Influence of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments: A hypothetical treatment approach

•The influence of segmentation approaches is investigated in a known ground truth setup.•Evaluated Highway safety manual, Fixed, Fisher’s and K-means segmentation approaches.•Random and hotspot assignment methods are used to define hypothetical treated sites.•Highway safety manual and Fixed segmenta...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Accident analysis and prevention 2022-10, Vol.176, p.106795-106795, Article 106795
Hauptverfasser: Tahir, Hassan Bin, Washington, Simon, Yasmin, Shamsunnahar, King, Mark, Haque, Md Mazharul
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 106795
container_issue
container_start_page 106795
container_title Accident analysis and prevention
container_volume 176
creator Tahir, Hassan Bin
Washington, Simon
Yasmin, Shamsunnahar
King, Mark
Haque, Md Mazharul
description •The influence of segmentation approaches is investigated in a known ground truth setup.•Evaluated Highway safety manual, Fixed, Fisher’s and K-means segmentation approaches.•Random and hotspot assignment methods are used to define hypothetical treated sites.•Highway safety manual and Fixed segmentation estimated the true CMFs.•True CMFs from hotspot sites need homogenous segmentation of highways. The segmentation of highways is a fundamental step in estimating crash frequency models and conducting a before-after evaluation of engineering treatments, but the effects of segmentation approaches on the engineering treatment evaluations are not known very well. This study examined the effects of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments. In particular, this study evaluated four segmentation approaches by applying the Empirical Bayes technique to a dataset for which the ground truth was known. Four segmentation approaches included Highway Safety Manual (HSM), Fixed (kilometre post), Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation. This study utilized a 440 km stretch of rural two-lane two-way highway in Queensland, Australia, to prepare a dataset with known ground truth. The treatment under evaluation was a hypothetical treatment, which should yield a crash modification factor (CMF) of 1. For assigning hypothetical treatment, a total of fifteen datasets were prepared, including ten datasets based on the random assignment and five datasets based on the hotspot identification method. Following the before-after evaluation using the Empirical Bayes technique, the results showed that HSM and Fixed segmentation approaches predict the ground truth in both dataset types. From random assignment datasets, the estimated CMFs using HSM, Fixed, Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation approaches deviated from the true CMF (i.e., 1) by 2.32 %, 5.30 %, 6.08 %, and 8.62 %, respectively. In the case of hotspots, the corresponding deviations of CMFs were 8.57 %, 9.37 %, 28.84 %, and 35.43 %, respectively. Overall, HSM segmentation best identified the actual treatment effect, followed by the Fixed segmentation. If the variables to define homogeneity for HSM segmentation are limited, then Fixed segmentation can yield reliable crash modification factors from the before-after treatment evaluations than the crash-based segmentation approaches.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.aap.2022.106795
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2703417534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0001457522002305</els_id><sourcerecordid>2703417534</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-c5dd11b1dbf58cb1ef38aa8f2165a2435ce80a393cd891970d9c598da30c38153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PAyEURYnRxFr9Ae5YupkKQymMrhrjR5MmbnRNXplHSzOdGYGadOdPl2aM7lyRG-65hEPINWcTzvjsdjsB6CclK8ucZ6qSJ2TEtaqKkkl1SkaMMV5MpZLn5CLGbY5KKzkiX4vWNXtsLdLO0YjrHbYJku9aCn0fOrAbjDSntEG6QtcFLMAlDBQ_odkPzUxiu_YtYvDtmqaAkI478Y7O6ebQdxlO3kLzd_W7fknOHDQRr37OMXl_enx7eCmWr8-Lh_mysEKJVFhZ15yveL1yUtsVRyc0gHYln0kop0Ja1AxEJWytK14pVldWVroGwazQXIoxuRl287Mfe4zJ7Hy02DTQYrePplRMTLmSYpqrfKja0MUY0Jk--B2Eg-HMHG2brcm2zdG2GWxn5n5gMP_h02Mw0fqj1toHtMnUnf-H_gY1xIqt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2703417534</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Influence of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments: A hypothetical treatment approach</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Tahir, Hassan Bin ; Washington, Simon ; Yasmin, Shamsunnahar ; King, Mark ; Haque, Md Mazharul</creator><creatorcontrib>Tahir, Hassan Bin ; Washington, Simon ; Yasmin, Shamsunnahar ; King, Mark ; Haque, Md Mazharul</creatorcontrib><description>•The influence of segmentation approaches is investigated in a known ground truth setup.•Evaluated Highway safety manual, Fixed, Fisher’s and K-means segmentation approaches.•Random and hotspot assignment methods are used to define hypothetical treated sites.•Highway safety manual and Fixed segmentation estimated the true CMFs.