2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.12.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance evaluation of airport safety management systems in Taiwan

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 5 shows that, 30 of previous studies have integrated or combined various MCDM techniques and approaches to evaluate transportation systems in several application areas and transport infrastructure. Chang et al (2015) integrated ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate of performance in for airport safety management system, results of this study showed that safety assurance, safety policy and objectives, safety promotion and safety risk management are importance criteria in evaluation of airport safety. mixed AHP, GRA and SAW for assessment and enhance the service quality of airlines industry, results indicated that safety and reliability emerge as the critical factors of service quality.…”
Section: Distribution Based On Hybrid Mcdm and Fmcdmmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Table 5 shows that, 30 of previous studies have integrated or combined various MCDM techniques and approaches to evaluate transportation systems in several application areas and transport infrastructure. Chang et al (2015) integrated ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate of performance in for airport safety management system, results of this study showed that safety assurance, safety policy and objectives, safety promotion and safety risk management are importance criteria in evaluation of airport safety. mixed AHP, GRA and SAW for assessment and enhance the service quality of airlines industry, results indicated that safety and reliability emerge as the critical factors of service quality.…”
Section: Distribution Based On Hybrid Mcdm and Fmcdmmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…These phases cover similar issues as in evaluation frameworks presented for other industries, e.g. Basso et al (2004), Teo et al (2006) and Chang et al (2015). The evaluation framework presented here, however, differs in the approach adopted, as we do not focus on the SMS components directly, but rather on more generic aspects of an SMS that are known to be relevant based on the generic model by Li and Guldenmund (2018).…”
Section: Framework: Limitations and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is primarily because this leads to more natural communication between the evaluator and the designers and users of the SMS. In SMS evaluation frameworks in other industries, such as Basso et al (2004), Teo and Ling (2006) and Chang et al (2015), this has also been the approach.…”
Section: Generic Framework: Foundationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…• (Chang et al, 2015) used two stage processes to evaluate SMS operations at three Taiwan airports according to safety risk management, safety policy and objectives. They acquired weight and rankings for each of the SMS components and elements, and used TOPSIS method for rank ing the airports.…”
Section: Introduction and Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%