Article citation information:
Salisu, U.O.,
Gafar, M.O., Akanmu, A.A., Sanni, S.M., Fasina, S.O. Users’ satisfaction
with intercity bus terminal quality in Lagos state, Nigeria. Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport. 2024, 123, 277-302. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2024.123.14.
Umar Obafemi SALISU[1],
Mubarak Olabanji GAFAR[2],
Ayobami Ademola AKANMU[3],
Sekinat Motunrayo SANNI[4],
Simeon Oluwagbenga FASINA[5]
USERS’ SATISFACTION WITH INTERCITY BUS TERMINAL QUALITY IN LAGOS
STATE, NIGERIA
Summary. Globally,
efficient intercity public transport relies on well-designed and high-quality
terminal facilities and services to enhance accessibility, mobility, and safety
for passengers and freight. Despite governmental efforts, bus terminals in
Nigerian urban areas are becoming hotspots for unregulated activities and
traffic chaos. In response, this study investigates users’ satisfaction
with Lagos State's intercity bus terminal quality, analysing socio-economic
profiles, satisfaction levels with quality of terminal facilities (QoTF) and
services (QoTS), and challenges impacting terminal operations. Using a
cross-sectional survey, 200 questionnaires were distributed to terminal users,
employing a multistage sampling technique. Descriptive (weighted mean analysis)
and inferential (multiple linear regression [MLR] analysis) statistics were
employed for data analysis. Results indicate that the majority of respondents
are male, aged below 40, and permanent terminal users. Satisfaction is noted
with 13 out of 24 parameters of QoTF, with top-ranking parameters including
parking space, restaurant facilities, and waste disposal facilities. However,
dissatisfaction is expressed with 8 out of 14 parameters of QoTS.
Least-satisfied QoTS parameters include staff attitudes, passenger safety, and
bus service reliability. Top-rated challenges affecting terminal operations are
security concerns, sanitation facility deficiencies and insufficient passenger
amenities. MLR analysis indicates a significant influence of terminal
facilities on overall service satisfaction (F= 2.899, p= 0.000 <0.05). In
conclusion, enhancing both terminal facilities and services is crucial for
efficient operations in Lagos State's bus terminals. Recommendations include
improving security measures, sanitary infrastructure and staff training to
address user concerns and enhance satisfaction.
Keywords: bus
terminal quality, transport infrastructure, transport planning, users’
satisfaction, Lagos State, Nigeria
1.
INTRODUCTION
The transport
system continues to be a major driver of socio-economic and spatial interaction
in cities. Among its critical components are intercity bus terminals, which
serve several functions, including providing platforms for accessing transit
services by prospective passengers in the city. Generally, terminal facilities
such as airports, seaports, pipeline depots, road terminals, and terminus, public
transport shields, rail terminals, and terminus, among others, are not only
unique distinct fixed facilities but also ensure efficient transport operations
and services by vehicles such as automobiles, bicycles, buses, trains, trucks,
people, helicopters, and aircraft in society [30]. In this regard, Oyesiku [26]
states that terminal facilities, in particular, and the transport system in
general, directly raise socio-economic productivity and the overall development
of society. Additionally, they facilitate proper allocation of resources and
land use activities in line with competitive advantage and concomitant
multiplier effects on the national economy, aside from their indirect
productivity enhancement on environmental resources.
Broadly,
terminal infrastructure in transport serves multiple purposes, including the
interchange of passengers and cargo, vehicle maintenance, and providing leisure
and amenity resources [20], alongside fulfilling important social, economic,
and environmental functions within cities [6]. Accordingly, Oyesiku and Olaseni
[25] characterized terminal infrastructure as a central hub for road transport
activities, operated by both private and government entities, facilitating the
transfer of people and goods for inter- and intra-city transport purposes.
Essentially, a bus terminal or passenger terminal represents a shared public
space within urban areas, distinguished by unique design, environmental
characteristics, and the range of services offered to a diverse society within
an enclosed or open environment. Consequently, the bus terminal assumes
significance as a crucial public space in cities worldwide [3, 18], serving not
only as a point of departure and arrival for bus routes [3] but also as a controlled space off
the roads, facilitating various services [15, 16].
Despite the
importance of bus terminals to the overall performance of the transport system
and city development and sustainability, the bus terminals, particularly in
developing nations, including Nigeria, are characterized by poor locational and
distribution patterns. These affect not only passengers' accessibility and
travel demand but also disorganize city arrangement, function, aesthetics, and
development. Consequently, poorly planned bus terminals promote chaotic traffic
situations, create fear and fear of crime, unguided trading activities, and
intractable parking systems in addition to unattractive patronage by operators
and commuters [3, 30]. As a result, developing cities, especially in African
countries, are constantly striving towards providing a raft of quality bus
terminal infrastructure to meet the ever-increasing passenger, freight traffic
demand and supply services. This supports their growth, development, and
sustainability as well as minimizing their multidimensional problems. In other
words, studies like Adebayo and Zubairu [2]; Litman [22], and Salisu [30]
observed that for any city to attain the level of primacy, its economic stature
and extensive regional interactions impose significant demands on its transport
infrastructure, particularly on intercity bus terminals Oyesiku and Olaseni
[25].
An ideal and
quality bus terminal usually provides passenger holding areas, processing
facilities including ticketing, dispatching point, and a bus express freight loading
station with parking lots in a well-planned and organised manner [11]. A very
good example of bus terminal facility includes Kifissos Bus Terminal in Greece,
Toronto Bus Terminal in North America, and Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus in
India, which are of good environmental quality, effective operations, and
responsive patronage from both the operators and other users [5,12, 14]. This
is unlike what is in existence in Lagos State and other States within Nigeria.
It is worth knowing that with rapid urban growth, high level of motorization,
unguided population growth, and systematic withdrawal of the Nigeria government
in the provision of quality transport infrastructural facilities, especially
bus terminals, there are obvious threats and pressure not only on the transport
system but also on the overall urban economies in Lagos State. In this context,
Salisu [29, 30] opines that the Nigerian transport infrastructure related
dilemma with the agglomeration of urban disorder and the unprecedented influx
of people in public spaces has left the urban facilities including bus
terminals and their associated services being overstressed. Beyond these, the
basic terminal facilities required for its smooth running, such as well-design
terminal structure, space, e-information and ticketing, safety and security,
drainage, privacy, a restaurant, waiting room, toilet, and convenience are
either missing or inadequate and less conducive to users' health living in
Lagos State and other Nigeria States [30].
Emphatically,
Lagos State, Nigeria's hub of commerce and industry [19], marked by a rapidly
expanding population of 24 million in 2015 and growing at a rate of 3.2%
annually, with an urbanisation rate of 16%, faces significant challenges
related to transport system operations, including traffic congestion,
unpredictable travel cost, insufficient mobility options, crime incidents and
poor infrastructure management [30]. This shows how the extent of the overall
transport system in Lagos is complex, chaotic, and intractable. Transport
infrastructural facilities inadequacies with unregulated modal operational
services are far-reaching, while these deficits have occasioned several
quantitative and qualitative consequences both on users and city development at
large [30, 31]. The planning and provision of bus terminal facilities in Lagos
State and other Nigerian urban areas, in general, are not in line with the
variation in the spatial characteristics and the residents’ population
agglomeration but rather in its traditional arrangement of locating terminals
close to the market or at the city centre [29]. This deficiency no doubt
contributes to and compounds the transport and traffic problems at the
different sections of the State. Likewise, Ref. [9, 25] observed that the
number of people victims of poor terminal facilities and operations including
accessibility difficulty, safety, and security concerns [30] and service
quality issues [31] greatly outnumbered those in traffic congestion in the
State.
However, the
increasing transport infrastructure facilities-related challenges which
subsumed bus terminal facilities and operational service-related issues in the
State have to be accorded deserved attention. The terminal facilities are fast
becoming hotspots for several activities, including unregulated trading
activities and other inappropriate activities e.g., kidnapping, rape, rubbery
etc., which may have an impact on facility resilience and users’
satisfaction. Hence, the need to provide understanding on the satisfaction with
the quality of transport infrastructural provision, with particular reference
to intercity bus terminals that offer services to both captive and choice
users. It is based on this backdrop that this study examined users'
satisfaction with the quality of intercity bus terminals in Lagos, Nigeria.
