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. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    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)

    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. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    4. 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.
    5. Mahsa Ghandi & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Risk Management of Drinking Water Supply in Critical Conditions Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE V Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 595-615, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Ute Weißfloch & Jutta Geldermann, 2016. "Assessment of product-service systems for increasing the energy efficiency of compressed air systems," European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(3), pages 341-366.
    8. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Miller, Michael & Mattes, Katharina, 2014. "Demonstration of a multi-criteria based decision support framework for selecting PSS to increase resource efficiency," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    10. 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.
    11. Prasenjit Mandal & Leo Mrsic & Antonios Kalampakas & Tofigh Allahviranloo & Sovan Samanta, 2024. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making Based on TODIM and PROMETHEE II Approaches with Integrating Quantum Decision Theory and Linguistic Z Number in Renewable Energy Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, November.
    12. Mohammad Rahman & Lena Jaumann & Nils Lerche & Fabian Renatus & Ann Buchs & Rudolf Gade & Jutta Geldermann & Martin Sauter, 2015. "Selection of the Best Inland Waterway Structure: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2733-2749, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Önder Çağlayan & Murat Aymelek, 2024. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Support Model for Sustainable Ship Queuing Policy Application via Vessel Traffic Service (VTS)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-33, May.
    15. Irem Sarbat & Seren Ozmehmet Tasan, 2024. "Measuring sustainable ergonomics: A hybrid multi‐criteria perspective on ergonomics indicators," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 1037-1068, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Yunna Wu & Meng Yang & Haobo Zhang & Kaifeng Chen & Yang Wang, 2016. "Optimal Site Selection of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Based on a Cloud Model and the PROMETHEE Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-20, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    20. R. Pelissari & M. C. Oliveira & S. Ben Amor & A. Kandakoglu & A. L. Helleno, 2020. "SMAA methods and their applications: a literature review and future research directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 433-493, October.

    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.