Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in the assessment of municipal solid waste treatment efficiency: A case study of EU countries

Monika Osińska

doi:10.2478/ijme-2025-0005

Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in the assessment of municipal solid waste treatment efficiency: A case study of EU countries

International Journal of Management and Economics

Volume 60 (2024): Issue 5 (December 2024)

By: Monika Osińska

Open Access

|Dec 2024

Figures & Tables

A sufficient condition for an outcome
*Source:* Author’s work.

A necessary condition for an outcome.
*Source:* Author’s work.

MSW treatment efficiency scores in EU countries.
*Source*: Author’s work based on Eurostat database calculated in Excel. EU, European Union; MSW, municipal solid waste.

Table 1.

The results of TRM

Factor	Coefficient	Sth. error	z-Statistic
Constant	−0.141	0.198	0.710
EA (level 5–8)	0.021***	0.007	3.095
RD – R&D expenditure	0.161*	0.091	1.770
INW – private investment in circular economy sectors	−0.064	0.218	0.295
CMU	0.009	0.013	0.706

1*,*** Coefficients significant at 0.01 and 0.1 levels, respectively (based on 500 replications of bootstrap analysis).

1 Source: Author’s work based on Eurostat database calculated in R. CMU, circular material use; EA, educational attainment.

Table 2.

A truth table (n.cut = 1; incl.cut = 0.8) with the MSW treatment efficiency scores in brackets

L.p.	EA	RD	INW	CMU	Eff	n	Consistency index	Countries
1	1	1	1	1	1	4	0.931	Belgium (1), Denmark (0.9), France (1), Netherlands (0.98)
2	1	1	0	1	1	2	0.883	Estonia (1), Slovenia (1)
3	1	1	0	0	1	2	0.813	Finland (1), Sweden (1)
4	0	1	1	1	1	2	0.807	Germany (1), Austria (1)
5	1	0	1	0	0	1	0.771	Lithuania (0.79)
6	1	0	0	0	0	3	0.759	Ireland (0.89), Spain (0.43), Cyprus (1)
7	0	1	0	1	0	1	0.7	Czech Republic (0.72)
8	0	1	1	0	0	1	0.682	Portugal (0.445)
9	0	0	0	1	0	3	0.631	Italy (0.63), Poland (0.61), Slovakia (0.72)
10	0	0	1	0	0	2	0.553	Croatia (0.66), Latvia (1)
11	0	0	0	0	0	4	0.465	Bulgaria (0.62), Greece (0.56), Hungary (0.56), Romania (0.18)
12	0	1	0	0	?
13	1	1	1	0	?
14	1	0	1	1	?
15	1	0	0	1	?
16	0	0	1	1	?

1 Source: Author’s work based on Eurostat database calculated in R.

1 CMW, circular material use; EA, educational attainment; MSW, municipal solid waste.

Table 3.

The intermediate solution for Eff (n.cut = 1; incl.cut = 0.8)

Factor	Solution 1	Solution 2
EA
RD
INW
CMU
Cases	Finland, Sweden Estonia, Slovenia	Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands Germany, Austria
Consistency	0.848	0.869
PRI	0.768	0.814
Coverage	0.362	0.492

1 graphic/j_ijme-2025-0005_inlinefig_007.jpg – The presence of a core factor.

1 graphic/j_ijme-2025-0005_inlinefig_008.jpg – The absence of a core factor.

1 graphic/j_ijme-2025-0005_inlinefig_009.jpg – The presence of a peripheral factor.

1 graphic/j_ijme-2025-0005_inlinefig_010.jpg – The absence of a peripheral factor.

1 Source: Author’s work based on Eurostat database.

1 CMU, circular material use; EA, educational attainment.

Table 4.

The intermediate solution for ~Eff (n.cut = 2; incl.cut = 0.75)

Factor	Solution 1	Solution 2
EA
RD
INW	⊗
CMU		⊗
Consistency	0.833	0.870
PRI	0.765	0.816
Coverage	0.547	0.547
Cases	Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania Italy, Poland, Slovakia	Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania Croatia, Latvia*
Consistency (total)	0.837
PRI (total)	0.780
Coverage (total)	0.624

1* Latvia is a high efficient country (θ^BCC = 1), but has the same configuration (~EA, ~RD, INW and ~CMU) as Croatia (θ^BCC = 0.66). The consistency index of this set of countries takes the value of 0.854 and is above 0.75.

1 graphic/j_ijme-2025-0005_inlinefig_015.jpg – The absence of a core factor.