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 support@jstor.org.

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=black

8/11/2019 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',