Transportation Research Part A: Javad Esmailpour, Kayvan Aghabayk, Mohammad Abrari Vajari, Chris de Gruyter

Transportation Research Part A 142 (2020) 129–150
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra
Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) of bus service attributes:

A case study in a developing country☆
Javad Esmailpour a, Kayvan Aghabayk a, *, Mohammad Abrari Vajari a,
Chris De Gruyter b
a
School of Transportation Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
b
Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Ensuring a high level of customer satisfaction with public transport is a key objective for transit
Public transport agencies wishing to maintain and/or increase service uptake. Importance – Performance Analysis
Bus service (IPA) can be used to identify gaps in the performance of public transport service attributes
Sustainable development
relative to their importance. However, this approach is often used without adequate consideration
Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA)
of its validity or reliability. Using a case study of bus services in Tehran, Iran, this paper con
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Cluster Analysis (CA) tributes to the literature by improving the validity and reliability of IPA through: incorporating
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify key components of bus service attributes, proposing
a method for prioritising attributes, introducing confidence intervals around each attribute to aid
in the interpretation of results, and dividing the sample using Cluster Analysis (CA) to mitigate
the effects of heterogeneity on the results. The performance and importance of 15 different bus
service attributes was assessed through a survey of 390 bus passengers conducted at six high-
traffic bus terminals in Tehran. EFA results showed that the bus attributes could be repre
sented by four key components: convenience, comfort, reliability and security. CA results clas
sified the sample into three clusters based on socio-demographic and bus travel characteristics.
IPA results indicated that transit agencies and policy-makers need to give greater attention to
improving comfort related attributes of bus services in Tehran such as ventilation, cleanliness of
buses, and providing facilities for elderly/disabled people. The enhanced approach to IPA
developed in this paper can be applied to other jursidictions where agencies are seeking to
identify areas to improve public transport customer satisfaction.
1. Introduction
Public transport plays an important role in the urban environment in contributing to sustainable development objectives (Morton
et al., 2016). This form of transport directly supports social welfare and liveability goals (Zhang et al., 2019), while also providing a set
of other benefits ranging from air pollution reduction (Bradshaw, 2009) to improvements in accessibility (Litman, 2003). However,
satisfaction with public transport has been shown to directly affect people’s willingness to use this form of transport (Zhang et al.,
☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: javad.esmailpour@ut.ac.ir (J. Esmailpour), kayvan.aghabayk@ut.ac.ir (K. Aghabayk), mohammad.abrari@ut.ac.ir (M. Abrari
Vajari), chris.degruyter@rmit.edu.au (C. De Gruyter).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.10.020
Received 18 May 2020; Received in revised form 23 October 2020; Accepted 29 October 2020
Available online 10 November 2020
0965-8564/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Esmailpour et al. Transportation Research Part A 142 (2020) 129–150
Fig. 1. The standard IPA chart. (Martilla and James, 1977).
2019). Improving the quality of public transport services in both urban and regional areas has therefore been recommended to increase
its uptake (de Oña et al., 2016; dell’Olio et al., 2010; Wen and Lai, 2010).
Much research has been undertaken to assess public transport service quality through understanding sources of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction in the public transport system using structural equation modelling (SEM) (Allen et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2018; De Oña
et al., 2013; Deb and Ali Ahmed, 2018; Li et al., 2018; Morton et al., 2016; van Lierop and El-Geneidy, 2016; Zhang et al., 2019).
Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) has also been used for this purpose with more emphasis on attributes and suitable managerial
actions which makes it more pertinent to transit agencies and policy-makers. The concept of IPA was first developed by Martilla and
James (1977) to evaluate 14 attributes of car sales services to improve customer service and increase vehicle sales. It involves
measuring customer perceptions of the performance and importance of a set of attributes and proposes a four-quadrant chart for
suggesting managerial actions (Martilla and James, 1977).
IPA has also been used in the field of public transport. Beirao and Cabral (2009) assessed the importance and dissatisfaction of 20
different attributes of Porto’s public transport system in Portugal through measuring the perceptions of both public transport users and
non-users. Using IPA, Das et al. (2013) examined levels of passenger satisfaction with the Kuala Lumpur Monorail service considering
13 attributes. Grujičić et al. (2014) investigated 24 attributes of Belgrade’s bus system using IPA, while Cao and Cao (2017) examined
39 attributes of three different forms of public transport in Guangzhou, China (conventional bus, bus rapid transit and metro) using
Kano’s three-factor theory (Kano, 1984) and IPA. In Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Sum et al. (2019) evaluated 24 attributes of bus services
in the form of five components using IPA.
The research underlying this paper applies IPA to investigate passenger satisfaction with the quality of bus services and to suggest
managerial actions for increasing the uptake of bus services. This paper uses a case study of Tehran, Iran, where traffic congestion, air
pollution and related effects are of increasing concern due to the dominance of private transport. In 2018, around 18.9 million daily
interurban trips were recorded in Tehran, with around half (47%) of these undertaken by private transport and the remainder un
dertaken by taxi (23%), bus (20%) and metro (10%) (TTTO, 2018). Tehran’s population is estimated at around 8.7 million people
(Statistical Centre of Iran, 2017) with future growth expected to increase the demand for and dependence on private transport in the
future, leading to increased traffic congestion, air pollution and other environmental concerns (Zhao, 2010). A better understanding of
bus passenger perceptions and expectations is therefore necessary to improve the quality and uptake of bus services to reduce the
negative impacts of private transport.
This paper is organised into seven sections. Section 2 provides an overview of Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) and
outlines the contributions of this study to improve validity and reliability of IPA, with Section 3 describing the case study of the
research, sampling method and bus user survey design. Section 4 explains the methods applied in this research including Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA), Cluster Analysis (CA) and IPA. In Section 5, the results of the analysis are presented. Section 6 provides results
discussion, with Section 7 highlighting conclusions of the study and areas for future research.
2. Overview of importance – Performance Analysis (IPA)
IPA involves plotting the performance and importance of selected attributes of a given service, as scored by customers, into the
following four quadrants (Fig. 1):
130
• Quadrant I: High Performance – High Importance (Keep up the good work): attributes in this category represent major strengths that
have succeeded in achieving a standardised level of performance. Customers are satisfied with the attributes of this category and
consider them important. The budget allocated to attributes of this category is recommended to be maintained or expanded.
• Quadrant II: High Performance – Low Importance (Possible overkill): attributes in this category, which reflect secondary and insig
nificant strengths, have the least potential impact on attracting customers. Customers perceive that the performance of attributes in
this category is satisfactory and optimal, but do not regard them as important. These attributes can squander resources unneces
sarily and so the budget intended for this category should instead be allocated to attributes of other categories (especially those in
Quadrant IV).
• Quadrant III: Low Performance – Low Importance (Low priority): attributes in this category are low performing for customers, but do
not threaten an organisation because of their low importance and, indeed, are sub-weaknesses. There is a low preference for
allocating funds to the attributes of this category. If attributes of this category do not yield reliable results, then attempting to
improve them is unnecessary.
• Quadrant IV: Low Performance – High Importance (Concentrate here): attributes in this category indicate primary weaknesses. If left
uncontrolled, these attributes can threaten an organisation in attracting customers and competing with other organisations.
Allocation of further budget and considerable effort is fundamental to improving these attributes.
The application of Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) for deriving managerial actions has been used in various fields
including tourism (Boley et al., 2017; Lai and Hitchcock, 2016; Pan, 2015; Randall and Rollins, 2009; Ziegler et al., 2012), healthcare
(Abalo et al., 2007; Cohen et al., 2016; Hawes and Rao, 1985; Mohebifar et al., 2016), education (Alberty and Mihalik, 1989; Nale
et al., 2000; O’Neill and Palmer, 2004; Phadermrod et al., 2019), public administration (Hua and Chen, 2019; Keith and Boley, 2019),
banking (Joseph et al., 2005; Matzler et al., 2003), e-business, technology and IT (Chen and Ann, 2016; Magal and Levenburg, 2005;
Skok et al., 2001), food services (Tontini and Silveira, 2007), the automotive industry (Matzler et al., 2004), the building industry (Lee,
2019) and sport centres (Rial et al., 2008). Validity and reliability issues associated with IPA have also been reviewed in previous
researches (Azzopardi and Nash, 2013; Bacon, 2003; Griffin and Hauser, 1993; Gustafsson and Johnson, 2004; Lai and Hitchcock,
2015; Oh, 2001; Sever, 2015). The use of a traditional version of IPA that does not take into account validity and reliability can lead to
misinterpretation of results and the extraction of ineffective managerial actions.
Parasuraman et al. (1985) developed the SERVQUAL model where perceived service quality (i.e. performance) originates from the
gap between perceptions and expectations of various attributes and services. The smaller the gap between perceived and expected
performance of a service, the better the quality of that service from the customer’s perspective. However, Cronin and Taylor (1992)
note that measuring customer expectations of various attributes is not necessary and instead offer the SERVPERF model, which only
uses perceived performance to measure service quality. The SERVPERF model is considered more effective than the SERVQUAL model
since the number of questions used to evaluate the quality of a service is halved. Analysis of structural models also confirms the
theoretical superiority of the SERVPERF model (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).
The question of how to best measure the importance of various attributes has been a subject of interest for many years due to its
multidimensional and ambiguous nature. Direct measurement of importance is mostly associated with social desirability bias (Sever,
2015), which may result in responses falling into the upper end of the scale. Some researchers therefore recommend indirect mea
surement of importance. Since indirect measurement of importance is generally extracted from performance questions, the time and
cost associated with data collection can be reduced (Azzopardi and Nash, 2013). The indirect method, however, is facing challenges
that severely limit its application. Griffin and Hauser (1993) and Bacon (2003) note that direct and scale-based approaches are
generally more reliable than indirect and coefficient-based methods and have more prediction power. Gustafsson and Johnson (2004)
found that direct measurement can entirely reflect customer behaviour over time. Also, in some indirect measurement approaches,
such as conjoint analysis and analytic hierarchy process (AHP), data collection can be more complex, thereby presenting challenges for
participants (Azzopardi and Nash, 2013).
Selecting the right set of attributes is crucial for IPA because subsequent managerial actions depend on the scores associated with
these attributes. Having the same set of attributes to evaluate both performance and importance is recommended (Oh, 2001).
An important subject in IPA is to determine the threshold that distinguishes ‘high importance’ from ‘low importance’ and ‘high
performance’ from ‘low performance’. Martilla and James (1977) propose using the median customer score as the threshold, known as
the scale-centred quadrants approach. However, due to its low discriminative power and little utility in terms of expressing managerial
actions (Bacon, 2003; Rial et al., 2008), other researchers (Deng, 2007; Guadagnolo, 1985; Hollenhorst et al., 1992) apply the mean
customer score as the threshold, known as the data-centered quadrants approach. However, both of these approaches do not analyse the
difference between performance and importance (gap), resulting in the non-prioritisation of attributes within a quadrant (Sever,
2015). Other researchers (Hawes and Rao, 1985; Sampson and Showalter, 1999; Slack, 1994) have therefore used the diagonal
approach, whereby a 45-degree angle line is used to show attributes with performance scores lower than importance scores (below the
diagonal line), indicating where action is required to improve conditions, compared to attributes with performance scores higher than
importance scores (above the diagonal line). This eliminates the problem of non-prioritisation of attributes, as the greater the distance
between attributes and the diagonal line in the lower zone, the higher the priority for action (Abalo et al., 2007). However, the di
agonal approach divides attributes into two categories for managerial action, which offer less information than the quadrants ap
proaches and has less discriminative power and limited interpretability (Sever, 2015). The diagonal approach can therefore be
combined with the quadrants approaches. Abalo et al. (2007) conducted this type of analysis by combining the diagonal approach with
the scale-centered quadrants approach, while Rial et al. (2008) combined the diagonal approach with the data-centered quadrants
approach.
131
Fig. 2. Public transport network in Tehran.
While the simplicity of use and interpretation of IPA may explain its widespread use and acceptability, this does not necessarily
ensure its validity (Oh, 2001). This paper contributes to the literature by improving the validity and reliability of IPA through: (1)
incorporating Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify key components of bus service attributes and comparing the IPA results of
both attributes and components to assess convergent validity of IPA (two IPA chart approach), (2) proposing a method for prioritising
attributes within each quadrant, (3) introducing confidence intervals around each attribute to aid in the interpretation of results, (4)
dividing the sample into clusters based on passenger perceptions and expectations to mitigate the effects of heterogeneity on the
results.
3. Case study, sample and survey design
Bus services in Tehran were first established in 1956; today they are considered to be the most important transport mode after the
subway system. The 2018 annual report of the Tehran Traffic and Transportation Organisation (TTTO, 2018) states that a total of 240
bus routes operate across a total network length of 3040 km, with 11 of these routes (totalling 183 km in length) operating during the
night time. Day time operating hours are 5:30 to 22:30 (divided into morning and evening shifts), with night time bus services
commencing after 22:30. The total fleet size is 6148 buses, with 75% of these buses having operated for more than eight years. Annual
ridership on Tehran’s bus services was around 560 million passengers in 2018, which represents a 14% reduction compared to 2017.
Fig. 2 shows the public transport network in Tehran.
To investigate passenger satisfaction with the quality of bus services, a passenger survey of bus users was undertaken using a
questionnaire. The survey was undertaken at six high-traffic bus terminals in Tehran during January and February 2018, both within
and outside buses. Furthermore, these six bus terminals were chosen from across the network and were located far enough apart from
each other in order to improve the representativeness of the sample.
The questionnaire was divided into two main parts. The first part collected information about various socio-demographic and bus
travel characteristics of respondents. This included gender, marital status, education, age, occupation, trip purpose, bus use frequency,
car ownership and fare payment method. The second part of the questionnaire asked respondents to directly score the importance and
performance of 15 different attributes of Tehran’s bus services on a five-point Likert scale. The attributes included:
1. Cleanliness of buses
2. Cleanliness of bus stations
3. Ventilation
4. Behaviour of staff
5. Facilities provided for elderly/disabled
6. Adequate space for luggage
7. Bus service frequency at day time
8. Bus service frequency at night time
9. Convenience of boarding and alighting
132
Table 1
Socio-demographic and bus travel characteristics of the survey sample.
Characteristic Number of respondents Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 234 60.0%
Female 156 40.0%
Marital status
Single 192 49.2%
Married 198 50.8%
Education
Diploma or lower 135 34.6%
Associate degree 69 17.7%
Bachelor’s degree 138 35.4%
Master’s degree or higher 48 12.3%
Age
Under 18 years 45 11.5%
18–24 years 90 23.1%
25–35 years 102 26.2%
36–50 years 90 23.1%
Above 50 years 63 16.2%
Occupation
Clerk 90 23.1%
Worker 42 10.8%
Housewife 42 10.8%
Student 111 28.5%
Retired 45 11.5%
Self-employed 60 15.4%
Trip purpose
Work 201 51.5%
Shopping 54 13.8%
Education 102 26.2%
Leisure 33 8.5%
Bus use frequency
Everyday 162 41.5%
5 times/week 57 14.6%
3–4 times/week 84 21.5%
1–2 times/week 57 14.6%
Seldom (less than 1 day/week) 30 7.7%
Car ownership
Yes 165 42.3%
No 225 57.7%
Fare payment method
Card 348 89.2%
Cash 42 10.8%
10. Availability of seats

