IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v139y2020icp119-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model

Author

Listed:
  • Eldeeb, Gamal
  • Mohamed, Moataz

Abstract

This study aims at quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality to better-informing service quality improvements. The analysis is performed using a validated dataset elicited from 906 respondents through an online survey. An unlabelled Stated Preference (SP) experiment was utilized in a Latent class Choice Model (LCM), and an Error Components interaction model. The results of the EC interaction model revealed preference heterogeneity due to differences in respondents’ socioeconomic and behavioural characteristics. While the results of the LCM untapped vital information that has not been reported previously in the transit service quality literature. Unlike the traditional user type classification, our study classifies respondents into three segments: Direct Trip Enthusiastic (DTE), Cost-Sensitive (CS), and Real-time Information Supporter (RIS). Each segment exhibits different preferences for transit service attributes, and their willingness to pay for service improvements is distinctly different. Further, the LCM indicates that the heterogeneity of users’ preferences is not explicit in their usage pattern nor accessibility to different travel modes; instead, it is a bundle of various parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:139:y:2020:i:c:p:119-133
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856420306492
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.006?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. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    2. Fu, Xue-mei & Zhang, Jiang-hua & Chan, Felix T.S., 2018. "Determinants of loyalty to public transit: A model integrating Satisfaction-Loyalty Theory and Expectation-Confirmation Theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 476-490.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Mazzulla, Gabriella & Eboli, Laura, 2006. "A service quality experimental measure for public transport," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 34, pages 42-53.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Mahmood Mahmoodi Nesheli & Avishai (Avi) Ceder & Robin Brissaud, 2017. "Public transport service-quality elements based on real-time operational tactics," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 957-975, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    14. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    15. 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.
    16. Li, Linbo & Bai, Yufang & Song, Ziqi & Chen, Anthony & Wu, Bing, 2018. "Public transportation competitiveness analysis based on current passenger loyalty," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 213-226.
    17. Lai, Wen-Tai & Chen, Ching-Fu, 2011. "Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers--The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 318-325, March.
    18. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    19. David Hensher & William Greene, 2010. "Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 413-426, October.
    20. Chakrabarti, Sandip, 2017. "How can public transit get people out of their cars? An analysis of transit mode choice for commute trips in Los Angeles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 80-89.
    21. Susilo, Yusak O. & Cats, Oded, 2014. "Exploring key determinants of travel satisfaction for multi-modal trips by different traveler groups," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 366-380.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2013. "Environmental attitudes and emissions charging: An example of policy implications for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    29. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    30. Allen, Jaime & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2018. "Modelling service-specific and global transit satisfaction under travel and user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 509-528.
    31. Shen, Weiwei & Xiao, Weizhou & Wang, Xin, 2016. "Passenger satisfaction evaluation model for Urban rail transit: A structural equation modeling based on partial least squares," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 20-31.
    32. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    33. Tyrinopoulos, Yannis & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2008. "Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 260-272, July.
    34. 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.
    35. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    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. Wenliang Zhou & Ziyu Zou & Naijie Chai & Guangming Xu, 2023. "Optimization of Differential Pricing and Seat Allocation in High-Speed Railways for Multi-Class Demands: A Chinese Case Study," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Obregón-Biosca, Saúl A., 2022. "Choice of transport in urban and periurban zones in metropolitan area," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Yuan Yuan & Chunfu Shao & Zhichao Cao & Chaoying Yin, 2023. "The Effect of Travel-Chain Complexity on Public Transport Travel Intention: A Mixed-Selection Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Jaewoong Yun, 2023. "Strategies for Improving the Sustainability of Fare-Free Policy for the Elderly through Preferences by Travel Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Rafiq, Rezwana & McNally, Michael G., 2021. "Heterogeneity in Activity-travel Patterns of Public Transit Users: An Application of Latent Class Analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 1-18.
    6. Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2022. "Quantifying the consumer’s dependence on different information sources on acceptance of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 179-203.
    7. 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).
    8. 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).
    9. 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).
    10. 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).
    11. Chakrabarti, Sandip, 2022. "Passively wait for gridlock, or proactively invest in service? Strategies to promote car-to-transit switches among aspirational urbanites in rapidly developing contexts," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 251-261.
    12. Jia, Wenjian & Chen, T. Donna, 2023. "Investigating heterogeneous preferences for plug-in electric vehicles: Policy implications from different choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Jaiswal, Deepak & Deshmukh, Arun Kumar & Thaichon, Park, 2022. "Who will adopt electric vehicles? Segmenting and exemplifying potential buyer heterogeneity and forthcoming research," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    14. Lunke, Erik B. & Fearnley, N. & Aarhaug, J., 2021. "Public transport competitiveness vs. the car: Impact of relative journey time and service attributes," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    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 & 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Ingvardson, Jesper Bláfoss & Nielsen, Otto Anker, 2019. "The relationship between norms, satisfaction and public transport use: A comparison across six European cities using structural equation modelling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 37-57.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Park, Keunhyun & Farb, Anna & Chen, Shuolei, 2021. "First-/last-mile experience matters: The influence of the built environment on satisfaction and loyalty among public transit riders," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 32-42.
    11. de Oña, Juan, 2020. "The role of involvement with public transport in the relationship between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 296-318.
    12. 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).
    13. Ni, Anning & Zhang, Chunqin & Hu, Yuting & Lu, Weite & Li, Hongwei, 2020. "Influence mechanism of the corporate image on passenger satisfaction with public transport in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 54-65.
    14. Abenoza, Roberto F. & Ettema, Dick F. & Susilo, Yusak O., 2018. "Do accessibility, vulnerability, opportunity, and travel characteristics have uniform impacts on the traveler’s experience?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PA), pages 38-51.
    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. 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.
    17. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2018. "Individual-specific point and interval conditional estimates of latent class logit parameters," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 50-61.
    19. Karzan Ismael & Szabolcs Duleba, 2021. "Investigation of the Relationship between the Perceived Public Transport Service Quality and Satisfaction: A PLS-SEM Technique," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    20. de Oña, Juan, 2021. "Understanding the mediator role of satisfaction in public transport: A cross-country analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 129-149.

    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:eee:transa:v:139:y:2020:i:c:p:119-133. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.