IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxviy2023i2p209-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing Sustainable Development in ASEAN: An Integrated Assessment of Education and Health Factors

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Stecyk

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to showcase the practical application of the multi-criteria Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method for expertly assessing the level of sustainable development, education, and health in the countries of Southeast Asia, specifically the ASEAN region, as of 2022. Design/Methodology/Approach: The research methodology is based on the application of the multi-criteria TOPSIS method, which involves the selection of criteria that determine the level of assessment for education and health development. The chosen criteria, including factors such as crude death rate, prevalence of malaria, HIV prevalence rate, and other relevant variables, are subjectively selected to capture the key dimensions of sustainable development in these domains. The data for these criteria are obtained from the ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2022, providing a reliable and comprehensive source for analysis. The TOPSIS method calculates performance scores for each country, enabling the ranking and clustering of ASEAN countries based on their education and health development. Findings: The findings suggest the presence of disparities among ASEAN countries concerning education and health development. They highlight the importance of prioritizing investments and policies to address the specific challenges faced by lower-performing countries, ultimately fostering sustainable development across the region. In the education sector, countries such as Brunei Darussalam and Singapore emerged as high-performing nations, demonstrating significant advancements in educational indicators. On the other hand, countries like Cambodia and Myanmar were found to have lower performance scores, indicating the need for targeted interventions and improvements in their education systems. Similarly, in the health sector, Brunei Darussalam and Singapore exhibited notable achievements, showcasing robust healthcare systems and favorable health outcomes. Conversely, countries like Cambodia and Myanmar faced significant challenges, reflecting the need for enhanced healthcare infrastructure and interventions to address health disparities. Practical Implications: Firstly, the study provides policymakers and stakeholders in ASEAN countries with valuable insights into the relative performance of education and health development. By identifying high-performing countries, such as Brunei Darussalam and Singapore, as well as lower-performing countries, like Cambodia and Myanmar, policymakers can prioritize and allocate resources to address the specific challenges and disparities within their education and health sectors. Secondly, the methodology employed in this research, specifically the TOPSIS method, offers a practical framework for assessing sustainable development in various domains. This approach can be adapted and applied to other areas beyond education and health, such as ecology, demography, and macroeconomics, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of sustainable development across multiple dimensions. Originality/Value: The study's originality stems from its synthesis of diverse criteria, the identification of clusters among the ASEAN countries, and the implications for policy and decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Stecyk, 2023. "Enhancing Sustainable Development in ASEAN: An Integrated Assessment of Education and Health Factors," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 209-220.
  • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxvi:y:2023:i:2:p:209-220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/3163/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    2. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam Stecyk & Marta Sidorkiewicz & Katarzyna Orfin-Tomaszewska, 2021. "Model of Regional Tourism Competitiveness: Fuzzy Multiple-Criteria Approach (FDM-FAHP-PROMETHE II Framework)," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 638-662.
    2. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    3. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    4. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    5. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    6. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    7. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    8. Anane, Makram & Bouziri, Lamia & Limam, Atef & Jellali, Salah, 2012. "Ranking suitable sites for irrigation with reclaimed water in the Nabeul-Hammamet region (Tunisia) using GIS and AHP-multicriteria decision analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 36-46.
    9. Ronyastra, I Made & Saw, Lip Huat & Low, Foon Siang, 2023. "A review of methods for integrating risk management and multicriteria decision analysis in financial feasibility for post-coal-mining land usage selection," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(PB).
    10. Merad, Myriam & Dechy, Nicolas & Serir, Lisa & Grabisch, Michel & Marcel, Frédéric, 2013. "Using a multi-criteria decision aid methodology to implement sustainable development principles within an organization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(3), pages 603-613.
    11. David Hidalgo-Carvajal & Ruth Carrasco-Gallego & Gustavo Morales-Alonso, 2021. "From Goods to Services and from Linear to Circular: The Role of Servitization’s Challenges and Drivers in the Shifting Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-26, April.
    12. Zeki Ayağ, 2016. "An integrated approach to concept evaluation in a new product development," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 991-1005, October.
    13. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    14. Chia-Nan Wang & Nhat-Luong Nhieu & Wei-Lin Liu, 2024. "Unveiling the landscape of Fintech in ASEAN: assessing development, regulations, and economic implications by decision-making approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    16. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Tarik Agouti & Abdessadek Tikniouine, 2017. "A new integrated methodology using modified Delphi-fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE for Geospatial Business Intelligence selection," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 897-925, November.
    17. Alessio Ishizaka & Philippe Nemery, 2013. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 773-799, July.
    18. Fernández, Eduardo & Navarro, Jorge & Solares, Efrain, 2022. "A hierarchical interval outranking approach with interacting criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 293-307.
    19. Saeid Alaei & Seyed Hossein Razavi Hajiagha & Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji & Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, 2023. "Unveiling the role of sustainable supply chain drivers toward knowledge-based economy via a novel permutation approach: implications from an emerging economy," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 1231-1250, September.
    20. Ciro Henrique de Araújo Fernandes & Lucio Camara e Silva & Patricia Guarnieri & Bárbara de Oliveira Vieira, 2021. "Multicriteria Model Proposition to Support the Management of Systems of E-Waste Collection," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-20, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ASEAN; sustainable development; education; health; MCDM; TOPSIS.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I15 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Economic Development
    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • O53 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Asia including Middle East
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxvi:y:2023:i:2:p:209-220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.