ارزیابی عملکرد ایمنی راه در ایران و کشورهای در حال توسعه با استفاده از روش‌های فرارتبه‌ای

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران

2 استادیار، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران

3 دانشیار، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران

چکیده

مقایسه و ارزیابی عملکرد ایمنی راه در سطح فر­املی عملی شایسته است، چرا که با این مقایسه هر کشوری می­تواند به درک بهتر و عمیق­تری از وضعیت ایمنی راه­های خود دست یابد. در این مطالعه، زیرمجموعه­ای از روش­های تصمیم­گیری چندمعیاره با عنوان روش­های فرارتبه­ای شامل دو روش پرومته و الکتره به منظور ارزیابی عملکرد ایمنی راه به کار گرفته شده است.در این روش­ها، روش فرآیند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی برای به دست آوردن وزن شاخص­ها به کار گرفته می­شود، که این اوزان به دست آمده به عنوان وزن ورودی در مدل پرومته و الکتره استفاده می­شود. روش­های مورد استفاده برای ایران و مجموعه­ای از کشورهای در حال توسعه با هدف بررسی وضعیت ایران نسبت به سایرین به کار گرفته شده است. سپس نتایج به دست آمده با شاخص تعداد تلفات جاده­ای در هر یکصد هزار نفر برای این کشورها به عنوان نقطه مرجع مربوطه­، مقایسه می­شود. با توجه به نتایج به دست آمده مشخص شد که در بین پنج رکن ایمنی راه،رکن مدیریت ایمنی راه دارای بیشترین اهمیت و رکن مراقبت بعد از سانحه دارای کمترین اهمیت است. همچنین، زیرمعیار نهاد راهبر در رکن مدیریت ایمنی راه بیشترین اهمیت و زیرمعیار صندلی کودک از رکن کاربران ایمن راه کمترین اهمیت را از دید کارشناسان دارد. در بین 15 کشور مورد بررسی، کشور لهستان رتبه اول را کسب کردهو بهترین عملکرد را دارد. در این بین، کشور ایران رتبه 13 را به خود اختصاص داد که بیان­گر عملکرد نسبتاً بد کشور ایران نسبت به سایر کشورها است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Road Safety Performance Evaluation in Iran and Developing Countries using Outranking Methods

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shadi Sarikhani 1
  • Hamid Reza Behnood 2
  • Amir Abbas Rassafi 3
1 M.Sc.,‌Grad., Faculty of Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Comparing and evaluating the road safety performance is desirable in trans-national levels, because each country can achieve a better and deeper understanding of its road safety status. In this study, a subset of multi-criteria decision-making methods, called the outranking methods, including PROMETHEE and ELECTRE methods was used to evaluate the road safety performance. In these methods, the Analytical Hierarchy Process method is used to obtain the weights of the indicators, which are used as input weights in the PROMETHEE and ELECTRE models. The methods were used for Iran and a set of developing countries in order to examine the situation in Iran compared to the others. Then, the results being compared with the number of road fatalities per hundred thousand people for these countries as the reference point. According to the results it was found that, among the five road safety pillars, the pillar of road safety management is the most important and the pillar of post-crash response is the least important one. Also, the lead agency sub-pillar is the highest importance in the road safety management pillar and the child restraint sub-pillar is the least importance in the safer road users pillar from expert's point of view. Among the 15 countries studied in this study, Poland found the highest rank and is known as the best-performing country. In between, Iran ranked 13th, reflecting Iran's relatively poor performance against other countries.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Road Safety Pillars
  • Outranking methods
  • Road Safety Management System
  • Road Safety Performance Indicators
-Albadvi, A., Chaharsooghi, S and Esfahanipour, A., (2007), ʻʻDecision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEEʼʼ, Europen journal of operational research, 177, pp.673-683.
 
-Al Haji, G., (2005), ʻʻToward a road safety development index (RSDI). Development of an international index to measure road safety performanceʼʼ, Linkoping studies in science and Technology, Licentiate Thesis, No. 1174, Devlopment of science and Technology, Linkoping University.
 
-Alper, D., Sinuany-stern, Z and Shinav, D. (2015) ʻʻEvaluating the efficiency of local municipalities in providing traffic safety using the data envelopment analysisʼʼ, Accid.Anal.prevent.78, pp. 39-50.
 
-Asgharpoor, M. (2014) ʻʻMulti criteria decisionsʼʼ, Thirteenth Edition, Tehran Editor, publication of Tehran University.
 
-Bao, Q., Ruan, D., Shen, Y., Hermans, E and Janssens, D. (2012) ʻʻImproved hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS for road safety performance evaluationʼʼ, Knowl, Based syst, 32, pp. 84-90.
 
-Bastos, J.T., Shen, Y., Hermans, E., Brijs, T., Wets,G and Ferraz, A.C.P., (2015), ʻʻTraffic fatality indicators in Brazil: statediagnosis based on data envelopment analysis researchʼʼ, Accid.Anal.prev.81, pp. 61-73.
 
-Behnood, H.R., Ayati, E., Hermans, E. and Neghab, M.A. (2014) ʻʻRoad safety performance evaluation and policy making by data envelopment analysis: A case study of provincial data in Iranʼʼ.
 
-Behnood, H. R., (2018), ʻʻBest practice analysis of action for road safety in Iran amongst the leading developing countries using an optimized success indicatorʼʼ, Transport Policy, 66, pp. 76-84.
-Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, B., Albadvi, A and Aghdasi, M., (2010), ʻʻPROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review methodologies and applicationsʼʼ, European Journal of operational Research, 200,
pp. 198-215.
-Biss, T and Raffo, V., (2013), ʻʻImproving Global Road Safety: towards equitable and sustainable development, guide lines for country road safety engagementʼʼ, Global Road Safety Facility, World Bank.
-Bliss, T and Breen, J., (2013), ʻʻRoad safety management capacity reviews and safe system projects Guide linesʼʼ, Working Paper 84203, World Band Group, Washington, DC.
-Brans, J and Mareschal, B., (1994), ʻʻThe PROMCALC and GAIA decision support system for multi criteria decision aidʼʼ, Decision Support Systems, 12, pp. 297-310.
-Brans, J and Mareschal, B. (2005) ʻʻPROMETHEE method cited at: multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the Art surveysʼʼ, Springer, New York.
-Brans, J and Vincke, Ph., (1985), ʻʻA preference ranking organization methodʼʼ, Management science, 31, pp. 647-656.
-Brans, J., Vincke, Ph and Mareschal, B. (1986), ʻʻHow to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE methodʼʼ, Eur.j.Oper. Res. 24(2), pp. 228-238.
-Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W and Rohdes, E., (1978), ʻʻMeasuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Unitsʼʼ, European Journal of Operational Research, pp. 429-444.
-Chen, F., Wang, J and Deng, Y., (2015), ʻʻRoad safety risk evaluation by means of improved entropy TOPSIS-RSRʼʼ, Saf, sci, 79, pp. 39-54.
-European Transport Safety Couneil (ETSC). (2001), “Transport safety performance indicators”, ETSC, Brussels.
 
-Figueira, J., Greco, S and Ehrgott, M., (2004), ʻʻMultiple criteria decision analysis: state of the Art surveysʼʼ, springer, New York.
 
-Frederik, B., (2002), ʻʻAn overview and evaluation of composite indices of developmentʼʼ, SOC, Indic, Res, 59,
pp. 115-151.
-Guitouni, A and Martel,J.M.(1998) ʻʻTentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA methodʼʼ, Eur.J.oper.Res.109, pp. 501-521.
-Haddon Jr, W., (1980), ʻʻAdvances in the epidemiology of injuries as a basis for public policyʼʼ, Public Health Rep, 95(5),
pp. 411-421.
-Hermans, E., (2009), ʻʻA methodology for developing a composite road safety performance index for cross-country comparisonʼʼ, Ph.D. Thesis, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
-Hermans, E., Bossche, F. V. D and Wets, G. (2007) ʻʻimpact of methodological choices on road safety rankingʼʼ, RA-MOW-2007-001, steunpunt mobiliteit and open bare werken-spoor verkeersveiligheid, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
-Hermans, E., Bossche, F. V. D and Wets, G., (2008), ʻʻCombining road safety information in a performance indexʼʼ, Accident Analysis and prevention, 40, pp. 1337-1344.
-Hermans, E., Ruan, D., Brijs, T., Wets,G and Vanhoof, K., (2010), ʻʻRoad safety risk evaluation by means of ordered weighted averaging operators and expert knowledgeʼʼ, Knowl.-Based syst.23, pp. 48-52.
-Hwang, C. L and Yoon, K., (1981), ʻʻMultiple attribute decision making methods and application: a state-of-the Art surveyʼʼ, Berlin, Springer-Verlay.
-Keeney, R. L and Raiffa, H., (1976), ʻʻDecisions with multiple objectives: performances and value trade-offs-wiley New Yorkʼʼ.
-Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P and Linkovjj, I., (2005), ʻʻApplication of multi-criteria decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and managementʼʼ, 1(2),
pp. 95-108.
-Macharis, C., Springael, J. BK. D and Verbeke, A., (2004), ʻʻpromethee and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis: strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHPʼʼ, European journal of operational reseaech, 153(2). pp. 307-317.
-Munda, G., (2005), ʻʻMeasuring sustainability: a multi-criterion framework environmentʼʼ, Development and sustainability 7, pp. 117-134.
-Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A and Givannini, E., (2005), ʻʻHandbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guideʼʼ, OECD statistics working papers, 3, organization for economic cooperation and development OECD, paris.
-Rosic, M., Pesic, D., Kukic, D., Antic, B and Bozovic, M., (2017), ʻʻMethod for selection of optimal road safety composite index with examples from DEA and TOPSIS methodʼʼ, Accid. Anal, prev, 98, pp. 277-286.
-Roy, B., (1968), ʻʻClassement et choix en presencede points de vue multiple (la method ELECTRE)ʼʼ,. RAIRO, 2, PP. 57-70.
-Saaty, T. L., (1980), ʻʻThe analytical hierarchical process: planning, priority setting resource allocationʼʼ, New York, MC Graw-Hill.
-Shen, Y., Hermans, E., Brijs, T., Wets, G and Vanhoof, K., (2012), ʻʻRod safety risk evaluation and target setting using data envelopment analysis and its extensionsʼʼ, Accid,Anal,Prev, 48, pp. 430-441.
-Vincke, P., (1992), ʻʻMulti-criteria decisi-aid, john wiley, chichesterʼʼ.
-Wang, J. J and Chen, F. A., (2012), ʻʻSensitivity analysis of expressway traffic safety riskʼʼ, 12th COTA international conference of transportation professionals, American society of civil engineers,
pp. 2219-2229.
 
-Wegman, F., Commandeur, J., Doveh, E., Gitelman, V., Hakkert, S., Lynam, D and Oppe, S., (2008), ʻʻSUN flower next: towards a composite road safety performance indexʼʼ, deliverable D6.16 of the EV Fp6 project safety Net.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Wegman, F. and Oppe, S., (2010), ʻʻBenchmarking road safety performances of countriesʼʼ, Safety science, 48(9),
pp. 1203-1211.
-World Bank Group, (2015), “World development indicators 2015, International bank for reconstruction and development, the World Bank.
-World Health Organization, (2015), “Global status report on road safety 2015, WHO.
-World Health Organization, (2018), “Global status report on road safety 2018”, WHO.
-Yager, R. R., (1988), ʻʻOn ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi criteria decision makingʼʼ, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man cybernet.18, pp.183.
-Zhou, P and Ang, B. W., (2009), ʻʻComparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-spearman measureʼʼ, Soc.Indic.Res.94, pp. 83-96.