11. Information about bus stations and routes
12. Punctuality of bus services
13. Availability of bus stations
14. Security inside buses
15. Security at bus stations.
The 15 attributes included in the questionnaire were based on bus service characteristics considered in previous studies (Allen
et al., 2018; De Gruyter et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018), plus other attributes relevant to the Tehran context.
Probability sampling was applied as the sampling strategy for this study in which survey participants were randomly selected by
age group and gender and provided with the questionnaire after obtaining informed consent. Participants were given a general
overview of the questionnaire and its completion procedure beforehand. Anonymity in completing the questionnaire was assured, with
interviewers recording responses to each question in the case of illiterates. Due to the separation of men and women in buses in Tehran,
a female interviewer was employed for female passengers. After excluding incomplete questionnaires, a total of 390 survey responses
were available for data analysis.
Table 1 provides a summary of the socio-demographic and bus travel characteristics of the survey sample. Males accounted for a
larger proportion of the sample (60.0% compared to 40.0% for females), with almost half of all respondents having a bachelor’s degree
or higher education qualification (47.7%). More than one-quarter of respondents were students (28.5%), with work and education
being the main trip purposes (51.5% and 26.2% respectively). Respondents tended to be frequent bus users with around three-quarters
(77.6%) using a bus at least 3 days/week.
133
4. Methods
4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
For convergent validity of Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA), Lai and Hitchcock (2015) suggest the use of Factor Analysis
(exploratory or confirmatory). Due to the lack of previous studies and specified constructs, this research used Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) for assessing IPA convergent validity and as a prerequisite for Cluster Analysis (CA). The IPA chart was plotted for
components besides attributes; and if there was no significant difference between the distribution of components and their related
attributes, then it was considered that there were no convergent validity issues in IPA. Since this study applies direct measurement for
performance and importance of the attributes, EFA is used for both scales. Although importance scores rated generally higher than
performance scores, the results of EFA for both scales should lead to similar constructs. In other words, both scales measure different
aspects of one set of attributes, and a similar pattern of responses across both scales are expected. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α),
which tests the internal consistency of the scale, is also used to assess reliability (Price, 1997). An α value greater than 0.7 indicates
reliability of components; however, values above 0.6 are also accepted (van Griethuijsen et al., 2015).
In EFA, if the purpose is to summarize the relationships among a large number of variables, assumptions about the distribution of
variables are not necessary. A violation of this hypothesis will diminish the quality of the correlation between variables, but the results
are still reliable (Tabachnick et al., 2012). According to Hair et al. (2014), the number of participants intended for EFA is recom
mended to be more than 100. Also, the ratio of observations-to-variables is recommended to be more than 10:1. In this research, the
number of survey respondents was 390 and the ratio of observations-to-variables was 26:1, which is therefore considered to be
satisfactory. To evaluate the normality of the variables, the z values of skewness and kurtosis were used. In this case, the critical z value
for the significance level of 0.1 is ±2.58 (Hair et al., 2014). In the performance scale, four variables for skewness and only one variable
for kurtosis had z values exceeding this interval, while in the importance scale, there were four nonnormal variables in terms of
skewness. Lai and Hitchcock (2015) recommend using Cluster Analysis (CA) when some attributes are nonnormal. In the case of
linearity, nonlinear patterns can also be identified by examining the scatterplot between the two variables. Due to infeasibility,
Tabachnick et al. (2012) propose a random control of some combination of variables. No two variables with the nonlinear relationship
were observed in this study. Importantly, if the sample size and the ratio of observations-to-variables are high, then there is no concern
about nonnormality and the nonlinear relationship between the variables (Tabachnick et al., 2012; Hair et al., 2014). In both the
performance and importance scales, the factorability of the correlation matrices was assured by inspecting correlations of 0.3 or higher
between variables. Bartlett’s tests for Sphericity were also significant for both scales, indicating the significance of the correlation
matrices. The values of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy were 0.802 for the performance scale and 0.801 for the
importance scale which are both higher than the recommended value of 0.6.
4.2. Cluster Analysis (CA)
Previous research has used confidence intervals to diminish the effect of heterogeneity on the results, but this approach seems
inadequate for a sample with great diversity in socio-demographic characteristics such as bus service users. The use of Cluster Analysis
(CA) to group survey participants who share similar perceptions of importance and performance of bus service attributes is another
measure taken in this study to deal with the effect of heterogeneity on the accuracy of data. Although Lai and Hitchcock (2015) suggest
using CA in case of nonnormal variables, the current study recommends clustering of diversed samples in IPA studies regardless of the
types of variables.
CA classifies participants based on the proximity of their responses to the survey questions. Distance measurement is used to find
out the similarity of two observations to fall into the same cluster. In this approach, people are clustered based on the proximity of their
responses, not the pattern of responses, where the hierarchical approach is used to find the optimal number of clusters and the
nonhierarchical approach is used to perform the clustering process. Ward’s method is used to perform the hierarchical approach, and
the squared Euclidean distance is used to measure the distance. The nonhierarchical method used in this study is known as the K-means
algorithm in SPSS, where for a predetermined number of clusters, the cluster seeds are first randomly determined by software and
observations then fall into a particular cluster based on the proximity to these seeds. In this algorithm, observations may be reassigned
to clusters that are more similar than their original cluster assignment (Hair et al., 2014).
Assumptions such as normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity, which are principles in other statistical techniques, do not have
much impact on CA. Instead, the impact of multicollinearity is crucial (Hair et al., 2014). Multicollinearity is a principal issue in other
statistical techniques, as the impact of variables with collinearity is difficult to distinguish. But in CA, since each of the analysis
variables (i.e. survey questions) have the same weight in the clustering process, the use of all questions as variables leads some
components to gain more weight and have a greater impact on the cluster formation. EFA results are used to solve this problem in this
study. Since Varimax rotation is of the orthogonal rotation, the extracted factors are independent. From each of the extracted com
ponents, hence, a variable (or question) with the greatest factor loading is selected and inserted into the CA as the variable.
4.3. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA)
Considering the different procedures described earlier in Section 2 for determining thresholds for Importance – Performance
Analysis (IPA), this research used the diagonal approach in combination with the data-centered quadrants approach. The grand mean of
importance and performance scores was therefore used to divide the attributes into four quadrants, and the gap (i.e. performance score
134
Table 2
Average performance and importance scores of bus service attributes.
Bus service attribute Avg. performance Avg. importance Gap
1. Cleanliness of buses 2.93 4.45 − 1.52

2. Cleanliness of bus stations 3.15 4.17 − 1.02
3. Ventilation 2.82 4.47 − 1.65
4. Behaviour of staff 3.32 4.46 − 1.14
5. Facilities provided for elderly/disabled 2.51 4.38 − 1.87
6. Adequate space for luggage 2.75 3.12 − 0.37
7. Frequency at day time 3.44 4.33 − 0.89
8. Frequency at night time 2.83 3.58 − 0.75
9. Convenience of boarding and alighting 2.82 3.90 − 1.08
10. Availability of seats 2.72 3.93 − 1.21
11. Information about bus stations and routes 3.32 4.12 − 0.80
12. Punctuality 3.08 4.57 − 1.49
13. Availability of bus stations 3.66 4.52 − 0.86
14. Security inside buses 3.48 4.64 − 1.16
15. Security at bus stations 3.34 4.63 − 1.29
Note: performance and importance scores are based on a 1–5 Likert scale.
minus importance score) was used to prioritise attributes within quadrants. In each quadrant (especially quadrant IV – concentrate
here), the priority for allocating budget and improving performance is with attributes with a smaller gap. For example, for two at
tributes with the same performance, a smaller gap for an attribute means greater importance, and for two attributes of the same
importance, a smaller gap for an attribute means lower performance. In the Importance – Performance chart it can also be noted that
for attributes below the diagonal line (negative gap value), attributes further away from the diagonal line are prioritised, while for
attributes above the diagonal line (positive gap value), attributes closer to the diagonal line are prioritised. For quadrant II (possible
overkill), this prioritisation process is not well justified. It is therefore recommended that, under a budget deficit, the budget for the
attributes in this quadrant should be equally allocated to the attributes of other quadrants, especially quadrant IV, to improve overall
performance.
An issue in IPA is the interpretation of attributes close to the discriminating thresholds. It is indeed difficult to interpret these
attributes with a satisfactory confidence level (Bacon, 2003; Tarrant and Smith, 2002). The interpretation of the results requires
specific precision because the mean (which used to represent the importance and performance of an attribute) does not reflect the
variability of a distribution (Randall and Rollins, 2009). For an attribute, 68% of the importance and performance scores are within a
greater or lesser standard deviation of the mean, which, given the respective variability, can transfer the attribute of interest to other
quadrants (Ziegler et al., 2012). In this research, a Confidence Interval (CI) of 0.1 significance around the mean of importance and
performance scores was plotted on the IPA chart. The attributes and components close to the discriminating thresholds are introduced
to their quadrant managerial actions if the interval does not match with the discriminating thresholds. Attributes and components
located in each quadrant are also identified at a 0.05 significance level. The CI around the mean for the specified standard deviation is
calculated using Eq. (1). In this equation, x represents the mean, σ represents the standard deviation, n represents the sample size and
z* is equal to 1.645 for 0.1 significance level and 1.96 for 0.05 significance level.
σ σ
CI = (x − z* √̅̅̅.x + z* √̅̅̅ ) (1)
n n
5. Results
This section presents the results of the analysis, including the average importance and performance scores, Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) results, Cluster Analysis (CA) results and Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) results by cluster.
5.1. Importance and performance scores
Table 2 provides a summary of the average importance and performance scores, as rated by survey respondents, for each of the 15
bus service attributes. Of the 15 attributes, the highest level of performance on average was found for availability of bus stations (score of
3.66 out of 5), security inside buses (3.48) and frequency at day time (3.44). Conversely, the lowest level of performance was found for
facilities provided for elderly/disabled (2.51), availability of seats (2.72) and adequate space for luggage (2.75). On average, importance was
rated consistently higher than the performance of each attribute, with the highest levels of importance attributed to security inside buses
(score of 4.64 out of 5), security at bus stations (4.63) and punctuality (4.57). Conversely, the lowest level of importance on average was
attributed to adequate space for luggage (3.12), frequency at night time (3.58) and convenience of boarding and alighting (3.90).
Gaps in average performance and importance scores are also shown in Table 2. These are highest for facilities provided for elderly/
disabled (gap of − 1.87), ventilation (− 1.65) and cleanliness of buses (− 1.52). The smallest gaps in average performance and importance
scores were found for adequate space for luggage (− 0.37), frequency at night time (− 0.75) and information about bus stations and routes
(− 0.80).
135
Table 3
Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) results for bus service attributes for Cluster 1.
Attributes Performance Importance Gap
Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean
Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Punctuality 2.57 2.41–2.73 4.37 4.29–4.46 − 1.80
Security at bus stations** 2.75 2.64–2.86 4.42 4.30–4.55 − 1.67
Security inside buses** 3.07 2.93–3.22 4.52 4.44–4.61 − 1.45
Frequency at day time* 3.16 3.02–3.30 4.26 4.15–4.38 − 1.11
Availability of bus stations** 3.38 3.25–3.51 4.36 4.28–4.44 − 0.98
Quadrant II (Possible overkill)
Cleanliness of bus stations 2.57 2.44–2.71 4.06 3.90–4.23 − 1.49
Frequency at night time 2.64 2.50–2.78 3.62 3.44–3.80 − 0.98
Quadrant III (Low priority)
Information about bus stations and routes 2.20 2.08–2.32 4.06 3.89–4.24 − 1.86
Facilities provided for elderly/disabled** 1.96 1.80–2.13 3.81 3.67–3.96 − 1.85
Availability of seats 2.39 2.25–2.53 4.10 3.92–4.29 − 1.71
Adequate space for luggage** 1.76 1.64–1.89 3.38 3.17–3.59 − 1.62
Convenience of boarding and alighting 2.45 2.30–2.61 3.92 3.75–4.08 − 1.47
Quadrant IV (Concentrate here)
Behaviour of staff* 1.96 1.84–2.09 4.32 4.19–4.45 − 2.36
Ventilation* 2.22 2.09–2.35 4.32 4.17–4.47 − 2.10
Cleanliness of buses* 2.32 2.20–2.44 4.35 4.24–4.47 − 2.03
Grand mean 2.49 4.13
Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

**
Attributes in a specific quadrant with 95% confidence interval.
*
5.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results
The importance and performance scores were analysed in SPSS 26 using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Varimax
rotation. Initial results of both scales showed that the variable adequate space for luggage had no acceptable factor loading on any
component (cross-loading), and hence was excluded from the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Analysis of the remaining 14 vari
ables in both importance and performance scales indicated the presence of four components with eigenvalues greater than 1. Ex
amination of the scree plots showed that the plot shifts became horizontal just after the 4th point. Four components were therefore
considered for analysis, which accounted for 63.6% and 63.5% of the total variance in importance and performance scales respec
tively. The variance explained by the components in importance and performance scales are summarized in Table A1 and Table A2
respectively. Table A3 and Table A4 represents the loading of importance and performance variables on the four components.
The four components included:
• Component 1 (comfort): comprising cleanliness of buses, cleanliness of bus stations, ventilation, behaviour of staff and facilities pro
vided for elderly/disabled
• Component 2 (convenience): comprising frequency at night time, frequency at day time, convenience of boarding and alighting and
availability of seats.
• Component 3 (reliability): comprising information about bus stations and routes, availability of bus stations and punctuality.
• Component 4 (security): comprising security inside buses and security at bus stations.
All of the four components in both scales had Cronbach’s alpha values (α) greater than 0.6. Therefore, reliability of the components
was considered to be acceptable.
5.3. Cluster Analysis (CA) results
Bus service attributes with the greatest factor loading on each component from the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of both
importance and performance scales were considered as Cluster Analysis (CA) variate. These included cleanliness of buses as repre
sentative of the comfort component, frequency at night time as representative of the convenience component, information about bus
stations and routes as representative of the reliability component and security inside buses as representative of the security component.
Therefore; the variables of CA variate were not interrelated and each of the components had the same weight in the clustering process.
As the number of clusters is recommended to be more than 2 and less than 6 (for management systems, a high number of clusters is
not desirable as different policies are adopted for each cluster), so Table A5 summarizes the results of the agglomeration schedule for
the final 8 steps in the hierarchical method. The greatest increase (18.1%) in heterogeneity occurs when the two clusters convert to
one, while the least increase (6.9%) in heterogeneity occurs when six clusters convert to five clusters. Furthermore, considering seven
or more clusters for the sample in this study would appear to be too high. Based on the percentage increase in heterogeneity, 3, 4 or 5
clusters appear to be optimal candidates. Chi-square test of independence was used to report the significance of relationships that exist
136
Fig. 3. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) chart for bus service attributes for Cluster 1. Note: quadrant thresholds are based on the mean of
performance and importance scores. I = Keep up the good work, II = Possible overkill, III = Low priority, IV = Concentrate here.
between socio-demographic and bus travel variables and clusters, where three clusters solution has the most variables with p-value less
than 0.05 (five out of nine variables). Therefore, three clusters are optimal as they are better distinguished by socio-demographic and
bus travel variables. Cross-classification of three clusters with socio-demographic and bus travel characteristics is showed in Table A6.
To describe cluster profiles, the patterns of cross-classification between the clusters and the variables are extracted.
To describe the clusters, key variables are considered including gender, marital status, employed people (e.g. clerks, workers and
self-employed), unemployed people (e.g. students, housewives and retirees), people with no academic degree (e.g. those with a
diploma or lower) and people with academic degrees (e.g. associate degree, bachelor’s degree and master’s degree or higher), as
follows:
• Cluster 1: There are 120 respondents in this cluster; 65% of them are male and single. Also, this cluster has the greatest proportion
of students across the 3 clusters and nearly three quarters of respondents have an academic degree (the highest percentage
compared to other clusters). The proportion of respondents who are unemployed (64.2%) is greater than that of employed (35.8%).
• Cluster 2: This is the most populated cluster with 150 respondents in which the proportion of men and women is nearly equal
(48.0% vs. 52.0% respectively). In this cluster, the proportion of respondents who are employed and unemployed is also nearly
equal (51.3% vs. 48.7% respectively); there is also the greatest proportion of housewives (18.7%) in this cluster compared to other
clusters (7.5% for cluster 1 and 4.2% for cluster 3).
• Cluster 3: There are 120 respondents in this cluster (equal with cluster 1); most of them are men (70%) and nearly half of them do
not have an academic degree (45.8%) which is higher than the other two clusters (23.3% for cluster 1 and 34.7% for cluster 2). The
number of respondents who are employed in this cluster is higher than that of the unemployed (60.0% vs. 40.0%).
5.4. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) results
In this section, results of the Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) for each cluster are presented using tables and charts.
5.4.1. Cluster 1
IPA results for bus service attributes for Cluster 1 are detailed in Table 3 and shown graphically in Fig. 3. In this cluster, the grand
mean of performance scores (2.49) is lower than the other two clusters (2.96 for Cluster 2 and 3.81 for Cluster 3), indicating higher
expectations and greater dissatisfaction among this group.
In this cluster, behaviour of staff entails immediate and special attention given the large gap between performance and importance
(− 2.36). Ventilation and cleanliness of buses are also of importance for attention and allocation of budget to improve performance (also
falling within quadrant IV – concentrate here). Security (inside buses and at bus stations), frequency at day time and availability of bus
137
Table 4
Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) results for components for Cluster 1.
Components Performance Importance Gap

Security** 2.91 2.80–3.02 4.47 4.38–4.56 − 1.56
Reliability* 2.72 2.63–2.81 4.27 4.18–4.36 − 1.55
Convenience* 2.66 2.56–2.76 3.97 3.87–4.07 − 1.31
Comfort 2.21 2.13–2.29 4.17 4.08–4.26 − 1.96

**
*
Fig. 4. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) chart for components for Cluster 1. Note: quadrant thresholds are based on the mean of perfor
mance and importance scores. I = Keep up the good work, II = Possible overkill, III = Low priority, IV = Concentrate here.
stations have satisfactory importance and performance (quadrant I – keep up the good work). With a confidence level of 90%, frequency
at night time is classified into quadrant II (possible overkill). Facilities provided for elderly/disabled and adequate space for luggage need
improvement but with less priority (quadrant III – low priority).
IPA results for the components for Cluster 1 are detailed in Table 4 and shown graphically in Fig. 4. Here, the security component
with a confidence level of 95%, and the reliability component with a confidence level of 90%, have satisfactory performance (quadrant
I – keep up the good work). Two attributes related to the security component, security inside buses and security at bus stations, and one
out of three attributes related to the reliability component, availability of bus stations, were also classified into quadrant I. The con
venience component with 90% confidence level is located in quadrant II (possible overkill), with only one out of four its related at
tributes (frequency at night time) located in same quadrant. Finally, in this cluster, the comfort component has a performance rating
below average, but there is uncertainty about its importance. Four out of five attributes of the comfort component (all comfort related
attributes except cleanliness of bus stations) also had performance ratings below average. In this regard, the convergent validity of IPA in
this cluster is acceptable.
5.4.2. Cluster 2
mean of performance scores (2.96) is between than the other two clusters (2.49 for Cluster 1 and 3.81 for Cluster 3), indicating
138
Table 5

