See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313502958

Quality of public transport service: an integrative review and research agenda

Article in Transportation Letters The International Journal of Transportation Research · February 2017
DOI: 10.1080/19427867.2017.1283835

CITATIONS READS

15 1,827

1 author:

Thomas Kolawole Ojo

University of Cape Coast
29 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geolournal View project

Road Crossing Behaviour amongst students in the Cape Coast Metropolis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Kolawole Ojo on 14 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transportation Letters
The International Journal of Transportation Research

ISSN: 1942-7867 (Print) 1942-7875 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytrl20

Quality of public transport service: an integrative

review and research agenda

Thomas Kolawole Ojo

To cite this article: Thomas Kolawole Ojo (2017): Quality of public transport service: an integrative
review and research agenda, Transportation Letters, DOI: 10.1080/19427867.2017.1283835

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2017.1283835

Published online: 09 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytrl20

Download by: [THOMAS OJO] Date: 09 February 2017, At: 06:40

Transportation Letters, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2017.1283835

Quality of public transport service: an integrative review and research agenda

Thomas Kolawole Ojo
Department of Geography and Regional Planning, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper contains a literature review of quality of public transport service. The study classified Public transport; Service
85 articles published 2005–2015, based on regional context, date of publication, sample size, the quality; Conceptual
nature of the papers, type of public transport studied, the approach adopted to measure service approach; Analytical
quality with inputs and outputs, and empirical findings. There are different types of public transport approach
assessed from stakeholders’ perspectives. Two main approaches pervade the review: conceptual
and analytical. The paper makes the recommendation for a research agenda in addressing quality of
public transport service.

Introduction travel time, air pollution, and incident of an accident. But

their counterparts in developing countries are active users
The use of public transport holds many advantages over
because of low vehicular ownership. The increasing trend
the use of a private automobile for the individual, for the
in vehicular ownership in developing countries means a
community and for the cities from the standpoint of such
possible reduction in the use of public transport with time.
factors as energy conservation, environmental impact,
It is expedient to ascertain what changes in quality attrib-
social equity, and economy (Gronau and Kagermeier
utes of public transport services would encourage modal
2007; Hutchinson 2008; Redman et al. 2013). The increase
shift from private motor vehicles to public transport.
in public transport passenger loads in the USA is reducing
Provision of quality public transport service encourages
fuel consumption by about 11 million gallons annually –
a modal choice from private automobiles to public
the equivalent benefit of removing 23,813 vehicles from
transport services in both developed and developing
the road (Schwieterman and Fischer 2010; Schwieterman
countries (Redman et al. 2013). Consequently, it promotes
et al. 2011). The energy demand within the transport
a more sustainable mobility. Customers’ assessment of
subsector is immense as the Government of Ghana
the quality of public transport pervades the literature
(GoG) subsidized petroleum products by Ghc45 million
because they are the reason why a service is provided
monthly. GoG is faced with the dilemma of whether or
(Hutchinson 2008). To Mercangöz, Paksoy, and Karagülle
not this subsidy be removed as it is putting pressure on
(2012) quality of public transport is the difference between
the national budget.
the expectations of the passengers about the service
Of late, researchers and managers in the public trans-
performance and the perception of them about the service
port sub-sector are striving to provide details about the
performed. However, there are multiple perspectives in
main factors affecting service quality tied to customer sat-
assessing public transport-drivers, passengers, transport
isfaction, increased profitability, sustainable energy, and
operators, and regulators or communities (Kennedy
environment (de Oña and de Oña 2015; Redman et al.
2011; Zak 2011). These perspectives represent several
2013). This assessment of service is an essential tool for
stakeholders interested in the efficiency, comfortability,
transport operators and transport planners to woo and
and effective operations of the transport systems;
retain passengers, establish strategic goals, and to deter-
consequently, a conflict of interest is observed.
mine funding decisions (de Oña and de Oña 2015).
The current study seeks to unearth articles, published
High vehicular ownership in developed countries make
from 2005 to 2015 in refereed journals. This study bor-
public transport commuters passive users. These commut-
rows a leave from De Borger et al.’s (2002) and stud-
ers will tend to use personal automobile leading to con-
ies with a different classification technique and study
gestion and its attendant challenges such as an increase in

CONTACT Thomas Kolawole Ojo [email protected], [email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2  T. K. OJO

period. However it differs from De Borger et al. and customers whereas a displeased customer preaches his/her
Jaboui et al., as it focuses on quality of public transport negative experience to between 9 and 20 persons (Salazar
services from 2005 to 2015. This paper is also different et al. 2004). Hence, no company wants to geometrically
from de Ona and Ona’s study that looked at the quality lose potential customer via a displeased customer.
of public transport service based on customer satisfac- This paper is structured into five sections. In Section
tion surveys. ‘Pervading concepts in quality of service,’ pervading con-
The paper is to provide and elucidate a comprehen- cepts in quality of service, which include the actors of
sive review of quality of public transport services and the service quality, service quality, and functional quality were
associated methodologies adopted. The paper further explained. Section ‘Methodology’ presents the method-
seeks to expose the different types of public transport, ological and research approach of the literature. Section
type of paper, nature of data, attributes of service quality, ‘Results and discussions’ contains the review results and
and empirical findings. This review seeks to answer the interpretations of the classification of surveyed 85 papers.
following questions? The last section offers the conclusion and the research
agenda that will guide future research.
(a) How many articles were published from 2005 to
2015 on the quality of public transport?
(b) How many types of public transport were assessed Pervading concepts in quality of service
in the surveyed articles?
Quality of service is an elusive concept (de Oña and de
(c) What are the different approaches and methods
Oña 2015). In exploring quality of service there is a need
used in assessing the quality of public transport
to understand the actors of service quality, service quality,
service?
and functional quality. The actors define quality of service
(d) What are the attributes of quality public transport
based on their roles as passengers, employees (drivers),
service?
transport operators, and regulators. The views of these
(e) What is the overall perceived quality of public
actors help define quality of service with the passengers
transport service?
having perceived functional quality because they are the
This review proposes methodology or a similar one to reasons why the service is provided.
assess the quality of public transport from the passenger’s
view, which undoubtedly will be a wise investment. This
Actors of quality of service
will further help transport organization to:
Different actors come into play to ensure quality service
• Assess the performance of public transport services; by transport organizations. These are the transport opera-
• Take measures towards services improvement; tors or the organizations, regulatory bodies, the employees
• Monitor the progress of the quality of its services in of the transport operators, and passengers. Customers/
the future; passengers participate in both the delivery and the con-
• Better understand the needs and priorities of the sumption of services. This affords them the opportunity
passengers; to assess critically the services provided by transport oper-
• Perform a customer-oriented scheduling process of ators/organization (Kandampully 2002). The regulators
the transportation service and internal operation of provide the platform and enforce the standards of service
the organization; and for the service providers. Hence, their role is limited to the
• Support the decision-making process of strategic provision of infrastructure, policy formulation, enforce-
character (Tyrinopoulos and Antoniou 2008). ment of laws and taxation. The transport operators or
Adopting this methodology will help public transport organizations, on the other hand, are responsible for the
operators improve the quality of service invariably leading management and provision of the service.
to customer satisfaction. Satisfied customers form the The operators are to maintain the specifications and
foundation of any successful business as customer standard proffered by the regulators. Any shortfall in the
satisfaction leads to repeat purchase, brand loyalty, delivery causes customers/passengers displeasure and the
and positive word of mouth marketing to customer way the service provider handles this has a direct influence
retention (Angelova and ZeCape Coastkiri 2011). on how the customer perceives service quality. However,
Satisfied customers relay good experience, recommend the operators must create a conducive environment for
the service to others, and remain loyal (Islam, 2011). On employees to ensure service quality. Thus, employees
the contrary, dissatisfied customers respond differently by are the first point of contact for customers. Employees
relaying negative word of mouth. This underlies the fact (drivers) are to maintain good communication with the
that a well-pleased customer preaches to five potential customers. Employees with better customer relationship
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS  3

