Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Modelling Environmental Adjustments of Production Technologies: A Literature Review

Externalities and Environmental Studies

verfasst von : K. Hervé Dakpo, Frederic Ang

Erschienen in: The Palgrave Handbook of Economic Performance Analysis

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter theoretically discusses existing methodologies to model environmental adjustments of technologies. We elaborate on the limitations of treating pollution as an input or weakly disposable output, as commonly occurs in the literature. Moreover, we discuss the drawbacks of models that rely on the materials balance principle. We advocate the use of multi-equation modelling, which explicitly models the subprocesses of the production technology. Applied to the context of pollution, such an approach separately models the conventional technology, on the one hand, and the pollution-generating technology, on the other. Finally, we discuss abatement options as well as the possibility of adjusting for good environmental outputs (e.g. carbon sinks).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Intermediate Inputs and Industry Studies: Input-Output Analysis
Nächstes Kapitel An Overview of Issues in Measuring the Performance of National Economies
Fußnoten
1
Pigou (1920) initiated the integration of externalities into a partial static analysis framework and supported the idea that public intervention is a vector of efficiency. Welfare economics has thus focused on the processes of internalization of these externalities.
 
2
In this chapter, we refer to negative externalities as environmental bads, pollution, residuals, detrimental outputs, undesirable outputs, bad outputs, wasters or unintended outputs. On another hand, we refer to the traditional outputs as good outputs or intended outputs. About positive externalities, we refer to them as environmental goods.
 
3
See Pethig (2003) and Baumgärtner (2004) for more discussion on the Inada conditions.
 
4
See Hoang and Coelli (2011) for the case of directional distance function.
 
5
This situation particularly makes sense since the relation describing how bad outputs are generated is missing.
 
6
Lauwers (2009) has considered FEE models as a special case of pollution-generating technology modelling. Moreover, he has referred to the model presented in Eq. (17) as environmentally adjusted production efficiency models.
 
7
The genesis of the FEE model can be found in Tyteca (1996, 1997).
 
8
The fundamental problem with Fig. 2 is that when the bad \(z\) is treated as a normal good, then the obvious result is that a zero level of \(z\) can be realized. However, the crucial point is that the relation showing how \(z\) is generated is missing. The apparent trade-off between \(y\) and \(z\) is therefore an illusion and goes against the materials balance. The bad output is generated using input \(x_{M}\) that is constant along the output transformation curve implying that \(y\) cannot be increased and \(z\) decreased. This fact is independent of whether disposability is strong or weak, it simply follows from how the bad output is generated (Førsund 2018).
 
9
This cost can be lowered using abatement options. The pollution excess then equals \(a^{\prime}x_{ \hbox{min} } - a^{\prime}x_{e}\).
 
10
This idea suggests substituting high emission factor inputs with ones with low emission factor or substituting low recuperation factor outputs with ones with high recuperation factor.
 
11
\(v\) is sufficiently large so that the new variable is positive.
 
12
For the case of the banking industry, Berg et al. (1992, p. 219) have used the additive inverse where \(v = 0\) to introduce loans losses as negative outputs.
 
13
See also Liu and Sharp (1999) for further discussion on issues related to data transformation.
 
14
Even if the idea around this concept is clear, it is worth mentioning that it is very strange to quote ‘nature’s emission generating mechanism’.
 
15
We believe that the expression ‘polar opposite’ used by Murty et al. (2012) simply refers to a systematic reverse in the inequalities. This means that free disposability and costly disposability are complete/exact opposites of one another.
 
16
Using the same ideas of trade-off estimation, MRL also proved the issues related to the single structure representation of a pollution-generating technology.
 
17
In the stochastic frontier framework, the idea of describing production systems using separable technologies for intended and unintended outputs has also been discussed in Fernández et al. (2002), Fernández et al. (2005), and Malikov et al. (2018).
 
18
A similar, condensed argumentation with corresponding references can be found in the introduction of Ang, Mortimer, Areal and Tiffin (2018).
The reference to be added is:
Ang, F., S.M. Mortimer, F.J. Areal, and R. Tiffin, On the opportunity cost of crop diversification. Journal of Agricultural Economics 69 (3): 794–814 (2018).
And I suggest to replace the logical symbol for 'and' (an inverse V) by a comma. See formulas (8), (9), (21), (25), (29), MB6, MB7, MB8, (42)–(44), (48) and (50). Makes them simpler, like (26).
 
19
See Zhou et al. (2008b) for more applications.
 
Literatur
Adler, N., and N. Volta. 2016. Accounting for externalities and disposability: A directional economic environmental distance function. European Journal of Operational Research 250: 314–327.CrossRef
Aldanondo-Ochoa, A.M., V.L. Casasnovas-Oliva, and M.C. Almansa-Saez. 2017. Cross-constrained measuring the cost-environment efficiency in material balance based frontier models. Ecological Economics 142: 46–55.CrossRef
Areal, F.J., R. Tiffin, and K.G. Balcombe. 2012. Provision of environmental output within a multi-output distance function approach. Ecological Economics 78: 47–54.CrossRef
Arjomandi, A., K.H. Dakpo, and J.H. Seufert. 2018. Have Asian airlines caught up with European Airlines? A by-production efficiency analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 116: 389–403.
Arocena, P., and C. Waddams Price. 2002. Generating efficiency: Economic and environmental regulation of public and private electricity generators in Spain. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20: 41–69.CrossRef
Ayres, R.U. 1998. Eco-thermodynamics: Economics and the second law. Ecological Economics 26: 189–209.CrossRef
Ayres, R.U., and L. Ayres. 2002. A handbook of industrial ecology. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRef
Ayres, R.U., and A.V. Kneese. 1969. Production, consumption, and externalities. The American Economic Review 59: 282–297.
Barros, C.P., S. Managi, and R. Matousek. 2012. The technical efficiency of the Japanese banks: Non-radial directional performance measurement with undesirable output. Omega 40: 1–8.CrossRef
Baumgärtner, S. 2004. The Inada conditions for material resource inputs reconsidered. Environmental & Resource Economics 29: 307–322.CrossRef
Baumgärtner, S., H. Dyckhoff, M. Faber, J. Proops, and J. Schiller. 2001. The concept of joint production and ecological economics. Ecological Economics 36: 365–372.CrossRef
Baumol, W.J., and W.E. Oates. 1988. The theory of environmental policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Bellenger, M.J., and A.T. Herlihy. 2009. An economic approach to environmental indices. Ecological Economics 68: 2216–2223.CrossRef
Bellenger, M.J., and A.T. Herlihy. 2010. Performance-based environmental index weights: Are all metrics created equal? Ecological Economics 69: 1043–1050.CrossRef
Berg, S.A., F.R. Førsund, and E.S. Jansen. 1992. Malmquist indices of productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking, 1980–89. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94: S211–S228.
Bi, G.B., Y.Y. Shao, W. Song, F. Yang, and Y. Luo. 2018. A performance evaluation of China’s coal-fired power generation with pollutant mitigation options. Journal of Cleaner Production 171: 867–876.CrossRef
Bostian, M.B., and A.T. Herlihy. 2014. Valuing tradeoffs between agricultural production and wetland condition in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region. Ecological Economics 105: 284–291.CrossRef
Bostian, M., R. Färe, S. Grosskopf, T. Lundgren, and W.L. Weber. 2018. Time substitution for environmental performance: The case of Swedish manufacturing. Empirical Economics 54: 129–152.CrossRef
Boyd, G.A., G. Tolley, and J. Pang. 2002. Plant level productivity, efficiency, and environmental performance of the container glass industry. Environmental and Resource Economics 23: 29–43.CrossRef
Callan, S.J., and J.M. Thomas. 2009. Environmental economics and management: Theory, policy and applications. Mason: Cengage Learning.
Chambers, R.G. 1988. Applied production analysis: A dual approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chambers, R.G., Y. Chung, and R. Färe. 1996. Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory 70: 407–419.CrossRef
Chambers, R.G., Y. Chung, and R. Färe. 1998. Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 98: 351–364.CrossRef
Chambers, R.G., T. Serra, and A. Oude Lansink. 2014. On the pricing of undesirable state-contingent outputs. European Review of Agricultural Economics 41: 485–509.CrossRef
Chang, T.-P., and J.-L. Hu. 2010. Total-factor energy productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change: An empirical study of China. Applied Energy 87: 3262–3270.CrossRef
Chen, C.-M. 2013. Evaluating eco-efficiency with data envelopment analysis: An analytical reexamination. Annals of Operations Research 214: 49–71.CrossRef
Chen, C.-M., and M.A. Delmas. 2012. Measuring eco-inefficiency: A new frontier approach. Operations Research 60: 1064–1079.CrossRef
Chen, P., M. Yu, S. Managi, and C. Chang. 2011. Non-radial directional performance measurement with undesirable outputs. Working Paper, Tohoku University, Japan, 2010.
Chen, L., Y.-M. Wang, and F. Lai. 2017. Semi-disposability of undesirable outputs in data envelopment analysis for environmental assessments. European Journal of Operational Research 260: 655–664.CrossRef
Chung, Y.H., R. Färe, and S. Grosskopf. 1997. Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management 51: 229–240.CrossRef
Coelli, T., L. Lauwers, and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2005. Formulation of technical, economic and environmental efficiency measures that are consistent with the materials balance condition. School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
Coelli, T., L. Lauwers, and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2007. Environmental efficiency measurement and the materials balance condition. Journal of Productivity Analysis 28: 3–12.CrossRef
Coggins, J.S., and J.R. Swinton. 1996. The price of pollution: A dual approach to valuing SO2 allowances. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 58–72.CrossRef
Considine, T.J., and D.F. Larson. 2006. The environment as a factor of production. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52: 645–662.CrossRef
Cooper, W.W., K.S. Park, and J.T. Pastor. 1999a. RAM: A range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models, and relations to other models and measures in DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis 11: 5–42.CrossRef
Cooper, W.W., K.S. Park, and G. Yu. 1999b. IDEA and AR-IDEA: Models for dealing with imprecise data in DEA. Management Science 45: 597–607.CrossRef
Courcelle, C., M.-P. Kestemont, D. Tyteca, and M. Installé. 1998. Assessing the economic and environmental performance of municipal solid waste collection and sorting programmes. Waste Management & Research 16: 253–262.CrossRef
Cui, Q., and Y. Li. 2016. Airline energy efficiency measures considering carbon abatement: A new strategic framework. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 49: 246–258.CrossRef
Cui, Q., and Y. Li. 2017a. Airline efficiency measures under CNG2020 strategy: An application of a dynamic by-production model. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice 106: 130–143.CrossRef
Cui, Q., and Y. Li. 2017b. Airline environmental efficiency measures considering materials balance principles: An application of a network range-adjusted measure with weak-G disposability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61 (13): 1–21.
Cui, Q., and Y. Li. 2018. Airline dynamic efficiency measures with a dynamic RAM with unified natural & managerial disposability. Energy Economics 75: 534–546.CrossRef
Dakpo, K.H., P. Jeanneaux, and L. Latruffe. 2017a. Greenhouse gas emissions and efficiency in French sheep meat farming: A non-parametric framework of pollution-adjusted technologies. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44: 33–65.CrossRef
Dakpo, K.H., P. Jeanneaux, and L. Latruffe. 2017b. Modelling pollution-generating technologies in performance benchmarking: Recent developments, limits and future prospects in the nonparametric framework. European Journal of Operational Research 250: 347–359.CrossRef
De Bruyn, S. 2002. Dematerialization and rematerialization as two recurring phenomena of industrial ecology. In A handbook of industrial ecology, ed. R.U. Ayres and L. Ayres, 209–222. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
De Koeijer, T.J., G.A. Wossink, P.C. Struik, and J.A. Renkema. 2002. Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of efficiency: The case of Dutch sugar beet growers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 66: 9–17.
Domazlicky, B.R., and W.L. Weber. 2004. Does environmental protection lead to slower productivity growth in the chemical industry? Environmental and Resource Economics 28: 301–324.CrossRef
Du, K., H. Lu, and K. Yu. 2013. Sources of the potential CO2 emission reduction in China: A nonparametric metafrontier approach. Applied Energy 115: 491–501.
Dyckhoff, H., and K. Allen. 2001. Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA). European Journal of Operational Research 132: 312–325.CrossRef
Ebert, U., and H. Welsch. 2007. Environmental emissions and production economics: Implications of the materials balance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89: 287–293.CrossRef
Ekvall, T., and G. Finnveden. 2001. Allocation in ISO 14041—A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 9: 197–208.CrossRef
Färe, R., and S. Grosskopf. 1996. Intertemporal production frontiers: With dynamic DEA. Norwell, MA: Springer.CrossRef
Färe, R., and S. Grosskopf. 2003. Nonparametric productivity analysis with undesirable outputs: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1070–1074.CrossRef
Färe, R., and S. Grosskopf. 2004a. Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: Comment. European Journal of Operational Research 157: 242–245.CrossRef
Färe, R., and S. Grosskopf. 2004b. New directions: Efficiency and productivity. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Färe, R., and S. Grosskopf. 2005. New directions: Efficiency and productivity. New York: Springer.
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and C. Pasurka. 1986. Effects on relative efficiency in electric power generation due to environmental controls. Resources and Energy 8: 167–184.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, C.K. Lovell, and C. Pasurka. 1989. Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics 71: 90–98.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and D. Tyteca. 1996. An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms—Application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecological Economics 18: 161–175.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and J.C.A. Pasurka. 2001a. Accounting for air pollution emissions in measures of state manufacturing productivity growth. Journal of Regional Science 41: 381–409.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and W.L. Weber. 2001b. Shadow prices of missouri public conservation land. Public Finance Review 29: 444–460.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, D.-W. Noh, and W. Weber. 2005. Characteristics of a polluting technology: Theory and practice. Journal of Econometrics 126: 469–492.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and C.A. Pasurka Jr. 2007. Environmental production functions and environmental directional distance functions. Energy 32: 1055–1066.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, T. Lundgren, P.-O. Marklund, and W. Zhou. 2012. Productivity: Should we include bads? CERE Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and C. Pasurka. 2013. Joint production of good and bad outputs with a network application. Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resources and Environmental Economics 2: 109–118.CrossRef
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and C.A. Pasurka. 2014. Potential gains from trading bad outputs: The case of U.S. electric power plants. Resource and Energy Economics 36: 99–112.CrossRef
Faucheux, S. 1994. Energy analysis and sustainable development. In Valuing the environment: Methodological and measurement issues, ed. R. Pethig, 325–346. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef
Fernández, C., G. Koop, and M.F.J. Steel. 2002. Multiple-output production with undesirable outputs: An application to nitrogen surplus in agriculture. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97: 432–442.CrossRef
Fernández, C., G. Koop, and M.F. Steel. 2005. Alternative efficiency measures for multiple-output production. Journal of Econometrics 126: 411–444.CrossRef
Finnveden, G., M.Z. Hauschild, T. Ekvall, J. Guinee, R. Heijungs, S. Hellweg, A. Koehler, D. Pennington, and S. Suh. 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 1–21.CrossRef
Fleishman, R., R. Alexander, S. Bretschneider, and D. Popp. 2009. Does regulation stimulate productivity? The effect of air quality policies on the efficiency of US power plants. Energy Policy 37: 4574–4582.CrossRef
Førsund, F.R. 1972. Allocation in space and environmental pollution. The Swedish Journal of Economics 74: 19–34.CrossRef
Førsund, F.R. 1973. Externalities, environmental pollution and allocation in space: A general equilibrium approach. Regional and Urban Economics 3: 3–32.CrossRef
Førsund, F.R. 1998. Pollution modelling and multiple-output production theory. Department of Economics, University of Oslo.
Førsund, F.R. 2009. Good modelling of bad outputs: Pollution and multiple-output production. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 3: 1–38.CrossRef
Førsund, F.R. 2017. Multi-equation modelling of desirable and undesirable outputs satisfying the materials balance. Empirical Economics 54: 67–99.CrossRef
Førsund, F.R. 2018. Pollution meets efficiency: Multi-equation modelling of generation of pollution and related efficiency measures. In Energy, environment and transitional green growth in China, ed. R. Pang, X. Bai, and K. Lovell, 37–79. Springer: Singapore.CrossRef
Frisch, R. 1965. Theory of production. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRef
Frondel, M., J. Horbach, and K. Rennings. 2007. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. Business Strategy and the Environment 16: 571–584.CrossRef
Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef
Glavič, P., and R. Lukman. 2007. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production 15: 1875–1885.CrossRef
Guesmi, B., and T. Serra. 2015. Can we improve farm performance? The determinants of farm technical and environmental efficiency. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 37: 692–717.CrossRef
Hailu, A., and T.S. Veeman. 2000. Environmentally sensitive productivity analysis of the Canadian pulp and paper industry, 1959–1994: An input distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40: 251–274.CrossRef
Hailu, A., and T.S. Veeman. 2001. Non-parametric productivity analysis with undesirable outputs: An application to the Canadian pulp and paper industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 605–616.CrossRef
Hammar, H., and Å. Löfgren. 2010. Explaining adoption of end of pipe solutions and clean technologies—Determinants of firms’ investments for reducing emissions to air in four sectors in Sweden. Energy Policy 38: 3644–3651.CrossRef
Hampf, B. 2013. Separating environmental efficiency into production and abatement efficiency: A nonparametric model with application to US power plants. Journal of Productivity Analysis 41: 457–473.
Hampf, B. 2015. Estimating the materials balance condition: A Stochastic frontier approach. Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics, 226.
Hampf, B. 2018a. Cost and environmental efficiency of U.S. electricity generation: Accounting for heterogeneous inputs and transportation costs. Energy 163: 932–941.CrossRef
Hampf, B. 2018b. Measuring inefficiency in the presence of bad outputs: Does the disposability assumption matter? Empirical Economics 54: 101–127.CrossRef
Hampf, B., and K.L. Rødseth. 2015. Carbon dioxide emission standards for U.S. power plants: An efficiency analysis perspective. Energy Economics 50: 140–153.CrossRef
Hampf, B., and K.L. Rødseth. 2017. Optimal profits under environmental regulation: The benefits from emission intensity averaging. Annals of Operations Research 255: 367–390.CrossRef
Havlik, P. 2005. Joint production under uncertainty and multifunctionality of agriculture: Policy considerations and applied analysis. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 489–515.CrossRef
Hellweg, S., G. Doka, G. Finnveden, and K. Hungerbühler. 2005. Assessing the eco-efficiency of end-of-pipe technologies with the environmental cost efficiency indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9: 189–203.CrossRef
Hoang, V.-N., and M. Alauddin. 2011. Input-orientated data envelopment analysis framework for measuring and decomposing economic, environmental and ecological efficiency: An application to OECD agriculture. Environmental and Resource Economics 51: 431–452.CrossRef
Hoang, V.-N., and T. Coelli. 2011. Measurement of agricultural total factor productivity growth incorporating environmental factors: A nutrients balance approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 62: 462–474.CrossRef
Hoang, V.-N., and T.T. Nguyen. 2013. Analysis of environmental efficiency variations: A nutrient balance approach. Ecological Economics 86: 37–46.CrossRef
Hoang, V.-N., and D.S.P. Rao. 2010. Measuring and decomposing sustainable efficiency in agricultural production: A cumulative exergy balance approach. Ecological Economics 69: 1765–1776.CrossRef
Hodge, I.D. 2000. Agri-environmental relationships and the choice of policy mechanism. The World Economy 23: 257–273.CrossRef
Hodge, I.D. 2008. To what extent are environmental externalities a joint product of agriculture? OECD Publishing.
Hua, Z., Y. Bian, and L. Liang. 2007. Eco-efficiency analysis of paper mills along the Huai River: An extended DEA approach. Omega 35: 578–587.CrossRef
Iribarren, D., A. Hospido, M.T. Moreira, and G. Feijoo. 2011. Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Science of the Total Environment 409: 1786–1798.CrossRef
Jahanshahloo, G.R., A. Hadi Vencheh, A.A. Foroughi, and R. Kazemi Matin. 2004. Inputs/outputs estimation in DEA when some factors are undesirable. Applied Mathematics and Computation 156: 19–32.CrossRef
James, D. 1985. Environmental economics, industrial process models, and regional-residuals management models. In Handbook of natural resource and energy economics, Chapter 7, 271–324. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kao, C., and S.-N. Hwang. 2017. Efficiency evaluation in the presence of undesirable outputs: The most favorable shadow price approach. Annals of Operations Research 278: 1–12.
Keeble, B.R. 1988. The Brundtland report: ‘Our common future’. Medicine and War 4: 17–25.CrossRef
Kneese, A.V., R.U. Ayres, and R.C.D’Arge. 1970. Economics and the environment: A materials balance approach. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Kortelainen, M., and T. Kuosmanen. 2004. Measuring eco-efficiency of production: A frontier approach, EconWPA Working Paper No. 0411004. Department of Economics, Washington University St. Louis, MO.
Kumar, S. 2006. Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: A global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberger index. Ecological Economics 56: 280–293.CrossRef
Kumar, S., and S. Managi. 2011. Non-separability and substitutability among water pollutants: Evidence from India. Environment and Development Economics 16: 709–733.CrossRef
Kumar Mandal, S., and S. Madheswaran. 2010. Environmental efficiency of the Indian cement industry: An interstate analysis. Energy Policy 38: 1108–1118.CrossRef
Kumbhakar, S.C., and E.G. Tsionas. 2016. The good, the bad and the technology: Endogeneity in environmental production models. Journal of Econometrics 190: 315–327.CrossRef
Kuosmanen, T. 2005. Weak disposability in nonparametric production analysis with undesirable outputs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1077–1082.CrossRef
Kuosmanen, N. 2014. Estimating stocks and flows of nitrogen: Application of dynamic nutrient balance to European agriculture. Ecological Economics 108: 68–78.CrossRef
Kuosmanen, T., and R. Kazemi Matin. 2011. Duality of weakly disposable technology. Omega 39: 504–512.CrossRef
Kuosmanen, T., and M. Kortelainen. 2005. Measuring Eco-efficiency of production with data envelopment analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9: 59–72.CrossRef
Kuosmanen, N., and T. Kuosmanen. 2013. Modeling cumulative effects of nutrient surpluses in agriculture: A dynamic approach to material balance accounting. Ecological Economics 90: 159–167.CrossRef
Kuosmanen, T., and V. Podinovski. 2009. Weak disposability in nonparametric production analysis: Reply to Färe and Grosskopf. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91: 539–545.CrossRef
Lauwers, L. 2009. Justifying the incorporation of the materials balance principle into frontier-based eco-efficiency models. Ecological Economics 68: 1605–1614.CrossRef
Lauwers, L., G. Van Huylenbroeck, and G. Rogiers. 1999. Technical, economic and environmental efficiency analysis of pig fattening farms. 9th European Congress of Agricultural Economists. Warsaw, Poland.
Lee, J.-D., J.-B. Park, and T.-Y. Kim. 2002. Estimation of the shadow prices of pollutants with production/environment inefficiency taken into account: A nonparametric directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management 64: 365–375.CrossRef
Lee, B.L., C. Wilson, C.A. Pasurka, H. Fujii, and S. Managi. 2016. Sources of airline productivity from carbon emissions: An analysis of operational performance under good and bad outputs. Journal of Productivity Analysis 47: 223–246.CrossRef
Leleu, H. 2013. Shadow pricing of undesirable outputs in nonparametric analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 231: 474–480.CrossRef
Levkoff, S.B. 2013. Efficiency trends in US coal-fired energy production & the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment: A nonparametric approach. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Liang, L., Y. Li, and S. Li. 2009. Increasing the discriminatory power of DEA in the presence of the undesirable outputs and large dimensionality of data sets with PCA. Expert Systems with Applications 36: 5895–5899.CrossRef
Liu, W., and J. Sharp. 1999. DEA models via goal programming. In Data envelopment analysis in the service Sector, 79–101. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Lovell, C.A.K., J.T. Pastor, and J.A. Turner. 1995. Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries. European Journal of Operational Research 87: 507–518.CrossRef
Lozano, S. 2015. A joint-inputs network DEA approach to production and pollution-generating technologies. Expert Systems with Applications 42: 7960–7968.CrossRef
Lozano, S., and E. Gutiérrez. 2008. Non-parametric frontier approach to modelling the relationships among population, GDP, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Ecological Economics 66: 687–699.CrossRef
Lozano, S., and E. Gutiérrez. 2011. Slacks-based measure of efficiency of airports with airplanes delays as undesirable outputs. Computers & Operations Research 38: 131–139.CrossRef
Macpherson, A.J., P.P. Principe, and E.R. Smith. 2010. A directional distance function approach to regional environmental–economic assessments. Ecological Economics 69: 1918–1925.CrossRef
Mahlberg, B., and B.K. Sahoo. 2011. Radial and non-radial decompositions of Luenberger productivity indicator with an illustrative application. International Journal of Production Economics 131: 721–726.CrossRef
Mahlberg, B., M. Luptacik, and B.K. Sahoo. 2011. Examining the drivers of total factor productivity change with an illustrative example of 14 EU countries. Ecological Economics 72: 60–69.CrossRef
Malikov, E., S. Kumbhakar, and E. Tsionas. 2015. Bayesian approach to disentangling technical and environmental productivity. Econometrics 3: 443–465.CrossRef
Malikov, E., R. Bokusheva, and S.C. Kumbhakar. 2018. A hedonic-output-index-based approach to modeling polluting technologies. Empirical Economics 54: 287–308.CrossRef
Marklund, P.-O., and E. Samakovlis. 2007. What is driving the EU burden-sharing agreement: Efficiency or equity? Journal of Environmental Management 85: 317–329.CrossRef
Mehta, L. 2013. The limits to scarcity: Contesting the politics of allocation. London and Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Murty, S. 2010a. Externalities and fundamental nonconvexities: A reconciliation of approaches to general equilibrium externality modeling and implications for decentralization. Journal of Economic Theory 145: 331–353.CrossRef
Murty, S. 2010b. On the theory of a firm: The case of by-production of emissions. Warwick Economic Research Papers 934: 1–45.
Murty, S. 2015. On the properties of an emission-generating technology and its parametric representation. Economic Theory 60: 243–282.CrossRef
Murty, S., and Russell, R.R. 2002. On modeling pollution generating technologies. Department of Economics, University of California, Riverside.
Murty, S., and R.R. Russell. 2016. Modeling emission-generating technologies: Reconciliation of axiomatic and by-production approaches. Empirical Economics 54: 7–30.CrossRef
Murty, S., R. Robert Russell, and S.B. Levkoff. 2012. On modeling pollution-generating technologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 64: 117–135.CrossRef
Olajire, A.A. 2010. CO2 capture and separation technologies for end-of-pipe applications—A review. Energy 35: 2610–2628.CrossRef
Paul, C.J.M., V.E. Ball, R.G. Felthoven, A. Grube, and R.F. Nehring. 2002. Effective costs and chemical use in United States agricultural production: Using the environment as a “free” input. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84: 902–915.CrossRef
Peerlings, J. 2004. Wildlife and landscape services production in Dutch dairy farming; jointness and transaction costs. European Review of Agriculture Economics 31: 427–449.CrossRef
Pérez, K., M.C. González-Araya, and A. Iriarte. 2017. Energy and GHG emission efficiency in the Chilean manufacturing industry: Sectoral and regional analysis by DEA and Malmquist indexes. Energy Economics 66: 290–302.CrossRef
Pethig, R. 2003. The ‘materials balance approach’ to pollution: Its origin, implications and acceptance. Economics Discussion Paper no. 105-03, University of Siegen.
Pethig, R. 2006. Non-linear production, abatement, pollution and materials balance reconsidered. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51: 185–204.CrossRef
Pham, M.D., and V. Zelenyuk. 2018. Weak disposability in nonparametric production analysis: A new taxonomy of reference technology sets. European Journal of Operational Research 274:186–198.
Picazo-Tadeo, A.J., and D. Prior. 2009. Environmental externalities and efficiency measurement. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 3332–3339.CrossRef
Picazo-Tadeo, A.J., E. Reig-Martinez, and F. Hernandez-Sancho. 2005. Directional distance functions and environmental regulation. Resource and Energy Economics 27: 131–142.CrossRef
Pigou, A.C. 1920. The economics of welfare. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Pittman, R.W. 1983. Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. The Economic Journal 93: 883–891.CrossRef
Podinovski, V.V., and T. Kuosmanen. 2011. Modelling weak disposability in data envelopment analysis under relaxed convexity assumptions. European Journal of Operational Research 211: 577–585.CrossRef
Porter, M.E. 1991. America’s green strategy. Scientific American 264: 168.CrossRef
Porter, M.E., and C. van der Linde. 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 97–118.CrossRef
Prior, D. 2006. Efficiency and total quality management in health care organizations: A dynamic frontier approach. Annals of Operations Research 145: 281–299.CrossRef
Ray, S.C., K. Mukherjee, and A. Venkatesh. 2017. Nonparametric measures of efficiency in the presence of undesirable outputs: A by-production approach. Empirical Economics 54: 31–65.CrossRef
Reinhard, S., C.A.K. Lovell, and G. Thijssen. 1999. Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: An application to Dutch dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 44–60.CrossRef
Reinhard, S., C.A.K. Lovell, and G.J. Thijssen. 2000. Environmental efficiency with multiple environmentally detrimental variables; estimated with SFA and DEA. European Journal of Operational Research 121: 287–303.CrossRef
Reinhard, S., C.A.K. Lovell, and G. Thijssen. 2002. Analysis of environmental efficiency variation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84: 1054–1065.CrossRef
Rennings, K., A. Ziegler, K. Ankele, and E. Hoffmann. 2006. The influence of different characteristics of the EU environmental management and auditing scheme on technical environmental innovations and economic performance. Ecological Economics 57: 45–59.CrossRef
Rødseth, K.L. 2013. Capturing the least costly way of reducing pollution: A shadow price approach. Ecological Economics 92: 16–24.CrossRef
Rødseth, K.L. 2014. Efficiency measurement when producers control pollutants: A non-parametric approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis 42: 211–223.CrossRef
Rødseth, K.L. 2015. Axioms of a polluting technology: A materials balance approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 67: 1–22.CrossRef
Rødseth, K.L. 2016. Environmental efficiency measurement and the materials balance condition reconsidered. European Journal of Operational Research 250: 342–346.CrossRef
Rødseth, K.L., and E. Romstad. 2013. Environmental regulations, producer responses, and secondary benefits: Carbon dioxide reductions under the acid rain program. Environmental and Resource Economics 59: 111–135.CrossRef
Roshdi, I., M. Hasannasab, D. Margaritis, and P. Rouse. 2018. Generalised weak disposability and efficiency measurement in environmental technologies. European Journal of Operational Research 266: 1000–1012.CrossRef
Ruijs, A., M. Kortelainen, A. Wossink, C.J.E. Schulp, and R. Alkemade. 2015. Opportunity cost estimation of ecosystem services. Environmental and Resource Economics 66: 717–747.
Ruijs, A., A. Wossink, M. Kortelainen, R. Alkemade, and C.J.E. Schulp. 2013. Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe. Ecosystem Services 4: 82–94.CrossRef
Sahoo, B.K., M. Luptacik, and B. Mahlberg. 2011. Alternative measures of environmental technology structure in DEA: An application. European Journal of Operational Research 215: 750–762.CrossRef
Sarkis, J., and J.J. Cordeiro. 2001. An empirical evaluation of environmental efficiencies and firm performance: Pollution prevention versus end-of-pipe practice. European Journal of Operational Research 135: 102–113.CrossRef
Sauer, J., and A. Wossink. 2013. Marketed outputs and non-marketed ecosystem services: The evaluation of marginal costs. European Review of Agricultural Economics 40: 573–603.CrossRef
Scheel, H. 2001. Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. European Journal of Operational Research 132: 400–410.CrossRef
Seiford, L.M., and J. Zhu. 2002. Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 142: 16–20.CrossRef
Serra, T., R.G. Chambers, and A. Oude Lansink. 2014. Measuring technical and environmental efficiency in a state-contingent technology. European Journal of Operational Research 236: 706–717.CrossRef
Seufert, J.H., A. Arjomandi, and K.H. Dakpo. 2017. Evaluating airline operational performance: A Luenberger-Hicks-Moorsteen productivity indicator. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 104: 52–68.CrossRef
Shen, Z., J.-P. Boussemart, and H. Leleu. 2017. Aggregate green productivity growth in OECD’s countries. International Journal of Production Economics 189: 30–39.CrossRef
Shephard, R.W. 1953. Cost and production functions. DTIC Document.
Shephard, R.W. 1970. Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shephard, R.W., and R. Färe. 1974. The law of diminishing returns. Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 34: 69–90.CrossRef
Shortall, O., and A. Barnes. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions and the technical efficiency of dairy farmers. Ecological Indicators 29: 478–488.CrossRef
Sipilainen, T., and A. Huhtala. 2012. Opportunity costs of providing crop diversity in organic and conventional farming: Would targeted environmental policies make economic sense? European Review of Agricultural Economics 40: 441–462.CrossRef
Skevas, T., A.O. Lansink, and S.E. Stefanou. 2012. Measuring technical efficiency in the presence of pesticide spillovers and production uncertainty: The case of Dutch arable farms. European Journal of Operational Research 223: 550–559.CrossRef
Song, M., S. Wang, and W. Liu. 2014. A two-stage DEA approach for environmental efficiency measurement. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186: 3041–3051.CrossRef
Song, W., G.-B. Bi, J. Wu, and F. Yang. 2017. What are the effects of different tax policies on China’s coal-fired power generation industry? An empirical research from a network slacks-based measure perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 2816–2827.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2010. Should the US clean air act include CO2 emission control?: Examination by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38: 5902–5911.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2011a. DEA approach for unified efficiency measurement: Assessment of Japanese fossil fuel power generation. Energy Economics 33: 292–303.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2011b. Measurement of returns to scale and damages to scale for DEA-based operational and environmental assessment: How to manage desirable (good) and undesirable (bad) outputs? European Journal of Operational Research 211: 76–89.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2011c. Methodological comparison between two unified (operational and environmental) efficiency measurements for environmental assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 210: 684–693.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2012a. Data envelopment analysis for environmental assessment: Comparison between public and private ownership in petroleum industry. European Journal of Operational Research 216: 668–678.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2012b. DEA environmental assessment of coal fired power plants: Methodological comparison between radial and non-radial models. Energy Economics 34: 1854–1863.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2012c. DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment and planning: Desirable procedures to evaluate fossil fuel power plants. Energy Policy 41: 422–432.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2012d. Environmental assessment by DEA radial measurement: US coal-fired power plants in ISO (Independent System Operator) and RTO (Regional Transmission Organization). Energy Economics 34: 663–676.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2015a. DEA environmental assessment in time horizon: Radial approach for Malmquist index measurement on petroleum companies. Energy Economics 51: 329–345.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2015b. Japanese fuel mix strategy after disaster of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant: Lessons from international comparison among industrial nations measured by DEA environmental assessment in time horizon. Energy Economics 52: 87–103.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2018a. Difficulties and remedies on DEA environmental assessment. Journal of Economic Structures 7: 2193–2409.
Sueyoshi, T., and M. Goto. 2018b. Resource utilization for sustainability enhancement in Japanese industries. Applied Energy 228: 2308–2320.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and D. Wang. 2014. Radial and non-radial approaches for environmental assessment by Data Envelopment Analysis: Corporate sustainability and effective investment for technology innovation. Energy Economics 45: 537–551.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and D. Wang. 2018. DEA environmental assessment on US petroleum industry: Non-radial approach with translation invariance in time horizon. Energy Economics 72: 276–289.
Sueyoshi, T., and Y. Yuan. 2015. Comparison among U.S. industrial sectors by DEA environmental assessment: Equipped with analytical capability to handle zero or negative in production factors. Energy Economics 52: 69–86.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., and Y. Yuan. 2016. Returns to damage under undesirable congestion and damages to return under desirable congestion measured by DEA environmental assessment with multiplier restriction: Economic and energy planning for social sustainability in China. Energy Economics 56: 288–309.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., M. Goto, and T. Ueno. 2010. Performance analysis of US coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies. Energy Policy 38: 1675–1688.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., M. Goto, and M. Sugiyama. 2013. DEA window analysis for environmental assessment in a dynamic time shift: Performance assessment of US coal-fired power plants. Energy Economics 40: 845–857.
Sueyoshi, T., M. Goto, and D. Wang. 2017a. Malmquist index measurement for sustainability enhancement in Chinese municipalities and provinces. Energy Economics 67: 554–571.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., Y. Yuan, and M. Goto. 2017b. A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment. Energy Economics 62: 104–124.CrossRef
Sueyoshi, T., A. Li, and Y. Gao. 2018. Sector sustainability on fossil fuel power plants across Chinese provinces: Methodological comparison among radial, non-radial and intermediate approaches under group heterogeneity. Journal of Cleaner Production 187: 819–829.CrossRef
Sun, C., X. Liu, and A. Li. 2018. Measuring unified efficiency of Chinese fossil fuel power plants: Intermediate approach combined with group heterogeneity and window analysis. Energy Policy 123: 8–18.CrossRef
Telle, K., and J. Larsson. 2007. Do environmental regulations hamper productivity growth? How accounting for improvements of plants’ environmental performance can change the conclusion. Ecological Economics 61: 438–445.CrossRef
Toma, L., M. March, A. W. Stott, and D.J. Roberts. 2013. Environmental efficiency of alternative dairy systems: A productive efficiency approach. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 7014–7031.
Tone, K. 2004. Dealing with undesirable outputs in DEA: A Slacks-Based Measure (SBM) approach. Nippon Opereshonzu, Risachi Gakkai Shunki Kenkyu Happyokai Abusutorakutoshu 2004: 44–45.
Tyteca, D. 1996. On the measurement of the environmental performance of firms—A literature review and a productive efficiency perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 46: 281–308.CrossRef
