Measuring the environmental efficiency of countries: A directional distance function metafrontier approach

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 119, Issue , 2013, Pages 134-142

  Yu Ying Lin, Eugene ^a   Chen, Ping Yu ^a   Chen, Chi Chung ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Directional distance function; Environmental efficiency; Metafrontier

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE;

CARBON DIOXIDE; FRONTIER REGION; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; KYOTO PROTOCOL; META-ANALYSIS; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; STOCHASTICITY; TEMPORAL PERIOD;

ARTICLE; CARBON FOOTPRINT; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT;

EID: 84874770475     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.015     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Atkinson S.E., Dorfman J.H. Bayesian measurement of productivity and efficiency in the presence of undesirable outputs: crediting electric utilities for reducing air pollution. J. Econom. 2005, 126:445-468.
2. Atkinson S.E., Primont D. Flexible estimation of firm production with multiple inputs and outputs that are good and bad. XII European Workshop on Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Verona, Italy 2011, 23rd June, Conference Paper.
3. Battese G.E., Prasada Rao D.S., O'Donnell C.J. A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. J. Prod. Anal. 2004, 21:91-103.
4. Beltrán-Esteve M., Gómez-Limón J.A., Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Reig-Martínez E. A Metafrontier Directional Distance Function Approach to Assessing Eco-efficiency 2012, Working Paper WPAE-1206, University of Valencia.
5. Boyd G.A., McClelland J.D. The impact of environmental constraints on productivity improvement in integrated paper plants. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1999, 3:121-142.
6. Chung Y.H., Färe R., Grosskopf S. Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J. Environ. Manag. 1997, 51:229-240.
7. 2 allowances. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1996, 30:58-72.
8. Cropper M.L., Oates W.E. Environmental economics: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 1992, 30:675-740.
9. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Lovell C.A.K., Pasurka C. Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1989, 71:90-98.
10. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Noh D., Tyteca D. An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms - application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18:161-175.
11. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Noh D., Weber W. Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice. J. Econom. 2005, 126:469-492.
12. Gollop F., Roberts M. Environmental regulations and productivity growth: the case of fossil fueled electric power generation. J. Polit. Econ. 1983, 91:655-674.
13. Kopp G. Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: a structural approach. J. Appl. Stat. 1998, 25:489-515.
14. Kopp R., Smith V., Vaughan W. Stochastic cost frontiers and perceived technical inefficiency. Advances in Applied Microeconomics 1982, JAI Press. K. Smith (Ed.).
15. Kumar S. Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberger index. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56:280-293.
16. Kumar S., Khanna M. Measurement of environmental efficiency and productivity: a cross-country analysis. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2009, 14:473-495.
17. Kumar S., Managi S. Energy price-induced and exogenous technological change: Assessing the economic and environmental outcomes. Resour. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:334-353.
18. Kumbhakar S.C., Lovell C.A.K. Stochastic Frontier Analysis 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. first ed.
19. Luenberger D.G. Benefit functions and duality. J. Math. Econ. 1992, 21:461-481.
20. Marklund P., Samakovlis E. What is driving the EU burden-sharing agreement: efficiency or equity?. J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 85:317-329.
21. Murty M.N., Kumar S. Measuring cost of environmentally sustainable industrial development in India: a distance function approach. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2002, 7:467-486.
22. Murty M.N., Kumar S. Win-win opportunities and environmental regulation: testing of Porter hypothesis for Indian manufacturing industries. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 67:139-144.
23. Murty M.N., Kumar S., Paul M. Environmental regulation, productive efficiency and cost of pollution abatement: a case study of sugar industry in India. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 79:1-9.
24. Murty M.N., Kumar S., Dhavala K.K. Measuring environmental efficiency of industry: a case study of thermal power generation in India. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38:31-50.
25. O'Donnell C.J., Rao D.S.P., Battese G.E. Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empir. Econ. 2008, 34:231-255.
26. Pittman R.W. Issues in pollution control: interplant cost differences and economies of scale. Land Econ. 1981, 57:1-17.
27. Pittman R.W. Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Econ. J. 1983, 93:883-891.
28. Reinhard S., Lovell C.A.K., Thijssen G. Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: an application to Dutch dairy farms. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 1999, 81:44-60.
29. Serra T., Lansink A.O., Stefanou S.E. Measurement of dynamic efficiency, a directional distance function parametric approach. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2010, 93:756-767.
30. Soytas U., Sari R., Ewing B.T. Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:482-489.
31. Taskin F., Zaim O. The role of international trade on environmental efficiency: a DEA approach. Econ. Model. 2001, 18:1-17.
32. 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. Energ. Policy 2010, 38:4440-4444.