臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

This dissertation tests several nonparametric DEA models for their ability to accurately decompose CO2 Emissions change using a Malmquist decomposition framework. The Latent Variable Model exhibited the best results against previous studies from the literature. The new Latent Variable radial input-oriented technology, introduced here as an environmental DEA, simultaneously reduces inputs and undesirable outputs by employing Input Disposability rather than using the Weak Output Disposability assumptions of previous studies. Empirical testing shows that the new Latent Variable Model is closely associated with the Slacks Based Model. Hence, a suitable proof was constructed to show that the Latent Variable radial model is, in fact, equivalent to its additive Slacks Based counterpart in terms of Pareto-Koopmans„ Efficiency. This eliminates the need for a two phase DEA method which is widely used to determine optimal efficiency. That is, the single step Latent Variable radial model independently eliminates slacks and congestion within a production oriented DEA problem and returns an optimal solution.
Further to this discovery, the Latent Variable technology can be extended to simultaneously reduce both inputs or outputs depending on their „desirability‟ within a system space as a whole. Burning fossil fuels, for example, is „undesirable‟ within the context of the environment, but is conventionally considered as a „desirable‟ input.
Under the General LV model, hydrocarbon use can be reduced as an undesirable input while other green inputs can be simultaneously increased as substitutes. Similarly, the Generalized Latent Variable Model (GLVM) can greatly enhance the use of DEA: It can be applied to any causal system of inputs and outputs using appropriate Weak Disposability as its key attribute, thus optimizing efficiency comparisons. The General LVM employs a partitioning scheme of seven mutually exclusive sets based on their interaction within a system space. The purpose of such partitions is to classify inputs and outputs in terms of their impact on a system: either positive, negative, neutral or ambient. Previous analysis has been limited to only a single target efficiency partition such as a set of minimized inputs or maximized outputs, and generally these exclude externalities. In the GLVM, a Latent Variable is placed on each partition to track the efficiency impact of each set upon the system as a whole. Thus the Total Factor Productivity and its interdependencies within the system space are determined by a series of seven Latent Variable efficiency ratings, not just one as in traditional DEA.
Thus the GLVM implies multi-criteria benchmarking while completely characterizing the internal efficiencies of each DMU relative to its peers. Thus, the General Latent Variable Model not only offers a new level of inclusiveness for management and production studies, but it can potentially serve as a basis for quantitative efficiency analysis within any interdependent system of causally related variables in the social or environmental sciences.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION A
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF FIGURES VI
ABSTRACT 1
CHAPTER ONE STANDARD INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 The Motive for a Consistent, Generalized DEA. 3
1.2 A Data Envelopment Analysis Overview. 4
1.3 The DEA Framework. 7
1.4 Main Roadblocks to a Consistent, Generalized DEA. 9
1.5 Research Purpose and Questions. 11
1.6 Research Objectives. 12
1.7 Research Scope and Flow. 14
1.8 The Structure of this Study. 17
CHAPTER TWO SUPPORTING LITERATURE 18
2.1 The Need for Energy and Environmental (E＆E) DEA. 18
2.2 Weak Disposability and Undesirable Outputs 19
2.3 Efficiency Measures, Minimizing U, and Malmquist. 20
2.4 Research Themes in E＆E. 21
2.5 Methodology and Model Choice. 22
2.6 Gaps in the Research 22
CHAPTER THREE DEA METHODOLOGY: USED AND DEVELOPED 24
3.1 Technology Set and Aggregation, Data Conventions, Invariance. 24
3.2 DEA Compared to the Econometrics of Regression. 26
3.3 Radial Envelopment Models. 27
3.3.1 The CCR Model. 27
3.3.2 The BCC Model. 28
3.4 Standard Model Specification. 29
3.4.1 Are Outputs Held Constant or Reductions Proportional? 30
3.5 Standard Environmental Model Specification. 33
3.5.1 “Treating Outputs as Inputs.” 35
3.6 Weak Disposability Assumptions. 36
3.6.1 The Null Joint and Proportionality Hypotheses. 37
3.6.2 The Disproportionality Hypothesis. 39
3.7 The Latent Variable Uses Weak Disposability. 41
3.7.1 The Preferred Environmental Specification: Step by Step. 45
3.7.2 The Reduction Plane. 48
3.8 The Slacks Based Models. 48
3.8.1 The Reverse Slacks Based Model and Optimality Testing. 51
3.9 MPSS: Most Productive Scale Size. 53
3.10 Scale Efficiency, Congestion and Frontier Validity. 53
3.11 Environmental Estimation Models. 55
3.11.1 Pure Environmental Technologies. 55
3.11.2 The Mixed Environmental Index. 57
3.12 The Malmquist Productivity Index. 58
3.12.1 Structure of the Malmquist Index. 58
3.12.2 CO2 Decomposition Methods in DEA. 60
3.13 Aggregated Data Structures. 61
3.14 Three Preliminary Data Tests. 62
3.14.1 Sufficient Degrees of Freedom. 62
3.14.2 Sufficient Correlation. 62
3.14.3 Regression Analysis for Causality. 62
3.15 The Dispersion Index. 63
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH DESIGN AND EMPIRICAL RESULTS 65
4.1 Research Design ＆ Results. 65
4.2. Precedent Study on Pure Environmental Indices. 65
4.3 Application Study One. 67
4.3.1. Study Overview. 67
4.3.2 Data Set. 68
4.3.3 The Disjoint CCR Models. 69
4.3.4 Study Anomalies Examined. 70
4.3.5 Integrating the Disjoint Model. 71
4.4 Application Study Two: Decomposition of OECD Using the LVM. 75
4.4.1 Dataset with Observations on Aggregated Data. 75
4.4.2 Decomposition Results. 76
4.4.3 Factor Reversals. 78
4.4.4 Statistical Analysis of the Models. 80
4.4.5 Scale Efficiency Comparisons for Simultaneous Reductions. 83
4.4.6 The Reduction Plane. 85
4.5 Other Reduction Plane Examples 88
4.6 DIR2 Proposed as a New Determination Coefficient 92
4.7 Testing Optimality with Reverse SBM 92
4.8 Conclusion of Empirical Results 95
CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS AND RAMIFICATIONS 97
5.1 Dissertation’s Primary Contribution. 97
5.2 Derivation and Proof of the Latent Variable Model. 98
5.3 Generalization of the Latent Variable Model. 101
5.3.1 The GLVM Technology Set. 103
5.3.2 General Disproportionality and the Nemesis of Proportionality. 105
5.3.3 The Preferred Model: GLVM. 106
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS, OBJECTIVES ATTAINED AND THE FUTURE OF THE GLVM 110
6.1 Research Objectives Obtained. 110
6.2 Research Conclusion. 111
6.3 Future Studies Using the Latent Variable Model. 113
6.4 Limitations of this Study. 116
REFERENCES 117
APPENDICES 122
Appendix 1: Table of Abbreviations. 122
Appendix 2: Omega Publication. 122

REFERENCES
Allen, R., ＆ Thanassoulis, E. (2004). Improving envelopment in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 363–379.
Arcelus, F., ＆ Arocena, P. (2005). Productivity differences across OECD countries in the presence of environmental constraints. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 1352-1362.
Banker, R. D. (1984). Estimating most productive scale size using DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 17, 35-44.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., ＆ Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078-1092.
Barla, P., ＆ Perelman, S. (2005). Sulphur emissions and productivity growth in industrialised countries Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 76 (2).
Boyd, G. A., ＆ Pang, J. X. (2000). Estimating the linkage between energy efficiency and productivity. Energy Policy, 28, 289–296.
Boyd, G. A., Tolley, G., ＆ Pang, J. (2002). Plant level productivity efficiency and environmental performance of the container glass industry. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 29–43.
Bretholt, A., ＆ Pan, J. N. (2013). Evolving the latent variable model as an environmental DEA technology. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 41(2), 315–325.
Byrnes, P., Fare, R., ＆ Grosskopf, S. (1984). Measuring productivity efficiency: An application to Illinois strip mines. Management Science, 30, 671-681.
Byrnes, P., Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., ＆ Lovell, C. A. K. (1988). The effect of unions on productivity: US surface mining of coal. Management Science, 34, 1037-1053.
Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., ＆ Diewert, W. E. (1982). Multilateral comparisons of output input and productivity using index numbers. Economic Journal, 92, 73–86.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Golany, B., Seiford, L. M., ＆ Stutz, J. (1985). Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopman's efficient empirical production functions. Journal of Econometrics, 30, 1-17.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., ＆ Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.
Chung, Y. H., Fare, R., ＆ Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51, 229–240.
Coelli, T. (1996). Guide to DEAP version 2.1: A data envelopment analysis (computer) program: working paper. Paper presented at the Efficiency and Productivity Analysis
Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., ＆ Tone, K. (2007). DEA: A Comprehensive text with model, applications, references, and DEA solver software (Second ed.). New York City: Springer.
Dyson, R. G., Allen, R., ＆ Camanho, A. S. (2001). Pitfalls and Protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132, 245-259.
Färe, R., ＆ Grosskopf, S. (1995). Intertemporal production frontiers, with dynamic DEA Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Färe, R., ＆ Grosskopf, S. (2004). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: Comment. European Journal of Operational Research, 157, 242-245.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., ＆ Hernandez-Sancho, F. (2004). Environmental performance: An index number approach. Resource and Energy Economics, 26, 343–352.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., ＆ Lovell, C. A. K. (1994). Production Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. A. K., ＆ Pasurka, C. (1989). Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 90-98.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Noh, D., ＆ Weber, W. (2005). Characteristics of a polluting technology: Theory and practice. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 469–492.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., ＆ Pasurka Jr, C. A. (2001). Accounting for air pollution emissions in measures of state manufacturing productivity growth. Journal of Regional Science, 41, 381–409.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., ＆ Roos, P. (1998). Malmquist productivity indexes: A survey of theory and practice. In R. Fare, S. Grosskopf ＆ R. R. Russell (Eds.), Index Numbers: Essays in Honour of Sten Malmquist (pp.127–190.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., ＆ Tyteca, D. (1996). An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms – application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecological Economics, 18, 161–175.
Fare, R., ＆ Lovell, C. A. K. (1978). Measuring technical efficiency. Journal of Economic Theory, 19, 150-162.
Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120, 253–281.
Hu, J.-L., ＆ Wang, S.-C. (2006). Total-factor energy efficiency of regions in China. Energy Policy, 34, 3206-3217.
Hu, J. L., ＆ Kao, C. H. (2007). Efficient energy-saving targets for APEC economies. Energy Policy, 35, 373–382.
International Energy Agency. (2009). International energy agency: Key world energy statistics. Retrieved May, 2010. from http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2009/key_stats_2009.pdf.
Juo, J.-C., Fu, T.-T., ＆ Yu, M.-M. (2012). Non-oriented slack-based decompositions of profit change with an application to Taiwanese banking. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 40, 550–561.
Kumar, S. (2006). Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: A global analysis using Malmquist-Luenberger index. Ecological Economics, 56, 280–293.
Kuosmanen, T., ＆ Matin, R. K. (2011). Duality of weakly disposable technology. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 39, 504–512.
Liang, Z., Yang, K., Sun, Y., Yuan, J., Zhang, H., ＆ Zhang, Z. (2006). Decision support for choice optimal power generation projects: Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on the electricity market. Energy Policy, 34, 3359–3364.
Liu, W. B., Zhang, D. Q., Meng, W., Li, X. X., ＆ Xua, F. (2012). A study of DEA models without explicit inputs. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 40, 65–78.
Malmquist, S. (1953). Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estatistica, 4, 209–242.
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R. (2005 ). The role of energy in productivity growth: A controversial issue? Energy Journal, 26(2), 69-88.
Oude Lansink, A., ＆ Bezlepkin, I. (2003). The effect of heating technologies on CO2 and energy efficiency of Dutch greenhouse firms. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 73–82.
Oude Lansink, A., ＆ Silva, E. (2003). CO2 and energy efficiency of different heating technologies in the Dutch glasshouse industry. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 395–407.
Picazo-Tadeo, A. J., Reig-Martýnez, E., ＆ Hernandez-Sancho, F. (2005). Directional distance functions and environmental regulation. Resource and Energy Economics, 21, 131–142.
Rahmstorf, S. (2008). Climate change: State of the science. Retrieved March 12, 2012. from www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan.
Ramanathan, A. (2003). An introduction to data envelopment analysis. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Ramanathan, R. (2005). An analysis of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Energy Journal, 30, 2831–2842.
Ray, S. C. (2004). Data envelopment analysis: Theory and techniques for economics and operations research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheel, H. (2001). Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. European Journal of Operational Research, 132, 400–410.
Seiford, L. M., ＆ Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142, 16–20.
Shepard, R. W. (1970). Theory of cost and production functions: Princeton University Press.
Sueyoshi, T. (2000). Stochastic DEA for restructure strategy: An application to a
Japanese petroleum company. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 28, 385–398.
Sueyoshi, T., ＆ Goto, M. (2001). Slack-adjusted DEA for time series analysis: Performance measurement of Japanese electric power generation industry in 1984-1993. European Journal of Operational Research, 133, 232–259.
Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 498–509.
Tone, K., ＆ Tsutsui, M. (2001). An epsilon-based measure of efficiency in DEA. Paper presented at the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Conference.
Tone, K., ＆ Tsutsui, M. (2010). Dynamic DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 38, 145-156.
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.
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.
Tyteca, D. (1998.). Sustainability indicators at the firm level: Pollution and resource efficiency as a necessary condition toward sustainability. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2, 61–77.
Weyman-Jones, T. G. (1991). Productive efficiency in a regulated industry: The area electricity boards of England and Wales. Energy Economics, 13, 116–122.
Zaim, O. (2004). Measuring environmental performance of state manufacturing through changes in pollution intensities: A DEA framework. Ecological Economics, 48, 37–47.
Zaim, O., ＆ Taskin, F. (2000a). Environmental efficiency in carbon dioxide emissions in the OECD: A non-parametric approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 58, 95–107.
Zaim, O., ＆ Taskin, F. (2000b). A Kuznets curve in environmental efficiency: An application on OECD countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 17, 21–36.
Zhou, P., ＆ Ang, B. W. (2008). Decomposition of aggregate CO2 emissions: A production-theoretical approach. Energy Economics, 30, 1054–1067.
Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., ＆ Poh, K. L. (2006a). Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update. Energy Journal, 31, 2604–2622.
Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., ＆ Poh, K. L. (2006b). Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecological Economics, 60, 111–118.
Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., ＆ Poh, K. L. (2008a). Measuring environmental performance under different environmental DEA technologies. Energy Economics, 30(1),1-14.
Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., ＆ Poh, K. L. (2008b). A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research,189, 1-18.
Zhou, P., Poh, K. L., ＆ Ang, B. W. (2007). A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance European Journal of Operational Research, 178(1),1-9.
Zhu, J. (2000). Setting scale efficient targets in DEA via retums to scale estimation method. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(3), 376-378.
Zhu, J. (2004). Quantitative models for performance evaluation and benchmarking. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zofio, J. L., ＆ Prieto, A. M. (2001). Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: The case of CO2 emissions from OECD industries. Resource and Energy Economics, 23, 63–83.