Nevertheless, the nature of the oppositions expressed by the components that we have
found makes it possible to recognize all three dimensions in these components.
The dimension which has been denoted as potency can be identified in the component
that has been interpreted as relative location with respect to the national market (Figure
4a and 5a). Relative location, interpreted as distance to the market, can be measured in
objective terms. Formulated as the opposition close-far, it is a clear representative of
this particular dimension.
The dimension of activity is represented by the component that has been interpreted as
‘agglomeration effects’ (Figures 4c and 5d). Agglomeration effects are obviously
associated with differences in dynamics and activity.
The evaluative dimension is recognized in its purest form as residential environment -
the personal, most subjective element in the rating of locations for their suitability for
firms. When three factors are rotated, this dimension is represented by component 2
(Figure 4b).
It is an interesting question whether the parallel may be extended to those components
that are the most difficult ones to interpret, i.e. the second and third component of the
four depicted in Figure 5. In that case, at least one of these two components, and
perhaps both, would represent the evaluative dimension. The interpretation of
component 3 as ‘residential environment’ and the suggested relation of component 2
with aspects of culture support this view. Both components would represent an aspect of
the evaluative dimension. Component 3 can be associated with landscape (Figure 5c)
and component 2 with culture (Figure 5b), two major aspects of residential environment
as a location factor for entrepreneurs. In the results of the rotation of three components
for the surveys of 1983 and 1993, these two oppositions are combined in the component
representing residential environment (Figure 4b).
Conclusion
A comparison of the mental maps of Dutch entrepreneurs in 1983, 1993, and 2003
shows that the basic shape of the mental maps - a dome or ‘mountain’ with centrally
located Utrecht as its summit - has not changed much in twenty years. This supports the
conclusion that the basic structure of mental maps does not change much over time. A
closer look however, reveals that some details of mental maps do change significantly.
The central dome is clearly flattening. In the period between 1983 and 1993, we witness
14