IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11950-d1209824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the Impacts of Urban–Rural Bus Service Quality on Rural Residents’ Travel Choices Using an SEM–MNL Integration Model

Author

Listed:
  • Hongjun Cui

    (School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China)

  • Mingzhi Li

    (School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China)

  • Minqing Zhu

    (School of Architecture and Art Design, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China)

  • Xinwei Ma

    (School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China)

Abstract

The high-quality development of urban–rural buses is an important way to narrow the gap between urban and rural areas. However, studies on the quality of bus services and its impact on bus travel-mode choice have mostly focused on urban buses, with less attention paid to urban–rural buses. This paper aims to explore how urban–rural bus service quality affects rural residents’ travel-mode-choice behavior based on survey data from rural residents in Henan Province, China. A structural equation model (SEM) is applied to examine the critical factors affecting rural residents’ satisfaction with urban–rural bus service quality and the heterogeneity of satisfaction among rural residents with different attributes. Furthermore, an integrated approach of SEM and the multinomial logit (MNL) model is proposed to identify the key factors that affect rural residents’ bus travel-mode choice. The results indicate that reliability and convenience are the key factors affecting satisfaction with urban–rural bus service quality. There are significant differences in rural residents’ satisfaction by gender, age, income, education level, occupation, and travel-mode attributes. Urban–rural bus service quality has a significant positive impact on rural residents’ bus travel-choice behavior, and its degree of influence is greater than all explicit variables except private car ownership. The findings of this study can help operators and governments formulate policies to improve the service quality of urban–rural buses and ultimately promote the use of buses.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongjun Cui & Mingzhi Li & Minqing Zhu & Xinwei Ma, 2023. "Investigating the Impacts of Urban–Rural Bus Service Quality on Rural Residents’ Travel Choices Using an SEM–MNL Integration Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11950-:d:1209824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11950/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11950/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mattson, Jeremy & Hough, Jill & Varma, Amiy, 2018. "Estimating demand for rural intercity bus services," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-75.
    2. Hassan, Mohammad Nurul & Hawas, Yaser E. & Ahmed, Kamran, 2013. "A multi-dimensional framework for evaluating the transit service performance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-61.
    3. Ao, Yibin & Zhang, Yuting & Wang, Yan & Chen, Yunfeng & Yang, Linchuan, 2020. "Influences of rural built environment on travel mode choice of rural residents: The case of rural Sichuan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Echaniz, Eneko & Cordera, Rubén & Rodriguez, Andrés & Nogués, Soledad & Coppola, Pierlugi & dell’Olio, Luigi, 2022. "Spatial and temporal variation of user satisfaction in public transport systems," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 88-97.
    5. Xuemei Fu & Zhicai Juan, 2017. "Understanding public transit use behavior: integration of the theory of planned behavior and the customer satisfaction theory," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1021-1042, September.
    6. Lois, David & Monzón, Andrés & Hernández, Sara, 2018. "Analysis of satisfaction factors at urban transport interchanges: Measuring travellers’ attitudes to information, security and waiting," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 49-56.
    7. Allen, Jaime & Eboli, Laura & Forciniti, Carmen & Mazzulla, Gabriella & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2019. "The role of critical incidents and involvement in transit satisfaction and loyalty," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 57-69.
    8. Goldberger, Arthur S, 1972. "Structural Equation Methods in the Social Sciences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(6), pages 979-1001, November.
    9. dell'Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Angel & Cecín, Patricia, 2010. "Modelling user perception of bus transit quality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 388-397, November.
    10. Jian Chen & Shoujie Li, 2017. "Mode Choice Model for Public Transport with Categorized Latent Variables," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-11, August.
    11. Yang Si & Hongzhi Guan & Yuchao Cui, 2019. "Research on the Choice Behavior of Taxis and Express Services Based on the SEM-Logit Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    13. Qin, Huanmei & Gao, Jianqiang & Zhang, Guohui & Chen, Yanyan & Wu, Songhua, 2017. "Nested logit model formation to analyze airport parking behavior based on stated preference survey studies," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 164-175.
    14. Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2008. "A Stated Preference Experiment for Measuring Service Quality in Public Transport," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(5), pages 509-523, February.
    15. Hensher, David A. & Stopher, Peter & Bullock, Philip, 2003. "Service quality--developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 499-517, July.
    16. Singh, Shivendu Shekhar & Sarkar, Basudatta, 2022. "Transport accessibility and affordability as the determinant of non-motorized commuting in rural India," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 101-111.
    17. Yan Han & Wanying Li & Shanshan Wei & Tiantian Zhang, 2018. "Research on Passenger’s Travel Mode Choice Behavior Waiting at Bus Station Based on SEM-Logit Integration Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    18. Ao, Yibin & Yang, Dujuan & Chen, Chuan & Wang, Yan, 2019. "Exploring the effects of the rural built environment on household car ownership after controlling for preference and attitude: Evidence from Sichuan, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 24-36.
    19. Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2011. "A methodology for evaluating transit service quality based on subjective and objective measures from the passenger's point of view," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 172-181, January.
    20. de Oña, Juan & de Oña, Rocío & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2013. "Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A structural equation approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 219-226.
    21. Huang, Yuqiao & Gao, Linjie & Ni, Anning & Liu, Xiaoning, 2021. "Analysis of travel mode choice and trip chain pattern relationships based on multi-day GPS data: A case study in Shanghai, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    22. Yan Wang & Yibin Ao & Yuting Zhang & Yan Liu & Lei Zhao & Yunfeng Chen, 2019. "Impact of the Built Environment and Bicycling Psychological Factors on the Acceptable Bicycling Distance of Rural Residents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-19, August.
    23. Zhang, Wenwen & Wang, Kaidi, 2020. "Parking futures: Shared automated vehicles and parking demand reduction trajectories in Atlanta," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    24. Aichun Jiang & Qian Zhong & Yan Wang & Yibin Ao & Chuan Chen, 2021. "Influencing Factors of Commercial Energy Consumption Intention of Rural Residents: Evidence from Rural Chengdu," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
    25. Chauhan, Vivek & Gupta, Akshay & Parida, Manoranjan, 2021. "Demystifying service quality of Multimodal Transportation Hub (MMTH) through measuring users’ satisfaction of public transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 47-60.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rong, Rui & Liu, Lishan & Jia, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng, 2022. "Impact analysis of actual traveling performance on bus passenger’s perception and satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 80-100.
    2. Juan de Oña & Rocio de Oña, 2015. "Quality of Service in Public Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction Surveys: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Approaches," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 605-622, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Tiglao, Noriel Christopher C. & De Veyra, Janna M. & Tolentino, Niki Jon Y. & Tacderas, Mark Angelo Y., 2020. "The perception of service quality among paratransit users in Metro Manila using structural equations modelling (SEM) approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    5. Aydin, Nezir & Celik, Erkan & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2015. "A hierarchical customer satisfaction framework for evaluating rail transit systems of Istanbul," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 61-81.
    6. Aydin, Nezir, 2017. "A fuzzy-based multi-dimensional and multi-period service quality evaluation outline for rail transit systems," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 87-98.
    7. Chauhan, Vivek & Gupta, Akshay & Parida, Manoranjan, 2021. "Demystifying service quality of Multimodal Transportation Hub (MMTH) through measuring users’ satisfaction of public transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 47-60.
    8. Yuning Wang & Zhe Zhang & Mengyuan Zhu & Hexian Wang, 2020. "The Impact of Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction on Reuse Intention in Urban Rail Transit in Tianjin, China," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, January.
    9. Zhang, Chunqin & Liu, Yong & Lu, Weite & Xiao, Guangnian, 2019. "Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: Evidence from Chinese public transport service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 149-164.
    10. Celik, Erkan & Aydin, Nezir & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2014. "A multiattribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 283-293.
    11. Wan, Dan & Kamga, Camille & Liu, Jun & Sugiura, Aaron & Beaton, Eric B., 2016. "Rider perception of a “light” Bus Rapid Transit system - The New York City Select Bus Service," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 41-55.
    12. Ganji, S.S. & Ahangar, A.N. & Awasthi, Anjali & Jamshidi Bandari, Smaneh, 2021. "Psychological analysis of intercity bus passenger satisfaction using Q methodology," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 345-363.
    13. Yanan Gao & Soora Rasouli & Harry Timmermans & Yuanqing Wang, 2020. "Prevalence of alternative processing rules in the formation of daily travel satisfaction in the context multi-trip, multi-stage, multi-attribute travel experiences," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1199-1221, June.
    14. Grisé, Emily & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2017. "Evaluating the relationship between socially (dis)advantaged neighbourhoods and customer satisfaction of bus service in London, U.K," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 166-175.
    15. 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.
    16. Risdiyanto Risdiyanto & Ahmad Munawar & Muhammad Zudhy Irawan & Miftahul Fauziah & Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, 2022. "Why Do Students Choose Buses over Private Motorcycles and Motorcycle-Based Ride-Sourcing? A Hybrid Choice Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    17. Nkurunziza, Alphonse & Zuidgeest, Mark & Brussel, Mark & Van den Bosch, Frans, 2012. "Spatial variation of transit service quality preferences in Dar-es-Salaam," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 12-21.
    18. Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla, 2014. "Investigating the heterogeneity of bus users' preferences through discrete choice modelling," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 695-710, December.
    19. Iván Manuel Mendoza-Arango & Eneko Echaniz & Luigi dell’Olio & Eduardo Gutiérrez-González, 2020. "Weighted Variables Using Best-Worst Scaling in Ordered Logit Models for Public Transit Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-20, July.
    20. Alonso, Borja & Barreda, Rosa & dell’Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Angel, 2018. "Modelling user perception of taxi service quality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 157-164.

    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:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11950-:d:1209824. 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.