G.A. Nader, 'Some aspects of the urban geography of Chester-le-Street and Houghton-le-Spring and other small urban settlements in Northern Durham'. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis , 1967, University of Durham.
2.
Centres were ranked according to their 'centrality' score and not simply by the number of establishments. The centrality score was derived from the number of non-food shops and the presence of certain important food and non-food establishments. For full details of the classification method see D. Thorpe and T.C. Rhodes, 'The shopping centres of the Tyneside urban region and large scale grocery retailing', Economic Geography, Vol. 42, 1966, pp. 52-73.
3.
Ministry of Labour, Family Expenditure Survey for 1962, H.M.S.O.
4.
D. Thorpe and G.A. Nader, 'Customer movement and shopping centre structure: a case study of a central place system in Northern Durham', Regional Studies , Vol. I, No. 2, 1967, pp. 173-91.
5.
For details of the assessment techniques used in valuation, see Rating and Valuation Act 1925, H.M.S.O. The gross rateable value may be briefly described as the annual rent of a dwelling excluding the usual tenant's rates and taxes.
6.
The gross rateable values are obtained from the valuation lists which are kept in the offices of Local Government Authorities.
7.
Since the assessment of the gross rateable value is a Central, rather than a Local, Government function there has been some standardisation throughout the country, particularly in housing. There may, however, be regional disparities which must be considered. For further discussion of the Gross Rateable Value see D.T. Herbert, 'An approach to the study of the town as a central place', Sociological Review, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1961, pp. 273-92.
8.
Regional Shopping Centres in North-West England, Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Manchester, 1964, p. 175.
9.
For instance, the results of a survey carried out by the Kent County Council Planning Department in 1962-3. An extract appears in Regional Shopping Centres in North-West England, op. cit., p. 292.
10.
Committee of Inquiry into the Impact of Rates on Households, Cmnd. 2582, 1965.
11.
ibid., p. 78.
12.
There were no significant differences among the households groups in their distribution relative to High Street centres. About one-quarter of all households were within one mile of a High Street centre: Grade 1 (25 %), Grade 2 (28%), Grade 3 (24%), and Council (27%).
13.
Although chemist goods are convenience goods they are here included as shopping goods because of the form in which retail sales are published in the Census of Distribution i.e. because of disclosure rules the sales of chemist shops are often included under a broad category of 'other non-food shops'.
14.
For a discussion of differences in expenditure and shopping patterns between higher and lower income groups, see B.J.L. Berry, Commercial Structure and Commercial Blight, University of Chicago: Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 85, 1963.
15.
The spatial distribution of households in each house group was made proportional to the distribution of all households within each successive mile-distance from the regional centres. The main effects of the adjustment were to decrease the percentage spent in the regional centres by Grade I households and to increase that of Grade 2 households. For example, the adjusted figures may be compared with those in Table II:
16.
For an illustration of differences in consumer behaviour between households of differing social, economic and cultural backgrounds, see R.A. Murdie, 'Cultural differences in consumer travel', Economic Geography, Vol. 41, No. 3, 1965, pp. 134-43; also, C.G. Hess, 'Geographical aspects of consumer behaviour on the Retail Service Area of Greater Aalborg', Geografisk Tidsskrift, June 1966, pp. 1-26.
