Evolution of Satisfaction with Public Transport and Its Determinants in Sweden Identifying Priority Areas Oded Cats, Roberto F. Abenoza, Chengxi Liu, and Yusak O. Susilo Given the limited resources, it is essential to identify the main determinants of travel satisfaction with PT to prioritize the most effective measures and policies (5). This need has led to an increasing interest in recent years in systematically collecting and analyzing data on users’ satisfaction and defining standard indicators to measure them. For example, the European Union commissioned a survey, called the Eurobarometer, on satisfaction with urban transport and performed a cross-European comparison and support policy making (6). The comparison of satisfaction with service across countries or organizations can foster self-improvement through benchmarking against peer cities (7) or operators (8). Moreover, monitor users’ satisfaction became an industry standard and is commonly used as one of the incentives in tendered PT contracts. In addition to surveys, methods to monitor satisfaction include interviewing focus groups, sending mystery shoppers, and assembling user reviews. According to the gap analysis approach proposed in TCRP Report 47, satisfaction refers to the gap between expected and perceived service (9). This gap could, however, arise from other gaps, such as discrepancies between service quality specifications (e.g., dispatching regulation) and service delivery (e.g., actual circulation at terminals). Passengers’ satisfaction with PT services is expected to reflect fluctuations or systematic changes in the quality of the service delivered. Extreme negative events are expected to leave a lasting mark on how service is perceived (10). Furthermore, even the underlying determinants of service satisfaction may shift over time, presumably reflecting changes in passengers’ expectations. Measuring and analyzing satisfaction with PT are therefore essential for service performance monitoring, market analysis, benchmarking, and the identification of priority areas. This study analyzed survey results concerning satisfaction with PT service in Sweden in the years 2001 to 2013 and considered the following research questions: (a) What are the main determinants of PT satisfaction? (b) Do these determinants remain stable over time? and (c) How can service providers identify priority areas for improvement on the basis of passengers’ satisfaction data? To address these issues, this paper first provides a review on how travel satisfaction is conceptualized and measured and presents previous findings on its underlying determinants. The next section details the survey design and related analysis. The results of the analysis are then provided in the following section, including cross-correlations, factor analysis, and the estimation of multivariate service satisfaction models. The superposition of the findings culminates in a dynamic passenger satisfaction priority map. The paper concludes with suggestions for PT service providers and further research.
Measurement and analysis of satisfaction with public transport services facilitate service performance monitoring, market analysis, benchmarking, and the identification of priority areas. The systematic and regular collection of information concerning satisfaction enables investigation of how passengers’ satisfaction and its determinants change over time. These changes may be driven by changes in service quality or shifts in passengers’ expectations and preferences. This study analyzed how satisfaction with public transport and its determinants evolved over time in Sweden in the years 2001 to 2013. The determinants of satisfaction were identified by factor analysis and the estimation of multivariate satisfaction models. The superposition of these findings culminated in a dynamic passenger satisfaction priority map that allowed the identification of priority areas on the basis of observed trends in satisfaction with service attributes and their respective importance. The deterioration of overall satisfaction with public transport in Sweden in recent years has been driven by a decrease in satisfaction with customer interface and length of trip time. These two service aspects, as well as operation, were found to be key determinants of overall satisfaction that users consistently rated among the least satisfactory. The results of this study will support service providers in designing measures that will foster satisfaction in the future.
