SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 61

EVALUATING ENVIRONMENT PERFORMANCE WITH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING TECHNIQUES USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX DATA

ÇEVRESEL PERFORMANS ENDEKSİ VERİLERİ KULLANILARAK ÇEVRE PERFORMANSININ ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME TEKNİKLERİ İLE İNCELENMESİ

Gonca Yüzbaşı(ADIYAMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0213-7310
Pages
1019–1053
Publication Date
2026-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Denmark was determined as the country with the best environmental performance in each ranking.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Environmental problems are measured by different indicators.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, countries are ranked using environmental performance index indicators and Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Denmark was determined as the country with the best environmental performance in each ranking.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çevresel Performans Endeksi · ÇKKV Yöntemleri · PROMETHEE

Abstract

Environmental problems are measured by different indicators. Problems , that are caused by environmental issues, are measured with different indicatorsIn the last century, many institutions have developed different environmental indicators and different indexes in order to reduce the damage given to the environment.. In this context, countries are ranked using environmental performance index indicators and Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods. In this study, In this study, Environmental Performance Index data was used.The importance levels of the indicators used in the study were determined by CRITIC and Entropy methods. According to the CRITIC method, the Biodiversity and Habitat indicator affects environmental performance the most, while the Ecosystem Services indicator affects it the least. According to Entropy, the indicator that affects environmental performance the most is Ecosystem Services, and the variable that affects the least is Acid Rain. Environmental performance levels were determined by the PROMETHEE method. Denmark is the country with the best environmental performance. Three different rankings were made in the study. These are Entropy-weighted PROMETHEE, CRITIC-weighted PROMETHEE and ÇPE-weighted PROMETHEE rankings. The obtained rankings were compared with the original EPI rankings. The error squared ratios (ERRs) between rankings were calculated. The lowest ERRs value was obtained between the EPI ranking and the ÇPE-weighted PROMETHEE ranking. The highest ERRs value was obtained between the EPI ranking and the Entropy-weighted PROMTEHEE ranking. Denmark was determined as the country with the best environmental performance in each ranking.

Özet

Artan farklı çevre sorunları nedeniyle dünyanın geldiği noktada ülkelerin çevre performansı daha da önemli hale gelmiştir. Çevresel sorunların yol açtığı problemler farklı göstergelerle ölçülmektedir. Son yüzyılda birçok kurum, çevreye verilen zararların azaltılması amacıyla farklı çevresel göstergeler ile farklı endeksler meydana getirerek, ülkelerin çevre korumaya yönelik tutumlarını belirlemeye çalışmıştır. Bu kapsamda ülkelerin çevre performansları ile ilgili olarak geliştirilen çevre performans endeksi göstergeleri ile Çok Kriterli Karar Verme yöntemleri kullanılarak ülkeler sıralanmıştır. Bu çalışma da ülkelerin çevre performanslarını temsil eden göstergeleri bir arada inceleyen Çevresel Performans Endeksi’nin (ÇPE) verilerinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmaya konu olan göstergelerin önem düzeyleri CRITIC ve Entropi yöntemleri ile belirlenmiştir. CRITIC yöntemine göre çevresel performansı en çok Bio Çeşitlilik ve Habitat göstergesi etkilerken, Ekosistem Hizmetleri göstergesi en az etkileyen kriter olmuştur. Entropi ’ye göre çevre performansını en fazla etkileyen gösterge Ekosistem Hizmetleri, en az etkileyen değişken Asit Yağmurlarıdır. Çevresel performans seviyeleri PROMETHEE yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada üç farklı sıralama yapılmıştır. Bunlar Entropi ağırlıklı PROMETHEE, CRITIC ağırlıklı PROMETHEE ve ÇPE ağırlıklı PROMETHEE sıralamalarıdır. Elde edilen sıralamalar orijinal ÇPE sıralamaları ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Sırlamamaların hem kendi aralarında hem de orijinal ÇPE sıralaması ile arasındaki hata kareleri oranları (HKO) hesaplanmıştır. ÇPE sıralaması ile ÇPE ağırlıklı PROMETHEE sıralaması arasında en düşük HKO değeri elde edilmiştir. ÇPE sıralaması ile Entropi ağırlıklı PROMTEHEE sıralaması arasında en yüksek HKO değeri elde edilmiştir. Danimarka her sırlamada çevresel performansı en iyi olan ülke olarak belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yüzbaşı, G. (2026). EVALUATING ENVIRONMENT PERFORMANCE WITH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING TECHNIQUES USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX DATA. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 61, 1019–1053. https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.1583448

