Upload
mohsin-younis
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/11/2019 622021
1/20
Social Class and Consumer Spatial Behaviour: Some Aspects of Variation in Shopping Patternsin Metropolitan Vancouver, CanadaAuthor(s): H. J. GaylerSource: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1980),pp. 427-445
Published by: Blackwell Publishingon behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute ofBritish Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622021.
Accessed: 07/03/2011 01:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black..
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Blackwell Publishingand The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/622021?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/622021?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black8/11/2019 622021
2/20
o c i a l
c l s s
n d
consumer
s p a t i a l
behaviour
s o m e
a s p e c t s
o
variation
n
shopping
p a t t e r n s
n
metropolitan
Vancouver
a n a d a
H.
J.
GAYLER
Assistant
Professor
of
Geography,
Brock
University,
Ontario
MS
received
I8
December
1979
ABSTRACT.he
disaggregation
f consumerson
the
basis
of
their
cognitive
or overt behaviour
according
o
various
social
and
economicmeasureshas
improved
our
understanding
f
variations n
manyaspects
of consumerbehaviour nd
mprovedupon
the
many
inferencesmade
by
earlierclassicalmodels.
In this
paper
consumersare
disaggregated
y
social
class,
andit is
determined
whether
he
higher
he
social-class
group,
the
greater
s the
distance
ravelled o
shop
for five
products.
In the case of
groceries
and
women's dress the
hypothesis
s
supported,reflecting
variations
n
store and
shopping-centrepreference
which
require
different
distances
o be travelled.For the othe
three
products
furniture,
appliances
and
footwear)
ess
productspecialization
nd
more
within-centredifferences
n the
social-class
ppeal
of storesresult
n
greater
imilarities n termsof distance
ravelledbetween
many
of the social-class
groups.
The
paper
examines
ome
of
the
smajor
problems
of
disaggregation
nd the need
for
more refinement n
future research.
RESEARCH
n
recent
years
into
consumer
spatial
behaviour
and its
relationship
to the
retail
structure
of
an
area has
reflected the
limited
scope
of
classical
models,
such as central
place
theory,
to
describe,
explain
and
predict
such behaviour.
These
models
have
the
hedisadvantage
of
making
broad
generalizations
about the
nature
of
retail
functions
and
centres,
and the
ways
in
which
consumers
relate
to
them.
A
centre
may
be
considered from
the
point
of
view of
the total
number
of
functions,
rather than
any
breakdown
by
type.
If t
type
of
function
is taken
into
account,
all
stores
of
the
one
type
are
invariably
considered in
aggregate. Moreover,
consumers
are
considered
from the
point
of
view of
Economic
Man,
having perfect
information,
acting
rationally
and
minimizing
effort
by
shopping
at the
nearest
centre that
can
economically
support
a
commodity
or
service.
Except
for
residential location
there
is little
attempt
to
differentiate
between consumers: it has to be assumed that a similar set of opportunities is desired and sought
after.
Similarly,
models
such as
the
gravity
model,
where
Economic Man
has
been
replaced by
Statistically
Average
Man,
again
show
that the
consumer is
viewed
in
aggregate
and
individual
behaviour is random.2
Attempts
at
disaggregation
have
certainly given
us
more
information
about the
consumer,
for
example
the
entropy-maximizing
methods
of
Wilson,3
but
doubts
have
been
cast on how far
such
disaggregation
can
go
and
the
extent
to
which we know
any
more
about
why
consumers
behave
in
the
way they
do.4
Furthermore,
there are
problems
concerning
the
scale
at
which these
models
are
used. Central
place
and
gravity
models
work
better at
the
inter-urban,
as
opposed
to
the
intra-urban,
level,
since in
the
former
the frictions
imposed
by
distance are
greater
and
the
variations
exhibited
by
different
centres within a
city
are
masked.
It
427
8/11/2019 622021
3/20
has been shown
that the error in
estimating
a
consumer's
choice
of
centre increases as the
distance between
two
centres
decreases.5
The
quest
for
a better
understanding
of how
consumers
actually
behave
has
followed
a
twofold
approach.
The first
can
be
termed
a
cognitive-behavioural
approach
which
examines
consumer behaviour from the subjective point of view of an individual's perception of a limited
set of
shopping
opportunities.6
Research here commences
with the
individual
consumer,
and
thus
with the most
disaggregated
sate
possible,
and seeks order on the basis
of
uncovering
generalizations
about
individual
perceptions
and
subsequent
behaviour.
In
this
way
it
is
hoped
that
aggregating up
will
provide
more
meaningful explanations
and
predictions
of
consumer
behaviour and
provide input
for
improving
macro-level models such as
the
gravity
model.7
The
second,
or
empirical-behavioural, approach,
is also concerned with
improving
macro-level
models,
but it
is done
from the
highest
level
of
aggregation
(the
total
sample
of
consumers),
and
disaggregation
is
sought
on the basis of
relating
consumer behaviour
to an
objective
set
of
measures
concerning
the
shopping
environment
as a
whole,
travel
behaviour,
residential
location
or
characteristics
pertaining
to
the consumer.8
In the cognitive-behavioural approach it can be argued that the consumer does not view
the
shopping
environment
as
a
whole
and,
whilst the overt
behaviour of one consumer
may
be
the same
as that
of
another,
a
very
different set
of reasons
may
account
for the two consumers
behaving
in similar fashion.
Consumers
do not view
the
shopping
environment as
a
whole,
simply
because
they
do
not
have
complete
information on all available
opportunities.
Research
by
Bowlby9
and
Hanson,
I'
for
example,
has shown
that
the
extent
of
consumers'
information
and their
degree
of
familiarity
with
the information
they
have obtained
vary
according
to
distance
between
the consumer and
the
shopping opportunity
and various
socio-economic
factors
relating
to both. That
information,
in
turn,
is
based
on
varying
learning experiences,
where
information
is
acquired
over a
period
of
time
from
recurrent
travel
behaviour,
media and
personal
communications.
I
I
From
that
limited information about
shopping
opportunities
the
consumer then evaluates, chooses and perhaps visits various shops in order to satisfy certain
needs.
Evaluation and choice
are made
on the basis
of
a consumer's
perception
of the
shopping
opportunities
and the extent to which
these
opportunities
will
not
only satisfy
certain
needs
but,
more
importantly,
reflect
and reinforce
the consumer's
own
attitudes,
tastes,
disposition,
aspirations
and
so on.
Considerable
research
has been undertaken
to show the
nature
of this
perception, given
certain
environmental characteristics
(i.e.
shopping
alternatives), including
also the
development
of
various
techniques
to measure individual
attributes and the
construc-
tion of
decision-making
models to
explain
and
predict resulting spatial
behaviour.'2
This
subjective approach
to
studying
consumer
spatial
behaviour
has
certainly
told
us
more about
how
consumers
behave,
but criticisms
have been
raised that as
yet
there seems
to be
little order
to the research
or
any
improved
theory
of
consumer behaviour.