•True CMFs from hotspot sites need homogenous segmentation of highways. The segmentation of highways is a fundamental step in estimating crash frequency models and conducting a before-after evaluation of engineering treatments, but the effects of segmentation approaches on the engineering treatment evaluations are not known very well. This study examined the effects of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments. In particular, this study evaluated four segmentation approaches by applying the Empirical Bayes technique to a dataset for which the ground truth was known. Four segmentation approaches included Highway Safety Manual (HSM), Fixed (kilometre post), Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation. This study utilized a 440 km stretch of rural two-lane two-way highway in Queensland, Australia, to prepare a dataset with known ground truth. The treatment under evaluation was a hypothetical treatment, which should yield a crash modification factor (CMF) of 1. For assigning hypothetical treatment, a total of fifteen datasets were prepared, including ten datasets based on the random assignment and five datasets based on the hotspot identification method. Following the before-after evaluation using the Empirical Bayes technique, the results showed that HSM and Fixed segmentation approaches predict the ground truth in both dataset types. From random assignment datasets, the estimated CMFs using HSM, Fixed, Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation approaches deviated from the true CMF (i.e., 1) by 2.32 %, 5.30 %, 6.08 %, and 8.62 %, respectively. In the case of hotspots, the corresponding deviations of CMFs were 8.57 %, 9.37 %, 28.84 %, and 35.43 %, respectively. Overall, HSM segmentation best identified the actual treatment effect, followed by the Fixed segmentation. If the variables to define homogeneity for HSM segmentation are limited, then Fixed segmentation can yield reliable crash modification factors from the before-after treatment evaluations than the crash-based segmentation approaches.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-4575</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2057</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2022.106795</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Before-after study ; Countermeasure Evaluation ; Empirical Bayes ; Hypothetical Treatment ; Segmentation Approaches</subject><ispartof>Accident analysis and prevention, 2022-10, Vol.176, p.106795-106795, Article 106795</ispartof><rights>2022 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-c5dd11b1dbf58cb1ef38aa8f2165a2435ce80a393cd891970d9c598da30c38153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-c5dd11b1dbf58cb1ef38aa8f2165a2435ce80a393cd891970d9c598da30c38153</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9895-7297</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106795$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tahir, Hassan Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Washington, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yasmin, Shamsunnahar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haque, Md Mazharul</creatorcontrib><title>Influence of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments: A hypothetical treatment approach</title><title>Accident analysis and prevention</title><description>•The influence of segmentation approaches is investigated in a known ground truth setup.•Evaluated Highway safety manual, Fixed, Fisher’s and K-means segmentation approaches.•Random and hotspot assignment methods are used to define hypothetical treated sites.•Highway safety manual and Fixed segmentation estimated the true CMFs.•True CMFs from hotspot sites need homogenous segmentation of highways. The segmentation of highways is a fundamental step in estimating crash frequency models and conducting a before-after evaluation of engineering treatments, but the effects of segmentation approaches on the engineering treatment evaluations are not known very well. This study examined the effects of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments. In particular, this study evaluated four segmentation approaches by applying the Empirical Bayes technique to a dataset for which the ground truth was known. Four segmentation approaches included Highway Safety Manual (HSM), Fixed (kilometre post), Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation. This study utilized a 440 km stretch of rural two-lane two-way highway in Queensland, Australia, to prepare a dataset with known ground truth. The treatment under evaluation was a hypothetical treatment, which should yield a crash modification factor (CMF) of 1. For assigning hypothetical treatment, a total of fifteen datasets were prepared, including ten datasets based on the random assignment and five datasets based on the hotspot identification method. Following the before-after evaluation using the Empirical Bayes technique, the results showed that HSM and Fixed segmentation approaches predict the ground truth in both dataset types. From random assignment datasets, the estimated CMFs using HSM, Fixed, Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation approaches deviated from the true CMF (i.e., 1) by 2.32 %, 5.30 %, 6.08 %, and 8.62 %, respectively. In the case of hotspots, the corresponding deviations of CMFs were 8.57 %, 9.37 %, 28.84 %, and 35.43 %, respectively. Overall, HSM segmentation best identified the actual treatment effect, followed by the Fixed segmentation. If the variables to define homogeneity for HSM segmentation are limited, then Fixed segmentation can yield reliable crash modification factors from the before-after treatment evaluations than the crash-based segmentation approaches.