Advertisement

Energy Efficiency

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 993–1006 | Cite as

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

  • Fanyi Meng
  • Bin SuEmail author
  • Yang Bai
Original Article
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Rank reversal Data envelopment analysis Energy efficiency China 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71704080, 71774087, and 71573186), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (No. 30917013101), and the Research Foundation of Nanjing University of Science and Technology for the Young Scholars (Grant No. JGQN1703).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Al-Refaie, A., Hammad, M., & Li, M. H. (2016). DEA window analysis and Malmquist index to assess energy efficiency and productivity in Jordanian industrial sector. Energy Efficiency, 9(6), 1299–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang, B. W., Mu, A. R., & Su, B. (2015). Multi-country comparisons of energy performance: The index decompoition analysis approach. Energy Economics, 47, 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Belton, V., & Gear, T. (1983). On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11(3), 228–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, Y., Zhang, N., & Zhou, P. (2012). Efficiency and abatement costs of energy-related CO2 emissions in China: A slacks-based efficiency measure. Applied Energy, 98, 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung, Y. H., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(3), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, W. W., Park, K. S., & Pastor, J. T. (1999). 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(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. A. K., et al. (1989). Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernández, D., Pozo, C., Folgado, R., Jiménez, L., & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. (2018). Productivity and energy efficiency assessment of existing industrial gases facilities via data envelopment analysis and the Malmquist index. Applied Energy, 212, 1563–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green, R. H., Doyle, J. R., & Cook, W. D. (1996). Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 90(3), 461–472.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu, J. L., & Wang, S. C. (2006). Total-factor energy efficiency of regions in China. Energy Policy, 34(17), 3206–3217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu, J. L., Chang, M. C., & Tsay, H. W. (2017). The congestion total-factor energy efficiency of regions in Taiwan. Energy Policy, 110, 710–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang, J. P., Poh, K. L., & Ang, B. W. (1995). Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy, 20(9), 843–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IEA. (2014). Energy efficiency market report. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  16. IEA. (2017). Key world energy statistics. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  17. Iftikhar, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, B., & Wang, B. (2018). Energy and CO2, emissions efficiency of major economies: A network DEA approach. Energy, 147, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khoshroo, A., Izadikhah, M., & Emrouznejad, A. (2018). Improving energy efficiency considering reduction of CO2, emission of turnip production: A novel data envelopment analysis model with undesirable output approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meng, F. Y., Fan, L. W., Zhou, P., & Zhou, D. Q. (2013). Measuring environmental performance in China’s industrial sectors with non-radial DEA. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 58(5), 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meng, F. Y., Su, B., Thomson, E., et al. (2016). Measuring China’s regional energy and carbon emission efficiency with DEA models: A survey. Applied Energy, 183, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pan, X., Liu, Q., & Peng, X. (2015). Spatial club convergence of regional energy efficiency in China. Ecological Indicators, 51, 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 16-20.Google Scholar
  23. Shi, G. M., Bi, J., & Wang, J. N. (2010). Chinese regional industrial energy efficiency evaluation based on a DEA model of fixing non-energy inputs. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6172–6179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Soltanifar, M., & Shahghobadi, S. (2014). Survey on rank preservation and rank reversal in data envelopment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 60, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Su, B., & Ang, B. W. (2016). Multi-region comparisons of emission performance: The structural decomposition analysis approach. Ecological Indicators, 67, 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang, Y. M., & Luo, Y. (2009). On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(5), 1221–1229.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang, K., Wei, Y. M., & Zhang, X. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, Q. W., Zhao, Z. Y., Zhou, P., et al. (2013). Energy efficiency and production technology heterogeneity in China: A meta-frontier DEA approach. Economic Modelling, 35, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wei, Y. M., Liao, H., & Fan, Y. (2007). An empirical analysis of energy efficiency in China’s iron and steel sector. Energy, 32(12), 2262–2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xue, X., Wu, H., Zhang, X., et al. (2014). Measuring energy consumption efficiency of the construction industry: The case of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 509–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zaim, O., & Gazel, T. U. (2018). Overcoming the shortcomings of energy intensity index: A directional technology distance function approach. Energy Efficiency, 11(3), 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang, Y. J., & Chen, M. Y. (2018). Evaluating the dynamic performance of energy portfolios: Empirical evidence from the DEA directional distance function. European Journal of Operational Research, 269, 64–78.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. L. (2008). A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1), 1–18.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhou, P., Sun, Z. R., & Zhou, D. Q. (2014). Optimal path for controlling CO2 emissions in China: A perspective of efficiency analysis. Energy Economics, 45, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementNanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingChina
  2. 2.Energy Studies InstituteNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.School of BusinessNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations