IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transp/v37y2014i8p695-710.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the heterogeneity of bus users' preferences through discrete choice modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Eboli
  • Gabriella Mazzulla

Abstract

In this paper we investigate differences in bus passengers' perceptions about transit service quality through the calibration of different discrete choice logit models (multinomial, mixed and latent class models) in which users' heterogeneity is introduced. The application of these different approaches to the same experimental context is proposed, highlighting the findings emerging from the analysis. The importance of investigating passengers' perceptions can help transit operators and transportation planners prepare better investment plans; therefore, to adopt tools able to take into account the heterogeneity among users is very important for obtaining as reliable as possible service quality measures. We find that there are observed and unobserved groups of users who perceive service quality differently, and that there is heterogeneity among users in perceiving certain bus service characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:transp:v:37:y:2014:i:8:p:695-710
    DOI: 10.1080/03081060.2014.959353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03081060.2014.959353
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03081060.2014.959353?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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Beirão, Gabriela & Sarsfield Cabral, J.A., 2007. "Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 478-489, November.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    10. Fosgerau, Mogens, 2006. "Investigating the distribution of the value of travel time savings," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 688-707, September.
    11. Tyrinopoulos, Yannis & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2008. "Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 260-272, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    14. Fabian Bastin & Cinzia Cirillo & Philippe L. Toint, 2010. "Estimating Nonparametric Random Utility Models with an Application to the Value of Time in Heterogeneous Populations," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 537-549, November.
    15. Hess, Stephane & Bierlaire, Michel & Polak, John W., 2005. "Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 221-236.
    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. 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.
    2. Xuemei Fu & Zhicai Juan, 2017. "Drivers of transit service loyalty considering heterogeneity between user segments," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 611-623, July.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Shreya Das & Debapratim Pandit, 2013. "Importance of user perception in evaluating level of service for bus transit for a developing country like India: a review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 402-420, July.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Junyi Shen & Yusuke Sakata & Yoshizo Hashimoto, 2006. "A Comparison between Latent Class Model and Mixed Logit Model for Transport Mode Choice: Evidences from Two Datasets of Japan," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 06-05, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Rico Krueger & Akshay Vij & Taha H. Rashidi, 2018. "A Dirichlet Process Mixture Model of Discrete Choice," Papers 1801.06296, arXiv.org.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Puteri Paramita & Zuduo Zheng & Md Mazharul Haque & Simon Washington & Paul Hyland, 2018. "User satisfaction with train fares: A comparative analysis in five Australian cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-26, June.
    19. Md Rokibul Islam & Md Hadiuzzaman & Rajib Banik & Md Mehedi Hasnat & Sarder Rafee Musabbir & Sanjana Hossain, 2016. "Bus service quality prediction and attribute ranking: a neural network approach," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 295-313, September.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:transp:v:37:y:2014:i:8:p:695-710. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GTPT20 .

    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.