IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmore/v26y2023i4p449-474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proposing a novel integrated OPA-MARCOS multi-criteria decision making model to choose the best plastic recycling method (case study)

Author

Listed:
  • Alireza Keshtpour
  • Elham Shadkam
  • Hooman Khorsand Beheshti

Abstract

Due to the rapid reduction of natural resources and adverse global environmental changes, it is necessary to preserve natural resources and protect the environment. There are various ways to recycle plastic. Choosing the best plastic recycling method is a multi-criteria decision-making problem. This research investigated the output of reference research and then resolved it using 17 multi-criteria decision-making methods (such as MAIRCA, ELECTRE I, II, etc.). Then, it examined and compared the answers obtained from these methods. Finally, this study evaluated and ranked plastic recycling methods using the combined OPA-MARCOS method, a combination of the OPA for weighting, and the MARCOS method for ranking the alternatives. The innovation of this research is that it combined the OPA and MARCOS methods for the first time and presented a new model. Finally, after solving the OPA-MARCOS model, the second alternative, i.e., mechanical recycling, is selected as the priority alternative. The results suggested that the multi-criteria decision-making methods and weighting methods used in this study can be used for multi-criteria decision-making in other cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Alireza Keshtpour & Elham Shadkam & Hooman Khorsand Beheshti, 2023. "Proposing a novel integrated OPA-MARCOS multi-criteria decision making model to choose the best plastic recycling method (case study)," International Journal of Mathematics in Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 26(4), pages 449-474.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmore:v:26:y:2023:i:4:p:449-474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=135542
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:ids:ijmore:v:26:y:2023:i:4:p:449-474. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=320 .

    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.