Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2104.14043

Where to Refuel: Modeling On-the-way Choice of Convenience Outlet

Abstract

This paper introduces on-the-way choice of retail outlet as a form of convenience shopping. It presents a model of on-the-way choice of retail outlet and applies the model in the context of fuel retailing to explore its implications for segmentation and spatial competition. The model is a latent class random utility choice model. An application to gas station choices observed in a medium-sized Asian city show the model to fit substantially better than existing models. The empirical results indicate consumers may adopt one of two decision strategies. When adopting an immediacy-oriented strategy they behave in accordance with the traditional gravity-based retail models and tend to choose the most spatially convenient outlet. When following a destination-oriented strategy they focus more on maintaining their overall trip efficiency and so will tend to visit outlets located closer to their main destination and are more susceptible to retail agglomeration effects. The paper demonstrates how the model can be used to inform segmentation and local competition analyses that account for variations in these strategies as well as variations in consumer type, origin and time of travel. Simulations of a duopoly setting further demonstrate the implications.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ari Pramono, Harmen Oppewal. 2021-04-28. Where to Refuel: Modeling On-the-way Choice of Convenience Outlet. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102572

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Local Media and the Shaping of Social Norms: Evidence from the Ebola outbreak

Media's influence on norms and behavior is widely recognized. Less is known about the role played by media being local. I examine this in a high-stakes context, the Ebola outbreak in Guinea. I exploit quasi-random variation in access to radio and the timing of a public-health campaign aired on community radio. I find that 12-17% of Ebola cases could have been prevented if places with access to a neighboring community radio station had instead had their own. Impacts are driven by radio being local rather than by ethno-linguistic belonging. Local media facilitates coordination in behaviors observed and sanctioned locally.

econ.GN

Productivity Shocks and Input Misallocation: A Decomposition

This paper asks how much input misallocation productivity uncertainty generates and at which stage of input decisions it arises. I separate revenue productivity by when each component is revealed and trace each into the gap between an input's marginal revenue product and its price. In six European countries, shocks revealed after an input is committed account for 20 percent of capital gap dispersion and 5 percent of labor gap dispersion. An unanticipated one percent rise in productivity raises the capital gap by 0.92 percent and the labor gap by 0.19 percent, because most of the shock passes into the wage.

econ.GN

When Do Type-Specific Wages Buffer Distributional Incidence in TANK?

When do relative wages buffer the unequal incidence of aggregate shocks? I derive a consumption-gap decomposition and a present-value condition for partial offset in a TANK model. An extension separates wage-setting demand elasticity from substitution between labor segments and allows each segment to contain both financial types. With a zero inherited wage gap and a same-sign discounted wedge, substitution above one gives offsetting earnings reallocation; substitution below one gives amplification. The channel disappears when financial types have identical segment exposure. Numerical experiments assess these mechanisms, shock persistence, policy feedback, and aggregate-IRF matching. In the nested perfect-alignment monetary benchmark, the peak consumption gap is about two-fifths smaller under type-specific wages than under the common-wage closure. These are conditional model comparisons, not empirical effect estimates or welfare rankings.

econ.GN