Operational Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 867–884 | Cite as

Allocation of emission permits using DEA-game-theoretic model

Original Paper


This paper discusses schemes for allocation of emission permits (AEP) among a group of manufacturing companies, aiming at controlling the total emissions of the group while maintaining efficient production. Game theory and data envelopment analysis have been integrated in different ways for constructing two variants of AEP models. The first situation is where all members in the group are cooperative and a reasonable permit allocation scheme maximizes the overall payoff of the group. The second situation is where group members are non-cooperative and each member makes every effort to selfishly maximize its own payoff. The decision maker allocates permits to firms according to their non-cooperative game equilibrium scores. Proposed models are applied to study a group of paper mills to analyze their payoffs. The results show that the methods proposed in this work can provide reasonable allocation results for all firms. In addition, although our allocation methods adopt the principle of maximizing the payoff of the firm, the efficiency of each firm from current output and input levels is still a factor that determines the permit allocation.


Allocation of emission permits (AEP) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Game theory 



This research was supported by the National Natural Science Funds of China (Nos. 71501139, 71571173, 71620182), Natural Science Funds of Jiangsu Province (No.BK20150307), Research project of philosophy and Social Sciences in Universities of Jiangsu (2015SJB525), China Scholarship Council (No. 201506340126), and Support Funds for Excellent Doctoral Dissertations of USTC (2016-2017).


  1. Ackerman F, Moomaw W (1997) SO2 emissions trading does it work? Electr J 10(7):61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahman M, Burtraw D, Kruger J, Zetterberg L (2007) A ten-year rule to guide the allocation of EU emission allowances. Energy Policy 35(3):1718–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams J et al (2010) Allocating emissions allowances under a California cap-and-trade program, recommendations to the California air resources board and California environmental protection agency.
  4. Athanassopoulos AD (1998) Decision support for target-based resource allocation of public services in multiunit and multilevel systems. Manag Sci 44(2):173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg SA, Forsund FR, Jansen ES (1992) Malmquist indices of productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking 1980–1989. Scand J Econ 94(Supplement):211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohringer C, Lange A (2005) On the design of optimal grandfathering schemes for emission allowances. Eur Econ Rev 49(8):2041–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burtraw D, Palmer KL, Bharvurkar R, Paul A (2001) The effect of allowance allocation on the cost of carbon emissions trading, discussion paper 01-30, resources for the future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cason TN, Gangadharan L (2003) Transactions costs in tradable permit markets: an experimental study of pollution market designs. J Regul Econ 23(2):145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(4):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chin KS, Wang YM, Poon GKK, Yang JB (2009) Failure mode and effects analysis by data envelopment analysis. Decis Support Syst 48(1):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cramton P, Kerr S (2002) Tradeable carbon permit auctions: how and why to auction and not grandfather. Energy Policy 30(4):333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Du J, Cook WD, Liang L, Zhu J (2014) Fixed cost and resource allocation based on DEA cross-efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 235(1):206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang L (2015a) Centralized resource allocation based on efficiency analysis for step-by-step improvement paths. Omega 51:24–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang L (2015b) Centralized resource allocation based on the cost-revenue analysis. Comput Ind Eng. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2015.04.018 Google Scholar
  15. Feng C, Chu F, Ding J, Bi G, Liang L (2015) Carbon emissions abatement (CEA) allocation and compensation schemes based on DEA. Omega 53:78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer C, Fox A (2004) Output-based allocation of emissions permits. Resources for the future, discussion paper, 04-37Google Scholar
  17. Fischer C, Fox AK (2007) Output-based allocation of emissions permits for mitigating tax and trade interactions. Land Econ 83(4):575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golany B (1988) An interactive MOLP procedure for the extension of DEA to effectiveness analysis. J Oper Res Soc 39(8):725–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golany B, Tamir E (1995) Evaluating efficiency-effectiveness equality trade-offs: a data envelopment analysis approach. Manag Sci 41(7):1172–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goulder LH, Parry IAW, Williams RC III, Burtraw D (1999) The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting. J Public Econ 72(3):329–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hailu A, Veeman TS (2001) Non-parametric productivity analysis with undesirable outputs: an application to the canadian pulp and paper industry. Am J Agric Econ 83(3):805–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haites E (2003) Output-based allocation as a form of protection for internationally competitive industries. Clim Policy 3(2):S29–S41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen J, Rasmussen TN (2000) Allocation of CO2 emissions permits: a general equilibrium analysis of policy instruments. J Environ Econ Manag 40(2):111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ji X, Wu J, Zhu Q (2016) Eco-design of transportation in sustainable supply chain management: a DEA-like method. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 48:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ji X, Sun J, Wang Y, Yuan Q (2017) Allocation of emission permits in large data sets: a robust multi-criteria approach. J Clean Prod 142:894–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khodabakhshi M, Aryavash K (2014) The fair allocation of common fixed cost or revenue using DEA concept. Ann Oper Res 214(1):187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korhonen P, Syrjänen M (2004) Resource allocation based on efficiency analysis. Manag Sci 50(8):1134–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li Y, Yang M, Chen Y, Dai Q, Liang L (2013) Allocating a fixed cost based on data envelopment analysis and satisfaction degree. Omega 41(1):55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liang L, Wu J, Cook WD, Zhu J (2008) The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium. Oper Res 56(5):1278–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lozano S, Villa G, Brannlund R (2009) Centralised reallocation of emission permits using DEA. Eur J Oper Res 193(3):752–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ma Z, Dudek D (1999) Total discharge capacity control and pollution emission permits trade. Chinese Environmental Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  32. Neuhoff K, Keats Martinez K, Sato M (2006) Allocation, incentives and distortions: the impact of EU ETS emissions allowance allocations to the electricity sector. Clim Policy 6(1):73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD (2011) Emission permits and competition. OECD, Paris, p 9Google Scholar
  34. Ono T (2001) The effects of emission permits on growth and the environment. Environ Resour Econ 21(1):75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rao CJ, Zhao Y, Li CF (2011) Incentive mechanism for allocating total permitted pollution discharge capacity and evaluating the validity of free allocation. Comput Math Appl 62(8):3037–3047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stavins RN (1998) What can we Learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. J Econ Perspect 12(3):9–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sun J, Wu J, Liang L, Zhong RY, Huang GQ (2014) Allocation of emission permits using DEA: centralised and individual points of view. Int J Prod Res 52(2):419–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Takeda S, Arimura TH, Tamechika H, Fischer C, Fox AK (2011).Output-based allocation of emissions permits for mitigating the leakage and competitiveness issues for the Japanese economy. Resources for the future discussion paper, 11-40Google Scholar
  39. Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon GKK (2008) A data envelopment analysis method with assurance region for weight generation in the analytic hierarchy process. Decis Support Syst 45(4):913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang K, Zhang X, Wei YM, Yu SW (2012) Regional allocation of CO2 emissions allowance over provinces in China by 2020. Energy Policy 54:214–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wei C, Ni J, Du L (2010) Regional allocation of carbon dioxide abatement in China. China Econ Rev 23(3):552–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu H, Du S, Liang L, Zhou Y (2013) A DEA-based approach for fair reduction and reallocation of emission permits. Math Comput Model 58(5):1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang Z, Zhang Q (2015) Resource allocation based on DEA and modified Shapley value. Appl Math Comput 263:280–286Google Scholar
  44. Zhao J, Hobbs BJ, Pang JS (2010) Long-run equilibrium modeling of emissions allowance allocation systems in electric power markets. Oper Res 58(3):529–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolSoochow UniversitySoochowPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Soochow Think Tank and Research Center on Smarter Supply ChainSoochow UniversitySoochowPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems EngineeringThe University of Hong KongHong KongPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.School of ManagementUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations