Jurnal
Perilaku Konsumen dan Review Jurnal II
Tema : Perilaku
Konsumen
Service Supply and Customer
Satisfaction in Public Transportation:
The Quality Paradox
Margareta Friman and Markus Fellesson
Karlstad University, Sweden
Abstract
Satisfaction
measures obtained from citizens are frequently used in performancebased
contracts
due to their presumed link with company performance. However,
few
studies have actually examined the link between traveler satisfaction measures
and
objective performance measures in public transport. This research analyzes
the
relationship between the objective performance measures of public transport
services
and the satisfaction perceived by travelers. Data were collected in six
different
European
cities. Three objective service performance measures were obtained for
each
city from the UITP Millennium Database. Three subjective satisfaction attribute
measures
were obtained from Benchmarking in European Service of Public Transport
(BEST
2001), answered by 6,021 respondents in total. In addition to subjective
attribute
measures,
overall satisfaction was also used as a subjective measure. Several
correlational
analyses show that the relationship between satisfaction and service
performance
in public transport is far from perfect.
Introduction
In
many countries, major investments are being made in public transport systems
to
make them more competitive vis-à-vis other means of transport, most notably
private
cars. New services are being developed and old ones are being improved.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009
58
However,
an increase in supply (qualitatively or quantitatively) will not automatically
lead
to a corresponding increase in demand and satisfaction (cf. Fujii
and
Kitamura 2003, Mackett and Edwards 1998). To make sure that investment
really
attracts both the existing and the potential customers envisaged, knowledge
of
satisfaction and service performance should provide policymakers and
operational
managers
in public transport with valuable information (Nathanail 2007).
The
underlying assumption is that there is a direct link between the actual service
and
the customer’s perception of it. To increase public transport use, the service
should
be designed and performed in a way that accommodates the levels of
service
required by customers (Beirão and Sarsfield Cabral 2007). However, the
validity
of this assumption has not been proven in previous research.
There
is some knowledge of how customers perceive public transport. In the
literature,
aspects
such as reliability, frequency, travel time and fare level (Hensher et al.
2003,
Tyrinopoulos and Aifadopoulou 2008), comfort and cleanliness (Eboli and
Mazzulla
2007, Swanson et al. 1997), network coverage/distance to stop (Eriksson
et al.
2009, Tyrinopoulos and Antoniou 2008), and safety issues (Smith and
Clarke
2000, Fellesson and Friman 2008) are all known to be important factors in
customer
evaluations of public transport service quality. In addition, Friman and
Gärling
(2001) underscore the importance of clear and simple transport information.
To
meet potential and present customers’ requirements, quality investments that
really
raise the perceived service performance regarding these attributes constitute
an
important issue (Richter et al. 2008a, 2008b). However, in the literature,
quality
and quality investments are often ambiguously defined, making it difficult
to
examine the impact of the objective conditions of the transport system on
customer
satisfaction. Further, Friman’s (2004) results indicate that quality
investments
generally
do not generate greater satisfaction. In her study, the respondents
judged
satisfaction even lower, or unchanged, after the quality initiative. Thus, the
question
of how the objective conditions of the transport system relate to subjective
satisfaction
remains.
Surprisingly,
few studies have so far analyzed this relationship. In the product
development
literature, some models have been developed that attempt to link
perceived
quality dimensions to specific product attributes (Hauser and Clausing
1988,
Nagamachi 1995). However, these models are confined to the design of new
and
discrete products. Services that are dependent on already-existing, complex
systems
of infrastructure and organizational arrangements are likely to require a
59
Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public
Transportation
different
logic (cf. de Brentani 1995, 2001). One motive for such studies is that they
would
provide a valuable basis for strategic and tactical decisions about how to
develop
and utilize public transport systems. The aim of this study is to investigate
whether
or not more public transport results in more satisfied citizens. By more,
we
mean any increase in the objective service supply, for instance, an increase in
the
number of bus departures, a new metro line, or new vehicles. The objective
is to
fill the identified knowledge gap by analyzing the objective supply of public
transport
and its relationship with the satisfaction levels reported by travelers.
Method
The
sample used in this study was obtained from Benchmarking
in European Service
of
Public Transport (BEST 2001), where citizen satisfaction
with public transport
has
been measured by means of an annual survey. BEST started in 1999 with
the
aim of promoting mutual learning and development among the transport
authorities
in the major European cities participating in the project (for more
information,
see http://BEST2005.net/).
The selected sample is the survey conducted
in six
European cities during 2001, consisting of people between ages 16
and 96
years. Satisfaction data were selected from the 2001 survey to correspond
to
obtained measures of service performance retrieved from the UITP Millennium
Database
(Vivier 2006). UITP, the international association of public transport, is a
global
organization with the aim of promoting public transport in all of its forms.
The
Mobility in Cities Database project consisted of gathering and analyzing urban
mobility
indicators in 52 cities worldwide for the year 2001.
It is
important to have several measures describing service performance on an
aggregated
level (cf. Transportation Research Board 2003). Norheim (2006) uses
number
of departures, the chance of finding a seat, and travel times to characterize
the
objective service performance of public transport. In the UITP database,
these
three measures correspond to Vehicle km/inhabitant, Total PT place km/
inhabitant,
and Average PT Speed. All three measures were used in the subsequent
data
analyses.
Procedure
The
satisfaction data were collected by means of a telephone survey. The
respondents
were
selected at random and telephoned between 5 and 9 p.m. They were
informed
about the purpose of the survey—to obtain information about various
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009
60
aspects
of citizen satisfaction with public transportation—and were then asked
to
participate in a telephone interview. Those who declined to participate in the
survey
were asked why they had chosen not to participate; the most common
reason
given was that they did not use public transportation and thus did not
want
to participate. The respondents who did not answer were called again up to
six
more times to obtain as high a level of participation as possible. Data
collection
was
terminated when the interviewers had reached and collected data from 1,000
respondents
in each city.
Data
were collected by local survey institutes in each city. These local institutes
were
responsible for translating the questionnaire into the local language. The
questionnaire
also has been back translated (i.e., verified by a translation agency).
The
local public transport authorities were given the opportunity to go through
the
questionnaire to confirm that its content was suitable for each respective
region.
The
Mobility in Cities Database includes demographics, economics, urban structure,
private
vehicle stock and usage, taxis, road networks, parking, public transport
networks,
individual mobility and modal choice, the cost of transport to the
community,
energy consumption, air pollution, and accidents (Vivier 2006). In
total,
120 raw indicators were collected from the sample’s 52 cities. All data were
provided
by staff from member organizations of the UITP. Quality control was
ensured
by provision of a UITP handbook, designed to ensure consistency and
uniformity
in the data collection process across all cities.
Questionnaire
The
questions asked concerned the respondents’ opinions about public transport
services.
The respondents stated whether they agreed or disagreed with different
statements
about public transport attributes. Altogether, 17 attributes were
rated.
Three satisfaction attribute measures were used in this study, plus one measure
of
overall satisfaction. The three attributes correspond to the items identified
and
used by Norheim (2006). Although there are several other possible measures,
these
three captures central aspects of the public transport experience (e.g., Eboli
and
Mazzulla 2007, Fellesson and Friman 2008, Hensher et al. 2003, Tyrinopoulos
and
Aifadopoulou 2008). All ratings used the following scale: (1) don’t agree at
all,
(2)
hardly agree, (3) neutral, (4) partially agree, and (5) fully agree. The
respondents
also
answered some background questions.
61
Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public
Transportation
Results
Sample Description
The
total sample of 6,021 respondents obtained from six European cities (Stockholm,
Oslo,
Helsinki, Copenhagen, Barcelona, and Vienna) had a gender breakdown
of 42
percent male and 58 percent female. The mean age was 47.2 years (SD
= 18.0
years). A total of 52 percent of the respondents were working full time, 9
percent
were working part time, 9 percent were students, 24 percent were retired,
and 6
percent were occupied with other things. A total of 2,276 respondents (38
%)
reported that they were daily users of public transport, with 1,670 (28 %)
being
weekly
users, 1,091 (18 %) being monthly users, and 972 (16 %) using public transport
either
seldom or never.
Satisfaction with Public Transport
The
satisfaction measures presented in Table 1 show that there are differences in
overall
satisfaction (p<.005).
The citizens of Vienna are the most satisfied, and the
citizens
of Oslo are the least satisfied overall with public transport.
Table
1. Means and Standard Deviations Overall and
Attribute
Satisfaction Measures
Stockholm Oslo Helsinki Copenhagen Barcelona Vienna
Variable M Sd M
Sd M Sd M Sd M Sd M Sd
Overall
3.61 0.86 3.18 0.98 3.96 0.66 3.49 0.94 3.81 0.78 4.00 7.79
satisfaction
Frequency
3.44 1.19 3.18 1.43 3.78 1.14 3.36 1.37 3.62 1.39 3.69 1.26
Seat
3.72 1.01 3.49 1.29 3.95 0.99 3.55 1.22 3.15 1.38 3.95 1.07
Travel
time 3.71 1.04 3.33 1.37 3.91 0.96 3.42 1.27 4.07 1.15 4.01 1.11
Below,
each individual attribute has been analyzed in relation to UITP objective
data.
Frequency versus Vehicle km/inhabitant
Vehicle
km per inhabitant portrays the relative size of the public transport service
offering
as an aggregate measure of frequency and coverage. The objective service
frequencies
presented in Figure 1 show that Stockholm has the highest and Barcelona
the
lowest route production in 2001 of the six included cities.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009
62
Figure
1. Vehicle km/inhabitant
Bivariate
correlate analyses were performed to establish possible relationships
between
the objective and subjective data. First, the relationship between vehicle
km per
inhabitant and overall satisfaction was analyzed. This relationship was
found
to be insignificant. Second, an analysis was performed on the relationship
between
vehicle km per inhabitant and the satisfaction attribute measure “I’m
satisfied
with the number of departures.” This result was also found to be insignificant.
Seat versus Total PT Place km/inhabitant
Travel
time is perceived to be longer when travelers have to stand as opposed to
being
seated (Litman 2008). This implies that total PT place km/ inhabitant is an
important
factor. Figure 2 shows that Stockholm has the highest and Barcelona
the
lowest total PT place km/inhabitant in 2001 of the included cities.
Arguably,
place km/inhabitant corresponds to satisfaction with the number of
seats
in public transport. There are significant differences (p<.005)
in how satisfied
the
citizens of the six cities are regarding the possibility of having a seat. The
citizens
of Helsinki and Vienna are the most satisfied, whereas the citizens of
Barcelona
are
the least satisfied (Table 1).
Bivariate
correlate analyses were then performed to establish possible relationships
between
objective and subjective data. First, the relationship between total
63
Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public
Transportation
PT
place km/ inhabitant and overall satisfaction was analyzed. This relationship
was
found to be insignificant. Second, an analysis was performed on the
relationship
between
total PT place km/inhabitant and the satisfaction attribute measure
“I
normally get a seat.” This result was found to be significant (r = 0.14, p
< .005).
Travel Time versus Average PT Speed
Travel
time is an important aspect for the traveler (Fellesson and Friman 2008).
Average
PT speed is a measure that captures travel time. Figure 3 show that
Copenhagen
and Oslo have the highest average speed in 2001 of the included
cities.
Speed
corresponds to perceived travel time in public transport. There are significant
differences
(p<.005) in how satisfied the citizens
of the six cities are with
regard
to travel times (Table 1). The citizens of Barcelona are the most satisfied,
whereas
the citizens of Oslo are the least satisfied.
Bivariate
correlate analyses were performed once again. First, the relationship
between
average PT speed and overall satisfaction was analyzed. This relationship
was
found to be significant, although surprisingly negative (r = -0.26, p
< .005).
The
result implies that an increase in the average travel speed decreases overall
satisfaction
with public transport.
Figure
2. Place km/inhabitant
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009
64
Figure
3. Average PT speed km/h
An
analysis was then performed on the relationship between average PT speed
and
the satisfaction attribute measure “Travel time on PT is reasonable.” The
result
was
once again unexpectedly found to be negative and significant (r = -0.18, p
<
.005).
Discussion
The
results warrant several comments. The lack of correlation between the actual
supply
of public transport and the citizens’ overall assessments indicates that
the
latter are not solely (or even primarily) based on the actual conditions of the
transport
system. “More” public transport does not automatically result in more
satisfied
customers. This is well in line with service research whereby the perceived
service
quality is defined as a function not only of what the
customer gets but
also how
he or she gets it (Grönroos 2000, see
also Schneider and White 2004).
This
makes the objective conditions of the service offering only partly responsible
for
how satisfied people are with public transport. Further, there might also be a
market
share effect, as a very small system is likely to be used only by those who
are
already enthusiastic about public transport or by those who lack any real
alternatives.
65
Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public
Transportation
As is
indicated by the fact that respondents with either no or very limited
experience
of the
relevant public transport systems are still able to express opinions
about
them when asked in the survey, the level of satisfaction might be even less
related
to the actual transport system (Pedersen et al. 2009).
When
it comes to the relationship between satisfaction with specific attributes
and
the objective conditions of these attributes, the results are more difficult to
explain
intuitively or from a theoretical point of view. There are some potential
explanations
for this situation, however. The lack of correlation between transport
supply
and frequency satisfaction might depend on the difficulties of matching
supply
with demand (transport may be provided but not at the time and/or location
needed).
Such a mismatch not being reflected in the relationship between
perceived
and provided seat availability could reflect the fact that the shortfall
in
frequency is compensated for by increased vehicle capacity. At least, the data
suggest
that an increase in seat availability is noted by travelers. The negative
(and
counterintuitive) correlation between average speed and travel time might
reflect
the impact of the type of travel. A long journey is likely to be perceived as
time-consuming
even in a fast moving vehicle. Transport systems with a high proportion
of
long distance commuter journeys might thus score lower on perceived
travel
time than systems primarily consisting of (comparably slow) inner city buses
used
primarily for short journeys as a substitute for walking.
Additional
research is needed that investigates a richer set of quality attributes
such
as safety, staff behavior, information, and fares. Other techniques (e.g.,
structural
equation modeling and PLS) should also be used for analyzing the
relationship
between traveler satisfaction measures and objective performance
measures.
The
study also raises the issue of what constitutes relevant measures, both of
objective
supply and of satisfaction. Public transport systems are inherently complex,
and
describing them using a number of standardized key indicators necessarily
requires
significant simplifications and a substantial amount of subjective
interpretation
(Norheim 2006, Vivier 2006). This is particularly true when data
are
collected on a transnational level, as is the case with the Millennium
Database.
Similarly,
satisfaction is known to be difficult to measure, as it is influenced
by
complicated psychological and social processes. For example, a recent study
revealed
that customers responding to specific questions about their current
journey
were nonetheless taking previous experience, media coverage, and hopes
of
future improvements into consideration when answering (BEST 2009).
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009
66
Conclusions
Does
this mean, then, that satisfaction measures are irrelevant? Absolutely not!
Satisfaction
is pivotal for understanding public transport from the customer’s
perspective.
However, there is a problem when the subjective assessments of the
users
(and even the non-users) are conflated with the objective conditions of the
transport
system. As has been shown, a high level of satisfaction does not necessarily
indicate
an objectively “better” system and vice versa. Instead, satisfaction
scores
should be interpreted in their wider context, thereby enabling a further
contextualization
of the objective conditions as well. This is particularly important
when
comparisons are made between different cities: satisfaction is a relative
concept
and
not a measure of absolute success in public transport.
Understanding—rather
than taking for granted—the links between satisfaction
and an
objective service supply is a key management challenge that requires a
genuine
understanding of how the transport system functions, from the point of
view
of both the customer and production. Such a dual understanding will provide
an
indispensible foundation for developing the public transport systems of
tomorrow.
Once the subjective and partly-independent nature of the satisfaction
measures
is acknowledged, their potential value to managers and policymakers
can be
realized.
Acknowledgment
This
research was supported by grant #2004-02974, awarded to the Service and
Market
Oriented Transport Research Group (SAMOT) by the Swedish Governmental
Agency
for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA).