Achieving this aim, the following objectives were formulated: examined the
socio-economic profile of the users of the bus terminals, assessed the level of
satisfaction with the quality of the intercity bus terminals facilities (QoTF)
and services (QoTS) as well as identified the challenges militating the quality
of the bus terminals operations in Lagos State, Nigeria to improve terminal
operations and enhance overall users’ satisfaction.
2. CONCEPTUAL
AND LITERATURE REVIEW
This
subchapter is structured into two parts: conceptual review and literature
review. The conceptual review elucidates relevant concepts that underpin the
study, while the literature review delves into empirical research to identify
gaps in the existing body of knowledge.
2.1.
Conceptual review
The
study is grounded in the concepts of intercity terminal location and quality,
as well as users' satisfaction.
2.1. Concept of intercity
terminal location and quality
The
concept of intercity terminal location and quality encompasses both the
importance of understanding the geographical positioning of terminals and the
quality of facilities and services provided within them. Intercity terminals
serve as pivotal points where line haul trips between cities originate and
conclude, acting as interchange and transfer hubs for various modes of
transport such as bicycle, motorcycle, foot mobile, taxi, private vehicle,
minibus etc. and the location of the last or ultimate origin and destination
points, as described by Bimal [10]. In other words, while the location of these
terminals is critical, with considerations for accessibility, connectivity, and
efficiency in facilitating travel between urban centres, the quality of facilities
and services within intercity terminals significantly impacts their
effectiveness [25, 28].
The
importance of intercity terminal facilities for economic growth and development
is enormous. However, the effectiveness of an intercity terminal facility is
conditioned by its planned location, with the access or egress portion of the
journey ideally being very short in distance. Additionally, the facility should
be designed to accommodate users' parking, as most of the access trips are
usually accomplished with private or personal means. It should also consider
major roadside shelters for those stopping within urban settings before the
line haul destination, as well as suburban stations for those alighting along
the intercity trip line haul.
A
well-located and functional intercity bus terminal facilitates ease of
mobility, accessibility [9, 21], time and cost performance, patronage increase
[21], improved trade activities, environmental quality enhancement, and
reduction in urban stress [28, 32]. However, in situations where the access and
egress portions within cities become significant in terms of time, cost, and
other socio-economic benefits, travellers may shift their choice to a mode of
transport with more desirable performance characteristics [11]. Therefore,
proper location and planning of intercity bus terminals will ultimately improve
passengers' propensity to use them, thus enhancing socio-economic and
environmental quality [5, 21].
Intercity
terminal quality encompasses various aspects, including the physical
infrastructure, such as terminal buildings, waiting areas, parking facilities,
and amenities. It also involves the quality of services provided, such as
ticketing processes, information dissemination, safety measures, and
cleanliness. A well-designed and efficiently managed intercity terminal
enhances mobility, accessibility, and overall user experience, contributing to
increased patronage and economic activities. The concept of intercity terminal
location and quality emphasizes the importance of both strategic positioning
and the provision of high-quality facilities and services. By focusing on these
dual aspects, transportation authorities can optimize the functionality and
effectiveness of intercity terminals, ultimately improving the overall transportation
experience and fostering socio-economic development.
2.1.2.
Concept of users’ satisfaction
In
addition, the concept of users' satisfaction originates from the discrepancy
theory proposed by Porter in 1961, as cited in Parker and Mathews [27]. It
suggests that satisfaction arises when there is alignment between users'
expectations and their actual experiences. Over time, this concept evolved into
users' satisfaction, encompassing various user groups, and extending beyond
traditional customer satisfaction metrics. The concept of users’ or
customer satisfaction is widely acknowledged across industries as a crucial
aspect of assessing service quality and user experience [6, 9]. Users'
satisfaction is influenced by a multitude of factors, including users'
perceptions, experiences, and expectations. These expectations are shaped by
past interactions, word-of-mouth recommendations, and information from
marketers and competitors [24, 27]. Users evaluate the service they receive
based on these expectations, leading to a perceived gap between desired and
actual experiences. As such, users' satisfaction reflects the extent to which
their needs, desires, claims, and aspirations are met in terms of service
quality, reliability, convenience, and overall performance.
In
transport studies, users' satisfaction serves as a vital metric for evaluating
the quality of transportation services and infrastructure. Specifically, it
provides understanding into passengers' perceptions and experiences with
various transport facilities, such as intercity bus terminals. By assessing
users' satisfaction levels, researchers, and policymakers can identify areas
for improvement and implement measures to enhance service quality and user
experience. Understanding users' satisfaction with terminal facilities helps
optimize terminal design, layout, amenities, and services to better meet users'
needs and preferences [21].
In
the assessment of intercity bus terminal quality, users' satisfaction is
instrumental in achieving study objectives. By evaluating users' satisfaction
levels with terminal facilities, researchers can gauge the effectiveness of
existing infrastructure and services in meeting user expectations and needs
[27]. This information is crucial for identifying gaps, challenges, and areas
for improvement in intercity bus terminal operations and management.
Prioritizing users' satisfaction in planning and decision-making processes
contributes to the development of more user-centric and efficient transport
systems, enhancing overall service delivery and urban liveability. Hence, it
should be a priority in planning public facilities:
2.2.
Literature review
The
terminal constitutes a critical link in the overall commuting and trading chain
[3, 17], and to a large extent, their level of efficiency and performance
determines a city’s competitiveness [4]. Essentially, the higher
efficiency of inter and intra city terminal may result in lower costs for the
economy, and it may not be so if otherwise [2, 7]. A terminal serves more than just
a location where bus routes begin or end, and where vehicles stop, turn, or
wait before departing on their return journeys [13]. It also fulfils numerous
direct and indirect functions, beyond its primary role as a transport hub,
acting as the central hub of economic activities in the areas it serves [8,
13].
The
high concentrations of human populations, social, economic, and other
activities in urban areas necessitate the high proportion of transport
infrastructural facilities. These facilities address not only the increasing
mobility demands but also facilitate ease of accessibility and actualization of
basic human needs and other related desires. That is the provision of transport
infrastructural facilities as being crucial to not only economic development
but also the socio-cultural and political life of a nation, including
developing and developed. Badejo [8] observed that transport is a vital
component in every aspect of a nation's development, as it is consistently
required for the collection, assembly, transfer, and distribution of people,
goods, and various resources. Ref. [5] noted that well-planned transport
infrastructure is essential for city growth.
Likewise,
Ref. [26] observed that the availability of transport infrastructural
facilities promotes various activities which produce economic development and
increasing economies of scale of which trade demands activities improves and
expand, while Ref. [22] and [23] noted that transport infrastructure facilities
have discernible and significant effects, spanning from direct physical impacts
on the natural environment to more indirect social and economic effects on
neighbouring communities. In this regard, Ref. [25] noted that the intercity
passenger terminals contributed to the socio-economic development of Lagos
despite their poor physical appearance. However, it is noted in the literature
that a well-planning and improved quality of bus terminal are required for
quality mobility functions, socio-economic development and environmental
quality [9, 32], suggesting the need for continuous assessment for improvement.
Ref.
[2] conducted a study on user satisfaction with motor park facilities in Minna,
focusing on waiting areas, conveniences, and refreshment areas. The findings
indicated that a significant proportion of motor park users were dissatisfied
with the facilities, with many parks being in a state of disrepair and
requiring maintenance. Similarly, Ref. [7] evaluated the quality of intra-urban
bus services provided by both government agencies and private operators in
Enugu. The study revealed variations in passengers' waiting time, walking
distance to bus stops, and bus service frequency across different parts of the
city, indicating disparities in service levels. Additionally, Ref. [25] investigated
the relationship between the distribution of intercity road passenger terminals
and the transportation needs of various socio-economic groups. Their findings
demonstrated clustering in terminal distribution and significant variations in
operational characteristics across different activity zones. The study
concluded that understanding the patterns and factors influencing terminal
location and patronage is crucial for addressing the transport requires of
diverse socio-economic groups within the city. However, most of the previous
studies failed to consider the intra-city bus terminal and quality as well as
users' satisfaction in Nigerian urban areas.
