Comparing hypermarket and traditional wet market consumers perception - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 20 Words: 5993 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Statistics Essay Did you like this example? CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS 4.0 Introduction This study was conducted in two different store formats, which are hypermarket and traditional wet market respectively. Totally 200 questionnaires were distributed and collected, each market has 100 questionnaires respectively. First of all, the general data such as respondents profiles, trip patterns and transaction patterns were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. This approach generates frequency and percentage of the respondents characteristics and presents the basic data and information. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Comparing hypermarket and traditional wet market consumers perception" essay for you Create order Secondly, reliability of the respondents perception on store image will be tested to examine whether if the data reliable or not. The level of reliability, which is so called Cronbachs alpha, the alpha value should not lower than 0.70 to obtain the consistent result. After that, independent t-test will be used to examine the level of significant on store attributes between different store formats. Moreover, we will also test the correlation between store formats and the demographic characteristics, trip patterns and transaction patterns. The differences of mean will be calculated, and 95% of confidence intervals were taken in this study. Significant probability was 0.05. It means if the result lower or equal to 0.05, it indicates statistically significantly different. 4.1Descriptive Analysis 4.1.1Respondents Profile 4.1.1.1Gender Sex Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Male 46 46.0 34 34.0 Female 54 54.0 66 66.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.1: Gender Figure 4.1: Gender At both different store formats, we can find that there is more female shop at markets than male does. Gender distribution of respondents at hypermarket was much more balanced than gender distribution of respondents at traditional wet market, which are 46% for male and 54% for female at hypermarket, while traditional wet market was 1/3 of respondents are male and 2/3 of respondents are female. 4.1.1.2Age Age Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 25 and below 35 35.0 28 28.0 26-35 34 34.0 19 19.0 36-45 16 16.0 14 14.0 46-55 12 12.0 23 23.0 56 and above 3 3.0 16 16.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.2: Age Figure 4.2: Age The data collection of this study showed that respondents at hypermarket and traditional wet market with the age of 25 years old and below are the highest, which are 35% and 28% respectively, compare with the ages which are between 26-35 years old (34% and 19%), 36-45 years old (16% and 14%), 46-55 years old (12% and 23%), and 56 years old and above (3% and 16%). One phenomenon can be found in this data is the number of respondents of traditional wet market with the age which are between 46-55 years old and 56 years old and above, are much higher than the respondents of hypermarket with the same range of age. The total percentage for this range of age (46-55 years old and 56 years old and above), for traditional wet market is 39%, while for hypermarket is only 15%. We can conclude that the respondents of traditional wet market are older than the respondent of hypermarket. 4.1.1.3 Ethnic Ethnic Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Malay 33 33.0 14 14.0 Chinese 55 55.0 74 74.0 Indian 9 9.0 11 11.0 Others 3 3.0 1 1.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.3: Ethnic RUL 573- RESEARCH PROJECT IN PLANNING CHAPTER 4: Store Image: Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers Perception. Case Study: Bayan Baru, Penang. Figure 4.3: Ethnic In this study, Chinese has the highest number of people (55% from hypermarket, 74% from traditional wet market) following to Malay (33% from hypermarket, 14% from traditional wet market), Indian (9% from hypermarket, 11% from traditional wet market) and the others (3% from hypermarket, 1% from traditional wet market). The biggest different of these store formats is Chinese respondent has higher portion at traditional wet market compare to hypermarket, which are of all respondents of traditional wet market compare to of all respondents of hypermarket. While the figure of Malay showed that Malay tends to shop at hypermarket instead of going to traditional wet market, the number of Malay shops at hypermarket is twice compare to number of Malay shops at traditional wet market. 4.1.1.4 Marital Status Marital Status Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Single 58 58.0 42 42.0 Married 42 42.0 58 58.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.4: Marital Status RUL 573- RESEARCH PROJECT IN PLANNING CHAPTER 4: Store Image: Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers Perception. Case Study: Bayan Baru, Penang. Figure 4.4: Marital Status 40 RUL 573- RESEARCH PROJECT IN PLANNING CHAPTER 4: Store Image: Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers Perception. Case Study: Bayan Baru, Penang. Base on the data that obtained, the respondents of hypermarket who are married (42%) are fewer than those who are single (58%). While respondents from of traditional wet market have the different situation, the result was totally inversed of hypermarket, that is 58% of the respondents are married, and the others 42% are single. This result indicates respondents of this study who are married tend to shop at traditional wet market and respondents who are single prefer to shop at hypermarket. 4.1.1.5 Education Level Education Level Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent College/ University 74 74.0 50 50.0 Secondary School 19 19.0 34 34.0 Primary School 2 2.0 13 13.0 No Formal Education 4 4.0 3 3.0 Others 1 1.0 1 1.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.5: Education Level Figure 4.5: Education Level The respondents from both store formats also have highest number of people (74% of hypermarket and 50% of wet market) who had at least tertiary education, which indicates college or university. This is because of more than 1/3 of respondents from hypermarket and 1/4 of respondents from traditional wet market who are younger generation, which is in the category of 25 years old and below as shown in Chapter 4.1.1.2. The overall result showed that the respondents of traditional wet market have slightly lower education level compare to those respondents of hypermarket. Half of the respondents of traditional wet market have not ever pursued tertiary education, the number is twice compare to those respondents of hypermarket who had only secondary education, primary education, and no formal education. 4.1.1.6 Occupation Occupation Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Waged Worker 25 25.0 32 32.0 Government Employee 18 18.0 5 5.0 Entrepreneur 7 7.0 5 5.0 Housewife 8 8.0 26 26.0 Student 39 39.0 23 23.0 Retired Unemployed 3 0 3.0 0.0 7 2 7.0 2.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.6: Occupation Figure 4.6: Occupation In the previous data showed that the respondents who are younger generation (25 years old and below) and have at least tertiary education level had a large portion of entire respondents. In this section, it showed that most of the respondents of hypermarket are student (39%), following by waged worker (25%), government employee (18%), housewife (8%), entrepreneur (7%), retired (3%). While at traditional wet market, most of the respondents are worked as waged worker (32%), following by housewife (26%), student (23%), retired (7%), government employee (5%), entrepreneur (5%) and unemployed (2%). This data also showed that housewife prefers to shop at traditional wet market (25%) instead of shop at hypermarket (8%). 4.1.1.7 Household Size Household Member Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 Total 7 5 6 28 27 14 7 6 0 0 0 100 7.0 5.0 6.0 28.0 27.0 14.0 7.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 6 15 22 28 11 11 3 1 1 1 100 1.0 6.0 15.0 22.0 28.0 11.0 11.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 100.0 Table 4.7: Household Size Figure 4.7: Household Size The mode number of household size for respondents of hypermarket and traditional wet market are 4 and 5 respectively. The data showed that 28% and 27% of respondents of hypermarket have household size of 4 and 5. On the other hand, 22% and 28% of respondents of traditional wet market have household size of 4 and 5. These indicate more than half of the respondents who have household size of 4 or 5. From the figure above, we can see that the household size of traditional wet market respondent is slightly bigger than household size of hypermarket respondents. From the calculation, the mean household size of traditional wet market respondents are 4.87, and respondents of hypermarket are 4.63. 4.1.1.8Household Monthly Income Household Monthly Income Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent RM1500 and below 23 23.0 22 22.0 RM1501-2500 17 17.0 21 21.0 RM2501-3500 23 23.0 24 24.0 RM3501-4500 23 23.0 13 13.0 RM4501 and above 14 14.0 20 20.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.8: Household Monthly Income Figure 4.8: Household Monthly Income From these 200 respondents, there is no big difference of household monthly income between two different store formats. For respondent of hypermarket, the categories of RM1500 and below, RM2501-3500, and RM3501-4500 also showed 23% respectively, followed by RM1501-2500 (17%), RM4501and above (14%). On the other hand, the mode number of household monthly income for respondents of traditional wet market is RM2501-3500, followed by RM1500 and below (22%), RM1501-2500 (21%), RM4501 and above (20%), RM3501-4500 (13%). Overall there is not a very significant different between the groups and the categories. 4.1.2 Trip Patterns 4.1.2.1 Travelling Time from Home to Markets Travelling Time Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 15 minutes and less 48 48.0 53 53.0 16-30 minutes 34 34.0 28 28.0 31-60 minutes 16 16.0 17 17.0 1 hour and more 2 2.0 2 2.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.9: Travelling Time Figure 4.9: Travelling Time Majority of the respondents travel from home to the markets were just within 15 minutes and this was showed by 48% respondents of hypermarket and 53% of traditional wet market. This indicates half of the respondents came from adjacent area. While 34% respondents of hypermarket and 28% respondents of traditional wet market have travelling time between 16-30 minutes. Travelling time between 31-60 minutes, 16% and 17% fell to respondents of hypermarket and respondents if traditional wet market respectively. The category of 1 hour and more is only chosen by 2% of respondents of hypermarket and traditional wet market respectively. From the data we can conclude that people prefer to travel from home to market in shorter time. 4.1.2.2 Transportation Mode Transportation Mode Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Walk 15 15.0 23 23.0 Bicycle 4 4.0 3 3.0 Bus 5 5.0 6 6.0 Motorcycle 8 8.0 23 23.0 Car Taxi Others 68 0 0 68.0 0.0 0.0 45 0 0 45.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.10: Transportation Mode Figure 4.10: Transportation Mode Majority of the respondents prefer going to the markets by car, the data showed that 68% of hypermarket respondents and 45% of traditional wet market respondents go to the markets by car. Another transportation mode that is chosen by respondents is walking (15% of hypermarket respondents and 23% of traditional wet market respondents), as well as motorcycle (8% of hypermarket respondents and 23% traditional wet market respondents). A few people chose bus (5% of hypermarket respondents and 6% of traditional wet market respondents) and bicycle (4% of hypermarket respondents and 3% of traditional wet market respondents). Taxi and the others transportation mode have none of respondent chose such mode of transportation. Although majority of the respondents have the shortest travelling time from home to market as showed at Chapter 4.1.2.1, but most of them still prefer to drive to the market. 4.1.3Transaction Patterns 4.1.3.1 Frequency of Visiting Frequency of Visiting Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Less than once a week 27 27.0 21 21.0 Once a week 36 36.0 40 40.0 Twice weekly 21 21.0 11 11.0 Thrice weekly 12 12.0 10 10.0 4 times or more weekly 4 4.0 18 18.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.11: Frequency of Visiting Figure 4.11: Frequency of Visiting Majority of the respondents visiting markets once a week, 36% of hypermarket respondents and 40% traditional wet market respondents chose this category. While 27% of hypermarket respondents and 21% of traditional wet market respondents chose to visit the market less than once a week. Less than half of the respondents visit the market twice or more than twice weekly. From the data obtained, 21% of hypermarket respondents and 11% of traditional wet market respondents visit the market twice weekly, 12% of hypermarket respondents and 10% of traditional wet market respondents visit the market thrice weekly, and 4% of hypermarket respondents and 18% of traditional wet market respondents visit 4 times and more weekly. The respondents who visit the markets 4 times and above weekly are 4.5 times more than those hypermarket respondents do. 4.1.3.2 Visiting Markets with Whom Visiting Markets with whom Hypermarket Traditional Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Alone 17 17.0 36 36.0 Family/ Relatives 47 47.0 52 52.0 Friends/ Neighbours/ Colleagues Others 36 0 36.0 0.0 12 0 12.0 0.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.12: Visiting Markets with Whom Figure 4.12: Visiting Markets with Whom Almost half of the respondents prefer to visit the markets with their family member or relatives, this occupied 47% of hypermarket respondents and 52% of traditional wet market respondents. While the respondents who chose to visit markets with friends/ neighbors/ colleagues or alone, there is a significant different between hypermarket and traditional wet market. 36% of respondents of hypermarket prefer to go to the markets with their friends/ neighbors/ colleagues instead of go by alone, which has only 17% of the respondents chose that. On the other hand, traditional wet market is different. 36% of the respondents chose to go alone instead of go with friends/ neighbors/ colleagues, which only has 12%. None of them chose to visit the markets with the people who have other relationships. 4.1.3.Time Spent Time Spent Hypermarket Wet Market Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 30 minutes and less 12 12.0 18 18.0 30-60 minutes 32 32.0 49 49.0 1-2 hours 41 41.0 28 28.0 2 hours and more 15 15.0 5 5.0 Total 100 100.0 100 100.0 Table 4.13: Time Spent Figure 4.13: Time Spent From the data that obtained, majority of the traditional wet market respondent spent 30-60 minutes in the market, which occupied 49% of the traditional wet market respondent, followed by 1-2 hours (28%), 30 minutes and less (18%), and 2 hours and more (5%). While hypermarket respondents prefer to spent longer time in the market. 41% of hypermarket respondents spent 1-2 hours, followed by 30-60 minutes (32%), 2 hours and more (15%), 30 minutes and less (12%). For overall, 2/3 of traditional wet market respondents tends to spend shorter time compare to only 44% of hypermarket respondents spent less than 1 hour. 4.2Reliability Analysis Data of consumer perception have been collected in the approach of Likert scale, reliability of the data should be tested. Gatewood and Field (1990) said that reliability is the ability of the instrument in providing the consistent results when it is repeated used. Cronbachs alpha is the basic measurement for reliability and an alpha value of 0.7 is sufficient (Nunnally, 1978). All the store attributes will be tested in terms of the store attributes those contribute as the reasons of consumers to choose a retail store and also the importance level that respondents have given to the store attributes. 4.2.1Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop Following are the store attributes as the reasons for consumer to shop: Attribute 1 : Appropriate opening hours Attribute 2 : Near to place of residence Attribute 3 : Product quality Attribute 4 : Product variety Attribute 5 : Reasonable price Attribute 6 : Speed of purchase Attribute 7 : Satisfactorily service Attribute 8 : Spacious interior space Attribute 9 : Not crowded Attribute 10 : Clean and comfortable Attribute 11 : Good public transport available Attribute 12 : Car parking facilities Attribute 13 : Easiness on finding the product Attribute 14 : Habit Attribute 15 : Trust in vendor 4.2.1.1 Hypermarket Table 4.14: Reliability Statistics (Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop at Hypermarket) Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .865 .867 15 Table 4.15: Item-Total Statistics(Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to ShopAt Hypermarket) Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbachs Alpha if Item Deleted Attribute 1 51.6100 60.947 .400 .495 .862 Attribute 2 51.7100 59.481 .489 .516 .858 Attribute 3 51.8700 59.124 .559 .570 .854 Attribute 4 51.5800 58.367 .583 .569 .853 Attribute 5 51.7700 60.522 .492 .470 .858 Attribute 6 51.9300 58.773 .565 .497 .854 Attribute 7 52.0200 58.666 .626 .532 .852 Attribute 8 51.9000 60.131 .446 .423 .860 Attribute 9 52.0400 58.786 .550 .604 .855 Attribute 10 51.7500 56.997 .679 .611 .848 Attribute 11 52.6300 64.397 .136 .379 .875 Attribute 12 51.7900 56.895 .563 .492 .854 Attribute 13 51.7700 57.027 .688 .612 .848 Attribute 14 52.2500 60.048 .403 .352 .863 Attribute 15 52.3400 59.075 .496 .544 .857 According to Table 4.14, Cronbachs alpha ( = 0.865), this indicates the data was reliable. As shown in Table 4.15, all the items has a less Cronbachs alpha than the calculated scale alpha ( = 0.865), except Attribute 11 (good transportation available), which has a higher alpha ( = 0.875), this means the item in the scale suppresses the alpha level. But for overall, the reasons to shop at hypermarket scale seem to be reliable measure of consumer perception. 4.2.1.2Traditional Wet Market Table 4.16: Reliability Statistics (Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to ShopAt Traditional Wet Market) Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .769 .775 15 Table 4.17: Item-Total Statistics (Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop At Traditional Wet Market) Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbachs Alpha if Item Deleted Attribute 1 49.9300 46.914 .295 .358 .762 Attribute 2 49.7400 47.164 .210 .339 .771 Attribute 3 49.5700 46.712 .357 .467 .758 Attribute 4 49.6300 45.589 .386 .493 .755 Attribute 5 49.4900 45.343 .398 .483 .754 Attribute 6 50.0400 44.463 .475 .497 .748 Attribute 7 49.8800 45.117 .468 .468 .749 Attribute 8 50.7000 42.859 .537 .701 .741 Attribute 9 50.7200 42.709 .530 .743 .741 Attribute 10 50.7600 42.002 .521 .697 .741 Attribute 11 51.0700 45.197 .260 .500 .770 Attribute 12 50.7700 44.341 .353 .471 .759 Attribute 13 49.7400 46.720 .335 .441 .759 Attribute 14 49.7100 48.168 .149 .423 .775 Attribute 15 49.7700 45.553 .366 .508 .757 According to Table 4.16, Cronbachs alpha ( = 0.769), this indicates the reliability of the data is sufficient. As shown in Table 4.17, three of the items has a higher Cronbachs alpha than the calculated scale alpha ( = 0.769), which are Attribute 2 (near to place of residence), Attribute 11 (good transportation available) and Attribute 14 (habit), which have a higher alpha of ( = 0.771), ( = 0.770) and ( = 0.775) this means the items in the scale suppresses the alpha level, consumers may not take the attributes as their priority reasons to shop at traditional wet market. But for overall, the store attributes as the reason to shop at hypermarket scale seem to be reliable measure of consumer perception. 4.2.2Importance Level of Store Attributes Importance levels were given by respondents to the following store attributes: Attribute 1 : Appropriate opening hours Attribute 2 : Near to place of residence Attribute 3 : Product quality Attribute 4 : Product variety Attribute 5 : Reasonable price Attribute 6 : Speed of purchase Attribute 7 : Satisfactorily service Attribute 8 : Spacious interior space Attribute 9 : Not crowded Attribute 10 : Clean and comfortable Attribute 11 : Good public transport available Attribute 12 : Car parking facilities Attribute 13 : Easiness on finding the product 4.2.2.1Hypermarket Table 4.18: Reliability Statistics (Importance Level of Store Attributes at Hypermarket) Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .906 .907 13 Table 4.19: Item-Total Statistics (Importance Level of Store Attributes at Hypermarket) Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbachs Alpha if Item Deleted Attribute 1 49.5200 46.151 .652 .548 .897 Attribute 2 49.2300 46.724 .704 .602 .895 Attribute 3 49.1700 48.365 .655 .729 .897 Attribute 4 49.1100 48.079 .646 .631 .898 Attribute 5 49.0300 50.009 .516 .536 .903 Attribute 6 49.5400 47.887 .639 .456 .898 Attribute 7 49.3100 47.044 .654 .463 .897 Attribute 8 49.6600 45.701 .666 .637 .897 Attribute 9 49.6500 46.290 .655 .606 .897 Attribute 10 49.2300 48.623 .631 .504 .898 Attribute 11 49.8900 49.250 .455 .392 .906 Attribute 12 49.3400 48.489 .532 .468 .902 Attribute 13 49.3200 47.048 .668 .535 .896 Table 4.18 showed that Cronbachs alpha ( = 0.906), this indicates the data have a high level of reliability. According to Table 4.19, all the items of importance level of store attributes at hypermarket scale have a less Cronbachs alpha than the calculated scale alpha ( = 0.906), which means that no single item had suppressed the alpha level. Thus, importance level of store attributes at hypermarket scale seems to be reliable measure of consumer perception. 4.2.2.2Traditional Wet Market Table 4.20: Reliability Statistics (Importance Level of Store Attributes at Traditional Wet Market) Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .874 .880 13 Table 4.21: Item-Total Statistics (Importance Level of Store Attributes at Traditional Wet Market) Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbachs Alpha if Item Deleted Attribute 1 49.9600 38.705 .626 .497 .861 Attribute 2 49.8400 39.307 .514 .505 .867 Attribute 3 49.6000 40.040 .587 .616 .864 Attribute 4 49.6300 39.488 .622 .702 .862 Attribute 5 49.5500 40.654 .599 .559 .864 Attribute 6 49.9500 37.987 .642 .534 .859 Attribute 7 49.8500 40.432 .509 .395 .867 Attribute 8 50.2700 37.876 .627 .669 .860 Attribute 9 50.3800 37.672 .622 .772 .860 Attribute 10 50.1900 38.196 .590 .580 .862 Attribute 11 50.8200 40.412 .347 .310 .878 Attribute 12 50.1500 39.947 .424 .313 .872 Attribute 13 49.7300 39.815 .548 .524 .865 Table 4.20 showed that Cronbachs alpha ( = 0.874), this indicates the data have a high level of reliability. According to Table 4.21, all the items of importance level of store attributes at traditional wet market scale have a less Cronbachs alpha than the calculated scale alpha ( = 0.874), except Attribute 11 (good public transport available) with alpha ( = 0.878), which means that is the single item had suppressed the alpha level. Consumers of traditional wet market may not feel this store attribute was important. But for overall, importance level of store attributes at traditional wet market to be reliable measure of consumer perception. 4.3Independent T-Test Analysis T-tests conducted to examine differences of respondents profile, trip patterns transaction patterns, store attributes as the reason for consumer to shop and importance level of store attributes of hypermarket and traditional wet market. 4.3.1Respondents Profile, Trip Patterns and Transaction Patterns of Different Store Formats Table 4.22: Group Statistics (Respondents profile, trip patterns and transaction patterns of different store formats) Place N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Gender Hypermarket 100 1.54 .501 .050 Wet Market 100 1.66 .476 .048 Age Hypermarket 100 2.14 1.119 .112 Wet Market 100 2.80 1.470 .147 Ethnic Hypermarket 100 1.82 .716 .072 Wet Market 100 1.99 .541 .054 Marital Status Hypermarket 100 1.42 .496 .050 Wet Market 100 1.58 .496 .050 Education Level Hypermarket 100 1.39 .803 .080 Wet Market 100 1.69 .813 .081 Occupation Hypermarket 100 3.27 1.746 .175 Wet Market 100 3.32 1.842 .184 Household Size Hypermarket 100 4.63 1.715 .172 Wet Market 100 4.87 1.942 .194 Household Income Hypermarket 100 2.88 1.373 .137 Wet Market 100 2.88 1.423 .142 Travelling Time Hypermarket 100 1.72 .805 .081 Wet Market 100 1.68 .827 .083 Transportation Mode Hypermarket 100 4.10 1.501 .150 Wet Market 100 3.64 1.611 .161 Frequency Hypermarket 100 2.30 1.115 .111 Wet Market 100 2.64 1.396 .140 With Whom Hypermarket 100 2.19 .706 .071 Wet Market 100 1.76 .653 .065 Time Spent Hypermarket 100 2.59 .889 .089 Wet Market 100 2.20 .791 .079 Table 4.23: Independent Samples Test (Respondents profile, trip patterns and transaction patterns of different store formats) Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper Gender Equal variances assumed 9.284 .003 -1.736 198 .084 -.120 .069 -.256 .016 Equal variances not assumed -1.736 197.491 .084 -.120 .069 -.256 .016 Age Equal variances assumed 20.161 .000 -3.572 198 .000 -.660 .185 -1.024 -.296 Equal variances not assumed -3.572 184.905 .000 -.660 .185 -1.025 -.295 Ethnic Equal variances assumed 16.130 .000 -1.894 198 .060 -.170 .090 -.347 .007 Equal variances not assumed -1.894 184.269 .060 -.170 .090 -.347 .007 Marital Status Equal variances assumed .000 1.000 -2.281 198 .024 -.160 .070 -.298 -.022 Equal variances not assumed -2.281 198.000 .024 -.160 .070 -.298 -.022 Education Level Equal variances assumed 2.610 .108 -2.626 198 .009 -.300 .114 -.525 -.075 Equal variances not assumed -2.626 197.970 .009 -.300 .114 -.525 -.075 Occupation Equal variances assumed .035 .852 -.197 198 .844 -.050 .254 -.550 .450 Equal variances not assumed -.197 197.437 .844 -.050 .254 -.550 .450 Household Size Equal variances assumed .069 .793 -.926 198 .355 -.240 .259 -.751 .271 Equal variances not assumed -.926 195.031 .355 -.240 .259 -.751 .271 Household Income Equal variances assumed .098 .754 .000 198 1.000 .000 .198 -.390 .390 Equal variances not assumed .000 197.741 1.000 .000 .198 -.390 .390 Travelling Time Equal variances assumed .269 .604 .347 198 .729 .040 .115 -.188 .268 Equal variances not assumed .347 197.853 .729 .040 .115 -.188 .268 Transportation Mode Equal variances assumed 1.980 .161 2.089 198 .038 .460 .220 .026 .894 Equal variances not assumed 2.089 197.009 .038 .460 .220 .026 .894 Frequency Equal variances assumed 9.041 .003 -1.903 198 .058 -.340 .179 -.692 .012 Equal variances not assumed -1.903 188.731 .059 -.340 .179 -.692 .012 With Whom Equal variances assumed .464 .497 4.470 198 .000 .430 .096 .240 .620 Equal variances not assumed 4.470 196.802 .000 .430 .096 .240 .620 Time Spent Equal variances assumed 3.953 .048 3.277 198 .001 .390 .119 .155 .625 Equal variances not assumed 3.277 195.394 .001 .390 .119 .155 .625 Levenes test is the approach to test if the two condition Means have a statistically different. In this study, if the Sig (2-Tailed) value is less than or equal to 0.05, we can conclude that there is a statistically significant difference between two conditions (hypermarket and traditional wet market). The initial part we need to test is whether if the different store formats will affect the socio-demographic of the respondents and their trip patterns and transaction pattern as well. From the result of the test, we get those 6 out of 13 items have the Sig. (2-Tailed) value less than or equal to 0.05, which are age, marital status, education level, transportation mode, visit the markets with whom and the time spent in market. Respondents age has significant different between hypermarket and traditional wet market, it has a record of t (df = 198) = -3.572, p.05 and the Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=2.14) and (M=2.80). It means that consumers at hypermarket have significant younger than consumers at traditional wet market. Another significant difference between the groups is the marital status of the respondents, it has a result of t (df = 198) = -2.281, p.05 and the Means are (M=1.42) and (M=1.58). It means that respondents of traditional wet market who are married have a greater number compare to the respondents of hypermarket. Education level of the respondents also showed significant different between the store formats, the result for Levenes test is t (df = 198) = -2.626, p.05, the Means are respectively (M=1.39) and (M=1.69). We can conclude that respondents of hypermarket have a higher education level compare the respondent of traditional wet market. While the store formats will affect the transportation mode as well, the result for transportation mode is t (df = 198) = 2.089, p.05, Means are (M=4.10) and (M=3.64). Refer to the primary analysis, we can judge that majority of hypermarket respondent choose car as their transportation mode, while traditional wet market respondents tend to choose car, walk and motorcycle. On the other hand, the people who accompany respondents to shop also showed significant difference. The result is t (df = 198) = 4.470, p.05, Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=2.19) and (M=1.76). Refer to the primary analysis, we can conclude that hypermarket respondents tend to shop with their family/ relatives and friends/ neighbors/ colleagues, while traditional wet market respondents prefer to shop with the family/ relatives or alone. Last but not least, time spent in store also showed significant difference. The result is t (df = 198) = 3.277, p.05, Means are (M=2.59) and (M=2.20). It showed that hypermarket respondents prefer to spent longer time compare to traditional wet market respondents. The conclusion is the store formats have impact to some variables of socio-demographic of respondents, their trip patterns and transaction pattern. Each store may have a different target market. 