Avrupa Ülkelerinde Sürdürülebilir Enerji Performansının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Enerji dönüşümü, iklim değişikliği ile mücadele ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri doğrultusunda enerji sistemlerinin çevresel, ekonomik ve teknolojik boyutlarıyla birlikte yeniden yapılandırılmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu süreçte ülkelerin sürdürülebilir enerji performanslarının çok boyutlu göstergeler üzerinden değerlendirilmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa ülkelerinde sürdürülebilir enerji performansını Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri kullanarak karşılaştırmalı biçimde analiz etmektir. Çalışmada EUROSTAT veri tabanından elde edilen dokuz enerji ve çevre göstergesi kullanılarak 20 Avrupa ülkesi değerlendirilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıkları Eşit Ağırlık, ENTROPY ve CRITIC yöntemleri ile belirlenmiş; ülkelerin performansları TOPSIS, MABAC, PSI, ROV, WSM, WPM ve WASPAS yöntemleri kullanılarak sıralanmıştır. Farklı yöntemlerden elde edilen sonuçların bütünleştirilmesi amacıyla BORDA yaklaşımı kullanılarak nihai ülke sıralamaları oluşturulmuştur. Bulgular, sürdürülebilir enerji performansının kullanılan ağırlıklandırma yöntemine duyarlı olduğunu ve farklı ağırlıklandırma senaryolarının ülke sıralamalarını değiştirebildiğini göstermektedir. Eşit ağırlık senaryosunda Fransa ilk sırada yer alırken, ENTROPY yaklaşımında İtalya ve CRITIC yaklaşımında İspanya lider konumda bulunmuştur. Bununla birlikte Fransa, Almanya, İtalya, İspanya, İsveç ve Avusturya çoğu senaryoda üst performans grubunda yer almıştır. Çalışma, enerji dönüşümü performansının ölçümünde yöntemsel duyarlılığı ortaya koyarak literatüre katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilir Enerji Performansı
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• Enerji Dönüşümü
• Avrupa Ülkeleri
• Eurostat

Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Performance in European Countries Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods

Öz

Energy transition necessitates the restructuring of energy systems in their environmental, economic, and technological dimensions in line with the goals of combating climate change and sustainable development. In this process, evaluating countries' sustainable energy performance through multi-dimensional indicators is of great importance. The aim of this study is to comparatively analyze the sustainable energy performance of European countries using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. Twenty European countries were evaluated using nine energy and environmental indicators obtained from the EUROSTAT database. Criterion weights were determined using the Equal Weighting, ENTROPY, and CRITIC methods; and the performance of countries was ranked using the TOPSIS, MABAC, PSI, ROV, WSM, WPM, and WASPAS methods. Final country rankings were created using the BORDA approach to integrate the results obtained from different methods. The findings show that sustainable energy performance is sensitive to the weighting method used, and different weighting scenarios can change country rankings. France ranked first in the Equal Weighting scenario, while Italy led in the ENTROPY approach and Spain in the CRITIC approach. However, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Austria were among the top-performing countries in most scenarios. The study contributes to the literature by demonstrating methodological sensitivity in measuring energy transition performance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable Energy Performance
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• Energy Transition
• European Countries
• Eurostat

Kaynakça

1. IPCC, “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change,” in Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2022, ch. Energy Systems, pp. 613–746. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.008.
2. IEA, “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector,” Paris, 2021. Accessed: Mar. 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
3. World Energy Council, “World Energy Trilemma 2024: Evolving with resilience and justice,” 2024.
4. A. Azzuni and C. Breyer, “Global energy security index and its application on national level,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 10, May 2020, doi: 10.3390/en13102502.
5. M. Ligus and P. Peternek, “The Sustainable Energy Development Index—An Application for European Union Member States,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 4, p. 1117, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14041117.
6. J. Jędrzejczak-Gas, J. Wyrwa, and A. Barska, “Sustainable Energy Development and Sustainable Economic Development in EU Countries,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 17, no. 7, p. 1775, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.3390/en17071775.
7. R. Vavrek and J. Chovancová, “Energy Performance of the European Union Countries in Terms of Reaching the European Energy Union Objectives,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 20, p. 5317, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/en13205317.
8. J. Brodny and M. Tutak, “Assessing the energy security of European Union countries from two perspectives – A new integrated approach based on MCDM methods,” Appl. Energy, vol. 347, p. 121443, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121443.

9. A. Barska, J. Wyrwa, J. Jędrzejczak-Gas, and K. Kononowicz, “Taxonomic Evaluation of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Development in European Union Member States,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 18, no. 23, p. 6102, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.3390/en18236102.
10. IRENA, World energy transitions outlook 2023 : 1.5°C pathway. International Renewable Energy Agency IRENA, 2023.
11. I. Khan, A. Zakari, V. Dagar, and S. Singh, “World energy trilemma and transformative energy developments as determinants of economic growth amid environmental sustainability,” Energy Econ., vol. 108, p. 105884, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105884.
12. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. MD Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, “Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014,” Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 516–571, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139.
13. D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas, and L. Papayannakis, “Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method,” Comput. Oper. Res., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 763–770, Aug. 1995, doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.
14. L. J. Esso and Y. Keho, “Energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: Cointegration and causality evidence from selected African countries,” Energy, vol. 114, pp. 492–497, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.010.
15. I. Matei, “Is there a Link between Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth? A Dynamic Panel Investigation for the OECD Countries,” Rev. Econ. Polit., vol. Vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 985–1012, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.3917/redp.276.0985.
16. A. Karasek, B. Fura, and M. Zajączkowska, “Assessment of Energy Efficiency in the European Union Countries in 2013 and 2020,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 3414, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15043414.
17. E. Chodakowska, J. Nazarko, and Ł. Nazarko, “Efficiency of Renewable Energy Potential Utilization in European Countries,” Nov. 27, 2024. doi: 10.20944/preprints202411.2171.v1.
18. European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), “Energy Sovereignty Index: Gains, gaps, and the road ahead,” European Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed: Mar. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://ecfr.eu/special/energy-sovereignty-index-2024
19. World Economic Forum, “Fostering effective energy transition 2025,” 2025.
20. E. Akusta, “Comparative analysis of OECD countries based on Energy Trilemma Index: A clustering approach,” İzmir İktisat Dergisi, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 248–271, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.24988/ije.1472312.
21. A. Polyanska, D. Sala, V. Psyuk, and Y. Pazynich, “A Multicriteria Approach to the Study of the Energy Transition Results for EU Countries,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 18, no. 20, p. 5406, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.3390/en18205406.
22. J. Jędrzejczak-Gas, J. Wyrwa, and A. Barska, “Assessment of Sustainable Energy Development in European Union—Correspondence Analysis,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 18, no. 18, p. 4886, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3390/en18184886.
23. J. Brodny and M. Tutak, “Assessing sustainable energy development in the central and eastern European countries and analyzing its diversity,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 801, p. 149745, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149745.
24. M. Tutak and J. Brodny, “Analysis of the level of energy security in the three seas initiative countries,” Appl. Energy, vol. 311, p. 118649, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118649.
25. A. Aytekin, “Energy, Environment, and Sustainability: A Multi-criteria Evaluation of Countries,” Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, pp. 281–316, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.13052/spee1048-5236.4133.
26. S. Faraji Abdolmaleki, D. Esfandiary Abdolmaleki, and P. M. Bello Bugallo, “Finding Sustainable Countries in Renewable Energy Sector: A Case Study for an EU Energy System,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10084, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151310084.
27. G. Senir, “OECD Ülkelerinin Sürdürülebilir Yönetim Performansının Değerlendirilmesi,” Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 16, no. 30, pp. 144–165, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.38155/ksbd.1384169.
28. S. Teker, S. Avcı Azkeskin, and Z. Aladağ, “Enerji sürdürülebilirliğinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile ölçülmesi ve COPELAND yöntemi ile bütünleştirilmesi: OECD ülkeleri üzerine bir çalışma,” International Journal of Management Economics and Business, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.17130/ijmeb.1440773.
29. B. Yılmaz, “Gelişmiş ve Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerinin Çevresel Performansı: G7 ve E7 Ülkelerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi,” Fiscaoeconomia, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1920–1943, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1680404.
30. Y. E. Birol, “Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinin enerji arz güvenliği performans analizi,” International Journal of Management Economics and Business, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 833–861, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.17130/ijmeb.1542865.
31. J. Brodny and M. Tutak, “Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Implementation of Energy Policies in the EU-27 Member States,” Engineered Science, 2025, doi: 10.30919/es1412.
32. S. Eşiyok and F. Antmen Z., “Determination of Renewable Energy Growth Using Cluster Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 1575, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15031575.
33. J. Brodny, M. Tutak, and W. W. Grebski, “A Holistic Assessment of Sustainable Energy Security and the Efficiency of Policy Implementation in Emerging EU Economies: A Long-Term Perspective,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 18, no. 7, p. 1767, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.3390/en18071767.
34. D. Pantović, N. Lojanica, Š. Bojnec, and S. Gričar, “Assessing Disparities in Climate and Energy Agri-Environmental Indicators Among EU Countries Using the PROMETHEE–GAIA Method and the Entropy Index,” Agriculture, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 463, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.3390/agriculture16040463.
35. U. Smailbegovic, D. Kadric, E. Kadric, and S. G. Chahoud, “Assessing National Sustainability Transitions in Europe: A Dynamic MCDA and Clustering‐Based Approach,” Sustainable Development, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1002/sd.70813.
36. M. Zeleny, Multiple Criteria Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982.
37. C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making, vol. 186. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1981. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
38. D. Pamučar and G. Ćirović, “The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC),” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 3016–3028, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057.
39. K. D. Maniya and M. G. Bhatt, “An alternative multiple attribute decision making methodology for solving optimal facility layout design selection problems,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 542–549, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2011.04.009.
40. N. H. Zardari, K. Ahmed, S. M. Shirazi, and Z. Bin Yusop, Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2.
41. E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, vol. 44. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2000. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6.
42. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, and A. Zakarevicius, “Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment,” Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 3–6, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810.
43. R. A. Krohling and A. G. C. Pacheco, “A-TOPSIS – An Approach Based on TOPSIS for Ranking Evolutionary Algorithms,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 55, pp. 308–317, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.054.
44. K. Kırda and A. Aytekin, “Assessing industrialized countries’ environmental sustainability performances using an integrated multi-criteria model and software,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 17505–17550, May 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10668-023-03349-z.
45. P. Ziemba, A. Zair, and A. Wolak, “Progress in the Energy Transition Process in EU Countries—A Sustainable Multi-Criteria Assessment,” Energies (Basel)., vol. 19, no. 4, p. 1045, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.3390/en19041045.
46. A. Tabrizi, H. Yousefi, M. Abdoos, and R. Ghasempour, “Evaluating renewable energy adoption in G7 countries: a TOPSIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis,” Discover Energy, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 2, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s43937-025-00064-w.
47. A. Becker, A. Oleńczuk-Paszel, and A. Sompolska-Rzechuła, “Quality of Life and Energy Efficiency in Europe—A Multi-Criteria Classification of Countries and Analysis of Regional Disproportions,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 11, p. 4768, May 2025, doi: 10.3390/su17114768.
48. B. Kizielewicz and W. Salabun, “A Robust Framework for Renewable Energy Policy Evaluation Using MCDA and Compromise Ranking with Stochastic Weight Identification,” Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 213–223, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.56578/jimd030402.