13
Whilst
measure-
ment of subjective material is possible, the problem of comparing individual results may be
formidable.
Moreover,
there
is the
nagging question
of
whether
actual behaviour
really
reflects
the individual's
perception
of
the environment
as stated.
Finally,
the
problem
remains,
in this
approach
as in the
other,
of
developing
suitable
levels
of
aggregation (or
disaggregation)
of
responses.14
For
example,
the
within-group
homogeneity assumption
must
weaken as
the
aggregation procedure
continues.
The
empirical-behavioural
approach,
on the
other
hand,
is
technically
less difficult
to
handle since
it
is
not
concerned
with the
subjective interpretation
of
environmental
oppor-
tunities
by
the
respondent
and then
by
the researcher.
Instead,
actual
consumer
behaviour
is
analysed
from
the
standpoint
of various
objective
measures,
including
the
type
of
shopping
centre
and residential
area,
travel mode
and
time and the
socio-economic
and
demographic
428
H.
J.
GAYLER
8/11/2019 622021
4/20
Class
and
consumer
ehaviour
n
Vancouver
characteristics of the
consumers
themselves. These
measures
act as
surrogates
of
individual
perceptions,
and
whilst it
can be
argued
that much
valuable
perceptual
information
is
thereby
hidden,
it
remains
that
surrogates
represent
individual
perceptions
that cannot
be
easily
measured
and
act
as a
classificatory
tool
by
aggregating
a
range
of
differing
perceptions.
Moreover, as significant variations are (or are not) found in actual behaviour according to
various
surrogate
measures,
it
is
possible
to
infer
the
influence of
individual
perceptions
and
give
direction
to
further
cognitive-behavioural
research.
Some
studies
in
fact
have been
concerned with
combining
both
approaches,
for
example
the
work
by
Lloyd
and
Jennings
which
differentiates
consumers'
cognitive
ratings
of
stores
and
subsequent
behaviour
according
to
high-
and
low-income
areas
and
racial
characteristics.
I
The
disaggregation
of
the
total
population
according
to
consumers'
socio-economic and
demographic
characteristics,
for
example,
has
led to
better
explanatory
and
predictive
models of
consumer
spatial
behaviour
(and
where this
has not
happened
it
suggests
either a
larger
measure
of
homogeneity
in
the
population
or
the
need to
seek other
variables on
which to
disaggregate).
These
characteristics can
be
defined
as
cultural,
life-cycle
and
socio-economic
in
nature,
and
they both reflect and condition consumer attitudes, values and perceptions. Studies by
Murdie,'6
Rose17
and
Grant,
8
for
example,
have
shown
that for
various
products
and
services
different
ethnic
groups
are
more
likely
to
frequent
outlets
operated
by
members
of
their own
group.
This in
turn
leads to
variations in
the
way
consumers
relate to
the
retail
structure,
since
there
are
likely
to
be
shorter
than
average
journeys
where such
ethnic
products
and
services
are
located
in an
area
where
that
group
predominates.
Similarly,
a
life-cycle
factor such
as
age
influences
need
and
mobility. Jonassen,
for
example,
showed that
on
this
basis
it
was
possible
to
contrast
the
retail
structure
between
central
and
outer-city
areas.
19
Most
studies
of
consumer
differentiation
have
focused on
socio-economic
variations,
especially
income
and social
status
and
associated
variables such
as
personal
mobility.
It
has
been
shown
that the retail
structure
varies
according
to
high-
or
low-income
areas
of
the
city,
reflecting
different
consumer
demands
and constraints placed on income.20 Given two different income areas at similar distances from
the
Central
Business
District
(C.B.D.),
it
was
found
that for
convenience
goods
lower-income
consumers
were
more
dependent
on
local
shops
or
the
C.B.D.,
which
could be
reached
easily
by
public
transport,
whereas
higher-income
shoppers
frequented
a
wider
range
of
centres in
other
parts
of
the
city.21
In
both
an
inter-
and
intra-urban
setting
it
can be
seen that
higher-income
consumers
travel
further to
shop, especially
for
convenience
goods,
than
their
lower-income
counterparts,
and that
they
travel
more to
higher-order
centres.22
This
reflects
differences
in
levels
of
mobility
and
variations in
demand
within
the
one
commodity
resulting
in
varying
threshold
levels.
This
paper
is
concerned
with
a
further
aspect
of
disaggregating
consumers
according
to
socio-economic
characteristics
and
relating
this to
consumer
behaviour. The
methodology
employed is adapted from that frequently used in marketing and sociology where the total
population
is
differentiated
according
to a
number of
social-class
groups
rather than
broader
categories
such as
high
or
low
income
and
status.
Following
a
brief
discussion
on the
nature of
social-class
variation
and
the
method for
assigning
a
consumer
to a
social
class,
there is
an
examination of
the
aggregate
pattern
of
consumer
choice
for
various
goods
and the nature of
the
retail
hierarchy
in
metropolitan
Vancouver.
The
study
then
analyses
the
distance
travelled
to
shop
for
the
various
goods
to
see if
there
are
significant
variations
between
social-class
groups,
and
this
is
subsequently
examined
from
the
point
of
view
of
differences in
the
type
of
store
and
shopping
centre
frequented.
The
data
utilized in
this
study
were
obtained
from
a
random
sample
of
68i
households
which
were
successfully
interviewed
in
metropolitan Vancouver,
Canada.
Respondents,
who
429
8/11/2019 622021
5/20
430
H.
J.
GAYLER
were
normally
the female
heads
of
households,
were asked where
they
had
purchased
five
goods-groceries,
women's
dress,
furniture,
appliances
and footwear. In the case of
groceries
the
question
asked
for
the normal
(or
regular)
destination for a
major
grocery purchase,
therefore
involving
a recurrent
journey;
whereas
for
the other four
goods
these were
purchased
less
frequently
and
respondents
were
asked
where
they
had last
made
a
majorpurchase. Also,
for
these four
goods
an
arbitrary
time
period
of
one
year
was set
in
order to reduce the
possibilities
of
forgetfulness
and
of a
purchase having
been
made
from
a
previous
home.
In
addition,
information
relating
to
occupation,
education
and
income
was
obtained
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
a
consumer's
social class.
ESTABLISHING SOCIAL
CLASSES
Marketing
research
suggests
that
it
is more
meaningful
to
differentiate consumers
according
to
more
generalized
socio-economic
measures,
rather than
any single attribute,
such as
income.23
Many
of
these attributes
are
interrelated,
and the
way
in
which individual
consumers score on
some index representing these interrelated attributes allows the consumers to be placed in fairly
distinct and ranked
groups.
The
groups
may
convey
a
wider
meaning
than
merely
the sum
of
individual
attributes. The
combined
scores
for
interrelated
attributes,
such as
education,
income,
and
occupation,
have been
organized
into
groups
implying
social
status
or
class. But the
groups
are not
just
the
result of
classification.
Social classes can
exemplify
a wide
range
of
variation
in
values,
attitudes,
and
resulting
behaviour,
and
there
are also the
notions
of
conflict,
and
superiority-inferiority
between
groups.24
A
problem
associated with
generalized groups
is that
they
are less
homogeneous
in
their
composition
than,
for
example,
individual
income
groups.
However,
this weakness
is counter-
balanced
by
the
fact
that
these
generalized
groups
have
an
internal
consistency
with
respect
to
many
forms
of
overt behaviour.
Furthermore,
Coleman
cites
the
weakness
of
using
a
single
attribute to differentiate consumer behaviour.25 Three families can each have the same gross
income,
but since
the
heads
of
household
have
widely differing occupations
and
backgrounds,
it
can be
expected
that
many
other values and behavioural
patterns
will differ.
Whilst social class has been
recognized
as
an
important
way
in which
to
differentiate
various forms
of
behaviour,
it is
difficult,
in the first
place,
to
assess an individual
and
assign
him
to a
particular
social
class.
First,
there has never been
any agreement
amongst
researchers
of
social class
as to
how
many
classes can be identified.26 The number
very
much
depends
on the
problem
at hand-its
scale,
its
purpose,
the
period
in
which
it
was
undertaken,
and
the level
of
detail
required.
Secondly,
there are
many
different
methods
of
assigning
individuals
to
social
classes. Since
the different social classes
reflect
differences
in
values,
beliefs, attitudes,
and
motivation,
there have been
attempts
to
choose
variables which
represent
these and where
differences by class are known to exist, for example, various material and cultural possessions,
and
participation
in
community
activities.
27
However,
the variables
chosen
vary
from
one
study
to
another,
thus
making
comparisons
difficult;
their relative
importance
is often difficult
to
weigh,
they
may
defy
quantitative
measurement,
and
the
relevance
of the variables
may change
over
time. An alternative
method,
which is more
commonly
adopted,
is to
use
a smaller number
of
surrogate
variables. These
not
only
measure
structural differences
in
society
more
easily,
but
are more consistent
over
time,
and
any
one
represents
a
large
number
of variables related
to
values, beliefs,
attitudes
and
motivation.
A
surrogate
variable,
such as
occupation,
for
example,
expresses
a whole
range
of status-conscious
situations,
stemming
from
family background
and
attitudes,
educational
opportunities, personal
motivations
and
response
to other
societal
influences,
such
as the mass
media,
peer groups,
and
organizations
to which
one
belongs.
8/11/2019 622021
6/20
Classand consumer ehaviour
n Vancouver
Moreover,
once an
occupation
is
attained,
it tends
to
generate fairly homogeneous
attitudes
and
life-styles.
The
importance
of
occupation
has resulted
in social
classes
being
established on this
variable
alone.28
However,
many
occupations
are
not
sufficiently
clearly
designated
to
be
assigned to any one class (secretary, for example, can mean a company secretaryor a shorthand-
typist),
and
in
the
present study
two
other
surrogate
variables,
income and
education,
are
included
to
help
overcome
this
problem.
A
consumer's social
class was
established
on
the
basis
of
a factor
score,
using
principal
component
analysis.29
As could be
expected,
the
three
variables,
occupation,
education
and
income,
loaded
highly
on
the
orthogonally
rotated
factor,
and a
consumer's factor
score
was
the
sum of his
individual
data on that
variable
multiplied by
the
variable's factor
loading.
The
distribution
of the 68
I
factor scores
was
arbitrarily
divided
into
four classes.
Unlike
social area
analysis,
where boundaries
between factor
scores are drawn
at
regular
intervals,
the boundaries
that
were
drawn here
attempted
to
separate
clusters
(respondents
with
similar
attributes)
and
yet
identify
a
small
number of
groups
that had
meaning
in
terms
of
social
class.
The four classes identified are:
(I)
Upper/Upper-Middle.
Respondents
all
have
professional,
technical or
managerial
occupations,
most of
which
carry
prestige
and/or
involve
considerable
training.
All
have
completed
high
school
and
many
have
completed
university.
Incomes
are well
above
average.30
(2)
Lower-Middle.
This
group
includes the less
prestigious
white-collar
jobs,
such
as
bank
clerks
and
commercial
travellers,
and
positions
of
responsibility
in
blue-collar
jobs.
Few have
university training,
the
majority finishing
their education on
completion
of
high
school.
Income
range
is
fairly large
with
the
majority
in
the
above-average
category.
(3)
Upper-Lower.
The
majority
of
people
in this
group
have skilled
or
semi-skilled
manual
jobs.
Most have not
completed
their
high-school
education,
and their incomes are
mostly
in the
below-average category.
(4)
Lower-Lower. This
group
consists
predominantly
of unskilled
workers,
some of
whom
are
unemployed
or
only seasonally
employed.
The
majority
finished
school
at
the
equivalent
of
a
grade
8
level,
and incomes tend
to
be
well below
average.
AGGREGATE
CONSUMER
BEHAVIOUR AND
THE RETAIL HIERARCHY IN
METROPOLITAN
VANCOUVER
Figures
i-5
show
the
shopping-centre
choice of the
sample
population
for
each
of
the
five
goods.31
Groceries
(Fig.
i)
are
items which are
required frequently,
and the total
sample
is
represented.
In
theory,
consumers are not
prepared
to travel
unnecessarily
long
distances
for
their
purchase.
The
range
and threshold of these stores are
small,
and stores are found at all
levels of
the
retail
hierarchy. However,
the
numbers
and
types
of
grocery
stores
vary
according
to
level
in
the
hierarchy.
In
Vancouver's C.B.D. the sole
grocery
outlets,
apart
from
specialized
stores
for
items
such as
meat
and
fish,
are
the food floors of the
major
department
store
chains.
Many
of
the
suburban
department
stores in the
planned
and
unplanned regional
shopping
centres also
have food
floors,
but there
is
competition
at
this level from one or
more of
the
major
supermarket
chains.
Community
shopping
centres
may
have more than
one
supermarket,
but
many
neighbourhood
centres
have
no
supermarket
at
all,
especially
on the
rapidly
growing
fringes
of
the
metropolitan
area
where
improved
retail
facilities
invariably
lag
behind
residential
development.
Speciality
stores or
small
corner
grocery
stores
are found in most
centres,
with
their
number and
type
reflecting
the
size and nature of
the areaserved
by
the centre
concerned.
431
8/11/2019 622021
7/20
FIGURE
I.
Consumer
ravel
or
groceries
n
metropolitan
Vancouver
8/11/2019 622021
8/20
FIGURE
2.
Consumer
ravel
or dress
in
metropolitan
Vancouver
8/11/2019 622021
9/20
DE LTA
*
Community Centre
*
Regional Centre
M
Planned RegionalCentre
Downtown
Vancouver
0
5
Kilomet
I
K
ilometres
FIGURE
3.
Consumer ravel
or
furniture n
metropolitan
Vancouver
COQUITLAM
SURRE
8/11/2019 622021
10/20
FIGURE
4.
Consumer
travel for
appliances
in
metropolitan
Vancouver
8/11/2019 622021
11/20
FIGURE
5.
Consumer
travel
for footwear
in
metropolitan
Vancouver
8/11/2019 622021
12/20
Class
and
consumer
ehaviour
n
Vancouver
It can be seen
that
the
majority
of the
sample
population
travel to the
nearest
centre
to
make their
major
grocery purchases;
and
many
of those
who
travel
to a more distant
centre,
especially
in
the outer
metropolitan
area,
do
so
in order
to
shop
at
the
nearest
supermarket.
In
other instances
where
the
nearest
centre
is
by-passed
consumers
normally
travel to
a
supermar-
ket in a larger, or higher-order, centre. The longest distances to purchase groceries are made to
the
planned
and
unplanned
regional
shopping
centres.
Moreover,
these centres
have the
highest
proportion
of
shopping trips
which
have
by-passed
intervening
opportunities.
These features
have been noted
in other studies
of
grocery purchasing.32
In fact
the
major
variation
is
probably
a
cultural one.
Unlike
the
many
British studies
of
grocery purchasing,
for
example,
where
the
C.B.D.
is seen
to attract
the
highest proportion
of
consumers over
the
widest
area,
Vancouver's
C.B.D.
acts
in a
similar
fashion
to
the
regional
centres;
its
lack
of
superior
facilities
results
in
its
being
attractive
only
over
part
of
the
metropolitan
area.
The other
four
goods-women's
dress,
furniture,
appliances
and
footwear-present
a
somewhat different
picture.
First,
they require
a
larger
threshold in order
to
be
viable,
and their
entry
into
retail
hierarchy
is
at the
community-centre
level,33
with the
consequence
of
longer
journeys for the consumer. Secondly, shopping goods are not demanded as frequently as
convenience
goods
(hence the absence
in each case
of
a
proportion
of the total
sample
since
a
major
purchase
had not
been made
within
the
year).
This should result
in
the frictions
imposed
by
distances
not
being
as
great
as
those
for convenience
goods,
and the
greater
distances
travelled
to
higher-order
centres
are offset
by
the
greater opportunities
available
for
comparison
shopping.
There
are various similarities in the
shopping patterns
for the
four
goods
(Figs
2-5).
Vancouver's
C.B.D.,
with the
largest
concentration
of stores and widest
range
of
store
types,
is
by
far
the most
frequented
centre;
it is the focal
point
of
the
highest
density
population
area,
and
it
also
attracts
a
large,
daytime
office
population.
However,
the C.B.D.'s attraction reflects its
eccentric
location
with
respect
to the
metropolitan
area as a whole.
It
is
clearly
dominant
as
the
choice for Vancouver's consumers, but in the surrounding municipalities of Burnaby and
Richmond
and
on the North Shore of Burrard Inlet the
majority
of
shopping trips
are made
to
other
centres.
Farther
away
in
New
Westminster,
Delta and
Surrey
fewer
than
5 per
cent
of
shopping
trips
are to the C.B.D.
The
planned
and
unplanned regional shopping
centres exhibit more localized
hinterlands,
but considerable
variation exists
between them from the
point
of view of
trip frequency
and
distances
travelled
by
consumers.
The lowest
frequency
and shortest distances travelled
apply
not
to
the smallest
centres but
to
those centres
which
lacka
department
store and
are little more
than
a concentration
of
community
and
neighbourhood
services
along
an arterial
highway,
for
example
in the northern
part
of
Surrey
and
in North
Vancouver.
Amongst
the centres
with
department
stores
(the
planned
centres, Richmond,
South
Burnaby
and
New
Westminster)
only one has an extensive hinterland which overlaps considerably with other regional centres;
the
centre
in South
Burnaby
consists
largely
of the
principal department-store
outlet
for
Simpson
Sears,
and
this store
attracts consumers over
a
considerable
area
from
the
east side
of
the
North
Shore
through
to
Richmond and
Surrey.
Community
shopping
centres receive
only a
very
small
proportion
of
total
shopping
trips,
and
their
hinterlands
are even more localized. Two
exceptions
in the
pattern
of local
trips
are
seen. Some
community
centres
contain
specialized
stores which attract
consumers over much
longer
distances,
for
example
the
trips
to centres
on the
west side of Vancouver
for
clothing (Fig.
2).34
Secondly,
consumers
will
travel
long
distances
to
those centres
which
have
stores
noted,
for
example,
for their
bargains
or
good
after-sales
service. These are
important
considerations
437
8/11/2019 622021
13/20
when
buying
expensive
items,
such as
furniture and
appliances,
and
many
of
the
long journeys
to
community
centres,
seen
in
Figures
3-4,
are
of
this nature.
SOCIAL CLASS VARIATIONS
Examination of consumers' shopping-centre choices for the five goods concerned would
indicate
that it
is
possible
to
disaggregate
the total
pattern according
to
the
size of
the centre
that
is
frequented
and
the
distance
that is
travelled. The
purpose
of
this
paper
is to
see whether these
variations
in
distance
travelled affect
all consumers
alike,
or
whether
the
preferences
of one
social-class
group,
as
opposed
to
another,
demand
significantly
different distances to be
travelled.
These
preferences
will also
be examined in the context
of
the
type
of
store and
shopping
centre that is
frequented.
It is
hypothesized
that
the
higher
the
social-class
position
of
the
consumer,
the
greater
the
distance
that is travelled
to
shop.
Underlying
this
hypothesis
is the
notion that different
social-class
groups
have
varying
tastes
within the one
product
type
which
no one
store,
except
perhaps
a
department
store,
can cater
for. The
higher
the social-class
group,
the
more
specialized, expensive and sophisticated tastes become. However, specialized-product stores
serve
a
minority
of
the
population,
and thus
in
theory
they
have the
greatest
range
and
threshold
and their
customers incur
the
longest
distances
to
shop.35
A second notion
suggests
that
the
higher
the
social-class
group,
the
greater
the
mobility
of the individual. Numerous
studies
have
shown
that the
higher
the social-class
group,
the
greater
the incidence
of
car
ownership
and,
perhaps
more
important,
two-car
ownership
in the
family. Compared
to
public
transport
journeys
become
faster
and more convenient
and
longer
distances
are
encouraged.
Moreover,
the
higher
social-class
groups
constitute
a workforce who
either have
fewer time
restrictions
placed
on their
non-work activities
or have
a
place
of
employment
more
closely
tied to service
centres
in cities
than is the case
for lower-status
groups.
Therefore,
much
shopping activity may
originate
from
lae
rom
place
of
work
rather than
place
of
residence,
thus
accounting
for
longer
distances
being travelled between home and shop and intervening opportunities being by-passed.
The measurement
of distance
to
shop
is made
between
place
of
residence
and
store,
since
the
actual
origin
of the
journey
is not known.
Distance
is also measured
over the
shortest
land
routes,
rather
than
along
the desire lines
shown
in
Figures
1-5,
since
the latter mask
the
circuitous
journeys
that
are often
necessary
to
cross
Burrard
Inlet and
the arms
of
the
Fraser
River.
For this reason
more detailed
maps, by
social
class,
are
not
included.
The mean
and
standard
deviation
of
distance
for
each social
class
are calculated
in
kilometres
and
appear
in
Table
I.
It
can
be seen
that
the
different
social-class
groups
travel
varying
distances
to
shop.
However,
it
is
important
to
establish
first
of
all
that this situation
does
not arise because
the
various
groups
on
average
live at different
distances
from the
retail
facilities,
i.e.
that
the
upper-middle class travel further for groceries simply because they live furtheraway (even from
the
nearest
outlet)
than
other social-class
groups.
This
was
not
found
to
be
true.
In the data
there is
considerable
variation
within
groups
in
terms
of
residential
location
and
the location
of
the nearest
neighbourhood,
community
and
regional
centres, reflecting
the
sectorial
nature
of
residential
segregation
in
metropolitan
Vancouver.36
This has resulted
in
no
one
group
being
at
a
disadvantage
in terms
of
distances
that
have
to
be travelled.
The
nature of the
variation
for some
products
would
tend
to
support
the
hypothesis
that
the
higher
the
social-class
group,
the
greater
the distance
travelled
to
shop. Upper/upper-
middle-class
consumers
travel
the
longest
and lower-lower-class
consumers
travel
the shortest
mean
distances
in
all
but
one
case;
both
of the
exceptions
are
for
appliances.
The
variation
between
social-class
groups
in
relative
terms
is
greatest
for
groceries,
with
upper/upper-middle-
438
H.
J.
GAYLER
8/11/2019 622021
14/20
Class
and consumer
ehaviour
n
Vancouver
TABLE
I
Distances
ravelled*
y
social
classforpurchases
n
metropolitan
Vancouver
Social class
Upper/ Upper-
Middle
Lower-Middle
Upper-Lower
Lower-Lower
Product Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Mean
S.D. Mean
S.D.
Groceries
3-38
3'74
2-72
3-82
2-36 2'94 1-48
1-92
Dress
8'67 6-58
7'44
5'73 6-49 5'41 5'79 5'04
Furniture
8.24 6'69 7'95
6-51 7'93
7-02
4-26
3.84
Appliances
o0-91
6-9I
I4'43
1142
8-09
7-76
11-92
I2-58
Footwear
9.14
7'17
7.92
6-64 7-89
7-06
7'15 6-03
439
*
Distances measured n kilometresover the shortest and
route
Source:
Sample
Survey
class consumers
travelling
on
average
more than twice the distance of their lower-lower-class
counterparts.
For
the four
shopping goods
the relative
differences
between
groups
are smaller.
These result
from the absence
or
weakness
of these
goods
at the
neighbourhood
and
community
shopping
centre
respectively
and the
need
for all consumers
to travel
greater
distances.
Furthermore,
shopping
goods
are
demanded
less
frequently
and,
therefore,
considerations
of
distance
may play
a smaller
part
with all consumers.
A
decline
in
distance
travelled for dress
and
footwear is
related
to social-class
position,
but
for
furniture
the distance
for three
of the
groups
is
virtually
the same
and
for
appliances
no
trend
is
revealed
at
all.
One-way
analysis
of variance
is carried
out
on the data to see
whether there
are
significant
differences
in
distances
travelled between
the
various social classes
for
each
of the
product
types
(Table II).
The
hypothesis,
that the
higher
the social class
the
greater
the distance
travelled
to
shop,
is
accepted
as
statistically
significant
only
in the case
of
groceries
and dress. Closer
examination
of
the
survey
data
shows
that
the
significantly
greater
distances
of
the
higher
social
classes
reflect certain
retail
preferences
which
involve
longer
distances,
rather
than
simply
an
ability
and desire
to travel
longer
distances.
TABLE
II
Analysis
of
variance
est
or
social
lass
diffrences
n
mean
distance
ravelledfor
urchases
in
metropolitan
ancouver
Product
Groceries
Dress
Furniture
Appliances
Footwear
Between
groups:
Sum
of
squares
7-0
138-6
94-8
281-7
33'8
Degrees
of freedom
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
square
25-6
46-2
21-6
93-9
11.2
Within
groups:
Sum
of
squares
2776'-
5678'2
3405'3
3488'7
5112-6
Degrees
of freedom
675
446
204
96
280
Mean
square
4.1
12-7
i6-6
36.3
I8-2
F ratio
6.24**
3.63*
1-89
2-58
0-62
*
Significant
at
the
0-05
level
**
Significant
at
the
o-oi
level
Source.
Sample
survey
8/11/2019 622021
15/20
H.
J.
GAYLER
Groceries
Figure
i
shows a considerable number
of
journeys
where
neighbourhood
and
community
shopping
centre
supermarkets
are
by-passed
in favour of
grocery
outlets
in
Vancouver's C.B.D.
and the planned and unplanned regional centres. It was found that there was a greater tendency
for
upper/upper-middle-
and lower-middle-class
consumers
to
travel the
greater
distances,
and
this
invariably implied
by-passing
one
of
the
major
supermarket
chain
stores
in
favour
of the
food floors in
department
stores.
The
development
of,
and
greater
preference
by
certain social-class
groups
for,
depart-
ment-store
grocery purchasing
is an
interesting
feature
of
inertia. Woodward's
store
in
the
C.B.D. had
in fact the first
large-scale
supermarket
in
the
metropolitan
area,
opening
before
the
Second
World
War
and
long
before the national
supermarket
chains
began developing
their
large
suburban stores.
Later,
Eaton's
and
Hudson's
Bay
stores
in
the C.B.D. also
established
food floors. As
department
store
operations
have
decentralized,
along
with
he
growth
of
suburban
population
and
the
development
of
planned
regional
centres,
Woodward's at
least,
has extended its supermarket operations to its stores in New Westminster and the planned
regional
centres
of Park
Royal
in
West Vancouver and
Oakridge
in
South Vancouver.
It
may
be
that
in
the
past
the establishment
of
department-store
food floors was an innovation which
found
greater
favour
with
middle-class consumers
while lower-class consumers were
more
tied
to
the
traditional,
smaller and closer
grocery
store.
This
allegiance
has
persisted
in
spite
of
the
fact
that
department-store
food
operations
today
have little to
distinguish
themselves from the
major
supermarket
chains
and, besides,
the latter are more numerous and better located.
In
contrast,
the lower-lower-class
consumers,
who
travel the shortest mean
distance,
are
more
likely
than other
consumers
to
visit the nearest
supermarket
or
grocery
store outlet. The
make-up
of this
group probably
lends
itself
to a
less mobile state. It includes a
higher proportion
of
people
who
do
not
have
private transportation
than
any
other
group,
and in
many
instances
these people are old (indicated in the survey data by their being retired from regular employ-
ment)
and
living
on
very
low
incomes. Fewer than
4 per
cent of consumers in
the
survey
regularly
make their
major
grocery purchases
at
a corner store rather than a more
distant
supermarket,
and
they
are
solely
in
this
group.
