Site Selection of Medical Waste Disposal Facilities Using the Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Fuzzy EDAS Method: The Case Study of Istanbul

Abstract

In recent years, as a result of the increasing demand for health services, medical waste (MW) generated from health facilities has increased significantly. Problems that threaten the environment and public health may arise as a result of inadequate medical waste management (MWM), especially in densely populated metropolitan areas. Therefore, it is very important that the disposal process of waste is carried out in a way that minimizes harm to human health and the environment. MW disposal site selection is among the most important decisions that local governments make. These decisions have many conflicting and similar criteria and alternatives. However, decision-makers may experience significant uncertainty when evaluating the alternatives. This study adopts the interval-valued neutrosophic (IVN) fuzzy EDAS method for the evaluation of MW disposal facility siting alternatives in Istanbul. This approach is used to evaluate potential sites based on a comprehensive, hierarchical criteria framework designed to address data uncertainty and inconsistency common in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) scenarios. Within the scope of the study, six main criteria (distance settlement area, social acceptance, costs, environmental impacts, infrastructure facilities, and disaster and emergency) and nineteen sub-criteria are meticulously analyzed. Considering the geographical location and dense urban texture of Istanbul, the study emphasizes the criteria related to distance to residential areas, logistics costs, and potential disaster risks. Among the identified criteria, land costs, topographical features, proximity to landfills, and distance to high-voltage lines are emphasized as the least important criteria. This study, which evaluated various alternatives, identified Pendik, located on the Anatolian side of Istanbul, as the most suitable site for MW disposal due to its minimal risk. The study also compares the four main alternatives and highlights their relative strengths and weaknesses.