4.7 Article

A DEA-based empirical analysis for dynamic performance of China's regional coke production chain

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 717, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136890

关键词

Sustainability; Dynamic performance; Coke production chain; Slacks-based measure (SBM); Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71801206, 71971203]
  2. USTC Research Funds of the Double First-Class Initiative [YD2040002004]
  3. Special Research Assistant Support Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. Soft Science Research Program of Anhui Province [201806a02020033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coke plays a critical role in China's national economic activities in the past several decades. However, because of the twofold pressures from the sustainability-concerned public and the international steel market downturn, China's coke industry steps into a dilemma. To provide the industry with quantitative guidelines of resolving its current problems, an empirical analysis for dynamic performance of China's regional coke production chain from 2006 to 2011 is demonstrated. Through adopting the slacks-based measure (SBM) in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and a famous dynamic network DEA framework, this paper simplifies the coke production chain into a three-stage process, and captures the interactions between intermediates inside each stage. The results showthat: (i) In the stage of coke supply, central China performs at the highest efficiency level, followed by eastern China, with western China being the worst. (ii) In the stage of production (direct consumption of coke), the efficiency of eastern China is relatively high compared to the other regions. (iii) In the stage of consumption of industrial products, the efficiency of eastern China is better than that of central and western China. (iv) In terms of integrated efficiency, the province of Jiangsu is the highest. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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