References
Beirão,
G., and J.A. Sarsfield Cabral. 2007. Understanding attitudes towards public
transport
and private car: A qualitative study. Transport Policy 14:
478-489.
BEST
Organizing Committee. 2001. BEST results of the 2001 survey.
Oslo: BEST.
De
Brentani, U. 1995. New industrial service development: Scenarios for success
and
failure. Journal of Business Research 32:
93-103.
67
Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public
Transportation
De
Brentani, U. 2001. Innovative versus incremental new business services:
Different
keys
for achieving success. Journal of Product Innovation Management
18:
169–187.
Eboli,
L., and G. Mazzulla. 2007. Service quality attributes affecting customer
satisfaction
for
bus transit. Journal of Public Transportation 10:
21-34.
Eriksson,
L., M. Friman, and T. Gärling. 2009. Stated reasons for reducing workcommute
by
car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and
Behaviour
11: 427-433.
Fellesson,
M., and M. Friman. 2008. Perceived satisfaction with public transport
services
in nine European cities. The Journal of Transportation Research
Forum.
47:93-103,
Transit Issue Special.
Friman,
M. 2004. Implementing quality improvements in public transport. Journal
of
Public Transportation 7: 49-65.
Friman,
M., and T. Gärling. 2001. Frequency of negative critical incidents and
satisfaction
with
public transport services. II. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services
8: 105-114.
Fujii,
S., and R. Kitamura. 2003. What does a one-month free bus ticket do to
habitual
drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change.
Transportation
30: 81-95.
Grönroos,
C. 2000. Service Management and Marketing: A
Customer Relationship
Management
Approach. Chichester: Wiley.
Hauser,
J.R., and D. Clausing. 1988. The house of quality. Harvard
Business Review
66
(3): 63-73.
Hensher,
D. A., P. Stopher, and P. Bullock. 2003. Service quality—
developing
a service
quality
index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transportation
Research
Part A 37: 499-517.
Litman,
T. 2008. Valuing transit service quality improvements. Journal
of Public
Transportation
11: 43-63.
Mackett,
R. L., and M. Edwards. 1998. The impact of new public transport systems:
Will
the expectations be met? Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and
Practice
32: 231-245.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009
68
Nagamachi,
M. 1995. Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented
technology
for product development. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics
15:
3-11.
Nathanail,
E. 2007. Measuring the quality of service for passengers on the Hellenic
railways.
Transportation Reseach Part A 42:
48-66.
Norheim,
B. 2006. Kollektivtranssport i nordiske byer. Markedspotential og
utfordringer
framover. Norway: Urbanet analysis report no 2.
Pedersen,
T., M. Friman, and P. Kristensson. (In press.) Affective forecasting:
Predicting
and
experiencing satisfaction with public transport. Journal
of Applied
Psychology.
Richter,
J., M. Friman, and T. Gärling. 2008a. Soft transport policy measures: 1.
Results
of implementations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Richter,
J., M. Friman, and T. Gärling. 2008b. Soft transport policy measures: 2.
Research
needs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schneider,
B., and S. White. 2004. Service Quality: Research Perspectives.
Thousand
Oaks:
Sage.
Smith,
M. J., and R. V. Clarke. 2000. Crime and public transport. In: Tonry,
M. ed.
Crime
and Justice: A Review of Research 27. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Swanson,
J., Ampt, L., and P. Jones. 1997. Measuring bus passenger preferences.
Traffic
Engineering and Control 38: 330–336.
Transportation
Research Board. 2003. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Manual.
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 100, Washington, D.C,
National
Academy Press.
Tyrinopoulos,
Y., and C. Antoniou. 2008. Public transit user satisfaction: Variability
and
policy implications. Transport Policy 15:
260-272.
Tyrinopoulos,
Y., and G. Aifadopoulou. 2008. A complete methodology for the
quality
control of passenger services in the public transport business. European
Transport\Trasporti
Europei 38: 1-16.
69
Service Supply and Customer Satisfaction in Public
Transportation
Vivier,
J. 2006. Mobility in Cities Database. Better
Mobility for People World Wide.
Analysis
and Recommendations. Brussels: International Association
of Public
Transport.
About the Authors
Margareta Friman (margareta.friman@kau.se)
is an associate professor,
researcher,
and director of the SAMOT (Service and Market Oriented Transport)
research
group at Karlstad University. Her research focuses on perceived service
quality
and customer satisfaction in public transport services. Her research has been
published
in the Journal of Public Transportation and
the Journal of Transportation
Research:
Part F and the Journal
of Economic Psychology.
Markus Fellesson, Ph.D. (markus.fellesson@kau.se)
is a researcher in the SAMOT
research
group at Karlstad University. His research focuses on various aspects
of
customer-orientation as a managerial practice. He is co-author of Marketing
Discourse—A
Critical Perspective, published by Routledge. His research
also has been
published
in the Scandinavian Journal of Management,
the Journal of the Transport
Research Forum,
and Revista ADM.MADE.
REVIEW JURNAL ke II
Tema : Perilaku
Konsumen
Service Supply and Customer
Satisfaction in Public
Transportation:
The Quality Paradox
Margareta Friman and Markus Fellesson
Karlstad University, Sweden
ABSTRAK
Kepuasan yang diperoleh dari tindakan warga yang sering digunakan dalam performancebased
karena ke link yang mereka anggap dengan kinerja perusahaan kontrak. Penelitian ini menganalisis
hubungan antara ukuran kinerja obyektif angkutan umum layanan dan kepuasan yang dirasakan oleh wisatawan.
Kepuasan yang diperoleh dari tindakan warga yang sering digunakan dalam performancebased
karena ke link yang mereka anggap dengan kinerja perusahaan kontrak. Penelitian ini menganalisis
hubungan antara ukuran kinerja obyektif angkutan umum layanan dan kepuasan yang dirasakan oleh wisatawan.
LATAR BELAKANG
jangkauan jaringan / jarak untuk menghentikan (Eriksson et al. 2009, Tyrinopoulos dan Antoniou 2008), dan isu-isu keselamatan (Smith dan Clarke 2000, Fellesson dan Friman 2008) semua diketahui menjadi faktor penting dalam pelanggan evaluasi kualitas pelayanan angkutan umum. Selain itu, Friman dan Gärling (2001) menggarisbawahi pentingnya informasi transportasi yang jelas dan sederhana.
Untuk memenuhi kebutuhan pelanggan potensial dan saat ini, investasi berkualitas benar-benar meningkatkan kinerja pelayanan yang dirasakan. . Dalam studinya, para responden menilai kepuasan bahkan lebih rendah, atau tidak berubah, setelah inisiatif kualitas. Dengan demikian, pertanyaan tentang bagaimana kondisi objektif dari sistem transportasi berhubungan dengan subjektif
kepuasan tetap.
jangkauan jaringan / jarak untuk menghentikan (Eriksson et al. 2009, Tyrinopoulos dan Antoniou 2008), dan isu-isu keselamatan (Smith dan Clarke 2000, Fellesson dan Friman 2008) semua diketahui menjadi faktor penting dalam pelanggan evaluasi kualitas pelayanan angkutan umum. Selain itu, Friman dan Gärling (2001) menggarisbawahi pentingnya informasi transportasi yang jelas dan sederhana.
Untuk memenuhi kebutuhan pelanggan potensial dan saat ini, investasi berkualitas benar-benar meningkatkan kinerja pelayanan yang dirasakan. . Dalam studinya, para responden menilai kepuasan bahkan lebih rendah, atau tidak berubah, setelah inisiatif kualitas. Dengan demikian, pertanyaan tentang bagaimana kondisi objektif dari sistem transportasi berhubungan dengan subjektif
kepuasan tetap.
Tujuan Penelitian
Untuk mengetahui tingkat pelayanan dan
tingkat kepuasan konsumen serta Kepuasan dalam Transportasi Umum.
