IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/retrec/v83y2020ics0739885920301530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The perception of service quality among paratransit users in Metro Manila using structural equations modelling (SEM) approach

Author

Listed:
  • Tiglao, Noriel Christopher C.
  • De Veyra, Janna M.
  • Tolentino, Niki Jon Y.
  • Tacderas, Mark Angelo Y.

Abstract

Paratransit, in this paper, refers to the informal modes operating in the urban transport system of Metro Manila with the dominance of public utility jeepneys. In the context of Asian developing countries, paratransit are generally presented as public transport services that do not fit with the idea of a modern urban public transport system but they also serve as flexible public transport modes in response to inadequate mass transit system. There is plenty of scope for improving such paratransit services in Metro Manila but strategies should be informed by a thorough understanding of the needs of public transport users from a service quality perspective. Moreover, there is a need for urgent reforms in view of declining share of public transport and the drastic increase in private car use, as well as, the increasing social cost of traffic congestion. A pilot public transport service quality survey was conducted at the University of the Philippines campus. Using exploratory factor analysis and structural equations modelling, the perception of service quality was analyzed based on seven (7) factors, namely, vehicle condition, customer care, reliability, stop's condition, information, convenience, and availability.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:83:y:2020:i:c:s0739885920301530
    DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885920301530
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100955?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. Jaime Allen & Laura Eboli & Gabriella Mazzulla & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2020. "Effect of critical incidents on public transport satisfaction and loyalty: an Ordinal Probit SEM-MIMIC approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 827-863, April.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. Guillen, Marie Danielle & Ishida, Haruo & Okamoto, Naohisa, 2013. "Is the use of informal public transport modes in developing countries habitual? An empirical study in Davao City, Philippines," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 31-42.
    8. Sunio, Varsolo & Gaspay, Sandy & Guillen, Marie Danielle & Mariano, Patricia & Mora, Regina, 2019. "Analysis of the public transport modernization via system reconfiguration: The ongoing case in the Philippines," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-19.
    9. 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.
    10. Tri Joewono & Hisashi Kubota, 2007. "User satisfaction with paratransit in competition with motorization in indonesia: anticipation of future implications," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 337-354, May.
    11. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    12. 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.
    13. Cervero, Robert & Golub, Aaron, 2007. "Informal transport: A global perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 445-457, November.
    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. Bi, Hui & Ye, Zhirui & Hu, Liyang & Zhu, He, 2021. "Why they don't choose bus service? Understanding special online car-hailing behavior near bus stops," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 280-297.
    2. Atsushi Iimi, 2023. "Estimating the demand for informal public transport: evidence from Antananarivo, Madagascar," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 129-168, March.
    3. Bansal, Prateek & Gadepalli, Ravi & AitBihiOuali, Laila, 2023. "Eliciting mobility preferences of Indians for E-rickshaws: Evidence from Gurugram," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 19-30.
    4. Chuenyindee, Thanatorn & Ong, Ardvin Kester S. & Ramos, Jon Pauline & Prasetyo, Yogi Tri & Nadlifatin, Reny & Kurata, Yoshiki B. & Sittiwatethanasiri, Thaninrat, 2022. "Public utility vehicle service quality and customer satisfaction in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Sun, Shichao & Xu, Lingyu & Yao, Yukun & Duan, Zhengyu, 2021. "Investigating the determinants to retain spurious-loyalty passengers: A data-fusion based approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 70-83.
    7. Andrey Sergeevich Mikhaylov & Ivan Sergeevich Gumenuk & Anna Alekseevna Mikhaylova, 2016. "Russian public transport system: the customers’ feedback on the service provision," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 125-141, March.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Ojeda Diaz, Alfredo J. & Cantillo, Víctor & Arellana, Julián, 2023. "Understanding how individuals perceive changes in the built environment and the transport system after implementing a BRT system. The case of Barranquilla, Colombia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    17. Díez-Mesa, Francisco & de Oña, Rocio & de Oña, Juan, 2018. "Bayesian networks and structural equation modelling to develop service quality models: Metro of Seville case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-13.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public transport; Paratransit; Service quality; Exploratory factor analysis (EFA); Structural equations modelling (SEM);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C38 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Classification Methdos; Cluster Analysis; Principal Components; Factor Analysis
    • C19 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Other
    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General

    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:eee:retrec:v:83:y:2020:i:c:s0739885920301530. 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.