Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Spatial-temporal analysis of pedestrian injury severity

with geographically and temporally weighted regression
model in Hong Kong
Xuecai Xu a, Xiangjian Luo b, Changxi Ma c,⇑, Daiquan Xiao a
a
School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
b
Shenzhen Urban Transportation Planning Center, Shenzhen, China
c
School of Traffic and Transportation, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study intended to (1) investigate the pedestrian injury severity involved in traffic
Received 16 November 2019 crashes; and (2) address the spatial and temporal heterogeneity simultaneously. To achieve
Received in revised form 23 December 2019 the objectives, geographically and temporally weighted regression (GTWR) model was pro-
Accepted 2 February 2020
posed to deal with both spatial and temporal heterogeneity simultaneously. The pedestrian
Available online 13 February 2020
crash data of Hong Kong metropolitan area from 2008 to 2012 were collected, involving
1652 pedestrian-related injury samples. By comparing GTWR model and standard geo-
Keywords:
graphically weighted regression (GWR) model and temporally weighted regression
Spatial-temporal analysis
Pedestrian injury severity
(TWR) model, the proposed GTWR model showed potential benefits in modeling both spa-
Geographically and temporally weighted tial and temporal non-stationarity simultaneously in terms of goodness-of-fit and F statis-
regression model tics. Results revealed that number of vehicles, number of pedestrian-related casualties,
Geographically weighted regression model speed limit, vehicle movement and injury location have significant influence on pedestrian
injury severity in different areas. The conclusions are reached that GRWR model can
address the relationship between pedestrian injury severities and influencing factors, as
well as accommodating spatial and temporal heterogeneity simultaneously. The findings
provide useful insights for practitioners and policy makers to improve pedestrian safety.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

According to World Health Organization (WHO) statistics, about 1.24 million people die in traffic crashes each year
around the world, and more than one fifth of the deaths occur among pedestrians, while this ratio is as high as two thirds
in some countries or regions. Moreover, millions of people are injured in traffic-related crashes while walking. Although
annual road traffic crash reports from the Hong Kong Transport Department show that pedestrian traffic casualties have
been reduced by 19.3% during the past ten years, pedestrian fatalities increase by about 10 percent each year, and account
for about 15 percent of all motor vehicle deaths. Hence, how to improve the pedestrian safety is pressing if walking is still
considered as an attractive mode of transportation.
With the increasing promotion of walking and the vulnerability of pedestrians, pedestrian safety has attracted
numerous research interests within the past decade. Considerable research effort has been devoted to exploring the factors

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: machangxi@mail.lzjtu.cn (C. Ma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.02.003
1369-8478/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300 287

contributing to the severity of pedestrian injuries. In urban area, the pedestrian crashes may occur in different geographical
locations and different sampling time, and the relationships between pedestrian injury severity and influencing factors may
not follow the constant covariate effects, thus the spatial and temporal issues need to be addressed, and accommodated by
an appropriate method. Geographically and temporally weighted regression (GTWR) model, extension of the conventional
geographically weighted regression (GWR) model, can integrate both temporal and spatial information into the pedestrian
injury analysis, which can simultaneously incorporate temporal information into the spatial variability. Importantly, the
ability of GTWR at addressing the relationship between pedestrian injury severities and influencing factors has yet to be
explored. Hence, the objective of this study is to concentrate on these problems.
Based on the urgent need to improve pedestrian safety and to address the spatial and temporal heterogeneity, the pur-
pose of this study is to (1) investigate the pedestrian injury severity involved in traffic crashes in Hong Kong; (2) propose the
geographically and temporally weighted regression (GTWR) model with spatial and temporal properties, which accommo-
dates the spatial and temporal heterogeneity simultaneously. With the results, useful insights for practitioners and policy
makers can be provided to improve pedestrian safety.

2. Literature review

During the last two decades, scholars have attempted to establish predictive models to investigate the possible factors
influencing pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes (Zajac & Ivan, 2003; Ballesteros et al., 2004; Lee & Abdel-Aty, 2005; Sze &
Wong, 2007; Eluru, Bhat, & Hensher, 2008; Clifton, Burnier, & Akar, 2009; Kim, Ulfarsson, Shankar, & Mannering, 2010;
Moudon, Lin, Jiao, Hurvitz, & Reeves, 2011; Tay, Choi, Kattan, & Khan, 2011; Abay et al., 2013; Aziz, Ukkusuri, & Hasan,
2013; Mohamed, Saunier, Miranda-Moreno, & Ukkusuri, 2013; Sasidharan & Menendez, 2014; Xu et al., 2016; Bhat,
Astroza, & Lavieri, 2017; Prato, Kaplan, Patrier, & Rasmussen, 2018; Yang et al. 2019a). A wide variety of factors have been
explored, including the demographic attributes of pedestrians and drivers, traffic characteristics, road geometry, and envi-
ronmental factors. Various methods, such as on-site investigation, mathematical modeling, and simulation, have been
employed to evaluate the pedestrian injuries. Among all these, econometric modeling approaches, which specifically focus
on the analysis of injury severity from the perspective of overall safety and its economic implications, hold considerable pro-
mise (Xu et al., 2016). Conditional on a crash having occurred, econometric crash-severity models cover a wide range of
methods, including binary logit/probit models (Ballasteros et al., 2004; Sze & Wong, 2007; Moudon et al., 2011), multinomial
logit models (Tay et al., 2011), ordered logit/probit models (Zajac & Ivan, 2003; Lee & Abdel-Aty, 2005), generalized ordered
logit/probit models (Clifton et al., 2009), partial proportional odds models (Sasidharan & Menendez, 2014), a latent class with
ordered probit model (Mohamed et al., 2013), mixed generalized ordered response models (Eluru et al., 2008), and mixed
logit models (Kim et al., 2010; Ye & Lord, 2011; Moore, Schneider, Savolainen, & Farzaneh, 2011; Kaplan & Prato, 2012;
Kim, Ulfarsson, Kim, & Shankar, 2013; Haleem & Gan, 2013; Ye & Lord, 2014; Wu et al., 2014; Chen, Chen, & Ma, 2018;
Ma, Hao, Xiang, & Yan, 2018; Li et al., 2019).
One major concern gaining growing interest is the spatial correlation. As crash data are typically collected with reference
to location dimension, spatial correlation between observation sites is expected. Typically, the inclusion of spatial effects
reveals two main advantages: First, considering spatial correlation allows site estimates to pool strength from neighbors,
thereby improving model parameter estimations (Aguero-Valverde & Jovanis, 2008). Second, spatial dependence could serve
as a surrogate for unknown and relevant covariates that vary smoothly across study area (Dubin, 1988; Cressie, 1993).
Although numerous road entity-specific and area-wide safety studies have incorporated the spatial effects into crash fre-
quency modeling (Aguero-Valverde & Jovanis, 2008 & 2010; Guo, Wang, & Abdel-Aty, 2010, Ahmed, Huang, Abdel-Aty, &
Guevara, 2011; Xie, Wang, Huang, & Chen, 2013, Dong, Huang, Xu, Ding, & Wang, 2014; Zeng & Huang, 2014; Barua
et al., 2015; Xu & Huang, 2015; Xu et al., 2016; Bhat et al., 2017; Prato et al., 2018), still limited studies have been conducted
in pedestrian injury severity analysis to address this issue completely. The consequence of this omission remains unknown.
Another concern is the temporal issue, in which the earliest temporally varying coefficient methods are addressed by the
analysis of longitudinal data widely utilized in injury severity. Started from a binary logit model by Young and Liesman
(2007), longitudinal data were integrated with different logit models to accommodate unobserved heterogeneity issue;
Anastasopoulos and Mannering (2011) provided a comparison of fixed and random parameter logit models using two types
of injury-severity data. The results showed that random-parameter logit model was superior to the fixed-parameter one, and
the models based on individual crash data provided better overall fit relative to the models based on the proportion of
crashes by severity type; Recently, Xie et al. (2018) extended the injury severity analysis into Bayesian binary logit model
with random effects, but some of the findings were counterintuitive, and it is recommended to compare with mixed logit
model or random parameter model (Zeng, Wen, Huang, Pei, & Wong, 2017; Behnood & Mannering, 2017; Waseem,
Ahmed, & Saeed, 2019; Alnawmasi & Mannering, 2019) so as to investigate real-time data more effectively.
Temporal variation has been one critical aspect to address in injury severity analysis. Some studies have been proposed to
integrate temporal non-stationarity into injury severity analysis to account for it. Initially, Behnood and Mannering (2015)
explored the temporal stability of factors affecting driver-injury severities in single-vehicle crashes using a mixed logit
model to capture potential unobserved heterogeneity. The results showed that the possible presence of temporal instability
in injury-severity models can have significant consequences in highway-safety practice. Depicting the spatial feature by the
location coordinates, Wang, Liu, Khattack, and Clarke (2016) introduced geographically weighted regression (GWR) model to
288 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300

investigate non-crossing rail-trespassing crash injury severity. Correlates of injury severity were found to be non-stationary
across space, which draws forth the problem of this study. The study by Zeng, Wen, Huang, Pei, and Wong (2018) developed
three temporal multivariate random parameters Tobit model to analyze crash rate by injury severity, which accommodated
temporal correlation and unobserved heterogeneity across observations and correlations across injury severity. The findings
supported the model with independent temporal effects as a good alternative for traffic safety analysis.
Nowadays, an increasing interest has arisen in modeling both spatial and temporal data in injury severity, but the studies
in pedestrian injury severity are left with behind. Ouni and Belloumi (2018) described the spatial pattern of vulnerable road
users’ collisions according to different temporal scales and investigated the related risk factors for injury severity in Tunisia,
but the method still employed standard multinomial logit model by considering both the geographical and temporal vari-
ation. In order to address the geographically non-stationary coefficients, Atkinson, German, Sear, and Clark (2003) proposed
the GWR model, whose basic assumption is Tobler’s first law of geography ‘‘ everything is related to everything else, but near
things are more related than distant things”, and this is uniform with the crashes occurred along the roadways or around
signalized intersections. So far, GWR model, one of several spatial regression techniques, has been increasingly used in var-
ious areas (Martinez-Fernande, et al. 2013; Wu et al., 2016; Widyaningsih, Saputro, & Putri, 2017; Yang, Lu, Cherry, Liu, & Li,
2017; Yang et al., 2019b), especially in geography area (Huang, Wu, & Barry, 2010; Wu & Zhang, 2013; Rodrigues, Riva, &
Fotheringham, 2014; Tu & Tu, 2017), however, the application of GWR in safety area (Gomes, Cunto, & Da Silva, 2017;
Ma, Yang, Zhou, Feng, & Yuan, 2019; Gomes, Pirdavani, Brijs, & Pitombo, 2019) is limited, especially in pedestrian injury
severity. In addition, as verified by Ma et al. (2018) and Zhang, Huang, and Zhu (2019), point-of-interest data within certain
area can be adopted to explain the relationship between urban environment and ridership, which provides the foundation
for pedestrian injury severity within certain area to be considered as point-of-interest within certain area to address the rela-
tionship between influencing factors and injury severity.
To sum up, various methods have addressed pedestrian injury severity from different aspects, but the spatial correlation
between the observation sites has not been explained clearly when pedestrian injury occurs, as well as temporal variation.
Although some studies may investigate either issue, both spatial and temporal issues have not been integrated simultane-
ously. With the two issues accommodated, pedestrian injury severity can be analyzed and enumerated not only from geo-
graphical locations, but from time series, which may benefit the pedestrian injury control.

3. Methodology

3.1. Geographically weighted regression model

The geographically weighted regression (GWR) model introduces a spatial feature to the ordinary logistic regression
model by including X and Y coordinates, and each regression parameter relies on geographical location of the data. According
to Fotheringham, Brunsdon, and Charlton (2002), the basic expression for the GWR model can be described as:
X
Y i ¼ b0 ðui ; v i Þ þ bk ðui ; v i Þxik þ i ð1Þ
k

where Y i denotes the predicted response variable, b0 ðui ; v i Þ represents the intercept parameter, in whichðui ; v i Þis the coor-
dinate point (latitude, longitude) for the location of i shown in ArcGIS, bk ðui ; v i Þ is a set of values of parameters at the i-
location and i = 1,2,. . .,n, xi refers to the vector of independent variable in i-observation, and i refers to the error term.
Since the assumptions of the classical linear regression remain in place for GWR model, the estimation of GWR model can
be conducted with the weighted maximum likelihood method, and the geographical factor is considered as the weighting
factor, which has different value for each location in ArcGIS. The matrix form for estimating the GWR parameters can be
given as:
 0 1
b ðui ; v i Þ ¼ X W ðui ; v i ÞX
b X 0 Wðui ; v i ÞY ð2Þ

where Wðui ; v i Þ is diagonal matrix and different for each point i of coordinates ðui ; v i Þ, including the weights wij in its main
diagonal, achieved through the weighting function, or kernel.
Basically, there are two main kernel functions as Gaussian and Bi-square functions, and two types of fixed and adaptive
kernels, i.e. four options for geographical kernel weighting. For the fixed kernel, distance is constant but the number of near-
est neighbors varies so that using Gaussian function is secure, while in the case of the adaptive kernel, distance varies but the
number of neighbors remains constant so that using bi-square kernel is better. However, different combinations of kernel
functions and kernel types can be utilized, e.g. when the regression points are evenly distributed, a bi-square function is bet-
ter even for a fixed kernel option, or in the case of binary logistic regression, the outcome distribution is unbalanced, and
adaptive Gaussian as a better option can be employed, in which wij can be described as:
 2 !
1 dij
W ij ðui ; v i Þ ¼ exp  ð3Þ
2 h
 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300 289

 
where dij represents the distance between the location ðui ; v i Þ and the location of uj ; v j , which is equal to
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2  2
ui  uj þ v i  v j , and h here refers to the non-negative parameter, called as bandwidth (fixed or adaptive),. More esti-
mation details about GWR model can be referred to Fotheringham et al. (2002), Huang et al. (2010) and Albuquerque,
Medina, and Silva (2017).

4. Geographically and temporally weighted regression model

As stated, GWR model can account for spatial non-stationarity in parameter estimates by developing a weight matrix on
the base of distances between estimation point i and all other observations. Usually, the time variable is addressed individ-
ually by setting to a certain date. Instead, in this study the time variable is introduced into the weight matrix based on dis-
tances determined from (x, y, t) coordinates between point i and all other observations similar as the GWR model. Hence, the
GTWR model can be described as:
  X
Y i ¼ b0 ui ; v i; ti þ bk ðui ; v i ; t i Þxik þ i ð4Þ
k

Similarly, the estimation of

 0 1
b ðui ; v i ; t i Þ ¼ X W ðui ; v i ; t i ÞX
b X 0 Wðui ; v i ; ti ÞY ð5Þ

where W ðui ; v i ; ti Þ is equal to diag ðai1 ; ai2 ;    ; ain Þ, and n represents the number of observations, while the diagonal elements
aij ð1  j  nÞ denote the space-time distance function of (u, v, t) corresponding to the weights when a weighted regression
close to observation point i is calibrated. Therefore, it can be found out that the spatial-temporal GTWR model depends on
the appropriate specification of the space-time distance decay function aij .
The calibration of the model relies on the so-called ‘‘closeness” from point i in the space-time coordinate system to the
data located farther from observation i, which is assumed that the estimation of bk ðui ; v i ; t i Þ parameters depends more on the
observed data points ‘‘close” to point i. Here the closeness include spatial and temporal closeness, which can be expressed as
S T S T
d and d , respectively, then the total spatial-temporal distance can be described as a linear combination of d and d .
S
¼ q d þ ld
ST T
d ð6Þ
where q and l are scale factors to balance the different effects to measure the spatial and temporal distance in the space and
time systems. It can be found that if the coefficients q and l are adjusted properly, d can reveal the ‘‘closeness” extent in
ST

the spatial-temporal space. Specifically, pedestrian injury severity has a greater influence in the ‘‘close” pedestrians than in
the farther locations, which reflects that the pedestrian injury severity is concerned with the temporal as well as the spatial.
Followed the thought by Huang et al. (2010), if the Euclidean distance and Gaussian distance-decay-based functions are
employed to construct a spatial-temporal weight matrix, Eq. (6) can be transferred to:
 2 h 2  2 i  2
¼ q ui  uj þ vi  vj þ l ti  tj
ST
dij ð7Þ

where ti and tj are observed times at locations i and j. With this, the weighting functions can be built up after the distances
between location i and all observations are calculated. Theoretically, if there is no temporal variation in the observation data,
the factor l can be set as 0, and then the distance calculation will be degraded to the GWR distance; on the other side, if the
factor q is set as 0, only the temporal distances and the temporal non-stationarity are left, and then the temporally weighted
regression (TWR) model will be formed. Therefore, GWR, TWR and GTWR models will be compared in this study to find out
whether the pedestrian injury severity is influenced by spatial, temporal or both issues.
To examine the goodness-of-fit in the proposed models, there are two criteria, one is cross-validation score (CV) (only
applicable to Gaussian models) and the other is the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) (Fotheringham et al., 2002). In order
to compare the three models, AIC is selected, which is expressed as follows:
AIC ¼ DðbÞ þ 2K ðbÞ ð8Þ
where D and K are the deviance and the effective number of parameters in the model with bandwidth b.
The implementation of GWR, TWR and GTWR models can be performed with software package ArcGIS and add-ins by
Huang et al. (2010).

5. Data description

The dataset was collected and integrated from the Traffic Accident Database System (TRADS) with the geo-database of the
Traffic Information System (TIS) maintained by the Hong Kong Transport Department from 2008 to 2012. As described in
detail by Sze and Wong (2007), three components from TRADS were included: the crash environment, casualty injuries,
and vehicle involvement profiles. All three were converted into a geo-database and displayed in ArcGIS.
290 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300

To investigate the factors that contribute to pedestrian injury severity, 376 signalized intersections were selected from
three areas, Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and New Territory, involving 1652 pedestrian-related crashes as shown in Fig. 1.
In Hong Kong, injury severity is divided into three levels: fatal, serious injury, and slight injury. As required by TRADS,
the number of pedestrians who sustained fatal injuries could be merged in the dataset (i.e. fatal cases accounted for only
6.8%), and as the two adjacent injury categories were quite similar, merging the fatal and serious injury categories was
not expected to substantially affect the inferences. Consequently, the dependent variable in the proposed model was a
dichotomous injury outcome, in which the response of interest referred to killed and serious injury (i.e. KSI), and slight injury
was treated as the contrast.

Fig. 1. Selected Signalized Intersections in Hong Kong.

 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300 291

TRADS provide the following variables: the injury characteristics include the time, date, year, severity levels, and injury
location; the crash environment involves speed limit, traffic aids, traffic congestion, obstruction, junction/road type, weather,
light conditions, road surface, crossing facility, presence of tram/LRT stops, and bus stops, geometric design and signal phas-
ing scheme; TIS gives the pedestrian features as the main variables, including the gender, age, location, action, special cir-
cumstance, contributory and the number of pedestrian streams.
To identify the factors that influence pedestrian injury severity and accommodate the spatial and temporal heterogeneity,
the dataset was integrated according to the unique intersection IDs in the ArcGIS following the time series from 2008 to
2012, which reflects the demographic characteristics of the pedestrian and traffic characteristics, environmental features,
and geometric design data. The variables included are displayed in Table 1, in which the upper part indicates the proportions
of categorical variables and the lower part provides the descriptive statistics of the continuous variables.

6. Results

Before the proposed model estimation, the Spearman correlation test was conducted to examine the strength of the asso-
ciation between two variables (not relying on the assumption of normally distributed data) so as to avoid the multicollinear-
ity issues among the independent variables. The test result showed that the following variables were included in the
proposed models, number of vehicles (X1), number of pedestrian-related casualties (X2), speed limit (X3), crossing facility
(X4), vehicle movement (X5), gender (X6) and injury location (X7).
In order to address the spatial feature, GWR, TWR and GTWR models were performed to compare with each other, and
geographical variability test was conducted to examine the spatial heterogeneity. Due to the unbalanced outcome distribu-
tion of binary logistic regression, adaptive Gaussian was considered as the kernel type. Bandwidth selection method follows
the golden section search of software ArcGIS, and best bandwidth value is 122 nearest neighbors.
Table 2 gives the final results of three models (i.e. GWR, TWR, and GTWR) with significant variables. Since the output of
local parameters estimates is interminable, Table 2 only provides a five-column summary of the distribution of each param-
eter to reveal the extent of its variability. The sign of all the parameters between the lower quartile (LQ) and the upper quar-
tile (UQ) in GWR are the same as GTWR, and the magnitude of all the parameters in the global models are between the
minimum and the maximum values of those in TWR, GWR, or GTWR models.
In terms of goodness-of-fit, the percentage of explanation of variance has increased from 0.763 in the global OLS model to
0.822 in TWR, 0.845 in GWR, and 0.865 in GTWR model. It can be seen from AIC values that GTWR model performs better
than other two models because AIC value is the smallest (1470.73 for TWR, 1582.53 for GWR, and 1722.52 for GTWR).
By comparing the residual sum of squares and residual standard error, the decreased value further indicates that GTWR gives
a better fit than the other two models. This implies that GTWR model can deal with both spatial and temporal hetero-
geneities. Furthermore, it can be found out that the GWR model performs a little better than those of TWR model in terms
of goodness-of-fit. The reason is such that the data collected only include a short time interval, indicating that the temporal
non-stationary effect is less significant than that of spatial non-stationarity.
As stated by Huang et al. (2010), F-statistic test is used to determine which parameters vary significantly across the study
area. Table 3 gives the F-statistic value of each variable at the 5% level, and the larger the F value, the more significant the
variable is. It can be seen that number of vehicles, number of pedestrian-related casualties, speed limit and vehicle move-
ment are significant for all three models in spatial and temporal variation of parameter estimates. However, the temporal
variations of intercept and injury location are not significant in the TWR model, while they are significant in the GWR
and GTWR models. It can also be inferred that the GWR model performs better than the TWR model because the data display
more spatial variation in the variables than those of the temporal dimension, which matches with the results from Table 2.
Moreover, the GTWR model integrates both potential spatial and temporal variation of variables, thus the number of non-
stationary variables in the GTWR model should not be fewer than those of TWR and GWR model, which is in line with the
results in Table 3.
One main feature of the GWR-based technique is that the parameter estimates that represent local relationships can be
reflected in ArcGIS, and thus can be visualized directly. The followings give some explanation for the significant variables of
GWTR model. The intercept has no impact on pedestrian injury severity, so there is no need to explain it.
By considering the coefficients of ‘‘number of vehicles” as the instance, several intervals are grouped and each interval is
colored to visualize the spatial variation patterns of this variable. Fig. 2 shows the coefficients distribution of number of vehi-
cles, and it can be found that spatial variation of number of vehicles in GTWR gives two major trends: the number of vehicles
varies from high in the central to low in the north, and positive relation focuses in the central areas. As a matter of fact, in the
north area of New Territory, the number of vehicles is much less than that in the central areas, Hong Kong Island and Kow-
loon, which leads to fewer pedestrian injury severities. The positive relation in the central areas suggests that the number of
vehicles has more important influence on pedestrian injury severity than in the north area, which is in line with the actual
situation. Because the everyday traffic volume in Hong Kong concentrates on Hong Kong Island and Kowloon areas, there are
more chances of running into pedestrian injury.
Similar spatial variation trends can be seen from the number of pedestrian-related casualties. As shown from Fig. 3, the
number of pedestrian-related casualties mostly concentrates on the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, and positive relation
mainly focuses on the two areas. This suggests that the number of pedestrian-related casualties has more important impact
292 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300

Table 1
Summary of the parameters in the pedestrian injury model.

Factor Attribute Count(proportion)

Pedestrian Injury severity Killed or severe injury 239(15.0%)
Slight injury 1413(85.0%)
Gender Male 993(60.1%)
Female 659(39.9%)
Age (years) Under 15 92(5.5%)
15–65 1377(83.4%)
Above 65 183(11.1%)
Injury location Head injury 177(10.7%)
Others 1475(89.3%)
Pedestrian 73(4.4%)
Pedestrian location On the crossing 82(5.0%)
Within 15 m of the crossing 1464(88.6%)
Others 33(2.0%)
Pedestrian action Crossing road or junction 1403(84.9%)
Others 249(15.1%)
Pedestrian special circumstance Overcrowded footpath 35(2.1%)
Obstructed footpath 125(7.6%)
Others 1376(83.3%)
None 116(7.0%)
Pedestrian contributory Inattentive 45(2.7%)
Others 575(34.8%)
None 1032(62.5%)
Safety belt Back seat 401(24.3%)
Driving seat 690(41.8%)
Front seat 561(33.9%)
Speed limit Below 50 km/h 14(0.8%)
50 km/h 1536(93.0%)
Above 50 km/h 102(6.2%)
Traffic congestion Severe congestion 369(22.3%)
Moderate congestion 386(23.4%)
No congestion 854(51.7%)
Other 43(2.6%)
Incoming vehicle East 73(4.4%)
South 104(6.3%)
West 61(3.7%)
North 47(2.8%)
Other 1367(82.8%)
Leaving vehicle East 57(3.5%)
South 48(2.9%)
West 91(5.5%)
\ North 89(5.3%)
Other 1367(82.8%)
Junction type T-junction 668(40.4%)
Cross-roads 331(20.0%)
Others 653(39.6%)
Road type Single-way carriageway 728(44.1%)
Two-way carriageway 383(23.2%)
Multi-/dual carriageway 541(32.7%)
Environmental contributory Slippery 9(0.5%)
Inadequate light 8(0.5%)
Others 15(0.9%)
None 1620(98.1%)
Weather Clear 1528(92.5%)
Dull 84(5.1%)
Fog/mist 28(1.7%)
Strong wind and unknown 12(0.7%)
Rain Not raining 1414(85.6%)
Light rain 196(11.9%)
Heavy rain 27(1.7%)
Unknown 15(0.8%)
Natural light Daylight 1070(64.7%)
Dawn/dusk 39(2.4%)
Dark 543(32.9%)
Street light Good 1282(77.6%)
Poor 7(0.4%)
Obscured and others 363(22.0%)
Road surface Wet 243(14.7%)
Dry 1800(84.7%)
 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300 293

Table 1 (continued)

Factor Attribute Count(proportion)

Unknown 8(0.6%)
Role Driver 690(41.8%)
Passenger 674(40.8%)
Pedestrian 288(17.4%)
Crossing control within 15 m Traffic signal 1127(68.2%)
None 461(28%)
Other 64(3.8%)
Crossing facility Traffic signal(2) 1126(68.2%)
Others(3) 472(28.6%)
None(1) 54(3.2%)
No. of pedestrian-related casualties 1 1079(65.3%)
2 302(18.3%)
3 96(5.8%)
Other 175(10.6%)
Road level Public road 1461(88.4%)
Other 191(11.6%)
Vehicle movement 1 vehicle 796(48.2%)
2 vehicles from the same direction 535(32.4%)
2 vehicles from different directions 49(3%)
2 vehicles from different roads 163(9.7%)
Other 109(6.7%)
No. of vehicles 1 672(40.7%)
2 830(50.2%)
>=3 150(9.1%)

on pedestrian injury severity in the two areas than in the north part. However, it can be found that the more number of casu-
alties, the more chances pedestrians are involved.
Different from the two variables above, spatial variation of speed limit in Fig. 4 reveals opposite trends: speed limit varies
from low in the central to high in the northwest, and positive relation focuses in the northwestern area. Because the density
of roadway network in the northwestern area is relatively low, the traffic volume is not so high in the northwestern as in the
central, thus the speed limit is relatively high, and the chances of running into crashes are increased. This indicates that
speed limit has more important influence on pedestrian injury severity in the New Territory than in the Hong Kong Island
and Kowloon areas. This is uniform with the actual situation.
Followed the spatial variation of speed limit, vehicle movement gives the similar trends: distribution varies from low in
the central to high in the north and west areas, and positive relation concentrates on the north and west areas in Fig. 5. Like-
wise, high speed limit may cause high vehicle movement from different directions, so low traffic volume in the north and
west areas of New Territory gives the chance of leading to high vehicle movement and producing severe pedestrian injury.
Hence, the impact of vehicle movement on pedestrian injury is more important in the north and west areas than that in the
central parts.
Among all the significant variables, injury location is the only one directly related to pedestrian characteristics. The spatial
variation of injury location shows the trend from Fig. 6 that pedestrian injury severity is not much different in the Hong Kong
Metropolitan area. However, compared to injury severity at other locations, head injury is more severe, which is in line with
the results by Xu et al. (2016).

7. Discussion

So far, there have been various approaches and methods about the pedestrian injury severity analysis. However, most of
the studies address spatial correlation between the observation sites or temporal variation separately, and both spatial and
temporal issues have not been integrated simultaneously. In this study, in order to accommodate the two issues, the GTWR
model is proposed, which can investigate the pedestrian injury severity involved in traffic crashes and address the spatial
and temporal heterogeneity simultaneously.
Shown from Table 2, the closer examination of the estimated results reveals some similarities and differences among
TWR, GWR and GWTR models. First, the similarity is that among the three models, number of vehicles, number of
pedestrian-related casualties, and vehicle movement are of significance for pedestrian injury severity, while GWR and GWTR
models share the same significant variables. This indicates that traffic volume and the number of pedestrians are significant
for pedestrian-related injury severity and need to be paid more attention. Moreover, geographical location plays an impor-
tant role in GWR and GWTR models. Secondly, the difference is that speed limit and injury location are not significant for
TWR model, while they are significant for GWR and GWTR models. This implies that temporal heterogeneity can’t be
reflected from speed limit directly, while it can be revealed geographically.
 294
X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300
Table 2
Results of TWR, GWR and GTWR models.

Variable TWR GWR model GTWR model

Min. LQ Med UQ Max. Min. LQ Med UQ Max. Min. LQ Med UQ Max.
Intercept 2.433 2.639 2.705 2.792 2.886 1.394 2.517 2.721 2.873 3.074 1.439 2.488 2.736 2.924 3.092
No. of vehicles 0.573 0.331 0.201 0.148 0.310 0.757 0.344 0.052 0.060 0.478 1.019 0.266 0.046 0.075 0.896
No. of pedestrian-related casualties 0.052 0.073 0.493 0.828 1.113 0.114 0.016 0.268 0.664 1.233 0.235 0.061 0.273 0.657 1.924
Speed limit 0.208 0.011 0.047 0.146 0.515 0.351 0.008 0.021 0.119 2.396 0.475 0.025 0.031 0.135 2.191
Crossing facility 0.121 0.046 0.011 0.009 0.052 0.178 0.025 0.004 0.011 0.067 0.267 0.022 0.000 0.015 0.128
Vehicle movement 0.329 0.059 0.087 0.207 0.454 0.388 0.131 0.011 0.144 0.800 0.444 0.088 0.001 0.145 0.972
Gender 0.058 0.026 0.015 0.007 0.016 0.072 0.037 0.016 0.002 0.029 0.102 0.032 0.016 0.002 0.042
Injury location 1.997 1.779 1.716 1.636 1.481 2.000 1.869 1.746 1.614 1.231 2.033 1.935 1.798 1.575 1.140
Goodness-of-fit
R2 0.823 0.845 0.865
AIC 1470.73 1582.53 1722.52
Residual sum of squares – 36.219 31.697 27.535
Residual standard error 0.148 0.138 0.129
 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300 295

Table 3
Non-stationarity of parameters in the TWR, GWR and GTWR models.

Variable F value
TWR model GWR model GTWR model
Intercept 0.399 8.164* 9.215*
No. of vehicles 3.408* 4.024* 6.061*
No. of pedestrian-related casualties 6.787* 5.953* 9.604*
Speed limit 1.052 22.153* 21.605*
Crossing facility 0.078 0.129 0.191
Vehicle movement 1.918* 2.652* 2.822*
Gender 0.015 0.032 0.036
Injury location 0.742 1.714* 2.997*

Note: * denotes 5% significance level.

Fig. 2. Spatial variation of number of vehicles.

Summarized from results above, corresponding measures can be taken empirically to reduce the pedestrian injury sever-
ity and improve the pedestrian safety. In the central areas of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, the number of vehicles should
be controlled moderately, so that the number of pedestrian-related casualties related to the pedestrians may be reduced cor-
respondingly; Lower speed limit may reduce the vehicle movement and cause lower travelling speed, thus wasting the road-
way capacity in north area, whereas higher speed limit may increase the vehicle movement from all directions and generate
the chances of pedestrian crashes in the central part, hence suitable speed limit should be set up in terms of the roadway
class and traffic volume so as to balance the efficiency and safety; Injury location should be paid more attention to pedes-
trians, and proper countermeasures should be taken for the pedestrians, especially for motorcyclists and bicyclists. Neces-
sary helmets are required to strengthen the head protection from harmful injury severity for all the areas.

8. Conclusions

In this study GTWR model was proposed to analyze pedestrian injury severity, and our analysis reveals that
spatial-temporal heterogeneity prevails in the real pedestrian crash data that evolve over both space and time. GWR
model was expanded to incorporate time so as to handle both spatial and temporal heterogeneity simultaneously, and
296 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300

Fig. 3. Spatial variation of number of pedestrian-related casualties.

Fig. 4. Spatial variation of speed limit.

X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300 297

Fig. 5. Spatial variation of vehicle movement.

Fig. 6. Spatial variation of injury location.

298 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300

goodness-of-fit of GTWR model revealed a better performance than those of GWR and TWR models. Therefore, it can be con-
cluded that it is meaningful to incorporate temporal non-stationarity into a GWR model, and the methodology has been
extended for the analysis of pedestrian injury severity.
Two main findings can be drawn from the results of the study. First, there indeed exists geographical and temporal
heterogeneity for pedestrian injury severity due to different geographical locations and different sampling time, while GTWR
model can accommodate the spatial and temporal heterogeneity simultaneously. Second, GTWR model can address the rela-
tionship between pedestrian injury severities and influencing factors.
Some weakness still remains in this study. One is that the results of the study were based on the dataset from Hong Kong
area, and the data period is short, it is worthwhile to try out longer data sources to confirm the findings and transferability of
this study in future studies. Another one is that the weighting schemes is based on a linear combination of spatial and tem-
poral distances, and more efficient schemes are still required to produce better results. Additionally, the other way to address
spatial-temporal heterogeneity is to incorporate panel data model into GWR model, which may improve the accuracy prob-
ably, and it is worthy investigating.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Xuecai Xu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Supervision, Writing -
review & editing. Xiangjian Luo: Data curation, Writing - original draft, Software, Validation. Changxi Ma: Conceptualiza-
tion, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Daiquan Xiao: Visualiza-
tion, Investigation, Software, Validation.

Acknowledgement

Thanks for Prof. S.C. Wong from the University of Hong Kong providing the dataset. This study was supported by Fundamen-
tal Research Fund for the Central Universities [HUST: 2018KFYYXJJ001].

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.02.003.

References

Abay, K. A. (2013). Examining pedestrian-injury severity using alternative disaggregate models. Research in Transportation Economics, 43(1), 123–136.
Aguero-Valverde, J., & Jovanis, P. (2008). Analysis of road crash frequency with spatial models. Transportation Research Record, 2061, 55–63.
Aguero-Valverde, J., & Jovanis, P. (2010). Spatial correlation in multilevel crash frequency models: Effects of different neighboring structures. Transportation
Research Record, 2165, 21–32.
Ahmed, M., Huang, H., Abdel-Aty, M., & Guevara, B. (2011). Exploring a Bayesian hierarchical approach for developing safety performance functions for a
mountainous freeway. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(4), 1581–1589.
Alnawmasi, N., & Mannering, F. L. (2019). A statistical assessment of temporal instability in the factors determining motorcyclist injury severities. Analytic
Methods in Accident Research, 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2019.100090.
Albuquerque, P. H. M., Medina, F. A. S., & Silva, A. R. (2017). Geographically weighted logistic regression applied to credit scoring models. Revista
Contabilidade & Financas-USP, 28(73), 93–112.
Anastasopoulos, P. C., & Mannering, F. L. (2011). An empirical assessment of fixed and random parameter logit model using crash-and non-crash-specific
injury data. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(3), 1140–1147.
Atkinson, P. M., German, S. E., Sear, D. A., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Exploring the relations between riverbank erosion and geomorphological controls using
geographically weighted logistic regression. Geographical Analysis, 35(1), 58–81.
Aziz, H. A., Ukkusuri, S. V., & Hasan, S. (2013). Exploring the determinants of pedestrian-vehicle crash severity in New York City. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 50, 1298–1309.
Ballesteros, M. F., Dischinger, P. C., & Langenberg, P. (2004). Pedestrian injuries and vehicle type in Maryland, 1995–1999. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
36(1), 73–81.
Behnood, A., & Mannering, F. L. (2015). The temporal stability of factors affecting driver-injury severities in single-vehicle crashes: Some empirical evidence.
Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 8, 7–32.
Behnood, A., & Mannering, F. L. (2017). The effect of passengers on driver-injury severities in single-vehicle crashes: a random parameters heterogeneity-in-
means approach. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 14(1), 41–53.
Bhat, C. R., Astroza, S., & Lavieri, P. S. (2017). A new spatial and flexible multivariate random-coefficients model for the analysis of pedestrian injury counts
by severity level. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 16, 1–22.
Bruna, S., El-Basyouny, K., & Islam, M. T. (2015). Effects of spatial correlation in random parameters collision count-data models. Analytic Methods in Accident
Research, 5, 28–42.
Clifton, K. J., Burnier, C. V., & Akar, G. (2009). Severity of injury resulting from pedestrian-vehicle crashes: What can we learn from examining the built
environment? Transportation Research Part D, 14(6), 425–436.
Chen, F., Chen, S. R., & Ma, X. X. (2018). Analysis of hourly crash likelihood using unbalanced panel data mixed logit model and real-time driving
environmental big data. Journal of Safety Research, 65, 153–159.
Cressie, N. A. C. (1993). Statistics for Spatial Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Dong, N., Huang, H., Xu, P., Ding, Z., & Wang, D. (2014). Evaluating spatial-proximity structures in crash prediction models at the level of traffic analysis
zones. Transportation Research Record, 2432, 46–52.
Dubin, R. A. (1988). Estimation of regression coefficients in the presence of spatially autocorrelated error terms. The Review of Economics and Statistics,
466–474.
Eluru, N., Bhat, C. R., & Hensher, D. A. (2008). A mixed generalized ordered response model for examining pedestrian and bicyclist injury severity level in
traffic crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40(3), 103–1054.
 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300 299

Fotheringham, A. S., Brunsdon, C., & Charlton, M. (2002). Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationship. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Gomes, M. J. T. L., Cunto, F., & Da Silva, A. R. (2017). Geographically weighted negative binomial regression applied to zonal level safety performance models.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 106, 254–261.
Gomes, M. M., Pirdavani, A., Brijs, T., & Pitombo, C. S. (2019). Assessing the impacts of enriched information on crash prediction performance. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 122, 162–171.
Guo, F., Wang, X., & Abdel-Aty, M. A. (2010). Modeling signalized intersection safety with corridor-level spatial correlations. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
42(1), 84–92.
Haleem, K., & Gan, A. (2013). Effect of driver’s age and side of impact on crash severity along urban freeways: A mixed logit approach. Journal of Safety
Research, 46, 67–76.
Huang, B., Wu, B., & Barry, M. (2010). Geographically and temporally weighted regression for modeling spatio-temporal variation in house prices.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24(3), 383–401.
Kaplan, S., & Prato, C. G. (2012). Associating crash avoidance maneuvers with driver attributed and accident characteristics: A mixed logit model approach.
Traffic Injury Prevention, 13(3), 315–326.
Kim, J. K., Ulfarsson, G. F., Kim, S., & Shankar, V. N. (2013). Driver-injury severity in single vehicle crashes in California: A mixed-logit analysis of
heterogeneity due to age and gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, 1073–1081.
Kim, J. K., Ulfarsson, G. F., Shankar, V. N., & Mannering, F. L. (2010). A note on modeling pedestrian-injury severity in motor-vehicle crashes with the mixed
logit model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(6), 1751–1758.
Lee, C., & Abdel-Aty, M. (2005). Comprehensive analysis of vehicle-pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(4),
775–786.
Li, Z., Wu, Q., Ci, Y., Chen, C., Chen, X., & Zhang, G. (2019). Using latent class analysis and mixed logit model to explore risk factors on driver injury severity in
single-vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 129, 230–240.
Ma, X., Zhang, J., Ding, C., & Wang, Y. (2018). A geographically and temporally weighted regression model to explore the spatiotemporal influence of built
environment on transit ridership. Computers Environment and Urban Systems, 70, 113–124.
Ma, C., Hao, W., Xiang,W. and Yan, W. (2018). The impact of aggressive driving behavior on driver injury severity at highway-rail grade crossings accidents,
Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018, Article ID 9841498, 1–10.
Ma, C., Yang, D., Zhou, J., Feng, Z., & Yuan, Q. (2019). Risk riding behaviors of urban e-bikes: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2308.
Martinez-Fernandez, J., Chuvieco, E., & Koutsias, N. (2013). Modelling long-term fire occurrence factors in Spain by accounting for local variations with
geographically weighted regression. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 13, 311–327.
Mohamed, M. G., Saunier, N., Miranda-Moreno, L. F., & Ukkusuri, S. V. (2013). A clustering regression approach: A comprehensive injury severity analysis of
pedestrian-vehicle crashes in New York, US and Montreal, Canada. Safety Science, 54, 27–37.
Moore, D. N., Schneider, W. H., IV, Savolainen, P. T., & Farzaneh, M. (2011). Mixed logit analysis of bicyclist injury severity resulting from motor vehicle
crashes at intersection and non-intersection locations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(3), 621–630.
Moudon, A. V., Lin, L., Jiao, J., Hurvitz, P., & Reeves, P. (2011). The risk of pedestrian injury and fatality in collisions with motor vehicles, a social ecological
study of state routes and city streets in King County. Washington. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(1), 11–24.
Ouni, F., & Belloumi, M. (2018). Spatio-temporal pattern of vulnerable road user’s collisions hot spots and related risk factors for injury severity in Tunisia.
Transportation Research Part F, 56, 477–495.
Prato, C. G., Kaplan, S., Patrier, A., & Rasmussen, T. K. (2018). Considering built environment and spatial correlation in modeling pedestrian injury severity.
Traffic Injury Prevention, 19(1), 88–93.
Rodrigues, M., Riva, J., & Fotheringham, S. (2014). Modeling the spatial variation of the explanatory factors of human-caused wildfires in Spain using
geographically weighted logistic regression. Applied Geography, 48, 52–63.
Sasidharan, L., & Menendez, M. (2014). Partial proportional odds model-an alternate choice for analyzing pedestrian crash injury severities. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 72, 330–340.
Sze, N. N., & Wong, S. C. (2007). Diagnostic analysis of the logistic model for pedestrian injury severity in traffic crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39
(6), 1267–1278.
Tay, R., Choi, J., Kattan, L., & Khan, A. (2011). A multinomial logit model of pedestrian-vehicle crash severity. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 5(4), 233–249.
Tu, J., & Tu, W. (2017). How the relationships between preterm birth and ambient air pollution vary over space: A case study in Georgia, USA using
geographically weighted logistic regression. Applied Geography, 92, 31–40.
Waseem, M., Ahmed, A., & Saeed, T. U. (2019). Factors affecting motorcyclists’ injury severities: An empirical assessment using random parameters logit
model with heterogeneity in means and variances. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 123, 12–19.
Wang, X., Liu, J., Khattack, A. J., & Clarke, D. (2016). Non-crossing rail-trespassing crashes in the past decade: A spatial approach to analyzing injury severity.
Safety Science, 82, 44–55.
Widyaningsih, P., Saputro, D. R. S., & Putri, A. N. (2017). Fisher scoring method for parameter estimation of geographically weighted ordinal logistic
regression model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 855(1), 012060.
Wu, L., Deng, F., Xie, Z., Hu, S., Shen, S., Shi, J., & Liu, D. (2016). Spatial analysis of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus in China using a
geographically weighted logistic regression model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph13111125.
Wu, Q., Chen, F., Zhang, G., Liu, X. C., Wang, H., & Bogus, S. M. (2014). Mixed logit model-based driver injury severity investigations in single- and multi-
vehicle crashes on rural two-lane highways. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 72, 105–115.
Wu, W., & Zhang, L. (2013). Comparison of spatial and non-spatial logistic regression models for modeling the occurrence of cloud cover in north-eastern
Puerto Rico. Applied Geography, 37, 52–62.
Xie, K., Wang, X., Huang, H., & Chen, X. (2013). Corridor-level signalized intersection safety analysis in Shanghai, China using Bayesian hierarchical models.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, 25–33.
Xie, M., Chen, W., Gill, G. S., Zhou, J., Jia, X., & Choi, S. (2018). Investigation of hit-and-run crash occurrence and severity using real-time loop detector data
and hierarchical Bayesian binary logit model with random effects. Traffic Injury Prevention, 19(2), 207–213.
Xu, P., & Huang, H. (2015). Modeling crash spatial heterogeneity: Random parameter versus geographically weighting. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 75,
16–25.
Xu, X., Xie, S., Wong, S. C., Xu, P., Huang, H., & Pei, X. (2016). Severity of pedestrian injuries due to traffic crashes at signalized intersections in Hong Kong: A
Bayesian spatial logit model. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 50, 2015–2028.
Yang, H., Cheery, C. R., Su, F., Ling, Z., Pannell, Z., Li, Y., & Fu, Z. (2019a). Underreporting, crash severity and fault assignment of minor crashes in China-A
study based on self-reported surveys. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 26(1), 30–36.
Yang, H., Lu, X., Cherry, C. R., Liu, X., & Li, Y. (2017). Spatial variations in active mode trip volume at intersections: A local analysis utilizing geographically
weighted regression. Journal of Transport Geography, 64, 184–194.
Yang, H., Xu, T., Chen, D., Yang, H., & Pu, L. (2019b). Direct modeling of subway ridership at station level: A study based on mixed geographically weighted
regression. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2018-0727.
Ye, F., & Lord, D. (2011). Investigation of effects of underreporting crash data on three commonly used traffic crash severity models. Transportation Research
Record, 2241, 51–58.
300 X. Xu et al. / Transportation Research Part F 69 (2020) 286–300

Ye, F., & Lord, D. (2014). Comparing three commonly used crash severity models on sample size requirements: Multinomial logit, ordered probit and mixed
logit models. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 1, 72–85.
Young, R. K., & Liesman, J. (2007). Estimating the relationship between measured wind speed and overturning truck crashes using a binary logit model.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(3), 574–580.
Zajac, S. S., & Ivan, J. N. (2003). Factors influencing injury severity of motor vehicle-crossing pedestrian crashes in rural Connecticut. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 35(3), 369–379.
Zeng, Q., & Huang, H. (2014). Bayesian spatial joint modeling of traffic crahes on an urban road network. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 67, 105–112.
Zeng, Q., Wen, H., Huang, H., Pei, X., & Wong, S. C. (2018). Incorporating temporal correlation into a multivariate random parameter Tobit model for
modeling crash rate by injury severity. Transpormetrica A: Transport Science, 14(3), 177–191.
Zeng, Q., Wen, H., Huang, H., Pei, X., & Wong, S. C. (2017). A multivariate random-parameters Tobit model for analyzing highway crash rates by injury
severity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 99, 184–191.
Zhang, X., Huang, B., & Zhu, S. (2019). Spatiotemporal influence of urban environment on taxi ridership using geographically and temporally weighted
regression. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-information, 8(1), 23.