Back to all available

IoT-driven fuzzy approach to sustainable smart waste management: Integrating CRITIC-EDAS with q-Rung orthopair Z-numbers and Aczel-Alsina operations

algorithms-and-analysis-of-algorithms
artificial-intelligence
data-science
optimization-theory-and-computation
internet-of-things

Abstract

Smart waste management (SWM) faces key challenges such as high operational costs, complex real-time monitoring, data management issues, and uncertain environmental impacts. The existing models fail to address these challenges due to a lack of reliability and sustainability concerns. A hybrid approach of Internet of Things (IoT) and fuzzy modeling becomes essential to deal with these complex and uncertain issues in SWM. To address these concerns, this study introduces $q$-rung orthopair fuzzy Z-numbers ($q$-ROFZNs) with novel Aczél–Alsina–based aggregation operators for improved uncertainty modeling in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Criteria weights are established objectively by employing the "Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation" (CRITIC) method, while the alternative ranking order method uses with "Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution" (EDAS) method. An IoT-driven CRITIC-EDAS algorithm is proposed for efficient SWM in Hamburg, effectively identifying practical and sustainable solutions. The method accounts for critical risk assessment factors such as safety, economic repercussions, occurrence, and detection. Furthermore, the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed framework are validated through sensitivity and comparative analyses, providing meaningful guidance for policymakers and advancing urban sustainability planning.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].