DETERMINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE THE CITIES IN TURKEY USING SWARA INTEGRATED TOPSIS METHOD

Yıl 2018, Sayı: 30, 67 - 87, 15.01.2018

Ertuğrul Ayyıldız , Emrullah Demirci

Öz

The quality of life that affects individuals and societies’s expectations, anxiety, welfare and all other senses of is a constantly
increasing phenomenon nowadays. In this context, many aspects of the lives of individuals and societies need to be assessed
locally, using subjective and objective indicators. The main purpose of this contribution is to evaluate the quality of life in
cities in 11 different dimensions and to make an assessment of the development of the bad aspects. For this goal, the quality
of life in cities has been determined by using multi criteria decision making methods. In the scope of the study, 41 different
indicators which are effective in determining the quality of life of 81 cities in Turkey are handled. These indicators were
grouped by creating 11 indices such as health, education, security, access to infrastructure services, housing, working life,
income and wealth, environment, civil participation, social life, life satisfaction and index weights were determined by SWARA
method. Then cities are ranked according to their quality of life by TOPSIS method. When the results are examined, it is
determined that life quality is higher in economically developed cities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multi Criteria Decision Making, SWARA, TOPSIS, Quality of Life, Turkey

TÜRKİYE’DE YER ALAN ŞEHİRLERİN YAŞAM KALİTELERİNİN SWARA ENTEGRELİ TOPSIS YÖNTEMİ İLE BELİRLENMESİ

Öz

Bireylerin ve toplumların beklenti, endişe, refah ve diğer tüm duyularının toplamını etkileyen yaşam kalitesi, günümüzde
önemi sürekli artan bir olgudur. Bu bağlamda bireylerin ve toplumların yaşamlarının birçok boyutunu sübjektif ve objektif
göstergeler kullanarak konum bazlı değerlendirmek gerekmektedir. Yapılan bu katkının temel amacı, şehirlerdeki yaşam
kalitesinin 11 farklı boyutta incelenerek, eksik yönlerin geliştirilmesine yönelik bir değerlendirme yapmaktır. Bu amaçla çok
kriterli karar verme yöntemleri kullanılarak şehirlerdeki yaşam kalitesi belirlenmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında Türkiye’deki 81
şehrin yaşam kalitesini belirlemede etkili olan 41 farklı gösterge ele alınmıştır. Bu göstergeler, sağlık, eğitim, güvenlik, altyapı
hizmetlerine erişim, konut, çalışma hayatı, gelir ve servet, çevre, sivil katılım, sosyal yaşam, yaşam memnuniyeti şeklinde 11
indeks oluşturularak gruplanmış ve SWARA yöntemiyle indeks ağırlıkları elde edilmiştir. Ardından, TOPSIS yöntemiyle şehirler
yaşam kalitesine göre sıralanmıştır. Sonuçlar incelendiğinde ekonomik olarak gelişmiş şehirlerde yaşam kalitesinin daha yüksek
olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, SWARA, TOPSIS, Yaşam Kalitesi, Türkiye

Kaynakça

• Alimardani, Maryam, Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani, Mohammad Hasan Aghdaie, and Jolanta Tamošaitienė. 2013. “A Novel Hybrid SWARA and VIKOR Methodology for Supplier Selection in an Agile Environment.” Technological and Economic Development of Economy 19(3): 533–48.
• Alizadeh, Shahab, Mohammad Mehdi Salari Rad, and Abbas Aghajani Bazzazi. 2016. “Alunite Processing Method Selection Using the {AHP} and {TOPSIS} Approaches under Fuzzy Environment.” International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 26(6): 1017–23.
• Amiri, Morteza Pakdin. 2010. “Project Selection for Oil-Fields Development by Using the AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods.” Expert Systems with Applications 37(9): 6218–24.
• Büyüközkan, Gülçin, and Gizem Çifçi. 2012. “A Combined Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Strategic Analysis of Electronic Service Quality in Healthcare Industry.” Expert Systems with Applications 39(3): 2341–54.
• Can, Gülin Feryal, Kumru Didem Atalay, and Ergün Eraslan. 2017. “Tabletlerin Kullanılabilirlik Ölçütlerine Göre Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımıyla Değerlendirilmesi.” Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi 5(SI): 81–88.
• Chen, TingHao. 2011. “Using Hybrid MCDM Model for Enhancing the Participation of Teacher in Recreational Sports.” Journal of Decision Systems 20(1): 33–49.
• Çakır, Engin. 2017. “Kriter Ağırlıklarının SWARA–Copeland Yöntemi Ile Belirlenmesi: Bir Üretim İşletmesinde Uygulama.” Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 4(1):42-56
• Demireli, Erhan. 2010. “TOPSIS Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Sistemi: Türkiye’deki Kamu Bankaları Üzerine Bir Uygulama.” Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi 5(1):101-112
• Group, Whoqol. 1998. “Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment.” Psychological medicine 28(3): 551–58.
• Hashemkhani Zolfani, Sarfaraz, and Mohsen Bahrami. 2014. “Investment Prioritizing in High Tech Industries Based on SWARA-COPRAS Approach.” Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20(3): 534–53.
• Hwang, C L, and K Yoon. 1981. “Multiple Criteria Decision Making.” Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 186.
• Jeon, Christy Mihyeon, Adjo A Amekudzi, and Randall L Guensler. 2010. “Evaluating Plan Alternatives for Transportation System Sustainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 4(4): 227–47.
• Joshi, Himanshu, and Md Abdul Latif. 2004. “Environmental Impact Assessment of Water Resource Projects with Matrix and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: A Case Study.” Journal of Environmental Systems 30(3): 207-31.
• Karabasevic, Darjan, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Zenonas Turskis, and Dragisa Stanujkic. 2016. “The Framework for the Selection of Personnel Based on the SWARA and ARAS Methods under Uncertainties.” Informatica 27(1): 49–65.
• Keršulienė, Violeta, and Zenonas Turskis. 2011. “Integrated Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making Model for Architect Selection.” Technological and Economic Development of Economy 17(4): 645–66.
• Keršuliene, Violeta, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, and Zenonas Turskis. 2010. “Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method by Applying New Step‐wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA).” Journal of Business Economics and Management 11(2): 243–58.
• Li, Ming, Lei Jin, and Jun Wang. 2014. “A New MCDM Method Combining QFD with TOPSIS for Knowledge Management System Selection from the User’s Perspective in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment.” Applied Soft Computing 21(1): 28–37.
• Liao, Chin-Nung, and Hsing-Pei Kao. 2011. “An Integrated Fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP Approach to Supplier Selection in Supply Chain Management.” Expert Systems with Applications 38(9): 10803–11.
• Manning, Matthew, Christine Smith, and Ross Homel. 2013. “Overview of:‘Valuing Developmental Crime Prevention.’” Criminology & Public Policy 12(2): 303.
• Mulliner, Emma, Kieran Smallbone, and Vida Maliene. 2013. “An Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability Using a Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method.” Omega 41(2): 270–79.
• Offringa, G, and G De Wet. 1996. “A Quality of Life-Based Decision Support Model for the Determination of Water Research Priorities.” Water Sa-Pretorıa 22(1): 359–72.
• Sarı, Mediha, Eyyüp Ötünç, and Halil Erceylan. 2007. “Liselerde Okul Yaşam Kalitesi: Adana Ili Örneği.” Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 50(50): 297–320.
• Schalock, Robert L. (1997). Quality of Life Volume 2, Aamr, Washington
• Stanujkic, Dragisa, Darjan Karabasevic, and Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas. 2015. “A Framework for the Selection of a Packaging Design Based on the SWARA Method.” Engineering Economics 26(2): 181–87.
• Sun, Li-yan, Cheng-lin Miao, and Li Yang. 2017. “Ecological-Economic Efficiency Evaluation of Green Technology Innovation in Strategic Emerging Industries Based on Entropy Weighted TOPSIS Method.” Ecological Indicators 73: 554–58.
• Şengül, Ümran et al. 2015. “Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Ranking Renewable Energy Supply Systems in Turkey.” Renewable Energy 75(2): 617–25. “TÜİK İllerde Yaşam Endeksi-2016.”
• Yang, Hongwei. 2013. “Evaluation Model of Physical Fitness of Young Tennis Athletes Based on AHP-TOPSIS Comprehensive Evaluation.” International Journal of Applied Mathematics and StatisticsTM 39(9): 188–95.
• Yazdani, Morteza, Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani, and Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas. 2016. “New Integration of MCDM Methods and QFD in the Selection of Green Suppliers.” Journal of Business Economics and Management 17(6): 1097–1113.
• Zolfani, Sarfaraz Hashemkhani, and Jonas Saparauskas. 2013. “New Application of SWARA Method in Prioritizing Sustainability Assessment Indicators of Energy System.” Engineering Economics 24(5): 408–14.
• Zyoud, Shaher H et al. 2016. “A Framework for Water Loss Management in Developing Countries under Fuzzy Environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS.” Expert Systems with Applications 61: 86–105.
• URL-1 : http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1106 2 Haziran 2017 tarihinde erişildi.