4.3.2Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop at Different Store Formats Following are the store attributes as the reasons for consumer to shop: Attribute 1 : Appropriate opening hours Attribute 2 : Near to place of residence Attribute 3 : Product quality Attribute 4 : Product variety Attribute 5 : Reasonable price Attribute 6 : Speed of purchase Attribute 7 : Satisfactorily service Attribute 8 : Spacious interior space Attribute 9 : Not crowded Attribute 10 : Clean and comfortable Attribute 11 : Good public transport available Attribute 12 : Car parking facilities Attribute 13 : Easiness on finding the product Attribute 14 : Habit Attribute 15 : Trust in vendor Table 4.24: Group Statistics (Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop At Different Store Formats) Place N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Attribute 1 Hypermarket 100 4.03 .904 .090 Wet Market 100 3.75 .857 .086 Attribute 2 Hypermarket 100 3.93 .935 .093 Wet Market 100 3.94 1.013 .101 Attribute 3 Hypermarket 100 3.77 .874 .087 Wet Market 100 4.11 .777 .078 Attribute 4 Hypermarket 100 4.06 .919 .092 Wet Market 100 4.05 .903 .090 Attribute 5 Hypermarket 100 3.87 .812 .081 Wet Market 100 4.19 .918 .092 Attribute 6 Hypermarket 100 3.71 .902 .090 Wet Market 100 3.64 .916 .092 Attribute 7 Hypermarket 100 3.62 .838 .084 Wet Market 100 3.80 .841 .084 Attribute 8 Hypermarket 100 3.74 .928 .093 Wet Market 100 2.98 1.025 .102 Attribute 9 Hypermarket 100 3.60 .921 .092 Wet Market 100 2.96 1.053 .105 Attribute 10 Hypermarket 100 3.89 .931 .093 Wet Market 100 2.92 1.152 .115 Attribute 11 Hypermarket 100 3.01 .959 .096 Wet Market 100 2.61 1.246 .125 Attribute 12 Hypermarket 100 3.85 1.095 .110 Wet Market 100 2.91 1.156 .116 Attribute 13 Hypermarket 100 3.87 .917 .092 Wet Market 100 3.94 .814 .081 Attribute 14 Hypermarket 100 3.39 1.014 .101 Wet Market 100 3.97 .969 .097 Attribute 15 Hypermarket 100 3.30 .969 .097 Wet Market 100 3.91 .944 .094 Table 4.25: Independent Samples Test (Store Attributes as the Reasons for Consumers to Shop At Different Store Formats) Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper Attribute 1 Equal variances assumed .939 .334 2.247 198 .026 .280 .125 .034 .526 Equal variances not assumed 2.247 197.443 .026 .280 .125 .034 .526 Attribute 2 Equal variances assumed .552 .458 -.073 198 .942 -.010 .138 -.282 .262 Equal variances not assumed -.073 196.728 .942 -.010 .138 -.282 .262 Attribute 3 Equal variances assumed 2.680 .103 -2.906 198 .004 -.340 .117 -.571 -.109 Equal variances not assumed -2.906 195.304 .004 -.340 .117 -.571 -.109 Attribute 4 Equal variances assumed .007 .933 .078 198 .938 .010 .129 -.244 .264 Equal variances not assumed .078 197.939 .938 .010 .129 -.244 .264 Attribute 5 Equal variances assumed 1.530 .218 -2.611 198 .010 -.320 .123 -.562 -.078 Equal variances not assumed -2.611 195.116 .010 -.320 .123 -.562 -.078 Attribute 6 Equal variances assumed .000 .984 .544 198 .587 .070 .129 -.184 .324 Equal variances not assumed .544 197.956 .587 .070 .129 -.184 .324 Attribute 7 Equal variances assumed .006 .938 -1.516 198 .131 -.180 .119 -.414 .054 Equal variances not assumed -1.516 197.998 .131 -.180 .119 -.414 .054 Attribute 8 Equal variances assumed .374 .542 5.498 198 .000 .760 .138 .487 1.033 Equal variances not assumed 5.498 196.080 .000 .760 .138 .487 1.033 Attribute 9 Equal variances assumed .198 .656 4.574 198 .000 .640 .140 .364 .916 Equal variances not assumed 4.574 194.543 .000 .640 .140 .364 .916 Attribute 10 Equal variances assumed 13.388 .000 6.550 198 .000 .970 .148 .678 1.262 Equal variances not assumed 6.550 189.648 .000 .970 .148 .678 1.262 Attribute 11 Equal variances assumed 14.930 .000 2.544 198 .012 .400 .157 .090 .710 Equal variances not assumed 2.544 185.772 .012 .400 .157 .090 .710 Attribute 12 Equal variances assumed 3.035 .083 5.904 198 .000 .940 .159 .626 1.254 Equal variances not assumed 5.904 197.434 .000 .940 .159 .626 1.254 Attribute 13 Equal variances assumed 2.579 .110 -.571 198 .569 -.070 .123 -.312 .172 Equal variances not assumed -.571 195.252 .569 -.070 .123 -.312 .172 Attribute 14 Equal variances assumed 1.164 .282 -4.136 198 .000 -.580 .140 -.857 -.303 Equal variances not assumed -4.136 197.589 .000 -.580 .140 -.857 -.303 Attribute 15 Equal variances assumed .605 .438 -4.509 198 .000 -.610 .135 -.877 -.343 Equal variances not assumed -4.509 197.861 .000 -.610 .135 -.877 -.343 T-test also has been used to test the respondents reason to shop at hypermarket and traditional wet market. 15 store attributes had been tested; those are appropriate opening hours, near to place of residence, product quality, product variety, reasonable price, speed of purchase, satisfactorily service, spacious interior space, not crowded, clean and comfortable, good public transport available, car parking facilities, easiness on finding the product, habit, and trust in vendor. From the result of the test, 10 out of 15 attributes showed statistically significant different between hypermarket and traditional wet market, which are appropriate opening hours, product quality, reasonable price, spacious interior space, not crowded, clean and comfortable, good public transport available, car parking facilities, habit and trust in vendor. Attribute 1, appropriate opening hours showed that t (df = 198) = 2.247, p.05 and Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=4.03) and (M=3.75). Respondents of hypermarket have a statistically significantly higher mean score on the reason to shop because of appropriate opening hours than respondents of traditional wet market. We can conclude that hypermarket respondent more prefer and agree with the opening hours of hypermarket compare to traditional wet market. Attribute 3, product quality has the result of t (df = 198) = -2.906, p.05 and Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=3.77) and (M=4.11). Respondents of hypermarket have a statistically significantly lower mean score on the reason of product quality than respondents of traditional wet market. It indicates that traditional wet market respondents more prefer and agree with traditional wet market has good product quality compare to hypermarket. Attribute 5, reasonable price get t (df = 198) = -2.611, p.05 and Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=3.87) and (M=4.19). Respondents of traditional wet market have a statistically significantly higher mean score on the reason of reasonable price than respondents of hypermarket. It indicates more respondents of traditional wet market agree that reasonable price is the reason for going to shop at traditional wet market