KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Verimlilik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 58 Sayı: 3

CRITIC Tabanlı MAUT ve COPRAS Yöntemlerini Kullanan Karşılaştırmalı Araştırma Yoluyla Avrupa'da Döngüsel Ekonominin Analizi

An Analysis of the Círcular Economy in Europe through Comparative Research Employing the CRITIC-Based MAUT and COPRAS Methods

Gökhan Özkaya(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İŞLETME BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-2267-6568
Sayfa
337–358
Yayın Tarihi
2024-07-22
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular: Ülkelerin değerlendirmelerine göre Danimarka, Lüksemburg, Finlandiya, Avusturya, İsveç, Birleşik Krallık ve Almanya diğer ülkelerden olumlu ve dikkate değer bir farklılık sergilemektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Amaç: Döngüsel ekonomi, atıkların veya yeterince kullanılmayan atıl varlıkların yeni, kullanılabilir ürün veya hizmetlere dönüştürülmesinin hem ekonomik hem de çevresel faydalarını dikkate alan bir sürdürülebilirlik yaklaşımıdır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Araştırmada, geri dönüşüm vurgusu, döngüsel malzeme kullanımı, malzeme verimliliği ve atıkların kolektif yönetimi dâhil olmak üzere birçok konuyu içeren çeşitli göstergeler kullanarak çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle AB ülkelerinin karşılaştırmalı analizinin sunulması hedeflenmektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular: Ülkelerin değerlendirmelerine göre Danimarka, Lüksemburg, Finlandiya, Avusturya, İsveç, Birleşik Krallık ve Almanya diğer ülkelerden olumlu ve dikkate değer bir farklılık sergilemektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Döngüsel Ekonomi · Sürdürülebilir çevre · Avrupa Yeşil Anlaşması

Özet

Amaç: Döngüsel ekonomi, atıkların veya yeterince kullanılmayan atıl varlıkların yeni, kullanılabilir ürün veya hizmetlere dönüştürülmesinin hem ekonomik hem de çevresel faydalarını dikkate alan bir sürdürülebilirlik yaklaşımıdır. Araştırmada, geri dönüşüm vurgusu, döngüsel malzeme kullanımı, malzeme verimliliği ve atıkların kolektif yönetimi dâhil olmak üzere birçok konuyu içeren çeşitli göstergeler kullanarak çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle AB ülkelerinin karşılaştırmalı analizinin sunulması hedeflenmektedir. Yöntem: Araştırma, CRITIC yönteminin uygulanmasıyla ağırlıkların belirlenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Ülkeleri karşılaştırırken bu kavrama ilişkin etkinliği değerlendirmek amacıyla sürdürülebilir kaynak yönetimi, sosyal davranış ve iş operasyonları olmak üzere üç ana kategori altında 22 alt göstergede toplanmıştır. Ayrıca AB'de gösterge verisi olan her ülke, MAUT ve COPRAS gibi çok kriterli karar verme tekniklerinin yanı sıra veri madenciliği yöntemi olan kümeleme analizi kullanılarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bulgular: Ülkelerin değerlendirmelerine göre Danimarka, Lüksemburg, Finlandiya, Avusturya, İsveç, Birleşik Krallık ve Almanya diğer ülkelerden olumlu ve dikkate değer bir farklılık sergilemektedir. Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, çevresel ve döngüsel ekonomi hedefleri söz konusu olduğunda çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımı ile karşılaştırma yapabilme imkânı sunmaktadır.

Abstract

Purpose: The circular economy is an approach to sustainability that takes into account both the economic and environmental benefits of repurposing waste or underutilized inert assets into new, useable products or services. The research aims to present a comparative analysis of EU countries with multi-criteria decision-making methods using various indicators covering many topics, including emphasis on recycling, use of circular materials, material efficiency and collective management of waste. Methodology: The research aims to determine the weights through the application of the CRITIC method. It is gathered in 22 sub-indicators under three main categories, including sustainable resource management, social behaviour, and business operations, so as to assess effectiveness with regard to this notion while comparing nations. Additionally, every nation in the EU that has indicator data is assessed employing cluster analysis, a method of data mining, in addition to multi-criteria decision-making techniques like MAUT and COPRAS. Findings: Based on the assessments of nations, Denmark, Luxembourg, Finland, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Germany exhibit a favourable and noteworthy distinction from other nations. Originality: This study offers the opportunity to make comparisons with a multi-criteria decision-making approach when it comes to environmental and circular economy goals.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Özkaya, G. (2024). CRITIC Tabanlı MAUT ve COPRAS Yöntemlerini Kullanan Karşılaştırmalı Araştırma Yoluyla Avrupa'da Döngüsel Ekonominin Analizi. Verimlilik Dergisi, Cilt: 58 Sayı: 3, 337–358. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1462098

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (43)

  1. Aguiñaga, E., and Leal, A.R. (2021). "Supply Chain Management, Humanistic Management and Circular Economy: Fostering Industry Innovation and Decent Work through Responsible Consumption and Production through Partnerships", Humanistic Management in Latin America, Editors: Aguiñaga, E., Leal, A.R., Routledge, 83-98.
  2. Azadnia, A.H., Ghadimi, P. and Molani-Aghdam, M. (2011). "A Hybrid Model of Data Mining and MCDM Methods for Estimating Customer Lifetime Value", 41st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering (CIE41), Los Angeles, United States of America, 23-26.
  3. Bengtsson, M., Alfredsson, E., Cohen, M., Lorek, S. and Schroeder, P. (2018). "Transforming Systems of Consumption and Production for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: Moving Beyond Efficiency", Sustainability Science, 13(6), 1533-1547.
  4. Borowski, P.F. and Patuk, I. (2021). "Environmental, Social and Economic Factors in Sustainable Development with Food, Energy and Eco-Space Aspect Security", Present Environment & Sustainable Development, 15(1), 153-169.
  5. Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V.M. and Chakraborty, S. (2011). "Materials Selection Using Complex Proportional Assessment and Evaluation of Mixed Data Methods", Materials & Design, 32(2), 851-860.
  6. Das, M.C., Sarkar, B. and Ray, S. (2012). "A Framework to Measure Relative Performance of Indian Technical Institutions Using Integrated Fuzzy AHP and COPRAS Methodology", Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 46(3), 230-241.
  7. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. and Papayannakis, L. (1995). "Determining objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The CRITIC Method", Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
  8. Eco-index. (2022). "Eco Innovation Index 2022: Indicators and Methodology", https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/96ccdecd-11b4-4a35-a046-30e01459ea9e/library/ddb0a147-f2fc-4555-849a-215c95ba592d/details, (Accessed: 01.09.2023).
  9. European Commission, E. (2014). "Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe DG Environment", https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:50edd1fd-01ec-11e4-831f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/DOC_1&format=PDF, (Access Date: 17.04.2023)
  10. Fishburn, P.C. and Keeney, R.L. (1974). "Seven Independence Concepts and Continuous Multiattribute Utility Functions", Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 11(3), 294-327.
  11. Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Hilario-Caballero, A., Pla-Santamaria, D. and Salas-Molina, F. (2020). A Process Oriented MCDM Approach to Construct A Circular Economy Composite Index"i Sustainability, 12(2), 618.
  12. Gautam, M. and Agrawal, M. (2021). "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Review of Global Scenario", Carbon Footprint Case Studies, 123-160.
  13. Giurco, D. (2020). "Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns", Mining, Materials, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), CRC Press, USA.
  14. Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Naimavicienė, J., Krutinis, M., Plakys, V. and Venskus, D. (2010). "Model for A Complex Analysis of Intelligent Built Environment". Automation in Construction, 19(3), 326-340.
  15. Kaya, S.K., Ayçin, E. and Pamucar, D. (2022). "Evaluation of Social Factors within the Circular Economy Concept for European Countries", Central European Journal of Operations Research, 31, 73-108.
  16. Khaw-ngern, K., Peuchthonglang, P., Klomkul, L., & Khaw-ngern, C. (2021). "The 9Rs Strategies for the Circular Economy 3.0", Psychology and Education, 58(1), 1440-1446.
  17. Kilemo, D.B. (2022). "The Review of Water Use Efficiency and Water Productivity Metrics and Their Role in Sustainable Water Resources Management", Open Access Library Journal, 9(1), 1-21.
  18. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017). "Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions", Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.
  19. Konuşkan, Ö., Mühendisliği, A. E., & Uygun, Ö. (2014). Çok Nitelikli Karar Verme (Maut) Yöntemi ve bir Uygulamasi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi: Niğde, Turkey.
  20. Lacko, R., Hajduová, Z. and Zawada, M. (2021). "The Efficiency of Circular Economies: A Comparison of Visegrád Group Countries". Energies, 14(6), 1680.
  21. Lieder, M. and Rashid, A. (2016). "Towards Circular Economy Implementation: a Comprehensive Review in Context of Manufacturing Industry", Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 36-51.
  22. Liu, C., Jiang, H., Badulescu, D. and Bac, D.P. (2022). "Achieving Zero Hunger Goal through Minimizing Waste in Food Supply Chain: Evidence from Asian Emerging Region", Sustainability, 14(10), 5930.
  23. Løken, E. (2007). "Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Methods for Energy Planning Problems", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(7), 1584-1595.
  24. MacQueen, J. (1967). "Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations", Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Statistics, University of California Press, Berkeley, 281-297.
  25. Marino, A. and Pariso, P. (2020). "Comparing European Countries' Performances in the Transition Towards the Circular Economy", Science of The Total Environment, 729, 138142.
  26. Mazur-Wierzbicka, E. (2021). "Towards circular economy-A comparative analysis of the countries of the European Unionion", Resources, 10(5), 49.
  27. Mies, A. and Gold, S. (2021). "Mapping the Social Dimension of the Circular Economy", Journal of Cleaner Production, 321, 128960.
  28. Mont, O. and Plepys, A. (2008). "Sustainable Consumption Progress: Should We Be Proud or Alarmed?", Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 531-537.
  29. Ngan, S.L., How, B.S., Teng, S.Y., Promentilla, M.A.B., Yatim, P., Er, A.C. and Lam, H.L. (2019). "Prioritization of Sustainability Indicators for Promoting the Circular Economy: The Case of Developing Countries", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 111, 314-331.
  30. Pineiro-Villaverde, G. and García-Álvarez, M.T. (2020). "Sustainable Consumption and Production: Exploring the Links with Resources Productivity in the EU-28", Sustainability, 12(21), 8760.
  31. Rather, R.A., Wani, A.W., Mumtaz, S., Padder, S.A., Khan, A.H., Almohana, A.I., Almojil, S.F., Alam, S.S. and Baba, T.R. (2022). "Bioenergy: A Foundation to Environmental Sustainability in A Changing Global Climate Scenario", Journal of King Saud University-Science, 34(1), 101734.
  32. RELX, SDG Resoure Centre (2022). "Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Publications on “Sustainable Development Goals” with Emphasis on “Responsible Consumption and Production” Goal (2015–2019)", Responsible consumption and production, https://sdgresources.relx.com/features/sdg-12-graphic, (Accessed: 21.08.2023).
  33. Robaina, M., Murillo, K., Rocha, E. ve Villar, J. (2020). "Circular Economy in Plastic Waste-Efficiency Analysis of European Countries", Science of The Total Environment, 730, 139038.
  34. Saad, M.H.M., Hamdan, N.M. and Sarker, M.R. (2021). "State of the Art of Urban Smart Vertical Farming Automation System: Advanced Topologies, Issues and Recommendations", Electronics, 10(12), 1422.
  35. Saja A. Majeed, The Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka (IESL), (2021). “Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 12): ‘Responsible Consumption and Production”, https://iesl.lk/SLEN/55/SDG.php, (Accessed: 15.07.2023).
  36. Sharma, H.B., Vanapalli, K.R., Samal, B., Cheela, V.S., Dubey, B.K. and Bhattacharya, J. (2021). "Circular Economy Approach in Solid Waste Management System to Achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for Post-COVID Recovery", Science of The Total Environment, 800, 149605.
  37. Škrinjarić, T. (2020). "Empirical Assessment of the Circular Economy of Selected European Countries", Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120246.
  38. Smol, M. (2021). "Inventory and Comparison of Performance Indicators in Circular Economy Roadmaps of the European Countries", Circular Economy and Sustainability, 3, 557-584.
  39. Tetteh, E., Amankwa, M. and Yeboah, C. (2021). "Emerging Carbon Abatement Technologies to Mitigate Energy-Carbon Footprint-A Review", Cleaner Materials, 2, 100020.
  40. Ūsas, J., Balezentis, T. and Streimikiene, D. (2021). "Development and Integrated Assessment of the Circular Economy in the European Union: The Outranking Approach", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, DOI:10.1108/JEIM-11-2020-0440
  41. Walker, A.M., Opferkuch, K., Lindgreen, E.R., Simboli, A., Vermeulen, W.J. and Raggi, A. (2021). "Assessing the Social Sustainability of Circular Economy Practices: Industry Perspectives from Italy and the Netherlands", Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 831-844.
  42. Yagi, M. and Kokubu, K. (2020). "A Framework of Sustainable Consumption and Production from the Production Perspective: Application to Thailand and Vietnam", Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124160.
  43. Yuan, X., Su, C.-W., Umar, M., Shao, X. and Lobont, O.-R. (2022). "The Race to Zero Emissions: Can Renewable Energy Be the Path to Carbon Neutrality?", Journal of Environmental Management, 308, 114648.