In comparison with the contexts outlined above, research into the image of a town centre remains sparse. Relatively few academic studies are dedicated to
researching the image of a town centre as a distinct retail location. Table 2.1 shows the studies identified in the literature which have included town centre image perceptions. Out of all studies in the table, only two of these (Hart, Farrell, Stachow, Reed and Cadogan, 2007; Wee, 1986) specifically focus on town centre image as a distinct area. The majority of studies in Table 2.1 investigate the town centre as one of a set of neighbouring and/or competing shopping centres, which may be suburban out-of-town malls or located in or on the edge of the town centre.
The sparse nature of research into town centre image is a significant concern, given the importance of town centres. The town centre is the historic retail core of a town or city and is distinguished from other shopping centres by its central location within the urban setting; its traditional historic function remains relevant to this day (Guy, 1998; Robertson, 1999). Town centres operate at the highest level of the retail hierarchy and play an important role in defining the urban image as a whole (Hernandez and Jones, 2005). In most of the developed world, the town centre remains the economic, social and cultural hub of its region, the principal place where government and administrative offices, services and shopping are brought together, alongside employment and commercial developments (Schiller, 1994; Thomas and Bromley, 2000). The fundamental characteristic distinguishing the town centre from other shopping centres is its diverse, unplanned nature (Davies and Bennison, 1978; Hackett and Foxall, 1994; Hernandez and Jones, 2005). Town centres “have typically grown in a haphazard manner, often through gradual conversion from other land uses. [They are] likely to have a multiplicity of property owners, and to consist of many separate buildings which are varied in physical appearance” (Guy, 1998, pp. 258-9). They are situated where the city originated and contain the oldest buildings, embodying the heritage of a
community (Robertson, 1999, p. 270). As town centres have evolved over time, they represent a conglomeration or agglomeration of disparate areas (Teller and Elms, 2010).
38 Table 2.1 Studies which include Town Centre image perceptions
Location type Comparative Dimensions Analysis Outcome
variables Downs 1970 Shopping mall on edge of
town centre, neighbourhood shopping areas
(1) Service quality, (2) price, (3) structure & design, (4) hours, (5) internal pedestrian movement, (6) shop range & quality, (7) visual appearance, (8) traffic conditions, (9) atmosphere
Factor analysis
Gentry and Burns 1978
1 Downtown, 2 suburban malls
Yes (1) Price, variety, product quality / stores, (2) parking, traffic, (3) buildings, customers, (4) hours, advertising
(1) Variety, (2) quality & satisfaction, (3) value, (4) parking.
Yes (1) Assortment, (2) facilities, (3) market posture Factor analysis Affect, behavioural intentions,
Yes (1) Atmosphere, (2) personnel, (3) fashion shopping, (4) advertising, (5) convenience
SEM Purchases,
frequency, spend, time since last purchase Gautschi 1981 2 Downtown, 2 suburban
malls
(1) Transport, (2) assortment, (3) design, (4) prices, (5) hours, (6) crowds, (7) dress
Factor analysis Frequency
Timmermans et al.
1982
1 town centre, 12 suburban malls
(1) Size of assortment, (2) accessibility, (3) atmosphere, (4) physical layout, (5) non-retailing functions
Repertory grids
van Raaij 1983 2 Downtown, 5 suburban malls
Yes (1) General evaluation, (2) environment, (3) efficiency, (4) accessibility, (5) social
Factor analysis Frequency
Wee 1986 1 Downtown (1) Assortment, (2) facilitative, (3) maintenance,
(4) operational
Factor analysis Frequency, spend
39
Location type Comparative Dimensions Analysis Outcome
variables Feinberg et al.
1989
1 Downtown, 1 suburban mall
Yes (1) Sales people, (2) merchandise, (3) reputation, (4) atmosphere, (5) social experience
Descriptive statistics Hackett and Foxall
1994
1 town centre, 1 suburban mall
Yes (1) Service quality, (2) access / facilities, (3) social, (4) choice & variety
Factor analysis
Bell 1999 1 Downtown, 4 suburban malls
(1) Product & store range & quality, (2) customer service, (3) visual appearance, (4) convenience, (5) price
(1) Attractiveness/maintenance, (2) layout, (3) activities, (4) refreshments
Conjoint analysis
Leo and Philippe 2002
3 city centres, 3 suburban malls
Yes (1) Retail mix, (2) environment, (3) accessibility, (4) price
Regression Satisfaction
Hunter 2006 Unspecified shopping centres
From Nevin and Houston (1980) SEM Emotion, desire,
intention to shop
Andreu et al. 2006 Traditional shopping areas and shopping malls
Yes (1) Atmosphere, (2) accessibility SEM Emotion,
satisfaction, behavioural intentions Hart et al. 2007 1 town centre (1) Accessibility, (2) atmosphere, (3) environment,
(4) personnel
SEM Enjoyment,
repatronage Teller and Elms
2010
1 town centre, 1 strip edge of town, 1 suburban mall
Yes (1) Retail tenant mix ,(2) product range,
(3) atmosphere, (4) orientation, (5) infrastructure
SEM Satisfaction, patronage
intention, retention
40 2.4.2 Early research
Early research into the reasons why consumers travelled to shop in town centres was based on spatial considerations. Researchers developed spatial models which sought to explain the attraction of town centres for shoppers through objective measures based on size and distance. Consumers‟ attraction to town centres was thought to be due to a trade-off between the size of a place (and the range of goods and services it provides), and the distances people were prepared to travel to it. Christaller (1933)‟s Central Place Theory describes a model of the retail hierarchy which explains how the distances between different locations are related to the size of population and nature of the retail provision they support (Brown, 1991; Downs, 1970; Dennis, Marsland and Cockett, 2002). In this model, larger places are spaced further apart, interspersed by increasingly smaller locations with correspondingly-sized retail provision. Similarly, Reilly (1931)‟s law of retail gravitation proposed that shoppers are willing to travel further to a centre which offers a greater range of goods and services. A shopper‟s tendency to patronise a particular shopping area is proportional to the size of the area and the distance or travel time to the shopping area. The advantages of wider retail provision and product assortment that a larger centre provides outweigh the
disadvantages for shoppers of greater distances travelled (Huff, 1964; Teller and Reutterer, 2008; Timmermans, van der Heijden and Westerveldt, 1982).
However, such size/distance models were criticised as being too simplistic in
assuming that shopping areas vary only in their size and the distance that consumers are willing to travel (Bell, 1999; Gautschi, 1981; Hackett and Foxall, 1994; Nevin and Houston, 1980). Spatial models are inadequate if consumers perceive differences between centres on dimensions other than size and distance (Houston and Nevin, 1981; Timmermans, van der Heijden and Westerveldt, 1982). In addition, the
patronage decision is a function of a broad range of influences (Bell, 1999; Gardner and Levy, 1955). Individual consumers vary in their attitudes towards shopping less because of economic factors and more because of their socioeconomic variables, life styles, personal values and hence their image perceptions (Bucklin, 1967; Downs,
41 1970; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Howell and Rogers, 1980; Verhoef et al.,
2009).
Researchers have instead proposed that, with greater travel opportunities, the distance dimension reduces in importance and shoppers make their decisions on non-spatial factors (Gentry and Burns, 1978; Huff, 1964; Mejia and Benjamin, 2002).
The non-spatial factors responsible for consumers‟ attraction to the shopping location therefore comprise the location‟s image (Bucklin, 1967). Hence perceptions of
shopping locations, in other words their image, became important subjects of
academic research in their own right, with the consumer as individual decision maker as the unit of analysis (Bucklin, 1967; Downs, 1970; Nevin and Houston, 1980).
Following Gautschi (1981)‟s recommendation that “the omission of important [image]
variables may render patronage models useless” (p. 163), researchers have explored the additional criteria that influence the distances that consumers are prepared to travel to patronise shopping centres, concluding that consumers are attracted to a shopping location due to distance and the size of the retail offer in terms of the range of stores, goods and services it offers, but also more subjective perceptions of factors encountered during the shopping trip (Dennis, Marsland and Cockett, 2002; Gautschi, 1981; Nevin and Houston, 1980; Teller and Reutterer, 2008).