IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i9p3863-d355838.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Transit Market: A Persona-Based Approach for Preferences Quantification

Author

Listed:
  • Gamal Eldeeb

    (Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S4L8, Canada)

  • Moataz Mohamed

    (Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S4L8, Canada)

Abstract

The study aims at utilizing a persona-based approach in understanding, and further quantifying, the preferences of the key transit market groups and estimating their willingness to pay (WTP) for service improvements. The study adopted an Error Component (EC) interaction choice model to investigate personas’ preferences in a bus service desired quality choice experiment. Seven personas were developed based on four primary characteristics: travel behaviour, employment status, geographical distribution, and Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC). The study utilized a dataset of 5238 participants elicited from the Hamilton Street Railway Public Engagement Survey, Ontario, Canada. The results show that all personas, albeit significantly different in magnitude, are negatively affected by longer journey times, higher trip fares, longer service headways, while positively affected by reducing the number of transfers per trip and real-time information provision. The WTP estimates show that, in general, potential users are more likely to have higher WTP values compared to current users except for at-stop real-time information provision. Also, there is no consensus within current users nor potential users on the WTP estimates for service improvements. Finally, shared and unique preferences for service attributes among personas were identified to help transit agencies tailor their marketing/improvement plans based on the targeted segments.

Suggested Citation

  • Gamal Eldeeb & Moataz Mohamed, 2020. "Understanding the Transit Market: A Persona-Based Approach for Preferences Quantification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3863-:d:355838
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3863/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/9/3863/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bellizzi, Maria Grazia & dell'Olio, Luigi & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2020. "Heterogeneity in desired bus service quality from users’ and potential users’ perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 365-377.
    2. Moataz Mahmoud & Julian Hine, 2013. "Using AHP to measure the perception gap between current and potential users of bus services," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 4-23, February.
    3. Abenoza, Roberto F. & Cats, Oded & Susilo, Yusak O., 2017. "Travel satisfaction with public transport: Determinants, user classes, regional disparities and their evolution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 64-84.
    4. Grisé, Emily & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2018. "Where is the happy transit rider? Evaluating satisfaction with regional rail service using a spatial segmentation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 84-96.
    5. Eboli, Laura & Forciniti, Carmen & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2018. "Spatial variation of the perceived transit service quality at rail stations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 67-83.
    6. dell'Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Angel & Cecin, Patricia, 2011. "The quality of service desired by public transport users," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 217-227, January.
    7. Mohamed, Moataz & Higgins, Chris & Ferguson, Mark & Kanaroglou, Pavlos, 2016. "Identifying and characterizing potential electric vehicle adopters in Canada: A two-stage modelling approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 100-112.
    8. Moataz Mahmoud & Julian Hine, 2016. "Measuring the influence of bus service quality on the perception of users," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 284-299, April.
    9. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    10. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    11. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    12. Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, G., 2008. "Willingness-to-pay of public transport users for improvement in service quality," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 38, pages 107-118.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2022. "Consumers oriented investments in transit service quality improvements: The best bang for your buck," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz & Páez, Antonio, 2021. "Built for active travel? Investigating the contextual effects of the built environment on transportation mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Eldeeb, Gamal & Sears, Sean & Mohamed, Moataz, 2023. "What do users want from transit? Qualitative analysis of current and potential users' perceptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Willem Haanstra & Alberto Martinetti & Jan Braaksma & Leo van Dongen, 2020. "Design of a Framework for Integrating Environmentally Sustainable Design Principles and Requirements in Train Modernization Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2020. "Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 119-133.
    6. Samira Dibaj & Aryan Hosseinzadeh & Miloš N. Mladenović & Robert Kluger, 2021. "Where Have Shared E-Scooters Taken Us So Far? A Review of Mobility Patterns, Usage Frequency, and Personas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2022. "Consumers oriented investments in transit service quality improvements: The best bang for your buck," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2020. "Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 119-133.
    3. Eldeeb, Gamal & Sears, Sean & Mohamed, Moataz, 2023. "What do users want from transit? Qualitative analysis of current and potential users' perceptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Luo, Shuli & He, Sylvia Y. & Grant-Muller, Susan & Song, Linqi, 2023. "Influential factors in customer satisfaction of transit services: Using crowdsourced data to capture the heterogeneity across individuals, space and time," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 173-183.
    6. Juan de Oña, 2022. "Service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions towards public transport from the point of view of private vehicle users," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 237-269, February.
    7. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    8. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    9. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel & Ullrich, Hannes, 2010. "Consumer welfare and unobserved heterogeneity in discrete choice models: The value of alpine road tunnels," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-095, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    11. Isler, Cassiano Augusto & Blumenfeld, Marcelo & Caldeira, Gabriel Pereira & Roberts, Clive, 2024. "Long-Distance railway mode choice in Brazil: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Luis A. Guzman & Victor A. Cantillo-Garcia & Julian Arellana & Olga L. Sarmiento, 2023. "User expectations and perceptions towards new public transport infrastructure: evaluating a cable car in Bogotá," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 751-771, June.
    13. Echaniz, Eneko & Ho, Chinh Q. & Rodriguez, Andres & dell'Olio, Luigi, 2019. "Comparing best-worst and ordered logit approaches for user satisfaction in transit services," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 752-769.
    14. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    15. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    16. Maria Grazia Bellizzi & Luigi dell’Olio & Laura Eboli & Carmen Forciniti & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2020. "Passengers’ Expectations on Airlines’ Services: Design of a Stated Preference Survey and Preliminary Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, June.
    17. Sharma, Deepa & Pandit, Debapratim, 2021. "Determining the level of service measures to evaluate service quality of fixed-route shared motorized para-transit services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 176-186.
    18. Juan Oña & Rocío Oña & Griselda López, 2016. "Transit service quality analysis using cluster analysis and decision trees: a step forward to personalized marketing in public transportation," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 725-747, September.
    19. Cordera, Rubén & Luigi dell’Olio, & Sipone, Silvia & Moura, José Luis, 2024. "Modeling airport choice for a multi-airport area using a random parameter logit model," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Gyeongjae Lee & Sujae Kim & Jahun Koo & Sangho Choo, 2024. "Exploring Psychological Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Public Transit Considering Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-23, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:9:p:3863-:d:355838. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.