Next Article in Journal
A Constantly Updated Flood Hazard Assessment Tool Using Satellite-Based High-Resolution Land Cover Dataset Within Google Earth Engine
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Interaction Impacts of Multi-Scenario Land Use and Landscape Pattern on Water Ecosystem Services in the Greater Bay Area by Multi-Model Coupling
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/land13111928
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impacts of Perceived Safety and Service Quality on Perceived Accessibility by Public Transport in Melbourne

by
Hing-Wah Chau
1,*,
Melissa Chan
1,
Elmira Jamei
1 and
Katrin Lättman
2
1
Institute for Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities (ISILC), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC 3011, Australia
2
Department of Occupational Health, Psychology and Sports Sciences, University of Gavle, SE-80176 Gavle, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(11), 1928; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111928
Submission received: 4 November 2024 / Revised: 13 November 2024 / Accepted: 14 November 2024 / Published: 16 November 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, accessibility to services and activities using sustainable transport modes has become an important goal for land use and transport planning policies. Traditional approaches rely on objective measures, such as travel time, distance, costs, and other spatial data, overlooking personal preferences, experiences, demographic features, and socio-cultural and economic dynamics. Attributes that affect perceptions of accessibility require attention but our understanding of the factors influencing perceived accessibility is inadequate, particularly in Australia’s expanding suburbs. Through a literature review and questionnaire surveys, this study aims to take into account various travel characteristics and enhance the understanding of how perceived safety and service quality impact mobility behaviour and perceived accessibility within the Australian context. The study found that perceived safety and service quality have significant impacts on perceived accessibility and hence influence the use of public transport. We have identified critical factors that require proper consideration in transport and land use planning and policies to enable a better contribution from public transport to the liveability and well-being of residents in Australian suburbs.

1. Introduction

Access to a multimodal transport system enhances the likelihood of engaging in social interactions that involve physical activity [1]. According to De Vos et al. (2013), persons who walk to public transport stations engage in more physical activity than those who only use private transport modes [2]. It is a common practice to evaluate objective accessibility using indicators derived from spatial data involving absolute measures of travel time and physical distance to destinations and cost of travel. However, objective accessibility has limitations without taking due consideration of personal experiences and capabilities with respect to socioeconomic and environmental contexts. Hence, it is important to understand the travel behaviours and preferences of people through the notion of perceived accessibility [3,4]. Lattman et al. (2016) defined perceived accessibility of public transport in terms of ‘how easy it is to live a satisfactory life using the transport system’ and emphasised the need to take perceived accessibility into account when developing and evaluating transport networks [5]. Accessibility has a favourable relationship with travel-related outcomes, including happiness and social inclusion associated with transport [6,7]. A lack of access to various forms of transport may discourage people from participating in certain activities and reduce their subjective well-being [2].
The factors that influence how people perceive accessibility must be duly considered in order to promote the expanded usage and growth of sustainable transport systems. Accessibility to services and activities has been identified as a crucial indicator of liveability and welfare in Australia, where major towns and cities have experienced significant spatial growth recently [8]. However, there has been limited study of the variables influencing how communities in Australia view accessibility. One notable exception is Ryan et al. (2016), who examined variations in age groups and modes of transport to compare objective and perceived accessibility [9]. According to previous studies, which are primarily Eurocentric [5,10], indicators of travel safety and service quality in the context of public transport have a considerable impact on how accessible towns are considered. Comparatively, an understanding of the variables influencing perceived accessibility is inadequate outside the European context, particularly in Australia’s expanding suburbs.
Melbourne is the capital of the State of Victoria and has been ranked as one of the most liveable cities in the world [11]. In Victoria, significant expenditures have been spent on infrastructure development, notably, the so-called “Big-Build Projects” in expanding suburbs. However, little is known about how the development of this infrastructure inevitably enhances liveability and improves overall health and wellness. The significance of perceived accessibility in transport policy has been recognised; however, earlier research conducted by Kim et al. (2007) and Delbosc and Currie (2012) pointed out the scarcity of empirical studies that explore its relevance to transport planning and policies [12,13]. There is a need to dissect the attributes of neighbourhoods to gain a deeper understanding of the impacts of the built environment, community sentiment, and personal experiences on travel behaviours, including travellers’ perceptions of safety and service quality.
Perceived travel safety involves safety awareness, fear, and the perception of risk, which affect people’s use of public transport [14]. Fear is associated with the vulnerability a person feels in the transport environment while perceived risk relates to personal assessments of the probability of victimisation [15]. The perception of service quality affects users’ satisfaction, loyalty, and ridership of public transport [16,17]. Low perceived service quality discourages people to take and reduces the frequency of travelling with public transport [10].
This study aims to take into account various travel characteristics and enhance the understanding of how perceived safety and service quality impact perceived accessibility within the Australian context. The promotion of increased use of public transport and the development of sustainable transport in Melbourne’s western suburbs have positive benefits to users’ health and welfare. However, being predominantly less dense compared with inner centres, there have been concerns about the perceived safety and security of the built environment in outer suburbs [18]. The low density in these areas affects the delivery and quality of public transport services, resulting in inequalities and costs of car dependence [19]. The findings will help inform planning policies to redefine accessibility, safety, and service quality metrics. Critical factors of perceived accessibility, safety, and service quality require proper consideration in transport and land use planning and policies to enable a better contribution from public transport to the liveability and well-being of residents in Australian suburbs.

2. Literature Review: Conceptual Understandings of Perceived Accessibility, Perceived Safety, and Perceived Service Quality

