Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A q-rung orthopair fuzzy MARCOS method using novel score function and its application to solid waste management

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main purpose of the current study is to explore a novel q-rung orthopair fuzzy score function and extend the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to the compromise solution (MARCOS) method with unknown weight information to the context of q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers (q-ROFNs). For this, first, the drawbacks of the existing score functions are highlighted via several solid examples. Then, to fill the gaps of the existing ones, a novel score function and its relevant characteristics are delineated. To determine the objective weights of criteria, q-rung orthopair fuzzy criteria importance through intercriteria correlation (CRITIC) method is modeled based on the derived weights of decision-makers (DMs), standard deviation, and correlation coefficient. Following that, the q-rung orthopair fuzzy MARCOS approach is established to cope with multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) problems. Later, a case study of solid waste management is addressed to show the practicality of the presented method. Lastly, the derived results are validated through three phases: two sensitivity analyses, rank reversal phenomena, and comparative analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy Sets Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Yager RR (2013) Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. InL 2013 joint IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS). IEEE, pp 57–61

  4. Yager RR (2013) Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22(4):958–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bashir Z, Bashir Y, Rashid T, Ali J, Gao W (2019) A novel multi-attribute group decision-making approach in the framework of proportional dual hesitant fuzzy sets. Appl Sci 9(6):1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ali J, Bashir Z, Rashid T (2021) Weighted interval-valued dual-hesitant fuzzy sets and its application in teaching quality assessment. Soft Comput 25(5):3503–3530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Xu Z, Zhao N (2016) Information fusion for intuitionistic fuzzy decision making: an overview. Inf Fusion 28:10–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gupta P, Lin CT, Mehlawat MK, Grover N (2015) A new method for intuitionistic fuzzy multiattribute decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 46(9):1167–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Feng F, Fujita H, Ali MI, Yager RR, Liu X (2018) Another view on generalized intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and related multiattribute decision making methods. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27(3):474–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feng F, Liang M, Fujita H, Yager RR, Liu X (2019) Lexicographic orders of intuitionistic fuzzy values and their relationships. Mathematics 7(2):166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ma Z, Xu Z (2016) Symmetric pythagorean fuzzy weighted geometric/averaging operators and their application in multicriteria decision-making problems. Int J Intell Syst 31(12):1198–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang C, Lin M, Xu Z (2020) Pythagorean fuzzy MULTIMOORA method based on distance measure and score function: its application in multicriteria decision making process. Knowl Inf Syst 62(11):4373–4406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Garg H (2018) Some methods for strategic decision-making problems with immediate probabilities in pythagorean fuzzy environment. Int J Intell Syst 33(4):687–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Han Q, Li W, Lu Y, Zheng M, Quan W, Song Y (2019) TOPSIS Method based on novel entropy and distance measure for linguistic pythagorean fuzzy sets with their application in multiple attribute decision making. IEEE Access 8:14401–14412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lang G, Miao D, Fujita H (2019) Three-way group conflict analysis based on Pythagorean fuzzy set theory. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 28(3):447–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Qiang Z, JunHua H, An L, GuoMing C, QiMin Y (2020) New ranking methods of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and Pythagorean fuzzy numbers. In: 2020 Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC). IEEE, pp 4661–4666

  18. Yager RR (2016) Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(5):1222–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peng X, Dai J, Garg H (2018) Exponential operation and aggregation operator for q-rung orthopair fuzzy set and their decision-making method with a new score function. Int J Intell Syst 33(11):2255–2282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shu X, Ai Z, Xu Z, Ye J (2019) Integrations of q-rung orthopair fuzzy continuous information. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27(10):1974–1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ai Z, Xu Z, Yager RR, Ye J (2021) q-rung orthopair fuzzy integrals in the frame of continuous Archimedean t-norms and t-conorms and their application. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 29(5):996–1007

  22. Gao J, Liang Z, Shang J, Xu Z (2018) Continuities, derivatives, and differentials of q-rung orthopair fuzzy functions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27(8):1687–1699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu Z, Liu P, Liang X (2018) Multiple attribute decision-making method for dealing with heterogeneous relationship among attributes and unknown attribute weight information under q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment. Int J Intell Syst 33(9):1900–1928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu P, Wang P (2018) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(2):259–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wei G, Gao H, Wei Y (2018) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy heronian mean operators in multiple attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(7):1426–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Aydemir SB, Gündüz SY (2020) Extension of multi-Moora method with some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Dombi prioritized weighted aggregation operators for multi-attribute decision making. Soft Comput 24(24):18545–18563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Peng X, Krishankumar R, Ravichandran K S (2019) Generalized orthopair fuzzy weighted distance-based approximation (WDBA) algorithm in emergency decision-making. Int J Intell Syst 34(10):2364–2402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peng X, Dai J (2019) Research on the assessment of classroom teaching quality with q-rung orthopair fuzzy information based on multiparametric similarity measure and combinative distance-based assessment. Int J Intell Syst 34(7):1588–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mi X, Li J, Liao H, Zavadskas EK, Al-Barakati A, Barnawi A, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) Hospitality brand management by a score-based q-rung ortho pair fuzzy VIKOR method integrated with the best worst method. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz 32(1):3266–3295

    Google Scholar 

  30. Xing Y, Zhang R, Zhou Z, Wang J (2019) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy point weighted aggregation operators for multi-attribute decision making. Soft Comput 23(22):11627–11649

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Peng X, Huang H (2020) Fuzzy decision making method based on CoCoSo with critic for financial risk evaluation. Technol Econ Dev Econ 26(4):695–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Li H, Yin S, Yang Y (2019) Some preference relations based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 34(11):2920–2936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rani P, Mishra AR (2020) Multi-criteria weighted aggregated sum product assessment framework for fuel technology selection using q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Sustain Prod Consum 24:90–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stević ž, Pamučar D, Puška A, Chatterjee P (2020) Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Comput Ind Eng 140:106231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stanković M, Stević ž, Das DK, Subotić M, Pamučar D (2020) A new fuzzy MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics 8(3):457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Puška A, Stojanović I, Maksimović A, Osmanović N (2020) Project management software evaluation by using the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) method. Oper Res Eng Sci Theory Appl 3(1):89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Badi I, Pamucar D (2020) Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined grey-MARCOS methods. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 3(2):37–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Simić V, Soušek R, Jovčić S (2020) Picture fuzzy mcdm approach for risk assessment of railway infrastructure. Mathematics 8(12):2259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Torkayesh AE, Zolfani SH, Kahvand M, Khazaelpour P (2021) Landfill location selection for healthcare waste of urban areas using hybrid BWM-grey MARCOS model based on GIS. Sustain Cities Soc 67:102712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ecer F, Pamucar D (2021) MARCOS Technique under intuitionistic fuzzy environment for determining the COVID-19 pandemic performance of insurance companies in terms of healthcare services. Appl Soft Comput 104:107199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Peng X, Liu L (2019) Information measures for q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 34(8):1795–1834

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang JQ, Li KJ, Zhang HY (2012) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach based on prospect score function. Knowl-Based Syst 27:119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L (1995) Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Comput Oper Res 22(7):763–770

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Guan N, Liu T, Zhang Y, Tao D, Davis LS (2017) Truncated cauchy non-negative matrix factorization. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 41(1):246–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shen X, Zhang X, Lan L, Liao Q, Luo Z (2019) Another robust NMF: Rethinking the hyperbolic tangent function and locality constraint. IEEE Access 7:31089–31102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jara-Samaniego J, Pérez-Murcia M, Bustamante M, Pérez-Espinosa A, Paredes C, López M, López-Lluch D, Gavilanes-Terán I, Moral R (2017) Composting as sustainable strategy for municipal solid waste management in the chimborazo region, ecuador: Suitability of the obtained composts for seedling production. J Clean Prod 141:1349–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MS (2018) Solid waste issue: sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egypt J Pet 27(4):1275–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Javaheri H, Nasrabadi T, Jafarian M, Rowshan G, Khoshnam H (2006) Site selection of municipal solid waste landfills using analytical hierarchy process method in a geographical information technology environment in giroft. J Environ Health Sci Eng 3(3):177–184

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sumathi V, Natesan U, Sarkar C (2008) GIS-Based approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manage 28(11):2146–2160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Eiselt HA, Marianov V (2015) Location modeling for municipal solid waste facilities. Comput Oper Res 62:305–315

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Vučijak B, Kurtagić SM, Silajdžić I (2016) Multicriteria decision making in selecting best solid waste management scenario: a municipal case study from bosnia and herzegovina. J Clean Prod 130:166–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pamučar D, Gigović L, Bajić Z, Janošević M (2017) Location selection for wind farms using GIS multi-criteria hybrid model: an approach based on fuzzy and rough numbers. Sustainability 9(8):1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hafezalkotob A, Hafezalkotob A (2017) A novel approach for combination of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method. Appl Soft Comput 59:316–325

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Ren J, Liang H, Chan FT (2017) Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for eco-city: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method. Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhao H, Guo S, Zhao H (2018) Comprehensive benefit evaluation of eco-industrial parks by employing the best-worst method based on circular economy and sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain 20(3):1229–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Liu HC, You JX, Lu C, Shan MM (2014) Application of interval 2-tuple linguistic multimoora method for health-care waste treatment technology evaluation and selection. Waste Manage 34(11):2355–2364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kabak M, Erbaṡ M, Ċetinkaya C, Özceylan E (2018) A gis-based mcdm approach for the evaluation of bike-share stations. J Clean Prod 201:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hariz HA, Dönmez CÇ, Sennaroglu B (2017) Siting of a central healthcare waste incinerator using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. J Clean Prod 166:1031–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaya SK (2020) Evaluation of the effect of covid-19 on countries’ sustainable development level: a comparative MCDM framework. Oper Res Eng Sci Theory Appl 3(3):101–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Zolfani S, Yazdani M, Pamucar D, Zarate P (2020) A VIKOR and TOPSIS focused reanalysis of the madm methods based on logarithmic normalization. FU Mech Eng 18(3):341–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kirkwood CW (1998) Strategic decision making multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets. J Oper Res Soc 49(1):96–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kahraman YR (2002) Robust sensitivity analysis for multi-attribute deterministic hierarchical value models. AIR FORCE INST OF TECH WRIGHT-PATTERSONAFB OH

  64. Spearman C (1961) The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 100(3/4):441–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Liao H, Zhang H, Zhang C, Wu X, Mardani A, Al-Barakati A (2020) A q-rung orthopair fuzzy GLDS method for investment evaluation of BE angel capital in China. Technol Econ Dev Econ 26(1):103–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Alkan N, Kahraman C (2021) Evaluation of government strategies against COVID-19 pandemic using q-rung orthopair fuzzy TOPSIS method. Appl Soft Comput 110:107653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Krishankumar R, Nimmagadda SS, Rani P, Mishra AR, Ravichandran K, Gandomi AH (2021) Solving renewable energy source selection problems using a q-rung orthopair fuzzy-based integrated decision-making approach. J Clean Prod 279:123329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Liu P, Liu P, Wang P, Zhu B (2019) An extended multiple attribute group decision making method based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers. IEEE Access 7:162050–162061

  69. Ching LH, Yoon P (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. In: Lect Notes Econ Math Syst

  70. Petković D, Madić M, Radovanović M, Gečevska V (2017) Application of the performance selection index method for solving machining MCDM problems. FU Mech Eng 15(1):97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by mcdm methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Li H, Lv L, Li F, Wang L, Xia Q (2020) A novel approach to emergency risk assessment using FMEA with extended MULTIMOORA method under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Int J Intell Comput Cybern 13(1):41– 65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Luo D, Wang X (2012) The multi-attribute grey target decision method for attribute value within three-parameter interval grey number. Appl Math Model 36(5):1957–1963

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. Grabisch M, Sugeno M, Murofushi T (2000) Fuzzy measures and integrals: theory and applications. Physica, Heidelberg

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. Dong Y, Zhang H, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors. Decis Support Syst 84:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, 45320, Pakistan

    Jawad Ali

  2. Institute of Numerical Sciences, Kohat University of Science and Technology, KPK, Pakistan

    Jawad Ali

Authors
  1. Jawad Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jawad Ali.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, J. A q-rung orthopair fuzzy MARCOS method using novel score function and its application to solid waste management. Appl Intell 52, 8770–8792 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02921-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02921-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation