Returns to Scale, Damages to Scale, Marginal Rate of Transformation and Rate of Substitution in DEA Environmental Assessment

Energy Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 905-917

  Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki ^a   Goto, Mika ^b  

^a NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b CENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Damages to Scale; Environmental assessment; Rate of Substitution; Returns to Scale

Indexed keywords

CLEAN AIR ACT; COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT; COMPUTATIONAL FRAMEWORK; CORPORATE STRATEGIES; DAMAGES TO SCALE; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; MARGINAL RATES; RETURNS TO SCALE;

CARBON DIOXIDE; COAL; FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS; GLOBAL WARMING; MANAGERS; SULFUR DIOXIDE;

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS;

AIR QUALITY; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT; CORPORATE STRATEGY; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; EMISSION CONTROL; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RETURNS TO SCALE;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84861203458     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.04.003     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allen R.G.D. Mathematical Analysis for Economists 1938, Macmillan, London.
2. Allen R.G.D., Hicks J.R. A recommendation of the theory of value II. Economica 1934, 1:196-219. (N.S.).
3. Asmild M., Paradi J.C., Reese D.N. Theoretical trade-off analysis using DEA. OMEGA Int. J. Manage. Sci. 2006, 34:337-343.
4. Bevilacqua M., Braglia M. Environmental efficiency analysis for ENI oil refineries. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 2002:85-92.
5. Cooper W.W., Huang Z., Li S., Lelas V., Sullivan D.W. Survey of mathematical programming models in air pollution management. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 96:1-35.
6. Cooper W.W., Park K.S., Ciurana J.P. Marginal rates and elasticities of substitution with additive models in DEA. J. Product. Anal. 2000, 13:105-123.
7. Davis G.C., Gauger J. Measuring substitution in monetary-asset demand systems. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 1996, 14:203-209.
8. Emrouznejad A., Parker B.R., Tavares G. Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: a survey and analysis of the first 30years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 2008, 42:151-157.
9. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Pasurka C. Effects on relative efficiency in electric power generation due to environmental controls. Resour. Energy 1986, 8:167-184.
10. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Lovel C.A.K., Pasurka C. Multilateral productivity comparison when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1989, 71:90-98.
11. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Noh D.-W., Weber W. Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J. Econ. 2005, 126:469-492.
12. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Pasurka C., Weber W.L. Substitutability among undesirable outputs. Appl. Econ. 2012, 44:39-47.
13. Glover F., Sueyoshi T. Contributions of Professor William W. Cooper in operations research and management science. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 197:1-16.
14. Hicks J.R. Theory of Wages 1932, Macmillan, London.
15. Ijiri Y., Sueyoshi T. Revisiting accounting essays by William W. Cooper: in commemorating his 95th birthday. ABACUS J. Account. Finance Bus. Stud. 2010, 46:464-505.
16. Klup R., de la Grandville O. Economic growth and the elasticity of substitution: two theorems and some suggestions. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90:282-291.
17. Korhonen P.J., Luptacik M. Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 2004:437-446.
18. Kousmanen T. Weak disposability in nonparametric production analysis with undesirable outputs. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87:1077-1082.
19. Kumar S. Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberger index. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56:280-293.
20. Morishima M. A few suggestions on the theory of elasticity (in Japanese). Keizai Hyoron (Econ. Rev.) 1967, 16:144-150.
21. Palmer K.W., Oates W.E., Portney P.R. Tightening environmental standards-the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9:119-132.
22. Pasurka C.A. Decomposing electric power plant emissions within a joint production framework. Energy Econ. 2006, 28:26-43.
23. Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Reig-Martínez E., Hernández-Sancho F. Directional distance functions and environmental regulation. Resour. Energy Econ. 2005, 27:131-142.
24. Porter M.E., van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9:97-118.
25. 2 emission control?: examination by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 2010, 38:5902-5911.
26. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. DEA approach for unified efficiency measurement: assessment of Japanese fossil fuel power generation. Energy Econ. 2011, 33:195-208.
27. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Methodological comparison between two unified (operational and environmental) efficiency measurements for environmental assessment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2011, 210:684-693.
28. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Measurement of returns to scale and damages to scale for DEA-based operational and environmental assessment: how to manage desirable (good) and undesirable (bad) outputs?. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2011, 211:76-89.
29. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. A combined use of DEA (data envelopment analysis) with strong complementary slackness condition and DEA-DA (discriminant analysis). Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24:1051-1056.
30. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Data envelopment analysis for environmental assessment: comparison between public and private ownership in petroleum industry. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 216:668-678.
31. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment and planning: desirable procedures to evaluate fossil fuel power plants. Energy Policy 2012, 41:422-432.
32. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale vs. damages to scale in data envelopment analysis: an impact of U.S. clean air act on coal-fired power plants. OMEGA Int. J. Manage. Sci. 2012, (forthcoming).
33. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale and damages to scale under natural and managerial disposability: strategy, efficiency and competitiveness of petroleum firms. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:645-662.
34. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Environmental assessment by DEA radial measurement: U.S. coal-fired power plants in ISO (Independent System Operator) and RTO (Regional Transmission Organization). Energy Econ 2012, 34:663-676.
35. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Weak and strong disposability natural and managerial disposability in DEA environmental assessment: comparison between Japanese electric power industry and manufacturing industries. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:686-699.
36. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. DEA radial and non-radial models for unified efficiency under natural and managerial disposability: theoretical extension by strong complementary slackness conditions. Energy Econ. 2012, 34:700-713.
37. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Efficiency-based ranking assessment for electric power industry: a combined use of data envelopment analysis (DEA) and DEA-discriminant analysis (DA). Energy Econ. 2012, 34:634-644.
38. Sueyoshi T., Sekitani K. Measurement of returns to scale by a non-radial DEA model: a range-adjusted measure model. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 176:1918-1946.
39. Sueyoshi T., Sekitani K. The measurement of returns to scale under a simultaneous occurrence of multiple solutions in a reference set and a supporting hyperplane. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 181:549-570.
40. Sueyoshi T., Sekitani K. An occurrence of multiple projections in DEA-based measurement of technical efficiency: theoretical comparison among DEA models from desirable properties. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 196:764-794.
41. Sueyoshi T., Goto M., Ueno T. Performance analysis of U.S. coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies. Energy Policy 2010, 38:1675-1688.
42. 2 emissions from power plants: a case of induced technological innovation in the U.S. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72:697-718.
43. Triantis K., Otis P. Dominance-based measurement of productive and environmental performance for manufacturing. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 154:447-464.
44. Uzawa H. Production functions with constraint elasticities of substitution. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1962, 30:291-299.
45. Yang H., Pollitt M. The necessity of distinguishing weak and strong disposability among undesirable outputs in DEA: environmental performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants. Energy Policy 2010, 38:4440-4444.
46. Zaim O. Measuring environmental performance of state manufacturing through changes in pollution intensities: a DEA framework. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48:37-47.
47. Zhou P., Ang B.W., Poh K.L. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 189:1-18.