{"id":25282,"date":"2026-03-28T23:05:30","date_gmt":"2026-03-28T17:35:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=25282"},"modified":"2026-03-28T23:05:30","modified_gmt":"2026-03-28T17:35:30","slug":"preferences-of-people-towards-popular-cities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=25282","title":{"rendered":"Preferences of people towards popular Cities"},"content":{"rendered":"

Title :<\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u201cPreferences of People Towards Popular Cities.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Author:<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Varun Naresh\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Kairamkonda<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

People\u2019s preferences towards popular cities are influenced by various social, economic, cultural, and infrastructural factors. In India, metropolitan and historically important cities like Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Lucknow attract people for different reasons such as employment opportunities, education, lifestyle, safety, cost of living, and cultural environment. Each city has its own unique characteristics, which shape the perceptions and preferences of people when choosing a place to live, work, study, or invest.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Objective: To study preference of people towards popular cities.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Literature Review:\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0<\/span>Sharma and Verma (2022) examined the factors influencing people\u2019s preferences for major Indian cities, focusing on employment opportunities, cost of living, infrastructure, and quality of life. The study found that Mumbai is highly preferred due to its strong economic base and job availability, particularly in finance and entertainment sectors. Hyderabad was identified as an emerging preference among young professionals due to its expanding IT industry and relatively affordable living conditions. Kolkata attracted individuals seeking cultural richness and lower expenses, while Lucknow was preferred for its peaceful environment and growing urban infrastructure. The study concluded that career opportunities and affordability are the most significant determinants of city preference.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0<\/span>Kumar and Singh (2021) analysed how demographic, economic, and social factors affect residential choices in Indian cities. Their research highlighted that metropolitan cities like Mumbai and Hyderabad are primarily chosen for higher income potential and better career growth. However, the study also noted that increasing living costs and congestion in Mumbai reduce its attractiveness over time. In contrast, cities like Kolkata and Lucknow were preferred for their affordability, cultural stability, and improved quality of life. The\u00a0<\/span><\/span>authors emphasized that personal priorities such as family needs, safety, and lifestyle significantly influence the final decision of city selection.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

Data Collection:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The data for Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Lucknow was collected through a structured questionnaire from 25 respondents. The respondents were asked to rate the Cities on a scale of 0\u201310 based on their preference. The ratings given by respondents were compiled in Microsoft Excel. The ratings of Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Lucknow were taken as four different groups and ANOVA: Single Factor method was applied to analyse the differences among the\u00a0<\/span><\/span>cities<\/span><\/span>\u00a0ratings.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Data Analysis:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Anova: Single Factor<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

SUMMARY<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

Count<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

Sum<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

Average<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

Variance<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

mumbai<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

25<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

221<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

8.84<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

2.39<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

hyderabad<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

25<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

198<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

7.92<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

3.49333<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

kolkata<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

25<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

122<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

4.88<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

14.1933<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

lucknow<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

25<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

157<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

6.28<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

9.46<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

ANOVA<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

Source of Variation<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

SS<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

df<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

MS<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

F<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

P-value<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

F crit<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

Between Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

231.08<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

77.0267<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

10.4313<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

5.28E-06<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

2.69939<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

Within Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

708.88<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

96<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

7.38417<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

939.96<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

99<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The one-way ANOVA results indicate that there are statistically significant differences among the mean values of the four groups\u2014Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Lucknow. Specifically, Mumbai has the highest mean (8.84) with relatively low variance (2.39), followed by Hyderabad (mean = 7.92, variance = 3.49), Lucknow (mean = 6.28, variance = 9.46), and\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Kolkata, which has the lowest mean (4.88) and the highest variability (variance = 14.19). The between-group variability (SS = 231.08,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>df<\/span><\/span>\u00a0= 3, MS = 77.03) is substantially larger than the within-group variability (SS = 708.88,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>df<\/span><\/span>\u00a0= 96, MS = 7.38), resulting in an F-statistic of 10.43. Since this F-value exceeds the critical value of 2.70 and the p-value (5.28 \u00d7 10\u207b\u2076) is far below the 0.05 significance level, the null hypothesis of equal means is rejected. This implies that at least one group mean differs significantly from the others, although further post hoc analysis would be required to identify the specific group differences.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion :<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Consumers can prefer Mumbai as it has significant difference in the preference ratings.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

References:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0<\/span>Sharma, R., & Verma, S. (2022).\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Urban migration and city preference in India: A comparative study of metropolitan cities<\/span><\/span>. Journal of Urban Studies, 45(3), 210\u2013225.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0<\/span>Kumar, A., & Singh, P. (2021).\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Determinants of residential choice in Indian cities: An analysis of tier-1 and tier-2 urban\u00a0<\/span><\/span>centers<\/span><\/span>. International Journal of Social Economics, 38(4), 145\u2013160.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Title :\u00a0\u201cPreferences of People Towards Popular Cities.\u201d Author:\u00a0Varun Naresh\u00a0Kairamkonda Introduction: People\u2019s preferences towards popular cities are influenced by various social, economic, cultural, and infrastructural factors. In India, metropolitan and historically important cities like Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Lucknow attract people for different reasons such as employment opportunities, education, lifestyle, safety, cost of living, and cultural… Continue reading Preferences of people towards popular Cities<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":140203,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/140203"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=25282"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25283,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25282\/revisions\/25283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=25282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=25282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}