ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating blockchain-based waste management investments in smart cities using a multi-criteria decision support framework.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With growing urbanization, there are increasing demands on waste management systems that can be performed in an environmentally friendly way as well as efficiently. Current approaches to managing waste often have issues with efficiency, transparency, and engaging with the public. Blockchain technology has been identified as one potential solution to these problems because it offers several benefits including decentralization, security, and transparency. The selection of the best blockchain-based waste management (BBWM) system is very difficult due to the many different evaluation criteria that may conflict with each other. Therefore this research uses a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach using CIMAS (Criteria Importance Assessment), for determining weights based upon subjective input, and LOPCOW (Logarithmic Percentage Change-Driven Objective Weighing), for determining weights based upon objective data within the MCDM framework. To rank alternatives effectively, an Alternative Ranking Order Method Accounting for Two-Step Normalization (AROMAN) technique is applied, ensuring a precise evaluation process. The use of T-Spherical Fuzzy Sets (T-SFS) captures all three (membership, non-membership, hesitation degree) and is used to address the variability that exists when making an expert judgment. Some of the key factors include; Technological Feasibility, Operational Costs, Scalability, Data Security, Regulatory Compliance, Environmental Impact. Based on the evaluation criteria, it appears that the Blockchain Enabled Waste Tracking System is the most appropriate alternative due to its high potential for Transparency, Regulatory Compliance and Fraud Prevention. In addition, this research will provide Policymakers, Urban Planners and Investors with a methodical way of making Data Driven Decisions on BBWM Investments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.