Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
World Journal of Management
Vol. 6. No. 2. September 2015 Issue. Pp. 1 – 15
From Motor Biking to Public Transportation, What Matters in Hanoi?
Poh Yen Ng* and Phung Thanh Phuong**
The process of urbanisation brings a number of environment and transportation challenges to fast growing economies such as Vietnam. With a total number of 6 million registered vehicles (more than 80% are motorbikes), transportation is one of the biggest issues to deal with in the cities. Apart from daily traffic congestion and high accident rate, the sources of air pollution in its capital city, Hanoi have been proven to come mainly from motorbikes. It is also the most polluted city in South East Asia and is chosen as the research context. Many developing countries face similar challenges as a result of urbanisation and they have conducted extensive efforts to build a more sustainable environment using public transportation. This paper aims to find out factors influencing road users’ intention to use public transportation in Hanoi. A survey was carried out by randomly selecting 600 road users. Among the 525 completed questionnaire, around 83% of the respondents used public transportation before. However, only 30% of them are frequent users. Result shows that personal belief on ease of use of public transport and service satisfaction provided by Hanoi City Bus influenced their intention to use public transportation. On the other hand, environmental impact caused by the usage of private vehicle does not draw them to public transportation. The findings show that Hanoians were less motivated to use public transportation even they are living in a polluted environment caused by private vehicles. Policy makers are urged to improve on the accessibility, reliability, safety and responsiveness of public transportation to encourage private vehicle users to switch to public transportation. In addition, social influence was also found to influence the intention to use public transportation. Though ‘motor biking’ is a deep-rooted culture in Vietnam, policy makers can create a new culture of using public transportation that emphasis on social wellbeing to increase the conversion.
Field of Research: Intention, public transportation, Vietnam
1. Introduction Vietnam is a developing country with a population of 90 million people as reported by the National Office for Population and Family Planning. Transportation is one of the biggest issues to deal with, especially in the two biggest cities: Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh (HCM), with respectively about 7.1 million people and 7.5 million people (Minh Luan 2013). The demand for transportation in both cities is huge. Most of the residents and travellers use private transportation such as motorbikes, cars and electric bicycles. Currently, there is only one public transportation option available in the cities: intra cities buses. *Dr. Poh Yen Ng, Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, United Arab of Emirates Email : [email protected] **Ms Phung Thanh Phuong, Commerce of Centre and Management, RMIT University Vietnam Email : [email protected]
Ng & Phuong
2
The two biggest cities are facing serious transportation problems due to the process of urbanisation. A large population that includes both permanent residents and immigrants is going in and out of the cities every day. HCM city experienced the highest growth of private vehicles as a mode of transportation. Based on AFD (2008), four households out of five in Hanoi own a motorbike and two out of five own at least two. There were newly registered 4,238 cars and 82,870 motorbikes in Quarter 1, 2013 alone. The total number of registered vehicles is 6 million, of which 5.6 motorbikes and 547,606 cars. Those figures do not include about one million vehicles brought into the city for working purposes by residents of the nearby cities and provinces (Minh Chau 2013). According to Autonet (2013) more than 37 million motorbikes (accurately 37,023,078) had already been registered in Vietnam by the end of the first quarter of 2013. This figure does not include the unregistered which are common in the country. This number has exceeded the forecasted number of 36 million motorbikes by 2020 determined by the Ministry of Transportation. In the first quarter of 2013, 2,033,265 automobiles were registered. Similarly, the registration of private car is also exceeding the initial forecast (Minh Chau 2013). Given the number above, it is evident that the pollution created by that large number of private vehicles is substantial and increasing to growing tremendously in the future. In addition, Nguyen Viet Hung and Le Thi Thanh Huong, two authors from the University of Public Health, the sources of air pollution in Hanoi have been proven to come mainly from motorbikes which accounting for 92- 95 % of air emission from all motor vehicles, with 56 % of NOx emission, 65 % SO2 , 94 % CO and 86 % PM10 emission. In the same article, the two authors also cited a research study from Hope, Kohen and colleagues in 2008, who commented that Hanoi was one of the worst cities in Asia with the highest level of air pollution, and the majority of the air emission came from transportation vehicles. However, it is difficult for the government to ban the use of motorbikes in the cities because it has become a part of Vietnam national culture. According to Luong Hoai Nam (2013), the proposal by the National Committee for Safe Travel and Transportation to ban motorbikes met with huge disapproval from the public. As a result, the Ministry of Transportation announced that it had no plan to ban motorbikes at all. On the other hand, according to Bich Van (2013), there are about 1 million users of buses every day in Hanoi. The use of city buses is equivalent to the use of about 700,000 motorbikes. This has significantly helped in reducing pollution in the city. Therefore, there is an urgent need to encourage more road users to switch from private vehicles to public transportation. Given the context as described above, it is important to understand what influences the choice of the road users to use public transportation. Firstly, the understanding helps key stakeholders in public transportation sector such as the government, bus operators and the relevant agencies to encourage the use of public transportation and to reduce the use of private vehicles such as motorbikes and cars. The change of transportation option can help to prevent environmental deterioration and improve the health and wellbeing of the people. Many developing countries (Bhattacharyay 2011; Leong & Mohd Sadullah 2010) face similar challenges as a result of urbanisation and they have conducted extensive efforts in building a more sustainable environment using public transportation. The current literature has limited information on developing a sustainable public transport system in an emerging country like Vietnam. In addition, the study enriches the current literature by offering more insights on how to transform a nation that is proud of its ‘motor biking’ culture to be more environmentally responsible.
