Composite performance indicators for helmet and seat-belt enforcement as imprecise data

References

• Ahmadvand A, Abtahy Z, Bashiri M. 2011. Considering undesirable variables in PCA-DEA method: a case of road safety evaluation in Iran. Journal of Industrial Engineering, International. 7(15):43–50.
   Google Scholar
• Amini M, Dabbagh R, Omrani H. 2019. A fuzzy data envelopment analysis based on credibility theory for estimating road safety. Decis Sci Lett. 8(3):275–284. doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2019.1.001
   Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci. 30(9):1078–1092. doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behnood HR. 2018. Best practice analysis of action for road safety in Iran amongst the leading developing countries using an optimized success indicator. Transp Policy. 66:76–84. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.01.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behnood HR, Ayati E, Brijs T, Neghab MP, Shen Y. 2017. A fuzzy decision-support system in road safety planning. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Transp. 170(5):1–317. doi:10.1680/jtran.15.00062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behnood HR, Ayati E, Hermans E, Neghab MP. 2014. Road safety performance evaluation and policy making by data envelopment analysis: a case study of provincial data in Iran. Sci Iran Trans A Civ Eng. 21(5):1515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res. 2(6):429–444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen F, Wu J, Chen X, Wang J, Wang D. 2016. Benchmarking road safety performance: identifying a meaningful reference (best-in-class). Accid Anal Prev. 86:76–89. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook WD, Kress M, Seiford LM. 1996. Data envelopment analysis in the presence of both quantitative and qualitative factors. J Oper Res Soc. 47(7):945–953. doi:10.2307/3010140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper WW, Park KS, Yu G. 1999. IDEA and AR-IDEA: models for dealing with imprecise data in DEA. Manage Sci. 45(4):597–607. doi:10.1287/mnsc.45.4.597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper WW, Park KS, Yu G. 2001. An illustrative application of IDEA (imprecise data envelopment analysis) to a Korean mobile telecommunication company. Oper Res. 49(6):807–820. doi:10.1287/opre.49.6.807.10022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emrouznejad A, Tavana M. 2014. Performance measurement with fuzzy data envelopment analysis. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Emrouznejad A, Yang GL. 2018. A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Econ Plann Sci. 61:4–8. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2017.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emrouznejad A, Thanassoulis E. 2018. Data envelopment analysis and performance measurement: recent. Birmingham, UK: Aston Business School.
   Google Scholar
• Ganji SS, Rassafi AA. 2019. Measuring the road safety performance of Iranian provinces: a double-frontier DEA model and evidential reasoning approach. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 26(2):156–169. doi:10.1080/17457300.2018.1535510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inuiguchi M, Ichihashi H, Tanaka H. 1990. Fuzzy programming: a survey of recent developments. In: Stochastic versus fuzzy approaches to multiobjective mathematical programming under uncertainty. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 45–68.
   Google Scholar
• Kao C. 2006. Interval efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis with imprecise data. Eur J Oper Res. 174(2):1087–1099. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolaou P, Dimitriou L. 2018. Evaluation of road safety policies performance across Europe: results from benchmark analysis for a decade. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract. 116:232–246. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peykani P, Mohammadi E, Emrouznejad A, Pishvaee MS, Rostamy-Malkhalifeh M. 2019. Fuzzy data envelopment analysis: an adjustable approach. Expert Syst Appl. 136:439–452. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.06.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassafi AA, Ganji SS, Pourkhani H. 2018. Road safety assessment under uncertainty using a Multi Attribute Decision Analysis based on Dempster–Shafer theory. KSCE J Civ Eng. 22(8):3137–3152. doi:10.1007/s12205-017-1854-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen Y, Hermans E, Brijs T, Wets G. 2014. Fuzzy data envelopment analysis in composite indicator construction. In: Performance measurement with fuzzy data envelopment analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. p. 89–100.
   Google Scholar
• Shen Y, Ruan D, Hermans E, Brijs T, Wets G, Vanhoof K. 2011. Modeling qualitative data in data envelopment analysis for composite indicators. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manage. 2(1):21–30. doi:10.1007/s13198-011-0051-z
   Google Scholar
• Tešić M, Hermans E, Lipovac K, Pešić D. 2018. Identifying the most significant indicators of the total road safety performance index. Accid Anal Prev. 113:263–278. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegman F. 2017. The future of road safety: a worldwide perspective. IATSS Res. 40(2):66–71. doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2016.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2018. Global status report on road safety 2018 (No. WHO/NMH/NVI/18.20). Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar