Comparing Hypermarket and Traditional Wet Market Consumers’ Perception

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.

4.1 Descriptive Analysis

4.1.1 Respondents' Profile

4.1.1.1 Gender

	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

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.

4.1.1.2 Age

	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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

4.1.1.8 Household 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

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

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

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.

4.1.3 Transaction 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

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

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

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.

4.2 Reliability 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.

4.2.1 Store 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 (? = 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 (? = 0.865), except Attribute 11 (good transportation available), which has a higher alpha (? = 0.875), this means the item in the scale suppresses the alpha level. But for overall, the reasons to shop at hypermarket scale seem to be reliable measure of consumer perception.

4.2.1.2 Traditional 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 (? = 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 (? = 0.769), which are Attribute 2 (near to place of residence), Attribute 11 (good transportation available) and Attribute 14 (habit), which have a higher alpha of (? = 0.771), (? = 0.770) and (? = 0.775) this means the items in the scale suppresses the alpha level, consumers may not take the attributes as their priority reasons to shop at traditional wet market. But for overall, the store attributes as the reason to shop at hypermarket scale seem to be reliable measure of consumer perception.

4.2.2 Importance 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

 

4.2.2.1 Hypermarket

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 (? = 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 (? = 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 (? = 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 (? = 0.874), except Attribute 11 (good public transport available) with alpha (? = 0.878), which means that is the single item had suppressed the alpha level. Consumers of traditional wet market may not feel this store attribute was important. But for overall, importance level of store attributes at traditional wet market to be reliable measure of consumer perception.

4.3 Independent 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.

4.3.1 Respondents' 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.

4.3.2 Store 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.

4.3.3 Importance 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.

Cite this page