Türkiye’nin yenilenebilir enerji, ekonomik büyüme ve emisyonlarının değerlendirilmesi (2000-2021): MAXC ve MUTRISS modelleri ile bir karar verme yaklaşımı

Year 2025, Volume: 27 Issue: 2, 421 - 437

Nazife Şahin Macit

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin 2000-2021 yılları arasındaki yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, ekonomik büyüme ve karbon emisyonu performansını çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerini uygulayarak incelemektedir. Ekonomik kalkınma ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik hedeflerinin birlikte değerlendirilmesini sağlayan bu çalışmada, karar verme sürecinde MAXC ve MUTRISS modelleri kullanılmıştır. MAXC tabanlı analiz, ekonomik büyümeyi (GSYİH) ulusal kalkınma hedefleriyle uyumlu en etkili kriter olarak tanımlarken, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ikincil ancak önemli bir bileşen olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın temel bir unsuru olarak vurgulanmaktadır. MUTRISS bulguları, Türkiye'nin 2004 yılında en yüksek genel performansını sergilediğini, 2007 ve 2008 yıllarında ise ekonomik gerilemelerin ve çevresel baskıların olumsuz etkilerini yansıtabilecek şekilde en düşük performans düzeylerine ulaştığını göstermektedir. Uygulanan yöntemlerin sağlamlığını doğrulamak için diğer ÇKKV teknikleriyle karşılaştırmalı analizler yapılmıştır. Spearman sıra korelasyonu sonuçları, MAXC ile Entropi, MPSI ve IDOCRIW gibi objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemleri arasında güçlü bir uyum olduğunu ortaya koyarken, CILOS ile negatif bir korelasyon göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, MUTRISS, PIV, SAW ve CoCoSo ile orta düzeyde pozitif korelasyonlar göstererek nispeten daha düşük sıralama tutarlılığına işaret etmiştir. Bulgular, ÇKKV araçlarının metodolojik değerlendirmesine katkıda bulunmakta ve sürdürülebilirlik değerlendirmelerinde entegre ekonomik-çevresel politika yaklaşımlarının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma , Yenilenebilir Enerji , MAXC ve MUTRISS Yöntemleri , Ekonomik ve Çevresel Performans

Assessment of Türkiye’s renewable energy, economic growth, and emissions (2000-2021): A decision-making approach with MAXC and MUTRISS models

Abstract

This study investigates Türkiye’s performance in renewable energy utilization, economic growth, and carbon emissions between 2000 and 2021 through the application of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. By employing MAXC and MUTRISS as decision-making models, this study facilitates the integrated assessment of economic development and environmental sustainability objectives. The MAXC-based analysis identifies economic growth (GDP) as the most influential criterion aligned with national development objectives, while environmental sustainability emerges as a secondary yet essential component. Renewable energy consumption is underscored as a fundamental element of sustainable development. The MUTRISS findings indicate that Türkiye exhibited its highest overall performance in 2004, whereas 2007 and 2008 were marked by the lowest performance levels, potentially reflecting the adverse effects of economic downturns and environmental pressures. To validate the robustness of the applied methods, comparative analyses were conducted with other MCDM techniques. Spearman rank correlation results reveal strong concordance between MAXC and objective weighting methods such as Entropy, MPSI, and IDOCRIW, while showing a negative correlation with CILOS. Conversely, MUTRISS demonstrated moderate positive correlations with PIV, SAW, and CoCoSo, indicating relatively lower ranking consistency. The findings contribute to the methodological evaluation of MCDM tools and emphasize the importance of integrated economic–environmental policy approaches in sustainability assessments.

Keywords

Sustainable development , Renewable energy , MAXC and MUTRISS Methods , Economic and Environmental Performans

References

• Ağbulut, Ü., Yıldız, G., Bakır, H., Polat, F., Biçen, Y., Ergün, A., & Gürel, A. E. (2023). Current practices, potentials, challenges, future opportunities, environmental and economic assumptions for Türkiye’s clean and sustainable energy policy: A comprehensive assessment. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 56, 103019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103019
• Akandere, G., & Zerenler, M. (2022). Evaluation of the environmental and economic performance of Eastern European countries with the integrated CRITIC-TOPSIS method. Selçuk University Journal of Social Sciences Vocational School, 25(Özel Sayı), 524-535. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1156615
• Ali, A. M. (2023). Ranking renewable energy alternatives by using triangular neutrosophic sets integrated with MCDM. Neutrosophic and Information Fusion, 1(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.54216/NIF.010102
• Altay Topçu, B. & Oralhan, B. (2017). The comparison of Turkey and other OECD countries with multi criteria decision making methods in terms of basic macroeconomic indicators. International Journal of Academic Value Studies, 3(14), 260-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.23929/javs.304
• Arslan, H. M. (2023). Evaluation of Turkish economy with multi criteria decision making methods. Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal, 14(100. Yıl Özel Sayısı), 26-43. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1300286
• Atıcı, K. B., & Ulucan, A. (2009). Multi criteria decision analysis approaches in energy projects evaluation process and Turkey applications. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 27(1), 161-186.
• Avcı, M. C. (2019). Performance analysis in Companies Operating in the Energy Sector with multi-criteria decision making methods (Master's thesis, Marmara University (Turkey)).
• Avşar Özcan, N., Bulut, M., Özcan, E. C., Eren, T. (2022). Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods in the evaluation of energy generation investment alternatives: The case of Turkey. Journal of Polytechnic, 25(2), 519-531. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.763579
• Baydaş, M., Yılmaz, M., Jović, Ž., Stević, Ž., Özuyar, S. E. G., & Özçil, A. (2024). A comprehensive MCDM assessment for economic data: Success analysis of maximum normalization, CODAS, and fuzzy approaches. Financial Innovation, 10(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00588-x
• Belke, M. (2020). Evaluation of macroeconomic performance of G7 countries with CRITIC and MAIRCA methods. Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(Temmuz 2020(Özel Ek), 120-139.
• Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2023). Assessing the energy and climate sustainability of European Union member states: an MCDM-based approach. Smart Cities, 6(1), 339-367. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6010017
• Cetin, M., Ecevit, E., & Yucel, A. G. (2018). The impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development on carbon emissions: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental science and pollution research, 25(36), 36589-36603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3526-5
• Çapraz, O. (2024). Evaluation of renewable energy sources for Denizli using multi-criteria decision-making methods. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 31(2), 0-0, doi: 10.5505/pajes.2024.15942.
• Danışan, T., Yumuşak, R., Özcan, E., & Eren, T. (2018, October 17–19). Investment evaluation of renewable energy alternatives using multi-criteria decision making methods. 19th International Symposium on Econometrics, Operations Research and Statistics, Turkey.
• Delcea, C., Nica, I., Georgescu, I., Chiriță, N., & Ciurea, C. (2024). Integrating fuzzy MCDM methods and ARDL approach for circular economy strategy analysis in Romania. Mathematics, 12(19), 2997. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12192997
• Dogan, E., Altinoz, B., Madaleno, M., & Taskin, D. (2020). The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: a replication and extension of. Energy Economics, 90, 104866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104866
• Dua, T. V., & Trung, D. D. (2024). MEPSI (Mutriss Enhanced Preference Selection Index): a novel method for ranking alternatives. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (6), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003408
• Ela, M., Doğan, A., & Uçar, O. (2018). Comparison of EU countries and Turkey’s macroeconomıc performances with TOPSIS method. Osmaniye Korkut Ata University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 2(2), 129-143.
• Eleren, A., & Karagül, M. (2008). Performance analysis of Turkish economy between 1986-2006. Journal of Management and Economics, 15(1), 1-14.
• Ersoy, N. (2023). Assessment of macroeconomic performances of OECD countries using the MEREC-MULTIMOOSRAL model. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 471-491. https://doi.org/10.36362/gumus.1203999
• Florindo, T. J., Florindo, G. D. M., Talamini, E., Da Costa, J. S., De Léis, C. M., Tang, W. Z., ... & Ruviaro, C. F. (2018). Application of the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach in the identification of Carbon Footprint reduction actions in the Brazilian beef production chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 1379-1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.116
• Gezen Ucar, M. (2024). Integrated entropy-based MCDM methods for investigating the effectiveness of Turkey’s energy policies. Energy systems, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-024-00688-2
• Gligorić, Z., Görçün, Ö. F., Gligorić, M., Pamucar, D., Simic, V., & Küçükönder, H. (2024). Evaluating the deep learning software tools for large-scale enterprises using a novel TODIFFA-MCDM framework. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 102079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.102079
• Goswami, S. S., Mohanty, S. K., & Behera, D. K. (2022). Selection of a green renewable energy source in India with the help of MEREC integrated PIV MCDM tool. Materials today: proceedings, 52, 1153-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.019
• Gökgöz, F., & Yalçın, E. (2023). Investigating the energy security performance, productivity, and economic growth for the EU. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 42(5), e14139. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.14139
• Hasheminasab, H., Streimikiene, D., & Pishahang, M. (2023). A novel energy poverty evaluation: Study of the European Union countries. Energy, 264, 126157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126157
• Ilgın, M. A., & Alkan, E. (2020). Analysis of the factors hindering the widespread use of renewable energy resources in Turkey using multi criteria decision making techniques and house of quality. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 12(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.29137/umagd.469519
• Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2016). The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: A panel data application. Energy economics, 53, 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.003
• Karaaslan, A., & Aydın, S. (2020). Evaluation of renewable energy resources with multi criteria decision making techniques: Evıdence from Turkey. Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 34(4), 1351-1375. https://doi.org/10.16951/atauniiibd.749466
• Kaya Samut, P. (2024). Economic evaluation of 100 years of the Republic of Türkiye and economic performance analysis with multi-criteria decision making. Optimum Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 11(2), 265-286. https://doi.org/10.17541/optimum.1398268
• Koç, D. D., Abdulvahitoğlu, A., & Abdulvahitoğlu, A. (2023). Analysis of European Union green deal implementations in a Textile Enterprise in Adana Province using multi-criteria decision-making methods. Cukurova University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, 38(4), 875-885. https://doi.org/10.21605/cukurovaumfd.1410186
• Krysiak, M., & Kluczek, A. (2021). A multifaceted challenge to enhance multicriteria decision support for energy policy. Energies, 14(14), 4128. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14144128
• Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A. R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., & Bansal, R. C. (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191
• Li, T., Wang, H., & Lin, Y. (2024). Selection of renewable energy development path for sustainable development using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: the case of Malaysia. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 15082. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65982-6
• Man, Y., Han, Y., Liu, Y., Lin, R., & Ren, J. (2020). Multi-criteria decision making for sustainability assessment of boxboard production: a life cycle perspective considering water consumption, energy consumption, GHG emissions, and internal costs. Journal of Environmental Management, 255, 109860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109860
• Menten, C., & Çekiç, B. (2023). Ranking of G-20 countries according to energy production sources in the context of sustainability by TOPSIS method. Sosyoekonomi, 31(58), 387-408. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2023.04.19
• Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2017). A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Materials & Design, 121, 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.041
• Nguyen, H.Q., Nguyen, V.T., Phan, D.P., Tran, Q.H., & Vu, N.P. (2022). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the PMEDM process by using MARCOS, TOPSIS, and MAIRCA methods. Applied Sciences, 12(8), 3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083720
• Ocal, O., & Aslan, A. (2013). Renewable energy consumption–economic growth nexus in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 494-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.036
• Orhan, M. (2020). Comparison of the macroeconomic performance between European Union member and candidate countries with Aras method. Journal of Humanities and Tourism Research, 10(1), 115-129.
• Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The Selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multiattributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
• Pamucar, D., Ecer, F., Gligorić, Z., Gligorić, M., & Deveci, M. (2023). A novel WENSLO and ALWAS multicriteria methodology and its application to green growth performance evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3321697
• Pınar, A., Yıldırım, M., & Erdoğan, S. (2023). Measuring the performance of the Turkish economy in the COVID period and after with the CRITIC, TOPSIS and MABAC methods. KMU Journal of Social and Economic Research, 25(44), 433-449.
• Ren, J., & Lützen, M. (2015). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.012
• Sağır, H., & Doğanalp, B. (2016). Energy resources evaluation for Turkey from the perspectıve of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Kastamonu University, 11(1), 233-256.
• Santiago, Ó., Raso, M. A., Navarro, E., & Leo, T. J. (2019). Selection of thermoplastic polymers for use as bipolar plates in direct methanol fuel cell applications. Materials & Design, 183, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108148
• Urfalıoğlu, F., & Genç, T. (2013). Comparison of the economic performance between Turkey and the European Union members with multi criteria decision making methods. Marmara University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 35(2), 329-360.
• Wang, C. N., Kao, J. C., Wang, Y. H., Nguyen, V. T., Nguyen, V. T., & Husain, S. T. (2021). A Multicriteria decision-making model for the selection of suitable renewable energy sources. Mathematics, 9(12), 1318. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9121318
• Yılmaz, M., Şimşek, M., & Koca, G. (2021). Examining the social-economic status of women in OECD countries with the integrated method of ENTROPY-ARAS. Marmara University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 43(1), 100-122. https://doi.org/10.14780/muiibd.960297
• Zakeri, S., Chatterjee, P., Cheikhrouhou, N., Konstantas, D., & Yang, Y. (2023). MUTRISS: A new method for material selection problems using MUltiple-TRIangles scenarios. Expert Systems with Applications, 228, 120463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120463