DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment: A comparative study between Japanese chemical and pharmaceutical firms

Applied Energy

Volumn 115, Issue , 2014, Pages 502-513

  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; Data envelopment analysis; Energy; Environment; Returns to scale

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; CLIMATE CHANGE; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; ENERGY UTILIZATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; MANAGERS;

DAMAGES TO SCALE; ENERGY; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE; RETURNS TO SCALE; TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION;

INDUSTRY;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ACTIVITY; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; WASTE DISPOSAL;

JAPAN;

EID: 84891143961     PISSN: 03062619     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.014     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Dyckhoff H., Allen K. Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA). Eur J Oper Res 2001, 132:312-325.
2. Korhonen P.J., Luptacik M. Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 2004, 154:437-446.
3. Kumar S. Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberger index. Ecol Econ 2006, 56:280-293.
4. Liang L., Wu D., Hua Z. MES-DEA modeling for analyzing anti-industrial pollution efficiency and its application in Anhui province of China. Int J Global Energy Issues 2004, 22:88-98.
5. 2 and energy efficiency of Dutch greenhouse firms. J Environ Manage 2003, 68:73-82.
6. Pasurka C.A. Decomposing electric power plant emissions within a joint production framework. Energy Econ 2006, 28:26-43.
7. Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Reig-Martinez E., Hernandez-Sancho F. Directional distance functions and environmental regulation. Resour Energy Econ 2005, 27:131-142.
8. 2 emissions: a cross-country comparison. Int J Global Energy Issues 2002, 17:214-227.
9. Wang Q., Zhou P., Zhou D. Efficiency measurement with carbon dioxide emissions: the case of China. Appl Energy 2012, 90:161-166.
10. Triantis K., Otis P. Dominance-based measurement of productive and environmental performance for manufacturing. Eur J Oper Res 2004, 154:447-464.
11. Zaim O. Measuring environmental performance of state manufacturing through changes in pollution intensities: a DEA framework. Ecol Econ 2004, 48:37-47.
12. Zhou P., Ang B.W. Linear programming models for measuring economy-wide energy efficiency performance. Energy Policy 2008, 36:2911-2916.
13. Zhou P., Ang B.W., Zhou D.Q. Measuring economy-wide energy efficiency performance: a parametric frontier approach. Appl Energy 2012, 90:196-200.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Environmental assessment by DEA radial measurement: US coal-fired power plants in ISO (Independent System Operator) and RTO (Regional Transmission Organization). Energy Econ 2012, 34:663-676.
19. 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. Energy Econ 2012, 34:686-699.
20. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale, damages to scale, marginal rate of transformation, rate of substitution in DEA environmental assessment. Energy Econ 2012, 34:905-917.
21. 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. Energy Econ 2012, 34:1422-1434.
22. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale and damages to scale on US fossil fuel power plants: radial and non-radial approaches for DEA environment assessment. Energy Econ 2012, 34:2240-2259.
23. 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.
24. Sueyoshi T., Goto M., Snell M. DEA environmental assessment: measurement of damages to scale with unified efficiency under managerial disposability or environmental efficiency. Appl Math Model 2013, 37:7300-7314.
25. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale vs. damages to scale in data envelopment analysis: an impact of US clean air act on coal-fired power plants. OMEGA 2013, 41:164-175.
26. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. A comparative study among fossil fuel power plants in PJM and California ISO by DEA environmental assessment. Energy Econ 2013, 40:130-145.
27. 2 emissions in China: a slacks-based efficiency measure. Appl Energy 2012, 98:198-208.
28. Xie B.-C., Fan Y., Qu Q.-Q. Does generation form influence environmental efficiency performance? An analysis of China's power system. Appl Energy 2012, 96:261-271.
29. Hu J.-J., Lio M.-C., Yeh F.-Y., Lin C.-H. Environment-adjusted regional energy efficiency in Taiwan. Appl Energy 2011, 88:2893-2899.
30. Song M.-L., Zhang L.-L., Liu W., Fisher R. Bootstrap-DEA analysis of BRICS' energy efficiency based on small sample data. Appl Energy 2013, 112:1049-1055.
31. Wang K., Lu B., Wei Y.-M. China's regional energy and environmental efficiency: a range-adjusted measure based analysis. Appl Energy 2013, 112:1403-1415.
32. Sueyoshi T., Goto M. Returns to scale and damages to scale under natural and managerial disposability: strategy, efficiency and competitiveness of petroleum industry. Energy Econ 2012, 34:645-662.
33. Japan Chemical Industry Association. Chemical Industry of Japan, Tokyo, Japan; 2010.
34. Toyo Keizai Inc. Corporate social responsibility database, Tokyo, Japan; 2012.
35. Nippon Keizai Shinbun Inc. Nikkei NEEDS-FinancialQUEST. Tokyo, Japan; 2012.
36. 2 of industrial nations. Energy Econ 2013, 40:370-382.