Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benchmarking and Performance Evaluation Towards the Sustainable Development of Regions in Taiwan: A Minimum Distance-Based Measure with Undesirable Outputs in Additive DEA

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustainable development (SD) governance for a better society has received considerable attention. The development of a robust benchmarking and performance evaluation approach is a matter of growing concern to accelerate the progress in achieving SD. In this study, a minimum distance-based additive data envelopment analysis model with window analysis is proposed to attain the closest benchmarking target in the presence of undesirable outputs. This novel extension not only focuses on the construction of a composite indicator to shed light on the efficiency of each decision-making unit but also provides convincing and realizable suggestions for improving efficiency. This study benchmarks the SD efficiency across 19 administrative regions of Taiwan covering the period from 2011 to 2016. The empirical results reveal that the average SD efficiency of Taiwan has experienced a gradual deterioration over the last 3 years, and the primary sources of regional SD inefficiency may vary with industrial structure. Potential directions of improvement for reinforcing sustainable practices in Taiwan are also discussed. The findings can provide local governments with holistic insights into the sources that degrade SD performance and further contribute to improving SD solutions by recommending appropriate policies to achieve a more sustainable society.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali, A. I., & Seiford, L. M. (1990). Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis. Operations Research Letters, 9(6), 403–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, Q., Pang, Z., Chen, H., & Liang, L. (2015). Closest targets in environmental efficiency evaluation based on enhanced Russell measure. Ecological Indicators, 51, 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelakis, A. N., Bontoux, L., & Lazarova, V. (2003). Challenges and prospectives for water recycling and reuse in EU countries. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3(4), 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aparicio, J., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (2007). Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 28(3), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asmild, M., Paradi, J. C., Aggarwall, V., & Schaffnit, C. (2004). Combining DEA window analysis with the Malmquist index approach in a study of the Canadian banking industry. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21(1), 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., & Morey, R. C. (1986). Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Operations Research, 34(4), 513–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belu, C. (2009). Ranking corporations based on sustainable and socially responsible practices. A data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Sustainable Development, 17(4), 257-268.

  • Bruni, M. E., Guerriero, F., & Patitucci, V. (2011). Benchmarking sustainable development via data envelopment analysis: An Italian case study. International Journal of Environmental Research, 5(1), 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caiado, R. G. G., de Freitas Dias, R., Mattos, L. V., Quelhas, O. L. G., & Leal Filho, W. (2017). Towards sustainable development through the perspective of eco-efficiency: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165(1), 890–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carboni, O. A., & Russu, P. (2015). Assessing regional wellbeing in Italy: An application of Malmquist–DEA and self-organizing map neural clustering. Social Indicators Research, 122(3), 677–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEPD (The Council for Economic Planning and Development). (2004). Taiwan agenda 21: Vision and strategies for national sustainable development. Taiwan: CEPD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1996). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmondusit, K., Phatarachaisakul, S., & Prasertpong, P. (2014). The quantitative eco-efficiency measurement for small and medium enterprise: A case study of wooden toy industry. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 16(5), 935–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Clark, C. T., Cooper, W. W., & Golany, B. (1984). A developmental study of data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the US air forces. Annals of Operations Research, 2(1), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Golany, B., Seiford, L., & Stutz, J. (1985). Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Lewin, A. Y., & Seiford, L. M. (1994). Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology, and application. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Thrall, R. M. (1986). Classifying and characterizing efficiencies and inefficiencies in data development analysis. Operations Research Letters, 5(3), 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Thrall, R. M. (1991). A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiency and inefficiency in data envelopment analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 2(3), 197–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., Wang, Y., Lai, F., & Feng, F. (2017). An investment analysis for China’s sustainable development based on inverse data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(4), 1638–1649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, J., Chen, J., Wang, C., & Fu, P. (2004). Wastewater reuse potential analysis: Implications for China’s water resources management. Water Research, 38(11), 2746–2756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • DGBAS (Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics) (2012). https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=31080&ctNode=5686&mp=1. Released 1 May 2012.

  • Du, J., Liang, L., & Zhu, J. (2010). A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis: A comment. European Journal of Operational Research, 204(3), 694–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253-290.

  • Gibbs, D. (1998). Regional development agencies and sustainable development. Regional Studies, 32(4), 365–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. Omega, 17(3), 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Calvet, R., Gómez-Calvet, A. R., Conesa, D., & Tortosa-Ausina, E. (2016). On the dynamics of eco-efficiency performance in the European Union. Computers & Operations Research, 66, 336–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, E., Cárcaba, A., & Ventura, J. (2011). The importance of the geographic level of analysis in the assessment of the quality of life: The case of Spain. Social Indicators Research, 102(2), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hailu, A., & Veeman, T. S. (2001). Non-parametric productivity analysis with undesirable outputs: An application to the Canadian pulp and paper industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), 605–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Ulloa, Á. F., Charles, A. T., Lluch-Cota, S. E., Ramirez-Aguirre, H., Hernández-Váquez, S., & Ortega-Rubio, A. (2003). A regional-scale sustainable development index: The case of baja california sur, mexico. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 10(4), 353–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, J. L. (2006). Efficient air pollution abatement for regions in China. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(4), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren, D., Martín-Gamboa, M., O’Mahony, T., & Dufour, J. (2016). Screening of socio-economic indicators for sustainability assessment: A combined life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(2), 202–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jollands, N., Lermit, J., & Patterson, M. (2004). Aggregate eco-efficiency indices for New Zealand—A principal components analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 73(4), 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, M. (2014). Differential electricity pricing and energy efficiency in South Africa. Energy, 64(1), 524–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., et al. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Farzipoor Saen, R. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liming, H., Haque, E., & Barg, S. (2008). Public policy discourse, planning and measures toward sustainable energy strategies in Canada. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(1), 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., Wang, Q., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Sun, Q., & Wennersten, R. (2017). The energy-saving potential of an office under different pricing mechanisms: Application of an agent-based model. Applied Energy, 202(15), 248–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Wang, W., Li, X., & Zhang, G. (2010). Eco-efficiency of urban material metabolism: A case study in Xiamen, China. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 17(2), 142–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, C. K., Pagell, M., Fan, D., Wiengarten, F., & Yeung, A. C. (2014). OHSAS 18001 certification and operating performance: The role of complexity and coupling. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 268–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, C. K., & Pastor, J. T. (1995). Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Operations Research Letters, 18(3), 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, C. K., 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), 507–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, S., & Gutierrez, E. (2008). Non-parametric frontier approach to modelling the relationships among population, GDP, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Ecological Economics, 66(4), 687–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdiloo, M., Saen, R. F., & Lee, K. (2015). Technical, environmental and eco-efficiency measurement for supplier selection: An extension and application of data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 168, 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahlberg, B., & Sahoo, B. K. (2011). Radial and non-radial decompositions of Luenberger productivity indicator with an illustrative application. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(2), 721–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmquist, S. (1953). Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de estadística, 4(2), 209–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melyn, W., & Moesen, W. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: Unequal weighting when limited information is available. Public Economics Research Paper 17, CES, KU Leuven.

  • Michelsen, O., Fet, A. M., & Dahlsrud, A. (2006). Eco-efficiency in extended supply chains: A case study of furniture production. Journal of Environmental Management, 79(3), 290–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. P., & Munilla, L. S. (2004). The potential impact of social accountability certification on marketing: A short note. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murias, P., Martinez, F., & De Miguel, C. (2006). An economic wellbeing index for the Spanish provinces: A data envelopment analysis approach. Social Indicators Research, 77(3), 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCSD (National Council for Sustainable Development) (2009). Sustainable development policy guidelines. https://nsdn.epa.gov.tw/. Accessed 30 July 2017.

