IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i13p5318-d378877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weighted Variables Using Best-Worst Scaling in Ordered Logit Models for Public Transit Satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • Iván Manuel Mendoza-Arango

    (Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Av. Te 950 Alcaldía Iztacalco Col. Granjas Mexico, CDMX 08400, Mexico)

  • Eneko Echaniz

    (Sustainable Mobility and Railways Engineering (SUM+LAB), Department of Transportation, University of Cantabria, Av. de Los Castros 44, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain)

  • Luigi dell’Olio

    (Sustainable Mobility and Railways Engineering (SUM+LAB), Department of Transportation, University of Cantabria, Av. de Los Castros 44, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain)

  • Eduardo Gutiérrez-González

    (Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Av. Te 950 Alcaldía Iztacalco Col. Granjas Mexico, CDMX 08400, Mexico)

Abstract

Customer overall satisfaction regarding a public transport system is dependent on the satisfaction of the users with the attributes that make up the service, as well as the contribution that each of these attributes makes to explain the overall satisfaction. A common way of analysing the contribution of service attributes to explain overall satisfaction is through the use of ordered logit or probit models. This article presents an ordered logit model that considers the weighting of independent variables through the explicit importance calculated on the basis of a best-worst case 1 choice task. For the calculation of importance, a multinomial logit model has been estimated which considers the heterogeneity of the sample through systematic variations in user tastes. In this way, it is possible to establish a level of importance of each specific attribute for each type of user. The results show that the importance varies considerably depending on different socio-economic and mobility-base variables. On the other hand, the inclusion of the weighted variables in the ordered logit model improves its fit. Therefore, the results make possible to develop policies focused on improving satisfaction on specific user targets.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5318-:d:378877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5318/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5318/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David A. Hensher & Paola Prioni, 2002. "A Service Quality Index for Area-wide Contract Performance Assessment," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 36(1), pages 93-113, January.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Nathanail, Eftihia, 2008. "Measuring the quality of service for passengers on the hellenic railways," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 48-66, January.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Mouwen, Arnoud, 2015. "Drivers of customer satisfaction with public transport services," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-20.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Amirali Soltanpour & Mahmoud Mesbah & Meeghat Habibian, 2020. "Customer satisfaction in urban rail: a study on transferability of structural equation models," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 123-146, March.
    13. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    14. David Hensher & Corinne Mulley & Norhayati Yahya, 2010. "Passenger experience with quality-enhanced bus service: the tyne and wear ‘superoute’ services," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 239-256, March.
    15. Rico Krueger & Akshay Vij & Taha H. Rashidi, 2018. "Normative beliefs and modality styles: a latent class and latent variable model of travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 789-825, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2018. "User satisfaction with taxi and limousine services in the Melbourne metropolitan area," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 234-245.
    18. Mokonyama, Mathetha & Venter, Christoffel, 2013. "Incorporation of customer satisfaction in public transport contracts – A preliminary analysis," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 58-66.
    19. 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.
    20. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521142373.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    26. Ho, Chinh Q. & Hensher, David A., 2017. "Application of irrelevance of state-wise dominated alternatives (ISDA) for identifying candidate processing strategies and behavioural choice rules adopted in best–worst stated preference studies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 40-49.
    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. Dariusz Tłoczyński & Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz & Sebastian Susmarski, 2022. "Analysis of Sustainable Transport Systems in Service of Selected SEA-EU Consortium Countries’ Airports—A Pilot Case Study of Passenger Choices for Gdańsk Airport," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-21, January.

    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 & 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Allen, Jaime & Bellizzi, Maria Grazia & Eboli, Laura & Forciniti, Carmen & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2020. "Service quality in a mid-sized air terminal: A SEM-MIMIC ordinal probit accounting for travel, sociodemographic, and user-type heterogeneity," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Sun, Fan & Jin, Minjie & Zhang, Tao & Huang, Wencheng, 2022. "Satisfaction differences in bus traveling among low-income individuals before and after COVID-19," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 311-332.
    13. Amirali Soltanpour & Mahmoud Mesbah & Meeghat Habibian, 2020. "Customer satisfaction in urban rail: a study on transferability of structural equation models," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 123-146, March.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. de Oña, Juan & de Oña, Rocío & Eboli, Laura & Mazzulla, Gabriella, 2016. "Index numbers for monitoring transit service quality," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 18-30.
    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. Carreira, Rui & Patrício, Lia & Natal Jorge, Renato & Magee, Chris, 2014. "Understanding the travel experience and its impact on attitudes, emotions and loyalty towards the transportation provider–A quantitative study with mid-distance bus trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 35-46.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5318-:d:378877. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.