IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p2881-d1366953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Site Selection of Medical Waste Disposal Facilities Using the Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Fuzzy EDAS Method: The Case Study of Istanbul

Author

Listed:
  • Mesut Samastı

    (TUBITAK TUSSIDE (Turkish Management Sciences Institute), Gebze 41400, Türkiye)

  • Yusuf Sait Türkan

    (Industrial Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul 34473, Türkiye)

  • Mustafa Güler

    (Engineering Sciences Department, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul 34473, Türkiye)

  • Mirac Nur Ciner

    (Environmental Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul 34473, Türkiye)

  • Ersin Namlı

    (Industrial Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul 34473, Türkiye)

Abstract

In recent years, as a result of the increasing demand for health services, medical waste (MW) generated from health facilities has increased significantly. Problems that threaten the environment and public health may arise as a result of inadequate medical waste management (MWM), especially in densely populated metropolitan areas. Therefore, it is very important that the disposal process of waste is carried out in a way that minimizes harm to human health and the environment. MW disposal site selection is among the most important decisions that local governments make. These decisions have many conflicting and similar criteria and alternatives. However, decision-makers may experience significant uncertainty when evaluating the alternatives. This study adopts the interval-valued neutrosophic (IVN) fuzzy EDAS method for the evaluation of MW disposal facility siting alternatives in Istanbul. This approach is used to evaluate potential sites based on a comprehensive, hierarchical criteria framework designed to address data uncertainty and inconsistency common in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) scenarios. Within the scope of the study, six main criteria (distance settlement area, social acceptance, costs, environmental impacts, infrastructure facilities, and disaster and emergency) and nineteen sub-criteria are meticulously analyzed. Considering the geographical location and dense urban texture of Istanbul, the study emphasizes the criteria related to distance to residential areas, logistics costs, and potential disaster risks. Among the identified criteria, land costs, topographical features, proximity to landfills, and distance to high-voltage lines are emphasized as the least important criteria. This study, which evaluated various alternatives, identified Pendik, located on the Anatolian side of Istanbul, as the most suitable site for MW disposal due to its minimal risk. The study also compares the four main alternatives and highlights their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Suggested Citation

  • Mesut Samastı & Yusuf Sait Türkan & Mustafa Güler & Mirac Nur Ciner & Ersin Namlı, 2024. "Site Selection of Medical Waste Disposal Facilities Using the Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Fuzzy EDAS Method: The Case Study of Istanbul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2881-:d:1366953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2881/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2881/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Heng & Li, Jiarui & Li, Tongyu & Xu, Gang & Jin, Xi & Wang, Min & Liu, Tong, 2022. "Performance assessment of a novel medical-waste-to-energy design based on plasma gasification and integrated with a municipal solid waste incineration plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vlasopoulos, Antonis & Malinauskaite, Jurgita & Żabnieńska-Góra, Alina & Jouhara, Hussam, 2023. "Life cycle assessment of plastic waste and energy recovery," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    2. Pawlak-Kruczek, Halina & Mularski, Jakub & Ostrycharczyk, Michał & Czerep, Michał & Baranowski, Marcin & Mączka, Tadeusz & Sadowski, Krzysztof & Hulisz, Patryk, 2023. "Application of plasma burners for char combustion in a pulverized coal-fired (PC) boiler – Experimental and numerical analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Atour Taghipour & Parvaneh Zeraati Foukolaei & Maryam Ghaedi & Moein Khazaei, 2023. "Sustainable Multi-Objective Models for Waste-to-Energy and Waste Separation Site Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Bolegenova, Saltanat & Askarova, Аliya & Georgiev, Aleksandar & Nugymanova, Aizhan & Maximov, Valeriy & Bolegenova, Symbat & Mamedov, Bolat, 2023. "The use of plasma technologies to optimize fuel combustion processes and reduce emissions of harmful substances," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    5. Shuwen Zhao & Guojian Ma & Juan Ding, 2023. "Symbiotic Mechanism of Multiple Subjects for the Resource-Based Disposal of Medical Waste in China in the Post-Pandemic Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Long Zhang & Jingzheng Ren & Wuliyasu Bai, 2023. "A Review of Poultry Waste-to-Wealth: Technological Progress, Modeling and Simulation Studies, and Economic- Environmental and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Caferra, Rocco & D'Adamo, Idiano & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2023. "Wasting energy or energizing waste? The public acceptance of waste-to-energy technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PE).
    8. Lv, Jiayang & Wang, Yinan & Chen, Heng & Li, Wenchao & Pan, Peiyuan & Wu, Lining & Xu, Gang & Zhai, Rongrong, 2023. "Thermodynamic and economic analysis of a conceptual system combining medical waste plasma gasification, SOFC, sludge gasification, supercritical CO2 cycle, and desalination," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).

    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:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2881-:d:1366953. 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.