# An Integrated Decision Support Model for Evaluating Public Transport Quality
## 3 Results and Discussion  
The AHP-BWM model was applied based on the size of matrices to evaluate more effectively the supply quality factors related to public transportation. Firstly, the analytic hierarchy process used for the hierarchical structure contains one (\(4\times 4\)) matrix, five (\(3\times 3\)) matrices, and two (\(2\times 2\)) matrices. The BWM was applied in the second level for the (\(5\times 5\)) matrix to compute the weight scores; this method helps us to perform only seven comparisons for the (\(5\times 5\)) matrix instead of 10 comparisons based on AHP. Furthermore, the reliability of the pairwise comparisons consistency in AHP and BWM was checked, and it was acceptable for all of them. Table 7 presents the weights and scores results for stakeholders in sequence (passengers, public transport experts, and municipal officials). An AHP survey was conducted in Amman, Jordan, to examine participants' views on the supply quality of the public bus transport system. The optimal purpose was to provide Amman Municipality with  
Figure 2: Steps of the proposed Best Worst Method–Analytic Hierarchy Process (BWM–AHP) model. a comprehensive evaluation approach for ranking public bus transportation development project proposals from the aspect of public and governmental needs. Participant groups consisted of three groups (passengers, public transport experts, and municipal officials). These three groups are believed to be most important to the success of the public transport system, especially the first group (passengers) because if they were satisfied, then the demand will be as expected and maybe more, consequently the system will succeed. The properties of the conducted survey based on the model follow:  
* Two-hundred ten evaluators from different groups (5 municipal officials + 5 public transport experts in the relevant field + 200 public passengers) participated. The participants' numbers are clearly not statistically representative, nevertheless all MCDM techniques (including AHP) give a deeper insight based on pairwise comparisons than simple statistical surveys [31]. * Participants were randomly selected; the five public transport experts work in the transportation field and possess sufficient experience, while the five municipal officials work in Amman municipality and have enough experience. * The survey data were collected during January and February 2020, and analyzed in March 2020. * The approximate time of evaluating the questionnaire for passenger participants was 25 min while for public transport experts and municipal officials it took approximately 20 min; the results were highly consistent. A mentor helped both groups in the evaluation, which resulted in relatively good consistency with CR less than 0.1 for three participating groups. Based on the final weight scores for the first level (Table 7) it is visible that \"Transport quality C2\" improvement initiations, such as improvement in physical comfort, mental comfort, and safety of travel to raise passenger satisfaction, might be effective in the case of Amman. Municipal officials, seeing that improving the \"Supply quality C1\" is the top priority, may consider purchasing new buses to raise municipal officials' satisfaction, which might be effective. But public transport experts have chosen \"Tractability C3\" as a top priority to be improved in the first place. This schism between the three stakeholders is interesting and leading to an optimal solution. There is no unified decision between the three decision makers on any one of the factors to improve in the first level. Service quality ranks third among the supply quality factors from the passengers' point of view, while the public transport experts evaluated it in the eight position among the supply quality factors, which means that C1 is not the priority to be improved from their point of view, as shown in Figure 3.