From the above review of the literature on town centre image perceptions, it is clear that the town centre has been neglected as a subject of research, with only two studies (Hart, Farrell, Stachow, Reed and Cadogan, 2007; Wee, 1986) identified as exclusively researching this type of shopping destination as a distinct location. The majority of studies which have included town centres have applied measures which do not distinguish between these two differing shopping locations. Yet the findings of the comparative studies referred to in Section 2.4.5 above demonstrate that
consumers‟ image structures vary between shopping malls and town centres. Thus there is a need to research town centre image as a specific shopping location in its own right.
The development of research specific to the town centre is a necessary step in understanding what influences consumers‟ choices to shop there. To date the literature which includes town centre image suggests neither agreement as to how
53 consumers perceive this location, nor any consistent “taxonomy” of dimensions or attributes with which to measure it (Bell, 1999, p. 68; Gautschi, 1981). Several researchers (e.g. Blawatt, 1995; Gautschi, 1981; Timmermans, van der Heijden and Westerveldt, 1982) have pointed to the inconsistencies in image measurement, suggesting they may be due to the inclusion of researcher-led measures which are not relevant to how consumers perceive these locations. Gautschi (1981) argues that the “inability of researchers to identify a generally accepted set of constructs ... may stem from an improperly specified [attribute] choice set” (p. 163). This argument is echoed by Gentry and Burns (1978) who argue that the disparity in image dimensions may be due to the fact that respondents are presented by researchers with
pre-specified image attributes, not all of which are equally important to all customers.
Timmermans, van der Heijden and Westerveldt (1982) also claim that attributes based on researchers‟ assumptions of what is being measured “might not be factors on the basis of which consumers discriminate cognitively between shopping centres”
(p. 3). Instead, they recommend an approach which is focussed on how consumers themselves perceive images of each shopping centre as a specific context.
As noted earlier, in the absence of measures specifically developed for the town centre, several studies have adapted store image attributes (e.g. Bell, 1999; Gentry and Burns, 1978; Hunter, 2006; Nevin and Houston, 1980). Yet other studies are unclear as to the origin of image measures (e.g. Andreu, Bigne, Chumpitaz and Swaen, 2006; Hackett and Foxall, 1994; Leo and Philippe, 2002; Teller and Elms, 2010; van Raaij, 1983). In the case of the two studies which investigate the town centre specifically, both of these draw on measures from other contexts. Wee (1986) used items from Lindquist (1974)‟s study into store image. Hart, Farrell, Stachow, Reed and Cadogan (2007) drew on items from the shopping mall literature, notably Sit, Merrilees and Birch (2003) and Wakefield and Baker (1998). Measures specific to the town centre as a distinct shopping location have not yet been developed by
researchers.
54 Because store, brand and shopping mall images are interrelated, many insights from research into these image contexts can also be usefully applied to the town centre context (Samli, Kelly and Hunt, 1998). However, a notable concern related to town centre image research is that researchers have identified attributes contained in store image studies which appear not to be relevant to town centres. Leo and Philippe (2002), Nevin and Houston (1980) and Teller and Elms (2010) all discovered
attributes that are not significant in town centre image perceptions to the same extent as they are in shopping malls, notably price, merchandise value, service and
personnel. These findings suggest that these attributes, while frequently included in studies which include town centres, may not be perceived by consumers in town centres as salient to their image perceptions in this context. On the other hand, the studies which compare town centre and shopping mall image suggest some
commonality as to the constructs which consumers perceive as relevant to the town centre. These appear to be related to store assortment and related merchandise;
physical infrastructure involving access to the town centre including roads, car parks and other travel elements; design and layout of the buildings and other structural components; and atmosphere (e.g. Timmermans, van der Heijden and Westerveldt, 1982; Teller and Elms, 2010; Wee, 1986).
Studies in town centre image research often omit to capture important information by ignoring the characteristics of the non-retailing functions in the wider public
environment surrounding the town centre (Oppewal and Timmermans, 1999; Wee, 1986). Researchers have argued that town centre image includes a wider domain of attributes originating in the urban environment than captured in existing studies, so that current measures of town centre image may be incomplete (Gautschi, 1981;
Wee, 1986). As noted by Wee (1986), “the image of a shopping area [i.e. a town centre] may be more complex than that of a single store, since a shopping area is a conglomerate of different kinds of stores that offer a wide variety of products and services” (p. 49). Timmermans, van der Heijden and Westerveldt (1982) identified that consumers perceive the non-retailing functions in addition to retail mix, in their study which elicited these aspects from consumers‟ own responses. Warnaby,
55 Bennison, Davies and Hughes (2002) suggest that perceptions of the entire urban area are responsible for establishing the identity of the town centre and thus creating its image. Town centres are complex environments with extensive retail and non-retail functions including housing, education, health, employment, leisure and
entertainment, and public services (Ravenscroft, 2000; Warnaby, Bennison, Davies and Hughes, 2002). Town centres provide a more diverse and interesting shopping experience due to unique features such as historical buildings and related themed areas (Arentze, Oppewal and Timmermans, 2005; Padilla and Eastlick, 2009;
Robertson, 1997; Runyan and Huddleston, 2006). Andreu, Bigne, Chumpitaz and Swaen (2006) speculate that consumers‟ emotional responses to a town centre may arise from “other (unobserved) elements in the shopping experience [which] might be more significant in the traditional retailing environment” (p. 573), raising the possibility that these elements may represent the wider urban location. Consumers also report a sense of connectedness with the community which the town centre represents to its residents and visitors (Bennison, Warnaby and Pal, 2010; Coca-Stefaniak, Parker and Rees, 2010; Runyan and Huddleston, 2006), so that town centres are likely to hold more personal meaning to consumers through habituation and familiarity than simply as a shopping destination (Relph, 1976).
Therefore, current measures of town centre image, frequently based on attributes from other retail contexts, may not sufficiently capture the attributes and dimensions which are salient to consumers in the total impression the town centre makes on consumers‟ image perceptions (Dichter 1985). Similar to the inclusion of variables which have been demonstrated through research as not significant in the town centre (Leo and Philippe, 2002; Nevin and Houston, 1980; Teller and Elms, 2010), the omission of salient variables means that measures to capture town centre image may not perform adequately in analysis (Gautschi, 1981). Accordingly, it is argued that town centre image includes a domain of dimensions which differ in certain important aspects from those used in studies based on store or shopping mall image measures.
The lack of image research aimed specifically at town centres has resulted in a need to establish the domain of town centre image as a distinct concept in its own right. In
56 order to investigate town centre image, the constructs through which consumers perceive this context will need to be established as distinct from the measures currently used which are adapted from other, more limited, retail contexts.
A more fundamental limitation exists in the town centre image literature reviewed above, in the lack of a theoretical approach applied to the study of town centre image (Bell, 1999). It must be clarified that not all of the studies included in the review of town centre literature research image as a defined construct. Several of the town centre studies included in the literature review (for example, Hackett and Foxall, 1994; Leo and Philippe, 2002; Teller and Elms, 2010; van Raaij, 1983), research consumers‟ perceptions which are not explicitly delineated as image. These studies have been included because they shed light on the characteristics through which researchers have studied town centres. Of the studies which include town centres and which explicitly study image, there is a distinct lack of focus on how image is conceptualised. Although Downs (1970) explained image as “the product of the process of collecting, coding and evaluating information about the spatial
environment” (p. 15), Downs defines image purely as a cognitive structure. Studies predominantly focus on its factual attributes and dimensions, and there is limited attention given to the intangible psychological elements such as consumers‟
psychological beliefs and attitudes which have been identified in other retail image contexts. Whereas Bell (1999) and Hunter (2006) relate shopping centre image to emotional constructs, these are treated as outcomes of the image process, rather than forming part of the image structure. In the remaining studies, authors have taken a multi-dimensional approach, largely operationalising image as a “composite of dimensions” (Nevin and Houston, 1980, p. 84) without considering the guiding theoretical frameworks as to its formation (Bell, 1999). As a result, the “attribute-based approach to operationalization fails to capture the richness of the … image construct as conceptualised” (Keaveney and Hunt, 1992, p. 165). As discussed earlier in this chapter in Section 2.2, the definition of town centre image adopted in this thesis is based on a review of definitions in the broader retail image literature. In this definition, town centre image is defined as:
57 A symbolic representation of reality which consists of salient factual cues from the total environment, and psychological elements such as attitudes, feelings and values.
Hence, retail image contains not only the functional qualities represented by its
physical attributes and dimensions, but also attitudes, feelings and values, or “an aura of psychological attributes” (Martineau, 1958, p. 47). Within the store image literature, image has been postulated as composed of cognitive and affective dimensions
(Mazursky and Jacoby, 1986; Oxenfeldt, 1974). Tourist destination image research has empirically examined image structure as composed of these two dimensions, finding that both cognitive and affective dimensions influence overall image, with the affective dimension demonstrating a stronger influence than the cognitive dimension (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Beerli and Martin, 2004). However, the town centre image literature neglects to capture such psychological and intangible elements which are conceptualised to make up image. Hence, the inclusion of a dimension capturing psychological elements of town centre image should capture more closely how consumers perceive the image of a town centre as defined. However, to date, it has not yet been established how consumers perceive the psychological image elements in the town centre area.
Furthermore, although the cognitive and affective dimensions have been
hypothesised to represent store image and tourist destination image, these do not appear to capture the symbolic nature of town centre image. Earlier in this chapter, image was defined as a symbolic representation of reality, simplifying a complex environment into what is most relevant to each individual (Lindquist, 1974; Mitchell, 2001). This symbolic representation conveys the meaning of the location to
consumers and how it reflects their lifestyles (Martineau, 1958). However, the
symbolic image dimension has not yet been researched in the town centre literature, nor indeed in any other retail and marketing context. How the symbolic image
dimension is defined and conceptualised, what it consists of and therefore how
58 consumers‟ perceptions of this dimension can be captured, remain issues in need of investigation if the town centre image concept is to be accurately and reliably
researched.
Therefore in addition to the need to establish the domain of town centre image as a distinct concept in its own right, and to investigate the constructs through which consumers perceive this vitally important area, there is a need to develop a
conceptual model linking the dimensions which have been identified as potentially representing image. In addition to the attributes representing the physical tangible reality of the town centre, the psychological elements and its symbolic nature which consumers are hypothesised to include in their image perceptions of a town centre need to be established in order that town centre image can be modelled and
measured. In the absence of a theoretical approach to researching town centre image, the research presented in this thesis aims to remedy this limitation and address the research gaps identified.
Having defined the town centre image construct at the start of this chapter, the
objectives of this research are to examine the validity of this definition by developing a conceptual framework and model which reflects the theoretical dimensions which are hypothesised to make up town centre image. Constructs to operationalize the
dimensions in the model will be identified, and measures to empirically test the relationships between these constructs will be created and tested. These aspects of the town centre image research will be addressed in the following two chapters of this thesis.
59