management know that customers are supposed to be transport are measurable: ticketing, on board services and
treated like kings no matter what. If not for the custom- platform/bus stop or terminal facilities (Geetika 2010).
ers, there would be no service. By this, there would be no For a transit trip, attributes of service are walking into the
employee to offer the service. The efforts of the regulatory station or bus stop, waiting time for bus services, traveling
bodies, service provider, and employees at providing ser- time in the transit vehicle and walking time to the desti-
vice quality are subjected to the analysis of the customer, nation (Rabi and McCord 2006).
which invariably is tied to customer satisfaction. In pub- Ekinci (2002) observed that the complexity of the factors
lic transportation, passengers want to travel at the lowest defining service quality has led to the development of mul-
cost, arrive at their destination in the least amount of time tidimensional models which have been divided into two
and appreciate a high-frequency transportation services schools of thoughts: the North American (Parasuraman,
(Aratani and Todoroki 2010). Zeithaml, and Berry 1985) and Nordic European (Kang
and James 2004). The North American school of thought
is dominated by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry’s
Service quality
(1985) service quality model known as SERVQUAL
In service literature and marketing, researchers prefer (SERVice QUALity).
to define service quality from an individual consumer’s In contrast to the North American school of thought,
perspective, also known as user-based (Fitzsimmons and Grönroos’ (1982) summary of service quality is based
Fitzsimmon 2001). Service quality is a way to manage on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions. The former concerns
business processes in order to ensure total satisfaction to what the customer receives as a result of interaction with
the customer on all levels (Grzinic 2007). Service quality a service organization. Ekinci (2002) and Kang and James
is defined as the difference between the expectations of the (2004) call it technical quality while the latter is how the
passengers about the service performance and the percep- service is delivered to customers. Together, the functional
tions of them about the service performed (Mercangöz, and technical quality forms the primary constituents of
Paksoy, and Karagülle 2012). But Cronin and Taylor corporate image (i.e. how consumers see the service
(1992) did not take expectations into considerations. organization), which is claimed to be the third dimen-
de Oña and de Oña (2015) revealed that there is no sion of the model.
consensus on customer expectations. Expectations are
the needs or desires of the consumer, identified by what
Functional quality
the consumer feels should be delivered by the provider of
the service (Millana and Aqueda 2004). According to Van Grönroos (1982, 1990) noted that the quality of a service
Pham and Simpson (2006), various factors are thought as perceived by customers has two dimensions: a func-
to influence consumer expectations. Some of the factors tional (or process) dimension and a technical (or out-
may be based, in part or in total, on past relevant expe- come) dimension. Functional quality focuses on ‘how’, and
riences, including those gathered indirectly, someone’s considers issues such as the behavior of customer-contact
verbal information, commercial advertisement, and per- staff and the speed of service. It is how service organiza-
sonal needs. tion provides that service to the consumers. There are a
Perception consists of a multi-dimensional, interactive number of functional quality models in service quality
system where several different part-processes collaborate studies (Ali et al. 2015). These models have been divided
and form our experience of the environment. Zeithaml, into two-conceptual and analytical based on conceptual
Bitner, and Gremler (2000) described customer basis, psychometric problems or troubles with the use
perceptions as: ‘the subjective assessments of actual of Likert scales as the well-documented tendency for
service experiences’. It refers to how customers perceive respondents to choose central response options rather
service; how they assess the quality of service received; than extreme ones, the impact of the number of scale
whether they are satisfied; and whether what they have points used, the influence of the format and the verbal
received is value for money. labeling of the points and the transformation of ordinal
There are several heated debates about how to concep- data to cardinal data (Marcucci et al. 2007).
tualize and measure service quality (Brady et al. 2002). The best-known and most widely applied conceptual
This arises from a lack of clear and measurable parameters technique is the SERVQUAL scale (Eboli and Mazzulla
for determining service quality (Grzinic 2007). Bhat and 2007). It’s a generic instrument for measuring service qual-
Guo (2005) said the ability to improve public transport ity across service sectors. In transport studies, a number
performance is closely tied to measuring it as a subject of of modifications have been made on SERVQUAL scale
the greatest interest to both planners and transport oper- to be industry specific. QUALBUS (QUALlity of bus),
ators (Eboli and Mazzulla 2008). Three parts of public RAILQUAL (RAILway QUALilty) and P-TRANSQUAL
4  T. K. OJO

(Public TRANSport QUALity) were coined to assess the (d) Analysis and interpretation of the literature
quality of bus, rail, and public transport services, respectively reviewed, including statistics about sources,
(Perez et al. 2007; Prasad and Shekhar 2010; Sumaedi 2015). a number of retrievals and literature finally
The analytical based on Stated or Revealed Preference reviewed.
analysis that overcomes some critical factors linked to the (e) Presentation/reporting of the results.
use of scales (Marcucci et al. 2007). These include psycho-
These stages have been followed in this article. The
metric problems, conceptual basis, and difficulty in trans-
study involved a scientific literature review because it
lating evaluations into quantitative measures (Marcucci
reveals the answers to the set research questions, defini-
et al. 2007). In particular, quality is linked to the utility
tions, concepts, problem definition, methodologies, and
achieved by the consumers. The utility of each choice
results of various researchers, as well as any ambiguities
alternative is composed of a systematic and a random
and shortcomings.
component. There are two main categories of techniques
This paper was based on a study of journals like
for determining the relative importance of the attributes
Bontekoning, Macharis, and Trip (2001), Jarboui,
considered (Eboli and Mazzulla 2008):
Forget, and Boujelbene (2012) and de Oña and de Oña
(i) Multivariate statistical analysis: quadrant and gap (2015). But this paper focuses mainly on literature
analysis, scatter graphs, factor analysis, cluster that has been published in refereed journals. Jarboui,
analysis, bivariate correlation, etc. (Nutsugbodo Forget, and Boujelbene (2012) reviewed 24 articles in
2013; Nwachukwu 2008). refereed journals from 2000 to 2011. This is in consonant
(ii) Model-based techniques: discrete choice mod- with Awusabo-Asare (2013) and Enu-Kwesi (2013)
els (Eboli and Mazzulla 2007, 2008), regres- admonition that, references are to be made on researches
sion, and structural equation models (Randheer, conducted in the last 5 or 10 years for currency sake.
Al-Motawa, and Vijay 2011). Unlike Jarboui, Forget, and Boujelbene’s (2012) study
that was based on work published in the 2000s and
2010s, this paper focuses on work published in the 2005s
Methodology and 2015s.
The use of journals for information gathering and
There are three basic approaches in investigating the state
disseminating new findings is common in the academic
of knowledge in a field or subject – Delphi technique,
(Nord et al. 1995). Therefore, this paper excluded con-
meta-analysis, and content analysis (Li and Cavusgil 1995).
ference proceedings papers, master’s and doctoral theses,
Delphi technique is used by experts who are familiar with
textbooks, and unpublished working papers. These arti-
the area are surveyed. Meta-analysis is where empirical
cles were accessed through a computerized search because
studies on the specific subject are gathered and statisti-
it is fast and efficient (Jarboui, Forget, and Boujelbene
cally analyzed. This paper adopts content analysis as a
2012). The research review basically covers publications
research method for the systematic qualitative description
in electronic journals within the period under review. In
of the manifest content of the literature in public transport
order to have a comprehensive review, the author retrieved
(Marasco 2008). As in Jarboui, Forget, and Boujelbene
studies by tracking the research cited in the literature that
(2012), two major steps to conduct an investigation by
he had already obtained. In addition to that, the author
content analysis are followed in this paper. First, it is expe-
relied on google scholar for all other relevant articles. The
dient to define the sources and procedures for searching
author also included publications he knew about from
the articles to be analyzed and categories must be defined
informal contacts with other researchers as well as his
for the classification of the collected articles.
own research.
The study adopts a qualitative integrative review as
proposed by Cooper (1989). The design of an integrative
research review contains five stages: Classification method
(a) Formulation of problem and research questions, The classification framework is based on the literature
which guide the integrative research review. review and research in the field of transport sector quality.
(b) Determination of data collection strategy and Based on the classification scheme technique, the paper
selection of multiple channels in order to avoid a will be divided into seven major categories: (i) nature of
bias in coverage. paper, (ii) context of the study, (iii) type of public transport
(c) Evaluation and selection of retrieved data, includ- studied (iv) approach adapted to measure service quality,
ing determining selection criteria for which data (v) nature of the data, (vi) inputs and outputs adopted,
to include in the review. and (vii) empirical findings.
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS  5

