IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v82y2023ics0301420723002192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Göçmen Polat, Elifcan
  • Yücesan, Melih
  • Gül, Muhammet

Abstract

The rapid development of innovative technologies, population growth, shifting resource management patterns, and decarbonization challenges are expected to increase the demand for raw materials labeled as critical in the following years. The increasing concerns have led to evaluate the critical raw materials (CRMs) with high economic importance and supply risk. In this context, this paper aims to develop a conceptual methodology to identify CRMs in Turkey. The methodology integrates a multi-criteria decision-making method (MCDM) to provide the raw material criticality matrix regarding various criteria, the EU (European Union) method, which represents supply risk and economic importance indicators, and the time series analysis method, in which dynamic evaluation of materials over time instead of the static indicators. We first provide a Bayesian Best-Worst method (B-BWM) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) based model for the criticality matrix, which enables evaluations of participated experts to be combined to reveal the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria from a probabilistic point of view without loss of knowledge. The main and sub-criteria include supply risk and economic importance, which are frequently studied in the literature, but also environment, price, secondary production, and socio-economic indicators are evaluated in the criticality matrix. Then, exponential smoothing forecast, one of the Time Series Analysis models, which determine the element criticality in the perspective of future years with the data of import figures of Turkey, is superior to the other models. Finally, with some modifications, the EU criticality methodology is used to quantify the raw materials regarding each material associated with the sector applications and their value-added and supply disruptions. Thus, a comprehensive criticality list integrating the results of the three mentioned methods is important because Turkey's raw materials characterize many sectors. The findings should also interest practitioners and researchers as the detailed assessment of raw material criticality ensures a sufficient database for future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:82:y:2023:i:c:s0301420723002192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420723002192
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103511?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. E. Graedel & Barbara K. Reck, 2016. "Six Years of Criticality Assessments: What Have We Learned So Far?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(4), pages 692-699, August.
    2. Blengini, Gian Andrea & Nuss, Philip & Dewulf, Jo & Nita, Viorel & Peirò, Laura Talens & Vidal-Legaz, Beatriz & Latunussa, Cynthia & Mancini, Lucia & Blagoeva, Darina & Pennington, David & Pellegrini,, 2017. "EU methodology for critical raw materials assessment: Policy needs and proposed solutions for incremental improvements," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 12-19.
    3. Glöser, Simon & Tercero Espinoza, Luis & Gandenberger, Carsten & Faulstich, Martin, 2015. "Raw material criticality in the context of classical risk assessment," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 35-46.
    4. Disna Eheliyagoda & Xianlai Zeng & Jinhui Li, 2020. "A method to assess national metal criticality: the environment as a foremost measurement," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Halit Serdar Saner & Melih Yucesan & Muhammet Gul, 2022. "A Bayesian BWM and VIKOR-based model for assessing hospital preparedness in the face of disasters," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(2), pages 1603-1635, March.
    6. Mehmet Balcilar & Gizem Uzuner & Chinazaekpere Nwani & Festus Victor Bekun, 2023. "Boosting Energy Efficiency in Turkey: The Role of Public–Private Partnership Investment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Hasan Mahbub Tusher & Ziaul Haque Munim & Theo E. Notteboom & Tae-Eun Kim & Salman Nazir, 2022. "Cyber security risk assessment in autonomous shipping," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(2), pages 208-227, June.
    8. Goe, Michele & Gaustad, Gabrielle, 2014. "Identifying critical materials for photovoltaics in the US: A multi-metric approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 387-396.
    9. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Ercan Kahya & Ayad M. Fadhil Al-Quraishi, 2020. "Application of SAW and TOPSIS in Prioritizing Watersheds," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 715-732, January.
    10. Christoph Helbig & Martin Bruckler & Andrea Thorenz & Axel Tuma, 2021. "An Overview of Indicator Choice and Normalization in Raw Material Supply Risk Assessments," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    11. Kim, Juhan & Lee, Jungbae & Kim, BumChoong & Kim, Jinsoo, 2019. "Raw material criticality assessment with weighted indicators: An application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 225-233.
    12. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    13. Pranith Kumar Roy & Krishnendu Shaw, 2022. "Developing a multi-criteria sustainable credit score system using fuzzy BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 5368-5399, April.
    14. Huang, Chun-Nen & Liou, James J.H. & Lo, Huai-Wei & Chang, Fu-Jung, 2021. "Building an assessment model for measuring airport resilience," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Wan-Chi Jackie Hsu & Huai-Wei Lo & Chin-Cheng Yang, 2021. "The Formulation of Epidemic Prevention Work of COVID-19 for Colleges and Universities: Priorities and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    18. Hayes, Sarah M. & McCullough, Erin A., 2018. "Critical minerals: A review of elemental trends in comprehensive criticality studies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 192-199.
    19. Longxiao Li & Xu Wang & Jafar Rezaei, 2020. "A Bayesian Best-Worst Method-Based Multicriteria Competence Analysis of Crowdsourcing Delivery Personnel," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-17, October.
    20. Mingliang Liang & Wenxuan Li & Jie Ji & Zhenxi Zhou & Yihang Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo & Chiranjibe Jana, 2022. "Evaluating the Comprehensive Performance of 5G Base Station: A Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Bayesian Best-Worst Method and DQ-GRA Technique," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2022, pages 1-15, January.
    21. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    22. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    23. Jen-Jen Yang & Yen-Ching Chuang & Huai-Wei Lo & Ting-I Lee, 2020. "A Two-Stage MCDM Model for Exploring the Influential Relationships of Sustainable Sports Tourism Criteria in Taichung City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-16, March.
    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. Christoph Helbig & Martin Bruckler & Andrea Thorenz & Axel Tuma, 2021. "An Overview of Indicator Choice and Normalization in Raw Material Supply Risk Assessments," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Clement Bonnet & Samuel Carcanague & Emmanuel Hache & Gondia Seck & Marine Simoën, 2019. "Vers une Géopolitique de l'énergie plus complexe ? Une analyse prospective tridimensionnelle de la transition énergétique," Working Papers hal-02971706, HAL.
    3. Emmanuel Hache & Samuel Carcanague & Clément Bonnet & Gondia Sokhna Seck & Marine Simoën, 2019. "Some geopolitical issues of the energy transition," Working Papers hal-03101697, HAL.
    4. Kim, Juhan & Lee, Jungbae & Kim, BumChoong & Kim, Jinsoo, 2019. "Raw material criticality assessment with weighted indicators: An application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 225-233.
    5. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    8. Marie K. Schellens & Johanna Gisladottir, 2018. "Critical Natural Resources: Challenging the Current Discourse and Proposal for a Holistic Definition," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-28, December.
    9. Fahim, Patrick B.M. & Rezaei, Jafar & Montreuil, Benoit & Tavasszy, Lorant, 2022. "Port performance evaluation and selection in the Physical Internet," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 83-94.
    10. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    11. Tavana, Madjid & Mina, Hassan & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2023. "A general Best-Worst method considering interdependency with application to innovation and technology assessment at NASA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    12. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    13. Yu, Shiwei & Duan, Haoran & Cheng, Jinhua, 2021. "An evaluation of the supply risk for China's strategic metallic mineral resources," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    14. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    15. Christine L. Thomas & Nedal T. Nassar & John H. DeYoung, 2022. "Assessing mineral supply concentration from different perspectives through a case study of zinc," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 35(3), pages 607-616, December.
    16. Burak Can Altay & Abdullah Erdem Boztas & Abdullah Okumuş & Muhammet Gul & Erkan Çelik, 2023. "How Will Autonomous Vehicles Decide in Case of an Accident? An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Best–Worst Method for Weighting the Criteria from Moral Values Point of View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    18. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Yousefi, Samuel, 2018. "An intelligent decision making approach for identifying and analyzing airport risks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 14-27.
    19. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.
    20. Aziz Naghizadeh Vardin & Ramin Ansari & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Romualdas Bausys, 2021. "An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-28, June.

    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:eee:jrpoli:v:82:y:2023:i:c:s0301420723002192. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    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.