INFORM ATION to USERS the Quality of This Reproduction Is

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 SPATIAL CONSUMPTION DECISION-MAKING: SIX STUDIES OF RESTAURANT CHOICE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Perry L. Carter, B.A,, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1998 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Morton E. O 'Kelly, Adviser Professor Randall W. Jackson Professor Pasquale Pellegrini Morton E. O’l^lly Department Geography UMI Number; 99 00809 Copyright 1999 by Carter, Perry Labron All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9900809 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT The selection of alternatives situated within space is a common yet complex process, which eventually manifests itself as observable spatial behavior. The complexity associated with spatial choice comes from the generally vast range of spatial alternatives from which to choose, and the need to calculate spatial relationships between considered alternatives. This dissertation is an examination of human preferences for alternatives possessing spatially salient attributes and of human spatial choice behavior. The aim is to obtain an increased understanding of the spatial decision-making process. This dissertation uses a behavioral geographic approach in its empirical examination of the spatial choice process. This dissertation is composed of six studies of human preference and human choice behavior. The objects of study are restaurant choice alternatives within the adjacent market area of the Ohio State University. The units of analysis are consumers located on the campus of this university. Study 1 investigates the influence of perceived distance in determining restaurant patronage frequency. .A key finding from this study is that perceived distance is the most important factor in determining restaurant patronage frequency. Study 2 looks at the role that competition between restaurants plays in consumer spatial choice. A major finding from this study is that restaurants generate a pronounced agglomeration effect. Study 3 is a study that explores the attributes of restaurants to determine which attribute performs the foremost role in shaping final restaurant choice. This study found that perceived locational convenience is the most important spatial factor in determining choice. Study 4 looks at how travel time opportunity cost acts as a constrain on preferences and distorts spatial behavior. This study found travel time has the ability to constrain preferences and distort spatial behavior. Study 5 examines spatial choice within a complex retail environment. This study validates the results from Study 3 - locational convenience is a significant determinant in restaurant choice. Study 6 investigates the link between preferences and choices. Study 6 found that while space does play a role in determining restaurant choice, it does not play a direct role in determining which alternatives make their way into respondents choice sets. The dissertation concludes with a meta-analysis of these six studies, which acts as a means of study validation as well as a foundation for theory construction. This dissertation makes a contribution to geography in the areas of spatial perception and spatial behavior. In addition, this dissertation demonstrates the benefits of using primary gathered survey data, count estimation models, and a triangulated approach to studying complex geographic problems. Ill Dedicated to Jean and Della Carter Two strong loving Black women whose nurturing and guidance have brought me to this point. ACKNOWLEDGE I am thankful for Arthur. Arm, and Christine Carter: and the rest of the Carter Family for making ±eir children feel as if the universe revolved around them. This was a very useful gift to have during this venture. I want to thank Lillie Jenkins-Carter for always being a supportive friend and for always being strong when I needed strength. I wish to thank Dr. Morton O'Kelly for his patience and hard work during the writing of this dissertation. I have had a few misunderstandings with Dr. O'Kelly, but when the I needed him he was always there and for that I am forever grateful and most appreciative. I want to thank Sharon White for being my role model. I wanted to grow up to be like her and now I am. I want to thank my friend Sylvia Long-Tolbert not only for her friendship but also for her intellectual input in this dissertation. It was out of a conversation with her over dinner that Study 4 of this dissertation came about. 1 am grateful to Cynthia Sorrensen for all of her encouragement and kindness during this long process. I only wish I had gotten to know her sooner. I thank Dr. Paul Lavrakas of the Survey Research Center of the Colledge of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the Ohio State University for allowing me to add questions that would eventually go into Study 1 of my dissertation to the OSU Poll. I thank Dr. Clifford Pannell and Dr. Ron Mitchelson for making me see that I could be a geographer. I thank Dr. Casetti. Dr. Holloway, and Dr. Jackson for showing faith in me. 1 want to thank the Latin sisters. Donna and Irene, for making every day an adventure. 1 want to thank my boy Chris for being my boy. 1 like to thank Margaret for being someone I could talk to. 1 want to thank my nemesis Jamie for motivating me to crush him. 1 also want to thank Deborah for showing me how to be a graduate student. Finally. I want to thank all my colleagues, graduate students in the department of geography at OSU. for making my five years there bearable and at times actually enjoyable. VI VITA 1983 .......................................A.B. Geography at the University of Georgia 1986 .......................................M.A. Geography at the University of Georgia 1992 .......................................M..A. Political Economy at the University of Texas at Dallas 1993-1998 ............................ Geography Ph.D. candidate at The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Geography \ II TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A bstract.............................................................................................................................................. ii Dedication ..........................................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ v Vita.................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables...................................................................................................................................xii List of Figures.................................................................................................................................xvi Chapters: 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 2. Inquiries into spatial choice behavior .................................................................. 11 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 11 2.2 Rational choice theor> ............................................................................20 2.3 Bounded choice theorv ...........................................................................20 2.4 Choice sets and models of consumer choice ....................................... 29 2.5 Conclusions............................................................................................... S'" 3. Study 1 : The relationship between restaurant patronage and perceptions of cost, taste, and travel time and distance .........................................................................39 3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................

Load more