Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Transportation Studies in Developing Countries

Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia, November 4 - 5, 2017

REASONS IN SELECTING GROCERY SHOP LOCATIONS

IN THE CITY OF BANDUNG: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

Tri Basuki Joewono

Civil Engineering Department
Graduate School
Parahyangan Catholic University,
Jl. Merdeka 30, Bandung, 40117
Ph: +62 22 - 4205090
email: vftribas@unpar.ac.id

Abstract

Shopping trip is classical topic in travel behavior study, while most of the study employed empirical data from
developed countries. This study aims to analyze the reasons of customers to visit their selected shop. Data was
gathered from household in the city of Bandung, Indonesia. Questionnaire was distributed to household in
Bandung, Indonesia. There are 21 aspects included in the analyses from 516 respondents, where two methods
of analyses were employed, i.e. factor analysis and ordered choice model. Results of factor analysis is able to
classify the aspect into five constructs, while ordered choice model found eight significant aspects in
influencing the frequency of visit.

Keywords: Shopping trip, grocery, location, reasons to select.

INTRODUCTION
Shopping is an activity to maintain other activities (similar with activities of sleeping at
home, eating, personal business away from home) (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 2011). It is
different category from mandatory activity (e.g. working or studying). Differs from
shopping, that it is discretionary, some activities are intended for fulfilling life (e.g.
recreational or entertainment). Thus, the shopping trip is the trip activities undertaken by a
person or group by visiting a certain place to purchase items that are in that location
(Holton, 1958).

Besides the development in the theories of shopping behavior, shopping trips have been
studied for a long time. The topic of shopping trips is a classical topic in transportation field.
Shopping trips are complex by its nature because of shopping activities are complex by itself.
The complexity are increased when the nature of trips are investigated by considering the
characteristics of shopping. Selection of destinations and modes have been a major topic in
modeling travel behavior. One example from many studies to show a recent studies is a study
conducted by Susilo et al. (2013) regarding shoppers travel mode choice in visiting
convenience stores in UK.

For a long time, Holton (1958) have stated that besides minimizing travel cost, especially
travel time, other factors can be more influencing to express greater attractiveness. Some
studies can be mentioned, for example, study of Recker and Kostyniuk (1978). They
employed disaggregate model to investigate urban residents' grocery shopping destination
choice behavior, including assessing the relative importance of the individuals' perceptions
of the destinations, the individuals' perceptions of the accessibilities of the stores, and the
number of opportunities available in that choice decision. Moreover, studies show that

1
 Joewono

shopping trips are influenced by the economic and social characteristics of individuals.
Chen et al. (2008) found that car availability and public transport fare played major roles in
determining shopping mode choice. Coveney and O’Dwyer (2009) argued that gender,
employment status, income, the presence and the ages of children in a household, and vehicle
ownership greatly influenced people’s travel mode choice for shopping.

Other researchers pointed out additional aspects that increased the complexities in shopping
behavior. Robinson and Vickerman (1976) stated that the amount households travel for
shopping is primarily influenced by what shopping facilities are available. Tauber (1972)
hypothesized that the motivation to shop includes some factors unrelated to the actual buying
of products, which has a meaning that consumers derive utility from the activity of shopping
itself, not just the products purchased. Moreover, consumers have become increasingly
sophisticated and demanding with the availability and abundance of products, services,
information, technology, as well as retail stores and channels (Terblanche and Boshoff,
2004). Davis and Hodges (2012) conducted research to understand consumer shopping value
and its dimensions from a holistic view by connecting shopping motivations and processes
to the ultimate outcome of shopping through exploring consumers’ shopping experiences.
They found two components of consumer shopping value, namely shopping trip value and
in-store shopping value.

The development of information and communication technology also influence in great

magnitude to many aspects, including shopping behaviors, travel behavior, and
transportation services. The online shopping and the existence of ride sourcing have a
significant influence to shopping activities and shopping trips. The complexity becomes
higher since life style is changing, which is influenced by the development of information
and communication technology. The life style influences the way people fulfils their needs
and wants.

As a fact, many studies are accumulated knowledge from developing countries. It is very
limited to have a study with empirical data from developing countries like Indonesia. Some
example from a limited number are study by Ramli (2011) who studied temporal constraint
on one-day shopping travel behavior. Wirza (2014) investigated the influence of online
shopping to shopping travel behavior.

With this motivation, this study aims to investigate the reasons in selecting grocery shop
locations using empirical data from households in the city of Bandung. This article reports
preliminary findings from the study conducted to explore the complexity in shop locations
using several reason’s constructs. After this introduction, a brief description regarding data
collection is provided. Data description is presented in third part. It is followed with analyses
and completed with discussion and conclusion.

DATA COLLECTION
Material
This study employed questionnaire to collect responses regarding the experience and
perception of trip makers for shopping trips. The shopping trips are studied by investigating
its relation with the experience of online shopping as well as ride sourcing. It consists of
several parts. The first part intends to collect information regarding the characteristics of two

2
 Joewono

top most frequent visited shopping locations. Eleven questions to collect location
characteristics are provided for each shopping location. The second parts collects perception
of users regarding their reasons in selecting the most frequent shopping location. Multiple
aspects with 21 questions are provided to respondents and asked them to compare the two
locations for each aspects. Furthermore, ten questions are provided to collect information
regarding characteristics of the shopping trips’ maker in the third part.

The fourth parts of questionnaire collects perception of users regarding the characteristics of
their build environment. Twenty two questions are provided in this section. The fifth part
consists of 19 questions regarding the characteristics of their characteristics in using
information technology and their experience in online shopping. The last part consists of
eleven questions regarding their experience in using ride sourcing. This last part also asks
respondents to express their perception regarding the reason for selecting ride sourcing
compared with existing public transportation services.

The questionnaire are designed carefully with a special design and layout to ensure the
respondents will experience it as enjoyable, and hopefully reduce the burden in filling in a
lot of questions. Figure 1 presents the cover and layout of the distributed questionnaire in
this study. The questions are provided in two types, namely questions with nominal scale
and ordinal scale. Questions to collect information regarding characteristics are provided in
nominal scale. For perception type questions, an ordinal scale is employed, i.e. one for
strongly disagree up to 5 for strongly agree.

Figure 1. The Questionnaire Cover and Layout

Sample
The questionnaire was distributed to household in the city of Bandung. To represent the
population, the sampling process was designed by dividing the city into into six areas,
namely Tegallega, Gedebage, Ujung Berung, Karees, Cibeunying, and Bojonagara. The
households were divided into three groups of expenditure (i.e. less than 1.5 million IDR, 1.5
up to - 2.25 million IDR, and more than 2.25 million IDR). The questionnaire was distributed
with the help of 26 surveyors from 3 June up to 16 June 2017. With a population of 2.4
million inhabitants, the minimum sample size of 400 was selected for 95% level of
confidence. To anticipate the error (such as incomplete questionnaire), a sample size of 520
was targeted. This sample size was divided into six areas and three groups of total

3
 Joewono

expenditure level. Thus, each area has different sample size. The area of Tegallega was
targeted as the area with the biggest sample size (109 respondents), while the area with the
smallest sample size was Karees (64 respondents). The households were selected randomly
for each level of expenditure.

After the process of data inputting, process of data cleaning was performed. Selection of
incomplete questionnaire found that only 516 respondents can be analyzed for further
analyses. Process of data imputation was conducted to manage the missing value. In this
study, a mean value was employed.

Characteristics of Respondents
Using data from 516 respondents, characteristics of respondents are possible to be evaluated.
The lady, where it can be as a mother or wife, is the major person who makes trips for grocery
shopping. Most of shopping trip makers are in the age of 26-40 years old (34.3%) and 41-60
years old (44.0%). The trip makers are mainly well educated, where 43.6% have secondary
education and 36.2% have higher education.

It is interesting to know the distribution of the types of household. Higher proportion of

respondents come from a family with children (around 43%), where similar proportion is
found between one and two working persons at household. Around 30% of respondents
come from family without children, where 17% are people who live together as relative or
friend. Most of shopping trip makers have driving license, whether it is only one type (for
motorcycle or car only), or having multiple type driving licenses. Around 28% of respondent
do not have any driving license.

Around 33% of respondents have monthly income of three million IDR or less, where it is
quite similar with monthly basic wages in the city of Bandung. Household with middle
income (3 – 9 million IDR) have proportion as much as 44%. Higher income households are
around 21%. Similar distribution can be found for the distribution of respondent regarding
monthly expenditure.

Regarding the type of vehicle the household owned, similar proportion can be found for the
owner of private car and non-motorized transport (NMT). On the contrary, the distribution
of motorcycle ownership is different with the other two modes. Higher proportion of
households are owner of motorcycle. Around 76% of respondents own one or two units of
motorcycle. It is also interesting to know that most respondents are living at house owned
by their family. Only around 15% of them are renting the house. By observing the duration
of stay in the household, most of respondent are native residents in their neighborhood.

Description of Travel and Shopping Characteristics

The respondents were asked to inform two grocery shops which were the two most
frequently visited. Including the name of the shops and locations, several travel and shopping
characteristics were also requested to fill in by respondents. Table 1 presents the
characteristics of the two most visited grocery shops. Foods related products are the main
product to buy in the most visited shop, while respondents visit the second most visited shop
for more vary products. For the two shops, closeness to home is the main reason. In visiting
these shops, the respondents declare they made single purpose trip only for shopping.

4
 Joewono

In term of duration during visiting the most frequent shop, respondents seem to spend more
time than the second one. Data shows that amount of spending seem as similar between the
two shops. It is also the case for distance and travel time to reach shopping location, travel
cost, and location from origin.

Table 1. Comparison of Characteristics between Two Most Visited Grocery Shops

Proportion (%)
Characteristics
Most visited 2nd most visited
Foods (vegetables, meats, dairy, etc.) 78.1 54.1
Fast food or traditional food 7.4 17.1
Drinks 4.5 6.4
Clothes 1.2 4.3
Type of major good
Medicines 0.6 1.7
bought in this store
Entertainment (cd, video, etc.) 0.4
Snacks or bread 7.8 13.6
Tools and equipment 0.6 1.6
Other 1.0
Close to home 84.7 80.4
Close to working place 3.9 3.3
On the way to home 4.5 7.2
Reasons to select this
On the way to working place 0.8 1.0
location
On the way to other trips 3.7 6.8
On the way to campus/school 2.3 1.2
Other 0.2 0.2
Only for shopping 77.1 75.4
Shopping trips with one other trip purpose 17.2 20.0
Type of shopping trip
Shopping trips with two other trip purposes 3.3 1.7
Shopping trips with 2+ other trip purposes 2.3 2.9
30 min. or less 35.9 52.9
31-60 min. 41.9 28.7
Shopping duration 61-90 min. 15.1 10.5
91-120 min. 5.0 4.1
More than 120 min. 2.1 3.9
Once per month or less 21.3 37.6
One per several weeks 20.0 19.8
Shopping frequency Once per week 20.0 19.0
Several times per week 21.9 14.9
Every day 16.9 8.7
Less than Rp. 100,000 34.7 41.1
Rp 100,001 - Rp 250,000 26.0 29.8
Amount of spending Rp 250,001 - Rp 500,000 19.4 15.5
for shopping Rp 500,001 - Rp 750,000 7.0 5.4
Rp 750,001 - Rp 1,000,000 7.6 3.7
Lebih dari Rp 1,000,000 5.4 4.5
Less than 1km 48.4 51.0
1-5km 43.8 37.2
Distance to reach this
5-10km 5.6 8.7
location
10-15km 1.6 1.9
More than 15km 0.6 1.2

5
 Joewono

Table 1. Comparison of Characteristics between Two Most Visited Grocery Shops (cont.)
Proportion (%)
Characteristics
Most visited 2nd most visited
5 min. or less 38.6 38.4
6-15 min. 46.1 40.9
Travel time to reach 16-30 min. 11.6 15.1
this location 31-45 min. 2.5 3.5
46-60 min. 1.0 1.4
More than 60 min. 0.2 .8
Less than Rp 10,000 81.8 80.2
Rp 10,001 - Rp 20,000 12.0 12.2
Rp 20,001 - Rp 30,000 2.5 3.3
Travel cost
Rp 30,001 - Rp 40,000 1.7 1.0
Rp 40,001 - Rp 50,000 1.0 1.4
Lebih dari Rp. 50,000 1.0 1.9
Home 91.7 90.1
Working places 5.4 6.6
Location of origin
Campus or school 2.7 3.1
Other 0.2 .2

Description of Perception regarding Reasons to Select Shopping Location

The questionnaire was also employed to find out the reasons why people have higher
preference in one grocery shop than the other. Respondents were asked to compare the two
shops for each aspects. There are 20 aspects and one overall comparison. Table 2 provides
descriptive statistics of the aspects.

Table 2. Comparison of Reasons to Select Grocery Store

Store 1 compared to Store 2…… Mean St. Dev.
Sells more reasonable price of products (P.12) 3.34 0.921
Sells higher quality products (P.13) 3.22 0.791
Sells more complete products (wider variety of items) (P.14) 3.39 1.062
Has a larger shopping area (P.15) 3.33 1.134
Has a better arrangement of products to make it easier to find (P.16) 3.41 0.934
Has a better and more attractive layout (P.17) 3.26 0.949
Has a more comfortable and enjoyable atmosphere (P.18) 3.33 0.941
Has a more variety of food court (P.19) 3.08 1.092
Has a more enjoyable lounge (P.20) 3.01 1.024
Has a longer operation time (P.21) 3.12 0.987
Has a better lighting (P.22) 3.23 0.921
Has a better cleanliness (P.23) 3.19 0.906
Gives more discounts (P.24) 3.27 0.978
Accepts wider type and issuer of credit card (P.25) 3.13 0.961
Has a better process in return and exchange purchased products (P.26) 3.16 0.797
Has a more reasonable parking fee (P.27) 3.17 0.934
Has a wider parking space and better location (P.28) 3.27 1.021
Has a more accessible location (P.29) 3.42 1.104
Has a closer distance from the location of origin (P.30) 3.33 1.143
Has a closer distance from center of activities (P.31) 3.37 0.912
Provides higher overall satisfaction (P.32) 3.49 0.833

6
 Joewono

Using likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), the aspect of accessibility
is the main reason to choose the shop. The aspect of the quality of the lounge become the
least reason to choose. The mean value has a range from 3.42 (access to location) up to 3.01
(quality of lounge) with a standard deviation ranges from 1.143 (distance from location of
origin) up to 0.791 (quality of products). The aspects of quality of products has a higher
consensus as having lower variation then distance from location of origin). According to
overall quality of the two shops, the respondents provide a mean score as much as 3.49 that
the first shop gives more satisfaction than the second most visited shop.

DATA ANALYSIS
Principal factors extraction with varimax rotation was performed through SPSS on 20 items
for a sample of 516 respondents. Five factors were extracted as appears in Table 3. The value
of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) as the measure of sampling adequacy is 0.872. Since the
value is between 0.8 and 0.9, it implies a great confident that factor analysis is appropriate
for these data (Field, 2005). The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity shows that factor analysis
appropriate, since a significant test reveal that there are some relationships between the
expected variables to be included in the analysis.

Table 3. Result of Factor Analysis

Component
Variables
1 2 3 4 5
Sells more reasonable price of products (P.12) .687
Sells more complete products (wider variety of items) (P.14) .556
Has a better arrangement of products to make it easier to find
.566
(P.16)
Has a better and more attractive layout (P.17) .750
Has a more comfortable and enjoyable atmosphere (P.18) .691
Has a more variety of food court (P.19) .717
Has a more enjoyable lounge (P.20) .737
Has a longer operation time (P.21) .580
Has a better lighting (P.22) .783
Has a better cleanliness (P.23) .810
Gives more discounts (P.24) .529
Accepts wider type and issuer of credit card (P.25) .590
Has a better process in return and exchange purchased products
.660
(P.26)
Has a more reasonable parking fee (P.27) .709
Has a wider parking space and better location (P.28) .632
Has a more accessible location (P.29) .847
Has a closer distance from the location of origin (P.30) .847
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. ;
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; Rotation converged in 10 iterations
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .872
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity [Approx. Chi-Square, df, sig.] 3915.407; 190; .000
Variables P.13, P.15, and P.31 were deleted as not significant.

Table 3 shows the factor loadings for each variable onto each factor after rotation. Three out
of 20 variables were deleted as not significant, since they have loadings lower than 0.5.
Furthermore, a labeling for construct is needed to provide better interpretation. Factor 1 can
be labeled as ‘shop atmosphere’ while Factor 2 seems as suitable with the label of
‘enjoyment facility’. A label of ‘access’ can be provided for Factor 3 and a label of ‘value
of product’. Last factor can be labeled as ‘customer care’.

7
 Joewono

Further analysis is conducted to explore the influence of the aspects of selecting shop to the
frequency of visit. In order to explore the significant variables determined the frequency in
selecting the most visited grocery shops, ordered choice models were estimated by
employing LIMDEP10 (Greene, 2012ab). Even though several models (i.e. Probit, Weibull,
and Logit) were estimated, only an ordered probit model was presented in this article as the
chosen model. From the three models, the probit model has the smallest value of AIC
(Akaike Information Criterion), namely 1604.7 for Probit, 1622.0 for Weibull, and 1605.1
for Logit. It follows Greene and Hensher’s suggestion (2010) that a better model is one with
a smaller information criterion. Regarding the value of Pseudo R-squared, again the Probit
has the biggest value, namely 0.0605 for Probit, 0.0500 for Weibull, and 0.0602 for Logit.
By comparing these values, then a probit model becomes the selected model and the result
is provided in Table 4. More detail information about ordered choice model can be found in
Greene (2003).

In this model, the variable of frequency was re-coded using order scale from 0 (one or less
per month), 1 (once in a few weeks), 2 (once a week), 3 (several times per week), up to 4
(everyday). The recoding was done as the requirement of the software to specify the model.
The dependent variable is the frequency to shop in the most visited shop. From the model,
only eight variables out of 20 variables are found significant in explaining the visiting
frequency.

Table 4. Estimation of Ordered Probit Model

Var. | Coefficient Std.Error z Prob. z|>Z* 95% C.I.
--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
P12| .18138 .05522 3.28 .0010 .07315 .28962
P13| .00426 .07757 .05 .9562 -.14776 .15629
P14| .06627 .06639 1.00 .3183 -.06387 .19640
P15| .03879 .06165 .63 .5292 -.08205 .15963
P16| -.09137 .06347 -1.44 .1500 -.21577 .03303
P17| -.16115 .07700 -2.09 .0364 -.31207 -.01022
P18| .03772 .07208 .52 .6008 -.10355 .17899
P19| -.02411 .06139 -.39 .6945 -.14444 .09621
P20| .12350 .06099 2.02 .0429 .00396 .24304
P21| .11165 .05336 2.09 .0364 .00706 .21624
P22| -.10528 .07520 -1.40 .1615 -.25267 .04211
P23| -.03636 .08447 -.43 .6669 -.20193 .12920
P24| -.23993 .05691 -4.22 .0000 -.35147 -.12839
P25| -.13225 .06405 -2.06 .0390 -.25779 -.00671
P26| .09421 .06261 1.50 .1324 -.02849 .21692
P27| -.00429 .05553 -.08 .9384 -.11312 .10454
P28| -.01751 .05899 -.30 .7665 -.13313 .09810
P29| -.01830 .07461 -.25 .8063 -.16454 .12794
P30| .27906 .07135 3.91 .0001 .13923 .41890
P31| .10950 .05353 2.05 .0408 .00459 .21441
P32| .03748 .07073 .53 .5962 -.10115 .17612
(01) | .61376 .04695 13.07 .0000 .52173 .70578
(02) | 1.17967 .05439 21.69 .0000 1.07307 1.28627
(03) | 1.94710 .07246 26.87 .0000 1.80509 2.08911
--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dependent variable Frequency to visit the first shop
Log likelihood function -778.36301 Restricted log likelihood -828.45525
Chi squared [20 d.f.] 100.18448 Significance level .00000
McFadden Pseudo R-squared .0604646 Estimation based on N = 516, K = 24
Inf.Cr.AIC = 1604.7 AIC/N = 3.110

8
 Joewono

From the model, eight aspects were found as significantly influencing the frequency of
visiting shop. It is easy to understand that financial matter is an important aspect. Analysis
shows that shops with more reasonable price of products are off course become the most
selected shop to visit. It is also natural to know that shop with more discount are an
interesting shop to visit. The payment method is also influencing the shop attractiveness.
Shops with wider type and issuer of credit card become more interested for costumers.

This model also found that shops with good and attractive layout receive an attention from
the customers. It is in line with literatures that the appearance of the shops has an important
value.

Literature also show that shopping is not a solo activity, where it is very common and
become more popular to combine shopping activity with other activity, such as leisure or
braking time. Thus, it is understandable to know that shops with more enjoyable lounge and
longer operation time become more popular for costumer. These two aspects also found that
the shopping activity is very common to be accompanied by family member. This
accompanied members need a place to relax.

This study supports the knowledge that the location and distance of shop is an important
determinant. How close the shop location to the location of customers’ origin and location
of activities determine how much the shop’s attractiveness.

CONCLUSIONS
This article reports an initial findings about the reasons in selecting grocery shop locations
from respondents in the city of Bandung. Questionnaire distribution was conducted to obtain
the empirical experience as well as perception in shopping for grocery products. Even though
the topic of shopping trip has been explored for a long time in developed countries, but this
study contributes in explaining the fact from experience in developing countries, i.e.
Bandung, Indonesia. This study was conducted under the bigger theme, namely the relation
between the development of information and communication technology, the use of public
transport, and shopping trip. Thus, this study contributes new perspective in understanding
travel behavior for shopping activity in the light of the new era of ICT.

This article focuses on the discussion about the material of study and preliminary findings
from two methods of analysis, namely factor analysis and ordered choice model. The two
methods clearly provides information about the reasons why people select a location for
shopping. Factor analysis found five constructs in explaining the aspect of selecting location
for shopping. Ordered choice model reveals eight significant aspects in influencing the
frequency of visiting shop.

Results from this preliminary study shows a need for further analysis to explore deeper. The
first is the exploration of the reasons for each type of shop, where in this article type of shops
are not considered as a factor. Further is the need to differentiate simultaneously the reasons
for selecting and type of shops. The aspect of the travel characteristics is also an important
determinant in exploring the reasons.

9
 Joewono

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is fully sponsored by The Directorate of Research and Community Services, Directorate General of
Research and Development Strengthening, The Ministry of Research, Technology, & Higher Education,
Republic of Indonesia according to Research Contract Number 1598/K4/KM/2017. The author thanks to all
parties who have participated in data collection. The help of Esty Herdiani in preparing the first version of data
description is highly appreciated.

REFERENCES
Chen, C., Gong, H., and Paaswell, R. 2008. Role of the Built Environment on Mode Choice
Decisions: Additional Evidence on the Impact of Density. Transportation, Vol. 35,
No. 3, pp. 285–299.
Coveney, J. and O’Dwyer, L.A. 2009. Effects of Mobility and Location on Food Access.
Health & Place, Vol. 15, No. 1, 45–55.
Davis, L. and Hodges, N., 2012, Consumer shopping value: An investigation of shopping
trip value, in-store shopping value and retail format, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services Vol.19, Is. 2, 229-239
Field, A.P. 2005. Discovering Statistics using SPSS, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
Greene, W.H. 2003, Econometric Analysis, 5th ed., Pearson Education, Delhi.
Greene, W.H. 2012a, LIMDEP Version 10: Econometric Modeling Guide, Econometric
Software, Inc., Castle Hill.
Greene, W.H. 2012b, LIMDEP Version 10: Reference Guide, Econometric Software, Inc.,
Castle Hill.
Greene, W.H. and Hensher, D.A. 2010, Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Holton, R. 1958. The distinction between convenience goods, shopping goods, and specialty
goods. The Journal of Marketing (July): 53–56.
Ortuzar, J.d.D. and Willumsen, L.G. 2011. Modelling Transport. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chichester.
Ramli, M.I. Oeda, Y., Sumi, T., and Matsunaga, C., 2011. Consideration of flexible
temporal constraint on one-day shopping travel behavior: Daily praying time in
Islamic countries. Proceedings of the 9th Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies.
Recker, W.W. and Kostyniuk, L.P. 1978. Factors Influencing Destination Choice for the
Urban Grocery Shopping Trip, Transportation 7, 19-33
Robinson, R.V.F. and Vickerman, R.W. 1976. The demand for shopping travel: A theoretical
and empirical study. Applied Economics 8: 267–281.
Susilo, Y.O. Hanks, N., and Ullah, M. 2013. An exploration of shoppers travel mode choice
in visiting convenience stores in the UK, Transportation Planning and Technology
Vol. 36, Is. 8, 669-684
Tauber, E.M. 1972. Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing 38 (October): 46–59.
Terblanche, N.S. and Boshoff, C. 2004. The in-store shopping experience: a comparative
study of supermarket and clothing store customers. South African Journal of Business
Management 35 (4), 1–10.
Wirza, E., 2014. Analisis Pengaruh Online Shopping Terhadap Perilaku Perjalanan Belanja
Menggunakan Metode Structural Equation Modeling, Tesis Magister Sistem dan
Teknik Transportasi Universitas Gajah Mada, Yogyakarta.

10