DEA environmental assessment: Measurement of damages to scale with unified efficiency under managerial disposability or environmental efficiency

Applied Mathematical Modelling

Volumn 37, Issue 12-13, 2013, Pages 7300-7314

  Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki ^a   Goto, Mika ^b   Snell, Margaret A ^a  

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

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

Author keywords

Damages to scale; Data envelopment analysis; Environmental assessment

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES; DAMAGES TO SCALE; DESIRABLE OUTPUTS; ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY; ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY; RETURNS TO SCALE;

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EFFICIENCY; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; INDUSTRY; MANAGERS;

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS;

EID: 84878972469     PISSN: 0307904X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.02.027     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Glover F., Sueyoshi T. Contributions of Professor William W. Cooper in operations research and management science. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 197:1-16.
2. Ijiri Y., Sueyoshi T. Revisiting accounting essays by William W. Cooper: In commemorating his 95th birthday. ABACUS: J. Account. Finan. Business Stud. 2010, 46:464-505.
3. Dyson R., Glover F., Ijiri Y., Whinston A., Sueyoshi T. New concepts, methodology and algorithm for business education and research in the 21st century. Decis. Support Syst. 2010, 48:427-429.
4. Kao C. Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl. Math. Model. 2010, 34:1779-1787.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Bevilacqua M., Braglia M. Environmental efficiency analysis for ENI oil refineries. J. Cleaner Product. 2002, 2002:85-92.
8. Korhonen P.J., Luptacik M. Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 204:437-446.
9. Kumar S. Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberger index. Ecol. Econom. 2006, 56:280-293.
10. Pasurka C.A. Decomposing electric power plant emissions within a joint production framework. Energ. Econom. 2006, 28:26-43.
11. Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Reig-Martínez E., Hernández-Sancho F. Directional distance functions and environmental regulation. Resour. Energ. Econom. 2005, 27:131-142.
12. 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.
13. Zaim O. Measuring environmental performance of state manufacturing through changes in pollution intensities: a DEA framework. Ecolog. Econom. 2004, 48:37-47.
14. Zhou P., Ang B.W. Linear programming models for measuring economy-wide energy efficiency performance. Energ. Policy 2008, 36:2911-2916.
15. 2 emission control?: Examination by data envelopment analysis. Energ. Policy 2010, 38:5902-5911.
16. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. DEA approach for unified efficiency measurement: assessment of Japanese fossil fuel power generation. Energ. Econom. 2011, 33:95-208.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Data environment analysis for environmental assessment: comparison between public and private ownership in petroleum industry. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 216:668-678.
20. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale and damages to scale under natural and managerial disposability: strategy, efficiency and competitiveness of petroleum industry. Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:645-662.
21. Sueyoshi T., Goto M., Ueno T. Performance analysis of U.S. coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies. Energ. Policy 2010, 38:1675-1688.
22. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment and planning: desirable procedures to evaluate fossil fuel power plants. Energ. Policy 2012, 41:422-432.
23. 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). Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:663-676.
24. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Weak and strong disposability vs. natural and managerial disposability in DEA environmental assessment: comparison between Japanese electric power industry and manufacturing industries. Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:686-699.
25. 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. Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:700-713.
26. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale, damages of scale, marginal rate of transformation and rate of substitution in DEA environmental assessment. Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:905-917.
27. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale and damages to scale with strong complementary slackness conditions in DEA environmental assessment: Japanese corporate effort on environmental protection. Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:1422-1434.
28. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. DEA environmental assessment of coal fired power plants: methodological comparison between radial and non-radial models. Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:854-1863.
29. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale and damages to scale on U.S. fossil fuel power plants: radial and non-radial approaches for DEA environment assessment. Energ. Econom. 2012, 34:2240-2259.
30. T. Sueyoshi, M. Goto, Window analysis for DEA environmental assessment in a time horizon: an application to U.S. coal-fired power plants. Working Paper #2012-20. Department of Management, New Mexico Tech. Energy Policy, submitted for publication.
31. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Lovel C.A.K., Pasurka C. Multilateral productivity comparison when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev. Econom. Statist. 1989, 71:90-98.
32. Thompson R.G., Singleton F.D., Thrall R.M., Smith B.A. Comparative site evaluation for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interface 1986, 16:35-49.
33. Kousmane T. Weak disposability in nonparametric production analysis with undesirable outputs. Amer. J. Agricul. Econom. 2005, 87:1077-1082.
34. Palmer K.W., Oates W.E., Portney P.R. Tightening environmental standards - the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm. J. Econom. Perspect. 1995, 9:19-132.
35. Porter M.E., van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness relationship. J. Econom. Perspect. 1995, 9:97-118.
36. 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. Manag. Sci. 2013, 41:164-175.
37. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Measurement of a linkage among environmental, operational and financial performance in Japanese manufacturing firms: a use of data envelopment analysis with strong complementary slackness condition. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 207:1742-1753.