This dissertation has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional dissertation writers.

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.

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 Cronbach's 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 ¾ of all respondents of traditional wet market compare to ½ 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. Cronbach's 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)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's 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

Cronbach's 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, Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.865), this indicates the data was reliable. As shown in Table 4.15, all the items has a less Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 0.865), except Attribute 11 (good transportation available), which has a higher alpha (α = 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)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's 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

Cronbach's 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, Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.769), this indicates the reliability of the data is sufficient. As shown in Table 4.17, three of the items has a higher Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 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 (α = 0.771), (α = 0.770) and (α = 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)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's 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

Cronbach's 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 Cronbach's alpha (α = 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 Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 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)

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's 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

Cronbach's 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 Cronbach's alpha (α = 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 Cronbach's alpha than the calculated scale alpha (α = 0.874), except Attribute 11 (good public transport available) with alpha (α = 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)

Levene's 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

Levene's 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 Levene's 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)

Levene's 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 traditional 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)

Levene's 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 Cronbach's 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.

Writing Services

Essay Writing
Service

Find out how the very best essay writing service can help you accomplish more and achieve higher marks today.

Assignment Writing Service

From complicated assignments to tricky tasks, our experts can tackle virtually any question thrown at them.

Dissertation Writing Service

A dissertation (also known as a thesis or research project) is probably the most important piece of work for any student! From full dissertations to individual chapters, we’re on hand to support you.

Coursework Writing Service

Our expert qualified writers can help you get your coursework right first time, every time.

Dissertation Proposal Service

The first step to completing a dissertation is to create a proposal that talks about what you wish to do. Our experts can design suitable methodologies - perfect to help you get started with a dissertation.

Report Writing
Service

Reports for any audience. Perfectly structured, professionally written, and tailored to suit your exact requirements.

Essay Skeleton Answer Service

If you’re just looking for some help to get started on an essay, our outline service provides you with a perfect essay plan.

Marking & Proofreading Service

Not sure if your work is hitting the mark? Struggling to get feedback from your lecturer? Our premium marking service was created just for you - get the feedback you deserve now.

Exam Revision
Service

Exams can be one of the most stressful experiences you’ll ever have! Revision is key, and we’re here to help. With custom created revision notes and exam answers, you’ll never feel underprepared again.