Globally, there is a growing interest in urban planning and policy to accelerate the development of sustainable transport options, enhance accessibility to opportunities, and improve liveability for communities [20,21]. However, these efforts are challenged by the dominant focus on traditional accessibility metrics, such as travel time, distance, and cost, which largely depend on spatial data and physical parameters [22,23]. A growing body of research highlights some limitations of relying on objective accessibility metrics. First, it often makes the mistaken assumption that access is the same for everyone at a certain location, disregarding individual physical abilities and the capacity to navigate through social, economic, and environmental barriers [24,25]. Objective accessibility fails to account for variations in personal choices or experiences, demographic backgrounds, and socio-economic and cultural contexts. Second, Pot et al. (2021) suggest that people’s perceptions often do not align with the realities these objective metrics are supposed to reflect and, thus, the traditional measures of accessibility do not fully grasp the actual experiences and preferences of individuals [22]. Third, these approaches do not sufficiently tackle important disparities that contribute to issues of inclusion, fairness, and justice, which are crucial for quality of life and well-being and are the primary goals of accessibility policies [26].
To encourage increased use and facilitate further development of existing sustainable transport systems, such as public transport, attributes that affect perceptions of accessibility require urgent scholarly attention, but this has been the subject of limited transport studies [10]. Past research indicates that people’s decisions to use public transport for their daily activities are shaped by their perceptions of safety and the quality of transport services [27]. Perceived safety is regarded as a critical determinant of public transport use, given that the sense of safety and security may alter an individual’s travel mode preferences [28,29,30]. Perceived safety does not directly correlate with actual crime rates but is associated with fear of crime and perceived risk [13]. Crimes in relation to public transport involve three main situations: (1) travelling onboard; (2) waiting at stations, stops, and modal interchanges; and (3) walking to, from, or between stations, stops, or destinations [15]. According to Page et al. (2001), crimes experienced by travellers include pickpocketing, bag snatching, and violent crimes, such as assault and stabbings [31]. Harassment on public transport, though it has increasingly been regarded as an issue [32], is under-reported and is often not included in crime statistics [33,34]. Perceived safety varies according to situational, demographic, socioeconomic/neighbourhood, and psychological factors [13,14]. The presence of law enforcement personnel, adequate lighting, and video surveillance as security interventions evoke a sense of safety and assurance, especially during the first- and last-mile stretch when travelling to/from public transport stations at different times of the day [35].
Like perceived safety, some studies suggest that levels of perceived service quality significantly influence people’s perceived accessibility by using public transport [10,36]. It is expected that a more accessible service is reliable (i.e., performing the promised service punctually and accurately), responsive (i.e., offering prompt support and timely assistance to customers), and ranks high on qualities such as assurance (i.e., trustworthiness, skills, knowledge, and courtesy of drivers), empathy (i.e., pays attention and concern to the individual needs of passengers), and tangibility (i.e., overall cleanliness, thermal comfort, and tidiness onboard) [37,38].
In Australia, there is a growing awareness that an increase in public transport investments across its cities and regions is urgently required to chart a path towards a more sustainable and resilient future. Specifically, in the predominantly car-dependent suburbs of metropolitan centres, there have been calls that improving accessibility to public transport services will be critical to enhancing liveability and well-being in these settlements [8]. Consequently, an unprecedented amount of public funds has been directed towards major transport infrastructure projects across major cities, such as Melbourne and Sydney [39]. Notwithstanding this trajectory, there has been limited research interest in understanding how beneficial and/or accessible these infrastructure projects are for the individuals and communities they are designed for and less so an understanding of the factors that influence the perceived accessibility to opportunities when using these public transport services. A lack of understanding of this issue could inadvertently result in the underutilisation of public transport services, thereby limiting the social benefits accrued from such large-scale infrastructure investments. A notable exception is Ryan et al. (2016), who examined perceived accessibility to a public transport station in Perth, exploring how it differed among age groups depending on different travel modes [9]. Compared with conventional objective accessibility, they found that perceived accessibility was mostly higher regardless of the modes of travelling to the station (i.e., park and ride, walk and ride, bus and ride). Their findings were consistent with the study of Lättman et al. (2018), which found significant differences between perceived accessibility and objectively measured accessibility across residential areas and modes in Malmö, Sweden [23]. Nevertheless, the oldest age group perceived their accessibility as significantly lower than the other two age groups (middle-aged and young adults).
Despite the novel contribution of the work of Ryan et al. (2016), their study is limited because of focusing on a single location in the public transport system by exploring people’s perceived accessibility to a train station with respect to their age and travel modes [9]. Elsewhere in northern Europe, Friman et al. (2020) contend that perceived accessibility may be influenced by perceived safety and service quality but warn that the contextual nature of perceived accessibility could undermine the generalisability of such results in other contexts [10]. This study focuses on Australia, which is highly car-dependent. Although the low-density urban development undermines the critical mass for supporting efficient public transport investments, there is still a growing attitude towards transitioning to more sustainable transport modes because of the awareness of the benefits involved [40]. Based on a study in the growing western suburbs of Melbourne, a fast-growing and liveable city [41], we explore the potential influence of perceived safety and service quality on the perceived accessibility of residents and travellers to their daily activities and opportunities when using public transport. Such an understanding is relevant for developing policies that promote the patronage of sustainable transport options and maximise the associated benefits.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Hypotheses

Perceived accessibility is regarded as a more effective measure for improving the quality of life and well-being of residents of cities and regions through public transport infrastructure development because of its potential for addressing social exclusion and inequality [3]. However, unlike conventional accessibility, which has long been the goal of land use and transport planning [26,42], there has been limited research about the drivers of perceived accessibility. We contribute to this research agenda by exploring the determinants of perceived accessibility to daily activities using public transport in one of Melbourne’s fast-growing suburbs. This study specifically evaluates the impacts of perceived safety and service quality on perceived accessibility.
The conceptual relationship between safety and service quality in transport research is a debated topic. Some scholars including, Machado-León et al. (2017), argue that safety is a critical dimension of service quality and therefore must be included as a measure or indicator when assessing public transport quality [43]. Although safety is recognised for having significant influences, some scholars do not consider it a measure of service quality [10,44]. We adopt the latter approach in modelling the latent variables because examining accessibility to daily activities using public transport considers safety issues that not only relate to the use of the transport system itself but the whole journey experience, which may include the first and last miles as well as environmental factors. Our service quality factor considers indicators affecting the use of the public transport itself, as adopted in other SERVQUAL studies [45].
As suggested in previous research [10], this study contends that people’s assessment of risks of crime and personal safety is likely to influence their choices and use of public transport as a preferred travel mode for their daily life activities. Likewise, the perception of service quality in terms of frequency, reliability, and convenience can affect how users perceive the accessibility of public transport. This study, therefore, tests the relationship among perceived accessibility, perceived safety and perceived service quality. We also examine the following hypotheses:
  • Perceived safety has a direct effect on perceived accessibility to public transport (H1);
  • Perceived service quality has a direct effect on perceived accessibility to public transport (H2);
  • Perceived safety has a direct effect on perceived service quality (H3);
  • Perceived service quality has a mediating effect between perceived safety and perceived accessibility (H4).

3.2. Description of the Study Area

Melbourne is the second largest city in Australia with a population of over five million people [46]. Under its rapid growth rates in recent times, Melbourne is expected to overtake Sydney as the largest Australian city in 2031–32 [47]. Much of this new growth is occurring through new suburban development, especially in western suburbs.
Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the west of Melbourne include Wyndham, Melton, Brimbank, Moonee Valley, Hobsons Bay, and Maribyrnong (Figure 1). Among them, Wyndham is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in Melbourne [48]. The population of Wyndham has been significantly increased from less than 90,000 in 2001 to over 300,000 in 2024 and is projected to reach nearly 500,000 by 2046 [49] (Figure 2). Within an area of 541.8 km2, the population density of Wyndham has increased from 157 persons/km2 to around 600 persons/km2 in 2024, which is estimated to be over 900 persons/km2 by 2046 [50] (Figure 3).
The explosive population growth in western suburbs is presently unmatched by infrastructure and service delivery. Unlike the inner suburbs, there is no frequent tram service network in Melbourne’s western area. The local bus services are generally indirect and infrequent, involving longer waiting and travel times with poor connections [51]. Facing the common situation of overflowing carparks at train stations, rail service is inconvenient to commuters, especially during peak hours [52]. The vicious cycle of the poor service quality of public transport induces more car use and the reduced use of public transport affects investments in public and active transport [8]. With the lack of mixed-use developments and poor land use and transport integration, it may be difficult to get around without a car [53]. As a result, high car dependency is induced. It is common for households to suffer the financial burden of owning multiple cars to meet their daily needs [54]. For those who cannot afford to pay such expenses, such as older adults or individuals with low incomes, they will have reduced access to employment opportunities, activities and services, which negatively affects their overall quality of life, health, and well-being [3]. The deepening infrastructure deficit is alienating the suburbs from critical amenities and opportunities available in central areas, a feature that casts shadows on the city’s reputation as one of the most liveable cities in the world [55]. Public transport remains critical, as it is the primary mode of travel for many low-income households and residents who travel to the city centre and nearby suburbs for employment and other daily activities [51]. According to the latest statistics, the crime rates in Wyndham have increased by 5.2% from 17,648 cases in 2022 to 18,574 cases in 2023 [56]. Referring to a report on community safety in Wyndham published in 2022, community members mentioned that the contributing factors for them to feel unsafe include the lack of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and proper lighting [57].
After consultation with local government stakeholders, Point Cook, a suburb of the Wyndham municipality, was selected as the study area. Point Cook is approximately 22 km from the Central Business District (CBD) of Melbourne and is located to the south of the Princes Freeway. Public transport services in Point Cook are provided by trains and buses. Train stations near Point Cook include Williams Landing Station, Aircraft Station, and Hoppers Crossing Station (Figure 4). The population of Point Cook is around 22% of the total population of Wyndham [58]. Point Cook epitomises the rapid growth and poor infrastructure in the area but has the potential to deliver accessible public transport for the benefit of the community.

3.3. Data Collection

This study employed an online survey using Qualtrics to collect data on perceived accessibility, safety, and service quality. The survey targeted residents, workers, and other travellers who made regular trips to the study area. The screening question “In the past six months, have you lived, worked or visited Point Cook for any reason” helped to ensure that only relevant respondents were targeted. Two main approaches were adopted in recruiting respondents between February and April 2022 and the responses were also received during this timeframe. First, we distributed postcards inviting residents to self-administer the survey. The postcards contained a quick response (QR) code and web link that directed respondents to the survey for online completion and submission. Second, the researchers used the Qualtrics mobile application to invite people to complete offline versions of the survey at vantage points in the study area, including shopping centres, a community library, and bus stops, but mainly at train stations. For both approaches, information about the study aims, data management, and confidentiality was provided prior to partaking (i.e., informed consent). Combining both approaches helped to engage survey respondents from diverse backgrounds, including local Point Cook residents, workers, and travellers who regularly visit the study area for shopping, leisure, and other social activities (see Table 1). A total of 156 valid responses were received, comprising 58 online and 98 offline surveys.

3.4. Survey Measures

The survey comprised three main sections of questions measuring perceived accessibility, perceived safety, and perceived service quality. A fourth part of the survey examined the demographic and travel characteristics of the respondents, including gender, age, educational qualifications, frequency, and primary mode of travel. The influence of gender, age, and travel mode (frequent/infrequent public transport users) on perceived accessibility, safety, and service quality has been analysed separately [4]. The survey question in relation to the distance to the nearest public transport station/stop (up to 20 min or more than 20 min) (Table 1) refers to the principle of 20-minute neighbourhoods that was first mentioned in Plan Melbourne, published by the Department of Transport, Planning, and Local Infrastructure in 2014 [59]. Plan Melbourne aimed to provide safe and convenient access to goods and services within 20 min of where people live, travelling by foot or bicycle [60]. Under the Wyndham Active Transport Strategy 2020, Wyndham City Council encourages residents to make more trips by foot or bike and turn walking and cycling into a mode of choice for residents [61]. Therefore, active transport, including the use of bicycles and e-scooters, is encouraged for residents to reduce their dependence on cars.
Perceived accessibility was assessed using a modification of the Perceived Accessibility (PAC) scale developed by Lättman et al. [5]. The PAC scale measures accessibility based on four item questions evaluating the perception of respondents about the ease and satisfaction of conducting daily life activities (see Table 2). Unlike the original PAC scale, we assessed the responses based on a five-point Likert scale (1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree) based on four item questions (Table 2) which then form an index of perceived accessibility to public transport. Cronbach’s alpha (0.899) indicates these indicators reliably measured perceived accessibility to daily life activities using public transport.
Based on the relevant literature, perceived safety (PS) was measured along four-dimensional constructs comprising a number of items/questions that were assessed under a five-point Likert scale (1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree) (see Table 3). Surveillance (Construct 1) was measured by items SU1–SU5, which explored the perception of safety regarding CCTV, proper lighting, and police presence at stations/stops and onboard public transport. Accidents and crime were measured by items AC1–AC3 and examined the respondents’ safety perception of the likelihood of accidents and crime when travelling; whereas, the last two dimensions assessed the feeling of safety when travelling during the daytime (measured by DS1–DS3) and nighttime (NS1–NS3).
Perceived service quality (PSQ) was also measured by three constructs, including reliability, assurance, and convenience, with multiple items assessed on a five-point Likert scale (1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree) (Table 3). Reliability was measured by three items (RE1–RE3) measuring the perception that public transport never broke down during travel and had adequate frequencies and connections. Assurance was measured by four items (AS1–AS4) reflecting the respondents’ assurance in the knowledge and expertise of the service providers [3]. The final construct, convenience, was measured by four items (CO1–CO4) reflecting perceptions of convenient and accessible vehicles as well as the convenient dissemination of information on planned and unplanned disruptions to services.

3.5. Data Analysis

This study applied partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in examining the relationship between the three constructs (i.e., perceived accessibility, perceived safety, and perceived service quality), as specified by our hypotheses. PLS-SEM is preferred over covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM), primarily because it enables the estimation of complex models with many constructs, indicators, and structural paths without imposing distributional assumptions on the data and provides good results with small samples [62]. Unlike CB-SEM, PLS-SEM uses the total variance for estimating parameters and can generate robust results even with a smaller sample size [63,64]. Owing to the multidimensional nature of our primary independent constructs (i.e., perceived safety and service quality), we adopted the two-staged (repeated indicator) approach, which has been recommended for modelling higher-order constructs in testing their structural relationships with perceived accessibility [65,66].
The structural model for testing the hypotheses is depicted in Figure 5 and described as follows. First, we generated the latent variable scores of the first-order constructs measuring safety (i.e., surveillance, accidents and crime, daytime and nighttime safety) and service quality (i.e., reliability, assurance and convenience) using exploratory factor analysis [66]. In the second stage, we used the extracted latent variable scores of the first-order constructs to test the structural relationship of the second-order constructs (perceived safety and service quality) with perceived accessibility based on our earlier hypotheses. We used SmartPLS 3.0 for the analysis.

4. Results

To examine the suitability of the model, we assessed the reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity of the first-order constructs as required for the analysis of higher-order models [65]. Table 4 summarises the results of this assessment.
The results indicated support for the reliability and validity of the measures. In particular, all item loadings were satisfactory, ranging between 0.633 and 0.942, indicating item/indicator reliability. Typically, a loading threshold of 0.70 is preferred but, in the social sciences, 0.60 loading is considered a reasonable threshold [62,67]. Some scholars have even argued that a lower cut-off of 0.40 is acceptable for less researched and exploratory studies [64,68]. The internal consistency reliability test also found the composite reliability to be satisfactory, with all constructs falling within the 0.60–0.95 range recommended for exploratory research, indicating that the items measured the same constructs in the structural model [62,63]. This is further emphasised by the average variance extracted (AVE), which was higher than 0.50, demonstrating that convergent validity was achieved in the model [62]. Likewise, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) of the correlation, which has been found to be a more accurate measure of discriminant validity, fell below the threshold of 0.90 [69,70], suggesting that all the constructs are distinct. Finally, multicollinearity diagnostics of the lower-order constructs yielded satisfactory results with a variance inflation factor consistently lower than the critical value of 5 [62,63].
The results showed that the hypothesised relationships PS → PAC and PSQ → PAC in the structural model are statistically significant (all p < 0.001) (Table 5; see also Figure 6). Thus, this study found that our hypotheses H1 and H2 (i.e., the direct effects of perceived safety and service quality on perceived accessibility) were empirically supported. However, the results revealed that perceived safety (PS) (0.405) had a slightly stronger direct effect than perceived service quality (PSQ) (0.381) on perceived accessibility (PAC). Likewise, as argued by H3 (i.e., PS → PSQ), perceived safety had a statistically significant effect (0.406) on perceived service quality, (p < 0.001). We also found that the effect of perceived safety on perceived accessibility was mediated by perceived service quality, confirming our final hypothesis (H4).
The assessment of the explanatory power using the coefficient of determination (R2) and the predictive relevance (Q2) by blindfolding procedure confirmed the fitness of the hypothesised structural model. The explained variance of perceived accessibility of 43.3% (R2 = 0.433) and perceived service quality of 16.5% (R2 = 0.165) were both significant at a 1% significance level, demonstrating the substantial in-sample predictive power of the structural model. Likewise, the Q2 (the measure of the predictive accuracy of the indicators) values, which were both greater than zero (PAC = 0.322; PSQ = 0.046), supported a good out-of-sample predictive power [71]. These results suggest that the PLS-path model has good explanatory power, indicating that perceived safety and service quality performed extremely well in predicting people’s perceived accessibility to daily activities using public transport within the study context.

5. Discussion

Accessibility to services, opportunities, and activities is regarded as a universal goal in land use and transport planning initiatives across different levels of government because of the ability to promote quality living standards and well-being within local areas [3]. However, improvement in the convenience of reaching facilities and services based on proximity or physical distance alone does not necessarily translate to ease and/or satisfaction with the actual use [5,72]. Thus, perceived accessibility has been suggested as a better indicator for improving the quality of life because it reflects actual experiences of accessibility that may be impacted by abilities, cost, and security considerations [3]. According to Burns (1980), accessibility should reflect an individual’s freedom to decide whether or not to participate in certain activities and opportunities [73]. Interestingly, it is argued that this decision to be involved in activities is primarily influenced by perceptions of safety and the quality of services with regard to public transport for promoting accessibility [29,74,75]. Against the backdrop of this context, this article examined the impacts of perceived safety and service quality on the perceived accessibility of conducting daily life activities using public transport in a western suburb of Melbourne. Guided by four hypotheses, this study sought to examine whether: (1) perceived safety and service quality had a direct effect on perceived accessibility; (2) perceived safety influenced perceived service quality; and (3) the perceived service quality mediated the effect of perceived safety on perceived accessibility. Thus, this study examined how the perceived safety and service quality of public transport facilitated or hindered the ease and satisfaction of residents in a growing suburb in Melbourne’s western area to perform their daily activities by relying on public transport. The findings, which confirmed that perceived safety and service quality are important determinants of perceived accessibility, revealed the following aspects.
First, the findings show that perceived safety has a positive direct influence on perceived accessibility. This result suggests that an increase in perceived safety by 1 percentage point leads to about a 0.405 percentage point increase in perceived accessibility (Table 5). This result is consistent with findings from other studies suggesting that the feeling of safety from crime and accidents enhances people’s accessibility and use of services, such as public transport [10,44]. Among the constructs measuring perceived safety, this study found the feeling of safety from crimes and accidents was the most important determinant of safety perceptions among the study participants and that perceived safety from crimes and accidents was a critical factor influencing the perceptions of accessibility to public transport in Melbourne.
To overcome issues of safety (or unsafety), suggestions have been made regarding safety improvements that make public transport systems more accessible to vulnerable groups. For example, Velho et al. (2016) suggested that providing spaces for wheelchair users to safely travel improves their transport accessibility due to the convenience it presents and the assurances of their safety from injuries and accidents onboard [76]. Moreover, safety improvements targeting vulnerable users are also likely to improve conditions for other travellers [25]. The perceptions of nighttime and daytime safety were the next most critical factors of perceived safety among the respondents, followed by surveillance. In Melbourne’s rapidly growing western region, public transport stations are quite distant and secluded from people’s homes. Hence, as suggested by this study, both daytime and nighttime travelling pose serious safety concerns for people and, therefore, require urgent attention. This study suggests that surveillance (SU1–SU5), which involves potential oversights due to human and artificial factors (i.e., CCTV cameras, proper lighting, and police presence), can be instrumental in enhancing safety and subsequently making public transport more accessible to all users. This is in line with the findings of a recent review on (rail-based) international public transport passengers’ safety perceptions, which found that lighting, surveillance, and time of day were important for safety perceptions [77].
This study also indicates that perceived service quality is a significant factor driving the perceived accessibility in Melbourne’s growing western suburbs. Overall, people’s perception of the quality of public transport services positively induced their perceptions of accessibility, with the most influential factor being reliability, followed by convenience and assurance. Reliability, in this instance, involves frequent and less disruptive running of services, which assures users that they can use the services whenever needed. However, in cases where services do not typically run on schedule, it is harder to plan trips using public transport. Another factor of reliability, as revealed by this study, is a good connection with other travel modes. In Perth, Ryan and colleagues (2016) found proper integration of train stations with other modes to be a critical factor of public transport accessibility so it is not surprising that this is also a primary concern for residents in Melbourne’s rapidly sprawling western suburbs [8,9].
Convenience measures the perception of the service being accessible to all as well as prompt communications of overall real-time information and any updates on planned and unplanned service disruptions. These are important factors that influence people’s decision to rely on and use public transport. A public transport service that is open and convenient is often regarded as good quality [25,76]. Assurances in the service provider manifested by the experience, politeness, and serviceability of the drivers are also significant but less important factors of service quality’s influence on perceived accessibility.
Finally, this study confirms that while there is a direct effect of perceived safety on perceived accessibility, this impact can also be mediated indirectly through service quality. As confirmed by hypotheses H3 and H4, perceived safety also has significant influences on people’s perception of the quality of public transport services, which, in turn, also affects their perceived accessibility. Thus, by improving service quality through enhancing perceived safety, planners and policymakers can ultimately improve people’s perceived accessibility. This result is consistent with past research demonstrating that safety is an essential facilitator of the quality of public transport services [78]. As shown by the present study, it is obvious that where residents, workers, shoppers, and other travellers show a greater sense of safety with public transport use, they are more likely to be satisfied with its quality and ultimately perceive their accessibility to services and activities using such travel modes to be better. Satisfaction with the safety, service quality, and accessibility of public transport is therefore more likely to induce greater use of public transport services in the outer suburbs of Melbourne’s western region.

