Project On

Consumer Preferences for Features in Highrise Flats in different Income groups in Bhubaneswar

Objectives The major objectives of the study are as follows: 1. 2. 3. To examine the differences in customer preferences across gender. To examine the differences in customer preferences across age. To examine the differences in customer preferences across monthly income (Household)

category Hypotheses The following hypotheses were formulated. H1. Perception of consumers regarding their preferences for features in high-rise flats would not differ across gender. H2. Perception of consumers regarding their preferences for features in high-rise flats would not differ across age. H3. Perception of consumers regarding their preferences for features in high-rise flats would not differ across monthly (Household) category. Method 1. Sample The data were collected from 70 respondents, out of which 54 (77 per cent) were male and female 16 (23 per cent). The data were collected from respondents who were only flat-owners and living in the study area for more than two years was chosen. The study area was small enough so that two year of residence was considered an adequate amount of time to become familiar with the geographic area. Obviously, the familiarization time is dependent upon the area. In a large urban area the time of residence may have to be lengthened and a more direct measure of the respondents exposure to the area may have to be developed. This could be a measure of

the residential linkage pattern. In the end, two years of residence was considered was considered adequate for the Bhubaneswar flat (housing) market. Due to time and cost constraints as well as non-availability of the respondents for participation in the survey. Purposive sampling method was used to collect data. Time and expense precluded the use of procedures to correctly handle non-response (a significant problem given the length of the interview for this study). A large number of students were utilized during the data-gathering process. Each was assigned a specific area of Bhubaneswar and given a quota of interview to complete. It was left to each student to find flat-owners who met the study criteria and were willing to complete the interview process. A total of 70 interviews were completed in usable form. A brief summary of sample characteristics is given (Table 1). As can be seen, the sample contains an over representation of males, has slightly more people per household than average, and is noticeably above the general population income level, this pattern is not inconsistent with the study limitation of selecting only flat-owners having lived in the area for at least two years. The data for a perceptual model may take the form of similarly (or dissimilarly) judgments concerning the flats and/or preference rankings of the flats. This study gathered data using both of these approaches. In the data-gathering process for the similarity judgments, the respondents is presented information on a sample of flats and asked to make judgments about them. Each respondent is asked to rank order every possible non-ordered pair of flats in the sample from the pair that in his mind is the most similar to the pair that is the least similar. This requires that the data provided to the respondents must be manageable, consistent, and non-abstract.

A manageable database was generated by a priori limitation of the sample to six houses from which fifteen pairs of house were established. This information set was small enough to the manageable during the interview process and not overburden the respondent whole keeping measurement error within reasonable limits. Table 1: Summary of Sample Characteristics Male Female Total Below 30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 and above Total Single Married Total Below 30,000 30,001-40,000 40,001-50,000 50,001-60,000 60,001 and above Total No. 54 16 70 10 16 16 25 3 70 8 62 70 6 22 16 17 9 70 Percentage 77 23 100 14 23 23 36 4 100 11 89 100 9 31 23 24 13 100

Sex

Age

Marital Status

Household Income (Rs)

The sample of flats, although restricted to the middle of the market, was large enough to give a simplified, but realistic view of the market being analyzed. Other data-gathering methods which allow the use of a larger number of flats are possible and could be experimented with in future research efforts. The sample of flats was selected with the assistance of several real estate agents who were very familiar with and had been active in the housing market during the preceding year. A sample of flats was obtained from those that recently sold and which represented the housing choices

generally available throughout the city. All major residential areas at Bhubaneswar were represented in the sample. The consistency and non-abstractness of the data was assured by providing each respondent the sample package of information about the flats. The following information was presented to each respondent: a. A map of the market area. The map identified the location of each flat in the study as well as the location of schools or collages, shopping areas, and recreation areas. While the respondents were residents and thus familiar with most of the identified facilities, inclusion of these locations helped to reduce informational bias and allowed the respondent to form a clear mental picture of the location of each residence. b. For each residence in the sample a fact sheet was prepared. This fact sheet included photographs of the flat and the immediate surrounding area from all appropriate views; a floor plan of the flat including room dimensions; a list of features of the flat (e.g. construction type and materials, type and number appliances, type of heating/cooling, etc.) and a site plan of the of the lot showing the size of the lot, the placement of the house on the lot, additional structures, fences, and trees. The use of trend student also helped to insure consistency. The students were told the nature of the study and the precise manner in which the data was to be gathered. They were trained not to influence the decision making process of the respondent. The entire interview process was simulated with the student to clarify the steps necessary to minimize interviewer bias, and to allow them to check each interview packet for completeness. Post interview discussions with the students indicated that the respondents took the interview process seriously and spent a amount

of time completing the process. The interviews ranged from 25 to 50 minutes with most respondents requiring approximately 40 minutes to complete the requested tasks.

Measures The data were collected through a structured interview schedule (questionnaire) consisting of two parts-Section I, Section II. In Section I, the variables included in this study were measured using the five-point Likert scale. The five point scale was used for the sake of uniformity. The 18-item questionnaire administered to the set of respondents was complied using items from different standardized scales measuring a single variable of the study (See Section I). The selection of the items for inclusion in the questionnaire was finalized on the basis of a pilot survey and consultation with experts. Consumer Preferences In order to measure preferences for features in high-rise flats, a 18-item scale was used. Item numbers CP1 to CP18 (in Section I) of the questionnaire measured the consumer preferences of flat purchasing process. The reliability coefficient for Factor 1 was .66, Factor 2 was .70, Factor 3 was .70, Factor 4 was .66, and Factor 5 was .74. Since Factor 6 have a single item, it was dropped from the study. Table 2: A Summary of Tool Characteristics Serial No.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Factor Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

No. of Items
3 4 5 3 2 1

Mean
13.06 16.87 20.71 10.58 8.91 3.60

SD
1.91 2.59 2.99 2.45 1.41 .92

Alpha Coefficient
.66 .70 .70 .66 .74 -

Data was obtained by establishing a list of attributes that closely resembled the lists of attributes established by other researchers. Each respondent was asked to evaluate each flat on each attribute on a 5-point scale of very undesirable to very desirable. These rankings, which were gathered after the similarity and preference ranking process so as not to influence the process by providing appropriate evaluative criteria, were used in the analysis to help define the actual criteria used by the respondents. Specifically, each respondent was asked How would you rate this flat in terms of its; CP1. Room layout (overall floor plan) CP2. Size of room CP3. Ease of access to shopping CP4. Ease of access to airport CP5. Ease of access to railway station CP6. Ease of access to hospital CP7. Ease of access to ATM CP8. Ease of access to recreation CP9. Shopping complex within the campus CP10. Gymnasium within the campus CP11. Parking facilities within the campus CP12. Earthquake resistance CP13. DG (generator) back up CP14. Quality of PHD & electrical fittings CP15. Ease of access to schools/colleges

CP16. Ease of access to job place/office CP17. Overall neighborhood quality Finally, demographic information was also requested. Because the tasks requested during the interview were time consuming, the demographic profile was kept very brief. A total of five questions were asked on the demographic profile questionnaire These were: 1. How long have you been a resident of Bhubaneswar? Less than 2 yrs More than 2 yrs 2. Gender: Male/Female 3. Age (years): Below 30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 and above 4. Marital Status : Single Marred 4. Monthly Income (Rs) Below 30000 30001-40000 40001-50000 50001-60000 60001 and above Procedure After developing a conceptual framework for the study, identifying the variable, and finalizing the questionnaire based on the high reliability obtained, it was decided that the survey would be concluded at Bhubaneswar. Due to time and cost constraints as well as non-availability of the respondents for participation in the survey, purposive sampling method was used to collect data.

Moreover, the survey had to be administered using single approach, i.e. conducting personal interviews. A total of one hundred thirty six responses were collected. Survey questionnaires were pre-tested using a small number of respondents (about twelve; the pre test participants did not participate in the final data collection). As the consequences of the pre testing, relatively minor modifications were made in the written instructions and questionnaire items. The respondents were selected from their residential area of flats, and they were requested to fill the questionnaire either on the bank premises itself or at their residence, after getting their consent. Written instructions, along with brief oral presentations, were given to assure the respondents of anonymity protection, and the purpose of the project was also explained. The participants were given the opportunity to ask questions and were encouraged to answer the surveys honestly. Anonymity was guaranteed and no names or identifying information was asked for. Results and discussion The study was conducted in a exploratory framework using survey project. The data were collected from one hundred thirty six respondents. The data were subjected to statistical analysis for drawing inferences. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to differences with regard to different factors. Factor Analysis Result The data were subjected to factor analysis to identify the factors and establish construct validity. The factor analysis was done using principle component with varimax rotation, as they appeared to be interrelated with each other. The highest loading against any factor was taken into account as a representative of that scale showing the construct validity. The actors obtained from this

analysis for all the scales were subjected to further statistical analysis. A summary of the factor analyses result is presented below.

Consumer Preferences This is a standardize scale and has extensively used by researchers. However, factor analysis was performed to confirm the dimensionality of the original scale for this study, which was conducted in Indian socio cultural context, where the respondents characteristics and values are different. Factor analysis results showed 6 factors identified as Factor 1, Factor2, Factor 3, Factor 4, Factor 5 and Factor 6 had an Eigen value of 4.62, 2.15, 1.63, 1.43, 1.35 and 1.10 respectively and all together accounted for 68 percent of variance. Factor 6 was dropped from the study which consists of a single item. A summary of the factor analysis results along with their loadings presented in Table 3. Table 3: Summary of Factor Analysis results for Consumer Preferences Factor 1 Item 5 6 18
Loading

Factor 2 .65 .80 .68 Item 3 13 16 17

Loading

Factor 3 Item Loading 1 .50 2 .62 4 .56 12 .59 15 .77 1.63 9

Factor 4 Item 9 10 11
Loading

Factor 5 Item 7 14
Loading

Factor 6 Item 8
Loading

.69 .46 .80 .66

.61 .79 .72

.83 .86

.86

Eigen Value
Percentage of Variance

4.62 26

2.15 12

1.43 8

1.35 7

1.10 6

Total variance explained = 68 per cent

In order to examine whether factor analysis is an appropriate analysis to indentify factor, the Kaiser -Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy and bartletts test of sphericity was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy (KMO=0.57) value is acceptable if KMO value is greater than 0.50. Bartletts test result shows that the values are significant and thus acceptable (Table 4). Table 4: KMO and Bartlett's Test Results for Consumer Preferences Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .57 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 460.37 df 153 Sig. .01 After examining the construct validity and identifying the factors, and the inter-correlation among the variables, proposed hypothesis were tested. The results related to different hypothesis are presented and discussed below. H1. Perception of consumers regarding their preferences for features in high-rise flats would not differ across gender. In order to examine the differences in consumer perception across gender, ANOVA was conducted. Consumers were divided into two different categories, male and female. The results (Table 5) showed that there were significant differences with regard to Factor 1 (F=3.86, p<.01), Factor 2 (F=5.10, p<.01) and Factor 5 (F=5.89, p<.01). However, no significant differences were found with regard to Factor 3 (F=. 50, p>.05) and Factor 4 (F=.02, p>.05). The results reveal that males were given more preference to easy access to ATM, job place, and neighborhood quality while selecting residential flats compare to females. The results also suggest that males were given priority to easy access to schools and colleges from their campus.

Table 5: Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) examining differences in Consumer Preferences across gender
Sum of Squares 13.51 238.26 251.77 32.22 429.62 461.84 4.47 611.82 616.29 .14 415.23 415.37 10.96 126.53 137.49 df 1 68 69 1 68 69 1 68 69 1 68 69 1 68 69 Mean Square 13.51 3.50 32.22 6.32 4.47 9.00 .14 6.11 10.96 1.86 F

Factor 1

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

3.86*

Factor 2

5.10*

Factor 3

.50

Factor 4

.02

Factor 5

5.89**

**Significant at 0.01 level

* Significant at 0.05 level.

H2. Perception of consumers regarding their preferences for features in high-rise flats would not differ across age. In order to examine the differences in consumers perception regarding their preferences for features in high-rise flats would not differ across age, ANOVA was conducted. Customers were divided into five different age groups starting from below 30 to 61 and above. The results (Table 6) showed that there were significant differences with regard to Factor 1 (F=4.11, p<.01), Factor 2 (F=3.77, p<.01) and Factor 3 (F=2.49, p<.01). However, no significant differences were found with regard to Factor 4 (F=. 08, p>.05) and Factor 5 (F=.36, p>.05).

The results suggest that aged consumers (50-60) were given more preference to quality electrical equipment and earthquake resistant in their flats, easy access to railway station, hospitals, shopping, job place and parking facilities within the campus, compare to younger consumers (30-40). Table 6: Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) examining differences in Consumer Preferences across age
Sum of Squares 50.86 200.92 251.77 86.93 374.91 461.84 81.74 534.54 616.28 1.91 413.46 415.37 2.98 134.50 137.48 df 4 65 69 4 65 69 4 65 69 4 65 69 4 65 69 Mean Square 12.71 3.09 21.73 5.77 20.44 8.22 .48 6.36 .75 2.07 F

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

4.11**

3.77**

2.49*

.08

.36

**Significant at 0.01 level

* Significant at 0.05 level.

H3.

Perception of consumers regarding their preferences for features in high rise flats would

not differ across monthly income household category. In order to examine the differences in perception of consumers regarding their preferences for features in high rise flats across monthly income household category. ANOVA was conducted .customers were divided into five different income categories starting from rupees below 30 thousand to rupees more than sixty thousand. The results (Table 7) showed that there were significant differences with regard to Factor 1 (F=2.91, p<.01) and Factor 2 (F=3.55, p<.01).

However, no significant differences were found with regard to Factor 3 (F=1.74, p>.05), Factor 4 (F=2.13, p>.05) and Factor 5 (F=1.49, p>.05). Table 7: Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) examining differences in Consumer Preferences across monthly income household category
Sum of Squares 38.23 213.54 251.77 82.76 379.08 461.84 59.49 556.80 616.29 48.07 367.30 415.37 11.53 125.96 137.49 df 4 65 69 4 65 69 4 65 69 4 65 69 4 65 69 Mean Square 9.56 3.29 20.69 5.83 14.87 8.57 12.02 5.65 2.88 1.93 F

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

2.91*

3.55**

1.74

2.13

1.49

**Significant at 0.01 level

* Significant at 0.05 level.

The results reveal that consumers whose income were comparatively low, given more emphasis towards neighborhood quality, earthquake resistant and also easy access to railway station compare to higher income group.

Conclusion The results reveal that males were given more preference to easy access to ATM, job place, and neighborhood quality while selecting residential flats compare to females. The results also suggest that males were given priority to easy access to schools and colleges from their campus.

The results also suggest that aged consumers were given more preference to quality electrical equipment and earthquake resistant in their flats, easy access to railway station, hospitals, shopping, job place and parking facilities within the campus, compare to younger consumers. The results reveal that consumers whose income were comparatively low, given more emphasis towards neighborhood quality, earthquake resistant and also easy access to railway station compare to higher income group.