A study of store location patterns inside enclosed shopping environments

Polly FongUniversity College London, UK

pollyspfong@hotmail.com

Abstract

This paper examines the compositional structure of tenant mix and tenant location pat-terns within shopping centres across a sample of super regional shopping centres. It findslittle evidence that design guidance in the literature on rules of store type placementin terms of clustering and dispersal, are adhered to. Syntactic analysis provides evidencethat specialist jewellery stores tend to be located in more integrated areas within shoppingcentre layouts. An ecological framework is proposed, as it may be suitable to investigatethe dynamics of inter store competition or compatibility of store location within plannedshopping centres.

Community: “...an assemblage of populations of ...(different organisms)... thatlive in an environment and interact with one another, forming together a dis-tinctive living system with its own composition, structure, environmental re-lations, development, and function.” (Whittaker, 1975, p. 1-2)

1. Selecting the right mix

Emerging from the literature on the design and evaluation of shopping malls, the ‘tenantmix’ or the space allocation and location of the retail stores is an essential characteristicof the shopping mall. “A full line-up of strong and well placed traders is ... importantto the retail tenant, whose performance is dependent on the level and type of footfallattracted...The success of individual tenants and the success of a centre as a whole areinterdependent and enhanced by the cumulative synergy generated by the mix of stores.”(Kirkup and Rafiq, 1994. p.29) Despite the importance of the tenant mix within retailenvironments, there appears to be little or no empirical research studying the micro-placement and spatial location of non-anchor stores in new shopping centres nor are therestudies on the spatial pattern of store layout in existing centres. The aim in this paper isto further the understanding of tenant mix and highlight the aspect of non-anchor storeplacement as it has been largely ignored.

Concerns of tenant mix, as distinct from retail mix, encompass three related aspects:the selection and compositional structure of tenants for centre, the space allocation foreach store category type and the location of tenants within the centre. All of these aspectsare increasingly being considered as equally important subjects, and should be tackledtogether as a merchandising operation that begins at a very early stage of shopping centredesign. (Guy, 1994; Beyard and O’Mara, 1999) While the selection and space allocationprocess of major space users have received more attention by real estate and businessmanagement researchers, the details of letting of smaller tenants/ non-anchors are oftenleft in the charge of leasing agents, a process that is not as well documented for new or

104 Polly Fong

existing shopping centres. (McGoldrick and Thompson, 1992)1

1.1. Cluster or disperse; the tenant mix problem inside a shopping mall

According to Kaylin (1973, p.46) an outcome for an ideal tenant mix achieves a logicallayout of shops. Beyard and O’Mara (1999) comments that one type of location may besuitable for one business and bad for another, and the placement in relation to the overallcomposition is often critical. Tenant grouping should follow “mix” or “match” principlesin order to sustain the interest of shoppers; ensuring that they are drawn throughout theentire centre. He adds that aside from how much rent the tenant can pay, considerationshould be given to the compatibility of tenant’s merchandising practices with those of ad-joining stores. The rule is complementary tenants should be clustered, while incompatibleones should be dispersed. For example, Dawson (1983) recommends that the followingnon-anchor stores should not be clustered but dispersed throughout the mall: jewellery,record, and hardware stores. What is uncertain is the “logic” behind the placement oftenants and the criteria for determining complementary status between tenants. Generalguidance to the grouping of certain tenants state that:

• Food shops...(should be) grouped around the supermarket but not in prime locationsnor in the highest rental positions. Requires reasonable display frontage.

• Fashion and clothing...(should be) grouped together and preferably in logical se-quence... These shops require prime positions, preferably in the centre of the mainmall and away from the food stores...concentrate them in groups so they form amagnet in their own right.

• Service shops...are generally positioned in less attractive retail locations where rentsare lower and sizes of shops smaller, eg. secondary malls and upper levels.

• Specialty shops...include those selling leather, gifts, stationery, cameras, flowers, toysand fabrics, need good, prominent locations and good display frontages...This groupis particularly adaptable to size and shape of individual units.

• Restaurants...benefit from any position with a view...recommends locations through-out the centre and in the main square... (Maitland,1985; p.21)

Needless to say anchor stores, such as department stores, are in themselves incompati-ble because they are in direct competition with each other, hence they are most commonlylocated at the extremities of the layout or furthest from each other. The location of thesecond tier of retail units (junior anchors,) is considered largely in relation to the placingof major anchor tenants and so on. These large space users are placed in such a way todraw movement throughout the centre so that all standard unit tenants are passed on theway to and from the anchors.

Siting of smaller standard units is usually approached in a mainly negative way, ie. byremoving potential ‘dead’ space users from the main malls, and by separating ‘incompat-ible’ retailers. (Brown, 1991) Standard service units include the post office, banks and a

1 Shopping centre projects do not go ahead without the commitment of one or more major departmentstore retailers to a proposed development. The financing of a project rests on these key anchor tenantshence the importance attached to their selection and placement. They serve as a draw for potentialshoppers attracted by the anchor store’s name or the range of goods that it carries. (Guy, 1994)

A study of store location patterns inside enclosed shopping environments 105

Figure 41: Tenancy data of Meadowhall shopping centre superimposed over the VisibilityGraph Analysis coloured from light grey, low Total Depth (more integrated,) to dark greyhigh Total Depth (more segregated) inside a mapping software. Although integration tendsto be concentrated in the common spaces, this methodology can highlight locales that aremore integrated (A), and similarly pick out locales that are more segregated (B) in finegrain resolution.

106 Polly Fong

few personal service shops; most of which enjoy monopoly or near-monopolistic tradingconditions. As Maitland points out that these units are the kind shoppers are preparedto seek out, however inconveniently they are located. Beyard and O’Mara (1999) concurby stating that “banks, travel agencies, and other services and restaurants are suited toside malls... or other locations that would be undesirable for stores selling, say, impulsegoods.” (p.170) Furthermore, standard units selling durable goods are said to not generatetraffic by themselves and would benefit from central locations, in particularly goods thatare likely to be bought on impulse2.

Drawing from the slim body of literature regarding tenant placement, there appearsto be some consensus of opinion on that similar lines of trade, particularly clothing andclothing accessories stores, should be grouped together. (Maitland, 1985; Beyard & Omara,1999) What generally seems to happen in practice is fashion traders are placed in thecentral /prime areas of the development, ie. along a main route leading to the key anchorstores, and service trades in the peripheral areas. Does this mean that a $150 last minutepackage holiday on special offer purchased from a travel agent encountered by chance ina peripheral location is not impulsive but an expensive $1000 watch found in a central,highly visible shop after careful comparison and long deliberation is more of an impulsebuy? However, it is not clear which store types or retailers are not considered compatible,although according to Dawson, (1983) jewellery and record, stores should be dispersed.The weakness of these rules of location, is that they are based on generalised assumptionsabout the way people supposedly go about shopping.

While the rules regarding placement, clustering or dispersal of stores are abundant,there is also a genuine lack of evidence that they are adhered. There is a dearth of empiricalresearch on whether stores of the same type are found dispersed or clustered in shoppingcentres. The following hypothese are drawn in order to find evidence of some of the rules onplacement by studying actual locations of store types across a sample of shopping centres.The aim is to see if there is consistency to patterns of location, which can perhaps revealtendencies of compatibility and incompatibility of clustered and dispersed store types.

2. Hypotheses

From Dawson (1983):Hypothesis 1. That jewellery stores tend to be dispersed.Hypothesis 2. That record stores tend to be dispersed.Central or peripheral locations: service shops such as banks, travel agencies, opticians

and hairdressers are suited to peripheral locations; clothing stores should be grouped to-gether in central locations and food shops should be kept out of prime locations. (Maitland,1985; p.21)

Hypothesis 3. That service shops locate in peripheral locations, ie. relatively segregatedlocations.

Hypothesis 4. That clothing stores locate in central locations, ie. relatively integratedlocations.

2 Impulse goods are referred to as goods that shoppers did not come with the idea for but purchased asa by product of the shopping process for the items they had in mind to come for. Hassain and Penn,(1999) have termed such merchandise as “suscipient” to the generative core range of goods on offer.In the case of most large scale shopping centres, it is generally accepted that adult fashion/clothingoutlets form the generative function as they are the most abundant in number.

A study of store location patterns inside enclosed shopping environments 107

Figure 42: Floorplans showing location of all specialist jewellery outlets, dot-ted black. (MC=METROCENTRE/ MK=MILTON KEYNES/ MI=MERRY HILL/BW=BLUEWATER/ TR=TRAFFORD/ MA=MEADOWHALL/ LK=LAKESIDE;Number refers to the floor level.)

Hypothesis 5. That food shops are locate in peripheral locations, ie. relatively segregatedlocations.

3. Methodology

In light of a false rent bid process as employed by enclosed shopping centres, (locations ac-tively managed by one landlord, instead of natural market conditions as in urban settings)a cross comparative syntactic approach could be helpful to evaluate the ‘logic’ of storelocation according to measurable spatial properties of location within planned shoppingmalls.

In order to see if the guidance is actually realised in practice regarding tenant loca-tion, the case studies need to include a full range of store type categories and have somedegree of complexity in its layout to determine clustering or dispersal patterns. The studysample comprises of seven shopping centres of similar scale and regional importance. Formore details regarding the study sample, please refer to the author’s paper (Fong, 1999)published in the previous symposium proceedings.

4. Data

Tenant mix information was taken from the user maps issued by each shopping centrein 2001 and followed up with an on-site survey. This data (shop type and location) wastransferred digitally and compiled with metric data (shape and size) obtained from CharlesE. Goad maps, into a mapping software.

The tenant layout plan was superimposed onto the Visibility Graph Analysis (modelledto include shops and processed as one system linked by the visibility afforded by escalators,

108 Polly Fong

Figure 43: Floorplans showing location of all specialist music record outlets, dotted black.

at a 3m grid, see figure 41) for each floor plan of each shopping centre, whereby theaverage Total Depth measure was taken for each shop unit using the object joining toolswithin the mapping software. As the layout of each of the shopping centres, highly variedand different, a syntactic approach is extremely useful in that spatial properties betweendifferent store locations within each centre’s layout can be quantified. Total Depth is asyntactic measure, which allows determining whether a location is more integrated ormore segregated, ie. distinguishing the difference between so called central or peripherallocations.

5. Results

5.1. Dispersal of Jewellery stores

Figure 42 maps the locations of all jewellery stores within each shopping centre. Thereis no obvious pattern of dispersal throughout the centre, in the case of Lakeside (LK),Meadowhall (MA) and Trafford (TR) such that they are predominately on one floor andclustered. However, what is apparent is that jewellery stores tend to be located close by ananchor store, and that most jewellery stores are sited at nodal courts, (with the exceptionof Miltonkeynes where due to its grid layout and its being predominantly one single floor,the centre lack the courts provided in multi-floor centres used for vertical circulation.)

5.2. Dispersal of Record Stores

Figure 43, maps the location of music record stores within each shopping centre. Theirplacement suggests that they are dispersed on separate floors and along different wings of

A study of store location patterns inside enclosed shopping environments 109

Figure 44: Graph plotting the ranking of average Total Depth for particular store types;placements towards the left, more integrated and towards the right, more segregated.

the common mall space.

5.3. Integrated and Segregated Location Patterns of Shop Types

Each shop unit was assigned an averaged measure of Total Depth, from the output of theVisibility Graph Analyses, and the aggregate value for each shop type was then used torank them according to whether they were more integrated (lower Total Depth average)or more segregated (higher Total Depth average.) 3

Each store type category in each shopping centre was ranked from 1-13, (ie. 13 isthe total count of categories under consideration.) The category with the lowest averageTotal Depth (more integrated,) is allocated 1, and 2 to the second lowest and so on, tothe highest 13. Ranks are useful here because Total Depth measures are not comparableacross the sample due to the influence of size, and it has been demonstrated that therankings within each shopping centre have no direct relationship with store unit size.

The results are graphically represented for clarity, in particular for the store categoriesof interest. (Refer to Figure 44.) It is clear that Jewellery stores are placed in the extreme ofthe more integrated group of ranks, Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies and Perfume are rankedwithin the left half of the graph (more integrated), while Financial outlets are rankedwithin the right half of the graph (more segregated), across the seven shopping centres.The other categories (Food, Clothing and Accessories, Personal service and Gifts, Noveltyand Souvenir) appear to be placed randomly.

3 The Total Depth measure has a tendency to be influenced by size, therefore a correlation betweenaverage shop size and average Total Depth per category per shopping centre was carried out to checkif Total Depth was a direct result of size. While as a significance level at p¡0.05, would show thatthere is correlation between average size of unit and Total Depth for each store type, per shoppingcentre. P values ranged from 0.111 to 0.8879, hence there is no correlation between average size ofunit and Total Depth for each store type.

