An integrated multi-criteria decision-making method for hazardous waste disposal site selection

Evaluation of Students’ Educational Management Quality Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information

“…e following Table 12 shows a teaching quality evaluation information base transferred out of the system, which is the scores of supervisors, peers, and students for teachers in terms of teaching attitude, teaching content, teaching art, classroom structure, classroom management, and teaching effect. Taking into account the importance of students' roles, the credibility of students' divided team leaders, team members, and class representatives in different roles is calculated [22,23].…”

A grey ordinal priority approach for healthcare waste disposal location selection

“…It can be noticed that those MCDM tools have been separately hybridized with other techniques, like straight rank sum method (Alkaradaghi et al, 2019), ratio scale weighting method (Alkaradaghi et al, 2019), step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) (Ghoushchi et al, 2021), best worst method (BWM) (Torkayesh et al, 2021), stratified BWM (Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022) and pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment (PIPRECIA) (Tas ¸, 2021) for measurement of subjective criteria weights. Those MCDM techniques have also been employed along with different uncertainty models, such as fuzzy set theory (FST) (Chauhan and Singh, 2016;Kharat et al, 2016;Wichapa and Khokhajaikiat, 2017;Tas ¸, 2021;Feng, 2022), Grey ordinal priority approach fuzzy axiomatic design (FAD) (Feng, 2022), Fermatean fuzzy set (Mishra and Rani, 2021), spherical fuzzy set (Ghoushchi et al, 2021), interval 2-tuple linguistic number (Liu et al, 2014), intuitionistic fuzzy set (Kahraman et al, 2017;Salimian and Mousavi, 2021), grey system theory (Torkayesh et al, 2021), grey interval number (Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022) and interval rough number (Yazdani et al, 2020) to effectively deal with subjective opinions of the decision makers with respect to criteria weights and alternative's performance in GDM environment. All these MCDM methods require multiple steps to estimate criteria weights and ranking of the alternatives.…”

“…Capability of different MCDM tools in effectively identifying the most suitable HCW disposal location from a set of feasible choices has made them quite popular among the research community. Table 1 reveals that several MCDM techniques, like analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Chauhan and Singh, 2016; Kharat et al ., 2016; Wichapa and Khokhajaikiat, 2017; Alkaradaghi et al ., 2019; Feng, 2022), simple additive weighting (SAW) (Alkaradaghi et al ., 2019), weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) (Mishra and Rani, 2021; Ghoushchi et al ., 2021), technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) (Chauhan and Singh, 2016; Kharat et al ., 2016), VIKOR (VIekriterijumsko KOmpromisno Rangiranje in Serbian) (Liu et al ., 2014), evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) (Kahraman et al ., 2017), measurement alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) (Torkayesh et al ., 2021; Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022), combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) (Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022), and so on, have already been employed for the said purpose. It can be noticed that those MCDM tools have been separately hybridized with other techniques, like straight rank sum method (Alkaradaghi et al ., 2019), ratio scale weighting method (Alkaradaghi et al ., 2019), step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) (Ghoushchi et al ., 2021), best worst method (BWM) (Torkayesh et al ., 2021), stratified BWM (Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022) and pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment (PIPRECIA) (Taş, 2021) for measurement of subjective criteria weights.…”

“…It has been noticed that most of the past researches on application of MCDM tools in GDM environment have considered the optimal number of the experts (decision makers) as three. Based on the literature review of Table 1, six criteria are shortlisted, that is, cost/price of the land (C 1 ) (Liu et al ., 2014; Chauhan and Singh, 2016; Kharat et al ., 2016; Yazdani et al ., 2020; Mishra and Rani, 2021; Torkayesh et al ., 2021; Salimian and Mousavi, 2021; Feng, 2022; Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022), future expansion scope (C 2 ) (Chauhan and Singh, 2016; Kharat et al ., 2016; Mishra and Rani, 2021; Torkayesh et al ., 2021; Taş, 2021; Salimian and Mousavi, 2021; Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022), road access (C 3 ) (Chauhan and Singh, 2016; Kharat et al ., 2016; Torkayesh et al ., 2021; Taş, 2021), safe distance (C 4 ) (Chauhan and Singh, 2016; Kahraman et al ., 2017; Mishra and Rani, 2021; Ghoushchi et al ., 2021; Torkayesh et al ., 2021; Taş, 2021; Salimian and Mousavi, 2021; Feng, 2022; Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022), public acceptance (C 5 ) (Kharat et al ., 2016; Ghoushchi et al ., 2021; Feng, 2022) and environmental friendliness (C 6 ) (Chauhan and Singh, 2016; Wichapa and Khokhajaikiat, 2017; Yazdani et al ., 2020; Salimian and Mousavi, 2021; Mishra and Rani, 2021; Feng, 2022; Tirkolaee and Torkayesh, 2022). Now, using the 7-point Likert scale (1 indicates top priority and 7 denotes least priority) (Jebb et al ., 2021), all the three experts are asked to allocate crisp ranks to the evaluation criteria, as shown in Table 2.…”