IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i14p6527-d1703234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Turkiye’s Carbon Emission Profile: A Global Analysis with the MEREC-PROMETHEE Hybrid Method

Author

Listed:
  • İrem Pelit

    (International Trade and Logistic, Çağ University, Mersin 33800, Türkiye)

  • İlker İbrahim Avşar

    (Department of Management and Organization, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Osmaniye 80000, Türkiye)

Abstract

This study conducts a comparative evaluation of Turkiye’s carbon emission profile from both sectoral and global perspectives. Utilizing 2022 data from 76 countries, it applies two widely recognized multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: MEREC, for determining objective weights of criteria, and PROMETHEE II, for ranking countries based on these criteria. All data used in the analysis were obtained from the World Bank, a globally recognized and credible statistical source. The study evaluates seven criteria, including carbon emissions from the energy, transport, industry, and residential sectors, along with GDP-related indicators. The results indicate that Turkiye’s carbon emissions, particularly from industry, transport, and energy, are substantially higher than the global average. Moreover, countries with higher levels of industrialization generally rank lower in environmental performance, highlighting a direct relationship between industrial activity and increased carbon emissions. According to PROMETHEE II rankings, Turkiye falls into the lower-middle tier among the assessed countries. In light of these findings, the study suggests that Turkiye should implement targeted, sector-specific policy measures to reduce emissions. The research aims to provide policymakers with a structured, data-driven framework that aligns with the country’s broader sustainable development goals. MEREC was selected for its ability to produce unbiased criterion weights, while PROMETHEE II was chosen for its capacity to deliver clear and meaningful comparative rankings, making both methods highly suitable for evaluating environmental performance. This study also offers a broader analysis of how selected countries compare in terms of their carbon emissions. As carbon emissions remain one of the most pressing environmental challenges in the context of global warming and climate change, ranking countries based on emission levels serves both to support scientific inquiry and to increase international awareness. By relying on recent 2022 data, the study offers a timely snapshot of the global carbon emission landscape. Alongside its contribution to public awareness, the findings are expected to support policymakers in developing effective environmental strategies. Ultimately, this research contributes to the academic literature and lays a foundation for more sustainable environmental policy development.

Suggested Citation

  • İrem Pelit & İlker İbrahim Avşar, 2025. "Turkiye’s Carbon Emission Profile: A Global Analysis with the MEREC-PROMETHEE Hybrid Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-22, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6527-:d:1703234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6527/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6527/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiangwen Xue & Qi Zhang & Xinyu Cai & Vadim V. Ponkratov, 2023. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Alternative Energy Sources in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Saraswat, S.K. & Digalwar, Abhijeet K., 2021. "Evaluation of energy alternatives for sustainable development of energy sector in India: An integrated Shannon’s entropy fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 58-74.
    3. Dan Peng, 2024. "Comprehensive Analysis Using Probabilistic Linguistic Group Decision-Making and MEREC Technique With Sustainable Development Evaluation in Higher Education," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global Scientific Publishing, vol. 16(1), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Spuler, Fiona & Stern, Nicholas, 2022. "The economics of climate change with endogenous preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    5. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    6. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    7. Tao Li & Ang Li & Yimiao Song, 2021. "Development and Utilization of Renewable Energy Based on Carbon Emission Reduction—Evaluation of Multiple MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Soytas, Ugur & Sari, Ramazan, 2009. "Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: Challenges faced by an EU candidate member," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1667-1675, April.
    10. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    11. Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh & Silvio Aldrovandi & Willy Sher, 2025. "A Systematic Review of Implementing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approaches for the Circular Economy and Cost Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-24, May.
    12. Ibrahim M. Hezam & Arunodaya Raj Mishra & Pratibha Rani & Fausto Cavallaro & Abhijit Saha & Jabir Ali & Wadim Strielkowski & Dalia Štreimikienė, 2022. "A Hybrid Intuitionistic Fuzzy-MEREC-RS-DNMA Method for Assessing the Alternative Fuel Vehicles with Sustainability Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-32, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hatice Handan Oztemiz & Kemal Vatansever & Tuba Bayraktar, 2025. "Sustainable Financial Performance Analysis of Logistics Companies Listed on Borsa Istanbul: An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-26, October.

    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. Tsuen-Ho Hsu & Ling-Zhong Lin, 2014. "Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 299-323, March.
    2. Ishizaka, Alessio & Lokman, Banu & Tasiou, Menelaos, 2021. "A Stochastic Multi-criteria divisive hierarchical clustering algorithm," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    4. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    5. Mahmut Baydaş & Orhan Emre Elma & Željko Stević, 2024. "Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, December.
    6. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    7. Marcio Pereira Basilio & Valdecy Pereira & Fatih Yigit, 2023. "New Hybrid EC-Promethee Method with Multiple Iterations of Random Weight Ranges: Applied to the Choice of Policing Strategies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-34, October.
    8. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    9. Rahimdel, Mohammad Javad & Noferesti, Hossein, 2020. "Investment preferences of Iran's mineral extraction sector with a focus on the productivity of the energy consumption, water and labor force," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Evangelos-Nikolaos D. Madias & Lambros T. Doulos & Panagiotis A. Kontaxis & Frangiskos V. Topalis, 2022. "Multicriteria decision aid analysis for the optimum performance of an ambient light sensor: methodology and case study," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1333-1361, April.
    11. Morteza Akbari & Hadi Memarian & Ehsan Neamatollahi & Masoud Jafari Shalamzari & Mohammad Alizadeh Noughani & Dawood Zakeri, 2021. "Prioritizing policies and strategies for desertification risk management using MCDM–DPSIR approach in northeastern Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2503-2523, February.
    12. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    13. Chrysovalantis Gaganis, 2016. "Assessing the overall performance of microfinance institutions," International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 52-83.
    14. Barbosa, Ailson de Souza & Shayani, Rafael Amaral & Oliveira, Marco Aurélio Gonçalves de, 2018. "A multi-criteria decision analysis method for regulatory evaluation of electricity distribution service quality," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 38-48.
    15. Jeong, Jin Su, 2018. "Design of spatial PGIS-MCDA-based land assessment planning for identifying sustainable land-use adaptation priorities for climate change impacts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 61-71.
    16. Lucia Della Spina & Cristina Lanteri, 2024. "A Collaborative Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for the Adaptive Reuse Design of Disused Railways," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-25, June.
    17. Mohammad Nikoo & Nafise Khorramshokouh & Shahryar Monghasemi, 2015. "Optimal Design of Detention Rockfill Dams Using a Simulation-Based Optimization Approach with Mixed Sediment in the Flow," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(15), pages 5469-5488, December.
    18. József Dombi & Tamás Jónás, 2024. "Learning the weights using attribute order information for multi-criteria decision making tasks," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(4), pages 2379-2409, December.
    19. Luis C. Dias & Humberto Rocha, 2023. "A stochastic method for exploiting outranking relations in multicriteria choice problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 321(1), pages 165-189, February.
    20. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6527-:d:1703234. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.