Ng & Phuong
3
The next section outlines the prior work related to this topic, follow by the research design. We then report findings on the main influences of using public transportation. The paper ends with a discussion of knowledge created from this research, as well as the main limitation and possible future research.
2. Literature Review Riley (2002) comments that population growth has a great impact on the number of vehicles in developing countries which is also evidenced in Vietnam currently. As a result, transportation is one of the most important physical infrastructures in urban areas (Perez, Carrillo and Montoya-Torres 2014). Similarly, developing countries with raising income influences the personal transport ownership or independence (Button & Nijkamp, 1997). IEA (2009) reports that the contribution of the transportation sector to CO2 per-capita emissions are significant in Asian countries. Respiratory and other diseases related to local air pollution in developing countries contribute to the premature death of more than half a million people each year, imposing an economic cost of up to 2 percent of GDP (Gwilliam et al 2004). Therefore, there is a strong need in large cities to encourage more usage of public transportation. This is because public transportation is a good solution to reduce the above impact (Joireman 2004) and it is imperative to get the road users aware of the consequences of using private vehicles. Results from the CfIT (2001) shows that half of the population in England would reduce travelling by car if the local bus services were better. In another continent, The National Household Travel Survey (2003) revealed that more than 50% of the commuters were dissatisfied with the public transportation in South Africa. The challenges of public transport are visible in almost all countries of the developing world (Vilakazl & Govender 2014). Besides, Bonsall et al (2005) noted that dissatisfaction with the price, safety and reliability of public transport will affect the preference of types of transport used. In addition, usage of public transport is affected by the quality of the service provided (staff attitudes), frequency, availability of seats, cleanliness of vehicles, fast, comfortable, convenient and affordable services (Gebeyhu & Takano 2007; Eboli & Mazulla 2007). The brainchild of Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (1998), SERVQUAL model is often used to measure customer perceptions of service quality. There are five dimensions suggested in their study: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. These dimensions are applied in a wide range of research (Tsoukatos & Rand 2006; Kouthouris & Alexandris 2005). In addition to the supply factor of public transportation, the demand perspective is also an important determinant to road users’ intention to use public transportation. Lai & Chen (2011) note that perceived value on the public transportation impacted the behavioural intentions of passengers. Similarly, Carrus, Passafaro & Bonnes (2008) propose that personal attitudes and subjective norms influenced the use of public transportation. Likewise, Vugt, Meertens & Van Lange (1995) also comment that social environment and pressure are likely to impact the commuting decision. Beirao & Cabral (2007) argue that attitude towards transport is an important determinant for mode choice. However, their study found that environmental concern about car use is not important in the travel mode choices of respondents. Building on the Theory of Planned Behavior, Heath & Gifford (2002) suggested normal norms and environmental concerns influenced commuters’ intention to use public transportation. They further separated the environmental concern to world and local perspective. Apart from the polluted environment that question the sustainable development in Vietnam, the country also faced alarming growth rate of traffic
Ng & Phuong
4
accident in the recent years (Anh, Dao & Anh 2005). Currently, there is only one public transportation available in Hanoi which is the city bus, Hence, this study aimed to answer two research questions: 1) What are the influences of environment impacts, social influence, personal belief and service satisfaction on decisions to use public bus? 2) What are the main dimensions in SERVQUAL that influence the service satisfaction provided by public bus? To answer the questions, a research framework is proposed as shown in Figure 1. Five hypotheses are proposed as follow: H1: Tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy dimensions contributed
to the service satisfaction of public bus users. H2: Service satisfaction influences road users’ intention to use public buses. H3: Personal belief influences road users’ intention to use public buses H4: Social influence influences road users’ intention to use public buses H5: World environment influences road users’ intention to use public buses H6: Local environment influences road users’ intention to use public buses.
Figure 1: The conceptual framework
3. Methodology
Quantitative research was conducted to examine the factors that influence road users’ decision to use public transportation. Hanoi, the most polluted city in South East Asia (Thanh Nien News, 2012) is chosen as the research context. Referring to the conceptual framework in Figure 1, there are a number of research used SERQUAL framework to examine the intention of user behaviour (Kouthouris & Alexandris 2005; Ott 2008). In addition, this research also aimed to provide a platform for road users to comment on the current public bus system by using the service quality model. A survey instrument was developed incorporating items for measuring the factors and outcomes of the use of public bus as well as demographic questions. The items used to measure the factors were compiled from the literature review and adapted to Vietnam context. Questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese language and validated by conducting a pilot study with 50
Local Environment
World Environment
Service Satisfaction
Social Influence
Personal Belief
Intention to use Public Bus
SERVQUAL Tangibles Reliability Assurance Responsiveness Empathy
H1 H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
Ng & Phuong
5
participants. The items were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale. (1 for strongly disagree to 7 for strongly agree). The subject of this research was the road users in Hanoi, including those who use and do not use public bus to go to work or school. Malhotra (1999) suggested that the minimum sampling size for problem solving research is 200 samples. Thus, this study randomly selected 600 road users in Hanoi, where most of them were assisted by research associates in answering the questionnaires. After eliminating some incomplete questionnaires, a total number of 525 questionnaires were used in the analysis. The descriptive statistics for each item were checked against any violations of statistical assumptions. Sample questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1 while the descriptive analysis for each items is showed in Appendix 2. According to Garson (2012), kurtosis and skewness should be within the +2 and -2 range when the data are distributed normally. Results in Appendix 2 confirmed data normality. Factor analysis was conducted using principal component method with Varimax rotation to determine the validity of the items. Multiple regression analyses were run in the subsequent stage to answer the hypotheses. To confirm non-multicollinearity among the variables, collinearity statistics based on VIF and tolerance values were checked. All VIFs were well between 1.0-1.4, confirming the regression models were not biased, while the tolerances were around 0.7-0.9.
4. Findings and Discussions The fieldwork which was carried out by two trained research associates at public places such as recreation park, community centre and bus terminal in Hanoi, generated a response rate of 87.5%. There were 75 copies incomplete questionnaire as approached participants did not agree to take part or complete the questionnaire. Field work ran for two months (July and August 2014). One-way Anova test and independent T-test (for gender) were used to see if there was a difference between the intentions to use public bus in particular demographic characteristics. The results are shown in Table 1. The table also showed the frequencies and percentages breakdown on each demographic characteristic. There were significant difference in the categories of mode of transport, income level, occupation and travel distance in their intention to use public bus, while gender, age group and education level showed no significance. Results showed that current private car and motorbike users had lower intention to use the city bus compared to the other group of users. It is also found that respondents earning lower income and working in manual/low skilled position have higher intention to take public bus, while those respondents with higher income, self-employed or work as a professional have lower intention. Finally, those travel at least 15km daily have higher intention to take public bus. Based on results, it is not surprising that public transportation are more appealing to those who currently do not own a private vehicle, who are mostly in lower economic status and living far from their workplace. In another word, Vietnam government needs to have a comprehensive plan to encourage private vehicle owners who are enjoying middle or higher income to use public transportation regardless of their travel distance. Before running the regression analysis, it is important to confirm the reliability of items used in this survey. As most of the items used were based on instruments developed in previous studies, all the variables generated more than 0.60 in their Cronbach’s alpha value. According to Byrne (2010), the variables are all acceptable and reliable. Results are shown in Table 2. The number of items related to each variable is shown in bracket.
