ANALYZING CLIMATE CHANGE PERFORMANCE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF G20 COUNTRIES USING A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK

Abstract

Today, limited resources are decreasing/depleting with the increase in the human population living on Earth. The increased human population brings with it various problems. Different events cause important climate events at the global level, such as the decrease or depletion of water resources with the increase in demand, damage to the ecosystem, health risks, and deterioration of biological diversity. Due to the use of fossil fuels, the formation of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and global warming cause significant climate changes. Climate change causes the restriction of environmental and vital activities, the increase of natural disasters, and the extinction of species. This study aimed to evaluate the climate change performance of G20 countries which emit more than 75% of the world’s GHG emissions from 2019 to 2023, using MCDM methods. An objective method, LOPCOW, was used to assign weights while SPOTIS, WISP, and RMSVC methods were used to determine the climate change performances of G20 countries. The findings showed that among G20 countries, the highest performance was found in the United Kingdom and India, while the United States, Canada and Saudi Arabia were found in the last ranks.

Keywords

• Climate Change Performance, G20, MCDM, Decision Making, Comparative Analysis

ANALYZING CLIMATE CHANGE PERFORMANCE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF G20 COUNTRIES USING A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK

Abstract

Today, limited resources are decreasing/depleting with the increase in the human population living on Earth. The increased human population brings with it various problems. Different events cause important climate events at the global level, such as the decrease or depletion of water resources with the increase in demand, damage to the ecosystem, health risks, and deterioration of biological diversity. Due to the use of fossil fuels, the formation of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and global warming cause significant climate changes. Climate change causes the restriction of environmental and vital activities, the increase of natural disasters and the extinction of species. This study aimed to evaluate the climate change performance of G20 countries which emit more than 75% of the world’s GHG emissions for the period of 2019-2023, using MCDM methods. An objective method, LOPCOW, was used to assign weights while SPOTIS, WISP, and RMSVC methods were used to determine the climate change performances of G20 countries. The findings showed that among G20 countries, the highest performance was found in United Kingdom and India, while Saudi Arabia, United States and Russia were found in the last ranks. The study is thought to contribute to the literature due to reasons such as the lack of a study using the proposed model in the literature and the fact that the SPOTIS and RSMCV methods are being tested for the first time in the domestic literature.

Keywords

• Climate Change Performance
• G20
• LOPCOW
• SPOTIS
• WISP
• RSMVC

References

1. Altıntaş, F. F. (2021a). Measuring the climate change protection performance of G20 group countries with ROV and MAUT methods. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 11(1), 147-166. doi: 10.26579/jocress.429. Altıntaş, F. F. (2021b). G7 grubu ülkelerin iklim değişikliği koruma performanslarının CODAS ve EDAS yöntemleri ile incelenmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 16(4),1181-1201. doi: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.51022.
2. Arndt, C. (2023). Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans. Energy Policy, 174(2023), 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113471.
3. Bączkiewicz, A., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Wątróbski, J., Więckowski, J., & Salabun, W. (2021b, December 7-8). Towards an e-commerce recommendation system based on MCDM methods. In 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA).
4. Bączkiewicz, A., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Yelmikheiev, M., Kozlov, V., & Sałabun, W. (2021a). Comparative analysis of solar panels with determination of local significance levels of criteria using the MCDM methods resistant to the rank reversal phenomenon. Energies, 14(18), 1-21. doi: 10.3390/en14185727.
5. Balsara, S., Jain, P. K., & Ramesh, A. (2019). An integrated approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating climate change mitigation strategies of the Indian cement manufacturing industry. Environmental pollution, 252, 863-878. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.059.
6. Bernauer, T., & Böhmelt, T. (2013). National climate policies in international comparison: the climate change cooperation index. Environmental Science & Policy, 25, 196-206. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.007.
7. Bozkus, S. K., Kahyaoglu, H., & Lawali, A. M. M. (2020). Multifractal analysis of atmospheric carbon emissions and OECD industrial production index. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 12(4), 411-430. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-08-2019-0050.
8. Burck, J., Hagen, U., Bals, C., Höhne, N., & Nascimento, L. (2022). 2023 Climate Change Performance Index – Results, 1-32. Retrieved April 8, 2023, fromhttps://ccpi.org/wp-content/uploads/CCPI-2023-Results-3.pdf

9. Burck, J., Uhlich, T., Bals, C., Höhne, N., & Nascimento, L. (2023). CCPI Climate Change Performance Index, 1-17. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from https://www.germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/ccpi-ksi-2023-kurzfassung.pdf
10. Climate Change Performance Index, Retrieved April 8, 2023, from https://ccpi.org/downloads/
11. Codal, K. S., Ari, I., & Codal, A. (2021). Multidimensional perspective for performance assessment on climate change actions of G20 countries. Environmental Development, 39(2021), 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100639.
12. Deveci, M., Mishra, A. R., Gokasar, I., Rani, P., Pamucar, D., & Özcan, E. (2022). A decision support system for assessing and prioritizing sustainable urban transportation in metaverse. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 31(2), 475-484.
13. Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., & Tacnet, J. M. (2020, July 6-9). The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION).
14. Ding, D. K., & Beh, S. E. (2022). Climate Change and sustainability in ASEAN countries. Sustainability, 14(2), 1-17. doi: 10.3390/su14020999.
15. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112(2022), 1-17. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690.
16. Gokasar, I., Deveci, M., & Kalan, O. (2022). CO2 Emission based prioritization of bridge maintenance projects using neutrosophic fuzzy sets based decision making approach. Research in Transportation Economics, 91, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101029.
17. Golfam, P., Ashofteh, P. S., Rajaee, T., & Chu, X. (2019). Prioritization of water allocation for adaptation to climate change using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). Water Resources Management, 33, 3401-3416. doi: 10.1007/s11269-019-02307-7.
18. Goswami, S. S., Behera, D. K., Afzal, A., Razak Kaladgi, A., Khan, S. A., Rajendran, P., ... & Asif, M. (2021). Analysis of a robot selection problem using two newly developed hybrid MCDM models of TOPSIS-ARAS and COPRAS-ARAS. Symmetry, 13(8), 1-35. doi: 10.3390/sym13081331.
19. Keleş, N. (2023). Türkiye’nin 81 İlinin Sağlık Performansının Güncel Karar Verme Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (75), 120-141. doi: 10.51290/dpusbe.1134082.
20. Khan, M. Z., & Khan, M. F. (2019). Application of ANFIS, ANN and fuzzy time series models to CO2 emission from the energy sector and global temperature increase. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11(5), 622-642. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2019-0001.
21. Kirmizi, M., Karakas, S., & Uçar, H. (2023). Selecting the optimal naval ship drainage system design alternative based on ınteger linear programming, TOPSIS, and simple WISP methods. Journal of Ship Production and Design, 1-12.
22. Leal Filho, W., Krishnapillai, M., Minhas, A., Ali, S., Nagle Alverio, G., Hendy Ahmed, M. S., ... & Kovaleva, M. (2023b). Climate change, extreme events and mental health in the Pacific region. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 15(1), 20-40. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2022-0032.
23. Leal Filho, W., Tuladhar, L., Li, C., Balogun, A. L. B., Kovaleva, M., Abubakar, I. R., ... & Donkor, F. K. K. (2023a). Climate change and extremes: implications on city livability and associated health risks across the globe. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 15(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2021-0078.
24. Mathew, M., & Sahu, S. (2018). Comparison of New multi-criteria decision making methods for material handling equipment selection. Management Science Letters, 8(3), 139-150. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2018.1.004.
25. Nguyen, H. Q., Le, X. H., Nguyen, T. T., Tran, Q. H., & Vu, N. P. (2022). A comparative study on multi-criteria decision-making in dressing process for ınternal grinding. Machines, 10(5), 1-14. doi: 10.3390/machines10050303.
26. Ooi, S. K., Goh, S., Yeap, J. A., & Loo, K. S. (2018). Linking corporate climate change and financial performance: Evidence from Malaysia. Global Business & Management Research, 10(1), 231-246.
27. Pala, O. (2023). SD ve WISP yaklaşımları ile gıda sektöründe finansal performans analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 24(1), 59-79. doi: 10.31671/doujournal.1118061.
28. Pamučar, D. and Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
29. Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2021). International ranking of climate change action: An analysis using the indicators from the climate change performance index. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 148(2021), 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111316.
30. Simic, V., Gokasar, I., Deveci, M., & Švadlenka, L. (2022). Mitigating climate change effects of urban transportation using a type-2 neutrosophic MEREC-MARCOS model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1-17. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3207375.
31. Stanujkić, D., Karabašević, D., Popović, G., Zavadskas, E. K., Saračević, M., Stanimirović, P. S., ... & Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I. (2021a). Comparative analysis of the simple WISP and some prominent MCDM methods: A Python approach. Axioms, 10(4), 1-14. doi: 10.3390/axioms10040347.
32. Stanujkić, D., Popovic, G., Karabasevic, D., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I., & Ulutaş, A. (2021b). An integrated simple weighted sum product method—WISP. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1933-1944, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.3075783
33. Tam, K. P., Chan, H. W., & Clayton, S. (2023). Climate change anxiety in China, India, Japan, and the United States. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 87, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101991.
34. Ulutaş, A., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G., & Novaković, S. (2022a). Pallet truck selection with MEREC and WISP-S methods. Strategic Management-International Journal of Strategic Management and Decision Support Systems in Strategic Management, 27(2022), 23-29. doi: 10.5937/StraMan2200013U.
35. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., Karabašević, D., & Popović, G. (2022b). A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods. Sustainability, 14(24), 1-20. doi: 10.3390/su142416921.
36. Van Dua, T., & Thinh, H. X. (2023). RSMVC: A new-simple method to select the cutting tool base on multi criteria. Journal of Applied Engineering Science, 21(1), 167-175. doi: 10.5937/jaes0-39772.
37. Więckowski, J., & Zwiech, P. (2021). Can weighting methods provide similar results in MCDA problems? Selection of energetic materials study case. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 4592-4601. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.237.
38. Zavadskas, E. K., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., & Turskis, Z. (2022a). Analysis of the simple WISP method results using different normalization procedures. Studies in Informatics and Control, 31(1), 5-12.
39. Zavadskas, E. K., Stanujkic, D., Turskis, Z., & Karabasevic, D. (2022b). An intuitionistic extension of the simple WISP method. Entropy, 24(2), 1-11. doi: 10.3390/e24020218.