Advertisement

Journal of Geographical Systems

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 229–252 | Cite as

Business establishment mobility behavior in urban areas: a microanalytical model for the City of Hamilton in Ontario, Canada

  • Hanna MaohEmail author
  • Pavlos Kanaroglou
Original Article

Abstract

We present a microanalytical firm mobility model for the City of Hamilton, Canada, developed with data from the Statistics Canada Business Register. Contributing to the scarce literature on firm migration behavior, we explore and model the determinants of mobility among small and medium size firms who retained less than 200 employees between 1996 and 1997. Our exploratory results suggest that short distance moves are more common and tend to occur among smaller firms. Econometric modeling results support these assertions and indicate that the willingness to move can be explained by a firm’s internal characteristics (e.g. age, size, growth and industry type) as well as location factors related to the urban environment where the firm is located. The modeling results will serve as input for the development of an agent-based firmographic decision support system that can be used to inform the planning process in the study area.

Keywords

Mobility Firmography Microsimulation Land use Hamilton 

JEL

C51 C52 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors are thankful to Statistics Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for supporting this research.

References

  1. Bade F (1983) Location behavior and the mobility of firms in West Germany. Urban Stud 20:279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin J, Gray T, Johnson J, Proctor J (1997) Failing concerns: business bankruptcy in Canada. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Catalogue no. 61-525-XIEGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bliemer M, DeBok M (2006) Infrastructure and firm dynamics: Calibration of microsimulation model for firms in the Netherlands. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1977:132–144Google Scholar
  5. Bourne L (1989) Are new urban forms emerging? Empirical tests for Canadian urban areas. Can Geogr 33:312–328Google Scholar
  6. Brouwer A, Mariotti I, Van Ommeren J (2004) The firm relocation decision: An empirical investigation. Ann Reg Sci 38:335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dijk J van, Pellenbarg P (2000) Firm relocation decisions in the Netherlands: an ordered logit approach. Pap Reg Sci 79:191–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer MM, Nijkamp P (1985) Developments in exploratory discrete spatial data and choice analysis. Progr Human Geogr 9:515–551Google Scholar
  9. Hunt J, Khan J, Abraham J (2003) Microsimulating firm spatial behavior. In: Paper presented at the eighth international conference on computers in urban planning and urban management “CUPUM”, Sendai, JapanGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanaroglou P, South R (1999) Can urban form affect transportation and energy use and emission? An analysis of potential growth patterns for the Hamilton Census Metropolitan Area. Energy Study Rev 9:22–40Google Scholar
  11. Lerman S, Liu T (1984) Microlevel econometric analysis of retail closure. In: Pitfield D (ed) Discrete choice models in regional science. Pion Limited, London, pp 181–210Google Scholar
  12. Maoh H (2005) Modeling firm demography in urban areas with an application to Hamilton, Ontario: towards an agent-based microsimulation model. Unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  13. Maoh H, Kanaroglou P (2007) Geographic clustering of firms and urban form: a multivariate analysis. J Geogr Syst 9:29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  15. McFadden D (1978) Modeling the choice of residential location. In: Karlqvist A, Lundqvist L, Snickars F, Weibull J (eds) Spatial interaction theory and planning models. North Holland Amsterdam, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  16. Miller E, Hunt J, Abraham J, Salvini P (2004) Microsimulating urban systems. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28:9–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moeckel R (2005) Microsimulation of firm location decision. In: Paper presented at the ninth international conference on computers in urban planning and urban management “CUPUM”, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  18. Pellenbarg P, Wissen L van, Dijk J van (2002) Firm relocation: state of the art and research prospects. Discussion Paper No. 02D31, SOM Research School, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  19. Waddell P, Borning A, Noth M, Freier N, Becke M, Ullfarsson G (2003) Microsimulation of urban development and location choices: design and implementation of UrbanSim. Netw Spatial Econ 3:43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wegener M, Spiekermann K (1996) The potential of microsimulation for urban models. In: Clarke GP (ed) Microsimulation for urban and regional policy analysis. Pion, London, pp 149–163Google Scholar
  21. Wissen L van (2000) A micro-simulation model of firms: applications of concepts of the demography of the firm. Pap Reg Sci 79:111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Spatial Analysis (CSpA), School of Geography and Earth SciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations