IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v24y2022i9d10.1007_s10668-021-01902-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods

Author

Listed:
  • Adis Puška

    (University of Bijeljina)

  • Željko Stević

    (University of East Sarajevo)

  • Dragan Pamučar

    (University of Defence in Belgrade)

Abstract

Disposal of healthcare waste is a key issue of environmental sustainability in the world. The amount of healthcare waste is increasing every day, and it is necessary to adequately dispose of this kind of waste. There are various treatments for healthcare waste disposal, of which incineration of healthcare waste is one of the solutions. This paper suggests a model for selection of the type of incinerators that best solve the problem of healthcare waste in secondary healthcare institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the selection of incinerators, extended sustainability criteria were applied. Basic sustainability criteria: environmental, economic, and social criteria, were extended with the technical criterion. To assess which of the incinerators best meets the needs for healthcare waste collection, multi-criteria decision-making was used. For this purpose, a combination of two MCDA methods was applied in this paper, namely full consistency method (FUCOM) and compromise ranking of alternatives from distance to ideal solution (CRADIS). The FUCOM method was applied to determine the weights of the criteria, while the CRADIS method was applied to rank the alternatives. The best alternative of the six alternatives used is A2 (I8-M50), followed by alternative A1 (I8-M40), while the worst ranked alternative is A5 (I8-M100). These results were confirmed by applying the other six methods of multi-criteria analysis and the performed sensitivity analysis. The contribution of this paper is reflected through a new method of multi-criteria analysis that was used to solve decision-making problems. This method has shown simplicity and flexibility in operation and can be used in all problems when it is necessary to make a multi-criteria selection of alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Adis Puška & Željko Stević & Dragan Pamučar, 2022. "Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 11195-11225, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:9:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01902-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hui Hu & Xiang Li & Anh Dung Nguyen & Philip Kavan, 2015. "A Critical Evaluation of Waste Incineration Plants in Wuhan (China) Based on Site Selection, Environmental Influence, Public Health and Public Participation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, July.
    2. María Carmen Carnero, 2020. "Waste Segregation FMEA Model Integrating Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set and the PAPRIKA Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-29, August.
    3. Chao Lu & Jian-Xin You & Hu-Chen Liu & Ping Li, 2016. "Health-Care Waste Treatment Technology Selection Using the Interval 2-Tuple Induced TOPSIS Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Md. Sohrab Hossain & Venugopal Balakrishnan & Nik Norulaini Nik Ab Rahman & Md. Zaidul Islam Sarker & Mohd Omar Ab Kadir, 2012. "Treatment of Clinical Solid Waste Using a Steam Autoclave as a Possible Alternative Technology to Incineration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Qingpeng Cao & Moses Olabhele Esangbedo & Sijun Bai & Caroline Olufunke Esangbedo, 2019. "Grey SWARA-FUCOM Weighting Method for Contractor Selection MCDM Problem: A Case Study of Floating Solar Panel Energy System Installation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Yan Xu & Chung-Hsing Yeh & Shaopeng Yang & Bhumika Gupta, 2020. "Risk-based performance evaluation of improvement strategies for sustainable e-waste management," Post-Print hal-02769431, HAL.
    8. Željko Stević & Nikola Brković, 2020. "A Novel Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model for Evaluation of Human Resources in a Transport Company," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Xiaohong Chen & Jiong Lin & Xihua Li & Zhiyong Ma, 2021. "A novel framework for selecting sustainable healthcare waste treatment technologies under Z-number environment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 72(9), pages 2032-2045, September.
    11. Tiziana Ramaci & Massimiliano Barattucci & Caterina Ledda & Venerando Rapisarda, 2020. "Social Stigma during COVID-19 and its Impact on HCWs Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.
    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. Liu, Aijun & Li, Zengxian & Shang, Wen-Long & Ochieng, Washington, 2023. "Performance evaluation model of transportation infrastructure: Perspective of COVID-19," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Adis Puška & Miroslav Nedeljković & Ilija Stojanović & Darko Božanić, 2023. "Application of Fuzzy TRUST CRADIS Method for Selection of Sustainable Suppliers in Agribusiness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Wendi Chen & Shouzhen Zeng & Erhua Zhang, 2023. "Fermatean Fuzzy IWP-TOPSIS-GRA Multi-Criteria Group Analysis and Its Application to Healthcare Waste Treatment Technology Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-25, 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. Ahmet Kaya & Dragan Pamucar & Hasan Emin Gürler & Mehmet Ozcalici, 2024. "Determining the financial performance of the firms in the Borsa Istanbul sustainability index: integrating multi criteria decision making methods with simulation," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-44, December.
    2. Didem Tezsürücü Çoşansu & Algın Okursoy, 2022. "Financial Performance Analysis of Retail Trade Firms Registered in BIST with FUCOM Based VIKOR Method," Alphanumeric Journal, Bahadir Fatih Yildirim, vol. 10(2), pages 223-235, December.
    3. Morteza Yazdani & Dragan Pamucar & Prasenjit Chatterjee & Ali Ebadi Torkayesh, 2022. "“A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty”," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 116-145, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    7. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. 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).
    9. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," 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. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    10. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Mohit Jain & Gunjan Soni & Deepak Verma & Rajendra Baraiya & Bharti Ramtiyal, 2023. "Selection of Technology Acceptance Model for Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agri-Fresh Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    13. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    14. Deb, Madhujit & Debbarma, Bishop & Majumder, Arindam & Banerjee, Rahul, 2016. "Performance –emission optimization of a diesel-hydrogen dual fuel operation: A NSGA II coupled TOPSIS MADM approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(P1), pages 281-290.
    15. Kuang-Hua Hu & Wei Jianguo & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Risk Factor Assessment Improvement for China’s Cloud Computing Auditing Using a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 737-777, May.
    16. Fernando Rojas & Peter Wanke & Víctor Leiva & Mauricio Huerta & Carlos Martin-Barreiro, 2022. "Modeling Inventory Cost Savings and Supply Chain Success Factors: A Hybrid Robust Compromise Multi-Criteria Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(16), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Büsing, Christina & Goetzmann, Kai-Simon & Matuschke, Jannik & Stiller, Sebastian, 2017. "Reference points and approximation algorithms in multicriteria discrete optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 829-840.
    20. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.

    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:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:9:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01902-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.