Short answer

Integrate structured evaluation methods like AHP with user-centric usability assessments like SUS to comprehensively measure and improve the accessibility of public transport for all users.

Field: User-Centred Design
Source: Frontiers in Public Health (2025)
Method: Mixed-methods research combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.
Evidence: Strong effect

A combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and System Usability Scale (SUS) framework can effectively evaluate and quantify the accessibility of public transport infrastructure, leading to more equitable urban mobility. This user-centred design research insight is drawn from a 2025 study published in Frontiers in Public Health. Using Mixed-methods research combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis., researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: Integrate structured evaluation methods like AHP with user-centric usability assessments like SUS to comprehensively measure and improve the accessibility of public transport for all users.

Study

User-Centred DesignNew This WeekStrong effect

Integrated AHP and SUS framework quantifies metro station accessibility for equitable urban mobility

Frontiers in Public Health · 2025

Key Findings

01The integrated AHP and SUS framework provides a reliable and valid method for assessing metro station accessibility.
02Specific barrier-free facilities and their implementation significantly impact the perceived accessibility and equity of transit systems.
03Quantitative metrics and user feedback are both essential for a holistic understanding of accessibility.

Application

Design takeaway

Integrate structured evaluation methods like AHP with user-centric usability assessments like SUS to comprehensively measure and improve the accessibility of public transport for all users.

How to apply

When designing or evaluating public transport stations, use a weighted checklist of accessibility features (informed by AHP) and follow up with user surveys using a standardized usability scale (like SUS) to identify strengths and weaknesses.

Project actions

01When evaluating a design, consider using a structured decision-making tool to prioritize features.
02Always include user testing or feedback mechanisms to understand the practical usability of a design.

Method & Evidence

AimTo develop and validate a comprehensive framework for evaluating the accessibility of metro stations, focusing on barrier-free facilities and their impact on equitable mobility.

MethodMixed-methods research combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.

ProcedureA multi-criteria evaluation framework was developed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to identify and weigh key accessibility factors. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was employed to measure user perceptions of usability and accessibility. A case study of two Shanghai metro stations was conducted, involving quantitative data collection on facilities, user surveys, and interviews to gather qualitative feedback.

ContextUrban public transportation design and accessibility evaluation.

Variables

IV["Presence and quality of barrier-free facilities (e.g., ramps, elevators, tactile paving)","Design and layout of metro stations"]

DV["Accessibility scores (from AHP)","Usability ratings (from SUS)","Perceived equity of access"]

CV["Type of transit system (metro)","Urban setting (Shanghai)","Specific stations chosen for case study"]

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

+Combines established quantitative (AHP) and qualitative (SUS) methodologies.
+Addresses a critical issue of urban equity and accessibility.
+Provides a practical framework for evaluation.

Limitations

The number of stations studied was small. The specific factors chosen for AHP might need adaptation for different contexts. User demographics in the surveys could be further diversified.

Reliability & validity

The study's reliability is supported by the strong correlation found between AHP scores and SUS ratings, suggesting the framework consistently measures accessibility. Validity is addressed through the use of established methods (AHP, SUS) and triangulation of data from quantitative metrics, surveys, and interviews.

Think critically

How might the cultural context of Shanghai influence the perception and implementation of 'barrier-free' facilities compared to other global cities?

Design Principles

"Accessibility in public transport should be evaluated through a combination of objective criteria and subjective user experience to ensure equitable mobility."

Designing accessible public transportation is crucial for ensuring equitable access to urban opportunities for all citizens, particularly vulnerable populations. This research offers a robust methodology for designers and urban planners to systematically assess and improve the user experience of transit systems.

What This Means for Your Design

This study shows that to make sure everyone can use the metro easily, we need to check both the physical features (like ramps and elevators) and how people actually feel about using them. Combining these checks gives a clearer picture of how accessible a station really is.

How to use in your project

1.Reference this study when justifying the need for accessibility evaluations in your design project.
2.Use the AHP and SUS concepts as inspiration for developing your own evaluation methods for your design solution.

Add to My Project

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

This research highlights the importance of a dual approach to evaluating design accessibility, integrating objective criteria with subjective user experience. By employing frameworks like the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for structured evaluation and the System Usability Scale (SUS) for user feedback, designers can gain a comprehensive understanding of how well their designs meet diverse user needs, leading to more equitable and inclusive outcomes.

Source

Frontiers in Public Health

Improving equity through barrier-free transportation: an evaluation of Shanghai metro stations

journal · 2025

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about integrated ahp and sus framework quantifies metro station accessibility for equitable urban mobility?: Integrate structured evaluation methods like AHP with user-centric usability assessments like SUS to comprehensively measure and improve the accessibility of public transport for all users. Evidence: Frontiers in Public Health (2025).
Why does "Integrated AHP and SUS framework quantifies metro station accessibility for equitable urban mobility" matter for design?: Designing accessible public transportation is crucial for ensuring equitable access to urban opportunities for all citizens, particularly vulnerable populations. This research offers a robust methodology for designers and urban planners to systematically assess and improve the user experience of transit systems.
How can designers apply this research?: Integrate structured evaluation methods like AHP with user-centric usability assessments like SUS to comprehensively measure and improve the accessibility of public transport for all users.
What were the main findings?: The integrated AHP and SUS framework provides a reliable and valid method for assessing metro station accessibility.. Specific barrier-free facilities and their implementation significantly impact the perceived accessibility and equity of transit systems.. Quantitative metrics and user feedback are both essential for a holistic understanding of accessibility.
What research method was used?: Mixed-methods research combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis..
How strong is the evidence?: Evidence strength is rated Strong effect, based on a 2025 journal from Frontiers in Public Health.
What should I do differently in my next project?: When designing or evaluating public transport stations, use a weighted checklist of accessibility features (informed by AHP) and follow up with user surveys using a standardized usability scale (like SUS) to identify strengths and weaknesses.
What are the limitations?: The study focused on two specific metro stations in Shanghai, which may not be representative of all urban transit systems. The weighting of AHP factors could be subjective. Long-term impacts of accessibility improvements were not assessed.