Türkiye’de Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefi 17’nin dinamiklerinin incelenmesi: Veri odaklı çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımı

Abstract

Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amacı 17, sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın sağlanmasında uygulama kapasitesinin güçlendirilmesi ve küresel ortaklıkların yeniden canlandırılması açısından kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Stratejik önemine rağmen, özellikle Türkiye özelinde, SKA 17 performansının ulusal düzeyde uzun dönemli ve metodolojik olarak bütünleşik biçimde değerlendirildiği çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin 2010–2021 yılları arasındaki performansı 26 gösterge kullanılarak kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Kriterlerin ağırlıklandırılmasında IDOCRIW yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu yöntem, kriterlerin hem bilgi içeriğini hem de değişkenlik düzeyini dikkate alarak nesnel ağırlıklar belirlemekte ve böylece değerlendirme sürecine metodolojik tutarlılık ve nesnellik kazandırmaktadır. Ardından, yılları performans açısından sıralamak için CoCoSo yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Birden fazla uzlaşma temelli toplulaştırma stratejisini bir araya getiren CoCoSo, daha dengeli ve güvenilir sıralamalar sunmaktadır. Bulgular, 2013 yılının en yüksek SKA 17 performansına sahip olduğunu, 2019–2021 döneminin ise en düşük performansı gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu sonuçlar Türkiye’nin ortaklık temelli sürdürülebilir kalkınma performansında son yıllarda bir gerilemeye işaret etmekte ve bu alanda politika düzeyinde yeniden odaklanılması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Önerilen çerçevenin tutarlılığını ve sağlamlığını test etmek amacıyla ARAS, TOPSIS, VIKOR ve MOOSRA yöntemleriyle karşılaştırmalı analizler yapılmış ve sonuçlar çapraz doğrulama ile desteklenmiştir. Farklı yöntemler arasında elde edilen sıralamaların yakınsaması, önerilen değerlendirme çerçevesinin güvenilirliğini doğrulamaktadır. Bu çalışma, SKA 17’ye ilişkin uzun dönemli, çok yöntemli ve politika açısından anlamlı bir değerlendirme çerçevesi sunarak literatüre katkı sağlamakta; politika yapıcılara ortaklıkların etkinliğini izleme ve daha dayanıklı sürdürülebilir kalkınma stratejileri geliştirme konusunda pratik çıkarımlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Türkiye
• sürdürülebilir kalkınma amaçları
• çok kriterli karar verme
• IDOCRIW
• CoCoSo

Examining the dynamics of Sustainable Development Goal 17 in Türkiye: A data-driven multi-criteria decision-making approach

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal 17 is critical to advancing operational capacities and rejuvenating international partnerships to achieve sustainable development. Despite its strategic importance, longitudinal, methodologically integrated assessments of SDG 17 performance at the national level remain limited, particularly in Türkiye. In this research, Türkiye's performance between 2010 and 2021 was thoroughly investigated using 26 indicators, with multi-criteria assessment methods applied to weight the criteria. The IDOCRIW method was employed. This method determines objective weights based on the information content and differences among the criteria, thereby enhancing methodological consistency in the evaluation process. Subsequently, the CoCoSo method was employed to rank the years in terms of performance. The CoCoSo method integrates compromise to obtain more balanced and reliable rankings. According to the results, 2013 was identified as the year with the highest performance across all methods, whereas 2019–2021 exhibited the lowest performance. These results indicate a recent decline in Türkiye’s sustainable development performance in partnership-related areas and underline the need for renewed policy attention in this area. To test the consistency of the proposed methodology, comparative analyses were conducted with ARAS, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and MOOSRA methods, and the findings were cross-validated. The convergence of rankings across different methods confirms the reliability of the proposed evaluation framework. This study contributes to the literature by offering a longitudinal, multi-method, and policy-relevant assessment framework for SDG 17 and provides practical insights for policymakers to monitor partnership effectiveness and design more resilient sustainable development strategies.

Keywords

• Türkiye
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Multi-criteria Decision-making
• IDOCRIW
• CoCoSo

References

1. Allen, C., Metternicht, G. and Wiedmann, T. (2018). Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustainability science, 13(5), 1453-1467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0572-3
2. Almeida, A. C. (2019). Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to build indicators and localize sustainable development goal 11 in Brazilian municipalities. Heliyon, 5(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02128
3. Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C. A., Beisheim, M., Bernstein, S., Chasek, P. and Wicke, B. (2022). Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 5(9), 795-800. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5
4. Breu, T., Bergöö, M., Ebneter, L., Pham-Truffert, M., Bieri, S., Messerli, P. and Bader, C. (2021). Where to begin? Defining national strategies for implementing the 2030 Agenda: the case of Switzerland. Sustainability Science, 16(1), 183-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00856-0
5. Büyüközkan, G., Karabulut, Y. and Mukul, E. (2018). A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations' sustainable development goals. Energy, 165, 290-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.215
6. Carlsen, L. and Bruggemann, R. (2022). The 17 United Nations’ sustainable development goals: A status by 2020. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 29(3), 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1948456
7. Cruz, S. A. (2023). SDG 17 and global partnership for sustainable development: unraveling the rhetoric of collaboration. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1155828. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1155828
8. Das, M. C., Sarkar, B., and Ray, S. (2012). Decision making under conflicting environment: a new MCDM method. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 5(2), 142-162. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJADS.2012.046505

9. Ecer, F. (2016). ARAS yöntemi kullanılarak kurumsal kaynak planlaması yazılımı seçimi. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1).
10. Fonseca, L. M., Domingues, J. P. and Dima, A. M. (2020). Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustainability, 12(8), 3359. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083359
11. Gölbaşı, S. D. and Metintas, S. (2020). Dünya Sağlık Örgütü’nün covıd-19 pandemisinde küresel sürveyans çalışmaları. Eskişehir Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Halk Sağlığı Dergisi, 5(12), 184-213. https://doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.778746
12. Hák, T., Janoušková, S. and Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological indicators, 60, 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003
13. Halkos, G. and Gkampoura, E. C. (2021). Where do we stand on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals? An overview on progress. Economic Analysis and policy, 70, 94-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.02.001
14. Howarth, C., Bryant, P., Corner, A., Fankhauser, S., Gouldson, A., Whitmarsh, L. and Willis, R. (2020). Building a social mandate for climate action: Lessons from COVID-19. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76(4), 1107-1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00446-9
15. Jagadish, J., and Ray, A. (2014). Green cutting fluid selection using MOOSRA method. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 3(3), 559-563.
16. Janko, W., and Bernroider, E. (2005). Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An Application Study of ELECTRE & TOPSIS. Dalam Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM). Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu, 1-36.
17. Küresel Amaçlar Platformu (2025). Amaçlar için Ortaklıklar (SDG17). Access, 12 March 2025, https://www.kureselamaclar.org/amaclar/amaclar-icin-ortakliklar/
18. Madanchian, M., and Taherdoost, H. (2023). A comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Madanchian M, Taherdoost H. A comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Sustainable Social Development, 1(1), 2220. https://doi.org/10.54517/ssd.v1i1.2220
19. Maltais, A., Weitz, N. and Persson, Å. (2018). SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. A Review of Research Needs.
20. Ministry for EU Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye. (2013). Autumn Forecast Report. https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/EMPB/sonbahar_tahminler_raporu_2013.pdf
21. Moyer, J. D. and Hedden, S. (2020). Are we on the right path to achieve the sustainable development goals? World Development, 127, 104749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104749
22. Oliveira, A., Calili, R., Almeida, M. F. and Sousa, M. (2019). A systemic and contextual framework to define a country’s 2030 agenda from a foresight perspective. Sustainability, 11(22), 6360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226360
23. Opricovic, S., and Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 156(2), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
24. Özcan, B. A. Çevre sorunlarının küreselleşmenin yapısal sorunları açısından bir değerlendirmesi. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 10(2), 408-436.https://doi.org/10.14514/beykozad.1171914
25. Ozdemir, S. (2024). Unveiling environmental resilience: A data-driven multi-criteria decision-making approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 108, 107607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107607
26. Perez-Gladish, B., Ferreira, F. A. and Zopounidis, C. (2021). MCDM/A studies for economic development, social cohesion and environmental sustainability: introduction. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 28(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1821257
27. Presidency of Strategy and Budget (SBB). (2021). 2021 Annual Program of the Presidency. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wpcontent/uploads/2022/07/2021_Yili_Cumhurbaskanligi_Yillik_Programi.pdf
28. Presidency Strategy and Budget Department (2022). Public Investment Programs. Access, 18 May 2025, https://www.sbb.gov.tr/kamu-yatirim-programlari/
29. Rashed, A. H. and Shah, A. (2021). The role of private sector in the implementation of sustainable development goals. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 2931-2948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00718-w
30. Resce, G. and Schiltz, F. (2021). Sustainable development in Europe: A multicriteria decision analysis. Review of Income and Wealth, 67(2), 509-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12475
31. Rombouts, S. J. and Zekić, N. (2020). Decent and sustainable work for the future?. UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 24(2), 317-358. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48609838
32. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Sechnical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
33. Sorooshian, S. (2024). The Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations: A Comparative Midterm Research Review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 453, 142272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142272
34. Turkish Statistical Institute (2024). Sustainable Development Indicators, 2010–2023. Access, 16 April 2025, https://data.tuik.gov.tr
35. Türkiye Cooperation and Coordination Agency (2021). Türkiye Development Assistance Report 2021. Access, https://tika.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/TurkiyeKalkinma2021Web.pdf, Ankara.
36. United Nations (2022). Sustainable Development Goals. Access, 29 October 2025, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/globalpartnerships/
37. World Bank. (2014). Turkey Regular Economic Brief, 2014-I. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documentsreports/documentdetail/805291468180543908
38. Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E. and Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
39. Zavadskas, E. K., and Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy, 17(2), 397-427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291
40. Zavadskas, E. K.,and Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036