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. A Abdullah, L., Chan, W., and Afshari, A. (2019). Application of PROMETHEE method for green supplier selection: a comparative result based on preference functions. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 15, 271-285.
  2. Ajripour, I., and Alamian, R. (2021). Comparing Green Economy in Iran with OECD Asian Countries by Applying TOPSIS and GI Method. Theory, Methodology, Practice-Review of Business and Management, 17(01), 15-26.
  3. Akandere, G. (2021). Kuşak Yol Ülkelerinin Lojistik ve Çevresel Performansının Analizi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(4), 1893-1915.
  4. Akandere, G., and Zerenler, M. (2022). Doğu Avrupa Ülkelerinin Çevresel ve Ekonomik Performansının Bütünleşik CRITIC-TOPSIS Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 25(Özel Sayı), 524-535.
  5. Akçakanat, Ö., Aksoy, E., ve Teker, T. (2018). CRITIC ve MDL Temelli EDAS yöntemi ile Tr-61 bölgesi bankalarinin performans değerlendirmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(32), 1-24.
  6. Aksu, E. Ö., ve Gencer, C. T. (2018). Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Oecd Ülkelerinin Çevre Performansının İncelenmesi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 191-206.
  7. Al-Rashdan, D., Al-Kloub, B., Dean, A., and Al-Shemmeri, T. (1999). Environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in Jordan. European Journal of Operational Research, 118(1), 30-45.
  8. Altintaş, F. (2021). Çevre Performanslarının Entropi Tabanlı ROV, ARAS ve COPRAS Yöntemleri ile Ölçülmesi: G20 Grubu Ülkeleri Örneği. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 10(1), 55-78.
  9. Altintas, F. F. (2021). Ülkelerin Çevre Performanslarının CODAS ve TOPSIS Yöntemleri ile Ölçülmesi: G7 Grubu Ülkeleri Örneği. Ulakbilge Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(59), 544-559.
  10. Avikal, S., Mishra, P. K., and Jain, R. (2014). A Fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE method-based heuristic for disassembly line balancing problems. International Journal of Production Research, 52(5), 1306-1317.
  11. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., and Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International journal of Production Economics, 126(2), 370-378.2.
  12. Ayçin, E., ve Çakin, E. (2019). Ülkelerin Çevresel Performanslarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve Bulanık Mantık Tabanlı Bir Yaklaşım ile Bütünleşik Olarak Değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 631-656.
  13. Basiago, A. (1999). Economic, Social And Environmental Sustainability In Development Theory and Urban Planning Practice, The Environmentalist 19(2), 145-161.
  14. Bao, Q., Yuxin, Z., Yuxiao, W., and Feng, Y. (2020). Can entropy weight method correctly reflect the distinction of water quality indices?. Water Resources Management, 34, 3667-3674.
  15. Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Springer.
  16. Boulding, K. E. (2013). The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, In H. Jarrett (ed.) Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, (pp. 3-14). Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press.
  17. Carli, R., Dotoli, M., and Pellegrino, R. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable metropolitan cities assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 226, 46-61.
  18. Carson, R. (2009). Silent spring. Reynolds, M., Blackmore, C., & Smith, M. J. (Eds.). (Page: 11-21) The environmental responsibility reader. Zed Books Ltd.
  19. Chapin III, F.S., Torn, M.S. ve Tateno, M. (1996). “Principles of Ecosystem Sustainability”. American Naturalist, 148(6), 1016-1037.
  20. Chithambaranathan, P., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., and Palaniappan, P. K. (2015). Service supply chain environmental performance evaluation using grey based hybrid MCDM approach. International Journal Of Production Economics, 166, 163-176.
  21. Dağdeviren, M. (2008). Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. Journal of İntelligent Manufacturing, 19, 397-406.
  22. De Felice, F., Campagiorni, F., and Petrillo, A. (2013). Economic and environmental evaluation via an integrated method based on LCA and MCDA. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 1-10.
  23. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., and Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
  24. Diakoulaki, D., and Karangelis, F. (2007). Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost–benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(4), 716-727.
  25. Evelyn, J. (1729). Silva: or, a discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber in his Majesty's dominions, The Library of Princeton University, London.
  26. Gedik, Y. (2020). Sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel boyutlarla sürdürülebilirlik ve sürdürülebilir kalkinma. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 196-215.
  27. Hou, Y., Iqbal, W., Muhammad Shaikh, G., Iqbal, N., Ahmad Solangi, Y., and Fatima, A. (2019). Measuring Energy Efficiency and Environmental Performance: A Case of South Asia. Processes, 7(6), 325.
  28. Hsu, A., Lloyd, A., and Emerson, J. W. (2013). What progress have we made since Rio? Results from the 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and Pilot Trend EPI. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 171-185.
  29. Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., and Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of The Total Environment, 409(19), 3578-3594.
  30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press.
  31. Keiner, M. (2005). History, Definition(s) and Models of Sustainable Development, ETH Zurich, 1-8.
  32. Khalili, N. R., and Duecker, S. (2013). Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of sustainable environmental management system framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 188-198.
  33. Khoshnava, S. M., Rostami, R., Valipour, A., Ismail, M., and Rahmat, A. R. (2018). Rank of green building material criteria based on the three pillars of sustainability using the hybrid multi criteria decision making method. Journal of cleaner production, 173, 82-99.
  34. Lu, X., Wang, L., Li, L. Y., Lei, K., Huang, L., and Kang, D. (2010). Multivariate statistical analysis of heavy metals in street dust of Baoji, NW China. Journal of hazardous materials, 173(1-3), 744-749.
  35. Maxim, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy, 65, 284-297.
  36. Myllyviita, T., Holma, A., Antikainen, R., Lähtinen, K., and Leskinen, P. (2012). Assessing environmental impacts of biomass production chains–application of life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Journal of cleaner production, 29, 238-245.
  37. Mousavi, S. M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Heydar, M., and Ebrahimnejad, S. (2013). Multi-criteria decision making for plant location selection: an integrated Delphi–AHP–PROMETHEE methodology. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 38, 1255-1268.
  38. Pan, Y., Zhang, C. C., Lee, C. C., and Lv, S. (2024). Environmental performance evaluation of electric enterprises during a power crisis: Evidence from DEA methods and AI prediction algorithms. Energy Economics, 130, 107285.
  39. Pimonenko, T., Lyulyov, O., Chygryn, O., and Palienko, M. (2018). Environmental Performance Index: relation between social and economic welfare of the countries. Environmental Economics, 9(3), 1.
  40. Ramanathan, R. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(1), 27-35.
  41. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill.
  42. Samimi, A. J., Ghaderi, S., and Ahmadpour, M. (2011). Environmental sustainability and economic growth: evidence from some developing countries. Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(5), 961-966.
  43. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  44. Smallenbroek, O., Caperna, G., and Papadımıtrıou, E. (2023). JRC audit of the Environmental Performance Index 2022. JRC Publishing.
  45. Şener, S. (2022). Legatum Refah Endeksi göstergeleri ve verileri kullanılarak refahın çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 17(1), 46-70.
  46. Turner, G.M. (2008). “A Comparison of the Limits to Growth With 30 Years of Reality”. Global Environmental Change, 18, 397-411.
  47. Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., and Tuzkaya, U. R. (2009). Environmental performance evaluation of suppliers: A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 6, 477-490.
  48. Uygun, Ö., ve Dede, A. (2016). Performance evaluation of green supply chain management using integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 102, 502-511.
  49. Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., Zhang, C. F., and Zhao, J. H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 13(9), 2263-2278.
  50. Wendling, Z. A., Emerson, J. W., de Sherbinin, A., & Esty, D. C. (2022). 2022 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.
  51. Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., et al. (2022). 2022 Environmental Performance Index Results. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Disponible en.
  52. Yavuz, V. A. (2010). Sürdürülebilirlik Kavramı ve İşletmeler Açısından Sürdürülebilir Üretim Stratejileri/Concept of Sustainability and Sustainable Production Strategies for Business Practices. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(14), 63-86.
  53. Zhao, H., Zhao, H., and Guo, S. (2017). Evaluating the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks by employing multi-criteria decision making approach for circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2262-2276.
  54. Zhu, Y., Tian, D., and Yan, F. (2020). Effectiveness of entropy weight method in decision-making. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 1-5.
  55. Zuo, X., Hua, H., Dong, Z., and Hao, C. (2017). Environmental performance index at the provincial level for China 2006–2011. Ecological Indicators, 75, 48-56.
  56. https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/epi/sets/browse
  57. A Abdullah, L., Chan, W., and Afshari, A. (2019). Application of PROMETHEE method for green supplier selection: a comparative result based on preference functions. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 15, 271-285.
  58. Carson, R. (2009). Silent spring. Reynolds, M., Blackmore, C., & Smith, M. J. (Eds.). (Page: 11-21) The environmental responsibility reader. Zed Books Ltd.