Improving public transport (PT) services and attracting more travelers to shift from car to PT is a key policy area in many countries across the globe. There is a large body of knowledge in the management and marketing sciences on the influence of service quality and satisfaction on reputation, customer loyalty, and ultimately future choices [see Zeithaml et al. (1) for relevant references]. Service quality is defined in TCRP Report 100 (2) as the ability to deliver service conforming to user expectations on a consistent basis. Service quality is defined in relation to the subjective evaluation made by service users. Lai and Chen demonstrated that satisfaction is a key determinant of future choices and loyalty also in the case of PT (3). Failing to understand the factors that underlie passenger satisfaction and how they interact with service performance and improvements may therefore hinder the design of policies and strategies to improve service quality and attract new passengers (4). O. Cats, Department of Transport and Planning, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, Netherlands. R. F. Abenoza, C. Liu, and Y. O. Susilo, Department of Transport Science, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Teknikringen 10, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. Corresponding author: O. Cats,
[email protected]. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2538, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 86–95. DOI: 10.3141/2538-10 86
Cats, Abenoza, Liu, and Susilo
Literature Review of Passenger Satisfaction and Its Determinants It is commonly postulated that providing a better PT service quality will lead to greater passengers’ overall satisfaction and subsequently to a higher likelihood of using PT service more frequently (11). However, previous studies suggest that an enhanced supply does not automatically lead to a corresponding increase in demand and satisfaction (12, 13). Chen defined satisfaction as an overall affective response to a perceived discrepancy between prior expectation and perceived performance after consumption (11). Satisfaction can be further defined as the degree to which one believes that an experience evokes positive feelings (14). In practice, service quality and satisfaction are often used interchangeably, because both are evaluation variables relating to consumers’ perceptions about a given product or service. From stakeholders’ and operators’ perspectives, the satisfaction of customers, or in other words the extent to which organizations meet their customers’ expectations, is an important indicator of an organization’s success and sustainability (8). This fact underlies the many efforts that have been made in the past decade to evaluate customer satisfaction with a clear focus on the quality of the service (9, 15) and identifying users’ priorities (16–19). Eboli and Mazzulla argue that considering passenger perceptions is fundamental because the customer’s point of view is very relevant for evaluating the performance of a transit service (20). At the same time, deploying a more objective measurement by the transit agency can be instrumental in acquiring a more comprehensive service quality assessment. A large number of aspects might be considered by PT authorities and operators when measuring passengers’ satisfaction, including comfort, value for money, punctuality, and so forth. Hensher et al. argue that although a passenger may perceive specific aspects of service quality as either positive or negative, it can be assumed that the overall level of passenger satisfaction is best measured by how an individual evaluates the total package of services offered (21). However, some of these aspects are expected to be more important than others. The importance attached to various quality-of-service attributes (QoSA) can be measured using stated preference surveys (which ask people how much they value a particular feature) and revealed preference studies (which evaluate the choices people actually make when facing trade-offs between various attributes). The subjective nature of perceived service quality implies that it is subject to contextual and cognitive biases. Measurements of service quality based on reported satisfaction levels are therefore dependent on users’ expectations, social norms, and retrieved situational awareness. It is therefore advisable to measure experienced utility instead of, or as a complement to, decision utility inferred from choices (22). Without this knowledge, nobody knows whether there is a systematic discrepancy between these notions and which of them resonates in users’ perceptions. Dell’Olio et al. found that bus users tend to be less critical toward variations in overall quality when stimulated into thinking more deeply about other influential variables (23). On the basis of an experiment in eight European cities, the METPEX project (measurement tool to determine the quality of a passenger experience) identified the key determinants of satisfaction on individual trip stages as well as the whole journey experience (24). They found that past experience and travelers’ expectations are key determinants of passenger experience, while travelers’ emotional state, attitudes, and opinions concerning travel safety and particular travel modes played significant roles in influencing the reported travel satisfaction. In contrast, sociodemographic variables and trip characteristics were not found to be significant determinants of the overall
87
level of satisfaction. Regarding PT service aspects, they concluded that the ease of transfer, station environment, service frequency, and travel time reliability are the key determinants of travel satisfaction. In addition, safety while waiting is an important determinant for women travelers. Different travelers using different travel modes have different needs and priorities, thus influencing their appreciation of satisfaction with various QoSA. Susilo and Cats found that service frequency and travel time reliability are important determinants of overall satisfaction for women and young travelers, while travel time reliability is also important for low-income or unemployed travelers (18). As this review illustrates, a significant body of literature studies passenger satisfaction in a cross-section manner. However, satisfaction and what makes one satisfied also evolve over time. For example, services that once were perceived as innovative or fashionable may later on be taken for granted by passengers, while new technologies would create a new demand, such as in the contemporary case of Internet access availability onboard (25, 26). Previous studies (27–29) found that satisfaction with daily travel in general differs significantly between urban areas of different scales and between socio demographic groups. Thus it is of utmost importance to understand how PT users’ satisfaction and its determinants evolve over time and derive its implications on priority areas for service providers.
Methodology and Survey Descriptions The Swedish Public Transport Association (Svensk Kollektivtrafik), a trade organization representing the regional PT agencies of the 21 Swedish counties, has been conducting a rolling survey since 2001 aimed at monitoring developments in the PT market. Respondents are interviewed on a regular basis year-round. The results of the survey are summarized annually into a Swedish Public Transport Barometer, which provides an overview of satisfaction and attitudes toward PT across Sweden (30). The analysis in this paper considers the data set as a time series from 2001 to 2013. The survey consists of four sections: 1. Service and quality. Overall satisfaction with PT and satisfaction with the following QoSA: • Customer interface (service provider’s responsiveness), • Freedom from crime (risk perception, security), • General information (ease of getting information on departures), • Information on planned changes (with respect to routes and schedules), • Information on unplanned services (with respect to delays), • Length of trip time (speed, directness), • Network (the suitability of PT lines to passenger’s needs), • Onboard conditions (cleanliness, vehicle design), • Operations (service frequency and reliability), • Ride comfort (seat availability and comfort), • Staff and assistance (drivers’ and other staff friendliness), and • Ticket accessibility (ease of purchasing tickets); 2. Brand. Perceptions and attitudes toward PT and competing modes; 3. Individual attributes. Sociodemographic variables and travel habits; and 4. Market share. Frequency of using various travel modes. In Sections 1 and 2, respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with statements referring to satisfaction or perceptions
88
Transportation Research Record 2538
and related perceptions vary not only between PT authorities but also as a function of the urban agglomeration (6). A series of statistical analyses was performed in this study. First, a descriptive analysis of survey results was performed to detect the main trends in passengers’ satisfaction and their evolution. Second, bivariate analyses of overall satisfaction as well as correlations between variables were performed. A factor analysis was performed to group the QoSA into coherent clusters. Third, a multivariate regression analysis was carried out of overall satisfaction as a function of individual attributes, trip attributes, and satisfaction with various aspects. Fourth, on the basis of the importance of each service aspect and the respective level of satisfaction, priority maps were constructed. A temporal analysis facilitates not only benchmarking between service providers but also the consideration of their trajectories. The statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS 22.0 and a tailored script written in MATLAB.
on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For example, one of the statements reads, “It feels safe to travel by public transport” and thus the Likert scale corresponds to a scale ranging from very dissatisfied (1), rather dissatisfied (2), neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (3), fairly satisfied (4), or very satisfied (5). Likert scales are ordinal variables that are commonly treated as continuous variables to perform parametric statistical analysis. However, it is acknowledged that special caution is required when interpreting the results (25). A phone survey is performed using a cluster sampling technique. Sample size increases over the years from 13,000 in 2001 to above 50,000 respondents for 2010 onward and is not limited to PT users. The total number of respondents interviewed between 2001 and 2013 is 515,044, which is about 40,000 respondents on average each year, of which 405,340 respondents were retained in the analysis after removing respondents that reported that they never use PT, since this study is concerned with the determinants of satisfaction with PT services. The survey includes questions concerning general satisfaction with public transport for the entire analysis period, while questions concerning satisfaction with the latest trip were added to the survey only in 2011. To enable the analysis of temporal variations, only general satisfaction is considered in this study. To correct for any potential geographical distortion between the survey sample and the population, proportional weights were assigned on the basis of the year-specific ratios between both the county and urban area size in the survey versus the population. Although the representation of most counties corresponds reasonably well to their respective share of the population, some counties, such as the three metropolitan areas, are underrepresented for most of the years while others are overrepresented. This issue is especially relevant in the case of Sweden, a country that encompasses subarctic to continental climates with highly independent local governance. Urban areas (in Swedish: Tätort) were also controlled for because PT services
0%
10%
Gender
20%
Analysis and Results Descriptive Analysis The distribution of key sociodemographic characteristics and mobility patterns of the weighted survey sample are presented in Figure 1. An inspection of the summary statistics indicates that the sample composition is relatively stable over time. It is evident that the sample represents diverse age and occupational groups dominated by workers (63%), followed by retired or permanent sick leave (18%) and students (13%). Seven out of 10 respondents live in a county that is at least twice more populated than the Swedish average (21.5 inhabitants per km2). Notwithstanding, more than half of the respondents live in urban
30%
40%
50%
Male
Age group (years)
15–24
35–44
45–54
Density population (inhabitants/km2)
---Average importance 0.073 (yearly QoSA models)-->------------->Highest priority
0.16
FIGURE 4 Passenger satisfaction priority map.
of the most important determinants of overall satisfaction. Operation and length of travel time are other areas of priority. These three QoSA constitute the functional factor. Length of travel time is also gaining greater importance over time while maintaining an average relative satisfaction. There are two QoSA in the second quadrant: freedom from crime, where the operator should maintain the good job, and staff and assistance. Passengers are also very satisfied with the less important QoSA of general information, ride comfort, onboard conditions, and ticket accessibility, although the latter two gradually slide in the direction of the fourth quadrant. Travel information on planned and unplanned changes is an area for improvement but with lower priority.