compare to respondents of hypermarket. Attributes 8, 9 and 10, which are the attributes of spacious interior space, not crowed, clean and comfortable have shown that there is statistically significant difference between the mean score for hypermarket and traditional wet market. The result of T-test showed that attribute 8 is t (df = 198) = 5.498, p.05, Means score are respectively (M=3.74) and (M=2.98), while attribute 9 is t (df = 198) = 4.574, p.05, Means score are respectively (M=3.60) and (M=2.96), and attribute 10 is t (df = 198) = 6.550, p.05, Means score are respectively (M=3.89) and (M=2.92). All these results showed that there is statistically significant difference between the Means scores for hypermarket and traditional wet market. In other words, Means scores of hypermarket on the store attributes as the reasons to shop are higher than traditional wet market, it means that respondents of hypermarket more agree with these 3 attributes as their reason for going to shop at hypermarket, while respondents of tradit ional wet market more disagree with those attributes as their reasons to shop. Attributes 11 and 12 are good public transport available and car parking facilities. The T-test result for attribute 11 is t (df = 198) = 2.544, p.05, Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=3.01) and (M=2.61), while attribute 12 is t (df = 198) = 5.904, p.05, Means are respectively (M=3.85) and (M=2.91). These results indicate that hypermarket has higher mean scores compare to traditional wet market. The respondents of hypermarket more agree with these attributes are making them to shop at hypermarket. Attribute 14 and 15 are habit and trust in vendor. The T-test result for attribute 14 is t (df = 198) = -4.136, p.05, Means for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=3.39) and (M=3.97), while attribute 15 is t (df = 198) = -4.509, p.05, Means are respectively (M=3.30) and (M=3.91). Mean scores of traditional wet market are significantly higher than hypermarket, thus this indicates respondents of traditional wet market more agree with habit and trust in vendor are the attributes as their reason for going to shop at traditional wet market, while respondents of hypermarket more disagree with these attributes compare to traditional wet market respondents. There is 10 out of 15 attributes showed statistically significant difference among hypermarket and traditional wet market. Hypermarket have higher mean scores for appropriate opening hours, spacious interior space, not crowded, clean and comfortable, good public transport available and car parking facilities. On the other hand, traditional wet market has higher mean scores for product quality, speed of purchase, habit and trust in vendor. This indicates hypermarket and traditional wet market have their strength in attracting consumers. 4.3.3Importance Level of Store Attributes At Different Store Formats Importance levels were given by respondents to the following store attributes: Attribute 1 : Appropriate opening hours Attribute 2 : Near to place of residence Attribute 3 : Product quality Attribute 4 : Product variety Attribute 5 : Reasonable price Attribute 6 : Speed of purchase Attribute 7 : Satisfactorily service Attribute 8 : Spacious interior space Attribute 9 : Not crowded Attribute 10 : Clean and comfortable Attribute 11 : Good public transport available Attribute 12 : Car parking facilities Attribute 13 : Easiness on finding the product Table 4.26: Group Statistics (Importance Level of Store Attributes At Different Store Formats) Place N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Attribute 1 Hypermarket 100 3.98 .953 .095 Wet Market 100 4.20 .804 .080 Attribute 2 Hypermarket 100 4.27 .839 .084 Wet Market 100 4.32 .863 .086 Attribute 3 Hypermarket 100 4.33 .726 .073 Wet Market 100 4.56 .686 .069 Attribute 4 Hypermarket 100 4.39 .764 .076 Wet Market 100 4.53 .717 .072 Attribute 5 Hypermarket 100 4.47 .688 .069 Wet Market 100 4.61 .601 .060 Attribute 6 Hypermarket 100 3.96 .790 .079 Wet Market 100 4.21 .868 .087 Attribute 7 Hypermarket 100 4.19 .861 .086 Wet Market 100 4.31 .720 .072 Attribute 8 Hypermarket 100 3.84 .982 .098 Wet Market 100 3.89 .898 .090 Attribute 9 Hypermarket 100 3.85 .936 .094 Wet Market 100 3.78 .927 .093 Attribute 10 Hypermarket 100 4.27 .723 .072 Wet Market 100 3.97 .904 .090 Attribute 11 Hypermarket 100 3.61 .863 .086 Wet Market 100 3.34 .966 .097 Attribute 12 Hypermarket 100 4.16 .849 .085 Wet Market 100 4.01 .904 .090 Attribute 13 Hypermarket 100 4.18 .845 .085 Wet Market 100 4.43 .756 .076 Table 4.27: Independent Samples Test (Importance Level of Store Attributes At Different Store Formats) Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper Attribute 1 Equal variances assumed .949 .331 -1.764 198 .079 -.220 .125 -.466 .026 Equal variances not assumed -1.764 192.526 .079 -.220 .125 -.466 .026 Attribute 2 Equal variances assumed .022 .882 -.415 198 .678 -.050 .120 -.287 .187 Equal variances not assumed -.415 197.842 .678 -.050 .120 -.287 .187 Attribute 3 Equal variances assumed 1.630 .203 -2.303 198 .022 -.230 .100 -.427 -.033 Equal variances not assumed -2.303 197.394 .022 -.230 .100 -.427 -.033 Attribute 4 Equal variances assumed 1.353 .246 -1.336 198 .183 -.140 .105 -.347 .067 Equal variances not assumed -1.336 197.210 .183 -.140 .105 -.347 .067 Attribute 5 Equal variances assumed 4.784 .030 -1.532 198 .127 -.140 .091 -.320 .040 Equal variances not assumed -1.532 194.484 .127 -.140 .091 -.320 .040 Attribute 6 Equal variances assumed 4.347 .038 -2.130 198 .034 -.250 .117 -.481 -.019 Equal variances not assumed -2.130 196.286 .034 -.250 .117 -.482 -.018 Attribute 7 Equal variances assumed .212 .646 -1.069 198 .286 -.120 .112 -.341 .101 Equal variances not assumed -1.069 192.031 .286 -.120 .112 -.341 .101 Attribute 8 Equal variances assumed .336 .563 -.376 198 .707 -.050 .133 -.312 .212 Equal variances not assumed -.376 196.433 .707 -.050 .133 -.312 .212 Attribute 9 Equal variances assumed .003 .953 .531 198 .596 .070 .132 -.190 .330 Equal variances not assumed .531 197.983 .596 .070 .132 -.190 .330 Attribute 10 Equal variances assumed .798 .373 2.592 198 .010 .300 .116 .072 .528 Equal variances not assumed 2.592 188.845 .010 .300 .116 .072 .528 Attribute 11 Equal variances assumed 1.785 .183 2.084 198 .038 .270 .130 .014 .526 Equal variances not assumed 2.084 195.539 .038 .270 .130 .014 .526 Attribute 12 Equal variances assumed .370 .544 1.209 198 .228 .150 .124 -.095 .395 Equal variances not assumed 1.209 197.226 .228 .150 .124 -.095 .395 Attribute 13 Equal variances assumed .209 .648 -2.205 198 .029 -.250 .113 -.474 -.026 Equal variances not assumed -2.205 195.548 .029 -.250 .113 -.474 -.026 Importance level of store attributes had been tested to understand consumers perception. All the store attributes in this part are same as the store attributes as the reasons for consumers to shop, but habit and trust in vendor had been excluded in this part. There are 5 out of 13 store attributes showed statistically significant different among hypermarket and traditional wet market, which are product quality, speed of purchase, clean ad comfortable, good public facilities and easiness on finding the product. Attribute 3, which is product quality, showed statistically significant different among hypermarket and traditional wet market. The result of T-test showed t (df = 198) = -2.303, p.05, Means score for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=4.33) and (M=4.56). Traditional wet market has a higher mean score compare to hypermarket, it indicates consumers of traditional wet market are more emphasizing on the attribute of store providing better product quality, and they feel this is very important. Although, hypermarket has lower Mean score, but since the Mean score is high (4.33), thus this indicates they feel this is important as well. Attribute 6, speed of purchase, showed statistically significant different among hypermarket and traditional wet market. The T-test result is t (df = 198) = -2.130, p.05, Means score are respectively (M=3.96) and (M=4.21). Hypermarket showed statistically significant lower mean score compare to traditional wet market, it means consumers of hypermarket have less concern about attribute of store providing faster speed of purchase and do not feel this is very important while consumers of traditional wet market feel this is very important. Attribute 10, clean and comfortable, also has shown statistically significant different among two different store formats. The T-test result is t (df = 198) = 2.592, p.05, Means score for hypermarket and traditional wet market are respectively (M=4.27) and (M=3.97). Hypermarket has a statistically significant higher means score compare to traditional wet market, it indicates consumers of hypermarket are more concerning on attribute of store providing clean and comfortable environment to them, while consumers of traditional wet market may not feel this is an important attribute of a store. Attribute 11, good public transport available, has shown statistically significant different among hypermarket and traditional wet market as well. T-test result of this attributes is t (df = 198) = 2.084, p.05, Means score are respectively (M=3.61) and (M=3.34). Traditional wet market showed statistically significant lower mean score compare to hypermarket, it indicates consumers of traditional wet market are less emphasizing on the attribute of good public transport available at the store compare to hypermarket. Last but not least, attribute 13, which is easiness on finding the product, also has statistically significant among hypermarket and traditional wet market. T-test result for this store attribute is t (df = 198) = -2.205, p.05, Means score are respectively (M=4.18) and (M=4.43). Traditional wet market showed a statistically higher mean score compare to hypermarket. We can conclude that consumers of traditional wet market have put higher important level and more concerning on attribute of easiness on finding the product in the store. The conclusion is 8 out of 13 expectations showed there is no difference between hypermarket and traditional wet market. Consumers have put a high important level on store attributes. While 5 out of 13 expectations showed statistically significant among hypermarket and traditional wet market, this indicates consumers have put different importance level (higher or lower) of on the store attributes. 4.4 Conclusion Three methods have been used in data analyzing, which are descriptive, reliable analysis and independent T-test. As a result, in descriptive data, we able to identify the majority group in particular characteristics. For example, in the gender, we identified majority of the respondents are female. This majority group has occupied 54% of the respondent at hypermarket and 2/3 of the respondents at traditional wet market. We use the same way to describe all the basic data for socio-demographics, trip patterns and transaction patterns. A next step was taken to test the reliability of the data. Store attributes are the data will be tested in this part. From the result of store attributes as the reasons for consumers to shop at hypermarket and traditional wet market, we able identified from all 15 attributes, only 1 attribute for hypermarket and 3 attributes for traditional wet market showed higher alpha value than Cronbachs alpha value, it means the scale had suppressed the alpha level. Consumers might give low point for those attributes. In simple words, means that consumers did not take those attributes as their reason for shop at particular retail stores. Same method has been done for importance level of store attributes. For overall, all the results are reliable measure of consumer perception. Last step in analyzing data is Independent T-test. A comparison of the data has been tested to examine whether there is statistically significant different. Three results had been obtained in this part, which is the comparison of respondents profile, trip patterns and transaction patterns of different store formats, store attributes as the reasons for consumers to shop at different store formats, and importance level of store attributes at different store formats. A further discussion about findings of the data will be discussed in Chapter 5.