6. Limitations

There are some limitations of this study that can be addressed in future studies. The study area was Point Cook and the number of respondents in the survey was relatively low. Since the surveys were mainly conducted at train stations, the respondents were more often users of public transport, rather than the whole population living in the study area. The percentage of the mode share of public transport in Melbourne is around 10.5% [79] so the 65.4% of frequent public transport users among respondents in the questionnaire survey (Table 1) is very high comparatively. The results collected may be biased towards public transport users. For future research, it is recommended to increase the number of respondents, including residents living in different areas of the municipality. If funding is available, coupons or vouchers can be considered as incentives for respondents to complete the survey to increase the number of responses collected. The current model assumes that the impact of perceived safety and service quality on perceived accessibility is homogenous in the study area. Testing for how the nature and strengths of these relationships vary among different categories of people requires large sample sizes that were not obtained in this exploratory Australian study [80]. The study area can be extended to cover the whole Wyndham municipality or even other western suburbs in Melbourne for comparison in future studies. Apart from conducting quantitative surveys, qualitative insights from residents and travellers can be collected through focus group discussions and interviews. Future studies could also explore the distinctions based on socioeconomic (e.g., gender, age, and income) and travel characteristics (e.g., modes and frequency), as well as perceived accessibility to different activity types using public transport.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing research examining the impacts of perceived safety and service quality on perceived accessibility based on people’s experiences of services and activities in 21st-century cities. Testing the relationship using the four hypotheses, the current study confirms that perceptions of safety and service quality positively affect perceived accessibility to daily activities using public transport in growing suburbs. These findings suggest that improving perceived safety in Melbourne’s outer suburbs will require investments to improve surveillance onboard and at stations/stops, including police visibility and the installation of CCTV cameras and proper lighting, especially during nighttime travel. Leveraging mobile technology applications to deliver overall real-time information, including any updates on potential travel disruptions, can enhance the convenience of the general public. The improved connection of the public transport network with other modes and more frequent and dependable services can enhance people’s perception of the service quality. Indeed, as shown by this study, frequent and well-connected services that assure limited journey disruption are influential drivers of the perception of the service quality of public transport. The findings of this study outline avenues for planners and policymakers to improve perceived accessibility, safety, and service quality to encourage the use of public transport for supporting daily living activities and, thereby, enhance the quality and satisfaction of life in growing outer suburbs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; methodology, H.-W.C., M.C., E.J. and K.L.; software, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; validation, H.-W.C., M.C., E.J. and K.L.; formal analysis, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; investigation, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; resources, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; data curation, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; writing—original draft preparation, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; writing—review and editing, H.-W.C., M.C., E.J. and K.L.; supervision, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; visualisation, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; project administration, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J.; funding acquisition, H.-W.C., M.C. and E.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the project “Social Value Creation for Transport and Infrastructure”, funded by the Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund, Australia (2021–2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the University Human Research Ethics Committee of Victoria University (reference HRE21-161, date of approval 10 December 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their thanks to anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Parkhurst, G.; Meek, S. The effectiveness of park-and-ride as a policy measure for more sustainable mobility. In Parking Issues and Policies; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: West Yorkshire, UK, 2014; Volume 5, pp. 185–211. [Google Scholar]
  2. De Vos, J.; Schwanen, T.; Van Acker, V.; Witlox, F. Travel and subjective well-being: A focus on findings, methods and future research needs. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33, 421–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jamei, E.; Chan, M.; Chau, H.W.; Gaisie, E.; Lättman, K. Perceived accessibility and key influencing factors in transportation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chau, H.-W.; Gaisie, E.; Jamei, E.; Chan, M.; Lättman, K. Perceived Accessibility: Impact of Social Factors and Travel Modes in Melbourne’s West. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M. Development and test of the perceived accessibility scale (PAC) in public transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 54, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Olsson, L.E.; Gärling, T.; Ettema, D.; Friman, M.; Fujii, S. Happiness and satisfaction with work commute. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 111, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lättman, K.; Friman, M.; Olsson, L.E. Perceived accessibility of public transport as a potential indicator of social inclusion. Soc. Incl. 2016, 4, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gunn, L.; Kroen, A.; De Gruyter, C.; Higgs, C.; Saghapour, T.; Davern, M. Early delivery of equitable and healthy transport options in new suburbs: Policy, place and people. J. Transp. Health 2020, 18, 100870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ryan, M.; Lin, T.; Xia, J.C.; Robinson, T. Comparison of perceived and measured accessibility between different age groups and travel modes at Greenwood Station, Perth, Australia. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2016, 16, 406–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Friman, M.; Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E. Public transport quality, safety, and perceived accessibility. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Economist Intelligence Unit. The Global Liveability Index 2024. Available online: https://www.eiu.com/n/webinars/global-liveability-index-2024/ (accessed on 16 October 2024).
  12. Kim, S.; Ulfarsson, G.F.; Hennessy, J.T. Analysis of light rail rider travel behavior: Impacts of individual, built environment, and crime characteristics on transit access. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 511–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Delbosc, A.; Currie, G. Modelling the causes and impacts of personal safety perceptions on public transport ridership. Transp. Policy 2012, 24, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F.; Shi, W.; Ma, F. The determinants of passengers’ safety behaviour on public transport. J. Transp. Health 2020, 18, 100905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Badiora, A.I.; Ojewale, O.S.; Okunola, O.H. Perceived risk and fear of crime in public transport nodes: The experience from Nigerian transit environment. Int. J. Crim. Justice Sci. 2015, 10, 139–151. [Google Scholar]
  16. Van Lierop, D.; El-Geneidy, A. Enjoying loyalty: The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in public transit. Res. Transp. Econ. 2016, 59, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Oña, J.; De Oña, R.; Eboli, L.; Mazzulla, G. Perceived service quality in bus transit service: A structural equation approach. Transp. Policy 2013, 29, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Andrews, F.; Henderson-Wilson, C.; Townsend, M. Parenting and place: Pilot study exploring the experiences of women from inner and outer Melbourne suburbs. In Proceedings of the Fifth Healthy Cities Conference Proceedings: Working Together to Achieve Liveable Cities, Geelong, QLD, Australia, 6–8 June 2012; AST Management Pty Ltd.: Nerang, QLD, Australia, 2012; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  19. De Meester, F.; Van Dyck, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Deforche, B.; Sallis, J.F.; Cardon, G. Active living neighborhoods: Is neighborhood walkability a key element for Belgian adolescents? BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Johansson, H.; Sandvik, K.O.; Zsidákovits, J.; Łutczyk, G. A need for new methods in the paradigm shift from mobility to sustainable accessibility. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Solá, A.G.; Vilhelmson, B.; Larsson, A. Understanding sustainable accessibility in urban planning: Themes of consensus, themes of tension. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 70, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pot, F.J.; van Wee, B.; Tillema, T. Perceived accessibility: What it is and why it differs from calculated accessibility measures based on spatial data. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 94, 103090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M. A new approach to accessibility–Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel. Res. Transp. Econ. 2018, 69, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ryan, J.; Pereira, R.H. What are we missing when we measure accessibility? Comparing calculated and self-reported accounts among older people. J. Transp. Geogr. 2021, 93, 103086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sundling, C.; Berglund, B.; Nilsson, M.E.; Emardson, R.; Pendrill, L.R. Overall accessibility to traveling by rail for the elderly with and without functional limitations: The whole-trip perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 12938–12968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Farrington, J.H. The new narrative of accessibility: Its potential contribution to discourses in (transport) geography. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eboli, L.; Mazzulla, G. A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public transport. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2008, 31, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Department for Transport, England. People’s Perceptions of Personal Security and Their Concerns About Crime on Public Transport: The Literature Review. Available online: https://trid.trb.org/View/697731 (accessed on 12 October 2024).
  29. Abenoza, R.F.; Ceccato, V.; Susilo, Y.O.; Cats, O. Individual, travel, and bus stop characteristics influencing travelers’ safety perceptions. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ouali, L.A.B.; Graham, D.J.; Barron, A.; Trompet, M. Gender differences in the perception of safety in public transport. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 2020, 183, 737–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Page, O.; Moeketsi, P.; Schurink, W. Crime and Crime Prevention on Public Transport; Unisa Press: Pretoria, South Africa, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gardner, N.; Cui, J.; Coiacetto, E. Harassment on public transport and its impacts on women’s travel behaviour. Aust. Plan. 2017, 54, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Neupane, G.; Chesney-Lind, M. Violence against women on public transport in Nepal: Sexual harassment and the spatial expression of male privilege. Int. J. Comp. Appl. Crim. Justice 2014, 38, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gekoski, A.; Gray, J.M.; Horvath, M.A.H.; Edwards, S.; Emirali, A.; Adler, J.R. What works’ in Reducing Sexual Harassment and Sexual Offences on Public Transport Nationally and Internationally: A Rapid Evidence Assessment; British Transport Police and Department for Transport: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cheng, Y.-H.; Chen, S.-Y. Perceived accessibility, mobility, and connectivity of public transportation systems. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 77, 386–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guirao, B.; García-Pastor, A.; López-Lambas, M.E. The importance of service quality attributes in public transportation: Narrowing the gap between scientific research and practitioners’ needs. Transp. Policy 2016, 49, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sam, E.F.; Hamidu, O.; Daniels, S. SERVQUAL analysis of public bus transport services in Kumasi metropolis, Ghana: Core user perspectives. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2018, 6, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Schneider, I.E.; Guo, T.; Schroeder, S. Quality of life: Assessment for Transportation Performance Measures; Minnesota Department of Transportation: St Paul, MN, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Legacy, C.; Curtis, C.; Scheurer, J. Planning transport infrastructure: Examining the politics of transport planning in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Urban Policy Res. 2017, 35, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xia, T.; Zhang, Y.; Braunack-Mayer, A.; Crabb, S. Public attitudes toward encouraging sustainable transportation: An Australian case study. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2017, 11, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Goodman, R. Melbourne–Growth challenges for a liveable city. DisP-Plan. Rev. 2018, 54, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Halden, D. The use and abuse of accessibility measures in UK passenger transport planning. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2011, 2, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Machado-León, J.L.; de Oña, R.; Baouni, T.; de Oña, J. Railway transit services in Algiers: Priority improvement actions based on users perceptions. Transp. Policy 2017, 53, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vitman-Schorr, A.; Ayalon, L.; Khalaila, R. Perceived accessibility to services and sites among Israeli older adults. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2019, 38, 112–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Grujičić, D.; Ivanović, I.; Jović, J.; Đorić, V. Customer perception of service quality in public transport. Transport 2014, 29, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Australian Bureau of Statistcs. Capital City Growth the Highest on Record. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/capital-city-growth-highest-record (accessed on 29 October 2024).
  47. Centre for Population. 2023 Population Statement. Available online: https://population.gov.au/sites/population.gov.au/files/2023-12/2023-population-statement.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2024).
  48. Star Weekly. Wyndham Ranks First for Population Growth. Available online: https://wyndham.starweekly.com.au/news/wyndham-ranks-first-for-population-growth/ (accessed on 29 October 2024).
  49. City of Wyndham. Population Forecast: Population Summary. Available online: https://forecast.id.com.au/wyndham/population-summary (accessed on 29 October 2024).
  50. City of Wyndham. Welcome to the City of Wyndham Community Profile. Available online: https://profile.id.com.au/wyndham/#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Wyndham%20Estimated,kilometres%20from%20the%20Melbourne%20CBD (accessed on 29 October 2024).
  51. Lawrie, I.; Stone, J. Better Buses for Melbourne’s West. Available online: https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/4224729/Better-Buses-for-Melbournes-West-launch.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2024).
  52. Paul, M. Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Funding for Growth Areas not Allocated, Despite Huge Demand. Available online: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-03/melbourne-outer-suburbs-infrastructure-funding-gaic/101604554 (accessed on 29 October 2024).
  53. Wyndham City Council. Wyndham Integrated Transport Strategy. Available online: https://www.wyndham.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/2023%20Wyndham%20Integrated%20Transport%20Strategy%20-%20Adopted%20-%202023-02-28.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2024).
  54. Currie, G.; Delbosc, A.; Pavkova, K. Alarming Trends in the Growth of Forced Car Ownership in Melbourne. Available online: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1515676/ATRF2018_Paper_8_Forced-Car-Ownership-in-Melbourne-.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2024).
  55. Craven, J.; Horan, E.; Goulding, R. Population growth and infrastructure development in Melbourne. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 191, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wyndham TV. Crime Rate up in Wyndham According to Latest Crime Statistics. Available online: https://www.wyndhamtv.com.au/crime-rate-up-in-wyndham-according-to-latest-crime-statistics/ (accessed on 19 October 2024).
  57. Wyndham City Council. Community Safety in Wyndham: Empowering Communities—Community Engagement Summary Report. Available online: https://www.wyndham.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/Community%20Safety%20in%20Wyndham%20Finding%20Report%202022.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2024).
  58. City of Wyndham. Community Profile: Point Cook. Available online: https://profile.id.com.au/wyndham/population?WebID=130 (accessed on 30 October 2024).
  59. Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure. Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy. Available online: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strategies-and-initiatives/melbournes-strategic-planning-history/plan-melbourne-2014 (accessed on 2 November 2024).
  60. Chau, H.-W.; Gilzean, I.; Jamei, E.; Lesley, P.; Preece, T.; Quirke, M. Comparative analysis of 20-minute neighbourhood policies and practices in Melbourne and Scotland. Urban Plan. 2022, 7, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wyndham City Council. Wyndham Active Transport Strategy 2020. Available online: https://www.wyndham.vic.gov.au/activetransportstrategy2020 (accessed on 2 November 2024).
