Asosiy kontentga oʻtish
Maqola

Medical waste disposal site selection under uncertainty: An interval-valued neutrosophic CRITIC-MARCOS decision support framework

Yuxu HanSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Jiangsu Normal University, Xuzhou 221116, ChinaSukumar LetchmunanSchool of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, MalaysiaWulfran Fendzi MbassoDepartment of Biosciences, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 602105, IndiaNarinderjit Singh Sawaran SinghFaculty of Data Science and Information Technology, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Negeri Sembilan, MalaysiaZokir MamadiyarovDepartment of Finance, Alfraganus University, Tashkent 100190, UzbekistanAseel SmeratHourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman 19328, JordanZhe LiuDepartment of Mathematics, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 602105, India;
2026
ABI

Annotatsiya

With the ongoing expansion of healthcare services, the amount of medical waste (MW) has been rising steadily, placing increasing pressure on environmental systems and public health. Identifying an appropriate disposal site is challenging because it requires balancing multiple, often conflicting criteria under considerable evaluation uncertainty. This paper develops a hybrid decision-making framework in an interval-valued neutrosophic (IVN) environment by integrating criteria importance through intercriteria correlation (CRITIC) with measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Interval-valued neutrosophic sets represent ambiguity, indeterminacy, and hesitation in expert judgments, while CRITIC derives data-driven criterion weights from aggregated expert evaluations by considering post-deneutrosophication dispersion and inter-criterion conflict. The extended MARCOS method prioritizes alternatives using a utility function that incorporates the ideal and anti-ideal solutions. A secondary-data methodological illustration assesses four candidate locations using nineteen social, economic, environmental, infrastructural, and geological criteria. Comparisons with IVN-TOPSIS, IVN-MAIRCA, IVN-EDAS, and IVN-VIKOR show that all five frameworks identify the same first-ranked site, whereas the ordering of the remaining alternatives is method-sensitive. These comparisons are interpreted at the integrated-framework level because the benchmark methods retain their own weighting and ranking mechanisms.

Hali tarjima qilinmagan

Identifikatorlar

Iqtiboslar va manbalar

0 ta iqtibos0 ta foydalanilgan manba