Complete Decomposition Analysis of CO2 Emissions in the Health Sector in Portugal

  • Margarita RobainaEmail author
  • Celeste Varum
  • Ana Francisco
Research paper


This study uses the “Complete Decomposition” technique to examine the intensity of CO2 emissions in the health sector in Portugal over the period 1997–2014. Our results suggest that improvements in emission intensity in the health sector depend on the design of incentives of replacing fossil fuels with fuels from renewable energy sources and adopting measures to save energy. In addition, capital investment may also contribute to the reduction of the emission intensity in the sector, if the investment is applied to the acquisition of more efficient equipment. We identify areas for action and recommend that public and private sector health professionals should elevate energy efficiency to a top priority. Our results also highlight the importance of the Kyoto protocol.

Article Highlights

  • Emissions of health sector (Portugal, 1997–2014) using complete decomposition.

  • Consumption of fossil fuels reveals the strongest effect upon CO2 intensity.

  • Renewables and efficient use of electricity reveal critical to reduce emissions.

  • Capital investment may contribute to the reduction of the emission intensity.

  • Results also highlight the importance of the Kyoto protocol.


Decomposition analysis Emissions intensity Health sector Portugal 

JEL Classification

Q530 Q490 Q560 



This work has been in part financially supported by the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy—GOVCOPP (project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-008540), funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI)—and by national funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. Any persistent error or missing facts are the authors’ entire responsibility.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32(9):1131–1139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang BW, Pandiyan G (1997) Decomposition of energy-induced CO2 emissions in manufacturing. Energy Econ 19(3):363–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ang BW, Zhang FQ (2000) A survey of index decomposition analysis in energy and environmental studies. Energy 25(12):1149–1176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharyya SC, Matsumura W (2010) Changes in the GHG emission intensity in EU-15: lessons from a decomposition analysis. Energy 35(8):3315–3322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd GA, Hanson DA, Sterner T (1988) Decomposition of changes in energy intensity: a comparison of the divisia index and other methods. Energy Econ 10(4):309–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown LH, Blanchard IE (2012) Energy, emissions and emergency medical services: policy matters. Energy Policy 46(July):585–593. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang YF, Lewis C, Lin SJ (2008) Comprehensive evaluation of industrial CO2 emission (1989–2004) in Taiwan by input–output structural decomposition. Energy Policy 36(7):2471–2480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi K-H, Ang BW (2001) A time-series analysis of energy-related carbon emissions in Korea. Energy Policy 29(13):1155–1161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung JW, Meltzer DO (2009) Estimate of the carbon footprint of the US Health Care Sector. JAMA 302(18):1970–1972. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EEA, European Environment Agency (2015) Living in a changing climate, Environmental Signals 2015. Copenhagen.
  11. EIA, Energy Information Administration (2012) Energy use date from United States Department of Energy. Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. The National Academies Press, Washington.
  12. Gilliam AD, Davidson B, Guest J (2008) The carbon footprint of laparoscopic surgery: should we offset? Surg Endosc 22(2):573. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould BW, Kulshreshtha SN (1986) An interindustry analysis of structural change and energy use linkages in the saskatchewan economy. Energy Econ 8(3):186–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gowdy JM, Miller JL (1987) Technological and demand change in energy use: an input—output analysis. Environ Plan A Econ Space 19(10):1387–1398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greening LA, Davis WB, Schipper L (1998) Decomposition of aggregate carbon intensity for the manufacturing sector: comparison of declining trends from 10 OECD countries for the period 1971–1991. Energy Econ 20(1):43–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haas R, Schipper L (1998) Residential energy demand in OECD-countries and the role of irreversible efficiency improvements. Energy Econ 20(4):421–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. INE, Instituto Nacional de Estatística (2015) Contas Nacionais, Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Lisboa.
  18. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovern—mental panel on climate change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  19. Jaber JO, Probert SD (2002) Purchased-energy consumptions in Jordan’s Commercial and Public-Service Sector. Appl Energy 71(1):31–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiang C, Xing J, Ling J, Qin X (2012) Energy consumption and carbon emissions of hospitals in Tianjin. Front Energy 6(4):427–435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Justice A (2015) Bank of England Governor Mark Carney says climate change threatens economy. International Business Times UK, September 30, 2015.
  22. Long X, Naminse EY, Jianguo D, Zhuang J (2015) Nonrenewable energy, renewable energy, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in China from 1952 to 2012. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 52:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Long X, Chen Y, Jianguo D, Keunyeob O, Han I (2017) Environmental innovation and its impact on economic and environmental performance: evidence from Korean-owned firms in China. Energy Policy 107(August):131–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Long X, Yusen L, Wu C, Zhang J (2018) The influencing factors of Co2 emission intensity of Chinese Agriculture from 1997 to 2014. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:13093–13101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo Y, Long X, Chao W, Zhang J (2017) Decoupling CO2 emissions from economic growth in agricultural sector across 30 Chinese provinces from 1997 to 2014. J Clean Prod 159(August):220–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Ministry of Health (2014) Relatório Anual Sobre o Acesso a Cuidados de Saúde Nos Estabelecimentos Do SNS e Entidades Convencionais (2013). Lei no15/2014, de 21 de MarçoGoogle Scholar
  28. Oh I, Wehrmeyer W, Mulugetta Y (2010) Decomposition analysis and mitigation strategies of CO2 emissions from energy consumption in South Korea. Energy Policy 38(1):364–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rego G (2011) Gestão Empresarial Serviços Públicos—Uma Aplicação Ao Setor Da Saúde. 2nd edn. Grupo Editorial Vida EconómicaGoogle Scholar
  30. Robaina-Alves M, Moutinho V (2014) Decomposition of energy-related GHG emissions in agriculture over 1995–2008 for European countries. Appl Energy 114:949–957. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rose A, Chen CY (1991) Sources of change in energy use in the US economy, 1972–1982: a structural decomposition analysis. Resour Energy 13(1):1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salman M, Long X, Dauda L, Mensah CN, Muhammad S (2019) Different impacts of export and import on carbon emissions across seven ASEAN countries: a panel quantile regression approach. Sci Total Environ 686:1019–1029. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schipper L, Ting M, Khrushch M, Golove W (1997) The evolution of carbon dioxide emissions from energy use in industrialized countries: an end-use analysis. Energy Policy 25(7):651–672. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheinbaum-Pardo C, Mora-Pérez S, Robles-Morales G (2012) Decomposition of energy consumption and CO2 emissions in mexican manufacturing industries: trends between 1990 and 2008. Energy Sustain Dev 16(1):57–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Somner J, Scott K, Morris D, Gaskell A, Shepherd I (2009) Ophthalmology carbon footprint: something to be considered? J Cataract Refract Surg 35(1):202–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sun JW (1996) Quantitative analysis of energy consumption, efficiency and savings in the world, 1973–1990. Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku (Technical Report Series A-4) Google Scholar
  37. Sun JW (1998) Accounting for energy use in China, 1980–94. Energy 23(10):835–849. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sun JW (2000) Is CO2 emission intensity comparable? Energy Policy 28(15):1081–1084. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sustainable Development Unit (2016) NHS England carbon emissions carbon footprinting report, England.
  40. Than K (2016) Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, stanford scientists say. Stanford Engineering Digital Magazine Article, June 9, 2016, Stanford School of Engineering edition.
  41. Wang SS, Zhou DQ, Zhou P, Wang QW (2011) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 39(9):4870–4875. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. World Health Organization and Health Care Without Harm (2009) WHO|healthy hospitals, healthy planet, healthy people: addressing climate change in healthcare settings.
  43. Zhang M, Hailin M, Ning Y, Song Y (2009) Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emission over 1991–2006 in China. Ecol Econ 68(7):2122–2128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© University of Tehran 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GOVCOPP-Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public PoliciesAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.DEGEIT-Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and TourismUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations