Mobility effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce: A literature review and

assessment
Jesse W.J. Weltevreden+, °
and Orit Rotem-Mindali*
+ Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research (RPB); P.O. Box 30314, 2500 GH The
Hague,
the Netherlands; Phone: (+31) (0)70 3288 772; Fax: (+31) (0)70 3288 799; E-mail:
jweltevreden@gmail.com
* Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and
Mobility
Studies; P.O. Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; Phone: (+31) (0)15 2785
030; Fax:
(+31) 015 2783 450; E-mail: o.c.rotem@tudelft.nl.
° Corresponding author
First version: 18 February 2008
Abstract
For more than a decade transport and retail geographers have been interested in
the
implications of e-commerce for personal travel and freight transport. After revi
ewing the
(empirical) literature, it becomes clear that so far scholars mainly looked at t
he mobility
effects of business-to-consumer e-commerce. This is surprising as consumer-to-co
nsumer
(c2c) e-commerce via auction and advertisement sites is becoming increasingly po
pular and
may have important implications for personal travel and freight transport. In ad
dition, most
empirical studies conducted thus far looked at the consequences of b2c e-commerc
e for either
personal travel or freight transport.
In this paper, we take a more holistic approach. Using a nation-wide representat
ive sample of
3,000 Dutch e-shoppers we calculate the potential impacts of both types of e-com
merce on
personal travel and freight transport in the Netherlands. Moreover, we different
iate among 25
retail categories as the mobility effects of e-commerce differ from product by p
roduct. By
doing so, we will show that b2c and c2c e-commerce have different impacts on
transportation. In the main, results indicated that c2c e-commerce more often le
ads to an
increase in both personal travel and freight transport as compared to b2c e-comm
erce.
1. Introduction
In its early days the commercial Internet was viewed as a disruptive technology
that
among other things would radically change the way we shop (Graham and Marvin,
1996; Wrigley et al., 2002; Burt and Sparks, 2003). Although projections about t
he
development of online shopping or e-shopping and its impacts on society were lar
gely
exaggerated (Wrigley et al., 2002), sales have grown exponentially since the mid
-1990s of
the 20th century. However, compared to total retail sales the amount spend on e-
shopping in
developed countries such as the USA, the UK, and the Netherlands is still relati
vely small:
around 2.3% through 3.1% in 2005 (Weltevreden, 2007). In addition to the growth
in
business-to-consumer (b2c) e-commerce, consumers nowadays frequently use the Int
ernet to
buy from and sell to other consumers, also referred to as consumer-to-consumer (
c2c) e-
commerce. The growth of the c2c e-commerce market is attributed to the relativel
y ease of
entry and exit and to the structurally inherent economic efficiency of the price
discovery
mechanism (Oh, 2002; Yamamoto et al., 2004).
An increasing use of b2c and c2c e-commerce may have implications for mobility.
As
such, transport and retail geographers as well as policy makers have become inte
rested in the
implications of both types of e-commerce for personal travel and freight transpo
rt (see e.g.,
Golob and Regan, 2001; Mokhtarian, 2002, 2004; Visser and Lanzendorf, 2004). To
date,
there is a considerable number of conceptual studies about the implications of e
-commerce
for transportation. Some of them have already been published in the 1980s, way b
efore the
emergence of the commercial Internet (see e.g., Salomon, 1985, 1986). Yet, empir
ical studies
on this topic remained scarce and mainly began to emerge after 2000. This is not
surprising
as new technologies have to mature before their impacts become visible. Nowadays
a vast
number of empirical studies exist mainly about the implications of b2c e-commerc
e for
personal travel.
In this paper, we aim to provide more insight in the implications of b2c and c2c
e-
commerce for transportation. First, more insight in these effects will be provid
ed by
reviewing the current literature. We will primarily focus on the direct impacts
of b2c and c2c
e-commerce on personal travel and freight transport. Second, using a nation-wide
representative sample of 3,000 Dutch e-shoppers we will explore the potential im
pacts of
both types of e-commerce on personal travel and freight transport in the Netherl
ands. By
doing so, we will show that b2c and c2c e-commerce have different impacts on mob
ility. In
the main, results indicate that c2c e-commerce is more likely to lead to an incr
ease in both
personal travel and freight transport as compared to b2c e-commerce.
In section 2 a comprehensive review of the literature is presented, followed by
a brief
description of our e-shopping data. Next, we will present some figures on the po
tential
impacts of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal travel and freight transport in th
e
Netherlands. We will close this paper by setting a research agenda for studying
the
implications of both types of e-commerce for mobility.
2. Literature review
Shopping generates movements of agents (consumers, carriers) involved in these
activities and generally consists of three activities that may, but need not nec
essarily be
separate activities: information gathering, purchasing and delivery. Each activi
ty may involve
different numbers of agents as well as different types of agents that use a diff
erent transport
mode in a specific timing. B2c and c2c e-commerce may radically change the way w
e
organize our shopping process, which has implications for mobility.
1
Many studies that explore the impacts of b2c and c2c e-commerce on mobility are
either conceptual or review papers. When studying the impacts of b2c and c2c e-c
ommerce
on personal travel and freight transport, transport geographers usually distingu
ish four
effects: (1) substitution, (2) complementarity, (3) modification, and (4) neutra
lity (Salomon,
1985, 1986; Mokhtarian, 1990, 2002). These four effects provided the baseline fo
r the
development of the main hypotheses in the literature with regard to the implicat
ions of b2c
and c2c e-commerce on personal travel and freight transport.
In the following, we will describe these main hypotheses and investigate whether
they
have already been supported (or rejected) by empirical studies. We will use this
review for
setting a research agenda at the end of this paper. One should note that so far
there are hardly
any conceptual studies that discuss the implications of c2c e-commerce for trans
portation,
while empirical studies concerning this topic are virtually non-existent.
2.1 Implications of b2c and c2c e-commerce for personal travel
Hypotheses
A first hypothesis (PT1) is that b2c and c2c e-commerce will reduce the number o
f
shopping trips and distance travelled for shopping. It is often claimed that e-s
hopping will
lead to a reduction in the number of shopping trips and distance travelled for s
hopping as
consumers can conduct every stage in a shopping process without leaving their ho
me. As
such, in-store shopping will be replaced by home delivery (Dodgson et al., 2000;
Golob and
Regan, 2001; Nemoto et al., 2001; Sui and Rejeski, 2002; Anderson et al., 2003;
Fichter,
2003; Capineri and Leinbach, 2004; Mokhtarian, 2004).
One should note that replacement of a shopping trip made on foot, by bicycle, or
by
public transport with freight transport may not be beneficial for road congestio
n, energy
consumption, and air quality (Keskinen et al., 2001; Mokhtarian, 2004). The exte
nt to which
a shift from personal travel to freight transport is good for the environment la
rgely depends
on the model split for shopping-related travel. In countries where many shopping
trips are
conducted by car (e.g., in the USA) substitution of personal travel with freight
transport may
be more beneficial to the environment than in countries such as the Netherlands
where many
shopping trips are made by slow transportation modes (see Table 1).
Table 1
Share of transport modes for shopping trips in the USA, UK, Finland, and the Net
herlands
Country Walking/Cycling Car/Motorcycle Public transport Other Total
USA (2001) 6% 93% 1% 0% 100%
UK (2005) 26% 64% 10% 0% 100%
Finland (1994) 39% 55% 5% 1% 100%
The Netherlands (2005) 48% 48% 3% 1% 100%
Sources: US Department of Transportation (2002), Siikavirta et al. (2003), Depar
tment for Transport (2006),
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2006)
However, there are a number of counteracting forces that may mitigate a reductio
n in
shopping-related travel due to e-shopping. As such, many scholars contend that o
ther effects
than substitution are more likely to occur. A second hypothesis is that b2c and
c2c e-
commerce will have a limited or even a neutral impact on the number of shopping
trips and
distance travelled for shopping (PT2). Scholars give various reasons why it is r
easonable to
assume that many shopping trips will not be substituted with e-shopping. First,
some online
transactions replace purchases by telephone or mail instead of in-store purchase
s (Keskinen et
al., 2001; Mokhtarian, 2004). This is especially the case with purchases made fr
om catalogue
firms and service providers (e.g., insurance companies, banks, travel agencies).

2
And even if an online purchase replaces an in-store purchase it need not necessa
rily
lead to fewer (shopping) trips. Scholars contend that many shopping trips are li
nked with
other activities, also referred to as trip chaining (Golob and Regan, 2001; Kesk
inen et al.,
2001; Mokhtarian, 2004; Visser and Lanzendorf, 2004). For example, people visit
a shopping
centre on their way from work to home or vice versa. Furthermore and most import
ant
people often make multiple purchases during a single shopping trip (Mokhtarian,
2004). As
such, substitution of an in-store purchase with e-shopping not necessarily decre
ases the
number of shopping trips. Finally, many scholars assert that shopping is not alw
ays a chore,
but also a recreational activity, a means of social interaction. This is certain
ly an experience
that is difficult to replace with e-shopping, which may limit substitution of in
-store shopping
(Graham and Marvin, 1996; Golob and Regan, 2001; Keskinen et al., 2001; Lyons, 2
002;
Mokhtarian, 2004).
A third hypothesis is that b2c and c2c e-commerce will lead to more personal
(shopping) trips and/or increased lengths of shopping trips (PT3). As growing nu
mbers of
incumbent retailers develop a website as means of marketing their business (Stei
nfield et al.,
2001; Currah, 2002; Boschma and Weltevreden, 2005), consumers that search online
for
interesting products and bargains may become aware of the existence of retailers
they were
previously unaware of. As such, online searching may result in shopping trips th
at would not
have occurred without the Internet and increased trip lengths as these interesti
ng retailers are
often not located in the vicinity of people s home (Mokhtarian, 2004; Farag, 2006)
.
Furthermore, not every online order is delivered to a consumer's home, as some o
nline
orders are picked up (and paid) at a store, a post office, or a collection-and-d
elivery point
(CDP). For example, many consumers nowadays upload their digital images to the w
ebsite of
a retailer and then collect and pay the printed images at a store. The increasin
g use of e-
shopping also leads to a growing amount of online purchases that are returned to
the sender.
A common way for consumers to do this is to return these items via a post office
or a CDP.
While some of these trips for collecting and returning goods may be chained with
other
activities it is not unlikely that they also lead to more personal trips.
While it is possible that people will make more and longer (shopping) trips beca
use of
b2c e-commerce, it is even more probable that c2c e-commerce will positively eff
ect personal
travel. As growing numbers of consumers currently use the Internet to sell and/o
r buy goods
to other consumers more personal travel is expected as many of these c2c orders
will be
picked up at the home of a (distant) private seller (Farag, 2006). C2c e-commerc
e is known
for its anonymity and for the ease of registration. However, this also encompass
es the risk
that a product is not being sent or that quality of the item does not match the
buyer's
expectation (Yamamoto et al., 2004). This may stimulate self delivery that may g
enerate
personal travel to locations that were possibly not considered prior to the intr
oduction of c2c
e-commerce and probably to longer distances (Farag, 2006). In addition, since th
e
destinations of trips for picking up c2c orders are mainly located in residentia
l areas trip
chaining may be less likely as compared to picking up b2c orders. In the followi
ng, we will
explore to what extent the abovementioned hypotheses and their underlying assump
tions are
supported or rejected by empirical research.
It should further be noted that the implications of e-shopping on shopping relat
ed
travel largely vary among products, as consumers shopping efforts differ from pr
oduct to
product (Girard et al., 2003; Mokhtarian, 2004; Visser and Lanzendorf, 2004; Kor
gaonkar et
al., 2006; Rotem-Mindali and Salomon, 2007). For example, search goods such as b
ooks,
CDs, computers, travel are currently among the most popular products purchased o
nline (see
Weltevreden, 2007). However, in the physical world many of these items are purch
ased
3
together with other goods. As such, it is likely that when these items are deliv
ered at home
instead of purchased in a store freight transport will increase, while the perso
nal travel will
not always decrease. On the other hand, for convenience goods such as groceries
and health
and personal care items a reduction of personal travel is more probable as consu
mers mainly
make a trip just for purchasing these items. However, convenience goods are less
frequently
purchased online (Weltevreden, 2007).
Empirical evidence
The review of the empirical studies on the effects of e-shopping for personal tr
avel
behaviour presented in this section is largely based on the recent literature re
view by
Weltevreden (2007a, 2007b).
Many empirical studies found support for the first hypothesis that e-shopping wi
ll
substitute for personal travel. A large number of studies report figures on the
number of
consumers that make fewer shopping trips due to the use of computers/Internet or
e-shopping.
The proportion of consumers that report making fewer shopping trips differs sign
ificantly
among the empirical studies: 12% (Sim and Koi, 2002), 20% (Weltevreden, 2007;
Weltevreden and Van Rietbergen, 2007), 35% (Corpuz and Peachman, 2003), 66% (Dix
on
and Marston, 2002), 78% (Bhat et al., 2003). These different outcomes can be att
ributed to
variation in the methodology, and the time and geographical context of the data
collection
(Weltevreden, 2007). In addition, these substitution effects also vary among pro
ducts and
shopping locations. For example, Tonn and Hemrick (2004) found that due to the u
se of email/
Internet 39% and 7% of their respondents made fewer trips to a bookstore and gro
cery
store respectively. Research by Schellenberg (2005) revealed that approximately
25% of the
German e-shoppers in his sample made fewer purchases in the city centre and 18%
in
shopping centres at the edges of cities as a result of e-shopping. Although thes
e studies
indicate that e-shopping will lead to fewer shopping trips, they do not provide
insight in the
magnitude of the substitution effect, that is, the number of shopping trips or d
istance travelled
that are replaced by e-shopping.
A smaller number of empirical studies, however, provide more insight in the
(potential) number of substituted shopping trips and distance travelled for shop
ping. For
example, Dodgson et al. (2000), predicted a decrease in the number of shopping t
rips by car
in the UK in 2010 by 10% due to e-shopping. In addition, using data on online an
d offline
shopping behaviour from 2000-2001, Luley et al. (2002) estimated a reduction of
0.5%
through 5.4% and 0.7% through 6.9% of the daily number of shopping trips and the
daily
distance travelled for shopping in 2011, respectively. Another German scenario s
tudy
concluded that the number of shopping trips saved by e-shopping in 2003 largely
exceeded
the number of generated trips (i.e., trips for information gathering, pick up, a
nd return of
items), resulting in a net balance of 1.6 million substituted trips (or 7.6 mill
ion kilometres) in
the Cologne region (Esser and Kurte, 2005). For 2006, they estimated a net reduc
tion of 2.7
million shopping trips (13.2 million kilometres). Furthermore, research by Fogar
ty (2003)
and Geraghty (2004) (as cited in Cairns et al., 2004) revealed that 78% of the U
K e-shoppers
in their samples saved at least one car journey because of e-shopping. The avera
ge miles
saved by e-shopping in both studies was about eight to nine miles (for a single
substituted
trip). According to Papola and Polydoropoulou (2006) the number of future shoppi
ng trips
that are replaced with e-shopping largely differs per product category, as some
products are
more frequently purchased (e.g., groceries) than others (e.g., electrical applia
nces). However,
these studies do not provide insight in the number of shopping trips that are re
placed by
freight transport as a result of e-shopping. In the following section on the imp
lications of b2c
and c2c e-commerce for freight transport a number of studies are described that
do address
this issue.
4
There is also empirical evidence that b2c and c2c e-commerce have a minor impact
on
personal travel (second hypothesis). Some studies that found evidence for substi
tution also
support this second hypotheses, as only a small proportion of their respondents
made fewer
shopping trips, while the large majority (75%-88%) did not alter their shopping-
related travel
(Sim and Koi, 2002; Schellenberg, 2005; Weltevreden, 2007; Weltevreden and Van
Rietbergen, 2004, 2007). Nevertheless, small effects by very large number of per
sons will
aggregate up to large effects on a system wide basis (Golob and Regan, 2001).
Research by Ward (2001) supports the underlying assumption that e-shopping is mo
re
likely to poach on other home shopping channels than on in-store shopping. He fo
und that e-
shopping and direct mail correlate to a greater degree than do e-shopping and tr
aditional
retailing or direct mail and traditional retailing. In addition Hjorthol (2002)
does not find a
significant correlation between the frequency of private Internet activities (in
cluding e-
shopping) and personal travel (including shopping trips).
Other studies support the conjectures that many substituted in-store purchases w
ould
have been made together with other purchases and that some shopping trips are ch
ained with
other activities. For example, Corpuz and Peachman (2003) report that 35% of the
ir
respondents would have taken a physical shopping trip if the Internet had not be
en used for
the transaction. Approximately 45% of those substituted trips would have been ta
ken along
with other (shopping) trips. According to Esser and Kurte (2005) only 38% of all
online
purchases lead to a decrease in personal travel. From the remaining shopping tri
ps 50% are
multiple-purchase trips and 11% would have been undertaken when travelling from
work to
home.
Finally there are a number of studies that tend to support the third hypotheses
that b2c
and c2c e-commerce lead to an increase in personal travel. Some studies that fou
nd evidence
for substitution also found proof for an increase in personal travel due to e-sh
opping. For
example, Bhat et al. (2003) found that 22% of the computer users in their sample
made more
shopping trips as compared to non-computer users. Furthermore, Tonn and Hemrick
(2004)
report that due to the use of e-mail/Internet 14% and 5% of their respondents ma
de more trips
to a bookstore and grocery store respectively. Recall, however, that these kinds
of studies do
not provide insight in the magnitude of the mobility effects.
Other studies found a positive association between e-shopping and in-store shopp
ing.
For instance, while controlling for demographic, behavioural, attitudinal, and s
patial variables
Farag et al. (2005, 2006, 2007) and Weltevreden and Van Rietbergen (2006) found
that all
else equal the more Dutch Internet users or e-shoppers search online, the more s
hopping
trips they make. In addition, Ferrell (2004) found that home shopping has a posi
tive effect on
the number of shopping trips in US households. Furthermore, Wang and Law (2007)
found
that ICT usage generates additional time use for recreational activities and inc
reases the trip-
making propensity. Although these outcomes tend to support the third hypothesis
one should
be cautious with drawing this conclusion, as these studies do not have informati
on on the
frequency of in-store shopping before and after people started to search online
due to the use
of cross-sectional data. Moreover, Casas et al. (2001) showed that Internet shop
pers make
more physical shopping trips than non-Internet shoppers, but they found no signi
ficant
difference in the number of physical shopping trips compared to total personal t
rips by
Internet shoppers and non-Internet shoppers. As such, another likely conclusion
from these
results is that mobile persons are more likely to shop online.
2.2 Implications of b2c and c2c e-commerce for freight transport
5
Home delivery in the face of e-commerce may reveal changes in load units, vehicl
e
size, order and delivery size, number of stops and number of trips. In the follo
wing, we will
briefly describe the main hypotheses as well as the empirical evidence on the im
plications of
b2c and c2c e-commerce on freight transport.
Hypotheses
The first and most important hypothesis is that b2c and c2c e-commerce will
lead to more freight trips and more freight transport kilometres (FT1). A first
reason why
more freight transport is expected is that e-shopping will lead to substitution
of personal
travel with home delivery (Cohen, 2000; Dodgson et al., 2000; Transport Logistie
k
Nederland, 2000; Golob and Regan, 2001; Nemoto et al., 2001; Anderson et al., 20
03;
Mokhtarian, 2004). In addition, more freight transport kilometres are assumed be
cause the
Internet provides consumers the opportunity to contact and purchase from distant
retailers
and manufacturers that can be located anywhere on the globe (Transport Logistiek
Nederland, 2000; Nemoto et al., 2001; Hesse, 2002; OECD, 2003; Mokhtarian, 2004;
Visser
and Lanzendorf, 2004).
More freight transport is also expected because b2c and c2c e-commerce may incre
ase
the number of goods that consumers order. It is often suggested that e-retailers
will offer
lower prices than bricks-and-mortar retailers due to lower search costs for buye
rs and lower
operating costs. Internet also stimulates the sale of highly discounted perishab
le items such as
otherwise-unsold airplane seats. As such, consumers can purchase more goods with
the same
amount of money which may lead to more freight transport (Nemoto et al., 2001;
Mokhtarian, 2004). Especially c2c e-commerce provides opportunities to buy more
goods for
the same amount of money. Instead of buying a new product consumers can nowadays
easily
purchase a second-hand but cheaper equivalent through auction and advertisement
sites from
other consumers.
Freight transport can also increase as e-shopping can stimulate people to spend
more
money on consumption. Online sellers can easily collect customer data via the In
ternet
(database marketing) which they can use to provide their customers with personal
ized offers.
This may lead to impulse purchases that would not have occurred without the Inte
rnet
(Transport Logistiek Nederland, 2000; Capineri and Leinbach, 2004; Mokhtarian, 2
004). E-
shopping also stimulates the purchase of products that are hard to find in a sto
re (e.g.,
collectors items) or that are only available online (e.g., customized CDs) (Tran
sport Logistiek
Nederland, 2000; Capineri and Leinbach, 2004; Visser and Lanzendorf, 2004). In a
ddition,
the fact that consumers can shop anonymously via the Internet (or at least have
this feeling)
may cause people to spend money on items they would not have purchased in a phys
ical
store. For example, online lingerie stores attract many male customers that woul
d not have
bought these items in a physical store (Transport Logistiek Nederland, 2000).
Finally, the growth of freight transport due e-shopping also induces even more f
reight
transport. This self-reinforcing process stems from the fact that an increase in
(home)
delivery leads to a growing need for reverse logistics, which generates more fre
ight trips and
more vehicle kilometres travelled (Dowlatshahi, 2005; Sarkis et al., 2004).
A second hypothesis is that freight transport is more efficient than the persona
l travel
it replaces due to b2c and c2c e-commerce (FT2) (Cohen, 2000; Browne, 2001; Mokh
tarian,
2004). Whether freight transport is more efficient than shopping trips by consum
ers largely
depends on the extent to which the substituted personal trip was part of a chain
ed trip and the
trade-off between efficiency and timeliness of the delivery (Mokhtarian, 2004).
6
The extent to which freight transport will be influenced by e-shopping largely
depends on the delivery method, which is largely determined by the type of good
that is sold
online (Cairns et al., 2004; Rotem-Mindali and Salomon, 2007). Cairns et al. (20
04)
distinguish five types of goods according to their logistical requirement: (1) g
roceries, (2)
clothing and footwear, (3) two-person delivery items, (4) one-person delivery it
ems, and (5)
postable items. First, most shopping trips people make are for groceries. As suc
h, e-shopping
for groceries is likely to lead to a shift from personal travel to freight trans
port. Second, e-
shopping for clothing and footwear is likely to poach on catalogue sales by mail
and
telephone and is characterised by high return-rates. Third, for two-person deliv
ery items (e.g.,
furniture, large electrical appliances) home delivery has always been important.
As such, no
large effects on mobility are expected. Fourth, one-person delivery items (e.g.,
small
electrical appliances, sports equipment) an increase in freight transport is exp
ected. Finally,
postable items (e.g., books, CDs, software, jewellery) will have relatively litt
le impact on
freight transport given as these goods are largely delivered through conventiona
l postal
services and hardly lead to more freight transport, except from expanding the co
nventional
postal market (Cairns et al., 2004). Another important product distinction is be
tween products
that can be digitalised and tangible items (Cohen, 2000). The former can be deli
vered without
transportation, while for delivering the latter type of goods freight transport
is often required.
Empirical evidence
To date, there are very few studies that empirically investigated the implicatio
ns of e-
shopping for freight transport. The review of the empirical studies presented in
this section is
partly based on the literature reviews by Kärnä (2001) and Cairns (2005) supplemente
d with
other empirical studies.
Many studies support the first hypothesis that b2c and c2c e-commerce will lead
to
more freight trips and more freight transport kilometres as in-store shopping is
replaced with
home shopping. Projections about the increase in freight transport vary consider
ably. For
example, Transport en Logistiek Nederland (2000) expected that by 2005 11,5% the
total
retail sales would be online sales. As such, they estimated an increase in the n
umber of
freight trips by 8% in 2005. However, this figure turned out to be overestimated
as online
retail sales in the Netherlands were only 2.8% in 2005 (Weltevreden, 2007). In a
ddition,
Dodgson et al. (2000) estimated only a minor increase in delivery van traffic of
0.5% by
2010, as many goods that are ordered online will be delivered by mail.
Research by Rotem-Mindali and Salomon (2007) revealed that experienced Internet
users are more likely to choose home delivery when purchasing large electrical a
ppliances as
compared to non-experienced users, while for other product classes there was no
significant
difference. This might indicate that e-shopping leads to a shift from personal t
ravel to home
delivery. However, the authors did not distinguish between online and offline pu
rchases of
large electrical appliances. According to MuConsult (2003), the number of delive
ry vans in
the Netherlands grew between 1991 and 2005 with approximately 120%, whereas the
total
number of motorised vehicles only increased by 40%. They conclude that the stron
g growth
in the number of delivery vans may be the result of an increasing need for freig
ht transport
due to e-shopping, as this explosive growth took place after 1996 which coincide
s with the
rapid adoption of Internet use and e-shopping. However, one should be cautious w
ith drawing
such conclusion as no causal relation has been determined between the two develo
pments.
Studies on home delivery of groceries also find evidence for an increase in frei
ght
transport. Depending on the size of study area, the proportion of home delivery,
and the
delivery methods scholars find an increase in freight transport between 31 kilom
etres and 4.2
million kilometres (see Cairns, 1997; Palmer, 2001; Siikavirta et al., 2003; Teh
rani and
7
Karbassi, 2005). However, these studies do not provide insight in the growth of
freight
transport, as compared to the situation before e-commerce.
Research by Weltevreden and Van Rietbergen (2004) supports the underlying
assumption that people purchase more goods since they engaged in online shopping
. This
applies to approximately 21 percent of the e-shoppers in their sample. However,
their study
does not provide insight in how many extra products are bought because of e-shop
ping. Other
studies support the conjecture that e-shopping leads to more freight transport d
ue to high
return rates of online orders. Scholars estimate that return-rates of e-commerce
and catalogue
sales may run is high as 35%, while all brick-and-mortar retailers have returns-
rates of
approximately 6% through 15% (Robbins-Gentry, 1999; Sarkis et al., 2004).
There are also some studies mainly studies on home delivery of groceries that su
pport the
second hypothesis that freight transport is more efficient than personal travel.
Results indicate
that depending on the study area, the proportion of home delivery, the delivery
method, and
delivery window, the distance driven by car for grocery shopping by consumers ca
n be
reduced with 54% through 93% when these items delivered by vans (Cairns, 1997;
Farahmand and Young, 1998; Palmer, 2001; Siikavirta et al., 2003). Similar figur
es are also
found in studies that focus on the pollution effects of home delivery of groceri
es (e.g.,
Kaskanen and Savolainen, 1993; Orremo et al., 1999; Mathews et al., 2002; Tehran
i and
Karbassi, 2005). Mathews et al. (2002) concludes that whether home delivery is m
ore
efficient than a trip to a store largely depends on urban density; Especially in
remote areas
freight transport is more efficient than personal travel. As such, home delivery
of groceries
seems to be more efficient than driving to a grocery store, which may lead to a
net reduction
in total mobility.
However, in most of these studies it is assumed that all groceries trips are mad
e by
car, while in reality many of these shopping trips are conducted with other mode
s of
transportation (see Table 1). Moreover, other products than groceries are curren
tly mainly
sold online (see Weltevreden, 2007). At least for the Netherlands, this may limi
t the
optimistic expectations on mobility reduction through home delivery of groceries
. This is also
the conclusion of Murto (1996) who finds that yearly travel in the Tampere regio
n (Finland)
would only decrease with 2% due to e-grocery shopping, as grocery shopping traff
ic is
marginal compared with total traffic in this area.
2.3 Summary
In the preceding, we described five hypotheses on the implications of b2c and c2
c e-
commerce on personal travel and freight transport and reviewed the current evide
nce for each
of the hypotheses. From this literature review several conclusion can be drawn.
First, it can
be concluded that understanding the impact of e-commerce on travel is complex; a
ll
hypotheses are valid to a certain extent. It largely depends on the research met
hodology
which mobility effect(s) dominate(s). Nevertheless, most studies indicate that e
-shopping is
likely to lead to a shift from personal travel to freight transport.
Second, most empirical studies investigate the implications of b2c e-commerce on
either personal travel or freight transport. With the exception of some scenario
studies on e-
grocery shopping, researches that take into account both types of transport hard
ly exist. As
such, little can be concluded on the net mobility impact of e-shopping. Moreover
, most
empirical studies do not differentiate among products or only focus on groceries
when
assessing the impacts of e-commerce on transportation. A product differentiation
is necessary
8
to scrutinize the mobility effects of e-commerce, as it largely depends on the t
ype of good
how personal travel and freight transport are affected (Cairns et al., 2004).
Third, many empirical studies that on the mobility effects of e-shopping neglect
the
fact that people chain their shopping trips with other activities and that peopl
e often make
multiple purchases on a single shopping trip. As such, savings in personal trave
l as a result of
e-shopping are likely to be overestimated. However, for online grocery shopping
a one on
one substitution of personal travel with freight transport is more probable, but
groceries are
still hardly purchased online in the Netherlands (Weltevreden, 2007).
Finally, at least to our knowledge there are currently no empirical studies that
investigated the mobility effects of c2c e-commerce. This is surprising as c2c e
-commerce is
becoming increasingly popular, which consequently affects mobility. In the follo
wing we
make an attempt to show that b2c and c2c e-commerce each have a different impact
on
personal travel and freight transport.
3. Data and Methodology
3.1 Data collection
To investigate the mobility effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal travel
and
freight transport we conducted a large online survey among Dutch e-shoppers. In
the online
survey we asked respondents about both their offline and online shopping behavio
ur.
Data were collected from the 30th of August till the 19th of September 2006. Usi
ng
the online panel of Multiscope, 30,484 potential respondents received an invitat
ion by e-mail
to participate in the research and to fill in an online selection questionnaire.
Among the
potential respondents, 4,327 (14%) filled in the online selection questionnaire.
Of the
respondents that completed the selection questionnaire, 3,000 (69%) fit our rese
arch
population of online shoppers and also filled in the main online questionnaire.
The 1,327 non-
respondents were either not buying via the Internet (47%), not responsible for s
hopping
activities in the household (23%), or were not able to indicate at which locatio
ns they shop
(5%). In addition, in 2006 we interviewed the CDP director DHL, the second large
st carrier
in the Netherlands, about home delivery and collection and delivery points (see
also
Weltevreden, 2008). This interview provided valuable insights in the number of f
ailed home
deliveries and the distance travelled by the carrier to deliver an online order.
This information
has been used to calculate the effects of e-shopping on freight transport.
3.2 Methodology
To asses the impacts of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal travel and freight
transport we needed to ask respondents several questions with regard to their on
line and
offline shopping behaviour. First, we asked respondents at which locations they
mainly do
their daily and non-daily shopping. Respondents could choose among all the 2,157
shopping
centres that are present in the Retail Location Database of Locatus (Locatus, 20
06). This
dataset contains information on every retail outlet in the Netherlands such as i
ts address and
the name and type of the shopping centre in which it is located. For each town o
r city in the
database we also added an other shopping location to represent retail locations th
at are not
classified as a shopping centre, such as solitary shops. In addition, for respon
dents at the
border regions we added the option of shopping in Belgium or Germany. This bring
s the
number of shopping locations respondents could choose among to 4,352 locations.
9
Second, we asked respondents what types of items their last three online purchas
es
were. Respondents could choose among 27 product categories which are the most po
pular
items ordered online in the Netherlands (see Weltevreden, 2007). As said in the
preceding, a
detailed product differentiation is necessary as the mobility effects of e-shopp
ing largely vary
among products.
Third, for each of their last three online purchases respondents were asked for
the
name of the online retailer they had bought the product from. We then classified
these online
retailers into six types: (1) online auctions and advertisement sites (e.g., eBa
y, Markplaats),
(3) mail order companies (e.g. Neckermann), (4) traditional retailers (e.g. Barn
es and Noble),
(5) manufacturers or service providers (e.g. Dell and EasyJet), and (6) other/un
known.
Fourth, we asked respondents how they would have bought their three last online
purchases if they could not bought it online (Table 3). By asking this we get in
sight in the
potential substitution of in-store shopping with e-shopping. When answering this
question
respondents were able to select the shopping locations where they mainly do thei
r daily and
non-daily shopping. As such, we can calculate the distance of the shopping trip
that is
substituted due to e-shopping (Table 4). Furthermore, respondents could also sel
ect other
shopping centres , other home shopping channels (i.e., mail, telephone, etc.) , and ot
her
means as ways to acquire the good if the Internet could not be used for the trans
action.
Finally, the option could be selected that respondents would not have bought the
item if they
could not purchase it online. This option reflects impulse purchases or items th
at can only
purchased online (e.g., customized CDs, e-books, goods that are not sold in the
customer s
country, etc.) (Table 3).
Fifth, we asked how respondents last three online purchases were delivered and/or
collected. Respondents could choose among the following delivery options: (1) di
gitally
delivered, (2) picked-up in a store, (3) picked-up at a private person (popular
in c2c e-
commerce), (4) delivered at work, (5) delivered in the mail box at home, (6) del
ivered at the
door at home (i.e., attended delivery), (7) delivered at the neighbours, (8) del
ivered at a post
office, (9) delivered at a CDP, and (10) other delivery methods (Table 2).
3.3 Research design and assumptions
To asses the impacts of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal travel and freight tr
ansport we
first need to differentiate among the two forms of e-commerce. We consider produ
cts that
were purchased via online auctions and advertisement sites to be c2c e-commerce
transactions, while items bought from other types of online retailers were class
ified as b2c e-
commerce orders. We neglect the fact that also some businesses are selling throu
gh these c2c
sites. Of the 7,367 purchases for which respondents provided valid information o
n the name
of the online retailer 1,382 (18.4%) turned out to be c2c orders and 5,985 (81.6
%) b2c orders
(see also Table 2). B2c orders were further categorised into daily goods (grocer
ies and health
and personal care items) (N=149), tickets and financial products (e.g., travel,
cinema and
theatre tickets, insurances, loans, etc.) (N=1,239), and other b2c items (N=4,59
7), as the
mobility effects will largely differ between this product categories as well.
By crossing the data on how people would purchased an item if the could not have
bought it online (Table 3) with the data on how their online purchase was delive
red (Table 2),
we were able to calculate the potential mobility effects of b2c and c2c e-commer
ce. However,
we had to make a number of assumptions with regard to the mobility effects of ce
rtain
delivery methods and products, which will be described in the following. Table A
2 in the
Appendix provides an overview of these assumptions.
First, we assume that all online purchases that otherwise would have been done b
y
mail or telephone cost freight transport, but no personal travel. However, in re
ality this may
10
not always be the case, as there might be some personal travel involved in
delivering/collecting mail and telephone orders. For example, if a persons colle
cts and pays
an item in a store after ordering it by telephone. Nevertheless, since we do not
have
information on how mail or telephone orders would have been delivered we assume
that they
will be delivered at home (i.e., costing freight transport), which is also the c
ase with the large
majority of the online purchases.
Second, online purchases that are delivered digitally such as e-books, music fil
es and
e-tickets, do not generate freight transport or personal travel (see Table A2).
However,
Mokhtarian (2004) contends that as those goods are generally rematerialized by th
e end
user, higher volumes would result (p. 270), which may lead to increased goods mov
ements.
Although we are aware of these indirect mobility effects of e-shopping, we will
ignore them
as our data do not permit us to calculate the size of these effects.
Third, we presume that online orders that are picked-up in a store generate pers
onal
travel, but no freight transport. Since, only few online orders are collected in
a store (see
Table 3) they will hardly effect the frequency of store delivery and the size of
trucks. With
regard to the distance travelled we assume the same trip length and modal split
as for the
substituted shopping trips1. We further assume that people are likely to chain t
he collection of
their parcel with other (shopping) activities at this location.
Fourth, online orders that are collected at a private person only generate perso
nal
travel. Contrary to the collection of an online order in a store it is unlikely
that picking up an
online order at a private person will be chained with other activities, as these
localities
usually are not part of consumers general travel patterns. For the distance of th
ese trips we
take the average trip distance to shops for the purchase of second hand items (T
able 4). We
are aware that this possibly will be an underestimation of the mobility effect,
as c2c e-
commerce enlarges market size and trip distances (see Farag, 2006). However, sin
ce we do
not have information on the length of these c2c trips, we needed to make some ki
nd of
realistic estimation.
Fifth, we assume that online orders that are delivered at work only cost freight
transport and that there are no delivery failures. Delivery failures are unlikel
y because at the
workplace there is almost always someone available that can accept the parcel. I
n addition,
no personal travel is involved here because customers can take their parcel with
them on their
way home.
Sixth, all mailbox deliveries at home and deliveries at work cost freight transp
ort,
except for the following items: financial products, tickets (for the theatre, ci
nema, concert,
theme park, etc.), and travel and airline/train/bus tickets. These goods produce
little or no
additional freight transport, as they will be send in letters that are delivered
through
conventional postal services. However, contrary to what other scholars expect (s
ee e.g.,
Dodgson et al., 2000 and Cairns et al., 2004) we contend that other postable ite
ms such as
books, CDs and jewellery often do generate more freight transport, as they are f
requently
delivered by a delivery van instead of by the postman in the Netherlands. In add
ition, mail
box deliveries do not require personal travel and also hardly lead to failed del
iveries.
Seventh, we assume that deliveries at the door and deliveries at the neighbours
(attended delivery) cost freight transport, but no personal travel. Contrary to
deliveries in the
mailbox and at work, it is likely that some of these items can only be delivered
after a second
delivery round. Based on an interview with DHL and a UK study by IMRG (2006) we
assume that the success ratio of delivery at the door is 1.12. This implies that
1.12 freight
trips are necessary to successfully deliver an online order at the door or at th
e neighbours.
1 In the cases where an online order replaced a purchase in a store we know the
likely mode choice and the
distance of the substituted trip (see Table 3 and 6). For trips to stores that a
re the result of an online order we do
not have this information.
11
Eight, we presume that post office and CDP deliveries cost both personal travel
and
freight transport. However, the distance travelled by consumers to collect these
parcels is
likely to be small as post offices and CDPs are often located close to peoples'
home's (see
Weltevreden, 2008). Moreover, it is to be expected that consumers combine the co
llection of
their parcel with other trips (e.g., shopping trips, trips from work to home, et
c.) to these
locations (see e.g., Brummelman et al., 2003; Esser and Kurte, 2007). As such, n
ot every trip
to collect a parcel at a post office or CDP will lead to more personal travel. I
t should further
be noted that post office deliveries generally cost more freight transport than
CDP deliveries,
as the carrier only delivers a parcel to the post office after making one or mor
e attempts to
deliver it to a home or work address while CDPs are almost always the initial de
livery
location2.
Ninth, following Esser and Kurte (2006) we assume that 61% of all substituted in
-
store purchases are part of another trip (e.g., a shopping trip or a trip from w
ork to home).
This implies that only 39% of the substituted purchases also lead to less person
al travel (see
Table A2). By taking a relatively high trip chaining rate which is much higher t
hen the
45% trip chaining that was estimated by Corpuz and Peachman (2003) we again make
a
conservative projection of the mobility savings of e-shopping. Note that in many
other
studies, especially those on groceries, no trip chaining is assumed when calcula
ting
substitution of personal travel (e.g., Cairns, 1997; Farahmand and Young, 1998;
Siikavirta et
al., 2003). For daily items such as groceries, health and personal care items it
more likely that
people make a trip with sole purpose of buying these items, which limits
We assume a similar trip chaining rate when consumers collect their online order
at a
store, a post office or a CDP (see also the third and eight assumption). Thus, o
nly 39% of the
online orders that are collected at these localities will lead to additional per
sonal trips and
distance travelled (see Table A2). For products that are picked up at another pr
ivate person
(c2c e-commerce) we do not assume trip chaining to take place (see also the four
th
assumption). Again, these assumptions are probably underestimations of the incre
ase in
personal travel as a result of e-shopping.
Tenth, we exclude reverse logistics from our analyses. Many products that are or
dered
online are returned to the sender for various reasons which may lead to more per
sonal travel
and freight transport. Including reverse logistics may increase the complexity o
f the analyses
considerably, as it is highly product dependent. Nevertheless, the major argumen
t for
ignoring reverse logistics is simply that we do not have information on this mat
ter for every
product category in our dataset. The reader should keep this in mind when interp
reting our
results.
Finally, we will exclude all other delivery options that are not specified by th
e
respondents from our analyses. Without information on the type of delivery metho
d we are
unable to determine its travel impacts. This implies that we had to exclude 71 o
nline
purchases.
4. Results
This part of the paper presents the results of the analysis on the mobility effe
cts of b2c
and c2c e-commerce in the Netherlands. The following sections describe the build
ing blocks
of the analysis. First we describe the delivery/collection methods of online ord
ers. Second,
we investigate how an item would have been purchased if it could not haven been
bought
2 GLS Netherlands was the first carrier that recently started a pilot with ten s
ervice points to explore the
opportunity of re-directing failed first-time home deliveries to the nearest ser
vice point (Weltevreden, 2008).
12
online. Third, we calculate the effects of e-commerce on the number of trips and
trip distance.
Finally, we present the net mobility effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce.
4.1 Delivery/collection methods of b2c and c2c online purchases
Identifying the current delivery and collection methods for online orders is the
starting
point of the analysis (Table 2). This data provide insight in the extent to whic
h freight
transport and personal travel are involved in the delivery/collection of online
orders. The
majority of the online purchases are delivered at home or at work (78%), which o
nly require
freight transport and no personal travel. Furthermore, about 10% of the online o
rders are
delivered and collected at a post office, a CDP, or a shop. These cases involve
both freight
transport and personal travel. Approximately 7% are digitally delivered which do
not cost
freight transport or personal travel. Finally, 6% of all online orders are colle
cted at a private
person, which involve only personal travel.
The extent to which certain delivery/collection methods are used largely varies
among
the four product categories. For example, attended home delivery is most common
among
daily items (83%), while tickets and financial products are most frequently deli
vered digitally
(34%). Further note that collecting items at a private person only applies to se
cond hand
items (33%). These results substantiate the importance of differentiating among
types of
products when assessing the mobility effects of e-shopping.
Table 2.
Delivery/collection method of b2c and c2c online purchases

Delivery/collection method B2C

Other items Daily items Tickets & financial
products
C2C
Second hand
items
Total
At home: mailbox 31% 9% 49% 30% 34%
At home: attended 49% 72% 4% 28% 38%
At the neighbours: attended 6% 11% 0% 4% 5%
At a post office 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%
At a CDP 2% 1% 0% 0% 2%
At a shop 5% 3% 10% 1% 5%
At a private person 0% 0% 0% 33% 6%
At home: digitally 2% 0% 34% 1% 7%
At work 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 4,597 149 1,239 1,382 7,367
4.2 How e-shoppers would have purchased a product if it could not have been boug
ht online
The second step is to determine how items would have been purchased if they coul
d
not have been bought online (Table 3). The purpose of this stage is to understan
d the
potential substitution of other means of shopping with e-shopping. In the cases
where people
stated that they otherwise would have purchased the item in a shopping centre th
ey frequently
visit, we were able to determine the transport mode people generally use to get
there. As
such, our data not only provided insight in the means of purchasing that are lik
ely to be
substituted, but also in the transport modes.
About 73% of all online orders would have been bought in a store if the Internet
could
not have been used for the transaction. In these cases e-shopping may lead to a
reduction in
personal travel. In addition, 32% of all online orders could save a shopping tri
p by car.
Approximately 7% of the online orders substituted purchases that otherwise would
have been
made by telephone and mail. Orders by telephone and mail are likely to be delive
red at home
and therefore are assumed to replace carrier trips. Especially tickets and finan
cial products
13
(16%) would otherwise haven been bought by mail or telephone. Finally, 19% of th
e products
would not have been bought if they could not have been acquired online. This imp
lies that e-
shopping creates additional demand (see also Weltevreden and Van Rietbergen, 200
7), which
consequently may lead to more personal travel and/or freight transport. Particul
arly c2c
purchases (46%) would otherwise not have been purchased. This substantiates our
claim that
c2c e-commerce is more likely to lead to an increase in mobility than b2c e-comm
erce.

Table 3.
Means of purchasing if the item could not have been bought online

Means of purchasing if items B2C C2C Total

could not have been bought Other items Daily items Tickets & financial Second ha
nd
online (transport mode) products items
A shop (on foot) 8% 16% 9% 3% 7%
A shop (bicycle/moped) 16% 18% 18% 9% 15%
A shop (car/motorcycle) 37% 37% 25% 22% 32%
A shop (public transport) 7% 2% 4% 3% 6%
A shop (unknown) 12% 7% 19% 15% 13%
By phone/mail (delivery van) 6% 4% 16% 3% 7%
Not purchased (N.A.) 13% 15% 11% 46% 19%
Total 100% 100% 100% 3% 100%
N 4,597 149 1,239 1,382 7,367
4.3 The effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on the number of shopping trips in the
Netherlands
By combining the results of Table 2 and 3 we can calculate the net mobility effe
cts of
b2c and c2c e-commerce. For example, online orders that are delivered digitally
(Table 2)
and otherwise would have been bought in a store (Table 3) may save personal trav
el. In
addition, online orders that are delivered at the neighbours and otherwise would
not have
been purchased lead to an increase in freight transport. However, the extent to
which these
and other combinations affect mobility largely depend on the type of product. Ta
ble A2 in the
appendix lists the mobility effects for each of the possible combinations betwee
n Table 2 and
3 per product category. Before estimating the mobility effects of e-commerce in
the
Netherlands we need to calculate the total annual number of online purchases, th
e total
annual number of shopping trips, and the total annual distance travelled for sho
pping (see
Table 4).
Table 4.
Calculation of the total annual number of online purchases, shopping trips and d
istance
travelled for shopping in the Netherlands, 2006
Figure Source
Online purchases
(1) No. of online purchases per e-shopper per year (5%
trimmed mean)
(2) No. of e-shoppers
(3) No. of online purchases (1 x 2)
Shopping trips
(4) No. of shopping trips per person per year (0.6832 per
day)
(5) No. of people in the age of 12 through 74
(6) No. of shopping trips (4 x 5)
7.627
6,631,000
50,572,427
249.368
10,858,000
2,707,637,744
Own data (2006)
Statistics Netherlands (2006)
MON (2006)
Statistics Netherlands (2006)
14
Travel distance for shopping
(7) Travel distance per shopping trip per person (one-way) 5.427 MON (2006)
(8) Multiplier for two-way trips 2.000
(9) Travel distance for shopping (6 x 7 x 8) 29,389,404,05
9
Table 5 shows the estimation results of the effect of b2c and c2c e-commerce on
the
number of trips for personal travel and freight transport, according to product
category. It
becomes clear that b2c e-commerce led to a net reduction of the number of shoppi
ng trips.
However, there are differences in the magnitude of the effects among the product
categories.
The category other items represented about 75% of the total effect on personal t
ravel, while
the other two product categories only represent 25%. These differences stem from
the fact
that daily items and tickets/financial products are less frequently purchased on
line than other
b2c items (see Table 2 and 3). As expected, c2c e-commerce positively affected p
ersonal
travel.
Table 5.
Effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal travel and freight transport in tr
ips (x 1,000),
according to product category

Product category Personal travel

Less trips More trips Balance
Freight transport
Less trips More trips Balance
B2C
Other items
Daily items
Tickets & financial products
TotalC2C
Second hand items
8,832 185
769 5
2,104 83
11,705 273
1,202 2,547
- 8,647
- 764
- 2,021
- 11,432
+ 1,345
21 29,429 + 29,408
0 1,048 + 1,048
0 523 + 523
21 31,000 + 30,979
137 6,500 + 6,363
Estimations for the effect of b2c and c2c e-commerce on freight transport showed
a
large increase in the number of carrier trips (Table 5). Thus, the increase in c
arrier trips
largely outweighed the reduction in personal trips. However, one should note tha
t personal
trips are often two-way trips, while carrier trips are more likely to be one-way
trips that are
part of an efficient routing scheme. The latter are therefore usually shorter in
length than the
former. As such, we also need to look at the implications of e-shopping for trip
distances.
4.4 The effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on the distance travelled
This section describes the effects of e-commerce on the distance travelled. We w
ill
use the results of previous stages of the analysis along with a calculation of t
he distance
travelled to the target shopping centre (Table 6). As shown in Table 6 the trave
l distances for
daily items and tickets/financial services are shorter than for c2c and other b2
c items. Our
travel distances are, except for public transport, somewhat larger than the aver
age travel
distances from the Dutch national travel survey (MON, 2006). This can be explain
ed by the
fact that e-shopping in the Netherlands mainly replaces non-daily purchases in t
he town or
city centre. The average travel distances in the national travel survey are more
influenced by
grocery shopping (the most frequent shopping activity), which is usually done at
shopping
centres closer to residential areas such as neighbourhood and convenience centre
s.
Table 6.
15
Trimmed meana (one-way) distances to the target shopping centreb, according to t
ransport
mode (in kilometres), 2006
Transport mode B2C C2C MON (2006)
Other Daily Tickets & Total Total Second Second hand Total
items items financial (regular hand items
products mean) items (regular mean)
On foot 1.05 0.99 1.10 1.06 1.59 1.05 1.22 0.74
Bicycle/moped 2.51 1.98 2.23 2.43 2.74 2.15 2.32 2.02
Car/motorcycle 8.62 3.49 5.98 8.11 10.29 11.07 13.43 7.91
Public transport 12.29 6.49 6.34 11.43 14.32 9.35 10.18 18.08
Total 6.56 2.80 3.93 6.01 7.60 7.84 9.30 5.427
a To reduce the effect of outliers we used the 5% trimmed mean, which is obtaine
d by deleting the lower and
upper 2.5% of the values of the distance variable.
b With target shopping centre we mean the shopping centre where people would hav
e purchased a product if
they could not have bought it online.

Table 7 summarises the effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on the distance travell
ed
by consumers and carriers, according to product category. In terms of distances
the reduction
in personal travel is not compensated by the increase in freight transport. This
implies that
freight transport is more efficient than personal travel. However, the reader sh
ould keep in
mind that we did not include reverse logistics in the analyses.
Table 7.
Effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal travel and freight transport in ki
lometres (x
1,000), according to product category
Product category
Less km
Personal travel
More km Balance
Freight transport
Less km More km Balance
B2C
Other items
Daily items
Tickets & financial products
TotalC2C
Second hand items
118,517
4,147
17,109
139,773
18,762
1,186 - 117,331
5 - 4,142
311 - 16,798
1,502 - 138,271
36,137 + 17,375
23 33,353 + 33,330
0 1,188 + 1,188
0 593 + 593
23 35,133 + 35,110
156 7,367 + 7,211
Net mobility effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce
Table 8 presents the net effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal and freig
ht
transport in the Netherlands. Comparing the net reduction in personal travel (Ta
ble 8) with
the total number of shopping trips in the Netherlands (Table 4) leads us to conc
lude that in
2006 e-shopping still had a marginal effect on personal travel. The number of sh
opping trips
and distance travelled by consumers reduced with 0.37% and 0.41% respectively as
a result
of e-shopping3. These outcomes are in line with findings by Luley et al. (2002),
but may
appear as extremely low in comparison to the results of studies on online grocer
y shopping
(e.g., Cairns, 1997; Farahmand and Young, 1998; Siikavirta et al., 2003). Howeve
r, one
should not forget that daily items such as groceries are still hardly purchased
online in the
Netherlands. No more than 2% of the online purchases in our sample are daily ite
ms (see
Table 2 and 3).
Table 8.
3 If we did not take into account a trip chaining rate of 61% (i.e., 100% substi
tution) these shares would have
been 1.09% and 1.34% respectively. These are still marginal reductions.
16
Net effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce on personal travel and freight transport
E-commerce category Trips (x 1,000)
Personal
travel
Freight
transport
Balance
Distances (x 1,000 km)
Personal
travel
Freight
transport
Balance
B2C
C2C
Total
- 11,432 + 30,979
+ 1,345 + 6,363
- 10,087 + 37,342
+ 19,547
+ 7,708
+ 27,255
- 138,271 + 35,110 - 103,161
+ 17,375 + 7,211 + 24,586
- 120,896 + 42,321 -
78,575
The implication of e-shopping on freight transport is an increase of both the nu
mber
of trips and the distance travelled. NEA (2007) estimated that the total distanc
e travelled by
delivery vans in the Netherlands in 2005 was 12.483 billion kilometres. If we co
mpare this
figure with the results of Table 8, it becomes clear that the total distance tra
velled by delivery
vans only marginally increased as a result of e-shopping. However, in reality th
e increase in
freight transport will be larger for two reasons. First, the figure by NEA inclu
des not only
b2c, but also b2b transport. Second, we did not include reverse logistics in our
analyses, nor
did we compute the effects of e-shopping on the freight transport between the wa
rehouses of
the online retailers and the carriers depots. Nevertheless, we expect that e-shop
ping still
leads to a net reduction in the total distance travelled for shopping in the Net
herlands.
However, a net mobility reduction is not necessarily beneficial for the environm
ent, as
many shopping trips in the Netherlands are made on foot, by bicycle or by public
transport
(Table 1). These shopping trips are more environmental friendly than home delive
ry by using
delivery vans. To provide more insight into this matter, we differentiated our r
esults
according to transport mode. Of the net reduced number of shopping trips because
of b2c e-
commerce 46% are environmental friendly trips, while 54% are car trips. However, l
ooking
at the effects on the distance travelled by consumers almost 71% of the net redu
ction in
kilometres would have been made by car. For c2c e-commerce the results are diffe
rent.
Almost two thirds (66%) of the additional personal trips made because of c2c e-c
ommerce
are car trips. However, 100% of the net increase in kilometres are made by car.
This is
because the number of reduced kilometres by environmental friendly modes outweig
hed the
generated kilometres by these modes. Thus, in terms of environmental impact c2c
e-
commerce seems even relatively more negative than b2c e-commerce. However, one s
hould
not forget that c2c e-commerce also stimulates reuse of used products which is b
eneficial for
the environment.
5. Conclusions
For more than a decade transport and retail geographers have been investigating
the
implications of e-shopping for personal travel and freight transport. In this pa
per we
presented five hypotheses with regard to the implications of b2c and c2c e-comme
rce on
personal travel and freight transport that have been derived from the literature
. Our
assessment of the effects of both forms of e-commerce on mobility in the Netherl
ands (partly)
confirmed all five hypotheses.
First, we found that e-shopping led to a net reduction in the number of shopping
trips
and distance travelled by consumers. However, this outcome only applied to b2c e
-
commerce, but not for c2c e-commerce. The latter form of e-commerce led to a net
increase
in the number of trips and distance travelled by consumers, which substantiates
the
assumption that e-shopping may lead to more personal travel. The fact that the I
nternet has
created a new market where consumers can easily buy and sell second hand items i
s the
major cause of this net increase in personal travel. However, our results also s
howed that b2c
17
and c2c e-commerce had a limited net effect on personal travel. Shopping related
personal
travel in the Netherlands only marginally decreased as a result of e-shopping (t
he combined
effects of b2c and c2c e-commerce). This is not surprising, as the share of onli
ne sales in the
total retail sales is still low: 3.4% in 2006 (Thuiswinkel.org, 2007). Trip chai
ning and
multiple purchases during a single shopping trip also diminish the savings in pe
rsonal travel
that may result from e-shopping.
Second, our results showed that b2c and c2c e-commerce led to more freight
transport. However, the extent to which freight transport increased largely depe
nded on the
type of product. For instance tickets and financial products that were ordered o
nline hardly
led to an increase in freight transport, because these items are delivered digit
ally or delivered
by conventional postal services. Online buying of other items in the b2c categor
y on the
contrary had a relatively large impact on freight transport. In terms of trips,
the net increase in
freight transport largely outweighed the net reduction in personal travel. Howev
er, in terms of
trip distances freight transport turned out to be more efficient than personal t
ravel, which is in
line with our final hypothesis.
The main conclusion of this paper is that all major assumptions in the literatur
e are
true to a certain extent, depending on the form of e-commerce and the type of pr
oducts that
are ordered online. Future studies should take this into account when scrutinisi
ng the
relationship between e-shopping and transportation. In addition, scholars should
also consider
the fact that e-shopping not only replaces shopping trips by car, but also trips
by other
transport modes. This is especially the case in many European countries. In addi
tion, more
research should be conducted towards c2c e-commerce, which is growing in popular
ity and
has a different impact on transportation and the environment than b2c e-commerce
. After a
decade of empirical research we observe the need for a more holistic approach th
at takes into
account b2c and c2c e-commerce, product features, transport modes, trip chaining
, and both
personal travel and freight transport. This will further enhance our understandi
ng of the
relationship between e-shopping and transportation.
References
Anderson, W.P., Chatterjee, L. and Lakshmanan, T.R. (2003) E-commerce, transport
ation,
and economic geography. Growth and Change, 34, 415-432.
Bhat, C.R., Sivakumar, A. and Axhausen, K.W. (2003) An analysis of the impact of
information and communication technologies on non-maintenance shopping activitie
s.
Transportation Research B, 37, 857-881.
Borgers, A.W.J., Gunsing, M. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (1991) Teleshopping and the
dynamics of urban retail systems: some numerical simulations. Spatial Analysis a
nd
Population Dynamics, Congresses and Colloquia ed D. Pumain, pp. 229-242,
Chantilly, France.
Boschma, R.A. and Weltevreden, J.W.J. (2005) B2c e-commerce adoption in inner ci
ties: an
evolutionary perspective. Working paper 05.03. Papers in Evolutionary Economic
Geography (PEEG), Utrecht, Utrecht University.
Browne, M. (2001) E-commerce and Urban Transport. Paris, OECD, ECMT.
Burt, S. and Sparks, W. (2003) E-commerce and the retail process: a review, Jour
nal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 10, 275-286.
Cairns, S. (1997) Potential traffic reductions from home delivery services: some
initial
calculations. TSU working paper 97/45, London, UCL; quoted in Cairns (2005).
Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kirkbride, A., and Goodwin, P. (
2004)
Smarter Choices Changing the Way We Travel. London, the Department for
Transport.
18
Cairns, S. (2005) Delivering supermarket shopping: more or less traffic? Transpo
rt Reviews,
25, 51-84.
Capineri, C. and Leinbach, T.R. (2004) Globalization, e-economy and trade. Trans
port
Reviews, 24, 645-663.
Casas, J., Zmud, J. and Bricka, S. (2001) Impact of shopping via Internet on tra
vel for
shopping purposes. CD Proceedings of the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportati
on
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Cohen, N. (2000) Greening the Internet: ten ways e-commerce could affect the env
ironment.
Polution Prevention Review, Winter 2000, 13-29.
Corpuz, G. and Peachman, J. (2003) Measuring the impacts of Internet usage on tr
avel
behaviour in the Sidney Household Travel Survey. Presented at the 26th Australia
n
Transport Research Forum Conference, 1-3 October 2003, Wellington, New Zealand.
http://www.atrf.info/papers/2003/18-Corpuz.pdf.
Couclelis, H. (2004) Pizza over the Internet: e-commerce, the fragmentation of a
ctivity and
the tyranny of the region. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16, 41-54.

Cubukcu, K.M. (2001) Factors affecting shopping trip generation rates in metropo
litan areas.
Studies in Regional and Urban Planning, 9, 51-67.
Currah, A. (2002) Behind the web store: the organisational and spatial evolution
of
multichannel retailing in Toronto. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1411-1441.
Daduna, J.R. and Lenz, B. (2004) Online-shopping and changes in mobility. Distri
bution
Logistics. Advanced Solutions to Practical Problems eds B. Fleischmann and A.
Klose, pp. 65-84, Springer, Berlin.
Department for Transport (2006) National Travel Survey 2005. London, Department
for
Transport.
Dholakia, N., Xiao, J.J., Dholakia, R.R. and Mundorf, N. (2000) The impact of re
tail e-
commerce on transportation: A conceptual framework. Working paper, Research
Institute for Telecommunications and Information Marketing
http://ritim.cba.uri.edu/wp.
Dijst, M.J., Farag, S. and Schwanen, T. (2005) Attitude theory applied to in-sto
re and online
shopping. Working paper, Utrecht, Utrecht Univer
Dixon, T. and Marston, A.D. (2002) UK retail real estate and the effects of onli
ne shopping.
Journal of Urban Technology, 9, 19-47.
Dodgson, J., Pacey, J. and Begg, M. (2000) Motore and Modems Revisited; The Role
of
Technology in Reducing Travel Demands and Traffic Congestion, London, NERA.
Dowlatshahi, S. (2005) A strategic framework for the design and implementation o
f
remanufacturing operations in reverse logistics. International Journal of Produc
tion
Research, 43, 3455-3480.
Esser, K. and Kurte, J. (2005) B2C E-commerce: A Qualitative and Quantitative An
alysis of
the Consumer and Supplier Relationships and their Implications for Urban Transpo
rt
KE-Consult, Cologne (in German).
Esser, K. and Kurte, J. (2007), Strategies for Optimizing Pick-up and Delivery T
raffic of
Internet Commerce - Packstations in Cologne (OPTIMAL), KE-Consult, Cologne (in
German).
Farag, S., Schwanen, T. and Dijst, M. (2005) Empirical investigation of online s
earching and
buying and their relationship to shopping trips. Transportation Research Record,
1926, 242-251.
Farag, S. (2006) E-shopping and its interactions with in-store shopping. Ph.D. T
hesis, Utrecht
University, the Netherlands.
19
Farag, S., Krizek, K.J. and Dijst, M. (2006) E-shopping and its relationship wit
h in-store
shopping: empirical evidence from the Netherlands and the USA. Transport Reviews
,
26, 43-61.
Farag, S., Schwanen, T., Dijst, M. and Faber, J. (2007) Shopping online and/or i
n-store? A
structural equation model of the relationships between e-shopping and in-store
shopping. Transportation Research A, 41, 125-141.
Farahmand, R. and Young, M. (1998) Home shopping and its future. Paper presented
at the
10th Annual TRICS Conference, 22-23 September 1998; as quoted in Cairns (2005).
Ferrell, C.E. (2004) Home-based teleshoppers and shopping travel: do teleshopper
s travel
less? Transportation Research Record, 1894, 241-248.
Ferrell, C.E. (2005) Home-based teleshopping and shopping travel: where do we fi
nd the
time? Transportation Research Record, 1926, 212-223.
Fichter, F. (2003) E-Commerce: sorting out the environmental consequences. Journ
al of
Industrial Ecology, 6, 25-41.
Fogarty, B. (2003) Telecommunications and travel substitution. British Telecom S
trategic
Business Development paper; quoted in Cairns et al. (2004).
Geraghty, C. (2004) How the Internet can help ease traffic congestion. Presentat
ion at
Alternative Approaches to Congestion conference convened by British Telecom,
26/01/2002; quoted in Cairns et al. (2004).
Girard, T., Korgaonkar, P. and Silverblatt, R. (2003) Relationship of type of pr
oduct,
shopping orientations, and demographics with preference for shopping on the Inte
rnet.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 101-120.
Golob, T.F. and Regan, A.C. (2001) Impacts of information technology on personal
travel
and commercial vehicle operations: research challenges and opportunities.
Transportation Research C, 9, 87-121.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (1996) Telecommunications and the City. New York, Rout
ledge.
Hassenpflug, D. and Tegeder, G. (2004) Urban Retailing in the Internet age. Rese
arch
Report of the Project E-commerce and Urban Trade . Weimar, Bauhaus University
(in German).
Hernandez, T., Gomez-Insausti, R. and Biasiotto, M. (2001) Non-store retailing a
nd shopping
centre vitality. Journal of Shopping Centre Research, 8, 58-81.
Hesse, M. (2002) Shipping news: the implications of electronic commerce for logi
stics and
freight transport. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 36, 211-240.
Hjorthol, R.J. (2002) The relation between daily travel and use of the home comp
uter.
Transportation Research A, 36, 437-452.
IMRG (2006) Valuing Home Delivery; A Cost Benefit Analysis, IMRG, London, availa
ble
at: http://www.imrg.org (accessed 24 April 2006).
Kärnä, A. (2001) Dematerialization potential of electronic grocery shopping.
Dematerialization: The Potential of ICT and Services eds E. Heiskanen, M. Halme,

M. Jalas, A. Kärnä and R. Lovio, pp. 121-149, Ministry of the Environment,

Helsinki.
Kaskanen, P. and Savolainen, M. (1993) Changes in the structure of food retail a
nd
wholesale: effects on energy demand. Papers in Regional Science, 72, 405-423.
Keskinen, A., Delache, X., Cruddas, J., Lindjord, J.E. and Iglesias, C. (2002) A
Purchase and
a Chain. Impacts of E-commerce on Transport and the Environment. Paris,
OECD/ECMT.
Korgaonkar, P., Silverblatt, R. and Girard, T. (2006) Online retailing, product
classifications,
and consumer preferences. Internet Research, 16, 267-288.
20
Krizek, K.J., Li, Y. and Handy, S.L. (2005) ICT as a substitute for non-work tra
vel: a direct
examination. CD Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Luley, T., Bitzer, W. and Lenz, B. (2002) Substitution of transport through elec
tronic
commerce? A model for the Stuttgart region. Zeitschrift für Verkehrswissenshaft 73
,
133-155 (in German).
Lyons, G. (2002) Internet: investigating new technology's evolving role, nature
and effects on
transport. Transport Policy, 9, 335-346.
Matthews, S.H., Williams, E., Tagami, T. and Hendrickson, C.T. (2002) Energy imp
lications
of online book retailing in the United States and Japan. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 22, 493-507.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2006) Mobiliteitsonderzoek Nederland 2005.
The
Hague, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat.
Mokhtarian, P.L. (1990) A typology of relationships between telecommunications a
nd
transportation. Transportation Research A, 24, 231-242.
Mokhtarian, P.L. (2002) Telecommunications and travel. The case for complementar
ity.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6, 43-57.
Mokhtarian, P.L. (2004) A conceptual analysis of the transportation impacts of b
2c ecommerce.
Transportation, 31, 257-284.
MuConsult (2003) ICT, Space and Mobility. Heerlen, AVV.
Murto, R. (1996) Traffic Effects of Locating Grocery Stores; Case Tampere. Tampe
re,
Tampere University of Technology (in Finnish); quoted in Kärnä (2001).
Nemoto, T., Visser, J. and Yoshimoto, R. (2001) Impacts of Information and Commu
nication
Technology on Urban Logistics System, Paris, OECD/ECMT.
OECD (2003) Delivering the Goods; 21st Century Challenges to Urban Goods Transpo
rt.
Paris, OECD.
Oh, W. (2002) C2c versus b2c: a comparison of the winner's curse in two types of
electronic
auctions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 115-138.
Orremo, F., Wallin, C., Jönson, G. and Ringsberg, K. (1999) IT, Food and the Envir
onment;
An Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Electronic Grocery Shopping.
Stockholm, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (in Swedish); quoted in Kärnä
(2001).
Palmer, A. (2001) The Effects of Grocery Home Shopping on Road Traffic. London,
Department of Trade and Industry; as quoted in Cairns (2005).
Papola, A. and Polydoropoulou, A. (2006) Shopping-related travel in an rich ICT
Era; A case
study on the impact of e-shopping on travel demand, Proceedings of the
Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Washington DC, United States.

Persson, A and Bratt, M. (2001) Future CO2 savings from on-line shopping jeopard
ised by
bad planning, Proceedings of the 2001 ECEEE Summer Study 'Further than Ever
form Kyoto? Rethinking Energy Efficiency Can Get Us There', Mandelieu, France; a
s
quoted in Cairns (2005).
Punakivi, M. and Holmström, J. (2000) e-Grocery Home Delivery; A Step Towards Gree
n
Logistics. Helsinki, Helsinki University of Technology; as quoted in Kärnä (2001).
Reijnders, L. and Hoogeveen, M.J. (2001) Energy effects associated with e-commer
ce: A
case-study concerning online sales of personal computers in The Netherlands. Jou
rnal
of Environmental Management, 62, 317-321.
Robbins-Gentry, C. (1999) Reducing the cost of returns. Store Chain Age, 75, 124
-126.
Rotem-Mindali, O. and Salomon, I. (2007) The impacts of e-retail on the choice o
f shopping
trips and delivery: some preliminary findings. Transportation Research A, 41, 17
6

189.
21
Salomon, I. (1985) Telecommunications and travel: substitution or modified mobil
ity?
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 19, 219-235.
Salomon, I. (1986) Telecommunications and travel relationships: a review. Transp
ortation
Research A, 20, 223-238.
Salomon, I. and Koppelman, F. (1988) A framework for studying teleshopping versu
s store
shopping. Transportation Research A, 22, 247-255.
Sarkis, S., Meade, L.M. and Talluri, S. (2004) E-logistics and the natural envir
onment.
Supply Chain Management an International Journal, 9, 303-312.
Schellenberg, J. (2005) B2C e-commerce. Impacts on retail structure. Ph.D. Thesi
s, Passau,
L.I.S. Verlag (in German).
Siikavirta, H., Punakivi, M. and Kärkkäinen, M. (2002) Effects of e-commerce on
greenhouse gas emissions; A case study of grocery home delivery in Finland. Jour
nal
of Industrial Ecology, 6, 83-97.
Sim, L.L. and Koi, S.M. (2002) Singapore's Internet shoppers and their impact on
traditional
shopping patterns. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9, 115-124.
Statistics Netherlands (2006) POLS survey 2006. Voorburg/Heerlen, Statistics Net
herlands
(in Dutch).
Statistics Netherlands (2007) StatLine, available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/
Steinfield, C., De Wit, D., Adelaar, T., Bruins, A., Fielt, E., Hoefsloot, M., S
mit, A. and
Bouwman, H. (2001). Pillars of virtual enterprise: leveraging physical assets in
the
new economy. Info, 3, 203-213.
Sui, D.Z. and Rejeski, D.W. (2002) Environmental impacts of the emerging digital
economy:
the e-for-environment e-commerce? Environmental Management, 29, 155-163.
Tacken, M.H.H.K. (1990) Effects of teleshopping on the use of time and space.
Transportation Research Record, 1285, 89-91.
Tehrani, S.M. and Karbassi, A.R. (2005) Application of e-commerce in local home
shopping
and its consequences on energy consumption and air pollution reduction. Iranian
Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 2, 247-250.
Timmermans, H.J.P., Borgers, A.W.J. and Gunsing, M. (1991). The potential adopti
on of
teleshopping technologies in a spatial context: a decompositional choice experim
ent.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1, 549-5
67.
Thuiswinkel.org (2006) Homeshopping: Research and Figures. Ede: Thuiswinkel.org,
available at: http://www.thuiswinkel.org (in Dutch).
Tonn, B.E. and Hemrick, A. (2004) Impacts of the use of e-mail and the Internet
on personal
trip-making behaviour. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 270-280.
Transport en Logistiek Nederland (2000) New Wine in Old Bottles. Zoetermeer, Tra
nsport en
Logistiek Nederland.
US Department of Transportation (2002) National Household Travel Survey 2001.
Washington D.C., US Department of Transportation.
Visser, E.J. and Lanzendorf, M. (2004) Mobility and accessibility effects of b2c
e-commerce:
a literature review. Journal of Economic and Social Geography (TESG), 95, 189-20
5.
Ward, M.R. (2001). Will online shopping compete more with traditional retailing
or catalog
shopping? Netnomics, 3, 103-117.
Wang, D. and Law, F.Y.T (2007) Impacts of information and communication technolo
gies
(ICT) on time use and travel behavior: a structural equations analysis. Transpor
tation,
34, 513-527.
Weltevreden, J.W.J. and Van Rietbergen, T. (2004)
Are Shops Disappearing? Utrecht,
Utrecht University, available at:
http://www.jesseweltevreden.com/verdwijntdewinkel.pdf.
22
Weltevreden, J.W.J. and Van Rietbergen, T. (2006) The implications of e-shopping
for in-
store shopping at various shopping locations in the Netherlands. Paper presented
at
ICT: Mobilizing Persons, Places and Spaces. An international specialist meeting
on
ICT, everyday life and urban change. November 9-11, 2006, Bergen, The
Netherlands.
Weltevreden, J.W.J. (2007) Substitution or complementarity? How the Internet cha
nges city
centre shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14, 192-207.
Weltevreden, J.W.J. (2008) B2c e-commerce logistics: the rise of collection and
delivery
points in the Netherlands. Forthcoming in the Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 36.
Weltevreden, J.W.J. and Van Rietbergen, T. (2007) E-shopping versus city centre
shopping:
the role of perceived city centre attractiveness. Journal of Economic & Social
Geography (TESG), 98, 68-85.
Williams, E. and Tagami, T. (2002) Energy use in sales and distribution via e-co
mmerce and
conventional retail; a case study of the Japanese book sector. Journal of Indust
rial
Ecology, 6, 99-114.
Wrigley, N., Lowe, M. and Currah, A. (2002) Retailing and e-tailing. Urban Geogr
aphy, 23,
180-197.
Yamamoto, H., Ishida, K. and Ohta, T. (2004) Modelling reputation management sys
tem on
online c2c market. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 10, 165

178.
23
Appendix Table A.1 Reference
Sample/study area (year)
Type
of
Product
Phenomenon
Dependent variable(s)
Supported
research
type(s)
hypothesesa
Tacken,
1990
144 customers of
James Telesuper,
Descriptive
Groceries
Teleshopping
Frequency
of shopping
trips
PT1
residing
in
Amstelveen
(
1988)
Kaskanen
&
Finland
(?
)
Scenario s
Groceries
Home
shopping
Energy
consumption
of
delivery
FT1, FT2
Savolainen, 1993
Murto, 1996b
Tampere
region, Finland (
?
)
Scenario s
Groceries
Home
shopping
vehicles and
private cars
Total yearly travel
FT1
Cairns, 1997c
Witney
(7,000
inhabitants, 1 main
Scenario s
Groceries
Home shopping
Travel distances
by delivery
PT1, FT1,
supermarket), UK
(?
)
vehicles and individual
cars
FT2
Farahmand &
Young,
1998c
Orremo
et al.,
1999b
A food store
with a gross
floor space
of
2,500 m2
in
the UK
Sweden ( )
Scenario s
Scenario s
Groceries Groceries
Home shopping
Home shopping
Travel distances
by delivery
vehicles and individual
cars
(?
)
PT1, FT1,
FT2
FT2
Dodgson
et
al., 2000
UK
(
?
)
Scenario s
E-shopping
Number
of
freight
trips
FT1
Punakivi
&
Holmström,
2000b
Helsinki
metropolitan
area
(
)
Scenario s
Groceries
E-shopping
Travelling
mileage and
traffic emissions
FT2
Transport
&
Logistiek
The Netherlands (
?
)
Scenario s
E-shopping
Number
of
freight
trips
FT1
Nederland,
2000
Casas et
al.,
2001
9,132
US
residents
of the
greater
Descriptive
Percentage
of
shopping trips in
PT2
Sacramento California region
(
1999)
total personal trips
Cubukhu, 2001
40
US metropolitan
areas
(
1995)
Multivariate
Modem Total annual shopping
trips in
a
PT1
(regression)
ownership
metropolitan
area
Hernandez
et
al., 2001
1,937 Canadian mall
shoppers
(
2000)
Descriptive
Palmer, 2001c
Data about grocery spend
of
the most
Scenario s
Groceries
Home shopping
Travel distances
by delivery
PT1, FT1,
affluent
40% UK
households
(?
)
vehicles and individual
cars
FT2
Perrson
& Bratt, 2001c
Hammarby
Sjöstad, a
new
part
of
the
Scenario s
Groceries
Home shopping
Total grocery traffic
PT1, FT1,
city of
Stockholm,
Sweden
(?
)
FT2
Reijnders &
Hoogeveen,
2001
Ward,
2001
10,059
US Internet users (
1996/1997)
Multivariate
Consumer choice among
PT2
(regression)
distribution
channels
Dixon & Marston,
450 shoppers in
a town
in
southeast
Descriptive
E-shopping
Town
centre
purchases
PT1
2002
England (
2000)
Hjorthol, 2002
2,529
Norwegians
(
1997/1998)
Multivariate
Private internet Shopping
trips, leisure trips,
PT2
(regression)
activities
total trips
(including
e

11
shopping)
Luley
et
al.,
2002
513
German residents
of
Stuttgart
and
Scenario s
E-
shopping
Shopping
trips
and travel
PT1
445 German
Internet
users
(2000/
2001)
distances, according to transport
mode
Matthews et al., 2002 Siikavirta et al., 2002
A
part
of
the
Helsinki
metropolitan
area
(
135
km2), Finland
(
1999)
Scenario s
Groceries
E-shopping
Sim
&
Koi,
2002
175 Singapore shoppers
(
)
Descriptive
E-shopping
Frequency
of in-store
shopping
PT1,
PT2
Williams
& Tagami,
2002 Bhat et al.,
2003
255
German
residents of Karlsruhe
and
Multivariate
Non-
daily
Computer
Inter-
shopping
duration
PT1,
PT3
Halle (1999)
(HM)
items
ownership
Corpuz
&
Peachman,
1,487 Australian Internet
users
residing
Descriptive
Number
of
shopping
trips
PT1
2003
in
the Sidney Metropolitan
Region
Fogarty, 2003d
(
2000/2001)
538
UK
e-shoppers (2003)
Descriptive
E-
shopping
Distance travelled
for shopping
PT1
by car
Ferrell, 2004
14,563
US
households
in
the San
Multivariate
Shopping
travel
distances and
PT3
Geraghty, 2004d
Francisco
Bay
Area (2000)
1,600
UK
e-
shoppers
(2003)
(regression)
Descriptive
E-shopping
shopping travel
frequencies
Distance travelled for
shopping
PT1
by car
Hassenpflug &
957
German shoppers in
Hannover and
Descriptive
E-shopping
In-store shopping
PT1,
PT3
Tegeder,
2004
Leipzig
(
2002)
Tonn
& Hemrick,
2004
118
Internet users
in
the Knoxville,
Multivariate
Clothing,
E-mail and
Tennessee, metropolitan
region
(2001)
(regression)
books , music,
Internet use
groceries,
other items
Weltevreden
& Van
3,218 Dutch Internet
users
that
shop
at
Descriptive
25 retail
E-shopping
Visits to
and purchases at city
PT1, PT2
Rietbergen, 2004
eight city centres (2004)
categories
centres
Dijst
et
al.,
2005
246 Internet
users residing
in
four
Multivariate
Media goods
E-
shopping
Dutch
municipalities (2003)
(SEM)
(e.
g.,
CDs)
Esser & Kurte,
2005
1,590 German
households
in
Cologne
Scenario s
E-shopping
Number
of trips according to
PT1, PT3
and surrounding
cities (2003)
transport mode
Farag et
al.,
2005
826
Internet
users
residing
in
four
Multivariate
E-shopping
Frequency
of in-store
shopping
PT3
Dutch
municipalities (2003)
(PA)
Ferrell,
2005
18,026
US residents
in
the
San
Multivariate
E-shopping
Shopping
travel
distances,
and
PT1
Francisco
Bay
Area (2000)
(SEM)
shopping travel
frequencies
Krizek
et al., 2005
692
US residents in Seattle,
Kansas
Descriptive
E-shopping
(Willingness to) substitute a
PT1
City, and
Pittsburgh (
)
shopping
trip
12
Schellenberg,
2005
1,174
German high
school
students
and
Descriptive
E-shopping
Purchases in the city centre and
PT1
their
parents (
N
=
881)
in
the
in
large-scale peripheral retail
Heidelberg and Neckar-Odenwaldlocations
Kreis region,
and
625
German
Internet
users
(
2001/
2002)
Tehrani &
Karbassi,
Tehran,
Farmanieh district, Farmanieh
Scenario s
E-shopping
Total
fuel
consumption and total
PT1, FT1,
2005
Goods and Groceries Shopping
Center
emissions
FT2
(
)
De Jong
et al.,
2006
Scenario s
Farag
et
al.,
2006
634 Dutch Internet
users residing
in
Multivariate
Daily and non-
E-shopping
Number and
of
daily
and
nonPT3
three communities in
the municipality
(regression)
daily items
daily in-store shopping
trips
of
Utrecht
(
2003)
Papola &
319 Internet
users from
England
(45%)
,
Scenario s
Daily, non-
E-shopping
Number
of
daily
equivalent
trips
PT1
Polydoropoulou, 2006
the Netherlands (
11%
), Greece (28%
),
daily, and
Israel (8%),
and Italy
(8%
)
specialty goods
Weltevreden
& Van
A nation-wide
representative sample
of
Multivariate
Daily, non-
E-shopping
Frequency
of in-store
shopping
PT1, PT3
Rietbergen, 2006
3,000
Dutch e-
shoppers
(
2006)
(regression)
daily, and
at
various
shopping centres
specialty goods
Farag et
al.,
2007
826
Internet
users
residing
in
four
Multivariate
Daily and non-
E-shopping
Frequency
of in-store
shopping
PT3
Dutch
municipalities (2003)
(SEM)
daily items
Rotem-
Mindali &
Tel Aviv
metropolitan
area
(2004)
Descriptive
Daily and non
Teleshopping
Mode
of
shopping,
mode of
PT1, FT1
Salomon,
2007
daily items
delivery
,frequency, travel time,
travel
distance.
Wang
& Law,
2007
4,935
residents of Hong
Kong
(2002)
Multivariate
ICT
usage
Daily total number of
trips and
PT3
(SEM)
travel time, and time spent on
subsistence, maintenance and
recreational activities
Weltevreden, 2007
3,218 Dutch Internet
users
that
shop
at
Descriptive
25 retail
E-shopping
Visits to
and purchases at city
PT1, PT2
eight city centres (2004)
categories
centres
Weltevreden
& Van
3,218 Dutch Internet
users
that
shop
at
Multivariate
E-shopping
Visits to
and purchases at city
PT1, PT2
Rietbergen, 2007
eight city centres (2004)
(regression)
centres
a
PT =
personal
travel,
FT =
freight transport
b
As cited in
Kärnä (2001)
c
As cited
in
Cairns
(2005)
d
As cited
in
Cairns
et al. (2004)
13
Table A2. Multipliers for calculating
the mobility effects of b2c e-commerce, according to product category
Means of
purchasing
Delivery/collection method
of
B2C e-commerce
C2C
e-
commerce
if the item could not
have been
bought
online
online purchase
Other
items
Personal
Freight
Daily items
Personal
Freight
Tickets &
financial
products
Personal
Freight
Second
hand
items
Personal
Freight
travel
transport
travel
transport
travel
transport
travel
transport
Less
More
Less
More
Less
More
Less
More
Less
More
Less
More
Less
More
Less
More
In a shop
At home: mailbox
0,39 -
-
1
1
-
-
1 0,39 -
-
-
0,39 -
-
1
In
a shop
At
home:
attended
0,39
-
-
1,12
1
-
-
1,12
0,39
-
-
1,12
0,39
-
-
1,12
In
a shop
At
the
neighbours:
attended
0,39
-
-
1,12
1
-
-
1,12
0,39
-
-
1,12
0,39
-
-
1,12
In a shop
At a post office
-
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12
In a shop
At a CDP
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
In a shop
At a shop
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
In a shop
At a private person
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,61 -
-
In a shop
At home: digitally
0,39 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,39 -
-
-
0,39 -
-
-
In a shop
At work
0,39 -
-
1
1
-
-
1 0,39 -
-
-
0,39 -
-
1
By phone/mail
At home: mailbox
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
By phone/mail
At home: attended
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
By phone/mail
At the neighbours: attended
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
By phone/mail
At a post office
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
By phone/mail
At a CDP
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
By
phone/
mail
At
a shop
-
0,39
1
-
-
0,39
1
-
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
1
-
By phone/mail
At a private person
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
By phone/mail
At home: digitally
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
By phone/mail
At work
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not purchased
At home: mailbox
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Not purchased
At home: attended
-
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12
Not purchased
At the neighbours: attended
-
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12 -
-
-
1,12
Not purchased
At a post office
-
0,39
-
1,12
-
0,39
-
1,12
-
0,39
-
1,12
-
0,39
-
1,12
Not purchased
At a CDP
-
0,39
-
1
-
0,39
-
1
-
0,39
-
1
-
0,39
-
1
Not purchased
At a shop
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
-
0,39
-
-
Not purchased
At a private person
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
Not purchased
At home: digitally
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not purchased
At work
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
14