IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fis/journl/230118.html

Environmental Performance: Evidence From Level-2 Regions

Author

Listed:
  • Zekiye ÖRTLEK
  • Cuma DEMÄ°RTAÅž
  • Munise ILIKKAN ÖZGÃœR

Abstract

The aim of this study is to calculate the environmental performance of the Level-2 regions spanning the period between 2009 and 2020, and make policy recommendations in line with relevant findings. Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods are applied for this evaluation, in which total electricity consumption per capita and number of ventures in agriculture, forestry, fishery and water supply are used as indicators. Initially, the weights of the aforementioned criteria are calculated via the Entropy method, one of the MCDM techniques. Then, the environmental performance ranking of the Level-2 Region is derived through the ARAS method. Findings show that the criterion with the highest weight is electricity consumption per capita, whereas the one with the lowest weight is water supply. In addition, ARAS method posit that while TR10 (Istanbul) performs the best among the sample, TR81 (Zonguldak, Karabük, Bartın) ranks last.

Suggested Citation

  • Zekiye ÖRTLEK & Cuma DEMÄ°RTAÅž & Munise ILIKKAN ÖZGÃœR, 2023. "Environmental Performance: Evidence From Level-2 Regions," Fiscaoeconomia, Tubitak Ulakbim JournalPark (Dergipark), issue 1.
    • Handle: RePEc:fis:journl:230118
    DOI: 10.25295/fsecon.1160081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2588452
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.25295/fsecon.1160081?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. Diaz-Balteiro, Luis & Romero, Carlos, 2004. "In search of a natural systems sustainability index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 401-405, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Mao, Ning & Song, Mengjie & Deng, Shiming, 2016. "Application of TOPSIS method in evaluating the effects of supply vane angle of a task/ambient air conditioning system on energy utilization and thermal comfort," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 536-545.
    4. Al-Tuwaijri, Sulaiman A. & Christensen, Theodore E. & Hughes, K. II, 2004. "The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(5-6), pages 447-471.
    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. N. Aktaş & N. Demirel, 2021. "A hybrid framework for evaluating corporate sustainability using multi-criteria decision making," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 15591-15618, October.
    2. Nurlan Orazalin & Mady Baydauletov, 2020. "Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: The moderating role of board gender diversity," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1664-1676, July.
    3. Haozhe Song & Gunnar Rimmel, 2025. "Debtholders' reaction to sustainability reporting regulations: International evidence," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 88-115, January.
    4. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    5. Omaima A.G. Hassan & Peter Romilly, 2018. "Relations between corporate economic performance, environmental disclosure and greenhouse gas emissions: New insights," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 893-909, November.
    6. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," 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. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    8. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Geert Braam & Florian Habermann & Sam Drissen, 2025. "CSR Decoupling and Assurance of CSR Reports: Do Combinations of Level, Scope, and Assurance Provider Matter?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 8065-8081, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Jianlin Ren & Shasha Duan & Leihong Guo & Hongwan Li & Xiangfei Kong, 2022. "Effects of Return Air Inlets’ Location on the Control of Fine Particle Transportation in a Simulated Hospital Ward," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-21, September.
    12. Lu Zhang & Yuan George Shan & Millicent Chang, 2021. "Can CSR Disclosure Protect Firm Reputation During Financial Restatements?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 157-184, September.
    13. Mădălina Dumitru & Justyna Dyduch & Raluca-Gina Gușe & Joanna Krasodomska, 2017. "Corporate Reporting Practices in Poland and Romania – An Ex-ante Study to the New Non-financial Reporting European Directive," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 279-304, September.
    14. Rayenda Khresna Brahmana & Maria Kontesa, 2021. "Does clean technology weaken the environmental impact on the financial performance? Insight from global oil and gas companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3411-3423, November.
    15. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    16. Wabukala, Benard M. & Bergland, Olvar & Mukisa, Nicholas & Adaramola, Muyiwa S. & Watundu, Susan & Orobia, Laura A. & Rudaheranwa, Nichodemus, 2024. "Electricity security in Uganda: Measurement and policy priorities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Wei, Sen & Yang, Hanqing & Bai, Yu & Wang, Yuanqing, 2025. "Road safety assessment of small management units considering smart roadway retrofitting," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 28-41.
    18. Víctor Pérez & Alain Hernández & Flor Guerrero & María Amparo León & Christian Luiz Silva & Rafael Caballero, 2016. "Sustainability Ranking for Cuban Tourist Destinations Based on Composite Indexes," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(1), pages 425-444, October.
    19. Wong, Jin Boon & Zhang, Qin, 2022. "Stock market reactions to adverse ESG disclosure via media channels," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    20. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q10 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - General
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    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:fis:journl:230118. 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: Emre Atsan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://dergipark.org.tr/ .

    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.