Çevresel Performans İndeksi Değerlendirmesinde Kullanılan Kriter Ağırlıklarının Objektif Yöntemlerle Belirlenmesi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği

Abstract

Çevre üzerinde alınan ve alınacak önlemler konusunda toplum baskısı son yıllarda özellikle gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde gittikçe artmaktadır. Devletler ve organizasyonlar insanlar üzerinde ekonomik ve sosyal özellikli faaliyetlere önem verdikleri gibi çevre üzerinden de gösterdikleri performanslara göre değerlendirilmektedir. Çevre özelinde 11 konu kategorisinde 40 göstergenin bir araya getirilerek 180 ülke için değerlendirilmesi çevresel performans indeksi (EPI) kullanılarak gerçekleştirildiğinden bu çalışmada 11 konu kategorisinde belirlenen kriter ağırlıklarının objektif yöntemlerle belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinde tek bir yöntemin kullanılmasının tek taraflı bir bakış açısı sağladığı ve en iyi çözümü belirlemede karar verici/vericilere göre değişkenlik gösterdiği düşünülmektedir. Bulguların subjektif bir şekilde karar vericilerin görüşlerine bırakılmadan, tek taraflı yorumlanmasından ziyade nesnel verilerin ele alınması gerektiği değerlendirilmiş, objektif yöntemlerden CRITIC, CILOS, ENTROPY, MEREC, LOPCOW ve SD yöntemleri kullanılarak EPI sıralamasında kullanılan kriter ağırlıkları belirlenmiştir. Yöntemlerin arasındaki ilişkiler analiz edilmiş ve karşılaştırmalar yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın EPI sıralamasındaki öznellikten sıyrılıp nesnel bakış açıları sunması sebebiyle literatüre katkı sağladığı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• EPI
• Çevresel Performans İndeksi
• OECD Ülkeleri
• Objektif yöntemler
• CRITIC
• CILOS
• ENTROPY
• MEREC
• LOPCOW
• SD

Determining of Criteria Weights Used in Evaluation of Environmental Performance Index by Objective Methods: The Case of OECD Countries

Abstract

In recent years, social pressure on the measures taken or to be taken on the environment has been increasing, especially in developed and developing countries. States and organizations are evaluated according to their performance on the environment, as well as giving importance to economic and social activities on people. It is aimed to determine the criteria weights determined in 11 issue categories by objective methods since the environmental performance index (EPI) is used to evaluate the environment for 180 countries by bringing together 40 indicators in 11 subject categories. It is thought that if a single method is used in determining the criteria weights, a one-sided perspective is provided and a single method used varies according to the decision maker/makers in determining the best solution. It was evaluated that objective data should be handled rather than a one-sided interpretation of the findings without being left to the views of the decision makers subjectively, and the criteria weights used in the EPI ranking were determined by using the objective methods CRITIC, CILOS, ENTROPY, MEREC, LOPCOW, and SD. Correlations between the methods were analyzed and comparisons were made. It is thought that the study contributes to the literature as it escapes the subjectivity in the EPI ranking and offers objective perspectives.

Keywords

• EPI
• Environmental Performance Index
• OECD Countries
• Objective methods
• CRITIC
• CILOS
• ENTROPY
• MEREC
• LOPCOW
• SD

References

1. ABDULLAH, L. (2017). A fuzzy decision making method in developing environmental performance index. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 13, 350-359.
2. ABDULLAH, L., & ISMAIL, W. K. W. (2013). A new ranking of environmental performance index using weighted correlation coefficient in intuitionistic fuzzy sets: a case of ASEAN countries. Modern Applied Science, 7(6), 42.
3. AKANDERE, G., & ZERENLER, M. (2022). Doğu Avrupa Ülkelerinin Çevresel ve Ekonomik Performansının Bütünleşik CRITIC-TOPSIS Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 25(Özel Sayı), 524-535.
4. ALTINTAŞ, F. F. (2021a). Çevre Performanslarının ENTROPİ tabanlı ROV, ARAS VE COPRAS Yöntemleri ile Ölçülmesi: G20 Grubu Ülkeleri Örneği. Social Sciences Research Journal, 10 (1), 55-78.
5. ALTINTAŞ, F. F. (2021b). Ülkelerin çevre performanslarının CODAS ve TOPSIS yöntemleri ile ölçülmesi: G7 Grubu Ülkeleri Örneği. Ulakbilge Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(59), 544-559.
6. ANSARI, M., EHRAMPOUSH, M. H., FARZADKIA, M., & AHMADI, E. (2019). Dynamic assessment of economic and environmental performance index and generation, composition, environmental and human health risks of hospital solid waste in developing countries; A state of the art of review. Environment international, 132, 105073.
7. BALEŽENTIS, T., LI, T., STREIMIKIENE, D., & BALEŽENTIS, A. (2016). Is the Lithuanian economy approaching the goals of sustainable energy and climate change mitigation? Evidence from DEA-based environmental performance index. Journal of Cleaner Production, 116, 23-31.
8. BUCHER, S. (2016). Measuring of Environmental Performance Index in Europe. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska, 18, 46-64.

9. ČEREŠKA, A., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., BUCINSKAS, V., PODVEZKO, V., & SUTINYS, E. (2018). Analysis of steel wire rope diagnostic data applying multi-criteria methods. Applied sciences, 8(2), 260.
10. CHOWDHURY, T., & ISLAM, S. (2017). Environmental Performance Index and GDP growth rate: evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Economics, 8(4), 31-36.
11. DIGKOGLOU, P., & PAPATHANASIOU, J. (2018). Ranking the EU countries according to the environmental performance index using PROMETHEE. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, 4(3-4), 290-305.
12. DOGAN, H. (2022). Measurement of the Environmental Performance of Selected Countries with Integrated CRITIC-MABAC Methods. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 7(2), 433-448.
13. ECER, F., & PAMUCAR, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 102690.
14. EPI (2022). 2022 EPI Report. Erişim Tarihi: 12.12.2022. https://epi.yale.edu/downloads.
15. FAKHER, H. A., & ABEDI, Z. (2017). Relationship between environmental quality and economic growth in developing countries (based on environmental performance index). Environmental Energy and Economic Research, 1(3), 299-310.
16. FÄRE, R., GROSSKOPF, S., & PASURKA Jr, C. A. (2010). Toxic releases: an environmental performance index for coal-fired power plants. Energy Economics, 32(1), 158-165.
17. GARCÍA-SÁNCHEZ, I. M., das NEVES ALMEIDA, T. A., & de BARROS CAMARA, R. P. (2015). A proposal for a Composite Index of Environmental Performance (CIEP) for countries. Ecological indicators, 48, 171-188.
18. HSU, A., LLOYD, A., & EMERSON, J. W. (2013). What progress have we made since Rio? Results from the 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and Pilot Trend EPI. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 171-185.
19. KAYA, S.K., AYÇIN, E. & PAMUCAR, D. (2022). Evaluation of social factors within the circular economy concept for European countries. Central European Journal of Operations Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-022-00800-w.
20. KESHAVARZ-GHORABAEE M., AMIRI M., ZAVADSKAS EK., TURSKIS Z., & ANTUCHEVICIENE J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525.
21. KORTELAINEN, M. (2008). Dynamic environmental performance analysis: A Malmquist index approach. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 701-715.
22. LUO, Y., ZHANG, X., QIN, Y., YANG, Z., & LIANG, Y. (2021). Tourism attraction selection with sentiment analysis of online reviews based on probabilistic linguistic term sets and the IDOCRIW-COCOSO model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 23(1), 295-308.
23. MEŠIĆ, A., MIŠKIĆ, S., STEVIĆ, Ž., & MASTILO, Z. (2022). Hybrid MCDM Solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics-Innovative And Research Journal, 10(1), 13-34.
24. NGUYEN, P. H., TSAI, J. F., NGUYEN, V. T., VU, D. D., & DAO, T. K. (2020). A decision support model for financial performance evaluation of listed companies in the Vietnamese retailing industry. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(12), 1005-1015.
25. PIMONENKO, T. V., LIULOV, O. V., & CHYHRYN, O. Y. (2018). Environmental Performance Index: relation between social and economic welfare of the countries. Environmental Economics, 9(3), 1-11.
26. PEKKAYA, M., & DÖKMEN, G. (2019). OECD ülkeleri kamu sağlık harcamalarının ÇKKV yöntemleri ile performans değerlendirmesi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15(4), 923-950.
27. ROGGE, N. (2012). Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The Environmental Performance Index. Ecological indicators, 23, 143-154.
28. SAMIMI, A. J., ERAMI, N. E., & MEHNATFAR, Y. (2010). Environmental Performance Index and economic growth: evidence from some developing countries. Australian journal of basic and applied sciences, 4(8), 3098-3102.
29. SAXENA, P., KUMAR, V. & RAM, M. (2022). A novel CRITIC‐TOPSIS approach for optimal selection of software reliability growth model (SRGM). Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 38: 2501-2520. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.3087.
30. SHAH, S. A. A., & LONGSHENG, C. (2020). New environmental performance index for measuring sector-wise environmental performance: a case study of major economic sectors in Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(33), 41787-41802.
31. SHEMSHADI, A., SHIRAZI, H. TOREIHI, M., & TAROKH, M.J. (2011), A Fuzzy VIKOR Method for Supplier Selection based on Entropy Measure for Objective Weighting, Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (10), 12160-12167.
32. SIMA, V., & GHEORGHE, I. G. (2014). Analyze of environmental performance in Romania based on environmental performance index. Annals of the „Constantin Brâncuşi” University of Târgu Jiu. Economy Series, 3, 101-104.
33. SZYMCZYK, K., ŞAHIN, D., BAĞCI, H., & KAYGIN, C. Y. (2021). The effect of energy usage, economic growth, and financial development on CO2 emission management: an analysis of OECD countries with a High environmental performance index. Energies, 14(15), 4671.
34. WANG, Q. J., GENG, Y., & XIA, X. Q. (2021). Revisited Globalization’s Impact on Total Environment: Evidence Based on Overall Environmental Performance Index. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11419.
35. YIGIT, S. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ulusların çevresel performansı üzerindeki etkisi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (64), 162-174.
36. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., & PODVEZKO, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283.
37. ZUO, X., HUA, H., DONG, Z., & HAO, C. (2017). Environmental performance index at the provincial level for China 2006–2011. Ecological Indicators, 75, 48-56.