4.7 Article

Constructing slacks-based composite indicator of sustainable energy development for China: A meta-frontier nonparametric approach

期刊

ENERGY
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 218-228

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.039

关键词

Slacks-based composite indicator; Data envelopment analysis; Meta-frontier; Heterogeneity; Sustainable energy development

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71203151, 71573186, 71273005, 71573119]
  2. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China [2012M510139, 2013T60561]
  3. Social Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [12GLC008]
  4. Jiangsu Qing Lan Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a meta-frontier nonparametric approach to construct the slacks-based composite indicator considering heterogeneity. The meta-frontier approach is useful to control and study the impact of potential heterogeneity in constructing composite indicator. In virtue of the Malmquist index, we further study tracking the evolvement of the constructed meta-frontier slacks-based composite indicator over time, and quantifying the driving forces behind the change. The proposed approach has been applied to assess China's regional sustainable energy utilization capacity during 2005-2010. Our empirical results show that all the three regions, i.e. the eastern, central and western, in China experience deterioration in sustainable energy development level. The best practice gap change and technology gap change are identified as the main contributors to the declining trend. Hence, improving the general production technology and enhancing technology diffusion among regions can help to promote China's overall sustainable energy development level. At the provincial level, Beijing is found to maintain a good balance in improving efficiency and absorbing advanced technology, while other provinces show diverse performance during this time period. More results and discussions are presented in this paper. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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