Examination of agricultural structures of some European Union countries using TOPSIS method

Year 2024, , 357 - 366, 18.09.2024

Figen Çukur , Tayfun Çukur

https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.1462784

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the agricultural structures of some European Union countries (Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Greece, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Romania, Spain, Lithuania). The variables used in the study are agricultural area, arable land, the share of agriculture in total employment, added value from agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and fertilizer consumption per arable land.
Material and Methods: The data of the research belongs to 2021. TOPSIS method was used to compare the agricultural structures of European Union countries.
Findings: According to the criteria considered in the study, the European Union countries with the highest agricultural potential were France, Spain and Germany, while the countries with the lowest agricultural potential were Lithuania, Denmark and Finland.
Conclusion: In the research, it was determined that there are significant differences between the agricultural structures of the European Union countries. Necessary measures should be taken to eliminate these differences between countries.

Keywords

European Union, agricultural structure, TOPSIS

Bazı Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin tarımsal yapılarının TOPSIS yöntemi ile incelenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmada Bazı Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin (Bulgaristan, Danimarka, Finlandiya, Fransa, Almanya, Macaristan, Yunanistan, Portekiz, Polonya, İtalya, Romanya, İspanya, Litvanya) tarımsal yapılarının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan değişkenler, tarım alanı, ekilebilir arazi, toplam istihdam içinde tarımın payı, tarım orman ve balıkçılıktan elde edilen katma değer ve ekilebilir arazi başına gübre tüketimidir.
Materyal ve Yöntem: Araştırmanın verileri 2021 yılına aittir. Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin tarımsal yapılarının karşılaştırılmasında TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılmıştır.
Araştırma Bulguları: Araştırmada ele alınan kriterler itibariyle tarımsal potansiyeli en yüksek Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri Fransa, İspanya ve Almanya iken en düşük ülkeler, Litvanya, Danimarka ve Finlandiya olarak bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Araştırmada Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin tarımsal yapıları arasında önemli farklılıkların olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ülkeler arasındaki söz konusu farklılıkların giderilmesi için gerekli tedbirler alınmalıdır.

Keywords

Avrupa Birliği, tarımsal yapı, TOPSIS

References

• Anonymous, 2024a. Agriculture. (Web page: https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/actions-topic/agriculture_en) (Date accessed: April 2024).
• Anonymous, 2024b. Performance of the agricultural sector. (Web page: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Performance_of_the_agricultural_sector#Value_of_agricultural_output) (Date accessed: April 2024).
• Balcerzak, A.P. & M.B. Pietrzak, 2016. Application of TOPSIS Method for Analysis of Sustainable Development in European Union Countries. Institute of Economic Research Working Papers, No. 22/2016, Institute of Economic Research, Poland.
• Çınar, G., A. Hushmat & F. Işın, 2015. Relationship between exports of processed agricultural products and real exchange rate shocks: the case of Turkey. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 52 (1): 85-92.
• Coca, O., D. Creanga, S. Viziteu, I.S. Bruma & G. Stefan, 2023. Analysis of the determinants of agriculture performance at the European Union level. Agriculture, 13 (616):1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030616
• Dace, E. & D. Blumberga, 2016. How do 28 European Union Member States perform in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? It depends on what we look at: Application of the multi-criteria analysis. Ecological Indicators, 71: 352-358. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.016
• FAO, 2024. FAO Statistics (FAOSTAT). (Web page: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data) (Date accessed: April 2024).
• Galnaityte, A., I. Krisciukaitiene, V. Namiotko & V. Dabkiene, 2024. Assessment of the Lithuanian pig farming sector via prospective farm size. Agriculture, 14 (32): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010032
• Güryay, E., O.V. Şafaklı & B. Tüzel, 2005. The comparative analysis of agricultural sector productivity in North Cyprus and the European Union. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (1): 51-61.
• Kuo, T., 2017. A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of Operational Research, 260:152-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.052
• Mateusz, P., M. Danuta, L. Malgorzata, B. Mariusz & N. Kesra, 2018. TOPSIS and VIKOR methods in study of sustainable development in the EU countries. Procedia Computer Science 126: 1683-1692. 10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.109
• Namiotko, V., A. Galnaityte, I. Krisciukaitiene & T. Balezentis, 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
• Nowak, A. & A. Kaminska, 2016. Agricultural competitiveness: The case of the European Union countries. Agricutural Economics, 62 (11): 507-516. DOI: 10.17221/133/2015-AGRICECON
• Sevim, C. & Ö. Bali, 2008. Avrupa Birliği üyesi ve aday ülkelerin tarımsal etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Verimlilik Dergisi, 3: 21-39.
• Shih, H.S., H.J. Shyur & E.S. Lee, 2007. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45: 801-813. DOI:10.1016/j.mcm.2006.03.023
• Sredzinska, J., A. Kozera & A. Standar, 2018. Level and evolution of farm taxation in the European Union in 2007-2015. Proceedings of the 2018 International Scientific Conference Economic Sciences for Agribusiness and Rural Economy, No 1, Warsaw, 7-8 June 2018, pp. 327-334.
• WDI, 2024. The World Bank World Development Indicators. (Web page: https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=World-Development-Indicators) (Date accessed: April 2024).
• Ziolo, M. & L. Luty, 2018. Gradation of European Union member states in terms of organic farming development in the light of a multivariate comparative analysis. International Scientific Days, 258-271. https://doi.org/10.15414/isd2018.s1.20