PLS Modeling in Order to Satisfaction Criteria Selection of Bus System Case Study: Bus System of Zanjan City

Document Type : Original Article


1 DepartmentofCivilEngineering,IslamicAzadUniversity,SouthTehranBranch,Tehran,Iran.

2 DLRGermanAerospace,38108Braunschweig,Germany.


Quality of service is defined as a comparison between customer expectations and service comprehension. Assessment and improvement of bus service quality is so important in order to increase the car ownership rate. In particular, research on the characteristics of service quality is important because of the high impact on customer satisfaction. Previous studies indicate that citizens have six indicators of travel time, convenience, accessibility, price, comfort, information, and safety are more important of other indicators. In this study, modeling of service quality indicators in the bus system of Zanjan city has been investigated. In this way, by these indicators, the most important factors of customer satisfaction were identified. The research method was empirical and the travelers were surveyed and the data extracted from the questionnaires were analyzed using the Smart PLS software. It is worth noting that at the end, a model was developed to determine customer satisfaction with the mentioned variables (quality indicators), which had the highest weights, respectively, safety, relaxation, travel time and convenience. In addition, the satisfaction of this system was 59%.


Main Subjects

1. Kong X, Xu Z, Shen G, Wang J, Yang Q, Zhang B. Urban traffic congestion estimation and prediction based on floating car trajectory data. Future Generation Computer Systems. 2016;61:97-107.
2. Shaheen SA, Cohen AP. Carsharing and personal vehicle services: worldwide market developments and emerging trends. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. 2013;7(1):5-34.
3. Abdi A, Bigdeli Rad H, Azimi E, editors. Simulation and analysis of traffic flow for traffic calming. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers- Municipal Engineer; 2016: Thomas Telford Ltd.
4. Tyrinopoulos Y, Antoniou C. Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications. Transport Policy. 2008;15(4):260-72.
5. Eboli L, Mazzulla G. Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit. Journal of public transportation. 2007;10(3):2.
6. Gerson R. Measuring customer satisfaction: Crisp Learning; 1993.
7. Omar MS, Ariffin HF, Ahmad R. Service quality, customers’ satisfaction and  the  moderating  effects  of  gender:  A  study  of  Arabic  restaurants. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2016;224:384-92.
8. Anderson EW, Fornell C, Rust RT. Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability:  Differences  between  goods  and  services.  Marketing  science.
9.  Töpfer  A.  Gezieltes  Customer  Relationship  Management.  Controlling.2001;13(4-5):185-96.
10. Oliver RL. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer: Routledge; 2014.
11. Grönroos C. A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of marketing. 1984;18(4):36-44.
12. Donabedian A. The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment [= Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring, vol. 1]. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press. 1980:8-11.
13. Czepiel JA. Service encounters and service relationships: implications for research. Journal of business research. 1990;20(1):13-21.
14. Sachdev SB, Verma HV. Relative importance of service quality dimensions: A multisectoral study. Journal of services research. 2004;4(1).
15. Ekinci Y. An investigation of the determinants of customer satisfaction. Tourism Analysis. 2003;8(2/4):197-203.
16. Rust R, Oliver R. Service quality: Insights and management implications from the frontier, in service quality: New directions in theory and practice, rust. RT and Oliver, RL, eds. Thousand Oask CA: Sage Publication; 1994.
17. Lehtinen U, Lehtinen JR. Service quality: a study of quality dimensions: Service Management Institute; 1982.
18. Hedvall M-B, Paltschik M. An investigation in, and generation of, service quality concepts. Marketing Thought and Practices in the 1990s, European Marketing Academy, Athens. 1989:473-83.
19. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual model of service quality  and  its  implications for future  research. the Journal of Marketing.1985:41-50.
20. Cuomo MT. La customer satisfaction: vantaggio competitivo e creazione di valore: Centro studi di tecniche aziendali ARNIA; 2000.
21. Group K. Transit capacity and quality of service manual. 2013.
22. Agarwal R. Public transportation and customer satisfaction: the case of Indian railways. Global Business Review. 2008;9(2):257-72.
23. Hood C. Changing perceptions of public space on the New York rapid transit system. Journal of Urban History. 1996;22(3):308-31.
24. Currie G, Wallis I. Effective ways to grow urban bus markets–a synthesis of evidence. Journal of Transport Geography. 2008;16(6):419-29.
25. Lai W-T, Chen C-F. Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers— The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport Policy. 2011;18(2):318-25.
26. Inc. HMC. A Study to Evaluate the Promotion, Administration and Effectiveness of the Registered Apprenticeship Program. Alberta Learning & Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training Board Edmonton; 2001.
27. Budiono O. Customer Satisfaction in Public Bus Transport: A study of travelers' perception in Indonesia2009.
28. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health sciences education. 2010;15(5):625-32.
29. Raines-Eudy R. Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration. Structural Equation Modeling. 2000;7(1):124-41.
30. George D, Mallery P. IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference: Routledge; 2016.
31. Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. The Journal of marketing.1994:53-66.
Volume 2, Issue 3
September 2018
Pages 121-131
  • Receive Date: 14 June 2018
  • Revise Date: 30 August 2021
  • Accept Date: 25 September 2018
  • First Publish Date: 30 September 2018