Comparing hypermarket

SECTION 4 - DATA ANALYSIS

4.0 Release

This research was performed in two distinct shop platforms, that are traditional market and hypermarket . Completely 200 surveys gathered and were dispersed, each marketplace has 100 surveys respectively.

To begin with, the overall data-such as participants' users, journey designs and deal designs were examined by utilizing detailed data. This method creates proportion and consistency of the participants' faculties and provides info and the fundamental info.

Subsequently, stability of the participants' notion on shop picture is likely to be examined to look at whether when the information trusted or not. The amount of stability, that will be so-called the price, Cronbach's leader shouldn't less than 0.70 to acquire the outcome that is constant.

Next, impartial t test is likely to be used-to analyze substantial on shop characteristics between various store formats' amount. Furthermore, we shall also check the demographic traits and also the relationship between shop platforms, journey patterns and deal designs. Mean's variations is likely to be calculated. Substantial chance was ?0.05. This means add up to 0.05 or when the outcome lower, it suggests significantly different.

4.1Descriptive Research

4.1.1Respondents' Account

4.1.1.1Gender

Table 4.1: Sex

Figure 4.1: Sex

At both shop platforms that are various, we are able to discover than man does that there's more feminine store at areas.

Sex submission of participants at hypermarket was a lot more healthy than sex distribution of participants at conventional wet marketplace, that are 46% for man and 54PERCENT for female at hypermarket, while conventional wet market was 1/3 of participants are male and 2/3 of participants are feminine.

4.1.1.2Age

Table 4.2: Age

Figure 4.2: Age

The information assortment of this research confirmed that participants at hypermarket and conventional wet marketplace using the era of 25 yrs old and here are the greatest, that are 35% and 28% respectively, match up against the ages that are between 26-35 yrs old (34% and 19%), 36-45 yrs old (16% and 14%), 46-55 yrs old (12% and 23%), and 56 yrs old and above (3% and 16%).

One trend are available within 56 yrs old are higher compared to participants of hypermarket using the same selection of age and this information may be the quantity of participants of conventional wet marketplace using the age that are between 46-55 yrs old. The sum total proportion for this selection of age (46-55 yrs old and 56 yrs old and above), for conventional wet marketplace is 39%, while for hypermarket is just 15%. We are able to determine that conventional wet market's participants are more than hypermarket's participant.

4.1.1.3 Cultural

Table 4.3: Cultural

RUL 573- RESEARCH STUDY IN PLANNING

SECTION 4: Shop Picture: Evaluating Hypermarket and Conventional Moist Industry Customers' Notion.

Example: Penang, Bayan Baru.

Figure 4.3: Cultural

Within this research, China has got the greatest number of individuals (55PERCENT from hypermarket, 74% from conventional wet market) pursuing to Malay (33PERCENT from hypermarket, 14% from conventional wet market), Indian (9PERCENT from hypermarket, 11% from conventional wet market) and also the others (3PERCENT from hypermarket, 1% from conventional wet market).

Those shop formats' largest various is Oriental participant has greater part at conventional wet marketplace evaluate to hypermarket, that are ¾ of participants of conventional wet marketplace evaluate to ½ of participants of hypermarket. As the number of Malay confirmed that in the place of likely to traditional market Malay has a tendency to store at hypermarket, the amount of Malay stores at hypermarket is evaluate to quantity of Malay stores at traditional market.

4.1.1.4 Marital Status

Table 4.4: Marital Status

RUL 573- RESEARCH STUDY IN PLANNING

SECTION 4: Shop Picture: Evaluating Hypermarket and Conventional Moist Industry Customers' Notion.

Example: Penang, Bayan Baru.

Figure 4.4: Marital Status

40

RUL 573- RESEARCH STUDY IN PLANNING

SECTION 4: Shop Picture: Evaluating Hypermarket and Conventional Moist Industry Customers' Notion.

Example: Penang, Bayan Baru.

Foundation about the information that acquired, the participants of hypermarket who're committed (42%) are less than those people who are solitary (58%). The end result was completely inversed of hypermarket, that's 58% of the participants are committed although participants from of conventional wet marketplace possess the various scenario, and also the others are solitary.

This outcome suggests participants of the research who're committed often store at conventional marketplace that is wet and participants who're solitary would rather store at hypermarket.

4.1.1.5 Education Level

Table 4.5: Education Level

Figure 4.5: Education Level

The participants from both shop platforms also provide greatest number of individuals (74PERCENT of hypermarket and 50% of moist marketplace) who'd atleast tertiary training, which suggests university or college. The reason being 1/4 of participants from conventional wet marketplace who're newer generation, that will be within the group of 25 yrs old and greater than 1/3 of participants from hypermarket and under as demonstrated in Section 4.1.1.2.

The entire outcome confirmed that conventional wet market's participants have training degree that is somewhat lower evaluate to these participants of hypermarket. 1 / 2 of conventional wet market's participants haven't actually pursued education, the amount is twice evaluate to these participants of hypermarket who'd no education education, and only education.

4.1.1.6 Job

Table 4.6: Job

Figure 4.6: Job

In the earlier information confirmed the respondents who're newer generation (25 yrs old and under) and also have atleast tertiary education degree had a sizable part of whole participants. Within this area, it confirmed that many of the participants of hypermarket are pupil (39%), pursuing by fought employee (25%), government worker (18%), housewife (8%), businessman (7%), outdated (3%).

Although at conventional wet marketplace, all of the participants are worked as fought employee (32%), pursuing by housewife (26%), pupil (23%), outdated (7%), government worker (5%), businessman (5%) and unemployed (2%).

This information also confirmed that housewife favors to look at conventional wet marketplace (25%) in the place of store at hypermarket (8%).

4.1.1.7 Household Size

Table 4.7: Household Size

Figure 4.7: Household Size

The style quantity of family size for participants of conventional wet marketplace and hypermarket are 4 .

The information confirmed that 27% of participants of hypermarket and 28% have home size of 4. About the hand, 28% of participants of conventional wet marketplace and 22PERCENT have home size of 4. These show over fifty percent of the participants who've home size of four or five.

In the number above, we are able to observe that conventional wet marketplace respondent's household size is somewhat larger than home size of participants that are hypermarket. In the formula, conventional wet marketplace respondents' household size are 4.87.

4.1.1.8Household Monthly Income

Stand 4.8: Home Monthly Income

Figure 4.8: House Monthly Income

From these 200 participants, there's no huge difference of home regular revenue between two distinct store types.

For participant of hypermarket, the types of RM1500 and under, RM2501-3500, and RM3501-4500 likewise confirmed 23% respectively, followed closely by RM1501-2500 (17%), RM4501and above (14%).

About the other hand, the style quantity of home regular revenue for participants of conventional wet marketplace is RM2501-3500, followed closely by RM1500 and below (22%), RM1501-2500 (21%), RM4501 and above (20%), RM3501-4500 (13%).

General there's not really a really substantial distinct between your teams and also the groups.

4.1.2 Journey Designs

4.1.2.1 Travelling Period At Home to Areas

Table 4.9: Travelling Time

Figure 4.9: Travelling Time

Most of the participants travel at home towards the areas were simply within fifteen minutes which was confirmed by 48% participants of hypermarket and 53% of conventional wet market. This suggests 50% of the participants originated from surrounding region. Although respondents of conventional wet marketplace and 34% participants of hypermarket have travelling time taken between 16-30 minutes. Going time taken between 31-60 minutes, 17% and 16PERCENT dropped to participants of participants and hypermarket if traditional market . 2% of participants of traditional market and hypermarket only choose the group of 1-hour and much more .

In the information we are able to determine that individuals would rather travel to promote in smaller period at home.

4.1.2.2 Transportation Mode

Table 4.10: Transportation Style

Figure 4.10: Transportation Style

Most of the participants choose likely by car to the areas, the information confirmed that 45% of conventional wet marketplace participants and 68% of participants go by car to the areas. Another transport style that's selected by respondents is strolling (15PERCENT of hypermarket respondents and 23% of conventional wet marketplace respondents), in addition to bike (8PERCENT of hypermarket respondents and 23% conventional wet industry respondents).

Some people selected coach (5PERCENT of hypermarket respondents and 6% of conventional wet marketplace respondents) and bike (4PERCENT of hypermarket respondents and 3% of conventional wet industry respondents). the others transportation style and also cab have none of participant selected such style of transport.

Many of them nevertheless would rather generate towards the marketplace, although though most of the participants possess the smallest travelling period at home to market confirmed at Section 4.1.2.1.

4.1.3Transaction Designs

4.1.3.1 Volume of Visiting

Table 4.11: Consistency of Visiting

Figure 4.11: Consistency of Visiting

Most of the participants once per week visiting areas, 36% of participants and 40 wet marketplace participants selected this class. Although 21% of conventional wet marketplace participants and 27% of participants thought we would go to the market than per week.

Significantly less than 50% of the participants and the marketplace twice go to. In the information acquired, 21% of hypermarket participants and 11% of conventional wet marketplace participants go to the marketplace twice weekly, 12% of hypermarket participants and 10% of conventional wet marketplace participants go to the marketplace thrice weekly, and 4% of hypermarket participants and 18% of conventional wet marketplace participants visit 4 occasions and much more weekly.

The participants who go to the areas above and 4 occasions are not 4.5 times less than these hypermarket participants do.

4.1.3.2 Visiting Areas with Whom

Table 4.12: Visiting Areas with Whom

Figure 4.12: Visiting Areas with Whom

Nearly 50% of the respondents would rather go to the areas using this busy 47PERCENT of respondents, their member of the family or relatives and 52% of conventional wet industry participants.

As the participants who made a decision to visit areas with friends/ neighbors/ acquaintances or alone, there's a substantial distinct between traditional market and hypermarket. 36% of participants of hypermarket would rather go using their buddies/ neighbors/ to the areas acquaintances in the place of pass alone, which includes just 17% of the participants selected that. About the hand wet market differs. 36% of the participants thought we would proceed alone in the place of opt for friends/ neighbors/ acquaintances, which just has 12%.

Not one of them made a decision to go to the areas using the those who have additional associations.

4.1.3.Time Invested

Table 4.13: Time Spent

Figure 4.13: Time Used

In the information that acquired, most of the standard wet market respondent used 30-60 units on the market, which filled 49% of the standard wet market participant, followed closely by 1-2 hrs (28%), half an hour and less (18%), and 2 hours and much more (5%).

Although hypermarket participants would rather invested period that was longer on the market. 41% of hypermarket participants invested 1-2 hours, followed closely by 30-60 units (32%), 2 hours and much more (15%), half an hour and less (12%).

For general, 2/3 of conventional marketplace participants that are wet has a tendency to invest period that is smaller evaluate to just 44% of participants invested significantly less than 1-hour.

4.2Reliability Research

Information of customer belief have now been gathered within Likert scale's strategy, stability of the information must be examined. Gatewood and Area (1990) stated that stability may be the capability of the device in supplying the constant outcomes when it's repeated utilized. Cronbach's leader may be the fundamental dimension for stability and an alpha price of 0.7 is enough (Nunnally, 1978).

All of the shop attributes is likely to be examined when it comes to the shop attributes these lead whilst the factors of customers to select the significance degree as well as a store that participants have directed at the shop characteristics.

4.2.1Store Characteristics whilst the good reasons for Customers to Look

Following would be the retailer characteristics whilst the good reasons for customer to look:

Feature 1: Suitable opening hours

Feature 2: Close To host to home

Feature 3: Solution quality

Feature 4: Product selection

Feature 5: Sensible cost

Feature 6: Pace of purchase

Feature 7: Satisfactorily support

Feature 8: Large interior room

Feature 9: Not packed

Feature 10: Clear and cozy

Feature 11: Great public transportation accessible

Feature 12: auto parking amenities

Feature 13: Easiness on locating the item

Feature 14: Routine

Feature 15: Rely Upon merchant

4.2.1.1 Hypermarket

Table 4.14: Stability Data (Shop Characteristics whilst the good reasons for Customers to Look at Hypermarket)

Based On Stand 4.14, Cronbach's leader (? = 0.865), this suggests the information was trusted. As demonstrated in Table 4.15, all of the products includes a less Cronbach's leader compared to determined size leader (? = 0.865), except Feature 11 (great transport accessible), with a greater leader (? = 0.875), this implies them within the size inhibits the leader stage. However for general, the reason why to look at size that is hypermarket be seemingly trusted way of measuring customer understanding.

4.2.1.2Traditional Wet Market

Table 4.16: Stability Data

(Shop Characteristics whilst the good reasons for Customers to ShopAt Conventional Wet Industry)

Based On Stand 4.16, Cronbach's leader (? = 0.769), this suggests the stability of the information is enough. As demonstrated in Table 4.17, three of the things includes a greater Cronbach's leader compared to determined size leader (? = 0.769), that are Feature 2 (close to host to home), Feature 11 (great transport accessible) and Feature 14 (routine), that have a greater leader of (? = 0.771), (? = 0.770) and (? = 0.775) this implies the things within the size inhibits the leader degree, customers might not consider the characteristics as their concern factors to look at conventional wet market. Whilst the cause to look at hypermarket size be seemingly trusted way of measuring customer understanding however for general, the shop characteristics.

4.2.2Importance Degree Of Shop Features

Significance amounts received by participants towards the subsequent shop features:

Feature 1: Suitable opening hours

Feature 2: Close To host to home

Feature 3: Solution quality

Feature 4: Product selection

Feature 5: Sensible cost

Feature 6: Pace of purchase

Feature 7: Satisfactorily support

Feature 8: Large interior room

Feature 9: Not packed

Feature 10: Clear and cozy

Feature 11: Great public transportation accessible

Feature 12: auto parking amenities

Feature 13: Easiness on locating the item

4.2.2.1Hypermarket

Table 4.18: Stability Data

(Value Degree Of Shop Characteristics at Hypermarket)

Table 4.18 confirmed that Cronbach's leader (? = 0.906), this suggests the information possess a higher level of stability. Based on Stand 4.19, all of the components of significance level of shop characteristics at hypermarket size possess a less Cronbach's leader compared to determined size leader (? = 0.906), meaning not one product had suppressed the leader stage. Hence, significance degree of shop characteristics at size that is hypermarket appears to be trusted way of measuring customer understanding.

4.2.2.2Traditional Wet Market

Table 4.20: Stability Data

(Value Degree Of Shop Characteristics at Conventional Wet Industry)

Stand 4.20 confirmed that Cronbach's leader (? = 0.874), this suggests the information possess a higher level of stability. Based on Stand 4.21, all of the components of significance level of shop characteristics at conventional wet industry size possess a less Cronbach's leader compared to determined size leader (? = 0.874), except Feature 11 (great public transportation accessible) with leader (? = 0.878), meaning may be the simple product had suppressed the leader stage. Customers of conventional marketplace that is wet might not experience this shop feature was essential. However at conventional wet marketplace, significance degree of shop characteristics for general to become trusted way of measuring customer understanding.

4.3Independent T Test Analysis

T tests performed to look at variations of participants' account, journey patterns deal designs, shop characteristics whilst the reason behind customer to significance and look degree of shop characteristics of traditional market and hypermarket.

4.3.1Respondents' Account, Deal Designs and Journey Designs of Diverse Store Platforms

Levene's check may be the method of check when the two situation “Means” possess a statistically different. Within this research, when the Sig (2-Tailed) worth is significantly less than or add up to 0.05, we are able to determine that there's a statistically significant distinction between two problems (hypermarket and conventional wet market). The first component we have to check is whether when the socio-demographic may influence of their journey designs and the participants and deal routine aswell.

From the test's consequence, we get these 6 out-of 13 products possess the Sig. (2-Tailed) value-less than or add up to 0.05, that are age, marital status, training degree, transport setting, go to the areas with whom and also the period invested in industry.

Participants' era has substantial distinct between hypermarket and conventional wet marketplace, it's an archive of t (df = 198) = -3.572, g<.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.

Training degree of the participants also confirmed substantial distinct between your shop platforms, the end result for Leveneis check is t (df = 198) = -2.626, g<.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.

About the hand, the folks who accompany participants to look also demonstrated factor. The end result is t (df = 198) = 4.470, g<.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 final outcome may be the shop platforms have impact -demographic of their journey designs, participants and deal routine. Each shop might have a target audience that is different.

4.3.2Store Characteristics for Customers whilst the good reasons to Look at Various Store Platforms

Following would be the retailer characteristics whilst the good reasons for customer to look:

Feature 1: Suitable opening hours

Feature 2: Close To host to home

Feature 3: Solution quality

Feature 4: Product selection

Feature 5: Sensible cost

Feature 6: Pace of purchase

Feature 7: Satisfactorily support

Feature 8: Large interior room

Feature 9: Not packed

Feature 10: Clear and cozy

Feature 11: Great public transportation accessible

Feature 12: auto parking amenities

Feature 13: Easiness on locating the item

Feature 14: Routine

Feature 15: Rely Upon merchant

t test also continues to be used-to check the participants' cause to look at hypermarket and conventional wet market. 15 store characteristics have been examined; these work starting hours, close to host to home, product quality, product selection, sensible cost, pace of purchase, satisfactorily support, large interior room, not packed, clear and cozy, great public transportation accessible, auto parking services, easiness on locating the item, routine, and rely upon merchant.

In the consequence of the check, 10 out-of 15 characteristics confirmed statistically significant distinct between hypermarket and conventional wet marketplace, that are suitable starting hours, solution quality, sensible cost, large interior room, not packed, clear and cozy, great public transportation accessible, auto parking services, routine and rely upon merchant.

Feature 1, suitable starting hours confirmed that t (df = 198) = 2.247, g<.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.

Feature 3, solution quality has got the consequence of t (df = 198) = -2.906, g<.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.

Feature 5, sensible cost get t (df = 198) = -2.611, g<.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.

10 and characteristics 8, 9, that are the characteristics of large interior room, not crowed, clear and cozy show that there's statistically significant distinction between your mean rating for hypermarket. Caused by t test confirmed that feature 8 is t (df = 198) = 5.498, g<.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.

12 and characteristics 11 are auto parking services and great public transportation accessible. The t test outcome for feature 11 is t (df = 198) = 2.544, g<.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.

15 and feature 14 are trust and routine in merchant. The t test outcome for feature 14 is t (df = 198) = -4.136, g<.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's 10 out-of 15 characteristics confirmed statistically factor among traditional market and hypermarket. Hypermarket have greater mean ratings for great public transportation accessible, suitable starting hours, large interior room, not packed, clear and cozy and auto parking services. About the hand wet marketplace has greater mean ratings for merchandise quality, pace of routine, purchase and rely upon merchant. This suggests conventional wet marketplace and hypermarket have their power in attracting customers.

4.3.3Importance Degree Of Shop Characteristics At Store Platforms

Significance amounts received by participants towards the subsequent shop features:

Feature 1: Suitable opening hours

Feature 2: Close To host to home

Feature 3: Solution quality

Feature 4: Product selection

Feature 5: Sensible cost

Feature 6: Pace of purchase

Feature 7: Satisfactorily support

Feature 8: Large interior room

Feature 9: Not packed

Feature 10: Clear and cozy

Feature 11: Great public transportation accessible

Feature 12: auto parking amenities

Feature 13: Easiness on locating the item

Significance degree of shop characteristics have been examined to comprehend customers' notion. All of the retailer characteristics within this part are just like the retailer characteristics whilst the good reasons for customers to look, but trust and routine in merchant have been omitted within this component.

You will find 5 out-of 13 store characteristics confirmed statistically significant diverse among conventional and hypermarket wet marketplace, that are product quality, pace of purchase advertisement cozy, easiness and great public amenities on locating the item.

Feature 3, that will be item quality, confirmed statistically significant diverse among traditional market and hypermarket. Caused by t test confirmed t (df = 198) = -2.303, g<.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.

Pace of purchase, feature 6, confirmed statistically significant diverse among traditional market and hypermarket. The t test outcome is t (df = 198) = -2.130, g<.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.

Feature 10, cozy and clear, also offers not proven statistically significant same among two distinct store types. The t test outcome is t (df = 198) = 2.592, g<.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.

Great public transportation accessible, feature 11, has not shown statistically insignificant diverse among conventional wet market and hypermarket aswell. T test consequence of this characteristics is t (df = 198) = 2.084, g<.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.

Feature 13, last although not least, that will be on locating the item easiness, also offers significant among traditional market and hypermarket. T test outcome for this shop feature is t (df = 198) = -2.205, g<.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 final outcome is 8 out-of 13 objectives confirmed there's no distinction between traditional market and hypermarket. Customers have set a higher degree that was essential on shop characteristics. Although 5 out-of 13 objectives confirmed statistically significant among hypermarket and conventional wet marketplace, this suggests customers have set various significance degree (greater or lower) of about the shop characteristics.

4.4 Conclusion

Three techniques have now been utilized in information examining, that are detailed, impartial T-test and trusted evaluation.

In detailed information, consequently, we ready to recognize most team particularly traits. Within the sex, for instance, we recognized most of the participants are feminine. This bulk team has filled 54% of 2/3 of the participants and the participant at hypermarket at conventional market. We make use of the same manner to explain all of the fundamental information for socio- journey patterns, census and deal designs.

There was a thing taken up to check the data's stability. Shop characteristics would be the information is likely to be examined within this component. In the consequence of shop attributes whilst the good reasons for customers to look at hypermarket and conventional wet marketplace, we capable recognized from all 15 characteristics, only one feature for hypermarket and 3 attributes for conventional wet market demonstrated greater alpha value than Cronbach's leader price, this means the size had suppressed the leader stage. Minimal stage might be given by customers for all those characteristics. In basic phrases, implies that customers didn't consider these characteristics at specific stores as their reason behind store. Same technique hasbeen done-for significance degree of shop characteristics. For general, all of the answers are reliable way of measuring customer understanding.

In examining information last step is Impartial t test. A comparison of the information hasbeen examined to look at whether there's not statistically significant same. Three outcomes have been acquired within this component, that will be the assessment of participants' account, journey designs and deal designs of various shop formats, shop characteristics whilst the good reasons for customers to look at various shop formats, and significance degree of shop characteristics at various store formats.

An additional dialogue about results of the information is likely to be mentioned in Section 5.