Energy, Environment, and Sustainability: A Multi-criteria Evaluation of Countries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13052/spee1048-5236.4133Keywords:
Sustainability, energy, 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
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
; 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
; 9: 343–361.
Cook PJ. Sustainability and nonrenewable resources. Environ Geosci
; 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.
A. Aytekin
Rosen MA. Energy sustainability: A pragmatic approach and illustra-
tions. Sustainability 2009; 1: 55–80.
C ̧ akır S. An integrated approach to machine selection problem using
fuzzy SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design. J Intell Manuf 2018;
: 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:
–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 environ-
mental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South
Africa. Sci Total Environ. Epub ahead of print 2018. DOI: https://doi.or
g/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, Yalc ̧iner K, Etokakpan MU, et al. Renewed evidence of
environmental sustainability from globalization and energy consump-
tion over economic growth in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2020; 27:
–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
; 1–18.
Narayanamoorthy S, Annapoorani V, Kang D, et al. A novel assess-
ment of bio-medical waste disposal methods using integrating weighting
approach and hesitant fuzzy MOOSRA. J Clean Prod 2020; 275:
Energy, Environment, and Sustainability 311
Das MC, Sarkar B, Ray S. On the performance of Indian technical
institutions: a combined SOWIA-MOORA approach. Opsearch 2013;
: 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 sus-
tainable 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:
–5604.
G ̈undo ̆gdu HG, Aytekin A. Vatandas ̧ların kamu y ̈onetimine g ̈uveni:
Ampirik bir aras ̧tırma. ̇Iktisadi ve ̇Idari Bilim Teori ve Aras ̧tırmalar II
; 1: 297–338. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16652002.v2
Aytekin A, Durucasu H. C ̧ ok kriterli karar problemlerine y ̈onelik
yeni bir ̈olc ̧ek: Aralıklı ve as ̧amalı tercih- ̈onem ̈olc ̧e ̆gi. In: Sosyal ve
Bes ̧erˆı Bilimlerde Teori ve Aras ̧tırmalar. Ankara: Gece Kitaplı ̆gı, 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 Istraˇzivanja 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 compa-
nies 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.
A. Aytekin
Puˇska A, Nedeljkovi ́c M, Prodanovi ́c R, et al. Market Assessment of
Pear Varieties in Serbia Using Fuzzy CRADIS and CRITIC Methods.
Agriculture 2022; 12: 139.
Puˇska A, Stevi ́c ˇZ, Pamu`ear 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–
Aytekin A. CODAS-Sort ve c ̧ok boyutlu ̈olc ̧ekleme analizi ile illerin
giris ̧imcilik 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 Interna-
tional 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 deter-
mining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and
SD. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 2021; 4: 76–105.
ˇZiˇzovi ́c M, Miljkovi ́c B, Marinkovi ́c D. Objective methods for determin-
ing 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. C ̧ ok kriterli karar problemine uzaklık ve referans temelli
c ̧ ̈oz ̈um yaklas ̧ımı. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu ̈Universitesi, https://openac
cess.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:
–25.
Energy, Environment, and Sustainability 313
Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, et al. A new com-
binative 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.o
rg/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;
: 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 Pric-
ing 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.
A. Aytekin
Sovacool BK, Noel L, Kester J, et al. Reviewing Nordic transport
challenges and climate policy priorities: Expert perceptions of decarbon-
isation in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden. Energy 2018;
: 532–542.
Eratas ̧ F, Uysal D. C ̧ evresel Kuznets e ̆grisi yaklas ̧ımının “BRICT”
̈ulkeleri kapsamında de ̆gerlendirilmesi. ̇Istanbul ̈Universitesi ̇Iktisat
Fak ̈ultesi 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–
Biswas T, Chatterjee P, Choudhuri B. Selection of commercially avail-
able 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:
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS)
method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 2010;
: 159–172.
Stevi ́c ˇZ, Pamu`ear D, Puˇska A, et al. Sustainable supplier selection
in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement
of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MAR-
COS). 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 Compro-
mise 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 Elektrotech-
nika 2012; 122: 3–6
https://aeeeuropeenergy.com/