Conclusion Using a time series data from the Swedish Public Transport Barometer that was regularly collected from 2001 to 2013, this study analyzed how users’ satisfaction with PT service and its underlying determinants evolve over time. The analysis approach used in this study could be used as a market analysis tool to assess PT priority areas. Moreover, the analysis of the trajectories of different PT systems or their subdivisions (by city or mode) can provide insights on whether policy measures lead to improved satisfaction with QoSA. Overall satisfaction with PT in Sweden follows a negative trend in recent years (2010 to 2013) driven by a decrease in users’ satisfaction with most QoSA and, in particular, a decrease in satisfaction
with customer interface and length of trip time, which are among the most important determinants of overall satisfaction. Moreover, customer interface, operation, and, to a lesser extent, length of trip time were found to be the key determinants of overall satisfaction that users consistently rate among the least satisfactory. Therefore, these service aspects should be prioritized by transit agencies and operators in Sweden. This prioritization implies taking measures to identify and improve areas of poor service accessibility and reliability or areas where PT became less attractive compared with private car, such as employment and shopping centers on the urban fringe. In contrast, the deterioration of satisfaction with customer interface is related to the reputation of the PT agency and could be addressed by improving both internal (mechanisms to handle passengers’ complaints) and external communication (media, marketing). Maintaining a sense of security is also crucial because it is an important determinant of overall satisfaction and an area that PT users in Sweden are generally satisfied with, even though it shows a slight negative trend since 2010. Other areas of dissatisfaction, although with lower importance, include information on planned and unplanned changes as well as the sloping satisfaction with ticket accessibility. These service aspects have attracted considerable media attention in recent years. In line with the results reported by previous studies [e.g., Páez and Whalen (31)], passengers with longer commuting distances tend to be less satisfied, while more frequent users and pensioners are on average more satisfied. The results of this study are therefore instrumental in supporting regional PT providers and authorities, such as county councils and municipalities, in
Cats, Abenoza, Liu, and Susilo
providing a service that better suits their communities’ needs and design investments that will foster satisfaction in the future. This study is enabled by a time series data set. The systematic and regular collection of information concerning satisfaction with PT service is becoming an industry standard. It is important to maintain a consistent set of questions to facilitate the analysis of long-term trends. The analysis of seasonal variations could also shed light on the impact of changes in demand levels and climate on travel satisfaction. Furthermore, an analysis of the panel data could help determine whether the overall change in QoSA is driven by a systematic change in individual perceptions. For example, it could be determined whether greater importance is attached to a quality-of-service attribute with which an individual is less satisfied or to variations in PT user groups, as well as nonusers (32, 33). Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Svensk Kollektivtrafik for providing the data that enabled this study and, in particular, to Anna Enström Järleborg. The authors also thank Anja Tikkanen Weiszflog of Ipsos for providing clarifications on the survey sampling techniques. References 1. Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. The Behavioural Consequences of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 2, 1996, pp. 31–46. 2. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 3. Lai, W. T., and C. F. Chen. Behavioral Intentions of Public Transit Passengers—The Roles of Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Involvement. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2011, pp. 318–325. 4. Nathanail, E. Measuring the Quality of Service for Passengers on the Hellenic Railways. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 42, 2007, pp. 48–66. 5. TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 6: The Role of Performance-Based Measures in Allotting Funding for Transit Operations. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994. 6. Directorate-General Mobility and Transport, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2014. 7. BEST—Benchmarking in European Service of Public Transport. European Metropolitan Transport Authorities, 2009. 8. Trompet, M., R. Parasram, and R. J. Anderson. Benchmarking Dis aggregate Customer Satisfaction Scores of Bus Operators in Different Cities and Countries. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2351, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 14–22. 9. TCRP Report 47: A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999. 10. Olsson, L. E., M. Friman, J. Pareigis, and B. Edvardsson. Measuring Service Experience: Applying the Satisfaction with Travel Scale in Public Transport. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19, 2012, pp. 413–418. 11. Chen, C. F. Investigating Structural Relationships Between Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions for Air Passengers: Evidence from Taiwan. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 42, 2008, pp. 709–717. 12. Mackett, R. L., and M. Edwards. The Impact of New Public Transport Systems: Will the Expectations Be Met? Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 32, 1998, pp. 231–245. 13. Fujii, S., and R. Kitamura. What Does a One-Month Free Bus Ticket Do to Habitual Drivers? An Experimental Analysis of Habit and Attitude Change. Transportation, Vol. 30, 2003, pp. 81–95.
95
14. Rust, R. T., and R. L. Oliver. Service Quality: Insights and Managerial Implication from the Frontier. Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (R. T. Rust and R. L. Oliver, eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1994, pp. 1–19. 15. European Norm EN 13816:2002: Transportation—Logistics and Services—Public Passenger Transport Service Quality Definition, Targeting and Measuring. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2002. 16. Stradling, S., J. Anable, and M. Carreno. Performance, Importance and User Disgruntlement: A Six-Step Method for Measuring Satisfaction with Travel Modes. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, 2007, pp. 98–106. 17. Jakobsson-Bergstad, C., A. Gamble, O. Hagman, M. Polk, T. Gärling, and L. E. Olsson. Affective-Symbolic and Instrumental-Independence Psychological Motives Mediating Effects of Socio-Demographic Variables on Daily Car Use. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, 2011, pp. 33–38. 18. Susilo, Y. O. and O. Cats. Exploring Key Determinants of Travel Satisfaction for Multi-Modal Trips by Different Travellers’ Groups. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 67, 2014, pp. 366–380. 19. Castillo, J. M. D., and F. G. Benitez. Determining a Public Transport Satisfaction Index from User Surveys. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2013, pp. 713–741. 20. Eboli, L., and G. Mazzulla. A Methodology for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Based on Subjective and Objective Measures from the Passenger’s Point of View. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, 2011, pp. 172–181. 21. Hensher, D. A., P. Stopher, and P. Bullock. Service Quality—Developing a Service Quality Index in the Provision of Commercial Bus Contracts. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2003, pp. 499–517. 22. Carse, A. Assessment of Transport Quality of Life as an Alternative Transport Appraisal Technique. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 19, 2011, pp. 1037–1045. 23. Dell’Olio, L., A. Ibeas, and P. Cecin. Modelling User Perception of Bus Transit Quality. Transport Policy, Vol. 17, 2010, pp. 388–397. 24. Woodcock, A., N. Berkeley, O. Cats, Y. Susilo, G. R. Hrin, O. O’Reilly, I. Markucevicˇiute, and T. Pimentel. Measuring Quality Across the Whole Journey. In Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors (S. Sharples and S. Shorrock, eds.), Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, United Kingdom, 2014, pp. 316–323. 25. Diana, M. Making the “Primary Utility of Travel” Concept Operational: A Measurement Model for the Assessment of the Intrinsic Utility of Reported Trips. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008, pp. 455–474. 26. Susilo, Y. O., G. Lyons, J. Jain, and S. Atkins. Rail Passengers’ Time Use and Journey Satisfaction: 2010 Findings from Great Britain with Multivariate Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2323, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 99–109. 27. Tyrinopoulos, Y., and C. Antoniou. Public Transit User Satisfaction: Variability and Policy Implications. Transport Policy, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2008, pp. 260–272. 28. Friman, M., S. Fujii, D. Ettema, T. Gärling, and L. E. Olsson. Psychometric Analysis of the Satisfaction with Travel Scale. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 48, 2013, pp. 132–145. 29. Diana, M. Measuring the Satisfaction of Multimodal Travelers for Local Transit Services in Different Urban Contexts. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2012, pp. 1–11. 30. SKT—Swedish Public Transport Association Annual Public Transport Barometer for 2013 (in Swedish). 31. Páez, A., and K. Whalen. Enjoyment of Commute: A Comparison of Different Modes. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 44, 2010, pp. 537–549. 32. Krizek, K. J., and A. El-Geneidy. Segmenting Preferences and Habits of Transit Users and Non-Users. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2007, pp. 71–94. 33. Carreira, R., L. Patricio, R. N. Jorge, C. Magee, and Q. V. E. Hommes. Towards a Holistic Approach to the Travel Experience: A Qualitative Study of Bus Transportation. Transport Policy, Vol. 25, 2013, pp. 233–243. The Standing Committee on Public Transportation Marketing and Fare Policy peer-reviewed this paper.
