| Literature DB >> 29029612 |
Habibollah Rahimi1, Hamid Soori2, Seyed Saeed Hashemi Nazari3, Seyed Abbas Motevalian4, Adel Azar5, Eskandar Momeni6, Mehdi Javartani7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Road traffic Injuries (RTIs) as a health problem imposes governments to implement different interventions. Target achievement in this issue required effective and efficient measures. Efficiency evaluation of traffic police as one of the responsible administrators is necessary for resource management. Therefore, this study conducted to measure Iran's rural traffic police efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: Data envelopment analysis; Efficiency; Traffic police
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29029612 PMCID: PMC5640958 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4780-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Descriptive characteristics of output variables
| Output variables | Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of damaged accidents* | 247.7a | 258.4 | 4.0 | 2181.0 |
| Number of injury accidents** | 184.9 | 176.9 | 3.0 | 1163.0 |
| Number of fatal accidents*** | 28.7 | 19.5 | 2.0 | 99.0 |
ameans on average, there have been 247.7 damaged accidents without any injury and death in every police station jurisdiction during a year
*Any accidents without any injury or death occurrence
**Any accidents that lead to one or more injury without any death
**Any accidents that lead to at least one death
Descriptive characteristics of input variables
| Input variables | Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patrol team (number) | 5.9 | 3.0 | 0,0 | 18.0 |
| Manpower (percentage) | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.4 |
| Patrol car (number) | 7.5 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 18.0 |
| Motorcycle (number) | 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 8.0 |
| Penalties and punishments (number) | 77,279.1 | 46,794.7 | 7841.0 | 271,570.0 |
| Cultural and educational (score) | 90.9 | 2.8 | 84.0 | 95.8 |
| Speed camera (number) | 0.7 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 24.0 |
Descriptive characteristics of environmental variables
| Environmental variables | Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length of freeway/ highway (km) | 40.9 | 57.3 | 0.0 | 380.0 |
| Length on one - way main roads (km) | 24.9 | 46.9 | 0.0 | 300.0 |
| Length of two - way main roads (km) | 104.1 | 103.5 | 0.0 | 609.0 |
| Length of by way roads (km) | 382.3 | 466.7 | 0.0 | 2688.0 |
| Literacy rate (percentage) | 0.8 | 0.06 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| Number of household owning motorcycle | 14,344.82 | 13,342.9 | 341.0 | 100,837.0 |
| Percentage of household owning car | 37.3 | 9.1 | 10,8 | 61.1 |
| Population of young people (person) | 38,936.4 | 43,524.6 | 1217.2 | 371,702.3 |
| Mean of traffic count (per minute) | 6.4 | 7.8 | 0.6 | 74.9 |
| Proportion length of main roads to the total roads (percentage) | 19.8 | 22,3 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Correlation matrix of input and output variables
| Input variables | Crash | Injury | Death |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patrol team | 0.27*** | 0.34*** | 0.35*** |
| Manpower | 0.24*** | 0.11 | 0.44*** |
| Patrol car | 0.42*** | 0.33*** | 0.25*** |
| Motorcycle | 0.06 | 0.17* | 0.23** |
| Penalties and punishments | 0.23*** | 0.22** | 0.40** |
| Cultural and educational score | 0.05 | 0.01 | −0.00 |
| Speed camera | 0.23** | −0.02 | 0.05 |
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001
Results of SFA analysis
| Natural logarithm of variables | Coefficient correlation | Standard error | CI (0.95) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freeway/highway | - 0.04** | 0.01 | −0.07 | −0.02 |
| One-way main roads | 0.03* | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Two-way main roads | Due to correlation with One-way main road it has been excluded. | |||
| By roads | 0.03* | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Ratio of main road to total roads | 0.03 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.06 |
| Young population | 0.01 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.04 |
| Traffic count | 0.19** | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.23 |
| Literacy rate | −0.79* | 0.37 | −1.52 | −0.05 |
| Number of households owning motorcycle | 0.08** | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
| Proportion of household owning car | 0.13 | 0.10 | −0.06 | 0.33 |
| Constant coefficient | 1.93 | 1.39 | −0.80 | 4.66 |
| Mu | −2.07 | 145.55 | −287.35 | 283.21 |
| Ln sig2 | −3.01 | 3.04 | −8.98 | 2.96 |
| Ilgtgamma | −2.65 | 46.09 | −92.99 | 87.70 |
| Sigma2 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 19.25 |
| Gamma | 0.06 | 2.84 | 4.10e – 41 | 1 |
| Sigma | 0.01 | 0.15 | −0.29 | 0.30 |
| Sigma | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001
Fig. 1The average efficiency score of studied provinces
Fig. 2Sensitivity analysis results of input variables