  62. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kuppelwieser, V.G.; Sarstedt, M. Applying the future time perspective scale to advertising research. Int. J. Advert. 2014, 33, 113–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wong, K.K.-K. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 2013, 24, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  65. Becker, J.-M.; Klein, K.; Wetzels, M. Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Plan. 2012, 45, 359–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Matthews, L.; Hair, J.; Matthews, R. PLS-SEM: The holy grail for advanced analysis. Mark. Manag. J. 2018, 28, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tehseen, S.; Sajilan, S.; Gadar, K.; Ramayah, T. Assessing cultural orientation as a reflective-formative second order construct-a recent PLS-SEM approach. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2017, 6, 38–63. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hair, J.F.; Astrachan, C.B.; Moisescu, O.I.; Radomir, L.; Sarstedt, M.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2021, 12, 100392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Law, L.; Fong, N. Applying partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in an investigation of undergraduate students’ learning transfer of academic English. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 2020, 46, 100884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Curl, A. The importance of understanding perceptions of accessibility when addressing transport equity. J. Transp. Land Use 2018, 11, 1147–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Burns, L.D. Transportation: Temporal and Spatial Components of Accessibility; Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  74. Liu, Y.; Gao, Q.; Rau, P.-L.P. Chinese passengers’ security perceptions of ride-hailing services: An integrated approach combining general and situational perspectives. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 26, 250–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Su, D.N.; Nguyen-Phuoc, D.Q.; Johnson, L.W. Effects of perceived safety, involvement and perceived service quality on loyalty intention among ride-sourcing passengers. Transportation 2021, 48, 369–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Velho, R.; Holloway, C.; Symonds, A.; Balmer, B. The effect of transport accessibility on the social inclusion of wheelchair users: A mixed method analysis. Soc. Incl. 2016, 4, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sundling, C.; Ceccato, V. The impact of rail-based stations on passengers’ safety perceptions. A systematic review of international evidence. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 86, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, C.; Liu, Y.; Lu, W.; Xiao, G. Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: Evidence from Chinese public transport service. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 120, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Veitch Lister Consulting. Transport Planning for the Australian Infrastructure Audit: Transport Modelling Report for Melbourne. Available online: https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/Transport%20Modelling%20Report%20for%20Melbourne.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  80. Matthews, L. Applying multigroup analysis in PLS-SEM: A step-by-step process. In Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 219–243. [Google Scholar]
Land 13 01928 g001
Figure 1. Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Melbourne’s western area (prepared by the author).
Figure 1. Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Melbourne’s western area (prepared by the author).
Land 13 01928 g001
Land 13 01928 g002
Figure 2. Population growth in Wyndham [49].
Figure 2. Population growth in Wyndham [49].
Land 13 01928 g002
Land 13 01928 g003
Figure 3. Increase of population density in Wyndham [50].
Figure 3. Increase of population density in Wyndham [50].
Land 13 01928 g003
Land 13 01928 g004
Figure 4. Map of the study area (prepared by the author).
Figure 4. Map of the study area (prepared by the author).
Land 13 01928 g004
Land 13 01928 g005
Figure 5. PLS-measurement model depicting the hypotheses of the direct and indirect effects of perceived safety and service quality on perceived accessibility.
Figure 5. PLS-measurement model depicting the hypotheses of the direct and indirect effects of perceived safety and service quality on perceived accessibility.
Land 13 01928 g005
Land 13 01928 g006
Figure 6. PLS-SEM structural model depicting the relationship between perceived safety, service quality, and accessibility.
Figure 6. PLS-SEM structural model depicting the relationship between perceived safety, service quality, and accessibility.
Land 13 01928 g006
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.
VariableSubgroupNumber (%)
GenderMale65 (41.7)
Female89 (57.1)
Prefer not to say/unspecified2 (1.2)
Age (years)18–2939 (25.2)
30–5998 (63.2)
60+18 (11.6)
Employment statusEmployed97 (62.1)
Studying31 (19.9)
Unemployed6 (3.8)
Retired/home duties22 (14.1)
Primary travel modeWalking/cycling6 (3.8)
Driving71 (45.5)
Public transport69 (44.3)
Others5 (3.2)
Public transport useFrequent (two or more days per week)102 (65.4)
Infrequent (less than twice a week)54 (34.6)
Distance to nearest public transport station/stopUp to 20 min112 (71.8)
More than 20 min44 (28.2)
Table 2. Measures of perceived accessibility.
Table 2. Measures of perceived accessibility.
CodeMeasurement Item/Question
Perceived accessibility (PAC)
PAC1It is easy to do my daily activities with public transport
PAC2If public transport was my only mode of travel, I would be able to continue living the way I want
PAC3It is possible to do the activities I prefer with public transport
PAC4Access to my preferred activities is satisfying with public transport
Table 3. Constructs and measures of perceived safety and service quality.
Table 3. Constructs and measures of perceived safety and service quality.
ConstructCodeMeasurement Item/Question
Perceived safety (PS)
Surveillance SU1I feel safe when CCTV cameras are installed at public transport stations/stops
SU2I feel safe as proper lighting is installed at public transport stations/stops
SU3I feel safe when police are present at public transport stations/stops
SU4I feel safe as proper lighting is installed onboard
SU5I feel safe when police are present onboard
Accidents and CrimeAC1I feel safe from traffic accidents when waiting at public transport stations/stops
AC2I feel safe from traffic accidents onboard
AC3I feel safe from crime onboard
Daytime safetyDS1I feel safe when walking to/from public transport stations/stops in the daytime
DS2I feel safe when waiting at public transport stations/stops in the daytime
DS3I feel safe to take public transport in the daytime
Nighttime safetyNS1I feel safe when walking to/from public transport stations/stops at night
NS2I feel safe when waiting at public transport stations/stops at night
NS3I feel safe to take public transport at night
Perceived service quality (PSQ)
Reliability RE1Public transport never breaks down during my journey
RE2The frequency of public transport service is adequate
RE3Connection of public transport service to other transport is adequate
AssuranceAS1Drivers are always polite
AS2Drivers are skillful and experienced in driving
AS3Drivers appear neat and tidy
AS4Drivers are ready to assist passengers
Convenience CO1Air conditioning onboard is appropriate (not too cold or hot)
CO2Buses are accessible to all (including disabled and older adults)
CO3Planned public transport not in service is communicated in advance
CO4Unplanned public transport not in service is communicated promptly
Table 4. Summary of reliability and validity assessment of the first-order constructs.
Table 4. Summary of reliability and validity assessment of the first-order constructs.
ConstructItemLoadingsCRAVEHTMT
SurveillanceSU10.8280.8710.5760.159–0.624
SU20.838
SU30.678
SU40.796
SU50.633
AccidentsAC10.7950.8650.6820.213–0.626
AC20.844
AC30.837
Daytime safetyDS10.8540.9040.7590.218–0.624
DS20.889
DS30.871
Nighttime safetyNS10.9260.9500.8640.217–0.785
NS20.942
NS30.921
ReliabilityRE10.7030.8620.6780.159–0.835
RE20.869
RE30.885
AssuranceAS10.8550.8780.6450.178–0.432
AS20.836
AS30.824
AS40.687
ConvenienceCO10.7360.8420.5720.203–0.835
CO20.733
CO30.739
CO40.816
Notes: CR—composite reliability, AVE—average variance extracted, HTMT—heterotrait-monotrait ratio.
Table 5. Direct and total effects of perceived safety, service quality, and accessibility constructs.
Table 5. Direct and total effects of perceived safety, service quality, and accessibility constructs.
Direct EffectIndirect EffectTotal Effect
Perceived accessibilityPerceived accessibilityPerceived accessibilityPerceived service quality
Perceived safety0.405 ***0.154 ***0.559 ***0.406 ***
Perceived service quality0.381 ***n/a0.381 ***n/a
Notes: direct and total effects of perceived safety on perceived accessibility differ due to mediating effects of perceived safety. ***p < 0.001; n/a—not calculated.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chau, H.-W.; Chan, M.; Jamei, E.; Lättman, K. The Impacts of Perceived Safety and Service Quality on Perceived Accessibility by Public Transport in Melbourne. Land 2024, 13, 1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111928

AMA Style

Chau H-W, Chan M, Jamei E, Lättman K. The Impacts of Perceived Safety and Service Quality on Perceived Accessibility by Public Transport in Melbourne. Land. 2024; 13(11):1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111928

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chau, Hing-Wah, Melissa Chan, Elmira Jamei, and Katrin Lättman. 2024. "The Impacts of Perceived Safety and Service Quality on Perceived Accessibility by Public Transport in Melbourne" Land 13, no. 11: 1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111928

APA Style

Chau, H. -W., Chan, M., Jamei, E., & Lättman, K. (2024). The Impacts of Perceived Safety and Service Quality on Perceived Accessibility by Public Transport in Melbourne. Land, 13(11), 1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111928

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop