WENSLO tabanlı AROMAN çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi ile sürdürülebilir üniversitelerin performans değerlendirilmesi: GreenMetric kriterleri ile uygulama

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 2, 369 - 390

Şule Bayazit Bedirhanoğlu

Öz

Üniversiteler, sürdürülebilir bir gelecek yaratmaya ve çevresel zorlukları ele almaya yönelik çalışmalar yürütmektedir. Sürdürülebilirlik konusundaki bu kararlılık, üniversiteleri sürdürülebilir kurumlara dönüşmeye itmektedir. Bu çalışma, UI GreenMetric'in 2023 Genel Raporu'na göre sıralanan dünyanın en iyi 10 üniversitesinin 2014-2023 yılları arasındaki sürdürülebilirlik performansını değerlendirmektedir. Değerlendirmede, GreenMetric tarafından belirlenen ortam ve altyapı, enerji ve iklim değişikliği, atık yönetimi, su kullanımı, ulaşım, eğitim ve araştırma gibi kriterler kullanılmıştır. Bu kriterlerin öncelik seviyeleri, ortam ve altyapıyı en kritik faktörler olarak belirleyen WENSLO objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemi kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Bunu takiben, üniversiteleri sürdürülebilirlik performanslarına göre sıralamak için AROMAN MCDM yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, Birkenfeld Üniversitesi en iyi performans gösteren kurum olarak kabul edilmiştir. Üniversiteler, çevre sorunlarını ele alarak sürdürülebilir bir gelecek yaratmak için çalışmalar yürütmektedir. Sürdürülebilir bir gelecek kaygısı, üniversiteleri sürdürülebilir üniversiteler olmaya teşvik etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, UI GreenMetric tarafından yayınlanan 2023 genel sıralama raporunda ilk 10'da yer alan dünya üniversitelerinin 2014-2023 yılları arasındaki sürdürülebilirlik performansları değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada GreenMetric tarafından belirlenen kriterler arasında ortam ve altyapı, enerji ve iklim değişikliği, atık yönetimi, su kullanımı, ulaşım, eğitim ve araştırma yer aldı. Bu kriterlerin öncelik düzeyi WENSLO objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemi ile belirlenmiş ve en kritik kriterin ortam ve altyapı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Üniversitelerin sürdürülebilirlik performansı AROMAN ÇKKV yöntemi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiş ve sıralanmıştır. Bu sıralamaya göre Birkenfeld Üniversitesi en iyi performansa sahip üniversite olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

WENSLO , AROMAN , ÇKKV , Sürdürülebilirlik , Performans Değerlendirme

Performance evaluation of sustainable universities with WENSLO-based AROMAN multi-criteria decision making method: Application with GreenMetric criteria

Öz

Universities conduct studies aimed at creating a sustainable future and addressing environmental challenges. This commitment to sustainability drives universities to transform into sustainable institutions. This study evaluates the sustainability performance of the world's top 10 universities, as ranked by UI GreenMetric's 2023 General Report, between 2014 and 2023. The evaluation utilized criteria established by GreenMetric, including setting and infrastructure, energy and climate change, waste management, water usage, transportation, education, and research. The priority levels of these criteria were established using the WENSLO objective weighting method, which identified setting and infrastructure as the most critical factors. Following this, the AROMAN MCDM method was used to rank the universities based on their sustainability performance. Consequently, the University of Birkenfeld was recognized as the top-performing institution. Universities carry out studies to create a sustainable future addressing environmental problems. The concern for a sustainable future encourages universities to become sustainable universities. In this study, the sustainability performances of the world universities ranked in the top 10 in the 2023 general ranking report published by UI GreenMetric between 2014 and 2023 are evaluated. In the study, the criteria set by GreenMetric included setting and infrastructure, energy and climate change, waste management, water usage, transportation, education, and research. The priority level of these criteria was established by the WENSLO objective weighting method and it was determined that the most critical criterion was that of setting and infrastructure. Universities’ sustainability performance was evaluated and ranked using the AROMAN MCDM method. According to this ranking, Birkenfeld University had the best performance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

MCDM , WENSLO , AROMAN , Sustainable Universities , Performance Evaluation

Kaynakça

• Aczel J., & Alsina C., “Characterization of some classes of quasilinear functions with applications to triangular norms and to synthesizing judgements,” Aequationes Math., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 313–315, Dec. 1982, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02189626
• Adlong, W. (2013). Rethinking the talloires declaration. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(1), 56-70, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00281-z.
• Akyol Özcan, K. (2023). Sustainability Ranking of Turkish Universities with Different Weighting Approaches and the TOPSIS Method. Sustainability, 15(16), 12234. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612234.
• Alawneh, R., Jannoud, I., Rabayah, H., & Ali, H. (2021). Developing a novel index for assessing and managing the contribution of sustainable campuses to achieve un sdgs. Sustainability, 13(21), 11770. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111770.
• Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of cleaner production, 16(16), 1777-1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.002
• Amrina, E., & Imansuri, F. (2015). Key performance indicators for sustainable campus assessment: a case of Andalas University. In Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Applications 2015 (pp. 11-18). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
• Aregarot, P., Kubaha, K., & Chiarakorn, S. (2024). A Study of Sustainability Concepts for Developing Green Universities in Thailand. Sustainability, 16(7), 2892. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072892.
• Atici, K. B., Yasayacak, G., Yildiz, Y., & Ulucan, A. (2021). Green University and academic performance: An empirical study on UI GreenMetric and World University Rankings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 291, 125289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125289
• Boiocchi, R., Ragazzi, M., Torretta, V., & Rada, E. C. (2023). Critical analysis of the GreenMetric world university ranking system: The issue of comparability. Sustainability, 15(2), 1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021343.
• Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Dobrodolac, M., Jovčić, S., & Zanne, M. (2023). An extended AROMAN method for cargo bike delivery concept selection. Decision Making Advances, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.31181/v120231
• Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Jovčić, S., Dobrodolac, M., Simić, V., & Bacanin, N. (2023). An alternative ranking order method accounting for two-step normalization (AROMAN)—A case study of the electric vehicle selection problem. IEEE Access, 11, https://doi.org/39496-39507. 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3265818
• Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Jovčić, S., Simic, V., Dobrodolac, M., & Elomiya, A. (2024). Sustainable propulsion technology selection in penultimate mile delivery using the FullEX-AROMAN method. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 95, 102013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102013
• Bozat, Z. A., Topdemir, A., & Gazi, I. (2016). Building corporate reputation with sustainability and universities. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(32), 286-302.
• Clark, H. C., & MacDonald, M. (1992). The Halifax Declaration for a sustainable biosphere. Environmental Conservation, 19(2), 177-177.
• Coker A. O., Achi C. G., Sridhar M. K. C., Donnet C. J. 2016. Solid Waste Management Practices at A Private Institution of Higher Learning in Nigeria. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.003
• Cortese AD (2003) The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan High Educ 31(3):15–22
• Cubilla-Montilla, M., Torres-Cubilla, C., & Tejedor-Flores, N. (2022, October). What environmental sustainability practices do universities manage for sustainable development. In 2022 8th International Engineering, Sciences and Technology Conference (IESTEC) (pp. 453-457). IEEE. https://doi.:10.1109/IESTECR54539.2022.00077
• Dabic-Miletic, S., Jovčić, S., Simic, V., Pamucar, D., Stević, Ž., Ala, A., & Sitinjak, C. (2024). Digital finance in circular economy using decision support systems. In Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Computing (pp. 205-216). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-23597-9.00010-X
• Da Rosa, M. R. (2020). Adoption of Green IT in the university environment: systematic review of sustainability practices in educational institutions. AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento, 9(2), 79-87. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcos-Rosa/publication/345632456_Adoption_of_Green_IT_in_the_university_environment_systematic_review_of_sustainability_practices_in_educational_institutions/links/5fa97b46a6fdcc062420418f/Adoption-of-Green-IT-in-the-university-environment-systematic-review-of-sustainability-practices-in-educational-institutions.pdf
• Dagiliute R., & Liobikiene G., 2015. University contributions to environmental sustainability: challenges and opportunities from the Lithuanian case, Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 891-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.015
• Dahle, M. and Neumayer, E. (2001), "Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey among higher educational institutions in London, UK", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370110388363
• Demirkol, A. K., & Birişçi, T. (2020). Sürdürülebilir Yerleşke Kavramı Farkındalığının Ege Üniversitesi Yerleşkesi Örneğinde İrdelenmesi. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 57(3), 367-379. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.638112
• Ecer, F. (2021). Sustainability assessment of existing onshore wind plants in the context of triple bottom line: a best-worst method (BWM) based MCDM framework. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(16), 19677-19693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11940-4
• Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., Zolfani, S. H., & Eshkalag, M. K. (2019). Sustainability assessment of OPEC countries: Application of a multiple attribute decision making tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118324
• Ecer, F. (2022). An extended MAIRCA method using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for coronavirus vaccine selection in the age of COVID-19. Neural Computing and Applications, 34, 5603-5623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06728-7
• Efendi, D., Swarga, A. B., & Mudzakkir, M. (2024). Comparative Studies on the Practice of Green University Initiatives. Available at SSRN 4783854. Efendi, David and Swarga, Alim Bubu and Mudzakkir, Moh., Comparative Studies on the Practice of Green University Initiatives (March 1, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4783854 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4783854
• Finlay, J., & Massey, J. (2012). Eco‐campus: Applying the ecocity model to develop green university and college campuses. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211211836
• Fissi, S., Romolini, A., Gori, E., & Contri, M. (2021). The path toward a sustainable green university: The case of the University of Florence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123655.
• Galleli, B., Teles, N.E.B., Santos, J.A.R.d., Freitas-Martins, M.S. and Hourneaux Junior, F. (2022), "Sustainability university rankings: a comparative analysis of UI green metric and the times higher education world university rankings", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 404-425. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2020-0475.
• Ghalehnovi, A., & Kamelnia, H. (2023). Providing Solutions to Improve Environmental Performance of Universities Based on GreenMetric System. Iranica Journal of Energy & Environment, 14(2), 160-167. https://doi.org/10.5829/ijee.2023.14.02.08
• Görgülü, Y., Ozceylan, E., & Ozkan, B. (2021, August). UI GreenMetric ranking of Turkish universities using entropy weight and COPRAS methods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Bangalore, India (pp. 1156-1165). https://www.ieomsociety.org/proceedings/2021india/51.pdf
• Grindsted, Thomas, Sustainable Universities – From Declarations on Sustainability in Higher Education to National Law (December 1, 2011). Environmental Economics, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2011, Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2697465
• Kanberoğlu, Z., & Kardoğan, K. (2019). Üniversitelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmedeki Rolü: Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Örneği. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(8), 91-112.
• Karasan A., Kutlu Gündoǧdu F., & Aydın S. (2022). Decision-making methodology by using multi-expert knowledge for uncertain environments: green metric assessment of universities. Environ, Develop Sustain, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02321-7
• Katiliūtė, E., Staniškis, J.K. (2017). Green Campus as an Integral Part of Sustainable University: Students’ Perceptions. In: Leal Filho, W., Skanavis, C., do Paço, A., Rogers, J., Kuznetsova, O., Castro, P. (eds) Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47889-0_24
• Katiliūtė, E., Stankevičiūtė, Ž., & Daunorienė, A. (2017). The role of non-academic staff in designing the green university campus. Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Volume 2, 49-61. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-47889-0_4
• Lemos, P. F. I., da Rocha Brando, F., Almeida, P., Mülfarth, R. C. K., Aprilanti, T. M. G., do Amaral Marques, L. O., ... & Malheiros, T. F. (2018). The University of São Paulo on the 2017‘s GreenMetric Ranking. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 48, p. 02003). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184802003
• Maçin, K., E. (2021). UI GreenMetric Ranking Performance Analysis of Universities in Turkey: Suggestions Towards to Becoming Green Campuses. 7th International Conference on Sustainable Development, Ekim 13-17, 2021. https://research.ebsco.com/c/6k2lrh/results?q=AN%20159593899
• Marans, R. W., & Edelstein, J. Y. (2010). The human dimension of energy conservation and sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11, 1, 6-18. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Marans/publication/235295626_The_human_dimension_of_energy_conservation_and_sustainability_A_case_study_of_the_University_of_Michigan's_energy_conservation_program/links/565CR5a1208ae4988a7bb6ba9/The-human-dimension-of-energy-conservation-and-sustainability-A-case-study-of-the-University-of-Michigans-energy-conservation-program.pdf
• Matulová, M. (2023). Ranking of European Universities by DEA-Based Sustainability Indicator. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 16(4), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2023.160403
• Moore, T., & Iyer-Raniga, U. (2019). Reflections of a green university building: from design to occupation. Facilities, 37(3/4), 122-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-11-2017-0108 Nekhoda, E. V., Nyurenberger, L. B., Krakovetskaya, I. V., Vorobyeva, E. S., & Dalibozhko, A. I. (2020). Sustainable university development: concepts, initiatives, results.
• Norazah, M.S., Norbayah, M.S. (2016). Campus Sustainability: Does Student Engagement with Eco-Campus Environmental Activities and Green Initiatives Really Matter?. In: Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. (eds) Engaging Stakeholders in Education for Sustainable Development at University Level. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26734-0_4
• Özekenci, E. K. Financial and Environmental Performance Analysis of Logistics company on the Fortune 500 By MEREC-based AROMAN Methods. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(3), 709-724. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1517266
• Öztaş, T., Aytaç Adalı, E., Tuş, A., & Öztaş, G. Z. (2023). Ranking green universities from MCDM perspective: MABAC with Gini Coefficient-based weighting method. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 7(1), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00281-z
• Pamucar, D., Ecer, F., Gligorić, Z., Gligorić, M., & Deveci, M. (2023). A novel WENSLO and ALWAS multicriteria methodology and its application to green growth performance evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3321697
• Pishahang, M., Jovcic, S., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Simic, V., & Görçün, Ö. F. (2023). MCDM-based wildfire risk assessment: a case study on the state of Arizona. Fire, 6(12), 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire6120449
• Roy, S. K. (2023). Green university initiatives and undergraduates’ reuse intention for environmental sustainability: The moderating role of environmental values. Environmental Challenges, 13, 100797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100797
• Sart, G. (2023). Sustainable campus design in universities. In Considerations on Education for Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability (pp. 121–135). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684- 8356-5.ch006
• Savely, S. M., Carson, A. I., & Delclos, G. L. (2007). An environmental management system implementation model for US colleges and universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(7), 660-670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.013
• Suwartha, N., & Sari, R. F. (2013). Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.02.034
• Tiyarattanachai, R., & Hollmann, N. M. (2016). Green Campus initiative and its impacts on quality of life of stakeholders in Green and Non-Green Campus universities. SpringerPlus, 5, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1697-4
• Torkayesh, A. E., Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2021). Comparative assessment of social sustainability performance: Integrated data-driven weighting system and CoCoSo model. Sustainable Cities and Society, 71, 102975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102975
• United Nations. (1972). Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. United Nations. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/300/05/IMG/NL730005.pdf?OpenElement
• Velazquez L., Munguia N., Platt A., & Taddei J., 2006. Sustainable University: What can be the matter?, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 9-11, 810-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.008
• Wu C-H (2021) An empirical study on discussion and evaluation of green university. Ecol Chem Eng S 28(1):75–85. https://doi.org/10.2478/eces-2021-0007
• Yakymchuk, A., Berezovska, I., RATAJ, M., Wojcik, J., & Holovchak, M. (2023). Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Universities: Economic Analysis and Organizational Aspects. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization & Management/Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Slaskiej. Seria Organizacji i Zarzadzanie, (182). http://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.182.39
• Yaşayacak, G. (2019). Dünya üniversitelerinin çevreci yaklaşımları ve sürdürülebilirlik açısından değerlendirilmesi (Master's thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
• Yuan, X., Zuo, J., & Huisingh, D. (2013). Green universities in China–what matters?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.030