Tyteca, D. 1997. Linear programming models for the measurement of environmental performance of firms—Concepts and empirical results. Journal of Productivity Analysis 8: 183–197.CrossRef
Valadkhani, A., I. Roshdi, and R. Smyth. 2016. A multiplicative environmental DEA approach to measure efficiency changes in the world’s major polluters. Energy Economics 54: 363–375.CrossRef
Van Huylenbroeck, G., V. Vandermeulen, E. Mettepenningen, and A. Verspecht. 2007. Multifunctionality of agriculture: A review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research 1: 1–43.
Van Meensel, J., L. Lauwers, G. Van Huylenbroeck, and S. Van Passel. 2010. Comparing frontier methods for economic–environmental trade-off analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 207: 1027–1040.CrossRef
van Vuuren, D.P., E. Stehfest, D.E.H.J. Gernaat, M. van den Berg, D.L. Bijl, H.S. de Boer, V. Daioglou, J.C. Doelman, O.Y. Edelenbosch, M. Harmsen, A.F. Hof, and M.A.E. van Sluisveld. 2018. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nature Climate Change 8: 391–397.CrossRef
Vatn, A. 2002. Multifunctional agriculture: Some consequences for international trade regimes. European Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 309–327.CrossRef
Vencheh, A.H., R. Kazemi Matin, and M. Tavassoli Kajani. 2005. Undesirable factors in efficiency measurement. Applied Mathematics and Computation 163: 547–552.CrossRef
Wang, K., Y.-M. Wei, and X. Zhang. 2012. A comparative analysis of China’s regional energy and emission performance: Which is the better way to deal with undesirable outputs? Energy Policy 46: 574–584.CrossRef
Wang, K., Z. Mi, and Y.-M. Wei. 2018a. Will pollution taxes improve joint ecological and economic Efficiency of thermal power industry in China?: A DEA-based materials balance approach. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23: 389–401.
Wang, K., Y.-M. Wei, and Z. Huang. 2018b. Environmental efficiency and abatement efficiency measurements of China’s thermal power industry: A data envelopment analysis based materials balance approach. European Journal of Operational Research 269: 35–50.CrossRef
Watanabe, M., and K. Tanaka. 2007. Efficiency analysis of Chinese industry: A directional distance function approach. Energy Policy 35: 6323–6331.CrossRef
Weber, W.L., and B. Domazlicky. 2001. Productivity growth and pollution in state manufacturing. Review of Economics and Statistics 83: 195–199.CrossRef
Welch, E., and D. Barnum. 2009. Joint environmental and cost efficiency analysis of electricity generation. Ecological Economics 68: 2336–2343.CrossRef
Wossink, A., and S.M. Swinton. 2007. Jointness in production and farmers’ willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64: 297–304.CrossRef
Wu, T.Y., A.W. Mohammad, J.M. Jahim, and N. Anuar. 2010. Pollution control technologies for the treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME) through end-of-pipe processes. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 1467–1490.CrossRef
Yang, H., and M. Pollitt. 2009. Incorporating both undesirable outputs and uncontrollable variables into DEA: The performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants. European Journal of Operational Research 197: 1095–1105.CrossRef
Yang, H., and M. Pollitt. 2010. The necessity of distinguishing weak and strong disposability among undesirable outputs in DEA: Environmental performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants. Energy Policy 38: 4440–4444.CrossRef
Yörük, B.K., and O. Zaim. 2005. Productivity growth in OECD countries: A comparison with Malmquist indices. Journal of Comparative Economics 33: 401–420.CrossRef
Yu, C., L. Shi, Y.T. Wang, Y. Chang, and B.D. Cheng. 2016. The eco-efficiency of pulp and paper industry in China: An assessment based on slacks-based measure and Malmquist-Luenberger index. Journal of Cleaner Production 127: 511–521.CrossRef
Yu-Ying Lin, E., P.-Y. Chen, and C.-C. Chen. 2013. Measuring the environmental efficiency of countries: A directional distance function metafrontier approach. Journal of Environmental Management 119: 134–142.CrossRef
Zaim, O. 2004. Measuring environmental performance of state manufacturing through changes in pollution intensities: A DEA framework. Ecological Economics 48: 37–47.CrossRef
Zhang, N., P. Zhou, and Y. Choi. 2013. Energy efficiency, CO2 emission performance and technology gaps in fossil fuel electricity generation in Korea: A meta-frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy 56: 653–662.CrossRef
Zhao, Z. 2017. Measurement of production efficiency and environmental efficiency in China’s province-level: A by-production approach. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 19: 735–759.CrossRef
Zhou, P., B. Ang, and K. Poh. 2006. Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecological Economics 60: 111–118.CrossRef
Zhou, P., B.W. Ang, and K.L. Poh. 2008a. Measuring environmental performance under different environmental DEA technologies. Energy Economics 30: 1–14.CrossRef
Zhou, P., B.W. Ang, and K.L. Poh. 2008b. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research 189: 1–18.CrossRef
Zhou, P., B.W. Ang, and H. Wang. 2012. Energy and CO2 emission performance in electricity generation: A non-radial directional distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research 221: 625–635.CrossRef
Zhou, H., Y. Yang, Y. Chen, and J. Zhu. 2018. Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research 264: 1–16.CrossRef
Zhu, J., and W.D. Cook. 2007. Modeling data irregularities and structural complexities in data envelopment analysis. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.
Zotter, K.A. 2004. “End-of-pipe” versus “process-integrated” water conservation solutions: A comparison of planning, implementation and operating phases. Journal of Cleaner Production 12: 685–695.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Modelling Environmental Adjustments of Production Technologies: A Literature Review
verfasst von
K. Hervé Dakpo
Frederic Ang
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Buch
The Palgrave Handbook of Economic Performance Analysis

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23726-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-23727-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23727-1_16

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise