Research was done to reveal the travel impact of e-shopping in the Minneapolis–St. Paul (Twin Cities) metropolitan area of Minnesota. A sample of Internet users drawn from urban, suburban, and exurban neighborhoods was used to identify the relationship between e-shopping and in-store shopping. An online survey composed of direct and attitudinal questions was used to obtain the data. Ordered probit models were developed to account for the influences of a variety of confounding factors, such as shopping attitudes, shopping accessibility, shopping responsibility, and sociodemographics. The preliminary results, controlled for the confounding factors, show that e-shopping behavior (for online searching and online buying) tends to have a complementarity effect on in-store shopping.
FaragS.E-Shopping and Its Interactions with In-Store Shopping.Utrecht University, Netherlands, 2006.
3.
CaoX., and MokhtarianP.The Intended and Actual Adoption of Online Purchasing: A Brief Review of Recent Literature. UCD-ITS-RR-05-07. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 2005.
4.
MokhtarianP. L.A Conceptual Analysis of the Transportation Impacts of B2C e-Commerce. Transportation, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2004, pp. 257–284.
5.
AndersonW. P., ChatterjeeL., and LakshmananT. R.E-Commerce, Transportation, and Economic Geography. Growth and Change, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2003, pp. 415–432.
6.
HuP. S., and ReuscherT. R.Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.
7.
ChangM. K., CheungW. M., LaiV. S.Literature Derived Reference Models for the Adoption of Online Shopping. Information and Management, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2005, pp. 543–559.
8.
ChooS., LeeT., and MokhtarianP. L.Do Transportation and Communications Tend to Be Substitutes, Complements, or Neither?: U.S. Consumer Expenditures Perspective, 1984–2002. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2010, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 121–132.
9.
MokhtarianP. L.A Typology of Relationships Between Telecommunications and Transportation. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1990, pp. 231–242.
10.
PendyalaR. M., GouliasK. G., and KitamuraR.Impact of Telecommuting on Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Household Travel. Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1991, pp. 383–409.
11.
SalomonI.Telecommunications and Travel Relationships: A Review. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1986, pp. 223–238.
12.
SimL. L., and KoiS. M.Singapore's Internet Shoppers and Their Impact on Traditional Shopping Patterns. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2002, pp. 115–124.
13.
TonnB. E., and HemrickA.Impacts of the Use of E-Mail and the Internet on Personal Trip-Making Behavior. Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2004, pp. 270–280.
14.
WeltevredenJ. W. J., and Van RietbergenT.E-Shopping Versus City Centre Shopping: The Role of Perceived City Centre Attractiveness. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, Vol. 98, 2007, pp. 68–85.
15.
CairnsS., SlomanL., NewsonC., AnableJ., KirkbrideA., and GoodwinP.Smarter Choices: Changing the Way We Travel.Department for Transport, London, 2004.
16.
WilsonR. D., KrizekK. J., and HandyS. L.Trends in Out-of-Home and At-Home Activities: Evidence from Repeat Cross-Sectional Surveys. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2014, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 76–84.
17.
CorpuzG., and PeachmanJ.Measuring the Impacts of Internet Usage on Travel Behaviour in the Sydney Household Travel Survey. Presented at Australasian Transport Research Forum Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, 2003.
18.
FaragS., KrizekK. J., and DijstM.E-Shopping and Its Relationship with In-Store Shopping: Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands and the USA. Transport Reviews, Vol. 26, 2006, pp. 43–61.
19.
FaragS., SchwanenT., and DijstM.Empirical Investigation of Online Searching and Buying and Their Relationship to Shopping Trips. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 242–251.
20.
FaragS., SchwanenT., DijstM., and FaberJ.Shopping Online and/or In-Store? A Structural Equation Model of the Relationships Between E-Shopping and In-Store Shopping. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2007, pp. 125–141.
21.
ZmudJ., BrickaS. G., and CasasJ.Impact of Shopping via Internet on Travel for Shopping Purposes. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
22.
FerrellC.Home-Based Teleshoppers and Shopping Travel: Do Teleshoppers Travel Less? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1894, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 241–248.
23.
FerrellC. E.Home-Based Teleshopping and Shopping Travel: Where Do People Find the Time? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 212–223.
24.
RenF., and KwanM. P.The Impact of Geographic Context on E-Shopping Behavior. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2009, pp. 262–278.
25.
BabbieE. R.The Practice of Social Research, 11th ed, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif., 2007.
26.
HausmanJ., and WiseD.Stratification on Endogenous Variables and Estimation: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (ManskiC., and McFaddenD., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, pp. 365–391.
27.
MokhtarianP. L., and CircellaG.The role of Social Factors in Store and Internet Purchase Frequencies of Clothing/Shoes. Presented at International Workshop on Frontiers in Transportation: Social Interactions, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2007.
28.
CaoX.E-Shopping, Spatial Attributes, and Personal Travel: A Review of Empirical Studies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2135, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 160–169.
29.
WidamanK. F.Common Factor Analysis Versus Principal Component Analysis: Differential Bias in Representing Model Parameters?Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 28, 1993, pp. 263–311.
30.
DaykinA. R., and MoffattP. G.Analyzing Ordered Responses: A Review of the Ordered Probit Model. Understanding Statistics, Vol. 1, 2002, pp. 157–166.
31.
VeallM. R., and ZimmermannK. F.Pseudo-R2 Measures for Some Common Limited Dependent Variable Models. Presented at Sonderforschungsbereich 386, 1996.
