Assessing Medical Waste Treatment Technique based on Hyperbolicfuzzy EM-SWARA with COPRAS and ARAS Approaches

Authors

  • Nidhi Agarwal * Department of Mathematics, Dibrugarh University, Assam, India.
  • Palash Dutta Department of Mathematics, Dibrugarh University, Assam, India.

https://doi.org/10.48314/ramd.v2i2.70

Abstract

 Medical Waste Treatment Techniques (MWTT) have become a significant concern due to the imminent risks they pose to human health and the environment. Proper and secure treatment and disposal of toxic and harmful medical waste are essential and various MWTT options are available to achieve this. The selection of the ideal MWT option is a complex and crucial Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem as the decision is influenced by several factors both qualitative and quantitative aspects. This
study presents a hybrid MCDM method for analyzing and opting the MWT options within a Hyperbolic fuzzy framework. The Hyperbolic Fuzzy Set (HyFS) is an advanced tool that addresses uncertainty with greater precision, providing more flexibility for the decision makers. An entropy measure and a score function have been introduced in a hyperbolic fuzzy environment. Objective weights are evaluated using the entropy measure while subjective weights are assessed through the Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) model. Consequently, a pioneering hybrid MCDM approach is presented combining HyF-EM-SWARA with Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) and Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) techniques to identify the optimal MWT option in India. Furthermore, relative evaluations and variability analysis are presented to demonstrate the stability and reliability of the proposed hybrid MCDM methods for ranking the preferences of MWTT. 

Keywords:

Hyperbolic fuzzy set, Entropy measure, Medical waste treatment

References

  1. [1] Zadeh, L.A., Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8(3), (1965), 338-353.
  2. [2] Atanassov, K. T., Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), (1986), 87-96.
  3. [3] Yager, R. R., Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS),
  4. [4] IEEE, (2013), 57-61.
  5. [5] Yager, R. R., Generalized orthopair fuzzy Sets, IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems, 25(5), (2017), 122-130.
  6. [6] Dutta, P., Borah, G., Construction of hyperbolic fuzzy set and its applicatin in diverse COVID-19 associated problems, New
  7. [7] Mathematics and Natural Computation, 19(1), (2023), 217-289.
  8. [8] Divsalar, M., Ahmadi, M., Ghaedi, M., Ishizaka, A., An extended TODIM method under a hyperbolic fuzzy nvironment,
  9. [9] Computers and Industrial Engineering, (2023).
  10. [10] Zavadskas, E. K., Krishankumar, R., Rvichandran, K. S., Vilkonis, A., Antucheviciene, J., Hyperbolic fuzy set decision framework
  11. [11] for construction contracts integrating CRITIC and WASPAS for dispute mitigation, Automation in Construction, 174, (2025),
  12. [12] Banik, A. K., Dutta, P., An efficint decision making method based on hyperbolic fuzzy environment with new score function and
  13. [13] its application in determining crime prone zones, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, (2024),
  14. [14] Brent, A. C., Rogers, D. E., Ramabitsa-Siimane, T. S., Rohwer, M .B., Application of the analytical hierarchy process to
  15. [15] establish health care waste management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries, European Journal of
  16. [16] Operational Research, 181(1), (2007), 403-424.
  17. [17] Diaz, L., Savage, G., Eggerth, L., Alternatives for the treatment and disposal of healthcare wastes in developing countries,
  18. [18] Waste Management, 25(6), (2005), 626-637.
  19. [19] Dursun, M., Karsak, E. E., Karadayi, M. A., Assessment of health-care waste treatment alternatives using fuzzy multi-criteria
  20. [20] decision making approaches, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 57, (2011), 98-107.
  21. [21] Liu, H. C., Wu, J., Li, P., Assessment of health-care waste disposal methods using a VIKOR-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision
  22. [22] making method, Waste Management, 33(12), (2013), 2744-2751.
  23. [23] Liu, H. C., You, J, X., Shan, M. M., Application of interval 2-tuple linguistic MULTIMOORA method for health-care waste
  24. [24] treatment technology evaluation and selection, Waste Management, 34(11), (2014), 2355-2364.
  25. [25] Liu, H. C., You, J. X., Lu, C., Chen, Y. Z., Evaluating health-care waste treatment technologies using a hybrid multi-criteria
  26. [26] decision making model, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, (2015), 932-942.
  27. [27] Lu, C., You, J. X., Liu, H. C., Li, P., Health-care waste treatment technology selection using the interval 2-tuple induced
  28. [28] TOPSIS method, Int J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 13(6), (2016), 562.
  29. [29] Xiao, F., A novel multi-criteria decision making method for assessing health-care waste treatment technologies based on D
  30. [30] numbers, Engeering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 71, (2018), 216-225.
  31. [31] Hinduja, A., Pandey, M., Assessment of healthcare waste treatment alternatives using an integrated decision support framework,
  32. [32] International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 12(1), (2018), 318.
  33. [33] Li, H., Li, J., Zhang, ., Cao, X., Zhu, J., Chen, W., Establishing an interval-valued fuzzy decision-making method for sustinable
  34. [34] selection of healthcare waste treatment technologies in the emerging economies, J. Mater. Cycles. Waste Manage., 22(2), (2020),
  35. [35] -514.
  36. [36] Manupati, V. K., Ramkumar, M., Baba, V., Agarwal, A., Selection of the best healthcare waste dissposal techniques during
  37. [37] and post COVID-19 pandemic era, Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, (2021), 125175.
  38. [38] Liu, P., Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., A novel Pythagorean fuzzy combined compromise solution framework for the assessment of
  39. [39] medical waste treatment technology, Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, (2021), 126047.
  40. [40] Saha, A., Mishra, A.R., Rani, P., Hezam, L. M., Cavallaro, F., A q-rung orthopair fuzzy FUCOM double normalization-based
  41. [41] multi-aggregation method for healthcare waste treatment method selection, Sustainability, 14(7), (2022), 4171
  42. [42] Krishankumar, R., Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Zavadskas, E. K., Ravichandran, K., Kar, S., A new decision model with integrated
  43. [43] approach for healthcare waste treatment technology selection with generalised othopair fuzzy information, Information Sciences,
  44. [44] , (2022), 1010-1028.
  45. [45] Yang, Y. D., Ding, X. F., Emergency response scheme selection with T-spherical hesitant probabilistic fuzzy TODIM-TPZSG
  46. [46] approach, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 123, (2023), 105777.
  47. [47] Liu, J., Liu, P., Liu, S. F., Zhou, X. Z., Zhang.,T., A study of decision process in MCDM problems with large number of
  48. [48] criteria, International Transactions in Operational Research, 22, (2015), 237-264.
  49. [49] Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., Papayaannakis, L., Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC
  50. [50] method, Computers and Operations Research, 22, (1995), 763-770.
  51. [51] Goldstein, W. M., Judgements of relative importance in decision making: Global vs local interpretations of subjective weight,
  52. [52] Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, (1990), 313-336.
  53. [53] Kersuliene, V., Zavadskas, E., Turskis, Z., Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight
  54. [54] assessment ratio analysis(SWARA), Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11, (2010), 243-258.
  55. [55] Joshi, D., Kumar, S., Intutionistic fuzzy entropy and distance measure based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making,
  56. [56] Egyptian Informatics Journal, 15(2), (2014), 97-104.
  57. [57] De Luca, A., Termini, S., A definition of a nonprobabilistic entropy in the setting of fuzzy sets theory, Information and Control,
  58. [58] (4), (1972), 301-312.
  59. [59] Szmidt, E., Kacprzyk, J., Entropy for intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118(3), (2001), 467-477.
  60. [60] Chen, S. M., Tan, J. M., Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory, Fuzzy Sets and
  61. [61] Systems, 67(2), (1994), 163-172.
  62. [62] Assessing Medical Waste Treatment Technique based on Hyperbolic fuzzy ... 114[32] Zavadskas, E., Turskis, Z., A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making, Technological
  63. [63] and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), (2010), 159-172.
  64. [64] Zadavskas, E, K., Turskis, Z., Vilutiene, T., Multi criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying additive
  65. [65] ratio assessment (ARAS) method, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 10(3), (2010), 123-141.
  66. [66] Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas, E., Turskis, Z., Stanujkic, D., The framework for the selection of personnel based on the SWARA
  67. [67] and ARAS methods under uncertainities, Informatica, 27, (2016), 49-56.
  68. [68] Medineckienea, M., Zavadskas, E., Bjeorka, F., Turskis, Z., Multicriteria decision-making system for sustainable building
  69. [69] assessment/certification, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(1), (2015), 11-18.
  70. [70] Mishra, A. R., Sisodia, G., Pardasani K. R., Sharma, K., Multi-criteria IT personnel selection on intuitionistic fuzzy information
  71. [71] measures and ARAS methodology, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 17(4), (2020), 55-68.
  72. [72] Bakshi, T., Sinharay, A., An intrigrated novel approach in MCDM under fuzziness, International Journal of Computer and
  73. [73] Communication Technology, 2(7), (2011), 36-43.
  74. [74] Bakshi, T., Sarkar, B., MCA based performance evaluation of project selection, International Journal of Software Engineering
  75. [75] and Applications, 2(2), (2011), 14-22.
  76. [76] Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A ., Sarka, V., The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects,
  77. [77] Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1, (1994), 131-139.
  78. [78] Organ, A., Yalçin, E., Performance evaluation of research assistants by COPRAS method, European Scientific Journal, 12,
  79. [79] (2016), 102-109.
  80. [80] Hezer, S., Gelme, E., Özceylan, E., Comparative analysis of TOPSIS, VIKOR and COPRAS methods fr the COVID-19 Regional
  81. [81] Safety Assessment, Journal of Infection and Public Health, 14, (2021), 775-786.
  82. [82] Sahabuddin, M., Khan, I., Multi-criteria decision analysis methods for energy sector’s sustaiability assessment: Robustness
  83. [83] analysis through criteria weight change, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, (2021), 101380.
  84. [84] Senapati, T., Yager, R. R., Fermatean fuzzy sets, Journal of Ambient Intelligent and Humanized Computing, 11, (2020),
  85. [85] -674.
  86. [86] Arora, H. D., Naithani, A., A new definition for quartic fuzzy sets with hesitation grade applied to multi-criteria decision-making
  87. [87] problems under uncertainty, Decision Analytics Journal, 7, (2023), 100239.
  88. [88] Dutta, P., Konwar, A., Quintic fuzzy sets: A new class of fuzzy sets for solving multi-criteria decision-making problems under
  89. [89] certainty, Decision Analytics Journal, 11 (2024), 100449.
  90. [90] Mishra, A. R., Mardani, A., Rani, P., Zavadskas, E. K., A novel EDAS approach on intuitionistic fuzzy set for assessment
  91. [91] of health-care waste disposal technology uing ne parametric divergence measure, Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, (2020),
  92. [92] Dursun, M., Karsak, E. E., Karadayi, M. A., A fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making framework for evaluating health-care
  93. [93] waste disposal alternatives, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), (2011), 11453-11462.
  94. [94] Memari, A., Dargi, A., Jokar., M. R. A., Ahmad, R., Rahim, A. R. A., Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria
  95. [95] intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, (2019), 9-24.
  96. [96] Zheng, Y., Xu, J., Chen, H., TOPSIS-based entropy measure for intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy sets and application to
  97. [97] multi-ttribute decission making, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 17(5), (2020), 5604-5617.
  98. [98] Salimian, S., Mousavi, S. M., The selection of healthcare waste treatment technologie by a multi-criteria group decision-making
  99. [99] method ith intuitionitic fuzzy set, Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 14(1), (2022), 205-220.
  100. [100] Rani, P., Mishra, A. R., Krishankumar, R., Ravichandran, K. S., Gandomi, A. H., A new pythagorean fuzzy based decision
  101. [101] framework for asssesssing healthcare waste treatment, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), (2022), 2915-2929.’
  102. [102] Alagöz, B. A. Z., Koasoy, G., Treatment and disposal alternatives for health-care waste in developing countries-a case study in
  103. [103] Instanbul, Turkey, Waste Management and Research, 25(1), (2007), 83-89.
  104. [104] Wang, L., Wang, H., An integrated qualitative group decision-making nwthod for assessing health-care waste treatment
  105. [105] technologies based on linguistic terms with weakened hedges, Applied Soft Computing, 117, (2022), 205-220

Downloads

Published

2025-06-14

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): Risk Assessment and Management Decisions (RAMD)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Agarwal, N. ., & Dutta, P. . (2025). Assessing Medical Waste Treatment Technique based on Hyperbolicfuzzy EM-SWARA with COPRAS and ARAS Approaches. Risk Assessment and Management Decisions, 2(2), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.48314/ramd.v2i2.70