Energy, Environment, and Sustainability: A Multi-criteria Evaluation of Countries

  • Ahmet Aytekin Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Artvin Çoruh University, 08100, Hopa, Artvin, Turkey
Keywords: Sustainability, Energy, The Environment, ARAT, CRITIC, SOWIA, CRADIS, CODAS-Sort

Abstract

Energy, the environment, and sustainability are all strongly intertwined concerns. While humanity aims to spread the comfort and welfare it has achieved on a global scale, as well as to achieve more development and comfort through technological advances, it is caught in a stalemate caused by the world’s use of resources as if they are limitless, as well as irrevocable environmental damage. The major topic of this dilemma is energy. Using ARAT, CRITIC, SOWIA, CRADIS, and CODAS-Sort, this study aims to evaluate countries on the basis of energy, environment, and sustainability triangle. The results reveal that developed countries are in a better situation than developing and underdeveloped countries in terms of sustainable energy and environmental concerns. The Nordic countries notably lead the rankings and classification results. The primary reason for this is that Nordic countries have strong climate and energy policies. Given the limitations of fossil fuels, the fact that they’ll be exhausted in a few decades, and the environmental damage they cause, the development and effective use of renewable energy sources is considered a critical solution option. Because it appears that humanity will struggle to give up its existing level of comfort or lower its energy use. The importance of energy efficiency, diversification of renewable energy sources, raising societal awareness, unity in global sustainable environmental policies, aiding societies that are falling behind in achieving welfare and fighting poverty and focusing on energy savings emerge at this point. A strong will and community support will be necessary to adopt and implement these policies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Ahmet Aytekin, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Artvin Çoruh University, 08100, Hopa, Artvin, Turkey

Ahmet Aytekin is a researcher at Artvin Çoruh University, the Hopa Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, the Business Administration Department, Turkey. Dr. Ahmet Aytekin obtained his MSc and PhD degrees in Quantitative Methods from Anadolu University in Eskişehir, Turkey. His research interest includes the fields of decision analysis, multi-criteria decision-making, fuzzy set theory, multivariate statistical analysis, and data analysis. Dr. Aytekin has also been serving on the review and editorial board for several international journals. He has published many research papers in indexed journals and books.

References

Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy, environment and sustainable development. Appl Energy 1999; 64: 427–440.

Omer AM. Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008; 12: 2265–2300.

Thiam DR. Renewable energy, poverty alleviation and developing nations: Evidence from Senegal. J Energy South Afr 2011; 22: 23–34.

Dale BE, Ong RG. Energy, wealth, and human development: why and how biomass pretreatment research must improve. Biotechnol Prog 2012; 28: 893–898.

Majid MA. Renewable energy for sustainable development in India: current status, future prospects, challenges, employment, and investment opportunities. Energy Sustain Soc 2020; 10: 1–36.

Rees WE. Achieving sustainability: reform or transformation? J Plan Lit 1995; 9: 343–361.

Cook PJ. Sustainability and nonrenewable resources. Environ Geosci 1999; 6: 185–190.

Goldemberg J. World energy assessment. Energy and the challenge of sustainability.

Chappells H, Shove E. Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment. Build Res Inf 2005; 33: 32–40.

Rosen MA. Energy sustainability: A pragmatic approach and illustrations. Sustainability 2009; 1: 55–80.

Çakır S. An integrated approach to machine selection problem using fuzzy SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design. J Intell Manuf 2018; 29: 1433–1445.

Jorgenson AK, Alekseyko A, Giedraitis V. Energy consumption, human well-being and economic development in central and eastern European nations: A cautionary tale of sustainability. Energy Policy 2014; 66: 419–427.

Dincer I, Acar C. A review on clean energy solutions for better sustainability. Int J Energy Res 2015; 39: 585–606.

Sarkodie SA, Adams S. Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Sci Total Environ. Epub ahead of print 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.320.

Qazi A, Hussain F, Rahim NA, et al. Towards sustainable energy: a systematic review of renewable energy sources, technologies, and public opinions. IEEE Access 2019; 7: 63837–63851.

Asongu SA, Agboola MO, Alola AA, et al. The criticality of growth, urbanization, electricity and fossil fuel consumption to environment sustainability in Africa. Sci Total Environ 2020; 712: 136376.

Armin Razmjoo A, Sumper A, Davarpanah A. Energy sustainability analysis based on SDGs for developing countries. Energy Sources Part Recovery Util Environ Eff 2020; 42: 1041–1056.

Bekun FV, Yalçiner K, Etokakpan MU, et al. Renewed evidence of environmental sustainability from globalization and energy consumption over economic growth in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2020; 27: 29644–29658.

Zhang X, Zhang M, Zhang H, et al. A review on energy, environment and economic assessment in remanufacturing based on life cycle assessment method. J Clean Prod 2020; 255: 120160.

Shakib M, Yumei H, Rauf A, et al. Revisiting the energy-economy-environment relationships for attaining environmental sustainability: evidence from Belt and Road Initiative countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021; 1–18.

Narayanamoorthy S, Annapoorani V, Kang D, et al. A novel assessment of bio-medical waste disposal methods using integrating weighting approach and hesitant fuzzy MOOSRA. J Clean Prod 2020; 275: 122587.

Das MC, Sarkar B, Ray S. On the performance of Indian technical institutions: a combined SOWIA-MOORA approach. Opsearch 2013; 50: 319–333.

Gupta D, Ahlawat A. Usability evaluation of live auction portal. Int J Control Theory Appl 2016; 9: 491–499.

Sreekumar V, Rajmohan M. Supply chain strategy decisions for sustainable development using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach. Sustain Dev 2019; 27: 50–60.

Mishra AR, Rani P, Saha A. Single-valued neutrosophic similarity measure-based additive ratio assessment framework for optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station. Int J Intell Syst 2021; 36: 5573–5604.

Gündoğdu HG, Aytekin A. Vatandaşların kamu yönetimine güveni: Ampirik bir araştırma. İktisadi ve İdari Bilim Teori ve Araştırmalar II 2020; 1: 297–338. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16652002.v2

Aytekin A, Durucasu H. Çok kriterli karar problemlerine yönelik yeni bir ölçek: Aralıklı ve aşamalı tercih-önem ölçeği. In: Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Teori ve Araştırmalar. Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı, 2020, pp. 453–474. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16651900.v1

Wu H-W, Zhen J, Zhang J. Urban rail transit operation safety evaluation based on an improved CRITIC method and cloud model. J Rail Transp Plan Manag 2020; 16: 100206.

Wei G, Lei F, Lin R, et al. Algorithms for probabilistic uncertain linguistic multiple attribute group decision making based on the GRA and CRITIC method: application to location planning of electric vehicle charging stations. Econ Res-Ekon Istraživanja 2020; 33: 828–846.

Wang S, Wei G, Lu J, et al. GRP and CRITIC method for probabilistic uncertain linguistic MAGDM and its application to site selection of hospital constructions. Soft Comput 2022; 26: 237–251.

Aytekin A. Evaluation of the financial performance of tourism companies traded in BIST via a hybrid MCDM model. Int J Appl Res Manag Econ 2019; 2: 20–32.

Lai H, Liao H. A multi-criteria decision making method based on DNMA and CRITIC with linguistic D numbers for blockchain platform evaluation. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2021; 101: 104200.

Peng X, Zhang X, Luo Z. Pythagorean fuzzy MCDM method based on CoCoSo and CRITIC with score function for 5G industry evaluation. Artif Intell Rev 2020; 53: 3813–3847.

Puška A, Nedeljković M, Prodanović R, et al. Market Assessment of Pear Varieties in Serbia Using Fuzzy CRADIS and CRITIC Methods. Agriculture 2022; 12: 139.

Puška A, Stević Ž, Pamuèar D. Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environ Dev Sustain 2021; 1–31.

Ouhibi A, Frikha HM. Evaluating environmental quality in Tunisia using Fuzzy CODAS SORT method. In: 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1115–1119.

Aytekin A. CODAS-Sort ve çok boyutlu ölçekleme analizi ile illerin girişimcilik sınıflandırması. Sakarya: Sakarya University, pp. 411–421. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16652053.v1

Ouhibi A, Frikha H. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy CODAS-SORT method: Evaluation of natural resources in Tunisia. In: 2020 International Multi-Conference on:“Organization of Knowledge and Advanced Technologies”(OCTA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–5.

Ouhibi A, Frikha HM. An intuitionistic fuzzy extension of the codas-sort method. Mult Criteria Decis Mak 2021; 16: 110–121.

Mukhametzyanov I. Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 2021; 4: 76–105.

Žižović M, Miljković B, Marinković D. Objective methods for determining criteria weight coefficients: A modification of the CRITIC method. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 2020; 3: 149–161.

Aytekin A. Efficiency and performance analyses of food companies via IDOCRIW, REF-II, and OCRA methods. In: Business Studies and New Approaches. Lyon: Livre de Lyon, pp. 7–24. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16669432.v1

Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Comput Oper Res 1995; 22: 763–770.

Aytekin A. Çok kriterli karar problemine uzaklık ve referans temelli çözüm yaklaşımı. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, https://openaccess.artvin.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11494/2558 (2020).

Aytekin A. Comparative Analysis of the Normalization Techniques in the Context of MCDM Problems. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 2021; 4: 1–25.

Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, et al. A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res; 50.

Ouhibi A, Frikha H. CODAS-SORT: A new CODAS based method for sorting problems. In: 6th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT). IEEE, 2019, pp. 855–860.

EPI. Environmental performance index. Yale Univ Columbia Univ N Hav CT USA, https://epi.yale.edu/ (2022).

UN. UNSD Environmental Indicators. Environ Stat, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envstats/qindicators.cshtml (2022).

World Bank. The World Bank Databank. Environ Data, https://databank.worldbank.org/home.aspx (2022).

Ahmed S, Islam MT, Karim MA, et al. Exploitation of renewable energy for sustainable development and overcoming power crisis in Bangladesh. Renew Energy 2014; 72: 223–235.

Al-Mulali U, Sab CNBC. The impact of energy consumption and CO2 emission on the economic growth and financial development in the Sub Saharan African countries. Energy 2012; 39: 180–186.

Alola AA, Bekun FV, Sarkodie SA. Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci Total Environ 2019; 685: 702–709.

Bubna-Litic K, Stoianoff NP. Carbon pricing and renewable energy innovation: A comparison of Australian, British and Canadian carbon pricing policies. Bubna-Litic Karen Stoianoff Natalie 2014Carbon Pricing Renew Energy Innov Comp Aust Br Can Carbon Pricing Policies Environ Plan Law J 2014; 31: 368–384.

Ikram M, Zhang Q, Sroufe R, et al. Towards a sustainable environment: The nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy consumption, access to electricity, agriculture and CO2 emissions in SAARC countries. Sustain Prod Consum 2020; 22: 218–230.

Sarkodie SA, Strezov V. Empirical study of the environmental Kuznets curve and environmental sustainability curve hypothesis for Australia, China, Ghana and USA. J Clean Prod 2018; 201: 98–110.

Sovacool BK. Contestation, contingency, and justice in the Nordic low-carbon energy transition. Energy Policy 2017; 102: 569–582.

Sovacool BK, Noel L, Kester J, et al. Reviewing Nordic transport challenges and climate policy priorities: Expert perceptions of decarbonisation in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden. Energy 2018; 165: 532–542.

Erataş F, Uysal D. Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi yaklaşımının “BRICT” ülkeleri kapsamında değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecm 2014; 64: 1–25.

Akram R, Chen F, Khalid F, et al. Heterogeneous effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on carbon emissions: evidence from developing countries. J Clean Prod 2020; 247: 119122.

Aytekin A, Durucasu H. Nearest solution to references method for multicriteria decision-making problems. Decis Sci Lett 2021; 10: 111–128.

Biswas T, Chatterjee P, Choudhuri B. Selection of commercially available alternative passenger vehicle in automotive environment. Oper Res Eng Sci Theory Appl 2020; 3: 16–27.

Faraji Sabokbar H, Hosseini A, Banaitis A, et al. A novel sorting method TOPSIS-SORT: an applicaiton for Tehran environmental quality evaluation.

de Lima Silva DF, de Almeida Filho AT. Sorting with TOPSIS through boundary and characteristic profiles. Comput Ind Eng 2020; 141: 106328.

Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 2010; 16: 159–172.

Stević Ž, Pamuèar D, Puška A, et al. Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Comput Ind Eng 2020; 140: 106231.

Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In: Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems no. 186: Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, 1981, pp. 58–191.

Yazdani M, Zarate P, Zavadskas EK, et al. A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag Decis.

Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, et al. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektron Ir Elektrotechnika 2012; 122: 3–6.

Published
2022-05-25
Section
Data driven strategic decision making models for renewable & sustainable energy