Shopping travel behaviour: influencing factors, shopper types and environmental consequences

International Journal of Retail & Distribution ManagementShopping travel behaviour: influencing factors, shopper types and environmental consequences:

Anne Wiese Stephan Zielke Waldemar Toporowski

Article information:To cite this document:Anne Wiese Stephan Zielke Waldemar Toporowski , (2015),"Shopping travel behaviour: influencing factors, shopper types and environmental consequences", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 4/5 pp. -

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-01-2015-0006Downloaded on: 08 April 2015, At: 21:12 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 76 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Yohan Bernard, Laurent Bertrandias, Leila Elgaaied-Gambier, (2015),"Shoppers grocery choices in the presence of generalized eco-labelling", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 4/5 pp. -

Matthias Lehner, (2015),"Translating sustainability: the role of the retail store", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 4/5 pp. -

Lise Magnier, Dominique Cri, (2015),"Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: an exploration of consumers perceptions of eco-designed packaging", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 4/5 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 551360 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Shopping travel behaviour: influencing factors, shopper types and environmental consequences1 IntroductionSome recent studies have found that shopping in online retailing causes fewerCO2 emissions than in brick-and-mortar retailing (Edwards et al., 2010; Weber et al.,2008; Wiese et al., 2012). This result might endanger traditional business formats by triggering negative publicity. Interestingly, the CO2 emissions of shopping in the brick-and-mortar channel are mainly caused by customer journeys to the stores and not by the transport processes along the supply chain (Edwards et al., 2009; Wiese et al., 2012). Hence, when aiming to reduce environmental pollution, retailers and policy makers should strengthen the motivation for more environmentally friendly consumer shopping travel behaviour.In order to do so, a deeper understanding of this consumer behaviour is necessary, as the first step toward bringing about changes in travel behaviour that reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions is an understanding of the component behaviours and the factors that influence them what people do and why they do it (Handy and Krizek,2012, p. 43). To understand consumer travel behaviour for shopping trips and its environmental effects, the relevant factors influencing consumer behaviour must be identified, analysed and evaluated with respect to their environmental impacts. Until now, researchers have mainly focused on single influencing factors and their effects, such as the influence of multi-purpose (Arentze et al., 1993), multi-destination shopping (Brooks et al., 2008) or the effect of trip chaining on the use of public transport (Hensher and Reyes, 2000). In contrast, the interdependencies between the influencing factors for instance how the life cycle situation affects the relevance of mobility and thereby the transport mode choice have scarcely been analysed. Due to the complexity of travel decisions, it is crucial to address these interdependencies with an appropriate research design. Clifton and Handy (2001, p. 3) highlight the lack of understanding by mentioning that the more we understand about travel behaviour, the more we recognize how much there is that we don't understand. In contrast to the applied quantitative models that constitute the majority of the research thus far, a qualitative approach facilitates the incorporation of various influence

factors on travel behaviour and makes the motives steering consumer behaviour visible. Al-Jammal and Parkany (2002, unpaged) reveal that such methods explain why people make certain travel choices through probing for underlying reasons leading to final outcomes. Ye et al. (2007, p. 112) point out that to truly understand and identify causal relationships, data regarding underlying behavioural processes and decision mechanisms are needed.Hence, although many papers address consumer travel behaviour and its environmental effects, a comprehensive analysis, particularly in relation to shopping trips, is missing. The objective of this paper is therefore (1) developing a comprehensive framework of influencing factors of shopping travel behaviour and (2) analysing relationships between these influencing factors and how they strengthen or weaken environmentally friendly shopping travel behaviour.Addressing these objectives, a systematic literature review is conducted to provide the theoretical framework for the development of a comprehensive model. Afterwards, a qualitative study based on the derived model identifies and clarifies interrelations between the influencing factors. The results of this study also illustrate how the different factors and their interrelations influence shopping travel behaviour in different customer life cycles and for different shopper types. In a last step, implications for retailers, policy makers and researchers are deducted.2 Theoretical background and research frameworkMode of transport is the most relevant aspect of consumer behaviour in terms of the environmental effects of shopping trips. These effects can be mitigated through environmentally friendly modes of transport, such as walking, cycling or public transportation (Haustein and Hunecke, 2007). Here, a more detailed view is necessary to understand how consumers choose transport modes when planning their shopping trips. As transport mode choice has a significant effect on environmental pollution, the analysis of influencing factors is particularly important. Closely related to transport mode choice is trip chaining, which is the connection of trips. The influencing factors of travel behaviour in general and transport mode choice in particular can be grouped into sociodemographic variables, personal/psychological characteristics, situational variables and external variables.

Most research has found that the sociodemographic variables age, gender, number of children and life cycle as a combination of these help to explain travel behaviour (Al- Jammal and Parkany, 2002; Gould et al., 1998; McGuckin et al., 2005). Moreover, the residential location is relevant as it influences the availability of transport modes and thereby affects the transport mode choice.Other influencing factors related to travel behaviour are psychological consumer characteristics. Here, the perceived mobility necessity, i.e. peoples perceptions of mobility-related consequences of their personal living circumstances (Haustein and Hunecke, 2007, p. 1878), is relevant because certain living situations make it more difficult to reduce car use when public transport is unable to fulfil transport needs. A further characteristic that might be relevant is the perception of transport modes, i.e. whether people drive because of the attractiveness of car use or because of the unattractiveness of non-car travel (Gardner and Abraham, 2010). Symbolic and affective aspects have proven to be of similar relevance to traditional motives such as cost and time (Ellaway et al., 2003; Steg, 2005). Moreover, the environmental consciousness of a person is related to travel behaviour as environmental beliefs might support a reduction of car use (Shen et al., 2008), although research has yielded different results on this topic (Beiro and Sarsfield Cabral, 2007).Travel behaviour is also influenced by situational variables (Klckner and Friedrichsmeier, 2011), which depend on the goods that are purchased and the day the shopping trip is conducted. These aspects can therefore differ with each shopping trip a person makes. In general, the utility of travelling by public transport modes decreases with greater trip complexity (Hensher and Reyes, 2000). Moreover, there can be significant differences in consumer trip chaining behaviour over various days of the week (Al-Jammal and Parkany, 2002), and the design of trip chains might differ between various transport modes (Lee et al., 2002). Closely related to the aforementioned aspects is multi-purpose shopping, which often leads to trip chaining. Consumers might differ in their behaviour with respect to the purpose of their shopping trip. For instance, single-purpose shoppers try to minimize prices and distance costs, whereas multi-purpose shoppers also include regional characteristics such as other retailers or restaurants in their destination choice (Popkowski Leszczyc et al., 2004). Hence, multi-purpose shoppers might travel greater distances and stop

more than once to do their shopping, which might affect their transport mode choice. In addition, the routine or habit involved in carrying out some trips might influence behaviour as there is evidence that people do not question these tours as much as other ones (Chen and Chao, 2011; Lee et al., 2002). Brooks et al. (2008) analyse preferences for different geographical destinations within trip chaining. They find that customers try to minimize not only the travel distance but also the subjective travel costs. The enjoyability or importance of destinations in the trip chain might lead to discounting the distance costs. Regarding shopping trips, for instance, consumers might be willing to travel longer distances to reach their favourite clothing store, causing greater environmental pollution and possibly also a change in travel mode choice, e.g. by switching from public transport to cars for longer travels.Furthermore, external variables that cannot be influenced by the consumer affect behaviour. The connection to public transport modes is important because consumers living in an area with limited public transport might opt to travel by car. In addition, opening times of stores are relevant (Al-Jammal and Parkany, 2002) as they might, for instance, restrict the possibility of trip chaining after work or lead to car use. Also regulations regarding retailing at weekends are relevant. In several European countries stores are usually not allowed to open on Sundays, forcing customers to concentrate their weekend shopping trips on one day. The weather can also have a major impact on the transport mode choice (Jakobsson, 2004); for example, rain might prevent environmentally friendly behaviour when consumers are unwilling to cycle or walk in such conditions.This short literature review reveals that consumers can behave less optimally in designing their shopping trips than one would expect from a cost-minimizing perspective (Dellaert et al., 1998). Furthermore, the influencing factors may also cause consumers to make transport mode choices that are not optimal from an environmental perspective. The huge complexity of travel decisions was clarified, and the different influencing factors derived are closely related. Sociodemographic factors, such as life cycles, may influence psychological characteristics, such as the perceived mobility necessity. The sociodemographic variable residential location is closely related to the external variable connection to public transport. Hence, the

various influencing factors should be incorporated together and not considered individually.Figure I provides a concluding overview of the four categories identified as relevant for shopping travel behaviour and its environmental effects. The three aspects pictured in the upper line show the influencing factors related to the consumer and his or her behaviour. In contrast, the right-hand side depicts the external influencing factors that can either be steered by retailers and policy makers (like public transport connections) or cannot be influenced at all (like the weather). In general, all aspects affect the travel behaviour, particularly the transport mode choice. These consumer decisions predominantly influence the pollution caused by shopping trips.>> Figure I hereThe literature research demonstrates that there is still a lack of knowledge concerning how consumers choose transport modes and design their shopping trips. The causal relationship between transport mode choice and trip chain complexity must be examined in greater detail. Furthermore, insight into how the influencing factors interact is needed. A qualitative research design is an appropriate method to shed more light on the role of influencing factors and their interdependencies.3 Research MethodTravel choices are complex and involve various attributes, which makes analysing them computationally burdensome and causes a trade-off between behavioural realism and complexity (Ben-Akiva et al., 1998, pp. 11, 13). A qualitative approach facilitates the incorporation of various influencing factors on travel behaviour and makes the motives steering consumer behaviour visible. In particular, as discussed above, the concurrence of the various influencing factors should be analysed. To plan the research approach, a detailed list of questions was deduced from the results of the literature review, forming the basis for focusing and conducting the study (Maxwell,2008). Table I provides an overview of the questions, following the influencing factors depicted in Figure I.>> Table I here

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to obtain answers related to the questions raised in Table I. This method involves prepared questioning guided by identified themes in a consistent and systematic manner interposed with probes designed to elicit more elaborate responses (Qu and Dumay, 2011, p. 246). Thus, the interviewer can apply the same thematic approach in all interviews but is still able to react flexibly to the responses of the interviewee (Qu and Dumay, 2011). Various aspects must be considered in choosing the interviewees. As research has shown that different stages in the life cycle are relevant to travel behaviour (Al- Jammal and Parkany, 2002; Golob, 1986; McGuckin et al., 2005), five groups were considered: young people without children, people with preschool children, people with school children, older people with out-of-house or no children and retired people. In addition to the life cycle phase, the residential location is important as there might be differences in shopping behaviour depending on the residential area. To structure the various residential areas, the central place theory (King, 1985) was applied, incorporating the different kinds of supply that are offered by locations. Low-order centres provide a basic supply, such as supermarkets, a medical service and an elementary school. Some interviewees of this study live in villages that do not even offer this supply. Middle-order centres offer a basic supply and periodical supply; they also have hospitals, cinemas and secondary schools. A high-order centre is a city offering a basic supply, periodical supply and specific supply, including specialized hospitals, universities, museums etc. Table II shows the structure of the interviewees. One interviewee was recruited for each cell of the table (15 interviewees in total). This procedure of interviewee selection is called purposeful sampling, i.e. persons [...] are deliberately selected for the important information they can provide that cannot be gotten as well from other choices (Maxwell, 2008, p. 235), which differs from the convenience or probability sampling often applied in quantitative research.>> Table II hereThe interviews were conducted in the winter of 2012/13 in Germany. To avoid any bias caused by differences in interviewer behaviour, the same interviewer conducted all interviews. To secure relationship-based ethics (Qu and Dumay, 2011), the interviewees were neither friends nor family members of the interviewer. The

interview guideline was based on the questions displayed in Table I. The interviews comprised five steps. First, the interviewer introduced the topic, described as general shopping behaviour to prevent social desirability (Qu and Dumay, 2011). Detailed information about the aim of the research project was provided after the interview. Second, the interviewee was encouraged to talk about his or her most recent shopping trip. Consequently, this approach tells it like it really was (Maxwell,2008, p. 222). Third, the interviewer asked detailed questions about the transport mode use, trip chaining etc., based on the information given. Fourth, the focus shifted to the perceived mobility necessity, the perception of environmental issues and expectations of policy makers and retailers. Finally, the interview was concluded with general questions about the interviewees sociodemographic characteristics.The interviews lasted between twelve and thirty-three minutes, depending on the interviewees means of providing information. Whilst some of them talked freely, others had to be prompted with questions, leading to shorter interviews. The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.The analysis was conducted with the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software NVivo, which helps to control the huge amount of data generated in qualitative research (Maclaran and Catterall, 2002). The software was applied for structuring the data and finding connections between the contents of the different interviews. The interviewer conducted the analysis of the interviews to ensure that the interview context was captured adequately. As it is often mentioned that the researcher must be careful not to get lost in coding by falling into the coding trap (Marshall, 2002, p. 62) and should maintain focus on the complete context, the transcribed interviews were read thoroughly several times.4 ResultsThis section provides the results of analysing the interviews, structured with respect to groups of influencing factors. As the research questions yield various interdependencies, the results are presented together in the following without reference to the individual research questions.

4.1 Influence of life cycle and psychographicsThe interviews highlighted the relevance of mobility for most interviewees. In particular, parents with older children have a high perceived mobility necessity. They must bring their children to appointments with friends, sports, doctors appointments etc., structuring their lives on the requirements of their children. Combining childcare with job issues complicates the situation and therefore influences transport mode choices for shopping trips. For instance, interviewee G must hurry after work to be home in time to prepare lunch. She would consider cycling to work when her children are older and she no longer has to hurry so much. Interviewee I mentioned that, due to juggling all of her obligations, she rarely cycles as it takes more time than driving, even though she used to cycle often. For parents with younger children, the perceived mobility necessity is smaller, but using public transport is complicated by having to bring along the pram etc. In general, public transport cannot fulfil the requirements of these life cycle groups.Interviewee C always cycles, even in the snow and rain, as using the bus is very unattractive to her. Using the car also seems to be a matter of course for most interviewees. Although interviewee C generally cycles in everyday life, she routinely uses the car when she stays at her mothers home as it is there. Interviewee E does not know anything about the bus timetable; she does not think about it, because she has a car. Interviewee F has a company car, which he uses all time, although he claimed he might not use the car that often if he had to pay for petrol etc. himself. These examples demonstrate that the availability of a car seems to blind people to other transport modes, supporting research results that highlight the habitual behaviour of private car use (Beiro and Sarsfield Cabral, 2007; Chen and Chao,2011). One of the most interesting results is that the interviewees do not change transport modes as often as might be expected from the research. Most people only use one transport mode regularly, which in most cases is the car (interviewees A, B, D, E, F, G, J, K, L, M and O) and in one case the bicycle (interviewee C). Interviewee I mostly uses the car but also cycles or takes the bus, whilst interviewee H alternates between car and bike. Interviewee N does not own a car but sometimes goes shopping with her daughter, who drives her to the shops, or walks to the city centre.

The discussion above indicates that there are differences between the life cycles. Although the three people interviewed in each life cycle group differ in their behaviour and characteristics, they have some commonalities that are presented in Table III to provide an overview of the aspects considered relevant for shopping trip behaviour. The table clarifies the main characteristics and the perceived mobility necessity. In addition, the relevance of cars and the perception of public transport are analysed.>> Table III hereWith one exception, all the interviewees stated that they try to behave in an environmentally conscious manner and consider environmental issues in daily life. The interviewees differ greatly in terms of their dedication, e.g. eating a vegetarian diet, buying mainly organic products or saving energy and water (which, of course, also carries financial benefits). Regarding the environmental effects of travel, many interviewees frequently trip chain and also mentioned that they try to avoid additional journeys. Moreover, it was noted that many would be willing to use public transport more often if there were better connections. This supports Belz's (2006) claim that convenience for the consumer is an important aspect in sustainability marketing. However, the flexibility and comfort of a car seem to be difficult to substitute with public transport. Here, a persons environmental consciousness might be the catalyst behind the decision to use public transport instead of the car.4.2 Influence of situational and external factorsMost interviewees, including those living in cities, use a car for their shopping trips; only one person occasionally uses public transport modes for grocery shopping or other purchases, testifying to the unattractiveness of public transport for shopping trips. The main impediment to using public transport mentioned was large shopping baskets. Multi-purpose shopping was not explicitly acknowledged as a barrier to using public transport. Although most interviewees trip chain often, some do their grocery shopping as a single trip. Many have a detailed list but are also open-minded to impulse buying (except interviewee L, who only buys things from his list). There are only small differences in behaviour between grocery and other shopping; in both cases, cars are the main mode of transport and nearly all interviewees try to connect

trips. Hence, the influence of products appears to be quite small. Whilst in general, most interviewees did not have enjoyable shopping destinations for which they would be willing to travel long distances, interviewees B, K and I undertake longer trips to favoured shopping centres or other cities. These trips are infrequent and planned to buy many things at once. Interviewee I even used the train to go shopping in another city.Regarding the external variables, the public transport supply is an important driver of transport mode choice. On the whole, the interviewees evaluated public transport negatively. They predominantly mentioned poor connections, e.g. few services per day or lengthy travel times, as the main reason. Hence, the availability of public transport greatly influences the transport mode choice. Most interviewees mentioned insufficient connections as the main reason for not using public transport, particularly in rural but also urban areas. Some also cited high fares as another factor. However, the majority of interviewees stated that they would be willing to use public transport if there were better connections and, therefore, the main advantage of using the car instead of public transport was flexibility. One person (interviewee N) disclosed that she prefers walking or driving because public transport is usually crowded and she perceives a high risk of illness, especially in the wintertime.4.3 Shopper typesAfter the systematic analysis, a customer segmentation was developed, mainly focusing on the life cycles. However, despite having similar life cycle backgrounds, consumers might differ in personal characteristics and react differently to situational and external factors. To gain a deeper understanding of various types of consumer behaviour, we structured the interviewees with respect to different characteristics. Thus, the information gained in the interviews was used to develop a typology that provides a broader perspective on consumer behaviour.The interviews revealed that, in particular, the expectations of flexibility and comfort diverge among the interviewees. Hence, the most relevant aspects for travel behaviour and transport mode choices are the planning and the role transport modes have to fulfil for the consumer. Table IV describes the four segments identified

The Nave, The Rational, The Spontaneous and The Optimizer in general and according to the aforementioned aspects planning and role of transport mode. Furthermore, it illustrates how the segments are linked to the specific life cycles.>> Table IV hereTable IV shows that all people with children were grouped as Rational or Nave. This indicates that these people have a high need for planning and comfort in transport mode choices in their daily lives. In contrast, people without children can either behave more flexibly, e.g. by going shopping when food is needed, or be more optimizing, e.g. by planning detailed or intensive trips to get the cheapest offer. In general, flexibility and comfort seem to be the most important aspects of travel behaviour. Therefore, these aspects should be the focus when aiming to improve the environmental friendliness of shopping trips by choosing respective transport modes.Furthermore, the typology illustrates that consumer segments should be addressed differently to enhance the use of more environmentally friendly transport modes. For instance, the Nave should be provided with information about transport alternatives, clarifying that they are attractive and can fulfil their needs. The Rational generally considers other transport modes but mainly feels that they do not meet their requirements, such as a high degree of flexibility. In this case, an improvement of transport modes regarding flexibility seems necessary. The Spontaneous requires transport modes that support his or her behaviour, including a low level of planning and a high degree of spontaneity. These needs are difficult to meet with the limited timetables and restricted service of public transport, and thus its use is hindered. The Optimizer mainly uses the car because it offers support for his or her behaviour. For instance, only one perfectly planned shopping trip is conducted per week, leading to one huge shopping basket, or purchases at various retailers are connected to gain the best price. In general, public transport modes lack the flexibility required to connect stops at different retailers or the comfort necessary for bringing huge shopping baskets home. Here, the usefulness of transport modes should be improved and communicated, for instance by using delivery services to enhance the attractiveness of public transport use.

In addition to the information on consumer behaviour, the expectations consumers have of retailers and policy makers with regard to environmental aspects were also evaluated in the interviews. The main results, with a focus on travel behaviour, are presented in the following.4.4 Expectations from retailers and policy makersWhen the interviewees were asked about their expectations for the environmental performance of retailers, they mainly cited aspects related to assortment, packaging or commitment to social and environmental issues. Aspects of consumer travel were only mentioned by the interviewees when the interviewer asked about it directly, perhaps indicating that their travel behaviour has become routine and they do not really think about other options. This emphasises the importance of interventions by retailers and policy makers to break such habits. An interesting option might be delivery services, which can curb environmental pollution (Cairns, 2005). When asked about the willingness to use services such as home delivery, most interviewees declared that they disliked using them. It was primarily stated that shopping in person is preferred because they can explore the assortment offered. In addition, some interviewees mentioned the social component of shopping, such as meeting neighbours. This result supports the findings of Belz (2006), who found few opportunities for delivery services.At this point, a more detailed examination of consumer characteristics is required to evaluate which consumers might be receptive to delivery services. Interviewee L only buys items he noted earlier on his shopping list and mentioned that he would be very willing to use a delivery service, as it would save him time. Interviewee H came up with the suggestion of doing the shopping herself but having it delivered to her home by the retailer. This would enable her to walk or go by bike, and she would not have to go home directly after shopping but could instead do some other errands as well on the same tour. Interviewee F expressed an interest in a service that provides cooking recipes and delivers the necessary ingredients to the customers home. He could also imagine submitting his shopping list online and then picking up the shopping bags at the store. However, he has not yet tried these services, as his wife remains unconvinced of their usefulness. Once, interviewee I used a department

stores delivery service that was offered for free when she spontaneously bought a playhouse for her children and was in the city by bike. Interviewee A already receives the so-called green box (Grne Kiste in German), which contains local fruits and vegetables and is delivered once a week by a local farmer. She also has a subscription at Amazon.de to supply her regularly with necessary household goods, such as toilet paper. This usage demonstrates that these business concepts already receive some attention and can be successful.In particular, delivery concepts seem attractive to people who plan their shopping in detail (and do not act spontaneously) or who are highly stressed in their daily lives. Moreover, delivery services offering additional utility such as the green box or the complete package with cooking recipes might be valued highly. This could also give retailers a great opportunity to differentiate themselves from competitors by reaching a unique sustainable selling position (Belz, 2006).The interviewees differed greatly in their opinions on the influence and responsibilities of policy makers. Whilst some mentioned that sufficient information is provided and that policy makers are doing enough to contribute to environmental sustainability in Germany, others said that they expect greater efforts. When asked about travel issues, the interviewees mainly mentioned better connections on public transport as a way to reduce their car use. However, others added that capacity utilizations are also important, particularly in rural regions. For instance, interviewee D mentioned that a shuttle bus for bringing tourists to a nearby castle drives past her house several times per day, and every time she sees the bus it is either empty or nearly empty. She therefore questions whether offering this shuttle is sensible or just causes additional pollution. Consequently, policy makers must examine this in greater detail to ensure that the transport modes are actually used.This discussion makes it clear that retailers and policy makers should try to gain as deep an understanding of consumer behaviour as possible in order to offer appropriate solutions that fit the consumers needs and help prevent environmental damage. Some interviewees also expressed resignation, as they believe either that they can have little effect on environmental impacts or that other consumers do not care enough about these issues. It was also noted that industries are huge polluters and that policy makers should focus on addressing these companies instead of

consumers. Here, retailers and policy makers should try to clarify the impact that each consumer can have on the environmental effects of shopping travel behaviour. This is supported by lander and Thgersen (1995), who declare that policies increasing a feeling of empowerment may also have a positive effect on consumer motivation to make an effort.5 DiscussionIn contrast to earlier research, the broader approach of this study provides a comprehensive perspective on the influencing factors and effects of consumer shopping travel behaviour. The synthesis of various influencing factors in an integrated framework is an important first contribution of this paper. Second, the qualitative research approach shed light on interactions between influencing factors while providing a life cycle model and a more general shopper typology, which help in understanding individual motivations for choosing more or less environmentally friendly transport modes. We discuss this now in greater detail.It was found that two main aspects hinder environmentally friendly behaviour: the negative evaluation of public transport and the perceived mobility necessity of the different life cycles, which affects parents in particular. The most important issues in travel mode choices are related to comfort and flexibility. Furthermore, it was determined that consumers differ in their behaviour with respect to the planning of shopping trips and the evaluation of transport modes.Incorporating these results, researchers should address consumers needs and characteristics in further detail. As the life cycle situation has a considerable impact on shopping travel behaviour, future research should try to incorporate different groups of consumers to achieve more specific results. Furthermore, personal characteristics are relevant, as the willingness to change behaviour can differ. Consumers vary in their environmental consciousness, leading to differing predispositions for environmental issues. Moreover, the way consumers plan and conduct their shopping trips diverges, resulting in different starting points for addressing changes. Hence, researchers should try to evaluate the respondents characteristics to identify applicable approaches.

Unexpectedly, the interviewees did not vary their transport modes considerably, so it was impossible to further determine the relationship between transport mode choice and trip complexity. However, this outcome might indicate that the topic is not as relevant as suspected in earlier research. Nevertheless, the results are supported by Lo et al. (2013), who found that the change between transport modes was relatively low with respect to working trips. To learn more about this, future research should analyse this aspect further, perhaps by conducting interviews only in cities to increase the probability of switching transport mode. Moreover, it would be interesting to address users of different transport modes directly in order to evaluate their perceptions and behaviour. In addition, future research should address this issue by incorporating cultural differences. For instance, bicycles are common transport modes in India and the Netherlands, whilst cycling is more of a leisure activity in the USA (van Herk et al., 2005).Moreover, the results add knowledge on how certain theories should be developed further. It was shown that consumers tend to underestimate the impact they can have on environmental effects; this aspect should be analysed in greater detail to evaluate how consumer efforts towards sustainability can be enhanced. It was also revealed that comfort and flexibility are very important for consumer behaviour. Therefore, these aspects should be evaluated as characteristics in quantitative methods for calculating utility functions, e.g. conjoint analyses or discrete choice models. For instance, flexibility could be evaluated by the frequency with which public transport is offered (e.g. every 5 minutes, every 30 minutes). The aspect of comfort can be evaluated using, for instance, additional information on extra space for prams, implying family friendliness. By incorporating these aspects, more can be learnt about the relevance they have for the various life cycle groups, as it can be assumed that utility values differ between the groups.In addition, implications can be deduced for retailers who want to improve their image regarding sustainability issues and policy makers who want to encourage environmentally friendly behaviour. In general, there seems to be a communication problem. As mentioned above, consumers undervalue their impact on environmental issues. Some interviewees mentioned that they do not have a significant impact and that they expect policy makers and industries to start with mitigating environmental

impacts. Therefore, the communication policies of retailers and policy makers must first be enhanced. Consumers should receive more detailed information about the effects of their behaviour, clarifying the high impact they have, and thus motivating consumers to improve their behaviour and perhaps achieving a significant reduction in environmental pollution. In a second step, retailers and policy makers should support consumers in enhancing their behaviour. Some starting points for this are discussed in the following.For retailers, offering delivery services would be an option for reducing consumer journeys and substituting them with more efficient processes. However, as the interviews indicated that most consumers prefer shopping on their own, delivery services seem to have little chance of success. Nevertheless, some interviewees expressed an interest in such business ideas. Innovative delivery concepts could be made more attractive by adding an extra value, such as the idea of providing a recipe and the related ingredients as a service. This is supported by Belz (2006), who suggests that delivery services should concentrate on niche markets or add differential criteria to traditional business models. Hence, retailers should focus on innovative concepts that offer extra value to the consumers, which might result in a unique sustainable selling position being reached (Belz, 2006). Some interviewees were also open-minded to services such as doing the shopping themselves but having the goods delivered to their homes. This approach would enable walking or cycling to the stores, as the consumers would not have to carry their shopping home. Furthermore, trip chaining might be facilitated as the consumer could run other errands together with his or her shopping trip. This aspect can also be supported by shopping agglomerations, which facilitate trip chaining.Transport service providers should improve the child friendliness of public transport modes to increase their use, e.g. more space for prams or special fares for families. The analysis for different consumer types regarding general shopping behaviour yielded four types that vary in their transport mode requirements. Therefore, in addition to sociodemographic aspects, the differences in consumer types should be considered. For instance, an amalgamation of private and public transport might become important in the future, as interviewees often cited issues of flexibility and comfort. Hence, more flexible transport modes, such as shared taxis,

are needed to fulfil the needs of consumers. As some consumer types seem to be set on using their cars, the policy should improve the perception of public transport and point out the existence of other possibilities. Here again, aspects of communication policy are highly relevant. The interviewees often trip chain, which should be considered in urban planning in order to facilitate environmentally friendly behaviour. Retail agglomerations should be created to provide opportunities for multi-purpose shopping. Moreover, people might favour nearby job-site locations because of their ability to make midday personal business tours (Ben-Akiva et al.,1998, p. 12). Urban planning that incorporates work and shopping places, i.e. multi- mix land use, can support this and enhance environmentally friendly behaviour.The limitations of this study are similar to those related to qualitative studies in general (Maxwell, 2008; Sinkovics et al., 2005). In particular, the sample size and composition might have influenced the results. Most of the interviewees own a car that they use as their primary means of transport, which limits the information that can be gained about switching transport modes. However, bearing in mind the high level of car ownership in Germany, the results might be representative for this market. An important aspect in qualitative research is the discussion of its generalizability. The study was conducted in Germany, but the use and perception of transport modes may differ in other countries, as mentioned above for bicycles in India or the USA (van Herk et al., 2005). Therefore, different results might emerge for other countries.

ReferencesAl-Jammal, R. and Parkany, E. (2002), The integration of qualitative and quantitative methodologies: framework and quick examples, in Transportation Research Board82nd Annual Meeting.Arentze, T., Borgers, A. and Timmermans, H. (1993), A model of multi-purpose shopping trip behavior, Paper in Regional Science: The Journal of the RSAI, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp.239256.Beiro, G. and Sarsfield Cabral, J.A. (2007), Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: a qualitative study, Transport Policy, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp.478489.Belz, F.-M. (2006), Marketing in the age of sustainable development, in Munch Andersen, M. and Tukker, A. (Eds.), Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), Copenhagen, pp. 299314.Ben-Akiva, M., Bowman, J., Ramming, S. and Walker, J. (1998), Behavioral realism in urban transportation planning models, in Transportation Models in the Policy-Making Process: A Symposium in Memory of Greig Harvey, Pacific Grove, CA.Brooks, C., Kaufmann, P. and Lichtenstein, D. (2008), Trip chaining behavior in multi- destination shopping trips: a field experiment and laboratory replication, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 2938.Chen, C.-F. and Chao, W.-H. (2011), Habitual or reasoned? Using the theory of planned behavior, technology acceptance model, and habit to examine switching intentions toward public transit, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 128137.Clifton, K.J. and Handy, S.L. (2001), Qualitative methods in travel behaviour research, in International Conference on Transport Survey Quality and Innovation, Kruger National Park, South Africa.Dellaert, B.G.C., Arentze, T.A., Bierlaire, M., Borgers, A.W.J. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (1998), Investigating consumers tendency to combine multiple shopping purposes and destinations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 177188.Edwards, J.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Cullinane, S.L. (2009), Carbon Auditing the Last Mile: Modelling the Environmental Impacts of Conventional and Online Non-food Shopping, Edinburgh, UK.Edwards, J.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Cullinane, S.L. (2010), Comparative analysis of the carbon footprints of conventional and online retailing: a last mile perspective, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40 No.1/2, pp. 103123.Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., Hiscock, R. and Kearns, A. (2003), In the driving seat: psychosocial benefits from private motor vehicle transport compared to public transport, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 6No. 3, pp. 217231.

Gardner, B. and Abraham, C. (2010), Going green? Modeling the impact of environmental concerns and perceptions of transportation alternatives on decisions to drive, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 831849.Golob, T.F. (1986), A nonlinear canonical correlation analysis of weekly trip chaining behaviour, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp.385399.Gould, J., Golob, T.F. and Barwise, P. (1998), Why Do People Drive to Shop? Future Travel and Telecommunications Tradeoffs, UC Irvine, CA.Handy, S.L. and Krizek, K.J. (2012), The role of travel behaviour research in reducing the carbon footprint: A US perspective, in Travel Behaviour Research in an Evolving World, International Association for Travel Behavior Research (IATBR), pp. 3758.Haustein, S. and Hunecke, M. (2007), Reduced use of environmentally friendly modes of transportation caused by perceived mobility necessities: an extension of the theory of planned behavior, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 18561883.Hensher, D.A. and Reyes, A.J. (2000), Trip chaining as a barrier to the propensity to use public transport, Transportation, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 341361.Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y.H. and Verhallen, T.M.M. (2005), Equivalence of survey data:relevance for international marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No.3/4, pp. 351364.Jakobsson, C. (2004), Accuracy of household planning of car use: comparing prospective to actual car logs, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3142.King, L.J. (1985), Central Place Theory, Sage Publications, Bevery Hills, CA, 2nd ed. Klckner, C.A. and Friedrichsmeier, T. (2011), A multi-level approach to travel modechoice how person characteristics and situation specific aspects determine car use in astudent sample, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 261277.Lee, M.S., Chung, J.-H. and McNally, M.G. (2002), An Empirical Investigation of theUnderlying Behavioral Processes of Trip Chaining, UC Irvine, CA.Lo, S.H., van Breukelen, G.J.P., Peters, G.-J.Y. and Kok, G. (2013), Proenvironmental travel behavior among office workers: a qualitative study of individual and organizational determinants, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, , Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 1122.Maclaran, P. and Catterall, M. (2002), Analysing qualitative data: computer software and the market research practitioner, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 2839.Marshall, H. (2002), What do we do when we code?, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 2No. 1, pp. 5670.

Maxwell, J.A. (2008), Designing a qualitative study, in Bickman, L. and Rog, D.J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2nd ed., pp. 214253.McGuckin, N., Zmud, J. and Nakamoto, Y. (2005), Trip chaining trends in the U.S. understanding travel behavior for policy making, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1917, pp. 199204.lander, F. and Thgersen, J. (1995), Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 345385.Popkowski Leszczyc, P.T.L., Sinha, A. and Sahgal, A. (2004), The effect of multi-purpose shopping on pricing and location strategy for grocery stores, Journal of Retailing, Vol.80 No. 2, pp. 8599.Qu, S.Q. and Dumay, J. (2011), The qualitative research interview, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 238264.Shen, J., Sakata, Y. and Hashimoto, Y. (2008), Is individual environmental consciousness one of the determinants in transport mode choice?, Applied Economics, Vol. 40 No.10, pp. 12291239.Sinkovics, R.R., Penz, E. and Ghauri, P.N. (2005), Analysing textual data in international marketing research, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8No. 1, pp. 938.Steg, L. (2005), Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39 No. 2-3, pp. 147162.Teller, C., Kotzab, H. and Grant, D.B. (2006), The consumer direct services revolution in grocery retailing: an exploratory investigation, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No.1, pp. 7896.Weber, C., Hendrickson, C., Jaramillo, P., Matthews, S., Nagengast, A. and Nealer, R. (2008), Life Cycle Comparison of Traditional Retail and E-commerce Logistics for Electronic Products: A Case Study of buy.com, Green Design Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Wiese, A., Toporowski, W. and Zielke, S. (2012), Transport-related CO2 effects of online and brick-and-mortar shopping: a comparison and sensitivity analysis of clothing retailing, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17 No.6, pp. 473477.Ye, X., Pendyala, R.M. and Gottardi, G. (2007), An exploration of the relationship between mode choice and complexity of trip chaining patterns, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96113.

Biographical NotesAnne Wiese was a research assistant and PhD candidate at the Chair of Retailing, Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen, Germany. She finished her thesis in 2013. Her research focuses on sustainability issues in retailing and supply chain management as well as on CSR, and organic and Fair Trade products. Since 2014 she is working as Corporate Responsibility Manager for a logistics service provider.Stephan Zielke is Associate Professor at MAPP - Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus University, Denmark. He received his PhD from the University of Cologne and worked afterwards at the Georg-August- Universitt Gttingen (both Germany) and Rouen Business School, France. His research focuses on retail marketing, especially retail pricing, instore marketing, store brands and sustainability issues.Waldemar Toporowski holds the Chair of Retailing at the Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen, Germany. He received his PhD in 1995 from the University of Cologne, before he joined the Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen in 2003. His research focuses on retailing and distribution, especially marketing channels, retail logistics, retail technologies, and store brands.

InfluenceQuestions

Sociodemographic characteristicsHow do the influencing factors differ between several life cycle stages? How do children influence the use of public transport?

Personal characteristicsHow do the interviewees evaluate their perceived mobility necessity? What is the influence of the perceived mobility necessity on the behaviour?

How do consumers perceive the public transport modes in their area?

How does a persons environmental consciousness affect the travel behaviour?

Situational variablesHow do the goods to be purchased influence the shopping trip behaviour? How is transport mode choice related to trip chain complexity? How does multi-purpose shopping influence the behaviour? How does the availability of a car influence the use of public transport?

How do enjoyable or important destinations affect the travel behaviour?

External variablesHow do external factors (i.e. design of transport systems, weather)affect choices of travel behaviour?

Table I. Questions for the qualitative analysisPhase in Life CycleResidential Location

Low-OrderMiddle-OrderHigh-Order

1Younger person without childrenABC

2Person with preschool childrenDEF

3Person with school childrenGHI

4Older person with out- of-house children / no childrenJKL

5Retired personMNO

Table II. Selection of interviewees

Life CycleCharacteristics

Everyday LifePerceived Mobility NecessityRelevance ofCarPerception of Public Transport

1. Younger person without childrenlife is mainly structured around work/educationimportant for work/education and leisure timenot needed in urban areas; highly relevant in rural areasinflexible; insufficient in rural areas

2. Person with preschool childrenchildren become important part of life; habits are changedin the beginning, one parent stays at homeprovides comfort and helps in transporting the pram etc.uncomfortable; insufficient in rural areas

3. Person with school childrenlife is very much planned around the children and their appointmentschildren require many journeys and high flexibilityprovides the flexibility needednot flexible enough; connections are insufficient; children have to wait too long

4. Older person with out- of-house children /no childrenonly have to plan for themselves; spontaneousmainly work and shopping tripsprovides flexibilitynot flexible enough; connections are insufficient

5. Retired personwalking and using public transport becomes difficult; much time spent at homevaries with age and healthprovides freedom and comfortconnections are insufficient; expensive; uncomfortable

Table III. Important characteristics of the five life cycles

Consumer Type and Related Life CyclesCharacteristics

General DescriptionPlanningRole of TransportMode

The NaveLife cycle: 2does not really question his or her behaviour, e.g. the car is used because it is thereplans sometimes; shopping lists are only written for special thingsdoes not question transport mode choices; mode mainly needs to be comfortable

The RationalLife cycles:1, 2, 3, 4is behaving rationally but not as extremely as the Optimizer, e.g. trips are connected with dropping off their childrenplans mainly to facilitate the shoppingchooses a transport mode that fits the requirements, e.g. saving time and being flexible

The SpontaneousLife cycles: 4, 5has a basic organization but is quite flexible, e.g. going shopping when things are neededplans sometimes; shopping lists are only written for special thingschooses a transport mode that is flexible and supports his or her spontaneity

The OptimizerLife cycles: 4, 5plans a lot and tries to optimize the shopping trip or the prices ofthe things bought, e.g. various stores are visited to reach the lowest prices for the shopping basketplans a lot to optimize the shopping trip, e.g. a shopping list is written with respect to recent advertisingchooses a transport mode that fits the requirements, e.g. being flexible to reach many stores or being comfortable

Table IV. Shopper typology

Figure I. Relevant influencing factors on shopping travel behaviour and its environmental effectsDownloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI At 21:13 08 April 2015 (PT)