Advertisement

The Italian Bus Transportation Sector: The Management of Environmental Risks as a Factor for Achieving a Business Sustainability

  • Simona AlfieroEmail author
  • Valter Cantino
  • Gianluca Capecci
  • Alfredo Esposito
Chapter

Abstract

This study investigates public and private transportation firms from a managerial perspective of the environmental risk. Carbon footprint measures the level of energy efficiency and it shows how much a firm is working to improve its results. In order to assess the profitability efficiency, we rely on an input-oriented Slack Based (SBM) Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model. The results demonstrate that no significant between public or private for all the efficiencies dimension. This is due may to the fact that public enterprises do not invest a lot as well as to lack of public governance and lack of money, while the private companies’ save costs in order to achieve a certain level of profitability for their investors.

Keywords

Risk management Efficiency Data envelopment analysis Environmental effects Performance 

JEL Classification

G32 G21 C61 Q51 L25 

References

  1. Abrate, G., Erbetta, F., Fraquelli, G., & Vannoni, D. (2016). Bet big on doubles, bet smaller on triples. Exploring scope economies in multi-service passenger transport companies. Transport Policy, 52, 81–88.Google Scholar
  2. Afonso, A., & Scaglioni, C. (2005). Public services efficiency provision in Italian regions: a non-parametric analysis (SSRN Working Paper). Lisbon, Portugal: Technical University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  3. Alfiero, S., Cane, M., Doronzo, R., & Esposito, A. (2018). Environmental efficiency analysis of bus transport in Italy: SMEs vs. Large companies. In Maintaining sustainable accounting systems in small business (pp. 24–45). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  4. Alfiero, S., Elba, F., Esposito, A., & Resce, G. (2017). The impact of environmental factors on the measurement of managerial efficiency in the Italian waste management sector: Framework and empirical evidence. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(10), 820–832.Google Scholar
  5. Andreoni, V., & Galmarini, S. (2012). European CO2 emission trends: A decomposition analysis for water and aviation transport sectors. Energy, 45(1), 595e602.Google Scholar
  6. Banker, R., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.Google Scholar
  7. Boitani, A., & Tocci, W. (2005). Mobilità sostenibile e liberalizzazione del trasporto locale.Google Scholar
  8. Boycko, M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1996). A theory of privatisation. Economic Journal, 106(435), 309–319.Google Scholar
  9. Bowlin, W. F. (1998). Measuring performance: An introduction to data envelopment analysis (DEA). The Journal of Cost Analysis, 15(2), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, R. A. (1993). Can sustainability be measured. Environmental Strategy, 5, 13–16.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, Y. T., 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.Google Scholar
  12. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, J., & Yesilkagit, K. (2018). International public administrations: A critique. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, W., Seiford, L., & Tone K. (2000). DEA: A comprehensive text with models. Applications, references and DEA-solver software. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Cowart, W., Pesinova, V., & Saile, S. (2003). An assessment of GHG emissions from the transportation sector. US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  16. Daraio, C., Diana, M., Di Costa, F., Leporelli, C., Matteucci, G., & Nastasi, A. (2016). Efficiency and effectiveness in the urban public transport sector: A critical review with directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  17. De Borger, B., Kerstens K., & Costa L. (2002). Public transit performance: What does one learn from frontier studies? Transport Reviews, 22(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
  18. De Gruyter, C., Currie, G., & Rose, G. (2016). Sustainability measures of urban public transport in cities: A world review and focus on the Asia/Middle East Region. Sustainability, 9(1), 43.Google Scholar
  19. Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.Google Scholar
  23. Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Network DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34(1), 35–49.Google Scholar
  24. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C. A. K., & Pasurka, C. (1989). Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach. Review of Economics & Statistics, 71(1), 90.Google Scholar
  25. Fethi, M. D., & Pasiouras, F. (2010). Assessing bank efficiency and performance with operational research and artificial intelligence techniques: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 204(2), pp. 189–198.Google Scholar
  26. Fielding, G. J., Brenner, M. E., & Faust, K. (1985). Typology for bus transit. Transportation Research Part A: General, 19(3), 269–278.Google Scholar
  27. Fraquelli, G., Piacenza, M., & Abrate, G. (2004). Regulating public transit networks: How do urban-intercity diversification and speed-up measures affect firms’ cost performance? Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(2), 193–225.Google Scholar
  28. Geurs, K., & van Wee, B. (2004). Backcasting as a tool for sustainable transport policy making: The environmentally sustainable transport study in the Netherlands. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 4(1), 47–69.Google Scholar
  29. Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. Omega, 17(3), 237–250.Google Scholar
  30. Hensher, D. A. (2014). The relationship between bus contract costs, user perceived service quality and performance assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 8(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iqbal, M., & Molyneux, P. (2005). Thirty years of Islamic banking: History, performance, and prospects. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.Google Scholar
  33. Karlaftis, M. G. (2003). Investigating transit production and performance: A programming approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(3), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karlaftis, M. G. (2004). A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(2), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knox Lovell, C. A., Pastor, J. T., & Turner, J. A. (1995). Measuring macroeconomic performance in the OECD: A comparison of European and non-European countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 507–551.Google Scholar
  36. Leal, I. C., de Almada Garcia, P. A., & Márcio de Almeida, D. A. (2012). A data envelopment analysis approach to choose transport modes based on eco-efficiency. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14(5), 767–781.Google Scholar
  37. Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Streimikiene, D., Jusoh, A., & Khoshnoudi, M. (2017). A comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach in energy efficiency. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1298–1322.Google Scholar
  38. Margari, B. B., Erbetta, F., Petraglia, C., & Piacenza, M. (2007). Regulatory and environmental effects on public transit efficiency: A mixed DEA-SFA approach. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 32(2), 131–151.Google Scholar
  39. McMullen, B. S., & Noh, D. W. (2007). Accounting for emissions in the measurement of transit agency efficiency: A directional distance function approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, D. R. (1970). Differences among cities, differences among firms, and costs of urban bus transport. Journal of Industrial Economics, 19(1), 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mouwen, A., & Rietveld, P. (2013). Does competitive tendering improve customer satisfaction with public transport? A case study for the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 51, 29–45.Google Scholar
  42. Oh, M., Shon, E., Kim, S., & Park, D. (2011). Efficiency analysis of Seoul’s urban bus agencies considering emissions. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(5), 899–905.Google Scholar
  43. Ozbek, M. E., de la Garza, J. M., & Triantis, K. (2009). Data envelopment analysis as a decision-making tool for transportation professionals. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 135(11), 822–831.Google Scholar
  44. Patrizii, V., & Resce, G. (2015). Public sector contribution to competitiveness. Italian Economic Journal, 1(3), 401–443, pp. 408–409.Google Scholar
  45. Preston, I., White, V., Thumim, J., Bridgeman, T., & Brand, C. (2013). Distribution of carbon emissions in the UK: Implications for domestic energy policy.Google Scholar
  46. Roy, W., & Yvrande-Billon, A. (2007). Ownership, contractual practices and technical efficiency: The case of urban public transport in France. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 41(2), 257–282.Google Scholar
  47. Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2002). Modelling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142, 16–20.Google Scholar
  48. Sexton, T. R. (1986). The methodology of data envelopment analysis. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 32, 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shiau, T. A., & Jhang, J. S. (2010). An integration model of DEA and RST for measuring transport sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17(1), 76–83.Google Scholar
  50. Thanassoulis, E. (1993). Comparison of regression analysis and data envelopment analysis as alternative methods for performance assessments. Journal of Operational Research Society, 44(11), 1129–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thanassoulis, E. (2001). Introduction to the theory and application of data envelopment analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Thanassoulis, E., Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Dyson, R. G. (1996). Warwick DEA software (Windows version). Coventry: Warwick Business School, University of Warwick. www.warwick.ac.uk/~bsrlu/dea/deas/deas1.htm.
  53. Timilsina, G. R., & Shrestha, A. (2009). Transport sector CO2 emissions growth in Asia: Underlying factors and policy options. Energy Policy, 37(11), 4523e4539.Google Scholar
  54. Tomazinis, A. R. (1977). Study of efficiency indicators of urban public transportation systems (Final Report). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (USA). Transportation Studies Center.Google Scholar
  55. Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Viton, P. A. (1997). Technical efficiency in multi-mode bus transit: A production frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 31(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Tonne, C., Armstrong, B. G., Ashiru, O., Banister, D., & Franco, O. H. (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Urban land transport. The Lancet, 374(9705), 1930–1943.Google Scholar
  58. Yin, K., Wang, R., An, Q., Yao, L., & Liang, J. (2014). Using eco-efficiency as an indicator for sustainable urban development: A case study of Chinese provincial capital cities. Ecological Indicators, 36, 665–671.Google Scholar
  59. Yu, M. M. (2008). Measuring the efficiency and return to scale status of multi-mode bus transit—Evidence from Taiwan’s bus system. Applied Economics Letters, 15(8), 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yu, M. M., & Fan, C. K. (2006). Measuring the cost effectiveness of multimode bus transit in the presence of accident risks. Transportation Planning and Technology, 29(5), 383–407.Google Scholar
  61. Yvrande‐Billon, A. (2006). The attribution process of delegation contracts in the French urban public transport sector: Why competitive tendering is a myth. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 77(4), 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhou, P., Poh, K. L., & Ang, B. W. (2007). A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 1–9.Google Scholar
  63. Zhu, J. (2014). Quantitative models for performance evaluation and benchmarking: Data envelopment analysis with spreadsheets. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simona Alfiero
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valter Cantino
    • 1
  • Gianluca Capecci
    • 1
  • Alfredo Esposito
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations