Growth in online shopping market share will likely lead to changes in consumer travel patterns. In response to the inevitable transportation impacts of online shopping, a detailed exploratory analysis of shopping survey data (excluding food purchases) was conducted with Davis, California, as a case study. Davis was notable for its lack of major big-box retailers and relative geographic isolation; these factors suggest that it could be particularly well suited to online shopping. Results of the analysis indicated that income and age were associated with a greater likelihood of shopping online, whereas no significant effects were found for gender or the built environment. Online shoppers were also associated with a greater concern for the environment and local community, as well as a positive sentiment toward technology. The study results, though reflecting the unique shopping context in Davis, provide insights into the characteristics and motivations of online consumers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SantosA., McCuckinN., NakamotoH. Y., GrayD., and LissS.. Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011.
2.
HsiaoM.-H.Shopping Mode Choice: Physical Store Shopping Versus E-Shopping. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2009, pp. 86–95.
3.
MokhtarianP. L.A Conceptual Analysis of the Transportation Impacts of B2C E-Commerce. Transportation, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2004, pp. 257–284.
4.
CaoX.The Relationships Between E-Shopping and Store Shopping in the Shopping Process of Search Goods. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 7, 2012, pp. 993–1002.
5.
HashimA., GhaniE. K., and SaidJ.. Does Consumers' Demographic Profile Influence Online Shopping? An Examination Using Fishbein's Theory. Canadian Social Science, Vol. 5, No. 6, 2009, pp. 19–31.
6.
LianJ.-W., and YenD. C.. Online Shopping Drivers and Barriers for Older Adults: Age and Gender Differences. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 37, 2014, pp. 133–143.
7.
HaS., and StoelL.. Consumer E-Shopping Acceptance: Antecedents in a Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 5, 2009, pp. 565–571.
8.
HasanB.Exploring Gender Differences in Online Shopping Attitude. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2010, pp. 597–601.
9.
ChiangW.-Y. K., ZhangD., and ZhouL.. Predicting and Explaining Patronage Behavior Toward Web and Traditional Stores Using Neural Networks: A Comparative Analysis with Logistic Regression. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2006, pp. 514–531.
10.
CaoX. J., XuZ., and DoumaF.. The Interactions Between E-Shopping and Traditional In-Store Shopping: An Application of Structural Equations Model. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2012, pp. 957–974.
11.
PassynK. A., DirikerM., and SettleR. B.. Images of Online Versus Store Shopping: Have the Attitudes of Men and Women, Young and Old Really Changed?Journal of Business and Economics Research Vol. 9, No. 1, 2011, pp. 99–110.
12.
WeltevredenJ. W. J., and van RietbergenT.. The Implications of E-Shopping for In-Store Shopping at Various Shopping Locations in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2009, pp. 279–299.
13.
FileT.Computer and Internet Use in the United States: Population Characteristics.Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013.
14.
SenerI. N., and ReederP. R.. An Examination of Behavioral Linkages Across ICT Choice Dimensions: Copula Modeling of Telecommuting and Teleshopping Choice Behavior. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1459–1478.
15.
BurkolterD., and KlugeA.. Online Consumer Behavior and Its Relationship with Socio-Demographics, Shopping Orientations, Need for Emotion, and Fashion Leadership. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, No. 2, 2011, pp. 20–28.
16.
ToP.-L., LiaoC., and LinT.-H.. Shopping Motivations on Internet: A Study Based on Utilitarian and Hedonic Value. Technovation, Vol. 27, No. 12, 2007, pp. 774–787.
17.
SoopramanienD. G. R., and RobertsonA.. Adoption and Usage of Online Shopping: An Empirical Analysis of the Characteristics of “Buyers,” “Browsers,” and “Non-Internet Shoppers.”Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2007, pp. 73–82.
18.
RenF., and KwanM.-P.. The Impact of Geographic Context on E-Shopping Behavior. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2009, pp. 262–278.
19.
HernándezB., JiménezJ., and MartínM. J.Age, Gender and Income: Do They Really Moderate Online Shopping Behaviour?Online Information Review Vol. 35, No. 1, 2011, pp. 113–133.
20.
LevinA. M., LevinI. P., and WellerJ. A.. A Multi-Attribute Analysis of Preferences for Online and Offline Shopping: Differences Across Products, Consumers, and Shopping Stages. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2005, pp. 281–290.
21.
FaragS., SchwanenT., DijstM., and FaberJ.. Shopping Online and/or In-Store? A Structural Equation Model of the Relationships Between E-Shopping and In-Store Shopping. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 125–141.
22.
StraubE. T.Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79, No. 2, 2009, pp. 625–649.
23.
LinH.-F.Predicting Consumer Intentions to Shop Online: An Empirical Test of Competing Theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2007, pp. 433–442.
24.
OryD. T., and MokhtarianP. L.. When Is Getting There Half the Fun? Modeling the Liking for Travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2005, pp. 97–123.
25.
LovejoyK., SciaraG.-C., SalonD., HandyS. L., and MokhtarianP.. Measuring the Impacts of Local Land-Use Policies on Vehicle Miles of Travel: The Case of the First Big-Box Store in Davis, California. Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, pp. 25–39.
