Multivariate methodology for discriminating market segments in urban commuting

Original Paper
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Efficient planning operations in the management of public transportation can benefit from more definitive understanding of the market structure of user demand. Market segmentation has been shown to be an effective method to guide the design of transit service offerings that can help transit agencies increase ridership and revenue. This study offers an integration of multivariate methodology for market segmentation in urban work commuting within a high technology corridor that has similarity to other such corridors in the US and worldwide. Adaptive choice conjoint analysis is first used to derive the importance weights of a set of attributes in terms of which service offerings for these commuters can be defined. This methodology allows respondents to more realistically indicate their preferences from full profiles of service offerings. A clustering procedure is then used to explore the grouping of individuals into homogeneous subsets of the sample that approximate market segments. Finally, the combinations of traveler demographics that differentiate clusters are examined with methodology of non-linear discriminant analysis. Access to and use of study methodologies by system analysts and designers is elaborated upon in an online appendix.

Keywords

Urban commuting Market segmentation Service attributes Multivariate methods 

References

  1. Abu-Lebdeh G (2012). Neural networks for travel time prediction on interrupted flow facilities. In: Transportation Research Board: Transportation Research Circular E-C168: Artificial Intelligence Applications to Critical Transportation Issues, Washington DC, pp 42–57Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal CC, Reddy CK (eds) (2013) Data clustering: algorithms and applications. CRC Press, West Palm BeachGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I (2011) Theory of planned behavior. In: Higgens T, Kruglangski A, Van Lange P (eds) Handbook of theoretical social psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 438–459Google Scholar
  4. Alderighi M, Cento A, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (2012) Competition in the European aviation market: the entry of low-cost airlines. J Transp Geogr 24:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen J, Levinson H (2014) Accommodation of long-term growth on North American’s commuter railroads. Transp Res Rec 2419:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beirão G, Cabral JS (2008) Market segmentation analysis using attitudes toward transportation: exploring the differences between men and women. Transp Res Rec 2067(1):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernetti G, Longo G, Tomasella L, Violin A (2008) Sociodemographic groups and mode choice in a middle-sized European city. Transp Res Rec 2067(1):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binner S, Neggers R, Hoogerbrugge M (2009) “ACBC: a case study”, presented at the joint SKIM/Sawtooth Software Training Event. Czech Republic, PragueGoogle Scholar
  9. Cascetta E (2013) Transportation systems engineering: theory and methods. Springer Science & Business Media, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Cascetta E, Papola A, Marzano V, Simonelli F, Vitiello I (2013) Quasi-dynamic estimation of o–d flows from traffic counts: formulation, statistical validation and performance analysis on real data. Transp Res B Methodol 55:171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman BP, Goldberg LR (2011) Replicability and 40-year predictive power of childhood ARC types. J Pers Soc Psychol 101(3):593–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Oña J, de Oña R, Eboli L, Mazzulla G (2015) Heterogeneity in perceptions of service quality among groups of railway passengers. Int J Sustain Transp 9(8):612–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeSarbo WS, Grisaffe D (1998) Combinatorial optimization approaches to constrained market segmentation: an application to industrial market segmentation. Mark Lett 9(2):115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doove LL, Van Buuren S, Dusseldorp E (2014) Recursive partitioning for missing data imputation in the presence of interaction effects. Comput Stat Data Anal 72:92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eboli L, Mazzulla G (2007) Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit. J Public Transp 10(3):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Echeverri P, Skålén P (2011) Co-creation and co-destruction: a practice-theory based study of interactive value formation. Mark Theory 11(3):351–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elmore-Yalch R (1998) Using market segmentation to increase transit ridership. Transportation Research Board: TCRP report 36. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M (2009) Cluster analysis. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Fellesson M, Friman M (2012) Perceived satisfaction with public transport service in nine European cities. J Transp Res Forum 47(3):93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleiss JL (2011) Design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Gebauer H, Johnson M, Enquist B (2010) Value co-creation as a determinant of success in public transport services: a study of the Swiss Federal Railway operator (SBB). Manag Serv Qual 20(6):511–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilmour P, Borg G, Duffy PA, Johnston ND, Limbek BE, Shaw MR (1994) Customer service: differentiating by market segment. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 24(4):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goh CK, Tan KC, Liu DS, Chiam SC (2010) A competitive and cooperative co-evolutionary approach to multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm design. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green PE, Wind Y (1975) New way to measure consumers’ judgments. Harvard Business Review 53:107–117Google Scholar
  25. Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31(3 suppl):S56–S73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grischkat S, Hunecke M, Böhler S, Haustein S (2014) Potential for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the use of mobility services. Transp Policy 35:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gruel W, Piller FT (2016) A new vision for personal transportation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 57(2):20–24Google Scholar
  28. Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F (eds) (2013) Conjoint measurement: methods and applications. Springer Science and Business Media, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  29. Hassan SS, Katsanis LP (1994) Global market segmentation strategies and trends. In: Hassan S, Kaynak E (eds) Globalization of consumer markets: structures and strategies. International Business Press, New York, pp 47–62Google Scholar