Moreover,
it
was found
in
some instances that
the corner-store
that was
preferred
was
only fractionally
closer
than,
and in the same
shopping
area
as,
a
major
supermarket.
Dress
Three features underlie the
significant
variations
in
mean distances travelled
by
the different
social-class
groups
to
purchase
items of dress.
First,
upper/upper-middle-
and
lower-middle-
class consumers travel
longer
distances
in
order
to
shop
for
more
specialized
merchandise.
This
is recognized from the sample survey where a specialized shop with single location is frequented
rather than a chain
dress
shop
with
more than one
location.
Single-location specialized
dress
shops
are
mainly
located
in
Vancouver's C.B.D.
or
on the
west
side of Vancouver and
on
the
North
Shore
(in
West and North
Vancouver),
and thus
in
close
proximity
to
the
largest
share
of
the market.
However,
Figure
2
shows that some of
these stores
encourage long journeys
from
other
parts
of
the
metropolitan
area,
in
some cases from areas
which have
their own
specialized
dress
shops.
There
are
far fewer incidences of the two
lower-status
groups choosing
either a
specialized
or chain dress
shop
in a distant
community
centre,
for
example.
A
second feature noted about
upper/upper-middle-
and lower-middle-class consumers is
the
greater
incidence
of
by-passing
an
intervening opportunity
or
closer
retail
outlet
(in
some
other
direction)
in
favour
of
a more distant outlet.
This does
not
merely
involve
by-passing any
440
8/11/2019 622021
16/20
Class
and
consumer
behaviour
n
Vancouver
retail
outlet
selling
items of
dress,
but
by-passing
also
one
or
more branches
of a
particular
chain
or
department
store
in favour
of a
more
distant
branch.
Invariably,
this
means that
department
stores and chain
stores
in
nearby
regional
centres
are avoided
in favour of the same
store in the
C.B.D.
This contrasts
markedly
with the
findings
of Davies and
Thomas,37
for
example;
in the
British cases, the overwhelming dominance of the C.B.D. within the intra-urban retail struc-
ture,
for
shopping
goods
results
in the various
income
and
status
groups
travelling
similar
distances.
Two
factors
may
underlie the
greater
preference by
upper/upper-middle-
and lower-
middle-class consumers
for
shopping
in
C.B.D.
stores
rather than
those
closer
to
home.
First,
the
C.B.D.
stores
are
larger
and not
only
carry
a wider selection
of
goods
but also
carry
more
quality
merchandise. The
C.B.D.
department
stores,
unlike their
suburban
branches,
incopor-
ate
a
series
of
speciality shops
as well.
Secondly,
it
has been
shown that a
high proportion
of
shopping
trips
in the C.B.D.
originate
from the
workplace
rather than
from
the home.38
The
C.B.D.
has the
largest
concentration
of
jobs
in the
metropolitan
area,
mostly
within a few
blocks
of all
the
stores;
but more
important
it
has an even
larger
concentration
of the
white-collar
jobs
that upper/upper-middle- and lower-middle-class people undertake.
A
third feature
underlying
the
variation
in
distance travelled
for items of
dress concerns
the
greater preference by
the
higher
social-class
groups
for
shopping
at
the Hudson's
Bay
Co.
department
store
in
the
C.B.D.
The data revealed
significant
social-class
variation in the
appeal
of
the
C.B.D.
department
stores.
However,
the Hudson's
Bay
Co. has
long
attracted its
consumers over considerable
distances,
since
it
resisted selection
of
sites
in
the
planned regional
shopping
centres and
other
suburban locations
until
some
time
after
its
major
competitors.
As
far as
dress
purchases
are concerned this store is the most
important
C.B.D. store not
only
for
higher-status
consumers
in Vancouver itself but also
for
the
surrounding
areas of
Burnaby,
Richmond
and West and North Vancouver.
Other goods
The
hypothesis
concerning
social class and distance is not
supported
with
respect
to the other
three
shopping
goods
(Table II).
In the case of furniture there is
virtually
no difference in
the
distances
that
are
travelled for three of the social-class
groups
(Table I).
The fourth
group,
the
lower-lower-class
consumers,
on the other
hand,
travelled
considerably
shorter distances to
shop;
and
't'
tests
for the difference between two means found that the mean distance for this
group
is
significantly
lower than
for
the other three
groups.
This in
part
reflects the close
proximity
of
many
lower-lower-class consumers
living
in
East Vancouver to discount furniture
operations
on
the east side
of
the
C.B.D.;
secondly,
unlike the other three
groups,
this one has a
greater
tendency
to visit centres
nearby
rather than
by-pass
them in favour of
regional
centres
and the
C.B.D.
farther
away.
This
is
a
situation
that,
as in the case of
groceries
and
dress,
reflects
perhaps the inability or lack of need to search and purchase any further afield. The fact that the
other
three
groups
travel
very
similar mean distances for furniture
reflects
similarities in the
appeal
of
various
regional
centres and the C.B.D. and the low incidence of a
distinctive
speciality
trade
encouraging higher-status
consumers to travel
greater
distances.
However,
within
the one
centre there were differences in the social-class
appeal
of various
stores,
especially
department
stores.
It
can
be
seen that for
appliances
the null
hypothesis
only
just
fails to
be
accepted
at the
oo0-05
evel
(Table
II).
However,
acceptance
would
not
imply support
for
the
hypothesis.
There is
no
trend
in distance travelled
by
social
class
(Table
I);
and
't'
tests
for
the
difference
between
two
means
indicate
that
lower-middle-class consumers travel
significantly longer
distances than
upper/upper-middle-
and
upper-lower-class
consumers. The
significant
differences result
from
441
8/11/2019 622021
17/20
particular
residential
locations and
shopping
centre choices. The data show that
upper/upper-
middle- and
upper-lower-class
consumers reside
predominantly
in
areas
on
the west side
and
east side
of
metropolitan
Vancouver
respectively,
and
engage
in
more
'local'
journeys
to
regional
centres
or the C.B.D.
compared
to lower-middle-class
consumers;
the
latter
have a
more
diffused residential location and make a higher proportion of long-distance trips, e.g. from
Richmond and
Coquitlam
to the
C.B.D.
The order
by
social class
of
mean
distances travelled
to
purchase
footwear is
similar
to that
for
dress
(Table I).
But the
difference between
groups
is
not
significant
and
could have occurred
by
chance.
Unlike items
of
dress,
footwear is
a
product
which does
not
generate
much
speciality
store
trade;39
and there
is,
therefore,
less
likelihood
of
consumers
in
certain
groups
travelling
greater
distances
to
shop
than consumers
in
other
groups.
However,
the data
suggest
that,
as
in
the
case
of
dress,
the two middle-class
groups
make
a
higher proportion
of their
footwear
purchases
in the
C.B.D.
compared
to the other two
groups.
Moreover,
a
high
proportion
of
footwear
purchases
are
made
in
department
stores
in
the
metropolitan
area
and,
as
in the case
of
dress and
furniture,
significant
variations
by
social-class
group
are
found
in
the
store that is
chosen.
CONCLUS
ION
The
paper
has
attempted
to show that
by
disaggregating
the total
population,
in this case
according
to
social
class,
it is
possible
to understand
better certain
aspects
of
spatial
behaviour
relating
to distance travelled
and
shopping
centre
and store choice.
However,
for the five
products
that are
considered
(groceries,
dress, furniture,
appliances
and
footwear),
it
can
be
seen
that there is
no
consistent
trend in the distance travelled
by
social
class. Even
in
the
two
instances
where the
hypothesis,
that
the
higher
the social class
the
greater
the distance
that is
travelled
to
shop,
is
supported,
different reasons
are to
be found
for
such
variations.
For
groceries,
there is
a
greater
preference
amongst higher
social-class
groups
for
shopping
at
department-store food outlets, rather than the chain supermarket offering the same goods closer
to
the
place
of
residence,
an
example perhaps
of store
allegiance
and
perceived
product
differences. Yet
for items of
dress
the
greater
distances
travelled
by
social
class
are a
reflection
of
the
need
for
product
specialization,
the
greater availability
of
choice
at
the
higher-order
centre
and the association
between
workplace
and
shopping.
In a further
two
instances,
furniture
and
appliances,
while
no
trend is
evident,
there
are
similarities in the distances
travelled
by
some of
the
groups
and contrasts
with
others.
Moreover,
the
similarities mask
the fact that even
within
the
one centre various
groups may
have
a
preference
for
different
types
of store
or
different
firms
(i.e. department
stores).
In
carrying
out the
analysis
it
has been
possible
to uncover
a
number
of
problems
some of
which either substantiate
queries
that have been raised
elsewhere
or
pose questions
to
be
answered later. While it is meaningful to disaggregate it is unreasonable to expect that an
umbrella
approach
is
feasible
or that social-class
groups
would react
in the
same
way
to all
products
alike.
It is
necessary
to consider
each
product separately
even
though
there
are
similarities
in
the
distribution
of hitherto broad
categories
of
products
(e.g.
shopping goods).
In
some
instances
disaggregation by
social class
offers
no
better
understanding
of variations
in the
distance
travelled
to
shop;
this
suggests
either
a random
process
affecting
all consumers
alike,
therefore
supporting
a more
aggregate
level
of
treatment,
or
the need
to
seek
a
more refined
disaggregation.
In
the
metropolitan
Vancouver
case
it
can
be
seen
that
disaggregation
is
possible,
whether
or
not there are
significant
variations
in
distance
travelled,
according
to
shopping
centre
and store choice. Most
community
centres
and some
regional
centres
serve
more localized and
often
more
socially
segmented
markets;
and where
regional
centres
and the
442
H.
J.
GAYLER
8/11/2019 622021
18/20
Class
and consumer
ehaviour
n
Vancouver
C.B.D. serve
a
much
larger
and
more
socially
varied
market there
are social-class
variations
in
store
preference
within each
centre,
in
particular
the choice
of
department
store
which as it
happens
accounts
for the
highest proportion
of
store
preferences
for
shopping goods
in the
metropolitan
area.
It must be recognized that other variables besides social class influence the distance that is
travelled and
shopping
centre and store
preference.
These were discussed
at the outset
in
the
context
of the
multi-faceted
approach
to
studying
consumer
spatial
behaviour.
However,
there
is also a
need
to
incorporate
some
of
these variables in order to
provide
for a
better
explanation
and
expansion
of the
social-class
question.
Whilst social class
is
a
surrogate
variable
represent-
ing
a number of
other
variables,
these variables are interrelated and therefore
social class
is
unidimensional.
A
multidimensional
approach
would examine
social-class variations
according
to
life
cycle,
cultural and
perceptual
variables.
In this
way
it
becomes
possible
to
obtain a more
detailed
disaggregation
of
the
population.
In
terms
of
their overt
behaviour social-class
groups
are
not
homogeneous;
the
groups
are
represented
by
some
average
statistic,
and the lack of
significant
differences between
groups
is
indicative of
greater
within-group
than
between-group
variation. The inclusion of other variables can be responsible for obtaining a better understand-
ing
of
such
within-group
variation. In this
paper
it
can be seen that within the
lower-lower-class
group,
for
example,
there is
a
distinct
contrast
in
distance travelled
and store
preference
for a
number of
products according
to
age
and whether
or not
the
family
owns a car.
Finally,
it is
important
to
recognize
the overall cultural
milieu
in
which the
study
is
undertaken.
Metropolitan
Vancouver
is
an urban
area
of
approximately
one million
people
where
a
strong
C.B.D. retail
sector,
serving
a
major
portion
of the
market,
exists
alongside
well-established and
expanding
high-order
centres in suburban
areas. Thi s
ontrasts
markedly
with
large
cities
in
the United
States
where
the more dominant
role
of
suburban
retailing
and
the
changing
racial
composition
of
the
population
encourage self-imposed
restrictions
on
movement and
choice.
Meanwhile,
in
Britain and most
European
countries
the
supremacy
of
the C.B.D. for high-order, and often low-order, goods results in a greater degree of similarity in
the behaviour of
various consumer
groups.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The
author wishes to
thank Brock
University
for financial assistance
towards
the cost of
illustrations.
NOTES
i. For
example,
BERRY,
B.
J.
L. and
GARRISON,
W. L.
(1958)
'The
functional
bases of the
central
place
hierarchy',
Econ.
Geogr. 34, 145-54;
BASKIN,
C.
(1966)
The
centralplaces
of
Southern
Germany
(Englewood
Cliffs),
translated from
CHRISTALLER,
W.
(1933)
Die
Zentraler Orte in Suddeutschland
(Jena);
MARSHALL,
J.
U.
(1969)
The
location
of
service
towns
(Toronto)
2.
ISARD,
W.
(1960)
Methods
of regional
analysis (Cambridge, Mass.)
pp.
493-568
3.
WILSON,
A. G.
(1970) Entropy
in urban and
regionalmodelling
(London)
4.
HUDSON,
R.
(1976) 'Linking
studies of
the individual
with
models of
aggregate
behaviour:
an
empirical
example',
Trans.
Inst. Br.
Geogr.
N.S.
I,
159-74
5.
BUCKLIN,
L. P.
(1971)
'Retail
gravity
models and
consumer
choice',
Econ.
Geogr. 47,
489-97
6.
DOWNS,
R.
M.
(1970)
'Geographic space perception: past
approaches
and future
prospects',
Prog. Geogr. 2,
65-io08
7. CADWALLER,
.
(1975)
'A behavioral
model of consumer
spatial
decision
making',
Econ.
Geogr.
51,339-49;
HUDSON,
p.
cit.
8.
THOMAS,
C.
J.
(1976) 'Sociospatial
differentiation and the use of
services',
in
HERBERT,
.
T. and
JOHNSTON,
.
J.
(eds)
Social
areas
in
cities
(London),
Vol.
2,
pp.
45-53
9.
BOW'LBY,
S. R.
(1972)
'Spatial
variations
in
consumers' information
levels',
unpublished
Ph.D.
thesis,
Northwestern
University,
Evanston,
Ill.
10.
HANSON,
S.
(1976) 'Spatial
variation
in the
cognitive
levels of
urban
residents',
in
GOLLEDGE,
R.
G. and
RUSHTON,
G.
(eds)
Spatial
choice and
spatial
behavior
(Columbus, Ohio) pp.
157-77;
HANSON,
S.
(1977) 'Measuring
the
cognitive
levels of
urban
residents',
Geogr.
Annalr Ser.
B, 59, 67-81
II.
BURNETT,
P.
(1977)
'Tests
of a linear
learning
model of
destination
choice:
applications
to
shopping
travel
by
heterogeneous population
groups', Geogr.
Annalr
Ser.
B,
59,
95-108
12.
For
studies
of
shopping
trips
see,
for
example,
DOWNS,
R.
(1970)
'The
cognitive
structure of
an
urban
shopping
center',
443
8/11/2019 622021
19/20
444
H.
J.
GAYLER
Environ.
Behav.2,
13-39;
HUDSON,
.
(I974)
'Images
of
the
retailing
environment: n
example
of
the use
of
the
repertorygrid
methodology',
Environ.
Behav.
6,
470-90;
RECKER,
. W. and
KOSTYNIUK,
.
P.
(1978)
Factors
nfluencing
destination
hoice
for
the
urban
grocery
rip',
Transpn
, 19-33;
LLOYD,
. and
JENNINGS,
.
(1978)
Shopping
behaviour
nd ncome:
comparisons
n an
urban
nvironment',
Econ.
Geogr.
4,
157-67;
SCHULER,
.
J.
(1979)
A
disaggregate
tore-choicemodel
of
spatial
decision-making',
Prof
Geogr.
31,
I46-56;
TAYLOR,
. M.
(I979)
'Personal
dispositions
and
human
spatial
behaviour',
Econ.
Geogr.
55,
i84-95
13.
DAVIES,
. L.
(1976)
Marketing
eography:
with
pecial
eference
o
retailing
London),
224;
BUNTING,
. E.
and
GUEI.KE,
J. (1979)'Behavioral ndperceptiongeography: criticalappraisal',Ann.Ass.Am.Geogr.69, 448-62
14.
BURNETT,
.
P. and
PRESTWOOD,
. C.
L.
(1976)
'The
development
of
disaggregate
rip-distribution
models',
in
STOPHER,
. R.
and
MEYBURG,
.
H.
(eds)
Behavioral
ravel-demand odels
Lexington,Mass.)
pp.
109-24
I5.
LLOYDnd
JENNINGS,
p.
cit.
I6.
MURDIE,
.
A.
(I965)
'Culturaldifferences n
consumer
ravel',
Econ.
Geogr.
41,
211--33
17.
ROSE,
.M.
(1970)
'The
structure
of retail
rade
n a
racially
hanging
rade
area',
Geogrl
Analysis
2,
135-48
I8.
GRANT,
. F.
(I972)
'Food
habits
and
food
shopping
patterns
of
Greek
mmigrants
n
Vancouver',
n
MINGHI,
.
V.
(ed.)
Peoples
fthe
iving
and:
geography
f
cultlraldiversity
n British
Columbia,
.C.,
Geogr.
SeriesNo.
15 (Vancouver)
p. 125-44
19.
JONASSEN,
C. T.
(1955)
The
shopping
center
versus Downtown
(Columbus,
Ohio)
20.
DAVIES,
. L.
(1968)
'Effects
of
consumer ncome
differences
on the
business
provisions
of
small
shopping
centres',
Urban
Stud.
5,
I44-64;
HOLLY,
. P.
and
WHEELER,
.
0.
(1972)
'Patterns f
retail ocationand the
shopping
rips
of
low-income
households',
Urban
Stud.
9, 215-20
21.
DAVIES,
. L.
(I969)
'Effectsof consumer ncome
differences
on
shopping
movement
behaviour',
Tijdschr.
con.
oc.
Geogr.
60,
I
I-21
22.
THOMAS,. J. (I974) 'The effects of social class and carownershipon intra-urban hoppingbehaviour n Greater
Swansea',
Cambria
,
98-126;
LENTNEK,
.,
LIEBER,
. R. AND
HESKIN,
.
(1975)
Consumer
behavior
n different
reas',
Ann. Ass.
Am.
Geogr.
65,
538-45;
LENTREK,
., CHARNEWS,
.
and
COTTER,
.
V.
(1978)
'Commercial actors n the
development
f
regional
urban
systems:
a Mexican
case
study',
Econ.
Geogr.
54,
291-308
23.
CARMAN,
.
M.
(1965)
The
application f
social
class n market
egmentation
Berkeley,
Calif.)
24.
GORDON,
. M.
(1958)
Social
class n American
ociology
Durham,N.C.)
25.
COLEMAN,
.
P.
(I96I)
'The
significance
of
social
stratification
n
selling',
in
Marketing:
a
maturing
discipline,
Proceedings
of the
Winter
Conference
of
the American
Marketing
Association,
1960
(Chicago)
pp.
171-84
26. For
example,
BOOTH,
.
(1889) Life
and
abour
f
the
people
London)
I,
33,
identifies
ight
classes
n
his
classic
study
of
London's
poor,
but
whereas
here
are
very
fine
divisionsbetween he six
working-class
roups,
London's
upper-
and
middle-class
population
constitute two
very
heterogeneous
roups;
LYND,
R.
S.
and
LYND,
H. M.
(1929)
Middletown
New
York)
pp.
23-24,
recognize
only
two
classes,
a
working
class and a
business
class,
in
their
study
of
a small
Mid-Western ndustrial
ity;
WARNER,
W. L.
(1949)
Social
class
n America:
he
evaluation
fstatus
Chicago)
stablishes
ix
classes
on
the basis
of
his work n
a small
New
England
own:
upper-upper
a
town's elite
families,
possessing
wealthand
power); ower-upper the
nouveaux-riches,
triving
o
establish
hemselves);
upper-middle professional
nd
managerial eople);
ower-middle
the
lowest
paid
white-collar
workers);
upper-lower, skilledand semi-skilledmanualworkers); nd lower-lower unskilledandsporadically mployedworkers)
27.
For
example,
CHAPIN,
.
S.
(I928)
'A
quantitative
cale
for
rating
he
home and
social
environmentof
middle-class
families n
an
urban
community',J.
Educ.
Psychol.
19,
99-111
28.
BLISHEN,
.
R.
(1958)
'The
constructionand use
of
an
occupational
cale',