Comparative Assessment of Climate Change Performance: Türkiye vs. G7 Countries Using a Hybrid MPSI-MABAC Approach

Öz

Climate change has become one of the most pressing global challenges, with its impacts intensifying in recent years. For Türkiye, addressing climate change is critical due to its growing economy, rising emissions, and vulnerability to environmental risks. This study underscores the importance of comparing Türkiye's climate change performance with G7 countries using Environmental Performance Index (EPI) data to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement. The aim of this study is to compare Türkiye's climate change performance with that of G7 countries by utilizing Environmental Performance Index (EPI) data and applying a hybrid MPSI-MABAC methodology. A hybrid Multi-Perspective Strategic Integration (MPSI) and Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC) methodology was applied to rank the countries based on climate-related criteria. Among these, "Projected cumulative emissions to 2025 relative to carbon budget" (C10) was identified as the most significant factor. The findings reveal that the United Kingdom, Germany, and France lead in performance, while Türkiye and Canada are the lowest-ranked. This analysis provides valuable insights to governments, businesses and researchers for shaping national policies and fostering international cooperation to combat climate change effectively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Performance Index (EPI)
• Climate Change
• Türkiye
• MPSI
• MABAC

İklim Değişikliği Performansının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi: Türkiye ve G7 Ülkelerinin Hibrit MPSI-MABAC Yaklaşımı ile Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

İklim değişikliği, etkilerinin son yıllarda daha da şiddetlenmesiyle birlikte, en acil küresel zorluklardan biri haline gelmiştir. Türkiye için iklim değişikliği ile mücadele, büyüyen ekonomisi, artan emisyonları ve çevresel risklere karşı kırılganlığı nedeniyle büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin iklim değişikliği performansını G7 ülkeleriyle karşılaştırmanın önemini vurgulamakta ve bu karşılaştırmayı, iyileştirilmesi gereken alanları ve fırsatları belirlemek amacıyla Çevresel Performans Endeksi (EPI) verilerini kullanarak gerçekleştirmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'nin iklim değişikliği performansını G7 ülkeleriyle karşılaştırmak, en kritik kriter olan "2025'e kadar karbon bütçesine göre projeksiyonlu kümülatif emisyonlar" (C10) odak noktasında güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini belirlemektir. Ülkeler, Çok Yönlü Stratejik Entegrasyon (MPSI) ve Çok Nitelikli Sınır Yaklaşım Alanı Kıyaslaması (MABAC) hibrit metodolojisi kullanılarak iklimle ilgili kriterler temelinde sıralanmıştır. Bulgular, Birleşik Krallık, Almanya ve Fransa'nın performansta önde olduğunu, Türkiye ve Kanada'nın ise en düşük sıralarda yer aldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu analiz, hükümetler, işletmeler ve araştırmacılar için ulusal politikaların şekillendirilmesi ve iklim değişikliğiyle etkili bir şekilde mücadele edilmesi amacıyla uluslararası iş birliğini teşvik edecek değerli bilgiler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Performans Indeksi (ÇPI)
• İklim Değişikliği
• Türkiye
• MPSI
• MABAC

Kaynakça

1. Abbass, K., Qasim, M. Z., Song, H., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., & Younis, I. (2022). A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 42539–42559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19718-6
2. Acar, E. (2022). Comparison of the performances of OECD countries in the perspective of socio-economic global indices: CRITIC-based cocoso method. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 73, 256-277. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1122650
3. Adebayo, T. S., Agyekum, E. B., Kamel, S., Zawbaa, H. M., & Altuntaş, M. (2022). Drivers of environmental degradation in Turkey: designing an SDG framework through advanced quantile approaches. Energy Reports, 8, 2008-2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.020
4. Ağbulut, Ü., Yıldız, G., Bakır, H., Polat, F., Biçen, Y., Ergün, A., & Gürel, A. E. (2023). Current practices, potentials, challenges, future opportunities, environmental and economic assumptions for Türkiye’s clean and sustainable energy policy: A comprehensive assessment. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 56, 103019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103019
5. Alrasheedi, A.F., Mishra, A.R., Rani, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Cavallaro, F. (2023). Multicriteria group decision making approach based on an improved distance measure, the SWARA method and the WASPAS method. Granul. Comput, 8, 1867–1885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-023-00413-x
6. Alsanousi, A. T., Alqahtani, A. Y., Makki, A. A., & Baghdadi, M. A. (2024). A hybrid MCDM approach using the BWM and the TOPSIS for a financial performance-based evaluation of Saudi stocks. Information, 15(5), 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15050258
7. Altıntaş, F. F. (2021a). Measuring the climate change protection performance of G20 group countries with ROV and MAUT methods. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 11(1), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.26579/jocress.429
8. Altıntaş, F. F. (2021b). Çevre performanslarının ENTROPİ tabanlı ROV, ARAS ve COPRAS yöntemleri ile ölçülmesi: G20 grubu ülkeleri örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 10(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i4.1582

9. Arslan, B. (2023). How to adapt to climate change? An analysis of ecosystem vulnerability in İzmir (Türkiye) [Master's thesis]. Izmir Institute of Technology.
10. Bajdor, P., & Korpysa, J. (2025). Multi-criteria-based approach in Environmental Performance Index evaluation. Proceedings of the 58th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 971-980
11. Ayçin, E., & Çakın, E. (2019). Ülkelerin çevresel performanslarının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve bulanık mantık tabanlı bir yaklaşım ile bütünleşik olarak değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 631-656. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.476373
12. Çakmakçı, R., Salık, M. A., & Çakmakçı, S. (2023). Assessment and principles of environmentally sustainable food and agriculture systems. Agriculture, 13(5), 1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051073
13. Deniz, B., Ulutürk, D., & Başkara, M. (2024). Türkiye’s strides toward a greener future: National and international political progress on climate change. In Ş.N. Açıkalın & Ş.Ş. Erçetin (Eds.), The social consequences of climate change: Debates in research and policy (pp. 187-206). Emerald Publishing Limited.
14. EPI (2024) Environmental Performance Index 2024 Report, https://epi.yale.edu/measure/2024/EPI
15. Eşiyok, S., Ariş, E., & Antmen, F. (2023). Ranking and evaluation of G7 countries and Turkey by GGGI indicators using ENTROPY, CRITIC and EDAS methods. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 647-660. https://doi.org/10.21605/cukurovaumfd.1377228
16. Fujimori, S., Krey, V., van Vuuren, D., Oshiro, K., Sugiyama, M., Chunark, P., Limmeechokchai, B., Mittal, S., Nishiura, O., Park, C., Rajbhandari, S., Silva Herran, D., Tu, T. T., Zhao, S., Ochi, Y., Shukla, P. R., Masui, T., Nguyen, P. V. H., Cabardos, A.-M., & Riahi, K. (2021). A framework for national scenarios with varying emission reductions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 11, 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01048-z
17. Ghaleb, A. M., Kaid, H., Alsamhan, A., Mian, S. H., & Hidri, L. (2020). Assessment and comparison of various MCDM approaches in the selection of manufacturing process. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2020(1), 4039253. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4039253
18. Gligorić, M., Gligorić, Z., Lutovac, S., Negovanović, M., & Langović, Z. (2022). Novel hybrid MPSI–MARA decision-making model for support system selection in an underground mine. Systems, 10(6), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060248
19. Giovanis, E., Ozdamar, O. (2024). The transboundary effects of climate change and global adaptation: the case of the Euphrates–Tigris water basin in Turkey and Iraq. Empir Econ, 68, 1935–1972 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-024-02690-0
20. Gökgöz, F., & Yalçin, E. (2022). Sustainability of G20 countries within environmental and energy perspectives. Present Environment & Sustainable Development, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.47743/pesd2022162010
21. Guo, X., & Dias, D. (2020). Kriging based reliability and sensitivity analysis–Application to the stability of an earth dam. Computers and Geotechnics, 120, 103411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103411
22. Honma, S., Ushifusa, Y., Okamura, S., & Vandercamme, L. (2023). Measuring carbon emissions performance of Japan's metal industry: energy inputs, agglomeration, and the potential for green recovery reduction. Resources Policy, 82, 103519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103519
23. İnanç, S. (2025, July). Türkiye’s electricity production [Turkey’s electricity production]. Enerji Ajansı. https://enerjiajansi.com.tr/turkiyenin-elektrik-uretimi/ (Accessed August 11, 2025)
24. Kang, M., Zhao, W., Jia, L., & Liu, Y. (2020). Balancing carbon emission reductions and social economic development for sustainable development: Experience from 24 countries. Chin. Geogr. Sci., 30, 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-020-1117-0
25. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Simic, V., Önden, İ., Edinsel, S., & Bacanin, N. (2024). A single-valued neutrosophic-based methodology for selecting warehouse management software in sustainable logistics systems. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence, 129, 107626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107626
26. Karahan, M., Yıldırım, Z., & Yıldırım, T. (2025). Comparative analysis of Turkey’s environmental performance with Eastern European countries according to international EPI 2022 data. Green Technologies and Sustainability, 3(1), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2024.100116
27. Kemp, L., Xu, C., Depledge, J., Ebi, K. L., Gibbins, G., Kohler, T. A., Rockström, J., Scheffer, M., Schellnhuber, H. J., Steffen, W., & Lenton, T. M. (2022). Climate endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(34), e2108146119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108146119
28. Khanna, M., Gusmerotti, N. M., & Frey, M. (2022). The relevance of the circular economy for climate change: an exploration through the theory of change approach. Sustainability, 14(7), 3991. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073991
29. Kısa, A. C. G. (2022). A multi-criteria decision making approach for evaluating environmental performances of OECD countries. İyit N., Özbek Hastaoğlu B., Toptaş A. (Ed) Current Research in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences (pp. 231-246).
30. Krug, M., Di Nucci, M. R., Schwarz, L., Alonso, I., Azevedo, I., Bastiani, M., Dyląg, A., Laes, E., Hinsch, A., Klāvs, G., Kudreņickis, I., Maleki, P., Massa, G., Meynaerts, E., Pappa, S., & Standal, K. (2023). Implementing European Union provisions and enabling frameworks for renewable energy communities in nine countries: Progress, delays, and gaps. Sustainability, 15(11), 8861. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118861
31. Köse, E., Aksoy, E., & Gürbüz, C. (2024). An analysis of climate change performances of the G-20 countries. Uluslararası İşletme, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Perspektifleri Dergisi, 8(1), 75-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijbemp.75734
32. Li, Y., Brando, P.M., Morton, D.C., Lawrence, D.M., Yang, H., & Randerson, J.T. (2022). Deforestation-induced climate change reduces carbon storage in remaining tropical forests. Nat Commun 13, 1964. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29601-0
33. Liu, Z., Saydaliev, H. B., Lan, J., Ali, S., & Anser, M. K. (2022). Assessing the effectiveness of biomass energy in mitigating CO2 emissions: Evidence from Top-10 biomass energy consumer countries. Renewable Energy, 191, 842-851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.053
34. Mohaghar, A., Amiri, K., Ghasemi, R., & Azani, M. (2018). Prioritizing the OECD countries based on environmental performance index indicators. In International Conference on Law, Management, Business, Economics and CSR Dubai_2018
35. Muluneh, M.G. (2021). Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: A global perspective—a review article. Agric & Food Secur, 10, 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00318-5
36. Neeraj, Goraya, M.S. & Singh, D. (2021). A comparative analysis of prominently used MCDM methods in cloud environment. J Supercomput, 77, 3422–3449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03393-w
37. Newell, P., Srivastava, S., Naess, L. O., Torres Contreras, G. A., & Price, R. (2021). Toward transformative climate justice: An emerging research agenda. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(6), e733. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.733
38. Ozdemir, A. C. (2023). Decomposition and decoupling analysis of carbon dioxide emissions in electricity generation by primary fossil fuels in Turkey. Energy, 273, 127264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127264
39. Palea, V., & Drogo, F. (2020). Carbon emissions and the cost of debt in the eurozone: The role of public policies, climate‐related disclosure and corporate governance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 2953-2972. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2550
40. Palea, V., & Drogo, F. (2020). Carbon emissions and the cost of debt in the eurozone: The role of public policies, climate‐related disclosure and corporate governance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 2953-2972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
41. Puška, A., Hodžić, I., Štilić, A., & Murtič, S. (2024). Evaluating European Union countries on climate change management: A fuzzy MABAC approach to the Climate Change Performance Index. J. Green Econ. Low-Carbon Dev, 3(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.56578/jgelcd030102
42. Radulescu, C. Z., & Radulescu, M. (2024). A hybrid group multi-criteria approach based on SAW, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and COPRAS methods for complex IoT selection problems. Electronics, 13(4), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13040789
43. Senir, G. (2024). Evaluation of the environmental sustainability performance of Eastern European countries with integrated MCDM methods. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 8(2), 378-391. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2024.2.13
44. Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2023). Root Assessment Method (RAM): A novel multi-criteria decision making method and its applications in sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 423, 138695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138695
45. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to Compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & industrial engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
46. Taneja, S., & ÖZEN, E. (2023). Impact of the European Green Deal (EDG) on the agricultural carbon (CO2) emission in Turkey. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180307
47. Usubiaga-Liaño, A., & Ekins, P. (2021). Monitoring the environmental sustainability of countries through the strong environmental sustainability index. Ecological Indicators, 132, 108281. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180307
48. Wang, P., Zhu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2016). A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design. Information sciences, 345, 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.076
49. Wang, W., Imran, M., Ali, K., & Sattar, A. (2024, February). Green policies and financial development in G7 economies: An in‐depth analysis of environmental regulations and green economic growth. In Natural Resources Forum. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12424
50. Xu, Y., Umar, M., Kirikkaleli, D., Adebayo, T. S., & Altuntaş, M. (2022). Carbon neutrality target in Turkey: measuring the impact of technological innovation and structural change. Gondwana Research, 109, 429-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.04.015
51. Zewdu, D., Krishnan, C.M., Raj, P.P.N., Makadi, Y.C., & Arlikatti, S. (2024). Assessing climate change risks using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in Raichur Taluk, Karnataka, India. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess, 38, 4501–4526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-024-02816-x
52. Zhao, J., Rahman, S.u., Afshan, S., Ali, M.S.E., Ashfaq, H., & İdrees, S. (2023). Green investment, institutional quality, and environmental performance: evidence from G-7 countries using panel NARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 30, 100845–100860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29332-9