Punctuality* 3.09 2.96–3.22 4.63 4.55–4.71 − 1.54
Frequency at day time 3.26 3.12–3.39 4.37 4.26–4.48 − 1.11
Behaviour of staff** 3.76 3.63–3.89 4.50 4.39–4.61 − 0.74
Information about bus stations and routes 3.58 3.48–3.68 4.21 4.08–4.34 − 0.63
Availability of seats** 2.40 2.24–2.56 4.00 3.83–4.17 − 1.60
Convenience of boarding and alighting** 2.60 2.48–2.72 3.93 3.75–4.11 − 1.33
Frequency at night time** 2.65 2.52–2.79 3.52 3.36–3.68 − 0.87
Adequate space for luggage 2.96 2.81–3.11 3.27 3.07–3.47 − 0.31
Ventilation** 2.60 2.45–2.75 4.63 4.54–4.72 − 2.03
Cleanliness of buses** 2.63 2.51–2.75 4.46 4.37–4.55 − 1.83

**
*
moderate expectations and dissatisfaction among this group.

In this cluster, providing facilities for the elderly/disabled has the largest gap in quadrant IV (concentrate here). In other words,
greatest attention should be paid to providing more facilities to the elderly/disabled. Ventilation and cleanliness of buses are again
secondary priorities in this quadrant. Security (inside buses and at bus stations), punctuality, availability of the bus stations and behaviour of
staff are classified into quadrant I (keep up the good work). Availability of seats, convenience of boarding and alighting and frequency at
139
Table 6

Security** 3.17 3.08–3.26 4.71 4.63–4.79 − 1.54
Reliability** 3.40 3.32–3.48 4.48 4.41–4.55 − 1.08
Convenience** 2.73 2.64–2.82 3.96 3.86–4.06 − 1.23
Comfort* 2.80 2.70–2.90 4.50 4.42–4.58 − 1.70

**
*
night time are classified into quadrant III (low priority). Like Cluster 1, there is no attribute with a confidence level of 90% in quadrant II
(possible overkill).
IPA results for the components for Cluster 2 are detailed in Table 6 and shown graphically in Fig. 6. The security component and
reliability component, both with confidence levels of 95%, are classified into quadrant I (keep up the good work), with both attributes
of the security component and two out of three attributes of the reliability component also classified into quadrant I. The convenience
component with a confidence level of 95% is classified into quadrant III (low priority), and the comfort component is classified into
quadrant IV (concentrate here) with a 90% confidence level. Comparison between IPA charts for attributes and components shows that
three out four related attributes of the convenience component and three out five related attributes of the comfort component are
classified exactly into their corresponding component quadrant. These results reveal good evidence of convergent validity of IPA in this
cluster.
5.4.3. Cluster 3
mean of performance scores (3.81) is higher than the other two clusters (2.49 for Cluster 1 and 2.96 for Cluster 2), indicating lower
expectations and higher satisfaction among this group.
In this cluster, respondents consider Punctuality to be the top priority for further attention and improvement. providing facilities for
140
Table 7

Cleanliness of buses 3.92 3.80–4.04 4.53 4.36–4.70 − 0.61
Behaviour of staff** 4.14 3.99–4.30 4.54 4.39–4.69 − 0.40
Information about bus stations and routes* 4.12 3.97–4.27 4.05 3.90–4.20 0.07
Adequate space for luggage** 3.48 3.33–3.63 2.68 2.51–2.86 0.80
Punctuality** 3.59 3.46–3.72 4.68 4.53–4.83 − 1.09
Ventilation* 3.68 3.56–3.81 4.41 4.26–4.56 − 0.73

**
*
the elderly/disabled and ventilation are secondary priorities in this quadrant (IV – concentrate here). Attributes in quadrant I (keep up
the good work) include security inside buses, security at bus stations, behaviour of staff, availability of bus stations and frequency at day time.
Information about bus stations and routes is classified into quadrant II (possible overkill), while convenience of boarding and alighting,
availability of seats, frequency at night time and adequate space for luggage are classified into quadrant III (low priority).
IPA results for the components for Cluster 3 are detailed in Table 8 and shown graphically in Fig. 8. With a confidence level of 95%,
141
Table 8

Comfort 3.87 3.78–3.96 4.45 4.33–4.57 − 0.58
Reliability* 3.93 3.83–4.03 4.43 4.31–4.55 − 0.50
Security** 4.21 4.11–4.31 4.70 4.56–4.84 − 0.49
Convenience** 3.52 3.42–3.62 3.87 3.76–3.98 − 0.35

**
*
the reliability component and security component are classified into quadrant I (keep up the good work), with the convenience
component classified into quadrant III (low priority). Both attributes of the security component and one out of three attributes of the
reliability component are classified into quadrant I, while two out of three attributes of the convenience component fall into quadrant
III. Contrary to cluster 1, in this cluster the comfort component has an importance rating above average, but there is uncertainty about
its performance. Four out of five attributes of the comfort component (all comfort related attributes except cleanliness of bus stations)
also had an importance rating above average. Consequently, there is no issue with convergent validity of IPA in this cluster.
6. Results discussion
Bus users within each cluster had similar characteristics, implying that socio-demographic and bus travel characteristics are
associated with expectations of bus users and thus their level of satisfaction with bus services. Respondents in Cluster 1 generally had
higher levels of education than those in the other clusters. For these respondents, behaviour of staff was not considered to be acceptable
with a relatively low performance score (1.96 compared to the grand mean of 2.49). In contrast, respondents in Cluster 3 perceived this
attribute to be satisfactory (performance score of 4.14 compared to the grand mean of 3.81). Also, in Cluster 3, where most respondents
were employed and therefore likely to have a greater need to be present on time in the workplace, punctuality was considered less
satisfactory (performance score of 3.59 which was less than the grand mean).
A comparison of the grand mean of performance and education levels in the three clusters show that satisfaction with bus service
142
Table 9
Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) results for bus service attributes for survey sample.

Punctuality 3.08 2.99–3.18 4.57 4.51–4.63 − 1.48
Behaviour of staff** 3.32 3.24–341 4.46 4.38–4.53 − 1.13
Information about bus stations and routes* 3.32 3.23–3.42 4.12 4.02–4.21 − 0.80
Adequate space for luggage** 2.75 2.67–2.84 3.12 3.01–3.24 − 0.37
Ventilation** 2.82 2.73–2.91 4.47 4.40–4.54 − 1.65
Cleanliness of buses* 2.93 2.84–3.02 4.45 4.37–4.52 − 1.52

**
*
Fig. 9. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) chart for bus service attributes for survey sample. Note: quadrant thresholds are based on the mean
of performance and importance scores. I = Keep up the good work, II = Possible overkill, III = Low priority, IV = Concentrate here.
attributes is inversely related to levels of education. The grand mean of performance grand mean was the lowest for Cluster 1, which
had the highest proportion of academically educated respondents, and the highest for Cluster 3, which had the lowest proportion of
respondents without academic education. Also, Cluster 1 had the highest proportion of respondents with car ownership (55%),
indicating the potential role of private transport in raising expectations.
As the attributes analysed in this study are all related to bus services, which serve as a part of a wider public transport system for
143
Table 10
Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) results for components for survey sample.

Security** 3.41 3.33–3.49 4.63 4.57–4.69 − 1.22
Reliability** 3.35 3.28–3.42 4.40 4.35–4.45 − 1.05
Convenience** 2.95 2.90–3.00 3.93 3.87–3.99 − 0.98
Comfort* 2.94 2.87–3.01 4.38 4.32–4.44 − 1.44

**
*
Fig. 10. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) chart for components for survey sample. Note: quadrant thresholds are based on the mean of
society, a holistic interpretation of the four quadrants from the Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) is also recommended,
considering respondents from all three clusters. For this reason, IPA results for the entire survey sample are also provided in this section
(Table 9 and Fig. 9 represents the IPA results for attributes and Table 10 and Fig. 10 represents the IPA results for components).
Attributes of the ‘security’ component (security in buses and security at bus stations) and availability of bus stations in all three clusters
with frequency at day time (in clusters 1 and 3) and behaviour of staff (in clusters 2 and 3) were classified into quadrant I (keep up the
good work). These five attributes were also classified into quadrant I for the entire survey sample. In other words, passengers are
satisfied with the performance of these attributes and consider them to also be important. Measures taken by transit agencies directed
at these attributes should continue to follow the same trend and maintain the amount of budget allocated to them.
In this study, many attributes were not classified into quadrant II (possible overkill). One attribute – information about bus stations
and routes – in cluster 3 and another attribute – frequency at night time – in cluster 1 were classified into quadrant II. Information about
bus stations and routes was also classified into quadrant II for the entire survey sample. Passengers are therefore satisfied with this
attribute and do not consider it to be a matter that requires much attention. In the sample, more than half of all respondents (56.1%)
reported using the bus at least five times per week, indicating a level of familiarity with the bus system and therefore potentially less
need for information about bus stations and routes.
Convenience of boarding and alighting (in Clusters 2 and 3), availability of seats (Clusters 2 and 3), adequate space for luggage (Clusters 1
and 3) and frequency at night time (Clusters 2 and 3) were classified into quadrant III (low priority). This implies that passengers are not
144
Table A1
Total variance explained by the components (importance scores).
Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 4.772 34.338 34.338 4.772 34.338 34.338 3.013 22.754 22.754

