The paper identifies the role of consumer choice models in relating consumer behaviour to observed characteristics of shopping centres. A hypergeometric model of consumer choice, assuming a finite set of ranked alternatives and limited searching in random order, is then introduced and developed to model situations where tied ranks exist. The properties of the model are illustrated using hypothetical values for the model parameters and it is shown to yield results relevant to a fuller understanding of consumer shopping movements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerryB J LGarrisonW L, 1958“Functional bases of the central place hierarchy”Economic Geography34145–154
2.
BriggsR, 1969The Scaling of Preferences for Spatial Locations: An Example Using Shopping Centres M A thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus (microfilm)
3.
BurnettP, 1973“The dimensions of alternatives in spatial choice processes”Geographical Analysis5181–204
4.
EwingG O, 1971The Analysis of Consumer Space Preferences Using the Method of Paired Comparisons Ph D thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
5.
EwingG O, 1974“Gravity and linear regression models of spatial interaction: A cautionary note”Economic Geography5083–88
GirtJ L, 1976bPlanning and Evaluating Rural Community Facilities: A Methodological Proposal (Report Number 4, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Ontario)
8.
GolledgeR GRushtonG, 1972Multidimensional Scaling: Review and Applications Commission on College Geography, TP-10 (Association of American Geographers, Washington)
9.
KruskalJ B, 1964a“Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness-of-fit to a nonmetric hypothesis”Psychometrika291–28
10.
KruskalJ B, 1964b“Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method”Psychometrika29115–130
11.
KruskalJ BCarmoneF, 1969How to Use M-D-SCAL (Version 5M) and other Useful InformationBell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey (mimeo)
12.
LuceR D, 1956“Semi orders and a theory of utility discrimination”Econometrica24178–191
13.
LuceR D, 1959Individual Choice Behavior (John Wiley, New York)
14.
PirieG H, 1976“Thoughts on revealed preference and spatial behaviour”Environment and Planning A8947–955
15.
PopperK R, 1959The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Harper and Row, New York)
16.
RushtonG, 1969a“The scaling of locational preferences” in Behavioral Problems in Geography: A Symposium Eds CoxK RGolledgeG, Northwestern University Studies in Geography 17 pp 197–227
17.
RushtonG, 1969b“Analysis of spatial behaviour by revealed space preference”Annals of the Association of American Geographers59391–400
18.
RushtonG, 1969c“Temporal changes in space preference structures”Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers1129–132
19.
RushtonG, 1970“Preference and choice in different environments”Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers2146–150
20.
RushtonG, 1971“Behavioral correlates of urban spatial structure”Economic Geography4749–58
21.
StaffordH, 1963“The functional bases for small Iowa towns”Economic Geography39165–175
22.
TverskyA, 1969“Intransitivity of preferences”Psychological Review7631–48
23.
TverskyA, 1972“Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice”Psychological Review79281–299
24.
WhiteR W, 1976“A generalization of the utility theory approach to the problem of spatial interaction”Geographical Analysis839–46
25.
YoungF W, 1972“A model for polynomial conjoint analysis algorithms” in Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, Volume 1 Eds ShepardR NRomneyA KNerloveS B, (Seminar Press, New York)
