IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/346649.html

An Experimental Factor Analysis Study Using SAW and TOPSIS to Select and Rank Organic Agriculture Cities in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Cal, Murat
  • Sahin, Ramazan

Abstract

The agriculture sector supports Turkey’s GDP portfolio economically and helps establish a sustainable labor force. Turkey has certain competitive advantages in terms of the organic production of agricultural goods like figs and hazelnuts. We conduct a factor analysis using Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods combined with a 3-level set (export volume, export value, and adequacy rate) to rank 32 candidate cities of Turkey where organic agriculture activities should be given more emphasis to support overall production and export rates. 18 different sets of importance values were used for this purpose and their combinatorial effects on candidate cities were analyzed. The factor analysis results show that the cities Izmir, Aydin, Adiyaman, Gaziantep, Agri, Mus, and Van have the highest potentials among all Turkish cities in both methods, while Sanliurfa also shows high potential for organic agriculture in the TOPSIS method.

Suggested Citation

  • Cal, Murat & Sahin, Ramazan, 2021. "An Experimental Factor Analysis Study Using SAW and TOPSIS to Select and Rank Organic Agriculture Cities in Turkey," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 12(02), June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:346649
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.346649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/346649/files/AN%20EXPERIMENTAL%20FACTOR%20ANALYSIS%20STUDY%20USING.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.346649?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lai, Young-Jou & Liu, Ting-Yun & Hwang, Ching-Lai, 1994. "TOPSIS for MODM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 486-500, August.
    2. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gokhan Ozkaya & Mehpare Timor & Ceren Erdin, 2021. "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Indicators and Comparisons of Countries through a Hybrid Model of Data Mining and MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-49, January.
    2. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    3. Aytekin, Ahmet & Korucuk, Selçuk & Görçün, Ömer Faruk, 2024. "Determining the factors affecting transportation demand management and selecting the best strategy: A case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 150-166.
    4. Chuanglin Fang & Bo Pang & Haimeng Liu, 2016. "Quantitative Study on the Dynamic Mechanism of Smart Low-Carbon City Development in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2016. "The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1097-1136, November.
    6. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    7. Mahmut MASCA, 2017. "Economic Performance Evaluation of European Union Countries by Topsis Method," North Economic Review, Technical University of Cluj Napoca, Department of Economics and Physics, vol. 1(1), pages 83-94, October.
    8. Kara, Karahan & Yalçın, Galip Cihan & Özekenci, Emre Kadir & Bilek, Günal & Simic, Vladimir & Tunçsiper, Çağatay & Pamucar, Dragan, 2026. "Promoting transition towards sustainable air transport systems: A hybrid decision support system for effective national-level performance evaluation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    9. Mohammad Reza Salehizadeh & Mahdi Amidi Koohbijari & Hassan Nouri & Akın Taşcıkaraoğlu & Ozan Erdinç & João P. S. Catalão, 2019. "Bi-Objective Optimization Model for Optimal Placement of Thyristor-Controlled Series Compensator Devices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Fishburn, Peter C. & LaValle, Irving H., 1996. "Binary interactions and subset choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 182-192, July.
    11. Carladous, Simon & Tacnet, Jean-Marc & Batton-Hubert, Mireille & Dezert, Jean & Marco, Olivier, 2019. "Managing protection in torrential mountain watersheds: A new conceptual integrated decision-aiding framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 464-479.
    12. Ishizaka, Alessio & Resce, Giuliano, 2021. "Best-Worst PROMETHEE method for evaluating school performance in the OECD's PISA project," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Willem K. M. Brauers, 2012. "Project Management for a Country with Multiple Objectives," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 6(1), pages 80-101, March.
    14. C. Veeramani & R. Venugopal & S. Muruganandan, 2023. "An Exploration of the Fuzzy Inference System for the Daily Trading Decision and Its Performance Analysis Based on Fuzzy MCDM Methods," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 62(3), pages 1313-1340, October.
    15. Willem Karel M. Brauers & Romualdas Ginevičius, 2009. "Robustness in regional development studies. The case of Lithuania," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 121-140, February.
    16. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    17. Tomasz Szul & Krzysztof Nęcka & Stanisław Lis, 2021. "Application of the Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Modeling to Forecast Energy Efficiency in Real Buildings Undergoing Thermal Improvement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Alireza Valipour & Hadi Sarvari & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2018. "Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, December.
    19. Martin Kügemann & Heracles Polatidis, 2019. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    20. Barak, Sasan & Javanmard, Shima, 2020. "Outsourcing modelling using a novel interval-valued fuzzy quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) and multiple criteria decision-making (MCDMs)," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:346649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/centmde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.