Special Types of Input and Output Factors

  • Chiang Kao
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 240)


The DEA methodology concerns the efficiency measurement of production systems that apply multiple inputs to produce multiple outputs. Under normal conditions, it is desirable to have less input consumed and more output produced, because this leads to higher efficiencies. With regard to inefficient DMUs, improvement targets can be obtained to make them more efficient. However, there are cases in which the decision maker has no control over the input and output factors, in that the amounts of some factors cannot be adjusted at the discretion of the decision maker. The conventional DEA models introduced in the preceding chapters are either unable to handle or will produce misleading results for these cases. This chapter discusses two of the cases, non-discretionary and undesirable factors.


Undesirable Output Output Factor Aggregate Output Desirable Output Efficient DMUs 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ali AI, Seiford LM (1990) Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis. Oper Res Lett 9:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banker RD, Morey RC (1986) Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Oper Res 34:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bi GB, Luo Y, Ding JJ, Liang L (2015) Environmental performance analysis of Chinese industry from a slacks-based perspective. Ann Oper Res 228:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen PC, Yu MM, Chang CC, Hsu SH, Managi S (2015) The enhanced Russell-based directional distance measure with undesirable outputs: Numerical example considering CO2 emissions. Omega 53:30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cherchye L, Moesen W, Rogge N, Van Puyenbroeck T (2011) Constructing composite indicators with imprecise data: a proposal. Expert Syst Appl 38:10940–10949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung YH, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 51(3):229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diabat A, Shetty U, Pakkala TPM (2015) Improved efficiency measures through directional distance formulation of data envelopment analysis. Ann Oper Res 229:325–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyson RG, Allen R, Camanho AS, Podinovski VV, Sarrico CS, Shale EA (2001) Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. Eur J Oper Res 132:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Färe R, Grosskopf S (2004) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: comment. Eur J Oper Res 157:242–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Golany B, Roll Y (1989) An application procedure for DEA. Omega 17:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halkos GE, Tzeremes NG (2013) A conditional directional distance function approach for measuring regional environmental efficiency: evidence from UK regions. Eur J Oper Res 227:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hwang SN, Chen C, Chen Y, Lee HS, Shen PD (2013) Sustainable design performance evaluation with applications in the automobile industry: focusing on inefficiency by undesirable factors. Omega 41:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jahanshahloo GR, Lotfi FH, Shoja N, Abri AG, Jelodar MF, Firouzabadi KJ (2010) Proposing a new model on data envelopment analysis by considering non discretionary factors and a review on previous models. Math Comput Appl 15:344–353Google Scholar
  15. Koopmans TC (1951) Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Koopmans TC (ed) Activity analysis of production and allocation. Wiley, New York, pp 33–97Google Scholar
  16. Kuosmanen T (2005) Weak disposability in nonparametric production analysis with undesirable outputs. Am J Agric Econ 87:1077–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuosmanen T, Matin RK (2011) Duality of weakly disposable technology. Omega 39:504–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leleu H (2013) Shadow pricing of undesirable outputs in nonparametric analysis. Eur J Oper Res 231:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li MQ, Wang Q (2014) International environmental efficiency differences and their determinants. Energy 78:411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu WB, Meng W, Li XX, Zhang DQ (2010) DEA models with undesirable inputs and outputs. Ann Oper Res 173:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lovell CAK, Pastor JT (1995) Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Oper Res Lett 18:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lozano S, Gutierrez E (2011) Slacks-based measure of efficiency of airports with airplanes delays as undesirable outputs. Comput Oper Res 38:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muñiz M (2002) Separating managerial inefficiency and external conditions in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 143:625–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muñiz M, Paradi J, Ruggiero J, Yang ZJ (2006) Evaluating alternative DEA models used to control for non-discretionary inputs. Comput Oper Res 33:1173–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pastor JT (1996) Translation invariance in DEA: a generalization. Ann Oper Res 66:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pittman RW (1983) Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Econ Journal 93(372):883–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Podinovski VV, Kuosmanen T (2011) Modelling weak disposability in data envelopment analysis under relaxed convexity assumptions. Eur J Oper Res 211:577–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ray SC (1991) Resource-use efficiency in public schools: a study of Connecticut data. Manag Sci 37:1620–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ruggiero J (1996) On the measurement of technical efficiency in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 90:553–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruggiero J (1998) Non-discretionary inputs in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 111:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruggiero J (2004) Performance evaluation when non-discretionary factors correlate with technical efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 159:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sahoo BK, Luptacik M, Mahlberg B (2011) Alternative measures of environmental technology structure in DEA: an application. Eur J Oper Res 215:750–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheel H (2001) Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. Eur J Oper Res 132:400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seiford LM, Zhu J (2002) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142:16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seiford LM, Zhu J (2005) A response to comments on modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 161:579–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Song M, An Q, Zhang W, Wang Z, Wu J (2012) Environmental efficiency evaluation based on data envelopment analysis: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:4465–4469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sueyoshi T, Wang D (2014) Radial and non-radial approaches for environmental assessment by data envelopment analysis: corporate sustainability and effective investment for technology innovation. Energ Econ 45:537–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Syrjanen MJ (2004) Non-discretionary and discretionary factors and scale in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 158:20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang K, Wei YM, Zhang X (2012) A comparative analysis of China’s regional energy and emission performance: Which is the better way to deal with undesirable outputs? Energ Pol 46:574–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. You S, Yan H (2011) A new approach in modeling undesirable output in DEA model. J Oper Res Soc 62:2146–2156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yu C (1998) The effects of exogenous variables in efficiency measurement: a Monte Carlo study. Eur J Oper Res 105:569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zanella A, Camanho AS, Dias TG (2015) Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 245:517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang N, Choi Y (2013) Environmental energy efficiency of China’s regional economies: a non-oriented slacks-based measure analysis. Soc Sci J 50:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2006) Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecol Econ 60:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2008) A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. Eur J Oper Res 189:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiang Kao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Information ManagementNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations