2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.01.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of the spatial analysis methods for hotspot identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
56
0
5

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 118 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
56
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Several methods have been developed to identify hazardous locations based on crash histories. They include the crash frequency method [12], the crash rate method [13][14][15], the equivalent property damage only method (EPDO) [16], the rate-quality control method [17], and the empirical Bayes (EB) method [18][19][20][21][22][23][24].…”
Section: Identification Of Hazardous Locationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several methods have been developed to identify hazardous locations based on crash histories. They include the crash frequency method [12], the crash rate method [13][14][15], the equivalent property damage only method (EPDO) [16], the rate-quality control method [17], and the empirical Bayes (EB) method [18][19][20][21][22][23][24].…”
Section: Identification Of Hazardous Locationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, a kernel density analysis was applied in order to identify areas with a higher concentration of point events (for example, areas with high potential for nature photography, criterion B15). In fact, a kernel density estimator (KDE) function transforms a sample of georeferenced observations (point events in a 2D space) into a continuous surface, indicating the intensity of individual observations over the 2D space [48]. A symmetric surface (called kernel function K) is placed at the center of each spatial unit(s) and distances between the center point and the locations of point events are evaluated in order to compute the point density at this location.…”
Section: Standardization Of Evaluation Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A spatial Bayesian modeling approach was proposed by [28] to predict VRU accident risks for a road network and to identify how road infrastructures influence VRU safety in Brussels, Belgium. An approach was introduced by [29] for the identification of hazardous accident zones that compares spatial and non-spatial methods. Overall, the study concludes that spatial analysis methods outperform non-spatial approaches, because they do not require the segmentation of highways.…”
Section: Traffic Accident Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%