Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 245, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 517-530

  Zanella, Andreia ^a   Camanho, Ana S ^a   Dias, Teresa G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Composite indicator; Data envelopment analysis; Directional distance function; Undesirable outputs; Weight restrictions

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS;

COMPOSITE INDICATORS; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS MODELS; DATA TRANSFORMATION; DIRECTIONAL DISTANCE FUNCTION; HYDROPOWER PLANTS; KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; UNDESIRABLE OUTPUTS; WEIGHT RESTRICTION;

METADATA;

EID: 84933279642     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.03.036     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allen, R., Athanassopoulos, A. D., Dyson, R. G., & Thanassoulis, E. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgments in data envelopment analysis: Evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research, 0(73), 13-64.
2. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
3. Burck, J., Hermwille, L., & Krings, L. (2012). Climate Change Performance Index. Technical report. Berlin, Germany: Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe.
4. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., & Diewert, E. (1982). Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. The Economic Journal, 92(365), 73-86.
5. Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Fare, R. (1996). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407-419. doi:10.1006/jeth.1996.0096.
6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444.
7. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to benefit of the doubt composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111-145. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-9029-7.
8. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2011). Constructing composite indicators with imprecise data: A proposal. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 10940-10949. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.136.
9. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., Van Puyenbroeck, T., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., et al. (2008). Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: The case of the technology achievement index. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(2), 239-251. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602445.
10. Chung, Y. H., Fare, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(3), 229-240. doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0146.
11. Cook, W. D., & Green, R. H. (2005). Evaluating power plant efficiency: A hierarchical model. Computers & Operations Research, 32(4), 813-823. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2003.08.019.
12. Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1990). A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Management Science, 36(11), 1302-1310. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.11.1302.
13. Despotis, D. K. (2004). A reassessment of the human development index via data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(8), 969-980. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601927.
14. Despotis, D. K. (2005). Measuring human development via data envelopment analysis: The case of asia and the pacific. Omega, 33(5), 385-390. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.07.002.
15. Dyson, R. G., Allen, R., Camanho, A. S., Podinovski, V. V., Sarrico, C. S., & Shale, E. A. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245-259. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00149-1.
16. Emerson, J. W., Hsu, A., Levy, M. A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V., Esty, D. C., et al. (2012). Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. Technical report. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
17. Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. A. K., & Pasurka, C. (1989). Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 90-98.
18. Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. A. K., & Yaisawarng, S. (1993). Derivation of shadow prices for undesirable outputs: A distance function approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(2), 374-380. doi:10.2307/2109448.
19. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120(3), 253-281.
20. Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 17(3), 237-250. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(89)90029-7.
21. Hashimoto, A. (1996). A DEA selection system for selective examinations. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 39(4), 475-485.
22. Hatefi, S. M., & Torabi, S. A. (2010). A common weight MCDA-DEA approach to construct composite indicators. Ecological Economics, 70(1), 114-120.
23. Hollingsworth, B., & Smith, P. (2003). Use of ratios in data envelopment analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 10(11), 733-735. doi:10.1080/1350485032000133381.
24. Koopmans, T. C. (1951). Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In Activity analysis of production and allocation (pp. 33-97). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
25. Lins, M. E., Oliveira, L. B., da Silva, A. C. M., Rosa, L. P., & Pereira Jr., A. O. (2012). Performance assessment of alternative energy resources in Brazilian power sector using data envelopment analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 898-903. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.010.
26. Lovell, C. A. K. (1995). Measuring the macroeconomic performance of the Taiwanese economy. International Journal of Production Economics, 39(1-2), 165-178. doi:10.1016/0925-5273(94)00067-K.
27. Lovell, C. A. K., Pastor, J. T., & Turner, J. A. (1995). Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 507-518. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00226-X.
28. Mahlberg, B., & Obersteiner, M. (2001). Remeasuring the HDI by data envelopment analysis. Technical report. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
29. Morais, P., & Camanho, A. S. (2011). Evaluation of performance of European cities with the aim to promote quality of life improvements. Omega, 39(4), 398-409. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2010.09.003.
30. Murias, P., Miguel, J. C., & Rodriguez, D. (2007). A composite indicator for university quality assessment: The case of Spanish higher education system. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 129-146. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9226-z.
31. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffmann, A., & Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
32. Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., & Toninelli, R. (2011). Eco-efficiency of the world cement industry: A data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2842-2854. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.057.
33. Picazo-Tadeo, A. J., & Prior, D. (2005). Efficiency and environmental regulation: a "complex situation". Working Paper 200502. Department of Business Economics, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
34. Pittman, R. W. (1983). Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Economic Journal, 93(372), 883-891.
35. Ramon, N., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2011). Reducing differences between profiles of weights: A peer-restricted cross-efficiency evaluation. Omega, 39(6), 634-641. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2011.01.004.
36. Rogge, N. (2012). Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The environmental performance index. Ecological Indicators, 23, 143-154. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.020.
37. Sarrico, C. S., & Dyson, R. G. (2004). Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(1), 17-34.
38. Scheel, H. (2001). Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 400-410. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00160-0.
39. Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 16-20.
40. Shephard, R. W. (1970). Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
41. Thanassoulis, E., Portela, M. C., & Allen, R. (2004). Incorporating value judgments in DEA. In Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
42. Thanassoulis, E., Portela, M. C. A. S., & Despi, O. (2008). Data envelopment analysis: The mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. In the measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. New York, United States: Oxford University Press, Inc.
43. Thompson, R. G., Langemeier, L. N., Lee, C. T., Lee, E., & Thrall, R. M. (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics, 46(1-2), 93-108.
44. Tofallis, C. (2013). An automatic-democratic approach to weight setting for the new human development index. Journal of Population Economics, 26(4), 1325-1345. doi:10.1007/s00148-012-0432-x.
45. United Nations (2013). 2013 Human development report. Technical report. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
46. Wong, Y. H. B., & Beasley, J. E. (1990). Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(9), 829-835. doi:10.2307/2583498.
47. Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: A multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 169-181. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9472-3.