4.7 Article

Energy and environmental efficiency measurement of China's industrial sectors: A DEA model with non-homogeneous inputs and outputs

期刊

ENERGY ECONOMICS
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 468-480

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.11.036

关键词

Non-homogeneous DMUs; Data envelopment analysis; Environmental efficiency; Energy conservation; China's industrial sectors

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71571173, 71801206, 71834003, 71573121]
  2. Top-Notch Young Talents Program of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20181110630]
  3. Research Center of Modern Logistics Engineering of USTC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environmental problems brought by industry are attracting extensive attention so a comprehensive analysis of industrial environmental performance is increasingly important. However, the comparison of industrial sector efficiencies is complicated by the fact that the natural resources consumed and/or the pollutants discharged by each sector may differ. In this paper, we extend the DEA model to consider two-sided non-homogeneous problems, handling DMU sets that have non-homogeneity in both inputs and outputs. This is different from the previous researches which generally focus on regional data to avoid non-homogeneity. Today environmental reform and energy conservation in various industrial sectors are both parts of the basic state policy of China. The empirical results show that: (1) Sectors' efficiencies are still low and unbalanced. The Recycling and Disposal of Waste department achieves the best energy saving and emission reduction efficiency. (2) 38 sectors can be clustered into four groups and set new benchmark in each group. (3) The overall efficiency of 38 industrial sectors in China maintained a rising trend in five years. With this more realistic analysis of environmental efficiency, the Chinese government can make more informed decisions to realize sustainable industrial development. (C) 2018 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