3.
STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY
3.1.
Study area
This
research was conducted within the borders of Lagos State, Nigeria [Fig. 1],
which is no doubt the country’s economic and commercial hub with endless
opportunities attracting the huge influx of people to the state and generating
high and complex travel demands [19]. According to Ref. [19], Lagos State,
which has 20 Local Government Areas, 3577 km square of land area and is located
on 3o45’E and 6o35’N of Longitude and Latitude respectively, is the
former capital territory and most populated state in Nigeria (Fig. 1). It is
interesting to note that among the 36 states in Nigeria, this particular state
boasts the most advanced and functional transportation system, encompassing
various modes such as road, rail, water (both inland and maritime), air, pipeline,
and cable transport, with ongoing construction projects aimed at further
enhancing its infrastructure. The state has 17 government approved intercity
bus terminals, offering services to both choice and captive riders’
request to different part of Nigeria [16].
Fig. 1. Lagos State in the
Context of Nigeria and Africa
3.2.
Methodology
Significantly,
this study utilized a cross-sectional survey research design along with
quantitative data collection methods. A cross-sectional survey is found
appropriate to use when the research is aimed at gathering information from a
sample in a given population within a specific time frame and examining the
interaction between variables in a descriptive nature [1]. Data for this study
was gathered from primary and secondary sources. The primary data primarily
consisted of a questionnaire distributed to bus terminal users, which was
supplemented by field observations. Secondary data include the relevant topic
issues extracted from related books, journal articles and unpublished
materials.
The
study population comprised of users which include terminal staff, drivers and
passengers of the intercity bus terminal found across the state. In other
words, the multistage sampling technique was adopted to obtain the perception
data, used to answer the research objectives. The first stage entailed the
stratification of the terminals in the study area into two strata (intra and
intercity) based on the approved list of bus terminals in the state and four
(4) out of seventeen (17) namely Oshodi, Ketu, Iyana-Ipaja and Ojuelegba
intercity bus terminals were selected randomly from the stratified intercity
bus terminal list [19]. The second stage involved the use of convenience
sampling method to allot 50 copies of the questionnaire to each of the selected
intercity bus terminals, amounting to 200 distributed copies in the study area.
The
third and the last stage involved the use of a systematic sampling technique to
pick every third terminal users found seated and waiting at the bus terminal
seating areas or duty post, after the first respondents have been randomly
selected across the selected locations. Worthwhile, the first respondent found
at proximity to the shed entry gate was selected, while subsequent respondents
were selected at every fourth interval until the 50 copies were exhausted at
each terminal. Nonetheless, out of the 200 administered copies of the
questionnaire, 144 equivalent to 72 per cent was fully completed and used for
analysis in a proportion of 43, 39, 32, and 30 across Oshodi, Ketu, Iyana-Ipaja
and Ojuelegba bus terminals respectively.
However,
data collected were analysed using descriptive (percentage frequency
distribution table and weighted mean analysis) and inferential (multiple linear
regression -MLR analysis) statistics. A percentage frequency distribution table
was used summarizes data by displaying the proportion of occurrences for each
category or value, expressed as a percentage of the total and the weighted mean
analysis corroborated the percentage frequency distribution table analysis,
thus calculates an average by considering the relative importance of each observation
through assigned weights. Likert's scale measured based on 4-point with the
assigned weight distribution as very satisfied = 4, satisfied = 3, not
satisfied = 2 and not at all satisfied = 1, was used to obtain the weighted
mean value and achieved the descriptive analysis. While MLR analysis which was
used to test the hypothetical statement, measured on a dichotomous scale (dummy
variable) to the established association between a binary outcome variable
(overall satisfaction with quality of terminal services [O-QoTS]) and a set of
predictor variables (satisfaction with the quality of terminal facilities
[QoTF]) (see Tab. 1). Thus, the MLR model is depicted by the subsequent
equation:
Y= a+ b1X1 +b2X2
+……bnXn + ε (1)
Where:
Y= Dependent variable (overall
satisfaction with quality of terminal services O-QoTS);
a= Slope/Intercept; b1-bn=
Regression coefficients;
X1-Xn = Independent variables (satisfaction with quality of
terminal facilities QoTF).
and ε = Error term.
To conduct the inferential
statistical analysis, we converted the collected data into a dichotomous form
using binary digits 0 and 1. Specifically, "Strongly Satisfied" and
"Satisfied" were coded as 1, while "Strongly Dissatisfied"
and "Dissatisfied" were coded as 0 (Tab. 1). This transformation
applied to the parameters of the quality of bus terminal facilities (QoTF),
which served as the independent variables, and the indices of overall
satisfaction with quality of terminal services (O-QoTS), acting as the
dependent variable. The transformed dependent and independent variables were
then regressed against one another to test the postulated hypothesis. The
analysis and presentation of the data were performed using version 21 of the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software.
4. RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
4.1. Socio-economic profile of users
The socio-economic
characteristics of respondents play a crucial role in understanding their
attitudes, knowledge, and perceptions, especially regarding bus terminal
facilities in Lagos State. To grasp the perceived quality, satisfaction rate,
and service level of intercity bus terminals, we examined various
socio-economic variables such as status/position, gender, age, occupation,
monthly income, educational status, vehicle ownership, average trip cost to the
bus terminal, and average trip distance to the bus terminal. Tab. 1. presents
the findings from the analysis of socio-economic characteristics data
collected. Initially, an investigation was conducted to understand the profile
of terminal users and the status of the sampled respondents. The results indicated
that a significant majority (75%) of respondents were regular users of the bus
terminals, while less than a quarter (25%) were transit users. Most of the
sampled respondents by implications consists of permanent users which include
regular passengers, staff, drivers, and business owners engaged in trading
activities within the intercity bus terminals. This finding corroborates the
studies of [5, 32] conducted in a different context.
Regarding gender
classification, the study revealed that terminal users were almost evenly
distributed between males (53%) and females (47%). This marginal difference is
attributed to the necessity of transportation for both genders. Additionally,
the age classification of respondents showed that about 40% were below 30 years
old, with the 30-39 age group following closely. Respondents aged 40-49 years
constituted the smallest age group using the intercity bus terminal. In terms
of educational status, approximately 65% of respondents had formal education,
while 35% had no formal education. This suggests that most respondents were
capable of understanding and responding adequately to the study questions.
Regarding occupational status, the study indicated that 35% of respondents were
self-employed, followed by civil servants (22%) and trade unionist (20%).
Notably, food vendors comprised less than 7% of the sampled, indicating minimal
usage of the intercity bus terminals among these groups. Findings supports the
study of [21] that bus terminal architecture accommodates different users.
In terms of average monthly
income, 57% of participants reported earning less than ₦30,000 per month,
consistent with their occupational status. Meanwhile, respondents with the
least monthly income earned above ₦120,000 monthly, indicating that the
majority of bus terminal users earn below the national minimum wage, suggesting
a high level of captive users. Trip distance emerged as another important
socio-demographic attribute, revealing the distance between the intercity bus
terminal and the place of trip generation or usual homes. The majority (40%) of
respondents travelled less than 5 km to access the intercity bus terminal,
while 32% travelled close to 15 km. Additionally, 9% of respondents
travelled between 11 km and 15 km to the bus terminal. Notably, the
most common trip distance was less than 5 km. Findings on the cost of
travel varied significantly across users but correlated with the distance
covered, as respondents who spent below ₦500 dominated, while those who
spent above ₦1500 accounted for the least. This suggests that longer
distances covered result in higher travel costs, underscoring the need for
expanding intercity bus terminal provision in the study area. Understanding the socio-economic profile
of the users emphasised the need for tailored strategies in intercity bus
terminal planning and management to accommodate various demographic groups and
address their specific needs and challenges.
Tab.
1
Socio-economic status of the
users
|
Respondents Status |
Variables |
Frequency |
% population |
|
Status
of the terminal users |
Permanent user |
110 |
76.4 |
|
Transit user |
34 |
23.6 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Gender |
Make |
76 |
52.8 |
|
Female |
68 |
47.2 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Occupational
type |
Civil and public service |
31 |
21.5 |
|
Self-employed |
51 |
35.4 |
|
|
Trade union workers |
29 |
20.1 |
|
|
Food vendor |
10 |
6.9 |
|
|
Students and unemployed |
23 |
16.0 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Age
Classification |
Below 30 years |
53 |
36.8 |
|
Between 30 and 39 years |
42 |
29.2 |
|
|
Between 40 and 49 years |
23 |
16.0 |
|
|
50 years and above |
26 |
18.1 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Level of
Education |
No formal education |
52 |
36.1 |
|
Primary or secondary |
30 |
20.8 |
|
|
National diploma/ higher national diploma |
23 |
16.0 |
|
|
B.Sc./postgraduate |
39 |
27.1 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Average
Monthly Income |
Less than ₦30,000 |
82 |
56.9 |
|
₦30,000 - ₦90,000 |
22 |
15.3 |
|
|
₦90,001 - ₦120,000 |
330 |
20.8 |
|
|
Above ₦120,000 |
10 |
6.9 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Average
distance travel from home to terminal |
Less than 5km |
57 |
39.6 |
|
5km-10km |
28 |
19.4 |
|
|
11km-15km |
13 |
9.0 |
|
|
Above 15km |
46 |
31.9 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
|
|
Trip
cost from home to terminal |
Below ₦500 |
56 |
38.9 |
|
Between ₦500-₦1000 |
25 |
17.4 |
|
|
Between ₦1001-₦1500 |
21 |
14.6 |
|
|
Above ₦1500 |
42 |
29.2 |
|
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
4.2.
User’s satisfaction with the quality of bus terminal facilities (QoTF)
Intercity bus
terminals serve as central handling and exchange points for passengers and
goods, enhancing smooth public accessibility and traffic flow, thus improving
spatial interactions and serving as utility landmarks for social and commercial
economic activities. Given these unique characteristics, their quality,
particularly in terms of facilities and services, must not be compromised. To
determine the quality of intercity bus terminals within the study area, users'
satisfaction with bus terminal facilities in terms of design, structural
capacity, and appearance of the terminals in Lagos State, under three
dimensions of economic, social and environmental facilities, were studied and
presented in Tab. 2. The analysis was carried out using mean weighted analysis
that relies on the sum of weighted value (SWV) and relative weighted value
(RWV) value based on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (least
satisfied) to 4 (very satisfied). The SWV was calculated by summing the
products of the total number of responses to each variable and its
corresponding weight value, while the weighted mean index value (MIV) was
obtained by dividing the relative weighted value (RWV) by the total number of
variables.
Tab. 2. presents the
results, showing the users' satisfaction with the quality of intercity bus
terminal facilities (QoTF) in relation to the economic, social, and
environmental facilities of the bus terminal using the Quality of Terminal
Facility Index (QoTFI) (see Tab. 2). The analysis yielded a total RWV of 70.51
and a MIV or QoTFI of 2.938 (Tab. 2). Most respondents expressed the highest
satisfaction with parking space for buses and private vehicles (M=3.319),
restaurant facilities and conditions (M=3.194), and solid waste collection and
disposal facilities (M=3.132). Ref. [21] observed that for bus terminal architecture
to offer viable business process improvement and customer satisfaction, the
integration of sufficient parking space, restaurant facilities, sanitary and
medical facilities and information technology system must be prioritised. Other
aspects that garnered high satisfaction ratings included the physical
appearance and cleanliness of the terminal (M=3.0760, ease of terminal
accessibility facilities (M=3.049), availability and condition of toilet
facilities (M=3.035), water supply and condition of facility (M=3.035), walking
pavement design (M=3.021), terminal size and space (M=2.993), electricity/power
supply (M=2.979), road conditions (M=2.972), mechanical maintenance and
vulcanizing facilities (M=2.944), and quality of building materials (M=2.938). These
facilities were ranked first through thirteenth among the twenty-four observed
terminal facilities, while the other observed facilities were ranked below the
Mean Weighted Value of 2.938, as identified in Tab. 2. Provision of terminals
with quality and green facilities enhanced operations [22, 32].
Furthermore, out of
the thirteen (13) rated terminal facilities ranked above the Mean Weighted
Value, six (6) factors, equivalent to 46%, accounted for economic-related
facilities, two (2) terminal facilities, equivalent to 15%, were social-related
facilities, while five (5) terminal facilities, equivalent to 39%, were
environmental-related facilities. Worthwhile, out of the total observed bus
terminal facilities used in measuring users' satisfaction with the quality of
intercity bus terminals, the majority (54%) of the terminal facilities rated
and ranked above the mean weighted value (MWV), while 46% of the facilities
ranked below the Mean Weighted Value, indicating that the respondents are less
satisfied with the other eleven (11) facilities ranked below the MWV.
Meanwhile, parking space facilities for buses and other private users (3.319)
accounted for the most ranked users' most satisfied terminal facility, while
the facility of passenger waiting (2.632) was ranked the least satisfied
terminal facility. The studies of Ref. [30-32] observed that the provision of
transport infrastructure including bus terminals are mostly designed as
enterprise architecture thus focusing more on the provision of economic facilities
than social and environmental facilities as reported in this study, which
hinders the satisfaction level of users.
However, it can be
deduced from this analysis that there is an obvious variation in the
satisfaction level with the quality of intercity bus terminal facilities (QoTF)
across the economic, social and environmental facility dimensions, as findings
emphasized the most significance of economic facilities in intercity bus
terminals satisfaction assessment than that of social and environmental
facilities. It also highlights areas for improvement, as close to half of the
observed facilities fell below the QoTFI, indicating dissatisfaction,
suggesting the need for targeted improvements to enhance overall user
satisfaction and optimize the quality of intercity bus terminals. Ref. [31, 32]
suggests comprehensive transport infrastructure planning with systematic
evaluation of users’ metric reports enhances quality facility provision,
which in turn promotes both users’ satisfaction and the enterprise
architecture.
