Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 165–189 | Cite as

Effect of Technology Change on \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) Emissions in Japan’s Industrial Sectors in the Period 1995–2005: An Input–Output Structural Decomposition Analysis

  • Uduak S. Akpan
  • Ovunda A. Green
  • Subhes Bhattacharyya
  • Salisu Isihak


This paper employs two-stage input–output structural decomposition analysis (SDA) to identify the factors responsible for changes in Japan’s \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emissions for two periods: 1995–2000 and 2000–2005. First, the study decomposes the total change in \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emissions for each period to obtain the contribution of change in \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emissions per unit output \((\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emissions coefficient), change in technology (technology effect), and change in final demand. The study observed from the first-stage decomposition that emissions coefficient and final demand drive the change in the first period (1995–2000) while the technology effect drives the change in the second period (2000–2005). The high contribution of the technology effect is driven by activities of iron and steel; coke, refined petroleum and gas; road transportation; and electricity sectors. Having observed the trend of the technology effect across the two periods, the study carried out a second-stage decomposition on technology effect in the second period to examine the contribution of each sector and observed that chemical and pharmaceuticals; iron and steel; road transportation; and construction sectors are mainly responsible. In conclusion, improvement in technical efficiency especially at the industrial process level of each industry will help Japan achieve greater level of \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emissions reduction.


\(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emissions Input–output Structural decomposition analysis  Technology change Japan 



Carbon dioxide


Greenhouse gas


Greenhouse gas inventory office


Global wind energy council


International Energy Agency


Index decomposition analysis


Institute of Energy Economics, Japan


Japan iron and steel federation


Kyoto protocol


Ministry of Environment


National Institute for Environmental Studies


Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development


Structural decomposition analysis


United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


Structural Path Analysis


Structural Path Decomposition


  1. Ang B (2004) Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy:which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32:1131–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang B, Choi K (1997) Decomposition of aggregate energy and gas emission intensities for industry: a refined Divisia index method. Energy 18(3):59–74Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharyya SC, Matsumura W (2010) Changes in the GHG emission intensity in EU-15: Lessons from a decomposition analysis. Energy 35:3315–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharyya SC, Ussanarassamee A (2004) Decomposition of energy and CO2 intensities of Thai industry between 1981 and 2000. Energy Econ 26:765–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butnar I, Llop M (2011) Structural decomposition analysis and input–output subsystems: changes in CO2 emissions of Spanish service sectors (2000–2005). Ecol Econ 70:2012–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casler SD, Rose A (1998) Carbon dioxide emissions in the US economy: a Structural decomposition analysis. Environ Resour Econ 11:349–363Google 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 36:2471–2480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung H, Rhee H (2001) A residual-free decomposition of the sources of carbon dioxide emissions: a case of the Korean Industries. Energy 26:15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cockerill R (2011) Greener steelmaking: cleaning up in steel production processes. Retrieved December 30, 2011, from GASWORLD:
  10. De Haan M (2001) A structural decomposition analysis of pollution in the Netherlands. Econ Syst Res 13(2):181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietzenbacher E, Los B (1998) Structural decomposition techniques: sense and sensitivity. Econ Syst Res 10(4):307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GIO (2011). National greenhouse gas inventory report of Japan. Ministry of the Environment Japan. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office. 2011. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office of Japan:
  13. GWEC (2006) Global Wind 2005 Report. Retrieved December 31, 2011, from Global Wind Energy Council:
  14. Han X, Lakshmanan TK (1994) Structural changes and energy consumption in the Japanese economy 1975–1995: an input–output analysis. Energy J 15(3):165–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoekstra R, van der Bergh JJ (2003) Comparing structural and index decomposition analysis. Energy Econ 25:39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoekstra R, van der Bergh JJ (2002) Structural decomposition of physical flow in the economy. Environ Resour Econ 23(3):357–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IEA (2011) World Energy Balances (Edition: 2011). ESDS International, University of Manchester. Retrieved December 31, 2011, from International Energy Agency. doi: 10.5257/iea/web/2011
  18. IEEJ (2008) Revised kyoto protocol target achievement plan: overview and history of revision. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from Institute of Energy Economics, Japan.
  19. JISF (2011) Outline of course 50. Retrieved December 30, 2011, from Japan Iron and Steel Federation.
  20. Kagawa S, Inamura H (2001) The structural decomposition of energy consumption based on a hybrid rectangular input–output framework: Japan’s case. Econ Syst Res 13(4):339–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kawai J (2001) Development of environmentally conscious steel products at the Nippon Steel Corporation. Mater Des 22:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kiko N (2008) Greenhouse gas emission in Japan. Retrieved December 31, 2011, from Kiko Network.
  23. Kojima M, Bacon R (2009) Changes in CO2 emission from energy use: a multi-country decomposition analysis. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from Washington, DC: Oil, Gas and Mining Policy Division, The World Bank.
  24. Lee CF, Lin SJ (2001) Structural decomposition of CO2 emissions from Taiwan’s petrochemical industries. Energy Policy 29(3):237–244Google Scholar
  25. Lenzen M (2003) Environmentally important paths, linkages and key sectors in the Australian economy. Struct chance Econ Dyn 14:1–34Google Scholar
  26. Lim H-J, Yoo S-H, Kwak S-J (2009) Industrial CO2 emissions from energy use in Korea: a structural decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 37:686–698Google Scholar
  27. Lin X, Polenske KR (1995) Input-Output anatomy of China’s energy use in the 1980s. Econ Syst Res 7(1):67–84Google Scholar
  28. Liu L-C, Fan Y, Wu G, Wei Y-M (2007) Using LMDI method to analyze the change of China’s industrial CO2 emissions from final fuel use: an empirical analysis. Energy Policy 35:5892–5900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lu X, Xu J (2012) A new application of RAS structural decomposition approach in the regional economies of China, 2002–2007. Retrieved December 24, 2012, from International Input–Output Association:
  30. Luukkanen J, Kaivo-oja J (2002) ASEAN tigers and sustainability of energy use–decomposition analysis of energy and CO2 efficiency dynamics. Energy Policy 30:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ma C, Stern D (2008) China’s changing energy intensity trend: a decomposition analysis. Energy Econ 30:1037–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MOE (2011) Japan’s National Greenhouse Gas Emission for Fiscal Year 2009. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from Ministry of Environment Japan.
  34. Mukhopahyay K (2001) An emperical analysis of the sources of CO2 emission changes in India. Asian J Energy Environ 2(3–4):233–271Google Scholar
  35. NIES (2009) Japan’s National Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Fiscal Year 2009. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from National Institute for Environmental Studies Japan.
  36. OECD (2011) Input–output tables. Retrieved December 30, 2011, from Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development:,3746,en_2649_34445_38071427_1_1_1_1,00.html
  37. Okushima S, Tamura M (2011) Identifying the sources of energy use change: multiple calibration decomposition analysis and structural decomposition analysis. Struct Change Econ Dyn 22:313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oshita Y (2012) Identifying critical supply chain paths that drive changes in CO2 emssions. Energy Econ 34(4):1041–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paul S, Bhattacharya R (2004) CO2 emission from energy use in India: a decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 32:585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peng Y, Shi C (2011) Determinants of carbon emission growth in China: a structural decomposition analysis. Energy Procedia 5:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peters GP, Weber CL, Guan D, Hubacek K (2007) China’s growing CO2 emissions—a race between increasing consumption and efficiency gains. Environ Sci Tech 41(17):5939–5944Google Scholar
  42. Rose A, Casler S (1996) Input-output structural decomposition analysis: a critical apraisal. Econ Syst Res 8(1):33–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rose A, Chen CY (1991) Sources of change in energy consumption in the U.S. Economy, 1972–1982: a structural decomposition analysis. Resour Energy 13(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Su B, Ang B (2012) Structural decomposition analysis applied to energy and emissions: some methodological developments. Energy Econ 34:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. UNFCCC (2007) Bali climate change conference: December, 2007. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from United Nations Framework Convention on CLimate Change.
  46. UNFCCC (2009) Copenhagen climate change conference: December 2009. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  47. UNFCCC (2012) Doha climate change conference: November, 2012. Retrieved December 28, 2012, from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  48. UNFCCC (2011) GHG emission profiles for Annex I Parties and major groups. Retrieved December 30, 2011, from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  49. UNFCCC (1998) Kyoyo protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved December 18, 2011, from United Nations Framework Convention on CLimate Change.
  50. van der Linden JA, Dietzenbacher E (2000) The determinants of structural change in the European Union: a new application of RAS. Environ Plan A 32(12):2205–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wier M (1998) Sources of changes in emissions from energy: a structural decomposition analysis. Econ Syst Res 10(2):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wood R (2009) Structural decomposition analysis of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 37:4943–4948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wood R, Lenzen M (2009) Structural path decomposition. Energy Econ 31:335–341Google Scholar
  54. Yabe N (2004) An analysis of CO2 emission of Japanese industries during the period 1985 and 1995. Energy Policy 32(5):595–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yih FC, Lin SJ (1998) Structural decomposition of industrial CO2 emission in Taiwan: an input–output approach. Energy Policy 26(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang H, Qi Y (2011) A structural decomposition analysis of China’s production-source CO2 emission: 1992–2002. Environ Resour Econ 49:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang Y (2009) Structural decomposition analysis of sources of decarbonizing economic development in China. Ecol Econ 68:2399–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uduak S. Akpan
    • 1
  • Ovunda A. Green
    • 1
  • Subhes Bhattacharyya
    • 2
  • Salisu Isihak
    • 1
  1. 1.Sustainability, Policy, and Innovative Development Research (SPIDER) Solutions NigeriaUyoNigeria
  2. 2.Institute of Energy and Sustainable DevelopmentDe Montfort University The GatewayLeicester UK

Personalised recommendations