IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/retrec/v109y2025ics0739885925000022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An importance-performance analysis of public transport to the university campus based on best-worst scaling

Author

Listed:
  • Matas-Monroy, Javier Hernán
  • Martín, Juan Carlos
  • Román, Concepción

Abstract

University campuses represent important transport attraction poles in cities due to the large number of students, faculty and administrative staff who commute to the campus daily. The campus location can significantly increase traffic around the area, especially during the class entry and exit times. Therefore, public transport systems are essential to facilitate access to the university campus worldwide, especially for students. This study aims to evaluate the level of importance and satisfaction with factors that affect public transport use among university students. In this context, a best-worst scaling experimental design is used to carry out an important performance analysis (IPA) of public transport services to university campuses in Gran Canaria by estimating a Mixed Logit model. Thus, it will be possible to determine what attributes should be prioritised when implementing policies for improving these services. The results showed that public transport managers and university authorities should primarily focus on providing direct services and improving punctuality and bus frequency. Our results also provide valuable insights into the search for the best policies that match students’ transport mobility preferences with the service provision.

Suggested Citation

  • Matas-Monroy, Javier Hernán & Martín, Juan Carlos & Román, Concepción, 2025. "An importance-performance analysis of public transport to the university campus based on best-worst scaling," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:109:y:2025:i:c:s0739885925000022
    DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2025.101519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885925000022
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.retrec.2025.101519?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. Mohring, Herbert, 1972. "Optimization and Scale Economies in Urban Bus Transportation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 591-604, September.
    2. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    3. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M., 2016. "The best of times and the worst of times: A new best–worst measure of attitudes toward public transport experiences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 108-123.
    4. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    5. Sanko, Nobuhiro, 2020. "Activity-end access/egress modal choices between stations and campuses located on a hillside," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Aleksandra Romanowska & Romanika Okraszewska & Kazimierz Jamroz, 2019. "A Study of Transport Behaviour of Academic Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Allen, Jaime & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Rosell, Jordi, 2019. "Effect of a major network reform on bus transit satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 310-333.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Mulley, Corinne & Clifton, Geoffrey Tilden & Balbontin, Camila & Ma, Liang, 2017. "Information for travelling: Awareness and usage of the various sources of information available to public transport users in NSW," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 111-132.
    11. Brown, Jeffrey & Hess, Daniel Baldwin & Shoup, Donald, 2003. "Fare-Free Public Transit at Universities: An Evaluation," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3rt6d1hz, University of California Transportation Center.
    12. dell’Olio, Luigi & Cordera, Ruben & Ibeas, Angel & Barreda, Rosa & Alonso, Borja & Moura, Jose Luis, 2019. "A methodology based on parking policy to promote sustainable mobility in college campuses," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 148-156.
    13. T.N. Flynn & A.A.J. Marley, 2014. "Best-worst scaling: theory and methods," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8, pages 178-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Rotaris, Lucia & Danielis, Romeo, 2015. "Commuting to college: The effectiveness and social efficiency of transportation demand management policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 158-168.
    15. William Jen & Rungting Tu & Tim Lu, 2011. "Managing passenger behavioral intention: an integrated framework for service quality, satisfaction, perceived value, and switching barriers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 321-342, March.
    16. Rotaris, Lucia & Danielis, Romeo & Maltese, Ila, 2019. "Carsharing use by college students: The case of Milan and Rome," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 239-251.
    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.
    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. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    2. Soekhai, V. & Donkers, B. & Levitan, B. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2021. "Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    4. 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.
    5. Mokonyama, Mathetha & Venter, Christo, 2018. "How worthwhile is it to maximise customer satisfaction in public transport service contracts with a large captive user base? The case of South Africa," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 180-186.
    6. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    7. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    8. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    9. Geržinič, Nejc & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Cats, Oded & Lancsar, Emily & Chorus, Caspar, 2021. "Estimating decision rule differences between ‘best’ and ‘worst’ choices in a sequential best worst discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    11. Perolia, Daniel R. & Collart, Alba J. & Yehouenou, Lauriane, 2016. "Consumer Preferences for Delacata Catfish: A Choice Experiment with Tasting," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    13. Sasanka Adikari & Norou Diawara, 2024. "Utility in Time Description in Priority Best–Worst Discrete Choice Models: An Empirical Evaluation Using Flynn’s Data," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    15. Davis, Katrina J & Burton, Michael & Kragt, Marit E, 2016. "Discrete choice models: scale heterogeneity and why it matters," Working Papers 235373, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Yuan, Yali & Yang, Xiaobao & Zhang, Junyi & Song, Dongdong & Yue, Xianfei, 2024. "Adaptive behavior of intercity travelers within urban agglomeration in response to adverse weather: Accounting for multilayer unobserved heterogeneity," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 141-158.
    17. 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.
    18. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Wang, Yacan & Geng, Kexin & May, Anthony D. & Zhou, Huiyu, 2022. "The impact of traffic demand management policy mix on commuter travel choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 74-87.
    20. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.

    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:retrec:v:109:y:2025:i:c:s0739885925000022. 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/620614/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.