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

Gender

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Male

46

46.0

34

34.0

Woman

54

54.0

66

66.0

Complete

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Era

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

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

Complete

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Cultural

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Malay

33

33.0

14

14.0

China

55

55.0

74

74.0

Indian

9

9.0

11

11.0

Others

3

3.0

1

1.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Marital Status

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Simple

58

58.0

42

42.0

Committed

42

42.0

58

58.0

Complete

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Education Degree

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

University/ School

74

74.0

50

50.0

Secondary School

19

19.0

34

34.0

Primary School

2

2.0

13

13.0

No Official Training

4

4.0

3

3.0

Others

1

1.0

1

1.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Profession

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Fought Employee

25

25.0

32

32.0

Government Worker

18

18.0

5

5.0

Businessman

7

7.0

5

5.0

Housewife

8

8.0

26

26.0

Pupil

39

39.0

23

23.0

Retired

Unemployed

3

0

3.0

0.0

7

2

7.0

2.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Home Member

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

15

Complete

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 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

Home Monthly Income

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

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

Complete

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Exploring Moment

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Fifteen minutes and less

48

48.0

53

53.0

16-30 moments

34

34.0

28

28.0

31-60 moments

16

16.0

17

17.0

1 time and much more

2

2.0

2

2.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Travel Style

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Wander

15

15.0

23

23.0

Bike

4

4.0

3

3.0

Coach

5

5.0

6

6.0

Bike

8

8.0

23

23.0

Vehicle

Cab

Others

68

0

0

68.0

0.0

0.0

45

0

0

45.0

0.0

0.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Consistency of Visiting

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Significantly less than once per week

27

27.0

21

21.0

once per week

36

36.0

40

40.0

twice-weekly

21

21.0

11

11.0

thrice-weekly

12

12.0

10

10.0

4 occasions or even more regular

4

4.0

18

18.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Visiting Areas with whom

Hypermarket

Standard Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Alone

17

17.0

36

36.0

Family/ Relatives

47

47.0

52

52.0

Friends/ Neighbours/ Acquaintances

Others

36

0

36.0

0.0

12

0

12.0

0.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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

Time Used

Hypermarket

Wet Industry

Consistency

Percentage

Consistency

Percentage

Half an hour and less

12

12.0

18

18.0

30-60 moments

32

32.0

49

49.0

1-2 hours

41

41.0

28

28.0

2 hours and much more

15

15.0

5

5.0

Whole

100

100.0

100

100.0

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)

Cronbach's Leader

Cronbach's Leader centered on Standard Products

N of Products

.865

.867

15

Table 4.15: Product-Complete Data(Shop Characteristics whilst the good reasons for Customers to ShopAt Hypermarket)

Size Imply if Product Removed

Size Difference if Product Removed

Fixed Product-Complete Relationship

Squared Multiple Relationship

Cronbach's Leader if Product Removed

Feature 1

51.6100

60.947

.400

.495

.862

Feature 2

51.7100

59.481

.489

.516

.858

Feature 3

51.8700

59.124

.559

.570

.854

Feature 4

51.5800

58.367

.583

.569

.853

Feature 5

51.7700

60.522

.492

.470

.858

Feature 6

51.9300

58.773

.565

.497

.854

Feature 7

52.0200

58.666

.626

.532

.852

Feature 8

51.9000

60.131

.446

.423

.860

Feature 9

52.0400

58.786

.550

.604

.855

Feature 10

51.7500

56.997

.679

.611

.848

Feature 11

52.6300

64.397

.136

.379

.875

Feature 12

51.7900

56.895

.563

.492

.854

Feature 13

51.7700

57.027

.688

.612

.848

Feature 14

52.2500

60.048

.403

.352

.863

Feature 15

52.3400

59.075

.496

.544

.857

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)

Cronbach's Leader

Cronbach's Leader centered on Standard Products

N of Products

.769

.775

15

Table 4.17: Product-Complete Data (Shop Characteristics whilst the good reasons for Customers to Look At Conventional Wet Industry)

Size Imply if Product Removed

Size Difference if Product Removed

Fixed Product-Complete Relationship

Squared Multiple Relationship

Cronbach's Leader if Product Removed

Feature 1

49.9300

46.914

.295

.358

.762

Feature 2

49.7400

47.164

.210

.339

.771

Feature 3

49.5700

46.712

.357

.467

.758

Feature 4

49.6300

45.589

.386

.493

.755

Feature 5

49.4900

45.343

.398

.483

.754

Feature 6

50.0400

44.463

.475

.497

.748

Feature 7

49.8800

45.117

.468

.468

.749

Feature 8

50.7000

42.859

.537

.701

.741

Feature 9

50.7200

42.709

.530

.743

.741

Feature 10

50.7600

42.002

.521

.697

.741

Feature 11

51.0700

45.197

.260

.500

.770

Feature 12

50.7700

44.341

.353

.471

.759

Feature 13

49.7400

46.720

.335

.441

.759

Feature 14

49.7100

48.168

.149

.423

.775

Feature 15

49.7700

45.553

.366

.508

.757

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)

Cronbach's Leader

Cronbach's Leader centered on Standard Products

N of Products

.906

.907

13

Table 4.19: Product-Complete Data (Significance Degree Of Shop Characteristics at Hypermarket)

Size Imply if Product Removed

Size Difference if Product Removed

Fixed Product-Complete Relationship

Squared Multiple Relationship

Cronbach's Leader if Product Removed

Feature 1

49.5200

46.151

.652

.548

.897

Feature 2

49.2300

46.724

.704

.602

.895

Feature 3

49.1700

48.365

.655

.729

.897

Feature 4

49.1100

48.079

.646

.631

.898

Feature 5

49.0300

50.009

.516

.536

.903

Feature 6

49.5400

47.887

.639

.456

.898

Feature 7

49.3100

47.044

.654

.463

.897

Feature 8

49.6600

45.701

.666

.637

.897

Feature 9

49.6500

46.290

.655

.606

.897

Feature 10

49.2300

48.623

.631

.504

.898

Feature 11

49.8900

49.250

.455

.392

.906

Feature 12

49.3400

48.489

.532

.468

.902

Feature 13

49.3200

47.048

.668

.535

.896

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)

Cronbach's Leader

Cronbach's Leader centered on Standard Products

N of Products

.874

.880

13

Table 4.21: Product-Complete Data

(Value Degree Of Shop Characteristics at Conventional Wet Industry)

Size Imply if Product Removed

Size Difference if Product Removed

Fixed Product-Complete Relationship

Squared Multiple Relationship

Cronbach's Leader if Product Removed

Feature 1

49.9600

38.705

.626

.497

.861

Feature 2

49.8400

39.307

.514

.505

.867

Feature 3

49.6000

40.040

.587

.616

.864

Feature 4

49.6300

39.488

.622

.702

.862

Feature 5

49.5500

40.654

.599

.559

.864

Feature 6

49.9500

37.987

.642

.534

.859

Feature 7

49.8500

40.432

.509

.395

.867

Feature 8

50.2700

37.876

.627

.669

.860

Feature 9

50.3800

37.672

.622

.772

.860

Feature 10

50.1900

38.196

.590

.580

.862

Feature 11

50.8200

40.412

.347

.310

.878

Feature 12

50.1500

39.947

.424

.313

.872

Feature 13

49.7300

39.815

.548

.524

.865

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

Table 4.22: Party Data

(Participants' account, journey designs and deal designs of various shop types)

Location

D

Suggest

Std. Change

Std. Problem Suggest

Sex

Hypermarket

100

1.54

.501

.050

Wet Industry

100

1.66

.476

.048

Era

Hypermarket

100

2.14

1.119

.112

Wet Industry

100

2.80

1.470

.147

Cultural

Hypermarket

100

1.82

.716

.072

Wet Industry

100

1.99

.541

.054

Marital Status

Hypermarket

100

1.42

.496

.050

Wet Industry

100

1.58

.496

.050

Education Degree

Hypermarket

100

1.39

.803

.080

Wet Industry

100

1.69

.813

.081

Profession

Hypermarket

100

3.27

1.746

.175

Wet Industry

100

3.32

1.842

.184

Household Size

Hypermarket

100

4.63

1.715

.172

Wet Industry

100

4.87

1.942

.194

Householdincome

Hypermarket

100

2.88

1.373

.137

Wet Industry

100

2.88

1.423

.142

Going Period

Hypermarket

100

1.72

.805

.081

Wet Industry

100

1.68

.827

.083

Transport Style

Hypermarket

100

4.10

1.501

.150

Wet Industry

100

3.64

1.611

.161

Consistency

Hypermarket

100

2.30

1.115

.111

Wet Industry

100

2.64

1.396

.140

With Whom

Hypermarket

100

2.19

.706

.071

Wet Industry

100

1.76

.653

.065

Time Invested

Hypermarket

100

2.59

.889

.089

Wet Industry

100

2.20

.791

.079

Stand 4.23: Independent Samples Check

(Participants' account, journey designs and deal designs of various shop types)

Levene's Check for Equality of Differences

T test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Period of the Distinction

Y

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Problem Difference

Lower

Top

Sex

Similar variances thought

9.284

.003

-1.736

198

.084

-.120

.069

-.256

.016

Identical differences not thought

-1.736

197.491

.084

-.120

.069

-.256

.016

Era

Similar variances thought

20.161

.000

-3.572

198

.000

-.660

.185

-1.024

-.296

Identical differences not thought

-3.572

184.905

.000

-.660

.185

-1.025

-.295

Cultural

Similar variances thought

16.130

.000

-1.894

198

.060

-.170

.090

-.347

.007

Identical differences not thought

-1.894

184.269

.060

-.170

.090

-.347

.007

Marital Status

Similar variances thought

.000

1.000

-2.281

198

.024

-.160

.070

-.298

-.022

Identical differences not thought

-2.281

198.000

.024

-.160

.070

-.298

-.022

Education Degree

Similar variances thought

2.610

.108

-2.626

198

.009

-.300

.114

-.525

-.075

Identical differences not thought

-2.626

197.970

.009

-.300

.114

-.525

-.075

Profession

Similar variances thought

.035

.852

-.197

198

.844

-.050

.254

-.550

.450

Identical differences not thought

-.197

197.437

.844

-.050

.254

-.550

.450

Household Size

Similar variances thought

.069

.793

-.926

198

.355

-.240

.259

-.751

.271

Identical differences not thought

-.926

195.031

.355

-.240

.259

-.751

.271

Householdincome

Similar variances thought

.098

.754

.000

198

1.000

.000

.198

-.390

.390

Identical differences not thought

.000

197.741

1.000

.000

.198

-.390

.390

Going Period

Similar variances thought

.269

.604

.347

198

.729

.040

.115

-.188

.268

Identical differences not thought

.347

197.853

.729

.040

.115

-.188

.268

Transport Style

Similar variances thought

1.980

.161

2.089

198

.038

.460

.220

.026

.894

Identical differences not thought

2.089

197.009

.038

.460

.220

.026

.894

Consistency

Similar variances thought

9.041

.003

-1.903

198

.058

-.340

.179

-.692

.012

Identical differences not thought

-1.903

188.731

.059

-.340

.179

-.692

.012

With Whom

Similar variances thought

.464

.497

4.470

198

.000

.430

.096

.240

.620

Identical differences not thought

4.470

196.802

.000

.430

.096

.240

.620

Time Invested

Similar variances thought

3.953

.048

3.277

198

.001

.390

.119

.155

.625

Identical differences not thought

3.277

195.394

.001

.390

.119

.155

.625

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

Table 4.24: Party Data (Shop Characteristics whilst the good reasons for Customers to Look At Different Store Platforms)

Location

D

Suggest

Std. Change

Std. Problem Suggest

Feature 1

Hypermarket

100

4.03

.904

.090

Wet Industry

100

3.75

.857

.086

Feature 2

Hypermarket

100

3.93

.935

.093

Wet Industry

100

3.94

1.013

.101

Feature 3

Hypermarket

100

3.77

.874

.087

Wet Industry

100

4.11

.777

.078

Feature 4

Hypermarket

100

4.06

.919

.092

Wet Industry

100

4.05

.903

.090

Feature 5

Hypermarket

100

3.87

.812

.081

Wet Industry

100

4.19

.918

.092

Feature 6

Hypermarket

100

3.71

.902

.090

Wet Industry

100

3.64

.916

.092

Feature 7

Hypermarket

100

3.62

.838

.084

Wet Industry

100

3.80

.841

.084

Feature 8

Hypermarket

100

3.74

.928

.093

Wet Industry

100

2.98

1.025

.102

Feature 9

Hypermarket

100

3.60

.921

.092

Wet Industry

100

2.96

1.053

.105

Feature 10

Hypermarket

100

3.89

.931

.093

Wet Industry

100

2.92

1.152

.115

Feature 11

Hypermarket

100

3.01

.959

.096

Wet Industry

100

2.61

1.246

.125

Feature 12

Hypermarket

100

3.85

1.095

.110

Wet Industry

100

2.91

1.156

.116

Feature 13

Hypermarket

100

3.87

.917

.092

Wet Industry

100

3.94

.814

.081

Feature 14

Hypermarket

100

3.39

1.014

.101

Wet Industry

100

3.97

.969

.097

Feature 15

Hypermarket

100

3.30

.969

.097

Wet Industry

100

3.91

.944

.094

Desk 4.25: Independent Trials Check (Shop Characteristics whilst the good reasons for Customers to Look At Different Store Platforms)

Levene's Check for Equality of Differences

T test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Period of the Distinction

Y

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Problem Difference

Lower

Top

Feature 1

Similar variances thought

.939

.334

2.247

198

.026

.280

.125

.034

.526

Identical differences not thought

2.247

197.443

.026

.280

.125

.034

.526

Feature 2

Similar variances thought

.552

.458

-.073

198

.942

-.010

.138

-.282

.262

Identical differences not thought

-.073

196.728

.942

-.010

.138

-.282

.262

Feature 3

Similar variances thought

2.680

.103

-2.906

198

.004

-.340

.117

-.571

-.109

Identical differences not thought

-2.906

195.304

.004

-.340

.117

-.571

-.109

Feature 4

Similar variances thought

.007

.933

.078

198

.938

.010

.129

-.244

.264

Identical differences not thought

.078

197.939

.938

.010

.129

-.244

.264

Feature 5

Similar variances thought

1.530

.218

-2.611

198

.010

-.320

.123

-.562

-.078

Identical differences not thought

-2.611

195.116

.010

-.320

.123

-.562

-.078

Feature 6

Similar variances thought

.000

.984

.544

198

.587

.070

.129

-.184

.324

Identical differences not thought

.544

197.956

.587

.070

.129

-.184

.324

Feature 7

Similar variances thought

.006

.938

-1.516

198

.131

-.180

.119

-.414

.054

Identical differences not thought

-1.516

197.998

.131

-.180

.119

-.414

.054

Feature 8

Similar variances thought

.374

.542

5.498

198

.000

.760

.138

.487

1.033

Identical differences not thought

5.498

196.080

.000

.760

.138

.487

1.033

Feature 9

Similar variances thought

.198

.656

4.574

198

.000

.640

.140

.364

.916

Identical differences not thought

4.574

194.543

.000

.640

.140

.364

.916

Feature 10

Similar variances thought

13.388

.000

6.550

198

.000

.970

.148

.678

1.262

Identical differences not thought

6.550

189.648

.000

.970

.148

.678

1.262

Feature 11

Similar variances thought

14.930

.000

2.544

198

.012

.400

.157

.090

.710

Identical differences not thought

2.544

185.772

.012

.400

.157

.090

.710

Feature 12

Similar variances thought

3.035

.083

5.904

198

.000

.940

.159

.626

1.254

Identical differences not thought

5.904

197.434

.000

.940

.159

.626

1.254

Feature 13

Similar variances thought

2.579

.110

-.571

198

.569

-.070

.123

-.312

.172

Identical differences not thought

-.571

195.252

.569

-.070

.123

-.312

.172

Feature 14

Similar variances thought

1.164

.282

-4.136

198

.000

-.580

.140

-.857

-.303

Identical differences not thought

-4.136

197.589

.000

-.580

.140

-.857

-.303

Feature 15

Similar variances thought

.605

.438

-4.509

198

.000

-.610

.135

-.877

-.343

Identical differences not thought

-4.509

197.861

.000

-.610

.135

-.877

-.343

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

Table 4.26: Party Data

(Value Degree Of Shop Characteristics At Different Store Platforms)

Location

D

Suggest

Std. Change

Std. Problem Suggest

Feature 1

Hypermarket

100

3.98

.953

.095

Wet Industry

100

4.20

.804

.080

Feature 2

Hypermarket

100

4.27

.839

.084

Wet Industry

100

4.32

.863

.086

Feature 3

Hypermarket

100

4.33

.726

.073

Wet Industry

100

4.56

.686

.069

Feature 4

Hypermarket

100

4.39

.764

.076

Wet Industry

100

4.53

.717

.072

Feature 5

Hypermarket

100

4.47

.688

.069

Wet Industry

100

4.61

.601

.060

Feature 6

Hypermarket

100

3.96

.790

.079

Wet Industry

100

4.21

.868

.087

Feature 7

Hypermarket

100

4.19

.861

.086

Wet Industry

100

4.31

.720

.072

Feature 8

Hypermarket

100

3.84

.982

.098

Wet Industry

100

3.89

.898

.090

Feature 9

Hypermarket

100

3.85

.936

.094

Wet Industry

100

3.78

.927

.093

Feature 10

Hypermarket

100

4.27

.723

.072

Wet Industry

100

3.97

.904

.090

Feature 11

Hypermarket

100

3.61

.863

.086

Wet Industry

100

3.34

.966

.097

Feature 12

Hypermarket

100

4.16

.849

.085

Wet Industry

100

4.01

.904

.090

Feature 13

Hypermarket

100

4.18

.845

.085

Wet Industry

100

4.43

.756

.076

Stand 4.27: Independent Samples Check

(Value Degree Of Shop Characteristics At Different Store Platforms)

Levene's Check for Equality of Differences

T test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Period of the Distinction

Y

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Problem Difference

Lower

Top

Feature 1

Similar variances thought

.949

.331

-1.764

198

.079

-.220

.125

-.466

.026

Identical differences not thought

-1.764

192.526

.079

-.220

.125

-.466

.026

Feature 2

Similar variances thought

.022

.882

-.415

198

.678

-.050

.120

-.287

.187

Identical differences not thought

-.415

197.842

.678

-.050

.120

-.287

.187

Feature 3

Similar variances thought

1.630

.203

-2.303

198

.022

-.230

.100

-.427

-.033

Identical differences not thought

-2.303

197.394

.022

-.230

.100

-.427

-.033

Feature 4

Similar variances thought

1.353

.246

-1.336

198

.183

-.140

.105

-.347

.067

Identical differences not thought

-1.336

197.210

.183

-.140

.105

-.347

.067

Feature 5

Similar variances thought

4.784

.030

-1.532

198

.127

-.140

.091

-.320

.040

Identical differences not thought

-1.532

194.484

.127

-.140

.091

-.320

.040

Feature 6

Similar variances thought

4.347

.038

-2.130

198

.034

-.250

.117

-.481

-.019

Identical differences not thought

-2.130

196.286

.034

-.250

.117

-.482

-.018

Feature 7

Similar variances thought

.212

.646

-1.069

198

.286

-.120

.112

-.341

.101

Identical differences not thought

-1.069

192.031

.286

-.120

.112

-.341

.101

Feature 8

Similar variances thought

.336

.563

-.376

198

.707

-.050

.133

-.312

.212

Identical differences not thought

-.376

196.433

.707

-.050

.133

-.312

.212

Feature 9

Similar variances thought

.003

.953

.531

198

.596

.070

.132

-.190

.330

Identical differences not thought

.531

197.983

.596

.070

.132

-.190

.330

Feature 10

Similar variances thought

.798

.373

2.592

198

.010

.300

.116

.072

.528

Identical differences not thought

2.592

188.845

.010

.300

.116

.072

.528

Feature 11

Similar variances thought

1.785

.183

2.084

198

.038

.270

.130

.014

.526

Identical differences not thought

2.084

195.539

.038

.270

.130

.014

.526

Feature 12

Similar variances thought

.370

.544

1.209

198

.228

.150

.124

-.095

.395

Identical differences not thought

1.209

197.226

.228

.150

.124

-.095

.395

Feature 13

Similar variances thought

.209

.648

-2.205

198

.029

-.250

.113

-.474

-.026

Identical differences not thought

-2.205

195.548

.029

-.250

.113

-.474

-.026

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.