## 4 Results
### Factor Analysis

Table 3: SWVL—Principal axis factor analysis of the questionnaire items (Varimax rotation). members and satisfaction ambience (rho = 0.072, \(p\) = 0.216), and education level and satisfaction with ambience (rho = \(-\)0.109, \(p\) = 0.061). _Airlift (Choice B)_  
A two-factor solution was obtained based on eigenvalues >1 criterion, which explained about 59.86% of the total variance. In addition, the kink in the scree plot (Figure 4) shows that it is adequate to choose a two-factor solution. Heavily cross loaded items were removed. The factor loadings are presented in Table 4. The items with loadings below 0.5 were removed. The sampling adequacy was satisfactory (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure = 0.924), [PERSON]'s test of sphericity was significant (0.000), and the determinant of the matrix was 0.001. The first axis explained 31.281%of the total variance. The six items loaded on this factor were travel time savings, complaint handling, fare collection system, route alignment or coverage, speed, and incentive system. Therefore, this factor can be referred to as \"service-attributes.\" The [PERSON]'s alpha for these six items was 0.892, suggesting that the items have high internal consistency. The second axis explained 28.583% of the total variance. The five items loaded on this axis were safety, security, cleanliness, affordability, and environmental impacts. Therefore, this factor may be referred to as the \"ambience\" of the bus. [PERSON]'s alpha was adequate for these items, i.e., >0.7. Again, factor scores were not normally distributed; therefore, nonparametric tests such as Spearman's correlation, Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal Wallis test were used for further statistical analyses. The effects of demographical attributes on the underlying factors are presented below. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Service Attributes** & **Ambiance of the Bus** \\ \hline Complaint-handling & 0.698 & \\ Fare Collection System & 0.688 & \\ Route Alignment or Coverage & 0.682 & \\ Speed & 0.672 & \\ Travel Time Saving & 0.668 & \\ Incentive System & 0.651 & \\ Affordability & & 0.712 \\ Safety & & 0.709 \\ Security & & 0.704 \\ Environmental Impacts & & 0.684 \\ Cleanliness & & 0.616 \\ \hline \% of variance explained & 31.281 & 28.583 \\ \hline [PERSON]’s alpha & 0.892 & 0.882 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Airlift—Principal axis factor analysis of the questionnaire items (Varimax rotation). Figure 4: Scree plot for the EFA (principal axis factoring with Varimax rotation)—Airlift. Satisfaction with service-attributes (factor 1) was not statistically significantly between men and women (ZU = \(-\)1.806, \(p\) = 0.071), younger and older age groups (ZU = \(-\)0.732, \(p\) = 0.464), single and married (ZU = \(-\)1.095, \(p\) = 0.273), those with a driving license and those without (ZU = \(-\)0.260, \(p\) = 0.795), car owners and non-car owners (ZU = \(-\)0.133, \(p\) = 0.894), and motorcycle owners and non-motorcycle owners (ZU = \(-\)3.330, \(p\) = 0.001). Similarly, satisfaction with ambience (factor 2) was not statistically different between genders (ZU = \(-\)1.499, \(p\) = 0.134), younger and older age groups (ZU = \(-\)1.170, \(p\) = 0.242), single and married (ZU = \(-\)1.514, \(p\) = 0.130), those with a driving license and those without (ZU = \(-\)0.374, \(p\) = 0.709), and car owners and non-car owners (ZU = \(-\)1.306, \(p\) = 0.191). Satisfaction with ambience was statistically significant different between motorcycle owners and non-motorcycle owners (ZU = \(-\)2.052, \(p\) = 0.040). No statistically significant correlation was found between income and satisfaction with service-attributes attributes (rho = 0.013, \(p\) = 0.856), and family members and satisfaction with service-attributes (rho = \(-\)0.001, \(p\) = 0.986). There was a very weak significant correlation between education level and satisfaction with service-attributes (rho = \(-\)0.174, \(p\) = 0.013).