Tab. 2
User’s satisfaction
with the quality of bus terminal facilities (QoTF)
|
Indices |
Very Satisfied |
Satisfied |
Not Satisfied |
Not At all Satisfied |
SWV |
RWV |
Rank |
|
Economic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ease of terminal accessibility |
34 |
83 |
27 |
0 |
439 |
3.049 |
5 |
|
Walking pavement with shield |
47 |
60 |
30 |
7 |
435 |
3.021 |
8 |
|
Size and space of
the terminal |
36 |
71 |
37 |
0 |
431 |
2.993 |
9 |
|
Road condition |
43 |
54 |
47 |
0 |
428 |
2.972 |
11 |
|
Facility for
mechanical and vulcanising spaces |
46 |
44 |
54 |
0 |
424 |
2.944 |
12 |
|
Quality of building materials |
26 |
90 |
21 |
7 |
423 |
2.938 |
13 |
|
The proximity of the
resident location to the terminal (Kilometres) |
34 |
54 |
46 |
10 |
400 |
2.778 |
20 |
|
Cost of
accessibility to terminal |
30 |
53 |
54 |
7 |
394 |
2.736 |
21 |
|
Social |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physical appearance
and cleanness of terminal |
44 |
74 |
19 |
7 |
443 |
3.076 |
4 |
|
Toilet facility
availability and condition |
46 |
64 |
27 |
7 |
437 |
3.035 |
6 |
|
Facility for
security matters (office and personnel) |
33 |
66 |
45 |
0 |
420 |
2.917 |
14 |
|
Number of offices
with electrical fixtures |
33 |
72 |
32 |
7 |
419 |
2.91 |
15 |
|
Terminal setbacks
from the main road |
30 |
70 |
37 |
7 |
411 |
2.854 |
17 |
|
Facility for route
information/communication |
20 |
87 |
31 |
6 |
409 |
2.84 |
18 |
|
The extent of social
relationships among terminal workers |
41 |
59 |
24 |
20 |
409 |
2.84 |
18 |
|
Facility for medical
health matters (first aid treatment room with medical personnel) |
34 |
47 |
50 |
13 |
390 |
2.708 |
22 |
|
Environmental |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parking space
facility for buses and private vehicles |
66 |
58 |
20 |
0 |
478 |
3.319 |
1 |
|
Restaurant facility and condition |
73 |
30 |
37 |
4 |
460 |
3.194 |
2 |
|
Facility for solid
waste collection and disposal |
48 |
67 |
29 |
0 |
451 |
3.132 |
3 |
|
Water supply
facility and condition |
54 |
41 |
49 |
0 |
437 |
3.035 |
6 |
|
Electricity /power supply facility |
37 |
74 |
26 |
7 |
429 |
2.979 |
10 |
|
Drainage facility and condition |
33 |
74 |
26 |
11 |
417 |
2.896 |
16 |
|
Facility for air and noise control measures |
14 |
81 |
42 |
7 |
390 |
2.708 |
22 |
|
The facility of
passenger waiting and condition |
33 |
51 |
34 |
26 |
379 |
2.632 |
24 |
|
QoTFI |
|
|
|
|
|
70.51/24 =
2.938 |
|
4.3. Users’
satisfaction with the quality of bus terminal services (QoTS)
Users’ satisfaction
with the quality of intercity bus terminal services (QoTS) was examined using
the Quality of Terminal Services Index (QoTSI), and the results were presented
in Tab. 3. through the percentage frequency distribution analysis and Mean
Weighted Analysis, which relied on a score of 30.19 and 2.157 as the Relative
Weighted Value (RWV) and Mean Index Value (MIV) or QoTSI. Quality assessment of
transport infrastructure including bus terminals, based on users’ centric
metric not only enhances sustainable development initiatives [26, 27, 30] but
also affects users’ behaviour [12, 14], ultimately shaping urban mobility
and environmental sustainability [30]. In response to this and based on the
findings presented in Tab. 3, it is evident from the frequency distribution
analysis that the majority of respondents expressed a high level of
dissatisfaction with most parameters included in the QoTS metric assessment, as
the percentage of perceived dissatisfaction rated above 50% for all parameters,
indicating a significant rating below satisfaction (Tab. 3). Supporting the
findings, another descriptive metric analysis conducted using the Mean Weighted
Analysis relying on RWV and MWV or QoTSI for QoTS revealed that the majority
(8) out of 14 service quality attributes (QoTS) rated below the QoTSI,
indicating most parameters are less satisfactory QoTS, while the remaining 6
accounted for 43%, indicating the most satisfactory QoTS. The six most
satisfactory QoTS attributes are turnaround time of vehicles within the
terminal (M=3.403), height of passenger and vehicle interchange at the terminal
(M=3.271), number and condition of buses (M=3.257), waiting time of passengers
within the terminal (M=3.194), parking services within the terminal (M=3.188),
and fare collection and payment methods (M=3.104), ranking first (1st) to sixth
(6th) respectively among the observed fourteen (14) quality of bus terminal
services (QoTS). Longer and unpredictable turnaround time of vehicles within
the terminal and the extended waiting time of passengers significantly impede
terminal operations [14, 32], leading to decreased efficiency [12, 30] and
potentially reduced users’ satisfaction.
Furthermore, it is worth
noting that the eight parameters that ranked below the QoTSI, indicating the
less satisfied bus terminal services, are luggage handling and delivery
(M=3.076), terminal workers are well-dressed and neat, thus no odour that
suffocates the passengers (M=3.069), height of information within the terminals
(M=3.069), condition of line-haul stop (M=3.000), bus maintenance workshop and
services (M=2.979), frequency and reliability of bus service within the
terminal (M=2.979), attitudes and empathy of terminal workers and drivers
(M=2.938), and safety of passengers and freight (M=2.938). In other words, it
is evident from these findings that the safety and security of passengers and
freight, the attitudes and empathy of terminal workers and drivers, and the
frequency and reliability of bus service within the terminal (1.813) were the
least satisfied QoTS attributes. Supporting the finding, Ref. [24, 32] observed
that compromised security and safety of passengers and freights at transport
terminals jeopardises terminal operations, passenger confidence in using the
facility and poses significant risks to environmental safety and public
well-being [3, 30]. Meanwhile, Ref. [14, 21] observed that the attitude,
action, and behaviour of terminal workers and drivers impact the efficiency of
terminal operations, service quality and overall service delivery. Therefore,
based on the findings presented in Tab 3, it can be deduced from this analysis
that there is a clear variation in the level of users' satisfaction with the
quality of bus terminal services, and to enhance the satisfaction level, there
is a need to improve the least satisfied parameters presented in Tab. 3, with
much priority on security and safety measures within and around the terminal as
well as the attitudes and empathy of the workers and drivers for better service
delivery quality, productive terminal operation and overall users’
satisfaction with terminal services.
Tab. 3
User’s satisfaction
with the quality of bus terminal service (QoTS)
|
Indices
|
Very Satisfied |
Satisfied |
Not Satisfied |
Not At all Satisfied |
SWV |
RWV |
Rank |
|
Turnaround time of vehicle within the terminal
|
28 |
162 |
146 |
10 |
490 |
3.403 |
1 |
|
Height of passenger and vehicle interchange |
32 |
129 |
146 |
20 |
471 |
3.271 |
2 |
|
Number
& condition of buses |
8 |
204 |
78 |
35 |
469 |
3.257 |
3 |
|
Waiting time of passengers within the terminal |
16 |
132 |
144 |
24 |
460 |
3.194 |
4 |
|
Parking services within the terminal |
20 |
150 |
112 |
33 |
459 |
3.188 |
5 |
|
Fare collection and payment methods |
48 |
72 |
150 |
33 |
447 |
3.104 |
6 |
|
Luggage
handling and delivery |
16 |
78 |
182 |
23 |
443 |
3.076 |
7 |
|
Terminal workers are well-dressed |
16 |
108 |
140 |
34 |
442 |
3.069 |
8 |
|
Height of information within the terminals |
16 |
96 |
156 |
30 |
442 |
3.069 |
9 |
|
Condition of line-haul stop |
24 |
78 |
148 |
38 |
432 |
3.000 |
10 |
|
Bus maintenance workshop and services |
16 |
69 |
166 |
34 |
429 |
2.979 |
11 |
|
Frequency and reliability of bus service
within terminal |
0 |
72 |
174 |
33 |
423 |
2.938 |
12 |
|
Attitudes and empathy of terminal workers and
drivers |
16 |
36 |
154 |
51 |
401 |
2.785 |
13 |
|
Safety of passengers and freight |
24 |
39 |
128 |
61 |
396 |
2.75 |
14 |
|
QoSI |
|
|
|
|
|
43.08/14
= 3.077 |
|
4.3.1. Overall
users’ satisfaction with quality of bus terminal services (O-QoTS)
Further examination was carried out regarding
the respondents' overall satisfaction level with the quality of intercity bus
terminal services (O-QoTS), specifically focusing on the services that
facilitate ease of transiting both passengers (captive and choice users, able
and disadvantaged groups etc.) and freights (light and heavy goods) to another
vehicle and mobility services within terminal and on-transit to destination, with
the results presented in Tab. 4. The analysis indicated that the majority (59%)
of respondents sampled expressed dissatisfaction with the overall quality of
intercity bus terminal services (O-QoTS), while slightly over one-tenth (12%)
were very satisfied, nearly one-quarter (18.8%) were fairly satisfied, and
almost one-tenth (10%) were not satisfied at all with the overall quality of
intercity bus terminal services. These findings suggest that the proportion of
respondents dissatisfied with the overall quality of intercity bus terminal
services (O-QoTS) exceeded those satisfied with it in the study area (Tab. 4.).
In agreement with Ref. [21], the services quality satisfaction reflect a good
enterprise architecture of the terminal facility and operations within the
facility, which promote business sustainability without compromising
customers’ needs, expectations, and satisfaction.
Tab. 4
Overall
users' satisfaction with the quality of bus terminal services (O-QoTS)
|
Nature of satisfaction |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Very satisfied |
17 |
11.8 |
|
Fairly satisfied |
27 |
18.8 |
|
Not satisfied |
86 |
59.7 |
|
Not at all satisfied |
14 |
9.7 |
|
Total |
144 |
100.0 |
4.3.2. Hypothesis testing:
users’ satisfaction with quality of terminal facilities (QoTF) does not influence overall satisfaction with
quality of terminal services
(O-QoTS)
To statistically determine
whether or not users' satisfaction with the quality of terminal facilities
(economic, social, and environmental terminal facilities) influences overall
satisfaction with the quality of terminal services, further investigation was
conducted using a multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis. In this agreement,
Ref. [3, 5, 9 14] that empirical inquiries into spatial phenomenon give
evidence-based findings that are scientific enough to inform decision-making
for both policy formulation and practice. In response to this, this
investigation through the MLR analytical method utilizes dummy variables within
the regression model to convert or transform the qualitative variables into quantitative
variables in a dichotomous format. It aimed to establish a relationship between
a binary outcome variable (overall users' satisfaction with the quality of
terminal services- O-QoTS) and a set of predictor variables (satisfaction with
quality of terminal facilities- QoTF). The dependent and independent variables
were assessed using perceived questions, which were reclassified into binary
values as Fairly Satisfied/Very Satisfied (1) and Not Satisfied/Not at all
Satisfied (0) (Tab. 5). Employing a MLR model with binary variables extends the
regression model's capability to analyse qualitative variables measured on a
nominal binary digit coded item scale and determine the impact of two or more
independent variables on a dependent variable [1].
Tab. 5
Operational definition of
variables of QoTF and O-QoTS
|
Variable (data source) description |
Variable
operational definition |
|
Dependent
variable |
|
|
Overall
users’ satisfaction with quality terminal services (O-QoTS) |
Dichotomous
(dummy): 0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Independent Variables |
|
|
Satisfaction with quality of terminal facilities
(QoTF) |
Dichotomous
(dummy): |
|
Economic Facilities |
|
|
The structural arrangement of terminal facilities |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Ease of terminal accessibility |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Facility for mechanical and vulcanizing spaces |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Size and space of the terminal |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Road condition |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
The proximity of the resident location to the
terminal |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Walking pavement with a shield design |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Quality of building materials |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Cost of accessibility to terminal |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Social Facilities |
|
|
Physical appearance and cleanness of terminal |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Toilet facility availability and condition |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Terminal setbacks from the main road |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Facility for security matters within the terminal |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Facility for route information/communication |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Number of offices with electrical fixtures |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Facility for medical health matters (first aid
treatment room with medical personnel) |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Social
relation among terminal workers |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Environmental Facilities |
|
|
Facility
for solid waste collection and disposal |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Facility
for air and noise control measures |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Water
supply facility and condition |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Drainage
facility and condition |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Parking
space facility |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
The
facility of passenger waiting and condition |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Restaurant
facility and condition |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
|
Electricity
/power supply facility |
0 =
Not Satisfied/Not all Satisfied, 1= Satisfied/Very Satisfied |
Tab. 6. presents a
summary of the multiple regression model. The result of the F-ratio of ANOVA in
the multiple regression model indicates a value of 2.899, with an observed
significant value of 0.000 (Tab. 6). Upon comparison of the observed
significant value with the table level of significance, it is evident that the
observed significant value (p=0.000) is lower than the table significant value
(0.05). Consequently, we accept the alternative hypothesis (H1) and
reject the null hypothesis (H0). This suggests a relationship
between users' satisfaction with the quality of terminal facilities (including
economic, social, and environmental terminal facilities) and overall users'
satisfaction with the quality of intercity bus terminal services in the study
area. Therefore, this significant relationship between the dependent and
independent variables is not due to chance. Furthermore, the model's Adjusted R
square results demonstrate a 48% explained variation. This indicates that the
predictors (independent variables) were able to predict and explain
approximately 50% of the variation in the dependent variable, the overall level
of satisfaction. By implication, this study established through these findings
that the improvements in terminal facilities significantly enhance the overall
satisfaction levels of service quality among users of the bus terminal. The remaining unexplained variation may
be attributed to the inherent nature of the data utilized in the analysis.
Findings also
revealed eleven (11) predictors (independent variables) out of the twenty-five
(25) predictors best predict the model, out of which five (5) are economic
facilities, four (4) are social facilities and two (2) were environmental. That
is, the structural arrangement of terminal facilities (sig. p=.000), ease of
terminal accessibility (sig. p=.018), size and space of the terminal (sig. p=
.031); walking pavement with shield (sig. p=.035); cost of accessibility to the
terminal (sig. p=.042); facility for security matters within the terminal (sig.
p=.027), terminal setbacks from the main road (sig. p=.009); facility for route
information/communication (sig. p=.030), social relation among terminal workers
(sig. p=.022); parking space facility (sig. p=.035) and facility of passenger
waiting and condition (sig. p=.044) significantly determine and predict the
overall users' satisfaction with the quality of intercity bus terminal services
(dependent variable). In other words, these findings from reveal a significant
relationship between the quality of bus terminal facilities and users’
overall satisfaction with the service quality. This emphasised the significance
of enhancing economic, social, and environmental facilities within the
terminals to boost user satisfaction. Moreover, the identification of eleven
key predictors among the variables highlights specific areas for improvement,
emphasizing the pivotal role of these factors in shaping users' overall
satisfaction levels.
Tab. 6
Multiple
regression result of the relationship between users’ satisfaction with
the quality of terminal facilities and overall satisfaction with the quality of
bus terminal services
|
Model Summary
ANOVA |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
Regression |
12.300 |
25 |
.492 |
2.899 |
.000b |
|||||||||||||||
|
Residual |
20.026 |
118 |
.170 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Total |
32.326 |
143 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
a. Dependent Variable:
Overall satisfaction with the quality of terminal services |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coefficients |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
1.160 |
.199 |
|
5.820 |
.000 |
|||||||||||||||
|
The
structural arrangement of terminal facilities |
-.585 |
.094 |
-.524 |
-6.202 |
.000 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Ease of terminal accessibility |
.110 |
.083 |
.108 |
1.327 |
.018 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Facility for
mechanical and vulcanizing spaces |
.095 |
.091 |
.101 |
1.051 |
.295 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Size and
space of the terminal |
-.023 |
.093 |
-.025 |
-.252 |
.031 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Road condition |
.079 |
.105 |
.081 |
.757 |
.451 |
||||||||||||||||
|
The
proximity of the resident location to the terminal |
-.021 |
.091 |
-.021 |
-.230 |
.818 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Walking
pavement with a shield design |
-.092 |
.095 |
-.092 |
-.967 |
.035 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Quality of building materials |
-.016 |
.089 |
-.016 |
-.178 |
.859 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Cost of
accessibility to terminal |
-.019 |
.093 |
-.019 |
-.200 |
.042 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Physical
appearance and cleanness of terminal |
.107 |
.090 |
.101 |
1.181 |
.240 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Toilet
facility availability and condition |
-.003 |
.098 |
-.003 |
-.027 |
.979 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Terminal
setbacks from the main road |
.037 |
.090 |
.037 |
.414 |
.009 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Facility for
security matters within the terminal |
.054 |
.096 |
.054 |
.563 |
.027 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Facility for
route information/communication |
-.101 |
.097 |
-.103 |
-1.039 |
.030 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Number of
offices with electrical fixtures |
.074 |
.085 |
.078 |
.865 |
.389 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Facility for
medical health matters (first aid treatment room with personnel) |
-.078 |
.093 |
-.080 |
-.842 |
.402 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Social relation among terminal workers |
.172 |
.095 |
.177 |
1.816 |
.022 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Facility for
solid waste collection and disposal |
-.023 |
.101 |
-.023 |
-.227 |
.821 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Facility for
air and noise control |
.099 |
.091 |
.101 |
1.093 |
.276 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Water supply
facility and condition |
-.003 |
.089 |
-.003 |
-.038 |
.970 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Drainage facility and conditioN |
-.037 |
.087 |
-.038 |
-.421 |
.675 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Parking space facility |
-.031 |
.090 |
-.030 |
-.339 |
.035 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Facility of
passenger waiting and condition |
-.067 |
.088 |
-.069 |
-.765 |
.044 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Restaurant facility and condition |
.069 |
.088 |
.067 |
.776 |
.439 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Electricity /power supply facility |
-.022 |
.083 |
-.022 |
-.260 |
.795 |
||||||||||||||||
|
a. Dependent
Variable: Overall satisfaction with the quality of terminal services |
|||||||||||||||||||||
4.4.
Challenges affecting the quality of the bus terminal operation
The examination of
challenges impacting the quality of bus terminals operations was conducted, and
the results of the analysis are presented in Tab. 7. Relying on the findings
from the perception of the users of the sampled intercity bus terminals revealed
that the majority of respondents strongly agree with all identified problems
across all terminals (Tab. 7.). Specifically, respondents expressed strong
agreement regarding insecurity and crime activities such as theft, public
assault, and kidnapping (82%), inadequate sanitation facilities and poor
condition (75.1%), inadequate facilities for passenger seating, information,
and assistance (86.8%), air pollution from vehicle emissions (77.8%), high
level of informal activities such as street vending and hawking (70.8%),
touts’ activities and union violence (78.5%), environmental hazards such
as poor drainage condition and odour from drains (70.1%), limited integration
with cycling and pedestrian facilities (68.8%), congestion with terminal and
poor terminal maintenance (72.2%), poor parking space and arrangement and
lighting (75.7%), noise and water pollution (70.8%), and irregular bus
scheduling and waiting time (61.1%)
as major problems confronting the sampled intercity bus terminals in Lagos
State.
Additionally, upon
careful observation of the results, it is noted that the percentage of
respondents who disagreed with the observed issues was less than 40% across the
board. This implies that most sampled respondents agreed that these problems
significantly hinder the achievement of quality intercity bus terminals
operations in the study area. Notably, the analysis indicates that inadequate
facilities for passenger seating, information, and assistance (86.8%) and
insecurity and crime activities (82%) are the most frequently cited challenges,
while irregular bus scheduling and waiting time (61.1%) is perceived the least
problematic among all challenges.
Another dimension of
the analysis using the mean weighted analysis which rely on the relative
weighted value (RWV) of 35.924 and the mean index value (MIV) or the challenges
mitigating quality of bus terminal operation index (CMQBTOI) of 2.994 revealed
that 6 out 12 factor challenges, equivalent to 50% rated above the CMQBTOI of
2.994, indicating most-significant challenges affecting the quality of bus
terminal operations in Lagos State, Nigeria, while the remaining 6 factor
challenges rated below the CMQBTOI, indicating less significant factor
challenges affecting quality of bus terminal operation in the study area (Tab.
7.). The top-rated challenges are insecurity and crime activities such as
theft, public assault, and kidnapping (M=3.222), inadequate sanitation
facilities and poor condition (M=3.146), inadequate facilities for passenger
seating, information, and assistance (M= 3.111).
In other words, the
thorough examination of problems associated with the selected bus terminals
reveals widespread agreement among respondents, as highlighted in Tab. 7. The
findings emphasis the significant impact of various issues such as air and
noise pollution, sanitation challenges, insecurity, and inadequate
infrastructure on the quality of intercity bus terminal operations in the study
area. Particularly noteworthy is the prevalence of concerns related to
insecurity, with 86.8% of respondents expressing agreement. These findings
emphasize the urgent need for comprehensive interventions to address these
challenges and improve the overall quality of intercity bus terminals
operations in Lagos State, and other Nigerian urban areas with similar
transport infrastructure challenges.
Tab. 7
Challenges mitigating the quality of the selected bus terminal in the
study area
|
Indices |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Total |
SWV |
RWV |
Rank |
|
Insecurity and crime activities |
58 |
60 |
26 |
0 |
144 |
464 |
3.222 |
1 |
|
Inadequate
sanitation facilities and poor condition |
61 |
47 |
32 |
4 |
144 |
453 |
3.146 |
2 |
|
Inadequate
facilities for passenger seating, information and assistance |
35 |
90 |
19 |
0 |
144 |
448 |
3.111 |
3 |
|
Air pollution from
vehicle emissions |
59 |
53 |
19 |
13 |
144 |
446 |
3.097 |
4 |
|
High level of
informal activities such as street vending and hawking |
50 |
52 |
42 |
0 |
144 |
440 |
3.056 |
5 |
|
Touts activities and
union violence |
34 |
79 |
31 |
0 |
144 |
435 |
3.021 |
6 |
|
Environmental hazards |
48 |
53 |
33 |
10 |
144 |
427 |
2.965 |
7 |
|
Limited integration
with cycling and pedestrian facilities |
40 |
59 |
39 |
6 |
144 |
421 |
2.924 |
8 |
|
Congestion with
terminal and poor terminal maintenance
|
38 |
66 |
29 |
11 |
144 |
419 |
2.910 |
9 |
|
Poor parking space
and arrangement and lighting |
22 |
87 |
28 |
7 |
144 |
412 |
2.861 |
10 |
|
Noise and water pollution |
30 |
72 |
29 |
13 |
144 |
407 |
2.826 |
11 |
|
Irregular bus
scheduling and waiting time |
37 |
51 |
44 |
12 |
144 |
401 |
2.785 |
12 |
|
CMQBTOI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.924 /12 =2.994 |
|
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The significance of bus
terminals to the overall transportation system, urban development, and
environmental sustainability cannot be overstated. Bus terminal facilities are
widely recognized as crucial for promoting mobility, accessibility, and the
overall functionality of cities. The demand for intercity bus terminal
operations and services has been steadily increasing, particularly with
passengers' day and nighttime requests, as well as freight handling. This
growing demand has led to the development of various terminals, many of which
are unstandardized in terms of facilities provision and services rendered,
especially in Nigerian cities like Lagos.
As a result, many bus
terminals, particularly those offering intercity travel within the study area,
have compromised the quality of passenger holding areas, safety, and security
within facilities, processing facilities (including ticketing and dispatching
points), and express freight loading stations. In light of these challenges,
this study assessed the quality of intercity bus terminals in Lagos metropolis,
Nigeria, providing insights into the socio-economic profiles of users
(commuters and operators), users’ satisfaction with the quality of
terminal facilities in terms of social, economic, and environmental factors,
users’ satisfaction with the quality of terminal services, and the challenges
mitigating the quality of bus terminal operations in the study area towards
improving the efficiency of services offered across various terminals in Lagos
State and beyond.
This study on the quality of
intercity bus terminals in Lagos State, Nigeria, revealed several key findings.
Firstly, respondents identified various issues affecting the quality of
terminals' operation, including air and noise pollution, sanitation problems,
insecurity, and inadequate infrastructure. Secondly, most users expressed
dissatisfaction with the overall quality of terminal services, particularly
concerning facilities such as parking, waiting areas, ticketing processes, and
cleanliness. Environmental concerns, such as air and water pollution, solid
waste management, and poor drainage conditions, were also highlighted.
Meanwhile, security emerged as a significant worry, with many respondents
expressing concerns about crime, including theft and kidnapping, at terminals.
Overall, the findings emphasized the urgent need for improvements in the
location, design, and management of intercity bus terminals to enhance user
satisfaction, safety, and environmental sustainability.
Given these findings, the
study concluded that the provision of intercity bus terminal facilities and operations
is vital for meeting the transport and mobility needs of various socio-economic
groups. Therefore, there is a pressing need to improve the quality of intercity
bus terminals in Lagos State. Consequently, the study recommends the adequate
provision of more quality intercity bus terminals, especially at the urban
fringe, to accommodate the ever-growing population. Basic economic and
social-related intercity bus terminal facilities should be prioritized,
including passenger holding areas, ticketing rooms, dispatching points, waiting
rooms, express freight loading stations, and parking lots. These facilities
should meet standard design and construction specifications. Additionally,
essential environmental facilities and amenities within the terminal such as
water supply, toilets, waste management systems, and electricity/power supply
should be provided in adequate quantity and quality. Furthermore, road
infrastructure connecting or serving intercity bus terminals and rights of way
within terminal boundaries should be redesigned to accommodate intermodal
systems, especially cycling and pedestrian pathways.
In terms of policy
implications, it is imperative for the government to establish a dedicated
agency under the authority of the Local Government Council to oversee the
planning, management, and regulation of terminal facilities. This agency would
be responsible for ensuring the orderly arrangement of facilities, cost
recovery mechanisms, service regulation, and infrastructural maintenance.
Furthermore, there is an urgent need to formulate and implement a policy on
Urban Bus Terminal Enhancement and Security Policy aiming to improve the
quality of intercity bus terminals and enhance security measures to ensure the
safety and satisfaction of passengers and stakeholders. Moreover, the
involvement of the private sector in the provision and maintenance of terminal
facilities should be encouraged to promote efficiency and sustainability.
Policymakers should also prioritize the installation of traffic monitoring and
surveillance devices to enhance security and safety within terminal premises.
These policy measures will be instrumental in addressing the identified
challenges and improving the overall quality and functionality of intercity bus
terminals in Lagos and other urban areas in Nigeria.
References
1.
Abosede A.J., K.A. Obasan, B.A. Raji. 2010. Introduction text in research methodology for social
and management sciences”. Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State: Olabisi Onabanjo University
Press.
2.
Adedayo O.F., S.N. Zubairu. 2013.
,,An assessment of facilities in motor parks in Minna, Niger State, Nigeria,
through post-occupancy evaluation”. Management 3(7): 360-367.
3.
Afon A.O., O. Abolade, S.A.
Okanlawon. 2006. ,,User’s perception of environmental hazards and risks
as a tool in public space management: the case of selected motor parks in
Lagos, Nigeria”. Paper presented at
the 5th FIG Regional Conference held
in Accra Ghana. March 8-11, 2006.
4.
Akanmu A.A., D. Agboola. 2015. Basic element of traffic survey.
Ibadan: Penthouse Publications.
5.
Akin D., K. Derya. 2020. ,,Multicriteria analysis of
planned intercity bus terminals in the metropolitan city of Istanbul,
Turkey”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
132(C): 465-489. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.003.
6.
Ali, A. N. 2010. ,,An
assessment of the quality of intra-urban bus services in the city of Enugu,
Enugu State, Nigeria”. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 6(15): 74-91.
7.
Atoyebi A.O., K.T.
Gbadamosi, I.I.C. Nwokoro, F.K. Omole. 2015.
,,Analysis of intra-city public transport system of Ojuelegba Park, Lagos
State, Nigeria”. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences 6(2): 624-635.
8.
Badejo
B.A. 2014. Transporting the future today:
portrait of Nigeria. Inaugural
lecture. Ago-Iwoye: Olabisi Onabanjo University Press.
9.
Basu D., S. Roy, S.R. Maitra, B.B. Majumdar. 2019.
,,An assessment towards identifying improvement needs of urban bus stop infrastructure:
Knowledge gained from Bhubaneswar”. Transport Research Procedia, 48: 3802-3813. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.039.
10. Bimal D. 2014. Transport geography. New Delhi: Venus Book Publisher.
11. Cuylits E. R. 1972.
,,Inter-city bus terminal location criteria”. Master of Arts Thesis. Columbia: University of British Columbia.
12.
Fernando W.H.SM., D.G.N.D. Jayarathna, A.C.
Kankanamge. 2019. ,,Study on
passenger satisfaction on bus terminal facilities in Colombo City”. International
Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 9(9): 453-460. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.9.09.2019.p9358.
13. Iseki H., A. Ringler, B.D.
Taylor, M. Miller, M. Smart. 2007. Evaluating transit stops and stations
from the perspective of transit users. A research report. California:
California Department of Transportation.
14.
Jima F., E. Agon, M. Mohammed. 2018. ,,Assessment of
transport terminal operation with respect to vehicle assignment and
passengers’ perception: case study at Jimma Bus Terminal”. World Journal of Engineering Research and Technology 4(6):103-112.
15. Jimoh A.A., A.A. Akanmu, J.A. Adejare. 2016.
,,Residents’ appraisal of infrastructural facilities provision in Saki
Township, Oyo State”. TOPS Journal of
Environmental Research and Development 1(1): 20-39.
16. Jiriko K. G. 2015.
,,Urban green infrastructure as a driver of developing livable cities in
Nigeria”. Journal of the Nigeria Institute of Town Planners 23(2): 58-82.
17. Kim B. 2006.
,,Infrastructure development for the economic development in developing
countries, a lesson from Korea and Japan”. Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS) Working
Paper Series. No 11, Kobe University.
18. KPMG 2012. ,,Cities
infrastructure: a sustainability report”. Available at: https://kpmg.com/infrastructure.
19. Lagos State Government
2012. Household survey 2010 edition of Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of
Economic Planning and Budget. Lagos: LASG.
20. Lam K., S. Ng, W.
Hui, P. Chan. 2005. ,,Environmental
quality of urban parks and open spaces in Hong Kong”. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 111: 55-73.
21.
Legowo, N., I. Kaharmies. 2023. Enterprise
architecture application and business process improvement: a case study of bus
terminal in Indonesia. Journal of System and Management Sciences 13(5): 371-389. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33168/JSMS.2023.0524.
22. Litman T. 2012. Landuse
impact on transport: how land use factors affect travel Behaviour.
Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
23. Ndikom O.B. 2008. Element of transport management. Lagos,
Bunmico Publishers.
24. Oliveira M.C.G.,
L.F.M. Heineck. 1999. ,,An investigation into the determinants of built
environmental customer satisfaction”. Paper
delivered at (IB W55 and W65 Joint Triennial Symposium on Customer
Satisfaction: a focus for Research and Practice. Cape Town South Africa: 5-10, September 1999.
25. Oyesiku
K., B. Olaseni 2012. ,,Spatial distribution of intercity passengers’
terminals in Lagos: Implications for transport policy”. Presented paper at the Conference CODATU XV
held on 22 to 25 October 2012 in Addis Ababa
(Ethiopia).
26. Oyesiku O.K. 2010.
,,Management of road transport system in Nigeria: The national security
implications”. Guest Lecture
Presented at the National Security Conference of the Alumni Association of
Nigeria Defense College held at Nigeria Defense College. Abuja.
27. Parker C., B.P.
Mathews. 2001. ,,Customer satisfaction: contrasting academic and consumers
interpretations”. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 19(1):
38-46.
28. Pogotovkina N.S., S.M. Ugay. 2013. ,,Quality assessment
of transport service of the passengers in Vladivostok (Russia)”. World Applied
Sciences Journal 24(6):
809-813.
29. Salisu U.O. 2017. ,,Analysis of transport administrators
in sustaining transport development in Lagos, Ogun and Oyo State,
Nigeria”. Journal of Research in National Development 15(1): 191-203.
30. Salisu
U.O. 2023. ,,Analysis of transport infrastructure and sustainable tourism in Lagos State, Nigeria”. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Lagos: Lagos
State University.
31. Salisu U.O., O.O.
Oyesiku. 2020. ,,Traffic survey analysis: implications for road transport
planning In Nigeria”. LOGI –
Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics 11(2): 12-22.
32.
Zhang T., Y. Yan, Q. Chen, Z. Liu. 2022. ,,Evaluation method of
composite development bus terminal using multi-source data processing”. Land 11(1757): 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101757.
Received 03.01.2024; accepted in
revised form 17.05.2024
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
[1]
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Olabisi Onabanjo University,
Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria. Email: umar.salisu@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1630-3420
[2]
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Olabisi Onabanjo University,
Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria. Email: gafarmubarak0@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1916-9080
[3]
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki, Nigeria.
Email: ademolakanmu@gmail.com.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9264-5863
[4]
Transport and Logistics Limited, Ibadan, Nigeria. Email: sekinatmotunrayo@gmail.com. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0713-4699
[5]
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Olabisi Onabanjo University,
Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria. Email: fasina.simeon@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4989-0019