Türkiye’deki illerin organik tarım, hayvancılık ve arıcılık performanslarının TOPSİS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Son yıllarda, insanların sağlık ve çevre sorunlarına karşı daha duyarlı hale gelmeleriyle tarım ve hayvancılık konularına ilişkin endişeler de yeni bir boyut kazanmıştır. Geleneksel tarım yöntemleri, sağlıkla ilgili sorunlara ve çevreyle ilgili olumsuzluklara yol açma potansiyelleri nedeniyle tartışmalı bir konu haline gelmiştir. Bu nedenle, organik tarım ve hayvancılık uygulamalarına önem veren üretici ve tüketici sayısı giderek artmaya başlamıştır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin illeri, 20192dan 2022’ye kadar olan dönemde organik tarım, hayvancılık ve arıcılık alanındaki performansları bakımından Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden biri olan TOPSIS ile değerlendirilmiş ve sıralanmıştır. Organik tarım için kullanılan kriterler "çiftçi sayısı", "toplam üretim alanı (hektar)" ve "üretim miktarı (ton)"dır. Organik hayvancılık için ise "çiftçi sayısı", "hayvan sayısı", "et üretimi (ton)", süt üretimi (ton)" ve "yumurta sayısı (adet)" kriterleri göz önünde bulundurulmuştur. Son olarak, organik arıcılık faaliyetleri, "çiftçi sayısı", "kovan sayısı" ve "üretim miktarı (ton)" üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre, organik tarımda Aydın ili 2019-2022 yılları arasında istikrarlı bir şekilde 1. sırada yer almıştır. Organik hayvancılıkta Çanakkale tüm yıllarda ilk 3 sırada yer alarak istikrar göstermiştir. Organik arıcılık verilerine göre ise Van ili, 2019 yılında 1., diğer yıllarda ise 2. sırada yer alarak iyi bir performans göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Organik tarım
• Organik hayvancılık
• Organik arıcılık
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV)
• Topsis (İdeal Çözüme Benzerlik Sırasına Göre Tercih Tekniği)

Evaluating the performance of organic crop, livestock, and beekeeping in the Provinces of Türkiye using the TOPSIS method

Abstract

In recent times, concerns regarding crop and livestock have gained a new dimension as people are becoming increasingly sensitive to health and environmental issues. Conventional farming methods have become a topic of contention due to their potential to give rise to environmental and health-related problems. Consequently, a growing number of producers and consumers have started to place emphasis on organic crop and livestock practices. In this study, the provinces of Türkiye have been assessed and ranked in terms of their performance in organic crop, livestock, and beekeeping for the 2019-2022 period. This evaluation has been conducted utilizing TOPSIS which is a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. The criteria considered for crop production encompassed "number of farmers", "total production area (ha)", and "production quantity (tons)". For livestock, criteria such as "number of farmers", "number of animals", "meat production (tons)", milk production (tons)", and "number of eggs (units)" were considered. Finally, organic beekeeping activities were assessed based on "number of farmers", "number of hives", and "production quantity (tons)". In conclusion, Aydın province consistently ranked first in organic farming between 2019 and 2022. In organic livestock farming, Çanakkale province demonstrated stability by maintaining a position within the top three across all years. Finally, according to organic beekeeping data, Van province achieved the first place in 2019 and secured the second place in subsequent years, indicating a notable performance.

Keywords

• Organic crop
• Organic livestock
• Organic beekeeping
• Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
• Topsis (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution).

References

1. Ak, İ., Özdemir, M., & Deniz, A. (2019). Ecological animal production in Turkey. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Organic Agriculture, 118-127, 15-17 May 2019, İzmir.
2. Akandere, G., & Zerenler, M. (2020). Evaluation of the environmental and economic performance of eastern European countries with the integrated critic-topsis method. Journal of Selçuk University Social Sciences Vocational School, 25 (Special Issue), 524-535. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1156615
3. Aksoy, E., Ömürbek, N., & Karaatlı, M. (2015). Use of AHP-based Multimoora and Copras methods for evaluating the performance of Turkish coal enterprises. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 33 (4), 1-28. 10.17065/huiibf.10920
4. Aydın Eryılmaz, G., Kılıç, O., & Boz, İ. (2019). Evaluation of organic agriculture and good agricultural practices in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability in Turkey. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 29 (2), 352-361. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.446002
5. Balezentis, T., Chen, X., Galnaityte, A., & Namiotko, V. (2020). Optimizing crop mix with respect to economic and environmental constraints: An integrated MCDM approach. Science of the Total Environment, 705, 135896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135896
6. Bektaş, S. (2021). Evaluating the performance of the Turkish insurance sector for the period of 2002-2021 with MEREC, LOPCOW, COCOSO, EDAS CKKV methods. Journal of BRSA Banking and Financial Markets, Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency, 16 (2), 247-283. http://doi.org/10.46520/bddkdergisi.1178359
7. Boz, İ., & Kılıç, O. (2021). Measures to be taken for the development of organic agriculture in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Research, 8 (3), 390-400. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1916288
8. Chakraborty, S. (2022). TOPSIS and Modified TOPSIS: A comparative analysis. Decision Analytics Journal, 2, 100021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2021.100021

9. Çelikyürek, H., & Karakuș, K. (2018). An overview of organic livestock in the world and in Turkey. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 8 (2), 299-306. http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/485880
10. Emamzadeh, S.M., Forghani, M.A., Karnema, A., & Darbandi, S. (2016). Determining an optimum pattern of mixed planting from organic and non-organic crops with regard to economic and environmental indicators: A case study of cucumber in Kerman, Iran. Information Processing in Agriculture, 3 (4), 207-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2016.08.001
11. Erbay, E., & Akyürek, Ç.E. (2020). Systematic review of multi-criteria decision-making applications in hospitals. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 22 (2), 612-645. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/841161
12. Fernández-Portillo, L.A., Yazdani, M., Estepa-Mohedano, L., & Sisto, R. (2023). Prioritisation of strategies for the adoption of organic agriculture using BWM and Fuzzy CoCoSo. Soft Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09431-y
13. Gözkonan, Ü.H., & Küçükbay, H. (2019). A Performance evaluation of participation banks and conventional banks with MCDM: A comparative analysis of TOPSIS and Grey Relational Analysis. International Journal of Economic & Administrative Studies, 25, 71-94. 10.18092/ulikidince.538666
14. Güngör, E. (2018). Determination of optimum management strategy for honey production forest lands using A’WOT and Conjoint Analysis: A case study in Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16 (3), 3437-3459. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1603_34373459
15. Heidarzadeh, S., Pourdarbani, R., Zadvali, F., & Pashazadeh, A. (2020). Evaluating and ranking the development level of rural areas of Tabriz using Copeland model and comparison the results with TOPSIS, VIKOR and ELECTRE Models. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 30 (3), 498-509. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.646630
16. Ilham, N.I., Dahlan, N.Y., & Hussin, M.Z. (2024). Optimizing solar PV investments: A comprehensive decision-making index using CRITIC and TOPSIS. Renewable Energy Focus, 100551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2024.100551
17. Kaya, A., Pamucar, D., Gürler, H.E., & Ozcalici, M. (2024). Determining the financial performance of the firms in the Borsa Istanbul sustainability index: integrating multi criteria decision making methods with simulation. Financial Innovation, 10 (1), 21, 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00512-3
18. Karaatlı, M., Ömürbek, N., Budak, İ., & Dağ, O. (2015). Ranking the livable cities through multi-criteria decision making methods. The Journal of Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute, 33, 215-228. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1724830
19. Magableh, G.M. (2023). Evaluating wheat suppliers using Fuzzy MCDM technique. Sustainability, 15 (8), 10519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310519
20. Mahtani, U.S., & Garg, C.P. (2018). An analysis of key factors of financial distress in airline companies in India using Fuzzy AHP framework. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 117, 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.016
21. Mangan, P., Pandi, D., Haq, M.A., Sinha, A., Nagarajan, R., Dasani, T., Keshta, I., & Alshehri, M. (2022). Analytic Hierarchy Process based land suitability for organic farming in the arid region. Sustainability, 14 (8), 4542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084542
22. Menten, C., Özal Saraç, N., & Çekiç, B. (2023). Evaluation of organic agriculture production efficiency in OECD countries within the framework of sustainable development goals. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 41 (Agriculture Special Issue), 77-97. 10.17065/huniibf.125217
23. Nila, B., & Roy, J. (2023). A new hybrid MCDM framework for third-party logistic provider selection under sustainability perspectives. Expert Systems with Applications, 234, 121009.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121009
24. Namiotko, V., Galnaityte, A., Krisciukaitiene, I., & Balezentis, T. (2022). Assessment of agri-environmental situation in selected EU countries: A multi-criteria decision-making approach for sustainable agricultural development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 25556-25567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17655-4
25. Obbineni, J., Kandasamy, I., Vasantha, W.B., & Smarandache, F. (2023). Combining SWOT analysis and Neutrosophic Cognitive Maps for multi-criteria decision making: A case study of organic agriculture in India. Soft Computing, 27, 18311-18332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08097-w
26. Otgonbayar, M., Atzberger, C., Chambers, J., Amarsaikhan, D., Böck, S., & Tsogtbayar, J. (2017). Land suitability evaluation for agricultural cropland in Mongolia using the spatial MCDM method and AHP based GIS. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 5 (9), 238-263. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2017.59017
27. Ömürbek, N., & Aksoy, E. (2016). Performance assessment of a petroleum company with the multi- criteria decision making techniques. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 21 (3), 723-756. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/227673
28. Pekkaya, M., & Dökmen, G. (2019). OECD Countries public healthcare expenditure performance evaluation via multi-criteria decision-making methods. Int. Journal of Management Economics and Business, 15 (4), 923-950. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1123545
29. Poursaeed, A., Mirdamadi, M., Malekmohammadi, I., & Hosseini, J.F. (2010). The partnership models of agricultural sustainable development based on multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) in Iran. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5 (23), 3185-3190. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR.9000522
30. Rajadurai, M., & Kaliyaperumal, P. (2024). On SIR-based MCDM approach: Selecting a charcoal firm using hybrid fuzzy number on a triple vague structure. Heliyon, 10 (2), e24248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24248
31. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2023). Statistics. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Konular/Bitkisel-Uretim/Organik-Tarim/Istatistikler. Access date: 29.01.2024.
32. Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Rosati, A., Boggia, A., & Castellini, C. (2019). Assessing the sustainability of different poultry production systems: A multicriteria approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.013
33. Rouyendegh, B.D., & Savalan, Ş. (2022). An integrated fuzzy MCDM hybrid methodology to analyze agricultural production. Sustainability, 14 (8), 4835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084835
34. Sabir, M., Ali, Y., Abdullah, A., Ali, A., Khan, J., & Rehman, Z.U. (2022). The choice between organic and inorganic farming: Lessons from Pakistan. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 37 (4), 429-436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170522000072
35. Seyedmohammadi, J., Sarmadian, F., Jafarzadeh, A.A., Ghorbani, M.A., & Shahbazi, F. (2018). Application of SAW, TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma, 310, 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012
36. Shin, E., Shin, Y., Lee, S.-W., & An, K. (2024). Evaluating the environmental factors of organic farming areas using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sustainability, 16 (8), 2395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062395
37. Şimşek, O. (2022). Financial performance evaluation in the Turkish banking sector with a hybrid MCDM model. Turkish Studies-Economics, Finance, Politics, 17 (2), 447-470. 10.7827/TurkishStudies.62308
38. Talukder, B., & Hipel, K.W. (2018). The PROMETHEE framework for comparing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Resources, 7 (4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7040074
39. Tosyalı, T. (2023). The research of consumers’ perception, purchase intentions and actual purchase behavior intended to organic food products. PhD Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Social Science.
40. Ulutaş , A., & Karaköy, Ç. (2019). The measurement of logistics performance index of G-20 countries with multi-criteria decision making model. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 20 (2), 1-14. 10.7827/TurkishStudies.49985
41. Zhang, C., Jiang, N., Su, T., Chen, J., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, T. (2022). Spreading knowledge and technology: Research efficiency at universities based on the three-stage MCDM-NRSDEA method with bootstrapping. Technology in Society, 68, 101915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101915