IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i23p10600-d1535949.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on the Establishment and Application of a Transportation Safety Supervision Evaluation System Based on Grey Analytic Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaowang Zhang

    (School of Water Conservancy and Transportation, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China)

  • Shuangqing Li

    (School of Water Conservancy and Transportation, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China)

  • Xiaoqian Liu

    (School of Water Conservancy and Transportation, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China)

  • Shengqi Jian

    (School of Water Conservancy and Transportation, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China)

  • Shuren Li

    (Safety Supervision Division, Henan Provincial Department of Transportation, Zhengzhou 450000, China)

  • Jinchao Yue

    (School of Water Conservancy and Transportation, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China)

Abstract

Given the increasing complexity of transportation systems and the critical need for effective safety oversight, this study aims to evaluate and improve the transportation safety supervision (TSS) system in Henan Province, China. Based on questionnaire data from relevant units in Henan Province, China, a three-level index system of the effectiveness of TSS consisting of 4 criterion-level indicators and 25 factory-level indicators is established. By combining the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and grey system theory, a hierarchical grey evaluation model is constructed to evaluate the current situation of TSS in Henan Province. The results show that the evaluation index system and the weights of each index are reliable. The comprehensive evaluation value of the TSS system in Henan Province is 3.08, indicating that the effectiveness of the system is at level 2; thus, the current situation of TSS in Henan Province is good. Based on the calculated evaluation values of the first- and second-level indicators, suggestions are put forward to strengthen the management of the TSS by supervision units at all levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaowang Zhang & Shuangqing Li & Xiaoqian Liu & Shengqi Jian & Shuren Li & Jinchao Yue, 2024. "Research on the Establishment and Application of a Transportation Safety Supervision Evaluation System Based on Grey Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10600-:d:1535949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10600/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10600/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Özge Nalan Bilişik & Nurgül Demirtaş & Umut Rıfat Tuzkaya & Hayri Baraçlı, 2014. "Garage Location Selection for Public Transportation System in Istanbul: An Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Axiomatic Design Based Approach," Journal of Applied Mathematics, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-13, September.
    2. Zhou, Shan & Yang, Pu, 2020. "Risk management in distributed wind energy implementing Analytic Hierarchy Process," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 616-623.
    3. A. Awasthi & H. Omrani, 2009. "A hybrid approach based on AHP and belief theory for evaluating sustainable transportation solutions," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 212-226.
    4. Turan Arslan, 2009. "A hybrid model of fuzzy and AHP for handling public assessments on transportation projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 97-112, January.
    5. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    6. Xu, Z., 2000. "On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 683-687, November.
    7. Rabello Quadros, Saul Germano & Nassi, Carlos David, 2015. "An evaluation on the criteria to prioritize transportation infrastructure investments in Brazil," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 8-16.
    8. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Angappa Gunasekaran & Pravin Kumar, 2018. "Third party logistics (3PL) selection for cold chain management: a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 267(1), pages 531-553, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    2. Fuat Sekmen & Isa Demirkol & Haşmet Gökırmak, 2024. "Evaluation of urban transportation preferences with analytical hierarchy process method," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2087-2101, June.
    3. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    4. Cortés-Aldana, Félix Antonio & García-Melón, Mónica & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio & Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Poveda-Bautista, Rocío, 2009. "University objectives and socioeconomic results: A multicriteria measuring of alignment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 811-822, December.
    5. Tereza Aubrechtová & Eva Semančíková & Pavel Raška, 2020. "Formulation Matters! The Failure of Integrating Landscape Fragmentation Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    6. L. N. Pradeep Kumar Rallabandi & Ravindranath Vandrangi & Subba Rao Rachakonda, 2016. "Improved Consistency Ratio for Pairwise Comparison Matrix in Analytic Hierarchy Processes," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 33(03), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    8. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    9. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Wang, Zhong-Xing, 2012. "A goal programming model for incomplete interval multiplicative preference relations and its application in group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 747-754.
    10. Nina Almasifar & Tülay Özdemir Canbolat & Milad Akhavan & Roberto Alonso González-Lezcano, 2021. "Proposing a New Methodology for Monument Conservation “SCOPE MANAGEMENT” by the Use of an Analytic Hierarchy Process Project Management Institute System and the ICOMOS Burra Charter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Tim Gruchmann & Nadine Pratt & Jan Eiten & Ani Melkonyan, 2020. "4PL Digital Business Models in Sea Freight Logistics: The Case of FreightHub," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    13. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    14. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    15. Lim, Chulmin & Rowsell, Joe & Kim, Seongcheol, 2023. "Exploring the killer domains to create new value: A Comparative case study of Canadian and Korean telcos," 32nd European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2023: Realising the digital decade in the European Union – Easier said than done? 277998, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Marios Tsioufis & Antonios Fytopoulos & Dimitra Kalaitzi & Thomas A. Alexopoulos, 2024. "Discovering maritime-piracy hotspots: a study based on AHP and spatio-temporal analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 335(2), pages 861-883, April.
    17. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Rubio-Aliaga, Alvaro & García-Cascales, M. Socorro & Sánchez-Lozano, Juan Miguel & Molina-Garcia, Angel, 2021. "MCDM-based multidimensional approach for selection of optimal groundwater pumping systems: Design and case example," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 213-224.
    19. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    20. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10600-:d:1535949. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.