IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v80y2019icp188-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Road intersections ranking for road safety improvement: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods

Author

Listed:
  • Fancello, Gianfranco
  • Carta, Michele
  • Fadda, Paolo

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to propose a methodology for identifying the most critical road sections in urban networks in terms of road safety. This approach is useful for the managers of the road network when they need to allocate limited financial resources to several critical sections. Since the resources are not always sufficient to solve all road safety issues, they require a methodology that is able to rank the critical sections. Road safety depends on the interaction of several factors so this methodology has to be based on a multicriteria approach. In earlier articles, the authors of this paper first adopted Electre III and later Concordance Analysis as multicriteria methods for ranking critical points in an urban road network. Both methods have some critical elements, associated with threshold choice (Electre III) and ranking procedure (Concordance Analysis). In order to improve the methodology, the authors have selected two further multicriteria methods (Vikor and Topsis), for comparison with the Concordance Analysis and for evaluating which performed best. In order to identify critical sections in a road network, a suitable set of indicators is defined, taking into account geometric and traffic volume criteria. The multicriteria methods are applied to a real case for ranking, from the worst safety conditions to the best, the most critical road intersections within the urban road network, on the basis of eight criteria. The results of all three methods considered are compared and a sensitivity analysis is performed to test the stability of the results. The results show that the Topsis method performs best in determining a complete ranking of the critical road sections, overcoming some negative aspects associated with the other methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Fancello, Gianfranco & Carta, Michele & Fadda, Paolo, 2019. "Road intersections ranking for road safety improvement: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 188-196.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:188-196
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X1730522X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wu, Hung-Yi & Lin, Yi-Kuei & Chang, Chi-Hsiang, 2011. "Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 37-50, February.
    2. Gardziejczyk, Wladyslaw & Zabicki, Piotr, 2014. "The influence of the scenario and assessment method on the choice of road alignment variants," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 294-305.
    3. Zopounidis, Constantin & Doumpos, Michael, 2002. "Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 229-246, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin, 2020. "Prospective assessment of methanol vehicles in China using FANP-SWOT analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 60-75.
    2. Zhang, Jietao & Tu, Yan & Liu, Jun & Liu, Liyi & Li, Zongmin, 2022. "Regional public transportation safety risk grading assessment under time dimension: A case study of Chinese mainland," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 343-354.
    3. Alex Pauwels & Nadia Pourmohammad-Zia & Frederik Schulte, 2022. "Safety and Sustainable Development of Automated Driving in Mixed-Traffic Urban Areas—Considering Vulnerable Road Users and Network Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Lucas Schmeling & Patrik Schönfeldt & Peter Klement & Steffen Wehkamp & Benedikt Hanke & Carsten Agert, 2020. "Development of a Decision-Making Framework for Distributed Energy Systems in a German District," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Nabipour, Mohammad & Rosenberg, Mark W. & Nasseri, Seyed Hadi, 2022. "The built environment, networks design, and safety features: An analysis of pedestrian commuting behavior in intermediate-sized cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 14-23.
    6. Chen, Faan & Li, Yaxin & Feng, Qianqian & Dong, Zehao & Qian, Yiming & Yan, Yi & Ho, Mun S. & Ma, Qianchen & Zhang, Dashan & Jin, Yuanzhe, 2023. "Road safety performance rating through PSI-PRIDIT: A planning tool for designing policies and identifying best practices for EAS countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gupta, Pankaj & Mittal, Garima & Mehlawat, Mukesh Kumar, 2013. "Expected value multiobjective portfolio rebalancing model with fuzzy parameters," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 190-203.
    2. Nima Mirzaei & Béla Vizvári, 2015. "A New Approach to Reconstruction of Moody’s Rating System for Countries Investment Risk Rating," Journal of Empirical Economics, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 4(3), pages 167-182.
    3. Doumpos, M. & Marinakis, Y. & Marinaki, M. & Zopounidis, C., 2009. "An evolutionary approach to construction of outranking models for multicriteria classification: The case of the ELECTRE TRI method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 496-505, December.
    4. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, II: More than two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 246-276, April.
    5. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.
    6. Camelia Mihaela Oane (Marinescu) & Klaudia Smol¹g & Emanuel Stefan Marinescu & Romuald Szopa, 2015. "Value-Based Management As The Innovating Paradigm Of Contemporary Governance – A Theoretical Approach," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 12(1), pages 106-120, DEcember.
    7. Ju, Keyi & Su, Bin & Zhou, Dequn & Zhang, Yuqiang, 2016. "An incentive-oriented early warning system for predicting the co-movements between oil price shocks and macroeconomy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 452-463.
    8. Ana Sara Costa & Isabella M. Lami & Salvatore Greco & José Rui Figueira & José Borbinha, 2021. "Assigning a house for refugees: an application of a multiple criteria nominal classification method," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 2651-2687, December.
    9. Pegdwendé Minoungou & Vincent Mousseau & Wassila Ouerdane & Paolo Scotton, 2023. "A MIP-based approach to learn MR-Sort models with single-peaked preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 795-817, June.
    10. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    11. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 2006. "DEA-Discriminant Analysis: Methodological comparison among eight discriminant analysis approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 247-272, February.
    12. Oppio, Alessandra & Dell’Ovo, Marta & Torrieri, Francesca & Miebs, Grzegorz & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2020. "Understanding the drivers of Urban Development Agreements with the rough set approach and robust decision rules," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    13. Fahmi Fadhl Al-Hosaini & Saudah Sofian, 2015. "A Review of Balanced Scorecard Framework in Higher Education Institution (HEIs)," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 5(1), pages 26-35.
    14. Murat Köksalan & Vincent Mousseau & Selin Özpeynirci, 2017. "Multi-Criteria Sorting with Category Size Restrictions," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 5-23, January.
    15. Greco, Salvatore & Mousseau, Vincent & Slowinski, Roman, 2010. "Multiple criteria sorting with a set of additive value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1455-1470, December.
    16. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, I: The case of two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 217-245, April.
    17. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(3), pages 1272-1289, August.
    18. Patlitzianas, Konstantinos D. & Psarras, John, 2007. "Formulating a modern energy companies' environment in the EU accession member states through a decision support methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2231-2238, April.
    19. Zhang, Ganggang & Wu, Jie & Zhu, Qingyuan, 2020. "Performance evaluation and enrollment quota allocation for higher education institutions in China," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:188-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.