110 Polly Fong

Figure 45: Diagrams of direct interactions among species in communities, with signs cor-responding to the interactions between species. (+ = positive; - = negative; 0 = neitherpositive or negative)

To test the statistical significance of these results, a non-parametric testing method wasemployed, ie. (Kruskal Wallis Test; for data with 3 or more groups.) What this test does isthat it takes all the ranks and places them in sequential order and determines whether therankings are significantly consistent throughout the samples, ie. whether there is clumping(consistent pattern to rank) or dispersal (there is no pattern.) The computed significancevalue was p= 0.0009, which indicated highly significant grouping in the data. A significancevalue test was performed a second time, without the Jewellery store category since, as isapparent in Figure 44 its extreme ranking may have skewed the rest of the data. Theresult this time was non significant, (p =0.09.) Hence apart from Jewellery stores beinglocated in relatively more integrated locations, there does not appear to be a consistentpattern of location across the sample in terms of integrated or segregated locales for anyother store categories 4.

6. Discussion

The results in the sample studied indicate that there is no supporting evidence that therules of location offered by various authors are adhered to. It seems that mall managersor leasing agents are not following particular rules, or that the present practices and thedesign guidance are decoupled. In light of the absence of sales and rent data for all sevenshopping centres, this paper suggests an alternative focus for further enquiry in the studyof tenant mix and understanding inter store dynamics.

6.1. Analogies to ecology

Ecology is the study of organism interactions. These interactions are defined by the out-come to each organism (beneficial, damaging or neutral) and classified according to these

4 It should be noted that although, a pattern across the sample was not found, there may be consistentpatterns within each mall for the location of specific store categories according to integration.

A study of store location patterns inside enclosed shopping environments 111

Figure 46: Floorplans showing the widely dispersed location of McDonalds (cross symbol)and Burger King (star symbol) restaurants within each shopping centre, where visual fieldstaken from each facade rarely overlap.

outcomes in pair-wise interactions. Refer to Figure 45 below; redrawn from Morin, 1999,p.X:

These ecological dynamics can be adapted to study the interactions of externalitiesbetween shops inside the enclosed shopping centre, (modified from Morin, 1999):

Competition involves a mutually negative (-/-) interaction between a pair of shops.Predation (parasitism) involve a (-/+) interaction between a pair of shops, in which

the net effect of an individual consumer on an individual prey is negative, and the effectof the consumed prey on the predator is positive. This interaction involves aggressivetakeovers or amalgamation of businesses and is not within the scope of this study, as itrequires a historical data set.

Mutualism involves a mutually positive (+/+) interaction between a pair of shops, inwhich each has a positive effect on the other.

Amensalism is a one sided competitive interaction (0/-), in which one shop has anegative effect on another, but the other has no detectable effect on the first.

Commensalism is a one sided mutualistic (0/+) interaction, in which one species hasa positive effect on another species, but the second species has no net effect on the first.Again, the last two interactions where there is no net effect on one of the parties, is difficultto assess without long-term sales data and a historical account of shop relations.

Shop to shop interactions outcomes can be classified and studied according to thisframework of rules and definitions of ecology5. Unlike urban areas, shopping centre bound-

5 Actually, ecological analogies have already been explored on the macro-scale, in town planning studies

112 Polly Fong

aries are much easier to define. Thus the circumscription of shop interactions becomesmore manageable such that externalities are somewhat minimised. The study of shop toshop interactions within the shopping centre can be divided according to guilds: groupsof organisms (or in this case, store types) that exploit the same resource in a similar way(as cited in Morin, 1999). In this case the resource is the patronage dollar (although it ispossible to further subdivide it according to gender, age and social status), and the ‘way’to exploit it is in the sale of the particular service or product they carry: women’s cloth-ing stores, men’s clothing stores, jewellery stores, etc. are all examples of well recognisedguilds. Of course, there will be some overlap between guilds since they are vying for thesame pool of resources. The key in the division lies in the manner in which they do so,which does not preclude a certain degree of competition between guilds. Nevertheless, in-teractions within guilds (intra store type) are expected to be stronger than between guilds(inter store type.) Of course, this is a conjecture, that could be tested in future studies.However, the mode in which stores ‘gather’ resources depend on their relative locationwith respect to other stores and store types; such that through their visibility (which islocation dependant) they make themselves be known to the passing flow of shoppers whomay choose to enter. Perhaps it is possible to circumscribe the study of interactions tothose short range ones that occur in common visual field or convex spaces?

Like biological communities, each store can have multiple pair-wise interactions withevery other store within its guild as well as outside it. Linking the concept of intraguildinteraction with visibility generates two inferences regarding the clustering and dispersionof store type:

1. That competing or predating stores can minimize deleterious interactions by locatingaway from each other and therefore not coincide with incompatible stores. Assumingthat retailers who do not benefit at all when in proximity are in direct competitionto each other, resulting in loss in sales for both, a loss-loss relationship. Thus theywill be overdispersed or minimise intervisibility.

2. That stores that are not in direct competition with each other or that they com-plement each other in such that there is no commensal net gain or loss in sales forone of them or that they both benefit from being close to each other, a gain-gainmutualistic relationship. These stores will tend to cluster or maximise intervisibility.

6.1.1. Dispersing for minimized competition

Take the ubiquitous fast food retailers, McDonalds and Burger King. What they bothoffer is food served quickly, economically and in familiar surroundings. Unlike nationalmultiples that are centrally owned by one holding company, these outlets are normallyoperated as independent franchises. Although, their images are distinct from one another;their hamburgers are different and named differently, the fact remains that the core itemon their menus, is hamburgers. Both franchises are present in all seven of the shoppingcentres studied. Looking at their sites, it is obvious that they are in widely dispersedlocations within each shopping centre layout, suggesting that distance is used as an activemeasure to avoid competition with each other. See Figure 6. To illustrate this point further,when a visual field is drawn from the facade of each outlet (zone from which the facadeis visible to the shopper, coloured in light grey) they rarely overlap. The only instance of

by Kivell and Shaw, (1983) but not yet used in the study of retail environments.

A study of store location patterns inside enclosed shopping environments 113

Figure 47: Floorplans showing the dispersed location of greeting card stores; Birthdays(diamond symbol) and Clinton Cards (star symbol).

where this happens is on the lower floor of Metrocentre. (MC 1) In some centres there areduplicate outlets of each and these are also located as far apart as possible, often at theextremes of mall corridors, as if each were a rival.

Another instance of similar inter-store dynamics at play, is the case of two of the largestUK retailers of greeting cards; Birthday’s and Clinton Cards, also with presence acrossthe samples, see Figure 47. The product range between these stores though not identical,is quite similar. Again, there is a tendency for duplicate stores to be dispersed. However,they are not placed as far and wide as the fast food retailer strategy. An explanationcould be that whereas McDonalds or Burger King has such a big draw, that shoppers doactively seek them out, greeting cards stores need relatively more integrated locales; suchthat they cannot be placed as wide apart as possible.

6.1.2. Clustering for Mutualism and Commensalism

The Signet Group Plc, the world’s largest specialist jeweller, operates the multiple jew-ellery stores H. Samuel, Ernest Jones and Leslie Davis. (See Figure 48 for their locations.)In all cases, H Samuel is always located in close proximity to Marks and Spencer. Thiscould be an example of commensalism; whereby Marks and Spencer may gain nothingfrom H Samuel’s adjacency, while the latter is sited to catch the flow of the Marks andSpencer shopper. As Marks and Spencer does not offer jewellery in its range of predomi-nantly fashion, accessories, footwear, household furnishing and food oriented products, itmay not consider H Samuel to be in direct competition.

There is also evidence that Signet retailers are clustered amongst themselves; in Merry

114 Polly Fong

Hill, Ernest Jones faces H Samuel; in Miltonkeynes, Ernest Jones faces one of the two HSamuel outlets; and in Meadowhall, H Samuel and Leslie Davis are two shops apart. Onecan speculate that the purpose of locating these shops in proximity, sets up the pretenceof competition when there is not any. If the assumption is correct, shopping for jewelleryis considered a comparison activity, hence the strategy of placing two different retailersside by side, increases the chances of a purchase occurring inside a Signet store6.

A good example to illustrate a mutual positive effect of clustering is the concept of thefood court, which began in the early 1970s in North American malls with the strategy tokeep customers lingering over lunch. (Cohen, 2002) This cluster of small take away foodunits, and restaurants offer choice and aggregate enough critical mass to be an anchoron its own; given that some shoppers visit super regional malls on a purposeful day trip,they are likely to seek out food service stores. Food courts are generally composed of thea selection of the ‘modern’ cuisines: exotic far east meals such as Thai or Chinese, pizza,spicy Asian curries, Mexican tortillas, fried chicken or the traditional English pub food.Although they are vying for the same clientele, as a cluster they work in mutual gain, asthe choice they all contribute to increases the chances that shoppers will seek out the foodcourt to find something to suitable for their individual taste.

