IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v90y2023ics0038012123002562.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An integrated hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate countries’ COVID-19 risks

Author

Listed:
  • Mete, Suleyman
  • Yucesan, Melih
  • Gul, Muhammet
  • Ozceylan, Eren

Abstract

To enable planning and early reaction efforts, it is important to identify the nations most at risk from COVID-19's health and humanitarian effects, which could exceed present national response capabilities. INFORM COVID-19 Risk Index developed by European Commission is one of the initiatives to meet the aforementioned need. However, the Index has 40 conflicting and comprehensive indicators (e.g., health system capacity, hygiene, vulnerability) and different countries that lead to a need for multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches. This paper offers an integrated MCDM approach with two phases to re-assess the countries' COVID-19 risks based on INFORM COVID-19 Risk Index. In the first phase, the 40 indicators are prioritized using the Entropy-based multi-choice best-worst method (MC-BWM) to provide multiple viewpoints for the preferences values. In the second phase, 29 countries from different geographical regions are ranked using the COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment) method. Applying these three methods together on the COVID-19 risk assessment of countries is the most significant novelty for the relevant literature. The proposed approach has undergone a thorough comparative evaluation with the released INFORM COVID-19 Risk Index, and recommendations are provided based on different scenario analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Mete, Suleyman & Yucesan, Melih & Gul, Muhammet & Ozceylan, Eren, 2023. "An integrated hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate countries’ COVID-19 risks," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:90:y:2023:i:c:s0038012123002562
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2023.101744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012123002562
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101744?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melih Yucesan & Suleyman Mete & Faruk Serin & Erkan Celik & Muhammet Gul, 2019. "An Integrated Best-Worst and Interval Type-2 Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodology for Green Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    3. Yayi Yuan & Zeshui Xu & Yixin Zhang, 2022. "The DEMATEL–COPRAS hybrid method under probabilistic linguistic environment and its application in Third Party Logistics provider selection," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 137-156, March.
    4. Rezaei, Jafar & Hemmes, Alexander & Tavasszy, Lori, 2017. "Multi-criteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 95-105.
    5. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    6. Jarosław Brodny & Magdalena Tutak, 2021. "Assessing the level of digital maturity of enterprises in the Central and Eastern European countries using the MCDM and Shannon’s entropy methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-38, July.
    7. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer, 2020. "Alternative Global Health Security Indexes for Risk Analysis of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    9. Kumar, Anish & Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Kumar, Pradeep & Song, Malin, 2021. "Mitigate risks in perishable food supply chains: Learning from COVID-19," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kara, Karahan & Yalçın, Galip Cihan & Simic, Vladimir & Baysal, Zeynep & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "The alternative ranking using two-step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).

    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. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    2. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    3. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Yousefi, Samuel, 2018. "An intelligent decision making approach for identifying and analyzing airport risks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 14-27.
    4. Paul, Ananna & Shukla, Nagesh & Trianni, Andrea, 2023. "Modelling supply chain sustainability challenges in the food processing sector amid the COVID-19 outbreak," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    5. Dilupa Nakandala & Yung Po Tsang & Henry Lau & Carman Ka Man Lee, 2022. "An Industrial Blockchain-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Global Freight Management in Agricultural Supply Chains," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    9. Javid Nafari & Alireza Arab & Sina Ghaffari, 2017. "Through the Looking Glass: Analysis of Factors Influencing Iranian Student’s Study Abroad Motivations and Destination Choice," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    10. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    11. Kai Wang & Zhe Wang & Jun Deng & Yuanyuan Feng & Quanfang Li, 2022. "Study on the Evaluation of Emergency Management Capacity of Resilient Communities by the AHP-TOPSIS Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Ridha, Hussein Mohammed & Gomes, Chandima & Hizam, Hashim & Ahmadipour, Masoud & Heidari, Ali Asghar & Chen, Huiling, 2021. "Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of standalone photovoltaic system: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    14. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. Chao Song & Jian-Qiang Wang & Jun-Bo Li, 2020. "New Framework for Quality Function Deployment Using Linguistic Z-Numbers," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Alexander Kuan Daiy & Kao-Yi Shen & Jim-Yuh Huang & Tom Meng-Yen Lin, 2021. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Open Banking Business Partners," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, March.
    17. Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    18. Lu, Ming-Tsang & Hsu, Chao-Che & Liou, James J.H. & Lo, Huai-Wei, 2018. "A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 9-19.
    19. Máximo Méndez & Mariano Frutos & Fabio Miguel & Ricardo Aguasca-Colomo, 2020. "TOPSIS Decision on Approximate Pareto Fronts by Using Evolutionary Algorithms: Application to an Engineering Design Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, November.
    20. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).

    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:eee:soceps:v:90:y:2023:i:c:s0038012123002562. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    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.