TÜRKİYE'DE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR MALZEME SEÇİMİ İÇİN CRITIC TABANLI ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR DESTEK YAKLAŞIMI

Öz

Bu çalışma, geri dönüştürülmüş beton agregalarının (GDBA), doğal agrega (DA) ile karıştırılarak Türkiye koşullarında yol temel tabakalarında kullanım uygunluğunu çok kriterli karar verme (MCDM) yöntemleriyle değerlendirmektedir. Değerlendirme sürecinde teknik, çevresel ve ekonomik 19 kriter kullanılmış; kriter ağırlıkları CRITIC yöntemiyle objektif biçimde belirlenmiştir. Beş farklı GDBA–DA karışımı (%0–100 arası) TOPSIS, COPRAS ve EDAS yöntemleriyle sıralanmış; %100 GDBA içeren alternatif her üç yöntemde de en uygun seçenek olarak öne çıkmıştır. Bu bulgu, teknik yeterliliklerin ötesinde çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve ekonomik etkinliğin karar sürecinde belirleyici olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle atık bertaraf maliyetinin ortadan kalkması, CO₂ emisyonlarında ve doğal kaynak tüketiminde sağlanan düşüşler, GDBA'nın çevreci bir alternatif olduğunu desteklemektedir. Literatür ile uyumlu biçimde, teknik parametrelerdeki sınırlı zayıflıklar, bütüncül değerlendirmede çevresel ve ekonomik kazanımlarla dengelenmiştir. Sonuçlar, MCDM yaklaşımlarının inşaat mühendisliğinde karar destek aracı olarak etkin biçimde kullanılabileceğini ve GDBA’nın sürdürülebilir yol altyapısı uygulamalarında güçlü bir alternatif sunduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CRITIC
• Çok kriterli karar verme
• Sürdürülebilir malzeme seçimi

A CRITIC-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Support Approach for Sustainable Material Selection in Turkey

Öz

This study evaluates the applicability of recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) mixed with natural aggregates (NA) in road subbase layers under Turkish conditions using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. A total of 19 criteria covering technical, environmental, and economic aspects were employed, with objective weights derived using the CRITIC method. Five alternative RCA–NA mixtures (ranging from %0 to %100 RCA) were ranked using the TOPSIS, COPRAS, and EDAS methods. In all three approaches, the %100 RCA alternative was identified as the most favorable option. This finding emphasizes the decisive role of environmental sustainability and economic efficiency beyond mere technical compliance. Particularly, the elimination of disposal costs, significant reductions in CO₂ emissions, and conservation of natural resources highlighted RCA as an environmentally superior alternative. While some technical limitations were observed—such as higher water absorption—their influence was offset by the substantial environmental and economic benefits. The results align with the existing literature, confirming that RCA can deliver acceptable technical performance while contributing to sustainability goals. Overall, this study demonstrates the practical utility of MCDM methods as decision support tools in civil engineering and underscores RCA’s potential as a sustainable material for road infrastructure applications. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CRITIC
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• Sustainable Material Selection

Kaynakça

1. Abdi, A. P., Damci, A., Turkoglu, H., Kirca, V. O., Demirkesen, S., Sadikoglu, E. ve Arslan, A. E. (2025) A Geographic Information System-Based Integrated Multi-Criteria DecisionSupport System for the Selection of Wind Farm Sites: The Case of Djibouti, Sustainability, 17(6), 2555. doi: 10.3390/su17062555
2. Adomako, S., Engelsen, C. J., Thorstensen, R. T. ve Barbieri, D. M. (2021) Review of the relationship between aggregates geology and Los Angeles and micro-Deval tests, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 80(3), 1963-1980. doi:10.1007/s10064-020-02097-y
3. Akbas, M. ve Akin, F. D. (2025) A Comparative Weighting Analysis Using AHP and CRITIC for Recycled Pavement Material Selection: A Case Study from Istanbul, Results in Engineering, 106837. doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2025.106837
4. Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., Mininno, V., Pellegrini, L. ve Farina, G. (2018) Technology assessment with if-topsis: an application in the advanced underwater system sector, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 38-48. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.010.
5. Atan, M. ve Altan, Ş. (2020) Multi-criteria decision-making methods with sample applications, Gazi Publishing House, Ankara.
6. Aytekin, B. (2021). Geri dönüştürülmüş beton agregalarının yol temel ve alttemel tabakalarında kullanılabilirliğinin araştırılması (Master's thesis, Bursa Uludag University (Turkey)).
7. Bestgen, J. O., Cetin, B., & Tanyu, B. F. (2016). Effects of extraction methods and factors on leaching of metals from recycled concrete aggregates. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(13), 12983-13002. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-6456-0
8. Bhattacharjee, P., Sen, T., Banerjee, D. ve Sarkar, B. (2012) Analysis of noise emitted from electrical machines using topsis technique, International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 5-9. doi:10.7763/ijesd.2012.v3.178.

9. Bilgen, G. (2020). Geri dönüştürülmüş beton agregasının düşük plastisiteli bir kilin mekanik özelliklerine etkisi. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 10(3), 1714-1719. doi: 10.21597/jist.685938
10. Bilgiçli, M. T., & Vural, İ. (2019). İnşaat yıkıntı atıkları ile iyileştirilmiş yol alt dolgularının FLAC 2D ile analizi. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Innovative Technologies in Engineering and Science (ISITES 2019). doi: 10.33793/acperpro.02.03.71
11. Chen, C. (2020) A novel multi-criteria decision-making model for building material supplier selection based on entropy-ahp weighted topsis, Entropy, 22(2), 259. doi:10.3390/e22020259.
12. Ézsiás, L., Tompa, R. ve Fischer, S. (2024) Investigation of the possible correlations between specific characteristics of crushed stone aggregates, Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 1(1), 10-26. doi:10.31181/smeor1120242
13. Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Amiri, M. ve Turskis, Z. (2016) Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection, International journal of computers communications ve control, 11(3), 358-371.
14. Gupta, N., Kluge, M., Chadik, P. A., & Townsend, T. G. (2018). Recycled concrete aggregate as road base: Leaching constituents and neutralization by soil Interactions and dilution. Waste Management, 72, 354-361. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.018
15. He, Y., Lei, F., Wei, G., Wang, R., Wu, J. ve Wei, C. (2019) EDAS method for multiple attribute group decision making with probabilistic uncertain linguistic information and its application to green supplier selection, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 12(2), 1361-1370. doi:10.2991/ijcis.d.191028.001  
16. Hung, V. Q., Jayarathne, A., Gallage, C., Dawes, L., Egodawatta, P., & Jayakody, S. (2024). Leaching characteristics of metals from recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) and reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP). Heliyon, 10(9). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30407
17. Hwang, C.L. ve Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
18. Kaya, O., & Ok, B. (2023). Geri Dönüştürülmüş Farklı İnşaat ve Yıkıntı Atıklarının Yol Temellerinde Kullanımının Maliyet ve Esnek Üstyapı Kalınlığına Etkisinin Araştırılması. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(2), 734-751. doi: /10.31466/kfbd.1288042
19. Kolios, A., Mytilinou, V., Lozano-Minguez, E. ve Salonitis, K. (2016) A comparative study of multiple-criteria decision-making methods under stochastic inputs, Energies, 9(7), 566. doi: 10.3390/en9070566
20. Kravchenko, E. ve Besklubova, S. (2024) Value stream assessment of the sustainable concrete recycling process with sequestration of CO2 from flue gases, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 46, 282-293. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2024.03.004
21. Kumar, R. (2025) A comprehensive review of MCDM methods, applications, and emerging trends, Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 185-199. doi: 10.31181/dma31202569
22. Li, D. ve Nan, J. (2011) Extension of the topsis for multi-attribute group decision making under atanassov ifs environments, International Journal of Fuzzy System Applications, 1(4), 47-61. doi:10.4018/ijfsa.2011100104.
23. Li, Z., Wei, G., Wang, R., Wu, J., Wei, C. ve Wei, Y. (2019) EDAS method for multiple attribute group decision making under q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(1), 86-102. doi:10.3846/tede.2019.11333.
24. Liu, M., Cui, B. W., Lu, D. G. ve Faber, M. H. (2024) Risk-informed decision making for utilising recycled materials in infrastructure developments, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 41(3-4), 124-139. doi: 10.1080/10286608.2025.2492645
25. Martínez, I. N., Albiñana, J. M. ve Piqueras, V. Y. (2018) Multi-criteria decision making techniques in civil engineering education for sustainability, In ICERI2018 Proceedings , 9798-9807, IATED. doi: 10.21125/iceri.2018.0813
26. Martínez-Lage, I., Vázquez-Burgo, P. ve Velay-Lizancos, M. (2020) Sustainability evaluation of concretes with mixed recycled aggregate based on holistic approach: Technical, economic and environmental analysis, Waste Management, 104, 9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.044
27. Midodashvili, B., Midodashvili, L. ve Midodashvili, P. (2020) Educational programs performance ranking by use of topsis method, Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 1(47), 366-374. doi:10.17498/kdeniz.786051.
28. Mohajan, H. K. (2025) Impacts of Construction and Demolition Waste on Environment: An Overview, Studies in Social Science ve Humanities, 4(3), 1-5. doi:10.63593/SSSH.2709-7862.2025.05.001
29. Mohseni, S., Baghizadeh, K. ve Pahl, J. (2022) Evaluating barriers and drivers to sustainable food supply chains, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022(1), 4486132. doi: 10.1155/2022/4486132
30. Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K. ve Maliene, V. (2013) An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method, Omega, 41(2), 270-279. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.05.002
31. Ok, B., & Demir, A. (2018). Yapim Yikim Atiklarinin Yol Temellerinde Kullanilabilirliğinin İncelenmesi. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 224-236. doi: 10.28948/ngumuh.386621 
32. Pallewatta, S., Weerasooriyagedara, M., Bordoloi, S., Sarmah, A. K. ve Vithanage, M. (2023) Reprocessed construction and demolition waste as an adsorbent: An appraisal, Science of the Total Environment, 882, 163340. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163340
33. Piccinali, A., Cavallotti, I., Plizzari, G. ve Sorlini, S. (2023) Life cycle assessment of the production of natural and recycled aggregates for concrete: a case study in the province of brescia, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 22(10), 1767-1774. doi:10.30638/eemj.2023.152
34. Polat, E. G., Yücesan, M. ve Gül, M. (2023) A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey, Resources Policy, 82, 103511. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103511
35. Raudeliuniene, J., Trinkuniene, E., Burinskiene, A. ve Bubliene, R. (2025) Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach COPRAS for Developing Sustainable Building Practices in the European Region, Sustainability, 17(8), 3740. doi: 10.3390/su17083740
36. Reddy, A. S., Kumar, P. R. ve Raj, P. A. (2022) Entropy-based fuzzy TOPSIS framework for selection of a sustainable building material, International Journal of Construction Management, 22(7), 1194-1205. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1683695
37. Sadik, M.N., Akter, T., Proma, P.D., Prodhan, M.A.R. ve Momotaj, M (2024). Impact of Recycled Coarse Aggregates on the Mechanical Properties and Durability of Concrete, European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 2(5), 738-759. doı: 10.59324/ejtas.2024.2(5).66
38. Silva, R. V., de Brito, J., & Dhir, R. K. (2014). Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste suitable for concrete production. Construction and Building Materials, 65, 201-217. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.117
39. Şen, B. N., & Eren, Z. (2021). Döngüsel Ekonomi Modeli Kapsamında Erzurum İli Hafriyat Toprağı, İnşaat ve Yıkıntı Atıklarının Yol Yapımında Kullanılabilirliğinin İncelenmesi. Sürdürülebilir Çevre Dergisi, 1(2), 41-52.
40. Toka, E. B. ve Olgun, M. (2022) Performance of granular road base and sub-base layers containing recycled concrete aggregate in different ratios, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 23(11), 3729-3742. doi:1 0.1080/10298436.2021.1916819
41. Torkayesh, A. E., Deveci, M., Karagoz, S. ve Antucheviciene, J. (2023) A state-of-the-art survey of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS): Developments and applications, Expert systems with applications, 221, 119724. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119724
42. Turkoglu, H., Sadikoglu, E., Demirkesen, S., Damci, A. ve Acar, S. (2024) An integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach for selecting the starting location of railroad projects, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-06-2024-0764
43. Ulutaş, A., Balo, F., Mirković, K., Stević, Ž. ve Mostafa, M. M. (2023) MCDM model for critical selection of building and insulation materials for optimising energy usage and environmental effect in production focus, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 29(7), 587-603. doi: 10.3846/jcem.2023.19569
44. Verma, M., ve Yadav, S. K. (2023) Construction and demolition waste utilisation as recycled concrete aggregate in concrete: a state of art, Journal of Engineering Research and Application, 2(02), 31-35. doi: 10.55953/JERA.2023.2205
45. Yi, Y., Fei, X., Fedele, A., Lavagnolo, M. C. ve Manzardo, A. (2024) Decision support model for selecting construction and demolition waste management alternatives: A life cycle-based approach, Science of The Total Environment, 951, 175408. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175408
46. Zhang, Y., Cetin, B. ve Edil, T. B. (2021) Seasonal performance evaluation of pavement base using recycled materials, Sustainability, 13(22), 12714. doi: 10.3390/su132212714