Ng & Phuong
6
Table 1: Key Demographic Characteristics
Profile Category Frequency (%)
F ratio, Significance
Mode of transport
Private motorbike Hanoi city bus Private car Taxi Motorbike taxi Others
307 (58.5%) 157 (29.9%) 31 (5.9%) 4 (0.8%) 7 (1.3%)
19 (3.6%)
F(5,519)=49.197 p= 0.000***
Gender Male Female
260 (49.5%) 265 (50.5%)
0.299
Age group 18-25 years old 26-35 years old 35-45 years old 46-55 years old Above 55 years old
262 (49.9%) 188 (35.8%) 38 (7.2%) 13(2.5%) 24 (4.6%)
F(4,519) =0.830 p=0.507
Education level Secondary school certificate High school certificate Bachelor degree Postgraduate degree
5 (1%) 123 (23.4%) 311 (59.2%) 86 (16.4%)
F(3,519) = 1.518 p=0.209
Income Level Below 3 million VND 3-4.49 million VND 4.5-6.49 million VND 6.5-13.49 million VND 13.5-25 million VND More than 25 million VND
208 (39.7%) 119 (22.7%) 81 (15.4%) 65 (12.4%) 31 (5.9%) 21 (4.0%)
F(5,519)=9.298 p=0.000***
Occupation Student Office/Professional worker Manual worker Self-employed Others
177 (33.7%) 360 (49.5%) 12 (2.3%) 54 (10.3%) 22 (4.2%)
F(4,519)=3.393, p=0.000***
Travel Distance Less than 5 kilometer 5-9.9km 10-14.9km 15-25km More than 25km
162 (30.9%) 210 (40%) 76 (14.5%)
47 (9%) 30 (5.7%)
F(4,519)=3.655 p=0.006**
Ng & Phuong
7
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha
Service Quality Dimension Assurance (3 items) Reliability (4 items) Tangible (3 items) Empathy (4 items) Responsiveness (3 items)
0.697 0.817 0.740 0.810 0.797
Service Satisfaction (2 items) 0.845
Personal Belief (3 items) 0.826
Social Influence(4 items) 0.832
World environment impact (3 items) 0.881
Local environment impact (5 items) 0.874
Intention to use public transportation (3 items) 0.901
The survey requested respondents to rate their perception of public bus service quality and their overall satisfaction level. Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects on each service quality (SERVQUAL) dimension on satisfaction. Results showed in Table 3 implied that four dimensions which are assurance, reliability, tangible and responsiveness had a significant relationship with service satisfaction. However, empathy dimension was not considered to be significant in determining service satisfaction in this case. The findings are similar to what have been found by Vilakazi & Govender (2014) where they conclude that reliability, comfort, service and safety are important dimensions in determining the service quality of public bus service in South Africa. The empathy dimension was left out in this context but it was found significant in another study conducted in India by Randheer & AL-Motawa (2011). As such, H1 is only partially supported because one of the SERQUAL dimensions was not significant in this study. The results may indicate that Vietnamese users have low concern on whether the public transport providers are giving caring and individualised attention to them. This revelation suggests that public transport providers could emphasised on the four dimensions especially being more responsive and assuring to improve customer’s satisfaction.
Table 3: Effects of Service Quality Dimension on Satisfaction
Dimension Standardised β significance
Assurance Reliability Tangibles Empathy Responsiveness R2
Adjusted R2
0.193 0.130 0.104 0.050 0.438 0.635 0.631
0.000** 0.007* 0.021* 0.331ns
0.000**
*p<0.05; **p<001; ns=non-significant
Table 4 showed the regression results on factors influencing intention to use public bus. Service satisfaction, personal belief and social influence were found to have significant impact on road users’ intention to use public bus, while world and local impact had no significant relationship with their intentions. As such, only H2, H3 and H4 are fully supported while H5 and H6 are rejected. The findings suggest that Vietnamese road users are more likely to use public transportation if they believe that it is easy and simple to use, people around them encourage them to use and they are satisfied with the service of public
Ng & Phuong
8
transport. This concur the findings of Jain et al (2014) where they also found Indian commuters are willing to shift to public transport if major criteria of services are fulfilled. It is surprising to see that negative impacts of private vehicle on world and local environment do not affect Vietnamese’s intention to use public transport. The findings showed that they are less motivated to use public transportation even they are living in a polluted environment caused by private vehicles. Nevertheless, Heath & Gifford (2002) found private vehicle usage problem awareness influenced Canadian intention to take bus. The difference in the findings probably attributed to the different development phases of the countries. Vietnam is a developing country with emerging economies while Canada is a developed country with much higher literacy and income level. Therefore, the usage of private vehicles that brings negative impact on world and local environment seems to be more alarming in a more advanced country.
Table 4: Factors influencing Intention to use Public Transportation
Dimension Standardised β significance
Service Satisfaction Personal Belief Social Influence World Environment Impact Local Environment Impact R2
Adjusted R2
0.227 0.210 0.409 0.036 0.012 0.500 0.494
0.000** 0.000** 0.000** 0.510ns
0.826ns
**p<001; ns=non-significant
The empirical results provide several implications to the policy makers and public transport providers. First of all, road users who currently owned a private vehicle are not keen to use public buses. They have low intention to switch from their ‘motor biking’ lifestyle. Therefore, more efforts should be put in place to convert these groups of users to use public bus. The government should ensure a convenient public transportation system and road users are aware of its advantages over private vehicles. This can affect their personal belief on the ease of use and increase their intention to use public transportation. Secondly, social influence is an important determinant on Vietnamese’s intention to use public bus. Hence, there should be more campaigns or educational programs to encourage more Vietnamese to see the ‘cool’ factor in using public buses. By getting more people aware of the benefits of taking public buses, it can improve their personal belief and create more social influences. The missing link between transportation mode and sustainable environment is a big concern in a highly polluted city like Hanoi. If there is no control of the private vehicle emission rate and traffic congestion in the city, it will threaten the urban development in the near future. Vietnamese government ought to introduce the concept of sustainable transportation and to encourage usage of public transportation to protect the deteriorating environment. Finally, public transport providers such as Hanoi City Bus should focus on improving their service quality, especially the four dimensions identified: reliability, assurance, responsiveness and tangibles. It is suggests that they have to make sure their buses run on schedule, vehicles are well maintained, staff are courteous and responsive. An efficient planning and scheduling of services is very critical to improve their customers’ satisfaction thus attract more users in the near future.
Ng & Phuong
9
5. Conclusion This study provided significant revelation of an emerging nation’s perspective on public transportation. Western angles of using environment concern to encourage use of public transportation may not be effective in Vietnam. Based on the findings and discussion, it is obvious that Vietnamese has low awareness and motivation on having a transportation mode that is sustainable and able to improve their quality of life. The research subjects are living in one of the most polluted cities in Asia, yet the environment impacts had no significant relationship with their intention to use public transportation. It could be reasoned that Vietnamese do not consider switching to public buses could help to improve their living environment. Likewise, their decision to use public transportation is highly depending on the service satisfaction on the provider, their personal belief on the ease of use and influences from their social environment. Hence, it is still a long journey to change the deep rooted motor biking culture unless there will be radical improvement on their public transportation infrastructure that would attract more road users. Nevertheless, the study has its limitation. Current population in Hanoi is 7 million while the sample used in this analysis was only 525. The result may not be able to represent majority opinions. Further data collection efforts would be needed to provide better views from road users in this city. Using the knowledge gained from this study, future research can focus on discovering effective measures to transform the city from chaotic motor biking lifestyle to a cleaner and efficient public transportation system. Besides the road users, opinions from other stakeholders such as government and city council, transportation agencies and public transportation service providers can be collected to offer a more comprehensive views on public transportation system in the city.
References AFD 2008, Hanoi metro line. Agence Francaise de Development. Retrieved from
www.afd.fr. Anh, TT, Dao, N X & Anh, TT 2005, ‘The cost of road traffic accident in Vietnam’,
In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. vol. 5, pp. 1923-1933.
Autonet 2013, ‘Xe may van la phuong tien chinh cua nguoi Viet’. Zing, 10 October, viewed 24 December 2013, http://news.zing.vn/Xe-may-van-la-phuong-tien-chinh-cua-nguoi-Viet-post359284.html>
Beirão, G & Sarsfield Cabral, JA 2007, ‘Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study’, Transport policy, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 478-489.
Bhattacharyay, BN 2011, Toward a Sustainable Transport Development in Asia and the Pacific, CESifo Working Paper No. 3539, Category 9: Resource and Environment Economics. Retrieved from http://www.cesifo.org/wp.
Bich Van 2013, ‘Bus Hanoi va hanh trinh 5 nam mo rong dia gioi thu do’. Van hoa x a hoi, 25 July, viewed 23 December, 2013 http://vietnam.vnanet.vn/vnp/vi-vn/13/3/3/48766/default.aspx
Bonsall, P, Beale, J, Paulley, N & Pedler, A 2005, ‘The differing perspectives of road users and service providers’, Transport Policy, vol.12, no. 4, pp.334 – 344.
Button K & Nijkamp P 1997, ‘Social Change and Sustainable Transport’, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 5, no.3, pp.215-218.
Byrne, BM 2013, Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
Ng & Phuong
10
Carrus, G, Passafaro, P & Bonnes, M 2008, ‘Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 28, no.1, pp. 51-62.
CfIT 2001, Public attitudes to transport in England 2001, Report available on http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/mori2001/pdf/mori2001.pdf.
Eboli, L & Mazzulla, G 2007, ‘Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit’, Journal of Public Transportation, vol.10, no.3, pp.21.
International Energy Agency 2009, World Energy Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2009/WEO2009.pdf
Heath, Y & Gifford, R 2002, ‘Extending the theory of planned behavior: Predicting the use of public transportation’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 32, no.10, pp. 2154-2189.
Garson, GD 2012, Testing Statistical Assumptions. Statistical Associates Publishing, North Carolina.
Gwilliam, K, Kojima, K & Johnson, T 2004, ‘Reducing Air Pollution from Urban Transport’, The World Bank, pp.1-92.
Gebeyehu, M & Takano, SE 2007, ‘Diagnostic evaluation of public transportation mode choice in Addis Ababa’, Journal of Public Transportation, vol.10, no.4, pp. 27.
Jain, S, Aggarwal, P, Kumar, P, Singhal, S & Sharma, P 2014, ‘Identifying public preferences using multi-criteria decision making for assessing the shift of urban commuters from private to public transport: A case study of Delhi’, Transportation Research Part F. vol. 24, pp. 60-70.
Joireman, JA, Van Lange, PA & Van Vugt, M 2004, ‘Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future’, Environment and Behavior, vol. 36, no.2, pp.187-206.
Kouthouris, C & Alexandris, K 2005, ‘Can service quality predict customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions in the sport tourism industry? An application of the SERVQUAL model in an outdoors setting’, Journal of Sport Tourism, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.101-111.
Kotler, P, Amstrong, G, Ang, SH, Leong, SM, Tan, CT & Hon-Ming, OY 2011, Principles of Marketing: An Asian Perspective. Pearsons, Singapore.
Lai, WT & Chen, CF 2011, ‘Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers—The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement’, Transport Policy, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.318-325.
Leong, LV & Mohd Sadullah, AF 2010, ‘Sustainable transportation indicators: Case study of users from Kuala Lumpur and Penang’, Proceedings of 24th ARRB Conference, Building on 50 years of road and transport research, Melbourne, Australia.
Luong Hoai Nam 2013, ‘Can chuan bi cam xe may o tat ca do thi lon’, Vtc. 28 October, viewed 23 December, 2013, < http://vtc.vn/1-458264/kinh-te/can-chuan-bi-cam-xe-may-o-tat-ca-do-thi-lon.htm >
Malhotra NK 1999, Marketing Research. An Applied Orientation, International Edition, Prentice Hall, London.
Minh Chau 2013, ‘Luong xe may tai Vietnam da vo ke hoach cua 2010’, Songmoi. 17 April, viewed 23 December, 2013 <http://songmoi.vn/otoxemay-tin-tuc/luong-xe-may-tai-viet-nam-da-%E2%80%98vo-ke-hoach%E2%80%99-cua-nam-2020>
Minh Luan 2013, ‘Thanh pho Ho Chi Minh 38 nam sau ngay giai phong’, Hanoimoi. 30 April, viewed 23 December, 2013, <http://hanoimoi.com.vn/Tin-tuc/Xa-hoi/587771/thanh-pho-ho-chi-minh-38-nam-sau-ngay-giai-phong>
Ott, M 2008, ‘An analysis of the impact of service quality on satisfaction, value, and future intentions within campus recreation using performance-based measures’, Unpublished Dissertation, University of New Hampshire.
Ng & Phuong
11
Parasuraman, A, Zeithaml, V & Berry, L 2002, ‘SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality’, Retailing: critical concepts, vol. 64, no. 1, pp.140.
Perez, JC, Carillo, MH & Montoya-Torres, TJ 2014, ‘Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review’, Annals Operation Research, pp. 1-19.
Randheer, K & AL-Motawa, AA 2011, ‘Measuring commuters’ perception on service quality using SERVQUAL in public transportation’, International Journal of Marketing Studies, vol. 3, no.1, pp.21.
Riley K 2002, ‘Motor Vehicles in China: The Impact of Demographic and Economic Changes’, Population and Environment, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 479-494.
Thanh Nien News 2012, ‘Hanoi: most polluted city in South East Asia. 22 March, viewed 23 December, 2013, http://www.thanhniennews.com/index/pages/20120322-hanoi-most-polluted-city-in-southeast-asia.aspx>
Tsoukatos, E & Rand, GK 2006, ‘Path analysis of perceived service quality, satisfaction and loyalty in Greek insurance’, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, vol. 16, no.5, pp.501-519.
Vilakazl, A & Govender, K 2014, ‘Exploring bus service quality in South Africa: A structural equation modelling approach’, Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, vol. 8, no.1, pp.1-10.
Vugt, M, Meertens, RM & Lange, PA 1995, ‘Car versus Public Transportation? The Role of Social Value Orientations in a Real‐Life Social Dilemma’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 258-278.
Ng & Phuong
12
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Building a better city: A study on road users’ decision to use public transportation in Hanoi Section One: Personal information
What is your main mode of transport in Hanoi? Hanoi City Bus Private Motorbike Private Car Taxi Xe Om
Other, please specify:…………
Gender Marital Status disclose Do you have child/children? What is your age group? Please tick one option. 18-25 years old 26-35 years old 36-45 years old 46-55 years old
Above 55 years old
What is your highest academic qualification? Please tick one option. Primary school certificate Secondary school certificate High school certificate Bachelor’s Degree Postgraduate degree How much do you earn a month after tax? Please tick one option. Below 3 million VND 3-4.49 million VND 4.5-6.49 million VND 6.5-13.49 million VND 13.5-25.0 million VND More than 25 million VND What is your occupation? Student Office workers, professional
staff
Manual workers
Self-employed Others (please specify):__ What is your travelling distance per day? Please tick one option. Less than 5km 5-9.9km 10-14.99km 15-25km More than 25km About what percentage of your friends take bus as main mode of transport? Please put down an estimated number between 0% and 100%. ………………………… Section Two: Public Transportation Usage
How important is each of the following aspects to you in the usage of public bus in Hanoi?
Not important -----------Extremely at all important
The schedule is flexible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is convenient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is quick 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I feel comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is cheap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am protected from weather 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I can have good control over my time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
section 4
Ng & Phuong
13
If yes, when was the last time you use public bus? _______________________
How often did you use public bus to go to work/school during the last two weeks?
Never -----------Always
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Section Three: Perception of Service Quality of public bus in Hanoi
Please rate the following statements: Strongly --------------------Strongly disagree agree
a. The staffs on public bus in Hanoi are generally courteous. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
b. It is safe (from pickpockets, harassment, other crimes) to travel by bus in Hanoi.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
c. The bus conductor issues tickets properly when the customers buy tickets (no cheating to steal customers’ money).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d. The bus generally runs on scheduled times. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
e. The bus drivers’ driving skills are generally reliable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
f. The buses themselves are generally safe (from mechanical problems, machinery failures such as those with tyres, wheels, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
g. The information on routes and schedules of the bus system is sufficiently available to customers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
h. The bus is generally clean. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
i. The chairs on public bus in Hanoi are generally of good quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
j. The bus staffs dress in recognizable uniform. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
k. The staffs on public bus in Hanoi always willing to help customers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l. The bus staffs provide support to the customers in need (old people, pregnant women, disabled people, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
m. The schedules (operating hours) of the bus system can meet the need of the customers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
n. The bus stations and stops are at convenient places that match the travelling needs of the customers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
o. The bus staff properly reminds/warns the customers when those customers have bad behaviours’ (spitting, stealing, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
p. When there is some service problem, there is some way to contact the management of the bus system for a solution.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
q. Employees at Hanoi bus service give customers prompt service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Overall, I am satisfied with Hanoi public bus services. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would say that Hanoi public bus offers excellent service. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Section Four: Attitudes toward public bus
For me, using public bus instead of private vehicles (motorbike/car) to go to work/school is Good 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Bad Appropriate 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Inappropriate Right 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Wrong Pleasant 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Unpleasant Funny 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Boring Beneficial 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Harmful Useful 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Useless
Ng & Phuong
14
Please rate the following statements: Strongly --------------------Strongly disagree agree
I like the idea of taking public bus to work/school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is extremely easy for me to use public bus instead of private vehicles to go to work/school.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
It is extremely simple for me to use public bus instead of private vehicles to go to work/school.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most people who are important to me would support me in using public bus to commute.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most people who are important to me think that I should take public bus to work/school.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most of my family members use public bus every day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most of my colleagues/schoolmates use public bus every day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
During the next two weeks I intend to use public bus instead of private vehicles to work/school.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
During the next two weeks I will use public bus instead of private vehicles to work/school.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I will keep on taking public bus in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Section Five: Attitudes toward private vehicle
Please rate the following statements: Strongly --------------------Strongly disagree agree
Motorbike/car use causes serious pollution in the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Motorbike/car use is a major source of noise problem in the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Motorbike/car use contributes to the depletion of energy sources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In Hanoi, air pollution caused by private vehicle is getting serious. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In Hanoi, motorbike/car use is a major source of noise problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Traffic congestion is a problem in Hanoi. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Finding a parking spot is a problem in Hanoi. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Hanoi becoming unsafe because there is too much traffic. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I feel guilty about it when I ride/drive to work/school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I do not feel bad about it when I ride/drive to work/school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I feel personally responsible for the problems resulting from private vehicle when I ride/drive to work/school.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Section Six: Giving Recommendations
Please give your own opinions:
1) What is the best way to solve pollution problems in Hanoi? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) What is the best way to reduce traffic accidents in Hanoi?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ng & Phuong
15
Appendix 2: Descriptive analysis of Variables
Variables Mean Median Std Dev. Kurtosis Skewness
Service Quality Assurance 1 Assurance 2 Assurance 3 Reliability 1 Reliability 2 Reliability 3 Reliability 4 Tangible 1 Tangible 2 Tangible 3 Empathy 1 Empathy 2 Empathy 3 Empathy 4 Responsiveness 1 Responsiveness 2 Responsiveness 3
3.8756 3.2558 4.5138 4.1843 4.2051 4.4954 4.7028 4.1267 4.1316 5.1039 4.2950 4.7719 4.5714 4.6244 4.3041 4.1728 4.2949
4.000 3.000 5.000 4.000 4.000 5.000 5.000 4.000 4.000 5.000 4.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 4.000 4.000 4.000
1.4119 1.6270 1.6497 1.4976 1.5857 1.4706 1.4941 1.5318 1.4856 1.4674 1.4355 1.5708 1.4673 1.4124 1.6167 1.5136 1.4193
.068 .377 -.172 -.007 -.145 -.306 -.246 -.025 -.083 -.366 -.193 -.366 -.201 -.233 -.060 -.002 -.113
-.403 -.717 -.757 -.512 -.655 -.425 -.513 -.563 -.541 -.761 -.230 -.591 -.472 -.253 -.709 -.408 -.201
Service Satisfaction Satisfaction 1 Satisfaction 2
4.1452 3.5899
4.000 4.000
1.5150 1.6090
-.136 .031
-.477 -.674
Personal Belief Belief 1 Belief 2 Belief 3
4.3848 3.8343 3.9029
5.000 4.000 4.000
1.7789 1.6684 1.6485
-.209 .150 .087
-.918 -.743 -.703
Social Influence Social 1 Social 2 Social 3 Social 4
3.9543 3.7219 2.7981 3.2667
4.000 4.000 2.000 3.000
1.7717 1.8817 1.7919 1.7952
.016 .161 .713 .305
-.906
-1.051 -.587 -.999
World environment impact World 1 World 2 World 3
5.1848 5.2686 5.3034
5.000 5.000 5.000
1.5215 1.4176 1.4133
-.615 -.604 -.536
-.184 -.167 -.357
Local environment impact Local 1 Local 2 Local 3 Local 4 Local 5
5.4419 5.4324 5.8743 5.4857 5.4362
6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
1.4125 1.3930 1.4354 1.4324 1.4666
-.652 -.723
-1.197 -.781 -.754
-.240 -.001 .648 .029 .067
Intention to use Intent 1 Intent 2 Intent 3
3.3486 3.3200 3.7448
3.000 3.000 4.000
2.1010 2.1491 2.0785
.294 .348 .081
-1.295 -1.286 -1.284