7. Conclusions

Referring back to the hypotheses set in the beginning of this chapter:Hypothesis 1. That jewellery stores tend to be dispersed.No evidence has been found. Jewellery stores, even those owned by a single holding

company, tend to be clustered around anchor stores. In addition to this finding, the syn-tactic variable of location (Total Depth) for jewellery stores rank as the most integratedareas and this is consistent for each shopping centre studied. However, jewellery storeswere the only store type to demonstrate a consistent ranking with statistically significantresult in averaging the lowest Total Depth values.

Hypothesis 2. That record stores tend to be dispersed.Yes, there appears to be evidence to support the proposition that record stores are

dispersed.Hypothesis 3. That service shops locate in relatively segregated locations.No support has been found, with the exception of financial stores as banks. There is

a tendency found in the ranking of average Total Depth for financial stores to be biasedtowards the relatively segregated end of the spectrum, across the sample.

Hypothesis 4. That clothing stores locate in relatively integrated locations.There was a tendency found in the ranking of average Total Depth for clothing stores

to be biased towards the relatively integrated group across the sample.Hypothesis 5. That food shops locate in relatively segregated locations.No support was found for this hypothesis.The frequently referred “logic” to tenant mix, may be common sense to the profes-

sional shopping centre manager but this knowledge is more craft than science. Insidersadmit that the certain axioms about grouping stores have grown out of trial and errorwith shopping centres. Studying store location through case studies offers an alternativeexplanatory method which can contribute to the traditional predictive purpose of using

6 Of course, to confirm all of these inferences regarding comparison or convenience shopping, a closeobservation of people’s shopping behaviour is required.

A study of store location patterns inside enclosed shopping environments 115

Figure 48: Floorplans showing location of jewellery store retailers: H Samuel, Ernest Jonesand Leslie Davis (triangle symbol), all of which belonging to the same holding group, SignetPlc, in relation to all other specialist jewellery stores (dotted symbol).

spatial behavioural models for assessing rental yield in new shopping centres 7. This studyhas attempted to empirically test the best known “rules of thumb” through a cross com-parison of tenant location patterns across a sample of shopping centres in the UK andfound them to be mostly unsubstantiated. In addition it has shown that generalised storetype cluster and dispersal theories, based on assumptions of the way people go aboutshopping, may be the wrong approach in establishing optimal tenant mix strategies. Thisstudy has demonstrated that shopping centres can be profitably studied using an ecologicalframework.

Literature

Beyard, M., and O’Mara P. (1999) Shopping Center Development Handbook, Wash-ington, Urban Land Institute.

Brown, S. (1991) Tenant placement in planned shopping centres: implications of anobservation survey, Journal of Property Research, 8, p. 179-187.

Cohen, N. (2002) American Marketplace: the History of Shopping Centers, Lyme, Con-necticut, Greenwich Publishing Group.

Dawson, J. A. (1983) Shopping Centre Development, London, Longman.Fong, P. (2003) What Makes Big Dumbells a Mega Shopping Mall, Proceedings from

the Space Syntax Fourth International Symposium, 1, p.10.

7 One must also accept the limitations that any study attempting to investigate inter store dynamicsacross samples is hampered by the lack of reliable, and detailed sales data.

116 Polly Fong

Guy, C. (1994) The Retail Development Process: Location, Property and Planning, Lon-don, Routledge.

Hassain, N., and Penn, A. (1999) A Syntactic Approach to the Analysis of SpatialPatterns in Spontaneous Retail Development in Dhaka. Proceedings from the SpaceSyntax Second International Symposium, 2, p. 30.

Kaylin, S. O. (1973) In Depth Analysis Necessary for Shopping Centre Game, ShoppingCenter World, p. 44-48.

Kirkup, M. H. and M. Rafiq (1994) Managing Tenant Mix in New Shopping Cen-tres, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 226, p. 29-37.

Kivell, P. T., and Shaw G. (1983) The Study of Retail Location, in: Dawson, J.A.(ed.), Retail Geography, London, Croom Helm, p. 95-155.

Maitland, B. (1985) Shopping Malls: Planning and Designs, London, ConstructionPress.

McGoldrick, P. and Thompson, M., (1992) Regional Shopping Centres, Newcastleupon Tyne, Athenaeum Press.

Morin, P. J. (1999) Community Ecology, Malden, Mass., Blackwell Science.Whittaker, R. (1975) Communities and Ecosystem, New York, MacMillan.