IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v47y2020i6d10.1007_s11116-019-09996-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling user satisfaction in public transport systems considering missing information

Author

Listed:
  • Eneko Echaniz

    (University of Cantabria)

  • Chinh Ho

    (The University of Sydney Business School)

  • Andres Rodriguez

    (University of Cantabria)

  • Luigi dell’Olio

    (University of Cantabria)

Abstract

Collecting data to obtain insights into customer satisfaction with public transport services is very time-consuming and costly. Many factors such as service frequency, reliability and comfort during the trip have been found important drivers of customer satisfaction. Consequently, customer satisfaction surveys are quite lengthy, resulting in many interviews not being completed within the aboard time of the passengers/respondents. This paper questions as to whether it is possible to reduce the amount of information collected without a compromise on insights. To address this research question, we conduct a comparative analysis of different Ordered Probit models: one with a full list of attributes versus one with partial set of attributes. For the latter, missing information was imputed using three different methods that are based on modes, single imputations using predictive models and multiple imputation. Estimation results show that the partial model using the multiple imputation method behaves in a similar way to the model that is based on the full survey. This finding opens an opportunity to reduce interview time which is critical for most customer satisfaction surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Eneko Echaniz & Chinh Ho & Andres Rodriguez & Luigi dell’Olio, 2020. "Modelling user satisfaction in public transport systems considering missing information," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 2903-2921, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s11116-019-09996-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-019-09996-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-019-09996-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-019-09996-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Jaap P.L. Brand & Stef van Buuren & Karin Groothuis‐Oudshoorn & Edzard S. Gelsema, 2003. "A toolkit in SAS for the evaluation of multiple imputation methods," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 57(1), pages 36-45, February.
    3. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Hernandez, Sara & Monzon, Andres & de Oña, Rocío, 2016. "Urban transport interchanges: A methodology for evaluating perceived quality," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 31-43.
    7. Rahman, Farzana & Das, Tanmay & Hadiuzzaman, Md & Hossain, Sanjana, 2016. "Perceived service quality of paratransit in developing countries: A structural equation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 23-38.
    8. 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.
    9. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    10. Horton N. J. & Lipsitz S. R., 2001. "Multiple Imputation in Practice: Comparison of Software Packages for Regression Models With Missing Variables," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 244-254, August.
    11. Guirao, Begoña & García-Pastor, Antonio & López-Lambas, María Eugenia, 2016. "The importance of service quality attributes in public transportation: Narrowing the gap between scientific research and practitioners' needs," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 68-77.
    12. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    13. 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.
    14. Marta Rojo & Luigi dell'Olio & Hernán Gonzalo-Orden & Ángel Ibeas, 2013. "Interurban bus service quality from the users' viewpoint," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(7), pages 599-616, October.
    15. Fellesson, Markus & Friman, Margareta, 2008. "Perceived Satisfaction with Public Transport Service in Nine European Cities," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 47(3).
    16. Tyrinopoulos, Yannis & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2008. "Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 260-272, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Echaniz, Eneko & dell’Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Ángel, 2018. "Modelling perceived quality for urban public transport systems using weighted variables and random parameters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 31-39.
    19. Machado-León, José Luis & de Oña, Rocío & Baouni, Tahar & de Oña, Juan, 2017. "Railway transit services in Algiers: priority improvement actions based on users perceptions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 175-185.
    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. Nadav Shalit & Michael Fire & Eran Ben-Elia, 2023. "A supervised machine learning model for imputing missing boarding stops in smart card data," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 287-319, June.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Echaniz, Eneko & dell’Olio, Luigi & Ibeas, Ángel, 2018. "Modelling perceived quality for urban public transport systems using weighted variables and random parameters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 31-39.
    4. Rubén Cordera & Soledad Nogués & Esther González-González & Luigi dell’Olio, 2019. "Intra-Urban Spatial Disparities in User Satisfaction with Public Transport Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-22, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Mandhani, Jyoti & Nayak, Jogendra Kumar & Parida, Manoranjan, 2020. "Interrelationships among service quality factors of Metro Rail Transit System: An integrated Bayesian networks and PLS-SEM approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 320-336.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Weiya Chen & Zixuan Kang & Xiaoping Fang & Jiajia Li, 2020. "Design a Semantic Scale for Passenger Perceived Quality Surveys of Urban Rail Transit: Within Attribute’s Service Condition and Rider’s Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Jomnonkwao, Sajjakaj & Ratanavaraha, Vatanavongs, 2016. "Measurement modelling of the perceived service quality of a sightseeing bus service: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 240-252.
    12. Efthymiou, Dimitrios & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2017. "Understanding the effects of economic crisis on public transport users’ satisfaction and demand," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 89-97.
    13. 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.
    14. Chee, Pei Nen Esther & Susilo, Yusak O. & Wong, Yiik Diew, 2020. "Determinants of intention-to-use first-/last-mile automated bus service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 350-375.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Ittamalla, Rajesh & Srinivas Kumar, Daruri Venkata, 2021. "Determinants of holistic passenger experience in public transportation: Scale development and validation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s11116-019-09996-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.