SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2

Sustainable Agri-Energy Systems in Semi-Arid Regions: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Turgutlu, Türkiye

Mert Ökten(MANİSA CELAL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HASAN FERDİ TURGUTLU TEKNOLOJİ FAKÜLTESİ, ENERJİ SİSTEMLERİ MÜHENDİSLİĞİ PR.)0000-0003-0077-4471
Pages
362–371
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️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)

Results indicate that Agave americana and Opuntia ficus-indica represent the most sustainable options due to their low water demand, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and stable economic performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study develops an integrated assessment framework for sustainable agri-energy systems in semi-arid regions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results indicate that Agave americana and Opuntia ficus-indica represent the most sustainable options due to their low water demand, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and stable economic performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The integration of TEA, LCA, and MCDM methods forms a structured basis for quantitative decision support framework for regional energy planning, emphasizing the prioritization of water-efficient energy crops in semi-arid ecosystems.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sustainable energy crops · Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDM) · Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Abstract

This study develops an integrated assessment framework for sustainable agri-energy systems in semi-arid regions. Using Turgutlu, Türkiye as a case study, eleven potential bioenergy crops—Agave americana, Opuntia ficus-indica, Miscanthus giganteus, Zea mays, Helianthus annuus, Cannabis sativa, Nicotiana tabacum, Olea europaea, Ficus carica, Vitis vinifera, and Cucumis melo—were evaluated. A hybrid methodology combining Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Monte Carlo–based robustness analysis was employed. Results indicate that Agave americana and Opuntia ficus-indica represent the most sustainable options due to their low water demand, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and stable economic performance. Miscanthus giganteus stands out as a long-term strategic option due to its high energy yield. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that Agave and Opuntia maintained the highest robustness under varying criterion weights. LCA results further revealed that these species occupy the “ideal environmental zone,” characterized by low GHG emissions and high Net Energy Ratios (NER). The integration of TEA, LCA, and MCDM methods forms a structured basis for quantitative decision support framework for regional energy planning, emphasizing the prioritization of water-efficient energy crops in semi-arid ecosystems.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ökten, M. (2026). Sustainable Agri-Energy Systems in Semi-Arid Regions: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Turgutlu, Türkiye. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2, 362–371. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.1801644

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. . Hoff, H. 2011. Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. https://www.sei.org/publications/understanding-the-nexus/ (accessed at 15.04.2026).
  2. . El-Bassam, N. (Ed.) 2010. Handbook of Bioenergy Crops: A Complete Reference to Species, Development and Applications. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774789
  3. . Pimentel, D., Patzek, TW. 2005. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resources Research 14: 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8
  4. . Owen, NA., Griffiths, H., Fahy, KF. 2015. Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) offers sustainable bioenergy production and resilience to climate change. GCB Bioenergy 8. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12272
  5. . Nemecek, T., Dubois, D., Huguenin-Elie, O., Gaillard, G. 2011. Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming. Agricultural Systems 104: 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.10.002
  6. . Karaaslan, A., Aydın, S. 2020. Yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 34(4): 1351–1375. https://doi.org/10.16951/atauniiibd.749466
  7. . Birleşmiş Milletler Türkiye. Türkiye Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları Çalışmalarımız. https://turkiye.un.org/tr/sdgs (accessed at 09.10.2025).
  8. . Turkish State Meteorological Service (MGM). 2025. Sıcaklık ve ışınım verileri. https://www.mgm.gov.tr (accessed at 09.10.2025).
  9. . Davis, SC., Dohleman, FG., Long, SP. 2011. The global potential for Agave as a biofuel feedstock. GCB Bioenergy 3(1): 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01077.x
  10. . Varela Pérez, P., Winkler, B., Röcker, P., von Cossel, M. 2024. Combined bioenergy and food potential of Opuntia ficus-indica grown on marginal land in rural Mexico. Energies 17(24): 6278. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17246278
  11. . Heaton, EA., Dohleman, FG., Long, SP. 2008. Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Global Change Biology 14(9): 2000–2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01662.x
  12. . McCalmont, JP., Hastings, A., McNamara, N.P., Richter, G.M., Robson, P., Donnison, I.S., Clifton-Brown, J. 2017. Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 9(3): 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12294
  13. . Borland, AM., Griffiths, H., Hartwell, J., Smith, JA. 2009. Exploiting the potential of plants with crassulacean acid metabolism for bioenergy production on marginal lands. Journal of Experimental Botany 60(10): 2879–2896. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp118
  14. . Avcıoğlu, AO., Dayıoğlu, M., Türker, U. 2019. Assessment of the energy potential of agricultural biomass residues in Turkey. Renewable Energy 138: 1186–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.053
  15. . Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, JM., Lindvall, E., Christou, M. 2003. The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 25(4): 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00030-8
  16. . Yang, C., Menz, C., Fraga, H., Costafreda-Aumedes, S., Leolini, L., Ramos, MC., Molitor, D., van Leeuwen, C., Santos, JA. 2022. Assessing the grapevine crop water stress indicator over the flowering–veraison phase and the potential yield loss rate in important European wine regions. Agricultural Water Management 261: 107349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107349
  17. . Kursun, B. 2024. Thermodynamic sustainability assessment of Turkish cash and feed crops: evaluations and recommendations. Food and Energy Security 13. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.70000
  18. . Famiani, F., Rosa, R., Cinosi, N., Regni, L., Proietti, P. 2023. The Olive: Botany and Production – Site Selection and Olive Orchard Design and Establishment. CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789247350.0015
  19. . Martins, S., Pereira, S., Dinis, L.-T., Brito, C. 2024. Enhancing olive cultivation resilience: sustainable long-term and short-term adaptation strategies to alleviate climate change impacts. Horticulturae 10: 1066. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101066
  20. . Islam, M. 2023. Impacts of climate change on water resources, agricultural production and food security: evidence from Türkiye. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 66: 163–179. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-1056971
  21. . FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Data. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en (accessed at 09.10.2025).
  22. . IEA Bioenergy. 2021. Turkey’s Bioenergy Outlook. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/15-01-IEA_BESTMER-presentation.pdf
  23. . The MathWorks Inc. 2022. MATLAB version: 9.12.0 (R2022b). https://www.mathworks.com (accessed at 09.10.2025).
  24. . Tung, SL., Tang, SL. 1998. A comparison of the Saaty’s AHP and modified AHP for right and left eigenvector inconsistency. European Journal of Operational Research 106(1): 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00353-1
  25. . Mandal, B., Goswami, KP., Mondal, S. 2025. GIS-based suitability assessment of stone crushing site selection using AHP, Fuzzy-AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS models: navigating towards sustainable environmental management in Brahmani–Dwarka interfluve. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26: 100704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100704
  26. . Anwar, S., Jamil, MK., Jassim, HS., Azeem, M., Almohsen, B., Neamah, HA. 2025. Optimizing graphical network design using fuzzy hypersoft topologies and multi-criteria VIKOR decision algorithms. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 172: 111134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2025.111134
  27. . Gobet, E., Lerasle, M., Métivier, D. 2026. Accelerated convergence of error quantiles using robust randomized quasi Monte Carlo methods. Journal of Complexity 92: 101989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jco.2025.101989
  28. . Raj, R., Tirkey, JV. 2025. Techno-economic analysis and performance enhancement of biogas-fueled SI engine using quasi-dimensional thermodynamic model and response surface methodology. Biomass and Bioenergy 201: 108128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2025.108128
  29. . Cherubini, F., Strømman, AH. 2011. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology 102(2): 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.010
  30. . Sahoo, A., Chhotaray, SP., Meher, I., Behera, SP., Pal, A., Meena, M., Swapnil, P., Yadav, A., Bhardwaj, R. 2025. Phytoremediation for a sustainable future: Integrating plant based strategies in soil and wastewater remediation. Bioresource Technology Reports 31: 102266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2025.102266