IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v41y2014i2p307-322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders' Preferences and Adaptive Behaviour in Retail-Location Choice Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Ingrid Janssen

    (TiasNimbas Business School, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands)

  • Aloys Borgers
  • Harry Timmermans

Abstract

The changing role of urban planning in the Netherlands from regulatory to public–private development planning implies the need to gain insight into multistakeholder decision making in a spatial planning context. In this paper we show the importance of unravelling influence structures that affect individual stakeholder decisions. For this purpose we looked at the Dutch retail planning context, where recently the responsibility for planning decisions has been deputed to local governments and peripheral retail planning restrictions have been relaxed. As a result, at present, local governments, real-estate developers, and retail firms jointly decide on the location of new retail facilities. It is assumed that each stakeholder's attitude towards peripheral retail planning is influenced by the preference structures of other stakeholders and may reflect their professional background. We focus on adaptive behaviour, the phenomenon that a decision maker adjusts his or her preferences towards specific preferences of other stakeholders in order to move to consensus. We provide a method for measuring this adaptive behaviour, based on existing random utility choice modelling techniques. To assess preferences of stakeholders for peripheral retail planning options as well as their adaptive behaviour, three groups of stakeholders (real-estate developers, retail organizations, and local governments) were invited to take part in a web-based conjoint choice experiment. It was found that all stakeholders show rather conservative behaviour regarding peripheral retail development, especially with respect to fashion. Adaptive behaviour appeared to be cooperative and significant: Stakeholders tend to (temporarily) increase preferences for alternative plans preferred by the other stakeholders. Developers appeared to be the most adaptive in their decision behaviour. Taking into consideration adaptive behaviour may help to improve existing multistakeholder decision models.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingrid Janssen & Aloys Borgers & Harry Timmermans, 2014. "Stakeholders' Preferences and Adaptive Behaviour in Retail-Location Choice Decisions," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 41(2), pages 307-322, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:41:y:2014:i:2:p:307-322
    DOI: 10.1068/b39057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b39057
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b39057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hensher, David A. & Puckett, Sean M. & Rose, John M., 2007. "Agency decision making in freight distribution chains: Establishing a parsimonious empirical framework from alternative behavioural structures," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 924-949, November.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. Timmermans, Harry J.P. & Zhang, Junyi, 2009. "Modeling household activity travel behavior: Examples of state of the art modeling approaches and research agenda," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 187-190, February.
    4. Ann Brewer & David Hensher, 2000. "Distributed work and travel behaviour: The dynamics of interactive agency choices between employers and employees," Transportation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 117-148, February.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    6. Borgers, Aloys & Vosters, Cindy, 2011. "Assessing preferences for mega shopping centres: A conjoint measurement approach," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 322-332.
    7. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    8. Peter Nijkamp & Marc van der Burch & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "A Comparative Institutional Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships in Dutch Urban Land-use and Revitalisation Projects," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(10), pages 1865-1880, September.
    9. Oppewal, Harmen & Louviere, Jordan J. & Timmermans, Harry J. P., 2000. "Modifying Conjoint Methods to Model Managers' Reactions to Business Environmental Trends: An Application to Modeling Retailer Reactions to Sales Trends," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 245-257, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    2. Reema Bera & Bhargab Maitra, 2021. "Analyzing Prospective Owners’ Choice Decision towards Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Urban India: A Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    3. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.
    4. Ida, Takanori, 2010. "Anomaly, impulsivity, and addiction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 194-203, April.
    5. Yang, Chih-Wen & Sung, Yen-Ching, 2010. "Constructing a mixed-logit model with market positioning to analyze the effects of new mode introduction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 175-182.
    6. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei, 2009. "Interdependency among addictive behaviours and time/risk preferences: Discrete choice model analysis of smoking, drinking, and gambling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 608-621, August.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Takanori Ida, 2014. "A quasi-hyperbolic discounting approach to smoking behavior," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    10. Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A. & Caussade, Sebastian & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Jou, Rong-Chang, 2009. "Identifying differences in willingness to pay due to dimensionality in stated choice experiments: a cross country analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 21-29.
    11. Train, Kenneth & Wilson, Wesley W., 2008. "Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 191-203, March.
    12. Ida, Takanori & Takemura, Kosuke & Sato, Masayuki, 2015. "Inner conflict between nuclear power generation and electricity rates: A Japanese case study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-69.
    13. Kayo MURAKAMI & Takanori IDA, 2019. "Deregulation and status quo bias: Evidence from stated and revealed switching behaviors in the electricity market in Japan," Discussion papers e-19-001, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    14. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    15. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    16. Shin, Jin-ho & Lyu, Seong Ok, 2019. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate spectators’ willingness to pay for professional baseball park sportscape," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 502-512.
    17. Kemperman, Astrid, 2021. "A review of research into discrete choice experiments in tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on Discrete Choice Experiments in Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    18. David Hensher & Sean Puckett & John Rose, 2007. "Extending stated choice analysis to recognise agent-specific attribute endogeneity in bilateral group negotiation and choice: a think piece," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 667-679, November.
    19. Jinsoo Hwang & Seong Ok Lyu & Sun-Bai Cho, 2019. "In-Flight Casinos, Is It Really a Nonsensical Idea? An Exploratory Approach Using Different Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei & Takahashi, Yuko & Nishimura, Shuzo, 2011. "Can economic-psychological parameters predict successful smoking cessation?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 285-295, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:41:y:2014:i:2:p:307-322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.