Evaluation of Iran's Status in Terms of Sustainable Development Compared to Different Countries
Subject Areas : Industrial Management
مریم محبی
1
,
حسن دهقان دهنوی
2
,
حمید بابائی میبدی
3
,
مژده ربانی
4
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
Keywords: Sustainable development, desirable output, undesirable output, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA),
Abstract :
In the process of economic development and growth, as well as issues such as economic growth and human development, undesirable outcomes such as environmental pollution will also be important. Considering the application of the DEA method, it will be important to present a model based on this that, on the one hand, calculates and evaluates sustainable development and compares different countries in this regard, and on the other hand, considers undesirable outcomes. Therefore, in this study, by presenting a DEA-based model, considering undesirable outcomes, various countries were evaluated and compared in terms of sustainable development. In this study, efficiency results were presented for 42 developing and developed countries, and information analysis was also performed in GAMS software. The results showed that the countries of Great Britain, Germany, Finland, Japan, Denmark, the United States, and Canada were efficient in the period under consideration and have maintained this efficiency in this period. The countries mentioned were stable in terms of efficiency during the period under consideration and hence these countries are introduced as countries with sustainable development. The results of the study of Iran's efficiency compared to developing and developed countries showed that Iran was not on the efficiency frontier in any of the years under study, but over time, except for 2021, it has moved closer to the efficiency frontier.
References
1. Bodini, A., Bondavalli, C., & Allesina, S. (2012). Cities as ecosystems: growth, development and implications for sustainability. Ecological Modelling, 245, 185-198.
2. Campbell, D. E., & Garmestani, A. S. (2012). An energy systems view of sustainability: emergy evaluation of the San Luis Basin, Colorado. Journal of Environmental Management, 95(1), 72-97.
3. Cook, D., Saviolidis, N. M., Davíðsdóttir, B., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Ólafsson, S. (2017). Measuring countries’ environmental sustainability performance—The development of a nation-specific indicator set. Ecological Indicators, 74, 463-478.
4. Goodarzvand Chegini, M. (2013). Sustainable development; indicators and policy. World Politics, 4(2), 216-237.
5. Lemke, C., & Bastini, K. (2020). Embracing multiple perspectives of sustainable development in a composite measure: The Multilevel Sustainable Development Index. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118884.
6. Lin, S. W., Lo, H. W., & Gul, M. (2023). An assessment model for national sustainable development based on the hybrid DEA and modified TOPSIS techniques. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 1-18.
7. Mohammadi, M. (2013). Evaluation and ranking of sustainable development of selected oil countries using VIKOR and TOPSIS approach (Master's thesis, Ilam University, Faculty of Literature and Humanities).
8. Mohammadi Hamidi, S., & Sobhani, N. (2018). Evaluation of sustainable development indicators in the Middle East region with emphasis on Iran. Journal of Geographical Space Planning, 8(28), 99-114.
9. Olafsson, S., Cook, D., Davidsdottir, B., & Johannsdottir, L. (2014). Measuring countries׳ environmental sustainability performance–A review and case study of Iceland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 934-948.
10. Ou, C. H., & Liu, W. H. (2010). Developing a sustainable indicator system based on the pressure–state–response framework for local fisheries: A case study of Gungliau, Taiwan. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(5-6), 289-300.
11. Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6), 595-616.
12. Saremi Rasouli, B., Bafande Zende, A., & Nejaei, A. (2013). Presenting a sustainable industrial development model in the Aras Free Zone with a system dynamics approach. Modern Research in Decision Making, 6(4), 159-187.
13. Tang, C. S., & Zhou, S. (2012). Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations. European Journal of Operational Research, 223(3), 585-594.
14. Winfield, M., Gibson, R. B., Markvart, T., Gaudreau, K., & Taylor, J. (2010). Implications of sustainability assessment for electricity system design: The case of the Ontario Power Authority’s integrated power system plan. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4115-4126.
15. Yahaghi, E. (2018). Evaluation and clustering of Middle East countries based on sustainable development indicators (Master's thesis, Zand Institute of Higher Education).
16. Zamzam, F., Zare Ahmadabadi, H., Nasser Sadrabadi, A., & Marvati Sharifabadi, A. (2013). A new hybrid approach based on DFM data envelopment analysis with undesirable output and cluster analysis to assess sustainable development of countries. Modern Research in Decision Making, 7(2), 53-86.
17. Zhou, H., Yang, Y., Chen, Y., & Zhu, J. (2018). Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), 1-16.
