Performance evaluation of IPARD-II rural development programs with integrated DIBR-RAWEC methods

Abstract

Rural development is a concept that has garnered increased emphasis in contemporary development plans. This phenomenon, which should be approached from a different perspective compared to urban development, entails a strategy that enhances the living standards of the rural population through the implementation of central policies. This study seeks to ascertain the priority of rural development programs (RDP) coordinated by the Agriculture and Rural Development Support Institution (ARDSI) in Türkiye. The weight of the criteria utilized to determine these priorities is calculated using the DIBR (Defining Interrelationships Between Ranked criteria) method. It has been determined that the criterion with the highest degree of importance is the Total Financial Support Value. Subsequently, the RAWEC (Ranking Alternatives with Weights of Criterion) method is utilized to establish the efficiency ranking of the seventeen rural development programmes implemented during the IPARD-II (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance Rural Development) period. According to the analysis conducted, it has been determined that the most effective rural development program is "Red Meat Producing Agricultural Enterprises". To assess the stability of the rankings obtained through the RAWEC method, the sensitivity of these rankings to different criterion weights is tested by gradually altering these weights.

Keywords

• Rural development
• ARDSI
• IPARD
• MCDM
• DIBR
• RAWEC

IPARD-II kırsal kalkınma programlarının bütünleşik DIBR-RAWEC yöntemleriyle performans değerlendirmesi

Öz

Kırsal kalkınma, çağdaş kalkınma planlarında giderek daha fazla önem verilen bir kavramdır. Kentsel kalkınmaya göre farklı bir bakış açısıyla ele alınması gereken bu olgu, uygulanan merkezi politikalar ile kırsal nüfusun yaşam standartlarını artıran bir yaklaşım olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de Tarım ve Kırsal Kalkınmayı Destekleme Kurumu (TKDK) tarafından koordine edilen kırsal kalkınma programlarının (KKP) önceliğini tespit etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu önceliklerin tespiti amacıyla kullanılan kriterlerin ağırlığı DIBR (Defining Interrelationships Between Ranked criteria) yöntemiyle hesaplanmış ve en önemli kriterin Toplam Finansal Destek Tutarı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonrasında, IPARD-II (Instrument for PreAccession Assistance Rural Development) döneminde uygulanan on yedi kırsal kalkınma programının etkinlik sırasını belirlemek amacıyla RAWEC (Ranking Alternatives with Weights of Criterion) yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Bu analiz neticesinde en etkili olan kırsal kalkınma programının “Kırmızı Et Üreten Tarımsal İşletmeler” programı olduğu belirlenmiştir. RAWEC yöntemiyle elde edilen sıralamaların istikrarlı bir yapıda olup olmadığını test etmek amacıyla kriter ağırlıklarına kademeli değişim uygulanarak bu sıralamaların farklı kriter ağırlıklarına karşı duyarlılıkları test edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kırsal kalkınma
• TKDK
• IPARD
• ÇKKV
• DIBR
• RAWEC

Kaynakça

1. [1] Moseley MJ. Rural Development: Principles and Practice. 1st ed. London, UK, Sage Publications, 2003.
2. [2] Kearney B, Boyle, G, Walsh J. EU LEADER I Initiative in Ireland: Evaluation and Recommendations. 1st ed. Dublin, Ireland, Stationery Office, 1995.
3. [3] De Janvry A, Sadoulet E, Murgai R. Rural Development and Rural Policy. Editors: Gardner BL, Rausser GC. Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 1593-1658, North Holland, Elsevier, 2002.
4. [4] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Unlocking Rural Innovation”. OECD Publishing, Paris, OECD Rural Studies, 2022.
5. [5] Tarım ve Kırsal Kalkınmayı Destekleme Kurumu. “Tarım ve Kırsal Kalkınmayı Destekleme Kurumu 2019-2023 Stratejik Planı”. https://www.tkdk.gov.tr/Content/File/20192023%20Stratejik%20Plan%C4%B1.pdf (01.06.2024).
6. [6] Özkul G, Bozkurt AA. “Kırsal kalkınmada TKDK’nın rolü: IPARD I programına ilişkin Isparta ilinde bir inceleme”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 10(25), 536-554, 2019.
7. [7] Acar ZM, Çağlar N. “Kırsal alanda kadın girişimciliği: batı akdeniz bölgesinde TKDK’dan hibe alan kadınlar üzerinde bir araştırma”. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(30), 902-920, 2019.
8. [8] Gülçubuk B, Köksal Ö, Ataseven Y, Gül U, Kan M. “Kırsal kalkınma desteklerinin ulusal düzeyde etkileri: Tarım ve Kırsal Kalkınmayı Destekleme Kurumu (TKDK) projelerinin incelenmesi”. Tarım Ekonomisi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 32-41, 2016.

