MRA Project

Stay choices during trips for students

Guided by-
Prof. Preeti Priya
Prof. Suva Kanta Mohanty
Submitted By – Group 6
Aayush Pathak – P41253
Naveet RanjanTripathi – P41224
Pranay Nitnaware- P41230
Mallikarjuna B.- P41218
Umakant Deshmukh – P41252
 Analysis Roadmap
Step 4
Factor Analysis
For dimension
Step 1 reduction using Conjoint Analysis
Exploratory Study latent variables
Content Analysis To understand how
Students preference
To determine the people value
on stay choices
presence of words different attributes in
during holiday trips
and theme various stay
options.
Step 3 Step 5

Step 6
Step 2
Logit Regression
In-depth Interview To gain insight into the
Designing and relationship between a
carrying out in- dependent variable and
depth interview .
 In-depth interview
• No. of people interviewed= 8
• each interview lasted = 30 min

• Sir how frequently do you go for trips?

• Do you travel alone or you prefer to go out
with your friend?
• Where did you went in your last trip?
• Do you pre plan your trip and accommodation
if not then?
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS
Content Analysis
 Factor Analysis
Stay
Categories

Non branded Branded Upto 3 star

Zostels Resorts Homestay
lodges budget hotels hotels

Attributes

Food
Price Safety Hygiene Amenities Location
facilities
Factor Analysis
 Factor Analysis
Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings Loadings
Component
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total Total
Variance % Variance % Variance %

1 2.412 60.289 60.289 2.412 60.289 60.289 1.905 47.629 47.629

2 0.774 19.339 79.628 0.774 19.339 79.628 1.280 31.999 79.628

3 0.552 13.800 93.428

4 0.263 6.572 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 Component Matrix Rotated Component Matrix Rotated Component Matrix

Component Component Component

1 2 1 2 1 2

Safety 0.657 -0.569 Safety 0.869 -0.025 Safety 0.870 -0.043

Hygiene 0.888 -0.086 Hygiene 0.742 0.495 Hygiene 0.770 0.458

Price 0.640 0.659 Price 0.079 0.915 Price 0.132 0.939

Amenities 0.878 0.112 Amenities 0.609 0.643 Food_facilities 0.734 0.433

Food_facilities 0.840 -0.083 Food_facilities 0.703 0.467 Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Extraction Method: Principal Normalization.a
Analysis.
Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.a a. Rotation converged in 3
a. 2 components extracted. iterations.
a. Rotation converged in 3
iterations.
 Factor Analysis
Custom Table
Communalities
Categories REGR REGR Preferenc
Initial Extraction factor score factor score e
1 for 2 for
Safety 1.000 0.758 analysis 1 analysis 1

Hygiene 1.000 0.803 Mean Mean Mean

Price 1.000 0.899 Branded budget 0.15624 0.31975 4.18

hotels (example- oyo)
Food_facilities 1.000 0.725
Homestay 0.36579 -0.15509 3.45
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis. Non-branded lodges -0.97561 -0.37938 2.57

Resorts 0.58177 0.34359 4.06

Upto 3 star hotels 0.32656 0.08979 3.69

Zostels (hostels) -0.45475 -0.21865 3.06

 Conjoint Analysis- Orthogonal Design

1 Safety   -  Level 1 Moderate safety

                 Level 2 Extreme safety

2 Hygiene  -  Moderate 
                  High

3 Price  - <1.5k/DAY,1.5k-5k/day  >5k/DAY    

4 Location- Within 2km of destination 

                2-5 km of destination
                >5km

5 Food Services – Nil, In house Kitchen, In

house fine restaurant
 Conjoint Analysis- Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.650439
R Square 0.423071
Adjusted R Square 0.417048
Standard Error 1.299979
Observations 969

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 10 1187.212 118.7212 70.25149 2.7E-107
Residual 958 1618.968 1.689945
Total 968 2806.18

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat
Intercept 1.398404 0.213371 6.553871
Extreme safety 0.690825 0.087507 7.894516
High 0.410053 0.132606 3.092274
1.5-5k/Day 1.360192 0.132148 10.29294
<1.5k/Day 1.785195 0.119405 14.95076
2-5 Km of destination-0.06584 0.109695 -0.60023
within 2km of destination
0.129516 0.147833 0.876096
Air conditioned 0.628662 0.087941 7.148716
In house kitchen 1.301585 0.105111 12.38293
In house fine dine restaurant
1.280359 0.105445 12.14244
P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
9.14E-11 0.979676 1.817133 0.979676 1.817133
7.95E-15 0.519098 0.862552 0.519098 0.862552
0.002044 0.149822 0.670285 0.149822 0.670285
1.22E-23 1.100859 1.619525 1.100859 1.619525
1.4E-45 1.55087 2.019521 1.55087 2.019521
0.548496 -0.28111 0.149429 -0.28111 0.149429
0.381197 -0.1606 0.41963 -0.1606 0.41963
1.74E-12 0.456083 0.80124 0.456083 0.80124
8.96E-33 1.09531 1.50786 1.09531 1.50786
1.17E-31 1.07343 1.487289 1.07343 1.487289
 Likelihood of trying our resort
Model Summary
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Ste -2 Log Cox & Nagelkerk
Step Chi-square df Sig.
p likelihood Snell R e R Square
Square 1 2.553 7 .923

1 36.526a .374 .522

This test tells about how well the data

- Rescaling cox and snell R square we get 0.374*4/3 = 0.498
fits the model. At 95% confidence

- The variation caused by price, safety, hygiene and food causes interval model is not significant. But
around 50% of variation in the decision to book the hotel or not. for this test not significant means

model is good.
 Classification Tablea

Observed Predicted

interested Percentage Correct

.00 1.00

Step 1 interested .00 11 4 73.3

1.00 3 28 90.3

Overall Percentage 84.8

Observed number of people not interested in booking our resort is 15. But out of 15 who are not interested

in our product, 4 will actually shift into booking our resort.

Also out of 31 who said that they would book our resort, 3 of them actually won’t book it.
 Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 1a price .933 .378 6.080 1 .014 2.542

hygiene -.161 .424 .144 1 .704 .851

food_facility .618 .405 2.323 1 .127 1.855

safety 1.033 .384 7.235 1 .007 2.809

Constant -5.017 2.213 5.140 1 .023 .007

Only Price and safety are significant here for 95% of Confidence interval.

One unit increase in likelihood to pay the price will increase customers’ preference to book our hotel by 2.542 times.

Also one unit increase in making the customers feel safe would increase likelihood of booking our hotel by 2.809 times .