IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4171-d784406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A q -Rung Orthopair Fuzzy FUCOM Double Normalization-Based Multi-Aggregation Method for Healthcare Waste Treatment Method Selection

Author

Listed:
  • Abhijit Saha

    (Department of Mathematics, Techno College of Engineering Agartala, Agartala 799004, India)

  • Arunodaya Raj Mishra

    (Department of Mathematics, Government College Raigaon, Satna 485441, India)

  • Pratibha Rani

    (Department of Mathematics, Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development, Sriperumbudur 602105, India)

  • Ibrahim M. Hezam

    (Department of Statistics & Operations Research, College of Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Fausto Cavallaro

    (Department of Economics, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy)

Abstract

Healthcare waste (HCW) management is an intricate issue upon which numerous factors, such as technical, economic, environmental, and social factors, have an impact. A determination on the best treatment method for HCW management can be viewed as a challenging multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem in which various options and evaluation criteria are considered. One critical concern when assessing HCW treatment (HCWT) methods is the representation and treatment of dubious data. In this paper, we present a q -rung orthopair fuzzy full consistency method double normalization-based multi-aggregation methodology called q -ROF-FUCOM-DNMA to solve MCDM problems with q -rung orthopair fuzzy information ( q -ROFI). In the proposed approach, criteria weights are estimated through the full consistency method (FUCOM) and a ranking of the alternatives is obtained through the double-normalization-based multi-aggregation (DNMA) method with q -ROFI. A HCWT method assessment issue was considered in order to clarify the relevance of the proposed approach. Five HCWT methods, including chemical disinfection, microwave disinfection, incineration, autoclaving (steam sterilization), and reverse polymerization, were considered as alternatives. The results show that autoclaving (steam sterilization) is the most efficient HCWT method. Furthermore, we performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the stability of the proposed approach. Additionally, we compared the presented approach with existing methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhijit Saha & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Ibrahim M. Hezam & Fausto Cavallaro, 2022. "A q -Rung Orthopair Fuzzy FUCOM Double Normalization-Based Multi-Aggregation Method for Healthcare Waste Treatment Method Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-28, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4171-:d:784406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4171/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4171/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liao, Huchang & Wu, Xingli, 2020. "DNMA: A double normalization-based multiple aggregation method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Han Lai & Huchang Liao & Jonas Šaparauskas & Audrius Banaitis & Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Abdullah Al-Barakati, 2020. "Sustainable Cloud Service Provider Development by a Z-Number-Based DNMA Method with Gini-Coefficient-Based Weight Determination," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Dursun, Mehtap & Karsak, E. Ertugrul & Karadayi, Melis Almula, 2011. "Assessment of health-care waste treatment alternatives using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approaches," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 98-107.
    6. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    7. Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Ayushi Chandel & Parvaneh Saeidi, 2022. "Low-carbon tourism strategy evaluation and selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy additive ratio assessment approach based on similarity measures," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 7236-7282, May.
    8. Liu, Hu-Chen & You, Jian-Xin & Lu, Chao & Chen, Yi-Zeng, 2015. "Evaluating health-care waste treatment technologies using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 932-942.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sanjib Biswas & Aparajita Sanyal & Darko Božanić & Adis Puška & Dragan Marinković, 2023. "Critical Success Factors for 5G Technology Adaptation in Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    2. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    4. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    5. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Huang, Xianjin & Fu, Guole & Chen, Jia-Tsong & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "Evaluating the sustainability of urban renewal projects based on a model of hybrid multiple-attribute decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    6. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Ustaoglu, E. & Sisman, S. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2021. "Determining agricultural suitable land in peri-urban geography using GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    8. Peyman Mohammady & Amin Amid, 2011. "Integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR model for supplier selection in an agile and modular virtual enterprise," Fuzzy Information and Engineering, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 411-431, December.
    9. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    10. J. M. Sánchez-Lozano & F. J. Salmerón-Vera & C. Ros-Casajús, 2020. "Prioritization of Cartagena Coastal Military Batteries to Transform Them into Scientific, Tourist and Cultural Places of Interest: A GIS-MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-16, November.
    11. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    12. Barros, Carlos Pestana & Wanke, Peter, 2015. "An analysis of African airlines efficiency with two-stage TOPSIS and neural networks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 44, pages 90-102.
    13. Zuo, Ting & Wei, Heng, 2019. "Bikeway prioritization to increase bicycle network connectivity and bicycle-transit connection: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 52-71.
    14. Muhammad Ikram & Qingyu Zhang & Robert Sroufe, 2020. "Developing integrated management systems using an AHP‐Fuzzy VIKOR approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2265-2283, September.
    15. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    16. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Havle, Celal Alpay & Feyzioğlu, Orhan, 2021. "Digital competency evaluation of low-cost airlines using an integrated IVIF AHP and IVIF VIKOR methodology," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    18. Sergio Domínguez & María Carmen Carnero, 2020. "Fuzzy Multicriteria Modelling of Decision Making in the Renewal of Healthcare Technologies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-46, June.
    19. Hasan Dinçer & Ozlem Olgu Akdeniz & Umit Hacioglu, 2018. "Competitive strategy selection in the European banking sector using a hybrid decision-making approach," Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci/Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics and Business, vol. 36(1), pages 213-242.
    20. Daniel R. Georgiadis & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2013. "Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 287-303, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4171-:d:784406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.