9. [9] Bahtiyar K. “Kırsal kalkınma uygulamaları üzerine bir değerlendirme: TKDK (Tarım ve Kırsal Kalkınmayı Destekleme Kurumu) örneği”. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14(28), 306-324, 2014.
10. [10] Božanić D, Epler I, Puška A, Biswa, S, Marinkovic D, Koprivica S. “Application of the DIBR II -rough MABAC decision-making model for ranking methods and techniques of lean organization systems management in the process of technical maintenance”. Facta Universitatis Series Mechanical Engineering, 22(1), 101-123, 2024.
11. [11] Tešić D, Božanić D, Radovanović M, Petrovski A. “Optimising assault boat selection for military operations: an application of the DIBR II-BM-CoCoSo MCDM model”. Journal of Intelligent Management Decision, 2(4), 160-171, 2023.
12. [12] Radovanović M, Božanić D, Tešić D, Puška A, Hezam IM, Jana, C. “Application of hybrid DIBR-FUCOM-LMAWBonferroni-Grey-EDAS model in multicriteria decisionmaking”. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 21(3), 387-403, 2023.
13. [13] Tešić D, Marinković D. “Application of fermatean fuzzy weight operators and MCDM model DIBR-DIBR II-NWBMBM for efficiency-based selection of a complex combat system”. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 3(1), 243-256, 2023.
14. [14] Pamucar D, Simic V, Lazarević D, Dobrodolac M, Deveci M. “Prioritization of sustainable mobility sharing systems using integrated fuzzy DIBR and fuzzy-rough EDAS model”. Sustainable Cities and Society, 82, 103910, 2022.
15. [15] Žnidaršič V, Dojić KV, Milić LN. “Selection of landing site for infantry river crossing using aluminum boat M70: Application of DIBR and Topsis Method”. International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization, 30(1), 1-8, 2024.
16. [16] Kara K, Yalçın GC, Simic V, Yıldırım AT, Pamucar D, Siarry P. “A spherical fuzzy-based DIBR II-AROMAN model for sustainability performance benchmarking of wind energy power plants”. Expert Systems with Applications, 253, 124300, 2024.
17. [17] Puška A, Štilić A, Pamučar D, Božanić D, Nedeljković M. “Introducing a novel multi-criteria Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) model”. MethodsX, 12, 102628, 2024.
18. [18] Petrović N, Jovanovic V, Marković S, Marinkovic D, Petrović M. “Multicriteria sustainability assessment of transport modes: A European Union case study for 2020”. Journal of Green Economy and Low-Carbon Development, 3(1), 36-44, 2024.
19. [19] Gök Kısa AC. “TR83 bölgesinde yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının CRITIC tabanlı gri ilişkisel analiz yaklaşımı ile değerlendirilmesi”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(4), 542-548, 2021.
20. [20] Uyan M. “Güneş enerjisi santrali kurulabilecek alanların AHP yöntemi kullanılarak CBS destekli haritalanması”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(4), 343-351, 2017.
21. [21] Saaty T. “Decision making-the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP)”. Journal of Systems and Systems Engineering, 13(1), 1-35, 2004.
22. [22] Rezaei J. “Best-Worst multi-criteria decision-making method”. Omega, 53, 49-57, 2015.
23. [23] Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Sremac S. “A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full Consistency Symmetry, 10(9), 1-22, 2018. Method (FUCOM)”.
24. [24] Pamucar D, Deveci M, Gokasar I, Işık M, Zizovic M. “Circular economy concepts in urban mobility alternatives using integrated DIBR method and fuzzy Dombi CoCoSo model”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 323, 129096, 2021.
25. [25] Puška A, Štilić A, Pamučar D, Božanić D, Nedeljković M. “Introducing a novel multi-criteria Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) model”. MethodsX, 12, 102628, 2024.
26. [26] Badi I, Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Muhammad LJ. “Wind farm site selection using BWM-AHP-MARCOS method: A case study of Libya”. Scientific African, 19, e01511, 2023.
27. [27] Bouraima MB, Tengecha NA, Stević Ž, Simić V, Qiu Y. “An integrated fuzzy MCDM model for prioritizing strategies for successful implementation and operation of the bus rapid transit system”. Annals of Operations Research, 342, 141-172, 2023.
28. [28] Puška A, Božanić D, Nedeljković M, Janošević M. “Green supplier selection in an uncertain environment in agriculture using a hybrid MCDM model: z-numbers-fuzzy LMAW-fuzzy CRADIS Model”. Axioms, 11(9), 1-17, 2022.
29. [29] Mešić A, Miškić S, Stević Ž, Mastilo Z. “Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the western Balkan countries”. Economics, 10(1), 13-34, 2022.
30. [30] Matić B, Marinković M, Jovanović S, Sremac S, Stević Ž. “Intelligent novel IMF D-SWARA-Rough MARCOS algorithm for selection construction machinery for sustainable construction of road infrastructure”. Buildings, 12(7), 1-26, 2022.
31. [31] Kahraman, Y. R. Robust Sensitivity Analysis for MultiAttribute Deterministic Hierarchical Value Models. Phd Theses, Air University, Ohio, USA, 2002.
32. [32] Stević Ž, Das DK, Kopić M. “A novel multiphase model for traffic safety evaluation: a case study of South Africa”. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1-22, 2021.
33. [33] Qahtan S, Alsattar HA, Zaidan AA, Deveci M, Pamucar D, Delen D, Pedrycz W. “Evaluation of agriculture-food 4.0 supply chain approaches using fermatean probabilistic hesitant-fuzzy sets based decision making model”. Applied Soft Computing, 138, 110170, 2023.
34. [34] Yazdani M, Chatterjee P, Pamucar D, Doval M. “A riskbased integrated decision-making model for green supplier selection: a case study of a construction company in Spain”. Kybernetes, 49(4), 1229-1252, 2019.
35. [35] Kumar S, Maity SR, Patnaik L. “A novel BWM integrated MABAC decision-making approach to optimize the wear parameter of CrN/TiAlSiN coating”. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 19(4), 2676-2703, 2023.
36. [36] Bonab SR, Ghoushchi SJ, Deveci M, Haseli G. “Logistic autonomous vehicles assessment using decision support model under spherical fuzzy set integrated Choquet Integral approach”. Expert Systems with Applications, 214, 119205, 2023.
37. [37] Wei Q, Zhou C. “A multi-criteria decision-making framework for electric vehicle supplier selection of government agencies and public bodies in China”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 10540-10559, 2023.
38. [38] Blagojević A, Kasalica S, Stević Ž, Tričković G, Pavelkić V. “Evaluation of safety degree at railway crossings in order to achieve sustainable traffic management: a novel integrated fuzzy MCDM model”. Sustainability, 13(2), 2021.
39. [39] Bošković S, Švadlenka L, Jovčić S, Dobrodolac M, Simić V, Bacanin N. “An Alternative Ranking Order Method Accounting for two-step Normalization (AROMAN)-a case study of the electric vehicle selection problem”. IEEE Access, 11, 39496-39507, 2023.
40. [40] Ecer F, Pamucar D. “A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector”. Omega, 112, 102690, 2022.
41. [41] Biswas T, Chatterjee P, Choudhuri B. “Selection of commercially available alternative passenger vehicle in automotive environment”. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3, 2620-1747, 2020.
42. [42] Pamucar D, Zizovic M, Biswas S, Božanić D. “A New Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights (LMAW) for multi-criteria decision-making: application in logistics”. Facta Universitatis Series Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 361-380, 2021.
43. [43] Zavadskas EK, Zanonas T. “A new Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decisionmaking”. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16(2), 159-72, 2010.
44. [44] Ghorabaee MK, Edmundas KZ, Laya O, Zenonas T. “Multicriteria inventory classification using a new method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS)”. Informatica, 26(3), 435-51, 2015.
45. [45] Pamucar D, Goran Ć. “the selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using MultiAttributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC)”. Expert Systems with Applications, 349 42(6), 3016-28,2015.
46. [46] Pamucar D, Ljubislav V, Vesko L. “Selection of railway level crossings for investing in security equipment using hybrid DEMATEL-MARICA model: application of a new method of multi-criteria decision-making”. XVI International Scientific-expert Conference on Railways, Belgrade, 09-10 October 2014.
47. [47] Keeney R, Howard R, David R. “Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs”. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions On, 9(7), 403-403, 1979.
48. [48] Yakowitz DS, Lane LJ, Szidarovszky F. “Multi-attribute decision making: dominance with respect to an importance order of the attributes”. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 54(2), 167-81, 1993.