Türkiye'nin Çevresel Performansının Değerlendirilmesi: Çevresel Performans Endeksi (EPI) ile Elde Edilen Bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışma, 1995-2022 yılları arasındaki Çevresel Performans Endeksi (EPI) verilerini kullanarak Türkiye'nin çevresel performansını derinlemesine incelemektedir. İklim değişikliği, çevre sağlığı, ekosistem canlılığı gibi birçok faktör araştırılmış ve Türkiye'nin diğer ülkelere göre konumu belirlenmiştir. Üç politika hedefini kapsayan 40 gösterge üzerinden elde edilen EPI puanları, geliştirilmesi gereken alanları belirlemek için incelenmiştir. Çalışma, özellikle atık yönetimi ve geri dönüşüm girişimlerini vurgulayarak, atık yönetimi, çevresel sağlık ve iklim değişikliği gibi zorlukları ön plana çıkarmaktadır. Ancak, su ve hava kalitesinin düşmesi ve sürdürülemez tarım gibi zorluklar mevcuttur. EPI yaklaşımının eksik veri ve sıralama hesaplama gibi zayıflıklarını tartışırken, makale aynı zamanda çevresel endişeleri anlama ve ele alma konusunda detaylı araştırmanın önemini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, makale, ülkeleri sıralamak ve ek çevresel performans analizi yapmak için alternatif bir yaklaşım olan TOPSIS yöntemini sunmaktadır. Türkiye'nin çevresel zorluklarına ve zaman içindeki gelişmelerine dair bilgiler içeren bu makale, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve politika geliştirme konularına ilgi duyan politika yapıcılar, araştırmacılar ve paydaşlar için bilgilendirici bir kaynaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Performans Endeksi
• Çevresel Sorunlar
• TOPSIS
• Sürdürülebilirlik

Assessing Turkey's Environmental Performance: Insights from the Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

Öz

The study delves into Turkey's environmental performance using the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) data from 1995 to 2022. Using data from the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) for the years 1995 to 2022, the study explores Turkey's environmental performance. It searches at several factors, such as climate change, environmental health, and ecosystem vitality, and it clarifies Turkey's position relative to other countries. The EPI scores—which are derived from 40 indicators spanning three policy objectives—are examined to identify patterns and areas in need of development. Signs of progress, particularly in waste management and recycling initiatives, are highlighted along with challenges in waste management, environmental health, and mitigating climate change. However, challenges like declining water and air quality and unsustainable agriculture currently exist. While discussing the shortcomings of the EPI approach, such as missing data and ranking computation, the article also highlights the significance of thorough research in comprehending and addressing environmental concerns. An alternative approach to ranking nations and carrying out additional environmental performance analysis is presented: the TOPSIS method. With its insights into Turkey's environmental challenges and advancements over time, the article is an informative resource for policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders interested in environmental sustainability and policy development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Performance Index
• Environmental Concern
• TOPSIS
• Sustainability

Kaynakça

1. Adeel-Farooq, R. M., Raji, J. O., & Qamri, G. M. (2023). Does financial development influence the overall natural environment? An environmental performance index (EPI) based insight from the ASEAN countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(6), 5123–5139.
2. Alam, M. S., Atif, M., Chien-Chi, C., & Soytaş, U. (2019). Does corporate R&D investment affect firm environmental performance? Evidence from G-6 countries. Energy Economics, 78, 401–411.
3. Haque, F., & Ntim, C. G. (2018). Environmental policy, sustainable development, governance mechanisms and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 415–435.
4. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey, 58–191.
5. Khan, S. A. R., Zhang, Y., Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E., & Streimikiene, D. (2020). Measuring the impact of renewable energy, public health expenditure, logistics, and environmental performance on sustainable economic growth. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 833–843.
6. Phillips, J. (2023). Determining sustainability using the Environmental Performance Index and Human Development Index – An alternative approach to the Environmental Human Index through a holistic quantitative dynamic framework. Science of the Total Environment, 884, 163752.
7. Pinar, M. (2022). Sensitivity of environmental performance index based on stochastic dominance. Journal of Environmental Management, 310, 114767.
8. Shah, S. A. A., & Longsheng, C. (2020). New environmental performance index for measuring sector-wise environmental performance: A case study of major economic sectors in Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(33), 41787–41802.

9. Wang, Q. J., Geng, Y., & Xia, X. Q. (2021). Revisited globalization’s impact on total environment: Evidence based on overall environmental performance index. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11419.
10. Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., et al. (2022). 2022 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. https://epi.yale.edu
11. Zhang, L., Gao, W., Chiu, Y. H., Pang, Q., Shi, Z., & Guo, Z. (2021). Environmental performance indicators of China's coal mining industry: A bootstrapping Malmquist index analysis. Resources Policy, 71, 101991.
12. EPI (2022). https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/epi2022report06062022.pdf
13. EPI-Appendix (2022). https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/epi2022technicalappendixv02.pdf
14. EPI-Data (2022). https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/epi2022rawdata.zip