Processing, Please wait...

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Management Science Letters » An integrated framework for cost- benefit analysis in road safety projects using AHP method

Journals

  • IJIEC (747)
  • MSL (2643)
  • DSL (668)
  • CCL (508)
  • USCM (1092)
  • ESM (413)
  • AC (562)
  • JPM (271)
  • IJDS (912)
  • JFS (91)
  • HE (26)
  • SCI (26)

MSL Volumes

    • Volume 1 (70)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (15)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (25)
    • Volume 2 (365)
      • Issue 1 (51)
      • Issue 2 (32)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (44)
      • Issue 5 (42)
      • Issue 6 (52)
      • Issue 7 (53)
      • Issue 8 (51)
    • Volume 3 (426)
      • Issue 1 (40)
      • Issue 2 (47)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (27)
      • Issue 6 (50)
      • Issue 7 (51)
      • Issue 8 (30)
      • Issue 9 (24)
      • Issue 10 (25)
      • Issue 11 (25)
      • Issue 12 (27)
    • Volume 4 (387)
      • Issue 1 (34)
      • Issue 2 (30)
      • Issue 3 (34)
      • Issue 4 (42)
      • Issue 5 (33)
      • Issue 6 (43)
      • Issue 7 (42)
      • Issue 8 (40)
      • Issue 9 (39)
      • Issue 10 (20)
      • Issue 11 (18)
      • Issue 12 (12)
    • Volume 5 (129)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (10)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (14)
      • Issue 6 (14)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (8)
      • Issue 9 (11)
      • Issue 10 (8)
      • Issue 11 (9)
      • Issue 12 (10)
    • Volume 6 (74)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (6)
      • Issue 4 (7)
      • Issue 5 (6)
      • Issue 6 (6)
      • Issue 7 (8)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (5)
      • Issue 10 (5)
      • Issue 11 (5)
      • Issue 12 (5)
    • Volume 7 (54)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (5)
      • Issue 6 (5)
      • Issue 7 (4)
      • Issue 8 (4)
      • Issue 9 (4)
      • Issue 10 (4)
      • Issue 11 (4)
      • Issue 12 (4)
    • Volume 8 (119)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
      • Issue 5 (22)
      • Issue 6 (20)
      • Issue 7 (6)
      • Issue 8 (6)
      • Issue 9 (8)
      • Issue 10 (10)
      • Issue 11 (11)
      • Issue 12 (16)
    • Volume 9 (208)
      • Issue 1 (16)
      • Issue 2 (14)
      • Issue 3 (11)
      • Issue 4 (12)
      • Issue 5 (12)
      • Issue 6 (16)
      • Issue 7 (16)
      • Issue 8 (16)
      • Issue 9 (16)
      • Issue 10 (16)
      • Issue 11 (19)
      • Issue 12 (20)
      • Issue 13 (24)
    • Volume 10 (448)
      • Issue 1 (24)
      • Issue 2 (25)
      • Issue 3 (24)
      • Issue 4 (25)
      • Issue 5 (26)
      • Issue 6 (26)
      • Issue 7 (25)
      • Issue 8 (27)
      • Issue 9 (27)
      • Issue 10 (30)
      • Issue 11 (33)
      • Issue 12 (30)
      • Issue 13 (30)
      • Issue 14 (30)
      • Issue 15 (30)
      • Issue 16 (36)
    • Volume 11 (251)
      • Issue 1 (36)
      • Issue 2 (39)
      • Issue 3 (40)
      • Issue 4 (40)
      • Issue 5 (29)
      • Issue 6 (27)
      • Issue 7 (20)
      • Issue 8 (12)
      • Issue 9 (8)
    • Volume 12 (33)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (13)
    • Volume 13 (27)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • Volume 14 (22)
      • Issue 1 (6)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (5)
    • Volume 15 (24)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
      • Issue 3 (5)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • Volume 16 (6)
      • Issue 1 (6)

Keywords

Supply chain management(166)
Jordan(161)
Vietnam(149)
Customer satisfaction(120)
Performance(113)
Supply chain(110)
Service quality(98)
Competitive advantage(95)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
SMEs(87)
optimization(86)
Trust(83)
Financial performance(83)
Sustainability(81)
TOPSIS(81)
Job satisfaction(80)
Factor analysis(78)
Social media(78)
Genetic Algorithm(77)
Knowledge Management(77)


» Show all keywords

Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(64)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(62)
Endri Endri(45)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Hotlan Siagian(39)
Jumadil Saputra(36)
Dmaithan Almajali(36)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Ahmad Makui(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Hassan Ghodrati(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Sautma Ronni Basana(29)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Prasadja Ricardianto(28)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(27)


» Show all authors

Countries

Iran(2181)
Indonesia(1289)
Jordan(786)
India(786)
Vietnam(504)
Saudi Arabia(452)
Malaysia(441)
United Arab Emirates(220)
China(206)
Thailand(153)
United States(110)
Turkey(106)
Ukraine(104)
Egypt(98)
Canada(92)
Peru(88)
Pakistan(85)
United Kingdom(80)
Morocco(79)
Nigeria(78)


» Show all countries

Management Science Letters

ISSN 1923-9343 (Online) - ISSN 1923-9335 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 1 Issue 4 pp. 551-558 , 2011

An integrated framework for cost- benefit analysis in road safety projects using AHP method Pages 551-558 Right click to download the paper Download PDF

Authors: Mahsa Mohamadian, Siamak Noori, Seyed Mohamad Seyed Hosseini

DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2011.05.001

Keywords: Analytical hierarchy process (AHP), Cost benefit analysis (CBA), Road safety

Abstract: Cost benefit analysis (CBA) is a useful tool for investment decision-making from economic point of view. When the decision involves conflicting goals, the multi-attribute analysis approach is more capable; because there are some social and environmental criteria that cannot be valued or monetized by cost benefit analysis. The complex nature of decision-making in road safety normally makes it difficult to reach a single alternative solution that can satisfy all decision-making problems. Generally, the application of multi-attribute analysis in road sector is promising; however, the applications are in preliminary stage. Some multi-attribute analysis techniques, such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP) have been widely used in practice. This paper presents an integrated framework with CBA and AHP methods to select proper alternative in road safety projects. The proposed model of this paper is implemented for a case study of improving a road to reduce the accidents in Iran. The framework is used as an aid to cost benefit tool in road safety projects.

How to cite this paper
Mohamadian, M., Noori, S & Hosseini, S. (2011). An integrated framework for cost- benefit analysis in road safety projects using AHP method.Management Science Letters , 1(4), 551-558.

Refrences
Bax, C., Elvik, R, & Veisten, K. (2009). Knowledge utilization in road safety policy: Barriers to the
use of knowledge from economic analysis. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 22(4), 275–285.

Campbell, H. & Brown, R. (2005). A multiple account framework for cost –benefit analysis.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(1), 23–32.

Decorla-Souza, P., Everett, J., Gardner, B. & Culp, M. (1997). Total cost analysis: An alternative to
benefit-cost analysis in evaluating transportation alternatives. Transportation, 24(2), 107–123.

Dyer, J.S. & Wendel, R.E. (1985). A Critique of Analytic Hierarchy Process. Working Paper 84/85-
4-24. Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin.

Dolan J.G. (2008). Shared decision-making – transferring research into practice: The Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Education and Counseling, 73(3), 418–425.

Elvik, R. (2001). Cost–benefit analysis of road safety measures: Applicability and controversies.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33(1), 9–17.

Elvik, R. (2003). How would setting policy priorities according to cost–benefit analyses affect the
provision of road safety?. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(4), 557–570.

Elvik, R. (2009). The trade - off between efficiency and equity in road safety policy. Safety Science,
47(6), 817–825.

Elvik, R. (2010). Strengthening incentives for efficient road safety policy priorities: The roles of cost
– benefit analysis and road pricing. Safety Science, 48(9), 1189–1196.

Elvik, R. (2010). Why some road safety problems are more difficult to solve than others?. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 42(4), 1089-1096.

Hauer, E. (1994). Can one estimate the value of life or is it better to be dead than stuck in traffic?
Transportation Research Series A, 28(2), 109–118.

Harker, P.T. (1987). Incomplete pairwise comparisions in the analytival hierarchy process.
Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837-848.

Hauer, E. (2011). Computing what the public wants: Some issues in road safety cost–benefit analysis.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(1), 151-164.

Henderson, R.D. & Dutta, S.P. (1992). Use of the analytic hierarchy process in ergonomic analysis.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 9(4), 275-82.

Joksch, H.C. (1975). A critical appraisal of the applicability of cost– benefit analysis to highway
traffic safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 7(2), 133–153.

Ivehammar, P. (2008). Valuing in actual travel time environmental encroachment caused by transport
infrastructure. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 13(7), 455-461.

Wijnen, W., Wesemann, P. & Blaeij, A. (2009). Valuation of road safety effects in cost–benefit
analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(4), 326–331.

Womer, N. K., Bougnol , M. L. & Dula, J. H. (2006). Benefit- cost analysis using data envelopment
analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 145(1), 229–250.

Saaty, T.L., & Vargas, L.G. (1984). Inconsistency and rank preservation. Mathematical Psychology,
28(2), 205-214.

Salling, K.B. & Banister, D. (2009). Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBADK
model. Transportation Research Part A, 43(9-10), 800–813.

Torfi, F., Zanjirani Farahani, R. & Rezapour, S. (2010). Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights
of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Applied Soft Computing, 10(2),
520–528.

Zahedi, F. (1987). A utility approach to the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-
5), 387-395.
  • 17
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Journal: Management Science Letters | Year: 2011 | Volume: 1 | Issue: 4 | Views: 2302 | Reviews: 0

Related Articles:
  • A new approach to evaluate railways efficiency considering safety measures
  • A BOCR and Fuzzy AHP method for identification and prioritization of carpet ...
  • An empirical study for ranking risk factors using linear assignment: A case ...
  • A hybrid Kano-fuzzy AHP method for measuring customer satisfaction: A case ...
  • Reliability prediction for the vehicles equipped with advanced driver assis ...

Add Reviews

Name:*
E-Mail:
Review:
Bold Italic Underline Strike | Align left Center Align right | Insert smilies Insert link URLInsert protected URL Select color | Add Hidden Text Insert Quote Convert selected text from selection to Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet Insert spoiler
winkwinkedsmileam
belayfeelfellowlaughing
lollovenorecourse
requestsadtonguewassat
cryingwhatbullyangry
Security Code: *
Include security image CAPCHA.
Refresh Code

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com