Sustainability in Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: A MCDM Based Performance Evaluation of European Union and Türkiye for Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9)

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study is to perform two distinct cross-country evaluations including European Union (EU) countries and Türkiye, focusing on Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9): Industry, innovation and infrastructure. The study aims to obtain rankings that display the relative standings of countries and identify areas for potential enhancement. Methodology: An integrated objective criteria weighting, VIKOR, and MAIRCA based Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach has been employed. Findings: Based on the first analysis, high speed internet coverage (HSI) and the share of rail and inland waterways in inland freight transport (SRI) were prominent criteria, and in the MCDM analysis, Sweden displayed the highest performance, while Greece and Croatia showed the lowest performance. In the second analysis, which included Türkiye, tertiary educational attainment (TEA) criteria stood out; while, Sweden maintained its leading position. Türkiye initially had poor performance in the early years but later improved, reaching a mid-level position among 26 countries by 2020. However, a significant decline in performance was observed in the last two years. In addition, during the handled period Türkiye witnessed a decline in both the number of patent applications and the share of buses and trains in inland passenger transport. Thereby, novel policies and incentives could be formulated to overcome these issues. Originality: Two distinct cross-country analyses were conducted in accordance with the SDG 9 by adopting the most recent data and an integrated methodology. Within this context, EU countries were compared both among themselves and with Türkiye, and valuable findings were presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable Development Goals
• SDG 9
• Objective Criteria Weighting
• VIKOR
• MAIRCA

Sanayi, İnovasyon ve Altyapıda Sürdürülebilirlik: 9. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefi (SKH 9) Açısından Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye'nin ÇKKV Temelli Performans Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri ve Türkiye için iki farklı değerlendirme yapmak ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefi 9 (SKH 9): Sanayi, inovasyon (yenilikçilik) ve altyapı üzerinde odaklanarak ülkelerin göreceli performanslarını ve potansiyel iyileştirme alanlarını sergileyen sıralamalar elde etmektir. Yöntem: Bu çalışmada bütünleşik nesnel kriter ağırlıklandırma, VIKOR ve MAIRCA temelli Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Bulgular: İlk analizde yüksek hızlı internet kapsamı ile kara taşımacılığında demiryolları ve su yollarının payı öne çıkan kriterler olarak belirlenirken, ÇKKV analizinde İsveç’in en yüksek performansı, Yunanistan ve Hırvatistan’ın ise en düşük performansı gösteren ülkeler olduğu görülmüştür. İkinci analizde Yükseköğrenim Eğitim Düzeyi en önemli kriter olarak belirlenirken, yine İsveç lider konumunu korumuştur. Ele alınan dönemin ilk yıllarında kötü bir performans gösteren Türkiye, sonrasında ilerleme kaydetmiş, 2020 yılında 26 ülke arasında orta düzeyde bir konuma ulaşmıştır. Öte yandan son iki yılda Türkiye’nin genel performansı ve patent başvurularının sayısı ile karayolu ve demiryolu taşımacılığındaki otobüs ve tren payında bir düşüş yaşandığı görülmüş olup, bu doğrultuda yeni politika ve teşvikler geliştirilebilir. Özgünlük: Çalışmada en güncel veriler ve bütünleşik bir metodoloji benimsenerek 9. sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefi doğrultusunda iki ayrı ülkeler arası analiz yapılmış, bu bağlamda Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri hem kendi içinde hem Türkiye ile karşılaştırılmış ve elde edilen önemli bulgular paylaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefleri
• SKH 9
• Objektif Kriter Ağırlıklandırma
• VIKOR
• MAIRCA

Kaynakça

1. Al Garni, H.Z. and Awasthi, A. (2020). “A Monte Carlo Approach Applied to Sensitivity Analysis of Criteria Impacts on Solar PV Site Selection”, Handbook of Probabilistic Models, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816514-0.00020-5.
2. Alonso, A., Monzón, A. and Cascajo, R. (2015). "Comparative Analysis of Passenger Transport Sustainability in European Cities", Ecological Indicators, 48, 578-592, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.022.
3. Aytekin, A., Ecer, F., Korucuk, S. and Karamaşa, Ç. (2022). "Global Innovation Efficiency Assessment of EU Member and Candidate Countries via DEA-EATWIOS Multi-Criteria Methodology", Technology in Society, 68, 101896, DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101896.
4. Bose, S., Box, A., Brayham, R., Coutinho, S., del Valle, C., Ebobissé, A., . . . Threlfall, R. (2019). "Transforming Infrastructure: Frameworks for Bringing the Fourth Industrial Revolution to Infrastructure", World Economic Forum, https://arbor.bfh.ch/15530, (Access Date: 30.06.2023).
5. Brodny, J., and Tutak, M. (2023). "The Level of Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 'Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure' of Agenda 2030 in the European Union Countries: Application of MCDM methods”, Oeconomia Copernicana, 14(1), 47-102, DOI: 10.24136/oc.2023.002.
6. Cavallaro, F., Zavadskas, E. and Raslanas, S. (2016). "Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems Using Fuzzy Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS", Sustainability, 8(6), 556, DOI: 10.3390/su8060556.
7. Delgado, M. G. and Sendra, J.B. (2004). “Sensitivity Analysis in Multicriteria Spatial Decision-Making: A Review, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 10(6), 1173-1187, DOI: 10.1080/10807030490887221.
8. Demir, G. and Arslan, R. (2022). “Sensitivity Analysis in Multi-Criterion Decision-Making Problems”, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 1025-1056, DOI: 10.26745/ahbvuibfd.1103531.

9. Devi, K. (2011). "Extension of VIKOR Method in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment for Robot Selection", Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14163-14168, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.227.
10. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. and Papayannakis, L. (1995). "Determining Objective Weights in Multiplecriteria Problems: The CRITIC Method", Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770, DOI: 10.1016/0305- 0548(94)00059-H.
11. EU. (2023a). “Sustainable Development in the European Union: Monitoring Report on Progress Towards the SDGs in an EU Context”, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/15234730/16817772/KS-04-23-184-EN-N.pdf/845a1782-998d-a767-b097-f22ebe93d422?version=2.0&t=1688373085450, (Access Date: 20/06/2023).
12. EU. (2023b). “EU Voluntary Review on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/SDG-Report-WEB.pdf, (Access Date: 20/06/2023).
13. Eurostat. (2023). "Sustainable Development Goals Database", https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/database, (Access Date: 20/06/2023).
14. Frankelius, P. (2009). "Questioning Two Myths in Innovation Literature", The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 20(1), 40-51, DOI: 10.1016/j.hitech.2009.02.002.
15. Günay, F. and Ecer, F. (2022). "A Comparative Analysis of the Real Sector in Turkey From the Economic and Financial Perspectives with the CRITIC-MAIRCA Method", Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 186-219, DOI: 10.30784/epfad.1065471.
16. Haghshenas, H. and Vaziri, M. (2012). "Urban Sustainable Transportation Indicators for Global Comparison". Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 115-121, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.010.
17. Hák, T., Janoušková, S. and Moldan, B. (2016). "Sustainable Development Goals: A Need for Relevant Indicators", Ecological Indicators, 60, 565-573, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
18. Hametner, M. and Kostetckaia, M. (2020). "Frontrunners and Laggards: How Fast Are the EU Member States Progressing Towards the Sustainable Development Goals?", Ecological Economics, 177, 10677, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106775.
19. Karaşan, A. and Kahraman, C. (2018). "A Novel Interval-Valued Neutrosophic EDAS Method: Prioritization of the United Nations National Sustainable Development Goals", Soft Computing, 22, 4891-4906, DOI: 10.1007/s00500-018-3088-y.
20. Kuc-Czarnecka, M., Markowicz, I. and Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. (2023). "SDGs Implementation, Their Synergies, and Trade-Offs in EU Countries-Sensitivity Analysis-Based Approach", Ecological Indicators, 146, 109888, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109888.
21. Kumar, R., Dubey, R., Singh, S., Singh, S., Prakash, C., Nirsanametla, Y., Królczyk,G. and Chudy, R. (2021). “Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making and Sensitivity Analysis for Selection of Materials for Knee Implant Femoral Component”, Materials, 14(8), 2084, DOI: 10.3390/ma14082084.
22. Kynčlová, P., Upadhyaya, S. and Nice, T. (2020). "Composite Index as a Measure on Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG-9) Industry-Related Targets: The SDG-9 Index", Applied Energy, 265, 114755, DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114755.
23. Le Blanc, D. (2015). "Towards Integration At Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets", Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176-187, DOI: 10.1002/sd.1582.
24. Li, H., Wang, W., Fan, L., Li, Q. and Chen, X. (2020). "A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Machine Tool Selection Using Fuzzy DEMATEL, Entropy Weighting and Later Defuzzification VIKOR", Applied Soft Computing Journal, 91, 1-14, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106207.
25. Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. and Visbeck, M. (2016). "Policy: Map the Interactions Between Sustainable Development Goals", Nature , 534, 320–322, DOI: 10.1038/534320a.
26. Odu, G.O. (2019). “Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making Technique”, Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(8), 1449-1457, DOI: 10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7.
27. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G. (2002). "Multicriteria Planning of Post‐Earthquake Sustainable Reconstruction", Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(3); 211-220, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8667.00269.
28. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2007). “Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Outranking Methods”, European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514-529, DOI: 0.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.
29. Ozkaya, G., Timor, M. and Erdin, C. (2021). "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Indicators and Comparisons of Countries Through a Hybrid Model of Data Mining and MCDM Methods", Sustainability, 13(2), 694, DOI: 10.3390/su13020694.
30. Özarı, Ç., Can, E. and Alıcı, A. (2023). "Forecasting Sustainable Development Level of Selected Asian Countries Using M-EDAS and k-NN Algorithm", International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 9(2), 115-126, DOI: 10.24289/ijsser.1260482.
31. Pamučar, D., Vasin, L. and Lukovac, L. (2014). "Selection of Railway Level Crossings for Investing in Security Equipment Selection of Railway Level Crossings for Investing in Security Equipment Using Hybrid DEMATEL-MARICA Model", XVI International Scientific-Expert Conference on Railway RAILCON, 9-10 October 2014, Niš, Serbia, 89-92.
32. Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W. and Kropp, J. (2017). "A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions", Earth's Future, 5(11), 1169-1179, DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000632.
33. PSB. (2019a). "The Eleventh Development Plan (2019-2023)", https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Eleventh_Development_Plan_2019-2023.pdf, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
34. PSB. (2019b). "Turkey 2nd VNR Report 2019 Strong Ground towards Common Goals", http://www.surdurulebilirkalkinma.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/TURKEY-2nd-VNR-Report-2019-Strong- Ground-towards-Common-Goals-Interactive.pdf, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
35. PSB. (2020). "2020 UN High-Level Political Forum Sustainable Development Goals 2018-2020 Turkey Developments", http://www.surdurulebilirkalkinma.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/HLPF-2020-Turkiye-Gelismeleri.pdf, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
36. Qahtan, S., Alsattar, H.A., Zaidan, A.A., Deveci, M., Pamucar, D., Delen, D. and Pedrycz, W. (2023). “Evaluation of Agriculture-Food 4.0 Supply Chain Approaches Using Fermatean Probabilistic Hesitant-Fuzzy Sets Based Decision Making Model”, Applied Soft Computing, 138, 110170, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110170.
37. Radulescu, C.Z. and Radulescu, M. (2018). “Group Decision Support Approach for Cloud Quality of Service Criteria Weighting”, Studies in Informatics and Control, 27(3), 275-284, DOI: 10.24846/v27i3y201803.
38. San Cristóbal, J. (2011). "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in the Selection of a Renewable Energy Project in Spain: The VIKOR Method", Renewable Energy, 36(2), 498-502, DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.031.
39. Schwab, K. and Zahidi, S. (2020). "Global Competitiveness Report: Special Edition 2020", https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2020/, (Access Date: 25/06/2023).
40. Shannon, C. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 423, DOI: 10.1145/584091.584093.
41. Silvestre, B. and Ţîrcă, D. (2019). "Innovations for Sustainable Development: Moving Toward a Sustainable Future", Journal of Cleaner Production,, 208, 325-332, DOI: : 10.1016/j.jclepro. 2018.09.244.
42. Sousa, M., Almeida, M. and Calili, R. (2021). "Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda", Sustainability, 13(8), 4129, DOI: 10.3390/su13084129.
43. Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., Zavadskas, E., Karabasevic, D. and Binkyte-Veliene, A. (2020). "Assessment of Progress Towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals of the “Agenda 2030” by Using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy Methods: The Case of the EU Countries", Sustainability, 12(14), 5717, DOI: 10.3390/su12145717.
44. Stoenoiu, C. (2022). "Sustainable Development-A Path to a Better Future", Sustainability, 14(15), 9192, DOI: 10.3390/su14159192.
45. Szopik-Depczyńska, D., Kędzierska-Szczepaniak, K., Szczepaniak, K., Cheba, K., Gajda, W. and Ioppolo, G. (2018). "Innovation in Sustainable Development: An Investigation of the EU Context Using 2030 Agenda Indicators", Land Use Policy, 79, 251-262, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.004.
46. Taherdoost, H. and Madanchian, M. (2023). “VIKOR Method-An Effective Compromising Ranking Technique for Decision Making”, Macro Management & Public Policies, 5(2), 27-33, DOI: 10.30564/mmpp.v5i2.5578.
47. Trung, D. and Thinh, H. (2021). "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Turning Process Using the MAIRCA, EAMR, MARCOS and TOPSIS Methods: A Comparative Study", Advances in Production Engineering & Management, 16(4), 443-456, DOI: 10.14743/apem2021.4.412.
48. TSI. (2021a). "Innovation Survey", https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Innovation-Survey-2020-37457, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
49. TSI. (2021b). "Survey on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage in Enterprises", https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Survey-on-Information-and-Communication-Technology-(ICT)-Usage-in-Enterprises-2021-37435, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
50. TSI. (2023a). "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Statistics", https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Statistics-1990-2021-49672, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
51. TSI. (2023b). "Research and Development Activities Survey", https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Research-and-Development-Activities-Survey-2021-45501, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
52. TSI. (2023c). "Transportation and Communication", https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Search/Search?text=railway, (Access Date: 22/06/2023).
53. UN. (2015). “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/291/89/PDF/N1529189.pdf?, (Access Date: 20/06/2023).
54. UN. (2022). “World Population Prospects 2022”, https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf, (Access Date: 20/06/2023).
55. Wang, T.-C. and Lee, H.-D. (2009). "Developing a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach Based on Subjective Weights and Objective Weights", Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8980-8985, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035.
56. WCED. (1987). “Our Common Future”, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf, (Access Date: 24/06/2023).
57. Yin, W. (2019). "Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into the Belt and Road Initiative: Would It Be a New Model for Green and Sustainable Investment?", Sustainability, 11(24), 6991, DOI: 10.3390/su11246991 .
58. Zhou, J. (2012). “Sustainable Transportation in the US: A Review of Proposals, Policies, and Programs Since 2000”, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 1(2), 150-165, DOI: 10.1016/j.foar.2012.02.012.
59. Žižović, M. and Marinković, D. (2020). "Objective Methods for Determining Criteria Weight Coefficients: A Modification of the CRITIC Method", Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 149-161, DOI: 10.31181/dmame2003149z.