Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Economics of energy and environmental efficiency: evidence from OECD countries

  • 55 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine the efficiency of energy usage and its role in carbon dioxide emissions (CI) and economic-environmental efficiency (EEE) for some countries Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economies. For environment quality assessment, data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to assess the data cover the period from 2013 to 2017. In this study, primary energy consumption (PEC) and population are two basic inputs along with gross domestic product (GDP) and carbon dioxide emissions that are desirable and undesirable  outputs, respectively. The practical outcomes illustrate that Brunei, Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong are the most effective and efficient states for the 5 years periods (2013–2017) in terms of energy efficiency and to reduce emission of carbon dioxide. In addition, other states in the OECD region shows greater economic proficiency than environmental proficiency. Furthermore, the results shows that energy efficiency has strong bonding with carbon emissions; however there is a weaker association between economic-environmental efficiency. Thus, the attainment of optimal level of energy efficiency could be more pivotal than economic efficiency to improve environmental efficiency in countries from the OECD region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Agency IE (2017) World Energy Outlook 2017

  2. Al-Refaie A, Hammad M, Li MH (2016) DEA window analysis and Malmquist index to assess energy efficiency and productivity in Jordanian industrial sector. Energy Effic 9:1299–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-016-9424-0

  3. Asbahi AAMH, Gang FZ, Iqbal W et al (2019) Novel approach of principal component analysis method to assess the national energy performance via Energy Trilemma Index. Energy Rep 5:704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.06.009

  4. Bampatsou C, Halkos G (2019) Economic growth, efficiency and environmental elasticity for the G7 countries. Energy Policy:355–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.017

  5. Blum H, Okwelum E (2018) Estimating an economic-efficient frontier for dishwasher consumer choice. Energy Effic 11:1325–1340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9627-7

  6. Canel C, Guris S, Guris B et al (2017) Convergence of energy intensity in OECD countries. Mod Econ 8:946–958. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2017.87066

  7. Carvalho A (2018) Energy efficiency in transition economies. Econ Transit 26:553–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12152

  8. Chang MC, Hu JL (2019) A long-term meta-frontier analysis of energy and emission efficiencies between G7 and BRICS. Energy Effic 12:879–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9696-7

  9. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8

  10. Cicea C, Marinescu C, Popa I, Dobrin C (2014) Environmental efficiency of investments in renewable energy: comparative analysis at macroeconomic level. Renew Sust Energ Rev 30:555–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2013.10.034

  11. Faere R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71:90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1928055

  12. Färe R, Grosskopf S (2004) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: comment. In: European Journal of Operational Research. pp 242–245

  13. Iqbal W, Yumei H, Abbas Q, et al (2019) Assessment of wind energy potential for the production of renewable hydrogen in Sindh Province of Pakistan. Processes 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7040196

  14. Kaab A, Sharifi M, Mobli H et al (2019) Use of optimization techniques for energy use efficiency and environmental life cycle assessment modification in sugarcane production. Energy 181:1298–1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.002

  15. Khalili-Damghani K, Tavana M, Santos-Arteaga FJ, Mohtasham S (2015) A dynamic multi-stage data envelopment analysis model with application to energy consumption in the cotton industry. Energy Econ 51:320–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.020

  16. Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Streimikiene D et al (2017) A comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach in energy efficiency. Renew Sust Energ Rev 70:1298–1322

  17. Mohsin M, Rasheed AK, Saidur R (2018) Economic viability and production capacity of wind generated renewable hydrogen. Int J Hydrog Energy

  18. Mohsin M, Rasheed AK, Sun H et al (2019a) Developing low carbon economies: an aggregated composite index based on carbon emissions. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 35:365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2019.08.003

  19. Mohsin M, Zhang J, Saidur R, Sun H, Sait SM (2019b) Economic assessment and ranking of wind power potential using fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:22494–22511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05564-6

  20. Moon H, Min D (2017) Assessing energy efficiency and the related policy implications for energy-intensive firms in Korea: DEA approach. Energy 133:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.122

  21. Pang R-Z, Deng Z-Q, Hu J (2015) Clean energy use and total-factor efficiencies: an international comparison. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:1158–1171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.08.002

  22. Seiford LM, Zhu J (2002) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142:16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00293-4

  23. Song M, An Q, Zhang W et al (2012) Environmental efficiency evaluation based on data envelopment analysis: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:4465–4469. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2012.04.052

  24. Sueyoshi T (2017) Algorithmic strategy for assurance region analysis in DEA. J Oper Res Soc Japan 35:62–76. https://doi.org/10.15807/jorsj.35.62

  25. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2011) A combined use of DEA (data envelopment analysis) with strong complementary slackness condition and DEADA (discriminant analysis). Appl Math Lett 24:1051–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2011.01.021

  26. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2012a) Efficiency-based rank assessment for electric power industry: a combined use of data envelopment analysis (DEA) and DEA-discriminant analysis (DA). Energy Econ 34:634–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.04.001

  27. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2012b) DEA radial and non-radial models for unified efficiency under natural and managerial disposability: theoretical extension by strong complementary slackness conditions. Energy Econ 34:700–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.12.013

  28. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2015) DEA environmental assessment in time horizon: radial approach for Malmquist index measurement on petroleum companies. Energy Econ 51:329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.07.010

  29. Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2018) DEA-discriminant analysis. In: Environmental assessment on energy and sustainability by data envelopment analysis. pp 243–263

  30. Sueyoshi T, Yuan Y, Goto M (2017) A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment. Energy Econ 62:104–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.006

  31. Sun HP, Tariq G, Haris M, Mohsin M (2019) Evaluating the environmental effects of economic openness: evidence from SAARC countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:24542–24551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05750-6

  32. Tleppayev A, Zeinolla S, Abishova S (2018) Kazakhstan’s energy efficiency policy via DEA approaches. J Soc Sci Res 4:509–514. https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.412.509.514

  33. Toloo M, Mensah EK (2019) Robust optimization with nonnegative decision variables: a DEA approach. Comput Ind Eng 127:313–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.006

  34. Wang H (2015) A generalized MCDA–DEA (multi-criterion decision analysis–data envelopment analysis) approach to construct slacks-based composite indicator. Energy 80:114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2014.11.051

  35. World Bank Annual Reports 2018

  36. Wu T-H, Chen Y-S, Shang W, Wu J-T (2018) Measuring energy use and CO2 emission performances for APEC economies. J Clean Prod 183:590–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.02.028

  37. Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2006) Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecol Econ 60:111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2005.12.001

  38. Zhou P, Ang BW, Han JY (2010) Total factor carbon emission performance: a Malmquist index analysis. Energy Econ 32:194–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.003

  39. Zhou H, Yang Y, Chen Y, Zhu J (2018) Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: the origins, development and future directions. Eur J Oper Res 264:1–16

Download references

Funding

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71774071, 71690241, 71673117, and 71810107001), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2016 M601568), and the Young Academic Leader Project of Jiangsu University (5521380003).

Author information

Correspondence to Robina Iram.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Muhammad Shahbaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iram, R., Zhang, J., Erdogan, S. et al. Economics of energy and environmental efficiency: evidence from OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 3858–3870 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07020-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Data envelopment analysis (DEA)
  • Environmental performance
  • Energy use
  • CO2 emission