrial location have brought to light the influence of personal preferences or non-economic factors upon the actual industrial location decision (Czamanski, 1965:169; Doerr, 1954:399; Greenhut, 1951:228; 1956:279; Linge, 1963:35; Logan, 1966:461; Mueller and Morgan, 1962:216; Tiebout, 1957:82). One such factor may be the tendency for firms to be located close to the owner's or manager's home (Katona and Morgan, 1968:42; Townroe, 1969:23). These personal, or what Smith (1971:91) refers to as "random" factors of location further reflect the d i f f i c u l t y , i f not impossibility, of devising a generalized theory of location to adequately take such factors into consideration. Economically-oriented industrial location theory i s strongly c r i t i c i z e d for being overly concerned with the determination of the least cost, profit maximizing location of the firm. Assumptions of this nature represent abstractions from the real world i n that the above mentioned personal or non-economic factors are not taken into consideration (Logan, 1970:325; Mueller and Morgan, 1962:204-5; Rawstron, 1958:141-2; Tiebout, 1957:75; Townroe, 1969:15; 1971:5). Many economically-oriented theoretical constructs also assume perfect knowledge on the part of entrepreneurs i n deciding upon a location; such an assumption i s regarded as divorced from reality. In the real world entrepreneurs due to imper-fect or incomplete information cannot achieve the best location, but rather a satisfactory location (Britton, 1967:123). In sum because industrial location theorists have been faced with the problem of theorizing upon an exceedingly complex real world phenomenon, they have been forced to make simplifying assumptions. This has rendered their theoretical constructs vulnerable to voluminous c r i t i c i s m 90 proclaiming justly that such theories are abstract and divorced from reality. The limited predictive power of these theoretical formulations limits their relevance to empirical analyses of industrial location such as this thesis. More r e a l i s t i c theoretical constructs could conceivably be developed through the cataloguing of the results of empirical studies of industrial location conducted at the metropolitan level. However, even this task, particularly in light of the d i f f i c u l t y and expense of conducting empirical analyses at the metropolitan level, would not be easy. Nonetheless, such an approach to theory construction would seem to be more conducive to gradually yielding more r e a l i s t i c theoretical formulations which would therefore be of greater u t i l i t y to the planner concerned with the development of programmes to best accommodate industry within the metropolitan area. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUDING REMARKS General Findings The meager response rate to the location survey questionnaire makes i t d i f f i c u l t to cite many conclusions of general planning appli-cability which have become evident as a result of the preceding analysis. One finding of this nature, however, appeared on the graphs used in Chapter IV to analyze the questionnaire returns. Figure 16, in which the mean responses on question 1 and 2 of the location survey questionnaire for a l l respondents were plotted, demonstrates that water transportation i s of minor importance as a location factor among manufacturing industries in general. This location factor was most important for wood industries, large size operations (size class D) and for resource processing firms. Even for these manufacturing industries the importance of water trans-portation declined slightly in response to question 2 as compared to question 1. For other types and size classes of: manufacturers water transportation was of minor importance. This trend towards the declining and nmnrar overall importance of water transportation to the region's manufacturing industries is of particular importance in light of the blanket future designation of the bulk of Greater Vancouver's water frontage - both fresh and salt water 91 92 frontage - as industrial (O'Gorman, 1971: Figwe-20; The Dynamics of  Industrial Land Settlement, 1961:70). Research womld certainly be war-ranted to establish a more r e a l i s t i c assessment of actual industrial waterfront needs. Such research should not onljyy be restricted to manu-facturing but also other industrial activities including construction, transportation and storage, communications andwholesale a c t i v i t i e s . In light of the Lower Mainland's growing populsEtri-osn i t i s essential that available water frontage should be made attainable to other non-industrial uses (e.g. recreation and conservation}. The present blanket allocation of the region's water frontage as i n i u s t r i a l seems to be far i n excess of actual needs. There is a neeii t'o determine what indus-t r i a l a c tivities have to have direct water accss. Water frontage is a limited regional resource which should be wiseDjy wsed to accommodate a mix of users. It has been established that Metropolitan, Vancouver's manufacturing structure i s strongly oriented towards resource processing a c t i v i t i e s , or the production of inputs for the dominant r s E o i r a r c e sector of the provincial economy. Vancouver's status as Canafcafs third largest metro-politan centre has encouraged the expansion of nsm-resource oriented manufacturing to serve this concentrated regioraaU consumer market. In this regard i t would seem reasonable for a policy to be developed to encourage the further diversification of Vancouver's manufacturing structure to serve the expanding local, provincial', Western Canadian and Pacific Rim markets. Such a policy would involve Federal, provin-c i a l and local governments. In the event of the formulation of a programme at the Federal level to promote manufacturing - primarily secondary manufacturing - in Western Canada, Vancouver could figure highly in being designated as a node for such development.^ A programme of this nature would serve to gradually reduce the dependence of the Vancouver manufacturing complex upon the international market conditions for B.C.'s forestry and mineral resources. Oh reasonable prospect for the expansion of Greater Vancouver's secondary manufacturing base could be through manufacturers of light, high value goods for national and international markets. Such light, environmentally clean industries could be oriented towards Vancouver International Airport. Air transportation would provide rapid and e f f i -cient commodity and personal links to external markets. Steed points out that the Vancouver metropolitan area is lacking in such producers of lightweight, high value goods (Steed, 1972:38). Vancouver Inter-national Airport, as the nation's third most important airport in terms of passenger and freight volume could serve as the focus for this type of development (Airport Activity Statistics 1971:i). Substantial light industrial development has taken place in the v i c i n i t y of Toronto International Airport; the potential would seem to exist for similar airport related industrial development in the case of Vancouver. Slater in reviewing the distribution of manufacturing in Canada states "Outside of south-central Canada, resource sites and the ser-vicing of local markets appear to be the main explanations of the exis-tence of manufacturing jobs" (Slater, 1961:412). 94 Improvement in the Nature and Scope of the Questionnaire Returns A substantial portion of this thesis has been devoted to reviewing the limitations and means of improving the nature and scope of the loca-tion survey questionnaire returns. These limitations are primarily a reflection of the fact that the location survey questionnaire was designed as a supplementary component of a regional input-output study. More comprehensive representative returns would have permitted the analysis to take place at the 3-digit SIC manufacturing industry class level. It would also have been possible to analyze the pattern of response among various size classes of respondents belonging to the same SIC groups. The mailing of the location survey questionnaire, i n a revamped format, separate from the input-output survey component of the "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study" would have yielded more comprehensive returns. In has, however, been demonstrated that the input-output returns for the Metropolitan Vancouver economy would be of relevance in assessing the importance of commodity linkages in explaining intrametropolitan manufacturing location. In terms of format the location survey f a i l s to recognize indus-t r i a l location as a multi-stage process. Different location factors influence the location decision at the regional and sub-regional levels. The questionnaire only seeks to establish the importance of the location factors at the regional level. The location factors which are important in influencing the locational choice within the metropolitan region have not been determined. 95 Question 1 of the location survey questionnaire is concerned with the importance of the nineteen location factors in the decision of respondents to locate in the Vancouver region; question 2 is concerned with the importance of the nineteen location factors i f the firms were to move to a location outside of the Vancouver region. No attempt is made to determine whether each respondent actually intends to move. It would have been of value i f this question was phrased so as to con-sider change of location within the region. Returns of greater utility to the planner would be generated i f the responses of firms actually intending to move could be analyzed. The incorporation of the spatial element into the analysis, through the plotting of respondents present and future (i.e. locations to which respondents intend to move) locations, could yield findings on the spatial pattern and trend of manufacturing development in Greater Vancouver. Such information would be of use in devising policy to accommodate and influence manufacturing location within the metropolitan area. Respondents' locations could be plotted in an aggregate fashion, e.g. by municipality, or SIC group clusters, so as to preserve confidentiality, in that the locations or behaviour of individual firms could not be identified. Confidentiality could also be maintained i f only the results of this spatial analysis, and not actual firm locations upon which such an analysis would be based, were published. Industrial location theory has been shown to be of limited utility in aiding in the explanation or prediction of the actual loca-tion of industry, particularly within the metropolitan area. The complexity of the location process has mitigated construction of theory 96 to adequately take such complications into consideration. A more produc-tive, yet gradual road to the construction of more r e a l i s t i c theory would seem to l i e in the synthesizing of the findings of empirical analyses, particularly at the metropolitan level. In summary this thesis has consisted of an empirical analysis of manufacturing location in Greater Vancouver. Due to the limitations in the nature and scope of the location survey questionnaire this piece of research has not yielded a great number of generally applicable findings. The findings which did emerge were related to statements in the voluminous body of industrial location literature. The relevance of these findings to the planner concerned with the development of policy to regulate and accommodate manufacturing activity within Greater Vancouver was also discussed. It is recognized that the planner involved in the formu-lation of policies relating to metropolitan manufacturing location would not be operating in a vacuum. The impact of changing manufacturing location upon other elements of the urban infrastructure (e.g. trans-portation, u t i l i t i e s , housing) and general environment would also have to be considered. The methodology employed and supplementary approaches suggested within this thesis would be applicable to more extensive metropolitan industrial location questionnaire returns. The modifications in ques-tionnaire format which are reviewed throughout the text are not only applicable to the specific location survey questionnaire upon which this analysis is based. Such modifications should be taken into con-sideration to greatly improve the u t i l i t y cf any surveys of metropolitan industrial location conducted in the near future, particularly for Greater Vancouver or by any of the individual municipalities within the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . APPENDIX A. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUPS AT THE TWO-DIGIT STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSI-FICATION LEVEL a 1. Food and Beverage Industries 2. Tobacco Products Industries 3. Rubber and Plastics Products Industries 4. Leather Industries 5. Textile Industries 6. Knitting Mills 7. Clothing Industries 8. Wood Industries 9. Furniture and Fixture Industries 10. Paper and Allie d Industries 11. Printing, Publishing and Allie d Industries 12. Primary Metal Industries 13. Metal Fabricating Industries (except Machinery and Transportation Equipment Industries) 14. Machinery Industries (except E l e c t r i c a l Machinery) 15. Transportation Equipment Industries 16. E l e c t r i c a l Products Industries 17. Non-Metallic Mineral Products Industries 18. Petroleum and Coal Products Industries 19. Chemical and Chemical Products Industries 20. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries These manufacturing industry groups are based upon the aggre-gation of manufacturing activity classes at the three-digit level (Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1970:11). The food and beverage industries group, for example, includes the following three-digit classes: 101 Meat and Poultry Products Industries 102 Fish Products Industry 103 Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industries 104 Dairy Products Industry 105 Flour and Breakfast Cereal Products Industry 106 Feed Industry 107 Bakery Products Industries 108 Miscellaneous Food Industries 109 Beverage Industries 98 99 APPENDIX A - c o n t i n u e d M a n u f a c t u r i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t s a r e a s s i g n e d t o c l a s s e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l p r o d u c t s . An i n d u s t r y c o n s i s t s o f a group o f e s t a b l i s h m e n t s engaged i n t h e same o r a s i m i l a r k i n d o f economic a c t i v i t y (SIC M a n u a l , 1970:7). T h i s i n d u s t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s y s t e m p r o v i d e s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n , t a b u l a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f d a t a r e l a t i n g t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f C a n a d i a n m a n u f a c t u r i n g . T h i s s y s t e m i s comparable t o s i m i l a r systems used by o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , s o as t o f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f d a t a . APPENDIX B. MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTION 1 AMD 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE J£MONG SIC GROUPS (FIGURES 2 THROUGH 8), SIZE CLASSES (FIGURES 10 THROUGH 13), AND RESOURCE AND • NON-RESOURCE PROCESSING FIRMS (FIGURES 14 AND 15) 100 FIGURE 2. FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND .2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE * L 4 e v e 1 o f i m P o r t a n c e s . _ — \ \ \ \ \ n \ H si S s s ..V \ s X --responses to question 1 -responses to question 2 s \ ! ] ! i N 1 6 2 . 13 14 11 3 12 Location factors (numbered as in- Figure 1) 16 10 15 18 17 19 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential. FIGURE 3. WOOD INDUSTRIES: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE L* 4. e v e 1 o f i m P o r t a n c e N k r k ! i h i k - V N I 7 1 8 12 6 10 2 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) I 4 v. -0. -responses to question 1 -responses to question 2 s s ,.L si n \ s q s V n Pi -s i s s s *• s s ..... „ ... - 1 13 11 15 16 17 14 18 19 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential O to FIGURE 4. METAL FABRICATING INDUSTRIES: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1' AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE L* 4-e v e 1 o 3-i ra P o 2-r t a n c e 1' n •responses to question 1 ^—responses to question 2 1 s IN V s \ • N 1 3 2 6 11 10 12 5 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 13 16 15 R 8 14 18 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential 1 S 17 19 o FIGURE 5. TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT INDUSTRIES: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE n n N s s V S - - . 1 i n hi s i ! r 9 17 s , \ — \ \ I s -responses to question 1 ^responses to question 2 7 4 1 3 8 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 11 12 J,i-tv 16 19 N 13 10 18 16 2 s 15 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential FIGURE 6. MACHINERY INDUSTRIES (EXCEPT ELECTRICAL MACHINERY): MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE * L 4 e v e 1 o f I m P o r t a n c e responses to responses to question 1 question 2 - 3 D • 4-n N s 1 v — v. I Si H { s l i t nn n s n i i C 8 3 1 2 6 10 9 11 15 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 17 19 13 14 12 16 18 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential, o Ul FIGURE 7. PRINTING AND PUBLISHING INDUSTRIES: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE L e v e 1 o f i m P o r t a n c e —-responses to j—responses to question 1 question 2 IT si H -s. ii 11 i l i \ s i N \ \ s _ l i 16 i . \1 i , L _ \ S s _. s \ .Ij s, f r f s R 1 •s : 6 3 • 2 11 13 12 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 14 15 is s s s 10 18 s s 19 8 17 1. unimportant; 2. fairly important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential o CTv FIGURE 8. . SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT INDUSTRIES: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 4 2 1 responses to question 1 s s --responses to question 2 — \ \ \ N s \ N s S s s \ \ s V \ N s S s s s • N S \ \ S \ \ \ s s. V ». s S i s •s s n s -v s i 1 t 1 1 i. ! i t N s s • s N S \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N s \ s •v. \ s N \ N \ S s s s *. V S N. S s s s s s s s s s. s. V V s. s s. 1 15 9 6 7 16 2 3 19 10 18 8 4 5 11 12 13 14 17 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) * 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential. FIGURE 10. SIZE CLASS A (15-25 EMPLOYEES): MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE L 4-e v e 1 o f i P o r t a n c e 4 responses to question 1 —responses to question 2 i s w V H M .^ i."5i..-^ ....l~i-i— 1 3 6 10 2 4 5 9 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) \ 11 \ \ 12 15 18 19 13 s s s 16 14 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3., important; 4. absolutely essential. 17 x, N o oo FIGURE 11. SIZE CLASS B (26-50 EMPLOYEES): MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE L 4-e v e 1 • -responses to question 1 .sj^- responses to question 2 o f i m P o r t a n c e 5 s, N N \ \ Ik JL 1 6 3 2 4 7 11 12 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) s s f t " -o •s N s s l i 10 16 8 13 14 17 15 18 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3.' important; 4. absolutely essential -£•4— i 19 o VO FIGURE 12. SIZE CLASS C (51-100 EMPLOYEES) : MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Si K -responses to question 1 _NJ.--responses to question 2 i n i j i l 12 N ,„ \ \ 11 13 10 .j..__.i.a.. 16 15 -t-—... 1 18 14 19 r H 1 3 I I k I I j 17 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential FIGURE 13. SIZE CLASS D (101-500 EMPLOYEES) : MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE L* 4 e v e 1 o 3 f i m P o 2 r t a n c e 1 N -responses to question 1 -responses to question 2 \ N \ V I I 1 s EN s S \ i i . n 6 1 2 3 7 13 16 10 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 11 15 14 12 17 19 .18 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential FIGURE 14. RESOURCE PROCESSING FIRMS: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE L* 4 e v e 1 o 3 f i m P o 2 r t a n c 1 e responses to question 1 —responses to question 2 N ! t X Xf \ S J X 4 - 4 4 SI xj x 12 7 10 1 11 8 6 2 Location factors (numbered as i n Figure 1) 13 -fl t x X X n x \ L..i X . 16 15 19 17 18 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential 14 t—' r o FIGURE 15. NON-RESOURCE PROCESSING FIRMS: MEAN RESPONSES ON QUESTIONS 1 AND :2 OF THE LOCATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE —responses to question 1 —responses to question 2 \ \ p 1 6 3 2 7 10 15 11 Location factors (numbered as in Figure 1) 13 12 \ Pi S V 16 14 ..*~J-..t. 8 s •v. 19 18 17 1. unimportant; 2. f a i r l y important; 3. important; 4. absolutely essential APPENDIX C. MATRICES OF SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SIZE CLASSES (TABLE III) AND LOCATION FACTORS (TABLE IV) 114 115 TALBE III. MATRIX OF SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SIZE CLASSES3 Size Classes'3 A B C_ D S A .71 .59 .48 i z e B .71 .81 .67 C .59 .81 .84 C 1 D .48 .67 .84 a s s e s aThis matrix is based upon the mean responses of each size class to each of the 19 location factors on question 1 of the location survey questionnaire. bThe size classes are as follows: A. 15-25 employees; B. 26-50 employees; C. 51-100 employees; and D. 101-500 employees. TABLE IV. MATRIX OF SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN LOCATION FACTORS3 Location Factors 1 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 L 1 .34 .29 .28 .21 .08 .19 .21 .15 .22 .20 .25 .19 .14 .05 .11 .19 .11 .04 0 2 .34 .56 .52 .47 .41 .36 .40 .40 .45 .44 .51 .55 .53 .40 .57 .44 .40 .29 c 3 .29 .56 .36 .40 .36 .34 .41 .51 .38 .51 .39 .39 .43 .48 .43 .40 .38 .37 a 4 .28 .52 .36 .64 .35 .41 .39 .33 .55 .53 .59 .45 .43 .24 .39 .46 .36 .19 t 5 .21 .47 .40 .64 .46 .51 .45 .38 .83 .74 .78 .74 .55 .48 .47 .59 .49 .26 i 6 .08 .41 .36 .35 .46 .54 .38 .33 .43 .47 .50 .53 .43 .44 .47 .50 .48 .31 o 7 .19 .36 .34 .41 .51 .54 .73 .34 .46 .47 .61 .52 .26 .38 .34 .53 .36 .21 n 8 .21 .40 .41 .39 .45 .38 .73 .34 .37 .43 .53 .50 .29 .34 .31 .47 .32 .13 9 .15 .40 .51 .33 .38 .33 .34 .34 .35 .44 .35 .30 .39 .61 .46 .48 .46 .39 F 10 .22 .45 .38 .55 .83 .43 .46 .37 .35 .82 .80 .71 .49 .42 .46 .52 .51 .31 a 11 .20 .44 .51 .53 .74 .47 .47 .43 .44 .82 .73 .71 .57 .53 .53 .59 .54 .33 c 12 .25 .51 .39 .59 .78 .50 .61 .53 .35 .80 .73 .80 .44 .42 .49 .58 .50 .25 t 13 .19 .55 .39 .45 .74 .53 .52 .50 .30 .71 .71 .80 .61 .43 .58 .61 .56 .27 o 14 .14 .53 .43 .43 .55 .43 .26 .29 .39 .49 .57 .44 .61 .62 .73 .59 .51 .44 r 15 .05 . 40 .48 .24 .48 .44 .38 .34 .61 .42 .53 .42 .43 .62 -21 .55 .55 .50' s 16 .11 .57 .43 .39 .47 .47 .34 .31 .46 .46 .53 .49 .58 .73 .73 .50 .53 .36 17 .19 .44 .40 .46 .59 .50 .53 .47 .48 .52 .59 .58 .61 .59 .55 .50 .57 .45 18 .11 .40 .38 .36 .49 .48 .36 .32 .46 .51 .54 .50 .56 .51 .55 .53 .57 .64 19 .04 .29 .37 .19 .26 .31 .21 .13 .39 .31 .33 .25 .27 .44 .50 .36 .45 .64 This matrix is based upon the pattern of response of a l l respondents to each of the location factors on question 1 of the location survey questionnaire. i—* M O N BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, N. (January 22, 1972). "Land for Industry i s There but It's Too Raw." Vancouver Sun, p. 21. Alexander, J.W. (1963). Economic Geography. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Alonso, W. (1967). "A Reformulation of Classical Location Theory and Its Relation to Rent Theory." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 19, 23-44. Armen, G. (1972). "A Classification of Cities and City Regions in England and Wales, 1966." Regional Studies, 6, 149-82. Atkinson, E. (March 10, 1973). "How B.C. lost a business." Vancouver  Sun, p. 26. Ball , C , and Teitz, M. (1958). "Expressways and Industrial Location." Tr a f f i c Quarterly, 12, 589-601. Barloon, M.J. (1965). "The Interrelationship of the Changing Structure of American Transportation and Changes in Industrial Location." Land Economics, 41, 169-79. Bater, J.H., and Walker, D.F. (1971). The Linkage Study of Hamilton Metal Industries. Hamilton, Ontario: Hamilton Planning Department. Bergsman, J., et a l . (1972). "The Agglomeration Process in Urban Growth." Urban Studies, 9, 263-88. (1972). "BMD07M: Stepwise Discriminant Analysis." Vancouver: Computing Centre; University of Bri t i s h Columbia. Breese, G. (1954). Industrial Site Selection. Burlington County, N.J. A Cast Study of Existing and Potential Industrial Location. Princeton, N.J.: Bureau of Urban Research, Princeton University. Brewis, T.N. (1969). Regional Economic Policies in Canada. Toronto: Macmillan, pp. 29-42. Bridges, B. (1965). "State and Local Inducements for Industry - Part II." National Tax Journal, 18, 175-92. Britton, J.N.H. (1969). "A Geographical Approach to the Examination of Industrial Linkages." Canadian Geographer, 13, 185-98. 117 118 Britton, J.N.H. (1967). Regional Analysis and Economic Geography - A Case  Study of Manufacturing in the Bristol Region. London: G. Bell and Sons. Cameron, G.C., and Clark, B.D. (1966). Industrial Movement and the  Regional Problem. University of Glasgow Social and Economic Studies; Occasional Papers No. 5. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Canada. Airport Activity Statistics 1971. Catalogue 51-203. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; Transportation and Public U t i l i t i e s Division, Aviation Statistics Centre. Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Canada Year Book 1970-1. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. Canada. Employment earnings and hours - July 1972. Catalogue 72-002. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; Labour Division, Employment Section, Table 14. Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Manufacturing Industries of Canada. Section A; Summary for Canada 1967; Section F; Bri t i s h Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories 1967; Section G; Geographical Distribution 1965 and 1967. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. Canada. (1965). "Manufacturing -Vancouver, B.C." Maps 20-25. Urban Analysis Series for Federal Emergency Measures Organization. Scale 1:25,000 (1 mile = 2.5 inches). Based upon 1961 data. Ottawa: Geographical Branch; Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Canada. (1970). Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Canada. (1969). The Input-Output Structure of the Canadian Economy 1961. Volume Io Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Table 1. Casetti, E. (1968). "Optimal Location of Steel Mills Serving the Quebec and Southern Ontario Steel Market." Canadian Geographer, 10, 27-39. Chinitz, B. (1960). Freight and the Metropolis. The impact of America's transport revolutions on the New York Region. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Craig, P.G. (1957). "Location Factors in the Development of Steel Centers." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 3, . 249-65. Czamanski, S. (1964). "A Model of Urban Growth." Papers and Proceedings  of the Regional Science Association, 13, 177-200. 119 Czamanski, S. (1965). "Industrial Location and Urban Growth." Town  Planning Review, 36, 165-80. Denike, K.G., and Leigh, R. (1971). "Regional Economic Development in British Columbia." Unpublished research paper. Vancouver: Department of Geography; University of B r i t i s h Columbia. (Mimeograph Doerr, A.H. (1954). "A Quantitative Analysis of the Locational Factors in the Integrated and Semi-Integrated Iron and Steel Industry of the United States and Canada." Journal of Geography, 53, 393-402. Due, J.F. (1961). "Studies of State - Local Tax Influences on Location of Industry." National Tax Journal, 14, 163-73. Field, N.C., and Kerr, D.P. (1968). Geographical Aspects of Industrial  Growth in the Metropolitan Toronto Region. Department of Treasury and Economics; Regional Development Branch. Research Paper No. 1. Toronto; Government of Ontario. Forward, C.N. (1968). Waterfront Land Use in Metropolitan Vancouver, Brit i s h Columbia. Geographical Paper No. 41. Ottawa: Geographical Branch; Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Fuchs, V.R. (1962). Changes in the Location of Manufacturing in the  United States Since 1929. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fulton, M. (1955). "Plant Location - 1965." Harvard Business Review, 33, 40-50. Garrison, W.L. (1960). "Spatial Structure of the Economy: III." Annals  of the Association of American Geographers, 50, 357-73. George, P.M. (1969). Industrial Di s t r i c t s : Vancouver Urban Renewal Study. Technical Report No. 4. Vancouver: City Planning Department. Gilmour, J.M. (1971). "Some Considerations of Spatial Separation Between Linked Industries." Canadian Geographer, 15, 287-94. Goldberg, M. (1969). Intrametropolitan Industrial Location: Plant Size  and the Theory of Production. Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics. Berkeley: University of California. Goldberg, M.A. (1970). "An Economic Model of Intrametropolitan Industrial Location."" Journal of Regional Science, 3, 167-78. . (1969). "Intrametropolitan Industrial Location: Some Empirical Findings." Annals of Regional Science, 3, 167-78. Goldman, T.A. (1958). "Efficient Transportation and Industrial Location." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 4, 91-106 120 Greenhut, M.L. (1951). "Observation of Motives to Industry Location." Southern Economic Journal, 18, 225-8. . (1956). Plant Location in Theory and Practice. Chapel H i l l , N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Greenhut, M.L., and Colberg, M.R. (1969). "Factors in the Location of Florida Industry: Summary of General Findings of the Florida Survey." Locational Analysis for Manufacturing. Edited by G.J. Karaska and D.F. Bramhall. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, pp. 443-64. Gregory, S. (1963). St a t i s t i c a l Methods and the Geographer. London: Longmans, 181-4. G r i f f i n , J.I, (1956). Industrial Location in the New York Area. New York: City College Press. Groves, P.A. (1971). The Location of Manufacturing in Urban Areas. Exchange Bibliography #198. Monticello, I l l i n o i s : Council of Planning Librarians. . . (1971). Towards a Typology of Intrametropolitan Manufacturing Location. A Case Study of the San Francisco Bay Area. Occasional Papers in Geography No. 16. Hull, England: University of Hull. Haggett, P. (1965). Locational Analysis in Human Geography. London: Edward Arnold. Hardwick, W.G. (1963). Geography of the Forest Industry of Coastal British  Columbia. Canadian Association of Geographers; Occasional Papers in Geography, Number 5. Vancouver: Department of Geography, University of Bri t i s h Columbia. . (1971). "Vancouver: the emergence of a 'core-ring' urban pattern." Geographical Approaches to Canadian Problems. Edited by R.L. Gentilcore. Toronto: Prentice-Hall, pp. 112-8. Harris, C.D. (1954). "The Market as a Factor in the Localization of Industry in the United States." Annals of the Association of  American Geographers, 44, 315-48. Hamilton, F.E.I. (1967). "Models of Industrial Location." Socio-Economic  Models in Geography. Edited by R.J. Chorley and P. Haggett. London: Methuen, pp. 361-424. H i l l , C. (1954). "Some Aspects of Industrial Location." Journal of Industrial Economics, 2, 184-92. 121 Hodge, G. (1970). Theory and Reality of Industrial Location in the  Toronto Region. Regional Development Branch; Department of Treasury and Economics. Toronto: Government of Ontario. Holley, D.L. (1970). "Location of the Softwood Plywood and Lumber Industries." Land Economics, 46, 127-37. Hoover, E.M. (1970), "The Evolving Form and Organization of the Metropolis: Principal Location Factors." Urban Economics. Edited by W.H. Leahy, et a l . New York: The Free Press, pp. 43-53. ____. (1948). The Location of Economic Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hoover, E.M., and Vernon, R. (1962). Anatomy of a Metropolis. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, Chapters 2 and 3. Hunker, H.L., and Wright, A.J. (1963). Factors of Industrial Location  in Ohio. Bureau of Business Research; College of Commerce and Administration. Columbus: Ohio State University. (1967) . Industrial Location Factors Survey. The Regional Planning Commission. County of Los Angeles, California. Ingrum, J.C. (1958). "Industrial Development in B r i t i s h Columbia Past, Present and Future." Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, 51, 580-4. (1968) . "Input/Output Studies and Industrial Development." American Industrial Development Council Journal, 3, 47-53. Jarrett, H.R. (1969). A Geography of Manufacturing. London: Macdonald and Evans. Karaska, G.J. (1966). "Interindustry Relations in the Philadelphia Economy." East Lakes Geographer, 2, 80-96. . (1969). "Manufacturing Linkages in the Philadelphia Economy: Some Evidence of External Agglomeration Forces." Geographical  Analysis, 1, 354-69. Katona, G., and Morgan, J.N. (1952). "The Quantitative Study of Factors Determining Business Decisions." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66, 67-90. Keeble, D.E. (1968). "Industrial Decentralization and the Metropolis: the North-West London Case." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 44, 1-54. 122 Keeble, D.E. (1969). "Local Industrial Linkage and Manufacturing Growth in Outer London." Town Planning Review, 40, 163-88. Keeble, D.E., and Hauser, D.P. (1971). "Spatial Analysis of Manufacturing Growth in Outer South-East England 1960-7. I. Hypotheses and Variables." Regional Studies, 5, 229-62. . (1972). "II. Method and Results." Regional Studies, 6, 11-36. Kenyon, J.B. (1960). Industrial Localization and Metropolitan Growth: the  Patterson-Passaic D i s t r i c t . Department of Geography; Research Paper No. 67. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kerr, D. (1968). "Some Aspects of the Geography of Finance in Canada." Readings in Canadian Geography. Edited by R.M. Irving. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 187-201. Kerr, D., and Spelt, J. (1957). "Manufacturing in Downtown Toronto." Geographical Bulletin, 10, 4-20. . (1960). "Some Aspects of Industrial Location in Southern Ontario." Canadian Geographer, 15, 12-25. King, L.J. (1966). "Approaches to Location Analysis: An Overview." East  Lakes Geographer, 2, 1-16. Kitagawa, Evelyn M., and Bogue, D.J. (1955). Suburbanization of Manufacturing Activity Within Standard Metropolitan Areas. Studies in Population Distribution; Number 9. Oxford, Ohio: Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. Krumme, G. (1969). "Toward a Geography of Enterprise." Economic  Geography, 45, 30-40. Lever, W.F. (1972). "Industrial Movement Spatial Association and Financial Linkages." Regional Studies, 6, 371-84. L i l l e y , G. (1956). Transportation and Plant Location. Wilmington, Del.: American Society of Traff i c and Transportation. (1969). Limitations and Attractions of Bri t i s h Columbia for Industry. Vancouver: Employer's Council of British Columbia. Linge, G.J.R. (1963). "The Diffusion of Manufacturing in Auckland, New Zealand." Economic Geography, 39, 23-39. L i t t l e , W.I. (1969). "Location Selection through Integrated Systems Management." Land Economics, 45, 97-103. 123 Lloyd, P.E., and Dicken, P. (1968). "The Data Bank in Regional Studies of Industry." Town Planning Review, 38, 304-16. Loewenstein, L.K. (1963). "The Location of Urban Land Uses." Land  Economics, 39, 407-20. Logan, M.I. (1966). "Locational Behavior of Manufacturing Firms in Urban Areas." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 56, 451-66. . (1970). "Locational Decisions in Industrial Plants in Wisconsin." Land Economics, 46, 325-8. . (1963). "Suburban Manufacturing: A Case Study." Australian Geographer, 9, 223-34. L u t t r e l l , W.F. (1962). Factory Location and Industrial Movement. Volume I. London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research. (1972). Manufacturer's Directory of Greater Vancouver 1971-2. Vancouver: Vancouver and Lower Mainland Industrial Development Commission. Martin, J.E. (1969). "Size of Plant and Location of Industry in Greater London." Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 60, 369-74. Mayer, H.M. (1958). "Some Current Trends Affecting the Value of Industrial Property." Appraisal Journal, 26, 87-96. . (1954). "Urban Nodality and the Economic Base." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 20, 117-21. McGovern, P.D. (1961). "Identifying Exporting Industries." Journal of  the American Institute of Planners, 27, 144-50. . (1961). "Industrial Development in the Vancouver Area." Economic Geography, 37, 189-206. McLaughlin, G.E. (1949). "Criteria in the Selection of Cities for Industrial Location." Appraisal Journal, 17, 168-72. McMillan, T.E. (1965). "Why Manufacturers Choose Plant Locations vs. Determinants of Plant Locations." Land Economics, 41, 239-46. Miller, E.W. (1970). A Geography of Industrial Location. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co. 124 Monahan, R.L. (1966). "Locational Changes in the Forest Products Industries of the Pacific Northwest." Yearbook of the Association  of Pacific Coast Geographers, 28, 29-40. Morgan, W.E. (1967). Taxes and the Location of Industry. University of Colorado Studies: Series in Economics No. 4. Boulder: University of Colorado Press. M o r r i l l , R.L. (1970). The Spatial Organization of Society. Belmont, Cali f . : Wadsworth Publishing Co. Morrissett, I. (1958). "The Economic Structure of American C i t i e s . " Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 4, 239-56. Moses, L., and Williamson, H.F. (1972). "The Location of Economic Act i v i t i e s in C i t i e s . " Readings in Urban Economics. Edited by M. Edel and J. Rothenberg. New York: Macmillan, pp. 124-34. Mueller, Eva, and Morgan, J.N. (1962). "Location Decisions of Manufacturers." American Economic Review, 52, 204-17. Needleman, L., and Scott, B. (1964). "Regional Problems and Location of Industry Policy in Britain. Urban Studies, 1, 153-73. Neuhoff, M.C. (1953). "Techniques of Plant Location," Techniques of  Plant Location. Conference Board Reports; Studies in Business Policy, No. 61. New York: National Industrial Conference Board, pp. 3-9. Nie, N., Bent, D.H., and Hull, CD. (1970). Statistical Package for the  Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Carroll, A.C. (1970). "The Manufacturing Structure of Canadian C i t i e s . " Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Geography. O'Gorman, D. (1971). Space for Industry: A Technical Report, Vancouver: Planning Department, Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . P h i l l i p s , Jeanne S., and Thompson, R.F. (1967). Statistics for Nurses. New York: Macmillan, 247-63. Pred, A. (1966). "Some Locational Relationships Between Industrial Inventions, Industrial Innovations, and Urban Growth." East Lakes  Geographer, 2, 45-70. (1957). "Preserving the Industrial Base of Detroit." Urban Land, 16, no. 7, 3-5. 125 Rapkin, C. (1954). "An Index of Economic Diversification." Land  Economics, 30, 281-3. Rawstron, E.M. (1958). "Three Principles of Industrial Location." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25, 135-42. Richter, C.E. (1969). "The Impact of Industrial Linkages on Geographic Association." Journal of Regional Science, 9, 19-28. Robinson, J.L., and Hardwick, W.G. (1968). "The Canadian Cordillera." Canada: A Geographical Interpretation. Edited by J. Warkentin. Toronto: Methuen, pp. 438-72. Rummel, R.J. (1970). Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press. Russell, R. (1972). Introduction to SPSS at UBC - SPSS: Introduction, Terminology, Commands. Vancouver: Computing Centre; University of Bri t i s h Columbia. Sant, M.E.C. (1970). "Age and Area in Industrial Location: A Study of Manufacturing Establishments in East Anglia." Regional Studies, 4, 349-58. Self, P. (1953). The Planning of Industrial Location. London: University of London Press. Shearer, R.A. (1968). "The Development of the B r i t i s h Columbia Economy: The Record and the Issues." Exploiting Our Economic Potential:  Public Policy and the British Columbia Economy. Edited by R.A. Shearer. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 3-20. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 18-34; 202-13. Slater, D.W. (1961). "Trends in Industrial Locations In Canada." Resources  for Tomorrow. Volume I. Background papers for the Resources for Tomorrow Conference; Montreal. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, pp. 409-17. Smith, D.M. (1966). "A Theoretical Framework for Geographical Studies of Industrial Location." Economic Geography, 42, 95-113. . (1971). Industrial Location: An Economic Geographical Analysis. New York: Wiley. Smith, W. (1955). "The Location of Industry." Transactions and Papers of  the Institute of British Geographers, 21, 1-18. 126 Stafford, H.A. (1960). "Factors in the Location of the Paperboard Container Industry." Economic Geography, 36, 260-66. Steed, G.P.F. (1972). "Intrametropolitan Manufacturing: Spatial Form and Locational Dynamics in Greater Vancouver." Unpublished mimeographed research paper. Burnaby, B.C.; Department of Geography; Simon Fraser University. Stevens, B.H., and Brackett, Carolyn A. (1967). industrial Location - A  Review and Annotated Bibliography of Theoretical Empirical and  Case Studies. Bibliography Series No. Three. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute. . (1967). ""iNew and Changing Factors in Industrial Location." American Industrial Development  Council Journal, 2, 1-13. Struyk, R.J. (1972). "Evidence on the Locational A c t i v i t y of Manufacturing Industries in Metropolitan Areas." Land Economics, 48, 376-82. (1961). The Dynamics of Industrial Land Setritlemenc:. Vancouver: Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Thompson, J.H. (1961). Methods of Plant Site Selection Available to Small  Manufacturing Firms. Series 62, No. 3-3. Mforgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University Bulletin. Tiebout, CM. (1957). "Location Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Economic Evolution." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science  Association, 3, 74-86. Tornquist, G. (1968). "Flows of Information and the Location of Economic Activity." Geografiska Annaler, 50B, 99-107. Townroe, P.M. (1970). "Industrial Linkage, Agglomeration and External Economies." Journal of the Town Planning Institute, 56, 18-20. . (1971). Industrial Location Decisions: A Study in Management Behaviour. Occasional Paper No. 15. Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham; Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. . (1969). "Locational Choice and the .Individual Firm," Regional Studies, 3, 15-24. Tsagris, B.E., and Coke, R.K. (1962). Changing Pattern of Industrialization, Land Use, and Values: Sacramento Metropolitan Area 1950-61. Sacramento, C a l i f . : Real Estate Research Bu-Eveau, Sacramento State College. 127 Tulpule, A.H. (1969). "Dispersion of Industrial Employment in the Greater London Area." Regional Studies, 3, 25-40. Ullman, E.L. (1954). "Amenities as a Factor in Regional Growth." Geographical Review, 44, 119-32. (1972). "Vancouver Metropolitan Input-Output Study." Pamphlet on the purpose and scope of this study. Vancouver: Vancouver Board of Trade and Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration at U.B.C. Victoria, B.C, Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce. Brit i s h Columbia Facts and Statistics 1972. Victoria: Government of British Columbia. Walker, Mabel. (1957). Business Enterprise and the City. Princeton, N.J.: Tax Institute. Wallace, L.T., and Ruttan, V.W. (1961). "The Role of the Community as a Factor in Industrial Location." Papers and Proceedings of the  Regional Science Association, 7, 133-42. Webber, M.J., and Daly, M.T, (1971). "Location of Manufacturing Growth within C i t i e s : a Predictive Model for Sydney 1954-66." Royal  Australian Planning Institute Journal, 9, 130-6. Williams, W.V. (1967). "A Measure of the Impact of State and Local Taxes on Industry Location." Journal of Regional Science, 7, 49-59. Winsborough, H.H. (1959). "Variations in Industrial Composition with City Size." Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science  Association, 5, 121-31. Wood, P.A. (1969). "Industrial Location and Linkage." Area, 2, 32-9. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101510/manifest

Comment

Related Items