See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261238409

Student satisfaction with the campus bus services at UiTM Shah Alam, Malaysia

Conference Paper · April 2013

DOI: 10.1109/BEIAC.2013.6560227

CITATIONS READS
4 5,627

6 authors, including:

Gy R. Hashim Sabariah Mohamad

Universiti Teknologi MARA Universiti Teknologi MARA
114 PUBLICATIONS   153 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shireen Haron Farihah Hassan

Universiti Teknologi MARA Universiti Teknologi MARA
21 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leadership and cronyism in higher education View project

e-Government and Capacity Building for Social Inclusion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gy R. Hashim on 30 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2013 IEEE Business Engineering and Industrial Applications Colloquium (BEIAC)
Student Satisfaction with the Campus Bus Services at
UiTM Shah Alam, Malaysia
R. Hashim, S. Mohamad, S. Haron, F. Hassan, N.A. Hassan
Universiti Teknologi MARA
40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
A. Kasa
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract- Campus traffic congestion is a common occurrence
because of the factorial increase in enrolment every year.
Universities in the Klang Valley, Selangor, Malaysia have to
adjust to the situation to appease the stakeholders, in particular
the students. With affluent times, many students have their own
private vehicle which they drive or ride to school. However, most
public universities bar students’ vehicles from campus if they
were given on-campus housing and on-campus transport is
available. In the case of Universiti Teknologi MARA, due to the
limited number of dormitories, many students rent out.
Consequently, they drive their own vehicles to class or for lesser-
affluent ones, the buses and taxis are the popular choice to
commute. Thus, the influx of these vehicles is the main cause of
traffic congestion. This issue continues to be debatable between
the university administrators, the staff and the students. Also, the
limited number of parking spaces aggravates the situation, hence,
the need to plan for an efficient and effective bus system - the
campus hybrid transportation system. In doing so, it is important
to get the bus passenger’s feedbacks on the current transport
services provided. In this case, the units of analysis are the
students which form the majority of the bus passengers. Thus,
this paper reports the pilot survey on student satisfaction with
the campus bus service at the main campus. Through a cross-
sectional design, 78 completed responses were analyzed where
28.2% indicated dissatisfaction with the current bus service.
Furthermore, the comments from the respondents provided
further evidence that the transportation system on campus has to
be reformed. The paper concludes with suggestions for a hybrid
transportation system planning, implementation and policy that
would guide the success of the project for all stakeholders.
I. INTRODUCTION
In supporting the nation’s aspirations to strengthen higher
education and to be a regional education hub, universities in
Malaysia must ensure that the campus infrastructure is in place
to cater to the increasing population. For public universities,
ensuring the student’s ease of mobility on campus has been of
priority to the university administrators as posited by
Dell’Olio et al [1] where having a good infrastructure is not
enough unless it is complemented by an equally commendable
transportation system, including car service [2]. Generally
speaking, bus users have the right to demand for an efficient
and effective transport service as they are paying for it [1][3].
978-1-4673-5968-9/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 723
With the changing times and in keeping up with greening the
campuses [4][5], most universities encourage students to walk
or ride bicycles [6][7]. Besides easing traffic congestion, this
is also a good form of exercise. However, this suggestion has
not been favorable among the students citing heat, humidity
and excessive sweating as the reasons for opting to rides
buses.
Nonetheless, coming to the crux of the matter, improving the
bus system on campus has never been more emphasized than
now as the students have voiced their complaints to the
university administrators. This research project is timely in
delivering the initial implications of improving the shuttle
services on campus.
II. BACKGROUND
Bus services should become a solution for sustainable
transport in future whether on university campuses [8][9][10]
or other populated areas, for example, in cities [11][12] like
Shah Alam and Kuala Lumpur. In almost all university
campuses in Malaysia, students rely heavily on public
transport. Poor quality services of the campus bus services
will cause students to miss classes, waste precious time and
effort and inherently, discourage them to riding the shuttle
busses. Added to that, other discomforts such as tardiness of
bus services, unpleasant rides, issues on safety and
unsupportive bus personnel fuels the bus users’ negative
perception on campus-provided transport services.
Nonetheless, most students living on campus are highly
dependent on public transportation specifically the bus
services. For the main campus of Universiti Teknologi MARA
(UiTM) located in Shah Alam, Selangor, the university policy
states that students who are campus residents are not allowed
to bring their own vehicles as they can either walk or ride the
campus-plied transport. This ruling, if strictly enforced, helps
reduce traffic congestions on campus. Even though this may
seem a prejudiced ruling for the affluent students, the privilege
accorded to the lucky ones with regards to dormitories cannot
compete with the luxury of being close to their lecture halls.
On the other hand, those who chose to live off campus are
faced with other economic costs involved in maintaining their
private vehicles.
Hence, this study comes at an opportune moment where the
objective of this study is to determine the students’
satisfactions pertaining to the bus services currently plying the
campus routes.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
There are many research topics on public transport and the
level of customer satisfaction with regards to mobility and
commuting [11][12]. Transport need analysis conducted by
several countries reported that passengers are dissatisfied with
the public bus services for various reasons in particular
boredom caused by delays and waiting time [11][12].
Consequently, gauging the bus passengers’ attitudes is of great
import for relevant stakeholders as shown in the case of
Scotland, where the survey was aimed at monitoring the
changes in satisfaction levels [13]. The results were then fed
into other statistical monitoring of the bus and coach market,
however, the crucial implication of that research was that the
report will provide a more rounded picture of local bus
services that would enable future decision making and policy
development based on passengers’ needs and preferences [13].
In the same way, this study will impact similar stakeholders
particularly university administrators in planning the campus
transport services. Anyhow, the Buchanan et al’s survey also
covered several aspects of the Scottish local bus services,
using a recent ride experience, thus this enables passengers to
focus on their experiences when responding to questions
relating to their attitudes towards their bus service in general
[13]. Likewise, the method is employed for this study with a
different scope.
Henceforth, with regards to campus citizen’s travel options, a
relevant investigation was the one conducted by Eboli and
Mazulla [14]. They used a relatively homogeneous group of
respondents–university students–who commute by bus to and
from classes. Their findings showed that variables that are
important for bus passengers’ satisfaction are reliability,
frequency, information, promotion, personnel and complaint
[14]. Consequently, some of these aspects were taken into
consideration when constructing the survey instrument. Yet,
the bulk of statements in the form was replicated from a
research project by Felleson and Friman [15]. They
highlighted four general factors that influence passengers’
satisfaction on public transport in Europe. These factors
include; traffic supply, reliability and information, bus stop
and bus design for comfort and enjoyment of passengers; staff
skills, attitude and knowledge when dealing with passengers
and safety issues [15].
In identifying passenger transport satisfaction, other
considerations or options such as mode of mobility (light rail,
ect.) as posited by Dell'Olio et al [16] and Ibeas et al [17].
Planning for a sustainable and green campus should be on the
forefront of university administrators’ blueprint as the current
724
environment allows for better infrastructure to suit the
stakeholders’ needs. Furthermore, with a booming student
population, such hybrid transport infrastructure would
certainly address the concerns of traffic congestion on campus.
Besides, greening the area would result in a more conducive
environment for learning and other academic endeavors and
most importantly, our health and well-being.
Other pending issues that university administrators should
concentrate on would be the safety of students riding the
campus buses. As indicated by Muller et al [18] and Sanchez-
Soriano et al [19], any sophisticated transport system should
have proper safety measures for the passengers. For instance,
at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Mustapha et al
[20] reported the use of RFID & GIS to identify and monitor
the buses plying the UKM campus. This is because some
campuses allow public vehicles to pass through the university
parameters for shorter and easier access to the opposite side.
Coming back to the RFID and GIS, these technologies act as
hidden cameras capturing images which will later be stored in
a database for the university’s security department’s use in
case of unpredicted events.
On the topic of the students’ wellbeing on campus through
the use of technology, another safety precautionary aspect is
by monitoring the students’ travel behavior on campus (if the
population is small and manageable) as shown in Limanond et
al’s study [21]. If the students perceive that campus buses
could afford safety measures for them, then there is no reason
for them to drive their own vehicles to class. This holds true
for Universiti Teknologi MARA where night classes are
common as classrooms are limited because of the increase in
intake, hence, riding the buses would be satisfying to the
students if convenience, comfort, safety and punctuality are
assured.
For that reason, this paper will provide the empirical
evidence on UiTM’s students’ satisfaction with the current bus
services on campus. This is a pilot study but suffice is to say,
the findings would provide the necessary justification of
reliability and validity in the conduct of the actual study where
the sample size is targeted at 7000 students from 12
universities in the Klang Valley of Selangor.
IV. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
The research approach and methodology used are detailed
below:
A. Research Design
The research design employed is descriptive, cross-
sectional survey based on one case – Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM). As it is, this paper reports
the pilot study findings to ensure that the instrument
used is reliable whilst the data collected is valid.
 B. Sampling Technique and Sample Size Anything else below the mean score of 1.25 is considered as
“Low level of satisfaction”.
As the researchers are affiliated to UiTM, it is logical
and practical that the piloted study be conducted
there. Although UiTM has more than 100,000 TABLE 1. Satisfaction Level and Measurement Scale
students from 24 faculties at the Shah Alam campus,
only the students from the Faculty of Administrative Scale Mean Score
High level of satisfaction 3.75-5.00
Science and Policy Studies are targeted. For piloting Average 2.50-3.74
purposes and based on convenience sampling, 100 Below average 1.24- 2.49
students (the units of analysis) were given the Low level of satisfaction 0-1.25
questionnaire to be completed.
TABLE 2. Overall Student Satisfaction with UiTM Bus Service
C. Research Instrument
Item Mean Standard Deviation

As mentioned in the previous section, a survey form Students Overall satisfaction 3.07 .834
or questionnaire was used to collect data from the
sample respondents. The instrument is divided into
two parts where Part A contains the demographic
profiling whilst Part B has 29 statements listed for Table 2 illustrates the mean for overall satisfaction which is
obtaining responses set on a scale of one (extremely 3.07, that is, there is a slightly above-average satisfaction with
dissatisfied) to five (extremely satisfied). the current bus services.

Also, two open-ended questions were inserted to
glean the comments and opinions of the respondents
on improving the campus bus services. The
instrument was piloted in the month of November
2012. Consequently, the reliability analysis for the
instrument resulted in an Cronbach Alpha coefficient
of 0.820, suggesting that the 29 items have relatively
high internal consistency.
Next, Table 3 highlights the frequency and percentage on
overall student satisfaction with the university bus services. As
indicated, 27% of the respondents stated that they were
dissatisfied with the bus services; 35% were not sure whether
they like or dislike the bus services provided to them followed
by 37% of the respondents acknowledging their satisfaction
with the on-campus bus services. Interestingly, one respondent
was extremely dissatisfied with the campus bus service.

D. Research Question and Hypothesis
The research question attempted for this study is,
“What is the level of student satisfaction towards the
campus bus services? Therefore, the hypothesis as
aligned is:
H0: Students are not satisfied with the campus bus
service
HA: Students are satisfied with the campus bus
service
Henceforth, the next section will illustrate the findings from
the descriptive analysis of the data collected.
V. FINDINGS
As previously stated, questionnaires were administered to
100 students, from which 78 completed ones were usable. For
starters, Table 1 shows the satisfaction level and measure scale
of the statements where the analysis of it is illustrated in Table
1. The mean score in Table 1 showed the high level of
satisfaction ranging from 3.75 to 5.00; followed by average
satisfaction of 2.50 to 3.74. On the other hand, for the scale of
“below average”, the mean scores are between 1.24 to 2.49.
TABLE 3. Percentage of Students Responses for Overall satisfaction
with the UiTM Bus Service
Frequency (n) Percentage
Extremely Dissatisfied 1 1.3
Dissatisfied 21 26.9
Not sure 27 34.6
Satisfied 29 37.2
Extremely Satisfied 0 0
Moving on, Table 4 lists out the mean scores for the 27
items used to measure the student satisfaction with the campus
bus services. The highest mean score recorded is the bus
condition which is 3.41. ( see table 4) This is followed by item
“cleanliness of the bus“ (mean score equals 3.34) and the item
“Directness of routes” (mean=3.31). “Value for money” was
ranged high at 3.15 as well as “Personal safety on the bus” and
“Demeanor of bus driver” at 3.13. Other items with a mean
score of above 3.0 include “State of campus roads, street
lighting, accessibility of bust stop, provision and visibility of
handrails, safety at the bus stop, driving quality,
temperature/humidity in the bus” and “behavior of other
passengers”. Only 13 items were ranked below the mean score
of 3.00 which are, “ease of boarding/alighting the bus,
reliability of bus service, availability of seats on the bus, ease
of paying fare, the condition of the bus stop, frequency of bus
service, cleanliness at bus stop, information prior to travel,

725
information on the bus, availability of storage on the bus, with the bus services. The 27 items in Table 4 indicate that the
shelter provision at the bus stop, punctuality and waiting level of satisfaction of all items except one that is “waiting
time”. Lastly, it is important to note that two items (ease of time” receive an average score. This shows that there are
paying fare and shelter provision at the bus stop) have the much room for improvement so that the passengers are
same standard deviation of 1.00 (σ=1.00), that is, the two satisfied with the quality of the campus bus services.
items are more spread out compared to the other 27 items.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
TABLE 4. Mean Score for Student satisfaction with Campus Bus services
First of all, there are some limitations to the study; one of
Mean Std. which is the small sample size but for a pilot study, this
Items
Deviation amount is sufficient. The second limitation is the quantitative
Condition of bus 3.41 .84 research design. A qualitative approach can generate more in
Cleanliness of Bus 3.34 .83
depth understanding and knowledge of these research
Directness of routes 3.31 .88
Value for money 3.15 .99 objectives. Therefore, in the actual study, both approaches will
Personal safety on bus 3.13 .75 be attempted.
Demeanor (behavior) of bus driver 3.13 .92
State of campus roads 3.10 .86 Anyhow, based on the preliminary findings some
Street Lighting 3.10 .89 suggestions for universities to consider in contemplating and
Accessibility of bus stop 3.10 .83
Provision and visibility of handrails 3.09 .72
enhancing the campus shuttle service for a hybrid transport
Safety at bus stop 3.08 .90 system are
Quality of driving 3.06 .97
Temperature / humidity 3.01 .95 i) Planning
Behavior of other passengers 3.01 .86
Ease of boarding-alighting bus 2.99 .81
Reliability of Bus Service 2.95 .85
• Plan and focus on outsourcing the vehicles
Availability of seats on the bus 2.95 .77 whilst paying special attention to the
Ease of paying fare 2.92 1.00 operators’ requirements, that is, make it
Condition of bus stop 2.92 .90 mandatory for them to use environment-
Frequency of service 2.91 .87 friendly vehicles
Cleanliness at bus stop 2.87 .92
Information prior to travel 2.86 .88
• List the justifications for operating hybrid
Information at Bus 2.83 .93 vehicles. One aspect is towards a green
Availability of storage on the bus 2.78 .92 campus.
Shelter provision at the bus stop 2.77 1.00 • Campus bus users comprise the younger
Punctuality 2.54 .92 population, mainly the students who are also
Waiting Time 2.46 .88
the stakeholders, thus, listen and compile
their feedbacks as they know what they
want. Having an ambitious project is one
Finally, the T-test score (see Table 5) was conducted on the matter but having a good return of
overall bus service and there is sufficient evidence to reject the investment should be more practical.
null hypothesis (p < 0.5) which means that the students are
satisfied with the bus service. ii) Implementation
TABLE 5. T-test score • In the implementation part, ensure that the
buses have a service life of seven years, that
Test Value = 0 is, only allow a maximum of seven years for
95% Confidence the buses to be on the road. After that, new
t df Sig. (2- Mean Interval of the buses with hybrid engines should be
tailed) Diff Difference procured as this would ensure better returns
Lower Upper of investment.
Overall
3.0769 • Consequently, the older buses should be
bus 32.589 77 .000 2.8889 3.2649 phased out gradually when new licenses are
2
service
applied for or contracts are renewed.
• Allow the bus operators a suitable timeframe
VI. ANALYSIS for phasing out as these are assets which
require the compliance of certain
The overall level of satisfaction with the campus bus service government procedures.
at the main campus is at the average level. Only 37.2% of the • Also, as the university campus is a precious
respondents are satisfied with bus services. Twenty-nine (29) area, it is worthwhile for the government to
of the respondents from the total sample of 78 are not happy subsidize the procurement of buses (from

726
 conventional to green buses) if the operator
is unable to purchase them because of
financial limitations. All requisitions for bus
purchases should be under the university’s
autonomy.
• Universities are actually unique, real-life
laboratories catering to the various
educational clusters, particularly in science
and technology, and engineering. Innovative
attempts to convert traditional engines and
eco-friendly vehicles should be encouraged.
• Universities should take this as an
opportunity and to enhance the current
transport system towards greener campus
and share with other universities the success
stories on campus greening. Universities that
continuously sustain the green campus
agenda should be used as the benchmark for
other higher institutions to emulate.
iii) Policy
• The university administrators should
implement and enforce a policy for a green
and sustainable campus. The health and
well-being of campus citizens should be of
priority and a conducive place for the
stakeholders.
• Other stakeholders, in particular the
university alumni should be encouraged to
invest in their alma mater for a greener
campus. They should be exemplars for the
next generation of graduates and leaders.
To conclude, there is a need to examine the campus bus
services so that the users are more satisfied with the shuttle
services. This study shows that “waiting time” is the lowest
ranked variable, thus an in-depth investigation on this is
recommended. There are many possibilities that cause the
“delay” such as limited buses during peak hours. Overall, the
29 items in Table 4 are beacons signifying the urgency in
improving the existing campus bus system. Although the
findings revealed that the students are satisfied with the
current services, the underlying issues such as quality services
need to be upgraded to sustain the existing passengers and
attract more students to ride the buses rather than driving their
own private vehicles. This is turn, will reduce traffic
congestion on campus and create well-being amongst the
university citizens.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank the Research Management Institute
(RMI), Universiti Teknologi MARA for providing the
Research Intensive Faculty (RIF) grant to conduct the initial
study. We are especially grateful to the Bumiputera Agenda
Steering Unit (TERAJU), Prime Minister’s Department-
727
View publication stats
Malaysia, for the additional funding in the conduct of a
sizeable-scoped research project.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Dell'Olio, P. Ibeas, & P. Cecin, “The quality of service desired by
public transport users”, Transport Policy, vol. 18,1, pp. 217-227, 2011.
[2] Anonymous. (Oct 2007). Car Service to Ease Campus Congestion. New
Haven Business Times, 14.
[3] C.J.L. Balsas, Transportation and Sustainable Campus Communities:
Issues, Examples, Solutions. Journal of the American Planning
Association, (72)3, 369-370, 2006.
[4] P. Barla, N. Lapierre, R.A. Daziano & M. Herrmann, “Reducing
Automobile Dependency on Campus : Evaluating the Impact TDM
Using Stated Preferences, available at,
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/121311/2/CREATE2012-3.pdf,
2012.
[5] Business Wire, “Transportation safety technologies helps Miami
University reduce engine idling, emissions in campus service vehicles”,
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/
docview/901895258?accountid=42518, 2011.
[6] E. Barata, L. Cruz & J.P. Ferreira, “Parking at the UC Campus:
Problems and solutions”, Cities, 28(5), 406-413, 2011.
[7] D.R. Kenney, “How to solve campus parking problems without adding
more parking”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(29), B22-B23,
2004.
[8] H. Beyaztas, “Impact of campus physical characteristics on university
sustainability performance”, Master’s thesis. Retrieved at,
http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/docview/10184
10907?accountid=42518, 2012.
[9] J. Brown, D.B. Hess and D. Shoup, “Fare-Free Public Transit at
Universities: An Evaluation”, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 23, 69-82, 2003.
[10] Harnack, L. (2010). Transportation: On campus and off. Mass Transit,
36(2), 16-19.
[11] D. Faulk and M. Hicks, “The Economic Effects of Bus Transit in Small
Cities”, Public Finance Review, 38(5), 513-539, 2010.
[12] C.A. Nash, “Economics of Public Transport”, Longman: Essex,
England, 1992.
[13] C. Buchanan, et al. “Bus passenger satisfaction”, available at,
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47251/0026615.pdf, 2004.
[14] I. Eboli and G. Mazulla , “Service Quality Attributes affecting Customer
Satisfaction for Bus Transit”, Journal of Public Transport, vol. 10, 3,
21-34, 2007.
[15] M.F. Felleson and M. Friman, “Perceived Satisfaction with Public
Transport Service in Nine European Cities”, Journal of Transport
Research Forum, vol. 47, 3, 93-103, 2008.
[16] L. Dell'Olio, A. Ibeas, A. Dominguez & F. Gonzalez, “Passenger
preference analysis: Light rail transit or bus versus car”, Transport,
27(3), 276-285, 2012.
[17] A. Ibeas, L. Dell'Olio & R.B. Montequín, “Citizen involvement in
promoting sustainable mobility”, Journal of Transport Geography, vol.
19,4, 475-487, 2011.
[18] P.J. Muller, S.E. Young & N. Michael, “Personal rapid transit safety and
security on university campus”, Transportation Research Record, 95-
103, 2006.
[19] J. Sanchez-Soriano, N. Llorca, A. Meca, E. Molina & M. Pulido, “An
integrated transport system for Alacant's students. Annals of Operations
Research, 109(1-4), 41-60, 2002.
[20] A.M. Mustapha, M.A. Hannan, A. Hussain & H. BAsri, “UKM campus
bus identification and monitoring using RFID & GIS”, 2009 IEEE
Student Conference on R&D (SCORED 2009), Serdang, Malaysia,
September 16-17, 2009.
[21] T. Limanond, T. Butsingkorn & C. Chermkhunthod, “Travel behavior of
university students who live on campus: A case study of a rural
university in Asia:, Transport Policy, 181), 163-171, 2011.