4.7 Article

A comparative analysis of China's regional energy and emission performance: Which is the better way to deal with undesirable outputs?

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 574-584

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.038

关键词

Energy efficiency; CO2 emissions; Performance evaluation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71101011, 71020107026]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20110490298]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB95570004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measuring and improving the energy performance with considering emission constraints is an important issue for China's energy conservation, pollutant emissions reduction and environment protection. This study utilizes several data envelopment analysis (DEA) based models to evaluate the total-factor energy and emission performance of China's 30 regions within a joint production framework of considering desirable and undesirable outputs as well as separated energy and non-energy inputs. DEA window analysis is applied in this study to deal with cross-sectional and time-varying data, so as to measure the performance during the period of 2000-2009. Two treatments for undesirable outputs are combined with DEA models and the associated indicators for simplex energy performance and unified energy and emission performance measurement are proposed and compared. The evaluation results indicate that the treatment of undesirable outputs transformation is more appropriate for China's regional energy and emission performance evaluation because it has stronger discriminating power and can provide more reasonable evaluation results that characterize China's regions. The empirical result shows that east China has the highest and the most balanced energy and emission performance. The energy and emission performance of China remained stable during 2000-2003, decreased slightly during 2004-2006, and has continuously increased since 2007. (C) 2012 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