Modeling integrated clothing shopping destination choice using structure equation models

Authors
Shahid Beheshti University
Abstract
The destination choice problem is an essential element in transportation planning processes. The problem is to find the probability that a person traveling from a given origin will choose a destination among many available alternatives. The focus of this paper is the destination choice of non-work (shopping purpose) trips, as part of the transportation planning process, in particular in trip- based and activity- based models. In general, destination choice models are estimated and applied at the traffic zone level, although the actual destination is an elemental alternative inside a traffic zone. Therefore, the number of explicitly modeled choice alternatives is usually the number of traffic zones. Most destination choice models assume a Multinomial Logit (MNL) form for the problem. The Multinomial Logit is not capable of accounting for unobserved similarities among alternatives, since the covariance matrix of the MNL model has only elements in the diagonal. The purpose of this paper is to investigate alternative destination choice model structures, focusing on structure equation models. The non-work destination choice problem is studied in spatial choice modeling. The literature concerned with spatial choice models covers several disciplines and important insights can be found in spatial behavior and spatial interaction models. Trip distribution models are expressed indirectly in terms of behavior models and this issue in trip generation and trip distribution is bolder. Considering new approach to transport planning (activity- based) and modeling behavior of passengers, the activity location choice is more attended and usually discrete choice models are used. Many studies describe zonal utility (simple decision structure) by using land- use and socioeconomic variables and thus cannot describe individual behavior in disaggregate level. For describe more accurate of individual utility, recent studies, have used simultaneous choice process concept and in other hand few studies used structural equation models and latent variables in describe choice of activity location. Investigating of individual features in activity location choice by using of structure equation models considered in recent studies. Considering the importance of determining activity location in activity- based approach, use of exogenous and explainer variables are bolded. Variable in classic destination choice models firstly are supposed independently and secondly have less attention to psychological and personal feature of passengers. Considering these two points, the power and efficiency of representation of behavior are reduced. Studies on the consumer behavior in shopping centers, showed that in addition to observable demographic and socio-economic variables, latent individual variables like to psychological variable, Attitude lifestyle and shopping orientation are important and must be attendant (complex decision structure).the idea of applying these variables in modeling the individual clothes shopping destination choice by using structure equation models was sourced from ethology studies on customers of shopping centers (novelty of paper). In this paper 213 sample are collected by internet- based questionnaire and individuals socio- economic, attitude, lifestyle and shopping orientation were asked. This integrated model is able to correctly predict the 42 percent of observation in which destination number 1 (Bazar of Tehran and Plasko shopping center) has the highest percent correct.

Keywords

Subjects


[1] Brooks CM, Kaufmann A and Lichtenstein DR (2008), Trip chaining behavior in multi-destination shopping trips: A field experiment and laboratory replication, Journal of Retailing, 84, 29- 38.
[2] Bekhor S and Prashker JN (2008), GEV-based destination choice models that account for unobserved similarities among alternatives, Transportation Research Part B, 42, 243- 262.
[3] Hannes E, Janssens D and Wets G (2007), Destination choice in daily activity travel: the mental map’s repertoire, In: Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (CD- Rom), Washington, DC.
[4] He SY (2006), Modeling Destination choice for shopping using a GIS-based spatiotemporal framework: an investigation of choice set generation and scale effects, M.Sc. Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
[5] Zhang J, Timmermans HJP and Borgers A (2005), Model of household task allocation and time use, Transportation Research Part B, 39, 81– 95.
[6] Bhat CR, Guo JY, Srinivasan S and Sivakumar A (2004), Comprehensive econometric micro simulator for daily activity–travel patterns, In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 1984, 57- 66.
[7] Popkowski PTL and Timmermansa HJP (2001), Experimental choice analysis of shopping strategies, Journal of Retailing 77, 493– 509.
[8] Pozsgay MA and Bhat CR (2000), Destination Choice Modeling for Home- Based Recreational Trips; Analysis and Implications for Land- Use, Transportation, 72, 423– 431.
[9] Bhat C and Koppelman FS (1993), A conceptual framework of individual activity program generation, Transportation Research, 27, 433- 446.
[10] Eliasson J and Mattsson O (2000), A model for integrated analysis of household location and travel choices Transportation Research Part A, 34, 375- 394.
[11] Sener IN, Copperman RB, Pendyala RM and Bhat CR (2008), An analysis of children’s leisure activity engagement: examining the day of week, location, physical activity level, and fixity dimensions, Transportation, 35, 5, 673- 696.
[12] Eluru N, Pinjari AR, Pendyala RM and Bhat CR (2010), An econometric multi-dimensional choice model of activity-travel behavior, Transportation Letters: The International Journal of Transportation Research, 2, 4, 217- 230.
[13] Paleti R, Pendyala RM, Bhat CR and Konduri KC (2011), A joint tour- based model of tour complexity, passenger accompaniment, vehicle type choice, and tour length. Technical paper, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
 [14] Ettema D, Arentze TA and Timmermans HJP (2011), Social influences on household location, mobility and activity choice in integrated micro simulation models Transportation Research Part A, 45, 283- 295.
[15] Akar G, Clifton KJ and Doherty S (2012), Redefining activity types: Who participates in which leisure activity?, Transportation Research Part A, 46, 1194- 1204.
[16] Khandker M and Nurul H, Morency C and Trépanier M (2012), Integrating parking behaviour in activity- based travel demand modelling: Investigation of the relationship between parking type choice and activity scheduling process, Transportation Research Part A, 46, 154- 166.
[17] Kang JE and Recker W (2013), The location selection problem for the household activity pattern problem, Transportation Research Part B, 55, 75- 97.
 [18] Ding H, Wang W and Yang M (2013), Application of an agent- based modeling to simulate destination choice for shopping and recreation, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 1198- 1207.
[19] Akrondal A and Eabe- Hesketh S, 2004, Generalized Latent Variable Modeling, Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models, First Edition, Chapman and Hall.
[20] Bartholomew D, Knott M and Moustaki I (2011), Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis A Unified Approach, 3rd Edition, A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New Delhi, India.
[21] Recher W (1978), Factors influence destination choice for the urban grocery shopping trip, Transportation, 19- 33.
[22] Sirakaya-Turk E, Ekinci Y and Drew M (2015), The efficacy of shopping value in predicting destination loyalty, Journal of Business Research, In Press.
[23] Tai CL, Hong JY, Chang CM and Chen LC (2012), Determinants of consumer's intention to participate in group buying, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 396- 403.
[24] Erik E (2014), Residential location and daily travel distances: the influence of trip purpose, Journal of Transport Geography, 34, 121- 130.
[25] Hurtubia R, Nguyen MH, Glerum A and Bierlaire M (2014), Integrating psychometric indicators in latent class choice models, Transportation Research Part A, 64, 135- 146.
[26] Szakály Z, Szente V, Kövér G, Polereczki Z and Szigeti O (2012), The influence of lifestyle on health behavior and preference for functional foods, Appetite 58, 406- 413.
[27] Kim YK, Lee MY and Park SH (2014), Shopping value orientation: Conceptualization and measurement, Journal of Business Research, 67, 2884- 2890.