4.5 Article

Application of the AHP-BWM Model for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety: A Case Study for Budapest

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym12020243

关键词

analytic hierarchy process; best worst method; decision-making; driver behavior questionnaire; road safety

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the GIScience Doctoral College [DKW1237-N23]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of driver behavior has been considered a complex way to solve road safety complications. Car drivers are usually involved in various risky driving factors which lead to accidents where people are fatally or seriously injured. The present study aims to dissect and rank the significant driver behavior factors related to road safety by applying an integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model, which is structured as a hierarchy with at least one 5 x 5 (or bigger) pairwise comparison matrix (PCM). A real-world, complex decision-making problem was selected to evaluate the possible application of the proposed model (driver behavior preferences related to road safety problems). The application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) alone, by precluding layman participants, might cause a loss of reliable information in the case of the decision-making systems with big PCMs. Evading this tricky issue, we used the Best Worst Method (BWM) to make the layman's evaluator task easier and timesaving. Therefore, the AHP-BWM model was found to be a suitable integration to evaluate risky driver behavior factors within a designed three-level hierarchical structure. The model results found the most significant driver behavior factors that influence road safety for each level, based on evaluator responses on the driver behavior questionnaire (DBQ). Moreover, the output vector of weights in the integrated model is more consistent, with results for 5 x 5 PCMs or bigger. The proposed AHP-BWM model can be used for PCMs with scientific data organized by traditional means.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据