Various Chinese dialects are used in the Chinese society in Southeast Asia. The Chinese society consists of people whose dialects differ considerably depending upon their background. Many studies on the Chinese society in Southeast Asia, with emphasis on the difference of dialects, have been conducted in fields such as history, sociology, and economics. However, studies in these fields lack geographical analysis of the dialect groups. Negligible attention has paid to the residential pattern of such dialect groups. In the field of geography, on the other hand, most studies were done on the residential pattern of the Chinese society in Southeast Asia rather than on the Chinese dialect groups. Although there exists a study of Chinese dialect groups by HODDER (1953), this kind of study has been ignored by geographers. This study analyzes a distribution pattern of Chinese dialect groups in Sarawak, East Malaysia, and shows how such a pattern has developed. For this study, the Malaysian population census data of 1970 was utilized. In addition to the census data, materials gathered by the author through interviewing Chinese dialect groups during his field survey done in April, 1979 were used in this study, as well as literatures published by Chinese associations from each dialect groups. There are seven major dialect groups in Sarawak : Hakkas, Foochows, Hokkiens, Cantonese, Teochews, Henghuas, and Hainanese (Tab. 2 and Fig. 4). Location quotients of each district were obtained by the ratio between a paticular dialect group's population and entire Chinese population in Sarawak. Subsequently, a map was drawn for the purpose of reflecting such location quotients (Fig. 6). The most significant characteristics of the distribution pattern of the Chinese dialect groups in Sarawak is that the two major groups, Hakkas and Foochows, showed remarkable contrast in developing such distribution patterns. Hakkas' population concentrates in the part of the First and Second divisions (these administrative divisions are as of 1970) and Miri, but Foochows reside in the Third and Fourth divisions, eastern part of the First and Second divisions. It appears that Hakkas and Foochows segregate themselves. Although Hokkiens, Teochews, and Cantonese are majority groups of Chinese society in Southeast Asia, they form minority groups in Sarawak. Their location qoutients are greater in other districts. In the course of immigration, there have been places where immigrants arrive and disperse. The Chinese dialect groups were distributed from such bases and through river traffic. As for the Hakkas, around the middle of the 19th century, they came from West Borneo, then Dutch territory, to Bau in the First Division and worked in mines. As the mining industries suffered from recession, the Hakkas moved to neighboring town, Kuching, and its suburbs. There the Hakkas engaged in small buisiness and agriculture, especially growing pepper. Foochows' immigration began when WONG Nai Siong led approximately one thousand people from his province of Foochow to Sibu in the Third Division between 1900 and 1902 (Sibu was later called New Foochow). Foochow settlements were developed from Sibu as a base city, along the Rajang River and formed Foochows' distribution pattern today (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). Both Hokkiens and Teochews came mostly through Singapore and became active in commerce. In the beginning of immigration, Hokkiens extensively traded with aborigines such the Dayaks. They also played an important role in trading with Singapore where Hokkiens were dominant. Teochews opened general merchandise stores in various districts. Many Cantonese engage in commerce. There are also many Cantonese who engage in agriculture in Sarikei and Kanowit, both in the Third Division. This is attributed to the fact that in 1903, like Foochows, approximately two hundred Cantonese farmers immigrated to Sibu. Most Cantonese in Miri now work in oil wells.
Although the studies of urban geography in the United States began in the early twentieth century, attention to cities as a homogeneous region was given in the 1920's when French school of regional analysis was introduced to the United States. The regional analysis was supported by the publication of HARTSHORNE's the Nature of Geography. Along with the regional analysis, an early emphasis in American urban geography was placed on the site and situation of the city. Functional approach which had roots in regional analysis developed to study the spatial attributes of the city to present the image of the city. American urban geography until 1954 was largely functionalist in approach and verbal, descriptive explanation. After the Second World War, main themes of urban geography became urban function and functional classification of cities in which attention was given to uniqueness of the city. In the 1950's urban geography was seeking to find regularities which were analogous to laws in physical geography. Statistical methods were necessary means to find regularities in urban phenomena. During the 1950's and 1960's urban geographers tended to take abstract and theoretical approaches. From the mid-1960's on there was a growing desire to find human order rather than natural order. The emergence of behavioral geography reflected this trend, emphasizing decision-making processes. However, this approach maintained a strong ties with the spatial science tradition. In the 1970's urban geography in the United States had a great variety of approaches, reflecting different perspectives to urban phenomena. Social, radical, and historical approaches were widely employed as well as spatial, behavioral, and quantitative approaches.
The Gakunan District at the southern foot of Mt. Fuji (Fig. 1, 2) is the leading pulp and paper industry center with 16 % of the Japan's total production, which has been encouraged by abundant ground water resources (Tab. 1) (reasonable pumpage is about 9 ×105 m3/day). However, since around 1955 the increasing number of factories (971 in 1956, 1556 in 1970) has resulted in the lowering of ground water level by more than 4 m from 1960 to 1965 (Fig. 3). It also caused the salinization of ground water, for example the highest of Cl' content was 500 ppm in 1961, 6, 800 ppm in 1962 and 18, 000 ppm in 1963. The contaminated area in 1966 was ten km2 in total (Fig. 4-6) and the river water, for example the highest COD and S. S were 282 ppm and 163 ppm in 1961, 107.2 (COD), 73 (S. S) in 1963 respectively (Tab. 3). Air pollution, the peak of SO3 was annual average of 0.058 ppm in 1969, 0.062 ppm in 1970. After 1970 the quantity of pumpage ground water and the critical amount of industrial waste have been strictly regulated in this area (Tab. 2, 5). For example, the quantity of pumping ground water has been reduced form about 15 × 105 m3/day in 1970 to about 11 × 105 m3/day in 1981 ; the balance was replaced by the water from the Fujigawa River. The industrial waste amounting of 15× 105 m3/day is purified by individual factories and carried out into the Tagonoura Harbour through main pipe called “Gakunan Haisui Ro”. As a result, ground water has risen almost to into original level and river water quality has been improved to the former condition (Fig. 3, 7-11) (Tab. 3, 4, 6). Also now we can see again many springs at the foot of Mt. Fuji and the artesian wells in the low land and Cl' content of the ground water has become less than 200 ppm except deep wells of more than 150 m still with 4, 000-5, 000 ppm or more.