Comment effectuer l’analyse comparative des unités d’administration locale en termes de la croissance durable – cas de la Pologne
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.18559/rielf.2026.1.4088Mots-clés :
croissance durable, unites d’administration locale, quatre domaines, classement, TOPSIS, voivodies de PologneRésumé
Objectif : Le but de cet article est de montrer comment peut-on effectuer l’analyse comparative des unités d’administration locale en termes de la croissance durable et comment leur classement peut être crée.
Conception/méthodologie/approche : Pour illustrer l’approche proposée, le cas des voïvodies de Pologne a été choisi. L’analyse comprend quatre domaines: social, économique, environnemental et institutionnel-politique. Chaque domaine est caracterisé par cinq critères. Le classement est géneré à l’aide de TOPSIS qui constitue une méthode utilisée dans le cadre de l’analyse multicritère.
Résultats : Les résultats de l’analyse sont présentés à base de cartogrammes. L’étude effectuée fournit de nombreuses conclusions intéressantes: génerales concernant la méthode, ainsi que particulières pour la Pologne. Selon l’une d’elles, contrairement à ce qu’on suppose souvent, la partie Ouest de la Pologne n’est pas du tout meilleure que la partie Est de ce pays.
Originalité/valeur : En général, la croissance durable est examinée dans le cadre de trois aspects: social, économique et environnemental. Cependant, l’analyse suivante comprend quatre aspects, car elle prend aussi en compte le domaine institutionnel-politique qui apporte un soutien important aux autres domaines.
JEL Classification
Operations Research • Statistical Decision Theory (C44)
Sustainable Development (Q01)
Environmental Economics (Q5)
Regional Government Analysis (R5)
Téléchargements
Références
Balcerzak, A. P., & Pietrzak, M. B. (2016). Application of TOPSIS method for analysis of sustainable development in European Union countries. Institute of Economic Research Working Papers, 22. https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badania-gospodarcze.pl%2Fimages%2FWorking_Papers%2F2016_No_22.pdf;h=repec:pes:wpaper:2016:no22
View in Google Scholar
Brzozowska, A., Łukomska-Szarek, J., & Imiołczyk-Sepczuk, J. (2022). Environmental, social and economic determinants of sustainable development in the proces of managing municipalities illustrated using the example of the lesser Poland voivodeship. Economics and Environment, 81(2), 258–290. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.81.2.456
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2022.81.2.456
Cernev, T., & Fenner, R. (2020). The importance of achieving foundational Sustainable Development Goals in reducing global risk. Futures, 115, 102492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102492
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102492
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Ferguson, R. O. (1955). Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. Management Science, 1, 138–151
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1.2.138
Ciardiello, F., & Genovese, A. (2023). A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods. Annals of Operations Research, 325, 967–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w
Ding-Yi, Z., Yu-Yu, M., & Hung-Lung, L. (2022). Using the entropy and TOPSIS models to evaluate sustainable development of islands: A case in China. Sustainability, 14(6), 3707.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063707
Enel. (n.d.). The 3 pillars of sustainability: Environmental, social, and economic. Retrieved March 1, 2026 from https://www.enel.com/learning-hub/sustainable-development/three-pillars-sustainability
View in Google Scholar
Gaspars-Wieloch, H. (2021). On some analogies between one-criterion decision making under uncertainty and multi-criteria decision making under certainty. Economics and Business Review, 7(2), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2021.2.3
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2021.2.3
Gaspars-Wieloch, H. (2023). Scenario planning as a new application area for TOPSIS. Operations Research and Decisions, 33(2), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.37190/ord230202
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37190/ord230202
Gaspars-Wieloch, H., & Gawroński, D. (2024). How can one improve SAW and maxmin multi-criteria rankings based on uncertain decision rules? Operations Research and Decisions, 34(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.37190/ord240107
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37190/ord240107
Gaspars-Wieloch, H., & Zielak, K. (2025). Extended sustainable development level measuring—case of Poland. Proceedings SOR’25. The 18th International Symposium on Operations Research. Ljubljana. Slovenia.
View in Google Scholar
Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z
Hickel, J. (2020). The sustainable development index: Measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene. Ecological Economics, 167.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011
Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., & Lui, T. Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision-making. Computers and Operations Research, 20(8), 889–899.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision-making: Methods and applications. Springer-Verlag.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
James, P., & Magee, L. (2022). Domains of sustainability. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1–17). Springer.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2760-1
Konopka, P. (2018). The application of SAW method to support the decisions concerning start-up financing. Optimum. Economic Studies, 4(94), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.15290/oes.2018.04.94.18
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15290/oes.2018.04.94.18
Kubiszewski, I., Mulder, K., Jarvis, D., & Costanza, R. (2021). Toward better measurement of sustainable development and wellbeing: A small number of SDG indicators reliably predict life satisfaction. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2234
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2234
Mangukiya, R. D.,& Sklarew, D. M. (2023). Analysing three pillars of sustainable development goals at sub-national scales within the USA. World Development Sustainability, 2, 100058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2023.100058
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2023.100058
Meyer, F. (2025, August 13). La Pologne, championne européenne de la croissance. Les Echos. https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/la-pologne-championne-europeenne-de-la-croissance-2181260
View in Google Scholar
Piwowarski, M., Miłaszewicz, D., Łatuszyńska, M., Borawski, M., & Nermend, K. (2018). TOPSIS and VIKOR methods in study of sustainable development in the EU countries. Procedia Computer Science, 126, 1683–1692.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.109
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainable Science, 14(3), 681–695.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Roszkowska, E., & Kacprzak, D. (2016). The fuzzy saw and fuzzy TOPSIS procedures based on ordered fuzzy numbers. Informatic Sciences, 369, 564–584.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.07.044
Safdie, S. (n.d.). What are the three pillars of sustainable development? Retrieved March 1, 2026 from https://greenly.earth/en-gb/blog/company-guide/3-pillars-of-sustainable-development
View in Google Scholar
Stec, M., Grzebyk, M., Caputa, W., & Krawczyk-Sokołowska, I. (2024). A comparative analysis of the level of sustainable development in Polish voivodeships in 2012 and 2021. Economics and Environment, 89(2), 766. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2024.89.2.766
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2024.89.2.766
Stecyk, A. (2019). The AHP-TOPSIS model in the analysis of the counties sustainable development in the West Pomeranian Province in 2010 and 2017. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 20(7), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/109870
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/109870
Sustainable development. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 1, 2026 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
View in Google Scholar
Vaidya, O., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
Ziemba, P., Becker, A., & Becker, J. (2020). A consensus measure of expert judgement in the fuzzy TOPSIS method. Symmetry, 12(2), 204.
View in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12020204
Téléchargements
Publiée
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Copyright Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, Kacper Zielak 2026
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