The nature of paper production process of the transport system as accurately

as possible. Therefore, articles will be classified according
Papers will be classified into two categories: normative
to the attributes or dimensions used.
and empirical. Normative papers treat the problem of
quality of public transport without an empirical analysis
whereas empirical papers measure the quality of public Empirical findings
transport service in a specific context with measurable
This paper will be classified according to the quality scores
attributes.
of each study and common significant attributes in similar
studies. This criterion helps assess the empirical approach
Countries of the study and study context and answering two questions: what is
the approach that accurately measures the quality of pub-
The papers will be classified according to countries of the
lic transport services.
study. Two issues will be addressed: what are the countries
for the study of quality of public transport of each paper
and are there any papers that have treated this problem Results and discussion
multi-international contexts (between countries).
Classification of papers by types and study contexts
Table 1 indicates the surveyed 85 articles with authors
Type of public transport studied
and date of publication, nature of paper, regional con-
The papers will be based on the type of transport stud- text, nature of data, sample size, inputs and outputs and
ied-bus, airline, taxi, boat, train etc. this will be cross-tab- empirical findings. As can be deduced from Table 1, 85
ulated with the countries in which these researches were articles were surveyed from 29 countries with 9, 8, 6,
carried out. 1 and 1 from India, Ghana, Nigeria, US, and the UK,
respectively. Therefore, Indian and Ghanaian contexts are
the most studied. It may be deduced that more studies
Nature of the data
were conducted in these countries owing to challenges
The papers will be classified according to the nature of data associated with provision and consumption of pub-
used to assess quality of public transport service. Thus, lic transport services (Abane 2011). Meanwhile, four
this paper seeks to use any nature of data such as cross normative studies did not have any regional context
section, time series, or panel data. that are the most used (Hutchinson 2008). Fellesson and Friman (2008) con-
and equitable for the measurement of quality of public ducted comparative studies involving different cities in
transport services. Europe (2009). Less number of studies was surveyed
from developed countries such as Australia, Germany,
UK, and US.
The adopted approach to measure quality
According to Figure 1, the majority of the surveyed
Studies will be classified into two approaches: conceptual articles were conducted between 2010 and 2015 as
and analytical. Conceptual studies use SERVQUAL scale espoused in Jarboui et al. (2012). The majority of the
or its modifications. The analytical based on Stated or papers surveyed referred to Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and
Revealed Preference analysis that overcomes some crit- Berry (1985), Parasuraman et al. (1988) as a precursor
ical factors linked to the use of scales. There are other to measuring service quality. SERFPERF, AIRQUAL,
approaches meant to assess technical and corporate P-TRANQUAL, RAILQUAL, and QUALBUS are modified
image quality. The focus of this paper is on the foremost SERVQUAL. Despite all this, Kian et al. (2012) and Perez
approaches most used in this area as previously defined. et al. (2007) observed the importance of SERVQUAL in
measuring service quality.
Attributes or dimensions
Classification by quality evaluation method
Public transport service is not like manufacturing industry
where output is a clearly defined entity (Jarboui, Forget, As shown in Table 1, the majority of the surveyed articles
and Boujelbene 2012). The main reason is the intangibil- empirically assessed the quality of public transport ser-
ity, perishability, and inseparability of a transport service. vices with the exception of normative studies by Currie
Cullinane et al. (2004) provided a comprehensive discus- (2010), Paulley et al. (2006), Hutchinson (2008), Gronau
sion of the used variables. Thus, the variables or attrib- and Kagermeier (2007), Smith (2008) and de Oña and de
utes should reflect the objectives and the actual service Oña (2015).
6  T. K. OJO

Table 1. Summary of previous research: references, nature of paper, regional context, type of public transport, sample size, and approach
used.
References Nature of paper Regional context Type of public transport Sample size Approach
Abane (2011) Empirical Ghana Buses, taxis 926 Analytical
Agarwal (2008) Empirical India Railways 500 Analytical
Agyeman (2013) Empirical Ghana Urban bus 84 Conceptual/analytical
Ahern and Tapley (2008) Empirical Ireland Intercity bus 189 Analytical
Aidoo et al. (2013) Empirical Ghana Intercity bus 500 Analytical
Ali (2010) Empirical Nigeria Intra-urban bus 310 Analytical
Ali, Dey, and Filieri (2015) Empirical Pakistan Airlines 498 Conceptual/analytical
Alpopi and Manole (2012) Empirical Romania Urban transport 214 Analytical
Arintono (2010) Empirical Indonesia Intercity van 399 Analytical
Ayanda and Govender (2014) Empirical South Africa Buses, minibuses, taxis 902 Conceptual/analytical
Ayichew (2013) Empirical Ethiopia Intercity bus – Analytical
Barabino, Deiana, and Tilocca (2011) Empirical Italy Urban transport 1857 Analytical
Barabino, Deiana, and Tilocca (2012) Empirical Italy Urban bus 2611 Conceptual/ analytical
Bauer (2013) Empirical Poland Public transport – Analytical
Borhan et al. (2014) Empirical Malaysia Public transport 290 Analytical
Cantwell, Caulfield, and O’Mahony Empirical Ireland Public transport 324 Analytical
(2009)
Castillo and Benitez (2012) Empirical Spain Public transport 1508 Analytical
Chikwendu and Ezenwa (2012) Empirical Nigeria Airline 180 Conceptual/analytical
Currie (2010) Normative Public transport – Analytical
dell’Olio, Ibeas, and Cecín (2010) Empirical Spain Public transport 305
Dhinakaran and Rajarajan (2014) Empirical India Intercity bus 436 Analytical
Eboli and Mazzulla (2007) Empirical Italy Bus 763 Analytical
Eboli and Mazzulla (2012) Empirical Spain Railway 16718 Analytical
Eboli and Mazzulla (2011) Empirical Italy Public transport 123 Analytical
Eboli and Mazzulla (2012) Empirical Italy Public transport 470 Analytical
Eraslan et al. (2006) Empirical Turkey Intercity bus – –
Erdogan et al. (2013) Empirical Turkey Public transport 2006 Conceptual/analytical
Ettema et al. (2012) Empirical Sweden Public transport 520 Analytical
Fellesson and Friman (2008) Empirical Europe Public transport 9542 Analytical
Freitas (2013) Empirical Brazil Intercity bus 209 Analytical
Friman and Fellesson (2009) Empirical Europe Public transport 6021 –
Geetika (2010) Empirical India Railway 700 Analytical
Githui, Okamura, and Nakamura (2010) Empirical Kenya Urban transport 140 Analytical
Govender (2014) Empirical South Africa Buses, mini-bus taxis 690 Conceptual/analytical
Govender and Pan (2011) Empirical South Africa Intercity bus 400 Conceptual
Gronau and Kagermeier (2007) Normative Germany Public transport Analytical
Hu and Jen (2006) Empirical Taiwan Intercity bus 200 Conceptual/analytical
Hutchinson (2008) Normative – Public transport Conceptual
Ibrahim-Adedeji (2011) Empirical Nigeria Public bus 124 Analytical
Imam (2014) Empirical Jordan Bus, minibus, jitney 191 Analytical
Irfan, Kee, and Shahbaz (2012) Empirical Pakistan Rail 493 Conceptual/ analytical
Jain et al. (2014) Empirical India Public transport 500 Analytical
Kamaruddin, Osman, and Pei (2012) Empirical Indonesia Monorail, bus, train 467 Analytical
Khurshid et al. (2012) Empirical Pakistan Public transport 120 Conceptual/analytical
Kinsella and Caulfield (2011) Empirical Ireland Public transport 80 Analytical
Kennedy (2011) Normative – Transport Conceptual/analytical
Kostakis and Pandelis (2009) Empirical Greece Public transport 660 Analytical
Kwabena, Brew, and Addae-Boateng Empirical Ghana Intercity bus 200 Analytical
(2013)
Le-Klähn, Hall Michael, and Gerike Empirical Germany Public transport 466 Analytical
(2014)
Lin et al. (2008) Empirical Taiwan Intercity bus 385 Conceptual/analytical
Lupo (2013) Empirical Italy Transit services Analytical/conceptual
Mahmoud, Hine, and Kashyap (2010) Empirical Iran BRT 200 Conceptual/ Analytical
Maruvada and Bellamkonda (2012) Empirical India Railway 234 Conceptual/analytical
Mercangöz, Paksoy, and Karagülle Empirical Turkey Fast ferry 637 Analytical
(2012)
Minhans, Shahid, and Ahmed (2014) Empirical Malaysia Intercity bus – –
Morfoulaki, Tyrinopoulos, and Aifado- Empirical Greece Public transport 400 Analytical
poulou (2007)
Muthupandian and Vijayakumar (2012) Empirical India Urban bus 500 Conceptual/analytical
Nadiri et al. (2008) Empirical Cyprus Airlines 583 Conceptual/analytical
Noor and Dola (2013) Empirical Malaysia Public transport 20 Conceptual/analytical
Nutsugbodo (2013) Empirical Ghana Public transport 165 Conceptual/analytical
Nwachukwu (2014) Empirical Nigeria Intra-city bus 300 Analytical
Nwachukwu (2008) Empirical Nigeria Intercity bus 50 Analytical
Odufuwa, Oriola, and Otubaga (2012) Empirical Nigeria Public transport 1599 Analytical
Ojo et al. (2014c) Empirical Ghana Intercity bus 160 Conceptual /analytical
Ojo, Amoako-Sakyi, and Agyeman Empirical Ghana Shuttle bus 300 Conceptual/analytical
(2014b)

(Continued)
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS  7

Table 1. (Continued)
References Nature of paper Regional context Type of public transport Sample size Approach
Paulley et al. (2006) Theoretical UK Public transport – Conceptual
Perez et al. (2007) Empirical Spain Public transport 1000 Analytical
Prasad and Shekhar (2010) Empirical India Rail 234 Conceptual/analytical
Randheer, Al-Motawa, and Vijay (2011) Empirical India Rail 512 Conceptual/analytical
Roza, Koting, and Karim (2013) Empirical Malaysia Intercity bus/train 120 Analytical
Sam, Adu-Boahen, and Kissah-Korsah Empirical Ghana Intercity bus 100 Analytical
(2014)
Shaaban and Hassan (2014) Empirical Qatar Railway 316 Analytical
Shaaban and Khalil (2013) Empirical Qatar Bus 278 Analytical
Shiaw (2005) Empirical Taiwan Intercity bus
Smith (2008) Normative US Public transport Conceptual
Sumaedi (2015) Empirical Indonesia Public transport 880 Conceptual/ analytical
Too and Earl (2010) Empirical Australia Bus, Train 600 Conceptual/analytical
Tyrinopoulos and Antoniou (2008) Empirical Greece Public transport 400 Analytical
van Exel and Rietveld (2010) Empirical Netherland Public transport 17,642 Analytical
Wang, Feng, and Hsieh (2010) Empirical Taiwan Urban transport 613 Analytical/ conceptual
Wen, Lan, and Chen (2005) Empirical Taiwan Intercity bus 600 Analytical
Yaakub and Napiah (2011) Normative Malaysia Public bus – Analytical
Yaliniz et al. (2011) Empirical Turkey Public transport Analytical
Zakaria et al. (2010) Empirical Malaysia Public bus 169 Conceptual/analytical
Zhao et al. (2013) Empirical China Public transport 467 Analytical
Redman et al. (2013) Normative – Public transport – Analytical
de Oña and de Oña (2015) Normative – Public Transport – Analytical
Source: Author’s compilation, 2015.

Classifications by type of public transport

Public transport encompasses the use of commercial vehi-
cles to convey passengers in a public domain. This includes
buses (Zakaria et al. 2010), taxis (Ayanda and Govender
2014), vans (Arintono 2010), trains or tram (Randheer,
Al-Motawa, and Vijay 2011), boats or ferry (Mercangoz
et al. 2012), jitney (Imam 2014), and airlines (Chikwendu
and Ezenwa 2012). The bus is the most popular means of
public transport in the paper. It comes in varying forms-
mini buses, midi and large buses (Ayichew 2013), urban
bus (Agyeman 2013), intercity bus (Govender and Pan
Figure 1. Distribution of papers on quality of public transport by
date of publication 2011), Shuttle bus (Ojo, Nutsugbodo, and Appiah-Mintah
2014), and BRT (Mahmoud, Hine, and Kashyap 2010).
Public bus plays an important role in the provision of
Classification by nature of data transport for commuting and long distance movement
The data used in the study comes in two forms – cross (Yaakub and Napiah 2011. It is a popular option because
sectional and longitudinal. The use of cross-sectional of its operating availability, accessibility, flexibility, and
data dominates (Ahern and Tapley 2008; Wen et al. cost. Its services vary in usage, design, and operations.
2005; Govender and Pan 2011; Roza, Koting, and Karim The use of a taxi is purely for making intra-urban or local/
2013). However, some studies used longitudinal data (see short distance trips. Anecdotal evidence exists in Ghana,
Arintono 2010). This gives the preponderant nature of Nigeria, and Palestine where taxis operate on the intercity
cross-sectional data in quality of public transport research. route. Abane (2011), Yaliniz et al. (2011), Nutsugbodo
A longitudinal study is to buttress the earlier results of a (2013) and Zhao et al. (2013) did not specify the type of
cross-sectional survey, which could come in a form of public transport being assessed.
trend, cohort, or panel studies (Babbie 2005).
A longitudinal study can be a means to improve/con- Classification by attributes/dimensions adopted
firm/ reject earlier submission. It is therefore noted that
time-series or cross-sectional study can be adopted in The universality of SERVQUAL scale application cannot
assessing the quality of public transport whereas longi- be overemphasized. But Lai and Chen (2011), Hu and Jen
tudinal survey can be used to measure the efficiency or (2006), Prasad and Shekhar (2010) and Sumaedi (2015)
performance (see Jaboui et al. 2011). modified the SERVQUAL scale by adding comfort and
8  T. K. OJO

convenience dimensions. These dimensions were found which affordability was significant. These factors are invar-
significant to influence the quality of service. However, iably tied to the quality of public transport. Passengers
tangibility dimension was found to influence the quality have different perceptions of these indicators (Eboli and
of public transport service the more in Perez et al. (2007), Mazzulla 2012) of which reliability of service or the ability
Hu and Jen (2006) and Zakaria et al. (2010). to deliver service is one of the key elements (see Barabino,
Other researchers also showed the importance of per- Deiana, and Tilocca 2011, 2012; Lupo 2013; Yaakub and
sonnel in the context of public land transport services. For Napiah 2011).
example, Wen, Lan, and Chen (2005) and Nutsugbodo However, Yaakub and Napiah (2011) saw punctuality
(2013) found that crew’s attitude is one of public trans- as a performance parameter in determining the service
port/intercity bus service quality dimensions. Caro and reliability. Reliability, punctuality, travel time, cleanliness,
García (2008) showed that one of the service quality ticket price/affordability, space on the vehicle/comfort,
dimensions is personal interaction. In the context of pub- waiting time, comfort, employee behavior, information
lic transport services, the core benefit that must be fulfilled system efficiency, basic facilities/convenience, proximity
is that the passengers can arrive at their destination safely of bus stops have effect on perceived service quality and
(Ojo 2015). are invariably tied to customer satisfaction (Eboli and
Reliability dimension is a dimension that represents Mazzulla 2007, 2012; Fellesson and Friman 2008; Geetika
how reliable public transport services in delivering pas- 2010; Gronau and Kagermeier 2007; Kamaruddin,
sengers to their destination. Therefore, some important Osman, and Pei 2012; Kinsella and Caulfield 2011;
aspects to be considered on the reliability dimension, such Le-Klähn, Hall Michael, and Gerike 2014; Morfoulaki,
as the amount of public transport vehicle, the waiting time, Tyrinopoulos, and Aifadopoulou 2007; Shaaban and
the travel time, and the consistency of public transport Khalil 2013).
services in delivering passengers to the destination. Other In Table 2, quality is determined by the approaches
researchers also find the importance of reliability in the adopted. Empirical studies involving conceptual approach
context of public transport services. Prasad and Shekhar such as SERVQUAL could easily yield a gap score. This
(2010) included reliability as service quality dimension of gap score is perception minus expectation. Based on this,
railways services. Perez et al. (2007) showed that reliability Currie (2010), Hu and Jen (2006), Barabino, Deiana, and
is one of bus service quality dimensions. Other research- Tilocca (2012), Irfan, Kee, and Shahbaz (2012), Freitas
ers, Randheer, Al-Motawa, and Vijay (2011), found that (2013), Govender and Pan (2011), Mercangöz, Paksoy, and
commuter service quality dimension includes reliability. Karagülle (2012), Muthupandian and Vijayakumar (2012),
The foregoing asserts Asubonteng, McCleary, and Swan Nutsugbodo (2013) and Nwachukwu (2014) revealed poor
(1996) comment that SERVQUAL will still remain a for- perceived quality. Arintono (2010), Ibrahim-Adedeji
midable tool to measure service quality. (2011) and Irfan, Kee, and Shahbaz (2012) revealed poor
However, Eboli and Mazzulla (2007, 2008, 2011), quality of public transport service without using the mod-
Geetika (2010), and Aidoo et al. (2013) measured quality ified SERVQUAL scale.
with a number of attributes such as travel time, waiting Gronau and Kagermeier (2007), Eboli and Mazzulla
time for bus before departure; announcement and infor- (2012) and Kian et al. (2012) further noted that passengers
mation on services; schedule adherence; cleanliness of the were not satisfied because of the poor quality of service.
bus station; cleanliness of bus interior/exterior; availability This is because service quality was used as an antecedent
of shelters; comfortability of bus seats; convenience; bus to customer satisfaction. But Geetika (2010) and Githui,
driver’s/conductor’s behavior; crime rate at the bus station; Okamura, and Nakamura (2010) see customer satisfaction
frequency of bus breakdown, and bus traffic safety record. influencing the quality of service. Above all, there is a linear
Out of which, reliability and frequency of service play a relationship between service quality and customer satisfac-
major role in measuring quality of public transport from tion. A satisfied customer must have good perceived quality
normative studies like Hutchinson (2008), Yaakub and and vice versa. Studies by Jain et al. (2014) and Kwabena,
Napiah (2011) and Redman et al. (2013). Brew, and Addae-Boateng (2013) showed that passengers
were satisfied with the quality of service rendered.
Erdogan et al. (2013) revealed the better-perceived
Classification by empirical findings
quality of service because of the newness of the public
Attributes such as affordability, availability, punctuality, transport company. The quality of service was also good
safety, accessibility, reliability, fares, communication and in Aidoo et al. (2013) and Ayanda and Govender (2014).
experience, information, ticket price, service frequency, But in Wang, Feng, and Hsieh (2010) and Noor and Dola
space on the vehicle influence modal choice of any of these (2013), there were gaps between stakeholders’ and users’
public transport (Abane 2011; Borhan et al. 2014). Of perceived quality.
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS  9

Table 2. Summary of previous researches and empirical findings.

Empirical findings References
1. Affordability, availability cost and times, safety, accessibility, reliability, fares, Abane (2011), Kamaruddin, Osman, and Pei (2012), Borhan et al. (2014),
communication and experience, information, ticket price, service frequency, Kinsella and Caulfield (2011), Le-Klähn, Hall Michael, and Gerike (2014),
space on the vehicle, cleanliness of the vehicle and ease of use, employee Maruvada and Bellamkonda (2012), Morfoulaki, Tyrinopoulos, and Aif-
service, available of facilities, reservation and ticketing, safety and security adopoulou (2007), Roza, Koting, and Karim (2013), Sam, Adu-Boahen, and
and record of accidents are influence modal choice Kissah-Korsah (2014), Shaaban and Hassan (2014), and Tyrinopoulos and
Antoniou (2008)
2. Satisfaction influence service quality of public transport generally Agyeman (2013), Ali, Dey, and Filieri (2015), Alpopi and Manole (2012), Geeti-
ka (2010), and Githui, Okamura, and Nakamura (2010)
3. Quality of service was good Ayanda and Govender (2014), Erdogan et al. (2013), Govender (2014), Lin
et al. (2008), and Ojo et al. (2014c)
4. Limited or poor service Arintono (2010), Barabino, Deiana, and Tilocca (2012), Cantwell, Caulfield,
and O’Mahony (2009), Currie (2010), dell’Olio, Ibeas, and Cecín (2010),
Govender and Pan (2011), Ibrahim-Adedeji (2011), Irfan, Kee, and Shahbaz
(2012), Muthupandian and Vijayakumar (2012), Nutsugbodo (2013), Ojo,
Amoako-Sakyi, and Agyeman (2014b), and Too and Earl (2010)
5. Each attribute influenced perceived quality Barabino, Deiana, and Tilocca (2011), Castillo and Benitez (2012), Dhinakaran
and Rajarajan (2014), and Eboli and Mazzulla (2012)
6. Service quality influences satisfaction Eboli and Mazzulla (2007, 2011, 2012), Gronau and Kagermeier (2007), Kian
et al. (2012), Kordnaiej and Mughari (2010), Mahmoud, Hine, and Kashyap
(2010), and Zhao et al. (2013)
7. Passengers not satisfied with the service Freitas (2013), Friman and Fellesson (2009), Nutsugbodo (2013), Kostakis and
Pandelis (2009), Nwachukwu (2014), and Shaaban and Khalil (2013)
8. Satisfied passengers Jain et al. (2014), Kwabena, Brew, and Addae-Boateng (2013), Lupo (2013),
and Yaakub and Napiah (2011)
9. Gap between perceived quality by providers or stakeholders and users Wang, Feng, and Hsieh (2010), Noor and Dola (2013), and Redman et al.
(2013)
Source: Author’s construct, 2015.

Noor and Dola (2013) assessed the quality of public passengers’ subjective views-conceptual and analytical
transport from service providers and users perspectives irrespective of the type of public transport – taxi, public
with the results indicating no gap. But, Aidoo et al. (2013) bus, intercity bus, trains, airlines. The use of conceptual
submitted that majority of the passenger’s rated service to or analytical approach depends on how useful and sim-
be good or excellent. Nwachukwu (2008) found out that plest it is to achieve practitioners’ and transport manag-
there was no significant difference in the performance of ers’ main objective to increase perceived quality of public
both private and public operators of public transport. transport for increasing profitability. It is expected that a
cross-sectional study will suffice to indicate the quality
of public transport in form of gap scores using modified
Conclusion and recommendation
SERVQUAL scale. This gap score indicates how good or
The paper is a literature review of 85 articles in refereed poor the quality of service. However, the use of the clas-
journals on quality of public transport service. The paper sification of gap scores in terms of how good or bad the
adopts a classification scheme method where surveyed quality of service should be entertained, in order to enrich
articles on the subject area are collected, classified, and the use of SERVQUAL scale. Analytical method can be
results are discussed. A classification scheme method used complement the conceptual models. With time, prac-
enabled a comprehensive review. The study was expos- titioners and transport operators can use a longitudinal
itory and is meant to make recommendations for future study to measure performance over the period.
research. Analytical method involving the use of attributes/
Assessing quality of public transport poses formida- indicators such affordability, availability cost and times,
ble challenges (de Oña and de Oña 2015) as a result of a safety, accessibility, reliability, fares, communication and
complex, fuzzy, and abstract concept like service quality; experience, information, ticket price, service frequency,
use of conceptual and analytical methods; the relation- space on the vehicle, cleanliness of the vehicle and ease
ship between service quality and customer satisfaction; of use, employee service, available of facilities, reservation
method of data collection; how to identify relevant attrib- and ticketing, security and record of accidents can suffice
utes or dimensions for the different types of public trans- the quest to assess quality of any public transport service.
port and regional context; and subjective and objective Notwithstanding specific attributes of trains, airlines,
assessments from passengers, employees, transport oper- shared taxis and ferry.
ators, and regulators. The heterogeneity of public transport services caused
To overcome these challenges, two schools of thoughts the coinage of QUALBUS, RAILQUAL, AIRQUAL and
emerged in the study of the preponderance nature of P-TRANSQUAL. This is to take note of dominant attributes
10  T. K. OJO

and dimensions with reference to the type of public trans- Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management
port and regional context. It is expedient to coopt culture 8 (2): 33–38.
dimension when measuring the quality of public transport Ali, A. N. 2010. “An Assessment of the Quality of Intra-Urban
Bus Services in the City of Enugu, Enugu State, Nigeria.”
in India. Therefore, the use of modified SERVQUAL or Journal of Theoretical and Empirical Research in Urban
other means of assessment must take into consideration Management 6 (15): 74–91.
certain prevailing attributes in the subsector or country Ali, F., B. Dey, and R. Filieri. 2015. “An Assessment of Service
under examination. It is expected that a number of differ- Quality and Resulting Customer Satisfaction in Pakistan
ent attributes may be needed to assess the quality of any International Airlines.” International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 32 (5): 486–502.
form of intra-city or intercity public transport service. The
Alpopi, C., and C. Manole. 2012. “Qualitative Analysis of Urban
two services are not mutually exclusive. The same applies to Public Transportation in Bucharest.” Journal of Management
attributes used to measure the quality of public transport Research and Practice 4 (2): 68–86.
services in developed and developing countries. Angelova, B., and J. Zekiri. 2011. “Measuring customer
Public transport service generally is judged poorly in satisfaction with service quality using American customer
developing countries. There is evidence of poor service satisfaction model (ACSI Model).” International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 1 (3):
of public transport service in developed countries such 232–258.
as Italy (Barabino, Deiana, and Tilocca 2012). However, Aratani, T. and T. Todoroki 2010. “International comparison of
not all dimensions and attributes revealed poor quality domestic intercity mobility by public transportation”. 12th
of service. Therefore, public transport operators and WCRT, July 11–15, Lisbon, Portugal.
practitioners should address these dimensions and Arintono, S. 2010. “The Operating Characteristics of Intercity
Public Van Service in Lampung, Indonesia.” Journal of
attributes, as they seem to influence the overall perceived
Public Transportation 13 (1): 25–37.
quality. The public transport operators should work hard Asubonteng, P., K. J. McCleary, and J. E. Swan. 1996.
to maintain and improve on the good perceived quality “SERVQUAL Revisited: A Critical Review of Service
posed by other dimensions and attributes. Quality.” Journal of Services Marketing 10 (6): 62–81.
Perceived poor quality of service invariably means Awusabo-Asare, K. 2013. Lecture Notes on Qualitative
customers are not satisfied with the service rendered and Research at the Faculty of Social Sciences Workshop for
PhD Students, University of Cape Coast, January 23–25.
consumed irrespective of service quality been a precursor Ayanda, V., and K. K. Govender. 2014. “Commuter’s Perception
of customer satisfaction or vice versa. Satisfied passengers of Public Transport Service in South Africa.” Journal of
will invariably have good perceived quality. However, there Social Sciences 3 (1): 258–270.
is a need to differentiate service quality from customer sat- Ayichew, F. K. 2013. “Extra Load Carriage, Rate of Passengers’
isfaction. The use of the SERVQUAL model to measure Turnover on Intercity Mini and mid Bus Transport and Its
Effect in Africa: Emphasis on the Service Radiates from
customer satisfaction indicates that service quality is an
Hawassa to Other Towns in Ethiopia.” International Journal
antecedent to customer satisfaction. The use of different of Humanities and Social Studies 1 (6): 23–28.
instruments may give a different picture. The two are dif- Babbie, E. 2005. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA:
ferent concepts with service quality as the emotion and Wadsworth.
customer satisfaction as the evaluation of the emotion. Bhat, C. R., and J. Y. Guo. 2008. “An Innovative Methodological
Framework to Analyze the Impact of Built Environment
Characteristics on Activity-Travel Choices.” Innovations in
Disclosure statement Travel Demand Modeling: Papers 2: 137–148.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Barabino, B., B. Deiana, and P. Tilocca. 2011. “Urban Transport
Management and Customer Perceived Quality: A Case Study
in the Metropolitan Area of Cagliari, Italy.” Theoretical and
References
Empirical Researches in Urban Management 6 (I): 19–32.
Abane, A. M. 2011. “Travel Behaviour in Ghana: Empirical Barabino, B., E. Deiana, and P. Tilocca. 2012. “Measuring
Observations from Four Metropolitan Areas.” Journal of Service Quality in Urban Bus Transport: A Modified
Transport Geography 19 (2): 313–322. SERVQUAL Approach.” International Journal of Quality and
Agarwal, R. 2008. “Public Transportation and Customer Service Sciences 4 (3): 238–252.
Satisfaction: The Case of Indian Railways.” Global Business Bauer, M. 2013. “Application of GPS Technology to Evaluate
Review 9: 257–272. the Quality of Public Transport.” Acta Technica Jaurinensis
Agyeman, W. 2013. “Measurement of Service Quality of 6 (3): 11–23.
‘Trotro’ as Public Transportation in Ghana: A Case Study Bontekoning, Y. M., C. Macharis, and J. J. Trip. 2001. “Is a
of the City of Kumasi.” SATC 2013, Pretoria, South Africa. New Applied Transportation Research Field Emerging?
Ahern, A. A., and N. Tapley. 2008. “The Use of Stated Preference – A Review of Intermodal Rail–Truck Freight Transport
Techniques to Model Modal Choices on Interurban Trips in Literature.” Transportation Research Part a: Policy and
Ireland.” Transportation Research Part a: Policy and Practice Practice 38 (1): 1–34.
42 (1): 15–27. Borhan, M. N., D. Syamsunur, N. Mohd Akhir, M. R. Mat
Aidoo, E. N., W. Agyemang, J. E. Monkah, and F. K. Afukaar. Yazid, A. Ismail, and R. A. Rahmat. 2014. “Predicting the
2013. “Passenger’s Satisfaction with Public Bus Transport Use of Public Transportation: A Case Study from Putrajaya,
Services in Ghana: A Case Study of Kumasi Accra Route.” Malaysia.” The Scientific World Journal: 1–9.
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS  11

Brady Jr, M. K., J. Cronin Jr, and R. R. Brand. 2002. Erdogan, M., O. N. Bilisik, I. Kaya, and H. Barach. 2013. “A
“Performance-only measurement of service quality: A Customer Satisfaction Model Based on Fuzzy TOPSIS
replication and extension.” Journal of Business Research 55: and SERVQUAL Methods.” Lecture Notes in Management
27–31. Science 5: 74–83.
Cantwell, M., B. Caulfield, and M. O’Mahony. 2009. “Examining Ettema, D., M. Friman, T. Gärling, L. E. Olsson, and S. Fujii.
the Factors That Impact Public Transport Commuting 2012. “How in-Vehicle Activities Affect Work Commuters’
Satisfaction.” Journal of Public Transportation 12 (2): 1–21. Satisfaction with Public Transport.” Journal of Transport
Caro, L. M., and J. A. M. García. 2008. “Developing a Geography 24: 215–222.
Multidimensional and Hierarchical Service Quality Model van Exel, J., and P. Rietveld. 2010. “Perceptions of Public
for the Travel Agency Industry.” Tourism Management 29 Transport Travel Time and Their Effect on Choice-Sets
(4): 706–720. among Car Drivers.” Journal of Transport and Land Use 2
Del Castillo, J. M., and F. G. Benitez. 2012. “A methodology for (3–4): 75–86.
modeling and identifying users satisfaction issues in public Fellesson, M., and M. Friman. 2008. “Perceived Satisfaction
transport systems based on users surveys.” Procedia-Social with Public Transport Service in Nine European Cities.”
and Behavioral Sciences 54: 1104–1114. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 47 (3): 93–103.
Chikwendu, D. U., and A. Ezenwa. 2012. “Evaluation of Service Fellesson, M., and M. Friman. 2009. “Service Supply and
Quality of Nigerian Airline Using SERVQUAL Model.” Customer Satisfaction in Public Transportation: The Quality
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 3 (6): 117–125. Paradox.” Journal of Public Transportation 12 (4): 57–69.
Cooper, H. M. 1989. Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Fitzsimmons, J. A., and M. J. Fitzsimmon. 2001. Service
Reviews. Sage, New York. Management Operations, Strategy and Information
Cronin, J., and S. A. Taylor. 1992. “Measuring Service Quality: Technology. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
A Reexamination and Extension.” Journal of Marketing 56 Freitas, A. L. P. 2013. “Assessing the Quality of Intercity Road
(3): 55–68. Transportation of Passengers: An Exploratory Study in
Cullinane, K., D. W. Song, P. Ji, and T. F. Wang. 2004. “An Brazil.” Transportation Research Part a: Policy and Practice
Application of DEA Windows Analysis to Container Port 49: 379–392.
Production Efficiency.” Review of Network Economics 3 (2): Geetika, N. S. 2010. “Determinants of Customer Satisfaction
184–206. on Service Quality: A Study of Railway Platforms in India.”
Currie, G. 2010. “Quantifying Spatial Gaps in Public Transport Journal of Public Transportation 13 (1): 97–113.
Supply Based on Social Needs.” Journal of Transport Githui, J. N., T. Okamura, and F. Nakamura. 2010. “The
Geography 18 (1): 31–41. Structure of Users’ Satisfaction on Urban Public Transport
De Borger, B., K. Kerstens, and A. Costa. 2002. “Public transit Service in Developing Countries: The Case of Nairobi.”
performance: what does one learn from frontier studies?” Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies
Transport reviews 22 (1): 1–38. 8: 1288–1300.
Dhinakaran, D. P., and M. Rajarajan. 2014. “Passengers’ Govender, K. K. 2014. “Public Transport Service Quality in
Perception Towards Service Quality in Tamilnadu South Africa: A Case of Study of Bus and Mini Bus Services
State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, in Johannesburg.” African Journal of Management 8 (10):
Kumbakonam.” Asia Pacific Journal of Research 1 (Xiii): 317–326.
170–181. Govender, J. P., and Q. Pan. 2011. “Enhancement of Service
Eboli, L., and G. Mazzulla. 2007. “Service Quality Attributes Quality in the Intercity Bus Transport Industry.” Alternate
Affecting Customer Satisfaction for Bus Transit.” Journal of Special Edition 4: 181–202.
Public Transportation 10 (3): 21–34. Gronau, W., and A. Kagermeier. 2007. “Key Factors for
Eboli, L., and G. Mazzulla. 2008. “A Stated Preference Successful Leisure and Tourism Public Transport Provision.”
Experiment for Measuring Service Quality in Public Journal of Transport Geography 15 (2): 127–135.
Transport.” Transportation Planning and Technology 31 (5): Grönroos, C. 1982. “An Applied Service Marketing Theory.”
509–523. European Journal of Marketing 16 (7): 30–41.
Eboli, L., and G. Mazzulla. 2011. “Discrete Choice Models as Grönroos, C. 1990. Service Management and Marketing:
a Tool for Transit Service Quality Evaluation.” Electronic Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition.
Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis Decision Support Jossey-Bass, Lexington, KY.
Systems and Services Evaluation 2 (1): 65–73. Grzinic, J. 2007. “Concepts of Service Quality Measurement
Eboli, L., and G. Mazzulla. 2012. “Performance Indicators for in Hotel Industry.” Ekon Misao Praksa DBK God XVI (1):
an Objective Measure of Public Transport Service Quality.” 81–98.
European Transport 51 (3): 1–21. Hu, K. C., and W. Jen. 2006. “Passengers’ Perceived Service
Ekinci, Y. 2002. “A Review of Theoretical Debates on Quality of City Buses in Taipei: Scale Development and
the Measurement of Service Quality: Implications for Measurement.” Transport Reviews 26 (5): 645–662.
Hospitality Research.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Hutchinson, T. P. 2008. “The Customer Experience When
Research 26: 199–216. Using Public Transport: A Review.” Proceedings of the ICE-
Enu-Kwesi, F. 2013. Lecture Notes on Report Writing at the Municipal Engineer 162 (3): 149–157.
Faculty of Social Sciences Workshop for PhD Students, Ibrahim-Adedeji, K. 2011. “Determining the Socio Economic
University of Cape Coast, January 23–25. Characteristics and User’s Perception of Intra-Urban
Eraslan, E., D. Akay, and M. Kurt. 2006. “Usability ranking of Transport System in Ayangbaju Park, Ikorodu, Lagos State.”
intercity bus passenger seats using fuzzy axiomatic design International Journal of Economic Development Research and
theory.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4101: 141–148. Investment 2 (2): 38–48.
12  T. K. OJO

Imam, R. 2014. “Measuring Public Transport Satisfaction Li, T., and S. T. Cavusgil. 1995. “A Classification and Assessment
from User Surveys.” International Journal of Business and of Research Streams in International Marketing.”
Management 9 (6): 106–112. International Business Review 4 (3): 251–277.
Irfan, D. S. M., S. M. Kee, and S. Shahbaz. 2012. “Service Quality Lin, J. H., T. R. Lee, and W. Jen. 2008. “Assessing asymmetric
and Rail Transport in Pakistan: A Passenger’s Perspective.” response effect of behavioral intention to service quality in
World Applied Sciences Journal 18 (3): 361–369. an integrated psychological decision-making process model
Jain, S., P. Aggarwal, P. Kumar, S. Singhal, and P. Sharma. of intercity bus passengers: a case of Taiwan.” Transportation
2014. “Identifying Public Preferences Using Multi- 35 (1): 129–144.
Criteria Decision Making for Assessing the Shift of Urban Lupo, T. 2013. “Handling Stakeholder Uncertain Judgments in
Commuters from Private to Public Transport: A Case Study Strategic Transport Service Analyses.” Transport Policy 29:
of Delhi.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology 54–63.
and Behaviour 24: 60–70. Mahmoud, M., J. Hine, and A. Kashyap. 2010. “Bus Transit
Jarboui, S., P. Forget, and Y. Boujelbene. 2012. “Public Service Quality Monitoring in UK: A Methodological
Road Transport Efficiency: A Literature Review via the Framework.” Proceedings of the ITRN2011, 31: 31–40.
Classification Scheme.” Public Transport 4 (2): 101–128. Marasco, A. 2008. “Third-Party Logistics: A Literature Review.”
Kamaruddin, R., I. Osman, and C. A. C. Pei. 2012. “Public International Journal of Production Economics 113 (1): 127–
Transport Services in Klang Valley: Customer Expectations 147.
and Its Relationship Using SEM.” Procedia-Social and Marcucci, E., E. Valeri, A. Stathopoulos, and V. Gatta. 2007.
Behavioral Sciences 36: 431–438. “Local Public Transport, Service Quality and Tendering
Kandampully, J. 2002. “Innovation as the core competency Contracts.” In Urban Sustainable Mobilità, E. Venezia (a
of a service organization.” European Journal of Innovation curadi), pp. 1–14. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Management 5 (1): 18–26. Maruvada, D. P., and R. S. Bellamkonda. 2012. “The Effects
Kang, G. D., and J. James. 2004. “Service Quality Dimensions: of Individual Dimensions of Railway Service Quality:
An Examination of Grönroos’s Service Quality Model.” Findings from Indian Railway Passenger Services
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 14 (4): through Developing RAILQUAL.” International Journal of
266–277. Innovation, Management and Technology 3 (1): 42–45.
Kennedy, J. 2011. “Current Trends in Service Quality: A Mercangöz, B. A., M. Paksoy, and A. Ö. Karagülle. 2012.
Transportation Sector Review.” Journal of Marketing “Analyzing the Service Quality of a Fast Ferry Company
Development and Competitiveness 5 (6): 104–116. by Using SERVQUAL Scores: A Case Study in Turkey.”
Kian, T. P., K. B. Latiff, and S. W. L. Fong. 2012. “The International Journal of Business and Social Science 3 (24):
impact of ‘SERVQUAL’ towards customer satisfaction in 84–89.
public transportation”, 2nd International Conference on Millana, A., and E. Aqueda. 2004. “Development of a multiple
management proceeding 11th - 12th June 2012, Holiday item scale for measuring customer satisfaction in travel
Villa Beach Resort & Spa, Langkawi Kedah, Malaysia. agencies services.” Tourism Management 25: 533–546.
Khurshid, R., H. Naeem, S. Ejaz, F. Mukhtar, and T. Batool. Minhans, A., S. Shahid, and I. Ahmed. 2014. “An Investigation
2012. “Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in into Qualitative Differences between Bus Users and
Public Transport Sector of Pakistan: An Empirical Study.” Operators for Intercity Travel in Malaysia.” Sciences &
International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences Engineering 70 (4): 71–81.
1 (9): 24–30. Morfoulaki, M., Y. Tyrinopoulos, and G. Aifadopoulou. 2007.
Kinsella, J., and B. Caulfield. 2011. “An Examination of the “Estimation of Satisfied Customers in Public Transport
Quality and Ease of Use of Public Transport in Dublin from Systems: A New Methodological Approach.” Journal of the
a Newcomer’s Perspective.” Journal of Public Transportation Transportation Research Forum 46 (1): 63–72.
14 (1): 69–82. Muthupandian, K. S., and C. Vijayakumar. 2012. “Measurement
Kordnaiej, A., and M. M. Ali. 2010. “Evaluation and of Passengers’ Service Quality in Public Transportation:
measurement of Bus Rapid Transit (brt) on customer SERVQUAL Analysis.” Accessed March 24, 2014. hhtp://
satisfaction in Tehran with SERVQUAL model.” The Asia mpra.ub.uni_muenchen.de/38585/MPRA
Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management System Nadiri, H., K. Hussain, E. Haktan Ekiz, and Şamil Erdoğan.
Conference, UM, Malaysia. 2008. “An Investigation on the Factors Influencing
Kostakis, A. P., and I. Pandelis. 2009. “Measuring Customer Passengers’ Loyalty in the North Cyprus National Airline.”
Satisfaction in Public Transportation: An Empirical Study The TQM Journal 20 (3): 265–280.
Based in Urban Buses in the City of Larissa (Greece) – The Noor, K. B. M., and K. Dola. 2013. “Towards Low Carbon
MUSA Methodology.” MIBES– Oral, pp. 260–275. Society: Exploring User’s Perceptions on the Service
Kwabena, S. A., Y. Brew, and S. Addae-Boateng. 2013. “Level of Quality Level Performance of Public Transport Staff in the
Passengers’ Satisfaction of Metro Mass Transit Ltd.’s Service Klang Valley.” International Journal of Management and
Delivery in Koforidua, Eastern Region, Ghana.” Research on Sustainability 2 (8): 138–149.
Humanities and Social Sciences 3 (13): 52–65. Nord, K., J. Nilsson, B. Nilsson, M. Uhlén, and P. A. Nygren.
Lai, W. T., and C. F. Chen. 2011. “Behavioral intentions of 1995. “A Combinatorial Library of an Alpha Helical
public transit passengers—The roles of service quality, Bacterial Receptor Domain.” Protein Engineering, Design
perceived value, satisfaction and involvement.” Transport and Selection 8: 601–608.
Policy 18 (2): 318–325. Nutsugbodo, N. Y. 2013. “Tourists’ Perceptions of the Quality
Le-Klähn, D. T., C. Hall Michael, and R. Gerike. 2014. “Analysis of Public Transportation Services in the Accra Metropolis:
of Visitor Satisfaction with Public Transport in Munich.” A SERVQUAL Approach.” African Journal of Hospitality,
Journal of Public Transportation 17 (3): 68–85. Tourism and Leisure 2 (4): 1–7.
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS  13

Nwachukwu, M. U. 2008. “Comparative Analysis of Public and Salazar, A. Costa, J. E., and Rita, P. 2004. “Relationship between
Private Sectors Inter Urban Mass Transit Services in Enugu.” service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioural
Nigerian Journal of Development Studies 6 (2): 24–32. intentions: a study on the hospitality sector”, Proceedings
Nwachukwu, A. A. 2014. “Assessment of Passenger Satisfaction of the 33rd EMAC (European Marketing Academy
with Intra-City Public Bus Transport Services in Abuja, Conference), May, Murcia, Spain.
Nigeria.” Journal of Public Transportation 17 (1): 99–119. Sam, E. F., K. Adu-Boahen, and K. Kissah-Korsah. 2014.
Odufuwa, B., S. Oriola, and O. Otubaga. 2012. “Women and “Assessing the Factors That Influence Public Transport
the Use of Public Transport in Nigerian Traditional City- Mode Preference and Patronage: Perspectives of Students
Ibadan.” Global Journal of Human, Social Science, Arts and of University of Cape Coast (UCC), Ghana.” International
Humanities 12 (10): 16–28. Journal of Development and Sustainability 3 (2): 323–335.
Ojo, T. K. 2015. “Passenger Movements Development and Schweiterman, J. P., and Fischer, L. 2010. “The intercity bus:
Structure at Murtala Muhammed International Airport, America’s fastest growing transportation mode:2010
Lagos.” Public Transport 7 (2): 223–234. update on scheduled bus service”e, Chaddick Institute
Ojo, T. K., R. Amoako-Sakyi, and W. Agyeman. 2014. for Metropolitan Development at Depaul University.
“Application of SERVQUAL in Campus Shuttle Service.” Accessed on 14 June, 2014 from hhtp:las.depaul.
GE-International Journal of Engineering Research 2 (5 July): educhaddickdocs20112012_reportsThe_Intercity_Bus_
66–81. Roll_to_Record_Expans.pdf.
Ojo, T. K., R. Y. Nutsugbodo, and R. Appiah-Mintah. 2014. Schweiterman, J. P., L. Fischer, and C. Ghoshal. 2011.
“Passenger’s Perspective of Quality of Intercity Bus Service The intercity bus rolls to record expansion: 2011 update
on Cape Coast- Accra Route, Ghana.” GE-International on scheduled motor coach service in the United State.
Journal of Management Research 2 (7): 267–287. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development: DePaul
dell’Olio, L., A. Ibeas, and P. Cecín. 2010. “Modelling User University.
Perception of Bus Transit Quality.” Transport Policy: 17 (6): Shaaban, K., and H. M. Hassan. 2014. “Modeling Significant
388–397. Factors Affecting Commuters’ Perspectives and Propensity
de Oña, J., and R. de Oña. 2015. “Quality of Service in Public to Use the New Proposed Metro Service in Doha.” Canadian
Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction Surveys: A Journal of Civil Engineering 41 (12): 1054–1064.
Review and Assessment of Methodological Approaches.” Shaaban, K., and R. Khalil. 2013. “Investigating the Customer
Transportation Science 49 (3): 605–622. Satisfaction of the Bus Service in Qatar.” Procedia – Social
Parasuraman, A., A. Valarie, V. Zeithmal, and L. L. Berry. and Behavioral Sciences 104: 865–874.
1988. “SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Shiaw, M. S. 2005. “Inter-City Pre-Trip Information in Taiwan
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.” Journal of and Its Impacts on Travelers’ Mode Choice Behavior.”
Retailing 64 (1): 12–40. Proceedings of the Eastern Asian Society for Transportation
Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. 1985. “A Studies 5: 1179–1187.
Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications Smith, M. J. 2008. “Addressing the Security Needs of Women
for Future Research.” Journal of Marketing 49 (4): 41–50. Passengers on Public Transport.” Security Journal 21 (1–2):
Paulley, N., R. Balcombe, R. Mackett, H. Titheridge, J. M. 117–133.
Preston, M. R. Wardman, J. D. Shires, and P. White. 2006. Sumaedi, S. 2015. “P-TRANSQUAL: A Service Quality Model
“The Demand for Public Transport: The Effects of Fares, of Public Land Transport Services.” International Journal of
Quality of Service, Income and Car Ownership.” Transport Quality & Reliability Management 32 (6): 534–558.
Policy 13 (4): 295–306. Too, L., and G. Earl. 2010. “Public Transport Service Quality
Perez, M. S., J. C. G. Abad, G. M. M. Carrillo, and R. S. and Sustainable Development: A Community Stakeholder
Fernandez. 2007. “Effects of Service Quality Dimensions on Perspective.” Sustainable Development 18 (1): 51–61.
Behavioural Purchase Intentions: A Study in Public Sector Tyrinopoulos, Yannis, and Constantinos Antoniou. 2008.
Transport.” Managing Service Quality 17 (2): 134–151. “Public Transit User Satisfaction: Variability and Policy
Prasad, M. D., and B. R. Shekhar. 2010. “Impact of Service Implications.” Transport Policy 15 (4): 260–272.
Quality Management (SQM) Practices on Indian Railways-a Wang, S., C. Feng, and C. Hsieh. 2010. “Stakeholder Perspective
Study of South Central Railways.” International Journal of on Urban Transport System Service Quality.” Total Quality
Business and Management 5 (9): 139–146. Management & Business Excellence 21 (11): 1103–1119.
Rabi, G. M., and M. McCord. 2006. “Passenger wait time Wen, C., L. W. Lan, and C. Chen. 2005. “Passenger’s Perception
perceptions at bus stops: Empirical results and impact on on Service Quality and Their Choice for Intercity Bus
evaluating real-time bus arrival information.” Journal of Services.” Transport Research Board 84th Annual meeting,
Public Transportation 9 (2): 89–106. Washington, DC, January 9–13.
Randheer, K., A. A. Al-Motawa, and P. J. Vijay. 2011. Yaakub, N., and M. Napiah. 2011. “Quality of Service and
“Measuring Commuters’ Perception on Service Quality Passenger’s Perception – A Review on Bus Service in Kota
Using SERVQUAL in Public Transportation.” International Bharu.” International Journal of Civil & Environmental
Journal of Marketing Studies 3 (1): 21–34. Engineering 11 (05): 1–9.
Redman, L., M. Friman, T. Gärling, and T. Hartig. 2013. Yaliniz, P., S. Bilgic, Y. Vitosoglu, and C. Turan. 2011.
“Quality Attributes of Public Transport That Attract Car “Evaluation of Urban Public Transportation Efficiency in
Users: A Research Review.” Transport Policy 25: 119–127. Kutahya, Turkey.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences
Roza, A., S. Koting, and M. R. Karim. 2013. “Intercity Land 20: 885–895.
Public Transport Challenges in Developing Country: A Case Zak, J. 2011. “The methodology of multiple criteria decision
Study in Peninsular Malaysia.” Proceedings of the Eastern making/aiding in public transportation.” Journal of
Asia Society for Transportation Studies 9: 12–17. Advanced Transportation 45: 1–20.
 14  T. K. OJO

Zakaria, Z., Z. H. Hussin, M. F. A. Batau, and Z. Zakaria. 2010. Zhao, L. N., W. Wang, X. J. Hu, and Y. J. Ji. 2013. “The
“Service Quality of Malaysian Public Transports: A Case Importance of Resident’s Attitude Towards Service Quality
Study in Malaysia.” Cross Cultural Communication 6 (2): in Travel Choice of Public Transit.” Procedia-Social and
84–92. Behavioral Sciences 96: 218–230.
Zeithaml, V. A., M. J. Bitner, and D. D. Gremler. 2000. Services
Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm,
McGraw Hill, New York.

View publication stats