Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Smog Mitigation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Health, Economic, and Ecological Impacts

Sajida Kousar; Aleena Ansar; Nasreen Kausar; Gul Freen

doi:10.31181/sdmap2120258

journal article Open Access Jan 01, 2025

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Smog Mitigation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Health, Economic, and Ecological Impacts

Sajida Kousar

Aleena Ansar

Nasreen Kausar

Gul Freen

Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications Vol. 2 No. 1 pp. 53-67 · Scientific Oasis

View at Publisher Save 10.31181/sdmap2120258

Abstract

Smog is a significant threat in Pakistan, having become a persistent issue in recent years. Excessive industrialization, increased reliance on fossil fuels, and increased automobile emissions have all led to epidemic levels of air pollution. Smog, or air pollution, can pose significant risks to humans and plants due to its harmful effects. Air pollution contributes to global health issues, including lung, breathing, and skin ailments. Pakistan, an undeveloped nation, is grappling with the detrimental effects of smog on various sectors such as health, ecology, transportation, and education. This study aims to employ multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies to examine points of view on smog-related issues in Pakistan. The analysis specifically concentrates on the health, economic, social, and ecological consequences of smog and the solutions employed to mitigate its effects. By employing various approaches, such as the Method based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC) objective weighting technique to determine the weights of each criterion and select the essential criteria, pair-wise comparisons are performed in the Best–Worst Method (BWM) on the best and worst criteria selected through MEREC. We have created a designated consistency ratio for the BWM to assess the reliability of the comparisons. Entropy is an objective weighting technique used to calculate the weights of the best and worst criteria, and the TOPSIS technique is employed to determine the most suitable alternative from a collection of choices by evaluating their resemblance to an ideal answer.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

32

[1]

Faridi, S., Krzyzanowski, M., Cohen, A. J., Malkawi, M., Safi, H. A. M., Yousefian, F., Azimi, F., Naddafi, K., Momeniha, F., & Niazi, S. (2023). Ambient air quality standards and policies in eastern mediterranean countries: A review. International Journal of Public Health, 68, 1605352. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2023.1605352 10.3389/ijph.2023.1605352

[2]

Mangotra, A., & Singh, S. K. (2024). Volatile organic compounds: A threat to the environment and health hazards to living organisms–a review. Journal of Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2023.12.013 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2023.12.013

[3]

Jabeen, F., Ali, Z., & Maharjan, A. (2021). Assessing health impacts of winter smog in lahore for exposed occupational groups. Atmosphere, 12(11), 1532. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111532 10.3390/atmos12111532

[4]

Raza, W., Saeed, S., Saulat, H., Gul, H., Sarfraz, M., Sonne, C., Sohn, Z.-H., Brown, R. J., & Kim, K.-H. (2021). A review on the deteriorating situation of smog and its preventive measures in Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123676. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123676 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123676

[5]

Oluwoye, I., Dlugogorski, B. Z., Gore, J., Oskierski, H. C., & Altarawneh, M. (2017). Atmospheric emission of nox from mining explosives: A critical review. Atmospheric Environment, 167, 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.006 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.006

[6]

Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006 10.3390/encyclopedia3010006

[7]

Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525 10.3390/sym13040525

[8]

Wang, P., Zhu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2016). A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the saw, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design. Information Sciences, 345, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.076 10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.076

[9]

Ozcan, T., Celebi, N., & Esnaf, S. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773–9779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022

[10]

Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS

Serafim Opricovic, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng

European Journal of Operational Research 10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00020-1

[11]

Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T. M., & Venkatesan, V. P. (2013). A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajis-1-1-5

[12]

Yu, X., Zhang, S., Liao, X., & Qi, X. (2018). Electre methods in prioritized mcdm environment. Information Sciences, 424, 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061 10.1016/j.ins.2017.09.061

[13]

Measuring the efficiency of decision making units

A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, E. Rhodes

European Journal of Operational Research 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8

[14]

Application of PROMETHEE method for green supplier selection: a comparative result based on preference functions

Lazim Abdullah, Waimun Chan, Alireza Afshari

Journal of Industrial Engineering International 10.1007/s40092-018-0289-z

[15]

Ayan, B., Abacoglu, S., & Basilio, M. P. (2023). A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285 10.3390/info14050285

[16]

Keles, N. (2023). Measuring performances through multiplicative functions by modifying the merec method: Merec-g and MEREC-H. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIEOM-12-2022-0068 10.1108/ijieom-12-2022-0068

[17]

Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method

Jafar Rezaei

Omega 10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009

[18]

Wang, C.-N., Le, T. Q., Chang, K.-H.,&Dang, T.-T. (2022). Measuring road transport sustainability using MCDM-based entropy objective weighting method. Symmetry, 14(5), 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14051033 10.3390/sym14051033

[19]

Chodha, V., Dubey, R., Kumar, R., Singh, S., & Kaur, S. (2022). Selection of industrial arc welding robot with Topsis and entropy MCDM techniques. Materials Today: Proceedings, 50, 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.487 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.487

[20]

Pandey, K. V., & Dincer, H. (2023). A review on TOPSIS method and its extensions for different applications with recent development. Soft Computing, 27(23), 18011–18039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09011-0 10.1007/s00500-023-09011-0

[21]

Usman, M., Aamir, H., Iqbal, H. F. N., & Arshad, H. A. (2019). New techniques for the prevention control of smog and air pollution in Pakistan. Environment Pollution and Climate Change, 2(4), 166. https://doi.org/10.4172/2573-458X.1000166 10.4172/2573-458x.1000166

[22]

Mumtaz, A., Rehman, E., Rehman, S., & Hussain, I. (2022). Impact of environmental degradation on human health: An assessment using multicriteria decision making. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 812743. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.812743 10.3389/fpubh.2021.812743

[23]

Naveed, Z., & Khayyam, U. (2023). Smog and cognitive issues in the school going children of Lahore and Islamabad, Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(4), 4151–4166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04264-y 10.1007/s13762-022-04264-y

[24]

Impact of brick kilns industry on environment and human health in Pakistan

Muhammad Waseem Khan, Yousaf Ali, Fabio De Felice et al.

Science of The Total Environment 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.369

[25]

Goheer, M., Hassan, S. S., Sheikh, A. S., Malik, Y., Uzair, M., & Satti, T. N. (2024). Assessing smog trends and sources of air pollutants across northeastern districts of Punjab, Pakistan using geospatial techniques. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05754-x 10.1007/s13762-024-05754-x

[26]

Wang, T., Zhuohua, Yang, Z., Nichol, T., Clarke, G., & Ge, Y.-E. (2020). Climate change research on transportation systems: Climate risks, adaptation and planning. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 88, 102553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102553 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102553

[27]

Ali, Y., Razi, M., Felice, F. D., Sabir, M., & Antonella. (2019). A VIKOR based approach for assessing the social, environmental and economic effects of “smog” on human health. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2897–2905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.041 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.041

[28]

Ali, Y., Khan, A. U., & Hameed, H. B. (2022). Selection of sustainable mode of transportation based on environmental, economic, and social factors: Pakistan a case in point. Transportation in Developing Economies, 8(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-022-00152-9 10.1007/s40890-022-00152-9

[29]

Anwar, S., Hussain, B., Usman, M., Naqvi, S. A. A., & Shah, A. A. (2022). Consumers’ switching intentions from conventional to green vehicles in the context of smog risk in Pakistan. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(3), 1695–1705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.06.008 10.1016/j.cstp.2022.06.008

[30]

Anjum, M. S., Ali, S. M., Subhani, M. A., Anwar, M. N., Nizami, A.-S., Ashraf, U., & Khokhar, M. F. (2021). An emerged challenge of air pollution and ever-increasing particulate matter in Pakistan; a critical review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 402, 123943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123943 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123943

[31]

Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-Y., Zhang, C.-F., & Zhao, J.-H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 13(9), 2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021 10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021

[32]

Anwar, M. N., Shabbir, M., Tahir, E., Iftikhar, M., Saif, H., Tahir, A., Malik Ashir Murtaza, M. A., Khokhar, M. F., Rehan, M., & Aghbashlo, M. (2021). Emerging challenges of air pollution and particulate matter in China, India, and Pakistan and mitigating solutions. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 416, 125851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125851 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125851

Cited By

52

An augmented fuzzy decision-making framework for evaluating renewable energy sources for hydrogen production: A case application to India

Joseph Raj Vikilal Joice Brainy, Samayan Narayanamoorthy · 2026

Renewable Energy

Financial performance evaluation of firms in BIST 100 index with ITARA and COBRA methods

Ali Katrancı, Nilsen Kundakcı · 2025

Financial Innovation

Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution in Performance Evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector

Arianit Peci, Blerina Dervishaj · 2025

Journal of Risk and Financial Manag...

Metrics

52

Citations

32

References

Details

Published: Jan 01, 2025
Vol/Issue: 2(1)
Pages: 53-67
License: View

Authors

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Arts and Science, Yildiz Technical University, Esenler 34220, Istanbul, Turkey

G

Gul Freen

Cite This Article

Sajida Kousar, Aleena Ansar, Nasreen Kausar, et al. (2025). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Smog Mitigation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Health, Economic, and Ecological Impacts. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap2120258

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Smog Mitigation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Health, Economic, and Ecological Impacts

You May Also Like