3.8 Article

Factors that influence the quality of services provided by the bus rapid transit system A look for user's perception

期刊

BENCHMARKING-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 4035-4057

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2017-0344

关键词

Public transportation; Bus rapid transit; Quality in services

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  3. Foundation for Science and Technology of Pernambuco (FACEPE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This study analyses the factors that can influence the quality of service provided by the bus rapid transit (BRT) system in the state of Pernambuco. It is incipient, considering that the system was implemented in this state in 2014 to the World cup. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to identify the factors considered important for the services provided by this system and their impact on perceived quality. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed the data using exploratory factorial analysis, and linear and quantile regression techniques. Regarding the classification, this research is applied, exploratory, descriptive and in the form of a case study describing the situation experienced by the users of BRT in Pernambuco. Findings The results showed that it was possible to identify five factors that impact the level of satisfaction of the offered services: fluency in the provision of the service; staff training; physical conditions in the provision of the service; convenience/accessibility; and integration between transport lines. Originality/value With initial identification, factors 1, 3, 4 and 5 have been found to have an impact on overall service quality in a positive and statistically significant way. Factors 3 and 4 have a different impact with high- and low-quality standard perceived by users, and these should be the guiding elements by companies in establishing actions to improve the services offered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据