Hypothesis 1

µ0 : There is no relation between choice of PPP model and average budget of single unit

µ1 : There is a relation between choice of PPP model and average budget of single unit

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

PPP_Model * budget 31 100.0% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%

PPP_Model * budget Crosstabulation

budget Total

< 30 lakh INR > 50 lakh INR 30 to 50 lakh

INR

Count 2 1 0 3
Change of Land Use
% within PPP_Model 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%
(CLU) of Agricultural
% within budget 25.0% 6.2% 0.0% 9.7%
Lands
% of Total 6.5% 3.2% 0.0% 9.7%

Count 0 1 2 3

Easy permission for high % within PPP_Model 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
end housing % within budget 0.0% 6.2% 28.6% 9.7%

% of Total 0.0% 3.2% 6.5% 9.7%

Count 3 4 2 9

Easy permission for % within PPP_Model 33.3% 44.4% 22.2% 100.0%

PPP_Model
private land utilization % within budget 37.5% 25.0% 28.6% 29.0%

% of Total 9.7% 12.9% 6.5% 29.0%

Count 2 4 0 6
Government land with
% within PPP_Model 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%
unlocking system for
% within budget 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 19.4%
developer
% of Total 6.5% 12.9% 0.0% 19.4%

Count 1 6 3 10

Redevelopment of % within PPP_Model 10.0% 60.0% 30.0% 100.0%

underutilized urban area % within budget 12.5% 37.5% 42.9% 32.3%

% of Total 3.2% 19.4% 9.7% 32.3%

Count 8 16 7 31

% within PPP_Model 25.8% 51.6% 22.6% 100.0%

Total
% within budget 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 25.8% 51.6% 22.6% 100.0%
 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 9.749a 8 .283

Likelihood Ratio 11.340 8 .183
N of Valid Cases 31

a. 14 cells (93.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .68.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Phi .561 .283

Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V .397 .283

Contingency Coefficient .489 .283

N of Valid Cases 31

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2

µ0 : There is no relation between number of projects undertaken by builders and percentage of

financial support preferred

µ1: There is a relation between number of projects undertaken by builders and percentage of
financial support preferred

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Project_No *
31 100.0% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%
financial_support

Project_No * financial_support Crosstabulation

financial_support Total

< 20% > 50% 20% to 50%

Count 5 5 10 20

% within Project_No 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 100.0%

.00
% within financial_support 100.0% 83.3% 50.0% 64.5%

% of Total 16.1% 16.1% 32.3% 64.5%

Count 0 1 8 9

% within Project_No 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% 100.0%

1.00
% within financial_support 0.0% 16.7% 40.0% 29.0%

% of Total 0.0% 3.2% 25.8% 29.0%

Project_No
Count 0 0 1 1

% within Project_No 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.00
% within financial_support 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 3.2%

% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2%

Count 0 0 1 1

% within Project_No 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.00
% within financial_support 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 3.2%

% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2%

Count 5 6 20 31

% within Project_No 16.1% 19.4% 64.5% 100.0%

Total
% within financial_support 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 16.1% 19.4% 64.5% 100.0%
 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 5.655a 6 .463

Likelihood Ratio 7.615 6 .268
N of Valid Cases 31

a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .16.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Phi .427 .463

Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V .302 .463

Contingency Coefficient .393 .463

N of Valid Cases 31

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3

µ0 : There is no relation between target customers and type of housing units

µ1: There is a relation between target customers and type of housing units

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Target_cstmr * Type_of_Unit 31 100.0% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%

Target_cstmr * Type_of_Unit Crosstabulation

Type_of_Unit Total

1 BHK 1 BHK, 2 2 BHK 2 BHK, 3 Other

BHK BHK Combinatio
n

Count 2 0 0 0 2 4

% within
Combination of 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Target_cstmr
Lower & Middle
% within
Income Groups 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 12.9%
Type_of_Unit

% of Total 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 12.9%

Count 0 0 0 0 1 1

Combination of % within
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Lower, Middle & Target_cstmr
Upper Income % within
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 3.2%
Groups Type_of_Unit

% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2%

Target_cst
Count 0 0 0 1 3 4
mr
% within
Combination of 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%
Target_cstmr
Middle & Upper
% within
Income Groups 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 18.8% 12.9%
Type_of_Unit

% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 9.7% 12.9%

Lower Income Group Count 1 1 0 0 0 2

(< 3.5 lakhs p.a. % within

50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
income), Target_cstmr
Combination of % within
16.7% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%
Lower & Middle Type_of_Unit
Income Groups % of Total 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%

Count 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lower Income Group % within
0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
(< 3.5 lakhs p.a. Target_cstmr
income), Middle % within
0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Income Group Type_of_Unit
(Between 3.5 lakhs &
% of Total 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
12 lakhs p.a. income)

Lower Income Group Count 0 0 1 0 0 1

(< 3.5 lakhs p.a. % within
0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
income), Middle Target_cstmr
Income Group % within
(Between 3.5 lakhs & Type_of_Unit 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%

12 lakhs p.a.
income),
Combination of % of Total 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Lower & Middle
Income Group

Count 3 0 2 0 7 12

% within
Middle Income Group 25.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 58.3% 100.0%
Target_cstmr
(Between 3.5 lakhs &
% within
12 lakhs p.a. income) 50.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 43.8% 38.7%
Type_of_Unit

% of Total 9.7% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 22.6% 38.7%

Middle Income Group Count 0 1 0 0 1 2

(Between 3.5 lakhs & % within
0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%
12 lakhs p.a. Target_cstmr
income), % within
Combination of 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 6.5%
Type_of_Unit
Lower & Middle
% of Total 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 6.5%
Income Groups

Middle Income Group Count 0 1 0 0 0 1

(Between 3.5 lakhs & % within
0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12 lakhs p.a. Target_cstmr
income), % within
Combination of 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Type_of_Unit
Lower & Middle
Income Groups,
Combination of % of Total 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Lower, Middle &
Upper Income

Middle Income Group Count 0 0 0 0 1 1

(Between 3.5 lakhs & % within
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12 lakhs p.a. Target_cstmr
 income), % within
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 3.2%
Combination of Type_of_Unit
Lower, Middle &
Upper Income % of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2%
Groups

Middle Income Group Count 0 0 0 0 1 1

(Between 3.5 lakhs & % within
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12 lakhs p.a. Target_cstmr
income), Upper % within
Income Group (> 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 3.2%
Type_of_Unit
lakhs p.a. income),
Combination of
% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2%
Middle & Upper
Income Groups

Upper Income Group Count 0 1 0 0 0 1

(> 12 lakhs p.a. % within

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
income), Target_cstmr
Combination of % within
0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Middle & Upper Type_of_Unit
Income Groups % of Total 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Count 6 5 3 1 16 31

% within
19.4% 16.1% 9.7% 3.2% 51.6% 100.0%
Target_cstmr
Total
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Type_of_Unit

% of Total 19.4% 16.1% 9.7% 3.2% 51.6% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 47.942a 44 .316

Likelihood Ratio 41.377 44 .585
N of Valid Cases 31

a. 59 cells (98.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .03.
 Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Phi 1.244 .316

Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V .622 .316

Contingency Coefficient .779 .316

N of Valid Cases 31

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4

µ0 : There is no relation between location and number of projects

µ1: There is a relation between location and number of projects

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Location * Project_No 31 100.0% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%

Location * Project_No Crosstabulation

Project_No Total

.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Inner city (Areas i.e. peth Count 1 0 0 0 1
around Shaniwarwada, % within Location 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Pune railway station, % within Project_No 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Swargate, Gultekadi,
Market Yard, Deccan,
% of Total 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Parvati, Sahkarnagar,
Vitthalwadi)

Inner city (Areas i.e. peth Count 1 0 0 0 1

around Shaniwarwada, % within Location 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Pune railway station, % within Project_No 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Swargate, Gultekadi,
Market Yard, Deccan,
Location
Parvati, Sahkarnagar,
Vitthalwadi), Middle region
(Salisbury Park,
Erandwane, Shivajinagar, % of Total 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Camp, Bibwewadi,
Lullanagar, Kondhwa,
Wanowrie, Koregaon Park,
Ghorpade, Hadapsar,
Dhankawdi, Vishrantwadi)

Inner city (Areas i.e. peth Count 1 0 0 0 1

around Shaniwarwada, % within Location 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Pune railway station, % within Project_No 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Swargate, Gultekadi,
Market Yard, Deccan,
Parvati, Sahkarnagar,
Vitthalwadi), Outer areas
(Balewadi, Aundh, Baner,
Pashan, Bavdhan, Warje,
Wadgaon Budruk, Dhayari,
Ambegaon, Katraj, Lower
% of Total 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
Kondhwa, Undri,
Mohammedwadi, Mundhwa,
Daund and Manjri,
Wadgaon Sheri, Chandan
Nagar and Kharadi, Wagholi
Dhanori, Pirangut and its
surroundings, Hinjawadi
and its surroundings,)

Middle region (Salisbury Count 4 1 0 0 5

Park, Erandwane, % within Location 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Shivajinagar, Camp, % within Project_No 20.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.1%
Bibwewadi, Lullanagar,
Kondhwa, Wanowrie,
Koregaon Park, Ghorpade, % of Total 12.9% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 16.1%
Hadapsar, Dhankawdi,
Vishrantwadi)

Middle region (Salisbury Count 3 2 0 1 6

Park, Erandwane, % within Location 50.0% 33.3% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

Shivajinagar, Camp, % within Project_No 15.0% 22.2% 0.0% 100.0% 19.4%
 Bibwewadi, Lullanagar,
Kondhwa, Wanowrie,
Koregaon Park, Ghorpade,
Hadapsar, Dhankawdi,
Vishrantwadi), Outer areas
(Balewadi, Aundh, Baner,
Pashan, Bavdhan, Warje,
Wadgaon Budruk, Dhayari,
Ambegaon, Katraj, Lower % of Total 9.7% 6.5% 0.0% 3.2% 19.4%
Kondhwa, Undri,
Mohammedwadi, Mundhwa,
Daund and Manjri,
Wadgaon Sheri, Chandan
Nagar and Kharadi, Wagholi
Dhanori, Pirangut and its
surroundings, Hinjawadi
and its surroundings,)

Outer areas (Balewadi, Count 10 6 1 0 17

Aundh, Baner, Pashan, % within Location 58.8% 35.3% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%
Bavdhan, Warje, Wadgaon % within Project_No 50.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 54.8%
Budruk, Dhayari,
Ambegaon, Katraj, Lower
Kondhwa, Undri,
Mohammedwadi, Mundhwa,
Daund and Manjri,
% of Total 32.3% 19.4% 3.2% 0.0% 54.8%
Wadgaon Sheri, Chandan
Nagar and Kharadi, Wagholi
Dhanori, Pirangut and its
surroundings, Hinjawadi
and its surroundings,)
Count 20 9 1 1 31

% within Location 64.5% 29.0% 3.2% 3.2% 100.0%

Total
% within Project_No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 64.5% 29.0% 3.2% 3.2% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 7.322a 15 .948

Likelihood Ratio 7.611 15 .938
N of Valid Cases 31
a. 23 cells (95.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .03.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Phi .486 .948

Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V .281 .948

Contingency Coefficient .437 .948

N of Valid Cases 31

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 5

µ0 : There is no relation between payback period and percentage of financial support

µ1: There is a relation between payback period and percentage of financial support

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Payback_period *
31 100.0% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%
financial_support

Payback_period * financial_support Crosstabulation

financial_support Total

< 20% > 50% 20% to 50%

Count 0 0 4 4

% within Payback_period 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

> 3 years
% within financial_support 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 12.9%

% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 12.9% 12.9%

Count 1 0 2 3

% within Payback_period 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0%

0 to 1 year
% within financial_support 20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 9.7%

% of Total 3.2% 0.0% 6.5% 9.7%

Payback_period
Count 2 0 7 9

% within Payback_period 22.2% 0.0% 77.8% 100.0%

1 to 3 years
% within financial_support 40.0% 0.0% 35.0% 29.0%

% of Total 6.5% 0.0% 22.6% 29.0%

Count 2 6 7 15

% within Payback_period 13.3% 40.0% 46.7% 100.0%

NA
% within financial_support 40.0% 100.0% 35.0% 48.4%

% of Total 6.5% 19.4% 22.6% 48.4%

Count 5 6 20 31

% within Payback_period 16.1% 19.4% 64.5% 100.0%

Total
% within financial_support 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 16.1% 19.4% 64.5% 100.0%

 Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 9.644a 6 .140

Likelihood Ratio 12.404 6 .054
N of Valid Cases 31

a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .48.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Phi .558 .140

Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V .394 .140

Contingency Coefficient .487 .140
N of Valid Cases 31

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.