  30. Huber J (2005) Conjoint analysis: how we got here and where we are. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series, SequimGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunecke M, Haustein S, Böhler S, Grischkat S (2010) Attitude-based target groups to reduce the ecological impact of daily mobility behavior. Environ Behav 42(1):3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iseki H, Taylor BD (2010) Style versus service? An analysis of user perceptions of transit stops and stations. J Public Transp 13(3):23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (2009) Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  34. Krieger AM, Green PE (1996) Modifying cluster-based segments to enhance agreement with an exogenous response variable. J Mark Res 33:351–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lemon SC, Roy J, Clark MA, Friedmann PD, Rakowski W (2003) Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Ann Behav Med 26(3):172–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu H, Cai Z, Wang Y (2010) Hybridizing particle swarm optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical and engineering optimization. Appl Soft Comput 10(2):629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu Y, Kiang M, Brusco M (2012) A unified framework for market segmentation and its applications. Expert Syst Appl 39(11):10292–10302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Louviere JJ, Islam T (2008) A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J Bus Res 61(9):903–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ludlow LH (2010) Classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement principles: transforming psychometric theory into practice. Larry H. Ludlow, Chestnut HillGoogle Scholar
  40. Lusch RF, Vargo SL, Wessels G (2006) Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Syst J 47(1):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Melaniphy MP (2015) Hearing on “Surface Transportation Reauthorization”. Testimony before Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. U.S. Senate. American Public Transportation Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Mikhaylov AS, Gumenuk IS, Mikhaylova AA (2016) Russian public transport system: the customers’ feedback on the service provision. Public Transp 8(1):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murtagh F (1983) A survey of recent advances in hierarchical clustering algorithms. Comput J 26(4):354–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murtagh F, Legendre P (2014) Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? J Classif 31(3):274–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nourbakhsh SM, Ouyang Y (2012) A structured flexible transit system for low demand areas. Transp Res Part B Methodol 46(1):204–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perrotta A (2013) Fare collection and fare policy. Transit Leadership Summit. Research Papers, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  47. Rao VR (2014) Applied conjoint analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Redman L, Friman M, Gärling T, Hartig T (2013) Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: a research review. Transp Policy 25:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reinke D (2012) Urban travel demand forecasting. In: Transportation Research Board: Transportation Research Circular E-C168: Artificial Intelligence Applications to Critical Transportation Issues, Washington DC, pp 86–92Google Scholar
  50. Schlereth C, Skiera B (2012) Measurement of consumer preferences for bucket pricing plans with different service attributes. Int J Res Mark 29(2):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schneider RJ (2013) Theory of routine mode choice decisions: an operational framework to increase sustainable transportation. Transp Policy 25:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scott RA, George BT, Prybutok VR (2016) A public transportation decision‐making model within a metropolitan area. Decis Sci 47:1048–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shiftan Y, Outwater ML, Zhou Y (2008) Transit market research using structural equation modeling and attitudinal market segmentation. Transp Policy 15(3):186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siggerud K (2006) Intermodal transportation: challenges to and potential strategies for developing improved intermodal capabilities. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, June 15, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Silver S (2012) Assessing importance and satisfaction judgments of intermodal work commuters with electronic survey methodology. In: Proceedings of the Decision Science Institute. Decision Science Institute, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  56. Small K (2013) Urban transportation economics, vol 4. Harwood, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith WR (1956) Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. J Mark 21:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stroby C, Mally J, Tutz G (2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests. Psychol Methods 14(4):323–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. United States Government Accountability Office (2010) Public transportation: report to Congressional Committees, Report GAO-10-781Google Scholar
  61. Vanoutrive T, Van De Vijver E, Van Malderen L, Jourquin B, Thomas I, Verhetsel A, Witlox F (2012) What determines carpooling to workplaces in Belgium: location, organisation, or promotion? J Transp Geogr 22:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vargo SL, Akaka MA (2009) Service-dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications. Serv Sci 1(1):32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vicente P, Reis E (2016) Profiling public transport users through perceptions about public transport providers and satisfaction with the public transport service. Public Transp 8(3):387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waara N, Brundell-Freij K, Risser R, Ståhl A (2015) Feasible provision of targeted traveler information in public transportation: segmentation based on functional limitations. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 74:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wardman M (2001) A review of British evidence on time and service quality valuations. Transpo Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 37(2):107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wardman M (2004) Public transport values of time. Transp Policy 11(4):363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wedel M, Kamakura WA (2012) Market segmentation: conceptual and methodological foundations. Springer Science and Business Media, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  68. Weiner E (2008) Urban transportation planning in the United States: history, policy and practice, 3rd edn. Springer, WestportCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wen CH, Wang WC, Fu C (2012) Latent class nested logit model for analyzing high-speed rail access mode choice. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 48(2):545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Xie C, Lu JY, Parkany E (2003) Work travel mode choice modeling with data mining: decision trees and neural networks. Transp Res Rec 1854:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yaya LHP, Fortià MF, Canals CS, Marimon F (2015) Service quality assessment of public transport and the implication role of demographic characteristics. Public Transp 7(3):409–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zolfaghari A, Sivakumar A, Polak JW (2012) Choice set pruning in residential location choice modelling: a comparison of sampling and choice set generation approaches in greater London. Transp Plan Technol 35(1):87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lucas Graduate School of Business and Mineta Transportation InstituteCalifornia State UniversitySan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations