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

A study on emissions efficiency, emissions technology gap ratio, room for improvement in emissions intensity, and pluralized relationships

  • 6 Accesses

Abstract

This study investigates the relationships among emissions efficiency (Em), the emissions technology gap ratio (TGm), and room for improvement in emissions intensity (RIm), and creates target-consideration environmental Kuznets curves (TC-EKC) which are then examined and compared for countries in the European Union (EU) that are divided into those countries in the Baltic Sea region (BSR) and those in the non-Baltic Sea region (NBSR). The research results indicate that the BSR countries exhibit an inverted-U-shaped TC-EKC, but the NBSR countries do not, implying that CO2 emissions in the latter region do not achieve the target. The small TGm and the large RIm for the BSR countries indicate that this region has a low Em and is at the preliminary stage of emissions technology development.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Atici C (2009) Carbon emissions in Central and Eastern Europe: environmental Kuznets curve and implications for sustainable development. Sustain Dev 17:155–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.372

  2. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30:1078–1092. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078

  3. Chang MC (2014) Energy intensity, target level of energy intensity, and room for improvement in energy intensity: an application to the study of regions in the EU. Energy Policy 67:648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.051

  4. Chang MC (2015) Room for improvement in low carbon economies of G7 and BRICS countries based on the analysis of energy efficiency and environmental Kuznets curves. J Clean Prod 99:140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.002

  5. Chang MC (2019) Studying the room for improvement in energy intensity by data envelopment analysis under the meta-frontier framework. Energ Strat Rev 26:100398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100398

  6. Chang YT, Zhang N, Danao D, Zhang N (2013) Environmental efficiency analysis of transportation system in China: a non-radial DEA approach. Energy Policy 58:277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.011

  7. Chang MC, Hu JL, Jan FG (2016) Performance estimation of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions for sustainable development in Baltic Sea countries. J Clean Prod 139:1370–1382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.006

  8. 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

  9. Chen L, Duan Q (2016) Decomposition analysis of factors driving CO2 emissions in Chinese provinces based on production-theoretical decomposition analysis. Nat Hazards 84:267–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2313-1

  10. Cornille J, Fankhauser S (2004) The energy intensity of transition countries. Energy Econ 26:283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.015

  11. European Commission (EC) (2011) A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Communication (COM(2011) 112). European Commission, Brussels, 2011

  12. European Commission (EC) (2012) Europe 2020: a European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication COM(2010) 2020 Final European Commission, Brussels, 2012

  13. Eurostat Pocketbooks (2012) Energy, transport and environment indicators. Published by the European Commission, 2012

  14. Fei R, Lin B (2017) Technology gap and CO2 emission reduction potential by technical efficiency measures: a meta-frontier modeling for the Chinese agricultural sector. Ecol Indic 73:653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.021

  15. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443

  16. Huang WM, Lee GW, Wu CC (2008) GHG emissions, GDP growth and the Kyoto Protocol: a revisit of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Energy Policy 36:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.035

  17. Jobert T, Karanfil F, Tykhonenko A (2010) Convergence per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the EU: legend or reality? Energy Econ 32:1364–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.03.005

  18. Kerkhof AC, Nonhebel S, Moll HC (2009) Relating the environmental impact of consumption to household expenditure: an input-output analysis. Ecol Econ 58:1161–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.004

  19. Kounetas K (2015) Heterogeneous technologies, strategic groups and environmental efficiency technology gaps for European countries. Energy Policy 83:277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.036

  20. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 1:1–28

  21. Kwon DS, Cho J, Sohn SY (2017) Comparison of technology efficiency for CO2 emissions reduction among European countries based on DEA with decomposed factors. J Clean Prod 151:109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.065

  22. Li K, Lin B (2015) The improvement gap in energy intensity: analysis of China’s thirty provincial regions using the improved DEA (data envelopment analysis) model. Energy 84:589–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.021

  23. Li A, Zhang A, Zhou Y, Yao X (2017) Decomposition analysis of factors affecting carbon dioxide emissions across provinces in China. J Clean Prod 141:1428–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.206

  24. Mendiluce M, Pérez-Arriaga I, Ocaña C (2010) Comparison of the evolution of energy intensity in Spain and in the EU15. Why is Spain different? Energy Policy 38:639–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.069

  25. O’Donnell CJ, Rao DSP, Battese GE (2008) Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empir Econ 34:231–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-007-0119-4

  26. Shahbaz M, Nasreen S, Abbas F, Anis O (2015) Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Econ 51:275–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.014

  27. Streimikiene D, Šivickas G (2008) The EU sustainable energy policy indicators framework. Environ Int 34:1227–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.04.008

  28. Su B, Ang BW (2015) Multiplicative decomposition of aggregate carbon intensity change using input-output analysis. Appl Energy 154:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.101

  29. Tone K (2001) A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 130:498–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00407-5

  30. Wang Q, Chiu YH, Chiu CR (2015) Driving factors behind carbon dioxide emissions in China: a modified production-theoretical decomposition analysis. Energy Econ 51:252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.07.009

  31. Yan Q, Yin J, Baležentis T, Makutėnienė D, Štreimikienė D (2017) Energy-related GHG emission in agriculture of the European countries: an application of the Generalized Divisia Index. J Clean Prod 164:686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.010

  32. Yoshida Y, Dowaki K, Matsumura Y, Matsuhashi R, Li D, Ishitani H, Komiyama H (2003) Comprehensive comparison of efficiency and CO2 emissions between biomass energy conversion technologies - position of supercritical water gasification in biomass technologies. Biomass Bioenergy 25:257–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00016-3

  33. Zhang N, Wei X (2015) Dynamic total factor carbon emissions performance changes in the Chinese transportation industry. Appl Energy 146:409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.072

  34. Zhang XP, Zhang J, Tan QL (2013a) Decomposing the change in CO2 emissions: a joint production theoretical approach. Energy Policy 58:329–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.034

  35. Zhang N, Zhou P, Choi Y (2013b) 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.033

  36. Zhang N, Kong F, Yu Y (2015) Measuring ecological total-factor energy efficiency incorporating regional heterogeneities in China. Ecol Indic 51:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.041

  37. Zhou P, Ang BW (2008) Decomposition of aggregate CO2 emissions: a production-theoretical approach. Energy Econ 30:1054–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.10.005

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Ming-Chung Chang.

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

Chang, M. A study on emissions efficiency, emissions technology gap ratio, room for improvement in emissions intensity, and pluralized relationships. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07935-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Room for improvement in emissions intensity
  • Emissions efficiency
  • Emissions technology gap ratio