  • Nissi, E., & Sarra, A. (2018). A measure of well-being across the Italian urban areas: An integrated DEA-entropy approach. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 1183–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, J. T., Ruiz, J. L., & Sirvent, I. (1999). An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure. European Journal of Operational Research, 115(3), 596–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashidi, K., & Farzipoor Saen, R. (2015). Measuring eco-efficiency based on green indicators and potentials in energy saving and undesirable output abatement. Energy Economics, 50, 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard, S., Lovell, C. K., & Thijssen, G. (1999). Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: An application to Dutch dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A., & Berry, M. A. (2000). Environmental citizenship in multinational corporations: social responsibility and sustainable development. European Management Journal, 18(1), 70–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A., & Droge, C. (2002). An integrated benchmarking approach to distribution center performance using DEA modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahoo, B. K., Luptacik, M., & Mahlberg, B. (2011). Alternative measures of environmental technology structure in DEA: An application. European Journal of Operational Research, 215(3), 750–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, G., Murmura, F., & Bravi, L. (2018). SA 8000 as a tool for a sustainable development strategy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Sturm, A. (1990). Ökologische Rationalität-Ansatzpunkte zur Ausgestaltung von Ökologieorientierten Managementinstrumenten. Die Unternehmung, 4(4), 273–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheel, H. (2001). Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 400–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, C., Huang, C. Y., & Chu, P. Y. (2003). A performance evaluation model for governmental conflict management organisations: A study of labour management departments. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4(4), 312–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strezov, V., Evans, A., & Evans, T. J. (2017). Assessment of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of the indicators for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 25(3), 242–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., & Sugiyama, M. (2013). DEA window analysis for environmental assessment in a dynamic time shift: Performance assessment of US coal-fired power plants. Energy Economics, 40, 845–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sueyoshi, T., & Sekitani, K. (2007). The measurement of returns to scale under a simultaneous occurrence of multiple solutions in a reference set and a supporting hyperplane. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(2), 549–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L., & Stuebs, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm productivity: Evidence from the chemical industry in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajbakhsh, A., & Hassini, E. (2018). Evaluating sustainability performance in fossil-fuel power plants using a two-stage data envelopment analysis. Energy Economics, 74, 154–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatari, O., Egilmez, G., & Kurmapu, D. (2016). Socio-eco-efficiency analysis of highways: A data envelopment analysis. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 22(6), 747–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuczek, F., Castka, P., & Wakolbinger, T. (2018). A review of management theories in the context of quality, environmental and social responsibility voluntary standards. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyteca, D. (1996). On the measurement of the environmental performance of firms—A literature review and a productive efficiency perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 46(3), 281–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (United Nations) (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

  • Vajnhandl, S., & Valh, J. V. (2014). The status of water reuse in European textile sector. Journal of Environmental Management, 141(1), 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Chen, Z., Ma, D., & Zhao, P. (2013a). Measuring carbon emissions performance in 123 countries: Application of minimum distance to the strong efficiency frontier analysis. Sustainability, 5(12), 5319–5332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Hang, Y., Sun, L., & Zhao, Z. (2016). Two-stage innovation efficiency of new energy enterprises in china: A non-radial DEA approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 112, 254–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Sun, M., Wang, R., & Lou, F. (2015). Promoting regional sustainability by eco-province construction in china: A critical assessment. Ecological Indicators, 51, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, K., Xian, Y., Lee, C., Wei, Y., & Huang, Z. (2017). On selecting directions for directional distance functions in a non-parametric framework: A review. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2423-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, K., Yu, S., & Zhang, W. (2013b). China’s regional energy and environmental efficiency: A DEA window analysis based dynamic evaluation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 58(5–6), 1117–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD (World Business Council For Sustainable Development) (2005). Eco-efficiency learning module. http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=13593. Accessed 30 July 2017.

  • WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., An, Q., Yao, X., & Wang, B. (2014a). Environmental efficiency evaluation of industry in China based on a new fixed sum undesirable output data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 74(1), 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, P., Huang, T., & Pan, S. (2014b). Country performance evaluation: The DEA model approach. Social Indicators Research, 118(2), 835–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wursthorn, S., Poganietz, W., & Schebek, L. (2011). Economic–environmental monitoring indicators for european countries: A disaggregated sector-based approach for monitoring eco-efficiency. Ecological Economics, 70(3), 487–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, B., Li, Y., Santibanez Gonzalez, E. D. R., & Song, M. (2017). Eco-efficiency measurement and improvement of Chinese industry using a new closest target method. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 9(5), 666–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W. C., Lee, Y. M., & Hu, J. L. (2016). Urban sustainability assessment of Taiwan based on data envelopment analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 61, 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., & Pollitt, M. (2009). Incorporating both undesirable outputs and uncontrollable variables into DEA: The performance of Chinese coal-fired power plants. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(3), 1095–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, S. H., Gao, Y., & Shiue, Y. C. (2017). A comprehensive evaluation of sustainable development ability and pathway for major cities in China. Sustainability, 9(8), 1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanella, A., Camanho, A. S., & Dias, T. G. (2015). Undesirable outputs and weighting schemes in composite indicators based on data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(2), 517–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: A multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, H., Yang, Y., Chen, Y., & Zhu, J. (2018). Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, J. (1996). Data envelopment analysis with preference structure. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(1), 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, 210044, Jiangsu, China

    Shih-Heng Yu

Authors
  1. Shih-Heng Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shih-Heng Yu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, SH. Benchmarking and Performance Evaluation Towards the Sustainable Development of Regions in Taiwan: A Minimum Distance-Based Measure with Undesirable Outputs in Additive DEA. Soc Indic Res 144, 1323–1348 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02087-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02087-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation