Relation between modal split and expenditures in local supermarkets

1

Relation between modal split and expenditures in local supermarkets. The case of ‘De Kopermolen’ (Leiden) Do expenditures differ between automobile users, bikers, pedestrians and users of public transport in a local supermarket? Master Thesis Economics and Business (FEWMTEC) Master Program Urban, Port and Transport Economics In cooperation with CROW Ede, The Dutch national knowledge platform for infrastructure, traffic, transport and public space.

Niek Mouter (Student 280496)

Supervisors s: Drs. G. Mingardo (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam) and H. Talens (CROW)

2

Index Index ................................................................................................................................... 2 List of concepts ................................................................................................................... 4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Problem definition and hypotheses ........................................................................... 6 1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Structure .................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2: theoretical framework ..................................................................................... 10 2.1 Grocery shopping and mobility .............................................................................. 10 2.2 The local supermarket sector .................................................................................. 12

2.2.1 Difference between the daily products sector and the non-daily products sector................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Objective of the shop owner ............................................................................ 16 2.2.3 The perception of the manager ........................................................................ 16

2.3 Grocery shopping and parking ................................................................................ 20 2.4 Investing in car parking facilities and in bicycle parking facilities ........................ 22

2.4.1 Enlarging the share of the cyclist in the modal split of supermarkets ............. 23 Chapter 3: Empirical research ....................................................................................... 25 3.1 Research design ...................................................................................................... 25

3.1.1 Justification of the questionnaire ..................................................................... 26 3.1.2 Justification for ‘C1000 Kopermolen’ as a location ........................................ 27

3.2 Research area .......................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Research period ....................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Test of the hypothesis ............................................................................................. 31

3.4.1 introductory variables ...................................................................................... 31 3.4.2 Test of sub research questions after the empirical research ............................. 35

3.5 relation between modal split and expenditures ....................................................... 44 3.5.1 Expenditures of a household per person per week by modality ...................... 44 3.5.2 Expenditures household per person per week by category .............................. 45 3.5.3 relation between expenditures and modal split or expenditures and category in the local supermarkets segment ................................................................................ 47

3.6 Repeating earlier studies ......................................................................................... 47 3.6.1 the group of households that always uses the car for doing groceries is larger than the group that never uses the car for daily groceries ......................................... 47 3.6.2 Number of visits per week ............................................................................... 48 3.6.3 Expenses per visit ............................................................................................ 49

3.7 Other findings ......................................................................................................... 50 3.7.1 the distance travelled to the local supermarket by a car user compared to other transport modes ......................................................................................................... 50 3.7.2 Information about the number of persons for who users of different transport modes purchase their daily groceries ........................................................................ 52 3.7.3 Information about the number of times a week the local supermarket is visited by car users, pedestrians or cyclists. ......................................................................... 54 3.7.4 Information about the expenditures in a local supermarket by every visit of a car users compared to users of other transport modes .............................................. 56

3

3.7.5 Information about the percentage of the people that live in the neighbourhood of the local supermarket ............................................................................................ 57 3.7.6 Information about the relation between expenditures per person per week, modality and gender .................................................................................................. 59 3.7.7 Information about the relation between expenses per person per week and number of persons in a household ............................................................................ 60

4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 62 4.2 Recommendations for further research ............................................................. 63

5.1 Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 65 5.2 Internetreferenties ................................................................................................... 65

6. Appendix (Dutch) ......................................................................................................... 66

4

List of concepts

o Grocery shopping: this thesis conceptualizes grocery shopping as the activity of buying daily

goods. For instance vegetables, fruit and cigarettes are products that can be characterised as daily

goods. If one purchases a new shirt in a clothing shop, this is not a daily purchase.

o Shopping: in this thesis shopping defines the contrary of grocery shopping. While grocery

shopping describes the activity of buying daily goods, shopping describes the activity of

purchasing non-daily goods. One is shopping if he is going to the city to buy some new clothes. If

the same person is going to a supermarket to buy some vegetables, he is grocery shopping.

o Local supermarket: a supermarket that is not located at an inner city or nearby a large shopping

district.

o A cyclist: besides someone who travels by bike this thesis also takes people that move with a

motor driven bicycle or a scooter into account in the category cyclists.

o Purchasing power binding: the extend to which people spend their money in their own

neighbourhood. A high purchasing power binding indicates that a household spends a large part of

their income in local shops.

5

Summary

‘No parking no business’ might be the most important premise that is used by shop owners and other

entrepreneurs in their lobby by the government that more parking space is needed in their neighbourhood.

The CROW (the Dutch national knowledge platform for infrastructure, transport, traffic and public space)

and the Erasmus University Rotterdam did some research on the question whether or not the car user is the

customer that spends the highest amount of money in a cycling country as the Netherlands. This thesis will

explore the relation between modal split and expenditures in the segment of local supermarkets. Not much

research is done in the Netherlands on this area. Some studies are done on topics that are related to the

relation between modal split and expenditures. An overview of these studies is described in chapter 2. Due

to the lack of research in this area, this thesis focuses on the gathering of new empirical data. The relation

between modal split and expenditures is determined with the help of 618 surveys on customers of the local

supermarket. The conclusion that is drawn out of the surveys is that expenditures in a local supermarket are

not significantly explained by the choice of modality. Automobile users do not spend more money per

person a week on daily products in a local supermarket compared to for instance cycling customers.

However, this research must be repeated several times on different places to make policy on the outcomes.

Moreover it is interesting to do a study on the relation between modal split and expenditures in other

segments.

6

1.1 Introduction

‘No parking no business’ might be the most important premise that is used by shop owners and other

entrepreneurs in their lobby by the government that more parking space is needed in their neighbourhood.

Many shopkeepers believe that car users are better customers for their shops. Frequently ‘parking’ in the

line ‘No parking no business’, is explained by the entrepreneurs as car parking facilities. According to

some experts in this area this statement is false. They argue that there are examples of supermarkets in the

Netherlands that make good profits, while they have low car accessibility. In their perspective the statement

‘no parking no business’ does not hold. However, they believe that the proposition ‘no business no parking’

does hold. Without business there will be not a lot of parking in a shopping centre. Another way in which

‘no parking no business’ could be nuanced is when one realizes that the creation of good parking facilities

for cyclists might be very important for the economic activities in the shopping area. This last nuance is one

that is not made by many entrepreneurs. They don’t take into account the contribution that parking facilities

for cyclists make for the business in a shopping centre.1 The CROW and the Erasmus University Rotterdam

did some research on the question whether or not the car user is the most spending in a cycling country as

the Netherlands. Alternatively, if the proposition ‘no parking no business’ holds for the Netherlands.

This thesis evaluates this topic in the segment of local supermarkets. The question was whether or not the

car user is the most spending customer in this segment. To get an answer on this question it was necessary

to determine the existence or the absence of a relation between modal split and expenditures.

This thesis verifies the relation between modal split and expenditures in local supermarkets. The thesis

hasn’t the aspiration to research on the relation between modal split and expenditures in the fun shopping

segment or other shopping activities than the consumption of daily goods in a local supermarket. As a

result the conclusions of this thesis are not applicable on the relation between modal split and expenditures

in supermarkets that are located in a historic city centre or in a busy shopping mall.

1.2 Problem statement and hypotheses

The next research question will be the focal point during this thesis:

Is there a relation between modal split and expenditures in the segment of local supermarkets?

1 Based on conversations with Ineke Spape of SOAB and Sjoerd Stienstra from Parkconsult Grontmij in 2007

7

The thesis is based on both qualitative as well as quantitative research. Before the start of the empirical part

of the thesis, qualitative research was done. One important aspect of the qualitative research were

interviews with experts in this research area. The interviews resulted in three possible outcomes.

The three possible outcomes:

-Automobile users spend more than pedestrians and cyclist because:

-Cyclists and pedestrians spend more than automobile users because:

-Cyclist, pedestrians and automobile users spend the same amount of money on grocery shopping

because:

The result of the interviews was that all the three positions have got a point, but that none of them is

convincing enough to make hard statements about the relation between modal split and expenditures.

Because it is not certain that a relation exists, the thesis makes the assumption that no relation exists until

the contrary is proven. Hence the main hypothesis that will be tested in this thesis is:

There is no relation between modal split and expenditures in the segment of local supermarkets.

This hypothesis will only be rejected when the empirical data that is gathered will prove a relation between

modal split and expenditures in a local supermarket.

Besides a test of the main hypothesis, the thesis has the object to give an answer on the following sub-

research questions.

o Does a relation exist between modal split and expenditures at each visit of the local

supermarket?

o Does a relation exist between modal split and expenditures per household per week on daily

products in a local supermarket?

o Does a relation exist between modal split and the number of other shops that customers visit

in the shopping mall besides the local supermarket?

The first two questions have the object to answer the main research question step by step. The last question

gives insight in the contribution of the customer to the rest of the shopping mall.

Besides the objective to answer the sub-research questions, some studies that have been done in the past

could be repeated with the help of the gathered data. The outcomes of earlier studies (P1, 2006) will be

compared with the outcomes of the data that are gathered in this thesis.

8

The reason why the outcomes of these studies will be repeated in this thesis is that its topic is related to the

research question of this thesis.

The results of the study that will be tested in this thesis are the following:

o The group of people who always travels by car to the supermarket is larger than the group

of people that never uses the car for such a trip (P1, 2006)

o Most customers visit the supermarket two or three times a week (P1, 2006)

o Most visitors spend between 10 and 30 euros each time they visit the supermarket (P1, 2006)

In addition this thesis collected that is applicable on the following other aspects concerning the shopping

activity in a local supermarket.

o Information about the distance travelled to the local supermarket by a car user compared to

the distance that a cyclist or a pedestrian covers to reach the supermarket.

o Information about the number of persons for who users of different transport modes

purchase their daily groceries

o Information about the number of times a week the local supermarket is visited by car users,

pedestrians or cyclists.

o Information about the expenditures in a local supermarket by every visitation of a car users

compared to users of other transport modes

o Information about the percentage of the people who visit the local supermarket that live in

the neighbourhood of the local supermarket

1.3 Methodology The thesis consists out of two parts. At first a theoretic part in which the literature in this area will be

described. Moreover some experts in this research area were interviewed about their expectations of the

outcomes of the research question. This theoretic piece gives insight into the context in which the empirical

results could be categorised. Moreover, based on the literature oversight the questionnaire was formulated.

This questionnaire served as the input for empirical part of this thesis.

The practical part will consist out of a survey in a local supermarket in Leiden, the Netherlands. The

outcomes of the surveys will be used to accept or reject the hypothesis that is stated earlier. Moreover the

results could be compared with the results of earlier research. The study will be executed in a supermarket

called C1000. The supermarket is located in the ‘Merenwijk’, a quarter in the north of Leiden outside the

city centre. The data is gathered through 618 interviews with customers of the C1000.

9

1.4 Structure

The following chapter will elaborate on the literature concerning the relation between modal split and

expenditures in a local supermarket. In chapter three the outcomes of the questionnaires will be analysed.

In the conclusion the findings of this thesis will be summarised.

10

Chapter 2: theoretical framework

The research question of this thesis is whether or not people that use one mode to buy daily products in a

local supermarket expend more money than people that use another mode of transport.

Non-commercial institutions in the Netherlands did not do a lot of research on the relation between modal

split and expenditures. However there are some studies that are related to this topic. These studies will be

described in this theoretical chapter. This chapter does not only pay attention to studies that are done in the

Netherlands, but also on research that is done in Great Britain and Austria on the perception of shop

managers concerning the modality choice of their customers.

The Dutch commercial sector claims that they do research on the relation between modal split and

expenditures in local supermarkets. A supermarket like Albert Heijn pretends to do some research on the

relation for years. The objective of this research is to get a better insight in the customer population of a

store. Because the information Albert Heijn gathers through their studies, could be interesting for

competitors, the company is hesitant to share its information. The Dutch Parking operator P1 instead was

willing to share data regarding the topic. This data will also be described in this chapter. However it must

be noted that the data that is gathered by P1 is less specific than the data that is presented in this thesis. The

objective of this theoretical framework is to elaborate on studies that are related with the research question.

Not to answer the research question.

2.1 Grocery shopping and mobility

In general customers of a supermarket first need to move themselves to buy their groceries. Hence mobility

is a necessary precondition to execute the activity. If we define mobility as the distance travelled per person

per day, than Table 1 shows that total mobility is increased in the period 1994-2005. Moreover Table 1

shows that in contrary to the number of movements per person per day the time that a person on average

spends on travelling in one day decreased. It’s possible to conclude that a person in the Netherlands on

average travels a longer distance on each trip. Moreover it can be concluded that the speed of travellers

enhances, because travelled distance per person increased, while on average in the Netherlands the amount

of time a person spends on travelling declines (www.cbs.nl).

11

Table 1: changes in mobility in the Netherlands between 1994 and 2005 (all motives)

Source: CBS 2007

Table 2 demonstrates that the travelled distance per person per day with the motive grocery shopping /

shopping in the Netherlands decreased with two percent between 1994 and 2005. The time that a person

spends on travelling to a shop or a supermarket declined to 8,24 minutes a day in 2005. In 1994 this was

more than nine minutes.

Table 2: Changes in mobility in the Netherlands between 1994 and 2005 in the Netherlands between 1994

and 2005 (trip motive: grocery shopping / shopping)

Source: CBS 2007

Furthermore the CBS statistics demonstrate that people make more use of the car and less use of the bicycle

when they travel to the supermarket or other shops. (Appendix 1). Data of ‘onderzoek verplaatsingsgedrag’

and ‘mobiliteitsonderzoek Nederland’ shows that the number of movements per person per day to a

supermarket or other shops increases, while this figure decreases for the other modes of transport, like

Movements per person per dag Distance per person per da y Travel time per person per da y

Period Quantity km minutes

1994 3,21 30,79 61,49

1995 3,17 31,43 61,84

1996 3,15 31,29 60,99

1997 3,17 32,39 62,96

1998 3,14 32,08 61,84

1999 3,15 32,44 61,79

2000 3,11 32,01 60,76

2001 3,07 31,75 59,98

2002 3,07 31,82 59,36

2003 3,09 31,92 59,91

2004 3,06 32,71 61,36

2005 3,00 32,22 60,24

Movements per person per da y Distance per person per day Travel time per person per day

Period Quantity km minutes

1994 0,69 3,09 9,01

1995 0,68 3,12 8,96

1996 0,67 3,13 8,76

1997 0,68 3,25 8,98

1998 0,68 3,28 8,93

1999 0,66 3,06 8,46

2000 0,64 2,96 8,13

2001 0,65 3,01 8,09

2002 0,65 3,07 8,13

2003 0,65 3,09 8,11

2004 0,66 3,17 8,62

2005 0,64 3,03 8,24

12

travelling by foot, by bicycle and travelling with public transport. The distance travelled by a car user to a

supermarket or for shopping also enhances in the same period. From 1.28 kilometre in 1994 to 1.41

kilometre per movement in 2005. The amount of metres that pedestrians, cyclists and users of public

transport travel to reach the supermarket or another shop decreases in the period 1994-2005. (Appendix 2).

Based on these data it’s possible to conclude that people more frequently use the car for shopping or

grocery shopping compared to other modes. Moreover, when using the car, people travel longer distances

to reach the shop or the supermarket.

While interpreting the data that is presented in Table 2 and the Appendix, one must take into account that

the data not only provide information about mobility in the segment grocery shopping, but also about the

segment of normal shopping. Hence it’s not possible to conclude that people use the automobile more

frequently, than other modes in the segment grocery shopping. However this separation of motives is made

in a study on modality choice in the Dutch city of Den Bosch (BRO, 2004). Conclusions of this study will

be described in the next paragraph.

From this point no hard conclusions can be drawn about changes in mobility in the segment grocery

shopping in the Netherlands. Evidence on this topic is not highly significant for this thesis, because the

research question focuses on the relation between modal split and expenditures.

2.2 The local supermarket sector

2.2.1 Difference between the daily products sector and the non-daily products sector

One concept that needs to be nuanced is the word shops. Shops are characterised by their great diversity.

Both a large warehouse and a small flower store could be defined as a shop. This thesis makes a distinction

between shops for non-daily products and shops for daily products. If people buy products in a shop that

sells daily products like food, the activity of the customer is called grocery shopping. If the same person

buys some clothes in a clothing shop, he is purchasing non-daily products. This thesis conceptualizes this

activity as shopping and not as grocery shopping.

In the region of the Dutch city Den Bosch, research is done on differences in purchasing power binding.

Moreover the study demonstrates a difference in the modal split between the daily and the non-daily

product sector (BRO, 2004).

The object of the study was an overview over the modal split of visitors of the inner city of Den Bosch. An

important conclusion of this report was that shopping became a more important motive for people to visit

the inner city. In 2004 47 percent of the visitors went to the inner city for shopping. In 2000 this was only

36 percent. On a contrary the number of people that went to the inner city for their groceries declined. 21%

13

percent of the people, who visited the inner city of Den Bosch, undertook this activity for buying their

groceries in 2004. In 2004 this percentage was 14%. However it must be noted that people who made a trip

to the inner city for their groceries, spend more money on groceries each time they visit the inner city for

grocery shopping. In 2005 this was 17 euro and in 2004 25 euro (corrected to inflation).

Daily products in the inner-city of Den Bosch are more frequently bought by people that travel to the city

by foot or by bicycle. The importance of car users for the daily products segment decreases. In 2000 car

users bought 38% of daily products in the inner city. In 2004 this figure declined to 20%.

Instead in the non-daily products segment, the car still is the most popular transport mode. According to the

BRO study of the Den Bosch inner city 34% of the customers that buy non-daily products, travel to the

inner-city by car in 2004. Anyhow this share is lower than in 2000, when 69% of the non-daily customers

used the car to reach the city. The data concerning the non-daily products sector are not relevant for the

thesis. The figures about the daily products sector are relevant. However the study of the modal split of the

daily sector of the Den Bosch inner city does not give us any relevant information about the modal split in a

local supermarket. For instance, the share of pedestrians might be higher in the inner city. Fun shopping

people might get hungry or thirsty during the day and might decide to walk to the supermarket and

purchase some food. This fun shopping effect is absent for a local supermarket.

Nevertheless the data of the BRO study is relevant. The report states that the role of the inner city as a place

where people go to, to purchase their daily products, is declining.

Figure 1: contribution in expenses between the different modes. The daily products sector

Source: BRO 2004

automobile / motor20%

by foot39%

train2%

shuttle bus6%

bus15%

bicycle18%

14

Figure 2: contribution in expenses between the different modes. The non-daily products sector

Source: BRO 2004

automobile / motor34%

by foot18%

train14%

shuttle bus15%

bus5%

bicycle14%

Moreover research is done on the difference in purchasing power binding between the daily and the non-

daily sector. Based on tables 3, 4 and 5 it can be concluded that the purchasing power binding in the non-

daily sector is lower than the purchasing power binding in the daily sector. The research claims that daily

products are usually bought in the living area of people and that this is the explanation for the phenomenon

that the purchasing power binding is higher in the daily products sector. Especially residents from

Rosmalen and West / Engelen are clearly orientated on the shops in their own quarter when they buy daily

products. For instance, in West Engelen the purchasing power binding is 97% in 2004. Furthermore, the

study of BRO in Den Bosch demonstrates that besides the proximity of the shopping area, customers look

at accessibility, parking opportunities and variety in shops when they decide to buy their products in their

own living area. Finally the study consists out of data from a questionnaire. Respondents were asked about

the most important reason why they decided to buy the products in their own living area. 62% of the

respondents answered that the most important reason was the proximity of their residence, 18% selected

their own living area because of the low prices and 17% answered that the variety of choice was the main

reason. Approximately 15% of the respondents mentioned the large amount of stores as the most important

reason to visit the local shopping area. Moreover the main motives for people to shop outside their own

living area were the low variety in shopping opportunities in their own residential zone (35%) and the

relatively high prices in the local shopping area (34).

A problem concerning the relevance of this study in Den Bosch is that the share of the modal split with the

motive shopping in the inner city is not relevant for a comparison with the modal split with the same

motive in a local supermarket, which is the focus of this study. For this reason conclusions of the Den

Bosch study are not applicable for a comparison with the outcomes of this study concerning the relation

between modal split and expenditures for the segment of local supermarkets.

15

Table 3: purchasing power binding in the daily product sector. (Source: BRO, 2004)

Residential area destination

Maasprt/ Empel

North Rosmalen East Innercity/ South

West / Engelen

Total

Maaspoort / Empel 52% 3% - 1% 0% 0% 10% North 23% 85% 4% 10% 2% - 21% Rosmalen 5% 1% 89% 4% 0% - 17% East 11% 3% 4% 69% 10% 2% 16% Innercity / South 2% 2% 1% 9% 77% 0% 14% Of which innercity 1% 2% 1% 8% 32% 0% 7% West / Engelen 6% 4% 2% 4% 6% 97% 20% Sub Total 99% 98% 100% 97% 95% 99% 98% Region 1% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 1% Elsewhere 0% - 0% 1% 1% - 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 4: purchasing power binding in the daily product sector in 1997, 2000 and 2004 (Source: BRO, 2004)

Area 1997 2000 2004 Maaspoort / Empel 68% 64% 52% North 93% 93% 85% Rosmalen 97% 90% 89% East 74% 76% 69% Innercity / South 76% 78% 77% Of which inner city 45% 42% 32% West / Engelen 92% 93% 97% Table 5: purchasing power binding in the non-daily product sector (Source: BRO, 2004)

Residential area destination

Maasprt/ Empel

North Rosmalen East Innercity/ South

West / Engelen

Total

Maaspoort / Empel 22% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 5% North 11% 28% 13% 9% 6% 8% 12% Rosmalen 10% 6% 46% 11% 4% 4% 14% East 3% 6% 2% 17% 7% 8% 7% Innercity / South 36% 42% 21% 50% 68% 26% 40% Of which innercity 35% 41% 21% 49% 61% 26% 39% West / Engelen 5% 6% 2% 3% 2% 45% 10% Sub Total 87% 91% 86% 91% 87% 92% 88% Region 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% Elsewhere 12% 9% 13% 8% 9% 7% 10% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% An important advantage of the study in Den Bosch concerning the relevance for this research is that the

research focuses at the purchasing power binding in the local shopping districts in the region. Moreover the

study clearly separates the daily and the non-daily products sector. However the study on the inner city of

Den Bosch misses an explanation of expenditures with modal split as the independent variable. This report

on the contrary focuses on this issue

16

2.2.2 Aim of the shop owner A high margin and increasing turnovers are probably the most important goals of a commercial enterprise.

The entrepreneur could influence these figures with the help of an adequate policy. Due to a good strategy

an entrepreneur could offer high quality products against a low price. Furthermore his strategy depends on

some external factors like governmental decisions. Sometimes the entrepreneur could influence decisions

of the Dutch government in the case he could be marked as a party who has interests in the issue and the

decision is made by a managing institution of the government. This is stated in article 1:3 of the Dutch

administrative law (Kluwer, 2007). When the entrepreneur is not an interested party by a decision from a

managing body of the government, than his influence is restricted. Only with an effective lobby by the

alderman in charge he could manipulate the decisions in his favour.

Decisions by which the government encounters a lot of resistance from local entrepreneurs are decisions

that entail the restriction of car accessibility in favour of the accessibility of other transport modes.

Entrepreneurs are afraid that customers will react on these decisions with changing their buying pattern and

that they will use other shopping areas to fulfil their needs. Research in the inner city of Breda, the

Netherlands (Christiaans, 2000) indicates that the restriction of car accessibility will not always lead to a

decreasing turnover rate for entrepreneurs in the area. The decline in turnover due to the car restricting

measure will be compensated by an enhancement in turnover because of extra clients that travel by bicycle.

The loss in turnover of 100 car visitors will be balanced by an increase in turnover due to 70 cyclists. The

assumption of a lot of entrepreneurs is that a cyclist expenses less than a car user. From this perspective car

usage and car accessibility must be stimulated to reach target as a high margin and a high turnover.

Research (Christiaans, 2000) indicates that this assumption does not hold. This report will test if the

assumption that there is no relation between modal split and expenditures holds for the local supermarket

segment.

2.2.3 The perception of the manager The research that was mentioned in the paragraph 2.2.2 pointed out that the perception of a shop manager

does not always match reality. Outside the Netherlands some research is done on the discrepancy between

perception and reality, concerning the contribution to the turnover of a store from customers that use

different transport modes.

That the perception of lots of entrepreneurs / managers is that a car user contributes more to their turnover

than a user of another transport mode can be concluded out of the tradition that entrepreneurs resist

against measures that restrict the accessibility of their stores by car and enhance the accessibility of their

stores with the use of another transport mode (Sustrans, 2006).

17

An argument that underlies this tradition is that people will always use their car for shopping activities and

that customers will simply choice another shopping area to buy their products. One of the most important

factors in choosing a shopping area is the accessibility of the shopping area (RAC Foundation, 2006).

In Bristol and Graz, Sustrans did research on the discrepancy between perception and reality concerning the

contribution of car users to a shopping area. The outcome of this research was that shopkeepers

overestimate the contribution of car users.