2 1.466 10.611 44.949 1.466 10.611 44.949 2.331 16.203 38.957
3 1.350 10.249 55.198 1.350 10.249 55.198 1.826 13.032 51.989
4 1.139 8.386 63.584 1.139 8.386 63.584 1.485 11.595 63.584
5 0.874 6.242 68.826
6 0.807 5.763 74.588
7 0.659 4.708 79.297
8 0.627 4.481 83.777
9 0.557 3.978 87.756
10 0.479 3.423 91.178
11 0.393 2.806 93.985
12 0.336 2.399 96.384
13 0.296 2.116 98.500
14 0.210 1.500 100.000
Note: extraction method used was Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
satisfied with these attributes, but do not consider them to be important. These attributes still need to be improved, but only after
improvement of attributes in quadrant IV (concentrate here). As around three-quarters of bus trips (77.7%) by respondents were for
work and education, the low level of importance attributed to adequate space for luggage and frequency at night time is expected.
The most frequent attributes in quadrant IV (concentrate here) included ventilation (in all three clusters), facilities provided for
elderly/disabled (Clusters 2 and 3), and cleanliness of buses (Clusters 1 and 2). The IPA results for the entire survey sample also show that
these three attributes were classified into quadrant IV. These attributes were perceived to be important but were not considered to have
satisfactory performance. Attributes associated with the comfort of passengers therefore require greater attention in improving the
quality of bus services in Tehran.
Bus ventilation dissatisfaction in all three clusters originates from the lack of a proper mechanism for air flow in buses in Tehran.
The use of an optimal air cleaner system on buses is recommended to solve this problem. For example, Yun (2020) proposes a new
electrostatic air cleaner which filters out dust with a size greater than a predetermined particle size, and collects the dust with smaller
particle sizes on an electrode plate. By investigating buses that were not equipped with air cleaners, John et al. (2013) proposed a
combination of opened and closed windows to access the highest air flow rates. On a bus with 12 windows (six on each side), for
instance, the opening of all windows was not found to be an optimal strategy for maximum air flow; rather, it could be achieved
through closing two windows.
To improve conditions for the elderly/disabled, the use of low-floor buses, mounting equipment for wheelchair access, providing
audible and visual signals to stop a bus and equipment to display the route and destination can be effective (Fatima and Moridpour,
2019). The deployment of dedicated crews to assist the elderly/disabled to safely board and alight buses might also have an impact on
improving satisfaction in this area.
Cleanliness of buses also needs immediate attention of authorities to improve performance. He (2020) introduced high pressure and
high temperature cleaning equipment for buses which improve cleaning efficiency through reducing waste of water resources,
reducing average washing time and employing less labor input. Precautions to prevent graffiti and vandalism from occurring and
regular cleaning of buses each morning before they are deployed to routes along with periodic detailed cleaning can also improve
satisfaction among passengers concerned with the performance of this attribute.
7. Conclusions and future research directions
Using a case study of Tehran, 15 bus service attributes were evaluated in this study using Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA)
(Martilla and James, 1977). The validity and reliability of the analysis was improved using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and
Cluster Analysis (CA). This resulted in the extraction of four components (convenience, comfort, reliability and security) and classi
fication of the sample into three clusters based on socio-demographic and bus travel characteristics. IPA results indicated that transit
agencies and policy-makers need to give greater attention to improving comfort related attributes such as ventilation, cleanliness of
buses and providing facilities for the elderly/disabled.
This study considered 15 different attributes of bus services that can influence passenger satisfaction. However, other bus service
attributes have been investigated by researchers, which may also be relevant (De Gruyter et al., 2019). Zhang et al. (2019), for
instance, included fares as a component to assess passenger satisfaction. Vehicle safety against accidents also was used in some re
searches (Allen et al., 2019a, 2019b) along with other components to evaluate the performance of bus services. Furthermore, the
survey data for this study was collected during winter. Regarding the impact of weather and temperature on the importance of at
tributes, especially comfort and convenience related attributes, conducting a similar study during summer with different climatic
conditions is also recommended.
Many researchers (Anderson and Mittal, 2000; Deng, 2007; Johnston, 1995; Matzler et al., 2004; Matzler and Hinterhuber, 1998;
Matzler and Sauerwein, 2002; Randall Brandt, 1988) propose the use of Kano’s three-factor theory (Kano, 1984) in Importance –
145
Table A2
Total variance explained by the components (performance scores).
Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 4.889 35.494 35.494 4.889 35.494 35.494 2.658 17.855 17.855

2 1.582 11.160 46.654 1.582 11.160 46.654 2.379 16.705 34.559
3 1.317 9.407 56.060 1.317 9.407 56.060 2.144 15.285 49.845
4 1.078 7.389 63.450 1.078 7.389 63.450 1.686 13.605 63.450
5 0.857 6.122 69.572
6 0.696 4.975 74.547
7 0.670 4.786 79.332
8 0.608 4.341 83.673
9 0.517 3.695 87.368
10 0.503 3.596 90.964
11 0.387 2.764 93.729
12 0.341 2.434 96.162
13 0.308 2.200 98.362
14 0.229 1.638 100.000
Note: extraction method used was Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Table A3
Rotated component matrix (importance scores).
Attribute Component
1 2 3 4
1. Cleanliness of buses 0.827 0.135 0.171 − 0.052

2. Behaviour of staff 0.793 − 0.019 0.109 0.088
3. Ventilation 0.758 0.279 0.005 0.157
4. Cleanliness of bus stations 0.702 0.043 0.158 − 0.073
5. Facilities provided for elderly/disabled 0.688 0.286 0.273 0.261
6. Frequency at night time 0.062 0.753 0.123 0.144
7. Frequency at day time 0.083 0.724 0.109 0.162
8. Convenience of boarding and alighting 0.128 0.703 0.100 0.190
9. Availability of seats 0.271 0.629 0.097 0.184
10. Information about bus stations and routes 0.112 0.095 0.765 0.166
11. Punctuality 0.159 0.221 0.727 0.151
12. Availability of bus stations 0.110 0.290 0.705 0.097
13. Security inside buses 0.053 0.104 0.098 0.784
14. Security at bus stations 0.090 0.129 0.137 0.766
Cronbach’s alpha (α) 0.829 0.781 0.712 0.688
Note: extraction method used was Principal Component Analysis (PCA); rotation method used was Varimax with Kaiser normalisation; rotation
converged in 7 iterations.
Table A4
Rotated component matrix (performance scores).
Attribute Component
1 2 3 4
1. Cleanliness of buses 0.830 0.100 0.143 0.184

2. Ventilation 0.774 0.202 0.060 − 0.055
3. Cleanliness of bus stations 0.679 − 0.084 0.386 0.169
4. Facilities provided for elderly/disabled 0.549 0.304 0.410 − 0.035
5. Behaviour of staff 0.525 − 0.189 0.455 0.286
6. Frequency at night time 0.035 0.792 0.183 0.193
7. Frequency at day time 0.116 0.755 0.170 0.112
8. Convenience of boarding and alighting 0.263 0.669 − 0.010 0.255
9. Availability of seats 0.394 0.580 0.081 0.089
10. Information about bus stations and routes 0.060 − 0.053 0.758 0.260
11. Availability of bus stations 0.284 0.120 0.714 0.040
12. Punctuality 0.064 0.355 0.647 0.217
13. Security inside buses 0.046 0.161 0.104 0.825
14. Security at bus stations 0.052 0.211 0.123 0.785
Cronbach’s alpha (α) 0.794 0.763 0.676 0.694
Note: extraction method used was Principal Component Analysis (PCA); rotation method used was Varimax with Kaiser normalisation; rotation
converged in 6 iterations.
146
Table A5
Agglomeration schedule for final 8 stages in the hierarchical method of cluster analysis.
Stage Cluster combined Agglomeration coefficient No. clusters after combining Differences % increase in heterogeneity to next stage
Cluster 1 Cluster 2
382 4 5 1646.170 8 122.844 7.46

383 3 92 1769.014 7 127.233 7.19
384 1 37 1896.247 6 130.617 6.89
385 3 10 2026.864 5 167.197 8.25
386 1 2 2194.061 4 183.790 8.38
387 3 6 2377.851 3 336.240 14.14
388 3 4 2714.091 2 492.217 18.14
389 1 3 3206.308 1 – –
Table A6
Cross-classification of clusters with socio-demographic and bus travel characteristics.
Characteristic Clusters p-value
1 2 3
n % n % n %
Gender 0.001
Male 42 35.0 78 52.0 36 30.0
Female 78 65.0 72 48.0 84 70.0
Marital status 0.001

Single 78 65.0 63 42.0 51 42.5
Married 42 35.0 87 58.0 69 57.5
Education 0.002
Diploma or lower 28 23.3 52 34.7 55 45.8
Associate degree 22 18.3 25 16.7 22 18.3
Bachelor’s degree 45 37.5 60 40.0 33 27.5
Master’s degree or higher 25 20.8 13 8.7 10 8.3
Age 0.005
Under 18 years 12 10.0 20 13.3 13 10.8
18–24 years 24 20.0 36 24.0 30 25.0
25–35 years 38 31.7 28 18.7 36 30.0
36–50 years 28 23.3 40 26.7 22 18.3
Above 50 years 18 15.0 26 17.3 19 15.8
Occupation 0.045
Clerk 20 16.7 37 24.67 33 27.50
Worker 13 10.8 15 10.00 14 11.67
Housewife 9 7.5 28 18.67 5 4.17
Student 48 40.0 30 20.00 33 27.50
Retired 20 16.7 15 10.00 10 8.33
Self-employed 10 8.3 25 16.67 25 20.83
Trip purpose 0.126

Work 52 43.3 75 50.0 74 61.7
Shopping 18 15.0 18 12.0 18 15.0
Education 35 29.2 42 28.0 25 20.8
Leisure 15 12.5 15 10.0 3 2.5
Bus use frequency 0.118

Everyday 57 47.5 75 50.0 69 57.5
5 times/week 18 15.0 18 12.0 18 15.0
3–4 times/week 30 25.0 42 28.0 30 25.0
1–2 times/week 15 12.5 15 10.0 3 2.5
Seldom (less than 1 day/week) 57 47.5 75 50.0 69 57.5
Car ownership 0.126

Yes 66 55.0 57 38.0 42 35.0
No 54 45.0 93 62.0 78 65.0
Fare payment method 0.160

Card 111 92.5 135 90.0 102 85.0
Cash 9 7.5 15 10.0 18 15.0
Total 120 30.75 150 38.5 120 30.75
147
Performance Analysis (IPA). In this theory, the relationship between the performance of attributes and customer satisfaction is
asymmetric and the relationship between performance and importance is causal (Deng, 2007). According to this theory, attributes are
classified into three categories: performance factors, excitement factors and basic factors. Incorporating this theory into IPA can alter
managerial actions in each quadrant depending on the nature of attributes. In this study, all attributes were regarded as ‘performance
factors’, whereby performance is assumed to be representative of satisfaction, meaning that optimal performance will satisfy pas
sengers and poor performance will cause dissatisfaction. An extension of the current study could therefore seek to incorporate Kano’s
three-factor theory to understand how this changes recommendations for improving bus service attributes (Matzler et al., 2004).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Javad Esmailpour: Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Kayvan Aghabayk: Conceptualization,
Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Mohammad Abrari: Data curation, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing - original draft. Chris De Gruyter: Investigation, Writing - review & editing.
Appendix
See Table A1–A6.
References
Abalo, J., Varela, J., Manzano, V., 2007. Importance values for importance-performance analysis: a formula for spreading out values derived from preference
rankings. J. Bus. Res. 60, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.009.
Alberty, S., Mihalik, B.J., 1989. The use of importance-performance analysis as an evaluative technique in adult education. Eval. Rev. 13, 33–44. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0193841X8901300103.
Allen, J., Eboli, L., Forciniti, C., Mazzulla, G., de Ortúzar, J.D., 2019a. The role of critical incidents and involvement in transit satisfaction and loyalty. Transp. Policy
75, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.01.005.
Allen, J., Muñoz, J.C., de Ortúzar, J.D., 2018. Modelling service-specific and global transit satisfaction under travel and user heterogeneity. Transp. Res. Part A Policy
Pract. 113, 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.05.009.
Allen, J., Muñoz, J.C., Rosell, J., 2019b. Effect of a major network reform on bus transit satisfaction. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 124, 310–333. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tra.2019.04.002.
Anderson, E.W., Mittal, V., 2000. Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. J. Serv. Res. 3, 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032001.
Azzopardi, E., Nash, R., 2013. A critical evaluation of importance–performance analysis. Tour. Manag. 35, 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.007.
Bacon, D.R., 2003. A comparison of approaches to importance-performance analysis. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530304500101.
Beirao, G., Cabral, J., 2009. Measuring dissatisfaction with public transport service. Transp. Res. Board 88th, 1–16.
Boley, B.B., McGehee, N.G., Tom Hammett, A.L., 2017. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: the resident perspective. Tour.
Manag. 58, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.002.
Bradshaw, C., 2009. Green Transportation Hierarchy: A Guide for Personal and Public Decision making [R/OL].
Cao, J., Cao, X., 2017. Comparing importance-performance analysis and three-factor theory in assessing rider satisfaction with transit. J. Transp. Land Use 10. https://
doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2017.907.
Chen, C.-M., Ann, B.-Y., 2016. Efficiencies vs. importance-performance analysis for the leading smartphone brands of Apple, Samsung and HTC. Total Qual. Manag.
Bus. Excell. 27, 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.976937.
Cohen, J.F., Coleman, E., Kangethe, M.J., 2016. An importance-performance analysis of hospital information system attributes: A nurses’ perspective. Int. J. Med.
Inform. 86, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.10.010.
Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. J. Mark. 56, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600304.
Das, A.M., Ladin, M.A., Ismail, A., Rahmat, R.O., 2013. Consumers satisfaction of public transport monorail user in Kuala Lumpur. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 8 (3),
272–283.
De Gruyter, C., Currie, G., Truong, L.T., Naznin, F., 2019. A meta-analysis and synthesis of public transport customer amenity valuation research. Transp. Rev. 39,
261–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1461708.
De Oña, J., De Oña, R., Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G., 2013. Perceived service quality in bus transit service: a structural equation approach. Transp. Policy 29, 219–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.07.001.
de Oña, J., de Oña, R., López, G., 2016. Transit service quality analysis using cluster analysis and decision trees: a step forward to personalized marketing in public
transportation. Transportation (Amst). 43, 725–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9615-0.
Deb, S., Ali Ahmed, M., 2018. Determining the service quality of the city bus service based on users’ perceptions and expectations. Travel Behav. Soc. 12, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.02.008.
dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., Cecín, P., 2010. Modelling user perception of bus transit quality. Transp. Policy 17, 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.006.
Deng, W., 2007. Using a revised importance–performance analysis approach: The case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tour. Manag. 28, 1274–1284. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.010.
Fatima, K., Moridpour, S., 2019. Measuring Public Transport Accessibility for Elderly. MATEC Web Conf. 259, 03006. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/
201925903006.
Griffin, A., Hauser, J.R., 1993. The voice of the customer. Mark. Sci. 12, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.1.1.
Grujičić, D., Ivanović, I., Jović, J., Đorić, V., 2014. Customer perception of service quality in public transport. Transport 29, 285–295. https://doi.org/10.3846/
16484142.2014.951685.
Guadagnolo, F., 1985. The importance-performance analysis: an evaluation and marketing tool. J. Park Recreation Admin. 3 (2).
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D., 2004. Determining attribute importance in a service satisfaction model. J. Serv. Res. 7, 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670504268453.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2014. Multivariate data analysis, Vol. 7. Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hawes, J.M., Rao, C.P., 1985. Using importance-performance analysis to develop health care marketing strategies. J Health Care Mark.
He, P., 2020. New Cleaning Equipment for Buses. International Core Journal of Engineering 6 (6), 41–46.
Hollenhorst, S.J., Olson, D., Fortney, R., 1992. Use of importance-performance analysis to evaluate state park cabins: the case of the West Virginia state park system.
J. Park Recreation Admin. 10 (1), 1–11.
148
Hua, J., Chen, W.Y., 2019. Prioritizing urban rivers’ ecosystem services: an importance-performance analysis. Cities 94, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2019.05.014.
John, P., Sriram, B., R, S.K., Kumar, S.V., Ramasamy, P., Vijay Ram, C., 2013. Ventilation improvement in a non-AC bus. SAE Tech. Pap. 10.4271/2013-01-2457.
Johnston, R., 1995. The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manage. 6, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09564239510101536.
Joseph, M., Allbright, D., Stone, G., Sekhon, Y., Tinson, J., 2005. Importance-performance analysis of UK and US bank customer perceptions of service delivery
technologies. Int. J. Financ. Serv. Manage. 1, 66. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFSM.2005.007985.
Kano, N., 1984. Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu (Quality, The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control) 14, 39–48.
Keith, S.J., Boley, B.B., 2019. Importance-performance analysis of local resident greenway users: findings from Three Atlanta BeltLine Neighborhoods. Urban For.
Urban Green. 44, 126426 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126426.
Lai, I.K.W., Hitchcock, M., 2016. A comparison of service quality attributes for stand-alone and resort-based luxury hotels in Macau: 3-dimensional importance-
performance analysis. Tour. Manage. 55, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.007.
Lai, I.K.W., Hitchcock, M., 2015. Importance–performance analysis in tourism: a framework for researchers. Tour. Manage. 48, 242–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2014.11.008.
Lee, E., 2019. Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of LEED-certified home: Importance-performance analysis (IPA). Build. Environ. 149, 571–581. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.038.
Li, L., Bai, Y., Song, Z., Chen, A., Wu, B., 2018. Public transportation competitiveness analysis based on current passenger loyalty. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
113, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.016.
Litman, T., 2003. Measuring transportation: traffic, mobility and accessibility. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal 73 (10), 28.
Magal, S.R., Levenburg, N.M., 2005. Using Importance-Performance Analysis to Evaluate E-Business Strategies among Small Businesses, in. In: Proceedings of the 38th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, p. 176a. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.661.
Martilla, J.A., James, J.C., 1977. Importance-performance analysis. J. Mark. 41, 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H.H., Renzl, B., Pichler, J., 2004. The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer
satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importance–performance analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 33, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00055-5.
Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H., 1998. How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality
function deployment. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00072-2.
Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E., 2002. The factor structure of customer satisfaction. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 13, 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230210445078.
Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E., Heischmidt, K., 2003. Importance-performance analysis revisited: the role of the factor structure of customer satisfaction. Serv. Ind. J. 23,
112–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060412331300912.
Mohebifar, R., Hasani, H., Barikani, A., Rafiei, S., 2016. Evaluating service quality from patients’ perceptions: application of importance–performance analysis
method. Osong Public Heal. Res. Perspect. 7, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrp.2016.05.002.
Morton, C., Caulfield, B., Anable, J., 2016. Customer perceptions of quality of service in public transport: evidence for bus transit in Scotland. Case Stud. Transp.
Policy 4, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.03.002.
Nale, R.D., Rauch, D.A., Wathen, S.A., Barr, P.B., 2000. An exploratory look at the use of importance-performance analysis as a curricular assessment tool in a school
of business. J. Work. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010332048.
O’Neill, M.A., Palmer, A., 2004. Importance-performance analysis: a useful tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher education. Qual. Assur. Educ.
12, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410517423.
Oh, H., 2001. Revisiting importance–performance analysis. Tour. Manage. 22, 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00036-X.
Pan, F.C., 2015. Practical application of importance-performance analysis in determining critical job satisfaction factors of a tourist hotel. Tour. Manage. 46, 84–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.004.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Mark. 49, 41. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1251430.
Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R.M., Wills, G.B., 2019. Importance-performance analysis based SWOT analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 44, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.009.
Price, J.L., 1997. Handbook of organizational measurement. Int. J. Manpow. 18, 305–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729710182260.
Randall Brandt, D., 1988. How service marketers can identify value-enhancing service elements. J. Serv. Mark. 2, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024732.
Randall, C., Rollins, R.B., 2009. Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural areas. J. Sustain. Tour. 17, 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669580802159727.
Rial, A., Rial, J., Varela, J., Real, E., 2008. An application of importance-performance analysis (IPA) to the management of sport centres. Manag. Leis. 13, 179–188.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710802200878.
Sampson, S.E., Showalter, M.J., 1999. The performance-importance response function: observations and implications. Serv. Ind. J. 19, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069900000027.
Sever, I., 2015. Importance-performance analysis: a valid management tool? Tour. Manage. 48, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.022.
Skok, W., Kophamel, A., Richardson, I., 2001. Diagnosing information systems success: Importance-performance maps in the health club industry. Inf. Manage.
10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00076-8.
Slack, N., 1994. The importance-performance matrix as a determinant of improvement priority. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 14, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01443579410056803.
Statistical Centre of Iran, 2017. 2017 Census results divided according to administrative divisions. https://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/census/1395/results/abadi/
CN95_HouseholdPopulationVillage_23_r.xlsx.
Sum, S., Champahom, T., Ratanavaraha, V., Jomnonkwao, S., 2019. An application of importance-performance analysis (IPA) for evaluating city bus service quality in
Cambodia. International Journal of Building, Urban Interior and Landscape Technology (BUILT) 13, 55–66.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. 2012. Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tarrant, M.A., Smith, E.K., 2002. The use of a modified importance-performance framework to examine visitor satisfaction with attributes of outdoor recreation
settings. Manag. Leis. 7, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710210137246.
Tontini, G., Silveira, A., 2007. Identification of satisfaction attributes using competitive analysis of the improvement gap. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 27, 482–500.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710742375.
TTTO (Tehran Traffic and Transportation Organisation), 2019. Detailed activities report of Tehran Traffic and Transportation Organisation in 2018. Tehran, Iran.
http://traffic.tehran.ir/Portals/0/Document/amalkard/96/96__Part1.pdf.
van Griethuijsen, R.A.L.F., van Eijck, M.W., Haste, H., den Brok, P.J., Skinner, N.C., Mansour, N., Gencer, A.S., BouJaoude, S., 2015. Global patterns in students’ views
of science and interest in science. Res. Sci. Educ. 45, 581–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6.
van Lierop, D., El-Geneidy, A., 2016. Enjoying loyalty: The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in public transit. Res.
Transp. Econ. 59, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.04.001.
Wen, C.H., Lai, S.C., 2010. Latent class models of international air carrier choice. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 10.1016/j.tre.2009.08.004.
Yun, N. S., 2020. Electrostatic air cleaner for express bus and air cleaning method using the same. U.S. Patent Application 16/593,395.
149
Zhang, C., Liu, Y., Lu, W., Xiao, G., 2019. Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: evidence from Chinese public transport service. Transp.
Res. Part A Policy Pract. 120, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.12.013.
Zhao, P., 2010. Sustainable urban expansion and transportation in a growing megacity: Consequences of urban sprawl for mobility on the urban fringe of Beijing.
Habitat Int. 34, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.09.008.
Ziegler, J., Dearden, P., Rollins, R., 2012. But are tourists satisfied? Importance-performance analysis of the whale shark tourism industry on Isla Holbox. Mexico.
Tour. ManagE. 33, 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.004.
150

Transportation Research Part A: Javad Esmailpour, Kayvan Aghabayk, Mohammad Abrari Vajari, Chris de Gruyter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Research Part A: Javad Esmailpour, Kayvan Aghabayk, Mohammad Abrari Vajari, Chris de Gruyter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Research Part A 142 (2020) 129–150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) of bus service attributes:

Fig. 1. The standard IPA chart. (Martilla and James, 1977).

2. Overview of importance – Performance Analysis (IPA)

Fig. 2. Public transport network in Tehran.

3. Case study, sample and survey design

10. Availability of seats

4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

4.2. Cluster Analysis (CA)

4.3. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA)

1. Cleanliness of buses 2.93 4.45 − 1.52

5.1. Importance and performance scores

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

5.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results

5.3. Cluster Analysis (CA) results

5.4. Importance – Performance Analysis (IPA) results

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

moderate expectations and dissatisfaction among this group.

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

Mean 90% CI Mean 90% CI Mean

Quadrant I (Keep up the good work)

Note: CI = Confidence Interval.

Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 4.772 34.338 34.338 4.772 34.338 34.338 3.013 22.754 22.754

Note: extraction method used was Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

7. Conclusions and future research directions

Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 4.889 35.494 35.494 4.889 35.494 35.494 2.658 17.855 17.855

Note: extraction method used was Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

1. Cleanliness of buses 0.827 0.135 0.171 − 0.052

1. Cleanliness of buses 0.830 0.100 0.143 0.184

382 4 5 1646.170 8 122.844 7.46

Marital status 0.001

Trip purpose 0.126

Bus use frequency 0.118

Car ownership 0.126

Fare payment method 0.160

Total 120 30.75 150 38.5 120 30.75

CRediT authorship contribution statement

See Table A1–A6.

You might also like