Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies on Transport Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cstp

Factors influencing passenger loyalty towards public transport services: T

Does public transport providers’ commitment to environmental
sustainability matter?
Paula Vicentea, , Ana Sampaiob, Elizabeth Reisa
⁎

a
Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Business Research Unit (Bru_Iscte), Lisboa, Portugal
b
Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Public transport providers are constantly looking for ways to increase their ridership, either by gaining new or
Public transportation maintaining current passengers. In recent years, societies’ increasing concern about climate change and pre-
Passenger loyalty serving the environment has led public transport providers in many countries to become more oriented towards
Structural equation models environmental sustainability. The decision of transit agencies to become “greener” benefits the environment and
Lisbon
may also benefit the business because companies that are able to visibly demonstrate their ethics and show a
commitment to the environment are more likely to have a stronger reputation and attract customers who care
deeply about what a business stands for.
This study explores the impact of several factors on passenger loyalty towards public transport services. We
use structural equation models (SEM) to explore the relationship among various constructs using data collected
by means of a survey on public transit users in the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon (Portugal). In particular, we
introduce the concept of Commitment to Environmental Sustainability (CES), which represents the contribution
public transport providers make towards sustainable development and a cleaner environment and hypothesize
that CES positively affects transit passengers’ loyalty.
By comparing various SEM models, we find that the public transport providers’ commitment to environmental
sustainability does have a direct positive effect on passenger loyalty and an indirect positive effect on loyalty
when mediated by satisfaction. The managerial implications of the findings for the public transport service are
addressed.

1. Introduction 15 years and systematizes the predictors of loyalty in public transport.

Transport policies that seek to encourage public transport ridership
while reducing car dependency have long been identified as an im-
portant aspect in the development of socially, environmentally, and
economically sustainable cities (European Commission, 2017). Devel-
oping and maintaining passenger loyalty is a strategy that works in
favor of increased ridership since loyal passengers will continue using a
public transport service without seeking or shifting to alternative op-
tions and are likely to recommend the service to potential new users
(Webb, 2010).
In order for practitioners and policy makers to develop compre-
hensive strategies aimed at attaining and sustaining passenger loyalty,
it is necessary to understand and identify which aspects of public
transport influence loyalty. The recent meta-analysis by van Lierop et al.
(2018) is a comprehensive review of public transport literature over
The results elucidate, on the one hand, that loyalty is associated with
users’ perceptions of value for money, on-board safety and cleanliness,
interactions with personnel and the image and commitment to public
transport that users feel. On the other hand, the concept of loyalty is
best defined based on users’ intentions to continue using the service,
their willingness to recommend it to others, and their image of and
involvement with public transport.
The concept of image towards public transport is based on how
passengers view public transport as contributing not only to their own
welfare, but to society at large. Public transport users who have a po-
sitive image of the transit agency and consider public transport an in-
tegral component of city life are more likely to demonstrate loyalty and
act as ambassadors for public transport agencies (Minser and Webb,
2010; Şimşekoğlu et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2014). Public transport
agencies can take advantage of the association between image of and

⁎
Corresponding author at: Iscte, Av. Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal.
E-mail addresses: paula.vicente@iscte-iul.pt (P. Vicente), sampaio@uevora.pt (A. Sampaio), elizabeth.reis@iscte-iul.pt (E. Reis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.02.004
Received 23 April 2019; Received in revised form 11 December 2019; Accepted 19 February 2020
Available online 22 February 2020
2213-624X/ © 2020 World Conference on Transport Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Vicente, et al.
loyalty to public transport to develop communication strategies that
influence users’ emotional attachment to public transport and thus
stimulate loyalty (Lai and Chen, 2011). Recent opinion polls reveal that
people believe companies have a duty to offer sustainable rather than
unsustainable products/services (GlobeScan, 2011) and are less likely
to do business with companies that are perceived as environmentally
irresponsible (Cone Communications, 2013). Moreover, people in-
creasingly avoid specific products or services due to environmental
concerns and are willing to choose environmentally friendly solutions
even if they cost more (European Commission, 2018; Kennell, 2016;
Peycheva et al., 2014; TNS Opinion, 2015). This presents an un-
precedented opportunity for companies to show their commitment to
environmental sustainability because, as Kennell (2016) suggests, the
investment that companies make to become “green” generates a higher
return if they communicate their pro-environmental positioning effec-
tively. Many transit agencies have already included eco-friendly goals
in their business plans (see for example, OneNYC, 2016; Sydney, 2017;
TfL, 2017; TMB, 2017). While these goals are primarily targeted at
reducing costs, increasing efficiency and ensuring future sustainability
(ELTIS, 2014), it is the environmental awareness of passengers that may
drive transit agencies further in their efforts to secure transit users’
loyalty because sustainable business practices are among the most im-
portant factors driving brand loyalty today (King, 2011).
This study explores the impact of several factors that affect pas-
senger loyalty towards public transport services. In particular, we in-
troduce the concept of Commitment to Environmental Sustainability,
which represents the contribution public transport agencies give to a
cleaner environment and sustainable development in big cities. If a
significant effect is found, marketing actions communicating pro-en-
vironmental initiatives should become part of public transport provi-
ders’ strategy because companies that are able to visibly demonstrate
their ethics and show a commitment to the environment are more likely
to have a stronger reputation and attract customers who care deeply
about what a business stands for (Wenzel, 2017).
Data from a survey involving public transport users conducted in
the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon, at the request of the Metropolitan
Transport Authority of Lisbon, is used to apply Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) and to explore a set of hypotheses involving the re-
lationships between service quality, passenger satisfaction, public
transport providers’ commitment to environmental sustainability and
passenger loyalty.
The Metropolitan Area of Lisbon (MAL) is the largest metropolitan
area in Portugal, with 2.8 million inhabitants spread over nearly
3000 km2 (Statistics Portugal, 2011). It encompasses 18 municipalities
to the north and south of the River Tagus (Fig. A1, Appendix). The
municipality of Lisbon is the geographic center of MAL. The public
transport service in this area includes road, rail (train, tram and
subway) and river transport. The bus is the most used mode of travel –
more than 55% of commuting trips are made by bus – followed by the
train (23%) (Statistics Portugal, 2017). The Portuguese Strategic Plan
for Transport and Infrastructures “Portugal 2020” foresees funding for
private and public operators to renew their fleets with environmentally
friendly vehicles using either natural gas or electricity. Presently, ap-
proximately 90% of buses and trams that circulate in the municipality
of Lisbon are environmentally friendly and a pilot-project is now un-
derway to test the transport efficiency of a 100% electric and silent bus
fleet within the municipality of Lisbon (ECO, 2016). However, in the
MAL’s other municipalities the investment in eco-friendly vehicles is
less significant and public transport users realize that – a study on
perceptions about transport service in the MAL reveal that the bus is
regarded by transit users as the most polluting transport mode (Ramos
et al., 2019).
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 pro-
vides a brief overview of the related literature, before proposing re-
search hypotheses. Section 3 introduces the study context, data used
and methodological approach. Section 4 presents the results from a
628
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
Structural Equation Modelling exercise aimed at explaining passenger
loyalty towards public transport services. Section 5 discusses the key
findings and implications for transport policy-making, before drawing
some tentative conclusions and possible future research in Section 6.
2. Theoretical background and research hypotheses
From the existing studies on customer loyalty and transit ridership,
the authors identified several relevant variables to consider in exploring
the relationship between different aspects of public transport service
and loyalty (e.g. Allen et al., 2019; Imaz et al., 2015; Lai and Chen,
2011; van Lierop and El-Geneidy, 2016). This study adds a new con-
struct – public transport providers’ commitment to environmental sus-
tainability – to help further the understanding of the complexities of
factors influencing transit loyalty. The meanings of the variables in-
cluded in the empirical study and the hypotheses to be evaluated are
explained below.
2.1. Loyalty
Loyalty indicates the extent to which customers are devoted to a
particular service provider and how strong is their tendency to select
one company over the competition (Butcher et al., 2001). While mea-
suring loyalty means measuring the strength of this devotion (Ranade,
2012; Skačkauskienė et al., 2016), there is no consensus on how to
measure customer loyalty.
Earlier theories base loyalty measurement on customer behaviors,
hence loyalty was measured by the quantity of purchases made, or
purchase probability, or a continuing pattern in the buying behavior
(e.g. Flavian et al., 2001; Hellier et al., 2003). Later, a two-dimensional
concept of loyalty appeared that suggested loyalty should be measured
according to behavioral and attitudinal criteria. With attitudinal mea-
surements, researchers focus on psychology, and customer loyalty is
reflected by: (a) willingness to recommend the service to others, (b)
intended future use of the service, (c) likelihood of purchasing other
products/services from the same company, (d) believing the services
used are superior to others offered in the marketplace, and (e) not ac-
tively seeking alternative providers of the same service (Caruana, 2002;
TaghiPourian and Bakhsh, 2015).
In recent years, transit researchers have been focusing on devel-
oping their understanding of loyalty, as ridership is more likely to be
boosted if passenger loyalty is increased (Lai and Chen, 2011; Reichheld
and Teal, 2001). Most customer loyalty studies in public transportation
adopt a two-dimensional concept of loyalty, suggesting that passenger
loyalty can be divided into: (a) a passenger’s continuous behavior to use
a specific mode of transport, and (b) a passenger’s attitudes and emo-
tions towards public transport in general, or towards a specific mode of
transport, on an ongoing basis (Lai and Chen, 2011; Minser and Webb,
2010; Reichheld, 2003; Zhao et al., 2014).
For this study, we follow previous studies on loyalty towards public
transport (e.g. van Lierop and El-Geneidy, 2016; Wen et al., 2005) and
measure loyalty by considering the likelihood of a passenger continuing
to use the service in the future and recommending it to others.
2.2. Service quality
Service quality is more difficult to describe than product quality as
most services cannot be counted, measured, inventoried, tested, or
verified in advance of sales to assure. Quality evaluations are not made
solely on the outcome of a service; they also involve evaluations of the
process of service delivery (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Process quality
refers to the level of services, as determined by customers during the
service process and is, therefore, a subjective view of customers. On the
other hand, outcome quality is the measurement of customers regarding
service results. Basically, service quality is a conscious, yet intangible
feeling determined by subjective assessors (Fitzsimmons and
P. Vicente, et al.
Fitzsimmons, 2008). Three decades ago, Parasuraman et al. (1988)
defined service quality as an organization’s ability to meet or exceed
customer expectations. Expectations are defined as beliefs prior to the
service, which function as the standard or reference in evaluating the
performance of the service. The factors contributing to the formation of
expectations, be they positive or negative, include the communication
established among consumers (word-of-mouth communication), past
consumer experience of the service and service provider, external
communication promoted by the service provider (promises of high-
quality service usually raise customer expectations) and the personal
wishes of customers. Service quality perceptions result from a com-
parison of consumer expectations with actual service performance –
customer dissatisfaction occurs if customers’ expectations are greater
than their perceptions of the service delivered by the suppliers (Brady
and Cronin, 2001).
Although service quality has been defined as a multidimensional
construct (e.g. Kang and James, 2004), there is no consensus on its
dimensionality (number and type). The EN 13816 Standard, constituted
by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) in 2002, is a
guidance to define, target and measure the quality of service in public
passenger transport. The overall quality of public passenger transport
contains many criteria. These criteria represent the passenger view of
the service provided and, for this standard, they are divided into eight
categories: availability (extent of the service offered in terms of geo-
graphy, time, frequency and transport mode); accessibility (access to
public transport system including interface with other transport
modes); information (systematic provision of knowledge about the
public transport system to assist the planning and execution of jour-
neys); time (aspects of time relevant to the planning and execution of
journeys); customer care (service elements introduced to effect the
closest practical match between the standard service and the require-
ments of any individual passenger); comfort (service elements in-
troduced for the purpose of making public transport journeys relaxing
and pleasurable), security (sense of personal protection experienced by
passengers); and environmental impact (effect on the environment re-
sulting from the provision of public transport service) (CEN, 2002).
From empirical research, varying dimensions for service quality are
found: Wen et al. (2005) mention four dimensions, namely on-board
amenity, staff attitude, station performance and operational perfor-
mance; Eboli and Mazzula (2007) suggest three dimensions (service
planning and reliability, comfort, safety and cleanliness); Perez et al.
(2007) propose five dimensions (tangibility, reliability, receptivity,
assurance and empathy); Prasad and Shekhar (2010) suggest eight di-
mensions (assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, tangibility,
comfort, connection and convenience); Lai and Chen (2011) propose
two dimensions (core services and physical environment); and d’Ovidio
et al. (2014) suggest six dimensions (comfort and cleanliness, accessi-
bility, organization, behavior of ticket inspectors, behavior of the staff,
and costs of the service).
The importance of service quality for business performance has been
recognized in the literature through the direct effect on customer sa-
tisfaction: service quality is an antecedent to customer satisfaction
(Carrillat et al., 2007; Farrell et al., 2001; Zeithaml et al., 2008).
Nowadays all companies realize that the key to sustainable competitive
advantage lies in delivering high quality service that will, in turn, result
in satisfied customers. In the particular context of public transport re-
search, the relationship between service quality and passenger sa-
tisfaction has been widely investigated and it is generally acknowl-
edged that service quality has a positive effect on passenger satisfaction
(e.g. Cantwell et al., 2009; Eboli and Mazzula, 2007; Fonseca et al.,
2010; Machado et al., 2016; van Lierop et al., 2018). Therefore, we
hypothesize:
H1: Service quality has a direct and positive effect on passenger
satisfaction.
629
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
2.3. Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a complex concept comprising multiple
components and is recognized as one of the most important success
factors of companies (Yeung et al., 2002). The most consensual defi-
nition of customer satisfaction is associated with a post-consumer
evaluative judgment of a particular service and is described as a feeling
of pleasure or disappointment resulting from the comparison between
the perceived performance of the service and the consumer’s expecta-
tions. In other words, when the performance is perceived as meeting or
exceeding expectations, the customer is satisfied; but when the opposite
is true, the customer is not fully satisfied and reacts negatively to the
experience (Kotler, 2003).
Customer satisfaction is closely linked to customer loyalty. In fact,
many studies attested that satisfied customers are more likely to buy the
same product or service again and can attract more customers through
suggestions and recommendations to friends, family, acquaintances, or
through positive word-of-mouth (Gagić et al., 2013; Yeung et al., 2002).
The ultimate purpose of a customer satisfaction study is, therefore, to
build and enhance customer loyalty, thus influencing their purchasing
decisions (Bou-Llusar et al., 2001; Dimitriades, 2006). While various
studies have identified a positive effect of service quality on passenger
loyalty towards public transport mediated by satisfaction (Kamaruddin
et al., 2012; Shiftan et al., 2015; van Lierop and El-Geneidy, 2016; Wen
et al., 2005), others have proved that loyalty in the public transport
sector is a direct consequence of satisfaction (Eboli and Mazzula, 2007;
van Lierop and El-Geneidy, 2016; Wen et al., 2005). Therefore, we
hypothesize:
H2: Passenger satisfaction has a direct and positive effect on pas-
senger loyalty.
2.4. Commitment to environmental sustainability
Concern for environmental protection has increased since nations
became aware that global warming, damage to the ozone layer and acid
rains are problems that seriously affect people’s quality of life. Since
then, governments, organizations, companies and citizens have become
increasingly more conscious of their political, social and individual
responsibility towards environmental sustainability.
The UN Climate Summit in 2014 highlighted the wide-ranging
commitment already made by the public transport sector to environ-
mental sustainability – “The public transport sector is committed to be a
climate leader” and “The public transport sector is working consciously
and innovatively to improve its already excellent carbon performance
and enhance urban transport networks for years to come.” (IAPT, 2014,
p. 6). These statements are intended to inspire public transport agencies
to do more and better for the environment. The decision of transit
agencies to include eco-friendly goals in their business strategies (see
for example, GMPTA, 2007; MALT, 2014; TfL, 2011) is their acknowl-
edgement that the public transport sector plays an important role in
fighting climate change, as well as recognition that “being green” is
crucial to creating long-term value and to fostering company longevity.
Although sustainability goals are an important step in transit agencies’
strategy, effectively communicating commitment to customers is
equally important (UNEP, 2005) because more and more customers
expect and appreciate this kind of commitment from the companies
they buy from (Davis, 2016).
Lai and Chen (2011) suggested that it is important for public transit
agencies to focus on developing strategies that aim to motivate pas-
sengers to strongly identify with public transit. The commitment of
transit agencies to environmental sustainability is likely to contribute to
such purpose because passengers are increasingly environmentally
conscious and educated and value sustainability. Moreover, in recent
years, researchers have begun to explore how users’ views and opinions
about public transit influence their satisfaction and loyalty. For ex-
ample, Minser and Webb (2010) revealed that users who have a positive
P. Vicente, et al.
image of public transit tend to be more satisfied. Furthermore, other
researchers have found that having a positive image of public transit
also strongly influences passenger loyalty (Lai and Chen, 2011; Minser
and Webb, 2010; Şimşekoğlu et al., 2015; van Lierop and El-Geneidy,
2017; Zhao et al., 2014). With this in mind, we propose the concept of
Commitment to Environmental Sustainability (CES) which intends to sig-
nify transit agencies’ contributions to environmental protection and
sustainability through research, innovation or service design. CES can
work in favor of a positive image of transit agencies and consequently
contribute to increased passenger satisfaction, stimulate public trans-
port use and increase loyalty towards public transport. Given the no-
velty of this concept in public transport loyalty models, we decided to
explore its impact by considering direct and indirect effects. As such, we
hypothesize:
H3: Commitment to environmental sustainability by public trans-
port providers has a direct and positive effect on passenger satisfaction.
H4: Commitment to environmental sustainability by public trans-
port providers has a direct and positive effect on passenger loyalty.
H5: Commitment to environmental sustainability by public trans-
port providers and service quality are positively correlated.
Based on the discussion above, we propose three alternative con-
ceptual models – A, B and C (Figs. 1, 2 and 3, respectively) – to examine
the relationships between service quality (SQ), passenger satisfaction
(SAT), passenger loyalty towards public transport (LOY) and the new
construct – public transport providers’ commitment to environmental
sustainability (CES):
- Model A: CES is an antecedent exogenous construct, which impacts
LOY both directly and indirectly, with SAT acting as a mediator
variable;
- Model B: CES is an antecedent exogenous construct, which impacts
LOY solely directly;
- Model C: CES is an antecedent exogenous construct, which impacts
LOY solely indirectly, with SAT acting as a mediator variable.
The three models will be estimated and the one that performs best
overall will be considered the one that best explains passenger loyalty,
and best describes the effect of commitment to environmental sus-
tainability on passenger loyalty.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and questionnaire
A survey of public transport users aged 18 or older, living in the
Metropolitan Area of Lisbon (MAL) was conducted with the aim of
Fig. 1. Model A-CES impacts loyalty both directly and indirectly.
630
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
describing the travel behavior of public transport users and evaluating
their satisfaction with and loyalty to the public transport service and
operators.
The sample was allocated proportionally to the 18 municipalities of
the MAL. In each municipality, quotas of sex and age were set in ac-
cordance with the most recent census data (Statistics Portugal, 2011) to
improve sample representativeness. Within each municipality, sam-
pling areas were chosen to guarantee adequate geographical coverage
of the municipality. Interviewers were assigned to sampling areas to
look for respondents and administer the questionnaire. Respondents
were selected on the street, and interviewed in-person after confirming
municipality, sex and age quotas. Fieldwork took place between the
19th and 31st March 2014, including weekdays and weekends and
covered a broad time-range (between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.). Interviews
lasted an average of 10 min. Reaching the sex and age quotas was more
difficult to achieve in some municipalities but the overall distribution of
the observed sample by municipality, sex and age was not significantly
different from the predicted sample, which was a positive sign of
sample representativeness (ISCTE-IUL, 2014a). A total of 1166 valid
questionnaires were obtained.
To assist the questionnaire design, 6 focus group interviews were
conducted with regular and occasional users of public transport; this
enabled us to gain insights into travel behavior and customer percep-
tions of the public transport service and service providers in MAL
(ISCTE-IUL, 2014b). The survey questionnaire asked respondents about:
(1) service quality of public transport, (2) satisfaction with the public
transport service, (3) loyalty to public transport, and (4) the environ-
mental commitment of public transport providers. Perceptions of ser-
vice quality were measured by means of a set of 18 items associated
with the multifaceted pattern of the construct and measured on a ten-
point Likert-type scale (1 = totally dissatisfied to 10 = totally sa-
tisfied): “punctuality”, “speed on route”, “adequacy of routes offered”,
“timetables”, “frequency of vehicles on weekdays”, “frequency of ve-
hicles on weekends”, “comfort of vehicles”, “number of seats”, “safety
of persons and property”, “ease of entering/exiting the vehicles/sta-
tions”, “distance to the stop/station/terminal”, “frequency of strikes”,
“alternative transport in strike period”, “rules of purchase and use of
tickets and passes”, “inspection of transport tickets”, “price compared
to alternative transport”, “intermodal coordination” and “staff beha-
vior”. Satisfaction with the public transport service was measured by
means of 3 items: “This operator offers a service that meets my quality
expectations”, “This operator offers a service that meets my personal
needs”, and “My overall satisfaction with the service after experiencing
the public transport service”. These were then rated using a ten-point
Likert-type scale (1 = totally dissatisfied to 10 = totally satisfied).
Loyalty to public transport was measured by means of 2 items: “I would
P. Vicente, et al.
Fig. 2. Model B-CES impacts loyalty solely directly.
recommend this operator to family and friends” and “I intend to remain
a client of this operator”; these items were rated on a ten-point Likert-
type scale (1 = totally disagree to 10 = totally agree). Finally, com-
mitment to environmental sustainability was measured by asking re-
spondents to rate their level of agreement (1 = totally disagree to
10 = totally agree) with 2 items about the public transport operator
they use most frequently: “This operator is concerned about energy and
environment” and “This operator is innovative and forward looking”.
The questionnaire items were constructed using the results of the focus
groups, the European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI, 1998) and the
literature review on transit ridership (Del Castillo and Benitez, 2012;
Eboli and Mazzula, 2007; Fellesson and Friman, 2008; Friman and
Gärling, 2001; Hensher et al., 2003; Iman, 2014; Mokonyama and
Venter, 2013; Vilares et al., 2005).
3.2. Data analysis approach
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is used to estimate the struc-
tural paths and test the associated hypotheses, using AMOS 24.0.
Generally, a SEM model comprises two conceptually interrelated but
distinct models: a confirmatory measurement model (CFA) and a
structural model. While the CFA confirms the existence of latent di-
mensions, it does not describe the relationship between dimensions. It
is the structural model, based on a theoretical framework, that de-
termines the significance of the relationship between variables. In the
context of public transportation, CFA and SEM approaches have been
Fig. 3. Model C-CES impacts loyalty solely indirectly.
631
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
used to investigate relationships between passenger satisfaction, service
quality and passenger loyalty (e.g. Changa and Chen, 2007; Eboli and
Mazzula, 2007, 2011; Karlaftis et al., 2001; Kim and Lee, 2011;
Muhammad et al., 2011; Ngatia et al., 2010; Stuart et al., 2000;
Weinstein, 2000). Although most studies on transit ridership use SEM to
infer relationships in an entire transit population, some combine SEM
with a market segmentation analysis. While on the one hand this is a
strategy to validate the outcomes of a global model, at the same time it
allows for a more in-depth analysis of the different groups within the
studied transit market. In the context of the transit market Krizek and
El-Geneidy (2007) and van Lierop and El-Geneidy (2016) used seg-
ments based on car access and income. In our study we segment transit
users into two groups: passengers without car (i.e., transit users who do
not have a choice and are therefore captive to public transport) and
passengers with car (i.e. passengers who have an alternative to public
transport).
The analysis follows four stages:
a) Data dimensionality reduction by means of exploratory principal
component analysis (PCA) conducted on the 18 items of service
quality. The number of components to retain is decided based on
eigenvalues over one and at least 60% of variance explained.
Varimax rotation is adopted. A Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7 is
adopted as the criterion for the reliability of dimensions, and item
retention is based on factor loadings above 0.5 (Hair et al., 2014);
the PCA is performed on a randomly chosen sub-sample with half of
P. Vicente, et al. Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638

the dimension of the original sample (583 cases). Table 2

b) Validation of the multidimensional structure of service quality was Results of exploratory factor analysis of public transport service quality.
revealed by PCA through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Dimensions of service quality Factor Loadings Cronbach’s α
the other half of the sample (583 cases) (Byrne, 2009). Several
goodness-of-fit measures are used to assess how well the model fits Operational performance 0.892
Adequacy of routes offered +0.811
the data: the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the comparative fix index
Timetables +0.790
(CFI), the normed fit index (NFI), the incremental fit index (IFI) and Punctuality/waiting time +0.755
the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI); these indexes reveal a good fit for Speed on route +0.744
values greater than 0.9. The root mean square error of approxima- Frequency of vehicles on weekdays +0.700
tion (RMSEA) and the chi-square divided by the degrees of freedom Comfort and safety 0.825
Safety of persons and property +0.771
are complements to the other measures – the acceptable range for
Number of seats +0.758
RMSEA is 0.08 or lower, and a value of the chi-square/df smaller Ease of entering/exiting vehicles/stations +0.706
than 5 is an indicator of a good fit. An average variance extracted Comfort of vehicles +0.612
(AVE) above 0.5 is adopted as the criterion for the convergence of Attractiveness of service 0.776
Prices compared to alternative transport +0.724
items into the proposed factors (Bentler, 2007; Kline, 2010).
Intermodal coordination +0.713
c) Model estimation using structural equation modeling (SEM). Inspection of transport tickets +0.673
Goodness of fit measures previously mentioned in ii) are used to Staff behavior† +0.449
choose the best of the three estimated models. The Akaike Distance to stop/station/terminal† +0.404
Information Criterion (AIC) is also measured; the smaller the values Guarantee of service 0.760
Frequency of strikes +0.883
of AIC the better the fit (Bollen, 1989).
Alternative transport in strike period +0.762
d) Model estimation in two segments – passengers without car and Rules of purchase and use of tickets and +0.597
passengers with car. passes
Efficient response to complaints +0.591

Note: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure = 0.914; Bartlett’s test p-value < 0.001.

4. Results †
This item was not relevant to name the dimension “Attractiveness of service”
due to loading < 0.5.
4.1. Respondents’ characteristics
trip (more than one mode could be mentioned), most of the respondents
Most respondents are female (57.8%) and 36.8% are under 34 years
referred to the bus (42.2%), 19.9% used the train, 19.1% the subway,
old. Most of the respondents (36.4%) have completed basic education
1.9% the boat. Additionally, the car was used by 23.0% of the re-
(9 years of schooling), are employed (either self-employed or employed
spondents (figures not presented in Table 1).
by a third party) (62.2%) and 31% live in a two-person household
(Table 1).
A comparison of the sample profile with Census data reveals the 4.2. Service quality model
biggest differences are found in occupation. Specifically, the sample
over-represents working people and under-represents non-working The exploratory principal component analysis performed on the 18
people, which is a likely consequence of respondents being selected and items of service quality allowed four first-order dimensions to be found
interviewed in the street. Additionally, most of the respondents have a (Table 2). The four components account for 60.4% of the initial var-
car (53%). Nearly ¾ are regular users of public transport (i.e., use iance and the Cronbach’s α values > 0.75 confirm that the dimensions
public transport at least 5 days a week). The most frequently used show good internal consistency (Hair et al., 2014).
modes of public transport are the bus (77.9%) and the subway (43.9%). In accordance with the higher loadings (above 0.5) of the items in
When asked about the public transport modes used on their last local each dimension, the four dimensions were named as: Operational
Performance, Comfort and Safety, Attractiveness of Service, and
Table 1 Guarantee of Service. Despite having a moderate loading (above 0.5
Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and the socio-demographic but < 0.6), the item “rules of purchase and use of tickets and passes”
characteristics of the population of MAL based on Census 2011. helps to describe whether or not the public transport user can count on
Characteristic Sample (%) Census 2011 (%)† the service. In the MAL there are many types of tickets and passes –
some allow the use of only one transport mode, others allow the use of
Gender (female) 57.8 52.7 several modes but only within a limited area of MAL, others are specific
Age
15–24 17.9 12.4
to certain age groups (under 12 years or over 65 years) (MALT, 2014),
25–34 18.9 17.0 which does not favor flexibility and causes users to feel that the public
35–44 16.4 18.4 transport network does not guarantee full mobility. Similarly, the item
45–64 26.4 30.7 “efficient response to complaints” has a moderate loading but helps to
≥ 65 20.4 21.6
describe the guarantee of service. In the MAL, the complaints about
Education
Basic (9 years) 44.2 57.0 public transport are mostly about delays, and the suppression of buses
Secondary (12 years) 27.2 20.7 or trains (MTA, 2016). If the operators deal efficiently with these
University 28.5 22.3 complaints, then the “guarantee of service” is accomplished.
Occupation Table 3 presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis for
Working 62.2 50.9
Not working 25.7 41.4
the relationships among the latent and observed variables of the service
Unemployed 11.7 7.7 quality measurement model.
Household size The assessment of model fit for the first-order configuration of
1 18.2 25.5 service quality was satisfactory since all goodness-of-fit measures were
2 31.0 32.8
acceptable (GFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.95; IFI = 0.96;
3–5 49.0 39.9
≥6 2.1 1.7 RMSEA = 0.05; χ2(125)/df = 3.856). Additionally, the standardized
estimates are above 0.5 (the only exception is the estimate for
†
Source: Statistics Portugal (2011). Frequency of strikes), which indicates that each item is significantly

632
P. Vicente, et al. Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638

Table 3
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis of public transport service quality.
(a) (a)
Dimensions of service quality Unstandardized estimates S.E. Standardized estimates AVE

Operational performance 0.618

Adequacy of routes offered +0.951 0.037 +0.794
Timetables +0.938 0.039 +0.745
Punctuality/waiting time +1.000 – +0.735
Speed on route +0.894 0.036 +0.776
Frequency of vehicles on weekdays +0.849 0.039 +0.684
Comfort and safety 0.542
Safety of persons and property +1.138 0.043 +0.818
Number of seats +1.000 – +0.762
Ease of entering/exiting vehicles/stations +0.841 0.037 +0.672
Comfort of vehicles +1.034 0.040 +0.806
Attractiveness of service† 0.514
Intermodal coordination +1.286 0.073 +0.695
Inspection of transport tickets +1.109 0.076 +0.529
Staff behavior +1.181 0.069 +0.653
Distance to stop/station/terminal +1.000 – +0.583
Guarantee of service 0.620
Frequency of strikes +0.823 0.059 +0.486
Alternative transport in strike period +0.917 0.057 +0.567
Rules of purchase and use of tickets and passes +0.923 0.050 +0.675
Efficient response to complaints +1.000 – +0.700

†
The item Prices compared to alternative transport was intentionally excluded from the CFA configuration to improve goodness of fit.
(a)
All the estimated coefficients are significantly different from zero at any level of significance (p < 0.001).

correlated to the respective construct; all factors show adequate con-
vergent validity, as the average variance extracted (AVE) is above 0.5
for all factors.
4.3. Passenger loyalty models
Table 4 presents the estimation results for the three models. Model
A has a better fit than both model B and model C since it has the lowest
value for AIC measure (AIC = 1224.97). Additionally, the superiority
of model A is supported by the chi-squared difference tests (χ 2diff
(A,B) = 22.21; χ 2diff (A,C) = 97.96), both significant at p < 0.001 (χ
2
(1;0.95) = 3.84) because, as stated by Werner and Schermelleh-Engel
(2010), “when the χ2 diff-value is significant, the larger model with
more freely estimated parameters fits the data better than the smaller
models”. Model A is therefore chosen as the most suitable of the three to
explain passenger loyalty towards public transport and is retained for
subsequent analysis.
The estimation results of the path analysis for model A confirm the
five proposed hypotheses. The largest path coefficient among direct
links to passenger loyalty is the link which measures the effect of sa-
tisfaction on loyalty, through a positive and significant effect (+0.508).
Public transport providers’ commitment to environmental sustainability
has a significant direct and positive effect both on satisfaction (+0.195)
and on loyalty (+0.433). The indirect effect of public transport pro-
viders' commitment to environmental sustainability on passenger loy-
alty via satisfaction is also significant. Additionally, service quality has
a significant positive indirect effect on loyalty through the mediator
role of satisfaction. As hypothesized, public transport providers’ com-
mitment to environmental sustainability is positively correlated to
service quality (+0.712). The goodness-of-fit measures suggest model
A fits the data satisfactorily.
4.3.1. Loyalty model for passengers with car and passengers without car
Table 5 presents the structural path estimates of model A for each
segment of public transport users – passengers with car (n1 = 618) and
passengers without car (n2 = 548). The goodness-of-fit indexes are
satisfactory in both segments, thus suggesting that the hypothesized
structural path configuration is adequate to explain passenger loyalty to
public transport both for passengers with car and passengers without
car.
The estimation results for model A in both segments reveal that
relationships among latent constructs are significant, replicating the
structural configuration results obtained from the overall sample and
reinforcing the validity of model A to explain passenger loyalty. In these

Table 4
Structural path estimates for Model A, Model B and Model C.
Hypothesis and Model A(a) Model B(b) Model C(c)
structural paths
Unstandardized S.E. Standardized Unstandardized S.E. Standardized Unstandardized S.E. Standardized
estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate estimate

H1: SQ → SAT +0.752*** 0.052 +0.737*** +0.927*** 0.047 +0.895*** +0.676*** 0.049 +0.663***
H2: SAT → LOY +0.676*** 0.065 +0.508*** +0.658*** 0.059 +0.499*** +1.180*** 0.060 +0.872***
H3: CES → SAT +0.190*** 0.040 +0.195*** – – – +0.311*** 0.040 +0.319***
H4: CES → LOY +0.561*** 0.063 +0.433*** +0.582*** 0.058 +0.454*** – – –
H5: CES ↔ SQ +1.980*** 0.088 +0.712*** +1.137*** 0.090 +0.740*** +1.108*** 0.070 +0.720***

*** Significantly different from zero at p < 0.001; * Significantly different from zero at p < 0.05.
(a)
GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.06, χ2(215) = 1102.97; χ 2(215)/df = 5.13; AIC = 1224.97.
(b)
GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.06, χ 2(216) = 1125.18; χ 2(216)/df = 5.21; AIC = 1245.18.
(c)
GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.93, NFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, χ 2(216) = 1200.93; χ 2(216)/df = 5.56; AIC = 1320.93.

633
P. Vicente, et al.
Table 5
Structural path estimates of Model A for passengers with car and passengers without car.
Hypothesis and structural paths Passengers with car(a)
Unstandardized estimate S.E. Standardized estimate
H1: SQ → SAT +0.782*** 0.069 +0.785***
H2: SAT → LOY +0.741*** 0.094 +0.535***
H3: CES → SAT +0.140*** 0.040 +0.165***
H4: CES → LOY +0.478*** 0.063 +0.406***
H5: CES ↔ SQ +1.208*** 0.122 +0.737***
*** Significantly different from zero at p < 0.001; * Significantly different from zero at p < 0.05.
(a)
GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.89, IFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07, χ 2(215)/df = 3.78.
(b)
GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.89, IFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, χ 2(215)/df = 3.07.
two sub-samples, public transport providers' commitment to environ-
mental sustainability has a significant direct and positive effect both on
satisfaction and on loyalty. Among passengers without car the effect of
CES on satisfaction and loyalty is stronger. In the two segments, public
transport providers' commitment to environmental sustainability has a
significant indirect and positive effect on passenger loyalty when
moderated by satisfaction. Additionally, public transport providers'
commitment to environmental sustainability is positively correlated to
service quality.
5. Discussion and implications
The research undertaken can be summarized as follows: (a) a survey
of public transport users in the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon was con-
ducted; (b) dimensions of service quality were identified based on
public transport users’ experiences with the transport service; (c) SEM
was used to explore both the direct and indirect effects on passenger
loyalty of public transport providers' commitment to environmental
sustainability; and (d) the loyalty model was estimated in two segments
of public transport users: passengers with car and passengers without
car.
From the Principal Component Analysis, we identified 4 compo-
nents to describe service quality – operational performance, comfort
and safety, attractiveness of service and guarantee of service. As the
literature demonstrates, there is no single way to measure service
quality in passenger transport. Such diversity is accounted for by the
geographic scope of the study (Fellesson and Friman, 2008; Fiorio et al.,
2011), the population under study (Charbatzadeh et al., 2016;
Gutiérrez and Miravet, 2016), the specific transport mode or transport
service under study (e.g. de Oña et al., 2013, 2015; Wen et al., 2005) or
the specific features of the service being evaluated (Allen et al., 2018,
2019; Friman and Gärling, 2001). In our study, we covered a wide
geographical area and different kinds of transport (road, railway and
boat), which led to us having dimensions that describe the character-
istics of the service globally rather than in much detail. Even so the
dimensions revealed by our analysis are in line with other studies:
“Operational performance” is pointed out by Efthymiou and Antoniou
(2017) and Chica-Olmo et al. (2018); “Comfort and safety” is a di-
mension found in the investigation by Chowdhury and Ceder (2016),
Lois et al. (2017), Ngoc et al. (2017) and Şimşekoğlu et al. (2015);
“Attractiveness of service” is pointed out in the investigation by
Chowdhury and Ceder (2016), and “Guarantee of service” is found in
Efthymiou and Antoniou (2017). The results obtained with the pre-
ferred model are also in line with similar studies in the area of public
transport (Lai and Chen, 2011; Machado et al., 2016; Wen et al., 2005).
Model A was the best for describing passenger loyalty towards
634
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
Passengers without car(b)
Unstandardized estimate S.E. Standardized estimate
+0.742*** 0.080 +0.707***
+0.625*** 0.091 +0.490***
+0.240*** 0.072 +0.208***
+0.657*** 0.109 +0.448***
+0.970*** 0.126 +0.689***
public transport and confirmed the research hypotheses.
Unsurprisingly, we found a significant effect of service quality on sa-
tisfaction and a significant effect of satisfaction on loyalty, which are
two relationships well documented in the literature (e. g. van Lierop
and El-Geneidy, 2016). The hypotheses regarding the new construct
Commitment to environmental sustainability were all supported – CES has
a direct and positive effect on passenger loyalty and passenger sa-
tisfaction, CES is positively correlated to service quality, and CES has an
indirect positive effect on passenger loyalty, when satisfaction has a
mediator role. These outcomes reveal that the attention transit com-
panies pay to sustainability is not overlooked by transport users and is
valued by them – transit users recognize that commitment to environ-
mental sustainability is part of the quality of a transportation service
(H5) and positively affects their satisfaction (H3) and loyalty towards
public transport (H4). Even though extant literature in the public
transport sector broadly explores loyalty issues, there is no study in-
vestigating the concept of commitment to environmental sustainability
by public transport agencies. By integrating this concept into a model of
passenger loyalty, this study shows the relevance commitment to en-
vironmental sustainability has in developing loyalty towards public
transport and, as well, its relevance with regard to passenger satisfac-
tion with public transit service. Additionally, the results presented
confirm the relationship structure of the overall loyalty model in the
two segments – passengers without car and passengers with car. This
means that passengers without car, despite using public transport be-
cause they have no alternative, do not differ from passengers with car as
far as the determinants of transit loyalty are concerned. Specifically,
both groups of passengers recognize that a positive perception about
public transport providers’ commitment to environmental sustainability
positively affects their satisfaction and intention to remain loyal to
public transport. Although the loyalty of passengers without car is not a
“free-of-choice” loyalty (van Lierop and El-Geneidy, 2016), these pas-
sengers appreciate the transit agencies’ commitment to the environ-
ment, which is a sign that environmental awareness is implemented as a
long-term issue in all sections of society. These results reveal the re-
levance of environmental issues in today’s business context and the
need for transit agencies to include them in their management strate-
gies and policies. The findings suggest that sustainability issues are a
key strategic tool, given its essential role in building not only passenger
loyalty but also passenger satisfaction.
Public transit agency managers ought to design strategies to raise
perception of commitment to environmental sustainability and to help
passengers to develop greater levels of satisfaction to build enduring
relationships with companies. To obtain these outcomes, public trans-
port companies could implement visible environmental practices such
as pollution reduction initiatives – switch transit fleet from fossil fuel
P. Vicente, et al.
systems to cleaner alternative solutions, such as biodiesel and natural
gas –, reduce energy consumption, obtain environmental certifications
(e.g. E-Mark, Certification for Sustainable Transportation, …), among
others. Moreover, as passengers’ perceptions of commitment to en-
vironmental sustainability and satisfaction might be affected largely by
transit agency communications related to sustainability issues, the
public transport sector should effectively communicate these initiatives
to explain the goals of sustainability strategies. Consequently, transit
managers should emphasize the importance of environmental issues by
promoting sustainability campaigns to build up the overall sustain-
ability image of public transport. With the growing awareness of the
importance of environmental preservation, companies that are en-
vironmentally friendly can gain the trust of like-minded consumers if
they make their “go green” activities part of their communication
strategy (Green Business Bureau, 2014). According to a global poll
conducted across several countries (Mori, 2014), most consumers be-
lieve that companies do not pay enough attention to the environment.
This suggests either that companies need to do more, or that they are
not communicating their environmental initiatives well enough. Green
marketing may result in increased demand from environmentally sen-
sitive passengers because the ecological characteristics of services are
likely to be appreciated by these “green “passengers (Polonsky and
Rosenberger, 2001).
To effectively promote commitment to environmental sustain-
ability, it is highly recommended that transit providers develop an in-
tegrated communication strategy with multiple information channels to
show the characteristics of a green transit mode. Given its inherent
marketing potential, the Internet has become the preferred means for
companies that wish to publicize their sustainability goals and actions
on a regular basis. Publishing sustainability goals and achievements on
company websites and an increasing presence in social networks (e.g.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, …) (Kietzmann et al., 2011;
Koleva, 2014), are effective channels for communicating with passen-
gers and keeping them abreast of agencies’ green initiatives and their
impact on environmental sustainability. For passengers without car,
marketing actions to communicate transit agencies’ green initiatives
should transmit both recognition of and positive reinforcement for
having a sustainable mobility pattern. For the remaining passengers,
marketing actions must highlight the benefits of being green for each
individual and for society and, by doing so, stimulate the increasing
adoption of public transport.
6. Conclusions and future research
To sum up, the present research suggests the relevance to transit
companies of taking into account their commitment to environmental
sustainability to achieve increased passenger loyalty towards public
transport. In the authors’ opinion, green marketing should be an in-
tegral part of public transport companies’ strategy. By implementing
marketing actions, focused on spreading the company's green image
and explaining environmental initiatives, public transport agencies can
achieve higher levels of passenger satisfaction, stimulate public trans-
port adoption and increase loyalty towards public transport.
Additionally, green marketing may also result in increased demand
from environmentally sensitive people because ecological
635
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
characteristics of the service are likely to be appreciated by these green
passengers. It is important to note, however, that nobody chooses a
“green” transport service only because it is “green”; the service must
fulfil people’s needs. Therefore, a green strategy must be accompanied
by changes in the service to accommodate the levels of service required
by passengers (Vicente and Reis, 2018).
Although this research has revealed encouraging empirical results
for public transport agencies, the outcomes are general and future re-
search can be improved if different domains are considered. For in-
stance, while the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has many features in
common with other metropolitan areas, such as high population den-
sity, heavy traffic and a commitment to making public transport
smoother and sustainable, similar studies should nevertheless be re-
plicated in other countries or areas so there can be a deeper examina-
tion of the robustness of the passenger loyalty hypotheses with respect
to the transit agencies’ commitment to sustainability. Additionally, re-
search could be extended by stratifying the analysis by transport mode
to examine whether there are differences in passenger loyalty in the
various modes. Public transport modes differ in their environmental
impact – the bus is potentially the least environmentally friendly mode
if propelled by fuel – which may affect the importance passengers at-
tach to transit agencies’ commitment to sustainability. Moreover,
evaluating the impact on loyalty of transit agencies’ commitment to
sustainability under different forms of governance (state, private or
both) is another interesting avenue for research. Public transport policy
is defined by States or Governments and seeks to optimize several
conflicting aspirations such as service efficiency, social inclusion goals
and also environmental concerns. In turn, public transport service may
be provided exclusively by state-owned operators (e.g. Transports
Metropolitans de Barcelona) or by coexistent state-owned and private
operators (e.g. Transport for London). In the latter case, it is not
guaranteed that both share the same objectives − for private operators
making profit is a driving goal − and building consensus or obtaining
the acquiescence necessary to carry out a strategy aiming to increase
transit ridership can be more challenging.
Finally, future research should assess whether the relationships
found between transit agencies’ commitment to sustainability and the
other constructs − namely service quality, passenger satisfaction and
passenger loyalty − change over time.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work received financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e
Tecnologia (Science and Technology Foundation) through the UID/GES/
00315/2019 project. This article is part of the project entitled Estudo de
Satisfação dos Utilizadores dos Transportes Públicos da Área Metropolitana
de Lisboa 2013, a joint project of the Metropolitan Transport Authority
of Lisbon and Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa.
P. Vicente, et al.
Appendix
Fig. A1. Map of Portugal with the location of the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon (in red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader
is referred to the web version of this article.)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_metropolitan_area
References
Allen, J., Eboli, L., Forciniti, C., Mazzulla, G., Ortúzar, J., 2019. The role of critical in-
cidents and involvement in transit satisfaction and loyalty. Transp. Policy 75 (C),
57–69.
Allen, J., Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G., Ortúzar, J., 2018. Effect of critical incidents on public
transport satisfaction and loyalty: an Ordinal Probit SEM-MIMIC approach.
Transportation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9921-4.
Bentler, P., 2007. On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality
Individ. Differ. 42, 825–829.
Bollen, K., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York.
Bou-Llusar, J., Camisón-Zornoza, C., Escrig-Tena, A., 2001. Measuring the relationship
between firm perceived quality and customer satisfaction and its influence on pur-
chase intentions. Total Qual. Manag. 12 (6), 719–734.
Brady, M., Cronin, J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: a hierarchical approach. J. Marketing 65 (3), 34–49.
Butcher, K., Sparks, B., O’Callaghan, F., 2001. Evaluative and relational influences on
service loyalty. Int. J. Serv. Indust. Manag. 12, 310–327.
Byrne, B., 2009. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming. CRC Press.
Cantwell, M., Caulfield, B., O’Mahony, M., 2009. Examining the factors that impact public
transport commuting satisfaction. J. Public Transp. 12 (2), 1–21.
Carrillat, F., Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J., 2007. The validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF
scales: a meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents. Int. J. Serv.
Indust. Manag. 18 (5), 472–490.
Caruana, A., 2002. Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating role of
customer satisfaction. Eur. J. Mark. 36 (7/8), 811–828.
CEN, 2002. EN 13816 - Transportation - Logistics and Services - Public Passenger
636
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
Transport - Service Quality Definition, Targeting and Measurement. European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brüksel.
Changa, Y., Chen, F., 2007. Relational benefits, switching barriers and loyalty: a study of
airline customer in Taiwan. J. Air Transp. Manag. 13, 104–109.
Charbatzadeh, F., Ojiako, U., Chipulu, M., Marshall, A., 2016. Determinants of satisfac-
tion with campus transportation services: implications for service quality. J. Transp.
Suppl. Chain Manag. 10 (1), 1–14.
Chica-Olmo, J., Gachs-Sánchez, G., Lizarraga, C., 2018. Route effect on the perception of
public transport services quality. Transp. Policy 67 (C), 40–48.
Chowdhury, S., Ceder, A., 2016. Users’ willingness to ride an integrated public-transport
service: a literature review. Transp. Policy 48, 183–195.
Cone Communications, 2013. Echo Global CSR Study. Available at: http://www.
conecomm.com/news-blog/2013-global-csr-study-release. Accessed 13th November
2018.
d’Ovidio, F., Leogrande, D., Mancarella, R., Viola, D., 2014. The quality of public trans-
port services: a statistical analysis. In: Paper presented in VIth International Scientific
Conference on Economic Policy and EU integration, Durrës, Albania, pp. 96–104.
Davis, C., 2016. Communicating sustainability effectively in the business sector. Enviro-
Mark Solutions, Issue 41. Available at: https://www.enviro-mark.com/news-and-
events/newsletter/issue-41-newsletter/communicating-sustainability-effectively-in-
the-business-sector. Accessed 6th August 2019.
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.
de Oña, J., de Oña, R., Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G., 2015. Heterogeneity in perceptions of
service quality among groups of railway passengers. Int. J. Sust. Transp. 9 (8),
612–626.
Del Castillo, J., Benitez, F., 2012. A methodology for modelling and identifying users
satisfaction issues in public transport systems based on users surveys. Proc. Social
Behav. Sci. 54, 1104–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.815.
P. Vicente, et al.
Dimitriades, Z., 2006. Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service organi-
zations - some evidence from Greece. Manag. Res. News 29 (12), 782–800.
Eboli, L., Mazzula, G., 2007. Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for
bus transit. J. Public Transp. 10 (3), 21–34.
Eboli, L., Mazzula, G., 2011. A methodology for evaluating transit service quality based
on subjective and objective measures from the passenger’s point of view. Transp.
Policy 18, 172–181.
ECO, 2016. Carris testa autocarro totalmente elétrico e silencioso em duas carreiras. ECO
2016 Swipe News SA. Available at: https://eco.pt/2016/09/22/carris-testa-
autocarro-totalmente-eletrico-e-silencioso-em-duas-carreiras/. Accessed 21st October
2016.
ECSI Technical Committee, 1998. European Customer Satisfaction Index Foundation and
Structure for Harmonized National Pilot Projects, ECSI.
Efthymiou, D., Antoniou, C., 2017. Understanding the effects of economic crisis on public
transport users’ satisfaction and demand. Transp. Policy 53, 89–97.
ELTIS, 2014. The urban mobility observatory. Available at: http://www.eltis.org/.
Accessed 25th October 2016.
European Commission, 2008. Special Eurobarometer 295: Attitudes of European citizens
towards the environment, Brussels, European Commission. Available at: http://ec.
europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf.
European Commission, 2017. Clean transport, Urban transport. Available at: http://ec.
europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/urban_mobility_actions/public_
transport_en. Accessed 27th January 2017.
Farrell, A., Souchon, A., Durden, G., 2001. Service encounter conceptualization: em-
ployees‟ service behaviours and customers‟ service quality perceptions. J. Marketing
Manag. 17, 577–593.
Fellesson, M., Friman, M., 2008. Perceived satisfaction with public transport service in
nine European cities. J. Transp. Res For. 47 (3), 93–103.
Fiorio, C., Florio, M., Perucca, G., 2011. Consumers’ satisfaction and regulation of local
public transport: evidence from European cities. In: Proceedings of the XXIII
Conferenzia Societá Italiana di Economia Pubblica.
Fitzsimmons, J., Fitzsimmons, M., 2008. Service Management: Operations, Strategy,
Information Technology, Boston, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, p. 537.
Flavian, C., Martinez, E., Polo, Y., 2001. Loyalty to grocery stores in the Spanish market of
the 1990s. J. Retail. Consumer Serv. 8, 85–93.
Fonseca, F., Pinto, S., Brito, C., 2010. Service quality and customer satisfaction in public
transports. Int. J. Qual. Res. 4 (2), 125–130.
Friman, M., Gärling, T., 2001. Frequency of negative critical incidents and satisfaction
with public transport services. II. J. Retail. Consumer Serv. 8, 105–114.
Gagić, S., Tešanović, D., Jovičić, A., 2013. The vital components of restaurant quality that
affect guest satisfaction. TURIZAM 17, 166–176.
GlobeScan, 2011. Survey on Sustainable Consumption. Available at: http://www.
globescan.com/news_archives/tss_growth/The_Sustainability_Survey_2011_
Sustainable_Consumption.pdf. Accessed 30th January 2017.
GMPTA (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority), 2007. Commitment to
Service. Available at: http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/Environment/
Enviro_report0607.pdf. Accessed 11th October 2016.
Green Business Bureau, 2014. Green Business Certification. Available at: http://www.
gbb.org/product-tour/. Accessed 6th February 2017.
Gutiérrez, A., Miravet, D., 2016. The determinants of tourist use of public transport at the
destination. Sustainability 8, 908.
Hair Jr, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, seventh ed. Pearson Education Limited, London.
Hellier, P., Geursen, G., Carr, R., Rickard, J., 2003. Customer repurchase intention: a
general structural equation model. Eur. J. Mark. 37 (11), 1762–1800.
Hensher, D., Stopher, P., Bullock, P., 2003. Service quality – developing a service quality
index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transp. Res. Part A 37, 499–517
doi: 1016/S0965-8564(02)00075-7.
IAPT, 2014. Climate Action and Public Transport: Analysis of Planned Actions. UITP
Advancing Public Transport, Brussels.
Iman, R., 2014. Measuring public transport satisfaction from user surveys. Int. J. Business
Manag. 9 (6), 106–114.
Imaz, A., Habib, K., Shalaby, A., Idris, A., 2015. Investigating the factors affecting transit
user loyalty. Public Transp. 7, 39–60.
Ipsos Mori, 2014. Global trends 2014-Environment. Available at: http://www.
ipsosglobaltrends.com/environment.html. Accessed 5th February 2017.
ISCTE-IUL, 2014a. AMTL-Estudo de Satisfação dos Utilizadores dos Transportes Públicos–
Final Report of Users’ Survey. Unpublished Report.
ISCTE-IUL, 2014b. AMTL-Estudo de Satisfação dos Utilizadores dos Transportes Públicos–
Final Report of Focus Groups. Unpublished Report.
Kamaruddin, R., Osman, I., Pei, C., 2012. Customer expectations and its relationship
towards public transport in Klang Valley. J. Asian Behav. Stud. 2 (5), 29–38.
Kang, G., James, J., 2004. Service quality dimensions: an examination of Grönroos’s
service quality model. Manag. Serv. Qual. 14 (4), 266–277.
Karlaftis, M., Golias, J., Papadimitriou, E., 2001. Transit quality as an integrated traffic
management strategy: measuring perceived service. J. Public Transp. 4 (1), 13–26.
Kennell, B., 2016. Environmental Concern Empowers the People. Available at: http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-kennell/environmental-concern-emp_b_8105580.
html. Accessed 18th October 2016.
Kietzmann, J., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I., Silvestre, B., 2011. Social media? Get serious!.
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Bus. Horiz. 54,
241–251.
Kim, Y., Lee, H., 2011. Customer satisfaction using low cost carriers. Tourism Manag. 32
(2), 235–243.
King, B., 2011. Green Consumerism, Brand Loyalty Are on the Rise. Available at: https://
www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/articles/green-consumerism-brand-
637
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
loyalty-are-rise. Accessed 13th November 2018.
Kline, R., 2010. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, third ed. The
Guilford Press, New York.
Koleva, P., 2014. Transport and sustainable development, in communication and in
practice: a comparative analysis of the strategies of three French firms. J. Econ.
Business 17 (1), 19–37.
Kotler, P., 2003. Marketing Management, eleventh ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Sadle
River, NJ.
Krizek, K., El-Geneidy, A., 2007. Segmenting preferences and habits of transit users and
non-users. J. Public Transp. 10 (3), 71–94.
Lai, W., Chen, C., 2011. Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers – the role of
service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transp. Policy 18 (2),
318–325.
Lois, D., Monzón, A., Hernández, S., 2017. Analysis of satisfaction factors at urban
transport interchanges: measuring travellers’ attitudes to information, security and
waiting. Transp. Policy 67, 49–56.
Machado, J., Oña, R., Oña, J., 2016. The role of involvement in regards to public transit
riders’ perceptions of the service. Transp. Policy 48, 34–44. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X16300646.
MALT (Metropolitan Authority of Lisbon Transport), 2014. Organization, tariffs and fi-
nancing of public transport system of metropolitan area of Lisbon. Unpublished re-
port.
Minser, J., Webb, V., 2010. Quantifying the benefits: application of customer loyalty
modeling in public transportation context. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board
2144, 111–120.
Mokonyama, M., Venter, C., 2013. Incorporation of customer satisfaction in public
transport contracts – a preliminary analysis. Res. Transp. Econ. 39, 58–65. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.05.024.
MTA (Mobility and Transport Authority), (2016). Relatório sobre Reclamações no
Mercado da Mobilidade e dos Transportes. Available at: http://www.amt-autoridade.
pt/media/1205/relatorio-amt_reclama%C3%A7%C3%B5es-no-mercado-da-
mobilidade-e-dos-transportes_v3.pdf. Accessed 15th July 2018.
Muhammad, I., Daisy, M., Saman, S., 2011. Service quality in rail transport of Pakistan: a
passenger perspective. In: Proceedings of 3rd SAICON: International Conference on
Management, Business Ethics and Economics (ICMBEE), December 28–29, Lahore,
Pakistan.
Ngatia, G., Okamura, T., Nakamura, F., 2010. The structure of users’ satisfaction on urban
public transport service in developing country: the case of Nairobi. J. Eastern Asia
Soc. Transp. Stud. 8, 1288–1300.
Ngoc, A., Hung, K., Tuan, V., 2017. Towards the development of quality standards for
public transport service in developing countries: analysis of public transport users’
behavior. Transp. Res. Procedia 25, 4560–4579.
OneNYC, 2016. New York City Department of Transportation - Strategic Plan 2016.
Available at: https://www.nycdotplan.nyc/PDF/Strategic-plan-2016.pdf. Accessed
3rd August 2019.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research. J. Marketing 49, 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 12–40.
Perez, M., Abad, J., Carrillo, G., Fernández, R., 2007. Effects of service quality dimensions
on behavioural purchase intentions: a study in public-sector transport. Manag. Serv.
Qual.: Int. J. 17 (2), 134–151.
Peycheva, D., Pötzschke, J., Hall, T., Rattinger, H., 2014. Attitudes towards environ-
mental issues: empirical evidence in Europe and the United States. Working Paper.
Transworld 31, 1–56.
Polonsky, M., Rosenberger, P., 2001. Re-evaluating green marketing: strategic approach.
Bus. Horiz. 44 (5), 21–30.
Prasad, D., Shekhar, R., 2010. Impact of service quality management (SQM) practices on
Indian Railways - a study of South Central Railways. Int. J. Business Manag. 5 (9),
139–146.
Ramos, S., Vicente, P., Passos, A., Costa, P., Reis, E., 2019. Perceptions of the public
transport service as a barrier to the adoption of public transport: a qualitative study.
Social Sci. 8, 150.
Ranade, K., 2012. Customer Loyalty – What is it? How Can You Measure and Manage It?.
Available at: http://www.loyaltyresearch.com/insights/customer-loyalty-what-is-it-
how-can-you-measure-and-manage-it/. Accessed 3rd October 2016.
Reichheld, F., 2003. The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Rev. 81 (12),
46–55.
Reichheld, F., Teal, T., 2001. The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth,
Profits, and Lasting Value. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Shiftan, Y., Barlach, Y., Shefer, D., 2015. Measuring passenger loyalty to public transport
modes. J. Public Transp. 18 (1), 1–16.
Şimşekoğlu, Ö., Nordfjaer, T., Rundmo, T., 2015. The role of attitudes, transport prio-
rities, and car use habit for travel mode use and intentions to use public transpor-
tation in an urban Norwegian public. Transp. Policy 42, 113–120.
Skačkauskienė, I., Vilkaitė-Vaitonė, N., Raudeliũnienė, J., Davidavičienė, V., 2016. A
model for measuring passenger loyalty. Transport 31 (1), 100–107.
Statistics Portugal, 2011. Population aged 15 or older by place of residence. Census
Population Report, INE, Portugal.
Statistics Portugal, 2017. Inquérito à Mobilidade nas Áreas Metropolitanas do Porto e de
Lisboa. INE, Portugal.
Stuart, K., Mednick, M., Bockman, J., 2000. Structural equation model of customer sa-
tisfaction for the New York City subway system. Transp. Res. Rec. 1735, 133–137.
Sustainable Sydney, 2017. Sustainable Sydney 2030 - Community Strategic Plan
2017–2021. Available at: https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0011/288173/Adopted-Sustainable-Sydney-2030_Accessible-Version.pdf.
P. Vicente, et al.
Accessed 3rd August 2019.
TaghiPourian, M., Bakhsh, M., 2015. Loyalty: from single-stage loyalty to four-stage
loyalty. Int. J. New Technol. Res. 1 (6), 48–51.
TfL (Transport for London), (2011). Transport for London: Business Plan 2011/12 –
2014/15. Available at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfls-business-plan-2011-12-to-2014-
15.pdf. Accessed 26th October 2016.
TfL (Transport for London), (2017). Transport for London Business Plan 2018/19 to
2022/23. Available at: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-business-plan-december-2017-.
pdf. Accessed 17th January 2018.
TMB (Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona), 2017. Transports Metropolitans de
Barcelona. Available: https://www.tmb.cat/documents/20182/111197/Presentacio_
corporativa_2017_EN_ACC.pdf/6db9e57d-6419-4c10-994a-42b554e8faad. Accessed
17th January 2018.
TNS Opinion, 2015. From farm to folk. Available at: https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/
default/files/publications/from-farm-to-folk_1.pdf. Accessed 30th January 2017.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), (2005). Communicating Sustainability-
How to produce effective public campaigns. Available at: http://www.unep.fr/
shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0679xPA-CommunicatingEN.pdf. Accessed 6th August
2019.
van Lierop, D., Badami, M., El-Geneidy, A., 2018. What influences satisfaction and loyalty
in public transit? A critical review of the literature. Transp. Rev. 38 (1), 52–72.
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.
van Lierop, D., El-Geneidy, A., 2017. Public image: determining the effect of users’ image
of public transit loyalty. In: Paper presented at 96th Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting. Washington, DC, United States.
638
Case Studies on Transport Policy 8 (2020) 627–638
Vicente, P., Reis, E., 2018. Ex-regular users of public transport: their reasons for leaving
and returning. J. Public Transp. 21 (2), 101–116.
Vilares, M., Coelho, P., Cadilhe, M., 2005. Satisfação e lealdade do cliente: Metodologias
de avaliação, gestão e análise. Lisboa, Escolar Editora.
Webb, V., 2010. Customer loyalty in the public transportation context. Master Thesis,
MIT, Cambridge.
Weinstein, A., 2000. Customer satisfaction among transit riders: how customers rank the
relative importance of various service attributes. Transp. Res. Record: J. Transp. Res.
Board 1735, 124–132.
Wen, C., Lan, L., Chang, H., 2005. Structural equation modeling to determine passenger
loyalty toward intercity bus services. Transp. Res. Record: J. Transp. Res. Board
1927, 249–255.
Wenzel, M., 2017. How Sustainable Businesses Drive Customer Loyalty. Available at:
https://www.reviewtrackers.com/customer-experience-loyalty/. Accessed 13th
November 2018.
Werner, C., Schermelleh-Engel, K., 2010. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling
with LISREL - Deciding Between Competing Models: Chi-Square Difference Tests.
Available at: https://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-b371-2797-0000-
00000fda8f29/chisquare_diff_en.pdf. Accessed 12th December 2018.
Yeung, M., Ging, L., Ennew, C., 2002. Customer satisfaction and profitability: a re-
appraisal of the nature of the relationship. J. Targeting Measur. Anal. Marketing 11
(1), 24–33.
Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M., Gremler, D., 2008. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus across the Firm, fifth Ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Zhao, J., Webb, V., Shah, P., 2014. Customer loyalty differences between captive and
choice transit riders. Transp. Res. Record: J. Transp. Res. Board 2415, 80–88.