Metode
Sampel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini diperoleh dari Benchmarking di Layanan Eropa
Transportasi Publik (BEST 2001), di mana warga kepuasan dengan angkutan umum telah diukur melalui survei tahunan. Sampel yang dipilih adalah survei yang dilakukan di enam kota di Eropa selama tahun 2001, yang terdiri dari orang antara usia 16 dan 96 tahun. Data kepuasan dipilih dari survei 2001 untuk sesuai langkah-langkah yang diperoleh dari kinerja pelayanan diambil dari Millennium UITP
Database (Vivier 2006).
Sampel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini diperoleh dari Benchmarking di Layanan Eropa
Transportasi Publik (BEST 2001), di mana warga kepuasan dengan angkutan umum telah diukur melalui survei tahunan. Sampel yang dipilih adalah survei yang dilakukan di enam kota di Eropa selama tahun 2001, yang terdiri dari orang antara usia 16 dan 96 tahun. Data kepuasan dipilih dari survei 2001 untuk sesuai langkah-langkah yang diperoleh dari kinerja pelayanan diambil dari Millennium UITP
Database (Vivier 2006).
Prosedur
Data kepuasan dikumpulkan
melalui survei telepon. Responden
dipilih
secara acak dan tenelepon antara 5 dan 9 pm Mereka informasi tentang tujuan dari survei-untuk memperoleh
informasi, Pengumpulan data dihentikan ketika pewawancara telah mencapai dan mengumpulkan data dari 1.000 responden di setiap kota. Data dikumpulkan oleh lembaga survei lokal di
masing-masing kota.
Pembahasan
Seperti ditunjukkan oleh
fakta bahwa responden dengan baik tanpa atau pengalaman yang sangat terbatas dari sistem transportasi publik yang relevan masih mampu
mengekspresikan pendapat
tentang mereka ketika ditanya dalam survei, tingkat kepuasan mungkin bahkan kurang
terkait dengan sistem transportasi yang sebenarnya. Seperti ketidakcocokan tidak tercermin dalam hubungan antara ketersediaan tempat duduk yang dirasakan dan diberikan bisa mencerminkan fakta bahwa kekurangan frekuensi dikompensasikan dengan kapasitas kendaraan meningkat. Setidaknya, data
menunjukkan bahwa peningkatan ketersediaan tempat duduk yang dicatat oleh wisatawan. Negatif
(Dan berlawanan dengan intuisi) korelasi antara kecepatan rata-rata dan waktu tempuh mungkin
mencerminkan dampak dari jenis perjalanan.
tentang mereka ketika ditanya dalam survei, tingkat kepuasan mungkin bahkan kurang
terkait dengan sistem transportasi yang sebenarnya. Seperti ketidakcocokan tidak tercermin dalam hubungan antara ketersediaan tempat duduk yang dirasakan dan diberikan bisa mencerminkan fakta bahwa kekurangan frekuensi dikompensasikan dengan kapasitas kendaraan meningkat. Setidaknya, data
menunjukkan bahwa peningkatan ketersediaan tempat duduk yang dicatat oleh wisatawan. Negatif
(Dan berlawanan dengan intuisi) korelasi antara kecepatan rata-rata dan waktu tempuh mungkin
mencerminkan dampak dari jenis perjalanan.
Kesimpulan
Apakah ini berarti, kemudian, bahwa langkah-langkah kepuasan tidak relevan? Tentu saja tidak!
Kepuasan adalah penting untuk memahami transportasi umum dari pelanggan perspektif. Namun, ada masalah ketika subjektif penilaian dari pengguna (dan bahkan non-pengguna) yang digabungkan dengan kondisi obyektif dari sistem transportasi. kepuasan adalah konsep yang relatif dan bukan merupakan ukuran keberhasilan mutlak dalam transportasi umum.
Apakah ini berarti, kemudian, bahwa langkah-langkah kepuasan tidak relevan? Tentu saja tidak!
Kepuasan adalah penting untuk memahami transportasi umum dari pelanggan perspektif. Namun, ada masalah ketika subjektif penilaian dari pengguna (dan bahkan non-pengguna) yang digabungkan dengan kondisi obyektif dari sistem transportasi. kepuasan adalah konsep yang relatif dan bukan merupakan ukuran keberhasilan mutlak dalam transportasi umum.
Sumber: http://nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-4Friman.pdf