The goal of the study in Graz (Austria) is to look at the difference between perception and reality

concerning the modal split for the shops. The result of this study was that the perception differed from the

reality. Shopkeepers thought that 58% of their clients visited the shop by car, while in reality only 32% of

the visitors used the car for reaching the destination (Sustrans 2003). Sustrans repeated this study in Bristol

(Great Britain). The context of this research was a local shopping centre that struggled with resistance from

local entrepreneurs against the introduction of a new bus line. The entrepreneurs had a problem with the

new bus line because parking opportunities were restricted to make the bus line to a success. The outcome

of this research was that the car was not as important for the shops as the entrepreneurs thought. Most of

the customers reached the local shopping area by foot. For this study 126 entrepreneurs / managers and 840

customers were interviewed and the result was that only 22% of the customers visited the local shopping

area by car. The entrepreneurs expected that this percentage would be somewhere around 41%. The study

in Bristol was done in a local shopping area instead of a big shopping district in a large town. The

conclusion of the research is that local shopping areas are of great importance for the sustainable

development of an economy, because it fulfils the needs of customers that want to travel by foot or by bike.

The misconception of entrepreneurs about the modal split of their customers can have a big influence on

the traffic policy of (local) governments if they sustain their policy on information from the entrepreneurs.

Research concludes that this influence of entrepreneurs based on bad information could lead to transport

decisions of the local government that will not be in the interest of entrepreneurs (Sustrans, 2006).

Advocates for a policy to create high accessibility for car users in local shopping areas will claim that the

studies of Sustrans are not objective. This, because one of the goals of Sustrans is to reduce car usage.

Lingwood (2000) claims that the most important factors that explain why people go to their local shopping

area instead of another shopping area are the variety of facilities in a shopping centre and the quality of the

local shopping area. Restricting measures concerning the accessibility of a local shopping area with a car

have a lower influence on location decisions than the variety in facilities.

As already said opponents of car restricting policies will use the argument that the only effect of restrictions

on car accessibility is that car drivers will find another place for shopping activities. Places were car

accessibility is not restricted. Ecolane (2001) claims that this is a false proposition. He states that car

18

restricting measures like car free shopping centers will have a positive effect on the local economy in the

long run. However shops in the area will have to face decreasing turnovers in the first two years.

Another finding is that in general car-restricting measures are not implemented to restrict car use with

shopping as a motive. It is more likely that car-restricting measures aim at reducing the amount of cars that

uses a road during rush hours.

A last outcome that is the result from the series of studies of Sustrans that is worth mentioning is that

pedestrians visit more shops in a shopping area than cyclists or car users. Four of every five pedestrians

visits more than one shop by every shopping activity, while only 60% of all car users visits more than one

shop. This outcome is repeated in this thesis and is presented in paragraph 3.4.2.

Besides information about the modal split of a shopping area, it is interesting to do research on the question

whether or not users of different transport modes have got different spending patterns in a local shopping

centre. With the help of this data the advice to a local government could be more concrete concerning the

implications of a policy. Based on the research of Sustrans the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the

manager’s perception about the modal split of his store does not match reality. The managers overestimate

the importance of car users in their modal split. This is an important conclusion, because the discrepancy

between perception and reality could have lead to a situation in which managers do not act in their own

interest. More concrete it will be possible that a manager will start a lobby by an alderman for more

facilities for car users in the neighbourhood of his enterprise, while it is in the interest of the entrepreneur

that the government invests in cycling or pedestrian facilities.

Based on outcomes of other research (Cairns, 2005) outcomes of the studies of Sustrans must be nuanced

for the supermarket segment. People that use the car for this purpose will never stop with using the car for

this purpose according to Cairns. Especially for the supermarket segment, car accessibility is highly

important. In her perspective this activity is highly ‘car dependant’, because the carrying of some heavy

groceries could be done with more ease with the help of a car, compared to other modalities. Furthermore

in the modern society more and more people try to live as efficient as possible. These households do not

have the time to go to the supermarket to do their groceries. They favour to do all the groceries for the

whole week in one or two visits. It is almost impossible to carry this amount of goods for a whole

household with another transport mode than a car.

One of the outcomes of a study of Sustrans was that 32% of the people that did their groceries travelled to

the shopping area by car. It is estimated that between 55% and 60% of the Dutch customers reaches the

supermarket by car.2 If this last claim is true it could be concluded that car usage is higher in the grocery

segment compared to other segments. Furthermore it is estimated that 24% of the Dutch customers travels

to the supermarket by bicycle and 18% by foot (Vogelvrije fietser, 2006). Other research indicates that 33%

2 Yearly consumer research by the Centraal Bureau Levensmiddelen. Source of the data was ‘de Vogelvrije fietser’ september 2004. Measure in 2004 was 56%, measure in 2003 59%

19

of supermarket customers in the Netherlands visits the supermarket by bike. This thesis will give insight in

the modal split of a local supermarket.

Several studies of Sustrans claim that the perception of entrepreneurs is that car users spend more money in

their shops than users of other transport modes. All the studies conclude that this perception of

entrepreneurs and shops managers does not match with reality. The following example aspires to explain

the discrepancy between perception and reality.3

The assumption that the example makes is that 30% of all the customers of the supermarket uses the

bicycle to reach their destination. Another assumption the example makes is that 60% of all the visitors of

the supermarket will arrive at the shop with the help of a car. The third assumption that is made is that on

average car users spend two times the amount of money that a cyclist spends in the supermarket.

The first observation that the supermarket owner / manager makes is that car users spend two times the

amount of money compared to a cyclist. The second observation that he makes is that more people arrive at

his shop by car, than with another modality. Assume that a supermarket manager will make a brief sample.

He asks at random the amount of money that his visitors expended in his shop and the mode of transport

they used to visit the shop The following outcome could be the result of the small sample of the

entrepreneur (Figure 3).

Figure 3: perception of the shop manager

Car user: 100 euro Car user: 100 euro Car user: 100 euro Car user: 100 euro Cyclist: 50 euro Cyclist: 50 euro

Based on this information it is logical that the entrepreneur concludes that clients who visit the supermarket

by bicycle are less important than customers who arrive at the shop by car. The logic of this reasoning will

change if extra information is added. When the supermarket manager would require the information that

cyclists visit the shop three times a week, while car users only go to the supermarket 1.4 times a week, the

situation changes. In this case an average car user spends 140 euros a week in the supermarket, while an

average cyclist spends 150 euros a week. A cyclist is now more important than a car user for the

supermarket owner.

The second explanation why entrepreneurs focus on car users is that the car is more visible than for

instance a bicycle. Psychologically the entrepreneur could get the idea that the automobile user is the most

important user of the supermarket while observing that the whole parking place is full of cars.

In summary the three main reasons why a supermarket manager could have the perception that car users

spend more in his shop than users of other transport modes are:

3 This example is based on an explanation of Sjoerd Stienstra, who is employed by Park Consult Grontmij in 2007

20

o The car user spends a larger amount of money in his shop each time he visits the supermarket

o Most clients of the supermarket are car users

o The car is better visible for the entrepreneur than other transport modes.

2.3 Grocery shopping and parking Mobility is not the only necessary condition for the activity grocery shopping. Besides mobility the activity

of parking the transport mode is a necessary activity that precedes the activity of buying daily products.

One of the objectives of an entrepreneur is that visitors of his supermarket could park their modality easily

when they want to buy products in his shop. If he reaches this objective, his shop will be better accessible.

For an entrepreneur it is very important that the parking facilities will match the modal split of his shop. If

all the clients of a shop reach the shop by car it is important for the sustainability of the shop that there are

good parking facilities for cars. This entrepreneur will be less interested in good parking facilities for

cyclists. In theory the shop owner will have an interest in matching the parking facilities in a shopping area

with his perception of the modal split of his clients. This could lead to a lobby for parking facilities of this

entrepreneur in accordance with his perception. A problem will arise when the perception about the modal

split of entrepreneurs does not match with reality. If for instance the importance of car users in the modal

split is lower than the perception of supermarket owners, the supermarket owner tries to influence the

municipality to build more car parking facilities, while the supermarket needs more bicycle facilities.

In the Netherlands Albert Heijn and some other corporations have developed their own parking concepts

and facilities. Besides corporations also parking operators aspire to determine the parking needs of

customers that do their shopping nearby the parking facility in order to realise the parking needs of the

customers.

In the Netherlands research (P1, 2006) is done on the interests, the needs and the buying motives of

customers in order to determine which opportunities parking offers as a marketing instrument for a shop, a

shopping mall or a municipality. This study focuses mainly on the parking facilities for car users. One of

the conclusions is that customers mainly want to shop as easy and fast as possible and that the diversity in

shops and good parking facilities are essential factors for a successful shopping area.

The consumer requires the following aspects concerning a parking place. The parking place must be wide

and there must be sufficient possibilities to move into the parking place and out of the parking place.

If the parking activity is a nice experience for the customer, he will visit the shopping area more frequently.

A discount on parking fees and a good communication concerning parking possibilities would be an

efficient marketing instrument according to the research of P1. The research consists out of a qualitative

part and a quantitative part. In the qualitative part there is elaborated on some opinions of parking experts.

21

For instance the retail management of the shopping real estate company Rodamco Europe claims that the

parking facility must be seen as the foyer of a shop. This foyer must be as customer friendly as possible.

Earlier it is stated that other experts in this field believe that parking facilities for cyclists are as important

for a shop as parking facilities for cars. The conclusion that can be drawn is that also parking facilities for

cyclists could be useful as a marketing instrument for entrepreneurs. An example that is applicable in this

context is a story about a woman that wants to do her groceries with her two young kids. One of the kids is

sitting in front of the bicycle and the other kid at the back. If the woman could not find a parking facility for

her bike in which see could easily and safely get her kids out of the bicycle, she will probably choose for

another shop or shopping mall which provides this facility.

Another interesting quote in the qualitative part of the research (P1, 2006) is that the municipality must stop

with discouraging the car use in the city. ‘Car clients have a larger purchasing power and could carry more

products’ is a quotation of several experts that give their opinion in the qualitative part in the research.4

Especially the statement that car users have got more money to spend is discussed by other experts.

Automobile users spend the same amount of money compared to users of other transport modes. ‘A cyclists

does not need more food than a car user is a statement of one of them5 that characterizes the opinion by this

category of experts.

Besides a conversation with several experts in the field, the research (P1,2006) consists out of a

quantitative part. Outcomes of three interesting hypotheses are presented below. A remark that must be

made concerning the data of the empirical part is that it does not include data concerning the relation

between modal split and expenditures. This in contrary to this thesis

Figure 4: results in the context of shopping in the segment local supermarkets

Source: P1, 2006

• How many times a week you shop for daily products?

4 P1, (2006), Retail en parkeren. Feiten, visie en kansen, P1 dossier 2, oktober 2006, achtergrond informatie over parkeren 5 Based on an interview with Ineke Spape from SOAB in 2007

14%

28%

20%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30%

daily

2 / 3 times a week

3 / 4 times a week

1 time a week

22

• How often do you use the car for buying your daily products?

• What do you on average spend on daily groceries every time you visit the shopping mall for daily

products?

2.4 Investing in car parking facilities and in bicycle parking facilities

The studies in the previous paragraphs outline research on the modal split of local supermarkets or the

difference in modal split between the daily and the non-daily sector. The composition of the modal split

could have influence on the parking policy in the neighbourhood of a shopping mall. It is also possible that

the municipality tries to influence the modal split with the help of a parking policy. Earlier it is stated that

some entrepreneurs try to influence the parking policy of municipalities concerning the neighbourhood of

the shopping mall in which they are located. Whether or not this lobby is beneficial for the entrepreneurs

depend on the difference between the real contributions of car users and the perception of the contribution

by the entrepreneurs that are in the lobby.

2%19%19%

13%12%

8%7%

4%11%

0%6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

0-10 euro10-20 euro20-30 euro30-40 euro40-50 euro50-60 euro60-70 euro 70-80 euro> 80 euro

nothingdon't know

39%

25%

10%

11%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

always

often

sometimes

a few times

never

23

Besides the entrepreneurs, experts have an opinion about the ideal composition of the modal split of a local

supermarket. The proposition of entrepreneurs that believe that the car user must be stimulated with the

help of parking policy is discussed in paragraph 2.3. Moreover the car ideally fits into the modern society

that is more and more based on efficiency. Research shows (Vogelvrije fietser, September 2004) that

people tend to go with their car to their work and drive back with their car alongside the supermarket to

their homes. Another recent development is that people try to buy all their daily products in one time. Due

to the heavy weight this is more practical with a car.

This paragraph will describe the opinion of some experts who believe that a higher percentage of people

must go to the supermarket with for instance their bicycle. As a consequence municipalities must invest in

parking facilities for cyclists instead of car users. In this paragraph no attention is paid on the possible

enhancement of pedestrians in the modal split for local supermarkets. The explanation for this choice is that

pedestrians don’t need any parking facilities. As a result the literature pays little attention on pedestrians as

a possible alternative for car users. In contrast to other European countries the Netherlands fulfils the

preconditions to enlarge the share of cyclist in the modal split for local supermarkets. Research (Vogelvrije

fietser, September 2004) claims that 80% of the customers of supermarkets lives within 2 kilometres from

the supermarket. The data that were gathered in this study are also tested in this thesis. Figure 33 describes

that 78.4% of the respondents that were interviewed in this thesis lives within 2 kilometres of the local

supermarket.

To enlarge the amount of cyclists in the modal split it is important to facilitate the driving experience with a

bike. Good and safe cycle paths and good bicycle parking are necessary facilities. Additionally a higher use

of the bicycle will also facilitate the car driving experience. There is empty space on car parking facilities

and on the road (Vogelvrije fietser, September 2004). Moreover an enhancement of the share of cyclists in

the modal split of supermarkets will lead to a healthier society (Vogelvrije fietser, 2006). People that do

their groceries with the bike lose three times as many calories compared to a person that does the same

activity with the car.

2.4.1 Enlarging the share of the cyclist in the mod al split of supermarkets The absence of good parking facilities for bicycles is the first problem that the potential cyclist faces.

Approximately 74% of the consumers would like to have good parking facilities (Vogelvrije fietser, 2006).

Another research states that 72% of the supermarket clients wants to have better bicycle parking facilities

(Vogelvrije fietser, September 2004). Moreover this study concluded that 33% of bicycle parking facilities

by supermarkets suffered with capacity problems.

Another problem is that a large share of the people is afraid of a possible theft of their bicycle.

Approximately 50% of the people who do not go with their bike to supermarket says that the reason for this

is that they are afraid that their bike will be stolen if they use it for shopping at a supermarket (Vogelvrij

24

fietser, augustus 2004). Parking facilities for cyclists with possibilities to bind your bicycle on the parking

facility decrease the theft rates. However In the Netherlands only 25% of all supermarkets have parking

facilities with binding possibilities. The anxiety for theft could be diminished when the municipality offers

guarded parking facilities for free in the city centre and next to supermarkets. In Apeldoorn a project with

free guarded bicycle parking facilities was started and the amount of bicycle thefts is decreased with 25%

in this period (Vogelvrije fietser, 2004). The problem of the low loading capacity of the bicycle is

decreased due to new accessories to carry more and heavier products. Also the use of the carrying cycle is

increased.

The question remains in which activity the municipality must invest. This thesis does not aspire to answer

this question, but tries to look at certain aspects of this question from the financial perspective of the

entrepreneur. There must be invested in the clients that bring in the most money and have the largest

contribution to the profit. If car users spend more money on grocery products than cyclists, than

supermarket managers need to decide to invest in car parking facilities. However, if cyclists spend more

money on daily products, entrepreneurs and municipalities must focus on investing in for instance guarded

parking facilities for cyclists.

25

Chapter 3: Empirical research

One of the conclusions out of the literature review was that there is still a discussion about the question

whether the contribution of car users is higher for a local supermarket, than clients that use other transport

modes. Moreover the problem about the discrepancy between the perception of this contribution and reality

is outlined. For both reasons it is interesting to do some empirical research on the relation between modal

split and expenditures. In addition, in the literature review some outcomes of earlier studies that are

familiar with the topics of this thesis are stated. Another objective of the empirical research in this thesis is

to test some of these variables and to conclude whether or not these figures are applicable for the segment

of local supermarkets in the Netherlands.

After a description of the methodology of the empirical research, the hypothesis, that come forward out of

the sub-research questions, will be tested in paragraph 3.4. In the next paragraph the research question will

be tested with the help of the answers on the sub-research questions. Paragraph 3.6 will consist out of a

comparison with studies that have been done in the past. In the last paragraph of this chapter other findings

out of the empirical research will be presented.

3.1 Research design The hypothesis that is formulated in paragraph 1.2 could be tested in several ways. The first option would

be a test of the hypothesis through data gathering. As already said, there is to little data about this research

question approachable. For this reason the choice is made to gather the data through observations. The form

of observation that is chosen in this thesis is interviewing people that visit a local supermarket. With the

help of this data the thesis aspires to determine the relation between modal split and expenditures in local

supermarkets. The benefit of an interview with people that have been visiting the local supermarket,

compared to, for instance a panel interview is that the customers of the local supermarket could more easily

determine the amount of money that they have spend in the supermarket. This, because they might still

have a receipt of their shopping activity. If the question about the expenses is asked at the customers of a

supermarket on another moment than right after the activity, they might have forgotten the amount of

money they had spend in the supermarket.

The respondents who were interviewed during the research were chosen at random by the interviewer.

Some remarks need to be made about the procedure the interviewer has chosen by approaching potential

respondents.

26

o The interviewer aimed to pick every respondent from a different cash desk.

o Some respondents have been interviewed twice by the interviewer. These interviews were done on

different days in the week. Approximately ten respondents were interviewed twice.

o Besides people that are able to speak the Dutch language some people that only speak English

were interviewed during the research.

o From a more practical point of view the interviewer aspired to get a new respondent as fast as

possible after an interview. The reason for this is that potential respondents are waiting by the cash

deck and look at the interviewer and the respondent. If they observe that the interview is quick

they are more willing to cooperate.

o Another objective that is aspired during the interviews is diversity in respondents. To achieve this

target the interviewer’s objective was to do every following interview by a person that has got

another age, another sex and sometimes another ethnicity. However, if it was possible to approach

another potential respondent, the potential respondent was asked to cooperate with the research.

3.1.1 Justification of the questionnaire An example of the questionnaire is stated in appendix 5. The questions were asked with the objective to test

the main hypothesis of this thesis. Furthermore the aim of this questionnaire was to find related data.

1. The respondents were asked with which modality they reached the local supermarket. By

determining the relation between modal split and expenditures it is important to determine for

each respondent by which modality they travelled to the shop.

2. The question was asked how many times the household of the respondent uses each modality

for grocery shopping on average in a week. With the help of this answer an indication can be

made concerning a grocery shopping week of a household. The conclusion for each

respondent can be drawn if the modality choice at the day of the interview was an incident or

normal for the household.

3. The respondents were asked about the amount of money they had spent on the day of the

interview. This data could be related with the modality choice of the respondent.

4. The question was asked for how many persons the respondent bought groceries on the day of

the interview. With the help of this data the amount of money that is spend per person per

household could be calculated.

5. The respondents were asked about the number of shops they visited besides the local

supermarket. The number of shops a respondent visited could give an indication about the

extra contribution to the rest of the shopping mall.

27

6. The respondents were asked to give their zip code. With the zip code the distance that must

be travelled from the residence to the supermarket could be calculated with the help of

www.anwb.nl and www.mappy.nl.

7. The last question of the questionnaire was about the amount of money the household of the

respondent spends on daily groceries.

3.1.2 Justification for ‘C1000 Kopermolen’ as a loc ation The interviews are done by the local supermarket C1000 at the shopping mall ‘De Kopermolen’ in the

Dutch city of Leiden. ‘De Kopermolen’ is located at the edge of the city of Leiden in the district Merenwijk.

Leiden is an average sized city in the Netherlands. The specific characteristics of the local supermarket will

be outlined in the next paragraph. The respondents of the interviews were visitors of the C1000 in ‘De

Kopermolen’ and are representative to determine the relation between modal split and expenditure in the

segment of local supermarkets, because approximately all the people who go to this supermarket are

dedicated visitors who only go to the shopping mall for daily products. Near to ‘De Kopermolen’ are no

cultural spots and is also not possible to go to ‘De Kopermolen’ for a day of fun shopping. The outcomes of

the empirical part of this thesis are also not representative for supermarkets that are located in a busy

shopping street or a historic area of a city that attracts a lot of tourists.

3.2 Research area ‘De Kopermolen’ is the shopping centre of the district Merenwijk, the most northern residence area in

Leiden. The district consists mainly out of new housing estate out of 1980. The shopping mall ‘De

Kopermolen’ is located in the centre of the Merenwijk and serves the residents of the district for all their

daily needs. The district Merenwijk consists out of different neighbourhoods. ‘De Kopermolen’ is adjacent

to the neighbourhood that is called ‘De Horsten’. The larger part of the buildings in ‘De Horsten’ are for

social housing. This neighbourhood is an exception in the district Merenwijk. Most of the houses in the

Merenwijk are one-family houses for the middle and upper class.

28

Picture 3: location ‘The Kopermolen’ Leiden

The facts and figures from the city of Leiden over the year 2007 describe that the Merenwijk, is ranked on

the second place for average incomes in Leiden. The average income in the Merenwijk was 35.400 euro.

This is 23% higher than the average income of the total population of the city of Leiden.

In Table 6 the characteristics of the resident of the district Merenwijk will be compared with the

characteristics of the total population of the city of Leiden with the help of some facts and figures

29

Table 6: Comparison between data of the district Merenwijk and the whole city of Leiden

Source: ‘beleidsinformatie, onderzoek, advies Leiden’

Leiden Merenwijk

Number of residents 117.492 14.657

Residents per square kilometre 5.343 7.594

Residents 0-19 jaar 21.1% 27.2%

Residents 20-64 jaar 67.1% 61.5%

Residents 65+ 11.8% 11.3%

Ethnicity

Native 73.9% 70.5%

1st generation allochthonous 14.3% 17.6%

2nd generation allochthonous 11.8% 12.0%

Type of household

Single 37% 26%

Couple without children 28% 31%

Couple with children 23% 31%

One parent family 6% 7%

other 7% 5%

Household incomes

Average income 28.700 35.400

% low ( < 22.000 ) 43% 28%

% high ( > 39.900 ) 21% 35%

As already said ‘De Kopermolen’ is the only shopping mall in the Merenwijk. Based on table 6 it is

possible to conclude that compared to the rest of Leiden the people that live in the Merenwijk have a high

income. As a consequence it will sound straightforward that the people that visit the supermarket in ‘De

Kopermolen’ are people with a high income. A marginal comment on this observation is that the

neighbourhood that is adjacent to ‘De Kopermolen’ consists mainly out of social housing and that the

average incomes in this area is lower than in the rest of the Merenwijk. A part of the respondents turned out

to live in social housing apartments. It is a fact that some people that live in the district Merenwijk do their

groceries in a larger shopping mall that is located 3.1 kilometres from the Merenwijk. This shopping mall is

called ‘Het Winkelhof’, one of the biggest supermarkets in the Netherlands is located in ‘Het Winkelhof’.

3.3 Research period

The choice is made to do the interviews on both the busy moments in a week and the quiet moments in a

week. The reason for this is to make the empirical research more representative. The interviews are done in

30

the period between 18 June 2007 and 30 June 2007. Moreover some interviews are done on the 21st of July

2007, because otherwise there were to little representative interviews on the busy Saturday in ‘De

Kopermolen’. In sum 618 visitors of the local supermarket C1000 in ‘De Kopermolen’ were interviewed.

Figure 5: time frames on which visitors of the C1000 were interviewed

11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00

18 June (Monday)

19 June (Tuesday)

20 June (Wednesday)

21 June (Thursday)

22 June (Friday)

23 June (Saturday)

24 June (Sunday)

25 June (Monday)

26 June (Tuesday)

27 June (Wednesday)

28 June (Thursday)

29 June (Friday)

30 June (Saturday)

21 July (Sunday)

o On Friday the 29th of June there was a market between 10.00 and 18.00 at ‘De Kopermolen’. 111

people in this research were interviewed on a day that there was also a market next to the

supermarket

o On Saterday the 30th of June the C1000 was already closed at 17.00 because of the reorganisation

of some aspects of the supermarket. Around 14.30 some products were sold out and when one

respondent answered that he normally spends more money in this supermarket when all products

are available the interviewer stopped with approaching people to cooperate with the research. The

reason for this was to cancel any impurities in the empirical research

31

3.4 Test of the hypothesis

3.4.1 introductory variables Before the hypothesis is tested, this paragraph presents some introductory variables to give an insight in the

composition of the respondents who participated in this empirical research. Figure 6 gives an insight in the

distribution in age categories of the sample. After each interview the interviewer tried to estimate the age of

the respondent into the age categories. The respondent wasn’t questioned for his age by the interviewer.

Figure 6: distribution by age category

2.2%

17.7%

56.6%

23.5%

0-18 year

18-30 year

30-55 year

55 year and older

Based on the figure it can be concluded that the largest part of the people that participated in the research

were estimated in the age category 30-55 years old.

Besides the age of the respondent, the interviewer also recorded the gender of the respondent. If the

respondent didn’t do the groceries on his own, but with a person of the other gender, this respondent is

categorized as a couple in this research. Especially on a Saturday lots of couples participated. In this

research the gender is determined for 605 respondents. The results are outlined in figure 7.

32

Figure 7: distribution by gender

30.7%

57.7%

11.6%

male

female

couple

Figure 7 demonstrates that the interviewed people were mainly women. Noteworthy is that more than 10%

of the people did their groceries together with a person of the other gender.

The first question that was asked to the respondents of the questionnaire was with which modality they

reached the local supermarket. The results of the answers from 617 respondents on the question with which

modality they reached the supermarket are presented in figure 8

Figure 8: Distribution by modality

38.4%

30.6%

29.7%

1.3%

car user

cyclist

pedestrian

user public transport

33

The figure demonstrates that 38.4% of the respondents visited the supermarket by car. Approximately 30%

reached the local supermarket by bike and 29.6% by foot. Moreover 1.8% visited the supermarket through

public transport. The modal split of supermarkets is already studied in other researches. Some other

outcomes are outlined in paragraph 2.2.3 and appendix 2. The outcome of the study concerning the modal

split is different from the outcomes of other studies. The percentages of pedestrians in this study is higher

than in the other studies and the percentage of car users is lower than expected6.

As already noted in paragraph 3.2 the supermarket is located in a densely populated area (table 6). This

could be an explanation for the fact that the amount of people that visits the local supermarket by foot is

higher than normal. Another possible explanation might be that the other studies are done by supermarkets

in general and that this study focuses on the local supermarket segment. It might be interesting to

investigate if the modal split of a Dutch local supermarket differs from the modal split of a Dutch average

supermarket.

Furthermore the respondents were asked to describe a normal week for their household, concerning

grocery shopping. The reason for this was to get a better insight in the shopping week of the household of

the respondent. It is for instance possible that the respondent only incidentally visited the local supermarket

by car, while the household normally does their groceries by bicycle. Only 6 of the 618 respondents was

not able to estimate how many times their household uses a modality for grocery shopping. After the

interviews the number of times a modality is used in a week by all the households was counted up. Figure 9

demonstrates that the bicycle is the most frequently used modality by the households of the respondents

that were interviewed. That the outcomes of figure 9 differ from the outcomes of figure 8 might be

explained by the idea that cyclists and pedestrians visit the supermarket more frequently than car users.

6 For instance the ‘Yearly consumer research by the Centraal Bureau Levensmiddelen’ indicated that 60% of the consumers use the car for grocery shopping.

34

Figure 9: distribution by modality (2)

23.85%

41.94%

33.67%

0.55%

car user

cyclist

pedestrian


Figure 8 might give the best representative indication of the modal split of a local supermarket.

Respondents were selected unintentionally on different days in a week. Figure 9 must be seen as a nuance

on the outcomes in figure 8. The outcomes of figure 9 indicate that the modal split of local supermarkets

must be more thoroughly studied to draw hard conclusions on the exact modal split. However, the main

objective of this thesis is not to answer this question

Another interesting outcome that is relevant in this framework is the availability of a car for doing grocery

shopping. The modal split is partly determined by the availability of a car for the respondent. A car was

available for grocery shopping for 76.8% of the respondents. Appendix 3 shows that this percentage is

slightly higher than the car availability in general in the city of Leiden in 2003.

Figure 10 shows that 61.7% of the pedestrians and 65.1% of the cyclists also had the option of choosing the

car for doing their groceries. The people that didn’t have the option to visit the local supermarket by car

were not asked whether they should use the car for this activity if they had a car in their possession.

35

Figure 10: availability of a car by modality

99.2%

65.1%

61.7%

50.0%

car user

cyclist

pedestrain


3.4.2 Test of sub research questions after the empi rical research

Does a relation exist between modal split and expenditures at each visit of the local supermarket?

During the interviews respondents were asked which amount of money they had spend in the local

supermarket and with which modality they reached the supermarket. Before a relation between both

variables is made, an overview of the expenditure pattern of the respondents is outlined. Figure 11

demonstrates how many respondents could be categorised in an expenditure category. The outcomes are

distributed in categories of 5 euro. The middle of every category is presented on the x-axes. For instance,

the value 2.5 euro indicates that respondent has spent 0 to 5 euros in the local supermarket before he was

interviewed.

On average, respondents spend 24.20 euros at each visit of the C1000. Most respondents spend an amount

of money in the range 5 to 20 euros at each visit. The question is whether car users spend more or less

money each time they visit the local supermarket. Figure 12 shows that car users spend more money when

they go to the local supermarket for grocery shopping compared to pedestrians, cyclists and users of public

transport. The answer on the sub-research question whether or not a relation exist between modal split and

expenditures at each visit of the local supermarket, is that a relation exists. A car user indeed spends more

on groceries when he visits the local supermarket compared to users of other transport modes.

36

Figure 11: distribution by expenditure category

10.0%

15.8%16.3%

15.8%

8.8%

7.2%

5.9%

4.1%

2.4%

1.5%

2.9%

1.1%1.6%

1.0%1.6%

3.9%

2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 62.5 67.5 72.5 75+

Figure 12: average spending by modality

33.36

18.93

18.41

15.63

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Expenditure in euros

car user

cyclist

pedestrian


Does a relation exist between modal split and expenditures per household per week on daily products

in a local supermarket?

37

At first sight figure 12 seems to indicate that a car user on average spends more money on daily groceries

than users of other transport modes. However this does not have to be the case. For instance, it is possible

that a user of another transport mode visits the local supermarket more frequently than the car user. In the

interview respondents were asked to estimate the amount of times that their household comes to the local

supermarket for their daily groceries. In paragraph 3.7.1 it will be demonstrated that users of other transport

modes visit the local supermarket more frequently than car users.

To measure the differences in expenditures on daily groceries between the users of different transport

modes the respondents were asked which amount of money their household spends on daily groceries every

week.

Figure 12 only demonstrates which amount of money a respondent spends at the day of the interview. This

is not enough to describe the relation between modal split and expenditure in a local supermarket. The

benefit of the data about the spending in the local supermarket at the day of the interview is that the

answers are very precise. Lots of respondents showed their receipt, so that the interviewer could check their

answers. The amount of money that the household spends on groceries is only an estimation by the

respondents.

However it must be noted that the question about the spending of the household every week on daily

groceries is asked at the end of the interview on purpose. The respondents were told that this was the last

and most important question of the interview and that it would be appreciated it when he or she was willing

to take some time for making a good calculation. Lots of respondents were willing to take some time on

thinking about the weekly spending of their household on daily groceries. Despite the effort of the

respondents it cannot be assumed that their estimations are accurate on 1 euro precise. The four values that

were most frequently mentioned by the respondents were 50, 100, 150 and 200 euro. An assumption that

might be made is that when a respondent answers that his household spends on average 100 euro on daily

groceries a week, he means that his household spends between the 75 and 125 euros a week. For this reason

the categories in figure 13 are pretty broad, namely 25 euros. For instance if 18.9% of the respondents

could be classified in the category 50 euros this demonstrates that 18.9% of the respondents estimated that

their household spends between the 37.50 and 62.50 euros on daily groceries.

In this thesis the unevenness of this estimation might be overcome with the help of quantity. In sum 557

have tried to estimate the expenditures of their household on daily groceries a week. Some people didn’t

answer the question. Mostly because they didn’t know the answer on the question. Some other people

didn’t want to answer the question because they thought that this information was too private.

38

Figure 13: distribution of spending per household a week by expenditure category

0.0%

6.3%

18.9%

16.7%17.6%

8.6%

13.8%

3.8%

6.3%

1.3%

4.0%

0.2%1.4%

0.2%0.5%

0.0%0.4%

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400+

expenditure category in euros

The average amount of money that a household spends on daily groceries a week is 113.76 euro. The

respondents were aloud to include expenditures on tobacco and alcohol in this estimation.

The question is whether modality choice has some influence on the spending of a household a week.

It looks like figure 14 demonstrates that this is the case. The figure shows that a household of a car user

spends more money in a week on daily groceries than a household of a cyclist, a pedestrian or a user of

public transport. ANOVA tests show that these differences are significant under a reliability interval of 5%.

For this reason the answer on the sub-research question is positive. A relation exists between modal split

and expenditures per household per week on daily products in a local supermarket. A household of a

respondent that visits the local supermarket by car, spends more money on daily groceries in a week than

the household of a respondent that visits the local supermarket by bicycle, by foot or with public transport.

The criticism on the statement that this conclusion indicates that there is a relation between spending in a

local supermarket and modality choice is that weekly spending of a household is a too restricted figure to

draw hard conclusions about this relation.

39

Figure 14: average expenditure per week by modality

129.46

106.50

100.58

102.81

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00

amount of money in euros

automobilist

fietser

voetganger

gebruiker ov

For instance, it is possible that a person accidentally used the car for the daily groceries, while this is the

first and last time that he uses the car for this purpose and normally another member of the household does

the groceries by bike. The consequence would be that this household would fell into the category car users

and that the expenditures of this household in one week on daily groceries will count for the category car

users.

This could lead to a wrong perception of the reality. This problem is solved with the help of the question

that is asked at the respondents to describe a normal grocery-shopping week. By this question the

respondent was asked to estimate how many times each transport mode was used by the household on

average in one week. With the help of this information all the respondents were categorized in four

different categories. This categorisation is made after the interviews.

Category 1: Normally, the household of the respondent only uses the car for grocery

shopping.

Category 2: Normally, the household of the respondent only uses another mode of

transport for grocery shopping.

Category 3: Normally, the household of the respondent uses the car for grocery shopping

only ones a week. Furthermore the household of the respondents uses other

modes of transport for grocery shopping.

Category 4: Normally, the household of the respondent uses the car more times in a week

for grocery shopping. Besides the car the household also uses other modes of

transport.

40

The respondent in the example would be categorised in category 2, while he has visited the supermarket for

this time by car. This, because his household normally does the groceries with another mode of transport

than the car. Figure 15 indicates that more than 50% of the households of the respondents never uses the

car for grocery shopping. Only 15.2% of the household of the respondents does their grocery shopping only

by car.

Figure 15: distribution by category

15.2%

51.3%

19.0%

14.5%

category 1

category 2

category 3

category 4

The criticism on figure 14 could be rejected with the help of this data by watching if there is a relation

between the category and the expenditures per household per week on daily groceries.

Figure 16 indicates that a household which only does their groceries by car (category 1) spends a lot more

money a week on daily groceries than a household that never uses the car for their daily groceries

(category 2). A household that uses different modes of transport does not spend significantly less money a

week on daily groceries than a household that only uses the car. The conclusion is that, based on this data,

the sub-research question must be answered positively. A relation exists between modal split and

expenditures per household per week on daily products in a local supermarket

41

Figure 16: average expenditure per household a week by category

136.41

96.91

126.14

130.56

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00


category 1

category 2

category 3

category 4

Does a relation exist between modal split and the number of other shops that customers visit in the

shopping mall besides the local supermarket?

To draw conclusions about the contribution of the car user to the shopping mall compared to the

contribution to the shopping mall of respondents that use other transport modes, it is necessary to gather

information concerning the expenditure of the respondent in other shops in the shopping mall. For instance,

it would be possible that a car user spends more money than a pedestrian in the local supermarket but that

he or she only visits the shopping mall for the daily groceries, while the pedestrian also spends some money

in other shops at the shopping mall. If this is the case it might be possible to attract from this outcome that

the shopping mall needs to invest in facilities for pedestrians instead of facilities for car users.

This thesis has made the restriction that the respondents were only asked about the number of shops they

visited in the shopping mall, besides the C1000. A noteworthy conclusion is that the number of people that

only visited the C1000 is a very high share of the total sample.

The conclusion that can be drawn based on figure 17, is that the C1000 in ‘De Kopermolen’ clearly is a

local supermarket that is not used for fun shopping. When figure 17 would be made for the same

supermarket in a busy shopping district this figure would probably have a very different structure. A lower

share of the sample would answer that they only visited the supermarket.

42

Figure 17: distribution of number of shops visited besides C1000

41.07%

29.87%

16.88%

6.49%

3.57%

1.14%

0.80%

0 shops

1 shop

2 shops

3 shops

4 shops

5 shops

6 or more shops

The customers of the C1000 visit not very much shops besides the C1000. However the question is whether

or not this is true for all the modality users? Looking at the hypothesis the expectation is that car users visit

less other shops than users of other transport modes. However, the outcome of figure 18 gives an indication

that the contrary is true. The respondents that use the car were the people that visited more other shops than

users of other transport modes. It must be noted that besides the C1000 there are also other supermarkets

located in the same shopping mall. So it is possible that car users, because of their capacity are more likely

to visit all three supermarkets compared to users of other transport modes. If a car user visits all three

supermarkets in the supermarket he will be classified in the category ‘2 shops’, while a cyclist that visits

the C1000 and a gift shop is classified in the category ‘1 shop’. Whether or not it is more likely that a car

user visits more supermarkets in the same shopping mall compared to users of other transport modes, might

be an interesting topic for further research. This thesis will not spend any further attention to this topic.

Based on figure 18 it looks like there is no relation between modal split and the number of other shops that

customers visit in the shopping mall besides the local supermarket. However it is not certain that the

hypothesis could also be rejected for the whole population. This is probably not the case, because the

standard deviation is around 1.3 shops for this sample

43

Figure 18: number of shops visited besides the local supermarket by modality

1.13

1.11

1.05

0.75

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Number of shops visited besides supermarket

car user

cyclist

pedestrian

user publictransport

In figure 19 the same test has been repeated. This time a comparison is made between the respondents of

different categories concerning the number of shops they visited besides the local supermarket. The

outcome is that the respondents who are part of a household that only uses the car for doing grocery

shopping, are the ones that visit the most shops besides the local supermarket. Whether or not the

contribution to the whole shopping mall is higher for the respondents that could be classified in category 1

could not be concluded with the data that is gathered in this thesis. For this conclusion there is information

needed about the expending behaviour in the other shops in the shopping mall. To get a whole view about

the contribution to the shopping mall, information about the shopping behaviour of the household in the

shopping mall over an average week in necessary.

Figure 19: number of shops visited besides local supermarket by category

1.30

1.09

0.93

1.10

category 1

category 2

category 3

category 4

44

The conclusion that can be drawn out of figure 19 is that pure car users (category 1) visit more shops

besides the local supermarket than people who also use other modes of transport for doing there groceries.

Worth mentioning is the outcome that people who use the car ones a week for grocery shopping and visit

the supermarket also with other modes of transport, are the ones that on average visit the least shops

besides the local supermarket.

3.5 relation between modal split and expenditures The goal of this thesis is to find out whether or not there is a relation between modal split and expenditures

in segment of local supermarkets. For this reason it is important to get a good insight in the spending

behaviour of the customers. As already mentioned the customers where asked to give information about the

amount of money that they had spent in the local supermarket on the day that they where interviewed.

Moreover respondents had to estimate which amount of money their household spends on daily groceries

on average in a week. In addition the respondents where asked for how many persons they normally buy

daily products. With the help of the last two variables the average expenditures per person per week on

daily groceries could be determined for every household. For getting this data the average expenditures per

household per week must divided by the number of persons of the household. This calculation is done after

the interviews for each respondent separately. The outcome is related to the modality that was used by the

respondent to reach the local supermarket. Moreover the outcome is related to the category in which the

household of the respondent could be classified.

3.5.1 Expenditures of a household per person per we ek by modality Figure 20 presents which amount of money a household of a respondent that uses a certain kind of transport

mode spends on daily groceries. After the interviews it became clear that it was possible for 556 people to

determine what they spend with their household per person per week on daily products. 218 of them

reached the supermarket by car, 170 by bicycle, 160 by foot and 8 by public transport. On average a

household spends 42.92 per person per week on daily products. Figure 20 demonstrates that a household of

someone who reached the supermarket by public transport spends the highest amount of money per person

per week on groceries. However, only 8 persons reached the supermarket by public transport, thus it is not

possible to draw hard conclusions based on this data. Households of respondents that used other modes of

transport than public transport, spend approximately the same amount of money per person per week on

daily products.

45

Figure 20: average expenses per person per week by modality

43.29

41.99

42.89

50.63

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00


car user

cyclist

pedestrian


3.5.2 Expenditures household per person per week by category As already said the respondents are classified concerning the grocery shopping behaviour of their

household during a week. The households are categorized based on the answer of the respondent on the

question how the normal shopping week of the household of the respondent looks like concerning the

modalities used for the grocery shopping. This gives a better view over the shopping behaviour of the

household than only the modality that is used by the respondent on the day of the interview.

For instance, it is possible that a person accidentally used the car for the daily groceries, while this is the

first and last time that he uses the car for this purpose and normally another member of the household does

the groceries by bike. The consequence would be that this household would fell into the category car users

and that the expenditures of this household in one week on daily groceries will count for the category car

users.

This could lead to a wrong perception of the reality. This problem is solved with the help of the question

that is asked at the respondents to describe a normal grocery-shopping week. By this question the

respondent was asked to estimate how many times each transport mode was used by the household on

average in one week. With the help of this information all the respondents were categorized in four

different categories. This categorisation is made after the interviews.

46

Category 1: Normally, the household of the respondent only uses the car for grocery

shopping.

Category 2: Normally, the household of the respondent only uses another mode of

transport for grocery shopping.

Category 3: Normally, the household of the respondent uses the car for grocery shopping

only ones a week. Furthermore the household of the respondents uses other

modes of transport for grocery shopping.

Category 4: Normally, the household of the respondent uses the car more times in a week

for grocery shopping. Besides the car the household also uses other modes of

transport.

One of the benefits of the categorization is that it is now possible to draw harder conclusions on the

question whether or not there is a relation between modal split and expenditures. It is now possible to

measure if a household that always uses the car for daily groceries spends more money per person a week

on daily groceries than a household that never uses the car for daily groceries.

The analysis of the last paragraph is now repeated. The difference is that expenditures per person per week

is now related to the category of the household of the respondent instead of the modality that is used on the

day of the interview. Figure 21 demonstrates that households of respondents that could be classified in

category 1 spend the most per person per week on daily groceries. However the difference is statistically

negligible. Moreover, figure 21 shows that households that belong to category 3 spend the least amount of

money per person per week on daily groceries.

Figure 21: expenditures per person per week by category

46.32

43.11

40.09

42.09

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00


category1

category 2

category 3

category 4

47

3.5.3 relation between expenditures and modal split or expenditures and category in the local supermarkets segment

The objective of the last two paragraphs was to give an overview about the expenses per person per week

by modality choice and by category. The conclusion that could be drawn out of paragraph 3.5.1 was that

expenditures per person per week of people that used a car did not differ that much from people that used

another mode of transport. Paragraph 3.5.2 demonstrated that the households of respondents that could be

classified in category 1 spend the largest amount of money per person per week on daily groceries.

However the differences where statistically negligible. With the help of ANOVA analysis (appendix 4) this

observation is confirmed. The result is that the main hypothesis of this thesis (no relation exists between

modal split and expenditures) could not be rejected under an interval of 5%.

3.6 Repeating earlier studies

3.6.1 the group of households that always uses the car for doing groceries is larger than the group that never uses the car for daily groceries

This question is already answered in the thesis. After the interviews the respondents were classified into

different categories. Respondents that belong to a household were every member of the household reaches

the supermarket by car for buying daily groceries were classified in category 1. Instead respondents that

belong to a household were everyone visits the supermarket with another modality than the car, were

classified into category 2. Figure 22 expresses that more than 50% of the respondents belong to a

household were nobody does their daily groceries by car. The proposition that the group of households that

always uses the car for doing groceries is larger than the group of households that never uses the car for

daily groceries could be rejected based on the data that is collected in this thesis. Instead earlier research in

the Netherlands (P1, 2006) concluded that 39% of the people always did their groceries by car and 17% of

the people never did any groceries by car. This difference could be explained by the fact that in this thesis

respondents are classified based on the behaviour of their households, while the other research looked at

individuals. Another clarification could lay in the fact that the other study interviewed respondents by

general supermarkets, while this thesis focuses on the local supermarket segment.

48

Figure 22: distribution by category

15.2%

51.3%

19.0%

14.5%

category 1

category 2

category 3

category 4

3.6.2 Number of visits per week Most people visit the supermarket 2 or 3 times a week

This thesis didn’t collect data about the number of times an individual visits the supermarket per week.

There is data collected about the number of times the household of the respondent visits the supermarket

with every mode of transport. After the interviews the number of times the household of the respondent

visits a supermarket were calculated. On average, the households of the respondents that were interviewed

went out 4.41 times a week for grocery shopping. Figure 23 indicates that most households went out 4

times a week for grocery shopping

49

Figure 23: number of visits of a household per week

4.82%

13.29%

16.78%

18.94%

15.61%

17.61%

8.47%

4.49%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

number of visits

The earlier research (P1, 2006) is in contrary to the data presented in this figure aimed at the number of

visits of an individual to a supermarket in a week. The results of the other study could not be rejected with

the data of this thesis for this reason. It is possible that most individuals do groceries 2 or 3 times in a week,

while the household in sum went for four times a week to the supermarket. The results of the earlier study

(P1, 2006) and this thesis could in fact be complementary.

3.6.3 Expenses per visit Most visitors spend between the 10 and 30 euro per visit in a supermarket

In paragraph 3.6.2 it is already explained how the number of visits in a week of the household is calculated.

Earlier in this thesis it is explained that the respondents were asked at the end of the interview to estimate

which amount of money their households spend on daily products in a week. When the total amount of

money that is spend by a household in a week is divided by the number of times the household visits the

supermarket, expenditures per visit could be calculated for each respondent. On average a household

spends 30.34 euro per visit to the supermarket. Figure 27 depicts which percentage of the respondents

could be classified in which expenditure category. The figure demonstrates that households spend between

the 10 and 20 euro at each visit. Followed by households that spend between 30 and 40 euros and

households that spend between 20 and 30 euros. The conclusion is that the proposition that most

households spend between 10 and 30 euros each visit holds for the data that were collected in this thesis.

An alternative proposition that might be formulated based on this data will be that most households spend

between the 10 and 40 euros at each visit.

50

Figure 24: Composition expenditures households per visit

8.29%

30.45%

18.20%

18.74%

5.23%

9.01%

4.32%

5.77%

0 tot 10 euros

10 tot 20 euros

20 tot 30 euros

30 tot 40 euros

40 tot 50 euros

50 tot 60 euros

60 tot 70 euros

more than 70 euros

uitg

aven

cat

egor

ien

3.7 Other findings

3.7.1 the distance travelled to the local supermark et by a car user compared to other transport modes

It is reasonable that a car user covers a larger distance for reaching the local supermarket compared to a

pedestrian, because a car user could travel larger distance over a shorter time frame.

The distance covered by a customer of the local supermarket is calculated in this research with the help of

the zip code of the customer. For respondents who went to the C1000 by foot or by bicycle, the distance

covered is calculated on the Internet site www.mappy.nl. For people that went to the supermarket by car or

by public transport the distance between their residence and the supermarket is calculated on the Internet

site www.anwb.nl. It was possible for 598 of the 618 respondents to calculate the distance between their

homes and the local supermarket. For approximately 10 respondents the distance was not calculated with

one of the Internet sites. In the opinion of those respondents the information about their zip code was too

private. Instead they tried to estimate the distance between their home and the C1000.

Some respondents were only in the neighbourhood of Leiden, because they were on vacation. The distance

from their house to the C1000 is viewed as not applicable for this calculation. Instead, the outcomes of

51

people who work in ‘De Kopermolen’ and do their daily groceries in the C1000 were viewed as applicable

for this calculation.

When the research of this thesis will be repeated at another location or for another segment, it must be

considered to ask the respondents if they travelled to the local supermarket from their residence, or from

another location. Now it is possible to investigate the relation between modal split and distance for people

that travelled from their homes to the supermarket. The accuracy of the information will enhance if this

question is added to the interview.

On average a customer that visits the C1000 travels 1593.7 meter to reach the local supermarket. Figure 25

demonstrates that cyclists approximately travel this average distance. The figure also shows that

pedestrians travel a shorter distance and car users a larger distance than the average distance travelled.

Figure 25: average distance travelled by modality

2303

1564

622

2945

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

distance in meters

car user

cyclist

pedestrian


The figure expresses that on average users of public transport travel the largest. However only 8

respondents in this research travelled by public transport. This is a too small amount of people to draw

representative conclusions for the whole population.

52

If the results of the people who travel by public transport are ignored, than it is obvious that customers who

travel by car, cover a larger distance than users of other transport modes. The distance travelled by a car

user is nearly four times higher than the distance travelled by a pedestrian.

3.7.2 Information about the number of persons for w ho users of different transport modes purchase their daily groc eries

The logic behind this hypothesis is that a household that consists out of more persons needs more products

and thus a higher loading capacity. The loading capacity of a car is usually higher than the capacity of

another transport mode. Consequently larger households will use the car more than smaller households.

However the need of large amounts of products could also be solved through a higher frequency in visits of

the larger households. Figure 26 shows that larger households go more times a week to a supermarket for

buying groceries than smaller households.

Figure 26: number of visits by number of persons

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1 2 3 4 5 6

number of persons

num

ber

of v

isits

Figure 27 demonstrates the relation between modal split and number of persons of the household. The

conclusion out of this data is that respondents, who used the car on the day of the interview, buy groceries

for more persons than users of other transport modes.

53

Figure 27: Number of persons by modality

3.20

2.74

2.79

2.38

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

number of persons

car user

cyclist

pedestrian


Moreover it is interesting to investigate whether or not there is a relation between the number of persons of

a household and the category in which the household of the respondent is classified. The results are

presented in figure 28. The figure shows that people that never use the car belong to smaller households

than people that always or sometimes use the car. It would be interesting to find out if this relation also

works the other way around. The proposition, which in that case must be tested, is whether or not a relation

exists between the number of persons of a household and the modality that is chosen by the household. Is it

for instance true that when a couple gives birth to babies, they decide to do their groceries by car instead of

the bike? And is it also true that people decide to buy a car when they get children?

The data of this research point out that on average, respondents that have a car available for groceries buy

the daily products for a household of three persons. Respondents that didn’t have a car available for grocery

shopping, buy the daily groceries for 2.3 persons.

54

Figure 28: number of persons by category

3.23

2.59

3.34

3.25

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

number of persons

category 1

category 2

category 3

category 4

3.7.3 Information about the number of times a week the local supermarket is visited by car users, pedestrians or cyclists. The result of the data collected in case of this thesis was that on average a household shops 4.41 times a

week for groceries. The question is whether or not this number diverges for the different modalities that

were used by the respondents on the day they were interviewed. Figure 29 demonstrates that households of

which the respondent came to the local supermarket by car do their groceries less times a week than people

that reach the supermarket with another mode of transport. The logic behind this finding is that cyclists and

pedestrians have got a lower loading capacity and must visit the supermarket more frequently than a car

user, for buying the same amount of products.

55

Figure 29: number of visits of the household by modality

3.91

4.55

4.91

4.94

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Number of visits per week

car user

cyclist

pedestrian

user publictransport

Besides the relation between the number of times a household does grocery shopping and modality choice,

this data must be related to the category in which the respondent could be classified. Figure 30

demonstrates that households of respondents who always travel by car on average went to a supermarket

for 3.3 times a week. Households that never use the car or sometimes use the car for buying their daily

products, undertake the activity more than ones a week extra compared to households that always use the

car for grocery shopping. Category 4, the household that shops two or more times a week with the car and

also uses another mode of transport for grocery shopping visits the supermarket 5.33 times a week. A

logical explanation for this high figure is that households that are classified into this category always shop

more than 3 times a week on average.

56

Figure 30: number of visits of the household by category

3.30

4.54

4.49

5.33

category 1

category 2

category 3

category 4

3.7.4 Information about the expenditures in a local supermarket by every visit of a car users compared to users of oth er transport modes

The expenses per visit are also pointed out in paragraph 3.6.4. The largest percentage of the households

spends between the 10 and 20 euros each visit. Paragraph 3.7.1 shows that car users visit the supermarket

less frequently than users of other transport modes. It would be reasonable when car users spend more

money per visit, considering that there is no relation between modal split and expenditures. Figure 31

shows that this is the case. Households of car users spend more money compared to cyclists and pedestrians.

If the expenses per visit of a household are related to the category in which the respondent could be

classified, the differences are even larger.

57

Figure 31: expenses of a household per visit by modality

38.67

26.86

22.90

22.69

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00


automobilist

fietser

voetganger

gebruiker ov

6

3.7.5 Information about the percentage of the peopl e that live in the neighbourhood of the local supermarket Before this information will be pointed out, the concept neighbourhood needs to be conceptualised. The

concept neighbourhood is defined in two different ways in this thesis:

o People that live in a house with the same zip code as the local supermarket live in the same

neighbourhood as the local supermarket.

o People that live closer than one kilometre from the local supermarket could be characterized as

living in the neighbourhood of the local supermarket.

Figure 32 illustrates that more than 60% of the respondents has got the same zip code as the local

supermarket. If the choice is made for this definition for neighbourhood it can be determined that people

who buy their groceries by the local supermarket live in the neighbourhood of the local supermarket.

58

Figure 32: spread of respondents by zip code

1.78%

0.97%

5.50%

4.21%

63.11%

11.65%

0.81%

0.97%

0.49%

1.29%

0.81%

0.81%

1.13%

1.13%

2312

2313

2315

2316

2317

2318

2321

2332

2334

2341

2343

2352

2353

2361

Whether or not it is possible to conclude that people who buy their daily groceries in the local supermarket

live in the neighbourhood of the local supermarket also depends on the outcome when ‘in the

neighbourhood’ is defined as living within one kilometre from the local supermarket. As already said the

distance from the residence to the local supermarket is calculated on the Internet sites www.mappy.nl and

www.anwb.nl. The calculation is done with the help of the zip codes from the respondents and the zip code

of the local supermarket. Figure 33 presents the outcome of these calculations. The figure shows that more

than 50% of the respondents live within one kilometre from the local supermarket. Less than 25% of the

respondents live at more than two kilometres from the local supermarket. Based on both definitions of

‘living in the neighbourhood’ it can be concluded that most customers of the local supermarket C1000 live

in the neighbourhood of the local supermarket.

59

Figure 33: distance between residence and local supermarket

50.8%

27.6%

7.9%

6.5%

2.3%

4.8%

0-1000 metre

1000-2000 metre

2000-3000 metre

3000-4000 metre

4000-5000 metre

more than 5000 metre

3.7.6 Information about the relation between expend itures per person per week, modality and gender

It is possible to deepen out the analysis to a next level. Earlier it was concluded that the expenditures of a

household per person per week did not have any relation with modality choice. The question is whether

there is still no relation if the respondents are also separated by gender. Figure 34 demonstrates that the

differences of expenditures of a household per person per week increase due to the separation in gender.

Worth mentioning is the differences in expenditures per person per week between a couple that reaches the

local supermarket by car and a couple that reaches the supermarket by foot or by bicycle. However, the

problem with this analysis is that only 9 couples travelled to the local supermarket by bicycle. For this

reason the expenditures of a household per person per week in this category might not be representative for

the whole population.

60

Figure 34: expenditures per person per week by modality and gender

41.79

43.14

46.96

44.56

41.35

39.35

45.36

42.23

40.36

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00


man

vrouw

stel

man

vrouw

stel

man

vrouw

stel

auto

mob

ilist

fiets

ervo

etga

nger

3.7.7 Information about the relation between expens es per person per week and number of persons in a household Most respondents buy their groceries for a two persons household. Approximately 30% of the respondents

live in a household with two persons. The second most common type of household is a four persons

household (20%). One-person household spend the largest amount of money per person per week on daily

groceries. Figure 35 demonstrates that the expenses per person per week decrease when the number of

persons per household increases. There is some logic in this result. A household of six persons could shop

more efficiently than a household of for instance two persons. A noteworthy result of this analysis is that a

household of six persons spends only 50% per person per week compared with a one-person household.

61

Figure 35: expenditures per person per week by number of persons in a household

55.02

45.71

40.97

37.57

33.82

27.58

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00


1 person

2 persons

3 persons

4 persons

5 persons

6 persons

62

4. Conclusion The most important conclusion that can be drawn in this thesis is that there is no relation between modal

split and expenditures in the segment of local supermarkets. The proposition that customers who reach the

supermarket by car spend significantly more money than customers who use another mode of transport can

be rejected with the help of the data that has been gathered in this thesis for the segment local supermarkets.

The reason for this misperception of entrepreneurs is that car users spend more on daily groceries each time

they visit the supermarket and the largest part of the customers of the supermarket are car users. Both facts

can be confirmed by the data collected in case of this thesis. Car users spend more money by each visit

compared to users of other transport modes, but this extra spending is compensated by the fact that users of

other transport modes visit the local supermarket more frequently compared to car users. The result is that

car users spend approximately the same amount of money on groceries in a local supermarket per person of

a household per week compared with cyclists and pedestrians.

As a consequence the conclusion that can be drawn is that it makes sense when a managers of a local

supermarket tries to detect for which transport mode parking facilities are restricted. Parking facilities

might be restricted either in quantity or in quality. This might be a better strategy than a one-sided lobby for

better car-parking facilities, because customers that reach the local supermarket by foot or by bicycle bring

in the same amount of money per person. It is not in the interest of the manager of a local supermarket to

lobby for more and better car parking facilities when there is a lack of parking facilities for cyclists and a

trip to the local supermarket is a dangerous activity. A manager of a local supermarket must share his

attention over the different important modalities that are used by customers to reach the shop. Nowadays in

the Netherlands good parking facilities for cyclists is listed on the second place of the services wishes top 5

of supermarket customers. Approximately 74% of the customers want to have better parking facilities for

their bikes (Vogelvrije fietser 2006). An example of a facility for which the effect on a shopping mall could

be investigated is a secured parking facility in a shopping mall for free.

The conclusion of this thesis cannot be that the entrepreneur or supermarket manager must neglect the

importance of car parking facilities. The benefit of the high loading capacity of a car is already mentioned

and the data that is collected shows that car users visit the local supermarket less frequently while on

average they buy groceries for larger households. An interesting study might be a comparison of time that

is spend on grocery shopping per week by a household that uses the car for grocery shopping and a

household that uses another mode of transport. When a household could save time with buying their

groceries by driving to the supermarket with a car instead of using a bicycle, the car could have a

competitive advantage in a world were efficiency and time saving are highly important aspects. The only

conclusion that can be drawn out of the data is that entrepreneurs and supermarket managers must not focus

on car parking facilities solely. They have to look at parking in a broader sense.

63

4.2 Recommendations for further research

The relationship between modal split and expenditures is insufficiently studied and must be studied in a

broader sense to predict implications of policies or support policies. It is only possible to conclude that no

relation exists between modal split and expenditures if this relation is studied on other locations and in

other segments. Interesting segments might be drugstores or present shops. Another interesting location

might be a supermarket in a busy shopping centre or a local supermarket within a neighbourhood with a

higher or lower average income. What also needs to be studied more comprehensively is the contribution of

users of different transport modes on the economic value of a whole shopping mall. It is interesting to

determine whether or not the expenditures in the rest of the shopping mall differ between the users of

different transport modes. More ambitious would be a comparison of the effect of different transport modes

concerning the economic value for the shopping mall and the ecological effect for the region of the

shopping mall. If the economic contribution of every transport mode is approximately equal, the ecological

benefits of cyclists and pedestrians might stimulate policy that is more focussed on parking facilities for

cyclists.

When this research is repeated for other segments or on other locations it is important to keep in mind the

following aspects:

o The respondents must be questioned about the other supermarkets they visit in the shopping mall

and other shops they visit separately.

o The questions about the number of persons for who the respondent buys products in the

supermarket and the amount of money that is spend per week by a household must be coupled

more clearly. A suggestion is that the number of persons must be mentioned in the question about

the amount of money the household spends per week. For instance, ‘what amount of money do

you spend with the two of you on daily groceries on average in one week’?

o Lots of respondents showed their receipt when they were asked about the amount of money they

had spend in the local supermarket. Maybe it is better to write down this exact amount of money

instead of selecting a category. For instance, a person who has spent 14,50 euro is not classified in

the category 10-15 euros, but the amount 14.50 will be written down on the questionnaire.

Other questions that could be added to the questionnaire if the objective of the research is to investigate the

implications of car restricting measures are

o To respondents that reached the local supermarket by car: what is your reaction when it is not

longer possible to park your car near to the local supermarket?

64

o To respondents that do not have a car available for the activity grocery shopping: what would be

your reaction if you had a car available for this activity?

When the study is repeated, another recommendation will be to start a broad research by the entrepreneurs

who own a shop in the shopping mall were the ‘local’ supermarket or other store is located. With this

expansion it is possible to compare the perception of the entrepreneurs about for instance the relation

between modal split and expenditures with the reality.

As already pointed out, the main conclusion of this thesis is that there is no relation between modal split

and expenditures. It is interesting to detect which variables are influencing expenditures per person of a

household per week in a local supermarket. Income and life-style are variables that are candidates for

having a clarifying impact on both modal split and expenditures in a local supermarket. It would be

possible that people with lifestyle A aspire to do as much activities as possible by bike and thus also try to

visit the local supermarket by bike. It is also possible that people with the same lifestyle are more interested

in biological products and consequently spend more money in a local supermarket. In this example lifestyle

influences both modal split and expenditures in a local supermarket.

The data that is gathered in this thesis demonstrates that the number of persons out of which a household

consists could be a explanatory variable for the amount of money that is spend per person per week. Figure

35 in paragraph 3.7.7 showed the possible relation between the number of people of a household and the

expenditures per person of the household per week that is approximately linear.

Figure 27 in paragraph 3.7.2 demonstrated that people that use the car to visit the local supermarket are

buying daily groceries for a household that consists out of more people than respondents that use another

mode of transport. It is interesting to investigate if this relation also works the other way around. Is there a

relation between the number of people of a household and modal split? Is it true that when a household is

expanded with kids the household chooses for another mode of transport for their groceries?

Most important will be an extensive study about the existence or the absence of the relation between modal

split and expenditures per person of a household per week in more segments and more locations. The result

of this study might be very important for policy implications in the future concerning the parking facilities

around supermarkets and shopping malls.

65

5. Literature References -BRO, (2004) Gemeente ’s Hertogenbosch, binnenstadsmonitor 2004, F.Wigman, T.Draisma, J.Kaai

-Cairns, S., (2005) Delivering supermarket shopping: more or less traffic? Transport Reviews, Volume

25, Number 1, January 2005 , pp. 51-84(34)

-Christiaens, B. , Spape, I., (2000), een fietser is ook goed voor de omzet, afstudeeropdracht studie NHTV,

SOAB

-Diaz, R.B., (1999), Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values, APTA 1999 Rapid Transit Conference

Proceedings Paper

-Ecolane, (2001), The Impact of Pedestrianisation on Retail Economic Activity, in: shoppers an how they

travel, information sheet LN02 (sustrans)

-Hoek, van der R.M. (2007), Introduction in Urban management, Reader course: Real estate and

infrastructure, Erasmus University of Rotterdam.

-Lingwood, P., (2000), Walking in Towns and Cities, Select Committee on Environment, Transport and

Regional Affairs

-P1, (2006), Retail en parkeren. Feiten, visie en kansen, P1 dossier 2, oktober 2006, achtergrond informatie

over parkeren, www.p1.nl/www/fileLib/userFiles/File/P1_brochure_Dossier2.pdf

-Pol, P.M.J, (2002), A Renaissance of stations, railways and cities, Economic effects, development

strategies and organizational issues of European high-speed-train stations, Ph.D. thesis, Delft: Dup

Science: chapter 2

-RAC Foundation, (2006), Motoring towards 2050, shopping and transport policy,

-Stopher, P., (2004), Reducing road congestion: A reality check, Transport Policy, Vol 11, pp. 117-131

-Sustrans, (2003), Traffic restraint and retail vitality, information sheet FF39, www.sustrans.org.uk

-Sustrans, (2006), Real and perceived travel behaviour in Neighbourhood shopping areas in Bristol, final

report January 2006, prepared by Sustrans on behalf of Bristol city council

-Verlaat, van ‘t J., Virtanen, (1999), Urban Land Polic, Goals and Instruments, second edition,

International Federation for Housing and Planning (IFHP)

-Vogelvrije fietser, (augustus 2004), boodschappen op de fiets, www.vogelvrijefietser.nl/archief

-Vogelvrije fietser, (september 2004) Fietsenrekken; de meeste gemiste voorziening van supermarktklanten.

winkelpubliek smacht naar fietsenrekken , www.vogelvrijefietser.nl/archief

-Vogelvrije fietser, (2006) supermarkten roepen consument op fietsend boodschappen te doen,

www.vogelvrijefietser.nl/archief

Internet references -www.cbs.nl -www.fietsersbond.nl

66

Appendix (Dutch) Bijlage 1: verandering van reizigerskilometers per vervoerswijze in de loop der tijd voor het motief

boodschappen doen / winkelen

Vervoer per auto met als doel boodschappen doen is in het laatste decennium toegenomen ten opzichte van

andere vervoersmiddelen. Uit het onderzoek van het Centraal bureau voor de Statistiek blijkt dat het aantal

verplaatsingen per persoon per dag met als motief boodschappen doen / winkelen in de periode 1994 –

2005 is toegenomen voor autobestuurders en is afgenomen voor mensen die te voet, per fiets of met het

openbaar vervoer deze activiteit ondernamen.

Data van het onderzoek verplaatsingsgedrag en het mobiliteitsonderzoek Nederland geeft weer dat

autogebruikers een groter aantal kilometers afleggen dan gebruikers van andere vervoerswijzen in het

segment winkelen / boodschappen doen. Ook blijkt uit deze data dat het totaal aantal afgelegde kilometers

door automobilisten sterker is gestegen in vergelijking tot andere modaliteiten.

Reizigerskilometers (in miljarden) met als ritmotief: boodschappen doen / winkelen.

Bron: CBS 2007

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

vervoerswijze 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Voetganger 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1

Brom/snorfiets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Motor/scooter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Auto 12.0 12.3 12.7 13.1 13.5 12.3 12.1 12.5 12.8 13.2 13.7 13.3 13.2

Bus 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3

Tram / metro 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2

Trein 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5

Overig 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Onbekend 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Totaal 16.3 16.5 16.7 17.4 17.7 16.6 16.3 16.7 17.2 17.4 18.0 17.2 17.1

Bijlage 2: verandering van de mobiliteit per modaliteit:

De tabel geeft voor het onderzoek relevante ontwikkelingen weer. Met behulp van een verandering in het

aantal verplaatsingen per dag kan worden vastgesteld of een bepaalde vervoerswijze vaker of minder vaak

wordt gebruikt.

67

Verplaatsingen per

persoon per dag Afgelegde afstand per persoon per dag

Reisduur per persoon per dag

Vervoerwijzen Perioden aantal km minuten

Alle hoofdvervoerwijzen 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,69 3,09 9,01

1995 0,68 3,12 8,96

1996 0,67 3,13 8,76

1997 0,68 3,25 8,98

1998 0,68 3,28 8,93

1999 0,66 3,06 8,46

2000 0,64 2,96 8,13

2001 0,65 3,01 8,09

2002 0,65 3,07 8,13

2003 0,65 3,09 8,11

2004 0,66 3,17 8,62

2005 0,64 3,03 8,24

Auto (bestuurder) 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,19 1,28 2,58

1995 0,19 1,32 2,62

1996 0,20 1,35 2,65

1997 0,20 1,38 2,72

1998 0,21 1,43 2,83

1999 0,21 1,41 2,80

2000 0,21 1,39 2,71

2001 0,21 1,39 2,69

2002 0,22 1,41 2,73

2003 0,21 1,43 2,74

2004 0,21 1,45 2,88

2005 0,21 1,41 2,75

Auto (passagier) 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,11 0,98 1,74

1995 0,11 1,00 1,74

1996 0,11 1,02 1,72

1997 0,11 1,06 1,79

1998 0,11 1,07 1,82

1999 0,10 0,85 1,53

2000 0,09 0,80 1,41

2001 0,10 0,84 1,48

2002 0,10 0,87 1,50

2003 0,10 0,91 1,53

2004 0,11 0,97 1,71

68

2005 0,10 0,93 1,61

Trein 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,00 . .

1995 0,00 . .

1996 0,00 . .

1997 0,00 . .

1998 0,00 . .

1999 0,00 . .

2000 0,00 . .

2001 0,00 . .

2002 0,00 . .

2003 0,00 . .

2004 . . .

2005 . . .

Bus/tram/metro 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,02 0,14 0,53

1995 0,02 0,11 0,44

1996 0,02 0,13 0,51

1997 0,02 0,12 0,50

1998 0,02 0,12 0,49

1999 0,02 0,14 0,50

2000 0,02 0,14 0,50

2001 0,02 0,14 0,48

2002 0,02 0,16 0,52

2003 0,02 0,12 0,41

2004 0,02 0,12 0,45

2005 0,01 0,12 0,43

Brom-/snorfiets 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,00 . .

1995 0,00 . .

1996 0,00 . .

1997 0,00 . .

1998 0,00 . .

1999 0,00 . .

2000 0,00 . .

2001 0,00 . .

2002 0,00 . .

2003 0,00 . .

2004 . . .

2005 . . .

Fiets 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,21 0,40 2,19

1995 0,20 0,40 2,22

69

1996 0,19 0,38 2,06

1997 0,20 0,40 2,16

1998 0,20 0,38 2,08

1999 0,19 0,35 1,89

2000 0,18 0,35 1,83

2001 0,18 0,35 1,81

2002 0,18 0,34 1,76

2003 0,19 0,36 1,83

2004 0,18 0,35 1,90

2005 0,18 0,35 1,86

Lopen 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,16 0,13 1,67

1995 0,15 0,12 1,64

1996 0,14 0,12 1,55

1997 0,14 0,12 1,51

1998 0,14 0,11 1,41

1999 0,13 0,11 1,39

2000 0,13 0,10 1,34

2001 0,13 0,11 1,31

2002 0,13 0,10 1,26

2003 0,12 0,10 1,24

2004 0,13 0,11 1,33

2005 0,13 0,11 1,32

Overige hoofdvervoerwijzen 1990 . . .

1991 . . .

1992 . . .

1993 . . .

1994 0,00 . .

1995 0,00 . .

1996 0,00 . .

1997 0,00 . .

1998 0,00 . .

1999 0,00 . .

2000 0,00 . .

2001 0,00 . .

2002 0,01 0,02 0,08

2003 0,01 0,02 0,09

2004 0,01 0,02 0,09

2005 0,01 0,02 0,08

70

Bijlage 3: aantal personenauto’s per huishouden per gemeente

Bron: CBS/RDW

Autobezit per huishouden

inwoners

1-1-2003

huishoudens

1-1-2003

personenauto's

1-1-2003

personenauto's

per

huishouden

1-1-2003

Amsterdam 736.562 405.211 240.413 0,59

Groningen 177.172 101.102 63.311 0,63

Rotterdam 599.651 302.161 196.093 0,65

Leiden 117.689 60.992 41.782 0,69

's-Gravenhage 463.826 233.052 160.270 0,69

Maastricht 121.982 60.996 44.476 0,73

Arnhem 141.528 69.336 52.613 0,76

Utrecht 265.151 138.561 105.934 0,76

Haarlem 147.097 71.453 55.585 0,78

Enschede 152.321 71.592 60.639 0,85

Zwolle 109.955 49.556 42.483 0,86

Eindhoven 206.118 99.754 86.082 0,86

Dordrecht 120.043 53.032 46.010 0,87

Zaanstad 139.464 60.580 52.868 0,87

Tilburg 197.917 90.292 79.289 0,88

Amersfoort 131.221 56.439 52.858 0,94

Nijmegen 156.198 80.497 76.375 0,95

Zoetermeer 112.594 46.552 44.476 0,96

's-Hertogenbosch 132.501 59.517 107.833 0,99

Breda 164.397 74.819 98.249 1,02

Apeldoorn 155.741 65.567 67.826 1,03

Emmen 108.198 45.187 47.098 1,04

Ede 104.771 41.148 43.131 1,05

71

Almere 165.106 65.484 75.366 1,15

Haarlemmermeer 122.902 49.605 93.322 1,20

Nederland 16.192.572 1,0

Bijlage 4: Uitkomsten van ANOVA toetsen ten aanzien van de hoofdvraag

Figuur 1: uitgaven per persoon per week met als factor modaliteit

ANOVA uitgavenperpersoon

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 649.173 3 216.391 .417 .741 Within Groups 286479.59

7 552 518.985

Total 287128.769 555

Figuur 2: uitgaven per persoon per week met als factor categorie

ANOVA uitgavenperpersoon

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1912.909 3 637.636 1.231 .298 Within Groups 285499.33

3 551 518.148

Total 287412.242 554

72

Bijlage 5: passantenenquete 1 Met welk vervoersmiddel bent u naar de winkel gekomen? Auto Te Voet Per Fiets Met het openbaar vervoer Anders namelijk: 2a Komt u vaker met dit vervoersmiddel naar de supermarkt? 2b Hoeveel keer per week 2c Gebruikt u nog een ander vervoersmiddel om naar de supermarkt te komen 2d Bent u de enige die boodschappen doet in het gezin? 2e Zo nee, welke vervoermiddelen gebruikt die ander en hoe vaak gebruikt hij / zij dit Aantal keren gebruik gemaakt van de auto Aantal keren te voet naar de supermarkt Aantal keren gebruik gemaakt van de fiets Aantal keren gebruik gemaakt van OV 3 In welke categorie valt het bedrag dat u bij dit winkelbezoek hebt besteed? 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100-105 105-110 110-115 115-120 120-125 125+ 3B Als het vervoermiddel niet de auto is, wordt de vraag gesteld of er wel een auto beschikbaar was. 4 voor hoeveel personen doet u boodschappen? 5 Hoeveel andere winkels zal u naast deze winkel in dit winkelcentrum vandaag bezoeken? 6 wat is uw postcode? (cijfers en letters) 7 Kunt u inschatten hoeveel geld uw gezin gemiddeld uitgeeft aan boodschappen per week? Blanco Leeftijd:

0-18 18-30 30-55 55+ Geslacht:

Man Vrouw

Datum:

Wel Niet

23

73

Tijd:

Documents

Relation between modal split and expenditures in local supermarkets