NEEDS, IMPACTS, AND COMPENSATION MEASURES FROM TRAIN CANCELLATIONS OF THE STATE RAILWAY OF THAILAND
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to 1) study the needs and impacts from the cancellation of public services by the State Railway of Thailand, 2) analyze and compare the impacts on service users from the cancellation of public services, and 3) analyze alternative public service measures. A mixed-method research approach was used. Quantitative research involved a sample of 384 train users, selected through non-probability snowball sampling. Qualitative research included focus group discussions with 7 purposively selected participants, consisting of 3 train operation executives and 4 train operation staff. The research instrument was a questionnaire with an IOC ranging from 0.80 to 1.00 and a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.75. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
The research findings revealed that 1) service users wanted the SRT to study the potential impacts on users every time before implementing a train cancellation policy ( = 4.05), followed by publicizing train cancellations widely across all channels (
= 3.93), adjusting the schedule of replacement trains (
= 3.74), and reinstating cancelled trains (
= 3.69), respectively. As for the impacts of train cancellations, most service users were moderately affected (44.7%). The impacts included extended travel time (20.9%), train schedules not matching travel needs (20.5%). The groups most affected were the general public (47.0%), followed by students (41.4%). The impacts led service users to switch to other modes of transportation at a moderate level (41.2%), and replacement trains made it impossible for passengers to travel as originally scheduled (44.9%). Moreover, 2) service users on different train lines, train types, and frequencies were affected differently with statistical significance at the .05 level. Different types of trains affected service users differently, with a Gamma value of .483, indicating that local train service users were affected more than users of other train types. In addition, 3) the guidelines or measures that the State Railway of Thailand implemented included arranging alternative trains, setting new operating times, and scheduling new passenger boarding and alighting times at stations along the way, which helped reduce the impacts on service users.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความทุกเรื่องได้รับการตรวจความถูกต้องทางวิชาการโดยผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ ทรรศนะและข้อคิดเห็นในบทความ Journal of Global of Perspectives in Humanities and Social Sciences (J-GPHSS) มิใช่เป็นทรรศนะและความคิดของผู้จัดทำจึงมิใช่ความรับผิดชอบของบัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏวไลยอลงกรณ์ ในพระบรมราชูปถัมภ์ กองบรรณาธิการไม่สงวนสิทธิ์การคัดลอก แต่ให้อ้างอิงแหล่งที่มา
References
Boin, A. & Lodge, M. (2020). Responding to the COVID - sipkāo crisis: a policy capacity perspective. Public Administration Review. 80(5), 763-769.
Bunyaratphan, T. (2006). ānphatthanā khunnaphāp kānbō̜rihān čhatkān phāk rat: nǣokhit mai khō̜ng kānčhatkān phāk rat [Developing the quality of public administration: a new concept of public administration]. Modern Management Journal. 4(1), 15-27.
Bunsin, O. (2016). rāingān kānwičhai khwāmphưngphō̜čhai khō̜ng phūchai bō̜rikān læ phǣnkān phatthanā bō̜rikān khō̜ng kān rotfai hǣng prathēt Thai [Research report on satisfaction of service users and plans to improve the services of the State Railway of Thailand]. Songkhla: Thaksin University.
Cochran, W. G. (1953). Sampling Techiques. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
European Commission. (2021). Smart and Sustainable Mobility Strategy. Brussels: European Union.
Kalyanamitra, W. (2016). rotfai Thai [Thai Railway]. All way. 1 (April) pp. 4-5.
Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus Group Interviewing. A chapter in The Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 4rd edition. Edited by: J. Wholey, H. Hattry, and K. Newcomer. Josey-Bass: San Francisco.
Meynhardt, T. (2021). Public value: Value creation in the eyes of society. Public Money & Management. 41(1), 3–6.
Moore, M. H. (2019). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. (Updated ed.). Harvard University Press.
OECD. (2020). Government at a Glance 2020. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2021). Building Resilient Public Services. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., A. & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A Multiple- Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing. 64, 1(Spring), 41-50.
Parliamentary Budget Bureau. (2019). nǣothāng kānphatthanā rabop khonsong khō̜ng prathēt [Guidelines for the development of the country's transportation system]. Bangkok: Printing Office.
Tenner, A. R. & Detoro, I. J. (1992). Total Quality Management: There Step to Continuous Improvement. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
The State Railway of Thailand. (2015). nưngrō̜isipkāo pī kān rotfai hǣng prathēt Thai [119 years of the State Railway of Thailand]. Railway Samphan Journal. 1, 1-35.
UNDESA. (2022). E-Government Survey 2022: The Future of Digital Government. United Nations.
Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. (2020). Service - dominant logic 2020. Journal of Service Research. 23(4), 455–472.
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J. & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
