Kuşak Yol Ülkelerinin Lojistik ve Çevresel Performansının Analizi

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Kuşak Yol ülkelerinin çevresel ve lojistik performansını Lojistik Performans Endeksi(LPI) ve Çevresel Performans Endeksi (EPI) alt kriterleri kapsamında bütünleşik Entropi-TOPSISyöntemleriyle değerlendirmektir. Araştırmada 2013 yılında oluşturulan Kuşak Yol projesi kapsamında yıllıkbeş yüz bin TEU konteyner elleçleyen ülkelerin 2014, 2016 ve 2018 yılları Lojistik Performans Endeksi (LPI)ve Çevre Performans Endeks (EPI) raporlarında yer alan alt kriter puanlarına göre çevresel ve lojistikperformansının değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Çevresel ve lojistik performans değerlendirmesi sonucuna göre2014 yılında Singapur, 2016 ve 2018 yılında Yunanistan ilk sırada yer alarak en iyi çevresel ve lojistikperformans gösteren ülkeler olmuştur. 2014 yılında Singapur, Slovenya, Portekiz Yunanistan, Myanmar,İtalya, Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri, İsrail ve Kuveyt, 2016 yılında Yunanistan, İtalya, Romanya, Rusya, Ukrayna,Portekiz, Slovenya, Filipinler, Lübnan, Tayland, İsrail, Kenya, Malezya, Türkiye ve Cezayir ve 2018 yılındaYunanistan, İtalya, Romanya, Rusya, İsrail, Portekiz, Kuveyt, Malezya, Lübnan, Singapur, Birleşik ArapEmirlikleri, Mısır ve Cezayir çevresel ve lojistik performans değerlendirmesinde başarılı ülkeler olduğubelirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, 2014 yılında Çin, Hong Kong, Hindistan, Kenya, Pakistan ve Filipinler, 2016 yılındaMyanmar ve Pakistan ve 2018 yılında Pakistan ve Hindistan çevresel ve lojistik performansdeğerlendirmesinde başarısız ülkeler olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmada 2014 yılında hava kalitesi,2016 yılında su ve sanitasyon, 2018 yılında su kaynakları en yüksek puanlı kriterler ve 2014, 2016 ve 2018yılları için gümrük kontrol işlemlerinin verimliliği en düşük puanlı kriter olduğu görülmüştür.

An Analysis Of The Logistics And Environmental Performance Of Bri Countries

The aim of this research is to evaluate the environmental and logistics performance of Belt and Road countries through integrated Entropy-TOPSIS methods within the scope of Logistics Performance Index (LPI) and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) sub-criteria. In the research, the environmental and logistics performance of the countries that handle five hundred thousand TEU containers annually within the scope of the Belt Road project created in 2013 was evaluated according to the sub-criteria scores of the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) reports for the years 2014, 2016 and 2018. According to the results of the environmental and logistics performance evaluation, Singapore in 2014 and Greece in 2016 and 2018 ranked first among the countries with the best environmental and logistics performance. Singapore, Slovenia, Portugal Greece, Myanmar, Italy, United Arab Emirates, Israel and Kuwait in 2014, Greece, Italy, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Portugal, Slovenia, Philippines, Lebanon, Thailand, Israel, Kenya, Malaysia, Turkey in 2016 and Algeria, and in 2018, Greece, Italy, Romania, Russia, Israel, Portugal, Kuwait, Malaysia, Lebanon, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Algeria were determined to be successful countries in environmental and logistics performance evaluation. In addition, it was concluded that China, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Philippines in 2014, Myanmar and Pakistan in 2016 and Pakistan and India in 2018 were unsuccessful countries in environmental and logistics performance evaluation. In the research, it was seen that air quality in 2014, water and sanitation in 2016, water resources in 2018 were the highest scoring criteria, and the efficiency of customs control transactions for 2014, 2016 and 2018 were the lowest scoring criteria

PDF

___

Aboul-Dahab, K. ve Ibrahim, M. A. (2020). Investigating the efficiency of the logistics performance index (LPI) weighting system using the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method, International Journal of Science and Research, 9, 269-277.
Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C. ve Darbra, R. M. (2016). Identification of occupational health, safety, security (OHSS) and environmental performance ındicators ın port areas, Safety Science, 85, 266–275.
Ayçin, E. ve Çakın, E. (2019). Ülkelerin çevresel performanslarının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve bulanık mantık tabanlı bir yaklaşım ile bütünleşik olarak değerlendirilmesi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 631-656.
Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V. ve Antomil-Ibias, J. (2014). Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds. Omega, 49, 1-17.
BRI Big Data Report. (2017). Big Data Report of the Trade Cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative. Erişim Tarihi: 15. 02. 2021, https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/qwyw/rdxw/2201.htm.
Cansız, Ö. F. ve Ünsalan, K. (2020). Yapay zekâ ve istatistiksel yöntemler ile küresel ticarette rekabet ölçütü olan lojistik performans endeksine (LPI) etken parametrelerin ülke bazlı incelenmesi ve tahmin modellerinin geliştirilmesi, Fırat Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 32(2), 571-582.
Çakır, S. (2017). Measuring logistics performance of OECD countries via fuzzy linear regression, Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 24(3-4), 177-186.
Deng, H., Yeh, C. H., Willis, R. J. (2000), Inter-company comparison using modified topsis with objective weights, Computers and Operations Research, 27, 963–973.
Dianawati, F. ve Perdana, W. S. (2019). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and topsıs for designing green public procurement indicator on trans-java toll rest area, In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering, 237- 242.
EPI, (2020b). Environmental performance index 2020 report, Erişim Tarihi: 22. 02. 2021, https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/epi2020report20210112.pdf
EPI, (2021a). Environmental performance index rankings, Erişim Tarihi: 10. 02. 2021, www.epi.yale.edu
EPI, (2021c). About the environmental performance index, Erişim Tarihi: 22. 02. 2021, https://epi.yale.edu/about-epi
ESI, (2021). Environmental sustainability index, Erişim Tarihi: 11. 06. 2021, https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/esi
Gallego-Alvarez, I., Vicente-Galindo, M., Galindo-Villardón, M. ve Rodríguez-Rosa, M. (2014). Environmental performance in countries worldwide: determinant factors and multivariate analysis, Sustainability, 6(11), 7807-7832.
Jin, H., Qian, X., Chin, T. ve Zhang, H. (2020). A global assessment of sustainable development based on modification of the human development index via the entropy method, Sustainability, 12(8), 3251.
Karaköy, Ç. ve Ölmez, U. (2019). Balkan ülkelerinde lojistik performans endeksi değerlendirilmesi, SETSCI Conference Proceedings 4 (8), 178-180.
Kumar, S. ve Barman, A. G. (2021). Fuzzy TOPSIS and FUZZY vıkor ın selecting green suppliers for sponge ıron and steel manufacturing, Soft Computing, 25(8), 6505-6525.
Li, W., Xi, Y., Liu, S., Q., Li, M., Chen, L., Wu, X. ve Masoud, M. (2020). An ımproved evaluation framework for industrial green development: considering the underlying conditions, Ecological Indicators, 112, 106044.
LPI, (2021). Logistics performance index rankings, Erişim Tarihi: 09. 02. 2021, https://lpi.worldbank.org/
Mercangoz, B. A., Yildirim, B. F. ve Yildirim, S. K. (2020). Time period based COPRAS-G method: application on the logistics performance index, LogForum, 16(2).
Oğuz S., Alkan, G. Ve Yılmaz, B. (2019). Seçilmiş Asya ülkelerinin lojistik performanslarının TOPSIS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi, IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 497-507.
Ozmen, M. (2019). Logistics competitiveness of OECD countries using an improved TODIM method, Sādhanā, 44(5), 108.
Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S. ve Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using best worst method, Transport Policy, 68, 158-169.
Sahin, A. ve Pehlivan, N. Y. (2017). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods: a case study of the countries’ environmental performance index, In 3rd Internatıonal Researchers, Statıstıcıans And Young Statıstıcıans Congress.
Stojanović, I. ve Puška, A. (2021). Logistics performances of gulf cooperation council’s countries in global supply chainsi Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 174-193.
Tang, J., Zhu, H. L., Liu, Z., Jia, F. ve Zheng, X. X. (2019). Urban sustainability evaluation under the modified TOPSIS based on grey relational analysis. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health, 16(2), 256.
Tian, R., Yang, Z. ve Shao, Q. (2019). China’s arable land ınvestment in the “belt and road” region: an empirical study of overseas arable land resources, Sustainability, 12(1), 1-1.
Ulutaş A. ve Karaköy, C. (2019). An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model, Economics and Business Review, 5(4), 49- 69.
Ulutaş, A. ve Karaköy, Ç. (2021). Evaluation of LPI values of transition economies countries with a grey MCDM model. In Handbook of Research on Applied AI for International Business and Marketing Applications, 499-511, IGI Global.
Ustalı, N. K. ve Tosun, Ö. (2020). Investıgatıon of logıstıc performance of G-20 countries using data envelopment analysis and malmquist total factor productivity analysis, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (3), 755-781.
Worldbank, (2021). About the logistic performance index, Erişim Tarihi: 11. 02. 2021, https://lpi.worldbank.org/about
Yalçın, B. ve Ayvaz, B. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile lojistik performansın değerlendirilmesi, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(38), 117-138.
Yildirim, B. F. ve Mercangoz, B. A. (2020). Evaluating the logistics performance of OECD countries by using Fuzzy AHP and ARAS-G, Eurasian Economic Review, 10(1), 27-45.
Zheng, B. ve Bedra, K. B. (2018). Recent sustainability performance in China: strengthweakness analysis and ranking of provincial cities, Sustainability, 10(9), 3063.