Rank reversal issues in DEA models for China's regional energy efficiency assessment

被引:24
作者
Meng, Fanyi [1 ,2 ]
Su, Bin [2 ]
Bai, Yang [3 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ Sci & Technol, Sch Econ & Management, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Natl Univ Singapore, Energy Studies Inst, Singapore, Singapore
[3] Nanjing Normal Univ, Sch Business, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Rank reversal; Data envelopment analysis; Energy efficiency; China; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; EMISSION PERFORMANCE; CO2; EMISSIONS; PRODUCTIVITY; OUTPUTS; INDEX;
D O I
10.1007/s12053-018-9737-2
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Energy efficiency (EE) is an important strategy for China to save energy and reduce energy-related emissions. With significant regional diversities in China, it is important to conduct the EE assessment at the regional level. Usually, the regional EE assessment is applied to 30 regions in Mainland China using the data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. With the "Belt and Road" strategy initiated by the Chinese government, it is reasonable and necessary to take Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan into consideration. However, such data expansion for China's regional EE assessment using DEA can reverse the relative rankings of some decision-making units, which is called the "rank reversal" phenomenon. In this paper, we illustrate in theory that rank reversal occurs in general DEA models, and apply the most popular five DEA models to assess China's regional energy efficiency from 2000 to 2014. The empirical study shows that the 30 regions in Mainland China have the least rank reversal when Tone's slack-based model (SBMT) is adopted. The main cause of ranking reversal is the addition of decision-making units lying on production frontier. Better understanding of the rank reversal phenomenon is critical for the energy efficiency assessment using DEA to inform the policy makings.
引用
收藏
页码:993 / 1006
页数:14
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   DEA window analysis and Malmquist index to assess energy efficiency and productivity in Jordanian industrial sector [J].
Al-Refaie, Abbas ;
Hammad, Mohammad ;
Li, Ming-Hsien .
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, 2016, 9 (06) :1299-1313
[2]   Multi-country comparisons of energy performance: The index decomposition analysis approach [J].
Ang, B. W. ;
Xu, X. Y. ;
Su, Bin .
ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2015, 47 :68-76
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2014, EN EFF MARK REP
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2017, KEY WORLD EN STAT
[5]   SOME MODELS FOR ESTIMATING TECHNICAL AND SCALE INEFFICIENCIES IN DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS [J].
BANKER, RD ;
CHARNES, A ;
COOPER, WW .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1984, 30 (09) :1078-1092
[6]   ON A SHORT-COMING OF SAATY METHOD OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHIES [J].
BELTON, V ;
GEAR, T .
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1983, 11 (03) :228-230
[7]   MEASURING EFFICIENCY OF DECISION-MAKING UNITS [J].
CHARNES, A ;
COOPER, WW ;
RHODES, E .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1978, 2 (06) :429-444
[8]   Efficiency and abatement costs of energy-related CO2 emissions in China: A slacks-based efficiency measure [J].
Choi, Yongrok ;
Zhang, Ning ;
Zhou, P. .
APPLIED ENERGY, 2012, 98 :198-208
[9]   Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach [J].
Chung, YH ;
Fare, R ;
Grosskopf, S .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 1997, 51 (03) :229-240
[10]   RAM: A range adjusted measure of inefficiency for use with additive models, and relations to other models and measures in DEA [J].
Cooper, WW ;
Park, KS ;
Pastor, JT .
JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS, 1999, 11 (01) :5-42