4.8 Review

Energy efficiency analysis of the economic system in China during 1986-2012: A parallel slacks-based measure approach

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 990-998

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.008

Keywords

Energy efficiency; Economic system in China; Parallel industries; Slacks-based measure

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71101085, 71371010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The economic system in China is composed of three internal parallel industries: primary, secondary and tertiary industries. To examine energy efficiency of the economic system, this paper proposes a parallel slacks-based measure approach. In the described approach, the measures of energy efficiencies and energy saving potentials for the whole system and its three industries are defined. Application of the proposed approach to the economic system in China during 1986-2012 shows that it can be effectively used to measure energy efficiency of the evaluated system with several parallel sub-systems. The institutional influential factors of energy efficiency in China are also examined. The following findings can be achieved based on the application results: (1) the inefficiency of the economic system in China is mainly sourced from the lower energy performance of the secondary industry; (2) energy efficiency of the economic system increases during the study time period with an exception during 2001-2005; (3) it is better for the whole economic system to improve energy efficiency, which can help to save much more energy consumption in production in China; and (4) economic development is estimated to have positive impacts on national energy efficiency, while energy structure adjustment and industrial structure optimization have negative effects on national energy efficiency. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available