MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY EFFECTS OF B2C E-COMMERCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF

Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie – 2004, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 189–205.© 2004 by the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAGPublished by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA

TESG_300 Pages: 17

MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY EFFECTS OF B2C E-COMMERCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW

EVERT-JAN VISSER* & MARTIN LANZENDORF**

*Urban and Regional Research Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]**Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, P.O.Box 500136, D-04301 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: June 2003; revised November 2003

ABSTRACTThis paper explores the mobility and accessibility effects of business-to-consumer (b2c) e-commerce by means of a literature review. The main questions are how b2c e-commerce affects(a) individual activity patterns and travel behaviour, (b) the freight transport and logistic decisionsof firms, and (c) the location decisions of households and firms. The review shows that the direct(short-term) mobility effects of b2c e-commerce are relatively clear, and that an overall increasein both individual travel and freight transport can be expected. The indirect (long-term) changesfor physical accessibility and mobility, however, are less clear and harder to deal with, due to thecomplex relationships, time lags, data problems and methodological (attribution) problems. Still,it appears that processes of decentralisation and sub-urbanisation of distribution systems for b2ce-commerce may gradually extend and shift, respectively, towards more remote and less denselypopulated areas in the Netherlands. This would reinforce the ongoing process of retail storeclosures in these areas, i.e., the spatial redistribution in retailing facilities, thus limiting physicalaccessibility. As a result, average trip lengths and car use for shopping trips may on the wholeincrease. With freight transport also increasing due to b2c e-commerce, its overall long-term effectmay be an increase in motorised mobility, with urban consumers saving trips for shopping purposesand consumers elsewhere adding to their travel burden. Only certain products are feasible fore-commerce, however, hence, the impact of b2c e-commerce on mobility and accessibility variesbetween product categories.

Key words: b2c e-commerce, travel behaviour, logistics, freight transport, accessibility

INTRODUCTION

The development of information and com-munication technologies (ICTs) is a trend thatwill continue shaping economic and social pro-cesses over the next decades, affecting mobility,accessibility and spatial structures. This paperdeals with the use of ICTs in transactions betweenretailers and consumers (b2c e-commerce),analysing both the direct and indirect effects formobility and accessibility. This is undertaken,because b2c e-commerce is (a) a relatively newtechnology that (b) affects individual activity

patterns and travel behaviour as well as logisticand freight transport decisions, while (c) so farhardly any research has been done on theseeffects in combination. Thus, two usually iso-lated strands of research are brought together– the individual travel literature and the logis-tics and freight transport literature, so as todevelop a more integrated framework forassessing the mobility and accessibility impactsof b2c e-commerce.

The central question this paper seeks toanswer is how e-commerce affects the activitychoices and travel behaviour of individuals in

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF

190 EVERT-JAN VISSER & MARTIN LANZENDORF

© 2004 by the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG

their household setting, the logistic and freighttransport decisions of firms in a supply-chainsetting, and the location, lifestyle and networkdecisions of these actors in a wider context ofchanging access to information, retail stores,residential and work locations. The paper isstructured as follows. The following sectionspecifies the conceptual framework and raisesquestions for the next sections. The third sec-tion focuses on the impact of b2c e-commerceon the activity and travel choices of individuals,along with lifestyle choices, residential prefer-ences and work locations. The fourth section isconcerned with the direct and indirect effectsof b2c e-commerce for freight transport. Thefifth section integrates the outcomes of the twoprevious sections, deriving hypotheses concern-ing the mobility and accessibility effects ofb2c e-commerce for the special case of groceryproducts. The final section draws conclusions.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The authors define e-commerce as an internet-based technology enabling the exchange ofproduct, order, payment and shipping infor-mation so as to conclude one or more stages ina commercial transaction process. For thepurpose of this study, it is not necessary thatparties actually transfer property rights, i.e., theyneed not commit themselves to a transaction inlegally binding ways. Individual travel behaviourwill be influenced also when people use theInternet merely to undertake search andcomparison tasks.

In line with other studies (see e.g. Visser &Nemoto 2001), three main types of e-commerceare discerned: business-to-business (b2b),consumer-to-consumer (c2c), and business-to-consumer (b2c) e-commerce. This paper focuseson b2c e-commerce because it influences bothindividual travel behaviour and freight trans-port. Note, however, that b2c e-commercestimulates b2b e-commerce: web/Internet-basedmarketplaces for goods or services, includingtransport and warehousing. This last may benecessary to actually deliver the productsordered through the Internet, and thus toeffectively compete with other retailers usingthe Internet or other channels.

Important aspects of b2c e-commerce includepromotion, ordering, delivery, and after-sales

support (Hameed 2003). Promotion can becustomised, as contacts are used to build upa ‘memory’ concerning a person’s interestsand needs. Also, it can be interactive, with userslearning about their requirements on the basisof immediate feedback. Next, the search andmatching process may take place in referenceor peer groups discussing and commentingon their experience with the product on sale.Ordering facilities include access to databaseson products, payment and shipping alterna-tives. In the case of digital products such assoftware, news and music, the Internet alsoserves to procure or deliver products, whichmay save mobility time and costs – if and whenthese products are not reconstituted (Mokh-tarian, oral communication, 16 June 2003).Finally, b2c e-commerce includes after-sales ser-vices, through the use of email, search-engines,and up-to-date bulletin boards.

The type of electronic device used for e-commerce can be a PC, TV or mobile equip-ment. From an accessibility and mobility pointof view, what matters is that the device enablesaccess to the Internet and that the informationexchange takes place in an open network, asopposed to closed networks entailing a specificgroup of people (extranet or intranet). Hence,large numbers of potential buyers and sellersmay connect with one another, irrespective oftheir location. However, the type of electronicdevice used for b2c e-commerce brings alongdifferent constraints for different kinds of people.This issue is dealt with in the next section.

To analyse the effects of b2c e-commerce, avalue system perspective is useful (Bradley &Nolan 2000; Rayport & Sviokla 1995). Valuesystems comprise a number of firms involved inthe subsequent stages of a process of making aproduct (from the collection of raw materialsto the delivery of the final product) for aconsumer. This paper focuses on the down-stream end of value systems, and use the morecommon terminology of ‘supply chains’.Supply chains entail information, physical andfinancial flows connecting firms and consumers.Information moves in two directions: upstreamand downstream. Goods move downstream inthe direction of consumers, while financial flows(payments) go upstream in the direction of sup-pliers. B2c e-commerce stimulate the ongoingprocess of consumer preferences increasingly

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF

MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY EFFECTS OF B2C E-COMMERCE 191


steering activities throughout a chain (Normannand Ramirez 2000), a phenomenon also called‘supply-chain reversal’ (Lambooy & Visser 2001).Next, b2c e-commerce stimulates so-called‘supply-chain integration’, i.e., ongoing effortsby leader firms in the chain to co-ordinateall actors and streamline their activities so asto improve collective performance: lower supply-chain costs and better service (Lambooy &Visser 2001).

Using a supply chain perspective, b2c e-commerce may have different effects:

1. Access to information of different actors inthe chain.

2. The shopping and associated travel behav-iour of consumers.

3. Activity patterns and associated travelbehaviour of consumers.

4. The residential and work location choices ofconsumers.

5. The volume (quantity) and nature (quality)of consumer demand.

6. Distribution systems for the delivery ofgoods ordered through the Internet, whichincludes responses in the logistic and trans-port sector to deal with home delivery andother service aspects of b2c e-commerce.

7. The spatial patterns of these distributionsystems.

The first four effects will be dealt with in thethird section, dealing with individual travel.The last effects are dealt with in the fourthsection, on freight transport.

We distinguish between direct and indirecteffects of b2c e-commerce. Direct effects foraccessibility can be large, considering thevirtual dimension of this concept, which Dijst(2004) defined as ‘the extent to which a givenspatial-infrastructural configuration allowspeople to develop activities at different loca-tions at a particular moment in time, and firmsto exchange information and goods as well asto meet and receive people at a certain momentin time’. Accessibility thus includes the infor-mation action space of consumers and businesses,which b2c and also b2b e-business is likely toenhance. In the mobility sphere, the directeffects of b2c e-commerce include using theInternet instead of physical travel for shoppingor non-shopping activities. B2c e-commerce maythus substitute for physical travel; other ways in

which b2c e-commerce may affect mobility areas a complement (e.g. when virtual contact addsto continued physical transport), a modificator(e.g., when virtual coordination helps to betteruse vehicles than in the case of individual plan-ning) or as an incentive (e.g. when virtual contactstimulates physical travel). Finally, direct mobilityeffects may relate to adjustments in logistic andfreight transport decisions and systems for thedelivery of goods ordered through the Internet.

Indirect effects for accessibility refer tochanges in the activity system of people and/or the configuration of supply chains, locationchoices and land-use patterns. These effectsalso affect mobility patterns in the long term(Salomon 1986), including modality choicesand car ownership and use. If, for example, thespatial distribution of retailing changes as aresult of a widespread adoption and massive useof e-commerce by consumers, then travel fortraditional store shopping has to adjust to thenew locations of retail stores. Another possi-bility is that (spatial patterns of ) transportinfrastructure changes, although so far, policy-makers do not seem to perceive a need to adjustinfrastructure investment policies in the light ofe-commerce (AVV 2002). An important pointmay be that physical accessibility continues tomatter, as ICT-enabled activities of individualsand firms so far seem to complement, ratherthan substitute, physical mobility (Mokhtarian2003). Hence, we consider the effects of b2ce-commerce for the spatial-infrastructural con-figuration of retailing, residential and employ-ment centres, the downstream end of supplychains (distribution systems). Next, we considerthe potential of logistic responses and inno-vations to alter the spatial structure of distributionsystems and increase the geographical outreachof Internet retailers, thus changing spatialopportunities of people in different regions.

Before dealing with effects of b2c e-commerce,we will firstly address social and economic fac-tors constraining the adoption and diffusion ofb2c e-commerce (Figure 1). These factors relateto attitudes, motivations and other characteris-tics of consumers, and to the informationrequirements associated with on-line purchas-ing of different types of products.

Social perspective – In the USA, the b2c e-commerce market has been growing fast, from

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



$20 to $36 billion in 1999 (Golob & Regan2001), to $51 billion in 2001 and $78 billionin 2002 (Forrester 2003). For 2003, Forrester(2003) expects b2c sales in the USA to grow by‘at least 25%’.

Despite this growth record, the number ofhouseholds involved in online shopping remainsmodest. The OECD (2002) observes that in2001, the share of households in North Americaand Northern Europe having access to theInternet varies between 40 and 60 per cent. Themajority uses the Internet for communicationpurposes or to collect product information,whereas only 20 to 40 per cent of the Internetusers have been involved in on-line shopping.This means that between 10 to 25 per cent ofhouseholds in the most affluent countries of theworld have engaged in b2c e-commerce at leastonce, while the share of b2c e-commerce intotal b2c sales in the Netherlands in 2002 hardlyexceeded two per cent, despite its fast growth(CBS data, in Thuiswinkel.org 2003). Theserather low numbers relate to constraints regard-ing people’s ability to engage in b2c e-commerce,and factors determining their willingness todo so.

The ability to engage in b2c e-commercefirstly depends on access to the Internet athome, the workplace or elsewhere (e.g. internetcafes). We assume that regular online shopping

requires people to have Internet access at a basepoint of daily activity spaces, for example athome. One reason for this is that online shop-ping can be a time-consuming process (due toinformation requirements, see below). Anotherreason is that delivery sometimes takes placeshortly after an online purchase (e.g. 2 hoursin the case of groceries), while home deliveryis considered to be a core advantage of b2ce-commerce (Aanen et al. 2001). Hence, regularonline shopping requires investing in a PC,modem, broadband, an Internet-capable TV(including a set-top box), or a mobile device.Gartner (2001) expects that b2c e-commercecontinues to be primarily PC-based, but increas-ingly in combination with other platforms.Hence, people may spend on several devices atthe same time. Using online facilities at theworkplace is not always possible, as companiesincreasingly put limits to the private use of paidlabour time. We conclude that people confrontsimilar constraints whether using a PC, interac-tive TV and/or other devices to engage in b2ce-commerce.

Constraints are technical, educational, finan-cial and spatial in nature. Problems with thesecurity of payments over the Internet – whetherperceived or real, are an example of technicalconstraints. Next, people probably need suffi-cient schooling and skills so as to master the use

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the impact of b2c e-commerce on mobility and accessibility.

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



of the equipment and services required toaccess the Internet. Next, financial constraintsappear, related with the need to purchase andmaintain (e.g. anti-virus software) equipment,the variable costs of Internet access (subscrip-tions and unit costs of telephone time), annualfees and income constraints related with theacquisition of a credit card, etc. Finally, spatialconstraints relate to the availability and qualityof virtual infrastructure and education, whichdiffer across space, as well as to income inequal-ity, which is especially relevant at the interna-tional level.

In connection with these constraints, age islikely to be an important aspect on whichInternet users and non-users differ. Youngpeople grow up learning English (so far themost important language used on the Internet)and computer skills at school, during theirfree time, alone and/or with friends. Otherpeople may have to put quite some effort in theacquisition of these skills. Survey data for theUSA (Casas et al. 2001; ACNielsen 2001) indeedindicate that Internet users are younger thannon-users. Gender seems to matter less; theshare of men and women was almost identicalin both groups. Income is important though;on-line households more often have an above-average income ($60,000 or more). Othercharacteristics that seemingly influence thelikelihood of having Internet access at home arethe household size, a female head of the house-hold who is not older than 45, a college degree,full-time employment or living in a relativelyaffluent and well-established family.

Not all people with access to the Internetalso engage in b2c e-commerce. With Internetaccess spreading across households, the shareof Internet shoppers among Internet usersremains relatively low. AC Nielsen (2001) foundthat 52 per cent of people with Internet accessactually engage in b2c e-commerce, mostly(in order of importance) books, CDs, DVDs,videos, clothing, flowers, computer hardware,entertainment-related services, durable house-hold goods, groceries and drugs. So, even whenpeople have the money, education and skills toaccess the Internet, this does not mean that theyalso involve in b2c e-commerce.

Of course, income matters, and Internetshoppers are found to have relatively highhousehold incomes (Casas et al. 2001). Gender

and age are also relevant, with middle-agedmen more likely to engage in Internet shop-ping. However, Scarborough Research (2001)suggests that Internet shoppers above all leadan ‘active, on the go’ lifestyle, undertakingrelatively often a trip abroad, attending moreoften professional sport events, subscribing moreoften to a health club, and so on. These peoplemay put a higher value on the time-benefits ofb2c e-commerce, but it also enhances their status.

Four other arguments can be found in theliterature to explain the limited involvement ofInternet users in Internet shopping. First, shop-ping trips are often part of trip chains; hence,shopping requires little extra effort and traveland is often part of routine behaviour. Second,the trade-off between shopping travel timereduction and extra costs of home delivery mayonly be in favour of b2c e-commerce in the caseof time-pressed families with a double income(Gould & Golob 1997; Farag et al. 2003). Third,shopping often serves a discretional or recre-ational purpose, for which Internet shoppingcan be no substitute (Salomon 1986). Finally,attitudes towards new technologies, towards theexperience of something new or towards brick-and-mortar shopping may limit an individual’swillingness to engage in b2c e-commerce, ashas been shown in a comparative way for tele-commuting (Mokhtarian & Salomon 1997).

To sum up, highly educated, preferably youngbut especially middle and high-income peopleare, in the authors’ view, potential Internetshoppers. People currently engaging in b2ce-commerce may roughly be divided into twosubgroups: time-pressed and double-incomehouseholds, often with one or more children,for whom Internet shopping yields highlyvalued time savings, and people with an ‘active, onthe go’ lifestyle, with sufficient financial meansand educational skills and for whom Internetshopping is efficient and status-enhancing. Inpractice, these two profiles overlap. Table 1gives examples of group profiles that we findinteresting in the light of their propensity toengage in b2c e-commerce. Apart from the‘time-pressed’ and ‘active, on the go’ profiles,we add young adults under 30 years with a highaffinity with the Internet medium, who maybecome Internet shoppers once their incomeincreases, and elderly people with sufficientfinancial means but limited physical capabilities,

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



whose skills so far may fall short of the require-ments, but this may change once aging baby-boomers enter this group. We also expect thata residential location in a rural area enhances thepropensity to engage in b2c e-commerce.

Economic perspective – A second set ofconstraints to the further development of b2ce-commerce is related with the type of productson offer on the Internet, in relation with thelevel of transaction costs and the potential ofe-commerce to reduce these costs. Productsdiffer on two related aspects: the availability ofinformation about the quality and value of pro-ducts, and therefore uncertainty about theseaspects. In this section, we deal with these issuesand present a product classification according tothe likelihood that products are traded throughthe Internet.

We defined e-commerce as an Internet-basedtechnology enabling the exchange of infor-mation so as to conclude one or more stages ina transaction process. The process dimensionof transactions is crucial for understanding theimportance of transaction costs and the pros-pects of e-commerce. As a transaction processtakes time, and information about quality isincomplete, people will spend resources (time,money) to find information and make sure thatthe transaction, if any, will be in their interest.This gives rise to two types of costs: transportcosts (related with physical travel) and so-calledtransaction costs, which can be defined as the

costs of economic exchange under uncertainty(Nooteboom 2002). Uncertainty not only refersto product quality, but also to the intentionsand future behaviour of trading partners. Thisbehaviour could derail during three stages ofthe transaction process: contact, contract andcontrol (Nooteboom 1994).

E-commerce has the potential to reducesome transaction costs, insofar as informationbecomes available that was not available before(Pant & Hsu 1996; Garicano & Kaplan 2000;Nooteboom 2002). This effect may be largest inthe contact stage of the transaction process (seeTable 2). In the contract stage, firms also shiftadministration costs towards consumers. In thecontrol phase, however, problems may arise ofa nature that makes e-commerce less useful toexert ‘voice’ (to paraphrase Hirschman).

Suijker (2001) generalises the transaction-cost reduction argument, assuming that b2ce-commerce enables buyers and sellers toperform transaction activities more effectively(with better results) and more efficiently (atlower costs). Sale prices may decrease along withtransport charges, the unit costs of Internetaccess, the opportunity costs of search time,as well as transaction costs. B2c e-commercereduces transaction costs along with the oppor-tunity costs of search time, but the other effectsare still subject to debate (see for example,Schmitz & Latzer 2002). So far, the sale prices ofsome goods sold through the Internet remainrelatively high, which may reflect a lack of

Table 1. Some household types and their affinity with b2c e-commerce.

Household type Affinity with b2c e-commerce

1. Young adults (< 30 years) Skilled, frequently using the Internet, eager to know new things but with limited financial resources; not yet regular Internet shoppers, but likely to be so in the future, especially when living in rural areas.

2. The elderly (> 60 years) Insufficient skills, sometimes with financial means and lacking certain physical abilities, but not at all time-pressed; hence limited involvement in b2c e-commerce, which may gradually change over the next two decades, especially when living in rural areas.

3. Time-pressed families Highly skilled, double income, time-pressured households with children and some affinity with new technologies; potential or present Internet shoppers, especially when living in rural areas.

4. ‘Active, on-the-go-lifestyles’ Highly skilled, high-income, time-pressured professionals with a high affinity for new technologies; potential or present Internet shoppers, especially when living in rural areas.

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



ability or willingness of a critical mass of con-sumers to engage in e-commerce and associateddis-economies of scale and scope for firms, ora natural response of entrepreneurs whenfacing enhanced competition, i.e., to enhancethe loyalty of e-shoppers through trust-building,branding, differentiation and customisation ofproducts, and service; anything that helps toreduce competition.

Transaction and opportunity cost reductionsare likely to be different for various types ofproducts. Products differ regarding the needfor information required to verify quality andmake a purchasing decision (Chen & Dhillon2003). Hence, certain products may not evenbe feasible for e-commerce. In this regard,the distinction between ‘search, experience andcredence goods’ is useful. The quality of searchproducts can be determined prior to purchaseand consumption; examples are CDs, books,pre-classified groceries, or tactile products suchas apparel, footwear or jewels. The quality of

experience products can only be assessed dur-ing or after consumption; examples are movies,holidays, etc. Credence products are productswhose quality can hardly or never be deter-mined, not even after consumption. So, buyerssimply have to believe that consumption wasuseful. Examples are certain advisory services.

The more products have characteristics ofcredence products, the more trust is requiredfor a transaction to take place, and the less likelyit is that e-commerce contributes to buildingtrust and enable the transaction. Firms investin brand names to offset this problem, but it islikely that b2c e-commerce will gain less in thecase of credence, and possible also experienceproducts, as compared to search products. Overtime, consumers gain experience and suppliersmay invest in their reputation and brand, sothat a good that today qualifies as an experiencegood may develop into a search good in theperception of the buyer. Over time, the potentialof e-commerce may thus increase.

Table 2. Transaction cost reductions due to e-commerce.

Consumers (buyers) Businesses (suppliers) Advantages of e-commerce

Contact Search for product alternatives, become aware of needs and possibilities to fulfil them, match alternatives, and evaluate outcomes.

Look for selling alternatives, consider manifest or potential needs of clients, and determine their capacity to fulfil these needs.

Enhanced access to information implies better search, matching and evaluation possibilities. Efforts to enhance customer loyalty may reduce this advantage, however.

Contract Negotiate the terms of a transaction, draft a preliminary contract, anticipate possible future problems, and propose changes in the contract.

Shift of administrative costs from sellers to buyers. Online planning systems reduce costs at his stage.

Control Monitor the realisation of the transaction process, compare with contract details. Deviations lead to haggling, adjustment of contracts, sanctions or third-party mediation.

More information available through online control systems, e.g. tracking-and-tracing. In case of opportunistic behaviour, e-commerce is not a sufficient tool to handle problems.

During the entire process

Both parties invest time, effort and money in preventing misunderstandings, mistakes and misspecifications, incomplete fine-tuning or applications.

More and better (interactive) information facilitates ongoing communication.

Source : adapted from Nooteboom (1994), pp. 32–33.

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



With a view to the assessment of the mobilityeffects of b2c e-commerce, an important ques-tion is how activities at the contact, contract andcontrol stage of the transaction process differacross search, experience and credence goods.In which cases and at which stage is proximityand face-to-face contact required, i.e. physicaltravel? When can the exchange of informationtake place through the wires? In the case ofexperience products, we hypothesise that con-sumers first collect information on well-definedaspects of shopping alternatives with the helpof the Internet, and then go to a nearby storeso as to verify those product features that areless clear (or to assure oneself that good advicewill be available after signing the contract). Inthe case of search goods, the entire transactionprocess may take place with the help of theInternet, so that freight transport substitutes fortrips of individual consumers. Other aspects tobe taken into account are the frequency of pur-chases and availability of products (which in factare the basis for another product classificationthat can be found in the literature, betweenconvenience, shopping and speciality goods).

Concluding this section, it is observed thatthe growth potential for b2c e-commerce is larg-est in the case of search and experience goods,as transaction costs are not prohibitive ande-commerce has the potential of reducing thistype of costs. Next, the travel impact of b2ce-commerce is likely to be largest in the caseof search goods, although when taking intoaccount freight transport, the net outcomeremains unclear. In the case of credence prod-ucts, physical travel and face-to-face contact andcommunication are likely to be required. A finalcomment is that the emphasis in this section hasbeen on reducing transaction and opportunitycosts, but the social (status) effects and pleasurethat people derive from shopping on the Inter-net also need to be taken into account, alongwith the social status effects of Internet shop-ping. These factors are beyond the scope of thispaper, but enhance the uncertainty about thesize of mobility effects of b2c e-commerce.

IMPACT OF B2C E-COMMERCE ON ACTIVITY AND TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR

This section deals with the effects of b2c e-commerce (e-shopping) for activity patterns,

shopping and travel behaviour, along with life-style, residential and work location choices ofconsumers. These effects are key issues in scien-tific and political debates, e.g. the possibilitythat new ICTs and e-shopping substitute forphysical travel. At first, research showed a netdecrease of physical travel for the case of tele-commuters (Niles 1994; Pendyala et al. 1991).Recent findings, however, suggest that this isonly a short-term effect. Over a longer timeperiod, travel distances are not observed todecrease. One explanation for this could bethat savings in commuting travel times and coststo some extent convert into other or longertrips for non-work activities (Mokhtarian 2000;Golob & Regan 2001). Next, residential andemployment location choices may change,which in turn affect travel demand (Niles 1994;Pendyala et al. 1991; Golob & Regan 2001).

To assess the direct effects of e-shopping ontravel, this paper uses a model suggested bySalomon (1983) that distinguishes betweenthree types of travel related choices: long-termlifestyle choices (such as the formation of afamily, labour market participation or orienta-tion towards leisure), mid-term mobility choices(regarding employment and residential loca-tion, housing type, car ownership or the modeof travel to work), and short-term activity andtravel choices that are non-work related (seeFigure 2). These three choice types are dis-cussed below.

First, the impact of new ICT (including e-shopping) on lifestyle decisions is hard to esti-mate. Casas et al. (2001) found that e-shoppersin the USA often have an ‘on-the-go’ lifestyle.A detailed analysis of the impact of new ICTs onlifestyles is not available in the literature, butwe suggest that individualisation and the spreadof new technologies go hand in hand. It ishard to discern a cause and effect relationshipbetween the two processes, which can best bethought to represent a parallel change. NewICTs allow for distinct activity and life choicesof individuals and, at the same time, lifestylepioneers foster the dissemination of new tech-nologies and activities (e.g. regarding leisuretime), demanding and thus pulling new tech-nologies. For example, the use of ICT for leisureactivities is linked with a change in leisureorientations. As we consider the lifestyles ofpeople to be relatively stable over a longer

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



period of time, however, the associated changesin travel behaviour are beyond the scope of thispaper.

Second, e-shopping may facilitate new mobil-ity choices, albeit most likely in combinationwith other uses of ICT. Just as in lifestyle choices,mobility choices depend on a number of fac-tors. Hence, we do not expect that e-shoppingalone will have a directly measurable impact onmobility choices, although it may affect theseto some extent once new decisions have to bemade, and especially if e-shopping is combinedwith other uses of ICT. Regarding residentiallocation choices, for example, a combination ofregular e-shopping with (part-time) telework-ing may offer opportunities to choose a locationin more remote areas. A larger potential spaceof locations is available once the time schedul-ing becomes more flexible and living near awork or shopping location is less important.Research on telecommuters, however, suggeststhat they shop closer to their home than otherpeople, often even within walking distance

(Pendyala et al. 1991). Hence, it remains unclearif telecommuters would substitute electronicfor store shopping.

Car ownership is another important mobilitydecision that can be affected by e-shopping.There is solid empirical evidence that owninga car is a good predictor of car use, as well as thefuture use of alternative travel modes. Researchon car-free households (where no member ownsa car) suggests that taking goods from the storeback home is perceived to be a major problemin everyday life (Reutter & Reutter 1996). Forthese households, e-shopping may solve a majorproblem and, hence, support the idea that caruse is a major thrust of environmental qualities.If, however, e-shopping would affect the spatialdistribution of brick-and-mortar shoppingstores, and the average distance to the neareststore increases for households, then it becomesmore difficult to shop near the home – a neces-sary condition for shopping for car-free house-holds. In general, a good supply of shoppingstores close to residential areas is a necessary

Source : adapted from Salomon (1983).

Figure 2. Impact of new ICT technologies on travel related choices.

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



condition for reducing car travel for shoppingpurposes. Hence, enhanced e-shopping mayindirectly reduce opportunities for shoppingwith slow travel modes, such as walking andcycling, and for living without a car. Ultimately,e-shopping may thus threaten the opportunitiesfor living without a car.

Third, empirical evidence suggests that e-shopping influences activity and non-work traveldecisions. Using a structural equation modeland activity dairies, Gould and Golob (1997)conclude that e-shopping induced savings intravel times for working women partly convertsinto travel for other purposes, although mostof the saved time is used for other activities(mainly maintenance) at home. However, intheir 1999 household travel study in Sacramento(California), Casas et al. (2001) found no evidencethat Internet shoppers travel less for shoppingpurposes than non-Internet shoppers, whilethe total number of trips between the two groupswas not significantly different. To explainthis, we refer to three characteristics of shop-ping activities and travel: first, shopping is notjust a maintenance task, but often a social orrecreational activity as well, which can thusnot be substituted by the use of ICT; second, ifshopping trips are chained with other activitieslike commuting, personal business or fun shop-ping, e-shopping does not necessarily reducetravel times or distances as the travel still takesplace for the other purposes; third, it is notclear as to what extent e-shopping in fact sub-stitutes for in-store-shopping. AC Nielsen (2001)reports that only 10 per cent of online shoppersin the USA purchase groceries online, whichsuggests a high degree of complementarity ofonline and store-shopping by e-shoppers. Thetravel impact of e-shopping, however, dependson the degree of substitution of online for storeshopping. Above, it was suggested that thefrequency of store trips largely depends on thetype of product purchased. This is significantlyhigher for groceries than most other products;hence, it may be that the low share of onlinegrocery shopping is one reason why the travelimpact of e-shopping appears to be modest.

Finally, there is not much evidence on theeffect of telecommuting or e-shopping onthe modality choice. Evidence from the USAsuggests that telecommuting makes carpoolingmore difficult, as flexible work arrangements

lead to working only a few (parts of ) days perweek in the office and the other (parts of ) daysat home. Hence, it is more difficult to makean arrangement with other people to undertakejoint car trips. In the case of Europe, the situ-ation differs as the mode choice involves morethan driving alone or with passengers.

IMPACT OF B2C E-COMMERCE ON DEMAND CHAINS AND FREIGHT TRANSPORT

This section deals with the effects of b2c e-commerce for various aspects of freight trans-port, particularly size, composition, duration,frequency, modality and spatial patterns, takinginto account a variety of mechanisms:

• size and quality of consumer demand• distribution systems• responses in the logistic and transport sector• the location behaviour of firms in this sector.

Demand effects – Above we saw that e-commercemay reduce certain costs of purchasing, such astransaction costs and the opportunity costs ofsearch time, and in some cases also sale prices.These economies are likely to increase themarket share of e-commerce, at least for someproduct types. In turn, this boosts the pur-chasing power of those consumers involved ine-commerce. Hence, they are able to buy largerquantities of products with the same incomeand time they have at their disposal. B2ce-commerce may therefore enhance the size ofdemand and the freight-tonne volume of trans-port (Smith et al. 2001).

Next, e-commerce may induce shifts in con-sumption patterns. TLN (2000) mentions threepossibilities: an increase in impulse, long-distanceand anonymous purchases, enhanced demandfor products that can only be found with searchengines, and enhanced demand for productsthat can only be bought on the Internet. Insofaras these shifts lead to longer physical distancesthat products travel before they get to the con-sumer, this further increases freight transport(in terms of tonne-kilometres, see Figure 3).

Some authors (see e.g. Mokhtarian 2003) raisethe possibility of increased per-capita spendingon consumption, due to special qualities of theInternet (convenience, the interactive nature of

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



communication, possibilities for highly customisedmarketing and products, and so on). This wouldfurther increase the volume of freight transport.

Distribution systems – Entrepreneurs oftenrespond to enhanced competition by trying toincrease the loyalty of their customers throughbranding, differentiating and customising prod-ucts, and enhancing customer service. Thislast aspect is helpful to figure out the impact ofb2c e-commerce on distribution systems. Cus-tomer service refers to the contact, contract andcontrol stages of transactions. At the contactstage, 24-hour connectivity and information areimportant. At the contract stage, buyers neednot worry about delivery time, timing, reliabilityand location, nor about the seller’s flexibilityregarding delivery and product specifications.Also, options for on-site installation, advice andtraining should be offered. At the control stage,no deviations between contract and realisationshould occur. Alternatively, consumers need guar-antees, ways to complain, spare parts or additionalinformation, for example on maintenance.

The customer service explosion (see deWit & van Gent 1996) shows that logistics hasbecome part and parcel of the marketing strat-egy of firms. The service offer at a website playsan important role in the e-shopping decisionof consumers. Consumers promptly react tovariations, changes and deviations regardingservice. So, customer service is likely to shape newdelivery systems and influence freight transportflows. This happens through home deliveryand return flows (see Table 3), as well as theenhanced frequency and speed of delivery.

Home delivery is a central feature of distri-bution systems for e-shopping (Visser & Nemoto2001; Iding & Verduijn 2001). Although buyersmay be prepared to accept delivery in a locker,drop box, special depot or a well-known shopin the neighbourhood, or at a gas station orat work (Aanen et al. 2001), home delivery isresponsible for the largest effect of b2c e-commerce on transport and travel. Trucks andsmall vans substitute for consumers travellingto shopping centres. This increase in freighttonne-kilometres translates into an increase in

Figure 3. Effects of b2c e-commerce on freight transport.

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



vehicle-kilometres insofar as the scale of trans-port operations decreases (the size of vehiclesis so far smaller than those used to supplytraditional retailers, due to the still limitedsize of the market, infrastructure constraints, andspeed requirements of e-shoppers) and deliveryfrequency increases (also as a result of faileddelivery attempts). Next, home delivery leads toa deeper penetration of freight transport intoresidential areas.

In traditional retailing, delivery failures arerelatively rare compared with b2c e-commerce,in which setting shoppers depend more onsellers to deliver the right product in the rightway. The logistic service associated with b2ce-commerce needs to fine-tune timing and loca-tion of the delivery with the individual activityschedules of different types of consumers.So far, this appears to be too ambitious. B2ce-commerce generates relatively large returnflows in terms of tonne-kilometres, first becauseone delivery often requires various deliveryattempts, and second because of goods beingreturned to the seller after reception andinspection by the e-shopper – often a necessarycondition to purchase goods online.

The final two customer service aspects thatmay influence distribution systems and freighttransport are the enhanced expectations ofconsumers, also in rural and remote areas, regard-ing the frequency and speed of delivery (Smithet al. 2001). One should not overstate this, how-ever, as Internet sellers often offer few deliverytime options, e.g. within four, eight or twenty-four hours. Next, outsourcing transport services

and decentralisation of delivery systems mayfurther mitigate the freight transport effects ofenhanced speed and frequency.

On the whole, we conclude that the customerservice-aspects of b2c e-commerce are particu-larly important in enhancing the volume oftransport, in terms of the number of tonne-kilometres and vehicle kilometres (see Figure 3).

Responses in the logistic and transport sector –B2c e-commerce implies a struggle to combinethe fulfilment of enhanced service requirementsof e-shoppers with a cost-effective delivery.Internet sellers may find this too complicated atask and decide to outsource distribution activ-ities to specialised logistic service providers.The latter may be better able to optimise freighttransport associated with b2c e-commerce, forexample by combining cargoes of differentclients, working in high-demand areas only,combining delivery and return services, switch-ing from cars, vans and trucks to bikes andmotorbikes or water transport, e.g. for inner-city transport, using ICTs for better logisticplanning and control, reconfiguring the supplychain (decentralisation, to be discussed below),or developing new logistic concepts, e.g. cross-docking (also to be discussed below).

Regarding the use of ICT, a distinction shouldbe made between e-logistics (the purchase oflogistic or transport services through onlinemarketplaces, by shippers or a first-tier logisticservice provider) and the wide range of ICT-enabled operational planning and controlsystems that can help to improve transport

Table 3. Traditional distribution and e-commerce compared.

Traditional retailing E-commerce

Delivery at retail stores Consumer’s shopping trips Direct home-delivery

• Large quantities • Small quantities • One piece delivery• Homogeneous loads • Heterogeneous loads • Heterogeneous loads• Large trucks (vans) • Passenger cars • Small vans (trucks)• One stop • One stop • Many stops• Transport companies & own transport • Own transport • Couriers and parcel services• Vehicle movements to and

within shopping areas• Vehicle movements between

shopping and residential areas• Vehicle movements to and

within residential areas• No delivery failures • Few delivery failures • Many delivery failures

Source : Visser and Nemoto (2001), p. 13.

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



efficiency, such as advanced planning andscheduling (APS), used to optimise supply chainsand measure performance, enterprise resourceplanning (ERP), used to optimise warehousingprocesses, routing software, mobile communi-cation, board computers (a ‘black box’ con-taining logistic data for evaluation purposes),tracking-and-tracing, global positioning systems(GPS).

These countervailing measures of individualfirms may not be enough to counteract thefreight transport effects of b2c e-commerce.Stand-alone initiatives are generally unlikely tohave sufficient impact. Co-operation betweenvarious actors in supply chains may be requiredto contain freight transport enhancements dueto b2c e-commerce.

Spatial and related changes in supply chains –A more structural manner in which Internetsellers or their logistic service providers maycombine enhanced service with a cost-effectivedelivery is to locate the distribution centres nearthe homes of consumers. Hence, e-commercemay lead to a process of decentralisation of themost downstream end of distribution systems,especially in high-demand, urban and metro-politan areas where the scale of operations issufficiently large to justify the construction ofdedicated distribution centres. Decentralisationobviously improves service and lowers transportcosts, by reducing the distance between thedistribution centre and clients, creating econ-omies of scale in upstream transport costs (fromproducers of goods to the suburban distri-bution centre) along with economies of scaleand scope in downstream transport costs. Thelatter scale effects are contingent on the size ofthe market and hence on possibilities to conso-lidate deliveries to a large number of e-shoppers.On the other hand, decentralisation inducesan increase in depot costs (related with the con-struction of the site, capital and handling costsof stocks, etc.). The trade-off between increaseddepot costs on the one hand and enhancedservice and lower transport costs on the otherhand thus determines the degree of decentra-lisation. In line with this, Vermunt & Binnekade(1999) observes a trend towards cross-dockingactivity in distribution centres. This means thatthe latter lose their storage function and inturn facilitate fast transshipment of goods and

consolidation of flows originating from producersor upstream distribution centres. Cross-dockingthus helps to contain storage costs and toincrease speed.

Evaluation – So far, the analysis of the freighttransport effects of b2c e-commerce indicatesthat the latter increases in tonne volume terms(due to a one-off positive effect on demand andeconomic growth), alters spatial patterns of freighttransport (due to shifts in consumption patterns),enhances service requirements of consumers(with considerable freight transport effects), andstimulates advancements in logistic and transporttechnology, along with outsourcing and thedecentralisation (sub-urbanisation) of distribu-tion systems (see Figure 3, which summarisesthe various effects dealt with in this section).

The mitigating effects of outsourcing to logis-tics firms and technological development in thelogistic and transport sector are most relevantin urban areas, where the concentration ofdemand warrants sufficient economies of scaleso as to enable the consolidation of flows, thedecentralisation of distribution systems and othermeasures that contain the increase in freighttransport vehicle kilometres. Hence, the poten-tial for countervailing measures is largest inurban areas, where the growth of b2c e-commerceand associated freight transport is also largest.It should be kept in mind, however, that b2ce-commerce induced freight traffic so far appearsto complement – rather than to substitute, freighttransport generated in traditional distributionchannels. Hence, it appears that in urban set-tings, the overall effect of b2c e-commerce onfreight transport is an increase in volume, tonne-kilometre and vehicle-kilometre terms, despiteICT-enabled logistic innovations and decentra-lisation of downstream distribution in urban areas.

ACCESSIBILITY EFFECTS OF B2C E-COMMERCE: HYPOTHESES FOR GROCERY E-SHOPPING

In this section, a few hypotheses are formulatedregarding the mobility and accessibility impactof e-shopping, assuming an increasing use ofthe Internet for buying groceries. A special fea-ture of e-grocery shopping is that for maintain-ing a regular household, at least one, but oftenmore shopping trips per week are required.

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



The effects of e-grocery shopping for activityand travel patterns are dealt with first, andthen indirect effects for freight transport due tochanges in distribution systems, and for indi-vidual travel and freight transport combined dueto a changing spatial distribution and accessi-bility of brick-and-mortar stores are examined.It is noted that the spatial distribution ofgrocery stores in most European countries ischaracterised by the relative importance ofsmall shops in urban areas compared with large-scale hypermarkets and shopping malls atthe edge of cities (see e.g. Evers (2001) for theNetherlands). We assess the accessibility effectsof e-grocery shopping from this Europeanperspective.

For activity scheduling, it is hypothesised thate-grocery shoppers use the net time savings forlonger periods of social, recreation or leisureactivities, at home or outdoors. The mobilityimpact is largely unknown, however. First, theshare of (grocery) shopping time per week islow compared to that of other activities. Next,shopping is frequently trip-chained with otheractivities. So, the stand-alone effect of e-shoppingon time budgets and travel reductions is prob-ably small. Together with other ICT activities,however, it may facilitate considerable changesin individuals’ time budgets, activities and travelpatterns. This interaction effect is likely to differacross social groups, however, as social andeconomic constraints hinder large groups insociety to participate in e-shopping, or to prefertraditional shopping for social or recreationalreasons. This may be true for the elderly, despitetheir relatively poor physical health and associ-ated mobility problems, as this group haslimited skills in using Internet-based ICTs, andoften combine shopping with social activities.Clearly, social differentiation has a spatialdimension; different social groups are not evenlydistributed across space, due to some extent todifferent location preferences.

An important indirect effect of b2c e-commerce for freight transport is due to changesin distribution systems. For online groceryshopping, these follow the general logistic rulethat service be maximised (regarding speed,frequency and reliability of delivery) at the low-est logistic (i.e., depot and downstream trans-port) costs possible. In line with this prediction,a Dutch online grocer was observed to decen-

tralise the downstream end of its distributionsystem and stimulate cross-docking of fast-moving products (van Hofwegen 2002). Theurban bias in its geographical market coverageresults from the two-hour delivery guarantee forcustomers living no more than 25 kilometresfrom one of the three distribution centres runby the grocer, and the decision not to outsourcelogistic and transport functions (for service-related reasons). Hence, this grocer concen-trates on a market area with a minimum of500,000 households, so as to reap economies ofscale in depot and urban transport costs. Theseare relatively high, as delivery trips are longer– the goods are carried ‘into a client’s kitchen’,and more frequently than in the traditional(retailing) situation. Small vans and trucks drivedeep into residential areas, yielding a relativelylarge number of dispersed deliveries – efforts tobundle deliveries and achieve efficient routeplanning notwithstanding.

Any attempts towards geographical marketextension are subject to similar rules and trade-offs, between service and cost levels, marketpotential and the optimal location for relativelysmall depots serving a large number of cus-tomers. Relatively dispersed consumers in periph-eral areas can only be served using the existingdistribution structure, until the construction ofa new depot becomes feasible, which is a matterof scale (of the market, the number of clients,order size and value). Until then, consumersin these areas need to be prepared to pay foradditional transport costs, and to accept a lessspeedy service.

Meanwhile, in the same regions, the numberof traditional supermarkets and shops isdecreasing as a result of insufficient demandand related dis-economies of scale and scope.This process is thus underway, but may bestimulated if and when online grocers manageto expand the geographical areas they cover,thus making their services available and access-ible for consumers in more peripheral regions.Hence, trends in e-shopping demand and tra-ditional supply channels work in the samedirection, of e-shopping services spreading andtraditional services thinning out, in the periph-eral and rural but perhaps also in urban areas.

To sum up, it is hypothesised that e-groceryservices have some potential to migrate towardsrural areas and thus to mitigate, albeit to some

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



extent, the trend towards a diminishing accessi-bility of traditional shops for rural consumers(see e.g. Evers 2001). With this, the mobilityenhancing impact of b2c e-commerce may alsospread. Congestion, noise, pollution and lackof parking space constitute more of a problemin urban areas, however. There, distribution ofgoods ordered through the Internet will overtime provide urban (transport) planners with ahuge a challenge. However, if e-commerce stim-ulates the closing of traditional grocery storesin remote areas, this may cause a spatial redis-tribution of other traditional stores as well, inthe direction of places where demand concen-trates. Hence, the physical accessibility of tradi-tional shops would reduce for consumers inremote areas, affecting their travel patternsfor other shopping purposes, the need to havea car, etc. Assessing these effects of electronic(grocery) shopping across regions is a complextask, but will have to be performed, as they maybecome relatively important in the future.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, the mobility and accessibilityeffects of b2c e-commerce by means of a litera-ture review were analysed. The distinctionbetween direct (short-term) and indirect (long-term) effects for both virtual and physical accessi-bility as well as for the travel behaviour ofconsumers and the freight transport behaviourof firms was established. The direct mobilityimpact of b2c e-commerce is relatively clear. Thereis no reason to expect that consumers will travelless; their travel demand for non-shoppingpurposes may even increase. Considering bothfreight transport and individual travel, weexpect an overall increase in mobility, which isespecially due to home-delivery and customer-service enhanced freight transport substitutingfor the shopping travel of consumers. This pro-cess has so far been largely confined to urbanareas, and mainly suburban residential areas.

The indirect (long-term) changes for physi-cal accessibility and mobility are harder to dealwith, for practical reasons (time lags, lack ofdata), methodological problems, the numberof choices involved, the complexity of the re-lationships, and the relatively high level ofuncertainty. This paper nevertheless shows thatthe current process of decentralisation and

suburbanisation of distribution systems for b2ce-commerce may gradually extend towards moreremote and less densely populated areas, as hasbeen seen in the example of online grocery inthe Netherlands. This, however, may contributeto the ongoing process of the closure of tradi-tional retail stores in these areas, thus limitingphysical accessibility of such stores for non-urban consumers and enhancing the utility ofe-commerce for this group of people. As aresult, average trip lengths and car use for shop-ping trips may increase. As freight transportalso increases due to b2c e-commerce, the overalleffect will be an increase in motorised mobilitythroughout the country, with only urban con-sumers being able to save time and trips forshopping purposes, but consumers elsewhereadding time and distance to their travel burden.

The size of the mobility and accessibilityeffects of b2c e-commerce varies between prod-uct categories, however. In the case of searchand experience (including tactile) goods, it hasthe potential of reducing transaction costs andthere is growth potential for b2c e-commerce.Its travel impact may thus become significantover time – although when taking into accountfreight transport, the net outcome is less clear.In the case of credence products, transactioncosts are prohibitively high, b2c e-commerce isnot likely to take off, face-to-face contact andphysical travel remain necessary, and the over-all mobility impact could be negligible. Next,social status and the pleasure that people derivefrom shopping also needs to be taken intoaccount. These factors also enhance the un-certainty about the mobility and accessibilityimpact of b2c e-commerce over time.

REFERENCES

Aanen, W., et al. (2001), Logistiek in E-commerce:Werkend of Beperkend? Research report, Universityof Utrecht, Faculty of Geosciences.

ACNielsen (2001), The Internet Shopper: ACloser Look. Consumer Insight magazine, http://acnielsen.com/pubs/ci/2000/q2/features/internet.htm (18/9/2001).

AVV (2002), Verkennende studie E-commerce.Ministry of Transport and Water Management, http://www.rws-avv.nl/pls/portal30/docs/3152.PDF(15/1/2003).

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



Bradley, S.P. & R.L. Nolan (2000), Sense andRespond: Capturing Value in the Network Era. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Casas, J., J. Zmvd & S. Bricka (2001), Impact ofShopping via Internet on Travel for ShoppingPurposes. Paper No. 01-3393 presented at theTransportation Research Board Annual Meeting,January, Washington DC.

Chen, S.C. & G.S. Dhillon (2003), InterpretingDimensions of Consumer Trust in E-Commerce.Information Technology and Management 4, pp. 303–318.

De wit, J. & H. van Gent (1998), Economie enTransport. Utrecht: Lemma B.V.

Dijst, M. (2003), ICT and Accessibility: An ActionSpace Perspective on the Impact of New Infor-mation and Communication Technologies. In:M. Beuthe, V. Himanen, A. Reggiani & L. Zamparini,eds., Transport Developments and innovations in anEvolving World. Berlin: Springer.

Evans, P.B. & T.S. Wurster (1997), Strategy and theNew Economics of Information. Harvard BusinessReview Sept–Oct, pp. 71–82.

Evers, D. (2001), Window on the Netherlands. TheRise (and Fall?) of National Retail Planning.Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93,pp. 107–113.

Farag, S., M. Dijst & M. Lanzendorf (2003),Exploring the Impact of e-shopping on PersonalTravel Behaviour. Paper presented at the Trans-portation Research Board 80th Annual Meeting,January, Washington, DC.

Forrester (2003), http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/Excerpt/0,1317,16779,00.html,28/5/03.

Garicano, L. & S.N. Kaplan (2000), The effects ofbusiness-to-business e-commerce on transactioncosts. NBER Working paper series 8017, NBER.

Gartner (2001), http://www.e-businessworld.com/ic_759624_912_1-2787.html, 1/6/03.

Golob, T.F. & A.C. Regan (2001), Impacts of Infor-mation Technology on Personal Travel and Com-mercial Vehicle Operations: Research Challengesand Opportunities. Transportation Research C 9,pp. 87–121.

Gould, J. & T.F. Golob (1997), Shopping WithoutTravel or Travel Without Shopping? An Investi-gation of Electronic Home Shopping. TransportReview 17, pp. 355–376.

Hameed, I. (2003), http://internet.about.com/library/aa_ecom_042803.htm, 28/5/03.

Iding, M.H.E. & T.M. Verduijn (2001), Effecten vande Nieuwe Economie op Logistiek, Transport en

Ruimte. Report prepared for the RPD, TNO Inro,no. 2001-040.

Lambooy, J.G. & E.J. Visser (2001), Logistiek enRuimtelijk Gedrag van Ondernemingen. Rooilijn34, pp. 442–447.

Mokhtarian, P.L. (2000), Telecommunicationsand Travel. Paper presented at the TransportationResearch Board 79th Annual Meeting, January,Washington, DC. http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/publications/millennium/00115.pdf (8.8.2001)

Mokhtarian, P.L. (2003), Telecommunications andTravel: The Case for Complementarity. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology 6, 43–57.

Mokhtarian, P.L. & I. Salomon (1997), Modellingthe Desire to Telecommute: The Importance ofAttitudinal Factors In Behavioral Models. Trans-portation Research A 31, pp. 35–50.

Niles, J. (1994), Beyond Telecommuting: A NewParadigm for the Effect of Telecommunications onTravel. Report DOE/ER-0626, US Department ofEnergy, Offices of Energy Research and ScientificComputing.

Nooteboom, B. (1994), Management van Partnershipsin Toeleveren en Uitbesteden. Schoonhoven: AcademicService, Bedrijfskundige signalementen.

Nooteboom, B. (2002), Trust: Forms, Foundations,Functions, Failures and Figures. Cheltenham: EdwardElgar.

Normann, R. & R. Ramirez (2000), From ValueChain to Value Constellation: Designing Interac-tive Strategy. In: S.P. Bradley & R.L. Nolan eds.,Sense and Respond: Capturing Value in the Network Era,pp. 185–220. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

OECD (2002), Measuring the Information Eeconomy.Paris: OECD Publications.

Pant, S. & C. Hsu (1996), Business on the Web:Strategies and Economics. Computer Systems andISDN Systems 28, pp. 1481–1492.

Pendyala, R.M., K.G. Goulias & R. Kitamura(1991), Impact of Telecommuting on Spatial andTemporal Patterns of Household Travel. Transpor-tation 18, pp. 383–409.

Rayport, J.F. & J.J. Sviokla (1995), Exploiting theVirtual Value Chain. Harvard Business Review,Nov.–Dec., pp. 75–85.

Reutter, O. & U. Reutter (1996), Autofreies Lebenin der Stadt. Autofreie Stadtquartiere im Bestand.Verkehr Spezial Bd. 2. Dortmund: Vertrieb fürBau- und Planungsliteratur.

Ruijgrok, C. (2001), European Transport: Insightsand Challenges. In: A.M. Brewer, K.J. Button &D.A. Hensher, eds., Handbook of Logistics and

UNCORREC

TED P

ROOF



Supply-chain Management, pp. 61–77. Oxford:Elsevier Science Ltd.

Salomon, I. (1983), Life Styles – a Broader Pers-pective on Travel Behaviour. In: S. Carpenter &P. Jones, eds., Recent Advances in Travel DemandAnalysis, pp. 290–310. Aldershot: Gower.

Salomon, I. (1986), Telecommunications and TravelRelationships: A Review. Transportation Research A20, pp. 223–238.

Scarborough Research (2001), http://www.vnumis.com/vnumis/press.nsf/1eaa3344eb14ab8385256792007bb4a4/07729fc96df518f0852568f50051979b, 19/9/01.

Schmitz, S.W. & M. Latzer (2002), Competition inb2c e-commerce: Analytical Issues and EmpiricalEvidence. Working paper, Research Unit forInstitutional Change and European Integration,Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Smith, N., L. Ferreira & E. Mead (2001), E-businessImpacts on the Transport System. National Trans-port Secretariat working paper no. 3, June.

Suijker, F.W. (2001), Aanzet tot Analytisch Kadervoor Economische Effecten van e-commerce.Research report, Centraal Planbureau.

Thuiswinkel.org (2003), http://www.thuiswinkel.org/onderdeel/welkomspagina/home_shopping_netherlands/nederlands/thuiswinkelen_in_nederland.asp (29/10/03).

TLN (2000), Nieuwe wijn in oude Zakken? Verken-nende Studie e-commerce. Research report, Trans-port en Logistiek Nederland.

van Hofwegen, P. (2002), E-commerce, Logistieken Goederenvervoer. M.Sc. Thesis, University ofUtrecht, Faculty of Geosciences.

Vermunt, J. & F. Binnekade, (1999), European Distri-bution Concepts: Positioning European Logistic Conceptsin the Changing Business Environment of Transparentsupply and Demand Networks. The Hague: HollandInternational Distribution Council.

Visser, J.G.S.N & T. Nemoto (2001), E-commerceand the Consequences for Freight Transport.Research report, Ministry of Economic Affairs.

MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY EFFECTS OF B2C E-COMMERCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Documents

Transcript of MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY EFFECTS OF B2C E-COMMERCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW