Aviation Focused Sustainability Analysis in EU Countries with CRITIC Based MABAC Method

Abstract

The objective of this study is to assess the environmental and economic sustainability of the European Union (EU) countries that have the highest air transportation density. In this particular case, the CRITIC-based MABAC approach is used as the analysis methodology. The study is conducted using the following criteria: total number of commercial passenger flights, total number of cargo and mail flights, percentage share of R&D expenditures in the state budget, innovation index, urbanization rate, gross domestic product, recycling amount per capita, and amount of carbon dioxide emissions from air transport measured in tons. CRITIC method is used to assign weights to the criteria, and it is found that the level of air transportation emissions (CO2) significantly influences the environmental and economic sustainability of countries. On the other hand, the least important criteria is the percentage of R&D expenditures in the state budget. Using the MABAC method, the ranking analysis revealed Sweden, Denmark, and Norway as the top three countries in terms of environmental and economic sustainability during the five years period from 2018 to 2022. In contrast, it is found that France, Ireland, and Germany are the bottom three countries in this regard.

Keywords

• CRITIC
• MABAC
• Sustainability
• Performance Analysis

References

1. Ahmad, S., Ouenniche, J., Kolosz, B. W., Greening, P., Andresen, J. M., Maroto-Valer, M. M., & Xu, B. (2021). A stakeholders’ participatory approach to multi-criteria assessment of sustainable aviation fuels production pathways. International Journal of Production Economics, 238, 108156.
2. Akandere, G., & Zerenler, M. (2022). Evaluation of the environmental and economic performance of Eastern European countries with the integrated CRITIC-TOPSIS method. Selcuk University Journal of Social Sciences Vocational School, 25(Special Issue), 524-535.
3. Alameeri, A., Ajmal, M. M., Hussain, M., & Helo, P. T. (2017). Sustainability practices in the aviation sector: A study of UAE-based airlines. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 9(2), 119-147.
4. Alinezhad, A., & Khalili, J. (2019). New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM) (Vol. 277, pp. 103-108). Cham: Springer.
5. Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2020). Stepping up and stepping out of COVID-19: New challenges for environmental sustainability policies in the global airline industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, 123000.
6. Arjomandi, A., & Seufert, J. H. (2014). An evaluation of the world's major airlines' technical and environmental performance. Economic Modelling, 41, 133-144.
7. Aytekin, A., & Gündoğdu, H. G. (2021). Investigation of OECD and EU member countries by SWARA-based TOPSIS-SORT-B and WASPAS methods according to sustainable governance levels. Journal of Social Sciences, 16(56), 943-971.
8. Barke, A., Bley, T., Thies, C., Weckenborg, C., & Spengler, T. S. (2022). Are sustainable aviation fuels a viable option for decarbonizing air transport in Europe? An environmental and economic sustainability assessment. Applied Sciences, 12(2), 597.

9. Breidenich, C., Magraw, D., Rowley, A., & Rubin, J. W. (1998). The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. American Journal of International Law, 92(2), 315-331.
10. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2023). Assessing the energy and climate sustainability of European Union member states: an MCDM-based approach. Smart Cities, 6(1), 339-367.
11. Chang, Y. T., Park, H. S., Jeong, J. B., & Lee, J. W. (2014). Evaluating economic and environmental efficiency of global airlines: A SBM-DEA approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 27, 46-50.
12. Corrente, S., Greco, S., Leonardi, F., & Słowiński, R. (2021). The hierarchical SMAA-PROMETHEE method applied to assess the sustainability of European cities. Applied Intelligence, 51(9), 6430-6448.
13. Cui, Q., & Yu, L. T. (2021). A review of data envelopment analysis in airline efficiency: State of the art and prospects. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2021, 1-13.
14. Cınaroğlu, E. (2020). Evaluation of activities of innovative initiatives by entropy-based MABAC method. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 9(1), 111-135.
15. Cınaroğlu, E. (2021). Analysis of life quality of EU countries with CRITIC-based CODAS and ROV methods. Bingöl University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 5(1), 337-364.
16. Degirmenci, H., Uludag, A., Ekici, S., & Karakoc, T. H. (2023). Analyzing the hydrogen supply chain for airports: Evaluating environmental impact, cost, sustainability, viability, and safety in various scenarios for implementation. Energy Conversion and Management, 293, 117537.
17. Dhingra, S. L., Rao, K. V. K., & Tom, V. M. (2003). Environmental impact assessment for sustainable transport. In Handbook of Transport and the Environment (pp. 309-329). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
18. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
19. Durmaz, V., Yazgan, E., Derice, E. K., & Çelem, B. P. (2023). Evaluating airports’ sustainable development goals by using multi-criteria decision making methodologies. Work (Preprint), 1-14.
20. Esiyok, S., Erhan, Ar İ. S., & Antmen, F. (2023). Ranking and evaluation of G7 countries and Turkey according to GGGI indicators using entropy, CRITIC, and EDAS methods. Çukurova University Journal of Engineering Faculty, 38(3), 647-660.
21. Geurs, K. T., & Van Wee, G. P. (2000). Environmentally sustainable transport: Implementation and impacts for the Netherlands for 2030.
22. Kisa, A. C. G., & Ayçin, E. (2019). Evaluation of the Logistics Performance of OECD Countries with EDAS Method Based on SWARA. Cankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences 9(1), 301-325.
23. IATA. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.iata.org/contentassets/59454a254aa0417395e5065b73c6ad41/2023-06-05-01-tr.pdf
24. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Acar, A. Z., Simic, V., Konya, S., & Pamucar, D. (2024). The MEREC-AROMAN method for determining sustainable competitiveness levels: A case study for Turkey. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 91, 101762.
25. Karaman, A. S., Kilic, M., & Uyar, A. (2018). Sustainability reporting in the aviation industry: Worldwide evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(4), 362-391.
26. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435- 451.
27. Keles, M. K. (2022). Evaluation of Turkish Airlines’ performance by years with the CRITIC-based MABAC method. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(1), 53-67.
28. Kiracı, K., & Bakır, M. (2018). Application of performance measurement in airlines with CRITIC-based EDAS method. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (35), 157-174.
29. Kiracı, K., & Durmuscelebi, C. (2022). Analysis of ventilation in Turkey using the CRITIC total EDAS method. Anemon Muş Alparslan University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 837-856.
30. Litman, T., & Burwell, D. (2006). Issues in sustainable transportation. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 6(4), 331-347.
31. Lo, P. (2019). Sustainability and economics of aviation industry.
32. Oksuzkaya, M., & Atan, M. (2023). Financial efficiency of development and investment banks in Turkey in the period 2016-2021: An application with CRITIC method and MABAC method. Journal of Banking and Financial Research, 10(1), 14-32.
33. Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028.
34. Pamučar, D., Petrović, I., & Ćirović, G. (2018). Modification of the Best–Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 91, 89-106.
35. Tanrıverdi, G., Merkert, R., Karamaşa, Ç., & Asker, V. (2023). Using multi-criteria performance measurement models to evaluate the financial, operational, and environmental sustainability of airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 112, 102456.
36. Senir, G., & Büyükkeklik, A. (2023). Measuring sustainability performance in road transport: A comparative analysis. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(1), 10-30.
37. Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2007). Sustainable transport and quality of life. In Building blocks for sustainable transport: Obstacles, Trends, Solutions (pp. 183-202). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
38. Stojanović, I., & Puška, A. (2021). Logistics performances of Gulf Cooperation