IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0285452.html

Evaluating the COVID-19 impact in Italian regions via multi criteria analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Santucci
  • Martina Nobili
  • Luca Faramondi
  • Gabriele Oliva
  • Bianca Mazzà
  • Antonio Scala
  • Massimo Ciccozzi
  • Roberto Setola

Abstract

Italy was the first European country to be significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of similar previous experiences and the initial uncertainty regarding the new virus resulted in an unpredictable health crisis with 243,506 total confirmed cases and 34,997 deaths between February and July 2020. Despite the panorama of precariousness and the impelling calamity, the country successfully managed many aspects of the early stages of the health and socio-economic crisis. Nevertheless, many disparities can be identified at the regional level. The study aims to determine which aspects of regional management were considered more important by the citizens regarding economic and health criteria. A survey was designed to gather responses from the population on the Italian regions’ response and provide a ranking of the regions. The 29-item online survey was provided to 352 individuals, and the collected data were analyzed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process methodology. The results show a general agreement in considering of greater relevance the healthcare policies rather than the economic countermeasures adopted by regional governments. Our analysis associated a weight of 64% to the healthcare criteria compared to the economic criteria with a weight of 36%. In addition to the results obtained from the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the sample’s composition was analyzed to provide an overall assessment of the Italian regions. To do so, we collected objective data for each region and multiplied them by the overall weight obtained for each sub-criteria. Looking at the propensity to vaccination or the belief in a relation between COVID-19 and 5G according to age and educational qualification helps understand how public opinion is structured according to cultural and anthropological differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Santucci & Martina Nobili & Luca Faramondi & Gabriele Oliva & Bianca Mazzà & Antonio Scala & Massimo Ciccozzi & Roberto Setola, 2023. "Evaluating the COVID-19 impact in Italian regions via multi criteria analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(5), pages 1-34, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0285452
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285452
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285452&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0285452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alam Khan & Nadeem Khan & Muhammad Shafiq, 2021. "The Economic Impact of COVID-19 from a Global Perspective," Contemporary Economics, Vizja University, vol. 15(1), February.
    2. Libertad Moreno-Luna & Rafael Robina-Ramírez & Marcelo Sánchez-Oro Sánchez & José Castro-Serrano, 2021. "Tourism and Sustainability in Times of COVID-19: The Case of Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    4. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 156-160, September.
    5. Emanuele Torri & Luca Gino Sbrogiò & Enrico Di Rosa & Sandro Cinquetti & Fausto Francia & Antonio Ferro, 2020. "Italian Public Health Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Case Report from the Field, Insights and Challenges for the Department of Prevention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, May.
    6. Lai, Young-Jou & Liu, Ting-Yun & Hwang, Ching-Lai, 1994. "TOPSIS for MODM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 486-500, August.
    7. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    8. Scholl, Armin & Manthey, Laura & Helm, Roland & Steiner, Michael, 2005. "Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: An empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 760-777, August.
    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. He Huang & Shary Heuninckx & Cathy Macharis, 2024. "20 years review of the multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) framework: a proposition of a systematic guideline," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 343(1), pages 313-348, December.
    2. Olga Porro & Francesc Pardo-Bosch & Núria Agell & Mónica Sánchez, 2020. "Understanding Location Decisions of Energy Multinational Enterprises within the European Smart Cities’ Context: An Integrated AHP and Extended Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-29, May.
    3. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    4. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    5. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    6. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Omid Valizadeh & Mojtaba Ghiyasi, 2023. "Assessing telecommunication contractor firms using a hybrid DEA-BWM method," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(4), pages 189-200.
    8. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    9. Peykani, Pejman & Emrouznejad, Ali & Nouri, Mojtaba, 2026. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: A review of the literature," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Ishizaka, Alessio & Resce, Giuliano, 2021. "Best-Worst PROMETHEE method for evaluating school performance in the OECD's PISA project," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    11. Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili & Turan Erden, 2021. "Comparative evaluation of GIS-based best–worst method (BWM) for emergency facility planning: perspectives from two decision-maker groups," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 1031-1067, January.
    12. Arıöz, Yağmur & Yılmaz, İbrahim & Yıldızbaşı, Abdullah, 2025. "Unlocking circularity: A stakeholder theory approach to the 10Rs in the solar PV supply chain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    13. Kandemir, Cagatay & Celik, Metin, 2021. "Determining the error producing conditions in marine engineering maintenance and operations through HFACS-MMO," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    14. Ferenc Bognár & Petra Benedek, 2022. "A Novel AHP-PRISM Risk Assessment Method—An Empirical Case Study in a Nuclear Power Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, September.
    15. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    16. Jan Górecki & David Bartl & Jaroslav Ramík, 2024. "Robustness of priority deriving methods for pairwise comparison matrices against rank reversal: a probabilistic approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 333(1), pages 249-273, February.
    17. Mayank Pathak & Sujan Mondal & Pinosh Kumar Hajoary, 2025. "Embedding Circular Economy and Sustainability in Tourism Policy: An Institutional Theory Perspective," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 5(7), pages 6499-6527, December.
    18. Mehdi Rajabi Asadabadi & Hadi Badri Ahmadi & Himanshu Gupta & James J. H. Liou, 2023. "Supplier selection to support environmental sustainability: the stratified BWM TOPSIS method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(1), pages 321-344, March.
    19. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    20. Amoozad Mahdiraji, Hannan & Sharifpour Arabi, Hojatallah & Duan, Keru & Vrontis, Demetris, 2025. "Harnessing technological resources for effective growth hacking: A mixed-method framework using systematic literature review, content analysis, and multi-layer decision-Making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0285452. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.