4.5 Article

Allocating natural resource reduction amounts: A data envelopment analysis based-approach considering production technology heterogeneity

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/exsy.12449

关键词

data envelopment analysis; natural resource conservation; production technology heterogeneity; reduction amount allocation; setting targets

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WK2040160028, XAB19005]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71631006, 71771071, 71834003, 71573121]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies resource allocation methods based on data envelopment analysis assume that all the assessed decision-making units share a common production technology, and all decision-making units become efficient after the resources are allocated. However, in the real world, production technology tends to be heterogeneous among the decision-making units because of the differences in economic development, geographic location, and market conditions. Correspondingly, when some decision-making units are far away from the efficient frontier, they may not become efficient easily using the resources allocated to them. In this paper, we propose a data envelopment analysis-based approach which considers production technology heterogeneity among decision-making units when allocating resource reduction amounts to each. In our model, the decision-making units are divided into subgroups based on their economic development level, an important indicator directly reflecting each decision-making unit's production technology level. Each subgroup has its specific production technology, and the decision-making units in the same subgroup have a similar technology level, which allows better identification of how the production of those decision-making units can change when their resource inputs change. We present an empirical example using China's mainland provinces as decision-making units to demonstrate the practicability and applicability of our proposed model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据