</description><subject>Before-after study</subject><subject>Countermeasure Evaluation</subject><subject>Empirical Bayes</subject><subject>Hypothetical Treatment</subject><subject>Segmentation Approaches</subject><issn>0001-4575</issn><issn>1879-2057</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1PAyEURYnRxFr9Ae5YupkKQymMrhrjR5MmbnRNXplHSzOdGYGadOdPl2aM7lyRG-65hEPINWcTzvjsdjsB6CclK8ucZ6qSJ2TEtaqKkkl1SkaMMV5MpZLn5CLGbY5KKzkiX4vWNXtsLdLO0YjrHbYJku9aCn0fOrAbjDSntEG6QtcFLMAlDBQ_odkPzUxiu_YtYvDtmqaAkI478Y7O6ebQdxlO3kLzd_W7fknOHDQRr37OMXl_enx7eCmWr8-Lh_mysEKJVFhZ15yveL1yUtsVRyc0gHYln0kop0Ja1AxEJWytK14pVldWVroGwazQXIoxuRl287Mfe4zJ7Hy02DTQYrePplRMTLmSYpqrfKja0MUY0Jk--B2Eg-HMHG2brcm2zdG2GWxn5n5gMP_h02Mw0fqj1toHtMnUnf-H_gY1xIqt</recordid><startdate>202210</startdate><enddate>202210</enddate><creator>Tahir, Hassan Bin</creator><creator>Washington, Simon</creator><creator>Yasmin, Shamsunnahar</creator><creator>King, Mark</creator><creator>Haque, Md Mazharul</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9895-7297</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202210</creationdate><title>Influence of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments: A hypothetical treatment approach</title><author>Tahir, Hassan Bin ; Washington, Simon ; Yasmin, Shamsunnahar ; King, Mark ; Haque, Md Mazharul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-c5dd11b1dbf58cb1ef38aa8f2165a2435ce80a393cd891970d9c598da30c38153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Before-after study</topic><topic>Countermeasure Evaluation</topic><topic>Empirical Bayes</topic><topic>Hypothetical Treatment</topic><topic>Segmentation Approaches</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tahir, Hassan Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Washington, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yasmin, Shamsunnahar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haque, Md Mazharul</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Accident analysis and prevention</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tahir, Hassan Bin</au><au>Washington, Simon</au><au>Yasmin, Shamsunnahar</au><au>King, Mark</au><au>Haque, Md Mazharul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Influence of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments: A hypothetical treatment approach</atitle><jtitle>Accident analysis and prevention</jtitle><date>2022-10</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>176</volume><spage>106795</spage><epage>106795</epage><pages>106795-106795</pages><artnum>106795</artnum><issn>0001-4575</issn><eissn>1879-2057</eissn><abstract>•The influence of segmentation approaches is investigated in a known ground truth setup.•Evaluated Highway safety manual, Fixed, Fisher’s and K-means segmentation approaches.•Random and hotspot assignment methods are used to define hypothetical treated sites.•Highway safety manual and Fixed segmentation estimated the true CMFs.•True CMFs from hotspot sites need homogenous segmentation of highways. The segmentation of highways is a fundamental step in estimating crash frequency models and conducting a before-after evaluation of engineering treatments, but the effects of segmentation approaches on the engineering treatment evaluations are not known very well. This study examined the effects of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments. In particular, this study evaluated four segmentation approaches by applying the Empirical Bayes technique to a dataset for which the ground truth was known. Four segmentation approaches included Highway Safety Manual (HSM), Fixed (kilometre post), Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation. This study utilized a 440 km stretch of rural two-lane two-way highway in Queensland, Australia, to prepare a dataset with known ground truth. The treatment under evaluation was a hypothetical treatment, which should yield a crash modification factor (CMF) of 1. For assigning hypothetical treatment, a total of fifteen datasets were prepared, including ten datasets based on the random assignment and five datasets based on the hotspot identification method. Following the before-after evaluation using the Empirical Bayes technique, the results showed that HSM and Fixed segmentation approaches predict the ground truth in both dataset types. From random assignment datasets, the estimated CMFs using HSM, Fixed, Fisher’s, and K-means segmentation approaches deviated from the true CMF (i.e., 1) by 2.32 %, 5.30 %, 6.08 %, and 8.62 %, respectively. In the case of hotspots, the corresponding deviations of CMFs were 8.57 %, 9.37 %, 28.84 %, and 35.43 %, respectively. Overall, HSM segmentation best identified the actual treatment effect, followed by the Fixed segmentation. If the variables to define homogeneity for HSM segmentation are limited, then Fixed segmentation can yield reliable crash modification factors from the before-after treatment evaluations than the crash-based segmentation approaches.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.aap.2022.106795</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9895-7297</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0001-4575
ispartof Accident analysis and prevention, 2022-10, Vol.176, p.106795-106795, Article 106795
issn 0001-4575
1879-2057
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2703417534
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Before-after study
Countermeasure Evaluation
Empirical Bayes
Hypothetical Treatment
Segmentation Approaches
title Influence of segmentation approaches on the before-after evaluation of engineering treatments: A hypothetical treatment approach
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T13%3A33%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influence%20of%20segmentation%20approaches%20on%20the%20before-after%20evaluation%20of%20engineering%20treatments:%20A%20hypothetical%20treatment%20approach&rft.jtitle=Accident%20analysis%20and%20prevention&rft.au=Tahir,%20Hassan%20Bin&rft.date=2022-10&rft.volume=176&rft.spage=106795&rft.epage=106795&rft.pages=106795-106795&rft.artnum=106795&rft.issn=0001-4575&rft.eissn=1879-2057&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106795&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2703417534%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2703417534&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0001457522002305&rfr_iscdi=true