User Feedback of

Ride-Sharing Services
in Dhaka for the
Month of April, 2019
to Understand
Customer Preferences
through SPSS Data
Analysis

Md. Asif Imrul | Masum Alvi Chowdhury

Maria Rafique | Swapnil Dutta

Afnan Mostafa
May 12, 2019

Mr. Avijit Mallik

Lecturer,

Institute of Business Administration,

University of Dhaka.

Subject: Submission of Term Paper.

Dear Sir,

We hereby submit the term paper on “User Feedback of Ride-Sharing Services in Dhaka
for the Month of April, 2019 to Understand Customer Preferences through SPSS Data
Analysis”.

During our research on this term paper, we came across different issues regarding ride
sharing services relating to various factors. From gender based preferences of the
services to the income level, the choices vary and sometimes are able to be defined
insignificant to the factors described We conducted a survey on ride sharing services
among the users of our country to ossify how things can be incorporated and predict
the scope ahead in future.

We will be happy to assist you with any concern regarding this issue. We are hoping for
your appreciation.

Sincerely Yours,

Md. Asif Imrul (02)

Masum Alvi Chowdhury (05)

Maria Rafique (19)

Swapnil Dutta (41)

Afnan Mostafa (57)

Batch: MBA 61D

1| P a g e
User Feedback of Ride-Sharing Services in Dhaka for the Month of
April, 2019 to Understand Customer Preferences through SPSS Data
Analysis

2| P a g e
 Declaration

We do hereby declare that this paper entitled “User Feedback of Ride-Sharing Services
in Dhaka for the Month of April, 2019 to Understand Customer Preferences through
SPSS Data Analysis” has been done by ourselves under the supervision of Mr. Avijit
Mallik, Lecturer, Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka.

We do hereby declare that any part of it has not been accepted elsewhere for the award
of any degree from any other institutions.

Name & Contribution Percentage Signature

Md. Asif Imrul (02)

Contribution: 20%
Masum Alvi Chowdhury (05)
Contribution: 20%
Maria Rafique (19)
Contribution: 20%
Swapnil Dutta (41)
Contribution: 20%
Afnan Mostafa (57)
Contribution: 20%

Mr. Avijit Mallik

Lecturer, Institute of Business Administration,

University of Dhaka.

i| P a g e
 Acknowledgements

First and foremost, praise and thanks to the Almighty for His showers of blessings

throughout our work on this term paper to complete it successfully.

We would like to thank our course teacher, Mr. Avijit Mallik, Lecturer, IBA, University

of Dhaka for approving this topic.

We are grateful to our parents for their love, prayers and preparing us for the future.

ii| P a g e
 Abstract

Ridesharing can be defined as an arrangement between a vehicle owner and a person

who enters a pickup location and destination through an app or website, for a fee.
Ridesharing services have been popping into one’s mind whenever it comes to safe
rides, minimal cost and time constraints. In 2016, these services have initiated in
Bangladesh with a view to grasping a large amount of working population. The services
started becoming popular in the city infamous for traffic congestions and anarchy in the
public transport sector. Since there are quite a few variables as to how efficiently
ridesharing services depend, some of the variables have been considered in this paper
to get a view on their interdependence. Correlations between harassment and gender,
preference and recommendations, safety and reliability and also between cost and
reliability have been shown in this paper. A predictive model has been developed using
the multiple regression analysis to get how the variables vary interdependently. A
survey was conducted on various age groups to understand the demography on their
ridesharing experiences.

iii| P a g e
Table of contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Objective ...............................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Methodology......................................................................................................................................................1

1.4 Hypothesis ..........................................................................................................................................................2

1.5 Limitations ..........................................................................................................................................................3

2 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................4

2.2 Sampling Methods .........................................................................................................................................4

2.3 Sample Frame ....................................................................................................................................................5

2.4 Sample Size .........................................................................................................................................................5

2.5 Questionnaire Development .....................................................................................................................6

2.6 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................7

2.7 Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................................................8

3 SPSS Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Descriptive Analysis of Variables ..........................................................................................................8

3.2 Frequency Analysis of Variables ......................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1 Frequency Analysis of Nominal and Ordinal Variables ................................................ 13

3.2.2 Frequency Analysis of Scale Variables ........................................................................................ 25

3.3 Analysis Based on Multiple Regression .......................................................................................... 30

iv| P a g e
 3.3.1 Regression Analysis of Reliability Based on Seven Variables .................................... 30

3.3.2 Regression Analysis of Reliability Based on Two Variables ....................................... 34

3.4 Analysis Based on One-Sample Test ................................................................................................. 37

3.4.1 One-Sample Test of Last Month Usage ................................................................................... 37

3.5 Analysis Based on Two-Sample Test ................................................................................................ 38

3.5.1 Two-Sample Test of Harassment Opinion ............................................................................ 38

3.5.2 Two-Sample Test of Public Transport vs. Ride-sharing service preference ....... 39

3.5.3 Two-Sample Test of Safety Perspective vs. Monthly Income ..................................... 40

3.6 Analysis Based on Chi-Square Test ................................................................................................... 42

3.6.1 Chi-Square Test of Safety Perspective vs. Monthly Income ........................................ 42

3.6.2 Chi-Square Test of Education vs. Problem Facing ............................................................ 44

3.6.3 Chi-Square Test of Ridesharing Services Supplanting Taxi services vs. Public

Transportation Preference .......................................................................................................................... 45

4 Findings and Results .......................................................................................................................................... 47

5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 49

6 Recommendation .................................................................................................................................................. 50

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52

v| P a g e
List of Tables

Table 3. 1 Descriptive Analysis of Variables ........................................................................ 10

Table 3. 2 Frequency Table of Nominal and Ordinal Variables ......................................... 13

Table 3. 3 Frequency Table of Scale Variables ..................................................................... 14

Table 3. 4 Frequency Table of Gender .................................................................................. 15

Table 3. 5 Frequency Table of Education.............................................................................. 16

Table 3. 6 Frequency Table of Vocation ................................................................................ 17

Table 3. 7 Frequency Table of Ride Sharing Experience Probability ................................. 18

Table 3. 8 Frequency Table of Ride Sharing Apps ............................................................... 19

Table 3. 9 Frequency Table of Problem Facing Probability ................................................ 20

Table 3. 10 Frequency Table of Problem Types ................................................................... 21

Table 3. 11 Frequency Table of Reasons behind Non-Usage .............................................. 22

Table 3. 12 Frequency Table of Public Transport Preference.............................................. 23

Table 3. 13 Frequency Table of Ridesharing Service Recommendation ............................ 24

Table 3. 14 Analysis of Age Limits........................................................................................ 25

Table 3. 15 Frequency Table of Age Limits .......................................................................... 25

Table 3. 16 Analysis of Monthly Income Ranges ................................................................. 26

Table 3. 17 Frequency Table of Monthly Income Ranges ................................................... 27

Table 3. 18 Analysis of Usage Repetition ............................................................................. 28

Table 3. 19 Frequency Table of Usage Repetition ................................................................ 29

vi| P a g e
List of Figures:

Figure 3. 1 Frequency Polygon of No. of Uses Last Month ................................................ 12

Figure 3. 2 Bar Chart of Gender Frequency ......................................................................... 15

Figure 3. 3 Bar Chart of Education Frequency ..................................................................... 16

Figure 3. 4 Bar Chart of Vocation Frequency ....................................................................... 17

Figure 3. 5 Bar Chart of Ride Sharing Experience Probability Frequency......................... 18

Figure 3. 6 Bar Chart of Ride Sharing Apps Frequency ...................................................... 19

Figure 3. 7 Bar Chart of Problem Facing Probability Frequency ........................................ 20

Figure 3. 8 Bar Chart of Problem Types Frequency ............................................................ 21

Figure 3. 9 Bar Chart of Reasons behind Non-Usage Frequency ....................................... 22

Figure 3. 10 Bar Chart of Public Transport Preference Frequency ..................................... 23

Figure 3. 11 Bar Chart of Ridesharing Service Recommendation Frequency ................... 24

Figure 3. 12 Histogram of Age Limits .................................................................................. 26

Figure 3. 13 Histogram of Monthly Income Ranges ............................................................ 28

Figure 3. 14 Histogram of Usage Repetition ........................................................................ 30

vii| P a g e
Executive Summary

In recent times, Ride-sharing services have gained much popularity owing to their cost

effectiveness, availability, security, readiness to user demands. Also under the current

traffic situation in major cities ride-sharing services have become a common solution to

the public. We have observed through survey questionnaire the reason for the surge in

ride-sharing service’s popularity and various issues regarding it. We have also stated

some recommendations by studying the interdependence among various variables such

as cost, reliability, harassment due to information access etc. We conducted the survey

in the month of April with a sample size of 100 which is close to our calculated sample

size of 86.

We have found cost and safety variables to be significant in predicting reliability of

customers preference on using ride-sharing services. It is also observed that the mean

number of using ride-sharing applications is not different from 16. We have observed

that problem faced in ride-sharing services varies from male to female. Education level

and problems faced are not related. It is also found that ride-sharing service

supplanting taxi services is related to public transportation preference. Within safety

and costliness, at least one of the variables is significant with reliability. All of these

indications lead to the recommendations that show the new trends and break down the

stereotypes regarding a lot of issues in the ride sharing services. Studying their

interdependence we have developed a predictive model which predicts reliability

against the other 7 variables.

viii| P a g e
1 Introduction

1.1 Objective

The objective of this term paper is to discuss the scope and customer preferences of ride

sharing services in Bangladesh based on various factors of human life. Ride-sharing

services in Bangladesh have become popular as well as highly appreciated within a

short period of time. Though new, this service acquires and possesses some positive

and negative sides that either attract or repel the users. The wide variations of ride-

sharing applications drive the choices and preferences too. It is now growing more and

more creating potential competitors to the public transportation system. This paper

points out the relation of ride-sharing experiences in accordance with gender, age,

education level, vocation and so on. Based on the SPSS data analysis, the records are

found and future recommendations and predictions are depicted.

1.2 Scope

The scope of this paper is limited to the undergraduate and postgraduate students of

Bangladesh on the month of April, 2019. It covers the data of a specific generation

frequently using wide variety of ride-sharing applications. Survey has been conducted

only for Dhaka City of Bangladesh.

1.3 Methodology

To obtain customer review and feedback of ride-sharing applications, public opinion

from a varied and diversified audience is needed to form a successful interpretation

about how the people in Bangladesh receive the services. A questionnaire has been

constructed in order to collect these opinions and the audience was reached digitally

1| P a g e
(through Google form). The response of the month of April, 2019 has been recorded

and presented graphically in this paper. The data collected from the survey were

analyzed using the IBM SPSS package.

Descriptive and inferential statistical tools were used for analysis. Descriptive Statistics

such as Mean and Standard Deviation were calculated from the 22 simple variables and

used to identify the impact of various factors affecting customer choices.

1.4 Hypothesis

Hypothesis testing was done on a number of dependent variables like user choices,
outcomes and preferences of rides and apps. One and two sample T tests, chi-square tests
and multiple linear regressions. All the hypotheses were done as two-tail tests and SL was
determined to be 0.95 for all tests. The hypotheses that were tested are as follows:

1. Reliability of ride sharing services is dependent on a number of factors, like

Safety with reference to public transport, Handiness of apps, Costliness,
Demeanor of the driver, Supplanting of taxi services, Harassment by information
access, Female’s fear of travelling alone.
2. Mean no. of times the apps were used last month is equal to 16.
3. Harassment Opinion from males and females do not differ.
4. App use preference differs from males to females.
5. Problems faced regarding the apps do not differ from males to females.
6. Education level and problem facing are not related.
7. Ridesharing services supplanting taxi services is not related to public
transportation preference.
8. Reliability of ride sharing services is dependent on safety and cost of the
ridesharing apps.

2| P a g e
1.5 Limitations

1. The survey has been limited to a cluster of undergraduate and postgraduate

students, mostly using the applications.

2. It has been conducted only in Dhaka city of Bangladesh

3. Limited resources have caused the contraction of the boundaries of survey.

4. It has been conducted for only one month that may cause potential error in the

results.

5. Accessibility restraints to variety of users of the applications may cause

deviation of the findings.

6. Most of the responses were collected through Google form and so majority of

the responses are voluntary. This does not reflect the overall state of opinions

from the mass population.

3| P a g e
2 Methodology

2.1 Data Collection

Data was primarily collected through the help of Google forms. A questionnaire was

formed beforehand and was carefully vetted. A Google form was constructed based on

the questionnaire and was circulated to the respondents. Some of the respondents were

also interviewed in person at Nilkhet, Azimpur and University of Dhaka. The

questionnaire consisted of some questions regarding personal background. The other

questions were rated on a 5-point on a Likert scale. The questionnaire can be viewed in

the Appendix.

A total of 100 responses were recorded from people with different backgrounds,

genders, vocations and income classes. Of them were male and were female.

The data collected from the respondents were analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics software

version 23. From descriptive analysis like mean, variance or pie, bar charts (for nominal

data) to various regression and relationship tests were conducted to determine

dependency/independence between variables.

Problematic questions such as leading, loaded and double-barreled questions have been

avoided as much as possible. However, some of the questions may have undesired

impacts on the responses.

2.2 Sampling Methods

This report aims to do a qualitative analysis of the data collected to understand the current
scenario of career choice among business graduates and the factors that affect their choice
of careers. As the majority of the users of ridesharing apps are frequent internet users, we
thought it would be appropriate to approach them through internet. This is why we

4| P a g e
developed Google form questionnaire and circulated it through internet to reach our
respondents.

2.3 Sample Frame

The sample frame contains people from various sectors and backgrounds. We did not

tend to collect responses from a single, targeted set of respondents. In fact, our goal was

to diversify the target respondents as much as possible. However, most of our recorded

responses were collected through online and voluntarily, and a majority of the

respondents were our friends and relatives and colleagues. Hence there has been some

form of unintentional clusterization of data.

2.4 Sample Size

The population has been estimated to be a population size of 600000 calculated as 30%

of population of Dhaka City. This has been done by keeping the limitations in mind.

If population N is known,

Sample size =

Sample size, n =

Sample size, n = 87

If population N is unknown,

Sample size, n =

5| P a g e
 Sample size, n =

Sample size, n = 87

Our sample size is 100.

Assumptions:

Level of significance for all hypotheses = 5%

Confidence interval = 95%

2.5 Questionnaire Development

The questionnaire was constructed using 14 multiple choice questions and 7 questions

based on Likert Scale. There are no open-ended questions. There were statements

followed by the options to strongly agree, agree, be neutral, disagree or strongly

disagree on the subject. It was designed to test the opinions of people using ridesharing

services on the various quantitative and qualitative factors that affect or influence their

choices. Since people have little tile to voluntarily respond to these questions and also

people tend to get bored easily, the questionnaire was designed in a way that would

increase their convenience.

6| P a g e
2.6 Data Analysis

For the purpose of data analysis, the collected data were entered into SPSS and different

statistical tests were administered. The tests that were carried out include:

1. One sample T-Test: Hypothesis tests were carried out for different variables

where the sample means of the data collected for those variables were used to

check whether the population means of those variables conformed to different

standard values.

2. Two sample T-Test: Using independent sample T-test, the analysis was made to

check whether any biasness regarding male and female exist for any of the

variables.

3. Frequency analysis: The frequency of answers as per the choices to different

questions was presented where necessary and the results were explained.

4. Correlation coefficients: For some variables, the correlation has been found out

to see the strength and direction in which they move.

5. Pie & Bar charts: For distributing the frequencies of nominal data.

6. Linear multiple regression tests: For determining the effect of multiple

independent variables on a single outcome/dependent variable.

7| P a g e
2.7 Validity and Reliability

The questionnaire maintains high face validity in the sense that the questions and

options logically relate to the variables they are supposed to measure. The entire

research is based from the perspective of business students of various public and

private universities. The factors listed in the questionnaire are based on the quantitative

and qualitative factors affecting the choice of career, which do not require extensive

expertise in any particular area. Also, the use of Likert scale simplifies the options that

the business students had; they simply had to agree, disagree or be indifferent on the

issue.

3 SPSS Data Analysis

3.1 Descriptive Analysis of Variables

In order to find the factors that affect the ride sharing application experience of users, a

descriptive analysis has been made based on the questionnaire.

Gender is divided in two groups as “1” for male and “2” for female. The mean value is

insignificant for the analysis.

Age is divided in four ranges as 1, 2, 3 and 4 for “Below 18”, for “18-22”, for “23-26” and

“Above 26” years respectively.

Education level is divided into 6 ranges as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for Below 18, 18-22, 23-26

and 26+ respectively.

Vocation is divided into four categories as 1, 2, 3 and 4 for business, studentship,

homemaker and others respectively.

Income range level is divided into 4 categories as 1, 2, 3 and 4 for Below 10000, 10001-

20000, 20001-30000 and 30000+ respectively.

8| P a g e
Based on whether the respondents have experienced ridesharing services or not, a

dichotomous question has been asked.

Then, frequency of usage in the last month and their choice of ride sharing service and

the problems they faced were asked in the following questions.

If they faced any problems we asked them about the kinds of problems they faced. The

categories of problems and attributed values were - Glitches in app=1, erroneous fare=2,

delay in arrival=3, misdemeanor=4, reckless driving=5, not ensuring safety=6 and

others=7. Non-users were asked about their reasons for reluctance in using ridesharing

services. The categories and attributed values were - Not into ride-sharing concept at

all=1, Trust issues=2, Expensive=3, others = 4.

Respondents were asked about their preference between public transportation and ride-

sharing services. The categories and attributed values were – Definitely=1, Maybe=2,

Can’t decide=3, Never=4.Whether the respondents will recommend ride-sharing

services or not, a dichotomous question has been asked.

A Likert scale was developed to understand their position on the following seven

statements:

1. Ride sharing is safer than public transport.

2. Ride-sharing apps are handy.

3. Ride-sharing services are costlier.

4. My rating depends to a large extent on the demeanor of the driver.

5. Ride-sharing services have supplanted the taxi service.

6. One can harass a user by getting information from the app.

7. Females when alone don’t prefer using the ride-sharing services given the

present conditions of harassment.

9| P a g e
 The complex variables were divided into further simple variables. The sample

size and number of respondents was 402. The Likert scale composition was 1=

Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree and 5= Strongly Agree.

Table 3. 1 Descriptive Analysis of Variables

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Please select your gender 100 1 2 1.25 .435
What is the range that your 100 2 4 3.16 .581
age lies into?
Select your education 100 3 6 4.59 .588
(current or latest)
What is your vocation? 100 1 4 2.43 1.027
Please select the range of 100 1 4 2.31 1.220
your monthly income (Tk).
Have you ever had 100 1 2 1.10 .302
ridesharing experience?
If yes, how many times did 71 0 60 16.15 16.320
you experience it last month?
Which ridesharing app did 82 1 124 19.15 34.822
you use? (Choose all that
apply)
Did you feel any problem 100 1 2 1.37 .485
while having the experience?
If yes, what kind of problem 63 1 7 3.59 1.802
did you encounter? (Tick all
that apply)
If you never had any 26 1 4 2.81 .939
experience on ride-sharing,
then select the option below
that suits best
Would you prefer public 100 1 4 2.55 1.067
transportation to ride-
sharing services?

10| P a g e
 Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Would you recommend the 100 1 2 1.12 .327
ridesharing services to
others?
On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being 100 1 5 3.69 .800
the lowest grade, how
reliable you think these
ridesharing services are?
Ridesharing is safer than 100 1 5 3.16 1.108
public transport
Ridesharing apps are handy 100 1 5 4.00 1.005
Ridesharing services are 100 1 5 3.68 1.197
costlier
My rating depends to a large 100 1 5 3.84 1.022
extent on the demeanor of
the one who drives
Ridesharing services have 100 1 5 4.08 1.041
supplanted the taxi services
One can harass a user by 100 1 5 3.46 1.132
getting information from the
app
Females when as alone don’t 100 1 5 3.52 1.210
prefer using the ridesharing
services given the present
conditions of harassment
On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being 100 .00 4.00 1.3100 .80019
the highest grade, how
reliable you think these
ridesharing services are?

From Descriptive Statistics table we get the mean for age i.e. 3.16 indicating the age

range of 23-26.

From Descriptive Statistics table we get the mean for monthly income(BDT) i.e. 2.31

indicating the Income range of 10,001 – 20,000 BDT.

11| P a g e
From Descriptive Statistics table we get the mean for usage frequency in last month i.e.

16.15 times or 16 times.

From Descriptive Statistics table we get the mean for dichotomous question (Yes of No)

i.e. 1.37 indicating they have likely faced some kinds of problems in ride-sharing

service.

From Descriptive Statistics table we get the mean for their preference between public

transport and ride-sharing services i.e. 2.55 indicating indecisiveness between this two

varieties of transport.

Figure 3. 1 Frequency Polygon of No. of Uses Last Month

12| P a g e
3.2 Frequency Analysis of Variables

A frequency analysis has been made for all variables. For nominal and ordinal data, bar

charts and pie charts have been used to depict the frequencies. For scale data,

histograms have been introduced to depict the frequencies.

3.2.1 Frequency Analysis of Nominal and Ordinal Variables

Table 3. 2 Frequency Table of Nominal and Ordinal Variables

Statistics
Which
ridesharing
Select your Have you app did you
education What is ever had use?
Please select (current or your ridesharing (Choose all
your gender latest) vocation? experience? that apply)
N Valid 100 100 100 100 82
Missing 0 0 0 0 18
Mean 1.25 4.59 2.43 1.10 19.15
Median 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 12.00
Mode 1 5 2 1 12
Std. .435 .588 1.027 .302 34.822
Deviation
Variance .189 .345 1.056 .091 1212.571
Minimum 1 3 1 1 1
Maximum 2 6 4 2 124

13| P a g e
 Table 3. 3 Frequency Table of Scale Variables

Statistics
If you never
had any
If yes, what experience Would you
Did you feel kind of on ride- prefer Would you
any problem did sharing, public recommend
problem you then select transportati the
while encounter? the option on to ride- ridesharing
having the (Tick all that below that sharing services to
experience? apply) suits best services? others?
N Valid 100 63 26 100 100
Missing 0 37 74 0 0
Mean 1.37 3.59 2.81 2.55 1.12
Median 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
Mode 1 3 3 2 1
Std. .485 1.802 .939 1.067 .327
Deviation
Variance .235 3.246 .882 1.139 .107
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 2 7 4 4 2

14| P a g e
 Table 3. 4 Frequency Table of Gender

Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Male 75 75.0 75.0 75.0
Female 25 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 3. 2 Bar Chart of Gender Frequency

15| P a g e
 Table 3. 5 Frequency Table of Education

Education (current or latest)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid hsc 3 3.0 3.0 3.0
bachelor' 37 37.0 37.0 40.0
s
master's 58 58.0 58.0 98.0
M.Phil/P 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
hD
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 3. 3 Bar Chart of Education Frequency

16| P a g e
 Table 3. 6 Frequency Table of Vocation

Vocation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vali business 13 13.0 13.0 13.0
d studentship 58 58.0 58.0 71.0
homemaker 2 2.0 2.0 73.0
others 27 27.0 27.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 3. 4 Bar Chart of Vocation Frequency

17| P a g e
 Table 3. 7 Frequency Table of Ride Sharing Experience Probability

Have you ever had ridesharing experience?

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid yes 90 90.0 90.0 90.0
no 10 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 3. 5 Bar Chart of Ride Sharing Experience Probability Frequency

18| P a g e
 Table 3. 8 Frequency Table of Ride Sharing Apps

Which ridesharing app did you use? (Choose all that apply)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid uber 21 21.0 25.6 25.6
pathao 4 4.0 4.9 30.5
shohoz 1 1.0 1.2 31.7
obhai 1 1.0 1.2 32.9
did not use 5 5.0 6.1 39.0
Uber & Pathao 39 39.0 47.6 86.6
Uber & Shohoz 1 1.0 1.2 87.8
Uber & Obhai 1 1.0 1.2 89.0
Pathao & Shohoz 1 1.0 1.2 90.2
Uber, Pathao & 6 6.0 7.3 97.6
Shohoz
Uber, Pathao & 2 2.0 2.4 100.0
Obhai
Total 82 82.0 100.0
Missing System 18 18.0
Total 100 100.0

Figure 3. 6 Bar Chart of Ride Sharing Apps Frequency

19| P a g e
 Table 3. 9 Frequency Table of Problem Facing Probability

Did you feel any problem while having the experience?

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid yes 63 63.0 63.0 63.0
no 37 37.0 37.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 3. 7 Bar Chart of Problem Facing Probability Frequency

20| P a g e
 Table 3. 10 Frequency Table of Problem Types

If yes, what kind of problem did you encounter? (Tick all that apply)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Glitches in app 8 8.0 12.7 12.7
Erroneous fare 12 12.0 19.0 31.7
Delay in 15 15.0 23.8 55.6
delivery
Misdemeanor 6 6.0 9.5 65.1
Reckless driving 12 12.0 19.0 84.1
Not ensuring 5 5.0 7.9 92.1
safeties
others 5 5.0 7.9 100.0
Total 63 63.0 100.0
Missing 999 37 37.0
Total 100 100.0

Figure 3. 8 Bar Chart of Problem Types Frequency

21| P a g e
 Table 3. 11 Frequency Table of Reasons behind Non-Usage

If you never had any experience on ride-sharing, then select the option below
that suits best
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid not into 2 2.0 7.7 7.7
ridesharing
trust issues 8 8.0 30.8 38.5
expensive 9 9.0 34.6 73.1
others 7 7.0 26.9 100.0
Total 26 26.0 100.0
Missing System 74 74.0
Total 100 100.0

Figure 3. 9 Bar Chart of Reasons behind Non-Usage Frequency

22| P a g e
 Table 3. 12 Frequency Table of Public Transport Preference

Would you prefer public transportation to ride-sharing services?

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid definitely 18 18.0 18.0 18.0
maybe 35 35.0 35.0 53.0
can't 21 21.0 21.0 74.0
decide
never 26 26.0 26.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 3. 10 Bar Chart of Public Transport Preference Frequency

23| P a g e
 Table 3. 13 Frequency Table of Ridesharing Service Recommendation

Would you recommend the ridesharing services to others?

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid yes 88 88.0 88.0 88.0
no 12 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 3. 11 Bar Chart of Ridesharing Service Recommendation Frequency

24| P a g e
3.2.2 Frequency Analysis of Scale Variables

Table 3. 14 Analysis of Age Limits

Statistics
What is the range that your age
lies into?
N Valid 100
Missing 0
Mean 3.16
Median 3.00
Mode 3
Std. Deviation .581
Variance .338
Minimum 2
Maximum 4

Table 3. 15 Frequency Table of Age Limits

What is the range that your age lies into?

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 18-22 10 10.0 10.0 10.0
23-26 64 64.0 64.0 74.0
26+ 26 26.0 26.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

25| P a g e
 Figure 3. 12 Histogram of Age Limits

Table 3. 16 Analysis of Monthly Income Ranges

Statistics
Please select the range of your
monthly income (BDT).
N Valid 100
Missing 0
Mean 2.31
Median 2.00
Mode 1
Std. Deviation 1.220
Variance 1.489
Minimum 1
Maximum 4

26| P a g e
 Table 3. 17 Frequency Table of Monthly Income Ranges

Please select the range of your monthly income (Tk).

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid below 35 35.0 35.0 35.0
10,000
10,001- 27 27.0 27.0 62.0
20,000
20,001- 10 10.0 10.0 72.0
30,000
>30,000 28 28.0 28.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

27| P a g e
Figure 3. 13 Histogram of Monthly Income Ranges

Table 3. 18 Analysis of Usage Repetition

Statistics
If yes, how many times did you
experience it last month?
N Valid 71
Missing 29
Mean 16.15
Median 10.00
Mode 2a
Std. Deviation 16.320
Variance 266.333
Minimum 0
Maximum 60
a. Multiple modes exist. The
smallest value is shown

28| P a g e
 Table 3. 19 Frequency Table of Usage Repetition

If yes, how many times did you experience it last month?

Frequenc Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 2 2.0 2.8 2.8
0 1 1.0 1.4 4.2
0 1 1.0 1.4 5.6
1 1 1.0 1.4 7.0
2 9 9.0 12.7 19.7
3 5 5.0 7.0 26.8
4 3 3.0 4.2 31.0
5 3 3.0 4.2 35.2
6 4 4.0 5.6 40.8
7 1 1.0 1.4 42.3
8 2 2.0 2.8 45.1
9 1 1.0 1.4 46.5
10 8 8.0 11.3 57.7
15 2 2.0 2.8 60.6
18 1 1.0 1.4 62.0
20 9 9.0 12.7 74.6
25 1 1.0 1.4 76.1
28 2 2.0 2.8 78.9
30 3 3.0 4.2 83.1
36 2 2.0 2.8 85.9
37 2 2.0 2.8 88.7
38 1 1.0 1.4 90.1
40 2 2.0 2.8 93.0
53 1 1.0 1.4 94.4
54 1 1.0 1.4 95.8
60 3 3.0 4.2 100.0
Total 71 71.0 100.0
Missi 11111111 29 29.0
ng
Total 100 100.0

29| P a g e
 Figure 3. 14 Histogram of Usage Repetition

3.3 Analysis Based on Multiple Regression

3.3.1 Regression Analysis of Reliability Based on Seven Variables

Regression analysis has been conducted to determine regression equation of Consumer

Reliability based on seven variables (Likert Scale).

Y= a1 + b1X1 + b2X2 +b3X3 +b4X4 + b5X5+b6X6 +b7X7

Where,
Dependent Variable:
Y = Reliability of ride sharing services
Independent Variables:

X1 = Safety with reference to public transport

30| P a g e
 X2 = Handiness of apps

X3 = Costliness

X4 = Demeanor of the driver

X5 = Supplanting of taxi services

X6= Harassment by information access

X7 =Female’s fear of travelling alone

Model Summary
Std. Change Statistics
R Adjuste Error of R F Sig. F
Mo Squar dR the Square Chan Chan
del R e Square Estimate Change ge df1 df2 ge
1 .457a .209 .149 .738 .209 3.469 7 92 .002
a. Predictors: (Constant), Females when as alone don’t prefer using the
ridesharing services given the present conditions of harassment, Ridesharing
is safer than public transport, Ridesharing services are costlier, Ridesharing
services have supplanted the taxi services, One can harass a user by getting
information from the app, My rating depends to a large extent on the
demeanor of the one who drives, Ridesharing apps are handy
b. Dependent Variable: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest grade, how
reliable you think these ridesharing services are?

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 13.238 7 1.891 3.469 .002b
Residual 50.152 92 .545
Total 63.390 99
a. Dependent Variable: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest grade, how reliable
you think these ridesharing services are?

31| P a g e
b. Predictors: (Constant), Females whenas alone dont prefer using the ridesharing
services given the present conditions of harassment, Ridesharing is safer than
public transport, Ridesharing services are costlier, Ridesharing services have
supplanted the taxi services, One can harass a user by getting information from
the app, My rating depends to a large extent on the demeanor of the one who
drives, Ridesharing apps are handy
Coefficientsa
Standardize
Unstandardized d
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.824 .399 7.086 .000
Ridesharing is safer .216 .079 .300 2.723 .008
than public transport
Ridesharing apps are .105 .116 .132 .910 .365
handy
Ridesharing services -.163 .071 -.243 -2.295 .024
are costlier
My rating depends to .039 .099 .049 .389 .698
a large extent on the
demeanor of the one
who drives
Ridesharing services .076 .103 .098 .733 .465
have supplanted the
taxi services
One can harass a user -.016 .082 -.023 -.200 .842
by getting
information from the
app
Females whenas -.011 .079 -.017 -.140 .889
alone dont prefer
using the ridesharing
services given the
present conditions of
harassment
a. Dependent Variable: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest grade, how reliable
you think these ridesharing services are?

32| P a g e
From the analysis,

Y= 2.824 + 0.216X1 + 0.105X2 – 0.163X3 +0.039X4 + 0.076X5 – 0.016X6 – 0.011X7

Adjusted R2 = 0.149 = 14.9%

3.3.1.1 GLOBAL TEST:

H0: b1 = b2 =b3 = b4 = b5 =b6 = b7 = 0 (None of the variables is significant)

H1: At least one of the variables is significant

From ANOVA table,

P-value = 0.2% < 5% (significance level)

So, H0 is rejected.

Thus, at least one of the variables is significant

3.3.1.2 Individual Test:

Here,

H0: Value is not significant for reliability

H1: Value is significant for reliability

From Coefficient table, P1= 0.8% < 5%

P2= 36.5% >5%

P3= 2.4% < 5%

P4 = 69.8% >5%

P5 = 46.5% >5%

P6= 84.2% >5%

P7= 88.9% >5%

33| P a g e
Safety (X1) and cost (X3) variables are found to be significant in individual tests.

Based on the analysis, the significance values of variables, except Safety and Costliness,
are higher than 5%, resulting in lower Adjusted R2 value. So, Regression analysis of
Reliability has been repeated with “Safety” and “Costliness” variable.

3.3.2 Regression Analysis of Reliability Based on Two Variables

This time regression analysis has been conducted to determine regression equation of
Consumer Reliability based on two variables (Likert Scale), found majorly affecting
reliability on 3.3.1 section.

Y= a1 + b1X1 + b2X2

Where,
Dependent Variable:
Y = Reliability of ride sharing services
Independent Variables:
X1 = Safety with reference to public transport

X2 = Costliness

Model Summaryb
Std. Change Statistics
R Adjuste Error of R F Sig. F
Mo Squar dR the Square Chan Chan
del R e Square Estimate Change ge df1 df2 ge
1 .417 a
.174 .157 .735 .174 10.19 2 97 .000
8
a. Predictors: (Constant), Ridesharing services are costlier, Ridesharing is safer
than public transport
b. Dependent Variable: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest grade, how
reliable you think these ridesharing services are?

34| P a g e
 ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regressio 11.013 2 5.507 10.198 .000b
n
Residual 52.377 97 .540
Total 63.390 99
a. Dependent Variable: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest grade, how reliable
you think these ridesharing services are?
b. Predictors: (Constant), Ridesharing services are costlier, Ridesharing is safer
than public transport

Coefficients
Standardize
Unstandardized d
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.153 .304 10.358 .000
Ridesharing is safer .291 .067 .403 4.340 .000
than public transport
Ridesharing services -.104 .062 -.155 -1.676 .097
are costlier
a. Dependent Variable: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest grade, how reliable
you think these ridesharing services are?

From the analysis,

Y = 3.153+0.291X1-0.104X2

Adjusted R2 = 0.157 =15.7%

35| P a g e
3.3.2.1 GLOBAL TEST:

Here,

H0: b1 = b2 = 0

H1: At least one of the variables is significant

From ANOVA table, p-value=0.0% < 5% (significance level)

So, H0 is rejected. Thus, at least one of the variables is significant

3.3.2.2 Individual Test:

Here,

H0: Value is not significant for reliability

H1: Value is significant for reliability

From Coefficient table, P1= 0.0% < 5%

P2= 9.7% >5%

Safety (X1) variable is found to be significant in individual tests.

Based on this analysis, the significance value of Costliness is higher than 5%, resulting
in higher Adjusted R2 value.

36| P a g e
3.4 Analysis Based on One-Sample Test

3.4.1 One-Sample Test of Last Month Usage

One-Sample Test has been conducted to determine whether mean value of no. times
app used last month matches with standard value of 16 or not. Standard value of no.
times app used last month has been taken from National Daily News Papers.

Here,

H0: µ=16

H1: µ≠16

One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
N Mean Deviation Mean
If yes, how many times did 71 16.15 16.320 1.937
you experience it last
month?

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 16
95% Confidence
Mean Interval of the
Sig. (2- Differenc Difference
t df tailed) e Lower Upper
If yes, how many .080 70 .936 .155 -3.71 4.02
times did you
experience it last
month?

From analysis, P-value = 93.6% > 5% (significance level)

Thus, we fail to reject H0

37| P a g e
3.5 Analysis Based on Two-Sample Test

3.5.1 Two-Sample Test of Harassment Opinion

Two-Sample Test has been conducted to determine whether Harassment Opinion from

male and female differ or not.

Here,

H0: µM= µF

H1: µM≠ µF

Group Statistics
Std.
Please select Deviatio Std. Error
your gender N Mean n Mean
One can harass a user Male 75 3.45 1.142 .132
by getting Female 25 3.48 1.122 .224
information from the
app

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Sig. Std. Confidence
(2- Mean Error Interval of the
taile Diffe Differe Difference
F Sig. t df d) rence nce Lower Upper
One can Equal .204 .652 - 98 .919 -.027 .263 -.548 .495
harass a variances .102
user by assumed
getting Equal - 41.8 .919 -.027 .260 -.552 .499
information variances .102 19
from the not
app assumed

38| P a g e
From analysis, P-value= 91.1% > 5 % (significance level)

Thus, we fail to reject H0

3.5.2 Two-Sample Test of Public Transport vs. Ride-sharing service preference

Another two-Sample Test has been conducted to determine whether Public Transport

vs. Ride-sharing service preference differs from male to female.

Here,

H0: µM= µF

H1: µM≠ µF

Group Statistics
Std.
Please select Deviatio Std. Error
your gender N Mean n Mean
Would you prefer Male 75 2.45 1.056 .122
public transportation Female 25 2.84 1.068 .214
to ride-sharing
services?

39| P a g e
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Mea Interval of
Sig. n Std. the
(2- Diffe Error Difference
taile renc Differ Lowe Uppe
F Sig. t df d) e ence r r
Would you Equal .004 .947 - 98 .117 -.387 .245 -.872 .099
prefer variances 1.58
public assumed 1
transportat Equal - 40.8 .124 -.387 .246 -.883 .110
ion to ride- variances 1.57 10
sharing not 2
services? assumed

From analysis, P-value= 11.7% > 5 % (significance level)

Thus, we fail to reject H0

3.5.3 Two-Sample Test of Safety Perspective vs. Monthly Income

Again, two-Sample Test has been conducted to determine whether safety perspective

towards ride-sharing services differs with monthly income or not.

Here

H0: µ1= µ5

H1: µ1≠ µ5

40| P a g e
 Group Statistics
Ridesharing is safer Std. Std.
than public Deviati Error
transport N Mean on Mean
Please select the 1 8 1.50 .535 .189
range of your 5 11 2.18 1.079 .325
monthly income
(BDT)

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Mea Interval of
Sig. n Std. the
(2- Diffe Error Difference
taile renc Differ Lowe Uppe
F Sig. t df d) e ence r r
Please Equal 1.711 .208 - 17 .120 -.682 .416 -1.560 .196
select the variances 1.63
range of assumed 8
your Equal - 15.3 .089 -.682 .376 -1.482 .118
monthly variances 1.81 87
income not 3
(Tk). assumed

From analysis, P-value= 12% > 5% (significance level)

Thus, we fail to reject H0

41| P a g e
3.6 Analysis Based on Chi-Square Test

3.6.1 Chi-Square Test of Safety Perspective vs. Monthly Income

Chi-Square Test has been conducted to determine whether Harassment Opinion from

male and female differ or not.

Here,

H0: Gender and problems facing is not related

H1: Gender and problems facing is related

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Please select your 100 100.0% 0 0.0% 100 100.0%
gender * Did you feel
any problem while
having the
experience?

Please select your gender * Did you feel any problem while having the
experience? Cross tabulation
Count
Did you feel any problem while
having the experience?
yes no Total
Please select your Male 54 21 75
gender Female 9 16 25
Total 63 37 100

42| P a g e
 Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df (2-sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi- 10.425a 1 .001
Square
Continuity 8.938 1 .003
Correction
Likelihood Ratio 10.177 1 .001
Fisher's Exact Test .002 .002
Linear-by-Linear 10.320 1 .001
Association
N of Valid Cases 100
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
9.25.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

From analysis, P-value=0.1% < 5% (significance level)

Thus, we reject H0

43| P a g e
3.6.2 Chi-Square Test of Education vs. Problem Facing

Again, Chi-Square Test has been conducted to determine whether Education and

problem facing are related or not.

Here,

H0: Education and problem facing is not related

H1: Education and problem facing is related

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Select your education 100 100.0% 0 0.0% 100 100.0%
(current or latest) *
Did you feel any
problem while having
the experience?

Select your education (current or latest) * Did you feel any problem while
having the experience? Crosstabulation
Count
Did you feel any problem while
having the experience?
yes no Total
Select your education HSC 2 1 3
(current or latest) bachelor 21 16 37
's
master's 39 19 58
M.Phil/P 1 1 2
hD
Total 63 37 100

44| P a g e
 Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.229a 3 .746
Likelihood Ratio 1.219 3 .748
Linear-by-Linear .416 1 .519
Association
N of Valid Cases 100
a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
.74.

From analysis, P-value =74.6% > 5% (significance level)

Thus, we fail to reject H0

3.6.3 Chi-Square Test of Ridesharing Services Supplanting Taxi services vs. Public

Transportation Preference

Again, Chi-Square Test has been conducted to determine whether Education and

problem facing are related or not.

Here,

H0: Ridesharing services supplanting taxi services is not related to public

transportation preference

H1: Ridesharing services supplanting taxi services is related to public

transportation preference

45| P a g e
 Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Ridesharing services 100 100.0% 0 0.0% 100 100.0%
have supplanted the
taxi services * Would
you prefer public
transportation to ride-
sharing services?

Ridesharing services have supplanted the taxi services * Would you prefer
public transportation to ride-sharing services? Cross tabulation
Count
Would you prefer public transportation
to ride-sharing services?
definitel can't
y maybe decide never Total
Ridesharing services 1 2 0 0 1 3
have supplanted the 2 3 2 1 0 6
taxi services 3 5 1 4 4 14
4 4 13 8 9 34
5 4 19 8 12 43
Total 18 35 21 26 100

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 20.648 a
12 .049
Likelihood Ratio 22.473 12 .033
Linear-by-Linear 3.471 1 .062
Association
N of Valid Cases 100
a. 12 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is .54.

46| P a g e
From analysis, P-value=4.9% < 5% (significance level)

Thus, we reject H0

4 Findings and Results

Based on the previous SPSS graphs and tables shown, the findings bring out different

results showing particular relations and comparisons. These decisions have been drawn

with the help of various tests and analyses like one sample/ two sample T test, chi-

square test, multiple linear regression tests.

1. Reliability is tested against 7 variables in a multiple regression test. As the p-value

is 0.2% which is less than 5%, we reject the null hypothesis. This implies that at

least one of the variables is significant.

2. The frequency of using ride-sharing applications is tested such that its mean has been
compared with the standard value of 16. The obtained p-value is 93.6% which is
greater than 5% SL. Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis which implies that
mean is not different from the standard value of 16.
3. The tendency of harassment due to information access has been tested through the

perspectives of the male and female genders. The p-value here is 91.1% which is

greater than 5%. This indicates that we fail to reject the null hypothesis and the

opinion in this respect does not differ from male to female

4. Preference of ride-sharing services to public transport’s variation from male to

female has been tested and obtained p-value is 11.7%. This is greater than 5%

implying that we fail to reject the null hypothesis and the preference does not vary

from male to female.

47| P a g e
5. The highest and lowest level of income has been tested against safety of ride

sharing services. Obtained p-value is 12%, higher than 5% which means we fail to

reject the null hypothesis here. This signifies that there is no variation of safety

related opinions between the high and low income people.

6. Problem facing in ride sharing applications has been tested against gender. As the

p-value is 0.1% and less than 5%, we reject the null hypothesis. Therefore,

problems faced in the apps are related to gender.

7. Problem facing is again tested against education level. Here the p-value is 74.6%,

greater than 5%. Here we fail to reject the null hypothesis indicating that education

level and problem facing is not related to each other.

8. Ridesharing services supplanting taxi services is tested against public

transportation preference. Obtained p value is 4.9% which is less than 5%, rejecting

the null hypothesis. So ride sharing services supplanting taxi services is related to

public transportation preference.

9. Reliability is tested against safety and cost variables through multiple regression

tests. In the global test, p value is obtained 0% which is less than 5%. Therefore, we

reject the null hypothesis that indicates that at least one of the variables is

significant with reliability.

48| P a g e
5 Conclusion

Ride sharing services have created their own field abroad and now it is rapidly

spreading in Bangladesh. The growth and use of these services however follow some

usual trends. The relations of these trends with the use and opinions from the users are

of great use in order to predicting future scope. The questionnaire focuses widely on the

customer review of the services and the choice preferences. Based on which certain

results have been found. For example, among the seven variables of safety, handiness,

costliness, demeanor of driver, supplanting taxi services, harassment and gender

preference, at least one of these is significant for reliability. It is found that the mean

number of using ride sharing applications is not different from 16. The tendency of

harassment due to information access and preference of ride-sharing services to public

transport does not vary from male to female. There is no variation of safety related

opinions between the high and low income people. Problem facing in ride sharing

applications varies from male to female. Education level and problem facing is not

related to each other. Ride sharing services supplanting taxi services is related to public

transportation preference. Within safety and costliness, at least one of the variables is

significant with reliability. All of these indications lead to the recommendations that

show the new trends and break down the stereotypes regarding a lot of issues in ride

sharing services.

49| P a g e
6 Recommendation

 The services have started becoming popular in the city infamous for traffic

congestions and anarchy in the public transport sector.

 Reliability of ride sharing services depends on various factors like cost, safety,

private transport preference, harassment tendency, driver behavior, etc.

 Harassment due to information access has the no gender biasness. This proves

that the social stigma of females having reluctance to these services due to

harassment have very less significance.

 Education level and income level have no effect on the problem facing of ride

sharing services. This also indicates a positive service effect.

 Public transport preference is related to the use of ride sharing services. So it is

clear that people preferring public transportation are less attracted to using these

services.

 The ridesharing firms should add an SOS button to their apps, which will enable

users to send their location and other data by touching the button seeking help

through the 999 national helpline.

50| P a g e
Bibliography

1. Probability & Statistics for Engineers & Scientist; Eighth edition; Walpole, Myers,
Myers, Ye
2. Statistical Techniques in Business & Economics; Sixteenth Edition; Douglas Lind,
William G. Marchal, Samuel A. Wathen
3. Quantitative Data Analysis Using SPSS; 2008; Pete Greasley

51| P a g e
Appendix

Questionnaire: A survey on ridesharing experiences in Bangladesh

When it’s about to be somewhere on time by riding through the jam-packed roads,

ridesharing applications have been popping into one’s mind lately due to its

effectiveness and readiness to user demands.

The following study reflects on the experiences of a user to these ridesharing

applications in Bangladesh.

DISCLAIMER:

The responses collected will be used solely for academic purposes. Participation is

voluntary and you are at your will to withdraw at any stage. Furthermore, all

information you provide is confidential, and, in no way will personally identifiable

information be made available without your consent.

*Required

1) Please select your gender *

o Male o Female
2) What is your age? *

o Below 18 o 18-22 o 23-26 o 26+

3) Education level (Current or latest) *

o Below o SSC o HSC o Bachelors o Masters o M.Phil./

SSC PhD.
4) What is your vocation? *

o Business o Student o Homemaker o Others

5) Please select the range of your monthly income (BDT). *

52| P a g e
 o Glitches o Erroneous o Delay in o Misde
in app fare arrival meanor
o Reckless o Not o Others
driving providing
safeties
o Below o 10,001- o 20,001-30,000 o More
10,000 20,000 than
30,000
6) Have you ever had ridesharing experience? *

o Yes o No

7) If yes, how many times did you experience it last month? _______ Times

8) Which ridesharing app did you use? (Check all that apply) *

o Uber o Pathao o Shohoz o OBHAI o Others o Did

not
use
9) Did you feel any problem while having the experience?

o Yes o No
10) If yes, what kind of problem did you encounter most?

11) If you never had any experiences on ride-sharing, then select the option below that

suits best.

o Not into ride- o Trust issues o Expensive o Others

sharing
concept at all
12) Would you prefer public transportations to ride-hailing services? *

o Definitely o Maybe o Can’t decide o Never

13) Would you recommend the ridesharing services to others? *

o Yes o No
14) On a scale of 5, how reliable these services are? *

o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5

53| P a g e
15) Please select your level of agreement to the following statements.*

Strongly Disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

Statements 1 2 3 4 5
S1. Ridesharing is safer than public
transportations
S2. Ridesharing apps are handy
S3. Ridesharing services are costlier
S4. My rating depends to a large extent on
the demeanor of the one who drives
S5. Ridesharing services have supplanted the
taxi services
S6. One can harass a user by getting info
from the app
S7. Females whenas alone don’t prefer using
the service given the present conditions of
harassment.

I thank you for your cooperation. I hope It had not bored you!

54| P a g e