SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alphanumeric Journal / 2026 / Volume: 14 Issue: 1

Evaluating ecological sustainability performance of OECD countries via entropy-based TOPSIS

Ebrucan İslamoğlu(Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi)0000-0002-8297-7370
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-01
🏛️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)

This indicates that countries with high ecological footprints have room for improvement in terms of environmental sustainability, while those closer to the ideal solution exhibit a more balanced environmental performance under current practices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to comparatively examine the ecological footprint performances of 25 OECD member countries for the year 2022 using the Entropy-based TOPSIS method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis revealed that the most significant criterion determining ecological footprint performance is the Carbon Footprint (CF).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This indicates that countries with high ecological footprints have room for improvement in terms of environmental sustainability, while those closer to the ideal solution exhibit a more balanced environmental performance under current practices.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ecological Footprint · OECD Countries · Entropi based TOPSIS

Abstract

The aim of this study is to comparatively examine the ecological footprint performances of 25 OECD member countries for the year 2022 using the Entropy-based TOPSIS method. The analysis includes six criteria: pasture lands, agricultural lands, forest areas, fishing grounds, built-up areas, and carbon footprint. The analysis revealed that the most significant criterion determining ecological footprint performance is the Carbon Footprint (CF). Based on the data obtained in this study, the highest total ecological footprint was observed in the United States, whereas Norway demonstrated the closest performance to the ideal solution. This indicates that countries with high ecological footprints have room for improvement in terms of environmental sustainability, while those closer to the ideal solution exhibit a more balanced environmental performance under current practices.

🔖

Cite This Article

İslamoğlu, E. (2026). Evaluating ecological sustainability performance of OECD countries via entropy-based TOPSIS. Alphanumeric Journal, Volume: 14 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.1865015

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Ablay, M. V. (2025). OECD Ülkelerinin Ekolojik Ayak İzinin Entropi-Topsis Yöntemi ile Analizi. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(3), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsbd.1644294
  2. Afshan, S., & Yaqoob, T. (2022). The potency of eco-innovation, natural resource and financial development on ecological footprint: a quantile-ARDL-based evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(33), 50675–50685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19471-w
  3. Afsordegan, A., Sánchez, M., Agell, N., Zahedi, S., & Cremades, L. V. (2016). Decision making under uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for selecting sustainable energy alternatives. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13(6), 1419–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0982-7
  4. Akgül, U. (2010). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma: uygulamalı antropolojinin eylem alanı. Antropoloji, 0(24), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1501/antro_0000000023
  5. Akın, F., & Şen, A. (2024). Ekolojik ayak izi ile OECD ülkelerine yönelik çevresel Kuznets eğrisinin araştırılması. İnönü University International Journal of Social Sciences (INIJOSS). https://doi.org/10.54282/inijoss.1514029
  6. Alpdoğan, H. (2023). OECD ülkelerinde sürdürülebilir kalkınma politikalarının ARAS metodu ile performans analizi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(3), 1079–1103. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i3.2285
  7. Arı, E., & Dursun, M. (2024). An Integrated Bayesian Best–Worst Method and Consensus-Based Intuitionistic Fuzzy Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution Approach for Evaluating Alternative Aircraft Models from a Sustainability Perspective. Symmetry, 16(8), 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16081086
  8. Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Heal, G., Levin, S., Mäler, K.-G., Schneider, S., Starrett, D., & Walker, B. (2004). Are We Consuming Too Much?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(3), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330042162377
  9. Balezentis, T., Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., Ramanauske, N., Streimikiene, D., & Coluccia, B. (2022). Disentangling the sources of dynamics in the agricultural output of the BRIICS and EU countries: The ecological footprint perspective with Shapley value decomposition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, 131198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131198
  10. Biswas, P., Pramanik, S., & Giri, B. C. (2015). TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(3), 727–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1891-2
  11. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M., & Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
  12. Cömertler, S., & Cömertler, N. (2021). Akıllı Kentlerde Çevresel, Sosyal ve Ekonomik Sürdürülebilirlik, Kopenhag Örneği. Mimarlık Bilimleri Ve Uygulamaları Dergisi (MBUD), 6(1), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.780116
  13. Durkaya, F., & Kaya, M. (2024). Bibliometric profile of research on ecological footprint. Environmental Research and Technology, 7(4), 502–511. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.1366472
  14. Ewing, B., Reed, Risk, Galli, Wackernagel, M., & Kitzes, J. (2008). Calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts. Global Footprint Network.
  15. Fatemi, M., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Karami, E., Hayati, D., & Wackernagel, M. (2021). An integrated approach of Ecological Footprint (EF) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in human ecology: A base for planning toward sustainability. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0250167. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250167
  16. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
  17. Ifeakor, C. (2023). The impact of deforestation and the question of logging on the environment: an analysis. International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Environmental Modelling, 6(1), 28–33.
  18. Joshi, D., & Kumar, S. (2016). Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(1), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.047
  19. Kaypak, Ş. (2013). Ekolojik ayak izinden çevre barışına bakmak. Türk Bilimsel Derlemeler Dergisi, 1, 154–159.
  20. Lai, S., Eladawy, A., Sha, J., Li, X., Wang, J., Kurbanov, E., & Lin, Q. (2022). Towards an integrated systematic approach for ecological maintenance: Case studies from China and Russia. Ecological Indicators, 140, 108982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108982
  21. Lourenzutti, R., & Krohling, R. A. (2016). A generalized TOPSIS method for group decision making with heterogeneous information in a dynamic environment. Information Sciences, 330, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.10.005
  22. Meral, İ. G. (2024). Türkiye ve Türki Cumhuriyetlerde Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Performansının CRITIC-LOPCOW ve CoCoSo Yöntemleriyle İncelenmesi. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(2), 619–645. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1431939
  23. Mızık, E. T., & Yiğit Avdan, Z. (2020). Sürdürülebilirliğin Temel Taşı: Ekolojik Ayak İzi. Doğal Afetler Ve Çevre Dergisi, 6(2), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.630825
  24. Özmehmet, E. (2008). Dünyada ve Türkiye sürdürülebilir kalkınma yaklaşımları. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 3(12), 1853–1876.
  25. Özsoy, C. E., & Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve ekolojik ayak izi. Finans Politik Ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 619, 35–55.
  26. Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). C HARACTERIZING AND M EASURING S USTAINABLE D EVELOPMENT. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 559–586. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551
  27. Pata, U. K. (2021). Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy, 173, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.125
  28. Rüstemoğlu, H. (2023). BRIC Ülkeleri ve Türkiye'de 1992-2018 Dönemi İçin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Dinamikleri: Ekolojik Denge ve Ayrıştırma Faktörü Analizleri. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.1172012
  29. Shafiei, S., & Salim, R. A. (2014). Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 66, 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.064
  30. Tiwari, A. K., Kocoglu, M., Banday, U. J., & Awan, A. (2022). Hydropower, human capital, urbanization and ecological footprints nexus in China and Brazil: evidence from quantile ARDL. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(45), 68923–68940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20320-z
  31. Torkayesh, A. E., Alizadeh, R., & Soltanisehat, L. (2024). Assessing Entrepreneurial Performance of G7 Countries Under Context of Social Sustainable Development Goals: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 4918–4929. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2022.3227240
  32. Tosunoğlu, B. (2015). Sürdürülebilir küresel refah göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek Ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 132–149.
  33. Tuna, G. (2022). The Impact of Biomass Energy Consumption on CO2 Emission and Ecological Footprint: The Evidence from BRICS Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-022-00427-4
  34. UN. (2014). Conference of European statisticians recommendations on measuring sustainable development, United Nations Economic Commission For Europe. ``Prepared in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat)''.
  35. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New society publishers.
  36. Yaralıoğlu, K. (2010). Karar verme yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık.
  37. Yurtkuran, S. (2019). N11 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Yakınsaması: Fourier Durağanlık Testinden Yeni Kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi Ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.681354
  38. Zhao, D.-Y., Ma, Y.-Y., & Lin, H.-L. (2022). Using the Entropy and TOPSIS Models to Evaluate Sustainable Development of Islands: A Case in China. Sustainability, 14(6), 3707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063707
  39. Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). C HARACTERIZING AND M EASURING S USTAINABLE D EVELOPMENT. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 559–586. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551